The letters also reiterate their request of 22 January 2023 to abandon the project due to its disastrous ecological consequences.

On January 22, 2023, the Constitutional Conduct Group (a group of former civil servants belonging to the All India and Central Services, owing allegiance only to the Constitution of India, and not to any political party) had written an open letter to the President of India, Draupadi Murmu, objecting to the undesirable development project proposed to be undertaken in the Island of Great Nicobar.

The development project consists of an international container trans-shipment terminal, a large green field international airport, a township and area development, and a solar and gas-based power plant, which would cover almost 16% of the island.

Objections raised in the communication were not only that the project would cause the destruction of extensive pristine forests and irreparably harm the precious ecology of Great Nicobar, but also because of the adverse impact such a project would have on the shy and reclusive tribal people of the island, viz. the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), and the Nicobarese, a Scheduled Tribe (ST).

The letter, which was one of several similar objections raised by concerned people, including the Nicobarese themselves, obviously fell on deaf ears, because we now learn that the EIA for the project has been completed, ignoring all concerns regarding the damage to the environment and to the tribal groups residing on the island. The communication states that the signatories are not aware whether any proper public hearing was held as required under the EIA, but if it was, all objections seem to have been dismissed out of hand. Moreover, the Tribal Council in their letter dated November 22, 2022, had withdrawn their consent from the NOC for the diversion of forest citing suppression of information, thereby making the Stage-I Forest Clearance granted to the project null and void.

A petition was filed against this before the National Green Tribunal in Kolkata, who in their order dated April 3, 2023 had directed the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change to constitute a High Powered Committee to revisit the deficiencies of the EIA. The committee was asked to submit a report until which the NGT had placed a temporary stay on the project.

The signatories state that they are unaware if the High Powered Committee submitted its report and what was mentioned regarding the violations pointed out by the NGT. The present Social Impact Assessment (SIA), relating to part of the same project, is being carried out under the Land Acquisition Act of 2013. An SIA report has been prepared and objections from the public invited on it.

The signatories have further stated that they “have serious objections to the SIA report, on the way it has been prepared and is being pushed through in a hurry.

The crucial points for consideration:

1. The SIA Report has been prepared by Probe Research and Social Development Pvt. Limited, an organization with its headquarters in Delhi. They state that they have made several visits to Campbell Bay in Great Nicobar, as well as to other places. However, their study appears to be superficial, considering the consultation has been done only with the owners of the land that is to be acquired (and perhaps with some others). The Land Acquisition Act of 2013 clearly states that the social impact assessment carried out should evaluate the potential impact of the acquisition on the local community. Unfortunately, a very limited view seems to have been taken of the term ‘local community’. The local community cannot be merely the settlers and their neighbours. The tribal groups on the island, living in the Tribal Reserve, whose lives will be deeply and adversely affected by the project have to be considered as part of the local community, and the impact of the land acquisition on them should have been considered. An SIA which does not do that has to be dismissed as flawed.
2. Equally importantly, the airport area covers 8.88 sq. kms of deemed forest, which is part of the Tribal Reserve area in Great Nicobar. This would certainly affect the Shompen and the Great Nicobarese. Yet the SIA has not taken the trouble to communicate with them.
3. It is not apparent from the report whether any anthropologists were consulted. It seems not. Considering that the Anthropological Survey has done such extensive research on the islands and its tribal groups, they should, at the very least, have been consulted. The original residents of the island were, and continue to be, two vulnerable tribal groups, the Shompen and the Nicobarese, and the Tribal Reserve they live in will be seriously impacted by the entire project, including the proposed airport. Such consultation should therefore have been essential, not just consultation with the land owners and non-tribal people, who are later settlers in the area.
4. The Tribal Reserve in Great Nicobar, along with other such areas in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, has been declared as such under the A & N Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation (ANPATR). This Regulation was notified by a Presidential Proclamation in 1956 under Article 243(2) of the Indian Constitution and has the same force as an Act. Therefore, any change in the deemed forest area will impact the Tribal Reserves and their inhabitants, and cannot be ignored by any Social Impact Assessment. It is surprising that the Social Welfare Department of the Andaman Administration whose primary duty should be to look after the welfare of the tribes should deal with this matter so cavalierly, ignoring the damaging impacts on them of different projects.

Hence, the urgent call is to set aside the present SIA and have a proper social impact assessment undertaken together with the Anthropological Survey of India; and, if such an assessment shows a significant adverse impact on the Tribal Reserve in Great Nicobar and its vulnerable tribal groups, to advise the government to abandon the project forthwith. We also reiterate our request of 22 January 2023 to abandon the project due to its disastrous ecological consequences.

Constitutional Conduct Group

The post Set aside SIA of ‘unsustainable development projects in Nicobar’: Over 100 former civil servants to President Murmu, GOI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The scheme’s shortcomings are obvious. No amount of money can be a substitute for the land required for our forests, and for our biodiversity and wildlife to thrive. Yet the government is trying to make it easy for entrepreneurs and industrialists to acquire forest land by permitting them to offer, in exchange, money (in the form of green credits), instead of land for land as was the case so far,” said the former civil servants under the banner Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), a group that ensures the upholding of the Constitution

The CCG added that, when entrepreneurs can easily obtain forest land, it does not take much imagination to realise that the extent of land legally classified as forests will steadily shrink until there is virtually nothing left. “A new set of Green Credit invaders may ask for diversion of some of our densest and best-protected forests for commercial purposes like mining, industry, and infrastructure,” the CCG said in the open letter.

The Union environment ministry issued a notification last month saying corporations and other private entities can take up plantations on degraded land, including open forest and scrubland, wasteland, and catchment areas, under the administrative control of states to help generate green credits. The credits can be traded and used as a leadership indicator under corporate social responsibility.

State forest departments are required to identify all sparsely covered forest lands within their jurisdiction to be offered to private agencies/investors for funding to support plantations. The forest department has to complete afforestation within two years after receiving money from investors.

CCG said the government seems to have issued the rules in the belief that plantations absorb more carbon than natural scrublands. “This is not true. Plantations are usually fast-growing monocultures and it is a scientifically proven fact that they are poor at carbon sequestration when compared to natural ecosystems. Compensatory afforestation plantations already undertaken in our country are known to have dubious success rates.”

GCC underlined the importance of recognising that green credits as a concept is anachronistic. It added the idea has been seen as a tool for monetising the natural environment and handing it over to corporates for exploitation.

“To allow transfer of pristine forest lands to corporates, in exchange for green credits earned by them, by getting them to fund the forest department to plant degraded forest lands, is shocking indeed. More so, because the ecological values of these lands can be restored by the forest department itself, with the funds already at its disposal. This is a transaction weighted heavily in favour of Big Capital,” the CCG said.

In July 2023, CCG wrote another open letter critiquing the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, which allows the diversion of forests for defence/security infrastructure.

Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy led (climate and ecosystems) Debadityo Sinha last month said the rules are unscientific and completely ignore the ecological aspects of forests. “Referring to open forests, scrubland, and catchment areas as ‘degraded’ land parcels is vague… incentivising industrial-scale plantations in such areas will irreversibly alter soil quality, replace local biodiversity, and might be disastrous for local ecosystem services.”

The entire text of the communication may be read here:

The post Over 90 former civil servants have strongly opposed “Green Credit Rules” making corporate access to forests easy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As many as 65 former civil servants are signatory to the statement. They include Sundar Burra, Nitin Desai, Sanjay Kaul, Anita Agnihotri, Julio Ribeiro among others.

In the detailed statement, they say,

​”Religion is a private matter according to India’s constitutional arrangements. All persons, including public officials, are free to follow their religious beliefs. However, it is imperative for public officials to be mindful to carefully separate their religious beliefs and practices from their official duties.

    “This is especially important for a person holding the high constitutional office of Prime Minister, as the leader not just of people of one religious identity but of all people of India of diverse religious beliefs.

“​This separation between personal religious belief and practice and official duties was breached on January 22, 2024 when, in the presence of the Prime Minister, the statue of Shri Ram was installed and consecrated in the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. The event brings to our mind the advice given by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to President Rajendra Prasad at the inauguration of the reconstructed Somnath Temple in Gujarat at a juncture when the wounds of Partition were still healing in the subcontinent: “This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else, but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has some implications.”

“​In the present case, the consecration of the idol of Shri Ram was undertaken at a site where, while granting the right to construct the temple at the site, the Supreme Court had clearly observed in its judgment of November 9,2019:

“The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship. After the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC 1898 were initiated and a receiver was appointed following the attachment of the inner courtyard, worship of the Hindu idols was permitted. During the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.”

      “Despite its above observations, the Supreme Court permitted the construction of the temple by a trust set up under Section 6 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993.

The statement adds,

           “Given the troubled history of the last three decades, it would have been in the fitness of things if the consecration of the temple had been undertaken by heads of the Hindu religious faith rather than by a constitutional functionary, which goes against the basic credo of secularism enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India.

           “Of even greater concern to us are the developments in the last month before and after the consecration of the temple. In the Prime Minister’s speech at Ayodhya on January 22, 2024, he affirmed that the Ram temple construction reflected Indian society’s maturity. Further, he stated that the consecration was an occasion of not merely triumph but humility too.

      “However, the incidents at Mira Road in Maharashtra and some other places in the country have witnessed a wholly unnecessary show of triumphalism by certain elements from the Hindu community leading to reactions from elements from the Muslim community.

      “At times like these, it behoves the majority community to show restraint and maintain dignity, especially when a fractious issue has finally reached resolution.

      ” On the contrary, the efforts over the past few days to raise fresh issues concerning the religious faith of the two communities – Gyan Vapi mosque at Varanasi, Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura, the conduct of the Shah Jahan Urs at the Taj Mahal and the Haji Malang dargah at Kalyan (Maharashtra) – are unnecessary irritants to social peace and harmony at a time when so many more important issues confront the nation. Nor have matters been helped by the unnecessary haste shown by the authorities in Delhi in demolishing the Mehrauli dargah and madarsa and raising the issue of the removal of the Sunehri Bagh Masjid in the heart of New Delhi ostensibly on grounds of streamlining traffic flow. Surely, government agencies should have a senseof propriety to know when to bring up contentious issues.

         “As a multicultural society which has absorbed people from so many other lands over millennia, it ill behoves us as a nation for its citizens to adopt a narrow, xenophobic approach towards those who have different religious beliefs or belong to other ethnic communities. India’s status in the world since 1947 has been, to a considerable extent, founded on its ability to successfully run a country of so many diverse groups and faiths on democratic principles. It is the primary responsibility of the Union Government and the State Governments tomaintain an equal distance from all religions, inculcate in theircitizens the principle of fraternity enjoined by the Preamble to the Constitution of India and apply strictly the rule of law in ensuring that all citizens conduct their day to day affairs as laid down by the Constitution of India and the laws thereunder.

The entire text of the statement and list of signatories may be viewed below:

The post Ayodhya, January 22: Growing influence of religion in state & society matter of disquiet say 65 former civil servants appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This means either that the working of the CAG has slowed down, or that the organisation, despite detection of flaws in expenditure by the government, is reluctant to present this to Parliament and make the information public.

Since August 2020, the present chief of CAG is Girish Chandra Murmu, IAS since 8 August 2020, a former Gujarat based civil servant who served closely with then chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. CAG reports directly to the President of India and is appointed by that office.

The group of former civil servants –calling themselves the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) of the All India and Central Services who have worked in the Central and State Governments during our careers. As a group, we have no affiliation with any political party but believe in impartiality, neutrality and commitment to the Constitution of India.

The letter states that “any vibrant democracy requires an effective system of checks and balances to prevent the arbitrary use of power by an elected government and such checks and balances can be exercised only through independent institutions, which are able to withstand pressure from the executive or any vested interest.

“The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) is one such institution which has been exercising oversight over government activities and expenditure for more than 150 years now. It has, by and large, an untainted record of objectivity, political neutrality and a robustness of its internal control system that ensures complete accuracy of the facts and figures reported.

“The Constitution of India requires the CAG to affirm that s/he will duly and faithfully perform her/his duties “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”, again confirming her/his complete independence from the executive. The CAG works quietly, away from the glare of publicity, submitting its report to the President, who then causes the reports to be laid before Parliament. The reports are thereafter examined by the Public Accounts Committee, and are available in the public domain, ensuring public accountability of the executive. Without an effective and independent CAG, proper financial management of public funds by the government will be rendered ineffective.

“Unfortunately, in recent times, these high standards seem to be waning.  The institution of the CAG does not seem to be discharging its duties with the speed that it is expected to, or that it had in the past. The number of audit reports relating to the union government’s functioning which have been submitted before Parliament has shown a declining trend as may be seen below:

“Year 2015: 54 reports; 2016: 43 reports; 2017: 50 reports; 2018: 19 reports; 2019: 18 reports; 2020: 17 reports; 2021: 28 reports; 2022: 30 reports; 2023:16 reports.

“This means either that the working of the CAG has slowed down, or that the organisation, despite detection of flaws in expenditure by the government, is reluctant to present this to Parliament and make the information public.

“Ever since 2012 when the CAG presented its reports to Parliament on the loss reportedly suffered by the nation due to the wrong allocation of coal mines by the government, and alleged errors in the 2G spectrum auction, there has been considerable interest among citizens and political leaders to find out from the CAG’s reports whether or not the government has spent the taxpayers money properly. The low number of audit reports and the lack of discussion in Parliament on the reports, denies them that right.

Present Year, 2023: CAG Reports

The Open letter states that, “In 2023, 16 reports of the CAG relating to the union government’s working were placed in Parliament. These reports highlighted several instances of wrong or excess expenditure by the government and government bodies. Among the most egregious of these cases are the significant cost over-runs on road projects of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other related bodies, and the false records of expenditure under the central government’s flagship health scheme, Ayushman Bharat.

“On the road and highway projects undertaken by the NHAI, the CAG has found several irregularities in the award and implementation of the projects, such as the successful bidder not fulfilling tender conditions, or bidders selected on the basis of fake documents, or award of works without availability of detailed project reports, or award of works based on faulty project reports, etc.

“For instance, in the NHAI’s project of the Dwarka Expressway, under the Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase 1, the CAG observed that the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs had approved the project for an amount of Rs 18.20 crore per km whereas the actual cost incurred was a whopping 250.77 crore per km, exceeding the allocated cost about 14 times! In many other cases, too, significant changes were made to projects which included changing the specifications, resulting in the construction cost increasing sharply.  Also, the detailed reports prepared by consultants were not appraised with due diligence by the competent authority before approval of projects. Consequently, there are “instances of different specifications adopted by contractors or concessionaires at the time of execution of projects than what were prescribed by detailed project report consultants. . . . .”

“Several serious flaws were similarly found with the expenditure relating to the government’s Ayushman Bharat scheme or Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), meant to give health cover to over 10 crore poor families. The CAG mentioned that in the case of 88760 patients who had died during treatment, 214923 claims were made at a later date for fresh treatment of these very same patients.

“Despite the CAG pointing this out, and the National Implementation Agency that implements the programme undertaking that the loophole that existed would be plugged, fresh claims of treatment continued to be made for patients earlier shown as dead.  The CAG has also identified 4,761 registrations that were linked to only seven Aadhar numbers, indicating potential irregularities. Again, fraud is probable in the fact that hospitals had registered 7.5 lakh patients under the same dummy phone number, viz. 9999999999, and another 1.4 lakh patients under the number 8888888888

“What is even more worrying is the fact that, shortly after these reports became public, the CAG transferred the officers responsible for these reports to other positions, giving rise to the suspicion that they had been punished for being honest and upright and exposing the misdeeds of government agencies. These officers have been posted to unimportant positions such as Legal Officer (though the person concerned has no legal background) or to the Rashtra Bhasha cell, etc. and in some cases sent far away from their present place of posting. What is even more serious is that field audit has been suspended subsequent to the media attention. Stoppage of field audit work means that the CAG has become dysfunctional. It is a serious constitutional misconduct.

The Open Letter also criticises the tendencies of the elected officials and Ministers in the present government to publicly criticise the reports, stating that this undermines both the credibility and authority with which CAG is supposed to function and work.

In this  connection, the letter states that,

“Another worrying trend has been statements made by ministers and public functionaries to the media against the CAG reports. The CAG does not and cannot take part in such public discussions and this undermines the authority and credibility of the CAG’s work. While the ministries and departments of the government have tried to provide explanations for these issues, it is interesting to find that the ruling party MPs have jumped into the fray to defend the government. One minister has gone public against the CAG report on the Dwarka Expressway, pointing out apparent errors in the CAG report; in another instance, the Ministry of Finance has rebutted a news report published in The Telegraph dated October 17 2023 on CAG’s observations on government accounts, giving elaborate point-wise replies to each observation of the CAG. Since the CAG cannot enter into a public debate on the statements made by Ministers and officials, the discussions become one-sided. The right approach would have been to have responded to the CAG’s observation before the reports were finalised, at the time that the CAG’s observations are forwarded to the concerned authorities for their response.  This ensures the objectivity of the CAG’s reports and protects the constitutional institution from avoidable, untrue and uninformed media controversy, resulting in an erosion of the credibility of the institution,

Finally the letter states that,

“The trend that we are currently witnessing is indeed disturbing. The CAG has, with a few exceptions, almost always worked with absolute transparency and fairness, and this seems to be in jeopardy now. We, therefore write to request you to exercise the authority of your office to ensure that the objectivity and independence of the institution remains uncompromised and that the established processes and controls are not tampered with. Such tampering will greatly damage our democracy.”

The signatories to the communication to the President are:

Related:

Assam: CAG report points out ‘large scale anomalies’ in NRC updation software

Odisha’s Balasore train accident: misplaced priorities, poor safety measures, CAG & key committee recs ignored: People’s Commission

National Rural Drinking Water Programme ‘Failed’ to Achieve Targets: Government Auditor. Here’s Why

The post CAG reporting of GOI expenditure slows down, reports not presented to Parliament, transparency & autonomy in peril say former civil servants appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A group of former civil servants belonging to the All-India and Central Services, has written to the Chief Ministers, and Lt. Governors of all states and Union Territories of India to express their “anguish” at the harassment of Muslims in all over India. They say that they “do not subscribe to any particular political ideology” but are focused on issues that have a bearing upon the Indian Constitution. “We have been holding Conclaves and writing Open Letters on matters of concern since we came together as the Constitutional Conduct Group in June 2017,” they say they are concerned at the escalating harassment of Muslims in the recent times, “particularly following the meeting of the Tablighi Jamaat in March in the Nizamuddin area of New Delhi.” 

The Jamaat, they reminded the state heads,  was criticised for ignoring the principles of social distancing when cases of Covid19 had started emerging in India, but it was not the only such gathering that had taken place in that month. However, it was the only one which was used to communalise the Covid19 pandemic India. As reported over the past month the vilification, including allegations that the Tablighi Jamaat is spreading the Coronavirus “The action of the Jamaat in organising such an event, ignoring the Delhi Government’s advisories was, without question, misguided and condemnable. However, the action of the media in communalizing it and extending it to the Muslim community as a whole is utterly irresponsible and reprehensible,” said the former civil servants. 

They told the CMs and Lt Govs, that “such coverage has fuelled hostility towards the Muslim community in parts of the country. Fake video clips have been doing the rounds showing Muslim vendors spitting on the fruits and vegetables that they have for sale – purportedly to spread the Covid-19 disease. Cases have been reported of vegetable vendors being asked their religion, even being assaulted when they mention Muslim names. Video recordings of such incidents are circulating through social media at this time. 

The fear and insecurity generated by the pandemic is sought to be channelled into the “othering” of the Muslim community in different places to keep them out of public spaces, purportedly to protect the rest of the population.

The letter also points at reports from Hoshiarpur stating that “Muslim Gujjars who traditionally migrate from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh with their cattle were denied entry at the border by the police due to apprehension of tension created by mobs on the other side to prevent their entry. Photographs of men, women and children forced to take shelter on the banks of the Swan river, where hundreds of litres of milk had to be dumped following this blockade, have appeared. Photos from a market in Biharsharif, Nalanda district, Bihar, show pictures of flags being affixed to the carts of non-Muslim vendors with exhortations that buyers should only purchase produce from such carts. These seemingly isolated incidents appear to be building up to an ostracism of Muslims.” 

“More disturbingly,” said the civil servants, “reports of discrimination are also coming in from various places about Muslims being turned away from hospitals and health facilities”. They said that on April 8 it was  reported that, “Fauzia Shaheen, a weaver from the Muslim-dominated area of Madanpura in Varanasi,was in  labour but, was repeatedly turned away from clinics and hospitals including from the Sir Sunderlal Hospital at the Banaras Hindu University,” She did not get medical help even after she delivered her baby outside the hospital. 

“Following an outcry in the social media, police registered a case against the management of a cancer hospital in Meerut that had put out an advertisement saying that it would treat Muslims only when they produce a report showing that they have tested negative for coronavirus. In Ahmedabad, we learn that separate wards have been designated for Muslim patients of Coronavirus.” 

They said incidents like the one in Karnataka, “where three Hindu youth created panic at a police check post in Mandya district on April 8 by posing as Muslims with Coronavirus infection, need to be dealt with firmly, as was done in this case by the Karnataka police.”

According to the former civil servants who have served at the highest administrative positions across the country, “We can endure, survive and overcome the challenges that this pandemic has imposed on us only by remaining united and helping each other. We laud those Chief Ministers who have been resolutely secular in their approach both in general and, in particular, in relation to this pandemic.”

They too pointed out at the potential diplomatic crisis that could threaten India’s relationship with the Arab Nations. “We should remember that traditionally India has maintained good relations with Muslim nations and has been seen as their friend. Millions of our fellow citizens live and work in these countries. There has been serious concern expressed in these countries about the recent developments. We should ensure, through our non-discriminatory action and relief measures, that the minorities have nothing to fear in India. This will help assuage the misgivings of these countries and avoid any consequential detriment to the prospects of the sizable Indian diaspora there.”

They called upon the CMs and Lt Govs to, “reassure” all the people “that there is no truth whatsoever in the rumours that any particular group has more infections than others in our country.”

One of the latest such incidents was reported by The Telegraph from Uttar Pradesh where a local strongman said to have political connections, gathered a crowd to watch him humiliate a Muslim man and his minor son. 

According to the report, the culprit, identified as Shashikant Rai had accused the Muslim man and his child of stealing. He of course did not have any proof to back his accusations. This weekend a video of Rai forcing the boy to rub his nose on everyone’s feet went viral.

“Maafi maang, maafi maang. Naak ragar (Apologise, apologise. Rub your nose),” the video showed Rai slapping the boy frequently. Towards the end of the clip, he picks up a stick and orders the boy to touch the feet of everyone present. Rai  pushed the boy to the ground and made him rub his nose on the villagers’ feet. 

“There were policemen in the village, sitting about 50m from Rai’s bungalow…. The boy’s mother sat on the floor of the veranda and his elder sister stood helplessly. The entire village wanted to protest but none had the courage because he (Rai) is politically well-connected,” a villager is quoted by The Telegraph.

The Telegraph reported that Khandwa police station in Chandauli district had registered a case against Rai, booking him for violating the Covid-19 lockdown and for hurting the man and his son.

The post “Seemingly isolated incidents appear to be building up to an ostracism of Muslims.” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the Open Letter to Citizens the 106-strong group of former civil servants clearly say that “We are apprehensive that the vast powers to include or exclude a person from the Local Register of Indian Citizens that is going to be vested in the bureaucracy at a fairly junior level has the scope to be employed in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, subject to local pressures and to meet specific political objectives, not to mention the unbridled scope for large-scale corruption.”

Besides, on CAA too, the letter states that, “ We have our grave reservations about the constitutional validity of the CAA provisions, which we also consider to be morally indefensible. We would like to emphasise that a statute that consciously excludes the Muslim religion from its purview is bound to give rise to apprehensions in what is a very large segment of India’s population.

“A formulation that focused on those suffering persecution (religious, political, social) in any country in the world would not only have calmed local apprehensions but would also have been appreciated by the international community. In its current formulation, the CAA does not even mention the word “persecuted”, probably because using this word in the context of Afghanistan and Bangladesh would have marred India’s relations with these countries. Given that the Government of India has powers to grant citizenship after a migrant has completed eleven years in India, it would be instructive to know whether the Government of India has cleared all pending cases of “illegal migrants” till end-2008. Since the discretion to grant citizenship and to exempt individuals/groups from the purview of the Passport Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946 lies entirely with the Government of India, this discretion could have been exercised on a case by case basis by the Government of India without any need to go through the exercise of the CAA and mentioning specific communities from specific countries.

Finally the dreaded detention camps.  The group states that, “There have also been media reports, not denied by the Government of India, that orders for setting up detention camps have been given to all state governments. We are frankly bemused by the Prime Minister’s recent statement that no such camps are in existence, when reports have documented the construction of such camps in states as far apart as Goalpara in Assam and Nelamangala in Karnataka and the intention to construct a detention centre in Navi Mumbai in Maharashtra. The Government of India has not come out with any statistics to show that the “illegal migrants” problem in India is so severe that it requires the large-scale construction of detention camps all over the country.

The full text of the open letter may be read here:

The post India does not need CAA, NPR, NRC: Constitutional Conduct Group, ex-106 civil servants appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ex-officials have expressed their sharp disapproval of the ruling party’s decision to nominate a terror accused who soon after her nomination passed some controversial and communal statements. The letter reads, “We write to express our disbelief and dismay at the candidature of Pragya Thakur for the Bhopal LokSabha seat. This decision could have been dismissed as yet another example of political expediency but for the enthusiastic endorsement by no less a person than the Prime Minister of India, who has termed her candidature as a symbol of our civilisational heritage.”

The former civil servants have also condemned Thakur’s remarks on former ATS chief HemantKarkare who was martyred in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. On April 19, at a rally in Bhopal, Thakur had claimed that Karkare died because of her curse. HemantKarkare was leading investigations into the Malegaon blast case where Thakur is one of the key accused. Her comments have drawn scathing criticism from several quarters, especially the IPS Association that tweetedsaying,“Ashok Chakra awardee late Sri HemantKarkare, IPS made the supreme sacrifice fighting terrorists. Those of us in uniform condemn the insulting statement made by a candidate and demand that sacrifices of all our martyrs be respected.”

The letter also urges all citizens to join the ex-officials in condemning unequivocally, the statement of Pragya Thakur; Demanding that the BJP withdraw her candidature; Reminding the Prime Minister of his oath to uphold Constitutional values and appealing to him to take the lead in putting an end to the climate of fear and intimidation and communal viciousness that seems to be permeating the entire electoral process.

SadhviPragya Thakur is currently facing trial for terror charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act: Sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) and under the IPC for murder, criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity between communities. Fielding of such a candidate who is infamous for her communal activism and who has such grave criminal charges reflects the ruling party’s sole agenda of promoting its Hindutva ideology.
 
Related Articles:
1.Election 2019: BJP’s fielding of SadhviPragya advances their Hindutva agenda
2.SadhviPragya says she was “proud” of Babri demolition, gets EC notice
3.Mumbaikar’s to protest Insult to HemantKarkare
4.PM Modi Defends Malegaon Blast Accused SadhviPragya’s Candidature
 
 

The post Former Indian Civil Servants Demand Withdrawal of Sadhvi Pragya Thakur’s Nomination from Bhopal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: Former civil servants of the Constitutional Conduct Group wrote a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora talking about the violation of the Model Code of Conduct arising from the release of biopics after the Model Code of Conduct for the general elections has come into force. They requested the Election Commission of India to take appropriate action under the powers vested in it by Article 324 of the Constitution of India. 
 
The biopic in question is based on PM Narendra Modi and the group confronted the commissioner with the ethical and moral dilemma of releasing such a visibly election propaganda film when the MCC has been issued.
 
“Our group of former civil servants of the All India and Central Services have interacted with the Election Commission from time to time on issues of public interest. We are now writing to you to draw your attention to a potential threat to the correct applicability of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC,)” they wrote.
 
“When even appointments to the Boards of Public Sector Undertakings are not permitted under the MCC, open advocacy of the role of the Prime Minister (or of any other candidate) in biopics or documentaries focused on the amount, in our view, to propaganda in favour of individuals belonging to particular political parties at a time when the MCC is in force,” they said.
 
“There are media reports that a biopic on our Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, is being readied for release. The release was set for 12 April 2019, then, unexpectedly, it was brought forward to 5 April 2019. You will appreciate that such a film would create enormous electoral mileage for the Prime Minister and the party in power. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the release of this biopic after the announcement of elections and the coming into force of the MCC is consonant with the principles of a free and fair election. The same principle would apply to any similar biopic on any other candidate in the forthcoming elections since news reports mention a biopic on the president of the Indian National Congress, Shri Rahul Gandhi (though there is no mention of the date of release).” They said.
 
“It is especially required, under the MCC, that “the party in power whether at the Centre or in the State or States concerned, shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign.” It cannot be said that the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has no role in this, given that the Central Board of Film Certification falls under its jurisdiction,” they said, pointing out the collusion between film certification and the government.
 
“When expenditures on behalf of a candidate even without his/her formal permission are deemed to be counted as part of the expenses incurred by the candidate, a view also needs to be taken whether the expenditures on the production of such biopics or documentaries and their distribution/publicity should be added to the expenses incurred by the candidate directly,” they wrote.
 
They added that there was no urgency for the release of such biopics or documentaries at this juncture, except to garner publicity for political personages and the political parties they represent. “We, therefore, request the ECI to issue directions to withhold their release in cinema theatres or as home videos or on the Web (via YouTube, Netflix, Hotstar or similar channels) or via social media (Facebook, Twitter or any other) till the date when the MCC ceases to operate, i.e., on a date after 23 May 2019,” they said.
 
They wrote that in a catena of judgments both before and after the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India” (2001), the Supreme Court has ruled that Article 324 of the Constitution of India operates in areas “left unoccupied by legislation” and the expressions “superintendence, direction and control” as well as “conduct of all elections” in Article 324 are the “broadest of terms”. Therefore, “the Commission can cope with a situation where the field is unoccupied by issuing necessary orders”. In other words, the ECI’s power under Article 324 is to be construed liberally and given its widest possible meaning, they said.
 

The post Modi biopic against Model Code of Conduct, say civil servants appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Following countrywide protests and a Bharat Bandh called for by Bahujan communities on March 5, the much-criticised 13-point roster system for Indian universities was overturned and the original 200-point roster system was restored. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019 not only paves the way to overturn an Allahabad High Court order that made it mandatory to calculate quota in faculty positions by treating each department as a unit, but also corrects a decade-old anomaly in reservation of teaching jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
 
The 27 per cent OBC reservation for teachers in higher education now also applies to posts at the level of associate professor and professor in case of “direct recruitment”. Earlier OBC quota was only applicable at the entry-level — assistant professor.
 
The ordinance’s larger purpose, however, is to facilitate reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates based on the 200-point roster, or, in other words, the total posts in a university or college.
 
Within hours of the ordinance being promulgated, University Grants Commission (UGC) ordered all central, state and deemed universities to immediately resume teachers’ recruitment. It had been on hold since July 2018 after a directive was issued by the higher education regulator. There are 17,106 teaching positions at 41 central universities, of which 5,997 were vacant as of April 1, 2017.
 
The 13 Point point roster drew a lot of protests from SCs, STs and OBCs questioning the entrenched Brahmanical exclusion in our structures.
 
A Former Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Welfare and retired IAS officer P.S Krishnan, expressed serious concerns on the non-seriousness of the HRD and UGC in the efforts to make the system more egalitarian. He stressed on the need to effectively defend the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019, against the PIL filed on March 8 in the Supreme Court and offered some suggestions for the government’s counter-affidavit and arguments.
 
He wrote to Union Minister Prakash Javadekar and said that “It is good that the 200-point roster has been restored. But the existing 200-point roster itself is a dilution of the roster that was introduced in 1993. The 200-roster of 1997 reduced the position of SCs and STs by a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s Sabharwal judgment in 2005.”
 
He also demanded they take prompt action to effectively defend the Ordinance against the PIL filed in the Supreme Court by two persons named Prathvi Raj Chavan and Priya Sharma on March 8, 2019. He said it was also necessary to preclude any stay order by taking anticipatory measures like filing a caveat.
 
“I enclose herewith some of the points which need to be covered in the Government’s counter-affidavit and in arguments on behalf of the Government in the Supreme Court. It has to be ensured that the AG and other Counsels appearing on behalf of the Government are fully briefed and instructed to raise these points in their arguments, and in addition to oral arguments, to submit to the court written arguments fully covering these points. This will help everybody to see how seriously and sincerely the Government takes the first step in effectively defending the Ordinance against the PIL,” he wrote.
 
He pointed out that the allegation in the PIL that the Central Government passed the Ordinance only because of the pressure by alliance partners and was worried by the prospects of antagonizing “vote bank” ahead of elections, was not correct.
 
“The Government went through all available judicial remedies such as filing SLP/WP in the Supreme Court and the Review Petition.  When both these failed to yield the results required by the Constitutional mandate, the Government had no alternative but to take the legislative route and, since there was no session of the Parliament till the Lok Sabha elections, issue of the Ordinance became inevitable.  As pointed out above, the Ordinance has full justification independently of pressure and electoral consideration,” he wrote as a suggestion for the govt’s counter-affidavit.
 
“The presence of SCs and STs is disproportionately very low in all fields. As one goes up the ladder, their poor presence becomes increasingly worse. Thus, in the education sector, their presence is the worst in the higher education sector. In the higher education sector, as one proceeds upwards from the level of Lecturer/Assistant Professor to Reader/Associate Professor to Professor, their meagre presence gets further reduced,” he wrote.
 
In his suggestions, he wrote that “by reverting to the pre-1997 and pre-2006 procedure of each Department being taken as a unit, a large number of posts will go out of the purview of reservation, thus reducing the quantum of reserved posts available to the SCs, STs and SEdBCs. The problem will be more acute at the level of Professor and, next to that, at the level of Associate Professor/Reader. This virtually amounts to telling the SCs, STs and SEdBCs that their aspiration should be limited to being Assistant Professors/Lecturers and they should not cast their eyes on higher posts, especially the post of Professors. In some instances, it also amounts to blocking their appointment as Assistant Professors/Lecturers. This is contrary to the national policy and flouts the Constitutional mandate of Equality which means that SCs, STs and SEdBCs should be enabled and facilitated to reach the level of Socially Advanced Castes (SACs), i.e., the non-SC, non-ST, non-SEdBC castes (NSCTBCs) in every parameter of development, welfare and life at every level.”
 
“Equality of Status refers to Social Equality, which, in the Indian context, includes elimination of birth-based inter-generational, multi-dimensional, inequalities to which SCs, STs and SEdBCs have been subjected over the centuries till today, with ramifications extending to all aspects of life, including access to education,” he said before adding his suggestions.

 
What is the 13- and 200-point roster?
As per the formula for determining reserved posts, it is only after 13.33 positions (14 in the round figure) are filled that every reserved category gets at least one post. The expression “13-point roster” reflects the fact that 13.33 (or 14) vacancies are required to complete one cycle of reservations.
 
Based on this, every 4th, 7th, 8th, 12th, and 14th vacancies are reserved for OBCs, SCs, OBCs, OBCs, STs respectively in the 13-point roster. Which means (i) there is no reservation for the first three positions and, (ii) even in the full cycle of 14 positions, only five posts — or 35.7% — go to the reserved categories, which is well short of the constitutionally mandated ceiling of 49.5% (27% + 15% + 7.5%), Anish Gupta, who teaches Economics at Delhi University explained in The India Express.
 
The new 10% quota for the economically weaker sections (EWS) has widened this gap further. This is because every 10th post (100/10 = 10) is now reserved for EWS — which means six reserved seats in every cycle of 14, or 42.8% reservation when the ceiling is 59.5% (49.5% + 10%), the report said.
 
In order to provide the constitutionally mandated 49.5% reservation, the University Grants Commission (UGC) started to treat the university/college as a ‘unit’ (rather than individual departments), and adopted what is called the ‘200-point roster’, which was already being used by the Department of Personnel and Training for appointments in all central government services.
 
It is called ‘200-point’ since all reserved categories can get their constitutionally mandated quantum of reservation once 200 seats are filled. And since no single department in an institution can have 200 seats, it made sense to treat the whole institution/university (rather than the department) as the ‘unit’ to calculate the quota.
 
The proportion of reservation in the 13-point roster, irrespective of the number of posts filled, falls far short of the constitutionally mandated quota, in effect violating the Constitution itself, the report said.
 
A glimpse of the future effect of the 13-point roster is visible in the advertisements for faculty positions after the UGC’s March 5, 2018 notification. The Central University of Haryana advertised 80 seats, but none for SCs, STs, and OBCs. IGNTU (Amarkantak) advertised one reserved post out of 52, and the Central University of Tamil Nadu advertised 2 reserved posts out of 65.
 
According to the report, the best solution, without affecting the interests of unreserved categories, would be to make the roster (either 13-point or 200-point) for reserved positions by taking all reserved categories together (49.5%). In this way, every second post (100/49.5 = ~ 2) will be reserved, which can then be distributed among all reserved categories as per their respective quotas (OBC 27%, SC 15%, ST 7.5%).
 
Related articles:
Former civil servant offers a solution to protect ST’s and FRA, here’s what he suggests
Modi GovtBends to Bahujan Pressure, Clears Ordinance on Rosters in Central Universities
‘BahujanVictory’: Ordinance restores 200-point roster system for Universities
 

The post Civil servant offers arguments for govt’s counter-affidavit, defending their ordinance on 13 point roster appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is a measure of the rapid erosion of constitutional values that we, as a group, have felt a compelling need to speak out as many as nine times in the last eighteen months. The pace of erosion has been frightening and with each slip we seem to sink further into a lawless abyss.
The mob violence in Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh (U.P), on3 December 2018, instigated and engineered with malicious intent,which led to the cold blooded murder of a police officer brave enough to step forward single-handedly to pacify the mob, marks the most dangerous turn yet in the direction taken by the politics of hate in recent times. It shows that in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, fundamental principles of governance, of constitutional ethics and  of humane social conduct stand perverted. The Chief Minister of the state acts as a high priest of the agenda of bigotry and majoritarian supremacy – an agenda which now seems to take precedence over everything else.

Why is this incident such a frightening indicator of the complete collapse of constitutional values? This is not the first instance of a situation intentionally created to foment communal tension. The history of U.P. is replete with such instances. This is not the first time that a policeman has been killed by a frenzied mob. This is also not the first time that the politics of cow protection has been used as a means of isolating and cornering the Muslim community and deepening the social divide.

All this we have seen before but, so far, we had the confidence that whenever a political party actually forms a Government it keeps its partisan political agenda at bay and begins to exercise power with a sense of responsibility so as to gain wider political acceptability.  The Bulandshahr episode, which follows a succession of events aimed at isolating and intimidating Muslim communities in U.P., shows that, under Yogi Adityanath, that confidence is misplaced and that hooliganism and thuggery have been mainstreamed into governance not just to intimidate minorities but to teach a lesson to anyone, including police personnel  and others in the administration, who dare to be evenhanded in their approach to minority communities.

While it may be premature to come to conclusions about the murder of Inspector Subodh Singh before the investigations are over, there is no doubt that there was nothing spontaneous about the violence that led to his killing, nor is there any doubt as to who the political elements were that aided and abetted the violence. This was a deliberate attempt to display majoritarian muscle and send a message to the Muslim communities living in the region that they have to live in fear, accept their subordinate status and conform to the cultural diktats of the majority community.
Inspector Subodh Singh’s reputation of being  independent and even-handed  and his refusal to act in haste on the complaint of illegal cow slaughter that allegedly took place under his watch, was obviously seen as defiance of the majoritarian will. The local BJP and Sangh Parivar elements had  already complained about his  anti-Hindu conduct and sought his transfer. He was an impediment to their communal plans and had to go. Much as the Chief Minister may try to mislead by calling it an accident, this was murder with intent. It was murder most foul.

As horrifying as the brazen, daylight murder of a courageous police officer is the response of the administration to the event. The Chief Minister refuses to acknowledge the gravity of the incident and its communal intent, condemn the perpetrators of violence or direct the police to take action against them but instead asks them to focus attention on those responsible for illegal cow slaughter.The police authorities themselves draw an equivalence between the killing of a police officer and the illegal slaughter of cows and claim that unless both crimes are investigated together it will not be possible to come to any conclusions about the violence of the mob and the murder of a colleague.

Amplevideo graphed evidence exists to show that those engaged in violence and their leaders,  as well as those who egged them on, are allowed to roam scot-free while, at the same time, alleged cow killers, against whom not a shred of evidence exists, are taken into custody,justbecause they are Muslims. Three of the main accused in the mob violence leading to the death of the police officer flaunt their affiliations to the Sangh Parivar and one of them openly declares that the slain police officer was corrupt, friendly with Muslims and anti-Hindu, implying thereby that he deserved his fate.

World over, in any civilized society, the killing of a policeman is a more serious offence than any other crime, because it represents an assault on the very basis of that civilisation. It brooks no tolerance and even the most fractious of social and political groups come together to ensure that the perpetrators of such a crime are given exemplary punishment so that no one ever dares to attack the authority of law. In U.P. on the other hand we are witness to the entire administration, presided over by a Chief Minister who flaunts his bigotry as his badge of identity, preparing the ground not for bringing the perpetrators to book but for protecting them as defenders of faith and culture.  This is the Rule of Lawlessness.

Our colleagues in service, in the Police and the Civil Administration appear, with honourable exceptions, to have capitulated readily to this perverted political order. They seem to have forgotten that their primary allegiance is to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and that their constitutional status provides them an armour of such extraordinary strength that, had they taken steps to check the growing menace of the Hindutva brigade, they could certainly have prevented the outbreak of violence. Instead they not only allowed these hooligans to grow in confidence and gather political strength, they helped them gain impunity in their lawless actions.  .Even now if  they – the Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police, the Home Secretary, the District Magistrate and the district police authorities – stand together to uncover the insidious political agenda, identify its masterminds and bring the hooligans involved in the violence to book, they stand a chance to redeem their pledge to the Constitution and live up to the expectations that citizens have of the higher civil services.

Our Prime Minister, who is so voluble in his election campaigns and who never tires of telling us of how the Constitution of India is the only holy book he worships, maintains stony silence even as he sees a Chief Minister handpicked by him treat that same Constitution with sheer contempt. It is evident that, for the Sangh Parivar, constitutional morality is of no value and is necessarily subordinate to the ideals of majoritarian supremacy.

Never before in recent history has the politics of hate, division and exclusion  been so dominant and the poisonous ideology which informs it penetrated so deep into the body politic. Never before has hate been directed with such calculated intent against minority communities,hate which is nursed, aided and abetted by those in power. Violence has been given social and political sanction and perpetrators of violence have been treated with kid gloves while  victims have been punished and harassed.

This is a watershed moment and we cannot take it lying down anymore. We call upon all citizens to unite in a crusade against the politics of hate and division– a politics which aims to destroy the fundamental principles on which our Republic is founded. We ask all citizens to whom constitutional values matter to join us in reasserting our sovereignty as citizens to:
 

• Demand the resignation of the Chief Minister for his failure to abide by the Constitution to which he has sworn his allegiance. We know that this can happen, if together, we build a groundswell of public opinion by which we hold him accountable for his conduct and compel him to resign.
• Remind the Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police, the Home Secretary, and all other members of the higher civil services concerned, of their constitutional duty to fearlessly implement the Rule of Law rather than the perverse  dictates of their political masters.
• Request the High Court at Allahabad to take suo motu cognizance of this incident and order a judicial enquiry supervised by them to uncover the true facts, expose the political collusion, fix responsibility and recommend action.
• Work towards a  citizen-led national campaign against the politics of hate and violence – in particular, the structural violence directed against Muslims, Adivasis, Dalits and women – violence which finds sustenance in the structures of political power.
• Salute Inspector Subodh Singh for his bravery in standing up for constitutional values and refusing to yield to political pressure even at the cost of his life and for setting an example to his children and the younger generation that values matter more than career success. We also acknowledge and applaud the dignity with which his family has faced this crisis and their quiet resolve to uphold the principles for which Subodh Singh sacrificed his life. His martyrdom will not be in vain.

Signatories

The post Bulandshahar incident: Former civil servants demand resignation of UP CM Adityanath appeared first on SabrangIndia.