Congress’ Prescription for Poor: Meal for Rs. 5 in Delhi, for Rs. 12 in Mumbai

'Meal for Rs. 5/-'

'Meal for Rs. 12/-'

'Meal for Re 1/-'

Sheila Dixit must be ruing her Party colleagues’ prescription for the poor at a time when her government is gearing up to face the elections for Delhi Assembly just a couple of months away from now, in November 2013.

Rashid Masood, a Rajya Sabha Member of the Congress Party says one can buy meal in Delhi for as cheap as Rs. 5 while another Congress Lok Sabha Member Raj Babbar, film actor turned politician says he can eat one time meal in Mumbai for Rs. 12. Thankfully for Prithviraj Chavan, there are no assembly polls in Maharashtra in immediate future.

What has queered the pitch for Congress Chief Minister in Delhi is Dixit’s last attempt to retain power. She is already facing anti-incumbency since voters in Delhi are angry for more than one reason. Electricity tariff has trebled in Delhi during Dixit’s tenure. There is no control over rising prices of essential commodities including food items, milk and vegetables. Conditions of roads are in bad shape. The PWD spent Rs. 20 crores on de-silting of drains appears to have gone down the drain as frequent water loggings show. Now the Congress Government has been indicted by the Delhi High Court for its lapses and asked the government to fix the drainage system.

Here Delhi Chief Minister can hardly chide Masood and Babbar for making uncharitable observations on poor vis a vis meals. Sheila Dixit is on record of saying that to get rid of water logging on Delhi roads “pray to God that there is no rain”. It is like telling a patient that treatment is not possible better pray to God that disease does not strike you!

On the streets of Delhi particularly in areas like the walled city of Old Delhi or areas in East and West Delhi the roadside vendors will refuse to serve you two rotis, dal and sabji for Rs. 5/-. What you can buy for the money is just a banana or a samosa. Even a loaf of bread costs Rs. 15/- . I advise Raj Babbar to survive for just a week in Mumbai by spending Rs. 24/- a day for two square meals. Mind you Babbar has a declared asset of more than Rs.11 crores besides cash in lakhs.

Dr Farooq Abdullah known for his love for good things in life went off tangent when he says that it depends what you want to eat. You can eat for Re. 1 or remain hungry in after spending Rs.100/-. Well, Dr Abdullah please find a place where one can get anything to eat a onetime meal for Re. 1/ -.

Problem with these leaders and the Congress Party is their make believe world in which they live. Far removed from the harsh ground realities of how a person with low income survives in India, the ruling Party leaders find ‘romance in sufferings and poverty’ something that used to be attributed to the Communists.

On one hand the UPA is gaga with its Food Security Ordinance that promises to guarantee food for the poor, on the other hand its leaders are making fun of the poor. To ask poor people to find food with a coin of Rs. 5 in Delhi and with Rs. 12 in Mumbai is like rubbing salt on the wounds.

The ruling elite of the country are new Maharajas of India.

If you turn to pages of History you find in Eighteenth Century France how the people overthrew the monarch by revolutiion. At the height of the French Revolution of 1789, King Louis XVI was facing massive upheaval against the monarchy. The Queen of France, Marie Antoinette, wife of King Louis XVI, enquired from her aides why people were on the streets. People are protesting against the throne; they are demanding bread; they don’t have bread to eat, the Queen was told. If they don’t have bread why don’t they eat cake, was the response of the Queen!

~R. K. Sinha

Attack on Mumbai Restaurant Is Attack on Freedom of Speech & Expression: Reminds Emergency Days

Coffee is a stimulant. In India, Coffee House and Tea Shop have been centres of intellectual activism for decades. But establishment of the day never likes the thinking class to think and stimulate discourse or debate the ills of the government and raise voice of dissent.

In Mumbai, it is not a coffee house but a restaurant that attracted the ire of the Congress Party not because the eating joint was an ‘adda’ (hub) of thinkers and intellectuals who discussed and debated the current political situation in the country. It is like any other restaurant where people go for eating vegetarian meals and snacks.

The crime of the owner of the restaurant was that he started thinking and reacting to the performance of the UPA Government at the Centre intelligently. The bill of Aditi Restaurant in Mumbai carried a line as a pun on the UPA- “AS PER UPA GOVT. EATING MONEY (2G, COAL, CWG SCAM) IS A NECESSITY & EATING FOOD IN AC RESTAURANT IS A LUXURY”

The restaurant owner was peeved to find that those who eat in an air conditioned restaurant pay more by way of taxes. Aditi or for that matter majority of restaurants in Mumbai are air conditioned because of humid weather condition.

The printed bill was enough provocation for the Youth Congress activists who attacked the eating joint on Tuesday, July 23, 2013. The Maharashtra Government instead of booking the Youth Congress activists for vandalism registered a case of defamation against the restaurant owner. Defaming whom, the UPA Government. Does the government of the day have any fame to lose?

The intolerance of the Congress reminds me of the Emergency days. There used to be a Coffee House in Connaught Place of Delhi, quite famous and popular. For, it was the host of Delhi’s thinking class, writers, poets, journalists, jurists and political activists. The Congress then took the view that the Delhi Coffee House had become a centre of discourse of a class of people who were spreading dissent and encouraging rebellion against the government and against Indira Gandhi in particular who was Prime Minister. At the behest of Sanjay Gandhi, the Coffee House was closed and during the Emergency in 1975 the structure was demolished. Delhi lost its landmark and thinking class its hub.

Many years later the Coffee Board of India opened its outlet on Baba Kharag Singh Marg on the lane that houses State Emporiums. But it never replaced the old Coffee House that carried a distinct aura and ambiance besides its special clientele.

I remember another Coffee House in Patna on New Dak Bungalow Road. In early 1970s the Coffee Board of India opened a new air conditioned Coffee House, with state of the art interiors and furniture. It served delicious Dosa, Vada, Idly, Uthapams etc at reasonable rates. Its coffee had aroma and taste that has not been lost on me and many others who were regular visitor to this joint even after decades of its closure.

In those years there were very few air conditioned restaurant in Patna and there was no tea or coffee shop there that was air conditioned. So, the Coffee House attracted the intelligentsia- writers, poets, journalists, lawyers and politicians. I too was a regular visitor to the Patna Coffee House.

I used to find some big names entering the Coffee House. Jaya Prakash Narain was one of them. JP would spend few hours there chatting and discussing the situation in the country. Poet, Phaniswar Nath Renu and poet Ramdhari Singh Dinkar were also regulars to the Coffee House. So were leaders like Mahamaya Prasad Sinha, Dr Purnendu Narain Sinha, Abdul Ghafoor etc.

The Coffee House closed because the government did not want it to run. The Coffee Board of India stopped taking interest in running the joint. Its furniture was getting worn out but was not replaced, its air conditioning plant stopped working and its food lost delicacy. The aroma of ‘coffee’ was gone. And with that the Patna Coffee House was shut down for ever.

~R. K. Sinha

   

Terror At Home Has Pak Support: Not A Fallout Of Gujrat Riots

NARENDRA MODI, CM , GUJRAT

SHAKEEL AHMAD, SPOKESPERSON, CONGRESS

It is a case of extreme irresponsibility and dangerous when the birth of Indian Mujahideen is linked to Gujrat riots of 2002. Shakeel Ahmed is not alone to hold this view but there are many like in the Congress Party and in other so called ‘secular’ political parties who blame it on Gujarat for terrorists’ adventures in India.

Ahmed says it is not his view but he has quoted the report of NIA (National Investigating Agency) in which it says that Indian Mujahideen was a fall out of Gujrat riots. The NIA might have erred in finalsing report to please the government of the day. But before coming to any such erroneous conclusion, the NIA should have cared to look into the files of the Intelligence Bureau of India.

It is a known fact that IM is another name of SIMI (Students of Islamic Movement in India). It was in early 1977 when some hardliners perceived and formed SIMI in Aligarh. The outfit was to enforce the Islamic Code amongst the Muslims in India in their day to day life. The Government found that SIMI was involved in terrorism in the country. Subsequently, in 2007, the Supreme Court of India declared SIMI as a secessionist organization. Soon after the terrorists attack of 9/11 in the United States, SIMI was declared a ‘terrorist organisation’. It was banned in 2008.

It was reported in the past that conferences and meetings of SIMI were held in five star hotels. The question is who funded the outfit? Apparently, money was pumped into the outfit from across the border, the Inter Services Intelligence of Pakistan Army. It is said that SIMI also received huge donations from rich Arab World, Saudi Arabia in particular.

Once SIMI was banned, the activists of the terror outfit including their leaders regrouped under the umbrella of Indian Mujahideen with the active support of the ISI and Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan. The IM took responsibility for the blasts in Ahmedabad, Jaipur and Delhi in 2008.

Before shooting their mouth out, Congress leaders should check the facts. One can understand the desperation and nervousness in the ruling party camp following Narendra Modi’s projection as the top BJP leader and a front runner for the Prime Minister’s office in case the NDA is voted to power in 2014.

But desperation of the Congress will not vanish by just playing the communal card. On the contrary it will only aggravate the woes of the ruling Party at the Centre.

~R. K. Sinha  

CLEANSING ROT IN POLITICS: SC BAR ON CRIMINALS PART II

There is a sense of nervousness among the politicians following Supreme Court decisions to bar criminals from contesting elections and disqualification of elected Member of Parliament and State Legislature on conviction by trial court.

I would first take up the verdict that bars anyone from contesting elections if he or she is in jail or in police custody. The apex court’s judgment briefly is based on the premise that if someone can’t cast vote (not an elector) he or she can’t contest elections. There have been many instances in the past when Politicians big or small have contested polls from behind the bar some of them even winning the seat. Apprehensions are that ruling party may abuse its power to falsely implicate rivals in criminal case on the eve of elections if the ruling party feels that a particular candidate is likely to defeat the ruling party’s nominee in the polls. Thus, the rival candidate will be eliminated from the race much before the race begins.

The government is studying the judgment and may prefer to go in for an appeal before a full Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court for review of the verdict. Some jurists including Mrakandey Katju, former judge of the Supreme Court who is currently Chairman of the Press Council of India on Saturday expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court verdict. Katju said that “ … it is not for the judiciary to make law”. True, the job of making law by enacting legislation and amending existing law of the land rests with Indian Parliament and in some cases with the Legislative Assembly of the State that is with the Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislative Assembly.

But at the same time one should not forget that our Constitution has given ample scope and power to the higher judiciary – the High Courts and the Supreme Courts to interpret law and the Constitution. Any law or legislation which is ultra virus of the Constitution can be repealed or held null and void.

Here the Supreme Court has given new interpretation of certain sections of the Representation of the People Act. Section 4 and 5 of the R P Act says inter alia that in order to be elected to Parliament or State Legislature a person has to be an elector. If a person is in jail or police custody he or she can’t cast vote and thus, he or she is not an elector, hence can’t contest polls.

The government has the options to challenge the verdict before a full bench of the Supreme Court or alternatively it can amend the Representation of the People Act to nullify the verdict. In both the cases it will take time before the act is done.

Generally speaking people have welcomed the verdict. Statistics reveal that large number of candidates have criminal records. Taking advantage of our judicial process which is time consuming, criminals enjoy the benefit of law and contest polls despite being charged with criminal offence. While there may be some genuine cases where politicians have contested elections from jail but there are many examples where hard core criminals too have contested and won the polls.

Veteran socialist leader George Fernandes was in jail during the emergency. While other leaders were released from jail, Fernandes was behind the bars when elections were declared in 1977. He was facing criminal charges in the Baorda Dynamite Case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. But Ferandes contested from Muzaffarpur  Lok Sabha constituency in Bihar while in jail and won the seat as Janata Party candidate with a huge margin.

This luxury of being charged in crime and still contesting elections will end for people with criminal background if the Supreme Court verdict prevails.

~R. K. Sinha

CLEANSING ROT IN POLITICS: SC BAR ON CRIMINALS PART II

History will not forgive the government if it attempts to nullify the latest verdict of the Supreme Court of India where in an elected Member of Parliament or of State Legislature would be disqualified and cease to be member of the House if he or she is convicted by the trial court.

As of now, even when an MP or MLA is convicted by the trial court for offence under provisions of the law of the land, he or she retains his or her Membership of the House pending review of the judgment in the higher courts.

There are instances when Members of Parliament or State Legislature have been charged with murder and convicted by the trial court. Such convicts go in for appeal in the High Court first for adjudication of the verdict against them in review petition. It takes long time, many years before the High Court decides the case. In case the High Court upholds the verdict of the trial court, the accused MP or MLA goes in appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

More often than not, the convicted MP or MLA enjoys the perks and privileges of the House to which he was elected for full term of 5 years and full term of 6 years in case of Member of the Rajya Sabha because the appeal remains pending in the higher judiciary.

There are many ways to delay the trial and proceedings. Who else, intelligent lawyers help the convict as their defense counsel to delay the proceedings and buy time for their clients.

A bench of Justice A K Patnaik and Justice S J Mukhopadhyay of the Supreme Court looked at the Representation of the People Act and Article 101 and 190 of the Constitution of India on disqualification of Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislature (MLA & MLC) and came to the conclusion that in case of conviction of elected Members by the trial court, the Members concerned would cease to be Member of the House to which he or she was elected. The judgment would not be in force retrospective. For instance if ‘X’ is an MP or an MLA/MLC who is convicted by the trial court but has gone in for appeal in higher judiciary prior to this judgment ’X’ would not lose his membership of the House he was elected to.

What is wrong in the judgment? Here is the opportunity for the political class to come forward and support the judgment to cleanse the system.

It is more than 12 years when the Election Commission of India had sought the opinion of all the political parties on how to deal with the growing criminalization of politics after it discovered that large number of people who are elected to Parliament or State Assemblies have criminal antecedents. Many MPs and MLAs are convicted by the trial court. But all the political parties adopted an evasive attitude to the problem.

First it was said that Political Parties should not give tickets to criminals to contest polls. In principle it sounds good. But when it came to fielding candidates in the elections all parties gave tickets to many criminal elements for one reason or the other.

India is now in the age of coalition era where number matters. Given the political situation prevailing now, it is highly unlikely to expect political parties to deny tickets to criminals. If one party fields a criminal to contest the polls, its rival would also nominate criminal. If this is the scene, then it is high time the government of the day or the government of the future should not challenge the verdict of the Supreme Court before a full Constitution Bench. Any such move would be self defeating.

~R. K. Sinha

Narendra Modi:Is It Anti-National To Be A Nationalist

A person with ‘patriotic feeling, principles or efforts’ is a nationalist, defines Concise Oxford English Dictionary. When Narendra Modi says he is a “Hindu Nationalist” where is any scope or raising hue and cry over using the words ‘Nationalist’ and Hindu. Some critics, the forces opposed to the BJP in particular attacked Modi for using the word ‘Hindu’. According to these critics for Modi it was suffice to say ‘nationalist’ without putting the prefix Hindu. Again is it a crime to be a Hindu or does the word Hindu dilutes the meaning of the word nationalist, certainly not. Why this debate then over Modi calling himself a Hindu Nationalist.

The answer is simple. There is a political class in the country who believe and practice in shying away or feeling ashamed of their identity of being a Hindu. Such posturing or pretence helps this political class to claim that it is secular. Such elements in politics are dangerous for the country and for our democracy. For such people can compromise our national and territorial integrity to remain in power.

There is bigger controversy over Modi’s remarks that he feels sad even when a puppy dies under the wheels and if something bad happen he is sadder. The Congress and its friends in arm have given a twist to the remark by saying that the Gujarat Chief Minister compared the victims of the riots as ‘puppies’. Nothing can be farther from truth and farfetched in dubbing the word puppy as indirect reference to the Muslims.

“What does Modi think that Muslims are worse than even puppies”, says Kamal Farooqi of the Samajvadi Party.

Yet another Muslim leader Zafrul Islam Khan of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat says, “Let us not go into semantics. To compare riot victim with a puppy reflects a mindset that does not look at Muslims as human being”.

Let me tell Kamal Farooqi and Zafrul Khan that they are totally mistaken in interpreting the remark of Narendra Modi. When Modi says that he is pained even when a puppy comes under the wheels, he is talking about his emotions and not the object, the victim. Loss of life is painful. If someone is killed it is sad and painful. I don’t know if the critics of Modi feel the same way.

People are not reading the whole interview of Modi given to Reuters. The puppy remark comes in his response to a question how he felt about the Gujrat riots of 2002. Modi responded by saying,”…if someone else is driving a car and we are sitting behind and if a puppy comes under the wheel will it be painful or not? Of course it is. If I am a chief minister or not I am a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad”.

The analogy is not between the puppy and the Muslim victims of the riot, the analogy is expression of emotion and compassion for any loss of life. How then the word Muslim comes into picture?

Modi is also being made the butt of criticism for the analogy of his emotions when he says that he was sitting in the car while someone else was driving while describing the puppy example. Now his critics want that Modi should accept that he was at the wheel and he was driving the car since he was the chief minister when the riots took place in Gujarat in 2002. A chief minister or a prime minister is not directly involved in any particular situation, may be riot or war. When Modi says that someone else was driving the car and he was seated in the rear, he meant that the situation was being handled and controlled by the Police and the Officials who were in the field.  For the December 16 rape case, can the Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde be held responsible? Was he present at the scene or is he expected to wield lathis at protestors in Delhi.

~R. K. Sinha

Govt. Protects Pawan Bansal In Rly Bribery Case: All Norms Thrown To Winds

Strange are the ways of the UPA Government when it comes to shield its Ministers involved in corruption cases; it throws all norms to the winds. How a person charged with taking bribe through his nephew as Railway Minister who was removed from the government precisely for abusing his official position in appointment of senior officers in the Railways is being made a ‘witness’ by the investigating agency the CBI?

Pawan Kumar Bansal, whose nephew Vijay Singla was caught red handed accepting huge cash as a bribe for the appointment of a general manager of the Railways as Member of the Railway Board has been left out in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI. Instead, he will be presented as a witness by the prosecution. How the prosecution expects Bansal to depose against his nephew when the deals and fixings of appointments at senior positions in the Railway Ministry took in the official residence of the Minister?

It is a well known fact that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tried his level best to protect Bansal along with Ashwani Kumar but had to yield under public pressure and remove the two from the Union Council of Ministers. If Bansal was not involved in the scandal why he was sacked as Railway Minister? The Government, apparently, has no answer to these questions.

On July 9, 2013, the defense counsel of three accused in the Railway bribery case came out with interesting argument before the special designate court of the CBI. The counsel said, “ …the day you ( the CBI) made Mr Bansal a witness in this case this court should have discharged all the accused”. Normally, an approver in the case is a person who is accused but agrees to depose against other accused or agrees to help the prosecution in the case by standing as a witness though an accomplice in the crime. Here, Bansal is not an approver since he has not been made an accused in the case. Yet, the CBI has picked him up to stand as a witness in the case in which the former Railway Minister is alleged to have played a role may be indirectly.

It is indeed a sad commentary on the Congress led UPA Government in running the country in a sordid manner taking the nation as its fiefdom. All appointments in the Railways right from the level of Divisional Railway Manager, Zonal Railway Manager, General Manager to Member Railway Board carry a price tag ranging from rupees 20 lakhs to a couple of crores. How else the government can explain the capacity of a manager to pay Rs. 50 lakhs or a crore to become a Member of the Railway Board. Apparently, the officer makes money out of contracts that runs into thousands of crores by compromising on safety and standard of the Indian Railways.

There are six Members and a Chairman of the Railway Board that takes all important decisions. After Bansal quit C P Joshi was given temporary charge for a brief period. Now Kharge is the new Railway Minister. What is holding the Railway Minister in filling up the vacant positions in the Railway Board?

Vacancy exists for the post of the Chairman, Railway Board and three Members. Are there no qualified and competent officers in the entire Indian Railways to fill up the posts? Or is the government and the Railway Minister are waiting for persons to pick up the price tag attached with the posts!

 ~R. K. Sinha

Food Security or Congress Security

The real motive behind promulgating the Food Security Ordinance is not to serve the poor by guaranteeing two square meals a day. The ordinance has been brought as a tool for propaganda to tell people how serious is the Congress Party and the Government headed by it at the centre about providing food to millions of hungry poor in the country and thus influence the Indian electorates particularly in rural areas.

At the face of it, no sane person would disagree with the government policy of providing food to the poor and the hungry. At least one fifth of the total population in the country gets only one meal in a day. But if one looks at the existing system of subsidized ration to the poor one is left wondering if the food security scheme would really benefit the poor or it will fill the coffers of the greedy and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

According to one estimate approximately 75% of the subsidized ration meant for the poor through Public Distribution System finds its way to open market. It goes to mill owners, traders and even smuggled to Bangladesh and Nepal. On more than one occasion the successive governments at the Centre have admitted on the floor of Parliament that there is huge pilferage and swindle of wheat, rice and kerosene from the PDS pool.

At present the food subsidies is estimated at R. 85,0000  crores. The Food Security will add another Rs. 25,000 crores to the subsidy amount. If you believe the economists the food security will cost not less than Rs. 40,000 crores which means the government will spend around Rs. 1.25 lakh crores on food subsidies alone. Even if one takes a lenient view of the loot, roughly Rs. 80,000 crores would go down the drain- not reaching actual beneficiaries of the scheme- the poor and hungry.

Coming to the Ordinance, it was not needed in first place and it goes against the spirit of the Indian Constitution. The Union Cabinet can advise the President to promulgate ordinance on matters of public interest and urgency when Parliament is not in session. Here, the monsoon session of Parliament is just a few weeks away and there is no urgency.

Then the question arises why the Congress opted for the Ordinance. Under the Constitution the Ordinance has to be ratified by both the Houses of Parliament within six months of its coming into force. The Congress, thus, has thrown the ball into the Opposition court. The main Opposition party, the BJP and others including the Left Parties have opposed the Food Security Bill for its lacunae and pitfalls. Now that the Ordinance has been promulgated on food security, the government would ask the Opposition to support it in Parliament. If the Opposition parties disagree, the Congress will be quick to point finger accusing the Opposition of being anti-poor. For the Opposition parties it is left with a ‘Hobson’s choice’.

The Congress on the other hand is suffering from illusion. The ruling party had inferred in 2009 that the victory of the UPA was due to its rural employment guarantee scheme or MNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme). The government should look into its own official reports and the report of the CAG which say that there are no many takers of the job in rural areas because of under payment. The labourers are paid just Rs. 40 for day’s work instead of Rs. 100. Rupees 60 goes into the pockets of local politicians, the Block Development Officers and a cut to District Magistrates and above. The roasters are filled with bogus rolls.

The food security is likely to end up in yet another gate of loot and corruption for the ruling class. Beside the point, if people are sure of getting two square meals without any effort they may shun work and depend on cash subsidy for meals. The money meant for buying food may go to liquor shops and petty gambling which is fast catching up in rural areas.

I agree to J Jayalalitha’s remark, “it is not Food Security Bill, it is Congress Security Bill”.

~R. K. Sinha