GRAVE SPACE

Though welcome, the Central government’s decision to stop constructing samadhis along the Yamuna in Delhi and instead build a common facility to perform the last rites of departed leaders is unlikely to have any sobering effect on the memorial mania of political parties. The issue is not shortage of space as the government makes it out to be, but contestable commemorative practices that encroach on public spaces and impose memorials on helpless cities. Collective mourning and remembering by building structures and statuaries are valid cultural practices. However, one has to make a clear distinction between memorialising as an act of self-serving propaganda and the honouring of iconic persons who served to unify or inspire the people. Political parties cleverly manipulate this difference and legitimise their takeover of parks and waterfronts to build monuments for their leaders, many of whom have dubious standing, appeal and achievement. The Shiv Sena, for instance, after being denied permission by the Maharashtra government to build in Shivaji Park, wants to encroach on Mahalaxmi Racecourse to memorialise Bal Thackeray. It is trying hard to disguise its sinister demand as a call for creating public space, but this will not wash. The Congress and regional parties too are not free of this failing.

The Supreme Court, in January, severely criticised State governments for mindlessly allowing statues and unambiguously ordered that they should not permit construction of statues that would cause traffic problems. This should bring in some order to public areas. What is needed now is regulation of political memorials. In this context, there are a few lessons to learn from the City of Westminster’s policy for erecting statues and memorials. This London borough, which has 300 commemorative structures, faces a growing demand for building more. To handle this saturation, the city council advises groups to explore alternative practices such as putting up a plaque, planting trees or endowing a charity. When this does not work, it imposes a 10-year waiting period between the death of a person or occurrence of an event and a related commemoration. The reasoning is that this period would cool ‘partisan passions’ and ‘enable sober reflection’ about the need to commemorate. Apart from this, it insists on public consultation, aesthetic assessment of the proposed structure and upfront payment of the project and maintenance costs. The state may legally own public spaces, but parties in power cannot treat them as their personal fiefdom. While the government can allocate areas and funds for collective remembrance such as a memorial for Bhopal gas victims or the anti-colonial struggle, it should firmly stay away from building monuments to political leaders.

Our human rights deserve better

Suspicions and apprehensions cannot be the basis on which a government can take decisions or make appointments. But with the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, submitting dissenting notes on the proposal to make retired Supreme Court judge Cyriac Joseph a member of the National Human Rights Commission, the United Progressive Alliance government would do well to pause and ponder before proceeding further. The objections raised by the two BJP leaders arise from an adverse report of an intelligence agency on Justice Joseph’s style of functioning as a judge. Apparently, the report touched upon delays in his delivering judgments, but did not question his integrity. An intelligence agency report on these issues cannot be taken at face value and could well be unsubstantiated or erroneous. However, in the light of the Opposition’s dissenting notes, it is only proper that the government looks at the proposal afresh.

There are, broadly speaking, two issues at stake here. First, respect for the sanctity of a selection process which includes the Opposition so as to make these important appointments as consensual as possible, and second, respect for the mandate of the NHRC. It is a fact that successive governments at the Centre have sought to neutralise and undermine the commission by nominating unsuitable candidates as members or by not filling vacancies for long periods of time. The Protection of Human Rights Act states that apart from the chairperson, one member must be a former judge of the Supreme Court, one a former chief justice of a High Court, and two must be “persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.” In recent years, unfortunately, virtually none of the non-judicial members — former CBI chief P.C. Sharma, former diplomats R.S. Kalha and Satyabrata Pal, or the latest entrant, the former head of the National Investigation Agency, S.C. Sinha — could claim such qualifications, even if some, notably Mr. Pal, have delivered commendably on the commission. Then there is the delay in filling vacancies. Mr Sharma retired from the NHRC last June. But Mr. Sinha was named for his slot only in March 2013. The vacancy Justice Joseph will fill was created in January. If the government had used this time to search out candidates for their commitment to rights, the delay might have been justified. But the manner in which the government selects candidates is opaque, and there is no reason to assume considerations of human rights protection play any role whatsoever in the process. This is the fundamental question the Opposition should focus on.

CHIT FUND SCAM

A Chit fund is a kind of savings scheme practiced in India. A Chit fund company means a company managing, conducting or supervising, as foremen, agent or in any other capacity, chits as defined in Section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. According to Section 2(b) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, "Chit means a transaction whether called chit, chit fund, chitty, kuri or by any other name by or under which a person enters into an agreement with a specified of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money (or a certain quantity of grain instead) by way of periodical installments over a definite period and that each such subscriber shall, in his turn, as determined by lot or by auction or by tender or in such other manner as may be specified in the chit agreement, be entitled to the prize amount".
Such chit fund schemes may be conducted by organised financial institutions or may be unorganised schemes conducted between friends or relatives. There are also variations of chits where the savings are done for a specific purpose. Chit funds also played an important role in the financial development of people of south Indian state of Kerala, by providing easier access to credit. In Kerala, chitty (chit fund) is a common phenomenon practiced by all sections of the society. A company named Kerala State Financial Enterprise exists under the Kerala State Government, whose main business activity is the chitty.
Chit Funds are also misused by its promoters and there are many instances of the founders running what is basically a Ponzi scheme and absconding with their money.
Police have unearthed property worth Rs 750 crore so far by quizzing chit fund-aided Saradha Group's arrested promoter Sudipa Sen and his top aides, an official said Saturday. Six motorcycles with red beacons and hooters allegedly used by company's officials to carry cash were also seized.

The bikes were found in a garage of Saradha Group office, police sources said.


"We have so far unearthed assets valued at Rs 750 crores by grilling Sen," said Deputy Commissioner of Police Arnab Ghosh of Bidhannagar Commissionerate, which is probing what is being regarded as the biggest financial scam to rock West Bengal.

Meanwhile, police personnel from Joynagar in South 24 Parganas district interrogated Sen and his confidant Debjani Mukherjee in connection with a cheating case filed against them by some depositors.

The interrogators from the Bidhannagar Commissionerate were also grilling Sen and Mukherjee to ascertain the total value of the property of the Group companies and Sen.

"They are trying to find where the money has been stashed and how it can be recovered. They also need to find the employees who handled the money, and the relevant papers and other documents," said a source.

A couple of days back the sleuths had summoned for questioning a former official of the Reserve Bank of India who during his days with the apex bank is said to have given some undue facilities to Sen.

A police source said names of some officers of Securities and Exchange Board of India, Income Tax department, banks, and other central and state government agencies have cropped up following Sen's interrogation. "Some of them have already been questioned. We are tallying their replies with the information given by Sen".

Sleuths have also stumbled on 40 acres of land owned by Sen in Shimla.

Sen, Mukherjeee and another senior official of the Group were arrested April 23 from Sonmarg in Jammu and Kashmir, days after the Group collapsed, unable to repay lakhs of depositors - most of them poor people from villages and small towns - who had parked their hard earned money with its companies, lured by promise of huge returns.

Already, a number of and depositors of Saradha and similar chit fund companies have committed suicide, while offices of a large number of such dubious concerns operating in the state have been attacked.

Even on Saturday, an office of a chit fund company was ransacked by depositors at Pandabeshwar of Hooghly district for allegedly cheating and siphoning of funds.