India at the Shanghai World Expo 2010 and its significance in Sino-Indian Relations

In the midst of the concrete and steel jungle that is the Shanghai World Expo, stands the Indian Pavilion, the 'greenest' of them all, built entirely of environment-friendly materials, showcasing India's unique brand of Culture, History and Soft Power and offering an unprecedented opportunity to further improve Sino-Indian relations and India's Soft Power in China.

The Expo has finally come to China. A largely-forgotten event in most parts of the world, it has been rejuvenated, on a scale which no other country could even dream of. A record number of 192 countries and 50 organizations have registered, the highest in the Expo's history. Most people hadn't even heard of the expo until it came to China. 

The verdict is clear - The Expo needed China as much as China needed the Expo.

It has been described by the Chinese government as "a great gathering of world civilizations",  and is an excellent opportunity to improve ties between two of the oldest - India and China.

The Indian pavilion

The Indian Pavilion is a massive stupa (pronounced stuup, with an slightly elongatedu), resembling specifically the Sanchi Stupa built during the Maurya Dynasty (322-185 BC) by King Ashoka (pronounced  Ashok). 

  

In what is one of the greatest examples the diversity and plurality of Indian history and culture, the dome is shaped like the Taj Mahal Mausoleum (which, commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan and completed in 1653, is one of the seven wonders of the world) and the inspiration of its design comes from theSanchi Stupa (that was completed in the third century BCE and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site).

Taj Mahal

Sanchi Stupa

The Indian Pavilion

As the world moves towards urbanization, the idea behind the Indian pavilion successfully blends the concepts of sustainable ecological development with modern technology and town planning - which is accentuated by the theme - Cities of Harmony.

And what better model than ancient India, where the Indus Valley Civilization (3300–1300 BCE), whose cities, most notably - Harappa and Mohen-jo-daro, reached a level of urban planning and technological sophistication which was unparalleled during the time. As a matter of fact, the sheer brilliance and superiority of those prehistoric cities would put Mumbai to shame, whose streets flood every couple of years due to heavy rains and poor town planning coupled with inefficient drainage systems, not to mention 55% of the city's population living in slums! (In the words of India's Environment and Forests Minister, Jairam Ramesh, if there is a Noble Prize for filth, India will win it!)

The Indian Pavilion is built entirely of bamboo and other environment friendly materials like solar panels, windmills,  plants, water cascade and earthen tiles; and is the 'greenest' and most eco-friendly pavilion at the expo. Over 60,000 saplings, including many herbal medicinal plants, have been used in the roofing panels, which also collect rainwater for use in the pavilion. Over 30 kms of bamboo (which came from eastern Chinese forests) has gone into its construction. It is in fact the world's largest Bamboo Dome - 35 meters wide and 18 meters tall, and contains an interlaced network of more than 500 pieces of 20 meter-length rods of bamboo.

Completely rewriting China's architecture rulebook, it will be spared demolition unlike the other pavilions (excluding China's), dismantled and then reconstructed in Wushi, Zhejiang Province. The Indian architects had to prepare the first ever bamboo construction plans and code and then get the Chinese to approve it before proceeding.  

According to the official website:

The concept and theme of India Pavilion will revolve around journey of Indian cities from ancient times to medieval period to modern India. This journey is full of glorious peaks and downs in the medieval period. The concept of urban planning was known to India as back as the times of Mohan Jo daro and Hadappa (dating back to 2000-3000 B.C. Circa), the twin cities that were discovered by British archaeologists. These cities had well laid out streets at right angles, underground drainage and water supply system with common public areas.

As urban life spread among Indian people, we find cities with specific sectors, which were known as Mohallahs, where people belonging to a specific guild or trade used to live, such as, Kapda Bazaar (cloth market) where textile merchants had their shops and living quarters;Sarafa Bazaar (jewelery market) where all jewellers had their shops and living quarters, Katras (grain and eatables market) and so on. New urban centres were set up by Mughal emperors spanning throughout India based on specialized trade and services on the lines of modern Special Economic Zones, e.g., Varanasi became known for silk and silk embroidery; Mysore for special silk and sandlewood work; Calicut for muslin cloth and jewelery; Moradabad for brassware; Aligarh for locks; Agra for footwear and marble works etc. During the medieval period also, ambitious kings planned ambitious cities, such as, Jaipur, which was laid in a very scientific manner with entire city being painted in one colour for which it is still known as ‘Pink City’.

The highlights of the pavilion include the 'Tree of Life' carving by the Sidi Saiyyed Mosque in Ahmedabad, a 'Zero-Chemical Area', which displays many energy efficient technologies, a traditional 'Indian Market' or Bazaar, and a Holographic projection showcasing India's evolution from the Indus Valley days to modern times.

And in the Urban Best practices Area (UBPA), which offers a platform for differentcountries to propose their solutions to the urban issues from different perspectives, two role models from India — one from Ahmedabad and the other from Pondicherry— are being showcased with 34 others as experiments in improving urban life. The Ahmedabad initiative is focused on clean and green economic development, while Pondicherry focuses on heritage preservation along with economic growth.

The Indian pavilion also features authentic Indian cuisine, Indian cultural programmes, including dances (some of which are so diverse and different from the others that I'm quite sure some people will wonder whether they are from the same country!), and of course - India's latest soft power export - Bollywood. The organizers have roped in 50 performers, backed by a team of film technicians and choreographers to act out 40 years of classic moments in Indian cinema. And Yoga (pronounced Yog) - the single most popular aspect of Indian culture and soft power abroad - is also on the cards.

Where's India's other achievement?

While all this should certainly be applauded, what is surprising is that a presentation of the other aspect that India is known for around the word - its IT prowess - is nowhere to be seen. A combination of culture, environment friendly urban planningand India's IT and software industry prowess would have been a great and unique combination. Not to mention the fact that this is one of the few advantages which India has over China.

Strengthening  Sino - Indian Relations and India's Soft Power

As the two most populous countries in the world and rising powers, India and China have a responsibility to maintain healthy relations, not only towards themselves but also towards the whole world. And the expo offers an excellent opportunity for India to increase the people-to-people contact between these two countries and awareness about Indian culture in China.

The India pavilion has become one of the most popular spots at the expo with an average of 25,000 visitors every day.

The huge line of visitors queued up to get inside the Indian pavilion as seen above speaks for itself.

Many countries are increasingly realizing that Soft Power can be a very effective tool for increasing their influence, especially countries with rich histories and cultures like India and China. They have a lot to export in that direction; and can use Soft Power very effectively to project an image. Pavan Varma, the head of the Indian Council on Cultural Relations, has argued that “Culturally, India is a superpower.”

Unlike China, India has lacked the initiative and aggression to effectively use Soft Power as an instrument of Foreign Policy.  For example, while the Chinese government has established 295 Confucius Institutes in 78 countries, the Indian Equivalent - Indian Cultural Institutes - number only 20. Most of India's Soft Power abroad is promulgated through private individuals and enterprises, like Bollywood, and the so-called 'Indian Gurus', like Deepak Chopra.

This year is the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between two countries. In China, interest in Indian culture and History is on the rise.

The Indian President, Pratibha Patil, on a recent visit to China, unveiled the first Indian Style Buddhist Temple in Luoyang in Henan province after a gap of 1900 years, when two Indian monks Kashyapamatanga and Dharmaratna helped establish the first Buddhist shrine. This temple was at the same site as the White Horse Temple, built in 68 AD, the first Buddhist Temple in China,  and is  part of anIndia-China Cultural cooperation initiative. She also unveiled a statue of poet and Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore in the heart of old-town Shanghai, which the poet visited in the 1920s and left a strong influence on a whole generation of Chinese intellectuals and writers.

Tourism is another important aspect which has been neglected. In 2008, Chinese arrivals to India made up less than 2 per cent of the total number of foreign travelers. India's lack of adequate infrastructure, a lack of awareness about Indian Tourism among common Chinese are just two of the many problems which are at the heart of the asymmetrical tourist flow. With China slated to become the  world's fourth-largest source of outbound tourists by 2020, it is a market which India, like any other country, cannot afford to take lightly.

Hence, the Shanghai World Expo becomes all the more important and it is an opportunity that simply could not be ignored. The Indian government has taken unprecedented advantage of this situation, by not only showcasing India's Soft Power through its unique culture and history, but also various green initiatives coupled with technology and urban planning - a pavilion built entirely with environment friendly materials and with zero carbon emissions which is a welcome change amidst the steel and concrete jungle of the expo, and an endeavor which has the potential to drastically strengthen Sino-Indian Relations like no other.

Kya Congress Mukesh Ambani Ki Dukaan Hai?

• In 2006, Mani Shankar Iyer was removed and Murli Deora brought in to increase RIL capex from $ 2.39 billion to $ 8.8 billion and to increase gas price from $2.34 per mmBTU to $ 4.2 per mmBTU.
• In 2012, Jaipal Reddy has been removed and Moily brought in to increase gas prices from $ 4.2 per mmBTU to $ 14.2 mmBTU and to condone RIL’s blackmailing of reducing gas production.
• Huge benefits given to RIL in last one decade despite flagrant violations of various agreements by RIL. Benefits to RIL causing serious price rise in the country.
• Both BJP and Congress involved. BJP signed a sweet deal with RIL in 2000. Congress faithfully implemented it.
• If RIL demand of increasing the gas price to $ 14.2 is accepted, it would lead to shut down of several gas based power plants and increase in power and fertilizer prices. It would result in Rs 43,000 crores of additional benefits to RIL.

In the Nira Radia tapes, Ranjan Bhattacharya (Vajpayee’s son in law) is heard telling Nira that Mukesh Ambani told him –"Congress to ab apni dukaan hai." Facts below show that both Congress and BJP are in his pocket.

NOTE : All documents available on India against corruption website ...

Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has the contract to extract oil from KG Basin. Under an agreement of 2009 with the government, they are supposed to sell gas at $ 4.2 per mmBTU upto 31st March 2014. Midway now, RIL is demanding that the price be increased to $ 14.2 per mmBTU. Jaipal Reddy resisted that and he was thrown out.

Jaipal Reddy had prepared a note for EGOM, in which he mentioned that acceptance of RIL’s demand would mean an additional profit of Rs43,000 crores ($8.5 billion) to RIL(in 2 years) at current levels of low production. Most of this gas is used in fertilizer and power production. Increasing gas price would mean an additional financial burden of Rs 53,000Crores ($ 10.5 billion) on central and state government (copy of relevant page of EGOM note is attached as annexure 1). This would in turn mean higher electricity and fertilizer prices in the country or a higher subsidy burden.

In order to pressurize the government, RIL substantially reduced its production of natural gas. Total consumption of natural gas in the country is 156 mmscmd. According to agreement, RIL was supposed to produce 80mmscmd (more than 50% of the total demand) from 2009. However, they are producing just 27 mmscmd, almost a third of their commitment. Production has been artificially kept low to blackmail the government. They are not just hoarding the gas, but also forcing various consumers to buy gas from abroad. Gas from abroad costs around $ 13 per mmBTU.

RIL’s stand is simple – "hum to gas $14.2 par hi denge, lena hai to lo, nahin to jao." Who does this gas belong to? According to Supreme Court of India and the Indian Constitution, this gas belongs to the people of India. Complete surrender of UPA before RIL indicates UPA’s inability to run governance in accordance with the Constitution.

Drastic reduction in production has forced many gas based power plants in the country to shut down or run at much lower capacity. According to media reports, almost 9000 MW of gas based power plants are lying idle.

Today, power from gas based power plant costs around Rs 3 per KWH. If gas price is increased from $ 4.2 to $ 14.2 as demanded by Reliance, power rates would go upto Rs 7 per KWH. That’s too expensive. At that cost, most of these plants would have to permanently shut down.

This is not the first time that a union minister has been eased out at Mukesh Ambani’s insistence. In 2006, when RIL had to get its capex increased from $ 2.39 billion dollars to $ 8.8 billion dollars, Mani Shankar Iyer was removed and a more Reliance friendly MurliDeora was brought in.

Brief history:  

RIL got this contract during NDA regime in the year 2000. The contract was meant to favor RIL right from the beginning. In any business, increase in costs means decrease in profits. However, the NDA government , signed a contract dictated by RIL wherein an increase in cost by one rupee meant additional profits of RIL by almost Rs 2.2. Isn’t it strange? A parameter called Investment Multiple has been defined in the contract as under:

Investment Multiple (IM) = Total Revenue / Total Investment

According to the contract, till IM is below 1.5, RIL takes away more than 80% of profits and government gets less than 20% of profits. It is only when IM becomes more than 2.5 that government gets 85%. This means, RIL has a huge incentive to keep IM below 1.5 by increasing the expenditure artificially. Thus if Reliance were to increase expenditure from 1 Billion to 2 Billion on a revenue of 5 billion, their own net income would go up from 1.6 Billion to 3.5 Billion. This is what the CAG has stated in para 8.1 of its performance Audit of Hydrocarbon PSCs. (extract from executive summary of CAG as annexure 2)

In 2004, RIL submitted an Initial Development Plan (IDP) saying they would produce 40 mmscmd for an investment of $ 2.39 billion. All this happened when Ram Naik was the petroleum minister in Vajpayee regime.

Within 2 years, RIL submitted another plan saying they would produce 80 mmscmd for an increased investment of $ 8.8 billion. Doesn’t that sound strange? To double production, you increase your investment by four times? Having put the initial infrastructure in place, it should have cost lesser to create additional production capacity.

Mani Shankar Iyer, who was the then Petroleum minister, would not have allowed this. So, Mani was shunted out of petroleum ministry and Murli Deora, famous to be Reliance man, was brought in January 2006. Despite strong protests by some MPs like Tapan Sen, Deora approved $ 8.8 billion expenditure. By

allowing $ 8.8 billion expenditure, in effect, Deora allowed a future revenue of over Rs 1 lakh crores ($ 20 billion dollars) for RIL.

CAG has remarked that there is strong evidence that RIL is gold plating its capital expenditure. Expenditure has been artificially increased (for reasons mentioned above). For instance, RIL is required to place orders for its plant, machinery and other requirements through international competitive bids. CAG alleges that bids were arbitrarily rejected to favor some parties. Just one company namely Aker group got many contracts (see annexure 3, which is an extract from CAG report). Is this group related to RIL? Is RIL siphoning off money through this method?

RIL’s pressure tactics:  

RIL signed a contract with NTPC in 2004 to supply gas for its power plants at $ 2.34 per mmBTU for 17 years. It signed a similar contract with RNRL to supply gas at $ 2.34 per mmBTU. However, RIL went back on its word. Under RIL’s pressure, EGOM headed by Sh Pranab Mukherjee, revised gas price in September 2007 to $ 4.2 per mmBTU. NTPC and RNRL were forced to accept gas from RIL at revised price. By doing this, Pranab Mukherjee headed EGOM gave an undue benefit of Rs8000 crores to RIL.

What is RIL’s actual cost of production?  

Cost of production is much less than $ 2.34 per mmBTU. (Copy of extracts from an SC order Annexure 4).RIL had actually signed long term agreements with NTPC and RNRL for supplying gas at that rate for 17 years. This means that at $2.34 per mmBTU also, RIL was making adequate profits. India is getting gas at $ 0.9 per mmBTU from Oman. Gas rates in Canada are at $ 1.74 per mmBTU. This means that at $ 2.34 per mmBTU also, RIL was making huge profits.

RIL sold out nation’s resources:  

Ownership rights of this gas belong to the people of India. RIL is just a contractor hired by GOI to extract gas. Strangely, RIL sold 30% stake in 21 of 29 oil blocks to British Petroleum in July 2011 at $ 7.2 billion. Government gave approval to RIL to do that. How can they do that? It is almost like – I hire a driver to drive my car and that driver sells off my car after a few days.

Performance of RIL so far has been much worse than perhaps the worst performing government department.  

1. 4 times cost escalation within 2 years from $ 2.39 billion in 2004 to $ 8.8 billion in 2006.
2. Increase in gas price from $ 2.34 per mmBTU in 2004 to $ 4.2 per mmBTU in 2007 to the present demand of $ 14.2 per mmBTU.
3. Capacity created for producing 80 mmscmd after incurring such a huge cost ends up producing just 27 mmscmd after 12 years.
4. 31 oil wells should have been in production till now. Out of them, just 13 are functional.

Has any government department fared as badly? If this had happened in any government department, it would have been ripped apart by all government agencies and media.

RIL scam akin to coal scam:  

This scam is on similar lines as Coal block allocation scam. Coal blocks were given away saying that coal production was less in the country and private sector participation would increase coal production. Rather than produce coal, the private parties hoarded coal blocks to sell them at appropriate time in future.

In this case also, oil blocks were given away to RIL on the excuse that oil and gas production in the country was less and private sector participation would bring "efficiency". Rather than the production going up, RIL is hoarding the gas.

Role of PM:  

RIL’s request for increase in gas prices was turned down by Ministry of Petroleum under Jaipal Reddy and EGOM several times in the last 2 years. EGOM had fixed $ 4.2 per mmBTU price for RIL upto 31.3.2014. When Jaipal Reddy did not budge, RIL approached the PM. PM was very sympathetic to RIL. PM requested Ministry of Petroleum to seek AG’s opinion on whether gas prices could be increased midway as demanded by Reliance. It is strange why did the PM not show similar concern when NTPC was forced to accept higher gas price from RIL? Why is the PM not pulling up Reliance for not producing 80 mmscmd gas as per their commitment? Why did the PM not seek legal opinion when country’s interests were at stake? Why is PM showing so much interest when RIL interests are at stake?

Notice to RIL by Jaipal Reddy:  

When RIL failed to meet its production targets, Jaipal Reddy decided to disallow their capital expenditure. In the first instance, a notice for disallowance of $ 1 billion expenditure was sent to RIL (Annex 5). This would mean a loss of $2.2 (11,000 Crores) billion to RIL, if we consider IM ratio. Next year, this disallowance could be $ 1.5 billion, which would mean a loss of $ 3.3 billion (16,500 Crores) for RIL.

That is the reason why Mukesh Ambani got restless. And that is the reason why Jaipal Reddy was transferred out.

Real reasons for price rise in the country:  

This episode explains the real reasons for price rise in the country. The government seems to be succumbing to illegitimate demands of some powerful corporates in the country (like RIL in this case). Benefits provided to RIL in this case contributed to price rise in power and fertilizer sectors. Similarly, on one hand, government says that they do not have Rs 35,000 crores to provide LPG subsidy to the people, on the other hand, the government bends backwards to provide benefits to these corporate.

Questions:  

1. Who is running the government? It appears that telecom companies select their own nominee as Telecom minister and RIL selects its own person as Petroleum minister.
2. So, is this government being run by powerful corporates?
3. Is Dr Manmohan Singh succumbing to corporates under some compulsions or out of ignorance? What are the compulsions, if any?

Is Rahul Gandhi prime minister material?

He’s been called the “Quiet Revolutionary“. And India’s prime minister-in-waiting. But does Rahul Gandhi, a virtual novice in the rough and tumble of Indian politics, have what it takes for the country’s top job?

He didn’t exactly set the house on fire during his first five years in parliament. And until this election, Rahul’s only USP was that he belonged to India’s first family, the Nehru-Gandhi family which has given the country three prime ministers.

 

He’s only 39, and has no experience with complex subjects such as Pakistan or the economy.

But after the recent election, Rahul has emerged as a savvy politician, a grassroots activist with a finger on the pulse of the real India.

His strategy of not allying with any of the regional parties in northern India despite pressure from party officials paid off big time.

The Congress party’s decision to go it alone in northern India helped it more than double its seats in Uttar Pradesh.

Initially, based just on his political strategy for this election, there was much speculation over whether he would join the cabinet, and if he did what portfolio he’d get.

Eventually, Rahul wasn’t a part of the cabinet, but he’s still seen as the face of the Congress party from now on — and perhaps prime minister at some point in the future.

But isn’t there a danger he could be sidelined if he isn’t part of the federal cabinet?

Sure, he has age on his side and he can learn over the next five years. Besides, like his father, Rajiv, he appeals to millions of young voters in India.

But he’s not alone in that sense. He is part of a new generation of young parliamentarians like Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindia who have a completely new perspective on politics.

So the question many in India are asking is: could Rahul Gandhi be overshadowed by other younger politicians who are in the cabinet?

Nitish and Narendra Modi : a true friendship story

        Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar, the chief ministers of Gujarat and Bihar respectively, have, of late, been grabbing the headlines. Not only do their names begin with the same alphabet but they are also members of the same political alliance, NDA. But now, both are at loggerheads. At least it appears so.

 Very few people know that Nitish Kumar has had a sneaking admiration for Narendra Modi. In fact, I can detect a tinge of camaraderie in their present antagonism. Psychology says that love and hatred are the two sides of the same coin. Their friendship and enmity have got so intermingled that it is difficult to make out one from the other. 

I remember an incident. It was the summer of 2004. Lok Sabha results were out and in Bihar, the UPA under the leadership of Lalu Prasad Yadav had got a decisive lead. 

The NDA, led by George-Nitish had been badly mauled. Nitish ji came to my place. He was free and so we talked for hours on everything under the sun. My contention was that the NDA had to bite the dust because of Narendra Modi. Nitish ji was not ready to concede my point. That I was opposed to Modi was quite palpable to him. 

In a somber and firm voice, Nitish ji said: "Narendra Modi is the new face of the BJP. He comes from a Most Backward Class. He is Ghanchi, a Ghanchi! It is a minority backward caste there. The BJP's Brahmin lobby is out to defame him. Even Vajpayee has joined its ranks. Modi is a dynamic man. Meet him once and you will become his admirer. He comes from a very poor family. He is extremely simple and very diligent." Nitish ji appeared to be in a state of trance. He was unstoppable. Then, fondly recalling an occasion when Modi played host to him, he concluded his monologue, "I have become his fan." 

I am surprised how this fan of Modi's has turned his foe. Is this what is called politics? Is all this being done just to grab a share of the Muslim vote bank? Or, is there something more to it? 

I cannot say what the truth is. At the personal level, I am not in touch with Nitish ji. And surmises are, after all, only surmises. Some say that Nitish Kumar is indirectly helping Narendra Modi by keeping the latter constantly in the news. Who would not like such a friend? Maybe there is some truth in this conjecture but, publicly, Nitish has turned their relations quite bitter. Probably, he is hoping for some big gain. But is that possible? 

Narendra Modi is BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate. Nitish Kumar's eyes are also set on the same position. This clash of interests has turned friends into foes. What else can be expected in such circumstances? 

As far as I remember, in June 2010, just prior to the last Bihar Vidhan Sabha elections, Nitish Kumar had hosted a banquet at his official residence for the delegates of the BJP national executive meeting. However the banquet was cancelled at the last moment quoting an advertisement as an excuse. The said advertisement was inserted by a businessman in many newspapers. It included a photograph of Narendra Modi andNitish Kumar jointly campaigning for the 2009 Lok Sabha polls.

 The businessman wanted to welcome Modi to Bihar with this advertisement. However, Nitish Kumar went into such a tizzy that he even threw normal courtesies to the winds. The monetary aid extended by the Gujarat government for the flood victims of Bihar was also returned. Nitish did not want his close relations with Modi to be made public. The advertiser, probably, did not comprehend that some relations---especially those of love---are best kept private. Making them public is fraught with dangers. And that is what happened. The BJP leaders had to face humiliation. They bore it without demur. They are quite used to it. They had put up with the tantrums of Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh equally without complaint. These are the compulsions of alliance politics. 

The BJP doesn't mind being humiliated by persons from whom it hopes to benefit. And in this instance, the BJP is dependent on Nitish and not the other way round. 

In the Presidential elections of 2012, Nitish did not support the BJP's candidate. He supported the Congress nominee Pranab Mukherjee and was once again patted on the back by the media for his "secularism". The media did not care to enlighten us as to what secularism had to do with this. Was the BJP-backed Sangma communal? And if not, does the Congress have a monopoly over secularism? Judging from Nitish's recent posturing, he seems to believe that he is the flag bearer-in-chief of secularism in the country and that the nation's secular polity would collapse without him. 

No one even tried to bring the reality to the fore - the reality that Pranab Mukherjee was more a nominee of the Ambanis than of the Congress. An envoy of the Ambani family is an MP from Nitish's party and he controls the entire party set-up. Those who are patting Nitish Kumar on the back should also remember that Bal Thakeray was also a member of the comity of leaders that supported Pranab Da. I am not among those who have given a clean chit to Modi in the post-Godhra communal riots or have forgotten Advani's role in the Babri demolition.

 The 2002 riots in Gujarat were horrible and as chief minister, it was Modi's duty to stop the violence. I hold Modi guilty even today. But, was he alone guilty? At that time, Atal Behari Vaypayee's government was ruling at the Centre. Why did it not dismiss the Gujarat government? After all, Vajpayee had the precedent of dismissal of a string of state governments after the demolition of the Babri masjid. Just before the riots, the Bihar government was dismissed for the 'Senari massacre'. 

The Gujarat riots were much more serious and sinister than ‘Senari massacre'. When the Bihar government could be sacked for one single massacre why couldn't the government of Gujarat be dismissed? Was Modi alone guilty of not following the ‘rajdharma'? What sort of ‘rajdharma' was Vajpayee following? And Nitish Kumar--who considers Vajpayee a messiah--which ‘rajdharma' did he follow? 

It should not be forgotten that Nitish Kumar was the Railways minister when the Godhra train arson took place. Nitish Kumar, who had offered to resign after the Gaisal train mishap did not even care to visit the site of the Godhra tragedy. It is surprising that the same man is now sermonising to Modi and that too regarding riots. The role of both Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar in the Godhra train tragedy is not above reproach. 

Both of them and subsequently their common political ideal, Atal Bihari Vajpayee,did not fulfill the ‘rajdharma'. Both are publicity-crazy and both are self-anointed ‘Vikash Purush'. As for their achievements, economic inequality had grown in both Bihar and Gujarat. 

In both the States, the rich have become more powerful while the poor have sunken deeper into misery. But there are some crucial differences between Nitish Kumar and Narendra Modi. While Nitish Kumar comes from a kulak Kurmi family of Bihar, Narendra Modi hails from an extremely poor and most backward Class Ghanchi family of Gujarat. Nitish's father was an Ayervedic ‘Vaidyaraj' and a Congress leader while Narendra's father was a small-time tea vendor. Narendra Modi spent his childhood washing the used glasses at his father's shop when Nitish was studying Engineering, Narendra was the domestic helper in a lawyer family's home where his responsibilities included cleaning 9 rooms and preparing food for 15 members of the family. He somehow studied and acquired degrees by appearing in exams as private student. Whatever he learned, he learned in the school of hard knocks. He might be associated with rightist politics but his childhood was as full of struggle as that of the Russian writer Maxim Gorky.

 There is another crucial difference between Narendra and Nitish. Even as a chief minister, the former led a simple life. He maintained a safe Distance from sycophants. He also avoided associating himself with tainted persons. All this is not true of Nitish Kumar. He once had a clean image but now he is embroiled in all sorts of controversies. His lifestyle has changed. According to information procured through RTI, he has spent crores of rupees from the state exchequer on his ancestral village and his official residence. He likes to be surrounded by sycophants, criminals and tainted persons. And he is just a bit behind Mayawati in erecting the statues of the members of his clan. 

( Premkumar Mani is a leading Hindi writer, thinker and Political activist. Article published in FORWARD Press, September, 2012)

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.