Essential transparency in judicial and quasi-judicial institutions

I had made a commitment when I was made an Information Commissioner that I would ensure that I decided most of the cases before me in less than 3 months. By and large, I have been able to fulfill this promise and perhaps the average time for decisions must be around two months. Sometime in June 2011, a RTI application was received by my PIO, asking for the decision in a case registered in May, 2010. My staff could not locate the decision anywhere! I realized that the case had not been listed for hearing inadvertently, and no decision had been given. I realized that if a mistake had been made in one case, it could have been made in some others as well. A careful search of 2010 cases revealed another 110 cases which had been forgotten and missed completely! 
 

         We listed these for hearing and in one of them, there was a heart rending story. A Government employee had died in 1993 leaving his widow and young children. The widow was illiterate and poor. Since 1993 she had been struggling to get the pension she was entitled to. Since she was illiterate, she probably could not pursue the matter properly and each time there was a great delay, the system required many more proofs to establish her claim. By the time she barely managed to submit the required papers, it took years and office inefficiencies would not take decisions for some years! The lady appeared before me with her son who was an unskilled laborer, and both of them could not describe the exact sequence of events. The PIO however assured me that all the papers had been put in order and she would get her pension and all the dues soon. It will always haunt me for my life,- that despite running a reasonably efficient setup,- after her 17 year struggle, I was instrumental in delaying succor to her by a full year. 

          This set me thinking and I realized that there could be many such mistakes, which could result in untold suffering to Citizens who approach judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. In most cases there is no list which citizens can access which will tell them, whether their cases are in queue, and whether any logic is being applied in taking up the matters waiting in this queue. I feel upset when I see anyone jumping a queue at the airport, and in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, the citizen cannot even see the queue. It is necessary that there is transparency in this matter, and citizens can see the queue and also feel assured that it is being dealt with in a transparent non-arbitrary manner. All judicial and quasi-judicial bodies should first ensure that this queue is very short and also give visibility to citizens in the way they take up the cases. 

         I took up the matter of listing pending cases in the Central Information Commission with the Chief Information Commissioner, who readily agreed. The ‘List of pending cases’ has been displayed on the website of the CIC at www.cic.gov.in and will be updated every month. In the Central Information Commission which is just six years old, this will lead to an opportunity for us to correct mistakes and also reassure citizens that there is fairness in taking up their cases. In most Commissions and judicial bodies, Citizens suspect arbitrariness and corruption in the listing of cases. The simple act of listing all pending cases publicly, will go a long way in restoring Citizens confidence in these Institutions, and also act as self- regulating check.

Shailesh Gandhi

Central Information Commissioner

The views expressed by me are my personal views and may  not represent the views of the Commission.

15 January 2012.

Email: shaileshgan@gmail.com

Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

India Against Corruption: Janlokpal & CBI CVC

Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

Who will bell the cat? Jan Lok Pal Bill to Stop Corruption

 
Last week’s campaign by Anna Hazare and colleagues raised very important questions about accountability, state, civil society, political means and ends. Critics of the campaign to get the Jan Lok Pal Bill adopted by the Government of India have found fault primarily with the means used by Anna Hazare and by the content of the draft legislation upon which the campaigners were insisting. (1) There has already been extensive commentary on these so this essay will focus on the question of accountability.

Accountability is one of the oldest questions in the study of politics. As social contractualists would tell it, the tale goes that the state was forged by the common need felt by individuals for common laws enforced by a mutually agreed authority. But if we just look at the way the three most prominent thinkers from this school described this authority (ie the state), we can see that the accountability question is rooted in the very nature of the state. Hobbes saw a state that was absolutely powerful, embracing and controlling every aspect of life; the citizen had virtually no rights—except life--vis-à-vis the state. Locke’s state was a carefully drawn up contract in which the state had a regulatory role but could not infringe on life, liberty and property rights. For Rousseau, the expression of society’s “General Will” was sovereign—the most abstract, perhaps most expansive of the three. The three thinkers’ descriptions serve as a quick doodle that highlights the push-pull tension intrinsic to the state-society equation. 

The most commonly told Indian story about the origin of the state bears some resemblance to this. The decline of society necessitates the appointment by a king, who is a manifestation of Vishnu, but at the same time, the king’s powers are not absolute as the story of Vena, arbitrary and corrupt ruler, shows. He was dethroned and beheaded by sages, while the earth, unable to bear his abuse, went into hiding. Kautilya’s Arthasastra gives individuals the right to resist a bad king. And much discussion in the two epics centres on the qualities and practices of good kings. In other words, there is nothing new or exotic about the question of accountability.

State, society, civil society, people
States, through their agents and agencies, perform (or should perform) certain useful functions. Defence, law and order and creating some common rules and instruments for a given population are the core but depending on the history and context of the state, other functions such as development might also be added to this list. There is a point in the performance of each of these functions where the state’s activity and interaction may hurt citizens and communities within. Language policy and redistribution of resources are two examples. 

The relationship between state and society is a symbiotic one. States are born out of society, in a way, and draw their values, agents and histories from society. But they are not co-terminous with society. A single state may be home to many ‘societies’ as people define themselves in multiple ways, intersecting or overlapping, collectively (Bengalis, Sikhs, Dalits, English-speakers) ; and a single society may transcend the borders of a state (Shaivites). 

The extent to which states are embedded in or autonomous of the societies that constitute them is a subject political scientists take an interest in. One of the markers of political modernisation was that the state would be more and more autonomous of society, a function of both the growing power of the state as of changes in society. Such a state was considered better placed to direct social and economic change. In Indian political thought, one of the big questions is the king-priest relationship, but both operate within the common framework of the values of society in a given place and time. The modern Indian state is relatively autonomous of society, given its origin in a constitutional framework. The potential for antagonism between state and society is likely greater when the state enjoys greater autonomy and has an agenda of social change. 

So much for state, society and individuals, but what is civil society? Everyone seems to understand what ‘civil society’ is but it is very hard to arrive at a common definition. The most pedestrian definition might be that the term is a rubric for all collective activities in society other than those organised by the state or part of the economy (market and otherwise). This immediately raises questions about religious organisations, caste panchayats, trade unions and so on: are they civil society? The answer to that question is as varied as the actors that count themselves in and are counted in civil society. The more important question may be: What is the role of civil society in balancing the equation between society and state? This is, after all, one of the questions that the recent campaign has raised by seeking a role for eminent persons from civil society in drafting and enforcing laws that create accountability. 

Meeting the ‘accountability’ challenge
The essence of the accountability challenge is to make sure the state and its agents deliver on all their mandates without infringement of citizen’s rights. Moreover, it is to facilitate communication between state and society so that the actions and policies of the state reflect the changing needs and demands of society. Accountability is seen as a check on the state’s exercise of its powers. But as this is not a new political problem, it is useful to look at some of the instruments devised over centuries to resolve it.

‘Separation of powers’ and ‘checks and balances’
A beginner in a politics class learns these terms as ways to check the absolute power of rulers. Montesquieu first wrote about separation of the power of the state, advocating that the executive, legislative and judicial powers of a state be reposed in different offices to prevent their concentration in the hands of one. Montesquieu wrote during the reign of Louis XV, when France’s absolute monarchy was still at the zenith of its power and when the excesses of that power were becoming evident. His ideas became very influential outside France, and the new American enshrined his ideas as the system of ‘checks and balances’.

While today, the American President is often described as the “most powerful man on earth”, in reality the genius of the system is that no branch of government is completely autonomous of the other. This was a response to both the autocratic absolute monarchies prevalent in Europe at the time (and heading for revolutionary collapse) and the newly evolving Westminster system in England where the lines between the executive, legislature and judiciary were blurred. When the Indian Constitution was written, while the Westminster model was largely retained, there were two important departures that the Constituent Assembly adopted. The first was to set up a separate Judiciary, with an apex court distinct from Parliament. Over time, the Indian judiciary came to exercise ‘judicial review’—the right to review laws made by the legislature for their constitutional validity—which was an American innovation. The second departure was that India is a federal state, and the second house of Parliament was not made up of knighted and landed peers but members elected by the legislatures of Indian states and union territories. 

A fear that all the powers of a state, all its resources, will be concentrated in the hands of one or a few is an old fear. Most constitutions address that fear in some way and most constitutional debate centres on how power should be distributed and shared—both to benefit the most people and to prevent corruption and abuse. 

When in the 1970s, there was talk about a ‘committed judiciary’ and a ‘committed bureaucracy’, these ideas were met with great resistance. The ability of the judiciary to act independently has been a great bulwark against poor governance, human rights violations and corruption, and has created value for the independence of the Election Commission, Vigilance Commissioners and other statutory bodies. A series of upstanding officials in the top posts has conflated the institution’s independence with integrity. However, the fact remains these are not elected positions and beyond a point, not accountable to the people of India. The concerns that surround the Planning Commission and now, the National Advisory Commission, also apply to these offices—and that of any Lokpal—that policy is being made by appointed rather than elected officials.  

The ombudsman
By now, we’ve all read about how the ombudsman’s office is a Swedish institutional innovation. In 1713, Sweden’s King Charles XII was away from his capital pursuing distant conquests. Unsure of whether his officers were working in accordance with the law, he created the office of the ombudsman to oversee their working. The ombudsman was a representative of the executive. In 1809, Sweden’s new constitution created the office of a parliamentary ombudsman with the power to investigate and prosecute grievances, oversee public servants and identify and advocate good administrative practices. This is the ombudsman model that has been adapted in many parts of the world. 

In India, the suggestion to have an ombudsman-like post was introduced in political discourse by the first Administrative Reforms Commission in 1969. (2) The Lokpal would officiate as a public grievance officer at the central government level and Lok Ayuktas would do the same in the states. Since the 1980s, several states have passed Lok Ayukta legislations and appointed ombudsman officers whose powers vary from state to state. At the central level however, multiple efforts to establish a Lokpal did not bear fruit. Appropriate legislation was introduced 10 times between 1969 and 2011, with no success. 

Apart from the cynical explanation that self-serving legislators would hardly have prepared their own nemesis, what are some of the reasons these drafts did not pass? There are unresolved issues surrounding the structure, jurisdiction and powers of the Lokpal. First of all, should the office of the Lokpal mean a single individual or a multi-member panel? This is more easily resolved than the suggestion that the office of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Central Bureau of Investigation should be merged into the Lokpal to create an anti-corruption body. The relationship between the Lokpal and the courts and parliament also remain to be defined. In other words, four decades on, we have not been able to decide what this office should look like. This is partly a function of the challenge of determining jurisdiction. 

One important hurdle is to decide which government offices should fall under the purview of the Lokpal—all public servants, political functionaries, parliamentarians, ministers, prime minister—there has been no consensus on any of this. Moreover, in a hierarchy-conscious society and secrecy-conscious state, it is suggested that inquiries against some functionaries should require prior sanction. Should the Lokpal merely look to corruption charges and complaints about non-delivery of services or should the Lokpal also hear commercial and contractual matters? An anti-corruption office might receive allegations that a particular official acted in their self-interest (by asking for a bribe, allocating resources a certain way) or a complaint that a citizen was inconvenienced or hurt as a result of poor administrative responses. The question of jurisdiction also extends to defining which of these (or both) a Lokpal should hear.
The question of power is as contentious as the question of jurisdiction. The Lokpal could be set up as an advisory office, which receives grievances and advises the government to act on them. It could also have the power to investigate and prosecute. If investigative and vigilance agencies were merged with the Lokpal, it would presumably be a far more powerful body. In that case, the question also arises as to whether the Lokpal should be limited to acting on written complaints or whether the office may initiate its own actions independently. 

These are not small matters and they are not contentious merely because they open up turf-battles between ministries. There is also the broader question of checks and balances in government and fitting a new, independent statutory body into that framework. 

Civil rights
Rights are the ‘thus far and no further’ line between state and citizens. While there are other mechanisms that create a relationship where state agents are responsible and accountable to citizens (representative institutions and voting, for instance), rights define the relationship between state and society, state and individuals. The constitutions of most states now include a Bill of Rights, and states are charged with protecting their citizens from the violation of those rights by other citizens. Individuals and communities also enjoy rights vis-à-vis the state—political rights, civil rights, cultural rights and increasingly, economic rights. 

The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights (to life, to equality, against exploitation, to freedom, cultural and educational rights) and also the right to constitutional remedies.(3) These constitutional remedies include the writ jurisdiction of the high courts and Supreme Court which can be invoked to ensure that the state protects the fundamental rights of an Indian citizen. There are five such writs: Habeas corpus (which is used to challenge unlawful detention); mandamus (whereby a public official can be instructed to carry out official duties and protect rights); quo warranto (which questions a public official’s authority to decide or act in a certain way); prohibition (which results in a higher court issuing a ‘stay order’ to stop implemention of a decision under challenge); and certiorari (which allows a higher court to transfer a case or a particular process to a better-suited office if need be). Four of the five writs relate as much to the question of accountability as they do to violation of individuals’ rights. 

Civil society has used both the language and the instrument of rights to create more participatory processes in development and social change arenas. It has also highlighted the close relationship between accountability, rights and welfare. The Right to Information, enacted as law in 2005, is a result of grassroots movements making and articulating this connection, rather than city-based think-tanks holding seminars about it. From the villages of Rajasthan and the villagers’ outraged insistence on knowing what was happening to public resources, came the national campaign for the Right to Information. Transparency and insisting on transparency are vital instruments for enforcing accountability. Since the passage of the RTI Act, RTI petitions—which are very easy to file—have been used across policy sectors and levels of governance. Vinta Kamte used an RTI petition to access the phone and mobile records of key actors on the night of 26/11/2008, when her husband was killed in the terrorist attack in Mumbai.

The media
Press freedom is one of the pillars of democracy, and in India, for more than four decades, investigative journalism has left tabloid columns behind to become a marker of serious purpose in the mainstream. The Indian media work in an atmosphere of relative freedom compared to many other settings, and their work exposing corruption or violence has often been important, but their credibility has also been dented in recent years.

Most recently, the Radia tapes showed how closely knit India’s elite is—their phone calls, their references to each other, their sharing of inside information, their confidence in their influence. The disclosures adversely affected many reputations but journalists were possibly worst-affected. Even before the Radia tapes though, the Press Council of India’s report on ‘paid news’ described different ways in which journalism was compromised by the close association of editors, owners and business. The practice consists in the purchase through roundabout or indirect means of column space on the news and editorial pages of newspapers. This practice tricks the reader into believing that what is really an advertisement is factual newsreporting, and it also constitutes financial malpractice by both the purchaser and the media company. Election candidates and business houses are both known to engage in this practice. The real damage is to the ability of the news media to be independent and vigilant observers who bear witness. The now-common practice of investigative and ‘sting’ reporting is now also an instrument for the same vested interests. 

On the other hand, the media have found a new, hitherto unlikely ally, in ‘ordinary’ citizens, who armed with mobile phones and social networks, are extending the reach of the press in three different ways. They are reporting from where they are with text and video events that unfold around them as well as exposes of inefficiency and malfeasance. They are offering opinion on blogs and through text messages, extending the community of the disappearing op-ed page far beyond its historical reach. They are voting in spot polls, allowing media agencies to take dipstick readings of public opinion. The combination of media advocacy and citizen activist-journalism has resulted in instant mobilisation, especially around urban events and interests. The protests that followed the 26/11 attacks and the current support for the Jan Lok Pal Bill are both examples of how powerful this combination has become.

When you overlay the evidence of corruption and cronyism in mainstream media organisations and the power of this combination, the result must raise red flags for any thoughtful observer of politics and society. Used wisely and cautiously, this is a democracy’s biggest asset. Thoughtless and emotional responses however, can create pressure for outcomes that are sub-optimal in the long run. 

The power of protest
Morchas. Rallies. Candlelight vigils. Silent marches. Padayatras. Sit-ins. Dharnas. Relay hunger strikes. Hunger strikes. Fasts unto death. Gheraos. Walk-outs. Go-slows. Work-to-rule. Strike. Flash strike. General strike. Bandh. All-India bandh. The vocabulary of non-violent protest is especially rich and innovative in India. The crown jewel of this treasury is surely, satyagraha—non-violent resistence or soul-force are common translations.(4)

The idea of satyagraha draws more from ideas in spiritual traditions that connect inner transformation to social transformation, than from theories of resistance and revolution. The character of the satyagrahi is thus central to satyagraha; readiness for satyagraha is an objective in itself. Some of the qualities that Gandhi sought in satyagrahis were honesty, self-discipline, faith in democracy, belief in the law so that disobedience is really a conscious departure, patience and forbearance, courage, especially the courage to trust the adversary, and self-effacement. Satyagraha was never to be coercive, but to seek a transformation in the other’s attitude. There was no place for anger (nor outrage?) in satyagraha. Satyagraha was also to be undertaken by those directly affected by a situation, not another on their behalf. For any satyagrahi, the inner quest for truth and the outer struggle for it were of a piece. 

Gandhi is sure of the power of this approach to political action, as now are most Indians. Of the different ways to undertake satyagraha, fasting—which directs the action at the self—is the most powerful. Gandhi wrote in Young India, in 1927: “Since satyagraha is one of the most powerful methods of direct action, a satyagrahi exhausts all other means before he resorts to satyagraha. He will, therefore, constantly and continually approach the constituted authority, he will appeal to public opinion, educate public opinion, state his case calmly and coolly before everybody who wants to listen to him, and only after he has exhausted all these avenues will he resort to satyagraha. But when he has found the impelling call of the inner voice within him and launches out upon satyagraha, he has burnt his boats and there is no receding.”

In other words, street action—satyagraha or otherwise—must follow the unsuccessful use of all other methods. 


But who will bell the cat?
The task of enforcing accountability rests ultimately with citizens. The terms and conditions of citizenship in a democracy include an implicit undertaking by citizens to remain informed—of rights, of laws, of policies and of current affairs—and exercise their rights, including the right to vote. In India, as in other democracies, they also have the right to file for constitutional remedies through a variety of writ petitions. 

Civil society brings to this the advantage of acting collectively, as it reflects the diversity of interest and temperament of the citizenry at large. Drawn from this same body of citizens, neither civil society nor government can claim a monopoly on virtue and integrity. Acting collectively in civil society organisations empowers citizens, but the collective energy of the group also reinforces special interests and entrenches positions. This is one reason that no group in civil society or no coalition of groups can claim legitimately to represent all citizens the way elected representatives of a legislature can, even with all the limitations of representative electoral democracy. 

There are three very important functions that civil society can perform better than the individual citizen. First, it is easier for a group to marshal the technical, material and financial resources for certain courses of action, whether it is an RTI or writ petition. Second, an organisation is better placed to undertake a sustained and systematic programme of research and public information on specific issues than most individuals. This includes gathering the learnings of grassroots organisations and the documentation of social movements, informing in turn research that is oriented towards policymaking. Finally, civil society organisations are sometimes in a position to create and facilitate interactions between government and different groups of citizens on particular issues. All are essentially long-haul functions. Insofar as civil society organisations show the patience to undertake these functions, one measure of the responsiveness of a democratic government is their openness to inputs and initiatives from civil society. 


(1) Some examples: Economic and Political Weekly, What ‘Movement’ is this anyway? April 16, 2011, http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/15939.pdf; Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Of the few, by the few, Indian Express, April 7, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/new; Pratap Bhanu Mehta, What’s in a solution? Indian Express, April 14, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/; Prashant Bhushan, Jan Lok Pal Bill: Addressing concerns, The Hindu, April 15, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1696970.ece; Manoj Mitta, Lok Pal Bill: United in opposition, civil society a divided lot, Times of India, April 7, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/; Shuddhabrata Sengupta, At the risk of heresy: Why I am not celebrating with Anna Hazare, Kafila.org, April 9, 2011, http://kafila.org/2011/04/09/; Harini Calamur, My issues with the Proposed Jan Lok Pal Bill, April 6, 2011, http://calamur.org/gargi/2011/04/06/; The Acorn, Against Jan Lok Pal and the Politics of Hunger Strikes, National Interest, April 8, 2011, http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2011/04/08/against-jan-lok-pal-and-the-politics-of-hunger-strikes/.
(2) The best resource on the Lok Pal Bill is the webpage maintained by PRS India: All about the Lok Pal Bill, http://www.prsindia.org/index.php
(3) The Constitution of India is available online at http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm.
(4) Resources for the section on satyagraha are drawn from the websites run by the Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal and Gandhi Book Centre (http://www.mkgandhi) and Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Smriti (http://gandhismriti.nic.in).
(Swarna Rajagopalan is a Chennai-based political scientist. She is the founder of Prajnya Initiatives for Peace, Justice and Security, a Chennai-based non-profit.) 

Source: http://infochangeindia.org/governance/backgrounder/who-will-bell-the-cat.html

 

Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

Her victory marks a milestone in the domestic workers’ struggle in India

Papamma, a Elderly domestic worker in Bangalore, took her employers to court and managed to receive a favourable judgment. This is a historic victory for perhaps the most vulnerable segment of unorganised workers, made possible by the support of a trade union, a dedicated team of advocates and a labour officer who adjudicated objectively.

With the upcoming International Labour Conference later this year, there is a buzz about a new legal international instrument providing ‘decent working conditions’ to domestic workers globally. However, as of now, laws benefiting unorganised workers in India, including domestic workers, are few, and the sad reality is that even these most often remain on paper. 

It is heartening therefore when the law is actually applied, giving these workers their due. This happened recently to Papamma, a domestic worker in Bangalore who was paid a pittance during her long years of service -- 1978 to 2007. Worse, she was discharged abruptly with no provision for retirement. In her words: “I came with empty hands and I left (after 31 years of working) with empty hands.”

A trajectory of her employment shows Papamma received a wage of Rs 60 for 22 years, for eight hours of work a day spanning the entire gamut of household chores from washing clothes to cooking and shopping for vegetables. In 2003, her wages were raised to Rs 500. (Incidentally, the minimum wage for domestic workers was notified for the first time in 2004 -- Rs 2,279 for an eight-hour day.)  In 2007, before she was unceremoniously dismissed during the last six months of her employment, and following repeated demands, Papamma’s wages were grudgingly raised to Rs 1,500. Even this fell short of the legal minimum wage for that year (2008).  

Papamma’s case illustrates the predicament of the domestic worker. Verbal agreements govern working conditions; there is no formal record of employment, only oral undertakings given by the employer that are often retracted later; demands for better wages are met with promises of future settlement which never materialises. 

In her employers we see a not-uncommon feudal attitude which manifests in the belief that the domestic worker does not require a weekly day off or extra payment should her workload increase because of guests. And the notion that the occasional help extended when she falls sick, or providing her children school uniforms justifies non-payment of a higher (adequate) wage. 

In Papamma’s case we also see loyalty towards her employers that ultimately soured when they refused her employment after a bout of illness. 

These were the circumstances that led Papamma to seek legal recourse. 

The favourable conclusion of Papamma’s case is a rare example of a domestic worker getting justice from the courts. An instance, perhaps, of institutions coming together to work the way they are meant to -- the trade union that provided Papamma a forum, a dedicated team of advocates (from the Alternative Law Forum), and a labour officer who adjudicated objectively.

According to one of the litigators for Papamma, Maitreyi Krishnan, a major reason for the case’s success was Papamma’s persistence; in her experience, due to the vulnerabilities of their situation, many domestic workers don’t see their battle through. Papamma went to the court or to the lawyer’s office whenever required in the course of the litigation which carried on for one-and-a-half years. Secondly, and perhaps equally important, was the support of the Karnataka Domestic Workers Union. 

The union was registered in 2003 by Sr Celia who had been working with domestic workers for a number of years. During that time she became convinced that true empowerment of domestic workers would only come about through their unionisation. She believes that any organisation, no matter how well-meaning, will only ‘work for’ and ‘speak on behalf of’ the workers. In the case of a non-worker-headed organisation, the workers become the beneficiaries and are therefore dependent on what is provided to them. There is a difference when those who are actually the ones suffering speak about their own situation, Sr Celia says. As a union, they can represent their own case. 

A worker asking for her own rights is different from a human rights activist asking for her rights. There is a sense of empowerment and dignity that does not come through social service, however well intended.

In Papamma’s case, there was a body she could take her grievances to and avail of the support of union members. Initially, this took the form of going with her to the employer’s house. There the employer did not even speak with them, instead he complained to the police about the visit. Papamma, in turn, filed a complaint at the local police station about her wage grievances. They took no action. She then went to the police station, accompanied by some union activists. When the police sub-inspector did not grant them an audience they sat outside the station until he gave in. The police then called the employer to the station where the sub-inspector suggested he pay Papamma a minimal amount of money so that she would not create any further trouble for them. Papamma turned down the employer’s offer as it was far less than what she had been promised. The police told her not to confront the employer and that the appropriate forum for her was the courts. Members of the union went with Papamma to court to attend the hearings.

Krishnan believes it also helped to have a good labour officer hearing the case. In the order that followed a well-researched case, not only were back wages granted but hefty compensation equalling the amount of back wages as well as overtime for all the Sundays Papamma had worked. Stating his reasons, the judge observed in his ruling that the employer was an educated senior citizen and that his lack of awareness about the law showed he had failed in his duty. 

Papamma herself does not appreciate the verdict much. She points to her home: an unlit small two-room house in a Lingarajpuram slum. An asbestos sheet forms the roof. The only furniture is an assembled double bed with a thin sheet covering its hard surface, and a plastic chair. Papamma says they wanted to use the money that was promised by her employer to carry out basic structural improvements to the house. The compromise amount she finally got would not serve this purpose. Further, at the age of 65, she would have to continue working.

From a larger perspective, however, the judgment is unprecedented in Karnataka: that someone from the most disadvantaged even within the unorganised sector managed to access the formal legal system and receive a favourable judgment. The fact that Papamma ultimately got a compromise amount, not what the judge ordered, is today’s reality. If she had not gone to court she would not have got even this amount. The judgment is an important step towards recognising that domestic workers too are workers with enforceable rights.

When the minimum wages notification for domestic workers in Karnataka was first passed in 2004 there was a lot of deliberation between the government, labour advocates and civil society about implementing the law. This was because the notification did not provide for implementation mechanisms such as regular inspections and regulations for the maintenance of wage registers by the employer. The labour commissioner of the time suggested that in a scenario of non-payment, if just one claim was filed before the department the successful outcome of the case would have “a multiplier effect”. He suggested that news of the case would spread and serve as a strong deterrent to employers who failed to pay adequate wages. Perhaps Papamma’s case will serve as just such an example.  

By Anuja Mirchandaney a legal researcher and freelance writer with the Alternative Law Forum, Bengaluru. Her primary interest is in research and writing on socio-legal issues.


Source:  http://infochangeindia.org/livelihoods/features/papamma-s-victory-marks-a-milestone-in-the-domestic-workers-struggle.html

Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

SC denies plea for enhanced punishment for Bhopal gas tragedy accused

The Indian Supreme Court, on May 12, 2011, threw out the curative petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking enhanced punishment for top officials of Union Carbide, the multinational at whose Bhopal plant an accident led to a massive leak of poisonous gas that killed over 4,000 people instantly and disabled many thousands more.

The deadly leak occurred on December 4, 1984. Compensation for the victims, negotiated by the Government of India, was paltry by any standards and has been hotly contested for more than 25 years by groups fighting for the victims. In a 1996 judgment, the Supreme Court diluted charges against the accused from Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) to Section 304 (A) (criminal negligence). In 2010, a Bhopal court convicted seven accused who were sentenced to two years in jail. All seven secured bail immediately. The then Union Carbide Chairman Warren Anderson, also accused in the case, was declared a fugitive in 1992.   

The sessions court verdict and sentence was criticised strongly by civil society and the media, and a group of ministers was set up to look more closely into the matter. The GoM recommended stricter punishment for the seven officials. The CBI filed a curative petition against the light punishment and sought direction from the SC for framing of charges against the accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder that carries a maximum imprisonment of 10 years (curative petitions have only been allowed since 2002). 

A five-judge bench including Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia dismissed the CBI’s petition saying it was based on a “wrong and fallacious plea”, and filed after 14 years. It said there was not enough reason to build a case of culpable homicide. “The materials produced do not meet the requirement (for homicide),” Kapadia said.

However, the court said that its 1996 judgment in no way prevented the trial court from framing charges under the stringent provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 

It said the Bhopal sessions court was free to examine the charges against the accused and decide, if the evidence available so warranted, that they could be tried for a more serious offence such as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The SC bench clarified that the 1996 judgment was based on evidence presented before it at that time, and it was wrong to assume that it was binding on the trial court when additional facts and material were forthcoming.

On May 13, a day after the SC judgment, the Indian government said it would ask the CBI to move the sessions court in Bhopal for an early hearing of its revision application and appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government for stricter punishment for the accused. 

Source:  http://infochangeindia.org/environment/news/sc-denies-plea-for-enhanced-punishment-for-bhopal-gas-tragedy-accused.html

Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

Hazare movement & the Delhi drama

The national capital is an excessively pampered city. Mindboggling amounts of money have been poured into it for improving infrastructure. This exercise has undeniably yielded dividends. Supreme among the additions to the average citizen's comfort is the metro built by Sridharan who, incidentally, is a phenomenon of sorts. The swanky new airport Terminal 3 is also something to crow about. Thanks to a judicial fiat a few years ago and the mandatory use of CNG for public transport buses, the quality of air has also improved. There is a constant attempt to beautify the city that has made Delhi really attractive. On the whole, it has become a more agreeable city than many others in the country to live in and raise a family.

It is an irony and tragedy, therefore, that Delhi is now polluted by the machinations of a small number in the polity who are hell-bent bent on destroying our faith in civilised living. This group of influential people with a somewhat shady past is scared of the critical mass that social activist Anna Hazare has picked up during the past few weeks. It would somehow like to derail his movement to promote ethics in public life.

Dismaying are the events of the past few days surrounding the circulation of a mysterious CD that contains scurrilous material against a few who are associated with Mr. Hazare. There are conflicting views on the genuineness of the CD. I wouldn't like to pronounce my views on this contentious matter. Let us wait for the opinion of a credible and reputed expert. The unfortunate feeling that has been generated is that there is possibly now an orchestrated endeavour to damn everybody who desires to inject some ethics into public life.

The vital questions that legitimately arise are: Has the battle between good and bad been again lost? Can we remain silent at the insidious adventures of some unscrupulous elements who are trying to scare away public-spirited men and women? These are the issues that are uppermost in the minds of a large number of people, who recently started looking upon Anna as a messiah, much to the discomfort of some inside the establishment and many outside.

I am no friends of the controversial personalities now being assailed for the alleged slander of a judge. I barely know them. I am, however, appalled by rumours that they are being targeted because of their closeness to Anna Hazare. Another rumour doing the rounds is that this is a masked operation aimed at persuading a senior judge to recuse himself from hearing a sensitive case. Both conjectures, irrespective of whether they have a basis or not, speak volumes of the quality of public life in the country.

No institution and no public official now seem exempt from calumny at the hands of those who themselves are unabashed violators of law. In such a miasmic atmosphere, the trend of good people shunning public office is likely to become stronger by the day. This development can be reversed only with the help of persons with a strong will and fire in the belly. It is nearly certain that it is not enough to be clean. It seems equally important to have the guts to hit back at detractors with a dubious agenda. Nothing else is likely to work in defusing persons with a questionable agenda, whose main strength is the sly support received from those who are close to power centres.

A somewhat specious argument, put forth by a few vested interests, runs along these lines. How can Anna Hazare and company stifle discussion on the format and future of the anti-corruption campaign? This is with a view to damning them as anti-democratic and fascist. Nothing can be farther from truth. The impression sought to be circulated is that the crusade against lack of integrity in high places is a brand new development and that a lot of time and opportunity need to be given to lawmakers to ponder over the subject and come to deliberate and calculated conclusions on how corruption should be fought through a foolproof law. This stand borders on the ridiculous considering that the proposed law has been debated for more than four decades.

If Mr. Hazare sounds impatient, and possibly irascible, it is because he is convinced he has waited long enough to see his lifetime objective fulfilled. It is not the ranting of a selfish old man who aims at self-glorification and is itching to embarrass the establishment. What his critics are trying to propagate, with unmistakable dishonest intentions, is that he is being exploited by vainglorious egotistic individuals who have jumped on the Hazare bandwagon just to settle scores with their adversaries.

I feel it is dangerous to ignore this ill-advised and vengeful group as inconsequential. We know that untruth repeated ad nauseam comes to be looked upon as the gospel. It is my experience that in modern India it is not enough for you to have a decades-long track record of honesty and goodness. In the past, an unsullied reputation for integrity and desire to help the common man stood by you when brickbats were thrown at you. The present situation is so ugly that every time somebody challenges your honesty of purpose and unwillingness to bend to those in power, you will have to prove that you have nothing to hide from society. There cannot be a worse time in Indian history for good people in public life. This is why I am worried about the future of the Hazare movement. If good people in massive numbers do not now come out boldly to express their solidarity with him, he will become just a footprint in the sands of time.

Mr. Hazare has announced that he will abide by the wishes of Parliament when it comes to passing a Lokpal law. He is being clever and correct so that he can carry all MPs with him. I, however, perceive a slight contradiction here. Mr. Hazare knows that across the political spectrum there is absolutely no will to install an omnipotent Lokpal who will fear no one. This absence of consensus on the subject among people who matter when it comes to law-making is the bane of the system. To expect Parliament to agree upon a strong ombudsman is a pipe dream. Hence, when Mr. Hazare says he will go by the wishes of our legislators, he is being unrealistic.

But then, does he have options? This is a real catch-22 situation. He has to carry Parliament with him. At the same time, he knows he will have no staunch backers on that forum for an effective Lokpal. Does this mean he should desist from asking for the moon and settle for mother earth? Not at all. Whatever he chooses to do, it is for the common man to continue to exert pressure on the polity for framing the most practical yet deterrent law. The media's role in maintaining public focus is crucial. Nothing else will help.

BY Dr. R.K. Raghavan is a former CBI Director

Source:  http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/22/stories/2011042254711000.htm

Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

Navigators Of Change : As government, corporates seek to engage with NGOs, they gain new significance

Brave NGO World?

• The Planning Commission is courting NGOs for policy inputs, views on how to make plans work
• NGOs and local activism forced govt to stall Vedanta, Posco plans
• NGO opposition to snacks being served in schools changed plans to scrap hot meals
• NGO have made the government rethink the Polavaram dam project
• Their criticism of the leakage of NREGA funds led to the creation of monitoring mechanisms
• NGOs have worked to enshrine education as a fundamental right
• Matters related to environment clearance—like GM foods, mining —now go through public debate, thanks to NGOs.
• NGOs played a crucial role in strengthening the nuclear liability bill, securing rights for gays

The jholawala is the latest lobbyist in town. He or she has top policymakers on speed-dial, is now feted by the media and sought out by companies eager to promote ‘India Inclusive’. It’s a remarkable, even heady, transformation. For long derided as irrelevant trouble-making activists largely focused on rural India, NGOs (registered arms of what is loosely called civil society) are basking in the warm embrace of recognition and relevance.

As recent events have shown, NGOs have played important roles in the big debates of the day. With a little help from fellow travellers—and occasionally backed by political support—they have been able to swing policy decisions in the citizen’s interest, be it stalling plans for Bt brinjal cultivation, or questioning the Polavaram dam project or bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri hills. The outcome has often hit the grand plans of corporate giants like Posco, Vedanta and Tatas. More lasting perhaps will be the civil society’s contribution in ushering in a range of rights regimes—information, education or livelihood, and soon, the right to food.

Given the apparently in-built adversarial relationship between NGOs, governments and companies, it’s a controversial thesis to put out. For every voice that celebrates the new power behind NGOs, an equal number urges caution and stresses that the ground realities haven’t changed. Is it right then to see NGOs as a necessary, important power centre? Are they really becoming indispensable in matters of governance, delivery of services or voicing the needs of the marginalised? Or is it just a politically correct trend that covers a few, high-profile outfits, leaving the vast majority just where it always was?

Experts differ in their assessment of the role and relevance of ngos. “Over the last decade things have changed. We are being sought for policy inputs. The demand is also coming from below—the community, the beneficiaries, the vulnerable sections—who know their needs,” says Farida Lambay of Pratham, an important NGO in the education space. With a growing grip on best practices, Lambay feels civil society is filling the space a pole that can represent the people’s concerns and aspirations.

Policy wonk N.C. Saxena, a member of the National Advisory Council, paints a different picture. While giving credit to community health workers for making a big difference to health services without high-cost intervention, the development expert feels not all NGOs have a good knowledge of the grassroots. “In fact, a large number of them may have good intentions, but they look upon development as a zero-sum game (if the rich are losing out, the poor will gain),” he says.

Despite such concerns, the Planning Commission, backed by the prime minister, is envisaging a bigger role for NGOs in chalking out its strategy for inclusive development. For the first time, the panel is seeking inputs from leading civil society groups ahead of drafting the Twelfth Plan (2012-17) approach paper. In meetings with 15 groups, including women, the disabled, the urban poor, Dalits, tribals etc, panel members got each to arrive at a consensus on their specific requirements and innovative solutions for better utilisation of funds.

“There is a procedural change: take inputs before drawing the roadmap, instead of making the building and then asking whether you like it or not,” states Amitabh Behar of Wada Na Todo Abhiyan, a coalition of scores of NGOs. Having been part of expert panels in the past, Behar has raised the bar of hope this time. “If we are able to influence the core philosophy of the approach paper, which is the guiding document for the Plan, it would be a step forward.”

Explaining the philosophy behind creating the new platform for NGOs, Planning Commission member Arun Maira stresses that many of them are implementing good innovative solutions in areas like water harvesting, literacy, skill development and panchayat-level governance without much money. The new approach is to help planners draw upon their views and “represent concerns of the citizens in a way that would be better understood by the policymakers.”

Of course, this isn’t the first time government has reached out to civil society. During the Janata Party rule in 1977, a group was set up in the Planning Commission to explore how best to use NGOs’ services. Since 1986, government funding has been provided to 12,000-plus voluntary organisations out of about 4 million registered bodies to help implement various development work, including training and advocacy programmes. Not everybody is in tune with this “privatisation” of social development work, as CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat puts it .

Economist Jean Dreze, for one, remains sceptical, given that NGOs are generally accountable to funders, particularly overseas ones, and not the people for whom they are working. Given their reliance on foreign, government and corporate funding, it is not unusual to see NGOs often display political, and in some cases, corporate leanings. The corporate influence seems to be growing, with many companies using NGOs to implement their corporate social responsibility activities, often a tool to win over local resistance to any industrial activity or land acquisition.

Though NGOs have the potential to be change agents, “it is rarely their strong point”, states Dreze, a strong believer in the power of collective action and “free” association. Dreze, who is linked to development issues like the Right to Food campaign, says that characterising civil society groupings as “the new power centres” is to give them far too much weight. Prof Neema Kudva of Cornell University, who has researched the “uneasy relationship” between NGOs and the state since independence, agrees: “If we are to change development strategy, it can’t happen through NGOs. They can’t be the primary change agents. The change has to come from the ground, from strong social movements and transforming politics.”

On the issue of relevance, however, many experts feel that despite the system exposing various rogue elements, by and large, they are able to voice the concerns of the marginalised—or else they would have no takers. But as Mohammed Haleem Khan, director general of CAPART (set up primarily to develop alternative models of development), states, “The government is yet to develop a good toolkit to assess the effectiveness and the role of NGOs.” A task force headed by Khan has recommended accreditation of NGOs to help weed out the rogue players.

As governments seeks to engage more closely with NGOs—beyond empowering panchayat bodies, monitoring NREGA or designing water harvesting schemes and sanitation models—more complexities can be expected. Take Delhi’s Mission Convergence. Akhila Sivadas of CFAR, which works with the Delhi government to maintain a Vulnerability Index through a live census of the poor and vulnerable, admits, “NGOs can no longer play an adversarial role as they are part of governance. We have to ensure a proper percentage of funds reach target groups.”

In a model copied from Brazil, NGOs are envisaged as pressure groups meant to ensure greater transparency and improved service delivery while maintaining control on the delivery cost, which together with corruption eats up over 80 per cent of development funds. Likening their role to “canaries in the coal mine”, which alert miners of approaching danger, Maira emphasises that in the last few years, some prominent NGOs, with their global exposure, have emerged as communicators, with their ability to represent issues in the language understood by policymakers.

Leading NGOs concede they can’t work alone if they want to scale up operations. The option then is to plan the government way, work the NGO way. Alternatively, many NGOs are opting for stakeholders outside government in health, education and such areas. Pratham, for instance, does not take government funding but works with states like Bihar, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Himachal, Maharashtra and Punjab in policymaking and implementation of primary education programmes. It is the critical appraisal of government policies and programmes by the likes of Pratham and Wada Na Todo that has made the government take notice and strive to rope in their services.

Despite the pressure brought to bear on the government by civil society, Ramesh Ramanathan of Bangalore-based Janagraha admits, “Not even 10 per cent of our suggestions get accepted. But there is a direction of change as the government willingness is increasing.” This in part is due to success stories like Kerala’s literacy campaign or Karnataka’s outreach programmes in 22,000 schools with civil society help. As Anurag Behar, CEO of Azim Premji Foundation, puts it, “The government is an eager partner in improving the quality of education.” Reports from many states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab reveal a willingness of the government to engage with NGOs more effectively.

For instance, Bangalore-based ESG’s initiatives around displacement and town planning have led to a rethink on many city development projects. Similarly, Akshaya Patra Foundation in Bangalore has won over policymakers with its model for cost-effective and hygienic mid-day meals. West Bengal’s Masum is just seeing its efforts to get specialists to conduct autopsies on police torture victims yield results. Madhya Pradesh’s success in adult literacy, better rehab packages for Narmada dam oustees and improved IT infrastructure in villages are but few examples of NGO persistence.

It’s clear that many NGOs are helping government design schemes better. That by itself is a significant step. “NGOs have a responsibility to ensure that both government and corporates act with fairness, accountability, transparency,” says N.R. Narayana Murthy, chief mentor at Infosys. That smooth statement notwithstanding, NGOs remain wary—not necessarily of top political and bureaucratic pressures, but the last-mile link at delivery point. That is where all good intentions and partnerships perish.

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?270227

Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

Too Much Goodwill : With no dearth of causes, there’s no dearth of NGOs either.

NGOs To No Go’s

• NGOs have mushroomed; so have instances of misappropriation of funds
• Not disclosing expenditure and receipts; nor revealing who funds them
• Not setting up NGO for the task it was funded for
• Flocking to 'hot' topics, inviting accusations of singing to industrialists’ tunes
• For every NGO supporting a cause, another springs up against that cause

NGO numbers

• 3.3 million Number of NGOs in India
• 2.5% Contribution to GDP
• Rs 18,000 crore Annual revenue (2000)
• 50% NGOs with revenue under Rs 15 lakh a year

The more the voices that speak up, the more the chances of them being heard. Except, in India’s NGO space, there’s increasing cacophony. For every NGO working against child labour, there is another clamouring to let children work, calling it an economic ‘necessity’. For every NGO against Vedanta mining in Niyamgiri, there’s a Ramjibhai Mawani willing to file PILs on behalf of a business group (Reliance Industries, as the Radia tapes reveal). Even hard-won rights, like the law against domestic violence, have resulted in ‘counter-NGOs’. Like the one fighting for men’s rights: the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF).

It’s NG VS NGO, and the unintended result is a spurt in NGOs, voluntary organisations and other non-profit institutions. From the early 1990s, coinciding with liberalisation, there has been a threefold jump in voluntary organisations. Many of them have congregated around “hot” issues. Take Bhopal, which has 165 of Madhya Pradesh’s 650-odd NGOs. Moreover, though all registered NGOs function under a handful of regulations that extend tax exemptions and other benefits, their causes are often at loggerheads.

“It is here that the problems began,” notes Mohd Haleem Khan, who heads CAPART, an autonomous body under the Union ministry of rural development, which funds NGOs and tracks their progress. For over a year, Khan’s organisation hasn’t funded new projects, and won’t, until new norms for the voluntary sector are finalised. The issue clearly is a blind desire for funding, says Dunu Roy, who runs the Hazards Centre in Delhi, which focuses on environment and media concerns. “What NGOs don’t do enough of is impart skills to analyse problems, select solutions and implement them,” he says.

Plagued by issues ranging from lack of transparency within CAPART and fly-by-night NGOs making off with its grants—883 were blacklisted last December—the watchdog is searching for the right balance between hands-off monitoring and absolute accountability. “We want Indian NGOs to follow some international norms of accounting,” says Khan. An online registration process, involving NGOs, the Planning Commission and the rural development ministry, is being developed.

One reason why CAPART froze funding is the mushrooming of NGOs. Non-profit body Karmayog listed over 1,300 NGOs in Mumbai alone, another 4,300 in Tamil Nadu (of which 1,100 are in Chennai, and 227 in Dindigul—a district of roughly 3 lakh people—a density of one NGO per 1,321 persons). The farther from Delhi or state capitals you get, the more NGOs you seem to find. Writer-activist Patricia Mary Mukhim says that after attending scores of NGO-sponsored events in the Northeast, she found little accountability. “If I am asked to evaluate my own work, how objective can I be?” she says.

Mukhim says she found the NGOs exaggerating the need for intervention. “One NGO said that 70,000 child labourers were employed in a coal mining district of Meghalaya’s Jaintia hills. Not even one-hundredth of this ‘70,000’ were actually surveyed. The same NGO said 40,000 girls were shipped to the Commonwealth Games as sex workers. This too was pure assumption and extrapolation,” she says, without naming the NGO.

For the government, NGOs are a tool to achieve what it can’t do, such as provide free or subsidised healthcare all around. But they are also a public finance hazard. The government funds development projects such as NREGA or NRHM not just directly but also via NGOs. Over 2008-09, CAPART channelled Rs 26 crore to 125 projects of NGOs it approved. Khan could not say what the overall grants have been since CAPART’s inception in 1986.

Within the NGO fraternity, however, the view is that to maintain independence, oversight must come from within. This view was sharpened by recent cases, such as during the protests against Korean steel major Posco in Orissa. One NGO, the National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers, for instance, claimed that Posco defrauded the government in getting environment clearances; other NGOs partnered with the steel company itself, enabling donations. Almost all large industrial projects, including British mining company Vedanta, now witness protests and counter-protests. In 2009, as protests against their plans in Orissa peaked, other NGOs were used by the state and the company to launch pro-project PR. This, in turn, was opposed by at least 20 NGOs.

Still, NGOs warn, self-regulation is the best option, though the government must do better monitoring. “Some NGOs are philanthropic, rights-based, wanting to do good, uplift. Others channel money, turn black into white,” warns Anjali Gopalan, who runs the Naz Foundation in Delhi. Noted advocate Colin Gonsalves says, “NGOs have become a place for the children of government servants, police officials and politicians to find jobs. They set up NGOs as they’re better equipped to deal with clearances and permissions required on a daily basis. This is what leads to their mushrooming”.

The norms are starting to trickle in, but it’s the voluntary sector that’s moving first. Non-profit body Credibility Alliance has proposed an accreditation and verification model. “The norms are more in the nature of helping NGOs get better rather than exclude others from accreditation,” says Robert Dequadros of Credibility Alliance. He says 200 NGOs agreed in an early survey that they needed to improve governance and make proper financial disclosures. It’s a complaint that the government often has—that NGOs questioning the governance deficit are often reluctant to extend the favour within. Dequadros promises an NGO verification model that’s “free of biases and fairly implemented”. To begin with, it will only require them to keep track of how much money they receive and how much they spend—as basic as possible.

Venkat Krishnan, who started GiveIndia, an online donation service that connects donors with NGOs, says he’s “deeply disappointed” with individual donors in India. “An ultra-premium car costs Rs 20-30 lakh; thousands are buying those. My total ‘collections’ are Rs 25 crore a year: a drop in the ocean. Bulk of the money for NGOs is coming from government or foreign sources. It’s like the case with voting: you get back a country depending on how much you give,” says Venkat. A pity. It lends strength to those who say that more the NGOs increase, more the problems seem to keep adding up.

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?270229

We should have more Social Entrepreneur and every NGO should have an Exist Policy - you cant survive on your stakeholders for decades............stakeholders should be empowered and NOT made dependent on NGO



Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.

India Marches Against Corruption 30th Jan 2011: Come and Join the National Movement

Thousands of people will take to streets to demand effective anticorruption law.India Against Corruption is a movement created by concerned citizens from all spheres, and professions, who've come together to fight corruption in India.

Series of scams involving politicians and bureaucrats at highest places has shaken the conscience of the nation in the last few months. Despite public outcry, no worthwhile investigations are going on in any one of them. This is because of several systemic deficiencies in our anti-corruption systems.

This campaign is not aligned to or against any political party. We feel that every political party has misused its position whenever they have been in power or otherwise. Therefore, it is extremely important that the citizens of this country unite to demand systemic changes.

Join the march against corruption in over 25 cities of India and abroad on 30th Jan, 2011.

J M Lyngdoh, Swami Agnivesh, Kiran Bedi, Anna Hazare, Prashant Bhushan, Most Reverend Vincent M Concessao Archbishop of Delhi and others will march from Ramlila Grounds to Jantar Mantar on 30th January, the day Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated, at 1 pm to demand enactment of a law to set up an effective anti‐corruption body called Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayukta in each state (the existing Lokayukta Acts are weak and ineffective).

Kiran Bedi, Justice Santosh Hegde, Prashant Bhushan, J M Lyngdoh and others have drafted this Bill.Please visit our site for full text of this Bill. A nation wide movement called “India Against Corruption”has been started by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Swami Ramdev, Swami Agnivesh, Most Reverend Vincent M Concessao Archbishop of Delhi, Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal, Anna Hazare, Devinder Sharma, Sunita Godara, Mallika Sarabhai and many others to persuade government to enact this Bill.

Mrs Sonia Gandhi recently announced that Lokpal would be set up. However, the Lokpal suggested by the government is only a showpiece. It will have jurisdiction over politicians but not bureaucrats, as if politicians and bureaucrats indulge in corruption separately. And the most interesting part is that like other anti‐corruption bodies in our country, the government is making Lokpal also an advisory body. So, Lokpal will recommend to the government to prosecute its ministers. Will any prime minister have the political courage to do that?

Please participate in large numbers in this march to persuade the government to enact the Bill drafted by the people. Please turn overleaf to read how this Bill will help in effectively checking corruption.

Can India turn around?

There was much worse corruption in Hong Kong in 1970s than we have in India today. Collusion between police and mafia increased and crime rate went up. Lakhs of people came on the streets. As a result, the government had to set up an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which was given complete powers. In the first instance, ICAC sacked 119 out of 180 police officers. This sent a strong message to the bureaucracy that corruption would not be tolerated. Today, Hong Kong has one of the most honest governance machinery.

India can also turn around if we also had similar anti‐corruption body. Hong Kong government enacted ICAC Bill because lakhs of people came on streets.

Participate in Your City: http://indiaagainstcorruption.org/events.html

If you plan to join or volunteer with us, do call us: India Against Corruption , A‐119, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad ,U P – 201010, UP. Ph: 09717460029/ 09971900424 Email: indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com ; info@indiaagainstcorruption.org . Website: www.indiaagainstcorruption.org

People for Social Cause & Silver Inning Foundation supports 'India Against Corruption ' national campaign . SAY NO TO CORRUPTION. STOP CORRUPTION.


Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.