There may not be any absolute emission cuts for India after 2020 in the proposed climate treaty but would have to take deeper pledge to check growth of carbon emissions. Clear the air over Durban platform for Enhanced Action, European Union’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the treaty to be agreed by 2015 does not mean “emission cuts” for the developing world but their pledges would be legally enforceable. “Each pledge will be equal,” she said, adding that legal nature of the proposed treaty was important for Europe as it would be “mutually accountable and transparent”.
According to her, it would mean that India will pledge deviation from business as usual scenario, which it had done by announcing reduction of emission intensity by 20-25 percent by 2020 of its 2005 level. But, for post 2020 period when the new treaty will be applicable, India along with other emerging economies may have to make a bigger commitment.
Hedegaard made it clear that the world was not on track to meet the aspirational goal to cap temperature rise by 2 degree Celsius and sought a global peaking year for emissions with more mitigation action by emerging economies.
On India’s demand for equity to be central to future climate deal, she was skeptical and said India needs to grow in a sustainable manner.
Aviation Carbon Tax
Hedegaard ruled out the possibility of Europe withdrawing its carbon tax on aviation sector despite protest by United States, India and China. “We tried to have an international agreement since 1995. When it did not happen we went ahead without our internal legislation,” she said, without ruling out that similar regime is in the wings for ships entering European ports. The only way Europe can withdraw the tax if there is an agreement on global carbon tax on aviation sector, not regulated by any emission control regime.
RIO plus 20
The climate commissioner was non-committal on Europe position on whether Sustainable Development Goals to be discussed at Earth Summit in Brazil in June should be mandatory or aspirational. “Europe has to decide on its position,” she said. But, the European negotiators at a meeting in New York last week sought mandatory SDGs to replace Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) by 2015
Equity central to global environment pact: Jayanthi Natarajan
The principle of common but differentiated responsibility and equity – right to grow – is central to talk of global environmental agreements and their effective implementation, said environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan on 3.02.2012.
Speaking at the 12th Delhi Sustainable Development Summit, Natarjan said: “There is no doubt that the global regime for protecting biodiversity has to be ambitious but it has to be firmly rooted, at the same time, in Rio principles.
“The principle of common but differentiated responsibility and equity is something that is extremely relevant when we talk of global environmental agreements and their effective implementation. They are vital to the success of any global agreement in the field of environment,” she said.
Talking about the outcome at climate change talks in Durban 2011, she said: “In Durban, we took some very important decisions to advance the international actions on global climate change. ”Our goal should be to ensure that the outcome of the ensuing negotiations under Durban platform is firmly founded on these principles and that we avoid pitfalls in implementation that such agreements have suffered in the past,” she added.
The Union Public Service Commission has introduced changes in the pattern of Civil Services (preliminary) examination which is conducted to select candidates for prestigious central services such as IFS, IAS, IRS, IPS and others. Now it is looking forward to bring some changes in the pattern of ‘main’ examination as well with effect from 2013.
A panel has been constituted by UPSC to suggest possible changes in the pattern of Civil Service (main) Examination. Its report is expected to come out early next year.
There are three stages in UPSC exam- ‘preliminary’, ‘main’ and personality test (interview). UPSC chairman D P Agrawal said that the commission has now constituted a high power panel to look into the matter.
He made it clear that commission will ensure that candidates from multiple languages, communities and culture are judged on the basis of in-depth understanding and knowledge.
‘Preliminary’ exam pattern was changed this year by incorporating elements of aptitude test and minor change was brought in ‘main’ exam in 1933. An ‘essay’ paper carrying 200 marks was introduced for judging aspirants’ knowledge of chosen topic and presentation skills.
This change by the UPSC, however did not satisfied the desired purpose of bringing candidates opting high scoring science subjects at the same level with those opting humanities and languages as optional papers in the main exam.
An official said that getting good marks in science/medicines/engineering papers is easier than getting high scores in language papers. Therefore the existing system judges the candidates unfairly.
Moreover, the existing system is inclined towards short-listing those aspirants who are good at their ’subjects’ rather than having general knowledge. This pattern does not test candidates’ administrative and managerial skills.
The ARC has recommended in 2008 that UPSC should only keep two compulsory papers (general studies) and an essay paper for ‘main’ examination and there should not be any optional subject.
Those who plan to get employed in the Union Government’s Foreign, Administrative, Police, Revenue, Railway, Information Services – or their state government equivalents should remember the following:
[During the colonial period, the British created four levels of recruitment. For the sake of convenience – the police department’s example is being provided.]
The ordinary constable [from what they called native stock] to tackle the general public at the cut-off point of physical daily contact.
The sub-inspector [sometimes referred to as Station House Officer] who always served within the Provincial Service [akin to any state public service commission’ junior level officer recruitment]. Such JCOs drawn from simple “native middle class stock” needed to be in possession of command over written and spoken English besides 2 local languages, touch typing [typing without looking at the keyboard to locate the letters with nine fingers] and shorthand diploma, and most importantly, the candidate’s possession of a secondary school leaving [SSL] certificate. The then training used to inculcate the system of ‘obeying orders of all superiors without question’ right from the outset.
The Provincial Service Norm [akin to the post of a state public service commission recruited officer in the grade of DySP] used to have a catchment area comprising local princely families or those with Zamindar Titles like Rao Bahadur, Diwan Bahadur, blah, blah.
The Union Public Service Norm [those days – IP – akin to today’s IPS] would 99.99 times out of hundred comprise white men who alone would rise to the post of Inspector General of Police.
One does not need to be the reincarnation of Sherlock Holmes to know that this was one of the cleverest methods to divide and rule controlling the momentum of the ruled to the rulers’ advantage and design by a mere practical application of the word ‘discipline’.
That such a system kept us under the white man’s thumb for over 200 years is something most of us know.
But, at that time, there were officers who bucked the trend yet followed ‘discipline’ earning the respect of their ‘superiors’ and admiration from their subordinates.
Mr Parangusam Naidu, the only Native to be Commissioner of Police for the city of Madras [1919-1919, says the board at the city police HQ, Egmore] and later IG for the entire Madras Province was one such officer.
Reproduced hereunder is a report that appeared in 5PM – an evening paper published from The Indian Express stable in Madras, September 4 1980 under the heading.
Whites Had to salute tough Parangusam
His name figures in a list hung in the City Police Commissioner’s Office in Egmore, Chennai. And to him goes the credit of having been the only Indian Police Commissioner of Madras Province during the British regime.
This man, Mr Parangusam Naidu, ironically enough, was not at all prepared to become a police officer. His application was in fact forged and sent by his grandfather’s younger brother, a big wig then in the ‘native’ section of the police in 1888.
At that time, the 19-year-old Parangusam was serving as an overseer in the PWD, threw a tantrum, but had to give in to his father’s wishes [and become a police officer].
Initially, he served under SP Brook Legget as SHO [Station House Officer] in Mayuram [now Myladuthurai]. Legget took a fancy for the boy and soon made him the Division Inspector after four years. And before he retired, he got Naidu his second promotion as DySP in Eluru (now in Andhra Pradesh).
Job Offered
The then Police Commissioner Mr F Armitage was looking out for an efficient Assistant Commissioner at that time. Hearing about Naidu, he offered him the job.
And history was made.
Parangusam Naidu became the first ‘native’ Assistant Commissioner.
Luck favoured him again later when Charles Cunningham [knighted later] went on leave.
Almost immediately after joining as the ACP, Naidu was posted as the Deputy Commissioner, Northern Range.
History again but not without the usual furore in the English circles …
But, Armitage, who had by then become IG, with the support of influential personalities like Sir Sivaswami Iyer, Sir Arthur Stuart (then Chief Secretary and later Governor) stood firm.
Finally, the time came for his appointment as Commissioner on the basis of seniority. This again was a tricky situation. But then, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer, a Privy Council member, gathered the much needed support and strengthened Armitage’s hands.
Uncommon Sight
It was indeed an uncommon sight to see the sturdily built Englishmen with their gloves, boots and all, standing in attention and saluting a ‘native’ Commissioner.
One Inspector Hitchcock had the audacity of not doing so. Although Parangusam overlooked it, Armitage slapped a suspension order in the offender’s face forcing him to mend his ways.
However, Hitchcock became one of the strongest supporters of Naidu.
Parangusam also had to face a powerful racist lobby, which almost succeeded in getting him displaced by securing a transfer for him.
His opponents temporarily won as he accepted his fate and bided his time working as Deputy Commissioner.
Efficiency eventually triumphed. After a gap of 8 weeks, Naidu was back at Egmore Headquarters [as CoP]. That was not all. Almost immediately afterwards, the Duke of Connaught’s visit gave his opponents a good opportunity. They again tried to get him transferred to Vellore.
But, Parangusam fought his battle alone saying he would either receive the Duke or resign. And he made history again.
Parangusam is said to have always kept in touch with 10 influential persons in each section under his control and visit at least three of them apart from inspecting a station a day. Thus, neither the acts of omission on the part of officials nor the secrecy of criminals could escape his attention.
Fearless cop
Once the showroom of m/s P. Orr & Sons in Mount Rd [now Anna Salai] – the shop still exists [under a different management] was burgled and almost the entire shop was cleaned up. Naidu who was tipped off about the identity of the culprits within a few minutes of the crime, being committed, rang up Mr Renes Pillai of Flower Bazar police station (the entire Mount Road was then under FBPS jurisdiction) and asked him to go the military barracks at St Thomas Mount and recover the stolen material from the British soldiers billeted there.
Pillai applied for ‘sick’ leave fearing violence.
Undaunted, Parangusam telephoned the Brigadier in charge of the soldiers and told him that he was sending his officer to recover the stolen property from his men.
The Brigadier reportedly threatened him with dismissal and imprisonment if the charge was unproved.
Naidu told him he was not afraid of being shot, let alone being imprisoned.
Renes was forced to go [and execute the search warrant issued by the Executive Magistrate and CoP – Naidu].
Under Naidu’s pressure, the erring soldiers were court martialled.
The ‘crowning’ event in Naidu’s life was the Prince of Wales visit.
All the officers were required to be present at a formal function. Naidu arrived on time in his uniform and medals wearing his ‘namam’ and ear studs.
The ADC asked him to remove these only to be refused. On being reminded again, Naidu got into his car and went home.
In civvies
The IG who arrived just after Naidu’s departure, was shocked at the latter’s absence. From the scoffing ADC, he learnt about the incident.
The IG is understood to have told the ADC, “I would request you Sir to overlook the fact that he is wearing his traditional marks, as you would be a fool sir, not to realise that not ten of you would make one of him!”
Without waiting for a reply, the IG rushed to Naidu’s residence. He was horrified to see Naidu in civvies. After a lot of persuasion, Naidu got into uniform again and attended the function, which was delayed by 9 minutes, during which, the Prince of Wales himself, had to wait!
Parangusam retired as IG in 1923 and passed away in 1931 at the age of 63.
Did the Antrix-Devas agreement on S-band spectrum go as far as it did because many individuals in the know chose not to intervene?
Quite apart from the fashion in which valuable S-band spectrum was allocated to a single private company for an extended period of time, the Antrix-Devas agreement and the way in which it was sought to be implemented were highly questionable in other ways too.
The deal was finally annulled following the exposé by The Hinduand its sister publication, Business Line, in February 2011.
Much of the upfront cost for the two satellites required to operationalise the agreement and their launch were to be borne by the public exchequer. The issue of making good any satellite malfunctions or launch failures would also have arisen. Whether, and to what extent, higher authorities such as the Space Commission and even the Union Cabinet were informed of the deal and its implications is murky and unclear.
The agreement was signed on January 28, 2005 between Antrix Corporation Ltd., the marketing wing of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. based in Bangalore.
The agreement laid down that Antrix would provide satellite capacity to enable Devas to launch ‘satellite digital multimedia broadcast’ (S-DMB) services that would be delivered to fixed, portable and mobile receivers, including mobile phones and vehicle-borne devices.
As a result of this deal, ISRO was committed to build, launch and operate two custom-built communication satellites, which came to be called GSAT-6 (also known as Insat 4E) and GSAT-6A. The agreement specified that 90 per cent of the capacity on these two satellites would be leased to Devas “on a 24-hour, seven-day-per-week basis” for 12 years, with a provision to extend the lease by another 12 years.
These were not ordinary communication satellites of the sort that ISRO had built and launched before. They involved high-powered spot beams in the S-band requiring a large 6.5 metre antenna (that could be unfurled in space) that was specially developed for these satellites and which ISRO has never flown before.
Satellite issues
ISRO communication satellites have had their share of problems that led to partial and, in the case of the Insat 2D launched in 1997, total loss of onboard capacity. As recently as July 2010, a problem with the Insat-4B’s power supply system led to half its communications capacity being shut down.
With what are essentially developmental satellites like the GSAT-6 and the GSAT-6A that have not been flown before, the risk of problems arising are greater. Such concerns are particularly high in the case of the large antenna that could be unfurled in space. If it failed to open out properly, the entire satellite would be rendered useless. In addition, the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV), on which the satellites were to be launched, has also not settled down to provide reliable service.
Yet, the Devas contract has stringent penalty clauses for when the satellites must become operational, the quality of service to be provided and tough norms for declaring “a Total Satellite Failure.” In the latter event, a replacement satellite has to be provided within a specified time span at no extra cost to Devas.
Experience elsewhere in the world indicates that mobile satellite services in the S- and L-band frequencies have often proved financially unviable. Regulatory authorities in the U.S. and elsewhere are therefore permitting some part of the satellite frequencies to be used for lucrative terrestrial communications. If regulatory authorities in India were to permit similar flexibility, the S-band frequencies that the deal had allotted to Devas would have become a highly valuable resource.
In fact, a note prepared for the Cabinet Committee on Security in February 2011 by the Department of Space, the parent body of ISRO and Antrix, pointed out that the company had plans to get into terrestrial broadband services. Such a dispensation “might not ensure a level playing field for the other service providers using terrestrial spectrum, especially considering the significant demand for S-band spectrum,” it noted.
CAG estimate
A preliminary estimate prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2011 had suggested that the spectrum allotted to Devas could have been worth as much as Rs.2 lakh crore. According to ISRO, the amount payable by Devas over a 12-year period was just $300 million (about Rs.1,500 crore at the current exchange rate).
While Rs.766 crore of public money would be spent on building and launching the two satellites, Antrix’s revenues from Devas would come to only Rs.1,350 crore over a 12-year period. The note to the Cabinet Committee on Security admitted that this would have not been sufficient compensation for all the costs incurred by ISRO.
There is also the question of how this particular company was chosen for the deal. The line taken by ISRO has been this was the only company that came forward with a viable plan for the sort of satellite-based multimedia applications that were envisaged. However, no open competitive process seems to have been even attempted in making such a choice.
Considering that Devas is headed by a person, who once held a senior position in the space programme, the onus on the Department of Space, ISRO and Antrix to make sure the deal was in public interest and not tainted by any whiff of cronyism was all the greater.
Given all these factors, the Department of Space ought to have ensured that both the Space Commission and the Union Cabinet were formally informed and fully briefed on the Antrix-Devas deal and all its implications when seeking approval to build the two satellites required.
The Space Commission was established by the government four decades back to formulate the country’s space policies and oversee implementation of space programmes. All important programmes and projects have to be cleared by the Commission, and it also has delegated powers to clear financial expenditure on projects up to a certain amount.
Headed by the Secretary for the Department of Space (who is also chairman of ISRO), this powerful body has top officials from the Central Government among its members. Currently this includes the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, the National Security Adviser, the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary, a Secretary in the Department of Expenditure, a Secretary in the Finance Ministry who is the Member (Finance), and the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government.
After the Space Commission gave its clearance, the Union Cabinet approved the building of GSAT-6 in December 2005. Four years later, the Space Commission, under its delegated powers, gave the go-ahead for the follow-on GSAT-6A.
The proposals from the Department of Space seeking approval for the GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A “did not make any reference to their utilisation for the Antrix-Devas agreement,” according to the background note issued by ISRO last February. Only at its July 2010 meeting, when it recommended annulling the contract, was the Space Commission “apprised on this contractual agreement for the first time.”
However, in a recent interview with The Hindu, G. Madhavan Nair, who was chairman of ISRO and Antrix when the deal was signed and approval for the two satellites taken, has said that several people in the government, including from the Prime Minister’s Office, were aware of the details of the deal at every stage.
Besides, there are persons who are members of both the Space Commission and the Antrix’s board of directors. One such individual is the Member (Finance). Another is the Director of the ISRO Satellite Centre that is responsible for building the satellites. So it is difficult to see how the Space Commission could have been entirely in the dark about the deal with Devas.
The Insat-2E lease
All of this is in stark contrast with the approach taken by the Department of Space in leasing capacity on the Insat-2E. Half the capacity on this satellite, launched in April 1999 and now nearing the end of its life, was leased out to Intelsat. (Intelsat, which since been privatised, was then an international consortium operating satellites in which India too had a stake.)
In the case of this satellite, some customisation had to be done, including its transponder characteristics and beam shape, to meet user requirements. As ISRO had just begun building communication satellites, the deal was seen as a way to gain credibility and thereby access to the international market for building satellites.
In the case of the Insat-2E, the Department of Space made sure that the Space Commission and the Union Cabinet were formally informed about the Intelsat deal and why it was being carried out.
With the Insat-2E, the annual reports of the Department of Space, which are documents presented to Parliament each year at the time of the Union Budget, clearly indicated the capacity that would be leased out to Intelsat. When it came to the GSAT-6, however, the annual reports of the Department of Space are silent about the satellite capacity that had been allotted to Devas.
While individual accountability can and should be fixed, it is obvious that there was a system-wide malfunction. The question is how many individuals up and down the government and Space hierarchy knew what was happening but chose not to intervene.
The Hindu Editorial
The saga of the scandalous deal that would have given a private company, Devas Multimedia Private Limited, control over a large chunk of valuable S- band spectrum has not ended. If the agreement signed with Antrix Corporation in 2005, the marketing wing of the Indian Space Research Organisation ( ISRO), had been allowed to stand, Devas could have made a killing. However, doubts over the deal began to surface and, in December 2009, after K. Radhakrishnan took over the Department of Space, the parent body for both ISRO and Antrix, an internal committee was set up to review the deal under B. N. Suresh. It was Business Line, the business daily of the
The Hindu group, that first brought to public notice what was going on behind closed doors. Subsequently, in February 2011, The Hinduand Business Line, published the text of the Antrix- Devas agreement and revealed the enquiries being pursued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Later that month, the deal was finally annulled by the Central government. In the wake of The Hindugroup’s exposé, the government constituted a high- powered committee made up of B. K. Chaturvedi and Roddam Narasimha to “ review the technical, commercial, procedural and financial aspects” of the agreement. This committee submitted its report to the Prime Minister in March 2011. In May, a five- member high- level team headed by a former Central Vigilance Commissioner, Pratyush Sinha, was set up to examine the deal and identify acts of omission and commission by government officials. It was, the government said, after carefully considering the reports of the Chaturvedi- Narasimha committee and the high- level team that action was ordered. Four former officials, including G. Madhavan Nair who was ISRO chairman when the deal was signed, were barred from holding any government position.
But this action begs many questions. Is it the government’s considered view that these four officials were solely responsible for the deal? What about the Space Commission, which has a key oversight role over the space programme? Were the members of the Commission as blissfully unaware of the deal as is made out? Mr. Nair has said the Space Commission was told about the agreement with Devas. He has also indicated that there were government officials, including some in the PMO, who were well aware of the Devas contract. That apart, how was it that members of the Space Commission who were also on the Antrix board of directors knew nothing of what was going on? The Antrix- Devas deal has raised fundamental questions about decisionmaking and oversight processes in the space programme. The government must come clean on what actually transpired by placing in the public domain the reports prepared by Dr. Suresh, the Chaturvedi- Narasimha committee and the high- level team.
It is a joy to write the rare positive column about something beautiful in India. The recently concluded Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) attracted enormous crowds and put India on the global map. At the time of writing this, Google News displayed over five thousand media stories on the JLF worldwide.
The JLF’s rapid growth is astounding. In 2008, the festival had 2,500 attendees. In 2012, more than 75,000 people participated, a 30-fold growth in four years. Festival venue Diggi Palace, a family owned haveli-heritage hotel, burst at the seams on festival days. However, the festival remains free and open to all. School students, Nobel prize winners, socialites, scholars, tourists – all enter the gates together to be a part of hundred-plus sessions over five days. The infectious energy of the organisers – Namita Gokhale, William Dalrymple, Sanjoy Roy and Sheuli Sethi – made 2012’s festival as they worked relentlessly to run a show that Sanjoy agrees is akin to ‘marrying a 100 daughters off at the same time’.
Interestingly, the JLF has given India far better PR worldwide than, say, another initiative of the government to do the same – the Commonwealth Games. What is striking is the difference between the JLF’s budget – Rs 5 crore, raised through private sponsorships – and that of the Games which cost Rs 70,000 crore, almost entirely given by the state. But most of the Games news coverage was related to the scam or the shoddiness of the work.
It would be foolish if we did not draw lessons from what made the JLF rock while exercising India’s soft power by having future events. Here are the six reasons behind the JLF phenomenon.
First, the inclusion of the world’s most prominent authors. While not every attending author is a Booker or Pulitzer winner, the JLF always had a few of them. This gave it enormous credibility and attracted the media. If your event is not truly world-class, you will get a fraction of the attention you would otherwise. The Commonwealth Games is no Olympics, and hence the world cares little. Be the best, or nobody cares.
Second, the JLF’s range of sessions makes it relevant for a wide variety of audiences. International guests can find at least one author they have read or heard about, making them connect to the festival. Readers of popular fiction would find popular authors, not making them feel out of place.
Third, Jaipur is simply beautiful. The architecture is unique and the city is clean and well kept. The government is tourist friendly. The wonderful Rajasthani people give genuine smiles to strangers. This setting enhances the experience of the visitor, who hankers to come back.
Four, there is a certain humility in the organisers’ approach. Despite the literary community being ridden with elitism and snootiness, the JLF manages to keep it classy without being snobbish. There are stories of school students arriving in trains and staying overnight at the platform to attend the festival. For the so-called arbiters of good literature, it must be tempting to sneer at such audiences, but the JLF team has kept away from that attitude.
Five, the festival provides oodles of media-friendly content. Writers have interesting things to talk about and can generate lots of stories for newspapers and TV channels. Naturally, the content-hungry media likes to be there.
Six, the execution is near flawless. As a speaker this year, i found the logistics perfect; almost all sessions start on time. Execution isn’t easy in India, but the JLF gets it right.
At the same time, like all things successful, the JLF has to guard against forces that will try to either exploit its fame or bring it down out of sheer envy. It also has to manage growth, which seems unstoppable at this point. Here are two suggestions.
One, do not indulge extreme voices beyond a point. Writers like to give their points of view and feel passionately about them. However, the JLF is no activist agitation. Too much has been already said about the Salman Rushdie controversy, but the simple lesson is a zero-tolerance policy at the venue for people who hijack the festival’s agenda. The festival has to remain neutral to all views. It is not a Ramlila Ground.
Also, the festival has to respect local government guidelines, and that includes their security risk perceptions. Even if some esteemed guests oppose or mistrust government policies, the venue is not the place to protest. They can express themselves, but need not take on the government from the venue. They are free to hire a separate protest venue and do it.
Two, the festival will need to consolidate. Given the growth, it is going to be impossible to manage the crowds at the same venue in the next few years. Modest price ticketing won’t make the festival undemocratic. There can be flexibility – free days or ticketed days, student pricing, donor events etc.
As a writer, and as an Indian citizen, i feel immensely proud about this celebration of books. Those who say India is all about Bollywood and cricket should pay a visit to the JLF. Silly controversies come and go. Let us rejoice that India, once known as the land of scholars and knowledge, still has the best literary festival in the world.
India has only a fifth as many public servants as United States, relative to population. The highest ratios of public servants to population among the Indian States are in the conflict-torn or border regions
Long reviled for being bloated, India’s Central and State governments in fact have just a fifth as many public servants as the United States, relative to population. The figures raise doubts, ahead of a Union budget that is likely to slash social-sector spending, on whether the country has the personnel it needs to improve governance and ensure universal access to services like education and health.
Data compiled from multiple sources, including a 2008 official survey, Right to Information applications, media reports and the 2011 census show, India has 1,622.8 government servants for every 100,000 residents. In stark contrast, the U.S. has 7,681. The Central government, with 3.1 million employees, thus has 257 serving every 100,000 population, against the U.S. federal government’s 840.
This figure dips further if the 1,394,418 people working for the Railways, accounting for 44.81 per cent of the entire Central government workforce, are removed. Then, there are only about 125 central employees serving every 100,000 people. Information technology and communications services account for another 7.25 per cent of the Central government’s staff.
Eminent economist V.K. Ramachandran says: “One of the most important lessons of the economic history of modern nations is that the most crucial requirements of social transformation can only be delivered by the public authority. A government that does not pay for skilled personnel to deliver education, health and land reform is one that condemns its people to under-development.”
The Central government’s figures also show that 59.69 per cent of public servants belonged to Group C and another 29.37 per cent to Group D — the two lowest paid categories. Though these workers are important, the numbers suggest there are system-wide shortages of skilled staff and administrators.
Interestingly, the data show a marginal decline of 0.13 per cent in the size of the Central government in 2008 from 2006, though the population grew.
“People keep complaining the government is too big,” says Ajai Sahni, director of the New Delhi-based Institute of Conflict Management (ICM), “but the figures show that it is in fact too anaemic to govern the country.” The ICM, which spent over a year assembling the data, discovered that only some States even had centralised records on their employees — and there were no published estimates of staff members needed to realise new development objectives.
The highest ratios of public servants to population among the Indian States are in the conflict-torn or border regions, where the Central government has made special funding available for enhancing employment in an effort to contain discontent. Thus, Mizoram has 3,950.27 public servants per the 100,000 population, Nagaland 3,920.62 and Jammu and Kashmir 3,585.96. Bar Sikkim, with 6,394.89 public servants per 100,000, no State comes close to the international levels.
For the most part though, India’s relatively backward States have low numbers of public servants. This means staff members are not available for the provision of education, health and social services needed to address the worst kinds of poverty. Bihar has just 457.60 per 100,000, Madhya Pradesh 826.47, Uttar Pradesh has 801.67, Orissa 1,191.97 and Chhattisgarh 1,174.62
This is not to suggest there is a causal link between poverty and low levels of public servants: Gujarat has just 826.47 per 100,000 and Punjab 1,263.34. The data could explain, though, why even well-off States like these have found it tough to ensure universal primary education and eradicating poverty.
Sunday 29th January 2012, Film City at the Yasraj Studios, in Mumbai, India was the setting for the 57th Filmfare awards.
The 57th Filmfare awards ceremony took place in Mumbai and the night proved to be a surprise with Zindage Na Milegi Dobara being one of the top winning films of the night and Ranbir Kapoor beating Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan and Amitabh Bachchan for Best Actor.
Hosted by Bollywood actors Shahrukh Khan and Ranbir Kapoor, the awards ceremony featured a Filmfare milestone when the 2500th ‘Black Lady’ was given out in a special ceremony marking the awards’ enduring popularity for nearly 60 years. The milestone award went to AR Rahman as Best Music Director for Rockstar.
All the glamour and excitement took place with star studded acts and stars all at this prestigious annual event with the show aired on Sony Entertainment Television (SET).
It was a big night for Zindagi Na Milege Dobara which starred Hrithik Roshan, Katrina Kaif, Abhay Deol, Farhan Akhtar and Naseeruddin Shah. This film won Best Film, Best Director for Zoya Akhtar, Best Actor in Supporting Role for Farhan Akhtar, Best Cinematography, Best Dialogue and Best Choreography.
Rockstar was the other big winner on the glitzy awards night, winning Best Actor for Ranbir Kapoor, Critics Award for Best Actor for Ranbir Kapoor, Best Lyrics, Best Male Playback Singer (Mohit Chauhan) and Best Music Director (AR Rahman).
Surprisingly, this year Shahrukh Khan did not win anything despite having hit films like Ra.One and Don 2 in 2011. Salman Khan was not seen in any of the winning awards either.
Here is a list of the winners of the 57th Filmfare Awards:
Best Film
Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara
Best Director
Zoya Akhtar (Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara)
Best Actor in a Leading Role
Ranbir Kapoor (Rockstar)
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Vidya Balan (The Dirty Picture)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Male)
Farhan Akhtar (Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Female)
Rani Mukherjee (No One Killed Jessica)
Best Debut (Female)
Parineeti Chopra (Ladies vs Ricky Bahl)
Best Debut (Male)
Vidyut Jhamwal (Force)
Best Debut Director
Abhinay Deo (Delhi Belly)
Critics Award for Best Actress
Priyanka Chopra (7 Khoon Maaf)
Critics Award for Best Actor
Ranbir Kapoor (Rockstar)
Critics Award for Best Film
Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara
Best Scene of the Year
The Dirty Picture
Best Lyrics
Irshad Kamil – Nadaan Parindey (Rockstar)
Best Music Composer
AR Rahman (Rockstar)
R.D. Burman Music Award
Krsna (Tanu Weds Manu)
Best Male Playback Singer
Mohit Chauhan for Jo Bhi Main (Rockstar)
Best Female Playback Singer
Usha Uttap & Rekha Bhardwaj for ‘Darling’ (7 Khoon Maaf)
Lifetime Achievement
Aruna Irani
56th Filmfare Technical Awards
Best Costume Design
Niharika Khan (The Dirty Picture)
Best Choreography
Bosco-Caesar – Senorita (Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara)
Best Dialogue
Farhan Akhtar (Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara)
Best Screenplay
Akshat Verma (Delhi Belly)
Best Story
Sanjay Chauhan (I Am Kalam)
Best Background Score
Ranjit Barot (Shaitan)
Best Cinematography
Carlos Catalan (Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara)
Best Action
Matthias Barsch (Don 2)
Best VFX
Red Chillies (Ra.One)
Best Editing
Huzefa Lokhandwala (Delhi Belly)
Best Production Design
Shashank Tere (Delhi Belly)
An impressive display of armour and unmanned aerial vehicles recently added to India’s military prowess was on full display at the 63rd Republic Day parade on 26.01.2012 that also showcased the country’s rich heritage.
The early morning chill did not deter people along the eight-km-parade route as they gathered on both sides of the majestic Rajpath, the country’s ceremonial boulevard facing the Raisina Hills, and cheered the contingents as they went past portraying the diverse culture of the country.
The well-turned out and synchronised military and police formations led by General Officer Commanding (Delhi) Lt. Gen. V.K. Pillai marched proudly to the lilting tunes of bands through the Rajpath where President Pratibha Patil, who is the Supreme Commander of Armed Forces, took salute.
The impressive march-past was watched by Chief Guest Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Vice President Hamid Ansari, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Defence Minister A.K. Antony, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Marshal of Air Force Arjan Singh and top political and military brass.
Police and other para-military forces turned Delhi into a virtual fortress for the Republic Day celebrations as helicopters scanned from air, snipers kept a hawk-eye vigil from rooftops and armed personnel at every nook and corner provided a ground-to-air security apparatus.
Minutes before the parade began, Dr. Singh, Mr. Antony and chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force laid wreaths at the Amar Jawan Jyoti, an eternal flame in the memory of those who laid down their lives while defending the nation.
After the customary 21-gun salute and unfurling of the national tricolour, President Patil presented Ashok Chakra — the highest peacetime gallantry award — posthumously to Lieutenant Navdeep Singh who died foiling an infiltration attempt by Pakistan-based terrorists along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir.
Then, four Mi-17 helicopters zoomed in from skies on the western side showering flower petals on thousands of spectators, signalling the start of the impressive parade followed by winners of Param Vir Chakra, highest war-time gallantry award, and Ashok Chakra and mounted columns of 61 Cavalry.
The Army showcased its impressive weaponry which included T-72 tanks, Carrier Motor Tracked vehicle, Smerch missile Launcher, Multi Barrel Rocket System ‘Pinaka’ and Full Width Mine Plough.
It also displayed the NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) Chemical Purification System and Jammer Station. Demonstrating its air power, Army also conducted a flypast of three indegenously made advanced light helicopters Dhruv.
The Army contingent from Parachute Regiment, Bengal Engineer Group, The Brigade of the Guards, Kumaon Regiment, Assam Regiment, Mahar Regiment and Gorkha Rifles marched to the tunes of ‘Arjuna’, Thimmaya, ‘Gangotri’ and ‘Veer Gorkha’ military numbers.
The next to follow were smartly dressed Navy personnel and then the Air Force contingent, led by Flight Lieutenant Sneha Shekhawat, marching to the tunes of ‘Jai Bharati’ and ’Air Battle’.
The Navy showcased models of the Delhi Class guided missile destroyer and IL-38 (Sea Dragon) Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft. The 3,000-km-range nuclear-capable Agni-IV missile, successfully flight tested in November last year, stole the limelight as people cheered and clapped when the weapons system’s model came near them. Commentaries gave an insight into the capabilities of the sophisticated missile system.
The DRDO also put on display for the first time the 150-km range Prahaar tactical battlefield support missile and the Rustom-1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).
Other marching contingents were those of camel-mounted BSF, Assam Rifles, Coast Guard, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, SSB, RPF, Delhi Police, NCC and NSS. As the country’s armed and police forces demonstrated their might, States and different departments put up an impressive show when they showcased their rich cultural diversity in full display in 23 tableaux — 13 from states and 10 from ministries.
Another highlight of the event was that West Bengal became part of the parade after 13 years as it showcased the university town of Shantiniketan, the living abode of Rabindranath Tagore, that symbolises the avant garde vision of an international, educational and cultural institution.
The Jammu and Kashmir tableau depicts the architectural heritage of its capital Srinagar during the medieval period, while Chhatisgrah showcased the Dondaki art and claywork by artists late Sonabhai Rajwar, Darogaram and Atmadas Manikpuri.
The one by Maharashtra boasted of its rich culture, natural wonders and historical monuments and attractive tourist destinations. The north-eastern state of Meghalaya depicted the Jaintia Festivals and the most colourful dance by the major tribal community inhabiting the state, while Rajasthan brought alive the ‘Amber Fort’ which has an unique artistic style that blends both Hindu and Mughal elements.
Assam showcased its enthralling Bhortal dance, while the Punjab tableau adorned the larger than life figure of Sher-e-Punjab Maharaja Ranjit Singh atop the Lahore fort. Goa, Nagaland and Sikkim are other states who showcased their cultural heritage.
The Union Textiles Ministry’s tableau displayed the range of Indian handicrafts, reflecting the journey of Indian handicrafts from the traditional to the modern world, representing the rich cultural heritage from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.
As the Republican presidential race enters the critical chapter of state caucuses and primaries, which begin in January 2012, who is running to face President Barack Obama as the Republican opponent in the race for the White House?
Despite regular fluctuations in opinion polls, the Republican field is made up of seven main candidates vying for the presidential nomination.
Here are the leading Republican contenders:
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney entered the 2012 Republican presidential race as the presumed frontrunner. And he has maintained that status as one after another challenger has risen to meet him only to self-destruct.
Mr Romney, the former one-term governor of Massachusetts, brought to the race wealth, business experience, a national profile and a broad network of fundraisers and supporters left over from his failed 2008 White House bid.
With his square jaw, gleaming eyes and immobile hair greying at the temples, some see him as a presidential candidate straight from central casting.
Mr Romney lost the party’s 2008 nomination race to Arizona Senator John McCain but took only a brief break from the campaign trail. Almost as soon as Barack Obama was in the White House, Mr Romney began building support for the 2012 contest.
He hopes that his background in business will help him convince voters he can manage America’s halting economic recovery better than President Barack Obama – or other Republicans in the field.
Suspicion of Mormons
But in order to win the Republican party nomination, he must convince primary voters of the authenticity and depth of his conservative principles. He must also persuade them to overlook his relatively liberal record as governor of Massachusetts, a solidly Democratic state.
And the religious conservatives who are influential in the nominating process will have to overcome suspicion about his Mormon faith.
Willard Mitt Romney was born in 1947 in Michigan. His father, George Romney, was later that state’s Republican governor and himself ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968.
He served two years as a Mormon missionary in France, then went to Brigham Young University and studied law and business at Harvard.
Later, Mr Romney took a senior position in the Mormon church and joined Boston management consulting firm Bain and Company, soon rising to chairman. He also founded Bain Capital, a venture capital firm affiliated with Bain.
In 1994, Mr Romney attempted to unseat veteran Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. He lost but raised his profile in the state and among Republicans nationally.
Haunted by healthcare
And in 1999, he was tapped to run the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. The preparations had been mired in scandal, and organisers were attracted to Mr Romney’s deep connections within the Mormon church, his business acumen and his reputation for honesty.
The 2002 Olympics were widely viewed as a success. Later that year Mr Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts as a pragmatic centrist, allaying fears he would foist right-wing social policies on the liberal state. He won.
As governor, he signed into law a comprehensive healthcare overhaul that required all Massachusetts residents to obtain health insurance and provided subsidies to those who could not afford it or who did not receive it from their employers.
That policy has thrown Mr Romney on the defensive time and again during his bid for the White House.
Critics have accused the former governor of responsibility for Mr Obama’s 2010 healthcare plan, which is detested by Republicans, and conceptually similar to the programme Mr Romney signed into law in 2006.
Even before he officially announced his candidacy this time round, Mr Romney made a speech defending the Massachusetts policy while attacking Mr Obama’s programme.
Mr Romney has also faced questions about his commitment to social conservative principles.
During his tenure as Massachusetts governor, a court ruling made the state the first to allow same-sex marriage.
Mr Romney gave a qualified criticism of that decision, saying marriage laws should only be altered by a vote of the people, and sought to build support for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The real thing?
Mr Romney opted not to seek re-election in 2006 in order to explore a presidential run.
In the 2008 race, Mr Romney sought to cast himself as a conservative whose success in Massachusetts indicated he could win over Democratic and independent voters.
But Mr Romney was never able to overcome doubts about his authenticity and accusations he had shifted his positions on abortion and gay rights merely to appeal to the more conservative national Republican electorate.
He pulled out of the race in February after spending $35m (£21.4m) of his own money.
This time around, Mr Romney has sought to remain above the fray by training his fire on the president rather than on his rivals for the Republican nomination.
And his experience from the 2008 race has proven valuable, in particular in a gruelling series of debates this summer and autumn.
His has consistently led the pack in fundraising and in the polls, though his overall level of support has remained tepid.
Doubting Mr Romney’s ideological purity, Republican voters have been inviting other candidates to challenge him from the right.
He may not fire up the party base, but his campaign believes he is the best equipped to defeat Mr Obama in next November’s elections.
And as primary season looms, Mr Romney can only hope Republicans will shrug their shoulders or hold their noses and pick him.
Ron Paul
The Texas congressman has won a devoted following among libertarian-minded Republicans with his calls for a return to the gold standard, the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, and his staunch opposition – unusual in the Republican Party – to the war in Iraq and to American militarism in general.
Supporters of Mr Paul, an obstetrician, gained a reputation during the 2008 race for their enthusiasm for the candidate – as well as for their practice of disrupting rival candidates’ rallies and press conferences.
Some of his backers also became known for espousing far-out conspiracy theories, such as the suggestion the US government was behind the 11 September 2001 terror attacks, tainting his movement in the eyes of the mainstream Republican electorate.
Mr Paul, 75, announced his candidacy in May in remarks that mixed anti-war cries with arguments for the legalisation of heroin and the end of federal flood and disaster insurance programmes.
He will bring to the race a legion of devoted followers who can organise and raise funds.
But to his detractors, Mr Paul is too eccentric and his ideas too fringe for them to take him seriously as a presidential hopeful.
It remains to be seen whether his rising profile in swing states such as Iowa will be reflected at the polls – a development that could upset the dynamic of the race as it moves into the primaries.
In July 2011, Mr Paul announced he would not stand again for his House seat, saying he wanted to remain focused on his presidential bid.
Rick Santorum
The former Pennsylvania Senator hopes to capitalise on his solid social conservative credentials. He last appeared on the ballot in 2006, when he lost his re-election bid by 17 points.
Polls have shown him in a distant seventh place in the race but just days before the first round of voting in Iowa – where Mr Santorum has campaigned relentlessly – opinion polls show some momentum gathering behind the candidate.
He has attacked rivals such as Ron Paul with gusto but he has a lot of ground to make up on the front-runners.
Newt Gingrich
Mr Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, announced he would be running against Mr Obama in 2012 on YouTube, Twitter, and in an interview on Fox News.
Since he left office 12 years ago, Mr Gingrich has built a broad network of conservative businesses and non-profit organisations, generating films, books and position papers, and has sought to align himself as an elder statesman and a creative source of conservative policy ideas.
He remains widely respected in the party for leading congressional Republicans out of 40 years in opposition in 1994, although he lost the speaker’s gavel in 1998 after the party took significant losses.
In June 2011 his chances took a serious knock when senior members of his campaign team walked out, citing differences over strategy.
But Mr Gingrich made a roaring comeback in November, with surging poll ratings in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida – all key early voting states.
But Mr Gingrich has been criticised by fellow party members for having taken positions on several policy issues that they viewed as unpredictable or inconsistent with conservative principles.
For example, he attacked a plan popular among Republicans to slash and privatise a healthcare programme for the elderly.
Mr Gingrich can be both inflammatory and irascible – qualities Americans do not tend to see as presidential – and has a long record of undiplomatic quotes.
His three marriages may also haunt him in a 2012 campaign. His first wife has accused him of divorcing her while she was in hospital recovering from cancer.
Mr Gingrich was having an affair with a staffer (whom he later married) while he was leading the charge to impeach former President Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Rick Perry
Rick Perry may have entered the race later than his rivals but he has spent months raising money in Texas, where he has been governor for 10 years.
He was the last of the candidates to formally launch a bid for the White House, making his announcement in the key primary state of South Carolina in August.
Mr Perry’s mantra is small government and he can boast that he balanced the books in the second largest state in the US, although critics complain at the scale of resulting spending cuts, especially in education.
A deeply religious man, Mr Perry sealed his popularity among Christian evangelicals when he led a prayer rally attended by 30,000 people in Houston, Texas, in early August.
So, he appeals to two strong powerbases of the Republican party – the fiscal hawks and the social conservatives.
In the first weeks of his campaign, Mr Perry challenged Mitt Romney’s position in opinion as front-runner, draining support from the other Tea Party favourite Michele Bachmann, who occupies similar political ground.
His ability to fire up the Republican base – a la Bachmann – energised the race, although Mr Perry has struggled to maintain that momentum after a series of weak performances in nationally televised debates.
Michele Bachmann
The Minnesota congresswoman, a favourite of the Tea Party, used the first televised debate in New Hampshire to formally announce that she was entering the contest.
She is an outspoken conservative who has been spending time in the early primary states.
The fiery Ms Bachmann has a small core of staunch support, although wider momentum behind her has slowed since she won the influential Iowa Straw Poll in August.
The Iowa-born 55-year-old has a law degree and worked as a tax attorney, and she has fostered 23 children.
Jon Huntsman
The former governor of Utah joined the race for the Republican presidential nomination with a distinct, if awkward, qualification: he worked for the other side.
As ambassador to China for two years under President Barack Obama, he has arguably the most foreign policy expertise of the Republican field.
But it remains to be seen whether or not that experience – which he defends as loyal service to the country rather than the president’s policies – will be an advantage to Mr Huntsman in his bid to succeed the man who appointed him.
Jon Huntsman, 51, is the motorcycle-driving son of billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr, who founded a large chemical manufacturer.
He dropped out of high school to play keyboard in a rock band, later finishing school and graduating from the University of Pennsylvania. He also served as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan, and is said to speak fluent Mandarin.
His tone has been markedly more moderate than that of his rivals, and he has in the past backed civil unions for same-sex couples and said he believes in the science of climate change.
Since he spent the last two years outside the country, he must now introduce himself to Republican voters who have been steeped in the angry, stridently anti-government Tea Party movement.
Some analysts have suggested Mr Huntsman aims to be the adult in the race, rejecting his rivals’ crowd-pleasing attacks on Mr Obama while counselling the US must make hard choices to rein in the national debt.
Mr Huntsman’s ratings have languished in single-digits in opinion polls and he has not campaigned in the state of Iowa, preferring instead to focus on another key battleground, New Hampshire, also the heartland of Mitt Romney’s support base.
It remains to be seen whether, after four years of Mr Obama in the White House, Mr Huntsman will satisfy voters.
The object of placing the power of judicial appointments in an independent body is to remove patronage from the system and ensure that judges are appointed only on the basis of their qualifications.
The present system of judicial appointments in the constitutional courts exemplifies the misalignment between the core values of judicial independence and accountability. The process by which a judge is appointed to the High Court or the Supreme Court has been described by Justice Ruma Pal, a former judge of the Supreme Court, as “one of the best kept secrets in this country.”
The text of the Constitution that provides for the appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court (Article 124) and the High Court (Article 217) is deceptively simple. They provide for the President to appoint them in “consultation” with other judges. Originally, the power to appoint judges vested ultimately in the executive. It is now with the Chief Justice and the senior judges of the court, i.e. the Collegium. It is unnecessary to trace the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court regarding the issue of judicial appointments beyond this. Suffice it to say, that in the last of the famous trinity of the Judges Cases, the Supreme Court changed the character of “consultation” to “concurrence”. As Anil Divan pithily points out, the Judges Cases have not really broken the mystique behind the “Sacred Ritual” of appointments — they have only changed the circle of “High Priests.” Now, instead of the executive, primacy is given to the CJI and the Collegium of Judges. The way in which judges are appointed embodies a set of values about democracy. Choosing judges based on undisclosed criterion in largely unknown circumstances reflects an increasing democratic deficit.
The recent case of the impeachment motion of Soumitra Sen, former judge of the Calcutta High Court, once again highlighted the need to have a relook at the process of appointment. The unanimous voice of Parliament, while considering the impeachment motion of Sen, was that there was now a greater need for a National Judicial Commission than ever before. The legislators were, in fact, only echoing the view that has time and again been stressed upon by various legal luminaries and jurists.
The rationale
The rationale for the establishment of a commission must be that it will guarantee the independence of the system from inappropriate politicisation, strengthen the quality of appointments, enhance the fairness of the selection process, promote diversity in the composition of the judiciary and therefore rebuild public confidence in the system. By placing the power of judicial appointments in an independent body, the object is to remove patronage from the system and ensure that the judges are appointed on the basis of their qualifications for the job rather than anything else.
It is here that we can learn from systems elsewhere which have managed to provide for a transparent process of appointment, while maintaining judicial independence. International consensus seems to favour appointments to the higher judiciary through an independent commission.
Form of the commission
A key question is whether the new body should be appointing (The Israel Judicial Commission is the only appointing Commission) or recommending commission. The former in which the commission takes over the full responsibility for making appointments, removes the danger of inappropriate influence by politicians but also weakens democratic accountability and lacks a potential check on abuse, corruption or incompetence on the part of the commission. These advantages and disadvantages are reversed under a recommending commission. Therefore, there is need to adopt a hybrid model where the Commission makes a recommendation, which should be ordinarily binding. The recommendation may be rejected only in cases where the candidate is disqualified or in cases where the procedure adopted by the Commission is legally flawed. The reasons for such rejection must also be recorded in each case.
Composition
The example of the U.K. may be taken where the Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005 has established a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) with one Chairperson and 14 other Commissioners, including five judicial members, one barrister, one solicitor, five lay members, one tribunal chairman and one lay judge. The Chairperson and 12 Commissioners are appointed through open competition, while the other three are selected by the Judge’s Council.
In South Africa, the establishment of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has attracted much attention for the way it has made the appointments process more independent. Its 23 members are drawn from the judiciary, the two branches of the legal profession, the national and regional legislatures, the executive, civil society and academia. The entire process of appointment is geared towards securing maximum transparency.
The nine-member Commission that selects judges for all levels of courts in Israel consists of the President of the Supreme Court, two other Supreme Court judges, the Minister of Justice (Attorney General), another Cabinet Minister, two members of the Legislature (one of whom has traditionally been selected from the opposite ranks) and two representatives of the Israeli Bar.
In India, it would be more prudent to follow the U.K. model where politicians are kept out of the Judicial Appointment Commission. The Judicial Commission should not be a very large body, containing not more than 7 or 9 members. The Commission should consist of representation from the Judiciary, the Bar, eminent members of civil society (who should be appointed by a high powered body, for example presided over by the Vice President, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, the Law Minister and the Leader of the Opposition).
An equally important feature of public accountability is institutional and procedural openness. The requirement of openness is particularly important in the judicial appointment process, because a recurring criticism of the old system was the high level of secrecy within which the selection process functioned. The extent to which the Commission operates transparent procedures is therefore a critical test of its legitimacy.
Transparency & openness
To give an example, the Commission in South Africa has made efforts to ensure that the process by which candidates are selected for interview is as open as possible. The statutory provisions provide that when a vacancy arises, the Commission must advertise the post and seek nomination from a wide variety of sources. The names of candidates short-listed for interview by a screening sub-committee are made public and the views of relevant institutions (among them, the Law Society of South Africa, the General Council of the Bar and the Department of Justice) on their suitability are canvassed by the Commission.
On the other hand, the system of public interviews was opposed by pointing towards the example of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing as demonstrating the danger which public interviews posed since the same could degenerate into personalised attacks on the candidates, and such demonstrations, far from increasing legitimacy, would undermine public confidence. The system was further opposed by stating that leading members of the Bar would be discouraged from coming forward if the meetings were made public.
However, public interviews may not be a plausible model for a country like India and therefore should not be introduced here. We should follow the U.K. model and should publish the Annual Judicial report and the names of the selected candidates should be posted on the website.
Merit and diversity
There is no gainsaying that there is a need to preserve and of course, if possible, to improve the professional and personal quality of our judiciary and therefore, merit should be given great primacy. Yet, it is equally important to consider the importance of social diversification in public institutions and the need to include hitherto under-represented groups for a more holistic advancement of all sections of society. A wider range of social backgrounds should mean not just representation from the backward classes and the minorities but also women. This underlying policy aim is perfectly respectable, namely that the public may well have more confidence in its judges if they are more reflective of the make-up of the community at large.
Fresh approaches
Tackling this lack of diversity in the judiciary will require fresh approaches and a major re-engineering of the process of appointment. Diversity is likely to be achieved only if equal opportunities are placed at the heart of the judicial appointments process and are promoted through sustained and proactive initiatives. One such example comes from Ontario, where one of the first actions of the newly established Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee in 1990 was to ask the Attorney-General to write a personal letter to 1,200 senior women lawyers in the province asking them to apply for judicial office. This conscious and innovative attempt to expand the number of workmen in the recruitment pool produced such a marked increase in the number of applications from well qualified women that between 1990 and 1992, 41 per cent of the judges appointed by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee were women.
The outcome of the reforms would depend on the way in which the commission is set up and the model adopted. The detail of the commission must be thought through with great care. Issues such as the division of responsibility between the commission and the appointing Minister, composition of the membership and the process for selecting the commissioners themselves are key factors in determining the success of the new system.
(Ajit Prakash Shah is the former Chief Justice of the High Courts of Delhi and Madras.)
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on 24.01.2012 cut the cash reserve ratio (CRR) by 50 basis points from 6 per cent to 5.5 per cent with effect from January 28, 2012 which would release Rs.32,000 crore into the financial system.
Signalling a shift in its policy, which the central bank followed in the last two years — fighting inflation — it now plans to revive growth by injecting liquidity into the system. However, persisting inflationary pressure persuaded the RBI from reducing the policy indicative rates.
The RBI kept the repo rate unchanged at 8.50 per cent for the second consecutive time after raising it 13 times between March 2010 and October 2011.
CRR is the percentage of deposits that commercial banks must keep with the central bank. Repo rate is the rate at which banks borrow from the central bank. The RBI’s action is seen as an attempt to strike a balance between risks to growth and inflation. The declining growth is a worry for the RBI and its projection of GDP growth for this financial year is revised downwards from 7.6 per cent to 7 per cent.
“There is an urgent need for decisive fiscal consolidation, which will shift the balance of aggregate demand from public to private, and from consumption to capital formation. This is critical to yielding the space required for lowering rates without the imminent risk of resurgent inflation,” said D. Subbarao, RBI Governor, while addressing a press conference to announce the third quarter review of the Monetary Policy. “The forthcoming Union Budget must exploit the opportunity to begin this process in a credible and sustainable way,” Dr. Subbarao added.
The RBI Governor noted that the growth-inflation balance of the monetary policy stance had now shifted to growth, while at the same time ensured that inflationary pressures remained contained.
Further, Dr. Subbarao said the current inflation trajectory made it premature to cut the policy rate. According to him, “inflation remains high.” “Moreover”, he added, “there are upside risks to inflation from global crude oil prices, the lingering impact of rupee depreciation, and slippage in the fiscal deficit.”
However, Dr. Subbarao said, “liquidity conditions have remained tight beyond the comfort zone of the Reserve Bank.”
Although the RBI has conducted open market operations, and injected liquidity of over Rs.70,000 crore, the structural deficit in the system has increased significantly. This could hurt credit flow to productive sectors of the economy. “The large structural deficit in the system presented a strong case for injecting permanent primary liquidity into the system.”
Let us agree to go beyond billboard exhortations to ‘love the girl child.’
What was our immediate response to further decline in the child sex ratio in India? Within days of the provisional 2011 Census results (March-April 2011), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reconstituted the Central Supervisory Board for the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex selection) Act 1994 , which had not met for 3 years, and on November 30, 2011 the Ministry of Women and Child Development formed a Sectoral Innovation Council for Child Sex Ratio. But we are busy dousing flames in haste without looking to dampen the source. This fire-fighting approach is unlikely to succeed, because putting out fires in one district virtually ensures its spread to another. That is what has happened.
The decline in child sex ratio (0-6 years) from 945 in 1991 to 927 in 2001 and further to 914 females per 1,000 males in 2011 — the lowest since independence — is cause for alarm, but also occasion for serious policy re-think. Over the last two decades, the rate of decline appears to have slowed but what began as an urban phenomenon has spread to rural areas. This is despite legal provisions, incentive-based schemes, and media messages. Indians across the country, bridging class and caste divides, are deliberately ensuring that girls are simply not born. This artificial alteration of our demographic landscape has implications for not only gender justice and equality but also social violence, human development and democracy.
What is wrong?
So what are we doing wrong — both in the discourse we have created and in the policy route we have chosen to walk? To start with, we have chosen to target one symptom (practice of sex selection), instead of evolving a comprehensive national policy response to a deeply resistant ailment (son preference/daughter aversion and low status of women in India). State policy has, in the main, consisted of seeking to stem the supply of technology that enables sex selection through application of the law — the PCPNDT Act bans the use of diagnostic techniques for determining the sex of a foetus. The rationale (framed within an inverted demand-supply paradigm) is that stopping supply of the technology will reduce the demand — for determining the sex of the foetus and aborting if it is female. So far (not withstanding wide publicity about the PCPNDT Act, including signboards in every clinic, hospital and nursing home), this hasn’t panned out as planned.
Meanwhile, this singular focus on PCPNDT has triggered an unhealthy discourse beyond what the law actually bans (using medical diagnostics to determine the sex of the foetus) to the next step, i.e. the act of abortion. Over the last few years, the hunt for aborted female foetuses appears to have become legitimate media pastime and reportage consists chiefly of stories about “foetuses’ foeticide” and “foetal remains.” Clearly, the goriness of the phenomenon meets the media’s need for just a tad bit of sensation (foetal remains found in gunny bags outside quack clinics, in the fields, in the dark depths of deep wells, etc.).
While national attention on this issue is welcome, this is complex terrain. On the one hand is the right of females to be born, and of society to protect and preserve a gender balance. On the other hand lies a woman’s right under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (enacted in 1971, revised in 1975) to have a safe and legal abortion as part of a whole gamut of reproductive rights. In our zeal to create an environment against one type of abortion (of a foetus onlybecause it is female), we end up stigmatising all abortions. Access to safe and legal abortion for Indian women is already severely limited, and this environment will not improve things. Indeed the very word ‘foeticide’ i.e. ‘killing’ of the foetus (used often without the qualifying ‘female foeticide’) dents abortion rights.
Tackling the Demand Side
As for tackling the demand side — i.e. addressing the complex reasons that son preference-daughter aversion is so prevalent — our policy response has included marking the National Girl Child Day (declared in 2009) on January 24, sporadically putting up billboards at major intersections telling us to ‘love the girl child,’ ‘beti bachao‘, ‘stop killing girls’, and a slew of ill-conceived conditional cash transfer schemes to incentivise the birth of girls at both the Centre and the State level.
A 2010 desk review of 15 conditional cash transfer schemes (Dhan Lakshmi, Ladli, Beti Hai Anmol, Kanyadan, and others) conducted by TV Sekher of IIPS for UNFPA is revealing. Most of them promised relatively small amounts at maturity, had complex conditions (immunisation, school enrolment, institutional delivery, sterilisation, among others), gave cash amounts at the age of 18 (for dowry?), and were aimed at poor or BPL families. Quite apart from the objectionable attempt to arm twist every imaginable kind of ‘desired’ behaviour (immunise, educate, sterilise) in return for small sums of money, the big problem is that these schemes are targeted largely at poor families. This is not a poor or BPL-only phenomenon. Small cash amounts are unlikely to make an iota of difference to families who have resources to pay for sex selective technology. On this issue, Indian policymakers, accustomed to ‘targeting’ the poor (i.e. BPL) need to bravely enter the unfamiliar terrain of targeting the not-so-poor, the upwardly mobile, the wealthy.
The advocacy and communications around this issue, by both the government and NGOs, has taken the ‘love the girl child’ route. It is unexceptionable, politically correct, and ensconced comfortably in a language of patriarchal protectiveness (ladki ko bachao). Of course, everyone likes to ‘love little girls in pigtails,’ including MPs who will defeat the Women’s Reservation Bill time and again in Parliament.
Cultural Attitudes
The problem of ‘demand’ goes far deeper than our communication or policy solutions seem to suggest. Sex selection is located at the complex interface of cultural attitudes, patriarchal prejudice, socioeconomic pressures, the changes wrought by modernity, and the commercialisation and misuse of modern medical technology. The impact of modernity and materialism on the decreased valuation of females i.e. enhanced daughter aversion, the lack of old-age social security i.e. son preference, increasing violence against women, property rights, inheritance laws — each of these and more play a role. We must demand of ourselves an equally comprehensive national policy on the sex ratio, capable of addressing each contributory factor.
South Korea & China
South Korea has beaten the problem by adopting a comprehensive national response. China, whether or not we agree with its particular national framework, at least has one. The Chinese government adopted a series of concurrent policies, strategic actions and laws to promote gender equality, increase female workforce participation, ensure old age social security, in addition to banning the use of sex selective diagnostics. The country’s sex ratio is showing small signs of improvement.
Finally, a national communication strategy is key to a national policy response, and this must rest on acknowledging two things — one, behaviour change communication is a specialised field whose expertise must be harnessed, and two, the nature of reproductive decision-making in India is changing along with immense changes in the Indian family structure. A communication strategy needs to identify primary targets (decision-makers) and secondary targets (decision supporters), and reach them through strategic media platforms — traditional, conventional and new media. As for the core content of messages, a lot can be said, but for now let us agree to go beyond billboard exhortations to ‘love the girl child.’ And recognise that the girl will grow up to be a woman one day.
(Farah Naqvi is an independent writer and activist. A.K. Shiva Kumar is a development economist. The authors are members of the National Advisory Council)
How independent should a state Lokayukta be? You can either be pregnant or not pregnant – there’s nothing in between. The same principle applies to an ombudsman: independence must be total. The verdict of the Gujarat high court justice V M Sahai on Wednesday upholding the appointment by Gujarat governor Kamla Beniwal of justice R A Mehta as the state’s Lokayukta is a slap on the wrist of Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. The matter will now be decided by the Supreme Court, but the chief minister may well find himself on the wrong side of constitutional propriety.
The increasingly fraught relationship between governors and chief ministers can upset the fine balance of power in India’s federal structure. Governors are appointed directly by the president. The president in turn, according to the Constitution, acts on the advice of the council of ministers headed by the prime minister. In effect, therefore, governors are appointed by the central government.
This can be a problem in a federal system like India’s where nearly a dozen states are ruled by the opposition. The system is open to abuse. Between 1966 and 1977, Indira Gandhi imposed President’s rule 39 times in opposition-ruled states. In retaliation, the Janata Party government imposed President’s rule 11 times between 1977 and 1979 in Congress-ruled states.
At the height of the falling out between President Giani Zail Singh and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in March 1987, rumours swirled around Delhi that Zail Singh was about to do the unthinkable and dismiss Rajiv. He was fond of inviting editors for ‘briefings’ to Rashtrapati Bhavan or one of the state Raj Bhavans when he was travelling. It was thus that i found myself alone with the president at Raj Bhavan in Mumbai for an off-the-record briefing on his latest problems with the Rajiv Gandhi government. What the president said that day must remain off the record, but it revealed the extent to which standards had fallen in what constitutionally is an office above party politics.
In a federal system, state governors, as the president`s representatives, play a unique role. A Westminster parliamentary demo-cracy like Britain has no system of governors because it is a small, homogenous country. A large, heterogeneous federal democracy like the US does have state governors, but their role is constitutionally akin to a chief minister’s in India. Like many colonial leftovers, India invented the role of state governor after Independence to act as a conduit between the ceremonial head of state (the president) and the chief minister of each state in what was then a federal work-in-progress.
As the president’s eyes and ears in the country’s diverse and far-flung states, governors at first played a useful role. They were mostly apolitical. So was the president they reported to. Presidents of the calibre of Rajendra Prasad and S Radhakrishnan ensured that a young, fissiparous demo-cracy was kept glued together by not only the checks and balances written into the Constitution but the wisdom of its apolitical presidents and governors.
The decline in standards began during Indira Gandhi’s prime ministership when the office of president was regularly misused. In June 1975, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, instead of standing firm against the prime minister’s advice to proclaim a draconian Emergency, rubber-stamped it. As politics became more partisan, so did presidents and governors.
How do we fix what is now a systemic problem? The solution lies in the rules framed to appoint governors. An amendment to articles 155 and 158 of the Constitution should mandate that a governor must not have held political office for at least five years before being appointed and be barred from holding public office permanently after demitting his gubernatorial post. This single amendment will transform the quality of interaction between elected chief ministers and selected governors.
The 1,600-page Sarkaria commission report submitted to the government in 1988 had recommended watered down strictures on the eligibility of a governor who had held prior political office. Even this diluted recommendation was never implemented. The recommendations of the Venkatachaliah commission report (2002) and the Punchhi commission report (2010), which dealt with Centre-state relations, the role of governors and the importance of the Inter-State Council to resolve disputes, have been similarly ignored by successive governments.
Today governors are the handmaidens of the Union government. That was never their inten-ded role when B R Ambedkar and his distinguished colleagues wrote the Indian Constitution. Their duty was to be neutral guardians of the complex relationship between the federal government and state governments belonging to different political parties.
The first president of India, Rajendra Prasad, had warned: “It is necessary that the people of a State should have full confidence in a supreme non-partisan institution like that of Governor.” Amending the constitutional provision under which governors are appointed will restore non-partisanship to our federal polity. Additionally, distinguished leaders from the judiciary, law, business and academia – rather than politicians seeking pasture or rehabilitation – should be considered for appointment to state Raj Bhavans. The role of governor must change from being a cynical political check on opposition-ruled state assemblies to that of guardian of the public interest.
The writer is an author and chairman of a media group.
Army chief Gen Vijay Kumar Singh dragged the government to the Supreme Court on 16.01.2012 by challenging it over the festering issue of his date of birth (DoB). The row has pitted the senior-most officer of the 1.13-million-strong army, the world’s second largest, against the government, a first in independent India.
Courtesy: CNN IBN Live
In a combative yet emotional writ petition in the apex court, Gen Singh argued his fight to get his DoB corrected from ‘May 10, 1950′ to ‘May 10, 1951′, was a matter of his personal and professional honour, which he said was very dear to him as a soldier who has served the country bravely, without fear or favour.
“It’s all about honour and integrity, not tenure,” said Gen Singh, “hurt” by the repeated insinuations that he was attempting to secure an additional year of service at the fag end of his career. In his petition, which is likely to be heard on Friday or next week, he has solemnly declared that as per his date of birth of May 10, 1951, he is due to retire only on March 31, 2013, after completing a three-year tenure.
General V K Singh has promised in his writ petition before the Supreme Court that he would not take advantage of the correction and retire as scheduled on May 31, 2012. All he wanted of the court, said Gen Singh, was to protect his honour, which was fundamental to a soldier’s life, by making his year of birth 1951.
Coming as it did a day after Army Day and Gen Singh himself trying to play down the row, the Army chief’s unprecedented step sent shock waves across South Block with Defence Ministry(MoD) mandarins going into a hurdle. Sources said the MoD, which allowed the controversy to fester for far too long, was “fully ready” to join the legal battle with Gen Singh, who is brandishing his school-leaving certificate and other documents to buttress his age claims.
Armed with its set of documents, the MoD has time and again held Gen Singh’s DoB will stand at May 10, 1950. The controversy has seen MoD thrice refer the issue to AG, who returned identical opinions disagreeing with the Army chief’s contentions.
Technically, Gen Singh’s DoB is crucial since it will decide when he has to retire, impacting the entire line of succession in the 1.13-million strong force. If it remains 1950, then he would hang up his boots on May 31, clearing the way for Eastern Army commander Lt Gen Bikram Singh to become the next Army chief, as MoD wants.
But if it’s settled at 1951, then Northern Army commander Lt Gen K T Parnaik could take over since Gen V K Singh could continue in office till March 2013 (even though he has averred to the contrary), while Lt Gen Bikram Singh will retire this year. Meanwhile, seniormost serving Lt Gen, Western Command chief Shankar Ghosh, has also jumped into the fray, as reported by TOI. A service chief can serve for three years or up to 62 yrs, whichever is earlier.
The raging legal battle between Indian Army chief Gen. VK Singh and the government over his age sets an “unhealthy precedent”, minister of state for defence MM Pallam Raju said in New Delhi on 18.01.2012. “It is not a healthy precedent either for the ministry or the armed forces. It is not a matter for public debate and like I said, it’s an unhealthy precedent,” Raju told reporters.
The army chief moved the Supreme Court on Monday after the ministry in December rejected his statutory complaint requesting the change of his year of birth in official records to 1951 from 1950. A day later, the defence ministry filed a caveat in the apex court, urging it to not pass any order on the general’s petition before hearing the government.
The Supreme Court may refer the case to the Armed Forces Tribunal or to a lower court.
Gen VK Singh’s date trouble:
1965: Date of Birth (DoB) filled as May 10, 1950, in UPSC application form (Gen Singh says it was done by a school teacher)
1967/68: Gen Singh submits school certificate showing 1951 as year of birth
1974-75: Army List published showing 1950
The age row: Timeline
Army’s Adjutant General branch records DoB as May 10, 1951, but Military Secretary’s branch records it as May 10, 1950
2002: Gen Singh demands the differing records be reconciled
2006: Gen Singh is promoted to Lt-Gen rank, says he was forced to give an undertaking accepting 1950 as the year of birth
2008: When he is promoted as Army Commander, he gives an undertaking again to maintain 1950 as his year of birth, but Gen Singh’s supporters say it was extracted under coercion
Early 2010: Just before his appointment as the chief in April, Gen Singh writes to then Army chief and defence secy, saying the issue was a closed chapter
October 2010: An RTI application is filed by an IAS officer seeking Army chief’s birth date. It is referred to legal adviser to MoD, who says the chief was born in 1951
May 6, 2011: MoD objects to being bypassed in seeking legal opinion and Army HQs efforts to correct records
May 2011: Army chief petitions MoD on the issue, demands ‘reconciliation’ of his DoB
July 2011: MOD rejects the demand, based on Attorney General’s opinion
August 2011: Gen Singh files a statutory complaint with defence minister AK Antony
December 2011: MoD rejects the statutory complaint, based on Attorney General’s opinion
January 16, 2012: Gen Singh moves SC
Opposition Party targets Government
Political parties on 17.01.2012 attacked the government for its failure in handling the controversy over Army chief General V K Singh’s age after the latter approached the Supreme Court on the issue.
“The matter relating to the age of the Army chief shows the failure of statecraft of the Government of India,” said BJP’s chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad. “The Army is a very important institution of India of which the entire country is proud. The dignity and decorum are important hallmarks of this institution. Such a serious matter ought to have been handled amicably by the government internally instead of allowing it to come in public domain and resultant court proceedings,” he said.
The SP too came down heavily on the government. “It is very unfortunate that the government has failed to resolve this issue. It should have taken it as an extraordinary issue and dealt with it with utmost sincerity and sensitivity to avoid this situation beforehand. The government should avoid taking any hasty steps in this matter and should still try to resolve this issue with seriousness,” party general secretary Mohan Singh said.
The Left parties were of the view that the issue should not be politicised. CPI general secretary A B Bardhan said, “The issue should not be politicised. There is difference between the government and the Army chief over his date of birth. It should have been sorted out earlier and that too amicably without coming into the public domain. This is an unseemly controversy.” He, however, added that the Army chief’s decision to go to court amounted to challenging the government.
Right to retire with dignity
An Army Chief “has a right to retire with dignity”, Gen VK Singh has pleaded before the Supreme Court while accepting the government’s right to determine his tenure.
Gen Singh’s unprecedented action in dragging the government to the apex court followed the ministry’s insistence that May 10, 1950 would be treated his official date of birth and that he would consequently retire on May 31, 2012.
Gen Singh stated that the government’s action and conduct in refusing to accept his contention on his birth date was affecting his image before the general public and the armed forces.
It was his right to have a “dignified life”, he pleaded in the petition, adding that an army chief has “a right to retire with dignity”.
Referring to the ministry’s orders of December 30 and earlier rejecting his case, the Army Chief has said that these orders have “conveniently ignored” his matriculation certificate, entire service record including entry into service, promotions and annual confidential reports.
He has stated that being a highly decorated officer, he had received all his awards, decorations and promotions as per the date of birth being 10.5.1951.
Gen Singh has enclosed voluminous documents and records with the petition in support of his stand that his year of birth was 1951.
However, he has said that in an application dated 29.7.1965 for admission to National Defence Academy (NDA) course he had, as a 14-year school boy, inadvertently filled his date of birth as 10.5.1950.
Gen Singh said Military Secretary’s Branch (MS Branch), one of the departments of the army, somehow now claims that his date of birth is May 10, 1950 while the same department while processing his name for the gallantry awards reflected the year of birth as 1951.
He said the Adjutant General’s Branch (AG Branch) being the official record keepers of the Indian Army maintains the year of birth as 1951.
The Army Chief said he had only sought harmonisation of the records of the two departments and his request was erroneously construed as request for change of birth and was wrongly turned down by the two orders.
He said he has had impeccable service record and has been decorated for his exemplary and meritorious service. In a service where discipline and respect for seniors is one of the important feature, the controversy has been given undue publicity and coverage in the media.
Citing a judgement of the apex court in Kochunni verus State of Madras in 1959, Gen Singh said the court has categorically said that an application under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be refused merely on the ground that such an application has been made to the Supreme Court in the first instance without resort to High Court or there is some adequate alternative remedy available to him.
It was further held in that judgement that the right to move the Supreme Court for the purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights itself is a fundamental right.
PM steers clear; Gen Singh meets MoS Defence
Even as controversy continued to rage over army chief Gen VK Singh’s date of birth, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 19.01.2012 steered clear of making any comment, contending that the matter was “sensitive”. His evasiveness on the issue came on the eve of hearing by the Supreme Court of a organisation in support of Gen Singh. It was not clear whether a petition filed by Gen Singh himself would come up on 20.1.2012.
“It is a sensitive issue. I do not want to comment,” the Prime Minister said on the sidelines of a function to launch the book ‘The Tribune 130 (rpt) 130 Years: A Witness to History.
He was asked about the controversy surrounding the age of army chief who has dragged the government to the Supreme Court to seek a direction that his date of birth on military records be treated as May 10, 1951 and not 1950.
Meanwhile, the army chief met minister of state for defence MM Pallam Raju, a day after the latter expressed unhappiness over the matter being taken to court.
It was not clear as to what transpired at the unscheduled meeting between Raju and Gen Singh but it is believed to have been arranged to clarify things.
“It is an unfortunate development and it is not a healthy precedent either for the (Defence) Ministry or the armed forces… It is an unhealthy precedent. It does not auger well either for the Ministry or the forces,” Raju had said on Wednesday while reacting to a question on the issue.
Gen Singh moved the Supreme Court on 16.01.2012 challenging the government’s rejection of his claim on his date of birth. The Defence Ministry had recently rejected his contention that he was born in 1951 and not in 1950.
In its recent order, the Ministry has taken his date of birth as May 10, 1950, and not May 10, 1951, which the General has claimed as real as per his matriculation certificate.
An organisation The Grenadiers Association, Rohtak Chapter, had earlier filed an application in the apex court in support of Gen Singh. It is slated to come up on 20.1.2012.
In his own petition, the army chief has contended that he was treated by the government in a manner which reflects total lack of procedure and principles of natural justice in deciding his age.
In his 68-page petition, Gen Singh has challenged the government’s “illegal and arbitrary” rejection of his Statutory Complaint to defence minister AK Antony on December 30 last for accepting May 10, 1951 as his date of birth. He has termed it as violation of his fundamental rights.
Seeking the quashing of this order, the Army Chief has pleaded that the government be directed to treat May 10, 1951 as his date of birth and “grant all consequential reliefs thereto”.
“The respondent (government) needs to explain as to why the senior most officer of the Army could be treated in a manner which reflects total lack of procedure and principles of natural justice and that too on an opinion obtained from the Attorney General,” his petition said.
Gen Singh also wondered as to why the Ministry of Defence would doubt the records in the Adjutant General’s branch, the official record-keeper of the Army, has not been explained. Nor has any authority while rejecting his plea for treating his date of birth as 10.5.1951 ever doubted the birth certificate of the petitioner.
Army chief age row: Govt files caveat in SC on petition
Government on 17.01.2012 filed a caveat in the Supreme Court against any ex-parte order on the petition of Army chief Gen V K Singh challenging the decision over his date of birth.
An application was filed by the ministry of defence urging the apex court not to pass any order on Singh’s petition without hearing it. The caveat as filed through counsel T A Khan.
SC trashes PIL on Army Chief’s age
The Supreme Court (SC) on 20.01.2012 rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an ex-servicemen association seeking a direction to the Union government to accept the outgoing army chief’s date of birth as May 10, 1951. Several factual errors in the PIL contributed to it being dismissed. This dismissal, however, is not expected to impact General VK Singh’s petition.
“It is purely a service matter,” a three-judge bench headed by chief justice SH Kapadia told The Grenadiers Association (Rohtak Chapter), questioning its right to file a petition in the name of PIL relating to an individual officer’s age dispute.
They said a writ petition by the aggrieved person (Gen Singh) on the age issue is pending before the court.
Lawyers representing the government and Gen Singh kept a close watch on the proceedings. The judges questioned the petitioner’s lawyer, Bhim Singh, as to how a PIL could be filed in such a case and whether any legal precedent has been set when a service matter is accepted to serve the public interest.
They grilled the petitioner on filing a PIL annexing newspaper clippings and opinions of four former CJIs. “It is most improper and it is most unfortunate. We will not consider the opinion of former CJIs”, the judges said, making it clear that they were not concerned with the opinions. “We are not here to fix the age of the army chief. This is purely a service matter. Why you are putting opinion of former CJIs in the court? Why should the opinion be annexed to the petition? We are on the very limited issue.”
In an order the court said, “In our view, writ petition of this nature at the behest of the association is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable… We express no opinion on the merits. The registry is directed not to accept writ petition(s) without raising objection in cases where opinions of retired judges are annexed to the writ petition. The registry will carry out this direction in all matters.”
It is still early to come to any conclusion about the dénouement of the churning in West Asia. Things are far from settled.
The euphoria generated by the Jasmine and Tahrir revolutions has all but dissipated during the past year. The unrealistic expectations, the hype built up mainly by the western governments and the media have given way to doubt, disappointment and even despair over the fate of ‘Arab Spring.’ The concern of most observers in the international community is now focussed on the direction in which “people’s movements” in various countries will proceed, and on the loss of lives that occurred in Libya, Yemen and, to a less extent, Egypt, and that is continuing in Syria and can be expected to happen in some other countries in the region in the coming months. It is a sad commentary on the rest of the international community that it unhesitatingly adopts the terminology coined by the West to describe the historic events in West Asia. ‘Arab Spring’ or ‘Arab Awakening’ is a condescending description; it suggests that the people of West Asia have been sleeping all these decades, not caring for freedoms enjoyed by people elsewhere. The fact is that non-regional governments have been supporting the authoritarian regimes through massive supply of deadly weapons and technology, which were used to suppress the people.
Increased Shia-Sunni Tensions
There are some who would like the Egyptians to believe that their revolution would not have happened but for the speech of President Barack Obama in their capital two years ago. The fact is that the people of Tunisia, followed by the people of Egypt, owe their revolutions to no one except themselves; they are the owners of their revolutions. If anything, the intervention of external powers, as in Libya, has complicated matters for the most part, created space for more extreme forms of Islamic thought to gain ascendance and, perhaps unwittingly, greatly accentuated the tensions between Shias and Sunnis. It is still early days to come to any conclusions about the dénouement of the churning in the region. Things are far from settled, except to some extent in Tunisia where it all began a year ago. Some broad trends, however, may be attempted.
Strengthening of Islamist Groups
In all countries which have witnessed some degree of protests, Islamist groups have gained significant ground. In Tunisia, a ‘moderate’ Islamic party has won plurality of the vote. In Libya, where regional forces are refusing to give up their arms or disband their militias, hard-line Islamists, including loyalists of the al Qaeda, have secured influential positions. Egypt has surprised most observers, including knowledgeable Egyptians, by giving a huge electoral mandate to the Muslim Brotherhood and, more ominously, to Salafists; together, the two Islamist groups will control about 70 per cent seats in Parliament, to the great disappointment of the ‘secular’ forces. Similarly, in Yemen, the extremists have gained ground and will emerge as the most influential force as and when President Saleh leaves the country. The same phenomenon is evident in Syria in an acuter form. Bahrain is possibly an exception in the sense that the conflict there is between the minority Sunni ruling family and the majority Shia community.
The success of the Islamists by itself need not be seen as a negative outcome, except perhaps by Israel. Their success is an indication of the disillusionment of people with the ‘secular’ authoritarian regimes as well as the reward for the socially useful work they have been doing such as running hospitals and schools. Whatever the nature of the new governments, people will enjoy more freedoms and will have a greater say in running the affairs of the state. The most amazing phenomenon of 2011 is the shedding of fear by the people, first in the Arab world and, subsequently almost everywhere else, including Russia and China. (This does not apply much to India since we always were free and unafraid to protest and demonstrate, although Tahrir Square could have provided some inspiration.) The Time magazine is absolutely right in naming the unnamed ‘Protester’ as the person of the year. This means the Islamists, as and when they occupy positions of power, will not be able to manipulate people in any way they like. In the medium term, the Islamists-led regimes will insist, at the least, on all legislation being compliant with the Sharia, whatever it means in practice.
Security forces, the army and police, will continue to wield significant, even decisive, influence in the stability of governments. The Turkish model will not be followed consciously given past history but some variation of it should be expected to emerge at some stage. Libya has to go through the difficult process of creating an army out of disparate armed militias and will take longer to achieve stability. In Egypt, the armed forces, which have been used to wielding power for nearly five decades, will hold on to it for quite some time, especially since they also have significant vested interests in the economy.
More Attention on Palestine
The Palestinian issue will receive much more attention and focus from the new regimes, which probably would mean more support for Hamas. Israel, which already feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear programme, will be under increased pressure to suspend settlement building. Israel’s posture will harden and its military spending will increase. The U.S. is in no position to bring effective pressure on Israel, especially in an election year, but it might appeal to Israel to be more reasonable on the Palestinian track in return for tightening the screws on Iran.
Syrian Issue
Syria is a complex case but certain facts are clear. (1) There is genuine popular demand for reform. (2) There is repression and use of ruthless force by the regime — at the same time, it continues to enjoy the support of the security forces and significant sections. (3) There is open intervention by external powers and groups such as the Brotherhood as well as elements subscribing to the al-Qaeda ideology, if not the al-Qaeda itself. (4) Many dissident groups are well armed and have killed a number of security forces. (5) Western powers are determined to bring about regime change. (6) Israel is greatly interested in seeing Bashar Assad removed even if the alternative will be a fundamentalist regime. Its priority is Iran and whatever weakens Iran in the region is considered to be in Israel’s interest. Bashar’s removal will greatly diminish the Hezbollah’s ability to threaten Israel and also reduce Hamas’ clout. (7) Unless a solution is found soon, the country will be headed towards a bloody civil war.
The Shia-Sunni tensions and Saudi-Iranian rivalry will intensify. Iraq presents a most discouraging example in this respect. After so many years of American shepherding, society in Iraq remains deeply divided on sectarian fault lines. Prime Minister Maliki, now that he is liberated from whatever moderating influence American presence might have exercised on him, is dealing with the Sunni community in exactly the wrong way. The sectarian violence seems all set to return to the horrors of the 2005-07 period. Iraq’s Sunni neighbours, especially Saudi Arabia, will definitely intervene to protect their Sunni brethren across the border. It is not a coincidence that Iraq’s Shia government has been voting against the Arab League’s decisions on the Alawite Shia-led Syrian regime. The Saudi hostility to Damascus has everything to do with the Shia-Sunni divide. Turkey’s current antagonism to Syria has many explanations and the Shia-Sunni factor is one of them. The Turkey-Syria-Iraq triangle offers quite a few fertile grounds for conflict — water, the Kurdish problem, Shia-Sunni hatred, etc. There is a tendency to downplay the Shia-Sunni tension but it is very much a fact of the Muslim life and it is better to recognise it.
In sum, the region is likely to remain unstable for quite some time. It would become destabilised should the Iranian nuclear issue lead to extremely harsh sanctions — and the process has begun — or worse, military action.
Some Indian experts would like India to take a more proactive role on the happenings in West Asia, to be on ‘the right side of the forces of history.’ It is no doubt good to feel self-righteous and earn an occasional pat on the back from the western or any other government. But it is more important to think of our national interests. Compared to our friends in the West, we are more dependent on the energy resources of West Asia. Most importantly, unlike other countries, we have to worry about 6 million of our compatriots who are working there and sending billions of dollars to their families back home. It makes sense to take a cautious stance, make as thorough an analysis as possible of the evolving situation and try to be on the winning side. That is our challenge. That challenge is coming sooner that we would like, in Iran.
Alistair Anthony Pereira, a Mumbai based businessman while he was drunk, had run his speeding Toyota Corolla over a pavement in Mumbai on November 1, 2006 killing 7 labourers and injuring several others. He was 21 years old at the time of the accident. Pereira was initially sentenced to 6 months in jail by a lower court in Mumbai. Due to public uproar, Bombay High Court took cognizance of the matter suo-moto and sentenced him for three years for unintentional killing.
States to take measure to prevent accidents
The Bombay High Court found him guilty for running over 7 people while he was drunk in Mumbai.
The Bombay High Court was told on August 1, 2007 that the State will formulate a scheme to prevent the ever-increasing number of accidents involving drunk drivers.
Advocate Ravi Kadam told the division bench comprising Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice Ranjana Desai, hearing the suo-motu petition linked with Alistair Pereira episode, that number of accidents involving drunken drivers was on the rise and hence the State would formulate a scheme to reduce them.
He told the court that the only way to reduce them was to prevent such accidents, instead of stressing on investigation and prosecution. He informed the court that a senior police officer, having PhD in sociology, might be able to formulate some scheme to prevent such accidents while remaining within the ambit of present laws.
Without referring to many glaring loopholes that came to light during the proceedings, the court expressed its displeasure over affidavit filed by Mumbai Police Commissioner stating that the investigations into Alistair Pereira hit-and-run case was done properly.
Supreme Court’s verdict
The Supreme Court confirmed the three-year jail term awarded to Mumbai-based businessman Alistair Pereira for mowing down seven persons with his speeding car in 2006.
In a significant decision, a bench of Justices R M Lodha and J S Khehar also ruled that there was no “impediment” in law in charging an offender simultaneously with the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and causing hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others.
In the verdict running in 69-pages, the bench expressed its concern over the rising number of deaths in road accidents caused by rash and drunk driving.
Even though it termed the three-year-jail term given to the 25-year-old businessman as “meagre and inadequate,” the bench refrained from enhancing the sentence after noting that the state government had not filed an appeal against the High Court’s verdict. The SC recommended that there be a change in the sentencing policy reflected in S. 304 –A (death due to negligence) as no amount of compensation would relieve the family of the victims from “mental agony.”
The trial court had awarded him six months jail term in a verdict which caused huge public outcry and uproar prompting the Bombay High Court to take suo motu cognizance of the matter and enhance the punishment to three-year imprisonment.
Pereira Missing
Two days after the Supreme Court verdict in the 2006 hit-and-run case, Alistair Periera, whose bail was cancelled, is yet to surrender before the authorities in Mumbai
On January 12, 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and three years jail term awarded to the Mumbai-based businessman for mowing down seven persons by his speeding car in an inebriated condition, adding that act was a “despicable aggravated offence.”
The apex court, which concurred with the Bombay high court’s verdict holding him guilty for the offence, had said the sentence could not be enhanced, as the Maharashtra government has not challenged it. It cancelled the bail of Pereira and directed him to “forthwith” surrender for undergoing the remaining sentence as awarded by the high court in 2007 for the incident of November 12, 2006 in Mumbai.
However, Pereira has not yet surrendered before the authorities. The Mumbai police said they can’t arrest him as they are yet to receive the copy of the apex court order. “We can only take action if an order copy is marked to the police,” Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pratap Dighavkar said.
Pereira to be sent to Taloja Prison
Surendra Kumar,IG (prisons) said on January 14. 2012 that they may send Pereira to Taloja jail where 200 plus convicts are already serving their term. Taloja jail is about 50 km away from Mumbai. However, there are chances that he may be sent to the Nashik central jail from where he had filed the bail application a few years ago.
Taloja jail houses most of the dreaded criminals. Several hardened criminals were shifted from the Arthur Road jail to Taloja jail which is spread over 77 acres of land. “Earlier, we would send the convicts to Pune’s Yerawada jail. However, after the construction of Taloja jail, we send the convicts to Taloja jail. Pereira will have to work in the jail factory like other convicts.
Three years conviction for taking the life of 7 innocent labourer victims and injuring several people in drunken mood! Does this sentence commensurate with the crime committed? If victims are not poor roadside labourers, will the sentencing pattern change? It is time for debate and there is need to bring amendments. Whether the kith and kins of the victims paid adequate compensation?
For the first time in 83 years the United States Department of Justice announced a “major” change in the definition of rape towards one that took cognizance of male victims and also did away with ambiguities surrounding the question of consent.
Until now the legal understanding of rape came from a 1927 rule that defined it as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will,” a phraseology that included only forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina and excluded oral and anal penetration; rape of males; penetration of the vagina and anus with an object or body part other than the penis; rape of females by females; and, non-forcible rape.
Following the latest move by the DoJ rape is now defined as “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The change in the definition is at the level of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting system and not in the federal or state criminal codes. This implies that while the change will not impact charging and prosecution on the Federal, State or local level, “it simply means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide,” according to the DoJ.
U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, who has spearheaded some of the effort to end violence against women and is author of the Violence Against Women Act, welcomed the change saying, “Rape is a devastating crime and we can’t solve it unless we know the full extent of it.”
Attorney General Eric Holder reflected upon how the redefinition of rape was expected to impact law enforcement efforts. He said, “These long overdue updates to the definition of rape will help ensure justice for those whose lives have been devastated by sexual violence… This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes.”
According to White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, who spoke with journalists on a conference call following the announcement of the redefinition of rape, one in five women and one in 71 men could expect to be raped in their lifetimes in the U.S. “Definitions matter because people matter,” Ms. Jarrett said, noting that the 2010 statistic of 84,767 people raped in the U.S. did not present an accurate picture of the extent of rape in the country.
With relatively easy access to alcohol, some types of drugs, and the greater exposure of younger persons to the risk of being raped experts had concurred that the older definition was no longer sufficient to ensure greater reporting of incidents of rape. The new definition accordingly takes into account victim incapacity owing to intoxication or age and also does not place emphasis on the question of victims’ physical resistance.
The year 2011 will be remembered in India as the year of the campaign against corruption and for the Jan Lokpal Bill. The campaign began in January 2011 in the backdrop of the publicity that accompanied the several mega-scams that surfaced in 2010, notably those relating to the Commonwealth Games and the telecom spectrum allocations. It caught the public imagination with Anna Hazare’s fast at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi in April 2011. That forced the UPA government to constitute a joint drafting committee for a Lokpal bill. The civil society representatives in the committee proposed a bill called the Jan Lokpal bill, which became the basis for discussions. The basic principles on which the bill was drafted were culled from the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which required all countries to put in place anti-corruption investigative agencies that would be independent of the executive government and would have the jurisdiction to investigate all public servants for corruption.
The Jan Lokpal Bill thus provided for the selection of a 11-member Lokpal by a broad-based selection committee (comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, two judges selected by all the judges of the Supreme Court, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Chief Election Commissioner, the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the previous three chairpersons of the Lokpal), through a transparent process.
It sought to bring the anti-corruption wing of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Lokpal’s administrative control. The Lokpal was to be given corruption investigative jurisdiction over all public servants (including Members of Parliament, judges and all sections of the bureaucracy), and those who may have abetted their acts of corruption (including corporations or non-governmental organisations). The Lokpal could recommend the removal of those officials who were charge sheeted for corruption and order the freezing of any assets that seemed to be acquired by corrupt means.
The Bill sought to provide that corruption trials would be put on the fast track and the courts would determine the loss caused to the public exchequer by an act of corruption — which would be recovered from the corrupt public servants and their abettors. It provided for citizens’ charters to be framed by all public authorities, which would provide for time-bound delivery of public services; failure to do so would be actionable at the hands of officers working under the Lokpal. The bill required States to have Lokayuktas (covering State government officials) on the same lines as the Lokpal.
In order to ensure the integrity of the Lokpal institution, several layers of accountability were sought to be built into its working. Its functioning was made totally transparent by means of a requirement to put every detail of its investigations on a public website after the completion of investigations. The CAG was required to do an annual financial and performance audit of the functioning of the entire Lokpal institution. Any citizen could make a complaint against any member of the Lokpal to the Supreme Court, which had the power to order his or her suspension and even removal.
In addition, there were other important, anti-corruption provisions in the Jan Lokpal Bill. It required every public authority to give out contracts, leases and licences with total transparency and by public auction, unless such procedures were stated to be impossible to undertake. Public servants were barred from taking up jobs with those organisations or companies with which they had been dealing in their official capacity. This was meant to prevent an insidious form of corruption whereby public officials would take jobs instead of bribes from the organisations that they had been patronising in their official capacity.
After nine meetings, the government terminated its engagement with the civil society members of the joint drafting committee and went on to draft and table its own Bill in the monsoon session of Parliament. This Bill incorporated some of the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill but fell far short of what was required to even set up an independent and comprehensive anti-corruption investigative organisation. It left the selection of the Lokpal to a government-dominated committee. Though powers for the removal of Lokpal members were vested in the Supreme Court, complaints against the Lokpal could only be made by the government, which retained the power to suspend them.
The government’s Bill removed most public servants from the jurisdiction of the Lokpal, including the Prime Minister, MPs (insofar as their corruption pertained to their actions in Parliament), judges, and Class 2, 3 and 4 officers. Instead, it brought lakhs of NGOs (even those which were not funded by the government) within its jurisdiction.
Though the Bill kept the CBI with the government, it allowed the Lokpal to have its own anti-corruption investigative body. It eliminated the need to get prior sanction for investigation from the government. It provided for the confiscation of the assets of corrupt public servants and the recovery of losses caused by their acts of corruption from them. But it created a terribly cumbersome procedure for investigation, by which a preliminary inquiry and hearing of the corrupt public servant were made compulsory before investigation could begin. This ended the possibility of making surprise raids and seizures on the premises of corrupt public servants or their abettors.
Anna Hazare announced his second round of fasting in protest against this Bill, from August 16. This brought lakhs of people on to the streets across the country, and eventually forced the government to convene a special session of Parliament, where Anna’s three minimal demands were accepted by a unanimous Sense of the House resolution. Thus, all government servants and the citizens’ charter were to be brought under the Lokpal’s jurisdiction. The Bill would provide for Lokayuktas in the States on the same model as the Lokpal. The government promised to bring forward and pass such a strengthened bill in the winter session of Parliament.
Thereafter, the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee of Parliament, which after three months gave a fractured report with many dissenting notes. The Bill, which was reintroduced towards the end of the winter session, not only did not accept the one useful suggestion of the Standing Committee (negating the compulsory step of a preliminary enquiry) but went on to eliminate even the investigative body from the Lokpal. Thus, the Lokpal would not only be selected and suspended by the government, it would also have to rely only on government-controlled investigative organisations for its investigation. Class 3 and 4 officers were still kept out of the Lokpal’s ambit.
Those of us who worked on the mission with Anna Hazare had suggested 34 amendments to rectify the government’s Bill, and we pointed out that four of these were critical to making the Lokpal a workable institution. These were that the selection and removal procedure should be made independent of the government; the CBI should be brought under the Lokpal’s administrative control or, alternatively, the Lokpal should have its own investigative body; all government servants should be brought under the Lokpal’s investigative ambit; and the procedure for investigation should be in line with the normal criminal investigation procedure. But the government was adamant in not accepting any of these either, and went on to bulldoze the passage of its Bill. It rejected all the amendments moved by the Opposition. The Opposition moved several of the amendments suggested by us, but the only amendment that the government accepted was one to allow State governments to decide when the Bill would be applied to them.
The Rajya Sabha witnessed a sordid drama. Several parties which had walked out in the Lok Sabha (the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party) or had not moved any amendments there (the Trinamool Congress) moved amendments in the Rajya Sabha and their representatives delivered fiery speeches opposing the provisions of the Bill. When it became clear that at least three of the amendments (those relating to the selection and removal of Lokpal members, the CBI being brought under the administrative control of the Lokpal, and the deletion of the chapter on Lokayuktas in the States) were likely to be passed, the government engineered disturbances in the House, resorted to filibustering and prevented the amendments from being voted upon. And the House was prorogued with the Bill hanging in the air.
The government was repeatedly telling us that by proceeding with protests while Parliament was considering the Bill, we were showing contempt for parliamentary democracy. We had responded by pointing out that by overlooking the wishes of the people as expressed in numerous polls, surveys and referendums, all of which showed that more than 80 per cent of the people favoured the Jan Lokpal Bill, the government was showing contempt for the people. The drama in the Rajya Sabha showed that the government was not even willing to go by the will of Parliament. This gives rise to fundamental questions about the functioning of Indian democracy. Is this form of representative democracy allowing the will of the people to be reflected in policy and law-making, or is it being held hostage to parties and their leaderships to be determined by their own whims or corrupt considerations? Has the time come for us to rethink and deepen our democracy by putting in place systems where laws and policies would be decided by decisive inputs of the people (through referendums and gaon sabhas, or village councils) rather than only by such “elected representatives”? We hope that this fundamental issue would bring about an even broader public engagement than what has been witnessed during this Lokpal campaign.
(The author, a Senior Advocate, is a member of Team Anna.)
America warned Iran on 28/12/11 that it will not tolerate a blockade of an oil shipping route and would “counter malevolent actions”.
Iran’s Admiral Habibollah Sayyari had said Iran had the power to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to potential sanctions over its nuclear ambitions.
The trade route is the only sea outlet for the crucial oil fields in and around the Persian Gulf. The comments drew a quick response from the US. “This is not just an important issue for security and stability in the region, but is an economic lifeline for countries in the Gulf, to include Iran,” Pentagon press secretary George Little said.
“Interference with the transit or passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated.”
Separately, a Bahrain-based US Navy 5th Fleet spokeswoman said the Navy is “always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation”.
Iran’s threat to seal off the Gulf, surrounded by oil-rich Gulf States, underlines the depth of worry over the prospect that the Obama administration will go ahead with sanctions over its nuclear programme that would severely hit its biggest revenue earner, oil.
The sanctions themselves have raised worries that removing Iran’s crude from the market will lead to a spike in oil prices.
Gulf Arab nations appeared ready to at least ease market tensions. A senior Saudi Arabian oil official said that Gulf Arab nations are ready to step in to offset any potential loss of exports from Iran, which is the world’s fourth largest oil producer.
What remains unclear is what routes the Gulf nations could take to bring that production to market if Iran goes through with its threats.
About 15 million barrels per day pass through the Hormuz Strait, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
There are some pipelines that could be tapped, but Gulf oil leaders, who met in Cairo on December 24, 2011 declined to say whether they had discussed alternate routes or what they may be.
The Saudi comment, however, appeared to allay some concerns. The US benchmark crude futures contract fell 77 cents in early morning trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange, but still hovered above 100 dollars per barrel.
US State Department spokesman Mark Toner played down the Iranian threats as “rhetoric,” saying, “We’ve seen these kinds of comments before.”
While many analysts believe that Iran’s warnings are little more than posturing, they still highlight the delicate nature of the oil market, which moves as much on rhetoric as supply and demand fundamentals.
So far, Western nations have been unable to agree on sanctions targeting oil exports, even as they argue that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
Tehran maintains its nuclear programme – already the subject of several rounds of sanctions – is purely peaceful.
The US Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, a move that would damage Iran’s ability to export crude.
Purpose for Imposition of Sanction
The U.S. Senate unanimously approved a measure to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, a move intended to shrink Iran’s oil exports and deprive it of cash that might be used in nuclear or missile programs.
The Senate measure would give the Obama administration power to bar foreign financial institutions that do business with the central bank from having correspondent bank accounts in the U.S. If enacted, it could be much harder for foreign companies to pay for oil imports from Iran, the world’s third largest exporter of the commodity.
“The Central Bank of Iran has become a vital intermediary for purchasers of Iranian crude because existing sanctions against the Persian Gulf country have constrained Iran’s ability to access the international financial sector to settle oil trades,” said Mark Dubowitz, director of the Iran Energy Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.
The Obama administration opposed the amendment on the grounds that by targeting an important oil supplier for Asia and Europe, the move threatens to fracture the international coalition supporting coordinated pressure on Iran and may send oil prices soaring if world supply is perceived to be in jeopardy.
“There’s absolutely a risk” that “the price of oil would go up, which would mean that Iran would, in fact, have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less,” Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, before lawmakers voted.
Oil prices have increased 9.8 percent this year to trade at $100.37 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange today.
Final Bill
The measure, sponsored by Senators Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, and Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, was an amendment to the 2012 defense authorization bill, also passed, which sets Pentagon policy and spending targets. The House and Senate will need to negotiate a final bill that would go to President Barack Obama for his signature.
The aim of the sanctions, its sponsors said, is to deprive Iran of revenue and thereby force the regime to abandon nuclear- weapons work. On Nov. 8, a report by the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency highlighted evidence of clandestine work, which Iran denied.
Oil is Iran’s major source of income, supplying over 50 percent of the national budget, according to International Monetary Fund figures. It provided the Islamic state $56 billion in the first seven months of 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
Undermine Support
U.S. Undersecretary of Treasury David Cohen testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that taking unilateral action against the Central Bank of Iran is likely to undermine support for multinational sanctions that the U.S. has worked hard to garner.
Hours before the Senate action yesterday, the European Union added 180 Iranian officials and companies to a blacklist and debated further measures that may be enacted next month. On Nov. 21, the U.K., Canada and the U.S. announced expanded sanctions aimed at Iran’s banking system.
While China has supported four rounds of UN sanctions on Iran, leaders in Beijing as well as a number of U.S. allies in Asia and Europe who buy Iranian oil have so far resisted targeting the nation’s energy products.
The top refiners of Iranian oil are China, Japan, India, Italy and South Korea, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Greece’s Difficulties
Greece “has a certain number of reservations” about an Iranian oil cutoff, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told reporters at an EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels yesterday. “We have to take account of them and work with the different partners so that the interruption of Iranian deliveries can be offset by higher production in other countries,” he said.
Coordinated pressure on Iran is more effective than unilateral action, which can be more easily evaded, Cohen said. “It is imperative that we act in a way that does not threaten to fracture the international coalition” and “does not inadvertently redound to Iran’s economic benefit” through higher oil prices, Cohen testified at the Senate.
Iran pumped 3.6 million barrels of oil a day last month, a Bloomberg survey showed, and exported an average 2.58 million barrels a day in 2010, according to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries statistics.
European Refiners
The Senate measure would come into effect July 1 if included in final legislation signed by Obama. It would permit the president to waive sanctions for national security reasons or because of insufficient oil supply to replace Iran’s crude.
The timing would allow the market to adapt while rising production from Libya and Iraq helps European refiners offset the loss of Iranian crude, Kirk said in a telephone interview.
“We intentionally put a delay in the language so markets could adjust,” he said.
Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia. About 15.5 million barrels of oil a day, about a sixth of global consumption, flows through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
A U.S. business and trade association that represents more than 300 member companies expressed “deep disappointment” over the passage of the measure.
The Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia or the Bhagavad Gita court case in Russia was the trial of the Russian edition of ‘‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’’ initiated in June 2011 by the state prosecutor’s office in Tomsk, Russia on charges of religious extremism. The trial is reportedly instigated by the local branch of the Russian Orthodox Church along with the FSB in order to restrict the activity of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) followers. The trial has followed a 2011 ban of the construction of an ISKCON community village in the Tomsk region, and the long-standing Moscow city government’s opposition to an ISKCON temple project in central Moscow, which the authorities later shifted to a Moscow suburb, continuing a trend of state-instigated legal persecutions of religious minorities in Russia.
At the first hearing the judge found the “expert assessment” inadequate, commissioned another one from Kemerovo State University and postponed the verdict until December 28, 2011.
In mid-December 2011 the trial caused a storm of highly critical publications in the Indian, Russian, and international media and a consequent groundswell of multi-partisan political support in the Indian Parliament, forcing Russian officials to offer apologies and assurances that they will take all the necessary remedial measures to prevent the possible ban. The trial also sparked public protests and legal actions in India agains the proposed ban and drew harsh criticism of the intellectual community in Russia.
On December 28, 2011, the court case was dismissed by Federal Judge Galina Butenko.
Background
Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi receiving a Russian copy of the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ from Soviet Hare Krishna followers. Delhi (India), 1989. President of India Pratibha Patil receiving ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ from an ISKCON representative. New Delhi, December 2011
‘‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’’ is a Russian version of ISKCON founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s translation and commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, a revered scripture for nearly one billion Hindus. The book, a central scripture for Hare Krishna followers, was first published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust in 1968 and has been translated into 80 languages, with over 100 million copies distributed globally till date. It was presented to many world leaders, including the British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said that he “keeps a copy of the book in his office.” According to scholars, the book has never been accused of fomenting extremism before. Two similar cases against this particular edition of the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ were twice dismissed in Moscow courts in 2004 and 2005.
In November 2011, President of India Pratibha Patil in a message to ISKCON Russia for its 40th anniversary commended the organization for “an important role in popularising the noble and eternal message of the Srimad Bhagavad Gita and promoting spiritual harmony in many foreign lands”.
Indian Ambassador to Russia Ajay Malhotra said that Prabhupada’s translation of the Gita “is one of the best that you can find, because he gives you the words, the meanings and the options to understand it as it was written”. The Bhagavad Gita trial was preceded by a government ban of the construction of an ISKCON community village in the Tomsk region earlier in 2011, and the Moscow city government’s unyielding opposition to the counstruction of an ISKCON temple project in central Moscow since 2004. The Russian Orthodox Church played an active and vocal role in urging the Moscow government to ban the project, calling Krishna “an evil demon, the personified power of hell opposing God”. The authorities later shifted the temple construction to a Moscow suburb. The Bhagavad Gita trial also continues a series of state-instigated legal persecutions of religious minorities in Russia.
Court case
The court case is thought to have been instigated by the FSB and the Russian Orthodox Church as an attempt to restrict the Hare Krishna movement, a religious minority in Russia seen by the Church as a destructive cult that wants to “set its roots” in the Tomsk region. It was filed in June 2011 by the public prosecutor of Tomsk Victor Fyodotov on the request of the local Church leaders. He based his plea on an “expert assessment” by three professors of Tomsk State University, Sergei Avanesov, Valery Svistunov and Valery Naumov. Their “expert assessment” concluded that the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ is an extremist literature because it contained claims of exclusiveness of Krishna religion, and used some unpleasant words against those who were not devotees of Krishna. The assessment also stated that the teachings of the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ are anti-Christian by nature because “Krishna is evil and not compatible with Christian views” and foster “social discord”, religious hatred, and “gender, race, nationality, and language” discrimination. Based on the professors’ testimony, the prosecutor requested the court to include the book in the Federal List of Extremist Materials, and to ban its printing, possession, and distribution. The Federal List contains over 1,000 works, Hitler’s Mein Kampf among them, considered as fomenting religious and racial hatred.
First, second, and third hearings (August 2011)
Federal Judge Galina Butenko studies a copy of the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ during the first court hearing. August 12, 2011.
In the first, second, and third court hearings held on 12, 18, and 29–30 August 2011 respectively, Federal Judge Galina Butenko dismissed the “expert assessment” as inadequate and subjective after the prosecutor’s experts acknowledged that they had not studied the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’, and said that their opinion in the “assessment” should be taken as private rather than official. They also stated that the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ did not contain any extremist statements. Two experts invited by the court, N. V. Serebrennikov (Tomsk) and N. N. Karpitsky (Tomsk), also rejected the written “expert opinion”, maintaining, that while Prabhupada’s commentaries used some abusive words for those who are not Krishna’s devotees, the use of these words did not attempt to create a racial or religious divide, to which the Judge recalled that similarly emotionally charged statements are found in the Bible, like: “Don’t throw pearls before a swine”. The court noted that, despite some claims of exclusiveness in Prabhupada’s commentaries, such statements are characteristic of most religious texts and therefore posed no evidence to support the accusations made against the book. The Judge consequently postponed the next hearing until December 2011, ordering a new assessment of the book by a panel of three professors of Kemerovo State University, none of whom are experts on Hinduism.
Following a plea by ISKCON advocate Mikhail Fralov to seek a statement of the Russian Human Rights Committee on the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ and on the right of religious minorities, the Judge agreed to hear their opinion and postponed the final verdict until December 28, 2011.
In India
Media
Since December 17, 2011, when Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) issued a report by a staff writer Nallan Bipindra about the proposed Bhagavad Gita ban in Russia, the event became breaking news in the Indian printed and electronic media, with over 600 publications, including editorials, in all major newspapers and TV news channels as of December 27, 2011.
Parliament
In December 19, 2011, Bhartruhari Mahtab, leader of the Biju Janata Dal party, raised up the issue of the Bhagavad Gita trial in the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha), demanding to know what the Indian government was undertaking to protect “the religious rights of Hindus in Russia”. He also called on the government to “impress [this] upon the Russian authorities through diplomatic channels”. The House Speaker Meira Kumar then turned down requests for speeches on the topic and had to adjourn the session amid protests against the ban of the Gita sparked by Mahtab’s statement, as angry members of the Parliament across the party lines strongly condemned the ban, shouting: “We will not tolerate an insult to Lord Krishna!” The issue was simultaneously raised in Rajya Sabha (the Upper House). This display of political unity surprised the media and prompted a Rajya Sabha member to call the December 19 parliamentary session “a golden day in our history when all differences were deleted to express solidarity for Gita, the book of India”.
On December 20, Sushma Swaraj, leader of the largest opposition party BJP demanded that the Indian government declare the Bhagavad Gita a “national book”. Her move seconded by a BJP member of Rajya Sabha, Tarun Vijay, who asked rhetorically “Can sun be banned, Himalayas be banned…?” Members across party lines voiced their support. Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha K. Rahman Khan, member of the Indian National Congress, said “the entire house agrees with this and joins in condemning this”.
On December 21, a Bharatiya Janata Party delegation led by the party’s foreign affairs chief Vijay Jolly met with the Deputy Chief of the Russian Mission in Delhi Denis Alipov to express the party’s “pain and anguish” at the Bhagavad Gita trial and demand that “suitable measures” be taken by the Russian government to immediately dismiss the court case as baseless. Jolly also expressed surprise that the Russian government allowed the trial to continue for over half a year despite the fact that “India–Russia relations is of paramount importance to both countries”. The delegation also sent throu the Russian embassy a copy of the Bhagavad Gita to President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev along with a letter, in which the BJP delegation stressed to the Russian President that the Gita is a book of “sublime thoughts” that “preaches self discipline… promotes spiritualism and teaches to the mankind the need to fulfill responsibility towards worldly duties”.
Government
According to officials of the Prime Minister of India’s office, “[t]his matter is receiving the highest attention and the Indian embassy officials in Moscow have been instructed to follow up the case with the Russian authorities”, in order to either have the case withdrawn by the state or resolved. Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajeev Shukla said that the Indian authorities are “apprising the Russian government” on the issue. However, members of the Parliament accused the Indian government of inaction. They said that on November 1, ISKCON informed the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the impending court case, urging the government to use “some high-level ministerial visits” to Moscow, prior to the Prime Minister’s own visit December 15–17, to protect the scripture from legal action. Despite the advance notice, which was also sent to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) chairperson Sonia Gandhi and the External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna, the issue was not discussed with the Russian government during the following six official visits of Indian ministers and top officials to Moscow.
Ministry of External Affairs
Following the Parliament’s demand for a report from the External Affairs Ministry on the issue, Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna made the following statement in the House on December 20, 2011:
I rise to make a statement on a Court hearing in a Russian city on the Bhagwad Gita that was raised in this august House yesterday by Hon’ble Members Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav ji, Shri Sharad Yadav ji, Shri Lalu Prasad ji, Shri Hukumdev Narayan Yadav ji, Shri V. Aruna Kumar and Dr. Prasanna Kumar Patasani. A number of other Hon’ble members also conveyed their deep sense of anguish over this issue. At the outset, allow me to mention that I fully share the sentiments expressed by the Hon’ble Members of the House on this issue.
Hon’ble Members referred to media reports about a hearing conducted by a Court in the Russian city of Tomsk on whether a Russian language commentary on the Bhagwad Gita qualifies as “extremist” literature. I would like to inform this august House of the facts of this case.
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) has been functioning in Russia for decades. ISKCON has faced periodic problems with respect to its properties and functioning in Moscow and elsewhere. On occasion, our Embassy has intervened on behalf of ISKCON with the local city authorities as well as with the Russian Government.
ISKCON conveyed to our Embassy that its branch in Tomsk, Eastern Siberia, had received a notice in June 2011, of a complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the local court. This complaint, apparently driven by some local individuals, was to the effect that the third Russian edition of the publication “Bhagwad Gita As It is” – a translation of a commentary by Swami Prabhupada, founder of ISKCON – had certain portions that were ‘objectionable’ and ‘extremist’ in nature.
Following the initial proceedings in August 2011, the District Court appointed its own three member expert group from the University of Kemerovo (in Siberia), which was to submit a report within three months. The final hearing in the Tomsk District Court was due on December 19, 2011, but has been rescheduled for December 28, 2011, as the Court has agreed to seek the opinion of the Russian Ombudsman on Human Rights in Tomsk District, and of Indologists from Moscow and St. Petersburg, who have greater knowledge and expertise on India.
Officials of the Embassy of India in Moscow and our Ambassador have been in regular touch with the local representatives of ISKCON, since this matter came to light in June 2011.
ISKCON representatives were advised to take legal recourse to counter this misdirected complaint. We have also taken up this matter at the senior levels of the Russian Government. The Ministry of External Affairs has been in regular touch with our Embassy in Moscow on this issue. The matter was also taken up with the Russian Ambassador based in India, H.E. Mr. Alexander Kadakin who is himself a well-known Indologist. In fact the Ambassador has been publicly critical of this episode. He has stated that Bhagavad-Gita is a great source of wisdom for the people of India and the world. He also said that Russia is a secular and democratic country where all religions enjoy equal respect.
The complaint in a local Russian court appears to be the work of some ignorant and misdirected or motivated individuals. While this complaint is patently absurd, we have treated this matter seriously and the Embassy of India is closely monitoring this legal case.
Hon’ble Members would agree that the Bhagwad Gita is not simply a religious text; it is one of the defining treatises of Indian thought and describes the very soul of our great civilization. The Gita is far above any cheap propaganda or attacks by the ignorant or the misdirected. In Russia itself, we have many great Indologists, scholars and experts who understand the essence of the Gita and have written on it with reverence and passion. We do not want to dignify with too much attention some misdirected individuals who have filed an absurd complaint. We are confident that our Russian friends, who understand our civilizational values and cultural sensitivities, will resolve this matter appropriately.
Indian Ambassador to Russia Ajay Malhotra confirmed that the Indian Embassy in Moscow takes up the issue with the Russian government at senior official level in order to achieve its positive intervention resolution. He said that a Tomsk group linked to the Russian Orthodox Church levied the charges against the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ and demanded its ban in order to prevent the local ISKCON branch from setting up a community near a village in Tomsk region. According to Malhotra, the Russian authorities have been approached “at high levels to appropriately resolve this matter”. He added that “[t]he Bhagavad Gita is perhaps the most important and respected scripture in the world. First translated into Russian in 1788, it is not merely a religious text, but one of the defining treatises of Indian thought. The Bhagavad Gita has circulated freely across the world for centuries and there is not a single instance of it having encouraged extremism. So, the case before the Honourable Court in Tomsk is indeed absurd, bordering on the bizarre,” the Indian envoy added.
On December 27, 2011, the day before the final hearing on the Gita case, S. M. Krishna met with the Russian Ambassador to India Alexandr Kadakin at the Hyderabad House and conveyed India’s concern over the “sensitive” issue with the proposed ban, urging the Russian government “to provide all possible help to resolve the issue”. Kadakin assured Krishna that, while it is a judicial matter, Russia will undertake all measures within its power to resolve the issue. Four days earlier, India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai discussed the issue with Kadakin as well.
On December 28, 2011, after the Russian court rejected state prosecutor’s plea seeking ban on the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’, S. M. Krishna thanked the Russian government for support.
High Court
On December 21, the High Court of Mumbai questioned the Indian government as to the measures it is undertaking to intervene in the possible ban of the Bhagavad Gita and directed the government to consider representing the position of India on the issue before the court in Tomsk. The High Court decision came in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by two local activists charging the Indian government with inaction in regard to informing the Russian court of the actual purport of the Bhagavad Gita, and that the Indian Embassy’s “monitoring the matter closely” was not sufficient. The court observed Indian Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna’s Parliament statement does not imply if Indian governmen’s direct involvement with the December 28 Bhagavad Gita trial hearing and asked the government to submit its reply on the steps taken by January 9, 2012.
Religious groups
On December 21, a highly respected Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband issued a statement signed by its vice-chancellor Abul Qasim Nomani in defense of the Bhagavad Gita, in which he condemned “Russian diktat against the Hindu holy scripture”. Nomani also called accusations of the Gita of extremism “totally baseless and highly objectionable”, maintaining that the proposed ban is tantamount to violation of the freedom of conscience “enshrined” in the Indian Constitution, and called on boldly countering the “Russian highhandedness”. Maulana Khalid Rashid, head of Firangi Mahal, another Islamic center of higher education in Lucknow, also condemned what he called “Russian arrogance” and called on Muslims to support Hindu followers while appealing to the Indian government “to take a firm stance so that such blasphemous interference is not attempted in future”.
On December 22, 2011, Isai Mahasangh organization representing Christians in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh addressed the President of India Pratibha Patil and the Pope Benedict XVI, asking for their intervention in the Bhagavad Gita trial. An Isai Mahasangh delegation conveyed their memorandum to the President through Madhya Pradesh governor Ram Naresh Yadav, and to the Pope through the Holy See embassy in New Delhi. Jerry Paul, General Secretary of Isai Mahasangh, stated that it was clear from the court case against the Gita that “the Russians are not aware of the importance of the Gita, the teachings and values it upholds and above all its place in the life of millions of Indians”.
A prominent Hindu teacher Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in his Twitter called the proposed ban of the Bhagavad Gita in Russia “an unpardonable loss for the people of Russia” and, countering accusations of the book of “extremism” and “intolerance” opined that it was the move to ban the scripture that showed intolerance and bred terrorism rather than the Gita’s teachings.
Hindu activists
On December 20, 2011, an international Hindu organization Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) threatened with protests outside Russian missions in India if Russia effects the ban. VHP General Secretary Pravin Togadia said in a statement that the Bhagavad Gita is deified by all Hindus and that its principles have universal appeal and “touch humanity so very deeply”, citing Albert Einstein’s facination with the book asn an example. Togadia also warned Russian authorities that Indians will be forced to boycott Russian goods, plants, and offices in India in response to the Gita ban in Russia. VHP and Bajrang Dal activists also staged protest in Chandigarh, calling on the Indian government to protect the rights of Hindus in Russia and denouncing the proposed ban. On December 23, dozens of activists of Rashtrawadi Sena, a hardline Hindu group, burned a Russian flag and shouted anti-Russian slogans during a protest march in New Delhi over the proposed ban. Rashtrawadi Sena president Jai Bhagwan Goyal called the Gita “the most pious book of the nation” and said will not tolerate any insult to it. The protesters also sent a memorandum to Indian President Pratibha Patil, and to the Russian embassy, demanding to avert the ban. They also urged Indian President to declare Bhagavad Gita a “National scripture” in order to prevent such insults in the future. A similar protest along with the burning of a Russian flag was held on December 26 by activists of the right-wing Hindu organisation Shiv Sena in Amritsar. In a similar move, a [Jammu]] unit of Sri Ram Sena appealed to Indian and Russian authorities to forestall the impeding Gita ban “for the betterment of Indo-Russia relations”.
Russian community in Goa
On December 21, 2011, the Russian community in Goa has issued a statement condemning the proposed ban on the Bhagavad Gita in Russia. Speaking on behalf of the 150-strong community, Russian consulate in Goa Vikram Varma stated: “The Russian community in Goa as a whole condemns the possibility of a ban on any of India’s ancient scriptures. It is felt by the Russian community in Goa as well as by a large section of Russians visiting Goa that the depth of knowledge and wisdom offered by the Bhagavad Gita cannot be understood by a casual reader. It is well accepted that all the ancient Hindu scriptures are of tremendous importance not only to India but to the rest of the world.”
Society
ISKCON devotees rallying in front of the Russian Consulate in Kolkata (India) demanding to stop the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ trial.
The trial sparked community protests in India. In Kolkata, dozens of ISKCON followers chanted and dances in front of the Russian Consulate holding up copies of the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ in various langages and demanding to stop persecution of their most important scripture.[3] A group of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) held a protest march in front of the Russian consulate in Mumbai. On December 16, 2011, an online petition to stop the Bhagavad Gita trial was launched, and by December 22 more than 45,000 people from all over the world, mostly from India.
The topic has gone viral on social networks, with the hashtag #Gita becoming a leading trend on Indian Twitter. Noted poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar, for instance, twitted: “Banning Gita ? Have they lost their minds. This great book of wisdom belongs not only to Hindus but to the whole humanity”. Member of Parilament Naveen Jindal wrote in his blog, “I welcome the statement by the Russian ambassador to India condemning the Bhagavad Gita controversy”. Janata Dal party leader Subramanian Swamy wrote on Twitter: “Happy to inform that Russian Ambassador will tell my daughter on TV that he is a student of Gita and Russia will rectify matters soon. Ok?” and Bollywood celebrity Farah Khan suggested in a retweet: “The Russians have banned the Gita. In retaliation let’s ban something equally sacrosanct to them: vodka”.
In Russia
The Russian society appears to be embarrassed by the court case over the Gita, with the media mostly condemning the ongoing trial, carrying reports titled like “Trial of Indian book brings shame to Tomsk”. A prominent Russian Internet paper Gazeta.ru published a satirical article on how a work that was created 5,000 years ago has suddenly become an extremist document.
Indian diaspora and ISKCON
The Hare Krishna followers, who count over 100,000 members and over 100 centers in Russia, expressed fear that the trial on their main scripture, if upheld by the court, will be followed by a ban of their entire movement and religion nationwide. The 15,000-strong Hindu community in Russia shared the apprehension. On November 1, ISKCON leader in India Gopal Krishna Goswami appealed to the Indian government asking to intervene and resolve the impending trial by bringing it up with the Russian authorities during Indian official visits to Moscow. Hindu followers in Russia from India, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Nepal and other countries held an emergency meeting, at which they set up the Hindu Council of Russia meant to protect their interests in Russia, and elected Sadhu Priya Das, and India-born member of ISKCON, as its chairman. Das said that they were seeking opinion of the Russian Ombudsman and experts from Moscow and St. Petersburg, the main centers of Indology in Russia, and that they trusted the Russian judiciary, hoping that “finally the truth will prevail”.
Scholars
A religious expert Roman Silantyev opined that Prabhupada’s interpretation “has nothing to do with traditional Hinduism” and that his commentaries statements that can be considered extremist. However, the rest of the intellectual community of Russia was “indignant” over the court case.
On November 28, at a round table organized by a leading Russian newspaper Moskovskij Komsomolets scientists and members of the Russian Academy of Sciences along with a few religious leaders stated in a resolution, “there is no basis for conducting such a trial and the very fact of initiating a trial by the public prosecutor is an insult to the religious feelings of followers of Vaishnavism in India and Russia and it will give a body blow to Indo-Russian relations.”
Head of the Institute of High Humanitarian Studies at the Russian State University for the Humanities and a prominent Indologist, Sergey Serebryanny, said Russian courts give the term ‘extremism’ a very broad interpretation, which allows them to label extremist anything going against the authorities, whether secular or religious. He also opined that, while Prabhupada supplemented his version of the Bhagavad Gita with his own ideas and beliefs, his followers “have the same right for the freedom of conscience as believers of other religious confessions that observe the laws of the Russian Federation”.
An eminent Russian Indologist Elena Vanina of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences wrote an article severely criticizing the court case over the Bhagavad Gita, which “is revered by millions in India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and wherever Hindus live”. She reminded that in Europe, the Gita was “admired by many great philosophers and thinkers, such as Herder, Schopenhauer and Tolstoy” and thought it ironic that while the Hindu scrupture was first translated into Russian in 1788, “nobody put the book and its translators on trial in the Orthodox Russian Empire in 1788, but it’s being being judged in secular democratic Russia”. Vanina also argued that charges of extremism against Prabhupada’s “copious” commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita are fallacious and based on a “primitive” screening of the religious text for negative words (such as “fool,” “enemy,” “demon, “kill”) . According to Vanina, using this approach, any ancient text, from the Greek myths to the Bible, and the Koran, can be found extremistm, especially when “specialists in philosophical suicidology are entrusted with passing judgement on ancient Indian texts”. Vanina concluded by opining that, despite people’s right to their attitudes towards “a Russian lad wearing Indian clothes and singing Hare Krishna”, ISKCON followers have the right to practice their religion, and that the Russian Orthodox Church, instead of calling a ban on competitors or attempting to legally equate their holy book to Mein Kampf, should introspect as to the reasons that deter yoing Russians from joining the Church. Otherwise, Vanina predicted, “people will again start being burned alive”.
Historian and full professor of the Diplomatic Academy at the Ministry of Foreign Affais of Russia Andrey Volodin opined that the move to ban the Gita was “contrary to the basic principle of tolerance inherent in Russian civilisation”. He said that this scandalous trial held in Tomsk, “one of Russia’s intellectual capitals, raises doubts as to whether the local leaders are sane and the intellectual community in one of the country’s main academic and university centers is actually mature”. To a question, which forces in Russia are interested in a ban on the Bhagavad Gita Volodin replied that “all the intelligence services in the world, including the CIA and M16, could never have come up with a more effective move to compromise Russia in India and in the world”.
Government
In an interview by CNN-IBN, Russia’s ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin called Bhagavad Gita “the source of wisdom and inspiration not only for the people of India but for Russia as well and the world.” and commended the Indian Parliament and government for their resolute stance on the Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia, opining that both countries nations, being secular, democratic, and multi-cofessional, “should not allow such things to happen”. He assured that the Russian government is using all means to end the Bhagavad Gita scandal and added that he thought it “categorically inadmissible” to take any sacred scriptures “for examination to ignorant people” to the courts rather than to academic forums Kadakin ruled out the possibility of the Russian government directly influencing the court decision, but added that the government still “can do something” and called the instigators of the trial “madmen”, whose “madness should be stopped.” He also answered a question of a possible apology to the people of India by the Russian government, opining that since it was not the Russian government who started the case, it “has nothing to apologize for, [but] can only testify and reiterate the love and affection and highest esteem our nation has for Bhagvat Gita.”
On December 27, 2011, after a meeting with the Foreign Minister of India S. M. Krishna, at which Krishna reiterated India’s grave concerns over the issue, Kadakin told reporters that the Russian government will do everything within its powers to prevent the ban. He said that, while it was a judicial process, the Russian government can ask the people of Russia “to express our love and admiration for the Gita, … that [assurance] you can get from anyone in Russia”. He also added that he had read the Gita and thought it was a great scripture of the world, and maintained that “no holy scripture, whether it is Bible, Quran or Gita, can be brought to a court”.
According to the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajeev Shukla, a top Russian minister also “expressed regrets” about the situation.
At the same time, on December 22, 2011, Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich “rejected as misplaced” India’s concerns with the Gita trial, stressing that the court case against commentaries in the scripture’s recent Russian translation, that Russian prosecutors found “extremist and insulting to non-believers”. Lukashevich emphasized that the trial “is not about ‘Bhagavad Gita,’ a religious philosophical poem, which…was first published in Russian in 1788 and then went through many editions in different years and in various translations. The Tomsk court case is about classifying as extremist material the Russian-language edition of the ‘Bhagavad Gita. As It Is,’ written in 1968 by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness”, which is claimed to fall under Article 13 of the Federal Law “On Counteracting Extremist Activity”.
Earlier, Russian Chief Director for Human Rights Vladimir Lukin stated that the attempt to ban ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ amounted to “infringement on the constitutional right to the freedom of consciousness” and that it was “unacceptable” to ban the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ written by ISKCON founder Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, in Russia, as he said it was a “globally respected book”. As the Ombudsman for Russia, Vladimir Lukun took the Bhagavad Gita court case under his special control and will testify in the court on December 28 asking to dismiss the charges.
Nelly Krechetova, Human Rights Ombudsman of Tomsk region, has termed the trial “absurd”. Speaking on the Echo of Moscow radio station, she said, “This book is considered sacred by more than a billion people the world over, and in Russia itself the book has been in circulation for 20 years.” She continued that there was no manifest incident of extremism caused by the dissemination of the book. A ban on the book, she said, would amount to “violation of constitutional rights of citizens to freedom of conscience and faith.”
International
Associated Press reported that the attempt to ban ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ angered Hindu followers around the world.
The court case evoked protests by US-based Hindu activists, who called the trial “an attack on religious freedom and belittling of the entire Hindu community.” The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) based in Washington, DC expressed “shock and outrage” over the attempted ban. Subhag Shukla, HAF managing director, called the move by Russian prosecutors “indefensible” and “a draconian attempt to restrict the religious freedom of Hindus in Russia”. Shukla added that, “[b]y promoting a narrow and intolerant agenda that demonizes a sacred scripture revered by more than one billion Hindus worldwide, Russian officials are acting contrary to the principles of a free democratic society”. HAF members conveyed their concerns in an official statement to the Russian embassy in Washington, DC, requesting a follow-up meeting to monitor the situation, and urged the Russian judiciary and government “to uphold the basic rights of their Hindu citizens”. They also warned that “Any court ruling or law that would prohibit the Bhagavad Gita or any other Hindu religious literature would be considered a direct attack on the civil liberties of Russia’s Hindu community and an affront to Hindus throughout the world”.
It could be said that every citizen of India, can justifiably take pride in possessing a rare structure in Mullaperiyar Dam, the very first created in the country, perhaps in the world, for trans-basin diversion of water for beneficial use, towards the end of the 19th century, still continuing to serve with its benefits undiminished, through continuous surveillance, maintenance and management by the Tamil Nadu government.
The credit for the concept, design and construction of the Mullaperiyar Dam should go mainly to two British Engineers Major Ryves, the District Engineer of Madurai District, who gave a practical form in 1862 for diversion of Periyar waters to benefit the drought-prone areas of the then Madurai and Ramanathapuram districts and Colonel J. Pennycuick, who not only made a report with detailed estimates for the Mullaperiyar Dam in 1882 but also ventured against all odds in the most inhospitable dense forest, struggling with single-minded devotion for a good cause and completed the structure in 1895.
Just to the west of the Vaigai river basin in Tamil Nadu, on the other side of the Western Ghat ridges, lies the Periyar basin in the Kerala State. The river Periyar, as the name implies, is the one which drains the largest catchment among the west-flowing rivers of the Kerala state.
The river Periyar rises in the Sivagiri peak of the Western Ghats in the Quilon district, 80 km south of Devikulam, at an elevation of about 2,400 m and traverses through the stiff cliffs and dense forests for about 186 km, where the tributary Mullaiyar joins on the right at about an elevation of 850 m. The river then turns west, cuts through the hills in a deep narrow gorge at about 11 km below Mullaiyar junction. It is this narrow gorge in sound hard rock that gave an excellent formation that was chosen by Col. Pennycuick to construct the Mullaperiyar gravity masonry dam. The river Periyar runs through 232 km traversing the taluks of Peermedu and Devikulam and parts of Ernakulam district before draining into the well-known Vembanad lake.
The Madras government entered into correspondences with the erstwhile Travancore government in possession of the territory where the dam was to be built from 1862. The Travancore government, which originally showed interest in launching the Mullaperiyar dam project as a joint project, later pulled out of the joint project suggestions and, by a letter dated October 24, 1873 to the British Resident, offered to accept a sum of Rs. 75,000/- per year from 1882 as lease rent for the site of the reservoir, which was later surveyed to extend over 8,000 acres, and agreed to demise the entire water to be stored therein in favour of the government of Madras. The Lease Deed of 1886, to take retrospective effect from January 1, 1886 between the governments of Travancore and Madras, was finally signed on October 29, 1886 for lease of land for the project works for diversion of the waters to then Madras Presidency.
The argument put forth by the present government of Kerala that the British Government got the inter-state agreement signed exercising their supremacy falls flat with the recorded evidence.
Among the materials of construction, Stone, the principal constituent of the dam, was locally available to be quarried as was the sand in the river. But lime and surki for the mortar, designed as three parts of sand, two of lime and one of surki, had to be transported through dense forests besides several construction equipment, and other materials from the temporary camp at Thekkadi, 13 km off, on the other side of the Ghat.
Five different methods of conveyance were considered, all expensive and difficult to organise including a ropeway across the valley and that which was convenient at the time was adopted.
It should be specifically mentioned that throughout this decade of construction, great effort was taken to ensure the quality of the materials used and the building of the structures through tests, checks and supervision.
As cement had not made its advent in India when the project had been designed and executed, lime surki mortar was used with the lime having been burnt to specification in kiln at site and well ground by a battery of bullock-drawn circular mills and surki being ground to the fineness required by crushers. We are now able to see the result in the dam structure retaining water up to 152 ft. above the river bed for more than a century, with minimum seepage well below the limits prescribed, in spite of the fact that no drilling and grouting was done for consolidation and no drainage gallery was formed in the body of the dam, since both these were unknown practices at that period of time.
On May 29, 1970, the government of Madras signed two supplemental agreements with the government of Kerala, as successors in interest to the original Lease Deed of 1886. By one supplemental agreement, the annual lease rent was enhanced and the fishing rights in the Periyar lake was relinquished in favour of the government of Kerala. By another agreement which came into effect from November 13, 1954, the government of Madras would generate hydro power and pay to the government of Kerala for the electrical energy generated at Rs.12/- KW (kilo watt) year up to 350 million units and at Rs.18/- KW year beyond 350 million units. This will prove that the Mullaperiyar project has been beneficial to both Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The safety of the dam is now being questioned, just because it is 116 years in age and a fear psychosis has been raised, which gives the impression it may burst any time. No gravity masonry dam will ever burst and no gravity dam has so far burst in any part of the world. The dam is as good as a new dam after the strengthening measures devised by the Central Water Commission, the highest technical body in the government of India, have been carried out that too with the concurrence of the engineers of the Government of Kerala at every stage.
As one closely associated with this dam and the strengthening measures undertaken, I am pained to see the controversies being raised on its safety, in spite of the wise opinion given by several experts who have inspected the dam and the Supreme Court having accepted the opinion of the experts.
(A. Mohanakrishnan, who has been handling inter-state river water issues on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, is advisor (water resources) to the government.)
In March 2011 Syria’s government, led by Pres. Bashar al-Assad, faced an unprecedented challenge to its authority when pro-democracy protests erupted throughout the country. Protesters demanded an end to the authoritarian practices of the Assad regime, in place since Assad’s father, Ḥafiz al-Assad, became president in 1971. The Syrian government used violence to suppress demonstrations, making extensive use of police, military, and paramilitary forces. Amateur footage and eyewitness accounts, the primary sources of information in a country largely closed to foreign journalists, showed the Syrian security forces beating and killing protesters and firing indiscriminately into crowds. In this special feature, Britannica provides a guide to the uprising and explores the historical and geographic context of the conflict.
Uprising
In March 2011 antigovernment protests broke out in Syria, inspired by a wave of similar demonstrations elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa that had already ousted the long-serving presidents of Tunisia and Egypt. In the southwestern city of Darā, several people were killed on March 18 when security forces opened fire on protesters who were angered by the arrest of several children for writing antigovernment graffiti. Protests continued, and on March 23 more than 20 people were killed when security forces fired into crowds and raided a mosque where protesters were gathered. Following the crackdown in Darā, Assad’s spokeswoman denied that the government had ordered security forces to shoot protesters. She also announced that the government was considering implementing political reforms, including loosening restrictions on political parties and lifting Syria’s emergency law, which had been in place for 48 years. The announcement was dismissed by Syrian opposition figures. On March 25, following Friday prayers, rallies were held in cities across the country. Although security forces broke up some of the rallies, beating and arresting demonstrators, intense protests continued. In Damascus, to counter the opposition’s protests, large pro-government rallies were held. On March 29 the Syrian government announced the resignation of the cabinet, a gesture that acknowledged protesters’ calls for reform. The following day Assad made his first public appearance since the unrest began, addressing the protests in a speech before the country’s legislature. He claimed that the protests had been instigated by a foreign conspiracy, but he acknowledged the legitimacy of some of the protesters’ concerns. He resisted the opposition’s calls for immediate reform, saying that the government would proceed with its plans to introduce reform gradually. Following the speech, Syrian state media announced that Assad had formed a commission to study the repeal of the emergency law.
As demonstrations occurred sporadically throughout the country, the Syrian government continued to attribute unrest to foreign conspiracies and sectarian tension. The government made a few concessions aimed at Syria’s conservative Muslims and the Kurdish minority. On April 6 the government dealt with two grievances of conservative Muslims, closing Syria’s only casino and reversing a 2010 law prohibiting female teachers from wearing the niqāb, a veil that covers the face. The government also announced that Nōrūz, a New Year festival celebrated by Kurds, would be made a state holiday.
However, as protests intensified and spread to additional cities, there was an escalation in the use of violence by Syrian security forces. On April 8 security forces opened fire on demonstrators in several Syrian cities, killing at least 35 people. Amid reports that the death toll since the first protests in March had exceeded 200, international condemnation of the Syrian government mounted, with human rights organizations and foreign leaders calling for an immediate end to violence.
As security forces continued to use violence against protesters around the country, Assad appointed a new cabinet and pledged to institute political reforms and lift Syria’s emergency law. On April 19 the new cabinet passed measures that repealed the emergency law and dissolved Syria’s Supreme State Security Court, a special court used to try defendants accused of challenging the government. However, the government also took action to retain its power to suppress public protest, passing a new law requiring Syrians to obtain government permission before protesting. The newly appointed minister of the interior urged Syrians not to demonstrate, saying that the authorities would continue to treat demonstrations as a threat to public safety.
Soon after ending the emergency law, the Syrian government escalated its use of violence against protesters. On April 22 security forces fired on protesters who had assembled following Friday prayers, killing about 75. In spite of the international outcry provoked by the killings, the Syrian government launched new operations to silence protests, deploying large numbers of troops equipped with tanks and armoured personnel carriers to the cities of Darā, Bāniyās, and Ḥimṣ, three centres of antigovernment protest. In several areas of the country, the government imposed a communications blackout, shutting down telephone and Internet service. In Darā security forces cut the town’s water and electricity supplies.
As demonstrations continued to spread in Syria, the government increased its efforts to overwhelm protesters with military force, deploying soldiers and tanks to protest sites around the country. By early May the antigovernment protests had reached Damascus. Protests in the city centre were violently suppressed, and Syrian government forces imposed security cordons in several Damascus suburbs in an attempt to restrict the movements of possible demonstrators. The European Union (EU) imposed sanctions that included travel bans and asset freezes targeted against more than a dozen seniorSyrian officials thought to be directing the government’s actions against the protesters. In addition, an EU arms embargo was applied to the entire country. As violence persisted, Syria also became increasingly isolated from its regional allies. In May, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish prime minister, condemned the government’s use of violence against civilians. Weeks later Turkey demonstrated its support for protesters by hosting a conference for members of the Syrian opposition.
On June 6 Syrian official media reported that 120 Syrian soldiers had been ambushed and killed by a band of gunmen in the northern city of Jisr al-Shughūr. Residents of the city disputed the government’s account of the incident, saying that the soldiers had been killed by government forces for refusing to fire on demonstrators. The Syrian army launched a heavy assault on the town in response to the incident, causing thousands of the city’s residents to flee across the Turkish border.
The Assad regime continued to use violence against protesters in July and August, launching military assaults on cities including Ḥamāh and Latakia. The continued bloodshed drew global condemnation and calls for Assad to step down as president.
In early November Syrian officials reportedly agreed to an Arab League initiative calling for the Syrian government to stop violence against protesters, remove tanks and armoured vehicles from cities, and release political prisoners. Many critics saw the Syrian government’s acquiescence as a delaying tactic. This view was seemingly confirmed by a new outbreak of violence in Ḥimṣ days after the announcement.
Syria Facts and Figures
official name:
Syrian Arab Republic
area:
71,498 square miles (185,180 square km)
population (2010 est.):
22,198,000
age breakdown (2009):
Under age 15, 36.4%; 15–29, 30.7%; 30–44, 18.1%; 45–59, 9.4%; 60–74, 4.1%; 75 and over, 1.3%
form of government:
Unitary multiparty republic with one legislative house (People’s Assembly)
capital:
Damascus
other major cities:
Aleppo, Ḥimṣ, Ḥamāh
official language:
Arabic
official religion:
None
religious affiliation (2000):
Muslim about 86%, of which Sunni about 74%, ʿAlawite (Shīʿite) about 11%; Christian 8%, of which Orthodox about 5%, Roman Catholic about 2%; Druze about 3%; nonreligious/atheist about 3%
unemployment rate (2009):
8.5%
literacy rate (2003-04):
Total population age 15 and older, 83.6%; males, 90.0%; females, 77.2%
Key events in Syria: 1946–2011
1946
Syria concludes a treaty with France ending French rule in Syria. French troops are withdrawn.
1947
The Bath party, an Arab nationalist party formed by Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn al-Bīṭār and Michel Aflaq in the early 1940s, holds its first congress in Damascus.
1948
Israel proclaims its independence and is attacked by the surrounding Arab states, including Syria. The large and disorganized Arab armies are defeated, shocking the Syrian public, which had expected a quick victory. Discontent with the government of Pres. Shukri al-Quwatli spreads within the Syrian military.
1949
Husni al-Zaim, the army chief of staff, seizes power in a military coup in March. Zaim quickly alienates his supporters and is deposed by a second military coup in August orchestrated by Sami al-Hinnawi, who designates a new civilian government. Hinnawi is overthrown by a third coup, led by Adib al-Shishakli, in December.
1951
Shishakli launches a second coup, deposing Syria’s civilian government and establishing a military dictatorship.
1954
Shishakli is overthrown by a military coup, and civilian government is restored.
1958
Syria and Egypt merge politically to form the United Arab Republic, with Cairo as the capital and Gamal Abdel Nasser as president. The union, which leads to the economic and political domination of Syria by Egypt, quickly becomes unpopular in Syria.
1961
A military coup reestablishes Syria as an independent country, and a new civilian government is formed.
1963
A coalition of military officers, including Baʿthist and Nasserist officers, seizes power in March. Soon after the coup, the Bathist faction takes control, purging Nasserists in government and suppressing uprisings. Within the Bath party in Syria, a split begins to develop between the party’s original leadership and younger members with a stronger commitment to socialist policies.
1966
Salah al-Jadid, a military officer and a member of the Alawite minority sect, seizes power at the head of a coup by the left-wing faction of the Bath party. Bīṭār and Aflaq are arrested. Ḥafiz al-Assad, another Alawite officer, becomes the minister of defense. The Bath party begins to split into a civilian faction headed by Jadid and a military faction headed by Assad.
1967
Egypt, Jordan, and Syria are defeated in the Six-Day War with Israel. Israel seizes the Golan Heights from Syria.
1970
Assad takes power in a coup, ousting Jadid.
1973
Syria and Egypt launch attacks against Israeli forces in the Golan Heights and the Sinai, respectively. Syria fails to retake the Golan Heights. Hostilities end with a cease-fire agreement.
1976
Syria intervenes in the Lebanese civil war, sending a force of 25,000 soldiers to Lebanon to prevent the defeat of right-wing Christian militias. Syria’s military presence in Lebanon continues for nearly three decades, enabling Syria to exert significant influence on Lebanese politics.
1979
The U.S. State Department designates Syria a state sponsor of terrorism, citing its alleged support for Palestinian militant groups. The designation carries economic sanctions.
1980
Islamist resistance to the Assad regime grows. Islamist and secular opposition groups organize demonstrations and riots around the country. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood attempts to assassinate Assad.
1982
Islamist forces briefly take over the city of Ḥamāh. The Syrian military launches a full-scale assault to put down the rebellion, destroying large areas of the city and killing thousands of civilians.
1990
Syria joins in the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1994
Ḥafiz al-Assad’s oldest son, Basil, considered likely to succeed him as president, is killed in a car accident. Assad’s second son, Bashar, then studying ophthalmology in London, takes Basil’s place as Assad’s heir apparent.
2000
Ḥafiz al-Assad dies in June. The following day, the People’s Assembly amends the constitution to lower the minimum age of the president to 34, allowing Bashar al-Assad, then 34 years old, to succeed his father in office. He is elected president in a referendum in July. In November, Assad releases 600 political prisoners, a move that is seen by many as a sign of his intention to advance democratic reforms.
2001
Assad initiates a new crackdown on reformist politicians and activists, disappointing hopes that the new president would lead a transition away from authoritarianism in Syria.
2004
The United Nations passes Resolution 1559, calling for the removal of all non-Lebanese military forces from Lebanon. The resolution is aimed at Syria, which still has thousands of troops stationed in Lebanon.
2005
Rafiq al-Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister and a prominent critic of the Syrian military presence in Lebanon, is assassinated in Beirut in February. His death increases pressure on Syria, suspected by many of ordering the assassination, to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Syria withdraws its forces in April.
2008
Syria and Lebanon agree to formally establish diplomatic relations for the first time since the two countries became independent.
2010
The Syrian government prohibits teachers from wearing the niqāb, a veil that covers all of the face except the eyes, while teaching.
Uprising in Syria, 2011
February2011
Several small demonstrations are held in Syria to call for reform and to show solidarity with pro-democracy protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Syrian security forces are able to contain the demonstrations, making a number of arrests.
March 6,2011
In the southern city of Darā, Syrian police arrest several children for writing antigovernment graffiti.
March 15,2011
Antigovernment protests are held in several cities around Syria.
March 19,2011
Syrian security forces seal off the city of Darā, the site of the heaviest protests, in an attempt to prevent protests from spreading.
March 24,2011
Dozens of protesters are reportedly killed when security forces open fire on a demonstration in Darā.
March 29,2011
As protests spread and the number of protesters reported killed rises, President Assad fires his cabinet. Representatives of the president hint that new reforms will be undertaken.
March 30,2011
In his first speech since protests began, Assad is defiant, blaming the unrest on foreign conspirators seeking to destabilize Syria. He offers no concrete reforms or concessions.
April 6,2011
In an attempt to appeal to conservative Muslims, the government shuts Syria’s only casino and reverses a law prohibiting teachers from wearing the niqāb, a veil that covers the face.
April 12,2011
The government begins to use heavy military weaponry against hubs of protest. Soldiers and tanks are deployed to the cities of Bāniyās and Ḥimṣ.
April 16,2011
Assad gives his second speech since the protests began. He offers some concessions, vowing to lift Syria’s long-standing emergency law, which grants security forces broad authority to investigate and arrest Syrians when national security is deemed to be at risk.
April 19,2011
Syria’s emergency law is lifted, although the Syrian opposition dismisses the concession as merely cosmetic. The security forces continue to shoot and detain protesters.
April 28,2011
Dozens of members of the Bath Party resign in protest against the regime’s crackdown. Human rights groups and opposition groups estimate that the death toll exceeds 500.
May 9,2011
The European Union (EU) imposes an arms embargo and applies travel restrictions and asset freezes to 13 senior Syrian officials. The sanctions do not apply to Assad personally.
May 19,2011
The United States imposes new sanctions against Syrian officials. The new sanctions, which include asset freezes and travel bans, extend to Assad himself.
May 23,2011
The EU votes to extend sanctions to include Assad.
May 30,2011
Protesters are galvanized by newly published images of the mutilated body of Hamza Ali al-Khatib, a 13-year-old boy from Darā who was tortured to death while in police custody. Photos of Khatib are distributed at protests, and the images become a potent symbol of the regime’s brutality.
June 6,2011
Syrian official media report that 120 soldiers were killed by armed gangs in the northern city of Jisr al-Shughūr, near the Turkish border. Members of the opposition claim that the soldiers were executed for refusing to fire on protesters.
June 10,2011
Syrian tanks and troops move into Jisr al-Shughūr. Thousands of residents flee across the border into Turkey.
June 20,2011
Assad gives a third speech in which he continues to blame foreign conspiracies for unrest in Syria. His calls for a national dialogue are dismissed by the opposition.
June 27,2011
The Syrian government permits some Syrian opposition leaders to hold a rare public meeting in a hotel in Damascus.
July 1,2011
Large demonstrations are held throughout Syria. In Ḥamāh, tens of thousands reportedly participate in street protests.
July 3,2011
Syrian tanks and troops are dispatched to Ḥamāh, where security forces raid houses and arrest suspected dissidents.
July 7,2011
Amid concerns that the Syrian military’s actions in Ḥamāh could lead to a massacre, the U.S. ambassador to Syria shows solidarity with protesters by visiting Ḥamāh. The Syrian government denounces the visit, calling it proof that the United States is involved in fomenting protest in Syria.
July 8,2011
As massive demonstrations are held in Ḥamāh, the French ambassador to Syria also travels to the city to show support for protesters.
July 11,2011
Crowds of Assad supporters attack the U.S. embassy and the French embassy in Damascus. Some demonstrators scale the walls of the U.S. embassy and vandalize parts of the building before embassy guards are able to reestablish control. No injuries are reported. At the French embassy, guards hold off crowds by firing into the air. U.S. and French officials accuse the Syrian government of permitting the attacks to take place.
July 25,2011
The Syrian cabinet approves a draft law allowing for the formation of new political parties in Syria. The law includes provisions that, members of the Syrian opposition argue, could be used by the Assad regime to disqualify any viable party.
August 3,2011
The UN Security Council condemns the Syrian government for its use of violence against protesters.
August 4,2011
Assad issues a decree putting the draft law allowing for the formation of new political parties into effect immediately.
August 8,2011
In a sign of the Assad regime’s increasing diplomatic isolation, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia recall their ambassadors to Syria.
August 17,2011
In a telephone conversation with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Assad states that military and police operations in Syria have stopped. However, reports of attacks and civilian casualties continue to emerge.
August 18,2011
U.S. Pres. Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French Pres. Nicholas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister David Cameron issue statements calling for Assad to step down as president.
August 23,2011
UN human rights officials estimate that more than 2,200 people have been killed by Syrian security forces since mid-March. The UN Human Rights Council votes to open an investigation into possible crimes against humanity.
September 2,2011
Bolstering sanctions, the EU agrees to a ban on the import of Syrian oil.
September 8,2011
Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls on Assad to end the violence against protesters. Ahmadinejad’s statement follows several public statements by Iranian officials acknowledging the legitimacy of Syrian protesters’ demands. Previously, Iran, thought to be the closest ally of the Assad regime, had remained publicly supportive of Assad’s response to the protests.
September 15,2011
Following a four-day conference of Syrian opposition activists in Istanbul, 140 people are selected to form the Syrian National Council, a council claiming to represent the Syrian opposition.
October 2,2011
The Syrian Nation Council issues a statement calling on the international community to defend protesters in Syria.
October 4,2011
China and Russia veto a UN Security Council resolution that condemns the Syrian government’s crackdowns and indicates that the continuation of violence against protesters could lead to international sanctions.
October 14,2011
The United Nations announces that 3,000 people have been killed since the start of protests, including nearly 200 children.
October 29,2011
The Arab League denounces the Syrian government’s use of violence against protesters.
November 1,2011
Qatar’s foreign minister announces that Syria has accepted an Arab League plan for dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition. The plan calls for the Syrian government to cease violence against protesters, allow journalists into the country, and release political prisoners.
In early 2011, a wave of pro-democracy protests swept the Middle East and North Africa, unseating leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and leading to sustained unrest in other countries, including Libya, Syria, and Bahrain. In Yemen pro-democracy activists and members of the opposition staged protests challenging the rule ofPresident Ali Abd Allah Salih, who had held power for more than three decades in spite of Yemen’s economic underdevelopment, shifting political landscape, and fractious tribal society. In this special feature, Britannica provides a guide to recent events in Yemen and explores the historical and geographic context of the conflict.
Uprising
In late January 2011—after a popular uprising in Tunisia, known as the Jasmine Revolution, had forced Pres. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali from power, inspiring similar protests in Egypt—thousands of protesters gathered in Sanaa and several other Yemeni cities to call on Ṣāliḥ to step down as president. The protesters chanted pro-democracy slogans and condemned poverty and official corruption. Unlike the Egyptian and Tunisian protests, which seemed to have little centralized leadership, protests in Yemen appeared to have been organized and directed by a coalition of Yemeni opposition groups. The Yemeni demonstrations proceeded with little violence between protesters and security forces. In response to the demonstrations, Ṣāliḥ made several economic concessions, including a reduction in income taxes and an increase in the salaries for government employees. In February he promised not to stand for reelection when his current term ended in 2013, and he vowed that his son would not succeed him in office. The move failed to placate protesters, who noted that Ṣāliḥ had reneged on a previous promise not to seek reelection in 2006.
Rejecting Ṣāliḥ’s concessions, protesters held daily rallies, often clashing with Ṣāliḥ supporters who attacked with stones, sticks, and occasionally firearms. On February 20 thousands of Yemeni university students and recent graduates staged a sit-in on the campus of Sanaa University, vowing not to end their protest until Ṣāliḥ stepped down as president. Ṣāliḥ resisted calls for his ouster, saying that his early departure would cause chaos in the country.
Clashes between protesters and police continued in March and led to several more deaths. On March 10 Ṣāliḥ attempted to placate protesters once again by vowing to draft a new constitution that would strengthen the parliament and the judiciary. He said that the draft constitution would be put to a referendum before the end of the year. The opposition immediately rejected the initiative and continued to call for Ṣāliḥ’s immediate departure.
The increasingly violent tactics used by security forces against protesters eroded support for Ṣāliḥ within the Yemeni government, weakening his hold on power. On March 18 Ṣāliḥ loyalists in civilian clothes opened fire on protesters in Sanaa, killing at least 50 people. The episode caused dozens of Yemeni officials, including diplomats, cabinet ministers, and members of parliament, to resign in protest. On March 20 Maj. Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, commander of the army’s 1st Armoured Division, announced his support for the opposition and vowed to use his troops to protect the protesters. The defection of Ahmar, considered to be the most powerful military officer in Yemen, was quickly followed by similar announcements from several other senior officers. The defections further heightened tensions in Sanaa, where defected military units and those units still under Ṣāliḥ’s control both deployed tanks and armoured vehicles to key locations around the city.
On March 22 Ṣāliḥ again refused to step down immediately, offering instead to leave office in January 2012, after parliamentary elections. His offer was rejected by the opposition. As pressure to step down increased, Ṣāliḥ entered into negotiations with military officers, political leaders, and tribal representatives to decide the terms of his departure. On March 26 there were reports that an agreement was imminent, and Ṣāliḥ himself furthered the perception that he was preparing to step down, saying in a speech that he would only transfer power to “safe hands” to prevent the country from slipping into chaos. However, on March 28, amid reports that negotiations had stalled, Ṣāliḥ once again appeared defiant, saying that he would no longer make concessions to the opposition.
On April 23 Ṣāliḥ indicated his acceptance of a plan proposed by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that would remove him from power and begin the transition to a new government. The plan required that Ṣāliḥ step down 30 days after formally asking the prime minister to form a national unity government that would include members of the opposition, in exchange for a guarantee of immunity from prosecution for Ṣāliḥ and his associates, including family members and formerofficials. Ṣāliḥ’s resignation would be followed 30 days later by presidential elections. The plan was soon approved by the Yemeni opposition, although many protesters were angered by the provision granting Ṣāliḥ immunity. The initiative faltered in early May when Ṣāliḥ withdrew his support at the last minute and refused to sign the agreement. Three weeks later, after some formal changes to the agreement had been made, representatives of Ṣāliḥ announced that he was ready to sign. However, on May 22, Ṣāliḥ once again refused to sign at the last minute, causing the GCC to suspend its efforts at mediation. With chances for a negotiated settlement appearing remote, violent confrontations between loyalist and opposition forces intensified. In the days that followed Ṣāliḥ’s refusal to sign the GCC agreement, heavy fighting broke out in Sanaa between pro-opposition tribal militias and troops loyal to Ṣāliḥ, killing dozens.
On June 3 Ṣāliḥ sustained extensive burns and shrapnel wounds when a bomb planted in the presidential palace in Sanaa exploded. He was transported to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment the next day, leaving his vice president, Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi, to serve as acting president in his absence. Yemeni officials maintained that Ṣāliḥ would quickly return to Yemen and resume his duties, but members of the opposition hailed his absence as an opportunity to negotiate a transition agreement that would formally remove him from power.
Even with Ṣāliḥ out of the country, the opposition’s efforts to negotiate a transfer of power appeared to stall. In September, gun battles once again broke out in Sanaa between the opposition and forces loyal to Ṣāliḥ. Amid rising fears of a civil war, Ṣāliḥ abruptly returned to Yemen on September 23.
Yemen: Facts and figures
official name:
Republic of Yemen
area:
203,891 square miles (528,076 square km)
population (2010 est.):
23,494,000
age breakdown (2009):
Under age 15, 43.9%; 15–29, 29.8%; 30–44, 14.4%; 45–59, 7.9%; 60–74, 3.2%; 75 and over, 0.8%
form of government:
Multiparty republic with two legislative houses (Consultative Council; House of Representatives)
capital:
Sanaa
other major cities:
Aden, Taizz, Al-Ḥudaydah
official language:
Arabic
official religion:
Islam
religious affiliation (2005):
Muslim, nearly 100%, of which Sunni c. 58%, Shīʿite c. 42%
unemployment rate (2009):
14.6%
literacy rate (2008):
Total population age 15 and older, 60.9%; males, 78.9%; females, 42.8%
Key events in Yemen, 1962 – 2011
In 1962,Yemen’s northern and southern regions were governed separately. NorthYemenwas an independent state ruled since the 1930s by a monarchy, while SouthYemenwas under British colonial administration.
1962
Yemen remains divided into a northern state ruled by a monarchy and a southern state under British control. In September factions within the armed forces in North Yemen overthrow the monarch, Imam Muḥammad al-Badr, and proclaim the Yemen Arab Republic. Al-Badr evades capture and rallies tribal support, leading to a civil war between republicans and royalists. Egypt and Saudi Arabia intervene in the conflict, on the sides of the republicans and the royalists, respectively.
1963
In South Yemen, a newly formed nationalist group, the National Liberation Front, launches a guerrilla campaign against the British.
1967
Britain withdraws from South Yemen, transferring sovereignty to the National Liberation Front, which founds the People’s Republic of South Yemen. The Six-Day War forces Egypt to withdraw its forces in North Yemen.
1970
The royalists and republicans in North Yemen reach a reconciliation agreement, ending the civil war. South Yemen renames itself the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, aligning itself with the Soviet Union and embarking on a program of socialist economic reorganization.
1972
A brief border war breaks out between North and South Yemen. Following the cease-fire, both sides agree to a plan for political unification. The plan is stalled when relations between the two countries deteriorate in the following year.
1978
Following the assassination of two presidents of North Yemen in two years, Alī Abd Allāh Ṣāliḥ becomes president of North Yemen.
1979
Another brief war breaks out between North and South Yemen. Once again, hostilities are ended with a unification agreement that quickly collapses.
1990
After months of negotiations, the Republic of Yemen is proclaimed on May 22, uniting North and South Yemen. The newly united Yemen suffers international isolation and economic losses when it opposes the use of force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion that prompted the Persian Gulf War (1990–91). Led by Saudi Arabia, a number of Arab countries cut off aid to Yemen and expel Yemeni workers.
1994
Civil war breaks out between the Ṣāliḥ regime and a secessionist movement based in the south. The secessionists are defeated, and Ṣāliḥ emerges with greater political and military dominance.
2000
An attack by al-Qaeda suicide bombers against the USS Cole, a U.S. warship harboured in Aden, kills 17 sailors. The incident leads to greater security cooperation between Yemen and the United States.
2004
Government forces launch attacks to suppress a rebellion around the northern town of Ṣadah. The rebels, who are led by members of the al-Hūthī family, a Zaydī Shīite clan, call for the preservation of Zaydī religious identity and condemn the Ṣāliḥ regime as pro-Western. Sporadic outbreaks ofviolence between rebels and government forces persist for several years, resulting in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the north.
2005
Ṣāliḥ states that he will not seek another term as president in elections scheduled for 2006.
2006
Reneging on his earlier pledge not to enter elections in 2006, Ṣāliḥ runs for another seven-year term as president and is reelected.
2009
Yemeni and Saudi forces launch a major offensive against the al-Hūthī rebels in areas along the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Although the offensive leads to a cease-fire, it fails to decisively defeat the rebellion.
2010
Ṣaliḥ declares “total war” on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a militant network based in Yemen, after the group is linked to an attempted airline bombing in the United States that took place in late 2009. The Yemeni military launches air strikes and ground assaults in tribal areas of easternYemen, where the group is thought to operate.
Uprising in Yemen, 2011
Jan. 27,2011
Inspired by the protests in Tunisia and Egypt, thousands of protesters rally in Sanaa to demand the resignation of Alī Abd Allāh Ṣāliḥ and to call for political and economic reform.
Feb. 2,2011
As protests intensify, Ṣāliḥ offers concessions, pledging not to run for reelection in 2013 and not to hand power to his son. In spite of Ṣāliḥ’s concessions, protests continue.
March 10,2011
Ṣāliḥ again offers concessions to protesters, vowing to draft a new constitution strengthening the parliament and the judiciary. Demonstrations continue unabated.
March 18,2011
At least 50 people are killed when Ṣāliḥ supporters open fire on demonstrators in Sanaa. A number of Yemeni officials resign in protest.
March 20,2011
Ṣāliḥ fires his cabinet. Sadiq al-Ahmar, head of the powerful Hāshid tribal confederation, calls on Ṣāliḥ to step down.
March 21,2011
Maj. Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, considered to be the most powerful military officer in Yemen, declares his support for the opposition. Loyalist and opposition military units deploy tanks around Sanaa.
April 7,2011
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) proposes a transition plan that calls for Ṣāliḥ to step down as president in exchange for immunity from prosecution. The next day Ṣāliḥ appears to reject the plan, accusing the GCC of interfering in Yemeni affairs.
April 23,2011
Ṣāliḥ says that he accepts the GCC transition plan, which calls for him to step down after 30 days.
April 25,2011
The opposition coalition accepts the GCC transition plan.
May 1,2011
Ṣāliḥ refuses at the last minute to sign the GCC transition agreement. Violent clashes between security forces and protesters continue.
May 18,2011
Representatives of Ṣāliḥ announce that he is prepared to sign the GCC agreement.
May 22,2011
Ṣāliḥ once again refuses to sign the GCC agreement, causing the GCC to suspend its attempts at mediation.
May 23,2011
Heavy fighting breaks out in Sanaa between security forces loyal to Ṣāliḥ and tribal militiamen loyal to Sadiq al-Ahmar.
May 29,2011
Islamic militants take over the town of Zinjibār, the capital of the Abyan governorate, causing government officials and residents to flee. The takeover stokes fears that chaos in Yemen will ultimately benefit al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
June 3,2011
Ṣāliḥ is injured by a bomb planted in the presidential palace in Sanaa. Hours after the attack, amid rumours that Ṣāliḥ has been gravely injured or killed, an audio message is broadcast in which Ṣāliḥ condemns the attackers and asserts that he is in good health.
June 4,2011
Ṣāliḥ is taken to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment, sparking celebrations in the streets of Sanaa. Media reports suggest that Ṣāliḥ’s injuries are more severe than Yemeni officials originally indicated, consisting of extensive burns and shrapnel wounds. The Yemeni vice president, Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi, takes over in Ṣāliḥ’s absence but does not formally assume the presidency.
June 6,2011
In response to reports suggesting that the severity of Ṣāliḥ’s injuries will prevent him from returning to Yemen, Yemeni officials maintain that he is expected to return from Saudi Arabia and resume his duties as president in a matter of days.
June 8,2011
Media reports indicate that in recent weeks the United States expanded its covert air campaign against Islamic militants in Yemen, launching a number of air strikes against suspected militant leaders.
June 13,2011
Representatives of the Yemeni opposition meet with Hadi. It remains unclear if Hadi would support a transition agreement that would remove Ṣāliḥ from power.
June 17,2011
Two weeks after the attack that injured Ṣāliḥ, Yemeni officials deny new Saudi reports that the president will not be able to return to Yemen.
June 22,2011
Dozens of al-Qaeda militants are reported to have escaped from prison in Al-Mukallā, a city in southern Yemen.
July 7,2011
A televised address by Ṣāliḥ, his first since being injured in June, is broadcast in Yemen. He appears to speak with difficulty, and his hands are heavily bandaged. Ṣāliḥ says that dialogue will be necessary to resolve the crisis in Yemen.
July 16,2011
A group of Yemeni opposition leaders announce the formation of a transitional council to prepare for a transition of power. However, the announcement highlights the disorganization and disunity of the opposition, as some of the leaders named to the council claim not to have been informed of their inclusion on the council prior to the announcement. Many protest leaders denounce the council, saying that it was formed without proper deliberation among opposition groups.
August 16,2011
Ṣāliḥ makes a televised speech to his supporters in Yemen, vowing to return to Sanaa and fiercely denouncing the opposition. Ṣāliḥ’s condition appears to have improved significantly since his televised address in July.
September 16,2011
Clashes between forces loyal to Ṣāliḥ and forces aligned with the opposition break out in Sanaa. At Sanaa University, security forces attack protesters at a sit-in.
September 20,2011
After several days of gun battles in Sanaa, officials announce a cease-fire. However, violence soon resumes.
September 23,2011
As fears of a full-fledged civil war build, Ṣāliḥ returns to Yemen after spending nearly four months in Saudi Arabia recuperating from his injuries.
In early 2011, amid a wave of popular protest in countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa, largely peaceful demonstrations against entrenched regimes brought quick transfers of power in Egypt and Tunisia. In Libya, however, an uprising against the four-decade rule of Muammar al-Qaddafi led to civil war and international military intervention. In this special feature, Britannica provides a guide to recent events in Libya and explores the historical and geographic context of the conflict.
Uprising
On February 15, 2011, antigovernment rallies were held in Banghāzī by protesters angered by the arrest of a human rights lawyer, Fethi Tarbel. The protesters called for Qaddafi to step down and for the release of political prisoners. Libyan security forces used water cannons and rubber bullets against the crowds, resulting in a number of injuries. To counter the demonstrations further, a pro-government rally orchestrated by the Libyan authorities was broadcast on state television.
As the protests intensified, with demonstrators taking control of Banghāzī and unrest spreading to Tripoli, the Libyan government began using lethal force against demonstrators. Security forces and squads of mercenaries fired live ammunition into crowds of demonstrators. Demonstrators also were attacked with tanks and artillery and from the air with warplanes and helicopter gunships. The regime restricted communications, blocking the Internet and interrupting telephone service throughout the country. On February 21, 2011 one of Qaddafi’s sons, Sayf al-Islam, gave a defiant address on state television, blaming outside agitators for the unrest and saying that further demonstrations could lead to civil war in the country. He vowed that the regime would fight “to the last bullet.”
The government’s sudden escalation of violence against protesters and other civilians drew international condemnation from foreign leaders and human rights organizations. It also seemed to damage the coherence of the regime, causing a number of high-level officials—including the minister of justice and a number of senior Libyan diplomats, including the Libyan ambassador to the United Nations—to resign in protest or issue statements condemning the regime. A number of Libyan embassies around the world began to fly Libya’s pre-Qaddafi flag, signaling support for the uprising. Support for Qaddafi also seemed to waver in some segments of the military; as the Libyan air force carried out attacks against demonstrators, two Libyan fighter pilots flew their jets to Malta, choosing to defect rather than obey orders to bomb Banghāzī.
On February 22, 2011 Qaddafi delivered an angry, rambling speech on state television, condemning the protesters as traitors and calling on his supporters to fight them. The speech took place in the Bāb al-ʿAzīziyyah compound, Qaddafi’s primary headquarters in Tripoli, in front of a building that still showed extensive damage from a 1986 air strike by the United States. He resisted calls to step down and vowed to remain in Libya. Although he denied having used force against protesters, he repeatedly vowed to use violence to remain in power.
Clashes continued, and Qaddafi’s hold on power weakened as Libyan military units increasingly sided with the opposition against the regime. As demonstrators acquired weapons from government arms depots and joined forces with defected military units, the anti-Qaddafi movement began to take the form of an armed rebellion. The newly armed rebel forces were able to expel most pro-Qaddafi troops from the eastern portion of Libya, including the city of Banghāzī, and many western cities by February 23, 2011. The Libyan-Egyptian border was opened, allowing foreign journalists into the country for the first time since the conflict began. Pro-Qaddafi paramilitary units continued to hold the city of Tripoli, where Qaddafi and members of his family and inner circle remained.
As Qaddafi massed his forces in the Tripoli area to hold off the rebels there, his public statements seemed to indicate that he was becoming increasingly isolated and desperate. Speaking by telephone on Libyan state television on February 24, 2011, Qaddafi once again lashed out at protesters, saying that the young people at the core of the protest movement were acting under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs and that the demonstrations were being controlled by al-Qaeda.
Foreign leaders continued to condemn the violence. However, international efforts to intervene or pressure the regime to end the bloodshed were complicated by the presence of many foreign nationals in Libya still waiting to be evacuated.
The regime continued its efforts to hold the capital, launching attacks around Tripoli, some of which were repelled by rebel forces. On February 25, 2011 pro-Qaddafi gunmen in Tripoli attacked unarmed protesters and others as they emerged from mosques after Friday prayers.
International pressure for Qaddafi to step down increased as violence continued and foreign nationals were evacuated. The UN Security Council unanimously approved a measure that included exacting sanctions against the Qaddafi regime, imposing a travel ban and an arms embargo, and freezing the Qaddafi family’s assets. The measure also referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States, the European Union (EU), and a number of other countries also imposed sanctions. On February 28 the United States announced that it had frozen at least $30 billion in Libyan assets.
Amid continuing skirmishes as rebel forces strengthened their positions outside Tripoli, Qaddafi invited a number of Western journalists to the city in an attempt to demonstrate that the situation remained under control in the capital. In interviews he continued to blame al-Qaeda and hallucinogenic drugs for the uprising. He claimed that Western leaders who had called for him to step down had done so out of a desire to colonize Libya, and he insisted that he was still well loved by Libyans.
A rebel leadership council, formed by the merger of local rebel groups, appeared in Banghāzī in early March. Known as the Transitional National Council (TNC), it declared that its aims would be to act as the rebellion’s military leadership and as the representative of the Libyan opposition, provide services in rebel-held areas, and guide the country’s transition to democratic government.
Conditions in Libya worsened as the armed struggle continued, and thousands of people, mostly migrant workers from Egypt and Tunisia, fled toward the borders. Governments and humanitarian organizations began to organize efforts to address worsening shortages of food, fuel, and medical supplies throughout the country.
After the rebels succeeded in taking control of eastern Libya and a number of cities in the west, the conflict appeared to enter a stalemate. The Qaddafi regime still controlled enough soldiers and weapons to hold Tripoli and to stage fresh assaults, which rebel fighters, although poorly equipped, were largely able to repel. Most fighting took place in the towns around Tripoli and in the central coastal region, where rebels and Qaddafi loyalists battled for control of the oil-export terminals on the Gulf of Sidra.
As the fighting continued, forces loyal to Qaddafi seemed to gain momentum, launching successful assaults to retake control in strategic areas around Tripoli and on the coast of the Gulf of Sidra. Attacking with fighter jets, tanks, and artillery, pro-Qaddafi forces had by March 10 driven rebel forces from Al-Zāwiyah, west of Tripoli, and from the oil-export centre of Ras Lanuf. Those gains highlighted the Qaddafi loyalists’ advantages in weaponry, training, and organization.
As Qaddafi appeared to gain the upper hand, the international community continued to debate possible diplomatic and military responses to the rapidly developing conflict. Countries worked to establish contact with the TNC, although only France granted it official recognition, announcing on March 10, 2011 that it would treat the council as Libya’s legitimate government. International condemnation of the Qaddafi regime continued to build, and, at an emergency summit on March 11, the EU unanimously called for Qaddafi to step down. However, the international community remained divided over the possibility of military intervention—most likely by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, a measure long requested by the rebels to prevent Qaddafi loyalists from launching air attacks. Some countries, including France and the United Kingdom, signaled their support for such an operation, while others, including the United States and Germany, expressed their reservations, emphasizing the need for broad international consensus and warning against possible unforeseen consequences of military intervention. The African Union (AU) rejected any military intervention in Libya, asserting that the crisis should be resolved through negotiations, whereas the Arab League passed a resolution on March 13, 2011 calling on the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
On March 15, 2011 Qaddafi loyalists launched a heavy assault on the eastern city of Ajdābiyā, the last large rebel-held city on the route to Banghāzī. On March 17, as Qaddafi loyalists advanced on the remaining rebel positions in Banghāzī and Tobruk in the east and Miṣrātah in the west, the UN Security Council voted 10–0—with abstentions from Russia, China, Germany, India, and Brazil—to authorize military action, including imposition of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians. The Qaddafi regime responded by declaring an immediate cease-fire, although there were reports that pro-Qaddafi forces continued to launch attacks after the announcement and that heavy fighting continued in Banghāzī.
Beginning March 19, 2011, a coalition of U.S. and European forces with warplanes and cruise missiles attacked targets in Libya in an effort to disable Libya’s air force and air defense systems so that the UN-authorized no-fly zone could be imposed. Coalition missiles struck buildings in a compound used by Qaddafi as a command centre, and in eastern Libya warplanes attacked a pro-Qaddafi armoured column positioned outside Banghāzī. Emboldened by the air strikes, rebel forces once again launched an offensive to challenge pro-Qaddafi forces’ hold on the oil centres on the coast. Qaddafi denounced the coalition attacks as an act of aggression against Libya and vowed to continue fighting international forces and the rebels.
Coalition spokesmen announced on March 23, 2011 that the Libyan air force had been completely disabled by coalition air strikes. However, heavy fighting continued on the ground. Pro-Qaddafi units massed around the rebel-held city of Miṣrātah in the west and the contested city of Ajdābiyā in the east, shelling both heavily and causing significant civilian casualties. Attacks by coalition warplanes soon weakened pro-Qaddafi ground forces in eastern Libya, allowing rebels to advance west again.
On March 27, 2011 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officially took command of military operations previously directed by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom in Libya. The handover came after several days of debate between NATO countries over the limits of international military intervention; several countries had argued that the coalition’s aggressive targeting of pro-Qaddafi ground forces had exceeded the mandate set by the UN Security Council to protect civilians.
On March 30, 2011 Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa defected, fleeing to the United Kingdom. The defection of Koussa, a former head of Libyan intelligence and a longtime member of Qaddafi’s inner circle, was interpreted as a sign that support for Qaddafi among senior Libyan officials was beginning to wane.
As the fighting progressed, it began to appear that, even with NATO attacks on pro-Qaddafi forces, the Libyan rebels—a poorly armed and disorganized force with little military training—would be unable to oust Qaddafi or achieve decisive successes against Qaddafi’s professional troops. Diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis intensified, with an AU delegation traveling to Tripoli on April 10 to present a cease-fire plan to Qaddafi. AU representatives announced that Qaddafi had accepted the plan, although pro-Qaddafi forces continued to launch attacks on April 11, 2011. The plan was rejected by the rebel leaders on the grounds that it did not provide for Qaddafi’s departure from Libya.
As the stalemate continued, the United Kingdom announced on April 19 that it would send a team of military liaison officers to Libya to advise rebel leaders on military strategy, organization, and logistics. The next day France and Italy announced that they would also send advisers. All three countries specified that their officers would not participate in fighting. The Libyan foreign minister condemned the decision to send military advisers, saying that such aid to the rebels would only prolong the conflict.
NATO attacks continued and targeted a number of sites associated with Qaddafi and members of his inner circle, such as the Bāb al-ʿAzīziyyah compound in Tripoli, drawing protests from Libyan officials who charged that NATO had adopted a strategy of trying to kill Qaddafi. His son Sayf al-Arab and three of Qaddafi’s grandchildren were killed in a NATO air strike in April. In June the ICC issued arrest warrants for Qaddafi, his son Sayf al-Islam, and the Libyan intelligence chief, Abdullah Senussi, for ordering attacks against civilians during the uprising. Some observers expressed concern that the ICC’s proceedings against Qaddafi would discourage him from relinquishing power voluntarily. In spite of pressure from NATO attacks, rebel advances in the eastern and western regions of Libya, and the Qaddafi regime’s international isolation, Qaddafi continued to hold power in Tripoli.
After months of stalemate, the balance of power once again shifted in the rebels’ favour. In August 2011 rebel forces advanced to the outskirts of Tripoli, taking control of strategic areas, including the city of Zāwiyah, the site of one of Libya’s largest oil refineries. Rebels soon advanced into Tripoli, establishing control over some areas of the capital on August 22, 2011. As rebel fighters battled pro-Qaddafi forces for control of Tripoli, Qaddafi’s whereabouts were unknown. The next day rebel forces appeared to gain the upper hand, capturing the Bāb al-Azīziyyah compound, Qaddafi’s headquarters. Rebels raised Libya’s pre-Qaddafi flag over the compound as jubilant crowds destroyed symbols of Qaddafi. Fighting between rebels and loyalists continued in a few areas of Tripoli.
By early September, 2011 rebel forces had solidified their control of Tripoli, and the TNC began to transfer its operations to the capital. Qaddafi, effectively forced from power, remained in hiding, occasionally issuing defiant audio messages. Rebel forces focused their attention on the few remaining cities under loyalist control, attempting to use negotiations to persuade loyalist commanders to surrender peacefully and avoid a bloody ground assault. When negotiations failed, rebel troops began to push into the cities of Surt and Banī Walīd, engaging in heavy fighting with loyalists.
The TNC achieved new international legitimacy on September 15, 2011 when the UN General Assembly voted to recognize it as the representative of the Libyan people in the UN.
On October 20, 2011 Qaddafi was discovered and killed by rebel fighters in his hometown, Surt, as they fought to solidify their control of the city.
Libya facts and figures
official name:
The Libyan Republic
area:
686,127 square miles (1,777,060 square km)
population (2010 est.):
6,546,000
age breakdown (2009):
Under age 15, 33.0%; 15–29, 28.6%; 30–44, 21.9%; 45–59, 10.1%; 60–74, 4.7%; 75 and over, 1.7%
form of government:
Interim government led by Transitional National Council
capital:
Tripoli
other major cities:
Banghāzī, Miṣrātah
official language:
Arabic
official religion:
Islam
religious affiliation (2000):
Muslim, 96.1%, of which nearly all are Sunni; Orthodox Christian, 1.9%; Roman Catholic, 0.8%; other, 1.2%
unemployment rate (2004):
30%
literacy rate (2007):
Total population age 15 and older, 88.1%; males, 93.0%; females, 83.1%
Reassure the people in Kerala on the safety of Mullaperiyar dam, and persuade the people in Tamil Nadu to accept a safe water-level behind the dam. Bring about an agreement through amicable negotiations.
This article seeks to explain the elements of the raging controversy over the Mullaperiyar dam for the information of the general reader. There are four distinct aspects to this case, and these are elucidated below.
(a) Extraordinary nature of the project: This is a project involving the eastward diversion of the waters of a west-flowing river, which has been celebrated as a gigantic feat of 19th century engineering. It was a major intervention in nature of a kind that is no longer much in favour. Was that feat of engineering necessary? Were there no other possibilities of development — less ambitious, less capital-intensive, less damaging to nature and wildlife, more local, less water-demanding — for the water-short districts in the Vaigai Basin? Such questions were probably not asked at the time. EIAs, the assessment of options, etc., are practices that came up much later. Be that as it may, the project was constructed and Periyar waters have been flowing to Tamil Nadu for over a hundred years.
(b) Sense of grievance in Kerala: Under the 1886 agreement between the former Madras Presidency and the princely State of Travancore, Travancore agreed to the diversion of Periyar waters to Madras Presidency, and to lease a piece of land (8000 acres) in its territory to Madras Presidency for building and operating the project designed for this purpose. The curious fact is that the lease was for 999 years. Whole countries and civilisations could have changed during that period! In Kerala, there is an almost universal feeling (right or wrong) that the 1886 agreement was an unfair one imposed on a reluctant Travancore by a more powerful Madras Presidency with the prestige and power of the British government behind it; and that while Madras (now Tamil Nadu) benefited substantially from the agreement, Travancore (Kerala) got little more than a negligible lease-rent for the land leased to Madras. In 1970, an increase in the lease rent was negotiated by Kerala but there was no radical revision of the totality of the agreement. In any resolution of the Mullaperiyar issue, some assuaging of Kerala’s longstanding grievance will have to be an element.
(c) The dam safety question and the people’s fears: Prima facie, dam safety does not seem a suitable subject for judicial determination. One wishes that the Supreme Court had told the two State governments to resolve the issue by amicable discussions, or to seek the intervention of the Central government. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could have directed the Inter-State Council, a constitutional body, to intervene and bring about an amicable settlement. Instead the learned judges decided to deal with the matter themselves, and appointed an Empowered Committee to examine and report on it. The Empowered Committee includes eminent experts but their opinion, even if the Supreme Court accepts it, may not necessarily be the final word on the subject, particularly if a different opinion is given by other equally distinguished experts outside. Under the circumstances, the sensible course would be for the two State governments, perhaps with the assistance of a joint committee of experts, to reach a reasonable agreement on the subject.
However, no expert can give an absolute guarantee of safety. The dam in this case is 116 years old, and even with all the strengthening measures, one can hardly be wholly confident about its safety under all circumstances. The recent tremors in the area might have been minor but no one can guarantee that a stronger earthquake will not occur, or that if it does the dam will withstand it; or that if there is an exceptionally heavy flood the dam will be safe. These are extreme and perhaps improbable situations but the point is that there can be no absolute unqualified guarantee of safety under all circumstances. That is true of all dams, and particularly so of ageing dams and of dams in seismically active areas.
Moreover, what the experts say may not allay the fears of the people downstream of the dam. To some extent those fears might have been accentuated by the statements of political leaders but they cannot be lightly dismissed as imaginary or paranoid. The people living in the shadow of the dam need to be reassured.
The remote contingency of a risk actually materialising may be acceptable in many cases, but unacceptable in a few. It seems to this writer that the risk in this case falls into the category of ‘unacceptable’.
Having regard to all this, it seems clear that this is a fit case for the application of the Precautionary Principle. This means that the authorities concerned must refrain from putting undue strain on the dam.
A further point is that with strengthening measures, the 116-year-old dam can perhaps be kept going for some more years but it must be presumed to be nearing the end of its useful life. Contingency plans must be prepared for the eventual phasing out of the dam. These must include alternative means of supporting economic activity and prosperity in the project-dependent areas in Tamil Nadu.
The Kerala government wants to replace the old dam by a new dam to be constructed 300 metres downstream. It is not clear that this will enable the continuance of flows to Tamil Nadu. In any case, the old dam itself was a horrendous intervention in nature, but it exists and we have to live with it; but there is no reason why the hubristic engineering of more than a century ago must now be repeated. If Kerala’s objective is to escape from what it considers an unfair agreement, the proper course is to re-negotiate the old agreement, and not build a new dam.
(d) The concerns of people in Tamil Nadu: Whatever views one might hold on the nature of the project, the fact is that the people in the water-short Vaigai Basin areas in Tamil Nadu have been recipients of Periyar waters for over a hundred years, and must be presumed to have acquired some kind of a right of established use. The dispute regarding the safety of the dam has created a sense of uncertainty — in fact an acute anxiety — in the areas concerned in Tamil Nadu about continued flows. Thus, there are two vulnerabilities in this case: the life-security concerns of people in Kerala and the livelihood-security concerns of the people of Tamil Nadu. Both need to be addressed.
Pleas to all
Having regard to the foregoing analysis, this writer respectfully makes the following pleas to all:
To the two State governments or to the one concerned:
tone down the rhetoric; don’t take extreme, non-negotiable positions;
don’t build a new dam;
strengthen the existing dam and operate it safely at a mutually agreed water-level; implement whatever safety measures the experts recommend;
negotiate changes in the old agreement to remove the continuing sense of unfairness;
reassure the people in Kerala on safety, and persuade the people in Tamil Nadu to accept a safe water-level behind the dam; bring about an agreement on this through amicable negotiations with the assistance of NGOs, eminent persons, etc;
recognise that even with strengthening, the 116-year-old dam will not last forever, and plan for its gradual phasing out over a period of time; explore alternative ways of meeting the legitimate water needs of the affected population; minimise their dependence on waters from the Mullaperiyar dam through better water management, changes in cropping patterns, changes to forms of development that need less water, etc. (The Centre should assist Tamil Nadu in such adaptation efforts.)
To the people in both States:
don’t demonise each other;
recognise each other’s vulnerabilities;
remember that the history has been one of inter-State cooperation and harmony; don’t endanger that spirit.
To intellectuals, eminent persons, NGOs, the media, etc, in both States:
educate public opinion;
bring the people together; promote understanding and harmony; defuse the current tension.
Beginning in December 2010, unprecedented mass demonstrations against poverty, corruption, and political repression broke out in several Arab countries, challenging the authority of some of the most entrenched regimes in the Middle East and North Africa. Such was the case in Egypt, where in 2011 a popular uprising forced one of the region’s longest-serving and most influential leaders, Pres. Ḥosnī Mubārak, from power.
The first demonstrations occurred in Tunisia in December 2010, triggered by the self-immolation of a young man frustrated by Tunisia’s high unemployment rate and rampant police corruption. Rallies calling for Pres. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to step down spread throughout the country, with police often resorting to violence to control the crowds. As clashes between police and protesters escalated, Ben Ali announced a series of economic and political reforms in an unsuccessful attempt to end the unrest. Demonstrations continued, forcing Ben Ali to flee the country. The apparent success of the popular uprising in Tunisia, by then dubbed the Jasmine Revolution, inspired similar movements in other countries, including Egypt, Yemen, and Libya.
In Egypt, demonstrations organized by youth groups, largely independent of Egypt’s established opposition parties, took hold in the capital and in cities around the country. Protesters called for Mubārak to step down immediately, clearing the way for free elections and democracy. As the demonstrations gathered strength, the Mubārak regime resorted to increasingly violent tactics against protesters, resulting in hundreds of injuries and deaths. Mubārak’s attempts to placate the protesters with concessions, including a pledge to step down at the end of his term in 2011 and naming Omar Suleiman as vice president—the first person to serve as such in Mubārak’s nearly three-decade presidency—did little to quell the unrest. After almost three weeks of mass protests in Egypt, Mubārak stepped down as president, leaving the Egyptian military in control of the country.
Although protesters in Egypt focused most of their anger on domestic issues such as poverty and government oppression, many observers noted that political change in Egypt could impact the country’s foreign affairs, affecting long-standing policies. Central elements of Egypt’s foreign policy under Mubārak and his predecessor as president, Anwar el-Sādāt, such as Egypt’s political-military alignment with the United States and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty, embraced by Egypt’s leaders but unpopular with the Egyptian public, could be weakened or rejected under a new regime.
Egypt facts and figures
official name:
Arab Republic of Egypt
area:
386,874 square miles (1,002,000 sq km)
population (2010 est.):
84,474,000
age breakdown (2009):
Under 15, 31.7%; 15–29, 31.3%; 30–44, 18.5%; 45–59, 12.4%; 60–74, 5.1%; 75 and over, 1%
form of government:
Republic with two legislative houses
capital:
Cairo
other major cities:
Alexandria, Al-Jīzah, Shubrā al-Khaymah, Port Said, Suez
official language:
Arabic
official religion:
Islam
religious affiliation (2000):
Muslim, 84.4%, of which nearly all are Sunni; Christian, 15.1%, of which Orthodox are 13.6%, Protestant 0.8%, Roman Catholic 0.3%, nonreligious 0.5%
unemployment rate (april 2009–march 2010):
9.3%
literacy rate (2007):
Total population age 15 and older, 72%; males 83.6% and females 60.7%
Key events in Egypt: 1952 to 2011
1952
Angered by the continuing domination ofEgyptian affairs by former colonial ruler Great Britain and by economic inequalities in Egypt, group ofjunior Egyptian military officers calling themselves the Free Officers stages a coup, forcing King Farouk into exile. Following the coup, Egyptis governed by the Revolutionary Command Council, a newly formed executive body led by a figurehead president, Gen. Muḥammad Naguib. The RCC institutes popular reforms including a land reform law that redistributes land held by Egypt’s elite.
1954
Gamal Abdel Nasser, a leader of the Free Officers, prevails in a power struggle with Naguib and becomes head of Egypt’s military government.
1955
Egypt, eager to modernize its military, purchases Soviet weaponry through Czechoslovakia. The arms deal undermines efforts by Britain and the United States to limit Soviet influence in the Middle East.
1956
The United States, Britain, and the World Bank withdraw support for the construction of the Aswan High Dam, the centerpiece of Nasser’s economic development program. In response, Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal, previously controlled by British and French interests. Britain, France, and Israel launch an invasion to reestablish control over the Canal Zone but are forced by the United States and the Soviet Union to withdraw. Following nationalization of the Suez Canal, a number of foreign-owned companies in Egypt are nationalized.
1958
The Soviet Union agrees to provide funding and technical assistance for the construction of the Aswan High Dam, ushering in a period of close Egyptian-Soviet cooperation.
1961
A set of decrees issued by Nasser initiates a wave of nationalizations in Egypt that brings most of Egypt’s manufacturing, banking, and service companies into the public sector, causing a massive expansion of the state bureaucracy.
1962
Nasser guarantees all Egyptian university graduates jobs in government service. The ensuing boom in university enrollment means that most graduates are placed in low-paying bureaucratic positions with little chance of advancement, a long-standing source of economic frustration in Egypt.
1967
The June War begins when Israel reacts to an apparent Arab mobilization with preemptive air strikes against Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel quickly wins a decisive victory in the subsequent ground fighting, gaining control of the Sinai Peninsula along with the West Bank and the Golan Heights. The defeat, a national humiliation for Egypt, damages the credibility of the Nasser regime and increases Egypt’s dependence on Soviet military aid.
1970
Nasser dies of a heart attack and is succeeded as president by another member of the Free Officers, Anwar el-Sādāt.
1973
Egypt begins the October War by launching an attack across the Suez Canal in an attempt to establish leverage with Israel by demonstrating military force. The Egyptian attack is coordinated with a Syrian attack on the Golan Heights. The conflict draws in the Soviet Union and the United States, resupplying Egypt and Israel, respectively. The initial Egyptian offensive is a surprising success, but Israel stages a counterattack, and regains the upper hand. Fighting ends with a cease-fire brokered by the United States and the Soviet Union.
1974
Sādāt’s program of economic liberalization, meant to attract foreign investment, is officially announced. Known as infitah(Arabic: “opening”), the effort is hampered by Egypt’s complicated bureaucracy, which makes doing business in Egypt difficult.
1977
A reduction in state subsidies for some basic food products sparks demonstrations throughout Egypt, and Sādāt is forced to reinstate subsidies. Seeing the ongoing Egypt-Israel confrontation as a major contributor to Egypt’s economic difficulties, Sādāt begins to pursue peace with Israel, traveling to Jerusalem to address the Knesset in November.
1978
Israel and Egypt sign the Camp David Accords, leading to a peace treaty between the two countries the following year. Peace with Israel reshapes Egyptian foreign policy, strengthening Egypt’s ties to the United States while isolating Egypt from other Arab countries. Following the agreement, Israel withdraws from the Sinai Peninsula, and Egypt receives increased amounts of economic and military aid from the United States.
1981
While reviewing a military parade, Sādāt is assassinated by attackers with links to an Islamic militant group. Hosni Mabarak, the vice president, succeeds Sādāt. Upon becoming president, Mubārak renews Egypt’s state of emergency, instituted in 1967 and lifted by Sādāt in 1980, restricting political expression while expanding police powers and media censorship. The state of emergency remains in effect for the rest of Mubārak’s presidency.
1992
Egyptian security forces clash with Islamic militants in Egypt. An Islamic insurgency in Egypt continues through much of the 1990s.
1997
Seeking to destabilize the regime by targeting the tourism industry, a major source of revenue, militants kill dozens of tourists in Luxor.
2004
The Egyptian pro-reform organization Kifaya (Arabic: “Enough”) forms. The group decries Mubārak’s seemingly unshakable hold on the presidency, holding rallies to call for free multicandidate presidential elections.
2005
After being elected president in single-candidate referendums in 1987, 1993, and 1999, Mubārak faces challengers in a presidential election for the first time. However, the most popular opposition group in Egypt, the banned Muslim Brotherhood, is barred from entering a candidate. Mubārak wins an overwhelming victory. The runner-up, Ayman Nour, is imprisoned on charges of fraud.
2010
After independent candidates associated with the banned Muslim Brotherhood performed well in legislative elections in 2005, becoming the largest opposition contingent in the People’s Assembly, the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) wins overwhelmingly in 2010 elections, virtually eliminating the opposition from the People’s Assembly. Opposition parties called for the results of the election to be annulled, claiming widespread vote rigging.
2011
Antigovernment protests erupt in Egypt after a popular uprising in Tunisia forces the Tunisian president, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, from power.
Upheaval in Egypt, 2011
Jan. 17,2011
An Egyptian man sets fire to himself outside the parliament building in Cairo to protest government repression. Several more Egyptians stage similar protests in apparent emulation of Mohammed Bouazizi’s suicide protest in Tunisia.
Jan. 25,2011
Thousands gather in Cairo and several other Egyptian cities to demonstrate against poverty and political repression. Protesters chanting anti-Mubārak slogans clash with police, who use water cannons and tear gas against the crowds.
Jan. 27,2011
As clashes continue, Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and a prominent critic of the Mubārak regime, arrives in Cairo to participate in demonstrations.
Jan. 28,2011
Antigovernment protests in Egypt intensify when demonstrators clash with police following Friday prayers. Internet and telephone service are disrupted in Egypt in an effort to limit the extent of demonstrations. President Mubārak imposes a curfew and deploys army units in an attempt to control unrest. The national headquarters of the NDP is burned in Cairo. As violence continues into the night, Mubārak appears on state television announcing the dismissal of his government.
Jan. 29,2011
For the first time in nearly three decades as president of Egypt, Mubārak appoints a vice president, selecting one of his closest advisers, Omar Suleiman, the director of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service. Thousands of protesters remain camped out in Tahrir Square, at the centre of downtown Cairo, clashing sporadically with police.
Feb. 1,2011
In a televised speech, Mubārak announces that he will not stand for reelection at the end of his term in September 2011.
Feb. 2,2011
Violence intensifies as antigovernment protesters clash with crowds of Mubārak supporters in Tahrir Square in Cairo. It is widely believed that the groups of Mubārak supporters are plainclothes security officers and members of the NDP waging a coordinated effort to use violence to disperse the protests.
Feb. 6,2011
The Egyptian government holds talks with members of the opposition. The banned Muslim Brotherhood participates.
Feb. 10,2011
Amid widespread media reports that Mubārak is preparing to announce his resignation in a televised statement, he instead delivers a defiant address, reaffirming that he intends to remain in power until the end of his term in September.
Feb. 11,2011
As protests continue, Mubārak leaves Cairo for Sharm al-Shaykh, a resort town on the Sinai Peninsula where he maintains a residence. Hours later Suleiman appears on state television to announce that Mubārak has stepped down as president, leaving the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, a council of high-ranking military officers headed by the minister of defense, Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, in control.
Feb. 12,2011
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces issues a statement saying that the military will hand power to an elected civilian government. A spokesman also states that Egypt will continue to abide by international treaties, implying that the 1979 peace treaty with Israel will not be challenged.
Feb. 13,2011
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces suspends the constitution and dissolves Egypt’s two legislative bodies, the People’s Assembly and the Consultative Assembly. A statement by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces says a commission will be set up to draft a new constitution, to be approved by a referendum, and that the military will remain in power for six months or until new elections can be held.
Feb. 22,2011
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces swears in an interim cabinet that includes members of the opposition. However, several key posts are still filled by Mubārak appointees. Demonstrators hold fresh protests calling for the replacement of the remaining Mubārak-era ministers.
March 3,2011
Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, a Mubārak appointee, resigns. He is replaced by Essam Sharaf, a critic of the Mubārak regime.
March 7,2011
A new interim cabinet, led by Sharaf, is sworn in. The cabinet does not include officials who were close allies of Mubārak.
March 15,2011
The State Security Investigations (SSI) agency, Egypt’s internal security service, is officially dissolved. The interior ministry announces that the agency, infamous for its operations against political dissidents and its regular use of torture, will be replaced by a new security service that will not violate Egyptians’ rights.
March 19,2011
Egyptians approve a referendum drafted by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces proposing constitutional changes to make elections more open, impose term limits for the president, and restrict the use of emergency laws. Although the main youth protest movements oppose the referendum, calling instead for a new constitution to be drafted before elections are held, it is approved with 77 percent of the vote.
March 30,2011
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces issues a constitutional declaration intended to serve as an interim constitution in place of the one suspended on February 13. The document outlines the transition to an elected government and the procedure for drafting a new constitution. It incorporates selections from the prior constitution as well as the amendments that were approved by referendum on March 19. However, the constitutional declaration comes amid procedural confusion: prior to the March 19 referendum, it had been widely understood that in the case of a “yes” vote, the suspended constitution would be amended and reinstated.
April 9,2011
The Egyptian army uses force to clear protesters from Tahrir Square, killing two and injuring dozens. The protesters are calling for the government to investigate the finances of Mubārak and his sons, who are widely suspected of amassing large fortunes concealed in foreign bank accounts during Mubārak’s presidency.
April 13,2011
Egypt’s public prosecutor orders the detention of Mubārak and his sons Alaa and Gamal for 15 days for questioning. Alaa and Gamal are transported from Sharm al-Shaykh to prison in Cairo. Ḥosnī Mubārak, hospitalized in Sharm al-Shaykh after suffering an apparent heart attack, is placed under formal detention.
April 16,2011
An Egyptian court dissolves the NDP. The dissolution is seen as a concession to protesters, who remain concerned that elements of the Mubārak government still wield too much power.
April 19,2011
An Egyptian fact-finding commission charged with investigating clashes between protesters and police during the uprising announces its estimate that 846 people were killed and 6,400 were injured between January 25 and February 11. The commission finds that most of the fatalities were caused by the security services’ deliberate use of lethal force. An earlier official estimate, made by members of the Mubārak government, had put the death toll at 365.
May 4,2011
A Palestinian reconciliation agreement brokered by Egypt is signed by Hamas and Fatah in Cairo. The interim government’s successful mediation between the two factions suggests that Egypt no longer adheres to Mubārak’s policy of isolating Ḥamās.
May 5,2011
Egypt’s former minister of the interior, Habib al-Adly, is sentenced to 12 years in prison for financial corruption. Adly, the first Mubārak-era official to be convicted and sentenced since Mubārak left power, still awaits trial for allegedly having ordered security forces to fire on protesters.
May 24,2011
Egypt’s public prosecutor announces that Mubārak and his sons, Alaa and Gamal, will stand trial for ordering security forces to kill protesters. They also face charges related to corruption and abuse of power.
May 25,2011
Egypt’s interim foreign minister announces the reopening of the Rafaḥ border crossing between Egypt and Gaza; the crossing had been closed since Ḥamās took control of Gaza in 2007. Under Mubārak, Egypt’s cooperation with Israel in enforcing a blockade against Gaza was highly unpopular with the Egyptian public.
June 1,2011
Trials for Mubārak and his sons are scheduled for August 3 in a Cairo criminal court. They will be tried for corruption and for ordering violence against protesters.
June 29,2011
New clashes break out in Cairo between police and protesters who accuse the interim government of continuing many of the authoritarian practices of the Mubārak regime.
July 4,2011
Seven police officers charged with killing protesters in Suez during the uprising are released from prison on bail. The decision to release the officers angers many protesters, who accuse the interim government of> using delaying tactics to avoid holding former officials and police officers accountable. Clashes break out in Cairo and Suez.
July 5,2011
Three former government ministers are acquitted on charges of corruption, further stoking popular anger.
July 8,2011
Tens of thousands of protesters rally in Tahrir Square to demand that the interim government accelerate the pace of reforms.
July 12,2011
As protests continue, the spokesman for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces appears on television to deliver a strongly worded statement warning protesters that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent protesters and rioters from disrupting public order or undermining the authority of the government.
July 13,2011
The interim government announces that nearly 700 senior police officers are being fired over the killing of protesters during the
July 21,2011
A new cabinet is sworn in, completing a cabinet reshuffle promised by Prime Minister Sharaf to placate protesters. New ministers are appointed to more than half of the cabinet posts, but the ministers of justice and the interior, two of the main targets of the protesters’ anger, are retained.
July 28,2011
The interim government announces that Mubārak is healthy enough to stand trial in Cairo in August. For several months, reports indicated that Mubārak was in poor health, driving rumours among protesters that his trial was likely to be canceled or postponed.
August 3,2011
Mubārak appears in public for the first time as his trial commences in Cairo amid heavy security. After being wheeled into court in a hospital bed, Mubārak denies all charges against him. The televised proceedings sometimes descend into chaos, partly because of the large number of lawyers in court representing the families of slain protesters.
August 15,2011
Mubārak appears in court again for the second session of his trial. The presiding judge, Ahmed Rifaat, institutes new procedures to rein in disorder in the courtroom and issues a ban on television cameras at future trial sessions, disappointing some protesters.
August 18,2011
Gunmen attack an Israeli bus traveling in Israel near the Egyptian border, killing eight people. Five Egyptian police officers are then killed by Israeli forces pursuing the gunmen, provoking public outrage in Egypt. Israeli officials attribute the bus attack to Palestinian gunmen who they allege were able to enter Israeli territory through Egypt due to Egypt’s weak security in the Sinai Peninsula.
August 20,2011
Tension between Egypt and Israel intensifies as Egypt threatens to withdraw its ambassador to Israel and protests are held at the Israeli Embassy in Egypt. The crisis later appears defused when Israel issues a statement of regret for the Egyptians’ deaths and then promises an investigation. However, the diplomatic stand off caused by the attack at the border is seen by many as a sign of worsening relations between Israel and Egypt in the post-Mubārak era.
September 7,2011
Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and former minister of defense under Mubārak, is called to testify in a closed session of Mubārak’s trial. Mubārak’s former vice president and chief of intelligence, Omar Suleiman, is also called to testify.
September 9,2011
As popular anger toward Israel builds in Egypt, protesters break into the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Six members of the embassy staff, trapped inside the building, are rescued by Egyptian commandos, and most of Israel’s diplomatic personnel are evacuated from the country. The incident brings swift condemnation from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who warns that it imperils Israeli-Egyptian relations.
September 27,2011
The interim government announces that elections for the People’s Assembly will be held on November 28.
October 9,2011
Thousands of Coptic Christians gather in Cairo to protest the burning of a church in Upper Egypt and what they see as the security forces’ failure to protect Copts. In the worst episode of violence since Mubārak’s departure, 26 people are killed in clashes with security forces.
Chief of State: President Dmitry Anatolyevich MEDVEDEV
Head of Government: Premier Vladimir Vladimirovich PUTIN
Assembly: Russia has a bicameral Federal Assembly (Federalnoye Sobraniye) consisting of the Federation Council (Sovet Federatsii) with 178 seats and the State Duma (Gosudarstvennaya Duma) with 450 seats.
Description of Russian electoral system:
The President is elected by absolute majority vote through a two-round system to serve a 6-year term.
The Premier is appointed by the president.
In the Federation Council (Sovet Federatsii) 178 members are appointed by regional governing councils to serve 4-year terms*. In the State Duma (Gosudarstvennaya Duma) 450 members are elected through a closed-list proportional representation system to serve 4-year terms.**
* There are 89 constituencies with a district magnitude of two.
** Seats are allocated using the Hare quota. There is one, nationwide district and a minimum threshold of 7%.
Russian Legislative elections, 2011
Legislative elections were held in Russia on 4 December 2011. At stake were the 450 seats in the State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia (the legislature). United Russia won the elections with 49.32% of the vote, taking 238 seats or 52.88% of the Duma seats.
This result was down from 64.30% of the vote and 70% of the seats in the 2007 elections. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation received 19.19% of the vote and 92 seats, while A Just Russia received 13.24% and 64 seats, with the Liberal Democratic Party of Russiagetting 56 seats with 11.67% of the vote. Other partiesdid not cross the 7% election threshold. The list of parties represented in the parliament did not change.
United Russia lost the two-thirds constitutional majority it had held prior to the election, but it still won an absolute majority of seats in the Duma, even though it had less than 50% of the popular vote. The Communist Party, Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia all gained new seats compared to the previous 2007 elections.
Electoral irregularities and assessment
During and after the election international media and local independent websites reported serious irregularities during the election, including ballot stuffing, misuse of state resources, media bias and lack of impartiality by the election commission. The Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti reported more than 1,100 official complaints filed of election irregularities across the country, including vote fraud, obstruction of observers and illegal campaigning.
Reports by participating parties
Members of the A Just Russia, Yabloko and Communist parties reported that certain voters were shuttled between polling stations, casting several ballots. The Yabloko and Liberal Democratic parties reported that some of their observers had been banned from witnessing the sealing of the ballot boxes and from gathering video footage, and others groundlessly expelled from polling stations. The ruling United Russia party alleged that opposition parties broke campaign law by distributing leaflets and newspapers at polling stations, and that at some polling stations the voters were ordered to vote for the Communist party with threats of violence.
Reports by independent groups and observers
At a number of polling stations throughout the country, observers reported that final results published by the Central Election Commission differed drastically from results recorded by observers, with the “official” numbers sometimes showing the United Russia vote inflated by a factor of two or three.
In Moscow, the opposition activist group Citizen Observer estimated that United Russia had stolen 17% of the popular vote from other parties.
In Saint Petersburg, independent activist group Right to Elect (”Право выбора”) attempted to register all differences between observers’ protocols and the data of the Central Election Commission. They found that comparable shares of differences in votes were in favour not only of the United Russia, but of CPRF and LDPR parties as well (2.68%, 1.49% and 2.67% respectively as of the data on 13th December).
Reports by international observers
International observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented numerous violations of electoral law They found that whilst the preparations for the elections were technically well administered, they were marked by a “convergence of the State and the governing party” They said they witnessed “undue interference of state authorities”, “partiality of most media” and “lack of independence of the election administration”. Denying registration to some political parties narrowed political competition, according to the OSCE The OCSE concluded that “This…did not provide the necessary conditions for fair electoral competition.” However, international observers from the Commonwealth of Independent States reported that the elections “were held legally and without serious violations.”
Official reaction to the reports on irregularities
According to Vladimir Putin’s Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, the known accumulated volume of all reports on falsifications affects no more than 0.5% of total votes, and so this could not be a basis to reconsider the results of the elections
Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev called for an investigation of all reports on irregularities, but voiced his disagreement with slogans and calls by the protesters on the post-election meetings.
Yury Chaika, the Prosecutor General of Russia, said that the data on falsifications will be analyzed, but said also that violations were local and didn’t affect the overall result, and that therefore there is no reason to cancel the results of the elections.
In the run-up to the election, opposition activists were rounded up by police or detained in Moscow.1 During the elections a wide array of traditional manipulations were used such as ballot box stuffing or pressure on civil servants to vote. Similar to former elections, regional leaders were ordered to return high votes in favor of the incumbent ruling party.2 Thus, Soviet-like high figures were registered in the North Caucasus republics, with a special mention for Chechnya, where allegedly 99.48% of voters backed United Russia, with a turnout of 99.51%, while United Russia support in Dagestan, Ingushetia or Kabardino-Balkaria reached a record high of 90%-91%. These results can be explained – to a great extent – by a system based on authority. North Caucasian leaders rule these republics like their private fiefdoms, especially in Chechnya, where Ramzan Kadyrov has ruled with an iron fist since 2007.
A more modern way to silence the opposition was also employed: cyber attacks on liberal media websites (Kommersant daily, LiveJournal blogs) and on the site of the sole Russian independent election observer, Golos. In the two days following the election, between 6,000 and 15,000 people rallied in Moscow to protest the results and several hundred did the same in other regions.
According to independent rights group Agora, up to 1,000 people were arrested in the capital. In the meantime, opposition Yabloko party head Sergei Mitrokin was briefly detained. On 10 December 2011, at least 25,000 people, the biggest demonstration since 1991, gathered in the center of Moscow to denounce the election outcome. Given all these events, we can consider that Russia has entered a new cycle in its political life.
United Russia’s monopolization of power has ended, as it could not change the Constitution to please the Kremlin again. The next Duma will be more open for debate, especially in serious matters like the federal budget vote. Thus, real parliamentarianism and democracy could emerge in the country, if the three other parties play the role of constructive opponents and take an active part in decision-making. The future of United Russia will depend on its ability to compromise with the other political forces for the sake of the country. Yet, since the early 2000s this party has been used to impose its views on every matter.
Contrary to many analysts’ beliefs, the announcement by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at United Russia Congress on 24 September 2011 of job swapping with Dmitry Medvedev, in case he returns to the Kremlin in March 2012, deeply shocked many Russians, especially among the emerging urban middle-class, the young and educated people. Those people were attracted by Medvedev’s promises of modernization and the corresponding changes in the economy, society and politics. By preventing President Medvedev from running for a second term, Putin committed a political mistake. Instead, he should have decided to leave as his historical role – the consolidation of the Russian state – has been achieved. The aftermath of Duma elections lays the ground for a more competitive presidential election, on 4 March 2012, which will be closely watched by the Russian voters, as well as by national and foreign observers.
Aftermath of Duma elections – Protests
The parliamentary elections that took place in Russia on 4 December 2011 usher in a new era for the post-Soviet political system in the country. The poor results registered by the Kremlin’s party, United Russia – amid allegations of wide- spread vote-rigging – show that its decade-long domination is over.
Tens of thousands protested December 10, 2011 in Bolotnaya Square, Moscow over allegations of election fraud in parliamentary elections won by United Russia, the ruling political party, led by current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
The exact number of protesters present is unknown; estimates for the Moscow protest vary from twenty thousand to one hundred thousand, and rallies on a more minor scale also took place in other Russian cities—including Saint Petersburg. Voice of America(VoA) reported the demonstrations as the largest pro-democracy protests since Vladimir Putin came to power eleven years ago. Other reports describe the demonstrations as the greatest since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Police estimated that ten thousand people were present at demonstrations in St. Petersburg. Corruption and a rejection of Putin were the most commonly-cited grievances from questioned protesters.
Opposition leader Evgenia Chirikova told VoA the protests were in favour of fresh elections, and the release of political prisoners. During the demonstrations, protesters chanted “[p]olice, part of the people” at the riot police. Echo of Moscow host Alexei Venediktov described the protesters as “the new generation, the Putin generation”. These people “voted, had their votes stolen, and now they want a fair system”, said Venediktov.
Konstantin Kosachyov, a United Russia parliamentarian, dismissed the concept of discussions with the protest organisers. “With all respect for the people who came out to protest, they are not a political party,” he stated. Student Daniil Klubov, a leader of the St. Petersburg rally, told the BBC that he does not “belong to any political movement” and is “just a student who is tired of all these lies”.
In December 2011, Russian police arrested an estimated 1,600 people after street protests. In anticipation of yesterday’s protests, fifty thousand police and riot police were drafted into Moscow. Under one hundred arrests were made across the country during the day of protest.
Television stations operated by the Russian government provided no coverage of protests in Russia from last week’s election, but lifted the blackout one week on, broadcasting images of thousands filling a Moscow park, spilling over a bridge and covering a facing embankment.
On 23.12.2011, Moscow authorities declared an obligatory test for all high school students, scheduling it for the exact time of protests on Saturday; protest leader Alexey Navalny is currently imprisoned by order of a Russian judge. And, a Russian health board warned of respiratory diseases being contracted when being in large crowds. Russian Ground Forces cautioned that they would be observing, looking for instances of draft evasion as protesters walked through metal detectors.
On 24.12.2011, Mikhail Gorbachev, who resigned as Soviet president 20 years ago, has urged Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to follow his example and step down. Gorbachev said if Putin stepped down now he would be remembered for the positive things he did during his 12 years in power
In March 2012, Putin himself will face voters, seeking a new six-year term as Russian President. VoA reported in December 2011 that his presidential bid looked likely to succeed; however, that outcome now seems less predictable.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on 27.12.2011 discounted calls for a review of the disputed December 4 parliamentary elections that have sparked widespread protests and calls for reform.
“The elections to the State Duma are over,” Putin said. “All parliamentary factions have started to work. The speaker has been elected. The Duma is functioning. Any kind of revision is out of the question,” Putin said.
The only exception, he said, would be if any irregularities were found, “the court will have to look into them and adopt an objective ruling.”
Putin’s ruling United Russia Party received 49.5 percent of the vote, down from 64 percent four years ago, in an election widely viewed as marred by vote rigging and ballot-box stuffing. It kept Putin’s party in power, although in diminished form.
An 8.9 magnitude earthquake struck Japan on March 11, 2011 triggering a tsunami alert along Japan’s Pacific Coast to at least 20 countries. The earthquake literally destroyed Japan. Marked a ‘Black Friday: in Japan’s history as this was the worst earthquake ever experienced.
Floods in Pakistan
The onslaught of Monsoon (June – September) rains again took Pakistan in its grip and this time it caused hundreds of casualties and over 200,000 homeless people. Badin was the center of crisis as the flood started in early months but become more severe due to continuous rainfall. The only difference between this event and last year’s tragic flood was that international aid somewhat helped the effected but in 2011 even the aid was scarce and was not provided in time which made the disaster even worse than the last years flood of 2010.
Mumbai Blasts 2011, India
Three near-simultaneous explosions rocked Mumbai on July 13, 2011, killing at least 21 people and injuring 141. The blasts occurred within minutes of each other in the areas of Opera House, Zaveri Bazaar and Dadar, all busy commercial hubs of Mumbai. There was speculation that the pattern of the blasts suggested involvement of Indian Mujahideen. According to the Special cell of the Delhi Police, Indian Mujahideen has been conducting blasts on the 13 or 26 of the month. Speculation was also rife that the Mumbai underworld could be behind these blasts, in the light of the killing of ‘Mid Day’ Crime journalist Jyotirmoy Dey, as well as the attempted assassination of Dawood Ibrahim’s brother, Iqbal Kaskar on 3 May. 13 July is also observed as Kashmir Martyr’s day, and there could be a possibility that the attacks were carried out by Kashmiri groups. There is also a view that the attacks could have been plotted by those trying to derail the Indo-Pakistani peace process.
Hurricane Irene, U.S.A
The first hurricane of the 2011 Atlantic season left 44 dead and losses of $ 7 billion. It was the first seriously threatened the coast of the United States in three years. President Barack Obama canceled his schedule and declared an emergency. A New York City, where people feared a disaster movie with torrents of water slipping between the skyscrapers, Irene finally failed.
The hurricane passed near the Virgin Islands on August 21 and continued their advance through the Atlantic Ocean. Landfall in Puerto Rico resulted unleashing strong winds and left 800 000 people without power. There he acquired hurricane strength, and August 24, after lashing the southeastern Bahamas, became the first major hurricane (Category 3) of the season. Again touched land in North Carolina on the morning of August 27.
Terrorists Attack Delhi High Court, India
It was a dark Wednesday for Delhi on September 7, 2011 when a powerful bomb exploded outside Delhi high court. At least 13 people were killed and more than 70 hurt . The families of the victims were left with an irreparable loss. The terror attack, from a sophisticated explosive device, had a precursor less than four months ago – on May 25 , 2011- when a low-intensity bomb went off in the same area, though outside a different gate. Questions have been raised in police circles whether that blast was an attempt to gauge the area’s preparedness to ward off terror as well as its vulnerability. The people who had come to the High court for justice became victims of terror.
Sikkim Earthquake, India
The earthquake measuring 6.8 on Richter scale jolted Sikkim and Nepal on September 18, 2011, leaving scores dead and hurt. The effects of the quake were felt across northeastern India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and southern Tibet. This quake has once again raised questions on the safety aspect of multi-storeyed buildings. The quake came just a few days after an earthquake of 4.2 magnitude hit Haryana’s Sonipat district, sending tremors in New Delhi. The earthquake was the fourth significant earthquake in India of September 2011.
Earthquake in Turkey
The Van earthquake was a destructive earthquake measuring 7.2 on the Richter Scale that struck eastern Turkey near the city of Van on Sunday, 23 October 201. It occurred at a shallow depth of 20 kilometres (12 mi), causing heavy shaking across much of eastern Turkey and lighter tremors across neighboring parts of the South Caucasus and Levant. According to Disasters and Emergency Situations Directorate of Turkey, on October 30 2011, the earthquake killed 604 and injured are 4,152. At least 11,232 buildings sustained damage in the region, 6,017 of which were found to be uninhabitable. The uninhabitable homes left as much as 8,321 households with an average household population of around 7.6 homeless in the province; this could mean that at least around 60,000 people were left homeless. The other 5,215 have been damaged but are habitable.
Naxal Attacks, India
Over 500 people including 124 security personnel were killed in 1,476 attacks carried out by Naxals in various states affected by Left wing extremism till November, 2011. During May 2011, Naxalites killed and dismembered ten policemen, including one senior officer in the Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh area on the border with Orissa. In June 2011, the total fatalities of both the police and the paramilitary were 43. On 21 July 2011, Maoist rebels in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh blew up a bridge, killing four people and wounding five others. The attack happened when the Congress Party Chief of the State, Nandkumar Patel, was returning from a party function.
Kolkata Hospital Fire, India
The worst fire tragedy in any hospital in India occurred on December 8, 2011 at AMRI Hospital in Kolkata. At least 91 people died due to suffocation. This was the second fire tragedy at the AMRI Hospital after 2008. The incident once again raised questions on public safety. Six members of the hospital board, including leading industrialist S K Modi, were arrested on charges of culpable homicide and negligence, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who visited the hospital, announced to the Media on December 10, 2011.
The notion of a privileged 1% has been kicking around for a while. About 1% of the population owns 40% of global wealth. To put it another way, if the 48 poorest nations pooled their resources, they’d still own less than the three richest guys in the world.
Those numbers date back to 2000 — before toxic mortgages, Wall Street implosion, country bankruptcies, and aggrieved Greeks throwing yogurt over austerity programs. In America, the latest census reported that the top 20% had nearly half of all U.S. income. The bottom 20%’s take was about 3.4% — the biggest gap to date and almost double the gap from 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty.Outrageous bonuses and parachute packages paid to executives of bailed-out or fallen companies have enhanced the sense of imbalance.
Adbusters goes gangbusters
Those calculations riled up Adbusters, a Canadian-based nonprofit magazine. When Tunisia erupted, inspired staffers thought now was good a time as any for America to Occupy Wall Street. One editor explained the concept as combining “the tactic of the Egyptian uprising” and the Spanish intifada, with general assemblies in which people vote “using consensus-based decision making.”
If there’s anything (former) ad people know, it’s how to make a poster, pick a slogan, and publicize it. Adbusters came up with a ballerina dancing atop the Wall Street bull, “We are the 99%,” and all forms of social media to monitor and coordinate developments.
Facing the bull
Protesters took to the streets — including Wall Street — and went online almost immediately. “Occupy Wall Street” buzzed in searches September 16, the day before the first protest, with searchers ages 13 and up, from coast (New York) to coast (Oregon). Some supporters fretted about the lack of media coverage, and some journalists thought the movement’s leaderless concept backfired.
Then again, that was what social networking, alternate media, and live-streaming were all about. Does a viral movement need mainstream buy-in? Through Occupy, would a digital generation show a new way of getting things done? In the 1960s, the antiwar protester chant was, “The whole world is watching.” In 2011, protesters spread their own message and captured their own video. They were occupying two spaces: a physical one and the digital sphere.
Turning point
Coverage came soon enough, as encampments — some functioning as mini villages — spread to more than 65 cities. Occupiers were sometimes characterized as socialists or drum-circle hippies, but the wide-ranging involvement of celebrities, moms, college students, military veterans, and retired police chiefs made the movement difficult to pigeonhole. This diversity would also later make for compromising video footage or tweets, such as the pepper spray incidents involving an 84-year-old woman and UC Davis students.
One California city’s attempt to evict campers turned Occupy Oakland’s ire upon the government. The police shot tear gas canisters and fractured an Iraqi vet’s skull. He recovered and gained instant folk-hero status. A quickly organized general strike and mass day of action brought in thousands of peaceful marchers by day, as well as a handful of masked, so-called anarchists by night. Searchers posed the question, “Why Occupy Oakland?” Whatever the reason, the San Francisco Bay Area city served as the movement’s first really raucous confrontation. Later crackdowns on college campuses and Zuccotti Park spurred media coverage, support, and a pepper spray controversy.
Would you like tea or occupation?
Occupy’s quick rise sparked comparisons with the tea party. The movements shared surface similarities: a gathering of disenfranchised citizens inspired by a media campaign (Adbusters vs. Rick Santenelli of CNBC), coming together to express frustration against institutions — both without a clear platform.
Of course, the differences run deep (and the tea party was adamant in making distinctions clear). One distinction was Occupy’s online appeal: Comparisons between the first weeks of each movement reveal Occupy Wall Street garnered more searches than the tea party in all but the first week.
Time for a plan
Two months into the movement, questions on “what is Occupy Wall Street” and “Occupy Wall Street demands” surged. With winter approaching, it was the Adbusters editors who suggested a drawdown date: December 17, the three-month anniversary.
Some encampments have lingered, but others have packed up for the next stage, whatever that might be. No matter what its future may be, Occupy has accomplished one thing: It has shown how America’s largest generation, with some Gen X-ers and Baby Boomers mixed in, are ready to change the conversation.
On April 29, 2011, Prince William of England married Catherine Middleton — and the world was invited to the wedding. The last royal ceremony of this magnitude was 30 years before, when Lady Diana married Prince Charles.
Now the couple was the heir to the British throne, the handsome son of Princess Diana and Prince Charles, and a commoner named Kate. ABC called the stylish pair “the couple of the moment.” Romantics everywhere rejoiced that the royal duo, who after a 10-year courtship, married for love. In the early hours of the morning, people tuned in to the ceremony: Yahoo! received one billion page views for the British event.
Millions tune in
On a beautiful sunny day, more than a million people flocked to the streets of London to watch the royal procession. Romantics put aside Britain’s social and economic troubles for the occasion.
The bride wore a stunning white gown designed by Sarah Burton for Alexander McQueen, a secret Kate managed to keep not just from her beloved, but also from the public. Replicas of the wedding gown were already in the works as Kate walked down the aisle, with designers feverishly working to get copy “Kates” into production for fall brides looking to be a princess for a day.
The two tied the knot in Westminster Abbey, with 1,900 in attendance. The guest list glittered with royalty and celebrity, from the queen herself to David and Victoria Beckham, to heads of state (although no Barack Obama), and to family and friends.
The couple appeared on the same balcony as William’s parents for a postwedding kiss, and then, in a twist all their own, took off from Buckingham Palace in dad’s Aston Martin.
The two did share the spotlight. The world had a close look at William’s dashing younger brother, Harry, and Kate’s younger sister, Pippa Middleton. She memorably attended to her sister’s 9-foot-long train in her own form-fitting McQueen dress. Pippa’s backside caused a social media sensation, and people launched Facebook sites to praise the assets of the still-single sister. Twitter nearly crashed as people speculated about what Harry whispered to Pippa as they followed the newlyweds back down the aisle.
Ordinary domestic bliss
The new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, titles bestowed by the queen to celebrate their nuptials, have settled into rather ordinary domestic bliss in Anglesey, North Wales, near a military base. William serves as a search and rescue pilot for the Royal Air Force – and the extraordinary newlyweds will even live apart for a couple of months when William deploys to the Falkland Islands early next year. When in London, the pair enjoys digs in Kensington Palace.
The wedding is a pleasant memory, but now fans await the next big news: a royal pregnancy.
A paradigm shift in the way children are taught is on the anvil. Learning and education, henceforth, will be child-centric and not exam-centric as it is now, Minister for Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal said on 26.12.2011.
He was speaking at the inaugural ceremony of the Ramanujan 125 year celebrations held at the University Centenary Hall, the University of Madras, Chennai. Expressing his determination to do away with rote learning and the “archaic” examination-oriented system, he said: “We are endeavouring to reform this with emphasis on skill development and unlocking the creative talent within the child.” The Ministry’s decision to do away with examinations at the end of the year, replacing them with a Comprehensive and Continuous Evaluation (CCE) system in a bid to de-stress children, was a step in that direction.
Speaking of “potential Ramanujans” whom the system may not recognise, Mr. Sibal said: “They may well be sitting in this hall.” The Ministry thus sought to build an education system that promotes creativity, freedom, joy and an awareness of cultural heritage. “It will help our children to retain their sense of wonder, to develop a spirit of enquiry and to nurture the joys of learning,” he said.
The Union Minister also highlighted some contemporary challenges in higher education. Pointing to the high degree of inequality in the access to higher education, Mr. Sibal said the Ministry sought to increase the current Gross Enrolment Ratio of 15 per cent among those aged 18 to 24 years to 30 per cent within the decade.
Decline in Rigour
“We see a sharp stepping down of rigour and commitment towards reflection and questioning. A decline of the social sciences and humanities at both the elite and the mass sense of the system is taking place,” he said. The issue was further accentuated by basic changes taking place in the balance of power in India with the unprecedented rise of the corporate sector. Jobs in the State sector had stagnated while those in the corporate and informal sectors had grown exponentially. “One consequence of this has been a drastic alteration of priorities in higher education among the upper sections of Indian society. Prestige and financial returns acquired from participation in the global economy far outstrip most of what the Indian economy can offer. The effect has been to pull educated classes, in large numbers, into the global economy, leaving behind a vacuum whose impact we are still trying to cope with.”
Consequently, there has been a drastic reduction of the elite in areas of mathematics, social sciences and humanities, leading to shrinking or closure of these departments. “We seek to expand and create an egalitarian education system around a clear understanding of our culture, history, needs, endowments and competencies.”
He said the government, academia, business, civil society and citizens needed to work together to focus on education as the key enabler of empowerment, social change and inclusive development.
“But let us not forget that along the way, we need to give space to the unchartered journeys of those who seek to discover, to create and to conquer, much like Ramanujan’s journey. That will be a befitting tribute to a genius whose task remained unfinished.”
India’s high economic growth rate in the past decade has not been fully reflected in the health status of its people, with 22 per cent of its population undernourished. According to the National Family Health Survey 2005-06, 40.4% of children under the age of three are underweight, 33 per cent of women in the age group of 15-49 have a body mass index below normal and 78.9 per cent of children in the age group of 6-35 months are anaemic. These are disturbing statistics which point to nutritional deficiencies. The National Advisory Council (NAC) proposal for a National Food Security Bill (NFSB) is perhaps the most important national effort yet to address these deficiencies in India.
Intent of NFSB
The NFSB proposed by the NAC is a potentially revolutionary bill that can have a huge impact on the economy. Well crafted and effectively executed, it can transform the lives of people. The salient features of the NFSB proposed by the NAC are:
Legal entitlement to subsidized foodgrains to be extended to at least 75% of the country’s population – 90% in Rural areas and 50% in urban areas
The priority households (46% in rural areas and 28% in urban areas) to have a monthly entitlement of 35 Kgs (equivalent to 7 Kgs per person) at a subsidized price of Rs. 1 per Kg for millets, Rs. 2 per Kg for wheat and Rs. 3 per Kg for rice
The general households (39% rural and 12% urban in phase 1 and 44% rural and
22% urban in final phase) to have a monthly entitlement of 20Kgs (equivalent to 4 Kgs per person) at a price not exceeding 50% of the current Minimum Support
Price for millets, wheat and rice
The minimum coverage, entitlement and price to remain unchanged until the end of the XII five year plan
Government of India to specify the criteria for categorization of population into priority and general households
In the first phase, food entitlement to be extended to 72 per cent of the population. In the final phase, to be completed before March 31, 2014, full coverage of food entitlement (to 75 per cent of the population) to be ensured
Legal entitlements for child and maternal nutrition, destitute and other vulnerable groups
Reform of the Public Distribution System
Estimates of Foodgrains Required for Implementing the NFSB
Million tonnes
NAC Projections*
Scenario 2*
Scenario 3*
Scenario 1
Offtake – priority-
Offtake-100%
95% ; general-85%
Phase 1
Final Phase
Phase 1
Final Phase
Phase 1
Final Phase
Priority
34.40
36.42
38.91
39.83
40.96
41.93
Households
General
14.96
19.17
Households
15.13
18.75
17.80
22.05
Sub Total
49.36
55.59
54.04
58.58
58.76
63.98
Other Welfare
Schemes
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
Buffer Stock
-
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Total
Foodgrain
57.36
63.59
64.04
68.58
68.76
73.98
*Population – Scenario 1 – October 2010; Scenario 2 &3 – Phase 1-October 2011; Phase 2- October 2013
Foodgrain Production and Procurement – Trends and Projections
Production and Procurement of Wheat and Rice
Million tonnes
Production
Procurement
Wheat
Rice
Total
Wheat + Rice
As ratio of
production (%)
2000-01
69.68
84.98
154.66
41.91
27.10
2001-02
72.77
93.34
166.11
41.18
24.79
2002-03
65.76
71.82
137.58
32.22
23.42
2003-04
72.16
88.53
160.69
39.62
24.66
2004-05
68.64
83.13
151.77
39.47
26.01
2005-06
69.35
91.79
161.14
36.88
22.89
2006-07
75.81
93.36
169.17
36.24
21.42
2007-08
78.57
96.69
175.26
51.43
29.34
2008-09
80.68
99.18
179.86
59.07
32.84
2009-10
80.71
89.13
169.84
53.98
31.78
2010-11
82.00
95.41
177.41*
53.22**
30.00
2011-12
83.61
104.21
187.82*
56.35**
30.00
(Phase 1)
2013-14
85.61
106.41
192.02*
57.61**
30.00
(Final Phase )
* Projections as per Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Govt. of India **Assuming an optimum procurement of 30 per cent of total production
NFSB tabled in Lok Sabha
The much-awaited National Food Security Bill, 2011, which makes cheaper foodgrains a legal entitlement to 63.5 per cent of the country’s population, was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 22.12.2011.
The Bill was introduced by Food Minister K.V. Thomas in the presence of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who has been keen on ensuring that the law is enacted. It seeks to “provide food and nutritional security by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people [to enable them] to live a life with dignity.”
The proposed law marks a paradigm shift in addressing the problem of food security — from the existing welfare approach to a right-based approach. Besides expanding the coverage of the Targeted Public Distribution System, it will confer legal rights, enabling eligible beneficiaries to receive foodgrains entitlements at highly subsidised prices.
Also, Section 32 of the bill mentions the States’ responsibilities: they will at their own cost organise the grains’ intra-state transport and deliver them to fair price shops in time for distribution among the beneficiaries. The States must ensure the grains reach the target population. They must set up and maintain storage facilities at the state, district and block levels. If a State fails to supply the entitled quantity of grains (or meals) to a beneficiary, it must pay them a “food security allowance” out of its own pocket.
Benefits of NFSB – Free Meals
The law will also confer legal rights on women, children and other special groups — destitute, the homeless, disaster-and-emergency-affected persons and persons living in starvation — to receive meals free or at an affordable price.
The law will entitle people eligible under the priority category (Below the Poverty Line families) to a monthly allotment of 7 kg of foodgrains, comprising rice, wheat and coarse grains, per person. Rice will be provided at Rs. 3 kg, wheat at Rs. 2 and coarse grains at Re. 1.
The general category will get at least 3 kg of grain at a rate not exceeding 50 per cent of the minimum support price.
The subsidy will be extended to up to 75 per cent of the rural population and up to 50 per cent of the urban population — with not less than 46 per cent of the rural population and 28 per cent of the urban population designated as priority households.
Maternity Benefits
Every pregnant woman and lactating mother will be entitled to meals free of charge during pregnancy and six months after childbirth, through the local anganwadi.
The Bill provides for a maternity benefit of Rs. 1,000 a month for six months. Besides, every child up to the age of 14 shall have entitlement to nutritional needs. For children between six months and six years, appropriate meal would be provided free of charge through the local anganwadi to meet nutritional standards. For children in the 6-14 age group, one mid-day meal would be given free of charge every day, except during holidays, in all schools run by local bodies, and government and government-aided schools up to class VIII.
Effect of Food Security Bills – Tamil Nadu perspective
Under the proposed National Food Security Bill, 2011, no State would be able to provide subsidized food to anyone that the Centre rules out of its beneficiaries’ list
The Bill, tabled in a hurry ahead of the UP polls faces criticism from non-UPA-ruled state governments like Bihar and Tamil Nadu, as it prevents the states from enlarging its ambit to benefit poor that the Centre does not identify.
TN CM Jayalalithaa’s letter to the PM
Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on 20.12.2011 expressed her “strong opposition” to the draft Food Security Bill, 2011 and urged the Centre to exempt Tamil Nadu from the purview of the Bill.
In her letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, she said the proposed Bill was replete with “confusion and inaccuracy.”
The proposed classification of target groups into priority household (PHH) and general household (GHH) for delivery of food entitlements would surely invite sharp criticism and furious opposition from everybody concerned. The very basis of such classification was unscientific and unacceptable.
Similarly, no reason had been adduced for restricting the coverage under Targeted Public Distribution System (TDPS) to 75 per cent of the rural population and 50 per cent of the urban population under the proposed Central Bill.
“The most significant point is that the forced implementation of TPDS, as contemplated under the Central Bill, will entail an additional financial burden of about Rs.1,800 crore per annum with no statutory commitment forthcoming from the government of India,” Ms. Jayalalithaa said, adding that the annual food subsidy for the State was Rs.5,000 crore.
TN’S Loss: The Hindu dt. 24.12.2011
If National Food Security Bill is adopted in its present form, Tamil Nadu stands to lose at least six lakh tonnes of rice from the Central allotment annually if the National Food Security Bill, introduced in Lok Sabha on 22.12.2011, is adopted in its present form.
On an average, the Central government provides the State around 35.6 lakh tonnes of rice annually under three categories – Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Above Poverty Line (APL). It fixes a quota for each category and fixes different prices for the three categories.
As part of the Bill, two categories of people – general households (GHH) and priority households (PHH) – will be covered. Seventy five per cent of rural population and 50 per cent of urban population will be eligible for entitlements. Of them, 48 per cent of the rural population and 28 per cent of the urban population will be designated as PHHs. Adopting these yardsticks, the total allocation will be around 29 lakh tonnes a year.
Measures suggested compensating the deficit
The State government will have to address two major issues to tide over this gap – availability and cost. In the country, major rice millers are available only in three other States – Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Chhattisgarh. A senior official says that the shortfall of six lakh tonnes cannot be bridged that easily. Even assuming that the price of rice is Rs.20 per kg, the additional cost will be Rs.1,200 crore.
But, the financial burden is going to be higher as the actual requirement of the State is 39.6 lakh tonnes. After the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government, in June, launched the scheme of supplying 20 kg rice free, the monthly requirement has gone up. During 2010-2011, the monthly average supply of rice was 3.17 lakh tonnes. Now, it is around 3.4 lakh tonnes.
At present, the State government procures the remaining four lakh tonnes through measures such as rice purchase under the Open Market Sale Scheme of the Food Corporation of India. If the Bill becomes a law, it has to shell out additional money to procure this quantity. This will push up the cost. It is for this reason that Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, in her recent letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, pointed out that the State government would have to incur a total expenditure of Rs. 1,800 crore additionally a year, the official explains.
If one were to calculate the requirements on the basis of individual entitlement, as envisaged in the Bill, another five lakh tonnes of rice will be required. In total, the State would have to meet the gap of 15 lakh tonnes a year.
For arriving at the overall additional quantity figure, it has been assumed that apart from meeting the norms envisaged in the Bill [seven kg per person per month for PHHs and three kg per person per month for GHHs], those cardholders who will be excluded from the proposed categories of PHHs and GHHs will be given 20 kg rice per month and GHHs will get one more kg per person per month. As per the State government’s policy, four kg rice is given to every adult a month.
In the Bill, there are other areas of concern to the State government. Given the fact that one half of the State’s population lives in urban areas, the stipulation of the coverage of 50 per cent of urban population means that a quarter of the State’s population – about 1.8 crore – will straightaway be ineligible to receive the Central subsidy.
In principle, the State government is against the Targeted Public Distribution System. So, it follows the Universal PDS and supplying rice free to 1.85 crore families. Moreover, a senior official who has been handling the subject of food wonders that in the absence of data on PHHs and GHHs, how the legislation can be implemented.
Another official says that as the State government gives edible oil and pulses at subsidised rates, the determination of entitlements of beneficiaries should also be made on the basis of calorific value of such condiments, not merely that of rice. This calls for a suitable correction in the quantity of rice to be supplied to the beneficiaries
Opposition for NFSB from other quarters
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minster Maywati has termed the proposed Food Security Bill as impractical and an election stunt of the Congress, the ruling party on 22.11.2011.
The district unit of the Right to Food (RTF) campaign organised a protest on 23.12.2011 against the Centre’s National Food Security Bill, 2011, which was recently introduced in the Lok Sabha. They submitted a memorandum demanding changes in the Bill.
The All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) has called upon the Parliament to reject the National Food Security Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha on 22.12.2011.
In a statement issued on 23.12.2011, the association said the Bill was a “more dangerous and rehashed version” of the current Targeted Public Distribution System, that proved to be an “utter failure” in view of the manner in which it eroded the food security of the majority of the poor, the dalits, the tribals and women, by excluding them from its ambit.
The face behind the Lokpal movement, Kisan Baburao better known as Anna Hazare is considered by many netas and babus as their biggest nemesis and a hindrance to their aspirations. His crusade against corruption has grabbed headlines all over and inspired the common Indian to demand for a Jan Lokpal Bill that would hold politicians accountable for their actions.
Even though his growing popularity surprised many, Anna Hazare has been a social activist for over two decades, relentlessly working towards social and political reforms in the country.
Born in 1937, Anna Hazare joined the army in 1963 and it was during one of his visits to his village of Ralegaon Siddhi that forced him to retire from the army and to dedicate his life to rooting out problems that the villagers were facing.
His biography says Anna Hazare accidently came across a book by Swami Vivekananda and as he began to read it he realised that the ultimate motive of human life should be service to humanity and thus he decided to devote his life to public service.
Always seen in white, Anna Hazare lives in a single room within the village temple compound.
This Gandhian hails the Lokpal movement as India’s second freedom struggle. Leading a frugal life with integrity and honesty, overnight he has become a role model for India’s middle class.
Anna has resorted to many hunger strikes to make his demands heard, a fact that doesn’t augur well with his critics as they have labelled him a blackmailer and an armchair fascist.
2. Mamata Banerjee
The 34-year-old regime of the Left front finally crumbled to a feisty Mamata Banerjee, making her the first woman chief minister of West Bengal when her party won the assembly elections this year.
Mamata clad in a white sari and rubber slippers managed to do what many in Bengal thought was undoable till a few years back. Her angry denunciations of the Left administration made her an instant hit with the struggling Bengali. She systematically mounted protests against forced land acquisitions in the state by the then Left-ruled government.
During her short stint as the union railway minister she showered Bengal with railway projects which in turn gave Bengalis a glimpse of what she can do for their state if given a chance.
In 2011, Mamata gifted new trains and several new projects to six districts in north Bengal and didn’t let it go unnoticed by adding, “Railways have invested more funds in the six districts than the State has done for development of north Bengal”. A smart move any time of the year.
‘Didi’, or elder sister as she is fondly called, strategised her campaign against the Communists in a manner that depicts the political scenario of India today. She stands against all that is wrong in Bengal- from wrongful land acquisitions, bad infrastructure to corruption and stagnation in the state’s economy- she has gone to the aam junta with these issues and promised to make things right.
Moreover, what has appealed to the voters this time is Mamata’s humble background and her will to succeed and to put Bengal on the world map, just like it was back in the 19th century.
3. Jayalalithaa
During the election campaign, she foretold that the AIADMK with her allies would win over 185 seats in the Tamil Nadu assembly and how correct she was. After two consecutive defeats in the Tamil Nadu elections, Jayalalithaa made a spectacular comeback winning 199 of the state’s 234 assembly seats.
The last two defeats had taught Jayalalithaa a few bitter lessons and this time she made sure not to repeat the same mistakes. For this to happen, she had to depart from her usual mode of functioning and come down from her ivory tower and reach out to the people with her agenda.
Often described as the ‘Margaret Thatcher of Tamil Nadu’ by her followers, Jayalalithaa did the unthinkable and surprised political pundits by forging alliances with smaller parties – a move that proved to be a masterstroke.
As soon as the poll results were out, Jayalalithaa said, “Our priority is to rebuild. Over the past five years, Tamil Nadu has been totally ruined. Time and again this has happened. It is not an easy task to rebuild an entire state.”
What she did was to refer to the 2G spectrum scam repeatedly and hold rallies reminding the masses of how corrupt the DMK is and how the state’s economy is ruined by DMK.
Even though the pre-poll alliance played a major role in shaping the party’s victory, AIADMK cadres says that the win is an indication of people’s trust in Jayalalithaa and her vision of a corruption-free state.
4. Mahendra Singh Dhoni
Unlike other greats, Dhoni doesn’t have the technical efficiency or elegance or panache that makes cricket folklore but somehow he transcends all boundaries and makes himself a hero to the common man. He seldom makes batting look good but his helicopter shot makes even the connoisseur of the game make an exception and applaud.
Despite all his inadequacies, Dhoni ended India’s 28-year-long wait for a World Cup win and led the team to world’s No. 1 Test status. What makes Dhoni click seems to defy logic but what makes him a hero to millions makes more sense – he hails from a small-town with modest means and unlike other success stories, Dhoni has shown that anyone can make it big with hard work. He gives the small town enthusiasts the belief and confidence to dream big.
This year Time magazine named Dhoni in its list of 100 most influential people in the world. Time’s description of Dhoni was penned by Chetan Bhagat, saying:
“As astonishing as Dhoni’s talent is his background. Indian success stories are usually associated with pedigree, connections and power. Dhoni, from a small-town family of modest means, had none of these, but he’s shown India that you can make it with only one thing: excellence. Dhoni doesn’t just lead a cricket team; he’s also India’s captain of hope. And he didn’t just win India the World Cup; he also taught India how to win.”
So much has been said and written about his captaincy, but his biggest accolade came from teammate Sachin Tendulkar when he said that Dhoni is the best captain he played under.
5. B S Yeddyurappa
From being BJP’s first chief minister in south India to becoming Karnataka’s first chief minister to be jailed for corruption, Bookanakere Siddalingappa Yeddyurappa’s journey has been topsy turvy. A staunch Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh man, Yeddyurappa once worked as clerk in a rice mill.
Yeddyurappa shot to fame after he took up the cause of landless farmers and bonded labourers in the state and was detained during the emergency period in 1975. A powerful public speaker, Yeddyurappa is largely credited with pulling up the sagging fortunes of BJP in Karnataka.
When Yeddyurappa became chief minister in 2008, BJP hailed the day as opening the doors of south India for the party to rule. It was not a smooth journey for either Yeddyurappa or BJP as there were three rebellions and various scandals.
In January this year, Governor H.R. Bhardwaj shook BJP and Yeddyurappa by granting permission to two Bangalore advocates to launch criminal proceedings against him for illegally freeing government land in and around Bangalore for monetary gains.
The two advocates, Sirajin Basha and N.K. Balaraj filed five cases. Yeddyurappa was jailed in two of the five cases. Besides Yeddyurappa, his two sons, B.Y. Raghavendra and B.Y. Vijayendra, and son-in-law R. Sohan Kumar are also accused in all the five cases.
6. Lal Kishanchand Advani
Critics say this is veteran BJP leader Lal Kishanchand Advani’s final, desperate gambit to achieve his long-standing ambition to occupy the office of prime minister – his anti-corruption yatra. Supporters say the yatra, which will shortly enter such critical areas as Gujarat, Maharashtra and the south, is an attempt to throw light on rampant corruption and to politicize it is to trivialize the issue.
But is L.K. Advani’s anti-corruption yatra really mobilising people against the United Progressive Alliance or is it just the last hurrah of a veteran campaigner out to prove that he can still be a political game changer?
Calling for a ‘brighter India’ free of corruption, BJP leader L.K. Advani rolled out his sixth road campaign, the Jan Chetna Yatra, that will took him through 100 districts in 38 days. Hopefully this will be enough to push the BJP closer towards power in the next general election.
The man whose Rath first drove a party with just two seats in Parliament straight onto the national stage, clearly believes the yatra is still a journey to political advantage.
Advani’s yatra might have helped the party in crystallising the mood against the UPA in the wake of the 2G spectrum scam, the Commonwealth Games scandal and the cash-for-votes controversy and the government’s failure to contain price rise.
Advani, in his speeches during the yatra was unsparing in his attack on the UPA, describing it as the most corrupt government since independence and Manmohan Singh as the ‘weakest prime minister’. He also accused the UPA of ‘disarray and internal dissension’, ‘policy paralysis’ and spoke of the need for electoral and judicial reforms.
The yatra might have evoked a good response but the ‘litmus test’ will be Uttar Pradesh which will go to the polls next year.
7. Kiran Bedi
Not a stranger to controversy herself, India’s most famous IPS officer, Kiran Bedi, courted notoriety this year with her vociferous support of Anna Hazare’s Jan Lokpal movement, even resorting to gimmickry and over-the-top antics to get her point across.
India’s most decorated public services officer, a Magsaysay awardee, Bedi was quick to heap criticism on the UPA government’s inaction towards Anna’s requests of an ombudsman bill to counter corruption. Alas, after being the most outspoken in Anna’s team, she had to swallow a bitter pill when it came to light that she’d herself inflated several travel bills, a move she was quick to defend. She subsequently paid back the overcharged amount.
Bedi’s was a classic case of people-and-glass-houses.
8. Osama bin Laden
Nearly 10 years after the traumatic Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon, the world’s most wanted terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.
The man who wanted to recreate a seventh-century Muslim empire was gunned down by US special forces in a helicopter-borne assault on a closely guarded compound in Abbottabad.
President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight saying, “Good evening. Tonight I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children.”
Osama was found hiding in plain sight, in a well guarded compound in Abbottabad, just about an hour and a half outside of the Pakistan capital Islamabad, which cast a doubt on the Pakistan political-military hierarchy.
9. Sushil Kumar
This 27-year-old from Motihari in Bihar, went from oblivion to fame and wealth in a matter of 13 questions on the fifth season of the quiz show ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’.
Sushil Kumar, a computer operator who works on contract with a government department for a monthly salary of Rs 6,000, won the biggest prize of all – Rs 5 crore, after successfully locking 13 questions posed by the Big B.
With two lifelines left, Amitabh Bachchan started reading out the final question. Sushil had to answer which foreign colonial power exited from India after selling off the Nicobar island to the British in 1868.
Sushil answered Denmark and the Big B exulted – ‘Paanch crore!’
“Our house has almost broken down and we have a lot of loans that have to be repaid,” Sushil said. “If it hadn’t been for this money, I would have gotten old before I sorted out my life.”
“I’ve been getting a lot of suggestions about what to do with the money, but right now I can only think about my dream of getting through the civil services exam,” he said.
“What a sensational day in the studios of KBC! A young man from the interiors of Bihar, earning a meagre salary of just Rs 6,000 per month, coming from the most humblest of backgrounds, reaches the hot seat and cracks the ultimate prize – Rs 5 crore! An incredible feat!” Amitabh Bachchan blogged.
10. Irom Sharmila Chanu
Even though she doesn’t strictly fulfil the newsmaker category, this iron-willed lady of Manipur has waged a long and lonely battle against an apathetic government the only way she can. Thanks to Anna Hazare’s fast, Irom received some media attention this year, starved that she was of it for the last 11 years.
Irom Sharmila Chanu has been fasting for 11 years to seek the removal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act or AFSPA from her state, Manipur. She has the grit to try and persuade the government to repeal a law that empowers the security forces to arrest without a warrant, and shoot anyone at sight.
Dubbed as the Iron Lady of Manipur, Irom began her fast in 2000 after she witnessed the killing of 10 people by Assam Rifles jawans at a bus stop. For the past 10 years, she has not eaten a single morsel, resulting in her being force-fed by a tube through her nose.
Irom hopes one day the Indian government will recognise her and her fight against human rights violations in the north east. She has also urged Anna Hazare to visit Manipur and see what is happening there.
Although she has won international awards, Irom’s cause has never managed to strike a chord with the otherwise vocal middle class. Very few know or care about what is happening in Manipur, and how people in the state are being constantly bullied by the armed forces.
Irom’s heroic protest and her voice for a better homeland are still being ignored. Next time you attend a candlelight vigil, say a silent prayer and light a candle for this extraordinary woman.
When Sathya Sai Baba, the Godman from Puttparthi died on April 6th earlier this year, he left behind an empire estimated at Rs 40,000 crore, and no will. This was wealth accumulated from a lifetime being a self-proclaimed Godman and the largesse of rich benefactors.
Sai Baba had millions of followers all over the world. His devotees included some of the popular celebrities and powerful politicians like Sachin Tendulkar, Amitabh Bachchan and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
He was worshipped as an incarnation of another saint, Shirdi Sai Baba, and believed to have God-like qualities. But he had his detractors, who claimed that all the miracles he performed, like pulling watches out of thin air, were merely cheap magic tricks. Rumors of child and sexual abuse at his ashram were also rampant, so much so that the US government had issued a warning about him to American citizens traveling to India. There was even an attempt on his life in June 6th, 1993 in his ashram; the attack left six dead, and Puttaparthi rattled. Sai Baba dismissed the idea that the attack was an attempt on his life.
But his legacy will live past these minor negative incidents. Perhaps the biggest contribution of the seer was his philanthropic activities. He has provided many villages with clean drinking water through his organization Sri Satya Village Integrated Programme (SSVIP). He set up the Sri Sathya Sai University, which delivers high-quality education with three colleges under its belt. His setting up of Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s Super Speciality Hospital has been very well received, where thousands of patients have been treated free of cost.
What will be important to follow would be the ability of his Trust to continue with his philanthropic activities long after he’s gone.
2. Shammi Kapoor
Shamsher Raj Kapoor, born on October 21, 1931, to Prithviraj Kapoor and Ramsharni Kapoor, was their middle son, and brother to Raj and Shashi Kapoor. He spent his childhood years in Kolkatta and Mumbai, and began his career with his father’s theatre company, Prithvi Theatres. Four years later he left to pursue a career in film. He shortened his name to Shammi Kapoor and made his debut with Jeevan Jyoti, but he was met without a blip at the box office. The next three years saw 20 films that crashed and burned. Deciding to change things around, Kapoor shaved off his pencil moustache, cut his hair and donned an Elvis Presley swagger. With films like Dil Deke Dekho and Tumsa Nahin Dekha, Kapoor cemented his image as the boyishly goodlooking playboy and stylish youth icon. His cry “Yahoo” in the film Jungleeencapsulated his image as a rebel, and the exclamation came to always be associated with him. With successful films opposite stars like Asha Parekh, Saira Banu, and Sharmila Tagore, and his trademark dance moves, there was no looking back for Kapoor; he won his first Filmfare award in 1968 for Bramhachari.
Kapoor went through a difficult period when his wife Geeta Bali, mother to his two children Aditya Raj and Kanchan, died of small pox. It was eight years before he remarried, this time to Neela Devi Gohil. He soon retired from playing leading roles, taking instead to character pieces, and moving behind the camera as director. In 1995 he was given the Filmfare lifetime achievement award. Coming out of retirement for his cameo in the film Rockstarwith his nephew Ranbir Kapoor, Shammi Kapoor worked while simultaneously dealing with kidney dialysis. He eventually passed away from chronic renal failure on 14 August 2011 at Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai. The entire Kapoor family and many of Bollywood’s biggest names came together to pay their last respects at the funeral of an actor whose legacy remains in Indian cinema.
3. Maqbool Fida Hussain
Maqbool Fida Hussain, better known to the world as MF Hussain, died on June 9th 2011, at the age of 95. Hailed as India’s Picasso, he played a significant role in putting Indian art on the world map. Known for his use of vibrant colour and depictions of dynamic movement, frequently featuring women and horses, Husain was the first living Indian artist to command a price of $1million for his work.
Husain was born in Maharashtra on September 17th, 1915, to an accountant father, and a mother who died when he was barely 18 months old. At the age of 19, Husain came to Mumbai and found work as a painter of Hindi film posters. As his popularity grew, Husain also found himself increasingly in the eye of the storm with his series on Hindu divinity, portraying the goddesses Durga and Saraswati in the nude. Criminal charges that were filed against him for hurting religious sentiments were eventually quashed, but the death threats from Hindu extremists continued. In the face of such harassment, Husain was forced moved to Dubai, and the state of Qatar offered him citizenship.
The barefoot but flamboyant artist who created over 60,000 pieces of art died in exile in a hospital in London. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called his death a “national loss,” and India’s President Pratibha Patil said his death left a void in the world of art.
4. Bhupen Hazarika
Bhupen Hazarika, one of north-east India’s most important cultural figures, was a singer, lyricist, filmmaker, author and political activist, in a career that spanned 70 years. By the age of 10 he was composing music, and a year later performed for the first time on All India Radio. In 1939 at the age of 12, he catapulted into stardom after singing in the second Assamese film to be produced, Indramalati. He attributes his musical ability to his mother Shantipriya, “”Although listening to the rhythms of tribal music growing up developed my love for singing, I inherited my voice from my mother, who regularly sang lullabies to me as a child.” Hazarika was the eldest of 10 children, and his father imbibed him with a deep respect for education. Later, as he was drawn into India’s freedom movement, he would realise the connection between education and freedom, and this idea was clearly voiced in his music and writing at the time.
Hazarika schooled in Guwahati, and majored in political science at the Banaras Hindu University. He completed his PhD in mass communication at Columbia University, New York. In New York he met singer Paul Robeson who became a great influence on his music and his politic; he joined him on many civil rights rallies, and the famous ‘Bistirno Parore’ is an Assamese version of ‘Old Man River.’
Hazarika worked for a brief while as producer for All India Radio, and even taught at Gauhati University after returning from New York before he became involved with Assamese cinema. His popularity was unmatched at the time, as his music addressed important social issues and connected with his listeners. In 1992 he was awarded the Dada Saheb Phalke for his prolific contribution to film. He was also awarded the Padmashree in 1977 and Padma Bhushan in 2001. On November 5th 2011, he passed away after being admitted into the ICU for multi-organ failure. He is survived by his companion of many years, filmmaker Kalpana Lajmi, “I have lost my father, my brother, my lover, my husband, my friend, my mentor and guide. I had a relationship with him for 29 years, and he is gone now.”
5. Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi
What if MAK Pataudi had the use of both his eyes? That question will dog cricket aficionados for years to come.
Blessed with immaculate talent and unparalleled leadership qualities, the Naawab of Patuadi was handed the captaincy at the tender age of 21, when the then captain Nari Contractor got injured.
“Tiger” Patuadi scored 2793 runs in Test Cricket at an average of 34.91, he was the son of a famous father, who had played for England before the Second World War and then captained India in England in 1946. He went on to Captian India in 40 Tests, and even though India won only nine of those, his greatest contribution was to ensure that the Indian team became a tight unit under him. This was acknowledged by Bishan Singh Bedi, who captained India after Pataudi did.
Devoid of fast bowling options, he helped put together India’s famous spin quartet, Bishan Singh Bedi, Bhagwat Chandrasekhar, Erapalli Prasanna, and Srinivas Venkataraghvan.
Being a fantastic fielder himself, he laid a lot emphasis on fielding.
After he retired in 1975, Pataudi dabbled in media and also as an administrator, but both of these stints dint last for long.
6. Jagjit Singh
By the time he died at age 70, Jagjit Singh, India’s ghazal king had already recorded 50 albums in his 46-year career. When Singh started his career, because of its classical form the ghazal had a niche audience. One of Singh’s biggest contributions was to simplify the ghazal, and make it accessible to a global audience by using western instruments like the saxophone and guitar, along with Indian instruments like the sitar and tablaa.
This helped transform the Ghazal, a poetic form consisting of rhyming couplets and a refrain, whose origins go back to the 12th century. Singh’s efforts ensured that he became famous not only in India but the world over.
But that was not always the case; he struggled through most of his early days as a singer, eking out a meager living belting out jingles for advertisements.
Singh’s life changed after he met the singer Chitra Dutta, whom he married in 1969, and had a son with, Vivek. The singing duo at first had only low-level success because ghazal music was a niche genre dominated by mainly Muslim artists, and Bollywood ruled the musical mainstream. Success soon came along after the release of their first studio album and they never looked back.
Singh’s personal life was punctuated with loss, grief and depression. None more painful than the passing away of his only son Vivek, who died tragically at the age of 19, this prompted his wife Chitra to shun singing in public forever.
7. Steve Jobs
Steve Jobs, tech visionary extraordinaire and co-founder of Apple is reminiscent of Howard Roark, the protagonist of Ayn Rand’s eponymous novel ‘The Fountainhead.’ Roark’s character in the novel spends most of his life fighting the system and being uncompromising when it comes to putting the self above the collective. Jobs must have felt just like Roark after his few attempts to upend a fledgling personal computer industry.
Apple had already garnered a cult following after it introduced Apple II, the first popular mass-produced micro-computers computer in 1997 and the Macintosh, the first PC to use a mouse and a graphical user interface. First he saw bitter rivals Microsoft win the PC game with their software play. Then he faced the ignominy of being forced out of his own company by John Sculley (hired by Jobs after he fell for the famous line, “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?”) and the board.
Thus began his second journey and a renaissance that transformed Jobs and eventually Apple. Ousted out of his own company Jobs formed two companies: NeXt and Pixar. In an ironic twist of fate Apple bought NeXt, and Jobs’ second innings at Apple began. Pixar, meanwhile had produced the world’s first animated feature film and notched up quite a few successes with movies like ‘Finding Nemo’ and ‘Toy Story’.
Jobs’ real genius came together 4 years after he came back to Apple 2001 and he unveiled the iPod. Post which he never really looked back, and with the success of the iPhone and the iPad, he transformed a company which was on the verge of bankruptcy to the most valuable tech company in the world. Jobs might be criticized for being too autocratic and a control freak. But the legacy he has left behind will take a long time to be forgotten.
8. Dennis Ritchie
Some might say. No Dennis Ritchie. No Apple. The OS used by the world’s biggest technology company has UNIX under its hood because Jobs was a huge advocate of the programming language.
One of the tech pioneers who helped ‘shape the digital era’ Ritchie was instrumental in creating the C programming language and co-creating the UNIX operating system with his colleague Ken Thompson. Linux, the free, open variant of Unix powers servers at tech titans like Amazon and Google.
Not before he had almost every major honor in the computer science bestowed on him including the Turing Award from the ACM in 1983, the Hamming Medal from the IEEE in 1990 and the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1999.
Ritchie started his career in Bell Labs, the same revered company that his father Alistair worked for earlier; his mother Jean McGee Ritchie, was a homemaker. Most of his early work was done with his colleague Thompson that paved the way for the software and tools that power most of modern computing from mobile phones to the internet.
Ritchie retired in 2007 as the head of Lucent Technologies System Software Research Department. After suffering from heart disease and prostrate cancer for some time, he passed away on October 13th.
9. Amy Winehouse
Amy Jade Winehouse was born on September 14th, 1983 in Southgate London to Jewish parents. Her father, Mitchell, a taxi driver, was a jazz enthusiast who often sang to Amy in her growing-up years. Her parents divorced when she was nine, and she continued to live with her mother, although she remained close to her father.
At the young age of eight, Amy began attending stage school, including the Sylvia Young theatre school, and the Brit school in Croydon. Although she was expelled from one of them for “not applying herself,” Amy continued to write songs and sing with jazz bands and the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. Her boyfriend of the time passed on a recording of her to a record company, who were so impressed with her sound that she landed her first contract at the age of 17.
A musical assistant who toured with Amy described her, “She has enormous talent and deep roots in jazz and blues; she didn’t suffer from the ‘lead singer syndrome’ and unlike most she knew her sharps and flats. And she knew exactly who she was and how she wanted to sound – which some singers only know when they’ve got 40 grand’s worth of equipment, but which Amy knew by standing on top of a piano in a pub.”
Her debut album ‘Frank’ released in 2003 and won her critical recognition and nominations for the Mercury Prize, going triple platinum in the UK. But it was her second album ‘Back to Black’ that propelled Amy into international stardom. Winning her accolades at the Grammy’s and the Brit Awards, the album went eight times platinum in the UK and double platinum in the US. But tragically, her rise to stardom also saw her steady decline into alcohol and drugs. Her tempestuous relationship with Blake Fielder-Civil added depression to the mix, and Amy found herself in and out of rehab, and in trouble with the law. Ironically it was her song ‘Rehab’ about her refusal to attend an alcohol rehabilitation centre that stuck the deepest chord with her fans.
Amy was found dead in her London flat on 23rd July, at the age of 27, joining the troupe of talented but notoriously self-destructive artists who also died at that age. Her death was believed to be caused by a suspected drug overdose. She is survived by her parents, and her brother Alex.
10. Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor
Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor was born in Hampstead on February 27th 1932, to parents Sara Sothern, a stage actress, and Francis Taylor, an art dealer. Trained in ballet from the time she could walk, she had already performed for the British royal family at the age of 3. Her parents moved to Hollywood in 1939, and young Elizabeth Taylor’s striking beauty and violet eyes began to get noticed in those early days at her father’s gallery. She did her first film at the age of ten, with ‘Lassie Come Home,’ but it was ‘National Velvet’ that really put her on the map.
From there on, her career moved forward in leaps and bounds. From ‘Giant’ with Hudson and James Dean, to ’Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,’ ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?’ and ‘Cleopatra,’ Taylor’s performances earned her several nominations and three Oscars, one of which was in special recognition of her humanitarian work. Besides her work as an actress, she was also known for her astonishing beauty and grace, her many failed romances, her famous friendships, and her long love affair with jewelry. With eight high-profile marriages and divorces (two to Richard Burton, a rollercoaster relationship that was covered extensively by the media), the spotlight moved to her personal life rather than her work in the industry. As one obit put it, she was a “star at age 12, a bride and a divorcee at 18, a superstar at 19 and a widow at 26.”
Taylor was also a fiercely loyal friend, defending gays in Hollywood at a time when they were ostracized by the industry, and standing by Michael Jackson as he faced charges of misdemeanor with minors. She fought ill health through most of her career, beginning with a fall from horseback on ‘National Velvet.’ She went through 20 major surgeries, had replacement surgery for both hip joints, and was treated for drug and alcohol abuse.
Taylor was awarded the Legion of Honor, and titled Dame Elizabeth Taylor for her extensive charitable work, including her deep support on AIDS research, and for her work in the entertainment industry. In her later years she worked on several books, and kept in touch with her fans through Twitter. On March 23rd, she died of congestive heart failure at the age of 79. She is survived by her four children, ten grandchildren and four great-grandchildren.
The word Lokpal was coined in 1963 by L.M.Singhvi, a Member of Parliament during a debate in Parliament about grievance redressal mechanisms. His son Dr. Abhishek Singhvi is now the head of the Parliamentary Standing Committee reviewing the bill. The prefix Jan (translation: citizens) was added to signify the fact that these improvements include input provided by “ordinary citizens” through an activist-driven, non-governmental public consultation.
The Lokpal bill was first introduced by Shanti Bhushan in 1968 and passed the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969. But before it could be passed by Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha was dissolved and the bill lapsed. The Subsequent versions were re-introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, but none of them passed. The bill was inspired by the Hong Kong Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC).
The first version of the Lokpal Bill drafted by the Government of India in 2010 was considered ineffective by anti-corruption activists from the civil society. These activists, under the banner of India against Corruption, came together to draft a citizen’s version of the Lokpal Bill later called the Jan Lokpal. Public awareness drives and protest marches were carried out to campaign for the bill. However, public support for the Jan Lokpal Bill draft started gathering steam after Anna Hazare, a noted Gandhian announced that he would hold an indefinite fast from 5 April 2011 for the passing of the Lokpal/Jan Lokpal bill. The government has however accepted it.
To dissuade Hazare from going on an indefinite hunger strike, the Prime Minister’s Office directed the ministries of personnel and law to examine how the views of society activists can be included in the Lokpal Bill. On 5 April, 2011 the National Advisory Council rejected the Lokpal bill drafted by the government. Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal then met social activists Swami Agnivesh and Arvind Kejriwal on 7 April, 2011 to find ways to bridge differences over the bill. However, no consensus could be reached on 7 April owing to several differences of opinion between the social activists and the Government.
The Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen’s ombudsman Bill) is a draft anti-corruption bill drawn up by prominent civil society activists seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent body that would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within a year and envisages trial in the case getting over in the next one year. Drafted by Justice Santosh Hegde (former Supreme Court Judge and former Lokayukta of Karnataka), Prashant Bhushan (Supreme Court Lawyer) and Arvind Kejriwal (RTI activist), the draft Bill envisages a system where a corrupt person found guilty would go to jail within two years of the complaint being made and his ill-gotten wealth being confiscated. It also seeks power to the Jan Lokpal to prosecute politicians and bureaucrats without government permission. Retired IPS officer Kiran Bedi and other known people like Swami Agnivesh, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Anna Hazare and Mallika Sarabhai are also part of the movement, called India Against Corruption. Its website describes the movement as “an expression of collective anger of people of India against corruption. We have all come together to force/request/persuade/pressurize the Government to enact the Jan Lokpal Bill. We feel that if this Bill were enacted it would create an effective deterrence against corruption.”Anna Hazare, anti-corruption crusader, went on a fast-unto-death in April, demanding that this Bill, drafted by the civil society, be adopted. Four days into his fast, the government agreed to set up a joint committee with an equal number of members from the government and civil society side to draft the Lokpal Bill together. The two sides met several times but could not agree on fundamental elements like including the PM under the purview of the Lokpal. Eventually, both sides drafted their own version of the Bill. The government has introduced its version in Parliament in this session. Team Anna is up in arms and calls the government version the “Joke Pal Bill.” Anna Hazare declared that he would begin another fast in Delhi on August 16. Hours before he was to begin his hunger strike, the Delhi Police detained and later arrested him. There are widespread protests all over the country against his arrest. The website of the India Against Corruption movement calls the Lokpal Bill of the government an “eyewash” and has on it a critique of that government Bill.
Features of Jan Lokpal Bill
An institution called LOKPAL at the centre and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up
Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations.
Cases against corrupt people will not linger on for years anymore: Investigations in any case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be completed in next one year so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years.
The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of conviction.
How will it help a common citizen: If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which will be given as compensation to the complainant.
So, you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month’s time. You could also report any case of corruption to Lokpal like ration being siphoned off, poor quality roads been constructed or panchayat funds being siphoned off. Lokpal will have to complete its investigations in a year, trial will be over in next one year and the guilty will go to jail within two years.
But won’t the government appoint corrupt and weak people as Lokpal members? That won’t be possible because its members will be selected by judges, citizens and constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and participatory process.
What if some officer in Lokpal becomes corrupt? The entire functioning of Lokpal/ Lokayukta will be completely transparent. Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months.
What will happen to existing anti-corruption agencies? CVC, departmental vigilance and anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. Lokpal will have complete powers and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.
It will be the duty of the Lokpal to provide protection to those who are being victimized for raising their voice against corruption.
Drafting committee on Jan Lokpal bill
The drafting committee was officially formed on 8 April 2011. It consisted of the following ten members, including five from the government and five drawn from the civil society.
Member
Qualifications and status
Pranab Mukherjee
Finance Minister, Co-Chairman
Shanti Bhushan
Former Minister of Law and Justice, Co-Chairman
P. Chidambaram
Minister of Home Affairs
Veerappa Moily
Minister of Corporate Affairs
Kapil Sibal
Minister for human resource & devlopement
Salman Khursid
Minister of Law
Anna Hazare
Social Activist
Prashant Bhushan
Lawyer
N. Santosh Hegde
Former Lokayukta (Karnataka) and Supreme Court Justice
Arvind Kejriwal
RTI Activist.
The Government’s handling of the formation of the draft committee, involving the civil society in preparation of the draft Lokpal bill, was criticised by various political parties including BJP, BJD, TDP, AIADMK, CPI-M, RJD, JD(U) and Samajwadi Party
The committee failed to agree on the terms of a compromise bill and the government introduced its own version of the bill in the parliament in August 2011.
Difference between Jan Lokpal Bill and Draft Bill 2010
Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen’s Ombudsman Bill)
Draft Lokpal Bill (2010)
Lokpal will have powers to initiate suo motu action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public.
Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo motu action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. It can only probe complaints forwarded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Lokpal will have the power to initiate prosecution of anyone found guilty.
Lokpal will only be an Advisory Body with a role limited to forwarding reports to a “Competent Authority”.
Lokpal will have police powers as well as the ability to register FIRs.
Lokpal will have no police powers and no ability to register an FIR or proceed with criminal investigations.
Lokpal and the anti corruption wing of the CBI will be one independent body.
The CBI and Lokpal will be unconnected.
Punishments will be a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of up to life imprisonment.
Punishment for corruption will be a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of up to 7 years.
Details
The following table details differences between the Government and activist backed versions.
Issue
The Jan Lokpal Bill
Government’s Lokpal Bill
Prime Minister
PM can be investigated with permission of seven member Lokpal bench.
PM can be investigated by Lokpal after she/he vacates office.
Judiciary
Can be investigated, though high level members may be investigated only with permission of a seven member Lokpal bench.
Judiciary is exempt and will be covered by a separate “judicial accountability bill”.
Conduct of MPs
Can be investigated with permission of seven member Lokpal bench.
Can be investigated, but their conduct within Parliament, such as voting, cannot be investigated.
Lower bureaucracy
All public servants would be included.
Only senior officers (Group A) will be covered.
Anti-corruption wing of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
The Anti-corruption wing of the CBI will be merged into the Lokpal.
The Anti-corruption wing of the CBI cannot be merged into the Lokpal.
Removal of Lokpal members and Chair
Any person can bring a complaint to the Supreme Court, who can then recommend removal of any member to the President.
Any “aggrieved party” can raise a complaint to the President, who will refer the matter to the CJI.
Removal of Lokpal staff and officers
Complaints against Lokpal staff will be handled by independent boards set-up in each state, composed of retired bureaucrats, judges, and civil society members.
Lokpal will conduct inquiries into its own behaviour.
Lokayukta
Lokayukta and other local/state anti-corruption agency would remain in place.
All state anti-corruption agencies would be closed and responsibilities taken over by centralised Lokpal.
Whistleblower protection
Whistleblowers are protected by Lokpal.
No protection granted to whistleblowers by Lokpal Mahima.
Punishment for corruption
Lokpal can either directly impose penalties, or refer the matter to the courts. Penalties can include removal from office, imprisonment, and recovery of assets from those who benefited from the corruption.
Lokpal can only refer matters to the courts, not take any direct punitive actions. Penalties remain equivalent to those in current law.
Investigatory powers
Lokpal can obtain wiretaps ( to make a connection to a telegraph or telephone wire in order to obtain information secretly), issue rogatory letters, and recruit investigating officers. Cannot issue contempt orders.
Lokpal can issue contempt orders, and has the ability to punish those in contempt. No authority to obtain wiretaps, issue rogatory letters, or recruit investigating officers.
False, frivolous and vexatious complaints
Lokpal can issue fines for frivolous complaints (including frivolous complaints against Lokpal itself), with a maximum penalty of Rs 100,000.
Court system will handle matters of frivolous complaints. Courts can give 2–5 years imprisonment and fines of Rs 25,000 to 200,000.
NGOs
NGOs not within the scope due to their role in exposing corruption.
NGOs are within the scope and can be investigated.
One step forward, two steps back (Editorial: The Hindu dt 24.12.2011)
Hopelessly ineffectual and constitutionally suspect, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 is nothing less than a betrayal of national trust. It is inexcusable that a Bill, substantially weaker than the August 2011 version that was forced to be withdrawn on the widespread belief that it would be fortified in key areas, has been tabled in the Lok Sabha. The whole purpose of the exercise is supposed to be the creation of a strong, effective, and credible mechanism to go after corruption, especially political corruption, which has assumed monstrous proportions in India. The key provisions of the new Bill relating to the selection of the nine-member Lokpal, its anti-corruption functions and powers, and administrative control over India’s premier criminal investigation agency mock that purpose.
In the first place, Section 4 of the Bill, which provides for a five-member Selection Committee to choose the chairman and eight other members of the Lokpal, gives the government political control over this process. Secondly, the separation of the power to enquire, investigate, and prosecute set out in the Bill is much worse than the scheme contained in the earlier Lokpal Bill, Section 20 of which gave the Lokpal its own investigation wing. In allowing the Lokpal only an Inquiry Wing headed by a Director of Inquiry “for the purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988” and denying it its own investigation wing, the new Bill neuters the anti-corruption watchdog. Allowing the Lokpal “a Prosecution Wing headed by the Director of Prosecution for the purpose of prosecution of public servants in relation to any complaint by the Lokpal under this Act” may look like a step forward. But this cannot possibly make up for the failure to provide for a clean process of independent investigation that is safeguarded from executive interference. At a time when the Lokayukta in a State such as Karnataka has its own investigation wing – something it has used to very good effect – it is retrogressive to withhold this instrument from the Lokpal.
At the same time, the new Bill has sought to keep the Central Bureau of Investigation out of the Lokpal’s purview ostensibly on the ground that it should have autonomy over its investigations. Given the agency’s record of bowing to the diktats of its political masters, there is no reason to believe that investigations, even those that are Lokpal-referred and Lokpal-monitored, will be free of political interference. The Centre, which has retained administrative control (read: promotions, transfers, etc.) of the CBI via the Ministry of Personnel, knows better than most that he who pays the piper calls the tune. While the proposal that a new panel (comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee) selects the Director of the CBI will go some way in enhancing the credibility of the agency, the opportunity to confer on it genuine independence is being lost.
Just as problematic is the constitutional validity of some basic provisions of the Bill. The inclusion of minorities among the groups given reservation in the nine-member body is bound to be challenged on the ground that it amounts to a quota being given on grounds of religion. While this issue has little bearing on tackling corruption, the deep and seemingly irreconcilable political divisions it has created, reflected in the manner in which it dominated the parliamentary debate on the Bill, is bound to have a bearing on its passage. Is this a ploy to let anti-corruption legislation fall victim to a wholly extraneous issue – reservation? Will it be allowed to degenerate, as in the case of the women’s reservation bill, into a legislative exercise that everyone claims to support but few really want?
There have also been serious concerns on another constitutional front – federalism. While it is hard to fault the principle of having comparable mechanisms and instruments to go after corruption at the central and State levels, the legislative procedure adopted is open to question. Rather than mandating the creation of a Lokpal-like structure in every State, would it not have been in keeping with India’s federal structure and regional sensitivities for the central legislation to have model or enabling provisions for constituting effective Lokayuktas in States? Given the strong national public mood against corruption, it is unlikely that State governments would risk going against it.
Unfortunately, the improvements in the new Bill have been overshadowed by the slew of regressive alterations. The inclusion of the Prime Minister under the Lokpal with certain exceptions is a step up from the earlier stipulation that permitted any inquiry only after he or she demitted office. The new Bill brings both Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ officers under the Lokpal’s ambit. While this is short of Team Anna’s demand that Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ officials be covered as well, it is an improvement on earlier drafts, under which the Lokpal’s purview was limited to Group ‘A’ officers. Further, while the ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories will be covered by the Central Vigilance Commission, cases relating to them will be reviewed by the Lokpal. The idea of granting constitutional status to the office of the Lokpal would have had traction had the Bill vested the body with the strength and self-sufficiency to make a serious impact on corruption. Unfortunately, a mixture of bad faith and a reluctance to loosen the grip on the handle of power have contributed to the making of a Bill that has caused deep divisions in Parliament and enough disenchantment to fuel a new round of Team Anna-led protests against the Centre. The country is no closer to a consensus on the Lokpal Bill than it was many months ago.
CBI’s autonomy seriously compromised?
A day after the introduction of the anti-graft Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 2011, in the Lok Sabha, sources in the Central Bureau of Investigation on 23.12.2011 felt that the agency’s autonomy of investigation had been “seriously compromised”. CBI sources said the Bill did not seem to confer greater autonomy to the investigative agency—one of the focal points of the civil society’s agitation for bringing about a strong, effective and credible Lokpal to tackle corruption in high places.
“The dependence of CBI on the government in financial and administrative matters is the main cause for the public perception that it can be influenced by the government and that its investigations are not immune to the government’s interference and pressure.
They said the CBI Director should be given administrative and financial powers on the lines of the Secretaries in the Union Government. “CBI Director should be empowered to induct officers up to the rank of Joint Director. He should also have powers for engaging special counsels and specialists of different disciplines,” sources in the agency said. The sources also said that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which calls for obtaining sanction before proceeding against government officials of the rank of Joint Secretary and above, should be repealed. “The DSPE Act needs to be amended to repeal this provision, as this is one of the major impediments in pursuing investigations against public servants of the rank of Joint Secretary and above,” they said.
The sources said that Section 23 (1) of the Lokpal Bill, which provides for functional autonomy for registration and initiation of prosecution, was applicable only for cases referred by the Lokpal.
The sources said the Bill envisaged reporting by the CBI to the Lokpal, the Central Vigilance Commission, the Department of Personnel and Training, and the Ministries of Law and Home. “Instead of gaining any functional autonomy, CBI would now have too many superior authorities to which it should report. This multiplicity of reporting would be a grave impediment to effective and efficient discharge of duties by the CBI. This multiplicity of supervision can be taken care of only by providing more financial, administrative and legal autonomy to the CBI.
They said Section 20 (7) of the Lokpal Bill provided for the extending of police powers to persons who are not police officers, who would be authorised to take a final decision after investigation and filing of police report in the competent court. “This is against the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr PC. In any case, the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr. PC should not be dispensed with. The investigation agencies, including the CBI, must continue to exercise full powers to take a final decision and file a police report before the competent court. The process of investigation, right from registration of FIR till filing of police report, is one single continuous process and a prerogative of only the police, and the integrity of which needs to be protected at all times to ensure quality and fair investigation,” the sources said. Citing a judgement of the Supreme Court in 1968, the sources said the police, and no other authority, should be entitled to forming the final decision in an investigation. The sources said the investigation agency could give a status report to the Lokpal/CVC on the outcome of investigation in respect of Lokpal/CVC-referred matters, as was being done currently in cases referred to the CBI by the courts. Further, they said, a provision could be incorporated to the effect that no court shall take cognisance of any charge sheet against a public servant in a case referred by the Lokpal/CVC, except with the previous sanction of the Lokpal/CVC.
Legal experts term Lokpal quota politically motivated
Some legal experts reckon that reservation in the Lokpal is not in conformity with provisions of the Constitution, and is politically motivated. The former Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee, and jurist Rajeev Dhavan maintain that it will go against the very principle of reservation, besides leading to litigation, putting a question mark over the efficacy of the legislation. The former Chief Justice of India, V.N. Khare, who welcomed broader representation reflecting the plurality of Indian society, wondered how far reservation in the Lokpal would stand legal scrutiny. Mr. Sorabjee said reservation was meant to empower disadvantaged sections and create a level playing field in employment and education. On the other hand, the Lokpal was meant to check corruption, and reservation in it would not serve any purpose. Such a provision was constitutionally questionable. He maintained that the manner in which the government had provided reservation for the minorities suggested that it was an “election gimmick.” Mr. Dhavan said the inclusion of the minorities was unconstitutional and in a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which says there shall be no discrimination on grounds of religion. “It is a political concession, without [any] constitutional basis, motivated by a political class that is unable to cope with stresses and strains of the system. The measure makes no sense from the standpoint of the Constitution or common sense. It is unprecedented and should not have been made.” Justice Khare, who supported the idea, felt that the manner in which the government had phrased it raised doubts about the provision’s ability to stand legal scrutiny. “I can’t say what would happen if it is challenged. At the same time, I believe that the minorities do deserve a place in bodies like the Lokpal on the criteria of economic, educational and social backwardness.” He maintained that the wording in the Bill should have merely said there would be representation to the backward classes, irrespective of their religion, as provided in the subordinate legislation or rule.
Lokpal Bill passed, Constitution Amendment Bill defeated
The Lok Sabha on 27.12.2011 night passed a historic Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011, but defeated a parallel Constitution (116th Amendment) Bill, which would have given the Lokpal constitutional status.
In a major embarrassment to the UPA government, Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee admitted that the government did not have the requisite two-thirds majority to get the Constitution Amendment adopted. “It is a sad day for democracy,” he said.
Rahul upset
After three clauses of the Constitution Amendment Bill were defeated, Speaker Meira Kumar announced that it had fallen and had become “infructuous.” Congress general secretary and MP Rahul Gandhi, who had first proposed that the Lokpal be given constitutional status on the lines of the Election Commission, appeared visibly upset. His idea was also favoured by the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Lokpal.
The Whistle-blowers Bill (Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010) was also passed by the Lok Sabha, which literally burnt the midnight oil to complete the legislative business.
After a marathon debate, lasting for over 10 hours, the Lok Sabha passed by voice vote the Bill for creation of the Lokpal.
Fate in Upper House
In the next step, the Bill will have to get the nod from the Rajya Sabha before it goes to the President for her assent. The UPA government does not have a majority in the Upper House and so the fate of the anti-graft Bill will be at the mercy of the Opposition.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill also saw a number of amendments, moved by the government. One of the key amendments accepted was keeping the defence forces and coast guard personnel out of the purview of the anti-graft ombudsman and increasing the exemption time of former MPs from five to seven years.
SP, BSP walk out
A number of amendments moved by the Opposition, which sought to bring corporates and the media under the Lokpal, were defeated. The Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party staged a walkout, saying their demands were not being met.
In an intervention, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said a “holistic” approach was needed to deal with the “cancer” of corruption but rejected demands for bringing the CBI within the purview of the Lokpal. No entity should be created inconsistent with the constitutional framework, he cautioned.
Fears over the safety of breast implants made by a now defunct French firm spread to Australia, South America and across Europe on 22.12.2011 as French officials prepared to decide if thousands of women should have their implants surgically removed.
The silicone gel implants, made by a company called Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) that was shut down in 2010, appear to have an unusually high rupture rate and have sparked an investigation in France into possible links to cancer.
About 300,000 PIP implants, used in cosmetic surgery to enhance breast size or replace lost breast tissue, were sold worldwide before PIP went bust last year.
An investigation into PIP found it was using a type of silicone not approved by health authorities but about 10 times cheaper. The industrial-grade silicone PIP is accused of using is an ingredient in anything from computers to cookware.
“It’s not just France that’s concerned. We’re looking at 300,000 to 400,000 potential victims in the world,” said Alexandra Blachere, leader of a French PIP implant patient group.
She said women from Italy and Spain were in touch with her with worries about their implants and she had seen reports of problems in Venezuela, Brazil and elsewhere.
No one linked to the defunct company was immediately available to comment.
Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said there was no reason for patients to be alarmed and there was, as yet, no scientific evidence to suggest increased health risks.
MHRA officials said they had talked to other health or regulatory experts from France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Hungary, Austria, Denmark and Malta.
“They all agreed that there was no evidence of any increase in incidents of cancer associated with PIP breast implants and no evidence of any disproportionate rupture rates other than in France,” it said in a statement.
Rupture
Founded in 1991, Poly Implant Prothese was based in southern France and for a while ranked as the world’s number three maker of implants, supplying about 100,000 a year.
About 80 percent were exported abroad. Health authorities around the world said they were watching closely for the results on Friday of an inquiry by France’s National Cancer Institute into whether the implants might be linked to cancer.
France’s Health Ministry is expected to make an announcement on Friday about the institute’s findings.
France has had reports of eight cases of cancer in women with breast implants made by PIP. Britain’s MHRA said there were also French reports of a woman with PIP implants who died from anaplastic large cell lymphoma, or ALCL, a rare form of cancer that affects cells from the immune system.
France’s drug and medical device regulator, AFSSAPS, ruled last year that the state would pay for the removal of all PIP implants but only fund replacements for victims of breast cancer, not women who used them for aesthetic purposes.
A French victims’ association is pushing for the state to pay for replacements for all women with PIP implants.
Australia’s healthcare watchdog, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), said about 8,900 of the PIP implants were used in Australian women, some of whom had complained about the devices splitting and leaking.
“The TGA has received 45 reports relating to PIP implants, 39 of which relate to rupture,” it said in a statement. It has had no reports of ALCL in Australian women with the implants.
Both the TGA and Britain’s MHRA said they would be looking carefully at the French safety statement on Friday.
Alfred Fitoussi, spokesman for the breast and cancer section of the French Association of Plastic Surgery, told Reuters he expected the report to say there was no cancer risk from the PIP implants. But he noted what he described as an “enormously” high rupture rate of about 10 percent.
“All kinds of tests have been done during many years and never showed any kind of cancer risk from silicone,” he said. “It’s obvious there is a problem with the quality.”
He said the normal rupture rate for breast implants was about 4 or 5 percent.
The MHRA said, based on reports it had so far, about 1 percent of women in Britain with PIP implants have suffered ruptures.
PIP was placed into liquidation in March 2010 with losses of 9 million euros after AFSSAPS recalled its implants when surgeons reported abnormally high rupture rates.
In Argentina, Colombia and Brazil, long a magnet for medical tourists looking for more affordable cosmetic surgery, imports of the implants were banned in April 2010, officials said.
“We know a high percentage of surgeons in Colombia and the rest of South America have used these implants,” said Celso Bohorquez, a spokesman for Colombia’s association of plastic, aesthetic and reconstructive surgery.
Brazil’s Anvisa health inspection agency said 25,000 PIP implants had been used but no complaints had been received so far. In neighboring Argentina, Roberto Lede from the state-run ANMAT drugs regulator said the evidence was “pretty weak” but advised concerned women to consult a doctor.
Legal Limits
Douglas McGeorge, a consultant cosmetic and plastic surgeon and former president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, said he expected many patients would want to act sooner rather than wait and risk possible health problems.
A solicitor acting for at least 250 British women taking legal action over their PIP implants said the liquidation of the French company had limited the scope for lawsuits.
“We’re suing about half a dozen clinics that have been involved in implanting the PIP breast implants,” Mark Harvey, a partner at legal firm Hugh James, told Reuters.
“We would have preferred to sue PIP, obviously, but they are bankrupt so they have no money and no assets.”
Amanda Harrison, one of the British women seeking compensation, told Reuters she was disgusted by PIP’s actions.
“It’s sick that they could even think about putting this stuff into a human.” she said. “You wouldn’t even put it in an animal.”
Japan earthquake and tsunami of 2011, also called Great Sendai Earthquake or Great Tōhoku Earthquake, severe earthquake that occurred on March 11, 2011, off the northeastern coast of Honshu, Japan’s main island, causing widespread damage on land and initiating a tsunami that devastated many coastal areas of the country, most notably in the Tōhoku region (northeastern Honshu). The tsunami also instigated a major nuclear accident at a power station along the coast.
The earthquake and tsunami
The magnitude-9.0 earthquake struck at 2:46 pm. (The early estimate of magnitude 8.9 was later revised upward.) The epicentre was located some 80 miles (130 km) east of the city of Sendai, Miyagi prefecture, and the focus occurred at a depth of 18.6 miles (about 30 km) below the floor of the western Pacific Ocean. The earthquake was caused by the rupture of a stretch of the subduction zone associated with the Japan Trench, which separates the Eurasian Plate from the subducting Pacific Plate. (Some geologists argue that this portion of the Eurasian Plate is actually a fragment of the North American Plate called the Okhotsk microplate.) A part of the subduction zone measuring approximately 190 miles (300 km) long by 95 miles (150 km) wide lurched about 65 feet (20 metres) to the southeast and thrusted upward by about 100–130 feet (30–40 metres). The March 11 temblor was felt as far away as Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia; Kao-hsiung, Taiwan; and Beijing, China. It was preceded by several foreshocks, including a magnitude-7.2 event centred approximately 25 miles (40 km) away from the epicentre of the main quake. Hundreds of aftershocks, dozens of magnitude 6.0 or greater and two of magnitude 7.0 or greater, followed in the days and weeks after the main quake. The March 11 earthquake was the strongest to strike the region since the beginning of record keeping in the late 19th century, and it is considered to be one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded.
The sudden horizontal and vertical thrusting of the Pacific Plate, which has been slowly advancing under the Eurasian Plate near Japan, displaced the water above and spawned a series of highly destructive tsunami waves. A wave measuring some 33 feet (10 metres) high inundated the coast and flooded parts of the city of Sendai, including its airport and the surrounding countryside. According to some reports, one wave penetrated some 6 miles (10 km) inland after causing the Natori River, which separates Sendai from the city of Natori to the south, to overflow. Damaging tsunami waves struck the coasts of Iwate prefecture, just north of Miyagi prefecture, and Fukushima, Ibaraki, and Chiba, the prefectures extending along the Pacific coast south of Miyagi. In addition to Sendai, other communities hard hit by the tsunami included Kamaishi and Miyako in Iwate; Ishinomaki, Kesennuma, and Shiogama in Miyagi; and Kitaibaraki and Hitachinaka in Ibaraki. As the floodwaters retreated back to the sea, they carried with them enormous quantities of debris, as well as thousands of victims caught in the deluge. Large stretches of land also were left submerged under seawater, particularly in lower-lying areas.
The earthquake triggered tsunami warnings throughout the Pacific basin. The tsunami raced outward from the epicentre at speeds that approached about 500 miles (800 km) per hour. It generated waves 11 to 12 feet (3.3 to 3.6 metres) high along the coasts of Kauai and Hawaii in the Hawaiian Islands chain and 5-foot (1.5-metre) waves along the island of Shemya in the Aleutian Islands chain. Several hours later 9-foot (2.7-metre) tsunami waves struck the coasts of California and Oregon in North America. Finally, some 18 hours after the quake, waves roughly 1 foot (0.3 metre) high reached the coast of Antarctica and caused a portion of the Sulzberger Ice Shelf to break off its outer edge.
Aftermath of the disaster
Casualties and property damage
Initial reports of casualties following the tsunami put the death toll in the hundreds, with hundreds more missing. That number in both categories increased dramatically in the following days as the extent of the devastation—especially in coastal areas—became known and rescue operations got under way. Within two weeks of the disaster, the official count of deaths had exceeded 10,000; more than one and a half times that number were still listed as missing and presumed dead. By then it was evident that the earthquake and tsunami had produced one of the deadliest natural disasters in Japanese history, rivaling the major earthquake and tsunami that had occurred off the coast of Iwate prefecture in June 1896. As the search for victims continued, the official count of those confirmed dead or still missing rose to about 28,500. However, as more people thought to be missing were found to be alive, that figure began to drop; by autumn it had been reduced to fewer than 20,000.
Most of those killed were victims of the tsunami waves. Coastal cities and towns as well as vast areas of farmland in the tsunami’s path were inundated by swirling waters that swept enormous quantities of houses, boats, cars, trucks, and other debris along with them. As the extent of the destruction became known, it became clear how many thousands of people were missing—including, in some cases, half or more of a locality’s population. Among those who initially were unaccounted for were people on a ship that was washed away by the tsunami and passengers on several trains reported as missing in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. The ship was later found (and the people on board rescued), and all trains were located as well.
Although much of the destruction was caused by the tsunami waves along Japan’s Pacific coastline, the earthquake was responsible for considerable damage over a wide area. Notable were fires in several cities, including a petrochemical plant in Sendai, a portion of the city of Kesennuma in Miyagi prefecture, northeast of Sendai, and an oil refinery at Ichihara in Chiba prefecture, near Tokyo. In Fukushima, Ibaraki, and Chiba prefectures thousands of homes were completely or partially destroyed by the temblor and aftershocks. Infrastructure also was heavily affected throughout eastern Tōhoku, as roads and rail lines were damaged, electric power was knocked out, and water and sewerage systems were disrupted. In Fukushima a dam burst close to the prefectural capital of Fukushima city.
Northern Japan’s nuclear emergency
Of significant concern following the main shock and tsunami was the status of several nuclear power stations in the Tōhoku region. The reactors at the three nuclear power plants closest to the quake’s epicentre were shut down automatically following the temblor, which also cut the main power to those plants and their cooling systems. However, inundation by the tsunami waves damaged the backup generators at some of those plants, most notably at the Fukushima Daiichi (“Number One”) plant, situated along the Pacific coast in northeastern Fukushima prefecture about 60 miles (100 km) south of Sendai. With power gone, the cooling systems failed in three reactors within the first few days of the disaster, and their cores subsequently overheated, leading to partial meltdowns of the fuel rods. Melted material fell to the bottom of the containment vessels in reactors 1 and 2 and burned sizable holes through the floor of each vessel, which partially exposed the nuclear material in the cores. Explosions resulting from the buildup of pressurized hydrogen gas in the outer containment buildings enclosing reactors 1, 2, and 3, along with a fire touched off by rising temperatures in spent fuel rods stored in reactor 4, led to the release of significant levels of radiation from the facility in the days and weeks following the earthquake. Workers sought to cool and stabilize the damaged reactors by pumping seawater and boric acid into them.
Because of concerns over possible radiation exposure, Japanese officials established an 18-mile (30-km) no-fly zone around the facility, and an area of 12.5 miles (20 km) around the plant was evacuated. The evacuation zone was later extended to the 18-mile no-fly radius, within which residents were asked to leave or remain indoors. The appearance of increased levels of radiation in some local food and water supplies prompted officials in Japan and overseas to issue warnings about their consumption. At the end of March, seawater near the Daiichi facility was discovered to have been contaminated with high levels of radioactive iodine-131. The contamination stemmed from the exposure of pumped-in seawater to radiation inside the facility; this water later leaked into the ocean through cracks in water-filled trenches and tunnels between the facility and the ocean.
In mid-April Japanese nuclear regulators elevated the severity level of the nuclear emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi facility from 5 to 7—the highest level on the scale created by the International Atomic Energy Agency—placing the Fukushima accident in the same category as the Chernobyl accident, which had occurred in the Soviet Union in 1986. Several months after the Fukushima disaster, radiation levels remained high in the evacuation zone, and government officials remarked that the area may be uninhabitable for decades. However, they also announced that radiation levels had declined in five towns located just beyond the original 12.5-mile evacuation zone; these levels had become low enough that government officials felt comfortable allowing residents to return to their homes.
Relief efforts
In the first hours after the earthquake, Japanese Prime Minister Kan Naoto moved to set up an emergency command centre in Tokyo, and a large number of rescue workers and some 100,000 members of the Japanese Self-Defense Force were rapidly mobilized to deal with the crisis. In addition, the Japanese government requested that U.S. military personnel stationed in the country be available to help in relief efforts, and a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier was dispatched to the area. Several countries, including Australia, China, India, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United States, sent search-and-rescue teams, and dozens of other countries and major international relief organizations such as theRed Cross and Red Crescent pledged financial and material support to Japan. In addition, a large number of private and nongovernmental organizations within Japan and worldwide soon established relief funds to aid victims and assist with rescue and recovery efforts.
The rescue work itself was hampered initially by the difficulty in getting personnel and supplies to the devastation zone; compounding the difficulty were periods of inclement weather that curtailed air operations. Workers in the disaster zones then faced widespread seas of destruction: vast areas, even whole towns and cities, had been washed away or covered by great piles of mud and debris. Although some people were rescued from the rubble in the first several days following the main shock and tsunami, most of the relief work involved the recovery of bodies, including hundreds that began washing ashore in several areas after having been swept out to sea.
In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, several hundred thousand people were in shelters, often with limited or negligible supplies of food or water, and tens of thousands more remained stranded and isolated in the worst-hit areas as rescuers worked to reach them. Within days the number of displaced people in the Fukushima area grew as the situation with the nuclear reactors on the coast deteriorated and people left the quarantined area. Gradually many people were able to find other places to stay in the Tōhoku area, or they relocated to other parts of the country; some quarter million people were still in hundreds of shelters in the region two weeks after the quake, but in the ensuing months after the disaster that number gradually was reduced by more than two-thirds. Tens of thousands of these displaced residents were living in some 50,000 prefabricated temporary housing units that had been set up in Sendai and other tsunami-damaged locations.
In the weeks following the disaster, much of northern Honshu’s transportation and services infrastructure was at least partially restored, and repairs continued until train lines and major highways were again fully operational. However, the region’s power supply continued to be affected by the ongoing situation at the Fukushima plant, resulting in temporary power outages and rolling blackouts. The loss of businesses and factories from earthquake and tsunami damage, as well as the uncertainties surrounding the power supply, severely reduced the region’s post-disaster manufacturing output. Industries most affected included those producing semiconductors and other high-technology items and automobiles.
The accolades for Steve Jobs, who died Oct 5, are still pouring in. The Recording Academy said on 21.12.2011 it is giving the co-founder of Apple a special “Trustees Award” Grammy. The Grammys, of course, are the top honors in the U.S. music industry.
“As former CEO and co-founder of Apple, Steve Jobs helped create products and technology that transformed the way we consume music, TV, movies, and books,” the Recording Academy said in a statement.
“A creative visionary, Jobs’ innovations such as the iPod and its counterpart, the online iTunes store, revolutionized the industry and how music was distributed and purchased,” the statement added.
A formal acknowledgment of his award will be made during annual Grammy Awards ceremony on February 12 in Los Angeles.
In 2002, Apple was a recipient of a technical Grammy award for contributions of outstanding technical significance to the recording field.
Steve Jobs
SteveJobs, in full Steven Paul Jobs (born February 24, 1955, San Francisco, California, U.S.—died October 5, 2011, Palo Alto, California), cofounder of Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.), and a charismatic pioneer of the personal computer era.
Founding of Apple
Jobs was raised by adoptive parents in Cupertino, Calif., located in what is now known as Silicon Valley. Though he was interested in engineering, his passions of youth varied. He dropped out of Reed College, in Portland, Ore., took a job at Atari Corporation as a video game designer in early 1974, and saved enough money for a pilgrimage to India to experience Buddhism.
Back in Silicon Valley in the autumn of 1974, Jobs reconnected with Stephen Wozniak, a former high school friend who was working for the Hewlett-Packard Company. When Wozniak told Jobs of his progress in designing his own computer logic board, Jobs suggested that they go into business together, which they did after Hewlett-Packard formally turned down Wozniak’s design in 1976. The Apple I, as they called the logic board, was built in the Jobses’ family garage with money they obtained by selling Jobs’s Volkswagen minibus and Wozniak’s programmable calculator.
Jobs was one of the first entrepreneurs to understand that the personal computer would appeal to a broad audience, at least if it did not appear to belong in a junior high school science fair. With Jobs’s encouragement, Wozniak designed an improved model, the Apple II, complete with a keyboard, and they arranged to have a sleek, molded plastic case manufactured to enclose the unit.
Though Jobs had long, unkempt hair and eschewed business garb, he managed to obtain financing, distribution, and publicity for the company, Apple Computer, incorporated in 1977—the same year that the Apple II was completed. The machine was an immediate success, becoming synonymous with the boom in personal computers. In 1981 the company had a record-setting public stock offering and, in 1983, made the quickest entrance (to that time) into the Fortune 500 list of America’s top companies. In 1983 the company recruited PepsiCo, Inc., president John Sculley to be its chief executive officer (CEO) and, implicitly, Jobs’s mentor in the fine points of running a large corporation. Jobshad convinced Sculley to accept the position by challenging him: “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life?” The line was shrewdly effective, but it also revealed Jobs’s own near-messianic belief in the computer revolution.
Insanely Great
During that same period, Jobs was heading the most important project in the company’s history. In 1979 he led a small group of Apple engineers to a technology demonstration at the Xerox Corporation’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) to see how the graphical user interface could make computers easier to use and more efficient. Soon afterward, Jobs left the engineering team that was designing Lisa, a business computer, to head a smaller group building a lower-cost computer. Both computers were redesigned to exploit and refine the PARC ideas, but Jobs was explicit in favouring the Macintosh, or Mac, as the new computer became known. Jobs coddled his engineers and referred to them as artists, but his style was uncompromising; at one point he demanded a redesign of an internal circuit board simply because he considered it unattractive. He would later be renowned for his insistence that the Macintosh be not merely great but “insanely great.” In January 1984 Jobs himself introduced the Macintosh in a brilliantly choreographed demonstration that was the centrepiece of an extraordinary publicity campaign. It would later be pointed to as the archetype of “event marketing.”
However, the first Macs were underpowered and expensive, and they had few software applications—all of which resulted in disappointing sales. Apple steadily improved the machine, so that it eventually became the company’s lifeblood as well as the model for all subsequent computer interfaces. But Jobs’s apparent failure to correct the problem quickly led to tensions in the company, and in 1985 Sculley convinced Apple’s board of directors to remove the company’s famous cofounder.
Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. The LHC was constructed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in the same 27-km (17-mile) tunnel that housed its Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP). The tunnel is circular and is located 50–175 metres (165–575 feet) below ground, on the border between France and Switzerland. The LHC ran its first test operation on Sept. 10, 2008. An electrical problem in a cooling system on September 18 resulted in a temperature increase of about 100 °C (180 °F) in the magnets, which are meant to operate at temperatures near absolute zero (−273.15 °C, or −459.67 °F). Early estimates that the LHC would be quickly fixed soon turned out to be overly optimistic; it restarted on Nov. 20, 2009. Shortly thereafter, on Nov. 30, 2009, it supplanted the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory’s Tevatron as the most powerful particle accelerator, when it boosted protons to energies of 1.18 teraelectron volts (TeV; 1 × 1012 electron volts). In March 2010 scientists at CERN announced that a problem with the design of superconducting wire in the LHC required that the collider could only run at half-energy (7 TeV) until the end of 2011. The LHC is scheduled to be shut down in 2012 to fix the problem and is expected to run at its full energy of 14 TeV in 2013.
The heart of the LHC is a ring that runs through the circumference of the LEP tunnel; the ring is only a few centimetres in diameter, evacuated to a higher degree than deep space and cooled to within two degrees of absolute zero. In this ring, two counter-rotating beams of heavy ions or protons are accelerated to speeds within one millionth of a percent of the speed of light. (Protons belong to a category of heavy subatomic particles known as hadrons, which accounts for the name of this particle accelerator.) At four points on the ring, the beams can intersect and a small proportion of particles crash into each other. At maximum power, collisions between protons will take place at a combined energy of up to 14 TeV, about seven times greater than has been achieved previously. At each collision point are huge magnets weighing tens of thousands of tons and banks of detectors to collect the particles produced by the collisions.
The project took a quarter of a century to realize; planning began in 1984, and the final go-ahead was granted in 1994. Thousands of scientists and engineers from dozens of countries were involved in designing, planning, and building the LHC, and the cost for materials and manpower was nearly $5 billion; this does not include the cost of running experiments and computers.
One goal of the LHC project is to understand the fundamental structure of matter by recreating the extreme conditions that occurred in the first few moments of the universe according to the big bang model. For decades physicists have used the so-called standard model for fundamental particles, which has worked well but has weaknesses. First, and most important, it does not explain why some particles have mass. In the 1960s British physicist Peter Higgs postulated a particle that had interacted with other particles at the beginning of time to provide them with their mass. The Higgs particle has never been observed—it should be produced only by collisions in an energy range not available for experiments before the LHC. Second, the standard model requires some arbitrary assumptions, which some physicists have suggested may be resolved by postulating a further class of supersymmetric particles—these might be produced by the extreme energies of the LHC. Finally, examination of asymmetries between particles and their antiparticles may provide a clue to another mystery: the imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe.
As with all groundbreaking experiments, the most exciting results may well be unexpected ones. As British physicist Stephen Hawking said, “It is more exciting if we don’t find the Higgs. That will show that something is wrong and we need to think again.”
By David G.C. Jones
Large Hadron Collider finds new variant of particle – 24.12.2011
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), famously engaged in the quest for the Higgs boson, has turned up a heavier variant of a sub-atomic particle first discovered a quarter-century ago, scientists reported on 23.12.2011.
Newcomer
The newcomer is called Chi-b(3P), which was uncovered in the debris from colliding protons, according to research published in the open-access online journal arxiv. Like the elusive Higgs and the photon, it is a boson, meaning it is a particle that carries force. But while the Higgs is not believed to be made of smaller particles, the Chi-b(3) comprises two relatively heavy particles, the beauty quark and its anti-quark. They are bonded by the so-called “strong” force which also causes the atomic nucleus to stick together. The Chi-b(3P) is a heavier version of a particle that was first observed around 25 years ago. “The Chi-b(3P) is a particle that was predicted by many theorists, but was not observed at previous experiments,” said James Walder, a British physicist quoted by the University of Birmingham in a press release. Described by some as the world’s largest machine, the LHC is located in a 27-km ring-shaped tunnel near Geneva that straddles the Franco-Swiss border up to 580 feet below ground. Streams of protons are fired in opposite, but parallel, directions in the tunnel.
Powerful magnets
The beams are then bent by powerful magnets so that some of the protons collide in four giant labs, which are lined with detectors to record the sub-atomic debris that results. On December 13, physicists at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said they had narrowed the search for the Higgs — the so-called “God particle” that may confer mass. The theory behind the Higgs is that mass does not derive from particles themselves. Instead, it comes from a boson that interacts strongly with some particles but less, if at all, with others. Finding the Chi-b(3P) is a further test of the powers of the LHC, which became the world’s biggest particle collider when it was completed in 2008. “Our new measurements are a great way to test theoretical calculations of the forces that act on fundamental particles, and will move us a step closer to understanding how the Universe is held together,” said Miram Watson, a British research fellow working on the CHi-b(3) investigation.
Holy grail of particle physics – The Hindu Editorial dt 24.12.2011
Physicists like to describe nature in the simplest and most elegant theoretical framework. A significant development towards such a description of the sub-atomic world during the 1970s was the unification of disparate forces of nature (excluding gravity) in a single theoretical framework. But this unification came at a price. The elegant mathematical symmetry that made it possible required all elementary particles to be massless, which is not the real world we know. So the underlying universal symmetry had to be ‘broken’ to some degree for particles to have a range of masses and forces to have different strengths, and yet described by a single theory. This was achieved through the introduction of a hypothetical particle called Higgs — after Peter Higgs who proposed it — and an associated force. One can imagine Higgs as an all-pervasive ether-like force-field, which endows particles with mass (or inertia) because of the drag that the field exerts as particles move through space. This model of the universe, called the Standard Model (SM), seems to be along the right lines; this is so particularly after the discovery during the 1980s of particles W and Z — the carriers of the weak nuclear force just as the massless photon carries the electromagnetic force — with masses exactly as predicted by SM (about 100 times the mass of the proton). Since then the model has held up superbly in experimental tests. But Higgs itself has remained elusive and is the only missing piece in this otherwise enormously successful theory. The model itself does not predict a mass for the Higgs. So, for the last three decades physicists have been combing the entire energy ranges available to particle accelerators for signatures of Higgs in the decays of particles produced in these high-energy particle collisions. With the advent in 2009 of the highest energy accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, Geneva, which opened up a new energy domain, hopes of discovering Higgs have been high.
A discovery in particle physics is a long, painstaking process. It requires sifting through data related to trillions of collisions and picking out a statistically significant signal that stands out as an excess over the background of events from other processes that mimic a decaying Higgs. Two entirely independent experiments at CERN, ATLAS and CMS, have seen an excess of events that are attributable to Higgs. By summer, these experiments had excluded vast regions of mass where Higgs could exist, leaving just a narrow window. The latest results, announced on December 13, have squeezed the window further to around 125 times the mass of a proton. Since two independent experiments have arrived at the same conclusions, these are tantalising signals — but not good enough to be called a discovery. At present there is just about one per cent chance of the excess being due to fluctuations in the background. The golden rule for discovery in particle physics is that such a chance should be less than one in a million. A definitive statement on the existence or non-existence of Higgs requires more LHC data running through 2012. If Higgs does not show up even then, there will be an upheaval in the current understanding of the sub-atomic world, with the crucial question on the origin of mass remaining unanswered. But that, as we have seen before in the history of physics, is only likely to throw up even more revolutionary ideas.
Dr. Jane Dacre, Consultant Physician and Rheumatologist, Professor of Medical Education and Director of the UCL Medical School, London, was in Chennai recently in connection with the examination of candidates seeking MRCP certification. In an interview to Education Plus, The Hindu that was moderated by Dr. Georgi Abraham, Professor of Medicine, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences and Governing Council Member – International Society of Nephrology, she highlighted some aspects of medical education that need reform in India. Excerpts.
What are the issues in medical education today, with particular reference to evaluation of students through examinations?
Some of the issues are actually about using the best available evidence in medical education and assessment practice. There is a body of evidence about medical education and exams now — the scientific underpinning of medical education has become much more professional, and we now have statistical data that show how good or bad an individual exam question is, and how good or bad a whole exam is. We have taken this into account in the design of the MRCP examination.
There is strong evidence, for example that the viva examination is unreliable. The evidence shows that if the examiner likes the look of a candidate when they come in for a viva, they think that candidate is marvellous, however well he answers the questions, and if the examiner doesn’t like the candidate, whatever the quality of his answer, the examiner is less impressed.
The way to make things fairer would be to make viva questions more standardised, and to sample a bigger proportion of the candidate’s knowledge. Also, we no longer use vivas in the MRCP clinical examination (PACES).
The practice of medicine is slightly different even though we follow the British system in India. How will that influence the new system of examination, of teaching and impact of that on patient care?
The adoption of best policy in medical education has allowed us to provide an overall structure for the examination, and the specific medical content has to be provided locally. The content of the questions, and (decisions on) what questions are appropriate for your community, are very different from ours. We were looking today at snakebites and rabies in India, while in London, we don’t get any snake bites or rabies. But the principles of asking candidates to describe what they would do in a situation, getting them to demonstrate it in a simulated situation, are common to both health systems. The scenarios we use in the examination can be very locality specific.
We do not use such scenarios in the medical examination system in India. You are directly asked, for example, what do you hear, what murmur do you hear in a patient? How big is the murmur? Some may say it is a short murmur, others may say it is a long murmur. It depends on the fancy of the examiner to decide what the murmur is and judge the candidate on that. What you said is totally different. You need to understand the student, what he knows, and ask him questions on what he knows, not on what he does not know in the common practice of medicine. Is that right?
The examiner wants the students to demonstrate their skills. Not just to tell the examiner what they know. Candidates may be very knowledgeable, and I think the trainees here do know an enormous amount, but they cannot always demonstrate that they are able to put their knowledge into practice. In our MRCP clinical exam, we observe the candidates putting their clinical examination skills into practice. Knowing how to work out what the causes of the particular condition could be, is not enough. Candidates need to be able to examine a patient correctly, identify the physical signs and diagnose the conditions. They also need to know the most common causes, and be able to discuss what to do about it. This includes how the condition should be investigated and treated, and how the doctor should communicate the diagnosis to the patient.
But that is not the system that exists here…
Yes. It is not what some of the local candidates expect, it resembles what they do in their clinical practice rather than what they expect in an examination.
As an examiner, while assessing, you should look into the local practices, conditions, and diseases that exist in that community, the investigations relevant to that, and the treatments?
Yes. Although there is less leeway for a good examiner in the MRCP PACES examination than there currently is in the traditional clinical examinations that you have in India. The good examiner, however, should have a clear idea about local practices, about what is appropriate for candidates to know, and what isn’t because that information has been given beforehand.
On admissions to medical school, what are your views?
In the U.K. now, we have highly standardised and fair methods of assessment to go into medical school and postgraduate medical courses. The old-fashioned patronage cannot happen. If my son wanted to be a doctor and had missed the grade, I would not be able to get him into medical school. It is absolutely based on merit.
Why do you need 10 examiners to assess a candidate, why can’t you have only two or three or four at the most, as in our country?
Because, if you have an examiner who either knows a candidate or likes a candidate for a particular reason, then he is more likely to favour that candidate. But if you have a number of different assessors looking at the candidate using a more objective marking schedule, then you make it fairer and minimise bias.
In our examination system we don’t have a timeline. The examiner can ask questions as long as he wants and the student must sit there according to the fancy and direction of the examiner. You have established a system, where there is a time limit and you cannot go beyond that. Which is the better system?
There is an intrinsic unfairness in allowing any variability in the time allowed per candidate. Depending on what you think of the candidate, you may take a longer or shorter time to assess them. This means the candidate will have more or less time to demonstrate what they know. The PACES exam (the MRCP Part 2 clinical examination) structure is standardised so that it gives every candidate the same opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Certainly in the U.K., and in the U.S. and lots of places internationally, that is thought to be a more appropriate system. The downside of it is that if you have a really fantastic candidate who is a just a pleasure to be with, the enjoyment for the examiner is less. We had to remind examiners when we introduced the PACES that this exam is for the candidate, and for our patients, and the enjoyment of the examiner takes a back seat.
What would you think about when you see different countries in the world, different candidates, cultures and practices? Is your system of assessment uniform? How does one avoid discrimination based on ethnic and cultural aspects?
It is a difficult question. We do have evidence that candidates overseas who take the examination in the U.K. do less well in our assessment, but we do not know why.
What we do know is that the MRCP assessment system is robust. What perhaps would be best in the long term is to introduce more locally specific conditions for candidates to be tested on. The MRCP is a U.K.-based exam, and therefore our rules are currently based on the U.K. health system. It is astounding to me how well overseas graduates do considering that they are taking an exam that wasn’t designed for their country.
At the undergraduate level, I think it would be appropriate to introduce the examination rigour that we have in the U.K., but also to make the examination locally specific to your own candidates, An exam needs to reflect the curriculum which has been taught. I assume you have your curriculum written down and therefore, you need to turn your curriculum into a blueprint which is a sampling grid of the areas where you expect your candidates to perform in. The examination could be based on that sampling grid.
Candidates taking the MRCP examination in India examine the local patients, and candidates in Britain may be seeing patients from Britain who may not be Indians or Asians for that matter. Do you think that will influence the assessment of candidates and in the long run will not be a rational way?
I think that in the long-term our objective would be to have more locally appropriate centres in India, the expense and the cultural issues such as the need to learn English or Scottish law to be able to pass an assessment in the U.K. should not be necessary for international candidates.
Do you think in two years you would have to modify your MRCP examination to suit new technologies and medications?
We have written components to the examination. We spend a lot of time ensuring that U.K. national guidelines are incorporated, as medicine is a constantly changing field. So we modify the questions all the time to make sure we are up to date.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, revered at home by a propaganda machine that turned him into a demi-god and vilified in the West as a temperamental tyrant with a nuclear arsenal, has died on 17.12.2012.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il died of a heart attack while on a train trip, state media reported on Monday, sparking immediate concern over who is in control of the reclusive state and its nuclear programme. He had suffered a stroke in 2008, but appeared to have recovered. North Korea’s official KCNA news agency said he died at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, 17.12.2011 (2330 GMT on Friday) after “an advanced acute myocardial infarction, complicated with a serious heart shock”.
Kim Jong-il who has died aged 69, was the general secretary of the Workers party of Korea, and head of the military in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). He was one of the most reclusive and widely condemned national leaders of the late 20th and early 21st century, leaving his country diplomatically isolated, economically broken, and divided from South Korea.
Unsurprisingly for a man who went into mourning for three years after the 1994 death of his own father, the legendary leader Kim Il-sung, and who in the first 30 years of his political career made no public statements, even to his own people, Kim’s career is riddled with claims, counter claims, speculation, and contradiction. There are few hard facts about his birth and early years.
The DPRK propagated an extraordinary tale of his birth occurring on Mount Baekdu, one of Korea’s most revered sites, being accompanied by shooting stars in the sky. It is more likely that he was born in a small village in the USSR, while his father was serving as a Soviet-backed general during the second world war.
Kim’s early life was spent in the shadows of a self-created legend, his father Kim Il-sung, who was to return to Korea in 1945 after independence from Japan, and establish, initially with Soviet and Chinese support, the DPRK. His brother and mother were both to die before he was eight. He was to witness the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, which saw hundreds of thousands of Koreans, Chinese, and Americans as part of a UN force battle across the country, returning almost to the point at which they had started. The armistice signed in 1953 settled the border between South and North Korea at the 38th Parallel.
With the descent of the cold war, relations between the two countries (for this is, to all intents and purposes, what they became after the end of the war) were almost completely broken off, with whole families split for the ensuing decades, some for ever. This event and its after-effects, along with the war against the Japanese in the 1940s, was to cast a long shadow over the years ahead, and led to the creation of the wholly unprecedented worship of Kim Il-sung, and his elevation to almost God-like status. It was also to create the system in which his son was to occupy almost as impossibly elevated a position.
Kim was educated at the newly founded university in Pyongyang, named after his father, graduating in 1964. The 1960s and early 1970s were the golden years for the DPRK. It undertook rapid industrialisation, economically outstripped its southern competitor, and enjoyed the support of both the People’s Republic of China, and the Soviet Union. A state ideology, mixing nationalism, and basic Marxist economics, going under the name “Juche” was constructed, and Kim Il-sung effectively silenced, disposed of and cleared away any opposition, isolating the country, and exercising an iron grip on the military, the state media, and the government and party organs.
Kim Jong-il’s early career within the party was spent dealing with propaganda. He had a life-long interest in film, and indeed wrote a treatise, On Cinema, which was to attain the status of canonical truth after his father’s death, along with all of his other utterances. In 1973 he became party secretary of the propaganda department, and, in 1974, was designated his father’s successor, creating in effect the world’s first communist family succession. In 1980 he was elevated to the Politburo, and was granted the epitaph “Dear Leader”, as opposed to “Great Leader”, which had been granted by his father to himself. In 1991, he was named Commander of the DPRK armed forces. The death of his father in 1994 led to his ultimately being appointed general secretary of the Korean Workers Party, the ultimate seat of power. His father was to maintain his position as “eternal president”, and to this day, the DPRK enjoys a head of state who has been dead since 1994.
There is great controversy over the extent of Kim’s powers and influence in the latter years of his father’s long period in power. To some historians, Kim was no more than his father’s puppet, and had no real basis for power in the party, which explains the bitter years from 1994 in which he disappeared from view, waging a long battle for legitimacy within the party and army. To others, he was a negative, malevolent influence over his father from the 1970s onwards, when North Korean began its long and tragic descent into economic depravation, isolation, starvation and poverty.
By 1980, South Korea had overtaken its northern neighbour, and was well on its way to being one of the Asian tigers – high performing economies, with democratic movements ultimately winning power in the 1990s. The withdrawal of most Soviet aid in 1991, with the fall of the Soviet empire, pushed North Korea further down. Kim Il-sung had held a genuine place on North Korean people’s affections. His son was regarded as a shadowy playboy, with rumours circulating over the years that he imported Russian and Chinese prostitutes, and lived a life of profligacy and excess.
More worrying for the international community were the clear connections between Kim and the bombing of a South Korean plane in 1987 which killed 115 people, and the murder by bombing of 17 South Korean officials while on a visit to Burma in 1983. Kim’s admissions, years later, when he met Prime Minister of Japan Junichiro Koizumi in 2002 that he also had knowledge of the abduction of over a dozen Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s only added to his image as a shadowy, evil character.
This is an oversimplification. Kim was to inherit the very worst legacy of the cold war, in a country torn apart by colonialisation and war, a bitter historical residue which lingers to this day. While he may have had influence on his father, the economic template for the country was set in the 1950s and 1960s, long before he had any say. Its unsustainability only became clear in the very final years of Kim Il-sung’s life. And Kim Jong-il finally had to deal with a complex network of interests in the army and party after his father’s death, something which, combined with the immediate impact of bad harvests, created the terrible famines that claimed up to one million North Korean lives from 1995 to 1999. The official state information agency issued a statement, after the worst of this period was over in 2001, saying that North Korea had stood “on the crossroads of life and death”.
North Korea had signed an agreement in 1993, brokered by a visit by former US President Jimmy Carter, to stop its nuclear programme in return for help in building two power-generating nuclear reactors. Disagreements on both sides meant the reactors were not built, and North Korea progressed towards its own nuclear programme in 2003. A brief thaw in relations between the US and the DPRK at the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000 saw high level visits on both sides, but the George W Bush era saw this momentarily stopped, before North Korea was encouraged back to the negotiating table as part of what were called the Six Party Talks from 2006 onwards.
The election of President Barak Obama in 2008 served to provoke a period of harsh rhetoric, nuclear testing, missile launches, and diplomatic aggression uncharacterstic even for the DPRK. Kim was rumoured to have suffered a stroke in late 2008, incapicitating him. This may have forced him to nominate his youngest son as his successor, though there is precious little firm evidence both for when, why, or even if this decision was made.
Kim Jong-il travelled little, and only ever in a train. He visited Russia and China, and had been to Indonesia. He was reputed to have some 30,000 American films in his personal library, and was one of the world’s main customers for luxury cognac. According to a Japanese chef who worked for him in the 1980s and 1990s, he had a connoisseur’s understanding of the finest cuts of raw fish. While officially married only once, he had a number of “recognised” mistresses, with whom he fathered several children. International politicians that met him were impressed by his factual memory and his quick and easy wit. But there is little dispute about his responsibility for a system which saw widespread human rights abuses and perhaps the worst record for press freedom and government transparency in the world.
He is survived by his wife, Kim Young Suk, one daughter and three officially recognised sons.
Kim Jong-il, politician, born February 16 1941; died December 2011.
“Young general” seen poised to take over North Korea dynasty.
His designated successor is believed to be his third son, Kim Jong-un, who is thought to be in his late 20s. Young and inexperienced, Kim Jong-un is seen as poised to take over North Korea with the death of his father and extend the Kim dynasty’s rule over the reclusive state for a third generation.
Not much is known about the younger Kim, not even his age, though his father, Kim Jong-il, and his autocratic regime had begun making preparations for the son’s transition to power.
Thought to be aged around 27, Kim Jong-un Had already been made a four-star general and occupied a prominent political post when he was reported to have made an important diplomatic visit to neighbouring China in May this year.
Educated in Switzerland, he is thought to speak English and German, and bears a striking resemblance to his grandfather, the North’s founder, Kim Il-sung.
Vaclav Havel, an anti-Communist playwright, who became Czech President and a worldwide symbol of peace and freedom after leading the bloodless “Velvet Revolution”, died at the age of 75 on 16.12.2011.
Czechs joined their leaders and foreign politicians 16.12.2011 in paying tribute to Vaclav Havel, who led the 1989 Velvet Revolution that peacefully toppled communism in the former Czechoslovakia.
A black flag flew over Prague Castle, the presidential seat, while Czechs lit candles to remember the the dissident playwright who helped kick off the fall of the Iron Curtain and then served as president of Czechoslovakia, and later the Czech Republic.
“Mr. President, thank you for democracy,” read a note placed at the monument to the revolution in downtown Prague.
Havel, the dissident playwright who wove theater into politics to peacefully bring down communism in Czechoslovakia and become a hero of the epic struggle that ended the Cold War, died Sunday morning at his weekend house. He was 75.
He was comforted in his last moments by his wife Dagmar and several nuns, Reuters reported.
Havel was his country’s first democratically elected president after the nonviolent “Velvet Revolution” that ended four decades of repression by a regime he ridiculed as “Absurdistan.”
As president, he oversaw the country’s bumpy transition to democracy and a free-market economy, as well its peaceful 1993 breakup into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Even out of office, the diminutive Czech remained a world figure. He was part of the “new Europe” — in the coinage of then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — of ex-communist countries that stood up for the U.S. when the democracies of “old Europe” opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion.
A former chain-smoker, Havel had a history of chronic respiratory problems dating back to his years in communist jails. He was hospitalized in Prague on Jan. 12, 2009, with an unspecified inflammation, and had developed breathing difficulties after undergoing minor throat surgery.
‘Truth and love must prevail’
Havel left office in 2003, 10 years after Czechoslovakia broke up and just months before both nations joined the European Union. He was credited with laying the groundwork that brought his Czech Republic into the 27-nation bloc, and was president when it joined NATO in 1999.
Shy and bookish, with wispy mustache and unkempt hair, Havel came to symbolize the power of the people to peacefully overcome totalitarian rule.
“Truth and love must prevail over lies and hatred,” Havel famously said. It became his revolutionary motto which he said he always strove to live by.
Havel was nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize, and collected dozens of other accolades worldwide for his efforts as a global ambassador of conscience, defended the downtrodden from Darfur to Myanmar.
Among his many honors were Sweden’s prestigious Olof Palme Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest U.S. civilian award, bestowed on him by President George W. Bush for being “one of liberty’s great heroes.”
An avowed peacenik whose heroes included rockers such as Frank Zappa, he never quite shed his flower-child past and often signed his name with a small heart as a flourish.
In an October 2008 interview with The Associated Press, Havel rebuked Russia for invading Georgia two months earlier, and warned EU leaders against appeasing Moscow. “We should not turn a blind eye … It’s a big test for the West,” he said. Havel also said he saw the global economic crisis as a warning not to abandon basic human values in the scramble to prosper. “It’s a warning against the idea that we understand the world, that we know how everything works,” he told the AP in his office in Prague. The cramped work space was packed with his books, plays and rock memorabilia.
Underground essays
Havel first made a name for himself after the 1968 Soviet-led invasion that crushed the Prague Spring reforms of Alexander Dubcek and other liberally minded communists in what was then Czechoslovakia.
Havel’s plays were banned as hard-liners installed by Moscow snuffed out every whiff of rebellion. But he continued to write, producing a series of underground essays that stand with the work of Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov as the most incisive and eloquent analyses of what communism did to society and the individual. One of his best-known essays, “The Power and the Powerless” written in 1978, borrowed slyly from the immortal opening line of the mid-19th century Communist Manifesto, writing: “A specter is haunting eastern Europe: the specter of what in the West is called ‘dissent.’”
In the essay, he dissected what he called the “dictatorship of ritual” — the ossified Soviet bloc system under Leonid Brezhnev — and imagined what happens when an ordinary greengrocer stops displaying communist slogans and begins “living in truth,” rediscovering “his suppressed identity and dignity.”
Born Oct. 5, 1936, in Prague, the child of a wealthy family which lost extensive property to communist nationalization in 1948, Havel was denied a formal education, eventually earning a degree at night school and starting out in theater as a stagehand.
His political activism began in earnest in January 1977, when he co-authored the human rights manifesto Charter 77, and the cause drew widening attention in the West.
Havel was detained countless times and spent four years in communist jails. His letters from prison to his wife became one of his best-known works. “Letters to Olga” blended deep philosophy with a stream of stern advice to the spouse he saw as his mentor and best friend, and who tolerated his reputed philandering and other foibles.
The events of August 1988 — the 20th anniversary of the Warsaw Pact invasion — first suggested that Havel and his friends might one day replace the faceless apparatchiks who jailed them.
Thousands of mostly young people marched through central Prague, yelling Havel’s name and that of the playwright’s hero, Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, the philosopher who was Czechoslovakia’s first president after it was founded in 1918.
Havel’s arrest in January 1989 at another street protest and his subsequent trial generated anger at home and abroad. Pressure for change was so strong that the communists released him again in May.
That fall, communism began to collapse across Eastern Europe, and in November the Berlin Wall fell. Eight days later, communist police brutally broke up a demonstration by thousands of Prague students.
It was the signal that Havel and his country had awaited. Within 48 hours, a broad new opposition movement was founded, and a day later, hundreds of thousands of Czechs and Slovaks took to the streets.
In three heady weeks, communist rule was broken. Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones arrived just as the Soviet army was leaving. Posters in Prague proclaimed: “The tanks are rolling out — the Stones are rolling in.”
On Dec. 29, 1989, Havel was elected Czechoslovakia’s president by the country’s still-communist parliament. Three days later, he told the nation in a televised New Year’s address: “Out of gifted and sovereign people, the regime made us little screws in a monstrously big, rattling and stinking machine.”
Moral voice
Although he continued to be regarded a moral voice as he decried the shortcomings of his society under democracy, he eventually bent to the dictates of convention and power. His watchwords — “what the heart thinks, the tongue speaks” — had to be modified for day-to-day politics. And post-revolutionary life contained many challenges.
In July 1992, it became clear that the Czechoslovak federation was heading for a split. Considering it a personal failure, Havel resigned as president. But he remained popular and was elected president of the new Czech Republic uncontested.
He was small, but his presence and wit could fill a room. Even late in life, he retained a certain impishness and boyish grin, shifting easily from philosophy to jokes or plain old Prague gossip.
In December 1996, just 11 months after his first wife, Olga Havlova, died of cancer, he lost a third of his right lung during surgery to remove a half-inch malignant tumor. He gave up smoking and married Dagmar Veskrnova, a dashing actress almost 20 years his junior.
Holding a post of immense prestige but little power, Havel’s image suffered in the latter years as his people discovered the difficulties of transforming their society in the post-communist era.
His attempts to reconcile rival politicians were considered by many as unconstitutional intrusions, and his pleas for political leaders to build a “civic society” based on respect, tolerance and individual responsibility went largely unanswered.
Media criticism, once unthinkable, became unrelenting. Serious newspapers questioned his political visions; tabloids focused mainly on his private life and his flashy second wife.
Havel himself acknowledged that his handling of domestic issues never matched his flair for foreign affairs. But when the Czech Republic joined NATO in March 1999, and the European Union in May 2004, his dreams came true.
Early in 2008, Havel returned to his first love: the stage. He published a new play, “Leaving,” about the struggles of a leader on his way out of office, and the work gained critical acclaim. “My return to the stage was not easy,” he said. “It’s not a common thing for someone to be involved in theater, become a president, and then go back.”
The withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq has been a contentious issue within the United States since the beginning of the Iraq War. As the war has progressed from its initial 2003 invasion phase to a multi-year occupation, U.S. public opinion has turned in favor of troop withdrawal. As of May 2007, 55 percent of Americans believed that the Iraq war was a mistake, and 51 percent of registered voters favored troop withdrawal. In late April 2007, the U.S. Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal, but President Bush vetoed this bill soon afterwards. All US Forces are mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008.
Activities during George.W.Bush
On November 17, 2005, Representative John Murtha introduced H.J.Res. 73 , a resolution calling for U.S. forces in Iraq to be “redeployed at the earliest practicable date” to stand as a quick-reaction force in U.S. bases in neighboring countries such as Kuwait. In response, Republicans proposed a resolution that “the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately,” without any provision for redeployment, which was voted down 403-3.
On June 16, 2006, the House voted 256-153 in a non-binding resolution against establishing a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Republican then-House Majority Leader John Boehner, who argued against a deadline, stated “achieving victory is our only option”, and “we must not shy away”. On the other hand, Democratic then-House Minority Leader and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi argued that a deadline is necessary, and stated “’stay the course’ is not a strategy, it’s a slogan”, and “it’s time to face the facts.”
On March 27, 2007, Congress passed H.R. 1591, which called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq by March 2008. However, President Bush vetoed the bill and the House of Representatives failed to override the veto. Congress then passed H.R. 2206, which provided funding for the Iraq War through September 30, 2007 and was signed into law by President Bush on May 25, 2007. H.R. 2206 included eighteen benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet.
On May 9, 2007, Representative Jim McGovern introduced H.R. 2237 to the House: “To provide for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq.” The bill failed with a vote of 255 to 171, thirteen of the Nays coming from Democrats representing districts won by John Kerry in 2004.]
On July 12, 2007 the House passed H.R. 2956 by a vote of 223 to 201, for redeployment (or withdrawal) of U.S. armed forces out of Iraq. The resolution requires most troops to withdraw from Iraq by April 1, 2008.
On July 18, 2007, after an all-night debate, the Senate blocked the passage of a bill that would have set a troop withdrawal timetable with a vote of 52-47. The withdrawal would have started within 120 days, and would have required that all troops (except an unspecified number could be left behind to conduct a very narrow set of missions) be out of the country by April 30, 2008.
McGovern-Polk proposal
Former U.S. Senator George McGovern and William R. Polk, director of the University of Chicago Center for Middle Eastern Studies, published a detailed proposal for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in their book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. (Simon & Schuster, 2006.) A sizable excerpt was published in the October 2006 edition of Harper’s magazine.
This plan was completely abandoned. Some of the basic features of their proposal included:
The first soldiers to be sent home should be private security contractors.
An international stabilization force of 15,000 soldiers to be established. Troops will be drawn from Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt, funded by the U.S. This force would remain for two years after the departure of U.S. troops.
Transport, communications, and light arms equipment currently used by U.S. forces should be donated to the new multinational force.
In place of a new Iraqi army, a national reconstruction corps should be established, modeled on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The immediate cessation of work on U.S. military bases.
U.S. withdrawal from the Green Zone.
Release of all prisoners of war.
2008 U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces bilateral Agreement
In 2008, the US and Iraqi government signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which implments that all US forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and that All US Forces would be mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement. On December 14, 2008, then-U.S. President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq. In his fourth and final trip to Iraq, the president appeared with Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and said more work is to be done.
U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: “Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq”) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat. U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided “major premeditated felonies” while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.
The agreement ceased as of the 16th of December 2011, when the United States completed it final withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially “cased” (retired) the flag of US forces in Iraq, according to army tradition
The Iraqi government also approved a Strategic Framework Agreement with the U.S., aimed at ensuring international cooperation including minority ethnicity, gender, and belief interests and other constitutional rights; threat deterrence; exchange students; education; and cooperation in the areas of energy development, environmental hygiene, health care, information technology, communications, and law enforcement.
Several groups of Iraqis protested the passing of the SOFA accord as prolonging and legitimizing the occupation, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani expressed concerns with the ratified version. Some other Iraqis expressed skepticism that the U.S. would completely end its presence by 2011. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had predicted that after 2011 he would have expected to see “perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops” as part of a residual force in Iraq. Some Americans had discussed “loopholes” and some Iraqis had said they believed parts of the pact remained a “mystery”.
President Obama’s speech on February 27, 2009
On February 27, 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced a deadline for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. According to the president, by August 31, 2010, after nearly seven and a half years of United States military engagement in Iraq, all but a “transitional force” of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would be withdrawn from the Middle Eastern nation. President Obama defined the task of the transitional force as “training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq”. Under this plan, the majority of troops will be withdrawn just a month after the deadline in the signed agreement between former President George W. Bush and Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki where the majority of troops will be withdrawn at one point, and the entirety of troops to be out by December 31, 2011.
August 2010 partial withdrawal
On August 19, 2010, the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was the last US combat brigade to withdraw from Iraq. About 50,000 US troops will remain in the country in an advisory capacity. According to the US, they will help to train Iraqi forces in a new mission dubbed by the US as “Operation New Dawn,” which will run until the end of 2011. The mission that ended August 19, 2010 was dubbed by the US as “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” at a projected cost of more than $900 billion and 4,415 US troops killed in action. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were estimated to be killed, according to the Iraq Body Count website. President Obama announced the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom in his Oval Office address on August 31, 2010.
Full withdrawal
With the collapse of the discussions about extending the stay of any U.S. troops, on October 21, 2011, President Obama announced the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq as scheduled before. The U.S. will retain an embassy in Baghdad and two consulates with around 4,000 to 5,000 defense contractors. President Obama and al-Maliki outlined a broad agenda for post-war cooperation without American troops in Iraq during a joint press conference on December 12, 2011 at the White House. This agenda includes cooperation on energy, trade and education as well as cooperation in security, counter-terrorism, economic development and strengthening Iraq’s institutions. Both leaders said their countries will maintain strong security, diplomatic and economic ties after the last U.S. combat forces withdraw at the end of 2011.
President Barack Obama paid tribute to the troops who served in Iraq on December 14, 2011, at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina. As the last of the American troops prepared to exit Iraq, he said the United States was leaving behind a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” Iraq. On December 15, an American military ceremony was held in Baghdad putting a formal end to the U.S mission in Iraq. Only 4,000 U.S troops remain in Iraq and they are scheduled to leave by the end of the year, leaving behind 200 Marine Security Guards and 15,000 embassy personnel.
Key dates in the 2003-2011 Iraq war
2003
—March 20: U.S. forces attack Baghdad with missiles and bombs in a failed attempt to kill Saddam Hussein. U.S. and allied ground troops roll into Iraq.
—April 9: American troops storm Baghdad and the statue of Saddam is toppled in Firdous Square, the symbolic collapse of his regime.
—May 1: President George W. Bush declares an end to major combat operations.
—July 22: Saddam’s sons Oday and Qusay are killed in a gunfight in Mosul.
—Aug. 7: A car bomb strikes the Jordanian Embassy, the first such attack of the war. Twelve days later, a truck bomb demolishes the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad, killing top U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello and 21 others.
—Sept 3: U.S. announces an Iraqi administration largely made up of Iraqi exiles who opposed Saddam.
—Oct. 26: A barrage of rockets slams into the Al-Rasheed Hotel in the Green Zone, killing an American lieutenant colonel and injuring 17 other people. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the war, who was visiting Baghdad, escapes injury.
—Dec. 13: Saddam is captured in an underground hideout near Tikrit.
___
2004
—Feb. 1: Two suicide bombers attack Kurdish political offices in Irbil, killing 117 people and injuring 133.
—March 2: Multiple explosions rock Baghdad and Karbala at the climax of a Shiite festival, killing nearly 200 people in the deadliest attack so far.
—March 31: Four Blackwater security contractors are ambushed and killed in Fallujah, setting off the first battle for the insurgent-dominated city west of Baghdad.
—April 4: Followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr launch attacks across southern Iraq after the U.S tries to close his newspaper. Fighting rages until the end of August.
—April 18: U.S. announces an investigation into abuses against detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison as gruesome photos emerge showing Iraqi prisoners humiliated.
—May 17: The head of the Iraqi Governing Council, Ezzedine Salim, is killed in suicide attack near the entrance to the Green Zone.
—May 19: U.S. jets mistakenly bomb a wedding party in western Iraq, killing 42 people, including women and children.
—June 28: The U.S. transfers sovereignty to the Iraqis but retains most real power. The civilian head of the occupation authority, L. Paul Bremer, leaves the country.
—July 1: Trial of Saddam begins with the ousted leader appearing at his first hearing.
—Sept. 30: A car bomb strikes American troops handing out candy to children, killing up to 35 children.
—Nov. 7: U.S. soldiers and Marines launch the biggest attack of the war to date to seize the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.
—Dec. 21: A bomb kills 22 people, including 18 Americans, at Forward Operating Base Marez in Mosul.
___
2005
—Jan. 26: A helicopter crashes in western Iraq, killing 31 Americans.
—Jan. 30: Iraqis select a new parliament in the first elections since the fall of Saddam. Shiite and Kurdish parties take an overwhelming majority after Sunnis largely boycott.
—Feb. 28: A vehicle bomb kills 127 people in Hillah in the deadliest blast to date.
—March 4: Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena is freed by Italian intelligence but the rescuing agent is killed when U.S. troops fire on their vehicle en route to Baghdad airport.
—Aug. 28: An Iraqi commission submits a draft constitution to parliament.
—Aug. 31: Rumors of a suicide bomber panics Shiite marchers in a religious procession at a Baghdad bridge and nearly 10,000 people reportedly die in the stampede.
—Sept. 14: A series of bombings kills 160 people in Baghdad in a dramatic escalation of the insurgency.
—Oct. 15: Iraqis approve the new constitution in a referendum.
—Oct. 24: The Palestine and Sheraton hotels, favored by Western journalists, are struck by multiple truck bombs.
—Nov. 19: U.S. troops kill 24 people, including 15 noncombatants, in Haditha after an insurgent attack.
—Dec. 15: Iraqis choose a new parliament in the first election under the new constitution.
___
2006
—Feb. 22: Sunni militants bomb the Shiite Golden Dome shrine in Samarra, triggering a wave of sectarian violence that brings Iraq to the brink of civil war.
—June 7: The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is killed in a U.S. airstrike northeast of Baghdad.
—June 17: U.S. troops launch a battle to take control of the western city of Ramadi in a bloody conflict that persists for more than a year.
—July 9: Shiite militias kill 40 Sunnis in the Jihad neighborhood of Baghdad as sectarian war spreads to the capital.
—Nov. 23: Bombs kill more than 200 Shiites in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood.
—Dec. 30: Saddam is executed by hanging.
___
2007
—Jan. 10: President Bush orders 30,000 reinforcements to Iraq in an effort to stem the sectarian war and stabilize Baghdad.
—Jan. 28: Followers of a Shiite cult launch a battle in Najaf that kills nearly 300 people.
—Feb. 3: A bomb in a Baghdad market kills 135 people.
—Feb. 27: Shiite militias besiege British bases in Basra, ultimately prompting most British forces to leave the country.
—March 23: Iranians seize 15 British navy personnel patrolling near Basra, releasing them April 4.
—March 27: A blast in Tal Afar kills 152 people, setting off a wave of Shiite reprisals that claim 70 Sunni lives.
—April 18: Bombs across Baghdad kill nearly 200 people.
—Aug. 14: A series of bombings directed against the Yazidi religious community in the north kills nearly 800 people.
—Aug. 29: Muqtada al-Sadr announces a cease-fire after a public backlash against his militia following a clash in Karbala that killed 50 people. Attacks against U.S. troops in Shiite areas begin to drop.
—Sept. 16: Blackwater security guards mistakenly believing they were under attack kill 17 civilians in Nisoor Square in Baghdad.
___
2008
—Jan. 8: U.S. and Iraqi forces launch operations in Baghdad to secure the capital.
—Jan. 23: Operations begin in Mosul against al-Qaida’s last major urban stronghold.
—Feb. 21: Turkey launches an offensive in northern Iraq against Kurdish rebels from the PKK.
—March 25: Heavy fighting breaks out in Basra as Iraqi forces try to crush Shiite militias, which launch counterattacks in Baghdad. Fighting rages for a month until the Shiites accept a cease-fire.
—Oct. 26: U.S. special operations troops strike in Syria to break up a ring smuggling weapons and fighters into Iraq.
—Nov. 27: The Iraqi parliament approves an agreement with the U.S. calling for the departure of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.
___
2009
—May 27: The last British combat troops leave Iraq.
—Aug. 19: A massive truck bomb kills about 100 people in Baghdad.
—Oct. 25: Bombs targeting government buildings kill 127 in Baghdad.
___
2010
—March 7: Iraqi parliamentary election fails to give power to a single bloc, leading to months of political negotiations and infighting that drag on until a power-sharing deal in November.
—Aug. 18: U.S. combat operations in Iraq end as its last combat brigade departs for Kuwait. Thousands of troops remain behind in a supporting role.
___
2011
—April 8: The Iraqi army raids Camp Ashraf, home to Iranian exiles. The raid kills 34 civilians and produces calls for the Iraqi government to honor agreements for the protection of the camp.
—May 5: Car bomb in Hillah kills nearly 30 people.
—June 21: A bomb in the southern city of Diwaniyah kills 20 and injures 30.
—Oct. 21: President Barack Obama announces all troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year.
—Dec. 15: The U.S. military officially declares the end of its mission.
Killing of Osama Bin Laden voted Top News Story of 2011
The killing of Osama bin Laden during a raid by Navy SEALs on his hideout in Pakistan was the top news story of 2011, followed by Japan’s earthquake/tsunami disaster, according to The Associated Press’ annual poll of U.S. editors and news directors.
The death of bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, received 128 first-place votes out of 247 ballots cast for the top 10 stories. The Japan disaster was next, with 60 first-place votes. Placing third were the Arab Spring uprisings that rocked North Africa and the Middle East, while the European Union’s financial turmoil was No. 4.
The international flavour of these top stories contrasted with last year’s voting when the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was the top story, President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul was No. 2, and the U.S. midterm elections were No. 3.
Here are 2011’s top 10 stories, in order
Osama Bin Laden’s Death: He’d been the world’s most-wanted terrorist for nearly a decade, ever since a team of his al-Qaeda followers carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In May, the long and often-frustrating manhunt ended with a night-time assault by a helicopter-borne special operations squad on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Bin Laden was shot dead by one of the raiders, and within hours his body was buried at sea.
Japan’s Triple Disaster: A 9.0-magnitude earthquake off Japan’s northeast coast in March unleashed a tsunami that devastated scores of communities, leaving nearly 20,000 people dead or missing and wreaking an estimated $218 billion in damage. The tsunami triggered the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl after waves knocked out the cooling system at a nuclear power plant, causing it to spew radiation that turned up in local produce. About 100,000 people evacuated from the area have not returned to their homes.
Arab Spring: It began with demonstrations in Tunisia that rapidly toppled the long-time strongman. Spreading like a wildfire, the Arab Spring protests sparked a revolution in Egypt that ousted Hosni Mubarak, fuelled a civil war in Libya that climaxed with Muammar Qadhafi’s death, and fomented a bloody uprising in Syria against the Assad regime. Bahrain and Yemen also experienced major protests and unrest.
Eu Fiscal Crisis: The European Union was hit with relentless fiscal turmoil. In Greece, austerity measures triggered strikes, protests and riots, while Italy’s economic woes toppled Premier Silvio Berlusconi. France and Germany led urgent efforts to ease the debt crisis; Britain balked at proposed changes.
U.S. Economy: By some measures, the U.S. economy gained strength as the year progressed. Hiring picked up a bit, consumers were spending more, and the unemployment rate finally dipped below 9 percent. But millions of Americans remained buffeted by foreclosures, joblessness and benefit cutbacks, and investors were on edge monitoring the chain of fiscal crises in Europe.
Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal: One of America’s most storied college football programs was tarnished in a scandal that prompted the firing of Hall of Fame football coach Joe Paterno. One of his former assistants, Jerry Sandusky, was accused of sexually molesting 10 boys; two senior Penn State officials were charged with perjury; and the long-time president was ousted. Paterno wasn’t charged, but expressed regret he didn’t do more after being told there was a problem.
Qadhafi Toppled In Libya: After nearly 42 years of mercurial and often brutal rule, Muammar Qadhafi was toppled by his own people. Anti-government protests escalated into an eight-month rebellion, backed by NATO bombing, that shattered his regime, and Qadhafi finally was tracked down and killed in the fishing village where he was born.
Fiscal Showdowns In Congress: Partisan divisions in Congress led to several showdowns on fiscal issues. A fight over the debt ceiling prompted Standard & Poor’s to strip the U.S. of its AAA credit rating. Later, the so-called “super committee” failed to agree on a deficit-reduction package of at least $1.2 trillion potentially triggering automatic spending cuts of that amount starting in 2013.
Occupy Wall Street Protests: It began Sept. 17 with a protest at a New York City park near Wall Street, and within weeks spread to scores of communities across the U.S. and abroad. The movement depicted itself as leaderless and shied away from specific demands, but succeeded in airing its complaint that the richest 1 percent of Americans benefit at the expense of the rest. As winter approached, local police dismantled several of the protest encampments.
Gabrielle Giffords Shot: The popular third-term congresswoman from Arizona suffered a severe brain injury when she and 18 other people were shot by a gunman as she met with constituents outside a Tucson supermarket in January. Six people died, and Giffords’ painstaking recovery is still in progress.
Among the news events falling just short of the Top 10 were the death of Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs, Hurricane Irene, the devastating series of tornados across Midwest and South-eastern U.S., and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that barred gays from serving openly in U.S. military.
Describing as discriminatory, the All India Management Association (AIMA) on 17.12.2012 has opposed the Common Management Admission Test (CMAT) announced by the Centre for admission to all management courses. The apex body of management professionals, AIMA, has been conducting the Management Aptitude Test (MAT) for the past two decades.
In a letter to the Human Resource Development Ministry, the AIMA has said MAT’s uniqueness and success lay in its inclusiveness. It is conducted in both the online and paper-based format, reaching out to a much wider audience, accommodating the mixed education background of students while staying rigorous on testing aptitude.
The proposal to introduce and conduct a common management aptitude test (CMAT) exclusively in an online format is ill-suited to a big and diverse country like India. “While such a platform might work for more elite tests like CAT, which are mainly targeted at students in metros seeking admission to Indian Institutes of Management, conducting a common test of this nature in an only online format would only widen the digital divide.”
A large number of students who would avail themselves of this test would be from tier 2 and 3 towns, where accessibility to computers is limited; add to this connectivity, bandwidth and power issues. An online format will hurt the opportunities of many students from non-metros and less-connected areas. Instead of enhancing the scope and accessibility to management degrees, it will only end up being discriminatory, the letter said.
Citing the AIEEE-2011 test, the AIMA said only 4,900 candidates had opted for computer-based test of the 11 lakh applicants which showed that though there had been a significant growth in computer literacy, the reach has not been inclusive with reference to demographic distribution.
India’s apex body for disaster management is preparing “mandatory” guidelines for hospitals that will cover fire and other emergency hazards, after a major tragedy struck a private super speciality medical centre in Kolkata killing over 90 people in December, 201.
A core group would be constituted that would decide the guidelines for hospitals that would “cover fire and all other hazards”, a National Disaster Management Authority spokesperson told.
The NDMA had in the past issued guidelines for medical preparedness and mass casualty management “but it largely dealt with preparedness of hospitals to deal with disasters outside the hospital”, the spokesperson told.
The official said a meeting of NDMA officials was held on 16.12.2011 evening and after a brain-storming session with different officers and experts it was decided to prepare guidelines for hospital safety and preparedness to deal with on-site emergencies.
The decision was taken in the wake of the recent fire accident at AMRI Hospital at Kolkata, the spokesperson said. ”We have to now address this major issue of emergencies inside the hospitals both in the government and private sectors in the country,” NDMA vice chairman M. Shashidhar Reddy said in the meeting. The meeting was convened to review the present status of hospital safety and understand the role and responsibilities of different agencies.
Members and officers of NDMA, representatives from World Health Organisation (WHO), UN agencies, AIIMS, health ministry, Armed Forces Medical Services, corporate hospitals, Delhi Fire Service, experts from IITs, IIITs and NGOs were present at the meeting.
NDMA member Muzaffar Ahmed was tasked with constituting the core group of experts and preparing the guidelines for hospital safety and preparedness after wide consultation with all stakeholders. ”The core group, besides reviewing the present status, will identify gaps and look at international best practices. It will also look at the existing codes and other legal provisions and recommend steps for better monitoring and supervision of all safety measures,” the spokesperson said.
NDMA, constituted under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and headed by the prime minister, has been tasked with spearheading and implementing a holistic and integrated approach to disaster management in the country.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 15.12.2011 arrived Moscow on a three-day visit to Russia for further expanding bilateral cooperation and consolidating coordination on regional and global issues.
Singh arrived at the Sheremetyevo International Airport and was received by Russia’s deputy foreign minister A M Vadakin.
Noting that there is enormous mutual goodwill in the two countries for each other, Singh, prior to his departure, had said in New Delhi that he is “convinced that India-Russia consultation on global issues is more necessary today than ever before”. “Both countries recognise the significant mutual benefit we derive from working together. I will utilise my visit to further expand our bilateral cooperation and further consolidate our coordination on regional and global issues. “This is in our national interest and in the interest of global peace and prosperity,” the Prime Minister, who will be attending the 12th annual Indo-Russian Summit in Moscow, said in a statement.
Observing that 2011 India-Russia Annual Summit was taking place against the backdrop of a complex international environment, Singh said he was “looking forward to an indepth exchange of views with the Russian leadership on the crisis facing the global economy and the political developments in our extended neighbourhood, including West Asia, Gulf and Afghanistan and the impact of all this on peace and stability in the world.
“I am convinced that India-Russia consultation on global issues is more necessary today than ever before. Our bilateral relations with Russia are based on mutual trust, friendship and shared interests,” he had said, noting that bilateral ties encompass diverse sectors including nuclear energy, defence, space, science and technology, hydrocarbons, trade and investment and people-to-people exchanges.
Five Agreements signed
The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, left Moscow for India on 17.12.2011 after concluding a three-day visit during which he attended the 12th annual Indo-Russian summit and witnessed inking of five agreements, including one for technical assistance in joint production of 42 more frontline Sukhoi-MKI 30 jets.
Dr Singh, who held talks with the President, Mr Dmitry Medvedev, cleared the uncertainty over the Kudankulam nuclear power project on 16.12.2011 and said the first unit of the protest-hit plant will be operationalised in a “couple of weeks” but India and Russia did not sign any agreement on construction of the third and fourth units.
The two countries signed a crucial agreement for technical assistance in joint production of 42 more frontline Sukhoi-MKI 30 jets, which was among the five pacts initialled in the presence of Dr Singh and Mr Medvedev besides a joint statement on Indo-Russian partnership.
Russia also backed India’s bid for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council as well as its aspirations to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, while Dr Singh welcomed Moscow’s entry to the World Trade Organization.
Dr Singh congratulated his counterpart, Mr Vladimir Putin, on the victory of his ruling United Russia party in the December 4, 2011 parliamentary polls, during their meeting.
Russia to offer 42 upgraded Sukhois to India
An additional 42 Sukhoi frontline fighters will be provided to India by Russia under an agreement inked between the two sides during the visit of the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh. With this pact, the total number of acquired or contracted aircraft by India in various stages of manufacture of the frontline Su-30 MKI fighters would increase to 272.
The agreement for the upgraded Sukhois was signed by the Defence Secretary, Mr Shashi Kant Sharma, and the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Director, Mr M.A. Dmitriev, in the presence of Dr Singh, and the Russian President, Mr Dmitry Medvedev, after their talks at the 12th annual Indo-Russian Summit at the Kremlin 0n 16.12.2011.
The pact, which was among the five agreements initialled between the two countries, came against the backdrop of a crash of an Indian Air Force’s Sukhoi-30 near Pune. The mishap, in which the two pilots ejected safely, raised some technical questions and also led to the grounding of the entire fleet of 120 planes pending investigations.
An Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) and a general contract were signed in 2000 for the manufacture of 140 Su-30 MKI aircraft by HAL. A 2007 protocol envisaged manufacture of a further 40 aircraft. Earlier, 50 Su-30 aircraft were purchased in phases prior to the signing of IGA and deliveries started in the late 90s. The latest version is expected to include a new cockpit, an upgraded radar and certain stealth features to avoid radar detection.
Significantly, the upgraded Sukhoi-30 MKIs will be able to carry a heavier weapons load, especially the airborne version of the Brahmos cruise missile. The first delivery of the upgraded Sukhois is expected in 2014 and the last by 2018.
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant is a Nuclear Power station currently under construction in Koodankulam in the Tirunelvelli district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Project investment cost to India was estimated to be US$ 3 billion (Rs.13,615 Crores) in a 2001 agreement.
History
An Inter-Governmental Agreement on the project was signed on November 20, 1988 by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The project remained in limbo for 10 years due to political and economic upheaval in Russia after the post-1991 Soviet breakup, and also due to objections of the United States on the grounds that the agreement does not meet the 1992 terms of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
Since the plant was conceived in the mid-1980s, an anti-nuclear group People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy was opposing the plant for about 25 years due to the Environmental impact of nuclear power and its threat to the people and environment.
A small port became operational in Kudankulam on January 14, 2004. This port was established to receive barges carrying over sized light water reactor equipment from ships anchored at a distance of 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi). Until 2004 materials had to be brought in via road from the port of Tuticorin, risking damage during transportation.
In 2008 negotiation on building four additional reactors at the site began. Though the capacity of these reactors has not been declared, it is expected that the capacity of each reactor will be 1000 MW or 1 GW.The new reactors would bring the total capacity of the power plant to 9200 MW or 9.2 GW.
In June 2011, Sergei Ryzhov, the chief designer of the light water VVER nuclear reactors used at this Nuclear Power Plant was killed in an airplane accident. The plane belonging to the Rus-Air airlines was flying from Moscow to the Karelian capital Petrozavodsk.
Technical description
Two 1 GW reactors of the VVER-1000 model are being constructed by the Nuclear Power corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Atomstroyexport. When completed they will become the largest nuclear power generation complex in India producing a cumulative 2 GW of electric power. Both units are water-cooled, water-moderated power reactors. The first was scheduled to start operation in December 2009 and the second one was scheduled for March 2010. Currently, the official projections put unit 1 into operation in June 2011, and unit 2 will go in March 2012.
Four more reactors are set to be added to this plant under a memorandum of intent signed in 2008. A firm agreement on setting up two more reactors, has been postponed pending the ongoing talks on liability issues. Under an inter-government agreement signed in December 2008 Russia is to supply to India four third generation VVER-1200 reactors of 1170 MW.
The reactors have some advanced safety features like passive heat removal system, double containment, Core Catcher, and hydrogen re-combiner instead of conventional systems
Controversy
As of October 2011, thousands of protesters and villagers living around the Russian-built Koodankulam nuclear plant in the southern Tamil Nadu state, are blocking highways and staging hunger strikes, preventing further construction work, and demanding its closure as they fear of the disasters like the Environmental impact of nuclear power, Radioactive waste, nuclear accident similar to the radiation leak in March at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster.
The protesters have clearly stated few specific reasons for opposing the Koodankulam NPP project.
According to S P Udayakumar, of the voluntary People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, “the nuclear plant is unsafe” and “the safety analysis report and the site evaluation study have not been made public. No public hearing was held. It’s an authoritarian project that has been imposed on the people.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha that “all precautions would be taken at the Koodankulam nuclear plant to maintain the highest safety standards”.
Protesters claimed that even advanced countries like Germany has decided to shutdown all its 17 Nuclear reactors through which the country gets 23% of its energy.
Gopal Gandhi, Grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, former West Bengal governor also said that Indian Fukushima possible in a lecture on ‘India 2021- Hazarding Guesses, Guessing Hazards’ in New Delhi)
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government’s civil nuclear program at the apex Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the “staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies”.
Protesters also claimed that the Fukushima disaster in which the emergency cooling system itself was damaged by the earthquake, has made it clear that no one can really predict any disaster occurance.
A center panel constituted by the Government of India ,which did a survey of the safety features in the plant,said the Koodankulam reactors are the safest and fears of the people are not based on scientific principles.Dr. Muthunayagam,panel’s convener,also added that the protesters have asked for some documents which are not related to the safety of the reactor hence he suspects the very nature of their questions.
In response to the center panel report, protesters wrote an open letter to the chief minister Jayalalithaa that the center panel’s report is “ill-baked and incomplete eyewash report” and also said that the report has “ignored our question on liability, and has given no specific or scientific information on nuclear waste, and vague information on the fresh water needs of the KKNPP”
Activities that’s been Going For 25 Years
The ongoing people’s agitation to protest against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) in the coastal village of Idinthakarai in Tirunelveli might have been triggered by a bout of panic after the Fukushima disaster, but anti-nuclear activists in Tamil Nadu see in it the fruition of their sustained campaign in various forms since a quarter century.
While the present agitation has thrown up a major challenge to the Union government and the nuclear establishment mainly because it is being staged by the people living in the backyard of the nuclear reactors, the awareness on the hazards of nuclear plants among the people was not created overnight, say some activists, who had started raising their voice against the project way back in 1987 even when the project was in the conceptual stage.
Though some of those activists are still directly involved in the fight against the commissioning of the reactors in Koodankulam, many of them have moved out to give moral support from the sidelines. Anton Gomez, leader of the Tamil Nadu Fishermen Association, from Thoothukudi, who was one of the pioneers in organising a campaign initially, is still around and was part of the team that called on PM Manmohan Singh recently.
Prominent among those who were part of the Koodankulam Anti-nuke Confederation, the organisation that sought to stir the consciousness of the people all over Tamil Nadu and also in places such as Mumbai and Delhi after its launch in 1988 were: Gomez, Mani, an engineer-turned journalist G Ramesh, Fr Samy of Indian Catholic Youth Federation and Dr C N Deivanayagam of Chennai.
The first campaign, however, was in Idinthakarai in September, 1987, with many speakers from Chennai, including journalists like Ramesh, addressing the crowd, Mani told Express.
In 1988, a cycle rally by about 150 people was taken up by the Indian People’s Front (IPF) from Thoothukudi to Tirunelveli through Nagercoil and Koodankulam when the tail end of the procession came under attack at Koodankulam. Mani said that a counter campaign was launched by the CPM and the Congress then — CPM because the project involved the erstwhile Soviet Union and the Congress because then PM Rajiv Gandhi was the one who envisaged it.
The same year, a rally and public meeting was also held in Tirunelveli by the confederation, in which Rev Y David, a Protestant pastor-turned social activist, who then ran an organisation called Samathuva Samudhya Iyakkam and working for the welfare of Palmyra workers, brought in his people.
Former Union minister George Fernandes was the main speaker in a meeting held in Thoothukudi in 1989 when Balaprajathipathi Adigalar, the head of the Ayavazhi cult, took an active part. Some local BJP leaders also addressed the crowd and even the Dravidar Kazhagam’s representative was on stage, said Mani.
Those days, newspapers and magazines in Tamil Nadu actively carried features and stories on the campaign and also ran articles written by people like Ramesh, whose series was titled Kollavarum Koodankulam (Death threat from Koodankulam). When the then DMK MP, Vaiko, said in Parliament that “humanity will be wiped out if the plant comes,” some papers even carried it as the lead story, Mani recalled.
Subsequently, when then USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev visited India, two black flag protests were attempted in Delhi and Mumbai by the confederation.
When a national fishermen’s rally, led by Fr Thomas Kocheri, visited Kanyakumari in 1989 under the title ‘Save water, save life’, slogans were raised against Koodankulam and there was even a police firing. In Mumbai, a protest was held in 1989 at Kala Goda under the banner of Indian Federation of Trade Unions (ML group). IPF organised rallies and protests in Chennai. Fr Samy organised a ‘Scientific Conference’ in Madurai and prepared 100 students to campaign in non-fishing villages around Koodankulam.
Meanwhile, when there were plans to supply water to the plant from Pechiparai dam in Kanyakumari, a local politician Dr Kumaradoss organised a series of protests by mobilising the farmers. Between May 3 and 13, 1989, several street corner meetings were held in non-fishing villages and on the final day a meeting was organised in Koodankulam. Police initially refused permission for the meeting citing law and order problems but finally relented by allowing it in a school ground. Mani recalled that the police officer told them that it was the same ground from where Rajiv Gandhi was to have addressed the crowd when he was expected to visit Koodankulam to lay the foundation stone for the project. But police barricaded the area preventing many people from entering the ground, Mani said.
Rajiv Gandhi never came mainly because of the protests. Even other dignitaries like former President R Venkatraman and former chief minister M Karunanidhi were expected for the inauguration, said Mani.
Then the project itself went into limbo with the disintegration of the USSR and the campaign lost steam.
Again when the project was revived under an Indo-Russian agreement, the campaign gained strength and many meetings were held. Apart from that, activists distributed pamphlets and booklets against nuclear energy. One of the booklets by Y David, Koodankulam Anumin Nilayam — Vendave Vendam (Koodankulam nuclear plant — No, No), which was first brought out in 1988, was very popular among the people that it ran into four print, runs subsequently with updates. The fourth run was in 1997.
The present leader of the movement, S P Udayakumar, returned from the US in 2001 when David was leading the campaign with Balaprajathipathi Adigalar taking an active role. As David said, he found in Udayakumar an effective leader and handed over the mantle. Udayakumar said he had been holding street corner meetings and distributing pamphlets for the last several years. He had even brought Medha Patkar to Koodankulam to address meetings. He said he is still mobilising support.
Former President A.P.J.Abdul Kalam’s Stand
Former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam said the Kudankulam nuclear plant was absolutely safe but failed to convince those agitating against the commissioning of the facility, located 650km from Chennai.
Kalam, who visited the project site, said he had not come to play mediator. But the protesters argued that Kalam’s decision to meet only the plant officials and not villagers’ representatives proved he had come merely to issue a certificate to the nuclear facility.
The Centre has appointed a 15-member committee to reassure the villagers about the plant’s safety features. It had also requested Kalam, a votary of nuclear power and weapons, to affirm the safety of the plant. The government was looking to exploit the popularity that the former President, a Tamil, enjoys among the masses.
Kalam spent three hours inspecting the plant and being briefed on its various features. “He asked many questions about safety. He wanted to know how we can be sure that a disaster like Chernobyl (Russia) or Fukushima (Japan) would not happen here,” station director R.S. Sundar said. “We explained that the technology to be used here is much more advanced, and so are the safety features.”
Later, Kalam told the media the plant had put in place all the necessary safety features. He cited the mechanism to ensure automatic cooling of the plant in the event of a power cut followed by a generator failure, the double-wall protection, structural safety and the containers to store the 25 per cent residual fuel. He allayed the radiation fears too. “Also, there is no need to worry about the safety aspect of the plant as it is in a low-intensity seismic zone. There is also no threat of a tsunami as the plant is 1,300km from the seismic centre point and is 13.5 metres above the sea level,” Kalam said.
Fight ‘irrational’ anti-nuclear stance, says former AEC chief
Nuclear power is a safe and viable long term alternative to traditional sources of power and an anti-nuclear stance is `irrational’, according to Dr M.R. Srinivasan, Member and former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Government of India.
Addressing an interactive session on the need of nuclear power and safety norms, in the context of the ongoing agitation that has stalled work on the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project in south Tamil Nadu, Dr Srinivasan said, “all need to join in fighting this attack” on nuclear power projects.
Recalling his close association with the nuclear power projects programme in India since the 1970s, Dr Srinivasan said India with more over 20 nuclear power reactors in operation has an impeccable record in terms of operations and safety.
Some of the reactors have been online for more than a year at a time. “The critics on the streets do not know what it takes to keep such equipment going” for that long uninterrupted, he said referring to the expertise available in India.
Safety Assured
The Kudankulam facility, with “advanced third generation”, reactors has abundant safety measures built into it beginning from the choice of location to the multi-level safety and back-up equipment that have been provided.
In comparison, the Fukushima reactor in Japan, where the combined earthquake and tsunami had damaged the reactors earlier this year, was a first generation unit. The possibility of such an incident happening here is inconceivable as the Kudankulam facility is not in a seismic zone compared with Japan which is ‘extremely seismic’.
Cheap Power
Nuclear power projects are key to the development of the economy as traditional resources are becoming costlier and renewable sources such as wind and solar are either costlier or the technology is not sufficient to power industrial development. Some of the earliest nuclear power projects such as the Tarapore unit churn out power at Rs 1 a kWhr, while later ones cost about Rs 2-3 a kWhr. Power from Kudankulam, if the project is not disrupted for long, will cost less than Rs 3, he said.
The State Government is talking about large infrastructure projects such as the metro rail and mono rail. But if there is ‘no juice’ to power the projects these would be dead investments, he said.
At the meeting organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry – Southern Region, Ms Gayathri Sriram, Chairperson, CII’s women empowerment forum and Managing Director, Ucal, said the industry is concerned about the prevailing shortage of power which was hitting the manufacturing sector. It had been hoping that additional generation capacities would help address the shortage but now a solution to the power shortage was being delayed.
Kudankulam protests overdone, says PM
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 17.12.2011 said the agitation against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project in Tamil Nadu has been “overdone”, and expressed hope that it would end soon as the government had gone “out of the way” to assure the villagers about the safeguards of the facility.
Manmohan Singh,while in Moscow for a summit meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Kudankulam’s unit I would go operational in a few weeks. He also said that with a total 2,000 MW capacity, the first two units of Kudankulam built over the last decade at a cost of Rs14,000 crore, “cannot be simply left idle.”
The second unit of Kudankulam, the Prime Minister said, would be operational in another six months after unit I.
Manmohan Singh said he was in touch with the state government and it was his hope that the state, which is short of power, will recognise that the nuclear plant, with 2,000 MW capacity, will bring nearly 1,000 MW to it, while the other half would go to other southern States.
1. On 29-10-1886 a lease indenture for 999 years was made between Maharaja of Travancore and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation works by another agreement in 1970, Tamil Nadu was permitted to generate power also.
2. The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed during 1887-1895 across Periyar River in the then Travancore state (now Kerala) territory after said indenture. The Periyar Dam with full reservoir level of 152 ft. provides for diversion of water from the reservoir through a tunnel to Vaigai basin in Tamil Nadu for irrigation benefits in 68558 ha.
3 In 1979, reports appeared in Kerala Press about the safety of Mulla Periyar Dam. On 25th November, 1979 Chairman, CWC held discussions at Thirvananthapuram regarding strengthening Periyar dam with officers of Irrigation and Electricity, Deptt. of Kerala and PWD of Tamil Nadu. In the meeting, emergency measures to be completed before next monsoon (1980), medium term measures and long-term measures for strengthening of Periyar Dam were decided. One of the emergency measures was to keep the shutters of spillway raised fully to lower the reservoir level to 136 ft.
4. A second meeting under the Chairmanship of Chairman, CWC was held on 29th April 1980 at New Delhi and it was opined that after the completion of emergency and medium term measures in the form of cable anchoring, the water level in the reservoir can be restored up to 145 ft.
5. As per the Memorandum on the Rehabilitation of Mulla Periyar Dam prepared by CWC and forwarded to Tamil Nadu on 25th March, 1986, emergency measures were implemented. In the aforesaid Memo, CWC gave its recommendation about peak flood and size of additional vents to be added in the spillway for implementing remaining emergency measure of providing additional spilling capacity. It also gave its recommendation about the design details of concrete backing on the downstream face of the dam. Besides this, CWC suggested The Government of Tamil Nadu to examine the possibility of raising the top of RCC parapet by another two feet apart from few other suggestions. It was opined in the forwarding note that after completion of the proposed strengthening measures, provision of other additional vents and implementation of other suggestions, Periyar dam would be competent to hold water upto FRL of 152 ft.
6. The matter became subjudice with several petitions in the Kerala and Tamil Nadu High Courts. All these cases were transferred to the Supreme Court which heard the matter and desired in its order dated 28.4.2000 that Hon’ble Minister (WR) may convene a meeting of the Chief Ministers of both the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to amicably resolve the issue.
7. Hon’ble Minister (WR) convened the Inter-State meeting on 19.5.2000 and as decided in the meeting, an Expert Committee under Member (D&R), CWC with representatives from both States was constituted in June 2000 to study the safety of the dam with respect to strengthening of dam carried out by The Government of Tamil Nadu on the advice of Central Water Commission and advise regarding raising of water level in the reservoir beyond 136 ft as a result of strengthening of dam.
8. The Committee in its report of March, 2001 opined that with the strengthening measures implemented, the water level can be raised from 136 ft. to 142 ft. without endangering safety of the dam. Further raising of water level to 152 ft. will be considered after balance strengthening measures are implemented.
9. In the case of Transfer Petition Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs Tamil Nadu, the Report of the Expert Committee was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.8.2001 and also sent to the State Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
10 In writ Petition ( C) No. 386 of 2001 (Mulla Periyar Environmental Protection Forum Vs Union of India and Ors) the Supreme Court in its Judgement dated 27.2.2006, permitted the Government of Tamil Nadu to raise the water level of Mulla Periyar dam from 136 ft. to 142 ft. and take up the remaining strengthening measures.
11. Consequent to the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court of India, the Kerala Government passed the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 which received the assent of the Governor on 18th March 2006 which prohibited the raising of water level beyond 136 ft. in the Mulla Periyar Dam as Mullaperiyar Dam was placed under the Schedule of ‘Endangered Dams’.
12. The Government of Tamil Nadu filed a suit No. 3 of 2006 – State of Tamil Nadu v/s State of Kerala and Union of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.3.2006 praying for -
(i) Declaration of Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 passed by Kerala Legislature as unconstitutional in its application to and effect on Mulla Periyar Dam.
(ii) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining Kerala from application and enforcing impunged legislation enforcing with or obstructing Tamil Nadu from increasing the water level to 142 feet and from carrying out the repair works as per judgment of Supreme Court dated 27th February 2006.
13. A Review Petition filed by the State of Kerala on 3.4.2006 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27.7.2006.
14. In the matter referred to in para 13 above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 25.9.2006 stating “the two State Governments independently or with the intervention of the Union of India may try to sort out the dispute, if possible.
15. The Hon’ble Union Minister (WR) convened an inter-State meeting of the Chief Ministers of States of Tamil Nadu & Kerala on Mulla periyar dam issue on 29.11.2006 at New Delhi. Hon’ble Union Minister (WR) further discussed matter with the Minister (WR/PW) from the States of Tamil Nadu & Kerala on18.12.2006. The States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala reiterated their respective stand in the meetings and no consensus could be reached regarding a solution acceptable to both States. The matter is now subjudice.
16. Subsequently, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met Hon’ble Prime Minister on 18.12.2007 and Hon’ble Prime Minister suggested him to have a meeting with Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala on Mulla Periyar issue. Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala on 19.12.2007 in presence of Hon’ble Union Minister of Water Resources. Further a letter dated 20.12.2007 was received from the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu mentioning that in the above meeting, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu suggested to oversee the seepage measurement of the dam by engineers not belonging to either of the two States through CWC and Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala agreed to consider them.
17. Later, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu forwarded a letter dt 22/1/08 of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala addressed to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu wherein it is mentioned that in the meeting dt 19/12/2007 he suggested a joint mechanism to monitor the seepage. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu also enclosed a letter dated 4/2/2008 from Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu addressed to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala wherein it is mentioned that joint monitoring was not discussed in the meeting.
18. CWC was requested to suggest a suitable mechanism for monitoring the seepage and possible structure of the Committee to monitor it. They suggested a nine- member Committee headed by a Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission having representatives from both States for Monitoring the seepage of Mulla Periyar Dam. The composition of the Committee along with terms of reference was sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Kerala vide letter dated 28.4.2008 for their concurrence / suggestions.
19. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide its letter dated 17.6.2008 has sent its comments on the proposed Monitoring Committee stating that the present proposal of the Government of India to constitute a Committee comprising officers from CWC, Tamil Nadu Government and Kerala Government to measure the seepage in Mulla Periyar Dam is not in conformity with the discussion held in the meeting dated 19.12.2007 and proposal will lead to more and more complications and thus not acceptable to Govt. of Tamil Nadu. The Govt. of Kerala vide letter dt 24.2.2009 informed that the stand taken by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for neutral agency of experts excluding those form Kerala and Tamil Nadu is not acceptable to them.
20. In the meanwhile, Govt. of Kerala has got done hydrological review studies from a professor of IIT, Delhi and has since filed the said hydrological studies report in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.07.08 in connection with Suit No.3 of 2006 filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It has been concluded in the report that the Mulla Periyar dam is hydrologic ally unsafe for passing the estimated Probable Maximum Flood (2, 91,275 cusec / 8,248 cusec) with the existing spillway capacity. Comments of Hydrological Studies Organisation, CWC on the report were forwarded to the Govt. Advocate as per instructions of MoWR vide CWC letter dated 13.10.08. CWC has commented that the difference in the adopted values of Design Rainfall (Storm) depth, Time distribution of rainfall, Unit hydrograph & Infiltration rate have resulted in estimation of higher flood peak (PMF) and the said studies by the IIT Professor does not appear to be well founded.
21. Meanwhile the Government of Kerala constituted a Committee in May 2009 which submitted its report in June, 2009. The Committee suggested mapping of the underwater area, installation of highly sensitive computer operated Seismograph and construction of a new Dam downstream of existing dam. The Committee has also opined that the dam has reached such a deteriorated condition that no amount of rectification work could salvage it to a safe and healthy condition. Keeping in view this report, Minister (WR) advised Chairman, CWC in July, 2009 to constitute a team of officers to visit the dam and assess the present condition of the Mulla Periyar dam and look into the issues raised in the report of the above Expert Committee. The team had proposed a visit to the dam from 22-25 July, 2009 and the conveniences of the Government of Kerala and Tamil Nadu for the visit were sought. The Government of Tamil Nadu agreed to the proposed visit but the Government of Kerala requested for postponement of the proposed visit because of torrential rains. Thereafter, the visit could not materialize.
22. Thereafter, Secretary (WR) convened a meeting on the Mulla Periyar Dam on 31.7.2009. The meeting was attended among others by Principal Secretary, PWD, Tamil Nadu and Additional Chief Secretary, WRD, Kerala. In the meeting the representative of Kerala informed that the Kerala Govt. visualizes construction of new dam as the only feasible solution and they have started survey and investigation for a new dam at an alternate site downstream of the existing dam and they may also consider the construction of a new dam at their own cost. Representative of Kerala stated in the meeting that the Govt. of Kerala also recognizes the established uses of water from the dam by Tamil Nadu as per the existing agreement between the two States and will continue the same after the construction of a new dam. In the said meeting the representative of Govt. of Tamil Nadu informed that the Govt. of Tamil Nadu would examine the proposal of the Govt. of Kerala for new Dam after the same is formally received from them. In view of this, Hon’ble Minister (WR) vide DO dated 26.08.2009 requested Hon’ble Chief Minister, Kerala to send the proposal in this regard to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for their consideration.
23. Later, Govt. of Tamil Nadu vide letter dated 14.9.09 mentioned that as regards the decision that has emerged in the meeting, to examine the proposal of the Kerala Government for the construction of a new dam by Tamil Nadu Government, the Government of Tamil Nadu had already communicated to the Government of India as well as to the Government of Kerala that there is no need for construction of a new dam by the Kerala Government, as the existing dam after it is strengthened, functions like a new dam. They also mentioned that Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in his letter dated 13.07.09 to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala had mentioned that Kerala Govt. may not raise the issue of new dam any more.
24. The Govt. of Kerala vide letter dated 26.9.2009 sent comments on the minutes of the meeting dated 31.7.2009 mentioning that the statement “The Govt. of Kerala also recognizes the established use of water from the dam by the Tamil Nadu as per the existing agreement between the two States and continue the same after the construction of new dam” is not acceptable. What was mentioned in the meeting was that Kerala is willing to give water to Tamil Nadu.
25. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the issues related to Mulla Periyar Dam on 10.11.2009 and passed the order that,
“As the case involves the resolution of said questions, the suit may be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for necessary directions for placing it before a constitution Bench.
The contesting parties shall maintain status quo in respect of Mulla Periyar Dam as existing today. However, order of status quo will not be an impediment for the plaintiff (State of Tamil Nadu) to carry out maintenance and repairs for proper upkeep of the said Dam.”
26. The case was heard by five judges on 18.2.2010 and the Court directed Central Govt. to constitute an empowered Committee in this regard which would hear the parties to the suit on all issues that will be raised before them, and furnish a report, as far as possible, with in six months from their constitution.
27 Following the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.02.2010, Centre (MoWR) has constituted an Empowered Committee vide Notification dated the 30th April, 2010. The Committee started its functioning and was to submit its report within six months period. Further, Supreme Court vide its order dated 20th September, 2010 has extended the term of Committee by a further period of six months. Therefore, implementing the said directions of the Supreme Court, the Central Government extends, the terms of Empowered Committee for a further period of six months w.e.f. 30th October, 2010 vide Notification dated the 28th October, 2010.
Current situation
In a rare unity in the Kerala assembly, the 141-member house unanimously passed a resolution that the central government should sanction a new dam to replace the leaking, masonry Mullaperiyar in Idukki district.
This is the third unanimous resolution passed by the Kerala assembly demanding a new dam. The first was passed in 1993 when K. Karunakaran of the Congress was the chief minister and the next came in 2009 when V.S. Achuthanandan of the CPI-M was heading the state government.
When Chief Minister Oommen Chandy read out the resolution that the only way to end the current impasse is a new dam and till that time the water level in the 115-year-old dam be reduced to 120 feet, it was welcomed by all members with the thumping of desks.
The three-and-half hours long debate saw members from both the treasury and opposition benches agreeing that the house was worried about the safety of the over a century old earthen dam as it could endanger the lives of over four million people in and around the five districts near it.
Leader of Opposition V.S. Achuthanandan went to the extent of demanding the resignation of Revenue Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan for the remark made by Advocate General K.P. Dandapani in the Kerala High Court last week on the Mullaperiyar Dam.
It was reported in the media that Dandapani had said there was no relation between water level and the safety of the dam. He appeared before the cabinet and pointed out that he never said such a thing.
Kerala is worried that a strong earthquake might damage the dam and cause widespread destruction. It is seeking a new dam and has offered to fund and build it, but Tamil Nadu does not agree. Experts from Kerala side say if a quake strikes and the dam is damaged, over four million people and their property in districts of Idukki, Kottayam, Alappuzha, Ernakulam and parts of Thrissur would be washed away.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been at loggerheads over the dam, built under an 1886 accord between the then Maharaja of Travancore and the erstwhile British Raj. It is located in Kerala and its waters also serve Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu wants the dam’s storage capacity to be increased by raising the dam height from 136 feet (41.5 metre) to 142 feet (43 metre) as the state’s irrigation needs have shot up.
Supreme Court tells Kerala, Tamil Nadu not to arouse people’s feelings
There is nothing serious, grave or emergent about the safety of the Mullaperiyar dam warranting our interference at this stage, the Supreme Court observed on 13.12.2011 and asked Tamil Nadu and Kerala not to arouse people’s feelings and create a fear psychosis.
The Empowered Committee, headed by the former Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, was looking into all aspects regarding the safety of the dam and no order was required at this stage, observed a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha, C.K. Prasad, Deepak Verma and Anil R. Dave.
The Bench, however, said the apprehensions of Kerala regarding the safety of the dam could not be brushed aside since the water level in the dam had gone up beyond 136 ft on four days from November 26 to December 2, coupled with earthquakes.
The Bench made it clear to Tamil Nadu that it should maintain the water level at 136 ft.
The Bench was hearing applications filed by Kerala, to reduce the water level in the dam from 136 ft to 120 ft, and Tamil Nadu for deployment of CISF for protection of the dam and to pass an order to restrain Kerala Ministers and officials from making statements creating fear psychosis among the people about the safety of the dam.
Kalam favours armed forces for maintaining rivers, dams
Amid the friction between Tamil Nadu and Kerala over the Mullaperiyar dam issue, former President A P J Abdul Kalam on 14.12.2011 said the country cannot afford a civil war on water and suggested deployment of armed forces to maintain rivers and dams. “Water cannot be a (source of) conflict in India. India cannot afford a civil war on water… Indian rivers and dams have to be operated and maintained by army, navy or other armed forces for equitable distribution,” he said.
Mr. Kalam said chief ministers of Tamil Nadu and Kerala should reach for an amicable solution to the issue. “It is not wise to discuss the issue through media,” he cautioned. Strongly batting for interlinking of rivers, he said the country was “not prepared” to face natural disasters caused by floods. “India needs visionaries to launch a river linking project which may have to be completed in two decades and not a five year plan which will fit into politics…,” he said.
Later talking to reporters, he suggested a National Water Grid Management scheme which could be one of the mechanisms to resolve inter-state disputes. “Like national highways and the Central Power Grid, my suggestion is a National Water Grid Management (to resolve water disputes)…,” he said.
Kerala parties agree to call off stirs over Mullaperiyar
A day after the Supreme Court asked both Kerala and Tamil Nadu to cool tempers, major political parties of Kerala, including the Congress and the Left parties, on 14.12.2011 announced that they were calling off their respective agitations over the Mullaperiyar dam issue. Representatives of the parties said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had assured them he would do his best to find an amicable solution to the issue over which political parties and organisations in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been pitted against each other in recent weeks.
Dr. Manmohan Singh, who met an all-party delegation from Kerala at Parliament House, stressed on the need to create a conducive atmosphere in both States. He wanted politicians and others to restrain themselves as the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter, and not to do anything that might aggravate the situation. The delegation was led by Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and the former Chief Minister, V.S. Achuthanandan.
Tamil Nadu MPs’ protest
Meanwhile, a group of Congress MPs from Tamil Nadu, led by TNCC president K. Gnanadesikan and Dindigul MP N.S.V. Chithan, staged a demonstration near the Gandhi statue in the Parliament complex seeking deployment of the personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force in the Mullaperiyar dam area.
They also wanted the Centre to advise Kerala to allow an increase in the water level in the reservoir to 142 feet from the present 136 feet.
TN Assembly asks Kerala to amend Act for raising water level
The Tamil Nadu Assembly on 15.12.2011, in a special sitting, adopted a unanimous resolution, calling upon the Kerala government to make suitable amendments to the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 to enable the water level of the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam to be raised to 142 feet. Moved by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, the resolution also asked the Kerala government not to create hurdles to the execution of the remaining strengthening measures for facilitating the water level to be raised to 152 ft eventually.
Mullaperiyar issue has sown the seeds of mutual distrust between people on either side of the 116-year-old dam, but nobody wants a harvest of hate.
Mullaiperiyar: Empowered Committee leave no stone unturned
The members of the Supreme Court-appointed Empowered Committee’s panel inspected the Vaigai Dam and an electricity sub-station at the Lower Camp on 25.12.2011.
Led by former Chief Justice of India A S Anand, the panel members — Justices A R Lakshmanan and K T Thomas, C D Thatte and K K Mehta — have been on a visit to the Mullaiperiyar dam and adjoining areas to file a report before the Supreme Court on how to resolve the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The Committee has been collecting details about the stability of the dam from December 21. On December 23 and 24, 2011, the expert committee visited Idukki dam, Periyar dam, baby dam and its adjoining ones. On 25.12.2011, the members reviewed the water outlets of the Mullaiperiyar dam in TN.
Chief Engineer of Kerala Irrigation Department P Lathika, Periyar Dam Committee member James Wilson, Tamil Nadu Cauvery Technology Committee head Subramaniam, PWD Chief Engineer Rajagopal, Periyar-Vaigai Chief Engineer Sampath Kumar and others accompanied them.
The team inspected the smaller dams, Iraichal Palam and pipes for pumping out water during emergency situations in the Kumily-Lower Camp forest area. The team members also examined Periyar Hydraulic Power Station at the Lower Camp. As the dam was constructed using the surkhi ( a mixture containing burnt brick powder), the expert committee also took samples of limestone near the Lower Camp.
While inspecting the Vaigai dam, the committee opened the shutters to check their functioning and interacted with the engineers to know about the water outlets. The team also reviewed the Madurai-Sedapatti water supply system near Muthalakampatti and Peranai at Nilakottai near Dindigul.
Honour Supreme Court’s Verdict
In her memorandum dt 25.12.2011, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. Jayalalithaa urged Dr. Singh to advise the Kerala government to honour the Supreme Court’s February 27, 2006 order, allowing the raising of the water level initially from 136 to 142 feet. She sought his intervention to make appropriate amendments to the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006.
Ms. Jayalalithaa said Dr. Singh should advise Kerala not to venture upon the construction of a new dam, since the retrofitted dam was safe and functioning well. Besides asking for the deployment of the Central Industrial Security Force and removal of all encroachments in the leased area, she said the Prime Minister should order the National Disaster Management Authority to withdraw its notification forming a team of experts to prepare a contingency response plan.
May consider security for Mullaperiyar dam
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 26.12.2011 reportedly assured DMK that the Centre might consider providing security cover to Mullaperiyar dam over which Tamil Nadu and Kerala are locked in a raging row. According to Karunanidhi, Singh also said the Centre might examine the possibility of protecting the dam by itself. The DMK had earlier requested the chairman of the Supreme Court-appointed Empowered Committee on the dam issue to deploy Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the reservoir site, instead of Kerala police.
Allaying the apprehensions of the people of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the two technical experts of the Supreme Court appointed-Empowered Committee (EC) on 3.01.2012 informed the Committee that the recent tremors in that region did not have any impact on the Mullaperiyar and Idukki dams and that the dams were safe.
The two members — the former Secretary to the Union Ministry of Water Resources, C.D. Thatte, and retired Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission, D.K. Mehta — had inspected all the dams in and around the Mullaperiyar catchment area to ascertain their safety in the wake of the recent earthquakes.
The inspection came after Kerala filed an application seeking to bring on record the recent earthquakes and pleading for an oral hearing. The Committee had asked two of its members to conduct an on-the-spot inspection and submit a report.
The report was submitted to the EC’s head, the former Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand. The other members on the Committee are retired Supreme Court Judges K.T. Thomas (representing Kerala) and A.R. Lakshmanan (representing Tamil Nadu).
At the meeting on 3.01.2012, the EC considered the report and the objections raised by Kerala during the inspection of the dam. The report concluded that the tremors did not have any impact on the Mullaperiyar dam and there was no danger to its safety.
The Committee took serious exception to the objection raised by Kerala that the views of the two members could not be construed as the views of the EC. It was pointed out that the EC had passed a resolution at an earlier meeting authorising the two technical members to carry out the inspection. The procedure adopted by the members could not be faulted by the Kerala government, it said.
The EC also considered the reports, studies and investigations conducted by various agencies constituted by it to go into the safety of the Mullaperiyar dam. The various tests and studies undertaken by the Committee are: scanning the up-steam face of the dam using remote-operated vehicle and digital camera by the Central Soil and Materials Research Station (CSMRS), Delhi; non-destructive test by the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune; cable anchor stress test; study by the Geological Survey of India; bathymetric survey by the CWPRS; material testing by the CSMRS and the CWPRS; seepage study by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC); flood study by the Central Water Commission (CWC); testing of the cores by the CWPRS/ CSMRS; in situ tests and stability check, both by the CWPRS; and checking of measuring instruments used in the dam.
The panel will meet again on January 24 and 25, 2012 to consider the modalities of finalising its report to be submitted to the Supreme Court, as its term ends in February, 2012.
The panel once again rejected Kerala’s request for copies of reports of various agencies, stating that such a request had already been rejected.
Jayalalithaa announces memorial for engineer, J. Pennycuick who built Mullaperiyar
Amid the simmering Mullaperiyar dam row, Tamil Nadu government on 8.01.2012 announced setting up of a memorial for British engineer Major (later Colonel) J. Pennycuick , who had constructed the dam at Lower Camp in Theni district over 116 years ago.
“I am happy to announce that a memorial to thankfully remember Cuick will be built at a cost of Rs. one crore and over 2500 sq ft at the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board premises in Lower Camp. Upon its completion, Cuick’s grandson will be invited for its inauguration,” Chief Minister Jayalalithaa said in a statement here, adding a statue of the engineer will also be installed there.
Since the dam has been functioning well and will remain strong for many hundred years more, people from the southern districts had placed a demand for constructing a memorial for Cuick to show our gratitude,” Ms. Jayalalithaa said.
By constructing the dam, “Cuick’s name had been etched in the hearts of the local people. The proposed initiative will be a fond remembrance of a man who paved the way for the prosperity of south Tamil Nadu,” she said.
Kerala sticks to stand on Mullaperiyar – 27.01.2012
Sticking to its stand on building a new dam in place of the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar reservoir, Kerala on 27.01.2012 said it is aware of the importance of giving water to five parched districts of Tamil Nadu, but is concerned over the safety of its people. “We know very well the importance of water from Mullaperiyar to Tamil Nadu. The five districts of Tamil Nadu are completely depending on water from Mullaperiyar. We are always for distribution of water without any objection,” Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy told reporters in Chennai.
At the same time, Mr. Chandy said his government “is very much anxious” about the safety of the people of his State and the dam issue could be discussed by the two States to find an amicable solution. The Chief Minister said Kerala wanted to maintain cordial ties with Tamil Nadu.
Impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Indian Economy
Anand, BA., B.L
Definition
Foreign direct investment (FDI) or foreign investment refers to the net inflows of investment to acquire a lasting management interest (10 percent or more of voting stock) in an enterprise operating in an economy other than that of the investor. It is the sum of equity capital,other long-term capital, and short-term capital as shown in the balance of payments. It usually involves participation in management, joint-venture, transfer of technology and expertise. There are two types of FDI: inward foreign direct investment and outward foreign direct investment, resulting in a net FDI inflow (positive or negative) and “stock of foreign direct investment”, which is the cumulative number for a given period. Direct investment excludes investment through purchase of shares. FDI is one example of international factor movement.
Types
A foreign direct investor may be classified in any sector of the economy and could be any one of the following:
an individual;
a group of related individuals;
an incorporated or unincorporated entity;
a public company or private company;
a group of related enterprises;
a government body;
an estate (law), trust or other social institution; or
any combination of the above.
The foreign direct investor may acquire voting power of an enterprise in an economy through any of the following methods:
by incorporating a wholly owned subsidiary or company
by acquiring shares in an associated enterprise
through a merger or an acquisition of an unrelated enterprise
participating in an equity joint venture with another investor or enterprise…
Foreign direct investment incentives may take the following forms:
low corporate tax and income tax rates
tax holidays
other types of tax concessions
preferential tariffs
special economic zones
EPZ – Export Processing Zones
Bonded Warehouses
Maquiladoras
investment financial subsidies
soft loan or loan guarantees
free land or land subsidies
relocation & expatriation subsidies
job training & employment subsidies
infrastructure subsidies
R&D support
derogation from regulations (usually for very large projects)
Foreign Direct Investments in India
Starting from a baseline of less than $1 billion in 1990, a recent UNCTAD survey projected India as the second most important FDI destination (after China) for transnational corporations during 2010-2012. As per the data, the sectors which attracted higher inflows were services, telecommunication, construction activities and computer software and hardware. Mauritius, Singapore, the US and the UK were among the leading sources of FDI.
FDI in 2010 was $24.2 billion, a significant decrease from both 2008 and 2009. Foreign direct investment in August 2010 dipped by about 60% to aprox. $34 billion, the lowest in 2010 fiscal, industry department data released showed. In the first two months of 2010-11 fiscal, FDI inflow into India was at an all-time high of $7.78 billion up 77% from $4.4 billion during the corresponding period in the previous year.
The world’s largest retailer WalMart has termed India’s decision to allow 51% FDI in multi-brand retail as a “first important step” and said it will study the finer details of the new policy to determine the impact on its ability to do business in Indi
Impact on 51% FDI on India
The decision to hold back FDI in multi-brand retail will have a strong impact on the domestic and foreign investor sentiment, another chamber, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), said in a release. “We firmly hope that this would not be a rollback and a quick consensus is reached,” CII Director General Chandrajit Banerjee said.
Describing the volte face as a case of “missed opportunity”, Assocham Secretary General D S Rawat said, “It will send a very negative message to foreign investors.”
Rawat said FDI in multi-brand retail could have created over 10 million jobs in three years, curbed wastage of farm products and benefited farmers through better prices for their produce.
FICCI urged the government to move ahead with this progressive reform and proposed solutions like considering a maximum of 49 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail and increasing the percentage of sourcing from the small scale sector, which was proposed to be fixed at a minimum 30 per cent.
The government was forced to put its decision to allow FDI in multi-brand retail on hold in view of stiff opposition from UPA ally Trinamool Congress and other political parties.
Impact in Tamil Nadu
Chennai, Nov 27: Opposing the government policy of allowing 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail sector in India Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa on Sunday (today) said that she would not allow multi-brand global palyer to set up hyper markets in Tamil Nadu.
Jayalalithaa further said that government should reverse its “ill advised” move as it will monopolise the market, exploit farmers and consumers.
“I am constrained to state that my government will not allow the multi brand global players as permitted under the new policy to set up their hyper markets in Tamil Nadu,” Jayalalithaa declared.
The government new FDI retail policy to allow 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail segment will permit world’s top retail giant like Walmart, Carrefour and Tesco to set up market in the country. Earlier, such retailers were not allowed to coduct retail business in India.
Current Indian Market Situation
Retailing in India is one of the pillars of its economy and accounts for about 15% of its GDP. The Indian retail market is estimated to be US$ 450 billion and one of the top five retail markets in the world by economic value.
Organised retailing, absent in most rural and small towns of India in 2010, refers to trading activities undertaken by licensed retailers, that is, those who are registered for sales tax, income tax, etc. These include the publicly-traded supermarkets, corporate-backed hypermarkets and retail chains, and also the privately owned large retail businesses. Unorganised retailing, on the other hand, refers to the traditional formats of low-cost retailing, for example, the local mom and pop store, owner manned general stores, paan/beedi shops, convenience stores, hand cart and pavement vendors, etc.
Supermarkets and similar organized retail accounted for just 4% of the market in 2008. Until recently, regulations prevented most of the foreign investment in retailing. Some retails faced complying with over thirty regulations such as “signboard licences” and “anti-hoarding measures” before they could open doors. There are taxes for moving goods to states, from states, and even within states in some cases. However, the Indian government has been opening the retail market and simplifying regulations. In November 2011, Indian central government announced major reforms paving way for giants such as Walmart, Carrefour and Tesco, as well single brand majors such as IKEA, Nike, and Apple to enter one of the fastest growing retail market of 1.2 billion people. This announcement immediately caused intense activism – both in opposition and in support – within India. On 7 December 2011, Indian government conceding to the opposition, announced it is suspending the retail reforms till it reaches a consensus.
Most Indian shopping takes place in open markets or millions of small, independent grocery and retail shops. Shoppers typically stand outside the retail shop, ask for what they want, and cannot pick or examine a product from the shelf. Access to the shelf or product storage area is limited. Once the shopper requests the food staple or household product they are looking for, the shopkeeper goes to the container or shelf or to the back of the store, brings it out and offers it for sale to the shopper. Often the shopkeeper may substitute the product, claiming that it is similar or equivalent to the product the consumer is asking for. The product typically has no price label in these small retail shops; although some products do have a manufactured suggested retail price (MSRP) pre-printed on the packaging. The shopkeeper prices the food staple and household products arbitrarily, and two consumers may pay different prices for the same product on the same day. Price is sometimes negotiated between the shopper and shopkeeper. The shoppers do not have time to examine the product label, and do not have a choice to make an informed decision between competitive products.
India’s retail and logistics industry, organized and unorganized in combination, employs about 40 million Indians (3.3% of Indian population). The typical Indian retail shops are very small. Over 14 million outlets operate in the country and only 4% of them being larger than 500 sq ft (46 m2) in size. India has about 11 shop outlets for every 1000 people. Vast majority of the unorganized retail shops in India employ family members, do not have the scale to procure or transport products at high volume wholesale level, have limited to no quality control or fake-versus-authentic product screening technology and have no training on safe and hygienic storage, packaging or logistics. The unorganized retail shops source their products from a chain of middlemen who mark up the product as it moves from farmer or producer to the consumer. The unorganized retail shops typically offer no after-sales support or service. Finally, most transactions at unorganized retail shops are done with cash, with all sales being final.
Between 2000 to 2010, consumers in select Indian cities have gradually begun to experience the quality, choice, convenience and benefits of organized retail industry.
Growth over 1997-2010
India in 1997 allowed foreign direct investment (FDI) in cash and carry wholesale. Then, it required government approval. The approval requirement was relaxed, and automatic permission was granted in 2006. Between 2000 to 2010, Indian retail attracted about $1.8 billion in foreign direct investment, representing a very small 1.5% of total investment flow into India.
Single brand retailing attracted 94 proposals between 2006 and 2010, of which 57 were approved and implemented. For a country of 1.2 billion people, this is a very small number. Some claim one of the primary restraint inhibiting better participation was that India required single brand retailers to limit their ownership in Indian outlets to 51%. China in contrast allows 100% ownership by foreign companies in both single brand and multi-brand retail presence.
Indian retail has experienced limited growth, and its spoilage of food harvest is amongst the highest in the world, because of very limited integrated cold-chain and other infrastructure. India has only 5386 stand-alone cold storages, having a total capacity of 23.6 million metric tons. However, 80 percent of this storage is used only for potatoes. The remaining infrastructure capacity is less than 1% of the annual farm output of India, and grossly inadequate during peak harvest seasons. This leads to about 30% losses in certain perishable agricultural output in India, on average, every year.
Indian laws already allow foreign direct investment in cold-chain infrastructure to the extent of 100 percent. There has been no interest in foreign direct investment in cold storage infrastructure build out. Experts claim that cold storage infrastructure will become economically viable only when there is strong and contractually-binding demand from organized retail. The risk of cold storing perishable food, without an assured way to move and sell it, puts the economic viability of expensive cold storage in doubt. In the absence of organized retail competition and with a ban on foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailers, foreign direct investments are unlikely to begin in cold storage and farm logistics infrastructure.
Until 2010, intermediaries and middlemen in India have dominated the value chain. Due to a number of intermediaries involved in the traditional Indian retail chain, norms are flouted and pricing lacks transparency. Small Indian farmers realize only 1/3rd of the total price paid by the final Indian consumer, as against 2/3rd by farmers in nations with a higher share of organized retail. The 60%+ margins for middlemen and traditional retail shops have limited growth and prevented innovation in Indian retail industry.
India has had years of debate and discussions on the risks and prudence of allowing innovation and competition within its retail industry. Numerous economists repeatedly recommended to the Government of India that legal restrictions on organized retail must be removed, and the retail industry in India must be opened to competition. For example, in an invited address to the Indian parliament in December 2010, Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor of Economics and Law at the Columbia University analysed the relationship between growth and poverty reduction, then urged the Indian parliament to extend economic reforms by freeing up of the retail sector, further liberalisation of trade in all sectors, and introducing labor market reforms. Such reforms Professor Bhagwati argued will accelerate economic growth and make a sustainable difference in the life of India’s poorest.
A 2007 report noted that an increasing number of people in India are turning to the services sector for employment due to the relative low compensation offered by the traditional agriculture and manufacturing sectors. The organized retail market is growing at 35 percent annually while growth of unorganized retail sector is pegged at 6 percent.
The Retail Business in India is currently at the point of inflection. As of 2008, rapid change with investments to the tune of US $ 25 billion were being planned by several Indian and multinational companies in the next 5 years. It is a huge industry in terms of size and according to India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), it is valued at about US$ 395.96 billion. Organised retail is expected to garner about 16-18 percent of the total retail market (US $ 65-75 billion) in the next 5 years.
India has topped the A.T. Kearney’s annual Global Retail Development Index (GRDI) for the third consecutive year, maintaining its position as the most attractive market for retail investment. The Indian economy has registered a growth of 8% for 2007. The predictions for 2008 is 7.9%. The enormous growth of the retail industry has created a huge demand for real estate. Property developers are creating retail real estate at an aggressive pace and by 2010, 300 malls are estimated to be operational in the country.
Growth after 2011
Before 2011, India had prevented innovation and organized competition in its consumer retail industry. Several studies claim that the lack of infrastructure and competitive retail industry is a key cause of India’s persistently high inflation. Furthermore, because of unorganized retail, in a nation where malnutrition remains a serious problem, food waste is rife. Well over 30% of food staples and perishable goods produced in India spoils because poor infrastructure and small retail outlets prevent hygienic storage and movement of the goods from the farmer to the consumer.
One report estimates the 2011 Indian retail market as generating sales of about $470 billion a year, of which a miniscule $27 billion comes from organized retail such as supermarkets, chain stores with centralized operations and shops in malls. The opening of retail industry to free market competition, some claim will enable rapid growth in retail sector of Indian economy. Others believe the growth of Indian retail industry will take time, with organized retail possibly needing a decade to grow to a 25% share. A 25% market share, given the expected growth of Indian retail industry through 2021, is estimated to be over $250 billion a year: a revenue equal to the 2009 revenue share from Japan for the world’s 250 largest retailers.
The Economist forecasts that Indian retail will nearly double in economic value, expanding by about $400 billion by 2020. The projected increase alone is equivalent to the current retail market size of France.
In 2011, food accounted for 70% of indian retail, but was under-represented by organized retail. A.T. Kearney estimates India’s organized retail had a 31% share in clothing and apparel, while the home supplies retail was growing between 20% to 30% per year. These data correspond to retail prospects prior to November announcement of the retail reform.
Indian Retail Market
Indian market has high complexities in terms of a wide geographic spread and distinct consumer preferences varying by each region necessitating a need for localization even within the geographic zones. India has highest number of outlets per person (7 per thousand) Indian retail space per capita at 2 sq ft (0.19 m2)/ person is lowest in the world Indian retail density of 6 percent is highest in the world. 1.8 million households in India have an annual income of over 45 lakh (US$91,260).
Delving further into consumer buying habits, purchase decisions can be separated into two categories: status-oriented and indulgence-oriented. CTVs/LCDs, refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, microwave ovens and DVD players fall in the status category. Indulgence-oriented products include plasma TVs, state-of-the-art home theatre systems, iPods, high-end digital cameras, camcorders, and gaming consoles. Consumers in the status category buy because they need to maintain a position in their social group. Indulgence-oriented buying happens with those who want to enjoy life better with products that meet their requirements. When it comes to the festival shopping season, it is primarily the status-oriented segment that contributes largely to the retailer’s cash register.
While India presents a large market opportunity given the number and increasing purchasing power of consumers, there are significant challenges as well given that over 90% of trade is conducted through independent local stores. Challenges include: Geographically dispersed population, small ticket sizes, complex distribution network, little use of IT systems, limitations of mass media and existence of counterfeit goods.
Major Indian Retailers
Indian apparel retailers are increasing their brand presence overseas, particularly in developed markets. While most have identified a gap in countries in West Asia and Africa, some majors are also looking at the US and Europe. Arvind Brands, Madura Garments, Spykar Lifestyle and Royal Classic Polo are busy chalking out foreign expansion plans through the distribution route and standalone stores as well. Another denim wear brand, Spykar, which is now moving towards becoming a casualwear lifestyle brand, has launched its store in Melbourne recently. It plans to open three stores in London by 2008-end.
The low-intensity entry of the diversified Mahindra Group into retail is unique because it plans to focus on lifestyle products. The Mahindra Group is the fourth largest Indian business group to enter the business of retail after Reliance Industries Ltd, the Aditya Birla Group, and Bharti Enterprises Ltd. The other three groups are focusing either on perishables and groceries, or a range of products, or both.
REI AGRO LTD Retail: 6TEN and 6TEN kirana stores
Future Groups-Formats: Big Bazaar, Food Bazaar, Pantaloons, Central, Fashion Station, Brand Factory, Depot, aLL, E-Zone etc.
Raymond Ltd.: Textiles, The Raymond Shop, Park Avenue, Park Avenue Woman, Parx, Colourplus, Neck Ties & More, Shirts & More etc.
Fabindia: Textiles, Home furnishings, handloom apparel, jewellery
RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group Retail-Formats: Spencer’s Hyper, Spencer’s Daily, Music World, Au Bon Pain (Internaional bakery cafeteria), Beverly Hills Polo Club
The Tata Group-Formats: Westside, Star India Bazaar, Steeljunction, Landmark, Titan Industries with World of Titans showrooms, Tanishq outlets, Croma.
Vivek Limited Retail Formats: Viveks, Jainsons, Viveks Service Centre, Viveks Safe Deposit Lockers
PGC Retail -T-Mart India, Switcher , Respect India , Grand India Bazaar ,etc.,
Subhiksha-Formats: Subhiksha supermarket pharmacy and telecom discount chain.
Trinethra- Formats: Fabmall supermarket chain and Fabcity hypermarket chain
Vishal Retail Group-Formats: Vishal Mega Mart
BPCL-Formats: In & Out
German Metro Cash & Carry
Shoprite Holdings-Formats: Shoprite Hyper
Paritala stores bazar: honey shine stores
Aditya Birla Group – “More” Outlets
Kapas- Cotton garment outlets
Nmart Retails with 71 operating Stores till now and total 153 Stores in India and 1 to open in Dubai Shortly. (Expected to be 150 by the end of Aug-2012)(www.nmart.co.in)
Entry of MNC
The world’s largest retailer by sales, Wal-Mart Stores Inc and Sunil Mittal’s Bharti Enterprises have entered into a joint venture agreement and they are planning to open 10 to 15 cash-and-carry facilities over seven years. The first of the stores, which will sell groceries, consumer appliances and fruits and vegetables to retailers and small businesses, is slated to open in north India by the end of 2008.
Carrefour, the world’s second largest retailer by sales, is planning to setup two business entities in the country one for its cash-and-carry business and the other a master franchisee which will lend its banner, technical services and know how to an Indian company for direct-to-consumer retail.
The world’s fifth largest retailer by sales, Costco Wholesale Corp (Costco) known for its warehouse club model is also interested in coming to India and waiting for the right opportunity.
Opposition to the retailers’ plans have argued that livelihoods of small scale and rural vendors would be threatened. However, studies have found that only a limited number of small vendors will be affected and that the benefits of market expansion far outweigh the impact of the new stores.
Tesco Plc., plans to set up shop in India with a wholesale cash-and-carry business and will help Indian conglomerate Tata group to grow its hypermarket business
Challenges
A McKinsey study claims retail productivity in India is very low compared to international peer measures. For example, the labor productivity in Indian retail was just 6% of the labor productivity in United States in 2010. India’s labor productivity in food retailing is about 5% compared to Brazil’s 14%; while India’s labor productivity in non-food retailing is about 8% compared to Poland’s 25%.
Total retail employment in India, both organized and unorganized, account for about 6% of Indian labor work force currently – most of which is unorganized. This about a third of levels in United States and Europe; and about half of levels in other emerging economies. A complete expansion of retail sector to levels and productivity similar to other emerging economies and developed economies such as the United States would create over 50 million jobs in India. Training and development of labor and management for higher retail productivity is expected to be a challenge.
To become a truly flourishing industry, retailing in India needs to cross the following hurdles:
Automatic approval is not allowed for foreign investment in retail.
Regulations restricting real estate purchases, and cumbersome local laws.
Taxation, which favours small retail businesses.
Absence of developed supply chain and integrated IT management.
Lack of trained work force.
Low skill level for retailing management.
Lack of Retailing Courses and study options
Intrinsic complexity of retailing – rapid price changes, constant threat of product obsolescence and low margins.
In November 2011, the Indian government announced relaxation of some rules and the opening of retail market to competition.
Indian Retail Reform
Until 2011, Indian central government denied foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand Indian retail, forbidding foreign groups from any ownership in supermarkets, convenience stores or any retail outlets, to sell multiple products from different brands directly to Indian consumers.
The government of Manmohan Singh, prime minister, announced on 24 November 2011 the following:
India will allow foreign groups to own up to 51 per cent in “multi-brand retailers”, as supermarkets are known in India, in the most radical pro-liberalisation reform passed by an Indian cabinet in years;
single brand retailers, such as Apple and Ikea, can own 100 percent of their Indian stores, up from the previous cap of 51 percent;
both multi-brand and single brand stores in India will have to source nearly a third of their goods from small and medium-sized Indian suppliers;
all multi-brand and single brand stores in India must confine their operations to 53-odd cities with a population over one million, out of some 7935 towns and cities in India. It is expected that these stores will now have full access to over 200 million urban consumers in India;
multi-brand retailers must have a minimum investment of US$100 million with at least half of the amount invested in back end infrastructure, including cold chains, refrigeration, transportation, packing, sorting and processing to considerably reduce the post harvest losses and bring remunerative prices to farmers;
the opening of retail competition will be within India’s federal structure of government. In other words, the policy is an enabling legal framework for India. The states of India have the prerogative to accept it and implement it, or they can decide to not implement it if they so choose. Actual implementation of policy will be within the parameters of state laws and regulations.
The opening of retail industry to global competition is expected to spur a retail rush to India. It has the potential to transform not only the retailing landscape but also the nation’s ailing infrastructure.
A Wall Street Journal article claims that fresh investments in Indian organized retail will generate 10 million new jobs between 2012-2014, and about five to six million of them in logistics alone; even though the retail market is being opened to just 53 cities out of about 8000 towns and cities in India.
It is expected to help tame stubbornly high inflation but is likely to be vehemently opposed by millions of small retailers, who see large foreign chains as a threat. The need to control food price inflation — averaging double-digit rises over several years — prompted the government to open the sector, analysts claim. Hitherto India’s food supplies have been controlled by tens of millions of middlemen (less than 5% of Indian population). Traders add huge mark-ups to farm prices, while offering little by way of technical support to help farmers boost their productivity, packaging technology, pushing up retail prices significantly. Analysts said allowing in big foreign retailers would provide an impetus for them to set up modern supply chains, with refrigerated vans, cold storage and more efficient logistics. “I think foreign chains can also bring in humongous logistical benefits and capital,” Chandrajit Banerjee, director-general, Confederation of Indian Industry, told Reuters. “The biggest beneficiary would be the small farmers who will be able to improve their productivity by selling directly to large organised players,” Mr Banerjee said.
Indian retail reforms on hold
According to Bloomberg, on 3 December 2011, the Chief Minister of the Indian state of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, who is against the policy and whose Trinamool Congress brings 19 votes to the ruling Congress party-led coalition, claimed that India’s government may put the FDI retail reforms on hold until it reaches consensus within the ruling coalition. Reuters reports that this risked a possible dilution of the policy rather than a change of heart.
India Today claimed that the resistance to Indian retail reforms is primarily because it has been badly sold, even though it can help fix the exploitation of Indian farmers by the decades-old “arhtiya” and “mandi” monopoly system. India Today claims the policy is good for the small Indian farmer and the Indian consumer.
Pratap Mehta, president of the Centre for Policy Research, claimed any U-turn or postponement of retail reforms will cause an immense loss of face to the Congress-led central government of Manmohan Singh. The mom-and-pop farmers of India support these reforms. The consumers of India want the reforms. The government has already annoyed those who oppose change and innovation in retail. By putting retail reforms on hold, the government will additionally alienate much larger segment of India’s population supporting FDI. So they will now have the worst of both worlds, claims Mehta.
Deepak Parekh, Ashok Ganguly and other economic policy leaders of India, on 4 December 2011, called placing investment and innovation in retail on hold for the sake of vested interests as unfair and detrimental to vast majority in India. They urged farmers, consumers and the common people to raise their voice against this false drama of apprehension against investment and modernising trade in organised retailing. They called upon Indians to come out and strongly support progressive measures and reforms with the same spirit and gusto with which we take the liberties to criticize policies or issues we do not appreciate.
Several newspapers claimed on 6 December 2011 that India parliament is expected to shelve retail reforms while the ruling Congress party seeks consensus from the opposition and the Congress party’s own coalition partners. Suspension of retail reforms on 7 December 2011 would be, the reports claimed, an embarrassing defeat for the Indian government, suggesting it is weak and ineffective in implementing its ideas.
Anand Sharma, India’s Commerce and Industry Minister, after a meeting of all political parties on 7 December 2011 said, “The decision to allow foreign direct investment in retail is suspended till consensus is reached with all stakeholders.”
Social Impact and Controversy with Retail Reforms
The November 2011 retail reforms in India have sparked intense activism, both in opposition and in support of the reforms.
Controversy over Indian retail reforms
A horticultural produce retail market in Kolkata, India; produce loss in these retail formats is very high for perishables
Critics of the Indian retail reforms announcement are making one or more of the following points:
Independent stores will close, leading to massive job losses. Walmart employs very few people in the United States. If allowed to expand in India as much as Walmart has expanded in the United States, few thousand jobs may be created but millions will be lost.
Walmart will lower prices to dump goods, get competition out of the way, become a monopoly, then raise prices. We have seen this in the case of the soft drinks industry. Pepsi and Coke came in and wiped out all the domestic brands.
India doesn’t need foreign retailers, since homegrown companies and traditional markets may be able to do the job.
Work will be done by Indians, profits will go to foreigners.
Remember East India Company. It entered India as a trader and then took over politically.
There will be sterile homogeneity and Indian cities will look like cities anywhere else.
The government hasn’t built consensus.
Supporters claim none of these objections has merit. They claim:
Organized retail will need workers. Walmart employs 1.4 million people in United States alone. With United States population of about 300 million, and India’s population of about 1200 million, if Walmart-like retail companies were to expand in India as much as their presence in the United States, and the staffing level in Indian stores kept at the same level as in the United States stores, Walmart alone would employ 5.6 million Indian citizens. Walmart has a 6.5% market share of the total United States retail. Adjusted for this market share, the expected jobs in future Indian organized retail would total over 85 million. In addition, millions of additional jobs will be created during the building of and the maintenance of retail stores, roads, cold storage centers, software industry, electronic cash registers and other retail supporting organizations. Instead of job losses, retail reforms are likely to be massive boost to Indian job availability.
KPMG – one of the world’s largest audit companies – finds that in China, the employment in both retail and wholesale trade increased from 4% in 1992 to about 7% in 2001, post China opening its retail to foreign and domestic innovation and competition. In absolute terms, China experienced the creation of 26 million new jobs within 9 years, post China announcing FDI retail reforms. Additionally, contrary to some concerns in China, post retail reforms, the number of traditional small retailers also grew by 30% over 5 years.
India needs trillions of dollar to build its infrastructure, hospitals, housing and schools for its growing population. Indian economy is small, with limited surplus capital. Indian government is already operating on budget deficits. It is simply not possible for Indian investors or Indian government to fund this expansion, job creation and growth at the rate India needs. Global investment capital through FDI is necessary. Beyond capital, Indian retail industry needs knowledge and global integration. Global retail leaders, some of which are partly owned by people of Indian origin, can bring this knowledge. Global integration can potentially open export markets for Indian farmers and producers. Walmart, for example, expects to source and export some $1 billion worth of goods from India every year, since it came into Indian wholesale retail market.
Walmart, Carrefour, Tesco, Target, Metro, Coop are some of over 350 global retail companies with annual sales over $1 billion. These retail companies have operated for over 30 years in numerous countries. They have not become monopolies. Competition between Walmart-like retailers has kept food prices in check. Canada credits their very low inflation rates to Walmart-effect. Anti-trust laws and state regulations, such as those in Indian legal code, have prevented food monopolies from forming anywhere in the world. Price inflation in these countries has been 5 to 10 times lower than price inflation in India. The current consumer price inflation in Europe and the United States is less than 2%, compared to India’s double digit inflation.
The Pepsi and Coke example is meaningless in the context of Indian beverage market. More competition is lacking because of limited demand. Indian consumer has limited interest in soft drinks. Soft drinks represent less than 5% of Indian beverage market. Indian consumer prefers milk-based, tea and coffee and these account for 90% of Indian beverage market. In these markets, Coca Cola and Pepsi have plenty of competition. The next most important market in India is bottled water, that outsells combined soft drink sales of the Pepsi and Coca Cola. Bottled water, milk, coffee and tea market in India are big markets, and have plenty of domestic brands, European brands like Nestle, as well as Pepsi and Coca Cola. Organized retail too will have numerous brands and strong competition.
Comparing 21st century to 18th century is inappropriate. Conditions today are not same as in the 18th century. India wasn’t a democracy then, it is today. Global awareness and news media were not the same in 18th century as today. Consider China today. It has over 57 million square feet of retail space owned by foreigners, employing millions of Chinese citizens. Yet, China hasn’t become a vassal of imperialists. It enjoys respect from all global powers. Other Asian countries like Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Indonesia see foreign retailers as catalysts of new technology and price reduction; and they have benefitted immensely by welcoming FDI in retail. India too will benefit by integrating with the world, rather than isolating itself.
With 51% FDI limit in multi-brand retailers, nearly half of any profits will remain in India. Any profits will be subject to taxes, and such taxes will reduce Indian government budget deficit. Many years ago, China adopted the retail reform policy India has announced; China allowed FDI in its retail sector. It has taken FDI-financed retailers in China between 5 to 10 years to post profits, in large part because of huge investments they had to make initially. Like China, it is unlikely foreign retailers will earn any profits in India for the first 5 to 10 years. Ultimately, retail companies must earn profits with hard work and by creating value.
States have a right to say no to retail FDI within their jurisdiction. States have the right to add restrictions to the retail policy announced before they implement them. Thus, they can place limits on number, market share, style, diversity, homogeneity and other factors to suit their cultural preferences. Finally, in future, states can always introduce regulations and India can change the law to ensure the benefits of retail reforms reach the poorest and weakest segments of Indian society, free and fair retail competition does indeed lead to sharply lower inflation than current levels, small farmers get better prices, jobs created by organized retail pay well, and healthier food becomes available to more households.
Inbuilt inefficiencies and wastage in distribution and storage account for why, according to some estimates, as much as 40% of food production doesn’t reach consumers. Fifty million children in India are malnourished. Food often rots at farms, in transit, or in antiquated state-run warehouses. Cost-conscious organized retail companies will avoid waste and loss, making food available to the weakest and poorest segment of Indian society, while increasing the income of small farmers. Walmart, for example, since its arrival in Indian wholesale retail market, has successfully introduced “Direct Farm Project” at Haider Nagar near Malerkotla in Punjab, where 110 farmers have been connected with Bharti Walmart for sourcing fresh vegetables directly, thereby reducing waste and bringing fresher produce to Indian consumers.
Indian small shops employ workers without proper contracts, making them work long hours. Many unorganized small shops depend on child labour. A well-regulated retail sector will help curtail some of these abuses.
Organized retail has enabled a wide range of companies to start and flourish in other countries. For example, in the United States, an organized retailer named Whole Foods has rapidly grown to annual revenues of $9 billion by working closely with farmers, delighting customers and caring about the communities it has stores in.
The claims that there is no consensus are without merit. About 10 years ago, when opposition formed the central government, they had proposed retail reforms and suggested India consider FDI in retail. Retail reforms discussions are not new. More recently, retail reforms announced evolved after a process of intense consultations and consensus building initiative. In 2010, the Indian government circulated a discussion paper on FDI retail reforms. On July 6 2011, another version of the discussion paper was circulated by the central government of India. Comments from a wide cross-section of Indian society including farmers’ associations, industry bodies, consumer forums, academics, traders’ associations, investors, economists were analyzed in depth before the matter was discussed by the Committee of Secretaries. By early August 2011, the consensus from various segments of Indian society was overwhelming in favor of retail reforms. The reform outline was presented in India’s Rajya Sabha in August 2011. The announced reforms are the result of this consensus process. The current opposition is not helping the consensus process, since consensus is not built by threats and disruption. Those who oppose current retail reforms should help build consensus with ideas and proposals, if they have any. The opposition parties currently disrupting the Indian parliament on retail reforms have not offered even one idea or a single proposal on how India can eliminate food spoilage, reduce inflation, improve food security, feed the poor, improve the incomes of small farmers.
Opposition to retail reforms
Within a week of retail reform announcement, Indian government has faced a political backlash against its decision to allow competition and 51% ownership of multi-brand organized retail in India.
Despite the fact that Salman Khurshid, India’s law minister, claiming that many opposition parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, had privately encouraged the government to push through the retail reform, the intense criticism now targets Congress-led coalition government, and its decision to push through one of the biggest economic reforms in years for India. Opposition parties claim supermarket chains are ill-advised, unilateral and unwelcome.
The opposition claims the entry of organized retailers would lead to their dominance that would decimate local retailers and force millions of people out of work.
Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of West Bengal and the leader of the Trinamool Congress, announced her opposition to retail reform, claiming “Some people might support it, but I do not support it. You see America is America … and India is India. One has to see what one’s capacity is.”
Other states whose Chief Ministers have either personally announced opposition or announced reluctance to implement the retail reforms: Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
Chief Ministers of many states have not made a personal statement in opposition or support of India needing retail reforms. Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka and Rajasthan are examples of these states. Both sides have made conflicting claims about the position of chief ministers from these states.
A Wall Street Journal article reports that in Uttar Pradesh, Uma Bharti, a senior leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), threatened to “set fire to the first Wal-Mart store whenever it opens;” with her colleague Sushma Swaraj busy tweeting up a storm of misinformation about how Wal-Mart allegedly ruined the U.S. economy.
On 1 December 2011, an India-wide “bandh” (close all business in protest) was called by political parties opposing the retail reform. While many organizations responded, the reach of the protest was mixed. The Times of India, a national newspaper of India, claimed people appeared divided over the bandh call and internal rivalry among trade associations led to a mixed response, leaving many stores open day-long and others opening for business as usual in the second half of the day. Even Purti Group, a network of stores owned and operated by Nitin Gadkari were open for business, ignoring the call for bandh. Gadkari is the president of BJP, the key party currently organizing opposition to retail reform.
The Hindu, another widely circulated newspaper in India, claimed the opposition’s call for a nationwide shutdown on 1 December 2011, in protest of retail reform received a mixed response. Some states had strong support, while most did not. Even in states where opposition political parties are in power, many ignored the call for the shutdown. In Gujarat, Bihar, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Assam the call evoked a partial response. While a number of wholesale markets observed the shutdown, the newspaper claimed a majority of kirana stores and neighborhood small shops — for whom apparently the trade bandh had been called — remained open, ignoring the shutdown call. Conflicting claims were made by the organizers of the nationwide shutdown. Contrary to eyewitness reports, one Trader union’s secretary general claimed traders across the country participated wholeheartedly in the strike.
The political parties opposing the retail reforms physically disrupted and forced India’s parliament to adjourn again on Friday 2 December 2011. The Indian government refused to cave in, in its attempt to convince through dialogue that retail reforms are necessary to protect the farmers and consumers. Indian parliament has been dysfunctional for the entire week of November 28 2011 over the opposition to retail reforms.
Support for retail reforms
In a pan-Indian survey conducted over the weekend of 3 December 2011, overwhelming majority of consumers and farmers in and around ten major cities across the country support the retail reforms. Over 90 per cent of consumers said FDI in retail will bring down prices and offer a wider choice of goods. Nearly 78 per cent of farmers said they will get better prices for their produce from multi-format stores. Over 75 per cent of the traders claimed their marketing resources will continue to be needed to push sales through multiple channels, but they may have to accept lower margins for greater volumes.
Farmer groups
Various farmer associations in India have announced their support for the retail reforms. For example:
Shriram Gadhve of All India Vegetable Growers Association (AIVGA) claims his organization supports retail reform. He claimed that currently, it is the middlemen commission agents who benefit at the cost of farmers. He urged that the retail reform must focus on rural areas and that farmers receive benefits. Gadhve claimed, “A better cold storage would help since this could help prevent the existing loss of 34% of fruits and vegetables due to inefficient systems in place.” AIVGA operates in nine states including Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Punjab and Haryana with 2,200 farmer outfits as its members.
Bharat Krishak Samaj, a farmer association with more than 75,000 members says it supports retail reform. Ajay Vir Jakhar, the chairman of Bharat Krishak Samaj, claimed a monopoly exists between the private guilds of middlemen, commission agents at the sabzi mandis (India’s wholesale markets for vegetables and farm produce) and the small shopkeepers in the unorganized retail market. Given the perishable nature of food like fruit and vegetables, without the option of safe and reliable cold storage, the farmer is compelled to sell his crop at whatever price he can get. He cannot wait for a better price and is thus exploited by the current monopoly of middlemen. Jakhar asked that the government make it mandatory for organized retailers to buy 75% of their produce directly from farmers, bypassing the middlemen monopoly and India’s sabzi mandi auction system.
Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations (CIFA) announced its support for retail reform. Chengal Reddy, secretary general of CIFA claimed retail reform could do lots for Indian farmers. Reddy commented, “India has 600 million farmers, 1,200 million consumers and 5 million traders. I fail to understand why political parties are taking an anti-farmer stand and worried about half a million brokers and small shopkeepers.” CIFA mainly operates in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu; but has a growing members from rest of India, including Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, Rajasthan Kisan Union and Himachal Farmer Organisations.
Prakash Thakur, the chairman of the People for Environment Horticulture & Livelihood of Himachal Pradesh, announcing his support for retail reforms claimed FDI is expected to roll out produce storage centers that will increase market access, reduce the number of middlemen and enhance returns to farmers. Highly perishable fruits like cherry, apricot, peaches and plums have a huge demand but are unable to tap the market fully because of lack of cold storage and transport infrastructure. Sales will boost with the opening up of retail. Even though India is the second-largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world, its storage infrastructure is grossly inadequate, claimed Thakur.
Sharad Joshi, founder of Shetkari Sangathana (farmers association), has announced his support for retail reforms. Joshi claims FDI will help the farm sector improve critical infrastructure and integrate farmer-consumer relationship. Today, the existing retail has not been able to supply fresh vegetables to the consumers because they have not invested in the backward integration. When the farmers’ produce reaches the end consumer directly, the farmers will naturally be benefited. Joshi feels retail reform is just a first step of needed agricultural reforms in India, and that the government should pursue additional reforms.
Suryamurthy, in an article in The Telegraph, claims farmer groups across India do not support status quo and seek retail reforms, because with the current retail system the farmer is being exploited. For example, the article claims:
Indian farmers get only one third of the price consumers pay for food staples, the rest is taken as commissions and markups by middlemen and shopkeepers
For perishable horticulture produce, average price farmers receive is barely 12 to 15% of the final price consumer pays
Indian potato farmers sell their crop for Rs. 2 to 3 a kilogram, while the Indian consumer buys the same potato for Rs. 12 to 20 a kilogram.
Economists and entrepreneurs
Many business groups in India are welcoming the transformation of a long-protected sector that has left Indian shoppers bereft of the scale and variety of their counterparts in more developed markets.
B. Muthuraman, the president of the Confederation of Indian Industry, claimed the retail reform would open enormous opportunities and lead to much-needed investment in cold chain, warehousing and contract farming.
Organized retailers will reduce waste by improving logistics, creating cold storage to prevent food spoilage, improve hygiene and product safety, reduce counterfeit trade and tax evasion on expensive item purchases, and create dependable supply chains for secure supply of food staples, fruits and vegetables. They will increase choice and reduce India’s rampant inflation by reducing waste, spoilage and cutting out middlemen. Fresh investment in organized retail, the supporters of retail reform claim will generate 10 million new jobs by 2014, about five to six million of them in logistics alone.
Organized retail will offer the small Indian farmer more competing venues to sell his or her products, and increase income from less spoilage and waste. A Food and Agricultural Organization report claims that currently, in India, the small farmer faces significant losses post-harvest at the farm and because of poor roads, inadequate storage technologies, inefficient supply chains and farmer’s inability to bring the produce into retail markets dominated by small shopkeepers. These experts claim India’s post-harvest losses to exceed 25%, on average, every year for each farmer.
Unlike the current monopoly of middlemen buyer, retail reforms offer farmers access to more buyers from organized retail. More buyers will compete for farmers produce leading to better support for farmers and to better bids. With less spoilage of staples and agricultural produce, global retail companies can find and provide additional markets to Indian farmers. Walmart, since its arrival in India’s wholesale retail market, already sources and exports about $1 billion worth of Indian goods for its global customers.
Not only do these losses reduce food security in India, the study claims that poor farmers and others loose income because of the waste and inefficient retail. Over US$50 billion of additional income can become available to Indian farmers by preventing post-harvest farm losses, improving transport, proper storage and retail. Organized retail is also expected to initiate infrastructure development creating millions of rural and urban jobs for India’s growing population. One study claims that if these post-harvest food staple losses could be eliminated with better infrastructure and retail network in India, enough food would be saved every year to feed 70 to 100 million people over the year.
Supporters of retail reform, The Economist claims, say it will increase competition and quality while reducing prices helping to reduce India’s rampant inflation that is close to the double digits. These supporters claim that unorganized small shopkeepers will continue to exist alongside large organized supermarkets, because for many Indians they will remain the most accessible and most convenient place to shop.
Chief Ministers of Indian states
Supporters of retail reform who have voiced the need to promote organized retail include Chief Ministers of several states of India, several belonging to political parties that have no affiliation with Congress-led central government of India. The list includes the Chief Ministers of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat. In a report submitted earlier in 2011, these Chief Ministers urged the Prime Minister to prioritize reforms to help promote organized retail, shorten the retail path from farm to consumer, allow organized retail to buy direct from farmers at remunerative produce prices, and reduce farm to retail costs. Similarly, the Chief Minister of Delhi has come out in support of the retail reform, as have the Chief Ministers of the two farming states of Haryana and Punjab in north India. The Chief Ministers of Haryana and Punjab claim that the announced retail reforms will immensely benefit farmers in their states.
The Chief Minister of the state of Maharashtra – the state with the highest GDP in India and home to its financial capital Mumbai – has also welcomed the retail reform.
Tarun Gogoi, the Chief Minister of Assam, an eastern state in India, announcing his support to the retail reform, claimed “this will go a long way in bringing about a sea change in rural economy. The decision will boost agriculture and allied sectors, manufacturing, logistics, integrated cold chains, refrigerated transportation and food processing facilities in a big way.” Criticising the BJP-organized opposition, Gogoi claimed that these parties who had just a few years ago dubbed opening up retail as good for India, are now singing a different tune.
Current supermarkets
Existing Indian retail firms such as Spencer’s, Foodworld Supermarkets Ltd, Nilgiri’s and ShopRite support retail reform and consider international competition as a blessing in disguise. They expect a flurry of joint ventures with global majors for expansion capital and opportunity to gain expertise in supply chain management. Spencer’s Retail with 200 stores in India, and with retail of fresh vegetables and fruits accounting for 55 per cent of its business claims retail reform to be a win-win situation, as they already procure the farm products directly from the growers without the involvement of middlemen or traders. Spencer’s claims that there is scope for it to expand its footprint in terms of store location as well as procuring farm products. Foodworld, which operates over 60 stores, plans to ramp up its presence to more than 200 locations. It has already tied up with Hong Kong-based Dairy Farm International. With the relaxation in international investments in Indian retail, India’s Foodworld expects its global relationship will only get stronger. Competition and investment in retail will provide more benefits to consumers through lower prices, wider availability and significant improvement in supply chain logistics
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act that determines the order of succession in the case of a Hindu woman who dies intestate should be amended for, it reflects an entrenched system of subjugation of women.
The family that had sent a young woman back to her parents after her husband’s death, surfaced when she died. There was a contest between her mother and the husband’s sister’s sons for her property. The mother lost all the way up to the Supreme Court, which noted that it was a “hard case.”
“What women can expect from Courts… is a qualified degree of equal treatment,” wrote Professor Wendy Williams in “The Equality Crisis: Some Reflections on Culture, Courts, and Feminism,” published in 7 Women’s Rts. L. Rep. 175 (1982), adding that “women’s equality as delivered by Courts can only be an integration into a pre-existing, predominantly male world.”
This is so because, though the courts may be well meaning and earnestly intend to uphold equal rights for women, they can only reflect the shared life experience of individuals. This takes a largely male hue, not only because the judgment-deliverers are predominantly male, but also because society systemically supports male supremacy. And this systemic slant shades the thought processes that lie behind laws too, and the courts apply the laws in their judgments.
The skewed reality in which gender is positioned in the social, political, economic and cultural transactions shows up the fact that law is not gender-based — sometimes it is not even gender-neutral. Gender-neutrality will not be enough if it merely maintains the status quo — which is nothing but the perpetuation of gender discrimination. Women need, and must have, affirmation of their equality.
If enactment of laws was sufficient to protect women, then women in India are on velvet. But reality bites. The law is observed in the breach, or the law is not effectively enforced by the law-enforcement agencies, or judicial redress lies beyond the woman’s horizon, or yet, the evil is seen as an accepted practice. Or women get beaten by “hard cases.”
Look at this particular “hard case,” which is reported in (2009)15 SCC Page 66 Omprakash and Others Vs. Radhacharan and Others. In 1955, Narayani Devi married Deendayal Sharma, who died within three months. Soon she was driven out of her matrimonial home. She lived with her parents, earned a living and died on July 11, 1966. She left behind a substantial estate, but wrote no will. Both her mother and her husband’s family claimed a succession certificate. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and held against the mother.
Section 15(1) says that if a Hindu woman dies without leaving a will, her property will devolve in the following order. The first in the order are her children, children of a predeceased child and her husband. If none of these persons is available, then it will go to the next in line: the heirs of the husband. Standing behind them will be the heirs of the father and the mother. Section 15(2) says that notwithstanding these provisions, if the woman is not survived by a child or the children of a predeceased child, then any property she inherited from her father or mother will go to the father’s heirs, and any property she inherited from her husband or father-in-law will go to the husband’s heirs.
The Supreme Court held that Section 15(1) lays down the ordinary rule of succession; Section 15(2)(a) only carves out an exception to Section 15(1). It observed that the law is silent on a Hindu woman’s self-acquired property, and such property cannot be considered as property inherited from her parents. The court said: “This is a hard case… But then only because a case appears to be hard would not lead us to invoke different interpretation of a statutory provision, which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle in law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous.”
In Narayani Devi’s case, the mother’s claim was not based on sympathy or sentiment, but logic and principles of fairness, equity and justice. The Supreme Court, however, found that the law was a hurdle to her claim.
Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee wrote thus in Modern Hindu Law Under Constitution: “Under the provision of Section 15(1) read with sub-section (2) in the absence of children, the order of succession in the case of a female Hindu would vary according to the source of acquisition of property.” He asked why the source of acquisition should be a determinant in the case of a Hindu woman when it is not so in the case of a Hindu man. “Unless we still want to perpetuate in a somewhat different form the old outmoded view that ownership of property cannot be full but must be somewhat limited.”
A mother shares equally with the children and the widow when a son predeceases her. But when a married daughter dies, the mother ranks after the husband’s heirs. This is the law as enacted in 1955-1956. Hindu law as it existed before the Constitution has been the subject of criticism for the glaring inequalities that it perpetuated. But we find lurking inequalities even in subsequent enactments.
Ironically, some of the ancient texts have a more pragmatic and equal approach in such cases. Stridhana, according to some texts, is categorised as technical and non-technical. Non-technical stridhana is that property which is acquired by a woman through her skill and mechanical arts (Vasishta). In the case of a woman who has no issues, the heirs to stridhana are her husband, mother, brother or father (Devala). Aprajaayaa haredbhartaa mata bhrata pitaapi va, says Devalasmrti (A.D. 600-900).
In the 21st edition of Principles of Hindu Law (Mulla), it is observed that Section 15(2) “seem to have been made on the ground that they prevent such property passing into the hands of persons to whom justice would require it should not pass and on the ground that the exceptions are in the interest of the intestate herself.” If the intention of this provision is to prevent property from devolving on persons to whom justice “would require it should not pass,” then the family that had refused to take care of Narayani should not have got anything.
In India those who own property do not always write a will. Narayani did not. She did not know the law of succession. She certainly would not have wanted her husband’s sister’s children to grab her earnings. If her spirit is floating around, it must be a very unhappy one. In India if a woman loses her husband because of death, desertion or divorce, there is a high probability that she will come to be with her parents. In the present day, many women have self-acquired property that they have earned because of their parents’ support. These are the ground realities.
Section 15 should be amended. The order of succession should be altered. In addition to “inheritance,” other modes of acquisition from parents or because of parents could be added.
Justice Bhattacharjee’s criticism of Section 15 has been referred to above. Decades after his book was written, the injustice continues. Neither biological nor social differences shall corrupt the ideal of equality or the reality of equality. In this case the law views the man’s estate and the woman’s estate through different spectacles: her autonomy over her property is less complete than his. How else can one explain the injustice? There are many more such cases. The law should not stand in the way of justice.
Whether the Supreme Court could or should have addressed the gender discrimination, and seen that the apparent “hardness” of the case was only the outer layer of an entrenched system of subjugation of women, and unpeeled the layers, are questions that need not be argued now.
Professor Williams’ article says: “But to the extent the law of the public world must be reconstructed to reflect the needs and values of both sexes change must be sought from legislatures rather than courts. And women whose separate experience has not been adequately registered… are the ones who must seek the change.” It is time that this law is made gender-balanced.
(Prabha Sridevan, a former Judge of the Madras High Court, is Chairperson, Intellectual Property Appellate Board.)
A court judgment delivered earlier in 2011 holds important lessons for those engaged in investigating and fighting terrorism.
Questioning the methods of terror investigation is always a challenge because it is so easily seen as defending the enemies of the nation. The exercise is monumentally difficult after a benumbing bomb attack — especially if it has been judged to be the work of a home-grown Islamist organisation.
The raging anger at this time is in fact against too little, too careful policing, with voices clamouring for instant punishment to the perpetrators. And should the police, under pressure, go off beam and name a few incorrect names and round up a few misidentified suspects, the wrong is seen, not as a wrong, but, in a perverted sort of way, as a balancing act, a compensation for the injustice done to the terror victims. Even from a liberal point this can appear as unavoidable collateral damage suffered in the larger battle against terrorism.
But anguished demands for action and lashing out at imagined culprits can be horribly, embarrassingly off the mark, as the Anders Breivik shootings so chillingly demonstrated. The automatic assumption after the Oslo killings was that Islamists were behind it. Yet Breivik turned out to be insanely anti-Muslim. Imagine the decibel levels of anti-Muslim voices had Breivik not been found out as soon as he was. Within hours of the Oslo outrage, the Wall Street Journal ran a biting editorial (since revised) blaming it on Islamist terrorists: The jihadists, the leader said, had extracted a “terrible price” because of Norway’s commitment to “freedom of speech and conscience” and “every other freedom that still defines the West.” The WSJ leader went beyond the terror attack and became an ideological tirade against a faith seen to be in a classic clash against liberal Western values.
Back in India, there was the usual rush of slanted commentaries after the July 13, 2011 serial bombings in Mumbai. Even if the outrage was masterminded by the Indian Mujahideen (IM) or some other Islamist organisation — as indicated by the Union Home Minister — there was little justification for the offensive anti-Muslim tone in the post-blasts public conversation. A celebrity columnist blamed vote bank compulsions for the government’s failure to crush domestic terrorism. The sub-text: The investigating agencies needed to be ruthless in picking up Muslim suspects. On social networking sites, the language was coarser with not a few demanding saturation combing of Muslim neighbourhoods. Reporters freely identified alleged IM terrorists even as one hate-spewing newspaper article demanded disenfranchisement of Muslims for their alleged role in commissioning terror acts.
The Oslo shootings reinforced a point that was self-evident and yet seemed to require re-stating every time a bomb blast shattered the peace anywhere in India. Terror wears the mask of religion and this religion can be Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism or something else. From Nathuram Godse in 1948 to Breivik today, we have seen terrorists claiming affinity to a host of faiths and ideologies. Nonetheless, Muslims alone have been made to feel that they have somehow to answer for the perverted acts of their alleged co-religionists. When Muslim boys are picked up and shown off as terrorists, there is rarely any interrogation of the police accounts despite their dreary sameness.
Over the past many years, we have become habituated to seeing young Muslim men, their faces covered, being paraded at press conferences. Each of these has been a trophy moment for the police and a spectacular newsbreak for the press. What happens when the same men are later released because the prosecution could not produce an iota of evidence?
Indeed, the spate of acquittals in many of the terror cases ought to induce some rethinking on policing methods and the rationality of picking up suspects just to be able to show quick, dramatic results. Whether it is Godhra 2002, the Delhi blasts of 2005 and 2008, the Mumbai train attacks of 2006, Mecca Masjid cases of 2007 or men and boys routinely picked up and charged with terrorism, the evidence presented in the courts has proved over and over to be wafer thin.
Maulana Umarji was not only the key conspirator in the Godhra train burning, but, according to then media reportage, he actively incited the mob. In February 2011, he was acquitted along with 63 others. As Jyoti Punwani noted in The Hindu, the Maulana had in fact played the opposite role, expressing “regret on behalf of his community, publicly and repeatedly.”
Dozens of boys arbitrarily picked up by the Andhra Pradesh police and chargesheeted in the Mecca Masjid blasts have since been honourably acquitted and are currently fighting to be compensated for the slur cast on them. Mohammad Salman, an alleged IM operative, whom the police recently linked to the July 13, 2011 Mumbai bombings, citing his interrogation report in the 2008 Delhi blasts case, turned out to have been discharged in that case. When the case came up in court, the seizure memos of the Uttar Pradesh police and the Delhi police did not match; the police showed his age as 27 when his parents were married in 1990 and his school certificate showed his birth year as 1992.
The Hindu came across several cases of blatant falsification of evidence against alleged terrorists. The Lucknow police’s case against Kolkata resident Aziz-ur-Rahman was that on June 22, 2007, he and four others arrived in Lucknow armed with huge amounts of RDX and other explosives. On June 23 — after the Lucknow police arrested two of them — Rahman dumped the explosives in a hollow behind the city’s Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and returned to Kolkata. When defence counsel Mohammad Shoaib took up the case, he came across a glaring discrepancy. On June 23, 2007, Rahman was in the custody of the Jadavpur police facing a theft charge — a fact established by his production the same day before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Alipore) J. Koley. But because Rahman was also charged under Section 399 (dacoity) in another case, Mr. Koley, in his order dated June 22, 2007, granted his custody to the West Bengal CID.
The most devastating blow to the prosecution case was dealt on February 2 this year by Delhi (Dwarka courts) Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat. Mr. Bhat’s judgment, delivered with rapier sharp wit and sarcasm, is a testament on the functioning of the Delhi’s police’s anti-terrorism wing, and ought to be compulsory reading for all those training to be investigators. If nothing else, they would learn the art of credible fabrication.
The prosecution case: At around midnight on June 27, 2005, an elite team led by anti-terrorism officer Ravinder Tyagi (the CBI asked for his punishment in another fabricated case), staged an encounter on the Gurgaon-Delhi Road which resulted in the capture of four alleged ISI agents and Kashmiri terrorists, Saqib Rahman alias Masood, Nazir Ahmad Sofi, Gulam Moinuddin Dar and Bashir Ahmed Shah. Mr.Tyagi had secret information that preparatory to a massive bomb attack in the Capital, the terrorists, carrying huge amounts of arms and ammunition, would be reaching Delhi from Gurgaon in a Tata Indica car. The raiding party, travelling in two vehicles, a Swaraj Mazda and a Maruti Gypsy, “gave chase to the Tata Indica” and blocked it from both ends. Terrorist Masood came out of the car and fired two rounds on the police party. Mr. Tyagi and his men “overpowered the terrorists,” including terrorist Dar who was about to lob a hand grenade.
In his judgment, Mr. Bhat tore the police version to shreds. The judge found it “shocking and unbelievable” that Mr. Tyagi took his own time to act on the “secret information” and did not pass it on to his superiors. “What if the terrorists had struck?” he asked, concluding that either “there was no information” or Mr. Tyagi had “ulterior” motives. About the policemen being able to easily disarm the terrorists, he said: “Such kind of imaginary bravery is seen only in Bollywood… Why would terrorists armed with AK 56 and hand grenades surrender to the police?… The encounter should have been fierce. Nothing like this happened which shows it (encounter) is totally imaginary and conceived by the police to implicate the accused in a false case.”
The Judge pointed out a host of other errors and contradictions — the site plan was falsified, the recoveries were planted, the terrorist vehicle, claimed by the police to have been stolen in May 2003, was registered only in July 2003. The prosecution case finally collapsed after the defence obtained the log book of the two police vehicles through Right to Information applications. The log book entries showed that neither the Swaraj Mazda nor the Gypsy went to the encounter spot on the night of June 27, 2005.
In conclusion the judge, who recommended punishment to Mr. Tyagi and his team, said: “It is difficult to take it (the stage-managed encounter) out of mind. These four police officers have brought utter shame and disrepute to the whole Delhi Police Force. In my opinion, there cannot be any more serious or grave crime than a police officer framing an innocent citizen in a false criminal case … It is not only unethical but also illegal for an investigating agency to resort to concoction, padding, fabrication of evidence — all serious offences under the law even to bring a known criminal to justice.”
Wise words that must be paid heed to by every policeman and every citizen who feel that the means are unimportant when the fight is against terrorism.
Section 15 should be amended, so that in case a female Hindu dies intestate leaving her self-acquired property with no heirs, as mentioned in Clause ‘a’ of Section 15, the property should devolve on her husband’s heirs and also on the heirs of her paternal side.
This refers to the article “A law that thwarts justice” (The Hindu, June 27, 2011) by Ms. Prabha Sridevan, former Judge of the Madras High Court. I have analysed it and am in agreement with the views expressed by the author for my own reasons.
As Chairman of the Law Commission of India, I took up for consideration the necessity of amending Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which deals with the general rules of Succession in the case of female Hindus dying intestate — not having made a will before one dies — in view of the vast societal changes that have taken place.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is part of the Hindu Code which includes the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
The Hindu Succession Act made a revolutionary change in the law for female Hindus. For the first time, a Hindu female could become an absolute owner of property. She could inherit equally with a male counterpart and a widow was also given importance regarding the succession of her husband’s property as also to her father’s property. The Act was amended in 2005 to provide that the daughter of a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law shall, by birth, become a co-parcener in her own right in the same manner as the son, having the same rights and liabilities in respect of the said property as that of a son.
Scheme of succession
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act propounds a definite and uniform scheme of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate. There are also rules set out in Section 16 of the Act which provides for the order of succession and the manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.
Source of acquisition
The group of heirs of the female Hindu dying intestate is described in 5 categories as ‘a’ to ‘e’ of Section 15 (1) which is illustrated as under:
In a case where she dies intestate leaving property, her property will firstly devolve upon her sons and daughters so also the husband. The children of any pre-deceased son or daughter are also included in the first category of heirs of a female Hindu;
In case she does not have any heir as referred to above, i.e., sons, daughters and husband including children of any pre-deceased sons or daughters (as per clause ‘a’) living at the time of her death, then the next heirs will be the heirs of the husband;
Thirdly, if there are no heirs of the husband, the property would devolve upon the mother and father;
Fourthly, if the mother and father are not alive, then the property would devolve upon the heirs of the father which means brother, sister, etc;
The last and the fifth category is the heirs of the mother upon whom the property of the female Hindu will devolve if in the absence of any heirs falling in the four preceding categories.
This is the general rule of succession, but the Section also provides for two exceptions which are stated in Sub-Section (2). Accordingly, if a female dies without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother will not devolve according to the rules laid down in the five entries as stated earlier, but upon the heirs of father. And secondly, in respect of the property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law, the same will devolve not according to the general rule, but upon the heirs of the husband.
The Hindu Succession Bill, 1954, as originally introduced in the Rajya Sabha, did not contain any clause corresponding to Sub-Section (2) of Section 15. It came to be incorporated on the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. The intent of the legislature is clear that the property, if it originally belonged to the parents of the deceased female, should go to the legal heirs of the father.
So also under Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 15, the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or her father-in-law shall also under similar circumstances, devolve upon the heirs of the husband. It is the source from which the property was inherited by the female, which is more important for the purpose of devolution of her property. The fact that a female Hindu originally had a limited right and after acquiring the full right, would not, in any way, alter the rules of succession given in Sub Section (2) of Section 15.
The 174{+t}{+h} Report of the Law Commission also examined the subject of “Property Rights of Women; Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law” and had noted that the rules of devolution of the property of a female who dies intestate reflects patriarchal assumptions.
The basis of inheritance of a female Hindu’s property who dies intestate would thus be the SOURCE from which such female Hindu came into the possession of the property and the manner of inheritance which would decide the manner of devolution.
The term ‘property’ though not specified in this Section means property of the deceased heritable under the Act. It includes both movable and immovable property owned and acquired by her by inheritance or by devise or at a partition or by gift or by her skill or exertion or by purchase or prescription. This Section does not differentiate between the property inherited and self-acquired property of a Hindu female; it only prescribes that if a property is inherited from husband or father-in-law, it would go to her husband’s heirs and if the property is inherited from her father or mother, in that case, the property would not go to her husband’s, but to the heirs of the father and mother.
This is very aptly illustrated by the following illustration:- A married Hindu female dies intestate leaving the property which is her self-acquired property. She has no issue and was a widow at the time of her death. As per the present position of law, her property would devolve in the second category, i.e., to her husband’s heirs. Thus, in a case where the mother of her husband is alive, her whole property would devolve on her mother-in-law. If the mother-in-law is also not alive, it would devolve as per the rules laid down in case of a male Hindu dying intestate, i.e., if the father of her deceased husband is alive, the next to inherit will be her father-in-law and if in the third category, the father-in-law is also not alive, then her property would devolve on the brother and sister of the deceased husband.
Thus, in the case of the self-acquired property of a Hindu married female dying intestate, her property devolves on her husband’s heirs. Her paternal and material heirs do not inherit, but the distant relations of her husband would inherit as per the husband’s heirs.
The case for change
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted when, in the structure of the Hindu society, women hardly went out to work. There has been a vast change in the social scene in the past few years and women have made progress in all spheres. The consequence is that women are owning property earned by their own skill. These situations were not foreseen by the legislators.
If that is so, what is the impact of these socio-economic changes? Do they warrant any change in the law of succession in relation to the property of a female Hindu dying intestate? What is the fallout of a gradual disintegration of the joint Hindu family and the emergence of nuclear families as a unit of society over the years in the context of law of succession governing the issue at hand?
A fundamental tenet of the law of succession has been the proximity of relation in which a Successor stands to the person who originally held the property that may be the subject matter of inheritance in a given case. The fact that women have been given the right to inherit from her parental side also assumes relevance in the present context. These developments and changes lead to competing arguments and approaches that may be taken in re-defining the law of succession in case of a female Hindu dying intestate. Thus, three alternative options emerge for consideration, namely:
1. Self-acquired property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve first upon her heirs from the natal family.
2. Self-acquired property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve equally upon the heirs of her husband and the heirs from her natal family.
3. Self-acquired property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve first upon the heirs of her husband.
The third option may be taken first as this can be disposed of summarily. The option essentially means continuation of the status quo. We have seen earlier that socio-economic changes warrant corresponding changes in the law as well.
We may now take up the first option. The protagonists of this approach contend that the general order of succession reflects a gender bias. It will be relevant to refer to a passage in Pradhan Saxena – Succession Laws and Gender Justice in Re-defining Family Law in India by Archana Parasar, Amit Dhanda, New Delhi.
The supporters of the said approach contend that the joint family system has slowly eroded and that an increasing number of nuclear and semi-nuclear families have replaced the traditional Mitakshara Hindu joint family system. Women are also becoming more economically independent. With the growth of the nuclear family, a married woman’s dependency on her natal family and continued closeness to it is much greater today even if it was not so earlier. Most married women would prefer that their parents should be the more preferred heirs to inherit her property if her children and husband are not alive. She would also prefer that her sister and brother have a better right to inherit her property than her brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
Accordingly, it is urged that Section 15(1) should be modified to ensure that the general order of succession does not place a woman’s husband’s heirs above those who belong to her natal family like her father and mother and thereafter, her brother and sister. It is contended that when a man dies intestate, his wife’s relatives do not even figure in the order of succession despite the manner in which he may have acquired the property. In view of this, parity is sought in the case of a female by applying the same rules as applicable to male’s property.
Accordingly, it is suggested that it would be better to amend Section 15(1) to specify the general rules of devolution, which will apply not only to self-acquired property by a woman, but also to other property acquired through her family, gifts, etc. The only proviso which would then be needed would be the property that a woman acquires from her husband’s family.
The second option in this regard is that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves upon the heirs depending upon the source from which, the said property was acquired by her, the self-acquired property of such female be simultaneously inherited by her heirs both from the husband family as well as the natal family in equal share. The fact remains that in spite of her closeness to and dependence on her natal family, her relations with her husband’s family are not separated and uprooted in entirety. She continues to be a member of her husband’s family, getting support from it in all walks of life. One cannot afford to ignore the ground realities in this regard. The social ethos and the mores of our patriarchal system demand that the existing system should not be totally reversed as claimed by the protagonists of the first option. Lest, there may be social and family tensions which may not be in the overall interest of the family as a whole and as such, ought to be avoided. In any case, it is open to the female Hindu to bequeath her property the way she likes by executing a Will.
Conclusions
In the present scenario, when amendments are made to the effect that women have been entitled to inherit property from her parental side as well as from husband’s side, it will be quite justified if equal right is given to her parental heirs along with her husband’s heirs to inherit her property.
It is, therefore, proposed that in order to bring about a balance, Section 15 should be amended, so that in case a female Hindu dies intestate leaving her self-acquired property with no heirs, as mentioned in Clause ‘a’ of Section 15, the property should devolve on her husband’s heirs and also on the heirs of her paternal side.
If this amendment is brought about, the effect will be as under:
A married Hindu female dies intestate leaving self-acquired property at the time of her death, the only surviving relatives being her mother-in-law (L) and her mother (M).
Pre-Amendment
As per the present law, her property would devolve entirely on ‘L’ and ‘M’ will not get anything from her property.
Post Amendment
By the proposed amendment, her mother-in-law and mother should equally inherit her self-acquired property.
A married Hindu female dies intestate leaving self-acquired property and she has no heirs as per Clause ‘a’ of the Schedule, the only surviving relatives are her husband’s brother and sister (BL & SL) and her own brother and sister (B&S).
Pre-Amendment
As per the present law, her property would normally devolve upon ‘BL’ and ‘SL’. ‘B’ and ‘S’ do not inherit anything from her in this property.
Post Amendment
By the proposed amendment, her own brother and sister should equally inherit along with her brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
The above amendment, suggested by me as Chairman of 18{+t}{+h} Law Commission as early as in June 2008 in the public interest, is still pending with the Union Law Ministry.
(The writer is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Law Commission of India. His email id is jusarlakshmanan@gmail.com)
The legality of mercy killing or euthanasia and its ethical and moral sides have been hotly discussed and debated in the Indian media and society for the last week or so.
Mercy killing is defined as the killing of one person by another. The victim of mercy killing is normally in the vegetable state or has an injury or illness that cannot be cured, as it is usually in its last stage. The victim experiences immensely painful last days just before his or her death.
For a voluntary case of mercy killing to take place, the killer must first obtain the consent of the victim, but there have been recorded cases of mercy killing against the wishes of the victim as well. This is known as involuntary mercy killing. The victim of a mercy killing dies a painless death after suffering an incurable ailment or serious injury. The term euthanasia, which means mercy killing, is derived from the Greek word for ‘good death’. Euthanasia has been legalised in some Western countries but is still considered to be an unethical practice in the Third World.
Also known as assisted suicide and mercy death, euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.
It is illegal in India and most countries of the world. Only ten odd countries have legalised the practice of mercy killing. Some social activists claim that euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering for the terminally ill persons.
The DoctorNDTV.com survey on this issue has shown a mixed response. More than half the respondents feel that the decision should not be left to the doctors or the next of kin, while one third support the doctors / relatives right to take this decision. Two-thirds agree that euthanasia is the same as mercy killing. Though 71 per cent people feel that legal advice is necessary before taking a decision, most people (>88 per cent) feel that it may be misused in India.
The following are the pros and cons for allowing euthanasia.
Pros:
It provides a way to relieve extreme pain
It provides a way of relief when a person’s quality of life is low
Frees up medical funds to help other people
It is another case of freedom of choice
Cons:
Euthanasia devalues human life
Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
Physicians and other medical care people will get involved in directly causing death
There is a ‘slippery slope’ effect that will occur.
Stances, views and opinions on euthanasia vary greatly; it is called murderous by some and merciful by others. Such controversy arises generally from the serious social, cultural and moral issues attached to the subject.
A Matter of Life and Death – March 7th 2011
Bringing the issue into the limelight has been the case of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state of 37 years. A nurse at Mumbai’s KEM hospital in 1973, she was sexually assaulted while working and the incident left her in a vegetative state, relying on life support systems since the incident.
On Monday the 7th of March 2011, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that passive euthanasia was legal in India and could be practiced in special circumstances, but struck down any hopes of active euthanasia in the country. The Supreme Court was responding to an appeal filed by a friend of Shanbaug. The Supreme Court stated that the plea from the friend was not a valid reason enough to grant euthanasia to the ex-nurse. The apex court also stated that if the hospital taking care of Shanbaug had filed a similar appeal, it would carry more weight and authenticity than the one currently filed. One of the reasons given by the court in rejecting the appeal was that the hospital and the nurses taking care of Aruna Shanbaug were opposed to euthanasia of the patient.
India has given the green light for passive euthanasia, a decision seen as welcome and progressive move by many doctors across the country. Passive euthanasia is administering euthanasia by removing the life support extended to a patient in vegetative condition. This is in contrast to active euthanasia, where an active chemical or agent is injected or delivered into the body of a patient in vegetative condition. The apex court observed that the country might not be ready for such radical and drastic ruling. The court stated that the only way active euthanasia could be legalised is if the Indian Parliament passed a law to that effect.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, however, did not accept the plea of Pinky Viranai seeking permission to withdraw life support to her friend. Writing the judgment, Justice Katju said that there was no statutory provision in our country as to the legal procedure for withdrawing life support to a person in PVS or who is otherwise incompetent to take a decision. He agreed that passive euthanasia should be permitted in our country in certain situations.
The Bench pointed out that in the absence of a law against sexual harassment at work places, the Supreme Court in the Visakha case had laid down guidelines. Similarly he claimed that he was now laying down the law in this connection which will continue to be the law until Parliament makes a law on the subject. According to him, a decision has to be taken to discontinue life support [to a patient in PVS] either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.
The Bench believes that if they leave it solely to the patient’s relatives or to the doctors or the next friend to decide whether to withdraw life support to an incompetent person, there is always a risk in our country that this may be misused by some unscrupulous persons who wish to inherit or otherwise grab the property of the patient. Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialisation and corruption, they cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery.”
In the present case, the Bench declared that Aruna Shanbaug’s parents are dead and other close relatives had not been interested in her ever since she had the unfortunate assault on her. It is the KEM Hospital staff, who has been amazingly caring for her day and night for so many long years, who really are her next friends, and not Ms. Pinky Virani, who has only visited her on a few occasions and written a book on her. Hence it is for the KEM Hospital staff to take that decision. The KEM hospital staff has clearly expressed their wish that Aruna Shanbaug should be allowed to live.
The nurses and doctors at the hospital were jubilant over the Supreme Court ruling. A few nurses at the hospital remarked to the media that the ruling was the best women’s day gift the top court could have given them. The nurses even went on to question the authenticity of Ms. Pinky Virani, Shanbaug’s friend who appealed to the Supreme Court to grant euthanasia. The nurses at KEM hospital claimed that Shanbaug was like family to them. They claimed that Shanbaug was not completely vegetative and that she responded to touch and food. Nurses were of the opinion that Ms. Virani, who had not taken care of Shanbaug through the 37 years of being comatose had no right to ask for the withdrawal of life support systems.
“India is not mature enough to handle euthanasia,” senior Bangalore-based cardiologist Devi Prasad Shetty said while expressing his happiness over the verdict on a mercy killing plea on behalf of 60-year-old Aruna Shanbaug. Dr. Shetty’s view was shared by Chief Cardiologist of Bombay Hospital B.K. Goyal, who said euthanasia is an emotional issue which can be “misused.”
There was joy among Aruna’s former colleagues and nurses in local KEM hospital who have been tending to her. Nurses distributed sweets at the hospital after the Supreme Court ruling.
While comparing euthanasia with MTP, senior doctor Goyal said that in such a case they should ensure the safety of people at large because when in India, MTP is allowed, it was misused right and left. In the same way, he feels euthanasia can be misused too.
Dr. Shetty said that financial constraints and inability to look after cannot be the reason to ask someone to terminate life. This is unacceptable.
He believes that this country is not mature enough to handle this major legal issue. It is not possible.
March 9th 2011
No parent would like to see their children killed, even if disabled, but watching the nightmarish existence of their physically challenged sons has prompted a couple from Bihar to seek euthanasia from them. Mukesh Kumar, a marginal farmer from Ratwada village of Muzaffarpur district filed a mercy death plea for his sons, Nitin, 15, and Anshu, 13, both living with muscular dystrophy (MD), a terminal and degenerative condition that has crippled the two brothers.
Muscular dystrophy is not just a disability, but a genetic and inherited disorder that gradually deteriorates killing muscle cells and tissues until the patient finally dies.
According to the parents, the boys were born healthy and were like normal children till age two when they got the muscular disorder. The boys cannot talk or stand on their feet and are completely dependent on their parents. They are also paralysed below their chests and are unable to move or eat without assistance.
Although, MD has no cure, some treatments are available in US. However, these are expensive, something to the tune of over Rs. 30 lakhs which are far beyond the poor farmer means.
The financial resources of the couple have been exhausted completely. They have sold off their few valuables and ancestral land to meet the expenses for their sons’ medical treatment.
Mukesh stated that they have been pleading for their mercy killing because we cannot continue costly medical treatment, which anyway will not cure them, only prolong their unhappy lives. He believes that the state government should either grant permission or provide us help for treatment.
Watching the discomfort, torturous pain, indignity and utter helplessness of the two sons virtually turn into vegetables over the last 10 years is distressing for the parents.
With doctors giving up hope, the parents feel death is the only solution that can put an end to the tyranny of their fate.
The dignity of life and the right to live without pain and discomfort are the major issues in the limelight. If active euthanasia is implemented in India, there is a considerable chance that it could be misused, especially in areas that are rural and withdrawn from the mainstream. The Supreme Court seems to have made a sensible decision on the issue. May be, India will have to wait a few more years until the nation is ready for legal active euthanasia.
New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.
After days of contentious negotiations and last-minute reversals by two Republican senators, New York became the sixth and largest state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage, breathing life into the national gay rights movement that had stalled over a nearly identical bill two years ago.
Pending any court challenges, legal gay marriages can begin in New York by late July, 2011 after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed his bill into law just before midnight on 24.06.2011.
At New York City’s Stonewall Inn, the Greenwich Village pub that spawned the gay rights movement on a June night in 1969, Scott Redstone watched New York sign the historic same-sex marriage law with his partner of 29 years, and popped the question.
“I said, ‘Will you marry me?’ And he said, ‘Of course!’” Redstone said he and Steven Knittweis walked home to pop open a bottle of champagne.
New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.
“That’s certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation,” said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “It’s truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won.”
“We made a powerful statement,” Mr. Cuomo said. “This state is at its finest when it is a beacon of social justice.”
The leading opponent, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz, was given only a few minutes to state his case during the Senate debate.
“God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago,” said Diaz, a Bronx minister. “I’m sorry you are trying to take away my right to speak,” he said. “Why are you ashamed of what I have to say?”
The Catholic Bishops of New York said the law alters “radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage.”
“We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love,” the bishops stated Friday, “We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.”
Legal challenges of the law and political challenges aimed at the four Republicans who supported gay marriage in the 33-29 vote are expected. Republican senators endured several marathon sessions, combing through several standard but complex bills this week, before taking up the same-sex marriage bill 24.06.2011.
The bill came to the floor for a vote after an agreement was reached on more protections for religious groups that oppose gay marriage and feared discrimination lawsuits.
“State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues,” said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. He said his organization would work in next year’s elections to defeat lawmakers who voted for the measure.
The big win for gay rights advocates is expected to galvanize the movement around the country after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.
Jerry Nathan of Albany, who married his partner in Massachusetts, called the vote “an incredible culmination of so much that’s been going on for so many years it doesn’t seem real yet.”
Ultimately, gay couples will be able to marry because of two previously undecided Republicans from upstate regions far more conservative than the New York City base of the gay rights movement.
Sen. Stephen Saland, 67, voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement. On Friday night, gay marriage supporters wept in the Senate gallery as Mr. Saland explained how his strong, traditionally family upbringing led him to embrace legalizing gay marriage.
“While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience,” Mr. Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. “I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.”
Also voting for the bill was freshman Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who also had been undecided. Mr. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.
“I apologize to those I offend,” said Mr. Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. “But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents,” he said.
A huge street party erupted outside the Stonewall Inn Friday night, with celebrants waving rainbow flags and dancing after the historic vote.
Watching the festivities from across the street was Sarah Ellis, who has been in a six-year relationship with her partner, Kristen Henderson. Ellis said the measure would enable them to get married in the fall. They have twin toddlers and live in Sea Cliff on Long Island.
The noise being generated about recent incidents of rape in Uttar Pradesh might make it seem like the state is particularly bad when it comes to this most heinous of crimes against women, but official data suggests quite the contrary. In fact, UP has among the lowest rates of rape among all major states in India.
The National Crime Records Bureau’s publication Crime in India 2009 — the latest edition of that annual report — shows that with 1,759 rape victims in 2009, UP had 0.9 rape victims per lakh population. Compare that with the 1,631 victims in a much smaller state like Assam, which means a rate of 5.3 rape victims per lakh population, almost six times the rate in UP.
The five best states or UTs in 2009, among those with a population of 100 lakh or more, were Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, UP and Bihar in that order, all of them having less than one rape victim per lakh population.
At the other end of the scale, the five worst were Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and West Bengal, in descending order of the rate. Even the best among this lot, West Bengal had a rate of 2.6 rape victims per lakh population, that is about thrice as bad as in UP. The Congress raising the issue of lawlessness in UP in this context seems particularly ironic given the fact that not one of the five best states or UTs had a Congress government in 2009, although Tamil Nadu had one run by an ally. he truth is that the political colour of the government has little co-relation with rape statistics.
It is likely that social factors lead to greater under-reporting of crimes against women in a state like UP or Bihar than in, say, Delhi. However, that still does not explain why MP, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan (2.3 victims per lakh population) or Haryana (2.5 per lakh) do not have lower figures than UP or Bihar. After all, there is no reason to believe that there is any less of a stigma attached to rape victims in these states than in UP or Bihar.
Even a single case of a woman getting raped anywhere is one rape too many and deserves to be condemned. However, when crimes like these are sought to be used for political ends, those raising the bogey also deserve condemnation. If those protesting against the recent rapes in UP are seriously concerned about crimes against women in India, they would be better advised to spend their time and energy on figuring out how rapes and other such crimes can be minimised if not eliminated. That would involve, among other things, changing the gender profile of the police force as well as sensitising male policemen to the heinousness of the crime and the trauma of the victims. It is a harder job than agitating with a political motive, but a job that needs to be done.
I heartily greet 120 crore Indians on the 64th anniversary of our independence.
I have been addressing you from the historic Red Fort for the last seven years. In these seven years, our country has achieved much. During this period, we have travelled rapidly on the path of development and have seen success in many areas. However, I am also well aware that a lot remains to be done. We have to banish poverty and illiteracy from our country. We have to provide the common man with access to improved health services. We have to provide employment opportunities to each one of our youth.
The road ahead is long and arduous. Particularly, the prevailing situation both inside and outside the country is such that if we do not act with understanding and restraint, our security and prosperity can get adversely affected. The world economy is slowing down. The developed countries especially America and countries of Western Europe are facing economic problems. There is unrest in many Arab countries of the Middle East. There are some people who want to create disturbances in the country so that our progress gets stalled. All this can have a negative impact on us. But we will not let this happen. I know that if we work together, we can face any challenge. However, it is necessary that we rise above personal or political interests and build consensus on issues of vital national importance.
Brothers and sisters,
We are building the edifice of modern India on the foundation of the hard work and sacrifices of our soldiers, our farmers and our workers. We will not let their hard work and sacrifices go waste. We will convert the dreams of our freedom fighters into reality.
Brothers and sisters,
In the last seven years, our government has strived for political stability and social and economic progress. We have established an environment of communal harmony in the country.
In these seven years, the pace of our economic development has been rapid. We have achieved this success despite the global economic slow-down of 2008 and rising prices of energy and commodities in world markets.
We have strived for reducing inequalities in the country. In the last seven years, we have taken special care of the needs of our brothers and sisters from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, minorities, women and children.
We have enacted laws which would guarantee our people their basic entitlements. After the rights to education, employment and information, we will soon enact a legislation for providing food security to the people.
In the last seven years, our relations with various countries of the world have strengthened and deepened. It is only the result of our hard work that today we have much more self respect and self-confidence in ourselves.
Brothers and sisters,
These successes are not ordinary. Today the world recognizes our potential to be one of the major economic powers globally. But the problem of corruption is a big obstacle in such a transformation.
In the last few months many instances of corruption have come to light. In some cases, functionaries of the Central government face allegations of corruption. In other cases, it is the functionaries of various State governments.
We are taking the strictest possible action in cases of corruption that have surfaced. These cases are sub-judice and hence I will say nothing more on this subject.
It is essential that when we consider these issues, we do not create an atmosphere in which the country’s progress comes into question. Any debate on these matters should reflect the confidence that we can overcome these challenges.
Corruption manifests itself in many forms. In some instances, funds meant for schemes for the welfare of the common man end up in the pocket of government officials. In some other instances government discretion is used to favour a selected few. There are also cases where government contracts are wrongfully awarded to the wrong people. We cannot let such activities continue unchecked.
I believe that there is no single big step which we can take to eradicate corruption. In fact, we will have to act simultaneously on many fronts.
We will have to improve our justice delivery system. Everyone should know that quick action will be taken against the corrupt and punishment meted out to them. If our system delivers justice in an effective manner, government officials would think twice before committing a wrong act out of greed or under political pressure.
We want a strong Lokpal to prevent corruption in high places. We have recently introduced a Bill in Parliament to achieve this. Now only Parliament can decide what type of Lokpal legislation should be enacted. I am aware of the differences of opinion on some aspects of the Bill. Those who don’t agree with this Bill can put forward their views to Parliament, political parties and even the press. However, I also believe that they should not resort to hunger strikes and fasts unto death.
It is not appropriate to bring the judiciary under the ambit of Lokpal. We believe that any such provision would go against the independence of the judiciary. However, we do need a framework in which the judiciary becomes more accountable. It is with this aim that we have introduced the Judicial Accountability Bill in Parliament. I am confident that this Bill will be passed soon.
An alert press and an aware citizenry can be very helpful in the fight against corruption. The Indian press is known for its independence and activism throughout the world. The Right to Information legislation that we have enacted has enabled our press and people to keep a strict watch on the work of the government.
Today many government decisions, which in the absence of this Act would escape public scrutiny, are coming to light. I believe that this is a big step forward in eradicating corruption.
Brothers and Sisters,
Many times, government discretion is misused in allocation of scarce resources and in the grant of clearances. We have examined this issue. We will put an end to such discretionary powers wherever possible.
Any government awards contracts worth thousands of crores every year. There are frequent complaints of corruption in these decisions. We had constituted a committee to suggest measures to reduce corruption in government purchases. The committee has recommended that, like many other countries, we should also have a public procurement legislation which lays down the principles and practice with regard to government purchases. We will introduce a Bill in Parliament by the end of this year to enact such a law.
In recent years, we have established independent regulatory authorities in many areas. These authorities discharge many responsibilities which were earlier in the domain of the government itself. We have no legislation which would enable monitoring of the work of these regulatory authorities and make them more accountable, without, however, compromising their independence. We are also considering enactment of such a law.
Brothers and sisters,
I have said so much on corruption because I know that this problem is a matter of deep concern for all of us. However, this is a difficulty for which no government has a magic wand. We are taking simultaneous action on many fronts in our fight against corruption. We want all political parties to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in this fight. To eradicate corruption, we have introduced, and will introduce, many Bills in Parliament. I hope that all political parties will cooperate in the process of converting these Bills into statutes. On the issue of corruption, I would like to say in the end that we can win the fight against corruption only when each and every citizen of India cooperates in it.
Brothers and sisters,
I congratulate the country’s farmers for their achievements this year. The production of foodgrains has been at a record level. Wheat, maize, pulses and oilseeds have all seen record levels of production. It is because of the hard work of our farmers that today there are proposals for export of foodgrains, sugar and cotton.
We need a second Green Revolution in agriculture. We can tackle the problem of rising food prices only by increasing agricultural production and productivity. We also need to increase agricultural production to implement a food security law. We will accelerate our efforts in this direction in the 12th Plan.
Today, I wish to assure our farmer brothers and sisters, particularly those who are small and marginal, that we will continue to take care of their special needs. It will be our endeavour to ensure that our farmers have easy access to fertilizers, seeds and credit. We also want to provide the best possible irrigation facilities to the farmers so that their dependence on rains is reduced.
Brothers and sisters,
Our country is passing through a phase of sustained high inflation. Controlling rising prices is a primary responsibility of any government. Our government fully understands this responsibility. We have continuously taken steps to rein in prices. Some time we have been confronted with a situation in which the reasons for rising prices lay outside the country. The prices of petroleum products, foodgrains and edible oil have risen steeply in international markets in recent times. Since we import these products in large quantities, any rise in their prices adds to inflationary pressure in our country. Sometimes we have been successful too in controlling inflation. But this success has not proved lasting. A few days back, the people’s concern at rising prices was also reflected in a discussion in Parliament. I wish to assure you today that we are continuously monitoring the situation to find out what new steps can be taken to arrest rising prices. Finding a solution to this problem will be our top-most priority in the coming months.
Brothers and sisters,
I am fully aware of the tensions caused in some parts of the country because of acquisition of land for industry, infrastructure and urbanization. Our farmers have been especially affected by such acquisition. Land acquisition is no doubt necessary for projects of public interest. But it should take place in a transparent and fair manner. The interests of those whose livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired should be fully protected. We will ensure that no injustice is done to anyone in the process of land acquisition. Our government wants to replace the 117 year old land acquisition law by a new Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation law which is forward looking and balanced. We have already prepared a draft legislation and have initiated steps to build consensus on it. We will soon introduce a Bill in Parliament to this end.
Brothers and sisters,
We are satisfied with our achievements in the last seven years in the areas of education and health. Whether it is elementary education, secondary education or higher education we have taken concrete steps for improvements at all levels. This has shown good results. In the last few years, fundamental changes have taken place in the area of education. Today every citizen has a right to elementary education. We are now considering universalization of secondary education. Vocational education and skill development have acquired a new importance. In view of these major changes, it is necessary that we consider all aspects of education in a comprehensive manner. Therefore we have decided to appoint an education commission to make recommendations for improvements at all levels of education.
I have often referred to the 11th Five Year Plan as an education plan. We will lay the same emphasis on health in the 12th plan as we laid on education in the 11th plan. I will propose to the National Development Council that the 12th plan should be specially focused on health. I also promise that funds will not be a constraint in the important areas of education and health.
For a long time our country had no facility for health insurance for workers in the unorganized sector. In 2008, we began the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana for workers in the unorganized sector who are below the poverty line. In the last year we have covered those getting employment under Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Act and also domestic workers, street vendors and beedi workers under this scheme. Today the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana covers about 2 crore 50 lakh workers. Our government will endeavour to cover as many unorganized sector workers as possible under this scheme.
Brothers and sisters,
We are continuously strengthening the physical infrastructure in our country. This is an area which requires very large investments. It is for this reason that in the last seven years we have pursued policies which encourage investment in infrastructure. As a percentage of GDP, investment in this area has grown more than one and a half times in the last seven years. There have been improvements in our capacities in the petroleum sector and power generation, and in our airports, roads, especially rural road, and ports. As an illustration, the capacity in power generation that we are going to add in the 11th plan will be twice that of the 10th plan. In the 12th Plan, we will further accelerate investment in infrastructure. We will pay special attention to the remote areas of our country and to rural areas. Connecting such areas by rail and road will get the top most priority.
Brothers and sisters,
We have taken a major step this year for our poor brothers and sisters living in cities. Recently we have approved the Rajiv Awas Yojana. We want to make India slum free through this scheme. We want the slum dwellers to get ownership of clean houses and have access to basic amenities like water and electricity. We will implement the Rajiv Awas Yojana as a national mission together with the States.
Brothers and sisters,
Malnutrition in our women and children is a matter of concern for all of us. We have taken a number of steps to tackle this problem, including two new schemes. We have also decided that we will start implementing an improved Integrated Child Development Services scheme within the next six months so that the problem of malnutrition in children can be effectively addressed.
The figures of census 2011 show improvements in most areas. But it is a matter of deep regret for us that the sex ratio has shown a decline from the level of the last census. For an improvement in this state of affairs, it is not only necessary to implement the existing laws effectively but it is also essential to change the approach with which our society views girls and women. I would especially appeal to the State governments and social service organizations to take steps for empowerment of women and for improving their status in society.
Brothers and sisters,
Last month’s terrorists attacks in Mumbai warn us that there cannot be any slip up in our vigilance as far as the fight against terrorism is concerned. This is a long battle to be fought jointly by the Central Government, the State Governments and the common man. We have been steadily strengthening our intelligence and security agencies and will continue to do so in the future also.
We are also taking all possible steps to overcome the challenge of naxalism. We want to eradicate the very reasons which give rise to this problem. Therefore we have started a new scheme for the accelerated development of 60 backward and tribal dominated districts. An amount of Rs. 3300 crore will be spent on this scheme in a period of two years.
Brothers and sisters,
Preserving our environment even as we develop rapidly is a huge challenge for us. Climate change poses a threat to both our development processes and our natural resources. We have established eight missions on climate change and are working hard to implement these missions. We have set up the National Ganga River Basin Authority for the protection and cleaning of river Ganga. We have also established the National Green Tribunal for quick disposal of cases involving environmental issues. In the coming months, we will constitute an environmental assessment and monitoring authority to streamline the process of environmental clearances.
Brothers and sisters,
Our society and country are changing rapidly because of our fast economic growth. Today our people look towards the future with new hope. They have higher aspirations. Our young men and women strive for path breaking achievements. We should all build an environment in the country in which the energy and enthusiasm of the people are channelised into activities of nation building. Our institutions should encourage constructive utilization of the potential of our people. Our entrepreneurs and businessmen should not feel constrained in their activities. Our industrialists should have the opportunity to set up new industries so that our youth can get additional avenues for productive employment. We should all stay away from politics that create suspicion or apprehension amongst those connected with industry, business and investment.
Brothers and sisters,
It is not an ordinary achievement for our democracy with a population of 120 crore and so many religions, languages and cultures to march rapidly ahead on the path of development. I congratulate the people of India on this achievement. But we must ensure that inequalities do not increase even as we develop rapidly.
We have embarked on a journey to transform our huge and diverse country through rapid development. A development which benefits every citizen of the country. It is natural that tensions would sometimes arise in this process of change. In a democracy, such tensions also become issues of political polarization. We should endeavour that even as political parties oppose and engage in debate against each other, the pace of our progress does not get affected.
We should also have faith that our democracy, our institutions and our social ideals and values have the capacity to deal with any difficulty. We should all have faith in ourselves. The faith that we can build a promising future for ourselves. The faith, that united we can do the most difficult of tasks. Let us all resolve to build a bright future for our country.
Section 15 should be amended, so that in case a female Hindu dies intestate leaving her self-acquired property with no heirs, as mentioned in Clause ‘a’ of Section 15, the property should devolve on her husband’s heirs and also on the heirs of her paternal side.
This refers to the article “A law that thwarts justice” (The Hindu, June 27, 2011) by Ms. Prabha Sridevan, former Judge of the Madras High Court. I have analysed it and am in agreement with the views expressed by the author for my own reasons.
As Chairman of the Law Commission of India, I took up for consideration the necessity of amending Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which deals with the general rules of Succession in the case of female Hindus dying intestate — not having made a will before one dies — in view of the vast societal changes that have taken place.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is part of the Hindu Code which includes the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
The Hindu Succession Act made a revolutionary change in the law for female Hindus. For the first time, a Hindu female could become an absolute owner of property. She could inherit equally with a male counterpart and a widow was also given importance regarding the succession of her husband’s property as also to her father’s property. The Act was amended in 2005 to provide that the daughter of a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law shall, by birth, become a co-parcener in her own right in the same manner as the son, having the same rights and liabilities in respect of the said property as that of a son.
Scheme of succession
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act propounds a definite and uniform scheme of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate. There are also rules set out in Section 16 of the Act which provides for the order of succession and the manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.
Source of acquisition
The group of heirs of the female Hindu dying intestate is described in 5 categories as ‘a’ to ‘e’ of Section 15 (1) which is illustrated as under:
In a case where she dies intestate leaving property, her property will firstly devolve upon her sons and daughters so also the husband. The children of any pre-deceased son or daughter are also included in the first category of heirs of a female Hindu;
In case she does not have any heir as referred to above, i.e., sons, daughters and husband including children of any pre-deceased sons or daughters (as per clause ‘a’) living at the time of her death, then the next heirs will be the heirs of the husband;
Thirdly, if there are no heirs of the husband, the property would devolve upon the mother and father;
Fourthly, if the mother and father are not alive, then the property would devolve upon the heirs of the father which means brother, sister, etc;
The last and the fifth category is the heirs of the mother upon whom the property of the female Hindu will devolve if in the absence of any heirs falling in the four preceding categories.
This is the general rule of succession, but the Section also provides for two exceptions which are stated in Sub-Section (2). Accordingly, if a female dies without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother will not devolve according to the rules laid down in the five entries as stated earlier, but upon the heirs of father. And secondly, in respect of the property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law, the same will devolve not according to the general rule, but upon the heirs of the husband.
The Hindu Succession Bill, 1954, as originally introduced in the Rajya Sabha, did not contain any clause corresponding to Sub-Section (2) of Section 15. It came to be incorporated on the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. The intent of the legislature is clear that the property, if it originally belonged to the parents of the deceased female, should go to the legal heirs of the father.
So also under Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 15, the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or her father-in-law shall also under similar circumstances, devolve upon the heirs of the husband. It is the source from which the property was inherited by the female, which is more important for the purpose of devolution of her property. The fact that a female Hindu originally had a limited right and after acquiring the full right, would not, in any way, alter the rules of succession given in Sub Section (2) of Section 15.
The 174{+t}{+h} Report of the Law Commission also examined the subject of “Property Rights of Women; Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law” and had noted that the rules of devolution of the property of a female who dies intestate reflects patriarchal assumptions.
The basis of inheritance of a female Hindu’s property who dies intestate would thus be the SOURCE from which such female Hindu came into the possession of the property and the manner of inheritance which would decide the manner of devolution.
The term ‘property’ though not specified in this Section means property of the deceased heritable under the Act. It includes both movable and immovable property owned and acquired by her by inheritance or by devise or at a partition or by gift or by her skill or exertion or by purchase or prescription. This Section does not differentiate between the property inherited and self-acquired property of a Hindu female; it only prescribes that if a property is inherited from husband or father-in-law, it would go to her husband’s heirs and if the property is inherited from her father or mother, in that case, the property would not go to her husband’s, but to the heirs of the father and mother.
This is very aptly illustrated by the following illustration:- A married Hindu female dies intestate leaving the property which is her self-acquired property. She has no issue and was a widow at the time of her death. As per the present position of law, her property would devolve in the second category, i.e., to her husband’s heirs. Thus, in a case where the mother of her husband is alive, her whole property would devolve on her mother-in-law. If the mother-in-law is also not alive, it would devolve as per the rules laid down in case of a male Hindu dying intestate, i.e., if the father of her deceased husband is alive, the next to inherit will be her father-in-law and if in the third category, the father-in-law is also not alive, then her property would devolve on the brother and sister of the deceased husband.
Thus, in the case of the self-acquired property of a Hindu married female dying intestate, her property devolves on her husband’s heirs. Her paternal and material heirs do not inherit, but the distant relations of her husband would inherit as per the husband’s heirs.
The case for change
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted when, in the structure of the Hindu society, women hardly went out to work. There has been a vast change in the social scene in the past few years and women have made progress in all spheres. The consequence is that women are owning property earned by their own skill. These situations were not foreseen by the legislators.
If that is so, what is the impact of these socio-economic changes? Do they warrant any change in the law of succession in relation to the property of a female Hindu dying intestate? What is the fallout of a gradual disintegration of the joint Hindu family and the emergence of nuclear families as a unit of society over the years in the context of law of succession governing the issue at hand?
A fundamental tenet of the law of succession has been the proximity of relation in which a Successor stands to the person who originally held the property that may be the subject matter of inheritance in a given case. The fact that women have been given the right to inherit from her parental side also assumes relevance in the present context. These developments and changes lead to competing arguments and approaches that may be taken in re-defining the law of succession in case of a female Hindu dying intestate. Thus, three alternative options emerge for consideration, namely:
1. Self-acquired property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve first upon her heirs from the natal family.
2. Self-acquired property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve equally upon the heirs of her husband and the heirs from her natal family.
3. Self-acquired property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve first upon the heirs of her husband.
The third option may be taken first as this can be disposed of summarily. The option essentially means continuation of the status quo. We have seen earlier that socio-economic changes warrant corresponding changes in the law as well.
We may now take up the first option. The protagonists of this approach contend that the general order of succession reflects a gender bias. It will be relevant to refer to a passage in Pradhan Saxena – Succession Laws and Gender Justice in Re-defining Family Law in India by Archana Parasar, Amit Dhanda, New Delhi.
The supporters of the said approach contend that the joint family system has slowly eroded and that an increasing number of nuclear and semi-nuclear families have replaced the traditional Mitakshara Hindu joint family system. Women are also becoming more economically independent. With the growth of the nuclear family, a married woman’s dependency on her natal family and continued closeness to it is much greater today even if it was not so earlier. Most married women would prefer that their parents should be the more preferred heirs to inherit her property if her children and husband are not alive. She would also prefer that her sister and brother have a better right to inherit her property than her brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
Accordingly, it is urged that Section 15(1) should be modified to ensure that the general order of succession does not place a woman’s husband’s heirs above those who belong to her natal family like her father and mother and thereafter, her brother and sister. It is contended that when a man dies intestate, his wife’s relatives do not even figure in the order of succession despite the manner in which he may have acquired the property. In view of this, parity is sought in the case of a female by applying the same rules as applicable to male’s property.
Accordingly, it is suggested that it would be better to amend Section 15(1) to specify the general rules of devolution, which will apply not only to self-acquired property by a woman, but also to other property acquired through her family, gifts, etc. The only proviso which would then be needed would be the property that a woman acquires from her husband’s family.
The second option in this regard is that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves upon the heirs depending upon the source from which, the said property was acquired by her, the self-acquired property of such female be simultaneously inherited by her heirs both from the husband family as well as the natal family in equal share. The fact remains that in spite of her closeness to and dependence on her natal family, her relations with her husband’s family are not separated and uprooted in entirety. She continues to be a member of her husband’s family, getting support from it in all walks of life. One cannot afford to ignore the ground realities in this regard. The social ethos and the mores of our patriarchal system demand that the existing system should not be totally reversed as claimed by the protagonists of the first option. Lest, there may be social and family tensions which may not be in the overall interest of the family as a whole and as such, ought to be avoided. In any case, it is open to the female Hindu to bequeath her property the way she likes by executing a Will.
Conclusions
In the present scenario, when amendments are made to the effect that women have been entitled to inherit property from her parental side as well as from husband’s side, it will be quite justified if equal right is given to her parental heirs along with her husband’s heirs to inherit her property.
It is, therefore, proposed that in order to bring about a balance, Section 15 should be amended, so that in case a female Hindu dies intestate leaving her self-acquired property with no heirs, as mentioned in Clause ‘a’ of Section 15, the property should devolve on her husband’s heirs and also on the heirs of her paternal side.
If this amendment is brought about, the effect will be as under:
A married Hindu female dies intestate leaving self-acquired property at the time of her death, the only surviving relatives being her mother-in-law (L) and her mother (M).
Pre-Amendment
As per the present law, her property would devolve entirely on ‘L’ and ‘M’ will not get anything from her property.
Post Amendment
By the proposed amendment, her mother-in-law and mother should equally inherit her self-acquired property.
A married Hindu female dies intestate leaving self-acquired property and she has no heirs as per Clause ‘a’ of the Schedule, the only surviving relatives are her husband’s brother and sister (BL & SL) and her own brother and sister (B&S).
Pre-Amendment
As per the present law, her property would normally devolve upon ‘BL’ and ‘SL’. ‘B’ and ‘S’ do not inherit anything from her in this property.
Post Amendment
By the proposed amendment, her own brother and sister should equally inherit along with her brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
The above amendment, suggested by me as Chairman of 18{+t}{+h} Law Commission as early as in June 2008 in the public interest, is still pending with the Union Law Ministry.
(The writer is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Law Commission of India. His email id is jusarlakshmanan@gmail.com)
India’s Minister of External Affairs Shri S.M. Krishna and the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met in New Delhi on July 19, 2011, for the second annual meeting of the India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue. The leaders recognized the achievements made since the inaugural Strategic Dialogue in June 2010 and President Obama’s historic visit to India in November 2010 in advancing our two countries’ shared interests. They committed to continuing to broaden and deepen the India-U.S. global strategic partnership.
As a testament to the relationship’s extraordinary breadth and depth, Secretary Clinton was accompanied by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the President’s Advisor for Science and Technology Dr. John P. Holdren, Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman, Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute, and other senior U.S. government officials.
Minister Krishna was joined by Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Prime Minister’s Public Information Infrastructure and Innovation Advisor Sam Pitroda, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, and other senior officials.
Minister Krishna was also joined at the working lunch by Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Minister for Human Resource Development and Information Technology Kapil Sibal.
As part of Secretary Clinton’s visit to India, she met with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance Sonia Gandhi, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon.
Secretary Clinton offered her prayers and sympathies to the victims of the despicable attacks in Mumbai on July 13. The American people stand with the Indian people in times of trial, and offer support to India’s efforts to bring the perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice. Minister Krishna welcomed the expressions of support from the Secretary, the President, and the U.S. Congress. The two leaders resolved to strengthen cooperation between their governments to fight against terrorism.
Since the inaugural Strategic Dialogue in 2010, the India-U.S. partnership has resulted in advances in nearly every area of human endeavor. The two sides have expanded their strategic consultations to cover all major issues and regions of the world. They have increased counterterrorism cooperation, intelligence sharing, and law enforcement exchanges. They have continued to expand their defence cooperation. They have expanded their growing partnership on export controls and non-proliferation. They have witnessed an expansion of the already robust people-to-people ties; scientific, space, and technology collaboration; clean energy cooperation; and connections among entrepreneurs and social innovators.
The two leaders emphasized our countries’ shared values – pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights. They reiterated Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s and President Barack Obama’s pledge to harness these shared strengths and to expand the India-U.S. global partnership for the benefit of their countries; and, for peace, stability, and prosperity in Asia and the world.
Today, the two leaders reviewed progress in bilateral relations and set new goals to further strengthen the India-U.S. Global Strategic Partnership.
Global Stability and Prosperity
• Marking the expansion of strategic consultations, the two sides launched a Central Asia Dialogue in June 2011 in New Delhi and a West Asia Dialogue in July 2011 in Washington DC. The two sides intend to expand strategic consultations to other regions, including Latin America and Caribbean, and plan to hold the fourth round of the East Asia Dialogue in September 2011.
• India, the United States, and Japan plan to commence a trilateral dialogue at senior official level.
• They welcomed the launch of bilateral dialogue on United Nations matters in New Delhi in March 2011. The two sides intend to continue this dialogue and meet next in Washington in early 2012, while continuing regular consultations between capitals and in UN cities as appropriate.
• Following on the successful meeting of the Joint Working Group (JWG) on UN Peacekeeping Operations in March 2011 in New Delhi, the two countries hope to conduct their 10th meeting of the JWG in early 2012.
• The two sides reaffirmed their commitment for consultation, coordination, and cooperation on Afghanistan, and to work jointly in Afghanistan in capacity building, agriculture, and women’s empowerment, expanding on work already underway. Both sides agreed to Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and inclusive reconciliation.
• The two sides acknowledged that increased trade, transit, and commercial linkages across South and Central Asia will benefit Afghanistan and contribute to the region’s long-term peace, stability, and prosperity.
• The two sides intend to promote food security in Africa through a triangular cooperation program with Liberia, Malawi, and Kenya. A promising area of potential collaboration includes the participation of Africans at Indian universities and research and technical institutes in mutually agreed capacity building programs. The two sides agree to explore additional areas based on requests from the three African countries.
• As part of the India-U.S. Dialogue on Open Government launched in November 2010, the two countries have committed to jointly create an open source “Data.gov” platform by the first quarter of 2012 to be taken to interested countries globally. Leveraging the high-technology strengths and institutional expertise of both India and the United States, the “open source” platform is intended to provide citizens access to Government information via a user-friendly website and a package of e-Governance applications to enhance public service delivery.
• The two sides reiterated their commitment to work together to strengthen election management capacity in interested countries. They welcomed the technical collaboration between the Indian International Institute of Democracy and Election Management and the Washington DC-based International Federation of Electoral Systems.
• Secretary Clinton recalled President Obama’s statement that, in the years ahead, the United States looks forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.
Enhancing the U.S. – India Bilateral Relationship
Defence, security and counter-terrorism
• The two sides launched the Homeland Security Dialogue in May 2011 in New Delhi, and have decided upon on a program of cooperation in global supply chain management, megacity policing, combating counterfeit currency and illicit financing, cyber security, critical infrastructure protection, and capacity building and technology upgrading.
• They reiterated their commitment to further strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation, including through intelligence sharing, information exchange, operational cooperation, and access to advanced counter-terrorism technology and equipment. The two sides had their ninth meeting of the Joint Working Group on Counter-terrorism in March 2011 in New Delhi.
• The two leaders reiterated that success in Afghanistan and regional and global security requires elimination of safe havens and infrastructure for terrorism and violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Condemning terrorism in all its forms, the two sides confirmed that all terrorist networks must be defeated and called for Pakistan to move expeditiously in prosecuting those involved in the November 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
• The two sides reiterated their commitment on comprehensive sharing of information on the investigations and trials relating to the November 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
• The two countries held cyber consultations on July 18, led by their two National Security Councils, at which they exchanged views on a broad range of cyberspace issues and coordinated bilateral cooperation on cyber issues. The United States and India signed on 19 July 2011 a Memorandum of Understanding between our Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERT-IN and US-CERT) to exchange information on cyber attacks and mutual response to cybersecurity incidents, to cooperate on cybersecurity technology, and to exchange information on cybersecurity policy and best practices and capacity building and exchange of experts.
• India and the United States welcomed progress in bilateral defence cooperation. The Defence Policy Group met in March 2011 and plans to meet again in early 2012.
• The two sides noted India’s defence orders from U.S. companies have reached a cumulative value of over USD 8.0 billion in the last decade. The two sides noted that these sales reflect strengthened cooperation. Both sides also affirmed their desire to strengthen cooperation through technology transfer, and joint research, development and production of defence items.
• They noted progress in defence bilateral exchanges, exercises, capacity building, information sharing, including in the areas of counternarcotics, counter piracy, maritime safety and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief. They affirmed the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation, in accordance with international law, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
• The United States and India agreed to continue consultations on maritime security cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region in existing forums such as Defense Policy Group and its appropriate sub-groups. They also agreed to exchange views on promoting regional security architecture that enhances maritime security in the Indian Ocean Region.
• The United States welcomed India’s decision to chair a plenary of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia in 2012.
Civil Nuclear Cooperation
• The two leaders welcomed the continued commitment of the two governments for full implementation of the India-U.S. civil nuclear energy cooperation agreement. They reiterated their commitment to build strong India – U.S. civil nuclear energy cooperation through the participation of U.S. nuclear energy firms in India on the basis of mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and conditions that enable a viable tariff regime for electricity generated. They noted that the United States has ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) and India intends to ratify the CSC within this year. They further noted that India is committed to ensuring a level playing field for U.S. companies seeking to enter the Indian nuclear energy sector, consistent with India’s national and international legal obligations.
• The United States looks forward to hosting a senior-level Indian delegation at the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Energy Working Group (CNEWG) next week at Oak Ridge Laboratory.
Membership of Export Control Regimes
• Both sides expressed satisfaction with the progress we have achieved together towards India’s full membership of the four multilateral export control regimes – Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group and the Wassennaar Arrangement – in a phased manner consistent with the core principles of these regimes, as the Government of India takes steps towards the full adoption of the regimes’ export control requirements.
Export Control Cooperation
• India welcomed steps taken by the United States to remove Indian entities from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s ‘Entity List’ and realignment of India in U.S. export control regulations. Both sides agreed to continue efforts to fulfill objectives of strengthening export control cooperation envisaged in the Joint Statement of November 2010 as well as on the basis of discussions in the High Technology Cooperation Group held earlier this month.
Nuclear Security
• The two sides looked forward to holding later this year the first meeting of the U.S.-India Joint Working Group to implement the MOU on Cooperation with India’s Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnerships.
Strategic Security Dialogue
• Both sides view the Strategic Security Dialogue, the last round of which was held in Vienna on 14 June 2011, as a vital element in their dialogue architecture which has strengthened the common ground in promoting global non-proliferation objectives. Both sides also discussed key issues on the multilateral agenda, and looked forward to the commencement of negotiations of the Fissile Missile Cutoff Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament.
Prosperity
• The two sides welcomed increases of 30 percent in bilateral trade in 2010 over the previous year and the balanced and positive growth in services trade. They also welcomed the increase in foreign direct investment flows in both directions.
• The two governments plan to resume technical-level negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) in August in Washington D.C. A BIT would enhance transparency and predictability for investors, and support economic growth and job creation in both countries.
• The two sides reiterated their commitment to take steps to expand trade ties. The India-U.S. Trade Policy Forum plans to meet in October 2011, and on-going public-private discussions are to continue under the Commercial Dialogue.
• The two governments intend to participate in the first Consular Dialogue on July 25 in Washington DC for a full discussion of visa and other consular matters.
• The two governments signed a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) on July 18.
• The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the U.S. Trade Development Agency (USTDA), and U.S. Agency for International Development, in coordination with multiple U.S. government agencies, are participating in the development of clean and renewable energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and Smart Grids in India. The two leaders welcomed the progress in the USTDA supported bilateral Energy Cooperation Programme, announced in November 2010, which works with Indian and U.S. businesses on deployment of clean energy technology in India. The bilateral Joint Clean Energy Research and Development Center is accepting applications for its $100 million, five-year program that is stimulating new collaboration between the United States’ and India’s public and private sectors in solar energy, energy-efficient buildings, and advanced biofuels.
• The India-U.S. agriculture dialogue was launched in September 2010 to intensify collaboration with India on food security, including joint work with third countries. USTDA hosted a trade mission to the United States for business and government representatives from India in the cold storage field.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Ministry of Earth Sciences have set up a “monsoon desk” to share the latest monsoon prediction models, which are now providing forecasts for the 2011 Indian monsoon season.
Women’s Empowerment
• The Women’s Empowerment Dialogue is planned for September 2011 in New Delhi.
Education, Innovation, Science and Technology
• The United States and India plan to host a Higher Education Summit in Washington D.C. on October 13 to highlight and emphasize the many avenues through which the higher education communities in the United States and India collaborate.
• The United States and India plan to expand its higher education dialogue, to be co-chaired by the U.S. Secretary of State and Indian Minister of Human Resource Development to convene annually, incorporating the private/non-governmental sectors and higher education communities to inform government-to-government discussions.
• As part of the Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative (OSI), the two governments announced the publication of their requests for proposals from post-secondary educational institutions that support OSI’s goals of strengthening teaching, research, and administration of both U.S. and Indian institutions through university linkages and junior faculty development.
• The United States created the Passport to India initiative to encourage an increase in the number of American students studying and interning in India. The leaders recognized the great bridge of mutual understanding resulting from the more than 100,000 Indian students studying and interning in the United States.
• The United States’ Department of Energy and India’s Department of Atomic Energy signed an Implementing Agreement on Discovery Science that provide provides the framework for cooperation in accelerator and particle detector research and development at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, and Brookhaven National Laboratory.
• The India-U.S. S&T Endowment Board, established by Secretary Clinton and Minister Krishna in 2009, plans to award nearly $3 million annually to entrepreneurial projects that commercialize technologies to improve health and empower citizens. The two sides are strongly encouraged by the response to this initiative, which attracted over 380 joint India-U.S. proposals. The Endowment plans to announce the first set of grantees by September 2011.
• The India-U.S. S&T Forum, now in its tenth year, has convened activities that have led to the interaction of nearly 10,000 Indian and U.S. scientists and technologists.
• As a follow up to the successful India-U.S. Innovation Roundtable held in September 2010 in New Delhi, the two sides agreed to hold another Innovation Roundtable in early 2012.
• India and the United States plan to host their third annual Women in Science workshop in September 2011.
Space
• The U.S. – India Joint Space Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation met in July 2011 in Bangalore. Building on the successful Chandrayan-1 lunar mission, NASA and ISRO reviewed potential areas for future cooperation in earth observation, space exploration, space sciences and satellite navigation. Both sides agreed for early finalization three new implementing arrangements for sharing satellite data on oceans and global weather patterns. Recognising the research opportunities available on the International Space Station, both sides agreed to explore the possibilities of joint experiments. NASA reiterated its willingness to discuss potential cooperation with ISRO on human spaceflight activities. The two sides also agreed to expand upon previous work in the area of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) with the goal of promoting compatibility and interoperability between the U.S. Global Positioning System, India’s Navigation systems, and those of other countries.
Secretary Clinton thanked the Minister, the Government, and the people of India for their gracious hospitality, their warm welcome, and their hard work in making this year’s Strategic Dialogue a success. Secretary Clinton thanked Minister Krishna for his strong support for the India-U.S. relationship.
Minister Krishna thanked the Secretary for her participation and engagement in this year’s Strategic Dialogue and for the commitment and dedication she has given to the U.S. – India global partnership.
The next meeting of the Strategic Dialogue is planned for Washington D.C. in 2012.
The Aadhaar project, just as its failed counterpart in the U.K., stands on a platform of myths. India needs a mass campaign to expose these myths.
Two countries. Two pet projects of the respective Prime Ministers. Unmistakable parallels in the discourse. “The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty, but about the modern world,” wrote Tony Blair in November 2006, as he was mobilising support for his Identity Cards Bill, 2004. “Aadhaar…is symbolic of the new and modern India,” said Manmohan Singh in September 2010, as he distributed the first Aadhaar number in Nandurbar. “What we are trying to do with identity cards is make use of the modern technology,” said Mr. Blair. “Aadhaar project would use today’s latest and modern technology,” said Dr. Singh. The similarities are endless.
Mr. Blair’s celebrated push for identity cards ended in a political disaster for Labour. The British people resisted the project for over five years. Finally, the Cameron government scrapped the Identity Cards Act in 2010, thus abolishing identity cards and plans for a National Identity Register. On the other hand, India is enthusiastically pushing the Aadhaar, or unique identity (UID), project. The UID project has been integrated with the Home Ministry’s National Population Register (NPR). The “National Identification Authority of India Bill” has been tabled in Parliament. Globally, observers of identity policies are watching if India learns anything from the “modern” world.
The experience with identity cards in the United Kingdom tells us that Mr. Blair’s marketing of the scheme was from a platform of myths. First, he stated that enrolment for cards would be “voluntary”. Second, he argued that the card would reduce leakages from the National Health System and other entitlement programmes; David Blunkett even called it not an “identity card,” but an “entitlement card.” Third, Mr. Blair argued that the card would protect citizens from “terrorism” and “identity fraud.” For this, the biometric technology was projected as infallible.
All these claims were questioned by scholarly and public opinion. A meticulous report from the London School of Economics examined each claim and rejected them (see “High-cost, High-risk,” Frontline, August 14, 2009). This report argued that the government was making the card compulsory across such a wide range of schemes that it would, de facto, become compulsory. It also argued that the card would not end identity fraud in entitlement schemes. The reason: biometrics was not a reliable method of de-duplication.
The Indian discourse around Aadhaar is remarkably similar. Almost identical arguments are forwarded in support of the project to provide a population of over one billion people with UID numbers. I argue that Aadhaar, just as its failed counterpart in the U.K., is promoted from a platform of myths. Here, there is space for three big myths only.
Myth 1: Aadhaar number is not mandatory.
This is wrong; Aadhaar has stealthily been made mandatory. Aadhaar is explicitly linked to the preparation of the NPR. The Census of India website notes that “data collected in the NPR will be subjected to de-duplication by the UIDAI [Unique Identification Authority of India]. After de-duplication, the UIDAI will issue a UID Number. This UID Number will be part of the NPR and the NPR Cards will bear this UID Number.”
The NPR is the creation of an amendment in 2003 to the Citizenship Act of 1955. As per Rule 3(3) in the Citizenship Rules of 2003, information on every citizen in the National Register of Indian Citizens should compulsorily have his/her “National Identity Number.” Again, Rule 7(3) states that “it shall be the responsibility of every Citizen to register once with the Local Registrar of Citizen Registration and to provide correct individual particulars.” Still further, Rule 17 states that “any violation of provisions of rules 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 14 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.”
The conclusion is simple: Aadhaar has been made compulsory, even before passing the Bill concerned in Parliament. Under the project’s guise, the State is coercing individuals to part with personal information; this coercion comes with a threat of punishment.
Myth 2: Aadhaar is just like the social security number (SSN) in the United States.
There is a world of difference between the SSN and Aadhaar. The SSN was introduced in the U.S. in 1936 to facilitate provision of social security benefits. A defining feature of SSN is that it is circumscribed by the Privacy Act of 1974. This Act states that “it shall be unlawful for any…government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.” Further, federal agencies have to provide notice to, and obtain consent from, individuals before disclosing their SSNs to third parties.
The SSN was never conceived as an identity document. However, in the 2000s, SSN began to be used widely for proving one’s identity at different delivery/access points. As a result, SSNs of individuals were exposed to a wide array of private players, which identity thieves used to access bank accounts, credit accounts, utilities records and other sources of personal information. In 2006, the Government Accountability Office noted that “over a 1-year period, nearly 10 million people — or 4.6 per cent of the adult U.S. population — discovered that they were victims of some form of identity theft, translating into estimated losses exceeding $50 billion.”
Following public outcry, the President appointed a Task Force on Identity Theft in 2007. Acting on its report, the President notified a plan: “Combating Identity Theft: A Strategic Plan.” This plan directed all government offices to “eliminate unnecessary uses of SSNs” and reduction and, where possible, elimination of the need to use SSN to identify individuals. It’s quite the contrary in India. According to Nandan Nilekani, Aadhaar number would become “ubiquitous”; he has even advised people to “tattoo it somewhere,” lest they forget it!
Myth 3: Identity theft can be eliminated using biometrics.
There is consensus among scientists and legal experts regarding the limitations of biometrics in proving identity. First, no accurate information exists on whether the errors of matching fingerprints are negligible or non-existent. A small percentage of users would always be either falsely matched or not matched at all against the database.
Second, errors of matching would stand significantly amplified in countries like India. A report from 4G Identity Solutions, contracted by UIDAI for supply of biometric devices, notes that:
“It is estimated that approximately five per cent of any population has unreadable fingerprints, either due to scars or aging or illegible prints. In the Indian environment, experience has shown that the failure to enrol is as high as 15 per cent due to the prevalence of a huge population dependent on manual labour.”
A 15 per cent failure rate would mean the exclusion of over 200 million people. If fingerprint readers are installed at Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) work sites and ration shops, and employment or purchases made contingent on correct authentication, about 200 million persons would remain permanently excluded from accessing such schemes.
The report of the UIDAI’s “Biometrics Standards Committee” actually accepts these concerns as real. Its report notes that “fingerprint quality, the most important variable for determining de-duplication accuracy, has not been studied in depth in the Indian context.” However, this critical limitation of the technology has not prevented the government from leaping into the dark with this project, one whose cost would exceed Rs. 50,000 crore.
It is said that the greatest enemy of truth is not the lie, but the myth. A democratic government should not undertake a project of the magnitude of Aadhaar from a platform of myths. The lesson from the U.K. experience is that myths perpetrated by governments can be exposed through consistent public campaigns. India direly needs a mass campaign that would expose the myths behind the Aadhaar project.
(R. Ramakumar is Associate Professor with the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.)
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has informed the Bombay high court that candidates, who opt for an Indian language medium (other than Hindi) for the written Civil Services exam, can henceforth either choose the same Indian language, English or Hindi for the interview.
Similarly, even those candidates, who give the main exam in English, can now choose English, Hindi or any other Indian language for the interview, opted by them for the compulsory Indian language paper in the written part of the test, UPSC said, in an affidavit, recently.
The affidavit was submitted in response to a PIL filed by IAS aspirant Chittaranjan Kumar, challenging the existing rule that requires a candidate to give the interview in English, if he had appeared for the main examination in that language.
The candidates, who are, as per the present policy, exempted from the compulsory Indian language paper, will have to appear for the interview in English or Hindi only, the affidavit said, adding that these were the recommendations submitted by an expert committee, formed specially to look into the issue.
The recommendations had been accepted by the UPSC and forwarded to the Government with a request to send comments or observations. After hearing from the government, the UPSC would incorporate the necessary changes and implement them, the court was told.
Accordingly, Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice GS Godbole disposed of the petition.
Kumar, who appeared for the written part of the 2008 civil services examination in English, wanted to give the interview in Hindi.
Earlier, the High Court had approved the committee of experts appointed by the UPSC to review the impugned rule and file a report by June 23.
The PIL argued that if the existing rule is changed, the candidates appearing for Civil Services examination shall get an opportunity to speak in their own language in which they feel comfortable at the time of interview and thus score more marks in the oral test.
This way, students from the grassroots level will grab more seats by securing higher rank and break the tradition of elites getting into the civil service, the PIL argued.
The PIL contended that impugned rule was pro-rich and anti-poor. It said the interviewers should judge a candidate on the basis of his or her personality and not on the basis of speaking English.
The existing rule violates fundamental rights under the constitution and is also against public policy of the nation, the PIL argued.
South Sudan became the world’s newest nation, officially breaking away from Sudan after two civil wars over five decades that cost the lives of millions. South Sudan gained independence from Sudan on 9 July 2011 as the outcome of a 2005 peace deal that ended Africa’s longest-running civil war.
An overwhelming majority of South Sudanese voted in a January 2011 referendum to secede and become Africa’s first new country since Eritrea split from Ethiopia in 1993.
The new nation stands to benefit from inheriting the bulk of Sudan’s oil wealth, but continuing disputes with Khartoum and a lack of economic development cloud its immediate future.
South Sudan, officially the Republic of South Sudan, is a country in East Africa. Its capital and largest city is Juba, located in the southern state of Central Equatoria. The landlocked country is bordered by Ethiopia to the east; Kenya to the southeast; Uganda to the south; the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the southwest; and the Central African Republic to the west; and the Republic of Sudan to the north. South Sudan includes the vast swamp region of the Sudd formed by the White Nile, locally called the Bahr al Jabal.
What is now South Sudan was part of the British and Egyptian condominium of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and became part of the Republic of Sudan when independence was achieved in 1956. Following the First Sudanese Civil War, the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region was formed in 1972 and lasted until 1983. A second Sudanese civil war soon developed and ended with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005. Later that year, southern autonomy was restored when an Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan was formed. South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011 at midnight (00:00) local time following a referendum held in January 2011 in which nearly 99% of voters opted for separation from the rest of Sudan.
South Sudan has applied to join the Commonwealth of Nations, the East African Community, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. The country was declared eligible to apply for membership in the Arab League as well. The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on 13 July 2011 to formally discuss membership for the Republic of South Sudan; and shortly thereafter, it is widely expected that the General Assembly will vote on a resolution to accept the new nation as the 193rd member state of the United Nations
States and counties
The ten states of South Sudan grouped in the three historical provinces of the Sudan.
Bahr el Ghazal
Equatoria
Greater Upper Nile
South Sudan is divided into ten states which correspond to three historical regions of the Sudan: Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria, and Greater Upper Nile.
Bahr el Ghazal
Northern Bahr el Ghazal
Western Bahr el Ghazal
Lakes
Warrap
Equatoria
Western Equatoria
Central Equatoria (containing the national capital city of Juba)
Eastern Equatoria
Greater Upper Nile
Jonglei
Unity
Upper Nile
The ten states are further subdivided into 86 counties.
Geography
Formed from the 10 southern-most states of Sudan, South Sudan is a land of expansive grassland, swamps and tropical rain forest straddling both banks of the White Nile.
It is highly diverse ethnically and linguistically. Among the largest ethnic groups are the Dinka, Nuer and Shilluk.
Unlike the predominantly Muslim population of Sudan, the South Sudanese follow traditional religions, while a minority are Christians.
History
As Sudan prepared to gain independence from joint British and Egyptian rule in 1956, southern leaders accused the new authorities in Khartoum of backing out of promises to create a federal system, and of trying to impose an Islamic and Arabic identity.
In 1955, southern army officers mutinied, sparking off a civil war between the south, led by the Anya Nya guerrilla movement, and the Sudanese government.
The conflict only ended when the Addis Ababa peace agreement of 1972 accorded the south a measure of autonomy.
But, in 1983, the south, led by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and its armed wing, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), again rose in rebellion when the Sudanese government cancelled the autonomy arrangements.
At least 1.5 million people are thought to have lost their lives and more than four million were displaced in the ensuing 22 years of guerrilla warfare. Large numbers of South Sudanese fled the fighting, either to the north or to neighbouring countries, where many remain.
The conflict finally ended with the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, under which the south was granted regional autonomy along with guaranteed representation in a national power-sharing government.
The agreement also provided for a referendum in the south on independence in 2011, in which 99% of southern Sudanese voted to split from Sudan.
Economy
Long based on subsistence agriculture, South Sudan’s economy is now highly oil-dependent. While an estimated 75% of all the former Sudan’s oil reserves are in South Sudan, the refineries and the pipeline to the Red Sea are in Sudan.
Under the 2005 accord, South Sudan received 50% of Sudan’s oil proceeds, which provide the vast bulk of the country’s budget. But that arrangement was set to expire with independence.
Despite the oil wealth, South Sudan is one of Africa’s least developed countries. However, the years since the 2005 peace accord ushered in an economic revival and investment in utilities and other infrastructure.
Conflicts
Alongside the oil issue, several border disputes with Sudan continue to strain ties. The main row is over border region of Abyei, where a referendum for the residents to decide whether to join south or north has been delayed over voter eligibility.
The conflict is rooted in a dispute over land between farmers of the pro-South Sudan Dinka Ngok people and cattle-herding Misseriya Arab tribesmen.
Another source of conflict is the Nuba Mountains region of Sudan’s South Kordofan state, where violence continues between the largely Christian and pro-SPLA Nuba people and northern government forces.
Inside South Sudan, several rebel forces opposed to the SPLM-dominated government have appeared, including the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA) of Peter Gadet and a force led former SPLA general George Athor. Juba says these forces are funded by Sudan, which denies the accusation
Location and Size:
640,000 square km
Climate:
Equatorial climate with high humidity and lots of rainfall; rainy season varies from region to region but is generally between April and November.
Southern Sudan is mainly plain interupted so often by hilly areas with thick equatorial vegetation. High areas generally reach altitudes of 2,000m above sea level.
Currency:
Sudanese Pound (SDG)
Language:
Official language is Arabic but English is the language of education and government business and is also widely spoken. There are also a number of indigeneous Southern Sudanese languages.
Capital:
Juba
Public Holidays:
January 1st – Independence day
January 9th – Peace Agreement Day
May 16th – SPLA Day
July 30th - Martyrs Day
December 25th – Christmas Day
December 26th – Boxing Day
Time:
GMT +3
Salva Kiir – the Southern Sudan President
The former rebel commander has guided his homeland of Southern Sudan through multiple challenges since a 2005 peace deal ended two decades of war with the north.
Since becoming the south’s leader later that year, much of his focus has been on ensuring the south’s referendum on full independence – the climax of that peace agreement – does take place.
As such, he has had to tread an often difficult line in negotiations with former enemies in the north.
Mr Kiir was also vice-president of all Sudan, but he has long supported full independence for the south.
In 2009, he made his feelings clear, saying: “The upcoming referendum is a choice between being a second-class in your own country, or a free person in your independent state.”
Garang’s shadow
His decision not to stand for national president in the April 2010 elections laid to rest any lingering doubts about whether he would back separation. Instead, he chose to seek a democratic mandate as leader of Southern Sudan – a position he had already held since the sudden death of his charismatic predecessor, John Garang.
He won an overwhelming majority, with many south Sudanese saying there are few others able to take his place.
Mr Kiir took over as southern leader and national deputy leader after Garang died in a helicopter crash in August 2005 – just three weeks after he had been sworn in as vice-president.
Mr Kiir was an important member of his inner circle and was military commander of the southern rebels, the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM).
He was involved in the early stages of negotiating the 2005 peace deal, which ended 21 years of civil war, and was already well-known to the government in Khartoum before becoming national vice-president.
An attempt to remove Mr Kiir as the movement’s army chief of staff almost caused a split in the SPLM in 2004. The trouble was averted only when Garang dropped the idea.
As a former rebel movement, Mr Kiir’s SPLM is still to show that it is ready to accept dissent.
The elections in the south were marred by widespread allegations of intimidation of those challenging official SPLM candidates.This raises fears that “New Sudan”, as it is sometimes called, under Mr Kiir may not be any more democratic than the old version.
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act that determines the order of succession in the case of a Hindu woman who dies intestate should be amended for, it reflects an entrenched system of subjugation of women.
The family that had sent a young woman back to her parents after her husband’s death, surfaced when she died. There was a contest between her mother and the husband’s sister’s sons for her property. The mother lost all the way up to the Supreme Court, which noted that it was a “hard case.”
“What women can expect from Courts… is a qualified degree of equal treatment,” wrote Professor Wendy Williams in “The Equality Crisis: Some Reflections on Culture, Courts, and Feminism,” published in 7 Women’s Rts. L. Rep. 175 (1982), adding that “women’s equality as delivered by Courts can only be an integration into a pre-existing, predominantly male world.”
This is so because, though the courts may be well meaning and earnestly intend to uphold equal rights for women, they can only reflect the shared life experience of individuals. This takes a largely male hue, not only because the judgment-deliverers are predominantly male, but also because society systemically supports male supremacy. And this systemic slant shades the thought processes that lie behind laws too, and the courts apply the laws in their judgments.
The skewed reality in which gender is positioned in the social, political, economic and cultural transactions shows up the fact that law is not gender-based — sometimes it is not even gender-neutral. Gender-neutrality will not be enough if it merely maintains the status quo — which is nothing but the perpetuation of gender discrimination. Women need, and must have, affirmation of their equality.
If enactment of laws was sufficient to protect women, then women in India are on velvet. But reality bites. The law is observed in the breach, or the law is not effectively enforced by the law-enforcement agencies, or judicial redress lies beyond the woman’s horizon, or yet, the evil is seen as an accepted practice. Or women get beaten by “hard cases.”
Look at this particular “hard case,” which is reported in (2009)15 SCC Page 66 Omprakash and Others Vs. Radhacharan and Others. In 1955, Narayani Devi married Deendayal Sharma, who died within three months. Soon she was driven out of her matrimonial home. She lived with her parents, earned a living and died on July 11, 1966. She left behind a substantial estate, but wrote no will. Both her mother and her husband’s family claimed a succession certificate. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and held against the mother.
Section 15(1) says that if a Hindu woman dies without leaving a will, her property will devolve in the following order. The first in the order are her children, children of a predeceased child and her husband. If none of these persons is available, then it will go to the next in line: the heirs of the husband. Standing behind them will be the heirs of the father and the mother. Section 15(2) says that notwithstanding these provisions, if the woman is not survived by a child or the children of a predeceased child, then any property she inherited from her father or mother will go to the father’s heirs, and any property she inherited from her husband or father-in-law will go to the husband’s heirs.
The Supreme Court held that Section 15(1) lays down the ordinary rule of succession; Section 15(2)(a) only carves out an exception to Section 15(1). It observed that the law is silent on a Hindu woman’s self-acquired property, and such property cannot be considered as property inherited from her parents. The court said: “This is a hard case… But then only because a case appears to be hard would not lead us to invoke different interpretation of a statutory provision, which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle in law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous.”
In Narayani Devi’s case, the mother’s claim was not based on sympathy or sentiment, but logic and principles of fairness, equity and justice. The Supreme Court, however, found that the law was a hurdle to her claim.
Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee wrote thus in Modern Hindu Law Under Constitution: “Under the provision of Section 15(1) read with sub-section (2) in the absence of children, the order of succession in the case of a female Hindu would vary according to the source of acquisition of property.” He asked why the source of acquisition should be a determinant in the case of a Hindu woman when it is not so in the case of a Hindu man. “Unless we still want to perpetuate in a somewhat different form the old outmoded view that ownership of property cannot be full but must be somewhat limited.”
A mother shares equally with the children and the widow when a son predeceases her. But when a married daughter dies, the mother ranks after the husband’s heirs. This is the law as enacted in 1955-1956. Hindu law as it existed before the Constitution has been the subject of criticism for the glaring inequalities that it perpetuated. But we find lurking inequalities even in subsequent enactments.
Ironically, some of the ancient texts have a more pragmatic and equal approach in such cases. Stridhana, according to some texts, is categorised as technical and non-technical. Non-technical stridhana is that property which is acquired by a woman through her skill and mechanical arts (Vasishta). In the case of a woman who has no issues, the heirs to stridhana are her husband, mother, brother or father (Devala). Aprajaayaa haredbhartaa mata bhrata pitaapi va, says Devalasmrti (A.D. 600-900).
In the 21st edition of Principles of Hindu Law (Mulla), it is observed that Section 15(2) “seem to have been made on the ground that they prevent such property passing into the hands of persons to whom justice would require it should not pass and on the ground that the exceptions are in the interest of the intestate herself.” If the intention of this provision is to prevent property from devolving on persons to whom justice “would require it should not pass,” then the family that had refused to take care of Narayani should not have got anything.
In India those who own property do not always write a will. Narayani did not. She did not know the law of succession. She certainly would not have wanted her husband’s sister’s children to grab her earnings. If her spirit is floating around, it must be a very unhappy one. In India if a woman loses her husband because of death, desertion or divorce, there is a high probability that she will come to be with her parents. In the present day, many women have self-acquired property that they have earned because of their parents’ support. These are the ground realities.
Section 15 should be amended. The order of succession should be altered. In addition to “inheritance,” other modes of acquisition from parents or because of parents could be added.
Justice Bhattacharjee’s criticism of Section 15 has been referred to above. Decades after his book was written, the injustice continues. Neither biological nor social differences shall corrupt the ideal of equality or the reality of equality. In this case the law views the man’s estate and the woman’s estate through different spectacles: her autonomy over her property is less complete than his. How else can one explain the injustice? There are many more such cases. The law should not stand in the way of justice.
Whether the Supreme Court could or should have addressed the gender discrimination, and seen that the apparent “hardness” of the case was only the outer layer of an entrenched system of subjugation of women, and unpeeled the layers, are questions that need not be argued now.
Professor Williams’ article says: “But to the extent the law of the public world must be reconstructed to reflect the needs and values of both sexes change must be sought from legislatures rather than courts. And women whose separate experience has not been adequately registered… are the ones who must seek the change.” It is time that this law is made gender-balanced.
(Prabha Sridevan, a former Judge of the Madras High Court, is Chairperson, Intellectual Property Appellate Board.)
New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.
After days of contentious negotiations and last-minute reversals by two Republican senators, New York became the sixth and largest state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage, breathing life into the national gay rights movement that had stalled over a nearly identical bill two years ago.
Pending any court challenges, legal gay marriages can begin in New York by late July, 2011 after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed his bill into law just before midnight on 24.06.2011.
At New York City’s Stonewall Inn, the Greenwich Village pub that spawned the gay rights movement on a June night in 1969, Scott Redstone watched New York sign the historic same-sex marriage law with his partner of 29 years, and popped the question.
“I said, ‘Will you marry me?’ And he said, ‘Of course!’” Redstone said he and Steven Knittweis walked home to pop open a bottle of champagne.
New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.
“That’s certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation,” said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “It’s truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won.”
“We made a powerful statement,” Mr. Cuomo said. “This state is at its finest when it is a beacon of social justice.”
The leading opponent, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz, was given only a few minutes to state his case during the Senate debate.
“God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago,” said Diaz, a Bronx minister. “I’m sorry you are trying to take away my right to speak,” he said. “Why are you ashamed of what I have to say?”
The Catholic Bishops of New York said the law alters “radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage.”
“We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love,” the bishops stated Friday, “We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.”
Legal challenges of the law and political challenges aimed at the four Republicans who supported gay marriage in the 33-29 vote are expected. Republican senators endured several marathon sessions, combing through several standard but complex bills this week, before taking up the same-sex marriage bill 24.06.2011.
The bill came to the floor for a vote after an agreement was reached on more protections for religious groups that oppose gay marriage and feared discrimination lawsuits.
“State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues,” said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. He said his organization would work in next year’s elections to defeat lawmakers who voted for the measure.
The big win for gay rights advocates is expected to galvanize the movement around the country after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.
Jerry Nathan of Albany, who married his partner in Massachusetts, called the vote “an incredible culmination of so much that’s been going on for so many years it doesn’t seem real yet.”
Ultimately, gay couples will be able to marry because of two previously undecided Republicans from upstate regions far more conservative than the New York City base of the gay rights movement.
Sen. Stephen Saland, 67, voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement. On Friday night, gay marriage supporters wept in the Senate gallery as Mr. Saland explained how his strong, traditionally family upbringing led him to embrace legalizing gay marriage.
“While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience,” Mr. Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. “I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.”
Also voting for the bill was freshman Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who also had been undecided. Mr. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.
“I apologize to those I offend,” said Mr. Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. “But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents,” he said.
A huge street party erupted outside the Stonewall Inn Friday night, with celebrants waving rainbow flags and dancing after the historic vote.
Watching the festivities from across the street was Sarah Ellis, who has been in a six-year relationship with her partner, Kristen Henderson. Ellis said the measure would enable them to get married in the fall. They have twin toddlers and live in Sea Cliff on Long Island.
“We’ve been waiting. We considered it for a long time, crossing the borders and going to other states,” said Ellis, 39. “But until the state that we live in, that we pay taxes in, and we’re part of that community, has equal rights and marriage equality, we were not going to do it.”
The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.
Missiles landed near rebel positions on 23rd March 2011 and shelling in previous days has killed a small number of rebel fighters. Ali pointed out a freshly dug grave on the roadside outside Ajdabiyah with a revolutionary flag planted in it. He conveyed despair of what he saw as inertia by the rebel leadership in Benghazi and called for more help from the West.
“The National Libyan Council aren’t the people to ask for anything to be frank. We want help from the West. If it weren’t for them, Gaddafi’s forces would be in Benghazi,” Ali said.
Retaking Ajdabiyah would be a morale boost for the rebels and would suggest that air strikes by Western jets are giving them an edge over Gaddafi’s better-armed forces.
The air strikes decimated some of Gaddafi’s forces, including at least 20 tanks, near Benghazi Sunday the 20th of March 2011, after the United Nations agreed to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and other measures to protect civilians.
Hundreds of rebel fighters have been stationed a few kilometers outside Ajdabiyah since that day. They are prevented from going in by tank fire from Gaddafi’s forces stationed at the town’s entrance.
Fighting between rebels and Moamer Gaddafi’s forces rocked Ajdabiya, with residents fleeing the strategic east Libyan oil town.
Terror-stuck Citizens
A family in a car told AFP, at a point about 15 kilometres north along the coast outside of Ajdabiya, that they were fleeing the town.
“We left because of the fighting. We were very scared; we cannot stay,” said the man, who declined to give his name. His wife and four children looked to be in a state of panic.
An AFP reporter said a pall off smoke hung over the town and the sound of shelling and gunfire was heard intermittently. Hamed al-Qabaili, also fleeing Ajdabiya, described the situation as “very bad.”
“They are firing Grad missiles at the houses,” he said.
Fighting was occurring at the city’s east and west gates but the Tobruk gate was in the hands of the rebels, Qabaili said.
Muftah al-Sheikh, travelling in a car with Qabaili, said he had witnessed two brothers being shot dead in Ajdabiya.
“We left the town because we are afraid,” he said. “There are very few people left. There is no electricity and no gas.”
A group of rebel fighters positioned about nine kilometres from the entrance of Ajdabiya said there were 11 tanks stationed at the town’s east gate.
“When we try to advance they shoot at us with heavy weapons — tanks and 14.5 calibre machine guns. All we have are Kalashnikovs,” said one fighter, Jumaa Suleiman.
Another fighter, Ayyad Jaballah, said wounded rebels were lying near the east gate but no one could reach them.
“Every time we try to get close they shoot at us,” he said, referring to the loyalist forces.
The two 30-year-old travelling together in a car then raced away towards the rebel checkpoint at Zuwatinah, further up the road towards Benghazi.
Gaddafi forces captured Ajdabiya last week on their drive eastward against the month-old uprising and launched a fierce attack on Benghazi.
But they were halted when French aircraft launched air strikes soon after UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised all necessary measures to prevent harm to civilians.
They then pulled back to Ajdabiya, where they easily beat off a rebel advance.
A rebel fighter said Gaddafi was “putting heavy tanks inside Ajdabiya. “It’s full of civilians so we can’t attack them.”
History of Libya
Libya, an oil-rich nation in North Africa, has been under the firm control of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi since he seized power in 1969 through a bloodless coup. He has built his rule on a cult of personality and a network of family and tribal alliances supported by largess from Libya’s oil revenues.
But in February 2011, the unrest sweeping through much of the Arab world erupted in several Libyan cities. Though it began with a relatively organized core of antigovernment opponents in Benghazi, its spread to the capital of Tripoli was swift and spontaneous. Colonel Qaddafi lashed out with a level of violence unseen in either of the other uprisings, but an inchoate opposition cobbled together the semblance of a transitional government, fielded a makeshift rebel army and portrayed itself to the West and Libyans as an alternative to Colonel Qaddafi’s four decades of freakish rule.
Momentum shifted quickly, however, and the rebels faced the possibilty of being outgunned and outnumbered in what increasingly looked like a mismatched civil war. As Colonel Qaddafi’s troops advanced to within 100 miles of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the west, the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action, a risky foreign intervention aimed at averting a bloody rout of the rebels by loyalist forces. On March 19 2011, the American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against Colonel Qaddafi and his government, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war. The United States withdrew its ambassador from Libya in 1972 after Colonel Qaddafi renounced agreements with the West and repeatedly inveighed against the United States in speeches and public statements.
When a mob sacked and burned the American Embassy in 1979, the United States cut off all relations. In 1986, the Reagan administration accused Libya of ordering the bombing of a German discothèque that killed three people. In response, the United States bombed targets in Tripoli and Benghazi.
The most notorious of Libya’s actions was the bombing in 1988 of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Libya later accepted responsibility, turned over suspects and paid families of victims more than $2 billion.
After a surprise decision to renounce terrorism in 2003, Colonel Qaddafi re-established diplomatic and economic ties throughout Europe. He had also changed with regard to Israel. The man who once called for pushing the ”Zionists” into the sea advocated the forming of one nation where Jews and Palestinians would live together in peace.
He founded a pan-African confederation modeled along the lines of the European Union. On Feb. 2, 2009, Colonel Qaddafi was named chairman of the African Union. His election, however, caused some unease among some of the group’s 53-member nations as well as among diplomats and analysts. The colonel, who has ruled Libya with an iron hand, was a stark change from the succession of recent leaders from democratic countries like Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria.
The most significant changes had been the overtures Colonel Qaddafi has made toward the United States. He was among the first Arab leaders to denounce the Sept. 11 attacks, and he lent tacit approval to the American-led invasion of Afghanistan. He reportedly shared his intelligence files on Al Qaeda with the United States to aid in the hunt for its international operatives. He had also cooperated with the United States and Europe on nuclear weapons, terrorism and immigration issues.
In August 2009, Colonel Qaddafi embarrassed the British government and drew criticism from President Obama with his triumphant reaction to the release from prison of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Mr. Megrahi was given a hero’s welcome when he arrived in Libya, and Colonel Qaddafi thanked British and Scottish officials for releasing Mr. Megrahi at a time that they were trying to distance themselves from the action.
February 2011
In February 2011, protests broke out in several parts of Libya on a so-called Day of Rage to challenge Colonel Qaddafi’s 41-year-old iron rule — the region’s longest. Thousands turned out in the restive city of Benghazi; in Tripoli; and at three other locations, according to Human Rights Watch. The state media, though, showed Libyans waving green flags and shouting in support of Colonel Qaddafi.
Trying to demonstrate that he was still in control, Colonel Qaddafi appeared on television on Feb. 22, 2011, speaking from his residence on the grounds of an army barracks in Tripoli that still showed scars from when the United States bombed it in 1986.
In the long, rambling address, he blamed the unrest on “foreign hands,” a small group of people distributing pills, brainwashing, and the naïve desire of young people to imitate the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Without acknowledging the gravity of the crisis in the streets of the capital, he described himself in sweeping, megalomaniacal terms. “Muammar Qaddafi is history, resistance, liberty, glory, revolution,” he declared.
International condemnation of the violent crackdown continued to build. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton protested the violence in a statement. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said on Feb. 21 that he had spoken to Colonel Qaddafi and urged him to halt attacks on protesters immediately. The Security Council held an emergency meeting the following day to discuss the bloodshed.
The Colonel’s Security Forces
Colonel Qaddafi, who took power in a military coup, has always kept the Libyan military too weak and divided to rebel against him. About half of Libya’s relatively small 50,000-member army is made up of poorly trained and unreliable conscripts, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Many of its battalions are organized along tribal lines, ensuring their loyalty to their own clan rather than to top military commanders — a pattern evident in the defection of portions of the army to help protesters take the eastern city of Benghazi. Some Libyans and scholars outside the country say this system of tribal alliances, long Colonel Qaddafi’s most potent weapon, is now emerging as perhaps a potential vulnerability.
His own clan dominates the air force and the upper level of army officers, and they are believed to have remained loyal to him, in part because his clan has the most to lose from his ouster.
Distrustful of his own generals, he built up an elaborate paramilitary force — accompanied by special segments of the regular army that report primarily to his family. It is designed to check the army and in part to subdue his own population. At the top of that structure is his roughly 3,000-member revolutionary guard corps, which mainly guards him personally.
But perhaps the most significant force that Colonel Qaddafi has deployed against the current insurrection is one believed to consist of about 2,500 ruthless mercenaries from countries like Chad, Sudan and Niger that he calls his Islamic Pan African Brigade.
The Ongoing Conflict
On Feb. 25, security forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi used gunfire to try to disperse thousands of protesters who streamed out of mosques after prayers to mount their first major challenge to the government’s crackdown in Tripoli. Rebel leaders said they were sending forces from nearby cities and other parts of the country to join the fight.
A bold play by Colonel Qaddafi to prove that he was firmly in control of Libya appeared to backfire as foreign journalists he invited to the capital discovered blocks of the city in open defiance. Witnesses described snipers and antiaircraft guns firing at unarmed civilians, and security forces were removing the dead and wounded from streets and hospitals, apparently in an effort to hide the mounting toll.
The ring of rebel control around Tripoli tightened, but in a sign that the fight was far from over, armed government forces massed around the city.
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Colonel Qaddafi and his inner circle of advisers, and called for an international war crimes investigation into “widespread and systemic attacks” against Libyan citizens.
On March 2, rebels in the strategic oil city of Brega repelled an attack by hundreds of Colonel Qaddafi’s fighters. The daylong battle was the first major incursion by the colonel’s forces in the rebel-held east of the country since the Libyan uprising began.
Air power has proven to be Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest advantage, and rebels have been unable to use bases and planes they captured in the east. Planes and helicopters give the Qaddafi forces an additional advantage in moving ammunition and supplies, a crucial factor given the length of the Libyan coast between the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and Tripoli.
As Colonel Qaddafi’s forces tried to retake a series of strategic oil towns on the east coast of the country, which fell early in the rebellion to antigovernment rebels, the West continued to debate what actions to take, including the creation of a possible no-flight zone to ground Libyan warplanes.
Though the regime of Colonel Qaddafi has clearly been undermined, it still retains significant strength, and enough support among critical tribes and institutions, including parts of the army and the air force, to retain power, if not superiority, for some time to come.
The Opposition
The question of the opposition’s capabilities is likely to prove decisive to the fate of the rebellion, which appears outmatched by government forces and troubled by tribal divisions that the government, reverting to form, has sought to exploit.
Rebel forces are fired more by enthusiasm than experience. The political leadership has virtually begged the international community to recognize it, but it has yet to marshal opposition forces abroad or impose its authority in regions it nominally controls.
While the mood remains ebullient in parts of eastern Libya, largely because few believe that Colonel Qaddafi can reconquer a region that long seethed under his rule, it is more sullen in Benghazi, a Mediterranean port and Libya’s second largest city, where security has begun to deteriorate.
With momentum seeming to shift, the rebels face the prospect of being outgunned and outnumbered in what increasingly looks like a mismatched civil war.
Developments in March 2011
March 4th to March 10th 2011
Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government widened its counterattack on its rebel opponents, waging fierce battles to wrest control of the town of Zawiya from rebel troops, attacking an eastern oil town and firing on peaceful protesters after prayers in Tripoli. At least 35 people were reported dead, more than 100 wounded and 65 missing in Zawiya, 25 miles west of Tripoli. His forces fired on unarmed protestors in Tripoli and Zawiyah, and fought with rebels for control of Zawiyah and Ras Lanuf, an eastern oil town. At least 35 people were killed in Zawiyah. Government forces began a new air attack on rebels in the coastal town of Ras Lanuf. The rebels had withdrawn to the town after troops loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi attacked them in the coastal town of Bin Jawwad using tanks, helicopters and fighter planes, and pushed them east, stalling, for the moment, hopes by the antigovernment fighters of a steady march toward Tripoli.
As world powers debate measures against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, including the creation of a no-fly zone, the Libyan leader vowed that his countrymen would take up arms to resist such measures. Rebels were dealt military setbacks in Zawiyah and Ras Lanuf, part of a strengthening government counteroffensive, as the opposition’s calls for foreign aid amplified divisions over the need for intervention. Provisional leaders warned that a humanitarian crisis may loom, as people’s needs begin to overwhelm fledgling local governments.
Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi renewed their onslaught on both the eastern and western fronts, apparently establishing control of the western city of Zawiyah and conducting airstrikes in Ras Lanuf, taunting rebels with flyovers and bombing runs near the coastal city’s oil refinery. The attacks came amid reports of a possible peace offer from the Qaddafi camp and growing debate in Western capitals about imposing a no-flight zone over Libya.
Rebel fighters fled the strategic refinery town of Ras Lanuf under ferocious rocket attacks and airstrikes by forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Bold plans of a westward drive to Tripoli by the undermanned and ill-equipped rebel army were dashed by the superior Qaddafi forces, which are seeking to retake several eastern oil cities that slipped from the government’s control in the first days of the uprising. Morale among the fighters seemed to be weakening, even as Agence-France Presse reported that the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had recognized the opposition Libyan National Council.
March 11th to March 20th 2011
Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces advanced on the strategic oil town of Ras Lanuf, a day after battering the rebels in a sustained assault by land, air and sea. The rebels went into a chaotic retreat, changing the momentum in the three-week old uprising and providing a stark illustration of the asymmetry of the conflict. The White House announced a five-point program of steps to isolate Colonel Qaddafi and ultimately drive him from power, all stopping well short of military action. The Arab League asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-flight zone over Libya in hopes of halting Colonle Qaddafi’s attacks on his own people, providing the rebels a tincture of hope even as they were driven back from a long stretch of road and towns they had captured in the three-week war.
Following a brutal, weeklong battle that recaptured — and nearly demolished — the strategically important town of Zawiya, forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi cranked up military and psychological pressure against rebels on two fronts, offering an amnesty to those who surrendered their weapons while bombing Ajdabiya, a strategic linchpin in the east, and surrounding a rebel-held town in the west.
A day after routing a ragtag army in an eastern town near the rebel capital of Benghazi, forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi launched attacks on the city of Misurata, the last rebel stronghold in western Libya, about 125 miles east of the capital, Tripoli. Government forces fired artillery, bombarding the city of several hundred thousand as tanks moved in preparation for a ground advance.
The rebels seeking to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi claimed minor victories in some of their last footholds at both ends of the country’s coast as they battled to hold off the Qaddafi forces’ superior firepower. After days of often acrimonious debate, played out against a desperate clock, the Security Council authorized member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, diplomatic code words calling for military action. Benghazi erupted in celebration at news of the resolution’s passage.
Hours after the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action and the imposition of a no-flight zone, Libya performed what seemed a remarkable about-face after weeks of defiance, saying it would call an “immediate ceasefire and the stoppage of all military operations” against rebels seeking the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. But the United States, Britain and France pushed forward, declaring that the cease-fire announcement was not enough, at least for now, to ward off military action against his forces. President Obama ordered Colonel Qaddafi to implement the cease-fire immediately and stop all attacks on Libyan civilians or face military action from the United States and its allies in Europe and the Arab world.
The military campaign against Colonel Qaddafi was launched under British and French leadership as President Nicolas Sarkozy of France convened an urgent meeting of European, African and Arab leaders in Paris. American forces mounted an initial campaign to knock out Libya’s air defense systems, firing volley after volley of Tomahawk missiles from nearby ships against missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli, and the western cities of Misurata and Surt. American and European militaries intensified their air and sea barrage against Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, as the mission moved beyond taking away his ability to use Libyan airspace, to obliterating his hold on the ground as well, allied officials said. Rebel forces, battered and routed by loyalist fighters just the day before, began to regroup in the east as allied warplanes destroyed dozens of government armored vehicles near the rebel capital, Benghazi, leaving a field of burned wreckage along the coastal road to the city.
March 21st to March 25th 2011
The military campaign to destroy air defenses and establish a no-fly zone over Libya has nearly accomplished its initial objectives, and the United States is moving swiftly to hand command to allies in Europe, American officials said, but fighting continued as reports began to emerge of the crash of an American warplane. The crash, which was probably caused by mechanical failure, was the first known setback for the international coalition attacking Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces in three days of strikes authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Colonel Qaddafi’s forces showed no sign of let up in their siege of rebel-cities.
After a second night of American and European strikes by air and sea against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, European nations rejected Libyan claims that civilians had been killed. Pro-Qaddafi forces were reported, meanwhile, to be holding out against the allied campaign to break their hold on the ground while enforcing a no-fly zone. Rebel fighters trying to retake the eastern town of Ajdabiya appeared to have fallen back to a position around 12 miles to the north on the road to Benghazi, the de facto rebel capital.
The legality of mercy killing or euthanasia and its ethical and moral sides have been hotly discussed and debated in the Indian media and society for the last week or so.
Mercy killing is defined as the killing of one person by another. The victim of mercy killing is normally in the vegetable state or has an injury or illness that cannot be cured, as it is usually in its last stage. The victim experiences immensely painful last days just before his or her death.
For a voluntary case of mercy killing to take place, the killer must first obtain the consent of the victim, but there have been recorded cases of mercy killing against the wishes of the victim as well. This is known as involuntary mercy killing. The victim of a mercy killing dies a painless death after suffering an incurable ailment or serious injury. The term euthanasia, which means mercy killing, is derived from the Greek word for ‘good death’. Euthanasia has been legalised in some Western countries but is still considered to be an unethical practice in the Third World.
Also known as assisted suicide and mercy death, euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.
It is illegal in India and most countries of the world. Only ten odd countries have legalised the practice of mercy killing. Some social activists claim that euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering for the terminally ill persons.
The DoctorNDTV.com survey on this issue has shown a mixed response. More than half the respondents feel that the decision should not be left to the doctors or the next of kin, while one third support the doctors / relatives right to take this decision. Two-thirds agree that euthanasia is the same as mercy killing . Though 71 per cent people feel that legal advice is necessary before taking a decision, most people (>88 per cent) feel that it may be misused in India.
The following are the pros and cons for allowing euthanasia.
Pros:
It provides a way to relieve extreme pain
It provides a way of relief when a person’s quality of life is low
Frees up medical funds to help other people
It is another case of freedom of choice
Cons:
Euthanasia devalues human life
Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
Physicians and other medical care people will get involved in directly causing death
There is a ‘slippery slope’ effect that will occur.
Stances, views and opinions on euthanasia vary greatly; it is called murderous by some and merciful by others. Such controversy arises generally from the serious social, cultural and moral issues attached to the subject.
A Matter of Life and Death – March 7th 2011
Bringing the issue into the limelight has been the case of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state of 37 years. A nurse at Mumbai’s KEM hospital in 1973, she was sexually assaulted while working and the incident left her in a vegetative state, relying on life support systems since the incident.
On Monday the 7th of March 2011, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that passive euthanasia was legal in India and could be practiced in special circumstances, but struck down any hopes of active euthanasia in the country. The Supreme Court was responding to an appeal filed by a friend of Shanbaug. The Supreme Court stated that the plea from the friend was not a valid reason enough to grant euthanasia to the ex-nurse. The apex court also stated that if the hospital taking care of Shanbaug had filed a similar appeal, it would carry more weight and authenticity than the one currently filed. One of the reasons given by the court in rejecting the appeal was that the hospital and the nurses taking care of Aruna Shanbaug were opposed to euthanasia of the patient.
India has given the green light for passive euthanasia, a decision seen as welcome and progressive move by many doctors across the country. Passive euthanasia is administering euthanasia by removing the life support extended to a patient in vegetative condition. This is in contrast to active euthanasia, where an active chemical or agent is injected or delivered into the body of a patient in vegetative condition. The apex court observed that the country might not be ready for such radical and drastic ruling. The court stated that the only way active euthanasia could be legalised is if the Indian Parliament passed a law to that effect.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, however, did not accept the plea of Pinky Viranai seeking permission to withdraw life support to her friend. Writing the judgment, Justice Katju said that there was no statutory provision in our country as to the legal procedure for withdrawing life support to a person in PVS or who is otherwise incompetent to take a decision. He agreed that passive euthanasia should be permitted in our country in certain situations.
The Bench pointed out that in the absence of a law against sexual harassment at work places, the Supreme Court in the Visakha case had laid down guidelines. Similarly he claimed that he was now laying down the law in this connection which will continue to be the law until Parliament makes a law on the subject. According to him, a decision has to be taken to discontinue life support [to a patient in PVS] either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.
The Bench believes that if they leave it solely to the patient’s relatives or to the doctors or the next friend to decide whether to withdraw life support to an incompetent person, there is always a risk in our country that this may be misused by some unscrupulous persons who wish to inherit or otherwise grab the property of the patient. Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialisation and corruption, they cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery.”
In the present case, the Bench declared that Aruna Shanbaug’s parents are dead and other close relatives had not been interested in her ever since she had the unfortunate assault on her. It is the KEM Hospital staff, who has been amazingly caring for her day and night for so many long years, who really are her next friends, and not Ms. Pinky Virani, who has only visited her on a few occasions and written a book on her. Hence it is for the KEM Hospital staff to take that decision. The KEM hospital staff has clearly expressed their wish that Aruna Shanbaug should be allowed to live.
The nurses and doctors at the hospital were jubilant over the Supreme Court ruling. A few nurses at the hospital remarked to the media that the ruling was the best women’s day gift the top court could have given them. The nurses even went on to question the authenticity of Ms. Pinky Virani, Shanbaug’s friend who appealed to the Supreme Court to grant euthanasia. The nurses at KEM hospital claimed that Shanbaug was like family to them. They claimed that Shanbaug was not completely vegetative and that she responded to touch and food. Nurses were of the opinion that Ms. Virani, who had not taken care of Shanbaug through the 37 years of being comatose had no right to ask for the withdrawal of life support systems.
“India is not mature enough to handle euthanasia,” senior Bangalore-based cardiologist Devi Prasad Shetty said while expressing his happiness over the verdict on a mercy killing plea on behalf of 60-year-old Aruna Shanbaug. Dr. Shetty’s view was shared by Chief Cardiologist of Bombay Hospital B.K. Goyal, who said euthanasia is an emotional issue which can be “misused.”
There was joy among Aruna’s former colleagues and nurses in local KEM hospital who have been tending to her. Nurses distributed sweets at the hospital after the Supreme Court ruling.
While comparing euthanasia with MTP, senior doctor Goyal said that in such a case they should ensure the safety of people at large because when in India, MTP is allowed, it was misused right and left. In the same way, he feels euthanasia can be misused too.
Dr. Shetty said that financial constraints and inability to look after cannot be the reason to ask someone to terminate life. This is unacceptable.
He believes that this country is not mature enough to handle this major legal issue. It is not possible.
March 9th 2011
No parent would like to see their children killed, even if disabled, but watching the nightmarish existence of their physically challenged sons has prompted a couple from Bihar to seek euthanasia from them. Mukesh Kumar, a marginal farmer from Ratwada village of Muzaffarpur district filed a mercy death plea for his sons, Nitin, 15, and Anshu, 13, both living with muscular dystrophy (MD), a terminal and degenerative condition that has crippled the two brothers.
Muscular dystrophy is not just a disability, but a genetic and inherited disorder that gradually deteriorates killing muscle cells and tissues until the patient finally dies.
According to the parents, the boys were born healthy and were like normal children till age two when they got the muscular disorder. The boys cannot talk or stand on their feet and are completely dependent on their parents. They are also paralysed below their chests and are unable to move or eat without assistance.
Although, MD has no cure, some treatments are available in US. However, these are expensive, something to the tune of over Rs. 30 lakhs which are far beyond the poor farmer means.
The financial resources of the couple have been exhausted completely. They have sold off their few valuables and ancestral land to meet the expenses for their sons’ medical treatment.
Mukesh stated that they have been pleading for their mercy killing because we cannot continue costly medical treatment, which anyway will not cure them, only prolong their unhappy lives. He believes that the state government should either grant permission or provide us help for treatment.
Watching the discomfort, torturous pain, indignity and utter helplessness of the two sons virtually turn into vegetables over the last 10 years is distressing for the parents.
With doctors giving up hope, the parents feel death is the only solution that can put an end to the tyranny of their fate.
The dignity of life and the right to live without pain and discomfort are the major issues in the limelight. If active euthanasia is implemented in India, there is a considerable chance that it could be misused, especially in areas that are rural and withdrawn from the mainstream. The Supreme Court seems to have made a sensible decision on the issue. May be, India will have to wait a few more years until the nation is ready for legal active euthanasia.
Twelve-year-old children in India will be legally permitted to have non-penetrative sex with children their age, according to a draft Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2010 that has been sent to states by the ministry of women and child development for their views.
The Bill also seeks to introduce a gradation in the age of consensual non-penetrative sex (12-14 years and 14-16 years) against the existing age of consent for sex which is 16 years. It proposes that in case of the age group 12-14, the maximum age gap between partners should be two years. For the 14-16 group, the maximum gap should be three years.
The age of consent in the US is between 16 and 18 years, depending on the state they live in; in the UK it is 16. Spain has one of the lowest ages of consent, at 13 years.
While a senior official of the ministry of women and child development confirmed that the Bill has been sent to state governments, law minister Veerappa Moily said he was not aware of it. “Twelve years is anyway not a proper age for a sexual act,“ he said.
Section 3 of the proposed Bill lists under exceptions of unlawful sexual act with a child:
(i) Any consensual non-penetrative sexual act penalised by this chapter is not an offence when engaged in between two children who are both over 12 years of age and are either of the same age or whose ages are within two years of each other.
(ii) when engaged in between two persons who are both over 14 years of age and are either of the same age or whose ages are within three years of each other
The Bill will soon be sent to the cabinet, after which a parliamentary standing committee will scrutinise it. Suggestions and objections from the states will be considered then, said a senior official at the ministry of women and child development.
The law ministry too has been working on a similar Bill with an identical name, in which the age of consent is mentioned as 16 years, with no gradation as suggested by the new Bill. The circulation of two Bills with the same title has created confusion in the government.
Opinion on the minimum age is divided. Aparna Bhat, a Supreme Court lawyer who was part of a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights group that drafted the latest Bill said the gradation of age down to 12 years was to decriminalise sexual exploration by two children.
Under the existing law, if two 12-year-olds get physical and if one childs parent complains, the other can be pulled up by the Juvenile Justice Board. The panel felt such minor things should be decriminalised, she said.
Raaj Mangal, chairperson of Delhi Child Welfare Committee said the Bill could prove “disastrous“ if it comes into effect. “Twelve, given the mind and maturity of a child, is not an age to give consent, be it penetrative or non-penetrative sex. In the name of decriminalising, you can`t keep sexual acts between children out of the notice of the authorities,“ said Mangal.
Former CBI director RK Raghavan felt the attempt to draw a distinction between an act involving penetration and one not involving penetration will create confusion in the minds of investigators. “Disputes regarding the age of the offender or the victim, which will be many, will dilute the objective of protecting children,’ he said.
Some others like Nina Nayak, chairperson of Karnataka State Commission for the protection of child rights, called the Bill “absolutely unacceptable“. “The Juvenile Justice Board is anyway lenient to children in conflict with law. Even if a minor rapes a minor, the child in conflict with law is just admonished and sent. There is no need of a new law to make sexual acts between children permissible,` she said.
The 56th Idea Filmfare Awards ended on 29.01.2011 with ‘Udaan’ making a clean sweep taking home the 7 Filmfare Awards including Best Supporting Actor (Male), Best Film (Critics), Best Story, Cinematography, Screenplay, Best Background Music and Best Sound Design Award. While SRK starrer My Name is Khan snapped up the most popular awards-Best Director, Best Actor (Male), Best Actor (Female), Arbaz’s Dabangg won six awards as well.
Popular Awards
Best Actor: Rekha gives the Best Actor Award to Shah Rukh Khan for ‘My Name is Khan’. The charming actor says, “I want to take this award for my daughter. I wanted to make her wear a red gown and walk in with me on the red carpet. But she’s unwell”.
Best Actress: Kajol for ‘My Name is Khan’
Best Film: Arbaaz Khan and Malaika Arora Khan take the award for ‘Dabangg’
Best Director Award: Karan Johar for My Name is Khan. After ‘Kuch Kuch Hota Hai’ it took 12 yrs for Karan Johar to win another Filmfare trophy.
Best Debut Director: Manish Sharma for Band Baajaa Baaraat
Best Debut Actor (Male): Ranveer Singh for Band Baajaa Baaraat
Best Debut Actor (Female): Sonakshi Sinha for Dabangg
Best Supporting Actor (Male): Ronit Roy for ‘Udaan’
Best Supporting Actor (Female): Kareena Kapoor for ‘We Are Family’
Filmfare Critics Awards
Best Actor (Critics): Rishi Kapoor for ‘Do Dooni Chaar’
Best Actress (Critics): Vidya Balan for ‘Ishqiya’
Best Film (Critics): Vikramaditya Motwane and Sanjay Singh for ‘Udaan’
Special Awards
Shah Rukh Khan and Yash Chopra present Amitabh Bachchan an award for completing 40 years in the film industry. Yash Chopra also adds, “Amitabh Bachchan is the Best Actor in the world”.
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan presents Madhuri Dixit Nene an award for completing 25 years in the film industry. Madhuri recalls her wonderful journey over the years in the film industry and thanks each and everyone from her directors, husband, kids, mom, dad and secretary Rikku Rakesh Nath who’s been with her for the last 25 years. Lifetime Achievement Award
Prabodh Chandra Dey popularly known in Bollywood as Manna Dey was felicitated with one of the most prestigious award of the night – the Lifetime Achievement award. This is his second Filmfare trophy. He won his first Filmfare Award in 1970 for singing the song ‘Ae Bhai Zara Dekh Ke Chalo’ from Mera Naam Joker.
The 90 year old singer Manna Dey couldn’t attend the function and so Vidya Balan went to his house to present him the award. It can be recalled that Manna Dey has recorded more than 3500 songs over the course of his career. The Government of India honoured him with the Padma Shri in 1971, the Padma Bhushan in 2005 and the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2009.
Best Scene of the Year Award: Golmaal 3
Filmfare Music Awards
Best Music Composer: Sajid Wajid won the Best Music Composer Award for Dabangg. Speaking about it Sajid says, “This is our first Filmfare trophy and we are on top of the world. We knew from before that we were bagging all the awards this year. We have only one song to dedicate to our black lady: Tere Mast Mast Do Nain”. Best Song Composer : Yet another award goes for Dabangg and this time the award goes to Lalit Pandit who composed the song Munni Badnam Hui… “It’s taken me twenty years to win this award. AR Rahman always won it from under our nose. A lot of effort has gone into this. It has inspired me to work harder”, said Lalit.
Best Lyrics: Gulzar won the Best Lyrics Award for the song ‘Ibn-e-Batuta’ (Ishqiya). The veteran lyricist says, “This award is special to me because it’s a Filmfare Award”. Regarding what inspired him while penning these lines Gulzar says, “Well, it’s in my hormones. Dil abhi bhi baccha hai. So I didn’t have to seek inspiration from anywhere else.”
Most Promising Talent in Music: Sneha Khanwalkar for ‘Love Sex aur Dhokha’
Best Playback Singer (Male): Rahat Fateh Ali Khan won Best Playback Singer (Male) for ‘Dil Toh Bachcha Hai Ji’ (Ishqiya)
Best Playback Singer (Female): Best Playback Singer (Female) Award was shared between Mamta Sharma for ‘Munni Badnaam Hui’ (Dabangg) and Sunidhi Chauhan for ‘Sheila Ki Jawani’ (Tees Maar Khan)
Filmfare Technical Awards
Best Choreography: Farah Khan for ‘Sheila Ki Jawani’ from Tees Maar Khan. Farah says, “Thank God that Udaan is not nominated in the Best Choreography section. I am sure I would have lost to them.” She dedicated the award to her triplets. “Today was their sports day,” she revealed.
Best Dialogue: Habib Faisal for Do Dooni Chaar
Best Screenplay: Anurag Kashyap and Vikramaditya Motwane for Udaan
Best Story: Anurag Kashyap and Vikramaditya Motwane for Udaan
Best Background Music: Amit Trivedi for Udaan. Amit says, “I am very happy that I won this award for Udaan. I didn’t even know that I was nominated. Then I realized I have not one but two – Udaan and Aisha. I am happy that I won it for Udaan as it is a small film and I wasn’t even expecting an award for it. There were big competitors in the same league so I am glad.”
Best Action Director: Vijayan Master for Dabbang
Best Cinematography: Mahendra Shetty for Udaan
Best Action Sequence: Vijayan Master for Dabbang
Best Editing Award: Namrata Rao for ‘Love Sex aur Dhoka’.
Best Production Design Award: Mukund Gupta for ‘Do Dooni Chaar’.
Best Sound Design Award: Best Sound Design Award is shared by Pritam Das for ‘Love Sex Aur Dhoka’ and Kunal Sharma for ‘Udaan’.
Best Costume Design Award: The first Award of the night has been declared. Varsha and Shilpa have won the Best Costume Design Award for the film Do Dooni Chaar.
Dream Dare Win
Nelson Mandela is one of the world’s most revered statesmen, who led the struggle to replace the apartheid regime of South Africa with a multi-racial democracy.
Jailed for 27 years, he emerged to become the country’s first black president and to play a leading role in the drive for peace in other spheres of conflict. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.
His charisma, self-deprecating sense of humour and lack of bitterness over his harsh treatment, as well as his amazing life story, partly explain his extraordinary global appeal.
Since stepping down as president in 1999, Mr Mandela has become South Africa’s highest-profile ambassador, campaigning against HIV/Aids and helping to secure his country’s right to host the 2010 football World Cup.
Mr Mandela – diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2001 – was also involved in peace negotiations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and other countries in Africa and elsewhere.
In 2004, at the age of 85, Mr Mandela retired from public life to spend more time with his family and friends and engage in “quiet reflection”.
“Don’t call me, I’ll call you,” he warned anyone thinking of inviting him to future engagements.
The former president had made few public appearances since largely retiring from public life.
In November 2010, his office released photos of a meeting he had held with members of the US and South African football teams.
In late January 2011 he was admitted to a Johannesburg hospital for what were described as “specialised tests” with the South African presidency reminding a concerned nation that Mr Mandela has had “previous respiratory infections”.
Raised by royalty
He was born in 1918 into the Xhosa-speaking Thembu people in a small village in the eastern Cape of South Africa. In South Africa, he is often called by his clan name – “Madiba”.
Born Rolihlahla Dalibhunga, he was given his English name, Nelson, by a teacher at his school.
His father, a counsellor to the Thembu royal family, died when Nelson Mandela was nine, and he was placed in the care of the acting regent of the Thembu people, chief Jongintaba Dalindyebo.
He joined the African National Congress in 1943, first as an activist, then as the founder and president of the ANC Youth League.
Eventually, after years in prison, he also served as its president.
He married his first wife, Evelyn Mase, in 1944. They were divorced in 1957 after having three children.
Mr Mandela qualified as a lawyer and in 1952 opened a law practice in Johannesburg with his partner, Oliver Tambo.
Together, Mr Mandela and Mr Tambo campaigned against apartheid, the system devised by the all-white National Party which oppressed the black majority.
In 1956, Mr Mandela was charged with high treason, along with 155 other activists, but the charges against him were dropped after a four-year trial.
Resistance to apartheid grew, mainly against the new Pass Laws, which dictated where black people were allowed to live and work.
In 1958, Mr Mandela married Winnie Madikizela, who was later to take an active role in the campaign to free her husband from prison.
The ANC was outlawed in 1960 and Mr Mandela went underground.
Tension with the apartheid regime grew, and soared to new heights in 1960 when 69 black people were shot dead by police in the Sharpeville massacre.
Life sentence
This marked the end of peaceful resistance and Mr Mandela, already national vice-president of the ANC, launched a campaign of economic sabotage.
He was eventually arrested and charged with sabotage and attempting to violently overthrow the government.
Conducting his own defence in the Rivonia court room, Mr Mandela used the stand to convey his beliefs about democracy, freedom and equality.
“I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities,” he said.
“It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”
In the winter of 1964 he was sentenced to life in prison.
In the space of 12 months between 1968 and 1969, Mr Mandela’s mother died and his eldest son was killed in a car crash but he was not allowed to attend the funerals.
He remained in prison on Robben Island for 18 years before being transferred to Pollsmoor Prison on the mainland in 1982.
As Mr Mandela and other ANC leaders languished in prison or lived in exile, the youths of South Africa’s black townships did their best to fight white minority rule.
Hundreds were killed and thousands were injured before the schoolchildren’s uprising was crushed.
In 1980, Mr Tambo, who was in exile, launched an international campaign to release Mr Mandela.
The world community tightened the sanctions first imposed on South Africa in 1967 against the apartheid regime.
The pressure produced results, and in 1990, President FW de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC, and Mr Mandela was released from prison and talks on forming a new multi-racial democracy for South Africa began.
Slum townships
In 1992, Mr Mandela divorced his wife, Winnie, after she was convicted on charges of kidnapping and accessory to assault.
In December 1993, Mr Mandela and Mr de Klerk were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Five months later, for the first time in South Africa’s history, all races voted in democratic elections and Mr Mandela was overwhelmingly elected president.
Mr Mandela’s greatest problem as president was the housing shortage for the poor, and slum townships continued to blight major cities.
He entrusted his deputy, Thabo Mbeki, with the day-to-day business of the government, while he concentrated on the ceremonial duties of a leader, building a new international image of South Africa.
In that context, he succeeded in persuading the country’s multinational corporations to remain and invest in South Africa.
On his 80th birthday, Nelson Mandela married Graca Machel, the widow of the former president of Mozambique.
He continued travelling the world, meeting leaders, attending conferences and collecting awards after stepping down as president.
After his official retirement, his public appearances were mostly connected with the work of the Mandela Foundation, a charitable fund that he founded.
On his 89th birthday, he formed The Elders, a group of leading world figures, to offer their expertise and guidance “to tackle some of the world’s toughest problems”.
Possibly his most noteworthy intervention of recent years came early in 2005, following the death of his surviving son, Makgatho.
In a country where taboos still surround the Aids epidemic, Mr Mandela announced that his son had died of Aids, and urged South Africans to talk about Aids ” to make it appear like a normal illness”.
He also played a key role in the decision to let South Africa host the 2010 football World Cup and appeared at the closing ceremony.
Mandela’s Key Dates
1918 – Born in the Eastern Cape
1956 – Charged with high treason, but charges dropped
1962 – Arrested, convicted of sabotage, sentenced to five years in prison
1964 – Charged again, sentenced to life
1990 – Freed from prison
1993 – Wins Nobel Peace Prize
1994 – Elected first black president
1999 – Steps down as leader
2001 – Diagnosed with prostate cancer
2004 – Retires from public life
2005 – Announces his son has died of an HIV/Aids-related illness
The unrest in Egypt follows an uprising in Tunisia two weeks ago, in which President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled after 23 years in power.
The Tunisian upheaval began with anger over rising food prices, high unemployment and anger at official corruption – problems which also left many people Egypt feeling frustrated and resentful of their leadership.
If Egyptian unrest turns into an Egyptian revolution, the implications for the Arab world – and for Western policy in the Middle East – will be immense.
Egypt matters, in a way that tiny Tunisia – key catalyst that it has been in the current wave of protest – does not. It matters because its destiny affects, in a range of ways, not only Arab interests but Israeli, Iranian and Western interests, too.
Egypt, the most populous Arab state, can help determine the thrust of Arab policies – whether towards Israel or Iran or in the perennial quest for Arab consensus on issues that matter.
Above all, the Egyptian state has traditionally had a strength and solidity that made its collapse seem unthinkable. Even now, with so much that is uncertain, that state and its basic structures may survive – with or without Hosni Mubarak, the country’s president for the last three decades.
Islamist wild card
If there is a power vacuum, who is likely to fill it? Will the powerful military intervene to restore stability? If they did, would the protesters accept such a scenario – or would they, like their Tunisian counterparts, keep up the pressure for radical change?
And – the wild card that troubles Western policy-makers most – could the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s Islamist opposition movement, somehow exploit the protests to come to power?
Right now, that scenario seems far-fetched. The Brotherhood is trying to jump on the bandwagon of a youthful and largely leaderless protest movement.
They are not in front. They are trying to catch up. But the situation is volatile. New leaders – nationalist or Islamist, civilian or military – could emerge if the country is engulfed in chaos.
Regional consequences
If the Mubarak regime were to collapse – which is still a big “if” – the fall-out would affect virtually every key player in the region and every key issue.
For Arab autocrats, it would signify the writing on the wall in a far more dramatic way than the fall of the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia.
For Arab protesters, it would be a great boost, fuelling the idea that the region has entered a new era of “people power”.
It would deal a blow to an already enfeebled Middle East peace process. Egypt was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, back in the 1970s. A change of regime would alarm Israeli leaders and deepen the siege mentality among many Israelis.
It would affect business confidence, regionally and even globally, especially if oil prices shot up.
Finally, it would pose painful dilemmas for Western policy-makers who have long favoured gradual political reform in the region, fearful that the alternative could be the breakdown of stability and the rise of extremism.
Right now, Arab rulers and Arab citizens are glued to their TV screens, computers and mobile phones for news of how the drama is unfolding.
It will be some time before the smoke and tear gas settle, and the new face of this troubled region begins to come into focus.
Three decades of one-party rule
Political protests may be rocking Egypt with a new, non-ideological force, but President Hosni Mubarak and his allies have not veered from a playbook they have followed through nearly three decades of one-party rule.
As always, the government has responded to the unrest primarily as a security issue, largely ignoring, or dismissing, the core demands of those who have taken to the street.
“My analysis is, the government will leave them until they reach a level of exhaustion,” said Abdel Moneim Said, a member of the President’s ruling party and the director of the government-owned newspaper and publishing house, Al Ahram.
The Egyptian leadership, long accustomed to an apolitical and largely apathetic public, remains convinced that Egypt is going through the sort of convulsion it has experienced and survived before.
The leaders see in the protest an experience similar to the events of 1977, when Anwar el-Sadat, then the President, announced plans to end subsidies of basic food items, setting off 36 hours of rioting across the country. They see a repeat of the threat the government faced from Islamist militants in the 1990s, which it violently suppressed. And so the leaders have fallen back on a familiar strategy, deploying security forces, blaming the Islamists and defining their critics as driven by economic, not political, concerns.
“I can’t think of anybody that I know that has any concern about the stability of the regime,” Mr. Said added. But the Egyptian playbook is not just calling for a strategy that runs on the fumes of history. Like the protesters, Mr. Mubarak and his allies appear to have learned lessons from Tunisia’s popular revolt.
The main one appears to be not to give an inch.
While Tunisia’s ousted president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, went on television and offered his now frequently mocked concession “I understand you”, Mr. Mubarak has remained silent, leaving it to his proxies to try to calm the unrest. That may be because neither side in this fight has much room to manoeuvre.
The opposition does not have an available political path to change, other than protest. And Mr. Mubarak has little to offer because he has systematically eviscerated civil and political institutions, creating a system that allows change to come only through his party and his allies, said political analysts here.
The Mubarak administration is blind to this weakness, however, seeing itself as strong and having the support of the majority.
“Egypt’s system is not marginal or frail,” Interior Minister Habib al-Adli told a Kuwaiti newspaper. “We are a big state, with an administration with popular support. The millions will decide the future of this nation, not demonstrations, even if numbered in the thousands.”
Loyalists, like Mr. Said of Ahram, remain committed to a view that sees the nation’s different constituencies as divided by ideology and demands, and therefore easily picked off with simple offerings like a pay raise or a Cabinet shuffle. Change, the party line goes, will come slowly, and only from the inside.
So far, there is virtually no recognition, at least publicly, that Egypt has already changed. -New York Times News Service
Massive protests rock Egypt
A string of draconian measures enforced by authorities has fuelled the Egyptian uprising, which on Friday began to seriously question the future of the 30-year-old dictatorship of President Hosni Mubarak.
By nightfall, the headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) in downtown Cairo was on fire, and protesters had stormed the Foreign Ministry building. As Egypt’s revolt flared uncontrollably, the Army was called out to reinforce a curfew that was imposed at 7 p.m. local time.
Several waves of protesters have overwhelmed police in Suez city, on the edge of the Suez canal, a key international waterway. The opposition Muslim Brotherhood claimed on its website in the evening that the port city of Alexandria is “completely under the People’s control (and) police forces (have been) surrounded in (a) football field.” But by night the Army, the bastion of Mr. Mubarak’s regime, was apparently moving in to re-establish control over Egypt’s second largest city.
Amid high drama, the approaches leading to Cairo’s Tahrir (liberation) Square, the focal point after nightfall of Tuesday’s clashes, had, by afternoon, emerged as a major battleground. Braving a barrage of teargas, at least 20,000 protesters packed the Qasr al-Nil Bridge that connects Giza, famous for its Pyramids to Tahrir Square.
Thousands of activists clashed with security forces outside of Al-Azhar Mosque, in Islamic Cairo after Friday prayers, AFP reported.
A Reuters report from Cairo said at least five protesters were killed during the clashes. It was not immediately clear how they died.
Reports of protests and heavy violence poured without a break from Alexandria, Suez, the Nile delta and the Sinai desert, illustrating the massive countrywide sweep of the irrepressible protests.
The spate of demonstrations witnessed have come in the face of an intense security crackdown. Mohammad ElBaradei, a future reformist presidential hopeful who returned to Cairo on Thursday night was put under house arrest following afternoon prayers at the Giza mosque. Prior to his detention, he said that the end of the regime was “imminent.”
“They [the regime] are completely desperate. I hope the pictures will be everywhere to show how barbaric, petrified, and dictatorial the regime is. Now it’s the people versus the thugs.”
Ibrahim Eissa, former Editor-in-Chief of the Arabic daily Al-Dostour, who was at Mr. ElBaradei’s side, said the regime “seems terrified that these protests are turning into a full-fledged revolution.
Mubarak sacks cabinet and defends security role
President Hosni Mubarak has defended the role of Egypt’s security forces in suppressing anti-government protests which have rocked the country.
Mr Mubarak also dismissed his government and said a new cabinet would be announced on 29.01.2011.
Mr Obama said he had told Mr Mubarak to respect the rights of the Egyptian people and refrain from using violence against peaceful protesters – but he said the protesters also had a responsibility to express themselves peacefully. He urged the Egyptian leader to take “concrete steps that advance the rights of the Egyptian people” and deliver on the promises of reform in his address. “Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian people. And suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away,” he said.
Egypt protesters increase pressure – 31.01.2011
Opposition movement calls for “march of millions” on 1.02.2011 in a bid to topple president Hosni Mubarak.
Egyptian protesters have called for a massive demonstration and a rolling general strike on Tuesday in a bid to force out president Hosni Mubarak from power.
The so-called April 6, 2010 Movement said it plans to have more than one million people on the streets of the capital Cairo, as anti-government sentiment reaches a fever pitch.
The call came as Mubarak swore in a new cabinet in an attempt to defuse ongoing demonstrations across the country.
But opposition groups say personnel changes will not placate them and have said they will continue until the president steps down
The unrest in Egypt follows an uprising in Tunisia two weeks ago, in which President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled after 23 years in power.
The Tunisian upheaval began with anger over rising food prices, high unemployment and anger at official corruption – problems which also left many people Egypt feeling frustrated and resentful of their leadership.
If Egyptian unrest turns into an Egyptian revolution, the implications for the Arab world – and for Western policy in the Middle East – will be immense.
Egypt matters, in a way that tiny Tunisia – key catalyst that it has been in the current wave of protest – does not. It matters because its destiny affects, in a range of ways, not only Arab interests but Israeli, Iranian and Western interests, too.
Egypt, the most populous Arab state, can help determine the thrust of Arab policies – whether towards Israel or Iran or in the perennial quest for Arab consensus on issues that matter.
Above all, the Egyptian state has traditionally had a strength and solidity that made its collapse seem unthinkable. Even now, with so much that is uncertain, that state and its basic structures may survive – with or without Hosni Mubarak, the country’s president for the last three decades.
Islamist wild card
If there is a power vacuum, who is likely to fill it? Will the powerful military intervene to restore stability? If they did, would the protesters accept such a scenario – or would they, like their Tunisian counterparts, keep up the pressure for radical change?
And – the wild card that troubles Western policy-makers most – could the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s Islamist opposition movement, somehow exploit the protests to come to power?
Right now, that scenario seems far-fetched. The Brotherhood is trying to jump on the bandwagon of a youthful and largely leaderless protest movement.
They are not in front. They are trying to catch up. But the situation is volatile. New leaders – nationalist or Islamist, civilian or military – could emerge if the country is engulfed in chaos.
Regional consequences
If the Mubarak regime were to collapse – which is still a big “if” – the fall-out would affect virtually every key player in the region and every key issue.
For Arab autocrats, it would signify the writing on the wall in a far more dramatic way than the fall of the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia.
For Arab protesters, it would be a great boost, fuelling the idea that the region has entered a new era of “people power”.
It would deal a blow to an already enfeebled Middle East peace process. Egypt was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, back in the 1970s. A change of regime would alarm Israeli leaders and deepen the siege mentality among many Israelis.
It would affect business confidence, regionally and even globally, especially if oil prices shot up.
Finally, it would pose painful dilemmas for Western policy-makers who have long favoured gradual political reform in the region, fearful that the alternative could be the breakdown of stability and the rise of extremism.
Right now, Arab rulers and Arab citizens are glued to their TV screens, computers and mobile phones for news of how the drama is unfolding.
It will be some time before the smoke and tear gas settle, and the new face of this troubled region begins to come into focus.
Three decades of one-party rule
Political protests may be rocking Egypt with a new, non-ideological force, but President Hosni Mubarak and his allies have not veered from a playbook they have followed through nearly three decades of one-party rule.
As always, the government has responded to the unrest primarily as a security issue, largely ignoring, or dismissing, the core demands of those who have taken to the street.
“My analysis is, the government will leave them until they reach a level of exhaustion,” said Abdel Moneim Said, a member of the President’s ruling party and the director of the government-owned newspaper and publishing house, Al Ahram.
The Egyptian leadership, long accustomed to an apolitical and largely apathetic public, remains convinced that Egypt is going through the sort of convulsion it has experienced and survived before.
The leaders see in the protest an experience similar to the events of 1977, when Anwar el-Sadat, then the President, announced plans to end subsidies of basic food items, setting off 36 hours of rioting across the country. They see a repeat of the threat the government faced from Islamist militants in the 1990s, which it violently suppressed. And so the leaders have fallen back on a familiar strategy, deploying security forces, blaming the Islamists and defining their critics as driven by economic, not political, concerns.
“I can’t think of anybody that I know that has any concern about the stability of the regime,” Mr. Said added. But the Egyptian playbook is not just calling for a strategy that runs on the fumes of history. Like the protesters, Mr. Mubarak and his allies appear to have learned lessons from Tunisia’s popular revolt.
The main one appears to be not to give an inch.
While Tunisia’s ousted president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, went on television and offered his now frequently mocked concession “I understand you”, Mr. Mubarak has remained silent, leaving it to his proxies to try to calm the unrest. That may be because neither side in this fight has much room to manoeuvre.
The opposition does not have an available political path to change, other than protest. And Mr. Mubarak has little to offer because he has systematically eviscerated civil and political institutions, creating a system that allows change to come only through his party and his allies, said political analysts here.
The Mubarak administration is blind to this weakness, however, seeing itself as strong and having the support of the majority.
“Egypt’s system is not marginal or frail,” Interior Minister Habib al-Adli told a Kuwaiti newspaper. “We are a big state, with an administration with popular support. The millions will decide the future of this nation, not demonstrations, even if numbered in the thousands.”
Loyalists, like Mr. Said of Ahram, remain committed to a view that sees the nation’s different constituencies as divided by ideology and demands, and therefore easily picked off with simple offerings like a pay raise or a Cabinet shuffle. Change, the party line goes, will come slowly, and only from the inside.
So far, there is virtually no recognition, at least publicly, that Egypt has already changed. -New York Times News Service
Massive protests rock Egypt
A string of draconian measures enforced by authorities has fuelled the Egyptian uprising, which on Friday began to seriously question the future of the 30-year-old dictatorship of President Hosni Mubarak.
By nightfall, the headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) in downtown Cairo was on fire, and protesters had stormed the Foreign Ministry building. As Egypt’s revolt flared uncontrollably, the Army was called out to reinforce a curfew that was imposed at 7 p.m. local time.
Several waves of protesters have overwhelmed police in Suez city, on the edge of the Suez canal, a key international waterway. The opposition Muslim Brotherhood claimed on its website in the evening that the port city of Alexandria is “completely under the People’s control (and) police forces (have been) surrounded in (a) football field.” But by night the Army, the bastion of Mr. Mubarak’s regime, was apparently moving in to re-establish control over Egypt’s second largest city.
Amid high drama, the approaches leading to Cairo’s Tahrir (liberation) Square, the focal point after nightfall of Tuesday’s clashes, had, by afternoon, emerged as a major battleground. Braving a barrage of teargas, at least 20,000 protesters packed the Qasr al-Nil Bridge that connects Giza, famous for its Pyramids to Tahrir Square.
Thousands of activists clashed with security forces outside of Al-Azhar Mosque, in Islamic Cairo after Friday prayers, AFP reported.
A Reuters report from Cairo said at least five protesters were killed during the clashes. It was not immediately clear how they died.
Reports of protests and heavy violence poured without a break from Alexandria, Suez, the Nile delta and the Sinai desert, illustrating the massive countrywide sweep of the irrepressible protests.
The spate of demonstrations witnessed have come in the face of an intense security crackdown. Mohammad ElBaradei, a future reformist presidential hopeful who returned to Cairo on Thursday night was put under house arrest following afternoon prayers at the Giza mosque. Prior to his detention, he said that the end of the regime was “imminent.”
“They [the regime] are completely desperate. I hope the pictures will be everywhere to show how barbaric, petrified, and dictatorial the regime is. Now it’s the people versus the thugs.”
Ibrahim Eissa, former Editor-in-Chief of the Arabic daily Al-Dostour, who was at Mr. ElBaradei’s side, said the regime “seems terrified that these protests are turning into a full-fledged revolution.
Mubarak sacks cabinet and defends security role
President Hosni Mubarak has defended the role of Egypt’s security forces in suppressing anti-government protests which have rocked the country.
Mr Mubarak also dismissed his government and said a new cabinet would be announced on 29.01.2011.
Mr Obama said he had told Mr Mubarak to respect the rights of the Egyptian people and refrain from using violence against peaceful protesters – but he said the protesters also had a responsibility to express themselves peacefully. He urged the Egyptian leader to take “concrete steps that advance the rights of the Egyptian people” and deliver on the promises of reform in his address. “Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian people. And suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away,” he said.
Hours after a group of stone-throwing youth braved frantic police beatings and confronted grey fumes of teargas outside the Interior Ministry building in Tunis, the unthinkable happened. As darkness thickened on January 14, 2011 and agonising uncertainty gripped the Tunisian capital, word was out that Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, well entrenched dictator for 23 years, had fled. For hours, Mr. Ben Ali’s plane flew in the Mediterranean night sky, desperately seeking a place to land. France, the former colonial master, saw no benefit in obliging an ageing overused ex-dictator that it had once so assiduously feted. It refused landing permission. Finally, the harried former first family of Tunisia, known for its ostentatious ways, was rescued by the Saudis, who opened one of their numerous palaces in Jeddah to accommodate their uninvited and loveless guests.
But back in Tunisia, despite curfew and an Emergency, there was unbelievable relief and much joy on the streets. Mr. Ben Ali’s seemingly unassailable tyranny, reinforced by thousands of personally loyal troops, had suddenly collapsed. Many felt that a political revolution of great significance had been accomplished. Overnight, large sections of the media pronounced that not only an era of authoritarianism in Tunisia had ended but also a new powerful contagion of democracy was fast spreading to annihilate dictators, big and small, across West Asia. That still might be the case but not necessarily so — at least not immediately.
Built on solid organisational foundations and helped by the old and new media alike, the Tunisian rebellion has indeed aroused the masses across the region. As Abdul Bari Atwan, editor of the Palestinian daily, Al Quds Al Arabi, put it: “The Arab nation is patient, but its patience is similar to that of a camel. When it is furious, a camel does not stop until it wreaks revenge on its persecutors. It seems that such a camel has now broken free from its ties.”
But before the anticipation that the long-fossilised dominos in the Arab world will, at some stage, begin to fall is realised, Tunisia needs to consolidate its own fledgling political revolution. The Tunisians are already facing their first major challenge. Within hours of Mr. Ben Ali’s fall, the former Speaker Fuad Mebazza, elevated to the presidency, announced the formation of a stopgap national unity government, which was also meant to accommodate important Opposition figures. However, on the night of January 17, the new government, when it was unveiled, was found stuffed with the hated members of the old guard. The key Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Finance were once again bestowed on Mr. Ben Ali’s cronies.
The regime opponents have therefore their first task cut out — ensuring that the remnants of the old guard no longer occupy high places of influence and are firmly marginalised. Some success in isolating them has already been achieved. Four Opposition figures, co-opted by members of the old guard to occupy Cabinet berths, resigned in the space of 24 hours. However new and serious challenges, which any nascent revolution is bound to encounter, remain. Having accomplished the exit of a hated dictator, how does the Tunisian revolution gather steam and fill the vacuum left by the fast fading old guard? Unlike the Iranian revolution, which had Ayatollah Khomeini as its leader as well as a blaring emblem, how does the Tunisian revolution advance in the absence of a charismatic and popular leader?
The huge challenge notwithstanding, the chances are that the Tunisian people may yet succeed. Unlike many other countries experiencing political turmoil, Tunisia consists of mostly educated people and is institutionally well organised. This is a factor that goes hugely in the favour of Tunisians. Thus the anti-regime campaign that was triggered by the December 17 self-immolation of a university graduate, who was driven to sell vegetables and then denied permission to do so, had labour unions, professional syndicates, including well-entrenched unions of students, teachers, lawyers and journalists as its pillars.
These organisations, partly helped by new communication tools of Facebook and Twitter, could take advantage of the socio-economic deprivations that the Tunisians have experienced for years. As a result, a critical social mass of protesters grew, eventually bringing down the regime.
Despite Tunisia’s zooming growth rates, the growing army of the jobless fed significantly into the successful uprising. Many analysts are of the view that the official 14 per cent unemployment rate hardly reflects the true picture of desperation the youth have been experiencing. According to some estimates, nearly half the youth in the 15-24 age bracket are unemployed in some parts of the interior, the core of the Tunisian revolt. Wages are low in the job-creating euro-centric tourism and textile manufacturing hubs established in “free trade zones.” The hardships of ordinary people have become all the more acute for, under the diktat of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, government subsides have been either lowered or removed in the food and gasoline sectors.
With mass misery rising, heavy corruption centred round the President, the President’s wife, Leila Trabelsi and her family emerged as an emotive symbol to ignite the rebellion. According to a WikiLeaks cable from the U.S. embassy in Tunis, the Ben Ali and Trabelsi families had cornered nearly 50 per cent of the country’s wealth. It was, therefore, not surprising that when the crowds went on the rampage on January 15, they targeted business properties associated with the two nepotistic ruling clans. In the Tunis neighbourhood of Cite Habib, a villa belonging to Leila Trabelsi’s nephew was set afire. Dealership showrooms, owned by Mr. Ben Ali’s son-in-law Mohamed Sakher El Materi, of Kia, Fiat and Porsche vehicles were also burnt down. The next day, Imed Trabelsi — Ms. Trabelsi’s nephew who had been stabbed — died in a Tunis military hospital, accounting for the first fatality in the ruling family in the aftermath of the month-long uprising.
As the Tunisian revolt gathers its second wind, the role of the military could become crucial. It is widely believed that Mr. Ben Ali’s nearly 1,80,000-strong security police are at loggerheads with the regular army. In fact, unlike the police whom the protesters targeted, evident from the torching of a number of police stations, the military continues to remain a popular force. The army’s neutrality and thus its clean popular image came into focus when it declined to fire at the protesters, causing Mr. Ben Ali to sack his Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Rashid Ammar.
Deep imprint
The uprising in Tunisia is leaving behind a deep imprint on the impoverished youth in the neighbouring countries. But can it spread fast and strongly enough to challenge the deeply entrenched regimes that have been built on the foundations of patronage, pillage and ruthless force, perpetrated by the grossest human rights violations?
The psychological impact of the Tunisian example in the region is palpable. In Algeria, four persons set themselves ablaze to protest their dire economic and political situation. Egypt, demographically the largest nation in the region and cultural heartbeat of the Arab world, has also witnessed a case of self-immolation.
Panic is also setting in among the regimes, though it would be erroneous to assume that its feckless dictators are considering throwing in the towel anytime soon. Nevertheless, a nervous Egyptian establishment has decided to rein in the prices of essentials like rice and sugar, and end the breadlines by not withholding wheat flour to bakeries for previous violations. The Egyptian daily, Al-Mesryoon, has reported that on the security front, instructions have been passed to prevent Opposition forces and movements from holding demonstrations or protests.
The Libyan dictator, Muammar Qadhafi, also appeared shaken by the dramatic developments on his doorstep. Soon after Mr. Ben Ali fled, he strongly disapproved of the Tunisian revolt. In a televised address, he chided the Tunisian people for being impatient. “You have suffered a great loss,” he said. “There is none better than Zine to govern Tunisia.”
A stunned Arab League — which has largely degenerated into a cabal of dictators and plutocrats — scampered to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to collectively absorb the shock inflicted upon it by the commoners of Tunisia.
Despite the revulsion that it has generated, it would take much more than high-octane emotion to dislodge the odious dictatorships. Nevertheless, Egypt seems to echo loudest the radical voices of fundamental change that are resonating from the Tunisian street. Unlike many of the smaller countries, Egypt’s battle-hardened core of the poor and the dispossessed are also its best organised.
Besides, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is a highly potent force, which might come into its own as part of the larger Egyptian opposition, especially as the iron-fisted regime of President Hosni Mubarak is soon likely to witness a major transition.
A Golden Globe Award is an accolade presented by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) to recognize excellence in film, television (and probably music) both domestic and foreign. The annual formal ceremony and dinner at which the awards are presented is a major part of the film industry’s awards season, which culminates each year with the Academy Awards.
The 1st Golden Globe Awards were held in January 1944 at the 20th Century Fox studios in Los Angeles. The 68th Golden Globe Awards, honoring the best in film and television for 2010, are presented on January 16, 2011, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California, where they have been held annually since 1961
Comedian Ricky Gervais is hosting the 2011 and 68th Golden Globes Award ceremony at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, organised by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA).
MOTION PICTURES
Drama: The Social Network
Musical or Comedy: The Kids Are All Right
Director: David Fincher, The Social Network
Actor, Drama:Colin Firth, The King’s Speech
Actress, Drama: Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Actor, Musical or Comedy: Paul Giamatti, Barney’s Version
Actress, Musical or Comedy: Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right
Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, The Fighter
Original Score: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, The Social Network
Original Song: “You Haven’t Seen the Last of Me” (written by Diane Warren), Burlesque
Foreign Language Film:In a Better World
Animated Film:Toy Story 3
Screenplay:Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network
TELEVISION
Drama Series: Boardwalk Empire
Musical or Comedy Series:Glee
Actor, Drama: Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Actress, Drama: Katey Sagal, Sons of Anarchy
Actor, Musical or Comedy: Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory
Actress, Musical or Comedy:Laura Linney, The Big C
Miniseries or Movie: Carlos
Actress, Miniseries or Movie:Claire Danes, Temple Grandin
Actor, Miniseries or Movie:Al Pacino, You Don’t Know Jack
Supporting Actor, TV Series, Miniseries or Movie:Chris Colfer, Glee
Supporting Actress, TV Series, Miniseries or Movie: Jane Lynch, Glee
HONORARY
Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award: Robert De Niro
Teresa Scanlan of Nebraska will spend the next year as Miss America after besting 52 other pageant hopefuls on 15.01.2011 in Las Vegas, United States of America.
The 17-year-old Gering resident and Scottsbluff High School student played the piano during the competition. Her platform issue was tackling eating disorders. She hopes to attend law school, become a judge and eventually a politician, according to the Miss America website.
Scanlan succeeds 2010 honoree, Caressa Cameron from Virginia. The 22-year-old Virginia Commonwealth University student is the National Goodwill Ambassador for the Children’s Miracle Network.
The other four finalists were Emoly West of Oklahoma, Jacquie Brown of Washington, Jalee Fuselier of Hawaii and Alyse Eady of Arkansas.
Scanlan is the youngest winner since the pageant instituted age requirements — between 18 and 28 starting in 1938. The age limit changed again in 1993 to 17 to 24. In 1933, for instance, when there was no upper or lower age limit, 15-year-old Marian Bergeron of Connecticut captured the title.
This year’s contest was the 90th anniversary of the Miss America pageant. Margaret Gorman became known as the first Miss America after winning a pair of contests in 1921 — one consisting of women deemed most popular based on photos shown in various East Coast newspapers and the other for the so-called Golden Mermaid trophy.
Today judges rate contestants on talent, appearance and demeanor based on performances, interviews and evening wear and swimsuit competitions.
The pageant, which is distinct from the Miss USA crown, aims “to provide personal and professional opportunities for young women to promote their voices in culture, politics and the community,” according to the Miss America website.
Area: 63,170 sq mi (163,610 sq km). Population: (2009 est.) 10,272,000. Capital: Tunis. The population is of Arab and Amazigh ancestry. Languages: Arabic (official), French. Religion: Islam (official; predominantly Sunni). Currency: Tunisian dinar.
Tunisia comprises a coastal region, mountains, an extensive hilly steppe, a marshy area with shallow salt lakes, and a tract of the Sahara. The Majardah is its longest (about 290 mi [460 km]) and only perennial river.
The Jasmine Revolution are protests taking place in numerous towns across Tunisia which led President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down from his presidency and leave Tunisia on 14 January 2011 after 23 years in power. Protestors rioted over unemployment, food inflation, corruption, freedom of speech and poor living conditions. The protests, which began in December 2010 after a fruit and vegetable seller (with university degree) set himself on fire after police confiscated his produce (alleging he did not have the necessary permit) constitute the most dramatic wave of social and political unrest in Tunisia in three decades and have resulted in scores of deaths and injuries. Following Ben Ali’s departure, a new election was called within 60 days.
The protests have also been called the Jasmine Revolution in the western media in keeping with the geopolitical nomenclature of “colour revolutions”. Others have dubbed the protests and the ouster of President Ben Ali as a Twitter Revolution or Wikileaks Revolution due to the influence of these new media.
Background
Riots on 18 December, 2010 in Sidi Bouzid went largely unnoticed, although social media sites such as Facebook and YouTube featured images of police dispersing youths who attacked shop windows and damaged cars. One protester, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself alight in protest against the confiscation of his fruit and vegetable cart. He was subsequently transferred to a hospital in Tunis where he died on 4 January, 2011.
As pointed out by media networks, such as Al Jazeera and CBS News, riots in Tunisia were rare and noteworthy, especially since the country is generally considered to be wealthy and stable as compared to other countries in the region. Al Jazeera English also said that Tunisian activists are amongst the most outspoken in its part of the world with various messages of support being posted on Twitter for Bouazizi. An op-ed article in the same network said of the action that it was “suicidal protests of despair by Tunisia’s youth.” It pointed out that the state-controlled National Solidarity Fund and the National Employment Fund had traditionally subsidised many goods and services in the country but had started to shift the “burden of providence from state to society” to be funded by the “bidonvilles,” or shanty towns, around the richer towns and suburbs. It also cited the “marginalisation of the agrarian and arid central and southern areas [that] continue unabated.” The protests were also called an “uprising” because of “a lethal combination of poverty, unemployment and political repression: three characteristics of most Arab societies.”
The Tunisian government of Ben Ali, which had been criticised in the media and amongst NGO’s, was supported by the United States and France because of Ben Ali’s “persecution of the Islamists, his economic agenda was touted as a brilliant model that could be replicated in North Africa and he proved to be a staunch US ally actively involved in the controversial rendition programme.” As a result, the initial reactions by the US and France were muted.
Protests
There were reports of police obstructing demonstrators and using tear gas on hundreds of young protesters in Sidi Bouzid in mid-December 2010. The protesters had gathered outside regional government headquarters to demonstrate against the treatment of Mohamed Bouazizi who had set himself on fire to protest the police confiscation of fruit and vegetables he was trying to sell on the streets. Coverage of events was limited by Tunisian media. On 19 December 2010, extra police were present on the streets of the city.
On 22 December 2010, Lahseen Naji, a protestor, responded to “hunger and joblessness” by electrocuting himself after climbing an electricity pylon. Ramzi Al-Abboudi also killed himself because of financial difficulties arising from a business debt by the country’s micro-credit solidarity programme. On 24 December 2010, Mohamed Ammari was fatally shot in the chest by police in Bouziane. Other protesters were also injured, including Chawki Belhoussine El Hadri, who died later on 30 December 2010. Police claimed they shot the demonstrators in “self-defence.” A “quasi-curfew” was then imposed on the city by police.
Violence later increased as Tunisian authorities and residents of Sidi Bouzid Governorate encountered each other once again. The protests had reached the capital Tunis on 27 December 2010 with about 1,000 citizens expressing solidarity with residents of Sidi Bouzid and calling for jobs. The rally, which was called by independent trade union activists, was stopped by security forces. The protests also spread to Sousse, Sfax and Meknassy. The following day the Tunisian Federation of Labour Unions held another rally in Gafsa which was also blocked by security forces. At the same time about 300 lawyers held a rally near the government’s palace in Tunis. Protests continued again on the 29 December 2010.
On 30 December 2010, police peacefully broke up a protest in Monastir while using force to disrupt further demonstrations in Sbikha and Chebba. Momentum appeared to continue with the protests on 31 December 2010 and further demonstrations and public gatherings by lawyers in Tunis and other cities following a call by the Tunisian National Lawyers Order. Mokhtar Trifi, president of the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), said that lawyers across Tunisia had been “savagely beaten.” There were also unconfirmed reports of another man attempting to commit suicide in El Hamma.
On 3 January 2011, protests in Thala over unemployment and a high cost of living turned violent. At a demonstration of 250 people, mostly students, in support of the protesters in Sidi Bouzid, police fired tear gas; one canister landed in a local mosque. In response, the protesters were reported to have set fire to tyres and attacked the office of Constitutional Democratic Rally.
Some of the more general protests sought changes in the government’s online censorship, where a lot of the media images have been broadcast. Tunisian authorities also allegedly carried out phishing operations to take control of user passwords and check online criticism. Both state and non-state websites had been hacked.
On 6 January 2011, 95% of Tunisia’s 8,000 lawyers went on strike, according to the chairman of the national bar association. He said “The strike carries a clear message that we do not accept unjustified attacks on lawyers. We want to strongly protest against the beating of lawyers in the past few days.”
It was reported on the following day that teachers had also joined the strike.
In response to January 11, 2011 protests police used riot gear to disperse protesters ransacking buildings, burning tyres, setting fire to a bus and burning two cars in the working class suburb of Ettadhamen-Mnihla in Tunis. The protesters were said to have chanted “We are not afraid, we are not afraid, we are afraid only of God.” Military personnel were also deployed in many cities around the country.
On 12 January 2011, a reporter from the Italian state-owned television broadcaster RAI stated that he and his cameraman were beaten with batons by police during a riot in Tunis’ central district and that the officers then confiscated their camera. A night time curfew was also ordered in Tunis after protests and clashes with police.
Hizb ut-Tahrir also organised protests after Friday prayer on January 14 2010 to call for re-establishing the Islamic caliphate. A day later, it also organised other protests that went to the April 9 Prison to free political prisoners.
Following Ben Ali’s departure, violence and looting continued as the national army was reported to be omnipresent in Tunis. The identity of the perpetrators has not been determined. A high official of the Tunisian military, however, has stated that elements loyal to former President Ben Ali have deployed across the country. The capital’s main train station was also torched.
Domestic political response
During a national television broadcast on 28 December, 2010, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali criticised people for their protests calling the perpetrators “extremists and mercenaries” and warned of “firm” punishment. He also accused “certain foreign television channels of broadcasting false allegations without verification, based on dramatisation, fermentation and deformation by media hostile to Tunisia.” His remarks were ignored and the protests continue.
On 29 December, 2010, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali shuffled his cabinet to remove his communications minister Oussama Romdhani, while also announcing changes to the trade and handicrafts, religious affairs, communication and youth portfolios. The next day he also announced the dismissal of the governors of Sidi Bouzid, Jendouba and Zaghouan.
In January 2011, Ben Ali said 300,000 new jobs would be created, though he did not clarify what that meant. However, he also described the protests “the work of masked gangs that attacked at night government buildings and even civilians inside their homes in a terrorist act that cannot be overlooked.” Ahmed Najib Chebbi, the leader of the Progressive Democratic Party, then said that despite official claims of police firing in self-defense “the demonstrations were non-violent and the youths were claiming their rights to jobs” and that “the funeral processions [for those killed on January 9] turned into demonstrations, and the police fired [at] the youths who were at these .. processions.” He then criticised Ben Ali’s comments as the protesters were “claiming their civil rights, and there is no terrorist act…no religious slogans,” while accusing Ben Ali of “looking for scapegoats.” He further criticised the additional jobs offered as mere “promises.”
On 10 January 2011, the government announced the indefinite closure of all schools and universities in order to quell the unrest.
Days before departing office, Ben Ali announced that he would not change the present constitution, which was read as, in effect, promising to step down in 2014 due to his age.
President Ben Ali’s resignation
On 14 January 2011, Ben Ali dissolved his government and declared a state of emergency. Officials said the reason for the emergency declaration was to protect Tunisians and their property. People were also barred from gathering in more than groups of three people otherwise courting arrest or being shot if they try to run away. He also called for an election within six months to defuse demonstrations aimed at forcing him out.
On the same day, Ben Ali fled the country and landed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, after France rejected a request for the plane to land on its territory. Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi then briefly took over as acting president. On the morning of January 15 2011, Tunisian state TV announced that Ben Ali had officially resigned his position and Ghannouchi had handed power over to parliamentary speaker Fouad Mebazaa. This was done after the head of Tunisia’s Constitutional Court, Fethi Abdennadher, declared that Ben Ali had left for good, Ghannouchi did not have right to power and Mebazaa would be given 60 days to organise new election. Mebazaa said it was in the country’s best interest to form a National Unity government.
What is happening in Tunisia?
Following a month of largely leaderless popular protests against the government, Tunisia’s President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country on 14.01.2011. Fouad Mebazaa, the speaker of parliament, was sworn in the following day as interim president, and new elections are due within 60 days.
What were the protests about?
They were sparked by the suicide of an unemployed college graduate in December 2010. The man set himself on fire in front of a government building in the town of Sidi Bouzid after police confiscated his fruit cart, saying he was selling without a permit, according to Amnesty International. He died January 4 2011 from his injuries.
The event tore the lid off what appears to have been long-simmering fury at Ben Ali and his associates. Tunisians accuse the ruling circle of rampant corruption and nepotism. Recent diplomatic cables from the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia obtained by WikiLeaks revealed growing disquiet with the government — especially over nepotism.
How violent have the protests been?
At least 21 people died in protests before Ben Ali fled, according to the government. Local unions put the figure at more than 50.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, citing reports, said the protests had been peaceful and that security forces used excessive force.
Does this mean Tunisia is becoming a fully-fledged democracy?
It’s too soon to say. The protests have been dubbed the “Jasmine Revolution,” but CNN’s Ben Wedeman in Tunis, the capital, says the military has moved quickly to fill the power void. Curfews are in place and tanks and armored personnel carriers were on the streets of the capital’s main streets.
Are events like this unusual in Tunisia?
They’re very unusual, not only in Tunisia but across the Middle East. Ben Ali was only the second president of Tunisia since it gained independence from France in 1956. His predecessor, President Habib Bourguiba, ruled for more than 20 years until he was succeeded by Ben Ali — then the prime minister — in 1987. Ben Ali claimed victory in five successive presidential elections since then, most recently officially taking nearly 90% of the vote in November 2009.
Profile: Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali
Mr Ben Ali was born to a modest family near the city of Sousse in 1936.
He completed his education in France and the US before rising up the hierarchy in the Tunisian security establishment and serving as ambassador to Poland in the early 1980s.
He became Prime Minister in 1987, shortly before ousting Tunisia’s first post-independence ruler, Habib Bourguiba, in a bloodless palace coup. President Bourguiba was declared mentally unfit to rule.
Mr Ben Ali promised a gradual transition towards democracy, though in his first two presidential polls – in 1989 and 1994 – he was elected unopposed.
But even after multi-party presidential elections were introduced in 1999 they were still one-sided affairs, with Mr Ben Ali winning huge majorities.
The constitution was changed twice so he could continue to serve.
He won his final five-year term in 2009, with his share of the vote dropping just below 90%.
Tunisia seeks to form unity cabinet after Ben Ali fall
Interim leader Foued Mebazaa, who was sworn in on 11.1.2011 promised to form a unity government.
