Policing the police

A 10-YEAR-OLD girl being dragged a distance when her skirt got entangled in a car foll of boys trying to eve-tease her older sister and friend is the story that nightmares are made of. The severely injured and traumatised girl is in hospital and almost 12 days after the shocking incident, the police have slowly moved into action after intense pressure from activists and the media. They have registered charges of eve-teasing, that peculiar Indian expression for physically intimidating women, and of driving without a licence. But there the matter stands. We have heard such stories so many times and each time the offenders either get off, scot-free or lightly, thanks to the police falling down on their job. No wonder then that people just don't trust the police and often prefer to keep quiet rather than report a crime. There is no getting away from the fact that politicisation and criminalisation of the police force is growing in all states. We all know that political interference often prevents the police from doing an honest job as many high-profile cases show. Unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats are not above using the police as instruments of criminality. Having said that, one cannot wish away political executive control over the police in a democratic system. But the challenge is to see that this is done legitimately and for the public good. We have had several commissions, among them the Padmanabhiah Committee on Police Reforms, to review and come up with suggestions on police reform. But as with most commissions, its findings are gathering dust. Of course, no revolutionary recommendations were made. Even so, basic things like improving the status and living conditions of the constabulary, instituting a new code of conduct, putting in place an in-house vigilance system and reviewing the records of arrests made were suggested. The criminal justice system is so inefficient that the police are encouraged to cut corners when dealing with crime. The famous encounter killings of gangsters in Mumbai is an example. What we really need is a mechanism to police the police. The US has a civilian complaint review board that is empowered to receive, investigate, heal: make findings and recommend action on complaints against police officers. We could think of something similar here. Policing has to involve the very society that it touches. People must feel confident that when they approach the police, every effort will be made to see that justice is done. Sadly, the opposite sentiment is prevalent here.
A 10-YEAR-OLD girl being dragged a distance when her skirt got en- tangled in a car foll of boys trying to eve-tease her older sister and friend is the story that nightmares are made of. The severely injured and trau- matised girl is in hospital and almost 12 days after the shocking incident, the po- lice have slowly moved into action after intense pressure from activists and the media. They have registered charges of eve-teasing, that peculiar Indian expres- sion for physically intimidating women, and of driving without a licence. But there the matter stands. We have heard such stories so many times and each time the offenders either get off, scot-free or lightly, thanks to the police falling down on their job. No wonder then that people just don't trust the police and often prefer to keep quiet rather than report a crime. There is no getting away from the fact that politicisation and criminalisation of the police force is growing in all states. We all know that political inter- ference often prevents the police from doing an honest job as many high-pro- file cases show. Unscrupulous politi- cians and bureaucrats are not above us- ing the police as instruments of crimi- nality. Having said that, one cannot wish away political executive control over the police in a democratic system. But the challenge is to see that this is done legit- imately and for the public good. We have had several commissions, among them the Padmanabhiah Committee on Police Reforms, to review and come up with suggestions on police reform. But as with most commissions, its findings are gathering dust. Of course, no revolu- tionary recommendations were made. Even so, basic things like improving the status and living conditions of the con- stabulary, instituting a new code of con- duct, putting in place an in-house vigi- lance system and reviewing the records of arrests made were suggested. The criminal justice system is so inefficient that the police are encouraged to cut cor- ners when dealing with crime. The fa- mous encounter killings of gangsters in Mumbai is an example. What we really need is a mechanism to police the police. The US has a civilian complaint review board that is empowered to receive, in- vestigate, heal: make findings and rec- ommend action on complaints against police officers. We could think of some- thing similar here. Policing has to involve the very soci- ety that it touches. People must feel confident that when they approach the police, every effort will be made to see that justice is done. Sadly, the opposite sentiment is prevalent here.
we appreciate the editor of HT for these very pertinent views on the contemporary policing system that is working as a commercial service due to prevalent corruption

Colour Of money and babu Raj of Mai Baap the legacy of Indra's India

Colour of money
Posted online: Friday, July 27, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email
Good that even Congress says precaution, not paranoia, should guide law on foreign contribution
Paranoia is not a very useful attribute when it comes to policy making. Some aspects of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2006, which seeks to regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contributions by groups and associations in India, betray a fairly high degree of paranoia. It is welcome, therefore, that the Congress has openly expressed disquiet over some of its provisions. The party has rightly made the distinction between efficacy and stringency. It argues that while the proposed law needs to play its role in regulating money flows effectively, it should not be irrationally stringent by attempting to address lurking dangers where there are none.
This bill will replace the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 1976. Most laws passed during the short and brutal interregnum of the Emergency were marked by two characteristics: a profound distrust of citizens and overwhelming fear of the “foreign hand”. FCRA, 1976, was no exception. Indira Gandhi’s regime believed that every paisa coming into the country needed to be monitored. The new bill, although conceived in an era far removed from the mai-baap sarkar of yore, does not quite leave that unhappy legacy behind. Not only do organisations seeking foreign contributions have to get certificates from the home ministry before being entitled to receive such funds, there are stipulations on how the funds received are to be spent. The manner the bill defines ‘foreign source’ is itself problematic. Organisations in India that have a foreign shareholding of over 50 per cent — Infosys, with 50.1 per cent foreign shareholding for instance — would be considered a foreign source.
Another problem is the ‘home ministry mindset’ that heavily informs this piece of legislation currently. It would be apt here to recall the recent debate over foreign direct investment in the National Security Council Secretariat when the ministries of external affairs and finance were successful in blocking the proposal to list “countries of concern” when it came to FDI proposals. Instead of blanket bans and blacklists, a regime that could quickly identify “entities which require special scrutiny” is to be put in place. Something similar could be envisaged for foreign contributions as well. Instead of putting large collectivities under the bureaucratic scanner, we need to efficiently zero in and screen out money flows from only those elements and agencies that pose a credible threat to the country. Precautions, not paranoia, should be the watchword.editor@expressindia.com

Government steps to strangulate the voluntary groups of civil society who expose corruption and demand transparency of Goverment acts

UPA shows an iron fist for ‘foreign hand’
D K SINGH / SEEMA CHISHTI
Posted online: Friday, July 27, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email
Even Cong questions draconian Bill on NGOs’ foreign funding
New Delhi, July 25: In 2002, the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, chaired by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, honoured former IAS officer Harsh Mander with the Rajiv Gandhi Sadbhavna award for what it called his “commendable work” in Gujarat after the riots. In September last year, the Cong-led UPA’s Home Ministry sent him a letter denying his organisation Aman Biradari foreign funding saying “your association is engaged in political activities.” Mander filed an RTI application asking what those “political activities” were. He got a reply saying sorry, we can’t reveal that because of “national security concerns.”
Mander is a media-savvy activist who gets his voice heard in several fora but for countless NGOs across the country, the Home Ministry’s proposed Foreign Contributions Regulation Bill 2006 — it’s currently before a standing committee, chaired by Sushma Swaraj, which meets next week — has come to stand for a draconian licence raj, giving a raft of discretionary powers to bureaucrats (see below) and, in the name of national security and checking terror, threatens to choke the voluntary sector.
It also imposes five-year permits for getting foreign funds, permits which have to be renewed by officials in the Home Ministry. And in a bizarre provision, leaves it to the babu to decide what quantum of foreign funds can be used for the NGO’s “administrative” work.
This, ironically, from a government that showcases its secular, tolerant credentials and announced a draft policy on voluntary organisations that argued the exact opposite of what the proposed law entails: it called for a process to “evolve a new working relationship between the government and the voluntary sector, without affecting the autonomy and identity of voluntary organisations.”
But as per the Bill — which claims to update the 30-year-old Foreign Contributions Regulation Act — it’s now babus who will decide both autonomy and identity. What worries civil society groups is that with such arbitrary rules proposed and no guidelines to define what is “political”, there will be tremendous discretion and power vested in the government of the day to clamp down or harass any group politically inconvenient at the time.
Flooded by complaints — economist Amartya Sen has called it “alarming” and former RBI Governor Bimal Jalan even sent a letter to the Prime Minister — senior Congress leaders, at a meeting yesterday, questioned their own government’s Bill.
“Are we leaving it to the District Collector to judge the ideology and programmes of an NGO to decide whether it is political or apolitical?” asked a Congress leader at the meeting.
Attended by Pranab Mukherjee, P R Dasmunshi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, H R Bhardwaj, Kapil Sibal, Motilal Vora, Margaret Alva, Mohsina Kidwai, and Madhusudan Mistry, the meeting criticized the provision linking certificate for foreign funding with the condition that the organization not indulge in activities related to “conversion, directly or indirectly.”
Said a senior Congress leader: “Of course, we need to strengthen the existing Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to prevent the misuse of foreign funds in anti-national activities but we need to set up a system of increased safeguards with justice and transparency.”
Says Rajesh Tandon, India Director, PRIA (an international Centre which promotes participation and democratic governance): “We urge the government to immediately shut down any group taking money for terror activities. The laws for regulating civil society groups already exist, like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (1967), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (2002), the Foreign Exchange Management Act (1999) and the Income Tax Act (1961). In the days of Right to Information, this arbitrary political clause is there to clamp down on all human rights groups or on any group campaigning for freedom of information and exposing corruption in government. It is a Reverse RTI. The bureaucracy will use this to get back at any group urging people to demand their rights or transparency.”
Then there is the problem of clearance. Under the old law, in case a civil society didn’t hear from the government in 90-120 days, it was considered as “no-objection.” The Bill now puts no time limit.
“FCRA 1976 was an enabling legislation. The Bill is an inhibiting legislation, civil society groups can be waiting for months, awaiting their registration, and eventually finding out that they have not been given one,” says P C Pandey, formerly, CEO of Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), a forum of 2500 civil society groups.
The All-Powerful Babu
To clear foreign funding, officers in Home Ministry will decide:
• Which organization is engaged in "meaningful work"
• Which organization has done enough work and which has not
• What is administrative expenditure since NGOs can't allocate more than 50% of foreign funds towards this head
• Which NGO should be debarred in the name of "sovereignty and integrity of India, public interest, freedom or fairness to any legislature, friendly relations with any foreign state, or harmony between religious, racial, social, linguistic or regional groups, castes or communities."
• What kind of foreign hospitality, if accepted by a legislator, government servant, media person or judge, is of "purely casual nature" and thereby exempt from the prohibitory laws.

Pratibha the right Coice-has all the qualities of conteporary politicians

A two-yearold murder case has come back to haunt UPA-Left can didate Pratibha Patil.
The Bombay High Court today expressed concern over the manner in which the CBI has investigated the September 2005 murder of Jalgaon District Congress Committee president Vishram Patil and pulled up the agency for not probing allegations made by Patil's wife Rajni that he was killed at the behest of two political rivals, including G N Patil, brother of Pratibha Patil.
"If this is the kind of investigation you have conducted, then we are concerned, indeed we are constrained to say that the country's premier investigating agency is being corroded," observed a Division Bench of Justice R M S Khandeparkar and Justice V K Tahilramani directing the CBI's investigation officer to be in court at the next hearing on July 30.
The court asked Additional Solicitor General B A Desai why there has been no investigation regarding the alleged link between the two killers and the politicians. "What prevented the CBI from investigating that aspect?" the court asked.
Desai argued that the agency had examined 46 witnesses and that the Investigating Officer, who would explain, was in Ahmedabad for his daughter's wedding.
It was on February 23 this year that the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court had transferred the case to the CBI saying that given the issues involved and the alleged complicity of influential political leaders, it was a fit case for the agency.
The petitioner alleged that Vishram Patil, who defeated G N Patil in the election for the post of district Congress committee president, had also complained to senior party leaders about the duo allegedly misappropriating funds collected for felicitating Pratibha Patil when she became Governor of Rajasthan.
Appearing for petitioner Rajni Patil, senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani claimed that he had two CDs which showed the link between the alleged contract killers and G N Patil and former Congress MP Ulhas Patil. It is the petitioner's case that both were alleged conspirators in the murder of her husband.
The court directed the petitioner to produce the CDs at the next hearing.

Pratibha Patil- the right choice to head the system dominated by Thugs

Pratibha Patil: The truth behind the allegations
2007-07-02 10:49:28 Source : Moneycontrol.com
Email Print Version Watch Video
Arun Shourie has brought to light well researched points on the allegations against presidential candidate Pratibha Patil in two articles on the Pratibha Mahila Sahakari Bank case and the background of the alleged murder coverup. So, what do these well researched articles have to say?
Here is some of the background on the Pratibha Mahila Sahakari Bank. She was chairperson of the bank since its inception in 1973 till it was closed down by the RBI in 2003. Shourie claims in his article that she virtually ran the place. Arun Shourie told CNBC-TV18, " She established it, it's on her biodata as governor of Rajasthan. It's a close connection and she is proud fo the fact. Secondly, even in 2002 documents, she's referred to as the founder chairperson. Third, there is a resolution dated January 22, 2002 of the bank's board of directors, that she will appoint all the officers of the bank, and who will do what."
"The more important point is that when the bank was being liquidated, there is a communcation from the manager of the bank to the then chairperson in 2003, that these negotiations with the employees were taken in the presence of Pratibha Patil."
And despite being around at the bank for 30 years, she claims not to know how many of her relatives, nephews and nieces took loans from the bank.This bank was placed on the list of weak banks by the RBI in 1997 and because Patil didn't take any steps to rectify the situation, the bank had to be shut down to protect the depositors, who were small-time depositors anyway, like flower-sellers, ragpickers etc.
Shourie adds, "There is a case going on in the Bombay High Court about this bank and Pratibha Patil is respondent No. 8 today." What's more, an internal audit of the bank also revealed the fact that she had mismanaged the bank, and she simply can't wriggle out of the situation today, saying she had no clue about it.
Then there are charges of nepotism that can't be easily shrugged off either. She extended loans to her brothers and other relatives totalling Rs 2.25 crore was declared non-performing assets, NPAs. A further Rs 41 lakhs that works out as interest on this amount was waived off. So, while the bank's depositors were the poor and the marginalised women of society, the chairperson seems to have turned a blind eye to the fact that her relatives were misusing the bank's funds.
Even the bank's union - the Pratibha Mahila Sahakari Karamchari Sangh formally wrote letters and memos, claiming that Pratibha's brother, Dilip Singh Patil, installed a bank phone in his home and conducted stock market business on it, and ran up a bill of Rs 20 lakhs. The bank also entended unsecured loans to her sugar cooperative and she go her relatives jobs in the bank, when it should have gone to qualified people from the scheduled castes.
Shourie explains, "It's not just the union but also the chief administrator appointed for the liquidation of the bank, who also asked all these questions." And what's more when the situation got to hot for Pratibha Patil to handle, she may have threatened the union, which they also insinuated as much in a letter. Shourie goes on to say that, it could go further than just mere threats.
If she did indeed resort to threats, then was she hiding more than just the mismanagement of her bank. Could she be hiding her brother's involvement in a murder conspiracy as well? Shourie believes, it could be so. He says, "The working president of the Congress in Jalgaon, Rajiv Patil said in September 2005, that GN Patil was responsible for the murder (of district Congress committe President, VG Patil). This story was a eight column heading in the local papers back then."
On Sept 28, 2005, eight days after the murder of VG Patil, Rajiv Patil wrote to the Minister of State for Home at the Centre, Manikrao Gavit telling him about the allegation that Pratibha Patil's brother, GN Patil was somehow involved in the murder conspiracy. Gavit got in touch with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and asked him to investigate the matter. Eventually, even the two people caught for the murder corroborated this by stating in a letter, that these people has instigated them.
Rajni Patil, the widow of the murdered man, VG Patil, stated in a clear letter written on March 5, 2007, that boldly says that her husband was killed because he started inquiries into the funds collected for the Kargil and tsunami victims, which had disappeared, "under GN Patil's presidentship of the district Congress committee."
Patil was asked to stop those inquiries but he persisted. Rajni Patil goes on to say.."The supari (contract) to murder my husband, (VG Patil) was given by Dr Ulhas Patil and Dr GN Patil." So much so, after writing this letter to Sonia Gandhi, the widow even met her. Also, four delegations from Jalgaon went to meet the Congress leaders. So, it was entirely unlikely that the Congress hierarchy was unaware of the allegations made against Pratibha Patil and her involvement in trying to protect her brother.
Then there is also the fact that after all this, even the CBI stepped in to investigate and it even took them 20 months to put the spotlight on GN Patil, because may be there was political pressure put on them as well.
Shourie says that, the fact that there was pressure put on the CBI can be inferred. He also says, if people - including the Prime Minister - wants all the information mentioned in his articles, he's more than willing to give them the 700-odd pages that he had to sift through. But he knows the Prime Minister won't ask for them.