Why has Annaji’s roar silenced Mrs Smita Pednekar’s voice?

The Jan Lokpal Bill debate has marginalized the voices of public servants like municipal employees and bus drivers. Why? Don’t they deserve a say in framing a law that will affect their daily lives?

Fellow Members of Civil Society,

Come, let us put aside our virtuous outrage for a moment, and step into the shoes of one of those ordinary men and women running our public transport, water supply and other civic services. For instance, let us see life through the eyes of Mrs Smita Pratap Pednekar.

Mrs Pednekar sells tickets at a railway counter; you and your family members may have bought a ticket from her. She lives in the Railway Employees’ Colony at Dahisar, a distant suburb of Mumbai. She and her husband Pratap work for Indian Railways.

Every day after work, Mrs Pednekar commutes by train, buys vegetables and fish and gets home to her children and elderly mother-in-law. Then she cooks dinner before her husband returns home.

Mrs Pednekar does not get envelopes of cash under the table. Her conscience is clear, but she is afraid. What she fears most is office politics. She is worried about the prospect of being posted at a distant office. Both she and her husband have insecurities about loss of seniority, loss of increments etc, as some of their corrupt colleagues enjoy undue influence.

Mrs Pednekar avoids taking sides in any controversy. She pretends not to know anything. But in January, her husband was required to give evidence against a colleague at a departmental enquiry. Since then, some people at her office have been giving her dirty looks and stopped sharing their lunch with her. She is constantly afraid that they are looking for opportunities to victimize her.

With the whole of India shouting patriotic slogans like ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ in one voice, Mrs Smita Pednekar has lost her voice.

Nowadays, silence dominates the Pednekar household. There is none of the usual light conversation when the family sits down on the floor with stainless-steel thalis, and Mrs Pednekar serves fish curry and rice. She tells the children to eat in silence. She scolds her mother-in-law for switching on TV news channels, and makes her switch off the television.

Mrs Pednekar used to discuss current topics and politics within the family, but now she keeps her thoughts to herself. She changes the topic when the children ask why Anna Hazare fasted at Ramlila Maidan, and what is the Jan Lokpal Bill all about. One day, they came home from school wearing Gandhi topis painted with the words, ‘I am Anna Hazare’. She has had a sinking feeling in her stomach since that day.

On Raksha Bandhan, Mrs Pednekar visited her brother’s house on the 20th floor of Oberoi Woods, Goregaon. Her brother and sister-in-law are rich; they have private sector jobs. While they were having lunch together, a news channels was loudly discussing Anna Hazare’s insistence on including the junior staff of government under the Jan Lokpal Bill. This triggered a conversation about how the whole nation was up in arms against junior staff and their corruption. Her husband Pratap took a stand against the Jan Lokpal Bill, and loudly argued with her brother and sister-in-law, and everybody else who was working in the private sector. Alarmed by the rising voices, Smita gently pinched her husband, called him inside and pleaded with him. “What will people think? They will say that you are supporting corruption! We are government employees; remember that and keep quiet!” she whispered. The couple made some excuses and hurriedly left as the others loudly continued the discussion in their absence.

Mrs Pednekar is in awe of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal, and other great people fasting in all over the country and debating corruption on television. Surely they know all about corruption, otherwise why would they be talking so loudly, she reasons. She thinks that a “strong Lokpal Bill” is generally a good thing if it makes the country cleaner and less corrupt. But the point of the Bill should not be to threaten people like her with enquiries, penalties and imprisonment, she feels.

She feels greatly confused by Annaji’s demand for such harsh provisions against her; the fact that a good man like him says that he will go on indefinite fast for this demand makes her very uncomfortable. Is Annaji with me or against me, she wonders. “Annaji is a good and simple man. So why is he fasting for punishing good and simple people like me and my husband?” she wonders.

Mrs Pednekar’s experiences have given her reason to fear legal processes. She believes that proceedings generally go against those who are less able to defend themselves, rather than those who are truly guilty. So she fears that Jan Lokpal Bill will punish people like herself, who are voiceless. She is afraid that more resourceful colleagues will connive together to use such a law to target her and her husband.

But she is in no position to say all this, because she and her husband are government servants, and therefore excluded from “civil society”. Everybody is listening only to civil society nowadays; they think government servants are all corrupt, and therefore their views don’t count.

Respected Annaji & Arvind, the deafening roar of “civil society” has isolated and silenced Mrs Smita Pednekar’s voice. Will you please give her back her voice? Will you please hold consultations at Railway Employees Colony and other colonies where government employees live? Will you go to various employees associations?

Will you go there and explain to them why there is a need for a Jan Lokpal Bill that punishes Group B, C And D employees? And will you please hear and understand what such employees have to say in this matter?

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Pictorial Analysis of Govt Lokpal & Jan Lokpal

How do the two Bills before the Standing Committee -- Govt Lokpal & Jan Lokpal -- propose to eradicate corruption from the country? Each proposes a very different mechanism. How is one superior to the other?

1) To form a visual idea of key differences between the Govt Lokpal and Jan Lokpal structure and workflow, see this flow-chart: http://tinyurl.com/Flowchart-JanLokpal-GovtLokpal

2) To understand merits and demerits of each system, see this comparison of the various sections of the two Lokpal Bills that are currently before the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee: http://tinyurl.com/Jan-Lokpal-versus-Govt-Lokpal

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Jan Lokpal Bill specifies that the Lokpal’s budget may be one-fourth percent of the revenues of Govt of India, and will be directly charged to Consolidated Fund of India.

How much is one-fourth percent of the Union Govt’s Revenues? Let us calculate: Union Budget 2010-11 says that total receipts in Consolidated Fund (revenue plus capital receipts) are Rs 46,62,263 crore. One-fourth percent of that amount is Rs. 11,656 crore.

Just to give you an idea of how much money this is: This amount is more than 10% of Indian Railways gross earnings for the year. So, the ticket fare of one-in-ten passengers (and also the freight earning of one-in-ten goods trains may go directly to running the Lokpal establishment!

That is not necessarily a bad thing. But this enormous figure only confirms that this is an important issue, involving your money and mine. Please spend 10 minutes studying this and form your own opinion based on documents -- and not based on what everybody else is saying.

Carefully read the observations in the right-hand column of the table. If you disagree, look at the sections of both Lokpal Bills in the same row of the table to the left of the observations.

Remember, eternal vigilance is the price that we all have to pay for liberty. Don’t let other people do your thinking for you.

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

----------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

In the attached Lokpal Flow Charts:

• RED ARROWS SHOW INPUTS AND OUTPUTS. Both the charts show inputs i.e. Citizens’ Complaints as red arrows. They also show the outputs i.e. action taken against corrupt public servants as red arrows. The only aim of our “inputs” is to get “outputs”. We write complaints only because we want action against Corrupt officials.

• BLUE ARROWS SHOW INTERNAL PROCESSES OF LOKPAL AND COURTS. Once the complaint goes to Jan Lokpal, a chain of events happens inside the mechanism of Lokpal. Directions are given to Investigation Wing, Investigation Wing presents preliminary evidence to Lokpal bench, Lokpal Bench directs the Prosecution Wing to file chargesheet against the accused, etc. Some events happen between Lokpal and external agencies such as Police e.g. Police is directed to search and seize documents.

• THE ARROWS ARE NUMBERED TO SHOW SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. The citizens’ complaint is event no. 1 – the trigger. The final events are directions given by Lokpal for Departmental Action against the public servant, or the Special Court’s judgment against public servant. This may be shown as event no. 5.

Friends, the attached flow-charts are only indicative. They are not exhaustive, and therefore, they do not enable us to compare ALL the salient features of the two systems.

For detailed study of the pros and cons of both systems, read: http://tinyurl.com/Jan-Lokpal-versus-Govt-Lokpal

The main points of comparison and remarks are in the right-hand column of the table. If you disagree with the remarks, please read the sections of each Bill on the left, and draw your own conclusions.

This is a crucial issue of the times we are living in. It is important to form a reasoned opinion, based on facts and scientific thinking. Don’t be led by the hype. Don’t let other people do your thinking for you.

Warm Regards,

Krishnaraj Rao

Mumbai

98215 88114

-----------------------------------------------------

SC issues notice to Govt on transparent selection of Info Commissioners

Dear fellow activists,

Here’s some fantastic news: Supreme Court yesterday admitted the special leave petition (SLP) filed by activist Arvind Kejriwal for opposing the arbitrary selection of Central Information Commissioners. The court issued notice to the Union government, asking for their replies and rejoinders.

Earlier, Delhi High Court had dismissed Arvind’s writ petition (WP) at the admission stage. "We cannot restrict the discretionary power of the high- powered committee headed by the Prime Minister to decide on the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner…. We cannot legislate or frame rules," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan had said on October 21.

In recent months, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Tamil Nadu High Court have admitted writ petitions filed by activist Madhav Vishnubhatta challenging the arbitrary selection of Chief State Information Commissioners and notices have been issued to respective state governments.

Read the gist of Arvind’s WP here: http://tinyurl.com/ArvindWP1

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

RTI replies from PMO & DoPT betray rajneeti in Info. Commissioners’ selection

30th June 2010: 22 Information Commissioners from across the country will retire in the next few months. Out of them, 11 are Chief Information Commissioners.

So many posts will fall vacant. What should be the process of their appointment? The law is silent on that. Barring prescribing the composition of a selection committee (consisting of PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister), the law does not lay down the procedure that this committee should follow to invite names and process them.

Documents obtained under RTI from DOPT and PMO by Arvind Kejriwal reveal how intense lobbying takes place before every appointment to the posts of Central Information Commissioners.

Ravi Shankar Singh is a journalist with The Tribune. His name was recommended by none other than Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana himself through a personal letter written to the Prime Minister. Hooda writes – “He is well known to me for the last more than twenty years. … I would be highly obliged if you kindly consider his name for the post of Deputy Information Commission in the Central Information Commission.”

Ravi Shankar’s name was also recommended by Kumari Selja, Minister of State and two MPs namely Naveen Jindal and Dr Karan Singh.

Likewise, 7 MPs recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.

Interestingly, neither Ravi Shankar nor Dr Anthony’s names were even put up to the selection committee, which comprises of Prime Minsiter, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister.

Before every set of appointments, the word spreads around. Several people either apply themselves or are recommended by others. Recommendations are found to have been made by very influential people including Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Supreme Court Bar Council etc.

The names for selection are put up to selection committee through an agenda note. The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. However, none of these recommendations or applications was ever put up to the selection committee.

Interestingly, the names which made it to agenda note and who were finally selected, never applied nor were they ever recommended by anyone, according to records provided by DOPT and PMO.

For instance, in August 2008, the selection committee cleared the names of four people in its meeting on 27th August 2008, namely Annapurna Dixit, M L Sharma, S N Mishra and Shailesh Gandhi. Before this meeting, the following applications/recommendations were received by the PMO and DOPT:

· President of Bar Council of India recommended the name of Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) to the Prime Minister and DOPT.
· 7 MPs names, Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP) recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.
· Bhupinder Singh Hooda, CM Haryana, Naveen Jindal (MP), Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS recommended the name of Ravi Shankar Singh, a journalist

However, the agenda note prepared by DOPT did not contain any of the above names. The agenda note was prepared by S K Sarkar, the then Joint Secretary in DOPT. He included the name of his own boss S N Mishra (the then DOPT Secretary), and the names of Mrs Annapurna Dixit, Ashok K Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar, M L Sharma and Shailesh Gandhi. Whereas Shailesh Gandhi’s name was proposed by several RTI activists through an open letter to the Government, but where did other names come from? According to records, none of them applied for these posts, nor were their names recommended by anyone. This means that something is happening outside the files. Who called up these people and asked them for their CVs? Why were only these people contacted?

Several questions arise. Firstly, how were the people like Ravi Shankar Singh, Sudhanshu Ranjan and Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony found unfit and not even put up to selection committee? Who did their assessment and on what basis? Who decided that these names should not be put up to the selection committee?

The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. Obviously someone in DOPT decided to reject these names. Does DOPT have these powers under RTI Act to reject names? No. DOPT merely acts as secretariat to the selection committee. It neither has the powers to reject anyone nor select anyone.

Next question is - how did the bio-datas of S N Mishra, Annapurna Dixit, Ashok Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar and M L Sharma make it to the file? How did these names make it to agenda note? How was it decided to include these names and not others?

It is surprising that the names recommended by MPs, Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers are not even put up to the selection committee. But some other names make it to agenda note.

Interestingly, S N Mishra was the then DOPT Secretary. All this was happening under his nose. He shamelessly includes his own name in the agenda note and excludes those of others.

It appears that the DOPT has become de-facto selection committee and selection committee provided in the law has been reduced to an endorsement committee. The selection committee merely endorses the names put up to it.

In its first meeting on 5th October 2005, 5 names were put up to selection committee and it cleared all the five names. In its next meeting on 27th August 2008, six names were put up and it cleared four of them. In the next meeting on 6th April 2009, only one name was put up and the same was cleared. In the meeting on 25th August 2009, four names were put up and it selected two of them. DOPT, by rejecting all names and presenting a very short list of names, creates a situation of fait accompli for the selection committee, wherein the committee almost endorses what is presented to them.

For instance, Omita Paul, who is known to be quite close to Pranab Mukherjee and has worked with him for many years, was working as Advisor to him before last Parliamentary elections. After the announcement of elections, the selection committee met specially on 6.4.09 to clear her name for the post of Information Commissioner. Only one name was presented to the selection committee and the committee cleared that name.

Interestingly, this was done in violation of model code of conduct. Though the Joint Secretary, in his notings, warned his seniors that model code of conduct was in operation and permission from Election Commission would be required, however, the permission was never sought. One wonders what was the hurry for appointing her? Omita joined on 13th May. Interestingly, as soon as UPA came to power, Omita resigned within a month on 26th June and went back and joined Pranab Mukherjee again.

What emerges from all this is that DOPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee. It rejects the names of all those who either apply or are recommended by others. It then prepares its own list of names (sources of which are unknown) and includes in this list, the names of its own bosses. The selection committee provided in RTI Act has been reduced to an endorsement committee of DOPT.

What does the law say? The law prescribes a selection committee consisting of the PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister. Then it says that the incumbent should be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. He should not be a Member of Parliament or Member of any Legislature or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

The law does not provide for any procedure how nominations would be invited and how would they be processed. DOPT had a duty to make rules under section 27 of RTI Act to lay down procedures. However, DOPT has not made any rules so far.

Selection Committee meeting on 5th Oct 2005:

Who applied?

1. G C Srivastava, IAS (Retd) – he applied himself.
2. Shri Lakshmi Chand, IAS (Retd) - – he applied himself.
3. Shri R Ganesan, (IPoS:69), Secy & DG, Chairman, Postal Service Board, Department of Posts – he applied himself.
4. Shri G Mohal Kumar, (IPoS:69), Member (Personnel), Postal Service Board, Deptt of Posts – he applied himself.
5. Shri P R Devi Prasad (IES:82) – he applied himself.
6. Shri K Jaikumar, Dir (IT) in D/o AR&PG no specific post mentioned – he applied himself.
7. Rameshbhai’s name recommended by Nirmala Deshpande, MP to the PM
8. Smt Neena Ranjan, Secy, Ministry of Culture – she applied herself.
9. Prof Akhtarul Wasey (Dean, Jamia Milia Islamia)
10. Pradeep Kumar Balmuchu (trade union leader from Jharkhand)
11. Nripendra Mishra
12. Mohan Kanda (Chief Secretary to Government of AP)
13. Dinesh Chandra Gupta (former Finance Secretary)
14. Prof Dr B K Chandrashekhar (former Education Minister, Karnataka)
15. Akhtar Majeed (Dean, Hamdard University)

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(None of the above names were put up)

1. Wajahat Habibullah
2. Dr O P Kejariwal
3. A N Tiwari
4. Prof M M Ansari
5. Padma Balasubramanian

Names selected by Selection committee:

All the above five names were selected.

Selection Committee meeting on 27th August 2008:

Who applied?

1. Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) recommended by the President of Bar Council of India to PM and DOPT
2. Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony recommended by Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP)
3. Ravi Shankar Singh (a journalist with The Tribune) recommended by Sh Bhupinder Singh Hooda , CM Haryana; Naveen Jindal (MP); Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(None of the above names were put up)

1. Mrs Annapurna Dixit
2. Ashok K Mohapatra
3. R B Shreekumar
4. M L Sharma
5. Shailesh Gandhi
6. S N Mishra

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Shailesh Gandhi
2. S N Mishra
3. Annapurna Dixit
4. M L Sharma




Selection Committee meeting on 6th April 2009:

Who applied?

Meeting held suddenly. No one came to know about it. No names found on the file.

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

1. Omita Paul

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Omita Paul

Selection Committee meeting on 25th August 2009:

Who applied?

1. Smt Sushma Singh, Secretary (I&B) recommended by her own Minister Anand Sharma, MOS (External Affairs and I&B) to the PM.
2. Dr C V Ananda Bose recommended by Vayalar Ravi, Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs.
3. Saroj Bala, Member (R), CBDT directly applies herself.
4. Mr Choubey recommended by M Veerappa Moily. Mr Moily also writes to Mrs Sonia Gandhi.
5. Adm Pradeep Kaushiva recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
6. Lt Gen Mahajan recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
7. Amitav Tripathi recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
8. Neelam Deo recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
9. Maja Daruwala recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
10. Krishan M Sahni recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
11. Chitra Chopra recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
12. Suman Dubey recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
13. Ishtiaq Hussain recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
14. Sudhanshu Ranjan, a journalist recommended by Sadanand Singh, former Chairperson, Bihar Legislative Assembly. He writes both to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and to the PM.

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(Only Sushma Singh’s name was picked up from the above list. Why only Sushma Singh?)

1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
3. Mahendra Kumavat
4. R P Agarwal

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
==================================

Krish
98215 88114