Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
In India , a small shop owner to big industrialist have mastered the art of TAX EVASION . their teachers - some corrupt tax officials & auditors. The black money thus created
is causing inflation, feeding the mafia , underworld. Some industrialists lobby ( bribe ) with the government & gets favourable laws enacted. This black money is the main source of funds for political parties , religious bodies & terrorist outfits.
The recent raids by C.B.I & KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA have proved how the tax officials have become multi-millionaires. The sad part is that some of the police officials who are on deputation to C.B.I & LOKAYUKTHA themselves are utterly corrupt.
This scourge can only be cured by corporate accountability intoto. However , all the industrialists , traders who are demanding for more flexible labour reforms , economic reforms , infrastructure , etc are not at all concerned about their own accountability with respect to tax , environment , other laws. The MNCs coming to India are not coming here for best Indian talents or infrastructure alone. In their own countries they are feeling the
heat of strict environment laws , consumer laws , share holder disclosures , corporate accountability. Some of these MNCs are being kicked out of their countries , by it's own people .These MNCs are aware that in India , by greasing the palms environment laws , labour laws , tax laws , etc everything can be flouted , cases in courts can be dragged on for years . share holder disclosures , corporate transparency is minimum.
CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY Scandals related to the appalling practices of multinational corporations like Union Carbide (now DOW), Enron, Coke, Cadbury, and
others may have shocked the nation and the world in the recent past, but the media rarely highlights corporate crimes that extend to murders, destroying habitats, threatening indigenous cultures, causing disease, contaminating the planet's food supply, poisoning
our groundwater and even destroying the very air we breathe.
You think this is an exaggeration? Well consider this. In Bhopal, India more than 8,000 people died in the first three days after 40 tonnes of lethal gas spilled out from Union Carbide's pesticide factory in December 1984. People woke in their homes to fits of coughing, their lungs filling with fluid. 520,000 people were exposed to poisonous gases. 150,000 victims are chronically ill, and even now one person dies every two days. Union Carbide merged with Dow Chemical Corporation two years ago and has ceased to exist as an entity while the present owners Dow refuse to accept any pending liabilities in Bhopal including clean-up of the abandoned site.
In Kodaikanal, India, Hindustan Lever, a subsidiary of Unilever Plc, an Anglo-Dutch multinational dumped mercury waste from its thermometer factory in the surrounding forests and on an innocent local community. When the scandal was exposed, first the company denied that there was a problem and later fudged facts and figures until the Indian authorities forced them to come clean. Since then Unilever has retrieved and sent back to USA some of the waste for disposal but are shying away from compensating affected workers and further environmental remediation measures.
Monsanto, one of the world's largest pesticide companies, continues to sell its genetically engineered seeds to farmers around the world despite growing evidence of failure of crops like Bt cotton, that has reduced once well-to-do farmers in the developing world to penury and poverty while the threat of contamination of indigenous species by GE
seeds increases everyday.
Bayer AG, a German transnational continues to manufacture and sell phased out pesticides like Methyl Parathion (brand name Folidol/Metacid) in Asia despite an assurance to their European investors and stake holders that they would stop manufacturing these organo-phosphate poisons.
Ship-owning companies (and indeed, their countries) like Bergesen (Norway), and Chandris (Greece) meanwhile, regularly violate international and national laws and dump their hazardous wastes at ship-breaking yards in India, Pakistan, China, Turkey and Bangladesh. The voluntary guidelines issued by International Marine Organisation
are not enough and it is imperative that these guidelines are made mandatory to make the ship-owners liable and responsible.
In the era of globalization, multinational companies increasingly move around assets, products and wastes on a global chessboard to maximize their profits and minimize their costs. These companies are using differences and loopholes in national environmental and health laws for example to export pesticides and destructive technologies to
poorer countries to the detriment of local communities. What international body oversees them, or sets rules for their behaviour, or holds them accountable when they transgress?
It is no longer just the conspiracy theorists who believe our world is increasingly ruled and ruined by large multinational corporations. The World Trade Organisation has supplanted environmental treaties and regulations. Corporations have become accountable only under the rules of a free market, free trade and a free for all on human rights and the environment.
The state of our environment has not improved, in fact it has deteriorated. The gap between the world's rich and poor has widened. Instead of providing developing countries with the tools for sustainable development, corporations have pushed their dirty
technologies and polluting industries on to some of the world's poorest countries.
A recent UN report revealed that Exxon, with $63 billion, is worth more than Peru or New Zealand. General Electric more than Kuwait. Shell is worth more than Morocco or Cuba.
In the past ten years, corporations have not only resisted
environmental challenges, they have lobbied to water down
international treaties and even succeeded in getting countries to
pull out of environmental agreements altogether. They have maintained
their unsustainable practices in all sectors. It is apparent that
more than just voluntary measures are needed to control these
A recent report by WWF states that if we continue at current levels
of consumption we will use up all of the Earth's resources within 50
years, and we will need two more planets to meet our resource needs.
We either take urgent action to save the planet, or we get off.
The UN Environmental Programme agrees that "the state of the planet
is getting worse." They say "there is a growing gap between the
efforts of business and industry to reduce their impact on the
environment and the worsening state of the planet."
At the root of our environmental problems are the unsustainable
practices of the corporations that shape our economies. But what is
the good of a short-term healthy economy if we can't drink the water,
eat the foods in the fields or breathe the air?
Current systems of governance in Asia (as elsewhere) are proving to
be deficient against the activities of abusive multinational
corporations. To roll back the excessive powers of corporations and
to pressure governments to check corporate abuse and prosecute
corporate crimes, greater public participation is a must. The Rainbow
Warrior's Corporate Accountability Tour of India is part of a global
movement to change the climate of opinion against abusive
corporations and to turn the tide in favour of fundamental human
Corporations need to be held accountable for their actions that are
destroying the planet, destroying people's lives around the globe.
There is only one answer. We must stand up to the corporations. Our
governments must agree on international, legally binding rules for
corporate responsibility, accountability and liability: a set of
rules that business must follow, and governments must enforce.
The list of rules is long, but so are the crimes.
The world needs corporations to be held accountable to the following
laws – no matter where they operate in the world. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
is calling upon the Indian Government to endorse the Bhopal
Principles on Corporate Responsibility, which call on Multinational
• Accept liability for environmental damage and compensate victims of
• Accept liability for the damage, no matter when it happens, what
the cause or who in the corporation is responsible;
• Accept responsibility for damage and injury beyond national borders
including accidents in the oceans and atmosphere;
• Ensure that they do not infringe upon basic human rights;
• Disclose all information regarding releases into the environment to
• Protect human and social rights including the highest standards for
rights to health care and a clean environment;
• Avoid influence over governments, combat bribery and practice
• Allow states to maintain their sovereignty over their own food
• Implement a precautionary principle and take preventative action
before environmental damages or health effects are incurred; and
• Promote and practice clean and sustainable development
During Previous License Regime foreign, investment was not directly welcome in India. As people at that time perceived it as "Neo colonisation" & detested it. There were various restrictions on foreign investments. The local industrialists under monopolistic
environment thrived, who were no way better than day light robberers, of course with a few exception. Under the political patronage, the cunning industrialists looted public money, cheated the government of tax, cheated lending banks & cheated the investors
too. They easily flouted labour laws & made labourers to work in inhuman conditions.
During 1990's under the international pressure India signed GATT & slowly started opening it's economy. Now, from 01/01/05 even product patent has come into force in India. Are MNCs bringing high technology intensive industries to India? No, not at all. They are actually denying sophisticated technologies to India. They are only
bringing the FMCG industries - salt, chips, ketch-up, colas, for which India is a huge home market. They are into services like Hotels, medical care, marketing. In other cases, they are just marketing the products manufactured at their bases in U.S.A. or Europe.
1. There is lack of comprehensive environmental norms.
2. The enforcement of environmental norms is lax.
3. The cost of health coverage, social security net to be provided to the workers exposed to the occupational hazards is less.
4. The cost of compensation to be paid to the persons-who died or suffered damages due to occupational hazards/environmental pollution is meager.
5. The enforcement of labour laws are lax.
6. Public money can be easily raised through lending Banks, primary market within India & the public can be easily cheated.
7. The tax can be evaded through various loopholes like transferring money to holding companies situated at Mauritius or countries which have double taxation avoidance agreement with India.
8. The tax can be evaded, company money can be cheated by lending money to sister / holding concerns at low interest rates or by selling shares, materials to their private companies at low rates or by buying shares, materials from their holding/sister concerns at exhorbitant rates, etc.
9. The corporate governance laws are almost absent in India & it's enforcement nil.
10. Above all, the time can be bought by very slow Indian legal system, if any dispute arise.
11. On top of it, well trained, technically qualified people are available at low rates through contractors.
Just consider the following cases which highlight the apathy, irresponsibility of government of India and emboldened the cunning, MNCs:-
1. The India which boasts of so much scientific/technological advancements, is till date has been unable to provide potable water to it's people. People of west Bengal , Karnataka , Andrapradesh states are forced to drink Arsenic, Fluoride poisoned water.
2. The people living near the mines of R.E.M.P. in Kerala are suffering due to exposure to the radio active materials, Same is the case with the people of Jadaguda, Jharkhand, living near the U.C.I.L. plant. Both M/S R.E.M.P & M/s U.C.I.L are department of atomic energy enterprises.
3. Few years back, In Mysore railway station containers of radio- active materials were left unattended. The dome of reactor building at construction stage collapsed in nuclear power plant at Kaiga. A fire tragedy occurred in Kakrapar nuclear power plant. In the recent Tsunami waves onslaught, certain important facilities of Koodakulam atomic plant were damaged near Chennai.
4. In 1984, U.S. based MNC union carbide mass murdered nearly 20,000 people, injured lakhs who are still suffering health problems. The polluted poisonous accident site i.e. Union carbide plant in Bhopal is not yet cleared off toxic materials even after 20 years.
This is still further damaging the residents of Bhopal.
5. In the above union carbide disaster, the Government of India didn't present the case properly before supreme courts of India & U.S.A.. As a result the MNC just paid a pittance as compensation. As per that the cost of Indian lives are just a fraction of cost of
American lives. Just imagine if a same disaster occurred in U.S.A. at the plant of a MNC headquartered in India, what would have been the consequence?
6. In India, hazardous chemicals laced with food additives are passed through the drinks, beverages like pepsi, cola, coco cola very easily.
7. The medicines like nimesulide, paracetamol, etc. with hazardous side effects which are banned in U.S.A.& Europe, are easily marketed by the same U.S.& Europe based MNCs in India.
8. In India spurious drugs, medicines, food stuffs are easily marketed.
9. In India, the clinical trials of new medicines under research are done without proper compensation structure to those being tried upon ie. Virtual guinea pigs.
10. In India, the genetically engineered BT crops are being introduced without paying attention to formers, ecology or eco-system.
11. In India, during setting up of large projects, scant attention is paid to environment, eco-system & the displaced persons.
Most of the times, in government projects itself the displaced persons are cheated by the government in numerous ways.
12. In India, various Government as well as private hospitals dumps hospital wastes with deadly viruses in the open, with scant regard to public health.
13. In India, aged ships belonging to foreign countries are breaked down to scrap in ship breaking yards of Gujarath , Maharashtra & AP. Various toxins like the Asbestos, lead, etc & the hazardous, dirty water, Oil inside the ship are drained into Indian seashore. The labourers here are forced to work without any safety gears.
14. When specific cases of human rights violations were brought before the government & Judiciary by us , both of them didn't respond at all.
All the above cases highlight the fact that, government of India & Indian judiciary treats it's citizens lives as cheap, dispensable at will. This is the major attracting force for MNCs to India.
- The Securities Scam
The capital market witnessed its foremost investment scandal in the form of securities scandal in the year 1992. It revealed the utter anarchy and lack of administration in the prevailing fiscal market. The money market at that time permitted funds to be relocated with impunity from financial institution and corporates into equity and consequently witnessed crores of bank's capital to transfer into brokers' account. This illegal market practice was later asserted as "legal and acknowledged".
In an attempt to punish the tricksters, a special court was initiated and scrutinized around 70 cases registered by CBI. Surprisingly, not even a single trickster was found guilty by the dreadfully sluggish judicial system. As a matter of fact, the scamsters made frequent attempts to re-enter the market with same set of traps and resulted in losses to investors.
- The IPO scam Soon after the entry of
international organizational investors, the Control over Capital Issues
was banned as the market saw heavy bull trend resulting in the revitalization
of the secondary market from the previous scandals. The ban of Control
over Capital Issues unlocked the prospects of massive scandal in Initial
Public Offerings (IPO). The scam was executed in two parts; the first part
was carried out by the firms that increased their market costs to incur
profits in order to sponsor lucrative projects. The second part saw the
unison of small time merchants, CAs, investment bankers and traders to
hoist new firms and heave public capitals.
The IPO scam prevailed for three long years from 1993-1996 and finally saw its downfall when the costs of the registered firm started deteriorating.
- Favored share scam
The scandal was an outcome of the extensive cost fixing on the derivative market. Besides increasing fresh capital, advocates of Indian firms promptly coordinated general body authorizations to transfer shares to themselves on a privileged basis and at a considerable reduction to the market, thinking that the share prices would never see the ground. Conglomerates started this trend and accrued profits of nearly 55o crores until Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) formulated strict guidelines to abandon the market practice.
- CRB's cardboard scam
The Rs 1000 crore finacial multinational named as Chain Roop Bhansali (CRB) was the only biggest firm and most impudent of all to benefit and disappear in the loosened market ambiance of mid-1990s. The services offered by his firm entailed FC collection, mutual fund, banking, etc. The clearances obtained by the firm for the trading of these services required sufficient inspection by SEBI and the RBI and the fact that they managed to qualify shows the supervisory weariness of the regulators. Facilitated by the clearances and profitable credit ranking, CRB accrued greater profits based on high value financing. The CRB collapse not only affected the investors but also the other finance firms.
- Plantation firms' scam
Since few firms in mid-90s were subject to no guidelines, the plantation companies during that time also got away with profit protrusions. The plantation firms projected themselves as a part of IPO and assured massive returns. The investors were lured and the companies accrued profits from fake campaigns of around Rs 8000 crores plus.
- Mutual Funds scam
After several mutual fund scams, the UTI bailout reflected the lack of proper guidelines in the Indian capital market. Since UTI was initiated under its own regulations, it was the tax payers who suffered the loss of Rs 4800 crore in the process. After three years, the company was back purchasing Ketan Parekh's controlled scrips and incurring massive losses in the process. The evidence of the private mutual funds performance has also been inconsistent after hitting the downfall in 1999 and 2000. It took a considerable amount of time for capital market to win back the trust of mutual fund investors.
- The 1998 scam
The scamster of 1992 scam, Harshad Mehta came back with a bag of tricks again in 1998. This time he lured investors through a website by trading stock tips. His unremitting manipulation of several shares resulted in the much expected collapse of Bombay Stock Exchange.
- Home Trade scam
Initiated in 2000, Home trade invested rs 24 crore in promotional campaigns to attract investors. The scam affected 8 co-operative banks that lost Rs.82 Crore in EPF scheme. The Chief Executive of Hometrade, Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal was convicted by Nagpur Police later.
- DSQ Software Scam
In the year 2000 and 2001, the Managing Director of DSQ Software, Mr. Dinesh Dalmia, was held responsible for ambiguous mergers and prejudiced allocation of the amount of upto Rs.595 Crores. He was later convicted in the year 2006.
- Satyam Scam
After manipulating the firm's documents for several financial years, the former Chairman and Chief Executive of Satyam Computers, Mr.Ramalinga Raju, was arrested for committing scam, following unethical practice and forgery. He showed greater profits and committed fraud of Rs 700 crores.
body. Rs 25,000 for every poisoned lung and damaged heart and blinded
eyes. 26 years of long wait. And just 2 years in jail for the men who
committed the worst crime against the people of this country. And this
mockery of justice after such a long wait. Twenty six years after 40
tonnes of lethal gas seeped into the lungs of Bhopal, families of some
17,000 men, women and children are still waiting for the so-called
compensation. Thousands more are still waiting to be accepted as
victims. People of Bhopal are still drinking toxic water poisoned by
Union Carbide in December 1984. And the main culprit is living life
kingsize in a mansion in New York.
No country sells its poor so cheap.
No country sells its dead so cheap.
state in the world, it’s India. It’s not Iraq. It’s not Somalia. It’s
not Sudan. It’s India.
ridiculous amount of $450 million dollars for the people killed and
maimed by methyl isocyanate leaked from the Union Carbide factory in
the heart of Bhopal three decades ago. In all these years, the poor
victims have done everything they could to get justice and
compensation. They have cried and died on streets, sat hungry and
faced police lathis on roads and filed court cases in the hope that
one day they will get justice.
should be happy with the peanuts thrown at them by Union Carbide.
Today, India proved once again that it doesn’t care for its poor.
Today, it was proved all over again that those who do politics in the
name of poor in this country, always rule for the rich.
Anderson in court. The chairman of UC at the time of the gas attack
(it was not an accident, the gas leak was caused because of cost-
cutting steps taken by him) on the people of Bhopal, Anderson was
arrested and later released on bail. He ran off to US in 1986 and we
have not been able to find him or ask the US to extradite Anderson to
India. Why? The government says it doesn’t know where Anderson is.
What a lie. What a shame.
streets after hearing news that the Chief Judicial Magistrate of
Bhopal had ordered the CBI to arrest Anderson and produce him before
the court without delay. The court also asked the CBI to explain what
steps it had taken since 2002 to enforce the warrant and extradition
of Anderson, who was declared an absconder in 1992. Though the CBI and
US government failed to track Anderson, supporters of Bhopal victims
traced him to the elite New York neighbourhood of the Hamptons. In
2003, Greenpeace activists paid Anderson a visit at his home and
handed him an arrest warrant.
as he is a “proclaimed offender”. This status suits him fine because
he doesn’t have to bother about coming to India and answer some very
plant in India as it operated at a sister plant in West Virginia, US?
designed to prevent a gas leak fail to function?
to the factory, turned off?
negligence by the Union Carbide and that was caused by cost-cutting
measures taken by Anderson. Is it because of this reason that Anderson
has been 'hiding' in the US?
have to let a mass murderer like Anderson go scot-free. Is it because
he is an American? Can an American come to India kill people in this
country and run away with no consequences? That seems to be the case.
We are still struggling to get a chance to question David Headley
Coleman, an American citizen responsible for the worst terror attack
on an Indian city in 2008. Will we succeed in getting Headley
extradited to India? No way. Never.
particularly if they have been slaughtered by powerful people from the
most powerful nation in the world. Instead of taking on America and
fighting for justice for its poor, India is more than happy to sell
its dead cheap.
cost of poor life in a failed state.
Corporate Responsibility or Corporate Liability
by Mukesh Williams
Union Carbide Bhopal Gas Tragedy 1984
Early this month the Indian Supreme Court passed a verdict indicting the American CEO of Union Carbide Warren Anderson who was allowed to escape to the United States twenty five years ago possibly with the connivance of either the state or central agencies in India. Now both the Congress government and state ministries are trying to escape their involvement in the murky plot. Who wanted the truth then? And who wants the truth now? The declassified CIA report of December 8, 1984 and recent revelations by the principal secretary of Rajiv Gandhi, P. C. Alexander, point to political intrigue involving both state and center in releasing Anderson. Now some leaders claim that the worsening law and order situation in Bhopal in the wake of the accident forced Chief Minister Arjun Singh to provide a safe corridor to Anderson out of the country. Some like Rajinder Puri even see the direct hand of Rajeev Gandhi himself. It seems that US President Ronald Reagan phoned Rajeev Gandhi to release Anderson. The media would like us to believe that even P. Chidambaram and Kamal Nath were campaigning for Dow Chemical to get special concessions so it could invest in India. The chief minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi criticized Sonia Gandhi for the complicity of the Congress Party in the murky affair but it has come to light that he had signed an MOU between state public sector company Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd and Dow Chemicals in April 2008. This is the case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Seemingly neither the American nor the Indian establishments saw the industrial disaster as the responsibility of the MNC Union Carbide. The company was bought by Dow Chemical Company in 1999 further camouflaging accountability. Dow Chemical was the second biggest Texas polluting company in 2009 and paid 1.14 million USD on eight counts of pollution. Now it is investing again in India with the syrupy connivance of people in power.
Even after 25 years the public would like to know if it was Arjun Singh the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh or influential persons in Rajiv Gandhi’s government at the center or the prime minister himself responsible for giving a free passage to Anderson to fly back to the U.S. India has an extradition treaty with the United States and under changed circumstances today when America itself is suffering from another MNC BP, there might be possibility of bringing the fugitive CEO back to justice if India can put together enough evidence. Greenpeace believes that in the 1982 safety audit of the Bhopal factory in the US addressed thirty safety hazards. Anderson knew about them and compromised safety standards causing the death of 20,000 people and affecting 578,000 to date. To make the tragedy reprehensible the out of court settlement made Union Carbide pay a sum of 470 million USD instead of 3.5 billion initially demanded, with each victim getting a measly sum of 550 USD in 1989. In the same year Exxon oil spill in Prince William Sound Alaska forced the company to pay 5 billion USD of which it paid half. Even today there is 425 tons of hazardous waste in Bhopal left by Union Carbide that needs to be cleaned. Who will do it—Dow Chemical or the Indian state government?
Anderson now 90 years lives in a luxury home worth 900,000 USD at 929 Ocean Road, Bridgehampton, Long Island, New York. He is now less of a fugitive and more of a monarch (Sonnenfeld, 1991). It is obvious that in many cases justice delayed is justice denied. Should we stop big companies from doing business? Should we impose heavy penalty on erring foreign companies? Or should we reform the slow and cumbrous judicial system? Jeremy Kahn writing in The Faster Times calls for judicial reform rather than protectionism (Kahn, 2010). The Indian Parliament is debating a law capping liability for foreign nuclear power companies involved in disasters to pay 100 million USD a pittance when compared to the US demand of 100 billion USD from BP. Then Indian law capping liability lacks teeth and may not cover non-nuclear companies. So they can pollute as of before.
British or Beyond Petroleum
The British are desperate to save BP from going down by bringing silly arguments like BP has been a part of America since it merged with American energy Amoco in 1998 and acquired the Gulf of Mexico drilling rights (The Independent, “Cameron Warns Obama over Criticizing BP” 13 June 2010). The new British Prime Minister David Cameron has also chipped in underscoring the sustained “economic importance” of BP to both Britain and America. American President Barrack Obama however is needled by US senators, whose states have been ravaged by oil spills, to push for 100 billion USD compensation, which if realized would force BP to go bankrupt. The British media believes that Obama’s anti-British rhetoric is testing Anglo-American relations. Obama claims that American relation with Britain has not been affected. The environmental disaster caused by a British multinational company should have nothing to do with national identity but corporate liability. Obama has called BP the Swedish Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, who earns a fat cat salary of 3.8 million USD, to the White House for consultations.
The British are cut up with Obama’s off the cuff remark that he would have fired BP’s chief executive Tony Hayward if the latter had worked for him. With US pressure rising BP may not pay its quarterly dividends which are essential to maintain equilibrium for UK pension funds. The 6.7% shares lunge in the FTSE has adversely affected pension funds in the UK. If the status quo is not altered by American pressure groups BP might only have to pay 20 to 37 billion USD provided it can be proved that BP failed to meet safety regulations in the deep sea oil drilling.
Now BP is using two kinds of dispersants manufactured by Nalco—Corexit 9500 and Corexit EC 9527A. Corexit (deodorized kerosene) is banned in the United Kingdom as even 2.61 ppm can kill 50% of fish in 96 hours. The dispersants turn the oil slick into small particulates which settle on the sea bed and make things look clean on the surface, but they destroy marine life below. Corexit however is on the approved list of dispersants by the US Environmental Protection Agency though the EPA has advised BP to use less toxic dispersants. BP however refused citing lack of availability. The toxicity of the present dispersants increase when they get mixed with oil. BP has links with Nalco. BPs has poured 1,621,000 gallons of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico to contain the oil spill and has ordered for an additional 805,000 gallons. The ill effects of the dispersant on humans can result in various diseases, reduced growth, kidney failure and death.
The British rely on BP as the national icon and savior of British deficit. Last year BP paid 1.4 billion dollars in taxes on its profits. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is too far away for the ordinary Britons but the pension funds and BP dividends are closer home.
It stands to logic that a “large, wealthy company” which is eager to pay 1.8 billion quarterly dividends to its shareholders and whose last year’s sales and operating revenues were 239 billion USD, should pay 100 billion USD in damages. Since the oil spill began on April 22, 2010 till June 15, 2010, 55 days have gone by. And if we estimate the oil spill at 50,000 barrels a day it comes to 27500000 gallons. If each gallon spill is fined 4300 USD as the US is suggesting the actual fine would come to 118,250,000,000 that is about 118 billion USD. These figures may not be exact and are vigorously contested by BP which would like to work with half the numbers. However the end is not in sight. According to BP officials it would not be before August that the spill can be contained. If this is true then the figure could be doubled and BP would have to pay damages amounting to all the revenue it earned through sales last year.
Both the American government and public are hopeful that since earlier erring companies like Texaco was forced into bankruptcy in 1987 after paying 10.53 billion USD claim, BP too would have to cough up huge sums. And BP’s reputation does not help a wee bit whatever they claim to the contrary in those daily briefings on the Internet. BP is known as one of the “ten worst corporations” in the world when evaluated on their environmental pollution and infringement of their human rights record. It also has the dubious distinction of being the most polluting company in the United States vis-à-vis EPA toxic release data of 1991. It has been fined 1.7 million USD for burning polluted gases at its Ohio refinery. It also paid 10 million USD fine to the EPA in July 2000 for mismanaging the US oil refineries. The US Public Interest Research Group or PIRG claims that between Jan 1997 and March 1998, BP was involved in 104 oil spills. Obviously a lot of wealthy shareholders, 37% on the British and 31 % on the American side do not want this to happen.
BP’s propaganda regarding its CSR is highly effective as it tries to highlight only the positive aspects of what it has done. In the past BP has invested some money in alternate fuel and green technologies but it has been criticized for proving private funds to public universities of the California Bay Area and closing down its green technology office in London. Its critics call its green technology projects as green washing projects. BP is also a leading producer of solar panels and holds 20% of the global market in this area and it uses this fact to great advantage for image building. It operates the ampm convenience store chain in the US and other countries and is the leading producer of wind power. It is also involved in funding local and international politics. It gave 5 million USD to democrats and republicans in 1990 and spent 16 million USD in lobbing at the US Congress. The moral of the story is that it is not as clean as it claims, nor concerned with the lives of common people unless it serves its purpose or national interest.
BP in its regional spill plan for the Gulf of Mexico and site plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig understated the dangers and overstated its preparedness in the eventuality of a leak. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal criticized BP for being ‘reactive’ and not ‘proactive’ from the very beginning. Now BP’s report is examined quite critically and it has been discovered that an expert professor listed in its 2009 response plan died in 2005. It lists walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals as “sensitive biological resources” when none inhabit the Gulf of Mexico. Also names and phone numbers of marine specialists and marine network officers in Louisiana and Florida are not correct. The Justice Department has to find evidence that BP destroyed key documents or lied to the government (The Daily Yomiuri, June 11, 2010).
Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate social responsibility is one of the modern movements like environmental or tribal movements that have become the buzz word in both business and academic circles. Both businessmen and academics are cashing upon the divine benefits of CSR making more money for their companies and jobs for their departments. Middle level managers and professors have extolled about the virtues of CSR with other buzz words such as people friendly, eco friendly and sustainable. We have come to hear about the unselfishly egalitarian aspects of CSR. It is really a wondrous transformation of the greed-driven capitalist economy of which the corporate system is a byproduct.
Most critics of CSR are not against it per se but against the recent hype associated with it as a panacea of all corporate evils. It is hard to believe that companies are out there not to make profit. We are not talking of basket cases but any company worth its salt aggressively markets itself to make real profit. And what’s wrong in it. Companies are floated for this very purpose both by the shareholders and managers. But in a changed climate of political advocacy of human rights against corporate greed, CSR seems to a new combative tool for companies to be both politically correct and make money as usual. The problem however is that if business corporations give an inch they take a mile.
Definitions and Objections to CSR
In the United States CSR is seen as philanthropy while others see it as improving society, workforce and government. There are arguments in favor of CSR where it is believed that it can support the social fabric of society and promote responsible business practices. But CSR is usually presented as a marketing strategy that articulates business performance rather than encompass social and ethical standards. The recent collapse of American business and manufacturing sectors has revealed the gap between CSR and actual self-regulation. Some CSR models take the company beyond the law into providing public benefits, increase sales, market shares, brand position, retain employees, reduce operating costs and increase investments (Baron, 2001 7-45). There are models of CSR that take into account competitive advantage, positioning, commitment, organizational integration, shareholder’s cooperation and self-correction. CSR helps to create a positive image of a company and brings it rich dividends. Though there are many definitions of CSR we must see CSR as the way business companies conduct their core business not the sops they give to society.
A common objection leveled against CSR comes from the advocates of the laissez faire system who complain that CSR infringes upon the human rights of company shareholders as company managers unilaterally divert company resources to society in the name of better management (Sternberg, 1999). Detractors of CSR complain that there should be a stakeholder claim in CSR as to how it is done. A business corporation should be fair and honest to both the shareholders and customers. CSR therefore depends on the model a company chooses and the reasons for its choice. If a company uses CSR for image building through philanthropy it leads to both ethical and human rights problems. You cannot give away money which ultimately belongs to someone else. On the flipside it also follows that if stakeholders possess sole rights they also should bear full responsibility when there are environmental or social disasters. However if a CSR model seeks a consensus of both stakeholders and company managers then it must become more open to the public. CSR must concentrate upon building customer relationships, attracting talented people, conducting risk management and building the company’s reputation.
Corporate Reputation and CSR
Corporate business companies such as BP or Coca Cola cannot ignore their reputation as about 90 to 95 percent of their assets are intangibles and the remainder immovable property. Big companies such as General Electric, IBM or Motorola use the rhetoric of CSR to show public responsibility and environmental concerns but while conducting hard-nosed bullying business practices are not so transparent in their dealings. A few years ago Sir John Browne of BP was praised for his aggressive promotion of BP while providing environmental leadership but now we come to know that all along BP compromised on safety costs in oil drilling. This is happening in a powerful country like the United States where both politics and laws are strong. Had it happened in a developing or a poor country, things would have been quite different. BP would have gotten away cheaply and Union Carbide once did.
CSR invariably works for companies and countries with resources and political clout. It is not for companies which are small and weak. Small companies fight for survival, cut costs to make ends meet and do not possess precious resources to waste on CSR. Nor can they follow up on legal battles if they come under the scanner. They function in a world of poverty, deprivation and loss.
It is no longer tenable to follow neo-classical economics of Smith, Mill and Bacon that the world is made for us and for us alone. We must eschew the economic theories of Pareto and Hayek as we can no longer treat nature as a mere variable and commodity. Depreciation of ecological assets has taken place at an increasing fast rate. Economics should no longer be about inflation, economic value of goods or maximization of income. It should take into account our natural world as property that belongs to every one of us (McNeill, Padua, Rangarajan, 2010 1-3). We must learn new lessons from ecological economics and environmental history and change the way we do business. We must rein in corporate greed by modifying corporate social responsibility (CSR) to corporate legal liability (CLL) and connect it to governmental deterrence, legal action and international treaties to scare the hell out of the merchants of greed and death who have many supporters in different parts of the world.
- AN APPEL TO UNION FINANCE MINISTER & KARNATAKA STATE FINANCE MINISTER
In india , tax compliance is worse. In our criminal justice system, there is rigorous imprisonment for a pick-pocketer stealing Rs.10. even the authorities spend thousands of rupees in legally prosecuting him & the thief spends a year or more as punishment behind bars. Where as there is no commensurate investigation nor legal prosecution nor punishment for corporate thieves , evading tax to the tune of crores of rupees. In contrast, those tax thieves pay a part of that booty to the ministers & political parties and get crores of rupees tax exemptions , incentives from the government. Government is rewarding corporate criminals.
The tax officials of central & state governments are hand in glove with these corporate criminals & traders. For a price, they are helping corporates & traders in evading tax. Most of the tax officials are wealthy & leading luxurious lifestyles , much beyond the scope of their legal income. The black money thus generated every year by tax evasion , is many times more than our total annual budget allocation. As a result, all our fiscal reforms fail & inflation is soaring. This black money is the source of illegal funding of political parties , terrorist outfits & underworld. It is a greater threat to national unity & integrity.
Both the central government & karnataka state government have failed to collect the full , actual tax dues from corporates & traders. As a result , the governments don't have enough money in their coffers even to provide basic needs like health care , education , safe drinking water , etc to the poor & needy. For every Rs.100 tax evaded , one poor patient is dying without medical care , 10 poor persons lack education , 100 persons don't get safe drinking water , 100 persons barely survive on a single piece meal per day , 20 persons starve. Most of The government officials , ministers & people's representatives who have deliberately failed in their duties of tax collection & welfare of poor citizens , SHAMELESSLY indulge in luxurious lifestyle at the expense of poor tax payer . they live in paltial bungalows , chauffer driven AC cars , all living food expenses paid by exchequer , dine at 5-star hotels , only drink bottled mineral water , eat non-vegetarian dishes , drink alcohol sitting before mahatma gandhi's photograph & preaching mahatma's ideals. Mahatma preached & practiced simple living , vegetarianism & he was teto teller , he paid for his expenses from his earnings . these public servants are parasites , who are making merry at the expense of tax payer.
Some non government organisations ( NGO) have formed trusts and under the aegis of those trusts are running educational institutions , hospitals , community halls , etc , in the name of providing free / subsidised services like education , health care , etc to the poor. It is only in record books , they conduct fake medical camps , self employment training camps . in practice they are running these educational institutions , hospitals & community halls as commercial enterprises & collecting huge fees. they are not even remitting full fees collected to the trust account & swindling the money. no outsider is allowed to become a member of these NGOs , only their cronies & their family members are in these trusts.
Numerous NGOs promoted by religious bodies , mutts are swindling public & government money to the tune of crores of rupees. Nobody dares to question the heads , pontiffs of these mutts , as at his feet VVIPs , ministers fall down. These religious bodies are hot beds of fundamentalism , terrorism & mafia. Where is the accountability of religious bodies & political parties in india ?
Inspite of bringing specific cases to the notice of authorities , they are mum ? hereby , HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH offers it's services ( subject to conditions ) to the governments of india & karnataka , in apprehending the criminals – tax evaders. Are you ready Mr. Mukherjee & Mr.Gowda ?
Just see how the GOI gave export incentive of Rs.1800 crore to reliance petroleum although it didn't even export a barrel. Reliance infocom & tata teleservices were CDMA mobile service providers & have paid license fee of few crores only equal to landline fees without any competitive bidding . They were supposed to provide mobile service to operate like fixed phones within a radius of 40k.m. however they were providing service like mobile service from one state to another like GSM mobile service providers. By this act of RIC & TTSL , the GSM providers who have paid thousands of license fee in competitive bidding were economically hurt , the dispute went to court. The court was on the verge of pronouncing it's verdict awarding damages worth Rs.18000 crore to GSM players & Rs. 3000 crore of license fees with penalty to GOI. The government announced a unified telecom license regime with retrospective effect. Thereby, the GOI lost thousands of crores of rupees & the share holders of GSM players lost thousands of crores. Onceagain the RIC was charged by PSU bsnl THAT RELIANCE IS RE-ROUTING INTERNATIONAL CALLS AS LOCAL CALLS & SWINDLING THE GOI. This time too, GOI bailed it out. during the dispute between ambani brothers the younger ambani mr. Anil ambani director of reliance himself has stated that for the favours received from the GOI , the company gifted some shares to then IT & COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER mr. Pramod mahajan.
Various indian & multinational companies are looting indian exchequer to the tune of thousands of crores of rupees , through lobbying / bribing.
In india, indirect democracy is the form of governance. In this form, people's representatives are bound to raise the questions , issues concerning their constituents on their behalf , on the floor of the house. However the sad part in india even after 58 years of democracy , is the lobbying is at it's peak. The lobbying is a gentleman's white collared crook's way of forming favour seeker's group , creating a corpus to pay lumpsum bribe & influencing decision making. The people's representatives are bound to represent their people first , then their party & party think tanks. India has come to this sorry state of affairs , widespread corruption , huge black economy & rampant poverty, all due to inefficient legislations & enforcements. These think tanks & IAS lobby, consider themselves as most super brains on earth & gives out suggestions . the present state of affairs is a barometer of their brilliance. These think tanks & IAS lobby are the hand maidens of lobbyists / bribers.
Special to India Resource Center
September 30, 2002
Headlines Today is in exclusive possession of taped conversations between Raja and powerful corporate lobbyist Nira Radia just days before the swearing-in of the cabinet.
The conversations, which were recorded by investigators for the income tax department, raise serious issues about ministerial propriety.
The income tax sleuths had sought permission to tap the telephone of Radia, who was being investigated by the CBI and the income tax department in the telecom spectrum scam.
Radia is one of India's most influential power-brokers and has the biggest corporates of India as clients.
These conversations were recorded over 300 days, starting from August 20, 2008. Raja was lobbying hard to become the next telecom minister and was being helped in this endeavour by Radia.
Here are excerpts from a conversation recorded on May 24, 2009 at 11.05 am.
Raja: My name is cleared?
Radia: Yeah, your case was cleared last night itself. No, what is happening with Daya?
Raja: Textiles or fertilisers?
Radia: Not for Daya though, Azhagiri or Daya only one can come in?
Raja: No, two can come...
Radia: Baalu, will be the problem, I hope.
Radia: It will be difficult for the leader to justify three family members.
Raja: (laughs) Yeah, but everybody knows...
Radia: No she said that, Kani told me last night, that is what her father told her yesterday, that for him to justify three family members would be very difficult; he recognises that problem...
Raja: Let us see what we can do...let us fight.
This was how Radia informed Raja that his name had been cleared for the telecom minister's post. The conversation had been recorded just four days before Raja's name was officially announced as the UPA's telecom minister.
So how does a corporate lobbyist get to know who is getting which portfolio? And why was Raja discussing portfolios with a corporate lobbyist?
Not just Raja, the tapes have Radia talking to DMK chief M. Karunanidhi's daughter Kanimozhi as well.
In these conversations, Kanimozhi - referred to as Kani - is heard telling Radia that the DMK must get the telecom portfolio. Here are excerpts from the conversation recorded on May 21, 2009 at 8:41 pm.
Radia: PM has already clarified that the deal has not been done. They are still in the middle of discussing it.
Kani: They've already promised to give us telecom...but it cannot become that they shift...
Kani: They have already told us that they will give us telecom. Now it shouldn't be given to him because he's going around planting stories.
Radia: He's planting it on all the channels while you were on the plane.
Kani: Ya I know that.
Radia: But Kanni, the PM has just made a statement that I have no problems with Raja and Baalu and they are my esteemed colleagues.
Kani: He can make a statement. But whoever's going to come and talk to dad shouldn't talk otherwise.. See what people say outside and what actually they mean is different... And all of us know that in politics.
Not just telecom, Radia and Kanimozhi had a long conversation about who is getting what portfolio. What was surprising is that Radia seemed to know exactly what is happening and who was getting which portfolio.
Here are more excerpts from the conversations:
Radia: Kani there's feedback from the Congress. They say we recognise that the problem with the DMK is an internal problem. It's a problem between the family. It's a problem between their own people. They have given us a list of five people. This is not acceptable to us.
Radia: It is for them to resolve. We have told them what is the best that we can do.
Kani: Three and four...
Radia: We appreciate that the dialogue has broken down but it is not for us to get back to them. As far as we are concerned, Maran has been calling Ghulam Nabi Azad on the half hour demanding all sorts of things and they have told him that there is no point in you calling us.
Kani: But what is the demand he's got.
Radia: He has been making the same demands that you give us five portfolios or we will not join or give us railways, otherwise he has also demanded coal and mines. So they are saying as far as we are concerned this is an internal DMK problem. It has nothing to do with the Congress at all. They have taken a decision that it is for Karuna to decide who he wants and who he doesn't want in the formula. That has been provided to him. It's up to Karuna to decide but they feel that there are far too many people calling him including Maran.
The question is, is it proper for a senior leader of the DMK and a minister in the past UPA government to be talking to a known corporate lobbyist? Why is it that the lobbyist seems to know everything about the allocation of portfolios, and long before the information is made public?
- The Great Billion Dollar Drug Scam
- Supreme Snub : Court SIT A Major Embarrassment For Govt
- Now A Petroleum Scam?
- The -Reliance KG Gas Scam Prabir Purkayastha, Newsclick
- Way to Rural Self Reliance: National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM)
- Demand For JPC On Spectrum Scam :Go Beyond Rhetoric
- THE ADARSH SOCIETY SCAM A Shocking Exposure of Congress govt Venality – Ashok Dhawale
- SUPREME COURT VERDICT ON KG BASIN GAS -Dipankar Mukherjee
- AMBANIS ROW : GOVT HAS LAST WORD ON KG BASIN GAS PRICE : SC
- POOL PRICING FOR KG BASIN GAS TO HARM ANDHRA PRADESH INTERESTS
- PRODUCTION OF GAS IN KG BASIN
- FINDINGS OF ICAI IN SATYAM SCAM CASE
Dear mukesh & anil ambani,
The reliance industries has always got a favourable treatment from the state & central governments.there are allegations that ,
1.years ago, the central government gave import concessions for import of certain raw materials of textile sector ,which hugely benefitted the P.F.Y & TEXTILE projects of your's ie reliance industries.
2.the O.N.G.C which has painstakingly surveyed the oil & gas reserves & prepared a list of lists,gave that list & you got godavari basin oil & gas project from the government .O.N.G.C could have developed it & earned millions.
3.few months back you were charged both by the government & cellular operators (GSM) that you are giving S.T.D & ROAMING FACILITIES to your reliance phone subscribers.your's was only a W.L.L. they even claimed that you are misusing a legal loophole & causing crores of losses to the government & other GSM operators. however while the issue was before the T.R.A.I, the trai legalized your actions by announcing unified licence for telecom operators.
4.now you are charged by the government of re-routing ISD CALLS as local calls,thereby causing crores of losses to the government & BSNL.this time also you may get the reprieve from the government. the government ,if a commonman does not pay his electric bills in time slaps interest & cuts down the electric supply immediately.
however the same government ,even if your company has been alleged of causing crores of rupees losses to the government & other players, always enacts favourable laws for you like a SANTA CLAUS.
WILL YOU PLEASE CLARIFY mr.mukesh ambani & mr.anil ambani?
the TRAI announced unified licence regime in haste that too with retrospective effects.so all the charges against reliance were dropped. in the same vein as unified licence got retrospective effect , why not the government re-imburse the differece amount out of hefty fees collected from other cellular operators ? take the reliance fees as bench mark.anyway , finally commonman is the looser.
While on the other hand the proposed Bill defines torture as
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any pain hurt or danger as aforementioned caused by an act, which is justified by law.
Punishment for Torture
Given that the words and expressions of this proposed Bill have the same meanings as the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with the comments added in the draft Bill, it is necessary to critically examine the implications of such a proposed definition. First of all, there is a drastic narrowing down of what constitutes an act of torture. The UNCAT lays emphasis to the infliction of “severe pain or suffering”, whereas the proposed Bill uses phrases such as “grievous hurt/danger to life, limb or health”. These expressions have a much narrower interpretation. For instance, acts of beating the victim with a stick, inserting chilli powder or petrol in the rectum of the victim, stretching the victims legs apart to an unbearable extent; application of electric current to the victims body or private parts; hanging the victim upside down from the ceiling, waterboarding; illegal detention, etc. currently practiced by our security agencies would cause “severe pain and suffering” but may not amount to “grievous hut/danger to life, limb or health” even in its broadest sense. Such acts which have conveniently evaded prosecution under the existing penal laws will continue to do so, even more, under the proposed Bill.
Secondly, certain acts which are already considered as torture under IPC (Section 330) have been consciously evaded in the proposed definition. Here, simple “hurt” by a public servant would call for a punishment of a seven year term and find. Thirdly, the purposes of torture included in the definition of the UNCAT are as (1) obtaining information/confession (2) punishment (3) Intimidation/coercion and (4) based on discrimination. On the other hand the proposed Bill restricts itself to only two of these i.e. the first and fourth. By such a restrictive definition torture committed by over-zealous public servants who see themselves as extra judicial penal authorities would not be liable for punishments. In such cases, like the Bhagalpur blindings, torture is committed for the sole purpose of punishment. Similarly in areas of mass resistance, acts of torture are committed on the protesters for the only purpose of forcing them into submission. Here to,, such an act would not attract any punishment under the proposed Bill. Finally, on the question of quantum of punishment there is no advancement to the existing provisions under section 331 IPC, which punishes grievous hurt with imprisonments upto ten years and fine. But for an act causing “danger to life” which would be prosecutable under section 307 IPC and attract punishment for life, the proposed Bill in fact seeks to reduce the punishment.
Overall, the proposed Bill rather than providing effective punishments for torture is instead a climb down from the International anti-torture standards and has even gone to the extent of diluting existing penal laws with regards to torture.
A major obstacle in punishing those who are responsible for acts of torture is the fact that they are “public servants”. The prosecution of a public servant becomes virtually impossible due to the existence of section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which provides that they cannot be prosecuted without prior permission from the government, either State or Central, which employs them. In the areas of Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East, where the writ of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) runs, prosecution of Armed forces personnel responsible for torture is equally impossible, given the provision of section 6 of AFSPA, which reads:
“No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.”
Without any concrete step to repeal section 197 CrPC or the draconian AFSPA one cannot envisage any purposeful prevention of torture legislation.
Another impediment in the prosecution of public servants responsible for acts of torture is the fact that they enjoy immense power, authority and patronage in the administrative setup. They are therefore in a position to influence the investigation of an act of torture. Also given the fact that most acts of torture are committed within the walls of a lockup or detention centre it is extremely difficult to find reliable and trustworthy witnesses. In such a situation there is a strong possibility that corroboration of the victims’ testimony may be weak. This should not be used to the victims’ disadvantage.
Thus, if the fact of pain or suffering is proved and the victim testifies that the same has been caused by a public servant the court should presume the same. The proposed Bill lacks such an approach.
The proposed Bill in section 5, in fact creates another obstacle for the prosecution of the public servant. It introduces a limitation for cognizance of an offence by the Court which hither to didn’t exist in existing Criminal procedural law for offence punishable over 3 years. This limitation for cognizance by the Court is given as six months in the proposed Bill. Existing procedural law under section 468(2) (a) Cr.PC gives such time limitation for offences punishable solely by fine. Such as Jaywalking, spitting on the payment, etc. Such a time limit, in cases of torture is a judicial impossibility given that it would first of all take the victim quite some time to free himself from the public servant’s custody and administrative grip and thereafter build the confidence to file a complaint. Procedures of filing an FIR, obtaining sanction for prosecuting the public servant, arresting him and filing a charge sheet for the court to take cognizance would follow. Anyone well versed with the realities of the functioning of our judiciary will blatantly claim such a limitation as not only absurd but rather a malafide sleight of hand by the drafters of the bill (who see an act of torture as “serious” as pitting on the pavement) This in effect ensures that practically no case of torture will ever reach the stage of trial.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”.
It is a well known fact, documented by numerous Human Rights organizations, that incidents of torture are systematically practiced by the security forces as part of a counter insurgency policy. In Jammu & Kashmir itself nearly 8000 to 10,000 persons have been tortured and thereafter “disappeared” since 1989. Many cases of custodial rape and murder have take place in Manipur and other North-East states: Instances of torture of Naxal suspects are quite common especially in areas of mass resistance. The Andhra government itself admitted that several innocent Muslim accused of the Hyderabad Bomb blasts of 2007 had been tortured. By such derogation the government attempts to present the “threat of terrorism” as a pretext for denying such suspects the right to remedies under the proposed Bill. This is indirect opposition to the very letter and spirit of the UNCAT, which states in Article 2(2) that:
Let the Legislators of states, members of parliament, High courts & Supreme Court Judges & other constitutional functionaries answer the following questions which are vital in a democracy.
1) What are the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under the constitution (Article 21) ?
2) What are the privileges conferred on legislators & parliamentarians by the constitution of India?
a) Inside the House b) Outside the House
3) What are privileges conferred on constitutional functionaries, like
a) President of India b) Prime Minister of India
c) Chief Justice of India d) Chairman of NHRC
e) Central Vigilance Commissioners.
4) Are the privileges legal immunity conferred on above mentioned constitutional functionaries ?
a) Cover all their official actions irrespective of merit.
b) Cover both their official & personal actions.
5) Are the privileges defined & codified ?
6) Are these privileges above freedom of the press ?
7) Are the liberty & fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by the constitution, above the privileges of the constitutional functionaries or equal or below ?
8) Can the Indian legislatures & parliament be equated to the House of commons in England which is considered to be a superior court and court of records ?
9) Can the division of powers, namely the legislature, the executive and the Judiciary, be equated to the functioning of the House of commons and House of Lords in England ?
10) Can a citizen be said to have committed breach of privilege of the House or court and causing contempt of the house or court by raising the issues of accountability of constitutional functionaries ?
11) Can a Legislature or Parliament enact a new law, to circumvent or to nullify the Judicial orders with respect to wrongdoings by peoples representatives & executive ? does not it amount to infringement of Judicial powers & contempt of the court by the House.
12) Are the FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES of a citizen more important than constitutional duties of a constitutional functionary or equal in importance to it ?
13) Can a constitutional functionary commit crimes, anti-national activities in the name of constitutional duties, behind the legal veil of official's secret act & go unaccountable for his actions and go unpunished by his legal immunity privileges ?
14) Are the Legislators members of parliament, High court & Supreme court Judges and other constitutional functionaries not willing to codify their privileges for the reason that if codified their privileges would be curtailed and their action would be subjected to legal scrutiny. ?
15) By votes of citizens Legislators and parliamentarians get seats in the legislature and Parliament out of tax payer's money, they get their pay, perks & lead 5-Star luxurious lifestyles. Hence whether a vote of a citizen is above (More valid) or a seat of legislator or parliamentarian is above or more valid in a democracy ?
16) Judges & Constitutional functionaries are indirectly appointed by voters / tax payers. Out of tax payers money, they get their pay, perks & lead 5-star luxurious lifestyles. Hence, whether the vote of a citizen, fundamental duties of a tax payer is above (more valid) or a seat of judge / constitutional functionary is above (more
valid) in a democracy ?
17) If there is a vacuum in the Legislature or parliament, who is to fill up that vacuum till such time that the legislature or parliament acts provide a solution by performing its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field (vacuum) ?
18) While it is an unhealthy practice for a Judge to claim to be a Judge in his own cause, is it not worse for the members of the legislature and parliament to be judges in their own cause ?
19) Are the Technicalities of the case more important to a judge or Justice to a citizen, protection of fundamental rights of citizen.?
20) Why not the constitutional functionaries initiate suo moto action with respect to numerous cases of injustices reported in Media ?
21) Why not the Judges admit various cases of Injustices affecting public, as the Public Interest Litigation" ? In some cases, the Public or the person representing them is unable to afford the high cost of the case. Why not free legal aid is given ?.
22) What is the criteria for admitting a P.I.L. & giving free legal aid ?
23) Communication - free flow of information is the lifeline of a democracy. Why the constitutional functionaries are not honouring the Right to Information of Citizens ?
- Hasan Ali Khan scandal
- Noida Corporation farm land scandal
- Indian Black Money in Swiss Banks
- Bellary mines scandal
- BL Kashyap EPFO Scam 
- 2G spectrum scam and Radia Tapes Controversy
- Adarsh Housing Society scam
- Commonwealth Games Scam
- 2010 housing loan scam in India
- Belekeri port scam
- Lavasa Scandal
- Uttar Pradesh Food Grain Scam
- Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Controversy
- Indian Premier League Cricket Scandals
- Cash For Votes Scandal
- Pune billionaire Hasan Ali Khan tax default 
- The Satyam scam 
- 2008 Mumbai Attacks
- Stamp Paper Scam
- Kerala Ice Cream Parlour Sex Scandal
- Scorpene Deal Scam
- Navy War Room spy scandal (related to Scorpene Deal Scam)
- Kargil Coffin Scam
- Haridas Mundhra scandal
- List of politicians in India charged with corruption
- List of scandals in India (state wise)
- Corruption in India
- Socio-economic issues in India
- Corruption Perceptions Index
REPEAL ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT in Manipur – An Appeal to H.E.Honourable President of India
I am writing to express solidarity to the ten-year-long fast of Ms. Irom Sharmila Chanu, the Iron Lady of Manipur and her cause.
I am informed that Sharmila has started the fast on 5 November 2000, protesting against the violence committed by state and non-state actors in Manipur. I am aware that the protest also demands an immediate end of impunity in the state, for which the withdrawal of the martial law, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), from Manipur is a prerequisite.
I am worried about the sufferings of the ordinary people of Manipur at the hands of the underground militant organisations as well as the state agencies.
I am aware that the AFSPA is enforced in Manipur to support government actions in the state in countering secessionist activities and underground militant acts. Yet, it is now certain that the AFSPA has not helped in countering militancy in Manipur, but in fact has enraged it.
I am informed that the climate of impunity is one of the reasons why conflict continues in Manipur.
The AFSPA, as far I understand is an addition to the overall impunity framework that has contributed to the deterioration of the state of rule of law in Manipur. My opinion is also shared by national bodies including Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee; the Second Administrative Reforms Commission; and the Prime Minister's Working Group on Confidence-Building Measures in Jammu and Kashmir. I am informed that these eminent bodies have recommended the government to withdraw AFSPA from operation since they are of the informed opinion that a law like the AFSPA will only facilitate violence and not prevent it.
I am convinced that under the current circumstances in Manipur the withdrawal of AFSPA will not in itself solve the Manipur crisis.
Yet, it could be a bold and open step by the government to show that it is determined to find solution to an armed conflict that has haunted an entire generation in the state. The withdrawal of AFSPA from Manipur will be recognition to the sufferings of the state's people and an expression of respect and acknowledgment of their rights.
Additionally, withdrawing AFSPA from Manipur will be a catalyst to end the climate of impunity in the state. Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.
Your’s sincerely ,
INDIA: Use of torture to extract confession, anyone surprised?
The latest news by the WikiLeaks claims that India has systematically used torture to extract confessions and has allowed its armed forces to resort to brutal human rights abuses like extrajudicial executions and disappearances to instil fear, and thus control the population in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The report asserts that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was concerned about New Delhi's despicable tolerance of the issue and that the government practically did nothing to prevent torture and has consistently condoned it. The lack of action by the government and the impossibility of the government soldiers to be investigated or punished for engaging in torture has contributed in no less terms towards the alarmingly high number of extrajudicial executions and disappearances in that state, the leaked wires claim.
Torture, extrajudicial execution and disappearances are no news to Indians though. The diplomatic wires leaked by the WikiLeaks and the sudden news value it has attained in India and abroad is similar to someone expressing surprise after hearing that the earth's shape is very close to that of an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), AHRC's national partners, as well as other civil society groups in the country and aboard have been contenting for years, with sufficient proof, that the practice of torture and encounter killings - a euphemism for extrajudicial executions in India - is consistent and widespread in the country. During the past six decades, the practice of torture and the number of encounter killings have only increased steadily and it never showed a tendency to decrease.
The AHRC has analysed this issue, and has been arguing that torture is used as a tool for social control in India. The AHRC has contented that similar is the state of affairs in other South Asian states like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. In fact more than 80 percent of AHRC's human rights interventions on its engagement in South Asia is against torture, all of which is available at http://humanrights.asia The AHRC has consistently argued that the widespread use of torture in the region is the result of the failed domestic institutions, in particular, the police, prosecution and the judiciary and hence is the central deficit in realising human rights in the region. The AHRC has been drawing the attention of national governments as well as that of the international human rights community to this issue, and has been consistently urging the international community in particular, to work with the national governments and the civil society in the region to address this perennial issue, without which there can be no visible improvement to the protection, promotion and fulfilment of human rights in the region.
Concerning India, the AHRC has reported, in the past six years, more than 500 cases with meticulously documented details, including names, dates, places and even affidavits of victims of torture. Each of these cases, reported through the Urgent Appeals programme of the AHRC, has been reported to the Government of India, the respective state governments and the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture calling for an immediate intervention and necessary action. The AHRC has reported when the elected representatives and the law enforcement officers in the country have publically stated that they believe in torture as an effective and necessary tool for crime investigation. The national media has reported at least a dozen incidents in the past 36 months where uniformed police officers where documented torturing suspects in full public view. The AHRC has consistently argued with evidence, that today torture in India is not a mere tool for crime investigation, but it is more often used for extracting bribes, that it promotes corruption, is used for silencing political dissent and to instil fear in the population. The AHRC has argued with proof that torture is most often used against the poor and members of the minority communities. The Supreme Court of India, over the years and on several occasions, has held that the practice of torture is widespread in India and the Court has repeatedly ordered the government to take remedial actions to contain it. The National Human Rights Commission and the short-lived National Police Commission has recommended the Government of India that unless the police is trained and equipped to discharge their responsibilities, that meets the operative standards of a civilian service in a democratic state, the police will continue to use torture as a crude tool to meet their ends. Yet, the government of India has done nothing to address the issue so far.
The farcical approach of the Government of India concerning this serious issue that has made disastrous dents upon the very notion of democracy in the country is evident from the 242-worded law that it passed in the lower house of the Indian Parliament - the Lok Sabha - this year and claimed it to be the law that would suffice the need of the time and will enable the country to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and is thereby equipped to end torture in India. The AHRC's analysis of the issue is now available in its most recent issue of Article 2, which is available here.
In states like Chhattisgarh and Orissa, where the national government as well as the state administrations are engaged in countering modern India's product to the region - the Naxalites - resulting out of the despicable neglect of the needs of its rural population, the police as well as state sponsored private militia like the Salwa Judum, are engaged in widespread use of torture with impunity. Conditions in Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir is the several folds multiplied effect of the same nemesis, where the Indian armed forces, armoured with the statutory immunity provided by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is in operation. It defies commonsense and insults intellect to expect a government that has done practically nothing to prevent torture in rest of the country where it has to fight no armed insurgents, not to allow its armed units stationed in Manipur or Jammu and Kashmir to practice torture or murder civilians.
Those who are from these states, including human rights defenders who have dared to speak against the government, have faced the wrath of the Indian administration. Internationally acclaimed human rights defender and lawyer, Mr. Parvez Imroz, from Jammu and Kashmir is yet to be allowed to travel outside India, since the government has denied him a passport. Human rights defenders in Manipur are afraid that they would be arrested, tortured and even murdered at the behest of the central government or the absolutely corrupt state administration, should they dare to speak about torture or about state-sponsored murders. Environmental activist and human rights defender, Mr. Jiten Yumnam, in Manipur was arrested last year and charged with a fabricated case registered under the non-bailable provisions of the draconian National Security Act, 1980 only because he has been vocal against corruption within the Manipur state administration. Jiten was arrested from Imphal airport, while he was preparing to travel to New Zealand to participate in an international human rights consultation.
Yet, in response to the WikiLeaks news, the government of India has officially responded that torture in India is its internal affair. The government spokesperson has claimed that the government views the news as not serious enough to make a detailed response. Indeed this is expected. It is the same response of the government whenever it is questioned about yet another brutal form of human rights violation practiced in India, caste-based discrimination. What the government fails to admit is that discrimination has never been an internal affair of India, though India still has a caste-enslaved population estimated to constitute 20 percent of the country's population, unable to free from this brutal social and structural evil. Neither are torture or extrajudicial executions, issues remote and irrelevant, to remain as a miniscule family feud between Indians. These are crimes having universal jurisdiction, that today, the rest of the world consider these crimes as crimes against humanity.
If the arguments advanced by the government of India are to be accepted, by condoning apartheid, India was interfering in South Africa's internal affairs and thereby breaching international law. India could also be held responsible for violating state sovereignty and international law for participating in the UN intervention in Rwanda. Lt. General Shiva Kumar, the third and the last Force Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda could be then held for leading an international invasion of Rwanda.
A government that condones caste based discrimination, or torture or extrajudicial executions disserve only contempt. Any government that obstructs the punishment and prevention calls for global humiliation. Its leaders can be prosecuted and punished if they travel to civilised jurisdictions.
Or is it that the government of India believes that Indians are not human. Conversely, is it that the government of India that is inhuman?
INDIA: Can there be a partially honest judiciary?
The simmering debate between three senior judges in India, involving the suspect in a criminal case and a former Union Minister from Tamilnadu state, Mr. A. Raja, and his alleged attempt to influence the court to obtain bail for the suspect with the assistance of the former Chairperson of the Tamilnadu and Pondicherry Bar Council, Mr. R. K. Chandramohan, has once again brought the lingering question of judicial independence and accountability in the country into the forefront of national debates. Of the three judges involved in the debate, one is a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, Justice H. L. Gokhale, the other is the former Chief Justice of India who is now the current Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission and the third judge is a former judge of the Madras High Court, Justice Regupathi. Chandramohan, the lawyer involved in the case has been temporarily suspended from practice and from the powerful post he occupied at the Bar Council, as it's Chairperson.
Four central questions that should be addressed and clarified in this issue are:
(1) Why did the courts -- the Madras High Court, when one of its judges were approached in his chamber, by none other than the Chairperson of the State Bar Council intervening criminally in the judicial process, and the Supreme Court of India, when its Chief Justice was addressed by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court at the request of the judge who was approached by the lawyer -- fail to immediately take actions against the bail petitioner, the lawyer and the minister?
(2) What prevented Justice Regupathi from initiating criminal proceedings against the lawyer, the accused and the minister when they tried to interfere with the court proceedings? The judge was empowered to do so. The courts in India have done it on several occasions in the past. The Indian courts have even misused the contempt of court proceedings often when the judges faced public criticism. Most of these cases involved, in lay language, 'small fries'. But in this case, which involved a powerful lawyer and a minister in the Union Cabinet, the judge appeared to be seeking consensus from his senior colleagues. One cannot be blamed if it is said that in cases involving powerful persons the court hesitates to act.
(3) What prompted the minister or his lawyer to engage in this otherwise audacious attempt of illegally approaching a High Court Judge to decide a case in favour of a particular person? Is it a practice that in this instance got exposed? It is difficult to believe that any lawyer worthy of his salt will dare to do such a task, risking his career. In this case, the lawyer involved is not a novice. He is the Chairperson of the State Bar Council.
(4) Why did not the State Bar Council take action when the judge himself first exposed the case, by his remarks in open court? The Bar Council is a statutory body empowered to take disciplinary actions against lawyers for misconduct. How did such a person become the Chairperson of the Bar Council? Is this the standard of the Bar Council? Now that the case has been exposed, what action has been taken to find the truth behind the matter other than the suspension of the lawyer from the Bar? Why no enquiry is initiated into the case?
Indeed these are some of the many questions that anyone could ask, coming to know the details about the case. Unfortunately, it is a sad irony in India that none in the country would dare to ask such questions, since that could amount to contempt, the way this miserably misused law is practiced in India.
The case not only casts shadow upon a former Union Minister or a retired Chief Justice or other judges in the country. The incident is one more indicator to the fact that it is time to seriously consider looking into the state of affairs within the Indian justice system. The country's judges must know that accountability, transparency and honesty are virtues that they can afford to insist upon the rest of the world only if they practice it among themselves.
The judiciary, irrespective of the geopolitical and legislative environment in which it works, has an inherent problem. It is the very notion of justice. In that, there cannot be a 'partially honest' judiciary. The nature of the institution demands absoluteness. It can be only either completely open, transparent and honest or absolutely dishonest. Justice cannot be 80 percent honest.
Those judges in India, who claim that 20 percent of their colleagues are dishonest, also have the responsibility to disclose the names and details of those judges who are corrupt, so that the litigants and lawyers can avoid such judges. There can never be percentages of honesty and dishonesty awarded to justice. Sadly, in India, it is so. Even worse is the fact that many in the country feel contented about the so-called 80 percent honest judges and thus about the judiciary as an institution. Any comments against it, other than from judges of the Supreme Court, warrants immediate contempt of court action.
This leads to the following additional questions. Can India continue to afford to have a judiciary that house judges having their names tainted with corruption? How long can the Supreme Court afford to have judges who will be transferred to High Courts in Sikkim or Guwahati, whenever their names and credential starts appearing in every place where a judge or his name should not be mentioned? How long can the Indian judiciary expect the people in Assam, Sikkim and Manipur to face the burden of having some of the tainted names in the country's justice system?
What would have been the approach of the higher judiciary, had the judges involved are from the lower courts, like a Magistrate or a Munsiff? Would the Supreme Court or the High Court allow a retired lower court judge to make such remarks like those made by the senior judges in this case? If not, what additional rights do these senior judges have than their colleagues in the lower courts?
Last but not least, how long can India continue to have this mess, what Indians today call as their judiciary?
INDIA: 10 questions to Chidambaram on Manipur
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) appreciates the effort taken by the Home Minister of India in undertaking a visit to Manipur. Manipur is one of the states in India with a poor human rights record. During the past three years the number of encounter killings reported from the state has steadily increased, until the state administration faced severe criticism for the public execution of two persons on July 23, 2009 by the state police. Mr. P. Chidambaram and a team of officers from the Union Home Ministry are visiting Manipur today and tomorrow.
The Home Minister is known to be having a professional as well as no-nonsense approach in work. Many in India hold him at a high esteem, referring to the Minister as a person who assesses officers and institutions under his command on the basis of their performance. Based on these references, the AHRC wishes to place before the Home Minister the following questions, so that the Minister will be able to help the state administration and the people of Manipur in finding a sensible solution to the six decade long internal conflict in that state.
1. Can the state administration account for the money that it has spent in the past five years for countering insurgent activities in the state? Can it provide the exact details as to who was paid what amount? It is not required for the state government to publically account every single Rupee of the tax money that it has spent on countering insurgency. But it must be able to produce records to the satisfaction of the Union Home Ministry for at least those expenses, where the spending was Rs. 200,000 or above in a single payment.
The AHRC appreciates the value and sensitivity of 'human.int.' in counter insurgency work. Yet, the state administration must be able to account to the Union Home Ministry that supports the release of such 'Central Funds' to state government.
2. What training was provided to the Manipur State Police and its State Police Commando Unit in the past two years to deal with insurgency? Does it meet the requirements of training offered to a civilian police force that is to undertake counter insurgency activities respecting the rule of law? How many police officers have received such training?
3. What is the process of recruitment to the state police in Manipur? What is the guarantee that the candidates selected for training and appointment in the state police are not selected on the basis of bribes paid to the Chief Minister or to his party's MLAs?
The AHRC has credible information that to secure appointment as a Trainee Sub-Inspector in Manipur, a candidate is required to pay Rs. 1,400,000 to Rs. 1,800,000 as bribe to the Chief Minister or to a designated MLA as of 2010. The AHRC is informed that the officers upon appointment, realises through various means from the public the bribe they have paid to secure a job in the state police service. The AHRC also has credible information that in the process police officers are engaged in extortion, conniving with some of the criminal elements that are also listed in the prohibited organisations' list by the Union Government. It is reported that such widespread corruption is one of the important reasons for a high number of encounter killings and unabated criminal extortion in the state.
4. How many police officers have been investigated in the past three years for crimes alleged to have committed by them, in particular torture and criminal extortion? If any such investigation has been conducted, who has been prosecuted?
If not why?
5. How many instances of encounter killing -- other than the July 23 incident -- have been investigated in the past three years in Manipur? What prevents the state from complying the recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission concerning encounter killing? If the state administration has conducted such investigations, why is that the reports not sent to the Commission?
6. Why is that most cases of encounter killing show the same pattern?
Most of the cases of encounter killing documented by human rights organisations in Manipur, shows the following pattern: a person is arrested by unidentified police commandos who are often accompanied by officers from a para-military unit or from a military detachment stationed in the state; the arrested person is detained in custody illegally, often for days; later the person found dead at a distant place; the state police immediately release a press note saying that the person was shot dead in an armed encounter; weapons (mostly 0.9 mm pistols, grenades, live cartridges) are shown as recovered from the deceased insurgent.
It would be interesting for the Union Home Ministry to verify how many such recovered/seized articles are produced in courts as material objects recovered from armed insurgents. How many of such recovered materials are kept in police custody? Do they all have separate identification marks? Does the articles and their number tally with the statements issued by the state police in each case? Does the state police have any such accounting system? If so, will the state police dare to make the list public? If not why?
Will the Home Ministry be willing to undertake an impartial accounting of recovered articles? The AHRC is willing to collaborate in such a process with the Union as well as State administration.
In 2009, between January and November, the state police have reported 272 executions, which was publically admitted by Mr. Joykumar Singh, the current Director General of Police. In most of the cases, the above pattern has been noted.
This proves two things. One, it defies logic. Further it could also suggest that the state police are ill equipped and ill prepared that many persons they arrest escape from their custody. Or, it has to be assumed that the state police is well informed that at least 24 times each month in 2009, the state police were able to intercept and engage an armed insurgent invariably resulting in the murder of the armed insurgent. If the latter were the case, there must be no more armed insurgents operating openly in the state, or the insurgents are so naïve that they always expose their armed presence to the state police. None of these would satisfy commonsense or the acumen of a lawyer, which Mr. Chidambaram is.
7. Will the state administration put an end to the illegal tax collection of some of the armed insurgent groups in Manipur? It is common knowledge that in Manipur many armed insurgent groups prohibited by the Union Government have setup illegal tax collection (criminal extortion) counters adjacent to police check posts on public roads. Every person, particularly drivers in Manipur know this or are their victims. Why have the state police not stopped it? Or are they hand-in-glove with the insurgents? Or is it the police themselves posing as insurgents?
The Home Minister must know that today in Manipur, it is hard to distinguish between an insurgent and a police officer. Both kills with impunity, extorts money by force from the people and are unaccountable to everything under the sun. Can the Home Minister contribute to change this situation?
8. What plans has the state administration made and executed to regain the confidence of the public? At the moment, Manipur is like a volcano that could erupt anytime. Has the state administration taken the effort to make public its public confidence building plans if they have any? If not, what prevented them in doing so?
9. Will the Home Minister meet Ms. Irom Chanu Sharmila? Reports from India inform that the Home Minister will meet human rights activists in Imphal. Does the Home Minister see Sharmila as a threat to the peace of Manipur or a unifying factor to its fragile social fabric?
10. Will the Home Minister make a public report about his visit to Manipur? The public need not know the nuances of the state's security scenario. But every Indian, especially each person in Manipur has a right to know what is their future in terms of their safety and security. Today they have only stories of fear and anger to say about their Chief Minister and the administration he leads. Can the Union Home Minister bring a difference?
If not what hope does Manipuries have of being part of the world's largest democracy?
INDIA: The banality of it all and the inability to mourn
The allegations of corruption involving a former Union Minister, some corporate entities, the judges of the Madras High Court and the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India reported by the national media this week, in essence, indicates the state of affairs of the rule of law institutions in the world's largest democracy. In addition to widespread corruption, three other important issues that continued to negate the functioning framework of a mature administration essential for a democratic republic to perform are the use of torture with impunity, caste based discrimination and the failure of the government to address widespread malnutrition and hunger.
None of these concerns are new in the Indian context. In fact it is these evils that sustain the country's internal power structures. What is alarming however is the banality with which these serious concerns are perceived in India. Today, the torture and extra-judicial execution of a person or the death of an infant from acute malnutrition or the brutal discriminatory practices committed against the members of the Dalit community have no 'news value' in the country. Neither are India's justice institutions in a position to address any of these fundamental negations of justice and equality.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in its 2010 Human Rights Report on India has analysed these issues. A pre-print release of the full country report on India titled 'Democratic pretentions and administrative follies' can be downloaded here:
Corruption alone is not that diminishes the efficacy of the justice institutions in India. These institutions are plagued with a series of hurdles, most importantly, the absence of a proper legal framework and resources, unreasonable delay in adjudications and unbridled political interference. To top it all, the intellectual framework with which the country's justice institutions operate is either retarded or in a state of suspended animation. This has made important state institutions like the police, prosecution and the judiciary in India unable to withstand or counter malicious attempts upon their independence resulting in their appalling inability to respect, protect and promote human rights. This has led to a situation where the defective elements within the justice institutions being able to considerably damage the inner core of these institutions from the inside.
The democratic institutions in India, including its large body of elected representatives of all tiers, are today a shadow of their past. They resemble a termite-ridden and wilted tree waiting for a strong wind to collapse. Those who benefit from this, including national and international entities, are a minority who are privileged to use every possible opening to unsympathetically exploit a weak democratic structure for private profits.
Therefore today, forced eviction of the tribal communities in India from their hearth and hut is considered to be essential and justifiable to feed the greed of a selected few. Repressive laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 are increasingly used to smother political dissent. Even the highest court of the country condones the brute force, inhumanness and injustice behind this draconian law.
The elected representatives, irrespective of the political parties they represent and the position they occupy, unethically benefit from the situation by reining the government and leading it into directions that suit short-sighted political equations, once again at the cost of pushing millions of Indians to peril. The absence of justice in India's weakening and narrowing democratic space is literally denying the country's poor even their right to mourn.
However, India is yet not like some of its neighbours where the hope for a better future is virtually lost. The report submitted yesterday by the Parliamentary Select Committee that reviewed the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 in the upper house of the Indian parliament, the Rajya Sabha, is an indication to the fact that the inner ember of reasoning and justice is still not dead in India. While the complete text of the report is awaited, credible reports suggest that the Committee has taken the bold and essential step to literally rewrite the law from its original draft to a meaningful legislation that could contribute considerably to end the culture of injustice in India.
The frail life within the foundations of this seriously ill democracy must be recovered. This requires the vigil and determination of the Indians to save the country from its present drifting along the downward spiral of destruction, and bring it ashore to repair and develop it into a mature democratic republic that India resolved to become 64 years before.
Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R.
Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP
WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA
Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e – Voice For Justice
Periodicity : WEEKLY
Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB
Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .
Monetary gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.
Owner/editor/printer/publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.
Nationality : INDIAN
Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice is donated to JSS Medical College , Mysore ( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.
Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy.
Home page :
http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/ ,http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/ ,
, http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ , http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com ,
Contact : email@example.com , nag...@hotmail.com ,
Cell : 91 9341820313
I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. one crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.
date : 03/12/2011…………………………..your's sincerely,
place : India…………………………………Nagaraja.M.R.