Monsoon Session 2016: Non-comprehensive Observations

I think it is worth sharing, on this blog, some observations i've made on social media (Facebook), by way of analysing some of the speeches and discussions made in both the houses of the Indian Parliament in the recently-conducted one-month Monsson Session that comprised twenty working days.

It must be noted that these observations are based on a non-systematic viewing of live transmissions of the proceedings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on LSTV and RSTV respectively.

The comments, observations and analyses are in conversational style, and not meant to be academic or journalistic in nature. The choice of topics is a combination of priorities, as well as of chance (of having been tuned in, to a particular channel), which was not entirely planned or systematic.

Prior to the session, one had posted a list of topics that one had hoped would come up during the session. Most of these topics (for discussion, as well as as a part of legislative business), did form a part of the business of both houses of parliament. Further notes, views on specific legislations and so on appear on the Facebbok timeline, which is open to Follow.

Since these observations were not intended to address only my party workers and persons (of the Congress party), but to reach out to all those involved in legislative processes, as well as a wider audience, the tone is not overly political. That, one might assume, was reserved for the phonecalls and conversations that might have taken place beyond this arena.

The following is a current non-text-edited compilation of the Facebook posts (Posted daily during the session). It includes the Day 3 Observations that were posted earlier on this blog.

Monsoon Session 2016: Non-comprehensive Observations compiled from one’s daily Facebook updates Ver.01,13.08.2016,VSD.

Monsoon Session Non-comprehensive Observations 2016 Day 1 (Indian Parliament)

Yesterday, after the new MPs took their oaths, watched bits of the session on RSTV (Rajya Sabha TV channel, with live broadcasts of the upper house debates).

The minister for water resources, uma bharati, i was quite impressed by, as far as her enthusiasm to clean the ganges, apparent ability to grasp matters within her ministry, and by her comfortable (if saffron), sartorial bearing (ease). Now, she needs to be briefed appropriately, and encouraged to approach aspects of water quality, quantity, and equitable access of all water-bodies with equal fervour.

In fact, her ministry should be roped in to assert its views on how civil nuclear energy is a water guzzler and polluter, and to advise the government to put an immediate end to all plans for civil nuclear energy, and to instead divert funds for solar, offshore wind and other appropriate renewables from a water-priority point of view.

As far as the debate on Kashmir goes, i watched parts of it, and hope that the Cong party's views and co-operation will be utilized well by the government.

As far as the left parties' demand for a discussion on price rise goes, one expects it to take place today, and am glad that the VP allowed question hour to take place yesterday, so that important matters, including sanitation, could be discussed in the rajya sabha.

Day 2 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

Both the houses worked yesterday, so i suppose those reporting on events must've had to switch channels rapidly (like some of us self-appointed analysts do). Either that, or they might've focused their attention to either LS or RS, like in the old days when there was no television coverage...it was humanly possible to be in only one gallery a time then!

Anyway, point being: all the standard coverage and analysis is going on. One is looking at the edge...the what-else factor.

So, i noticed that approx an hour was devoted to matters requiring attention (caught snatches of that, and i hope that each of those whose responsibility it is, do take the required follow-up action with reference to that particular discussion slot). (Need to check the rule book to see how it is different from 'matters of urgent national importance' in terms of 'pre' and 'post' procedural aspects).

Anyway, one of the matters that was brought up was about tamil fishermen and sri lankan authorities detaining them, which seems to be becoming quite prevalent. i think (and i've been saying this for some time, and the govt. of telangana state seems to have listened to me), that each state government should have a foreign affairs ministry, and this would also be useful in terms of systematically keeping the central government in synch with actions at a policy-level (no policy differences in the current fisherfolk area, but would make for better governance in various other fields).

As far as the discussion on the heritage building (in this case, an ambedkar building) was concerned, i have to take a step back from what is perceived as my pro-dalit politics, and point out that my approach to heritage buildings (there are various perspectives, i have a clear perspective on this)- i do not accord total sanctity to the preserving of structures as they are; i give primacy and control to the rightful owner/s of the said property/ies; in the event that it is decided by the owners that a structure will be conserved, i would prefer the conservation activity to look at it as a living monument, which, to me, loosely translates to: relevant/thematic modernized/evolved upgradations (or downsizing or displacement) of the structures. i do realise that a lot of subjective terms have been used, but consensus on the meaning, on a case-to-case basis for each of those terms would need to be worked out and applied. (The same spectrum of opinions and similar politics that exists in the area of wild life conservation applies to heritage-monument conservation).

Day 3 Monsoon Session Non-comprehensive Observations

The 20th July 2016 debate in the Lok Sabha, India, on the situation in Kashmir (VSD’s observations for social media) –Discussion under Rule 193

I have watched, on LSTV, the debate on the situation in Kashmir that took place in the Lok Sabha yesterday. The Minister is scheduled to reply today. One has not opened a single newspaper, or read a single article on the debate, and so none of what one says here today is coloured by press.

All parties were genuinely unanimous in re-asserting their stand that all of Jammu and Kashmir are an integral part of India.

Many Muslim members of parliament were fielded as speakers by all parties.

The intent of the house seems to be to extend developmental works, funds and amendments to the law to enable better governance in the area, keeping in mind that we live in a fast-globalising world in which the peoples of this subcontinent can find common ground vis-a-vis positive aspects (and struggles) of the histories of the good peoples of the earth.

There seems to be a consensus on the need for an all-party delegation and/or committee.

The terms of reference for such a committee or delegation would be important. Points for the ToR may be drawn from the points made by members of various parties in the parliamentary debate.

I hope none of the pronouncements amount to undue muscle-flexing.

It has been many years since i have made such diligent notes (except during the annual budget for the past decade and a half). But it made sense to have done so yesterday, perched here at the seat of our imaginary earth empire!

I share with you, my surgical observations:

Some of the specific points made by each party that must be noted are:

INC and BJP: The principal opposition party and ruling party fielded talented speakers. While these two speeches were political, the tone and tenor pointed towards overall consensus in the house.

Samajwadi Party (SP) : While Mulayam Singh Yadav said he was reading out from a written speech (which, i suppose, would be submitted for the records), he did digress once, while turning the page, to mention the presence of the Chinese factor. It also seems that the written speech also later had similar concerns about China.

Shiv Sena (SS): This party pointed out/made a mention of Imran Khan of the PTI, saying his party was going one way, various other wings of state and parties going their own ways, while pointing out that there is turmoil or confusion within Pakistan.

The TDP (Telugu Desam Party) drew attention to the fact that security and surveillance need to respond to emerging technologies, and also ended the speech by saying that Article 370 of the Indian Constitution should be revisited.

The BJD spoke for the root causes of suffering in the valley, and stressed on the need for an appropriate development agenda.

The TRS (Telangana Rashtra Samiti) said that more channels of communication should be created, and touched upon the role of social media and the internet. He also said that he has heard that there are posters in Pakistan saying that there is marshal rule.

The CPI(M) spoke against the recent use of disproportionate force in the valley. The party said that when Pakistan is wrong, we have to show how we are right. The party is for an all-party meet, and said that even the existing two reports (by the committee of interlocutors, and another report), must be discussed as a part of the agenda of such an all party meeting.

The YSRCP spoke of the neglect of J&K, and said there’s been no genuine dialogue with the people of Kashmir. That only sudden secretary and joint secretary level statements are seen, and asked: What is wrong with taking to the separatists. The member also said that his personal view was: That as far as China’s role is concerned, if a 1962 is repeated, we may suffer a humiliating defeat. Suggested that there should be a separate central level ministry for J&K, like a department had been dedicated to the North East.

The NCP made a reference to India’s permanent representative at the UN. Also suggested that people from J&K should be integrated into the all India civil services at all levels.

Siromani Akali Dal (SAD) Said there is a need to investigate corruption in the J&K administration. Also said it is not a law and order problem there, but that it requires a political solution. Said an all party committee should be made, and the people consulted, on what to do.

MJ Akbar, Minister of State for External Affairs spoke. Also because of his association with Kashmir. Mentioned, in the course of his speech, that Saugato Roy of TMC is his good friend. Discussed points of History, nation-formation, one-nation, two-nation, divisive or unifying. Said it is not a geographical war. It’s ideological, existential.

Rashtryia Janata Dal (RJD) The member from Bihar said he is an old friend of MJ Akbar. He said Kashmir is a part of India. We need unity, not violence. Said we should have learnt lessons from the Pathankot incident.

AAP made a general appeal for peace.

RLSP said rise above party lines and bring Kashmiris into the mainstream.

JKPDP (The J&K chief minister’s party) went into the History of the Independence era, and mentioned the Tribals in that context, as also the Chinese presence. Said Sheikh Abdullah took the post without proper democratic elections. He said he now supports the Indian PM’s road-map, that should have: Balance; Patience; Positive Approach; Empathy, sympathy; Dialogue. He said he and his family could even be in danger for making this speech in parliament. It appeared like he then dedicated a few sentences to conceptually/poetically directly addressing Pakistan with a spirit of conciliation and friendship.

AIUDF: This member said he is originally from Bombay, and representing Assam. Said it was time to give Pakistan a ‘moohtod jawab’. He said an all-party youth delegation should go to AJK.

INLD: Asked if Kashmir is a problem, or whether a few people are deliberately keeping this conflict alive. Said that rather than a few bureaucrats in Delhi making the Kashmir policy, soldiers who have fought there should be consulted. Said ten percent of soldiers were from Haryana (the home state of the member speaking).

JD(U) Made a general brief speech.

IUML: Criticized the AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act). Said terrorism is engineered by Pakistan. Supports government in its fight against terrorism. Spoke of the development indicators in the state and said people are dissatisfied and disillusioned. Said wealth should be distributed judiciously. Said Kashmir is an ‘integrated’ part of India (assume he meant integral?)

C.K. Sangma made his inaugural speech (didn’t notice which party he represents): Said that there is a need to invest in better infrastructure along our borders, rather than place jawans at various locations. Spoke of the need for Educational, Social and Economic activity along the borders. Called for repeal of AFSPA. Said our intelligence networks can help to bring the human touch, as well as to identity specific targets rather than targeting civilians in general. Also said how we treat those who surrender is important. Said that the 6th Schedule amendment in an accord in the north east should be made immediately as promised. Called for an all-party delegation to go to J&K.

Asaudin Owaisi of AIMIM: Said UPA govt. threw the interlocutors report not into the deep freezer, but into the dustbin. Asked BJP why it hasn’t started talking to all the groups there, considering its party member is the deputy CM. Wants AFSPA removed. Asked if the govt. will set up a commission of enquiry (in connection with the recent incident?) Said an all-party delegation should be sent to the state. Also made an appeal to the people of the state to strengthen India, and that his party would be there to help them.

Adhir Ranjan Choudhary (the second speaker from the INC, Indian National Congress) spoke as a historian. Made a mention of the ‘khatarnakh’ (dangerous) ISIS doctrine. Said this ISIS phenomenon could enter from our bordering countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The next speaker for the day (missed which party), said that Pakistan has a hand in the situation, and that it looks out for such opportunities. He said the situation should not deteriorate. He asserted that there is a democratically elected government in J&K. Said the junta (people) there believe in Indianness. He said some shopkeepers instigate the people at/with Pakistan’s directions. Said some netas don’t want peace in J&K.

RSP: Said the central and state government have failed to handle the unrest of the youth. Said we are only talking about geographical territory, but we have to look at social integrity. Pointed out, from a reading of news reports, 5 points of conflict. (unemployment; hindu colony plans; irresponsible statements by people in administration; Art. 370; disproportionate use of force. Also said that today (day of making the speech), Pakistan had submitted petitions to the UN and to Ban Ki Moon.

AITC: Speaks as an academic historian. Says govt. should talk to all shades of opinion. Says no simple plebiscite (plebiscitory) solution is possible here. Said we should talk to our own citizens. And the people should talk to each other. Approval for solutions should be people-centric. Should take a leaf from the page of the northern Ireland peace process (black Friday agreement). Made references to Emperors in history, who were able to maintain a minimal role for themselves, and decentralize a number of functions. Pointed out to the potential of the federal structure in India.

RJD: Kashmir does not need an economic solution. It is a political and social solution that is required.

Day 4 Monsoon Session Non-comprehensive Observations

The Home Minister replied to the previous day’s Lok Sabha debate on Kashmir, and said, among other things, that he would speak to the CM, and visit the state. (Though it must be noted that i don’t think any party had particularly demanded that he go there himself).

He also said that an all-party meeting had been called in the state.

Later in the Lok Sabha, an amendment to an existing act, to include a technical institute for the state of Andhra Pradesh was brought about. The INC was well represented by its former minister of state for HRD, Shashi Tharoor.

The main debate in the Rajya Sabha (a ‘short duration discussion’ that, for good reason, went on for hours), was on the recent incidents of atrocities on Dalits in various parts of the country.

I think i missed the first few speakers, but caught most of the debate. The debate did serve to reiterate, enlist and draw attention to the fact that such incidents have been on the rise over the past two years. Specific cases, as well as statistics were discussed by the members.

The status of the Dalit sub-plan after the abolition of the Planning Commission was sought to be known/clarified. Attention was drawn to the decline in fund allocation to the dalit sub-plan. Attention was drawn to the criminal justice system and its shortfalls in the context of atrocities against dalits. The rise of superstitious mind-sets that promote the caste system and prevent social mobility were said to be a point of concern. It was stated that Dalit converts to Christianity should be able to avail of the elements of affirmative action that Dalits are entitled to, as in the case of Dalits who convert to other religions.

It was felt that the ideals of the Indian Constitution are being sought to be replaced with the thinking of the controversial Manusmriti, and that the uprising against the Gujarat incident (where those who were skinning dead cows were attacked), was spontaneous, and not politically engineered. It was felt that the PM should have been present for the debate.

The Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment condemned the Gujarat incident, and focused on the amendments that the government has brought about, to the Atrocities Act.

The Home Minister, in his reply, said that while politicians also have to be socio-political workers, all other social and cultural organizations should take the responsibility to bring about social change.

Clearly, the government and it’s advisors consist of many forces, and to keep any extreme elements in check, all progressive forces within the powers-that-be need to be as alert and proactive as the opposition itself.

Day 5 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

Please note that the RS has extended the time limit for the committee that is looking into amendments to the prevention of corruption law. If there is still time, those who think they need to brief the committee on any points not covered so far, should do so.

The RS, under Rule 267, took up for discussion, the controversial incident of the AAP MP who put, live, on youtube, his drive to parliament house, and the process of ballotting of parliamentary questions, referring to the process as a lucky draw (which it is). It was also pointed out by a member, that this discussion was not “government business”.

Concerns of security and breach of privilege were raised in both houses, and in the LS, it was announced that the speaker has received a notice for the motion of privilege from a list of MPs. Another MP has submitted a notice for an adjournment motion, with some having sought for the issue to be raised immediately. The security breach of 2001 was recalled, to stress the importance of security.

All parties condemned this act, one party (i think it was Sharad Yadav), did observe that it was immature behaviour.

This first-time MP of the AAP, that takes strong stands against corruption, belongs to Punjab, where state assembly elections are to be held in the near future. The MP is a comedian, and uploading this post was an activity that was to be viewed as a part of an ongoing connect with a fan-base. (The AAP, in its early days, did encourage sting operations to expose corruption, but the MP says that this post was only to educate people on the ballotting process).

If any attention needs to be drawn, or debate initiated, to the balloting process or other parliamentary procedures, members have already been oriented into parliamentary processes, and may be reminded of the same.

The alleged security breaches should be enlisted (photography and/or videography) in the house without required permission, and action taken against all who those who are known to have done this, with retrospective effect. If there are no clear rules or guidelines regarding photography and videography in parliament, and it is felt that these need to be formulated, this should be done. (Does the reach of zoom lenses of the OB vans of media channels fall beyond these zones?)

Keeping all the above factors in mind, the honourable members and the Speaker of the LS may decide how to best deal with the matter.

Day 6 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

In the LS, while matters of urgent public importance were being brought up by members, Mallikarjun Kharge of the INC brought up the urgent topic of the missing Indian Air Force transport plane. He said that the families of all those on board were worried, and called for the defence minister to tell the country, through the house, what happened.

My views:

It seems to me, that while search operations have been expanded, and ISRO has also been called in (this could have been done earlier), to make a sweep, there continue to be pertinent questions such as: since there is still no signal, it cannot be assumed that the craft crashed. (While this might be the most likely possibility, and search and contact operations should continue, the other possibilities must be discussed and acted upon if required).

This would include a vast range of possibilities, right from deliberate diversion or hijack, to scientific experimentation, unknown scientific impacts etc.

As far as the hijack angle goes, as we know, there is the entire gamut of debate, and existing law and policy status about whether or not to negotiate with hijackers. One wonders whether, in the light of this, back channel negotiations might actually be going on in some way.

Another aspect of this incident that needs to be noted is the timing, and its correlation with other events: The parliament makes speeches where it is united in asserting India's position on J&K; We are told that a transport craft carrying people from the army, navy, airforce, coast guard, and relatives of these people has disappeared not far from the South China sea and that it was routinely equipped with dinghys (small boats) and nutrition; India starts asking its diplomats in Pakistan to bring their children out of schools there, and out of the country; Some Chinese journalists are asked, by India, to go back to China, as they were said to be acting beyond their role here. Considering these are nuclear-armed countries, these signs have to be strung together, and watched carefully.

The PIL in the Supreme Court of India on the Kohinoor diamond, needs to be used as a tool of diplomatic outreach, perhaps to set up a regional organization associated with some aspects of co-operation in culture and aspects of governance. This could be done, using the cultural themes of the silk route, string of pearls, the uniting potential of raising nostalgia of past empires and projecting these into the future in a modern-day context by interpreting the present state-of-the-art of decentralized so-called royalty on the subcontinent.

In the RS, luckily, the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill did not come up (and, hopefully, this will give the government time to make and circulate a slew of amendments before it comes back).

 Instead, there was an interesting argument on parliamentary procedure (rule 24), as members attempted to convince the chair to take up a private member's bill (usually taken up on Fridays), in connection with the special status for the state of Andhra Pradesh. The house was adjourned.

Day 7 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

1. I would like to look into the efficiency and shortfalls of the process of giving notice, by members, for various discussions on the floor of the house. Going by what some of the members were claiming (such as Jaya Bachan of the SP saying that she has given notice, several times, to discuss crimes against girls, and the matter, despite giving notice, had not come up in the house). This was in the context of Kanimozhi of the DMK asking for a discussion on the rape of a four year old girl child, and other similar crimes.

2. The defence minister said, among other things in the RS, that four or five blips might have been noticed, in connection with the missing IAF transport craft that had left the Tambaram air base for Port Blair in the Andaman and Nicobar islands.

3. Regarding India’s view on the international arbitrators’ decision on the south china sea, the defence minister, among other things connected to maritime security, said that while Indian ships conduct exercises of joint patrol, joint patrol is not an aspect of maritime security. He said India’s freedom of navigation cannot be compromised.

4. In the context of the discussion on the amendments to the bill on the prohibition and regulation of child labour, the issue of whether or not the law is in synch with existing international conventions on the subject was raised. Members also called for a policy-level alignment of other related laws at the central as well as state levels.

5. While discussing the capital expenditure and revenue deficit as outlined in the 13th Finance Commission, the Minister pointed out the aspect of continuity in governance (of the work done by the previous central government), in pointing out how to interpret some of the statistics with an overall long-term approach. (However, this might not be an adequate answer to the specific supplementary questions asked by Derek O’ Brian of the Trinamool Congress, about the BRGF and another fund).

6. The MoS for Civil Aviation, among other topics, described the difference between the Airport Development Fund and the User Development Fund. Whether or not this, as well as other aspects of the answers, all related to macro-economic contexts, are in line with what is appropriate for the country, need to be analysed with the help of a set of honest economists who represent varying perspectives.

7. In the discussion on health and family welfare and Ambulances, it was answered that some aspects of ambulances fall under the Ministry of Road and Transport. Also: for central funds on ambulances and air ambulances, states will have to ask for it. My comment: Please also discuss policy and impacts of the use of civil aviation drones in this context.

8. Sports: The minister, Vijay Goel, said it is the work of State Governments to promote sports, and the work of the central government to achieve excellence. Dileep Tirkey of the BJD, Orissa (a tribal sports person), called for a Tribal Sports academy. It was pointed out that 80 percent of those who represent India internationally are from tribal areas. It is my view that these observations should be read with the demands and requirements of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, and the necessary co-ordination be ensured. Prem Chand Gupta of the RJD said that like China, Russia, other CIS and western countries, a policy whereby sports can be developed should be formulated.

9. Mahanadi River: The Mahanadi River, and the connected states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh were discussed in both houses. Experts’ detailed analyses should be accessed.

 10. OROP was brought up again. The minister reiterated that the five-year frequency for bridging the gap had been agreed to, and is being adhered to. Regarding other questions asked via a supplementary question, it was said that the relevant committee headed by a retired chief justice, has been given an extension, and it was hoped the committee would come out with a report soon.

Day 8 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

1. In terms of parliamentary procedure, it was interesting to note the comments in the RS pertaining to the legal status of documents placed on the table. (In this case, an order of one of the high courts). It was said that the order was neither being invoked, nor was it being said that it was being implemented. It was merely being put on record.

It is my view that this distinction at this stage is important, keeping in mind the fact that the judiciary continues to push the envelope when it comes to the scope of its powers and functions. All departments and ministries (the government), must further streamline its response-code to all such papers that are placed on the table, including reports of international meetings, agreements etc. that also get placed on the table from time to time.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that there should be specific ministry-wise fora to place some of these documents on record in a transparent fashion, so that they do not have to all make it to parliament.

This is also significant from the point of view of the fact that many state legislative assemblies are also probably conducting similar processes that need similar adjustments.

2. In the LS, Sushmita Dev’s question on what affirmative action the government plans to take, in the context of the work of TRAI, such as prices for marginalized classes, was a significant one, and will hopefully be attended to by the government.

3. In the LS, while discussing external affairs, and the problems of NRI women such as fraudulent marriages, the minister, Sushma Swaraj said that some of the problems were difficult to solve because of the discrepancies between Indian family law practices, and the approach of foreign courts, especially in the context of privacy laws and ex parte orders for divorce.

It appeared that the minister wished to draw attention to this topic (other questions also seemed to serve the purpose of showcasing the work of the ministry).

Therefore, it is important to dwell upon the reasons for which this issue was highlighted. In the reply, the minister just said foreign courts, without naming countries. But this sounded, overall, like an attempt to assert the scope of India’s codified Hindu Personal Law, which ties in with recent apparent attempts to test the waters for bringing about a particular brand of an uniform civil code within the country as well.

 4. In the LS, Ranjeet Ranjan of the INC (who reminded the house that she is a lawn tennis player), called for a CBI investigation into the case of the sports person who was on the Indian Olympic squad, but who failed the drug test because he had been surreptitiously administered drugs through his food.

It must also be noted, regarding the surreptitious administration of substances to citizens, that all such apprehensions, especially by those in public life, as well as those who take strong stands on issues, must not be brushed away as non-serious.

The likelihood of so-called security systems etc. that conduct similar activities while attempting to communicate with, or supposedly investigate/harass sections of the population based on stereotyping must be discussed, demystified, and dealt with.

The starting point would be to educate the ordinary citizen/s about these (in every likelihood) rampant phenomena, so as to not have them become unwitting obstacles to problem-solving.

5. A BJP MP, stating that a particular area was near uranium mines, asked for a nuclear power plant to be set up.

This would be highly unadvisable for a number of reasons, including what is inappropriate for India’s energy mix; human development indicators; environmental factors, especially (but not limited to), the protection of water resources.

6. The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Kiren Rijiju) was in the house while discussing Ceasefire with Insurgent Groups in Assam.

The Minister pointed out that as far as the imposition of AFSPA on the 20 Km stretch along the Assam – Meghalaya border was concerned, the Home Ministry has been taking the lead, and the situation has improved greatly. He also pointed out that the AFSPA has to be renewed there every six months, procedurally speaking.

Therefore, this seemed to be an indication that the lifting of the AFSPA on that stretch could be a reality soon, and it is hoped that the progressive work is ongoing. It would be useful for political parties to look into this constructively, and without incident, as that would defeat the very purpose of all peace efforts.

7. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act was passed. A set of contentious aspects were brought up by various members, most of which were answered satisfactorily.

However, a point that all members failed to notice or bring up, was that while the act exempts the machinations of the Hindu Joint Family set-up, and religious bodies, trusts etc. from being under the purview of this act, it does not exempt Tribal property systems from the purview of the act (this is a point separate from the point on scheduled areas brought up by Sangma).

 I would interpret this glaring lacuna as the NDA government attempting to impose the essence of the controversial Manusmriti. It would be better to convince them that Sanatan Dharm includes all humans who are not a part of any religion, not even the imposition (by discouraging, and not facilitating their choice of remaining non-religiously aligned) of the operation of feudal Hindu Family Laws on adivasi communities, which is otherwise available as an option, but under the umbrella of Constitutional safeguards such as right to equality (including women)...this is not to say that all adivasi customs stand constitutional scrutiny, but certainly, in the present context, it would serve to force the tribas to describe themselves as Hindus to avail of some of the progressive aspects of their property systems.

 8. The benami transactions  law has no teeth or implementation mechanism. The powers that be are therefore likely to opt to use it when it suits their agendas politically or financially.

Day 9 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

1. The Lok Sabha, while discussing Matters of Urgent Public Importance, among other topics, dealt with:

PLA Transgressions:

The recent incident of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China, having exchanged words with Indian (revenue? ) officials (who were in the area in connection with land records?) in Uttarakhand.

It was clarified by the central Minister, that this activity was merely a Transgression, and not an Incursion.

There exist strong protocols between the nations, on how to respond to all such transgressions in the light of the fact that both countries have differing perceptions on which the line (of control?) is.

It was pointed out that the Congress CM of the state had made a statement on the incident, and had referred to the Chinese troops and attack helicopter that were there, but left the area, as a mere transgression, and not an incursion (an incursion would be more serious).

A member pointed out that China often uses Pakistan as an excuse to push its own agendas, and that it is possible to convince Pakistan on issues, as a younger brother, but not China. (This being said due to the proximity of Pakistan, to the state of Uttarakhand).

It is my view that although what the minister has said is technically correct, there should be, within our system, a transparent, automatically initiated communication protocol, to inform the nation and the public of such incidents as the minister has done, without wasting time and resources of the people and the house by having to bring it to the public through this discussion route.

At the very least, the central minister could have made a suo moto statement, rather than having waited to be asked to provide a statement/clarification.

The missing IAF transport craft:

The BJD MP, Mahtab, said that 100 such craft had been bought from the erstwhile USSR. He said that if discussions on defence expenditure, which haven’t taken place for a long time, had taken place in the house, this matter might have been brought up.

Apparently, for all such craft, the ‘engineering part’ was with Russia, and the ‘technical part’ was with Ukraine. He said there had been talk, those days, of buying similar craft from the USA for the ‘NEFA’ –north east frontier areas, but that didn’t happen.

These craft that we have today are in need of repair (the one that’s disappeared had been repaired and was fly-worthy). The suggestion was that alternative arrangements should be made, and he asked what the second source for transport planes in the air force was going to be.

The member also mentioned that two people from his state of Odisha were on the IAF transport craft that has disappeared, and that it was “difficult to say in conformity, what has befallen them”.

In my view, it is probably unlikely that the armed forces would purposely create situations in order to have matters that the forces consider to be priority, to be discussed in parliament.

I also do not know if there are any further implications relevant to the disappearance/accident as far as the origin of the craft and its machinery are concerned, that was drawn attention to by the member of parliament.

Monument in Khyberpakhtunkhwa, Pakistan:

An MP from the ruling BJP party talked about a monument in the PTI-ruled Khybepakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, that had been demolished. He said the Pakistan Supreme Court had ruled for its reconstruction, but this had not been done. He referred to this monument as a temple as well as called it a Samadhi.

The first question that comes to my mind, is what was the need to spare the valuable time of the Indian parliament to bring this up, and has the member read the entire judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan? ( i have not).

My opinion, based on what the member has said in the house, is: It is unusual for a building to be a samdhi/grave/memorial as well as a Hindu temple simultaneously. What to do with the monument would depend on who the present owners are, as per the present laws in vogue.

As far as the policy-approach towards heritage buildings goes, there is a wide spectrum of approaches, and rebuilding might not be the favoured approach, especially by environmentalists. Once it is clarified as to why India wishes to discuss this, this could become a point of co-operation in the region.

2. In the Rajya Sabha, there was a short duration discussion on the status of the implementation of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. (This was under private member’s business of Ramchandra Rao, that was allowed on a Thursday).

Most of the members spoke, but a few speakers and the Finance Minister’s reply was carried forward to the next day, and is awaited.

Venkaiah Naidu of the ruling BJP, Minister for Information and Broadcasting, spelt out all the work that had been done by the present central government, to specifically benefit Andhra Pradesh after it came to power at the centre.

However, he said that the revenue deficit would be discussed by the finance minister.

He also said that the legality pertaining to the question of reorganization of assembly seats (whether or not it requires a Constitutional amendment), has been sent to the Attorney General for a legal opinion, and the said opinion is awaited.

I think he asked for the appointment of a task force to look into other matters.

The issue of granting Andhra Pradesh “special status” was supported by the government, but it was claimed that there is a ten-year period in which to do this.

My comments:

There needs to be clarity on what constitutes “special status” as far as this government’s interpretation goes. Do the other parties agree with the definition/understanding, if there is one? What are the points of difference, and how can these be resolved?

Someone could make a simple grid, with all the criteria on one axis, and each party’s stand as well as each interest group’s stand (with weightage) on another axis, and look at ways forward accordingly.

There was absolutely no mention of the special plan for tribal areas for the states of Telangana and Andhra. (the only mention of tribals was by Renuka Choudhary, in connection with the few villages connected to the Polavaram project).

There was no mention of what the follow-up action, investigation and transparency will be, in response to the rumours that there are some serious discrepancies in government records in connection with the legal and constitutional post-independence history of the formation of the (residuary state) of Andhra Pradesh, esp in connection with the scheduling of Schedule 5 areas at that time.

A special plan for tribal areas is expected to take all these legalities on board, and come up with a special administrative plan for tribal areas. The Central MoTA and Panchayat Raj ministries should be taken on board for this in a transparent manner, and they are hopefully already a part of the discussions. But there are no signs of any of this happening.

There was no mention of what will happen to properties outside the state/s, over which both states will stake a claim, including historical properties.

It must also be noted that the recently-passed Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act could potentially impact valuable properties all around Hyderabad, and could potentially vest in the Central Government as per this act.

This might include areas owned by the Nizam of Hyderabad in the past. It must also be remembered that a vast amount of the Nizam’s property was before a foreign court as a dispute between India and Pakistan over the ownership of the amount, which, i think, has been ruled in favour of India. The fate of such funds and properties would also have a bearing on the matters being discussed herein.

Day 10 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

The discussion on the status of the implementation of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 continued in the RS from the previous day, and concluded with the reply of the Finance Minister.

The details of the discussion are likely to be widely reported and discussed, especially in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and these (such as the status of the 14th Finance Commission report etc.) will not be enumerated here.

However, the main sense that one got from the overall discussion was that some light was thrown, on the causes for:

1) delay in benefits going out to backward areas (and STs, SCs and OBCs), as well as

 2) the reasons for controversial shortfalls in the allocations of percentages of central funds to the state.

The reasons, according to me, based on what was argued, are as follows:

1. “Special status” is defined to mean that the proportion of central assistance is higher in the case of states that have special status accorded to them. However, as it was argued by one member, special status should be given to specific districts (in fact, one would argue that so-called special status should be given to specific districts minus the big towns within the districts).

2. I do not think the channelling of funds, by itself, will serve as having met the special plan for tribal and backward areas, especially Schedule Five areas. A specific, detailed, defined administrative and governance plan has been envisaged for making this a reality in both the states of Andhra, Telangana, and maybe beyond (even if it extends non-contiguously to distant lands). A constitutional amendment will be required for this. The Home Minister’s forthcoming visit to Pakistan to meet SAARC countries could be utilized to test the waters for parts of this idea.

3. There seem to be powerful business lobbies (vested interests) that are insisting on tax exemptions for Andhra Pradesh, as well as similar interests pushing against this, and this is delaying and seriously impeding the government’s work, and serious note needs to be taken, of this matter, and be acted upon.

In the LS in parliament, while discussing matters of urgent public importance, it must be noted that Richard Hay, nominated member from Kerela, expressed concern about youth in India being drawn to ISIS. It is my view that while specific rare instances need to be investigated (and probably are), it is not advisable to imagine, or suggest to an international audience, that this is either a rampant or growing phenomenon in India.

Another MP raised the issue of post offices in many parts of India being run from the post-master’s house, and wanted to know if there was any survey, or any steps to address this. I think the legal implications of this phenomenon need to be analyzed, and lacunae, if any, be addressed.

Day 11 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

During question hour in the RS, in answer to the question regarding the greater use of offshore wind energy in India’s energy mix, the minister’s reply was that at present, the costs of offshore wind energy are very high.

My view regarding India’s energy mix has always been for renewable (NOT including nuclear) energy.

The push for solar energy in India of late, and more so since PM Modi’s first visit to the US after he took office, is a positive development. However, I must point out that it is my specialized opinion (from, among other things, having attended and observed the international wind energy conference in Chennai in 2011, and having been invited to the US with a business visa in 1998 when i was working in the ASG's chamber in the Supreme Court of India to discuss and observe, from a 'third-word', ecological and India perspective, ideas on global natural resources governance, international development, and conflict resolution with lawyers, students and teachers, consultants, courts, politicians, and NGOs etc. from various countries), that offshore wind energy, if made financially feasible, is the way ahead for business. (In India, this should be led by the public sector due to a variety of security requirements). It should be made financially viable.

The questions of ecological viability and social justice can be addressed successfully, as far as off-shore wind energy is concerned. It is an opportunity to co-operate with India's neighbouring countries, which are not restricted to those with land boundaries, but includes countries with marine borders with us.

Another question in the RS was to do with Providing Drinking Water for Tribal Households.

Most members asked questions regarding drinking water in rural areas in general, with no focus on tribal households. One member even asked about the city of Agra.

The Honourable Chairperson, the Vice President of India, was well-intentioned (and correct) in disallowing supplementary questions because he saw the question as being off the topic.

People belonging to Scheduled Tribes today seasonally migrate to urban and town areas as well, often being pushed to do so because of being ecological refugees. This was probably the ministry’s (or, believably, the members whose questions got ballotted’s) tentative way of commenting on this factor or attempting to point this out as an anomaly in the scheme of the tribal policy. (The Minister for Drinking Water and Sanitation, who was fielding the questions, did not seem to have any complaints about the questions being off the topic).

The minister used the opportunity to point out that there have been instances of ground water being contaminated with fluoride, arsenic etc. (This impacts everyone. But the areas where this is prevalent, and the populations that are impacted must be noted, and the root of the problem dealt with).

However, the fact remains, that the intention for which the question had come up, which was drinking water for tribal households all over India (statistically, that would primarily consist of Schedule Five and Schedule Six areas all over the country), got sidelined by general questions on water.

Day 12 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

1. Biodiversity: The Minister spoke of the “preservation” of Biodiversity.

He needs to be educated on the difference between the meanings of “preservation” and “conservation”, as that would have a bearing on his understanding of the entire ecological debate.

2. Illicit liquor: Various instances of people using old batteries to brew and sell toxic alcohol were described, and action against the making of “illicit liquor” was called for. (This must be understood to be different from the debate on prohibition).

This should not adversely affect the rights of people, including indigenous communities, to brew small quantities of alcohol using traditional tried and tested recipes, for personal use. This also addresses aspects of health and well-being.

In fact, as far as tribal panchayats and communities go, they should be empowered to make and market these beverages through Trifed.

Ways can be worked out, so that the cost does not escalate for the traditional user, while simultaneously ensuring that certain products can find a place in the exotic alcoholic beverages segment, much like tequila of Mexico which is made of a kind of cactus. The state of Himachal also supports the brewing of various fruit wines.

3. Sports: It was interesting to note that, apart from traditional games like Kabbaddi and Kho Kho, football will be given a lot of priority by the government.

The political connect of many football-playing nations, and the government’s encouragement of the associated people-to-people contact (with former socialist South American countries and beyond), is significant and must be encouraged.

4. Airport Security: It was asserted that all the various police forces that are employed at various airports are capable of carrying out their responsibilities, and that the decisions as to which force is to be employed at which airport is made on a case-to-case basis by an appropriate body, with inputs from various intelligence agencies. It was also said that many aspects of security are confidential and cannot be discussed.

I would have liked to have known who the custodians of these secrets are, on what basis they are chosen, and by whom, and how their integrity is ensured. Also, who decides what matters are confidential, and what are the criteria, for marking any aspect of governance as confidential.

5. Regarding the EPF discussion brought about by Ahmed Patel, i think it is unfair and probably illegal for the government to gamble with the money of retired government employees, and this should be stopped, or it should be genuinely optional for each individual to decide whether to invest in this manner or not, as well as for each employee to have full control over his or her individual investment in terms of where to invest, if he or she does opt to invest.

 jest like that: (shanty-morning poetry) OR Day 13 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

 star bright, star light, this last draft, i read tonite.

 i wish i may, i wish i might, with one fell stroke, revoke the blight.

 a council's diktats shall prevail, the pallor of the upper house shall pale.

 pull up your socks, get ready, vox

 from now till november, there's limited time

 pull the tide, or endlessly abide hyphens, siphons, elusive stipends

Day 14 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

 Governors were discussed. Role of. In the context of Uttarakhand and the other state in which there was some confusion recently, about all this. Obviously all parties said what they had to, based on political points. Sibal spoke. I didn't watch the whole thing. The whole debate, as in. All these other things were happening. Like Rajnath went to Pak. Apparently had to eat in his room alone. But interesting why only junior cops were willing to receive and salute him. What were the points on governors in our book?

Day 15 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

Home Minister made a suo moto statement in both houses after returning from Pak.

Reported on the speech he made there. He has called for the countries who haven't yet supported the bit on co-operation on criminal investigations, to do so. This includes Pak. He said Pak said that they would do so soon. He told parliament that he hopes soon means soon (how soon?).

In answer to questions from members, he confirmed that the Indian media had been kept out of the speech, but that he did not know, himself, if it was broadcast live there or not.

He said that on the point of whether this was standard procedure at SAARC meetings, like some have suggested, he does not know, but that would need to be known from the External Affairs MInistry.

He confirmed that there were small groups of 50 people, 100 people 'protesting' on the route from his helicopter to his hotel (but he did not seem to have a clear opinion on why etc.)

The entire house supported his speech and activities.

For the second time in a few days (the earlier occasion being the Kashmir discussion), the entire house was very co-operative with the Home Minister. Looking at the context in which this was so, one hopes that there is nothing ominous...that no grounds are being prepared to flex muscles in the region, beyond requirement. One of the early signs of such an attempt would be an effort to win over, take into confidence, or quell voices of opposition.

The other speech of the day was by Dr. Manmohan Singh, former Prime Minister of India. Apparently his first speech after the UPA defeat. i missed this, but saw clips on news. He spoke on the AP Reorganization issue. Reminded the house of how the voice of the people ("Me") had presided over all cabinet meetings.

Day 16 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

LoP of the Cong in the RS again said that there should be an all-party meeting on Kashmir in Delhi, after which an all-party delegation should go to J&K.

LS passed the RS's amendments to the 122nd Constitutional amendment bill to enable GST. All speeches were as expected, and on the lines of the previous RS debate. The CPI(M) person thought N stands for natural instead of neutral in RNR (revenue neutral rate), nobody corrected that, not even whoever was in the chair at that time!

Day 17 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

The International Day of the World's Indigenous People was observed in the form of a discussion on Adivasis in India. A TRS member wanted the UN Guidelines on how to mark the day to be adhered to. Overall discussions nothing to write home about.

Main discussion was on judicial appointments 'impasse', with the law minister saying there is no impasse between judiciary and parl, and that he is working out MoP details with judiciary. BUT he refused to be transparent about the deliberations. It is my sense that he could and should have kept the house better informed.

Parliamentary affairs minister said Kashmir would be discussed the next day. It is hoped that the discussion will help set out tasks for an all India all party delegation to go there. Also, do we have to have an all party meet in delhi, won't the parliament debate suffice?

Day 18 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

Kashmir situation discussed in RS for the 4th time in parl this session. Tone less belligerent, with a few speakers even specifying that war with Pak is not an option anymore because of the nuclear parity.

A unanimous resolution was passed, and there will be an all-party meeting on the 12th in delhi, to begin with.

Points to be noted regarding clues for a political solution: Yechury said that this was the only state in india where the maharaja was not given compensation, and land went straight to the tiller. The son of the then maharaja, who is a member of the house (known for his elite views on wildlife protection, to the detriment of tribals), said that kashmir is an integral part of india, but that no merger had been signed.

It is my view that a part of the political solution is to be found in recognizing the cultural, political and administrative influences of decentralized royalty in the region as not being restricted to this particular maharaja's time and space. (His own personal concerns, if any, for a privy purse or for individual compensation could be met, and would assuage the sentiments of the handful of unwitting impediments to peace that might exist in the form of sympathizers).

More in other notes, on a multipronged, calibrated approach for peace.

Days 19 and 20 Monsoon Session 2016 Non-comprehensive Observations

Did not get to watch too much of the proceedings on both these days, but i do know there was a debate on the issue of atrocities against Dalits, in one of the houses. Ranging from topics like manual scavenging, to countering the exclusion of dalits in the judicary-as-it-is, it is a multi-pronged approach that is required, to continue addressing the problems of dalit communtiies, especially women.

The Lok Sabha also passed a unanimous resolution on Kashmir...i think it is now a good idea for all those in the other states of india, who have connections with the people of J&K (of all faiths and non-faiths), to strengthen these connects, and use these for a good cause. i call upon all my friends here who have friends in the state of J&K to do this if and when convenient.