CJ REPORT: Voters’ Rolls Found In Waste Paper Mart

By CJ Ramalingam Shetty in Chennai

The staff of Tambaram taluk office in Chennai, Tamilnadu, were busy at a local waste paper mart —  in a bid to recover 10 bundles of electoral rolls that went missing from the taluk office.

Revenue staff had che­­cked the bags of te­m­porary workers, who cleaned the taluk office, and were shocked to fi­nd voter rolls. Ten of total 20 such bags, in which were stocked dr­a­ft voters rolls, were found missing. The sea­r­ch led to a waste paper mart and eight bundles of voter rolls were reco­ve­red.

Local RDO P. Ettiappan admitted the incident but allayed fears as they were only draft rolls dating back to 2008. The draft roll bundles were intact and the attempted sale thwarted. The stationery had been discarded but the issue was being probed, he added. 

Kudankulam Nuclear Plant: Ready To Produce Power?

Will the Kudankulam nuclear power plant finally become operational this month as assured by the Prime Minister? INN takes an in-depth look at the long history of delays and conflicts that has plagued the project since its inception. 

Almost 11 years after concrete had first been poured in the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) in March 2001, India still awaits the 2000 MW electricity that the plant could generate. Six months after nuclear fuel-enriched Uranium was loaded into the core of the plant, with repeated tests being run to satisfy all safety parameters, Kudankulam is still on the brink. For the nuclear protesters that brink denotes a lurking disaster while for India's nuclear establishment, it is the power that could relieve a crippling shortage that has come in the way of growth.

The stalled project had seen its share of delays right from the beginning. A product of the Indo-USSR pact in 1988, the first hurdle came in the form of collapse of the USSR. Clearances, in line with the laws of those days, were obtained in 1989 and land acquisition completed by the 1980s. The plant had to be renegotiated with Russia in 1997.

But a different set of rules for environment safety were in place in 1997, under the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Any project that cost over Rs 50 crore needed to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Public Hearing, after the copy of the EIA was given to the public/panchayats (local body governance) of the village in which the project was to come up. The notification mandated any expansion and modernisation of existing projects and new ones should go through a process of EIA by an expert committee chosen by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. The report had to be placed before the State Pollution Control Board, which would then convene a public hearing to find out objections to the project. Schedule I of the notification included nuclear plants and allied industries.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, the Indian company that is implementing the project, had also proposed four more plants in the site. A fresh inter-Government agreement was signed in 2008. While the two plants for which permissions were already in place did not have to go through additional processes, the other four proposed plants had to. Permissions for those four plants had come only in 2012 after much deliberation and changes in the safety plan, after EIA and public hearing.

Home-grown industry and its safety
The civilian nuclear energy programme in India is 62 years old with one of the safest records in the world. There have been no Chernobyl-like or Three Mile Island-like accidents, events that were believed to be caused by human factor. India also collaborated with the likes of Canada, France, USA. However with the Smiling Buddha operation in 1974, the country faced a nuclear apartheid. Countries that had then helped India set up reactors backed out of their commitments, setting back many projects. The fast breeder reactors, for which India was working with France, were delayed. A smaller test breeder reactor has been in operation for almost 30 years now, but the 500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is yet to go on stream, the nuclear establishment attributing this delay to the manufacturing of a first-of-its-type equipment.

Since then the nuclear energy programme has been almost entirely home-grown and has often been praised elsewhere for the ingenuity and experimental facilities that is matched only by Russia. In that sense, Kudankulam then would come to mean a collaboration between two of the best in the world.

But then the project attracted so much opposition that it was almost derailed twice, and while the last rounds have come very close to commissioning, it has not reached that state. The residents of Idinthakarai, a village 6 km outside the 5 km sterilisation zone, have called for the project to be abandoned. In September 2011, the anti-nuclear movement started gaining momentum, forcing the State of Tamilnadu to call for a suspension of works in a ready-to-be commissioned project.

Summer of discontent
Tamil Nadu was going through an unprecedented power shortage, with an installed capacity of 11,640 MW including from Central projects like Neyveli Lignite Corporation through power sharing agreements, and the state experiencing a 4,460 MW deficiency. The demand from the Power Utility was projected at 13,450 MW for 2013-14.

The Tamil Nadu Generation and Transmission Company – TANGEDCO – had to resort to extensive power cuts throughout 2012, some extending up to 12 hours in rural areas to manage the crisis. The crisis continues in 2013, with the state being energy-starved this summer also.

There has been little capacity addition since 2000 in the state and opposition to projects like the 1600 MW Jayamkondan Lignite Power Project had meant that the state quickly went from energy surplus to buying power from the North Eastern States. Demand had increased from 6000 MW in early 2000 to 12000 MW within a decade. Many of the thermal plants are operating only at 50 percent capacity and dwindling resources at Neyveli Lignite Corporation poses its own problems. The state needed to add capacity and add it quickly.

This prompted the Chief Minister to do a volte-face on her stand that KKNPP can only be commissioned after allaying the fears of the locals and seeking immediate consent. The consent came a day after parliamentary by-elections to Sankarankoil constituency, in the district of Tirunelveli, the same as Kudankulam in March 2012. It was an election fought over the poor management of power crisis. The AIADMK-government leveraged its victory to give consent to the project. It also upped its ante by demanding all of the 2000 MW for the state, negating the original power-sharing contract.

Both the AIADMK and its bitter enemy the DMK had contributed to the power crisis, by not adding capacity and by distributing freebies promised during elections like TVs, blenders, grinders and fans (and where fans were redundant induction stoves). These energy intensive appliances added another requirement of 250 MW per day, according to some TANGEDCO estimates. But with the by-elections won, the AIADMK government put the ball firmly in the centre's court.

Expert group struggles to win over
The centre was urged to win over the support of locals after allaying fears. Well-respected scientists including the former President of India Dr A P J Abdul Kalam were part of that effort. An Expert Group that went into safety aspects presented its report to the State Government. 

That report addressed how the Fukushima meltdown happened and how the design of the Kudankulam plant does not allow for that kind of events to happen. The Japanese plant was shut down when the 9.03 Richter scale temblor hit the North Eastern Japanese island; the six tsunami waves that followed cut off power supply to the plant that resulted in a level-7 meltdown. The earthquake was so powerful that it moved the entire main island of Japan, Honshu, by 8 ft and shifted the earth on its axis. Of note is the fact that entire Japan sits on seismic zone 5, while Indian authorities says Kudankulam sits on zone 2, the least prone to earthquakes.

When the Boxing Day tsunami, caused by a 9.1-earthquake off Sumatra, Indonesia, struck the Eastern Coasts of the Indian peninsula, two nuclear establishments saw some flooding. The Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam (70 km from Madras) was minimally affected. Water entered one of the 220 MW plants, which had been manually shut down safely. The residential colonies for the workers fared worse with five employees of the Madras Atomic Power Station drowning..

Kudankulam plant also saw tsunami water entering its incomplete premises. Kudankulam's neighbouring fishing villages were minimally affected by the tsunami.

The Expert Committee then pointed out the low seismicity of the region, the plant safety features including the higher elevation of the building and diesel generator to cool, double containment, measures to prevent explosions caused by release of hydrogen gas, like those that happened in Fukushima, to prove their point that Kudankulam is no Fukushima waiting-to-happen. The Nuclear Establishment has also agreed to implement the safety plan that the International Atomic Energy Agency proposed. Yet, these assurances were not good enough for the protesters.

The activists still demanded that the project be scrapped and even sought that the blueprint of the reactor be made public, an unprecedented step. This time around they also wanted it scrapped on the basis that it went against public sentiment. Their rhetoric revolves around nationalistic sentiments of Tamils and has received widespread support among parties that have espoused those values. After the main parties of Tamil Nadu, the ruling AIADMK and the DMK, toed the line of the expert group report, the Tamil Nationalistic PMK and the MDMK have extended support. This movement has also attracted the attention of supremacist elements involved in the Tamil separatist movement, like Naam Thamizhar Iyakkam.

Close to commissioning
While the Nuclear Establishment was looking at an October 2012 commissioning, the residents, organised under the umbrella of People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), filed a case in the High Court seeking the scrapping of the project. When that case was thrown out, they went to the Supreme Court to stop the loading of fuel into the plant. The court refused to stop the loading, but reserved its order pending the satisfaction of safety norms.

The residents then resorted to a sea siege. There were many incidents of disturbances of law and order, including a charge against peacefully protesting villagers. The atmosphere around Kudankulam continued to be rife with rumours.

With the plant expected to be commissioned by the following month, local media started reporting leakage of radiation claiming 40 lives. Those reports were then rescinded the next day and apologies issued. Sri Lankan anti-nuclear groups became involved at this stage claiming leaks and the Sri Lankan Atomic Energy Authority, which has radiation detectors installed near the Indian coast, had to issue a denial.

Moving toward transparency
In the last decade, India has signed the 123 Indo-US Nuclear Treaty with the USA, which mandates it to separate civil and military nuclear facilities and to open up its civil facilities to scrutiny by the IAEA.

As a last step of activating the pact, the government had to legislate The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. With these steps the Nuclear Establishment of India hoped it could work toward removing some of the cynicism about its safety record and accusation of secrecy. These measures, however, have not even been recognised by the anti-nuclear movements in the country that quote the example of Germany and wants India to stop all civil nuclear energy efforts.

Those for nuclear energy have also demanded greater transparency in the working of the Nuclear Establishment. Most of the officials from the regulatory body, AERB, are from the nuclear establishments themselves. That expertise on nuclear energy does not exist outside the realms of the Department of Atomic Energy has been a concern. Many of the dialogues between the establishment and anti-nuclear activists have therefore been trenchantly inimical - a rather technical “he said-she said” than ones trying to move towards consensus building. And the one catastrophe that Kudankulam has already left us with is that of public relations.

For instance, the first ever nuclear project to have undergone a public hearing was the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor in 2001. When the public hearing was on in the presence of the Kancheepuram district Collector, the anti-nuclear groups organised residents to complain of the incidence of congenital deformities, believed to have been caused by radiation. These were listed by Doctors for Safer Environment. The then Collector, also a medical doctor, had requested that these be documented instead of blanket accusations being levelled. However, when this reporter spoke to those doctors and asked why the report was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of being presented to journalists first, they were reluctant to answer questions.

On the other hand, the Nuclear Establishment maintains that radiation levels in Kalpakkam were much below those minimum requirements mandated by the AERB and that they are much below background radiation already present.

In recent times, the anti-nuclear protesters have also called into question the design/safety criteria that were taken into account during the design process.  Most reactors were designed taking into account storm surges, given that the east coast is prone to cyclones. But that the entire region is considered to be low-seismicity zone and not tsunami prone, unlike the Pacific Ocean, is pointed out as a poor design factor. Protesters have also put forth the view that a scientific body like the DAE and its constituents cannot afford to pick its safety concerns. It is true that these contentions of theirs have not been sufficiently addressed by the establishment.

Since the fuel loading in October 2012, NPCIL has run many tests and has submitted their results to AERB. The AERB has also called for many tests to be done in thoroughness. People who are observing the process see it as strategies to assuage the Supreme Court, where a PIL against the KKNPP filed by Prashant Bhushan in September 2012 is still pending. The Supreme Court had observed that the plant could be put on hold at this stage - when it is about to be commissioned - if it is not satisfied with the safety measures.

In all of this, the commissioning of the plant has simply been pushed beyond one deadline to another; The AERB has been periodically stating that the plant would be commissioned shortly; now, the latest assurance comes from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has promised Russian president Vladimir Putin that the plant will be operational this month.  However, given the long history of roadblocks, and the fact that the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case against the power plant is still pending, one can only wait to see when the assurance becomes reality.

Financial Irregularities: Annamalai University VC Suspended

INN published a news report "Irregularities Unearthed At Annamalai University" on March 14, 2013 in these columns. The authorities and Tamilnadu government has ordered a high level enquiry an this issue and result: issued orders of suspension of Annamalai University Vice Chancellor and other officers and sacked many more responsible officers. 

Following financial irregularities at the 84-year-old Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu governor K Rosaiah suspended its vice-chancellor M Ramanathan. The action comes two days after the state government appointed IAS officer Shiv Das Meena as the university administrator. 

A special audit team had found that university funds were diverted, appointments were made in excess and provident fund money was not deposited. 

The lapses occurred due to maladministration and lack of proper control over the functioning of the university, read the government order signed by the governor. "As principal executive officer of the university, vested with various powers including the power to appoint clerical and other staff, the vice- chancellor is responsible for proper functioning of the university. 

It has become necessary to investigate into the matter in detail, from all angles and in particular with respect to the working of the institution, persons responsible for the maladministration and the role played by you as the vice-chancellor," read the order. 

The suspension will come into effect immediately and will stay till further orders. 

The sate government had constituted a special audit team under Section 28 of the Annamalai Universtiy Act, 1928 to assess the financial and other irregularities in the university. After inspection, the team submitted its report to the government, in which it mentioned about diversion of funds running to several crores of rupees and misappropriation of funds.

Loksatta Is Flexing musles Over Electoral Reforms

As the Lok Satta party, with its crop of image-defying politicians, raises hopes for a new brand of politics, INN catches up with party leader Dr Jayaprakash Narayan on the party's hopes at the Karnataka polls and possibilities of a larger wave of political reforms in the country. 

The Lok Satta party headed by Jayaprakash Narayan is flexing its muscles in Bangalore as the state gets ready for elections in May. The party has so far named 15 candidates for MLA elections in the state; more are expected. Nine are contesting in Bangalore city itself, and the rest from other parts of Karnataka. Lok Satta has a reformist positioning in the Indian political sphere. It supports clean governance, setting up of a strong Lokpal, liberalising agriculture, closing of populist subsidies, FDI in retail, and so forth.

Jayaprakash Narayan, 57, the charismatic leader who is more widely known in Andhra Pradesh than Karnataka, is the sole MLA of the party anywhere in the country. He ran and won his seat in AP assembly elections from Kukatpally in Hyderabad. In AP, Tamilnadu and Maharashtra, there are a handful of local representatives (in municipal councils and panchayats) of the party.

Given the cynicism around the state of politics in India, many consider the chances of candidates with strong credentials and track records to enter legislatures to be very low. However, in the past few years, India, and urban India in particular has seen a surge of demand in the streets from a largely frustrated young citizenry. There has been an outpouring of protests around the country on several counts. From the huge wave of public support for a Lokpal bill for fighting rampant corruption to the most recent protests over the Delhi gang-rape incident, the yearning for change among large sections of the Indian populace has been evident.

Lok Satta has been at the forefront of many such change campaigns from a time when public angst had not even made itself so visible. In Bangalore for example, Lok Satta party volunteers were originally involved in sparking off Saaku, an anti-corruption movement in the city that peaked during the support campaign for Justice Santosh Hegde. During his tenure as Lokayukta, he had exposed the BJP government's ministers including former chief minister B S Yeddyurappa. Many volunteers who were part of the India Against Corruption (IAC) group that campaigned for the Lokpal bill in the city during Anna Hazare’s fast in New Delhi were also Lok Satta party cadres.

Better known as JP, Jayaprakash Narayan is no mean achiever in public life. He is a doctor by training, and a former IAS officer with a long track record of accomplishments. He is well known for his campaign and role in bringing electoral reforms to India in 2002 that made disclosures by candidates running for office mandatory.

Prior to founding Lok Satta as a political party, he founded it as a movement for better governance in Andhra Pradesh. Lok Satta's work on electricity reforms became visible as it took over and operated four power distribution stations in the state to demonstrate the efficacy of several reform measures they had advocated.

In Bengaluru today, Lok Satta party candidates, most of them reasonably well known in their neighbourhoods and the city, are running for MLAs. Jayaprakash Narayan or JP as he is called has been moved by the upsurge in Bangalore and says it has the most cosmopolitan electorate in the country. “Bangaloreans are more likely to transcend old loyalties and parochial power that mainline parties have,” he says.

As the campaigns in Bengaluru have begun to peak, INN caught up with JP for a detailed conversation. He spoke many things and seems passionate, thoughtful, clear and yet restrained. Excerpts of the Interview.

You have been the single MLA for Lok Satta in AP. What are your hopes for the next AP election (2014)?

Being a single MLA in the assembly is not such a bad thing. We have shown that it is still possible to influence significant public policy outcomes.

We feel 15-20 per cent of the electorate certainly wants change. But there are systemic compulsions in India because of which even if you have good support base, and strong credibility, conversion to votes is not easy.

We are considering issue-based alliances for the AP 2014 elections. If there is an iron clad guarantee on specific issues from a bigger political party in constituencies where we are strong, we may transfer our support to them.

These are issues on which we will seek issue-base alliances:

• Full decentralisation of power to local government at the ward and panchayat level.
• Services guarantee law, with compensation to citizens when there is delay or denial
• Radical change in the power sector
• Agricultural reforms – liberalisation of agriculture, not merely giving short term freebies, but long term benefits
• Anti-Corruption agenda – A Lokayukta for AP with real independent power
• Education and Health care reform.
• We currently have strong presence in 80 constituencies in AP, and there are around 20-25 people who have been working hard in these areas for the people. They may become the MLA candidates for LS in 2014.

What significant outcomes have you been able to influence as MLA, even as a lone representative in the AP assembly?

There are several concrete outcomes. There is a robust Societies Act in use in AP. The Congress party wanted to amend it in a way that would bring in far more controls. The amendment was unconstitutional according to me. I have stood against this and held it up for the past four years in the legislature and have got the rest of the opposition to stand against it as well. The Congress could have passed it by brute force and has not because of the opposition I have led.

Next is the Citizen Services Delivery Guarantee bill. While this is not enacted yet, there has been debate on the bill and the rules the government needs to put in place for it to function effectively. This has already resulted in real action on the ground, even without the bill being passed.

There is a now a Lokayukta bill pending in the AP assembly. This is also my party's work and we have pushed for it. It is not enacted yet, but we will continue to push for it.

In the 2010 elections in AP, Lok Satta had a well articulated vision with many reform points that the Congress party copied from us. Our party has a lot of credibility in the state in arguing its points and other parties have drawn from us whenever they want. That is also impact.

Tell voters what the Lok Satta party has done for Bangalore and Karnataka that legitimises its claim that it is ready to fight big electoral races such as MLA elections.

The Lok Satta party has already contributed to Bangalore, in three areas.

First, through Ashwin Mahesh, whose work on transportation and traffic control for Bangalore is remarkable, especially for its focus on strengthening public departments. He has also been leading the water management efforts, including lake revival.

Second, it has covered a lot of ground in waste segregation and management: N S Ramakanth and Meenakshi Bharath have been doing stellar work in this area. This is part of our focus on urban planning.

Third is the Saaku movement itself. Lok Satta volunteers were at the core of triggering off that movement in Bangalore earlier, with an initial focus on safeguarding the institution of the Lokayukta. The IAC happened immediately and naturally after that.

More broadly, Lok Satta members are at the core of virtually all the civil society-led changes in the city. That is a very good thing. Politics and development should be strongly connected, and the example of our Bangalore party unit is a very good one in this regard.

Some voters think that too often in elections, people run to make statements, satisfy their egos, etc., even though chances of winning are considered slim. This has happened to parliamentary races before. What will you say to Bangalore voters this month who worry that Lok Satta candidates 'might not win'? How should citizens think about 'winnability'?

You have hit the nail on the head. Winnability does seem to dominate during elections. And with our first past the post system (FPTP), winning for new candidates is a challenge. Our political parties – when you talk to individual politicians -- are themselves not so terrible. Many of them also want the right candidates to run, but they are concerned about winnability.

But when people worry about new candidates not being winnable – they should look at the following.

Congress has won in Karnataka, the state is still in a mess. BJP has also won, that is they are winnable too, and they have also not fixed the mess in the state. Likewise with JD(S). So it is not as if the winners of the past have been able to bring about serious reforms or bring down corruption.

Lok Satta candidates, even though they are fewer in number, offer a genuine alternative. Moreover, Bangalore city offers a unique opportunity. It has the most cosmopolitan electorate in the country. Voters in Bangalore are more likely to transcend old loyalties and parochial power that mainline parties have. Secondly, because of the way Karnataka politics has gone, there are now many factions and hence fragmentation of votes. There is an opportunity for Bangaloreans to vote with their heart for candidates with an excellent track record.

There is also a difference between unattached independent candidates who do not belong to parties and party-backed candidates. Parties can articulate an agenda, they have organisational memory which they can bring into the Assembly even if they have only one or a few seats in the legislature. Single independent candidates cannot do that.

Your manifesto makes a promise that implies that 12-hour three-phase power supply in rural Karnataka in possible. How?

It is possible. First we must separate rural electricity feeders from agriculture feeders. Secondly every consumer of electricity, even a farmer who gets free power has to be metered. Long back, when Lok Satta was an NGO, we took over four distribution stations and ran it for the AP government. We brought about an 18 per cent reduction in line losses from 27 per cent to 9 per cent. These are all audited figures, publicly available.

There are around 9.75 lakh transformers in the AP power system. 5-7 per cent of these usually fail each year and when taken down for maintenance, it takes several days for them to come back online. Lok Satta showed that we can spend a few hundred rupees to fix these transformers and bring them back online much sooner which helps in running the power system with less outages.

Separating agricultural power from the rest of rural power itself can ensure that 12 hour supply is possible. This provides a boost to SMEs in rural areas because otherwise they have to come to the cities. Making more rural power available will boost rural investment and employment, and cut back on migration to the cities.

Gujarat is the best example for all this. By taking this approach they have already managed 24-hour single-phase power in all of rural Gujarat. So it is possible to promise and deliver 12-hour single-phase power in rural Karnataka.

An opposing candidate from some mainstream party is going to promise very low-cost housing or some freebie to low-income citizens in his constituency. Are you going to compete with that? People are used to a patronage relationship with their MLAs, you know this.

Yes, Promises will be made. After all elections are all about public money. Lok Satta candidates will explain an alternative vision. Our option is to explain to people that short term freebies are not making problems go away.

Our plan also is go to educated voters and youth, and especially women to get their backing.

We are hearing this view from several people – that women are supporting new candidates who stand for change, more than men. Why do you think this is so?

This is an important question and it must be studied. I can only hazard a guess.

Ultimately men see these battles as power games. Patriarchy, caste, linguistic and regional affiliations are above all about power won over identity and parochial loyalties. Men who already have power as part of patriarchy become concerned about who will win. Once issues are boxed into identity politics, there is no coming out.

Women on the other hand do not have power; they tend to be concerned about survival, and what will happen to family, prices, schooling of their children, etc. So they tend to be more open to voting for change. Women and youth definitely helped us win the MLA seat from Kukatpally. So men are concerned about who, and women are concerned about what.

The first-past-the-post system voting system in India presents serious challenges to new parties. Comment on the chances in the Karnataka elections for your Bangalore MLA candidates.

Yes, FPTP for India is a huge challenge. But I have some good news to report here.

Look at India’s most influential states for parliamentary seats: UP, Bihar, Bengal, TN, Maharashtra and AP. Except AP (even there, Congress is shaking), in none of these states has the BJP or the Congress been able to win on their own. Together these states contribute 65 per cent of Lok Sabha's seats. This is because of the FPTP system; it has already caused serious problems for these parties.

In UP for example, Rahul Gandhi invested a substantial amount of time and strategy. See the results though. Samajwadi Party got 3.7 per cent more vote share and got 127 more seats in the last elections. Even though Congress got 3 per cent more vote share, it got only 6 more seats. In Maharashtra, Congress cannot come to power on its own either.

The FPTP system is hurting the national parties in the most influential states.

But leaders of parties should be alive to this problem, it cannot be that they do not understand all this…?

Parties have not taken a hard look at this problem till now. The reality is that leaders do not have time. They are mostly caught up in day-to-day running of the party and the problems that keep emerging. But this is changing now.

The Congress Party has set up a high-powered committee under Ambika Soni, with Veerappa Moily, Mani Shankar Aiyyar, and others to look at reviewing FPTP. There is discussion on this issue also within the BJP at a mid-level. Left parties are already on board to change the FPTP system.

What is interesting is that this does not require a constitutional amendment or even a change in the law. It is just a rule being used to run our elections. If the parties agree, the rule can be changed.

What would you like the FPTP system to change to? You have advocated proportional representation; does that also mean you will support multiple representatives per constituency?

As a winner-takes-all system, FPTP overweighs the views of the winner and ignores all others. This is true even if the winner himself gets only 15 per cent of the vote, as we saw in one recent case. A proportionate system would correct this, and give voice to a greater diversity of views. This is all the more important when, as in India today, we are seeing an increasing fracture of the vote among different parties. Ideally, an elected representative even in a single-member constituency should represent 50 per cent of the voters at least. That's clearly not the case today; in fact it is the exception.

A number of solutions, including multi-member constituencies, run-offs and other options can be considered. Once we accept that FPTP is hindering the broad representation of public opinion in elected houses, a lot of other things will become possible. It has taken many decades for parties to come to this realisation. Now we must act on this, and strengthen democracy by a new system with greater inclusion of voices and views. 

You mentioned Arvind Kejriwal. What happened between Aam Aadmi Party and Lok Satta that they could not come together?

There are genuine issues we have to iron out.

One is the whole approach AAP has about good and evil. An approach that says one side is always good and the other is always evil is not right in a democracy. I have always held that our political parties are not evil and they cannot be blamed for everything that is wrong in India. Yes, our parties have bungled, no doubt.

We have to recognise the historical process we have gone through as a nation. Federalism, states, peaceful transfer of power, and universal adult franchise have all come to stay in the country, and our political parties have seen through this. So it is not right for AAP to make this contest one about good and evil.

The good and evil approach also caused us to lose an opportunity earlier. Take the Lokpal bill. In 2011, the bill that went to Parliament was 80 per cent of the bill “we” wanted. But Hazare and IAC did plenty of grand-standing that it could either be 100 per cent or zero. Media also made it into a big deal. In such a negative climate for the government's bill, the path became clear for other parties to use the ruse of 'states rights' to kill the Lokayukta provision. So now, while the Lokpal bill has Lokpal provisions, mandatory Lokayuktas for all the states is gone from it. But 80 percent of corruption impacting people is at the state level, not central. We have lost the chance for getting that option through the central bill.

We all want an ethical india. But the fight against corruption alone can only be a minimum qualification for politics, it is not the maximum. There needs to be more. AAP, for instance, does not support our positions on FDI in retail, and also on power sector reforms.

Having said this, our differences need not be blown out of proportion in the media. In a democracy, there is always a need for a spirit of accommodation. We have not written off working together. 

Team @ INN

TEAM @ INN LIVE NEWS

• PATRON & ADVISOR: Jonathhan Mathews
• PRESIDENT & CEO: Dr.Shelly Ahmed
• EDITOR IN CHIEF: M H Ahssan
• EDITORIAL DIRECTORS: Sarah Williams / Prof. Mahera Futaim

1. ASSOCIATE EDITOR - Sandeep Roy
2. ASSISTANT EDITOR - Likha Veer
3. COPY EDITOR - Jagmaal Rana
4. RESEARCH EDITOR - Rahul Khanna

1. DESIGN & GRAPHICS - Anushree Upadhyay
2. PUBLIC RELATIONS - Saif Rehman
3. ADVERTISING - Pramod Shukla
4. SUBSCRIPTION - Nancy Fernandez
5. MARKETING & SALES - Rohit Kumar

INTERNATIONAL

NEW YORK / LONDON / RIYADH / JEDDAH / ALKHOBAR / MUSCAT / DOHA / DUBAI / KUWAIT / MANAMA / SINGAPORE / TOKYO / BEIJING / ISLAMABAD / DHAKA / KHATMANDU / COLOMBO / SYDNEY / AUCKLAND / MYANMAAR /

NATIONAL DESK

POLITICS - Rajender Gupta

SPORTS - Shahnawaz Siddiqui

BUSINESS - Sameera Rao

ENTERTAINMENT - Niloufer Khan

TECHNOLOGY - Vidya Nath Reddy

HEALTH - Dr.Rashmi Sanyal

EDUCATION - Tejaswi Kumar

HUMAN RESOURCES - Sridhar Pandey

NEWS BUREAUS

• DELHI BUREAU - Kajol Singh
• HYDERABAD BUREAU - Ramesh Reddy
• MUMBAI BUREAU - Sahil Manjrekar
• KOLKATA BUREAU - Ria Bhattacharya
• CHENNAI BUREAU - Sujata Pillai

CORRESPONDENTS

• BANGALORE
• PATNA
• SRINAGAR
• IMPHAL
• DISPUR
• TRIVANDRUM
• BHOPAL
• LUCKNOW
• RAIPUR 
• CHANDIGARH
• BHUBANESHWAR
• AHMEDABAD
• PANAJI
• SHIMLA
• GANGTOK
• ITANAGAR
• JAIPUR
• KOHIMA
• SHILLONG
• AIZWAL
• AGARTALA
• RANCHI
• DEHRADUN
• PONDICHERRY

INDIA NEWS

• Editor: Suguna Kumar
• Associate Editor: Shanti K Bala
• Assistant Editor (Urdu Edition): Riyaz Jamal
• Assistant Editor (Hindi Edition): Suryavanshi Raj
• Assistant Editor (Telugu Edition): Ravi Raj Pinishetti
• Research and Operations: Swati Desai
• Bureau Chief: Altaf Raja, Kajol Singh, Aniket Saxena
• Correspondents: Anita Swami, Sikender Shah, Parvati Reddy, Raja Rao,  Mrinalini, Dr.Sunder Kumar, Arjun Mahopadhya, Ashok Shekhar, Fauzia Arshi, Sonam Sethi, Shazia Khan, Avinash Avasthi, Ria Raj, Vaishali Thakur, Sanjay Singh, Swati Reddy

INDIA TELEVISION

• Associate Editors: Pankaj Bakshi, Varun Dheer
• Input Editor: Devi Prasad
• Output Editor: Ajay Singh
• Programming Chief: Sayee Chandra
• Operation Chief: Swati Mahek
• Reporting Chief: Aleem Khan
• Transmission Chief: Mubasshir Sohail
• Sales and Marketing: Raj Kundra

MEDIA VISION

• Director: Yawar Abbas
• CEO: John Jashua
• Operations: Preeti Chauhan
• Marketing: Sunil Reddy
• Production: Sukhwinder Pal
• Research: Anjum Ara

HYDERABAD NEWS

• Associate Editor: Arhaan Faraaz
• Assistant Editor: Ramesh Reddy
• Chief of Photography: Mansoor Ahmed, Shagufta Ali
• Design and Layout: Brijesh Patel
• Reporting: Shaheen Sultana, Ravi Reddy, Sharavya, Aeman Fatima Nishat

CITIZEN JOURNALIST NETWORK

• Delhi / NCR - Samuel Khanna, Vicky Behl, Seema Singh
• Uttar Pradesh - Rahul Mahajan, Shruti Singh, Seema Biswas
• Maharashtra -  Ikram Shah, Varsha Walvekar, Simmi Kaul, Rahul Sharma, Rajiv Kamdar, Vijji Poonam
• Andhra Pradesh -  Armaan Faisal, Sirish Reddy, Vasanta Kumari, Deepti Naidu, Renuka Rao, Mohammed Najamuddin, Lakshmi Rao, Syed Mirza
• West Bengal - Utpal Chatterjee, Richa Rai, Manzoor Alam, Poonam Mondal
• Karnataka -  Uma Gowda, Khaja Pasha, Uma Bharti, Sangamesh Gowda
• Orissa - Vishal Deb, Raju Patnaik, Kamala Vidyarthi, Moushumi Roy
• Tamilnadu - Ramalingam Shetty, Kumaramanglam, Sunita Aliyar
• Madhya Pradesh - Sameera Khan, Sufiya Afreen, Harshjeet Singh
• Gujarat - Ashish Patel, Rajesh Khemji, Mony Ben Patel
• Rajashtan - Mohd. Irfan, Preeti Sahay, Rajmand Khurana, Baljeet Singh
• Kerala - Achyuta Menon, Shreya Alupatti
• Nagaland - Aztul Manchika
• Assam - Sandeep Muzkala
• Jammu & Kashmir - Iqbal Durjahan, Asif Khan
• Uttar Pradesh - Biswas Rampal, Ankita Singh, Shekhar Lal
• Bihar - Munna Biware, Shruti Kher
• Goa - Rahul Fernandez
• Singapore - Vikram Shah
• Oman - Vijj Khan, Rehan Fazil, Abubacker Shamsi
• United Arab Emirates - Mohammed Wali, Alkhatib Younus, Salma Nazar
• Saudi Arabia - Rashed Al Marai, Meraj Khiwani, Shaik Raza, Sameera Aziz, Fauzia Arshi,
• United States - John Mathews, Vicky Kapoor, Anna Swati
• United Kingdom - Rahil Khan, Suchitra Sharma, Balwinder Singh

The Politics Behind Kamal Haasan’s Film

The U/A certificate was issued to Vishwaroopam without any application of mind,” claimed the Tamil Nadu government in the Madras High Court, defending the ban on the film. What’s more, it alleged that the certification of films itself was a “very big scam that required a full-fledged probe”.

The judge did not find merit in the ­argument and allowed an interim release late on the night of 29 January. In less than 24 hours, the release was stayed again after the Tamil Nadu government appealed against it. Kamal Haasan, who has written, produced and directed Vishwaroopam, ­besides playing the lead role in it, could now approach the Supreme Court.

The strong words used by the government’s counsel, however, point to a larger motive behind the J Jayalalithaa government preventing Kamal Haasan from ­entertaining his fans on the big screen in Tamil Nadu.

Kamal, who pledged all his property to fund Vishwaroopam, says he along with his “Muslim brothers” have been “trashed in a political game”. Even though he says he does not know who is behind it, it’s not difficult to guess who Kamal is hinting at.

Political analyst Gnani Sankaran says, “Jayalalithaa is trying to corner the Muslim votes with the 2014 General Elections a year away. By attacking the censor board, a statutory body, she is actually belittling the Centre, taking her antagonistic stand against the UPA a step further. She is using this ­opportunity to show that the Central ­government is insensitive to Muslim ­concerns. But I doubt if such steps will ­actually help anyone politically because the average movie buff knows it is just a film.”

The others have been no better. The same desire to pander to the Muslim ­constituency made even the DMK suggest to Kamal that he should work out a compromise with the Muslim outfits. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairperson Leela Samson has said the film was “certified with due diligence”, and described the government’s arguments as “misinformed” and the expressions used in court “deplorable”.

Those who have watched the film (including this writer) in states other than Tamil Nadu, have found nothing in the film that should offend the sensibilities of Indian Muslims. Vishwaroopam has been running to packed houses in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, both states with a significant Muslim population, and there has been no breakdown of law and order.

In contrast, by taking the interim stay as an affront and going in appeal against the order, the Tamil Nadu government makes one wonder if there is more to it than meets the eye. And the Muslim outfits’ claim that the entire movie, save one song, is offensive, seems to be an attempt to ­target Kamal deliberately.

“Are we living in China or North Korea?” asks lawyer and film critic L Ravichander. “Yes, someone’s sentiment is hurt, but that is a woefully inadequate reason to ban someone else’s work. In our films, the villain could be called Ram or Rahman, what is the big deal? This way, no creative pursuit — be it cinema or ­literature — can flourish. Anarchy and protests also have their limits in a democracy.”

Vishwaroopam is the story of a Muslim RAW agent, who was once a covert operative in the al Qaeda and later saves New York City from a possible terror attack. The story is quite clear that the villainous Muslims are those who are in the al Qaeda, while the Indian Muslim (played by Kamal) is the hero of the film. The ­entire film is set in Afghanistan and New York.

Muslim groups, however, feel that the al Qaeda terrorists shown reading the Holy Quran would make people at large believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Another objection is to the name ‘Umar’, which the top terrorist (played by actor Rahul Bose) goes by. Muslim organisations say Umar bin-al-Khattab is the name of the second Khalifa in Islam, a revered figure, and the terrorist’s name should be changed. But then the Taliban head is Mullah Omar and no one asked him to change his name. ­Kamal has, however, agreed to make a few changes to find a way out of the mess.

A PIL has also been admitted in the Andhra Pradesh High Court against Vishwaroopam and one of the petitioners, Amjedullah Khan of a political party called Majlis Bachao Tehreek in Hyderabad, says, “It is a calculated move by the fascist ­Hindutva forces through their agents like Kamal Haasan to influence innocent non-Muslims and mislead them about Islam. It is an age-old strategy of anti-Muslim forces to portray Islam in a bad light by ­indulging in blasphemy.”

Preposterous as it sounds to accuse Kamal — given his track record as a brilliant filmmaker and a shrewd businessmen — of using his 95 crore venture as a vehicle to propagate anti-Muslim propaganda, the fact remains that either the Tamil Nadu government fell for such extreme ­arguments hook, line and sinker, or used them to get at Kamal for reasons no one is publicly willing to talk about.

Film stars and politicians have always had an uneasy relationship in Tamil Nadu, despite top politicians, including Jayalalithaa, DMK supremo M Karunanidhi, and Vijayakanth, having their roots in ­Kollywood. During the DMK regime, even top actors complained of being arm-twisted by the production and distribution network controlled by the Karunanidhi family. Actor Vijay, who owed allegiance to the AIADMK, had a tough time getting his films released during the DMK years. Things have not changed after the regime change with top comedian Vadivelu, who campaigned for the DMK, finding his career screeching to a halt since May 2011.

Little surprise then that conspiracy ­theories abound in Tamil Nadu. One of the theories links the government’s decision to Kamal expressing a desire at a public function in December last year to see a “dhoti-clad Tamilian” (an apparent reference to P Chidambaram) as prime minister. Given the frosty relationship between ­Jayalalithaa and Chidambaram, there is speculation if this would have angered Amma. Karunanidhi did not mince words when he told the media on 30 December that “Kamal Haasan’s dhoti-clad PM remark may have caused Vishwaroopam to be banned”.

Another unsubstantiated theory relates to Kamal selling the TV rights to ­Vishwaroopam to Vijay TV, when Jaya TV was also reportedly in the fray.

What is surprising is that barring Rajinikanth, Ajith, Prakash Raj and Bharathiraja, no one from the Tamil film industry has come out in Kamal’s support. Others like actors Khushboo, Jiiva and Jayam Ravi have been tweeting their support, but for a legend of Kamal’s stature, Kollywood has failed him. Clearly, very few want to get caught in this battle between Kamal and the State.

Kamal, who upset the exhibitors with his plans to release Vishwaroopam first on DTH, had to back off in the face of threats from cinema theatres not to screen his film. But the ban and the charge that the “unity of the country could be affected” by Vishwaroopam has been the last straw. “MF Hussain had to leave, now Haasan will have to,” the actor told the media, adding, “Tamil Nadu does not want me.”

One of Tamil Nadu’s most celebrated sons now wants to move out of the state to a more “secular state” or even leave ­India, if it cannot accommodate an artist like him. It’s shameful for Tamil Nadu as well as India.

What Exactly is Vishawaroopam?
Wish someone had gifted Kamal Haasan’s editor on ‘Vishwaroopam’, Mahesh Narayanan a pair of scissors. Narayanan would have found it handy to re-edit the meandering Afghanistan scenes in the first half of the ambitiously mounted film. Not only that would have given this international spy thriller that much-needed element – speed, it would have also made the lavishly mounted Afghan portion look less like a documentary (replete with sub-titles) on the life inside the Al-Qaeda.

In a nutshell, ‘Vishwaroopam’ is the story of a Muslim RAW agent who has spent time as a covert in the Al-Qaeda, who helps the US avert a `cesium bomb’ terror plot on New York. Kamal plays the agent who is undercover as a Hindu Kathak dance exponent (Vishwanath) in NYC.

The film has run into objections from Muslim organisations who have protested against the depiction of members of the community in the film. The Tamilnadu government, for reasons best known to it, banned the film, with other centres like Bangalore and Hyderabad delaying the screening at its theatres. My guess is that when more Muslims actually see the film, they would find the objections raised ridiculous because the villainous Muslims are all members of the Al-Qaeda. And a ‘good’ Indian Muslim is shown fighting the terrorists.

One of the objections raised is about the name Umar for the villain played by Rahul Bose. Umar bin-al-Khattab is the name of the second Khalifa in Islam and a revered figure. Wonder whether Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who was accused of providing shelter to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists too was asked to change his name by those protesting against ‘Vishwaroopam’.

Like in most of his films, ‘Vishwaroopam’ revolves around Kamal, who has also written, produced and directed it. The film has action of international class, some top-notch cinematography and yes, a lot of blood and gore. But an edge-of-the-seat thriller, it is not. The film is too slow and hardly the kind to inspire you to chew your nails. Yes, as a director, Kamal does bring in some special moments like the pathos of the young suicide bomber who has to do as his stone-hearted bosses order, or the grief of the woman when the wrong man is hanged at a kangaroo court in Afghanistan. But the film does not quite challenge Kamal the actor and the only part where he excels in is as the Kathak dancer, with graceful movements that would have made the choreographer Pt Birju Maharaj proud.

To give Kamal credit, cinematically, he takes us where few filmmakers have dared to in the recent past, bringing to life the story of a troubled land. It is a treat watching two extremely versatile actors – Kamal and Rahul Bose – sharing screen space. But Kamal the director falls below expectations. The film packs a punch only in parts, the climax is weak, with Kamal shortchanging the viewer with the promise of dealing with Umar only in Vishwaroopam 2. Much like counter-terrorism agencies, Kamal says there is still some work left to do.

The glamour element of the film is Pooja Kumar whose incessant tam-brahm chatter is presumably meant to amuse and I could see a number of Brahmin uncles in the hall, including my father, nod in approval. The rest of the cast, including Shekhar Kapur and Andrea Jeremiah are merely props in the Kamal army.

At the theatre in Hyderabad where I saw the movie, I found a significant number of youngsters who had travelled from Chennai just to watch Ulaganayagan in action. Perhaps that explained the loud cheer and whistles with which his entry on screen was greeted, the kind usually reserved for Rajinikanth. Kamal’s transformation from the effeminate Kathak dancer to a terrific fighter was the highlight of the film, with the fans reacting with shouts of ‘Thalaiva’.

At one point in the film, Pooja Kumar asks Kamal “Nee nallavana kettavana” (Are you a good man or a bad man?), inviting a knowing laughter from the Nayagan-aware audience. Kamal would be waiting with bated breath to hear from the Madras High court on Monday when they declare as ‘nalla’ (good) or ‘ketta’ (bad) his depiction of Muslims in ‘Vishwaroopam’.

How they fool us, the outraged

As long as we engender a society that allow law enforcers to get away with their own crimes, law breakers will only be emboldened. We must make Police Complaints Authorities around the country meaningful.

Outrage is a good thing, when it is against injustice. It shows that society does have a line it does not want crossed. It also puts pressure on the system to respond. Here's the problem with it though, it tends to ignore what is already unclear. No new clarity emerges from either the outrage or the response. Media coverage of outrage does not help with clarity either, unless the media is looking deeper.

So it will be with the entire rape debate in India. In fact even before public fury over the Delhi gang-rape has quietened, as it inevitably will, media has already started breaking more rape stories from around the country. More accountability will be demanded, as will the death penalty.

Yet, if there is one government authority that is laughing all the way to the bank, it's India's police. Here is why.

The Delhi HC has reportedly asked the local police to show it the chargesheet before initiating proceedings in the gang-rape. Why would a High Court do that? Chalk it up to experience. For years the accused in rape cases have not been sincerely prosecuted, and people have been let go with lesser charges or sentencing than was to fit the crime. The Delhi Police has a particularly soiled reputation already, and responding to this week's outrage as it were, the High Court stepped up the ante.

If a High Court in the capital territory of the nation does not trust the police's due process, what does that tell you? Let me come back to this question in a different way.

Each day in India, in buses, trains and crowed public places, women are groped, fondled, teased and made the subject of lewd remarks. Eve teasing is so common, women have simply resigned themselves to it. Women just try to avoid being in situations where they will be groped. They do not hope for much else. They do not bother going to the police. Such is the reputation our police have in handing their cases.

The police need to first accept complaints from women. Instead, as is widespread in India, they dilute complaints, humiliate the victims, and eject them from the stations. Their starting point is a judgement of the victim. And much of the problem lies here. When it comes to women, most policemen are part of the original problem. Sexual harassment of any kind - the most violent kind or a lesser kind - is about the power that one sex wants to show it can wield over the other. Usually it's men over women.

Still, the outrage in the nation is missing what the police and the governments are hoping will not come up.

Police Complaints Authorities

In 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the state governments to create one PCA per district in every state and a PCA at the state level headed by a retired judge. Human Rights groups called it landmark order. The apex court of the nation wanted PCAs to look into complaints citizens had against police misconduct or abuse of power. It could be everything from custodial torture or death or rape to not accepting FIRs to falsifying evidence.

The SC had wanted policemen to be penalised for not doing their job. It also wanted to reduce government-interference in police transfers. It wanted PCAs to act against errant officers after hearings and investigations.

Imagine this: The Supreme Court of this nation believes, that unless there was an authority to check the police, India's police would not serve its taxpayers. It would continue to operate to 'control' and 'keep order', for its political masters at state and centre, the way the British had setup the system.

Just from the woman's point of view, here is how PCAs with teeth, had they come into force, would have made an impact in bringing down rape and crimes of lesser nature. Women today would be able to file complaints against police officials with the PCA when they do not act in fairness with them at a police station. They would able to walk into police stations with dignity after a crime to get protection, not further abuse.

If errant officers were penalised quickly, police would not themselves not behave with the kind of impunity they do now.

Yet, the majority of India's states have ignored the SC's order. Only six states setup so-called "PCAs" and mostly toothless ones, and with shady appointments that violated the principle of independence the SC wanted. Delhi set up its public grievance commission as its PCA, precisely what the SC did not order. India Together reported on all this in August 2012, as a review on whether states had complied with the SC's order. In the few states with PCAs, police officers ignore hearings and go about their business as usual. State governments themselves do not follow their own PCA verdicts to act against abusive officials. Television media have mostly let this story go.

Have you even once heard of action against police official for not investigating a complaint by a woman? Are the police who mangle charge sheets, FIRs,and file false charges every prosecuted? 

In the meantime, thousands of men freely roam around the country to grope and molest women at will in public places. It takes a lot of force and pressure to get a complaint registered, even with witnesses. It is no one's case that PCAs will fix all our problems. There is much else in our society's attitude to women itself that needs attention.

But if police do not act on the most basic violations, it is a free ride for men. It sends a message of what the real social rules in the country are, not the ones on the books. The culprits feel that it is a natural order for them to be able to do what they want and get away with it. And if PCAs with teeth kept a watch on the police, it would send out the opposite message that as a society we will uphold the dignity of our women.

I do not buy the death penalty argument. From outrage to revenge is a short hop. You can sentence as many losers as you can to the gallows. More will appear, especially from amongst those who have little to lose, with a very low sense of self-worth and self-esteem.

As long as we engender a society that allow law enforcers to get away with their own crimes, law breakers will only be emboldened. This is why corruption is such a problem in this country. Like our other authorities, our police system does not have an integrity of its own to justify doing the right thing, or to remedy a wrong done to restore public faith. The PCAs will not fix all the problems but they would have sent a message to outraged women that someone would listen to them and dispense justice. That is one course-correction our society needs.

The Delhi gang-rape case is also chance for the media to get its act right. For all the coverage that rape cases get (read: ratings), very little coverage if any has been given to how state governments everywhere from Delhi to Tamilnadu have said 'we don't care' to the Supreme Court.

It is easy to drive up fury. The illumination really needed is on what the governments and police do not want you to know, and therefore not demanded. The demand for death penalties in fact is a lovely distraction for our babus and cops. 

Complaints? Who's listening? 
Six years ago the Supreme Court issued a detailed order listing the steps needed to insulate police work from politics, and to make it more accountable. But the progress since then has been slow. 

Last November, the Bangalore city police booked a case against three citizens, charging them for assaulting a traffic police officer. The main accused was Amulya Somashekhar, a volunteer of the civil society movement India Against Corruption (IAC). Amulya, her mother and friend were charged. Amulya, in turn, said that the officer had assaulted her for refusing to pay a bribe.

The local IAC volunteers asked for an independent inquiry, only to realise that there was no independent body which accepts complaints against the police. The police, instead, were preparing to conduct their own internal inquiry into the matter.

It was in 2006 that Supreme Court ordered that every state and district should have an independent authority to handle citizens' complaints against the police. This body, named Police Complaints Authority (PCA), is to be headed by a retired judge and can hold hearings on allegations of police misconduct and atrocities. Its final order would be binding on state governments. Karnataka still does not have a functioning PCA; although the government has - under pressure to comply with the SC order - appointed a head of the Authority, it does'nt have any staff or office yet!

Other than setting up PCAs, the SC ordered six key measures for police reform, in its 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh Vs Union of India. The reforms include establishing minimum tenure for senior officers and a procedure for appointing DGPs, setting up a body to make policy decisions on policing, and another to decide on promotions etc., so that political interference decreases in routine police work. Since police is a State subject in the Constitution, the states were supposed to bring these reforms.

Around the same time as the SC order, the central government-appointed Soli Sorabjee Committee prescribed a Model Police Act for states to follow. This committee was among the many that successive governments had set up since 1977 to recommend police reforms. Most states were following the archaic Police Act of 1861. The new state Police Acts were to have provisions for PCAs as well.

Only a few states have Police Acts now; those that have PCAs are even fewer. Six years after the SC order, only six states have PCAs - these are Assam, Haryana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Goa and Kerala. Of this, only Kerala has district-level PCAs, in addition to a state-level PCA. Meanwhile, cases of illegal detention and custodial torture by police continue to be reported across the country.

Five Union Territories - Pondicherry, Chandigarh, Delhi, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli - also have PCAs. Of these, Chandigarh's has been the only well-functioning PCA. Pondicherry's PCA has been defunct since its Chairman's retirement in June 2011. Delhi does not have a separate PCA; instead its existing Public Grievance Commission (PGC) - an independent body that accepts complaints on all government agencies - was given additional responsibility as a PCA. A single PCA has been set up for both Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

Existing PCAs ineffective

State governments have done much to tweak the composition and powers of PCAs. The court order had clearly prescribed how PCA members should be selected, and how investigations should be carried out in response to complaints.

Each PCA is to be headed by a retired High Court/Supreme Court judge, selected by the state government from a panel suggested by the serving HC/SC Chief Justice. Other members should be similarly selected from among members recommended by the State Human Rights Commission, State Public Service Commission, or Lokayukta. Appointments should never be done directly by the state government.

But so far, all state governments have made only direct appointments, which are perceived as political appointments. The directions on the composition of the PCA have been blatantly ignored, like in the case of Haryana, where the PCA has only a single member, the Chairman, who is a retired IAS officer.

PCAs are supposed to have only one retired IAS and IPS member each, and no serving officers are allowed. But Kerala state PCA has two serving officers - Principal Secretary and Additional DGP - as members. Its district PCAs have the Collector and district SP as members. Having serving officers, especially from the police, defeats the purpose of an independent, approachable public authority. It also violates the court's order that all members should work full-time for PCAs.

In the case of Kerala and Haryana, the violation of the court order is written to the state laws itself. Their state Police Acts prescribe the current composition. Tripura Police Act has followed the SC order in principle, but violated it in practice. Tripura has two retired police officers in its PCA, as opposed to one such officer allowed as per the Act. Goa is yet to its Police Act; the PCA in that state was set up based on a Government Order.

The SC order also prescribed that at least one member in the PCAs should be a woman. But only four PCAs - Uttarakhand, Pondicherry, Tripura and Chandigarh - have women members. This is as per the NGO CHRI (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative), which was an intervener in the Prakash Singh case, and has been following up on the SC order implementation.

Another problem that makes PCAs ineffective, is the investigation process. Only Assam has its own independent investigators, as mandated by the court order. All other PCAs forward complaints to the police department, asking it to investigate its own officers. Most complaints  are on illegal detention, refusal to file FIRs, custodial torture, filing of false cases, and extortion. The CHRI report says that many complainants reported being threatened by police, on filing the complaints.

In most cases, the police report would say that the officer is not guilty, and PCA would dismiss the case. Retd Justice T A Wilson, Chairman of seven district PCAs in Kerala, says that 95-97% of cases get dismissed based on police reports. "It is only in remaining cases that any hearing happens."

"Police Acts/GOs have no provisions for independent investigators. So PCAs cannot demand these from the government," says Devika Prasad, Senior Programme Officer for police reforms at CHRI.

PCAs also have no power to take action against police officials who do not cooperate. Often police officers do not attend hearings, and cases may lag for years.

Hardly any police officers punished so far

The number of complaints to PCAs is high, but action against officers is rare. In many cases where PCAs ordered punitive action, the order was ignored by the government. PCAs can order either a departmental inquiry or filing of FIR against officers, and government is bound to follow this. Governments ignore the order using a provision in State Acts/GOs that allow them to 'disagree' with PCA orders. The Acts say that "recommendations are binding unless the state disagrees with the order."

Devika Prasad says that this loophole is often used. "Even if government disagrees with an order, a departmental inquiry should be held before closing the case. But cases are closed or neglected. There have been hardly any cases in which action was taken," she says.

Chandigarh PCA, one of the more active authorities, had recommended suspension of many officers. According to Chandigarh administration's official website, the PCA received 237 complaints from September 2010 (when it started) till June 2012. It disposed of 204 of these, recommending disciplinary action in 50 cases, against 90 policemen.

But no action was taken against these officers, and a PIL came up for hearing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court this June, saying that the PCA should be given more teeth. At the hearing, Chandigarh Administration clearly responded that PCA was already exceeding its jurisdiction by ordering suspensions and transfers. It said that PCA was only a recommending body, and that government could disagree with its recommendations.

Lack of government support also prompts PCAs to pass weak orders. It took Haryana PCA one-and-half years to pass its first order for punitive action. Most PCAs also choose to recommend departmental inquiry, rather than filing of FIR. Since departmental inquiries are easier to ignore, most have been lagging for years.

There is no clear data on what action was taken on PCA orders; most often PCAs themselves are not kept in the loop. Only Goa PCA has been proactively asking police to submit action-taken reports.

Justice Wilson says that he has recommended action in 10-15 cases since May 2010 (for all seven districts combined), but was not informed of action taken. "I only heard some rumours;  the concerned officials have not informed me. The problem is that government does not want to take action," he says. Even then, these district PCAs continue to get cases, some of them as much as 30-40 new cases per month.

The CHRI report quotes some complainants as saying that the PCAs'Â weak orders were not worth the risk of complaining against the police, and that such orders would work against them if they went to court later.

No funds, no rules

Many PCAs do not have well-equipped offices, staff or funds. Police Acts and GOs do not mention anything about funding of PCAs, and sometimes no allocation is made. For instance, Kerala's district PCAs still function from the offices of each Collector, who also gives them discretionary funds. There is no state government funding, and the Chairmen are not given vehicle allowance to travel across districts.

Also, the rules for daily functioning of PCAs have not been made, making it difficult for the public to understand or question them. The format for filing complaints, communication on hearings etc., are randomly prescribed. When a case is dismissed, the reason for dismissal is not clearly mentioned in the orders. PCAs themselves are supposed to make the rules and get them approved by government. Only Uttarakhand PCA has sent draft rules to state government so far. PCA sent the draft in 2008, but the government returned them without approval in 2011.

States like Assam and Haryana have laws that make it difficult to file compaints - in these states complainants have to file a sworn statement against the accused, along with a fee. If the complaint is judged frivolous, the complainant can be punished with a fee or penalty.

Other states stuck

According to CHRI, five states - Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh - have ignored the SC order completely. Others have drafted Police Acts, or passed notifications on PCAs, but will have PCAs with similar problems as the existing ones.

Gujarat PCA, for example, is to have serving police and government officers in state PCA; its district PCAs will have district SPs as Chairmen. Himachal Pradesh's Lokayukta will act as its state PCA.

The Supreme Court had set up a committee earlier to monitor implementation of its order. This committee, headed by retired SC Justice K T Thomas, submitted its final report in 2010. The report blamed states for their unwillingness to set up PCAs. The SC then sent notices to some states asking for explanation. Prasad says that there have been no hearings of late.

Existing PCAs too are facing more hurdles, while some are becoming more proactive. The Goa government now plans to dissolve its PCA through its new Police Bill. The Bill, yet to be passed, says that Lokayukta will act as the PCA. On the other hand, Assam and Tripura PCAs recently published their performance reports. The Tripura authority has outreach programmes now to create awareness. The Haryana PCA has a website and accepts complaints online.

The autonomy and routine functioning of these bodies, as envisaged in the Supreme Court order, remains a distant dream.