Fwd: FW: Something Real to Learn in LiFe (MUST READ THAT SENTENCES)

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article38610.ece

Amendment to RTI Act 'an obviously retrograde step'

More than 200 eminent citizens have urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to abandon the "ill advised move to amend the RTI Act". This is the full text of the letter signed by Aruna Roy, Magsaysay Award winner, and others.

25^th October, 2009

Dear Dr. Manmohan Singh,

We are alarmed and distressed to learn from media reports that the Government of India proposes to introduce amendments to the RTI Act. This is despite categorical assurances by the Minister of State, DoPT that any amendments, if at all necessary, would only be decided upon after consultations with the public. We are further dismayed to read that far from strengthening the RTI Act, as stated by the Honourable President of India during her speech to the Parliament on 4^th June 2009, the government's proposition would in fact emasculate the RTI Act. The proposed amendments include, introducing an exemption for so-called "vexatious and frivolous" applications, and by excluding from the purview of the RTI Act access to "file notings" and the decision making process, this time by excluding "discussion/consultations that take place before arriving at a decision".

Two current nation-wide studies, one done under the aegis of the Government of India and the other by people's organizations (RaaG and NCPRI), have both concluded, that the main constraints faced by the government in providing information is inadequate implementation, the lack of training of staff, and poor record management. They have also identified lack of awareness, along with harassment of the applicant, as two of the major constraints that prevent citizen from exercising their right to information. Neither of these studies, despite interviewing thousands of PIOs and officials, has concluded that the occurrence of frivolous or vexatious applications is frequent enough to pose either a threat to the government or to the RTI regime in general. Certainly no evidence has been forthcoming in either of these studies that access to "file notings" or other elements of the deliberative process, has posed a major problem for the nation. On the contrary, many of the officers interviewed have candidly stated that the opening up of the deliberative process has strengthened the hands of the honest and sincere official.

We strongly believe that it is impossible to come up with definitions of "vexatious" and "frivolous" that are not completely subjective and consequently prone to rampant misuse by officials. We also feel that it is a hollow promise to have legislation for ensuring "transparency" and encouraging "accountability" in governance which excludes the basis on which a decision is taken. Would it be fair to judge a decision (or the decision maker) without knowing why such a decision was taken, what facts and arguments were advanced in its favour, and what against? Can one hold a government (or an official) accountable, just on the basis of what they did (or did not do) without knowing the real reasons for their action or inaction? We, the people of India, already directly or indirectly know the decisions of the government, for we are the ones who bear the consequences. What the RTI Act facilitated was a right to know why those decisions were taken, by whom, and based on what advice. This right is the bedrock of democracy and the right to information, and cannot be separated or extinguished without denying this fundamental right.

In any case, in case the government has credible evidence, that despite the findings of the earlier mentioned studies, and despite the safeguards inherent in the RTI Act, "vexatious and frivolous" applications, and access to the deliberative process, are posing a great danger to the Indian nation, these should be placed in the public domain. We are confident that the involvement of the people of India will result in evolving solutions that do not threaten to destroy the RTI Act itself. For a government that has been repeatedly been appreciated for bringing about this progressive legislation, such a move would strengthen the spirit of transparency and public consultation. Surely that is the least that can be expected of a government that propagates the spirit of transparency.

It is significant that even among the collective of Information Commissioners from across the country, whom the government recently "consulted", the overwhelming view was against making any amendments to the RTI Act at this stage of its implementation. These Commissioners, all appointed by the government, have a bird's eye view of the implementation of the RTI Act. They have the statutory responsibility to monitor the implementation of the Act, and the moral authority to speak in its defence. Since the government works with the democratic mandate of the people, the collective wisdom, of people across the board who use and implement the law with an ethical base cannot be put aside. In any case we feel the advice of the information Commissioners should be taken into account.

We urge the government to therefore, abandon this ill advised move to amend the RTI Act. Instead, we request it to initiate a public debate of the problems that it might be facing in the implementing of the RTI Act and take on board the findings of the two national studies that have recently been completed. It is only through such a public debate that a lasting and credible way can be found to strengthen the RTI regime.

This government gave its citizens the RTI Act, and there has been no crisis in government as a result of its enactment. In fact the Indian state has, as a result greatly benefited, and the RTI Act and its use by ordinary people is helping change its image to that of an open and receptive democracy. An amendment in the Act would be an obviously retrograde step, at a time when there is a popular consensus to strengthen it through rules and better implementation and not introduce any amendments. We strongly urge that an unequivocal decision be taken to not amend the RTI Act.

With regards,

Aruna Roy, Shekhar Singh, Nikhil Dey

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rakesh Reddy Dubbudu <rakesh.dubbudu@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:10 AM
Subject: Tribes Stall Steelmakers in India
To:

Tribes Stall Steelmakers in India

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703697004574495511978316746.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

By PRASENJIT BHATTACHARYA And SAHIL MAHTANI

NEW DELHI—Steel companies have pledged billions of dollars to expand in India, but they are struggling to secure the land they need in two mineral-rich states because of fierce opposition from local tribes and slow-moving governments.

The standoffs in the northeastern states of Orissa and Jharkhand have hit two of the world's top five steel producers, ArcelorMittal and Posco, and are threatening to stall a key driver of India's industrial activity in the years ahead. According to the steel ministry, projects worth $82 billion are being held up because of delays related to land acquisition and environmental clearances.

View Full Image

Adivaasi, Moolvaasi, Astitva Raksha Manch

Tribes in India have opposed steelmakers acquiring land for new projects. A protest last year against a planned ArcelorMittal plant in Jharkhand.

"India will face severe problems in expanding its steel-production capacity if the land-acquisition problem isn't dealt with soon," said N. K. Patnaik, executive director (Orissa), Uttam Galva Steels Ltd., an Indian steelmaker.

Companies bet that India's demand for steel will grow more than 10% a year in the next decade, led by India's gradual emergence as an auto-making hub. State and private spending on power plants, bridges, ports and a slew of low-cost housing projects are also expected to keep steel demand rising.

Land acquisition for new plants has been a problem for years as state governments and manufacturers seek to move farmers and others who live off the land to make way for industrial expansion.

About 66% of India's 275 million tons of new steel capacity in the next decade is expected to come in Orissa and Jharkhand, according to government data, because of the abundance of iron ore, coal and water, which are essential for setting up a steel plant. Few other states offer such possibilities, so shifting elsewhere is extremely difficult.

But nowhere has the land acquisition sparked as much anger and protest as in the two impoverished states, where a large portion of the population consists of tribal groups. These groups, often with the backing of activists and left-wing political organizations, have succeeded in halting land acquisition for several mining and industrial projects.

The issue attracted renewed focus recently after Lakshmi Mittal, chief executive of the world's largest steel producer, ArcelorMittal, vented his frustration over progress on new, or greenfield, projects earlier this month.

"The company continues to work on its two greenfield projects in Jharkhand and Orissa. However, in the event that land acquisition continues to prove difficult, we will start to search for alternate sites in India for our greenfield projects," Mr. Mittal said in a statement.

South Korea's Posco signed a deal with the Orissa government in June 2005 to set up a 12-million-ton-a-year steel plant but has yet to begin construction. "We are willing to offer both financial compensation and employment in our project," said Posco's general manager in India, S. K. Mohapatra. The company's projection is that plant construction could be completed by 2014.

Dayamani Barla, a prominent tribal activist in Jharkhand, says tribal identity is linked to land, forest and water, and once tribal people are displaced, their cultural and social identity would be destroyed. "Tribals can't live without the forest or without farming," she said. "Our battle is for saving our environment, forests, culture and social values."

Ms. Barla is the founder of the protest movement, Adivasi Moolvasi Astitva Raksha Manch (Indigenous Peoples Survival Forum), which has led protests against ArcelorMittal's proposed steel plant in the state of Jharkhand.

"Instead of destroying our forests, polluting rivers and destroying homes, the government should evolve policy to give only wastelands to industrial projects, so no conflict rises," she added.

Miners have been targeted too. The most vocal protest has been by Dongria Kondh, a tribal group in Orissa, protesting against the bauxite mines of Vedanta Resources in the Niyamgiri Hills of the state. In Jaduguda in Jharkhand, protests also have erupted over uranium mining.

In the face of angry protests, state governments consider it politically risky to push through projects. Many of the tribal groups live in forests, which are state property, but since they have lived there for centuries, governments don't want to antagonize them by forced eviction.

In September 2008, three land surveyors of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. were beaten up and their faces smeared with cow dung by villagers for conducting a land survey in Jharkhand for the company's proposed steel and power projects. Last year, hundreds of tribal members assembled near the proposed site of an ArcelorMittal steel plant chanting slogans such as "Go back Mittal."

"The tribal groups are not going to give up their land for any industrial project, be it Mittal or anyone else," said Dilip Minz, an activist with the Jharkhand Mines Area Coordination Committee. "Forced eviction of tribal population for industrial projects causes cultural, social and political damage to tribal populations that are very hard to repair."

Many locals are suspicious after past projects failed to adequately compensate landholders for their eviction, making it difficult for companies now to persuade them to relinquish land even with offers of compensation and employment. "The people in the state are upset about being underpaid in past industrial projects," said N.N. Sinha, Jharkhand's industries secretary.

While several industrial projects do offer jobs to one member of a tribal family, widespread illiteracy and lack of skills, other than farming, among tribal groups mean a small portion of them get jobs in factories. Most factory jobs are filled by nontribals living in small towns or larger villages, where education and skills training is more available.

Prafulla Samantara, secretary of the Lok Shakti Abhijan (Peoples Power Movement), which is protesting against steel projects being set up in Orissa, said, "People oppose land acquisition because they have seen what happens when people give up lands. They are starving and living on the street."

He said that tribals don't stand any chance of getting jobs in the new steel or other industrial projects being set up in the state. "How can the people benefit from industrialization, when they can't even read A,B,C,D?" he said.

Local governments also now get involved to vet terms, creating multiple layers of bureaucracy. "Since there were complaints of earlier deals undervaluing land, all matters related to land acquisition have to be approved by the district administration," said Tuhin K Mukherjee, executive director of JSW Steel Ltd., one of the India's largest steel companies. "Matters...often move back and forth in as many as 60 to 70 layers of bureaucracy."

A. M. R. Dalwai, secretary of Orissa's department of steel and mines, adding that apart from the challenge of persuading local landowners, environmental clearance for mega steel projects also takes time. He said private companies needed to step up efforts to persuade local landowners to give up their land for industrial projects.

Some projects are moving forward. Bhushan Steel, a midsize Indian company, is ready to begin commercial production of its five million tons a year plant in Orissa over the next few months, after acquiring land in Orissa in 2005.

Write to Prasenjit Bhattacharya at prasenjit.bhattacharya@dowjones.com and Sahil Mahtani at sahil.mahtani@dowjones.com

 

Sustainability

Dear Birds,

Please find the attachment regarding the IISC sustainability study, The interesting point in this document is, the areas of research is absolutely concentrating on the rural development and low cost living methodologies.
  

K.APPALA RAJU
Room No: 89, U Block,
Indian Institute of Science,
PIN: 560012
phone no: 09916516577

Regards,

PAVANKUMAR.T