Month: May 2021

‘Indefensible’: Former Bureaucrats Slam Centre’s Unilateral Move to Transfer Bengal Chief Secy

“It seems odd and rather improper for the Centre to first approve Bandyopadhyay’s extension and then recall him within days,” former cabinet secretary B.K. Chaturvedi said.

Kolkata/New Delhi: West Bengal’s chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay retired from his position on Monday afternoon amidst the ongoing tussle between the Centre and the state. He was immediately appointed as the chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s principal advisor for a period of three years.

The dramatic development came after the Department of Personal Training (DoPT) controversially recalled the top officer to be present at the North Block on Monday morning days after it had approved a three-month extension of his tenure.

In view of Bandyopadhyay’s role in the state’s COVID-19 management and an emerging crisis due to the destruction caused by Cyclone Yaas in many districts of Bengal, the Centre had approved the state government’s request to extend Bandyopadhyay tenure, which was scheduled to end on May 31.

However, in an unprecedented move, the DoPT invoked rule 6(1) of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 to recall him to Delhi after Banerjee and Bandyopadhyay skipped a scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other Union ministers on May 28 to attend another state government’s meeting. Since then, both the Centre and state have locked horns with each other.

Banerjee had earlier announced that despite the DoPT’s order, the state government would not be releasing Bandyopadhyay. She wrote a five-page letter to the Prime Minister, refusing to comply with the Centre’s order.  “The government of Bengal cannot release, and is not releasing, its Chief Secretary at this critical hour, on the basis of our understanding that the earlier order of extension, issued after lawful consultation in accordance with applicable laws, remains operational and valid,” the letter said.

Also read: Mamata to PM Modi: Rescind Order Recalling Chief Secretary, Will Not Release Him

While appointing Harikrishna Dwiwedi as the new chief secretary on Monday, Banerjee announced that Bandyopadhyay had already submitted his resignation to the Centre and would now take over as her principal advisor.

“This is vendetta. I have never seen such cruel behaviour. Just because they want to attack the Chief Minister, they attack the Chief Secretary. The Centre may not be aware that he has superannuated and his services are not available for the Centre. I have decided we need his service for the Covid pandemic. For Covid and for Cyclone Yaas, he must continue his service to the poor, the state, the country, the affected people…” the chief minister told reporters at the state secretariat.

When asked about whether the Centre was trying to send a strong message to the bureaucracy, Banerjee said, “They (Centre) are suffering from insecurities. A bureaucrat is insulted after he has dedicated his life to his work, what message is the government and PM sending out? They (Centre) think that bureaucrats are bound to do whatever they will be told. Now, there must be an end of tolerance. It is too much. My full solidarity with the bureaucracy. You want to scare the bureaucracy. We are not scared. I am not scared of you. Those who are afraid crumble. We fight and we win.”

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee with state chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay during a meeting, in Kolkata. Photo: PTI

On why she skipped the Cyclone Yass review meeting at West Medinipur’s Kalaikunda with the Prime Minister, the chief minister said that she had already met him and handed over her request for a relief package of Rs 20,000 crore. “I could not stay in the meeting because of the state’s administrative review meeting at Digha,” Banerjee told the media.

Former bureaucrats lash out at the Centre for its unilateral decision-making

Bandyopadhyay who had to retire in such a dramatic situation received massive support from various retired career bureaucrats, who see the Centre’s flip-flop as disastrous for the confidence of Indian bureaucracy.

Speaking to The Wire, former cabinet secretary B.K. Chaturvedi said that although in such cases the Centre’s decision prevails, the rules also make it clear that the Centre cannot make such a move without consulting the state government. “The Government of India is expected to consult the state government – sometimes multiple times – before making such a decision. In this case, it appears that there has been no consultation at all. The Centre’s view will prevail but the consultation process has to be gone through first. That is the most important thing,” he said.

“It seems odd and rather improper for the Centre to first approve Bandyopadhyay’s extension and then recall him within days,” he said. He added that although the Central Administrative Tribunal may uphold the Centre’s view if Bandyopadhyay decided to appeal, the way the Union government went about taking a unilateral decision in this case was “indefensible”.

Also read: Cyclone Yaas and Spring Tide Inundate Coastal Line of Bengal’s Medinipur, Sundarbans Regions

Former head of Prasar Bharati Jawhar Sircar told The Wire that the May 28 order sent by the Centre was “full of inconsistencies.”

“First of all, it cannot issue a unilateral order on an IAS officer who is not under its control, but under another government within the federation. The second striking feature is that it is really not a posting order because it does not mention to which post the CS of this state has been posted. It is more of an intimation rather than a formal order and it requests the state government to release him,” he said.

“The central government cannot force IAS or IPS officers to join a central posting in Delhi against his will, without either his written ‘option’ or his cadre-controlling authority, the state government, giving him prior clearance to ‘opt’ for the Centre,”  added Sircar.

When asked about what precedent the ongoing controversy sets, Sircar said, “Definitely in the longer term it will have an impact on bureaucracy. But moreover, it’s an exercise with a combination of absolute arrogance and stupidity. The Centre’s position had no base.”

Former Planning Commission member N.C. Saxena told The Wire that the Centre’s unilateral decision was a reflection of growing authoritarianism and centralisation in India. “On the face of it, the decision looks vindictive. There were no consultations at all,” he said.

“Our country is facing a crisis in the sense that authoritarianism, majoritarianism, and centralisation is growing in this regime. Earlier, officers sought out vacancies in the Government of India. Being at the Centre was considered better than serving states. But now, all of that is gradually changing because there is an environment of fear in New Delhi.”

Mamata Banerjee. Photo: PTI

“Whatever be the circumstances underlying the Centre’s order,” former Union revenue secretay E.A.S. Sarma said, “to transfer the senior-most civil servant of the State at a time like this, when the State is facing the brunt of Covid and the aftermath of the recent cyclone, raises questions on justification for such an abrupt decision.”
In a letter to the prime minister, Sarma wrote:
“Technically speaking, the IAS (Cadre) Rules no doubt empower the Centre to recall IAS officers from the State but such a recall should be based on justifiable grounds and for upholding the public interest. Even while taking such a decision, the Centre is required to hold prior consultation with the State and, in the event of disagreement, the Centre should cite the extraordinary circumstances that justify such a recall. From what I gather from the news reports available, it appears that the Centre has taken the decision in a unilateral and summary manner. If it is so, the order issued by the Centre will not stand the test of legality.”

Speaking to a regional news channel, Ardhendu Sen, former chief secretary of West Bengal singled out the lack of any reason for the Centre’s decision to recall Bandyopadhyay, hinting at possible political vindictiveness. “I heard the Centre has served a notice to Alapan Bandhopadhyay to explain why he didn’t report to Delhi on May 31. However, none of the letters that Centre has sent to the chief secretary has any explanation on why he was recalled to Delhi. I agree with the CM’s decision on appointing him as the chief advisor, the state administration can use his experience at these trying times.”

Also read: Transfer of WB Chief Secretary Heading Cyclone Relief is Latest Stage in Centre’s War on Mamata

On the question of further escalation and legal battle, Sen said, “I don’t think there will be any legal problems. He will be joining  as a state government’s advisor, which is completely under state’s jurisdiction. No one has locus standi here.”

However, It is unlikely that the controversy will end soon. NDTV reported central government sources as saying that Bandyopadhyay may soon face action for defying the Centre’s orders. The Centre has been attempting to tighten the noose around the state government ever since the ruling party BJP emerged as the primary opposition in the state. Its attacks have increased manifold ever since it lost the recent assembly elections by a huge margin.

Although cornering the chief secretary has caught a great deal of attention, the Centre had taken similar action against other bureaucrats in the run-up to the assembly elections. On December 12, the Union home ministry recalled three IPS officers – Superintendent of police (SP) of Diamond Harbour, Bholanath Pandey, additional director general of police (ADGP) of South Bengal, Rajeev Mishra, and deputy inspector general of police (DIG), Presidency Range, Praveen Tripathi – for central deputation from West Bengal. It had then held the three IPS officers responsible for the alleged security lapses during the BJP president J.P. Nadda’s rally in Bengal’s South 24 Parganas district. The Banerjee administration had even then refused to release any of the three IPS officers. However, the Centre did not pursue the matter.

Tripura: BJP Supporters Attack Veteran Journalist Samir Dhar’s Residence

“This is for the third time since 2018 my house was attacked,” Dhar said.

Agartala: A group of BJP supporters attacked the residence of Tripura’s veteran journalist and vice president of the Assembly of Journalists (AoJ), Samir Dhar, late on Saturday, May 29. This is the third such attack on Dhar’s house since 2018 when the BJP assumed power in the state, and attacks on journalists have since become a regular occurrence.

Stating that Dhar has been threatened several times, the AoJ, in a statement, said, “The miscreants, known as supporters of the ruling BJP party, entered the area on Saturday late night at around 9 pm with sharp weapons and carried out the attacks. They vandalised the boundary walls of Samir Dhar’s residence and also abused him using obscene language and threatened him with dire consequences.”

Dhar is a Tripura correspondent of AajKaal, a regional language newspaper from West Bengal, and is also the younger brother of Tripura’s Left front convener Bijan Dhar.

Expressing outrage against the series of attacks on journalists and media outlets across the state, AoJ demanded the immediate arrest of the assaulters.

On Sunday, May 30, members of AoJ, including Jayanta Debnath, Anal Roy Chowdhury, along with general secretary Shanit Debray and vice-president Arun Nath, visited Dhar at his residence to inquire into the incident.

They said that a written complaint was lodged with the Amtali police station, however, it had been more than 24 hours and there was no information about any arrests so far.

“The matter has also been brought to the notice of the state police chief on behalf of AoJ. The attack was pre-planned and is part of a conspiracy,” the AoJ alleged.

They, however, alleged that such attacks have gained momentum in the state after chief minister Biplab Kumar Deb threatened the media at a public meeting on September 11 last year.

Also read: Tripura: Journalists Condemn CM Biplab Kumar’s Statements, Say They Led to Attacks

“It has been noticed that this attack is happening as the chief minister on adamant with his statement. The Assembly of Journalists, the largest unity forum for journalists in the state, is expressing deep concern over such behavior,” the statement read.

Speaking with The Wire, Dhar said that miscreants had attacked his residence along with his neighbours’ house on Saturday midnight.

“This is for the third time since 2018 my house was attacked. The miscreants couldn’t enter inside my house, but they vandalised boundary walls, threatened me, and used bad language. Not only me, but they also attacked our neighbour’s house,” Dhar said, adding that the miscreants had also attacked the supporters of CPI(M).

“I filed an FIR regarding the matter. The police today came to my home and said that they started investigating the matter,” Dhar said.

An on-duty police official from the Amtali police station said that on Sunday an FIR was filed against some unknown persons for attacking the residence of Dhar.

UNSC Watch | India Abstains on Resolution to Extend Sanctions, Arms Embargo on South Sudan

This is the first time that India has abstained on any approved resolution after joining the council for the eighth time as a non-permanent member in January this year.

New Delhi: Since joining the United Nations Security Council, India has, for the first time, abstained from voting on a resolution that extended the mandate of the sanctions regime on South Sudan, the world’s youngest state.

It was a busy week in New York, which saw the security council meeting twice inside the cavernous chambers rather than the video conferences of the current covid protocols.

In the last week, there were two open debates on the security of UN peacekeepers and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. There were also discussions on Somalia, Palestine, Syria and Mali. A closed-door informal meeting was convened by three UNSC members, Estonia, France and Ireland, over the forced landing of Ryan Air passenger in Belarus.

In terms of outcome, a presidential statement issued ahead of the May 24 open debate called for peacekeeping missions to be adequately resourced so that peacekeepers can fulfil their mandate effectively.

After a closed-door meeting on the coup in Mali on May 26, a press statement was issued by council president, China’s Zhang Jun that condemned the arrest of the President and Prime Minister of Mali and demanded their immediate release.

The Council also adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). The resolution on Iraq was approved unanimously, unlike the one on South Sudan.

Last Friday, UNSC renewed the arms embargo, travel ban, and assets freeze on South Sudan for another year. The same resolution (2577) also extended the mandate of the panel of experts monitoring the sanctions for 13 months.

While 13 countries voted in favour, the resolution witnessed abstention from two members – India and Kenya.

Also read: India Slams UNGA President’s Remarks on Kashmir During Pakistan Visit

This is the first time that India has abstained on any approved resolution after joining the council for the eighth time as a non-permanent member in January this year.

The last time that India had abstained was a decade ago, during the first year of its 2011-12 term. India had abstained twice that year. However, only one of the resolutions was adopted. In March 2011, UNSC approved an air embargo against Libya, which saw abstention from five countries, including India. Later that year, India had also abstained on a draft resolution, vetoed by Russia and China, that condemned Syrian authorities for their crackdown on protestors.

India has never voted against a resolution that has mustered the required majority in UNSC, but it has abstained on rare occasions during its last seven terms. During those 14 years, the council has passed 396 resolutions. However, India abstained only thirteen times – or about 3% – during voting on these adopted resolutions, The Wire analysed from official UN records.

In addition, India did not participate in the voting – and was marked ‘not voting’ – on a resolution calling on UN members to give aid to repel the North Korean attack upon South Korea in June 1950.

Before resolution 2577, UNSC had passed 15 resolutions this year. All of them were unanimous, except two, where Russia had abstained.

Representative image of UNSC in session.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons

In the latest instance, the draft of the resolution was circulated by the US, penholder of South Sudan in the council.

After getting independence a decade ago, South Sudan slid quickly into civil war. In 2018, a peace agreement was signed, but has not been fully implemented. There is continuing ethnic violence, which has led to displacement and the killing of thousands.

Within the council, there have been sharp differences about the efficacy of targeted sanctions against South Sudan, which were first created in 2015. Three years later, another UNSC resolution had imposed an arms embargo and bulked up the sanctions regime. When these strictures were last renewed in 2020, China, Russia and South Africa abstained.

When the US draft was under negotiation, sources said that India, along with China, Russia and Kenya, had proposed changes that would remove some of the conditions that South Sudan needed to fulfil to show progress for removal of the punitive measures.

There were initially ten conditions, known as ‘benchmarks’. These were narrowed down to five criteria listed in the final resolution.

Sources also pointed out that two more of the original ten benchmarks were also integrated into the resolution by including them in a subsequent operative paragraph.

Also read: India Abstains as UNHRC Approves Probe Into Israeli Human Rights Abuses in Palestine

India did not give a public explanation of its vote. But, in March this year, when UNSC extended the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan, India had stated it would “support all efforts seeking to establish a clear benchmarking measures on South Sudan”. India’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, Nagaraj Naidu, added that it should be done “in full consultation with the Government of South Sudan and other regional stake-holders”.

The sentiment prevailing in the Indian side was the benchmarks were too intrusive and stringent for the South Sudan authorities to fulfil them.

In its explanation of vote, Kenya said that it chose to abstain as “more flexibility could have been shown to make the eventual lifting of the sanctions realistic and certain”.

Kenya also reiterated that the regional bodies, African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), have repeatedly called for lifting targeted sanctions and arms embargo on South Sudan.

When the final vote tally was declared on May 28 with 13 votes in favour, it was a bit of surprise for observers to note that China and Russia had not abstained as they did last time, even though the benchmarks have tightened the sanctions regime.

A man waves South Sudan's national flag as he attends the Independence Day celebrations in the capital Juba, July 9, 2011. Credit: Reuters/Thomas Mukoya/Files

A man waves South Sudan’s national flag as he attends the Independence Day celebrations in the capital Juba, July 9, 2011. Photo: Reuters/Thomas Mukoya/Files

There was also no unity among the three African countries on the UNSC, with Niger and Tunisia voting for the resolution. The elected African members are often viewed as an informal bloc, known as the ‘A3’.

India currently has over 2400 troops stationed in South Sudan, the second-largest country contingent in UNMISS after Rwanda. Indian oil companies have in total invested $2.5 billion in the African country.

Back to face-to-face diplomacy?

In a sign of slow return to normalcy, the 15-member UN body met inside the cavernous Security Council chamber on May 25 and 27. This was their first physical meeting since last December 2020. Due to COVID-19 protocols, the vast majority of the Security Council since mid-2020 have been held through video conferences.

But, only a minimal number of officials of the member states were allowed inside the chamber. The seats of the chief national delegates on the main table has been divided by plexiglass, donated by Russia.

Also read: UNSC Watch: From Gaza to Libya, Security Council Churns Out Long-Delayed Compromises

On May 27, the council voted for the first time in person on a resolution since November 2020.

This was the first time that elected non-permanent members who joined this January, like India, sat in the designated seats around the horseshoe table.

Jaishankar unveils India’s themes for August presidency

The Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar visited the US last week, with New York in his first leg.

During his meeting with Secretary General Antonio Guterres, he conveyed that India had chosen two specific themes when it takes over the rotating UNSC presidency in August – Maritime Security and Technology for Peacekeeping.

That means that India will be organising two open events on these topics. With two months left, there were still a lot of decisions to be made on whether these meetings will be virtual or physical. That will also determine if Jaishankar will travel to New York to chair at least one of the open debates.

This week in UNSC

Estonia will take over the rotating presidency of the council from June 1. Two draft resolutions are expected to be adopted this year – one, for renewing mandate of UNITAMS and another for extending authorisation for members states to inspect vessels on high seas to impose arms embargo on Libya.

The council will meet to discuss Syria chemical weapons and Yemen’s humanitarian situation.

Across Waves of COVID-19 in India, Sanitation Workers Remain Most Ignored

The National Commission for Safai Karamcharis chairperson has said that coupled with absence of Central data, state governments too have not even bothered to reply to the panel’s notices for data.

New Delhi: Even with a recent data study showing that over half of the COVID-19 deaths among employees of the three municipal corporations of Delhi were among safai karamcharis, there is still no nationwide record of similar data. Nor is there uniform insurance or compensation schemes for sanitation workers who have been at the frontline of the fight against the pandemic.

Talking to The Wire, Chairperson of National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, M. Venkatesan, said despite the high number of deaths among safai karamcharis due to COVID-19, the states have not come up with a uniform policy for the welfare of these workers.

“We have been speaking to all the states to protect the lives of the safai karamcharis. This is with respect to both their work during COVID-19 and manual scavenging. We have asked for details from all the states on the schemes for their welfare. But so far no state has provided any details,” Venkatesan said.

Venkatesan added that since the Commission is a non-statutory body, it is limited in scope. “Every year we ask the states for reports. Since the start of COVID-19, we have written to all states on two occasions. The problem is being a Commission we cannot even approach the Supreme Court to assist us in getting a feedback or response from the states.”

The state governments, he said, provide details on manual scavenging and other issues to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as the finance and development corporations under the ministry also provide development funds to the states.

Also read: Sanitation Workers Holding the Fort Against COVID-19 Have No Protective Equipment

“But COVID-19-related details have not been coming to us from the ministry,” he said, adding that the Commission has asked state government to provide insurance cover for all sanitation workers.

‘At least Rs 25 lakh compensation’

Now, Venkatesan said, the Commission was pushing individual state governments to at least provide Rs 25 lakh compensation to families of safai karamcharis for deaths due to COVID-19. “We recently wrote to Tamil Nadu chief minister in this regard,” he pointed out.

Tamil Nadu is one of those states which have witnessed a number of deaths among sanitation workers due to COVID-19. In July last year, there were reports that six Chennai sanitation workers had succumbed to the novel coronavirus.

It was also pointed out that since these deaths were not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the families of the deceased were not eligible for the Rs 50 lakh compensation and job for an immediate family member which the Chennai corporation had announced for COVID-19-related deaths.

Though the Madras Corporation Red Flag Union urged compensation for them saying they had “contracted the infection during the work”, and the hospital details of these patients showed that they tested positive for the coronavirus while they were on duty, as per the reports they have not received any compensation.

Delhi municipal employees 

The recent revelation that a high percentage of municipal workers in Delhi, who died due to Covid-19, were sanitation workers has once again shown how vulnerable safai karamcharis remain.

The data provided by the three Municipal Corporations of Delhi revealed that sanitation workers comprised 16 of the 29 dead employees in South MCD, 25 of 49 in North MCD and 8 of 16 in East MCD. In all, 49 of the 94 municipal employees who died were sanitation workers.

Also read: Sanitation Workers: At the Bottom of the Frontline Against COVID-19?

Together, the three civic bodies employ around 50,000 sanitation workers, who include both permanent and temporary employees.

Incidentally, the number of deaths among safai karamcharis was found to be much high than even healthcare workers – 13 of whom lost their lives due to COVID-19 during the same period.

Compensation 

In Delhi, too, compensation for deceased safai karamcharis remains a political issue.

East Delhi Mayor Nirmal Jain, who belongs to BJP, said, “Every sanitation worker should be given Rs 1 crore compensation in a week and permanent jobs should be provided to their dependents”. But, added that the Delhi government under Aam Aadmi Party leader and chief minister Arvind Kejriwal would be approached in this regard.

The other corporations, also under BJP, are also raising a similar demand with the AAP government but the outcome of these moves remains uncertain.

There have been similar instances in other parts of the country where safai karamcharis have been dying due to COVID-19 and yet their families struggled to access the promised compensation. Earlier in May this year, a sanitation worker was a garbage collector died to COVID-19 in Shimla in Himachal Pradesh.

His death triggered a demand for payment of the Rs 50 lakh ex-gratia, that was promised to all frontline workers in the state, to his family. Former Mayor of Shimla, Sanjay Chauhan, was among those who raised the demand saying, “The city didn’t lose a sanitation worker but a COVID-19 warrior.”

‘Sanitation workers lack safety gear’

At the start of the pandemic in India, The Wire had reported on how it may impact the sanitation workers very adversely considering the hazardous conditions they work in. The report had pointed out how many of them were forced to work without proper protective equipment.

Also read: A Year Into Pandemic, Chennai’s Sanitation Workers Still Don’t Have the Right Gear

It quoted Ramon Magsaysay Awardee and National Convener of Safai Karamchari Aandolan (SKA),  Bezwada Wilson, as saying: “Right now, sanitation workers do not have any safety gear and the loss of their lives hardly matters to anyone.”

The report also had chief executive of WaterAid India, V.K. Madhavan, wondering “why the society doesn’t care about the people doing our most essential work”.

Over the past year, these words have proved true. While the working conditions of the sanitation workers have not improved much, the pandemic has only exposed them to greater hazards. From picking garbage from COVID-19-positive households to being tasked with the disposal of bodies of COVID-19 victims, sanitation workers have had to shoulder all kinds of responsibilities. A case in point being Chhattisgarh where some sanitation workers were employed in April this year to ferry bodies of COVID-19 victims in a garbage van.

‘No data on safai karamcharis with Union government’

The absence of data was acknowledged by Union Minister of State Ramdas Athawale in Parliament in September last year when in response to a question by MP Bhagwat Karad, he said: “Hospitals and dispensaries being a state subject, no data is maintained in the Union Government about Safai Karamchari, who have died due to health and safety hazards related [to] cleaning hospitals and medical waste during COVID-19 pandemic.”

On being asked about the measures taken to protect the health of sanitisation workers, Athawale said that the Ministry on Health and Family Welfare had provided guidelines on the rational use of PPEs and Infection Prevention and Control Practices.

He added that Infection Prevention and Control Committees were constituted in States to monitor the exposure status of healthcare workers. An advisory for managing health-related work in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 areas of hospitals was also issued by the Ministry on June 18.

Father of Bihar Girl Who Rode 1,200 km on Cycle With Him During Lockdown Dies

Sixteen-year-old Jyoti Paswan’s father Mohan was 45 years old and was well until the morning of May 31, his family said.

Patna: The father of the girl who had made headlines last year after cycling 1200 kilometres to their Bihar village with him riding pillion during the lockdown passed away on the morning of May 31. 

Sixteen-year-old Jyoti Paswan’s father, Mohan, was 45 years old. Their village is in Bihar’s Darbhanga. 

 His wife Phulo Devi told The Wire that he was not suffering any major disease and was “absolutely well till morning.”

“Today morning he returned from a nearby bus stop and since then he has been feeling unwell. He told us that he is feeling hot. We then put the fan on. After a few minutes he went upstairs and suddenly died,” she said.

A local, Lalit Paswan, said Mohan was planning a community meal with his cousins, to be organised in the memory of his uncle who had passed away a few days.

Also read: From Gurgaon to Bihar, 15-Year-Old Girl Cycles 1,200 km With Injured Father

“He appears to have had a sudden heart attack,” Lalit, who works at the nearby Kamtaul Police Station, said.

Mohan had been working as an e-rickshaw driver in Gurugram for years. On January 26 last year, he was returning to his rented home when a car hit him. His left leg was badly injured and a doctor advised him 6-7 months of complete rest.

In two months, the Centre announced a complete lockdown with fewer than four hours’ notice. The lockdown left thousands of migrant workers starved and with no method of returning home. They were unable to pay rent either, as most of their workplaces had to shut down according to lockdown rules.

Migrants walk on the Delhi-Noida road in Ghaziabad, May 14, 2020. Photo: PTI/Vijay Verma

Like thousands of workers, Mohan too was left helpless. At that time, Jyoti was in Gurugram, looking after him. After seeing hundreds of people leaving for their native villages on foot, she had decided that she and her injured father needed to return to Sirhulli village in Darbhanga, their native house. 

Initially, Mohan father was reluctant but acquiesced to Jyoti later. They set out on 8 May, 2020 on an used bicycle Jyoti purchased.

In the aftermath of her journey, Jyoti had told The Wire that she rode the bicycle and her father rode pillion on the carrier slot to their village. They would sleep at petrol pumps during the night and ride the whole day. It took them more than a week to reach Darbhanga.

Photographs taken and shared widely on social media last year showing Jyoti Paswan on her cycle with her father. Photo: Twitter/@ShubhamKochar82

Her incredible journey put her in the limelight and many organisations stepped up with promises to help her financially. The Bihar government made her the ambassador for its social welfare project.

Also read: A Long Look at Exactly Why and How India Failed Its Migrant Workers

Mumbai-based filmmaker Vinod Kapri announced a film on her journey. A south Indian director signed a similar contract with Jyoti. The two filmmakers are in court over rights to the story.

In March, this correspondent had met the family at their home in Darbhanga. Mohan had said then that had been unemployed since returning from Gurugram. The social welfare department of Bihar had promised him a job.

The district administration had enrolled Jyoti in a government school. She appeared in the Class 10 board exams this year. “I would like to study as much as I can,” she had said in March.

Mohan then was concerned about Jyoti and his other three other children’s education.

He had said, “I worry about them. If I don’t get a job in the social welfare department then I will buy an e-rickshaw and ply it in my village. I don’t want to leave the family [and work elsewhere] as this will impact the children’s studies.”

Mohan had been helping Jyoti with the contract signing process of the film and had said he would accompany her when she would be invited to Delhi and Mumbai. 

COVID’s Bitter Pill: India’s GDP Contracts 7.3% In FY’21

GDP for Q4 FY’21, however, grew at 1.6%, according to new data released by the NSO on Monday evening.

New Delhi: India’s economy contracted by 7.3% for the fiscal year 2021 (FY’21), according to new government data released on Monday evening, in what is the latest sign of the economic toll that the coronavirus pandemic and subsequent lockdowns have taken.

Gross domestic product (GDP) for the January-March quarter of FY’21, also known as Q4, grew at 1.6%. This would make it the second straight quarter of growth after exiting the historic technical recession caused by the first wave lockdown. For Q3 FY’21, GDP growth came in at 0.4%.

“Real GDP or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at Constant (2011-12) Prices in the year 2020-21 is now estimated to attain a level of ₹135.13 trillion, as against the First Revised Estimate of GDP for the year 2019-20 of ₹145.69 trillion, released on 29th January 2021. The growth in GDP during 2020-21 is estimated at -7.3 per cent as compared to 4.0 per cent in 2019-20,” the statistics ministry said in a statement.

The FY’21 growth numbers announced on Monday are broadly in line with projections that had been made earlier. For instance, the National Statistical Office (NSO) had projected a GDP contraction of 7.7% in 2020-21 in its first advance estimates of national accounts released in January this year.

The NSO, in its second revised estimates, had projected a contraction of 8% for 2020-21.

Antrix-Devas, BIT Arbitrations, and India’s Quixotic Approach

At the core of this dispute is a 2005 agreement between Antrix and Devas for the lease of satellite spectrum which was annulled in 2011 following a policy decision of the Indian government.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) earlier this week has ordered the winding up of the Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (Devas), following a petition filed by the Antrix Corporation Ltd. (Antrix) – the commercial arm of India Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

At the core of this dispute is a 2005 agreement between Antrix and Devas for the lease of satellite spectrum which was annulled in 2011 following the policy decision of the Indian government to reserve the S-Band for national and strategic purposes. Apart from the commercial arbitration at the ICC, the dispute between Antrix and Devas has also manifested two Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)-based arbitrations, CC/Devas v India, under India-Mauritius BIT, and Deutsche Telekom v India, under the India-Germany BIT.

This piece dwells on the impact of the NCLT decision on the BIT arbitration awards, and the overall handling of BIT arbitrations by India. 

Important to note here that the BIT arbitrations are conceptually and legally distinct from the commercial arbitrations under ICC, notwithstanding that they were conducted parallelly. The BIT tribunal in CC/Devas held the Indian government responsible for indirect expropriation, and violation of fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard of the BIT. In October 2020, it awarded $111.30 million plus interest in compensation to CC/Devas.

In December 2017, the tribunal in Deutsche Telekom also held India responsible for the breach of FET contained in the India-Germany BIT, and in May 2020 awarded $101 million plus interest in compensation to the Deutsche Telekom which held 19 % shareholding in Devas. India challenged both these awards at their respective seats of arbitration – the CC/Devas award at the Hague District Court and the Deutsche Telekom award at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Both these courts have upheld the BIT awards. 

Instruments of the ASTROSAT being inspected at the ISRO Satellite Centre. Credit: ISRO

ISRO Satellite Centre. Credit: ISRO

Missed opportunity

An important issue in a BIT arbitration is ‘whether the foreign investment has been made in accordance with the laws of the host state’. This requirement is also known as the legality requirement. In other words, an investment not made in accordance with the laws of the host state cannot seek the protection of the BIT. An investment made as a result of corruption and fraud would fall in that category. This objection can be raised by the host state to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, and has been done in several BIT arbitration cases.

In the CC/Devas arbitration, India did not raise a jurisdictional objection based on the grounds of corruption and fraud of Devas and the illegality of the investments made, until the tribunal finalised its award on July 25, 2016. It was only in December 2016 that India requested the suspension of arbitral proceedings related to compensation on the ground that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed chargesheets against several officials of Devas as well as the government for crimes under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Indian government made a similar request to the Deutsche Telekom tribunal in October 2016 seeking suspension of the arbitral proceedings, only after the hearing phase was over. The request was rejected by the tribunal which stated that it was untimely and against the procedural requirements. 

The core argument in both these requests was that if the charges are upheld in the court, the Antrix-Devas agreement would be void ab initio under Indian law, and the tribunal’s determination that the ‘Devas agreement was a valid and binding agreement and an ‘investment’ under the BIT could not be sustained’. This argument must have been raised as a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, even though the investigations by CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) were ongoing and the chargesheet had yet not been filed.

The practice and jurisprudence related to dealing with corruption in international arbitration are far from settled, and still in the process of development, with divergent views, which could have been beneficial to India. As Lucinda Low notes, given the proliferation of international instruments and consolidation of obligations related to prevention, detection and remediation in both the public and private sectors, corruption has come to be accepted as an international and transnational public policy issue, and both BIT arbitration tribunals and commercial arbitration tribunals need to address the issues related to jurisdiction, admissibility, etc. arising out of the allegations of corruption. The Indian government would have had at least a shot at having the BIT arbitral proceedings stayed until the investigation was complete. It would have certainly put the Indian government in a relatively better position. 

This point was highlighted by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in its decision of December 2018, on the set-aside proceedings related to Deutsche Telekom when it observed while holding the Indian government’s objection as time-barred – ‘it is difficult to understand why the appellant did not mention these circumstances, which were indicative, at the very least, of suspicion of commission of criminal offences in its writings in the arbitration file, then during the hearing in April 2016, or  its brief after inquiries of June 10, 2016, preferring to wait until October 24, 2016, to inform the tribunal’.

Further, the Hague district court in the set aside proceeding related to CC/Devas award, rejected the argument of India that the BIT arbitral tribunal did not have the jurisdiction because the Antix-Devas agreement was contaminated by criminal offence and was null and void ab initio.

The court observed that ‘mere circumstance that a criminal complaint has been filed has no legal effect yet. This means that as long as no (irrevocable) court decision has been made on the criminal complaint, there is no question of a null and void Devas Contract due to the contamination with criminal offences.’

Also read: Games People Play: The Many Uses of the RBI’s Dividend to the Government

The NCLT decision and its impact

The NCLT decision ordering the winding up of the Devas has held that the ‘the incorporation of Devas itself was with fraudulent motive and unlawful object to collude and connive with the then officials of Antrix and to misuse/abuse the process of law, to bring money to India and divert it under dubious methods to foreign countries’. As a result of the winding-up proceedings, the official liquidator appointed by the NCLT will step in to pursue the legal proceedings related to the ICC award. 

Assuming that the NCLT decision is upheld in appeal to National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Supreme Court, it may also have an impact on the enforcement of the BIT arbitration awards in the CC/Devas and Deutsche Telekom case. At present, both CC/Devas and Deutsche Telekom have approached the US courts for recognition and enforcement of BIT arbitration awards.

Since NCLT has ordered the winding up of Devas, the Indian government may challenge the enforcement based on the NCLT ruling, arguing that the Antrix-Devas agreement is void ab initio as it has been vitiated by fraud and corruption. To be more specific India can object inter alia that the recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the US, which will be determined according to Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention 1958.

Although the prevalent view in the US jurisprudence is that the public policy defence resisting the enforcement of foreign awards must be narrowly construed, the cases related to corruption will fall under the purview of public policy defence. However, there are chances that the US court may be unimpressed with this argument, possibly because the NCLT has only ruled that ‘affairs of the company are being conducted in a fraudulent manner’.

Even as NLCT has spray-painted its decision with the assertion that the Antrix-Devas agreement is vitiated by fraud and corruption, it does not have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the agreement. The question regarding the validity of the agreement has still not conclusively been determined.

An application for setting aside the ICC arbitral award is pending before the Delhi high court, after being transferred by the Supreme Court in November 2020, while the ICC award has been kept at abeyance pending such determination. The question of the validity of the Antrix-Devas agreement owing to allegations of corruption and fraud will be the core issue to be decided by the Delhi high court. The Indian government may certainly request the US courts to stay the enforcement proceedings until such determination is made.       

Representative image. Photo: Unsplash/Tingey Injury Law Firm

Towards a third BIT arbitration?

Presently, faced with multi-billion-dollar awards resulting from both the ICC arbitration and the BIT arbitrations, the Indian government has gone all guns blazing to prevent Devas from enforcing the award. After the NCLT decision, it seems unlikely that Devas will be able to cash in on the ICC award. If it happens, then India will be caught again in a White Industries kind of situation.

The ICC award which Devas has procured can very easily qualify as an investment within the wide definition of investment under the India-Mauritius BIT. The Mauritian investors could argue that the Indian government by using its investigative agencies, and other regulatory authorities, have resorted to a retaliatory campaign against Devas, to prevent it from enforcing the ICC award.

Further, if one reads the NCLT decision, the displeasure of NCLT with Devas resorting to ICC arbitration is sprayed all over the 99 pages. To top it up, in the operative part of its decision, the NLCT, in the exercise of the ample granted to under the Indian law, has specifically directed the official liquidator ‘to take expeditious steps to liquidate the Company in order to prevent it from perpetuating its fraudulent activities and abusing the process of law in enforcing the ICC award.

Unless this specific direction is set aside in appeal against the NCLT, the liquidator cannot press for the enforcement of the award. Such express directive can be used by Mauritian investors to claim indirect expropriation of its investment, which in this case would be the ICC award.

In another move, in November 2020, the Indian government brought an ordinance amending the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which made it mandatory for the courts to grant an unconditional stay on the enforcement of awards from arbitrations seated in India, where there is a prima facie case that the arbitration agreement or the underlying contract which is the basis for the award, or making of an award is induced by fraud or corruption. The amendment has been given a retrospective effect and the ICC arbitration initiated in 2013, falls within its scope.

This can also be invoked by Devas, to point out the intention of the government to circumvent the enforcement of the ICC award. All these instances can be invoked by Devas to claim that the Indian government has created an uncertain regulatory environment, treated it unfairly and inequitably, and breached the FET obligations.

Another important aspect is the presence of the most favoured nation treatment provision (MFN) which can be used by Devas to import more favourable provision from other BITs, such as the obligation to provide ‘effective means of asserting claims…’ as present in the India-Kuwait BIT.

Way forward

The intention of the Indian government seems very clear – to avoid enforcement of the ICC award, and also the BIT arbitration awards which are yet to be confirmed by the US courts. Indian government’s mistake of not raising the corruption issue timely has severely cost it. The only way at present is to expedite the criminal proceedings, and conclusively determine that there was indeed corruption and bribery. For now, the only way to sum the entire approach of the Indian government is to call the BIT-based arbitrations windmills, and the Indian government, the Don Quixote. 

Pushkar Anand is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The author is thankful to Dr. Prabhash Ranjan and Aditya Vikram Singh for the valuable discussion on the issue. 

Called to Delhi, Bengal Chief Secretary Resigns, Named CM’s Principal Advisor

Earlier in the day, CM Mamata Banerjee had written to PM Modi, requesting him to withdraw the Centre’s order recalling the bureaucrat.

Kolkata: West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay resigned from his position on the afternoon of May 31, putting a temporary stop to the saga that had developed with the Modi government order recalling him to the Centre.

Bandopadhyay will be principal advisor to the chief minister for the next three years. Bengal’s new chief secretary will be Harikrishna Dwivedi and new home secretary, B.P. Gopalika.

Bandyopadhyay, a 1987-batch IAS officer of West Bengal cadre, was scheduled to retire on Monday after completion of 60 years of age. However, he was granted a three-month extension following a nod from the Centre to work on COVID-19 management.

This was until the Centre, in a surprise move after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to cyclone-affected areas in Bengal on May 28, sought Bandyopadhyay’s services on the same night and asked the state government to immediately release the top bureaucrat.

The Centre’s sudden move was largely assumed to be the product of a tussle between Modi and Banerjee, with BJP alleging that protocol had been broken during Modi’s visit by Banerjee.

Announcing Bandopadhyay’s decision to retire, Banerjee said that she stood beside bureaucrats and that the Modi government had disrespected bureaucrats through its move. “They are not bound to do whatever they are told. Enough is enough. I am with bureaucrats. They have been insulted. They [at the Centre] are full of empty speeches and [expect] bureaucrats to do the heavy lifting,” she said, as reported by local media.

Also read: Transfer of WB Chief Secretary Heading Cyclone Relief Is Latest Stage in Centre’s War on Mamata

Earlier on May 31, Banerjee had written to Modi, requesting him to withdraw the Centre’s order and said her government “is not releasing” the top bureaucrat. Announcing Bandopadhyay’s decision to retire, Banerjee said that the prime minister had not replied to her by late afternoon.

In a five-page letter, Banerjee urged the prime minister to reconsider the Centre’s decision to recall the chief secretary after giving him a three-month extension.

Banerjee said she was shocked by the Centre’s decision and termed the order as “unilateral”, which was issued “without any prior consultation” with the state government.

“This so-called unilateral order is an unreasoned volte face and by your own admission, against the interests of the state and its people.

She had also said, “The West Bengal government cannot release, and is not releasing its chief secretary at this critical hour, on the basis of our understanding that the earlier order of extension, issued after lawful consultation in accordance with applicable laws, remains operational and valid.”

In a communique to the state government, the personnel ministry on May 28 said the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the placement of the services of Bandyopadhyay with Government of India as per provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (cadre) Rules, 1954, “with immediate effect”.

It also directed Bandyopadhyay to report to the Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi by 10 am on Monday.

Bandopadhyay’s resignation means that he has also turned down the extension given to him.

(With PTI inputs)

Why Kenyans Fear a New IMF Loan

The terrible impact of past IMF loans has made it clear to many Kenyans that yet another loan spells disaster.

Never did I imagine that opposing an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan to Kenya would be viewed by the Kenyan authorities as a criminal act. But that is exactly what transpired in early April when activist Mutemi Kiama was arrested and charged with “abuse of digital gadgets”, “hurting the presidency”, “creating public disorder” and other vaguely-worded offences. Mutemi’s arrest was prompted by his Twitter post of an image of President Uhuru Kenyatta with the following caption: “This is to notify the world . . . that the person whose photograph and names appear above is not authorised to act or transact on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Kenya and that the nation and future generations shall not be held liable for any penalties of bad loans negotiated and/or borrowed by him.” He was released on a cash bail of KSh. 500,000 with an order prohibiting him from using his social media accounts or speaking about COVID-19-related loans.

Mutemi is one among more than 200,000 Kenyans who have signed a petition to the IMF to halt a KSh257 billion (US$2.3 billion) loan to Kenya, which was ostensibly obtained to cushion the country against the negative economic impact of COVID-19. Kenya is not the only country whose citizens have opposed an IMF loan. Protests against IMF loans have been taking place in many countries, including Argentina, where people took to the streets in 2018 when the country took a US$50 billion loan from the IMF. In 2016, Egyptian authorities were forced to lower fuel prices following demonstrations against an IMF-backed decision to eliminate fuel subsidies. Similar protests have also taken place in Jordan, Lebanon and Ecuador in recent years.

Harrowing past experience 

Why would a country’s citizens be against a loan given by an international financial institution such as the IMF? Well, for those Kenyans who survived (or barely survived) the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) of the 1980s and 90s, the answer is obvious. SAPs came with stringent conditions attached, which led to many layoffs in the civil service and removal of subsidies for essential services, such as health and education, which led to increasing levels of hardship and precarity, especially among middle- and low-income groups. African countries undergoing SAPs experienced what is often referred to as “a lost development decade” as belt-tightening measures stalled development programmes and stunted economic opportunities.

In addition, borrowing African countries lost their independence in matters related to economic policy. Since lenders, such as the World Bank and the IMF, decide national economic policy – for instance, by determining things like budget management, exchange rates and public sector involvement in the economy – they became the de facto policy and decision-making authorities in the countries that took their loans. This is why, in much of the 1980s and 1990s, the arrival of a World Bank or IMF delegation to Nairobi often got Kenyans very worried.

In those days (in the aftermath of a hike in oil prices in 1979 that saw most African countries experience a rise in import bills and a decline in export earnings), leaders of these international financial institutions were feared as much as the authoritarian Kenyan president, Daniel arap Moi, because with the stroke of a pen they could devalue the Kenyan currency overnight and get large chunks of the civil service fired. As Kenyan economist David Ndii pointed out recently at a press conference organised by the Linda Katiba campaign, when the IMF comes knocking, it essentially means the country is “under receivership”. It can no longer claim to determine its own economic policies. Countries essentially lose their sovereignty, a fact that seems to have eluded the technocrats who rushed to get this particular loan.

When he took office in 2002, President Mwai Kibaki kept the World Bank and the IMF at arm’s length, preferring to take no-strings-attached infrastructure loans from China. Kibaki’s “Look East” economic policy alarmed the Bretton Woods institutions and Western donors who had until then had a huge say in the country’s development trajectory, but it instilled a sense of pride and autonomy in Kenyans, which sadly, has been eroded by Uhuru Kenyatta and his inept cronies who have gone on loan fishing expeditions, including massive Eurobonds worth Sh692 billion (nearly $7 billion), which means that every Kenyan today has a debt of Sh137,000, more than three times what it was eight years ago when the Jubilee government came to power. By the end of last year, Kenya’s debt stood at nearly 70% of GDP, up from 50% at the end of 2015. This high level of debt can prove deadly for a country like Kenya that borrows in foreign currencies.

The Jubilee party government would have us believe that the fact that the IMF agreed to this loan is a sign that the country is economically healthy, but as Ndii noted, quite often the opposite is true: the IMF comes in precisely because a country is in a financial crisis. In Kenya’s case, this crisis has been precipitated by reckless borrowing by the Jubilee administration that has seen Kenya’s debt rise from KSh630 billion (about $6 billion at today’s exchange rate) when Kibaki took office in 2002, to a staggering KSh7.2 trillion (about US$70 billion) today, with not much to show for it, except a standard gauge railway (SGR) funded by Chinese loans that appears unable to pay for itself. As an article in a local daily pointed out, this is enough money to build 17 SGRs from Mombasa to Nairobi or 154 superhighways like the one from Nairobi to Thika. The tragedy is that many of these loans are unaccounted for; in fact, many Kenyans believe they are taken to line individual pockets. Uhuru Kenyatta has himself admitted that Kenya loses KSh2 billion a day to corruption in government. Some of these lost billions could actually be loans.

Behind IMF’s ‘generous’ lending 

IMF loans with stringent conditions attached have often been presented as being the solution to a country’s economic woes – a belt-tightening measure that will instill fiscal discipline in a country’s economy by increasing revenue and decreasing expenditure. However, the real purpose of these loans, some argue, is to bring about major and fundamental policy changes at the national level – changes that reflect the neoliberal ethos of our time, complete with privatisation, free markets and deregulation.

The first ominous sign that the Kenyan government was about to embark on a perilous economic path was when the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, made an official visit to Kenya shortly after President Uhuru was elected in 2013. At that time, I remember tweeting that this was not a good omen; it indicated that the IMF was preparing to bring Kenya back into the IMF fold.

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta with the former chief managing director of IMF Christine Lagarde. Photo: Twitter.

Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine, shows how what she calls “disaster capitalism” has allowed the IMF, in particular, to administer “shock therapy” on nations reeling from natural or man-made disasters or high levels of external debt. This has led to unnecessary privatisation of state assets, government deregulation, massive layoffs of civil servants and reduction or elimination of subsidies, all of which can and do lead to increasing poverty and inequality. Klein is particularly critical of what is known as the Chicago School of Economics that she claims justifies greed, corruption, theft of public resources and personal enrichment as long as they advance the cause of free markets and neoliberalism. She shows how in nearly every country where the IMF “medicine” has been administered, inequality levels have escalated and poverty has become systemic.

Sometimes the IMF will create a pseudo-crisis in a country to force it to obtain an IMF bailout loan. Or, through carefully manipulated data, it will make the country look economically healthy so that it feels secure about applying for more loans. When that country can’t pay back the loans, which often happens, the IMF inflicts even more austerity measures (also known as “conditionalities”) on it, which lead to even more poverty and inequality.

IMF and World Bank loans for infrastructure projects also benefit Western corporations. Private companies hire experts to ensure that these companies secure government contracts for big infrastructure projects funded by these international financial institutions. Companies in rich countries like the United States often hire people who will do the bidding on their behalf. In his international “word-of-mouth bestseller”, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins explains how in the 1970s when he worked for an international consulting firm, he was told that his job was to “funnel money from the World Bank, the US Agency for International Development and other foreign aid organisations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s resources”.

Also read: IMF Urged to Seriously Reconsider its Austerity Agenda in Ecuador

The tools to carry out this goal, his employer admitted unashamedly, could include “fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex and murder”. Perkins showed how in the 1970s, he became instrumental in brokering deals with countries ranging from Panama to Saudi Arabia where he convinced leaders to accept projects that were detrimental to their own people but which enormously benefitted US corporate interests.

“In the end, those leaders become ensnared in a web of debt that ensures their loyalty. We can draw on them whenever we desire – to satisfy our political, economic or military needs. In turn, they bolster their political positions by bringing industrial parks, power plants, and airports to their people. The owners of US engineering/construction companies become fabulously wealthy,” a colleague told him when he asked why his job was so important.

Kenyans, who are already suffering financially due to the COVID-19 pandemic which saw nearly 2 million jobs in the formal sector disappear last year, will now be confronted with austerity measures at precisely the time when they need government subsidies and social safety nets. Season Two of SAPs is likely to make life for Kenyans even more miserable in the short and medium-term.

We will have to wait and see whether overall dissatisfaction with the government will influence the outcome of the 2022 elections. However, whoever wins that election will still have to contend with rising debt and unsustainable repayments that have become President Uhuru Kenyatta’s most enduring legacy.

Rasna Warah is a Kenyan writer and journalist. In a previous incarnation, she was an editor at the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). She has published two books on Somalia – War Crimes (2014) and Mogadishu Then and Now (2012) – and is the author UNsilenced (2016), and Triple Heritage (1998).

This article was originally published on Elephant and is republished via Progressive International.

Fiscal Deficit for 2020-21 at 9.3% Of GDP: CGA

The Controller General of Accounts said that the revenue deficit at the end of the fiscal was 7.42%.

New Delhi: Fiscal deficit for 2020-21 was at 9.3% of the gross domestic product (GDP), lower than 9.5% estimated by the finance ministry in the revised Budget estimates, according to the Controller General of Accounts (CGA) data.

Unveiling the revenue-expenditure data of the Union government for 2020-21, the CGA on Monday said that the revenue deficit at the end of the fiscal was 7.42%.

In absolute terms, the fiscal deficit works out to be Rs 18,21,461 crore.

Also read: Games People Play: The Many Uses of the RBI’s Dividend to the Government

For this financial year, the government had initially pegged the fiscal deficit at Rs 7.96 lakh crore or 3.5% of the GDP in the budget presented in February 2020.

The government in the revised estimates in the Budget for 2021-22 forecast a higher fiscal deficit of 9.5% of the GDP or Rs 18,48,655 crore for the fiscal ended in March due to a rise in expenditure on account of the outbreak of COVID-19 and moderation in revenue during this fiscal year.

Fiscal deficit had soared to a high of 4.6% of the GDP in 2019-20, mainly due to poor revenue realisation.