Tag: Swaraj Abhiyan

‘Intent Behind Farmer Bills is to Avoid Accountability for Ensuring Fair Price to Producers’

In conversation with Avik Saha, co-founder of the Swaraj Abhiyan and national convenor of Jai Kisan Andolan.

New Delhi: As the Lok Sabha passed three controversial agricultural legislations, the country witnessed an outpouring of anger by the opposition parties, who alleged these bills are “anti-farmer”.

Farmers and traders have been vehemently opposing the new changes brought in by the Central government, alleging the government wants to discontinue the minimum support price (MSP) regime in the name of reforms.

Minister of food processing industries Harsimrat Kaur Badal on Thursday resigned over the passage of these bills in the Lok Sabha, while pressure is mounting on BJP’s Haryana ally, the Jannayak Janata Party leader Dushyant Singh Chautala to quit.

The upper house on Thursday passed the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 with a voice vote. Earlier, it has passed the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill.

In an interview to The Wire, Avik Saha, co-founder of the Swaraj India and the party’s point-person on agricultural issues, noted that these changes are a way to corporatise food production, supply and the food market of India.

He also said that in the name of reform, the government cannot abdicate its duty to ensure that the farmer, or the producer, gets a fair price, and also ensure that food is affordable to everyone.

Edited excerpts of the interview follow.

Termed as ‘historic’ by the BJP, are these moves really going to work for the farmers? Is it a question of short-term pain versus long-term gain or is what the government is doing conceptually flawed?

It’s conceptually flawed. I would be the first one to tell the farmers to go through some short-term pains for long-term gains. We do sensible farm politics. We don’t do zindabad murdabad kind of politics. If the intent of the government was to actually structurally change the crop marketing of this country for the benefit of the farmers, we would have supported the government perhaps.

But here the intention is very clear. The writing on the wall, no matter how many times the PM tweets…. what is he essentially saying?

He is saying: ‘We understand that you need price security for your crops. We understand that we are not being able to give you price security – we the government. But we have found a solution. We are going to make this a free market so that you’re free to sell it to anyone. Because in a bigger market, you will have greater opportunity to attract buyers, and therefore, by the law of demand and supply you will get better price’

This is what the message is saying clearly, if I am speaking, let’s say, on behalf of the BJP.

Also read: Agri Reforms: Farmers Protest, Modi Says Leaders’ Versions Are Misleading. What’s the Truth?

But the problem with lower prices was never because of the size of the market, but because of the disparity between the contracting power of the parties. So, no matter how big you make the market, a poor farmer in front of 100 big traders will be at the same disadvantage that he is today.

So, the farmer will finally not be able to get a higher price, but in the process of a quest for a higher price will lose whatever security she has today – which is the government’s compulsion to announce MSP twice a year, purchase certain food crops (practically only two food crops) at MSP through the public distribution system, and step in and stop price crashes by market intervention schemes.

Now what will actually happen is this: all the trade will go out of the farm markets, which are imperfect markets and need a lot of correction; but it’s like saying that I have a boil in my leg and so let me just cut off my leg. So instead of correcting the imperfect APMCs, the government is taking all the trade out of the APMCs. The whole process of price discovery will be gone.

Today I can tell you right now how much chana is selling below MSP in a particular mandi in Karnataka because it is put on a government website called “Agmarknet”. When the trade moves out into the open, uncontrolled, unknown market, there will be no information in “Agmarknet”. There will be no way of knowing.

So, in my view, the whole problem of farmers not getting price and this becoming an agitational and electoral issue is being attempted to be hidden by this government to make the problem disappear, and publishing the prices below MSPs will not happen anymore.

When you go through the Bills, fundamentally, as I come back to my original point, the intent is twofold. The intent is not written on the caption that this is good for the farmers and benefits them.

The intent is: first, the government’s abdication of the responsibility of being accountable for fair prices to farmers. Second, our fears will be proven right if they proceed with this “nonsense” that the market will be captured and monopolised by very large business houses.

Basically, you mean this will neither help the producers nor the consumers.

Absolutely right.

Farmers allege that in the name of reforms, the government is planning to discontinue the MSP regime. Agriculture economists like Ramesh Chand and others however say this is not possible as the system of government procurement has to continue to meet its PDS obligations. Is it justified then to claim that MSP operations will go away as a result of these bills?  

Mr. Chand should be informed that PDS is distributed under the NFSA (National Food Security Act), 2013 which mentions that the provision for subsidised food is three years. The central government’s previous attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, had argued in the Supreme Court in 2016 against NFSA – that it is about to die anyway.

He had argued it in court publicly and the law also provides that subsidised price is good for three years. Whether the PDS can be dismantled or not is a political decision; legal provision however entitles the government to dismantle it three years from 2013, which is up to 2016, but it continued past that.

And, second, even if the government continues to distribute under PDS, it has to buy it [foodgrains] from someone. Tomorrow, the government may buy it from, lets say, Mr Ambani. PDS purchases can be done from the cheapest source of supply. It doesn’t have to be purchased from the farmers.

Today, people like you and me who earn, say, Rs 25,000 and more spend roughly 25% of our earnings on food. In Mr. Modi’s free market, we could be spending 50% or 60%. How can we blame Mr. Modi – this is a free market and we have a choice of eating and not eating!

So, I see food prices going up, and this is also going to be politically very difficult for Mr. Modi because he cannot fight the “middle class”. And if the food prices go up, it’s the middle class which creates a lot of noise. But also remember that it is the middle class that is votary of free market and private enterprise.

So when the free market comes back to bite your hand, what will the middle class have to say?

Overall it is a very bleak, very sinister, design to corporatise food production. I fear the worst which is why the farmers are fighting back hard, and they will either win or die – that’s their position. Let’s see if Mr Modi understands and decides to roll it back.

Farmers carry wheat as they return to their homes following heavy rainfall induced by Cyclone Amphan, in Birbhum district of West Bengal, May 21, 2020. Photo: PTI

How can this reform be made more palatable for farmers, since the MSP regime insures agricultural producers against any sharp fall in farm prices?

If your intent is right and your drafting is wrong, it can be corrected. I do not know of any slight of hand with which intent can be corrected. I don’t want amendments. This law in itself is an anti-thesis for the entire structure that exists.

I am the first to admit that there are lots of shortcomings in this [current] structure, but replacing that structure with this is like killing the patient. This is no cure at all.

There are so many questions to be asked. For instance, why did Modi draft the model APMC Act? He drafted it and pushed it to the states that they must adopt it. We have not argued with the APMC Act which Mr. Modi has drafted and pushed.

This [the three ordinances] is such a historic change for the farmers. Why didn’t Mr Modi talk to the farmers and explain it to them? After all, it’s for their welfare.

You will make a law, push it down their throat and tell them this medicine is good for you.

The whole process of these ordinances becoming laws is tainted, with malintent that it can’t be trusted even at face value.

Suppose the monopoly of APMCs does come to an end. What impact will this move have on farmers, traders and farmer organisations? 

It’s all right to say that farmers can sell to the whole world, but they could sell even before these ordinances via the eNAM system. So what was that eNAM? And we can all go back and check his press releases where he said this [eNam] is a gamechanger. Now a farmer can sell it to anyone anywhere through electronic digital India. So was he lying then or is he lying now?

However, traders are going to have a very bad day, too. Modi’s defence today said that all these opposition parties are actually brokers of these traders and that’s why they are opposing it. I am happy they didn’t say they are Pakistani traders.

The reforms are intended to do away with the high taxes that Punjab and Haryana charge on mandi operations. States like MP or Orissa charge less… the implication being that this also explains the Punjab government’s opposition. Your comments?

The Punjab government hasn’t opposed it. Farmers of Punjab have gheraoed the Punjab chief minister’s house just as they gheraoed the former CM’s and Modi’s current partner’s house.

But India is a federal country, right? So can the Central government do something by which a tax levied by the state government to collect revenue can be undone and upset by the Central government?

Can the Central government walk in and completely change any plan of the state government? Why do we have states at all if they have no autonomy to decide their revenue sources? How will the state government run itself? Will Mr. Modi provide it? He has already failed to provide states GST. He’s a defaulter. He’s a bankrupt prime minister.

Also read: With Harsimrat’s Resignation, SAD Begins Battle to Regain Political Prestige

So, to compare Punjab and MP and do away with levy in mandis is to disturb the federal structure of India. It’s to sound the death knell of the Constitution of India. This law is so terribly anti-constitutional, if this is the logic they (BJP) have.

But yes, states will have an impact where they will lose revenue. Punjab gets around Rs 4,000 crore, I think, from mandis.

Why has farmer and political opposition only been restricted to a few states (Punjab, Haryana, parts of UP) so far? 

Primarily because MSP operations historically happened in these states. Other states have always been deprived of MSP and government purchases. That’s something that should have been corrected.

If the government purchases 100 kilograms (kg) of paddy and there are five major paddy growing states, the government should purchase according to the production in these states.

But, the government has always purchased from Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Orissa. The government does not purchase even one kilogram of paddy from one of the highest producers in the country – West Bengal.

The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill allows farmers to sell their agricultural produce to private players. Now if corporates, MNCs enter the agricultural play, what are the long-term implications on the agricultural economy? How can farmer fears be quelled in this matter?

My suspicion is that these large corporate players – who were till now barred from hoarding, had quantitative restrictions on the stock they can hold… all that having been removed with the amendment to the Essential Commodities Act – will grow food in the poorest countries of the world.

So, there will be a massive import of foodgrain into India.

As I had earlier said that if the middle class is charged anything for food, they will protest. The government can say: you like a free market and this is a free market. But a protest is a protest, and it impacts votes.

So, the other thing that this opening up of trade might do is that there will be a very large scale of import by these multinationals, and large Indian conglomerates from abroad to keep food prices in control.

In US, the government actually pays farmers to keep fields fallow so that there’s no overproduction.

So, food will be their business, their game. And, all of us will be pawns in that.

What are the real issues that the government should aim to resolve?

The government computes seriously and methodically the cost of producing food. Based on that, the government, somewhat unfairly, decides the selling price of food by the farmer. The government should continue to do that. It should ensure that the farmer, or the producer, is given the same attention as production is, and the farmer gets the stipulated price for crops, so that farming survives.

Seventy percent of the Indian population are directly or indirectly connected to farming and make a livelihood from agriculture because Mr. Modi doesn’t have jobs for them also. It’s not that they can all give up farming and there are jobs waiting.

And, the government should ensure that food prices despite the fair price being given to the farmers is kept affordable and within the grasp of the middle class.,

Supplying subsidised food through the PDS to those who can’t afford it – the central government is giving Rs 8,000 salary (to scheme workers) and then if they leave rice to the free market at Rs 60-70 kg, a person will starve to death.

So the government has a duty to ensure that the farmer, or the producer, gets fair price, and has a parallel duty to ensure that those who cannot afford that price get food at the prices they can afford and the difference between them should be subsidised by the government.

And, world over, governments do it. I am not talking about developing countries, I am talking about developed countries.

Not Just a Legal Colossus Like Bhushan, All Citizens Have Right to Criticise Judiciary

While speaking for the common man, we will have unwittingly created a situation where only a person of Prashant Bhushan’s standing will have the right to criticise the courts.

There is euphoria in the air amongst those who attached great value with the freedom of speech and expression.

It is inspired by what can be called the ‘Prashant Bhushan moment’ in our nation’s democratic history.

Citizens feel that the Supreme Court was not able to justify its charge of criminal contempt against Bhushan.

There is a feeling that we are recalling with pride that ‘We, the People’ gave ourselves the constitution to establish the ‘rule of the people, by the people for the people’.

Let us pause for a while and look at the fundamentals beyond this epic battle. Some people call this a David versus Goliath battle.

I would respectfully disagree. Prashant is a David in the legal field who has established his stature and eminence through many battles in courts. His name is also well known across the country. He has raised the bar for freedom of speech.

But this may not translate directly into power for all citizens.

Many of us have rightly pointed out that the Court’s actions would have a chilling effect on citizens who voice their opinions on the unsatisfactory workings of courts.

Also read: Bhushan Contempt Case: SC’s Ruling Will Have a Chilling Effect Beyond India’s Borders

In many countries, the courts take criticism in their stride and rarely use criminal contempt powers. During 2016-17, the high courts and Supreme Court together instituted 169 cases. In the UK, there was only one prosecution in the last century relating to ‘scandalising the court’.

Section 2 (c) defines criminal contempt thus:

“(c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”

It is interesting to note that the government of India made a reference to the Law Commission whether Section 2 (c) of the law of contempt should be restricted to only cover “wilful disobedience of directions/judgment of Court as Contempt of Court” in 2018. Unfortunately in its report number 274 it did not agree with this suggestion by stating:

“More so, curtailing the scope of contempt to only include ‘wilful disobedience of directions/judgment of Court’ seems undesirable because of the continuing need for deterrence against contemptuous elements. If the provisions are so narrowed in scope, there will be a reduction in impact. Such a change in the law of contempt could potentially lessen the respect for or fear of the courts and their authority and functioning; and, there is a possibility that this may lead to an undesired increase in the instances of deliberate denial and blasphemy of the courts.”

All dictionaries recognise that blasphemy is showing contempt of god or religion.

Let us now look at three sets of public servants as an example and test the principle of the respect and protection they need, to be able to discharge their duties for the citizens.

Also read: Prashant Bhushan 2020 Contempt: SC Reserves Judgment, Asks ‘What Is Wrong in Seeking Apology?’

Let us take the elected representatives, the police, and the judges to test this principle.

The elected representatives have the highest legitimacy because they subject themselves to a direct approval by the citizens every five years. It can be argued that they need to be able to command respect from the citizens, without which the laws they frame will not be respected. They frame policies, which have political and financial impact on the present as well as future generations. They must face people directly in every conceivable place and time, and if special privileges or protection against criticism is not given to them, they will not be able to discharge their functions.

Let us now picture a policeman who must enforce the law. He again faces citizens – even enraged or inflamed mobs – and must function amid all the dirt and grime to enforce the law. If citizens do not respect him – or believe he is corrupt and a criminal himself – can he discharge his law enforcement function to the public?

Also read: Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case: Why the Judges Should Be Guided by Their Past Judgments

On the other hand, a judge sits in a closed and protected environment and dispenses justice to supposedly uphold the law. He is in a very safe and secure environment and discharges his functions at his own pace comfortably sitting in a chair.

Yet it is argued that the lords need the warm protection of the provision of criminal contempt.

Citizens must use this great Prashant Bhushan moment to convince the government to disregard the Law Commission report and amend the law as per its reference to the Law Commission. If we miss this opportunity the ordinary citizen’s freedom of speech will be curbed.

While speaking for the common man, we will have unwittingly created a situation where only a legal colossus like Prashant Bhushan will have the right to criticise the judiciary. This would not be a fitting outcome of his brave and courageous stand for democracy. We must seize this moment to empower the citizen’s rights.

Shailesh Gandhi is former Central Information Commissioner.

More Confident Now Than Ever Before That Truth Shall Prevail: Prashant Bhushan

Speaking after his sentencing in the contempt case, the lawyer reiterated his belief that the Supreme Court is the last bastion of hope.

New Delhi: Hours after the Supreme Court of India sentenced Prashant Bhushan to a fine of Re 1 in the contempt case against him, the lawyer and activist said that as he had already decided to accept any penalty, he will “respectfully pay the fine”.

The SC on Monday morning asked Bhushan to pay a fine of Re 1 by September 15, failing which he would be subjected to three months of imprisonment and debarred from practicing law for three years.

Responding to the sentencing, Bhushan said, “I am here to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”

However, he hinted that he may seek a review of the conviction and sentencing “by way of an appropriate legal remedy” while advocating a pan-India movement to uphold freedom of speech.

“I have had the greatest respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. I have always believed it to be the last bastion of hope, particularly for the weak and the oppressed who knock at its door for the protection of their rights, often against a powerful executive. My tweets were not intended in any way to disrespect the Supreme Court or the judiciary as a whole, but were merely meant to express my anguish, at what I felt, was a deviation from its sterling past record,” he said.

He added that his tweets were not an issue of him versus the judges or the Supreme Court, but about his conviction that India needs “a strong and independent judiciary.”

“When the Supreme Court of India wins, every Indian wins. Every Indian wants a strong and independent judiciary. Obviously if the courts get weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen,” he said.

He thanked all those who stood by him even as the SC heard the contempt of court case against him. “I am extremely grateful and humbled by the solidarity and support expressed by countless persons, ex-judges, lawyers, activists and fellow citizens who encouraged me to remain firm and true to my beliefs and conscience.” He thanked his legal team, especially senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, who he said fought a spirited fight in his defence.

He concluded by saying, “I am more confident now than ever before that truth shall prevail.”

Prashant Bhushan holding up Re 1 after the Supreme Court’s sentencing order was announced. Photo: Twitter/Prashant Bhushan

Bhushan’s statements came at a press briefing organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Swaraj India. The campaign’s representative Anjali Bhardwaj said that following the Bhushan judgment, CJAR would campaign for a “robust mechanism for looking into complaints regarding misconduct and corruption in the judiciary.”

“In several recent cases, the lacunae in the existing system have come out specifically related to the allegations of corruption against CJI of India. We need an independent system to address these complaints,” said Bhardwaj.

Speaking at the briefing, Yogendra Yadav of Swaraj India said, “This (the case against Bhushan) wasn’t just about Prashant Bhushan, it was about something much deeper. In a way, Prashant Bhushan became a symbol of thousands, probably lakhs of people who are in a situation much worse than him, and yet are continuing their fight for freedom of expression.” By fighting a battle to save free speech, he said the activists are fighting to save Indian democracy.

He said in the days to come, Swaraj India and CJAR would launch a campaign “Re 1, everyone” to ask for donations to create a corpus to provide legal support to those who are facing trials in their fight for freedom of speech. “I see the movement for freedom of expression as a movement for freedom of conscience. The large support that Prashant Bhushan got in the last few days was a movement. This is what needs to be strengthened,” said the Swaraj India leader.

In his concluding remarks, Bhushan said, “They (all those who supported him) strengthen my hope that this trial may draw the country’s attention to the cause of freedom of speech and judicial accountability and reform. What is very heartening is that this case has become a watershed moment for freedom of speech and seems to have encouraged many people to stand up and speak out against the injustices in our society.”

Bhushan’s complete statement has been reproduced below.

§

Statement by Prashant Bhushan in response to the sentencing order in the Suo motu contempt case

31st August 2020

The Supreme Court of India has announced its verdict on the contempt case against me. It holds me guilty of contempt of court and has decided to impose a fine of Re 1, and failing that imprisonment of three months and debarring me from practicing for three years. I had already said in my first statement to the Court: “I am here to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen”. Therefore, while I reserve the right to seek a review of the conviction and sentencing, by way of an appropriate legal remedy, I propose to submit myself to this order and will respectfully pay the fine, just as I would have submitted to any other lawful punishment.

I have had the greatest respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. I have always believed it to be the last bastion of hope, particularly for the weak and the oppressed who knock at its door for the protection of their rights, often against a powerful executive. My tweets were not intended in any way to disrespect the Supreme Court or the judiciary as a whole, but were merely meant to express my anguish, at what I felt, was a deviation from its sterling past record. This issue was never about me versus the Hon’ble Judges, much less about me vs the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court of India wins, every Indian wins. Every Indian wants a strong and independent judiciary. Obviously if the courts get weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen.

I am extremely grateful and humbled by the solidarity and support expressed by countless persons, ex-judges, lawyers, activists and fellow citizens who encouraged me to remain firm and true to my beliefs and conscience. They strengthen my hope that this trial may draw the country’s attention to the cause of freedom of speech and judicial accountability and reform. What is very heartening is that this case has become a watershed moment for freedom of speech and seems to have encouraged many people to stand up and speak out against the injustices in our society.

I would be failing in my duty if I do not thank my legal team, especially senior Advocates Dr Rajeev Dhawan and Shri Dushyant Dave. I am more confident now than ever before that truth shall prevail.

Long live democracy! Satyameva Jayate!

BJP Manifesto: Voluntary Enrolment Under PMFBY Could Kill the Programme

Making the BJP’s flagship crop-insurance scheme voluntary is either an admission of its failure, or intended to be ‘the death of the scheme’.

New Delhi: In its manifesto for the 2019 elections released on Monday, the BJP sketched out a future for India’s troubled agricultural sector, making a range of promises under its goal of doubling farmer income by 2022.  

Most of the promises – like extending PM Kisan to all farmers, interest free loans on Kisan credit cards, expanding the irrigation scheme – involved extending the scope of existing schemes.

On the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, the government’s flagship crop insurance scheme, on the other hand, the party’s promise will, in all likelihood, end up reducing the scope of the existing scheme.  

Here is the full text of the particular promise:

“Our scheme, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) has ensured risk mitigation and provided insurance cover for all farmers. We will make enrolment of farmers under the scheme voluntary.”

Eighteen of the twenty-eight words in the promise are dedicated to a self-congratulatory note on the performance of the scheme. The operative word – and the crux of the promise – among the other 10 is ‘voluntary’. The PMFBY will now be voluntary.

“This essentially means the death of the scheme,” said a former top official of the agriculture ministry.  

Negative impact

Why would this have a negative impact on the scheme?

Until now, those availing loans on their Kisan credit card (KCC) were automatically enrolled in the PMFBY. The premium amount due to be paid by them – a maximum of 2% for kharif crops and 1.5% for rabi crops – was automatically deducted from the amount of the loan disbursed.

The farmers who enrolled in the scheme via this process are identified as ‘loanee farmers’ in the PMFBY database. Those who voluntarily opt for the scheme are identified as ‘non-loanee farmers’.

Also read: How the PM’s Crop Insurance Scheme Turned Into a Goldmine for 10 Private Insurers

In a working paper for the think tank Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIEAR), Ashok Gulati, Prerna Terway and Siraj Hussain comment on how crucial loanee farmers are to the insurance scheme.

“According to data from the industry, the PMFBY, like previous schemes, is primarily covering only loanee farmers as they account for 74% of total farmers insured in Kharif 2016 and 79% in Rabi 2016-17,” they wrote.

The Wire had also obtained data for 2017-18 through a Right to Information (RTI) request in October 2018 and found that in absolute numbers, the total number of non-loanee farmers enrolled in PMFBY had declined slightly since 2016-17. The overall percentage of non-loanee farmers however increased slightly because the total number of farmers enrolled in PMFBY reduced from 57 million to 48 million.

Loanee and non-loanee farmers enrolled in PMFBY in 2016-17 and 2017-18

Total farmers (in millions) Loanee farmers (in millions) Non-loanee farmers (in millions) Percentage of loanee farmers
2016-17 57.22 43.55 13.66 76.12
2017-18 48.77 35.14 13.63 72.04

Source : Data obtained by The Wire through an RTI

There is another catch.

“A large number of farmers that are registered as non-loanee in the database, are in fact those who are enrolled in the scheme because they have taken a loan on their KCC. Most of these cases are from Maharashtra,” said a senior official of one of the key companies that provides crop insurance.

The reason that they are registered as ‘non-loanees’ though is because a Bombay high court judgement that ruled that premium cannot be deducted from the loan amounts of farmers without their consent.

“To work around this, most farmers in Maharashtra are registered as non-loanee farmers,” said the former agriculture ministry official.

Maharashtra’s data, while only for a single state, is not insignificant. In 2016-17, the Western state accounted for 57% of India’s non-loanee farmers and in 2017-18, 58%. It is one of the few states where non-loanee farmers are more than loanee farmers and the only state where this difference is substantial. In 2016-17, Maharashtra had twice the number of non-loanee farmers as against loanee farmers, and in 2017-18, that proportion increased to four times.

“There is no doubt that Maharashtra is artificially inflating the number of non-loanee farmers,” said the insurance company official.

Therefore, if the scheme is made voluntary, as the BJP manifesto promises, it could reduce in scope substantially. The above-quoted official said, “If it is made voluntary, its coverage will reduce to 10% or 5% if the Maharashtra anomaly is corrected.”

Also read: BJP Releases 2019 Manifesto – Here’s How It Compares to Congress Promises

“It would essentially mean that the scheme is over.”

The former agriculture ministry official agreed. “Nothing will remain in the scheme. We have seen this with the animal insurance scheme which is voluntary and nobody opts for it,” he said.

With the scope of the scheme coming down, insurance premiums too could increase by as much as 80%.

“Now, only those farmers will enrol who are sure that there will be a claim. This means that most of the coverage will be high risk for the companies. So, the premium amounts that they charge will be anything between 70 and 80% of sum insured,” said the insurance company official.

President of Swaraj Abhiyan Yogendra Yadav argued that the promise in the manifesto is an admission by the BJP of the scheme’s failure.

“It is an admission that the scheme has not worked. It is an admission that it was thrust upon farmers and they did not want it. It will be officially dead,” he said.

Activists Unhappy With SC Judgment on Centre ‘Curbing’ MGNREGA Budget

According to activists, the “much awaited Supreme Court judgement in the Swaraj Abhiyan PIL has let down millions of NREGA) workers”.

New Delhi: Activists have expressed disappointment over a recent Supreme Court judgment on the timely payment of wages under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The judgment, delivered on May 18, was delivered in response to a petition filed by NGO Swaraj Abhiyan.

According to activists who are part of the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, the “much awaited Supreme Court judgement in the Swaraj Abhiyan PIL has let down millions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) workers – the most marginalised citizens of India who need employment and social security. The court has ignored the wealth of evidence against the brazen violations of the legal entitlements of NREGA workers and has allowed the Central government to get away with a series fallacious interpretations of the employment guarantee act”.

In 2015, Swaraj Abhiyan had filed a public interest litigation asking the court to intervene on three issues related to the Act: reduction in funds for the programme by using an ‘approved labour budget’; delays in wage and compensation payment; and the lack of social audits.

By setting pre-approved labour budgets, the Centre had said that states will be unable to create work under the MGNREGA if the employment generated crosses the budget outlay. The petitioners said this went against the spirit of the Act, which says work should be created whenever there is demand. The bench, though, said it did not agree with this assessment, as “the Central Government is statutorily empowered to scrutinize and assess the funds to be released to the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations for the purposes of the Act”. The Centre also argued that it often releases funds over and above the labour budget when states need it. The court said that since no state has said they are not receiving enough funds or are facing an arbitrary cap, the petitioners were not in a position to raise that complaint.

The NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, however, feels that it is difficult to approve a labour budget in advance and predict how much demand there will be. They have said in a statement:

The Central Government had argued that as some states are unable to fully utilise their labour budget, there is a need to rationalizing the funds allocated to them. In doing so, it fails to acknowledge that the labour budget is only an estimate of the projected demand for work in the coming financial year. First, it is impossible for anyone to accurately predict the demand for NREGA work, as it depends on various factors such as availability of alternative employment, wage revisions and crop yield. Second, early throttling of funds through “approved labour budget” causes the field functionaries to use it as a central order to not register work of labourers. Third, the inability of states to spend the entire funds allocated to them does not cause any loss to the public exchequer, as allocations for the subsequent year are based on the balance money available to states. Finally, from a moral standpoint, it’s unfair to make the most vulnerable wait for funds to trickle in to get work instead of getting work proactively.

The activists were happy with some parts of the judgment – including the court’s direction to the Centre to pay wages on time. However, they have argued that the order would have been more effective if the bench had given clear directives on clearing pending payments and explicitly holding the Centre accountable for delayed payments made to states. Also bringing up alleged non-compliance with previous judgments, the statement said:

“The Morcha and PAEG are also disappointed by the failure of the Court to take cognizance of the brazen violations of its earlier orders in this case. On 13 May 2016, the court had ordered the government to release adequate funds for timely payment of wages, pay compensation to workers who receive their wages with delays, increase the scale of employment and ensure the effective functioning of state and central employment guarantee councils.”

MGNREGA Funds Frozen? 99% of Wages Remain Unprocessed for April 2018

“As inadequate funds should not be a problem at the beginning of a financial year, the reason for the current non-processing is not clear,” said the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha.

New Delhi: That the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act has been beset by problems since it was launched is not a secret. From the disbursal of wages, to different wages in different states and even no work for those dependant on the scheme, the list of ailments is endless.

In the latest, the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, an organisation agitating for the rights of workers covered under MNREGA, has highlighted in a letter how 99% of MGNREGA wages have still not been paid in April 2018.

“99% of the Fund Transfer Orders (FTOs) for MGNREGA wage payments sent to the Public Finance Management (PFMS) in April 2018 remain unprocessed. The bulk of FTOs of the last two months are also yet to be processed – 86% of the FTOs of March and 64% of the FTOs of February.

The letter also highlights how the introduction of the National Electronic Fund Management System (NEFMS) to aid in quicker disbursal of wages has only allowed the Finance Ministry to “tighten” its leash over MGNREGA funds. “Now it routinely withholds the processing of FTOs,” it reads.

This comes just days after the Morcha wrote to Rural Development Minister Narendra Singh Tomar saying that the Centre has not yet revised the wage rates for the 2018-’19 financial year, demanding that this be rectified immediately.

The group also asked the government to fix the MGNREGA wage rate at a minimum of Rs 600, as the Seventh Pay Commission had recommended a minimum monthly salary of Rs 18,000.

Read the full text here:

§

“Stagnant wage rates are not the only rude shock that workers of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) received this month. Most of the them also remain unpaid for the work done by them in the past few months. Ninety-nine per cent of the Fund Transfer Orders (FTOs) for MGNREGA wage payments sent to the Public Finance Management (PFMS) in April 2018 remain unprocessed. The bulk of FTOs of the last two months are also yet to be processed–86 per cent of the FTOs of March and 64 per cent of the FTOs of February (see the Annexure).

In January 2016, the central government introduced the National Electronic Fund Management System (NEFMS), allegedly to streamline the process of MGNREGA wage payments. However, this system has only tightened the Ministry’s leash over MGNREGA funds. Now it routinely withholds the processing of FTOs. Also, in NEFMS states are no longer able to make payments to workers from their revolving funds to tide over delays in release of funds by the Ministry.

Last year, the Ministry froze processing of FTOs worth over Rs 3,000 crore due to lack of MGNREGA funds. It may be recalled that in August 2017, the Ministry of Rural Development demanded a supplementary MGNREGA budget of Rs 17,000 crore, but the Ministry of Finance approved only Rs 7,000, that too in January 2018. As inadequate funds should not be a problem at the beginning of a financial year, the reason for the current non-processing of FTOs is not clear.

The situation of long and unpredictable delays in MGNREGA wage payments continues despite the ongoing public interest litigation filed by Swaraj Abhiyan in which the Supreme Court has instructed the government to ensure that workers are paid within 15 days of doing work. Moreover, workers are not compensated for the wage delays that take place after the generation of FTOs.

In a damming document, the Ministry of Finance accepts the partial payment of compensation. It goes on to state that payment of compensation for the entire duration of delay will be a heavy financial burden on the government. This exposes the deliberate underfunding of the employment guarantee programme. As the Modi government failed to curtail MGNREGA through overt measures such as restricting the programme to the poorest districts or reducing the wage – material ratio, it has resorted to undermining the Act by starving it of funds.”

MSP Denial Could Cost Farmers Rs 14,000 Crore in Rabi Season Alone

The market price for each crop is lower than the minimum support price in five states, says a fact-finding report by farmer organisations.

A fact-finding team comprising six farmer organisations, after visiting several mandis across the country in the last 10 days, has discovered that farmers are not getting the minimum support price (MSP) guaranteed by the government. “At not a single one of the nine mandis in five states were farmers able to sell any crop at the government-mandated MSP,” an interim report compiled by the fact-finding team stated. The report also estimated — based on modal prices from the government website agmarknet — that if farmers continue to be denied MSP, the loss to farmers in rabi season alone could amount to Rs 14,474 crore.

A team comprising representatives from several farmer organisations participating in the fact-finding mission travelled to Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Rajasthan and Haryana to ‘find out at the ground level the truth about the price being realised by the farmer and the efficacy of the government procurement system’. The MSP Satyagraha — as the mission is being called — is being led by the Swaraj Abhiyan — a political party founded by Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan in 2015.

Speaking in Delhi on Saturday (March 24) at the release of the interim report, Yadav said, “The market price for each crop is lower than the MSP. Farmers are being looted by various methods. Government only starts procuring several days after the crop starts coming in. Farmers cannot afford to wait. They sell to traders who take advantage of their situation. Then, there are not enough procurement centres and the few that are there, are oddly located.”

“So, there are several problems with the procurement system and the government has done nothing to address these,” Yadav added.

The team also looked at data from agmarknet and found that in March, the modal price for five rabi crops was below MSP in most states. For gram, it was estimated that the loss in the current rabi season could amount to a whopping Rs 6,569 crore. “The total loss in the rabi season alone, on a conservative estimate, could be Rs 14,474 crore. Price in the mandis have been coming down year-on-year. Farmers are being looted by being denied even the MSP,” said Avik Saha, national convenor of Jai Kisan Andolan.

There has been a good amount of debate — also in these pages — on the adequacy of the MSP declared by the central government. But, as the MSP Satyagraha has discovered, even more basic questions need to be asked on whether farmers are able to benefit from MSP declaration at all.

“Forget about the MSP announcement. Even if a higher MSP is announced, do the farmers benefit from it? As we found out, the answer is no. Many farmers are not even aware of their right to sell at MSP. At many places, traders buy from farmers at low prices and then they sell to the government at MSP and take the benefit that actually belongs to the farmers,” said Yadav.

The MSP Satyagraha has made several suggestions to the government which, in their view, can improve the procurement system. “Removal of quantitative restrictions, beginning procurement on time, sufficient number of procurement centres, conveniently located procurement centres, procurement to happen within mandis. These are some of the suggestions that we have given to the government,” Yadav said.

Phase two of the MSP Satyagraha will begin on Sunday from Uttarakhand and go on to Uttar Pradesh and conclude in Madhya Pradesh.

Despite Evidence, SC Dismisses Plea for Probe Into Chhattisgarh Chopper Scam

The apex court judgment, which also gives a clean chit to the Chhattisgarh chief minister’s son, has raised several questions.

The apex court judgment, which also gives a clean chit to the Chhattisgarh chief minister’s son, has raised several questions.

Chhattisgarh CM Raman Singh. Credit: PTI

Chhattisgarh CM Raman Singh. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: A Supreme Court bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit on Tuesday dismissed three writ petitions seeking an impartial and independent probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into what is known as the Chhattisgarh chopper scam.

The scam involves the purchase of an Agusta 109 Power E helicopter by the Chhattisgarh government in 2007, resulting in payment of $1.57 million (approximately 30% of the total cost of the helicopter) on the basis of a spurious global tender issued in May that year for the purchase of a specific model of a specific company – Agusta – despite several other manufacturers making helicopters with similar specifications.

The petitioners also sought an inquiry into the alleged offshore accounts of Abhishek Singh, son of Raman Singh, the chief minister of Chhattisgarh, “a few months after the alleged scam in the purchase of Agusta helicopter for VIP use”. It was alleged that Abhishek had links with some companies in the British Virgin Islands, and that these companies received kickbacks from Sharp Ocean Investments Limited (SOIL), Hong Kong – the dealers of Agusta.

A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India stated in 2011 that the procurement of the helicopter led to a Rs 65 lakh loss to the exchequer. The CAG calculated the loss on the basis of the extra cost paid by the state government due to the avoidable delay in taking a decision on signing the contract by the due date for the purchase of the new helicopter.

The first two writ petitions were filed by Swaraj Abhiyan (the judgment confuses Swaraj Abhiyan with Swaraj India, which is a political party) and Rakesh Kumar Choubey, a social activist, seeking directions for an investigation into the scam. The third petition was filed jointly by the leader of the opposition in the Chhattisgarh assembly, T.S. Singhdeo, and the publisher of a journal, seeking direction to conduct an inquiry into the helicopter purchase deals in the states of Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Jharkhand.

The bench referred to the tripartite agreement dated October 26, 2007 between SOIL, the state of Chhattisgarh and Agusta, to the effect that SOIL was entitled to retain the payment made by it to Agusta to the extent of $100,000 and $1,473,800 under the contract. The bench recorded that the CAG report does not attribute any extraneous considerations in the deal.

“There is no material to prima facie hold that the beneficiary of [the] transaction was Abhishak Singh,” the judgment held.

The judgment notes that in 2006, three helicopters were leading in the market in the light twin engine category, which could be utilised by the Chhattisgarh government for VIP use. They were Augusta A-109, EC-135 and Bell-427.

In response to the state government’s global tender, five proposals were received, out of which three were for Agusta Westland, OSS and SOIL. All the three were handled by the same person, V. Krishnan. The other two bids, by Bell and Eurocopter, were not considered.

Despite the same person appearing on behalf of three competitive bidders, the state government placed an order on SOIL on the grounds that its bid was the lowest among the three. Swaraj Abhiyan, however, challenged this claim.

The petitioners alleged that in all the three offers, it was the same person who negotiated on behalf of the companies and with the state government, and other helicopters were not considered. They also alleged that an excessive price was paid to benefit the son of the chief minister.

The judgment records that the son of the state chief minister is not personally a party, but does not explain why. The Wire understands that a minor difference in the spelling of the name made it difficult to make Abhishek a respondent in the case. The account held abroad reportedly carried the name ‘Abhishak Singh’, and was opened six months after the bulk of the payments were made by the Chhattisgarh government to SOIL.

The account was opened in July 2008 through a company called Quest Heights Ltd, which the petition claimed was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on July 3, 2008. Swaraj Abhiyan’s petition reveals that the address of Quest Heights Ltd is the same as shown by the chief minister, Raman Singh, in his election affidavit. It also reveals that SOIL, which appears to be a shell company, was wound up on August 1, 2008.

The database compiled by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists shows Abhishak Singh as the shareholder of Quest Heights Limited and Sharecorp Ltd. The home address of this Abhishak Singh is ‘Raman Medical Store, New Bus Stand, Ward No.20, Vindhyawasini War, Kawardha, Chhattisgarh, India. The same address, Swaraj Abhiyan claimed in its petition, was provided by Raman Singh in his 2014 election affidavit.

Neither Raman Singh nor his son, Abhishek, who is now an MP, have sought an inquiry in this regard, says Swaraj Abhiyan’s petition. The Lok Sabha website also spells his name as Abhishek Singh, elected from Rajnandgaon constituency.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court judgment in the case spells his name as Abhishak Singh, rather than Abhishek Singh. Paragraph 8 of the judgment notes:

“We have also considered the further contention that Abhishak Singh, son of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh could be the beneficiary in the transaction.”

In paragraph 12, the bench said:

“Even though the submission initially appeared to require consideration on account of which the State was directed to produce the record and explain the position after due consideration, we find it difficult to accept the same.”

In paragraph 13, the bench adds:

“Son of the Chief Minister is not personally a party. Disclosure in Panama Papers is a matter which is still under investigation by Multi Agency Group constituted by the Government of India on April 4, 2016, which is to give its report to the Special Investigating Team constituted by this Court vide order dated 4th July, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.176 of 2009.”

The bench’s silence on the identity of Abhishak Singh, whose address matches that of the chief minister, is significant. Could the question be ignored merely because he is a private individual, and his foreign bank account is the subject of investigation by the SIT in another case, as suggested in the judgment?

The bench has found that there is nothing on record to show that the helicopter could have been procured for a lower price. In its rejoinder submissions, Swaraj Abhiyan has pointed out that SOIL was merely an investment company, and had nothing to do with any kind of helicopter business.

The bench has uncritically accepted the state government’s claim that for early delivery, a pre-sold helicopter could be purchased from its distributor at a higher price. “Thus, it cannot be said that there was an excess payment for extraneous reason,” the bench notes. The bench apparently does not lift the corporate veil and see the collusion between Agusta and SOIL, which Swaraj Abhiyan has alleged in its response to the state government’s counter-affidavit. The CAG report does not attribute any extraneous considerations in the deal, notes the judgment. But it is a reasonable inference, which the court appears to have ignored.

In paragraph 16, the bench says there is “no material to prima facie hold that beneficiary of transaction was Abhishak Singh”. Of course, there is. The question is whether Abhishak Singh and Abhishek Singh are one and the same, which the court does not consider intriguing enough.

Also read

The bench further adds that a case has not been made out for interference by the court in the absence of the allegation of extraneous consideration being substantiated. Apparently, the bench does not see any distinction between prima facie evidence and substantiation. At the threshold stage, the court ought not to insist on substantiation of a charge, which is the job of the investigative agencies.

The court has rightly disagreed with the respondents that the petition was for political gains, and need not be entertained in the absence of a genuine public interest.

Having said that, however, the bench jumped to the conclusion that the petition was without a clear element of public interest, and therefore, could not be entertained at the instance of a political rival merely on account of an alleged procedural irregularity in the decision making, which could be challenged at appropriate forum by the aggrieved party.

The bench did not, of course, explain how it concluded that Swaraj Abhiyan is a political rival of the BJP in Chhattisgarh or at the national level, or how this petition lacked public interest, or the allegation is just a procedural irregularity.

The petition filed by Deo – though a political rival of the BJP in the state – had impleaded other state governments, which indulged in non-transparent procurement of helicopters from private companies, and had allegedly siphoned off public money in offshore accounts through private individuals, which required thorough investigation by central agencies.  The judgment completely ignores this aspect of the prayer of the petitioners.

Delhi Sees About 54% Turnout in MCD Poll; Counting on April 26

The BJP is hoping to retain control of the civic bodies, while Congress is eyeing a comeback and AAP is keen to forget its recent assembly poll debacles.

The BJP is hoping to retain control of the civic bodies, while Congress is eyeing a comeback and AAP is keen to forget its recent assembly poll debacles.

New Delhi: A voter shows her inked finger and voter ID card after casting her vote during the MCD elections, in New Delhi on Sunday. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: Nearly 54% of all eligible voters turned out to vote in the elections to the three municipal corporations in Delhi on Sunday, in a poll that was keenly watched and contested.

According to the state election commission, the final voter turnout was 53.58%, with 54.04% turnout among men and 53.02% turnout among women. The overall turnout was just shy of the 2012 figure – 54%.
Among the three corporations, the highest turnout was for the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (56.08%), followed by 54.08% for South Delhi Municipal Corporation and 51.59% for North Delhi Municipal Corporation.

Many prominent leaders turned out to vote in the summer heat, including lieutenant governor Anil Baijal, Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, who voted along with his parents, wife and daughter, deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, former chief minister Sheila Dikshit, Union ministers Harsh Vardhan and Vijay Goel, and Swaraj India leader Yogendra Yadav.

At the end of voting, state election commissioner S.K. Srivastava was quoted as saying that the “entire electoral exercise passed off peacefully”.  Although AAP had demanded that these polls be conducted through ballot papers and not EVMs, which it had earlier alleged could be manipulated, the request was not accepted. However, nine glitches on EVMs were reported in different parts of the city.

Counting of votes will take place on Wednesday, April 26.

There is much at stake for political parties in the municipal poll beyond control of the 104-ward north and south corporations and the 64-ward east corporation.

For the BJP, which has been ruling the corporations for the last 10 years – first, in the unified MCD and since 2012 in the trifurcated corporations – a victory would be a referendum on its governance. Although the party did not given any tickets to sitting corporators in an effort to appear to be heralding change, it is to be seen if the city’s residents have bought the argument, or  are keen for the party to pay for the misgovernance and corruption in the civic bodies. Party leaders have insisted they are putting up a united battle, but dissidence was evident during the campaign when a large number of leaders rebelled after being denied tickets.

The Congress, which had ruled the MCD only once between 2002 and 2007, is seeking a revival in fortunes in Delhi, after being whitewashed in the 2015 assembly elections. Under its new city president, Ajay Maken, the party is trying to gradually claw back among its supporters and traditional vote bank, comprising largely of resident of slums, resettlement colonies and unauthorised colonies.

But the party is also facing resistance from within its ranks. MLAs and ministers of the Sheila Dikshit government felt sidelined when tickets were announced. While some like A.K. Walia and Barkha Singh just expressed their resentment, others like Arvinder Singh Lovely walked out and joined the BJP.

The current situation should have been a fertile opportunity for the Kejriwal-led AAP in its maiden contest in Delhi’s civic body polls. But the party, after recent debacles in the Goa and Punjab assembly polls, and problems with its own MLAs and ministers, has had seen a loss of face among voters. But Kejriwal has urged them to vote only on the basis of whether they feel the BJP has performed in the corporation or not.

There are also some prominent newcomers in these polls.

Meanwhile, party workers from Swaraj India, founded by Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, have taken it upon themselves to expose the doublespeak and corruption of the AAP government in Delhi. Yadav on Saturday also urged Kejriwal to treat the municipal elections as a referendum on his government’s performance and quit in keeping with the right to recall he had so vociferously advocated during the India Against Corruption campaign should his party fail to win a majority of seats.

The election is a big one for Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar’s JD(U), which is contesting on 98 seats. It wants to emerge from the shadows as a national player and is wooing voters from Poorvanchal who now constitute a significant number in Delhi.

As MCD Polls Near, Are Congress, BJP, AAP Ready To Meet Voters’ Expectations?

MCD elections need candidates and issues with a hyperlocal touch.

MCD elections need candidates and issues with a hyperlocal touch.

From the left: AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, BJP Delhi chief Manoj Tiwari, Congress Delhi chief Ajay Maken and Swaraj Abhiyan's Yogendra Yadav. Credits: PTI

From the left: AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, BJP Delhi chief Manoj Tiwari, Congress Delhi chief Ajay Maken and Swaraj Abhiyan’s Yogendra Yadav. Credits: PTI

New Delhi: Battle lines have been drawn in Delhi, which is set to see an unprecedented six-cornered contest as the AAP, BJP, Congress, JD(U), RJD and Swaraj India lock horns for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections scheduled for April 23.

All parties have announced their candidates well in advance and campaigning has gained full swing in all 272 constituencies. The voters will exercise their franchise to decide the fate of the candidates contesting in the national capital. Counting will be done on Wednesday, April 26.

Delhi’s civic body has been dominated by the BJP for 10 years now. In 2012, the first election after the MCD was divided into three (East Delhi Municipal Corporation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and South Delhi Municipal Corporation), the BJP won a majority in the north and east and was the largest party in the south. The Congress had trailed in second place in all three. AAP did not contest that election as it launched later that year.

While the BJP has pulled out all stops to retain control of the MCD, with a keenly devised action plan and high powered campaign, AAP is seen as fighting to retain relevance after being trounced in the Punjab and Goa assembly elections. That apart, its failure in securing even one-sixth of the total votes cast in the Rajouri Garden by-poll has placed its relevance in the present political scenario under doubt.

Although the Congress’ recent record in Delhi hasn’t been great, it is looking in better shape after securing a meteoric 300% jump in vote share in the Rajouri Garden poll and has moved on from the identity crisis it faced after scoring a ‘zero’ in the 2015 Delhi assembly elections.

Congress is pinning its hopes on the fading out of AAP, the anti-incumbency wave prevalent in Delhi and annexing some of the massive vote share chief minister Arvind Kejriwal had secured in 2015.

For the Congress, it will be another chance to prove its mettle and revive its lost fortunes in the national capital after the recent double jolts in the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand assembly elections.

To send out a strong message to its bitter rivals, the BJP, on the other hand must put its best foot forward, if it is interested in retaining power. Though AAP is targeting the BJP on alleged financial irregularities and is promising a clean Delhi, its own credentials are at stake with the tabling of the Shunglu Committee report.

Ruling out any scope of AAP being part of the main contest in the ‘Game of Thrones,’ Delhi Congress chief Ajay Maken has said “the upcoming Delhi civic body polls will be a direct fight between the Congress and the BJP. There is no third party in the contest”.

Also read: Explainer: All You Need to Know About Delhi’s MCD Elections

The Congress has promised that if it wins the three municipal corporations in Delhi, it will set aside Rs 2,000 crore for the re-settlement of those who live in unauthorised colonies.

The upcoming MCD elections will be keenly watched. This is a time for citizens of the capital city to question the priorities of their corporators, as reflected in the problems they raise in their respective forums. Citizens can thus ensure greater accountability from the representatives they elect.

After all, ‘janta‘ (people) is ‘janardana‘ (God) in the dance of democracy. But how will the voters decide the fates of the candidates, and their own? The voters need to be very sure of the prospects offered by those electioneering.

People must know what Delhi BJP chief Manoj Tiwari and his Congress counterpart Maken have for the national capital in their respective kitties.

Maken who has held key positions in Indian politics and is a former Union cabinet minister has employed the likes of Shashi Tharoor, Salman Khurshid, P. Chidambaram and Jairam Ramesh in his bid to prepare a concrete roadmap for the development of the national capital and improve the lifestyle of its inhabitants.

Though Maken has vast experience of holding administrative positions, managing the MCD is a different ball game altogether. While his earlier job profile made him take policy decisions, the MCD will require implementation of the policies on the grassroot level. Will he be able to fit into these shoes? The same applies to Tiwari, who comes from a different industry altogether.

Meanwhile, the BJP is in no mood to concede the civic body to any other political outfit and has come up with an action plan after conducting numerous brainstorming sessions amongst its top brass.

Civic amenities in Delhi are in a mess; 1700 MCD schools have no basic infrastructure. Constant bickering between the AAP state government and the BJP-ruled MCD on the issue of release of arrears to sanitation workers have seen constant strikes by them. There is garbage all around the city and the BJP’s ‘Swachh Bharat’ plank has seen scant implementation. The civic bodies have hardly used their massive budgets for the much-hyped Swachh Bharat Abhiyan– a pet project of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Despite the importance of the Modi card, it must be noted that the MCD elections need candidates and issues with a hyperlocal touch. No one wants an ‘imported’ councillor after all!

What actually seems to be missing is the actual beauty of democracy. An empowered voter. A voter with the knowledge of the prospects involved. A voter who can make informed choices.

Should there be a public debate between the key players involved? Shouldn’t the voters know the pros and cons? Why don’t Maken and Tiwari come together and inform Delhiites about the implications of voting or not voting for their respective candidates?

Aditya Vaibhav is a Delhi-based journalist. He runs a website www.trickyscribe.in.