India, Maharashtra, vijay kumbhar, News, Governance, RTI, Transparency, Civic Issues, Real Estate: Vijay Kumbhar’s exclusive news and analysis

Showing posts with label Vijay Kumbhar’s exclusive news and analysis. Show all posts

Thursday, September 17, 2015

FTII Students Strike, New Documents Raise Doubts on Students Intentions

New documents obtained under the RTI Act reveal that the sole purpose of all the agitations and hunger strike of students of FTII was to take total control over the institution and that they had no problem with Gajendra Chauhan and Shailesh Gupta. These were red herrings. The stalemate is now restricted to three names only.

Students Don't want to leave their heaven
Photo courtsey the scroll

After meeting the Minister of Information & Broadcasting and the Minister of State on 25 July 2015, the students wrote a letter to the Directors of FTII giving a solution to resolve the ongoing crisis. The students were apparently happy with the discussions at Delhi. Post-meeting, the students had intense deliberations and discussions with the larger student body. Then they sent a proposal to the Director who in turn forwarded it to the Ministry. The students mentioned that the proposal to resolve crisis was based on what they (students) understood from the various proposals put forward during discussions with the Ministers.

Lets us first see actually what student’s proposal was

l. Three out of the ﬁve contentious members of the proposed society (Anagha Ghaisas, Narendra Pathak and Rahul Solapurkar) would be replaced immediately by three new mutually agreeable members.

2. Three members who have resigned (Jahnu Baruah, Santosh Sivan and Pallavi Joshi) would be replaced by three new mutually agreeable members.

3. For the tenure of the current society, a Vice-Chairman would be elected from among the Society members. All the powers of the Chairman would be vested in this Vice-Chairman while Mr.Chauhan would function as the interim titular head.

4. Mr. Chauhan would not be a part of the revamped process of appointing the new Director at FTII a search committee could be formulated for the appointment of the director- they would be entrusted with identifying suitable candidates.

5. The main demand of the students is academic excellence; to achieve this. a "Mentor/Academic chair" would be created at FTII who would help steer the institution in all academic matters. This mentor would arrive at decisions in consultation with students, teachers and other bodies. By deﬁnition he/she would be an active member of the Academic and Governing council.

6. A time bound Committee with a clear mandate should be formed to look into the reasons of the current crisis and suggest new rules towards formation of all the future FTll Societies in a transparent manner.

7. A Study Group comprising eminent people and academicians will be formed to look into the academic, administrative, infrastructure and human resource issues of the institute and help in the transition to the Institute of National importance. Recommendations of previous Committees such as the Khosla committee and the Nair committee reports could be considered to avoid duplication.

However, the students still have apprehensions about the role of the appointed Chairman under these circumstances. A proactive mechanism devised to address these apprehensions would help strengthen your commitment to make FTII a truly world class Film Institute. We suggest that the post of the Vice- Chairman in the current Society; to be given the title of Co-Chairman. All the powers of the Chairman would be vested in this Co-Chairman and the appointed Chairman would function as the interim titular head.

FTII Students proposal

The modalities and the time frames within which these solutions would be arrived at will be very critical to expedite the process. Also, the different committees suggested should have a clear mandate and should be time bound with members representing the highest academic excellence. In light of the above, if we mutually agree to the proposals discussed and apprehensions raised, it would help us resolve the current crisis at the earliest.

What prompted students who were earlier adamant on dropping five members to suddenly agree to retain Gajendra Chauhan and Shailesh Gupta? What was it that made Chauhan and Gupta non-contentious almost overnight? The students had earlier insisted that none of these five has strong credentials to become members of this premier institution. They also alleged that these five were political appointments. If that be so, why didn’t they oppose Pranjal Saikia who was an office-bearer of the RSS-linked Sanskar Bharati. Their vociferous protestations have suddenly gone silent.

Whatever be the reasons, it now appears that their opposition has whittled down only to three

Photo courtsey Ravi Karandeekar

names i.e Anagha Ghaisas, Narendra Pathak and Rahul Solapurkar. Students want these three and other members who have resigned (Jahnu Barua , Santosh Sivan and Pallavi Joshi) to be replaced by new mutually agreeable members. Why do the students not want back the members who resigned to support them? And what is this new condition of “mutually agreed” members. Process of such appointments should be transparent but that doesn’t mean appointments by “Mutual understanding” with agitators. Will not all other such institutions ask for similar changes then? This will then become the proverbial tip of the ice berg for agitations in the future.

Earlier the students didn’t want Gajendra Chauhan and four others to be associated to a “premier Institute’ like FTII. Then how come suddenly only Gajendra Chauhan and Shailesh Gupta are acceptable and not the other three who are presently on the board? Are they to be sacked? And if so what is the charge-sheet against them?

The president or chairpersons of governing council of FTII are, in any case, ornamental posts only. They don’t have any special powers. That means these posts have been titular all along. Then why did the students oppose Gajendra Chauhan in the first place? Their earlier objection that Chauhan did not have any association with FTII in the past and ,nor could he be placed in the same league as some of his predecessors has suddenly vanished in thin air. Does the only being titular make him to be placed in that league?

Students’ another demand is, Vice-Chairman would be elected from among the Society members. All the powers of the Chairman would be vested in this Vice-Chairman. Presently, the Governing council elects the Vice Chairman. What difference it would achieve if society members elect the Vice Chairman is difficult to understand. Giving powers to the Vice Chairman or any other member is the prerogative of the Governing Council of FTII. The government has nothing to do with it and the students far from it.

Students don’t want Chauhan to be a part of the revamped process of appointing the new Director at FTII. A search committee could be formulated for the appointment of the director- they would be entrusted with identifying suitable candidates. FTII rule 37 (i) specifically says that the Director shall be appointed by the Governing Council with the prior approval of the Central Government on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Central Government. It is up to the governing council whom to make part of such appointing process. It is another thing that till today governing council has made chairman a part of such process.

Their next demand is the creation of "Mentor/Academic chair" who would help steer the institution in all academic matters. Interesting part of this demand is they want this mentor to arrive at decisions in consultation with the students, teachers and other bodies.

In nut shell, the students want total control and say in the process of appointing, president, chairman, member, director and also administrative decisions. It seems that if government appoints members with mutual understanding with students then that is the only transparency as far as current process is concerned. Those who appoint have the powers to replace and re-appoint. So, when would the students study and learn the basics of films and television. In their spare time?

What difference does it make if Gajendra Chauhan associates with FTII as titular or regular? How is it not going to affect the prestige of the Institute? How out of 6 members (Pranjal saikia included) only 3 members are contentious and others not? Students now have to answer as to the extraneous considerations that have weighed on their minds while trying to stage an official coup and take over the prestigious institute, which will go further down hill until it crashes if these demands are accepted.

Monday, September 7, 2015

Maharashtra circular on sedition makes politicians and public servants “self proclaimed Government”

The bureaucracy in Maharashtra has once again put government in embarrassing position. It had left no stone unturned to be more powerfully than lawfully elected government. And unfortunately elected representatives have also succumbed to their wits. The blame game on governments circular on sedition has started .Oppositions have questioned intentions of government behind this circular, while Chief Minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis has placed the responsibility for the circular on the former Congress-NCP government.

Photo Courtsey pratimview.blogspot.in

CM has clarified that the circular is a direct translation of an HC decision. And that was based on the previous government's affidavit in the High Court. He has also termed media’s interpretation as “laughable” . However scenario is very different, the circular is not direct translation but twisted translation of original act and what had been put in The High Court on affidavit.

Out of 5 points only first 2 points of this circular are under criticism. In 1^st point words “लोकसेवक व सरकारचे प्रतिनिधी” means “ public servants and representatives of Government” have been mischievously inserted and that has caused the entire controversy .

In original act the words used in section 124A are “Whoever, by words, either spoken

or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life”

In the affidavit place in order state government has submitted that it would send guideline to police personal to take precaution while imposing section 124A . And 1^st point of this affidavit reads “The words, signs or representations must bring the Government (Central or State) into hatred or contempt or must cause or attempt to cause disaffection, enmity or disloyalty to the Government and the words/signs/ representation must also be an incitement to violence or must be intended or tend to create public disorder or a reasonable apprehension of public disorder;”

Photo Courtsey limenlemony.files.wordpress.com

If we read care carefully in original act or in an affidavit placed in High Court words “लोकसेवक व सरकारचे प्रतिनिधी” means “public servants and representatives of Government” were not there. However in circular while translating, these words seem to have been inserted. Point 1 of this circular reads “तोंडी किंवा लेखी शब्दांद्वारे अथवा खुणांद्वारे, अगर दृश्य अथवा अन्य मार्गामार्फत केंद्र अथवा राज्य सरकार, लोकसेवक व सरकारचे प्रतिनिधी यांच्याबद्दल द्वेष, तुच्छता, अप्रीती, अवमान, असंतोष, शत्रुत्व, द्रोहभावना अथवा बेइमानी याची भावना दर्शवित असली पाहिजे. अशा प्रकारचे शब्द,खुणा किंवा प्रदर्शन अभिव्यक्ती हिंसाचारास प्रवृत्त करणारी किंवा जनतेत असंतोष निर्माण करणारी असली पाहिजे”.

Who and why the inserted words “public servants and representatives of Government” is matter of investigation. However this can be termed as an attempt to amend law by issuing circular.

The next point of this circular is connected with point no 1. In Marathi it says’ सदर लेखी किंवा तोंडी शब्द, खुणा अथवा कोणत्याही प्रकारची अभिव्यक्ती यामधून राजकारणी अथवा लोकसेवक हे शासनाचे प्रतिनिधी असल्याचे ध्वनित होईल, त्यावेळीच सदर कलम लावण्यात यावे. That means “said (above mentioned) words/signs/representations show politicians or public servants as representative of the Government then only above section should be applied”. Actually in 1^st point word “politician” is not there but suddenly it appears in 2^nd point of Marathi translation.

Photo Courtsey whatoneearth.in

In affidavit filed in high court point no 2 is “Words, signs or representations against politicians or public servants by themselves do not fall in this category unless the words/signs/ representations show them as representative of the Government”. This point actually exempts from any immunity for politician and public servants from section 124 A. however Marathi translation not only provides such immunity it puts ‘freedom of speech and expression” in danger.

Point no 5 of this circular and affidavit placed in High Court is the only hope to assume that this will not be misused it says’ Before applying section 124A district law officer should be consulted and then within tow weeks Advocate generals opinion should sought.”. Fortunately in circular also same words have been kept untouched. Hence it is very difficult for police personal to apply section 124A to any one without Advocate Generals opinion.

However major question who did this mischief and why? It is not the first instance that bureaucracy has done such mischief. The most recent examples are.

1) It attempted to amend CrPC 156, With this amendment courts would not be able direct Police to file FIR without the sanction of the competent authority. This was clear attempt to shield both government servants as well as elected members. This would have made it harder to make accountable government servants and public representatives

2) In Maharashtra Right to public Services Act (MRTPS) they have eliminated all other fields except Governance from the Right to Public services Commissioners that are to be appointed under MRTPS. Section 13 (5) . It says the chief commissioner or commissioners shall be the persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in administration in government or public authority. That means there will be only babus as CICs and ICs of commission

Photo Courtsey www.manjul.com

3) Under MRTPS imposition amount of a penalty has left to be specified by the State Government from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette. This is the trick to kill the act before its inception. If penalty provision is not fixed in the act itself, babus will time and again try to minimize or remove it completely by mere notifications.

4) To make public servants accountable government of Maharashtra introduced Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005’, PoDiDoODA however bureaucracy never allowed to implement it properly. The funniest part is that the rules for PoDiDoODA came in to force in November 2013 i.e. after seven years of its promulgation. Hence, citizen’s charter was not implemented in many departments. And even after rules were framed the act was not implemented.

5) Many circulars were issued from Mantralay of Maharashtra since 1996 to express commitment to eradicate corruption and illegalities. Right to Information (RTI) Act was introduced soon afterwards. There was a provision for stringent action against illegalities exposed through the use of RTI. So far, 13 circulars have been issued for action against those involved in corruption and illegalities. But till today no action has been taken against any public servant according to these circulars.

In short bureaucracy has always tried to keep upper hand on democracy and unfortunate thing is elected representatives succumbed to their (Bureaucrats) wits for reason best known to them only.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Why is there so much Hue and cry over , Maharashtra Government’s guidelines on sedition charges ?

“Maharashtra curbs criticism ofpoliticians”, “Anti-democracy guidelines on Section 124 IPC by Maharashtra government”, “You risk sedition charges for criticising politicians”, “Criticisinggovernment can be sedition in Maharashtra now’ , “fresh guidelines on sedition; draws Opposition flak”, “Criticise government, face sedition charges in Maharashtra”, Thus were the headlines on Maharashtra government’s fresh guidelines on IPC 124 .

Photo Courtsey https://whennoodlesdream.files.wordpress.com

Reaction on this guidelines were very serious and with full of anger. I was also not exception for that. My first reaction on Facebook was also same. However careful reading of government resolution issued in this regard and High Court order shows that there is nothing much in that GR. Actually with this GR government has asked police to take adequate precaution before applying sedition charges on anyone.

These guidelines on IPC 124-Ahave been issued with regard to the assurance given to the Bombay High Court in the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi for his cartoons during the India Against Corruption movement headed by Anna Hazare. Aseem Trivedi was arrested by Mumbai Police in 2012 for drawing cartoons that allegedly insulted the national emblem and Parliament. The assurance was given in the HC when sedition charges were dropped against him.

Reproduced here are points in GR

(i) The words, signs or representations must bring the Central or State Government into hatred or contempt or must cause or attempt to cause disaffection, enmity or disloyalty to the Government and the words/signs/ representation must also be an incitement to violence or must be intended or tend to create public disorder or a reasonable apprehension of public disorder;

(ii) Words, signs or representations against politicians or public servants by themselves do not fall in this category unless the words/signs/representations show them as representative of the Government

Photo Courtsey truthdive.com

(iii) Comments expressing disapproval or criticism of the Government with a view to obtaining a change of government by lawful means without any of the above are not seditious under Section 124A;

(iv) Obscenity or vulgarity by itself should not be taken into account as a factor or consideration for deciding whether a case falls within the purview of Section 124A of

IPC,

(v) A legal opinion in writing which gives reasons addressing the aforesaid must be obtained from Law Officer of the District followed within two weeks by a legal opinion in writing from Public Prosecutor of the State.

Then why there is so much hue and cry about this GR?. Reason is simple. People strongly believe that literary genius in Mantralay i.e. bureaucrats issue circulars only to harass citizens or to protect their colleagues. It becomes a case of “you tell me the person and I shall tell you the circular”, thus putting into action only those circulars, which benefit the officers or their cronies. These circulars are always cleverly drafted. If some issue is to be evaded or to be framed, then the choice of words is so 'creative' as to abash even a litterateur. Perhaps these circulars would pass off as pieces of excellent literary talent.

Photo courtesy http://www.binayaksen.net

There can be a debate on validity of section 124 (A) in democracy. British colonial government felt the need to include this provision to suppress the liberty of the citizen India. How this section can be valid in Government OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People. But that apart. What wrong government of Maharashtra has done in this case? It has just sent guidelines while invoking section 124 (a) of IPC. The government has also clarified that the GR is not a government order and is only an advisory, which can be accepted or not.

Actually these guidelines are sent to avoid application of IPC 124 (A) . However it is the drafting of these guidelines that has caused entire debacle. Literary geniuses in Mantralay have once again succeeded in spreading confusion and doubt in peoples mind.