The differences between Bhartiya Janata Party and the Election Commission had started long before District Magistrate of Varanasi, Pranjal Yadav, nixed its prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi’s rally in Beniyabagh of Varanasi. But the even gave invitation to a war-cry. On Thursday, Varanasi witnessed a big protest by the senior BJP leaders and some odd 15,000 supporters.

The BJP has described the 34-year-old officer as “delinquent” and “biased” and has demanded his immediate transfer. In one of the four letters sent to EC on Wednesday, BJP’s senior leader Arun Jaitley said Yadav is “clearly guilty of dereliction of duty”. “He (Yadav) has indulged in conduct unbecoming of an officer,” Jaitley said in his letter. EC, however, has refused to take any action against the officer.

Also, as pointed out by BJP, DM Yadav, who is also returning officer in this election, is a cousin of Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav’s son-in-law Ram Gopal Yadav. They even mentioned a “Yadav” lobby, a direct reference to the officer’s caste. However, SP has denied the charges on Yadav and the party saying that the officer refused carrying out of Modi’s rally because of security reasons.

In the temple town of Varanasi, Yadav is known as an IIT graduate who has championed development of the town through several initiatives including better roads, better traffic management and removal of encroachments in the congested city.

According to a report in Babus of India, born on February 7, 1980, Yadav hails from UP’s Shahjahanpur. He completed his B.Tech in mechanical engineering from IIT-Roorkey before getting into IAS in 2006. He began his career as an assistant collector in Allahabad district in June 2007 and then moved as a joint collector in Sidharth Nagar sub-division next year. He was a collector in Maharajganj and Azamgarh districts too.

According to a report in The Indian Express, Yadav has earned the image of a non-nonsense officer committed to a development agenda ever since he took charge in February 2013. He has undertaken eviction of encroachers despite opposition, sent a water works engineer to police custody for not getting a project expedited, and ticked off several other officers for a slack approach.

He has worked “relentlessly” to rid Varanasi of its perpetual traffic jams, says this report in The Economic Times. According to the report, “Yadav has in a short span of time acquired legions of admirers in Varanasi thanks to the ingenious manner in which he took on encroachments.” He reportedly razed buildings from midnight to 3 am.

Yadav has maintained that there are intelligence reports warning of security concerns over holding the meeting at the venue the BJP is insisting upon. Till the latest report, these security warning came from Gujarat Police itself as claimed by the administration.

The post IAS Pranjal Yadav: The Man Between Modi and EC War appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

It’s a shame that the bureaucracy is forced to do unacceptable things by the ministers at times. Sometimes the bureaucrats speak up and sometimes they fear losing their job and keep mum. But Prasar Bharti CEO Jawahar Sircar has made it to the list of exceptions.

On Friday, Sircar wrote to the Prasar Bharti Board acknowledging the fact that certain portions of the Narendra Modi interview on Doordarshan “were apparently edited”. He is also learnt to have pointed a finger at Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari for failing to grant the public broadcaster “operational autonomy” that it has been seeking for years.

Sircar has taken on the ministerial interference in the working of Prasar Bharti in the past too.

The Modi interview, which was broadcasted a day later after its recording, had underwent heavy editing as per the media reports. Portions of the interview where Modi had refused to attack Priyanka Vadra and had spoken about Congress leader and party high command’s rght hand Ahmed Patel had been cut.

In both the reports by The Times of India and The Indian Express, Sircar had denied the charges. But IANS today confirmed his knowledge of editing in a letter to the Board.

According to the report, Sircar, in his letter, said he has been inundated with non-stop calls, social media messages, e-mails and other queries, to find out whether Doordarshan had withheld the Modi interview and why it had edited out portions.

He wrote: “…it appears that while portions critical of Doordarshan were telecast, certain comments on other personalities were apparently edited” in the Modi interview telecast April 27.

Charging the board of “failure to seek more operational autonomy despite taking several resolutions in two years”, Sircar asserted that “questions have been raised in the public domain about the impartiality and ‘motives’ of the public broadcaster”.

Sircar further wrote: “In a way, therefore, MIB (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) lost an opportunity to convince a young minister (Manish Tewari) to break this long traditional linkage between the ministry and the News Division, which has continued unabated even after PB was born and assigned its distinct role in 1997.”

Indicating the manner in which the ministry controls the PB, he wrote: “The mechanisms of appointment, transfers, career assessments and even punitive actions against senior officials of the News Division are bound to cast a ‘shadow’, in some form.”

Sircar said that after the DD team got the interview with Modi, there were concerns that they had not yet managed a counter-interview with Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi.

“I gave him (DG News) the ‘strength’ to go ahead and telecast the interview, even though there were concerns that a ‘balancing interview’ from the other side could not be procured, despite best attempts of DD News,” Sircar said in his letter.

Explaining the moves by the PB board aimed at acquiring autonomy, he said: “Another pertinent initiative of the PB Board, i.e, to bring in ‘external professionals’ met with some degree of success, but where the post of Directors General of Doordarshan and AIR are concerned, it did not succeed.”

“The Recruitment Rules still ensure that only government and quasi-government persons can occupy the post, which is pegged at approximately Rs.22 lakh per annum against sharply higher market rates. I have tried my best to explain that these need to be reviewed, because times are changing; but I have not succeeded.

“If there had been some degree of fresh thinking in these two proposals, we may not have faced the type of public criticism that a single interview has invited.”

He said he would present the issues before the PB board during its meeting in June.

He said the best option for the News Division is to make all-out efforts to seek a balancing interview so that the neutrality of the public broadcaster is not questioned; telecast interviews, at the earliest juncture, with due publicity; and do so, without editing.

While the editing of the interview was an open secret, the move had created a political storm with the Bharatiya Janata Party alleging government control over the public broadcaster.

Meanwhile, I&B minister Manish Tewari has pleaded ignorance about the letter Sircar shot off to the Prasar Bharati board saying that he has “not seen the letter” and that he cannot comment because it was “not addressed” to him.

It should be noted that on Thursday, Tewari had tried to put a full stop on the speculations of interference by saying that the I&B ministry had no connection with the piece of interview. He had said: “Prasar Bharati is an autonomous broadcaster and is governed by an act of parliament. The ministry of information and broadcasting has an arms-length relationship with the broadcaster. We do not interfere in their news agenda.”

Former bureaucrat Kiran Bedi tweeted her reaction:

Bane of ‘Babudom’ is that they write/speak up more 4 self survival than selfless service for which they are! Which is why its late at times!

— Kiran Bedi (@thekiranbedi) May 3, 2014

Bureaucrat/s have started to speak up,even write!! India’s governance would have been very different,if their sense of timing had been right

— Kiran Bedi (@thekiranbedi) May 3, 2014

Sircar’s move may have given courage to bureaucrats but the UPA government stands exposed. It will be interesting to see how Tewari defends himself and the government.

-With inputs from agency

The post Prasar Bharti CEO Embarrasses Govt; DD Modi Interview Was Edited appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

We all remember how the Prime Minister’s Office had reacted when former media advisor to PM Manmohan Singh had released a book. Sanjaya Baru’s insightful memoir, “The Accidental Prime Minister: The Makin g and Unmking of Manmohan Singh”, has spared none. The defence of PMO is seen as a shield to the PM, but it seems the PMO was defending itself for Baru has directed his wrath on the senior staff with severe charges.

He has called PM’s adviser TKA Nair “a bureaucratic lightweight” who except for a stint in the IK Gujral’s PMO, had neither held the rank of secretary in “any of the powerful ministries on Raisina Hill-home, finance and defence-nor in any key economic ministry”. He has not even spared current principal secretary Pulok Chatterji, who “like Nair, suffered from the handicap that his own service had never regarded him as one of its bright sparks”.

Baru in his book says that most principal secretaries have been extremely capable men, well regarded by their peers and respected by their subordinates, but “every now and then, a nondescript official of limited talent has also adorned that job,” as he belittles Nair.

According to the book, Nair was not the first choice to be Manmohan Singh’s principal secretary, but was in fact the “third choice” for the job. A Tamilian officer who had earlier worked with Rajiv Gandhi was offered by Congress president Sonia Gandhi to take up the coveted post, but he had refused to join. Another officer from Punjab was also considered.

The author also compared Nair with his predecessor Brajesh Mishra. “Always impeccably attired, Nair, small-built and short, lacked the presence of a Brajesh Mishra, whose striking demeanour commanded attention”.

Baru in his book says Nair rarely gave bold opinion on file and signed off with a ‘please discuss’ note. “Nair depended a great deal on Pulok Chatterjee, a joint secretary who had worked with both Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia, for advice on important policy decisions,” the author says while narrating the inside of the PMO in UPA-I.

“Nair-Pulok duo was not a patch on the magisterial Brajesh Mishra who ran Vajpayee’s PMO with great aplomb,” Baru adds.

In fact, if Baru is to be believed, “affable, pipe-smoking and understated” Pulok Chatterji has leftist leanings. But that’s not all. He also claims that Chatterji, thanks to his leftist leanings, was never too enthusiastic about Dr Singh’s focus on improving relations with US, a serious charge hurled against one of the top bureaucrats of UPA’s rule for the last 10 years.

In UPA-I, Chatterji was a powerful joint secretary monitoring the implementation of National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP), which was a set of joint objectives of the then coalition government. Chatterji drew his power, and that applies even today, from his proximity to UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. He has always been the PMO’s link with 10 Janpath, the official residence of Mrs Gandhi.

The book has made many critical comments on Sonia Gandhi’s domination over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The PMO had reacted sharply and issued a statement saying that the book is an “attempt to misuse a privileged position and access to high office to gain credibility to apparently exploit it for commercial gain.” The statement further said: “The commentary smacks of fiction and coloured views of a former adviser.”

Given the accout, it seems the PMO, which was actually in the hands of Congress high command, was trying to save itself.

The post Baru’s Book And PMO: It Tried To Save Itself, Not PM appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

Barely a month before possible ending of its tenure, the UPA government is trying to make amends and put in place the structure of the anti-corruption body Lokpal. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is planning to convene a meeting of the Lokpal Selection committee on April 27 or 28.

Reportedly, he is considering the convenience of the leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj, who is also member of the team, and that is why two days are being considered for the work. Rightnow, Swaraj is busy campaigning in her Lok Sabha constituency Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh.

Besides the PM and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sbaha, the Selection committee includes, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of India or his representative and a prominent jurist. The committee had met once in February during which Swaraj expressed her opposition to the nomination of jurist PP Rao as one of the members of the panel, alleging he has been a Congress loyalist.

The government is keen to complete the process of setting up the Lokpal before it demits office, failing which its seriousness on the issue would be questioned. If Swaraj has any objections, those would be recorded.

The process of setting up the anti-corruption watchdog following enactment of the law in January has run into rough weather as the government and the opposition have been locked in a confronation over its members. 

The post Lokpal: Selection Meeting To Be Finally Convened By PM appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

The upcoming Lok Sabha elections has paved way for many new entrants into political parties. Most of them were famous journalists at one time. But there was a time, when bureaucrats wanted to remain in power corridors and joined politics. Yashwant Sinha, Ajit Jogi, Manishankar Aiyer, Natwar Singh and Jaswant Singh are examples of that. All of them excelled as bureaucrats before joining politics and becoming parliamentarians.

This time, 24 bureaucrats are in the poll fray representing various political parties. It can be said that they are aware of problems at ground and possible solutions because of their innings as public servant.

The first name is of former home secretary RK Singh who is a 1975-batch retired IAS. He knew inside out of the UPA government but decided to join the BJP and is now contesting from Arrah constituency in Bihar.

We all have already heard about former Kerala Governor Nikhil Kumar, a retired 1963-batch IPS officer, who has been brought back from the Raj Bhawan by Congress so that he could fight elections from Bihar’s Aurangabad Lok Sabha seat.

Another retired bureaucrat Christy Fernandez, a 1973-batch former IAS officer of Gujarat cadre, is trying his political luck as an independent (but backed by CPI-M) from Kerala’s Ernakulam constituency. Fernandez, who had served as secretary to former President Pratibha Patil, was also a contender for the post of Delhi Lieutenant Governor.

Then of course, Arvind Kejriwal of Aam Aadmi Party is now a household name in India. He left Indian Revenue Service mid-way to work as a social activist before plunging into active politics.

AAP too has also placed a number of IPS officers from across the country – Mizoram in the east, Maharastra in the west and Kerala in the south. M Lalmanzuala, a retired Punjab cadre IAS officer of 1967 batch, is the AAP candidate from the lone seat in Mizoram. His main rival is Congress’ sitting MP CL Ruala.

AAP has also fielded Ajit Joy, a 1992 batch former IPS officer, from Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram constituency. The seat is represented by Union minister of state for human resource development Shashi Tharoor. Joy took voluntary retirement from the Indian Police Service.

AAP has also given ticket to former IPS officer Suresh Khopade from Maharashtra’s Baramati seat. Khopade is contesting against Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) candidate and sitting MP Supriya Sule, daughter of Union agriculture minister Sharad Pawar.

Another prominent IRS-turned politician, Udit Raj, is contesting elections from Delhi.

Two former IPS officers, who happen to be brothers, are contesting from Rajasthan’s Dausa constituency. Harish Meena, a 1976-batch retired IPS officer, is contesting on a BJP ticket against his brother Namo Narain Meena. The big brother Meena is a 1969-batch retired IPS officer and Union minister of state for finance. He is contesting on a Congress ticket.

In Bihar, former IAS officer K P Ramaiah (1986-batch) is being pitted against Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar from Sasaram. Ramaiah, who has served at various positions in Bihar during his stint as an IAS officer, is contesting on a JD-U ticket. Congress’ Kumar is also a former Indian Foreign Service (IFS) official. She joined IFS in 1973 and resigned from the service in 1985. She is the incumbent MP from Sasaram.

Here is the complete list of bureaucrats contesting election this year:

List of IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS officers contesting Lok Sabha Elections, 2014

Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
1. Christy Fernandez (Ex-IAS) (Independent, supported by CPI-M) Ernakulam, Kerala
2. RK Singh (Ex-IAS) (BJP), Arrah, Bihar
3. KP Ramaiah (Ex-IAS) (JD-U), Sasaram, Bihar
4. Bhagirath Prasad (Ex-IAS), (BJP), Bhind, Madhya Pradesh
5. Yudhbir Singh Khyalia (Ex-IAS) (AAP), Hisar, Haryana
6. Ajit Jogi (Ex-IAS), (Congress), Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

Indian Foreign Service (IFS)
1. Mani Shankar Aiyar, (Ex-IFS), Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu
2. Meira Kumar (Ex-IFS) (Congress), Sasaram, Bihar

Indian Police Service (IPS)
1. Nikhil Kumar (Ex-IPS) (Congress) Aurangabad, Bihar
2. Harish Chandra Meena (Ex-IPS) (BJP), Dausa, Rajasthan
3. Namo Narain Meena (Ex-IPS) (Congress), Dausa
4. M Lalmanzuala (Ex-IPS) (AAP), Mizoram
5. Ajit Joy (Ex-IPS) (AAP), Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
6. Suresh Khopade (Ex-IPS) (AAP), Baramati, Maharashtra
7. Ajay Kumar (Ex-IPS) Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
8. Rameshwar Oraon (ex-IPS) (Congress), Lohardaga, Jharkhand
9. Vishnu Dayal Ram (Ex-IPS) (BJP), Palamau, Jharkhand
10. Amitabh Choudhary (Ex-IPS), Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), Ranchi, Jharkhand
11. Ashish Ranjan Sinha (Ex-IPS), (Congress), Nalanda, Bihar
12. Satyapal Singh (Ex-IPS), (BJP) Baghpat, UP
13. RK Handa (Ex-IPS), (BJP) Barrackpurr
14. Sujit Kumar Ghosh (Ex-IPS), (BJP), Murshidabad, West Bengal.

Indian Revenue Service
1. Arvind Kejriwal (Ex-IRS) (AAP) Varanasi, UP
2. Udit Raj (Ex-IRS), North West Delhi

The post Lok Sabha 2014: 24 Bureaucrats In The Poll Fray appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

US Ambassador to India Nancy Powell retired from her post on Monday. Although rumours were strife that she resigned due to Devyani Khobrahade issue, US insisted that it was a normal course in her career and that she retired.

Rumours were also there signaling that Powell resigned due to BJP PM nominee Narendra Modi, whom she had met last week, and who is most likely to sit in the PMO. It was being said that Powell due to her differences with Modi over 2002 Gujarat riots had said that she will resign if the latter comes to power.

The latest news is that head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID ), Indian-Amerian Rajiv Shah is likely to replace Powell.

According to the Economic Times, over a dozen senior and influential US public servants, including serving and retired Senators and Congressmen are being considered as successor to Powell. Shah’s name is also doing rounds.

However, ET further reports that the Washington is divided about appointing an young Indian-American to the post. Rajiv Shah, 41, is considered a rising star in the US bureaucracy but diplomatic circles in both Delhi and Washington are demanding an effective Ambassador who can arrest the drift in ties.

Shah’s Indian origin may make him or appear to be biased in his opinions. Also, his age may pose a problem for receiving proper regards.

Prior to becoming USAID’s administrator, Rajiv Shah has served as undersecretary for research, education and economics, and as chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). There, he was mainly involved in launching the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which significantly elevated the status and funding of agricultural research. 

He has also served with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for a time period of seven years including as the director of agricultural development in the Global Development Program, and as Director of Strategic Opportunities.

Rajiv Shah holds a medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and a master degree in health economics from the Wharton School of Business. He attended the London School of Economics and is a graduate from the University of Michigan.

The post Rajiv Shah: The New US Ambassador To India? appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

As the elections are nearing, the Election Commission of India has started its massive administrative shuffle drive for more effective poll prearations. The EC transferred six Bihar officials including an IAS and three IPS officers on March 26 and 44 officials in Uttar Pradesh on March 27 in view of the Lok Sabha elections.

Those who have been transferred in Bihar included Bhojpur district magistrate Pankaj Kumar Pal who has been replaced by primary education director M Saravanan. Similarly, Samastipur SP Chandrika Prasad has been replaced by AIG P Kannan.

Muzaffarpur SSP Saurav Kumar has been replaced by SP (Security) Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, while AIG Daljeet Singh has been appointed Katihar SP in place of Asgar Imam. Patna Sadar Sub-divisional Officer (SDO) Nayyar Iqbal and Chhapra DSP Manish Kumar Sinha have also been transferred.

In UP, 44 senior officers including 22 district magistrates, three DIGs and 19 superintendents of police were transferred.

The list there includes District Magistrates of Mainpuri, Deoria, Maharajganj, Mahoba, Mau, Meerut, Sambhal, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Sonebhadra, Amroha, Bahraich, Banda, Chitrakoot, Etah, Firozabad, Gonda, Jhansi, Kaushambi, Lalitpur, Pratapgarh, Rampur and Shahjanahpur.

Mainpuri is the district from where Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav is contesting. The districts from where SPs have been transferred include Farrukhabad, from where Union minister Salman Khurshid is contesting as a Congress candidate; Ghaziabad and Sultanpur. Varun Gandhi is going to contest from Sultanpur.

Other districts which will have new police chiefs include Bahraich, Jaunpur, Jhansi, Mau, Siddhart Nagar, Aligarh, Allahabad, Balrampur, Banda, Chitrakoot, Etah, Fatehpur, Gonda, Pratapgarh, Rampur and Sant Ravidas Nagar.

The list of replacements in UP is not out yet.

The Lok Sabha elections in India are starting on April 7, and the results will come out on May 16.

The post Election Commission Does A Massive Transfer Drive In Bihar And UP appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

Do you remember the teleseries Udaan aired on DD National in 1989–91? The serial was based on the life of IPS officer Kanchan Chaudhary Bhattacharya, India’s first woman Director General of Police (DGP). After a successful career as a bureaucrat, she is making her debut in politics now. The Aam Aadmi Party is fielding her from Haridwar constituency in the upcoming election.

Bhattacharya was just a batch junior to first woman IPS officer Kiran Bedi.

The TV serial Udaan, written and directed by Bhattacharya’s sister Kavita Choudhary, was a story of a woman’s struggle who aspired to be an IPS officer. The serial depicted her life before and after becoming an IPS officer. It was the first ever serial made on woman empowerment.

Famous director Shekhar Kapur also acted in the serial, playing the role of an IAS officer proposing to marry the protagonist, Kalyani Singh, IPS.

Incidentally, the name of this former Uttarakhand DGP was announced by AAP as its Lok Sabha candidate on the same day BJP announced the name of former Mumbai police commissioner Satyapal Singh as its nominee for Bagpat constituency in Western UP.

Singh is a 1980 batch IPS officer who left his high profile job to enter politics. The Bagpat constituency is currently held by civil aviation minister Ajit Singh.

Interestingly, Singh had personally reviewed the security of anti-graft crusader Anna Hazare at Ralegan Siddhi during an agitation in 2011 where Kejriwal was also present. After AAP was formed and Singh had resigned from his post, there were rumours that will join the party. His joining BJP was a bit of surprise for people.

Whether they will manage to win their respective constituencies will be a result much awaited.

The post Bureaucrats In Polls: Kanchan Bhattacharya and Satyapal Singh appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

The Election Commission has decided to put as many as 700 IRS officers as observers in ‘expenditure sensitive’ constituencies during the Lok Sabha polls.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Excise and Customs are finalizing a list of names suitable for this job. The I-T department has pooled in and compiled a list of its officers from its various wings of tax collection, TDS, investigations and others to be sent on deputation to the EC for this task while the Customs will also depute a team of senior officials from its various formations.

The final briefing of these officials will take place this week in Delhi where they will be told about their role and capacity in the elections. They will not only oversee the Lok Sabha elections but also the state Legislative Assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Odisha.

These officers will be posted as ‘Election Expenditure Observers’ in various constituencies and Assembly segments and they will supervise anti-blackmoney procedures being conducted by the flying squads and monitoring teams appointed by the EC.

The EC has formulated a number of measures for curbing the use of illegal money power and luring of voters in the run up to the polls, the first voting day of the polls being April 7.

After these IRS officers will be formally allotted their respective constituencies, they will start touring their respective areas.

Reportedly, the officials will remain with the EC till the final expenditure reports are finalized after the election results are announced on May 16.

The post Election 2014: IRS Officers To Be EC’s Eye appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

In April this year, the Supreme Court had sounded a red alert on the widespread misuse of red beacons by the VIPs. The bench had also asked the central and state governments to drastically restrict the use of “laal batti” by VIPs and to provide it only to the heads of political executive, legislature, judiciary and persons holding constitutional posts.

But the government forgot to do the job as it was busy devising many policies to win votes as well as allies.

Today, the Supreme Court again directed that red beacon lights without flashers should be used on the vehicles of only high constitutional functionaries and blue beacon lights will be used only on emergency services and police.

The apex court bench headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi in its direction said that the sirens would only be used on the emergency and police vehicles but the sound should not be unduly harsh and shrill.

This time, the court has given a time frame for the job and has directed both the central and state governments to issue a pruned list of constitutional functionaries entitled for red beacon lights on official vehicles will within ‘three months’.

The court added that any violations of its direction would attract exemplary penalty.

The court ordered that the police will implement the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act without fear or favour.

Last time when the SC order had come, the very next day, a report in newspapers said deputy commissioners and sub-divisional magistrates in Delhi too were allowed to use beacons on their official cars.

Originally intended for security purposes, red beacons gradually became a symbol of political power. While 27 categories of public functionaries are officially permitted to use them (only when they on official duty), the prescribed norms are routinely flouted.

In UP and Bihar, a gram pradhan, head of a political party’s district unit, or even a smaller political functionary thinks that he/she cannot expect respect from others until he flashes one red beacon. 

Interestingly, the parliamentarians from across the political spectrum had made a strong demand for being given the right to sport red beacons atop their vehicles during a parliamentary debate in May last year.

“Even an additional district magistrate gets a red beacon while an MP representing lakhs of people is deprived of it,” Arjun Ram Meghwal of BJP had said while initiating a debate on the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill moved by transport minister CP Joshi in the Lok Sabha in May 2012.

He had added that a red beacon would help an MP reach parliament quickly as it would reduce time spent at toll booths on highways. Supporting him, Vijay Bahadur Singh of BSP said a red beacon would help MPs move quicker across their constituencies.

Since they are the ones who make laws, this one crossed the technical barriers pretty quickly. The road transport and highways ministry gave up its resistance to the MPs’ demand, the home ministry readied the proposal and prime minister Manmohan Singh too did not change his expression.

The deal was almost sealed when Congress president Sonia Gandhi chose to nix it.

“Laal Batti” is just a tool to the powerful to feel that kick of being powerful. Little do they know that they don’t need any. They sit in parliament and enjoy privileges in our name that are not available to any of us.

But, obviously, these aren’t enough.

The post Supreme Court’s red card to ‘˜Laal Batti’ appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal and the UPA government as a whole are having a hard time. The reason is Guwahati High Court’s one verdict which can throw water on its long-standing motives.

Two days ago, a division of Guwahati High Court quashed April 1, 1963, resolution taken by the then home ministry which set up Central Bureau of Investigation. The interesting revelation through the 89 page judgment of the bench held that the CBI was illegal as it was neither established under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE) Act, 1946, nor it was part of an organ o DSPE.

“We hold that CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and that the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946. We hereby also set aside and quash the impugned resolution (of the Union Home ministry) dated 01.04.1963, whereby CBI has been constituted,” the judgment said.

Late, however, the revelation is the verdict is absolute and right. But it is sending the UPA into a tizzy because CBI ceases to be a constitutional body and its power to probe cases becomes null and void.

The “caged parrot”, as CBI was always referred to until the move on it becoming autonomous riled up, has allegedly been used at and on government’s will at times. It was considered that once the case goes to CBI it can be manipulated easily by the government.

The CBI Bill, 2010, is awaiting legislation which could save it from becoming a history.

As reported in Indian Express, Congress’ own MP and then I&B Minister Manish Tewari had raised the issue in Parliament in 2009. In 2010, he had moved a Private Member’s Bill in the Lok Sabha stating that the CBI is not a legal body as it draws its powers from the DSPE whose legality is tenuous.

But the government did not wake up from its slumber till a writ petition was filed.

Of late, the CBI has been proving its critics wrong by delivering timely reports and its special court delivering unabated justice. Be it fodders cam verdict or investigations in Coalgate, the CBI has been doing a marvelous job.

The government has announced that it will file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgement. It is to be noted that when the government was asked to produce records relating to the creation of the CBI, it did not file the original record but produced a certified copy of records received from the National Archives. The failure of the central government in defending CBI till now gives less hope that it will be able to defend its establishment further.

The court has given CBI time to end its proceeding pending in CBI court but no new case should be registered.

Given the fact that its fate is pretty much sealed, the CBI should try to go down in the history not as a caged parrot but the one which delivered justice to the people of India in various scam cases it is probing.

Other thing which may happen is that the government may wrest with the issue in the winter session of the parliament or it may come up with another ordinance to save the CBI.

The post Guwahati HC verdict on CBI: Fate sealed for the ‘caged parrot’? appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

Gone are the days when the politicians can reign over bureaucracy. The Supreme court of India has given a landmark judgement which will unshackle the bureaucracy from political control.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre and the States to set up a Civil Services Board (CSB) for the management of transfers, postings, inquiries, process of promotion, reward, punishment and disciplinary matters.

A Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, giving a series of directions while disposing of a public interest writ petition — filed by former Union Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramanian; former CECs T.S. Krishnamurthy and N. Gopalaswami; former Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Abid Hussain; former CBI Director Joginder Singh; former Manipur Governor Ved Prakash Marwah and 77 others — also said bureaucrats should not act on verbal orders given by politicians and suggested a fixed tenure for them.

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Radhakrishnan said “the CSB, consisting of high ranking service officers, who are experts in their respective fields, with the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre and Chief Secretary at the State level, could be a better alternative (till the Parliament enacts a law), to guide and advise the State government on all service matters, especially on transfers, postings and disciplinary action, etc., though their views also could be overruled, by the political executive, but by recording reasons, which would ensure good governance, transparency and accountability in governmental functions.”

The Bench asked Parliament to enact a Civil Services Act under Article 309 of the Constitution setting up a CSB, “which can guide and advise the political executive transfer and postings, disciplinary action, etc.” The Bench directed the Centre, State governments and the Union Territories to constitute such Boards “within three months, if not already constituted, till the Parliament brings in a proper Legislation in setting up CSB.”

The Bench said “We notice, at present the civil servants are not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State governments where transfers and postings are made frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive head for political and other considerations and not in public interest. The necessity of minimum tenure has been endorsed and implemented by the Union Government. In fact, we notice, almost 13 States have accepted the necessity of a minimum tenure for civil servants. Fixed minimum tenure would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy.”

Deprecating repeated transfers, the Bench said minimum assured tenure ensures efficient service delivery and also increased efficiency.The Bench directed the Centre, States and Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to secure providing of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants, within three months.

The judgement comes against the backdrop of the controversial move by the Uttar Pradesh government of suspending (and then reinstating) IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal, who was investigating the sand mafia in the state, and of the Haryana government of shunting out IAS officer Ashok Khemka, who was investigating land deals undertaken by Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. The Supreme Court had refused to intervene on PILs filed in both matters.

The move is bound to improve the quality of governance across the country. However, it is also likely to further soil the relationship between the executive and judiciary, already strained by the latter effectively making policy in some instances.

Meanwhile, the Congress party, which heads the United Progressive Alliance government, criticized the order.

Experts say implementing the order may prove difficult and they fear that it will provoke another face-off between the executive and the judiciary.

However, experts also say that the ruling is unworkable. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of think-tank Centre for Policy Research, said on Twitter: “On the face of it, Supreme Court is continuing its constitutional usurpation; and many orders are practically unworkable.”

Given the fact that CBI is already probing multiple cases and the famous whistleblower bureaucrat Ashk Khemaka is still in office, guess it will be real freedom for the babus which will be tested and tasted soon.

The post Unshackling bureaucracy: Is it real freedom for Babus? appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

Supreme Court Friday declined a petition seeking direction to the government to observe a cooling off period of two years before a retired senior civil servant is offered re-employment with the government.

The apex court bench headed by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, turning down the plea, said it was for the competent authorities to decide on the re-employment of a retiring civil servant. “How can court issue directions?”

Senior counsel Harish Salve, who appeared for petitioner Prakash Singh, told the court that there were existing rules providing for cooling off period but these were not being adhered to.

Salve told the court he was seeking guidelines on the cooling off period so that there could be transparency in the matter of appointment at senior levels.

The court said petitioner Prakash Singh, who himself is a former police chief, could make a representation to the government to air his grievances and added that court cannot issue directions on the issue.

-IANS

The post SC declines plea over bureaucrats’ cooling off period appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

The new Department of Personnel and Training throws light on an important issue – incompetence of Indian Babus.

“It is sometimes found that a few members of All-India Services tend to become mere passengers in the post or at the level in which a member is placed for the time being. They become either stale or listless; they do not exhibit any creativity or  innovativeness; and they do not achieve results. In some other cases, information may be available which casts grave doubt upon the integrity of a member,” say new DoPT guidelines.

This will be done by reviewing integrity of an officer.

A committee will look at entries relating to integrity in the officer’s ACR/PAR dossier. The committee can take into account the remarks while reviewing any proposal for premature retirement even if a particular remark has not been communicated to the officer, or if that remark is of a general nature.

For review of efficiency, entire service record of an officer will be considered. More emphasis will be laid on the officer’s performance during the five years preceding the review.

If there is evidence of deterioration in efficiency and unsatisfactory performance in this five-year period, review committee will examine the entire service record to figure out suitability or otherwise of the officer to continue.

The government will review an officer’s performance at two levels: first, after he/she has rendered 15 years of qualifying service; and a second time after completion of 25 years of qualifying service, or attaining the age of 50.

If this work is carried out, this will certainly pull the much needed reforms in the bureaucracy and break the ring of babudom. It will be interesting to see though how the DoPT guideline is received in bureaucratic circles.

The post Troubles ahead for the Indian Babu? appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

The Uttar Pradesh government on Tuesday removed R.M. Srivastava from the post of Principal Secretary (Home), just a few days after two other officials of the home department were suspended over the controversial Ram temple letter issue.

Srivastava has been replaced by Anil Kumar Gupta, who was posted as member of the Revenue Board.

Reportedly, the decision was taken at the highest level as the government wanted to send a stern message to the bureaucracy that people ending up embarrassing the state government will not be spared.

Srivastava was hand picked at the time of the government formation March 2012 by Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Mulayam Singh Yadav.

In a letter (4622 D/F-Pu-4-2013) dated Oct 9, Sarvesh Chandra Mishra, secretary of the state home department had informed senior police and administrative officials of a meeting to “discuss the construction of a Shri Ramjanbhoomi temple in Ayodhya through a parliamentary law on lines of the reconstruction of the Somnath temple in Gujarat”.

The letter had further detailed that the meeting would be presided over by principal secretary (Home) at the IInd floor command centre of the Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan office Oct 14.

The invitees include the director general of police (DGP), additional director general of police (ADG) law and order, IG (railways), ADG (Intelligence), IG (law and Order), IG Lucknow, IG Faizabad and DM/SSP Faizabad.

Despite his apologies in front of the media, Srivastava paid for the goof up.

As the letter found its way to the media, the opposition pounced on the Samajwadi Party government and accused it of conniving with communal forces.

The letter was a big blow to the Akhilesh Yadav government with regard to its relationship with Muslims, who are angry over the Muzaffarnagar riots of September that killed 62 persons and displaced over 43,000.

The post U.P. Principal Secretary removed for temple goof-up appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

The much awaited land acquisition will be taken up for debate and voting in Rajya Sabha today.

The bill, which has been renamed “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2012”, has already been passed by the Lok Sabha on Aug 29 with 216 votes in favour and 19 against it.

Till now, India had to do about with the colonial era Land Acquisition Act dating back to 1894. The purpose of the original 1894 law was to merely expedite the acquisition of land. It will be replaced by the new bill when it becomes an act.
Here is all what you would like to know about the bill.

Features of the new bill

1.When land can be acquired: For private projects, public-private partnerships (PPPs) and for government projects, provided it is for a public purpose.

2.Retrospective effect: Where awards are made but no compensation has been paid or possession has not been taken, compensation shall be paid at the rate prescribed under the new Act. Where the award has not been made, the entire process shall be considered to have lapsed. Also, where acquisition took place five years prior to the commencement of the new law but no compensation has been paid/possession has taken place, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3.Consent: For a private entity or a PPP project, state has to conduct a social impact assessment (SIA) and an environmental impact assessment (EIA), to identify the families who would be affected if land was acquired. The private entity seeking land must then get the consent of 80 per cent of the affected families before it gets the government to acquire land for it. In the case of PPPs, the entity has to secure consent of 70 per cent of affected families. The third condition for getting possession of land acquired through state intervention is payment of compensation and fulfilling of R&R requirements.

4.Compensation: The Bill proposes payment of compensation up to four times the market value in rural areas and twice the market value in urban areas. Importantly, for the first time the bill also provides compensation to those who are dependent on the land being acquired for their livelihood, besides owners of the land. Also, where acquired land is sold to a third party for a higher price, 40 per cent of the appreciated land value (or profit) will be shared with the original owners. This would be exempt from tax and stamp duty.

5. R&R:
a.This is the very first law that links land acquisition and the accompanying obligations for resettlement and rehabilitation.
b.The definition of affected family includes farm labourers, tenants, sharecroppers and workers in the area for three years prior to acquisition.
c.The compensation would be Rs 5 lakh or a job, if available, to the affected family; subsistence allowance of Rs 3,000 a month for one year; miscellaneous allowances of up to Rs 1.25 lakh for each family. These are obviously separate from the onetime payment to the land-owner.
d.In every project those losing land and belonging to the SC or ST will be provided land equivalent to land acquired or two and a one-half acres, whichever is lower. Where the affected families belonging to the SC and the ST are relocated outside of the district then they shall be paid an additional rehabilitation and resettlement benefits to which they are entitled in monetary terms along with a one-time entitlement of fifty thousand rupees.

6.Choice for return to Land Bank or owner: Where unutilised land is returned, the State can decide whether it goes to the original owner or the Land Bank.

7.Threshold for private purchase left to government: While the Bill requires the discharge of obligations related to Resettlement and Rehabilitation even in the case of private purchase, provided the purchase exceeds a certain threshold, it leaves the said threshold to the discretion of the State governments.

8.Multi-crop acquisition: The acquisition of agricultural and multi-crop land has to be done only as a last resort. There will be definite restrictions on the extent of acquisition of such land to be determined by the States concerned.

9.Dispute authority: A Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority to be established.

10.Only a baseline: The Bill only provides the baseline for compensation and has devised a sliding scale which allows States to fix the multiplier (which will determine the final award) depending on distance from urban centres. Moreover, The State governments are free to enact any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under the Bill, conferring higher compensation than what is payable under the Bill or making provisions for better rehabilitation and resettlement.

Criticism

1.It is not clear how the value of rural land located close to designated urban areas will be realistically determined.

2.No guarantee of jobs in R&R package

3.State government to decide if unused acquired-land should be returned to the farmer or added to its land bank. This applies even if owners return the compensation

4.Though the multicrop irrigated farmland is out of acquisition ambit for non-farm uses. But state can decide to what extent farmland should be protected. The farmer does not have any say in the matter.

The post The law and lord of the land: All you would want to know about land acquisition bill appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

Overcoming resistance from the judiciary, a Bill to scrap the collegium system of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on last Thursday. At present, judges of the SC as well as HCs are appointed by the collegium system. Here is all you would like to know about the old collegium system, the proposal for the new system and what it will do to judiciary.

What is the collegium system?

It is a system under which appointments and transfers of judges are decided by a forum of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It has no place in the Indian Constitution.

What does the Constitution actually prescribe?

Article 124 deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges. It says the appointment should be made by the President after consultation with such judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the President may deem necessary. The CJI is to be “consulted” in all appointments, except his or her own. Now, it is an established convention to make the senior most judge of the SC as CJI.

Article 217 deals with the appointment of High Court judges. It says a judge should be appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI and the Governor of the state. The Chief Justice of the High Court concerned too should be consulted.

Evolution of the collegium system (the three Judges cases)

The collegium system has its genesis in a series of three judgments that is now clubbed together as the “Three Judges Cases.”

The First Judges Case (S. P. Gupta v. Union of India December 30, 1981)

It declared that the “primacy” of the CJI’s recommendation to the President can be refused for “cogent reasons”. This brought a paradigm shift in favour of the executive having primacy over the judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years.

The Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association SCAORA v. Union of India October 6, 1993)

A nine-judge bench decision ushered in the collegium system. The majority verdict written by Justice J S Verma said “justiciability” and “primacy” required that the CJI be given the “primal” role in such appointments. The CJI should consult two other judges of the SC.

It is notable here that out of the 9 judges, Justice Verma spoke for only himself and four other judges. Justice Pandian and Justice Kuldip Singh went on to write individual judgments supporting the majority view. But Justice Ahmadi had dissented and Justice Punchhi took the view that the CJI need not restrict himself to just two judges (as mentioned in the ruling) and can consult any number of judges if he wants to, or none at all.

The Third Judges Case (In response to Presidential Reference 1 of 1998)

For the next five years after the second judges case, there was confusion on the roles of the CJI and the two judges in judicial appointments and transfers. In many cases, CJIs took unilateral decisions without consulting two colleagues. Besides, the President became only an approver.

In 1998, President K R Narayanan issued a presidential reference to the Supreme Court as to what the term “consultation” really means in Articles 124, 217 and 222 (transfer of HC judges) of the Constitution. The question was if the term “consultation” requires consultation with a number of judges in forming the CJI’s opinion, or whether the sole opinion of the CJI constituted the meaning of the articles. In reply, the Supreme Court laid down nine guidelines for the functioning of the Coram for appointments/transfers; this came to be the present form of the collegium.

Besides, a judgment dated October 28, 1998, written by Justice S P Bharucha at the head of the nine-judge bench, used the opportunity to strongly reinforce the concept of “primacy” of the highest judiciary over the executive. This was the “Third Judges Case”.

SC guidelines on appointments

What are the arguments against the collegium system?

· The administrative burden of appointing and transferring judges without a separate secretariat or intelligence-gathering mechanism dedicated to collection of and checking personal and professional backgrounds of prospective appointees;

· A closed-door affair without a formal and transparent system;

· The limitation of the collegium’s field of choice to the senior-most judges from the High Court for appointments to the Supreme Court, overlooking several talented junior judges and advocates.

What moves were taken to correct these?

The Law Commission in its 214^th Report on ‘Proposal for Reconsideration of Judges cases I, II and III’ recommended two solutions:

· To seek a reconsideration of the three judgments before the Supreme Court

· A law to restore the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the power of the executive to make appointments

What is the suggested alternative to the collegium?

A National Judicial Commission was envisaged as an alternative. The Constitution (98th Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by the NDA government in 2003. It provided for the constitution of an NJC to be chaired by the CJI and with two of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court as its members. The Union Law Minister would be a member along with an eminent citizen to be nominated by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister. The Commission would decide the appointment and transfer of judges and probe cases of misconduct by judges, including those from the highest judiciary.

The current debate

In April 2013, media reports indicated that the government was contemplating reform proposals regarding appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. A draft Bill by the Law Ministry then headed by Ashwani Kumar was to submit the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill to the Cabinet by April 22. This draft bill is not in the public domain yet.

Finally on August 22nd 2013, the union cabinet approved the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill to scrap the collegium system of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and high courts. The commission will be presided over by the Chief Justice of India, and will include two Supreme Court judges, the Law Minister, two eminent persons and the Justice Secretary, who will be the Member-Secretary. The Leader of the Opposition in either House will be part of a committee which nominates the eminent persons, the other members being the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice. Thus, all the organs of the State, as also the citizenry, will be represented.

Why are the lawyers opposed to this draft, and why the government seems to favour it? The govt, under the collegium system, lost the primacy it enjoyed after the first judges case.

However, the truth is that the judgments laid down a mandatory consultation process between the constitutional authorities, including the Central government which has inputs from various intelligence agencies. The complaint that the Central government is not consulted nor has any say in the matter is misleading and incorrect.

The government is upset because the executive does not now have the primacy it enjoyed earlier. The vigorous judicial scrutiny and oversight of executive misdemeanours in the 2G scam and Coalgate litigations (apart from many others) has rattled the executive.

The Judicial Appointments Commission is so structured as to revive the dominant voice of the political class by including the Law Minister, two eminent jurists nominated by the government and the Leader of the Opposition.

The new Commission will ensure the central issue of democratic accountability which the collegium system had subverted. It is completely undemocratic if the selection to such a powerful institution is to be left entirely to a body of men and women concededly learned in the law, but unelected, and in practice virtually irremovable, thanks to a complicated impeachment procedure.

-valuable inputs from Amulya Nidhi

The post All you would want to know about Judicial Appointments Bill appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee Tuesday reviewed the performance of all departments and pulled up “non-performing” ministers and bureaucrats.

She also said she would resume her district tours from Sep 10.

“We discussed the functioning of all departments. We could not do so for some time due to the Panchayat elections. We also could not take important decisions. We will again hold administrative meetings in the districts. We plan to complete touring half of the districts before the Durga Puja (in October),” Banerjee said.

All the ministers and senior bureaucrats attended the closed-door meeting at the historic Town Hall where Banerjee took stock of the work done by each department.

“We had very good discussions. We tried to identify the problem areas,” she said.

Sources said Banerjee pulled up ministers and bureaucrats of departments whose showings were below-par.

Since coming to power in 2011, Banerjee has been holding such review meetings from time to time to keep her ministers and bureaucrats on the toes and ensure time-bound implementation of development and welfare schemes.

-IANS

The post Mamata pulls up ‘non-performing’ ministers, bureaucrats appeared first on Youngisthan.in.

Durga Shakti Nagpal. The suspension of a young IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre has brought to the fore the fact that religion, caste and criminals still dominate ourage old politics. Uttar Pradesh has always been known as a powerhouse of clout. Some of the best leaders of our nation came from this very state. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the peacekeeper Lal Bahadur Shastri, the very controversial but brilliant Indira Gandhi, the poet among leaders Atal Bihari Vajpayee… the list goes on. That it is important to win UP to win Delhi is a well-known fact. An honest officer being suspended for doing her job is a shocking instance of power-play politics in Uttar Pradesh. Sad as it may be, it is a sad example of how criminals and selfish political goals are sucking the life out of honesty and morality.

The Uttar Pradesh government said Nagpal was suspended because she ordered the demolition of a mosque wall, which – according to the politicians – may have lead to communal disturbances. But the facts tell a different story altogether.

So here’s how the events actually played out. An FIR was lodged against a Mr. Khari – a person who was allocated rights to mine in the Yamuna region, but not until he paid the deposit he was supposed to pay the government. A police team was dispatched to arrest Khari – who turned out to be absconding. Soon after, Khari got a stay on the arrest warrant from Allahabad High Court. Just two days after this, the suspension order for Durga Shakti Nagpal rolled in on the pretext of the mosque wall being demolished.

Take note of the two important links in the story – first one being the mafia rule and its relationship with politics. The second one is the importance of the Muslim vote bank in Uttar Pradesh.

Dig into the Election Commission’s database, and you’ll discover that 48 % of the politicians in Samajwadi Party have a criminal record. That said, the IAS officer’s suspension shouldn’t come across as big a shock to you.

Elections across the world are expensive affairs. The amount of money spent during elections is huge and the source of this income is almost always shady. The recent appeal of bringing the income source/s of political parties under the RTI Act is being vehemently opposed in the Parliament. Roles for criminals such as Khari are cut out at times like these – they provide these parties with lots of funds during elections.In return, they gain political immunity – you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

Ambedkaronce said, “It is not enough to be electors only, it is necessary to be law makers otherwise those who can be lawmakers will be the masters of those who can only be electors.”

The recent political equation has made Muslim votes quite relevant to winning Uttar Pradesh. The entire population of the state can be divided into four parts – the upper caste Hindus, the Muslims, the OBCs and the SC/STs. Going by the history of Uttar Pradesh, the BJP mainly had the votes of the upper caste Hindus. Samajwadi Party (SP) has had a huge base of OBC voters, while the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has always been voted for by the SC/ST community. But this equation seems to have gone through an evolution. Over the last few years, the upper caste Hindu votes are now flexible, and not easily predictable. Considering the effects of “Modimania” in recent times, the BJP is gaining strength in Uttar Pradesh again. This has led a lot of experts to believe that the Hindu vote just might go to the BJP this time around. This means Muslim votes will have a crucial role to play in government formation.

So, is the suspensionof Nagpal on grounds of the mosque wall being demolished actually a ploy to gain the Muslim vote? In all probability, yes.In spite of the sunni waqf board and the locals declaring that they never had any trouble with Durga Shakti Nagpal, the Uttar Pradesh government is simply not willing to cancel her suspension. This kind of politics will keep functioning till communities continue their infighting. Like a wise man once said, “Angrez chale gaye, divide-and-rule chhod gaye!”

Speaking of development and the eradication of corruption, the Lokpal Bill sounds like a joke once you know how things really work in this country. We talk about“India Shining”, and the very next moment, we’re voting for the friendly neighbourhood criminal. Mera Bhaarat Sachmuch Mahaan!

The post DURGA SHAKTI SUSPENSION ‘“ RELIGION VS MORALITY appeared first on Youngisthan.in.