WATER CRISIS IN THE CAPITAL

Media-savvy judiciary good for consumer interest

by -Sanjog Maheshwari

Thanks to the media-shyness of the judiciary, many cases, in which judicial pronouncements and decisions lay down principled and lawful guidelines for the government agencies to follow in all matters, never see the light of the day as the case files remain buried in the dusty confines of the courts’ record rooms. Way back in 2004, an NGO, Common-Cause, under the dynamic stewardship of its the then Director the late H.D. Shouri filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court contending that installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of water metres is the duty and the sole responsibility exclusively of the service provider in this case the government-owned Delhi Jal Board. However, millions of Delhi consumers aren’t any wiser about their right and the government-owned Delhi Jal Board continues to arm-twist the consumers to install, maintain and replace, as the case may be, the water metres privately at their own cost and responsibility otherwise they have to shell out consumptive charges at a presumptive average which is much higher than the actual average for the immediately preceding last one year consumption recorded by the DJB-installed metre.

For the obvious reasons, given the choice, not a single consumer out of several millions would like to go for private installation of metre at his own cost and responsibility. While a DJB-installed metre lasts for many years, the life-span of a privately-installed metre does not usually average more than a year. More often than not it is pronounced ‘faulty’ or ‘defective’ much earlier and the poor consumer ends up paying highly inflated bills raised on the basis of presumptive average consumption until he chooses to again fall prey to the vicious circle of installation-replacement-installation of the privately-installed metre at frequent intervals which is far more bothersome and costly affair than paying the inflated bills. Though in all such cases the DJB logically and also legally should raise bills at the actual average for the preceding last one year consumption as recorded by its own metre when that was operating as decided in yet another such case—R.C. Maheshwari vs. DJB—Judgment delivered by the District Forum, Janakpuri on 15-01-02 and upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Commission who while upholding the learned Lower Court’s decision, dismissed the appeal of the DJB as unnecessary (vide their orders dated 14-02-2006 and 06-07-2006; appeal case no. 257/02). The case assumes significance and importance not only for its landmark decision but also for a noteworthy observation made in it by the Commission headed by Justice J.D.Kapoor, President. Delivering the judgment which was to be referred to the reporters also as per the Court’s direction, the Commission inter-alia, laid down the guidelines to be observed in all such cases also. In most unmistakable terms Justice Kapoor observed, “Any amount received in excess or towards metre by the service provider have to be refunded and cannot be allowed even by any provision of law to be adjusted towards future bills. Retention of such amount or its adjustment towards future bills has to be followed by payment of interest.” The landmark judgment apart, the case generates an interesting debate on the tariff-plan and billing of the domestic supply of water as distinct from the billing of its industrial and commercial supply. In the case of the former, the water is consumed by the ultimate consumer to whom the commodity is gifted by the Mother Nature in great abundance and as freely as its two other life-sustaining gifts—air and sunshine—and the service-providing agencies have no role, whatsoever, to play in its production and as such have no authority to commodify it. While they are entitled to levy the service charges at the flat rates for the treatment of water and bringing it to homes through piped supply for domestic use, they cannot levy consumptive charge. The life-sustaining gift of the Nature belongs to all the living beings. Its ownership indisputably vests with the people and the owner cannot be charged for consuming a commodity that belongs to him. The consumptive charge is, therefore, levy-able only in case of commercial or industrial use of water and certainly not on its domestic supply. The establishment cannot take an alibi in citing ‘scarcity’. The culprits responsible for creating this interminably torturous ‘scarcity amidst plenty” syndrome are gross mismanagement, rampant corruption, unplanned development and urbanization, burgeoning population and so forth; certainly not the people. However, the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect and keep the water bodies and resources clean and in excellent condition all the time is not waived.

The service-providing government agencies are very well aware of the fact that their services are miles behind the normal expectations of and otherwise much-tolerant and docile Indian consumer let alone the international standards. This awareness of the deplorable quality of their services makes them scary even before any measure for consumer-empowerment is hinted, let alone initiated. No wonder, they don’t want government to make them more accountable to consumers and resist any such move tooth and nail. Not only this, the establishment itself does not want expeditious disposal of such cases where a consumer is pitted against a government service-providing agency and they have many tricks up their sleeves to keep the consumer courts under a handicap. Even very simple cases go on dragging much after the judgment vindicating a consumer’s stand is delivered as it takes another long stretching legal battle before a common consumer can think of getting even a small slice of the reliefs granted. The gainful interaction between judiciary and media is likely to go a long way in alleviating the sufferings of hapless nobodies in their quest for justice.
(The author can be contacted at C-1A/42 B, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058)

PRE-96 PENSIONERS BETRAYED

PRE-96 PENSIONERS- JUSTICE DENIED

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

Old pension rules are revised whenever there is a revision in pay scales of working employees. While undertaking the exercise ofrevision of pension rules, it must be ensured that they are temperedwith “socio-economic justice”, do not contain anydiscriminatory provision and maintain parity among the varioussections of pensioners in the matter of grant of pension and otherretrial benefits. Failing which they cause avoidable heart-burning.The existing revised pension rules which came into force from01-01-1996 leave much to be desired.

The discriminatory provisions in these rules operate so much againstthe pre-96 pensioners vis-à-vis their post-96 counterpart thatdepending on the crucial date of his retirement, a pre-96 pensionergets substantially less pension and other retrial benefits ascompared with a similarly placed pensioner belonging to the post-96category even when both retire from the same post, with the samelength of total service as also the length of service rendered in thepost held at the time of retirement.
The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, in their wisdom,issued two OMs on the same day i.e. 27 October 1997bearing the same number F.45/86/97- P &PW (A) albeit in two partsi.e. Part 1 and Part II. The former laying down formulae forcalculation of pension etc. for the post-96 employees and the latercontaining altogether different provisions for those retiring before01-01-1996 which operate grossly against the legitimate interest andrights of the pre-96 pensioners leaving them grossly aggrieved anddistraught.The crucial questions that beg an answer are : Why the most legitimate and genuine rights of pre-96 pensioners such as parity with their post-96 counterpartare not being honoured in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s most unmistakable directions to the effect that there should be nodifference between one pensioner and the other? Why natural justiceto pre-96 pensioners is denied? (And that too in total defiance of the Apex court’sclear directions that in the matter of framing and application of
rules and executive actions the principles of “reasonablenessand non-arbitrariness” which are the soul and substanceof Article 14 of the Constitution must beadhered to). Does a pre-96 pensioner holding a post for a certainlength of time on the date of his superannuation/retirement in anyway renders lesser service than his post-96 counterpart in the samepost for the same length of time? Is not denying the proper pensionand pensionary benefits which are sacrosanct and greatly valuedpossession of a Government servant, to the Pre-96 pensioners atravesty of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16 read withArticle 31 (1) [Right to property] of the Constitution? Has he notalready suffered the cruel irony of fate by getting superannuated at58? How far is he responsible for the sin of taking birth at an earlier date without reckoning with the government’s arbitraryscheme of retirement?
Almost all these super-senior citizens- the pre-96 pensioners- are over 70, suffering from hosts of terminal debilitating diseases andstruggling to survive the ravages of “ills, bills, pills”and “empty nest” syndromes. They have been crying foulever since they were wronged under the provisions of the dubious PartII of the O.M. but all in vain. Complete parity with post-96retirees in the matter of revised pension and related pensionarybenefits based on the fixation of the notional basic pay at theappropriate stage in the revised pay scales from 01-01-96 and thearrears due and admissible with interest thereon as per the rules islegitimately due to them and should, therefore, be paid immediately.Death and terminal diseases are no respecters of age and thegovernment must act fast before it is too late. It is hightime thepension rules framing system is remodeled on the lines prevalent in the U.K. from where it, though originated, materially differs. Whilein the U.K. the system is governed by and flows from the “Statute”,here in our country instead of the “Statute” it isgoverned by the rules made in a government department manned by unduly biased bureaucrats for whom the word “reasonableness”does not seem to exist.

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI
C1-A-42 B
M.I.G.FLATS,
JANAKPURI,
NEW DELHI-110058

PRE-96 PENSIONERS BETRAYED

SANJOG MAHESHWARI
C1-A-42B M.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI- 110 058

PRE -96 PENSIONERS BETRAYED

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

The old pension rules are revised whenever there is a revision in pay scales of working employees. While undertaking the exercise ofrevision of pension rules, it must be ensured that they are temperedwith “socio-economic justice”, do not contain anydiscriminatory provision and maintain parity among the various sections of pensioners in the matter of grant of pension and otherretrial benefits. Failing which they cause avoidable heart-burning.The existing revised pension rules which came into force from01-01-1996 leave much to be desired.

The discriminatory provisions in these rules operate so much againstthe pre-96 pensioners vis-à-vis their post-96 counterpart thatdepending on the crucial date of his retirement, a pre-96 pensionergets substantially less pension and other retrial benefits ascompared with a similarly placed pensioner belonging to the post-96category even when both retire from the same post, with the samelength of total service as also the length of service rendered in thepost held at the time of retirement.
The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, in their wisdom,issued two OMs on the same day i.e. 27^th October 1997bearing the same number F.45/86/97- P &PW (A) albeit in two partsi.e. Part 1 and Part II. The former laying down formulae for calculation of pension etc. for the post-96 employees and the latercontaining altogether different provisions for those retiring before01-01-1996 which operate grossly against the legitimate interest andrights of the pre-96 pensioners leaving them grossly aggrieved and distraught.

The crucial questions that beg an answer are : Why the most legitimate and genuine rights of pre-96 pensioners such as parity with their post-96 counterpart are not being honoured in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s, most unmistakable directions to the effect that there should be no difference between one pensioner and the other? Why natural justice to pre-96 pensioners is denied? (And that too in total defiance of the Apex court’s clear directions that in the matter of framing and application of rules and executive actions the rinciplesof“reasonablenessandnon-arbitrariness” which are the soul and substance of Article 14 of the Constitution must beadhered to). Does a pre-96 pensioner holding a post for a certain length of time on the date of his superannuation/retirement in any way renders lesser service than his post-96 counterpart in the samepost for the same length of time? Is not denying the proper pensionand pensionary benefits which are sacrosanct and greatly valued possession of a Government servant, to the Pre-96 pensioners a travesty of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 31 (1) [Right to property] of the Constitution? Has he not already suffered the cruel irony of fate by getting superannuated at58? How far is he responsible for the sin of taking birth at an earlier date without reckoning with the government’s arbitrary scheme of retirement?
Almost all these super-senior citizens- the pre-96 pensioners- areover 70, suffering from hosts of terminal debilitating diseases and struggling to survive the ravages of“ills,bills,pills”and“empty nest” syndromes. They have been crying foul ever since they were wronged under the provisions of the dubious PartII of the O.M. but all in vain. Complete parity with post-96retirees in the matter of revised pension and related pensionarybenefits based on the fixation of the notional basic pay at the appropriate stage in the revised pay scales from 01-01-96 and the

arrears due and admissible with interest thereon as per the rules islegitimately due to them and should, therefore, be paid immediately.Death and terminal diseases are no respecters of age and thegovernment must act fast before it is too late. It is hightime the pension rules framing system is remodeled on the lines prevalent inthe U.K. from where it, though originated, materially differs. Whilein the U.K. the system is governed by and flows from the “Statute”,here in our country instead of the “Statute” it isgoverned by the rules made in a government department manned byunduly biased bureaucrats for whom the word “reasonableness”does not seem to exist.

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

C1-A-42 BM.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI-110058

RTI Article=Sanjog

C1A-42 B M.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI-110058

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005 DOES IT EMPOWER PEOPLE?

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

Variously hailed as : “the best thing to happen since independence, “A vital instrument for cutting down corruption”, “the life and blood of democracy”, “ a very effective instrument in the hands of a common man to fight injustice and make governance transparent”,“harbinger of new order in which people would be freed from the curse and scourge of corruption and bribery” and so forth, the Right To Information Act-2005, when came into force from 12^th
October 2005, raised hopes and aspirations of the people sky-high. The corrupt bureaucracy in the flush of the Applications under the RTI law was so rattled that in their first move to blunt its effectiveness, persuaded the all too willing cabinet committee to approve an amendment to exempt file notings and cabinet papers from disclosure under the Act. The proposed Amendment to the Act brought about within less than a year of the main Act coming in the force, was opposed tooth and nail by almost every right minded citizen. On the expected lines it was vociferously advocated and espoused by the politico-bureaucratic entrenched vested interests and the foot-dragging officialdom within the government. Even Mr. O.P.Kejariwal, one of the five members of the Central Information Commission appointed under the Act wrote to the Prime Minister calling the decision ‘the last desperate attempt on the part of some vested interests within the Government to protect their identities from being exposed’. Under the tremendous pressure thus brought about, the Government had to abandon the proposed Amendment and the R.T.I. Act survived the first attempt to maim and cripple it.
The most powerful piece of legislation for people’s empowerment sounded so good on paper. But only on paper.How wrong we were in forgetting that we live in a society where more the things change, more they remain the same. The RTI Act 05 was dealt another blow to curb and crush its increasing use by the public. Simple trick: Render taking resort to it as cumbersome and costly as possible to discourage enthusiastic information-seekers.
The crippling blow came in theform of the dubious “Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 which came into force with effect from 21-06-2007. It simply puts the Act well beyond the reach of a Common Man, the one for whom the Act was, in fact, intended by prescribing a very costly and cumbersome procedure for filing appeals and complaints to the 2^nd Appellate Authority- The Central Information Commission. The clever bureaucracy is so skilled in the art of dodging and has so many tricks up its dirty sleeves in giving the slip to inconvenient queries and disowning responsibility that they can easily get away without supplying the information they want to conceal or by supplying incomplete information and load you with information that you do not want, of course at your cost and expenses, and at the same time escape punishment with consummate dexterity that after a long waiting and all the toil and labour, you find yourself back to square one ; poorer by a few hundred rupees. Only an abysmally low number of them could be caught and penalized under the Act for either not giving or giving false or incomplete information.
Sample a few cases out of hundreds of such cases: (a) In complaint case No.S2-446 (C)/07 of 2007, the Public Information Officer and the 1^st Appellate Authority Ghaziabad Development Authority both got away without being slapped with any penalty or punishment even when the former supplied some unwanted and unsought-for information about three months after the date of the Application dated 11-04-2007 and the later the 1^st Appellate Authority Ghaziabad Development Authority had out rightly refused to receive the Memo of First Appeal. The aggrieved Complainant is still waiting for necessary orders against his 2^nd Appeal and Complaint in the case from the U.P. State Commission though the 1^st hearing in the case was held at State Commission’s office, Lucknow on 10^th July 07 in which the above Public Authorities were mildly admonished and only verbally directed to supply correct and complete information and requested documents by the Commission which they found too mild to be taken seriously and,as expected, ignored with impunity. The State Commission was again apprised of the facts vide Applicant’s Application dated 13^th July 2007 but action on it is still awaited. However, if past experience is any indication, the chances of any action on it are quite remote. (b) In case No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00574 the CIC vide their Order dated 19-07-07, inter-alia, observed, “The Information solicited herein is about policy matters for which no definite answer could have been given.” And there you are looking like an idiot with a highly stung and agonized public authority to contend with. Are policy matters the sacred cow not open to public scrutiny, debate and course correction even when they are blatantly discriminatory against one section of the Senior citizens and Pensioners vis-à-vis the similarly placed other and violate the Constitutional provisions that guarantee equality of opportunity and parity between the similarly placed citizens?(c) In yet another case no date of hearing has so far been intimated though the 2^nd
Appeal was filed with the CIC and the 2^nd Appellate Authority as early as on 4^th May 2007. A labyrinthine, long, complex and costly course has to be negotiated before the cases reach the 2^nd Appellate Authority where mostly disenchantment greets the hapless Information seeker. The offending Public Authorities seem to revel in the secured belief that the bureaucratic fraternity up there in the Information Commission will be acquiescent to fraternal considerations and will
not bring any harm to them. Thus in most of the cases the aggrieved Petitioners do not get justice even after spending a fortune and suffering acute mental torture, tension and harassment for various acts of omission and commission of the Public Authorities. All thisinvariably leads to undermining the common man’s faith in the infant Act.
Thanks Regulations 2007, to agitate Law under the provisions of the Act now involves so much complex and costly procedure that palm-greasing for getting the work done has once again become far more soft, sure, safe, easier, comfortable and, therefore, tempting option for the common man. So where are we now? Back to squire one.
-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

C1A-42 B M.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058

S-R.T.I.-05 Article- A Hard Look at R.T.I.Act-05

SANJOG MAHESHWARI

C1-A-42 B M.I.G.FLATS, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI
WHAT AILS R.T.I ACT-05?

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI
Not so long ago, Shri L.K Advani,Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a member of the Appointment Committee of the Information Commission, upset by the fact that the Commission has become an all Babu-affair, declined to attend the CIC expansion meet called by its Chairperson, the Prime Minister of India. While section 12 (5) of the Act provides wide-ranging fields - law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance- to chose persons of eminence from them for the posts of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, it is not clear why only the babus are chosen to occupy these exalted offices? No wonder, they have soft-corner for the bureaucratic fraternity they come from and
their Decisions are heavily loaded in favour of the Public Authorities providing the guilty many an escape route to ride over an inconvenient situation whereas actions and remarks of the poor information-seekers are considered an affront to the authorities that be. Even after more than 60 years of independence, the colonial mind-set reigns supreme and the bureaucracy finds it difficult to shed.
The new law has been invested with some empowering provisions for the people, aimed at introducing elements of transparency and accountability in administration and to contain, if not completely eliminate, corruption. But as things are, we live in a society where more the things change, more
they remain the same. Came on the heels the dubious “Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007- made by the Chief Information Commissioner on 13-06-2007 and enforced post-haste by him after a week i.e. from 21-06-2007- which is proving its undoing. Ostensibly brought about “for better internal management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission so as to enable it to function effectively”, it actually puts the RTI Act-2005 way beyond the reach of a common man by rendering the process of seeking information under the Act an exorbitantly expensive, unduly complicated, complex, cumbersome, torturous and lengthy affair. To cap it all, the clever bureaucracy is so skilled in the art of dodging and has so many tricks up its sleeves in giving the slip to inconvenient queries and disowning responsibility that it easily gets away without supplying the information/ documents it wants to conceal or at best by supplying incomplete and irrelevant information and loading the information-seeker with all the rubbish he does not want that in 90 out of hundred cases one has to file Complaint or 2^nd Appeal to the Central Information Commission and/ or 2^nd Appellate Authority- the apex body under u/s 18 or 19 (3) of the Act.
Instead of binding the officialdom to act more responsibly, standardising the fees and procedure structure- which differs from State to State- so as to make it identical throughout the country and plugging the multiple loopholes in the Act which render it ineffective, the Regulations, 2007 go on to prescribe a very costly, complex and cumbersome procedure for filing the Second Appeal or Complaint with the apex body i.e. the CIC.
Even after a Decision/ orderis announced, nothing prevents the C.P.I.O from again supplying incomplete, wrong and unwanted information/ documents by putting up an act of compliance. Not quite infrequently, even the Decisions/ Orders leave much leeway for the C.P.I.O. to get away without providing any information at all. For example, in a very simple case where an applicant had requested for the information etc. regarding the action taken on and the status of a few representations made by him to a public authority, the Central Information Commission allowed the public authority to get off without supplying any of the requested information. In their order, they observed, “The information solicited herein is about policy matters for which no definite answer could have been given…………..” They, inter-alia, went on to say, “Yet the respondents are agreeable to allow the appellant to inspect the files / records related to his RTI request…………” (Case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00574 dated 19-0707). What files/records to inspect when the Public Authority/ custodian is unable to locate them in their office? A single stroke of pen scrubbed down all efforts made by the appellant and at the end of the day (it was more than a year!) he was poorer by a few hundred rupees and as ignorant about the status of his representations as before filing the Application for Information, first appeal and second appeal and few other applications and requests made in between and paying all the way for the unwanted documents. In another case, on the request for information made to the CPIO NCDRC on 17/18-2-08 followed by the First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 31-03-08 in respect of a representation dated 05-12-07, the CPIO of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide his letter No. A-2001/NCDRC/2008 dated 22-04-08, inter-alia, informs that “Section 4(1) (d) does not apply to a judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or Tribunal as it refers only to administrative and quasi judicial decisions of public authorities”. It is conveniently ignored that the appellant is simply interested in knowing the status of his representation dated 05-12-07: the date of its receipt in the Commission’s Registry, daily progress made on it with copies of the related file-notings etc. - a purely administrative matter which has nothing to do with the nitty-gritty of judicial proceedings. In yet another case, Ghaziabad Development Authority, gets off-the hook by supplying grossly incomplete and mostly irrelevant information even after more than a year of the application under the RTI Act duly followed by the first and second appeals at the appropriate levels.(U.P. State Information Commission case No. S-245). In yet another case a Public Authority fails to provide certified copies of requested documents such as the Service Book, Leave A/c., the Pensioner’s Pension Payment Order etc. which are classified as “PERMANENT RECORDS” UNDER GOVERNMENT RULES & REGULATIONS on the pleas that they are “ not readily traceable, are misplaced somewhere” and “efforts are still being made to locate them” and on 2^nd Appeal made to the CIC, the Information Commissioner “authorizes the Appellant to inspect the records”. It is not clear that when, by their own admission, the requested records are not at all “readily traceable” in the office of the concerned Public Authority and “the efforts are still being made by them to locate the requested records” (even after more than a year!) “and copies of the same will be made available to the Applicant as soon as they are located”, what is the big idea in dispatching the Appellant on a wild goose chase? (C.I.C Decision No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00247 dt. 17^th July, 08)? If it is not providing a safe channel for an irresponsible conduct, then what it
is? Instead of insulating the irresponsible, should they have not ordered disciplinary action against those responsible for the gross mismanagement of vital and important records which are mandated to be preserved permanently under the rules? Also in another case, C.P.I.O of NISCAIR (C.S.I.R) pleads ignorance of the documents-two medical reimbursement bills sent to them under Speed Post on separate dates from separate Post Offices even when the Proof of their delivery to the addressee got conclusively confirmed in writing by the competent postal authority and a certificate issued by them to that effect was submitted long back to the Public Authority who as of now is maintaining stoic silence over the matter and not even acknowledging the Appellant’s repeated reminders and the 1^st Appeal. These few examples of miscarriage of justice are merely illustrative and by no means exhaustive.
The Act does not provide for any relief in the form of compensation for the wrongs suffered by an aggrieved information seeker at the hands of arrogant Public Authority who have little reason to be wary of it.

- SANJOG MAHESHWARI

Iron will needed to win this war

Iron will needed to win this war

Second Opinion : Sanjog Maheshwari

The editorial, "Two down, more to go" (September 20), seems to be wishful thinking when it pitches for "cooperation between the police of various States" and real time exchange of information. This is obviously not possible all the time, particularly when the ruling political parties and coalitions are different for different States. The Gujarat Police providing the necessary information to unravel the Indian Mujahideen terror plot in Delhi is a rare example which stems from the BJP's consummate anxiety and concern for the security and safety of the people, irrespective of whether the State is ruled by the party or not.

Also, the avowed resolve of its leaders to destroy all shades of terrorism, whether homegrown or foreign, has to be taken into consideration. However, such sentiments and view-points do not always exist, given the various political permutations and combinations. Thus, for obvious reasons, every other State police cannot always be expected to emulate the Gujarat Police in tackling terrorism as effectively.

Terrorism in India has already taken a huge toll on human life and property. It is high time that all parties, irrespective of their political persuasions, took it as a national challenge to fight terrorism instead of viewing it as a local law and order problem. But again this could also be a tall order due to vote-bank politics. In the present arrangement of things and given the country's political landscape, the very survival of quite a few political parties and politicians depends upon fostering, nurturing and increasing their vote-banks. They cannot simply afford the luxury of ignoring the same. And since it is a matter of their political survival, they are ready to pay any price for it; even to witness the massacre of hundreds of innocent people.

To my mind, until the whole political system is revamped, the constitution of a federal police force fully controlled by the Centre may go a long way in dealing with terrorism. The sooner we do this the better it will be for the safety and security of the citizens. However, in the long run one has to admit that a much more sustained effort is required by all stakeholders in civil society. Any anti-terrorism mechanism or policy has to be backed by the will and resolve to go the distance and root out terrorism no matter what. So far it is only the BJP that has been making the right noises. Other parties must join hands.

Westminster model has failed in India

Westminster model has failed in India

Second Opinion : Sanjog Maheshwari

In his article, "Minoritysm is the problem" (Second Opinion, September 25), Mr RN Chawla has presented a correct analysis of the scourge of terrorism plaguing our nation. However, instead of a symptomatic treatment of the disease, an accurate diagnosis of the malaise would be in order.

It is clear that vote-bank politics is the main thing that provides a fertile breeding ground for all the malaises that wreak havoc on our civil society. Right from day one the Congress-led Governments at the Centre and in the States have been religiously adhering to a policy of minority appeasement. Of late, not to be left behind, other political parties have also begun to induge in vote-bank politics. In fact, quite a few of them have gone the extra mile to include other reserved category castes to enlarge their support base. The Congress has managed to remain firmly saddled in power for more than half-a-century by pursuing minorityism in the grab of 'secularism'.

If we have rampant corruption affording us a place of 'honour' among the world's most corrupt nations, a burgeoning population and ever-rising jihadi violence, it is only because our politicians and political parties cannot afford to ignore their vote-banks.

Be that as it may, we cannot wish away this fact so long as we remain wedded to the present Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Quick-fix solutions can never provide a remedy for a deep-rooted malady for which surgical intervention is needed. For getting the desired results, we need to replace our present system of governance with the US model of presidential democracy.

When we are ready to adopt a skewed nuclear deal with the US, why should we hesitate in copying their system of governance, which has been unfailingly providing them with the world's best political leadership under a democratic set-up? We need this system more than one might think, as it will clearly de-link the executive and the legislative branches of Government. In doing so it is my opinion that selfish vote-bank politics will be countered to a large extent.

Once this is achieved, we will be free to start putting in place a pragmatic anti-terror mechanism without any strings attached. If one wants proof of the versatility of this idea, we only need to look at the US's track record in terms of tackling terrorism post 9/11. Thus, the nation should seriously start thinking in this direction.

CGHS

Health Watch

CGHS sham
Discriminatory provisions
By Sanjog Maheshwari

The healthcare and medical facilities provided under the banner of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) suffer from several anomalies, inadequacies, and discriminatory provisions. While right to health care and medical facilities should be seen as an integral facet of the right to life equally for all, irrespective of the individual’s status, the big babus have ensured that hassle-free world class health care, diagnostic and other medical facilities at posh private nursing homes, hospitals, health care centres at government cost and expenses is available only to the MPs and upper strata of the government employees. The nursing home facilities in government hospitals are also mostly cornered by such higher strata beneficiaries and generally remain out of reach of “commoners”. Medical specialists attached to the CGHS dispensaries, remain unavailable on their slotted week days of visit, as they are away on what is termed as VIP duties.

There also exits a complex classification and sub-classification of CGHS beneficiaries in various categories; based on which the scale of facilities admissible to them under the scheme is decided. The parameters and norms differ from beneficiary to beneficiary depending on: the stage and scale of pay or pension, the position he holds or held in the government, whether as an employee or pensioner of some “purely government department” (whatever it may mean) or Central Autonomous body, and so forth; as if the life of a “commoner” is of lesser value.

What is astoundingly appalling is that the pensioner-beneficiaries of autonomous bodies are not treated at par with their counterpart retired from purely government service- particularly in the matter of grant of credit facilities in the recognized private healthcare-centres, nursing homes etc. And this is where it hurts them the most.

Even while they perpetuate and practice such blatant discrimination or for that matter make provisions for it in the rule book, they are not held accountable for the miseries caused thereby to the poor autonomous body pensioner- beneficiaries of the scheme. The traumatic experience and the plight of an autonomous body pensioner—beneficiary of CGHS—when in the evening of his life, suffering from age-induced infirmities and debilitating diseases, has to run around complying with quite a few absurd formalities, placating highly inflated egos of concerned babus (still afflicted with colonial mindset), getting department’s permission before and after the treatment, incurring all expenses from his own slender resources on the spot in the first instance irrespective of the enormity of the amount of expenditure involved, making repeated rounds to the hospital for getting the bills verified by the CGHS medical authorities then to the department from which retired, submitting reimbursement bills that are very much watered down for one reason or the other, settling silly objections raised only for objections’ sake, facing callous indifference, unwarranted hostility, objections and rejections all the way—can better be imagined than described. He is subjected to this unreasonable discrimination only for the sin of his retiring from an autonomous body. While a pensioner-beneficiary retiring from an autonomous body like CSIR in a disgusting display of blatant discrimination is denied credit facilities in the CGHS empanelled private hospitals, nursing homes and other health care centres to which his counterpart retiring from the Government service is eligible, simmering discontentment among this section of beneficiaries is quite conspicuous. Why this should be so particularly when the CSIR is a hundred per cent Central Government autonomous body working under the aegis and control of Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India and the Prime Minister of India is its ex-officio president? For no fault of his a CSIR pensioner-beneficiary is subjected to blatant discrimination even when he is required to make contribution to the scheme similar in scale and amount to that of a similarly placed Central Government pensioner; thanks to the whims, fancies and arrogance of the big babus in the Government who insert discriminatory provisions in the rule-book with calculated impunity.

The anomalies are many. Why all pensioners and retirees not treated at par? Is the life of a Class IV employee who after retirement devotes all his spare time doing useful social work in the service of the community for the welfare and well-being of the people, in any way less valuable.

As respected senior citizens of this country, all pensioners should be treated at par particularly in the matter of health care and medical facilities; distinctions of posts and positions held whether retired from so-called purely government service or hundred per cent Central government funded autonomous body must immediately go.

Among pensioners age and age only should be the criterion for according “Priority” in the matter of providing health care and medical facilities which otherwise should necessarily be unvarying in scale and standard for all the pensioners across the board.

(The writer can be contacted at C1A-42 B M.I.G. Flats, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058.)