The Communist Party of India (Marxist), which heads the ruling Left Democratic Front, has gone into election mode following the collapse of the pact between the Left Front and the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance at the Centre.
It was in 2005 that the Left Front, of which the CPI-M is the major partner, decided to support a UPA government from outside, on the basis of a common minimum programme, to prevent the Bharatiya Janata Party's return to power.
The camaraderie with the Congress in New Delhi was a source of discomfiture to the State CPI-M since that party is its traditional rival in Kerala. It could not lose sight of the fact that at election time it would have to ask the people to vote for it, rejecting the Congress.
In the last Lok Sabha elections, the CPI-M and its allies had given a sterling performance, winning 18 of the State's 20 seats. The Congress drew a blank. However, its ally, the Muslim League, managed to win a seat.
Former Kerala Congress leader PC Thomas won one seat for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. He is now a part of the LDF, his party having merged in the Kerala Congress (Joseph).
The Left's decision to withdraw its support to the UPA government over the issue of the civilian nuclear deal with the United States has freed the CPI-M from the embarrassment of having to face the electorate as a supporter of the Congress at the Centre. The party has already started attacking the Congress viciously not only on the nuclear issue but also a number of other issues like price rise.
Although during the past four years the Left was able to persuade the UPA government to take several steps in terms of the common minimum programme and dissuade it from taking some steps which it did not like, the party's leaders now talk as though it was anti-people regime.
If the Central government loses the confidence vote, scheduled for next week, immediate elections will become necessary as there is little chance of the present Lok Sabha throwing up an alternative government.
Even if it wins the confidence vote, with the help of the Samajwadi Party and smaller parties who are eager to prevent early elections, the Congress is expected to make a bid for a fresh mandate later this year, when it expects favourable conditions to emerge.
Since the inflation rate has been in two digits for several weeks, price rise is perhaps the best stick to beat the government with. However, the CPI-M is wary of relying on it as it can boomerang. As the party which heads the State administration, it is certain to face questions about rise in bus fares, power tariff and water tax.
Political observers take a dim view of the usefulness of nuclear policy as an election issue as it is a complex matter and the voters may not understand its implications fully. Yet there are indications that the CPI-M plans to make its opposition to the Indo-US deal a major electoral plank at least in Kerala.
Before rising for the weekend, the party pushed through the Legislative Assembly a resolution opposing the nuclear deal, although, not being a State subject, the house is not competent to discuss it. The debate provided ample opportunity to use anti-American rhetoric, which goes down well with the party's traditional supporters.
The party evidently believes that the anti-American slant will help the party to enhance its appeal among the Muslims, who constitute an estimated 25% of the State's population.
The Muslim League, which is a major force in the Muslim-majority areas, is a constituent of the UDF in the State and the UPA at the Centre, and its nominee, E.Ahamed, is minister of state for external affairs. It is under pressure to pull him out.
When the Samajwadi Party decided to support the UPA on the nuclear issue, CPI-M Politburo member MK Pandhe warned that it would lose the support of Muslims if it did so. General secretary Prakash Karat clarified that the party did not consider the nuclear deal a Muslim issue.
Yet Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan and State party secretary Pinarayi Vijayan, both Politburo members, last week described the Indo-US deal as one that runs counter to the interests of the Muslims. –Gulf Today, Sharjah, July 14, 2008.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Al Jazeera’s English channel facing possible bar in US
Burlington, Vermont, USA is discussing whether the local population must have access to the Arab-owned Al Jazeera’s English channel.
A report on the subject by Jalal Ghazi circulated by New America Media can be accessed here.
Jalal Ghazi is the associate producer of the Peabody Award-winning show Mosaic: World News from the Middle East, and writer of the column “Eye on Arab Media” for New America Media.
A report on the subject by Jalal Ghazi circulated by New America Media can be accessed here.
Jalal Ghazi is the associate producer of the Peabody Award-winning show Mosaic: World News from the Middle East, and writer of the column “Eye on Arab Media” for New America Media.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Nepal Maoists’ Muslim affiliate
Here is some interesting information. In Nepal, there is a Muslim Mukti Morcha (MMM), which is “a mass people’s organization affiliated to to the party of the Maoist Revolutionaries”.
According to a report circulated by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), CPN-M Chairman Prachanda addressed a gathering of the MMM on Wednesday.
Excerpts from the report:
The Nepal Maoists, who played a key role in abolishing the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy and turning the country into a secular state, have vowed to ensure special rights to the minority Muslim community in the Himalayan nation.
"It is not enough to provide equal rights to the Muslims but they should be given special rights as compensation for having been suppressed," Prachanda said.
His support for special rights for the Muslims is seen as an attempt to mobilise the muslim community, which mainly resides in the Terai-plains bordering India and unleash potential for Revolution. Also the aim is to show to oppressed Muslim masses the world over that only Maoist-led people's revolution is key to liberation and new life!
Declaring Nepal a secular nation was one of the 40-point demands put forth by the Maoists in 1996 when they started the peoples war in the country.
Prachanda, who is poised to lead the new government in Nepal, promised to form a `Muslim Commission' for the welfare of the minority community and develop historically important pilgrimage sites of the community as tourist destinations.
MMM leader Mohammad Kasim Miya asked the Terai-based Madhesi leaders not to categorize Muslims as Madhesis, alleging that the regional parties of the plains were trying to deny Muslims their rights.
According to a report circulated by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), CPN-M Chairman Prachanda addressed a gathering of the MMM on Wednesday.
Excerpts from the report:
The Nepal Maoists, who played a key role in abolishing the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy and turning the country into a secular state, have vowed to ensure special rights to the minority Muslim community in the Himalayan nation.
"It is not enough to provide equal rights to the Muslims but they should be given special rights as compensation for having been suppressed," Prachanda said.
His support for special rights for the Muslims is seen as an attempt to mobilise the muslim community, which mainly resides in the Terai-plains bordering India and unleash potential for Revolution. Also the aim is to show to oppressed Muslim masses the world over that only Maoist-led people's revolution is key to liberation and new life!
Declaring Nepal a secular nation was one of the 40-point demands put forth by the Maoists in 1996 when they started the peoples war in the country.
Prachanda, who is poised to lead the new government in Nepal, promised to form a `Muslim Commission' for the welfare of the minority community and develop historically important pilgrimage sites of the community as tourist destinations.
MMM leader Mohammad Kasim Miya asked the Terai-based Madhesi leaders not to categorize Muslims as Madhesis, alleging that the regional parties of the plains were trying to deny Muslims their rights.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Countercurrents is back in action
I am happy to announce that Countercurrents.org is back in action. Here is a message received from its Editor, Binu Mathew, just now. :
Hello
Countercurrents came back fully online by yesterday midnight after a hacker destroyed it over the weekend. If anyone finds any problem in accessing any pages or services just write to me.
If you find this news letter useful, kindly forward it to your friends and encourage them to join this mailing list. http://www.countercurrents.org/subscribe.htm.
In Solidarity
Binu
See report below about the hacker attack which put the site out of commission for a few days.
Hello
Countercurrents came back fully online by yesterday midnight after a hacker destroyed it over the weekend. If anyone finds any problem in accessing any pages or services just write to me.
If you find this news letter useful, kindly forward it to your friends and encourage them to join this mailing list. http://www.countercurrents.org/subscribe.htm.
In Solidarity
Binu
See report below about the hacker attack which put the site out of commission for a few days.
Hackers immobilize Countercurrents
Hackers have temporarily immobilized the Kerala-based Countercurrents.org, which rendered valuable service during the past six years as an alternative media outlet.
In a message circulated to friends and clients, Binu Mathew, Editor of Countercurrents, says:
Hello All,
Countercurrents was nastily hacked over the weekend. We were offline for two days. I was really shocked by the attack and didn’t know what to do at first. I am working hard to get it back online.
Thanks for your patience
Binu
I had posted a message in this blog on November 16 last year to introduce Countercurrents. I had also taken the liberty of drawing attention to various articles circulated by Countercurrents from time to time.
I am looking forward to the early reappearance of Countercurrents.
Contact address:
Countercurrents.org,
PB No. 5,
Kumaranalloor PO,
Kerala,
India,
PIN 686 016
e-mail: editor@countercurrents.org
website: www.countercurrents.org
In a message circulated to friends and clients, Binu Mathew, Editor of Countercurrents, says:
Hello All,
Countercurrents was nastily hacked over the weekend. We were offline for two days. I was really shocked by the attack and didn’t know what to do at first. I am working hard to get it back online.
Thanks for your patience
Binu
I had posted a message in this blog on November 16 last year to introduce Countercurrents. I had also taken the liberty of drawing attention to various articles circulated by Countercurrents from time to time.
I am looking forward to the early reappearance of Countercurrents.
Contact address:
Countercurrents.org,
PB No. 5,
Kumaranalloor PO,
Kerala,
India,
PIN 686 016
e-mail: editor@countercurrents.org
website: www.countercurrents.org
Monday, July 7, 2008
A global player shows interest in Malayalam media market
Rupert Murdoch, who has already established a presence in the Indian media through the Hong Kong-based Star network, has cast his eyes on the growing Malayalam television scene.
Murdoch's Star India, which owns English, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi channels, is negotiating with Asianet, pioneer of Malayalam satellite television, to gain controlling interest in it, according to market watchers.
There has been no word from either side on the progress of the negotiations. However, Asianet's plan to restructure its set-up is believed to be part of the preparations for a deal which will give the global major a stake in the Malayalam media.
Asianet, promoted by Shashi Kumar, who had been Gulf correspondent of The Hindu and head of Press Trust of India's television division, went on the air in 1993. It was not possible to uplink from India at the time. The channel, therefore, hired a studio in the Philippines and beamed programmes to India using a Russian satellite.
As Asianet showed financial promise, the Rahejas, who held 50% shares in a sister company, which was operating a cable network, sought a stake in it. In 1999, Shashi Kumar's uncle and co-promoter, Reji Menon, eased him out of both the companies. Reji Menon gave the cable company to the Rahejas and kept the channel company with himself.
Asianet expanded under Reji Menon's leadership. Today it operates a news channel and a youth channel, besides the wide-spectrum mother channel. Reaching out to viewers in 60 countries, it links Malayalis worldwide.
Asianet also operates radio stations in Kerala and the UAE. Its forays into Tamil and Kannada were unsuccessful.
Two years ago, a Bangalore-based Malayali businessman, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, acquired controlling interest in the channel from Reji Menon.
Under Chandrasekhar, who is a Rajya Sabha member from Karnataka and president of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Asianet re-entered the Kannada market with an entertainment channel and a news channel and made plans to break into Telugu as well. Industry sources currently value its assets at Rs. 5 billion.
There are now a score of Malayalam channels competing for viewers and advertisers. The only player from outside the State is the Chennai-based Sun network, which runs an entertainment channel and a youth channel.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Congress party, the Catholic Church and the Hindu saint Mata Amritanandamayi are among those who promoted channels in Malayalam.
Malayalis in the Gulf States contributed substantially to the capital of three channel companies -- the CPI (M)'s Kairali, Muslim League leader MK Muneer's Indiavision and the Congress party's Jaihind.
While a Dubai-based Malayalam channel, Middle East Television, folded up quickly, there has been no fatality in Kerala so far. However, most channels are deeply in the red and kept alive by continuous infusion of capital.
Kerala, with only one percent of India's territory and three and a half percent of its population, accounts for more than 10% of the country's consumer goods sale. But the State media's share of the national advertising pie is only about four percent.
Big national and international players have steered clear of the State until now presumably because the market is not large enough to tempt them. Star India's interest stems from its desire to build a national network, which covers all major language groups. A deal with Asianet will enable it to complete coverage of the South.
Rajiv Chandrasekhar reportedly plans to reorganize his holdings in such a way that there will be separate companies for general entertainment, news, radio and infrastructure assets. If a deal with Star India materialises, it may be limited to the general entertainment business.
A network which can offer complete national coverage will have a distinct advantage over the rest as an advertising medium. So, if Star comes, can Zee be far behind? There are also other media enterprises, like the Hyderabad-based Eenadu TV, which have national ambitions.
Some global players like CNN and CNBC have already established presence at the national level. As the regional language markets grow, they may want to enter them. The struggling Malayalam channels may find their offers too tempting to refuse.
When the Times of India group acquired minority shares in the Mathrubhumi daily two decades ago, there was a furore in the State. Channel ownership does not evoke the same interest in the public as newspaper ownership.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, July 7, 2008
Murdoch's Star India, which owns English, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi channels, is negotiating with Asianet, pioneer of Malayalam satellite television, to gain controlling interest in it, according to market watchers.
There has been no word from either side on the progress of the negotiations. However, Asianet's plan to restructure its set-up is believed to be part of the preparations for a deal which will give the global major a stake in the Malayalam media.
Asianet, promoted by Shashi Kumar, who had been Gulf correspondent of The Hindu and head of Press Trust of India's television division, went on the air in 1993. It was not possible to uplink from India at the time. The channel, therefore, hired a studio in the Philippines and beamed programmes to India using a Russian satellite.
As Asianet showed financial promise, the Rahejas, who held 50% shares in a sister company, which was operating a cable network, sought a stake in it. In 1999, Shashi Kumar's uncle and co-promoter, Reji Menon, eased him out of both the companies. Reji Menon gave the cable company to the Rahejas and kept the channel company with himself.
Asianet expanded under Reji Menon's leadership. Today it operates a news channel and a youth channel, besides the wide-spectrum mother channel. Reaching out to viewers in 60 countries, it links Malayalis worldwide.
Asianet also operates radio stations in Kerala and the UAE. Its forays into Tamil and Kannada were unsuccessful.
Two years ago, a Bangalore-based Malayali businessman, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, acquired controlling interest in the channel from Reji Menon.
Under Chandrasekhar, who is a Rajya Sabha member from Karnataka and president of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Asianet re-entered the Kannada market with an entertainment channel and a news channel and made plans to break into Telugu as well. Industry sources currently value its assets at Rs. 5 billion.
There are now a score of Malayalam channels competing for viewers and advertisers. The only player from outside the State is the Chennai-based Sun network, which runs an entertainment channel and a youth channel.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Congress party, the Catholic Church and the Hindu saint Mata Amritanandamayi are among those who promoted channels in Malayalam.
Malayalis in the Gulf States contributed substantially to the capital of three channel companies -- the CPI (M)'s Kairali, Muslim League leader MK Muneer's Indiavision and the Congress party's Jaihind.
While a Dubai-based Malayalam channel, Middle East Television, folded up quickly, there has been no fatality in Kerala so far. However, most channels are deeply in the red and kept alive by continuous infusion of capital.
Kerala, with only one percent of India's territory and three and a half percent of its population, accounts for more than 10% of the country's consumer goods sale. But the State media's share of the national advertising pie is only about four percent.
Big national and international players have steered clear of the State until now presumably because the market is not large enough to tempt them. Star India's interest stems from its desire to build a national network, which covers all major language groups. A deal with Asianet will enable it to complete coverage of the South.
Rajiv Chandrasekhar reportedly plans to reorganize his holdings in such a way that there will be separate companies for general entertainment, news, radio and infrastructure assets. If a deal with Star India materialises, it may be limited to the general entertainment business.
A network which can offer complete national coverage will have a distinct advantage over the rest as an advertising medium. So, if Star comes, can Zee be far behind? There are also other media enterprises, like the Hyderabad-based Eenadu TV, which have national ambitions.
Some global players like CNN and CNBC have already established presence at the national level. As the regional language markets grow, they may want to enter them. The struggling Malayalam channels may find their offers too tempting to refuse.
When the Times of India group acquired minority shares in the Mathrubhumi daily two decades ago, there was a furore in the State. Channel ownership does not evoke the same interest in the public as newspaper ownership.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, July 7, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A law that begs for failure
The Lokayukta Act requires legislators to provide statements regarding their assets, as also those of their family members, once in two years. It is said 64 members of the Assembly were required to file statements this year. Monday, June 30, was the last date for the purpose. According to a report in Kerala Kaumudi, by 6 p.m. on that day 78 MLAs had filed statements. Obviously at least 14 persons who were not required to file statements came forward to do so. Such tremendous enthusiasm to respect the law!
Many MLAs were actually making up for arrears. Only 19 of them had filed statements of assets before the competent authority by the due date last year, according to information provided by the Governor’s office to D. B. Binu, general secretary of the Human Rights Defence Forum, who had filed an application under the Right to Information Act. The Governor’s office apparently does not like parting with such information. The RTI Act says the information sought must be provided within a month of receipt of an application. The Public Information Officer at Raj Bhavan did not provide the information for six months. Thereupon Binu, who is a lawyer, then approached the State Information Commission seeking action against the defaulting official. It was only then that he was given the information. The Commission imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the PIO for failure to provide the information in time.
Some questions arise from the information given by the officer belatedly. One of them is: how many ministers were among those who did not file statements? The Chief Minister, the Speaker and the ministers add up to more than 19. Since only 19 MLAs filed statements, it appears that the defaulters include not only ordinary MLAs but also some who hold higher positions. Are the citizens not entitled to know who those honourable members are?
Not only MLAs but all public servants at various levels are required to furnish statements about assets. The Lokayukta Act provides a long list of persons who come under the definition of public servant. According to this list, those who were Chief Minister, ministers or MLAs earlier and those who are or were chairmen, vice-chairmen and members of local authorities, companies, boards and cooperative institutions under the control of the State government are also public servants. All those who draw pay from these institutions as also from cooperative societies and universities also come within the definition of public servant. All of them have to submit statements regarding their assets and liabilities, as also those of family members, every two years in a prescribed form to the designated authority.
Those who drew up the law have included in it enough provisions to defeat it. The form in which the public servant has to furnish information about assets and liabilities can be seen at the government’s website. The only information it seeks about assets is the monthly salary. It seeks more information about liabilities: the extent of liabilities, what kind of liabilities, when incurred.
The law stipulates that if a public servant does not furnish the statement of assets and liabilities in time the competent authority must report the matter to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta as the case maybe. A copy of the report must be sent to the person concerned. He will then get two more months to file the statement. That is his last opportunity to do so. What if he does not file the statement even then? Still nothing will happen to him. For, the Lokayukta does not have the power to punish a defaulter. All that he can do is to publish the names of the defaulters in three widely circulated newspapers of the State.
It is eight years since the Lokayukta Act came into force. I have no recollection of seeing a list of defaulters in any newspaper during this period. Have you?
Although government officials come within the definition of public servants, they are not required to furnish statements of assets under this law. Judges, too, are outside its purview. There are other laws and rules applicable to them. The fact, however, is that there is no mechanism for scrutiny of information provided under any law. The statement furnished by an official is looked into only if there is a corruption inquiry against him. So long as there is no inquiry the information will remain in the file as an official secret.
It is said that the practice in Kerala is for a minister to provide the statement in a sealed cover to the Chief Minister, who sends it to the Raj Bhavan without opening. Even if the minister forgets to put the statement in the envelope, the Chief Minister or Governor may not know it. To dispel possible suspicion that I am unnecessarily casting doubts on the efficiency of ministers and their personal staff, let me narrate an incident that actually happened. On the morning of August 15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru drove to the residence of the Governor-General, Earl Mountbatten, and gave him an envelope in the presence of photographers, saying it contained the names of the members of the first Council of Ministers of Free India. Mountbatten took the envelope. When he opened it after Nehru had left, it was empty. The cover had been sealed without putting the list of ministers in it.
Now, under the Representation of the People Act, a candidate seeking election is required to furnish information about his assets as also those of the members of his family. The Election Commission immediately publishes the information so received. In the circumstances, what is the need to keep the information given by an elected member under the Lokayukta Act secret?
Kerala can follow Karnataka’s example in this regard. A few weeks ago the Lokayukta of that State ordered that charge-sheets be filed under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code against three MLAs and one former MLA for providing false information in their statements of assets. If the Kerala law, as it now stands, does not permit such action, the government must be ready to amend it. There must be provisions for not only collecting but also publishing information about the assets of those high-up in the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary periodically. If the information furnished is incomplete or false, the public must have the opportunity to point it out. The state has to demonstrate its faith in transparency through faultless legislation.
Based on column ‘Nerkkazhcha’ appearing in Kerala Kaumudi dated July 3, 2008
Many MLAs were actually making up for arrears. Only 19 of them had filed statements of assets before the competent authority by the due date last year, according to information provided by the Governor’s office to D. B. Binu, general secretary of the Human Rights Defence Forum, who had filed an application under the Right to Information Act. The Governor’s office apparently does not like parting with such information. The RTI Act says the information sought must be provided within a month of receipt of an application. The Public Information Officer at Raj Bhavan did not provide the information for six months. Thereupon Binu, who is a lawyer, then approached the State Information Commission seeking action against the defaulting official. It was only then that he was given the information. The Commission imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the PIO for failure to provide the information in time.
Some questions arise from the information given by the officer belatedly. One of them is: how many ministers were among those who did not file statements? The Chief Minister, the Speaker and the ministers add up to more than 19. Since only 19 MLAs filed statements, it appears that the defaulters include not only ordinary MLAs but also some who hold higher positions. Are the citizens not entitled to know who those honourable members are?
Not only MLAs but all public servants at various levels are required to furnish statements about assets. The Lokayukta Act provides a long list of persons who come under the definition of public servant. According to this list, those who were Chief Minister, ministers or MLAs earlier and those who are or were chairmen, vice-chairmen and members of local authorities, companies, boards and cooperative institutions under the control of the State government are also public servants. All those who draw pay from these institutions as also from cooperative societies and universities also come within the definition of public servant. All of them have to submit statements regarding their assets and liabilities, as also those of family members, every two years in a prescribed form to the designated authority.
Those who drew up the law have included in it enough provisions to defeat it. The form in which the public servant has to furnish information about assets and liabilities can be seen at the government’s website. The only information it seeks about assets is the monthly salary. It seeks more information about liabilities: the extent of liabilities, what kind of liabilities, when incurred.
The law stipulates that if a public servant does not furnish the statement of assets and liabilities in time the competent authority must report the matter to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta as the case maybe. A copy of the report must be sent to the person concerned. He will then get two more months to file the statement. That is his last opportunity to do so. What if he does not file the statement even then? Still nothing will happen to him. For, the Lokayukta does not have the power to punish a defaulter. All that he can do is to publish the names of the defaulters in three widely circulated newspapers of the State.
It is eight years since the Lokayukta Act came into force. I have no recollection of seeing a list of defaulters in any newspaper during this period. Have you?
Although government officials come within the definition of public servants, they are not required to furnish statements of assets under this law. Judges, too, are outside its purview. There are other laws and rules applicable to them. The fact, however, is that there is no mechanism for scrutiny of information provided under any law. The statement furnished by an official is looked into only if there is a corruption inquiry against him. So long as there is no inquiry the information will remain in the file as an official secret.
It is said that the practice in Kerala is for a minister to provide the statement in a sealed cover to the Chief Minister, who sends it to the Raj Bhavan without opening. Even if the minister forgets to put the statement in the envelope, the Chief Minister or Governor may not know it. To dispel possible suspicion that I am unnecessarily casting doubts on the efficiency of ministers and their personal staff, let me narrate an incident that actually happened. On the morning of August 15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru drove to the residence of the Governor-General, Earl Mountbatten, and gave him an envelope in the presence of photographers, saying it contained the names of the members of the first Council of Ministers of Free India. Mountbatten took the envelope. When he opened it after Nehru had left, it was empty. The cover had been sealed without putting the list of ministers in it.
Now, under the Representation of the People Act, a candidate seeking election is required to furnish information about his assets as also those of the members of his family. The Election Commission immediately publishes the information so received. In the circumstances, what is the need to keep the information given by an elected member under the Lokayukta Act secret?
Kerala can follow Karnataka’s example in this regard. A few weeks ago the Lokayukta of that State ordered that charge-sheets be filed under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code against three MLAs and one former MLA for providing false information in their statements of assets. If the Kerala law, as it now stands, does not permit such action, the government must be ready to amend it. There must be provisions for not only collecting but also publishing information about the assets of those high-up in the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary periodically. If the information furnished is incomplete or false, the public must have the opportunity to point it out. The state has to demonstrate its faith in transparency through faultless legislation.
Based on column ‘Nerkkazhcha’ appearing in Kerala Kaumudi dated July 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)