An Independent Judicial Enquiry is needed: Parakala Prabhakar

 

How Capitalism Distributes Power - in the second part of video

 

Electoral Bonds the Biggest Scam in the World

 

Save Democracy in India

 

CBI/ED bonds generate 335 crores

 

Who was Sachin Vaze's handler - Some clues and tips by Sanjay Dixit

 

How Indian Banks threaten loan defaulters

 

Please circulate

Dons still pull the strings in Bollywood

• JOSY JOSEPH, SHARAD VYAS, GAUTAM S MENGLE in The hindu

Two decades after the cold-blooded murder of “Cassette King” Gulshan Kumar, the underworld still enjoys considerable access to the Mumbai film industry. Beneath the glitz, the fabric of the underworld-Bollywood nexus has not changed much even in 2015 — actors, producers and distributors not only pay obeisance to the ‘bhais’ at offshore locations such as Dubai but also help them establish a toehold in the film business by collaborating with production houses directly funded by fugitive gangster Chhota Shakeel, show investigations by The Hindu.

Indian agencies listened in on several conversations between Chhota Shakeel, a leading organiser of Bollywood events in the UAE, and other underworld operatives that showed that arrangements were under way in full swing to welcome a Bollywood superstar at the popular Meydan Hotel in Nad Al Sheba in Dubai from May 27 to 30. The fugitive don booked a double-room in the hotel for Dawood Ibrahim’s son Moin and daughter-in-law who were keen on a photo-op with the star. One intercept reveals an aide telling Shakeel in Dubai that he and others were with one Karim Bhai and the film star had gone out. The aide assures Shakeel that he will take Dawood’s son and daughter-in-law to the star. After a few minutes, Shakeel calls the aide to ask him to give his reference to the Bollywood event organiser, and that “children” must be arranged a good photo-op.

The meeting concluded on the same day as planned by Shakeel.

Dawood’s family was introduced to the actor as “Haji Saheb’s” children. It could well be the code name for Dawood among those in the film fraternity who continues to deal with him, or a way to mislead the superstar into meeting Dawood’s family members. Sources in the security establishment said the Shakeel contact in Dubai, who arranged the meeting for Dawood’s son with the star, was closely involved in Bollywood film promotions in Dubai and was a close acquaintance of top actors and production houses in Mumbai. Close proximity of actors, or cricketers, with the criminal world during their UAE tours has been a matter of concern for intelligence agencies. The Hindu’s investigation completes an important missing link of this puzzle since the 1993 blasts: a clear synergy between Bollywood and the underworld during tours abroad continues to date.

In March, a popular Pakistani television actor, desperately in need of a visa to visit India and find work in Mumbai, approached Shakeel for arranging a meeting with top television channels. The don immediately set up meetings for the newbie with several popular production houses.

In another intercept, the same actor called up Shakeel to push for his launch in Bollywood with a leading production house. Subsequently, Shakeel called up the CEO of a movie production house that is a major player in the Indian TV world and arranged a meeting. The intercepts do not reveal if the meeting ever took place, but prove the phone call was made.

Several intercepts show Shakeel attempting to reach out on February 26 to a Bollywood director who had just finished a film on Dawood Ibrahim’s life. In 2013, the fugitive don had planned a hit on the same director. When an associate in Mumbai asked Shakeel if he found time to threaten another superstar of Bollywood, Shakeel replied that he no longer called up actors with extortion calls.

Overcome by a sense of betrayal

Prem Shankar Jha

The Hindu

 

People are beginning to believe that democracy, in which they had faith all these years, is part of the problem and, therefore, cannot be part of the solution

The torrent of anger that erupted all over the country after the 23-year-old physiotherapy student in Delhi — whom the media named ‘Nirbhaya’ — was raped and thrown out of a moving bus has obscured a profoundly disturbing anomaly: the rape was a criminal act committed by individuals. But most of the anger of the public has been directed at the government. Barring a few lapses, the Central and State governments acted promptly, and with commendable efficiency. The Delhi police captured the alleged rapists within hours and the government spared no expense in its attempt to save her life.

The police also showed an uncharacteristic restraint in dealing with the protesters. To control the crowds with a minimum of violence, policemen put themselves repeatedly in harm’s way. A constable, P.C. Tomar, laid down his life doing his duty. Many others were injured.

The Delhi High Court and the State government took the pent up grievances of women’s associations and other human rights groups to heart and acted speedily to meet their demands. The former set up five special courts to hear the backlog of rape cases. The Lt. Governor made it mandatory for police stations to register all complaints of rape and other crimes against women. So why did the media and the public spare no effort to shift as much of the blame as possible on to the shoulders of the state?

 

Smouldering anger

The answer is that the rape acted as the trigger for an older, and deeper, anger in people — one that has been smouldering for years in their hearts. This stems from a profound sense of betrayal. Democracy was meant to empower them. Instead, in a way that few of them understand even today, it has done the exact opposite.

Empowerment requires the rule of law. People feel empowered only when they know that they have rights, and that the institutions of government exist, first and foremost, to enforce them. The rule of law is, however, only another name for justice. Empowerment therefore requires justice. The bedrock from which the anger that erupted on December 17 sprang is the denial of justice. In spite of being a democracy for 65 years, the Indian state has not been able to create something that people value even more than material benefits: a just society. It has achieved this unique feat by making both its elected legislators and its bureaucracy, not to mention its lower judiciary, immune to accountability. It has therefore become a predatory state that the people have learned to fear.

The hallmark of the predatory state is the universality of extortion. In India, we regularly lump extortion together with bribery under the generic title of corruption. In doing so, even the most ardent of reformers inadvertently conspire with the predators to hide the true, ugly, face of our democracy. Bribery and extortion are, in fact, two entirely different forms of predatory behaviour, and have markedly different effects upon the relationship of state with society.

Bribery is voluntary. The bribe giver chooses to give money or favours to influence a choice, steal a march over rivals, or hasten (sometimes delay) a decision. Bribery harms the economy and society cumulatively over a period of time by preventing optimal choice, increasing cost and lowering the quality of the product or the service rendered. But it has limited political impact because it is a voluntary transaction between consenting adults and the injustice it does is confined to a small circle of rivals.

Extortion is an entirely different form of predation. It requires no contract; no negotiation; and therefore no element of consent. It is a simple exercise of brute power by an employee or representative of the state over the citizen. Its commonest form is to deny the citizen the services to which he is entitled until he agrees to make a ‘private’ payment to the functionary in whom the power of the state is vested. Every act of extortion is a fresh reminder to the citizen of his or her impotence. This becomes complete if he or she is denied redress for the abuse of power.

In India this has been all-but-denied not simply by law but by the Constitution itself. Article 311 of the Constitution reads: “No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.” It makes it clear that this injunction applies to not only civil but criminal cases as well. For the Central services, the empowered Authority is the President of India; for the State civil services, it is the Governor. This has meant that no prosecution can by initiated without the permission of the Central or State government. As the dismal experience of the Central Vigilance Commission has shown, in civil cases this permission is rarely given.

 

Complaints against police

One set of figures illustrates the impunity with which civil servants can break the law. According to the National Crime Records Bureau’s annual report Crime in India 2007, between 2003 and 2007 citizens filed 282, 384 complaints of human rights abuses against the police. Of these only 79,000 were investigated; only 1,070 policemen were brought to trial and only 264 — less than one in a thousand — were convicted. All but a handful stayed on at their posts, free to wreak vengeance on those who had dared to complain against them. It is therefore a safe bet that the actual number of such abuses is at least 10 times the number reported. It helps to explain why a girl who filed a complaint of rape with the police in Lucknow about two months ago was raped by the Station House Officer, then repeatedly by the investigating officer, but could not muster the courage to get the latter caught, and report the former till she felt empowered by the protests in Delhi.

The Constituent Assembly lifted Article 311 almost verbatim from a clause in the Government of India Act 1935 whose purpose was to protect British civil servants, notably the police, from incessant harassment by sharp-witted Congress lawyers. But the 1935 Act did not put the civil servant above the law. This was because he could be held accountable, as Edmund Burke had shown, by the British Parliament. In independent India, however, this restraint was destroyed by the progressive corruption, and criminalisation, of the political class that it now serves.

The root cause of both is the lack of any provision in the Constitution for the financing of elections. In Britain where the average constituency covers 380 square kilometres and has around 60,000 voters this is a nuisance. In India where the parliamentary constituency covers 6,000 sq km and holds 1.3 million voters it has proved a catastrophe.

In the 1950s, the need for funds was met to a large extent by the rising industrial class and by the Princes. But when these two began to desert the Congress in favour of the Swatantra Party and the Jana Sangh in the 1960s, Indira Gandhi banned company donations to political parties and abolished the privy purses. After that the only way in which political parties could stay in the game was to break the law.

Over the ensuing decades, two sets of predatory networks have developed to finance, or otherwise influence, elections. The first is of criminals who provide the muscle to intimidate voters; the second is of local money-bags and power-brokers who rally support for candidates belonging to one or the other party in exchange for favours when it comes to power.

As these have become more entrenched, they have virtually eliminated intra-party democracy at the grass roots and progressively reduced the number of constituencies in which State and Central party leaders can bring in fresh candidates chosen on the basis of merit. In the current Parliament, for instance, at the last count 159 MPs had criminal charges pending against them. Another 156 are second generation ‘princelings’ whose parents established the clientelist networks that now serve them. The State Assemblies are even more closed to new aspirants: 44 per cent of the MLAs in Bihar, 35 per cent in West Bengal and 30 per cent in Gujarat face criminal charges. The proportion of ‘pocket boroughs’ is also higher in the States than at the Centre.

 

Predatory state

The perennial need for money lies at the roots of the predatory state that India has become. Today, its ruling class consists of corrupt politicians who are served by an extortionate bureaucracy and police that are shielded from public wrath by nothing less than the Constitution of India.

In earlier decades, people’s anger was held in check by their faith in the democratic system. They therefore gave vent to their demand for accountability in the state by turning out to vote in ever larger numbers and regularly overthrowing incumbent governments. Only in recent years has it begun to dawn on them that democracy has become a part of the problem and cannot therefore be part of the solution. The protest is therefore moving closer to the borders of revolt. This has been apparent in the Maoist uprising that began in 2005, and has driven the state out of large parts of 83 districts in the country.

The Anna movement last year was another turning point because it was the first time that the urban middle class took to the streets. December’s mass protests in Delhi were the second time. History teaches us that this is the point at which the state usually begins to crumble. Were this to happen in India, it would not lead to the emergence of a more just and accountable Indian state but to its disintegration.

There is still time for our Central and State leaders to remember that no society that has lost its sense of justice, and, therefore, its moral legitimacy, has survived for long. But they are beginning to run out of it.

 

(The writer is a senior journalist)

Three decades after privatisation, monopoly power is still king

IoS investigation: The great British energy rip-off 

The "big six" energy firms were last night accused of maintaining a "stranglehold" over millions of consumers, after new figures showed that they each control more than two-thirds of the market in different regions across the UK.

An average of 70 per cent of households across all regions use the same electricity supplier, with the proportion rising to 85 per cent in some areas, undermining claims by the Government and Ofgem, the regulator, that the energy market is operating competitively.

The figures, uncovered by Labour, are published in the wake of the confusion over the future of energy bills after David Cameron pledged in the Commons to force companies to offer householders the "lowest tariff" – a promise that within hours was exposed as unworkable. The Prime Minister clashed with the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, who backed Ofgem's proposals, published on Friday, for a simplified tariff system that encouraged consumers to switch between firms.

The official figures show that companies supplying electricity to homes where they inherited the network from the former utility boards are operating a near monopoly, making a mockery of the idea that customers routinely switch firms to get better deals.

Separate data from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) reveals that customers who have stayed with their old electricity supplier are paying more than those who have switched. DECC analysis shows that these "home suppliers" charge an average of £31 a year more than non-home suppliers for electricity – in effect placing a premium on loyalty.

The research emerged on the eve of British Energy Saving Week amid an outcry that energy firms are pushing up fuel bills beyond the rate of inflation, adding between £80 and £112 to the average annual household bill.

Although deregulation of the energy market in the 1980s supposedly led to more competition, the reality is more similar to a monopoly within each region of the UK.

The largest five electricity suppliers dominate the regions they inherited from utility boards more than two decades ago, while British Gas still retains the largest share of the retail gas market nationwide. This is despite consumers being encouraged by price comparison websites to shop around for the cheapest supplier. When the gas and electricity networks were first privatised, price caps were in operation, but a decade ago Ofgem removed controls because competition had, in theory, been established.

Yet figures published in Parliament in a written answer to the shadow Energy Secretary, Caroline Flint, show that there is little real competition. Firms last night claimed the figures show the loyalty of customers they inherited from the boards, but Ms Flint said the companies appear to be exploiting consumers' unwillingness to shop around. With a baffling array of more than 500 tariffs on offer, consumers are often loath to switch.

In Northern Scotland, SSE, the firm that inherited the network from the North of Scotland Hydro Board, has retained an 85 per cent share of the retail electricity market, while in south Wales, SSE has an 82 per cent share and in the Southern region it has an 80 per cent share.

Scottish Power has an 82 per cent share in southern Scotland, and a 73 per cent share in north Wales. EDF has remained dominant in London with a 74 per cent share; in the South-east, it supplies electricity to 73 per cent of homes; and in the South-west, it has 71 per cent.

Npower remains the dominant supplier in the West Midlands, with 65 per cent of the retail market; in Yorkshire, it has a 65 per cent share; and in the North-east, 64 per cent. E.ON has a 69 per cent share in the East Midlands; 68 per cent in the Eastern region; and 67 per cent in the North-west.
The sixth major energy firm, British Gas, has held on to 76 per cent of gas-only accounts across the UK. The figures do not apply to dual fuel accounts, but nearly 10 million households are on electricity only, and 4.6 million have gas only.

Ms Flint said: "It's no wonder the energy giants are shame-faced about hiking up energy bills when they have a stranglehold over the energy market. People talk about the 'big six', but in most parts of the country there's only one big supplier in town. The fact that 70 per cent of people in any region all use the same electricity supplier suggests that the energy market is not functioning properly. It cannot be right that customers who have stuck with their old electricity supplier pay a premium for their loyalty.
"The time has come to create a tough new regulator to police the energy market properly, and force the energy companies to pass on price cuts to the public."

A spokesman for Npower said: "We have a larger than expected share in the West Midlands because our history is in the Midlands. A lot of people were Midlands Electricity Board customers and many of them remained so [under the new name]. The rate of turnover has been quite significant, people have left and people come back. It is about loyalty – many people still refer to us as 'the Midlands Electricity Board' as they refer to British Gas as 'the Gas Board'. They are with us because we are incredibly good value. It is the same in the North-east. We feel very much part of the community in these areas."

A spokesman for E.ON said: "Many of our customers, while staying with us, will have regularly changed products. As such it would be wrong to say they are not engaged in the energy market – they are, and have chosen to stay with us. Some 69 per cent of our customers overall have switched supplier or tariff in the past three years.

"It is important that we treat every customer as an individual and as such being on the right tariff for your own individual circumstances is vital. In recent weeks we have made checking you're on the right tariff easier than ever, and it is this simplicity and comparability that our customers are responding to. By making things simpler and more comparable, as well as continuing to provide help and advice that will make homes more energy efficient, we can really help our customers and ensure they are on the best deal for them."

A Scottish Power spokesman said: "The British energy market is one of the most competitive in Europe, and Scottish Power welcomes anything that encourages or supports this competition."
SSE said in a statement: "We would fully expect our customer retention rates to be higher than those of our competitors because of our exceptional standards of service, for which we are consistently recognised as the best in the business by the likes of Consumer Focus and uSwitch.

"There's no doubt that greater levels of consumer engagement in the market would be a positive thing. However, switching rates in the UK compare very favourably with those in other European energy markets, and with other retail service markets such as fixed and mobile telecommunication, insurance, mortgages and personal current accounts."

How easy is it to reduce your energy bill?

If a seasoned investigator has trouble, what hope for the average consumer? Here’s what I discovered after many frustrating minutes on hold:

Npower

My current provider, Npower, predicts my spend for the next 12 months will be £208.37 for 1,620 kWh of electricity and £531.78 for 11,260 kWh of gas – all helpfully displayed in my latest bill, but irrelevant because it was generated two days before they announced an 8.8 per cent price hike. Sneaky.

British Gas

After an automated apology for any delay due to “a high volume of customer calls” came some advice: “If you’re calling for our fix and fall tarif,f go online to sign up and register your details. If you have received a coupon about this offer, please complete it and return the pre-paid envelope. If you are calling about a fixed contract that ends in either 2013, 2014 or 2015, your prices are not affected by our recent price increase.”

I simply want to find out if you can beat my existing deal.

“Press 1 to change your account name or address or if you are moving house. Press 2 to give us your meter reading or find out your balance, pay your bill or to let us know you are going to pay your bill or you have paid your bill. Press 3 if you have any questions about your central heating or home care or press 4 to talk to one of our team.”

Hooray. Well, nearly. I sit through more suggestions to “go online for further information”. A pause, then a human voice. “You probably were sent that estimate prior to their price rise announcement.” True. “Our best deal is the online variable until November 2013, which includes the price increases taken into effect. We can do a 6 per cent discount from your total bill for direct debit.”

“That will cost you around £229 for electricity and £532 for gas. A little bit more than your estimate, but your prices will go up remember”.

So your prices are fixed, then?

“No, we have another “fix and fall” tariff which is not discounted but is fixed until March 2014. That might make more sense to you.

“If our prices go up, yours won’t do, but if prices go down, yours go down – and you get a fixed premium of 3 per cent.”

“That comes to £253.34 for electricity and £583 for gas.”

£100 more! “Ah, but your charges…”

Yes, yes, they will be going up.

To be fair, she did recommend I call npower to check how much my bill would apparently be going up by. That was easier but it still took 17 minutes.

E.ON (no freephone)

It took less than a minute to speak with someone and we were straight down to business: full address and phone number (“in case you get cut off”) before we were on to the tariffs. Four on offer: standard, E.ON energy discount (“3 per cent cheaper than standard for 12 months but you’re not protected against price rises”), fixed one year or fixed two years. It was like remortgaging a house.,

Standard came to £787.93 and the energy discount was £752.69. Fixed one came to £776.48 – “no premium, mind” – and fixed two £816.39 – “a bit of a gamble as it is 5 per cent above standard unit rate but you’re protected against price rises.”

The good news: E.ON was not among the four of the “big six” energy companies which had recently announced price rises for 2012. The bad: “but it’s more than likely we will put them up for 2013”. Hmmm.

That took four minutes.

EDF

Oh dear. I gave up trying after being on hold for 15 minutes listening to what sounded like Morcheeba. Rubbish.

SSE

After seven minutes on hold, I was mercifully told there were only two tariffs the company provides – standard and capped. My quote was £28 more expensive than npower, but SSE credits your account with £100 when you switch and their rate is capped for two years meaning, like British Gas, it won’t go up, but could come down. And SSE “was the only energy company that reduced their prices last year”. In addition, my gas and electricity standard charge of 16.44 pence per day would come down to 14.8p with paperless billing. “I’m here until 2pm if you want to switch,” a very helpful Eddie told me.

Scottish Power

I had tapped in my numbers to their online quote generator which gave me an estimated bill of £816.57. But on the phone, a quote using the same figures was better: £755. This for a deal fixed until March 2014 without a cancellation fee. Did I want to know the unit price? I certainly did. “Scottish Power’s first quarter electricity unit price is 21.74p for the first 225 units going down to 10.99, compared with Npower’s current unit price of 16.93 reducing to 13.39. Our primary gas units are 8.10 going down to 3.01 with Npower’s at 7.89 reducing to 3.51.” I regretted the request for more detail.

So much to choose from. Do I ditch and switch, fix or stick? I have no idea. I tried calling Npower to see what their updated estimate would be for next year, but their systems were down. I’ll have to call back on Monday.

Paul Gallagher