Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Atanu Dey on India's Development » Blog Archive » A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves | Floosted by Rakesh Gupta

Atanu Dey on India's Development » Blog Archive » A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves | Floosted by Rakesh Gupta:

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves

  | 46 Comments
Act 1: Let me tell you a story about an old man who lived in a small village somewhere that does not matter. It all began when the man’s sons came to him and told him that some people from the neighboring village had stolen a chicken from their farm. The old man told his sons to go after the thieves and recover the chicken.

The sons said, “Father, it’s only one chicken. We have hundreds of chicken. One won’t make a difference.” The old man said, “Do what you please.”
A few days later, the thieves stole a goat. Once again the old man told his sons to not let them get away with it. The sons said that they have dozens of goats and it’s not worth the trouble. The next week it was a horse. Once again the sons rationalized it away saying that they still had six horses that the farm needs.
Finally, the next week the sons came back to report to the old man and said, “Father, our sister has been abducted. What shall we do?” The old man said, “It’s too late. You should have recovered the chicken. Now there’s nothing you can do.”
* * *
Act 2:
I heard this story from an expat from New Zealand who runs a very successful school in Singapore. David told me that in the early years of Lee Kuan Yew’s government, a minister was suspected of having taken a bribe. People said that since the minister was a close associate of LKY, in all likelihood the man would get away with it.
But as it happened, LKY had a brief chat with the minister one afternoon. The next day the minister went out with a bang — he put a bullet in his head.
Singapore is one of the least corrupt nations in the world. LKY’s policy is simple: zero tolerance for corruption. That’s so because he himself is incorruptible and therefore does not tolerate corruption. The wages of public corruption is death. People know it and act accordingly.
* * *
Act 3:
India’s appointed prime minister is Dr Manmohan Singh. Under his watch, the most egregiously blatant instances of public corruption have taken place. His ministers and other office holders have been involved in acts of public malfeasance that are stunningly incredible — but for at least a significant segment of Indian voters, it is quite alright. They appear to take it as if it’s nothing out of the ordinary. The rulers are going about the rape of the land and the people just lay back and supinely accept it.
We are talking figuratively about rape but Dr Singh’s misgovernance has descended into literal rape. Not just rape, gang rape. Not just gang rape, it has finally hit (one hopes) the rock bottom into murderous gang rape.
The 23-year old woman who was gang raped in a New Delhi bus died in a hospital in Singapore.
* * *
Act 4:
They first stole a chicken.
The Congress government under Jawaharlal Nehru was involved in corruption. The news papers reported it. Nehru responded saying that the reporters were being silly since corruption is a global phenomenon and there’s nothing to get all excited about.
Then they stole a goat.
Nehru’s daughter nationalized many sectors of the economy, thus making public office attractive to the most criminally corrupt. The people of India did not disapprove. They in fact voted her back to power.
The stage was set for horse thieves.
* * *
Act 5:
Some people started waking up to the reality. They realized that somehow the system was not working. They heard the call from a chosen few and gathered to register their protest. The government followed the time-worn strategy of attack being the best form of defense. They sent in their baton-wielding cops and the crowds — leaders too — beat a hasty retreat.
The lesson the appointed prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s government learned was that it does not take a whole lot to put the people in their place — the place of course being that the people in the government are the rulers and the people are serfs.
For around a century, a few hundred million Indians were the serfs of a few thousand British. Now it is different. India is under self-rule.
An Italian, Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi, and her bunch of sycophants led by Digvijaya Singh are ruling about a thousand million Indians.
Well, perhaps it is not all that different. Though Maino’s father was a fascist. That could make the British Raj 2.0 a little more vicious than the British Raj of pre-1947.
* * *
Act 6:
It tickles me no end when I hear talk about India being a free country and a democracy with universal adult franchise. Every adult has the vote and therefore is in some sense responsible for the kind of government. In my opinion, India is a kakistocracy — government by the most corrupt and the least principled. Indians freely elect these people. And among the elected are criminals who have been charged (and many convicted) of rape and murder.
The guys who gang raped the unfortunate woman on the bus in New Delhi a few days ago share at least some of the characteristics of the law makers of India: their criminality. A significant numbers of Indians vote for these kinds of criminals.
* * *
Act 7:
I hear that the despicably dishonest appointed prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s government moved to shut down protests in New Delhi by closing down a few metro train stations. Perhaps the people will back down and go home.
If they don’t back down, I suppose the unfathomably dishonest cretin, the appointed prime minister Dr Singh will probably escalate the situation till we see tanks on the streets of New Delhi.
The sister has been abducted.
And if I were a betting man, I would place the bet that the people are not going to do anything about it. Come next elections they will vote for Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi and her henchmen.
* * *
Act 8:
Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi and her gang of vile henchmen are unprincipled criminals. But they are not stupid. Their moves are calculated to push the boundaries and they know precisely what they can get away with. They know precisely how much they can steal and yet be elected. They know precisely how many backs they can break with their police lathi-charge and still the people will not lynch them.
Indians have an amazing capacity for tolerating injustice.
It was an American, born a slave but who understood the dynamics of slavery, who put it best over a century ago. Frederick Douglass (1818 – 1895), the renowned American abolitionist wrote, “Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them . . . The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
The rulers are not unintelligent. They would not be where they are if they were not the most accomplished criminals. They make the laws, don’t you know. They dictate the terms.
They control the press. The press provides the cover for them and they in turn protect those in the press that do their bidding. The Ghoses, the Sardesais, the Dutts — these are not unimportant players in this sordid play. They are complicit in the figurative rape of India and are handsomely rewarded for their prostitution.
* * *
The Final Act
No doubt for a few days the twitterati will be screaming bloody murder. A few thousand will go on candlelight vigils. In a few weeks, another distraction will occupy the talking heads on TV. Cricket will take over the collective psyche. And of course the sordid stories of Bollywood shakers will move the public to other concerns.
Talking of journalists, I am reminded of what the legendary American radio broadcaster Edward R Murrow (1908 – 1965) said. “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
Yes, India does have a government of wolves because India is a nation of sheep. The tyrants like Dr Singh know well precisely how much oppression the Indian public is willing to endure.
The rape of the land and the people — literally and figuratively — will continue.


'via Blog this'

Monday, February 18, 2013

The Hindu : News / National : Under Supreme Court’s nose, conspiracy hatched to destroy 2G case

The Hindu : News / National : Under Supreme Court’s nose, conspiracy hatched to destroy 2G case:

Under Supreme Court’s nose, conspiracy hatched to destroy 2G case

SHALINI SINGH
SHARE  ·   COMMENT (6)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
  • Tapes suggest prosecutor, accused Sanjay Chandra (C), and star witness colluded to vitiate SC directions to CBI. File photo
    The HinduTapes suggest prosecutor, accused Sanjay Chandra (C), and star witness colluded to vitiate SC directions to CBI. File photo
Tapes suggest prosecutor, accused and star witness colluded to vitiate SC directions to CBI
The exposure of an apparent conspiracy between the CBI prosecutor in the 2G scam investigation, A.K. Singh, and the accused Unitech Managing Director, Sanjay Chandra, could have grave consequences since it reveals a deliberate attempt to pull the wool over the Supreme Court’s eyes under whose supervision the entire investigation and prosecution has been occurring since December 16, 2010.
The leaked conversation leads the matter beyond the prosecutor and accused to involve star prosecution witness A.K. Srivastav, who was otherwise liable to face a jail term, along with the former Telecom Minister, A. Raja, the former DoT Secretary, S. Behura, and the former private secretary to Mr Raja, R.K. Chandolia.
The recordings suggest that Mr. Singh was colluding to help Mr. Chandra by not only discussing the CBI’s legal strategy but in fact overruling internal instructions on what questions to ask, pre-deciding their sequence to suit the accused and on whether to call B.B. Singh, DDG (Licence Fee) of the DoT’s Finance Division, for cross-questioning, versus A.K. Srivastav, DDG (Access Services). It is clear from the taped conversation that Mr. Singh and Mr. Chandra believe that using Mr. Srivastav’s testimony would help destroy the prosecution’s own case in three stages, including one that relates to Unitech obtaining licences and spectrum in spite of being ineligible.
The CAG, in its report of December 16, 2010, stated that 85 of the 122 licences granted to 13 companies by the DoT were ineligible. For Unitech, it detailed in pages 35-41, the manner in which the company had provided “false” and “fictitious” certificates on authorised share capital and misrepresented facts. The CAG said: “Their conditional registration by the ROC was a fraudulent act of these 6 companies with mala fide intention of obtaining the UAS licences for 20 service areas by misleading DoT.”
Slamming DoT officials as well, the CAG wrote: “It would thus appear that the DoT miserably failed to do the necessary due diligence in the examination of the applications of these applicants though they took more than 3-9 months to process these applications as against a prescribed period of 30 days.” It was Mr. Srivastav and his team which, while rejecting roughly 100 applications, certified these applications for grant of LoIs, overriding internal written warnings of the finance division on page 28 N of File No: 20-100/2007-AS-I.
SC direction vitiated
The Supreme Court, after hearing the PIL, which had forced the CBI to finally act in November 2010, leading to the arrest of Mr. Raja in February 2011, had specifically directed the CBI to investigate the issue of “ineligible applicants,” who fraudulently accessed licences.
The court, taking cognizance of the CAG report, also directed investigation against DoT officials involved in grant of licences to ineligible firms. It said: “The CBI shall conduct a thorough investigation into various issues highlighted in the report of the CVC which was forwarded to Director, CBI, vide letter dated 12-10-2009 and in the report of the CAG who have prima facie found serious irregularities in the grant of licences to 122 applicants, majority of whom are said to be ineligible, the blatant violation of terms and conditions of licence and huge loss to public exchequer running into several thousand crores. CBI should also probe how new licences were granted to large number of ineligible applicants and who was responsible for the same and why the TRAI and DoT did not take action against those licensees who sold their stake/equities for many thousand crores and also those who failed to fulfil rollout obligations and comply with other conditions of licence.”
This meant that the CBI should have indicted Mr. Srivastav and members of the AS cell. However, instead, the CBI turned him into the star government witness, closely mirroring an approver. The conspiracy of the quid pro quo, uncovered by the tapes, reveals that the testimony of the government witness was to be used to acquit a key accused with the help of a complicit prosecutor — who was focussed on what he would get paid if he was representing the corporates instead of the government. Mr. Chandra’s acquittal of charges of obtaining licences on ineligible applications would have collapsed the case while additionally exonerating DoT officials of charges of collusion.
CBI-Srivastav-Chandra collude
An investigation into the case files by The Hindu shows that Mr. Srivastav had bypassed written warnings by Mr. B. B. Singh, DDG (LF), whose name also appears in the tapes, that “accordingly all service areas licence equity required is Rs.138 crores and not ten crores as per the UASL guidelines 2005.” On January 7, 2008, Mr. Srivastav, ignoring this noting and the knowledge that several companies, especially Unitech, did not meet the criteria on the date of application i.e. September 24, 2007 (as was later disclosed by CAG), processed the file leading to grant of 122 LoIs, which included 22 granted to Unitech’s eight different companies. (See table).
The CAG, which discovered the fraud, said of Unitech in its December 16, 2010 audit report: “Eight applicants belonging to Unitech Group (Brand name Uninor) had been incorporated in August-September 2007 with an authorised share capital of 5 lakh each. All these eight companies passed the special resolutions for increase in the authorised share capital between 2 PM to 5 PM on 20 September 2007 in the extra-ordinary general meetings of the respective companies and deposited the requisite stamp duties on 3 October 2007 for increase in the authorised share capital. After they submitted the requisite applications along with the proof of payment of stamp duties on 5 October 2007, the certificate of the registration of the increase in the authorised share capital was issued by the ROC only on 8/11 October 2007. Thus the claim of the higher paid up capital of these companies on the date of submission i.e. 24 September and the supporting certificates of the company secretaries of these companies submitted along with their applications was false and fictitious.” The conspiracy was hatched to avoid prosecution of Mr. Chandra and DoT officials relating to this paragraph read with the SC directions of December 2010.
The conspiracy
In effect, an independent investigation and prosecution should have been launched against Mr. Srivastav and his officers. However, the CBI instead converted him into a prosecution witness. The CBI prosecutor is now using that favour to have him give statements which, according to Mr.A.K. Singh, is the only one that “will matter.” So despite contrary reports by officers of ROC (the leaked tape mentions one Mr. Kambuj), the case was to be destroyed using Mr. Srivastav’s testimony. Mr. Singh even cited a Supreme Court judgement to buttress this case in the alleged tele-conversation with Mr. Chandra.
The apparent conspiracy as recorded on tape appears to be an attempt to circumvent explicit directions of the Supreme Court, since the main accused within the DoT — Mr. Srivastav — has not been charged for processing 85 ineligible applications — including 22 of Unitech. And now, according to the tapes, the prosecutor, the prosecution witness and the accused are doing one another favours to deliver weak, pre-planned and favourable testimonies to dilute and eventually collapse the case which helps all parties, and most of all the government whose reputation is at stake. Since converting Mr. Srivastav into a prosecution witness rather than keeping him as a key accused remains within the discretionary powers of the CBI, it becomes clear as to why prosecutor Mr. Singh and the accused Mr. Chandra have such confidence in the favourable testimony of Mr. Srivastav in this sensitive case.

'via Blog this'

The Hindu : News / National : More skeletons tumble out of leaked 2G call transcripts

The Hindu : News / National : More skeletons tumble out of leaked 2G call transcripts:

More skeletons tumble out of leaked 2G call transcripts

SHALINI SINGH
SHARE  ·   COMMENT (11)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
  • A file photo of Unitech Managing Director, Sanjay Chandra. Photo: R.V. Moorthy
    The HinduA file photo of Unitech Managing Director, Sanjay Chandra. Photo: R.V. Moorthy
  • The CAG, in its report of December 16, 2010, stated that 85 of the 122 licences granted to 13 companies by the DoT were ineligible. File Photo: V.V. Krishnan
    The HinduThe CAG, in its report of December 16, 2010, stated that 85 of the 122 licences granted to 13 companies by the DoT were ineligible. File Photo: V.V. Krishnan
CBI prosecutor in touch with second accused Balwa; CBI cherry-picks from CAG’s list of ineligible applicants
New evidence suggests that the CBI’s 2G prosecution case could be even more severely compromised. Detailed call transcripts of a conversation, allegedly between the CBI’s prosecutor A.K. Singh and the key accused, Unitech Managing Director, Sanjay Chandra, reveal that the prosecutor was additionally in discussion with a second key accused Shahid Balwa of Swan Telecom.
Private TV channel CNN-IBN, which had exclusive access to some parts of the conversation, had telecast the contents on February 12.
An analysis of the Call Transcription in the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) no. 1(A) 13/AC-III/ New Delhi now shows that prosecutor Singh, by his own admission, had been in communication with Mr. Balwa either directly or through a third party. Mr. Singh further cited judgments favouring the accused, obliquely suggesting that these should be used by defence counsel to destroy the prosecution’s case.
An investigative story by The Hindu ‘Right under Supreme Court’s nose, conspiracy hatched to destroy 2G case’ published on February 13, 2012, had shown that DoT officials named in the tapes — B.B. Singh, then DDG Licence Fee, and A.K. Srivastav, then DDG Access Services — had a crucial exchange three days before the 2G scam, which was perpetrated on January 7, 2008.
Mr. B.B. Singh had alerted Mr. Srivastav that the paid-up capital required for a pan-India licence was Rs. 138 crore and not Rs. 10 crore. Despite 85 licensees becoming ineligible on this account, Mr. Srivastav processed their applications, enabling them to fraudulently access LoIs and later, spectrum.
These revelations throw up previously unknown acts of omission and commission of individuals in positions of authority — both within and outside the CBI — who have systematically been compromising the CBI case. This evidence additionally calls for a review of some government witnesses/approvers, since the full call transcripts reveal that they may have committed illegal acts, independent of ex-Telecom Minister A. Raja, his Personal Secretary R.K. Chandolia and the then Telecom Secretary S. Behura — so far, the only three accused from the Telecom Ministry.
It now turns out that CBI prosecutor Singh, who admits to being in regular dialogue with Mr. Balwa, was worried that the latter following a different legal strategy could damage his own attempts to help out Mr. Chandra and possibly others as well.
While discussing the case, Mr. Singh allegedly told Mr. Chandra (Hindi to English translation of call transcription): “Balwa is damaging the trial. God give him wisdom. He is preparing a noose around his neck and also damaging others alongside... don’t know… Have explained to him a thousand times…”
Chandra: “He has improved in comparison to the past...”
Singh: “Don’t know what is the problem, can’t fathom. I… don’t know, what he thinks of himself? …a little… has to be told…”
Despite Mr. Chandra’s assurance that Mr. Balwa had improved, Mr. Singh remained unconvinced and sceptical.
There is good reason for Mr. Singh and Mr. Chandra to worry about Mr. Balwa. The 63-page CBI charge sheet, dated April 2, 2011, co-accuses Unitech (Chandra) and Swan (Balwa), under each of the five charges relating to “(A) Investigation about Cut-off date, (B) Investigation into violation of First-Come-First-Served Policy, (C) Dual Technology Approvals and Spectrum Allocation, (D) Eligibility of Companies, and (E) Cheating the Government Exchequer by Non-Revision of Entry Fee.” Most of the charges are identical, though Mr. Chandra is an accused under Section 420 of the IPC, while Mr. Balwa is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
Another part of the call transcript, which has not been aired in its entirety so far, relates to the favourable judgments that Mr. Singh is citing which, according to him, if used after securing the testimony of the government’s star witness, Mr. Srivastav, will not only overrule all other government witnesses but will eventually destroy the case altogether.
(Hindi to English translation of call transcription):
A.K. Singh: “Yes…Srivastav will state that Sir, for DoT, the approval of the shareholders is mandatory before the application…. and that…. its prima facie a company.”
Chandra: “That’s all?”
Singh: “After looking, this is what he will state…”
Chandra: “Rao sahib can get our work done. There is no problem…”
Singh: “Kambuj is a third person. His findings are not binding on DoT. For that, I have a brilliant judgment. Unlikely anyone else has that judgment, which states that the Department that formulates a guideline can interpret it in 10 different ways. Whatever is DoT’s understanding is being testified by their own witness and in future that alone will be sustainable. I dealt with a typical issue… In U.P., let me tell you… even though it’s extremely unfortunate that the entire defence counsel has not been able to cite this judgment. It’s an interesting judgment about petrol pumps of Indian Oil… in which…”
Mr. Singh assures Mr. Chandra, later in the same conversation, that he needn’t worry about Mr. Srivastav’s testimony since on the issue of eligibility, Mr. Srivastav would deliver an unabashed statement to help Mr. Chandra’s case.
The transcription further throws up a new character called “Rao sahib” who Mr. Chandra believes will assist in delivering government witness Srivastav’s testimony to dilute the case against Mr. Chandra.
These revelations, including that Mr. Singh is encouraging the defence lawyers to cite judgments against the prosecution while additionally assuring the accused of a favourable testimony from the prosecution’s star witness, show the extent to which the rot has set in the prosecution’s case, which is being heard daily in a special CBI court.
The last piece of evidence emerging from the Singh-Chandra exchange is on how to get past the eligibility accusation faced by Unitech in which Mr. Chandra feared an adverse testimony by Mr. Kambuj who prepared the RoC report. Investigation by The Hindu shows that Unitech, according to the CAG, had violated eligibility criteria across six different guidelines in each of its 22 applications. Altogether, the CAG pointed to 85 licences being in violation of the eligibility conditions (see chart on Page 1).
The Supreme Court’s order of December 16, 2010, invoking the CAG report, had expressly directed the CBI to investigate how ineligible companies received LoIs/licences, including the role of DoT officials in granting such licences. This was especially significant since out of 232 qualifying applications on the cut-off date of September 25, 2007, 110 were found ineligible by the same officials who allowed 85 faulty applications through the door.
Yet, the CBI charge sheet restricts its observations to Swan and Unitech, while ignoring the eligibility violations by Loop, Alliance, Videocon and S Tel, all of which, according to the CAG, were guilty of accessing spectrum fraudulently. The CBI charge sheet also makes no mention of guilty officials, who have all been converted into witnesses. It is unclear whether the officials who selectively processed ineligible applications did so independently or under directions from Mr. Raja.
This new evidence reveals that despite filing status reports through the CVC and being under the Supreme Court’s supervision, the prosecution’s case has been extensively damaged by the CBI’s weak charge sheets, aided by a team of compromised prosecutors and witnesses.

'via Blog this'