Sneak peek into Gadkari’s river plans: Yamuna waterway, Ganga video wall

June 23, 2014

New Delhi: If you travel along the Yamuna in Delhi a few years down the line you could well find barges and cargo boats: the Ministry of Road Transport & Shipping under Nitin Gadkari is mulling the possibility of a 43-kilometer waterway from Narela to Noida, to bring life back into the river and to ease cargo traffic on Delhi’s roads.

Apart from this, the ministry is looking to enhance the waterway from Allahabad to Haldia, better cement roads in the remote villages and a waterfall on the banks of the Ganga in Varanasi,which will double up as a video wall after sunset.

There are several nods required from other ministries before the projects finally hit the execution table but Mr Gadkari’s officials are quite gung-ho about the projects.

Waterways for cargo movement

For the Narela to Noida waterway, the Yamuna will be dredged, cleaned and its banks would have to undergo a massive beautification drive. Dredging drives will ensure the minimum navigable depth throughout the 43-kilometer waterway. Four barrages will be constructed on the route to maintain the water level.

This waterway would be used mainly for transport of goods. Ministry sources claim that if the plan is executed, it will reducesome of the traffic load from the capital’s roads, particularly at night when large goods trucks hit the city. This would also make the transport cheaper by around 30 percent.

The ministry is also mulling enhancement of the Ganga-Bhagirathi-Hooghly river system from Allahabad to Haldia. This route, National Waterway 1covering 1,620 kilometers, will need further dredging for proper navigation and barrages will be constructed every 100-kilometers to maintain the water levels. This, the ministry sources say, will also help generate jobs for people residing in the cities on the banks of the route.

Cement roads to replace bitumen

The ministry also plans to replace the use of bitumen with cement in road construction as much as possible. It has a roadmap on how cement use will be more economical and durable. To produce more cement for this plan, the Road Transport & Highways Ministry will approach the Mining Ministry to use at least four mines in Gadchiroli, Chattisgarh, two each of Iron ore and limestone.

For this mining project, the government plans to start a new entity in a joint venture with private players. The new entity will possibly be named Infrastructure Corporation. Global tenders would be invited for the joint venture in which the government will control 51 percent of the equity, with the rest going to the private players.

The cement produced from mines will cost around 50 percent less than in the open market,with large amount of taxes and duties saved. Similarly, the iron ore products from these mines would cost around 40 percent cheaper than otherwise.

The government will control the produce by 50 percent and the priority of the use of the cement and iron ore products would be given to the roads built under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), projects of National Highways Authority of India and the Expressways.

Cement roads last much longer than bitumen roads, which is why the ministry is keen on going ahead with this plan. To raise funds for the project, it also plans to issue infrastructure bonds, apart from taking loans from foreign banks.

Waterfall in Varanasi

For the prime minister’s constituency, there is a special package: the ministry is planning to construct an artificial waterfall on the banks of river Ganga.


The waterfall will be designed to attract tourists and will double up as a video wall after sunset on which a film will be screened, aimed at creating awareness to keep the holy river clean. A 60-minute film on the Ganga will be produced for the screening, which will focus on raising awareness among tourists to keep the river clean.

- This story was first published in www.thepoliticalindian.com on June 23, 2014

Modi’s PMO staff: Careers and controversies

June 17, 2014

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi has hand-picked his staff to run his South Block office. While they are not very well-known in Delhi circles, most of them are Mr Modi’s old trusted colleagues who have worked with him for long, and come with a reputation of efficiency. Though nothing has been proved against them, they have also had their brush with controversies in the past.

Nripendra Misra: Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister

Role: The most powerful bureaucrat in the government, he will report directly to the PM and will be the bridge between the prime minister, senior ministers and the secretaries in the government.

Credentials: Retired 1967 batch IAS officer from the Uttar Pradesh cadre, Mr Misra also has a Master’s in Public Administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He comes with the reputation of being an efficient and honest bureaucrat. He also served as the chairman of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

Brush with controversy: The same Mr Misra was branded as a CIA agent by the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS) mouthpiece Panchjanya in 1992. The RSS mouthpiece carried an article alleging he had “proximity to the US” and was seen with some Americans. Soon after this he was sacked from the post of the private secretary to the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Kalyan Singh.

Even after Mr Misra’s known tiff with the RSS, the Mr Modi chose him for the coveted role in the PMO and an ordinance was tabled in the Lok Sabha to clear the legal hurdles in his appointment. The ordinance route was taken as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act prohibited its chairman and members from taking up any other job in the central or state governments after remitting office.

Nripendra Misra could face some discomfort over a set of recommendations made by him as a TRAI chairman of the that aided former telecom minister A Raja’s controversial decision to ignore the auction route for allocating 2G spectrum in 2007.

PK Mishra: Additional Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister

Role: He will be assisting the prime minister in governance and matters which the principal secretary is not assigned to. He will work in coordination with the principal secretary and has been brought in looking at the workload which the PMO will have during the Modi regime.

Credentials: Retired IAS of 1972 batch. He has served Mr Modi in Gujarat as his Principal Secretary from 2001 to 2004. He is seen as Modi’s closest advisor on governance and policy issues, and well networked in power corridors.

Brush with controversy: He was one of the few top bureaucrats present during the controversial meeting called by the then CM of Gujarat on the evening of 27 February 2002, after the Godhra train burning. This meeting made headlines for years after IPS Sanjeev Bhatt made some scathing allegations about the meeting. Mr Bhatt alleged that the CM passed some controversial instructions in the meeting; however, the investigating team later said that his statement cannot be relied upon as his presence in the meeting was not established.

Tanmay Mehta: Personal Assistant to the Prime Minister

Role: Looking after schedules, meetings, coordinating with other party leaders

Credentials: Staunch RSS man. Has been serving Mr Modi ever since he became Gujarat chief minister in 2001, and considered his closest aide.

Brush with controversy: Zakia Jafri alleged that Mr Mehta was present in Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad a day before the violence which killed 69 Muslim residents including her husband and former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, on 28 February 2002. Phone records were furnished to corroborate his presence.

Later activist Teesta Setalvad also furnished phone records to show that Mr Mehta’s phone was used to talk to the then Ahmedabad police commissioner Prashant Chandra Pande five times on the first day of the Godhra riots. Ms Setalvad disclosed this in an affidavit before the apex court on the basis of an analysis of the phone records obtained from the Nanavati Commission.

Mr Modi during his questioning by the SIT was asked whether he used the mobile phone of Mr Mehta during the riots to talk to people, to which the then CM Gujarat said no. It was also alleged that Mr Mehta’s phone was used to talk to some riot accused during the riots in Gujarat; his name figured in the CDs of phone call records submitted to the Nanavati commission by IPS officer Rahul Sharma. However, nothing has been proved against him in the court of law.

Om Prakash Singh: Personal Assistant to the Prime Minister

Role: Managing Mr Modi’s appointments is his key job; apart from this his role is quite similar to that of Mr Mehta.

Credentials: OP, as he is known in the power circle, hails from Banda in Uttar Pradesh. Has a strong RSS background and has been with Mr Modi since early 2001 while the former CM of Gujarat was the general secretary (organization) of the party in Delhi. Mr Singh moved to Gujarat with him as his personal assistant and is considered one of the key members of team Modi.

Brush with controversy: His name also cropped up in the Gujarat riots case when IPS Sanjeev Bhatt pointed fingers towards him. Mr Bhatt claimed that he personally called Mr Singh, the then personal secretary to Mr Modi, and asked him to inform the chief minister the gravity of the situation at Gulberg Society, that if the police didn’t act immediately, the mob would put the society on fire.

Mr Bhatt had called him after he had failed to convince the then Commissioner PC Pande to act, he claimed. Mr Bhatt claimed that even after this call no action was taken. However, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court contended that Mr Bhatt forged evidence to malign the state government.

- This story was first published in www.thepoliticalindian.com on June 17, 2014

Inside AAP: How “supremo” Kejriwal fought off Yogendra Yadav’s challenge 

June 9, 2014

Delhi: On 5 June, the day before Aam Aadmi Party’s national executive meet began in Delhi, two emails were leaked to the media. One was written by Yogendra Yadav, in which he slammed Arvind Kejriwal, without naming him, for working like a “supremo”. The second was by Manish Sisodia, seen as a proxy for Arvind Kejriwal, who ripped into Mr Yadav, alleging that he was destroying the party and Mr Kejriwal’s image.

When the national executive started the next day at Prashant Bhusan’s Jangpura residence, MrKejriwal knew that the tone had been set for the meeting and it was against him. The mail spat between Mr Yadav and Mr Sisodia had not gone down well with many party colleagues, and it was the latest symptom of a much larger problem: there was now a clear pushback against his leadership style, and the coterie that he had built around him, which included the likes of Manish Sisodia.
For the first time in its 18-month history, Arvind Kejriwal’s leadership was under severe challenge.

A contrite Kejriwal

Arvind Kejriwal made his first move at the start of the meeting, proposing to win back disgruntled party leader Shazia Ilmi. This was a clear signal to others that he was ready to reconcile with those who have spoken out against the party leadership, including Yogendra Yadav.

In his email, Mr Sisodia had blamed Mr Yadav for the dismal results in Haryana and for the over optimistic national projections that led to the party contesting over 400 seats despite limited resources. So the discussion on the poll results further cornered Mr Yadav. By the time the first day of the meeting got over, the more vocal pro-Kejriwal group in the party had isolated the political analyst turned politician.

Mr Yadav, clad in his trademark kurta with a cotton towel, came out alone from the meet on the first day, refused to speak to the media, merely saying that such things happen in a democratic party. People present in the meeting said that both Mr Yadav and Mr Kejriwal had cordial conversations during the day.

The rapprochement

On the morning of 7 June, the second day of the meet, Mr Yadav accompanied by Prashant Bhusan, went to Mr Kejriwal’s Tilak Lane residence. It was an attempt by Mr Yadav to accept the olive branch offered by the party chief. The three leaders discussed the future of the party and their strategy for the Delhi elections: Mr Kejriwal told them point blank that if was the face of the party for the Delhi elections, he needed to call the shots.

Mr Yadav agreed with him, and Mr Bhushan came around despite initial reservations.


Yogendra Yadav’s ambitions

In accepting Mr Kejriwal’s supremacy for the Delhi elections, Mr Yadav saw the validation of his own authority in the Haryana elections, slated for later this year. He intends to lead the party in the Haryana polls, and hopes the powers vested in Arvind Kejriwal for Delhi will be vested in him for Haryana. It’s also good to remember that Yogendra Yadav’s dissent started after another leader from Haryana, Naveen Jaihind, was seen as challenging his authority in the state.

It was Mr Yadav who proposed the resolution in the national executive to give Mr Kejriwal sweeping powers to run the party and election affair in Delhi unhindered. The resolution was passed by voice votes. Later in the day Mr Yadav and Mr Jaihind’s resignation were taken up and rejected.

The restructuring

The next thing on the minds of the pro-Kejriwal group was to put to rest the issue of centralization of power: restructuring of the party and expansion of the important committees were decided as the way out, what they called “Mission Vistaar”. The agenda came up on the third and concluding day of the meet. It was decided to rejig the most powerful committee the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) and expand the national executive. Later in the day a list of 25 fresh invitees to the national executive was issued, which included the four AAP members of parliament from Punjab.

The concluding day of the meet was also used to discuss the issue of resources available going into the state elections. The executive deferred the decision on fighting the assembly elections in the states of Maharashtra and Haryana: the decision would be taken based on reports from the state committees.

A large chunk of the party feels that if Delhi goes to polls, the party must skip Haryana and Maharashtra in order to stop their resources from being divided. The poor Lok Sabha performance in the two states is also a crucial factor. But party leaders from the state units of Haryana and Maharashtra are keen to go into the elections slated later this year. Yogendra Yadav himself is keen to go for it in Haryana. That could be a potential source of conflict in the future.

The final decision on this will only be made after the polls are announced in Delhi. Till then at least, Arvind Kejriwal has managed to ward off the challenge from Yogendra Yadav, and win over his loyalty.

- This story was first published in www.thepoliticalindian.com on June 9, 2014. It was also published by Rediff.com and some other news websites.

Interview: We are determined to protect the idea of India, says Shashi Tharoor

June 4, 2014

Shashi Tharoor was one of the few senior Congress leaders to retain his Lok Sabha seat in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram, as the Bharatiya Janata Party swept to power with a strong majority. In this interview he looks back at what the Congress could have done better and what a Narendra Modi prime ministership means for India.

Q.   Does Narendra Modi’s thumping victory represent the end of the Nehruvian socio-economic consensus?

A.The Nehruvian consensus, for all the criticism it endures today, was what at one time brought India together, facilitating our maturing as a democracy and accommodating so many diverse interests without letting any one group or section dominate our nascent nation state. Its economic aspects did, one could argue, develop certain flaws, notably those of the so-called “licence-permit-quote Raj”, and we saw a slow repeal of much of this in the 1980s itself under Rajiv Gandhi, until under the reforms initiated by Narasimha Rao and Dr Manmohan Singh, India truly marched into a confident new era of flourishing growth and socio-economic dynamism.

The astonishing victory of the BJP under Prime Minister Modi, however, is not merely about economics as much as about also communicating and tapping into the restless (and rightful) aspirations of our people. The Congress Party helped build on the economic structures of Nehru’s day while liberating them from excessive restrictions. But we remain committed to an inclusive idea of development, social justice and opportunities for the deprived and marginalized in our society — which, alas, are sometimes less marketable to a youthful electorate that wants change here and now.
Admittedly, we could have communicated our values and objectives better to voters, but Modi’s ability to convince our fellow citizens that he is their messiah of change, aided by a general anti-incumbency after 10 years of Congress rule, is what, I feel, led to the BJP’s historic victory and led some to argue that the Nehruvian consensus has unravelled. In my view, reports of its demise are exaggerated.

Q. In hindsight did the Congress fail to read the mood of the country: that growth rather than doles is what it wants?

A. As I mentioned, we did have a communication gap we could not fully bridge with our voters, but I do not think painting social legislation as a mere handing out of doles by the state is a fair assessment. Leaving aside the last two years, India witnessed record levels of growth under UPA governance, and our objective, which was supported by eminent economists, lawyers, and social activists with tremendous first hand experience, was to distribute the fruits of this growth more equitably.

And it is a fact, even if a superficial assessment of electoral results might suggest otherwise, that the lives and standards of living of most Indians have changed for the better in the last ten years. This was not because of doles but because of more generous and effective government. In fact it is exactly these doles, as you term them, that put more kids in school, and got more people jobs and their basic needs taken care of, so as to enable them to demand more from their government, which is their right, and which wave of aspirations the BJP rode so successfully.

In a way, they owe some credit to us for helping create this new aspirational India that has voted them to power! Growth is a step-by-step process and the UPA has definitely, I must stress, laid serious foundations here that go beyond parties and will last generations. What you describe as “doles” is in fact not mere handouts but empowerment – enabling those who have little, to meet their basic needs so they can stand on their own feet and aspire to better their lives.

Q. You had said that Mr Modi might turn India into a Hindu Pakistan. Do you still fear that? Does it worry you that the opposition is so weak in parliament?

A.   From his first day as our Prime Minister, Narendra Modi seems to be making all the correct and inclusive statements about working for all Indians and focusing on development; Hindutva seems to have been placed on the back burner, as it largely was throughout the campaign. The history of the BJP and the Prime Minister’s own longstanding connections with the RSS are a cause for some apprehension, but as I have stated since his election and swearing in, any efforts by the Prime Minister and his government to boost India’s growth and development will receive our constructive support.

But we are equally determined to do our duty as a responsible opposition if we see any suggestions of divisive and sectarian intent – including promoting the Hindutva cause, which we believe will destroy the “idea of India” as a pluralist democracy. In other words, any attempts to create a Hindu Pakistan, even if by junior members of his team or by his fellow-travellers, will be robustly opposed. We are determined to protect the idea of India, which the Congress party has always staunchly stood for over the years.

Q. In most democracies the convention is that if the party loses badly, the leader resigns, and the party chooses a new leader. Why did the Congress not accept the resignation of its leaders?

A. There seems to be too much premium placed on the idea of resignation in our discourse, which I frankly think is misguided and unwise. Every party goes through ups and downs, and the answer to this is not to have the entire leadership pack their bags and leave. You will remember that even the BJP lost the 2004 elections, while Mrs Gandhi led Congress to victory, but there was no question of asking BJP stalwarts like Advani-ji to resign.

Earlier, the Congress lost the elections of 1998 and 1999 under Mrs Sonia Gandhi, but her leadership took us to the victories of 2004 and 2009, which would not have been possible had we called for her resignation! We have complete faith in the leadership of our party and, together with younger supporters and fresh innovation, intend to restructure and rejuvenate our organization, from grassroots to the top. We have done this before, and we are perfectly capable of doing so again, and by the time of the next elections we will once again be a force to reckon with electorally.

Q. Do you believe that the Congress can’t perform and exist without a Gandhi leading it?

A. I have often said that India is like a thali of diverse cultures, groups, interests, identities and ideologies. The Congress party, because of its history and heritage, is in many ways a reflection of the same principle. It accommodates so many views and such vast varieties of supporters and members, from die-hard Marxists to free-market enthusiasts, for instance, that leadership would instinctively be difficult to give to any one of these many groups within the party.

We are all united by a common commitment to secularism and inclusive growth, where perhaps the BJP has Hindutva and more industrial development as its unifying principles.The Gandhi family, through its own legacy and history, and, I must add, proven track record of leadership, has successfully preserved this commitment to its founding ethos, alongside all the internal diversity of the party. Our worst defeats were when the family took a backseat from politics, and our resounding victories in recent years were under the leadership of Mrs Sonia Gandhi. We continue to repose our faith in that leadership.

Q. Do you see the Congress moving further left economically to distinguish itself from the BJP? Would that not be counterproductive considering that voters have rejected your socialist policies?

A.   As I said before, the voters have not rejected our policies. In fact it is our policies that have enabled most of them to come out of a more basic existence into a position where they are better informed and more empowered to demand new and different things from their government. Our emphasis on socially inclusive growth is not simple “leftism”; we support growth and have led the liberalization that made growth possible, but we wish to see the benefits of that growth reaching the weakest and poorest sections of our society.

That commitment might not be easy to “sell” in a world where one has to brand and aggressively market every idea; but what we are doing cannot be reduced to the limited constraints of electoral branding! However, in the long run, I am certain that we will be remembered for not abandoning vast sections of society to hanker after a notion of growth that only favours a select few, at the cost of everybody else, who remain where they were. India must shine, but it must shine for everybody. This is an enduring policy of the Congress party, which will stand the test of time and be vindicated in the eyes of history.

Q. In Kerala the BJP performed better than in the previous elections, are you worried over the saffron party making inroads in the state?

A. The BJP’s vote share has gone up only marginally in Kerala, except in their strongest bastion of Thiruvananthapuram, which happens to be my constituency! So yes, I have reason to be worried. But I believe in the fair-mindedness and instinctive secularism of the Kerala voter. I believe the next test will come in the State Assembly elections of 2016, when I hope the Congress will reassert itself and ensure the BJP continues to fail to open its account in our state.

Q. The Aam Aadmi Party is eating up Congress votes in several states; Congress has been reduced to being the third force in Delhi and faced similar fate in Punjab. Your take on the AAP.

A. I believe the AAP’s problem was that it never graduated from being an effective protest movement to a credible party of governance. People who were disillusioned with the state of affairs and wanted a change voted for AAP, but while AAP could explain what they were against, they could never convincingly explain what they were for. Given the chance to rule in Delhi, they frittered away the opportunity in continued protests rather than in leveraging governmental power for the benefit of their voters. I think they will fare much worse the next time round, as voters return to parties that seek power because they know how to use it for the benefit of the people.

Q. You are one of the most tech-savvy members of the party, do you feel that Congress lost the cyber and tech war to team Modi, which ultimately influenced a large section of the youth and first time voters?

A. That is probably true, and I believe the Congress, which woke up to this need a bit late, will now make up for lost time.

Q. How do you think India’s relations with the world will move with other countries under PM Modi, particularly those who have been hostile to him after the Gujarat riots?

A. Mr Modi’s gesture in reaching out to India’s neighbours (and Mauritius) to attend his swearing-in will resonate well internationally. If he continues to reach out to those countries which, for good reasons, had misgivings about him after the horrors in Gujarat in 2002, he could well reassure them that the Modi they feared is not the Modi who now rules in New Delhi.

Q. Mr Modi spoke at length during his election rallies against China and Pakistan, do you think he will act the way he spoke? Will it be possible for Mr. Modi as the Prime Minister?

A. Mr Modi has proved us wrong by extending an invitation to Pakistan for his swearing-in ceremony. The gesture instantly disarmed many across the borders who had been alarmed by his combative rhetoric during the campaign, in which he had promised robust action on the borders, assailed Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism and warned some 30 million Bangladeshi illegal immigrants in India that they should be prepared to pack their bags on the day of his victory.
His cordial welcome to, and subsequent bilateral meetings with, the leaders of these and other neighbouring countries, followed by an invitation to the Prime Minister of China to visit, must have reassured them that the Modi government would not feel obliged to live up to the belligerence of the Modi campaign.


Ultimately, we must remember that India has a certain standing in the world. Mr Modi is the custodian of that standing. If he lives up to the responsibilities that implies, there should be no cause for undue concern internationally.

- This story was first published in www.thepoliticalindian.com on June 4, 2014

Vendetta? Meira Kumar sacks Lok Sabha TV CEO just before stepping down as Speaker

May 31, 2014

New Delhi: In a controversial decision taken on Friday, 30 May, outgoing Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar “limited” the tenure of the Chief Executive Officer of Lok Sabha Television (LSTV) Rajiv Mishra till 31 May.  The Lok Sabha Secretariat issued a three-line notification to this effect on Friday. Mr Mishra has been left fuming and is considering ways in which he can challenge the decision.

“I have been told that Meira Kumar is upset with me as LSTV also flashed the news of her loss in the parliamentary elections from Sasaram,” he said. “This is ridiculous! I was praised by one and all for turning the channel into a profit venture and look what I have got?”

“I came to know of the decision late last night,” said Mr Mishra talking to the Political Indian. “This decision is totally wrong, unethical and immoral on her part. She is just a caretaker and the pro-tem Speaker will take charge on 4 June. She has just 48-hours in the office, and that too just as a caretaker. The 15th Lok Sabha, of which she was a member, has been dissolved and then she takes such a decision.”

Mr Mishra, who has worked with some of the leading media houses of India like Hindustan Times, Star TV and Zee TV, was selected by a six member expert committee headed by Javed Akhtar in late 2011. In total, 40 people had applied for the coveted post.

“I was selected by an expert panel after an 11-month long process and now being removed and not being given a notice period of even 11-hours,” said Mr Mishra. Lok Sabha TV posted profits after five years of inception in 2012; Mr Mishra is credited as being the man behind the turnaround of the channel from a loss making to a profitable venture.

The Speaker’s office

The Officer on Special Duty to the Speaker, KP Balyan, told us over phone that Rajiv Mishra’s term was slated to end on 31 May 2014 anyways. When PI told him that his extension letter did not mention any last date, he insisted that it was his last day in office.

The statement of the Speaker’s office and the notification issued on 30 May contradict each other. While the notification clearly says that Mr. Mishra’s tenure was being limited, the statement says that 31 May was his last day in office originally. In Mr Mishra’s extension letter there is no mention of a last date.

The expert view

Experts say that though the constitution doesn’t bar the outgoing Speaker from taking this decision, proprietary demands she should not take such decisions after the House is dissolved.

“There is no hurdle constitutionally in her taking any such decision, but normally such decisions are not taken,” said PDT Achary, former Lok Sabha secretary general. “It’s improper and wrong, though technically it’s not illegal.”

Mr Achary, who served in the Lok Sabha secretariat for 40 years, said that he has not seen any outgoing Speaker take such a decision during this period.

“Administrative decisions of such magnitude are taken only when there is something urgent and indispensable, there was nothing of that sort in this case,” he said. “The new Speaker would have taken a call.”

- This story was first published in www.thepoliticalindian.com on May 31, 2014