More a legal than a political tussle?

A  protracted legal battle of sorts  especially over the issue of the  discretionary powers enjoyed by the Governor  appears to be in the offing.

This by far, has been the most important  fall out of the  present spat between the Governor and the Chief Minister of Karnataka, which has resulted in the Governor sanctioning prosecution of the Chief Minister.

Of  secondary importance would be  the  its impact on changing of political equations in Karnataka  in general and  the propriety of the Chief  Minister continuing in office as a consequence in particular.  From all indications available, Mr. Yeddyurappa, is unlikely to oblige and prefer going down fighting rather than to thrown in the towel in the middle. As a matter of fact, he finds himself in an advantageous position, much to the chagrin of those who have planned and executed this move. About this later on.

The discretion enjoyed by the Governor is a grey area, which still needs to be fine tuned through judicial interpretation like the manner in which the   article 356 of the Constitution has been done by the apex court  in Bomma’is case.

The  Governor , under the present frame of things  enjoys two kinds of discretionary powers, namely the one given by the Constitution under Art.  163 and the others given under the relevant statutes including the  section 197 of the Cr.P.C (for sanctioning of the prosecution). While the first one has been clearly defined , the second one  leaves some areas of doubts,  on the question whether the discretionary power enjoyed by the Governor is individual or  bound by the advice  of the council of ministers.

There have been three important rulings of Supreme Court in this connection, namely,   a 1974 judgment  in the case of dismissal of two judicial officers of the Punjab government, a 1982 case of SLP filed in the connection of the case of prosecution of Mr. Antulay  the Maharashtra Chief Minister and a 2004 case of  prosecution of the  two ministers of Madhya Pradesh government.

What stands out in the three judicial pronouncements are  is that the  Governor has to necessarily action the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The question of the Governor exercising individual discretion comes in  rarest of the rare cases  and in cases involving the choice of the chief minister, dismissal of  a government, which refuses to resign after losing majority  and the dissolution of the house.

Mr. Justice Bhagavati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer who were the members of the seven member bench had something more to add while concurring with others judges: “President like the King has not merely been constitutionally romanticized but actually has been given pervasive and persuasive role. While he plays such a role, he is not a rival centre of power in any sense and must abide by and act on the advice tendered by his ministers except in narrow territory, which is sometimes slippery…… should avoid getting involved in politics… ”.

In the case of the former Maharashtra Chief Minister  Mr. Antulay  a two member bench of the Supreme Court  led by Mr Justice Chinnappa Reddy  noted that the discretionary powers exercised by the Governor (in sanctioning prosecution of the Chief Minister) arose out of the concession made at the High Court by the Attorney General, who had appeared for the respondents. “The Governor while determining whether sanction should be granted or not , as a matter of propriety necessarily acted on his own discretion and not on the advice of the Council of Ministers” and expressed its satisfaction that concession given by the Attorney General was to advance the cause of justice.” But made it amply clear that this applied to this particular case only.

There is 2004 judgment of the Supreme Court  upheld the sanction given for prosecuting two ministers of   Madhya Pradesh  Governor,  in view of the bias inherent or manifest in the cabinet decision.

 It is  the 2004  judgment  of  the Supreme Court on which the Karnataka Governor has relied  while giving permission to prosecute the Karnataka Chief Minister.

But there is an essential difference between the  Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka situations. In Madhya Pradesh, the matter went to the Governor, after the cabinet had rejected the permission. And the Governor had the benefit of the Lokayukta report on the charges made against the two ministers to act on.

But in Karnataka,,the petition seeking the sanction has goes straight to the Governor. And the Governor conceded to the request,  when the matter was  pending investigation with the Lokayukta or the judicial commission especially appointed for the purpose.

Karnataka episode has thrown up another new problem – of what  validity   the discretion  exercised should carry, when  Governor’s action is biased/ prejudiced/ or one sided? The  BJP has a long list   proving charge of bias and its spokesmen including the Chief Minister have been harping on this aspect. This may be put up for judicial scrutiny.

 As for the second question, its impact on political equations in Karnataka is concerned, the answer is simple. Nothing worthwhile is expected to happen. No doubt Mr. Yeddyurappa and the BJP are terribly embarrassed. But Mr. Yeddyurappa is a person who would not easily give up the office and so has been the party.

As a matter of fact, the problems faced by the BJP are its own creation. It has needlessly provoked the Governor. The BJP, which should have been careful in its dealings the moment  the Congress  loyalist like Mr. Bharadwaj, who is known to have no scruples to serve the party interests in whatever capacity  he was holding, was sent as the Governor.  But it did not so and has now been paying the price for indiscretion and lack of sophistication in dealing with Governor.  The relations between the Governor and the government have never been on even keel at any time so far and both have stoked the fire of mutual animosity and acrimony and find themselves caught in a cleft stick when the Governor in the name of exercising caution has cornered them.

 Going by the names figuring the in complaint on the basis of which the sanction to prosecute Mr. Yeddyurappa has been passed by the Governor, it is clear that it is the family members rather than the party functionaries or dissidents, who have landed him in trouble. This was the point, which Mr. Arun Jaitley, the BJP leader in charge of  Karnataka, had reportedly  made to upbraid   Mr. Raghavendra, the son, of Mr. Yeddyurappa at the height of its last crisis to save the Chief Minister’s chair. The remarks by Mr. Nitin Gadkari  the BJP President now in China  that the actions of Mr. Yeddyurappa “may be immoral and not illegal” have only added spice to the same.

But with all this, the BJP finds itself in a politically advantageous position. This is because the denouement smacks of  political bias. The allegations hurled at the Chief Minsiter repeatedly by the opposition JDS and kowtowed by the Congress, are the once on which the Governor has acted upon unilaterally, with giving a hearing to the concerned.

Nothing  under the circumstances prevents Mr. Yeddyurappa from launching a political campaign, to say that it has all been a planned conspiracy to unseat him. He may stomp round Karnataka telling the  sob story of his continued persecution by his detractors, who were envious of his success and want to undo the mandate given by the people, in the same manner  he had done it when Mr. Kumaraswamy refused to hand over the reins as had been agreed upon.

This has a bright chance of success for two things. Firstly, the corruption has ceased to be an issue influencing the poll, barring the solitary exception of Rajiv Gandhi losing the poll in the wake of campaign for the Bofors payoff. . Secondly the BJPs image remains highly in the eyes of the people, as has been proved in all the elections for the different fora held ever since BJP came to power in Karnataka more than two years ago. The latest in the series has been its success in the panchayat elections. The performance of the BJP, which was practically a non starter in the realm of panchayats, has been much much better than its rivals, who are left far behind, despite a vigorous political campaign.

Moreover in general parlance, the sanction by the Governor to launch the prosecution, hardly means anything.  It merely presages the starting point of a legal battle and has so many phases to be covered, for which the party is getting ready. The first step has been taken with a complaint already filed before the Lokayukta court.

Mr. Yeddyurappa is not obliged to resign merely because the Governor has sanctioned his prosecution. He is the company of his peers like Mr. Advani, who continued in office despite a charge sheet filed in an Uttar Pradesh court in connection with the demolition of Babri Masjid. Mr. Yedduyrappa may have long legal fight on hand to clear himself of the charges made but none of this warrants his resignation.

Knowing his nature he is not the one to give up the office that easily. He may refuse to resign and may dare the Governor to dismiss him if it comes to that. This would surely enable him to take his fight to the people. In this he apparently has the full backing of the party at the national level. BJP has made an  opening gambit of taking issue to the people by calling for bundh. Efforts are underway to mount pressure for the withdrawal, of the Governor, which are doomed to fail  going by the manner in which the Congress is backing the Governor. And what happens to the common man in the process is anybody’s guess.

Eom  23.01.11

Collapse of Liberal Democracy

HUBLI, Jan 19, 2011

            The  post globalization era in the country has witnessed the collapse of liberal democracy and typical has been the  case of Karnataka, which is under the BJP  rule for the past more than two years.

An assertion to this effect has been made in a paper presented at the 34^th Indian Social Science Congress held at Guawahati in the last week of December, by Prof. K S Sharma , Senior Vice President of the Indian Academy of Social Science Congress.

The theme of the  social science congress was  “India –post 1991” and Prof.  Sharma   presented a case study  of Karnataka to  highlight  the adverse impact that the globalization on the political system in the country.

 The  three  political parties in Karnataka  namely the ruling BJP, the opposition  Congress and the JDS  have contributed to the emerging scenario by their acts of sins of omission and commission, though major share of the blame has  to be shouldered  by the BJP. And the role  of the constitutional authority like the Governor has not been above reproach, says Dr.Sharma.

Dr Sharma has catalogued a long list of the happenings in Karnataka, to buttress his point. It includes :

·        Bad beginning: The  open dissidence by a senior leader miffed over his noninclusion in the cabint; and one farmer getting killed a police firing even a  selfprofessed  profarmer government assumed office:

·        Open  rebellion by the Reddy brothers  bordering on jolting the government,

·        Means more foul than fare used by the BJP  to gain majority in the 224 member assembly and the phenomenon of the opposition legislators resigning from their seats, being rewarded with posts of ministers even before they could get themselves elected on the BJP ticket., which has now become a national phenomenon.

·        Continued  rub with Governor, ever since he refused to address the joint session called by the new government, unless the Chief Minsiter proves his majority and on myriad other subjects, on which there have been clashes, with the Governor openly expressing his dissatisfaction over the performanance of the government, while government launches campaign for his removal.

·        A government cast in caste mould, contrary to what   Lord Balfour had said of a bureaucracy having rigid neutrality and rigorous impartiality and not withstanding what late Ramakrishna Hegde had told his colleagues not to choose any one from the caste to occupy position of office under them.

·        Governor’s  patently unconstitutional action  giving direction to the Speaker  on how to conduct the proceedings of the vote of confidence in the assembly, after a set of eleven BJP legislators give a letter withdrawing their confidence in the leadership of Yeddyurappa. This is despite the known and proved constitutional position of the Speaker writ being supreme in the conduct of the proceedings of the house.  Governor directs the Speaker to conduct proceedings based on the statuquoante position as for as participation of the dissident legislators in the proceedings are concerned. And his recommendation for the imposition of the Presidents rule being turned down by the Central Government.

·        Suicide by the farmers and communal flare-ups attacks on churches, moral poling by the fundamental groups and the related matters. And attempts to talibanise, by advising Hindus not to mix with Muslims and avoid pubbing, partying and dancing in dark.

·        Long list of continued onslaughts on the statutory and constitutional institutions like the Lokayukta,; State Human Rights Commission, the Backward Classes Commission, the Child Rights Commission, the ending of the terms of the Somasekhar Commission on the disturbances in Mangalore, even as the latter was preparing to give a final report, with the interim report not going in favour of the government. ,

·         The running battle with LOkayukta has assumed legendary dimensions, starting with the government sitting on report on the illegal mining activities  involving the Reddy brothers, the latest move being appointing a separate judicial commission, even as the Lokayukta had been asked to probe into charges of nepotism, favouritisim  and corruption

·        The opposition in Karnataka comprising of the Congress and JDS, being more interested in unseating the government rather than playing the role of a constructive opposition.

Dr Sharma has noted in the final analysis that the globalization has led to more number of land scams, nepotism and favouritism in the allotment sites and corrupt practices, to the extent of Karnataka acquiring a dubious distraction of being the No. 1 corrupt state in the country.

But the  paradoxical part has been that the reputation this government has acquired in myriad matters has had no impact on the elections to the various bodies held during the period,  to the assembly,  the Legislative Council, the parliament, the  Brihat Bangalore Maha Nagar palike, the latest being the elections for the zilla  and taluk panchayats.

            As a consequence, democracy has been equated with electoral politics and the liberal democracy has been a casualty, even as the states standing in the Human Development Index in the country puts it at 25^th place. Fascism is raising its ugly head. And there is no real democracy in the state. ” This model of democracy can be witnessed on a larger scale in the whole country.”

The question Dr Sharma raises is what next?  The theory of the “end of history” as propounded by the capitalists and imperialists has come to an end. The socialist model appears to be the only model available. Bu it is imperative that faults and blunders committed in Soviet Union, China and Latin American countries be remedied, before they are applied to Indian conditions.

India today says Dr Sharma needs a  cultural revolution, without which a real socialistic secular democratic India cannot emerge. The legacy of feudal remnants, colonial past, and myth of liberal democracy needs to be eradicated before the new order could be ushered in.

Eom  19.01.11

A decision, which has left everybody satisfied?

HUBLI, 13^TH Jan 2011.

Going by the reactions to its verdict on sharing of the river waters, IInd Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal appears to have achieved something, which the predecessor bodies were unable to resolve satisfactorily ever since the Inter State Water Disputes Act 1956 came into force.

The reaction in the three riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh ranges between happy and cool and cautious. Maharashtra and Karnataka, the upper and middle riparian states aver overtly happy and relived too. Their fears of losing the share of water allocated by the First KWDT forty years ago have been belied and to boot they have got additional share in the distribution of the surplus water made by the IInd Tribunal. In the case of Andhra Pradesh, the reaction has been cool and cautious. Nobody has ventured to say anything and all of them are biding their time.

May be the three states embroiled as they are in their own internal problems of sorts, have hardly any time to spare to ponder over the implications of the final allocation made by the IInd Tribunal. The lone voice of dissent heard from Karnataka comes from the former Irrigation Minister Mr. H K Patil of Congress, who says that injustice has been done to Karnataka in the final allocation. Mr. Devegowda, the former Prime Minister is maintaining discreet silence on the alibi that he is yet to study the judgment. The Andhra Pradesh is toeing a cautious line, notwithstanding the fact that many of averments made by it have not been favoured by the Tribunal. Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy's is the lone voice of protest heard from Andhra Pradesh that too belatedly.

But Andhra Pradesh has a built in advantage. Its position as the lower riparian states provides an access for the use of the unutilized share of water by the upper and middle riparian states flowing down the river. It has been doing so all along and will do so in future too, the laxity in the utilization of water being proverbial in the two states of Maharashtra and Karnataka. It is because of this that AP had gone ahead making huge investment in creating permanent infrastructure for use of the surplus water, notwithstanding the fact that the first Tribunal had allowed it to use water but had forbidden it from going for creation of permanent infrastructure.

Krishna River has been the second largest river in the peninsular India and flows through the three main states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and the dispute over the sharing of water can be traced to days well before reorganization of states.

.

The first KWDT headed by Mr. Justice Bachawat went into the dispute and came out with its verdict in the early seventies. While apportioning the share from the agreed quantum of water of 2060 tmcft reckoned at 75 % (good rains in three out of four years), the Tribunal adopted the principle of protecting the utilisation in the basin states. Of the 2060 tmcft of water, 1693.30 tmcft came under protected category, with Andhra Pradesh getting the advantage accounting for 755 tmcft.

Of the 366.64 tmcft, which remained to be distributed, the Karnataka got more than half – 190.45 tmcft while Maharashtra got 125.45 tmcft. Andhra Pradesh got an allocation of 45 tmcft. As a result, the allocation for the three states was determined as follows: Maharashtra 565 tmcft, Karnataka, 695 tmcft and Andhra Pradesh 800 tmcft. And with the states getting the advantage of the reverse flow of 70 tmcft, the total quantum of water allocated went up to 2130 tmcft and that of share of the respective states as follows: Maharashtra: 585 tmcft; Karnataka: 734 tmcft, and Andhra Pradesh: 811 tmcft.. This was notified for implementation through gazette, with the Bachawat Tribunal saying that it would be reviewed after May 2000. .

Since the full yield of water was yet to be assessed, the Bachawat Tribunal prepared what is called as B scheme, where it proposed that anything in excess of what has been allocated could be shared equally by the three states, though Karnataka has all along claimed that it was entitled for 50% of the surplus. The Bachwat Tribunal suggested that the three states through an agreement could set up Krishna Development Authority to manage the show. But the B scheme remained as a nonstarter, with Andhra Pradesh vetoing the same.

While picking up the thread from where the Bachwat Tribunal, had left, the IInd Tribunal made some significant changes in the approach. Though the Bachawat Tribunal had not spoken on the protection of the allocation and had merely said that “any review of revision, shall not as for as possible disturb any utilisation that may have been undertaken by any state within the allocation”. IInd Tribunal chose not to make the allocation and not utilisation as the basis and hence did not interfere in the allocation made out of the 2130 tmcft made by Bachawat Tribunal on the 75% dependability

The second Tribunal determined the total yield of the river at 65% (good rains in six half years in a ten year span) at 2293 tmcft at 65%. With the earlier allocation made to the tune of 2130 tmcft made by the first tribunal already protected, what remained to be distributed was only 163 tmcft . This is distributed as follows: Maharashtra 43, Karnataka, 65 tmcft and Andhra Pradesh 39 tmcft. This takes the total of the firm allocations available for the three states as follows (all in tmcft): Maharashtra : 628; Karnataka 799: and Andhra Pradesh: 850.

However in an average year of rains the Tribunal expects surplus flow of water in the river in the form of average yield determined at 2578 tmcft and 2293 tmcft of water already allocated. This brings into states kitty, an additional quantum of 285 tmcft, .which again is distributed among the three states: Maharashtra 35 tmcft, Karnataka 105 tmcft and Andhra Pradesh 145 tmcft, taking gross allocation of water for the three states to Maharashtra.: 666 tmcft and Andhra Pradesh: 1011 tmcft. The IInd Tribunal has made it clear that the surplus flow quota of water is available only in a normal year and not otherwise.

Besides there are two specific gains for Karnataka in the tribunals verdict. One has been that it long standing demand for the abolition of the Tungabhadra Board, an interstate board jointly of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka to manage the regulation of water for the right bank canal areas, which carries water to Andhra Pradesh This would become operative once the Krishna Decision Implementation Board suggested by the Tribunal is constituted by the Central Government. Second gain has been green signal given by the Tribunal for the raising the height of the Alamatti dam, the main dam across Krishna river in Karnataka, which had been pegged at 519 meters to 524 tmcft, as had been originally planned by Karnataka. This would enable Karnataka to store the surplus water available. And the minor gains include the green signal given for Singatalur and Upper Bhadra, which were in doldrum.

Getting higher allocation of water is one thing and utilising the same within the specific time frame is another. The weakness of the upper and middle riparian states in the utilisation is too well known. This would certainly a gain for Andhra Pradesh, which has proved its capacity to utilise the allocation and plan for the use of surplus water already.

Eom 13.01.2011

Panchayat Poll- more loss than gains

Politics does not always pay. This perhaps has been the bitter lesson that the political parties have learnt in the just concluded panchayat elections. They have lost more and there is hardly any gain for anybody.

All the three political parties, the ruling BJP and the opposition parties, the Congress and the JDS had equal share in the undue political hype raised over the polls. . Though the elections to the second and third tiers of the three tier panchayat system, have hardly any bearing on the continuance or otherwise of the party government in power, it was portrayed as if the panchayat poll would be the decider.

It was the Congress and the JDS which set the ball rolling. Both launched a vitriolic campaign braying for the blood of scam tainted Yeddyurappa government. The voters the leaders of the two parties maintained would “surely teach” a lesson to the BJP government.

On the other hand, Mr. Yeddyurappa once again exhibited his propensity for breast beating and ordained that the voters would give a fitting reply to his carping critics and staked the performanance of his more than two year old government for seeking a renewed mandate from the rural voters.

The campaign was shrill to the core. The Congress, which got a new state president, a couple of months, roped in the high fly national leader Gulam Nabi Azad. The two members, father and son team of the JDS’ “national” leadership Messrs Devegowda the former Prime Minister and Mr. Kumaraswarmy bore the brunt of the no holds barred political campaign. And for the BJP, the Chief Minister Mr. Yeddyurappa stomped the districts in a bid to woo the voters. There was nothing unusual in the blandishments offered to the voters, since it has become an integral part of the present day election campaign.

What ultimately happened came as anticlimax to the hype raised. There was no improvement at all. Each of them had their own share of setbacks. The expectations of the political parties that the voters would either “teach a lesson” or give “suitable reply” had been totally belied. The political parties today are happier over the discomfiture of the others than worry about their own share of humiliation.

What happened was that rural voters ignored both and went in their own non- chalet way in expressing their opinion. This was something to what they had done in 2008 election. They preferred BJP but held back their hand to deny the half way mark both in terms of the control of the zilla and taluk panchayats and also in number of seats won and kept the two others far behind.

Of the 30 zilla panchayats, the BJP gained control of 12, four each went to Congress and handed down fractured verdict in the remaining ten. In the 178 taluk panchayats also, the practically the same trend emerged. Of the 176 taluk panchayats, BJP gained could gain control of 68, Congress 31, the BJP 29, and instability stares at 48 remaining taluk panchayats.

BJP as the party in power was expected to put up a good show to control over the majority of the zilla and taluk panchayats, going by the track record of elections held previously. This did not happen. It was four short of the halfway mark in the zilla panchayats and twenty short of the half way mark in the taluk panchayats. Its only consolation has been that as against one ZP it had controlled in 2005, it had captured twelve now. In terms of seats, as against 145 it had bagged last time, its tally has gone up to 441 in the zilla panchayats.

What ever the brave face its leaders may put, the fact that the party had to huff and puff in the Chief Ministers. home district of Shimoga and the Reddy brothers’ bastion of Bellary cannot be hidden at all. It had also to live with the humiliation of not being able to open the account in two districts of Mandya and Ramnagar.

As for as Congress is concerned, the elections have shown that the party has been slowly losing its hold in the rural areas. While the BJP has been foraying into the Congress pockets of Northern Karnataka, the JDS has been doing the same in the Old Mysore areas. The number of Congress controlled zilla panchayats has come down from 22 to 4 and the number of seats has come down from 493 to 353. The party has to live with the mortification that in the home district of the state president, it has been drubbed very badly.

While JDS is happy that it is on par with the national party like Congress in the number of zilla panchayats won, the fact cannot be hidden that its influence remain confined too few pockets of the vokkaliga dominated Old Mysore districts including the home district of Hassan of Mr. Devegowda. Compared to 2005, the party has suffered erosion of seats, which has come down from 273 to 180. The party has not been able to win a single seat in eight districts.

If only the electoral strategy were to be evolved with little imagination, with the political parties, addressing themselves to the core issues bothering the minds of the rural voters, than go all out for political aggrandizement at the expense of the voters, addressing themselves to core issues bothering the minds of the rural people instead of haranguing them bout their own plans of seeking political aggrandizement through panchayat poll, they could have shaped better in catching the imagination of the rural voters.

The parties went about their political campaign forgetting the fact that the smaller the constitutuencies, the lesser has been the impact of the politics and what matters in these small territorial constituencies, is the personal standing and interplay of castes.

As a matter of fact none of the parties, referred to empowerment of the panchayat raj institutions and how they would improve the delivery system in reaching the benefits of the people or strengthening the financial base of these institutions, which are reeling under the impact of a centralized administrative system as yet in the name of decentralisation.

Eom 1903 hrs. 05.0111

Decentralisation and urban local bodies

Decentralisation and urban local bodies

It is nearly two decades ever since constitutional safeguards were provided to the urban and rural local bodies, in a bid to decentralise the administration for effectively reaching the fruits of development to the people at the grass root level. albeit with their active participation. The principle was that the local people should be involved in the decision making process designed to meet their felt needs rather than somebody sitting far away doing the same.

But it has turned out to be a mirage. While one could see some progress in activating the panchayat system to meet the rural needs, it has practically been a non starter as for the urban local bodies are concerned. With the trend in the urbanization increasing the prognosis is not something which is palatable.

The irony is that the constitution is amended to provide safeguards to these local bodies, enabling legislations have also been made in some cases. But the problem, which has proved too insurmountable at the moment, has been the typical mindset on the part of administrators, political or bureaucratic who are singularly averse to the concept of sharing power, a legacy which the country has inherited from the colonial days.

Another tragedy has been that while there has been discussion in the past at one stage or other about improving the delivery system in the rural areas, such debate has been practically absent as for as the urban areas is concerned. And the urbanites remain totally insulated from whatever is happening in their domain and have hardly raised their voice to get their due guaranteed by the Constitution through the famous 74^th Constitutional amendment act – C A A.

The part lXA of the Constitution dealing with Municipalities (from Article 243P to Article 243ZG , including the Twelfth Schedule) lays down clearly as to what should be done to bring about the decentralisation and the functions and responsibilities entrusted to the urban bodies under the new dispensation planned.

It provides among other things for a two tier system of the municipal council and the ward committees for the municipality having a population of more than three lakhs (Art243S), (while a three tier system has been envisaged for the panchayats): the constitution of District Planning Committee for consolidation of the plans prepared by the panchayats and the municipalities in a district for preparing a draft development plan for the district as a whole and a separate planning committee for the metropolitan areas (Art.243ZE).

As for the functions are concerned, the Constitution requires the state legislatures are required to enact enabling legislations, to endow municipalities with such powers ad authority require4d to enable them to function as the institution of self government and responsibilities for the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and performance of functions and the implementation of the schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matter listed out in the twelfth schedule (Art.243W). A Finance Commission is to be constituted for distribution of net proceeds of taxes and others leviable by the state and to deal with allied matters (Art. 243Y).

But all these provisions have either remained in the statute books or if implemented they have remained on paper, making a no worthwhile addition to improve the ground level situation in the municipalities.

In Karnataka, the two tier system of the urban local bodies has not come into existence at all. Most of the municipalities continue to persist with a single tier system. No ward committees with elected members have been constituted at all. . The provision pertaining to the nomination of persons having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration (Art.243R(2)(ii) ) has been grossly abused as an instrument for distributing political patronage than as an instrument designed to finetune the working of the municipal bodies.

What is more galling is the manner in which the State Government has turned all the municipal bodies into subservient bodies as for the finances are concerned. Ever since the Devaraj Urs government bamboozled the municipal bodies to agree to the abolition of the octroi during the emergency, all the municipalities in Karnataka have become totally dependent on the state government for the doles. The alternative arrangement planned by the state government for the abolition of octroi has not proved to be a viable arrangement at all. When the governments finances are in the doldrums, how it be expected to help the municipalities to come out of the red. At the moment, property tax has been the only independent source of income, which is not adequate even to meet the salary bill.

Had the octroi been allowed to continue, it would have made the municipalities financially independent by the manner in which the volume of commercial activities has galloped over the decades and would have enabled them to plan for the development on their own without waiting for the doles from the government. Even now it is not too late to retrace the step. Unless the financial stability is assured, no municipality will be able to meet the aspirations of the people living in its area.

The twelfth schedule of the Constitution, which lists out the subjects, which come under the purview of the municipalities. Under this, urban planning including the town planning should come under the purview of the municipalities. But no move has been made to entrust the urban local bodies with this function. The State government for reasons known to it has allowed the separate entities like the urban development authorities constituted for various municipalities to exist and continue to perform the function, which should have been done by the municipalities. Besides, most of the Urban Development Authorities barring the BDA have no legal local standi, since they are the creation of executive orders of the government. And the money raked by these bodies, remains out of the reach of the municipalities. This arrangement has been persisted only as an avenue for handing out political patronage.

The constitution of the State Finance Commission to improve the finances of the urban bodies has hardly made the impact mainly because of the lackadaisical approach of the state governments. Two State Finance Commissions have given reports already and the report given by the third Commission has been pending with the state government for more than year. The State Government busy as it is in surviving from one crisis to another has been sleeping over the report. On the eve of the panchayat elections, which are just concluded, the state government woke up to say that it would take action on it and has not said anything on why it remained silent all these days.

The provision regarding the constitution of the DPCs for the districts and MPC for the metropolitan proposal also remain on paper, while the government officially claims that it has been implemented. (The claim was made even when Mr. M Y Ghorpade was the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayat Raj). During the days of the Janata Dal government, when Mr. M P Prakash was the Minister for Rural Development, elections were held for choosing the members from the various municipal and rural bodies to the DPCs and then the matter was dropped all of a sudden. These bodies have not been constituted at all.

In nutshell one can say that the responsibility of not developing the municipalities as real local self government institutions, as the Constitution had laid down squarely rests on the state government. For its own reasons, the state government has turned them into vassals and has come in the way of their being developed as vibrant local self institutions.

Unfortunately, the municipal bodies are not conscious of what is being denied to them deliberately by the government. The main reason for the lack of interest or awareness has been the policy of the government in keeping the tenure of municipal chief as one year. Busy as they are in attending the reception on their assumption of office and participating in the farewell functions while demitting office, none of the municipal chiefs have any time to devote to ponder over what they are missing in the process. The proposal to either give a full five year term to the Mayor , by going for direct election and creating a Mayor-in-Council arrangement, which would give primacy to the elected body over the executive has fallen on deaf ears.

If the constitutionally elected government is a party to the gross transgression of the constitutional provisions, where should the appeal lie? This has been the tragedy, which we are witnessing in Karnataka today.

-0-A 4.01.11

Krishna Tribunal report exrayed

HUBLI, 1^st January 2011

When the politicians as a tribe had failed the state, a quasi judicial body like the River Water Disputes Tribunal has come as a saviour in safeguarding the interest of Karnataka in the Krishna waters.

This in nutshell sums up the net impact of the verdict given by the IInd Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) headed by Mr. Justice Brajesh Kumar in Thursday.

A cumulative effect of the uniformly inept policies pursued by the successive governments of all political hues including the one which is in power had pushed Karnataka to the end of tether on the utilisation of waters of the Krishna River.

Everything appeared to be lost. It had failed to utilise the water allocated by the first KWDT even ten years after the expiry of the deadline fixed to the extent of onethird of the allocated share of 734 tmcft. If the new tribunal were to take the utilisation as the basis for the fresh allocation of water, Karnataka faced the prospects of losing around 250 tmcft and whatever extra that might accrue in the later allocation of the surplus water, would have utmost made up the loss suffered and Karnataka would not have got a drop of water extra as a result of which it would have been the end of the road for the state as for as the irrigation development is concerned.

If this were not to happen, there was Andhra Pradesh, which had laid its claims for the unutilized water. And in anticipation of the same, it had gone ahead with its plans to create permanent infrastructure created with a huge investment. Here was Andhra Pradesh which was quick to utilise its share of water and had taken initiative to plan for the use of the additional water. And in contrast was the case of Karnataka, which had miserably failed to utilise the allocation even today, The Andhras case that it need not be penalized for initiative would have been quite irresistible.

Karnataka’s plans to raise the raise the height of the biggest dam across Krishna in Karnataka at Alamatti had been stymied by the Supreme Court. It was self inflicted problem that Karnataka had invited, thanks to two of the Karnataka men in power, Mr. H D Devegowda, as the Prime Minister of the United Front Government. In 1996-97 and Mr. J H Patel, the Janata Dal turned Janata Dal (U) government of Karnataka during the period.

In their eagerness to humour Mr. Chandrababu Naidu the Telugu Desham Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, they had landed Karnataka in a soup. Mr. Naidu raised a hue and cry over the Karnataka’s move to raise the height of the Alamatti dam to 534 meters. Mr. Gowda, then the Prime Minister of the UF government, of which Telugu Desham was an important component, referred the matter to the steering committee of the UF, instead of allowing the government to handle the same. The steering committee constituted a four member panel, which in turn constituted an expert committee. The expert committee was given a red carpet treatment when it visited Karnataka. The plea made by Mr. H K Patil for boycotting the committee since its interest would be detrimental to the interest of Karnataka fell on deaf ears. That the height of the dam should be pegged at 519 meters, was the recommendation of the expert committee. With the fall of the Devegowda government, no followup action was taken. But it came in handy when Supreme Court was hearing the case. The apex court adopted the recommendation to bar Karnataka from raising the height of the dam beyond 519 meters.

If this ban on the height were to be continued by the IInd KWDT, it would have been end of the road of irrigation development in Northern Karnataka since the ban would come in the way of storing the surplus water of Krishna as and when allocated. Karnataka would have had no place to store water. But the IInd KWDT has mercifully cleared Karnataka’s case for raising the height of the dam to 524 tmcft, providing Karnataka with the scope for storing the surplus water.

The Krishna basin, spanning over more than thirteen districts and bulk of the drought prone areas in Northern Karnataka, is the biggest basin in Karnataka, much more than Cauvery. The basin area has the potentials to turn Karnataka into a food granary with the exploitation of the irrigation potentials of Krishna. But this has not happened as a sequel to the totally inept and slipshod handling of the issue by the successive state governments in Karnataka Nobody has been an exception to this, be it the Congress governments, the Janata Dal/Janata Dal U or the BJP/JDS coalition or the present BJP governments. Barring very few individual leaders in the government, like the former Chief Ministers, late Nijalingappa, Mr. Devegowda, and the former Ministers like late H M Channabasappa. Late H N Nanjegowda and H K Patil, all former Ministers, none who handled the portfolio had any semblance of understanding of the irrigation and of harnessing of the potentials of the river waters. As a consequence Karnataka had missed the bus completely and was condemned to suffer and pay a heavy price for the follies of the rulers.

It is in this context that verdict of the IInd KWDT has brought cheers on the face of the farmers in Karnataka. The Tribunal not only protected the allocation Karnataka had got despite its failure to utilise fully. It has not countenanced Andhra Pradesh’s claims for use of the unutilized waters and allocated more water to Karnataka from the surplus arising after the previous allocation. This has resulted in Karnataka getting an overall allocation of 911 tmcft. The aspirations of the Karnataka farmers get a new lease of life. .

Of all the people, it is the tribe of politicians of all hues, who are extremely happy over the decision on the final allocation of share of Krishna waters by the Second Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal headed by Mr. Justice Brajesh Kumar.

It is not because the Tribunal has protected the share allotted by the previous Tribunal/ or has allowed Karnataka to raise the height of the Alamatti dam, the main dam across Krishna in Karnataka to 524 meters .But the Tribunal has literally baled them out of a veritable predicament in the event of any adverse decision being handed down.

The people indeed are happy. But the happiness over the increased allocation made and the removal of the ban on the height of the dam are nothing more than notional. To use a Kannada adage it is something like the treasure visible in mirror. You can see but you can’t touch.

For the key factor is the expeditious utilisation of the allocated water. It is here that Karnataka has been faltering. It has poor track record of the execution of the projects. The politicians of Karnataka have shown that they lack vision and commitment and are not averse to politicize the development issues at the drop of the hat. After nearly four decades of the award being made by the Tribunal, the Karnataka has been able to impound around 500 tmcft. But not all the water available in the dam has been able to reach the farmers fields even to this day.

In this context, the task of utilising a total of 400 tmcft as a consequence of the judgment of the IInd Tribunal is a tall order by any standard. Very few doubt whether it will be able to utilise the water within the forty years deadline fixed by the Second Tribunal. There is definitely a many a slip between cup and lip

Eom 14.40 hrs. 01,01.11