The JPC report on the 2G scam selectively uses information to arrive at conclusions in favour of the UPA government, indict

the CAG for its "presumptive loss" estimates due to spectrum allocation, and blame the NDA for causing a loss to the exchequer. By SAGNIK DUTTA
THE draft report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), set up in March 2011 on the 2G spectrum allocation scam, has raised serious questions about the independence and autonomy of consultative bodies constituted to debate and discuss policy decisions of the government. The report has triggered a political storm, with half of the committees 30 members rejecting it and expressing a lack of confidence in its Chairman, P.C. Chacko. The dissenting members are of various political huesthe Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Janata Dal (United), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Biju Janata Dal and the Trinamool Congress. The opposition to the report comes at a time when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government is running out of ammunition to fight allegations of corruption in high places in the government. It is important to note in this context that most of the commentary and reportage on the JPC draft report talk about the observations and recommendations in Chapter 10, which summarises the key arguments of the report. While this section is indeed significant, it is equally important to look at how key observations, figures and statistics quoted in the earlier portions of the report have been cherry-picked to arrive at conclusions in the final section. A scrutiny of the 334-page report and the annexures to it, compiled in Volume 2, reveals several acts of omission and commission and bureaucratic manoeuvring to work out a face-saver for the UPA. Interestingly, the report, seen in its entirety, contradicts itself with regard to the central argument about revenue generation for the exchequervis-a-vis private players. The logic used to indict the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments key policies is turned on its head when the report accuses the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of sensationalism in its loss calculations with respect to spectrum allocation. The revenue implications of some significant aspects such as cross-licensing, mergers and acquisitions and intra-circle roaming, and the consequent loss to the exchequer, have not been analysed adequately. The clean chit given to the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, despite the fact that on-record documentation is available to show that they were aware of the key policy decisions taken by the then Union Minister for Telecommunications, A. Raja, has raised doubts about the reports objectivity and impartiality. One of the highlights of the JPC report that has caused a political stir is that a key policy decision taken by the A.B. Vajpayee-led NDA government in 1999 resulted in a revenue loss of Rs.42,080.34 crore. Section 10 of the report indicts the NDA government for allowing private telecom players to migrate from a fixed licence fee model to a revenue-sharing model. Section 10.12 states: The committee have, however, been informed that impact on licence fee and spectrum charges collection due to the migration package was to the tune of Rs.43,523.92 crore, which included the sum of revenue, that is, Rs.1,443.58 crore forgone on account of extension of effective date of licence by six months. The committee, are, therefore, inclined to conclude that the government also had to forego revenue to the tune of Rs.42,080.34 crore in the course of offering migration package vide NTP-1999 [National Telecom Policy].

It is interesting to note that this figure was cherry-picked in the final section without taking into account the detailed figures provided in Chpater 3 on the revenue earned by the government in the post-migration period. Section 3.44 of the report states: The committee also called for details of revenue generated during the post-migration phasevis-a-vis the revenue that had accrued had the licencees continued in the remaining period of old regime, i.e, the end of the 10year-period. The figures provided by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) indicate that there was a revenue increase of Rs.4,144.32 crore post-migration. A table in Chapter 3 provides a year-wise comparison between post-migration revenue and presumptive revenue, premigration, between 1999 and 2005. The chapter further states: The committee have been informed through written information by the Department of Telecommunications that all outstanding dues in terms of the migration package were recovered from the licencees, who were allowed to migrate to NTP-1999. It is significant that this important information was not factored in while calculating the revenue forgone by the exchequer during the NDA regime in the final sections of the report. BJP president Rajnath Singh called the report a political vendetta to drag the name of Vajpayee through the mud. The report points to the decision taken on January 31, 2002, for the allocation of additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz and up to 10 MHz to the existing cellular operators in the Mumbai and Delhi Metro Service Areas wherein only 1 per cent additional revenue share was charged from the companies. Section 10.22 says, Additional spectrum charge was deliberately undervalued to favour some telecom operators, thereby causing revenue loss to the exchequer. The report also criticises the extension of time provided to companies while processing the applications received for Basic Service Licences. Section 10.14 says, The committee feel that in the absence of modification of the guidelines pursuant to the decision taken to grant time for compliance with the Letter of Intent [LoI] there was scope for arbitrary exercise of power and favouritism. The report does not adequately address the issue of cross-over licence fees charged for dual spectrum from 2007 to 2008, which was based on 2001 prices. Cross-over licence fees were the fees payable by companies holding CDMA spectrum to get additional GSM spectrum in 2008. There were about 35 such dual technology operators who had applied for and received dual spectrum and were awarded the spectrum between 2007 and 2008 on the basis of spectrum prices prevailing in 2001. While coming down heavily on the NDAs revenue-loss-causing policies, the report does not adequately factor in the losses incurred as a result of the pricing of cross-over licences. Some of the observations made in the draft report point to this issue being raised by senior government officials and to the complicity of the then Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, in the process. Section 10.43 notes that the then Finance Secretary, D. Subbarao, in his letter dated November 22, 2007, addressed to Secretary, DoT, had raised the issues relating to the cross-over fee charged for dual spectrum, which was based on a price discovered in 2001. Section 10.43 states: He [Finance Secretary] cited that in view of the financial implications, the Ministry of Finance should have been consulted before finalising the decision taken in the matter of dual spectrum. The Finance Secretary urged that the issues raised be reviewed and reported back to the Ministry of Finance. In response to this, the Secretary of the DoT, in his letter dated November 29, 2007,

stated that the entry fee was based on the August 2007 recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and that TRAI had not recommended any changes in the entry fee and the annual licence fee and hence no changes were considered in the existing policy. After this, there was no communication from the Ministry of Finance to the DoT on this issue. Problematic conclusion The conclusion arrived at by the report, however is problematic. In Section 10.43, it says: From the sequence of events, the committee gather the impression that the Ministry of Finance was in agreement with the position explained by the Department of Telecommunications in respect of cross-over fee charged for allowing usage of dual spectrum technology by the existing licencees. This conclusion raises more questions than it answers. Does the fact that no official response was given by the Ministry of Finance imply that it was in agreement with the policy decision? In a note sent to the members of the JPC, Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) Polit Bureau member, has raised some pertinent questions about the role of the Finance Minister. The note says, Does the Finance Minister agree with the draft report that by not responding to the position as explained by DoT regarding licence fees, the Ministry of Finance had in effect given its consent? Why did the Finance Minister not press the issue of entry and spectrum fee being pegged to 2001 prices in 2008, especially as the DoT had referred to the Cabinet note where it was mandatory to have such an agreement between the Finance Ministry and the DoT as per Section 2.1.2 (3)? By not raising these probing questions, the report conveniently absolves the Finance Minister of any possible role in the process and glosses over the objections raised by government officials to this erroneous policy. Also, it does not outline the revenue implications of this decision for the exchequer. Intra-circle roaming A major policy decision taken during Rajas stint as Telecommunications Minister caused a loss to the exchequer and encouraged the use of the well-built infrastructure of the public sector entity for private gains. In June 2008, Raja permitted intra-circle roaming whereby an operator could provide services in an area where it had not rolled out its network. The Frontline report titled Auction Farce (December 14, 2012) had pointed to the existence of an illegal 3G roaming pact between private operators and its larger implications for the exchequer. The genesis of this illegal practice was in the policy decision to allow intra-circle roaming in 2008. Prabir Purkayastha, a member of the Delhi Science Forum, pointed out that Raja did not heed the objections raised by TRAI. TRAI had objected to the DoTs amendment of licences on various counts, including imbalance in spectrum utilisation, implications for additional spectrum entitlements and security issues with subscribers not being easy to track. On September 13, 2008, the public sector telecom behemoth Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) entered into an intra-circle roaming agreement with the telecom company Swan, which allowed Swan to use all the infrastructure of BSNL, including its mobile towers and optical network, in all the circles. This significant issue is not raised in the JPC report.

The report absolves the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister of any responsibility for the auctioning of the spectrum on a first-come first-served basis to telecom operators, the policy adopted by the DoT under Raja. Section 10.45 says the Prime Minister was misled about the procedure decided to be followed by the Department of Telecommunications in respect of the issuance of UAS [unified access services] licences. In arriving at this conclusion, the report overlooks the official correspondence between Raja and the Prime Minister, which is mentioned in Section 10.44. In a letter dated November 2, 2007, the Prime Minister urged Raja to look at processing of large number of applications in the backdrop of inadequate spectrum, introduction of a transparent methodology of auction and the revision of entry fee, which is currently benchmarked on old spectrum auction figures. In response to the Prime Ministers letter, Raja wrote that it will be unfair, arbitrary and capricious to auction spectrum to new applicants. Further, on December 26, 2007, he informed the Prime Minister about the procedure of issue of new licences following a three-stage process on a first-come first-served basis. This would include the issuance of a letter of intent (LoI), following which licences would be issued on a first-come first-served basis on compliance with the terms and conditions of the LoI. This letter outlines the procedure to be followed: a large number of LoIs are proposed to be issued simultaneously. In these circumstances, an applicant who fulfils the conditions of LoI first will be granted the licence first although several applicants will be issued LoI simultaneously. The same has been concurred in by the Solicitor General of India during the discussions. It is clear from Rajas letters that the Prime Minister was apprised of the process followed in giving out new UAS licences. Hence, it is not clear how the report has come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister was misled about the process. Sitaram Yechury, in a note to JPC members, has raised doubts about the conclusions of the draft report: The draft report shows that indeed he [Raja] wrote three letters to the PM prior to 10th January, 2008, when the LoIs for the 120 licences were issued. The draft report also states that the PM asked the PMO to prepare a note on Shri Rajas letter dated 26th December, 2007, wherein he details the various steps he was proposing to take. Also, the depositions before the committee show that Chidambaram was consulted about the process of auctioning of licences. The report notes that there was a meeting between the Finance Minister and the Minister for Communications and Information and Technology on January 30, 2008. As per the minutes recorded by the then Finance Secretary, issues concerning the allocation of spectrum were discussed in the meeting. The gist of the meeting as recorded by the Finance Secretary indicates that we are not seeking to revisit the current regimes for entry fee or for revenue share. While these meetings were on, there was still scope for the procedure of granting licences to be altered to adopt a fair and transparent mechanism. The LoIs were issued to 121 operators on a first-come first-served basis on January 10, 2007. The UAS licences were finally given out only between February 27 and March 7, 2008. The Prime Minister and the Finance Minister could have stepped in during the intervening period, but they did not, despite the number of meetings held in between.

It is significant to note that a concept paper of the Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Finance, dated January 9, 2008, also raised questions about the policy of spectrum allocation. This paper, a copy of which is available with Frontline, states: Given the fact that there are reportedly over 575 applications pending with DoT (including 45 new applicants) there is a case for reviewing the entry fee fixed in 2001. This is an administratively fixed fee. Therefore any change should be governed by transparent and objective criteria applicable uniformly to all new entrants. The paper further states that auction would be the most transparent method of allocation of spectrum and any other method would be economically inefficient. This concept paper yet again highlights how the views of senior government officials in the Ministry of Finance were disregarded in going ahead with the procedure of auctioning of UAS licences. Attacking the CAG The most conspicuous aspect of the draft report is its criticism of the CAG. It questions the concept of calculation of presumptive loss in the allocation of licences. In doing so, the report turns on its head the same logic that it had used to calculate the revenue forgone by the NDA government as a result of policy decisions. The total amount of revenue forgone is cited in the initial sections (Chapter 3) as well as in the final section (Observations and Recommendations) of the report to discredit the NDA government. It is revealing that the same yardstick is not used to judge the policy decisions of the UPA government in granting licences. The bias of the report becomes clear. The report has raised several questions about the methodology adopted by the CAG to calculate the presumptive loss figures. However, in criticising the CAGs methodology, the report seems to echo the UPA governments stance without taking into consideration the counter-arguments. It questions how 2G losses were calculated by the CAG on the basis of prices discovered for the 3G spectrum in 2010. It uses the testimony of R.P. Singh, former Director General, Audit, Post and Telecommunications, who had said that he had not consented to the use of this methodology. Singhs logic has been widely rebutted and countered. A statement issued by senior retired officers of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service on December 8, 2012, clarified the CAGs position and refuted Singhs logic. The report does not claim that this is the right or definitive figure. It is only one of the three numbers arrived at on the basis of different assumptions and methodologies. The intention was to bring out the seriousness of the flaw in the decision-making process of allocation of the 2G spectrum. That the decision-making in this case was flawed is amply proven by the facts that a Cabinet Minister has been in jail and is only out on bail, the CBI [Central Bureau of Investigation] is investigating possible corruption cases, and the Supreme Court has cancelled 122 licences, it said. Besides, the over-reliance of the report on Singhs testimony results in ignoring the fact that the vast organisation under the CAG works as a team and assists it in discharging its constitutional responsibilities. The draft report also states that infusion of foreign direct investment by means of fresh equity carried out by telecom companies is untenable as a method of calculating losses incurred by spectrum allocation. It, however, ignores the fact that windfall gains were made by companies as a result of the sale of shares and that the revenue generated thereof was not shared with the government.

In April 2008, an order issued by the DoT facilitated mergers, leaving out the word acquisition. This helped Unitech merge all its licences and also helped it bypass the mandatory three-year lock-in period for the sale of shares. In October 2008, Swan sold 45 per cent of its shares to the United Arab Emirates-based company Etisalat for Rs.4,500 crore, whereas it got a licence for Rs.1,530 crore. Unitech sold 60 per cent of its shares to the Norway-based telecom company Telenor for Rs.6,200 crore, whereas it got a licence for Rs.1,621 crore. The draft JPC report refers to the sale of shares as normal practice in corporate world to bring investment into the company for rolling out or expansion of business. However, it does not take into account the revenue implications of this for the government, given the fact that the licence was obtained at very low fees by the private players. The overall thrust of the arguments against the CAG seeks to reiterate the UPA governments accusation that the CAG had exceeded its brief. Section 10.59 slams the CAG for causing widespread disrepute to the nation by projecting astronomical figures in its report. It says the figures could have been more realistic deriving out of proven facts. These observations question the constitutionally mandated role of the CAG as an audit institution to oversee and comment on the financial implications of policy decisions. Selective appropriation of information The selective appropriation of information to arrive at conclusions in the draft JPC report illustrates the need to protect the autonomy and independence of consultative parliamentary bodies. The commentary on the fallout of the 2G scam has been focussed on the role of individuals in high positions of power. However, the bias in the JPC report also needs to be looked at from the perspective of systemic corruption leading to the erosion of institutions that are meant to hold the government accountable to Parliament. The rejection of the report by 15 members and their expression of a lack of confidence in the committee represent a crisis in the process of consultation, debate and discussion that is the hallmark of parliamentary democracy. At the time of writing this report, the Lok Sabha extended the term of the JPC to the last day of the monsoon session of Parliament. It remains to be seen if the dissenting voices will be factored into the final report or smothered by smart political manoeuvring.

Death in the gutter

The death of two workers in a sewage tank in Chennai revives the call for the eradication of manual scavenging. By R. ILANGOVAN
THAT manual scavenging continues to be a national shame became evident once again when two Dalits died of asphyxiation while cleaning a sewage tank in a private hotel in Chennai in Tamil Nadu on April 20. Shekar (45) and Robert (47) were the latest casualties of the abhorrent system of workers entering drains to clear blocks manually. Between February 2011 and December 2012, 19 people have died in this manner in the State, 15 of them in the capital city alone. The debasing occupation forced chiefly on Dalits through the generations prompted the Supreme Court recently to make stinging comments against the Union government for not enacting a law that will ban manual scavenging. (A number of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions on the issue are pending before various courts in the country besides two in the Supreme Court.) On January 8, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern at the inordinate delay in passing the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Bill, 2012, aimed at amending and replacing the existing Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, which, activists say, remains just on paper. We are very much concerned about this issue of [manual scavenging], the court observed. They [manual scavengers] are marginalised and Parliament needs to take adequate steps to pass the Bill [introduced on September 3, 2012]. It had been over a year and [a] half that the Additional Solicitor General has been promising to do something, the two-member Bench of Justices H. L. Datu and Ranjan Gogoi told Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati. The Bench made these comments while hearing an appeal from the Centre challenging a Madras High Court order of 2011 on a PIL filed on manual scavenging by the Chennai-based social activist A. Narayanan. The High Court, which had banned manual scavenging in Tamil Nadu in 2008, issued a stern warning to the Centre that if it failed to amend the law to prevent manual scavenging, the court would be constrained to direct the personal appearance of any of the high dignitaries from either the Prime Ministers Office Secretariat or other departments. After getting a stay on it, the Centre, through its Attorney General, assured the court that it would take steps to make changes in the Bill to widen the scope of the definition of manual scavenger. The Attorney General also submitted that unlike the 1993 Act, the new Bill would be brought under Entry 97 of the Constitution which makes it binding on States and Union Territories to abide by it. An Act ignored Not even a single prosecution anywhere in India has been initiated under the 1993 Act, which has been in existence for close to two decades. No police station has registered any FIR [first information report] under this law, which claims manual scavenging is illegal, says Bezwada Wilson, founder and national convener of Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA), which has been spearheading the movement against the scourge since the late 1980s.

Wilsons claims are not unfounded. In the latest instance in Chennai, the city police registered a case against an employee of the hotel under Section 304 (a) (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. In another recent incident, where three youths, including two migrant labourers from West Bengal, died of asphyxiation while repairing a sewer in Tiruvallur, 55 kilometres from Chennai, the police registered a case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The irony here is that generally the police are not even aware of the existence of the 1993 Act on manual scavenging. They are also reluctant to invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, though the victims mostly happen to be Dalits, says T. Neethirajan, South Chennai district secretary of The Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front (TNUEF) of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which is fighting for Dalits dignity and rights in Tamil Nadu. Neethirajan says that the TNUEF has been urging law-enforcers to register cases under relevant laws whenever the death of a Dalit or a tribal person takes place in gutters. Besides, the Home Ministry has also issued a communique to all States asking them to register cases under the S.C./S.T. Act in case a Dalit or a tribal person dies while doing manual scavenging, he points out. The SKA took the fight against manual scavenging to the Supreme Court in 2003 invoking Articles 21, 32 and 17 of the Constitution and demanding the eradication of the obnoxious practice and the rehabilitation of people involved in manual scavenging. There were 40 respondents in the case, including the Indian Railways, and the Defence and Industry department. The case is now before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Trains and toilets Claiming that his fight against the practice in his native Kolar Gold Fields in Karnataka in 1984 was one of the major factors that prompted the government to bring in the 1993 Act, Wilson says the government is reluctant to enforce the law strictly since the Railways has been the principal violator of it. It operates 1.70 lakh passenger coaches with open-discharge toilets, he says. However the Railways in its affidavit filed before the Supreme Court claimed that only 30,000 coaches had open-discharge toilets. Nearly two crore Indians use trains every day. Each [train] toilet is used about 250 times a day. These are open toilets, so scavenging is still prevalent on these railway tracks. We have started work on replacing 2,500 of them with bio-toilets. It will take another six to seven years to replace all, Union Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh said at a meeting in New Delhi on December 11, 2012, where he tendered an apology for the prevalence of manual scavenging. The National Advisory Council, which met recently, was told that the Railways had so far converted 500 open toilets into bio-toilets. Just imagine the time the Railways will take to convert them all, says Wilson. The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi High Court to monitor the Railways action on this issue. The Railways is not the only offender. The provisions of the 1993 Act, which talks about dry latrines but not about septic tanks, manholes and so on have become a convenient tool for many

States and Union Territories to deny the presence of manual scavenging. They fudge details on dry latrines and manual scavenging and misguide even the judiciary on this issue of national discrimination, Wilson claims. But the 2011 Census, he points out, exposes the governments claims on dry latrines. According to the Census data, 7,94,390 dry latrines are in active use in the country where human waste is cleaned and carried manually. Nearly 95 per cent of the 1.3 million scavengers are Dalits; of these 98 per cent are women. The inhuman practice is in vogue in 252 districts of the country. Wilson is optimistic that Parliament will pass the Bill before May this year. It has been cleared by the Standing Committee of Social Justice and Empowerment. The Bill, placed by the Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, once it becomes a law, is expected to expand the ambit of manual scavenging to include people who clean drainages, manholes, septic tanks and sewers, besides evolving a rehabilitation package for them and their family members, says Narayanan, whose writ petition prompted the Madras High Court to ban manual scavenging in Tamil Nadu. Not satisfied with the measures taken by the State government on scavenging, he filed a petition for contempt of court. This prompted the court to ask the State and Union governments to amend the 1993 Act. Tamil Nadu, meanwhile, took a proactive step by passing a resolution in the Assembly urging the Centre to bring an amendment to the law in Parliament. Narayanan says that modern tools should be used to clean sewers as is done in developed countries. Direct human contact with the filth should be totally eradicated, he demands. Apart from regular medical check-ups, he demands educational grants and subsidies for new ventures for those involved in manual scavenging. In his view the formation of an autonomous National Sustainable Sanitation Science and Technology Research Institute or National Research Organisation in Sustainable Sanitation Science and Technology, with regional institutes, will help develop and promote appropriate modern, sustainable and eco-friendly technology for eliminating the scourge of all forms of manual scavenging. The Bill and its provisions The Bill, when it becomes law, Wilson hopes, will liberate manual scavengers. His movement has encouraged many safai karmachari women to throw out the baskets they used to carry human waste on their heads for a livelihood. But there is no total rehabilitation. These women are stoically waiting for the government to reach out to them. The struggle goes on, he says. The proposed Bill has a few stringent provisions in it though many activists claim that it has been watered down. It makes the offences non-bailable. The National Commission for Safai Karmacharis will monitor its implementation. District Magistrates will be responsible for ensuring that there are no insanitary latrines in their jurisdictions. State monitoring panels will report to a Central monitoring committee. The financial implication for the proposed new law is expected to be around Rs.4,825 crore. Allowing them to handle filth for generations is a sin, Narayanan says, pointing out that a strong political will is essential to eradicate the shameful practice. Manual scavenging is in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 (right to life), Article 14 (equality

before law), Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) and Article 23 (right against exploitation) and also to be read with Articles 38, 39 (e), 41, 42 and 46 of the Constitution, he says. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on June 17, 2011, called it one of the darkest blots on [Indias] development process. Employing a person of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as a manual scavenger to carry human excreta would be punishable under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. [This] is a strong and prohibitive instrument in your hands. I urge you to make full use of this, he told the people at a meeting on social justice in New Delhi. According to P.S. Krishnan, former Secretary to the Ministry of Welfare and also the man behind important social legislation including the Special Component Plan for Scheduled Castes, 1978, Jairam Rameshs apology and the observations of the Prime Minister will assuage the wounded feelings and lacerated psyche of the manual scavengers and of the communities which have been subjected to this inhuman indignity. A formal expression of deep regret for the past and assurance by the state in a legislation is necessary and extremely appropriate, he says. Liberated scavengers, says Krishnan, who played a leading role in drafing the new Bill, should not be replaced by others of the same communities. It is better to cut the Gordian knot by accepting the claim of any person that he or she is a manual scavenger or has been a manual scavenger, provided that such person belongs to one of the communities that are known to be the main sources of manual scavenging labour, he says. Sanitation in this country, Krishnan insists, must be humanised.

Southern shock

The shoddy performance of the BJP during its five-year rule ensures a stunning victory for the Congress in Karnataka. By RAVI SHARMA
FOR the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the results of the May 2013 elections to the 225-member Karnataka Assembly have been a costly reminder of the truism that in politics actions speak louder than words. How else can you explain the decimation of the saffron party at the hands of the Congresswhose government at the Centre is facing serious charges of corruptionand the very regional Janata Dal (Secular) led by the father-son duo H.D. Deve Gowda and H.D. Kumaraswamy? The BJP, which was elected to power in 2008 for the first time in a southern State, won just 40 of the 223 seats to which elections were held. (One nominated seat is reserved for the Anglo-Indian community and election to one was countermanded following the death of a candidate.) The results showed a dramatic dip in the BJPs fortunesfrom 110 seats in 2008 and 79 in 2004 to 40 in 2013. Peoples anti-incumbency mood, one of the many factors that affected the partys chances, ensured the defeat of as many as 23 Ministers, who had held portfolios in the governments headed by the BJPs three Chief Ministers, B.S. Yeddyurappa, D.V. Sadananda Gowda and Jagadish Shettar. This list includes the outgoing Shettar governments Deputy Chief Minister and former BJP State president K.S. Eshwarappa. The electoral outcome also debunked the BJPs belief that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi would be able to sway voters in its favour. He visited Karnataka twice (April 29 and May 2) and addressed well-attended public meetings in Bangalore, Mangalore and Belgaum. The Congress has made big gains. It won a stunning 121 seats and, after being in the opposition for seven years, the right to form the next government on its own. Sharing a credible second place with the BJP is the JD(S), which has got 40 seats, winning more than a dozen seats in areas beyond its traditional stronghold of Vokkaliga-dominated Old Mysore. The fledgling Karnataka Janatha Paksha (KJP) of the BJPs former poster boy Yeddyurappa won a meagre six seats. But the KJP has succeeded in what its leader set out to dospoil the BJPs party. Led by the Lingayat strongman who was once the unquestioned leader of the BJP, the KJP has eaten into the BJPs traditional Lingayat vote bank in the north Karnataka region. Independents, rebel candidates and others, including the Badavara Shramikara Raithara (BSR) Congress (a party started by B. Sriramalu, a former BJP Minister and business associate of the Reddy brothers of Bellary) and C.P. Yogeshwara, who fought on the Samajwadi Party ticket from Chennapatna, have won 16 seats. All of whom would have been much in demand had the Congress fallen short of a majority. To most of Karnatakas four-crore-plus electorate, more than governance or developmental programmes, the BJPs five years in power only evoked images of Hartal Halappa, the BJPs Minister for Food and Civil Supplies being led away by the police following accusations of sexually assaulting a friends wife; of young men and women in a pub being physically and verbally assaulted by goons owing allegiance to fringe Sangh Parivar outfits; of three BJP legislators watching pornographic clips on a cellular phone while the Assembly was in session; and of a defiant Yeddyurappa refusing to step down as Chief Minister even after being indicted in the multi-crore mining scandal and parading his supporters in front of the Raj Bhavan. In

addition to the myriad corruption scandals, charges of land grab, gross nepotism, inefficiency and non-governance, the party was also wrecked by an almost unending internecine battle that split it three ways, damaging it beyond repair. What is more, the nationalist BJP, which claims to be a party with a difference, has found its vote share sliding to 19.97 per cent from the impressive 33.86 per cent in 2008. The Congress has improved its share of seats substantially from 80 in 2008 to 121, and its vote share marginally from 34.76 per cent to 36.55 per cent, way short of the 40.84 per cent and 132 seats it got in 1999 when S.M. Krishna led the party to a landslide victory. Its inability to increase its vote share despite a massive vote against its main opponent should be a matter of concern for the Congress. The JD(S) has also seen its share go up marginally from 18.96 per cent to 20.09 per cent. The KJP garnered 9.83 per cent of the vote and wrecked the BJPs prospects. The fledgling party, besides playing a spoiler, won six seats but credibly finished second in 36 and third in 35 constituencies. The BSR Congress got 2.68 per cent of the vote and four seats, while independents garnered 7.41 per cent of the vote and won 12 seats. The urban local body elections held in March seemed to have forecast the Congress victory in the May elections. The Congress won 1,960 of 4,952 seats/wards, emerging as the single largest party in 69 of the 207 local bodies. About 30 per cent of Karnatakas around 35 million voters were eligible to vote in those elections. In the run-up to the Assembly elections there was no discernable wave in favour of any political party and there were no tangible issues at stake. Political pundits and psephologists had predicted a close race with the Congress emerging as the single largest party winning around 100 to 110 seats, short of a simple majority of 113 seats and looking for support from either the JD(S), independents or the KJP. But these forecasts went awry. The electorate, if one can take an educated guess, perhaps did not want to see a repeat of 2004 when a fractured mandate led to the formation, initially of a Congress-JD(S) coalition government, and then a BJP-JD(S) dispensation, which lasted for just 20 months. In both the coalitions, the JD(S), had sought to manipulate the government and grab ministerial berths that were disproportionate to its legislative strength. What also seems to have weighed heavily in the minds of the electorate, even as it was determined to see the back of the saffron party, was stability. While money did play a big role in the elections, with amounts ranging from Rs.20 crore being spent by each candidate belonging to major parties and contesting urban seats (especially in Bangalore) to Rs.5 crore in rural seats, a redeeming aspect was the relatively minor role of the caste/community factors compared with the past elections. While Vokkaligas, dominant in the Old Mysore and Bangalore Rural areas, preferred the JD(S) and the Congress, Lingayats, the socially, economically and politically dominant community in the northern regions, have voted almost evenly for the four parties in the reckoning. In 2008, the BJP gained the most in the region. The Congress has done exceptionally well in areas where the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Dalits and the minority communities were predominant. According to M. Veerappa Moily, Union Minister for Petroleum and former Karnataka Chief Minister, the election results have debunked the long-held contention of the BJP and Yeddyurappa that they are the natural choice of Lingayats. Moily said the Congress was voted to power in the hope that it would give a clean, stable, corruption-free government. With the Lok

Sabha elections less than a year away, he said the onus was now on the party to show that it could do a better job in Karnataka than what Narendra Modi or Shivraj Singh Chauhan were doing in Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh. Only this [good governance] can wipe out the Modi effect that the BJP is hoping to cash in on. Moily, who is one of the architects of the Congress victory in Karnataka, told Frontlinethat the party could have won 130 to 140 seats had some weighty leaders of the Old Mysore area not interfered in the ticket distributionalways a troublesome affair in the Congress. This time, the party was saddled with the onerous task of having to sift through more than 25,000 applications for the 224 seats. This was compounded by the machinations of the chief ministerial aspirants to ensure that their loyalists got the ticket. Speaking to Frontline after the results were announced, Mallikarjuna Kharge, Union Labour Minister and one of Karnatakas tallest Dalit leaders, said: People have reposed faith in the Congress. They became fed up with fundamentalism, maladministration and poor governance of the Bharatiya Janata Party and now want a good, clean government. It is our responsibility to provide this. The Congress also benefited from the three-way split in the BJP. The rule of law should once again prevail in Karnataka. Besides providing good governance, world-class infrastructure, large-scale investments, strengthening of the information technology/biotechnology sectors must be encouraged. Bangalore and Karnataka should once again become names to reckon with. Siddaramaiah new Chief Minister The Congress high command moved with surprising alacrity and purpose to adopt the secret ballot route to choose Siddaramaiah, the veteran Kuruba leader from Varuna in Mysore district, as the Chief Minister. Four observers of the All India Congress Committee, A.K. Antony, Luizo Falerio, Madhusudan Mistry and Jitendra Singh, arrived in Bangalore on May 10 and called a meeting of the Congress Legislature Party to select the new leader. Siddaramaiah becomes the 22nd Chief Minister of Karnakata. While most of the Congress MLAs this correspondent spoke to were happy with the transparent and quick process of election, some of them were disappointed because they were not consulted on the choice of the Chief Minister. Reports of the secret ballot to choose the CLP leader indicate that Siddaramaiah got 78 votes; D.K. Shivakumar, the Vokkaliga strongman from Kanakapura, two; and Mallikarjuna Kharge 38, with three leaving it to the high command. The Congress leadership perhaps speeded up the process to avoid dissidence and heartburning in the party. The race for the top post began as soon as the election results started trickling in. Among the serious contenders were Siddaramaiah, who was the Leader of the Opposition since 2008, Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president G. Parameshwara, and Union Minister for Labour Mallikarjuna Kharge. Shammanur Shivashankarappa, the only serious contender from the Lingayat community, D.K. Shivakumar and R.V. Deshpande, former KPCC president, had also thrown their hats in the ring. Moily was also in the running. With the Lok Sabha elections not too far away, the Congress probably wanted to send out the right message to the voters and install a person who would be able to galvanise the party in terms of cadre (numbers) and finances. (The Congress only won six of the 28 Lok Sabha seats in 2009.) Siddaramaiah is credited with having brought the various OBC sub-groups together. Kuruba is the third largest community in the State after Lingayats and Vokkaligas. The argument

against Siddaramaiah in some sections of the party was that he is a relative new comer to the party, having migrated from the Janata Dal only six years ago. But the high command seems to have dismissed this view. Having served as Deputy Chief Minister twice in Janata Dal dispensations, Siddaramaiah joined the Congress with the primary aim of becoming the Chief Minister. His closest rival in the race was Parameshwara, an educationist, no-frills-Dalit leader and a Congress loyalist. But he lost the Koratagere seat by over 18,000 votes. Dalits constitute 25 per cent of the States population, but Karnataka has never had a Dalit Chief Minister. The Congress had a candidate in Mallikarjuna Kharge. Much of the partys recent good showing in the Hyderabad-Karnataka area is attributed him. What went against him is the lack of mass appeal. Siddaramaiahs elevation will certainly keep Kurubas and other OBCs happy. With the exception of Dharam Singh (May 2004-January 2006), Siddaramaiah will be the first non-Lingayat and non-Vokkaliga Chief Minister since Moily in 1992. Expressing happiness at the process of selecting the new CLP leader, Moily said: With Parameshwara losing in the elections, Siddaramaiah was the natural choice. Moily also discounted suggestions that Siddaramaiah was chosen overlooking the claims of loyal Congressmen like Kharge and himself. Yes, Kharge had a claim but I have consistently said that I am not in the race. And Siddaramaiah has been in the Congress since 2006, and he was the Leader of the Opposition for the last five years. For the JD(S), these elections could well be a watershed. Although Kumaraswamy chooses not to admit it, his partys primary aim was to secure enough seats and hope that the Congress would fall short of a majority. Out of power for five years, the JD(S) will need to reinvent itself and move away from the long-held view that it is only a party of the Old Mysore area and that, too, only for and by the father-son duo. The KJP has nowhere to hide. Most of Yeddyurappas followers who chose to leave the BJP, have lost the elections. Many of them may just go back to the BJP.

Defused by diplomacy

The recent tensions between Indian and Chinese troops along the Line of Actual Control end without a shot being fired thanks to calm diplomacy. By JOHN CHERIAN
THE brief exercise in brinkmanship on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between Chinese and Indian military patrols in the eastern Ladakh region finally ended on an amicable note, as most serious military and political analysts had predicted. Indian and Chinese soldiers briefly faced each other in a standoff that started on April 15. It was announced on May 5 that both the Indian and Chinese patrols that had pitched tents on territory that was unoccupied until recently would withdraw to their original positions. The issue was hyped up by the Indian media, with support from sections of the Indian establishment. The issue had briefly threatened to derail the high-profile visits Chinese and Indian leaders had planned in the coming weeks and months. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid is scheduled to be in Beijing in the second week of May for talks and to prepare the groundwork for the visit of the new Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang, to India in the third week of May. During the fortnight of China-baiting in the Indian media that preceded the return of normalcy, there were loud demands from the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Samajwadi Party for the Minister to call off his trip. Defence Minister A.K. Antony, under pressure from the opposition and a media barrage, suggested that all options were open to resolve the minor military impasse that had developed along the LAC. India will take every step to protect its national interests, the Defence Minster said. After the May 5 agreement, highly placed Indian sources are now claiming that the Indian media were getting their inputs from those who were not in the loop. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was more restrained in his comments, when he said that it was a localised problem which could be solved. This time, the tensions lingered a little longer than necessary as it was allowed to be hijacked by a jingoistic media. In comparison, there was very little coverage of the incident in the Chinese media, an indication that Beijing did not want to dramatise a minor flare-up along the LAC. According to External Affairs Ministry officials, even when flag meetings on the LAC between Indian and Chinese military officers were going on, the matter was taken up expeditiously by Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai. He called up the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi on April 18 and asked for the restoration of the status quo ante on the LAC. He coordinated with the military authorities and Indian Ambassador in China S. Jaishankar while talking to senior officials in Beijing. The Indian side, according to sources involved in the negotiations, had concluded at the outset that the incident was a very localised one and could easily be sorted out. Their optimism was justified. The official spokesman for the External Affairs Ministry issued a statement on May 6 which said that the governments of China and India had agreed to restore the status quo ante along the LAC in the western sector of the India-China boundary as it existed before April 15. The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a terse statement that both the countries had terminated the standoff at the Tiannan River Valley area. The statement went on to add that both the sides

had moved forward and adopted a constructive and cooperative attitude and calmed the tensions through border-related mechanisms, diplomatic channels and border defence meetings. The official spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the agreement was reached keeping in mind the larger interests of bilateral relations. The dispute Senior sources in the Indian government have said that the tin structure that the Indian Army had built in the Chumar area has been dismantled but that no other commitments or concessions were demanded or given. According to reports, the Chinese patrol had pitched its tents when it discovered the Indian Armys presence there. India claims that the area is well within its side of the LAC and that the Chinese had pitched their tents 19 kilometres inside Indian territory. China has strongly differed with this assertion, stating that its troops were very much on the Chinese side of the LAC. As things stand today, the border between the two countries has not been completely demarcated, leading to varying perceptions about the exact location of the LAC in many parts of its 3,500km-long boundary. In fact, there is no line of control that is recognised by either side in the area where the recent dispute arose. Indian officials have been saying that demarcating the LAC clearly would be helpful. This issue is going to be discussed during Khurshids visit to Beijing. An agreement on Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Area signed in 1993 between the two countries relating to the border issue clearly states that the references to the LAC should not prejudice their respective positions on the boundary question, as no commonly accepted alignment of the LAC exists. Both sides patrol the inhospitable and desolate stretch of land but had desisted from putting up permanent structures. According to Indian sources, New Delhi will be considering a recent proposal by Beijing for the signing of a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA). The BDCA draft submitted to India focusses on ways to improve communications between the troops deployed on both sides of the LAC so that untoward incidents along the border can be avoided. The Indian side involved in the recent negotiations said that its primary objective was to get the relationship back on track, before it spun out of control. It was obvious that the leadership of both the countries did not want to jeopardise the forthcoming high-level visits. The Prime Minister is also scheduled to visit China before the end of the year. Aggressive patrolling In recent years, both sides have been resorting to what is being described as aggressive patrolling along the LAC. The Chinese side has not taken kindly to the new military airports being constructed by India adjacent to the LAC and an increase in Indian troop numbers. The latest incident, according to the Chinese side, was triggered by the infrastructure build-up and construction of bunkers by the Indian military in the Fukche and Chumar regions of Ladakh. There was an agreement in 1996 between the two countries to keep a ceiling on troop levels along the LAC. A 2005 border protocol signed between the two countries also bans the construction of permanent structures in disputed areas. The construction of structures in a disputed area led to the latest incident. According to reports, India has agreed to address some of Chinas concerns about permanent structures being put in southeast Ladakhs Chumar area. The

Indian Army had put up forward observation posts and bunkers and deployed surveillance equipment in the area. The Armys build-up along the LAC started in the middle of the last decade. Two new mountain divisions were created to defend Arunachal Pradesh and three Air Force bases were created for the deployment of Su-30s in Assam, along with several batteries of Akash missiles. Eight Advanced Landing Grounds were refurbished along the LAC to facilitate easy landing of a heliborne force. The Army has announced plans for the creation of a mountain strike force to be put on the ground by 2017. The Chinese side could have been more worried by the Armys deployment of two additional infantry brigades in south-eastern Ladakh. Advanced Landing Grounds have already been activated by the Army in Daulat Beg Oldi. China had offered a draft proposal to India in April suggesting that both sides freeze their troop levels along the LAC. India already has more troops than China along the border. The Indian Army, however, argues that the transport infrastructure China has across the LAC makes it easy for it to move troops at short notice to the border. Indian troops, on the other hand, have to depend mainly on air transport to move around the rugged Himalayan terrain. Beijing may not be viewing the recent event in isolation. It is warily watching the evolving strategic and defence relationship between India, the United States and Japan. The latest crisis has coincided with the Barack Obama administrations pivot to Asia whose unstated goal is to contain the rise of China to the status of a leading global power. As Indian and Chinese military officers were meeting at the LAC to resolve the latest border tangle, India, the U.S. and Japan held their latest round of trilateral dialogue in Washington, the fourth so far.

Price on water

The UDF government in Kerala proposes yet again to allow private companies to exploit public water resources for private profit. By R. KRISHNAKUMAR in Thiruvananthapuram
IT was nearly a decade ago that a Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government in Kerala made determined efforts to allow private companies to draw water from some of the States major rivers, irrigation dams and groundwater sources on long-term lease and to make profits out of selling treated water. Among the water sources identified then were the Periyar river and the dam on the Malampuzha river. Both the rivers, already under stress, were lifelines for lakhs of people. Had the projects been implemented, they would have been severely affected. Protests followed, and these investment projects which had been presented at the first Global Investors Meet (Rivers for sale, Frontline, January 31, 2003), were reluctantly dropped by the then UDF government. Now, in an equally controversial move, another Congress-led UDF government has issued two executive orders that could lead to a large share of the drinking water supply in the State falling into the hands of private players. The government has also introduced a Bill in the Assembly to establish a Water Resources Regulatory Authority, a move widely perceived as yet another sign of an extensive hike in the price of water in the near future. The Bill describes the Authority as a three-member panel which will, among other things, establish a new water tariff system and fix criterion for water charges for different users such as domestic, irrigation and industrial, at different levels. Tariffs are to be fixed on the basis of the cost of project management, administration, operation and maintenance of the individual water resource project. The governments grand purpose is yet to be revealed completely. But this much is certain: it plans to establish a limited company, with 51 per cent equity participation from the private sector, for the supply of drinking water across the State. The role of the new company vis-avis that of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), the autonomous agency entrusted by the State legislature with the running of water supply and sewerage schemes in the State without a profit motive, remains, at best, vague. It also appears that the government wanted the new company to become the nodal agency for distributing water and ensuring 100 per cent coverage of potable drinking water in the State within four years. An order issued initially on December 31, 2012, said the company was being formed because in spite of thousands of crores of rupees being spent, Kerala has not been able to achieve 100 per cent coverage of potable drinking water. This situation is aggravated by the increasing contamination (especially biological) of groundwater due to high density of population. This further leads to health hazards causing huge burden on the State exchequer. Therefore, it said, the government was giving administrative sanction for the establishment of a limited company that would function as a single nodal agency for constructing, developing,

maintaining and operating community-based water filtration and drinking water supply plants across the State. PPP model The new company was to be established on the successful public-private partnership (PPP) model under which the Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) was constructed in the 1990s. In this case, the government will have only 26 per cent of the equity and the KWA 23 per cent. The order said that the company would provide dedicated water supply schemes to housing colonies and small communities through decentralised water supply schemes on a PPP basis. Initially, such schemes were to be implemented to benefit the people of the coastal areas and wherever the KWA has no schemes at present. Significantly, the government order also quoted a report prepared by the Managing Director of the KWA on the formation of the company, which indicated that the revenue of the company was to be from the supply of drinking water and that it was to pay the cost of raw water it utilised for supply, at rates to be decided by the State government. It also said that the KWA can consider bulk supply to the company at tariffs that shall be different from the existing KWA tariff. The income from such supply could be shared among KWA and the company. The MDs report, as quoted in the order, also said, strangely, that the prices at which water would be supplied by the company should be made applicable to the KWA (for the same quality of water). If this is done, the KWA can also supply water without private participation. It also said that the company shall ensure 100 per cent coverage of potable drinking water in the State within four years on a self-sustainable basis that is, before March 2014 in all panchayats, before March 2015 in all municipalities, and before March 2016 in all corporations. The Board of Directors of the company was to include the State Minister for Water Resources as Chairman and KWA MD and at least one senior KWA engineer to safeguard the interests of the KWA and to ensure that there is no conflict. The order did not clarify whether the government approved of all the proposals in the KWA MDs report, but, in the end, merely stated that the government have examined the report in detail and are pleased to accord administrative sanction for the establishment of the company. Meanwhile, the Kerala State Water Resources Regulatory Authority law (first issued as an ordinance in November 2011) was introduced in the session of the State Assembly that ended in April. The government had to defer the passing of the Bill because of objections raised by the Opposition and some ruling Front members. Opposition protests Widespread protests by the opposition parties, environmental groups and other organisations followed, alleging that the provisions of the Bill and the order announcing the formation of a company were part of a blatant attempt of the UDF government to privatise and commodify water, a natural resource and public asset.

For example, while announcing his partys plans to launch a mass agitation against the move, Pinarayi Vijayan, State secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the main opposition party in the State, said that the UDF governments December 31 order had the effect of literally annulling the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act passed by the State legislature in 1986. (That law established the KWA as an autonomous authority for the development and regulation of water supply and waste water collection and disposal in Kerala. It also removed the legal hassles in the way of funding water supply and sanitation projects in Kerala by global investors such as the World Bank, and led eventually to the gradual reduction of State funding for such projects.) Vijayan said that consumers who were paying Rs.4.20 per 1,000 litres at present would have to pay the new company Rs.250 for the same quantity of water. What will happen to the poor who cannot afford this water? The proposed company will mean not only privatisation but also extreme exploitation of water. This will lead to grave environmental degradation, he said, after a meeting of the CPI(M) State Committee in Thiruvananthapuram. In the wake of the protests on the floor of the Assembly, on April 15, the government issued a revised order. But it too reiterated the administrations resolve to form the company, and only changed its rationale for doing so. It said the company was being formed because: (a) especially in the urban areas, a substantial section of people were resorting to large-scale use of packaged drinking water by private sector players, some of whom charge exorbitant rates and supply water of questionable quality; and (b) there has been an increased dependence on water supply through water tankers, a situation which is often exploited by a set of unscrupulous people who supply water of suspicious quality and that too at high prices. Therefore, the revised order said, the government is convinced of the need for a company named Kerala Drinking Water Supply Company Ltd on the CIAL model, in which the government and the KWA will hold 26 per cent and 23 per cent of the equity respectively, and balance of equity of the company may be from local bodies, beneficiary groups, residence associations, firms, individuals, etc. The second order made no mention of dedicated small water supply schemes to housing colonies and small communities and of catering to people of the coastal areas or wherever the KWA has no schemes at present. Instead, it said, the company would meet the demand of the public, housing colonies, commercial establishments, industries, etc., for supply of quality drinking water through tankers. Moreover, the company will also produce and supply packaged drinking water at reasonable prices. It also mentions a fresh set of sources from where the company would draw water: abandoned quarries, ponds, brackish water sources, etc. It also affirms that under no circumstances the company shall draw water from sources which are used by the KWA for their water supply schemes. Unanswered questions Both orders have been issued by the same senior official and have caused much disquiet and raised several unanswered questions. The second order makes no mention of the company

becoming a nodal agency for water supply in the next four years. It is also silent on the alternatives to the controversial provisions in the first one, especially relating to the future ownership of the source water, the income-sharing method with the KWA/local body and, the most crucial issue of the price that the company would eventually charge from consumers for the water that it will draw from the listed non-KWA sources. Will the local bodies lose their right of ownership of the water, be it abandoned quarries, ponds or brackish water sources? What will happen to the people who now depend on this water? Who will decide the price of the water that reaches the end user? What alternative will people who cannot afford the high price have for getting water? What is the guarantee that the government will continue to have control over the companys decisions in the long run? What is the guarantee that the new company will be any different from the private operators now supplying water in tankers and in convenient packagesespecially with regard to its profit motive? The government move lacks transparency, and several questions have not been answered satisfactorily. Assertions in the revised order that the government has no intention of privatising drinking water supply system in the State, or that the role of the KWA will in fact be enhanced to ensure that piped water supply reaches every household in the State by 2021 and 75 per cent of the households by 2018, have not helped. At the time of writing this report, the Opposition Left Democratic Front had announced its decision to launch a mass agitation against the proposed company. A writ petition has also been filed by a former Minister, K.K. Ramachandran, challenging the government order forming the company and claiming that it was a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution as it included the right of access to water. The government, however, has entrusted the KWA MD to draft the memorandum of association and the article of association of the company. No doubt, the present UDF government has been as casual in its approach to forming the water supply company as its predecessor was a decade ago about proposing to allow private companies to exploit public water resources for private profits.