Daily News Mail - News of 01/04/2015

Gujarat anti-terror Bill passed finally

• Revisiting the disputed anti-terror legislation brought in by former Chief Minister Narendra Modi , the Gujarat Assembly on Tuesday passed the landmark Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Bill 2015.
• The new Bill is a re-worked version of the Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Bill (GUJCOC), 2003, which was earlier rejected twice by the President due to some of its contentious provisions.
• The State government passed the Bill amid strong opposition from Congress members, who staged a walk out.
• Citing past terror attacks in Gujarat, Rajnikant Patel, Minister of State Home, raised concerns over Pakistan’s attempts at cross-border terrorism, Gujarat’s vulnerable coastline and the proliferation of criminal gangs, while underscoring the need for a strong law.
• Under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Bill, the power given to investigating agencies to hold the suspect in custody for 30 days, among other things, is a faithful echo of provisions of the earlier laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), which was repealed in 2004 by the UPA government.
• Several provisions of the Gujarat law are a replay of draconian anti-terror laws starting with the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, enacted in 1985.
• The law allows a suspect to be kept in 30-day custody; also, the police can take 180 days to file a charge sheet — double the the time under the Criminal Procedure Code.
• This leeway is an echo of provisions in laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, repealed in 2004 by the UPA government.

What is UAPA, TADA and POTA ?

• In 1967, India introduced its first Black Law, known as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), which allowed the State to curtail the following rights of citizens who it deemed were not acting in the national interest:
• Freedom of speech, and expression.
• Right to assemble peaceably, and without arms.
• Right to form associations, or unions.

• The Congress Party introduced the UAPA at a time when the State of India was in turmoil. Indira Gandhi’s grip on power was under threat. India had only just emerged from wars with both China, and Pakistan, the economy was in crisis, the political system was in crisis, and the Congress Party itself was in crisis. There were new strands of opposition emerging, and gaining in strength. The Congress Party could not see how to avoid their inevitable failure at the next election, so they created an atmosphere whereby, anyone who raised a voice was labeled as an enemy of the State, and then could be booked under the UAPA.

• In 1985, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was introduced, and used to suppress anyone who raised a voice against the Indian State’s actions, specifically in Punjab. The Act gave wide powers to law enforcement agencies for dealing with so called terrorists, and socially disruptive activities in the following ways:
• An accused person could be detained up to 1 year.
• Confessions made to police officers were admissible as evidence in the court of law, with the burden of proof being on the accused to prove his, or her, innocence.
• Secret courts were set up exclusively to hear the cases, and deliver judgments, pertaining to the persons accused under this Act.
• A person could be detained under this act, with no evidence required, on the mere suspicion that an individual may have performed an act not in the national interest.

• TADA effectively gave Police the power to accuse anyone of being an enemy of the state, without need of any evidence. A government who puts its citizens first would not grant such powers, even to a police force with an exemplary human rights record. In India, where the police are known for their corruption, the outcome of TADA was predictable and brutal, yet politicians enthusiastically endorsed it. In the decade that TADA was in force, the Punjab Police imprisoned, tortured, and used blackmail to illicit money from, victims, and their families. The fact that their Police actions could not be questioned under TADA, further emboldened them to rape, torture, murder, and commit other atrocities against, large numbers of Sikhs in the Punjab. The Act was scrapped in 1995, but many Sikhs charged under the TADA still remain in prison today.

• In 2002, India introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), and after strong opposition, it was removed in 2004. The same provisions as TADA applied, except for the fact a person could not be convicted of activities not in the national interest, on mere suspicion, without evidence.

• In 2004, the UAPA which still remains on the book of statutes, was given more bite.  In 2008, and again in 2012, further amendments were made, which contain many of the provisions of POTA. Each time such Acts are introduced, the Government gives assurances that there are in-built safeguards against abuse, but given India’s abysmal human rights record, their primary use is to target anyone who raises a legitimate voice against the activities of the Police, or the endemic corruption of Indian society.

What is Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (No. 49 of 1988) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India. Some of the provisions of the Act are - 

• Cases trial by special Judges.
•  In trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Cr.P.C. for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate.
• Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less that six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. · Any public servant, who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Habitual committing of offence under Section 8, 9 and 12 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than two years but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Labour Min to transfer RSBY to Health Ministry from April

• Labour Ministry will transfer the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) to Health and Family Welfare Ministry from April 1, 2015, Parliament was informed on March 31.
• Starting April 1, the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) of the Labour and Employment Ministry will now be implemented by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
• The RSBY, the health insurance scheme for BPL (below poverty line) families provides for IT-enabled and smart-card-based cashless health insurance, including maternity benefit cover up to Rs. 30,000 per annum on a family floater basis.
• Ministry of Labour said in a statement that the scheme had benefited 3,85,15,411 families up to March 31, 2014 and as many as 10,311 hospitals are rendering services to the insured persons which include 6,093 private hospitals and 4,218 Government hospitals.
• In India, of the estimated workforce of 47 crore, only eight crore are organised workers and thirty nine crore are workers in the unorganised sector.

How democracy took roots in Bhutan

This Article written by Pavan K. Varma who was Ambassador of India to Bhutan in 2009 and is a member of the Rajya Sabha representing the Janata Dal (United).

• In March 2008, the kingdom of Bhutan, an often invisible Shangri-La tucked away strategically in the Himalayas between India and China, became the world’s youngest democracy. An absolute monarchy gave way to a constitutional monarchy, a new Constitution mandating a parliamentary democracy was adopted, and, for the first time, the people of Bhutan voted, on the basis of universal suffrage, to elect a new Parliament consisting of a National Council or Upper House with 25 members, and a National Assembly or Lower House with 47 members. Jigme Thinley became the country’s first democratically elected Prime Minister. In the second elections in 2013, his Peace and Prosperity Party was defeated by the People’s Democratic Party. Its leader, Tshering Tobgay, a young Harvard educated man in his mid-forties, is today the Prime Minister of Bhutan.
• To understand what has really happened in Bhutan, it is essential to go a little back into history. The Wangchuck dynasty came to power in 1907 by uniting a bunch of warring chieftains. The fourth king in this dynasty, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, assumed power in July 1972 at the young age of 17 following the untimely death of his father. Jigme Wangchuck brought to the throne a wisdom and sagacity that belied his youthfulness and lack of experience. Having laid the foundations of peaceful economic development and political stability with full support from India, he applied his mind seriously to the future course of his kingdom. Until the 1980s, Bhutan had sought to zealously preserve its geographical isolation, preferring to let the world go by.
• But this began to gradually change under the fourth king. First, he transferred most of his powers to a nominated Council of Ministers, thereby volitionally diluting the concentration of power in the throne. Then, in 1999, he allowed both television and Internet to make their entry into Bhutan.
• Finally, and most dramatically, in December 2005, when he was only 50 years of age, he announced his decision to abdicate from the throne in 2008 in favour of his eldest son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. This announcement was accompanied by a royal command that work on a new Constitution must begin immediately with the express purpose of converting Bhutan into a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy.
• Why did Jigme Singye Wangchuck, whom I had the great privilege of coming to know very well, take these momentous decisions which would curtail his own absolute powers, especially since there was no political restlessness seeking a change of the polity? In fact, most people in this sparsely populated kingdom (population 0.8 million) were happy with their king, and actually had to be persuaded to embrace democracy. The answer quite simply is that Jigme Wangchuck had the political incisiveness, rarely seen in monarchs, to pre-empt history. He knew that in a rapidly globalising world, Bhutan could not sustain its isolationist path; he also knew, looking at developments in neighbouring Nepal, that sooner or later there would be a democratic challenge to an absolute monarchy. In view of this, he chose to anticipate the inevitable by initiating change himself. In doing so he also created the most sustainable milieu for the perpetuation of his own dynasty.
• Today, democracy is taking roots in Bhutan. The young fifth king, Jigme Namgyel Wangchuck, wise beyond his years, and Queen Jetsun Pema, are loved by the Bhutanese. Prime Minister Tobgay, whose smooth transition from Opposition leader to Prime Minister I have been personally witness to, is an able leader. The National Assembly still functions — especially compared to our raucous standards — with monotonous decorum. Legislators rarely speak out of turn. There is no din in the House. But issues are debated with vigour and conviction. The king addresses the House at the beginning of a session if he chooses to do so.
• Otherwise his presence suffices. He remains above the democratic fray, but is very much bound by the Constitution. Although the process is cumbersome, the king can actually be impeached under the Constitution by Parliament. Moreover, the Constitution also mandates that a monarch must compulsorily retire at the age of 65. Democracy, albeit with a strong Bhutanese flavour, has come to stay in the Forbidden Kingdom, and India, as the world’s largest democracy, can only welcome it.

Bhutan's fourth King Jigme Singye Wangchuck (right)

 crowns his son Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck

 as the fifth King of Bhutan in 2008