india together digital edition 15-april-2013

india

together

The news in proportion

15 April 2013

www.indiatogether.org

Fortnightly

Chronicling the tears of Kashmiri women

P12

Pages 20

KUDANKULAM

Ready to produce power?

Caveat from farm debt waiver scheme P3 Industrial Tribunal verdict raises hope P16

FARMERS’ DEBT

Caveat from farm debt waiver scheme

Serious and rampant irregularities exposed by the CAG audit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 hold important cautionary advice for the government as it seeks to launch direct cash transfers.

Himanshu Upadhyaya analyses.

2 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

L

aunched in May 2008, the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme (ADWDRS), 2008 aimed to address the problems and difficulties faced by the farming community in repayment of loans taken by them and also to help them ”qualify for fresh loans”. At the time of launching the scheme, the Department of Financial Services (DFS), Union Ministry of Finance had estimated that about 3.69 crore marginal/small farmers’ accounts and about 0.60 crore other farmers’ accounts would be covered under the scheme.

A performance review of the implementation of the scheme during the last four years by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has shown that up to 31 January, 2012, Government of India had extended Rs 52,131 crores (provision figure as reported in a communication from DFS to CAG) as debt waiver/relief. The audit report makes an observation that the implementation of the scheme appears to have stressed on the task of achieving targets for waiver and relief. It states that by defining outcomes/ outputs only in terms of likely number of beneficiaries/ accounts that received some form of debt relief, those who framed the scheme led the lending institutions to be concerned about achieving such targets only. There was little or no monitoring to ensure that the other objective, namely extension of fresh loans, was achieved.

The audit report stated “As regards the issue of re-finance, it could not be vouched that all the beneficiaries having ADWDRS certificates were given fresh loans, wherever they applied for it, as no record of loan application receipts which were rejected/ accepted by lending institutions was being 15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 3

FARMERS’ DEBT

maintained”. These ADWDRS certificates were to be issued to beneficiaries by the servicing bank with an intent to enable them to obtain fresh credit.

Being driven by target setting in terms of number of beneficiaries/accounts, the planners of the scheme also assumed that a month was all that lending institutions would need to draw up a list of 4.29 crore farmer accounts, who were to be extended benefits under the scheme. The CAG audit remarked that “the timeline of 30 June 2008 was unrealistic and fraught with risk of errors as eventually seen in audit”.

DFS sought to brush aside this observation by stating in its reply dated April 2012, “The scheme was circulated to the banks on 28 May 2008. Thereafter, certain queries were received from banks which were clarified on 18 June 2008. In any scheme clarifications are issued on an ongoing basis.

In the scheme guidelines, the criteria of eligibility for relief has been prescribed and the benefits of the scheme extended to the beneficiaries. In view of this, time for making the list of beneficiaries as per bank records was not short.”

However, the views expressed by banks at the exit conference in Punjab were contrary to DFS as they squarely blamed the time allowed by the GoI for the implementation of the scheme as a major constraint. CAG notes that similar views were expressed by ICICI Bank, Canara Bank and Land Development Bank, Uttar Pradesh.

The performance review carried out by CAG from April 2011 to March 2012, covered 25 states involving field audit of 90,576 beneficiaries’/farmers’ accounts, across 715 branches in 92 districts.

It was revealed that in 20,216

FARMERS’ DEBT

Paying those who were ineligible, depriving those who were eligible, overpaying some beneficiaries and paying less than what was due to others, clearly seem to indicate acts of omission as well as of commission.

When such acts are found out to affect almost 22 percent of the sample, it raises serious questions about the robustness of governance of agricultural loans and of the monitoring role performed by the RBI and NABARD.

accounts (22.32 per cent of the sample) out of the 90,576 accounts test-checked in the performance audit, there were lapses/ errors.

Discrepancies amounting to Rs 20.50 crore were noticed in 6822 accounts (8.5 percent of the sample) out of 80,299 accounts test-checked, wherein ineligible farmers, i.e. farmers who had taken loans for non-agricultural purposes, or whose loans did not meet eligibility conditions, were given benefits under the scheme.

Out of these, in 1174 loan accounts, benefits of Rs 4.57 crore were allowed in the form of debt relief or waiver, for purposes not allowed under the scheme, such as against personal loans, loans for vehicle, loans for business, loans for shop or purchase of land, advances against pledge or hypothecation of agricultural produce other than the standing crop, or agricultural finance to corporate firms, partnership firms or societies other than cooperative credit institutions.

Another 4826 accounts were extended incorrect benefits. While 3262 farmers were extended excess benefits totaling Rs 13.35 crore, there were 1564 farmers who were extended Rs 1.91 crore less than what their due would be as per the scheme. On the other hand, 1257 accounts (13.46 percent of the sample) out of 9334 accounts test-checked, were found to be eligible for benefits worth Rs 3.58 crore under the scheme, but were not considered by lending institutions while preparing the list of eligible beneficiaries.

Further, in the case of 6392 accounts, certain charges amounting to Rs 5.33 crore which should have been borne by lending institutions themselves as per the scheme guidelines, were claimed from the government.

4 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

Such charges included interest in excess of principal amount, unapplied interest, legal charges, inspection charges, miscellaneous charges etc. Loans amounting to Rs 154.60 crore were waived off in violation of guidelines.

Shortly after the CAG of India submitted a draft audit report based on these findings on 8 May 2012, the Department of Financial Services (DFS), MoF filed a reply on 29 June 2012.

In its reply DFS contested that 7242 audit objections had been verified by them and banks had contested the audit objections in 2415 cases. Since DFS did not intimate the specific audit objections that were contested by banks, CAG requested on 6 July 2012 to provide the necessary details. Therefore, DFS directed all the banks to reconcile their differences with Audit by providing relevant details and supporting documentation of the cases.

Subsequently, Audit took up a re-verification exercise (which lasted for three months) during which initial records and documents submitted by banks relating to 6371 cases (including the 2515 cases contested as per DFS reply) were examined and discussed in detail with the representatives of the banks. The result of this cross verification exercise again was that audit objections were sustained in 5857 cases and only in 514 cases, contestations from banks appeared to be genuine and were hence dropped.

Paying those who were ineligible, depriving those who were eligible, overpaying some beneficiaries and paying less than what was due to others, clearly seem to indicate acts of omission as well as of commission. When

such acts are found out to affect almost 22 percent of the sample, it raises serious questions about the robustness of governance of agricultural loans within the banking sector and of the monitoring role performed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD).

The CAG audit also observed that the Department of Financial Services, MoF was totally dependent upon the nodal agencies (RBI and NABARD) for monitoring the compliance of its instructions to lending institutions issued from time to time for implementation of the scheme. However, the nodal agencies themselves were relying on certificates and data of lending institutions without conducting independent cross checks on such data and certificates to verify the claims. Consequently, the CAG report notes that “This raises an issue of conflict of interest, since in effect, the lending institutions were performing a dual role, first implementing and then monitoring their own work”.

These revelations come at a time when the ruling government is advocating direct cash transfers as a remedy for many problems; Biometric identification and UID (Unique Identification Number) are being trumpeted as a cureall for systemic ills and the same financial institutions (banking sector) are being seen as effective distribution channels.

The aforementioned report clearly points to the hollowness in these claims and outlines the possible dangers in relying entirely on these institutions without plugging loopholes in their system. In the light of the above findings, it seems only reasonable to ask that the central government

fix the responsibility in each case of violation reported by the CAG audit report on Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme before it embarks on the direct cash transfer scheme. Farmers’ groups must also come forward and demand that all those eligible beneficiaries who were deprived from the benefits of the scheme are now extended the same in a time-bound manner.

Himanshu Upadhyaya is a researcher working at the Azim Premji Foundation, Bangalore.

15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 5

FARMERS’ DEBT

NUCLEAR POWER

Construction site of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

Credit: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Kudankulam Ready to pro 6 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

NUCLEAR POWER

kulam: oduce power?

15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 7

NUCLEAR POWER

Will the Kundankulam nuclear power plant finally become operational this month as assured by the Prime Minister?

Krithika Ramalingam takes an in-depth look at the long history of delays and conflicts that has plagued the project since its inception.

A

lmost 11 years after concrete had first been poured in the Kundankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) in March 2001, India still awaits the 2000 MW electricity that the plant could generate. Six months after nuclear fuel-enriched Uranium was loaded into the core of the plant, with repeated tests being run to satisfy all safety parameters, Kundankulam is still on the brink. For the nuclear protesters that brink denotes a lurking disaster while for India's nuclear establishment, it is the power that could relieve a crippling shortage that has come in the way of growth.

The stalled project had seen its share of delays right from the beginning. A product of the IndoUSSR pact in 1988, the first hurdle came in the form of collapse of the USSR. Clearances, in line with the laws of those days, were obtained in 1989 and land acquisition completed by the 1980s. The plant had to be renegotiated with Russia in 1997.

But a different set of rules for environment safety were in place in 1997, under the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Any project that cost over Rs 50 crore needed to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Public Hearing, after the copy of the EIA was given to the public/panchayats (local body governance) of the village in which the project was to come up. The notification mandated any expansion and modernisation of existing projects and new ones should go through a process of EIA by an expert committee chosen by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. The report had to be placed before the State Pollution Control Board, which would then convene a public hearing to find 8 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

out objections to the project.

Schedule I of the notification included nuclear plants and allied industries.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, the Indian company that is implementing the project, had also proposed four more plants in the site. A fresh interGovernment agreement was signed in 2008. While the two plants for which permissions were already in place did not have to go through additional processes, the other four proposed plants had to.

Permissions for those four plants had come only in 2012 after much deliberation and changes in the safety plan, after EIA and public hearing.

HOME-GROWN INDUSTRY AND ITS SAFETY The civilian nuclear energy programme in India is 62 years old with one of the safest records in the world. There have been no Chernobyl-like or Three Mile Island-like accidents, events that were believed to be caused by human factor. India also collaborated with the likes of Canada, France, USA. However with the Smiling Buddha operation in 1974, the country faced a nuclear apartheid. Countries that had then helped India set up reactors backed out of their commitments, setting back many projects. The fast breeder reactors, for which India was working with France, were delayed. A smaller test breeder reactor has been in operation for almost 30 years now, but the 500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is yet to go on stream, the nuclear establishment attributing this delay to the manufacturing of a first-of-its-type equipment.

Since then the nuclear energy

programme has been almost entirely home-grown and has often been praised elsewhere for the ingenuity and experimental facilities that is matched only by Russia. In that sense, Kundankulam then would come to mean a collaboration between two of the best in the world.

But then the project attracted so much opposition that it was almost derailed twice, and while the last rounds have come very close to commissioning, it has not reached that state. The residents of Idinthakarai, a village 6 km outside the 5 km sterilisation zone, have called for the project to be abandoned. In September 2011, the anti-nuclear movement started gaining momentum, forcing the State of Tamilnadu to call for a suspension of works in a ready-to-be commissioned project.

SUMMER OF DISCONTENT Tamil Nadu was going through an unprecedented power shortage, with an installed capacity of 11,640 MW including from Central projects like Neyveli Lignite Corporation through power sharing agreements, and the state experiencing a 4,460 MW deficiency. The demand from the Power Utility was projected at 13,450 MW for 2013-14.

The Tamil Nadu Generation and Transmission Company – TANGEDCO – had to resort to extensive power cuts throughout 2012, some extending up to 12 hours in rural areas to manage the crisis. The crisis continues in 2013, with the state being energystarved this summer also.

There has been little capacity addition since 2000 in the state and opposition to projects like the 1600 MW Jayamkondan Lignite Power Project had meant

NUCLEAR POWER

grinders and fans (and where fans were redundant induction stoves).

These energy intensive appliances added another requirement of 250 MW per day, according to some TANGEDCO estimates. But with the by-elections won, the AIADMK government put the ball firmly in the centre's court.

EXPERT GROUP STRUGGLES TO WIN OVER that the state quickly went from energy surplus to buying power from the North Eastern States.

Demand had increased from 6000 MW in early 2000 to 12000 MW within a decade. Many of the thermal plants are operating only at 50 percent capacity and dwindling resources at Neyveli Lignite Corporation poses its own problems. The state needed to add capacity and add it quickly.

This prompted the Chief Minister to do a volte-face on her stand that KKNPP can only be commissioned after allaying the fears of the locals and seeking immediate consent.

The consent came a day after parliamentary by-elections to Sankarankoil constituency, in the district of Tirunelveli, the same as Kundankulam in March 2012. It was an election fought over the poor management of power crisis. The AIADMK-government leveraged its victory to give consent to the project. It also upped its ante by demanding all of the 2000 MW for the state, negating the original power-sharing contract.

Both the AIADMK and its bitter enemy the DMK had contributed to the power crisis, by not adding capacity and by distributing freebies promised during elections like TVs, blenders, 15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 9

The centre was urged to win over the support of locals after allaying fears. Well-respected scientists including the former President of India Dr A P J Abdul Kalam were part of that effort.

An Expert Group that went into safety aspects presented its report to the State Government. A copy of that report can be found here: http://re.indiaenvironmentportal. org.in/files/file/KKNPP%20 %28ENGLISH%29.pdf That report addressed how the Fukushima meltdown happened and how the design of the Kundankulam plant does not allow for that kind of events to happen. The Japanese plant was shut down when the 9.03 Richter scale temblor hit the North Eastern Japanese island; the six tsunami waves that followed cut off power supply to the plant that resulted in a level-7 meltdown.

The earthquake was so powerful that it moved the entire main island of Japan, Honshu, by 8 ft and shifted the earth on its axis. Of note is the fact that entire Japan sits on seismic zone 5, while Indian authorities says Kundankulam sits on zone 2, the least prone to earthquakes.

When the Boxing Day tsunami, caused by a 9.1-earthquake off Sumatra, Indonesia, struck the Eastern Coasts of the Indian peninsula, two nuclear

NUCLEAR POWER

establishments saw some flooding.

The Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam (70 km from Madras) was minimally affected.

Water entered one of the 220 MW plants, which had been manually shut down safely. The residential colonies for the workers fared worse with five employees of the Madras Atomic Power Station drowning..

Kundankulam plant also saw tsunami water entering its incomplete premises.

Kundankulam's neighbouring fishing villages were minimally affected by the tsunami.

The Expert Committee then pointed out the low seismicity of the region, the plant safety features including the higher elevation of the building and diesel generator to cool, double containment, measures to prevent explosions caused by release of hydrogen gas, like those that happened in Fukushima, to prove their point that Kundankulam is no Fukushima waiting-to-happen.

The Nuclear Establishment has also agreed to implement the safety plan that the International Atomic Energy Agency proposed.

Yet, these assurances were not good enough for the protesters.

The activists still demanded that the project be scrapped and even sought that the blueprint of the reactor be made public, an unprecedented step. This time around they also wanted it scrapped on the basis that it went against public sentiment.

Their rhetoric revolves around nationalistic sentiments of Tamils and has received widespread support among parties that have espoused those values. After the main parties of Tamil Nadu, the ruling AIADMK and the DMK, toed the line of the expert group report, the Tamil Nationalistic PMK

and the MDMK have extended support. This movement has also attracted the attention of supremacist elements involved in the Tamil separatist movement, like Naam Thamizhar Iyakkam.

CLOSE TO COMMISSIONING While the Nuclear Establishment was looking at an October 2012 commissioning, the residents, organised under the umbrella of People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), filed a case in the High Court seeking the scrapping of the project. When that case was thrown out, they went to the Supreme Court to stop the loading of fuel into the plant. The court refused to stop the loading, but reserved its order pending the satisfaction of safety norms.

The residents then resorted to a sea siege. There were many incidents of disturbances of law and order, including a charge against peacefully protesting villagers. The atmosphere around Kundankulam continued to be rife with rumours.

With the plant expected to be commissioned by the following month, local media started reporting leakage of radiation claiming 40 lives. Those reports were then rescinded the next day and apologies issued. Sri Lankan anti-nuclear groups became involved at this stage claiming leaks and the Sri Lankan Atomic Energy Authority, which has radiation detectors installed near the Indian coast, had to issue a denial.

MOVING TOWARD TRANSPARENCY In the last decade, India has signed the 123 Indo-US Nuclear Treaty with the USA, which 10 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

Those for Nuclear Energy have demanded greater transparency in the working of the nuclear establishment.

Most of the officials from the regulatory body, AERB, are from the nuclear establishments themselves. That expertise on nuclear energy does not exist outside the realms of the Department of Atomic Energy has been a concern.

mandates it to separate civil and military nuclear facilities and to open up its civil facilities to scrutiny by the IAEA. As a last step of activating the pact, the government had to legislate The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.

With these steps the Nuclear Establishment of India hoped it could work toward removing some of the cynicism about its safety record and accusation of secrecy. These measures, however, have not even been recognised by the anti-nuclear movements in the country that quote the example of Germany and wants India to stop all civil nuclear energy efforts.

Those for nuclear energy have also demanded greater transparency in the working of the Nuclear Establishment. Most of the officials from the regulatory body, AERB, are from the nuclear establishments themselves. That expertise on nuclear energy does not exist outside the realms of the Department of Atomic Energy has been a concern. Many of the dialogues between the establishment and anti-nuclear activists have therefore been trenchantly inimical - a rather technical “he said-she said� than ones trying to move towards consensus building. And the one catastrophe that Kundankulam has already left us with is that of public relations.

For instance, the first ever nuclear project to have undergone a public hearing was the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor in 2001. When the public hearing was on in the presence of the Kancheepuram district Collector, the anti-nuclear groups organised residents to complain of the incidence of congenital deformities, believed to have been caused by radiation.

These were listed by Doctors

for Safer Environment. The then Collector, also a medical doctor, had requested that these be documented instead of blanket accusations being levelled.

However, when this reporter spoke to those doctors and asked why the report was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of being presented to journalists first, they were reluctant to answer questions.

On the other hand, the Nuclear Establishment maintains that radiation levels in Kalpakkam were much below those minimum requirements mandated by the AERB and that they are much below background radiation already present.

In recent times, the antinuclear protesters have also called into question the design/ safety criteria that were taken into account during the design process.

Most reactors were designed taking into account storm surges, given that the east coast is prone to cyclones. But that the entire region is considered to be low-seismicity zone and not tsunami prone, unlike the Pacific Ocean, is pointed out as a poor design factor. Protesters have also put forth the view that a scientific body like the DAE and its constituents cannot afford to pick its safety concerns. It is true that these contentions of theirs have not been sufficiently addressed by the establishment.

Since the fuel loading in October 2012, NPCIL has run many tests and has submitted their results to AERB. The AERB has also called for many tests to be done in thoroughness. People who are observing the process see it as strategies to assuage the Supreme Court, where a PIL against the KKNPP filed by Prashant Bhushan in September 2012 is still pending.

15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 11

NUCLEAR POWER

The Supreme Court had observed that the plant could be put on hold at this stage - when it is about to be commissioned - if it is not satisfied with the safety measures.

In all of this, the commissioning of the plant has simply been pushed beyond one deadline to another; The AERB has been periodically stating that the plant would be commissioned shortly; now, the latest assurance comes from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has promised Russian president Vladimir Putin that the plant will be operational this month. However, given the long history of roadblocks, and the fact that the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case against the power plant is still pending, one can only wait to see when the assurance becomes reality.

Krithika Ramalingam is a Chennaibased development journalist.

FILM REVIEW

The atrocities inflicted upon women in the strife-ridden Valley and the fear and oppression under which they live continuously are poignantly depicted in Ocean of Tears, a documentary reviewed by Shoma A. Chatterji

F

or the first time in the history of turbulent Kashmir, we get to see, hear and be shocked by the situation of fear and danger that women in the valley must constantly live in. Ocean of Tears, a documentary directed by Bilal A. Jan and produced by Public Service Broadcasting Trust, Delhi, gives us a bizarre insight into the administrative, legal and judicial apathy these women are victim to. The gang-rapes and the killings, murders and forced disappearances are one side of the story.

The other side is darker, more scary and inhuman – the Indian Government’s attempts to either hide or white-wash the truth

Chronicling th of Kashmiri wo of these violent acts instead of punishing the offenders who belong to the military forces – the Army, the Rashtriya Rifles, or the CRPF. Militants too might have been involved but most of these atrocities on women are said to have been inflicted mainly by the different military outfits of the 12 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

Indian defence services. The first frame of the film is a quote from the famous poet Jalal Uddin Rumi.

It says – Woman is a ray of God Not a mere mistress.

The Creator’s Self, as it were, Not a mere Creature.

A still from the documentary. Pic: Bilal Jan

he tears omen But the stories the film depicts show otherwise. It goes back to the gang-rape of 32 women in the village of Kunan Poshpora in Kupwara District, J & K that took place on 23 and 24 February in 1991. According to the villagers’ statements and newspaper reports, over 32 women and

children were gang-raped. It had snowed that day and the paths were covered with four feet of snow. At 11.00 pm, the crack-down began. The men were dragged out of their homes and forced to remain on the snow-covered paths outside. Youngsters were taken to the torture camps and the women and girls were raped and beaten so much that most of the men could hardly recognize their own wives the next morning.

The rapists, soldiers all, were from Panzgham camp.

Ocean of Tears was originally scheduled to premiere on 15 December, 2012 in Kashmir University. “But the State authorities exerted pressure and the screening was blocked by the University authorities because they said it might trigger law and order problems. I told them that the film already has the Censor Certificate but they just would not listen and screening was denied,” says Bilal Jan. “Kashmir has no cinema halls at present and all the theatres are occupied by the Indian security forces. There is no cinema culture, no state film board and no funding. Yet, I went on with my mission and completed the film,” he adds. Redemption arrived in the film having been selected for screening at the 3rd Nepal Human Rights International Film Festival in February.

The camera captures a group of angry husbands twenty years later, seated in a semi-circle narrating their tales of despair and anger. Four of the victims died because of excessive bleeding.

Some of them are still getting treatment. Zareefa died of excessive bleeding leaving behind six unmarried daughters. Zoona, Rafiqa and Sara had to get their uterus removed. Sara says she 15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 13

FILM REVIEW

has to spend Rs.8000 to Rs.10,000 on medicines. Though the men approached the Brigadier of the nearby camp, the Superintendent of Police and the Corps Commander of Army who came to take the statements of the victims and the men, nothing happened.

A FIR was finally registered after Wajahat Habibullah, the then Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir intervened and a case of gang rape was registered against the Rashtriya Rifles of 68th Brigade who had entered the village and committed the heinous act. But the government of India refuted the claims of the complainants because the FIR was lodged three days after the attack. How could the victims file a FIR when they were held captive by the soldiers and the women were not even able to walk and talk?

Many children of the village were refused admission to schools in neighbouring villages because their mothers had been raped.

Some children do not want to go to school because they are ridiculed by the children of other villages.

Many girls who were raped have remained unmarried. The case was re-opened 20 years later because the people of the village demanded a reinvestigation on the basis of a SHRC Report.

This is not the only story the film focusses on. It talks about the attack on and subsequent deaths of two young ladies, Neelofar, 24, and Asia, 18, of Shopian who were molested, raped and killed and their bodies were dumped in a stream nearby by two members of Rashtriya Rifles. This was the first case that attracted media attention and led to the society’s rebellion against such atrocities for the first time.

There were three investigations into these deaths - the Jan

FILM REVIEW

Commissions’ investigation, the SIT’s investigation and the CBI that was brought in before the SIT could even submit its report. Faiyaz Ahmed Chapoo, spokesperson of Majlis, an NGO in Shopian, says that the CBI was called in to distort the truth and give the perpetrators a clean chit.

The CBI report concluded that the young women had died of drowning in that slender trickle of a stream. S.M. Sahai, Inspector General of Police, J & K, sticks to this report adding that the younger girl was not touched, much less raped. Chapoo says that the samples given for testing were not the correct ones and the report was based on these planted results.

The third case is the gruesome and cold-blooded killing of two sisters, Akhtara and Asifa by militant gunmen which is cowardly and inhuman. One of the attackers, Wasam Ganai was killed in an encounter while Muzaffar Naik has not yet been captured. Nusrat Andrabi, Social Worker and Civil Rights Activist says that no action has been taken on 2500 rape cases by the security forces which is the highest in the country.

The fourth case is of the rape of a young woman Ashmal who was raped by some men of the Rashtriya Rifles on 20 April 2002 when she had gone to collect grass, and her 13-yearold daughter Kulsum saw all this from behind a tree. Ashmal died of cardiac arrest on the way to hospital and her daughter’s eyewitness account did not stand in court because she was a child at the time. The family did not lodge any FIR because it was terrified and is still reeling under the shock of this horrific incident.

Mymoona Banu’s husband

The government of India refuted the claims of the complainants because the FIR was lodged three days after the attack. How could the victims file a FIR when they were held captive by the soldiers and the women were not even able to walk and talk?

Akhtar Hussan has been missing for 14 years and she is left alone to take care of the family. He disappeared after he left to attend a friend’s funeral. She is a microcosm of all the halfwidows that the state has created, leading to the founding of the Association of Disappeared Persons (APDP) formed in 1994 by families of victims of enforced and involuntary disappearances of family members. The Association records that between 8000 and 14 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

10000 people have gone missing during different regimes since 1989 and it is carrying an ongoing campaign against their disappearing family members.

Ocean of Tears has a voiceover in clipped English at different points that sounds jarring in a film exploring atrocities in a specifically disturbed and ethnic area, where the locals do not know English at all. The talking heads – Tariq Ahmed, Secretary of the Human Rights Commission,

FILM REVIEW

for Bollywood blockbusters like Kashmir Ki Kali. When disturbances – political, military and militant – escalated and tourism was reduced to a here-now-gonetomorrow situation, mainstream Bollywood turned to reflecting the fears that have evolved over the years, as in Mission Kashmir.

But it is the documentaries that are scary, frightening and which make us question the flux in the human condition because they reflect reality in the Valley. Ocean of Tears is just one example.

Dr. Shoma A Chatterji, freelance journalist and author, writes on cinema, media, human rights, cultural issues and gender.

Ocean of Tears Poster. Pic: Bilal Jan

J & K, Prof. Bashir Ahmed, Head of the Department of Sociology, University of Kashmir and Nusrat Andrabi – are good but the film with its on-the-spot, direct comments by the victims stands on its own and is enough to hold the narrative together. The only jarring spot seems to come from the comments in heavy American accent by Dr. Nyla Khan, Professor of Oklahoma University who makes some flying ‘outsider’ comments on the sexual and psychological

oppression of women for the sake of the camera, because she does not sound emotionally involved at all. It spoils the mood coming as it does at the beginning of the film.

This is a unique film by virtue of its subject matter that needed a lot of courage, research and painful tracking of the victims and their families over a period of time to accomplish. During the 1960s and 1970s, the picturesque valley and landscape of Jammu and Kashmir provided the backdrop 15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 15

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE

Industrial Tribunal verdict raises hope Eleven years after journalist Rina Mukherjee was fired following her allegations of sexual harassment against a senior, the West Bengal Industrial Tribunal passes an order against The Statesman, offering hope of redress for other victims. Navya P K reports.

16 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

S

exual harassment is pervasive across workplaces, but there have been very few court cases, and even fewer judgements favouring complainants in such cases. Last month, in a ruling that is probably the first of its kind, a journalist got an order against a media organisation for firing her when she had complained of

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE

sexual harassment.

Dr Rina Mukherjee got the order against The Statesman Ltd, from the West Bengal Industrial Tribunal on 6 February 2013.

The Tribunal ordered that the company should reinstate Rina, and pay her full wages with retrospective effect from the time she was fired in October 2002.

While this order did not address the harassment angle itself, it was a clear ruling on the way the company acted.

The Statesman Ltd - a Calcuttaheadquartered company that publishes the English daily The Statesman - like most other media organisations did not have a sexual harassment complaints committee when Rina complained in 2002. Her complaint was not investigated either. This was a blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s Vishaka guidelines of 1997 that called for compulsory Complaints Committees to probe accusations of sexual harassment in all government and private companies.

Lawyers say that Rina’s case could set a precedent for sexual harassment cases in workplaces.

Moreover, the order has come at a time when parliament has passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, which also mandates complaints committees and prevention of harassment.

Delayed justice For Rina, the order came after a long wait of around 11 years.

In June 2002, Rina joined The Statesman as a senior reporter under probation. She had 15 years’ experience in journalism at the time. She alleges that her boss and news co-ordinator Ishan Joshi started sexually harassing her from the start. When she ignored his advances, Joshi retaliated by giving negative appraisals and refusing to publish her stories.

Rina also says that she complained about the harassment to the senior management, especially Managing Director Ravindra Kumar. Soon, within five months of her joining, in October 15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 17

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE

2002, the company fired Rina, saying that she was incompetent.

Rina maintains that she was fired only because she had complained against Ishan Joshi.

Three months after the termination, she sent a written complaint to the company about Joshi’s harassment, with the help of an NGO. But the management ignored the complaint; Ishan Joshi was, in fact, promoted over the years.

Rina then got support from NWMI (Network of Women in Media, India) - a collective of women media persons. Though the Bengal chapter of the NWMI wrote to the management asking for investigation of Rina’s complaint and setting up of a complaints committee, the company ignored this again. It said that the NWMI had no authority to ask them to constitute any such committee.

The Statesman has consistently said that Rina’s complaints were baseless, and that she was fired only because of her incompetence. They termed her complaint an ‘afterthought’, as she had filed it three months after her termination.

Rina had filed complaints with the police and the Bengal Women’s Commission post termination, but nothing had come out of these.

Based on her complaints, the state Labour Department set up a series of conciliation meetings between her and the company. But the issue was not resolved in the meetings, and so the department referred the case to the Industrial Tribunal.

Throughout this time, Rina got both support and scorn from different quarters, including from other journalists at The Statesman. Rina says that she also had difficulty finding lawyers,

especially since the case was against a media house. “Senior lawyers were unwilling to try their hand in a case that was difficult and without precedence.” Finally, the lawyers’ collective Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) took up her case.

Source: Rina Mukherjee

Firing motivated and illegal, says Tribunal The issue before the Tribunal was whether The Statesman was justified in firing Rina, and if she should get any compensation.

The management claimed that Rina had been fired because of incompetence, but they had not given any written notice to her about her performance.

In the Tribunal, they did produce a letter sent to Rina by their Chief Reporter then, on her performance. But the Tribunal said that this letter did not raise any major issues related to her performance - it only mentioned some weaknesses that she had to correct, and was primarily motivational. Rina was terminated some 15 days after she got the letter. The Tribunal also expressed surprise that she was fired in such a hurry. Though she was under probation, she was not guided to improve her performance; instead the letter was used as an opportunity to fire her, it said.

The verdict trashed The Statesman’s argument that Rina had filed the complaint as an afterthought. It specified that delay in reporting does not matter in civil cases; instead of making an issue out of the delay, the management should have at least sought an explanation from the accused. Also, according to earlier judgements, those under probation can be terminated only for reasons such as misconduct, 18 |www.indiatogether.org| 15 Apr 2013

The verdict trashed the argument that Rina had filed the complaint as an afterthought.

It specified that instead of making an issue out of the delay, the management should have at least sought an explanation from the accused.

which was not the case here.

Another aspect that went against The Statesman was that it sent a letter to the police station investigating Rina’s sexual harassment complaint. The letter was signed by all journalists in the company. On this, the Tribunal said that a newspaper should not try to influence an investigation by gagging its staff.

Based on these, the order said that Rina was apparently punished only for complaining against her higher-ups, and so she should be compensated with full back wages and reinstated in the company.

The way forward Naina Kapur, lawyer and equality consultant, says that this is a landmark order in that it can be cited in similar petitions in future. Naina is a member of sexual harassment complaints committees in government and private segments. “Women can show this order in their companies and compel them to set up complaints committees as well. If the company doesn’t do this, employees can even take them to court. Vishaka guidelines are legally binding as they come from a Supreme Court order.”

Now that the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act is passed, companies are expected to set up these committees anyway.

The verdict may also help the case of Akhila S, a news anchor/ producer in Sun TV, whose ordeal appears to be very similar to that of Rina. Akhila has accused Sun TV’s Chief Editor V Raja of sexually harassing her. There was no complaints committee in Sun TV as well, and Akhila filed a police complaint. Raja was arrested, and is out on bail now. On the other hand, Sun TV suspended Akhila

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE

from work and has constituted an enquiry against her, saying that 15 other women employees have complained against Akhila.

NWMI member Rajashri Dasgupta, who has been associated with both Rina’s and Akhila’s cases, believes that Akhila has a strong case. Drawing parallels between the two cases, she says that while Rina was fired during probation, Akhila was a confirmed employee; both Statesman and Sun TV had not constituted complaints committees. “The timing of Rina’s termination notice reeks of prejudice. Rina while working for The Statesman had published a number of stories, some major ones. Typically, the timing of Akhila’s suspension order, coming so closely after her complaint of sexual harassment against Raja, is suspicious and again reeks of bias,” she says.

Long way to go For Rina, the fight is far from over as two cases against her are still pending. These were defamation cases - one civil and one criminal - filed by The Statesman and Ishan Joshi against her, for writing against them.

One case is going on in Delhi and another in Kolkata. The Tribunal order may have an impact on these cases, but they may still take time to conclude. For Rina, this has meant shuttling between two cities, leaving her little time for work. She says that she was forced to take up and leave several jobs.

India has seen several cases similar to that of Rina’s. A report in The Hindu on 8 March describes the case of a senior employee in the accounting firm KPMG who was fired when she complained of sexual harassment in 2006.

This company, too, did not have 15 Apr 2013 |www.indiatogether.org| 19

a complaints committee and no action was taken against the accused. She is still fighting a court case on the harassment.

Another Hindu report on 7 March refers ro the victimisation of female employees at AIR (All India Radio), which does not have a complaints committee either.

After women presenters in AIR, Delhi, complained of persistent harassment, the Information and Broadcasting ministry set up a committee, even though complainants feel that the scope of this committee is limited.

According to Rina, victims often don’t complain because of the social scrutiny that follows. She says that even if laws are passed, education of women about their rights and media advocacy are critical. “Vishaka guidelines assumed fair play. It aimed at making organisations a little more conscious of sexual harassment, and to have such cases solved without the interference of courts.

This has not happened in my case.”

Naina says that complaints committees are only for intervention, and that companies should ensure a good working environment which is every employee’s constitutional right.

“Even the new Act is lacking in many respects. For example, complaints committees can be effective only if they have trained, skilled people. But the Act does not mention anything on this.

The Government does not want to invest in skilling people,” she points out.

Navya P K is a senior staff journalist at Oorvani Media, publisher of India Together and Citizen Matters.

Support Independent Journalism

re tions a support a r e p o do to ether ’s eader, Dear R dia Tog hat you could ther is largely n I w o Toge r red h self w . India like you. You wonde e asked your e u g a o y p t ’t ws h n s ’v r e ig u n e v r o d a u H yo e the rea ps y g n a m o h in r o r e r e b f ’r P ns d? her n’t you finance cation. Well, ial contributio s India Toget . If you have y li c lp a b n e d ther this pu y annual fina rt is vital; it h r, every day, and toge they e t t a b m o funded tion and supp e issues that ntribution to ocacy where a th co s for d adv particip pth views on r, make your tion an rmed choice a m e a r d e o f y o ws, in and in ke inf o this done s lic interest ne can then ma ood. y d a e alr cg ho ub keep p of citizens, w ote the publi er.org t m we can n togeth o r o ia r p f d o t in in or@ ts, and belong — edit interes n w o their

Make your annual contribution | Basic: Rs.500 | Recommended: Rs.1000 | Friend: Rs.5000 or higher |Sponsor articles |

In India India Together 1677, 17th Main Road J P Nagar II Phase Bangalore- 560078

Outside India India Together PO Box 26254 San Diego CA 92196 USA

facebook.com/IndiaTogether.org twitter.com/itdotorg

Oorvani Media Pvt Ltd A/c no: 00532020001014 HDFC Bank, Bangalore Current Account IFSC Code: HDFC0000053 (For RTGS/NEFT)

www.indiatogether.org