There’s a gai in nilgai so BJP in a fix, both in Centre and state

The Indian Express, 19 November, 2014

When Vasundhara Raje visited Ranthambore early this year, she was confronted by angry farmers complaining about the large-scale destruction of their crop by herds of nilgai. The Chief Minister promised action, saying there were rules that clearly permitted culling in such cases. And yet, Asia’s biggest antelope remains a nagging headache for the BJP government — how do you cull an animal that has ‘gai’ (cow) as part of its name?

The state government has now approached the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre for an answer, putting Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar in a spot.

According to sources, Javadekar was ready to take action after Raje sought an order from the Centre on the issue during a meeting in New Delhi on November 24. But his advisors then pointed to the potential political fallout of allowing the culling of a species belonging to the bovine sub-family, and called nilgai, the sources added.

“Nilgais raiding crop has become a big problem in the state. It is a different animal but many call it a ‘gai’, there are sentiments involved. I am a Brahmin and killing any animal doesn’t feel right. So we are looking for a solution. Maybe the animals can be moved to areas away from crop land,” Rajasthan Forest Minister Rajkumar Rinwa told The Indian Express.

According to Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Chief Wildlife Warden of a state is empowered to allow culling in such cases. Besides, an order was issued in the late 1990s by the then Congress government of Rajasthan, allowing the culling of wild animals considered pests under certain circumstances.

“Not a single nilgai was ever culled under the existing order because people want the Forest Department to do the dirty job. Most of the people are vegetarians and there is a religious angle. But the nilgai problem is present across the state and farmers petition the ministers and officials wherever they visit. The Chief Minister had recently approached the Centre on this matter but no fresh order has been issued,” O.P. Meena, Additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Wildlife, Rajasthan, told The Indian Express.

At the Centre, meanwhile, Javadekar too had received similar petitions from different parts of the country on animals that destroy crop. He had also briefed the ministry’s High Level Committee (HLC), headed by T.S.R. Subramanian, to address this issue in its report on key green laws.

Subsequently, the HLC report acknowledged that “there are some sentimental issues attached to these animals” but recommended that the MoEF issue a circular reminding the state governments of “the authority already vested in them” to allow culling when necessary.

Even earlier, in March 2012, the Ministry had issued an advisory for the management of nilgais for protecting crops in 14 affected states, including Rajasthan.

Neither Raje nor Javadekar responded to requests seeking comment.

Three firms that bought land from Vadra have records riddled with holes

The Indian Express, 11 December, 2014

Addresses that are either inaccurate or don’t exist, shareholders who cannot be traced or are clueless about the companies, a mismatch between what’s on paper and what’s on the ground — such discrepancies mark the land transactions between Robert Vadra’s firms and three of the four companies that bought nearly 200 hectares from him.

READ: In 3 years, Robert Vadra firms reaped up to 600 per cent profit in land deals

These three firms are all linked to Faridabad-based manufacturer of medical disposables Poly Medicure Ltd which is linked to the family of Congress leader and former Rajasthan Finance Minister, the late Chandan Mal Baid.

According to records, the three companies, Allegeny Finlease, Sachchiya Enterprises and VCB Trading, own 14.1%, 3.5% and 4%, respectively, in Poly Medicure. These companies, as first reported in The Indian Express on November 27, paid three to seven times the price at which Vadra companies were buying land in the same areas at around the same time.

Allegeny bought 69.5 hectares, Sachchiya 17.6 hectares and VCB Trading 53.8 hectares from the three Vadra companies Sky Light Hospitality, Sky Light Realty and Blue Breeze Trading in Bikaner’s Kolayat tehsil. The remaining land was bought by Mumbai-based PR Fonroche, a joint venture between PR Clean Energy and French Fonroche Energy.

Himanshu Baid is managing director and his father Jugal Kishore Baid is non-executive director of Poly Medicure. Jugal Kishore is the brother of the late Chandan Mal Baid. Himanshu Baid’s brother Vishal is president (sales & marketing) at Poly Medicure. While Vishal Baid owns VCB Trading with wife Shaily (65.45%, 34.55%), Allegeny and Sachchiya have 41 and 12 shareholders respectively.

The Indian Express found that none of the three companies exists at their registered addresses as mentioned in the Registrar of Companies (RoC) records. Consider the following:

Allegeny Finlease: One Risal Khan of Asaoti village, Faridabad, is one of the two directors of the company and signed the land deals with Vadra’s companies for Allegeny. When The Indian Express visited Khan’s house, he was away at work. His family and neighbours said he worked for Poly Medicure as manager.

At the Chittaranjan Park address of Allegeny in south Delhi is an office of Faridabad-based accountancy firm VRSK & Associates. VRSK partner Vineet Gupta directed queries to one Arvind (Gupta could not recall his last name) who he claimed dealt with the firm on behalf of Allegeny. He turned out to be the same Arvind named by Faridabad’s Narender Mittal & Co — auditors of VCB Trading — as the company’s point person  Arvind’s number went ‘out of service’ soon after he promised to get back with details of the company.

VCB Trading: Its Vasundhara Enclave address in Delhi till August 14, 2013 as per RoC records turned out to be the residence of one Sujit (he refused to share his last name), a marketing executive at Poly Medicure. He claimed he knew nothing about VCB Trading.

VCB Trading’s Jaipur address – B-64, Bais Godam – was traced to the office of Polycure Martech Limited which has three Baids – Vishal, Himanshu and Jugal Kishore – as directors.

One Kulvansh Singh of 58, Jagdamba Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, signed the land deals on behalf of VCB Trading. A visit to this address showed that Plot 58 is divided into three segments, two of which are vacant. The third has residents who said they have lived there for 10 years and don’t know any Kulvansh Singh.

Sachchiya Enterprises: There is no second floor in A-19, Industrial Estate at Bais Godam in Jaipur where it claims to have its office as per RoC records. Kamal Dugar, who owns 2.82% in Sachchiya and signed the Bikaner land deals for the company, could not be traced at either his 4, Gayatri Nagar or Plot No 13, Devi Nagar Extension, Road No 8 address in Jaipur.

There are more discrepancies when it comes to shareholder details in these three firms. The Indian Express investigated the addresses of six of the 12 shareholders in Sachchiya and 18 of the 41 shareholders of Allegeny.

Consider these:

* Four members of one Chowdhry family, owner of Al Karma Aluminium Private Limited, in Delhi’s Kirti Nagar, own stakes in Allegeny. “My brother Sachin, sister-in-law Bhawna and their two children (the four shareholders named in RoC records) are settled in the US since 1999. They rarely visit India. I have checked with my brother who has known Himanshu Baid for many years but he is not aware of this (Allegeny) company or their shareholding in it. Sachin is travelling now and will take this up with Baid,” said Sandeep Chowdhry, director, Al Karma Aluminium.

* Jaipur’s Soni family (Indra, Aarti, Subhash and Sheetal) owns 11.27% and 6.5% shares in Sachchiya and Finlease, respectively. But no Sonis were found at 9/107, Malviya Nagar, that they claimed as their Jaipur address.

* Lokesh Jain of 480, Kishanpole, Jaipur, also owns shares in both companies. This address was not traceable. While one shareholder, Ajit Singh Bhatia, of Allegeny listed a Manipur pin code (795004), another provided Udaipur’s code (313001) with their Jaipur addresses.

* Anju Agarwal and Shatrughan Sharma hold 21.12% of Sachchiya. Their common address — 22A, Nandpuri — could not be traced. Kamal Jeet Singh Sandhu, resident of 22, Nandpuri, was clueless about Agarwal and Sharma.

* Geeta Devi Agarwal of 34, Gayatri Nagar, Jaipur, owns 5.63% in Sachchiya. The Indian Express found one Geeta Devi at the address but her father’s/husband’s name (B S Agarwal) did not match with RoC records. Geeta Devi said she did not buy any land in Bikaner.

* Allegeny shareholders Bhabhi Bharti Joshi and Bikram Chand Purohit are listed at M15, New Market, Jaipur. Another stakeholder Manoj Purohit’s address is recorded as G37, New Market, Jaipur. There is no New Market in the city. All three addresses have Udaipur PIN (313001).

* Allegeny shareholder Bhagwan Sahai’s address is recorded as 17A, Suraj Vihar, Hawa Sadak. There is Suraj Nagar East and West but no Suraj Vihar in this Jaipur area.

*Two Kolkata companies Jai Tara Movie Private Limited and Arpan Agro Private Limited, own 8% and 6% shares, respectively, in Allegeny and both are recorded at S69, Raiser Plaza, Jaipur. The shop was closed and the board read B C Purohit and Co (Tax Consultant).

The phone number painted on the board was unavailable. Shiv Kumar Purohit, director of Jai Tara Movie, also owns shares in Allegeny. His address is G1/109 Kamal Apartment, Bani Park, Jaipur. Of the five Kamal apartments in Bani Park, only one has G1 but this has no flat no 109. The only Purohit here is one Kailash Purohit of Flat no 103. The security staff said he was from Kolkata and visited once in a while.

* Allegeny shareholder Dimpal Ravinder Singh’s address is recorded as House No 67, Sector 9, Faridabad. The house is owned by one Gupta who the tenants claimed is long settled in Mumbai. Neither the tenants who are staying here for over six years nor the neighbours could recall any Dimpal Ravinder Singh.

Don't meddle with forest rights, Tribal Affairs ministry tells MoEF

The Indian Express, 9 December, 2014

Following a strong letter from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) telling the Environment ministry (MoEF) that its orders violated the Forest Rights Act (FRA), the NDA government has shelved its plans to “rationalise” certain provisions of the FRA through executive orders.

On November 12, the MoTA wrote to the MoEF, asking it not to meddle with the FRA and withdraw its October 28 order that allowed district collectors to unilaterally clear diversion of forest land to expedite development projects.
Seeking withdrawal of the order, MoTA secretary Hrushikesh Panda in his letter to Ashok Lavasa, secretary, MoEF, pointed out that “though the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal ministry of the FRA, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has been issuing advisories to the states relaxing certain provisions of FRA”.

Underlining that the FRA does not provide “any scope to any executive agency for any kind of relaxation” of the applicability of the Act, the MoTA said: “The letter of 28th October takes a short-cut, which can derail the projects completely… The FRA is the law of the land. The above letter violates the law.”

Soon after, Panda and Lavasa met on November 17 and the issues, it is learnt, were subsequently discussed between Jual Oram and Prakash Javadekar, the two ministers concerned. The MoEF, claimed sources in the ministry, was forced to accept the MoTA’s position and is working on a face-saver to modify its order.

The MoEF’s October 28 circular had given district collectors unilateral powers to sanction diversion of forest land in areas notified as forest after 1930, the cutoff date for forest rights, and with no record of tribal population as per Census 2001 and 2011. Under the FRA, tribals and other forest dwelling communities have traditional rights over forests and the power to decide, through gram sabhas, if they want to allow diversion of forest land.
In a veiled reference to the growing Left-wing extremism in the forested districts across India, the MoTA letter also pointed out: “The recent announcements… of the MoEFCC… have conveyed a message that the Government is against fair implementation of the FRA. This is not desirable in the interest of peace and governance in forest areas.”

Panda and Lavasa were unavailable for comments.

At an inter-ministerial meeting chaired by the MoEF secretary on September 25, the ministry proposed exclusion of forest land outside Schedule V (tribal-dominated) areas and those notified as forests after 1930 from the consent clause of the FRA.

In response, the MoTA wrote to the MoEF on October 21, pointing out that “no agency of the government has been vested with powers to exempt application of the act in portion or in full” and any alteration of an Act other than by an amendment passed in Parliament would not be legally tenable.

That did not stop the MoEF from issuing the October 28 order. Armed with the recommendation of the TSR Subramanian committee to exempt liner projects from gram sabha approvals, the government, it is learnt, now plans to bring an amendment bill in the Budget session of Parliament.

Don’t rush into field trials of GM crops:TSR panel

The Indian Express, 1 December, 2014

The government should exercise caution and seek “greater assurance” given the “potential for medium/long-term adverse affects through unprepared introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) food crops”, a high-level committee (HLC) chaired by T S R Subramanian has warned.

“I am not against GM crops but we need to take appropriate caution. All I am saying is that don’t take chances that you cannot undo,” Subramanian told The Indian Express. “Keep your eyes open and check carefully the possible consequences (of field trials) on our biodiversity. European countries are not allowing field trials and they are not idiots.”

Set up to review six green laws, the committee, in its 106-page report submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) earlier this month, recommended the use of latest technologies to prepare an environmental map of the country that will help assess project proposals objectively and quickly and effectively monitor compliance with conditions imposed for clearances.

But, on page 93, the report cautions that “while utilising science and technology, their limitations as well as the need for appropriate human intervention should not be lost sight of”.

It goes on to say: “The potential consequences of mindless use of science and technology could possibly be illustrated by referring to the potential for medium/long-term adverse affects through unprepared introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) food crops. While other Ministries naturally would aggressively push for early field trials and induction, the role of the MoEF & CC may have to be one of being a Devil’s Advocate to advise due caution.”

Pointing out that Europe does not permit field trials, the report warns that “the average Indian farm is of very small size (which could lead to severe adverse impact on biodiversity through gene-flow)” and that “there are no independent expert agencies in the country”.

Subramanian claimed that his panel sought to improve rather than merely maintain the environmental standards and biological assets of the country. The HLC report envisages a National Environmental Monitoring Authority (NEMA), a statutory body that will prepare an environmental map of the country incorporating details of forest cover, pollution, hydrology, wildlife protected areas, human settlement, eco-sensitive zones, pristine and fragile zones, etc. This, it says, will help lay down a unified, transparent and single-window process for project approvals.

“The mapping may take up to three years but will go a long way in effective environment management. The ground status has to be in the public domain to ensure transparency. Till then, the NEMA will evaluate project proposals case by case and we have recommended geo-referenced maps in 1/50,000 scale available with the Forest Survey of India for the purpose,” said Subramanian.

The committee also proposed the enactment of a new umbrella law — the Environment Law (Management) Act (ELMA) — under which a new appellate board under a retired high court judge will hear appeals related to project clearances. While decisions of this board can be challenged at the National Green Tribunal, the latter will not be able to examine the technical aspects of any project clearance.

“Once something reaches court, it often takes up to five years to get any decision. What we have proposed is based on transparency and the principal of utmost good faith. For any violation, there will be heavy penalties under the ELMA. These cases will be heard at Special Environmental Courts to be set up in every district. Anyone is free to challenge the decisions of these courts in high courts and subsequently in the SC,” said Subramanian.

Centre notifies royalty slabs for biological resources

The Indian Express, 29 Nov, 2014

The government has notified the guidelines for sharing access and benefit arising from use of biological resources on November 21, four days after The Indian Express reported how the environment ministry was sitting on it for over three months.

It took the National Biodiversity Authority six years, 18 drafts and a prod from the National Green Tribunal to finalise the Guidelines for Access and Benefit Sharing this August.

The benefit-sharing slabs for companies are 0.1 per cent, 0.2 per cent and 0.5 per cent on annual ex-factory gross sales of a product, depending on if the sales are less than Rs 1 crore, between Rs 1-3 crore and above Rs 3 crore, respectively.

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits accrued from utilisation of genetic resources is a key objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in June 1992 and ratified by 194 countries, including India. In compliance with the CBD, the Biological Diversity Act was passed in 2002 and the Biological Diversity Rules followed in 2004. It took another 10 years for the country to notify the guidelines for the quantum of revenue companies need to share, under the Act, with local communities and for biodiversity conservation.

A wide range of industries — biotech, pharma, forestry, herbal, sugar, distilleries, food processing, soya, textile, fisheries, sericulture etc — use biological resources. Globally, the potential value of biological diversity and genetic resources is pegged at around $1 trillion. India can collect an estimated Rs 20,000-25,000 crore annually as benefit under the notified guidelines. This money would go to the National and State Biodiversity Funds and to communities from whom such resources or knowledge have been accessed by the companies.

In 3 years, Vadra firms reaped up to 600% profit in land deals

RAJASTHAN | Pattern to profits: Firms continued to buy land at old rates in areas where they were making profit

The Indian Express, 27 November, 2014

Gajner in Bikaner, one of the villages where Vadra firms bought land

Three companies owned by Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, made profits up to 600 per cent within three years of investment in real estate in Rajasthan.

Official records accessed by The Indian Express also show that even as Vadra’s firms were selling land in 2012 at  three to seven times the price they bought it for in 2009-10, they were buying land in the same areas at, roughly, the 2009-10 rates.

In all, Vadra’s Sky Light Realty, Sky Light Hospitality and Blue Breeze Trading executed 58 land deeds in Bikaner’s Kolayat tehsil between 2009 and 2013.

A scrutiny of these deeds reveals that Vadra’s firms bought 197 hectares in 2009-10 at a price that ranged from Rs 44,000 per hectare to 1 lakh per hectare. Almost all this land was sold off in 2012 at prices ranging from Rs 2.47 lakh per hectare to Rs 7.4 lakh per hectare.

Within two months of the last sale in 2012, Vadra’s firms again bought 214 hectares at prices ranging from Rs 80,000 per hectare to Rs 1.21 lakh per hectare.

Those who bought this land included nephews of a former Rajasthan finance minister and two individuals who were witness to land deals of the companies.

Details of the transactions of the three Vadra firms, as per records:

Sky Light Realty

In 2010, Sky Light Realty Pvt Ltd bought 60.153 hectares in eight deals for Rs 46 lakh — at an average of Rs 76,000 per hectare. Between March and May 2012, the company sold the land in 10 deals for Rs 2.96 crore — at an average of Rs 4.7 lakh per hectare, over six times the price it paid in 2010. It made a huge profit when it sold 29.36 hectares, bought for Rs 28 lakh in March 2010, to Fonroche Saaras Energy Pvt Ltd for Rs 199.56 lakh in May 2012.

Incidentally, Sky Light Realty sold the first lot of land in eight deals in March-April 2012 at the price of Rs 2.47 lakh per hectare. Within days, the price jumped to Rs 6.79 lakh per hectare when the company sold 3.25 hectares to one Rushipal of Haryana in May 2012. The same month, Mumbai-based Fonroche bought 29.36 hectares from Sky Light Realty, and 3.25 hectare from Rushipal, at the rate of Rs 6.79 lakh per hectare.

While Sky Light Realty sold land for an average of Rs 4.72 lakh per hectare between March and May 2012, it purchased another 71.47 hectares from village residents in four deals during June-July 2012 at an average price of Rs 82,000 per hectare. The company still holds this land, marginally above the land ceiling.

Sky Light Hospitality

In January 2010, Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd bought 69.55 hectares in two deals for Rs 72 lakh — at a little over Rs 1 lakh per hectare. In January 2012, it sold the land in two separate deals to Delhi’s Allegeny Finlease Pvt Ltd for Rs 5 crore — at Rs 7.41 lakh per hectare, seven times the price paid two years ago.

In four deals in June 2012, Sky Light Hospitality purchased nearly 70 hectares at an average of Rs 80,000 per hectare — less than what it paid in 2009. Barring land sold for Rs 6 lakh to one Meetu Agarwal of Bikaner in January 2013, ostensibly to bring down the company’s holding below the ceiling limit, land purchased in 2012 is still with Sky Light Hospitality.

Blue Breeze Trading

In June 2009, Blue Breeze Trading Pvt Ltd purchased 50 hectares in four deals in Kolayat for Rs 40 lakh at an average price of Rs 80,000 per hectare. The company picked up another 17.40 hectare in April 2010 for Rs 7.70 lakh at Rs 44,000 per hectare.

In April 2012, Blue Breeze Trading sold 41.39 hectare to VCB Trading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, in three lots for a little over Rs 1 crore — at an average of Rs 2.47 lakh per hectare. Next month, it sold the remaining 26 hectares to Fonroche in two deals for Rs 1.77 crore at an average of Rs 6.79 lakh per hectare. In all, Blue Breeze made Rs 2.79 crore after investing Rs 47.7 lakh — the return almost 600 per cent in less than three years.

In June that year, Blue Breeze Trading purchased another 71.96 hectares in Kolayat for Rs 87.50 lakh — at an average of Rs 1.21 lakh per hectare. The entire holding was sold to nine individuals — eight in Bikaner and one in Faridabad — through 11 deals made in January and May 2013.

Centre sits on royalty slabs for bio resources, loses Rs 25,000 cr a year

The Indian Express, 17 November, 2014

It took the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) six years, 18 drafts and a prod from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to finalise the Guidelines for Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) this August. Three months on, it is yet to notify the rules that would allow it to collect from domestic and foreign companies 0.1-1 per cent of their ex-factory gross sales of products using biological resources and traditional knowledge.

A conservative estimate by the industry and Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) sources puts this loss at Rs 20-25,000 crore annually. This money would go to the National Biodiversity Fund and to communities from whom such resources or knowledge have been accessed by the companies.

A wide range of industries — biotech, pharma, forestry, herbal, sugar, distilleries, food processing, soya, textile, fisheries, sericulture etc — use biological resources. Globally, the potential value of biological diversity and genetic resources is pegged at around US $1 trillion.

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits accrued from utilisation of genetic resources is a key objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in June 1992 and ratified by 194 countries, including India. In compliance of the CBD, the Biological Diversity Act was passed in 2002 and the Biological Diversity Rules followed in 2004. But, a decade later, India is still to notify the quantum of revenue companies need to share, under the Act, with local communities and for biodiversity conservation.

The Indian Express accessed the ABS Guidelines prepared by the NBA’s core expert group and vetted by the Law Ministry. Providing for benefit-sharing in both monetary and non-monetary modes, the guidelines have slabs that should encourage small companies.

Subject to last-minute modifications by Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar, whose nod is awaited for the much-delayed notification, the benefit-sharing slabs for domestic companies are 0.1 per cent, 0.2 per cent and 0.5 per cent on annual ex-factory gross sales of a product, depending on if the sales are less than Rs 1 crore, between Rs 1-5 crore and above Rs 5 crore, respectively. Foreign companies have to pay double the rate — so between 0.2 per cent and 1 per cent — in the three slabs.

For bulk exports, benefit-sharing will be 3-5 per cent of the total Free on Board value of resources. For different categories of transfer of research and Intellectual Property Rights, benefit-sharing ranges from 0.5-5 per cent.

“The thrust is on a sectoral approach. For example, it allows lowest rates for innovations based on research in agro-bio resources that are likely to benefit the farmer. Also, we have been liberal in interpreting the provisions of access, because benefits can only be generated through greater but sustainable use,” said a member of the NBA panel that worked on the guidelines.

Once notified, the guidelines will be reviewed periodically, at least once in five years. The monetary benefits will go to the National Biodiversity Fund for sharing with 28 state biodiversity boards, more than 32,000 local biodiversity management committees and specific individuals or communities from whom biological resources or traditional knowledge were accessed.

Under the Biodiversity Act, foreign companies require the NBA’s prior approval to access India’s biological resources and traditional knowledge. Domestic companies do not need prior approval but must intimate the state biodiversity board concerned. In the absence of notified guidelines, few companies, or even state biodiversity boards, have complied with these provisions. The NBA itself has collected only Rs 42 lakh under benefit-sharing since it was set up in 2003.

Last year, several companies had approached the NGT against the Madhya Pradesh biodiversity board that issued notices for benefit-sharing, arguing that no other state was implementing the ABS provisions of the Biodiversity Act. On August 29, the NGT gave the NBA six weeks to notify the ABS Guidelines. Even though the draft was cleared by the Law Ministry on time, the MoEF and NBA missed the deadline.

According to sources, successive governments have been under pressure from powerful industry lobbies to hold the guidelines back. “It saves both Indian and foreign companies thousands of crores that they would have to shell out as royalties every year,” noted an MoEF official. Repeated attempts to issue notices to companies dealing in genetically modified seeds without prior approval were stonewalled within the ministry, the official added.

Both Javadekar and Hem Pande, MoEF additional secretary who holds temporary charge as NBA chairman, refused to explain the delay. The NBA is without a full-time chairman since Balakrishna Pasupati was forced to resign in February, six months before his term as NBA chairman ended.

As reported by The Indian Express in August, then MoEF secretary V Rajagopalan had got himself selected for the post, a move subsequently scrapped by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, comprising the PM and Home Minister. Neither Javadekar nor Pande responded to queries on if the selection process would be reinitiated and if the absence of a full-time chairman was affecting the NBA’s functions.

CVC in the dark a month after Health Ministry appointed CVO

The Indian Express, 11 November, 2014

The Health Ministry has appointed a new chief vigilance officer without informing the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), barely three months after it ousted AIIMS CVO Sanjiv Chaturvedi on the grounds that his appointment wasn’t approved by the CVC.

Following repatriation of Vishwas Mehta, who was holding charge as CVO, to his parent cadre, the ministry gave Manoj Jhalani, joint secretary, the additional charge from October 10 for three months. But the CVC was kept in the dark.

“A CVO can be appointed for three months without the CVC’s prior approval, but the ministry is yet to inform us about the appointment,” a senior CVC official told The Indian Express.

As per the CVC manual, “suitable arrangements in vacancies for three months… due to leave or other reasons” is permitted without the CVC’s prior approval, but “the nature and duration of the vacancy” and the name of the officer must be reported to the Commission.

A month after Jhalani’s appointment, the CVC website still lists Mehta as the CVO of the Health Ministry. In its communications to the ministry on October 21 and 22, the Commission continued to address Jhalani’s predecessor as CVO.

The Health Ministry did not follow the due process — of furnishing a panel of names in the order of preference, along with their bio-data and complete ACR dossiers for the Commission’s prior approval — though it knew well ahead that a new CVO would have to be appointed once Mehta, who was on a three-month extension, left for his parent cadre on October 9.

J P Nadda, who replaced Harsh Vardhan as Health Minister Sunday, had repeatedly sought the removal of AIIMS CVO Chaturvedi on the ground that his appointment was not approved by the CVC, prompting Vardhan to rustle up signatures of 20 Health Ministry officials in 24 working hours between August 13 and 14 to remove Chaturvedi

The CVC has since taken cognizance of Chaturvedi’s petition against his removal and on October 22 sought the ministry’s response at the earliest. The IFS officer has accused the ministry of concealing facts and alleged that Nadda committed forgeries to force his removal.

Health Secretary Lov Verma did not respond to queries.

Ousted AIIMS officer seeks CBI probe

CVC tells health ministry to respond

The Indian Express, 3 November, 2014

Taking cognizance of a plea by Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has sought comments from the health ministry on his removal from the post of the chief vigilance officer (CVO) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.

In August, Health Minister Harsh Vardhan ordered the removal of Chaturvedi as CVO after BJP MP J P Nadda demanded his ouster.

The row over his removal prompted Prime Minister Narendra Modi to seek a report from the  ministry. Harsh Vardhan justified Chaturvedi’s ouster saying the CVC had twice rejected the officer’s name for the post.

In his petition, Chaturvedi urged the CVC to refer back to the ministry the letter ordering his removal. Saying facts had been concealed, he sought a CBI probe into the matter. On October 22, the CVC wrote to the joint secretary and CVO of the ministry, seeking an early response.

In his three representations to the CVC — on August 26, September 15 and 19 — Chaturvedi claimed that Nadda’s June 24 letter to Harsh Vardhan not only sought his removal from the post of the AIIMS CVO but also proposed the name of his replacement, asked to put on hold all inquiries/disciplinary proceedings initiated by Chaturvedi, and even recommended that he be repatriated to his parent cadre Haryana.

The BJP MP was said to have followed up his letter by meeting the Health Minister. In a letter on August 14, the ministry conveyed to the CVC its decision to remove Chaturvedi, claiming that AIIMS was yet to convey the approval of its governing body (GB) and institute body (IB) for creation of a separate post of CVO.

In his representations, Chaturvedi alleged that the ministry concealed statutory approvals granted for creation of the post of the AIIMS CVO by the GB in November 2010 and by the IB in January 2012, and commitments made by the ministry to a parliamentary committee in June 2012 and January 2013.

Demanding a CBI probe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sections of IPC related to forgery, Chaturvedi urged the CVC to protect him from what he called a witch hunt.

Behind land record files, 12 mines thrive in Sariska heart

The Indian Express, 1 November, 2014

The law prohibits mining activity in the Sariska tiger reserve but disagreement among departments over land revenue records have allowed 12 mines to continue in the core area of the reserve.

Mining and forest department records accessed by The Indian Express show that 12 marble mines are located in Khasra 166, near Palpur village, which was notified as part of the tiger reserve in 1975. It falls within the 881-sq km core critical area (CTH) declared in 2007.
A ground check confirmed that six of the 12 marble mines in Tilwad forest block under Tehla range of Sariska are currently operational while the rest await renewal of licences.

When The Indian Express checked the sites, blasting work was on and trucks were busy carrying away loads. Dumping of debris from the quarries have created artificial hillocks on forest land.

Nine mines have been operational since the 1980s, barring the 1992-1996 period when a Supreme Court order shut all mines in and around Sariska. Another three mines were permitted during 2001-05. These are “legal” mines because successive Sariska managements have ruled that Khasra 166 does not fall within the tiger reserve.

When The Indian Express checked with R S Shekhawat, Field Director of Sariska, he said: “How can there be mining inside the tiger reserve? I have to check the specifics of this area (Khasra 166). Mines could not have continued anywhere if the area was inside the Sariska core.”

Shekhawat’s argument has a history. In 2005, following a petition filed by the Alwar-based Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the then Field Director of Sariska wrote to the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) that Khasra 166,  where the mines were operational, was not the same Khasra 166 notified as part of the reserve.

Khasra numbers often change in land settlements over a period. And the Sariska management has maintained that the mines occupy Khasra 166 as per the 1957 land records while Khasra 166, notified as part of the tiger reserve according to the 1922 land records, is a different area.

But records submitted in 1992 by the Field Director of Sariska to a Supreme Court-appointed committee, tasked with  demarcation of the tiger reserve boundary, show that Khasras 1, 7, 165 and 166 of Palpur village were notified as tiger reserve as per the 1957 (Samvat 2014) land records.

Also, land records at the Rajgarh tehsil office state that Khasras 1 and 166 were identified as per the 1957, and not 1922, land records for transfer to the forest department. As per tehsil records, Khasra 166 was split and renumbered 285, 286, 290-293 and 293/417 in 1989.
The latest records with the Rajasthan mining department bear this out. The list for mines in Palpur shows that 12 mines occupy a total of 21.3 hectares in new Khasras 285, 286, 290-293 and 293/417 of 1989 – or Khasra 166 of 1957 – inside the tiger reserve.

The mining department also marked the quarries on the same map of Sariska submitted to the Supreme Court by the tiger reserve management in 1992. All 12 mines sit, either fully or in parts, on Khasra 166 on that map – the same area that the Sariska management does not acknowledge as part of the core.

Despite reminders since 2012 when Sariska’s buffer zone was notified, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) is still to receive a map, demarcating the reserve boundaries on ground, from the Sariska authorities. As a result, the Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) of the reserve is still to be finalised.

When his comments were sought, O P Meena, Additional Chief Secretary (Forests), Rajasthan, directed the queries to the mining department. “I think the boundary has been marked in Sariska. As far as mines are concerned, only the mining department can provide details,” he said.

But D S Maru, Director of Mines, said the reserve boundary had never been conclusively demarcated on the ground. “Only the revenue department can settle this issue by finalising the limits of the boundary. Mining is not allowed if an area falls within the tiger reserve,” he said.

Rajkumar Rinwa, named state minister for forest and mines earlier this week, told The Indian Express he would examine the locations of the mines in and around Sariska. “I am meeting the Chief Minister and will discuss the matter,” he said.

Rajasthan govt claimed no mining near Sariska but look at what’s happening

The Indian Express, 29 October, 2014

The Rajasthan government, which is arguing in the Supreme Court to reduce the safety zone limit around the Sariska tiger reserve from 1 km to 100 metres, told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in June this year that there was no mining activity within 100 metres of the protected forests.

But a ground check by The Indian Express found a sprawling marble mining complex at the Dighota forest block of Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary, notified as the buffer zone of the tiger reserve.

Mining and polluting industries are prohibited in the buffer and eco-sensitive zone, an additional safety ring that may stretch to 10 km around protected forests.

While 881 sq km was notified as the core critical area of the Sariska tiger reserve in 2007, a buffer of 329 sq km was declared in 2012. Rajasthan proposed to notify Sariska’s eco-sensitive zone in 2011 by reducing the limit to 100 metres and the matter is being examined by the Supreme Court.

Security guards at the Sankotda cluster of marble mines near Andhi turned away The Indian Express and the lone forest employee, manning the Sankotda post barely 500 metres from the mines, said he could not say how far was the mining complex from the reserve boundary.

But photographs taken from a vantage point show that the quarries extend right up to the sanctuary boundary wall — complete with buildings, freshly-cut blocks of marble, trucks and heavy machinery.

In April, while hearing a petition against mines operating close to the tiger reserve, the NGT closed 84 mines within 1 km of Sariska following a submission by the forest department and ordered a joint ground survey with the mining department. In July, the ban was revoked after Rajasthan assured the tribunal that there was no mining within 100 metres of the tiger reserve.

“The 84 mining leases are not falling within the prohibited zones like core area and buffer area of Sariska tiger reserve or. the eco-sensitive zone as proposed by the state of Rajasthan to be notified as prohibited area,” B S Sodha, Superintending Mining Engineer “duly authorised by the state government” said in an affidavit on June 18.

When The Indian Express told Sodha that conditions on the ground were different from what was said in the affidavit, he declined comment.

Rakesh Kumar Hirat, Additional Director (Mines), Jaipur circle, put the onus on the forest department. “If mining is going on somewhere, it has to be within legal parameters. If not, it is for the forest department to find out and report violations,” he said.

Rahul Kumar, who heads the Rajasthan forest department, said Chief Wildlife Warden S N Singh would be “in a better position” to comment on the matter. Singh, in turn, said the Sariska reserve management should be asked about “alleged violations” around the reserve. “I don’t know if there was any joint survey of the location of these mines,” he said

The Sariska management refused to confirm if and when a joint survey was conducted before the state submitted its affidavit. “These areas have been surveyed several times. I cannot comment on the specifics of any particular block without checking but there is no question of mining activity within 100 metres of the tiger reserve,” Manoj Parashar, Deputy Field Director of Sariska, said.

R S Agarwal, Chairman of Jaipur-based Andhi Marbles Pvt Ltd that owns mines in Sankotda, denied any violation of rules. “Some mining areas may fall within 100 metres but there is a 7-feet-high barbed-wire fence (at 100-metre distance) that only Olympic jumpers can scale,” he said. On the ground though, no barbed-wire fence could be found.

In 2003, the Central Empowered Committee asked Rajasthan to demarcate the sanctuary boundary on the ground and closed the mines in Jamua Ramgarh. Most mines were back in business in 2008 when the state mining department claimed that the boundary had been demarcated. Quarries were allowed beyond 100 metres from the sanctuary. This was in violation of the 2006 Supreme Court order which banned mining within 1 km of sanctuaries.

SC panel slams Rajasthan govt, orders mining ban around Sariska

The Indian Express, 27 October, 2014

The central empowered committee of the Supreme Court has asked the Rajasthan government to immediately stop mining activities allowed around Sariska in “blatant violation” of the court’s orders and name the officers responsible so that “appropriate action” can be taken against them.
The decision to allow mining activities within one kilometre of the Sariska tiger reserve and Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary was taken at a meeting chaired by then acting chief secretary of Rajasthan C S Rajan on December 4, three days after the Assembly polls. “I do not recall that file. I can’t comment as I am not privy to the developments in this issue since last year,” Rajan told The Indian Express.

According to the forest department, there are 84 mines within one kilometre of Sariska tiger reserve and Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary.

While barring mining around national parks and sanctuaries, the SC, in its August 2006 order, ruled that as an interim measure a one-kilometre radius be maintained as a safety zone. This April, the apex court’s order in the Goa mining case made it clear that the 2006 order “has not been varied subsequently nor any orders made regarding Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary” and that “the order passed by this court saying that there will be no mining activity within one kilometre safety zone around national park or wildlife sanctuary has to be enforced”.

Referring to the two rulings, the SC panel sent a letter to the Rajasthan government on October 21, pointing out that the state, in blatant violation of the apex court’s directions, permitted mining close to national parks and sanctuaries by reducing the safety zone limit from one kilometre to 100 metres and sought the names of the officials who gave the go-ahead. A copy of the letter has been accessed by The Indian Express.

The effort to sidestep the SC’s 2006 order began in 2008 when the Rajasthan mines department referred to a 2003 communication of the central empowered committee that had recommended resumption of mining only after the boundary of Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary was demarcated on the ground. Claiming that the demarcation was complete, the state permitted mining outside the periphery of 100 metres of the sanctuary.

In 2011, when Rajasthan prepared a draft notification for eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) around its national parks and sanctuaries, it stuck to a 100-metre safety zone in the mining areas around Sariska. While the ESZ proposal has been under the SC’s consideration, the mining department, in January 2013, again referred to the 2003 CEC recommendation to justify allowing mining outside 100 metres of the sanctuary. However, a decision on the issue was put on hold in March 2013.

In December 2013, the government decided to withdraw the ban imposed by the state forest department in March 2012 and grant “consent to operate” to all mines falling beyond 100 metres of the sanctuary boundary. Other than Rajan, officials who cleared the decision included former chief secretary Rajiv Mehrishi, former mining secretary Sudhansh Pant and additional chief secretary (forest) O P Meena.

3 government agencies, NGO unite to save wildlife passages along Indo-Nepal border road

The Indian Express, 21 October, 2014

At a time when green clearances for border infrastructure projects are being fast-tracked, a strategic road on the Indo-Nepal border is set to go the extra mile to save forests and wildlife of the 810-km-long trans-boundary Terai Arc landscape.

The Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department have joined hands with the state Forest Department to draw up a conservation plan which involves elevating road stretches at 16 sites — a total of 31 km will be elevated — and realigning three stretches to secure wildlife movement between India and Nepal.

B D Sharma, Director General of the SSB, told The Indian Express: “We support conservation and share the collective concerns of the stakeholders.”

Sources said the proposed changes to the border road plan will increase the project cost by 20-30 per cent though the actual figure will be known only after the detailed project reports (DPRs) are finalised.

Conceived during the term of the first UPA government, the 961-km road from Uttarakhand to Bihar will connect all SSB border outposts. In 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs cleared the 640-km UP stretch with a budget of Rs 1,621 crore.

Work is set to begin in 12 segments of the road that do not involve forest land. The remaining 16 segments cut through the Dudhwa national park, three sanctuaries and three forest divisions, home to a rich population of globally endangered wildlife including tigers, elephants, rhinos and swamp deer.

The original road alignment would have made it a physical barrier, blocking movement of animals. To avoid habitat fragmentation and delay in project implementation, all parties concerned — user SSB, builder PWD, regulator Forest Department and environmental groups WWF-India and WWF-Nepal — came together in 2013 to find a solution.

S P Saxena, Chief Engineer of the Uttar Pradesh PWD, said: “This road is a must for the country’s security and these forests and animals are our national asset. We have agreed on a set of measures though these will be expensive.”

Two options were considered for the passage of animals — an elevated road with underpasses for animals and a natural animal overpass mounted on the road. The SSB ruled out the second option as a security threat since this would have created tunnels.

The PWD then suggested the “substantially costlier” option of elevated roads with animal underpasses 6 metre high and 30 metre wide, spacious enough for elephants.

Avinash Chandra, IG, SSB Frontier HQ, Lucknow, said the SSB wanted smooth connectivity to all its border posts and that has been ensured while finalising the realignments.

Rupak De, Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh, said: “It was important for different interest groups to sit together and find a middle ground. We have to finalise site-specific details and then set up a joint monitoring committee to ensure compliance during construction.”

Dipankar Ghose, Director, Species and Landscapes, WWF-India, is cautiously optimistic: “The conservation benefits justify additional costs and we hope financial considerations will not come in the way of this landmark consensus.”

“Also, India is financing a similar road project in Nepal that will run close and almost parallel to this road. Unless the two governments come together to incorporate similar measures in that project, all the good work on the Indian side may not be enough to secure this landscape,” he said.

Officer hounded by both Congress and BJP gets CBI’s support

The Indian Express, 16 October, 2014

The CBI has sought permission of the Supreme Court to take over investigation into alleged violation of forest and wildlife laws in Haryana under the watch of the Bhupinder Singh Hooda government.

The probe agency has filed an affidavit to the effect while responding to a Supreme Court notice on a criminal writ petition filed in September 2012 by whistleblower Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service Officer who accused the Haryana government of harassing him for uncovering alleged forest scams running into crores of rupees.

“CBI herein seeks kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to pass necessary order qua the Respondent No 2 — CBI for taking over the investigation of the matter,” stated the affidavit filed on October 10 by Tarun Gauba, SP, CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chandigarh. The matter will come up for hearing in the second week of November.

Now on deputation to the Union Health Ministry, Chaturvedi was removed recently as AIIMS Chief Vigilance Officer by Health Minister Harsh Vardhan. This came after BJP MP J P Nadda demanded his ouster. The row over his removal prompted Prime Minister Narendra Modi to seek a report from the Health Ministry.

Since 2007, Chaturvedi has locked horns with the Haryana government, raking up alleged cases of corruption and violation of laws. It took five years, two presidential interventions and an inquiry by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to revoke the suspension order and chargesheet that the state slapped on Chaturvedi.

In March 2012, the Centre recommended a CBI probe into the charges he had levelled.

But the state government, citing a note by the Department of Personnel and Training which stated that the Centre had no jurisdiction to intervene, said an inquiry conducted by the MoEF was “ultra vires of their powers and… devoid of any force of law”.

Chaturvedi moved the Supreme Court which sent notices to the Cabinet Secretariat, the state government and the CBI in November 2012.

By April 2013, the Centre and the state filed their affidavits, the former standing by its recommendation for a CBI probe, the latter opposing it. In a parallel move, the Haryana government moved the High Court this April, challenging the Centre’s jurisdiction.

UPA’s tribal panel red-flags policy, NDA keeps it under wraps

The Indian Express, 9 October, 2014

* Amend the new Land Acquisition Act to safeguard tribal land and disallow acquisition by a non-tribal, including private companies.

* Make gram sabha consent mandatory for acquisition of land, even by the government for its own use.

* Introduce penalties to prevent deliberate flouting of the Forest Rights Act, such as (through) exception to linear projects, and (through) decisions of the Cabinet Committee on Investment.

* Appoint a judicial commission to investigate cases of ‘Naxal offences’ filed against tribals and their supporters.

These are some of the key recommendations of the high-level committee constituted by the UPA to study the socio-economic, health and educational status of tribal communities, and to “identify areas of intervention by government” and “suggest policy initiatives”. The NDA government has been sitting on the report for four months now.

Set up in August 2013 in line with the Sachar Committee, the seven-member panel chaired by Virginius Xaxa, a member of the UPA’s National Advisory Council, submitted its report on May 29, three days after the Narendra Modi Cabinet took oath. Sources in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs said the report was forwarded to the Prime Minister’s Office in the second week of July and the PMO sent it back to the ministry in August.

Since then, the Tribal Affairs Ministry has been tightlipped about it. Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram told The Indian Express, which has accessed the report, that “the HLC (high-level committee) report is still under consideration”. He refused to say if his ministry had received any specific instruction from the PMO.

“When I met the minister in August, I was told the government was studying our report. I wrote to the ministry three weeks ago but I am yet to hear from them,” Xaxa said.

Tribal Affairs Secretary Hrushikesh Panda was the member-secretary of the Xaxa committee and contributed one chapter to the report. Dr Usha Ramanathan, Dr Joseph Bara, Dr K K Mishra, Dr Abhay Bang and Sunita Basant were the other members.

The government’s dilemma, say ministry sources, is over certain observations and recommendations in the report that challenge the policy push to clear bottlenecks and road blocks in land acquisition for development projects, mining, large dams etc.

The thrust of the panel’s recommendations:

Land acquisition

* Prevent all kinds of tribal land alienation and restore alienated land to tribal owners as per the PESA — Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act — and confirmatory Acts by states.

* Halt measures of institutions such as the Cabinet Committee on Investment that pursue priorities in direct breach of law.

* Limit exercise of ‘eminent domain’ and definition of ‘public purpose’.

* Review the practice of signing MoUs with companies, that takes away the neutrality of the State.

* Curb government agencies acquiring land to transfer it to private companies for “public purpose”. The public-private partnership mode is simply a backdoor method of alienating land in violation of the provision restricting transfer of tribal land to non-tribals in Scheduled Areas.

* Government officials should not be seen as negotiators on behalf of project authorities.

* Government must have the mandate to return unutilised tribal land with it or PSUs, or use the same for resettlement of displaced tribals. The suggestion of the Vijay Kelkar committee (2012) that “unutilised and underutilised land resources” be used for “raising resources” to “finance infrastructure needs” is against the purpose and intent of the land acquisition law.

* Stop forthwith the move to notify rural areas as urban areas in order to nullify PESA provisions.

Mining

* Amend the Coal-Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, to provide for return of land to original land holders post-mining.
* States must adopt the amended Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, to facilitate Registered Scheduled Tribe Cooperative Societies taking up mining activities. Minerals in Scheduled Areas should be exploited only by tribals.

Large dams

* Large dams have harmed tribals. Evolve strategy for water-harvesting structures on various small and large water sources, including big rivers.
* Development projects lead to influx of outsiders to tribal areas. Don’t allow reduction of areas declared Scheduled further.

Gram Sabhas

* Cases of consent of gram sabhas being fraudulently obtained should face penalties, and such projects should not be allowed to proceed.
* Gram sabhas should be empowered to restore alienated land pending a long legal battle, to discourage a prospective non-tribal buyer.
* Public policies should learn from the experience of Niyamgiri and adverse lessons of Salwa Judum.

Grassroots movements & Naxalism

* State should engage with grassroots movements against exploitation of tribals instead of crushing them.
* There is no legal basis for terming anything a “Naxal offence”. Many are charged in areas where there is resistance to projects, and the acquittal rate is “extraordinarily high”, leading to the belief that law is being used as a tool to suppress dissent. Appoint a judicial commission to investigate cases filed against tribals and their supporters.

6 years, 2 rejections later, India’s largest hydro project cleared

PMO steps in, MoEF makes FAC clears Dibang hydel 

The Indian Express, 24 September, 2014

Six years after Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister laid its foundation stone and twice denied environmental clearance, the 3000 MW Dibang hydel project in Arunachal Pradesh has been cleared by the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), subject to a reduction in the dam height by 20 m from the originally envisaged 288 m.

This clearance for India’s largest hydro project and the world’s tallest concrete gravity dam came after a September 3 letter from Nripendra Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the Environment Secretary to “clear the project expeditiously” as per the decision of the Cabinet Committee on investment.

This despite the fact that on August 28, the MoEF wrote to the Arunachal Pradesh government rejecting the proposal for diverting more than 45 sq km of forest land to National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) for the project.

A day after Mishra’s letter, the Ministry revived the project by writing to the “project proponent that sensitivity analysis of reduction of dam height up to 40 m may please be submitted for further consideration”.

Incidentally, of the six FAC members whose meeting ended today, four were also part of the panel that had unanimously rejected the project in April 2014. It is not immediately clear if any of the six members registered any dissent to the clearance.

The 16,000-crore Dibang Multipurpose Project envisages a 288-metre-high dam that will submerge 40 sq km, with the reservoir extending to 43 km in Dibang river and its many tributaries. The project was rejected twice by the FAC – the original proposal in 2013 and a revised proposal with a 10-metre reduction in dam height this April.

According to a ministry note, NHPC held that it was “not in a position to reduce the height of the dam any further, as it would significantly affect power generation.” The project was first submitted for forest clearance to the MoEF in August 2011. After repeated site inspections by local forest authorities and much deliberation, the project was first rejected in July 2013 by the FAC on the ground that the ecological and social costs of diverting such a vast tract of forest land which is a major source of livelihood for the state’s tribal population would far outweigh the benefits likely to accrue from the project.

In August 2013, it was decided in a meeting between Power and Environment secretaries that the user agency would explore the possibility of reducing the requirement of forest land and a revised proposal would be submitted for forest clearance. In December 2013, the issue was discussed in the Cabinet Committee on Investment which decided that the MoEF “may grant the requisite clearance for diversion of forest land expeditiously”.

In February 2014, the Arunachal Pradesh government resubmitted the proposal by cutting the requirement of forest land from 5057 to 4578 hectare, a reduction of less than 9%. This new plan would reduce the power generation capacity by 2.3% and require felling of 3.24 lakh trees instead of 3.55 lakh estimated in the original proposal.

The FAC, however, rejected the revised proposal in April 2014, saying such a marginal reduction in the requirement of forest land would not reduce the adverse impact on such a biodiversity-rich, mature forest eco-system to make the project environmentally as well as socio-economically viable in the forest-dependent tribal society of Arunachal Pradesh.

Accordingly, the MoEF wrote to the state government on August 28 that “the ministry, after examining the recommendations of the FAC, has rejected the proposal”. The Power Secretary, however, had already written to the Environment Secretary in June to review the FAC’s decision and accord Stage-I forest clearance to the project.

The project was also discussed at a meeting attended by Ministers and Secretaries of Mine, Steel, Coal and Environment ministries the same month. On June 24, the Power Ministry submitted a two-page report on the implications of a 20-m reduction in dam height.

In the margins, a hush hush recall to Beijing

The Indian Express, 19 September, 2014

A day before President Xi Jinping’s grand ceremonial entry into Ahmedabad, there was an unceremonious exit — in his Embassy in New Delhi.

In a highly unusual departure ahead of a state visit, Beijing quietly recalled its ambassador to New Delhi, Wei Wei, without saying where he was headed.

Wei Wei was replaced by Le Yucheng, China’s ambassador to Kazakhstan, barely 20 months after he took charge of the mission here.

Reached by The Indian Express for comment, Chinese embassy spokesperson Xie Liyan said: “I have no information.”

The sudden exit has left diplomatic circles guessing, some suggesting that Wei Wei was recalled to face “charges” in an “old” case, others saying it was another unexplained recall to Beijing. Sources said that plans to get  Wei Wei out were in place late last month and could be related to the current crackdown against some top officials in the party and government.

Ma Jisheng, China’s Ambassador to Iceland from 2012 until January this year, and his wife, Zhong Yue, left Reykjavik suddenly and are now said to be in Chinese custody. In this case, too, Beijing remained mum.

On September 16, a day before Xi Jinping set out for India, state-run news agency Xinhua quoted a press release from the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) to announce that Le Yucheng had replaced Wei Wei. Le Yucheng served as Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2011 to 2013 before moving to Kazakhstan.

A career diplomat and a law post-graduate, Wei Wei served as ambassador to Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Brunei and Singapore before being sent to India in January 2013.

Wei’s predecessor Zhang Yan had served for four years in India and was appointed Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Foundation after his stint in New Delhi.

On foreign fund trail, Karnataka asks NGOs for agitation records

The Indian Express, 14 September, 2014

Karnataka’s Congress government has asked all NGOs in the state to provide details of the source and utilisation of funds received from abroad, and of the NGOs’ “involvement in agitations during the last five years”.

A detailed 33-point checklist prepared by the Internal Security Department (ISD) of the state police also seeks information on the NGOs’ “role in development”, and on their involvement in issues concerning forests, wildlife, tribal communities, and e-waste in Bangalore.

On July 10, Congress MLA and former Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar claimed in the Karnataka assembly that since 2006, NGOs in the state had received Rs 1,069 crore from abroad, and that many were using the money to stall or disrupt developmental activities such as nuclear, hydroelectricity and irrigation projects.

A month before Kumar’s intervention in the assembly, The Indian Express had first reported on a dossier that the Intelligence Bureau had submitted to the PMO on June 3, in which it had claimed that disruptions caused by NGOs was impacting GDP growth to the tune of “2-3 per cent per annum”.

Kumar, who cited intelligence sources for his information, also alleged that conservationist Dr Ullas Karanth had become a “tiger expert” after “having killed 13 tigers” in the Nagarhole tiger reserve.

Kumar was strongly backed by K G Bopaiah of the BJP, also a former Speaker of the assembly, who alleged that several NGOs in his home district of Coorg were “making money” in the name of tribal welfare. Congress MLA from Tarikere (Chikmagalur), G H Srinivasa, too alleged “malpractices” by NGOs in his constituency.

In response, Home Minister K J George announced that the state police ISD would investigate the funding of all NGOs for possible violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. He promised to table the ISD’s report in the next session of the assembly.

The police, however, seem to have gone further in their scrutiny of the NGOs. Besides the routine questions on foreign funding, expenditure and audits, the ISD has sought detailed information on:

# Participation by NGOs in agitations over the last five years

# Role of NGOs in development

# Activities of NGOs in Coorg and Chikmagalur

# Role of tiger expert Ullas Karanth

# NGOs involved with issues of women’s protection, the forest department, wildlife board, evacuation/rehabilitation of tribals, devdasi children and Bangalore-based IT companies generating e-waste

# Investigation/inquiry by the CBI on NGOs’ activities

An official in the ISD claimed the form had gone out to the NGOs by mistake. “It was meant for the ISD’s internal use, and listed the areas we would focus our probe on. Only financial details were to be sought but, somehow, the entire list was sent out to some NGOs,” the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

ISD head Amar K Pandey, ADGP, Karnataka Police, however, confirmed that the scope of the probe extended beyond the NGOs’ financial dealings. “Our mandate comes from the legislature, and we have sought information (from the NGOs) on the issues raised in the assembly debate. It is up to the NGOs how much they will disclose, say, about participating in agitations or a certain individual’s role. Our investigation is on,” Pandey said.

Praveen Bharghav of Wildlife First, a Bangalore-based NGO that does not accept foreign or government funding, said, “Under the Constitution, NGOs and citizens have wide-ranging rights and freedom to peacefully campaign against government policy and decisions, including petitioning courts. While NGOs do have to comply with regulations on funding, they cannot be intimidated on the pretext of financial scrutiny.

Some NGOs in Kodagu and Chikmagalur, including Wildlife First, have been relentlessly fighting corrupt officials and other vested interests involved in mining, tree felling etc., exposing losses of several hundred crores to the exchequer.”

Bopaiah told The Sunday Express that he was not aware of the information sought by the state government. “I supported Ramesh Kumar’s call for a probe after he furnished some documents in the assembly suggesting wrongdoings by certain NGOs,” he said.

Kumar said he could not comment immediately. “I raised the issue based on media reports and some homework in July. I am travelling, and need some time to look up those facts again before commenting,” he said.

Home minister K J George could not be reached despite repeated attempts. Ullas Karanth declined to comment.