What the ‘leaked’ IB report on NGOs has really achieved, so far

With media busy debating an opinionated Intelligence report and the NGOs pushed on the back foot, a slew of contentious government decisions is escaping public scrutiny.

FirstPost, 15 June, 2014

The first thing first. All NGOs should be made accountable. They must make full and public disclosure of their funding and expenditure. They must also be made answerable under the RTI Act. The voluntary sector is a den of corruption and needs to be set straight.

But the leaked IB report on NGOs does not make any such attempt. If it were serious, it could have taken cue from, instead of Narendra Modi’s 2006 speech, a meticulous 2013 report by the Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) – India’s funds to NGOs squandered – that details how over Rs 1,000 crore of government funding to the voluntary sector is largely decided by bribes and political influence. But that was not in IB’s terms of reference for what turned out to be a witch hunt.

Instead of going after NGOs that are criminally liable under India’s various financial laws, the government decided to target dissent. Now, IB is presumably a fantastic bunch of our better cops. But are they qualified to quantify economic losses or assess the fitness of growth policies or the legitimacy of ecological or health concerns? Should we have a crack team of the Planning Commission members identifying terrorist cells next?

Since IB is an authority on neither economy nor environment, its report is a laundry list of organisations and individuals who do not agree with its master the government’s policies. That disagreement, ostensibly, is against national interest. But who decides national interest? Do the promoters of our mainstream policy framework, including the BJP, the Congress and most major political parties, have any monopoly over India’s future? Does questioning their prescriptions for economic growth make one a criminal, even a traitor?

If we are still not a nation of bigots that wants to criminalise dissent, is our problem then with foreign-funded dissent? But then, the IB report names many small NGOs, mostly in Gujarat, that never received foreign grants. Others, such as the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace and People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, have categorically denied any external funding.

Many NGOs do accept foreign funds. But how can accepting foreign grants alone incriminate an organisation as anti-national? Is there any evidence that NGOs use foreign funds to target Indian companies alone? What about foreign-funded groups opposing an American Monsanto, a Korean Posco and a Russian Rosatom (Kudankulam) in India? And if FDI is welcome to revive the economy, why resent foreign funds to NGOs that scrutinise that revival or offer alternative roadmaps for growth? One can always debate and debunk their claims with facts but what with demanding punitive action on that ground?

Objectivity demands that the state agencies that promote and facilitate development projects not be the solo scrutiniser of the same. Only NGOs not funded by government or corporate money, even if they have agendas and their studies throw up sensational findings, can provide the necessary checks and balances in a system heavily geared towards corporate and political interests.

Of course, the NGOs working on environment, health and human rights are a threat to corporate interests in mining, industries or GMO. By declaring that they are also a threat to India’s economic security, is the government accepting that the national interest is basically corporate interest or, by extension, the mainstream political interest, given that Vedanta (Sterlite) has funded both the BJP and Congress?

Beyond the trial going on in TV studios and social media, the Home ministry has sent detailed questionnaires to some NGOs seeking details of their funding and activities. So why are the NGOs alarmed if they have nothing criminal to hide? They are because even those NGOs that have not done anything wrong can be taken to task under Rule 3 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Rules (2011).

Before it was "strengthened" by the UPA II, the act imposed restrictions only on involvement in electoral politics. The new sweeping and vague definition covers practically everything, including “objectives of political nature” and even “common methods of political action” such as dharna, rally or strikes. A number of NGOs, such as INSAF, have already had their accounts frozen and licenses suspended in, what else, perceived national interest. The NGOs named in the IB report have reasons to fear because the government does not need specific charges to nail them.

It is anybody’s guess what course the Home ministry will take once they hear from the NGOs which have already made their positions clear in public. But does the timing of what is certainly a deliberate leak of the ‘classified’ IB report tell us something? Since the leak, the government has taken a slew of decisions that grossly undermine environmental, livelihood and human rights concerns.

The height of the Narmada dam will be raised. The sensitive eco zones of the higher Himalayas will be ruined as defence projects get priority along China borders up to 100 km from the Line of Actual Control. The MoEF reversed the decision of UPA II that barred the Navy from constructing a radar station in an Andaman island which is the only home of an endangered hornbill species. The government has decided to soften some rules in the Forest Rights Act and Forest Conservation Act to step up economic activities in Naxal-affected states which account for some of the country’s best forests and the majority of our tribal population.

To many Indians, these steps are to cheer for. But there are others, the NGOs and activists, who have fought against such moves long and hard. These usual suspects who would have criticised and opposed each of these decisions in every public forum possible were put on the back foot by a timely leak and are now busy defending themselves against a bunch of specious charges. That we have not seen any debate in the media on these recent mega clearances is the real marvel of the leaked IB report.

IB’s NGO Report: Not A Time For Intelligence or Dissent

It is not about foreign funding. IB's alarm call on NGOs is about lining up growth dissenters before the new government.

Yahoo News, 13 June, 2014

In its by-now-most-read 21-page “classified” report titled ‘Impact of NGOs on Development’ that was sent to a host of government offices including the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Power, Ministry of Coal, National Security Council Secretariat and the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) on June 3, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) named a long list of organizations and activists under its watch, from well-known environmental and anti-nuclear groups to little-known localized outfits.

Significant anti-development activities were undertaken in 2011-13, the report claims ominously, against nuclear power plants, uranium mines, coal-fired power plants, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the POSCO and Vedanta projects in Odisha, the Omkareshwar and Indira Sagar projects in Madhya Pradesh and hydel projects and extractive industries in northeast India. The cumulative negative impact of these activities on GDP growth is assessed to be 2-3 percent.

Surprisingly, in its first attempt at cleaning up NGOs, the government has not looked into the rampant corruption and glaring malpractices plaguing the voluntary sector. The focus is solely on their perceived damaging effect on development or on the government’s growth-oriented policies. The simple message seems to be that as long as NGOs don’t raise a dissenting voice, there’s much they can get away with. But more on that later.

How Modi and the UPA feel about NGOs

Even in its stated mission, the IB report gives way to stupefying paranoia and outlandish assumptions. But it has been long coming. More than five years before the second UPA government singled out foreign-funded NGOs for blocking nuclear power plants and GMOs in 2012, it was then-Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi who slammed the “wealthy” and “influential” class of NGOs that “hire PR firms to continually build their image” with “money coming from abroad”.

Modi’s speech in Delhi in September 2006 at the release of the first edition of NGOs, Activists & Foreign Funds: Anti-Nation Industry edited by Radha Rajan and Krishen Kak – a collection of articles on the anti-Hindu agenda and corrupt practices of NGOs and certain activists – came to be included in the second edition of the book.

“Funds are obtained from abroad; an NGO is set up; a few articles are commissioned; a PR firm is recruited and, slowly, with the help of the media, an image is created. And then awards are procured from foreign countries to enhance this image. Such a vicious cycle, a network of finance-activity-award is set up and, once they have secured an award, no one in Hindustan dares raise a finger, no matter how many the failings of the awardee,” Modi said, slamming the “five-star activists” and their NGOs.

There is nothing to suggest that Modi changed his opinion in all these years. And if nothing else, intelligence agencies, like the rest of the bureaucracy, are efficient weather cocks. So the IB found it fit to lift and dress up the part of Modi’s 2006 speech quoted above in their June 3 report to explain how certain foreign-funded NGOs gain prominence in India.

But to be fair to Modi, it was not his influence alone that made the IB go into overdrive. By the then-Home Minister P Chidambaram’s admission, a few NGOs were under scrutiny for misusing foreign funds in mobilizing resistance to the Kudankulam nuclear plant in early 2012. By the end of February, even Manmohan Singh was vocal in his criticism of NGOs. A year later, in January 2013, Singh went a step further to blame NGOs for stalling GMO trials.

“Complex issues, be they genetically modified food or nuclear energy or exploration of outer space, cannot be settled by faith, emotion and fear but by structured debate, analysis and enlightenment,” he said at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress in Kolkata.

Yet, for all its chagrin, the UPA government was not too comfortable being seen as cracking down on civil society resistance. So even after both Chidambaram and Singh publicly identified NGOs as roadblocks to growth, the PMO and the Home ministry were not in agreement on whether to link the cancellation of licences of three NGOs to anti-nuclear protests. Nevertheless, by 2013, more than4,000 NGOs had had their permission to receive foreign funds revoked for “prejudicially affecting [unspecified] public interest” and inadequate compliance with norms.

Some attribute this approach to the compulsion that the government itself was “guided by an NGO”, a euphemism for the National Advisory Council appointed by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. But pulled back from a hot trail, the hounds were straining at the leash.

As chief minister, Modi primarily grudged rights activists who never let up on his alleged complicity in the Gujarat riots. After cruising into South Block on an expensive campaign and promises of instant economic growth, he now has reasons to resent civil society resistance to speedy clearance of big-ticket development projects and replication of his Gujarat model of growth. The IB simply made perfect timing.

Why was it leaked?

Different sources in the new government, however, vary on what led to the “deliberate leak” of the IB report. While those in the PMO indicate that the leak was to gauge the public mood and the scope of a potential crackdown on organized dissent, Home ministry sources say that there was no instruction from the top and certain officials might have been on auto pilot mode.

Either way, the leak happened in bits and pieces. Long before The Indian Express quoted the June 3 IB report on June 7 and Rediff.com reported the IB alert on mischievous NGOs on June 9, The New Indian Express wrote about ‘mysterious’ NGOs on the Home ministry’s radar on 25 May. Interestingly, the intelligence brass failed to protect a classified report that was being reported by the media while it was still in the making.

Subsequently, The Indian Express published two reports specifically naming Greenpeace as a threat to national economic security on June 11 and a bunch of Gujarat NGOs critical of the Gujarat model on June 12. Meanwhile, Times Now also claimed to have scooped the report on June 11 and read out a few charges, without naming names, ostensibly because Home Minister Rajnath Singh had already denied knowledge of any such report earlier in the day.

For those with an appetite for laundry lists, here’s IB’s spectrum of suspicion.

NGOs on the government’s radar include Greenpeace, Catholic Organization for Relief and Development Aid (Cordaid), Action Aid, Amnesty International, Survival International, National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements, People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, Coalition For Nuclear Disarmament And Peace (CNDP), International South Asia Forum (INSAF), National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), Popular Education & Action Centre (PEACE), Urban Emissions and Conservation Action Trust, Navdanya, Gene Campaign, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), India for Safe Food (IFSF), Jan Sangharsh Samanvaya Samiti (JSSS),Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti (PPSS), Centre for the Sustainable use of Social and Natural Resources (CSNR), Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Manipur Coalition on Extractives, Chindu, Swadhikar, Parthi Purna Adivasi Sanghathan, Sarvodaya Parivar Trust, Gujarat Vidyapith, Deevalaya Fulwadi, Rajpipla Social Service Society, Lok Samiti, Adivasi Ekta Parishad, Jai Adivasi Mahasangh, PTNRIP, Parthi Purna Adivasi Sangathan (PPAS), Maldhari Rural Action Group(MARAG), Movement For Secular Democracy, Gujarat Sarvodaya Mandal, Gujarat Vikas Manch Lokadhikar Andolan, Aazad Vikas Sangthan, Bhal Khedut Sangathan, Jamin Adhikar Andolan Gujarat (JAAG), Khedut Hit Rakshak Samiti (KHRS), Corridor Virodhi Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti and Ekta Gramin Praja Vichar Manch Samiti.

“Eminent people” and activists under the scanner include Praful Bidwai, Achin Vinaik, Admiral Ramdass, Lalitha Ramdass, Medha Patkar, Neeraj Jain, Banwarilal Sharma, Karuna Raina, Father Thomas Kochery, Arti Choksey, MG Devasahayam, SP Udayakumar, Father Ambroise, Pushparayan, Y David, Mari Rajan, Gilbert Rodrigo, Father Jayakumar, Surendra Gadekar, Vandana Shiva, Suman Sahai, Aruna Rodrigues, Kavitha Kuruganti, Prashant Paikray, Justice (Retd) PK Mishra, Bichitra Senapati, KP Sasi, Babloo Loitongbam, Prof Appa Rao, Swami Agnivesh, Sujata P Shah, Father Vincent Mukan and Lalji Desai.

While those working on human rights and the environment have particularly drawn the IB’s suspicion, there is nothing wrong in putting all NGOs, including Khap panchayats, if one goes by Haryana Chief Minister BS Hooda, under the scanner. There is no clarity on the legal nature of many of these organizations. Most of them do not disclose income and expenditure in adequate detail. And there is no reason why the beneficiaries of income tax exemption should not be answerable to people under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The Delhi high court put it bluntly this March, seeking tougher licensing norms and legislation for the sector. “Most private-run so-called philanthropic organizations do not understand their social responsibilities. Ninety-nine percent of the existing NGOs are fraud and simply moneymaking devices. Only one out of every hundred NGOs serve the purpose they are set up for [sic],” a bench headed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog said.

“Earlier, the joke was that whenever seven jobless Bengalis come together, they form a puja committee. Now, across the country, such people register NGOs to fish for funds,” concedes the head of a Kolkata-based NGO that operates in seven districts in two states. “No one is looking unless you get into certain sensitive fields of work.”

According to the IB report, nearly 50 percent of the 43,527 NGOs registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) flouted its norms and did not file their annual returns for 2011-12. If politicians were made to declare assets to clean up politics, wondered Modi in his 2006 speech, why should the government “not make accountable NGOs that in the name of social service are increasingly…spreading as thriving businesses?”

Many NGOs are inexplicably top-heavy — packed with experts who have little or no connect to the grassroots — and as a result channel only a fraction of their budget to actual ground work. Modi targeted these “limousine liberals” of the “NGO industry”, challenging them to spend “at least three days and nights in a year in a village where there was no electricity and where they would have to go to the jungle to relieve themselves.”

If this sounds harsh, several NGOs are guilty of sensationalizing their campaigns. Much like sarkari schemes, many NGO projects are designed so that there is no way to evaluate success or fix accountability. Nearly a decade ago, I reported from Ranthambhore in 2005 how they could show you the money, if not a tiger. Funds worth Rs 1 crore per tiger released by the government, international donors and the World Bank could not save India’s showcase tiger reserve from going steadily downhill.

Worse, most big NGOs spread their resources thin in too many projects that go on for years and stay alive as overheads in their accounts merely to justify fresh funding. “Ideally, NGOs should offer models of targeted solutions in quick time so that others, including government agencies, can replicate those models. But most play it safe and justify their existence and funding by the quantity rather than quality of their work,” says a Bangalore-based activist, with a rider that policy campaigns are “meant to be protracted affairs and must be sustained” till the goals are achieved.

Mutual back-scratching

Ironically, as mentioned earlier, the government does not seem to be keen to fix financial accountability or evaluate performance in projects that should be target-oriented. Instead, its scrutiny is limited to advocacies and campaigns that question its policies. That is why scores of dubious NGOs, small and big, funded by the government get away with squandering funds.

A 2013 report by the Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) – India’s funds to NGOs squandered – found that over Rs 1,000 crore of government funding to the voluntary sector is largely decided by bribes and political influence. The NGOs interviewed alleged that bribes worth 15 percent to 30 percent of the grant were mandatory to get their application approved.

“If a conservative estimate of 15 percent is used as a ‘bribe to process the applications’, during the Fiscal Years 2002-2003 to 2008-2009 at least Rs 998,15,38,153 or Rs 142,59,34,022 per year were spent on ‘bribes’ to different layers of officials approving the projects. This is literally stealing the money of the India’s poorest,” said the report.

For example, the Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) under the Ministry of Rural Development sanctioned 24,760 projects worth over Rs 25 crore from September 1, 1986 to February 28, 2007. Subsequently, out of 511 of these NGOs blacklisted for irregularities, only 10 were subject to CBI investigation. By August 3, 2009, the number of blacklisted NGOs increased to 830 but FIRs were lodged against only 129. Around 4,000 files related to unaccounted funds disbursed to NGOs were feared missing from CAPART, which even released Rs 46,83,142 to five NGOs after they were blacklisted.

The ACHR report singles out the Ministry of Environment & Forests as one of the prime offenders in this regard. The federal auditor (CAG) in its report tabled in Parliament on November 26, 2010 indicated an organized scam in allotting grants by the green ministry to NGOs and said that no accounts had been maintained for more than 20 years against grants worth Rs 597 crores.

So what made the government wake up?

* * *

Evidently, the urgency since 2011 has been to muffle dissent. What became necessary under UPA-2 to facilitate statutory environmental and forest rights clearances for mega projects gained additional momentum under the new government that has also the Gujarat model of growth to defend. Add to this the third flashpoint of human rights violations (in riots, displacement in development projects and under oppressive laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and the IB report does not seem so inexplicable.

And what better way to justify a crackdown than by raising the specter of a “foreign hand”? Again, Modi is only a successor to a totalitarian legacy here — Indira Gandhi got the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act legislated in 1976 while the UPA-2 amended it in 2010, making it more difficult for the NGOs.

But can a liberal economy really question foreign funding in a globalized world? While inviting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in almost all sectors from defence to retail, how does the government justify singling out the voluntary sector? There are laws to tackle financial crime or unlawful activities such as spying. But forcing policy consensus cannot be a reason or excuse for choking funds that fuel anti-establishment points of view. By that logic, India should also be wary of FDI in education or even films because these shape how our young and not-so-young ones think.

One argument repeated thoughtlessly in this recent debate is that foreign investment in development is legitimate, while external funding to NGOs for auditing those models of growth or advocating alternatives is not. “We cannot leave it solely to the official agencies that promote projects and policies to scrutinize the same. NGOs, particularly those not funded by the government, bring the much-needed independence in project evaluation and policy inputs,” asserts a Mumbai-based environmentalist who runs an NGO.

Besides, it is not that foreign-funded NGOs are trying to undermine Indian companies to make room for multinational corporations (MNCs). “In specific cases, there can be conflicting MNC interests and we are aware of such traps. A POSCO or a Vedanta is not Indian. How can fighting their dangerous plans in the interest of India’s tribal population be anti-national?” asks a rights activist in Odisha.

The other argument is that charity begins at home. Many feel that the West should put its house in order before helping the developing world save its nature or cut emissions. “Unfortunately, it is not an ideal world. But it is a connected world. Forests, ocean or carbon are not local issues. Everybody has stakes everywhere. Besides, all western donors are not necessarily the actual offenders in their homeland,” counters a Delhi-based climate activist.

Ultimately, it is impossible to create a perception of absolute neutrality. Each has her own agenda and all interest groups have the right to lobby and campaign. This is also necessary because government agencies and officials are often riddled with conflict of interest. In 2009, for example, allaying Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss’s apprehensions about the potential health impact of GM food, Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan wrote to him quoting verbatim from promotional material by the GM industry, including the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, a quasi-scientific body funded by Monsanto.

So it is barely scandalous if NGOs such as Greenpeace should also fund studies that, more often than not, throw up alarming results. In this biased world, what really matters is the merit of one’s contention and a balance in public debate and policies. If merely accepting foreign funds compromises national economic security, India’s two principal political parties indebted to Vedanta should be flagged as the biggest threats to the country.

IB’s NGO-scare report to Modi plagiarises from old Modi speech

The Indian Express, 13 June, 2014

In its 21-page classified report, Impact of NGOs on Development,  first reported by The Indian Express, that identifies certain foreign-funded NGOs as threat to India’s national economic security and the Gujarat model of development, the Intelligence Bureau has cut and pasted from a published speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to describe the modus operandi of certain organizations.

On September 9, 2006, then Gujarat chief minister Modi had lashed out in a speech at a “wealthy” and “influential” class of NGOs that “hire PR firms to continually build their image” with “money coming from abroad.” The occasion was the release of the first edition of NGOs, Activists & Foreign Funds: Anti-Nation Industry  edited by Radha Rajan and Krishen Kak — a collection of articles on what they called the anti-Hindu agenda and corrupt practices of certain NGOs and activists — at New Delhi.

Modi’s speech at that function was included in the second edition of the collection.

The second paragraph on the fourth page (page number 417 in the book) of Modi’s article, NGOs as Non-Accountable Businesses, reads as follows:

“Another conspiracy — a vicious cycle is set up. Funds are obtained from abroad; an NGO is set up; a few articles are commissioned; a PR firm is recruited and, slowly, with the help of the media, an image is created. And then awards are procured from foreign countries to enhance this image. Such a vicious cycle, a network of finance-activity-award is set up and, once they have secured an award, no one in Hindustan dares raise a finger, no matter how many the failings of the awardee."

The second paragraph on the third page (Part A) of the IB report on NGOs reads:

“A small group of activists and NGOs at times have succeeded in shaping policy debates in India. Apart from that, in some cases it is observed that in a cyclical process, an NGO is set up, funds are obtained from abroad, a few articles are commissioned, a PR firm is recruited and, slowly, with the help of the media an image is created. And then awards are procured from foreign countries to enhance the image, after which Government machinery finds it more difficult to act against the awardee.”

When asked of the IB had asked for permission to use the paragraph from the book she edited, Radha Rajan of Vigilonline said she stood vindicated. “No, the IB did not contact me. But probably they were present at the high-profile book release next to the BJP office on Delhi’s Ashoka Road in 2006,” she told The Indian Express.

Contacted by The Indian Express, a senior IB official closely associated with the report declined to comment.

(Mazoomdaar is a former staffer of The Indian Express)

Manali tragedy not unusual, it’s part of our power plan

Demand-driven power generation leads to drastic hourly fluctuations in water levels in most rivers. At risk are the lives and livelihood of thousands and the riverine ecology.

FirstPost, 10 June, 2014

Three days after a sudden swell in the Beas washed away 24 students at Thalot in Himachal Pradesh, a couple of media reports have questioned the irresponsible release of waters from the Larji dam that caused the tragedy.

Pointing out that the Larji project “authorities had been releasing excess water in the Beas, almost without prior warning, since Friday”, The Indian Express reported that the project suddenly reduced generation of power on Saturday evening, “presumably because demand had dipped”.

Around 5:50 pm, warned by the national grid load dispatch centre via Shimla, the Larji authorities reduced power generation from 138 MW to 64 MW. Next, they decided to open the floodgates at the bottom of the project’s reservoir which was threatening to flood the Chandigarh-Manali highway near Aut. At 6:15 pm, 50 cubic metres per second (cumecs) of water was released and within minutes tragedy hit 2.7km downstream.

Shocking, but there is nothing unusual, as media reports suggest, about these events. The very idea of demand-driven power generation necessitates sudden release of water and drastic hourly fluctuations in river flow. And it is happening daily across the country, routinely claiming lives and jeopardizing livelihoods tied to riverine agriculture, fishing and cattle-rearing. Only when the lives of engineering students are lost to this madness do the headline-obsessed media and the nation take note.

There is almost no data in the public domain on water level fluctuations from existing hydro-electricity projects. But official studies on a slew of proposed projects, mainly in the northeast, provide a grim picture that is likely to be true for most hydel projects in north India as well. Even secondary evidence of manmade disasters, such as the Beas tragedy, is aplenty.

In 2007, Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi knocked at the External Affairs ministry’s door when release of water from Bhutan’s Kurichhu dam, without any warning, led to a “catastrophic flood” that devastated lower Assam in just seven hours. It has not helped that the project was executed by our own NHPC. Sudden releases from the reservoir have been causing floods of varying intensity in western Assam every monsoon since.

Even when it does not lead to major flooding, drastic daily fluctuation in river flow caused by demand-driven supply of power can throw life completely off gear. The Lower Subansiri project on the Assam-Arunachal borders, for example, will hold back water for about 20 hours before releasing the load for maximum power generation during peak demand hours in the evening. That means downstream flows in winter will fluctuate from 6 cumecs to 2,560 cumecs. The river will trickle for 20 hours before swelling with monsoon-like surges for four hours, every day.

Subansiri is no exception. The 2,700 MW Lower Siang project in Arunachal Pradesh will cause a daily water level fluctuation of more than 13 feet in winter. As more than 100 proposed dams are to follow the same daily routine on the Brahmaputra and all its major tributaries, at stake is the entire local economy that rests on fishing, flood-recession agriculture, navigation and livestock rearing. And that is not to mention the destruction of the riverine and wetland ecology.

When the Ranganadi hydel project was commissioned in 2002, large quantities of water released in the river without any warning swept away many cattle, and a villager according to unconfirmed reports. Amid sustained protests, the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation issued a circular in June 2006, saying, “The gates of Ranganadi diversion dam may require opening from time to time… the corporation will not take any responsibility for any loss of life of human, pet animals and property damage…”

Timely and adequate warning before sudden releases of waters may save lives, but not livelihoods. Going by the experience of Ranganadi and Subansiri, flow fluctuation deals a death blow to fisheries, driftwood collection, sand and gravel mining and farming and grazing on riverine islands. Fish that breed in shallow waters or hibernate along the shorelines are particularly vulnerable.

During my visit last year, local fishermen near Gogamukh claimed that they spent twice as much time to catch barely half the quantity of fish they used to get before the dam came up. Sand miners complained that the Subansiri now brought more silt than sand.

And warning or not, the ecology is a silent and certain casualty. “These daily floods affect groundnesting birds, amphibians and even mammals — Bengal Floricans to tigers — that use the chaporis (riverine islands). Dolphins, on the other hand, will not survive the dry hours,” said North Lakhimpur-based biologist Lakhi Prasad Hazarika who has documented the impact of flow fluctuation in the Subansiri.

Yet, no hydel project is required to assess its downstream impact beyond 10 km or the distance from dam to powerhouse. So, more than 150 projects are coming up in Arunachal Pradesh alone. The other Himalayan states of Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh are not lagging far behind. And the pledge to save the Ganga stands firm on the foundation of nearly 600 dams planned on the river and its tributaries.

“Every summer, I watched in frustration as nesting birds along the Ganga were swept way when ACs were switched on en masse in Delhi,” rues a researcher who used to work with a government organization in Uttarakhand. “Do we care either about the people or agriculture or the birds and animals that live along these rivers? India’s rivers sustained human civilizations and wildlife populations for thousands of years and in one century, we are all set to destroy it completely.”

Tragedies like last year’s floods in Uttarakahnd or last week’s drowning in Himachal Pradesh only offer a glimpse of the human cost that such policy madness will eventually extract. A customary probe has been ordered and three Larji officials have been suspended. But will the new government dare purge the disease rather than merely treat the symptoms? Implementing the recommendations made by the MoEF’s expert body in its April 2014 report on Uttarakhand floods can be a good starting point.

Cleaning up the Ganga, Yamuna: Why Modi must forget Sabarmati model

The Sabarmati riverfront may appeal as urban beautification to certain aesthetes but the river remains an ecological disaster. Modi needs to do much better to restore the Ganga and Yamuna.

FirstPost, 8 June, 2014

Unlike most other politicians, Narendra Modi is a man of his words. One of his early initiatives as Prime Minister was to get cracking on the promise of cleaning up the Ganga. He set up a dedicated ministry with Uma Bharati in charge. And while at it, the Prime Minister assured that the Yamuna flowing through his new seat of power would also get its due.

Then, it started getting muddled. The Prime Minister met Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung last week and the Delhi government dispatched a team of secretaries to Gujarat to study, among other marvels, the Sabarmati riverfront project to work out a similar model to revive the Yamuna.

On Friday, five ministries –Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation; Road Transport, Highways and Shipping; Environment & Forests and Climate Change; Tourism; and Power – came together to find solutions for the Ganga. Unveiling the mega plan after the meeting, Uma Bharati paid her tribute to the Gujarat model, declaring, “If Sabarmati can be cleaned, all other rivers can also be made better.”

But what is wrong with Ahmedabad’s pride, the Sabarmati miracle? In short, everything. The Sabarmati springs to life in the Aravalli hills near Udaipur and reaches the Arabian Sea in the Gulf of Khambhat. In 1978, a dam built at Dharoi, 165 km upstream of Ahmedabad, locked much of its natural flow. In the next decade, heavy municipal and industrial pollution downstream made it one of India’s most-threatened rivers. The famed riverfront project covers a mere 10.5-km segment of this 370-km-long river.

In that short stretch, concrete embankments have constricted the once 330-380 meter-wide river to just 275 meter. This gives an impression of more water flowing in the channel but has made Ahmedabad vulnerable to floods. The high embankments are touted to be capable of containing a surge of 300,000-odd cusecs, the kind that drowned much of the city in 2006. But the river’s historical peak discharge can be as high as 400,000-550,000 cusecs, a volume the narrowed channels will not hold.

To give the river a cleaner look in this 10.5 km stretch, pollution has been pushed downstream. As it passes through Vatva, Sabarmati is a dead river laden with untreated effluents. To compensate for the restricted seasonal flow due, the state government is diverting water from the Narmada main canal to Sabarmati during the lean season. Let’s not even get into the contentious issues of forced relocation of riverbank slums and the sale of riverfront land to private developers.

To better understand why Sabarmati remains an unmitigated ecological disaster, one must appreciate a river as part of a larger water course with its catchment, basin and floodplain. This is an evolutionary marvel that occurs over millions of years. Every monsoon, a river deposits the water it receives in its vast floodplain and the deep aquifers underneath. In the lean season, these reserves feed the river by giving back water and maintaining its base flow. Those who clamour for river-linking to use up all the water they believe is otherwise wasted by draining into the seas should know that rivers must carry enough water to fight saline ingress in their deltas and support agriculture and fisheries.

Rampant construction and extended embankments destroy floodplains. Building too many dams and barrages for hydroelectricity and irrigation denies minimum natural flow and fractures riverine ecosystems. Discharging municipal sewage, agricultural runoff and industrial effluents pollutes waters. These are the reasons why most of our rivers have become trickling, stinky drains that cannot support life anymore.

Urban efforts to revive rivers are often cosmetic. The most spectacular of them all, Seoul’s Cheonggyecheon project, is no tribute to ecology and depends on borrowed water pumped through seven miles of pipes to keep the river flowing for just three miles. Sabarmati is no exception. Its borrowed waters run through a narrow canal encased in concrete for 10.5 km. But for all practical purposes, the Sabarmati, like other poisoned rivers of Gujarat such as Daman Ganga, Amlakhadi and Khari, remains very much the doomed river it became in the 1990s.

It is heartening that Israel and Denmark are keen to help India on the Ganga and Yamuna restoration projects. Israel is the global leader in water clean-up and conservation technology. The Danish success in transforming Copenhagen’s once-polluted harbour is well known. Since 1995, the instances of sewer overflow have been reduced from 20-70 to 2-6 per year. Now the water is fit for bathing, fishing, and even cultivating mussels and oyster.

But no technology or innovation will compensate for skipping the basics. It may not be immediately possible to mobilize enough resources to treat waste water or universally enforce checks on discharge of untreated sewage and effluents into rivers. No degree of investment or vigil will anyway achieve much unless the river has enough water to dilute the impurities or sufficient room to play free on both flanks.

Even partially liberating our rivers will be a tough ask. Certainly tougher than constructing a gala riverfront in Delhi or dredging a canal broken by barrages every 100 km to ferry goods cheap, with a line of new temples on the concrete embankments testifying to the piety of the arrangement.

It will require removal of existing critical constructions and a ban on future encroachment on Yamuna’s floodplains. It will also take decommissioning and demolition of ill-conceived hydel projects that have reduced the Ganga to a trickle and locked it up in tunnels in most of its upper stretches. Modi may look up the Elwha river restoration project for inspiration on dam removal. Maybe that is why the Prime Minister has the Power ministry on his Mission Ganga team.

Adventures of a lonely shikari

Hugh Allen’s shikar stories make the reader side with the hunted, perhaps because the author himself belonged to that side.

Mail Today, 8 June, 2014

David Davidar “devoured Jim Corbett” as a boy. Yet, in his foreword to The Lonely Tiger re-published after 54 years, Davidar claims that Hugh Allen’s is “quite simply the best book” on tigers and shikar in India. He is right.

Discharged from the British army after WWII, Allen settled down with his widowed sister Babs on an estate by the river Denwa in the Satpura-Panchmari tiger country around the same time when Corbett sold the Gurney House and left for Kenya with his sister Maggie. Allen hunted the crop-raiders and also went for the odd maneater and cattle-lifter in the vicinity. He picked up his pen late and, “of all the forms of self-torture” found writing to be “the most exquisite”.

Allen’s prose has the rare ability of creating drama without being dramatic. He builds up the atmosphere effortlessly and a ready dash of humour is a potent antidote to any impression of heroism. His absorbing tales also offer a casual insight into the ways of animals and forest communities and the excesses of hunting in the first decade of Independent India.

Not surprisingly, long before wildlife biology became science, Allen had grasped the distribution dynamics of carnivores. “When he (a leopard) came to us he was not really unexpected… they usually respect another bad man’s territory and seldom poach until the rightful owner has either moved away or been destroyed… We had a ‘vacancy’ (in the estate) for I had just shot a leopard which had been playing hell for some time.”

At a time when harping on India’s traditional tolerance for wildlife has become fashionable, Allen’s observations are refreshingly objective. “The jungle man is pretty much of a fatalist whenever a tiger starts killing his cattle and he seldom makes an effort to stop it… (but) when a tiger starts killing them (people)… In no time at all, and over a wide area, parties of men armed with spears and axes were going out with the cattle.”

Allen believed in practical trade-offs too. “The monkeys… always do some damage” but “they might even save your life for they will often tell where a tiger or a leopard is hiding after a badly placed bullet”. The last bit about injury is important. “The idea that a tiger is… liable to attack on sight is shared by nearly everyone unfamiliar with the jungles. The tiger is seldom dangerous until provoked and in its normal state… wants so little to do with man that it will always stay out of sight if it possibly can”.

But, cautioned Allen, “the odd chance does occasionally turn up and you meet a tiger bent on mischief”. In almost all cases, such exceptional behavior was the result of “criminally careless shooting” by poachers leaving the animals wounded. Allen could not have imagined that in decades to come a reckless management policy of trapping and packing off so-called straying wildlife to distant forests would trigger similar aggression in traumatized animals.

The wounded, however, allowed Allen to give his hunting urge a full rein. “There are no qualms about pulling a trigger then: a wounded animal, be it dangerous or not, is one of the most pathetic sights I know and I would rather see it dead.” For the record, Allen did pull the trigger at least once “without meaning to” and regretted killing a healthy tigress who never gave him trouble.

More often than not, Allen’s shikar stories make the reader side with the hunted; perhaps because the author himself belonged to that side. From his wooden armchair built permanently into the fork of a giant tree thirty feet above a pool in the nullah that ran through his estate, Allen often spent entire nights watching animals coming to drink. “For no shot is ever fired from the chair; the pool is a sanctuary and I like to believe that the animals know it.”

It was from this lonely perch that Allen first spotted the tiger cub that would soon lose his mother, and subsequently his sister, to poachers. When Allen worried about the orphan, the young male showed up one afternoon. “…He was staring intently at a leaf blowing over the surface and drifting towards him. When it came within reach he started to dab at it with his right front paw, but with a touch so gentle that his pad was the merest caress on the tiny tip of its curled up sail. From that moment, I always called him the Lonely Tiger.”

No, you have not read any other shikar book quite like this. 

একা এবং কয়েকজন

প্রথম সপ্তাহে মোদী সরকার তার একার সরকার, সমস্ত সিদ্ধ্বান্ত তার একক সিদ্ধ্বান্ত।

এই সময়, ৩ জুন, ২০১৪

নিজের মন্ত্রীসভা চয়নে প্রধানমন্ত্রী নিজস্ব স্বাক্ষর রাখবেন এটাই দস্তুর। কিন্তু এই মোদী সরকার আশ্চর্য মোদীময়। বিকাশের গুজরাত মডেলটি ঠিক কীরকম তা নিয়ে বরাবরই বিতর্ক ছিল এবং এখনও আছে। কিন্তু শাসনের গুজরাত মডেল নিয়ে নয়। গুজরাত সরকারে সুপার-সিএম মোদী ছিলেন একছত্র। দিল্লীতে সুপার-পীএম মোদীও ঠিক তাই।

দশটি মন্ত্রকে কেবল রাজ্যমন্ত্রী। মোদীর মন্ত্রীসভা গঠনের সবচেয়ে বড় চমক। কোন কোন মন্ত্রক? বাণিজ্য ও শিল্প। যোজনা। পেট্রলিয়ম ও ন্যাচরাল গ্যাস। বিদ্যুত, কয়লা, নতুন ও নবীকরণযোগ্য শক্তি। স্কিল ডেভলপমেন্ট ও অন্ত্রপ্রিনিওরশিপ। এবং অবশ্যই পরিবেশ মন্ত্রক। প্রতিশ্রুত অর্থনৈতিক প্রগতিতে গতি আনতে সবকটি একান্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ।

দায়িত্বপ্রাপ্ত মন্ত্রীরা কারা? নির্মলা সিথারমন, রাও ইন্দরজিত সিং, ধর্মেন্দ্র প্রধান, পিয়ুশ গোয়াল, সর্বানন্দ সোনোয়াল বা প্রকাশ জাভারেকর। কেউই রাজনৈতিক কলেবরে কেউকেটা নন। এবং সকলেই মোদীর একান্ত বিশ্বাসভাজন। অর্থাৎ বকলমে এই মন্ত্রকগুলি থাকবে মোদীরই হাতে এবং নিয়ন্ত্রিত হবে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর দপ্তর থেকে।

অর্থনীতিকে চাঙ্গা করার চটজলদি উপায় পরিবেশ, অরণ্য ও বন্যপ্রাণী আইনে আটকে থাকা প্রায় এক লক্ষ কোটি টাকার বিভিন্ন প্রকল্পকে ছাড়পত্র দেওয়া। এই আইনগুলির বিধিনিষেধ এড়াতে, ইতিমধ্যেই মোদীর নির্দেশ পৌছেচে পরিবেশ মন্ত্রকে। আগামী দুই থেকে চার মাসের মধ্যে অনুমোদন প্রক্রিয়া এমনভাবে বদলে ফেলতে হবে যাতে ভবিষ্যতে পরিবেশ ও অরন্য বিষয়ক ছাড়পত্র এক সপ্তাহের মধ্যেই জারি করা যায়। প্রথম পাঁচদিনেই আটকে থাকা ২৮,০০০ কোটি টাকার ১২টি প্রকল্প ছাড়পত্র পেয়েছে। এবার পালা ৫২,০০০ কোটির আরও ১৬টি প্রকল্পের।

      

মোদীর দ্বীতিয় চমক প্রতিরক্ষা মন্ত্রক যা কিনা আপাতত অর্থমন্ত্রীর জিম্মায়। যদিও এটা পাকাপাকি বন্দবস্ত নয়, এই সিদ্ধান্তের পেছনেও কিন্তু ওই নতুন সরকারের মোদীময়তা। সর্বশক্তিশালী ক্যাবিনেট কমিটি অন সিকিওরিটি–তে থাকেন প্রধানমন্ত্রী, গৃহমন্ত্রী, অর্থমন্ত্রী এবং প্রতিরক্ষামন্ত্রী। এমন নয় যে বিজেপিতে যোগ্য পাত্র কম পড়েছে, কিন্তু সিসিএস-এ মোদী চান একাধিপত্য। সমস্যা হল মোদীর বিশ্বস্ত তরুন নেতাদের মধ্যে থেকে কেউই ঠিক প্রতিরক্ষা মন্ত্রকে বসার উপযুক্ত নন। ওদিকে দলে বয়ঃজ্যেষ্ঠদের মধ্যে অধিকাংশই মোদীবিরোধী বা সমালোচক। একা সুষমা স্বরাজ-এ রক্ষা নেই, সিসিএস-এ (এবং প্রতিরক্ষা মন্ত্রকে) জসবন্ত সিং বা যশবন্ত সিনহা-এর অন্তর্ভুক্তিতে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর স্বভাবতই আপত্তি রয়েছে।

একইভাবে দলের পঁচাত্তরোর্ধ নেতাদের মন্ত্রীসভায় ঠাই হবে না জানিয়ে মোদী লালকৃষ্ণ আডবানি ও মুরলীমনোহর জোশীকে বাইরে রেখেছেন। রাষ্ট্রীয় স্বয়ংসেবক সঙ্ঘের যথেষ্ট চাপ থাকা সত্ত্বেও পোড়খাওয়া বিরোধী এবং সমালোচকদের নতুন সরকারে এমনকি কোন এলে-বেলে ভুমিকাতেও সামিল না করে মোদীর প্রথম রাত্তিরেই বেড়াল মারার সিদ্ধান্ত তার বহুকথিত রাজনৈতিক দৃঢ়তারই পরিচায়ক। যদিও সঙ্ঘ এখনও আশা ছাড়েনি (এবং জোশী মোদীর নেতৃত্বে কাজ করতে তৈরি বলেও জানিয়েছেন), নতুন প্রধানমন্ত্রী চান না তার সরকারে একাধিক ক্ষমতাকেন্দ্র তৈরি হোক।

অন্যদিকে, সঙ্ঘকে খুশি রাখতে মোদী মানবসম্পদবিকাশ (শিক্ষা) মন্ত্রকে বসিয়েছেন স্মৃতি ইরানিকে। টেলিভিসনের তুলসি চরিত্রের জন্য বিখ্যাত ইরানির বয়স ৩৮, সম্ভবত আজ পর্যন্ত ভারতের সবচেয়ে কমবয়েসি ক্যাবিনেট মন্ত্রী। অটলবিহারী বাজপেয়ীর সরকারে মানবসম্পদবিকাশ মন্ত্রী জোশী সমস্ত সরকারি কমিটির খোলনলচে বদলেছিলেন ডানপন্থী বুদ্বিজীবী ও শিক্ষাবিদদের নিয়োগ করে। স্কুল-কলেজের পাঠক্রমে বামপন্থী ঐতিহাসিকদের লেখা বই বাতিল করে এক অর্থে ইতিহাস বদলেরও একটা চেষ্টা হয়েছিল। সঙ্ঘের সাংস্কৃতিক শুদ্ধিকরণ অভিযানে মানবসম্পদবিকাশ মন্ত্রকের ভুমিকা বিশেষ গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। ইরানি ইতিমধ্যেই নানা শাস্ত্রপুস্তকাদি পাঠক্রমে সামিল করার কথা পেড়েছেন। ‘তুলসি’র আড়ালে থেকে তার হয়ে মসীচালনা করতে সঙ্ঘের সমস্যা হওয়ার কথা নয়।

দিল্লীর মন্ত্রীসভা চয়নে সব দিক দিয়েই গুজরাত মডেলের স্পষ্ট ছাপ। মুখ্যমন্ত্রী মোদী তার মন্ত্রীদের মধ্যে বিশেষ ভরসা রাখতেন বিতর্কিত গৃহমন্ত্রী অমিত শাহ-এর ওপরে। কেন্দ্রীয় মন্ত্রীমণ্ডলে তিনি সেই জায়গাটা দিয়েছেন অরুণ জেটলিকে। কাগজেকলমে গৃহমন্ত্রী রাজনাথ সিং মন্ত্রীসভায় মোদীর পরেই কিন্তু অর্থমন্ত্রীর হাতে প্রতিরক্ষা মন্ত্রক গচ্ছিত রেখে প্রধানমন্ত্রী বুঝিয়ে দিয়েছেন দলে তার সবচেয়ে বিশ্বাসের পাত্রটি কে।

বিশ্বস্ততার পুরস্কার অবশ্য পেয়েছেন মন্ত্রীসভার অধিকাংশ সদস্যই। যেমন ইরানি, যাকে রাহূল গান্ধীর আমেঠীর জন্য মোদী নিজে বেছে নিয়েছিলেন। যেমন নাজমা হেপতুল্লাহ, যিনি ২০০৪-এর লোকসভা ভোটে বীজেপীর ভরাডুবির কয়েক সপ্তাহ পরেই কংগ্রেস ছেড়ে পার্টীতে যোগ দেন। যেমন সিথারমন, গোয়াল বা জাভারেকর, যারা দিনের পর দিন সংবাদ মাধ্যমে, বিশেষত টিভির পর্দায়, মোদীর হয়ে লড়াই চালিয়ে গেছেন। বাদ যাননি পার্টির করিৎকর্মারাও। যেমন তরুণ ধর্মেন্দ্র প্রধান, যার নেতৃত্বে বীজেপী বিহারে জিতেছে ২২টী আসন।

মোদী মন্ত্রীসভার আরেক বৈশিষ্ট, কতকটা বিজেপির সফল নির্বাচনী সমীকরণের ধাঁচেই, উচ্চ ও নিম্ন বর্ণের হিন্দু সমন্বয়। আশ্চর্য নয় যে মোট মোদীর ৪৫ মন্ত্রীর মাত্র চারজন সংখ্যালঘু সম্প্রদায়ের। মানেকা গান্ধী, হরসিমরত বাদল (দুজনেই শিখ), হেপতুল্লাহ (মুসলিম) ও কিরেন রিজিজু (বৌদ্ধ)। ইরানি পঞ্জাবী ক্ষত্রি, বিবাহসূত্রে পার্সি। বাকি ৪০ মন্ত্রী হিন্দু এবং তাদের মাত্র ২২ জন উচ্চবর্ণ।

এর মধ্যে ব্রাহ্মণ সাতজন; জেটলি, স্বরাজ, নিতিন গদকারি, অনন্ত কুমার, কাল্রাজ মিশ্র, জাভারেকর এবং সিথারমন। রাজপুত চারজন; রাজনাথ সিং, রাধামোহন সিং, ভি কে সিং, জিতেন্দ্র সিং। বাকি ১১ জন অন্যান্য উচ্চবর্ণের; ভেঙ্কাইয়া নাইডু, রবিশঙ্কর প্রসাদ, ডঃ হর্ষ বর্ধন, গজপতি রাজু, সদানন্দ গওরা, সন্তোষ গাংওয়ার, গোয়াল, পি রাধাকৃষ্ণান, জি এম সিধ্বেস্বর, মনোজ সিনহা এবং রাও সাহেব দানভে।

অন্যদিকে মোদী মন্ত্রীসভায় ওবিসি নয়জন; গোপিনাথ মুণ্ডে, উমা ভারতি, অনন্ত গীতে, নরেন্দ্র তোমার, রাও ইন্দরজিত সিং, শ্রীপাদ নাইক, ধর্মেন্দ্র প্রধান, উপেন্দ্র কুশওয়াহা এবং সঞ্জিব বাল্যান। আদিবাসি ছয়জন; জুয়াল ওরাম, সরবানন্দ সোনোয়াল, মনসুখভাই ভাসাভা, বিষ্ণু দেব সাই, কৃষ্ণান পাল গুর্জার এবং সুদর্শন ভগত। বাকি তিনজন – রামবিলাস পাসওয়ান, থাওয়ারচাঁদ গেহলট ও নিহাল চাঁদ - তফসিলি জাতির।

মোদীর আত্মবিশ্বাসের প্রথম ঝলক অবশ্যই সার্ক নেতৃত্বের প্রতি তার আমন্ত্রণ। নির্বাচনে অভূতপূর্ব সাফল্য তাকে রাজ্য থেকে জাতীয় স্তরে প্রতিষ্ঠা দেওয়ার এক সপ্তাহের মধ্যে নিজের শপথগ্রহন অনুষ্ঠানে চটজলদি সার্কের আসর বসিয়ে নিজেকে অনায়াসে আন্তর্জাতিক মঞ্চে তুলে ধরার মোদীর এই সিদ্ধান্ত একই সঙ্গে সাহসী এবং উদ্ভাবক। বিজেপি ২৭২-এর গণ্ডি পেরনোয় তিনি যেমন রাজাপক্ষকে নিমন্ত্রনের বিরুদ্ধে জয়ললিতা ও ভাইকোর আস্ফালনকে অগ্রাহ্য করেছেন, তেমনি কান দেননি নওয়াজ শরিফ-এর উপস্থিতি নিয়ে সঙ্ঘ, শিবসেনা বা বিজেপির একাংশের আপত্তিতে। ধরে নেওয়া যায় যে মোদীর প্রতিশ্রুত আসন্ন বাংলাদেশ সফরে তিস্তা চুক্তির পথে মমতা ব্যানার্জির গাজোয়ারি কোন বাধা হয়ে দাঁড়াবে না।

তার আত্মবিশ্বাসের আরেক পরিণাম এনডিএ-র তিন সহযোগী দলের ভাগে দলপিছু মাত্র একটি মন্ত্রক। পাসওয়ানের তুলনায় চন্দ্রবাবু বা ঠাকরের সাংসদের সংখ্যা অনেক বেশি। কিন্তু তাতে তাদের মন্ত্রকের ভাগে ফারাক পরেনি। শিবসেনার অনন্ত গীতে তার মন্ত্রক মনমত না হওয়ায় কাজে যোগ না দিয়ে চাপ তৈরির একটা চেষ্টা করেছিলেন। মানভঞ্জনের পালা দূরে থাক, উদ্দ্ববকে মোদীর একটি ফোনের পর গুটিগুটি ওই ভারি শিল্প মন্ত্রকেরই দায়িত্ব নিয়েছেন গীতে। অদূর ভবিষ্যতে মন্ত্রিমণ্ডলের বিস্তার এবং তেলেগু দেশম ও সেনার ভাগে আরও দুএকটি মন্ত্রক যাওয়ার যথেষ্ট সম্ভবনা থাকলেও আপাতত মোদী বুঝিয়ে দিয়েছেন সংখ্যার জোর কাকে বলে।

কিন্তু মোদীর এই আত্মবিশ্বাসের ভুক্তভোগী তার নিজের পার্টিও। বেশ কিছু রাজ্য বিজেপি নেতৃত্ব তাদের সাফল্যের পুরস্কার না পেয়ে অসন্তুষ্ট। উদাহরন হিসেবে রাজস্থান। রাজ্যের ২৫ আসনই পার্টির পক্ষে গেলেও মোদীর মন্ত্রীসভায় রাজস্থান থেকে মন্ত্রী মাত্র একজন। চমকপ্রদ সাফল্যের পরেও ঝাড়খনড, উড়িষ্যা, আসাম ও অরুনাচলের কপালে জুটেছে ওই এক-একটি মন্ত্রকই। বাজপেয়ী মন্ত্রীমণ্ডলে বাংলার জন্য মন্ত্রীপদ বাঁধা ছিল। এবার তিনগুণ ভোট বাড়িয়েও বাংলা বিজেপি সম্পূর্ণ উপেক্ষিত। মোদী মন্ত্রক বিলি করেছেন ভবিষ্যৎ-এর দিকে চোখ রেখে। কয়েক মাস বাদেই মহারাষ্ট্রে বিধানসভা ভোট, তাই রাজ্যের মন্ত্রীর সংখ্যা ছয়। বিহারে ভোট আগামী বছর, মন্ত্রীর সংখ্যা পাঁচ। মোদী জানেন দিল্লীর তখতে টিকে থাকতে গেলে উত্তর প্রদেশে সাফল্যের বিকল্প নেই। সেইমত, রাজ্যের ভাগে পড়েছে সবচেয়ে বেশি নয়জন মন্ত্রী।

বিজেপি হোক বা সঙ্ঘ বা কোন সহযোগী দল, কেউই এই মুহূর্তে নরেন্দ্র মোদীর কোন সিদ্ধ্বান্তকে প্রশ্ন করার জায়গায় নেই। নিজের দফতরে পছন্দের মুখ্য সচিব নিয়োগ করার পথে সরকারি কানুনের বাধা আসায় প্রধানমন্ত্রিত্বের প্রথম দিনে সেই নিয়মই বদলে ফেলেছেন মোদী। ঠিক যেভাবে গুজরাতে নিজের পছন্দের আমলাদের নিয়ে সমস্ত দফতরের মূল সিদ্ধ্বান্তগুলি নিজেই নিতেন, দিল্লীতেও সেপথেই এগোচ্ছেন তিনি। সিদ্ধ্বান্তগ্রহন প্রক্রিয়া ত্বরান্বিত করতে ইতিমধ্যেই সমস্ত ‘গ্রুপ অব মিনিস্টারস’ রদ করে মোদী জানিয়েছেন যে প্রত্যেক মন্ত্রক তার নিজের সিদ্ধ্বান্ত deবে এবং যেকোন আভ্যন্তরীণ সঙ্ঘাতে রায় দেবেন প্রধানমন্ত্রী।

তবু, দুটি প্রশ্ন থেকে যায়। প্রায় একা হাতে একটি রাজ্য হয়ত চালানো যেতেও পারে, কিন্তু দেশ? বিশেষত বিস্তারে এবং বৈচিত্রে ভারতের মত দেশ? দ্বিতীয়ত, মোদীর গুজরাতের ধাঁচে প্রশাসনিক কেন্দ্রিকরন হয়ত দ্রুত সিদ্ধ্বান্ত নিতে সাহায্য করে, কিন্তু বিভিন্ন মতামতের, অভিজ্ঞতার এবং প্রয়োজনীয় সংশয়ের অনুপস্থিতিতে ভারতের জটিল বাস্তবতাকে বুঝে ওঠা বা তার বিবিধ সমস্যার গ্রহণযোগ্য সমাধান করা কতদূর সম্ভব?

প্রথম সপ্তাহে মোদী সরকার তার একার সরকার, সমস্ত সিদ্ধ্বান্ত তার একক সিদ্ধ্বান্ত। কিন্তু মনমোহন সিং সরকারের শেষপর্বের আভ্যন্তরীণ টানাপড়েন আর সিদ্ধ্বান্তিক দোনামনার বিকল্প দেশের অর্থনীতিকে ‘চল ছুঁড়ি, তোর এখনি বিয়ে’ গোছের মনোভাব নিয়ে উন্নয়নের শেষ কথা শোনানো হতে পারে না। মোদী গুজরাত মডেলের নামে দেশব্যাপী বিপুল আশা জাগিয়ে দিল্লী পৌঁছেছেন। কিন্তু এই বিচিত্র দেশকে গুজরাতের সরলীকরণে ভাবা বা একা হাতে সামলানোর চেষ্টা অবাস্তব। প্রধানমন্ত্রীর ভারত মডেল-এর রূপরেখা নিয়ে শেষ কথা বলার সময় আসেনি। কিন্তু এ পর্যন্ত মোদী ব্যস্ত তার গুজরাত মডেলের জাতীয় রুপান্তরে।