Letters

Price of Procrastination
According to a recent report released by the Infrastructure and Projects Monitoring Division of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, India loses Rs 118000 crore by way of cost escalation due to delay in the implementation of projects. The seriousness of the situation can be understood from the fact that the overrun equals the total budget of the education and rural development ministries put together.

What are the reasons for cost overruns? One reason is, too many projects are started with no regard to resource availability. Even in respect of housing sector, one can see the half-finished houses for the poor for two to three years.

Another reason given is, the civil servants are afraid to touch a file and make recommendations to expedite work. Both politicians and bureaucrats are happy, but the country is suffering. The Prime Minister assured the bureaucracy that they would not be penalised for the bonafied errors of judgement. Yet, the situation has not improved.

The report revealed that out of a total of 195 government projects, 19 have been delayed by one to two years, and 27 mega projects by two to five years. As many as 91 big-ticket projects are hanging fire. The report is based on data collected till July 1, 2012 of all mega projects costing above Rs 1,000 crore.

The cost over-runs are huge in respect of some Ministries. The Ministry of Power is the worst hit—of the 57 projects being consistently monitored by the ministry, at least 34 projects are behind schedule. The Ministry of Railways has mentioned the delay in land acquisition as the major reason for slow implementation of projects. The Monitoring Committee has observed that the original cost of Rs 41000 crore for Railway Projects has been revised to Rs 96000 crore. The Ministry of Programme Implementation has observed that the original cost of the 195 projects—Rs 586000 crore has gone up to Rs 704000 crore.

The solution to the problem lies in keeping the number of projects at a reasonable level, without yielding to political pressures. If resource spread is so thin, it becomes impossible to complete projects within the deadline. Of course, the delay in supply of equipment, and non-development of modern equipment might have contributed to undue delay in the completion of projects.
I Satya Sundaram,
Hyderabad

Political Prisoners
The West Bengal High Court judgement of August 2012 granting 'political prisoner' status to seven members of the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCAPA) clarifies and reinforces the provision of law as stipulated in West Bengal Correctional Service Act 1992 and the definition of political prisoner therein. PUDR welcomes the judgement to the extent that it brushes aside the mystique woven by lower courts in denying the status of political prisoner to PCAPA members on insubstantial grounds despite the law being vivid and clear on it. Section 24 of the West Bengal Correctional Service Act 1992 takes a broad and encompassing view of what constitutes a political offence. It includes all political and democratic movement that crusades to further social and economic justice without any personal greed or motives and despite the ideological persuasion and means or orientation towards established legal order to be political movement. Consequently, anyone detained for being associated with these movements is to be political prisoner. The High Court judgement therefore brings forth the irony and contradictions of the justice delivery mechanisms in India.

The West Bengal High Court Judgement however has its own perils. The high court in its judgement refrained from striking down the category of political prisoner because the said category was not challenged on valid grounds in the legal matter before its disposal. The court found the category of political prisoner to be discriminatory and reinforcing inequality. It held that basic minimum facilities that are stipulated for the political prisoners under West Bengal Correctional Service Act 1992 shall be moderated and made accessible to all prisoners. In this concern PUDR would also like to draw attention on the colonial practice of discriminations in Indian jails, entirely based on class and various categorisations of prisoners. While the notion of equality is no doubt welcoming, HC judgment is conspicuously silent on upholding of prevalent structured inequality in Indian Jails. Secondly it would be quite disingenuous to reduce the struggle for the status of political prisoner to the notion of equal access to facilities inside prison. Contestations over status of a political prisoner or category of 'political offence and offenders' goes beyond prison entitlements. It is about defining the domain of 'legitimate' politics and diverse politics of dissent and resistance being constitutive of such domain.

The High Court Judgement in totality circumvents what it asserts in the first instance. It subverts the broader understanding of political offence as defined in the West Bengal Correctional Service Act 1992 by proposing trampling of boundaries between 'political' and 'routine'/ non political offence. Following this judgement the Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India swiftly moved to direct the West Bengal Government to either consider an amendment of the West Bengal Correctional Service Act 1992 or to appeal against the high court judgment in order to prohibit the conferment of the status of political prisoners to those who question and revolt against the state. Paradoxical it may seem but overall picture around West Bengal High Court Judgement and the MHA directive represents a continuum of subverting a law- (West Bengal Correctional Service Act) 1992- with democratic potential. More so it aims at redefining the contours of the political by ironing out the politics of resistance and dissent.

Paramjeet Singh
and Preeti Chauhan,
Secretaries, PUDR

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 22, Dec 9-15, 2012

Your Comment if any