मनु हे जातीसंस्थेचे निर्माते नव्हेत

http://navshakti.co.in/aisee-akshare/91740/?fb_action_ids=133156863498419&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%22133156863498419%22%3A412293782169628%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22133156863498419%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

मनु हे जातीसंस्थेचे निर्माते नव्हेत

कुटुंबसमूह हा विवाहसंस्थेखेरीज अस्तित्वात येवू शकत नाही हे उघड आहे. प्रारंभिक विवाहसंस्थाही सैल होती. म्हणजे पती-पत्नी नात्यातील आज अभिप्रेत असणारे पावित्—य व मांगल्य त्यात अभिप्रेत नव्हते. जातीसंस्थेचे मुख्य स्वरुप म्हणजे जातीअंतर्गत होणारे विवाह. जातीअंतर्गत विवाह झाल्याने जातीचा संख्यात्मक विस्तार होणे स्वाभाविकही आहे. परंतु  आधी जाती आल्या कि जातीअंतर्गत विवाह आले हा महत्वाचा प्रश्न आहे.

जातीसंस्था धर्मसंस्थेने बनवलेल्या नाहीत. धर्माचा जन्माधारीत अर्थव्यवस्थेला पाठिंबा नाही. डा. बाबासाहेब आंबेडकरांनीही आपल्या उ डढएड खछ खछऊख ः ढहशळी चशलहरपळा, ऋशपशीळी रपव ऊशvशश्रेािशपीं या कोलंबिया विद्यापीठात 1916 साली सादर केलेल्या प्रबंधातही मनु अथवा ब्राह्मण हे जातीव्यवस्थेचे निर्माते नव्हेत हे ठामपणे सिद्ध केले आहे. आपण जातींत पुरातन काळापासुन भर पडत कशी गेली, दहव्या शतकापर्यंत तरी जातीबदलही कसा घडत होता याबाबतही थोडक्यात चर्चा केलेली आहे. ब्राह्मणांची आधी बंदिस्त जात बनली म्हणून अनुकरणतून अन्य समाजानेही बंदिस्त जातीव्यवस्था स्वीकारली हेही मान्य करता येत नाही. ब्राह्मणांनी आपली जात बंदिस्त का केली याचे उत्तर त्यातून मिळत नाही.

आपण आता जन्माधारित जातीव्यवस्था कशी अस्तित्वात आली यावर स्वतंत्रपणे विचार करणे अत्यावश्यक आहे. त्याशिवाय जातीसंस्थेच्या अपरिवर्तनीय रुपाची निर्मिती कशी झाली याचा उलगडा होणार नाही.

येथे आपल्याला खालील मुद्द्यांवर व तदनुषंगिक निर्माण होणा-या मुद्द्यांवर आता आपण चर्चा करुयात.

1. जातिव्यवस्था विवाहसंस्थाप्रणित?ः मानवी जीवनात आदिम काळी विवाहसंस्थेचे अस्तित्व नव्हते. एका अर्थाने मनुष्य पशुधर्म पाळत होता. म्हणजे नाती-गोती अद्याप निर्माणच झालेली नव्हती. भारतीय विवाहसंस्थेचा इतिहास या महत्वपुर्ण प्रबंधात वि.का. राजवाडेंनी आदि यज्ञधर्मही सामुदायिक शरीरसंबंधांना सोय पुरवण्यासाठी कसा निर्माण झाला याबाबत साधार विवेचन केले आहे. मानवी जीवन प्रजावृद्धीसाठी मुक्त लैंगिक संबंधांना महत्व देत होते. श्वेतकेतुने ही पशुधर्मीय चाल बंद पाडली व आद्य विवाहसंस्थेचा पुरस्कार केला असे आपल्याला महाभारतातील वनपर्वात समजते. कुटुंबसमुहांची, नात्यांची एकूण गोळाबेरीज म्हणजे जात… हे डॉ. इरावती कर्वेंचे विधान आपण मागे पाहिले आहेच. कुटुंबसमूह हा विवाहसंस्थेखेरीज अस्तित्वात येवू शकत नाही हे उघड आहे. प्रारंभिक विवाहसंस्थाही सैल होती. म्हणजे पती-पत्नी नात्यातील आज अभिप्रेत असणारे पावित्—य व मांगल्य त्यात अभिप्रेत नव्हते. पतीच्या संमतीने पत्नी परपुरुषाकडे अथवा अतिथीकडे जावू शकत होती. बाह्य संबंधापासून प्राप्त झालेली संतती पतीचीच समजली जात असल्याने समाजजीवनातही कोणती अडचण उपस्थित होत नव्हती.

 याचाच एक अर्थ असा आहे कि आज आपण समजतो कि आपण कोणी शुद्ध रक्ताचे, वर्णाचे अथवा जातीचे आहोत, त्याला इतिहासाचा आधार नाही….कारण मुळात लैंगिक संबंध हे मुक्त व नंतर अर्धमुक्त झालेले दिसतात. वैवाहिक बंधने आली ती इसपू 1500 च्या आसपास. ही बंधने येण्याचे कारण म्हणजे माणसाने केलेली तत्वज्ञानात्मक प्रगती. आश्वलायन गूह्यसूत्र म्हणते आपण विवाहबद्ध होवून प्रजा उत्पन्न करु. एकमेकांचे प्रेम प्राप्त करुन एकमेकांना आवडते होवूयात. एकमेकांविषयी शुद्ध मन ठेवून शंभर वर्ष जगुयात. (आश्व. गु.सू. 1.7.3.22) याचा अर्थ असा कि प्रजावृद्धी हे विवाहाचे मूख्य ध्येय कायम राहिले तरी प्रेम आणि कर्तव्याची भावना विवाहविधीमध्ये आणली गेली. या काळात विवाह वर्णनिहाय अथवा जातीनिहाय होत असल्याचे पुरावे नाहीत. याचे कारण म्हणजे दोन्ही विभिन्न धर्मधारांत वर्णव्यवस्था व जातीव्यवस्था सैल अशीच होती.

पुढे धर्मशास्त्रज्ञांनी सपिंड व सगोत्र विवाहाचा निषेध सुरु केला. खरे तर ही परिवारबाह्य पण जाती/वर्णांतर्गतची विवाहपद्धती. परंतु प्रत्यक्षात भारतीय समाजात मोठय़ा प्रमाणावर सगोत्र/सपिंड विवाह काही बंधने पाळत कायम राहिले. बहुतेक जातींत आते-मामे भावंडांच्या विवाहाची प्रथा प्रचलित आहे. सगोत्र विवाहही कायदेमान्य आहेत.

जातीसंस्थेचे मुख्य स्वरुप म्हणजे जातीअंतर्गत होणारे विवाह. जातीअंतर्गत विवाह झाल्याने जातीचा संख्यात्मक विस्तार होणे स्वाभाविकही आहे. परंतु  आधी जाती आल्या कि जातीअंतर्गत विवाह आले हा महत्वाचा प्रश्न आहे.

कोणतातरी व्यवसाय असणे हे जातीचे प्रमुख लक्षण आहे, परंतु व्यवसाय बदलला अथवा नवीन व्यवसाय बनवला कि जातही बदलणार हे उघड आहे. अशा परिस्थितीत समव्यवसायी लोकांचे भावनिक अथवा स्पर्धात्मक संम्मिलिनीकरण होणे स्वाभाविक आहे. लहानपणापासून एखाद्या विशिष्ट व्यवसाय वातावरणात वाढलेल्या मुलींना पैतृक व्यवसायाचे किमान प्राथमिक शिक्षण अथवा ज्ञान मिळणे हीसुद्धा स्वाभाविक बाब आहे. अशा स्थितीत लोहाराचे काम करणार्याची मुलगी समजा कुंभारकाम करनार्याच्या घरी दिली तर कुंभारासाठी ती मुलगी वंशवृद्धीच्या कामाखेरीज अनुपयुक्त अशीच आहे. आपण आजही ग्रामीणभागातील श्रमविभागणीचे तत्व पाहिले तर मला काय म्हणायचे ते लक्षात येईल. स्त्री ही फक्त वंशवृद्धीसाठी नव्हे तर एक मोफत श्रम पुरवणारी व्यक्ति एवढे स्त्रीचे अवमूलन होत गेले होते. याला अर्थात आर्थिक कारणे आहेतच. लोहाराची स्त्री, लहानपणापासुन माहिती असल्याने, कोळसा जमा करणे, पेटवणे ते भाता चालवणे व फुटकळ लोहारकामही स्वतःच करण्यात तरबेज असल्याने नवीन प्रशिक्षणाचीही आवश्यकता रहात नाही. हेच तेली-कोष्टीं-ब्राह्मणांबद्दल म्हणता येईल.

त्यामुळे समव्यावसायिकांत विवाह करणे हे फायद्याचे होते. सोयीचे होते. एक फुकटचा कामगार मिळत होता. वंशवृद्धीची सोयही होत होती. मग अशा कुटुंबात मुलगी देणे व अशाच समव्यवसायी कुटुंबातील मुलगी करुन घेणे या देवाणघेवाणीतून ती पुढे प्रथा बनत गेली. या प्रथेतून जन्माधारित जातीव्यवस्था निर्माण होण्यास, सर्वस्वी नसला तरी, हातभार लागला असेही आपल्याला म्हणता येते.

ब्राह्मणांनी आधी आपली जात बंदिस्त केल्याने अन्य समुहांनीही आपापल्या जाती बंदिस्त केल्या अथवा इतरांनी त्यांच्यात प्रवेशण्याचा दरवाजा बंद केल्याने जातेसंस्था बळकट बनली हे बाबासाहेबांचे उपरोल्लिखित प्रबंधातील मत विनम्रपूर्वक अमान्य करावे लागते. व्यावहारिक सोय हे समानव्यवसायींतर्गत विवाहाचे प्रमुख कारण आहे व ती पुढे जसजशी अधिक व्यवसायांची निर्मितीच थांबली तसतशी घट्ट होत गेली असे आपण ठामपणे म्हणू शकतो. भारतात दहाव्या शतकानंतर नवीन व्यवसायांची निर्मिती झाली नाही. म्हणजे कोणताही नवीन जीवनोपयोगी शोध लागला नाही. त्यामुळे नवीन जात निर्माण होण्याच्या शक्यता नव्हत्या. दहाव्या शतकानंतर महाराष्ट्रात दोनच जाती उदयाला आल्या व त्या म्हणजे मराठा व अक्करमाशे कुणबी/मराठा. त्यांच्या उदयाची कारणे सरंजामदारी व स्त्री-शोषण व्यवस्थेत आहेत.

2. जातिव्यवस्था कुलाचारप्रणित?ः हिंदू धर्मातील प्रत्येक जात ही जवळपास एका स्वतंत्र धर्मासारखीच असते हे आपण जातीच्या बंदिस्त व्युहावरुन समजू शकतो. हिंदुधर्म म्हणजे विविध जातींचा एक महासंघ आहे असे म्हटले तरी वावगे ठरू नये. प्रत्येक जातीचेच नव्हे तर पोटजातीचेही कुलाचार हे स्वतंत्र आहेत. कुलाचार ही पुरातन जमातींची उपज आहे. कुल म्हणजे जमात असेही म्हणता येते. पुरातन काळी मुलगी वराला नव्हे तर कुलाला दिली जात असे व कुलपती (जमातप्रमुख) हा वधुवर आपला पहिला हक्क गाजवत असे. कुलवधु हा शब्द या प्रथेचा निदर्शक आहे. प्रत्येक कुलाचे आचार भिन्न असतात. म्हणजे व्यापक परिप्रेक्षात मुख्य दैवते (कुलदैवते) अन्य जातींप्रमाणे समान असली तरीही स्वकुळाचे विशिष्ट अंश एका कुलाला दुसर्या कुलापासून विभक्त करतात.

पण जातिव्यवस्था जन्माधिष्ठित होण्याचा कुलाचाराशी संबंध दिसत नाही. परंतु प्राचिन काळी विभिन्न कुलांत विवाह होत होते, व कुल उच्च कि कनिष्ठ हे ठरवण्याच्या पद्धती सर्वस्वी धार्मिक आधारावर होत्या, व्यवसायांशी त्याचा संबंध नव्हता. याचाच दुसरा अर्थ असा कि जमातींपासून जाती बनल्या हे डॉ. इरावती कर्वे यांचे मत टिकत नाही हेही स्पष्ट होते. उलट जमातींतर्गत विवाह होत असल्याने एकही जमात शुद्ध स्वरुपाची राहिली असेही म्हणता येत नाही.

3. जातीव्यवस्था अर्थसंस्थाप्रणित?ः कोणताही समाज असो अथवा राज्यसंस्था असो, अर्थव्यवस्था हा समाजाचा मुलभूत कणा असतो. अर्थव्यवस्थेमुळेच समाजात वर्गव्यवस्था अस्तित्वात येते. अर्थव्यवस्था कोणत्याही प्रकारची असो, वर्गहीन समाज निर्मण करणे हे मानवाचे स्वप्न अद्याप  साकार झालेले नाही व कदाचित होणारही नाही.

अर्थव्यवस्था ही प्रामुख्याने उत्पादनावर आधारीत असते. शेती, खनीजे, वस्तु, वास्तु इ. उत्पादने तसेच रक्षण, व्यापार या सेवामिळून अर्थव्यवस्थेची एक चौकट निर्माण होते. आपण भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्थेच्या प्राचीन ते मध्ययुगीन स्वरुपावर एक ओझरती नजर टाकली कि आपल्या लक्षात येते कि सनपूर्व 5000 पासून  दहाव्या शतकापर्यंत अर्थव्यवस्थेचा चढता आलेख आहे. सिंधु संस्कृतीत मीठ, धान्य, अलंकार, लाकडी इ. वस्तुंचे प्रमाण मुबलक होते. परंतु असे असले तरी व्यवसायांची संख्या मर्यादित असून शेती हाच मुख्य व्यवसाय होता. पुढे जसजसे नवे शोध लागले तसे वस्त्र, लोह-ताम्रजन्य वस्तुंचेही उत्पादन वाढू लागले. प्रारंभकाळी असे उत्पादक अत्यल्प असणार हे उघड आहे. परंतु जसजशी मागणी वाढत जाते तसतशी त्या व्यवसायात अधिक व्यक्तींची आवश्यकता भासू लागते. नवीन शोध लागला कि पुन्हा तसेच आवर्तन सुरु होते. अशा रितीने व्यवसायसंस्था विविधांगी वाढु लागतात. एकाच व्यवसायात वेगवेगळी कौशल्ये निर्माण झाली कि त्यांचेही स्वतंत्र समुह बनत जातात. हे एकाच वेळीस थोडय़ाफार अंतराने देशभर घडत जाते. फक्त मीठाची वाहतुक करणारे लमाण बनतात तर फक्त अन्नधान्याची वाहतूक करण्यात व व्यापार करण्यात कौशल्य मिळवतात ते वंजारी, बंजारा बनतात. परंतु निषिद्ध प्रवेशाची पाटी लागलेली नसते. आता याचा जातीसंस्था जन्माधरित होण्याशी काय संबंध असा प्रश्न वाचकांना पडु शकेल. त्यावर आपण पुढील भागात विवेचन करुयात.

जातीसंस्थेचा इतिहास (3)

संजय सोनवणी  29/10/12

sting operation

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-01-17/delhi/27755227_1_uma-khurana-fake-sting-virender-arora

Reporter, 2 others summoned in defamation case over fake sting

PTI Jan 17, 2008, 08.06pm IST

NEW DELHI: A court in the Capital issued summons against former TV reporter Prakash Singh and two officials of

a channel in response to a defamation case filed by sacked government school teacher and fake sting victim Uma Khurana.

Metropolitan Magistrate Sanjay Jindal issued summons to fake sting operation accused Singh, CEO of a private new channel Sudheer Chaudhary and its Chief Managing Director, who telecast the fake sting to appear personally before it on April 7.

Khurana had filed the petition on November five last year, after being given a clean chit by a court. Khurana's counsel, Amit Kumar, confirmed that the court on their plea issued summons against all the three.

Earlier, recording her statement before the court Khurana said that the fake sting operation was allegedly carried out by reporter Singh, now sacked from the Channel, with the help of businessman Virender Arora and aspiring journalist Rashmi Singh.

Khurana said the channel's CEO Sudheer Chaudhary and its reporter Singh had full knowledge and reason to believe that

if the fake sting was telecast, it would defame her.

Chaudhury, who is responsible for the day to day affairs of the channel, had "negligently" aired the fake sting on

August 30 last year which enraged the residents and sparked violence near Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in Darya Ganj, she told the court.

========================

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-31/mumbai/29603413_1_ips-officer-fake-sting-operation-fir

FIR order against sr cop for sexually harassing junior

S Ahmed Ali May 31, 2011, 12.28am IST

MUMBAI: The Esplanade magistrate's court has ordered the state director general of police (DGP) to register an FIR against suspended IPS officer Jawahar Singh for allegedly outraging the modesty of a woman in 2002.

Magistrate D H Sharma issued the directive on May 25 after the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) conducted an inquiry into a sexual harassment allegation levelled by a woman sub-inspector against Singh and directed the state to treat the proceedings as a complaint. "We have just received the court order and will take action accordingly," said a senior police officer.

The court directed the police to register a FIR against Singh for outraging the modesty of woman.

The court said though the victim had lodged a complaint against Singh, the then commissioner of police did not register an FIR "to protect him". The department had declined to cooperate and nail Singh though an inquiry conducted by the then additional commissioner of police, Uddhav Kamble, found him guilty, an official said.

The case dates back to 2002, when the victim worked as a subordinate to Singh at the Anti-Narcotic Cell (ANC) in Cuffe Parade. In her complaint, the woman sub-inspector stated that Singh, who was her immediate superior, would to call her to his cabin unnecessarily, pass lewd comments and make advances. Highlighting a few incidents before the state Women Grievance Redressal Committee, the woman said on March 22, 2002, Singh called her to his cabin on the pretext of "taking a review of a report". When she entered his room, where no one else was around, Singh allegedly said, "aap aaye bahar aayi" and that she "was looking beautiful in that dress". On another occasion, Singh had reportedly told her, "Aapka dupatta zara upar uthana (lift your dupatta)". Two constables who worked under Singh also deposed before the committee and corroborated the victim's charges.

Singh, in his defence, told Kamble that the allegations were baseless and mala fide in nature. Singh told the commission that he was being framed by a big drug mafia. "Singh tried to project the victim as wayward but he failed to provide any evidence on record. He could not even prove that the victim was inefficient in work," an officer said.

Despite repeated attempts Singh was not available for comment.

Singh, an IPS officer of the 1986 batch, has courted controversy even earlier. Last month, home minister R R Patil suspended him for conducting an alleged fake sting operation inside the Aurangabad jail. Using a spy camera, Singh had interviewed 20 prisoners, who had told him that contraband was readily available inside the jail and that the staff manhandled him. However, an inquiry revealed that the interviewees were his men and he conducted the sting to sully the image of the jail superintendent.

Last year, when Singh was the vigilance head of Mhada, the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) caught his subordinate, Deepak Shinde, taking bribe. Shinde was allegedly working at Singh's behest. However, the ACB could not get any evidence against Singh.

Outraging the modesty of a woman: Punishable under Section 509 of IPC

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, of that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

====================

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-TOP-zee-news-editor-suspended-after-jindal-accuses-of-extortion-3944869-NOR.html

Zee news editor suspended after Jindal accuses of extortion

Dailybhaskar.com | Oct 19, 2012

New Delhi: In a major embarrassment for the media group, the Broadcast Editors' Association (BEA) has allegedly removed Zee News editor and business head Sudhir Chaudhary following allegations of extortion attempt made against him. 

 

Naveen Jindal's company had filed an FIR against Zee Business channel for allegedly demanding Rs 50 crore for not doing a news story on coal scam.

 

In another development, Chairperson of Press Council of India (PCI), Justice Markandey Katju also wrote to the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) to probe the allegations against Chaudhary. 

 

Chaudhary held the post of treasurer and primary membership of the BEA, a body of editors from leading TV news channels. 

 

According to reports, the BEA members decided to remove Chaudhary after a secret ballot. In a statement, BEA said: "the three-memberfact-finding committee arrived at the... conclusion that Sudhir Chaudhary is found to have acted in a manner that is unbecoming of an editor and in a fashion that is prejudicial to the interest and objects of the BEA."

 

Notably, a three-member panel was formed on October 10 to investigate allegations made by JSPL against Zee News. 

 

The panel reached the conclusions after examining audio and video recordings of conversations between JSPL representatives and Chaudhary and his colleague Samir Ahluwalia. 

 

Along with the FIR, JSPL also submitted documents to Katju to claim that Zee’s representatives sought advertisements from JSPL not only for the news broadcaster but also sister company Diligent Media Corporation Ltd (DMCL) that publishes the English daily DNA from Mumbai.

 

Katju forwarded the complaint NBSA chairperson Justice J S Verma to investigate the matter. NBSA is a redressal body set up by news broadcasters to look into complaints against their members.

 

In his letter to NBSA chairperson Justice J S Verma, Katju said industrialist and MP Naveen Jindal had met him and complained about the alleged extortion demand from officials of the channel for publicising his version.

 

Sudhir Chaudhary, the head of Zee Business, rubbished the allegations as "fabrication" and described it as "pressure tactics" to stop doing stories.

 

In a letter to BEA president Shazi Zaman, he imputed ulterior motives to some members of the committee, and accused them of not giving him proper opportunity to present his case.

Sudhir Chaudhary

http://www.thehoot.org/web/Brazening-it-out/6397-1-1-5-true.html

Brazening it out

No fancy broadcasting laws are needed to penalise bad ethics if there is proof of a criminal offence. A HOOT comment. Pix: Naveen Jindal

Posted/Updated Friday, Oct 26 11:42:36, 2012

Zee TV and Subhash Chandra, fresh from being extensively feted for Zee’s 20 years, could have done without the sorry episode unfolding on Thursday. But you have to wonder at the judgement of a TV Network which makes a man associated with an earlier very dubious sting the editorial and business head of its news channel.  Sudhir Chaudhary was the CEO at Live India TV when the fake sting against the school teacher, Uma Khurana, was carried. It was alleged that the channel had rigged evidence to suggest that she was running a call girl racket using her students. Because the case was withdrawn by the teacher, the media community at large does not hold that episode against Chaudhary. The Broadcast Editors' Association  which has now dropped him from its primary membership did not hold the Uma Khurana episode against him either when it made him an office bearer of the association.

Mr Chaudhary has gone on the offensive. He fought back when the Broadcast Editors Association acted with alacrity in removing him from the post of treasurer, and alleged that the former editors on the committee that took the decision were peeved with him for other reasons.   And on Thursday, even as the Jindal story broke,  the channel first stepped up its hammering on the coal scam, and then came up with a highly specious arguement. It said it had been negotiating with Jindal and his men over a dummy contract for Rs 100 crore worth of advertising which it wanted Jindal to sign. The idea was to  prove how the company had been trying to bribe them  with advertising so that they would lay off on their coal scam coverage. Why did they not do own sting to prove this? Because we thought a signed contract would be evidence, they said on TV on the 25th October night.

The culpability here is far from clear, and whether doctored or not, the taped footage shown was certainly selective. Mr Jindal has allegations against him in the coal scam, and is a man under pressure.  His  motives in waiting for more than a month before making the recording public, are also unclear. Nevertheless it is an episode which tarnishes the ethics of the channels and the individuals involved.  Is the Zee management planning to ride this out or will it say something? At least promise an enquiry of its own to get at the truth? 

First the Zee-Jindal story was off-limits for TV news channels. But when Mr Naveen Jindal suddenly decided to release part of an allegedly incriminating CD at a press conference it quickly became the story of the day for them. With the mystifying exclusion of Times Now which stuck to Nitin Gadkari for its prime time discussion. It did however start  playing up the story later at night.

The worked-up  indignation bubbling over at Zee News has been an almost comic spectacle  for the rest of us, but a sorry moment for other professionals at the channel who are having to defend this bizarre episode. The  anchor working herself up over the coal scam, is the most visible of these. Does she really believe the channel has been unjustifiably implicated?    After she bought time for them on the 25th October evening, Chaudhary and his colleague at Zee Business Sameer Ahluwalia went on air to hammer away at Jindal, and swear that they would pursue the coal scam with even greater zeal. They defended their own conduct till they were blue in the face but something did not quite wash.

Every time another controversy featuring the media breaks, Mr Markandey Katju, chairman of the Press Council appears on television to express his un-nuanced views.  Arrest them, sue them, cancel their license, etc. But his Press Council hasn’t done that much during the period that he has been at the helm. Certainly his uncompromising views have not resulted in any widely publicised strictures on paid news in print and other ethical aberrations that persist in the print media. Being a  strident champion of press freedom as he has become, loudly evident in the Aseem Trivedi case, is the easy part.

He says there should be a regulatory authority that can cancel TV licenses when an offence is proven. Indeed, but he should also know that draft  bills on a regulatory authority for broadcasting have never been passed since 1997 because there is no political consensus on the issue.

 If Naveen Jindal's evidence holds in this case, it can be tried as one of extortion. No fancy broadcasting laws are needed if there is is proof of a criminal offence. But if it comes to the crunch the media will come together and call it an assault on press freedom. It has happened before. And if it comes to the test we will also get to know who has more clout in this land: a moneyed ruling party MP at the centre of a scam, or a man who works for Subhash Chandra.

=====================

http://www.mxmindia.com/2012/10/ranjona-banerji-efficacy-of-stings-ethics-of-channel-put-to-question/

Ranjona Banerji: Efficacy of stings, ethics of channel put to question

By mxmadmin | on 26 Oct,2012

By Ranjona Banerji

The media increasingly finds itself at the receiving end as anti-corruption anger rises in India. After the India Today group faces legal action from Union law minister Salman Khurshid, it’s now the turn of Zee News and Congress MP and industrialist Naveen Jindal. The media either plays an independent role or is seen as a handmaiden of anti-corruption activists.

The Zee News-Jindal story is however extremely strange. About week ago, the Broadcast Editors’ Association removed Sudhir Chaudhary from both the post of treasurer as well as from primary membership of the organisation after complaints of extortion during a “sting operation” against Jindal. The sting was supposed to prove that Jindal had offered to bribe Zee News and Zee Business so that they wouldn’t carry news about Jindal’s involvement in the coal allocation scam. Jindal however claimed that Chaudhary (editor and business head of Zee News) and Samir Ahluwalia (editor of Zee Business) attempted to blackmail him, asking for Rs 100 crore in order to kill the story.

Yesterday saw Zee going on an offensive in its own defence with the rest of the media playing up the story or ignoring it.
Apart from the fact that this may or may not be the best publicity Zee was looking for as it celebrates its 20th anniversary, there are a couple of questions it has to answer. Chaudhary has the slightly unfortunate reputation of being CEO of Live India TV when it ran a fake sting against school teacher Uma Khurana. And, as The Hoot has pointed out, Chaudhary is both editor and business head of Zee News, never a happy or ethically stable job combination.

Once again however the efficacy and use of stings are called into question. Many tactics involved in a sting go against both journalistic ethics and procedures as well legal provisions. They also are, unfortunately, great blackmail tools. The history of stings in India has not really been one of great successes. Tehelka in its earlier avatar tried out several and certainly its most effective was the Westland defence deals sting which led to BJP president Bangaru Laxman going to jail eventually but only after a lot of hardship suffered by Tehelka. Most other stings – including by Tehelka – have destroyed reputations and added to salacious discourse but achieved little else. And all of them have raised questions about the fairness of stings.

Most news organisations steer away from stings for these very reasons. In the zeal to expose someone or something, very often it becomes like a witch hunt without giving the accused the opportunity for a defence. The news organisation has the option of turning its back on the story if it doesn’t pan out the way it was supposed to, leaving the accused at the mercy of India’s weak defamation laws.

Any journalistic expose, sting or otherwise, has to be backed by enough hard work and material to make it as solid as a case in court as possible to make it both effective and fair. If the motives are either born of self-righteous zeal or are more nefarious, journalism has flown out of the window. Objectivity has to be the keystone.

Unfortunately, many language news channels in India are known to use “stings” as a form of blackmail – whether for themselves or for their employers. It is difficult to decide from the evidence so far whether Jindal is indeed guilty of attempting to bribe or if the news channels are guilty of extortion.

What is clear though is that one more extremely uncomfortable question has been raised for the media to deal with.

 =========================

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/10sting1.htm

Fake sting: Channel blames rivals

September 10, 2007 20:34 IS

The fake sting operation, involving a school teacher in New Delhi [ Images ], was planted by a rival channel, claimed Sudhir Chaudhary, head of Live India [ Images ] channel, which telecast the episode.   

Chaudhary, however, said that no judgment should be passed till the investigations were completed.

"Have you seen the tapes? What is your opinion as a journalist? If the story has been proved right that Uma Khurana was involved in the flesh trade, then it would have been the greatest story in Indian journalism," he said.

But he said he saw a deep-rooted conspiracy after finding that the driver and the car in which the sting operation was executed belonged to another channel. 

"The manner in which it was executed and planted on us clearly shows that there was a conspiracy. The police have spoken to the driver and the reporter. The matter is still under investigation," Chaudhary said.

Meanwhile, Rajan Bhagat, PRO Delhi police, denied Chaudhary had made any such claim during his one-hour interrogation at the sector six police station in R K Puram.

"He admitted to the police that the reporter did not tell him that he knew Rashmi Singh who was also involved in the sting operation," Bhagat told rediff.com.

================

The BEA's selective amnesia

http://www.thehoot.org/web/The-BEA-s-selective-amnesia/6391-1-1-5-true.html

The BEA's selective amnesia

The Broadcast Editors Association has acted with alacrity in the Zee Jindal episode. But its silence on ethical lapses of TV editors in the past is noteworthy,says ABHISHEK UPADHYAY

Posted/Updated Tuesday, Oct 23 14:38:55, 2012

Is it a case of exemplary action taking, or does it smack of selective amnesia, sparked by politics among editors?

New channels could doubtless think of several catchy slugs and sensational  headlines for the story of extortion, blackmailing, and broadcasters’ intervention emerging from Zee-Jindal controversy. But it is not a story they are pursuing.

The  Broadcast Editors Association has taken a rather historic decision in the Zee-Jindal case andn removed its treasurer Sudhir Chaudhary from primary membership of the association. For the record, Sudhir Chaudhary is the editor and business head of Zee News, who is accused by Jindal group of extortion and blackmail for the sum of 100 crore, allegedly in lieu of dropping stories against the power and steel giant in Coalgate scam.

The enquiry committee formed by BEA in this case, took cognizance of evidences (the FIR and sting CD provided by Jindal group) aganst Sudhir Chaudhary and arrived at the decision to expel him from this apex body of editors. The decision is unprecedented. This is the first time the Broadcast Editors’ Association BEA has taken such a decision against a core member.

however it fails to address the core issue associated with this particular move.  The Zee-Jindal fiasco happened only when a formal complaint was lodged by Naveen Jindal, a billionaire Congress MP and owner of Jindal group, against Sudhir Chaudhary, editor and business head Zee News,  and Samir Ahluwalia, editor of Zee Business. But its genesis is in an earlier development which  BEA chose to remain silent on.

This is the decision to appoint the same person to perform two very different functions: that of editor and business head, a trend propagated by the new age media barons in the hope of extracting more revenue by holding an editor directly responsible for the turnover of advertisement revenue. Sudhir Chaudhary wasappointed as editor as well as business head of Zee News. While making the announcement the then CEO of Zee News said, "In line with our aggressive growth stratagem that will be fuelled by a combination of editorial and business inventiveness, Sudhir Chaudhary fits the bill perfectly in the future scheme of things.” He possibly did not forsee the lengths to which such inventiveness could be taken.

For the record, these two positions are very contradictory in nature. As an editor one is responsible for setting the  editorial agenda and as a business head the same person is bound to squeeze that very agenda to ensure maximum ad revenue.   Any sane mind can understand the glaring contradictions inherent in both the positions but BEA took no note of this development.  

In this particular case, assume for a minute, if being an editor Sudhir Chaudhary can plant stories against Jindal, so too being a business head, he can approach Jindal for advertisements. Technically there is no problem as none of the news channel can claim on record that their advertisement marketing teams don’t contact those persons, group or institutions against whom they have run the story or are planning to run a story. In order to avoid this risk and maintain ethics, editors were at least spared from the responsibility of pulling up the revenue graphs of the newspaper or channel. But in Subhash Chandra’s empire the jobs were merged in order to milk the cow to its full capacity.

BEA simply chose to avoid this glaring contradiction and decided to stay silent despite being a body of TV editors and not of TV business heads. The Hoot put this larger question related with Zee-Jindal incident to Mr. NK Singh, General Secretary BEA, who tersely responded in the following terms, “As of now, we are dealing with this particular case; this issue will be discussed later.”  

Now comes the very question of the nature of the stand, BEA has taken in this case. Was this particular stand taken in isolation, or does BEA follows any norm in arriving at such decisions?

Lets look at the record in these matters.  BEA, after taking suo moto cognizance of the incident, instituted a three member fact finding committee on this Zee-Jindal issue on October 10, 2012 which comprised three members including NK Singh (Secretary BEA), Dibang (Ex managing editor NDTV) and Rahul Kanwal (Managing editor, Headlines Today). The enquiry committee was unexpectedly prompt in its deliberations and pronounced its verdict within just eight days of its formation, holding Sudhir Chaudhary guilty of misconduct and removing him from the body’s membership. BEA issued a press release on 18^th October, 2012 to the effect.

This alacrity has raised eyebrows as BEA has still not released its enquiry report in the heinous Assam molestation incident in which the editor and reporters of  the Assamese channel NewsLive were accused of provoking molestation of an innocent girl to get some eye grabbing visuals. The Assam molestation incident not only shook the country but badly tarnished the image of the media as a whole.  

The incident took place in July 2012. On 17^th July, BEA formed a three member team of senior editors to look in to the matter and even laid out the much hyped “larger issue” for the sake of its jurisdiction. BEA said in a statement that its team would try to find out if any journalist had actually played a part in the commissioning of the crime. It would also deliberate on the larger issue of conduct of journalists. The three member team was headed by NK Singh (General Secretary, BEA) and included Dibang and Ashutosh (Managing Editor IBN7). The team immediately rushed to Assam, met the concerned parties and looked into the evidence. This was well reported in national and regional media with the hope of getting a clear picture about the incident and the code of ethics on the larger issue of journalistic conduct.

But till now no report has been filed by the BEA on this case, though it arrived at a decision in the Zee-Jindal case in record time. Four months have already passed but BEA is nowhere near to filing the report.

 But in the Sudhir Chaudhary case, the promo, trailer and shooting of the film was completed within a week, and the film was even released simultaneously.

There were two common members in both committees (those of the Assam molestation incident and Zee-Jindal incident), NK Singh and Dibang. The Hoot contacted both to understand this riddle. Dibang said that he would not like to comment on the issue as there was a consensus in the BEA that committee members would not  comment publicly on cases. He said he had answers to all such questions but he was bound by the decision of the BEA.

NK Singh, on the other hand, said that the reason for the delay in the Assam incident’s report was because that they have been waiting for CFSL report to judge the veracity of voices, heard during the molestation incident. He suggested that the BEA was relying on the investigation by authorities to form its opinion in this case. Being asked for the reason of two different parameters adopted in two incidents of alleged ethical misconduct, he said, “Culpability is different in both cases. The Zee issue is based on editorial conduct.” He too expressed his unwillingness to elaborate further.

Now the fact is that a CFSL report is awaited in the second case as well. The police is yet to get the laboratory report of the sting CD, submitted by Jindal in the current case.  But that did not stop the body from announcing action against the editor whose conduct was being inquired into.

The fact that the BEA has taken an exceptional stand in this case is also proven by the previous stands of the association in the Radia tapes  case and in the Sahara-Ed controversy issue.  BEA was formed in August 2009 with some high profile objectives like need to evolve healthy norms, promote training of professional journalists at all levels, and ensure dissemination of credible and constructive news content and to protect the right to freedom of expression, whenever threatened.

The  Radia tapes controversy erupted at the end of the year 2010. in which names of several reputed journalists like Barkha Dutt, Prabhu Chawala, and Vir Sanghvi came to fore for being allegedly involved in unethical hobnobbing with a corporate lobbyist.  Interestingly BEA neither instituted any enquiry committee nor released any statement and chose to remain quite immovable on an issue which came to epitomize the rot in the media.

Individually some  BEA members spoke out.  Ashutosh (managing editor, IBN7) of course, gave a very candid and scathing reply to questions raised on Radia issue while participating in Patna book fest. He bluntly said, “Hame sab pata hai ki media ke bheeter kuch patrakar dallagiri karte hain. Transfer aur posting ka kaam karvaate hain. Angrezi main bhale hi isey lobbying kaha jaata ho, lekin aise kaam karne waale ko hum apni bhasha main dalle kahte hain- (English translation-We are well aware that some journalist are involved in liasoning and dealing in the name of media. They do undertake assignments like transfer and posting. No matter, In English, they are called as lobbyist but we call such persons “pimp” in our language”). However candid this outburst was we don’t know if he raised this  issue at the forum of BEA.  Because there is no record of any action following.

BEA has a record of similar inaction in the case of the  Sahara-Enforcement Directorate controversy in which Upendra Rai, news director of Sahara News  was accused of trying to influence and bribe an Enforcement Directorate official at the behest of corporate lobbyist Nira Radia. Even the Supreme Court took cognizance of the issue and asked for an undertaking from the Sahara counsel that the channel would not publish any story against the investigating officer duing the pendency of the matter. On May 3, 2011, the CBI  also registered  a preliminary enquiry in this case and launched formal a investigation at the request of the Enforcement Directorate. The matter didn’t die down here and Supreme Court on May 6, 2011, issued a  contempt notice to the Managing Director of Sahara Group Subrata Roy and two others for allegedly interfering with the investigation into 2G spectrum case and in the administration of justice.But no decision or pronouncement  was forthcoming on this issue from the BEA.

Sudhir Chaudhary in his response to BEA against his expulsion, raises several issues on of which relates to grievances members of the BEA committee might have against him. In his words,  ‘”Sadly, the pronouncement is a result of infancy of systems at BEA/Committee and the association’s inability to manage a handful of eager-beaver agendas, including, but not limited to, those of Editors on the committee who I have removed from appearing on my channel.” He is alleging internal lobbying and interests groups within the BEA.

While discussing the larger issue of ethics and the BEA it is relevant to mention the record of Sudhir Chaudhary whom the BEA put on its executive and has now hastily removed. He was the CEO of Live India, when the channel ran a fake sting against a Delhi school teacher Uma Khurana. It devastated her life and brought indelible shame to media, particularly news channels. The question arises as to why BEA never took note of his past when giving him the position of treasurer of the organization.

BEA never clarified whether it had exonerated him of being guilty of that incident or whether it was suffering from selective amnesia.

But Sudhir Chaudhary’s side of the story, in this saga of inquiry and expulsion, cannot be ignored either. He has accused some of the editors of BEA to conspire against him whom he does not invite on this shows any more.  When The Hoot contacted him he once again referred to a few allegedly aggrieved editors on the  BEA enquiry committee, without taking any names. He also requested this writer to go through the constitution of the BEA which clearly mentions that only serving editors can be members of BEA. Two members of the enquiry committee, Dibang and NK Singh are no longer serving editors.

If sources are to be believed the third name of the alleged conspirator in his list, pertains to Satish K Singh who was earlier the editor of Zee news and was replaced by Sudhir Chaudhry. The Hoot contacted Satish K Singh,  currently editor of Live India news channel, over such allegations and insinuations but he declined to  comment and  added, “I even didn’t utter a single word in the meetings of BEA on the particular issue.” Dibang and NK Singh also chose not to respond to Chaudhary’s  insinuations. 

Apart from the BEA, the role of news channels in this Zee-Jindal episode  is questionable. They  have not investigated this story despite the fact the existence of a police complaint, sting CD (which has been sent for forensic examination) and consequent police enquiry. They just overlooked a very important and far reaching development of their fraternity.

Viewers must wonder which the reporters who aggressive pursue every scrap of information on  Salman Khurshid or Robert Vadra Arvind Kejriwal or A Raja, are conspicuously silent on and do not pursue allegations regarding their own fraternity.

The current incident could become a turning point for the BEA if it chooses to face allegations being leveled against its members and criticism of its own alleged arbitrariness. But one of the early decisions the body took when the Jindal-Zee story broke was that its members would express no public views on the issue, nor participate in any TV discussion on the subject.

Schoolteacher sending girl students into prostitution 'expose'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_India

Schoolteacher sending girl students into prostitution 'expose'

On August 28 2007, the channel aired a sting operation covering a porn racket run by a schoolteacher in Delhi involving school girls. A lady in Vivek Vihar, where the teacher Uma Khurana used to teach at a girl's school, gave the lead to the channel, after which the reporter, acting as a customer, fixed up a meeting with Mrs. Khurana at Cross River mall in late August. The footage aired shows Khurana negotiating a deal of Rs. 4,000 for the girl’s “services”. He paid Rs. 400 to her and she handed over the 15-year-old girl, an ex-student at her earlier school^[1]. Later, the girl was taken into confidence, and revealed that Khurana's method was to serve the students a drink laced with drugs^[2] after which she would take pictures of them in an obscene pose. These were later used by her to blackmail students into prostitution.

The day following the broadcast, a crowd of several hundred people gathered at the school. After burning a police van parked nearby, they entered the school premises, pulled the teacher out of the teacher's room, and thrashed her badly.

This led to calls for sting operations being curtailed. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which has been trying to stifle sting operations, especially against politicians, said that “It should have been left to the police to take action against the accused.”^[3]

Meanwhile, the role of Live India, the channel which aired the sting is being scrutinised by the police. The police had arrested, Khurana, a teacher at the Government Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya's Daryaganj branch, after the mob violence on Thursday.

But the police and parents claim that the channel's approach in broadcasting the expose was wrong. It is believed the channel had conducted the sting over a month back, when Khurana was a teacher at the Vivek Vihar branch of the school.^[4]

[edit]Court Verdict

On Wednesday, 12 September 2007, The high court in the Indian capital, Delhi, has ordered that a schoolteacher who was sacked after a fake television "sting" operation must be reinstated. A police investigation later revealed the sting had been faked and the teacher falsely accused. The undercover journalist, Prakash Singh, who made the report was arrested. Police later questioned staff at the Live India news channel which broadcast the secretly-filmed tape on 30 August. Announcing her bail, the judge said she had been "more of a victim than an offender".^[5]

[edit]Government Ban

The Indian Government banned the channel for a month due to the false sting. It was banned because it breached the Cable Networks Regulation Act, 1995, by broadcasting an admittedly doctored sting operation.^[6]

Politician Kejriwal losing friends in NGO world

Politician Kejriwal losing friends in NGO world
TNN | Oct 23, 2012, 02.18AM IST

NEW DELHI: As Arvind Kejriwal makes the shift from the NGO world to that of politics, he faces the tough task of keeping his civil society friends with him. NGO Vidharba Jan Andolan Samiti, which has been active in raising farmers' suicides and other problems in the parched belt, has accused Kejriwal of using it for his political purposes.

Kishore Tiwari, who heads the NGO, said, "We were asked to provide all details related to the irrigation scam and the recently developed power project crisis... these were given to the IAC. But all data given by us was intentionally not used... it resulted in single person focus where our main issues have taken a back seat."

This is not the first time that Kejriwal has lost support from friends in civil society but ever since he announced his political inclinations, those differing with him have preferred to go public. Earlier, civil society members on board the National Advisory Council had distanced themselves from his campaign, not wishing to be attached with his "approach and methods", as some put it.

The differences within Team Anna, when it existed, could have been passed off as fraternal arguments but the chasm between Kejriwal's overt political steps and the concerns of civil society to look at more systematic changes have a different dimension.

Tiwari said, "We demand IAC to focus on main demands of aam aadmi who are living in remote villages and are dying without food and medicine."

While Tiwari was initially supportive of Kejriwal's foray into politics, he sounded circumspect in a later letter, saying, "The basic need is to change the wrong model of development and fix a time agenda to deal with corrupt... We will convince these great leaders that's the main issue."
=====================
Questions swirl around source of funding of Gadkari's firm

NEW DELHI/NAGPUR: Grave questions have surfaced over the source of funds for Purti Power and Sugar Ltd, controlled by BJP president Nitin Gadkari. Investigations reveal significant investments and large loans to Purti by a construction firm, Ideal Road Builders (IRB) Group, which had won contracts between 1995 and 1999, when Gadkari was the PWD minister in Maharashtra.

Besides IRB Group, the other significant shareholders in Purti are a clutch of 16 companies. TOI's investigations across four cities revealed that most addresses in which these companies are registered are unverifiable, and that the firms are controlled by Gadkari's close aides.

Records of 2010-11 show that directors of these investor companies included Gadkari's driver, his 'diwan' (accountant) and two employees of Purti. One of them is said to be a friend of his son, Nikhil. The IRB connection is significant. The company and its promoter D P Mhaiskar together subscribed to 68.4 lakh shares of Purti. More importantly, an IRB firm, Global Safety Vision, loaned Rs 164 crore to Gadkari's company. The BJP chief, who is one of the seven promoters of Purti, currently holds just 310 shares worth Rs 3,100.

When Gadkari met TOI in Nagpur on Monday, he denied any wrongdoing. "I am ready to face any inquiry," he said. He added, "I resigned as Purti chairman 14 months ago." TOI had withheld the story for 24 hours as the BJP chief was not available for comment initially.

Global's loan came in a year when Purti had a turnover of Rs 145 crore and accumulated losses of Rs 48.94 crore. IRB Group's contribution in strengthening finances of Purti is noticeable on filings of the company over the years. Also, Global appointed its director Ganesh Gadre on Purti's board as a nominee director. Purti's power and sugar plants and the 47.69-hectare plot — on which the factories are housed — are mortgaged to Global.

In a detailed reaction, Sudhir Dive, managing director of Purti Power and Sugar Limited, denied any irregularity in company's funding from IRB or other sources. "Purti has losses of Rs 64 crore, Mhaiskar loaned us Rs 164 crore through Global, and we have repaid him Rs 62 crore which includes interest," said Dive.

"There's no suspicion around the investment, growth and associations of Purti Power and Sugar Limited," said Dive in a written reply to queries sent by TOI. "All the companies are genuine and are 12-15 years old, they are also complying with all the rules and regulations," he asserted.

However, TOI's investigation shows that most companies that invested in Purti don't exist at the addresses shown in the records of the Registrar of Companies.

For instance, five of the investor companies — Nivita Trades, Swiftsol, Rigma Fintrade, Ashwami Sales and Marketing and Earnwell Traders — are shown as registered at Dube Chawl, a slum in Mumbai's Andheri East.

Ramesh Dube, the owner of the chawl, maintained that no company had ever functioned from the area. "I know of no one who has or currently operates an office in this colony," Dube told TOI.

Three other major holders of the Group — Vidya Buildcon, Sanobar Infrastructure and Roller Multitrade — are registered at an address, Sri Nivas House in Mumbai's Fort Area, which actually belongs to the well-known Somani Group. When TOI visited the premises, members of the Somani family and their employees denied any knowledge of the firms which in official records operate from the same address.

Inquiries revealed that it was actually Pradeep Vyas, a manager of Gujarat Composite Limited, a unit of the Bangar Group that operates from the same building, who had mentioned Somani's premises as that of the Purti investors. Vyas admitted mentioning Somani's premises as the address of Purti investors, saying that he did so at the instance of his chartered accountant friend, Chandrashekhar Sarda. When reached in Kolkata, Sarda said that the companies actually belonged to Kolkata-based investors. "We liaison with them for ROC requirements," Sarda said.

Just like their addresses, the credentials of the directors of Purti's investor companies are also intriguing. TOI inquired about four of the set who were directors in 16 firms that invested in Purti.

Thus, Manohar Panse, who used to be Gadkari's driver, happened to be a director in five of Purti's investor companies. In fact, between 2009 and 2011, Panse was a director in six other companies as well. When contacted, Dive admitted that Panse was Gadkari's driver, but clarified that he is "now a director of only one company." Incidentally, Panse was a key witness in the case where a seven-year-old girl was found dead in a car parked in Gadkari's residential complex in 2009.

Likewise, the address of another director in some of these investor firms, Kawdu Pandurang Zade, is the same as Gadkari's in Nagpur. Zade, known as "Diwan" in the Gadkari household, was a director in 12 holding companies.

Importantly, Dive, who joined Purti as its MD in 2005, was the BJP chief's personal assistant when he was the PWD minister. He continued with Gadkari, serving as his personal secretary when the BJP president became the Leader of Opposition (1999-2004) in the Maharashtra Legislative Council.

Apart from the diwan and the driver, the other two directors are Nishant Vijaya Agnihotri and Sagar Shripad Kotwaliwale. Both are employees of Purti, with the latter reportedly a close friend of Gadkari's son. Interestingly, various combinations of two of these four were directors in 16 out of the 21 companies.

Apart from the common set of directors, there is something else that runs through Purti's investor companies as a conspicuous thread. At least 19 of these have registered the same email id with the Registrar of Companies — rajsharma54@yahoo.com. An e-mail sent to the id on Monday evening is yet to elicit a response. Gadkari and Dive said they did not know the identity of Sharma.

The investing companies have now got new directors, but they too are a closed group of people — 11 of them staying in the same locality in Kolkata.

FAMOUS FIVE: The people who have some connections with Nitin Gadkari

Sudhir Wamanrao Dive: MD in Purti Power and Sugar Limited since April 24, 2005. He was a tehsildar in Nagpur district. He came on deputation as the personal assistant of Gadkari during the latter's tenure as PWD minister between 1995 and 1999. Later, he was Gadkari's personal secretary. Dive's younger brother, Dilip Dive, was a BJP candidate in the recent civic elections.

Kawdu Pandurang Zade: Believed to be Gadkari's classmate and from the same village, Dhapewada. Along with Gadkari, Diwe used to run a shop in the ground floor of Gadkari's building. Zade has been living in Gadkari's house for several years. He is named 'Diwanji', which means a person looking after financial matters.

Manohar Madhavrao Panse: Driver of Nitin Gadkari. Now, he looks after all household work. His name featured when Gadkari was in a controversy for when a young girl, Yogita Thakre, was found dead in a Honda CRV belonging to the Gadkari family in 2009. 'Panse-kaka' is as good as a family member.

Nishant Vijay Agnihotri: Works in Purti Power and Sugar Limited and is posted at Purti's head office.

Sagar Shripad Kotwaliwale: Works at Purti Purti's head office since 2006. Rumoured to be a friend and classmate of Gadkaris' son Nikhil. Sagar is also an RSS activist.

(Additional reporting by Rajshri Mehta and Sandeep Ashar in Mumbai).
--------------------------------


Kerala teacher defies dress diktat, moves rights panel
Preetu Venugopalan Nair & T P Nijish,

KOCHI: A Muslim teacher of a government-aided school, suspended for not following the management diktat to cover herself with either a purdah or with a green-coloured overcoat, has approached State Human Rights Commission for justice.

"The school management insisted that I wear a green coat and issued a showcause notice asking me to give reasons for not wearing light green-coloured coat or purdah introduced for teachers. Though not happy I decided I would wear my doctor son's white overcoat instead of green to school," Jameela K, mathematics teacher at Sullamussalam Oriental High School in Malappuram in northern Kerala, who was suspended on October 20.

Jameela said the dress code was forcibly introduced at the beginning of the academic year and it hurt the sentiments of several female teachers who saw it as an affront considering that they always used to come to school decently dressed. "If the idea behind introducing the overcoat was to protect teachers from students' prying eyes, why should I be suspended because I didn't wear a green overcoat," asked Jameela.

Her suspension order says she has been placed under suspension for 15 days for "grave charges of indiscipline and disobedience". The school management claimed that Jameela was not suspended for violating the dress code. "We took disciplinary action against her as she raised baseless allegations against us," said school management committee member P Sakkariya.

The State Human Rights commission has asked deputy director of Education, Malappuram, to submit an inquiry report. "Prima facie, the school management's move is a clear violation of human rights as each and every individual has the right to decide what to wear. The decision to introduce greet uniform coat would only lead to further communal divide among people in the state', said SHRC member K E Gangadharan.

School headmistress Najma N V said, "The controversy was uncalled for as we had introduced asparagus colour overcoats and not green. It was unanimously decided by the staff and teachers and is not done to appease any political party."

But Najma in a letter to Jameela on August 13 had clearly stated, "As per the directions of the manager, I have been asked to serve a showcause notice to those who are not wearing the uniform coat (light green in colour) or black purdah introduced by the school."
======================

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2012/09/indias-gandhi-family

India's Gandhi family
The Rahul problem
Sep 10th 2012,

WHAT is the point of Rahul Gandhi? The 42-year-old scion of the Gandhi dynasty, which has long dominated India’s ruling party, is still the most plausible prime ministerial candidate for Congress at the looming 2014 election. In advance of that, possibly within weeks, he may get some new party post (some talk of a “vice presidency”) or possibly a government job (as rural affairs minister, perhaps?). A cabinet reshuffle is awaited, with the washed-out monsoon session of parliament swirling down the drain.

Promoting Mr Gandhi now would in theory make sense for Congress. He has long been presumed the successor-in-waiting to Sonia Gandhi, his mother and the party’s president. He needs time to start showing some skills as a leader before campaigning starts in 2014. And for as long as Mr Gandhi does not rise, it is hard for other relative youngsters to be promoted without appearing to outshine him. That has left Congress looking ever older and more out of touch.

But he has long refused to take on a responsible position, preferring to work on reorganising Congress’s youth wing, and leading regional election efforts, both with generally poor results. The problem is that Mr Gandhi has so far shown no particular aptitude as a politician, nor even sufficient hunger for the job. He is shy, reluctant to speak to journalists, biographers, potential allies or foes, nor even to raise his voice in parliament. Nobody really knows what he is capable of, nor what he wishes to do should he ever attain power and responsibility. The suspicion is growing that Mr Gandhi himself does not know.


The latest effort to “decode” Mr Gandhi comes in the form of a limited yet rather well written biography by a political journalist, Aarthi Ramachandran. Her task is a thankless one. Mr Gandhi is an applicant for a big job: ultimately, to lead India. But whereas any other job applicant will at least offer minimal information about his qualifications, work experience, reasons for wanting a post, Mr Gandhi is so secretive and defensive that he won’t respond to the most basic queries about his studies abroad, his time working for a management consultancy in London, or what he hopes to do as a politician.

Mrs Ramachandran’s book—along with just about every other one about the Gandhi dynasts—is thus hampered by a lack of first-hand material on its subject. Mr Gandhi can only be judged by his actions, his rare and halting public utterances, and the opinions of others who work near him. Given that limitation, she does a decent job: sympathetically but critically analysing his various efforts. She concludes that his push to modernise the youth organisation of Congress as if it were an ailing corporation, applying management techniques learned from Toyota, were earnest and well-meaning but ultimately doomed to fail. “Brand” Rahul, she suggests convincingly, is confused. A man of immense privilege, rising only because of his family name, struggles to look convincing when he talks of meritocracy.

The overall impression of Mr Gandhi from Mrs Ramachandran’s book is that of a figure who has an ill-defined urge to improve the lives of poor Indians, but no real idea of how to do so. He feels obliged to work in politics, but his political strategies are half-baked, and he fails to develop strong ties with any particular constituency. He has tried to disavow the traditional role of a Gandhi (which would pose him as a Western-educated member of the elite with a near-feudal style of concern for the masses) preferring to pitch himself as a man ready to drink the dirty water of village peasants, and to eat food among the most marginalised of society. But his failure to follow up on such gestures (and many others), with policy or prolonged interventions to help a particular group, suggests a man who strikes an attitude but lacks skills in delivering real change—either as election results, or social improvement.

Part of the problem is presumably the coterie of advisers who surround Mr Gandhi. Western-educated, bright and eager to cosset their leader within a very small bubble, they appear unready for the messy realities of Indian politics: the shady alliances that are required to win elections; the need to strike deals with powerful regional figures who increasingly shape national politics; the importance of crafting a media strategy in an era of cable TV news. More basically, they seem not to have developed any consistent views on policy. What does Mr Gandhi stand for: more liberal economic reforms; defensive nationalism; an expansion of welfare? Instead they prefer to focus on tactics. Perhaps because of their poor advice, their man too often looks opportunistic and inconsistent.

Opportunities have presented themselves to Mr Gandhi in the past couple of years. One was the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement, of last year and this, when young, urban, middle-class voters, in the main, expressed rage at huge scandals overseen by the elderly folk who run Congress and their coalition allies. Mr Hazare’s campaign successfully drew on their anger, yet it was a halting, confused movement. Mr Gandhi might have intervened at some point, and tried himself to tap into public anger over corruption and inequality, and drawn some of the sting of the Hazare camp’s efforts.

Or, when Mrs Gandhi was absent, being treated abroad for a serious illness (rumoured to have been cervical cancer), he might have taken charge and confronted the anti-graft campaigners. He could at least have set out evidence for how the government was tackling graft, claimed credit for the government’s introduction of a right-to-information act, and lauded the fact that suspect politicians had been arrested and (temporarily) put in jail. Instead he flunked the test in hiding, not daring to speak out, other than in one ill-advised intervention in parliament.

Another opportunity of sorts was to energise Congress in state elections. The failure of the campaign led by Mr Gandhi in Uttar Pradesh (UP) early in 2012 is briefly but convincingly assessed in the biography. Congress did worse in the state during the assembly elections than it had in the 2009 general election. Mr Gandhi led the party to a humiliating fourth place, even doing dismally in constituencies where the Gandhis have long been local MPs.

Perhaps he was doomed to fail from the start (voters did not think Congress could win in the assembly elections, so did not see a reason to “waste” their votes). But his methods—poor public speaking, a failure to understand how particular castes and religious groups would act, weak connections to local organisers—did not help. The main mistake, in retrospect, may have been that he invested so much of himself in that particular poll. But similar efforts, in Bihar and Kerala, in recent years, brought similar results.

Since the poll in UP Mr Gandhi has made little impact on Indian politics. That would change quickly if he is indeed promoted to a higher position and takes on a bigger role. But the growing impression of the man—certainly the one promoted by Mrs Ramachandran’s “Decoding Rahul Gandhi”—is of a figure so far ill-prepared to be a leading politician in India.

Just possibly, therefore, this is the moment for Congress to dare to think of something radical: of reorganising itself on the basis of policies, ideas and a vision for how India should develop, and not on a particular dynasty that seems, after various iterations, to be getting less and less useful. Mrs Ramachandran’s book does not touch on this thought, but it is high time for the powerful within Congress to think about it.

(Picture credit: AFP)
==========================