CAPITAL QUESTION

Dehradun or Gairsen?

Serious challenges call for well-thought out, well considered solutions. In the life of a person, the answers may lie in the advice of elders, the wise, the experienced and the well-informed. Friends will be there to give moral and tangible support. And a leap by a person who is so fortified is likely to be safe; the fall is well cushioned, and a bone-crunching thud will be avoided. When it comes to taking decisions that might impact a large number of people, the decisions are best when wise counsel and, in more cases than not, consensus is in place. Governments in a democratic set up have to arrive at decisions with an immense sense of responsibility, with the mantra of maximum good for most. The decision, for instance, that the Uttarakhand government has made, regarding relocation of the state’s permanent capital away from its current temporary one, is one decision that calls for a no-nonsense, no-politics kind of clear-headed call steeped in sound reason on a multitude of fronts.

It was indeed a statesmanlike decision to appoint a committee headed by a seasoned man of judiciary to guide the decision through the many traps that may waylay a decision-maker who has to negotiate issues of politics and regionalism, apart from other vested interests. Once that was done, the committee’s recommendation should have been considered with due respect. In the case of Dixit Commission report, however, all the wisdom the report encapsulated after seven years of painstaking examination of the issues, this respect on the part of the decision-making government was replaced by vested political interests, chiefly for electoral considerations. The parameters on which the report was prepared included topography, water resources, climate, land-availability, natural drainage and investment that was thought to be called for in developing the necessary infrastructure. One can hardly find fault with these parameters. However, while the recommendations of the Commission are said to have rejected the idea of locating the new capital in Gairsen, the government did finally gave in to popular perception that decision to place the state’s life-centre there would be in the best interests of the state.

Let us examine the case put forward by the proponents of converting the temporary capital, Dehradun to the permanent one. There are, in essence, the following reasons offered:

The capital should be located at a place whose accessibility is plentiful and all-season; not merely from within the state but from outside the state as well; Dehradun has that connectivity. The connectivity of Gairsen is limited to a single means: roads.  We cannot overlook that there are hazards like landslides occurring very often, rendering accessibility unachievable. Dehradun has, on the other hand, rail and air connectivity in addition to all-season roads. Dehradun has a number of important government institutions, and has a large number of buildings which are already being used as government buildings. Secretariat and a temporary Vidhan Sabha building are also in place.

If all aspects are considered and the unequivocal answer is that the capital must be relocated, then the issue of finances will have to be considered very seriously. We should check financial resources to assess this inescapable aspect. The unfortunate fact is that our resource-strapped state can hardly come up with the enormous money that is needed for all the necessary buildings, roads, other institutions, residences, etc. A state like Haryana, which is miles ahead of Uttarakhand in resources, has not built a new capital though it has been in existence for close to five decades. To get an idea, we have to only look at the likely budget for building the Vidhan Sabha building in the new location. Two years ago, the estimated cost of the building was Rs 75 crores. Two years down the line, the costs have escalated substantially, and we might be looking at a three-figure estimate now. This is just one of the many dozen buildings that will have to be built. Then roads will have to be made within the new city, what to talk of the hundreds of kilometres of roads that will have to be made to connect this city with other centres of activity in the state. Rail lines may also be called for, and an airport will be a necessity too. Schools, colleges, parks, city centres, markets, hospitals, theatres and other centres for cultural performances, will all be required. All these buildings will cost a few thousand crore rupees. It may be mentioned that for Amravati, the proposed capital of Andhra Pradesh, the Centre has extended the mind boggling amount of Rs 26,000 crore !  Where is this kind of money with our state? A state which hardly musters basic resources to run day-to-day business, can hardly conjure such an enormous amount. Uttarakhand is a newly formed state which has great liabilities to surmount. If Dehradun offers basic necessities to do the business of governance as it does, then it can continue to fill the gap, while we work for improving the infrastructure here in such a way as to retain the beauty and character of the lovely city that Dehradun is. The Dixit Commission appears to have arrived at the inference that Dehradun is the most suitable location. The report says that centralization of population, appropriate land distribution, relatively less vulnerability to landslides and earthquakes, easy transportation and connectivity, less possibility of deforestation and less pressure on agricultural land, security from international border, proximity to national capital and scope for expanding public facilities made Dehradun a preferred location.

Those who prefer Gairsen, come up with the argument that the main objective to create the hill-state was faster development of hill areas. Also mentioned was the fact that amongst hill-states, Uttarakhand alone did not have its capital in the hills.It was also pointed that the accessibility of Dehradun from far-flung districts of the state was not good enough, and a lot of time was spent in travelling from from districts like Pithorgarh, Chamoli, Bageshwar, Champawat. A view was expressed that the state population is predominantly ‘pahadi’, and the capital should therefore also be located in the hills.

It may be mentioned that the Dixit Commission finds Gairsain less viable for the location of permanent capital. The reasons that have been cited are poor connectivity, distance from the national capital, insufficient land for future development, insufficient water resources, steep slopes, proneness to landslides and earthquakes, difficult climate, proximity to flood area, non-centralization of population and possible threat from the international border.

The argument that location of the capital at Gairsen will accelerate the development of the hills does not seem to be logical. It may be said that Gairsen and a few areas around it may benefit, there will still be far-flung areas that will continue to be neglected for one or the other reason. To say that the capital should be in the hills because other hill-states have their capitals in hills is hardly a strong one. It may be mentioned that Jammu, the winter capital of J&K, or Guwahati, the capital of Assam are hardly hilly. The Himachal capital, Shimla, was the summer capital during British rule, and the infrastructure already existed there when Himachal was carved out in the year 1971. So there was no requirement for spending money on creating the infrastructure. It may also be mentioned that the state’s population is densely concentrated in the Terai areas. Should the capital be located in the interior of the state when a larger population finds it easier to travel to a location connected by rail and road?

The 14^th century ruler, Muhammad Bib Tughlaq, is rarely, if ever, remembered for his unquestionable scholarship. He is almost universally recalled for the very controversial decision to shift his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. He had his reasons, and took the decision based on his own judgement. He was a king, not the head of a democratic government. He was not required to go to polls for seeking a mandate. Analyses over the last few centuries tell us that his decision was a flawed one. His confidante and chronicler, Ibn Batuta, called Delhi ‘one of the greatest cities in the universe’. Yet, Tughlaq had other ideas. Maybe, Dehradun is not the greatest city in the universe, yet prudence would dictate that a shift out of Dehradun may be made only once all parameters point to the inescapable conclusion that this is in the best interests of the population of the state. Purely political considerations (How sure are we that this indeed is a political cracker?) will certainly lead to a decision which will find a most unenviable parallel in history. And even if an infrastructure is finally created, say a decade later, we may still have a city which lacks one basic lifeline: the soul.

We have to look at the question of the establishment of the permanent capital dispassionately, and see if there is a good reason to spend huge sums of money just because the idyllic Doon has a threat of assuming an ugly face. If Chandrababu Naidu wants to sink tonnes of money into the Bay of Bengal to chase his dream, we need not be inspired to jump to Gairsen. Should we not visit the Dixit Commission report and reconsider the whole question once again? Can we not consider a better way to make Dehradun free of all the troubles that some people mention; and of using money in a more productive way?

DO WE DESERVE THE POLICE WE HAVE?

Taking Stock On Police Reforms Day September 22.

                   Our literature and films are a reflection of the esteem, or the lack of it, that our police enjoy in the eyes of the citizen. Often we find the police depicted as corrupt and cruel, or there are bumbling buffoons in uniform in many movies, and the viewer has a good laugh when these morons go from one imbecile act to another. It seems that the real message is forgotten immediately thereafter. We tend to take these things easy, make a lot of noise when something goes wrong with us, only to go back to an insomniac slumber again. The constructive action will be to examine why we have such gap between the expectation and delivery when it comes to the police in our country and what it is that we need to do to improve matters.

                   Close to a decade back, the Apex Court issued some very important and long-awaited directions to governments in the States and at the Centre to bring about much needed reforms in the way that the police in India functioned. It was in response to a petition moved by legendary IPS officer Mr Prakash Singh and others before the Supreme Court of India in the year 1996. The Petition argued that “the executive authorities, at the political and bureaucratic levels, are not taking—and are not likely to take—any initiative to restructure the police department and introduce such reforms as would make it truly an instrument of service to the law and to the people”, and therefore urged upon the court “to direct the executive authorities of the Central and state governments to introduce such reforms as are essential to make the police, in letter and in spirit, accountable to the law of the land and the people of the country”. It was emphasised in the Petition that “the present distortions and aberrations in the functioning of the police have their roots in the colonial past and the complete subordination of the police to the executive—an arrangement which was designed originally to protect the interests of the British Raj but which unfortunately continues to this day”.

                  Despite the obvious importance of the issue involved, the hearing on the petition prolonged for a full decade. A historic judgment was finally delivered on September 22, 2006, containing comprehensive guidelines to the state and Central governments. The court emphasised that “the commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the rule of law” and that “the supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard whatsoever to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures”. The landmark judgement of the Supreme Court is observed as the Police Reforms Day every year on September 22.

                 The Court understood the importance of institutionalising the necessary changes, and issued directions for the setting up of three bodies, namely, State Security Commission to insulate the police from extraneous influences, Police Establishment Board to give it functional autonomy, and Police Complaints Authority to ensure its accountability. Besides, the apex court ordered that the Director General of Police shall be selected by the state government based on merit through a thoroughly transparent process; and that the incumbent shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Likewise, police officers on operational duties in the field like the DIG Range, SP i/c District and SHO i/c Police Station would also have a minimum tenure of two years. The court also ordered the separation of investigating police from the law and order police to improve the quality of investigations. The orders were to be implemented by March 31, 2007. The states dragged their feet in implementing the court’s direction. Consequently, a committee, headed by Justice K T Thomas, was appointed to monitor the implementation. This Committee expressed its “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of police being exhibited by the States”.

              A number of States, including Uttarakhand, have passed new Police Acts in the wake of the court’s judgment. These Acts, unfortunately, were passed to circumvent the implementation of the court’s directions. The states took advantage of a proviso in the judgment that its orders would be operative “till such time a new model Police Act is prepared by the Central government and/or the state governments pass the requisite legislation”. The remaining states passed executive orders ostensibly in compliance of the court’s directions, but these were against the letter and spirit of court’s directions. The compliance, briefly, has been farcical.

             It will be fair to say that the Central government too has been diffident in carrying out reforms. It has not enacted the Model Police Act so far even though a draft was prepared by eminent jurist Soli Sorabjee in 2006 itself. The net result is that police reforms mandated by the Supreme Court are still either completely ignored, or have been enforced only half-heartedly. The vested interests, which want the status quo to continue, have in fact been pushing police in the reverse gear. Crime and lawlessness in States need to be addressed with much urgency as a peaceful social order is a prerequisite for development. Yet, major States like Uttar Pradesh have paid little attention to this vital aspect of governance, as can be judged from the fact that the institution of DGP has been rendered a laughing stock by appointing persons to that high office for very short periods of one or two months.

            It cannot be overemphasised that police reforms are the need of the hour if we are to have a prospering economy and a progressive Indian state. Is it not tragic that even after nearly seven decades of Independence and two decades after a historic legal battle in the Supreme Court, we are still nowhere close to getting an efficient, ethical and dependable police force? Someone has said: “The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for”. In the case of the police that we have, this is absolutely true.     

            Aloke Lal, Former Director-General of Police

======

POLICE REFORMS: IS UTTARAKHAND ALIVE TO THE NEED ?

Indian police has the serious handicap that it is still largely controlled by the antiquated Police Act of 1861. The manuals and regulations which lay down police procedures have over the years been based on this act which is now 155 years old. It need not be said that police is now dealing with a whole new set of challenges. The major watershed was India’s Independence almost seven decades ago. It may be recalled that the 1861 Act was enforced as a consequence of the 1857 uprising in India, and the then British rulers recognised the need to create a police force which was designed to perpetuate their presence in the subcontinent and provide for the necessary infrastructure to smoothly collect taxes and bolster their revenues. The intention was not to create a system that would ensure even-handed justice. It was a police meant for the ruler with an idea to subdue the subject; and any thoughts of giving the citizen of a country under British occupation a real sense of fortitude in terms of justice was farthest from the minds of the makers of the Act in question. Independent India thus inherited a police set up which was for the rulers and had no place for accommodating the aspirations of the citizens of an independent country.

The need for reforming the police systems in India has been felt for a very long time. Even the British government recognised it, and brought in reforms, though they were meant only to keep the running of the affairs of the state smoothly, and had little to do with real sense of justice for the citizen.

In the last three decades and more, there have been many efforts to examine the ways to bring about changes in the manner in which the police functioned. A serious effort was made by Government of India when the National Police Commission (NPC) was set up in 1979. The Commission produced eight reports including a Model Police Act. However, none of the major recommendations were adopted by any government. Having observed the unwillingness of the government for making any move to bring about reforms, two former Directors- General of Police filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court in 1996 asking the Court to direct governments to implement the NPC recommendations. It was only a decade later in 2006 that the Court delivered its verdict. In what is referred to as the Prakash Singh case, the Supreme Court ordered that reforms must take place. The Centre, States and Union Territories were directed to comply with seven binding directives that would kick-start reform. These directives encapsulated the vision of improvement generated since 1979. The Court required immediate implementation of its orders through executive orders and by bringing new Police Acts.  The Court issued seven important directives to the Centre and the State governments. Uttarakhand was one of the earliest states to enact the Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 in compliance of the Apex Court’s order. It will be instructive to see how far we have been compliant with the spirit of the Court’s orders by analysing the progress on each of the seven main directives.

Directive One

Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to: (i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police (ii) Lay down broad policy guideline and (iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police.

Uttarakhand made a SSC in compliance of this directive. The Chief Minister is the ex-officio chairperson of SSC. Mr Ajit Doval, the current NSA, was also included in the Commission. One meeting of the Commission was held in 2008. Thereafter, no meetings have been held. Obviously, the three important functions assigned to the Commission have been completely neglected.

Directive Two

Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and serves for a minimum tenure of two years. There have been controversial appointments, and transparency has not been unquestionable. The tenure also was made a laughing stock when incumbent DGP J S Pande was moved out to accommodate V R Pant who had only a few months service left before superannuation. It was baffling that Pande was moved out in just a little over one year, and even more curious was the appointment of his successor, Pant, only for a few months.

Directive Three

Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years. There have been umpteen instances when officers were transferred before completion of the prescribed tenure. In fact, to begin with, the Court’s directions were diluted when the tenure for some levels was fixed for as low as one year only. In the case of Jagat Ram Joshi, Superintendent of Police, the High Court intervened to direct the government to post him back as SP Dehradun because the tenure as laid down in the Act was not completed. Yet, the officer was persuaded to accept a posting as SP Kashipur to save the government from embarrassment. This rap on the knuckles, though has not deterred the government from posting officers out before the whole tenure is completed.

Directive Four

Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police. There was an effort to create special investigation-only cadres in some of the important police stations of the state about six years ago. Unfortunately , the practice was discontinued after some time.      

Directive Five

Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other Service-related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. A PEB is in existence, and has had many meetings over the years. The PEB is headed by the DGP and comprises of the senior-most officers of the department. However, a highly-placed source in the Police HQ has revealed that most of the key appointments are first decided at political level, and the PEB only endorses what trickles down. In effect, this directive too is not being complied in spirit.

Directive Six

Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct. There is a PCA functioning in the state. I have been told by one of the past Chairmen of the Authority that in many cases the DGP and Government have not been complying with the directions for punitive action to be taken against policemen issued from time to time.

Directive Seven

Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years. This is a provision meant for the Central government.

                The foregoing analysis makes it amply clear that despite the alacrity with which the Police Act was enacted in the year 2007 by the State legislature, the government has not been adhering to the provisions the Act has; and wherever there is compliance in word, the spirit of reform has been sadly missing.

---------

The Lovable Jewel Thief: Dev Anand

(26 September, 1923- 03 December, 2011)

“Pal bhar ke liye koi haemin pyar kar le….” crooned Dev Anand. Well, who wouldn’t love this utterly charming god of romance? In fact, many generations of women swooned over him. Starting in the 1940’s with heroines like Suraiya, he continued to be the love interest for women four decades his junior in age, including, notably, Zeenat Aman. She came as the ‘Dam Maro Dam’ girl in Hare Rama Hare Krishna, cast as his sister, soon to be his love interest in movies that followed. This is a hero who got the tag of ‘evergreen’ not for nothing. If a mother and daughter would go together to watch his film, chances would be that both would be drooling over him by themselves.

If the name Devdutt Pishorimal Anand had stayed, would the debonair Dev still be the same? Most likely, yes. But seems almost certain that his fans would still have given him the name he had opted for: Dev Anand; for, indeed he was the dev (god) of anand (pleasure). Dev Anand would have been 92 years old on September 26 this year.

Second of three brothers, Dev was destined to head for a film career. Elder brother Chetan was a well-known artist owing to his association with films and theatre. It was, therefore, no surprise that after graduating with English Literature from Lahore, he moved over to Bombay (now Mumbai) to try his luck in films. He started as an employee of the Military Censor Office for a princely salary of Rs 160. This was only for a short while. He soon got a break in Prabhat Talkies production ‘Hum Ek Hain’ in 1946. This film was the launching pad not merely for a remarkable journey for a legendary career as an actor, but also brought together two very close friends: Dev Anand and Guru Dutt. They shared a lot of things: even their shirts and, more importantly, their dreams for the future. They are said to have arrived at a pact: if Dev produced a film, Guru Dutt would direct it; and if Guru Dutt produced a film, Dev would act in it.

Dev’s hero was the legendary actor, Ashok Kumar. It was Ashok Kumar who offered to Dev Anand the lead role in a Bombay Talkies 1948 production, ‘Ziddi’. The film was a hit, and was the point from which Dev was never to look back for several decades thereafter.

The following year, in 1949, Dev Anand launched his own production banner Navketan Films. When Dev produced ‘Baazi’ in 1951, he fulfilled his promise and invited Guru Dutt to direct it for him. The film had a very popular musical score, and the song ‘Tadbeer Se Bigdi Hui Taqdeer Bana Le’ sung by Geeta Roy became a great hit. As if to prove these lyrics by poet Sahir Ludhianvi true, with this film Dev Anand became a household name. His hard work, suave looks and a very special style of acting made him the darling of the cinema lovers all over the country. Films that followed included ‘Munimjee’, ‘CID’,‘Kaala Paani’, ‘Kaala Bazar’, ‘Tere Ghar Ke Saamne’, etc. His name was being mentioned alongside the thespian Dilip Kumar and show man Raj Kapoor, to make them the most formidable trio of superstars of the 1950s and 1960s.

Dev Anand married Kalpana Kartik, whose real name was Mona Singha, and who acted opposite him in films like ‘Nau Do Gyarah’ and ‘House no 44’. The two became parents of son Suneil and daughter Devina. It is believed that the marriage to Mona was never a binding for the romantic Dev to have affairs with other ladies. In fact, he and Suraiya were very keen to get married, but Suraiya’s grandmother opposed the move, and it is said that it was on a rebound that Dev proposed to Mona, and the rest is history.

Dev Anand had played the suave city-dweller or the lovable ruffian in most of his films. ‘Hum Dono’, which had him in a double role, brought critical appreciation for his acting skills. Yet, for the more dramatic roles where acting was the key requirement, he was not really the preferred choice. The film ‘Guide’, directed brilliantly by younger brother Vijay Anand, changed the perception of his worst critics. In this film, produced both in Hindi and English, based on R K Narayan’s novel, Dev played the role of a tourist guide who falls in love with a married woman, played most sensationally by Waheeda Rehman, who, on being finally jilted, becomes a sanyasi. There was a demand for histrionics of the highest class from him, and he certainly lived up to that.

Vijay “Goldie” Anand was a brilliant script writer in addition to being one of the most talented directors the film industry has seen. The thrillers, ‘Jewel Thief’ and ‘Johnny Mera Naam’ were great hits, and the romantic image of Dev Anand got even more strengthened with these films. It was in ‘Jewel Thief’ that he was seen wooing a very young Hema Malini with the ‘Pal Bhar Ke Liye Koi Hamein Pyar Kar Le’ song. Goldie also directed him in the critically acclaimed ‘Tere Mere Sapne’ in which Dev played a doctor whose wife was essayed by Mumtaz, but got attracted to a dancer played by Hema Malini. His role called for intense acting, and Dev was equal to that challenge.

Dev Anand produced the film ‘Prem Pujari’, his first film as director. It flopped at the box office. ‘Hare Rama Hare Krishna’, which was a hit, redeemed his position as a director. However, one must say that Dev Anand was not as gifted a director as he was as an actor. He continued to produce and direct films till his last years but was never very successful in those films either as a director.

Dev Anand passed away in 2011 at the age of 88 in London where he was under treatment.

Dev Anand will forever be remembered for his very special style of dressing, hairstyle, his caps, endearing smile and, without doubt, the music of his films. His favourite music composers were S D Burman, O P Nayyar and R D Burman, and they composed for him some of the most memorable numbers of the Hindi film industry. It can be said that the romantic image that Dev Saab enjoyed owes much to the songs that he emoted on the screen. Songs like ‘Abhi Na Jao Chhodkar’ from the film Hum Duno, ‘Khoya Khoya Chand’ from the film Kala Bazaar, ‘Deewana Mastana Hua Dil’ from Bambai ka Babu, ‘Mana Janab Ne Pukara Nahin’ from the film Paying Guest and ‘Hum Hain Rahi Pyar Ke’ from the film Nau Do Gyarah are but a few of the unforgettable numbers that Dev Anand brought to life on the screen.

There will never be another Dev Anand.

Dev Anand in ‘Guide’

Dev Anand in ‘Jewel Thief’