18. Dr.A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM, PRESIDENT OF INDIA

18.

THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

        The President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on 14 June 2005, asked the Governors not to take any partisan stand lest the people might hesitate to approach them with their suggestions and problems.

     The President, again on the same day, said that he favoured the post of President being brought under the purview of an independent organization to probe the charges against the Public Servants.

            In a song composed for tsunami victims, President of India Abdul Kalam, on 30 June 2005, said that the people of India would overcome all odds with knowledge, courage and hard work.

The Hindu, on 7 June 2005, published an article written by His Excellency the President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. It was based on his interaction of a with Jain Muni Acharya Shri Mahapragya a few days ago, which was not reported by the media. It is reproduced below.

“Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to righteousness.

Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong.

Conscience also is a great ledger where our offences are booked and registered. It is a terrible witness. It threatens, promises, rewards, and punishes, keeping all under its control.

 If conscience stings once, it is an admonition, if twice, it is a condemnation. Cowardice asks, “Is it safe?” Greed asks “ Is there any gain in it?” Vanity asks, “Can I become great?” Lust asks, “Is there pleasure in it”

But conscience asks? “Is it right?” Why have we become deaf to its voice? Insensitive to its pricks?  Callous to its criticism?

The answer is corruption.

Corruption is an assault on consciousness. The habit of taking bribes and seeking favours has become very common.

 People holding important positions have developed inconsiderateness to their conscience. They pretend everything is all right.

 Do they not have an idea of the law of action and reaction? Have they forgotten how impressions of the conscious mind and their force work?

 If you take bribes, your thoughts and actions are registered in the subconscious mind.

Will you not be carrying forward your dishonesty to your next generations causing them great suffering?

 It is a painful reality that corruption has become a way of life affecting all aspects of living, personal as well as social.

 It is not merely the pecuniary corruption but other forms as well.

Immoral ways of people holding high positions and handling power have taken away guilt from the minds of lesser mortals. What a dangerous situation? A great civilization is endangered.

A virtuous man alone can use the instruments of conscience. He alone can hear the inner voice of the soul clearly.

 In a wicked man this faculty is dead. The sensitive nature of his conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he is unable to discriminate right from wrong.

Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and Governments, how can they be corrupt?

 Is it not wise to have a clear conscience and enjoy freedom from anxiety and all kinds of worries?

If you do wrong actions and sinful deeds and treat them lightly today, you will not hesitate to perform various crimes tomorrow.

If you allow one sin to enter and dwell in your conscience, you pave the way for the entry of a thousand sins.

Your conscience will become blunt and lose its sensitivity.

The habit of doing evil deeds will pervade the whole body like the poison of a scorpion.

Do you know when you are corrupt, your children who are indeed enjoying the fruits of your corruption are mocking at you? After all they are well informed and knowledgeable.

Your parental mask is too thin to hide the contempt of your children. You are no more the role model of your own children. Is this disgrace not enough?

Our society is fast reaching a stage where the immunity of conscience is challenged by the corruption, as HIV would do to the body of an AIDS patient.

 The corruption has seeped into every stream of our lifeblood. Can we save ourselves as a civilization?

Spiritual leaders have evolved morals, codes, and teachings of righteousness. Beautiful hymns, songs and prayers have been written and composed.

But the annihilation of conscience by corruption appears frightening. Religion has not been effective in evoking conscience. Who then will? Can our conscience be redeemed?

A movement for the Foundation for unity of Religions and Enlightenment of citizenship (FUREC) against corruption has to be made as a new feature”.

17.THE UNION MINISTERS - INDIA

        17

THE UNION MINISTERS

          A Union Minister, on 18 September 2004, said that that the previous NDA Government sold rice to foreign countries when Indians died of starvation.

        Addressing the National Development Council meeting, on 28 June 2005, Home Minister Mr. Shivaraj Patel said that there must be probity in public life. He went to the extent of saying that any Government that is not transparent cannot be recognized as good Government.

    Then he chose to remain as a citizen of India rather than as a Union Minister.

To the publishers

TO

 THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS

My most important blog is. www.howeverythinghappenedinindia.blogspot.com

Other blogs are:

1.    www. vajpayee.blogspot.com

2.    www.primeministervajpayee.blogspot.com

3.www.primeministerdevegowda.blogspot.com

4.www.temples-and-churches.blogspot.com

5.www.primeministermanmohansingh.blogspot.com

6.  www.storyofananthapadmanabhan.blogspot.com

7.www.sabarimuthu-vellicode.blogspot.com

8.www.theconfidants-india.blogspot.com

9.www.effectiveinorganicchemistry.blogspot.com

     International publishers – interested in publishing any blogs - are requested to contact me in the following address.

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Thattamkonam

Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O.

INDIA

PIN:629167

Email: sabarimuthu.vyakappan@gmail.com

Phone: 04651275520

Mobile: 9486214851

16. PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH AND LAW AND ORDER

16

LAW AND ORDER

The militant people, on 23 May 2005, killed six security personnel at Raipur.

The Union Government and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), on 23 May 2005, signed an agreement for the cessation of hostilities for a period of one year beginning June 1, 2005. This was a significant development.

(To be continued)

15. PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH AND THE MEDIA

15

PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH AND THE MEDIA

2005

1.The Business Line, on 23 May 2005, came out with a front-page article by a Mr. Alok Mukherjee. He described Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mr P.Chithambaram and Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia as a “star economic team” However, he added that the Public sector disinvestments had “slowed down to a crawling pace”.  He concluded the article saying, “Be prepared for delays”.

2. A Mr. Coomi Kapoor in a centre page article in The New Indian Express on 14 May 2005 said that the Congress MPs were “discomfited” with the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He said, “Some were downright uneasy”.

  3.  On 19 May 2005 a Mr. T.V.R.Shenoy in a center page article in the same paper said that many in the Congress were “chafe about the Prime Minister’s devotion to his conscience”.

    4. The Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO)- when the NDA was in power-  diverted Re. 8500 crore meant for housing loan to the stock market. According to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the exchequer lost heavily. The HUDCO said its Board had the power to divert the money. The news came out on 29 May 2005 in The Hindu when a Public Interest Petition, (PIL) was filed in a court.

5.           An editorial of The New Indian Express, on 9 June 2005, commended the recent decision of the Governor, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), to give financial assistance to Indian companies for acquisition of companies abroad. According to the paper, the decision was taken after raising the ceiling for the so-called outward FDI from 100 percent to 200 percent of the company’s net worth. The paper disclosed that Tata Chemicals Limited had decided to buy a fertilizer company in Egypt for $ 519 million. The other acquisitions were Tetley, Daewoo and Natsteel Asia by the Tatas. Further, the paper proudly proclaimed that India’s outward FDI stock grew from $0.6 million in 1996 to $ 5.1 billion in 2003 and it took India to 14th place in terms of outward FDI flow.

       6.  The Hindu, in order to justify the sale of NTC mills to the DLF, disclosed that the NDA Government had sold Jupiter Mills in March 2004 for Re.276 crore to “India Bulls Property”.

      7. The Economic Times, on 25 June 2005, reported that the surplus funds of 50 PSUs in India as on June 2005 was Re. 2,59,576 crore. The petroleum PSUs had a reserve of Re.89,486 crore and the BSNL had 50,518 crore. The paper said that the PSUs had a plan to invest about Re. 88000 crore only.

     8. The Economic Times reported that the banks got a huge amount as service charges during 2004-2005. According to the paper, this amount more than compensated the loss incurred due to the fluctuations in the lending rates.

       9.  One Mr. Pratap Bhanu Metha on 29 June 2005 in the centre page of The New Indian Express said that the performance rating of the Prime Minister was high and that none could attack him personally.

      10. The Hindu, on 4 July 2005, reported that cash surplus Indian companies acquired 26 foreign companies within three months of the financial year 2005-2006 including the Basel NV acquired by the Chatterjee group for $5.7 billion, colour picture tube manufacturing business of Thompson by Videocon group for Re. 1,280 crore and the 67 % stake acquired by Decan Chronicle in the Asian age.

11. On 16 July 2005 Mr. Shekhar Gupta, in a centre page article of The New Indian Express described Dr. Manmohan Singh as one of the most honest, intellectually endowed and selfless prime ministers in the History of India. He depicted Mr. Pranab Mukherji, Mr. Ahmed Patel Mr. Digvijay Singh as selfless true believers like Dr.Manmohan Singh.

12. The Hindu, on 22 July 2005, published an article by on one Mr. Dylan Evans. He, in that article,  wanted the people to cherish those who possess great talent rather than envying them and begrudging their success. He said that just allocation of admiration is a virtue that requires judgement and integrity: judgement to distinguish genuine talent from mere showiness, and integrity in refusing to bestow praise on those who do not fully deserve it.

13. The Hindu on 25 July 2005 warned Mr.Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andra Pradesh, that he was “under watch”

14. The Hindu, on  26 July 2005, said, “the polity must benefit from the fortuitous circumstance of having the most honest politician as the Prime Minister”.

15. The August 1 issue of The Business World, which hit the stands on 26 July 2005, demanded the disinvestments of the shares of the PSUs including the BHEL by propounding a new theory. As individuals, mutual funds and financial institutions held 33% shares of the BHEL, according to the theory of The Business World,  the Government had a fiduciary duty to privatize the remaining shares to increase the long-term shareholder value.

14. Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH AND Mrs. SONIA GANDHI

14

Mrs. SONIA GANDHI

Congress President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, on 22 May 2004, congratulated Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for providing “dignified and effective leadership” to the government and for enhancing India’s prestige abroad. She added that his government was a responsive one and its actions were louder than the words.

The media gave great publicity to her words.

(To be continued)

13. PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH AND PARLIAMENT

13

THE PARLIAMENT

         The Lower House of the Parliament - called Lok Sabha - adopted the Right to Information Bill on 12 May 2005.

        If someone thinks that something exists, he can – based on the above Act – seek more pieces of information. This would help solve the personal problems of a person.

        If he does not know the existence of something, he cannot seek anything.

       Thus, this Act deceives the people in the pretext of transparency. In fact, the industrial houses removed public money with easy after the enactment of this Act.

(To be continued)

12. PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH AND THE OPPOSITION PARTIES

12.

THE OPPOSITION PARTIES

      The Communist Party of India (M) (CPI-M), in May 2005, demanded the Government to revoke the sale of the public sector hotels belonging to the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC). Thus, for the first time, the CPI (M) demanded the Government to take back a privatized Public Sector Undertaking (PSU).

     To the utter surprise of everyone, the Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) –the principal opposition party- on 16 May 2005, said that the party favoured an inquiry into the sale of the ITDC hotels.

On the same day, BJP leader Mr. L.K. Advani expressed the readiness of the BJP to support the Government on any reform vital for India’s economic progress. He asked the Prime Minister not to depend on the Left parties for this. Thus, he exhorted Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to go ahead with his plan to give Re.3 lakh crore in the Provident Fund (PF) to private parties..

On 5 June 2005 the CPI and the CPI (M) opposed the proposed disinvestments in the BHEL.

(To be continued)

11. Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH AND THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

11

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1.In a significant ruling, a five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, on 5 May 2005, held that erring companies are liable for criminal prosecution and could be punished with imposition of fine for fraud and financial irregularities. However, the Bench said that only fine could be imposed on the companies, as imprisonment could not be awarded to a company. The reason given is that the companies are only juristic and not natural persons.

      The majority view held “the law equally applies to actual and juristic persons. The law does not grant blanket immunity to companies if found guilty of offences”.  

    A judge in his concurring judgement said that in view of the large-scale financial irregularities witnessed in the country and its bad effects on the country’s economy as well on the society, it was necessary that companies should also face prosecution along with those who committed the offences.

     Two learned judges differed with the majority.

It must be noted that the court quite unequivocally admitted the large-scale financial irregularities that had taken place in India.

       The High Court, Delhi quashed all charges against three Hinduja brothers in the Bofors case. The Court said that the CBI failed to produce original documents. The Court deplored that the exchequer had to spend 240 crore in the 64 crore pay off case and thereby tarnishing the image of political leaders for more than 20 years.

      In the meantime there were reports that the National Judicial Academy decided to conduct a three-day refresher course to the learned judges of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Y.K.Sabharwal, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Justice B.N.Krishna on 19 July 2005 cancelled 81 petrol pump allotments that were granted on extraneous considerations.  The enquiry committee headed by Justice S.C.Agarwal had identified these companies as tainted. Thus, the Supreme Court cancelled the allotments made by the NDA Government to its kith & kin. Now Reliance Industries alone is permitted to allot 5000 petrol pumps to its kith & kin and the Supreme Court sits as if it is immune to environmental changes. Does anything in the Constitution- Liberty, Equality or Fraternity- justify it?

On 24 July 2005, Justice Markandey Katju, Chief Justice of High Court, Madras, said, “The people have the right to criticize judges because they are supreme. They are our masters and as masters, they have the right to criticize their servants. They have the right to take the judges to task if they do not discharge their duties properly”. The Chief Justice said this recognizing himself as the master of people.

10. Good-bye to Privatization?

10

GOOD-BYE

TO THE

 POLICY OF PRIVATIZATION?

The Union Cabinet on 2 May 2005 cancelled all privatization plans.

 The Government had earlier decided to sell the shares of many Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) after retaining 51% shares and management control.

Thus, National Aluminium Company (Nalco), Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), State Trading Corporation, Engineers India, Palma Larry, National Fertilizers, Rastria Chemicals & Fertilizers, Manganese Ore India, Sponge Iron India, National Building Construction, Engineering Projects India, Hindustan Paper Corporation and the public sector banks got instant life.

 Mr. S.S. Palanimanikam, the Minister of State for Finance, announced it in the Parliament on 3 May 2005.

The Union Cabinet did not revoke the above decision to the knowledge of the people.

Yet, Mumbai and Delhi airports were privatized in 2006.

Other PSUs escaped privatization. However - after a pause -the government started selling 5 to 10 per cent shares of a few randomly selected PSUs occasionally.

9. INDIA: UNION BUDGET 2005-2006

9

UNION BUDGET 2005-2006

      Finance Minister of India Mr. P.Chidambaram presented the Union budget for 2005-2006 on 28 February 2005.

     The receipts and expenditure are given below.

   Total Receipts = Re.3,63,200 crore, Total Expenditure = Re.5,14.344 crore and Fiscal Deficit (Borrowings) = Re.1,51,144 crore. 

     As usual, the budget was silent about the money in the Provident Fund (PF) and in the financial institutions.

    There was no proposal for any large scale investments.

    An outstanding future of the budget was the commitment to construct 60 lakh houses in one year.   The allotment for mid-day meal scheme was increased from Re. 1490 crore in 2004-2005 to Re.3142 crore..

   The above two measures have a touch of humanity, as these commitments seek to eliminate the problem of shelter and malnutrition of children.

 Another salient future of the budget was the 0.1% Cash Transaction Tax (CTT) for cash withdrawals exceeding Re.10,000/- per day from banks.

       The present writer requested the Government to impose transaction tax on 21-12-2001 through letter No.4. Later, the importance of this tax was mentioned in several letters.

     Surprisingly, The New Indian Express welcomed budget proposals. An editorial said that the budget proposals were “new and will take budget making in India to new heights”.

    The Business Line opposed budget proposals. Thus, Mr.S.Gurumurthy, in a lengthy article in The Hindu on 2 March 2005, said that the budget was framed to deceive even the intelligent.

       Seminars were conducted in colleges to discuss the importance & consequences of transaction tax.

    Addressing a meeting organized by the Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the implications of the budget, on 2 April 2005, Mr. Yashwant Sinha, former Union Finance Minister, described the Cash Transaction Tax (CTT) as a “mad tax”. He wanted to completely eradicate the CTT. He said that CTT had no relevance to India at all.

     Thus the CTT was withdrawn in the budget for 2006-2007.

  The Government did not construct houses as promised in the budget. What happened to the allotted money was not revealed.

8. Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH AND TSUNAMI

 8

Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH AND TSUNAMI

     The biggest earthquake of the world in 40 years hit Sumatra in Indonesia on 26 December 2004 unleashing a “tsunami” that crashed into Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Sri Lanka. Many other countries were also affected.

   It washed away the coastal belt, particularly eastern coastal belt, in India. It killed about 15,000 people in India alone.

   The UN immediately sent a disaster assessment and coordination team to the Asian region. 

    Within no time, India announced an assistance of Re.100 crore to Sri Lanka besides sending relief teams to it.

    Relief teams were sent to Indonesia also.

      People in Europe - Pope John Paul II included- stopped work on 5 January 2005 and stood still for three minutes as a mark of respect to the victims of the disaster. Special prayers were also held in all places of worship throughout Europe.

      The President of USA, Mr. George Bush, along with his wife, Laura, and former Presidents George H.W.Bush and Bill Clinton visited Indian Embassy on 3 January 2005 and signed a condolence book.

          Many countries announced disaster assistance to India.  India politely declined it.  Many felt that the Prime Minister of India had listened to a hidden force before announcing this. Some people in India felt that he had taken a wrong decision.

     The people in France could not digest the real reasons for the refusal to accept contributions. However, the Defence Minister of France, Mr. Mechelle Alliot Marie, welcomed the decision of India.  The President of France, Mr. Jacques Chirac, expressed his willingness to work with India with regard to tsunami disaster.

       Japan came forward to help construct an early warning system based on water pressure to Asian nations.
     The Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Paul Martin, paid a visit to India mainly to convey his condolences and very deep regret on the deaths and devastation caused by the tsunami. During his visit, India and Canada agreed to develop a tsunami early warning system.

V. Sabarimuthu is talking to a tsunami victim in the Lekshmipuram college relief camp

      Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wanted the people to send money to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Further, the voluntary agencies were permitted to receive disaster assistance from foreign countries till March 2005. 

       A voluntary organization, for public consumption, pledged to adopt all children, who lost both their parents. On 31 December 2004, the Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu and even the Government of India talked of adopting children whose parents were no more. But, nothing materialized.  

            On 29 December 2004, a Union Minister said that money would not be a constraint for relief works.     He said that houses would be constructed for the victims.

    The political leaders demanded the Union Government to construct houses for the victims.

      On 2 January 2005, leader of the DMK Dr. M. Karunanidhi demanded the Union Government to construct houses to the victims. The public sector TV channel (DD) in its Tamil news bulletin reluctantly reported it. However, the newspapers, particularly the English newspapers, did not publish it.

PMK leader Dr. Ramadhas wanted the Government to prepare a well thought plan to resettle the fishermen.

BJP leader and former Home Minister Mr. L.K.Advani and former Prime Minister Mr. H.D.Deve Gowda,  during their visit to Lekshmipuram College -(a private college where this writer was working)- refugee camp too wanted the Government to construct strong houses.

Several other leaders also might have demanded houses for these foreign exchange earners.

The present writer wanted the Government to construct houses as was done for the earthquake victims of Gujarat.

      Simultaneously, the National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) announced that it would extend loans for fishermen to buy nets and boats.

      The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) also asked the banks to give liberal loans to fishermen for the construction of houses.

            The announcement of the NABARD and the RBI did not enjoy the support of the Union Cabinet. Apparently, the “think tank” of the industrial houses floated this idea to pre-empt the Government from constructing houses.  

        The public sector TV and the print media did not give sufficient coverage to the construction of houses although the offer of loan was highlighted. This indicated that the industrial houses did not allow the Government to discharge its duty; and that they wanted the money.  

      In contrast, when tragedy struck, former Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee said that earthquake resistant houses would be constructed to the earthquake affected people of Gujarat and he completed the work in record time with single-minded devotion.

Here, it appeared that the Government was not free to talk anything contrary to the views of the industrial houses even in the matter of disaster assistance.

 Thus, on 30 December 2004, a  Mr. Colin Gonsalves in “The New Indian Express”  said that though the right to housing in India is a fundamental right, the Government had demolished thousands of houses without relocating even one fifth of the residents. The paper cited the Yamuna Pushta demolition to make way for a tourist complex, the Lajpat Nagar demolition for the installation of a statue of Lala Lajpat Rai and Mumbai demolition for no reason. The message was that a Government that was delinquent in providing shelter to demolition victims could be excused if it failed to construct houses for the tsunami victims. The article was conspicuously silent about the reconstruction work undertaken in Gujarat.

In fact, the mass media did not give any importance to the demands of the political leaders. The newspapers, particularly the English newspapers, stopped publishing their words. In fact, the media sent everyone into oblivion in this matter after a few days.

As if to support the media, a prominent leader of the BJP, Mrs. Susma Swaraj, after an All Party Meeting on Tsunami on 9 January 2005, said that the Government should concentrate on installing an early warning system for tsunami rather than spending Re. thousands of crore on rehabilitation.Ironically, she said this while her party was organizing several public meetings in tsunami-affected areas demanding full relief to the victims of the tsunami disaster.

      The Prime Minister, during his visit to West Bengal, on 11 January 2005, praised the media for its coverage of the tsunami disaster and thus he obeyed them.

Ultimately, the Union Government did not bother to construct houses for them as was done in the case of the earthquake victims in Gujarat. The construction of the houses for the tsunami victims was left to the charity of voluntary organization and the private individuals in India.

 Noticing the interest taken by the voluntary organization,  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, insinuated that the State Governments could convert the disaster into opportunity.

Had the Government been free, the tsunami victims would have got better relief. Thus, even in this matter, the will of the industrial houses alone prevailed. 

Thus, on one side the Union Government refused to accept assistance from other countries and on the other side it wriggled out from doing any relief work directly.

Here, the media worked against the ideal of common good even in the case of giving relief to Tsunami victims. They concertedly worked to deny tsunami threat-free houses.

The government finally allotted Re.2700 crore for rehabilitation. This amount was for subsidies and for giving loan. No money was allotted for the construction of houses. It should have allotted not less than Re.27000 crore for the construction of houses alone.

Thus the government distinguished between citizen, and citizen even in the matter of natural calamities.

Evidently, the industrial houses – and not Prime Minister Manmohan Singh –pulled the shot in this matter.

V. Sabarimuthu

7. INDIA: DISINVESTMENTS

7

7

DISINVESTMENTS

 Dr. Manmohan Singh Government did not expose any corrupt deed of the previous Government.

The new Government, on 2 June 2004, decided to reduce the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Delhi and Mumbai airports from the 74 percent decided by the previous Government to 49 percent. A Union Minister described this as restructuring and not privatization. Later, the Government privatized the above two airports. This proved that the Government - in bad faith - enacted a drama to give the airports to private parties.

A private company, on 8 June 2004, requested the Union Government to sell the 49 % residual shares in the BALCO to its buyer. It must be noted that the previous government had either ignored or turned down this request because of the fear of violating the guidelines devised for privatization.

Now,  the newspapers demanded the Government to privatize the MTNL and BSNL - the two public sector telephone companies - to save them from competition. They cautioned that the cost of his delay would run into Re. trillions.

 The papers said the above to usurp the MTNL, BSNL and the other Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs.) The truth was that the private telephone companies flourished through the aid of the MTNL and the BSNL.

The Government, on 7 October 2004, sold 8.6583 crore shares of the NTPC. None in India uttered even a word against it. The Left parties did not open their mouth. However,  Mr. V. Sabarimuthu – the author of this book-  submitted to His Excellency the President of India that  the Government gave the shares of the PSUs to some people and bullets to the people of the North-East.  

                      

The newspapers now said that the act of offloading the shares of PSUs in the lines of the NTPC had eminent sense and challenged the Government to divest the shares of other PSUs.

 They indirectly ridiculed this writer saying that even lower division clerks in India would get the Nobel Prize for their ignorance of economics.

The government, on 20 October 2004, hiked the FDI cap for domestic airlines from 40 to 49 percent.

             In December 2004 a private company confessed that it had picked up substantial stake in the public sector ONGC public issue through the aid of some unknown companies. The company disclosed that it would benefit from any gains that would come through those investments. This showed that some companies- not the public or people- cornered the public issues of the PSUs by simple manipulations. Obviously, the NDA Government had sold the shares of the PSUs in naked selfish interests to the detriment of 1000 million people. Thus the premonition of this writer is proving correct.

       The Economic Times, on 5 January 2005 reported that the public issue of Dena Bank was oversubscribed by 12 times. The bank sold eight crore shares of Rs.10/-each at a premium of Rs.17/-. Thus, despite several letters, the Government sold the shares of a nationalized bank to the enlightened people of a few States and sidelined the so-called illiterate people of many States.

       On 22 February 2005, Mr. S.S.Kohil, CMD, Punjab National Bank, the third biggest bank in India, said that the public issue to sell eight crore-equity shares of his bank would start on 7 March 2005. Later, there were reports that the issue was oversubscribed by twelve times. Then, why did the banks advance money to buy its shares? Is it not misuse of official power?

          The Business Line on 24 February 2005 reported that Bank of Punjab (not Punjab National Bank) issued about 18.78 per cent equity shares to four investors including The Bank of Nova Scotia, Canada and Bharti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. at a price of Re. 38/- per share aggregating Re. 92 crore. The media  did not disclose the reasons for selling the shares or the abstract code followed to sell them. 

   

             The second public offering of Punjab National Bank (PNB) was oversubscribed by over two times within minutes of its opening on 7 March 2005.There were reports that one or two other nationalized banks advanced money to some favoured people to buy the shares of the PNB. Thus one Public Sector bank sold its shares and another Public Sector bank gave money to selected people to buy the shares. It is illegal and unconstitutional as it is arbitrage trading. It is like PNB itself giving money to enable the buyers to buy its own shares. 

          In the meantime, the Union Government handed over the new international airport at Hyderabad to the GMR , a private company. With regard to this decision, Mr. Penumalli Madhu and Mr. Babu Rao, two CPI (M) Members of Parliament from Andra Pradesh said, “1. The present airport is sufficient for the next 12 years. 2. The Airport Authority of India (AAI) had paid 90 crore for further expansion and rehabilitation. 3. The AAI had spent Re. 800 crore for expansion. 4. The builder would spend only Re.250 crore while the Government would arrange Re. 450 crore as soft loan, Re 250 crore as Government grant and Re.50 crore as grant from the AAI. 5. The builder is also granted 500 acre of free land and 6. The existing airport at Begumpet must be closed down within three years by which time the Shashabad Airport would be operational. The Hindu mentioned these points on 16 March 2005.

     The above paper did not publish the crucial point that the new builder would offer 10 per cent of its share to mobilize Re. 10,000 crore from the market and the financial institutions would be asked to buy the shares thereby leading to economic deprivation all over India.

           The Business Line on 26 April 2005 reported that the public issue of Oriental Bank of commerce (OBC), a Public Sector Bank, was oversubscribed on the first day of its opening itself.

  

Now, The Hindu reported that the 17.5 acre Mumbai Textile Mills   belonging to the National Textile Corporation was sold for Re. 702.2 crore to the Delhi based DLF group. At the same time, Apollo Mills, another NTC Mill, was sold to Loda group of developers for Re.180 crore. The paper said that the bids for other NTC Mills as well as Kohinoor Mills would be opened by the end of July 2005. No one opposed these sales. No one was opposing the impending sales either. As there was no discussion before or after the sales, no one was in a position to say that the Government was flouting public opinion. When there is no public opinion, nothing would restrain abuses of power!

Notwithstanding the 52 letters, the Government sold another 9 acre Mill belonging to the NTC for Re. 441crore on 21 July 2005 to a company connected with the former Union Minister for Industries and Lok Sabha Speaker Mr. Manohar Joshi who had a net asset of Re.2.5 crore while joining the Union Cabinet.

 Tender for the NTC Mill, Elphinstone Mill, acquired by the Government in 1983 as a sick Mill could not be opened because the sale was challenged by its former owner. The unconstitutional nature of the sale could be discerned. In fact, the land belongs to the people.