Orissa Matters

TRIBALS VIOLENTLY OBSTRUCT INTRUDERS

OM Bureau

Bhubaneswar :

It is an industry that has roped in support of the State government. But to the sons of the soil of Kalinga Nagar, in the district of Jajpur, the Maharastra Seamless, a 450-crore steel plant project, is an intruder.

In a new episode of violence that is indicative of what can happen if poor people are deprived of their land and property by the State in its blind endeavor to have alliance with industry, the Additional District Magistrate of Jajpur, S. Gopalan, had to be sifted to Kalinga Hospital at Bhubaneswar, while the Inspector-in-Charge of Police of Kalinga Nagar P.S., S.C.Mohapatra had to take admission in the S.C.B.Medical College Hospital at Cuttack in critical condition caused by stone-pelting by the tribal inhabitants of the area who were deeply disturbed and frustrated by their active and aggressive support to promoters of the Plant.

The Tribals demand was to keep in abeyance the foundation-stone-laying ceremony of the Plant till they were properly compensated against the loss of their landed property as well as their traditional and hereditary living environment. Should the officers have reported this to the Government a conciliatory step could have been taken. But they refused to heed to their request and on the contrary, helped the plant promoters to proceed. This irritated the tribals who having known no other way to ward off the intruders, resorted to pelting of stones like they do in case of dangerous animals.

By the time of filing this report, as many as 20 tribals have been arrested by the Police. Illiterate and wretchedly poor forest dwellers, they are destined to fail in obstructing engulfing of their living environment by the industrial plants, as their own government is in alliance with the rich. But the spontaneity of mob violence like this incident does vehemently demand for introspection by them who run the government.

ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY REPEATS ITS WRONG

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Orissa Legislative Assembly (OLA) has repeated its wrong and therefore wrongfully given a right to its members to acquire Laptop Computers for personal use from the Exchequer of the State, sans any legal provision.

All the members of the last Assembly were supplied with these ultra-modern gadgets. Fifty-six of them could not return to the House and therefore the members who substituted them have been provided with these Laptops, one each, even though the Laws regulating provision of amenities to the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Orissa, do not provide for this.

The amenities of Orissa MLAs are governed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly Members Salary, Allowance and Pension Act, 1954 and several other Rules and Instructions. They are: (1) The OLA members Drawal of Travelling Allowance and Daily Allowances Rules, 1957, (2) Govt. Resolution on TA, DA of members of OLA going outside the State to attend conferences and meetings and on study tours,(3) Rates of TA to MLAs attending Committees and conferences appointed by Govt. for State, District and Sub-divisional purposes, (4)The OLA members Telephone Facilities Rules,1964, (5) The OLA members Salary & Allowance (Deduction of house rent and other charges) Rules, 1957, (6) Deduction of arear electric charges from the salary of the MLAs under Orissa MLAs Salary & Allowances (Deduction of house rent etc.) Rules, 1957, (7) The Orissa MLAs Medical Attendance Rules,1965, (8) The OLA Ex-Members Family Pension Rules,1979, (9) The OLA members Family Pension Rules,1988, (10) The OLA members Jeep, Motor Cycle, Scooter or Alike Vehicle Advance Rules,1986, (1)The Members of OLA (Disqualification on ground of defection) Rules,1987, (12) The leader of Opposition of OLA ( Staff and Privileges) Rules,1968, (13)The Govt. Chief Whip and Govt. Deputy Chief Whip of OLA (Staff & Privileges) Rules,1969, (14)Instructions for the management of the OLA Guest House, and (15) The OLA Library Rules,1991. Nowhere in these Rules, members have the privilege or provision to acquire an amenity of having a Laptop Computer from the exchequer of the State.

This right to acquire from the Assembly/Govt. a Laptop Computer has been wrongfully bestowed upon the MLAs by repetition of giving this amenity to a fresh batch of members. Had the defeated MLAs been asked to return the Laptop Computers, it could have been inferred that this amenity was co-terminus with their tenure as MLAs. But, neither they have been asked to return nor have they volunteered to surrender the Laptop Computers they were given. Supply of Laptops to the new representatives of their constituencies makes it abundantly clear that the State Government and / or the Assembly administration is pampering MLAs with amenities not revocable even after their membership ceases to exist.

If a proper investigation, in this case a social audit allowing accredited journalists to probe openly, is conducted, it would not be surprising if it transpires that a few Ministers and Assembly Executives, had contemplated and executed this design to grab government money through a clandestine trade in Laptop Computers. Then it may come out that, trading house names and their stamps were picked up and projected to cover up this illicit deal.

The people of the State were told that their representatives should now have direct access to development works of their constituencies through the computer. They shall network with the people and administration for better management of resources, for proper monitoring of ongoing projects and for utmost utilization of allotted funds. They should even have access to national as well as international forums through Internet to know how to develop their constituencies and to do what best could be done. But these were wordy acrobatics to hoodwink the people.

No MLA had his /her e-mail id. No MLA ever used his/her Laptop Computer in the work for which it was given. The Assembly did never insist upon creation and activation of e-mail id by the MLAs who had taken the Laptop Computers. It never monitored the utilization of these instruments for which the State exchequer had to invest so much money.

What are the MLAs doing with the Computers they have received? Ask any of them to give you any data he might have saved in his set pertaining to his constituency, he shall fail. Most of them (you can assume, all of them) admit that they do not know how to handle a computer. To most of them these are materials to decorate the parlor with. All of them are happy that their children have got computers for use as they like.

This is precisely what the ruling party heavyweight Pradeep Maharathy, who was Govt. Chief Whip when Computers were first supplied to MLAs, has openly admitted. To quote him, A problem has been solved. My son knows how to operate a computer. Game is his hobby. So the Computer is being used by him for games and for film viewing.

Even the Speaker of the House, Mr. Maheswar Mohanty admits that the computer on his table has no noteworthy use.

It is clear therefore that the purpose of providing Laptop Computers to MLAs has been defeated.

It was expected that the Assembly would see the wrong perpetrated on the State exchequer by providing the MLAs with Computers. Any MLA who knows how to use a Computer for better service of his constituency may have his own from his own pocket, as this may help him in his personal political plan. Or, in the alternative, his Party may provide him with one. But knowing that the Computers are not being used by MLAs for the purpose for which those were given, supply of further sets to new MLAs cannot be anything but repetition of the wrong.

How can this be stopped?

COMPLAINT BEFORE P.C.I. AGAINST ORISSA ASSEMBLY

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

New Delhi, May 04,05
When international community is observing Press Freedom Day, Subhas Chandra Pattanayak, Representative-in-Chief of www.orissamatters.com, Orissas only web-journal that has been accorded Official accreditation, has filed a complaint case against the Speaker of Orissa Legislative Assembly, before the Press Council of India.

A journalist of four decades standing, Pattanayak has been covering Orissa Assembly since the early seventies as and when it meets, without ever having violated any of its rules and/or Procedures. He was last given Press gallery as well as Lobby Passes as a freelance journalist, accredited as he was in that capacity.

He surrendered his accreditation as a freelance journalist and duly got accredited as the Representative-in-Chief of www.orissamatters.com. He applied the Assembly Speaker to grant him permission to cover the Assembly, in this changed capacity and to issue him relevant passes accordingly. But it was turned down without any reason. He sent an appeal letter to the Speaker mentioning therein the difficulties he was to face professionally if he fails to report the proceedings of the House, specifically as that was the Budget session. This was not heeded to. There was no reply from the Assembly.

Mr. Pattanayak notified the Speaker on the infringement of Freedom of Press caused by his action in debarring him from covering the proceedings of the House and requested him to ensure that he shall not be subjected to any such debarment in future. But the speaker kept mum.

Finding himself thus disadvantaged and discriminated against, Pattanayak has brought the matter to the attention of the Press Council of India through a Complaint Petition filed here in person in the Headquarters. Office of the Council.

RECOMMENDING NARAYAN PATRA

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

“Free, fair and bold comments against injustice and crime are essentially required to stop them and as such, greatest service to people”, thus declares Sri Narayana Patra, a pensioner of Orissa Government in the cover of his unique serial work captioned “criticism”. Categorizing his work as “intellectual’s Digest”, Sri Patra claims that it deals only with big issues of life and liberty. He spends about half of the money he gets as monthly pension on this work. On a bi-cycle and seldom on a moped unworthy of road, he moves from place to place, meets person after persons to circulate Xeroxed copies of ‘Criticism’ that he compiles and publishes every month. He doesn’t charge any price for the service; but he insists that contents thereof be read and cogitated.

Sri Patra has been serializing the “issues” raised by him. Issue No.275 may be taken as an instance of how fearlessly he raises a point that perniciously affects our system but perilously accommodated by the society. There are two marble plates on two different places of the building that houses the Court of the sub-ordinate Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge at Talcher. The first plate depicts that the “Court” was “inaugurated” by Sri Ranganath Mishra, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court (as he then was) on 30day of September, 1982; and the 2nd plate depicts that the “Court building” was “opened” by the same Sri Mishra when he was Chief Justice of India on the 25day of December, 1990. No body in the State has ever bothered over these two plates depicting the two events. But, for Patra, this is a point to be cogitated. “For the inauguration of the Court, the visit of the Chief Justice of a State High Court may be understandable, but was it so much necessary that the Chief Justice of India was to travel on huge government expenses to his home State to open the court building of a sub-ordinate judge?” he questions.

He wants the society to dig out the details of the engagements of the CJI on the 2day or the phase of his tour covering that day so that it could be determined as to whether or not the Talcher event was used as a fetcher of official T.A. and D.A. even as he was transacting his private works. “If the Judges/ Chief Justice of the Supreme Court visit home State to attend private works by arranging official engagements, should people be blamed for raising accusing fingers to the integrity and honesty of such judges?” he wonders. To him, even though in the judicial sector, extravagant and avoidable expenditure is a crime against the country that is reeling under neck-deep debts.

When a junior member of the State Secretariat staff, Sri Patra was marked for his courage to criticize promulgation of emergency in the Country and had exhausted all his savings from salary in authoring and publishing highly documented materials against the dark design under the nickname of ‘Furufura’. Under this nickname, he had authored earlier in 1970 and 1972 respectively two revealing books on the threat to Indian democracy from the pseudo socialists, the first titled ‘Samajvad Orof Ekachhatravad’ and the second, ‘Samajvad Hin Ekachhatravad’. Much before Sri Jayaprakash Narain thought of leading his famous movement against the central misrule, Patra was the only one in whole of the country who had come up with a clarion call to save democracy from the evil design of the sycophants of Mrs.Indira Gandhi.

His book, ‘Ganatantra Banchao’ (save democracy), published on the 1st October 1973, was the best available documented material from which the later opponents of emergency had derived sufficient intellectual support. Born to a lower middle class family, Patra, working as a low-paid government servant as he was, preferred to work incognito and hence, the pro-democracy and anti-emergency activists could not know who really was ‘Furufura’, author of the aforesaid books. The post-emergency political climate gave birth and berth to innumerable idiots in the political arena of the country but, Patra, the real father of conscious battle against the forces of emergency remained beyond every body’s knowledge and continued as a low-paid government servant in the Secretariat. After his retirement on superannuation, he is now writing in his own name: Narayan Patra.

Age has written its mandate on his body. But his mind has remained ever sharp against injustice. Frail but fearless, he personifies the consciousness of his soil. Whoever is able to peruse ‘Criticism’, is able to know as to what extent a man can burn himself in order to light up the road to a true democracy.

We strongly recommend him to the patriots of our land.

STRIKE BAN BE RECALLED

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The Supreme Court must understand that the people of this country who have lost all their hopes in all other sectors of the State find in it their last hope and therefore it should not pass any such order that may make their last hope lost. The ban on strikes by public sector employees is one such order.

From my four decades of experience in workers movement, I have seen, the employees go for a general strike only when as a mass they are affected, otherwise not. As a mass they are affected only when the person at the helm of affairs conspires or acts against the whole group of employees. Snap strike is a rarity. In reality, strike is resorted to as the last resort when all other conciliatory approaches from the employees side fail to fetch
any result. Hence, for a general strike, the man at the top of management or some one somewhere in the echelon of power is responsible, not the employees. Employees do resort to strike, but they are not the cause of strike. Unscrupulous authorities always cause the strikes. If there is no colorable exercise of managerial power, no recalcitrant attitude to issues affecting the mass of employees, no precipitation of strike by the employer, there shall never be any strike of work. So what the nation needs most is not a
ban on strike, but a provision of punishment against the man in charge of management whom the employees must point out to be the root cause of formation of a situation for strike. The Supreme Court has not paid its attention to this side.

On the other hand, strikes are not always related to job status or job security or to show of collective bargain power or to self-centeredness of the employees. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has kept its perception of general strike stuck to such phenomena. But,there are times when the employees deliberately decide to strike without caring for their
salary or security and without any purpose of any bargain with their managements. These are strikes born out of sheer patriotism. The employees conceive such strikes as the only weapon they can wield to safeguard their national interest, to protect their national property, to awake their fellow citizens for foiling a conspiracy against the country. A bright example of this is the recent strike of the employees of NALCO. The usurpers of
power in the Center had conspired to sale away the most profit fetching industry of the State to private profiteers at throwaway prices. The NALCO employees patriotic strike saved this national property. The employees contribution to nation building is certainly more than that of the rulers. Hence, when rulers in a democracy conspire against the country, it becomes the responsibility of the employees to rise in revolt against the
conspirators. When they revolt, they strike. How can such a strike be anti-nation? Should there be a ban on such a strike?

I have every reason to be apprehensive of misuse of the Supreme Courts direction against strikes in future when the usurpers of power shall be facing resistance from patriotic employees in similar instances.

I regret to note that the major trade unions and political leaders, who have preferred not to stand with the Supreme Court judgment, have limited themselves to criticize it on the only ground that it curtails the collective bargain power of employees. But the havoc the judgment may play on employees who shall be addressing themselves to protect the nation as was done by the NALCO employees is yet to be properly perceived.

Notwithstanding how who reacted, history has witnessed that the Naval strike that shattered every stymie on our way to independence, was one of the finest instance of patriotism. That was also a strike by the employees. So, employees also strike when their patriotism requires them to. No curb on patriotism by any court of law can be countenanced. So, Courts cannot ban every strike. Can we hear afresh what the Naval Central Strike Committee had wanted us to know on February 23, 1946 as its last message? It reads:

Our strike has been a historic event in the life of our nation. For the first time the blood of men in the Services and men in the streets flowed together in a common cause. We, in the Services, will never forget this. We know also that you, our brothers and sisters, will not forget. Long live our great people, Jai Hind.

I see the reflection of this message in the NALCO employees strike. All future strikes of similar nature shall also carry the same message. The message of patriotism. Therefore banning all strikes cannot be accepted as just and proper.

If the dictum to err is human is not incorrect, it cannot be said that no judge can never err. The judiciary is aware of this. Therefore reviewing of their judgments by the Judges is neither uncommon nor surprising. On this premise, one may hope that the Supreme Court reviews its judgment and make it clear as to which sort of strike it shall apply. And,till then it should keep its ban on strike inoperative.