As mentioned earlier, Indian
bureaucrats are the most insensitive sort of people (we don’t really blame them
they have been trained in the colonial outfit, squatters are known to excel in
these nuances). This fellow, 
TSR Subramanian, was a cabinet secretary, which ofcourse goes on
to say what kind people end up at the top position. Since then he has been active in the TV studios (another of crude occupation, which again, some do quite well, even if we cringe) and so our man has finally got something to lick on, so is back from oblivion of retirement to serve the nation, ofcourse! He has taken up where Kasturirangan
left, the henchmen are back as stooges of exploitative corporate. Indian corporates (with some very rare exceptions)
are suckers to government doles and expertise in ransacking natural resources. Read
this mail I got the other day, and you will see the joke that bureaucrats play
in the name of people. The fact that likes of TSR Subramanian are retired senior
most bureaucrats makes these devious acts compelling as also template of
exploitation that ‘follows all procedures’. Read the way they use the 'procedures' to circumvent the issue, you will know how pliable bureaucrat (most likely reason he ended up as Cabinet Secretary) with devious politicians and exploitative corporates work out development agenda...
High
Level Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change walks
out of Public Consultation in Bangalore
The High
Level Committee headed by Mr. T. S. R. Subramanian, former Union Cabinet
Secretary, constituted by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and
Climate Change to review environment, pollution control and forest conservation
laws, invited the public at large for a consultation between 12 and 1.30 pm
today (27th September) at Vikas Soudha, the high security office
complex of the Government of Karnataka. Advertisements to this effect had been
issued by the Karnataka Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment in
various newspapers on 21st September 2014, followed up by various
press releases inviting the public to interact with the Committee.
When
various individuals and representatives of public interest environmental and
social action groups turned up for the meeting, the police prevented their
entry at the gates. It was only following a spot protest that the police
consented to allow them to participate in the consultation. Despite this
indignifying experience, all who gathered proceeded to the meeting hall with
the intent of engaging with the High Level Committee.
The
meeting commenced with introductory remarks by the Chairperson Mr. Subramanian.
Broadly, he shared that the intent of the Committee was to hear views from
across India on the type and nature of changes that were required in the
environmental and forest protection laws. He stated that the Committee had the
mandate of the Government to propose necessary changes that would help improve
the quality of life and environment. But he said the need to ensure develop was
primary, as the country was very poor (over 80% were poor he claimed) and
thereby it is found essential to streamline environmental clearance processes
that thwarted growth. Mr. Subramanian also shared that it was a matter of
concern to the Government that several development projects were getting mired
in litigation on environmental grounds, leading to needless delays. Concluding
his introductory remarks he shared that the Committee is not in any manner
guided by the Ministry and their recommendatory report would be submitted to
the Union Government. The Committee's proceeding, he clarified, were not open
to the public, unless the committee decided to engage with the public.
Responding to a question, Mr. Subramanian said that nothing that was submitted
to the Committee would be shared with anybody, and that only the report would
be submitted to the Government. Mr. Subramanian also said that the Ministry
never proposed a public consultation exercise, but he had suggested this should
take place.
Mr. K. N. Bhat, Senior
Advocate and a member of the Committee, shared that there were a variety of
submissions the Committee had received and each of this would be considered. He
aired that environment and development should go side by side and the
objectives of the laws if not found sufficient to address current needs, need
for their review exists. The industry in particular, he said, had raised
concerns over delays in environmental and forest clearances when the Committee
met with them.
On these introductory notes
Mr. Subramanian asked the members of the public to suggest changes to the
existing environmental law framework. Officials assisting the Committee did not
provide any rationale for the Ministry proposing changes to existing laws. The
Committee also did not have any procedure, excepting online submissions of
opinions on the Ministry's website (limited to 1000 words).
When the turn of the public
came, a submission was made by the Karnataka Planters Association about
procedural difficulties in securing forest clearance and conforming with pollution
control norms, and sought amendments for the benefit of plantations.
Thereafter, Mr. A. C. F. Anand, an RTI Activist, suggested that all
environmental laws must be translated so that it would be understood by all and
thus the compliance rates improved.
Speaking next, Mr. Leo F.
Saldanha of Environment Support Group requested the Committee to address the
basis for its functioning, and whether the TOR constituting the Committee was
sufficient for such a massive and onerous task that involved fundamentally
reviewing all environmental laws that were intricately linked to Right to Life,
Clean Environment and Livelihoods. He sought to know what it meant, as is main
TOR, “"(t)o recommend specific amendments
needed in each of these Acts so as to bring them in line with current
requirements to meet objectives".
Mr. Subramanian responded
that neither he nor any other members of the Committee were influenced by the
TOR in any manner and that they worked per their own understanding of the
mandate given to them by the Government. But when Saldanha pressed to know how
a Committee consisting of high ranking former civil servants, a former Judge
and a Senior Advocate could at all have agreed to such vague terms, Mr.
Subramanian reacted dismissively. He claimed that this was a non-substantive
issue and sought to move on to hear others. Saldanha argued that it is
disturbing that Mr. Subramanian unilaterally rules a legitimate concern over
vague and weak TORs as being of trivial concern, when, in fact, it would have been
fit and proper for the Committee to have first explained in the interest of
public accountability and transparency how they found the terms rationale and
acceptable to them. And in case the terms were acceptable, then the High Level
Committee, unshackled as it were by the bureaucratic norms of the Ministry,
could have provided a clear note on the nature of the reforms being considered
and also explicated on the procedure of consulting and receiving criticisms
from various sectors, peoples, regions, geographies, etc.
Vinay Sreenivasa of Alternative Law Forum
submitted that the process by which the Committee was conducting the
consultation was rather opaque. The vague TOR and the fact that the Committee
was constituted by a Government that sought to belittle the importance of the
National Wildlife Board and rush pet projects through the clearance mechanism,
seemed to suggest the entire exercise appeared to be merely ritualistic. Ms.
Aruna Chandrasekhar of Amnesty International - India sought to know what
specific amendments were being proposed or demanded by industry/corporate
sectors, and requested the Committee put it all out. But Mr. Subramanian waved
away this request too.
Prof. Puttuswamy wanted to
know how a High Level Committee sought to improve environmental laws when
notifications of Ministry were being issued to dilute the laws. To which Mr.
Subramanian responded saying he is not a “Postman” for the Ministry. Ms. Priti
Rao, meanwhile, asked for decentralised solid waste management. Mr. Vijayan
Menon shared that even though he was not an official, he had walked into the
Committee's immediately preceding engagement with Government officials where a
clear set of amendments were being proposed. He expressed surprise that this
presentation was not being made for the benefit of the general public.
Ms. Bhargavi Rao of
Environment Support Group wanted to know how law could be reformed when forest
officials are unaware of biodiversity protection laws that had been passed over
two decades ago and asserted that this rushed exercise in reviewing
environmental laws had all the trappings of making light of people's
fundamental rights and concerns. Justice A. K. Srivatsav (Retd. Judge of the
Delhi High Court) and a Member of the High Level Committee stated at this
juncture that the public must have confidence in a Committee in which a senior
retired Judge is a member. By which time Mr. Subramanian had remarked several
times that the public was wasting the Committee's time and there was no point
continuing with this procedure. Several who had gathered protested such an
assessment by the Chairman of the High Level Committee. Mr. Srinivas of
Mavallipura sought to speak, saying he represents a community impacted by
mal-development and waste dumping in his village, and he too was brushed aside.
At this point, Mr.
Subramanian got up and said “We will end the joke here!” and walked out. He was
followed by the rest of the Committee.
When Mr. Subramanian walked
out, it was 1 pm.
Members of the common public who had travelled great distances to engage
with the Committee protested Mr. Subramanian taking them for granted and
dismissing their views as of trivial concern. They demanded that the Committee
return to hear the public and as advertised remained in the Hall till 1.30 pm.
Neither did the High Level Committee return, nor did any official of the
Ministry of Environment and Forests or Karnataka Environment Department come
back to explain to the public why the High Level Committee had behaved in this
manner. In fact, throughout the engagement with the public, not one Karnataka
Government official was present in the Hall.
The undersigned are deeply
disturbed by the manner in which the T. S. R. Subramanian headed High Level
Committee has treated this public consultation process. The undersigned demand
that the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change call off this
exercise as it has all the markings of being a ritual exercise. In its place
the undersigned demand that the Ministry must constitute a Committee that has a
clear rationale for reform and Terms of Reference that are democratic,
consultative and transparent. In particular, the following demands are made:
1. Environment
Ministry must first come out with a White Paper discussing the nature of the
reforms that it proposes in environmental, forest conservation and pollution
control laws.
2. On
the basis of such a Paper, an accessible Committee must be constituted that
would hear peoples responses across the biologically, culturally and
linguistically diverse country and also from various sectors equally.
3. The
membership of the Committee should be so constituted that it would reflect diverse
concerns and sectos, and in particular ensure that members conversant with
tribal and human rights, environmental management, conservation biologists,
biodiversity, risk assessment, planning, etc., and not merely ex-bureaucrats or
members of the legal fraternity were included Particularly important is the
need to ensure there is adequate representation of women on the High Level
Committee, which presently is constituted only of men.
4. The
process of the consultation to be followed has to be meaningful and conform
with Principle of Prior and Informed Consent, even if this is not a consenting
process.
5. The
timeline for the Consultation mechanism for such a critical review has to be
reasonable as laws sought to amended, or tweaked, fundamentally affect theRight
to Life and Livelihoods, and Right to Clean Environment.
6. The
entire process has to be transparent, all meetings must be recorded publicly,
none of the deliberations must be in camera (as it appears to be the
case now), and all proceedings, submissions, minutes and reports must be
in the public domain.
7. Adequate
facilities must be made to ensure that anyone interested can participated with
dignity and without being inhibited by language or geographical location. To
ensure this, the process must be devolved by enlisting the support of State and
Local Governments.
Signatories:
Mr. Vinay Sreenivasa; Alternative
Law Forum. Cell: 9880595032
he came in contact have been isolated. It was later found that the doctors
have erred in sending him back in the first place. Now if this could happen in
US just imagine what it would be like in poorer societies, and there is a very likelihood
that people with Ebola could be moving in other parts of the world too. I am
quite worried; it need be pointed out that there are many Indians working in West
Africa, add to it the congested, unhygienic condition of public hospitals where
even the health workers don’t take sufficient protection. Ebola threat needs to
be taken very seriously. I am sure authorities do understand the seriousness of
the situation. 
