7. THE CBI AND THE COURT CASES

 7.

THE CBI AND THE COURT CASES

       In the meantime, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probing the security scam forwarded the case of Mr.D.S.Pendse, former M.D. of Tata Finance, to the Ministry of Finance for necessary action. He had diverted Re. 578 crore for speculative activities related to Ketan Parekh scam (Earlier it had been reported as Re. 800 crore.).

          On 14 January 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the sale of the BALCO. The bench comprised Justice Ms. Ruma Pal and Justice B.N.Kirpal.

   The learned judges treated the PIL with contempt.

   The petitioners did not argue the case with any seriousness. This could be discerned from the fact that the important points were not mentioned.

     The print media did not report the judgment. One or two TV Channels reported it superficially.

      After retirement, Justice B.N. Kirpal went to work in a private company.

          Evidently, an enquiry should have been conducted to find out his real wealth.

       Even otherwise, he must be construed as one of the co-conspirators to convert public assets into private assets.

   

       On 16 January 2002, the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments (CCD) referred a fresh bunch of PSUs including Pradeep Phosphate Limited and Jessop to the newly reconstituted Disinvestments Commission.

        Mr. Arun Shourie, Minister for Disinvestments, said that he would come out with a pleasant surprise to satisfy Mr. Yashwant Sinha, Union Finance Minister, who was looking for Re. 12,000/- crore through disinvestments.

   In the above matter, the Government had been ignoring the reservations of Mr. K.R. Narayanan, His Excellency the President of India.  

      Now, this writer felt that the working of the judiciary and the investigation agencies must be exposed to save the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs).

      The letter was addressed to Mr. K.R. Narayanan, His Excellency the President of India. The same letter sent to Mr. A.B. Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India.

       In order to cripple the Supreme Court, the copy each of the letter was sent to every learned judge.

        The letters were sent to important Chief Ministers also.

     The letter No.6 follows.

 From

          V. Sabarimuthu,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

 Mulagumoodu, 629167.

To

       Mr. K.R. Narayanan

          His Excellency the President of India

          Presidential Palace

          New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

            Most kindly, consider the question of examining the following points with regard to the plight of the people vis-à-vis the Constitution of India.

1.       The Preamble of our Constitution decides the direction of the Government. Sovereignty, Socialism, Secularism and Democracy are the four keys to the Constitution.  The Government must stand within this boundary. The keys shall not be deformed by any reform. All those who commit breach of trust and contempt of Constitution must be disqualified. It is the demand of the Constitution.

  

2.In November1996, the Chairpersons of ITC and Shaw Wallace were arrested under FERA. The CBI initiated action against Mr. Sukh Ram, Ms. Kaul and Mr. Thungon in April 28, 1998. Mr. Krishna Kumar was arrested on 26-5-1998 under FERA. On 22 July 1998, the Directorate of Enforcement had a very strong case against Mr. Prabahar Rao, son of Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, former Prime Minister of India. Again, on 27 October 1998, Mr. M. Gopalakrishnan and 28 others were charge sheeted by the CBI. In August 1998, the Government contemplated a probe by the CBI against the officials of Prasar Bharati for irregularities to the tune of Re. 1000 crore. There are several bigger offenders, which the courts and the CBI know better. The offenders amass wealth through manipulations and become NRIs before acquiring citizenship of other countries. They are capable of keeping any case under cold storage. They change the counsels, courts and laws to dilute the severity of the case. They know that they would be discharged at one stage or other under one pretext or other.  We could read only what they feed. Thus, the visit of the President of India to the Supreme Court or the second judgment on BALCO was not news for them. They send the Prime Ministers to various countries. They talk on behalf of Prime Ministers and vice versa. They make or mar the Prime Ministers. They decide the direction of the Government. They keep the key to the Constitution.

3.       The above cases and the cases inclusive of the  JMM pay off case, Urea Scam Case, and some cases against Mr. Kesri, were utilized by the media syndicate to bring down the UF Government. The syndicate conveyed the impression that the UF Government was biting the ears of the Congress Party while sitting on its shoulders. The  “The Hindu” on January 20, 1997 in front page news said, “ It is a common talk among political circles that the IB has been asked by the PMO to find ways and means of implicating Mr. Kesri in a 1993 criminal case”. The New Indian Express on December 17, 1996 in front-page news said, “The Deve Gowda Government seems to have decided to dump Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao. The CBI today suo motto decided to enlarge the scope of its inquiry in the JMM MPs bribery case” In fact, the JMM case served the purpose of enacting two coups-one to stabilize the Government of Mr. Rao and the other to destabilize the UF Government.

4.       In the JMM case, Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabbarwal and Mr. Justice D.K. Jain of the High Court, Delhi on  9 August  1996 said, “The CBI is trying to identify both givers and takers. If the CBI fails, we know to get both sides identified. At this stage we want to utter minimum”. Less than 30 days time was given to the CBI to complete the investigation. At that time, the Supreme Court also did not lag behind as it, on March 31, 1997, threatened to monitor the Indian Bank Case.

5.       Recently, an employee of the Government of Tamil Nadu was suspended from service for accepting a bribe of Re. 50/-. A court in Gujarat recently awarded three-month imprisonment for accepting a bribe of Re. 100/-. A court at Nagercoil (TN), again recently, issued orders to attach all the immovable assets of eight thieves who stole jewels worth Re.48 lakhs.

6.       In contrast, Mr. Hiten Dalal was sentenced to one-year imprisonment for Re. 72 crore. The Supreme Court did not enhance the sentence but chose to uphold it. 

7. Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav was arrested in April 2000. Since then, we have been hearing about his arrests, bail denials, bails, re-arrests, appeals and bails.  In 1997 Mr.Xylesh Kumar Yadav I.P.S., in bad faith, implicated an innocent person in a criminal case. The SHRC of Tamil Nadu held that the I.P.S. officer was “specifically responsible” for the incident. The victim appealed to the NHRC for further relief. The NHRC rejected the appeal citing one specific reason. The review petition was rejected citing another reason. The NHRC, which recognizes no borders, drew two strong boundary lines for protection. The victim is still persecuted as the prosecution is still pending in the court. There is no authority to hear such cases. There must be a Constitution if not human rights.

8.       In the JMM and fodder scam cases the Supreme Court said that there must be only one category of offenders and not categories. It never said that the assets of small offenders must be confiscated and that of big offenders must be spared because the amount is a huge one. The big offenders win the cases the moment they save their assets from confiscation. The act of swallowing the small offenders and nibbling at the big offenders for public consumption is a heinous crime against humanity.

9.       The Hindu on 1-1-2002 casually said that the CVC does not reveal the identity of the complainants to ensure his safety. Whether there is anything in store is not clear. When there is a constitutional vacuum, there is no use in talking about the safety to life.

10.     In early December 2001, a group of people going for white-collar jobs sat on the railway track at Kovilpatti demanding plying of more trains because they could not afford to travel in bus. At the same time - in Tamil Nadu - 10 million women sat on the roads protesting against the increase in the price of rice. No leader gave a call to this historical rebellion. The difference between this rebellion and the French Revolution and that in Argentina was that the women in their poor attire were seen. It is strange that this rebellion has not humbled everyone.

Vellicode,                                                                                                Yours faithfully,

21-1-2002

                                                                                      (V.SABARIMUTHU)

          Apparently, the President of India transmitted the letter to the Prime Minister of India on 24 January 2002.The Republic day address of the Prime Minister contained several words chosen from the letters sent by this writer.

       The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and the Cabinet meeting scheduled on 29 January 2002 were cancelled without assigning any reason.

     On 3 February 2002, Mr. A.B. Vajpayee said that the country was in a state of undeclared emergency and asked the opposition parties not to rake up contentious issues. 

     Mr. L.K. Advani, Home Minister, maintained a studied silence.

          On 29 January 2002,  Shi. H.D. Deve Gowda Ji, former Prime Minister of India, thanked this writer through a letter for sending him the above letters.

      In that letter, he addressed this writer as “Dear Shri. V.Sabarimuthu Ji”. As man is known for his self love, this writer was elated by the prefix “Dear Shri” and the suffix “Ji” attached to his name by the former Prime Minister of India. It showed that he was ready to embrace what is good for the Nation. Unfortunately, he was not in power!

       However, his reply inspired this writer to write more letters as there was a feeling that this writer “paid his rent” to his Nation. No wonder, his letter was shown to all friends and relatives. Further, his letter enabled this writer to give a relevant answer to those who constantly asked the question “Did anyone send you any reply to your letters?”

           

                Now the Prime Ministers Office (PMO), apparently, did not disclose anything to the media.

       This prompted The New Indian Express on 4 February 2002 to compare the condition to “black hole”, which gives no signal. The editorial said that the economy had never been in worse since the crisis days of 1991. The editorial ended with the warning that it was the time to engineer another crisis to get everyone on the reforms roads again. The Hindu also came out with similar news on the same day. This showed that the moment the things move against the wishes of the industrialists, the media would engineer one crisis or other.

         

6. AVERTING A CRISIS

6

PRIVATIZATION

AND

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

          On January 1, 2002 one Mr. Mervin Alexander, Chief Vigilance Officer, Cochin shipyard said in The Hindu that Indian Penal Code contained provisions for forcing public servants to do their duty under sections 166 and 167. He quoted from the French writer, Victor Hugo “ there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”. He said that people make or mar nations and that India was ranked 72 out of 91 countries listed in the order from the least corrupt. He, however, added that the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVC) does not reveal the names of the complainants to ensure his/her security. This was the first veiled threat against this writer.

          Coming back, as the Supreme Court remained unmoved for the first point in letter No.3 and the last point in letter No.4, it became clear that the Supreme Court defied the Constitution of India in the BALCO judgment. Obviously, it was a co-conspirator to convert public assets into private assets.   

       Therefore, the following letter No.5,  was sent to the Mr. A.B. Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India, Mr. K.R. Narayanan, President of India besides 18 learned judges of the Supreme Court on 3 January 2002.     

From

          V. SABARIMUTHU

  Thattankonam,

 Vellicode

 Mulagumoodu P.O. PIN: 629167.

To

          Mr. A.B. Vajpayee

Prime Minister of India

                    New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

          Kindly consider the question of examining the following points with regard to the Policy of Privatization vis-à-vis the Constitution of India.

1.                 The decision to introduce the word ‘socialistic’ in the Preamble of the Constitution of India was a well thought out one. After noticing the undercurrent, the word was carefully included to pre-empt the incumbent Governments from deviating from socialistic principles using a simple majority in the Parliament. Till the time of this amendment, the Constitution was biased in favour of capitalism

2.Due to the above amendment, the Council of Ministers and the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts - in their official capacities - shall not do anything to offend or destroy socialism lest they would be incurring disqualification as such a stand would be a violation of the oath taken by them. Any deviation from Democracy, Secularism,  Socialism and Sovereignty by them will be deemed as total defiance of the Constitution entailing automatic disqualification. Oath should not have been administered to Minister for Disinvestments. The Ministry of Disinvestments stands for the destruction of the Constitution and hence it must cease to exist.  The Preamble - unlike the Basic Structure of the Constitution - is not a vague one to leave it to the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

3.          The Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) are governed by reservation norms. Once privatized, the common man will lose this benefit. Further, once a few people from one or two states - using ill-gotten funds, bank funds or public funds - purchase the PSUs, the industry would lose its all India character and the employment opportunities of the people from many regions would be affected. It is against the federal structure of the Constitution.

4.      The vested interests have fielded a syndicate of editors, writers and reporters to keep the mind and tongue of the people under ignorance and they propagate the view that the Government would gain by privatizing the PSUs. They seek to bring down those above the poverty line to a state below the poverty line. 

5.      Despite the best efforts to kill the PSUs, and in spite of all the commissions the system permits, not even one PSU in India has gone the ‘enron way’. If the Private Sector Undertaking goes the ‘enron way’ there will be no mourners except the employees and the poor investors. The majority share holder would slash hundreds of thousands of crore in foreign banks and reappear in another form. In fact, those who raised thousands of crore through public issues survive without spending even 10% of the collected amount. The Government and the CBI must have better knowledge about this matter. 

6.           There is no practical meaning to liberalization, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs). Indian industry had been liberalized long before to the detriment of indigenous technology. Just as the PSUs are handed over to the strategic partners, the licenses had been granted to some individuals to import technology, even obsolete technology. Lylend, Benz, Ambassador, Fiat, and Maruti are all foreign in origin. Most of the shopping items we see in the shops belong to Lever of England although there are Indian prefixes in their names. Money kept abroad by Indian brokers and manipulators reappear in India as FDIs and FIIs. The Government, the Bombay Stock Exchange and the CBI know about this matter better. 

7. A little accountability that exists in the PSUs is lacking in the Private Sector Undertakings. Thus,  when the former Chief of the Nishkalf- a subsidiary of the TATA Finance-went away with Re. 800 crore, it was cited as a case of bad finance in private sector. The fact that India became poorer to that extent was not noticed by anybody.

8.      Indians are hard working in nature. That is why our toiling hands in the form of NRIs flood our banks with money every day. They are property minded and ownership minded also. They consider the PSUs as their own property and alienating them when there is no dearth of funds in banks hurts them just as it hurts the Constitution.

9.       The situation prevailing now in India could be compared to the one that existed in France before the French Revolution or to the condition that is prevailing in Argentina. Banks are flooded with money. Money is siphoned off for sub-lending, brokering and for big buying but there is no money in the hands of the common man. Our javans are not paid immediately after recruitment and those who have not received regular salary for even one month are deployed to border areas. One State Government in early December 2001 decided to stop payment of regular monthly salary to the teachers of aided schools and the bill for December 2001 was returned by the treasury. However, the Government reversed its stand in the last week of December. IT refunds are not given. No LTC. The withdrawals were denied by the UTI. Employees are denied withdrawals from the PF. Bonus denied. Earned leave encashment denied. Many ration items denied. No jobs for the educated. No work for coolies. High interest rates cripple the people. Some kill others. Some steal. Some starve. Some suffer in silence. Some commit suicide. Even if the courts give relief, the state governments cannot do anything because there is no money in the treasury. It is our duty to avert a major humiliating crisis.

10.            Constituting the benches to take out the worst possible judgment is very common.  But the Ministers and the judges becoming accomplices to break the Constitution from within are very rare indeed. In such a situation the Chief Justice can constitute a larger bench to rectify the error or the President of India can demand the opinion of a larger bench. Therefore, the judgment on BALCO must be annulled and the status quo ante of all privatized PSUs restored forthwith to convey the impression that our Constitution despite deadly blows and severe set backs would survive.

Vellicode,                                                                                                        3-1-2002

                                                                             Yours faithfully,

                                                                                                                                                                                                             (V.SABARIMUTHU).

The Deputy Secretary (CM) under direction from the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh state acknowledged the above letters. The acknowledgement letter clearly mentioned the economic deprivation of the rural masses and the federal structure of the Constitution.

         

5. THE PROPHECY OF PRESIDENT K.R. NARAYANAN

5

Mr. K.R. NARAYANAN, President of India.

      Now some attempts were made through suitable persons to get the support of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, President of the Congress party, for deleting the word “Socialism” from the Preamble of the Constitution of India.

         As she did not condescend to the above idea, Mr. Arun Shourie, Union Minister for Disinvestments, observed that consensus - meaning two third majorities - was difficult to achieve and that was the reason why he did not search for it.

        Thus, the Government could not amend the Constitution of India to make the policy of privatization a legal one.  

           In the meantime, the Supreme Court stayed the   ITDC privatization case that had been going on in the High Court, Chennai. The stay was based on the BALCO judgment. The premonition that the Supreme Court was a co-conspirator to remove public assets became apparent.

        According to The Hindu dated 20-12-2001, the Minister suggested closer interaction between the industry, and the judiciary to create a better understanding. Thus The Hindu wanted the employees to submit themselves to the Supreme Court.

        In this connection, it must be noted that on 19 December 2001, Government short-listed three bidders – Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and the IPCL Employee’s Federation, for selling the Indian Petrochemical Corporation Limited (IPCL). For this, the Government sought certain clarifications from the IPCL Employees Federation.

          Here, the IOC was prevented from buying the IPCL because it was a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). The Government said that such an act would defeat the purpose of privatization. Later, the IPCL –for all practical purposes –was sold to the sole bidder – the RIL .

            Unveiling a statue of the “Common Man” at Pune on December 19, 2001 Mr. K.R. Narayanan, His Excellency the President of India,  said that there were many people like the “Common Man” in India and those people would definitely save India. Presumably keeping this writer in mind, the President asked the Government to think of the common man and pave way for getting a good Government.

          It is clear that the President saw the letters of this writer in the light of the Constitution of India. He understood the designs of the Government. But for his intervention, a lot of PSUs would have gone into the hands of the top ten industrialists.

         

          The renegotiation by the BSNL with the vendors –Lucent, Motorola and Ericsson- brought down the total cost to Re. 2044 crore from Re.2230.92. Thus, the Government gained Re. 187 crore. The New Indian Express reported this on 21 December 2001.It must be noted that the first point in the first letter addressed to Mr. A.B. Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India, was to abolish the policy of bulk buying.

          Now, all the State Governments had been plunging into a financial crisis. The Government of Tamil Nadu state issued orders to stop the payment of salaries to the teachers of the aided schools and asked the managements to collect fee from the students to pay salary to the teachers.

      The Treasuries, in fact, returned the bill for December 2001 of several private aided schools for want of orders from the Government.

       Now, it became apparent, that there was no meaning in opposing privatization without giving some more concrete suggestions to mop up revenue.

                 Therefore, a few suggestions were given to Mr. A.B. Vajpayee on 21 December 2001. The same letter was addressed to the President of India, important Chief Ministers and the learned judges of the Supreme Court. This was letter No.4. The letter follows.

 From

V.SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu. P. O. 629167.

  To

Mr. A.B. Vajpayee

Prime Minister of India

Parliament House, New Delhi.

         

Your Excellency,

In order to control the economic deprivation of the rural masses, to raise the much-needed revenue by about Re. 10, 000/-crore per state per year and to protect the federal structure of the Constitution of India, kindly consider the question of:

1. Permitting the State Governments to realize transaction charge.

                   Every money transaction must yield an income to the State Governments as well as to the banks. The idea is to take money from the place where there is money. Thus, for all payments and withdrawals up to Re. 10,000/- the customer must pay Re. 5/- to the State Government and Re. 5/-, (total Rs. 10/-) to the Financial Institution (FI). He must pay Re. 10/- for every additional Re. 10,000/-. The amount collected must be remitted to the state treasury every month and must be reported to the competent authority-preferably to an officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar- in the District.

                   At present there is no income through the above source to the banks, FIs, State Governments or Central Government.

 2. Permitting the State Governments to realize 1% interest on all credits and deposits.

         Every bank and financial institution must remit this amount to the competent authority every month. They must submit a monthly report for the amount kept as deposit and for the amount given as credit. They must keep the surplus funds in the treasury. Interest need not be given to the customers for saving bank accounts but I% interest must be given to the State Governments.

3. Permitting the State Governments to realize income from service charges.

                State Governments must be permitted to realize at least 10% of all service charges such as folio charges, commissions, processing fee, collection charges, courier charges, telephone charges. The amount must be remitted in the treasury every month and a report submitted to the competent authority.

                                                                            

4. Permitting the State Government to raise money during share transfers

            The State Government must get 5% of the net asset value of the shares during its transfer. Similarly, the document fee for property sale must be reduced to 5% of the market value.

5. Permitting the State Governments to realize income from insurance premium.

          Insurance companies other than the LIC of India must remit up to 50% of the premium amount to the State exchequer. The state that provides police protection and customers is entitled for this

6. Giving fillip to the industries, farmers and coolies.

            Those who use indigenous technology must be encouraged to spend more for research. Entrepreneurs and farmers must be given loan at interest rate on par with maximum deposit rates if they pledge their properties. The companies that run financial companies must be forbidden from taking loan from any bank to prevent sub-lending. They must be prevented from charging exorbitant interest because some financiers such as those who give loan for buying vehicles extract as high as 50% interest. For all jewel loans, the interest rates must not be above the maximum deposit rates.

7.                 Strengthening co-operative banks.

            Formers should not be exploited by asking them to have share capital or thrift deposit in the co-operative banks. They should not be forced to buy manure while availing themselves of the loan.

                  

8.Giving educational loans to first generation students.

           All students studying in professional colleges must be given at least Re. 25, 000/-per year through the Principals if their parents are not degree holders.

9.Extending reservation norms to Stock Exchanges and private sector undertakings.

10. Seeking the co-operation of one and all.

            Coolies in the rural areas do not get gob for even two days per week.  Therefore, everybody must work with single-minded devotion to change this scenario.

      Bulk purchasing, selling and bargaining must be avoided at all higher levels so that the multinational corporations would come down to the District level and compete with one another to sell their products.

      The courts should not be cited as the reason for the breakdown of the Constitution or for the plight of the people and everybody must come out with concrete suggestions for the progress of the nation.

Vellicode,                                                                                      Yours faithfully,

21-12-2001

             In the mean time - on 20 January 2002 - The Hindu reported that Mr. Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the USA, intervened with India on behalf of Enron Corporation to make the best out of the Dabhol power project.

          The two-day International Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan was held in Japan. The conference started on 21 January 2002. Mr. Arun Shourie attended the conference. He agreed to give   $100 million to Afghanistan as aid.  Mr. Arun Shourie might have met the Japanese promoter of Maruthi at Japan. However, the people knew nothing, as the newspapers did not disclose anything.

          In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on 20 January 2002 held that the Government had the power to refuse or grant permission for the closure of the industrial establishment after making an enquiry into the grounds of closure.

      On 21 January 2002, Justice V.N.Khare and Justice Ashok Bhan held that the chairman of an industry couldn’t act both as a disciplinary authority and as appellate authority because such a dual function is not permissible on account of established rule against bias.

          Referring to the Enron promoted Dabhol Power Company, Mr. Adarsh Kishore, Additional Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs said that the tariffs agreed for off take of power on take or pay basis were unreasonable and admitted that the then Government committed a mistake. He added that India learned its lessons on foreign investments.          

          The New Indian Express on December 27, 2001 said that the 17% shares held by the Government in Maruthi would be disinvested leaving the Government with 51% equity. The paper reported the statement of Mr. Manohar Joshi that his Department had referred 20 PSUs for privatization.

      However, the Prime Minister, presumably referring to the letters of this writer said - on his birthday on 25 December 2001 - that the beauty of India was that whenever the country was faced with a crisis people became one forgetting their differences.

         

4. THE BALCO Judgment

4

THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT

            On 30 November 2001, the Reliance Industries prepaid $125 million loan taken in 1995 to overseas banks. Earlier, it had prepaid $400 million to the ICICI Ltd 10 years before its maturity.

             Now, two employees of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) hotel obtained a stay from the High Court, Chennai against the privatization of the ITDC hotel at Madurai.  

       The disposition of the Supreme Court was to murder the Constitution of India to remove the wealth of India. But there was no proof for the people to tell this to the Supreme Court.

          Therefore, the message of the Constitution of India to various problems was pointed to the learned judges of the Supreme Court.

        This letter No.3 was sent to Mr. K.R. Narayanan, His Excellency the President of India; on 3 December 2001.The letter follows.

                                                                                                 

From

V. SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam

Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167

To

Mr. K.R.Narayanan

His Excellency the President of India

Presidential Palace

 New Delhi

Your Excellency

             In order to defend and protect the Constitution of India, kindly consider the question of:

1.                             Abandoning the policy of privatization.

       Government is precluded from selling more than 49% of the shares of any Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) on any principle by virtue of the word ‘socialistic’-an economic criterion just like poverty alleviation- introduced in the Preamble of the Constitution.

      A decision taken by majority support cannot undo the decision taken by two third majorities.

          The privatization of the BALCO is, therefore, out and out void.

        The PSUs belong to all people all over India. A handful of people from one or two states grabbing the PSUs with bank, public or ill-gotten funds are against the federal structure of our Constitution, as it would lead to lopsided development leaving the common man with no firm soil to stand.

          The sale of minority shares held by the State is also forbidden because the firm would acquire greater private character.

       However, the government is free to sell them after amending the Constitution suitably.

2. Abolishing   the policy of bulk purchasing.

         Bulk purchasing involves big commissions. The Union Government buying on behalf of the states- and the states buying on behalf of local bodies- must cease.

      There must be competent authorities to certify the absence of bulk purchasing in the Central, State and District levels.

      One can envisage the extent of economic activity all over India if the BSNL, which purchases equipments worth more than Re. 1000 crore every year centrally, directs all the telephone exchanges to buy them locally.

       Obviously the economic deprivation would be compensated by increased job opportunities, sale tax, job satisfaction and so on.

      Similarly, for instance, the Post Masters shall buy but not the Superintendent of Post Offices. 

      The Constitution of India does not give room for any big commissions.

3.                         Giving contract works in pieces and not in one go.

         Now big works are given to big contractors who in turn give them to sub contractors. The sub-contractors hand over the works to still smaller sub-contractors. The reason obviously is big commissions.

        Therefore, consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, the contract works must be given in pieces to encourage the local contractors. There must be competent authorities at all levels to certify this also.                        4. Splitting all PSUs like IOC, BPCL, ONGC, SAIL, BSNL, VSNL into smaller units. 

           In a country where more than 80% of the people go to bed without the means to meet even the day – to - day medical expenses, a few individuals should not be allowed to handle Re. several thousand  crore- several times more than what the Chief Ministers handle- without adequate check and balances and commit big losses.

        The act of splitting the PSUs will promote competition and efficiency.

      The policy of keeping the PSUs as giant organizations is against the spirit of the Constitution of India.

5.      Splitting all financial institutions like banks, LIC, UTI and giving them to the states.

          This is to prevent the flight of capital, and to avoid big commissions and big losses.

      The banks and mutual funds must report to the state government any large scale removal of money from any state.. They must obtain prior permission of the state government before raising and transferring funds.

       The insurance agencies other than the LIC must remit up to 50% of the premium amount to the state Government.

        The federal structure of the Constitution does not permit siphoning of money under any pretext or principle.

6.          Granting licenses through District level offices.

              The Constitution demands that all licenses such as telecom, WLL and export- import code numbers must be given to private parties through the district level offices. This is to avoid favouritism and to give maximum opportunity to maximum number of people.

7.         Annulling the recent decision of the RBI to reserve 5% of the credit to the brokers.

           The act of reserving 5% (about 25000/- crore) of the credit to about 100 brokers of one or two states is unconstitutional. There is no equality of opportunity. The Constitution does not permit gambling in any form for any purpose.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

8.            Reserving 60% of the credit to the rural areas.

         About 75 % of our people live in rural areas. It is, therefore, imperative that at least 60% of the credit from banks must go to them to increase the economic activity in the rural areas.

9.           Controlling lending rates.

  The present deposit rates indicate that the lending rate must be less than 10 % for all kinds of loans. The banks shall function very profitably with service charges alone.

10.         Giving a pension of Re. 500/- per month to all non-pensioners above 60 years.

          People contribute their physical labour to the nation for a span of more than 50 years. They deserve a decent pension in their old age as a matter of right. Since Re. several thousand crore could be collected from service charges alone, there will be no difficulty to implement this.

Yours faithfully,

V.SABARIMUTHU

Vellicode,                                                                                                            3-12-2001.                                                                                                                         

          As soon as the above letter was sent, Mr. L.K. Advani, Home Minister, said that the domestic firms must try to become multinational companies (MNCs). He advised that the “swadeshi” concept should not become synonymous with an anti MNC philosophy.

          Mr. L.K. Advani said the above because there had been some opposition from one or two Union Ministers and some Chief Ministers mainly because of the last two letters. As the media did not publish their discordant notes, nothing came to the surface.

    Thus everyone had to accept his views in this matter.

             Due to his plan, notwithstanding 175 letters from this writer -by April 2011 - the industrialists and other manipulators siphoned off more than $1 trillion from India.                                                                                        

                                                                                                               Mr. Arun Shourie, Minister for Disinvestments, presumably keeping this writer in mind, resented that one could stop everything but no one could do anything. The New Indian Express-through its editorial- reported this with great dismay on 4 December 2001.

                                                                                                              The Hindu on 5 December 2001 said that the disinvestments of Indian Airlines (AI) was totally off but added that the Government would conduct a week long road show in London from 10 December 2001 to sell the Air India((AI).

              Tata withdrew the bid given to buy the AI under the pretext the Singapore International Airline (SIA) –his strategic partner-pulled out.

               The public sector Indian Bank silently hived of its Mutual Fund Schemes, Ind-Shelter, Ind-Tax Shield and Ind- Navrathna to Tata Mutual Fund. The media did not publish the views of the political leaders in this matter.

              The Government decided to conduct a week long Road Show in London from December under the pretext of attracting international bidders for the IPCL.

       The plot of the Government was to sell the IPCL to Reliance Industries Ltd. But the people must think that the Government had no alternative. Therefore, the media talked of the road show.

              As soon as receiving the above letter the Chief Justice of India became very active. He could not predict the nature  of the future letters.  He thought any delay in writing a judgment in favour privatization would be a set back to the conspiracy.

          Evidently, the Chief Justice of India and many learned judges of the Supreme Court were co-conspirators to remove the natural resources and other assets of the nation. The contents of the so-called “Radia tape” in 2010 showed that learned judges – many honest judges included - had been taking orders from the industrialists.

   Thus a three judge bench of the Supreme Court –after a very brief hearing - on 10 December 2001, upheld the decision of Government of India to sell 51 percent of its share in the BALCO at Raipur to the highest bidder - Sterlite Industries- for Re.551.5 crore.

      The Court said that the majority in Parliament approved the economic policy and that the Court was for not considering the merit of the economic policy of the Government.

      The Court thus gave a deadly blow to equality and socialism present in the Preamble.

      Mr. Arun Shourie immediately said that the judgement would enable the Union Government to defend the cases filed in various High Courts.

             

                                                                                                   On 11 December 2001, Pradip Baijal, Secretary, Department of Disinvestments, wrote a letter to various ministries seeking their support for the implementation of the programme of disinvestments. He explained that the sum of Re. 1188 crore garnered through privatization fetched Re. 121 crore as interest whereas the Centre was receiving an average dividend of Re. 7.26 crore only per annum from those companies. Obviously, it was a hallow argument to sell the PSUs.

     Therefore, the above letter dated 3–12-2001 was immediately addressed to all-important Chief Ministers and 14 learned judges of the Supreme Court, the Director, CBI and the important leaders of the opposition parties.

                                                                                                  On 12 December 2001, The New Indian Express demanded the Government to pursue the disinvestments process with renewed vigour without giving any excuses.

      The Hindu in its editorial on 13 December 2001, demanded the Government to fine-tune the disinvestments process.

       Mr. Yashwant Sinha said that  “landmark judgement on the BALCO made the people to accept the unmentionable issue of privatization of Public Sector Undertakings”.

        Immediately, Government decided to disinvest 26% stake in Modern Food Industries Limited (MFIL).

    Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) had been given 74% stake in MFIL in 1999. The privatization of the VSNL, which had offered a special interim dividend of 750%, was also speeded up.

                                                                                                  On 17 December 2001, Mr. Arun Shourie- keeping this writer in mind - bemoaned that the system had become so diffused that anybody writing a letter could stop anything at any stage. He requested the civil servants to break that presumption. He exhorted the bureaucracy to pick up courage to overrule such letters on file. Otherwise, he warned; that he himself would be forced to overrule them.

                                                                                                     With regard to the judgment on the BALCO, Mr. Shourie said that the Supreme Court had reversed the so-called progressive judgments of 1970, 80 and 90s. He said that the immediate consequence of the judgment was that the workers forfeited the right to choose their own employer and that the principles of natural justice did not come into play in regard to policy decisions. He said that the approval of the workers was not needed for buying or selling the shares of the companies.

                                                                                                 

Further, he warned that the delay in economic reforms was weakening the security of the country. He deplored that the policies of the Government were being scuttled by deep-seated “vested interests” at various levels of the Government itself. Therefore, he requested the officials to stand up to anyone blocking the process of disinvestments.

                                                                                                 

Furthermore, addressing the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry on 19 December 2001, Shourie said that all political parties coming to power carried out economic reforms while in opposition continued to oppose them.

       Obviously, he wanted to carry out the plan but the leadership –due to fear- was dithering.