IAS/PCS/CSAT Coaching

CAG raises queries on delay in pipeline projects

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has sought answers from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry over the inadequate progress made in execution of transnational pipeline projects including the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, the TAPI gas pipeline and the now almost defunct Myanmar-Bangladesh-India gas pipeline.

 “Transnational pipelines are difficult and complex ventures since they involve different countries with different economic and political interests. Besides, they pass through difficult terrain, as also politically- and environmentally-sensitive areas, and hence, require mobilisation of huge financial and technological resources,” the CAG observed.

The queries are part of the Performance Audit on “Supply and Pricing of Natural Gas” being carried out by the official government auditor.

Unresolved issues

“The TAPI project has been in discussion for almost about 23 years posing a significant potential for the energy security of the country but still issues relating to price, security and gas certification remain unresolved,” the CAG communication states. There seems to be uncertainty in import of gas through pipelines due to geo-political, technological and security reasons from the beginning, it said.

It said the 1,680-km Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline will cost $7.6 billion and carry 38 million standard cubic meters per day of gas for India and Pakistan each from 2018.

Similarly, CAG said the IPI was conceptualised in early 1989 as Iran-Pakistan pipeline worth $2 billion. India joined the project in 2005 and two years later agreed to pay $4.93 per million British Thermal Unit (mbtu) for buying gas from Iran. The pipeline, which was expected to carry 8.7 billion cubic meters of gas, was slated for completion in 2013. India withdrew from the project in 2009 citing security concerns and price of gas. However, Iran and Pakistan have gone ahead with the project and construction of the Pakistan section was inaugurated in March this year and is expected to be completed in 22 months.

The Myanmar-Bangladesh-India pipeline was mooted in 1997. The 900-km line was to source gas from Mayanmar and Bangladesh for supply into India. New Delhi reached an agreement with Dhaka and Yangon in 2005. Bangladesh, however, withdrew from the project after India refused to accept its three additional conditions. The line from Myanmar was re-routed through Mizoram, Tripura and Assam into Kolkata. While there were security-related issue, Mayanmar in 2008 concluded a gas sale deal with China.

Ahead of fodder case verdict comes ordinance to protect lawmakers

The Union Cabinet on Tuesday, negating a Supreme Court ruling, cleared an ordinance that will protect convicted MPs and MLAs from immediate disqualification, provided their appeal against the conviction and sentence is admitted by a higher court within 90 days, and both the conviction and the sentence are stayed. Till the matter is settled, the MP or the MLA, the ordinance says, will not be entitled to vote nor draw a salary and allowances, but may continue to participate in the proceedings of Parliament or State Legislatures, as the case may be.

Significantly, this comes six days ahead of a possible conviction of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav: the special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court dealing with a case relating to the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 37 crores from the Chaibasa treasury in the 1996 fodder scam, that has completed its hearings, has reserved its order for September 30.

The Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 which deals with those in lawful custody but not convicted. The central argument propounded in favour of this bill was that in politics, false cases are often filed against rivals, and, therefore, mere arrest cannot be sufficient cause for making a legislator resign, or prevent him — or her — from contesting the elections.

Indeed, it was one of the two bills that were drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment of July 10 that pronounced that sitting legislators either jailed on charges, or after conviction, would have to resign their seats forthwith. The bill relating to those jailed on charges was cleared by Parliament; the one relating to those convicted has now been converted into an ordinance.

However, while the ordinance will help convicted MLAs and MPs retain their seats, it cannot help them to contest elections again: for that they would have to go to court once more to seek a stay again on the sentence and conviction, as the BJP MP from Amritsar, Navjot Singh Sidhu, did after he was convicted of murder in 2006. He resigned his seat, but the following year in 2007, he went to the Supreme Court, got a stay on his conviction and sentence and fought a by-election. In the hypothetical case of Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav getting convicted on September 30, he would have to first seek a stay on his conviction and sentence to retain his seat — if, thereafter, he wishes to contest in 2014, he would have to go back to court again to seek another stay.

Aadhaar stalled

The Supreme Court issued an interim order on September 23, 2013, on a public interest litigation challenging certain aspects of the UID Aadhaar project. As reported by the media, the interim order brings out two main points: (1) Aadhaar enrolment of immigrants living in India without proper papers should not be done, and (2) Central and State governments must not deny essential services and benefits solely on the basis of non-enrolment in the project.

The first point concerns the Aadhaar system itself. An Aadhaar applicant needs to provide proof of identity (including age) and address using one of several approved documents, such as an electoral photo identity card or passport, before his/her biometrics are captured. But very poor people, for example pavement dwellers, may have no identity document with proof of age, and certainly no address. However, the Aadhaar system caters to such people with the Registrar (State government) notifying a trained introducer who, in effect, contacts the enrolment centre staff, vouching for the person who states that he is Mr. X of so-and-so address is indeed Mr. X of that address.

Thus, the biometrics captured are shown to belong to Mr. X with those details. In practice, the introducer may know only a fraction of the people without such documents who apply for the Aadhaar card by sight or acquaintance, and he/she could unwittingly introduce an immigrant without proper documentation. Even if the introducer knows Mr. X by sight or acquaintance, he has really no means to know whether he is a citizen or a legal resident. The apex court’s order that immigrants without proper documentation must not be enrolled effectively puts introducers “out-of-business,” and thus the poor who have no documents cannot be enrolled. Clearly, the Aadhaar project has not foreseen the risk of immigrants without proper documentation getting themselves enrolled, with attendant security risks.

Benefits

The second point concerns benefits, since the court has said “the Centre and State governments must not insist on Aadhar cards from citizens before providing them essential services.” Thus, for example, oil companies will need to supply LPG cylinders by receiving the subsidised cost at delivery for customers who are not Aadhaar-enrolled, and Public Distribution System ration shops will need to provide rations to entitled persons on the basis of valid ration cards.

The UIDAI may appeal against the apex court’s order especially since Rs.50,000 crore has been spent. Meanwhile, the interim order requires the Central and State governments to provide essential services and benefits to the public without insisting on Aadhaar enrolment.

MGNREGA 2.0

It is only natural that a large programme like the MGNREGA, the most ambitious employment programme in human history, is subjected to fierce public scrutiny and criticism. A lot of the critique is well founded and if you read the 12^th Plan document, it takes a lot of it on board. But it goes one step further and shows a greater sense of balance. It acknowledges the massive achievements of the programme in terms of employment to the most marginalised sections, rise in real wages and poverty reduction. At the same time, it provides an exhaustive critique of the programme and suggests a way forward based on the recommendations of the Mihir Shah Committee that led to the formulation of MGNREGA 2.0

What is so new about MGNREGA 2.0?

MGNREGA 2.0 is an attempt to overcome the weaknesses of the earlier programme and infuse it with a truly livelihood generation character through a focus on the creation of durable assets and improvement in rural productivity. The vision is of an initiative whose success breeds its own demise, with more and more people no longer requiring its support.

How can this happen?

Not many people know that a very high proportion of agricultural labour households in India actually own land. The percentage is around 50 in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, 60 in Odisha and Uttar Pradesh and over 70 in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. And if we focus on adivasis, the proportion shoots up to as high as 76-87 per cent in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Rajasthan. Millions of these small and marginal farmers are forced to work under MGNREGA because the productivity of their own farms is no longer enough to make ends meet. MGNREGA will become really powerful when it helps rebuild this decimated productivity of small farms.