The media has highlighted the end of the Singur strike in a manner that suggests the end has been a happy one. The reality is likely to be quite the opposite. Now that Mamata Banerjee has tasted blood, this will encourage her as well as other political parties to oppose each and every big industrial project. It has to be recognised that every industrial project does cause dislocation. There will always be some who will be hit by such projects, whose land will be taken, and whose livelihood will be affected. The question is whether such events should be allowed to stall a project, especially when the affected persons, as in Singur, are in a majority.
Sujoy Gupta, Kolkata
Patently absurd
The issues referred to in “Patent indifference” (September 3) by M J Antony have far-reaching importance for the relations between Parliament and the executive on the one hand and also underline the importance of delegated legislation on the other.
It is shocking to learn that the executive “owing to pressure groups, change of circumstances, political reasons and plain negligence” does not notify several laws passed by the Parliament. In the absence of any cogent explanation from the concerned minister for the ‘non-action’ of the government, this amounts to sitting on the laws of the land and making them nugatory. Such inactions should have been noticed and questioned by Parliament when the concerned ministry’s issues came up before it. Obviously, Parliament did not do so and the current situation is even perplexing the apex court.
Governance is tough and modern governance is even more complicated. The executive should have adequate powers to administer various statutes without having to knock at the doors of Parliament for every procedural change to implement relevant legislation. Antony has also referred to how the executive has rendered ineffective an important piece of legislation. It is hoped that in the forthcoming session, the concerned minister is grilled on the subject by the Parliament.
More From This Section
More than this, the government will need, by its actions, to create an atmosphere of ‘good and effective governance’, which alone will enable Parliament to grant adequate powers to the government in rule-making.
For instance, the insurance regulator has recently demanded greater flexibility. (“Irda bats for more regulatory flexibility”, September 2) and is asking the government to transfer some issues under insurance laws, like the executive power to increase foreign participation from the current 26 per cent to 49 per cent. This is a fair enough regulatory and executive expectation. Once Parliament has opened up the business to foreign and private participation, the executive should be able to take administrative steps to further liberalise the sector without having to go to Parliament with all its attendant delays — political and procedural. It may be recalled that when C D Deshmukh got the bill to set up LIC in 1956, he obtained the Parliament’s full authorisation to modify it as deemed fit in the changed circumstances.
It seems, however, from Antony’s article that the government has taken such undue liberties with the duly passed laws of Parliament, it is causing doubts in the minds of the people.
The government needs to be given adequate powers but at the same time it needs to act on the legislation as is expected. Sitting on the legislation through the many means that Anthony has revealed will only make Parliament cautious in granting the government such powers in future. The loser in the situation is the public.
S Subramanyan, on e-mai