The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by Mr. A. B. Vajpayee wanted to convert the public resources of India into private assets. The reason given was fiscal deficit.

The ruling class of India wanted the Government to hand over the Public-Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to them on business principle. They said that the Government has no business to do business. They described this as reform.

In 2001, the Government handed over the public sector Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO) to a private company and disclosed its intension to privatize all other major PSUs.

The unconstitutional nature of the conversion of public assets into private assets disturbed the mind of all right-thinking people.

Therefore, the present man gave some suggestions to Prime Minister of India Mr. A.B. Vajpayee to manage the fiscal deficit and to save the PSUs.

Though he took some solid positive steps, the system refused to listen. Therefore, letters were sent to the President of India.

The then President of India, Mr. K.R.Narayanan, wanted to protect the public assets. But he could not. Thirty-two PSUs – the VSNL and the IPCL included- were privatized during his Presidency. The Prime Minister of India did it with the help of 21 coalition parties.

Then Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam became the President of India. He stubbornly opposed privatization. He did not allow the privatization of any PSUs for a long time. However, defying him a decision was taken in August 2003 to privatize the Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL). This prompted him to talk about corruption. After this, a decision was taken to privatize the airports in Mumbai and Delhi. In utter desperation, he began to recite prayers. At times, he rejected the protocols to talk against corruption. This forced the Government to retreat. The airports were not handed over to the private parties.

The differences between the Prime Minister and the President over the privatization issue were so-sharp that the former said that the differences should not develop into personal grudge.

The President also prayed that the differences should not develop into personal grudge.

Finally, the HPCL/BPCL judgment of the Supreme Court of India restrained the Government from selling the PSUs without the prior approval of the Parliament.

After twenty-four letters, the Prime Minister decided to abdicate power, and dissolved the Parliament. He managed to privatize just two major PSUs under President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

After demitting office, he said that he did not possess any real power as the Prime Minister of India. He added that he would embrace death rather than allowing his name to be maligned.

Introduction

The news media in India had been propagating the view that the Government should not do business. They said that the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) should be privatized for the economic development of India. They intensified this idea after 1991. In sharp contrast, China had been strengthening its State Owned Enterprises (SOE).

Mr. A. B. Vajpayee was sworn in as the Prime Minister of India on 13 October 1999.

In 2000, the Government of India itself disseminated the view that the Public Sector Banks (PSBs) would become unviable due to the competition from the private banks, and disclosed its intention to denationalize them.

The Government, further, said that the fiscal deficit could be managed only through privatization.

Protesting the move of the Government, 10.5 lakh Bank Employees went on a token strike on 15 Nov 2000.

The public, as usual, ignored the strike.

Next day, the Union Cabinet decided to reduce the Government’s share (stake or equity) in PSBs to 33 percent. The Government did it as an instantaneous but premeditated retaliatory answer to the strike.

The decision shocked the mind of all right-thinking people in India.

Thus, the Government showed to the world that the employees lacked public support for their agitation against privatization.

The print media instilled the public against the employees to achieve their objectives.

The Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments (CCD) in November 2000 - at the behest of the ruling class (ruling class = the vested interests that remove the public resources and rule India) - identified 38 units for immediate privatization.

Air India (AI), Indian Airlines (IA), Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), National Aluminium Company Limited (Nalco), Mahanagar Telephone Niham Limited (MTNL) and Maruthi Udyog Limited (MUL) were the important units mentioned in the list.

Further, the print media said that all PSUs - the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and the Railways included - would be privatized very soon. Accordingly, the Government, in a hurry, invited bids for the privatization of the IA and the AI.

The print media supported the privatization moves of the Government. It said that the fear of stick alone would make the employees to do their work.

The media suppressed the voices that opposed the privatization moves of the Government although “The Hindu”, one day, in an insignificant manner revealed the view of Justice Ramaswamy. The latter had said that the privatization of the PSU Banks was perverse in law.

To reveal its determination, the Union Government, in February 2001, sold public sector Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO) to a member of the ruling class just for Re.500 crore..

The message was that the privatization of all other entities was not far away.

This sent shock waves across the mind of all right-thinking people.

The Budget for 2001-2002 envisaged privatization for Re. 12,000/- crore.

There were reports that Mr. Ketan Parekh, a broker boy, siphoned off Re. 3100/- crore to Switzerland.

Further, there were reports that all State Governments were in the red.

The employees believed that even the retirement benefits would be given in the form of bonds only.

Fearing cut in retirement benefits, many employees opted for voluntary retirements from service.

Everyone came out with his own theory to solve the problem.

The theories led the people to believe that the only way to solve the problem was to sell the PSUs.

The despondency of the people was such that a colleague of this writer, a Mr. M. Jochim, Lecturer in Mathematics, Lekshmipuram College, Neyyoor, said, “Sir, there is no hope! They are going to privatize everything…”

His words reverberated in the mind of this writer.

Further, the rate of public investments in many States and Districts in India during the 50 years since independence were far less than that during the 50 years preceding independence.

This writer felt that the flight of capital and the removal of the public resources were responsible for it.

Former Prime Minister of India Mr. Chandra Sekhar said that the Government had no money to run the nation.

Complementing the ruling class, the Government said that the government has no business to do business and that all industries must be handed over to the private parties.

Now, there was a sudden feeling that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government was going astray.

In this connection, this writer felt that the media was manipulating the economic policies of the Government for the benefit of the ruling class that comprised ten men.

Disturbed by the developments, this writer wanted to know whether the problem was a real or imaginary one. Therefore, a letter was dropped to Prime Minister of India Mr. A.B. Vajpayee on 1 June 2001.

The first letter

The first letter was written in such way to catch the attention of Prime Minister of India Mr. A.B. Vajpayee.

As the prime ministers are ordinarily busy, the letter was dispatched when he was taking rest at a hospital in Mumbai after his knee operation. The same letter was sent to a number of chief ministers and the prominent leaders of political parties. Later, the copy of this letter was sent to His Excellency the President of India. The letter follows.

From

V. Sabarimuthu,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu, P.O, 629167

Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,

Parliament House,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the question of:

1 Constitutionally preventing bulk purchasing to avoid big commissions.

2 Awarding contract works in pieces and not in one go.

3 Splitting big financial institutions like the UTI, LIC, Banks and giving them to State Governments to check flight of capital and to prevent big losses.

4 Banning banks from giving advances against shares on any account even for normal investment activities to pluck loopholes.

5 Passing a bill to effectively confiscate thousands of crore amassed by brokers, corporate houses and manipulators and kept abroad since 1990 to prevent them from buying public sector undertakings

6 Realizing at least one percent interest on all deposits and credits and ten percent of all service charges and processing fees.

7 Granting all licenses including telecom, WLL to private parties through the State Governments to realize maximum income and to avoid favoritism.

8 Splitting the ONGC, SAIL and BSNL to promote competition and to prevent big commissions

9 Giving exports licenses and code numbers through district level offices.

10 Devising a scheme to encourage expatriate workers to send money through banking channel.

Yours faithfully

V.Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

1-6-2001

The letter, apparently, reached the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO); an officer took a positive note, and handed over the letter to the Prime Minister while he was taking rest at Mumbai after his knee operation. A TV channel showed Mr. Vajpayee reading the piece of paper sent by me. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that the Prime Minister, at that time, said that the teachers must talk more.

The officer responsible for showing the letter to the Prime Minister deserves honour because it was an inspiration.

The extraordinarily active interest taken by the Prime Minister was an impressive one.

After his return from Mumbai, he called for a revision of Government policies and programmes. Perhaps, the Prime Minister was frightened by the magnitude of the impending manipulations. He apparently wanted his colleagues to be careful with the deals. Accordingly, the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments (CDD), on 4 July 2001 decided not to sell the PSUs to

1.Those who were a threat to the security of India,

2.Those who keep ill-gotten wealth and

3. Those who committed “grave offences”. The grave offence was defined as one, which outraged the moral sense of the community.

The Government, further, clarified that for matters other than security, any conviction by a court or an indictment by a regulatory authority for a “grave offence” would be enough.

Based on the above guidelines, the CCD disqualified the bids of Hindujas for buying the AI because of their involvement in the Bofors case.

Videocon and Sterlite were disqualified because they were indicted by the SEBI.

The bids of Tata and the SIA were neither accepted nor rejected.

In fact, to do the job with care and circumspection, the Government deferred the proposal of selling the AI to them.

However, the Government, consistent with the demand of this writer, imposed 5% service tax on a number of items to mobilize 10,000/- crore. Fifteen more items were added on 9 July 2001.

Thus, the Government could very easily compensate the amount that would have accrued to it through disinvestments. The suggestion to impose service tax, in fact, saved India from a grave fiscal crisis.

The shocked Minister for Disinvestments, Mr. Arun Shourie, said that possible competitors through exchange of money sabotaged the privatization of the IA and the AI. He chose not to disclose the actual reason.

The newspapers, and, therefore, the ruling class, were shocked by the developments.

One Mr. Sailesh Kottary said through The Indian Express, on 9 July 2001, that the employees of Air India were responsible for the developments.

The industry was equally embarrassed by the new stand of the Government. They said that charges of said nature in business were not unexpected.

Mr. Hinduja very politely said that the Government should not have changed the rules of the game when the game was nearly over.

Mr. Bal Thakkery, Chief of the Shiv Sena, threatened to withdraw the support of his party to the Government saying that he was opposed to Indo-Pak talks.

The new guideline issued for selling the PSUs actually divided the corporate houses.

The newspapers began to attack the Government.

The New Indian Express - through its editorial on 25 July 2001 - asked the political parties not to allow the “whale”, meaning Prime Minister, to get away with its misdemeanors.

Next day, The Hindu exhorted the Congress President to take on the BJP-led challenge in the wider national arena and wanted her to prove her mettle.

A Mr. Bharat Jhunjhunwala, on 1 August 2001, through an article in The Indian Express wanted the people to oppose the policy of the Government to do business. He said that the profits of the PSUs came from monopolies that existed in oil and telecom sectors.

The Indian Express, on the same day, said that the Prime Minister was under a cloud visa vise the Unit Trust of India (UTI).

The other newspapers also wanted the Prime Minister to come clean on the UTI affair.

One Mr. C. Rammanohar Reddy, on 12 August 2001, through an article in The Hindu, said that the sale of State assets to the preferred buyers and subsidized finances to favoured enterprises were all for a price. He substantiated this by the words of Mr. Arun Shourie, the Minister for Disinvestments. That writer said that favoured companies were manipulating the policies and rules in the economic ministries over which the Office of the Prime Minister had total control. The same writer deplored that the corrupt politicians-cum-entrepreneur operated through shell companies established in Mauritius or many Atlantic tax havens and assessed funds slashed in Singapore, Dubai, London and Zurich.

Next day, a Mrs. Sushma Ramachandran advised the Government to wind up the “Civil Services” as they were impediment for disinvestments. She exhorted the Government to devise a transparent guideline for disinvestments with the help of technocrats and specialists from industry.

One Mr. P.V.Indiresan of The Hindu wanted the Prime Minister, in August 2001, to step down to save his reputation.

Shiva Sena again threatened to withdraw its support opposing Indo-Pak talk at Agra.

The media, further, wanted the Government to bring the rural rich under the tax net, stop giving food grains, freeze the Dearness Allowance (D.A) and introduce the Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS).

In the meantime, the UTI sought a loan of Re. 2000 crore from the State Bank of India. Realizing the dangers, the following letter was sent to the Chief Justice of India on 24 July 2001.

From

V.SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu P.O.629167.

Justice Anand,

Chief Justice of India,

Supreme Court, New Delhi.

Your Lord,

Sub: PIL to restrain banks from giving a loan of Re. 2000 crore to the Unit Trust of India-reg

The money from all over India flows to Mumbai through financial institutions like banks, LIC, UTI. There, some brokers and some corporate houses use the funds to manipulate the stock exchange, and siphon off Re.hundreds of thousands of crore to other countries. Though part of the money reappears in India as FII and through over invoicing/ under invoicing/ of exports/ imports, major portion goes into oblivion. This affects the economic activity all over India. Small businessmen, employees and the common man are the worst affected. Even 20% of the basic pay as interim relief to employees would not compensate for the harm caused by the siphoning of money by brokers and corporate houses in this year alone. In the past, they succeeded in maintaining high interest rates and this crippled almost all industries in India. Now they suggest (1) freezing of the D.A. (2) VRS and (3) and controlling lavish spending by M.L.As., M.Ps. and the Government.

Distressed by the above, a letter was written by me to the Constitutional Review Commission on 30.7.2000 to split the Public Sector Undertakings such as banks. Had the Commission acted on it, the Re. 20,000/- crore loss suffered by the UTI could have been averted. Later, on 1-6-2001, a letter (copy enclosed) was written to the Prime Minister of India to restrain-among other things- banks from giving any advances against any shares. The letter is pending before the Prime Minister.

Now the UTI, instead of asking the corporate houses to remit the amount received by them from the UTI over and above the net asset value of the shares, has sought a loan of Re. 2000 crore from the nationalized banks. The loan, if given, would affect the day-to-day life of all people all over India.

Therefore, this letter may kindly be treated as public interest litigation, and the banks be restrained from giving any loan to the UTI till the disposal of my letter before the Prime Minister or this petition before the Supreme Court.

Thanking your lord

Yours faithfully

V.Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

24-7-2001

The Chief Justice of India did not accept the above letter as a writ petition. However, he might have informed this matter to the Prime Minister of India as the banks turned down the request of the UTI. But for the above two letters, the banks might have given the money to the UTI and all banks in India would have become bankrupt like the Global Trust Bank. The Government had to/ give about Re. 30,000 crore to the UTI later. Thus, the two letters saved India from a grave economic crisis. The service tax became a great boon to the Government to overcome the fiscal crisis.

However, the Government did not give any credit to this writer for the suggestion. The Government did not claim any credit for itself for imposing this tax either.

Coming back, as if to give a fitting reply, the Prime Minister, in his Republic Day address from the Red Fort on 15 August 2001, said that profits earned by “hook or by crook” should not be the sole criterion for judging the success of a business. He added that the Government would not “turn a blind eye” to corruption how high a chair they might occupy.

True to his words, the Chairman of USHA Ltd was arrested for Re.44.75 crore.

One Mr. Subash Rastogi was arrested for overprizing the exports.

In the meantime, the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in its interim report on stock markets said that the brokers were able to build up concentrated positions utilizing the funds available to them from the overseas corporate bodies, Indian Corporate Houses and the banking system.

‘The Hindu’ wanted the Government to spare the corporate houses from investigations.

‘The Indian Express’ on 20 August 2002 disclosed that several corporate houses absconded after collecting Re. several thousand crore through mega issues. In this connection, the paper mentioned Mrs. Rita Singh, Mr. Sailesh Kattary and Mr. Kumar of Delhi.

Mr. Chandra Shekhar, a former prime minister of India, on 21 August 2001 said in in the Lower House that a particular industrial house had stranglehold over the Government, and could get decisions in its favour.

Mr. Dasmunshi described the UTI as the United Thieves of India.

Mr. Kirit Somayya of the BJP said that the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) had looted the UTI, and made it bankrupt.

Mr. Alvi said that the Prime Minister did not answer his letter against the RIL. He said that even the portfolios were determined by the RIL.

Mr.Arun Shourie, on 24 August 2001, said that the avalanche of allegations against potential buyers of PSUs was scaring them away. He added that the potential buyers, by staying in the race were, needlessly persisting in a minefield.

The New Indian Express, on 25 August 2001, through one Mr. Sunil Jain said that several industrial houses had systematically abused Indian Financial Institutions and Banks. He cited several examples including the misuse of the IFCI by Indocount Choongnam Textiles Ltd, the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) by a sponge iron unit in April 1992, and the investment of over Re. 850 crore in preference shares. Therefore, the paper sought a lenient view against the present culprits.

On 26 August 2001, The New Indian Express, driven by ambition to usurp, demanded the Government to withdraw from all sectors except those concerned with the security of the country.

. Writing for The Indian Express Mr. T.V.R. Shenoy, on 30 August 2001, unleashed several allegations against the Prime Minister, and gave a suggestion to change the presiding physician meaning the Prime Minister.

The print media, in fact, wanted to pull down the Government. It deplored that the Congress President, failed to avail herself of the opportunity provided by them to pull down the Government.

As a copy of the letter had been sent to the Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, she was aware of the reasons for the developments and, therefore, maintained a studied silence.

During the Chief Minister’s conference on co-operative credit system, the Minister for Finance wanted to end dual control over co-operative banks. He wanted to bring the co-operative banks under the control of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) based on the recommendation of the task force on co-operative credit system. He said this presumably to make the deposits in them accessible for the ruling class through a single window. However, Mr. Agit Singh, Minister for Agriculture, and the Chief Ministers stoutly opposed the recommendation and the move was dropped.

The exasperated leaders in the BJP wanted some radical changes in the Government. It must be noted that this writer had sent the copies of the letters to Mr.Agit Singh. Later, he lost his position in the Cabinet presumably due to the estrangement that started from this day.

The Prime Minister made some changes in Government as if he had no alternative. Thus, the Minister for Disinvestments was elevated to the Cabinet rank. Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan was transferred to Coal and Mines. Mr. Sharad Yadav was shifted to another Ministry. A crucial new post was created in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). For this post, Mr. Vijay Goel M.P. from Delhi was appointed.

The Prime Minister then convened the meeting of the Advisory Council of the Trade and Industry for reviving the economy.

A series of meetings were conducted with various committees. The RBI Governor, Minister for Commerce Mr. Murasoli Maran, Minister for Law Mr. Arun Jaitly, Minister for Power Mr. Suresh Prabhu, Minister for Disinvestments Mr. Arun Shourie, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission Mr. K.C. Pant, Industrialists Mr. Sanjeev Goenka, Mr. Chirayu Amin, Mr. Reghu Moody, Mr. Ratan Tata, Mr. Kumaramangalam Birla and Mr. Mukesh Ambani besides the Home Minister attended the meeting.

The Prime Minister conveyed the decision of the Government to utilize the surplus deposits in banks for large scale development of roads, railways ports and PSUs, and requested the industry to ride on the back of higher public investments.

This conveyed the impression that the Government embraced the views of this writer and as such it no longer wanted to mobilize resources through disinvestments.

But the ruling class was disappointed. A powerful syndicate began to work in private interest. This syndicate had stranglehold over the entire system. A sinister privilege began to play in private interest either presumably due to some pressure from within or the Prime Minister himself decided to work in selfish interest and private interest.

Thus, within two days, the Economic Advisory Council was convened presumably at the instance of the ruling class. Mr. Yashwant Sinha, Minister for Finance, Dr. Kirit Parekh, Dr. Amaresh Bagchi, Mr. Jagdish Shettigar, Dr. Rakesh Mohan, Dr. Vaidyanathan, Dr. Shankar Acharya, Dr. Ashok Lahiri and Dr.R.K.Pachauri, attended the meeting. The special invitees included Mr. K.C.Pant, Mr. Murasoli Maran, Mr. Suresh Prabu, Mr. Arun Shourie, Mr. Agit Singh, Mr. Arun Jaitly, Mr. B.C. Khanduri, Mr. N.K.Singh and the Governor of the RBI, Mr. Vimal Jalan.

The ruling class succeeded in torpedoing an excellent opportunity to develop India by leap and bounds through public investments. Thus, Mr.Yashwant Sinha opposed a massive public investment programme to reverse the economic slowdown.

Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee was virtually not allowed to talk.

A sea change in the policy occurred as the Government gave in to the pressure, and resumed privatization. The Prime Minister lost full control over the system, and began to play a new role that too reluctantly. Thus, the Prime Minister, instead of watching and supervising the administration, allowed this syndicate to determine the priorities of the land. Within a few days, the Government sold the public sector Computer Maintenance Corporation (CMC) which had been showing a growth rate of 27% in preceding three years, to Tata Sons for Re 207 crore, at a price lower than the market price; and the Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd (HTL) to Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd for Re.152 crore.

Mr. C.R.L. Narasimhan of The Hindu and other newspapers commended the privatization policy of the Government.

Mr.Harkishan Singh Surjeets, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI-M), however, pointed out that “Modern Foods” which was worth nearly Re.2,200 crore was sold to Hindustan Lever for a paltry Re.150 crore and the BALCO was thrown away for 10% of its estimated value of Re.5,500 crore.

While selling the PSUs, Prime Minister, in vain, said that the Government was opposed to the privatization of profits and the socialization of pains.

In the second week of November, the Prime Minister left New Delhi for a ten-day tour of Russia and the USA after substituting Mr. Ajit Kumar by Mr. C.M.Vasudev as Finance Secretary. The reason for the substitution was known to Mr. Ajit Kumar and the Prime Minister only.

In the absence of the Prime Minister, the CCD chaired by Home Minister Mr. L.K. Advani decided to sell 51 percent equity in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) including 26 percent to a strategic partner in 90 days. Besides, there were reports that the public sector VSNL would be sold.

At the same time, the public sector Bank of India (BoI), gave an advance of Re. 845 crore to the Tata Finance. No reason was given for the huge advance.

In the meantime, the US Federal Reserve imposed a hefty $7.5 million fine on the State Bank of India for collecting money violating several local laws.

The seventh Inter State Council (ISC), was convened as soon as the Prime Minister returned from the USA. In the meeting, Mr. Chandra Babu Naidu asserted that Re. 9 lakhs could be collected from service tax alone. Further, the meeting accepted the demand of the Chief Ministers to bring taxation matters under concurrent list. It was a step beyond the Sarcaria Commission recommendation.

Now the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) allowed the banks to give 5% of their deposits as credit to brokers. It was an unconstitutional decision.

‘The New Indian Express’ on 17 November 2001 said that Government would have to pump in Re. 10,000/-crore to keep the Indian banks healthy and stable, and wanted to raise capital directly by diluting its holding.

Mr. Arun Shourie, the Minister for Disinvestments, said that the process to sell the public sector VSNL and the Indo-Burma Petroleum (IBP) were on course. He added that the old stories would not be repeated, and the PSUs would be sold as planned.

The Minister for Finance reinforced his view that there would be no holding back of reforms (privatization).

Now, the Ministry of Communication asked the BSNL to renegotiate prices for buying the equipment for its countrywide cell phone network. The winning companies had hiked prices by forming a Cartel. The new Indian Express on 23 November 2001 described this as a trick by the Ministry. The companies involved were Motorola, Lucant and Ericsson.

Due to the above developments, one more letter (letter No. 2) was sent to the Prime Minister and the important Chief Ministers on 20 November 2001.

A prayer

From

V.Sabarimuthu,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu, P.O.629167.

Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,

Parliament House,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

While our toiling hands in the form of NRIs flood the banks with Re. hundreds of crore every day, the Government is selling the Public Sector Undertakings, (PSUs), the value of which cannot be measured in terms of money. The PSUs belong to all people all over India and the act of giving them to a few people of one or two States under any principle is not only painful but also it would lead to lopsided development leaving the common man with no firm soil to stand. In fact, our IAS officers are capable of running them more efficiently and more profitably than others provided they are split into smaller units. Even in England, the privatization of railways ended in fiasco. Even if the private industry becomes sick, the Government must bail them out. As such, we must save our PSUs and maintain the diversity in industry. Further, to buy one PSU after another with bank funds, public funds or ill-gotten funds, the industrialists refrain from starting any new industries and it is one of the reasons for the recession. Above all, the mind and tongue of our people are governed by ignorance mainly due to our print media and it is our paramount duty to preserve the PSUs with perseverance for the benefit of posterity.

In the light of the above and in continuation of my letter dated 1-6-2001, kindly consider the question of:

1. Abandoning the policy of privatization to encourage the corporate houses to start new ventures.

2. Banning all financial institutions (FIs) from collecting more than 10% interest on any kind of loan and rescheduling all existing loans to save the people from the debt trap.

3. Making it mandatory for all banks and FIs to report to the Chief Minister any transaction over Re.one crore and to get the clearance of the State Cabinet for transaction over Re. ten crore as in the USA.

4. Directing all banks and all FIs to disburse 60% of the credit to the rural areas to uplift the rural masses.

5. Annulling the recent decision of the Governor, RBI, to give 5% (nearly 25,000 crore) of the credit to brokers because the act of giving any money to about 100 broker boys of one or two states is anti-constitutional, as it would affect the interest of all people all over India.

6. Permitting the major State Governments to collect at least Re. 10,000 crore each from all kinds of service charges in this year alone.

7. Directing all insurance companies other than the LIC to remit 30% of the premium amount to the State Governments.

8. Giving an interim relief of 30% to all employees and Re.500 per month to all non-pensioners above 60 years in order to control recession.

9. Granting a pension to NRIs proportionate to the amount sent by them through banks and paying a lump sum to the people dying in harness to control hawala transactions and

10. Asking all Punchayats all over India to construct one auditorium or one hospital each using bank loan as it is a self-sustaining one.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicoe

20-11-2001

The above letter was sent to prominent leaders of the political parties also. A copy was sent to President of India along with the copy of the first letter.

After receiving this letter, DMK President said that the DMK favoured retention of the PSUs by the Government. He wanted the Government to encourage the Corporate Houses to start new ventures to create new jobs.

Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav- immediately after the receipt of the letter- requested the Government to preserve the PSUs by infusing more money into them.

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.

Two employees of the ITDC hotel obtained a stay against the privatization of the ITDC hotel in Madurai, from the High Court, Chennai.

As the nation was not under the control of the Prime Minister of India, the letter No.3 was sent to His Excellency the President of India on 3 December 2001. The copies of the two letters sent to the Prime Minister of India were attached along with this letter.

The view of Mr. K.R. Narayanan

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam, Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan (Presidential Palace), New Delhi

Your Excellency

To defend and protect our Constitution, 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 our Constitution. A decision taken by majority support cannot undo the decision taken by two third majorities. 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 them with bank, public or ill-gotten funds is against the federal structure of our Constitution, as it would lead to lopsided development leaving the common man with no firm soil to stand. Sale of minority shares held by the State is also forbidden because the firms 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 policy of the Centre buying on behalf of the States and the PSUs- and the States buying on behalf of local bodies and their PSUs- 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, that purchases equipment 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. Our Constitution 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 our Constitution, contract works must be given in pieces to encourage 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 hundreds of thousands of 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 our Constitution.

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

This is to prevent flight of capital, and to avoid big commissions and big losses. The banks and the mutual funds must report to the State Government any flight of capital from one State to another. They must obtain prior permission of the State Governments 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 our 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 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 brokers.

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 Rs. 500/- per month to all non-pensioners above 60 years.

People contribute their physical labor 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 lakhs of 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, the Home Minister, said that the domestic firms must try to become multinational companies (MNCs). He advised that “swadeshi” concept should not become synonymous with an anti MNC philosophy.

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

The Hindu, on 5 December 2001, said that the disinvestment of Indian Airline was totally off but added that the Government would conduct a weeklong road show in London from 10 December 2001.

Tata withdrew the bid given to buy the AI under the pretext that 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 Government decided to conduct a week long Road Show in London from December under the pretext of attracting international bidders for the IPCL.

As soon as the above letter was sent, the Chief Justice of India became very active and the Supreme Court, 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 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 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 vigor 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 the “landmark judgement on the BALCO made the people to accept the unmentionable issue of privatization of Public Sector Undertakings”.

Immediately, the Government decided to disinvest 26% shares in the public sector Modern Food Industries Limited (MFIL).

The Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) had been given 74% shares in the MFIL in 1999.

The privatization of the VSNL, that offered a special interim dividend of 750%, was also speeded up.

On 17 December 2001, Disinvestments Minister Mr. Arun Shourie presumably 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 judgement on the BALCO, Mr. Shourie said that the Supreme Court had reversed the so-called progressive judgements of 1970, 80 and 90s. He said that the immediate consequence of the judgement 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, Mr. Shourie said that all political parties coming to power carried out economic reforms while in opposition continued to oppose them.

Now some attempts were made to get the support of Congress President for removing the word “Socialism” from the Preamble. As the Congress President did not condescend to this idea, he observed that consensus - meaning two third majorities - was difficult to achieve and that was the reason why he did not search for it. He informed the reporters that the Government had obtained a stay- based on the Judgement on BALCO case - against the proceedings in the High Court against the disinvestments of the ITDC hotels in Tamil Nadu.

According to The Hindu dated 20-12-2001, the Minister suggested closer interaction between industry and judiciary to create a better understanding.

In this connection, it must be noted that on 19 December 2001, Government short-listed three bidders including Reliance and Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), for selling the stakes in the Indian Petro-chemical Corporation Limited (IPCL). For this he sought clarifications from the IPCL Employees Federation, which was also in the race.

The President of India, Mr. K.R. Narayanan, paid a visit to the Supreme Court of India. Apparently, he wanted the judges to annul the BALCO judgement. He had forwarded the letter No.3 to the Chief Justice of India.

The judges did not pay heed to his advice. They asked him not to interfere in the working of the court. He was disappointed.

The media did not report the views of the President of India, Mr. K.R. Narayanan, to the above letter. They did not report his visit to the court. Therefore, he resorted to indirect methods to ventilate his views.

Thus the President of India, Mr. K. R. Narayanan, unveiling the statue of the “Common Man” at Pune on December 19, 2001 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.

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 the Prime Minister was to abolish the policy of bulk buying.

Now, all the State Governments were plunging into a financial crisis. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders to stop payment of salaries to the teachers of 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 the President, Prime Minister, important Chief Ministers and the learned judges of the Supreme Court on 21 December 2001. This was letter No.4. The letter follows.

A few more suggestions

From

V.SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu. P. O. 629167.

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan (Presidential Palace), 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 our Constitution, kindly consider the question of:

1.Permitting the State Governments to realize transaction charge.

Every transaction in banks and Financial Institutions (FIs) must yield an income to the State Government 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 Rs. 5/- to the State Government and Re. 5/-, (total Rs. 10/-) to the bank or financial institution. He must pay Re. 10/- for every additional Re. 10,000/-. The amount collected must be remitted to 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 banks, FIs, State Government or Central Government.

2. Permitting the State Governments 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 Government.

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 share 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 industries, farmers and coolies.

Those using 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 that 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 and customers should not be exploited by asking them to have share capital and thrift deposit in the cooperative banks. They should not be forced to buy manure while availing themselves of 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 job 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 our people and everybody must come out with concrete suggestions for the progress of our country.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode,

21-12-2001

In the meantime, 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 judgement, the Supreme Court of India, 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. He 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 wheneverthe country was faced with a crisis the people became one forgetting their differences.

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 the life of this writer.

However, the Government hinted to grant financial assistance to first generation degree holders.

The BALCO judgement and the other developments gave the impression that the judges were behind the privatization policy. Therefore, the letter No.5 was sent to the President of India through post.

Breaking the Constitution from within

The following letter No.5 was sent to the Prime Minister of India, President of India and 18 learned judges of the Supreme Court of India on 3 January 2002.

From

V. SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam, Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

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

1. The decision to introduce the word ‘socialistic’ in the Preamble of our Constitution 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 our 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 of India.

3. Our 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 people from many regions would be affected. It is against the federal structure of our Constitution.

4. The vested interests have fielded a syndicate of editors, writers and reporters to keep the mind and tongue of our people under ignorance and they propagate the view that the Government would gain by privatizing our 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 would be no mourners except the employees and the poor investors. The majority stakes 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 are surviving in our system 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. The former Chief of the TATA Financewent away with Re. 800 crore. The matter was cited as a case of bad finance in private sector. The fact that India became poorer to that extent was not noticed by anyone.

8. Indians are hard working in nature. That is why our toiling hands in the form of NRIs flood our banks with Re. hundreds of crore every day. They are property minded and ownership minded also. They consider the PSUs as their own property and the act of 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 in Re. hundreds of thousands of crore for sub-lending, brokering and for big buying but there is no money in the hands of the common man. Our soldiers 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 andthe status quo ante of all privatized PSUs restored forthwith to convey the impressionthat our Constitution despite deadly blows and severe setbacks would survive.

Yours faithfully

V.Sabarimuthu

Vellicode, 3-1-2002

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

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 print media did not report the judgement. However, on 16 January 2002, the CCD referred a fresh bunch of PSUs including Pradeep Phosphate Limited and Jessop to the newly reconstituted Disinvestments Commission. Mr. Arun Shourie said that he would come out with a pleasant surprise to satisfy Mr. Yashwant Sinha who was looking for Re. 12,000/- crore. Now, this writer felt that the working of the judiciary and the investigation agencies must be exposed. Therefore, the following letter No.6 was sent as usual.

The plight of the people

From

V. Sabarimuthu,

Thattankonam,Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

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

1. The Preamble of our Constitution decides the direction of the Government. Sovereignty, Socialism, Secularism and Democracy are the four keys to our 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 November 1996, the Chairpersons of the ITC and the 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 July 22, 1998, the Directorate of Enforcement had a very strong case against Mr. Prabahar Rao. Again, on October 27, 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 (Public Sector TV Channel) 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 the 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 judgement on the 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 including 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 (I) while sitting on its shoulders. “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 thepurpose 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 August 9, 1996 said, “The CBI is trying to identify both the givers and the takers. If the CBI fails, we know to get both sides identified. At this stage we want to utterminimum”. 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 Rs. 50/-. A court in Gujarat recently awarded three-month imprisonment for accepting a bribe of Rs. 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 lakh.

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 a Mr.Xylesh KumarYadav.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. 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.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

21-1-2002

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, the Prime Minister said that the country was in a state of undeclared emergency and asked the opposition parties not to rake up contentious issues.

On 29 January 2002, Shi. H.D. Deve Gowda, 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 this writer’s 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 PMO apparently did not disclose anything to the media immediately. 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 wishes of the stakes, the media would engineer one crisis or other.

On 4 February 2002, the Prime Minister declared that the PSUs were the pillars of the economy and that an impression was being created in the name of globalization that the PSUs had lost their importance and that the Government had wanted to get rid of them.

On the same day, in contrast to the words of the Prime Minister, a sea change occurred in the policy of the Government.

Thus, on 5 February 2002 the Prime Minister convened the CCD and it decided to sell 25% equity in the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) to Panatone, a company of Tata Group.

The CCD also decided to sell Indo Burma Petroleum (IBP) along with its management control to Indian oil Corporation (IOC) Limited, another PSU.

Further, the CCD decided to sell four hotels of the ITDC to four private bidders.

The Cabinet on the same day approved a voluntary retirement scheme for permanent Government employees rendered surplus as announced in the budget.

The Hindu described the sale of the VSNL as a “big step” forward through its editorial dated Feb 7, 2002. The editorial hinted that the Reliance would bid for the HPCL and the BPCL.

On the same day, The New Indian Express described the privatization as a silver lining as the Government could sell the VSNL without a murmur of protest from the opposition parties. It disclosed, “One secretary decided to raise the issue of why IOC should be allowed to bid at all (as it was a PSU)”.

The editorial deplored that the Cabinet did not take any decision to cut the subsidies on kerosene and the LPC.

The way in which the media diverted the attention of the people could be gauged.

The spokesperson of the Congress (I), Mr. Jaipal Reddy, said that his party was opposed to selling profit taking industries.

The Communist Party of India (CPI-M) said that the decision to sell the PSUs was a mockery of the pronouncement of the Prime Minister on the penultimate day of disinvestments that the Government was not for liquidating the PSUs.

However, the people felt that the communist parties were secretly collaborating with the ruling class by controlling the employees in their hand.

Clearly, the will of the Prime Minister was defeated by the sinister will of the ruling class.

The CPI said that the decision would undermine the economic sovereignty of the nation.

In fine, the left parties described the decision as “economic terrorism” although they did not take their own wordfs to their logical conclusion. As their words were equivocal in nature, many felt that they were receiving money from the ruling class for their political survival.

In contrast, Mr. Subramonia Swamy congratulated the Minister for Disinvestments for maintaining the integrity of the tender process in the disinvestments of the IBP and the VSNL. In a statement he said that the Indian democracy would be strengthened by the failure of the Reliance Industries to subvert the tender bid and arm-twist the Government to favour them. His claim was that there was no cartel formation.

The vicious arguments to privatize the PSUs could be discerned.

In the meantime, the newspapers on 8 February reported that according to “Moody’s”, the international credit rating agency, India was heading towards a debt trap due to the inability of the Government to rein in its huge public sector deficit. It said that the rising debt service burden was consuming an overwhelming share of the resources. It said that the policy of depending on non-resident capital to finance account gap was not sustainable.

In a crucial step, the UTI decided, for the first time, to delegate certain powers to individual fund managers. The UTI decided to measure the performance of the managers using two yardsticks: performance vis-à-vis a bench mark like Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) 30 share sensitive index and second, the performance of the fund vis-à-vis its peers.

The Delhi correspondent of The New Indian Express, in a major article, said that the sale of the VSNL and the IBP limited passed off without much political noise. According to him, the left parties kept quiet and the Congress had nothing to say. Finally, he challenged Mr. Arun Shourie to sell the nationalized banks. The article ended with the message that the sale of the banks would be not only a critical test but also a most welcome one.

How the media directed attention precisely to wrong things could be gauged.

The Prime Minister, on 10 February 2002, all on a sudden said that there was a conspiracy to disintegrate the country.

On 13 February 2002, Mr. Venkaiah Naidu charged the opposition parties with indulging in “backroom activities” to destabilize the Government.

On 13 February 2002, the Government identified Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC),Manganese Ore India Limited (MOIL), Rail India Technical and Economic Services and Project and Equipment Corporation, Maruthi Udyog Limited (MUL), Indian Petro Chemical Limited (IPCL), Jessop Engineering and Hindustan Zinc Limited for disinvestments before March 2002.

On 14 February 2002, the CCD cleared the sale of 74 per cent Government equity in the loss making Public Sector Enterprise, Pradeep Phosphates Limited (PPL)to Zuari Agro Chemicals and Maroc Phosphore of Moroco. The pretext of Mr. Arun Shourie was that the PPL had eroded its net worth completely and it had a negative net worth of Re. 100 crore apart from an accumulated deft of Re. 1140 crore.

The Treasury of the Government of Kerala became empty on 13 February 2002. Following an SoS sent by Mr. A.K. Antony, the Chief Minister of Kerala, the Union Finance Minister, Mr. Yashwant Sinha, prevailed upon the LIC, a PSU, to release a loan of Re. 200/- crore to Kerala and the LIC obliged.

However, some private companies obtain loan in Re. hundreds of crore without any difficulty.

The Hindu on 15 February 2002 published an article by Justice Krishna Iyer, former judge of the Supreme Court, in its centre page. In that article he mentioned the Preamble that culminated in the creative expression “resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic”.

Apparently, The Hindu had extracted that article from him, as it was aware of the existence of these letters.

Neither did Justice Krishna Iyer mention this in his letter nor did he bother to know the reason for approaching him for various articles.

The Prime Minister said that any talk of socialism was out of sync with the changing times, which was governed by open market economy. “The Hindu” on 20 February 2002, reported this.

“The Hindu” on 24 February 2002- through Ms. Susma Ramachandran- demanded the Minister for Finance to create an environment to the industry to compete with global giants. For this, the paper wanted quick decision on labour and moving ahead quickly on public sector disinvestments.

On 25 February 2002, the Reliance Industries signed license agreement with the Department of Telecom (DoT) for international long distance services. Reliance paid 25 crore-entry fees and 25 crore-bank guarantees. One month earlier, it had obtained license for domestic long distance services.

On 28 February 2005, the Officer on Special Duty, Chief Minister’s Office, Punjab referred the letters of this writer to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, to take necessary action. A copy of the letter was forwarded to this writer.

Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala, Shri A.K.Antony also acknowledged a letter.

The Union Budget for 2002-2003 was presented on 28 February 2002.

There was additional taxation for about Re. 30,000 crore. Major revenue was through service charges suggested by this writer.

Further, full convertibility was granted to the NRI and there was a proposal to give loan to the rural people at 2% above the maximum deposit rate. The latter proposal was consistent with the proposal of this writer.

With regard to privatization,the budget proposed disinvestments in another six companies and the remaining hotels of the ITDC would be completed in 2002-2003.

Later, he hoped that the reform process was not held hostage to political process and compared it to crossing the forest in the darkness of night. According to him, if the process were stopped in the midway, the tiger would eat them! If that happened he said that, he would plead with the political parties, Parliament and Government as the reform process was still incomplete.

Next day The Hindu said through one Mr. Gail Omvedt that the Government should not be running enterprises such as hotels, airlines, bakeries and industries like the BALCO. The indirect message was that all PSUs and the mineral wealth of India must be handed over to the master of The Hindu.

On March 2, 2002, Mr. Vedprakash Goyal, Minister for Shipping, told newspersons that out of 12 parties who submitted their expression of interest (EoI) for the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), one decided to pull out while another had been disqualified. Great Eastern Shipping Company, Malaysian International Shipping Corporation and Videocon International had expressed their interest in the SCI.

On the same day, the letter No.7 that disclosed the manipulation of Tata was sent to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India, the learned judges of the Supreme Court and the Director of the CBI by post. The letter might have reached Delhi within three days.

Now a grave situation prevailed. The media syndicate projected the name of Mr. P.C. Alexander for the post of President of India, presumably because the then President was not amenable for manipulations. The stakes apparently distilled his name for the top post. It appeared that a sinister design was behind it. This writer felt very helpless. However, the following letter just pointed out the plight of the people to all the important political leaders. The letter did wonders as it changed the perception of the leaders. The letter proved that our leaders have an unquenchable thirst for the good. Perhaps the mind of the Universe has its own way of solving the problems.

The apprehension of this writer proved correct when Mr. P.C. Alexander himself in an interview to the DD in September 2004 disclosed that he had been informed about the decision of the NDA long before the discussion started in the media. The way in which the ruling class build India using the media could be gauged.

The important letter No.7 sent on 2 March 2002 follows.

The Demands of the Constitution of India

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the following demand of our constitution.

1. The President of India must respect the Constitution of India. If the present President of India fails to protect our Constitution, the plight of the people when a representative of the ruling class occupies the Presidential Palace shall be envisaged.

When the common man points out that the Policy of Privatization is opposed to Socialism, the President must consider it in the proper perspective, hear the views of the constitutional experts, filter them and take a correct stand. Absence of a reply in this regard conveys the impression that all those who facilitated privatization of BALCO, VSNL, and other PSUs no longer enjoy the pleasure of the President of India.

2. The Prime Minister must respect our constitution. It is gratifying that the service charges and relatively higher credit at 2% above maximum deposit rates for rural people in the budget are consistent with the suggestions given earlier. However, the economic policy of the Government shall be none other than socialism.

3. The Council of Ministers must respect our Constitution.

4. The print media must respect our Constitution. Unfortunately, the sole objective of the print media is fattening their masters at the expense of the common man all over India. Obviously, the only field where they oppose the real FDI is in the print media. They do not like to point out that liberalization is different from privatization of the existing PSUs. They never say that the PSUs are functioning like private companies although the Government owns them. By not discussing the salient features of our Constitution at a crucial period and by propounding different principles, they showed that they have an axe to grind, cheated 1000 million people and facilitated treachery and day light robbery. Further, the print media is conniving at several murky deals. In fact, the media syndicate is the anti constitutional terrorist in India. That the media syndicate is racist in character can be gauged from the editorial of The New Indian Express dated 10- 2-2002.

5. The Governor, RBI, must respect our Constitution. It is his duty to prevent flight of capital from the States and from the country. Now he has asked the banks to see that the funds given to the PSUs are not diverted to the State Governments. In November 2001, Tata Finance-ran over the Bank of India (BoI) and took Re. 850 crore as advancefor an undisclosedpurpose at a time when the State Governments were crying frantically for money. Tata had earlier diverted Re. 528 crore to Keten Parekh related activities. The CBI must have knowledge about the whereabouts of the money and now the RBI must ask the CBI to reveal the list of offenders involved in this deal. Had Tata been a common man not only the privatization of the VSNL been stayed but also all his properties might have been attached. The only condition is that he should have taken the said Re. 850 crore. Previously Mr.Keten Parekh-a 24 year old boy- could raise more than Re. 1000/- crore from banks and siphon off Re.3000 crore in March 2001 alone to other countries. The RBI reserved 5% of the credit to the brokers and the guideline is even now followed although it was pointed out to the President of India that such reservations were unconstitutional. If the monies disbursed by the State Governments- instead of returningto the original place- land in foreign countries via Banks, UTI, Mutual Funds, LIC, Tatas and brokers, where will the State Governments go for money to meet the day today needs of their people? After causing such harm to economic activity, the RBI stands in the way of the State Governments from raising money from the banks.

6. The Human Rights Commission must respect our Constitution. Since the SHRC found that an IPS officer was specifically responsible for an incident, either the SHRC or the NHRC must have saved the victim of that incident from prosecution. The letters sent to the President of India on constitutional matters shall not end in vain.

7. The investigation agencies must respect our Constitution. They must resort to arrest a citizen or an alleged offender in good faith that too only after proper investigation. Notwithstanding the set-backs in lower courts, all cases involving big offenders must be taken up to the Supreme Court.

8. The Comptroller and Auditor General and CVC must respect our Constitution. They must notice the suggestions given to the President of India and take necessary steps to prevent big commissions. The CVC should not expect the people without protection to provide the list of cases remaining in a half-baked condition.

9. People must respect our Constitution. Some very powerful players - the masters of some newspapers included - are trying to become foreigners after becoming global giants by grabbing the PSUs. Permitting them to invest $100 in other countries every year, as in the present budget, is a complementary action. They have already pocketed socialism. Now it is the duty of the people to restore the status quo ante of the Constitution.

10. The Chief Justice of India and all other judges must respect our Constitution. There was a time when post cards were accepted as writ petitions.

In this connection, it is disturbing to note that when the Prime Minister was in the USA the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments took some crucial decisions. During this time, it was reported that Tata was given an advance of Re 850/- crore from the BoI. It confirmed the worst fears of the common man that the PSUs would be purchased using public funds or ill-gotten funds and converted into private properties. Now the money parked abroad by brokers would be utilized to buy the Shipping Corporation of India. It must be also noted that the Prime Minister canceled the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and the Cabinet meeting slated for January 29, 2002. The New Indian Express became so restless and bold that it on Feb 4, 2002 threatened to engineer a crisis to the nation. On the same day, the Prime Minister compared the PSUs to pillars. If the Prime Minister did not equivocate, it was the last resistance offered by the Prime Minister against disinvestments. However, next day, the offenders using muscle power like force vanquished the Prime Minister lock, stock and barrel. Earlier, when the sale of Air Indiawas thwarted the print media had tried to pull down the Government.

The Chief Justice of India should not follow the crowd. He must snatch the key to the Constitution from the offenders - keep it with him- and act without any fear or favour.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

2-3-2002

The State Governments began to show great interest in service charges. Thus, in the budget for 2002-2003, the Finance Minister of Kerala said that he anticipated substantial income from service charges. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, in his first address to Assembly on 9 March 2002, said that the Government would urge the Centre to amend the Constitution to allow the States to levy service tax on the service sector.

The Hindu on March 11, 2002 reported the decision of the Government to divest 61 per cent shares out of 87.15 percent shareholding in National Aluminium Company (Nalco), including 10 percent in domestic and 30 percent in American Market.

The Prime Minister on March 15, 2002 said that the PSUs were sold to mobilize money for development purposes and reduce the fiscal deficit.

On March 20, 2002 Sterlite and A.V. Birla group company- Indo Gulf- submitted financial bids for securing control of the public sector Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL) by buying 26 percent of the Government shareholding.

On the same day, the Prime Minister gave an assurance to a delegation led by the MDMK leader, Vaiko, that Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) would not be privatized.

Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, former Prime Minister of India, said that the Government had no right to sell the PSUs under the mixed economy chosen by India. He compared the PSUs to Taj Mahal. The Hindu reported his opinion.

However, on 21 March 2002, the CCD presided over by the Prime Minister decided to sell the HZLto the Sterilite Ltd, which had been indicted by the BSE.

The Minister for Disinvestments said that the decision had the seal of the Supreme Court of India. He added that the money would be deposited in a bank to fetch 8 percent interest.

However, the Newspapers - The Hindu and The New Indian Express included- did not report anything about the sale.

Deeply disturbed by the policy of the Government to go ahead with the disinvestments, the letter No. 8 was sent to all dignitaries on 25 March 2004. The letter follows.

The demands of the common man

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu P.O.PIN: 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the following DEMANDS OF THE COMMON MAN.

1. The Forty-second amendment to our Constitution is the greatest achievement ofour Parliamentary democracy. So long as it is retained in the Preamble of the Constitution, the judiciary, executive and legislature will have no power to take any decision opposed to socialism or secularism. The benefits of this amendment must flow to the common man. Now it remains blocked. The President of India must have promptly taken effective steps to restore the status quo ante of the Constitution. The President of India remaining silent without taking any concrete action, even after several letters, is nothing but obstruction of impartiality.

2. The repercussion of the above amendment is that the Government is forbidden from selling the shares of any PSU under any pretext to any private parties. The Prime Minister pricked the bubble when he declared in Parliament that the decision to sell the PSUs was taken to reduce the fiscal deficit. He forgot the fact that the Union Government refused to sell a PSU to a state Government. Further, even if the crucial words-socialism and secularism- were expunged from the Constitution, the act of imparting racist character to the PSUs would be repugnant to the Constitution. In this connection, it must be pointed out that the Prime Minister had touched the feet of a destitute woman and as such, he must have saved socialism for her.

3. The masters of newspapers know that they have freedom of expression. However, they must realize that they do not have any freedom to suppress news and views. They are not publishing the views of the President of India or the leaders of the opposition parties with any consistency or continuity. They are not publishing even the observations of the judges of the Supreme Court in various cases. They suppress many murky deals and money launderings. They want to give the PSUs to the foreigners who could not be trusted to manage newspapers in India. They never tell that our strategic partner could sell his holdings in the PSUs to someone from Pakistan or China. They look at the Constitution through coloured glasses and remain as a threat to it. All those who still refuse to enlighten the consequences of socialism to the masses must be severely punished and sent to Tihar jail.

4. If the common man takes a housing loan, his house is checked at least thrice to see that the money is not diverted. The Union Minister for Finance had to prevail upon the LIC, a PSU, to give a loan of Re 200 crore to the Government of Kerala. Further, we are living in a country where an employee who stole Rs. 850/- from a bank was dismissed from service. However, Tata is a very powerful man. He might have planted his men in all possible places. The MD of the BoI would be appointed as the Governor of the RBI or the Governor of a big State as a reward. In December 2001, a nationalized bank even hived off its Mutual Fund Scheme to him silently. If such a trend is not checked, he would take Re.85,000 crore from the banks, UTI and LIC to buy the AI, IA, SCI and Indian Railways. Hence, the CBI must verify the veracity of the allegation that Tata took Re.850 crore from the BoI to buy the VSNL. If possible the information such as the purpose of loan, date of application, the person who gave the legal opinion and the amount paid to him, the processing fee collected, security offered, reason for releasing the money in one go, date of utilization certificate, may kindly be furnished.

5. The suggestion to abolish bulk purchasing must be considered with all its seriousness. Recently, the BSNL concluded a deal to buy equipment worth Re.2044 crore from some multinational corporations. When it was pointed out that bulk buying usually involved big commissions, the deal was renegotiated in the zonal level and the yield was 10%. One more negotiation in the State level would have fetched 10% more. Can a common man digest this? Whether the equipments really reached the real destinations or not is not clear to any one.

6. The suggestion to split the big PSUs and the act of giving them to the State Government must also be taken with all its seriousness. In May 1999, the IT Department asked a former Chairman of a PSU, facing charges under FERA, to pay a tax of Re. 25 crore. Now the matter has gone into oblivion. The act of splitting the PSUs could check such big commissions. The PSUs could join to undertake big schemes if necessary.

7. The suggestion to split the banks, LIC, UTI and giving them to State Governments must be also considered to prevent flight of capital through the Tatas and the brokers. After the letter dated 1-6-2001 the UTI has split the jobs among several managers. Now the managers could sit in different State capitals.

8. In the Jain hawala case, the Supreme Court had asked the investigating agencies to book all persons-irrespective of their positions- that are reasonably accused of committing crime. Using this observation, the CBI must check the proliferation of economic offenders.

9. According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution is supreme. Therefore, extirpation of socialism from the Preamble of the Constitution through the back dooris nothing but anti-constitutional terrorism. It is not possible for the common man to file a review petition in the Supreme Court.

10. When the salaries of the employees all over India are either denied or delayed, the Chief Justice of India is drawing salary from the consolidated fund without any problem. Obviously, the common man is not the competent authority to call for an explanation from the Chief Justice of India. However, the High Court, Cochin has recently said that the people are the real employers of the Judges. If the Chief Justice of India respects this, he could kindly give answers for all unanswered questions in a simple straightforward language to enlighten the common man. Further, instead of belittling the judiciary by estimating 20% of the judges as corrupt, he must come out with concrete remedies for all the ills of the nation.

Rectitude must be the hallmark of the Chief Justice of India. Respecting the Constitution, he must rescue socialism immediately.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode,

25-3-2002

On 2 April 2002, The New Indian Express reported that the Finance Director of the Re. 68000 crore BSNL, Mr. S.P. Puruvar, quit his position on April 1, 2002. The exit of Mr. Puruwar was linked to the quick closure of the negotiations with the vendors who supplied certain equipments to the BSNL.

On the same day, a hurriedly convened Cabinet meeting decided to bar the PSUs from buying anything exceeding Re. 5 crore from any foreign company without clearance from the Cabinet. Mr. Manohar Josi of Siva Sena Party announced it. He stumbled for words while announcing this to the newsmen. The print media, for obvious reasons, did not publish it. The above developments confirmed that the system was engaged in large-scale manipulations through all possible ways.

On April 16, 2002 almost all employees of all PSUs including banks and insurance went on a nationwide strike protesting against the policy of privatization. The media simply ignored it.

On 17 April 2002, the letter No.9 was sent to the President. This letter points out the existence of an unknown Super Cabinet at New Delhi as the HZL (Hindustan Zinc Limited) was given to Sterlite. That company was disqualified by the Union Cabinet based on the letter dated 1-6-2002 (First letter) of this writer. The copy of this letter was not sent to the Prime Minister as the President had been transmitting the letters to the Prime Minister.

The practice of sending the letters to the Chief Ministers and the learned judges of the Supreme Court was also discontinued due to practical difficulties. The letter follows.

The fall of the Constitution of India

From

V. Sabarimuthu,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the REASONS FOR THE FALL OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

1.The Supreme Court has extinguished socialism from the Constitution. The shoulders of the learned judges of the Supreme Court must be broad enough to accept our Constitution even if they cannot relish it. Sovereignty, Socialism, Secularism and Democracy cannot be destroyed by any judgement even if it is reinforced by 100 other judgements. In other words, the Constitution is supreme and not judgements. Whether the Supreme Court has any power to annihilate socialism and, therefore, the Preamble through its judgements is the crucial question, which remains unanswered.

2.The words socialism and secularism were included in the Constitution because of great foresight and political will that stemmed from due democratic process. Therefore, destruction of socialism amounts to destruction of democracy through the back door.

3.Several cases pending against big economic offenders were brought to the notice of the President of India, Chief Justice of India, many learned judges of the Supreme Court and the CBI. Nevertheless, no effort has been taken by anyone to bring anyone to justice. This included the cases that the Supreme Court threatened to monitor directly. It was the Supreme Court that showed to the common man that the cases against big economic offenders too could be pursued without much bias. Naturally, the common man expects the Supreme Court to implement its own observations in the open court.

4. On September 9,1996, Justice Y.K. Sabbarwal and Justice D.K. Jain of the High Court, Delhi observed, “Considering the very nature of the allegation, this seems to be the most important case, (i.e. JMM case), the nation is facing. There can be no other case in Parliamentary Democracy more important than this”. People believed what the learned judges said. Now they anticipate the verdict of the Supreme Court in this case. The JMM money is still in the bank. The CBI has not filed an appeal in this case and in some other cases presumably because the critical energy badly needed to file an appeal is not forthcoming from the President, Prime Minister or the Supreme Court.

5.The High Courts were not allowed to hear the BALCO case. The present Chief Justice of India did not allow the High Court, Chennai to hear the ITDC case. Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal-this is considered as the most important point- was asked to head the benches that heard the BALCO case at least twice. Taking cases from the High Courts, in good faith, is common. However, this should not appear as something done in bad faith. Not all the safety valves available to the affected people should be firmly shut. The logical extension of this trend is that the Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts would be appointed with an eye on acquitting the accused. Therefore, the people all over India fear that the days are not for off when all big offenders would be coming out with flying colours and added glory.

6.It is well known that Tata who had been spending Re.hundreds of crore for Keten Parek related activities took Re.850 crore from the Bank od India (BoI) to purchase the public sector VSNL. The matter was informed to the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the CBI. The CBI has not denied the allegation. The CBI has not caught the culprits partly because the CBI-it appears- is not purely independent in its functioning and partly because of the present environment. It is strange that a solid complaint against Tata involving Re.850 crore is sidelined. The public servants who influenced the BoI to pay the money to Tata have the last laugh. Absence of rule of law is evident.

7. In July 2001, the Union Cabinet, in good faith, decided to disqualify the companies that committed grave offences from bidding for the PSUs. The grave offence was defined as one, which outrages the moral sense of the community. Based on this definition the then bidders of Air India and HZL were totally disqualified. Obviously, this definition could be reversed only in bad faith. The Constitution could be defied. The President of India could be defied. The common man could be defied. How can the Union Cabinet defy its own decision? It is possible because, it appears, that a “Super Cabinet” is functioning somewhere in Delhi. The members of this Super Cabinet periodically decide to divide the PSUs among themselves as if their family properties. If it were not true, HZL would not have been given to Sterlite, a company disqualified by the Union Cabinet for the above reason. It was the reason why the Chief Justice of India was requested not to follow the crowd. The Chief Justice of India could have stayed the disinvestments for the violation of these guidelines, if not based on the Constitution. In fact, these companies committed offences, which outraged the moral sense of not only the community but also the Government. One must make money honestly to make the nation rich. It is evident that the nation is under the clutches of the economic offenders. The Supreme Court could have contributed its share to extricate the nation from their hands.

8. The President of India has not given any reply to the letters written to him on Constitutional matters. The President of India, it appears, paid a visit to the Supreme Court in vain. The President of India must be always pleased to certify that the learned judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy his pleasure because the Preamble of the Constitution is safe in their hands.

9.If the learned judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts act in good faith, there would be no threat to socialism, democracy, rule of law or to the life and security of the people. On the contrary, if they begin to act in bad faith, there would be a real threat to socialism, democracy, and secularism, rule of law and life and security of the people. Absence of a reply from the President of India indicates that the latter is happening.

10.If a judicial blunder is pointed out, the Supreme Court must come out of it with necessary corrections without wasting time. What is important is the Constitution and not the procedures and technicalities. There is a new hope that all the privatized PSUs would be taken back to meet the demands of the Constitution. The Chief Justice of India would agree wholeheartedly our people must enjoy the benefit of the Preamble as a matter of unfettered right and not as gratis. Therefore, this letter may kindly be treated as a writ petition to restore the status quo ante of the Constitution. Alternatively, the President of India or the Supreme Court may find out a mechanism to undo the harm inadvertently done to the Constitution. The Chief Justice of India would earn the goodwill of our people if he could restore socialism to its pre-eminent position before his retirement.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

17-4-2002.

On April 18, 2002, the Government of Andra Pradesh decided to split the State Electricity Board into four autonomous Corporations. This was consistent with the suggestions already given.

The Union Minister for Civil Aviation, Mr. Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, on April 18, 2002 ruled out disinvestments in Air India and Indian Airlines saying that the immediate priority was to put them on firm footing. This showed that the Prime Minister, maily because of these letters, did not prevail upon him to encourage the privatization of the AI and IA.

Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan too on the same day allayed fears that the National Aluminium Company, Nalco,- a PSU- would be privatized on the lines of BALCO. This writer had sent a few letters to Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan.

Presumably based on the letter dated 17-4-2002, President of India Mr. K.R. Narayanan invited the Prime Minister for talks on 19 April 2002. The meeting lasted for 45 minutes. Doordharshan reported it. The newspapers did not report this matter at all.

On 20 April 2002, the Prime Minister had a closed door meeting with the Home Minister Mr. L.K.Advani, External Affairs Minister Mr, Jaswant Singh, the Law Minister Mr. Arun Jaitely, the Disinvestments Minister Mr. Arun Shurie and the Party spokesman Mr. Vijay Kumar Malhotra.

On the same day, Mr. L.K.Advani, referring to the incidents in Gujarat, asked the people not to take revenge.

On April 22, 2002 the Chairman of Hindustan Paper Corporation (HPC) said that the exercise for the disinvestments of Hindustan Newsprint Limited (HNL) would be over by first week of May 2002.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee on Shipping tabled its report in the Parliament on 23 April 2002. The report opposed the privatization of the SCI at a time when it was planned to invest Re. 650 crore in fleet expansion.

Similarly, the Parliamentary Committee headed by Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav opposed the privatization of Indian Petro Chemical Corporation Limitd (IPCL).

Now the I.5 lakh ordinance staff decided to defer their 48-hour agitation following an assurance from the Minister for Defense that the ordinance factories would not be privatized.

In the meantime, the Minister for Disinvestments said that the Government would privatize 30 companies during 2002-2003.

At the same time, Union Minister Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan ruled out any disinvestments in Coal India Limited. He added that the Coal Nationalization (amendment) Bill would be withdrawn.

The Confederation of Indian Industries and Commerce invited the Congress President to inaugurate its annual session. Thus, it deviated from its normal practice of inviting the Prime Minister to inaugurate the session. The Prime Minister had been requested to give the valedictory address. This was presumably done in consultation with the Prime Minister. This was a ploy to woo the Congress President by flattering so that she would agree to a constitutional amendment like removing the word “socialism” from the Preamble.

In this way, the ruling class wanted to show that there was unanimity between the ruling party and the main opposition party in the matter of privatization.

The NDA actually had been very considerate with regard to the Congress President. It could be gauged from the fact that it even did not change the Governors appointed by the Congress Party. The ploy did not work as the Congress President had been continuously receiving copies of the letters. Thus the Congress President, in her inaugural address very politely asked the motive behind inviting the leader of the opposition to start their annual get-together. The Congress President asked whether there was a change in the direction of the political wind. Finally, the Congress President said that due to the fundamental difference of opinion on the very character of the society there would not be much agreement between the Government and the opposition.

Next day, on 27 April 2002, the Prime Minister, in his valedictory speech, said that the attempt to destabilize the Government with the support of the destabilizing forces had neither helped the cause of business nor had they done any good to the economy of the country. He asked the Congress President not to count the chicken before they were hatched. Finally, as a reply to the letters of this writer he, in a gruff voice, said that, “The Government would do business with the businessmen and the businessmen would continue to do business with the Government”.

This apparently showed that the Prime Minister actually wanted privatization. But for these letters he might have privatized all PSUs to the detriment of 1000 million people.

However, the industrialists were disappointed because their meticulous plan to enlist the support of the Congress President did not click.

The Delhi correspondent of The New Indian Express, on 29 April 2002, said that the ruling coalition would no longer expect any helping hand from her even for carrying out the essential reforms bills and agreed reforms measures.

As the Government enjoyed majority support in the House, what they meant by this was amendment to the Constitution.

The exasperated correspondent pointed out that her new stand did not auger well for the economy. The article was concluded by saying that the Congress would go along with the Left for the rest of the term.

The “Divine Spirit or Reason” prompted the Congress President to change the policy of the Congress Party towards privatization. Truly, it was the turning point.

Now, the Government disclosed in the Parliament that the exchequer was empty. The international credit rating organizations were quick to down grade India and denied credit to the State Bank of India.

The editorial of The New Indian Express said, “More important is the question of signals and roll backs send, of the Government being week kneed……Add to this is the series of rumours doing the rounds with increased vigour and the sense of paralysis will be complete”.

In an article on April 30, 2002 one Mr.R. Desikan wrote in “The Hindu” that the entire establishment was pampering 11 percent working population of India to the extent of self-ruination. This was to put the blame on the employees for the ills of the nation.

Critizing the stand taken by the Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Mr. Shekhar Gupta wrote a sarcastic article in the centre page of The Indian Express on May 4, 2002. The title was “Desi Punch, Italian Judy”(DPIJ). After the conclusion of his article he asked his readers to send more nuggets to their DPIJ script. The reason why the media started to oppose the Congress President could be gauged.

On May 1, 2002, The New Indian Express disclosed that the Government was flooded with letters from political leaders in favour of or against Reliance’s bidding for the stakes in the IPCL.

On 6 May 2002, a Ms. Neerja Chowdhury wrote in the front page of The New Indian Express that another term for Mr. K. R.Narayanan, President of India, was more remote than ever.

The reason cited by her was that the President had expressed his anguish over the Gujarat violence on the eve of the censure motion against the Government.

It must be noted that the ruling class decided to change Mr. K.R.Narayanan on 30 October 2001 and, therefore, the media syndicate began to write against Mr. K.R.Narayanan and in support of Mr. P.C.Alexander.

On 11 May 2002, the newly elected President of the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Mr. Ashok Soota, requested the Government to bring the Cooperative Banks under the purview of the RBI.

On the same day, Mr. S. Gurumurthy said through an article in The Indian Express that the banks were not lending money to those who run business.

Again on the same day, Mr. Sunil Jain of The Indian Express said that Mr. Pravin Kumar of Tayal Group of Companies, accused of siphoning Re. 300 crore, gained control over Bank of Rajasthan.

Mr. Shekhar Gupta of The Indian Express said that his paper was running for truth rather than ideological objectives or Rajya Sabha Seat.

On the same day, Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani of Reliance said that there was no harm in building relationship with people in power.

On 15 May 2002, the Union Government decided to sell 5% of the shares of Maruthi Udyog Ltd (MUL) for Re.1000 crore. On 18 May 2002, the Government sold 26% equity of the IPCL along with its management control to Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) for Rs. 1490.4 crore. None in India murmured anything.

The Reliance had been charge-sheeted. The rules devised for selling the PSUs said that the chargesheeted companies should not be given any PSU. There was none to point out even this.

On 17 May 2002, one Mr. James F. Pettz wrote in The Indian Express that many companies were under investigation and many Chief Executives were being pushed out.

On 22 May 2002, the Congress President, during an election meeting at Goa said that the leaders of the BJP were indulging in double speak and their mask was slipping quite often.

The VSNL, on 28 May 2002, in its board meeting decided to divest Re.1200 crore from the resources of the company, to an ailing group company, Tata Teleservices.

Mr. Pramod Mahajan, the Minister for Communication, described it as a “breach of trust” and “asset stripping” by Tata.

But Mr.Tata justified the diversion on the ground that it was an investment in a set of tangible assets to secure the future of the company and protect and enhance the interest of shareholders.

On the other hand, the public sector BSNL, in vain, approached the Ministry of Communication with the plea that the VSNL be asked to clear its due of Re.600 crore before investing Re. 1200 crore in Tata Teleservices.

On 29 May 2002, a writer of The Hindu,one Mr.Narasimhan cited privatization as one bright spot in a generally lackluster economic policy scenario. He predicted that the public perception would change after privatization.

On 30 May 2002, Suzuki Motor Corporation of Japan handed over Re.1000 crore to Mr. Suresh Prabhu to gain management control over Maruthi.

On 31 May 2002, the Government decided to sell four ITDC Hotels and also to disinvest 51% equity in loss making Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore (FACT) to a strategic partner.

On 3 June 2002, The Hindu requested the Government to end the controversy over the VSNL to make the privatization process a success.

On the same day, The New Indian Express demanded the Government not to intervene in a privatized PSU. Many newspapers came out with similar demands.

The New Indian Express, on the same day, said that a new class of socialists had emerged in the political horizon of India.

Again, in the same paper, one Mr. Ashok Kumar said that the excess funds lying with the banks would land in stock market and create new bulls.

On 4 June 2002, a Mr. K.Gopalan said in the Business Line that corruption in big buying in the BSNL could be tolerated because the loss due to the delays were several times greater than those arising out of any possible corruption.

The FERA was replaced by the FEMA from June 2002.The criminal cases under the FERA automatically became civil cases under the FEMA. The important beneficiaries were six former executives of the ITC Ltd.

On 7 June 2002, the Directorate of Enforcement closed a case against Miss. Jayalalithaa who allegedly received $ 300000 through “hawala”(illegal) route for want of evidence.

Similarly, a case against Ms. Sasikala who allegedly received $ 100000 through “hawala” route was closed.

On 10 June 2002, the Prime Minister requested the Home Minister to settle the VSNL- Tata issue. The nature of the problem was not known to the people.

On 10 June 2002, the SEBI imposed a fine of Re. 4.75 lakh on Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) for the delay in informing the exchange about hiking its holdings in the Larson & Toubro Ltd beyond five percent limit under the takeover code.

At the same time, 26 percent shares of the public sector IPCL was given to the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). The RIL, a charge sheeted company, eventually acquired management control over the IPCL cunningly.

The Pune based S.M.Joshi Socialist Foundation formed a socialist front to oppose privatization.

On 20 June 2002, a writer of The Hindu, a Mr. Rajendra Saichar, said that the Government was undertaking privatization notwithstanding the mandate in the Preamble of the Constitution that India is a Socialistic Republic.

On the same day, another writer, Mr. K.G. Kannabiram said in the same paper that Mrs. Lakshmi Sahgal, a Presidential candidate, represented the values contained in the Preamble.

On June 20, 2002, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) announced setting up of Tata Information Technology (Shanghai) Co Ltd as a subsidiary of Tata Sons in Shanghai, China with an initial investment of $ 1.5 million.

Now, there were reports that Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam would be selected as the next President of India.

The Preamble of the Constitution of India

Now, the letter No.10 was sent to the President of India. The letter follows.

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, P.O. 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reasons why the President of India must send a reply to the common man.

1. It was submitted to the President of India that our Supreme Court exterminated socialism.

2. It was submitted to the President of India that the extirpation of socialism amounted to the destruction of democracy.

3. It was submitted to the President of India that privatization is a measure opposed to socialism. The Government is doing it because it has the seal of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is allowing it because it has the seal of the Parliament. Nevertheless, no one has the seal of the Constitution. In this connection, it is shocking to note that Justice. K.T.Thomas, openly published- in The Hindu on June 4, 2002- his personal view. According to him, ‘the Chief Justices of India often make initial recommendations for appointment of Chief Justices of High Courts more on account of personal, communal, caste or even kinship considerations and that the framers of the Constitution did not envisage that the concentration of powers of recommendation had the potency of such misuse’. His statement confirmed the worst fears of the common man that our learned judges are, at times, transferred- or benches are being constituted- in bad faith with an eye on acquitting the guilty and punishing the weak and the innocent. It also confirmed the apprehension that the Constitution was broken by a similar fashion. To whitewash his guilt the former Chief Justice of India ascribed it to corruption on the part of his colleagues. If the President of India- the only competent authority- points out this truth citing some concrete cases, the system might change for the better.

4.It was submitted to the President of India that the words ‘socialism and secularism’ were inserted in the Preamble to give meaning to liberty, fraternity and dignity of the common man and to protect him from the usurpers of public property. Any attempt to lower the dignity, self-respect or status consciousness of any citizen of India by any state machinery under any guise on any principle would cause injury to socialism. The attempt to inculcate in him a slavish mentality would also offend socialism. Thus, the benefit of socialism shall not be blocked by our Supreme Court on any principle because the ‘Constitution is Supreme’.

5.It was submitted to the President of India that all Constitutional functionaries and even the common man have a duty to protect our Constitution. Two learned judges of the Supreme Court- Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice V.N.Khare – on May2, 2002 pointed out that the political parties would suffer de-registration if they cease to have faith and allegiance to socialism. The Government would realize the price of privatization provided the President of India points out this to the Prime Minister. Another consequence of this observation is that a PSU could be closed down or converted onto a playground. Alternatively, the shares of the PSU could be scattered among the workers and the public. However, no shares of any PSUs shall be sold to any strategic partner to give him any strategic control. Further, this observation is applicable to the learned judges of the Supreme Court as well. In fact, all right- thinking people feel that the learned judges who succeeded in annihilating socialism forfeited their moral and Constitutional right to continue in office. If they continue to remain in office they would continue to keep socialism and hence our Constitution in the dead bed. Therefore, they must quit office for the implementation of the Constitution. Alternatively, they could retrieve socialism by taking back all the privatized PSUs forthwith and remain in office with a commitment to work for the furtherance of socialism in words and deeds

6.It was submitted to the President of India that Tata took Re.850 crore from Bank of India to buy the VSNL. In this way, Tata would buy all the nationalized banks and the other PSUs using the funds from the LIC and so on without spending single paise of hard earned money. The LIC itself could be purchased using the money from the privatized banks. At this rate, Tata and a few similar players would give, say, 5 crore each to all strong contesting candidates of Lok Sabha thereby pocketing all parliamentarians to expunge the word ‘socialism’ from our Constitution. This is nothing but mortgaging our sovereignty and self-respect to Tatas. In fact, an attempt is going on to legalize corruption on business and political principles.

7.It was submitted to the President of India that while our banks overflow with money, our people suffer from unemployment, poverty and want of money. The money is being handed over to unscrupulous people not for starting new projects but for buying the PSUs, to start industries abroad and for manipulations. The Government, for strange reasons, refuses to take the money for developmental activities or to decrease the deposit rates and lending rates to the required level.

8.It was submitted to the President of India that bulk buying involves big commissions. It is true even for private parties. In this connection, the CBI- if it is sincere in its service- must publish the list of importers and their incomes to see whether they get huge profit by importing palm oil in bulk to the detriment of coconut farmers and small coconut mills.

9.It was submitted to the President of India that the Private Sector Undertakings, which use bank funds or public funds, must follow reservation norms. The observation of Justice K.T.Thomas indicates that our learned judges succeeded in breaking our Constitution so easily because of the absence of proportionate representation for all sections of our people in the Supreme Court.

10. It was submitted to the President of India that his power to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution is an absolute one. The President of India and the leaders of our political parties have denied, through their political skill, Rashtrapathi Bhavan to the stakes. In this way, they have defeated the designs of the deceivers and ensured a wonderful future to India. It is the greatest achievement of our democracy after the forty-second amendment. The posterity would remember with gratitude the selfless service of the present President of India and all the leaders of our political parties in this regard. However, the President of India must hand over the Constitution received by him from his predecessor to his successor. The present Constitution is not the one received by the President from his predecessor. It is said that timely supply of a carrot would save a child from possible night-blindness. Similarly, constitutionally mandated effective steps must be taken to restore socialism to its pre-eminent position either by asking the Government to take over all the privatized PSUs or by other means. It is a possible one for the President. It is not to please or antagonize anyone. It is a small step for the President of India but a giant step for the people. The President of India shall not leave any work in an unfinished state. In fact, three superseded Judges had honestly tendered their resignations in the past.

Further, the President of India, despite the action taken, has not chosen to send a reply for seven letters on Constitutional matters. The letters cost the President one more term. Similarly, everyone must learn to lose his career, even life- rather than committing breach of trust- for the benefit of 1000 million hapless people. Further, it is the Constitutional obligation of the President of India to send a reply to the common man for Constitutional violations, lest it would end as a precedent. Further, even a reply would help restore socialism. Therefore, a reply touching all relevant points is solicited. The President of India must move and help the common man to move until his last day last minute in office.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

24-6-2002

The Government on 25 June 2002 decided to allow 26% FDI in print media.

Soliciting a reply

On 19 July 2002, the letter No. 11 was sent to the President of India. In this letter, the President was requested to give a well thought out reply. The letter follows.

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu, P.O.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider some more reasons why the President of India must favour the common man with a reply.

1. We have a written Constitution. It may not be possible for the President of India to remember all the provisions of our Constitution. However, the President of India must always discern the violation of the Preamble of the Constitution. When the Preamble is violated, the President has no alternative but to use his latent powers- without fear or favour- to put the Constitution in place.

2. When a citizen of India, in good faith, points out, violation of the Constitution to the Prime Minister of India, he must take remedial measures. If the Prime Minister fails to do it, the people may approach the President of India for relief.

3. The Supreme Court- the custodian of our Constitution- must have guarded socialism and, therefore, our Constitution like a watchdog. If any citizen of India points out obliteration of socialism by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India must be humble enough to rectify the error. If he fails to do, the people would consider the learned judges of the Supreme Court who destroyed socialism as anti-public interest, anti-constitutional terrorists and approach the President of India to annul the order of the Supreme Court. It must be said that even at present one could discern that some learned judges continue to liaison with the ‘Super Cabinet’ and take anti constitutional and anti- public interest stand.

4. If, due to some reasons, the President of India faces any difficulty to restore socialism, no one would accuse the President if he shares his views and predicaments with the political parties, parliamentarians and the people at large to restore socialism.

5. It was reported to the CBI that Tata purchased the VSNL after taking the entire money from a nationalized bank. Since the CBI did not give any reply, the common man has no alternative but to approach the President of India for remedy. In such a situation, the President of India has every right to know the veracity of the allegation. It is his responsibility to dispel the impression that the Constitution is not being twisted to favour Tatas. It must be noted that the Governor of the RBI on July 5,2002 granted permission to the corporate houses- not to the people all over India- to take money from the banks to buy the PSUs. It is a great tragedy indeed.

6. Entrusting the PSUs along with the money in the banks in the hands of Tatas while a number of companies go bankrupt is a calculated sinister move to favour certain sections of our people. If it is not worse than apartheid, the common man could be allowed to buy the BSNL with money from the SBI. That the ‘Super Cabinet’ could accomplish it while keeping a true representative of the neglected sections of our people as President of India is all the more serious. Our Constitution does not condescend this.

7. When the common man smells a rat in big buying and selling, he would inform the matter to the CBI only with great reluctance due to security reasons. If the CBI fails to send a reply, the common man is left with no alternative but to approach the President of India. There is nothing wrong on the part of the President of India in knowing the fact whether the equipments ordered by the BSNL for about 1800 crore reached the destination or not. The President of India shall not condescend any big corruption or commissions during his tenure. Since big commissions are destroying democracy in India and since the Government of India has been conniving at the suggestion, it is imperative that the President of India takes some steps to prevent big commissions, rather than allowing big commissions and catching some people red handed.

8. . To ensure justice and equality to all sections of our people, time has come for the President of India to watch all the judgements of all courts in India. No learned judge who dares to ‘willfully and in bad faith’ break the Constitution shall continue to enjoy the pleasure of the President of India.

9. It may not be possible for the President of India to watch all human rights violations in India. However, if a specific case- not solved by the National Human Rights Commission- is pointed out to the President of India, he shall not remain quiet. It was pointed out to the President of India that the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission for a Human Rights violation indicted Mr. Xylesh Kumar Yadav, I.P.S. The victim of that incident is still being persecuted in a court. If the President of India acts on it, the National Human Rights Commission would come out with a solution. The solution would save thousands of people all over India from illegal prosecution and persecution.

10. No one need point out the rights, duties and responsibilities of the President of India. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that no past Presidents of India allowed destruction of the Preamble of our Constitution. Needless to say that any idea, view, principle, concept, theory, law, act, judgements or even stories incessantly propounded by the stakes- through the ant-constitutional terrorists namely the media syndicate- will not be a substitute for the Preamble of our Constitution. However, the Constitution now remains in the hands of the usurpers of pubic property. Ironically, the present Prime Minister of India in November 1962, during a debate in the Rajya Sabha, said, “By neglecting national security we have committed a great crime against the nation by leaving our borders unprotected. We are aparty to a great sin and should be prepared to atone forit”. Truly, now the Government under him has committed a great crime against the nation by leaving our PSUs unprotected that too by obliterating our Constitution. Therefore, the President of India must restore socialism to its pre-eminent position by taking back all the PSUs before relinquishing office and spare the successor from becoming controversial right from the very beginning. There are so many options before the President. The decision, if any, to remain above controversy shall not be at the expense of the Constitutional rights of the common man. Further, the President of India shall not remain as an impervious iron curtain between the Government and the common man. The President of India must be transparent enough to communicate with the common man on constitutional matters. Therefore, President of India shall not fail to send a well thought out reply before his tenure ends.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode,

19-7-2002

In a significant decision, the Cabinet Committee on Security on 14 July 2002 decided to attach political relationship as a condition for purchasing weapons from abroad. Thus, the weapon detecting radars were purchased from the USA even though they were available in much cheaper prices in Europe.

On 1 July 2002, Mr. Yashwant Sinha, the Minister for Finance, was divested of his portfolio and given Foreign Affairs presumably because of the Tata-BoI deal. It was a highlypositive action by the Prime Minister although none other than a few knew it. No Prime Ministers, in the past, did this in deference to the letters of a citizen of India. However, the VSNL was not recovered.

In his place Mr. Jaswant Singh, Minister for Foreign Affairs, was brought in. Mr. Jana Krishnamurthy, the President of the BJP, substituted the Minister for Law, Mr. Arun Jaitly. Mr. Venkiah Naidu, the Minister for Rural Development was dropped from the Cabinet and appointed as the President of the BJP.

The new Minister for Finance said that he would not act as a policeman but would ensure food for all, money in the hands of the people and bring back the confidence of the Investors. The word policeman indicated that the investigating agencies were showing their faces to the discomfiture of the system.

At the instance of the Ministry of Disinvestments, the RBI on 4 July 2002, granted permission to the banks to give advances to the Corporate Houses for buying the PSUs. This was to legalize the withdrawal of money from the banks by the stakes and to enable the conversion of black money into white money. This would be outside the five percent cap on stock market exposure. These decisions would lead to the appropriation of banks on one side and the PSUs on the other side. These decisions were out and out arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional in nature.

The Government apparently wanted to show to the world that there was nothing wrong in advancing money to the ruling to buy the PSUs. After all, people were unaware of the consequences these decisions. This was against the word “equality” present in the Constitution.

Obviously, the ruling class was buying the PSUs using bank funds, public funds or ill-gotten funds. Further, it was clear that the BoI-Tata deal exposed through these letters had crippled the privatization programme of the Government as the Prime Minister began to apply brakes.

On 5 July 2002, the CCD cleared the sale of five ITDC hotels including Nehru Palace Hotel and Kanishka Hotel for Re. 169. 59 crore.

On 11 July 2002, the Government cleared a proposal for privatization of Manganese Ore India Limited (MOIL) and National Aluminium Company (Nalco).

Then the Minister for Disinvestments, Mr. Arun Shourie, came out with a series of three very long articles in The New Indian Express justifying and supporting privatization. The articles were concluded on 12 July 2002.

On the same day, the editorial of The New Indian Express condemned the Government for not privatizing the PSUs including Air India. It described the plight of the Government as a Maharaja sized bungle.

On the same day The New Indian Express informed the public that Air India in 1993 lost half a million dollar while buying carpet for $1.5 million from a US based Company.

On 15 July 2002, Mr. K.K. Katyal, the writer of The Hindu in a center page article said that Mr. K.R.Narayanan had forwarded about 200 letters to the Prime Minister urging him to take effective steps to control the situation in Kashmir. It was an indirect admission that the President was taking effective action on the letters of this writer.

On the same day, a writer of The New Indian Express, Mr. Bharat Jhunjhunwala said that some sections of the “Left parties” as well as the Right parties” were opposing the policy of privatization. He said that just as antibiotics should be taken correctly, privatization too must be implemented correctly. He agreed that reservation could be provided to the “dalits” in the private sector too. To woo the common people, he requested the Government to curtail the salaries and perks of the Government employees.

On the strength of the ordinance promulgated by the Government, the ICICI bank issued notices to 22 Corporate Houses including Usha Group of Companies, Lioyds metals Limited, Modipon Ltd, Mardina Chemicals, Parasurampuna Synthesis, Core Health Care, Krishna Vinyl Limited, Ruia Cotex which had taken over the Public Sector Jessop Industries, Madhu Milan Synthesis, Rama Pulp Paper and Kesar Enterprises.

In the meantime, the Finance Minister informed that Mr. Shashi Ruia, the Chief of Essar Group, which gave bids to buy the SCI, owed Re. 7138 crore to nationalized banks!

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was sworn in as the President of India on 25 July 2002.

President K.R. Narayanan duly informed the existence of the letters to the new President.

Next day, the media reported the proposal of the Ministry of Disinvestments to sell 36 percent Government equity in the BPCL and 26 percent in the HPCL.

On 31 July 2002, Mr. Jeswant Singh, the Minister for Finance announced the creation of a serious Frauds Office in the Department of Company Affairs. Apparently, it was to show to the new President that the Government did not tolerate frauds.

On 2 August 2002, Birla Group decided to sell Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemical Ltd (MRPL), which suffered a loss of Re. 412 crore in the year ended March 2002, for Re. 59.2 crore at Re.2 per share to the ONGC, a PSU.

In the meantime, at the instance of the Government, the SBI gave a loan of Re. 500 crore to the UTI to create liquidity in US-64.

Mr. N.R. Narayamurthy, on 1 August 2001, in a speech said that a company must put public good ahead of private good. He requested the Government to give incentive to civil servants who save project cost.

The Ministry of Railways on August 1, 2002, said that it was not in favour of privatization of Indian Railway Construction Corporation (Ircon) and that it had not agreed to the recommendation of the Disinvestments Commission for the sale of 51 percent shares in Rail India Technical and Economic Services (Rites) to employees.

The opposition parties slashed the Government for its disinvestments policies. Mr. Somnath Chattergee (CPM) said that several sick private sector industries in West Bengal were taken over by the State Government in the interest of the workers. Former Prime Minister Mr. H.D.Deve Gowda said that the Government had sold precious assets at throw-away prices. He cited the deal involving Hotel Asoka in Karnataka in which the property itself was valued at Re.8 crore.

Mr. Shekhar Gupta, the Editor of The New Indian Express revealed that 50 percent of the petrol pumps allotted since it came to power went to the kith & kin of the BJP and the RSS. He wanted the people to support privatization as the MPs misused their official position.

In fact, no sooner the Parliament was adjourned sine die ahead of schedule, the Reliance invited application from all over India to start petrol outlets. Mr. Shekhar Gupta saw nothing wrong in it.

Thus, by pointing out the irregularities in the allotment of petrol pumps, the ruling class quite unconstitutionally usurped the power to allot petrol pumps, that too through the aid of the learned judges of the Supreme Court, in whatever way they liked.

Thus, in the name of liberalization, less than ten men acquired the power to grant petrol pumps to people all over India including Ministers and Members of Parliament and preempted the people from trading in these items.

Thus, the system forbade men from doing an activity, which was not at all dangerous to peace.

In August 2002, the Parliamentary Committee on Petroleum had opposed privatization of oil PSUs as their profits were three and half times more than the paid up capital. In fact, the oil PSUs had a profit of Re. 12750 crore during 2001-2002.

Former Supreme Court judge Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, in The Hindu, said that the conduct of the judges of Supreme Court must reaffirm the faith of the people in the impartiality of the judiciary. Apparently, he was aware of the existence of these letters.

On the occasion of the 55 th anniversary of Independence day, the Prime Minister wanted the countrymen to forget the past and look forward to the future. He further sought political consensus on all economic issues. He wanted privatization in the private sector because the theft of electricity was causing a loss of Re.25,000 crore to the nation.

The message was that if people all over India steal electricity, everything in India must be handed over to the ruling class.

On 20 August 2002, Mr. Ratan Tata, the Chairman of the Tata Group, said that Mr.Dilip Pendse, former Managing Director of Tata Finance Limited (TFL), did not consult him.

However, Pendse in an affidavit filed in reply said that he consulted all high level officials including Ratan Tata and that he was made a scapegoat. The TFL had claimed Re.425.5 crore from Mr. Pendse and others for causing loss to the company by certain illegal financial transactions. However, nothing was heard about it later. This could be construed as proof for the fact the financial irregularities in the private sector could be greater than that in the public sector.

On 20 August 2002, the RBI directed all banks in India to report cash transaction over Re.10 lakh. It was a solid step taken consistent with the letters of this writer.

On August 22, 2002 Mr. Shahnawaz Hussain, the Minister for Civil Aviation, said that the Government would spend Re.16,000 crore for the development of Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta and Chennai Airports through joint venture rather than leasing them.

On the same day, The Hindu, through its writer, Mr. Jayanth, said that the privatization would not be smooth, as the Government could not expect cooperation from the people or the opposition parties. Apparently, Mr. Jayanth had these letters and the new President of India in mind.

The Union Government, on 23 August 2002, decided to invite bids for 29.15 percent shares along with management control in National Aluminium Company (Nalco). This was the first privatization step since the new President assumed charge on 25 th July 2002.

The Prime Minister, however, was in total confusion as the CCD meeting was postponed three times within a span of one week. This must be due to the power exercised by the new President.

Further, a number of meetings of the Cabinet ensued. Most of the meetings were inconclusive. In the meantime, Justice Kirpal, keeping the President of India and these letters in mind, said that none in India possessed absolute power.

These developments prompted this writer to dispatch the letter No.12 on 29 August 2002 to His Excellency the President of India. The letter follows.

Dr. Kalam Effect

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu P. O. 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Parliament House,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reasons why the new President of India must answer some unanswered questions.

1. It is said that the President of India is a rubber stamp. It is out and out true so long as the things go as per the provisions of our Constitution. However, when there is a real threat to our Constitution, the President of India is endowed with some latent powers to protect our Constitution. In fact, the degree of the power of the President of India is proportional to the degree of violation of the Constitution. When the destruction of the Constitution is absolute, the power of the President of India to restore it to its pre-eminent position becomes absolute.

From July 25, 2002 to August 23, 2002, there was no news about privatization of any PSUs. However, just when the people felt that the President had stopped privatization of the PSUs tellingly than came the news that the Government decided to sell Nalco - a PSU. In this connection, it must be pointed out that the President is duty bound not only to vetoprivatization but also to take back all the privatized PSUs forthwith to restore socialism. The refusal or the inability to restore socialism would go down as breach of trust and contempt of Constitution. This is because, though private initiatives could be encouraged, the sale of any PSUs under any policy is forbidden by the Constitution. It is mandatory even to ensure justice and equality to all. No one other than the President of India could retrieve the lost PSUs at present. Our Constitution would stand by the President to discharge his duties without ‘fear or favour’. It is not to satisfy the ego of anyone. The President shall not procrastinate, even sleep, before fulfilling the demands of the Constitution.

2. Some learned judges of the Supreme Court recently, in a judgement, said that the political parties should have allegiance to socialism lest they would suffer de-registration. Some other learned judges, on the other hand, destroyed socialism in bad faith. Obviously one can discern the worst criminals in India. The President of India shall not connive at the destruction of our Constitution because if the President fails, our Constitution fails. Therefore, the learned judges who broke our Constitution must be forbidden from hearing any case even if they are not brought to justice. If they continue in office, they would continue to remain in contact with the ‘Super Cabinet’ and enact one coup after another. They would never change their traits as they have an agenda of their own. The President would be doing an injustice to the nation if these learned judges continue to enjoy the pleasure of the President.

3. There is an erroneous theory that Tata would single handedly run all our PSUs including the LIC, banks, IA and AI, SCI, ONGC, even roads and Railways more efficiently and honestly than all our IAS officers and Ministers put together. The protagonists of this theory say that there would be plenty and prosperity when everything in India is owned by Tatas. However, the hard truth is that our Constitution forbids this. Even otherwise, the President must see the number of PSUs that went in the hands of the neglected sections of our people during the last one year. The President shall not revel in dividing our people into blacks and whites.

4. The President of India could now disclose the name of the person who enjoys the absolute power to grant Rs. 850 crore to Tata and the modus operandi of buying the PSUs. Similarly, the President can tell whether the equipment ordered by the BSNL reached the real destination or not. India is still a country where workingmen and women stand in long queues for gruel. The common man should not nurse the feeling that the President would remain as a shield to protect some economic offenders.

5. The President of India would agree that the so-called merit is not an index of a man’s intelligence, ability or capability. Therefore, there was a request to implement reservation norms in the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and in the private sector.

6. The President of India would also agree that reservation in any field is to protect the vulnerable sections of our people. The decision of the Governor, RBI, to reserve 5% of the bank funds to brokers is nothing but deception and therefore unconstitutional. Similarly, the green signal given by the Governor of the RBI to banks to lend money to buy the PSUs is a corrupt practice. These orders must be annulled forthwith to protect our Constitution.

7. The ‘media syndicate’ is a real danger to our democracy and socialism. It is strange that the meaning of socialism is not known to anyone including the eminent people. For them fair is foul and foul is fair. This syndicate- for instance- would not murmur if the ‘stakes’ that buy the IOC, BPCL and the HPCL sell 100,000 petroleum outlets to their kith & kin and earn Rs. 100,000/- crore within a span of two weeks. This syndicate has succeeded in making the President of India a controversial figure in the name of the Representation of People’s Act, which was a coup of their own creation. The media syndicate must be behind the petition filed against the Presidential election also. Absence of adequate representation in the Press Trust of India, (PTI), is one of the reasons for this. The President must read between the lines and take remedial measures.

8. There was a request to abandon the policy of bulk buying to prevent big commissions and corruption. If it is difficult to implement, the President of India should not hesitate to accept full moral responsibility for the big commissions going on in the hands of a few stakes.

9. There was a demand to split all the PSUs including banks and financial institutions and give them to the State Governments to prevent big commissions. The President of India could prevail upon the political parties to consider this. Here also the President shall not hesitate to accept full moral responsibility for the big commissions and omissions.

10. Eleven letters have been already sent since 1-6-2001.The first five letters were sent to the Prime Minister of India. The latter eight letters were sent to the President of India. All the ten letters are again addressed to the new President although the President must have seen them. The President could go through the letters and do what is right with all his might. Further, our children are innocent and ignorant. The President could teach them at least the dictionary meanings of the words ‘socialism and secularism’ and the solid steps taken to restore all the privatized PSUs. They would then guard socialism and secularism against all odds.

Furthermore, the conversation between the President and the Prime Minister could be a private one so long as things go as per the provisions of the Constitution. If Constitution is annihilated, the President must protect it by opening his mouth, by addressing the political leaders or through other means. Since the Constitution now remains destroyed, the President of India shall not consider it as something below his dignity to give answers to all unanswered questions to the common man.

Yours faithfully

V.Sabarimuthu

Vellicode, 29-8-2002,

The financial institutions led by the IDBI and the ICICI restructured Re.800 crore-loan component of Essar Power by reducing the interest rates by about 5%. The Essar, in turn, said that it would transmit the benefit to the Gujarat Electricity Board.

There were reports that Defense Minister Mr. George Fernandes wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to undertake a review of the disinvestments policy to guard against rich getting richer.

If he did not want privatization, he should have resigned. But he did not do so.

Naturally, his letter infuriated the media syndicate. The Indian Express pointed out that the duty of the Defense Minister was to defend the border and not the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The paper pointed out that he was neither the Minister in Charge of Disinvestments nor was he in the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments. The paper also pointed out that he was remaining silent during the privatization of the VSNL and IPCL. The paper profusely commended the Minister for Disinvestments for making the country richer by Re. 4748 crore because of some quiet, efficient and insidious actions. The tone of the paper was that they were the owners of the PSUs and that they were free to do anything with them.

The letter No 12 had more than the usual positive effects. Two Cabinet meetings were convened and both were inconclusive. After the meeting held on 4 September 2002, the Minister for Disinvestments, Mr. Arun Shourie, warned that the row over disinvestments would derail the economy.

On August 31, 2002, the Union Government decided to split the UTI into two – the UTI-1 and the UTI-2. All the protected schemes such as US 64 were placed under UTI-1 and all net asset value based schemes were placed under UTI-2. Further, the Government announced a bailout package incurring a liability of Re.14, 642 crore.

On September 5, 2002 the Prime Minister declared that there would be no discrimination in the name of caste or religion under the rule of the BJP. Accordingly, the CCD was expanded to accommodate Mr.Murali Manohar Joshi, the Minister for HRD, Mr. Pramod Mahajan, Minister for Telecom, Ms. Uma Bharathi, Minister of States for Coal and Mines, Mr. Ananth Kumar, Minister for Urban Developments, Mr. Gorge Fernandes, Minister for Defense and Mr. Shahawaz Hussain, Minister for Civil Aviation. Thus, as a result of the letters, the CCD became a heterogeneous one.

The new CCD apparently discouraged privatization as it decided to endorse the decision of the Prime Minister to defer privatization by three months.

Thus, about 20 PSUs including the HPCL, BPCL, IOC, GAIL, ONGC and NTPC escaped privatization in one go.

Though his actions tellingly proved that the nature of India is nothing but the nature of the President of India, he did not give freedom to the people to know the nature of the 11 crucial letters received from one of his subjects. This is called Dr. Kalam effect.

He wanted to prevent illegalities. For this, he expected his subjects to write to him. But he was not ready to share the pieces of information received from thepeople by virtue of his official position.

The reconstitution of the CCD and its first decision shocked the media syndicate. The media realized that the letters of this writer were behind the decision.

The Hindu said that Mr. Arun Shourie had hit a roadblock. The paper warned that the process of disinvestments would come to a grinding halt. One Ms. Susma Ramachandran of The Hindu said that the Stock Market would dip; the FIIs would run away, the FDI would fall and the PSUs would find it difficult to cope with the competition from the foreign players. She was full of remorse because the sale of the PSUs would require the approval by virtually all members of the Cabinet.

The New India Express said that the developments were a setback to the privatization plans.

The print media ascribed the small drop in the BSE sensitive index to the angry reaction of the investors to the decision of the Government. They concertedly said that the reversal of the policy would stifle the privatization plans and plunge the Nation into turmoil and chaos.

The Prime Minister, before leaving for the US on September 8, 2002, called on the President of India. The Hindu disclosed that economic matters were discussed in the meeting.

Notwithstanding the above developments, Minister for Disinvestments Mr. Arun Jaitely, on 9 September 2002, said that the privatization would continue.

The Hindu on the same day congratulated the Government for taking the politically correct decision of privatizing the UTI. The paper predicted that the PSU banks “could be next in line” as there was no political opposition to the privatization decision of the UTI.

How steadfastly, despite several setbacks, the media syndicate directed the attention of the people to the wrong could be discerned.

The New Indian Express on 18 September 2002 asked the Prime Minister to empower the reformers in his Government and sideline the rent seeking and inefficient. The editorial described Mr. Arun Shourie as a highly talented Minister and requested the Prime Minister to empower him using Prime Ministerial authority. The editorial wanted the Prime Minister to make the economy the center piece of his agenda by putting a team of privatization minded, forward looking, forward thinking, active and agile Ministers with credibility and integrity in charge of economic ministries.

However, on the same day- consistent with these letters- a Cabinet meeting presided over by the Prime Minister deferred a decision on the FDI in telecom, insurance and civil aviation. The Cabinet also decided to defer a decision to introduce voluntary retirement scheme in oil PSUs.

Obviously, the proposals must have found a place in agenda of the Cabinet without the specific direction from the Prime Minister. The decisions indicated that the Cabinet was in disarray and that the Prime Minister wanted to wriggle out.

Therefore, “The Hindu” on 22 September 2002 beseeched the Prime Minister to continue the process of privatization. The paper said that the privatization once began must continue as in other countries till it becomes clear that the plus points far outweighs the negative ones. To show that the privatization had been going on since 1991, the list of companies in which equities were sold since 1991 was given. Thus, the actual receipts in Re. crore from 1991-1992 to 2002-2003 were: 3,038, 1913, Nil, 4843, 362, 380, 902, 5371, 1870, 5632 and 4748 respectively.

On 23 September 2002, The Indian Express published a letter of one Mr. Sivaramakrishnan from Madurai. In that letter, he said that China, Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico were successful with disinvestments. He said that China earned $15,000 crore in foreign exchange due to the privatization of their PSUs. He added that only Tehelka-tainted George Fernandes and petrol pump scam Ram Naik were opposing disinvestments.

On 24 September 2002, there were reports that the FDI in India fell by about 20 percent. On 26 September 2002, The New Indian express said that privatization would spell insecurity for those who did not work.

On 30 September 2002, Mr. Jaswant Singh, Minister for Commerce, said that the 90 day review period for privatization did not amount to slow down of the process and that whatever review was taking place was “ in the totality of Indian National interest.

Evidently, the advent of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam halted, if not prevented, the privatization process. 20 PSUs escaped immediate privatization.

It must be noted that Mr. K.R. Narayanan informed the existence of the letters to him before leaving the Presidential Palace. But it did not reach the people

The Prime Minister of India offered to the new President to employ an officer in the Presidential Palace to receive letters. But he promptly rejected this offer.

If he had accepted the offer, all letters from the present man might have blocked from reaching the hand of the President.

Further, the President asked the students to contact him through email and gave the email address.

In this way, he asked the present man to contact him.

Therefore, the letters No.13 onwards were sent through email.

The de-facto ruler

On 1 October 2002, the letter No.13 was sent to the President of India. The letter described a member of the ruling class as the de-facto ruler of India. Further, the letter demanded the restoration of all privatized PSUs. The letter follows

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

Mulagummodu P.O.629167.

His Excellency the President of India;

Parliament House,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reasons why the President of India must perform a few wonders.

1. It is said that the Preamble of a Constitution is like a breather-the Constitution breaths fresh air through its Preamble. It is said that the hopes and aspirations of our people lays in the Preamble. It is said that the Preamble expresses the social and political philosophy of the nation. In fact, in the R.R.Delvi vs State of Tamil Nadu case the Supreme Court had struck down the pension scheme formulated by the Government of Tamil Nadu to give relief to the anti-Hindi agitators by reason of the words ‘unity and integrity of the nation’ present in the Preamble. It is clear that the introduction of the word “socialism” in the Preamble shows the determination of our people to adopt socialism. It is the paramount duty of the President to protect socialism and therefore the Preamble.

It was reported that the Government deferred the back-door privatization of about 20 PSUs on September7, 2002. It must be due to the intervention of the President of India based on the 11 letters received in one go before the crucial date. If it were true, it would go down as a partial success.

2.The learned judges of the Supreme Court should have read and interpreted the Constitution in the light of the noble vision expressed in the Preamble. Instead, they destroyed it in cold blood. The President of India must have already sent the copies of the 11 letters to all learned Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Alternatively, the President must have transmitted the aberrations of the people to them. It is not known whether the President took any step to prevent them from hearing any cases. Even a polite statement would have forced them to leave the place. Further, all right thinking people feel there must be a demand to bring to justice all the learned judges who broke our Constitution. `

3. The President of India must have gone through Article 15. This prohibits discriminations on grounds of religion, race and caste. The President must have now seen and analyzed the list of the beneficiaries of privatization and their religion, race and caste. The President could have compared it with the proportion of those in the armed forces and in jail. The list would clearly reveal whether any cognizable offence is committed by violating Article 15 or not. Absence of a reply from the Director of the CBI and the failure of the Chief Justice of India to address the grievances of the common man reinforces the fears that the Article 15 too has been violated. The CCD has been now made a heterogeneous one. However, the President must dispel the darkness and all doubts in this regard because the Government shall not be a cause for instilling in the mind of the people any malice or ill will towards any section of our people.

4. Mr. Tata is the de-facto ruler of India. Otherwise, how could he illegally take a trainload of money from the BoI and suppress all investigations? The money siphoned off by Keten Parek- a broker- has not been recovered or traced presumably because Tata is involved. While thousands of innocent people-dubbed as criminals- are loitering the verandah of criminal courts periodically, not a word has been asked to Tata. However- it must be carefully noted- if the money was illegally given with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister must surrender all the assets acquired through the aid of Tata. The President of India alone now knows the truth in this matter and he must share his information with our people.

5. The Sept 7, 2002 editorial of ‘The New Indian Express’ shows that ‘the great conspiracy’ to grab the PSUs was hatched ten years ago. Thus for popularizing privatization, the media syndicate began to brainwash our people. If the Minister of Civil Aviation travels in an Air India, (AI), plane, their remedy is that Tata must be allowed to buy it and the minister divested of the portfolio made to crawl on the road. If a Minister stays in an ITDC Hotel, it shall not be even converted into a hospital or Home for the aged. They say they must be sold to private parties. If salary is not paid to employees, their remedy is selling the PSUs. If there is corruption in the allotment of petrol pumps, their remedy is that petroleum distribution must be given to private parties who would reap more money than what the Government would get through all taxation measures. Further, they constantly insinuate that the employees oppose privatization because it would spell doom to those who don’t work. The media syndicate including the DD would not publish even the Presidential activities without the permission from Tata is another matter.

6.The success or the failure of an industry depends on many factors. Decreasing the interest rates would save many industries. Devaluation of currency would save some others. Changes in tax rates would save some more. Hike in import duty on some items would save a few others. Assured orders would save still others. Prevention of flight of capital would save many others. Reduction in commission would save several others. The act of giving a bad name to the PSUs and selling them to some members of the ruling class is not the concept of our Constitution. Since the Supreme Court failed to check this arbitrary exercise of power, the President must do his duty without ‘fear or favour’.

7.The Government first said that it has no business to be in business. When it was pointed out that privatization of railways in England ended in fiasco, the Government propounded the theory that the money obtained by selling the PSUs would fetch more interest when deposited in banks. Since there would be no income under a zero interest regime, the Prime Minister later said that privatization was for narrowing the fiscal deficit. Since the fiscal deficit could be annulled through several other ways, the Government refuses to discuss the privatization issue `openly.

8. The task before the President is an arduous one. He has to render justice- social and economic- to all. He must notice that even teen-age girls desert villages due to starvation. He must see that the external remittances of the NRIs do not go in the hands of a few members of the ruling class but the people at large. The vicious cycle- the NRI money +public funds-> banks-> Private parties -> Government by selling the PSUs -> again banks- must be broken by him to know the modus operandi of buying the PSUs. For this the President could personally go through the Income Tax returns submitted by the top ten members of the ruling class during the last 20 or 10 years to find out their profit, the tax given and their actual wealth.

9. There is always commission during big selling and buying. If the post offices need computers, why should they be purchased from Delhi? What would the shops near the post offices sell? Three Professors- John Zda Nowiaz, William Welch and Simon Pak of Florida International University estimated- (Jan1997)- that Indians siphoned off $100 billion (11billion in the USA alone) in other countries. According to the IMF also- (The Hindu dated 19-2-1997)- Indians held $100 billion abroad. “Dinamoni” on February 12, 1997 said that Indians deposited Re.320 thousand crore in Switzerland alone.

10. We have a wonderful Constitution because the President, at times, could perform wonders with it. When the ‘Uncertainty Principle’ occurred to Heisenberg he was too excited to sleep and so he climbed a rock near the sea and waited for the sun to rise. The President could wait for the sun to rise to perform a wonder every day. The first wonder shall be restoring all the privatized PSUs forthwith, the second one could be the abolition of bulk buying & selling and the other wonders would automatically follow.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode,

1-10-2002.

In a message issued in connection with the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi on October 1,2002, the President decried the unbridled avarice of some people. He said that self-aggrandizement was subjugating every other emotion.

As an answer, next day the Prime Minister said that it was the Congress, which started the privatization 10 years ago. He warned that the Government was losing heavily due to the delay in disinvestments. Presumably, referring to the CCD, the Prime Minister said that there was nothing wrong in a group of ministers discussing and taking decisions. He justified the formation of the CCD on the ground that all matters could not be discussed in the Cabinet. He disclosed that the privatization did not come to a close due to any differences in the Cabinet.

On 4 October 2002, an urgent meeting of the Cabinet was convened presumably to discuss the letter No. 13 dated 1-10-2002.The meeting was inconclusive. The DD reported a concocted story that the Prime Minister found fault with the detractors of privatization.

In the meantime, the Tamil daily, “Thina Malar” on 4 October 2002 reported that the Prime Minister had convened an emergency meeting of the Planning Commission on 5 October 2002 to incorporate Re. 80,000 crore through disinvestments of the PSUs over a period of five years.

As reported, the meeting took place on 5 October.

In the meeting, the Prime Minister said that the planning in India was not a static concept and was not enslaved by any dogma. He justified privatization in a big way and approved disinvestments for Re. 78,000 crore during the 10 th five year plan.

On 6 October 2002, the President called on the Prime Minister at his residence. The Home Minister, Finance Minister and the Vice President also were present.

On the same day, a few newspapers reported that Mr. Bangaru Laxman, former President of the BJP, opposed privatization as it affected the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. He demanded reservation in the private sector.

Next day, the Prime Minister arrived at Nicosia, the Capital of Cyprus as part of his tri-nation tour. At Nicosia, the Prime Minister as a reply to a stage-managed question said that privatization was an irreversible one.

Next day, addressing the Third Indian European Union Business Summit at Copenhagen, Denmark, the Prime Minister said that a democratically elected Government in India could not adopt a “shock therapy” approach to economic reform and had to be sensitive to the vast disparities in incomes and living conditions. Further, he said that India had to be guided by the principles of public accountability and social conscience in its approach towards economic reforms. He added that India was implementing economic liberalization with a “human face”.

The Prime Minister of Denmark, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, openly requested the Prime Minister to talk to Pakistan to de-escalate the tense relations with Pakistan.

At London, the Prime Minister, again as a reply to a stage-managed question, reiterated that the privatization policy was irreversible.

At Mumbai, the Chief of the Shiv Sena said that he would be forced to oppose the policy of privatization.

At Delhi Miss. Uma Bharti said that those who trivialize her fight on Nalco would bite dust. It must be noted that this writer had sent his first five letters to her.

But, Mr. Arun Shourie warned that Nalco would start incurring losses if its privatization were delayed and wondered whether the words of Miss. Uma Bharathi meant that the Prime Minister would bite the dust.

Referring to Shiv Sena, he said that they had approached him repeatedly to seek favours for hotelier Ajit Kerkar over the latter’s acquisition of the Centular Juhu Hotel in Mumbai. He added that Shiv Sena had interest in Centular sale despite the party having publicly denounced the privatization process.

Accordingly, the deal ended with the hotel being sold to Mr. A.L. Batra who in turn sold the hotel to Sahara group making a neat profit in the process.

“The Hindu” on October 19,2002 said that Mr. Batra was close to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which had been vociferous in its opposition to disinvestments.

“The Hindu” said that Mr. Batra got Re. several crore through this transaction.

It showed that the leaders who opposed privatization in the open were insidiously working to appropriate one PSU or other.

Later, with regard to the resale of Centular Hotel, the Minister for Disinvestments said that one should not think about the property sold to someone. He said that such transactions in business were common. The implied meaning was that if the ships belonging to the Shipping Corporation of India were sold, the buyer could sell the ships to Pakistan or China or anyone belonging to those countries.

Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, the Executive Director of the Tata Sons, said that Tatas had a net profit of Re. 3600 crore on a turnover of Re. 45,800 crore. This represented 2.2% of the gross domestic product of India.

The President, during his visit to Uttaranchal on 19, October 2002, asked the people not to allow wealth or power to overrun true character or selfless service to the needy.

In the Chief Minister’s Conference held on 18 October 2002, the Chief Minister of Kerala, who had received the first eight letters, said that the nationalized banks mobilized deposits from the States only to lend it elsewhere.

In fact, the Chief Ministers, who had received letters from this writer, slashed the Centre in so many ways mainly drawing from the letters of this writer.

Flinging dirt

On 19 October 2002, the letter No.14 was sent to His Excellency the President of India. The Prime Minister of India was requested to submit his resignation if the Tata-BoI deal had taken place with his knowledge.

From

V. SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu P.O.629167.

His Excellency the President of India;

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reasons why our system is abetting crimeand economic terrorism in India.

1. Reluctance of the President of India to give a reply to the letter of October 1, 2002 indicates that the President of India now knows the list of people who helped Tata to take Re.850 crore from the BoI to buy the VSNL. The President may consider the question of consulting the constitutional experts to know whether the non-disclosure of the truth of this murky deal to the leaders of all political leaders, Chief Justice of India, investigating agencies and the people at large would go down as abetting crime in India or not.

In this connection, it must be pointed out, that there could be people who say that, Tata-the de-facto ruler of India- could take Re. thousands of crore from any bank at any time on business principle violating all guidelines. On the other hand, others would say that Re. 850 crore could have been given to several small entrepreneurs or used to revive sick industries and thereby dissuading at least 1000 youths from taking a terrorist line. Obviously, removal of Re.850 crore from the BoI has the effect of killing 10000 innocent people in one go. It would go down as the most inhuman economic terrorism in India. Therefore, if at all Tata took the money with the knowledge of the Prime Minister of India, all right thinking people feel that the Prime Minister must surrender the assets and tender his resignation without the slightest compunction to set a decent precedent. It is applicable to President of India as well, if he directly or indirectly helps his friend or relative under any pretext to take ‘illegally’ even Re.10/- from a nationalized bank.

2. It appears that most of the members of the Cabinet and other Ministers are also oblivious of the deal involving Tata and the BoI. If it were true, it would go down as abetting crime in India because all Ministers in the Union Cabinet and other Ministers have a duty to prevent economic crime in India.

3. The CBI may require prior sanction to proceed against senior officers of the Banks. However, under our Constitution, no act or guideline could be utilized to cover up illegal transactions and exploitations. On August 9, 1996 Justice Y.K. Jain and Y.K. Sabbarwal observed, “No sincere attempt has been made by the CBI to conclude the investigation in the case. It should be everybody’s concern that the mystery is solved. It cannot go on. The very nature of the allegation indicates this is the most important case the nation is facing. The investigation has to reach its logical conclusion” These words are applicable to the CBI even today. The Prime Minister asks the CBI to catch the big fish. If the Prime Minister himself and Tata were the big fish, how would the CBI catch them? Nevertheless, if the CBI continues to keep this matter as a tight secret, the common man would believe that the Director of the CBI is abetting crime in India, as “the CBI is answerable to law and to the law alone”.

4. The CBI even failed to see whether the equipments ordered by the BSNL reached the real destination or not. The suspicion about this deal deepens because the media syndicate defended this on business principle. Nothing is coming out of the UTI scam also. The CBI, which chases several small offenders, is conspicuously silent about these matters. President alone knows whether the CBI is abetting crime or not.

5. It is not clear whether the President of India, in good faith, transmitted the copies of the 12 letters to the CVC for necessary action or not. However, the CVC also must be aware of these large-scale manipulations. Here also, the President of India alone knows whether the office of the CVC is abetting crime or not.

6. The guideline issued by the Governor of the RBI to lend money to brokers was described as a corrupt practice. The Governor recently granted permission to the banks to lend money to the stakes to buy the PSUs. This guideline was issued presumably to cover up the deal of Tata with the BoI. This was also described as a corrupt practice. The President alone knows whether the inaction of the Governor of the RBI contributes to abetting crime in India or not.

7. The above matters were duly reported to the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice could have accepted the letter as a writ petition or transmitted it to the CBI and the CVC. It seems that the Chief Justice of India has not done so. The President of India alone, after consulting the constitutional experts, say whether the Chief Justice of India is contributing his share to these deals or not.

8. The media syndicate, which succeeded in discrediting Mr. Pratab Singh Kairon, Dr.M.Karunanidhi, Mr. A.R. Antulay, Mr.Bangarappa, Mr.Laloo Prasad Yadav and at least two former Prime Ministers, has not uttered even a word against these murky deals. Instead, they vie with one another to instill the idle mass to spurn venom on the toiling mass. The President of India could have asked an explanation from the PTI, UNI and other news agencies, as they have no right to black out news and views on one hand and perpetuate plunder on the other hand.

9. When the President of India talks to 1000 children, one among them could be the future Chairman of a PSU like the VSNL. Did anyone burn a drop of midnight oil to buy it? Will it not be a deception, if the VSNL and other privatized PSUs continue to remain in the hands of a few stakes? Is it right on the part of the President of India to mete out such discrimination on the vast majority of our children and meet them periodically? The President of India cannot take an ambivalent stand in this matter. He has to either remain as an abettor and contributor of crime by conniving at the conversion of all the PSUs including banks into private properties using bank funds, public funds or ill-gotten funds. Alternatively, he has to remain as the protector of the Constitution contributing effectively to take back or nationalize all the privatized PSUs to see a minimum of 15% growth rate. For the latter, he will have to call a spade a spade and enlighten everyone by sharing the truth.

10.Above all, it was represented to the President of India several times that a victim of a human right violation is still persecuted in a criminal court. It was also represented to the President that a remedy would save several others. The President of India could have talked to the Chairman of the NHRC. However, even for this there is no reply. The President alone can tell whether the Chairman of the NHRC contributes to crime in India through his refusal to give real relief to the victims of human rights violations.

In 1857 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA in a ruling said, “A blackman has no right that a white man is bound to respect” and the system accepted it. Now, in all the above matters the last word must come from the President of India.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

19-10-2002.

As soon as the letter was sent, the Cabinet meeting slated for 21 October 2002 was cancelled.

Perturbed by the letter, the editorial of The New Indian Express, on 24 October 2002, said, “Some dirt had been flung at the prime ministerial institution”. The editorial wanted that all efforts must be made to ensure that none sticked.

The media, therefore, did not report anything regarding these letters as if they were under some oath to maintain secrecy.

In the public meeting organized to celebrate the completion of three years of the NDA rule, on 25 October 2002, the Prime Minister said, “the demon had to be eliminated”. He added that might not happen immediately but they had the resolve to end it. Further, he asked the people to use “decent language” in public life. The words reminded the words used by this writer in the above letter. Curiously, he wanted the people to fight against social discrimination.

The newspapers-The New Indian Express and The Hindu- reported the words “the demon had to be eliminated” and “decent language” under inverted coma as given above. This was a clear threat against this writer.

Curiously, on the same day, the Prime Minister wanted the people to fight against social discrimination.

Referring to the killing of five “Dalits” in Jhajjar, Prime Minister asked Mr. Om Prahash Chauthala, Chief Minister of Haryana whether dalits had no right to live in India.

On October 24, 2002, the Union Government released around Re.1100 crore to oil marketing companies allegedly to compensate for the increased burden being faced by them due to the freeze in the LPG and kerosene prices. However, as all oil companies showed huge profits during 2002-2003, it appeared that Government gave the money to favour some private oil companies in bad faith and in private interest.

On October 26, 2002 Minister for Disinvestments Mr. Arun Shourie threatened that India would go the way of Soviet Union and end up like Pakistan if its economy was not managed properly. His premonition was that the foreign exchange reserves of India would slip; India would have to turn to the IMF and finally squeezed into submission. He predicted that China would take advantage of the weak points of India. He stressed that there must be political will to deal with the problems of governance.

On 29 October 2002, the Union Cabinet approved the 10th Five Year Plan which projected a disinvestments revenue of Re.16,000 crore annually.

To please the President of India, the issue of disinvestments was played down considerably saying that it accounted for just 2% of the total plan.

Further, the media said that the issue of disinvestments would not be a big issue, if the Finance Minister could mobilize resources from other sources.

In fact, the media applauded the approval of the tenth plan. The New Indian Express in its editorial on 31 October 2002 said that Re. 80,000 crore in five years could be realized only by selling crown jewels like the HPCL, BPCL, MTNL. The editorial deplored that the decision of the Government to give dearness allowance for bureaucrats at a time when the State Governments were growing under the massive salary burden. The editorial took strong exemption to the fact that A.V.Birla group- one of the bidders for Nalco- were threatened and driven away when they came to Orissa to begin their due diligence process. The paper accused the Prime Minister for not admonishing Naveen Patnaik, Chief Minister of Orissa, for his behaviour.

The above letter, sent through ordinary post, was e-mailed to the President on 1 November 2002. Next day, the Prime Minister, apparently, met the President. The print media blacked out the meeting although “The Hindu” reported it in page No.10. To divert the attention; “The Hindu” said that the Prime Minister was “understood to have appraised the President on the ASEAN summit”.

ly.

However, the law did not take its normal course even though the accusations emanated from the party of a Cabinet Minister.

An 11 member Bench of the Supreme Court of India headed by Chief Justice B.N.Kirpal, on 31 October 2002 held that the State or even a university – in the case of government institution and private education institution - are free to prescribe rules and regulation for admission of students. It even asked them to admit 50 percent of the students based on their own merit list and the rest for money. The media reported the judgement on October2,2002.

The judgement is a perverse one before the eye of the Constitution of India.

The Prime Minister departed for the ASEAN summit only on 5 November 2002 and as such the Prime Minister would not have met the President in connection with the summit.

While the Prime Minister was in Cambodia, The New Indian Express on 6 November 2002 attributed the dull mood of the Prime Minister to the lack of opportunity to smile back home in India. The reason- according to the paper- was that various ministers in the Cabinet were opposing privatization of the PSUs and the RSS too was standing against privatization.

Mr. S.Gurumurthy, on the same day, in the same paper said that if any banker in India breached the rule to help the businessmen, he would end up in the custody of the CBI. He, therefore, made an impassionate plea to the Government to revoke the Non Performing Asset (NPA) rule. In order to justify the demand, he pointed out that the NPA in GDP of Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan and India were 26.7% ($1.26 trillion),45% ($600 billions), 48%, 41%,27%, 4%. Thus, his indirect message was that the businessmen could escape with thousands of crore.

On the same day, it was reported that the privatization of Nalco would not take place during the financial year 2002-2003. The newspaper attributed the reason to sharp differences within the NDA partners. Another reason cited was the abortion of the so called due diligence exercise.

The Samatha Party led by the Defense Minister Mr. George Fernandes on November 6, 2002 said that the process of disinvestments should not give scope for misgivings and apprehension in the mind of the people. The party criticized the procedure and the speed of the process in particular. The statement said that the Reliance was charged with violation of the Official Secret’s Act. As such, the statement said that the IPCL should not have been sold to RIL. The statement further pointed out that the IPCL was undervalued and that the privatization resulted in the conversion of public monopoly into private monopoly

The Congress Party conducted its second brainstorming session for its Chief Ministers at Abu in Rajasthan on November 8 and 9.The earlier conclave had been held at Guwahati in Rajasthan six months ago. 12 of the 14 Chief Ministers attended the meeting. The highlight of the meeting was that eminent experts addressed the meeting. An economist Mr. Y.K.Singh, an educationalist Mr. A.K.Shiva Kumar, an expert in infrastructure management, Mr. Ravi Parthasarathy and former Chief of the Intelligence Bureau Mr. M.K.Narayanan addressed the meeting. Obviously, the Congress President wanted to protect the Congress Chief Ministers from the CBI.

In the meantime, on 7 November 2002, the Government sought the help of the Congress to pass 23 finance bills pending in Parliament. The bills included the Banking Regulation Bill which provided for denationalization by reducing Government equity in banks to 33 percent, Coal Mining Nationalization Amendment Bill, which provided for the denationalization of coal mining sector, Port Trust Bill which provided for the privatization of ports and National Airport Authority Bill which allowed the Government to give Airports on long term lease to private companies. Dr. Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party asked the Finance Minister to prioritize the Bills and convene an all-party meeting to evolve a consensus. The matter ended there. It must be noted that no conclusion could be drawn from the words of Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Commenting on the Abu conclave of the Congress Party, the editorial of The New Indian Express on 11 November 2002 deplored that the top leadership of the Congress Party continued to spout the rhetoric of socialism. The editorial asked the Congress to tell what prevented it from making reform the main agenda of the party. The editorial pointed out that the minority Government of Mr. P.V.Narasimha Rao could stay in power for a full term in the early nineties because of the consensus on reforms. The editorial wanted the leadership to have vision and not conclaves.

Evidently, the message was that the Government would last only if it enjoyed the support of the media.

On the same day, Mr. L.K.Advani said that global terrorism was not because of hunger and poverty but due to the absence of proper education and the lack of a liberal outlook.

On the same day, one Mr. C.T.Kurian wrote an article titled poverty and inequality in the center page of The Hindu.

One Mr. Ganesh wrote an article in the Business Review page of The Hindu on November 11, 2002. The title was Public Sector Reforms: International Experience”. He concluded the article by saying that many countries started public sector reforms with good intentions but could not continue on that path for long.

A few such articles were published in the light of the letters of this writer.

Now the letter No.15 dated 16-11-2002 was sent to His Excellency the President of India. The letter follows.

The total confusion

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam, Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu P.O.629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reason why the President of India must act, in ‘good faith’.

1. The predecessor of the present President of India did not defend the Prime Minister of India for the Re. 850/-crore illegally taken by Tata from the Bank of India, (BoI). The present President of India too has chosen not to defend the Prime Minister. The President of India must have acted in ‘good faith’ and revealed the truth to the common man.

It must be pointed out that letters were written, in good faith, to the Prime Minister, long before Tata took the money from the BoI because there were sufficient indications even before June 2001.

2. Tata must be the richest person in India. He apparently owns more property than what the Government of India owns. He must have deposited equal amount in the foreign countries through Keten Parek related activities. It is said that the share of Tata to the GDP of India is nearly 3%. Some believe that Tata would relinquish his estates in favor of his plantation workers. Then why should Tata take money from the BoI to buy the VSNL along with its employees? Do the commoners get bail for amounts in lakhs? Does our system shield big offenders from prosecution? Is it not the duty of the President to act in ‘good faith’ to show light?

3. Apprehending annihilation of the Constitution, a letter was written to the predecessor of the predecessor of the present Chief Justice of India even before the judgement on BALCO. He, instead of showing the right constitutional position to the bench hearing the BALCO case, apparently prevailed upon them to quicken the judgement to pre-empt the people from becoming alert. Now, on November 2, 2002 the predecessor of the Present Chief Justice of India said that for globalization our Constitution must be amended. Then, why did he not wait for the amendment? Why did he annihilate our Constitution? Why did he not restore status-quo ante of the Constitution before his retirement? The nature of the bond that exists among these judges, the members of the ‘super Cabinet’, the Governor, RBI, and the Director, CBI and the reason for their ‘unity of mind’ must be probed and understood by the President of India and the information shared with the public in ‘good faith’.

4. A piece of paper was enough for a court to direct the CBI to interrogate Mr.Sitaram Kesri. The court did this knowing well that the then UF Government depended upon his outside support for its survival. However, when a citizen of India pointed out to the Chief Justice of India that Tata illegally took Re.850/-crore, the then Chief Justice of India was not ready to verify the veracity of the matter. Therefore, if the predecessor of the present Chief Justice of India had collaborated with Tata to take money from the BoI, he too is liable for prosecution. However, the President alone knows the reason for his inaction and he must share his information with the public in ‘good faith’.

5. Though some murky deals were pointed out, that too well before the events to the Director, CBI, he could not overcome his inertia. In this matter also, the President alone knows the actual mechanisms and limitations and he must enlighten the people in this regard in ‘good faith’.

6. The President should have denied or accepted the charges against the Governor, RBI. If the Governor had allowed anyone to steal money from any bank on any ground at any time in ‘bad faith’, the President must act in ‘good faith’ to prosecute him.

7. During the period of the UF Government, the media could say that the Congress office was under the surveillance of the Intelligence Bureau. It could say that the Intelligence Bureau was asked by the PMO to find ways and means of implicating Mr. Kesri in a 1993 criminal case On January 14, 1997, in its editorial the Indian Express said, “The attempt to make it incumbent upon the CBI to seek permission to investigate ministers-past and present- is nothing sort of an outrage. On what grounds the Government think it can justify such audacity will be fascinating to see”. Now the media is defending the murky deals. Shall the media and the investigating agencies work in tandem like this? Instead of showing light on these matters, the media is now canvassing support for curtailing freedom of expression. If the President acts in ‘good faith’, he could find a remedy.

8. Just when the amount spent on the education of our children began to yield fruits in the form of NRI deposits, than the stakes invented an ingenious way to usurp our PSUs using the NRI deposits in the name of a reform called globalization. When the banks too are purchased, the stakes need not pay the money taken from the banks. Does none in a country of 1000 million people understand this? Should a common man write 14 letters about this matter to the President of India? It is incredible that they could achieve their objectives without turning our Constitution upside down. Further, as the money is not pumped into the economy by carrying out projects for development, the purchasing power of the people is fast falling below the critical level with disastrous consequences for industries-public and private.

9. It is said that every country gets the kind of Government it deserves. It is applicable to the President of India as well. Naturally, the President must know the way and show the way. At times, dissent would become the duty rather than the right. If he acts in good faith, the Government, the learned judges, the Director, CBI and the Governor, RBI would act in ‘good faith’ to change the lives of the people and the factors that forced this writer to write letters would cease to exist. If he wastes his precious time, India would be ruined.

10. It was reported several times that a States Human Rights Commission found a police officer “specifically responsible” for a human right violation. However, the Government, instead of prosecuting him, is still persecuting the victim in a criminal court to create a criminal record. If the President acts in ‘good faith’, he could find a remedy.

Now, there is an apparent threat to the life of this writer for writing letters to the President. In this connection, two front-page newspaper cuttings of October 26, 2002 from The Hindu and The New Indian Express are sent in a cover. Whether these papers published the identical news, in their Delhi editions is not clear. However, the President could discern the actual position. This is what the common man can do. There were no human rights. Now there is no ‘right for life’. Is it not the duty of the President tomake India safe for every one?

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode ,

16-11-2002.

The Supreme Court on 18 November 2002 dismissed yet another PIL that challenged the policy of disinvestments. The petitioners said that the policy of disinvestments was against the Constitution, which called for the implementation of the socialistic pattern of society. The PIL was filed by 15 trade union organizations. The court rejected the PIL on the ground that the court would not interfere in a policy matter of the Government.

The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.S.Rao, contended that the policy of disinvestments violated article 21 of the Constitution as it was affecting the livelihood of many people whose jobs were being terminated. Citing the BALCO case, the Bench said that the courts should not interfere in the policy matters of the Government and rejected the petition.

Justice V.N.Khare, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice Arun Kumar were in the Bench. The counsel for the petitioner must have informed the court that public properties were being appropriated and converted into private properties in the name of an ill-conceived policy and that the method followed for disinvestments went against equitable distribution of national assets.

They did not argue the case like this. Therefore, all right-thinking people felt that the advocates did not argue the case properly although the learned judges contributed their share for ruining the Constitution.

Mr. Arun Shourie on 22 November 2002 said that an informal meeting called by the Prime Minister had been cancelled in the second week of November. He said that the bidders for the Government equity in PSUs were withdrawing due to a virtual stoppage of the process. He added that the buyers would not keep waiting outside a closed shop. He refused to give answer to any other question from the reporters although he said that only Prime Minister knew about the matter.

On the same day, an officer in the Ministry of Disinvestments said that his Ministry was not getting sufficient cooperation from the administrative ministries and executives of PSUs that were put on the block. On the same day, Mr. Jaswant Singh said that disinvestments and the FDI would be pushed forward although he agreed that some problem had cropped up in the disinvestments process.

Mr. Seshasayee, the Managing Director, Ashok Leyland, on 22 November 2004, pointed out the debacles of major organizations like Enron, Xerox, Tata Finance and said that corporate governance was directly proportional to how well the four corners of good corporate Governance-internal auditors, the board of directors- senior management and external auditors-coordinate efforts and cooperate to adopt appropriate reform measures.

The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), on November 22, 2004 invited offers for the purchase of the UP based properties of Daevo Motor India Limited (DMIL). The DMIL had borrowed heavily from the ICICI bank. As the parent company of the DMIL, Daevo Motors, Korea also became bankrupt, it could not bail out the DMIL.

A Parliamentary Committee on November 2002 suggested the Government to keep Nalco as a PSU in the interest of competition and for the removal of regional backwardness. Apparently, the Prime Minister wanted to remain above controversy.

The Prime Minister declined to deliver the inaugural address in the three-day Annual India Economic Summit of the Davos based World Economic Forum. The Finance Minister also maintained a discreet distance from the event.

This prompted The Hindu on 25 Nov 2002 to say that the reforms were not high on the agenda of the Government.

On the same day, ie 25 November 2002, The Hindu published an extract from three books published by one Mr. Arvind Sivaramakrishnan, Lecturer, Southampton, UK. The three books were: 1. “The New Rulers of World” by John Pilger, London Verso, 2002. 2. Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. London, Pan 2001. 3. The Silent Takeover, Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy, London: Arrow, 2001. The extract ended as follows. Monlist concludes: “The only thing that can reverse the corporate takeover is-you”.

Obviously, it was an indirect compliment to this writer. The Hindu published it knowing well the letters of this writer.

The Hindu, on the same day, disclosed that the total deposits in Indian Banks stood at Re.12,00,000 crore.

On November 24, 2002 two pickpockets were tied to a lamppost for pick pocketing Re.500/- at Coimbatore in Tamil Naduand they were beaten up by the public before being taken into custody by the police.

Coming back, commenting on the CII- World Economic Forum meeting held at New Delhi, on November 25, ‘The Indian Express” said that the mood at the meet was quite downbeat. The editorial of The New Indian Express on Nov 28 said that the absence of even the Finance Minister in world Economic Forum was surprising and distressing.

The editorial of the Business Line, on Nov 26, 2002 justified the demand of the Maruti Udyog for halving excise duty on motorcars from 32 percent to 16 percent. Thus, the Japanese promoter, who gave Re.1000 crore as control premium for securing majority stake in the company has been getting back Re.1000 crore every year as tax relief. The understanding for the deal could be gauged. Apparently, the minister had given an assurance to cut the excise duty to give the control premium.

On November 28, Mr. Brijesh Mishra, the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister gave an interview to the BBC Television Channel. The programme was named “Hard Talk of the world”. He said that there was no danger to the stability of the Prime Minister and that he would remain in power for two more years. He added that there was no threat to his Government from any “corner” of India. It may be noted that the native District of this writer is Kanyakumari, a “corner” of India.

On the same day, there was a sport meet for the polio-affected children. The Prime Minister gave a talk to them. He told them that he too belonged to their category. It was a reflection of his mind.

Presumably, referring to the demand of this writer, he told them that the society could change the Government. However, he added that the society could do so only after the completion of five years and nothing should be done in the middle.

The Parliament, on November 28, passed a Bill formalizing the bifurcation of the UTI. During the debate, Finance Minister Mr. Jaswant Singh said that the Government would consider the question of disinvesting the shares of the UTI only after 3-5 years.

As the Parliament cleared the new Securitization Bill, the ICICI Bank seized the Vatwa plant of the Mardia Chemicals on behalf of 20 institutions and banks on 27 November 2002.

On November 29, 2002, Mr. L.K. Advani said that the politicians, just like doctors, engineers, teachers, require training to understand the pitfalls of governing the country. This was an admission that the Government was caught in the BoI-Tata deal.

On 30 November 2002, Mr. Arun Shourie, the Minister for Disinvestments placed the onus of future disinvestments on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. It is clear that he wanted to put the blame on the Prime Minister. He said that no note regarding the proposed review of the disinvestments had reached his ministry although his ministry had responded to some letters received from the Prime Minister. He deplored that it would be difficult to achieve the disinvestments target of Re, 12000/- crore for 2002-2003 in the then prevailing situation.

It is evident that the Minister was referring to the letters sent by this writer and that he wanted to disown responsibility for all disinvestments done by his Ministry. Thus he accepted defeat for the disinvestments process.

On 1 December 2002, the Union Minister for Finance, Mr. Jaswant Singh, said that the banks had lost their self-confidence due to continuous scrutiny of their working by central agencies including the CBI, CVC, and CAG. He deplored that it was not a good sign and therefore not acceptable to him. These utterances of the Minister for Disinvestments and the Minister for Finance gave the impression that some investigations were going on with regard to the amount taken by Tata from the BoI and that the Government would abandon the policy of disinvestments.

However, the Prime Minister on the same day said that minor differences within the NDA and within the BJP would not deter the Government from pushing ahead with economic reforms (privatization).

Answering the stage-managed question of newspersons that were interested in privatization, the Prime Minister said that economic reforms were part of the election manifesto of the NDA.

Meanwhile Dr. Karunanidhi, the leader of the DMK, categorically said that the DMK would nationalize the transport buses if the Government in Tamil Nadu privatized the same.

On December 3, 2002 the Minister for Finance, Mr. Jaswant Singh, presenting the first ever midyear economic review said that the Government was committed to the process of privatization. He now propounded a new theory for privatization. According to this new theory; privatization was to “bring out the hidden potential of PSUs”. He did not say, how the production potential would increase by selling the PSUs. Obviously, it was a theory distilled by the ruling class.

The New Indian Express published an article by one Mr. Balakrishnan on the same day. He lamented that the Public Sector Banks, (PSBs), were victims of half-baked policies. He commended the VRS scheme implemented in the Public Sector Banks (PSBs) with amazing speed. But he said that reluctance of the Government to give up control over the resources of PSBs despite its stated intention was baffling. His statement confirmed the impression that the VRS scheme was introduced with the aim of privatization. In other words, the Government wanted to absorb all losses even before handing over the banks to private parties.

On 3 December 2002, the Minister for Finance, presenting the first ever mid-term economic review reiterated that the Government was committed to disinvestments of the PSUs to unlock the productive potential inherent in the PSUs. It was silent about the fact that a company engaged in retailing has nothing to unlock.

A formal meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments was held on December 5, 2002 to iron out the supposed differences between Mr. George Fernandes and those favouring disinvestments. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Disinvestments Mr. Arun Shourie, the Petroleum Minister Mr. Ram Naik, the External Affairs Minister Mr. Yashwant Sinha, the Minister for Finance Mr. Jaswant Singh and the Minister for Defense Mr. George Fernandes took part in the hour-long deliberations.

Next day, The Hindu reported that there was unanimous view on the question of the disinvestments of the HPCL and BPCL. It reported that the Minister of Disinvestments was asked to make a statement in the Parliament after getting time from the Speakers of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

On December 6, The New Indian Express reported that the Ministry of Disinvestments swung into action to restart the sell off process.

On 6 December 2002, the Prime Minister called on the President and spent more than an hour with him.

On December 7, The New Indian Express wrote a hard hitting editorial titled “Unleash PSU potential”. The title was reminiscent of the words used by the Minister of Finance on December 3 in the Parliament. The salient points of the editorial were:

1. “The investors in India and abroad were eagerly waiting for the statement of the policy pertaining to the PSUs.

2.The Government owed an explanation on the question of its plans with respect to its companies.

3.There should have been greater clarity on the part of the Government. The Government must have disclosed whether it wanted half-house strategy of disinvestments or ‘full way’ privatization.

4.The Prime Minister must have stood up and told his critics like the ‘sangh parivar’ and others to ‘put up or shut up’.

5.The claim that petroleum retailing must have been treated as a strategic one was ‘hogwash’.

6.The privatization was done to unlock the productive potential inherent in the PSUs. It must have been treated as an important guide to policy. It could not be achieved without changing the management control over the PSUs. It was the reason why Shourie and his supporters were preferred.

7. Most of the Ministers preferred disinvestments without changing management control because they wanted to distribute patronage.

8. The private enrichment of public servants at public expense could only stop with the outright sale of PSUs and not with disinvestments”.

Obviously, the media was spreading pernicious and exploitative theories.

Incredibly, in the same page, the newspaper published an article by one Mr. G.V.Ramakrishna, former Chairman Disinvestments Commission. Quoting from the book, The view from No 11 by Nigel Lawson, he says that private sector is not used in the sense of transferring to a single private company a block of shares and control as it is understood in India but offer shares to people to encourage share ownership among the people and workers. It was first called ‘people’s capitalism and later Mrs. Thatcher called it ‘popular capitalism’. This scheme prevents any single company or group getting control of these blue chip companies.

When the British Petroleum, (BP), was privatized, Kuwait Investment Office, (KIO), a company from Kuwait was asked, (1) not to acquire more than 20 per cent share, (2) not to pass on the shares to any other company without the concurrence of the Government and (3) not seek control or any management role in the BP. When the KIO refused, the matter was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC). The MMC, in its report said, “There is a high degree of probability that sooner or later situation will arise in which Kuwait’s national and international interests will come sharply with the BP’s and Governments interests”.

Finally, accepting the ruling, the Government gave KIO three years to bring down its shareholding to 10 per cent. In many other cases the Government took, White Paper to Parliament and in some cases legislation had to be passed.

Mr. Ramakrishna said that the Disinvestments Commission of India studied this and suggested the formation of National Shareholding Trust consisting of eminent people to keep residual shares. The article was to enable the Government to change the policy slightly.

Later, the article formed the basis of the part of the statement issued by the Minister of Disinvestments on 9 December 2002.

Accordingly, the Minister announced in the Parliament the decision of the Government to privatize the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The method of privatization envisaged the sale of the HPCL to a strategic partner and public offer in the case of the BPCL. The condition was that the disinvestments would not result in the alienation of national assets or it would result in private monopolies. Further, a certain percentage of shares would be kept for the employees of the two companies. In this way, the Government climbed down a little although the insatiable ambition to appropriate the HPCL could be discerned.

Further, there were reports that the Government began preliminary work on submitting proposals for off-loading Government equity in as many as 12 PSUs including the BSNL and the MTNL.

These developments and the demand of the Japanese promoter of Maruti to reduce excise duty by 50 per cent indicated that the system was under total confusion.

Committing Contempt of Constitution

From

V.SABARIMUTHU,

Thattankonam,

Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu, P.O.629167.

His Excellency the President of India;

Rashtrapathi Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reasons why the President of India shall not commit contemptof Constitution.

1. As there is no reason to believe that the 14 letters would not have reached the hands of the President of India, it is now clear that Tata took the money from the BoI, with the knowledge of the Prime Minister of India. In this connection, it must be pointed out that even if the Prime Minister- after touching the feet of Tata- had arranged Re. 850/- crore to Mrs. Chinnapillai- the poor woman from Tamil Nadu-to buy the VSNL, someone in some place would have said that the Prime Minister misused his official position to favour her. Here, the Prime Minister after touching her feet in presence of 1000 million people insidiously bestowed Tata with Rs. 850/-crore.

2. The Governor, RBI, is the custodian of all the banks in India. He has to handle a deposit of Re.12, 00000/-crore with great trust and responsibility. However, he allowed a theft of Re.850/- from BoI alone. Prima fasciae, he shall not remain in office even for one minute.

3. The Chairman/Managing Director of the Bank of India and all others who really abetted this theft too is liable for prosecution.

4. It was the then Prime Minister Mr. P.V.Narasimha Rao, who had granted sanction to the CBI to go ahead with the prosecution in the ‘Lakhubhai Pathak’ cheating case to establish rule of law. Mr.Rao did it knowing well that he would end up as a co accused.

5. Further, it may be recalled that during the period of the United Front Government at least three cases were filed against Mr. Rao. Some cases were filed against Mr. Sitaram Kesri and Mr. K.Karunakaran. A former Union Minister, Mr. Kalpath Rai, was awarded ten-year imprisonment. A High court issued notices to the kin of the then Prime Minister. The moment the UF Government fell, some of these cases were acquitted and most of the others went into oblivion. In contrast, when a theft of Re. 850 crore was pointed out to the Supreme Court, CBI and the President of India, no one is ready to reveal the truth. There is not even a murmur in this regard. No one wants to see with which money-black money or accounted money- the stakes buy the PSUs although everyone chases ordinary people.

6. The Supreme Court has now reinforced the judgement on BALCO by one more judgement. The calamity is that the court, apparently, concluded not based on our Constitution but based on what is happening in China as reported by the media. Two learned judges who wanted the political parties to have allegiance to socialism were also in the Bench. The courts should not abhor the democracy in India because Hitler was a product of democracy. It should not decree to adopt the Chinese political model in India for stability, progress and development. It should not condescend theft because it is the ‘economicpolicy’ of the Government. Our Constitution becomes a dynamic one only when it is amended.

7. As the media blacked out the arguments in the above case for the benefit of their masters, none is aware of anything that happened in the Supreme Court. The speeches of the President too are blacked out. In fact, the media dislike his speeches. Now, the media syndicate justifies the demand of the Japanese promoter to reduce the excise duty on motorcar by 50%. Japanese promoter had given Rs.1000/-crore as control premium. At this moment, it is clear that he wants to control the Union government, as he indirectly demands the exchequer to suffer a loss of Re. 1000/- crore every year. The President must have noticed this. Further, the media syndicate has not revealed with which money – hard earned money of Indians or Japanese- the Japanese promoter bought Maruti. The President, who is entitled to all pieces of information, could share theinformation with the people.

8. The President of India must have noticed that the concept of equality permeates all Articles. The President must have also envisaged the consequences of Article 15. It was passed by Parliament and so long as the Parliament refuses to remove it, it is imperative that the President must protect this provision. For this the President must love all our people-white or black, male or female, young or old, high class or low class, upper caste or lower caste. He shall not hate anyone without any valid reasons nor shall he cause someone to hate anyone. He shall not love anyone for ‘wrong reasons’ permanently to the detriment of others. He should see that the factors that force the people to receive gratis from anyone cease to exist. One way for this is that the Article 15 must be strictly applied for the selection of judges and for the constitution of Benches so that there would be ‘unity in diversity’ rather than ‘unity in homogeneity’. The industrial credit must be equitably distributed among different sections of our people and among different States. The 49 percent shares of private companies also could be equally distributed. This is the dominant theme of our Constitution and it could be extended for the selection students in the IITs. If we cannot love ourselves, how will others love us?

9. India is still a country where the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission protects the police officer that breaks open the house of innocent people at night. Evidently, he is abetting crime openly. Now, the Prime Minister of India is remaining as a threat to the life of a citizen of India. It could be a presumption because the Prime Minister could have finished the job within minutes. The President of India, for reasons best known to him, remains as a silent spectator in this matter.

10. If the truth were revealed, some right thinking people would hold Tata and a few others mainly responsible for the terrorism in India. Huge amounts illegally taken are nothing but theft. There could be no other euphemism for it. Instead of protecting the interests of Tata with nuclear devices, the President could have written to the learned judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts, senior officers of the CBI and above all, to the Members of Parliament (MPs) and called for their views severally and collectively. Surely, no one would have requested the President to remain as a silent spectator. In fact, a healthy opinion would have evolved. They would have at least given a suggestion to dispel the darkness from Delhi and from the people. Therefore, if the President allows the government to cover up the Himalayan theft by Tata under any pretext conveying the message that the jails are for the innocent and neglected section of our people, all right thinking people would think that the President would be abetting exploitation, crime, theft, and thereby committing contempt of Constitution.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode ,

10-12-2002.

The opposition parties, the Congress Party included, stoutly opposed the announcement regarding the privatization of the HPCL and BPCL on the ground that the PSUs acquired through nationalization could not be privatized through a notification. To this Mr. Arun Shourie said that if the Congress Government could sell 49 percent of the shares of these companies through a notification, the NDA Government could sell more than 51 percent of the shares as well.

The Congress, in vain, attempted to distinguish the sale of 49 percent from the sale of more than 51 per cent, which results in privatization.

The opposition forced an adjournment in the Rajya Sabha and staged a walkout in the Lok Sabha.

Next day, the opposition parties sought a discussion on the matter. The members said that the Government was ‘looting and plundering’ the nation.

On the third day, Mrs Sonia Gandhi said that the economic policies of the Government were having disastrous consequences.

However, The New Indian Express was disappointed by the announcement regarding the privatization of the HPCL and BPCL. In its editorial of December 11, 2002, the paper deplored the growing weakness within the political establishment for privatization. It criticized the Government for not giving a time frame for selling the shares in the HPCL and the BPCL. The editorial feared that the bureaucracy would ‘scuttle the dismantling of a carefully built empire’ because they were ‘not ready to give up access to free cars, cell phones, household furniture, subsidized accommodation in five star hotels’. It added that the ministers were also not ready to give the ‘perks and privileges of public sector patronage’.

Meanwhile, in an election meeting at Rajkot in Gujarat, the Congress President asked the people whether a Government that ‘cheated people of their hard-earned money ever do any good for Gujarat and it went down well with the people.The Hindu reported this on December 9, 2002.

Addressing a meeting in Himachal Pradesh on 11 December 2002, she lashed out at the ‘disastrous’ economic policy of the Government. She said that the PSUs were set up with public money and they were not the property of any political party. She emphasized that the PSUs were providing employment to weaker sections of the society and the youth from poor families. She said that power was not the ultimate aim of the Congress and that the Congress would use it to serve the people ensuring their welfare. She assured the people that the Congress had never compromised on its principles and would never do that, as the Congress was not a party with leaders who change their stand everyday. She alleged that the BJP, apart from engineering divisions in society, was making the life of the poor, backward, tribal and other weaker sections a miserable one.

In the second batch of supplementary demands, the Government gave Re. 1949 crore to the UTI as bailout package.

It appeared that the President duly transmitted the letter sent to him on 10 December 2002 to the Prime Minister of India immediately.

Thus, on December 13, 2002, Mr. Pramod Mahajan, the Minister for Communication and Information Technology, ruled out the privatization of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) in the near future because of the enormous size of these PSUs. He admitted that none had the money to buy them. Nevertheless, he said that a panel was set up to study the issues involved.

On the same day, on the platinum jubilee celebrations of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Prime Minister delivered a memorable speech.

The speech was a reflection of his predicament.

On one side he wanted to see reason and follow the dictates of his better self. On the other side he wanted to satisfy the ruling class presumably to cling to power. He said, “All the regions of India must see progress and development. The gap between the rich and the poor must be reduced as for as possible. Necessities to most modern necessities must reach all sections of our people. This is my ambition. This is why I am giving my personal attention to every aspect of economic reforms.

The steps taken by my Government with the objective of making the nation rich are conveying wrong message to me and to my Government. Some parties attribute motives to the actions taken in public interest and criticize me personally. If the poor people are to become rich, there is no way other than rejecting such allegations with the contempt it deserves. That is why, despite several oppositions, I am steadfastly refusing to part with the reforms including privatization.

In spite of all my sincere efforts, the reforms are not taking place as expected. This gives me great pain both as Prime Minister and personally. All reforms must have taken place with great speed. In contrast, they are going on in the speed of a tortoise. Let me confess that I am myself as dissatisfied as any one of you over the slow progress in several areas.

We plunged into economic reform in order to attain 8 per cent growth rate. However, the growth rate has not even reached 5 or 6 percent. I thought about the reason for the stagnation in economic growth. I discussed this matter with the officers and ministers. I found out a basic truth in this matter. The steps taken for reforms succeeded in displacing the “License Raj”, “Permit Raj” and “Quota Raj”. Nevertheless, it has not fully displaced the “Inspector Raj”. That is why economic stagnation continues to plague our nation. If we could diagnose the reason for the disease, we could change the method of treatment and cure the disease. Similarly, as it is clear that the ‘Inspector Raj’ is remaining as an impediment to economic development, steps are being taken to remove these impediments through some reform measures. Many entrepreneurs, especially those in the small and medium sectors, were routinely harassed and humiliated under this Inspector Raj. This must end. I expect to achieve higher growth rate as soon as removing these impediments.

The ‘Inspector Raj’ is remaining as an obstacle for making the nation rich. Therefore, the reforms measures to abolish the Inspector Raj that block the progress and development of the nation will be announced in the coming budget.

A number of steps are being taken to abolish Government interference in industry. In this connection, orders have been issued to implement the Govindarajan committee report. When this recommendation is fully implemented many from India and abroad would come forward to start industries in India. When many industries were started, money circulation would increase and consequently the gap between the haves and have-nots as the gap between the developed and under developed regions would be abridged. The fruits of development must reach the poor and the underprivileged. The economy has to produce more, create more productive employment opportunities and help the people lead better lives.

Besides the ‘Inspector Raj’, there are some other reasons for the stagnation in economic development. The attack on the world Trade Centre, war in Afganistan, Kargil conflict, earth quake in Gujarat, communal disturbances and the wrong policies pursued by the previous Governments in the states as well as in Centre were some of the reasons for the stagnation in economic development. In spite of such factors, our growth rate was not as seriously affected as other countries. This does not mean that I am contradicting my own point. What all I can say is that the economic development is not as fast as I expected. However, I am happy that the damage caused to our economy is minimum compared to many other countries.

Ours is a democratic country. Therefore, no reforms could be implemented instantly. We have to allow all conflicts of ideas. In order to dispel all suspicions we have to talk and discuss calmly all facets of the issues. To take a unanimous decision time is needed. You have seen how we are trying to carry everyone along- through dialogue and consultations, without bringing politics in developmental issues and through a constant effort to expand the areas of consensus on economic reforms. These processes could not be bypassed in a democracy.

However, some people are exploiting the right to freedom of expression for selfish and political ends. They give wrong meaning to reform measures of the government and propagate it relentlessly. This also is contributing to the stagnation in economic development.

The economic development of the nation should not be affected due to selfish political ends. I hope that all political parties would behave in a responsible way in this matter.

Political stability also is required for economic development. Our coalition set up has achieved a success in this matter. The NDA Government would continue for five years. As there is no confusion or fear with regard to political stability, we would never withdraw reforms.

Therefore, the industry must repose their faith in our Government and cooperate with the Government for speedy economic development of the nation”.

The above speech was the translated version of that appeared in the Tamil daily Thina Malar on 14 December 2002.

It is clear that the speech was directly related to the 15 letters sent to the President of India.

The President of India wanted the law to take its own course.

The Prime Minister described this as Inspector Raj

The present man was not against anyone starting any industry in India but opposed the alienation of national assets in favour of anyone in India or abroad.

But the Prime Minister said that the present man misused freedom.

Obviously, the Prime Minister was explaining his predicaments, which were well known to media but not the public. His speech indicated that he wanted the help of the ruling class to run the Government presumably because of the realization that the Government at the Centre might not last without their support.

Most of the newspapers including The New Indian Express did not publish this speech.

The Hindu superficially published it. It, however, did not mention anything informed by the Prime Minister which had any bearing to the letters sent by this writer.

On December 17, 2002, during a discussion in the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Sanjay Nirupam, M.P. of Shiv Sena said that four employees of the Mumbai Centaur Hotel died of heart attack immediately after privatization and another employee who suffered heart attack was in a coma in a city hospital.

Next day, the opposition in the Lok Sabha made a blistering attack against the Government for pursuing the policy of privatization.

Mr. Somnath Chatterjee of (CPI-M) said that the Government was looting and plundering while selling the PSUs. Describing it as the most sordid chapter of the Government, he said that people had been reduced to penury while the nation lost valuable assets. He said that corruption was the highest embodiment of privatization. He was sad that the Prime Minister barely made any response when the leaders of 20 trade unions met him on the previous day and was stunned by the total ‘insensitivity’ of the Prime Minister on the question of privatization. No newspaper mentioned the word ‘insensitivity’ although the DD mentioned it in its Parliament news.

Mr. Arun Shourie, replying to a five hour debate, said that 37 of the 39 PSUs privatized between 1991 and 2000 were profit making. Of the 34 PSUs privatized between 2000-2002, only eight were profit making. He said that if earlier Governments could sell equity in companies acquired through acts of Parliament, his Government too could sell them.

In the meantime, the Joint Parliamentary Committee, (JPC), probing the ‘stock scam’ submitted its report to the Parliament in the third week of December 2002.The Chairman of the JPC was Mr. Prakash Mani Tripathi, M.P. The report attributed the fiasco of the UTI to the concentration of power in the post of the Chairman of the UTI without adequate checks and balances to prevent its misuse. The JPC requested the Government to bring under Securities and Exchange Board of India, (SEBI), all the schemes of the UTI. The JPC wanted the Government to probe the Swiss bank account of Mr. Ketan Parekh and the wrong doings by the banks. The report was replete with acts of omissions and commissions by the Ministry of Finance. For instance, the report said the capital market manipulated to benefit operators, brokers and corporate houses.

On 20 December 2002 a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Y. K. Sabharwal and Justice H. K. Sema struck down as ‘unjustified and arbitrary’ the direction of the Government to cancel and auction all dealerships in petrol pumps allotted after January 2000. The dealerships were cancelled in the wake of media alleging and exposing political favouritism.

The Bench, however, constituted a two-member committee to examine the complaints against 417 cases where there were allegations of political favoritism.

None realized that the learned judgeswere paving the way to hand over petroleum distributing power itself to private parties.

On 21 December 2002, the National Development Council adopted the Tenth Plan document. The plan envisaged garnering Re. 80,000 crore through disinvestments.

The Prime Minister said some of the issues regarding reforms were contentious and he, therefore, wanted to build a broad consensus. To meet this end the Prime Minister disclosed his intention to consult the Chief Ministers at an early date.

Mr. Arun Jain and Mr.Rajiv Malhotra were arrested by Indonesian police in connection with the contract work awarded to Chennai based Polaris Software Labs. Responding to intense pressure from the Government of India, they were released. India gave an assurance that they would cooperate with any investigations that the local authorities might wish to conduct.

On December 23, 2002 The New Indian Express published an article titled “To Disinvest Or NOT” by six authors from Mumbai, Hyderabad, Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi, Chennai and Kolkata. They repeated the words of the Finance Minister that the privatization was to “unleash the productive potential inherent in public sector enterprises”. They silently said that the funds for buying the PSUs used to come from the public sector banks.

The above article was to convince the public that there was nothing wrong in giving money to the ruling class to buy the PSUs. The article also carried the message that Mr. Arun Shourie was a former World Bank economist and that he succeeded in notching up a string of successful sales of some big PSUs. The reach of the ruling class could be gauged.

Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee, on 25 December 2002, said there were certain problems with regard to disinvestments. He, however, added that the problems were surmountable.

The newspapers, on 27 December 2002, reported that the Government of India would give Re. 8200/- crore to the Unit Trust of India (UTI), a Public Sector Undertaking, for the financial year 2003-2004 to tide over liquidity problems for its beleaguered flagship scheme US-64 and assured return schemes. Thus the Government compensated the amount appropriated by the ruling class.

The Government had given huge amount to the UTI before in a similar fashion. Nothing was returned. The fact that the money was not given secretly must be noted.

The CCD, which met on December 27, 2002 under the Prime Minister, ended in disarray. The HPCL-BPCL privatization issue was deferred. The explanation given was that the Attorney General was not in New Delhi to give his opinion.

The CCD also decided to defer the privatization of the Delhi Centaur Hotel. The reason given for this decision was the proposed expansion of the Delhi airport.

The CCD further decided to allow the PSUs to bid for National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) and the FACT.

Ms.Susma Ramachandran, writing for The Hindu, said the tame ending of the CCD was a disappointment to the mediathereby confirming the fact that the ruling class and the media were the same entity.

To console the Minister of Disinvestments, the Prime Minister gave a large number of additional charges to him.

On 31 December 2002, The New Indian Express published a lengthy article by the former Finance Minister of India, Mr.P. Chithambaram. In that article he exhorted the Prime Minister to privatize at least two-dozen PSUs including banks in 2003.He said, “Why are some people happy with Government control? The reason is it enables rent seeking. Ministers want control, so they oppose disinvestments. Bureaucrats want control, so they write meaningless rules and regulations. Bankers want control, so they put retired bankers on the boards of companies. Judges want control so they enter the field reserved for the executive under the pretext that the executive has failed to act. Government policies must be designed to break this stranglehold of controls.

There is no better place to begin than disinvestments in PSUs and downsizing the central Government. Before the year 2003 is out, Vajpayee must ensure disinvestments in at least two dozen PSUs (including some banks) are privatized and that totally redundant jobs in the central Government are abolished”.

The media got this article from him just two days before the crucial meeting of the Cabinet on 2 January 2003.

However, the Prime Minister, during his stay at Goa in the last week of December disclosed that privatization could not be carried out successfully in India. This message did not appear in the newspapers. Only the DD in its Tamil news disclosed it.

The main reason was that the Prime Minister could not convince the President of India.

True to his words, the Cabinet returned a proposal of the Civil Aviation Ministry for joint venture partnership with 95% FDI to privatize the four international metro airports.

Instead, the Cabinet asked the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Civil Aviation to take a re-look at the idea and come back with a proposal to restructure the airports at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata to world-class standards in record time.

The movements of the files showed that the files were reaching the Cabinet room without the direction from the Prime Minister; and the Cabinet rejected the proposals only because of these letters and the President of India.

The Ministry of Disinvestments also decided to remove Nalco and the SCI from the disinvestments list for the year 2003.

It was one of the greatest achievements of these letters because the will of the Government was defeated by the will of the letters.

The Prime Minister followed reason for the good although this writer did not acknowledge it then to maintain the pressure.

The ruling class played down these decisions to keep this writer in the darkness of the night.

The BSE index stood at 3324 at this point of time.

The decision to defer the privatization of four airports was a great set back to the players involved in the game.

The Hindu, in its business news, latently said that investing in shares would be perilous.

As the ruling class could not digest, The Hindu on 12 January 2003 published a very big article titled “Grounded…for Now” by one Mr. Gargi Parsai.

In that article, he said the decision of the Cabinet to turn down the proposal to privatize four airports had sent the wrong signal to foreign investors including consortiums from Malaysia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Britain, Singapore and the Middle East.

He inadvertently agreed that the four metro airports accounted for the 70% profit of the Airport Authority of India (AAI). AAI had 122 airports and it had been cross subsidizing the non-profitable airports.

He disclosed that the AAI all on a sudden said that if the profit making airports were to be given to private players on a platter, the AAI would not survive at all. Beyond that, he expressed his inability to provide any piece of information on airports privatization because of the fact that the Government and the AAI were cagey about parting any bit of information as though it was a classified one.

Therefore, he said a shroud of secrecy had fallen over the entire exercise. However, the Secretary, Civil Aviation said the idea of the privatization of airports was not given up. This was his only consolation. He openly disclosed that the idea of raising the four metro airports to world-class standards was conceived about the time of economic liberalization.

Another startling fact was that he said “a source” had arranged the visit of the Malaysian delegation. This source had told Mr.Gargi Parsai that they were disappointed because the Government had not made it clear which route-whether leasing, or joint funding or Government funding- would be adopted for taking forward the proposal.

The above article conveyed the fact that the efforts taken by the ruling class for years ended without any answer.

It could be seen that a section of the bureaucracy did not cave in to the pressure mounted by the Government although none could be blind to the danger of a powerful bureaucracy that supported privatization.

It must be recalled that the Prime Minister had talked about the growing rift between Government and the bureaucracy a few days ago.

Obviously some middlemen were also involved in this issue.

As the privatization of the HPCL, BPCL, SCI and the airport did not materialize; it appeared that the Government had abandoned the privatization plans. Therefore, one more letter-letter No.17- was sent to the President of India on 8 January 2003 narrating the sequence of events.

As Mr. P.Chithambaram wanted privatization, it appeared that the ruling class deliberately depicted his budget as “dream budget” in private interest. Therefore, the fate of the “cash rich” enterprise was mentioned in the letter to discourage privatization. In fact, the article of Mr. P.Chithambaram was the immediate provocation of this letter. The letter follows.

“The Government stood defied by individuals”

From

V. SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam,Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi.

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons for writing 16 letters to the President of India.

1. As early as on 31 July 2000 a few suggestions including the one to abandon the policy of bulk buying and to split the PSUs including the banks were sent to the Constitutional Review Commission. As no serious action was forthcoming, ten concrete suggestions were sent to the Prime Minister of India on 1 June 2001.Then a ‘PIL’ petition was sent to the Chief Justice of India to restrain the banks from lending money to the UTI. The then Chief Justice of India, Justice Anand, did not accept the letter as a writ petition.

2. However, the Prime Minister did take a series of positive measures. Thus, the State Bank of India refused to pay Re.1500 crore sought by the UTI. This led to the bankruptcy of the UTI. The Union Cabinet decided to preclude some tainted companies from buying the PSUs. Thus, the privatization of the Indian Airlines and Air India were thwarted. The infuriated stakes wanted to pull down the Government. The Prime Minister in his Republic Day address from the Red Fort said the corrupt elements would not be allowed to escape the long arm of law irrespective of how high a chair they might occupy. He urged the stakes not to earn money “by hook or by crook”. Immediately, the Chairman of the USHA group was arrested. One Mr. Subash Rastogi was also arrested for about 40 crore. The Government told the industrialists its decision to utilize the lakhs of surplus deposits in the banks for developing the infrastructure. 5% service tax was imposed on certain items and a decision to split the UTI into two was taken.

3. Suddenly, in November 2001, there was a sea change in the attitude of the Government. Accordingly, some honest officers were transferred. Tata was given Re. 845/- crore by the BoI through the back door and the Government resumed privatization. Therefore, the pitfalls of privatization were pointed out to the Prime Minister through a letter on 20 November 2001.Then a few concrete suggestions were given to garner income.

4. As the Supreme Court did not allow the High Court, Chennai to hear the ITDC case, a letter was written to the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister and the President of India to protect the Preamble of our Constitution. Despite the best efforts by the then President, Supreme Court betrayed the Preamble. Therefore, the way in which the Supreme Court had been functioning since 1996 and the plight of the people were pointed to the President and the learned judges of the Supreme Court. The contradictory stand of the Supreme Court in matters dear to the common man was also mentioned.

5. Since the system refused to correct itself, the consequences of Article 15 and above all, four specific cases were pin pointed. One was the decision of the Government to buy equipments worth 1800 crore in bulk for the BSNL. The way in which the media syndicate immediately defended the BSNL showed some people must have obtained hundreds of crore as commission and naturally all citizens would have to pay for it for centuries. Re. 845 crore deal between Tata and the BoI was selected to prove that the Government was allowing-in bad faith- conversion of public property into private property. The privatization of HZL in favour of the disqualified Sterlite was highlighted to prove the existence of a “Super Cabinet” at New Delhi. The sale of Maruthi was chosen to show that the foreigners would dictate terms to our Union Government. With which money the Japanese promoter bought Maruthi is still not known. The President must have obtained an action taken report from the CBI on all these matters is another matter.

6. Since the media syndicate is one of the real culprits, the common man had to show their disservice and treachery. In fact, they are capable of deceiving any Government. Thus, during the period of the UF Government, the media syndicate conceived and coined a term called “cashrich PSUs” and wanted the Government to deposit their surplus money in the UTI. The then Minister for Finance, Mr. P. Chithambaram readily obliged and apparently made the PSUs to dance to the tune of the stakes. The stakes reciprocated by describing his Budget as “Dream Budget”. How much the PSUs lost by depositing in the UTI and how much the stakes slashed is known to the CBI and Mr. P. Chithambaram only. Even the JPC suppressed it. Now the media has obtained an article from him and published it in the 31 December 2002 issue of The New Indian Express to canvass support for the privatization of airports. The newspapers were silent even when all monies obtained through the so-called privatization went to the UTI for circulation. Even otherwise, the media would publish in bold letters if a ‘dalit’ were not allowed to draw water from a well. However, if the banks refuse to give Re100 crore to a Dalit, the media would black it out. Did any Dalit ever get a loan of, say, Re. 100 crore from any bank?

7. The Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission is even conniving at the death threats being periodically issued by some prominent people through National newspapers like The Hindu. Surely, Justice Anand, Justice S.P.Bharucha and Justice B.N.Kirpal would do still more harms to human rights as they did not do justice to the papers before them.

8. The President of India demands 20 more years. It is just a question of 2 seconds because it is all a question of changing the attitude. If a decision is taken to part with commissions, the Government could readily abandon the policy of big buying &selling and split the PSUs to hand over them to the States. Incidentally, this would curtail regionalism also. The Union Government could proudly monitor the economic activities of the prosperous State Governments. If the Government decides to reserve seats for the OBCs in the IITs, they would get their share in the coming year itself. The President of India must ponder how many OBCs from Rameswaram get admission in the IITs. Is it because they are not intelligent? It is not true. The truth is we are latently but constantly at war with ourselves. Why should we use our deadly missiles against our own people? Are we honest in such crucial matters?

9. The letters have achieved near impossible social, political and economic changes mainly due to the dedication of the political leaders. Apparently, there is no necessity to write more letters to the President of India. However, the letters so far written should not prove fatal to this poor writer. The letters were written in good faith for the welfare of all. England is protecting even the life of an Indian born writer. This writer too is an author of a high utility book in inorganic chemistry. The book has been described as ‘a valuable addition’ by ‘The American International Publishers’. The review committee of the MUTA described the book as ‘a treasure’ to all libraries and for chemistry students. This book is a recognized reference book in the MS University, Tirunelveli. Earlier a publication on the NAEP was distributed to 80 Universities and 700 colleges as a model by the then advisor to the Government of India. Evidences are sent in a separate cover to the President. We must learn to love at least our own people.

10. The 16 letters lead to the realization that Tata is still holding 1000 million people as his hostages. He has taken not 30 or 40 crore but Re. 845 crore besides a few PSUs as ransom. He still keeps his eyes on the 1200000/- deposits including foreign exchange and the other PSUs. He could strangulate our Constitution and silence the CBI. Our newspapers, armed forces, courts and jails exist only to defend his empire. Shri. Sanjay Nirupam, MP said four hostages have died of heart attack and another one was in coma. Shri. Somnath Chatterjee said he was stunned by the total insensitivity. These words have slightly moved him. He would abandon the privatized PSUs but those who stand by him refuse to relent.

The attitude of the system to spare Tata and human right violators and punish the innocent people would go down as an inhuman crime against human race.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

8-1-2003.

The Government maintained a studied silence to the above letter. At this instant, it appeared that the investigating agencies were taking some feeble actions against the ruling class. This could be discerned from the fact that the Home Minister said that the industries must be given a hassle free environment to carry out their works. The Prime Minister said that the gap between the bureaucracy and the Government was increasing to unacceptable levels. He warned that the Government elected by the people must be allowed to carry out its agenda lest it would destroy democracy.

Mr. K. C. Pant, Deputy Chairman, Planning commission, said the country must do away with pervasive controls to attract foreign investment.

Mr. Jaswant Singh, the Union Minister for Finance, exhorted the banks to emerge from the paralysis caused by the ‘C-3factor’ –CBI, CVC and CAG- and take bold decisions on lending money. He offered to take the brunt of the consequences if things went wrong due to these decisions. He disclosed that a ‘Serious Frauds Office’ would be immediately formed to tackle the problems associated with corporate governance.

This was presumably to pre-empt the CBI from proceeding against the corporate houses.

The BJP then wanted the Congress to change its “attitude”. It may be noted that the word “attitude” was used in the above letter.

The Home Minister said that the internal security was in danger. He sought to “dispel” the impression that India should be a soft democracy.

The Foreign Minister also echoed the same view.

As if to give an answer to the Home Minister, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, former judge of the Supreme Court, said that the minorities were not liabilities but assets.

On 11 January 2003, the President inaugurated the two-day Governor’s Conference at Rashtrapathi Bhavan. The Vice President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and some senior Ministers participated in the Conference.

In his opening address, the President exhorted the Governors to provide sage advice beyond any political considerations to the people and the Government. He wanted them to reach the grassroots to understand the problems and focus them to the State Governments and if necessary to the Union Government for fast action to remove the sufferings of the people. He advised them to convey the aberrations of the common man to the notice of the Government. He told them that all people wanted to live in a safe and prosperous India. Above all, he expressed his desire to treat the year 2003 as the year of action.

Obviously, it was a message that the President was taking action, subject to his limitations, over all letters.

Now, Mr. K. R. Narayanan, former President of India, wanted the people to rise and give a fitting reply to the privatization policy. He said socialism was still alive and the precious state sector assiduously built over the years symbolized the triumph of India.

He, as President of India, could not prevent privatization.

The executive committee of the DMK passed a resolution condemning the centre for pursuing an economic policy contrary to the socialist principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. The resolution noted that the five year plans which paved the way for industrialization and technology development, had become a thing of past.

Since the DMK was one of the key constituents of the NDA, the resolution was disliked by the BJP. As the DMK stood by the Government to privatize several PSUs, this party would float as political party for many years.

In a major economic decision, the Government decided to permit Indian individuals and companies to invest in listed companies abroad and which have at least 10 % shareholding in a listed company in India. Mutual funds were permitted to double their investment limit to $1 billion in companies listed on overseas stock exchanges and which have at least 10% shareholding in a company listed in Indian stock exchanges. Further, companies having branches and offices overseas were permitted to acquire immovable property.

The New Indian Express was thoroughly embarrassed by the letter of 8th January 2003. The disappointed newspaper condemned the ‘Sangh Parivar’ and the ‘swadeshi activists’ for stopping privatization. The editorial threatened that neither investors nor tourists would come to India in future.

In this connection, it must be noted that the ‘Sangh Parivar’, media syndicate and the BJP were the same entity. The media syndicate sought to distinguish them to retain the ‘vote bank’ in their favour.

Addressing the Global Investors Meet (GIM), at Kochi on 19 January 2003, Mr. Arun Shourie said the tendency to criticize others is the curse of India. He advised Mr. A.K. Antony not to give undue importance to criticism because one must be deaf if he wanted to do anything in India. He deplored that those who remain outside deem it their duty to continuously criticize those who remain in power.

The Prime Minister, during the same occasion, promised Re.10,000 crore projects for the Public Sector Units in Kerala. This conveyed the impression that the Prime Minister had given up the policy of privatization.

However, within two days, the media persons were made to ask a question to the Prime Minister regarding disinvestments. To this the Prime Minister replied that the disinvestments policy had reached an irreversible stage. He pointed out that no political party was opposing the policy of disinvestments. The implied meaning was that some individuals were alone opposing the policy of disinvestments.

Lannan Foundation President on selecting Ms.Arundhati Roy for the fourth annual prize for cultural freedom said the prize was for her fight against world’s powerful Governments and corporations for safeguarding the freedom, justice and cultural diversity of civil societies.

Ms. Arundhati Roy in her reply said there were several people’s movements and individuals who see through the charade and were committed to resisting this process.

The President of India on 21 January 2003 advised the students to be knowledge workers which would enhance their families and thereby the Nation. He said knowledge makes human being.

Addressing the 54th annual general meeting of the Aeronautical Society of India, he asked the scientists to evolve a policy and submit that to the Government. He assured them that he was there to help them. Further, he exhorted the political leaders to place national interest over personal interest and remain prepared for any sacrifice for the welfare of the Nation. The President was, apparently, referring to the wealth of knowledge present in these letters.

The Prime Minister on 24 January 2003 lifted Master Chimay Sharma- bravery award winner- with his own hands. Within two days, the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments, which met under him, flagged off the privatization of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). The only consolation was the decision to reserve 5-percentage equity for the employees in both the PSUs and the decision of the Government to retain 12% equity in the HPCL and 26% equity in the BPCL. Later, the Government could not privatize the above two PSUs mainly due to these letters and the President of India.

The news medium, as usual, commended the decision.

Thus, The Hindu on 28 December 2003 in its editorial said the decision was a step forward.

The RSS came to the open and supported the decision through The Indian Express on 28 December 2003.

In the 2003 Republic Day address to the Nation, the President requested the people all over India to contribute their share to the total prosperity of the Nation. He referred to the print media four or five times. Apart from these, the President did not refer to any matter contained in the 17 letters sent to him.

The oil employees opposed the decision of the Government to privatize the HPCL and the BPCL. They threatened to go on strike.

The Congress also immediately opposed the decision.

The CPI and the CPI (M) too condemned it.

Mr. H.D.Deve Gowda, a former prime minister, claimed that the resources in the country were cornered by a section of society. He wanted to know the reason why funds ($21Billion) from India were deposited in the US. He described it as looted money.

It must be noted that this writer had been sending to himthe copies of all letters sent till that date to the President to him.

The Hindu, on 28 January 2003, reported his speech partially. It was quite unusual for the The Hindu to report such speeches. However, other papers did not report it.

On 1 February 2003, the Prime Minister wanted the people to change their “attitude” and shed pessimism. He wanted the people to think that their Prime Minister was working to make their future better.

Mr. Arun Shourie speaking at a Seminar on disinvestments at Kochi (Kerala) on the same day said procedural delays and unaccountability had resulted in massive losses to the Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) ‘of the country of Government servants, by Government servants and for Government servants’. He was presumably referring to this writer, as this writer was a lecturer in a private college. He said that among 1000 and odd PSEs in the country one third were non-functional. Corrupt officials and ‘trader’s unions’ were perpetrating the faulty system in public enterprises, he said. He added that countries such as China could achieve 10 percent growth rate only because of the change in “attitude”. To give a clarification to Mr. Krishna Kumar, former Union Minister, he reiterated that the Congress regime had sold 39 PSUs, of which only two were loss making while 37 were profit making. In contrast, the BJP Government sold 35 PSUs of which an over whelming two thirds were loss making.

The Indian Express published the reply of the Minister in its front page with the heading, “Shourie Counters Charges, point by point”.

Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, on the other hand, based on the letters said that the pluralistic tradition of the Nation was under assault.

The Hindu, on 3 February 2003, published an article titled “Disinvestments and Parliament” by one Mr.Rajindar Sachar. In that article, he spoke against privatization of the BPCL and requested the opposition parties in the Rajya Sabha to pass a resolution disapproving of those disinvestments if they were serious about disinvestments.

The Hindu apparently published this article to save its face to the extent possible.

The Prime Minister, on 5 February 2003, called on the President of India. He was with him for more than an hour. No newspaper except the Tamil daily, “Thina Thanthi” reported it. The Hindu and The New Indian Express, as usual, blacked out it.

On 6 February 2003, the High Court Delhi refused to grant stay to the privatization of the HPCL and the BPCL. The Court said the judgement on BALCO stood in the way of the court.

The Hindu reported this on 7 February 2003. No other newspaper reported it. No newspaper reported anything about the case during the hearing and, therefore, it could have been a mock case.

Next day, the Government invited bids for 34% stake in the HPCL along with management control. \

The Indian Express, on 8 February said that the privatization of the HPCL came a day after the Delhi High Court dismissed as withdrawn a petition challenging the decision to disinvest in the two oil PSUs. Thus, the Government obtained a legal cover to convince the people.

A function was organized at the headquarters of the BJP on 11 February 2003 to celebrate the birth anniversary of Mr. D.D.Upadhyay. On that occasion, the Prime Minister said, “There is only one human race. A debate is going on to see whether we are going through the correct path or not to reach our goal. There may be differences. For that we should not adopt different approaches. We must do introspection. The candidates should not approach the industrialists to meet election expenditures. Instead the party must give money to the candidates”.

His speech was a reflection of the letters.

On 17 February 2003, The New Indian Express published an article on Ambedkar by one Mr. Rakshit Sonawane in its centre page. In that article, he said that Mr.Ambedkar wanted to have a political party comprising all the have-nots, irrespective of caste or religion to form a powerful pressure group for the welfare of the poor. He emphasized that Mr.Ambedkar stood for the equality and welfare of all human beings, irrespective of caste, religion and gender.

On the same day, Mr. Arun Shourie said every law in the Indian Constitution must have a ‘sun-set’ (expiry period) and that the executive must be given power to alter it as per the changing needs. Obviously, it was an open admission that the Constitution of India stood in the way of privatization.

Again, on the same day,Business Line in its editorial said that uncertainty dogged the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL, ‘as the Government stood defied by individuals’. Obviously, the editorial was indirectly describing this writer as an individual.

The Government on 19 February 2003 in the Parliament ruled out privatization of Indian Oil, ONGC and GAIL and assured all security concerns would be taken care of while divesting oil PSUs-BPCL and the HPCL.

Mr. Shourie said that about 80 percent of retail trade of oil would remain with the Government even after the privatization of the HPCL and BPCL. He added that the PSUs including the ONGC were not permitted to participate in the bidding of the HPCL as it was the general policy of Government not to allow one PSU to bid for other PSUs.

The entire opposition parties and some constituent parties of the NDA Government opposed the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL.

The Samata, Siv Sena and the Telungu Desam parties openly opposed the privatization of the above oil PSUs although they were not ready to part with the BJP.

The Hindu, The New Indian Express and a host of other newspapers blacked out the opposition of the coalition partners. This writer came to know about this matter through Thina Thanthi, a Tamil daily.

Consequently, a meeting of the Group of Ministers on FDI to be held on 21 February 2003 was cancelled.

On 26 February 2003 about 1 lakh workers from all over the country poured into the capital as a protest to the anti-labour privatization policy of the NDA Government.

In view of the above decision of the Government, this writer sent another letter to the President of India on 19 February 2003.This was the letter No.18. The main objective of this letter was to prevent the privatization of Airports.

For this, the CBI was requested to identify the Malaysian delegation mentioned in “The Hindu”.

The necessity for equitable distribution of seats in educational institutions was also highlighted.

Further, the media in India was described as the “Tomb of the Nation”. The letter follows.

“A personal grudge”

From

V. SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam

Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O.629167

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi.

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why the inability of the President of India to prevent grave crimes and rank racial discriminations disappoint the people.

1. When the then Prime Minister of India, on 4 March 1997, disclosed in Parliament that he had cleared the FDI worth $ 7 billion, a member of the BJP asked how much ‘hawala’ was involved. The Prime Minister immediately said he would tender his resignation if he were involved. The present Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, realizing the sensitivity of the matter, expressed his regret over the remark. It is clear that accordingto our MPs also the PSUs are being sold against black money. The ruling class pulled down the UF Government because the then Prime Minister did not want to involve himself with hawala, black money and middle men is another matter.

2. A writer of The Hindu, Mr. Gargi Parsai, on 12 January 2003 in a lengthy article titled “Grounded” talked of “a source” that arranged the visit of a Malaysian delegation. The President could identify this source, as the CBI must be aware of it. This article leads to the realization that the print media and the ruling class are the same entity. The media dreadfully black out what is going on in Delhi. They do not publish even vital court proceedings. Instead of remaining as the backbone of democracy and the beacon light of 1000 million people, the media in India is remaining as “the tomb of the nation”

3. Recently, a thief was caught red-handed while pick pocketing Re 500/- at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. He was tied to a lamppost and mercilessly beaten. Now-a-days Magistrates too act ruthlessly. They refuse to give bail for several months even for Re.5000/- received as bribe. In fact, even the stray dogs in India get better treatment than the small offenders do.

4. On 6 February 2003, the High Court, Delhi declared that the judgement of the Supreme Court on BALCO case stood in the way of hearing a case against the privatization of a PSU. It is the severest stricture ever passed against the Supreme Court by a High Court. If the President were not alert enough to understand the repercussions of this case, what would the High Courts do? The media did not report the proceedings in the above court. Whether it is a stage-managed verdict or not is known to the CBI only.

5. The root cause of the present problem lies in the Supreme Court. It is said that ‘the birds of same feather flock together’. It is well known that the privatization is biased in favour of the forward communities. All right thinking people suspect that learned judges belonging to the forward communities heard the BALCO case and it was the real reason for the subversion of our Constitution. Therefore, all Chief Justices must be forbidden from constituting benches where FCs is a majority. Bigger benches where FCs, OBCs or SC/STs are not in a majority must review the BALCO case and a few other recent cases where racism played a crucial role, This is to ensure rule of law and to prevent the Chief Justices from cloning judgements by taking the Constitution in their hands. The Supreme Court shall not lose its credibility in the eyes of the right-thinking people. It shall not remain crippled. It shall not become a place of intrigues and conspiracies. It shall not take part in politics. It shall not play ugly tricks on Indians. It shall not practice racism. It shall not retreat from hearing crucial cases or delivering unbiased judgements. The President of India must ascertain the veracity of this observation and do the needful without wasting time.

6. Part of the blame must go to the President of India also. Even if the common man writes to the Chief Justices to maintain heterogeneity in the constitution of benches to take out unbiased judgements, they will have to obey lest they would be accused of caste bias. What all the President of India could do? The President of India shall not perpetuate racial discrimination by conniving at the judgement on the BALCO case.

7. If equal rights were given to big fish and small fish, the big ones would simply swallow the small ones. Therefore, treating equally the OBCs and the FCs at the ‘Plus Two’ stage is nothing but racial discrimination. The OBCs must have proportional representation in the IITs and RECs and in all other areas. The gates of the IITs and RECs must be opened to the OBCs to enable them to ‘unleash their productive potential’ so that there would be a few ‘stars’ like Kalpana Chawla in them also. Out of 50,000 IIT-ins living in the USA, not even 1000 are from the OBCs. The FCs should not be aggrieved because all are human beings and as such, every region and every community must get their share in the assets of the country. No one shall aspire for a parasitic life. We shall not hate anyone to the advantage of anyone. We shall not love anyone to the detriment any one. Waging war against the entry of the OBCs in the IITs and RECs should not be the soul goal of our life. This applies to the privatization of the PSUs also. The FCs must be broad minded enough to fight for the rights of the OBCs. The UF Government lost an excellent opportunity to uplift the neglected sections of our people. The former President says that he was helpless. If the present President of India and the FCs who wield power too were helpless, who would come for the emancipation of our hapless people?

8. The former Chairman of the NHRC could not save a victim of a human right violation from criminal prosecution. Instead, the indicted person was given promotion.

9. We kiss our children after pre-empting all their chances to become the Chairpersons of the PSUs like the BALCO, VSNL, HPCL, BPCL. We even lift them in our hands just to condemn them as scavengers or menial servants in the above-privatized PSUs. Is it not rank racial discrimination? It is all the more serious because a person from an OBC remains as the President of India.

10. 17 letters have been sent. This is letter No 18. ‘Even if the heart of the system were made of stone, itmight have melted’. For public consumption, our Prime Minister says no section of our people shall be neglected. Simultaneously he hands over the PSUs one after another to the forward communities that too with bank funds. If it is not rank racial discrimination, the President must tell its name to our children. The President also, instead of solving the day to day problems talks of 20 years. The attitude of the system is reminiscent of queen of France who said, “If they don’t have bread, let them eat cake”. “History repeats itself”.

Yours faithfully

V.Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

19-2-2003.

The above letter was sent to the President of India through e-mail and the copies of the letter were sent to Congress President, former Prime Minister, Mr. H.D.Deve Gowda, Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav as usual. The letter dated 19-2-2003 and the previous letter dated 7-2-2003 were sent to Miss Uma Bharathi and Mr. Jana Krishna Murthy on the same day. Later, in early March the last two letters were sent to Mr.Bangaru Lekshman M.P. (BJP), Mr. Agit Singh, the Union Minister for Agriculture and Mr. Mufti Mohamed Syed, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

A copy of the above letter No 18 was sent to the senior advocate of the Supreme Court, Salman Khurshid in the hope that he would give a new twist to the case filed by the FAIP.

On 21 February 2003, the President paid a visit to Tamil Nadu. Speaking to children, he said even Galileo was killed for saying that the earth revolved around the sun. Now, there would be opposition to one’s new ideas. However, he wanted everyone to pursue his goal. The President was indirectly motivating this writer to continue the good work.

On 27 February 2003, Mr. T.V.R. Shenoy in a centre page article of a newspaper explained the consequences of the interest burden on the entrepreneurs in India. He said that loans in India doubled in four years as interest was calculated on compound rates. At the same time, they doubled only in 12 years in foreign banks.

He said several promoters who acquired Re. thousands of crore by way of loans were settling as NRIs after acquiring assets abroad.

On the other hand, only idiots worked hard and stayed back in India. He added that Indian banks were currying the golden goose to the detriment of the workers who would lose jobs.

The Budget for 2003-2004 gave a small tax relief to the employees. The standard reduction was increased to Re.30,000/- from Re.20,000/-.5% surcharge was abolished. Further, the excise duty on motorcar was decreased from 32 % to 24 %. The latter decision was consistent with the demand of the Japanese promoter who bought Maruthi.

The New Indian Express got an article titled “To privatize: a free commission” from Mr. B.P. Mathur, former Comptroller & Auditor General and Director, National Institute of Financial Management and published it in the centre page of its March 3, 2003 issue.

In that article, Mr. Mathur pointed out that the courts had pointed out that the PSUs were ‘State’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. As no person shall be deprived of his property except by the authority of law, the PSUs should not be shed without the authority of law. Further, according to him, every privatization appeared as an ad hoc exercise. Therefore, in order to make privatization a success story, he gave a suggestion to promulgate a Privatization Act laying down the ground rules for privatization. This article conveyed the impression that the privatization process was badly hit by the letter sent by this writer on 19 February 2003.

Speaking at a private function at New Delhi the President, on 2 March 2003, said no religion or any individual should be allowed to endanger our nation because the nation is more important than any individual party or religion. He said a nation of billion people should not think like a nation of million people. He pointed out that whenever there was a crisis to nation Indian leadership blossomed to overcome it. He slightly modified his earlier demand for 20 years and said, “the nation needs young leaders who can command the transformation of India into a developed nation embedded with knowledge from now to 20 more years”.

On 3 March 2003, The Hindu reported that the Government was expected to invite initial bids for the sale of majority stake in Manganese Ore India (MOIL) in the second week of March 2003.

` However, Mr. Ram Naik, the Minister for Petroleum said that the Government was not in a hurry to sell the HPCL and the BPCL.

Meanwhile The Hindu, on 4 March 2003, reported that the net profits of the PSUs rose by a huge 66 percent during 201-2003 and reached 26,045 crore, with a return of 24.58 percent on equity capital.

The Hindu, on 10 March 2003, reported that five legal luminaries including four judges opposed privatization of the HPCL and BPCL without the approval of the Parliament. The five legal luminaries were V.R. Krishna Iyer, O. Chinnappa Reddy and P.B. Sawant, retired judges of the Supreme Court, Rajinder Sachar, Retired Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Shanti Bhushan, senior advocate.

Obviously, but for the delay in the privatization of the HPCL and BPCL, the opinion of these legal luminaries would not have seen the light of the day at all.

The Hindu on 18 March 2003 reported that global oil majors, including Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum Corporation and Chevron Texaco, Reliance and Essar submitted Expression of Interest (EoI) for the HPCL.

The Government, on 22 March 2003, invited bids for appointment of a global advisor for sale of 35.2 percent stake in the oil PSE through public offer.

At the same time, the Government invited merchant and investment bankers to act as global coordinators. It wanted them to submit their EoI on or before April 4.

On 16 March 2003, the Prime Minister called on the President of India. It was a one to one meeting and it took place in the Mugal Garden. There were reports that internal matters and the Iraq crisis were discussed. The reports could be concocted stories is another matter.

The Reserve Bank of India, on 24 March 2003, announced that commercial banks could finance special purpose vehicles (SPVs) set up by corporate houses to participate in public sector disinvestments.

Thus, the RBI decided to give public funds to the corporate houses to buy public sector undertakings.

In effect, the NDA Government decided to legalize the appropriation of public funds to appropriate public assets.

It was an arbitrary decision. Any arbitrary decision is enemy of equality. Therefore, it was an arbitrary decision taken in private interest.

The President of India, on 28 March 2003, said that India must wage a war against its most important enemy namely poverty. He pointed out that 260 million people in India were living below the poverty line. Further, he described justice for all as the basic principle of democracy.

The speech was not reported in the media. The Public Sector TV channel, Doordharshan, however, reported it in one of its news bulletins.

Next day, he said that India stood second in the list of corrupt countries. He wanted everyone to contribute his or her share to see a corruption free nation.

To a question, he said that he would have to face problems. He did not reveal the nature of the problem being faced by him. He advised children not to allow problems to become one’s master.

It was the reflection of the problems being faced by him in the Presidential Palace.

Despite everything he exhorted the present man to continue contributing his share to see a corruption-free nation.

The Doordharson reported the judgement of a case on 24 March 2003. The New Indian Express and The Hindu, on 25 March 2003, reported it. However, Doordharson or the print media did not report the filing of the case.

The Federation of All India Petroleum Traders (FAIP) had filed a writ petition. The case was heard, according to The Hindu, by a bench consisting of the Chief Justice V.N.Khare and Justice S.B. Sinha. The New Indian Express, however, reported that Justice M.B. Shah and Justice Arun Kumar heard the case. None knew how this discrepancy occurred. It might have been to create confusion in the mind of the readers.

Whatever happened, when the case came up for hearing on 24 March 2003, the solicitor General, Kirit Raval, said that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that a similar petition by the petitioner was ‘dismissed as withdrawn’ by the High Court, Delhi on the ground that the Judgement on the BALCO case stood in the way.

The counsel for the petitioner, senior advocate Salman Khurshid submitted that he had only expressed his personal view before the High Court. He, further, said the BALCO was a Government undertaking while the two oil companies were private undertakings taken over by the Government. The bench granted four weeks to clarify the position. The bench then observed that the pendency of the petition should not be construed as stay of the disinvestments process of the HPCL and the BPCL. The print media and the electronic media highlighted this observation.

It is clear that the court exhorted the Government to privatize the BPCL and the HPCL

The 30,000 strong employees of the BPCL and the HPCL went on a three-day strike from 25 March 2003.The High Court, Chennai declared the strike as an illegal one as the conciliation talks were going on. The workers, however, ignored the order of the High Court.

The Government, on 25 March 2003, decided to pay additional Re. 1000 crore to the oil companies to partially compensate them for losses on sale of LPG and kerosene at subsidized rates during 2002-2003.

At the same time, the Reliance Petroleum Ltd (RPL) told the Union Government that it was losing around Re.250 crore annually after entering into a new contract with IOC, HPCL and BPCL in the previous year for the sale of around 12,5 ton of products.

The Reliance said that it was earlier being compensated for coastal movements of products to the retailing depots of the IOC.

The Business Line, on 2 April 2003, pointing to industry sources, said that the oil refiners would get full market prices for the petrol, diesel, LPG and Kerosene that they were selling to oil marketing companies. The paper said that the decision would improve the revenues of Reliance Petroleum and Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd.

Meanwhile, the Government wanted the royal Dutch Shell, the number three oil and gas company in the world, to furnish more details of its plan to set up about 2000 petrol stations in the country. As per norms, 11.6 percent of the total retail stations must be put up in remote and low service areas.

The President, on 28 March 2003, appointed one Mr. Aloysius Stanislaus Agular as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court. Eight other judges were appointed as Additional Judges for the Madras High Court. The learned judges in the order of seniority were: R. Bhanumathi, S. Ashok Kumar, S.K. Krishnan, T.V. Masilamani, A.R. Ramalingom, S.S.Z. Hussain; M. Thanikachalam and S.R. Singharavelu. The names indicated that heterogeneity was maintained while making appointments.

The Hindu, on 30 March 2003 reported that serious reservations expressed by the AIADMK Government against some of the judges were ignored by the Supreme Court collegiums of judges in November 2002.

Later Mr. Jana Krishnamurthy, Law Minister, was removed from office. The people felt that he might have lost his position in the Cabinet for clearing the above appointments.

On 30 March 2003, The National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation advertised through newspapers that it would provide loans at minimum rates of interest to SC entrepreneurs for all types of projects of self-employment. The interest rates were from 5 to 8 percent.

On 1 April 2003, the reporters asked the Union Minister for Disinvestments, Mr. Arun Shourie, the next date for the meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment.

Mr. Shourie replied, “In India anybody could block anything at any time”. He referred either this man or the President of India.

He, further, said that the general lesson learnt from the process of disinvestments was that there was a need for governance in India. The message was that the Prime Minister was not ready to trust anyone in the Cabinet. Mr. Shourie further said, “It is when enough cases are accumulated…only then we will request for a meeting. However, the fact is that a number of cases are ripening. The CCD is considering number of proposals. We think it will be sometime, but I cannot give a particular date”.

His words conveyed the impression that the letter No. 18 dated 19-2-2003 in combination with earlier letters effectively blocked the privatization process and that the Government was looking for an opportune time to take crucial decisions in favor of privatization. Therefore, no letters were sent during this time.

The President of India, on 5 April 2003, addressed the Chief Executive Officers of the PSUs. On that occasion the President said, “We should not forget the historic role played by the PSUs in the post-independence era. We have drawn our economic and industrial strength from the shop floors of these PSUs. As many industrial complexes are in the red due to the absence of technology up-gradation, proactive measures must be taken for their resurrection. For this, the management styles of the PSUs must change as a function of typical high performance industries. In many areas like hospitals and computers, large parts of equipment are being imported. Very few are being manufactured here and the industrial growth is ‘crawling upwards’. Therefore, the PSUs should work together and help one another to achieve world class manufacturing facilities in India. Technology and knowledge should play an important role in value addition to our core competence of natural and human resources, a must for achieving our vision of 2020”.

The above speech clearly showed that the President of India too was opposing the privatization of the PSUs and he was waging a war, based on these letters, to save the PSUs.

On 5 April 2003, Mr. L.K. Advani admitted that power had eroded the credibility of the party.

On the same day, Mr. Azim Premji, the Chairman of Wipro, delivering the keynote address at a conference on “Talent-the new Paradigm for Corporate Competitiveness” organized by Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), said that companies must have the trust of the customers, shareholders and workers. He noted that it took years of efforts to build trust, but only a few acts to destroy. Once broken, it would be even harder to rebuild it. He wanted the leaders to create a culture of values. He said that true leadership would allow the people to experience these values. He pointed out that developmentsin the past one year in the form of financial and business scandals had caused losses of astronomical proportions, which far outweighed the losses owing to incidents following 9/11, and therefore there could not be any leadership without values”. The effects of the above letters could be gauged.

It must be noted that no financial scandals surfaced during the last one year to the knowledge of the public.

In the meantime, the Parliament panel headed by Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav tabled its 41st report in the Lok Sabha on 8 April 2003 for demands for grants.

The panel opposed the disinvestments of fertilizer PSUs to prevent ‘monopolistic evils in the industry.

Here, it must be noted that Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav had been receiving all the letters of this writer as and when they were sent to His Excellency the President of India.

The TRAI on 9 April 2003 demanded the Government to make public files and noting relating to the limited mobility issue.

Union Minister Mr. Arun Shourie, earlier, said that the Government had reservations about showing internal noting to business rivals. He compared the noting to defense contracts. The tribunal said that in the telecom sector, the Government had no enemy nations to contend with. It had no business rivals either. As such the Government must maintain neutrality. Therefore, the tribunal demanded the Government to bring the documents to justify its actions.

The Hindu, on 11 April 2003, published an article by one Mr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Professor of Philosophy and of Law and Governance, JNU, in its centre page. The title of the article was “The end of economic reforms?”

In that article, Mr. Metha disclosed that sensible economic reforms had ended. He deplored that the Congress too was flirting with “neologisms such as “neo-socialism” and harkening back to its policies of the 1970s that brought India to fiscal ruin. He lamented that the BJP too would postpone decisions due to the impending election. He was shocked to note that everything from starvation deaths to poor health was attributed to the reform process although nothing impeded the state from distributing its food stock or spending more on health. He agreed that the reformers failed to win the battle of ideas in the Indian literate public sphere as the Left economists were far more active in courting the public than the reformers. In fact, people in the street ascribed reforms to all the ills of the nation. According to him a nervous middle class, risk-averse politicians, reluctant economists, and a politics that refused to engage with the intricacies of a complex economy were conspiring to take the reforms off the agenda. He concluded that India was set to acquiesce in the status quo than thinking about the future.

It is obvious from the above, that the news media accepted defeat in its attempt to brainwash everyone in India and that the Government had abandoned the policy of privatization.

One could also discern that Mr. Mehta, the above Professor, was aware of the contents of the letters sent by this writer.

Surprisingly, the Business Line, on 12 April 2003 reported that the Union Ministry of Disinvestments began the process of disinvesting 74 per cent of the total equity share capital holding in Hindustan Paper Corporation (HPC).

On 14 April 2003, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.P. Mathur and Justice Rajendra Babu issued notice to the Centre on a petition from the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). The CPIL assailed the decision of the Government to privatize the BPCL and the HPCL on the ground that the decision had been taken without the approval of Parliament.

It was not clear whether there was any relation between this case and the one filed by the Federation of All India Petroleum Traders on 25 March 2003.

The news media did not disclose the name of the advocate who presented the case.

Further, ‘The New Indian Express’ reported on 15 April 2003 that the CCD would discuss, among other things, relaxation of bidding norms for the SCI to woo foreign bidders while taking the AI and the IA off the disinvestments list.

Apparently, the stakes wanted to sell the SCI to foreigners to slash huge commission. Alternatively, a foreigner, presumably an NRI, was poaching for the SCI.

As the method followed by Tata to buy the VSNL could not be followed easily without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, the ruling class expressed their inability to buy the SCI.

The utter confusion prevailing then could be easily discerned.

Further, the paper reported that the CCD would consider the question of privatizing Hoogly Printing Co Ltd, Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. Tide Water Oil Ltd, Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers (RCF), Hindustan Cable Ltd and some properties of the ITDC.

As reported by ‘The New Indian Express,’ the CCD, which met on the same day, withdrew the AI and the IA from the disinvestments process. In addition, the CCD decided to cancel the process for ten more PSUs the names of which were not given.

Curiously, the CCD decided to restart the privatization of the SCI by raising the FDI ceiling to 51 percent.

The reason cited was that 100 percent ceiling was already allowed in the shipping sector. The lukewarm response to strategic sale was attributed to the 25 percent ceiling on the FDI.

Further, the CCD decided to reduce the Government equity in the Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers from 92.5 percent to 51 percent through the so-called strategic sale.

Besides, the CCD cleared a package of concessions to the State Governments to sell the joint venture hotel properties developed by the ITDC with them as the response of the State Governments to privatize the joint venture properties had been lukewarm.

In this connection, it must be noted that the CCD took a decision to remove the SCI from the disinvestments list on 2 January 2003.

Therefore, the act of removing the IA and the AI from the disinvestments list and restarting the privatization of the SCI could have been due to the fear that the Government would not last without the support of the media and, therefore, the ruling class.

The Government might have wanted to control the stock prices. However, it appeared like a calculated attempt to appropriate the SCI before the election.

After the CCD meeting, Mr. Arun Shourie gave a briefing to the press. He said that the AI and the IA were taken off from the list. He added that no decision regarding the privatization of other PSUs were taken because of the absence of a member of the CCD. Further, he said that the CCD would again meet within a week to consider the matter.

Thus, what Mr. Shourie said did not tally with what the news media reported on the next day. Further, one could discern Mr. Shourie stumble for words.

Apparently, the Prime Minister was not cooperating with Mr. Shourie in the matter of privatization.

A meeting of the Union Cabinet preceded the meeting of the CCD.

Mr.Agit Singh might have taken the Government for task as he, on the same day, said that the industrialists were givenfavors at the cost of farmers. He pointed out that the Cabinet discussed for more than three hours his proposal to waive a year’s interest on crop loans to provide relief to farmers badly hit by drought.

Even after that, the Cabinet “passed the buck” to the Prime Minister who later announced a 20 per cent waiver.

Similarly, the Government released Re. 3000 crore for the worst ever drought since independence after propounding funny arguments but the Government sanctioned Re.13500 crore to bail out investors in the UTI schemes without hesitation. He added that car loans were given at 8.5 percent interest but tractor loans were given at 14 per cent interest.

The media admonished Mr. Agit Singh for revealing such things to the public while functioning as a Union Minister.

Again “the New Indian Express” on 23 April 2003 reported that the Cabinet would meet on 23 April 2003 ( ie on the same day) to open up several sectors including aviation, airport infrastructure, PSU refineries, petroleum products, oil exploration in small and medium oil fields, natural gas and LNG sectors and companies in the field of basic and cellular telephony. The paper said that the N.K.Singh Committee had recommended rising of the FDI in some of these sectors in the previous September. For the telecom sector, the proposal was to increase the FDI limit from 49 per cent to 74 percent.

The above report was a baffling one because the proposals sought to reverse certain earlier decisions taken by the Cabinet. The report showed that a lobby was relentlessly working to promote privatization through the backdoor and that it was looking for an opportunity to take a decision in favour of privatization by bypassing some members of the Cabinet.

As reported by ‘The New Indian Express’ a Cabinet meeting was convened on 23 April. The ‘Business Line’ superficially reported this on 24 April 2003.

According to the first part of the first paragraph of the report, the Cabinet deferred taking a decision on increasing the FDI limit in several sectors. At the same time, the second part disclosed that the issue did not come up for discussion. In the second paragraph, the newspaper said that the proposal to hike the FDI limit in the domestic civil aviation sector was shot down.

The reason was that while the move to hike the FDI limit in the domestic civil aviation sector was taken earlier, the decision to take off Air India and Indian Airlines from the disinvestments list was a more recent happenings.

The decision taken in the Cabinet did not last even for one month and that the Government was trying to take certain decisions by avoiding someministers. Another clear message was that these recommendations originated from the ruling class and came before the Cabinet.

In other words, the proposals apparently came before the Cabinet without the direction, permission or consent from the Prime Minister.

Evidently, a parallel administration was functioning under a powerful section of the bureaucracy to the discomfiture of the Prime Minister and to the danger of the society.

The April 24 issues of ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘The Hindu’ did not report anything about what happened in the April 23 Cabinet meeting.

However, “The New Indian Express” on April 24 came out with an editorial condemning the inability of the Government to take decisions. The editorial asked the reason for the FDI plan of the Government knowing well the result would be a “zilch”. The important points of the editorial were:

1. The Government appeared as a reform minded entity. However, when it ‘came to the crunch, it suffered from a bad case of nerves’.

2. ‘A notorious history was repeated all over again on Wednesday as the Cabinet failed to increase the FDI in several sectors including telecom, civil aviation and petroleum’.

3. ‘The Cabinet suffered from a fatal flaw of indecision’.

4. ‘The Government was not prepared to stand by its commitments’.

5. ‘It was too-easily influenced by various lobbies’.

6. ‘It trimmed its political vision to suit the political moment’.

7. ‘Why should the Government bring the issue before the Cabinet, if a view on it was not evolved?’

8. ‘The stalling had become so embedded in the political system, that a span of 30 days would make no difference’.

All other newspapers, particularly English newspapers such as “Times of India’ and business dailies such as ‘Business Line’, ‘Business Standard’, ‘Economic Times’ came out with similar editorials. The title of the editorial of one daily was, “Wednesday Massacre”.

From a few editorials, one could also discern that the Cabinet decided to refer the issue to the administrative ministries and that the matter would be again considered by the Cabinet within one month with full vigor.

Further, it was clear that the owners of the newspapers were behind this proposal. They presumably wanted to bring the money deposited in foreign countries through the FDI route.

On the other hand, some editorials conveyed the impression that Government had abandoned the privatization process because of the impending election.

This writer felt that the Prime Minister was very reasonable and magnanimous and as such he would not allow the ruling class to dictate terms to him. Naturally, this writer felt that no more letters would be needed as the Prime Minister was deferring the privatization process.

On the same day, the opposition forced the adjournment of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament), condemning the Government of surreptitiously going ahead with the disinvestments of the profit making HPCL and the BPCL without informing the Parliament.

The Chief Whip of the Congress Mr. Pria Ranjan Dasmunsi went to the well of the House and sought a categorical assurance from the Government that it would not privatize the HPCL and the BPCL. He contended that over 300 members were opposed to the privatization of the HPCL and the BPCL and that it would be an insult to the Parliament if the Government failed to act in tune with the stand of the Parliament.

It appeared that some backward and scheduled caste members of the BJP began to express their discontentment over the stand taken by the Government and this reached the leadership.

The despondency of the news medium could be understood by the editorial of ‘The New Indian Express’ that appeared two days later on 26 April 2003.

In this editorial ‘The New Indian Express’ admonished the Congress for not supporting the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL. The salient points of the editorial were:

*Mr. Priyanjan Dasmunshi of Congress behaved like habitual opposition leaders.

*The Congress should not forget that it was the ruling party in many states.

*Mrs. Sonia Gandhi should not have allowed traditional backbenchers like Dasmunshi to hijack the party on crucial economic policy issues on the floor of the House.

*The stand taken by the Congress party on the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL was nothing but irresponsible.

*The Congress Prime Ministers never allowed Parliament to perform the functions of the executive. As such, the Congress should not have changed the rules of the game.

*The solicitor-general had given the opinion that the Parliament need not be taken into confidence before privatizing the oil PSUs.

*The Congress ruled states had privatized PSUs without seeking permission from the legislatures.

*The petroleum retailing was not connected with national security.

*There were neither security issues nor issues of principle or Parliamentary privilege involved in the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL.

*Instead of allowing the likes of Dasmunshi, Mrs. Gandhi must have urged the better-informed leaders of the Congress Party, meaning presumably members like Mr. Manmohan Singh, to define policy on economic matters.

*The tactic of opposing while in opposition what was proposed when in Government would not do any justice to the nature of a national party.

*The Congress Party had every right to air its differences at party forums. However, when articulating its views in Parliament, it must show consistency and responsibility as rabble-rousing would do little for the image of the Congress.

The above editorial clearly showed that the news media was trying to distinguish the views of Mr. Dasmunshi from the views of the Congress President.

It was also apparent that the media was confident of wooing the frontline leaders of the Congress for its privatization policy. The attempt to cajole the Congress President also could be noticed.

Truth is that the letters from this man and the stand taken by the President of India were the two reasons for deferring the sale of the BPCL and the HPCL.

If the President had agreed, the matter would not have appeared before the Parliament. The Government might have handed over the PSUs secretly.

The print media was very stubborn in the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL because the corporate houses felt that these two companies would sustain their growth and development by the subtle manipulation of the prices of petroleum products.

In fact, at least one daily confessed that the industry, just like the Government, was short of funds.

The President of India, on 26 April 2003, inaugurated the two-day national seminar on “access to justice’ at New Delhi. The Chief Justice of India also attended the function. The President spoke on this occasion. The news medium did not give a true report of his speech. Many newspapers - ‘The New Indian Express’ included- did not report his speech at all.

“The Hindu’ and the Tamil daily ‘Dinakaran’ superficially reported the speech. According to these newspapers, the President said, “India must be rescued from corruption. If we cannot make India corruption free, the dream of making India a developed nation by 2020 could not be achieved. Awareness of the people is rising round. They demand probity in public life. They now demand a clean and corruption free public life. In fact, conduct and behaviour in public life are, like never before, under very close scrutiny. Therefore, it is essential that the three pillars of democracy-Legislature, Judiciary and Executive- are strong in structure, pure in form and uncorrupted and unblemished in conduct. It is imperative that the members of the judiciary must become inviolable role models, the perfect incorruptible ideals of a civilized society. I request the Judiciary to start a movement to make India a corruption free country. It could be similar to the one started by our forefathers to free India from foreign rule.

Further, the Judiciary has a duty to defend the rights of our people. The learned judges must deliver judgements in time. Our people must get justice in time. Unnecessary delays must be avoided. Information and communication technologies could be utilized to clear the backlog of pending cases”.

His talk was a reflection of the letters.

The Chief Justice of India, instead of going into the core, talked about the backlog of cases.

The Prime Minister, as if to give a reply to the President, in a mild tone said that he was being scrutinized by his colleagues.

The comment of the Prime Minister indicated that therewar was going on between them and both started talking indirectly.

“The New Indian Express’ on 8 May 2003 reported that the Union Government on 7 May 2003 invited re-bids for off-loading 51% shares in the national flag carrier, the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), along with management control. The interested parties were asked to submit their expression of interest before June 6, 2003.

Three days earlier ‘The Business Line’ reported that the Government had taken a decision on 15 April 2003 to privatize the SCI. However, no newspaper on 16 April 2003 reported the decision of the Government to privatize the SCI. Obviously, the newspapers were reporting this matter in a very casual way that too very carefully, at an appropriate time, after diverting the attention of the people to trivial matters.

Further, the newspapers had on 16 May 2003 and 17 May 2003 criticized the Government for its inability to privatize any PSU.

On 8 May 2003, the Prime Minister called on the President at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. The meeting, that lasted for 40 minutes, was described as a routine one. However, next day, the Prime Minister said that there could be differences of opinion but that should not develop into personal grudge.

The Prime Minister of India and the President of India were unmarried men. They did not want to make money for their children. Yet, the differences were so sharp that Mr. A.B. Vajpayee had to utter these words.

Further Mr. A.B. Vajpayee made Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam the President of India. Yet, Dr. Kalam turned his back to affix his signature for alienating national assets. He did this for 1000 million people.

President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam wanted to protect the PSUs for the benefit of the posterity and the Prime Minister Mr. A. B. Vajpayee wanted to invade the PSUs for the benefit of the posterity. This is the difference between the two personalities.

The nature of the relationship that existed between them could be discerned.

Further, the Speaker of Parliament had granted permission to discuss the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL.

On the same day, the privatization of the SCI was reported. However, whether the decision had the support of the Prime Minister or not was not known to anyone.

On 8 May 2003, the members of the opposition parties criticized the Government for taking steps to privatize the HPCL and the BPCL.

Mr. Somnath Chatterjee of the CPI (M) described the privatization of the BPCL and the HPCL as an act of “monumental perfidy”. He pointed out that these two companies had a higher turn-over than the nine private sector companies in the oil sector put together. They had also contributed as much as over Re.21,000/- crore in taxes as against Re. 6,100 crore by the private companies.

On 9 May 2003, the Parliament adjourned sine die. On 10 May 2003,‘The New Indian Express’, quoting the Chairman and Managing Director of the BPCL, S. Behuria, reported that the BPCL would be disinvested through the Initial Public Offer (IPO) route. The BPCL was the second largest oil marketing company in India.

The report of the CAG showed that telecom equipment worth Re. hundreds of crore were lying unutilized.

It pointed out that faulty equipment passed quality tests and orders were being placed without any justification. The report also showed that purchases of several kinds of equipment were decentralized in the recent past and as a result mini-scams had proliferated all over the country. Just four checks in different parts of the country showed that equipment of nearly Re. 100 crore lying unutilized. ‘The Hindu’ published this report on 19 May 2003.

‘The New Indian Express’ on 26 May 2003 reported that 11 million investors had lost more than Re. 10,000/- crore through fake companies. The report said that 2750 of the 5651 listed companies of the Bombay Stock Exchange had disappeared after collecting thousands of crore.

In the third part, the paper narrated the story of one Mr. Rakesh Kant Syal, a clerk who quit his post from a Union Territory to hive off more than Re. 3000 crore by exploiting more than 24-lakh investors in the name of Golden Forest India Limited.

The reason for reporting the investigative report long after the event remained unknown. This writer too had pointed out as early as on 3 January 2001 that those who raised Re. thousands of crore through public issues survived without spending even 10% of the collected amount.

In the fifth part, the paper narrated the story of one Mr. Vinod Baid who made a complete mockery of the regulators and raised 136 crore fixed deposits through 60 branches. According to the paper, he was in a Culcutta jail during May 2003. On 31 May 2003 the paper gave the story of Sanjay Jain of Rajasthan Breweries.

On 27 May ‘The Hindu’ reported that the Corporate Houses were not benefiting from the cheaper interest rates mainly due to the reluctance on the part of the bankers to meet the fiscal demands of the industry.

However, with regard to the stock prices, the paper said that the PSE share prices remained in the forefront due to optimistic developments in the disinvestments front.

It was not clear whether the optimism was due to the changes, particularly the resignation of Mr. Agit Singh from the Cabinet or not.

In a major decision, India on 2 June 2003, decided to stop taking bilateral aid from most of the countries except the US, UK, Japan, Germany, European Commission and Russian Federation and prepay Re. 7490 crore worth of external debt from 14 countries including Canada, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during 2003-2004.

This was due to the ballooning foreign exchange reserves of over $ 80 billion.

Within a few days on 7 June 2003 India decided to write off Re. 95 crore debt of poor countries. They were: Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Guyana, Nicaragua, Ghana and Uganda.

The DD on all on a sudden announced the decision of the Union Government to sell 72,243,300 equity shares (25%) of Maruthi Udyog Limited to the public through the initial public offer (IPO) route.

The Government said that the rest of the shares in the hands of the Government (20%) would be sold after a lock in period of one year. The sale was slated to start from 12 June 2003 on the “roads” of Mumbai and Delhi. Next day, the newspapers reported it.

The DD also announced that the privatization of Nalco, SCI and a few other PSUs would be completed within a span of 4 months. The announcement came as soon as the Prime Minister told the stage-managed reporters at Berlin that reforms would not be pushed through but introduced through a process of consensus only.

On 4 May 2003, there were reports that that Essar, Sterlite and a few other companies submitted their willingness to buy the SCI.

The DD further reported that the privatization programme of the BPCL, Nalco and a few other PSU-s would start immediately.

On 8 June 2003, one Mr. Gaurav Raghuvanshi wrote in the “Business Line” that the Government had appointed DSP Merrill Lynch and UBS Wartburg in partnership with the ICICI Securities as the global advisors for the disinvestments of the BPCL.

This paper said that there were serious differences between Mr. Arun Shourie, Minister for Disinvestments and Mr. Ram Naik, Minister for Petroleum. The former allegedly wanted to sell the shares through strategic sale route and the latter along with some other leaders wanted a public float. (So it was clear that both the Ministers were supporters of privatization.)

According to the paper, the Prime Minister intervened and settled the matter.

Advertising agencies issued news to the public in this way.

\The truth was that there were no differences between Mr. Ram Naik and Mr. Arun Shourie and that the Prime Minister never intervened to settle the matter. The people were, thus, made to believe that none was against the privatization of the SCI and the other PSUs.

These developments prompted this writer to send one more letter to His Excellency the President of India after watching the developments for more than three months. Naturally, it was a hard-hitting letter because the letter clearly stated that the President had no moral or constitutional right to harbor anyone connected with the manipulations in the Presidential Palace.

Similarly, the letter clearly stated that the President of India had also such limitations.

Further, the letter emphasized the problems faced by the so-called “creamy layer”. This was the letter No.19. The letter was sent by email on 5 June 2003. The letter follows.

A cynicism

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167.

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why the President of India must do justice to the papers before him.

1. President of India need not obey anyone. In fact, none shall obey anyone. However, the President must be “Rational”. The President must read aright and take his own decision for the nation. In order to pre-empt cloning of judgements to the extent possible, the President was requested to ensure heterogeneity while constituting benches. People do not know what the President did in this crucial matter.

2. The President was requested to use his good offices to open the doors of the IIT-s and REC-s/NIT-s to the OBCs and minorities through reservation. Similarly, the so-called creamy layer of the OBCs could in no way compete with the creamy layer of the FCs. Therefore, a separate reservation- even if it is 1%- is required for the creamy layer of the OBCs. (It is desirable to transform creamy layer into second-generation category is another matter). Each State and all communities in the States must get proportionate number of seats, particularly when large number of seats is at stake. The President could have done fruitful service in this matter.

3. Even in the sale of minority shares of companies, the President must have ensured equitable distribution of shares among all States and among the SC/STs, OBCs, FCs and minorities through reservation. Selling the shares to the foreigners is also akin to selling them to the forward communities. Apart from the fact that the value of shares is a function of the subsidy extended by the PSUs like the LIC to sustain share prices, throwing the shares of companies on the roads of Mumbai and Delhi that too against black money and bank money is forbidden by our Constitution. President could have effectively pointed out that a written Constitution limits governmental powers.

4. Defying the President, Justice Anand said that merit could not be sacrificed in the appointment of four judges to the Supreme Court. As the appointments were perverted by private interests, the President, on 28 November 1998, said that judges were not ‘superhuman’. Truly, judges trained to do injustice refuse to receive even letters from the people. On 5 December 1998, the President openly said social philosophy could not be separated from the social origin of those who dispense justice. It has to be said that those who live differently think differently”. Obviously, the same ‘merit’ is playing havoc to the nation. The intuition of the former President to detect viciousness must be noticed.

5. When the Supreme Court acted contrary to the trust reposed in it, the former President went there. One more visit by the new President to take back the lost PSUs would have forced the judges to review the judgement on BALCO with a larger bench with adequate heterogeneity. Instead, the President is calling on students. The media syndicate highlights this alone to trivialize the Presidency.

6. Justice Anand has been appointed as the Chairman of the NHRC by the new President without a murmur to the knowledge of the people. As expected, the victim of a human right violation by Mr. Zylesh Kumar Yadav, IPS, did not get - despite several letters to the President - even the right to apply for a passport. Further, this writer pointed out, in vain, the threat to his life with evidence to the President.

7. When late Mr. C. Subramonium addressed a letter to the then President Mr. R. Venkataraman, the latter immediately sent a reply in the form of acknowledgement. In fact, all Presidents must be broad minded enough to send a reply- at least through his officers- to the weakest of the weak. The present President tells the children that he would send a reply within three days although he has not sent a reply for 18 letters. Will any President act like this? Will it do well to anyone?

8. The media syndicate is deceitfully transforming selfish and private interests into national and public interests. It is now blacking out what the President shares with the Government. During the Presidential election “The New Indian Express” on 25 June 2002 said that “the nation had been let down by the political leaders”. On 17 June 2002, it said that the Republic lost by choosing the present President. Now, it has nothing against the President because no controversy would be in the interest of the stakes.

9. Several illegalities affecting all sections of people were pointed out to the President, the Director, CBI and the learned judges of the Supreme Court. Apparently, none has taken any action. Therefore, it must be very reluctantly pointed out that if Tata illegally took 850 crore from Bank of India to buy the VSNL, all right thinking people would think that the President has no moral or constitutional right to harbour anyone connected with this deal- including some learned judges of the Supreme Court- in the Rashtrapathi Bhavan. On the other hand, if the silence or inaction of the President were helping the Government, the CBI or the learned judges of the Supreme Court to cover up this deal from the people, they would think that the President too forfeits the moral and Constitutional right to enter Rashtrapathi Bhavan. The feeling that the people of India are too poor, ignorant and helpless to harbour such a President in the Rashtrapathi Bhavan should not occur in the mind of the people.

10.In his address to the nation from the Central Hall of Parliament, on 15 August 1998, the President said, “ Public office was regarded as a sacred space. Today it is regarded by an increasing number of welders of it, as an opportunity to strike gold, and enjoy the loaves and fishes of power. A cynicism prevails in the public mind about politics and the administration…” The people in the nook and corner of India failed to understand the reason why the President used such harsh words in front of our MPs. In fact, none ever used such ruthless words against any system. Now, one cannot but marvel at his premonition, duty consciousness, innocence, selflessness, rectitude and open mind.

Various State Governments are denying lawful salary and pension benefits mainly because of the policy of the Union Government, which gives the money to the UTI. An alert President would consider the question of forgoing part of his salary until the last employee gets his full salary. In such a situation, the power should remain in the hands of those who act “aright”. The President could not be an exception to it. Therefore, the President too must consider the question of doing justice to the papers before him.

Yours truly

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

5-6-2003

The letter was sent through E-mail at 10 P.M on 5-6-2003. This letter had an electrifying effect on the Prime Minister and the top leaders of the BJP.

The Home Minister of India had to postpone his 11-day foreign tour by one day and left New Delhi on Saturday the 7 th June 2003 instead of Friday.

News medium, as usual, blacked out everything that went behind the curtain. The copies of the letter were sent to some important leaders immediately.

Later, at an interactive session with a group of Vice Chancellors, Directors of Research, Principals and promoters of educational institutions at Hyderabad, the President said, “Knowledge should not be for “knowledge sake”; it should contribute to the economic growth and enhancement of the society.What is the knowledge you have provided for enhancing the economic growth of the state?Are you having sufficient autonomy so that you are empowered to do things that you think are appropriate? Other than rigorous routine of teaching and examinations, do you have any special mission which you are cherishing but not in a position to deploy? The teachers are the role models of the students. You are creating India. Problems will be there; you should demand what you want”.

On 19 June 2003, the President visited Chennai. During his interaction with the members of the teaching faculty of the Anna University, he said, “Teachers must develop in students the capacity for research and inquiry; capacity for creativity and innovation; capacity to use high technology, capacity for entrepreneurial leadership; and creativity and moral leadership. These five capabilities are central for economic development and nation building. Through this, we can produce autonomous leaders, which democracy requires. Any teacher who is an embodiment of these five qualities would fit the description of a “role model”. It is only role models who can help others face failure.”

Talking to students, he exhorted them not to be disheartened by failures. Apparently, the President was encouraging this writer to write more letters.

At the same time, it was message to the Prime Minister that he would not be cowed down by the policy decisions.

The media syndicate blacked out the actual reason and portrayed this as a fight between the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. People could not understand what was going on in Delhi.

An exasperated Ms. Jayanthi Natarajan, a leader of the Congress in an article written in ‘The New Indian Express’ said that when a premier expressed his private pique publicly, it became the property of the nation. She said that it was unbecoming for the Prime Minister to go into public sulk and requested the Prime Minister to put an end to this circus and try to come to terms with the job he was elected to do.

Obviously, she was unaware of the developments.

The media, however, concocted a story and portrayed that the Prime Minister was angry because some ministers were demanding money for transfers.

In this connection, it must be stated that what transpired between the President and the Prime Minister was not known to anyone. However, it was obvious that the President transmitted the letter immediately to the Prime Minister with a stern note endorsing the views of this writer. Now the Government decided to put the details of all forthcoming tenders of the BSNL on the website to ensure transparency. There were reports that the Government further decided to decentralize purchasing.

The initial public offer (IPO), of the Maruthi Udyog Ltd (MUL) was oversubscribed nearly 146 percent on the first day within three hours of the opening of the offer.

The papers reported that many banks including Indian Bank, IDBI, HDFC, Citibank and Kotak Mahindra gave loans to retail investors so that they could subscribe to Maruthi shares.

The Governor, RBI, earlier had permitted the banks to lend money to individuals to buy shares. This had been done to cover up the Tata-BoI deal.

The media syndicate wanted the Government to go the Maruthi way on the BPCL. They suggested the strategic sale –cum-IPO route rather than the planned IPO route. They said that the latter would only serve the ruling class.

Finally, when the IPO closed on 19 June 2003, it was oversubscribed by 9.03 times. The Government finally approved a price of Re. 125 per share.

The media syndicate described the over subscription level as overwhelming and that the investors had money.

The New Indian Express on 21 June 2003 said that Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie’s mix of strategic sale and public offers was the right way to maximize the inflows into Government coffers.

The media, therefore, wanted the immediate privatization of the BPCL and Nalco (also called NALCO) through similar methods.

Soon after the letter sent on 5 June 2003, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu went to Delhi to finalize the plan document. The Planning Commission gave the entire Re.7000 crore sought by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

The Chief Minister of Kerala accepted all demands of the employees even without calling them for talks.

The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu accepted the demand of the employees to give full gratuity in cash. Earlier the Government had issued a G.O. to give 50% of the pension benefits in cash and the rest as bond.

On 30 June 2003, the copy of the letter No 19 was sent to the leader of the PMK.

The ONGC showed a profit of Re. 10,529. 2 crore during 2002-2003.

Other oil companies also recorded huge profits. The profit of IOC was Re. 6115 crore. For the HPCL it was Re. 1,537 crore and for the BPCL it was Re.1,250 crore. The combined profit of 12 oil PSUs was Re. 23,254.6 crore. The net profit during 2001-2002 was Re. 12,708 crore. This was attributed to the huge subsidy extended by the Government to benefit the private oil companies.

In this connection, the newspapers said that the ONGC was confident of getting resounding response for an IPO as in the case of Maruthi.

One Mr. Sushma Ramachandran on 25 June 2003 said in “The Hindu’ that the Ministry of Disinvestments was more keen to go ahead with the privatization of the BPCL and NALCO rather than the ONGC.

At the same time ‘The New Indian Express’ on 2 July 2003 disclosed that as many as 100 IPOs were in the pipeline to raise a phenomenal Re.22,000 crore. The IPO included the ONGC, IOC, BPCL, GAIL, NTPC, NALCO and PSU banks including Bank of India, Central Bank of India, Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and State Bank of Mysore.

The paper disclosed that the Reliance Infocom also had a plan to collect Re. 5,000 to Re.10,000 crore through the IPO route.

The State Bank of India, on June 30, 2003, concluded a syndication deal of $ 100 million to Reliance Industries for importing crude. The SBI introduced the syndication of credit and treasury products in March 2003. June 30, 2003 deals worth Re. 1900 crore were under syndication.

On 5 July 2003, Alok Mukherjee of “The Hindu” reported that the Government was reworking on economic agenda. The report said that contentious issues, for the moment, were on the backburner.

However, some Malayalam newspapers reported that the privatization of the airports and the BSNL were on the anvil. The sequence of events showed that the Government was deceitfully going ahead with its privatization plans.

Now, the Government of Tamil Nadu dismissed lakhs of employees for striking work demanding among other things restoration of pension benefits. Thousands of striking employees were arrested along with those who were standing on the roadside and imprisoned.

It appeared that the Government of Tamil Nadu wanted to show to others that the people could be turned against the employees.

As a bench in the High Court, Chennai was hearing the dismissal of about 2 lakh employees; the letter No. 20 was sent through email on 8 July 2003 at 10.30 P.M.to His Excellency the President of India. The letter did not mention anything related to the strike or matters before the Court. However, anyone could see that the letter reflected the feelings and agonies of the employees. The letter follows.

“No dirt would be allowed to stick”

From

V. SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam,Vellicode

Mulagumoodu PIN. 629167.

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi.

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the brief history of the conversion of public property into private property in India in the name of privatization.

1. During 1990s, the ruling class decided to usurp the PSUs. As the word “privatization” is anathema to the people, they coined the word reform to mean privatization. “The Hindu” acknowledged this on 14 December 2002. They set up “Think Tanks” and advertising agencies. They enlisted the full support of the news media including the DD to create a wave of public opinion in favor of privatization. Tutored questions were asked to the leaders and some leaders began to give tutored answers. They censored every news and views. Even now, they work like a mafia gang. They have ready-made solutions to the agitation by trade unions and to contain the Parliament. Their disservice is such that a Government that tortures the employees would get a thumbing majority in the elections.

2. In the initial stages, the ruling class disseminated the view that by selling 49 percent of the shares of the PSUs, the Government could retain their identity and at the same time, it could garner huge amount of money for developmental programmes. People measured this as a novel idea. People believed that Mr. Harshed Metha (a big broker called big bull) was the originator of this idea. They exploited the break-down of the then USSR and the changes in China to carry home their point of view. They manipulated the banks and the BSE to siphon off thousands of crore to other countries. One broker boy alone could transact more than 2.7 lakh crore in one year. This was more than the amount transacted by all the States put together! In the absence of these manipulations, India would have remained, as the fastest growing economy in the world during the last ten years is another matter.

3. The ruling class then ensured the support of the political leaders in all political parties. At times, they tried to split political parties or to infiltrate the political parties with their own men. All latent supporters of privatization were depicted as intelligent people worthy of adulation and deification. They even described them as honest, sincere and dedicated crusaders. VRS scheme was introduced to hand over trimmed PSUs. Banking Service Recruitment Commission was abolished. Some men were sent to all PSUs for the so-called due diligence exercise. Men were detailed even to the Aavadi Tank Factory. The PSUs were made to shelve all their expansion plans. This conveyed the message that the privatization of all PSUs was imminent.

4. As the privatization could not be carried out without circumventing the Constitution, the ruling class appointed a number of committed judges through a series of culpable maneuvers in the High Courts and the Supreme Court and at one stage the Supreme Court collegiums comprised mainly the nominees of the ruling class. This practice continued until December 1998. Then they placed their men in all key positions against suitable favours from the Government and from the ruling class. Justice K.T. Thomas did talk about the racial discrimination practiced by the Supreme Court. However, he too could be silenced by offering a placement.

5. The ruling class successfully destabilized the United Front Government.

6. When the NDA Government assumed power, several Cabinet Committees were ingeniously constituted. Thus, the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments was filled with chosen men and no Cabinet reshuffle could alter its composition. All right thinking people smelt a rat in it.

The media then succeeded in diverting the attention of the people from the dominant theme. Further, the ruling class on 24 October 2002 said through the editorial of “The New Indian Express” that “no dirt would be allowed to stick” against the Prime Minister and they proved it tellingly.

7. As it is the duty of the people to make their Government fat and virtuous, 10 concrete suggestions were sent to the Prime Minister on 1 June 2001. Though the Government took several positive measures, things began to move insidiously and this “ carried within itself the seeds of its own destruction”. Thus, the Re. 850 crore deal of Tata with the BoI and the Re. 1800 crore deal by the BSNL crippled the privatization programme. If these deals had not been pin pointed, all the PSUs including nationalized banks, LIC, AI, IA, SAIL, ONGC, HPCL, BPCL, GAIL, BSNL, MTNL, SCI, and the NALCO would have by now gone in their hands. The shares of the Maruthi were sold first to the Japanese promoter and then through the IPO route in a hurry, as its retrieval would make it sick. The Governor, RBI, issued a guideline to the banks to lend money to buy shares. This was done to cover up the deal by Tata. Some people must have utilized this guideline to buy the shares of Maruthi. Thus within 3 hours Re. 800 crore were collected. Within four days, the amount became Re. 8000 crore! In sharp contrast, despite a court order, the Government of Bihar could not garner Re. 50 crore in three months to pay to its employees! Now, despite 19 letters, there is a move to privatize airports and the PSUs like BSNL with vengeance. This proves that “where the Prince is virtuous laws are unnecessary; where the Prince is not virtuous laws are useless”.

8. The SHRC found one Mr. Xylesh Kumar Yadav “specifically responsible” for illegal detention and false implication. The victim never got real relief, as the system is immune to pain. In fact, the toiling mass starves and perishes in jails and those who rule vie with one another to present a pleasant picture.

9. During 1980s, the Supreme Court decried the back door nationalization. In 2000, it allowed back door privatization. The people believed that the Court “in bad faith” turned private interest into public good. People believed that “the court was preying in secret to all the passions which in public it denies”. The Tata-BoI deal to convert the VSNL into private property was pointed out to 22 learned judges of the Supreme Court on 3 February 2002. Some of them must have demanded action taken report from the CBI. As none was punished, the system proved that “justice is simply the interest of the stronger” and the “State exists to secure the largest possible private good” and greatest possible political advantage. At the same time, a court at Nagercoil sentenced a Village Officer for one-year rigorous imprisonment for accepting Re.500/- as bribe! The decision was quick. However, several big cases are remaining as rigmaroles. Thus “while the strong do whatthey can and the weak suffer what they must”. This perhaps prompted the President on 22 July 2002 to say to our MPs that there must be a limit for committing mistakes.

The learned judges of the Supreme Court must be “Supremely men”. They must be “noblest of natures, the most rational souls, quick to understand, eager to know, of great intellectual power, indifferent to external goods, courageous, self-controlled and a friend and Kinsman of truth and justice”.

9.The President must have noticed that in a year when the 12 oil PSUs got Re. 22,000/- crore profit, the Union Government gave Re.1100 crore as subsidy to them. The CBI must have told the real reason to the President. Further, while the Union Government sits on a mountain of profit, the employees languish without salary and pension benefits. It is said, “even tyrants must be resisted with respect”. However, “the right to think one’s own thoughts, the right to speak them publicly, the right to act according to conscience so far as the welfare of others allows are the most precious of rights”. A strong allegation against any system, unless otherwise immediately denied, becomes a national property. Through the refusal to disclose it, great damage has already been done on the system. Now “the only safeguard against abuse of power lies in the character and mind of those who exercise it” particularly the President of India. Thus, the President now stands between emancipation and total enslavement. Therefore, the President must consider the question of disclosing the truth in the interest of the whole to prove the point that the “State is an ethical institution with a moral end”.

Yours faithfully

V.Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

8-7-2003

The letter, as usual had an electrifying effect. There was no direct evidence to show that the President of India, Dr. Abdul Kalam, transmitted the letter to the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of High Court, Chennai.

Next day, the letter reached the hands of the Chief Justice of High Court, Chennai at 3 P.M., either directly from the President of India or through the Chief Justice of India.

Alternatively, the letter might have reached the hands of the Chief Justice of High Court, Chennai through Union Government.

This could be discerned from the fact that the Chief Justice, High Court, Chennai, who was twisting the case pertaining to the striking employees of the Tamil Nadu state in so many ways, suddenly asked the advocates of the petitioners to give the arguments as a written statement, reserved the judgement, left the Bench and reached Madurai by car.

Next day, according to some reports, the State Government sent four ministers to New Delhi and they returned empty handed.

At 8 P.M.,on 10 July 2003, the judgement was given. The Bench upheld the dismissal orders given to lakhs of employees but they were permitted to join duty after giving an explanation to the respective appointing authorities. The Bench directed the Government to finish all appeals before the one man Tribunal within one month.

Further, the Bench directed the Government to release all the arrested teachers and employees before 12 A.M. on the next day.

Earlier, the State Government had seized all Attendance Registers from all schools, colleges and offices and had recruited thousands of new hands all over Tamil Nadu. Thus, the attempt of the Government to hand down unjust punishment to the employees was thwarted.

However, the stipulation of one month gave a chance the Government to torture the employees.

In fact, the Government continued with suspension and dismissals again. Therefore, some interested parties went to the Supreme Court. There was considerable speculation about the nature and composition of the bench. The Chief Justice constituted the bench in favor of the employees because the bench comprised justice M.B.Shah and justice A.R.Lekshmanan.

As the case was a very serious one, this writer sent the copies of the letter No.20 to all the Judges of the Supreme Court on 14 July 2003.

The Bench declared the dismissals illegal as the punishment was very harsh and asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to reinstate all employees forthwith after obtaining an apology from each employee along with the joining report. The apology letter was demanded because the Constitution – according to the judges- did not confer any right to any employee to strike work.

In an earlier case related to the striking advocates Justice Shah had declared that their strike as an illegal one because the pain caused by the strike was more severe than the pain of the advocates. However, as all employees were not reinstated immediately on various grounds, more than 52 employees died of heart attack and starvation.

Whatever, happened, the employees escaped mainly because of the intervention of President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. The words ‘ethical institution’ worked in his mind. He thought that the employees should not suffer like this under his rule.

Further, a full Cabinet meeting was held 10 July 2003 presumably because of this letter. However, the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments, which met on 10 July 2003, cleared the sale of the residual shares of CMC (26%), IBP (33.95), IPCL(49%), VSNL(33.95%), BALCO (49%)and DCI(20%) (Dredging Corporation of India). The method adopted was through the IPO route with the consent of the strategic partners. The CCD also cleared the sale of National Fertilizers Limited (NFL), Hindustan Organic Chemicals (HOC), Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL), and Mineral Exploration Corporation (MEC).

At the same time, Disinvestment Minister Mr. Arun Shourie, said that the Government had no plan to divest the shares of the BSNL at that juncture. He promised to offer a free hand to the Boards of the BSNL and MTNL in this regard.

On the same day Mr. Bais, the Minister of State for Mines, disclosed that the Cabinet on 11 July 2003 had decided not to privatize the NALCO.

“The Hindu” on 11 July 2003, reported these two news items. It must be noted that this writer had specifically mentioned the privatization of the BSNL and the airports in the letter of 8 July 2003.

It is clear that the Government was in total confusion presumably because the views of the Prime Minister were not consistent with the views of his colleagues.

Confounding this, the Prime Minister, during his visit to Orissa said that the NALCO would not be privatized for the present.

An editorial of “The New Indian Express” on 17 July 2003 described this as Nalco blip. The editorial wanted the Prime Minister to bolster the capital market through the rejuvenation of the privatization programme. It demanded the Prime Minister to pursue vigorously the privatization programme to end the patronage raj of Government officials and non- working employees.

“The Hindu” on 26 July 2003, reported that the British Government –Owned investment institution, Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) on 25 July 2003 bagged the 23.49 percent stake in India’s largest tractor maker, Punjab Tractors Limited (PTL), for Re. 218.13 crore.

The CDC paid Re.153 per share in the bid. 10 prequalified Companies including Mahindra & Mahindra, Eicher Tractors, TAFE, SAME backed out of the process. They cited uncertainty over Management control of the companies as the financial institutions had 45%stake in the PTL. Another reason was the condition that only 2 representatives of the bidder would be allowed in the 12-member board. The bid of CDC was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments presided over by the Chief Minister, Mr. Amarinder Singh.

The above action of the Government of Punjab surprised this writer. It must be noted that this writer had not written any letter to Mr. Amarinder Singh.

In the meantime, in July 2003, there were reports that Mr. Vimal Jalan, the RBI Governor, decided to resign from his post and in his place a retired IAS officer was to be posted.

It was a highly positive decision because this conveyed the impression that the Tata-BoI deal took place without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of India taking actions in deference to the letters of a common man must be commended.

Similarly, “The New Indian Express” on 9 August 2003, said that the Director-General, Doordarshan was on his way out. The paper said that the change was to prepare the Government for the polls.

However, the action taken by Mr. Vajpayee was to protect Tata as he did not take back the VSNL.

This proved that he wanted the alienation of national assets in favour of his promoters.

The President, during his visit to the U.P. on 12 August 2003, exhorted the students to start a second freedom struggle. The DD and most of the newspapers like “The Hindu’, “The New Indian Express” did not report this.

His statement was consistent with these letters.

On 22 August 2003, the President went to the Supreme Court, met the Chief Justice V.N.Khare and other judges, and exchanged views on several important legal issues. The meeting took place for nearly an hour. This was his second visit after becoming the President.

“The Hindu” reported his visit briefly on 23 August 2003. Other newspapers did not report it. Curiously, even “The Hindu” did not report his first visit previously.

Apparently, something was burning in New Delhi.

On 29 August 2003, “The Hindu” reported that Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) began due-diligence of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The newspaper said that RIL officials visited the data room of HPCL in New Delhi for scrutiny of company books.

The above development prompted this writer to send the letter No.21 dated 28- 8-2003 to the President. The letter showed how the news medium twisted the facts to their own selfish ends. The letter conveyed the message that Indians have no political freedom. The word “stakecocracy” was coined to explain the situation. The letter follows.

The HPCL/ BPCL verdict of Justices S. Rajendra Babu and G. P. Mathur“In India everyone has a veto”

From

V. SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, INDIA. PIN: 629167.

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi.

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why India is not a ‘Democracy’ but a ‘Stakecocracy’

1. The President of India on 12 August 2003 exhorted the students to launch the second freedom struggle. Apparently, the President was expressing his helplessness to the papers before him. However, almost no newspapers including “The New Indian Express” and “The Hindu” published it.

When the Spartan mother who, on rushing to the runner to ask news of the battle and being told of the death of her five sons, answered, “Vile slave, was it this I asked thee?” The reason for her outburst was that she was not given the expected news. Now, in India, the stakes (the ruling class) have issued orders not to give the expected news- even the words of the President of India. The DD also obeys this. This has the effect of “trampling freedom and laughing at rights” because “the people is never corrupted; but is often deceived”.

2. It was submitted to the President and many learned judges of the Supreme Court that privatization was diametrically opposed to socialism and as such, an amendment to the Constitution was needed to sell the PSUs to private parties. However, the “you sold, I sell” policy still prevails in private interest.

3. It was pointed out, in vain, to the President of India, that the privatized PSUs went in the hands of people belonging to forward communities offending Article 15 of the Constitution.

4. A suggestion to split the financial institutions was ignored. As a result, the UTI became bankrupt and later, it was split into two. Now, the banks and the LIC are in great trouble. They must be split and made into State level units so that the bankruptcy in one or two units would save many other units. The LIC allured the people all over India assuring three fold and four fold income to the policyholders. All their monies would vanish if the LIC were not split immediately. All the private insurance companies also must be nationalized, split into state level units and handed over to the States as the monies disappear through these companies. In this way, the Union Government and the Supreme Court could partially ensure lawful wages and pension to the employees and prevent the economic deprivation of the rural people. This suggestion is for the “general good” although the stakes would never agree.

In this connection, it must be noted that the States are not paying salaries and pension benefits promptly due to lack of funds. Co-operative banks ask the poor depositors to take back their deposits before maturity although the nationalized banks have not asked their rich depositors to do so. On the contrary, the Post Offices ask the depositors to renew their deposits at the same interest rate. The crisis is obvious.

5. When ‘X’took Re. 850/-crore from the Bank of India (BoI) no one murmured because the X is a big employer and a great income generator. A letter was written only when X utilized the money to buy the VSNL that too because of earlier letters. Why did not the Government take the money from the BoI and retain the VSNL? The answer is simple. The Union Government is simply the governing wing of the X.

Accession to power places a great limitation on one’s friends and relatives because someone in some place would attribute the wealth to those in power. In the above case, it is not clear whether X acquired the wealth through the aid of those in power or vice versa.

6. It was pointed out that another stake (Y), was disqualified from bidding any PSUs by the Union Cabinet. Yet, the HZL was handed over to it. This was immoral if not unconstitutional. The learned judges know that “when the nation acts immorally it is denying itself and is no true nation”.

Similarly, when the 1800/-crore deal by the BSNL was mentioned, the stakes came out with some stories. When the Re. 1100/- crore subsidy given to the oil companies was raised, none reacted. This shows that the subsidy also could have been given in private interest. However, the President and the learned judges of the Supreme Court alone know the truth.

7. A man working in a workshop or institution would not spell the name of his master lest it would be construed as an act of ingratitude. Unfortunately, the members of the ruling class are in a position to make or mar the fortune of anyone in India. For these reasons, the officers of the CBI-instead of maintaining ceaseless vigilance- would retreat on seeing X, Y or any other stakes. The learned judges of the Supreme Court- instead of creating a new India by safeguarding our Constitution- would go on spending their energies to cover up the papers before them. The President of India-instead of protecting the Constitution- would remain silent on etiquette principle. Newspapers-instead of allowing the people to see reason- would suppress the proceedings, if any, against the stakes. Now, there is a legislation- though unconstitutional- to receive money from the stakes for canvassing purposes. There were reports that the X removed about 1000/- crore from the VSNL. Therefore, X would not hesitate to give 2 to 3 crore to every probable winning candidate. This would continue until X transfers most of the assets acquired through manipulation to other countries. The tragedy is that “the moment there is a master, there is no longer a sovereign”.

8. 20 letters have been sent. There must be a limit for sending letters. However, this letter No.21 is sent due to supremely national interests as the letters lead to the realization that the Indians have no political independence. Now, as the President expresses his helplessness, the learned judges of Supreme Court could give political independence to the hapless Indians. The learned judges must be endowed with all virtues and talents. They cannot be deceived but corrupted only. They can give political independence to all Indians if they see reason, as “reason is the sovereign of the world”. Further, the learned judges “owe their talents to their country in every way in which they can be serviceable”.

9. In the matter of human rights, also the act of “willfully and intentionally” arresting innocent people in their sleep must cease “because public safety is nothing unless individuals enjoy security”.

10. It is said, “so long as the General Will is sovereign it does not matter if the Government is a democracy, aristocracy or monarchy.” ‘Stakecocracy’ introduces a new dimension hitherto unknown to political science. In ‘stakecocracy’ the people would know the Yoke but not the master. The stakes (ruling class) are the “permanent” in the “changing” Governments. As the media is associated with them, they deceive the people and as such, the Will of the stakes would appear as the General Will. The Government exists by collecting taxes but the stakes multiply their assets essentially through manipulations. Thus, the 10 suggestions casually given to the Prime Minister to strengthen the nation on 1 June 2001 accidentally led to the realization after 20 letters that India is a ‘stakecocracy’ and not a democracy. The letters changed the course of India in the most critical two years in the post independent era although the future alone would tell whether the letters contributed significantly to human knowledge or not.

It must be noted that the inability of the various State Governments to undertake poverty alleviation programmes and to pay salary and pension to its employees is a repercussion of the manipulation of the ruling class. A ray of hope is that the leaders committed to selfless service far outweigh the leaders associated with the stakes. If the President is ready to disclose the truth, the people will also see “reason” to create a new India by securing Political Independence-a theme dear to but unknown to Indians.

Yours faithfully

V, Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

28-8-2003

“The New Indian Express” in its Sunday edition on 31 August said that the market was waiting for news on disinvestments front.

According to them, the case related to the HPCL and the BPCL would come in the Supreme Court on Monday 1 September 2003.The case did come on Monday. However, the Supreme Court adjourned the case to Friday.

Next day “The Hindu” said that the bench comprising Justice S.Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P.Mathur brushed aside the suggestion for a stay. Curiously, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs met on the same day presumably to discuss the economic aspect of the above letter. On Friday, the Court reserved its judgement.

On the eve of the “Teachers Day” on 4 September 2003, the President made an address to the nation. In that address, he said that the nation depended upon the teachers for progress and development. Further, he said that the teachers must give shape to a new India.

On 6 September 2003, addressing a teachers meeting he told the students that hard work and perseverance would bring success to them. He said that they should not be frightened while pursuing their goal.

Clearly, it was an indirect message to this writer.

During his visit to Kerala in the last week of September 2003, he talked to the students highlighting righteousness.

His speech again showed that he was encouraging this writer to write more.

On 6 September 2003, “The Hindu” published a photograph of Tata who was on the way to meet the Minister for Finance, Mr. Jaswant Singh at North Block. On seeing his photo, this writer decided not to use the word Tata anymore, as pressing anything beyond a point would produce opposite effects.

Further, these letters were not for attacking any particular individual directly or indirectly.

On the same day, the same newspaper reported that Tata Chemicals opted out of the race to buy the Government’s stake in the National Fertilizers Ltd. The paper disclosed that the Birla group was the major contender for this.

Again on 6 September 2003, Mr. Yaga Venugopal Reddy took over as the twenty-first Governor of the Reserve Bank of India for a five-year term from Mr. Vimal Jalan, who had one more year.

The new Governor said that the RBI believed in continuity.

Mr. Jalan had to leave the place presumably because of the letters from this writer.

It must be noted that that Re. 845 crore from Bank of India might have gone in the hands of TATA with or without the knowledge of the Prime Minister.

The fact that Mr.Jalan had to leave showed that the Prime Minister went through all letters carefully and made amends for the mistakes.

None in India other than a few members of the ruling class and some ministers knew this.

Further, Prime Minister could have ignored the matter, as it was a loan. The action taken by him must be commended by one and all because men usually cling to Himalayan blunders, to prove they were correct in certain points, with disastrous consequences.

The action conveyed the message that the BoI gave the money to Tata without the knowledge of the Prime Minister.

All must commend the Prime Ministers of India taking such positive actions without standing on prestige. However, the VSNL was not restored.

The President of India too might have played his role is another matter.

On 8 September 2003, “The Hindu” reported that the IDBI took over Tata Home Finance Ltd, a subsidiary of the Tata Finance.

On 11 September 2003, the Union Cabinet cleared the privatization of the Delhi and Mumbai airports by handing over 74% of the equity in them to private partners.

Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee decided to keep it in abeyance.

Apparently, he did not succumb to the combined pressure of the ruling class and a section of the bureaucracy.

This decision drove him to think of the premature dissolution of the Parliament as he was losing control over the system.

He was not prepared to sacrifice his reputation any more.

The media did not lose hope.

“The New Indian Express” said that the decision made good a promise made five years ago. It could be discerned how the ruling class waited for the privatization of airports.

The Indian Express expressed its happiness because it had succeeded in appropriating or usurping the airports.

On the same day, the same newspaper said that the Ministry of Finance was not willing to part with any revenue as subsidy to oil companies.

Apparently, the ruling class caused the file to move from some unknown place and the Cabinet Secretary or the Prime Minister himself in the finishing stages halted it. It was clear that a section of the bureaucracy was engaged in manipulating the system for the benefit of the stakes and for their own benefits and that the files reached the table of the Ministers without their consent or direction.

It may be recalled this writer questioned the Re.1100/-crore subsidy given to the oil PSUs. None in India other than this writer might have noticed it.

The fact that the Prime Minister began to apply brakes on manipulations could be again discerned. The stakes apparently decided not to part with such pieces of information to the public.

The Supreme Court on 16 September halted the privatization of the HPCL and the BPCL.

Justices S. Rajendra Babu and G.P. Mathur were in the Bench.

Chief Justice V.N. Khare might have played a role in the constitution of the Bench.

The court directed the Government to get the approval of the Parliament before privatizing them. Thus, it agreed with the stand taken by the CPIL.

This judgement was a vindication of the facts submitted by this writer. It showed that the learned judges of the Supreme Court were divided and they could no longer be taken for granted.

Disinvestment Minister Mr. Arun Shourie, indirectly referring to this writer, said that “in India everyone has a veto”.

It was in line with the mind of the President of India although the ruling class was shocked by the Judgement.

The Government did not possess the critical energy needed to face the Parliament mainly because of the letters from the present man

Disinvestments Minister Mr. Arun Shourie deplored that the judgement would have far reaching consequences. He said the CCD would take a decision on 3 October 2003.

The “Business Line” said that the people who parade as pro poor intellectual were the true culprits”.

The New Indian Express on 29 revealed that several companies including the NTC, STC, FACT, Hindustan Copper and Burn Standard Company, Balmer& Lawrie, Bharat Ophthalmic Glass Braithwaite & company, Central Inland Water Corporation, Engineering India were in the disinvestments block.

The media insidiously suggested that the Government would come out with an ordinance to privatize the HPCL and the BPCL quickly. As the suggestion did not work with the Prime Minister, the matter slipped. After all, it was the Prime Minister who had been facing the President for every letter.

The CCD, which met on 3 September 2003, discussed various options before it to surmount the ruling of the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the Minister for Disinvestments, in total desperation, said that the Government would split the IOC into two to sell them to private parties, as an Act of Parliament did not form it. He claimed that the market share of the IOC was approximately equal to the market share of the BPCL and the HPCL put together.

The Congress Party opposed this plan immediately. As the Prime Minister, apparently, was not enthusiastic, this plan, which originated from the ruling class also slipped.

Now, the letter No.22 was sent to the President of India.

“Human Excellence is equivalent to Justice”

From

V.Sabarimuthu

26- Thattamkonam

Vellicode

Mulagumoodu 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rastrapathi Bhavan

New Delhi

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reasons why the President of India must allow the Constitution to grow in the Indian soil.

1.Though the Airport Authority of India is capable of constructing world class airports, the Union Government on 11 September 2003, decided to privatize Mumbai and Delhi airports offending the 42nd amendment to the Constitution of India. While the first 41 amendments made changes in the remote corners of the Constitution, the 42nd amendment changed the Preamble. It is said that King is not subject to civil laws, although he so long as does not repeal them he is bound by them.

2. It is disturbing to note that “The Hindu”, on 12 January 2003, viciously disclosed that a “source” had been secretly poaching to usurp the airports for more than ten years. This was reported to the President on 19 February 2003. The source has fielded hundreds of writers to ‘transform selfish interest into public good. Can the airports been privatized before identifying this soiurce? The President, if not the CBI and the learned judges of the Supreme Court owes an answer to this crucial question. Further, as corruption and viciousness degenerate men, this source must be identified in public interest.

3, It was submitted to the president that privatization injured Article 15. The President must have also noticed that the absence of reservation for the OBCs in the IITs is doing immense benefit to the forward communities. The President should have considered the question of approaching the learned judges of the Supreme Court to know the ramifications because it is said that “hedges are set not to stop travelers but to keep them in their way”.

3. One individual is enough to spoil a PSU. The profits of the BSNL were affected due to the Re.1800 crore illegal deal by the BSNL. The employees of the BSNL are not aware of this. The employees say that their employer is not protecting them. They feel that “they owe no obligation to obey an authority that fails to protect them”. On the contrary, the stakes (ruling class) using the ill-gotten wealth say that ‘the fear of stick alone works in India’. The stakes say that the employees blackmail their employers. The remedy is to split most of the PSUs into relatively smaller units. None is able to do anything because the stakes would not allow any real “reform” in India.

Further now it appears that a subsidy of Re.1100 crore was given in private interest to private parties and to the PSUs to enable the stake “Z” to buy the HPCL and the BPCL as and when they are privatized. In villages, the people do not allow anyone to usurp even one cent of government property. The people do this not for their children but for the children of India. Yet the” distressed in the villages are left to the charity of private persons”.

4. 21 letters have been sent. This letter is necessary because of the new developments. In continuation of the previous letters, a letter was sent to the President on 19 October 2002. The stakes concealed the existence of these letters. Instead, the New Indian Express, on 26 October 2002 talked of annihilation. On the same day, as an concerted effort, “The Hindu” said that the people must use decent language. The Hindu put the “decent language” under inverted coma because the word “decent” was used in the letter addressed to the President on 19 October 2002. This must be a non-bail able offence under the IPC. It was informed to the President on 16 November 2002. “ The newspapers are under no man but they are under the law provided terrorism is not protected. The president must have allowed the law to take its own course. However, no action was taken to book the culprits. The national newspapers are the terrorist in India. All other terrorists are created mainly because of these newspapers. These papers- while claiming truthful reporting – do not allow any good news to reach the people. They do not allow other newspapers to publish it. No publisher in India is prepared to publish anything that reveals the manipulations of the stakes. This amounts to strangulating news and views. Thus, one would know what happened to mankind 2000 years ago. However, one does not know what is happening in his own country today. This is another characteristic feature of stakeocracy. Therefore, it is imperative that the President must consider the question of demanding the appropriate authority to take action against these newspapers as per law. The President “must be truthful to himself” in this matter. It is a question of human rights as “nothing is made for men to spoil or destroy.”

5. In the name of the so-called reform, India lost precious last ten years of the 20th century. The first three years of the 21st century also has been wasted. At this rate, there would be no “industry” on the part of anyone for another 17 years because “force has become virtue”. Therefore, green signal must be given to the PSUs and the private industries to grow rapidly without wasting the precious time in the name of selling or buying the PSUs.

6. Privatization is against the 42^nd amendment. It is against Article 15 and many other Articles. Above all, it is against the basic structure of the Constitution. It takes place covertly and overtly. It bestows benefits for a few for generations. It involves public money. It involves conceit, craftiness, cunningness, wiliness, illegal manipulation, favoritism, concessions and commissions. This affects industry. It creates payment problem to the States. This creates regional imbalances, unemployment and economic deprivation. This has the effect of corrupting the CBI, judiciary and the Presidency. It undermines sovereignty. By this “ India does suffer”.

7. The recent judgement on the HPCL/BPCL is a turning point. The Constitution has been brought on the rails quite ingeniously. It shows that everything in the Supreme Court depends on the nature of Benches. “Though the field is lost” they say“all is not lost” They warned the Supreme Court through an article in The New Indian Express, on 20 October. The ruling class said that the Supreme Court over-stepped the limit. They openly descried the judgement as a bigot one. The ruling class must abandon this policy, part with the privatized PSUs very gladly, start new industries and set the government, judiciary and the people free.

8. “The human reasoning is fallible”. If, however, the Constitution was spoiled because of a ten year plan, it must be probed. Further, the Supreme Court must consider the question of debarring the advocates, if they put forward weak or mock arguments.

9. Now “the fresh critical outlook of the judges and their humanism” has come to the open”. It is said that The Constitutions are not born of oak and rock but grow out of the characters in each city”. It appears that some learned judges through their Excellence would try to give justice and political independence to Indians because “Human Excellence is equivalent to Justice”. The President must allow it to grow further in the Indian soil through his vigilance. Then none would try to hide anything and justice & truth would prevail.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu.

Vellicode

30-9-2003

The Business Line” on 7 October 2003 opposed the privatization of the IOC but, as a compromise, favoured divesting 20% equity of the Government to garner Re. 8000/- to Re. 10000/- crore. The Business Line took this stand knowing fully the predicament of the Government.

On the same day, one Mr. Sushma Ramachandran in an article in “The Hindu” criticized the proposal of the Government to split the IOC but deceitfully said the Ministry of Petroleum “may confine IOC disinvestments to divesting Government equity of 15 to 20 percent shares. On the next day,

“The Hindu” decried the option of splitting the IOC into two, but due to selfish reasons, advised the Government to sell 20 per cent of its equity.

Obviously, the newspapers were discussing the question of selling the PSUs as if the PSUs were their family properties. Therefore, the letter No 21 and 22 were sent to about 20 judges of the Supreme Court. This was to widen and deepen fissures within the Supreme Court for the benefit of 1000 million people.

The Home Minister Mr. L.K. Advani on October 9, 2003 described in an interview to the BBC that the judgement of the Supreme Court on the HPCL/BPCL as an obstacle. He said that one would have to circumvent it or maneuver to find a way. He consoled the stakes by saying that his Government was committed to economic reforms and took several measures even after the judgement.

“The New Indian Express” reported the above on October 10 Friday 2003.

“The Hindu” on the same day published an article by Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer in its centre page on the functioning of the judiciary. It appeared that “The Hindu” fed the matter to him and obtained an article accordingly.

In that article, he said that the people were entitled to know the truth about the functioning of the judiciary and the other agencies of the Government.

This article upheld the views of this writer one by one. How the media create men in India could be gauged.

The President, after dedicating the memorial for the former Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi on 10 October 2003 at Sriperumbudur, read a prayer. It was a long prayer.

Reading the prayer first in Tamil and then in English he said, “God has created the human being with brain and thinking faculty. He has commanded his creation that the faculty be used with reasoning to reach his message. This is the mission of human life. Oh Almighty! Create thoughts and actions in the minds of the people of my nation so that they live united. Oh Almighty! Bless my people a path of life with righteousness as righteousness gives strength of character.

Oh, Almighty let not the differences between individuals due to their policies lead to personal grudge. Let love and unity, not enmity and ill-will, prevail over our people”.

This was his reply to the statement of the Prime Minister that the differences should not develop into personal grudge.

“The Indian Express” said that Dr. Kalam broke the protocol as no speeches were arranged. This writer felt that speech of the President was directed against the Prime Minister. It was also an indirect tribute to this writer.

At the same time, it was his reaction to the privatization of the Mumbai and Delhi airports.

The HPCL and BPCL judgement did not give him much happiness. The loss of the two airports disturbed him so much that he resorted to a prayer.

However, he should have revealed the existence of the work to the people to restore the airports and others.

On 11 October, 2003 the Government organized a function in the Central Hall of Parliament to celebrate the 200 th session of the Rajya Sabha.

All the members of both the Houses of the Parliament attended the function.

During the meeting, the President was flanked on either side by the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha.

The DD telecast the meeting live. The President said that even students ask questions about corruption. He wanted everyone to tolerate dissent. Then he recited his usual divine message, “Where there is righteousness in the heart, there is a beauty in the character. When there is beauty in the character, there is harmony in the home. When there is harmony in the home, there is order in the nation. When there is order in the nation there is peace in the world”. This was an attack against the Prime Minister.

Next day, the newspapers did not publish his words at all.

In this way, they continued to treat him as a person sitting in the Tihar Jail. It could be discerned that the President was complementing the efforts of this writer.

On 18 October 2003, “The New Indian Express” reported that that the Union Government had been forced to defer the receipt of bids on fears that the adverse verdict from the Supreme Court on the HPCL and the BPCL could have a bearing on about 30 cases pending in various courts.

Thus, the Government ultimately accepted defeat.

In this connection, it must be noted that no newspaper had earlier reported anything about the existence of these cases in so many courts.

On 23 October 2003 “The Hindu” reported that the Government decided to sell its 9.2 percent shares in the ICI Plc’s Indian to the Asian paints for Re. 77.09crore.The President was in Bulgaria at that time.

“Truth is peace”

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Thattamkonam

Vellicode,

Mulagumoodu 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rastrapathi Bhavan

New Delhi

Your Excellecncy

Kindly consider the reasons why Human Excellence is Peace.

1. The President of India must have noticed that The Hindu obtained an article from Justice Krishna Iyer , former judge of the Supreme Court and published it on 19 October 2002. He justified all the points contained in the letters sent by this writer. He could have stopped privatization by directly talking or writing in -good faith – to the learned judges of the Supreme Court.

2. Recently, a former Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) in an article described the Planning Commission as a white elephant as the privatization is in progress. Can India progress without a Planning Commission? It is clear that the Planning Commission is sitting without any plan in the hope of privatization. He had been functioning as the CVC!

3. In the past “The Hindu” portrayed Mr. R.K. Ragavan , former director of the CBI, as an immaculate, non-corruptible, honest straightforward CBI officer. The people believed this. Hence, he could sow the seeds of suspicion in the mind of the non-corruptible Indians by suggesting various ways for investigating the “Bofors Case”. Now, The Hindu, through an article on 18 October 2003 gave a clean chit to him by revealing the “gut” feeling of R.K. Ragavan that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was wrongly misled by some people. Will any man in India now know this? It is now clear that the stakes succeeded in tarnishing his image because he was not available for manipulations. It was the victory of the evil over good. Thus, the newspapers are the most disruptive forces in India. They revel in death. They relish destruction. In fact, “ half thepleasure of the newspapers in the world arises from malignity and manipulations, and little of the other half is free from their encroachments”.

4. Two national newspapers threatened this writer with elimination. The threat was a specific one and it was never a vague or general comment. Is it good? There is a brain or a syndicate common to several newspapers and the President must allow the law to take its own course “because law is command, it must be the command of the supreme authority. Indeed only when such an authority is habitually obeyed, one would admit the existence of a civil society. The newspapers would cling to their privilege of absurdity is another matter.

5. It was clearly informed to the President of India, that Mr. Xylesh Kumar Yadav, was indicted by the State Human Rights Commission for breaking a house, in bad faith, at night. The victim has not obtained any relief from persecution. The President could have found a remedy for it by forwarding the copies of letters to the National Human rights Commission. Even if the letters are sent to various State Governments, Inspector General of Police, learned judges and the other functionaries, such incidents could be prevented. These are days when police enter the house at night and kill people at point blank range. The word, stories and even prayers would never bring back the lost souls. Can a President condescend it? Is it good?“ Men know what is good by intuition”.

6. Due to “the innate and unchangeable selfishness of man” many PSUs have changed hands. Even now it is deceitfully going on. It is not a question of absolute equality. However, social equality –liberty itself- is unlikely to survive long if equality –an avowed quality of our Constitution – is treated with too cavalier contempt. The legislature will be acting against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject”. Is the President not duty bound to prevent it by citing the Preamble?

7. Further, based on the new judgement and the Constitution, all the privatized PSUs must be restored forthwith. This will restore peace in many areas as it would restore the confidence of our boys in our system. The learned judges of the Supreme Court know that “ it is liberty of ambitious men to pull down well framed Constitution that out of their ruins they may build themselves fortunes’. Yet they cover it up. Is it good/

8. The people all over India donate their hard earned properties for public purposes so that the posterity would be benefited in one way or other. The stakes have several opportunities to flourish. The stakes themselves must realize that they should not overrun public properties. They must remain happy. They must make the people happy by giving political independence to them. They must make the country sovereign “because it is the hallmark of a sovereign State that nothing it does shall be illegal”. They must make our M.Ps and the people sovereign. They must strive for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. “ Stakecocracy” and Mediacracy” are not good. They must come forward gladly to relinquish the occupied properties.

9. Mumbai Stock exchange, IITs and even the Supreme Court are practicing segregation on racial grounds. When England introduced reservation for backward communities, we resorted to fasting to abort it by saying that England was resorting to divide Indians on caste lines. As a result, those who must have been in the IITs disrupt peace, and those who remain in the IITs support manipulations. Is it good?

10. The people look forward to the President to bring peace and prosperity. The Supreme Court and the other courts could be watched on a daily basis to bring out truth. The DD could be watched. Something could be done to those affected by the creamy layer concept. The headquarters of most of our banks could be equitably distributed among all States. The LIC could be split into state level units to know its real shape. The policy of bulk buying could be stopped and commissions curtailed. The distribution of petroleum products and the telephones could be left to the States. Several other suggestions given to curtail flight of capital and economic deprivation would bring peace to our boys. The learned judges, through their Excellence have proved that “the superior will is not superior reason”. The President too must prove his Excellence by restoring the PSUs without delay. A simple open demand by him would do wonders.

Even after 22 letters, the President is not disclosing the truth. Is it good? The disclosure of truth would save many precious lives and lead to peace and prosperity.

The President did many things. When he assumed office he saved 20 PSUs in one go. But the President has not given freedom to the people to know the existence of these letters.

Truth is Peace. Human Excellence is Peace.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode.

27-10-2003

“The Hindu” on November 7 said that the Government was considering a proposal to divest 10 % equity each in IOC and the ONGC. Thus, the Government was giving shape to what the newspapers said immediately after the HPCL/BPCL judgement.

This again proved that a few officers and ministers in the Government were taking orders directly from the ruling class and placing the files before the Cabinet presumably without the knowledge of the Prime Minister.

On November 9, 2003, Mr. Soli J Sorabjee in the Sunday Edition of the “The New Indian Express” warned, “Too much of good thing is not good”.

The reason why Mr. Soli Sorabjee inserted these words in his article titled “Judging the Judges” was not a clear one. However, it was an attack against the President of India and an indirect threat against the present writer.

Now the newspapers reported that the CAT question papers were leaked. Therefore, this matter was utilized to convey the message that the Entrance Examinations had lost their credibility and State wise reservation was a necessity.

The letter No.24 was sent on 1-12-2003.As a lecturer said that this writer richly deserved the Nobel Prize for Peace for the 23 letters, that matter was also included. The letter follows.

“Truth is dangerous?”

From

V. SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider some incredible disappointments and achievements.

1.The system is still abetting crime as no action is taken against the two national newspapers, which threatened to eliminate this writer. “Man is so noble a being” to be finished like this. It is clear that a civil society does not exist in India.

2. The system is segregating on racial grounds as is evident from the stubborn opposition to make Supreme Court, IITs and the Mumbai Stock Exchange truly heterogeneous. It is worse than apartheid. The recent “CAT” question paper leakage shows that half of all our officers owe their positions to prior information regarding the question papers. The position of the other half sparingly scattered all over India also is doubtful because they might have got the question papers through their relatives in Delhi or Mumbai. This is the reason why half the officers of the CBI breed corruption and the other half reluctantly fight corruption. This is partly the reason why the so- called merit is not an index of one’s intelligence. The castes and religions could be cleverly used not to divide our people, but to apportion the seats and assets of the nation equitably. This is the demand of the Constitution. However, the system remains unmoved.

3.Similarly, the policy of the distribution of petrol pumps to the MPs was described as naked corruption. However, the distribution of the same through private parties is described as a noble policy. A parallel Government has been allowed to function to amass wealth and to destroy the remaining oil PSUs. In this respect, 80% breed corruption and the other 20% remain passive. In this way, the stakes annihilate the Constitution and perpetuate rank irregularities. Now they say that the way to prevent corruption in the PSUs is to give them to private parties. This shows that the media would again succeed in mesmerizing our people. Now they black out everything. They do not publish court cases. The stakes consider even the President as a person sitting in Tihar jail, as they now do not publish his words.

4. Further, the President of India is the custodian of all the assets of India. He might have noticed that the stakes in order to buy the PSUs utilized the monies from the banks, LIC and the UTI. Did the people of Kerala, Bihar, Assam or Jammu and Kashmir get any PSU or the money? The Constitution forbids even the act throwing the minority shares on the roads of Mumbai.Therefore, but must be reserved for all States and for all sections of the people equitably. No one shall continue to construct castles on the ruins of our Constitution. Reluctance of the system to liberate the occupied PSUs is disappointing.

5. “Robbery affects the robbed man. It is the “primary” evil. The suggestion that robbery is easy which may affect the conduct of others is the “secondary” evil”. The secondary evil, according to political scientists, is more important than primary evil. This is the reason why the newspapers have concealed 23 letters. Thus, they are denying the rights of 1000 million people. This is the most heinous crime. The people must know the contents of the letters because “only knowledge would supply answer to all man’s problems”. This is the reason why the newspapers want to eliminate this writer. This is the reason why the truth would save the life of this writer. However, the system does not respond. This is the greatest disappointment.

6. On the other hand, the first letter saved the AI and the IA and the privatization was delayed by about five months. The effects showed that the leaders wanted “to know what was good in order to embrace them”. The second letter showed the “sinister interest of privilege in every path” and revealed that the people in power were against real reforms. The third letter prompted the then President to express the hope that “the common man would save India”. That letter quickened the judgement on BALCO. Then a suggestion enabled the Government to mobilize resources. The letter No.6 exposed the working of the Supreme Court and the CBI. Consequently, both the Presidents had to visit the Supreme Court frequently. The Supreme Court gradually changed its colour and the present Chief Justice, through the excellence of two learned judges, finally brought the Constitution on its rails.

7.When the Government persisted in its sinister ways, some manipulations going on with private interest had to be pointed out to the President, CBI and the learned judges of the Supreme Court simultaneously. An unhelpful President and the attitude of some learned judges crippled the privatization programmme. Thus, either the LIC, BSNL, MTNL, ONGC, IOC, BPCL, HPCL, NALCO, nationalized banks and a host of other PSUs were saved or their privatization aborted or delayed. The SCI and the airports escaped narrowly. Many State Governments shelved all their privatizations plans. If all the letters had been sent to all Chief Ministers and the learned judges, all PSUs sold by the various State Governments could have been saved.

8.The letters effectively denied Rashtrapathi Bhavan to the representatives of the stakes. The selfless service of the leaders of the opposition parties contributed to this. It was a great achievement as this paralyzed a few - not all- sinister moves of the system.

9.In the hands of the Presidents, the letters were more devastating than nuclear devices as they led some leaders to total depression. At the same time, the letters gave great hope to leaders committed to selfless service and thus saved them from total despondency. The latter reversed the policy and perceived that they have a goal to achieve. They realized that the political parties are for public service and they owe their talents to the nation. They are now fully aware of the manipulations of the media, which work, in private interest. This is the greatest achievement of these letters. Obviously, the letters have made India a better place to live and many more changes that are positive could be expected.

10. Perhaps, as a tribute, the present President also said “God endowed man with thinking faculty to serve the people”. On seeing these letters, a lecturer said that this writer richly deserved a Nobel Prize for Peace. The course of nature cannot be prevented. The letters were written not with the aim of hurting anyone or with an eye on Nobel Prize but they were simply human responses to a sinister plan. All people contribute their share one-way or other to prevent the privatization of the PSUs. However, achievements of these 23 letters are simply incredible. If the system does not relapse to its sinister ways, the Prime Minister and the President will be protecting India from total enslavement and thereby ensuring a Nobel Prize to India.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

1-12-2003

A Cabinet meeting was held on that day. The Prime Minister postponed his visit to Ghana.

On 2 December 2003, “The New Indian Express” came out with an editorial titled “Truth is dangerous”. This was a reply to the letters of this writer requesting the President of India to disclose the truth.

The editorial pointed out the fate of one Mr. Satyendra Kumar Dubey who instead of keeping quiet on the manipulations going on in the National Highway Authority of India alerted the PMO. The paper said that he was killed for the same reasons. The message was that this writer also could be killed in a similar fashion.

On 18 December 2003, the President paid a visit to Chennai.

When the students asked him what he liked most - Scientist, President or Teacher? The President said that he liked Teacher.

The present man had been a teacher.

Now there was a lull in the political activity.

On 2 January 2004, the letter No.25 was sent to the President of India at 10 P.M.through e-mail. This letter was to open the eyes of the learned judges of the Supreme Court. The letter follows.

Abdication of power

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam, Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, 629167

His Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why the Supreme Court is committing grave crime and breeding rank corruption and malpractice.

1. On 26 October 2002, The Hindu and The New Indian Express issued a death threat to this writer for the letter sent to His Excellency the President of India on 19 October 2002. It was duly reported to the President of India. As no action was taken, a copy of the letter was sent to the Chief Justice of India with the newspaper cuttings on 3 December 2003. The letter No.9 to letter No. 19 that were not earlier sent to the Chief Justice also were sent to him just to enable him to know the sequence of events. Even then, no action has been taken.

2. The President of India was requested through a series of letters to divide the “assets and seats” equitably. If the system abhors castes and religions, the seats could be reserved State wise, District wise and rural area wise. During the sale of minority shares of any PSU, the President of India is duty bound to ensure that the shares are reserved at least State wise. It is the duty of the President to show the Constitutional path to the Government and the Supreme Court.

3. The petrol pumps were reserved for ex-servicemen, handicapped and the M.Ps. Now, everyone embraces our soldiers and kisses the handicapped after effectively removing the petrol pumps from their handless hands. The ex-servicemen and the handicapped want petrol pumps exclusively for them and not physical embracement.

4. The people say that the banks are giving very big amount to the stakes for each petrol pump in the name of equipment worth a small amount. The owners of petrol pumps would have to pay the amount to the banks in many years. If it is true, stakes are siphoning off thousands of crore through these manipulations everyday and the entire system including the learned judges of the Supreme Court is involved in this. The money thus obtained will be sufficient to buy all the PSUs and the entire country. Therefore, the President and the Chief Jjustice of India are duty bound to inform the Indians the amount transferred to the stakes through banks and the actual amount spent by them since the judgement.

5. The President of India has adequate security. Extracting such pieces of information from the Government is perilous because people have no protection.

6. The President of India must read aright the manipulations. Then only righteousness would flow from the President of India. The moment righteousness flows from the President; India “would make steady progress in happiness and wisdom”.

7. Ninety percent of the conflicts in the world are due to economic reasons. Ninety percent of the court cases are also due to economic reasons. However, after saying that the court would not interfere in the economic policy of the Government, the court cancelled the allotments of petrol pumps just to perpetuate “Stakecocracy”. Thus, the court, in bad faith, foisted an unconstitutional and perverse concept on the public. It now appears that an employee of a bank taking Re.850/- would be a misconduct warranting dismissal but the judge facilitating a member of the ruling class to take Re.100,0000000/-from banks everyday would not be misconduct. “The intentions or motives of the learned judges of the Supreme Court are of greatest importance in determining these secondary consequences of their actions and must therefore be taken into account by the President”. The judgement is not a question of conscience because “there are moments when conscience itself is uncertain”. It is not a question of justice either because “what justice is this is what on every occasion is the greatest matter of dispute”.“A decision of the Supreme Court is to be accounted good not because of its immediate happy consequences but because of its general or long time happy consequences”. “One may say that it is difficult to determine what sort of judgements is good and what bad”.“The accumulated experience of mankind will tell men what the probable consequences of certain kinds of actions will be, will provide a rough, general rule whereby whole class of actions can be judged”. This rule in Political Science is more important than Newton’s laws of motion in Physics. This is the reason why the right thinking people believe that crime, manipulations and commissions originate from the Chief Justice of India. This is the reason why Justice Raju said that the consequences of bad judgments are disastrous. By remaining as a strong sheath, the learned judges of the Supreme Court are now allowing the Government, CBI, CVC, RBI and the newspapers to breed crime, corruption and manipulation. The President of India must note that “whatever evil it is possible for the Chief justice of India to do for the advancement of his own private and personal interest at the expense of the public interest-that evil sooner or later he will do, unless by some means or other, intentional or otherwise, he be prevented from doing it”.

8. On 11 December 2003, the Government gave a chance to the President of India to address both the houses of the Parliament. On that occasion, the President said that even children talk of corruption. The DD was asked to telecast the function live. Next day, the newspapers did not mention anything about the speech. In this way, the newspapers treat the President as a person sitting in Tihar jail. The newspapers are not reporting important court cases also. If they do not report the court cases, how would the President, people and the learned judges of the Supreme Court monitor the trend of various cases? Is it not a crime against 1000 million people? Why does the Supreme Court fail to understand it?

9. “A man aims always and only at his own personal happiness”. One may think that this letter is for personal happiness alone. The truth is that the perverse situation demands this letter. This writer has no intension to write more. By digging deep into past political thought and correlating them with the present, this writer could produce wonderful results. The benefit of this letter No. 25 also cannot be estimated at all provided the President takes necessary action and brings this to the notice of all judges in India. However, if the learned judges of the Supreme Court, Government and the newspapers join, India cannot be saved by a citizen of India or by the President of India. The depth of the present manipulations reveals this. Therefore, it is the paramount duty of the President of India to reveal the truth through the Chief justice of India and make the newspapers to publish truth. Then, even if the newspapers eliminate this writer, all people would remain alert to protect their rights. This is because “ it is not the State that moulds the citizens, it is the citizens that mould the State”. If this writer were a choice for the Nobel Prize for Peace, then also these letters would reach all habitable places of India. Otherwise, the letters would go into oblivion and the learned judges would destroy all values and make the people to live by gratis and by bestowing fringe benefits to the people. The destruction will be complete; the moment the President of India also joins the learned judges and the Government.

10. Having failed to notice the undercurrent, there is uphill task before the President. Some learned judges would “endeavour to swell their power to its outmost possible pitch”. Hence, the President of India is duty bound to enforce every constitutional device to distribute the petrol pumps to the ex-servicemen and the deaf and dumb by the Government following a guideline. It must be noted that “if everybody controlled everybody else, nobody would predominate; everyone’s self-interest would be suppressed except when it coincided with the interest of all; and whatever was done would be that which all approved”.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

2-1-2004

The scheduled visit of the Prime Minister to Pakistan to attend the SAARC Summit was delayed by at least four hours. The Prime Minister was expected to reach by 1.30 P.M. However, he arrived at Pakistan only in the evening.

On 9 January 2004, Mr. Arun Shourie, the Minister for Disinvestments said that the Government had started talks with Suzuki for offloading its remaining equity in joint venture Maruti Udyog Ltd (MUL). Further, he disclosed that the sale ofthe residual shares in the IPCL, VSNL and IBP would be completed before mid-February. He said that the Government would also come out with a public offer for offloading equity in Dredging Corporation of India. With regard to other PSUs he said that Re. 14.2 crore shares of the ONGC would hit the market on March 2, 2004 and 84 million equity shares of the GAIL would be filed with SEBI by January 23. He informed that a road show would be held at London, Singapore, Hong Kong and a couple of places in the USA in the last week of February. He justified the sale by saying that even the opposition was saying that the people’s wealth should be returned to the people.

Ironically, according to the minister, the act of appropriating the UTI and PSUs was to return the wealth to the people.

At this moment, unable to bear the pressures for manipulations on one side and the incessant letters from this writer on the other, the Prime Minister announced that the Parliament would be dissolved immediately.

He could have remained in power until October 2004..

Thus, he decided to abdicate power.

The important reasons were:

1. These letters

2. A feeling of guilt because he helped convert not less than 34 PSUs into private assets.

3. Loss of control over the ministers and

4. The President of India.

The fact that he did not resort to any unethical methods like creating tension in the border or any other populist measures to win the electorate although the letters were deceitfully concealed by the system must be noticed.

The concealment of the letters showed that the leaders who act in private interest could deceive the people.

The act of convening of the Parliament also became a perilous job, as this writer used to send letters to the Members Parliament whenever, the Parliament was in session. This also hastened the election.

Due to the above developments, the letter No.26 was sent to the President of India on 19 January 2004.This letter produced unimaginable wonders because it prevented the Chief Justice of India from hearing the BPCL/HPCL appeal case. In fact, a citizen of a country preventing the Chief Justice of its Supreme Court from hearing a case has no parallel in history. It must be noted that this writer had to take on the stakes, their newspapers, investigating agencies, unfaithful Ministers in the Union Cabinet and the learned judges of the Supreme Court simultaneously to save the PSUs. The crucial letter follows.

A social power

From

V.Sabarimuthu

Thattankonam,Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why the attitude of the system injures human race.

1. Two national newspapers-“The New Indian Express” and “The Hindu”- threatened to eliminate this writer on 26 October 2002 for writing letters to His Excellency the President of India. The President of India might have sought the decision of the learned judges of the Supreme Court in this matter. Yet, no action has been taken. Apparently, the Chief Justice of India is protecting the newspapers. It is like the Chief Justice of India firing a fifteen-inch bullet on a citizen of India. It gives the impression that the Supreme Court is made for and by the newspapers.

2. “No man could ever desire anything but personal happiness. If men seek happiness, it will not be found. When they seek other things, it will be inhaled in the air they breathe”. This writer started the journey not to catch anyone red handed or to offend anyone with letters. However, the newspapers with thousands of writers want to eliminate this writer and conceal the letters trampling meanwhile with considerable recklessness upon the rights of individuals. The stakes may not get happiness by eliminating this writer although it is very easy to carry out the job. This letter No 26 too is sent very reluctantly in “good faith”.

3. “If men’s environment represents the accumulated inequality of the past, then, they do not start equal in the race of competition”. Therefore, the “seats in the IITs” must be apportioned equitably among all States. A father would divide his assets among his four children equitably. Similarly, the President must see that the “assets and the minority shares of the PSUs like the ONGC and GAIL” must be reserved for all States equitably. Apparently, the system defies even the President mainly because the stakes are aware that no judge would be found in India to redress the error.

4. By making the 42nd amendment to the Constitution meaningless, the Supreme Court is helping the stakes to amass wealth from the ruins of our Constitution. The Chief Justice of India must be prevented from giving one more deadly blow to our Constitution through the review petitions and the writ petitions on the verdict given by Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P. Mathur. The convention is to ask the same bench to hear the case. Disturbing this convention can only be to the advantage of mankind in the hand of a good Chief Justice. However, as the present Chief Justice has apparently taken a decision in favour of the stakes even before hearing the case, justice S.Rajendra Babu and justice G.P.Mathur alone shall hear the present case. Justice S.B.Sinha could be added as the third Judge, if necessary. The Judges like Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice B.N.Srikrishna are relatively new and they, in presence of the Chief Justice, could not be free. The Chief Justice must be made to trust the integrity of above three judges in this matter, as it appears that the complete legal system in India has become a monopoly of a small minority.

5. The President of India must have noticed that the CBI, RBI and the CVC also are the monopoly of a few. This could be discerned from the fact that they are not coming forward to stop the manipulations despite several letters to the President.

6. Money from all parts of India is flowing daily in the hands of a few stakes due to a verdict of the Supreme Court in the petrol pump case. The stakes would utilize the money to perpetuate “stakecocracy” by influencing the electorate. Then, there may not be too great liberty but too ready submission; not anarchy but servility. The stakecocracy, in fact, might be the prelude to a new era of slavery. Therefore, President could have demanded the Supreme Court to undo the unconstitutional concept foisted on the public.

7. The learned judges do their duty by hearing cases and delivering judgements. However, it must be deemed that all judgements have the latent approval of the President of India. It must disturb the President when a judge gives 7 years for, say, one lakh and 6 moths to 3 years for, say, one crore. The learned judges like Justice Y.K.Sabbarwal, Justice Ruma Pal, Justice V.Reddy would never agree with this contention is another matter.

8. The President of India must have noticed that many learned judges of the Supreme Court are against the Constitution. “It is now clear that public duties and responsibilities cannot be logically derived from private rights and interests”. Some learned judges are the most competent to judge. However, “one learned judge with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests!”

9. It is disturbing to note that the learned judges of the Supreme Court, despite twenty-five letters to the President, surround the system like an iron sheath and protect the newspapers from legal action. It conveys the impression that the Supreme Court unchecked is as unjust, tyrannical, brutal and cruel as any dictator is or Parliament possessed of uncontrolled power. The President could dispel this impression.

10. “It is man’s mind that changes society and that only free discussion can nourish fruitful ideas. All mankind minus one lacks the right to coerce the single dissentient”.Twenty-five letters have been effectively shut out from the national scene, as if they were under formal disqualification. The opinion suppressed may be true and if not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries. It may be partly true, in which case it is a necessary correction to the accepted body of truth. It may be false, but controversy will strengthen true conviction”. Therefore, the President of India could have asked the Supreme Court, D.D, CBI and the newspapers to publish these letters or the contents of the letters. Further, the suppression of the letters injures the human race because “the passion of the majority, it is sure, is needed to conquer the self-interest of the few”.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

19-1-2004

Whatever happened, the Government did not file 84 million equity shares of the GAIL with the SEBI on 23 January 2004 as announced. To wriggle out, the Government asked the SEBI to relax certain norms like announcement of price band. The SEBI readily obliged.

With regard to the question of offloading the residual shares of Maruthi Udyog Limited, Mr.Kinji Saito, a senior official of Maruthi, said that the Government had not taken a decision. Thus the Government had to make a hasty retreat.

Further, the Government granted permission to the SCI to go ahead with its expansion plans. It must be noted that the Government had shelved all expansion plans of the SCI for more than four years in the name of impending privatization.

Curiously, the President was invited to deliver the first Nani Palkhivala Memorial lecture on the lawns of the Supreme Court. It was the first time that a President had addressed a gathering of lawyers on the lawns of the Supreme Court.

The full text of his speech was not published. However, the President said that everyone must endeavour to transform India into a beautiful and economically developed nation with righteousness and education with value system.

On the eve of the Republic Day on 25 January 2004, the President reiterated that even children talk of corruption. He talked of righteousness and even used the word “honest”. He further wanted all political parties to give their plans in their election manifestoes.

Obviously, the President of India wanted the political parties to openly, clearly and unequivocally tell to the people whether they would privatize the PSUs or not. However, no political party paid any attention to his words.

On 2 February 2004, the newspapers reported that the ministry of disinvestments had decided to defer the public issue of the GAIL by one month.

The sale of the residual equity in the IPCL, CMC, IBP and Dredging Corporation was also deferred by one month. This was the repercussion of the letter sent on 19 January 2004.

The Union Cabinet met on 4 February, just two days before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. There were just two items on its agenda. The ruling class apparently pushed the agenda forward without the direction from the Prime Minister. The important item was the new civil aviation policy to permit the private domestic operators- Jet Airways and Air Sahara- to fly abroad.

The Cabinet did not take up this matter. The news media immediately concocted a story that the Congress President had opposed, through a letter to the Prime Minister, that no policy decision should be taken on the eve of the election. The truth was that the Prime Minister did not want to take any concrete action at the behest of the stakes just before the general election.

The Indian Express on 6 February 2004, disclosed that the Disinvestment Commission had recommended privatization of Kolkata based Andrew Yule and Co Limited set up in 1863.

“The Hindu” on 6 February 2004, reported that certain interests successfully blocked the expansion plans of the BSNL during the first half of 2003.

Talking to children after giving away the National Bal Shree honours to 42 children for years 2002 and 2003 at Rashtrapathi Bhavan the President told the awardees to have a goal, work hard and have the sense of perseverance in order to succeed in whichever field they wanted to pursue.

On 7 February 2004, the letter No. 27 was sent to the President at 7 A.M. The letter requested the learned judges not to dwarf the President of India. The letter follows.

The court that dwarfs the President of India

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam,Vellicode,Mulagumoodu 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reason why the Supreme Court is making freedom impossible for everyone else.

1. The Prime Minister of India rejected the bids for the AI and the IA based on the first letter sent by this writer on 1 June 2001. In disgust, the editorial of the “New Indian Express’ on 25 July beseeched the Congress Party not to allow the “whale” to get away with the “misdemeanors”. “The Hindu” on 12 August 2001 wanted the Prime Minister through its writer, Mr.P.V. Indiresan, to step down to save his reputation. Similarly, “The New Indian Express” on 30 August 2001 gave a suggestion through its writer, Mr.T.V.R. Shenoy, to change the “presiding physician”. Such metaphors and hard words are unknown to this writer. Yet, the same newspapers are lying low to eliminate this writer because the Prime Minister lost his incorruptibility and self-control because of them. “The leveling apparatus of the Supreme Court ought to go incessantly backward and forward, cutting off all that rises above the line prescribed”. However, it is not ready to take action against the newspapers. Thus, the learned judges of the Supreme Court use the freedom accorded to them to make freedom impossible for everyone else. This is the logical extension of the destruction of the Constitution. .

2. The Chief Justice of India could even now undo the harm done to the Constitution. For this, “he must rescue reason from pride just to remain uncorrupted, to follow the right and leave the wrong, lead the learned judges to virtue, fulfilling not distorting their capability. The capability for the learned judges must be, ahead of not behind political developments. Apparently, the Chief Justice of India is now warping the latent capabilities of the learned judges”.

3. The Supreme Court is still canalizing all monies from all over India in the hands of a few stakes through the verdict of the petrol pump case. It is clear that “man’s self-love which satisfies his real needs is only too apt to become pride which creates imaginary and utterly insatiable needs, and which is incompatible with man’s gregarious instinct. It is said that from pride all evil has grown and gone ranging round the world devouring men. Pride seduces reason and proves the most reckless and irresponsible of judges. A learned judge of the Supreme Court should not be a slave to his appetites and bondage to his pleasure especially when his decision affects the people.

4. Though a learned judge of the Supreme Court could develop himself to the highest level of which he is capable, he can have no real private interests. The learned judges are parts of the Supreme Court and the parts can have no real interests themselves. However, there is an intrinsic relationship of the parts to the whole. Therefore, all judgements of the Supreme Court must enjoy the latent approval of the majority of the judges besides the President of India. As it is lacking, two-judge Bench had to set aside the wrong verdict of the three-judge Bench and five judge-Bench had to overrule the wrong rulings of the eleven-judge Bench.

5. The Government on 9 January 2004 announced its decision to file 84 million shares of the GAIL in the Mumbai stock exchange by 23 January 2004. It did not materialize. This must be due to the effective intervention of the President of India based on the letter No.26 dated 19-1-2004. It is clear that the President could check all unconstitutional actions of the Government. If, however, the Government succeeds in unloading the shares in March 2004, the President would be doing an injustice to the nation, as there is no scheme to reserve the shares to various States. Similarly, the seats in the IITs could be distributed equitably. In this connection, it must be stated that even the President of India would not get a seat in the IIT under the present system, if the clock were turned back.

6. The President must have noticed that there is a tendency to make even the Election Commission the monopoly of a few. As “exclusive Government by a class is False Democracy”, the Supreme Court, CBI, RBI, CVC, Election Commission and The Human Rights Commission shall not be a monopoly of a few. “True democracy will give due weight and influence to all different elements of society and will thus obviate the undue preponderance of any”.

7. As soon as receiving the first letter, the Prime Minister had a series of meetings for over two months. The bureaucracy gave an excellent suggestion to utilize the surplus deposits in banks for the large-scale development of Roads, Railways, Ports and the PSUs. The Prime Minister formally accepted it and informed this to the Advisory Council on Trade and Industry. Had this decision been implemented, India would have developed rapidly. Mr. Yashwant Sinha, torpedoed the suggestion by openly opposing any massive public investment programme. Instead, he wanted private investment, disinvestments and downsizing. The stakes wanted to preserve the deposits in the banks for utilizing them- as their own money -for buying the PSUs. As the letters of this writer effectively thwarted it, the surplus funds in the banks began to rot and the PSUs began to languish without funds. However, the co-operative banks escaped as the Government abandoned its efforts to bring them under the sole control of the RBI. The petrol pump case and the support of the Supreme Court came in handy for the present manipulations.

8. Justice Y.K. Sabbarwal was the vociferous of all judges in India during the period of the UF Government. Now he has silently bestowed maximum benefits to the stakes after Justice B.N. Kirpal and one or two Chief Justices. Ironically, “The Hindu” through its writer one Mr. C.R. Reddy on 8 August 2001 said that the sale of state assets to preferred buyers was for a price. The New Indian Express on 20 August 2001 disclosed that several corporate houses absconded after collecting several crore through mega issues. The MPs on 21 August 2001 said in the Parliament ( Lok Sabha) that a particular industrial house had stranglehold over the Government. On 25 August 2001, The New Indian Express said through Mr. Sunil Jain that the industrial houses systematically abused the banks. In this way, the “socialists” opposed the capitalistic encirclement. No wonder justice B.N.Kirpal is functioning under a multinational company. Thus, now the stakes and the learned judges vie with one another to amass wealth through manipulations presumably to contest in the US elections.

9.The President, the Government, CBI, CVC, RBI and the Supreme Court must have now obtained information about the exact amount transferred to the stakes from the petrol pumps and the exact cost of equipment supplied by the stakes to them although the amount of black money involved cannot be estimated. It is affecting the revenues of the States, salaries of the employees and the ability of the Governments to undertake poverty alleviation programmes. Many States would not have even collected the sale tax for the equipment supplied to petrol pumps. Many State Governments have not granted D.A. to its employees for the last two years mainly because of such exploitations. Some have affected a cut in the retirements benefits by about 30% with the indirect approval of the Supreme Court. Thus, the victimizations make the people and employees slender but the stakes, newspapers and thelearned judges fat. Yet, none is stopping the manipulations or informing the amount involved to the common man.

10. All the letters remain concealed. However, there is no reason to believe that the President would not have got the opinion of the Supreme Court for the 26 letters. This is letter No.27. The former President visited the Supreme Court. The Present President visited it several times. Did they visit in private interest or selfish interest? Is there no judge to rectify the error? The Supreme Court owes an answer because a Supreme Court that dwarfs the President of a country, “in order that he may be more docile an instrument in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can be achieved”.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

7-2-2004

Because of the above letter, the Prime Minister had to postpone his visit to the UP by at least 4 hours.

“The Hindu” on 12 February 2004 reported that two hundred Mercedes Benz cars transported guests from Lucknow airport to the sprawling 120-hectare venue of the weddings of Shushanto and Seemanto Roy –scions of the multibillion-dollar Shara business group.10500 guests included Prime Minister, film stars, political leaders and business tycoons.

The Chairman of the ICICI Bank, Mr. N. Vagul, on 14 February 2004, said that the Government should keep out of the banking business. He said that the withdrawal of the Government should be abrupt and not gradual. Obviously, the stakes wanted all the deposits in all banks for their investments abroad.

The Finance Minister Mr. Jaswant Singh on February 19, 2004 exhorted the Indian entrepreneurs to go overseas and acquire companies as the Tatas has done with Daewoo’s Commercial vehicle unit in Korea. He said that the foreign exchange reserve of $106 billion could be used for this purpose. He promised that the Government would be their facilitators.

This indicated that the NDA Government wanted to siphon off thousands of crores to foreign countries. It also showed that the stakes wanted the FDI not to bring foreign money into India but to take Indian money abroad. The words of the Finance Minister were arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.

On 19 February 2004, Disinvestments Minister Mr. Arun Shourie using the word “idiotic” and slammed the Comptroller and Auditor General for its allegation that the Government incurred a “notional” loss to the tune of 145 crore in the Centaur Hotel (Mumbai) sell off.

The New Indian Express on February 21 reported that the 23.98 per cent residual equity in the IPCL received an overwhelming response on the very first day on 20 February 2004.

It was an unconstitutional action. The President of India failed to check it.

Now the letter No.28 was sent to His Excellency the President of India.

The work of men

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam, Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

Your Excellency,

Kindly consider the reasons why “The Constitution is not for slavery but for salvation”.

1. The newspapers-“The Hindu” and “The New Indian Express” concertedly threatened to eliminate this writer for writing letters to the President of India. It was duly reported to the President of India. This writer had to write letters to the President of India because the learned judges of the Supreme Court, motivated by private and selfish interests, destroyed the Constitution in bad faith. Therefore, the Supreme Court is duty bound to take action against the newspapers. Apparently, the learned judges of the Supreme Court are keeping their fingers crossed to know the death news of this writer. In this matter, the learned judges of the Supreme Court must be true to themselves to make their way to the stars because “only they can give full meaning to the freedom of action, which is man’s, can turn independence into true liberty”. The learned judges of the Supreme Court must note that the sovereignty of the Supreme Court and the liberty of the individuals are not opposed. Therefore, the inaction of the Supreme Court and other competent authorities including the National Human Rights Commission in this matter is a sacrilegious declaration of war against human lives and human rights.

2. In this connection, it must be noted that the strongest judge on earth is he who stands most entirely alone on the right point and not on the wrong point. Though they are independent, they depend on the society. They must live among the people and become part of the society. However, they must grow and develop from within the Constitution. They may have rights but they can never have rights against the people and their assets. They must beckon men to a greater freedom and higher culture than they have ever known. If the Supreme Court is critical of the Rights of Man, who will come for the salvation of Man?

3. The President was requested to apportion the seats in the IITs and Class I Services and other similar seats in an equitable way. The idea is that when the President of India lands in a remote District in India, there would be a boy who got admission in the IIT, a girl in Class I Services and so on. It is the true meaning of our Constitution too. It must be noted that even a seat for the M.B.B.S. is becoming elusive to ninety per cent of the people, particularly rural people; and it is imperative that the trend must be reversed.

4. The PSUs are national properties and even the sale of minority shares is forbidden by the word “socialism” present in the Preamble. When the minority shares are sold, there must be a universally acceptable but equitable scheme for selling the shares. Firstly, the shares must be divided and reserved in an equitable way among all States. People of the respective States shall trade the shares so apportioned only. The various State Governments could apportion the shares among various districts. In this way, the concentration of the shares among a few could be obviated and the demand of the Constitution fulfilled. Whether the shares could be sold before the people became aware of the Stock Exchanges and their deceitful ways is another matter. It is shocking to note that it became “impossible” for the President to stop the sale of the residual shares of the IPCL on 20 February 2004 mainly because the President failed to convince the learned judges of the Supreme Court in these lines.

5. The Prime Minister actually agreed with all the ten points given in the first letter dated 1-6-2001 and opposed all manipulations. When the Prime Minister was holding highly positive discussions based on the letter- some discussions lasting for more than four hours- “The Hindu” on 12 August 2001 ironically revealed through its writer, Mr. C. R. Reddy, that companies were manipulating the policies and rules in the economic ministries. Notwithstanding this grave accusation, the Prime Minister in his Republic Day address from the Red Fort on 15 August 2001 said, “Profits earned by hook or by crook should not be the sole criterion for judging the success of a business”. He added, “The Government would not turn a blind eye to corruption how high a chair they might occupy”. Whatever happened, the Chairman of USHA Ltd was arrested for Rs.44.75 crore. One Mr. Subash Rastogi was arrested for overprizing the exports. The CBI charge sheeted a London based NRI, Mr. Virender Rastogi, and registered another case against a Delhi based export house. Mr. Patheya Singh was arrested on 21 December for cheating Bank of India of $ 29 million in foreign exchange. The CBI even had the courage to send a request to France for extradition of Mr. Varadarajalu for 1300 crore. These actions backfired on the Prime Minister proving the point that the stakes are above the law and that prevention of manipulations is far more desirable than taking action against them. Now, there is a warring within the Prime Minister so that “too often he does what he would not and what he would he does not”. Thus, he would like to stop the sale of the shares of the GAIL, ONGC and a few other PSUs slated for 26 February 2004 but he does not. However, “only when one acts according to his better self in matters affecting the people of a nation he can most truly be called man”.

6. The then Chief Justice Baruach said that the “Constitution is Supreme”. He, utilizing the privilege to constitute benches, destroyed the Constitution. Truly, the above revelation of “The Hindu” could be extended to the Supreme Court as well. Thus the people say that he and the judges who heard the BALCO case would get Re.hundreds of crore. People say that he was the embodiment of corruption but he said that corrupt judges must be dismissed.

7. The Present Chief Justice V.N. Khare on May 2, 2002 said that the political parties would suffer de-registration if they cease to have faith and allegiance to socialism. He knows that cornering public properties for more than a certain maximum through manipulations offends socialism. However, he has pre-empted the learned judges of the High Courts from hearing 30 writ petitions against privatization. People believe that he would also get money or goodwill worth several crore.

8. The stakes opposed License Raj. Justice Y.K.Sabharwal indirectly handed over the license granting power itself to less than five stakes converting the nation into a stakecocracy and Stakes Raj. All right thinking people believe that he would also get a suitable reward.

9. Our toiling hands send millions of crores in foreign exchange every day. Yet, all State Governments remain bankrupt mainly because of the above false and wicked doctrines, which cause economic deprivation. Thus, when State Governments affected 30% cut in retirement benefits, the Courts acted in a way resulting in the death of 42 employees. Now, some State Governments have granted D.A. and taken back 999 dismissed employees presumably due to the intervention of the President, Prime Minister or the Chief Justice of India based on the letter dated 7-2-2004.It is a half hearted step. The truth is that the moment the Supreme Court decides, the manipulations would cease and the States would become rich enough to take care of its employees and the people.

10.This is letter No.28.The views of the people are contradictory to the above doctrines of the Supreme Court. It is said that finite things are contradictory in themselves. But a principle in Political Science states “two contradictory propositions cannot be true at the same time”. It is equivalent to the Uncertainty Principle in science. The President could have endeavored to remove these contradictions to protect the Constitution. If the President were to allow the unconstitutional sale of the shares of the GAIL, IBP and ONGC on January 26, 2004 without even a murmur, the President would be shirking his responsibility of protecting the Constitution. Men of another stamp gave the Constitution. Mrs. Indira Gandhi developed it. The sinister privilege of a Chief Justice destroyed it. Men of another stamp will be needed to bring it back on its rails for the salvation of the people because “the political institutions are the work of men”.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

22-2-2004

The Prime Minister on 23 February 2004 said that all his decisions were collective decisions.

His statement shows that he was behind the privatization. Unless this conclusion is denied by him, one would think that he was at the bottom of privatization.

On the same day the Chief Justice of India said that he had no powers to control the situation. The reason for the above remark was that he was prevented from hearing the BPCL/HPCL appeal case based on the letter No.26 dated 19 January 2004. On 4 March 2004 the letter No.29 was sent to the President of India. The letter follows.

State instinct

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam

Vellicode

Mulagumoodu 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan

New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why the system is working against the Constitution.

1. Mr. N.Ram of “The Hindu” and Mr. Sekhar Guptha of “The New Indian Express” threatened to eliminate this writer. A few more belonging to the so-called Media Syndicate also might have been involved in this plot. Why are the editors of the newspapers aggrieved? This offence has no bail. However, despite several letters, the CBI, Government, Supreme Court, President of India and finally The National Human Rights Commission are not ready to take action against these national culprits. Where will an ordinary citizen of India go for remedy? Why does the system build on false grounds?

2. The Prime Minister on 23 February 2004 said that all his decisions were collective decisions. This must be the reply of the Prime Minister to the letter No. 28 sent to the President of India through e-mail on 22 February 2004. In this connection, it must be noted that Mr. C. Sivasankaran of the Sterling Infotech group offered to pay the Government Re. 2500/-crore for MH₂of spectrum. This amount was about five times greater than the amount offered by all other similar players. Immediately, Mr. N.K. Singh was shifted from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Planning Commission. Obviously, this is consistent with the view of Mr. C.R. Reddy that the Government wanted to bestow its favours to its preferred buyers. This happened earlier also. Thus, in September 2002, the CBI submitted in a Delhi Court that the Hinduja brothers gained more wealth in India during the regime of Mr.P.V.Narasimha Rao than in their 30 years of business activity. Mr. Sanjay Nirupam during a discussion in the Rajya Sabha said that the Prime Minister and his foster son-in –law were responsible for certain irregularities in the UTI.

3. In this connection, it must be noted that the Deputy Prime Minister said that the domestic firms must try to become multinational companies. Mr. Jaswant Singh, the present Finance Minister also recently exhorted the businessmen to utilize the entire foreign exchange to buy industries abroad. Mr. Yashwant Sinha successfully sought a Court in Delhi to conduct an in-camera hearing for his case. The Minister for Disinvestments accompanied the Prime Minister during his visit to Japan where he might have met the Japanese promoter of Maruthi. Further, he said that he would obey the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the matter of disinvestments. Mr. Arun Jaitly disappeared from the Union Cabinet after resigning and reappeared in the Supreme Court in August 2002. The present Chief Justice of India recently revealed that there exists a nexus between the judges and politicians. The words of Mr. Ram Naik did not tally with his deeds. One cannot reach any definite conclusion based on the above utterances. Further, the decision to sell the VSNL and the IPCL was taken by the CCD when the Prime Minister was on a foreign tour. Naturally, the Prime Minister had apparently asked the Deputy Prime Minister to take that decision in his absence to show to the world that he had no real role. Thus, the decision to give money to the stakes to buy the PSUs was apparently not a collective decision of the Union Cabinet but a decision taken by the Prime Minister and a few others in private interest. In fact, whenever the Prime Minister received guard of honour in another country one or other decision on disinvestments was taken in India.

4. Prime Minister apparently did not discuss the question of giving money to the stakes with the coalition partners. If so, they would not have granted permission for the same. In fact, he might not have even shown these letters to them. Similarly, the Prime Minister would not have discussed this matter with Mr. Bangaru Lekshman, Mr. Jana Krishnamurthy or Mr. Venkaiya Naidu.

5. Now, the crucial question is whether the Prime Minister could continue as the caretaker Prime Minister without clearing his name. If the Prime Minister is not involved in the manipulations, the criticism against him must be an unjust one. The Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court, the CBI and The National Human Rights Commission know the answer to this question and, therefore, they or any other competent authority must disclose it. The system will not see a catastrophic collapse if a reply is given because everything that is true in the present order will persist although the usual threat exists for this writer.

6. The Government, with ruthless determination, sold the minority shares of six PSUs including the GAIL on 26 February 2004.The duty of the Union Ministers is to watch and supervise the administration. In this case, by refusing to recognize the limits of authority, they apparently administered everything. There is a radical distinction between controlling the business of Government and actually doing it. Yesterday, a decision regarding the price band of ONGC was taken. The Election Commission should have asked the Government and the PSUs to desist from taking such decisions as the election schedule has been announced.

7. This is letter No. 29. The letters are a devastating exposure of the forces opposing real reforms in India. As the Supreme Court openly works against the Constitution, these letters do not see the light of the day. The Supreme Court and The National Human Rights Commission should have directed the Government to publish these letters at the national expense.

8. The newspapers are not publishing the court cases adequately. The Supreme Court would like to see that its voice is heard all over India but it does not do anything to achieve it. The people also want to hear them because “judges must be understood not only by what they are but also by what they are not”.

9. The Chief Justice of India observed in the open Court on 23 February 2004 that he had no power to control the situation. The Chief Justice of India is the most powerful person in India. He can veto any manipulation and big commission. However, whereas the people and even employees die of starvation due to economic deprivation, the Chief Justice of India is facilitating manipulations worth thousands of crore everyday. He would like to allow Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P.Mathur to hear the writ petition on their judgement but he would not. This is where the basic flaw lies. If the Chief Justice of India is neither ready to annul the unconstitutional manipulation of his own creation nor to solve the problems of the people and the employees, where would the people go?

10. In this connection, it must be noted that even the Greeks had observed that anything if pushed too far would tend to produce its opposite. Further, it is said that even drunkards are divinely guided and reel always in the direction of home. Therefore, everyone fervently hopes that the Chief Justice of India would think not of his own interest but of the interest of the whole to which he belongs because by doing this he would be revealing “State instinct” which is co-operative.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

4-3-2004

On 12 March 2004, the letter No.30 was sent to the President of India. In this letter, the learned judges were requested to fulfill themselves for the benefit 1000 million people.

A traitor!

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam

Vellicode, Mulagumoodu, 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why the Nation is acting knowingly against its own interest.

1. Mr. Shekhar Gupta of “The New Indian Express” and Mr. N. Ram of “The Hindu” threatened to eliminate this writer for writing letters to the President of India. This matter has been brought to the notice of The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) by sending the copies of the letter No.9 to 29 addressed to the President of India. The NHRC is the final embodiment of human rights and human lives in India. The NHRC knows that it is its duty to take action against these national culprits. It knows that its actions must be more serene than savage. Apparently, the “Human Rights” are being reconciled by the NHRC in the light of some higher interests. Thus, the NHRC too is crushing to pieces human rights in India. Obviously, the NHRC is treating its autonomy only as a formality through its refusal to send even a reply.

2. Newspapers fabricated several stories to carry out their sinister plan. For instance, “The New Indian Express” on 17 November 2001 said that Government would have to pump in Re.10,000 crore to keep the Indian banks healthy and stable and wanted to raise capital directly by diluting its holding. Everyone believed this. Now, anyone can see even loss making banks are showing huge profits even without the money from private persons.

3. It is said that man, as man, is free. It is said, “The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom”. However, in India a man can find Freedom only if the Supreme Court acts in “good faith”. The learned judges of Supreme Court may think that it is not possible for them to ensure Freedom to everyone in a country of more than 1000 million people. However, the Freedom of man in India is consistent with the Freedom of the learned judges of the Supreme Court. One can safely assume that when the learned judges of the Supreme Court enjoy Freedom, a common man in India also enjoys freedom. If, however, they accept slavery, it must be considered as a proof of their failure. The tragedy is that when they fail, the hapless Indians fail.

4. A learned judge of the Supreme Court is capable of acting selfishly as in the BALCO case, with no thought for others, following the instincts of the brute that refuses to send a reply. When he acts in such a manner, he is out of relation with the scheme of things. In such situations, he is not Free but a slave to error and desire. When he refuses to send a reply to 29 letters of a citizen of India coming through the President of India, he is not acting according to his “Real Will” but according to several finite momentary desires. The human experience shows that when one fails to fight against injustice due to his reluctance to take a conspicuous role or otherwise, greater injustice very often befalls on him.

5. How shall a learned judge of the Supreme Court know what his Real Will is? How can he identify himself with his Real Will when the Chief Justice of India is led astray by brute desire and selfish interest as in the petrol pump case? The Real Will of the learned judge of the Supreme Court is the Will of the Constitution. This Real Will in India is nothing but the Will of the Nation. That is the reason why that in the Constitution lays the hopes and aspirations of the Nation. The learned judge must identify himself with this Real Will to obey the dictates of the Nation and therefore the Constitution. “Indeed, the dictates of the Nation are his Real Will. Thus, the commands of the Nation give the learned judge his only opportunity to find Freedom. He may not utilize the opportunity to find Freedom because he may be afraid of the consequences. If, however, he obeys the demands of the Nation because of fear, he is not free; he is still subject to alien force. But if he obeys because he wishes to, because he has consciously identified himself with the Real Will of the Nation, because he has convinced himself that what the Nation demands he would also desire if he knew all the facts, then he is subject only to his own Real Will and he is truly Free. The Nation is that form of reality in which the learned judge has and obeys his Freedom provided he recognizes, believes in and wills what is common to the whole or what the idea is”.

6. This is letter No.30. The Nation helps the learned judges through these letters to fulfill themselves. However, only when the learned judges fulfill themselves, the Nation itself will develop. The Nation is necessary to make the judges Free. However, the learned judges are necessary to make the Nation Free and perfect. The Freedom of the learned judge is not opposed to the voluntary obedience to the Chief Justice, for the Chief Justice himself is bound by the Constitution. However, the learned judges shall not be misled by the “Personal Feelings” of the Chief Justice because the Nation must be Constitutional and not Arbitrary. By obeying the Chief Justice, a learned judge obeys the dictates of the Constitution and not the Personal Feelings of the Chief Justice like safeguarding the interests of a few. In fact, many well-built institutions crumble because the Heads of the Institutions themselves torpedo the very objectives of the Institutions by infusing Personal Feelings and False Notions. Discretionary powers are very essential for maintaining order but it shall not become a sinister privilege because even the Chief Justice has the smallest right against the Constitution that enshrines the rule of law. In other words, the Chief Justice can never have the right to resist what the other judges consider unjust.

7. All facts are now known to the learned judges. When the learned judges fulfill themselves, the people will also know how some stakes multiplied their assets as submitted by the CBI in a Delhi Court; how the money went to the stakes from the banks to buy the PSUs; the amount went to the stakes through cash rich enterprises; whether the end beneficiaries of the bulk buying by the BSNL purchased any PSUs; how the HZL went to a stake disqualified by the Union Cabinet; amount transferred to the stakes through petrol pumps; the people running after the airports, banks and the SCI; the reason why the victim of human rights violation by Mr. Xylesh Kumar Yadav I.P.S. did not get relief from prosecution; the authorities who protect media people who threaten to eliminate their own readers and so on.

8. The Chief Justice of India must be the creator of morality in India. He must promote the sense of dignity in man. All false arts deform the capability of the judges and corrupt them. In such situations, the learned judges cannot reach their full stature. The Supreme Court must endeavor to substitute “justice for mere instinct” which will give to “man’s actions and moral character which lacked before”which will change man from “limited animal” into an intelligent being and a man”. Therefore, the Chief justice must come forward to annul those false and wicked doctrines enunciated by it, which affects the common man because “it is never right to harm 1000 million human souls for the benefit of a few”.

9. Some may consider these letters as an impediment to their comforts and freethinking. However, the letters saved the Nation from for greater manipulations. The manipulations consists in placing chosen people in key positions, turning the public against employees and workers, giving all PSUs to the stakes through giant manipulations, giving gratis to people and ascribing plenty and prosperity to such policies. Due to these letters, the sinister plans slipped as 99 percent of the PSUs have been saved. Therefore, the letters silently averted a collapse, revolt and chaos.

10. The letters at the same time convey an idea. Surely, India with numerous corporations in all nook and corners would be far more beautiful than under a select group. Consider the plight of the people when the monies from all over India- a country of 1000 million people - flow into the hands a few. The Nation is acting knowingly against its own interest.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

12-3-2004

The SCI in April 2004 decided to buy ships worth Re. 1100 crore. This conveyed the message the Government decided to cancel the privatization process.

The BJP in its election manifesto clearly said that it would broaden and deepen reforms. However, the meaning of reform was not given.

The Congress in its vision statement released in connection with the general election on 7 April 2004 said that it would not privatize any profit making PSU but would privatize loss making PSUs provided they could not be revived or restructured.

The special correspondent of “The Hindu” on the next day said that the Congress was not opposed to disinvestments of the PSUs but would like to retain those units, which could ensure sustained profitability in a competitive environment.

The DD also said that there was not much difference between the stand taken by the Congress and the BJP. In this way, the media succeeded in making it a non-issue.

Mr. Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, in his weekly article in the Sunday edition of “The New Indian Express” rebutted the points of this writer, particularly the points of the letter No. 28 of 22 February 2004. He said that human rights violation and the tendency to bend laws takes place during wartime as that happened in England during II World War. He said that the US Government had knowingly withheld vital information from the Court in 1985. He further narrated that RED-TAPISM IS “APPARENTLY” UNIVERSAL.

Apparently, Mr. Soli J.Sorabjee was in total control of the system and a green signal from him would be needed for the new Government also to remove the disqualification of these letters.

On the same day, Swapan Dasgupta, the customary writer of “The New Indian Express” wrote a half page article. The title was “Oh, these intellectuals!” The subtitle was “India can never shine for them because they simply love to run down their country”. In the body of the letter he said, “Over the decades, intellectualism has become synonymous with a bizarre form of liberalism. First, there is unconcealed contempt for those who either generate wealth or possesses it. The intellectuals loathe business, despise capitalism and repose faith in almost anything that goes with the prefix “alternative”. He ended the article by quoting from the letter written by George Nathaniel Curzon to his anti-imperialists fellow student more than a century ago. “ My dear Wilfred, your poetry is delightful and your morals, though deplorable, enchanting. But why are you a traitor to your country?” Why indeed he asked.

Now the letter No.31 was sent to His Excellency the President of India. As the General Election was fast approaching, the letter concentrated more on the secrecy maintained by the system for these letters and on the learned judges.

“The squanderer of not only flesh and blood but also nerve and brain”

From

V.SABARIMUTHU

Thattankonam,Vellicode,Mulagumoodu, 629167

His Excellency the President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan

New Delhi

Your Excellency

Kindly consider the reasons why the “Super Structure” shall not deceive the people.

1. Mr. Shekhar Gupta of “The Indian Express” and Mr. N. Ram of “The Hindu” threatened to eliminate this writer for writing letters to the President of India. This matter was brought to the notice of The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Apparently, the expropriators are not expropriated. It is clear that the expropriating group alone has freedom, and to preserve this, the NHRC too acts the part of oppressor. Sufficient freedom has been accorded to the NHRC to preserve human rights in India. However, the members of the NHRC use the freedom accorded to them to convert the NHRC into a repressive instrument by ignoring the papers before it.

2. For the human right violation of Mr. Xylesh Kumar Yadav, the NHRC in its case No.920/22/1999 said that the matter was “sub judice”. The appeal was rejected by citing another reason. Thus, the NHRC chose not to give any real relief to the victim of a human right violation.

3. Justice V.Reddy of the Supreme Court had refused to accept the letters sent by this writer. Now, Justice K.T. Thomas, a member of the NHRC refuses to accept the letters. People presuppose the learned judges are not like the present man in the street. Further, these learned judges are public servants. People send letters to them because they determine the destiny of the nation. If they do justice to the papers before them or transmit the copies of these letters to competent authorities, some positive changes would occur. As economic position determines the social eminence in India, these learned judges are ignoring the letters of the common man. It is clear that some men desire power more for the satisfaction of their pride and self-respect than for serving the people. For some men power must be regarded as an end in itself. It is said, “some fulfill the most servile, the most sordid and the most ignoble offices”. These learned judges must think it possible that they be mistaken.

4. One fourth of the learned judges think that these letters are not necessary. However, a Union Minister- presumably referring to this writer- on 17 September 2003 said, “In India everyone has a veto”. “The Hindu” reported it on 18 September 2003 without disclosing the name of the Minister. Is it not a wonder? If an individual could veto the privatization, what all the learned judges could do. The letters not only uncovered vital truths and naked self-interests but also foresaw important developments and plans that were hidden by the media. Further, letter Nos 25, 26 and 27 dated 2-1-2004, 19-1-2004 and 7-2-2004 respectively effectively prevented the Chief Justice of India from hearing the appeal against the judgement delivered by Justice J.P.Mathur and Justice S. Rajendra Babu. Is it not another wonder? The present Chief Justice may be waiting for an opportunity to strike is another matter.

5. The older one becomes, more clearly one sees that the learned judges of the Supreme Court fashion three fourth of the manipulations in this miserable country. The expropriators continue to maintain their position by using the Supreme Court. Now, the High Court, Delhi apparently gave clearance to the BSNL to import cell phones worth 5000 crore. The BSNL and therefore the Government would show the seal of the High Court for this bulk buying. People believe that the manipulators approached the High Court with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), defended the deal by fielding another advocate and got a favorable order after a mock argument. Now, according to the manipulators none could accuse anyone.

6. When urea worth Re. 130 crore was imported, India lost Re. 130 crore only. Now, people believe that the loss must be more than Re.1300 crore because there would be no one even to count the number of cell phones and metal pieces imported by the BSNL. The misfortune is that this money goes to conceal the letters of this writer, to eliminate such writers, to buy the PSUs, to manipulate elections and to enslave the Courts and the Indians. The remedy is to split the BSNL into State level units and allow them to compete with one another. However, the system is inclined to give the BSNL to private parties through manipulations than to the State Governments. In this way grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, pension cuts and exploitations. In fact, poverty and cut in pension benefits and salary grow as the manipulation grows. Had the Prime Minister or the Supreme Court vetoed the policy of bulk buying, 22 women and children would not have died in the constituency of the Prime Minister on 11 April 2004 while receiving free sarees at all!

7. The letters revealed that the Supreme Court, CBI, RBI, NHRC and the entire news media have become the monopoly of a select group. It is natural that at every stage of society a particular group gets control and exploits the rest. The corporate houses dominating all others of a small country is also common. However, a select group dominating 1000 million people is uncommon.

8. The letters show that “the whole super structure is reared of various peculiarly shaped feelings, illusions, habits of thoughts and conceptions of life. This is not to say that men consciously or unconsciously act from economic motives alone. It is only to say that while other motives might exist they are subordinate to the economic factor”.

9. The real and crucial issue in this General Election is whether the nation needs privatization or not. The BJP, in its “Election Manifesto” said that it would broaden and deepen reforms. The Congress, in its “Vision Statement” said that it would not privatize any profit making PSUs. The DD and the news media proclaim that there is no distinction between the economic policies of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the Congress. Mr.Sekhar Guptha on 10 April 2004 said through “The New Indian Express” that the economic policies of the Congress and the BJP were matching. In this way, they deceive 1000 million people partly by removing the true distinction and partly by making the privatization policy a non-issue. Viciousness of the media indicates that Mr. Sekhar Guptha, Mr. N.Ram and the other expropriators would assassinate or contribute to assassinate anyone who is a potential threat to privatization and big manipulations. The system also knows that they would do it unless they are prevented from doing this. Now, one could reasonably conclude that the past assassinations were provoked or catalyzed by the media by invoking various sentiments. On 11 April 2004, the DD showed a gun shop. The message is not a clear one. However, Government and the Election Commission must see that no individual in India possesses a gun.

10. This is letter No. 31.The system is not ready to retrieve socialism to its pre-eminent position. It is not ready to recover the lost PSUs. It is not ready to annul the false and wicked doctrines of the Supreme Court. It is not ready to trust Justice S. Rajendra Babu and G.P.Mathur to hear the privatization case. It is neither ready to stop the manipulations nor ready to ensure lawful wages to the employees. Though the visit of the President to the Supreme Court of a country has no parallel in history, the Chief Justice is not ready to rectify the error. Above all, the system piously abides by the secrecy of these letters. It is clear that the “system”, despite the best efforts of the President, is remaining as “the squanderer of not only flesh and blood but also nerve and brain”. However, a strong human instinct instills every judge in a country to obey its President on constitutional matters. Therefore, one more visit to the Supreme Court would instill the Chief Justice to reveal the truth by doing justice to the papers before him. This will go down as a service because people are never corrupted but deceived only.

Yours faithfully

V. Sabarimuthu

Vellicode

15-4-2004

Next day, the newspapers chose to ridicule this writer indirectly.They profusely used the words commonly used by this writer.. Thus on 16 April 2004, in its editorial “The New India Express” used the words such as instinct, quintessential, rigmarole to write about the “saree” distribution of Lalgi Tandon in the constituency of the Prime Minister. Other words such as “apparently”, “presumably” were frequently used. This showed that the newspapers were aware of the contents of all the letters. Seldom had they realized that the man recorded their reports.

During the election canvassing for the 14th Lok Sabha, Dr. Karunanidhi, the leader of the DMK, said at Nagercoil-a place near the native place of this writer- that his Party decided to part with the NDA to save the people from becoming slaves. Mr. Murasoli Maran of the DMK was Union Minister in the Government under Mr. A. B. Vajpayee.Thus, after supporting the privatization of 34 PSUs, the DMK withdrew its support. Naturally, the media would keep this party in the mind of the people till it forgets this.

Dr. Ramadoss, the leader of the PMK, said that there was nothing wrong in Congress President becoming the Prime Minister of India.

The Congress President, in turn, said in a meeting in Assam that Assam would be made as prosperous as Maharashtra and Gujarat. In her public meeting at Chennai, she wanted the people to vote the Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA) for social justice and for a prosperous India where all Indians have an equal share.

The DPA was renamed as United Progressive Alliance (UPA) after the election.

On 17 April 2004, Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee said that he did not like to head a multi-party coalition. Next day he disowned the statement.

However, he did not wait for the results of the General Election to abdicate power. He took this decision after receiving letter No.24.

The Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA) in the General Election defeated the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

After that, Dr. Manmohan Singh was sworn in as the new Prime Minister of India.

After relinquishing his job former Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee disclosed that he did not possess any real power as the Prime Minister of India.

On 15 April 2005 he said that he would embrace death rather than allowing his name to be maligned.

Bibliography

1.Constitution of India drafted by Dr.B.R. Abedkar and the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India signed by 284 members of the Constituent Assembly of India.

2. Class Actions by Herbert B. Newberg, Thomson West 2002.

3.How Arbitration Works by Martin M. Volz, by Edward Goggin (Editor), Martin M. Volz, Alan Miles Ruben (Editor)

4. Marthanda Varma by C.V. Raman Pillai, Translated from Malayalam by B.K. Menon, Sahitya Akademi: Reprint 1998, Rabindra Bhavan,35, Ferozesshah Road, New Delhi 110001

5.Political Thought By C.L. Wayper, English Universities Press, St. Paul’s House, Warwick Lane, London, E.C. 4

6. Travancore Manual by V. Nagam Iiya, Travancore Government Press, Trivandrum

7.Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee and the Abdication of power by Sabarimuthu.V. through Amazon.com

8. The warring among Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Dr.Manmohan Singh and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi by Sabarimuthu.V. through Amazon.com

9. A. Madonna of India, Volume 1 by Sabarimuthu. V. through Amazon.com

10. A. Madonna of India, Volume 2 by Sabarimuthu. V. through Amazon.com

11. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietsche, Translated with a Preface by WALTER KAUFMANN, Penguin Books

12, Newspapers –The New Indian Express, The Hindu, The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle and BusinessLine

13. Wikipedia

Curriculum Vitae of the Author

Sabarimuthu V

26-3 Thattankonam, Vellicode, Mulagumoodu PO, PIN : 629167

Email: sabarimuthu.vyakappan@gmail.com

Academic Qualification

M. Sc (Chemistry) : Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum, India (1973)

B Sc (Chemistry) : Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, India (1971)

Profession

Lecturer of Chemistry: Lekshmipuram College of Arts and Science, Neyyoor, India (1974 - 2007)

Publication

‘Consolidated report on the National Adult Education Programme (1980)’:

This publication was considered as a pioneering work in the field of adult education and was distributed to all universities and 700 and odd colleges all over India by the then adviser to the Government of India, Prof. L.R. Shaw, as a model.

Self - book publication through the IJDJ Publications

‘An Unconventional Approach to Inorganic Chemistry (1994)’:

The American International Publishers (AIP) undertook a review of this book and described it as ‘a valuable addition to the resources of educators’. It is a recognized reference book for the chemistry students of the M.S. University, Tirunelveli.

Self-book publication through Amazon.com

English

1. English Grammar

2. A New English Grammar for the Beginners.

3. The Predicate Theory

Chemistry

1. Atomic Structure

2. Atoms, Ions, Environment and Reactivity

3. The Transition Elements

History

Ananthapadmanabhan

Contemporary History

1. Momentous Months

2. 13 Months in Office.

3. Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee and the Abdication of Power (337 pages)

4. The Warring Among Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Dr.Manmohan Singh and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (812 pages)

5. A. Madonna of India, Volume 1 (595 pages)

6. A. Madonna of India Volume 2 (588 pages)

7. The Pranab Effects, Volume 1 (417 pages)

8. ‘We will strange you’ Volume 1 (382 pages).

9. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

Social work

The students of the Tamil Medium RC Middle School in my village, Vellicode, lagged behind other schools in English, At the instance of the Headmaster, voluntarily taken English grammar classes to them for seven years at the rate of about 20 classes of 45 minutes duration per year. This school has been securing the first rank among about 100 schools in the last five years.

Further, these classes led to profound The Predicate Theory to the English Grammar. This theory, in contrast to the conventional Verb Theory, is a boon to all English learners all over the world. It can be discerned from the last 18 classes uploaded in the YouTube.

Conducted some English grammar classes at two other schools – Primary School, Pilankalai and High School, Pilankalai for five months each.

Political work

645 letters have been sent to the President of India and the, Supreme Court of India since June 2001 for the freedom of Indians consistent with the Constitution of India.

The most important blog

www.howeverythinghappenedinindia.blogspot.com

YouTube videos

Videos on English Grammar Classes, Chemistry Classes, some speeches on Politics and Economics have been uploaded in the YouTube. The YouTube channel link is given below. There are 114 videos.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBZWHucZhQsy6eqysw_7gvg?view_as=subscriber

Acknowledgements

The publication of many books might not have happened without the valuable co-operation and assistance of all the members of my family consistent with their capabilities and opportunities. My wife, M. Stella Bai, is virtually a co-author, elder son S. James, younger son S. Delight, elder daughter S. Irene and her husband John Franklin, younger daughter S. Jasmine Madonna and her husband B. Godwin Bright and even my grand – daughter J. Jessica Lauren helped me in one way or other. Contributions of James and Delight are outstanding. All are entitled to very special acknowledgement and thanks.

Many in my family reared me for my education. Not a day passes without remembering my father, Mr. T.Vyakappan, mother, Mrs. R.Viyakulamarial, uncle Mr. R.Maria Michael, aunt Rev.Sr. R. Veronica, aunt Mrs.R. Theresammal and her husband Mr. Devasahayam, uncle Mr. T. Maria Soosai B.A. B.L. and his wife, and Bishop of Vellore Rt. Rev. Antony Muthu, uncle Mr. R.Maria Sebastian and his wife Mrs. Thangammal. Uncle Maria Mickael, in particular, stood like a rock for my education after my PUC.

Dr. John D.K. Sunder Singh and his brother, Jaya Singh, admitted me in the Scott Christian College, Nagercoil. Arch Bishop Most. Rev. Benedict Mar Gregories granted me admission in the Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum for post-graduation.

Mr. Jesuadimai contractor, Mr. A. Pauliah M.L.A, State Bank of India Mr. Regunandana Kumar, Mr. A. Sankaranaraynan, Member of Syndicate, Madurai Kamaraj University, State Bank of India Mr. Paul Varnan, Mr. Devasahayam IAS helped me for my progress.

I remember with respect Mr. Maria Arulappan, Mr. Dhachayini Amma, Mr. Innasimuthu, Mr. C. Francis, Mr. Soosai Muthu, Mr. Arulappan, Mr. A.Israel, S. Parameswari Amma, Mr. Maria Nesan Nadar M.A. B.T,, Mr. Moni, Mr.John I.James B.A. B.T, Mr. Revindra Nath B.Sc, B.T.,Mr. Sthanunathan Thambi, Mr. Retna Money B.Sc, B.T.Mr. V. Thomson, Mr. Theodore I.J. Kumarsingh M.Sc. Mr. R.S.A. Sunder Singh M.Sc. Mr.I.. Stalin M.Sc, Dr. V.S.David Raj M.Sc, Ph.D., Dr. Nambisan M.Sc.PhD. Dr. Scaria M. Chakalackal M.Sc, Ph.D. Mr, Ramasamy M.Sc. Prof. George M. Varghese and all my other great teachers.

Many in my wife’s family are a source of encouragement and happiness. My father-in-law Mr. A. Martin, Mother-in-law- Maria Retnam, brother - in-laws- Mr. Robin Edward Martin B.Sc, Mr. Clement Joe Martin and Dr. Leenus Jesu Martin M.E. Ph.D. and father-in-law’s brother Rev. Fr. A. Jockim and many others take great pride in my achievements. Further, I respectfully acknowledge the happiness of my close relatives, Mrs. Philomena, Mrs. and Mr. T. Retna Swamy M.A., Mrs. and Mr. Bright Xavier M.A. and Mrs. and Mr. Xavior Oscar Dhas M. Sc.

I think of the selfless services of Mr. P. Thankaswamy, Mr. Sundaram Pillai, founder Secretary and founder Director respectively of the Lekshmipuram College, Neyyoor.

I remember Thiruvatti Mr. C.Antony Joseph, Swamithara Vilai Mr.A.Arulappan, Madathattuvilai Mr. Soosai Michael, Erattan Vilai Mr. Innasimuthu, Kattuvilai Mr. Sabariyaradimai, Mr. S. Joseph, Kizhakkuvilai Mr. Michael, Vellicode Mr. R. Muthaiah B.Com, Mr. I. Sabarimuthu B.E., Erattan Vilai Mr. Mariakkon and all other members of the ‘Gent’s Federation’ Vellicode for inculcating a reading habit in my early days.

I gratefully remember Dr.Achan Alex, Dr. Maman Thomas and Dr. Venugopalan Nair of Medical College, Trivandrum, Dr. Rajendra Retnam, Medical College, Tirunelveli, Dr. Dilip Pande, VHS Chennai, Dr. Sebasan, Dr. George, Dr. Selvam, Dr. Arun, Dr. S. Anto ENT, Dr.S.Rex M.D.S., Dr.S.K.Ranjith Kuman MS and all other selfless doctors.

I respectfully remember Kizhakkuvilai Mr. Varuvel Nadar and my relation, Pulippanam Mr. Devaraj.

I acknowledge my great colleagues - Mr. A. Francis, Mr. C. Bhagavandhas M.A., Mr.Edwin Sam M.A., Mr. A.M. Mathew M.Sc. C. Augustine M.A. Mr. Anantharaman Iyer M.Sc.Mr. Russel Raj M.A., Mr. Issac M.A., Librarian Mr. Kumaavel Renganathan, Librararian Mr. Saravanan Dr. Padmanabhan M.A. Ph.D, Dr. Ramalingam Pillai M.Sc. Ph.D, Dr. Sukumaran M.Sc,Ph.D., Mr. Ravikumar M.A., Dr. David Raja Bose M.A. Ph.D., Mr. Neelakandan M.A. Dr. Jayakumar M.A. Ph.D..in the Lekshmipuram College, Neyyoor and my friends – Mr. Thavethu, Mr. Kuttinadan, Kizhakkuvilai Yesudhason, Kizhakkuvilai Mr. V. Laurence, Mr. Melavilai Thobias, Puthuvilai Mr. Rajendran, Kattuvilai Mr.Sabariyaradimai, Mr.M. Gopalan M.A, B.L.Advocate, Mr. Nesaiyan teacher, Mr. M. Devadhason M.A, Mr. Thanka Raj M.A. B.Ed and Mr. Devasahayam teacher.

Lekshmipuram College Principal Mrs. Daisy David M.A. appointed me as the Programme Officer of Adult Education. It was a turning point in my career. My publication on the National Adult Education Programme (NAEP), 1980, was distributed to 80 universities and 700 and odd colleges all over India by Prof. L.R.Shah, the then adviser to the Government of India, This boosted my self-confidence and the standing among the teachers. I must thank them. In fact, it was a great motivation to do more and more.

Headmaster Mr. Irudhayadhason gave me a chance to teach English Grammar to children. I utilized it to demolish the core area of English grammar and constructed a new one. It is not possible to explain the essence of English grammar in a reasonable way without my book. No one has disputed this claim. It gives me great satisfaction. I am indebted to him.

The Indian political system comprising the successive Presidents since Mr. K. R. Narayanan and virtually all political leaders contributed their share for my development in one way or other. Many leaders like Mr. H.D. Deve Gowda, Mr. A.K. Antony acknowledged my letters for freedom. At one time, I dropped different letters to more than 250 Members of Parliament. I could not contact all due to practical difficulties. Barring one political leader, all leaders digested my letters without the slightest disagreement.

Prime Minister of England Mr. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the Netherlands Dr.Dr. Jan Peter Balkenende, Her Royal Highness the Queen of Travancore Gouri Lekshimi Bai and many other world leaders acknowledged and gave their opinions to my letters for freedom. Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth ‘lighted fire’ on two occasions. I described her as a Madonna of England. The Emperor of Japan ‘lighted fire’ as mentioned in the book, ‘A Madonna of India’.

I sent many letters by post to the learned judges of the Supreme Court of India since June 2001. I thought that they would revolt against the BALCO judgment. It did not happen. Then I sent 561 emails to the Supreme Court of India, President of India, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Election Commission of India (ECI). Several emails were sent to the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and many others. Then I stopped sending the emails to them. After that a few letters were sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN). After Mr. Ram Nath Kovind assumed power as the President of India, I remained quiet for a few months. But, he alienated the Essar Oil to Russia. He could not do anything in the matter of entrance examination or to give any relief to Justice Karnan. Further, Finance Minister Mr. Arul Jaitely said that privatization is an art in India and started taking speedy steps to alienate the Air India. Therefore, I resumed sending emails to the President of India with great intensity pointing out his constitutional duty and concentrated my attention to convert my works into books through Amazon.com.

On 12 January 2018, four out of five senior most judges of the Supreme Court of India came out and ‘lighted fire’ saying that democracy was in peril. What I expected in 2002 happened in 2018! It was the first press conference of judges ever in the history of India.

This means that 80 per cent of the judges agree that there is no democracy or constitutionalism in India.

India is replete with intellectuals. There are many great achievers in India. However, this work is a great achievement for the 1000 million people of India. That I could achieve it without a word of support from the media is a source of great satisfaction.

I repeatedly sought the help of the media all over the world in the fond hope that due publicity would bring freedom to Indians.

When a girl in Tamil Nadu committed suicide protesting the NEET, I sent an email each to virtually all newspapers and TV Channels all over the world again in vain. The media simply steered the attention of the people to other matters.

Notwithstanding everything, the soil of my village, Vellicode, the college I worked - Lekshmipuram College, Neyyoor - and India is responsible for my growth.

Sabarimuthu.V.

26-Thattankonam

Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O.PIN:629167

India

Author

India

9-2-2019

Search This Blog

Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee and the Abdication of Power

Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee and the Abdication of Power

Introduction

The first letter

A prayer

The view of Mr. K.R. Narayanan

Bibliography

Curriculum Vitae of the Author

Acknowledgements

Comments

Post a Comment