Solving a Problem of State Tyranny: Director General Siddhanta Das: Have Forest Service Officers been threatening ordinary citizens, seizing their property, then threatening them with arrest if they complain?  If so, how many cases of wrongful seizure and wrongful imprisonment have WCCB caused among India’s villagers and forest dwellers since 1994? There is immediate need for an Ombudsman to independently review all cases in each of your Five Zones!  

22 June 2019

Shri Siddhanta Das, IFS, Director General Forest, Special Secretary Ministry of Environment, Forest, Climate Change MOEFCC,  Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi.

A. MOEFCC Vigilance Inquiry re WCCB ER RDD DRR Agni Mitra: Need for immediate appointment of Ombudsman in each of your Five Zones to review all WCCB cases of wrongful seizure/arrest.

B.  Illegal Seizure (“Quasi Dacoity”) of our lawful family property by MOEFCC Agents Since 2 May 2019; Harassment, Abuse, Intimidation, Coercion of a law abiding citizen: myself

 

Respected Shri Siddhanta Das,

A.

I received on 15 June 2019 a letter signed by Shri Vazir Singh Vari Singh, MOEFCC Under Secretary Vigilance stating a Vigilance Inquiry is initiated by your Ministry in regard to WCCB RDD DRR Agni Mitra and I am named as the “Complainant”.

If by “Vigilance Complaint” is meant eg bribery I have made no such complaint.  I have not said or implied WCCB RDD DRR asked to be bribed by me in any manner whatsoever.   If that is the charge you make of this Forest Officer it is something that has not been complained about by me and he gets a completely clean chit from me also.

What I have complained about is illegal mala fide behaviour including dissimulation and mendacity by WCCB RDD DRR Mitra both directly and through MOEFCC agent Arnab Basu.  

Shri Mitra apparently has 0 law degree, not even an LLB, yet he and others in his position in the Forest Service have been given vast prosecutorial powers, and command of Central Armed Police! Abuse of power and breach of Constitutionally guaranteed rights of India’s citizens is inevitable!  I have stated publicly on 8 May 2019

“When a stellar Forest Officer misuses the law tyrannically against Subroto Roy, Economist, who had Narendra Modi in his Deendayal Upadhyay audience in Washington in October 1984, and who six years later sparked with Rajiv Gandhi the 1991 reform, I dread to think what India’s villagers and forest dwellers may have been facing in similar situations.”

Mr Sanjay Hegde, Supreme Court Advocate, has said “tyranny is defined by a bad law arbitrarily applied”.

Is that the situation in part with Wildlife Protection Act in recent decades?

Has a modus operandi of Forest Service Officers been to threaten ordinary citizens with the Act, seize their property, then threaten them further with arrest if they complain, no matter how wrongful and misguided the official application of the Act?   

If so, how many cases of wrongful seizure and wrongful imprisonment have WCCB caused since 1994 in your Five Zones?  

I am old enough and experienced enough internationally not to have been intimidated by the vile illegal tactics I faced, and on 17 May I came to receive anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court (which infuriated your Officer even further). 

But how many villagers and forest dwellers have suffered this kind of tyranny at hands of your MOEFCC WCCB Officers in recent years across all India?

From a public policy point of view, an Ombudsman should be immediately appointed by your Ministry for each of your Five  Zones to independently review every such case of wrongful seizure and wrongful arrest and imprisonment of innocent citizens due to your MOEFCC WCCB Officers’ blatantly misusing the law.

 

B.

In our case, I must request you, Sir, to exercise your authority as the highest executive officer of the Indian Forest Service, and direct the immediate safe return of all our lawful family property taken by WCCB ER RDD DRR since 2 May, and make an offer of compensation for damages suffered accordingly.

Here are the exact facts:

  1. My older sister Sucheta Roy (1947:1990) wed one Henri Lobert, a Belgian diplomat, in 1977 in Belgium, with consent of parents late MK Roy (1915:2012) late Purnima Roy (1925:2016). The couple were posted as Belgian diplomats in Africa and about 1978/79 they gifted my parents 5 items of African ivory, species Loxodonta.  In addition, Sucheta had some eight items of “jewelry” (no jewels). MK Roy had a walking stick with African ivory in it. All these items of African ivory owned by our family were entirely lawful when purchased, transported or gifted in the late 1970s and held by us ever since.

  2. In addition, MK Roy’s mother, my grandmother Nirmala Debi (1902:1976) had been married as a child bride in 1911 and brought into our home a few Indian ivory toys, including one or two small bullock carts (gorur gari). In addition, MK Roy acquired two Sea Shells in Bombay about 1952.

  3. Sucheta Roy died in Kolkata of breast cancer age 42 in January 1990. No African ivory has been owned by us except that which she had brought in her lifetime and gifted to her parents. No African or any other ivory or any other “animal products” has ever been sold by us. 

  4. (The legal ban of African ivory imports into India came into effect in Oct 1991 viz Article 39(c) of Wildlife Protection Act.)

  5. All these items came into my possession through inheritance at passing of my mother in 2016. On 17 May 2019, order of Division Bench of His Lordship Justice Joymalya Bagchi, His Lordship Justice Manojit Mandal, records in CRRM 4556 of 2019 u/s 438: “ Petitioner submits that the seized articles had come into his possession upon the death of his mother, Purnima Roy. Possession of the said articles does not violate the provisions of the Wildlife Act.”

 

  1. On 13.3.2019 a newspaper article appeared in Millennium Post or Statesman identifying a Government entity “Wildlife Crime Control Bureau” who intercepted some poached ivory in transit. This was the first tangible data that reached anyone in our family over thirty or forty years of a Government agency that may know how we could have our lawful African ivory items certified duly if needed.  I assumed this entity would have a legal cell of trained government lawyers who may advise accordingly, and sent on the same day 13.03.2019 this email to WCCB ER RDD DRR Agni Mitra:

Respected Sir,

 

  1. Instead a Stasi-like tyranny started against me since that date! As Mr Sanjay Hegde has said “tyranny is defined by a bad law arbitrarily applied”.  Wildlife Protection Act 1972 Articles 39(c), 50, 53, 57 are each in my favour, yet have been wantonly misapplied by WCCB RDD DRR Agni Mitra and his staff member Arnab Basu.

(a)      Mr Mitra in a phone conversation after my email declared I was a “confessed criminal” and “law would take its own course” in respect of our family’s “illegal ivory”.

(b)     I was put under secret surveillance; my neighbours at PQR Apartments (where I am in conflict with the Management over financial irregularity/corruption issues in Alipur Court) were solicited for negative comments behind my back; my phone email whatsapp were tapped, I believe, by Nizam Palace.

(c)      I offered WCCB in March 2019 to visit by appointment stating I was deeply involved in a civil matter in High Court under strict deadlines from His Lordship Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti and His Lordship Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay.  WCCB did not respond.  On 1 May WCCB phoned asking for an appointment.  It was agreed they would visit on 8 May at 4 pm, allowing me to meet deadlines with the above mentioned Division Bench. WCCB broke that agreement immediately and raided me on 2 May 2019, causing me to fail to meet my High Court deadline and have to move Hon’ble Court for Extension.

(d)     I had myself declared our five main items of lawfully held African ivory and offered to allow WCCB to bring their own lock and key and hold these items in a trunk I would provide at my home.  No they had to seize these, and force me to sign a Seizure List under coercion or they would arrest me immediately.

IMG-20190501-WA0003

IMG_20190529_135823 (1)

IMG_20190530_103058

IMG_20190530_093232

Please check the videograph how gleeful MOEFCC raiding party became when weighing our lawful African ivory and declaring it to be “Government property” – as if they would be receiving a share of proceeds! That is why I say “QuasiDacoity”  — by Government agents!

 (e)     WCCB raiding party of some ten persons had three Central Armed Police not in uniform.  These persons videographed my home and proceedings in breach of my personal security.  A second raid occurred on 30 May 2019 of four persons including the same three CAP.  I allowed open access to our Godrej safe which contained family jewelry.  I pleaded not to videograph inside the Godrej safe opened by me for inspection. 

But Arnab Basu explicitly instructed Central Armed Policeman Tamid Khan to videograph all items including jewelry inside the Godrej safe that had nothing to do with any ivory! Why? My security and privacy have been badly breached by these unknown agents of your MOEFCC! Dacoity by their friends next?

20190502_175544

D5rqQEdUcAAhU8B

D5rqREaUYAAPjRV

IMG_20190530_124404

(f)     During this second raid on 30 May 2019, Arnab Basu desecrated by deliberately touching for inspection  ashes of my late parents in my almirah though I said that is what they were.

 

(g)      Wildlife Crime Control Bureau guidelines 2013 states:

“wildlife offenders can be divided into (a) poachers or hunters who kill or capture wild animals or collect wild plants (b) persons buying hunted/captured animals or collected plants for own consumption or trade”.

Wildlife Protection Act 1972 states  “PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF OFFENCES” “50…. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention.—(1) …  Director… if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act,— … conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises…  seize any animal article…”

(h) Wildlife Protection Act states at Article 53: “Punishment for wrongful seizure. – If any person, exercising powers under this Act, vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any other person on the pretence of seizing it for the reasons mentioned in sec. 50, he shall, on conviction, be punishable…”

(i)      WCCB RDD DRR Agni Mitra and Wildlife Inspector Arnab Basu were fully aware, and admitted they knew, I was not a “poacher/hunter/trader”. They had no reasonable grounds for their home invasions.

(j)       I responded to Summons as per directions of Hon’ble High Court Division Bench, reported for interrogation on 24 May 2019 at Nizam Palace.  There WCCB RDD DRR Agni Mitra denounced the fact I received anticipatory bail under Sec 438, threatened to arrest me anyway, and declared there would be a second “thorough” search of my premises, especially “Documents Search” – because WCCB MOEFCC believed my late parents had gotten our ivory certified without my knowledge and a second search could yield these documents which I did not know about! During the second search on 30 May 2019, Arnab Basu explicitly ordered CAP Constable Sudip Ghosh to go through all our home “dolil” ownership documents to find such ivory certification! Obviously these did not exist or I would not have sent my original email of 13.3.2019!  

Why such lies and dissimulation?  Satyameva Jayathe is our National Motto!  Why is Indian Forest Service indulging in mendacity?

 

(k)     I found six possibly African ivory “jewelry” items of my late sister and a fur coat in an almirah; I offered on 24 May 2019 to bring them for inspection myself to Nizam Palace on 29 May 2019.  I did so.  The coat was returned as “some foreign species not covered by the Wildlife Act”.  That is exactly the situation with African ivory Loxodonta before October 1991 I said.  Arnab Basu after consulting WCCB RDD DRR Agni Mitra stated “We will let the Magistrate decide what is African ivory and what is Indian ivory”. Shri Mitra and Shri Basu are apparently zoologists not trained in law yet knowing something to be African ivory they plan not to tell the Magistrate!  That is suppressio veri/suggestion falsi!  Lying again!

 

(l)       I surrendered on 29 May 2019 my grandmother’s 2 Indian ivory toys (gorur gari); these were broken and were made into 12 pieces and I was asked: “Where did you procure these ivory items and where were you going to sell them?” The mala fide is obvious.!

D7v9tyKUcAA6Bi-

(m)    Finally at about 1830 29 May 2019 in office of WCCB RDD DRR Agni Mitra with Arnab Basu present I was abused and shouted at and sought to be intimidated by Mr Mitra forcing me to make signatures I did not agree to.  The man was livid and nearly out of control.  The thought occurred to me he was a firearms officer, and if there was a firearm in his desk-drawer he could point it at me and shoot me dead there in his white hot fit of rage. I did not see any firearm.  Mr Mitra vowed he would unleash all Central Government forces at Nizam Palace against me, mentioning especially ED and BSF!  He also himself mentioned my “neighbours” at PQR Apartments “hating me”, but did not ask me why, namely the Alipur Court 144 case I had brought against two of the Management!

(n)     At age 64, I was not offered a glass of water or a toilet break in a four hour interrogation on 29 May 2019.  When I was finally released about 7 pm, lifts were off and lights of Nizam Palace were half-out; I descended six floors by stairs fully expecting to be assaulted by unknown persons on the way in view of Mr Mitra’s livid abuse minutes earlier. I took off my spectacles and put them in my pocket in case I was attacked.

 

(o)      Next day during the second home invasion and purported Document Search, my housekeeper was interviewed. Arnab Basu had demanded the day earlier that she be kept long after her hours; I said no; you can come 0930 to 1330 and talk to her. They complied.  She has been with us seven years.  The main question was: had she seen any visitors or couriers indicating I was trading ivory?  She stated, No not at all. 

 

Kindly Sir, Mr Director General, end this MOEFCC WCCB tyranny and return our lawful property safely and immediately with an offer of compensation as a normal civilised government would.  And kindly consider appointing as I suggest Ombudsmen in each of your Five Zones to review all such cases where villagers, forest dwellers or other citizens of India have been wrongfully abused by Indian Forest Service Officers as I have experienced myself.

Your MOEFCC colleagues Shri Manmohan Singh Negi, Smt Anuradha Singh, Shri Ritesh Kumar Singh have known about the situation from me in writing since 11 May 2019.

Yours faithfully

Subroto Roy

15 June 2019  Quash the False Charges by WCCB, MOEFCC, Mr Sur!

Madhu Sudhan Sur Esq, Add Public Prosecutor, West Bengal

Vipul Kundalia Esq, for
WCCB DDR ER Agni Mitra, Wildlife Inspector Arnab Basu

Shri Manmohan Singh Negi, IFS, Additional Director Wildlife

Smt Anuradha Singh, IAS, MOEFCC

Shri Ritesh Kumar Singh, IAS, MOEFCC

Hon’ble Minister, MOEFCC

Shri Ranjan Halder, OC, Ballygunge Police Station

Learned Commissioner, Anuj Sharma, IPS, Kolkata Police


A) Illegal Seizure (Quasi “Dacoity”) of our lawful family property by MOEFCC Agents Since 2 May 2019

B) Harassment, Abuse, Intimidation of a law abiding citizen: myself

15 June 2019

Dear Additional Public Prosecutor Madhu Sudhan Sur,

Hon’ble Division Bench His Lordship Dipankar Datta and His Lordship Saugata Bhattacharyya appeared naturally surprised when on 11 June 2019  you declared in Court “We have no role in this matter”.  Please be advised of the facts of the case as follows and reconsider if you have a role or not according to law.  I believe the facts are such your role is to immediately quash the false case that has been created against me by WCCB, MOEFCC.

Our lawful African ivory held since 1970s

  1. My older sister Sucheta Roy (1947:1990) wed one Henri Lobert, a Belgian diplomat, in 1977 in Belgium, with consent of parents late MK Roy (1915:2012) late Purnima Roy (1925:2016). The couple were posted as Belgian diplomats in Africa and about 1978/79 they gifted my parents 5 items of African ivory, species Loxodonta.  In addition, Sucheta had some eight items of “jewelry” (no jewels). MK Roy had a walking stick with African ivory in it. All these items of African ivory owned by our family were entirely lawful when purchased, transported or gifted in the late 1970s and held by us ever since.

 

  1. In addition, MK Roy’s mother, my grandmother Nirmala Debi (1902:1976) had been married as a child bride in 1911 and brought into our home a few Indian ivory toys, including one or two small bullock carts (gorur gari). In addition, MK Roy acquired two Sea Shells in Bombay about 1952.

 

  1. Sucheta Roy died in Kolkata of breast cancer age 42 in January 1990. No African ivory has been owned by us except that which she had brought in her lifetime and gifted to her parents. No African or any other ivory or any other “animal products” has ever been sold by us.

 

  1. (The legal ban of African ivory imports into India came into effect in Oct 1991 viz Article 39(c) of Wildlife Protection Act.)

 

  1. All these items came into my possession through inheritance at passing of my mother in 2016. On 17 May 2019, order of Division Bench of His Lordship Joymalya Bagchi, His Lordship Manojit Mandal, records in CRRM 4556 of 2019 u/s 438:

 “ Petitioner submits that the seized articles had come into his possession upon the death of his mother, Purnima Roy. Possession of the said articles does not violate the provisions of the Wildlife Act.”

 

Illegal/Malafide Behaviour of WCCB, MOEFCC

  1. On 13.3.2019 a newspaper article appeared in Millennium Post or Statesman identifying a Government entity “Wildlife Crime Control Bureau” who intercepted some poached ivory in transit. This was the first tangible data that reached anyone in our family over thirty or forty years of a Government agency that may know how we could have our lawful African ivory items certified duly if needed.  I assumed this entity would have a legal cell of trained government lawyers who may  advise accordingly, and sent on the same day 13.03.2019 this email to WCCB RDD Agni Mitra Indian Forest Service:

Respected Sir,

 

  1. Instead a Stasi-like tyranny started against me since that date! Mr Sanjay Hegde, Supreme Court Advocate, has said “tyranny is defined by a bad law arbitrarily applied”.  Wildlife Protection Act 1972 Articles 39(c), 50, 53, 57 are each in my favour, yet have been wantonly misapplied by WCCB DRR Agni Mitra and his staff member Arnab Basu.

  • Mr Mitra in a phone conversation after my email declared I was a “confessed criminal” and “law would take its own course” in respect of our family’s “illegal ivory”.

  • I was put under secret surveillance; my neighbours at PQR Apartments (where I am in conflict with the Management over financial irregularity/ corruption issues in Alipur Court) were solicited for negative comments behind my back; my phone email whatsapp were tapped, I believe, by Nizam Palace.

  • I offered WCCB in March 2019 to visit by appointment stating I was deeply involved in a civil matter in High Court under strict deadlines from His Lordship Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti and His Lordship Abhijit Gangopadhyay. WCCB did not respond.  On 1 May WCCB phoned asking for an appointment.  It was agreed they would visit on 8 May at 4 pm, allowing me to meet  deadlines with the above mentioned Division Bench. WCCB broke that agreement immediately and raided me on 2 May 2019, causing me to fail to meet my High Court deadline and have to move Hon’ble Court for Extension.

  • I had myself declared our five main items of lawfully held African ivory and offered to allow WCCB to bring their own lock and key and hold these items in a trunk I would provide at my home. IMG-20190501-WA0003

  • No they had to seize these, and force me to sign a Seizure List under coercion or they would arrest me immediately. Please check the videograph how gleeful MOEFCC raiding party became when weighing our lawful African ivory and declaring it to be “Government property” – as if they would be receiving a share of proceeds! That is why I say “QuasiDacoity”  — by Government agents!

20190502_175544
D5rqQEdUcAAhU8B
  • D5rqREaUYAAPjRV
  • IMG_20190530_124404
  • Ballygunge Thana was informed by me on 1 May 2019 but SI Rahman (also involved in the Apartment Management Irregularity issue) did not inform OC Halder and told me on the phone they had no role.

  • WCCB raiding party of some ten persons had three Central Armed Police not in uniform. These persons videographed my home and proceedings in breach of my personal security.  A second raid occurred on 30 May 2019 of four persons including the same three CAP.  I allowed open access to our Godrej safe which contained family jewelry.  I pleaded not to videograph inside the Godrej safe opened by me for inspection.  But Arnab Basu explicitly instructed Central Armed Policeman Tamim(?) to videograph all items including jewelry inside the Godrej safe that had nothing to do with any ivory! My security and privacy have been badly breached by these unknown agents of MOEFCC! 

  • During this second raid on 30 May 2019, Arnab Basu desecrated by deliberately touching for inspection ashes of my late parents in my almirah though I said that is what they were.

  • Wildlife Crime Control Bureau guidelines 2013 states:

“wildlife offenders can be divided into (a) poachers or hunters who kill or capture wild animals or collect wild plants (b) persons buying hunted/captured animals or collected plants for own consumption or trade”.

Wildlife Protection Act 1972 states  “PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF OFFENCES” “50…. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention.—(1) …  Director… if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act,— … conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises…  seize any animal article…” Wildlife Protection Act states at Article 53: “Punishment for wrongful seizure. – If any person, exercising powers under this Act, vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any other person on the pretence of seizing it for the reasons mentioned in sec. 50, he shall, on conviction, be punishable…”

  • WCCB DRR Agni Mitra and Wildlife Inspector Arnab Basu were fully aware, and admitted they knew, I was not a “poacher/hunter/trader”. They had no reasonable grounds for their home invasions.

  • I responded to Summons as per directions of Hon’ble High Court Division Bench, reported for interrogation on 24 May 2019 at Nizam Palace. There WCCB DRR Agni Mitra denounced the fact I received anticipatory bail under Sec 438, threatened to arrest me anyway, and declared there would be a second “thorough” search of my premises, especially “Documents Search” – because WCCB MOEFCC believed my late parents had gotten our ivory certified without my knowledge and a second search could yield these documents which I did not know about! During the second search on 30 May 2019, Arnab Basu explicitly ordered CAP Constable Sudip Ghosh to go through all our home “dolil” ownership documents to find such ivory certification! Obviously these did not exist or I would not have sent my original email of 13.3.2019!

  • I found six possibly African ivory “jewelry” items of my late sister and a fur coat in an almirah; I offered on 24 May 2019 to bring them for inspection myself to Nizam Palace on 29 May 2019. I did so.  The coat was returned as “some foreign species not covered by the Wildlife Act”.  That is exactly the situation with African ivory Loxodonta before October 1991 I said.  Arnab Basu after consulting WCCB DRR Agni Mitra stated “We will let the Magistrate decide what is African ivory and what is Indian ivory”. Mr Mitra and Mr Basu are apparently zoologists not trained in law yet knowing something to be African ivory they plan not to tell the Magistrate!  That is suppressio veri/suggestion falsi!

  • IMG_20190529_135823 (2)
IMG_20190530_103058
IMG_20190530_093232
  • I surrendered on 29 May 2019 my grandmother’s 2 Indian ivory toys (gorur gari); D7v9tyKUcAA6Bi-

  • these were broken and were made into 12 pieces and I was asked: “Where did you procure these ivory items and where were you going to sell them?”

  • Finally at about 1830 in office of WCCB DRR Agni Mitra with Arnab Basu present I was abused and shouted at and sought to be intimidated by Mr Mitra forcing me to make signatures I did not agree to. The man was livid and nearly out of control.  The thought occurred to me he was a firearms officer, and if there was a firearm in his desk-drawer he could point it at me and shoot me dead there in his white hot fit of rage. I did not see any firearm.  Mr Mitra vowed he would unleash all Central Government forces at Nizam Palace against me, mentioning especially ED and BSF!  He also himself mentioned my “neighbours” … “hating me”, but did not ask me why, namely the Alipur Court 144 case I had brought against two of the Management!

  • At age 64, I was not offered a glass of water or a toilet break in a four hour interrogation on 29 May 2019. When I was finally released about 7 pm, lifts were off and lights of Nizam Palace were half-out; I descended six floors by stairs fully expecting to be assaulted by unknown persons on the way in view of Mr Mitra’s livid abuse minutes earlier. I took off my spectacles and put them in my pocket in case I was attacked.

  • Next day during the second home invasion and purported Document Search, my housekeeper was interviewed. Arnab Basu had demanded the day earlier that she be kept long after her hours; I said no; you can come 0930 to 1330 and talk to her. They complied. She has been with us seven years.  The main question was: had she seen any visitors or couriers indicating I was trading ivory?  She stated, No not at all.  

  • The role of Ballygunge Police has been mixed. To his credit OC Halder allowed GD to be filed on 3 May 2019, allowing application under 438 to be filed.  To his discredit, SI Rahman said to me my facts were “bogus facts”, without comprehending them.     

Please be advised, Sir, that I fully expect Kolkata Police and  Office of Public Prosecutor to first and foremost protect the rights of a law-abiding citizen as myself against this MOEFCC tyranny unleashed by WCCB, Nizam Palace.  I have had to naturally want to keep everything in the public domain in the national interest.  Viz  https://independentindian.com/2019/05/04/how-to-get-harassed-and-even-arrested-jailed-by-indias-stasi-forest-officials-without-being-criminal-subroto-roy-vs-union-of-india-harsha-vardhan-agni-mitra-et-al/

Yours faithfully

Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.) BScEcon (London)

 

3 June 2019 Please return our lawful African Ivory Mr Negi!

Today’s paper has fine news that the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau of India’s Forest Service has apprehended three people transporting cruelly a baby lion and three rare langurs! 

IMG_20190602_132532
IMG_20190602_132557

The Indian Forest Service’s protection of endangered wildlife and apprehension of hunters poachers traders is to be applauded. 

Now I trust they will see what a ghastly error they have made attacking our home exactly a month ago 2 May 2019, then again a second time on 30 May 2019 to forcibly take away our lawful African ivory of forty years…! 

including my father’s beautiful walking stick,

IMG_20190530_093232

my mother’s and sister’s jewelry…

IMG_20190530_103058
IMG_20190529_135823 (2)

and these

IMG-20190501-WA0003

 

IMG_20190530_124404
20190502_175544

 

They had demanded my housekeeper remain long after hours for them to arrive.  I said no, you can come when she is here and interview her as you wish.  They complied.

They demanded to know from her if I was involved in selling jewelry.  No she said, she had not seen any visitors or couriers.

They have misunderstood and misused every single article of the Wildlife Protection Act against me!  Article 39 c, Article 50, Article 53, Article 57!

Eg Article 57 seems to put the burden of proof on an accused… but that is only at trial not during inquiry when there is a presumption of innocence…!

Did they have the decency to ask me what I intended to do with the female jewelry?  Of course they did not.

Had they done so, I would have said these would likely be earmarked in due course for my late sister’s three grand daughters from her first marriage.  End of story.

They returned my sister’s fur coat when I took to declare it on 29 May 2019…

IMG_20190529_135823 (2)

How come you are returning it? I asked…

“It is some foreign species not covered under the Wildlife Protection Act” they said…

Exactly!  African ivory imported into India before 1991 was the same!  All our African ivory items came from my sister and her husband Henri Lobert in the late 1970s… long before her death in 1990!  

I was harshly abused and threatened by a livid, almost out of control, Forest Service Officer (a firearms officer I’m sure, the thought went through my mind though fortunately no firearm was to be seen) 1830, date 29 May 2019…

“I will break you!”

“I will bring you down!”

“I will destroy you!”

I was made to hear…

and all the Central Government agencies at Nizam Palace would be unleashed upon me…

“Enforcement Directorate”, including the Border Security Force… whom I had praised in discussing Mr Trump’s border problems!

Please get this harassment to stop Mr Negi from your staff.  Please at once return our ivory and other items (2 sea shells from Bombay c 1952!) safely, and offer due compensation like a civilised government would.  Thank you.

Subroto Roy

2 June 2019

24 May 2019

Shri Agni Mitra, Indian Forest Service
cc:
Smt Natarajan
Dr Harsh Vardhan
Shri Ritesh Singh
Smt Anuradha Singh
Shri Manmohan Singh Negi

 

Agni Mitra WCCB RDD

Arnab Basu  Wildlife Inspector

Nizam Palace

 

Dear Mr Mitra and Mr Basu,

The Hon’ble Division Bench of His Lordship Justice Joymalya Bagchi and His Lordship Manojit Mandal has directed me to cooperate with you and make myself available for interrogation, and I have done so today for three hours; I have offered also to bring next week to your office a few female clothing items & jewelry from decades ago from our home which may or may not be genuine “animal products”.  

Their Lordships as you know have set further hearing on 10 June 2019 in the matter.  

In view of Their Lordships orders of 17.05.2019 and 23.05.2019, would it not be Contempt of Court on your part if

a) you arrest me as you threatened in your office in discussing the meaning of sec 438, only to be released by a lower court on bail?

b) you start to intimidate my domestic help Smt RJ whose phone number you insisted on taking from me (she has many household responsibilities with her family, and lives far away having to commute with great difficulty for her income)? 

 c) you insist on a second arbitrary “search and seizure” at my home as you have stated you want to do which, like the first, would lack “reasonable grounds” required under Article 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act and hence be wrongful and vexatious under Article 53?

Today I have given you the new data of my sister’s marriage in Belgium in 1977 to Henri Lobert, and her death certificate in Kolkata in 1990.  The items were gifted by her and her husband to her parents in the late 1970s, long before 1991.

As stated to you and the Hon’ble High Court, our African ivory items have always been lawfully owned since the late 1970s from when they came to my parents’ possession, and  I myself declared them to you freely the same day I came to know of the existence of a Government entity named Wildlife Crime Control Bureau. 

It is true my late parents failed to do any paperwork on them but that is largely because they never discovered from the Government what was to be done. 

There is no Wildlife or any other crime by us in this regard or any other. Article 39 c, Article 50, Article 53, Article 57 of the Wildlife Protection Act are all in my favour in the circumstances of this case.

Please reflect upon the above.

I repeat: please be good enough to return our lawful African ivory that has been wrongfully seized by you.  

Sincerely

 

Subroto Roy

PostScript:

What reason did you give to want to raid my home again? Document search! You actually said my parents (who were 81,71 when I returned to India permanently) may have gotten ivory certification papers I did not know about! So the Government could find them at my home!

https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1131969029961216000

 

8 May 2019

Solving a Problem of State Tyranny: Open Letter to Forest Service Officer Agni Mitra (who seems to have filled himself with hatred towards me for no good reason)

Shri Agni Mitra, Indian Forest Service

cc: 

Smt Natarajan

Dr Harsh Vardhan

Shri Ritesh Singh

Smt Anuradha Singh

Shri Manmohan Singh Negi

 

Hello Mr Mitra,

Would you like to come for a cup of tea and an informal chat this Rabindra Jayanti, bringing any questions and also your colleague Forest Ranger MK Deb?  The invitation is my first response to your summons to attend an interrogation by you on 24 May at Nizam Palace.

My letter is public because the issues are important, and because this is the Internet age and everyone can and should see what transpires.  Hence the current Minister, a previous Minister, and current senior Forest officials are also tagged by email, and the whole document is public for the world to see, at Twitter too.

IMG-20190501-WA0003

Regarding our family’s 5 items of old African ivory held since the late 1970s that you forcibly seized from my home on 2 May 2019, you have been threatening me with arrest and jail for weeks now, you called me on the phone a “confessed criminal” and declared how the “law will take its course” etc.

The fact actually is I am completely innocent!

You are apparently a stellar young officer who went to Narendrapur and Presidency, both of which I’ve visited, and indeed whose eminent alumni include Bibek Debroy, Mr Modi’s adviser, who started with me at Cambridge in 1976 under the same Professor Hahn, and who visited our then home in Behala about 1979/80 for luncheon once just about when these ivory items had come to us.  Your colleague Forest Ranger Deb spoke highly of you and did not like me disparaging you while the forcible search and seizure was taking place at my home. Hence my invitation to tea and a chat today.

For myself, my experience has been that you have been acting tyrannically and unconstitutionally, misunderstanding and misusing the law you keep quoting against me.  Definitely you have apparently 0 law degree, not even an LLB, but you and others in your position in the Forest Service have been given vast prosecutorial powers, and command of large Central Armed Police forces.

Abuse of power and breach of Constitutional rights of individual citizens is inevitable.

When a stellar Forest Officer misuses the law tyrannically against Subroto Roy, Economist, who had Narendra Modi in his Deendayal Upadhyay audience in Washington in October 1984, and who six years later sparked with Rajiv Gandhi the 1991 reform, I dread to think what India’s villagers and forest dwellers may have been facing in similar situations.

So we are in a War or Peace situation.  Finding a modus vivendi by diplomacy is always better than bruising each other fighting.  Hence my invitation to tea to you and Ranger Deb along with any questions both of you may have informally.

Namely, the warrantless search & seizure that you love so much to quote requires in its preface

**reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act**.

Now who are such offenders against this Act?  Your own “Wildlife Crime Control Bureau” document of 2013 itself states

“wildlife offenders can be divided into

(a) poachers or hunters who kill or capture wild animals or collect wild plants

(b) persons buying hunted/captured animals or collected plants for own consumption or trade”

I myself had declared my mother’s ivory to you! Neither of us ever a “poacher/hunter/buyer”!

You had no “reasonable grounds” for ordering your forcible warrantless search and seizure at our home.  

Neither my late mother nor I qualify as prima facie “wildlife offenders” by your own Government definition!

Since you have behaved lacking such “reasonable grounds” for warrantless search and seizure from our home, may I not pray to a Court that this is a case of wrongful seizure under Article 53?

“53. Punishment for wrongful seizure. – If any person, exercising powers under this Act, vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any other person on the pretence of seizing it for the reasons mentioned in sec. 50, he shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

I said:

“Respected Sir,

This is the first information you ever received about our five items of old African ivory (four are mentioned because one had been forgotten inside a glass cupboard) that we have lawfully had in our home for forty years, which you wrongfully seized by brute force on 2 May 2019.

To be a criminal one has to have done something illegal and with criminal intent.  Neither my late mother nor I after her death did anything criminal with the African ivory she had been gifted by her Belgian diplomat son-in-law Henri Lobert some 40 years ago.

At some point or perhaps points in time, maybe 30 years ago — the Government of India does not know itself and is certainly unable to tell anyone now — people in India holding “animal products” were required to get Government certifications.

But the certification procedure was then, and remains today, totally obscure even to the Government, to lawyers, to law enforcement authorities, to everyone, except perhaps chosen “Dealers”, who knows?

Into that breach of Government-created obscurity stepped the natural abuse of power… So a class of normal law abiding citizens became criminals for holding “animal products” without due certification, except very few ordinary people knew what that due certification was or how it was to be gotten.

By the Government’s arbitrary law making — reversing the burden of proof so the holder of eg ivory has to prove he/she was not holding it criminally — people started to live in fear of blackmail or sudden “search and seizure” by officials…

I had not returned permanently to India, and advised my elderly parents to get our African ivory certified but they remained clueless how to do so and I was unable to find out as well.

It was only during the 2 May 2019 home invasion by the Government officials sent by you that I found out vaguely what the procedure might have been!

Besides my sister died of breast cancer in 1990 age 42 and my parents were in shock ever since and perhaps unwilling to think about the ivory she and her husband had brought them as gifts years earlier.

My mother died in 2016 the lawful owner of African ivory she had received as a gift in the late 1970s which she had admittedly failed to get certified by the Government of India when the Government had demanded it, because she and my father had remained clueless what was required of them — and the Government to this day cannot say what that was and when! 

The African ivory items came to my possession. On 13.3.2019 I chanced upon a news report which mentioned your “Wildlife Crime Control Bureau”, and felt that seemed the place to start, and I declared our ivory to you requesting information how to proceed further for certification…

Instead your Stasi-like tyranny took over at once!  And I have coined the hashtag  #IndiasStasi at Twitter!  You denounced me as a “criminal who had confessed”, advised I get a lawyer, and promised sudden warrantless search of my home!

That sudden warrantless search happened on 2 May 2019, with you sending some 8 or 10 people to my home including three Central Armed Police out of uniform…

My local police station had been informed by me but did not respond… My lawyers advised I be passive which I agreed was wise…

It was during the 3 or 4 hour home invasion by these officials that I asked them what the certification process was, and finally found that out for the first time in thirty years!

You confiscated our African ivory of forty years because we obviously did not have the papers we had not known over thirty years how to get!

I was made to sign a form (the “Seizure List”) under duress in my own home.

I agreed I would sign if I was allowed to write my comment “illegal seizure’”, and state “Wrongful, Vexatious, Unnecessary Seizure of Property violating Article 53 Wildlife Protection Act 1972”.

No, your officials said, there is no room for any comment on the form, only your signature. I refused.  You threatened “If you don’t sign the form, we will take ‘punitive action’… ie arrest and jail me immediately was the implication, and I was urged to sign especially by the “Central Armed Police” officials out of uniform. Classic Stasi techniques in my own home, thought I… !

But someone tell me kindly at what point did my mother become a criminal for holding her ivory without new papers the Government demanded (no one knows when or how) and then myself? Arresting and jailing me for trying to declare gifted and inherited African ivory from the late 1970s at the first opportunity we knew how to?  Did my 13.3.2019 email make me a criminal confessing a crime, as you  #IndiasStasi have claimed? Of course not. Was my mother a criminal at the time she died or any time earlier for not getting her African ivory certified in some obscure way at some uncertain time or times in years past stated by the Government somewhere, when the Government today is completely unable to specify what or when the procedure was?  Hardly.

The Government’s law mentions “Dealers” and does not even seem to mention ordinary citizens owning “animal products” as my mother had done!

“Kindly keep our family property unlawfully seized by you yesterday safe and secure. Kindly be good enough to send me by email or courier a digital copy of the complete videograph records taken by two Central Armed Police personnel in your team yesterday during my home invasion.”

Oh yes two of your Central Armed Police officers breached my Fundamental Right to Privacy for about the whole time they were here by videographing inside my home for two or three hours.

Please come to tea.  I also do not know what the “Compounding” clauses of payment of a fine or penalty refer to, and you can clarify that.  I do not dispute that we have been (slightly) negligent in failing to get our lawful African ivory registered over the decades. More specifically perhaps, our family’s responsibility is 4%,  the Government of India’s responsibility is 96%!

The Wildlife law is bad in its tyrannical implementation by Forest Officers against innocent masses of India, it is prima facie ultra vires of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure.  It is up to you yourselves in the Government to correct it at once.

And yes, please return our old African ivory at once, and offer due compensation for the harassment caused.

Or if you prefer not to accept my invitation to tea, please recuse yourself from this investigation on grounds of your proven bias against me, and I will be happy to cooperate with your colleagues to establish there has been 0 “Wildlife Crime” or any other crime by us.

Thank you.

Subroto Roy 9 May 2019

 

3 May 2019

How to get harassed and even arrested & jailed by India’s Stasi “Forest Officials” without being criminal: Subroto Roy vs Union of India, Harsha Vardhan, Agni Mitra et al (DRAFT)

Subroto Roy, 3 May 2019

To be a criminal you have to have done something illegal and with criminal intent…
The Government of India cannot possibly prove even a prima facie case that either my late mother or I after her death did anything criminal with the African ivory she had been gifted by her Belgian diplomat son-in-law some 40 years ago.
At some point or perhaps points in time, maybe 30 years ago — the Government of India does not know itself and is certainly unable to tell anyone now — people in India holding “animal products” were required to get Government certifications.
But the certification procedure was then, and remains today, totally obscure even to the Government, to lawyers, to law enforcement authorities, to everyone, except perhaps chosen “Dealers”, who knows?
Into that breach of Government-created obscurity stepped the natural abuse of power…
So a class of normal law abiding citizens became criminals for holding “animal products” without due certification, except very few ordinary people knew what that due certification was or how it was to be gotten.
By the Government’s arbitrary law making — reversing the burden of proof so the holder of eg ivory had to prove he/she was not holding it criminally — people started to live in fear of blackmail or sudden “search and seizure” by officials…
I had not returned permanently to India, and advised my elderly parents to get our African ivory certified but they remained clueless how to do so and I was unable to find out as well. (Finally yesterday 2 May 2019 during the home invasion by Government officials I found out from the invading officials!).
Besides, my sister who had been a Belgian diplomat died of breast cancer in 1990 age 42 and my parents were in shock ever since and perhaps unwilling to think about the ivory she and her husband had brought them as gifts years earlier.
My mother died in 2016 the lawful owner of African ivory she had received as a gift in the late 1970s which she had admittedly failed to get certified by the Government of India when the Government had demanded it, because she and my father had remained clueless what was required of them — and the Government to this day cannot say what that was and when!
The African ivory items came to my possession…
On 13.3.2019 I chanced upon a Government of India email id and said Hey that seems the place to start, and I declared our ivory to them requesting information how to proceed further for certification…
Instead a Stasi-like tyranny took over at once!
The addressee of my email, a bright clearly ambitious Forest officer apparently bereft of knowledge of Constitutional law, denounced me as a “criminal who had confessed”, advised I get a lawyer, and promised sudden warrantless search of my home!
That sudden warrantless search happened yesterday 2 May 2019, with this Forest official sending some 8 or 10 people to my home including three Central Armed Police out of uniform…

My local police station had been informed by me but did not respond…

My lawyers advised I be passive which I agreed was wise…

It was during the 3 or 4 hour home invasion by these officials that I asked them what the certification process was, and finally found that out for the first time in thirty years!

They confiscated our African ivory of forty years because we obviously did not have the papers we had not known over thirty years how to get!

I was made to sign a form (the “Seizure List”) under duress in my own home.

I agreed I would sign if I was allowed to write my comment “illegal seizure’”, and state “Wrongful, Vexatious, Unnecessary Seizure of Property violating Article 53 Wildlife Protection Act 1972”.

No, they said, there is no room for any comment on the form, only your signature.

I refused.  Then they threatened “If you don’t sign the form, we will take ‘punitive action’ and the man in charge indicated he would call “his boss” the Forest Officer who had started this tyranny in response to my 13.3.2019 email.  They would arrest and jail me immediately was the implication, and I was urged to sign especially by the “Central Armed Police” officials out of uniform.

Classic Stasi techniques in my own home, thought I… !

But someone tell me kindly at what point did my mother become a criminal for holding her ivory without new papers the Government demanded (no one knows when or how) and then myself?

Arresting and jailing me for trying to declare gifted and inherited African ivory from the late 1970s at the first opportunity we knew how to?

Did my 13.3.2019 email make me a criminal confessing a crime, as the Stasi have claimed? Of course not.

Was my mother a criminal at the time she died or any time earlier for not getting her African ivory certified in some obscure way at some uncertain time or times in years past stated by the Government somewhere, when the Government today is completely unable to specify what or when the procedure was?

Hardly.

The Government’s law mentions “Dealers” and does not even seem to mention ordinary citizens owning “animal products” as my mother had done!

“Kindly keep our family property unlawfully seized by you yesterday safe and secure. Kindly be good enough to send me by email or courier a digital copy of the complete videograph records taken by two Central Armed Police personnel in your team yesterday during my home invasion.”

Oh yes the Stasi videographed using two of the Central Armed Police officers for about the whole time they were there. I have asked them for what they filmed and look forward to receiving them unedited.  Will I get it?  I doubt they will have the courage to send me what they filmed.

Finally I teased them a bit:

“Have you left any secret remote control wifi camera behind in my home? The Stasi techniques you employed would have done that after all. Do let me know by email if you have. Thanks.”

The idea occurred to me that given my passivity during the home invasion as advised by my lawyers, I could not possibly tell if they had planted a camera or a microphone somewhere without my knowledge. We have looked for it, so far, fortunately without success.

Now over to the Hon’ble Courts…!

Advertisement

The 5-Minute Negative Feedback Loop 2011 Model of Kashmir’s Problemss

On the zenith and nadir of US-India relations

From Facebook:

Subroto Roy thinks the zenith of US-India relations (besides FDR pressing Churchill on Indian independence) was the landing of US military transports in Ladakh during the Communist Chinese aggression of 1962 thanks to JK Galbraith & JFK.  (The nadir was the Nixon-Kissinger support for Pakistani tyranny against Bangladesh in 1971.)


And then there was Alexander Dubček in the Prague Spring of 1968

From Facebook:

Subroto Roy recalls that long before Gorbachev and Walesa, there was in the Prague Spring a man named Dubček…. this is a photograph published in his “Hope Dies Last”
ManandtankWenceslas

Why has America’s “torture debate” yet to mention the obvious? Viz., sadism and racism.

“Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children,
Hidden excitedly, containing laughter.
Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.”
— from “Burnt Norton” by TS Eliot

Indeed humankind cannot bear very much reality! Why else, I wonder, has the “torture” debate not yet mentioned the obvious: sadism and racism? Did the perpetrators of torture experience delight or remorse or both from their activities? Delight during, remorse afterwards? Would they have experienced less delight and more remorse if the victims had not also elicited a race-feeling, a race-consciousness?  The victims after all were all “the other”, not one’s own.

One needs to be candid and not pussy-foot around if one wants to comprehend reality.

SR

On the general theory of expertise in democracy: reflections on what emerges from the American “torture memos” today

Twenty years ago, I wrote in Philosophy of Economics (Routledge, London & New York, 1989) quoting from Solzhenitsyn’s experience:

“….the received theory of economic policy… must be silent about the appropriate role of the expert not only under conditions of tyranny (Solzhenitsyn: “The prison doctor was the interrogator’s and executioner’s right-hand man. The beaten prisoner would come to on the floor only to hear the doctor’s voice: ‘You can continue, the pulse is normal’” ); but also where the duly elected government of an open and democratic society proceeded to do things patently wrong or tyrannical (the imprisonment of the Japanese Americans). Hence Popper’s “paradox of democracy” and “tyranny of the majority”..… A theory of economic policy which both assumes a free and open society and bases itself upon a moral scepticism cannot have anything to say ultimately about the objective reasons why a free and open society may be preferred to an unfree or closed society, or about the good or bad outcomes that may be produced by the working of democratic processes…”

Today’s Washington Post reports:

“When the CIA began what it called an “increased pressure phase” with captured terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida in the summer of 2002, its first step was to limit the detainee’s human contact to just two people. One was the CIA interrogator, the other a psychologist. During the extraordinary weeks that followed, it was the psychologist who apparently played the more critical role. According to newly released Justice Department documents, the psychologist provided ideas, practical advice and even legal justification for interrogation methods that would break Abu Zubaida, physically and mentally. Extreme sleep deprivation, waterboarding, the use of insects to provoke fear — all were deemed acceptable, in part because the psychologist said so. “No severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted,” a Justice Department lawyer said in a 2002 memo explaining why waterboarding, or simulated drowning, should not be considered torture. The role of health professionals as described in the documents has prompted a renewed outcry from ethicists who say the conduct of psychologists and supervising physicians violated basic standards of their professions. Their names are among the few details censored in the long-concealed Bush administration memos released Thursday, but the documents show a steady stream of psychologists, physicians and other health officials who both kept detainees alive and actively participated in designing the interrogation program and monitoring its implementation. Their presence also enabled the government to argue that the interrogations did not include torture. Most of the psychologists were contract employees of the CIA, according to intelligence officials familiar with the program. “The health professionals involved in the CIA program broke the law and shame the bedrock ethical traditions of medicine and psychology,” said Frank Donaghue, chief executive of Physicians for Human Rights, an international advocacy group made up of physicians opposed to torture. “All psychologists and physicians found to be involved in the torture of detainees must lose their license and never be allowed to practice again.” The CIA declined to comment yesterday on the role played by health professionals in the agency’s self-described “enhanced interrogation program,” which operated from 2002 to 2006 in various secret prisons overseas. “The fact remains that CIA’s detention and interrogation effort was authorized and approved by our government,” CIA Director Leon Panetta said Thursday in a statement to employees. The Obama administration and its top intelligence leaders have banned harsh interrogations while also strongly opposing investigations or penalties for employees who were following their government’s orders. The CIA dispatched personnel from its office of medical services to each secret prison and evaluated medical professionals involved in interrogations “to make sure they could stand up, psychologically handle it,” according to a former CIA official. The alleged actions of medical professionals in the secret prisons are viewed as particularly troubling by an array of groups, including the American Medical Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross. AMA policies state that physicians “must not be present when torture is used or threatened.” The guidelines allow doctors to treat detainees only “if doing so is in their [detainees’] best interest” and not merely to monitor their health “so that torture can begin or continue.” The American Psychological Association has condemned any participation by its members in interrogations involving torture, but critics of the organization faulted it for failing to censure members involved in harsh interrogations. The ICRC, which conducted the first independent interviews of CIA detainees in 2006, said the prisoners were told they would not be killed during interrogations, though one was warned that he would be brought to “the verge of death and back again,” according to a confidential ICRC report leaked to the New York Review of Books last month. “The interrogation process is contrary to international law and the participation of health personnel in such a process is contrary to international standards of medical ethics,” the ICRC report concluded….” (emphasis added)

Twenty-five years ago, the draft-manuscript that became the book Philosophy of Economics got me into much trouble in American academia. As I have said elsewhere, a gang of “inert game theorists”, similar to many (often unemployable ex-mathematicians) who had come to and still dominate what passes for academic economics in many American and European universities, did not like at all what I was saying. A handful of eminent senior economists – Frank Hahn, T W Schultz, Milton Friedman, James M Buchanan, Sidney Alexander – defended my work and but for their support over the decade 1979-1989, my book would not have seen light of day.  Eventually, I have had to battle over years in the US federal courts over it – only to find myself having to battle bribery of court officers and the suborning of perjury by government legal officers  too! (And speaking of government-paid psychologists, I was even required at one point by my corrupt opponent to undergo tests for having had the temerity of being in court at all! Fortunately for me that particular psychologist declined to participate in the nefariousness of his employer!).

I find all this poignant today as Philosophy of Economics may have, among other things, described the general theoretical problem that has been brought to light today.  I was delighted to hear from a friend in 1993 that my book had been prescribed for a course at Yale Law School and was strewn all over an alley in the bookshop.

Separately, I am also delighted to find that a person pioneering the current work is a daughter of our present PM. I have been sharply critical of Dr Singh’s economics and politics, but I have also said I have had high personal regard for him ever since 1973 when he, as a friend of my father’s, visited our then-home in Paris to advise me before I embarked on my study of economics. My salute to the ACLU’s work in this – may it be an example in defeating cases of State-tyranny in India too.

Subroto Roy,

Letter to Wei Jingsheng

Mr Wei Jingsheng,  Citizen of  China

Dear Sir,

I am delighted to know from news reports today that you are well and active.

This short note is merely to tell you that some 28 years ago, your name entered my doctoral thesis  submitted to the Cambridge University Faculty of Economics & Politics,  titled “On liberty & economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India”.

On page 23, the thesis said:

“We know such conversations should not be forcibly silenced, which is why it is wrong that Dr Sakharov is banished, or that Mr Wei Jingsheng is gaoled for a decade, or that Dr Tomin is brutally assaulted and not allowed to lecture on Aristotle.”

And again on page 104:

“A disciplined and united oligarchy can with careful planning maintain its rule indefinitely over an amorphous and anonymous citizenry.  The only thorns in its side will be men like Sakharov and Wei Jingsheng and Tomin whose courage is somehow signalled to the outside world and who thus become recognisable names.  But even these men can be exiled or gaoled or thrashed into silence, so extinguishing the small chance left of the the truth being told and the Leadership’s claim to unique wisdom being exposed for the sheer humbug it is.”

With my continuing admiration, I remain

Yours truly

Subroto Roy

Kolkata, India

Transparency and Economic Policy-Making

Transparency and Economic Policy-Making

An address by Professor Subroto Roy to the Asia-Pacific Public Relations Conference, (panel on Transparency chaired by C. R. Irani) January 30 1998.

This talk is dedicated to the memory of my sister Suchandra Bhattacharjee (14.02.1943-10.01.1998).
1. I would like to talk about transparency and economic policy-making in our country. For something to be transparent is, in plain language, for it to be able to be openly seen through, for it to not to be opaque, obscure or muddy, for it to be clear to the naked eye or to the reasonable mind. A clear glass of water is a transparent glass of water. Similarly, an open and easily comprehensible set of economic policies is a transparent set of economic policies.

The philosopher Karl Popper wrote a famous book after the Second World War titled The Open Society and its Enemies. It contained a passionate defence of liberal institutions and democratic freedoms and a bitter attack on totalitarian doctrines of all kinds. It generated a lot of controversy, especially over its likely misreading of the best known work of political philosophy since the 4th Century BC, namely, Plato’s Republic .[1] I shall borrow Popper’s terms ‘open society’ and ‘closed society’ and will first try to make this a useful distinction for modern times, and then apply it to the process of economic policy-making in India today.

2. An open society is one in which the ordinary citizen has reasonably easy access to any and all information relating to the public or social interest — whether the information is directly available to the citizen himself or herself, or is indirectly available to his or her elected representatives like MP’s and MLA’s. Different citizens will respond to the same factual information in different ways, and conflict and debate about the common good will result. But that would be part of the democratic process.

The assessment that any public makes about the government of the day depends on both good and bad news about the fate of the country at any given time. In an open society, both good news and bad news is out there in the pubic domain — open to be assessed, debated, rejoiced over, or wept about. If we win a cricket match or send a woman into space we rejoice. If we lose a child in a manhole or a busload of children in a river, we weep. If some tremendous fraud on the public exchequer comes to be exposed, we are appalled. And so on.

It is the hallmark of an open society that its citizens are mature enough to cope with both the good and the bad news about their country that comes to be daily placed before them. Or, perhaps more accurately, the experience of having to handle both good and bad news daily about their world causes the citizens in an open society to undergo a process of social maturation in formulating their understanding of the common good as well as their responses to problems or crises that the community may come to face. They might be thereby thought of as improving their civic capacities, as becoming better-informed and more discerning voters and decision-makers, and so becoming better citizens of the country in which they live.

The opposite of an open society is a closed society — one in which a ruling political party or a self-styled elite or nomenclatura keep publicly important information to themselves, and do not allow the ordinary citizen easy or reasonably free access to it. The reason may be merely that they are intent on accumulating assets for themselves as quickly as they can while in office, or that they are afraid of public anger and want to save their own skins from demands for accountability. Or it may be that they have the impression that the public is better off kept in the dark — that only the elite nomenclatura is in position to use the information to serve the national interest.

In a closed society it is inevitable that bad news comes to be censored or suppressed by the nomenclatura, and so the good news gets exaggerated in significance. News of economic disasters, military defeats or domestic uprisings gets suppressed. News of victories or achievements or heroics gets exaggerated. If there are no real victories, achievements or heroics, fake ones have to be invented by government hacks — although the suppressed bad news tends to silently whisper all the way through the public consciousness in any case.

Such is the way of government propaganda in almost every country, even those that pride themselves on being free and democratic societies. Dostoevsky’s cardinal advice in Brothers Karamasov was: “Above all, never lie to yourself”. Yet people in power tend to become so adept at propaganda that they start to deceive themselves and forget what is true and what is false, or worse still, cannot remember how to distinguish between true and false in the first place. In an essay thirty years ago titled Truth and Politics, the American scholar Hannah Arendt put it like this:

“Insofar as man carries within himself a partner from whom he can never win release, he will be better off not to live with a murderer or a liar; or: since thought is the silent dialogue carried out between me and myself, I must be careful to keep the integrity of this partner intact, for otherwise I shall surely lose the capacity for thought altogether.”[2]

3. Closed societies may have been the rule and open societies the exception for most of human history. The good news at the end of the 20th Century is surely that since November 7 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, the closed society has officially ceased to be a respectable form of human social organization. The age of mass access to television and telecommunications at the end of the 20th Century may be spelling the permanent end of totalitarianism and closed societies in general. The Berlin Wall was perhaps doomed to fall the first day East Germans were able to watch West German television programs.

Other than our large and powerful neighbour China, plus perhaps North Korea, Myanmar, and some Islamic countries, declared closed societies are becoming hard to find, and China remains in two minds whether to be open or closed. No longer is Russia or Romania or Albania or South Africa closed in the way each once was for many years. There may be all sorts of problems and confusions in these countries but they are or trying to become open societies.

Under the glare of TV cameras in the 21st Century, horrors like the Holocaust or the Gulag or even an atrocity like Jalianwalla Bag or the Mai Lai massacre will simply not be able to take place anywhere in the world. Such things are not going to happen, or if they do happen, it will be random terrorism and not systematic, large scale genocide of the sort the 20th Century has experienced. The good news is that somehow, through the growth of human ingenuity that we call technical progress, we may have made some moral progress as a species as well.

4. My hypothesis, then, is that while every country finds its place on a spectrum of openness and closedness with respect to its political institutions and availability of information, a broad and permanent drift has been taking place as the 20th Century comes to an end in the direction of openness.

With this greater openness we should expect bad news not to come to be suppressed or good news not to come to be exaggerated in the old ways of propaganda. Instead we should expect more objectively accurate information to come about in the public domain — i.e., better quality and more reliable information, in other words, more truthful information. This in turn commensurately requires more candour and maturity on the part of citizens in discussions about the national or social interest. Closed society totalitarianism permitted the general masses to remain docile and unthinking while the nomenclatura make the decisions. Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor said that is all that can be expected of the masses. Open society transparency and democracy defines the concept of an ordinary citizen and requires from that citizen individual rationality and individual responsibility. It is the requirement Pericles made of the Athenians:

“Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well; even those who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics – this is a peculiarity of ours: we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.”[3]

5. All this being said, I am at last in a position to turn to economic policy in India today. I am sorry to have been so long-winded and pedantic but now I can state my main substantive point bluntly: in India today, there is almost zero transparency in the information needed for effective macroeconomic policy-making whether at the Union or State levels. To illustrate by some examples.

(A) Macroeconomic policy-making in any large country requires the presence of half a dozen or a dozen well-defined competing models produced by the government and private agencies, specifying plausible causal links between major economic variables, and made testable against time-series data of reasonably long duration. In India we seem to have almost none. The University Economics Departments are all owned by some government or other and can hardly speak out with any academic freedom. When the Ministry of Finance or RBI or Planning Commission, or the India teams of the World Bank or IMF, make their periodic statements they do not appear to be based on any such models or any such data-base. If any such models exist, these need to be published and placed in the public domain for thorough discussion as to their specification and their data. Otherwise, whatever is being predicted cannot be assessed as being very much more reliable than the predictions obtained from the Finance Minister’s astrologer or palmist. (NB: Horse-Manure is a polite word used in the American South for what elsewhere goes by the initials of B. S.). Furthermore, there is no follow-up or critical review to see whether what the Government said was going to happen a year ago has in fact happened, and if not, why not.

(B) The Constitution of India defines many States yet no one seems to be quite certain how many States really constitute the Union of India at any given time. We began with a dozen. Some 565 petty monarchs were successfully integrated into a unitary Republic of India, and for some years we had sixteen States. But today, do we really have 26 States? Is Delhi a State? UP with 150 million people would be the fifth or sixth largest country in the world on its own; is it really merely one State of India? Are 11 Small States de facto Union Territories in view of their heavy dependence on the Union? Suppose we agreed there are fifteen Major States of India based on sheer population size: namely, Andhra, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, UP and West Bengal. These States account for 93% of the population of India. The average population of these 15 Major States is 58 million people each. That is the size of a major country like France or Britain. In other words, the 870 million people in India’s Major States are numerically 15 Frances or 15 Britains put together.

Yet no reliable, uniformly collected GDP figures exist for these 15 States. The RBI has the best data, and these are at least two years old, and the RBI will tell you without further explanation that the data across States are not comparable. If that is the case at State-level, I do not see how the national-level Gross Domestic Product can possibly be estimated with any meaningfulness at all.

(C) Then we hear about the Government Budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. Now any national government is able to pay for its activities only by taxation or borrowing or by using its monopoly over the domestic medium of exchange to print new money. In India today, universal money-illusion seems to prevail. It would not be widely recognised by citizens, journalists or policy-makers that, say, 100,000 Rupees nominally taxed at 10% under 20% inflation leaves less real disposable income than the same taxed at 20% with 5% inflation. This is in part because inflation figures are unknown or suspect. There is no reliable all-India or State-level consumer price index. The wholesale price index on the basis of which the Government of India makes its inflation statements, may not accurately reflect the actual decline in the purchasing power of money, as measured, say, by rises in prices of alternative stores of value like land. The index includes artificially low administered or subsidized prices for petroleum, cereals, and electricity. To the extent these prices may be expected to move towards international equilibrium prices, the index contains a strong element of deferred inflation. One urgent task for all macroeconomic research in India is construction of reliable price-data indices at both Union and State levels, or at a minimum, the testing for reliability by international standards of series currently produced by Government agencies.

Without reliable macroeconomic information being spread widely through a reasonably well-informed electorate, the Government of India has been able to wash away fiscal budget constraints by monetization and inflation without significant response from voters. The routine method of meeting deficits has become “the use of the printing press to manufacture legal tender paper money”, either directly by paying Government creditors “with new paper money specially printed for the purpose” or indirectly by paying creditors “out of loans to itself from the Central Bank”, issuing paper money to that amount. Every Budget of the Government of India, including the most recent ones of 1996 and 1997, comes to be attended by detailed Press discussion with regard to the minutae of changes in tax rates or tax-collection — yet the enormous phenomena of the automatic monetization of the Government’s deficit is ill-understood and effectively ignored. Historically, a policy of monetization started with the British Government in India during the Second World War, with a more than five-fold increase in money supply occurring between 1939 and 1945. Inflation rates never seen in India before or since were the result (Charts 0000), attended by the Great Famine of 1942/43. Though these were brought down after succession of C. D. Deshmukh as Governor of the Reserve Bank, the policy of automatic monetization did not cease and continues until the present day. Inflation “sooner or later destroys the confidence, not only of businessmen, but of the whole community, in the future value of the currency. Then comes the stage known as “the flight from the currency.” Had the Rupee been convertible during the Bretton Woods period, depreciation would have signalled and helped to adjust for disequilibrium. But exchange-controls imposed during the War were enlarged by the new Governments of India and Pakistan after the British departure to exclude convertible Sterling Area currencies as well. With the Rupee no longer convertible, internal monetization of deficits could continue without commensurate exchange-rate depreciation.

The Reserve Bank was originally supposed to be a monetary authority independent of the Government’s fiscal compulsions. It has been prevented from developing into anything more than a department of the Ministry of Finance, and as such, has become the captive creditor of the Government. The RBI in turn has utilized its supervisory role over banking to hold captive creditors, especially nationalized banks whose liabilities account for 90% of commercial bank deposits in the country. Also captive are nationalized insurance companies and pension funds. Government debt instruments show on the asset side of these balance-sheets. To the extent these may not have been held had banks been allowed to act in the interests of proper management of depositors’ liabilities and share-capital according to normal principles, these are pseudo-assets worth small fractions of their nominal values. Chart 0000 shows that in the last five years the average term structure of Government debt has been shortening rapidly, suggesting the Government is finding it increasingly difficult to find creditors, and portending higher interest rates.

General recognition of these business facts, as may be expected to come about with increasing transparency, would be a recipe for a crisis of confidence in the banking and financial system if appropriate policies were not in place beforehand.

(D) As two last examples, I offer two charts. The first shows the domestic interest burden of the Government of India growing at an alarming rate, even after it has been deflated to real terms. The second tries to show India’s foreign assets and liabilities together – we always come to know what is happening to the RBI’s reserve levels, what is less known or less understood is the structure of foreign liabilities being accumulated by the country. Very roughly speaking, in terms that everyone can understand, every man, woman and child in India today owes something like 100 US dollars to the outside world. The Ministry of Finance will tell you that this is not to be worried about because it is long-term debt and not short-term debt. Even if we take them at their word, interest payments still have to be paid on long-term debt, say at 3% per annum. That means for the stock of debt merely to be financed, every man, woman and child in India must be earning $3 every year in foreign exchange via the sale of real goods and services abroad. I.e., something like $3 billion must be newly earned every year in foreign exchange merely to finance the existing stock of debt. Quite clearly, that is not happening and it would stretch the imagination to see how it can be made to happen.

In sum, then, India, blessed with democratic political traditions which we had to take from the British against their will — remember Tilak, “Freedom is my birthright, and I shall have it” — may still be stuck with a closed society mentality when it comes to the all-important issue of economic policy. There is simply an absence in Indian public discourse of vigourous discussion of economic models and facts, whether at Union or State levels. A friendly foreign ambassador pointedly observed an absence in India of political philosophy. It may be more accurate to say that without adequate experience of a normal agenda of government being seen to be practised, widespread ignorance regarding fiscal and monetary causalities and inexperience of the technology of governance remains in the Indian electorate, as well as among public decision-makers at all levels. Our politicians seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time either garlanding one another with flowers or garlanding statues and photographs of the glorious dead. It is high time they stopped to think about the living and the future.

[1] Renford Bambrough (ed.) Plato, Popper and Politics: Some Contributions to a Modern Controversy, 1967.

[2] Philosophy, Politics and Society, 2nd Series, Peter Laslett & W. G. Runciman (eds.), 1967.

[3] Thucydides, History of the Pelopennesian War, II.40.