ETHICS & POWER

RAM JETHMALANI www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/ramjethmalani Ram Jethmalani is a senior politician and eminent lawyer.

Freedom of expression goes missing

India is ranked 140th in the world in the Press Freedom Index 2013. Indias position in 2004 was 120.

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy addressing a press conference at the party office in New Delhi on 21 September. PTI

must confess that I wasn't exactly surprised when I learnt that an organisation called Reporters Without Borders has ranked India 140th in the world in their Press Freedom Index 2013. India's position in 2004 was 120. Several countries in Africa and Latin America, toward whom we act condescending and superior, are rated higher than us. It is a sad fact that slowly and imperceptibly freedom of expression, which differentiates a democracy from autocratic or totalitarian forms of government, has been eroding in our country. The suspension of fundamental rights, and crackdown on the freedom of speech and expression during the Emergency, particularly of the media, was a Constitutional shock. But it was then a much simpler and less capitalised media, mostly print and radio, and easy to suppress. Post Emergency, the media saw a period of spectacular growth and resurgence, as its streams multiplied. The satellite age with its 24x7 reporting, the limitless Internet and information highway, has changed the entire concept of the freedom of expression, the handling of which indicates the true liberalism and maturity of a democracy.

The New York Times in February 2013 wrote a scathing piece called "India's Speech Impediments" about how "the government either stands by and does nothing to protect freedom of speech, or it actively abets its suppression". Government's intolerance of freedom of expression appears to become particularly heightened during the various literary festivals that are becoming a regular feature now, whether it is about Salman Rushdie or Ashis Nandy. Every literary festival of the last few years has been a disaster, so much so, that Salman Rushdie, a regular victim of our vote bank politics, went to the extent of calling our literary atmosphere as one of "cultural emergency". The NYT article aptly sums up the attitude, "In India today, it seems, free speech is itself an atrocity." Another event has taken place very recently that appears to confirm a lurking suspicion that an unwritten emergency has firmly been put in place by the UPA government for gagging freedom of speech and expression, particularly among the media. My good friend Dr Subramanian Swamy, after merging his Janata Party with the BJP, held his maiden press conference, in New Delhi on 21 September 2013. The press conference was to focus on the state of our economy, why it has gone so dangerously wrong, and what measures should be taken to undo the economic disaster that has been unleashed in our country during the decade long UPA rule. Dr Swamy, as usual his brilliant and scintillating self, explained very simply and specifically about how our economy has been consciously allowed to reach its present crisis situation of reduction in growth rate, rising unemployment, high inflation, decline in savings, and the unprecedented, continuous decline in the value of the rupee. Foreign exchange reserves have dropped to USD 227 billion, with the danger of reverse shortterm capital outflow (the "hot money" that presently has become the greater share of our FDI), by panic cashing of Participatory Notes, hawala operations, and rigged shortselling of the rupee abroad. The balance of payments situation is critical, with much higher imports than exports; the current account deficit as a ration of GDP is at 4%, the highest since 1990. In this scenario, Dr Swamy forecasts that by mid-2014, the government will be on the verge of default of payments. He also informed the nation that while the rupee dropped only by Rs 4 to a dollar between 1999 to 2004 in the NDA regime, it has dropped by a Rs 23.42 during the last nine years of UPA rule. But what was most enlightening in the press conference, was the information that Dr Swamy boldly and daringly came out with, regarding the Rupee's swift and continuous descent. This was something that financiers, stock market operatives and media channels would certainly have been aware of, particularly the economic newspapers and channels. But clearly, there is an unwritten rule that they dare not talk about it or show

any curiosity. After all, however much we might pretend, regardless of our democratic trappings, we are still a half feudal culture, where in real fact freedom of expression is also half baked. Dr Swamy very clearly described the causes for the rupees continuing slide as, a) the hawala operations siphoning off rupees to illegal foreign accounts, and creating further demand for dollars, and b) return of this money for investment in India through participatory notes. He had a simple and tough solution for it: arrest the hawala operators, who are well known in the finance world, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; prohibit Participatory Notes; monitor visits of business visitors to the UAE, Singapore and Macao and other countries with secret banking, to check their actual business interests. This alone, he believes will bring the dollar down to Rs 40. Regarding the larger macro-economic, budgetary and resources issues, Dr Swamy gives a solution, after my own heart. He suggests that the Rs 70 lakh crore of Indian money that is stashed abroad illegally, should be repatriated by nationalising every illegal account of Indians in 70 countries that permit secret banking, like Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Macao, Lichtenstein, etc. Whatever percentage of that amount returns, it will be more than adequate to provide for all our infrastructure and development requirements, provided that the corruption pathways are cleaned up. Dr Swamy's suggestions for reversing the economic crisis are novel, bold and perfectly doable, provided there is political will. I support him completely and assure him that I will pursue this in every way I can. No one can contradict Dr Swamy's assertion that there would be no shortage of revenue if our rich natural resources, such as spectrum, coal blocks, natural gas, thorium, etc., are auctioned through fair means. The total revenue from income tax of Rs 2 lakh crore would become redundant and can be scrapped, something that will bring great relief to the middle and professional classes who suffer most harassment from it. And yes, he adds that short selling of the rupee has regularly been going on in Singapore and Dubai, by some relatives of politicians, with tacit assurance from the Reserve Bank that they will take no steps to prevent its decline. And so it would appear. Nothing prevented the Reserve Bank from injecting even a small part of its foreign exchange reserves into the market to protect the rupee. But they remained passive. What Dr Swamy has stated in his press conference was an open secret. But he has had the courage to state it aloud. Can there be worse economic crimes committed against the nation, and protected by the government? Dr Swamy must have sent deathly shivers down the spines of India's plunderers. It

cannot be a coincidence that the press conference was completely blacked out from television, and only scanty references were made to it in some national dailies. In a mature democracy with real freedom of the press, Dr Swamy's assertions and suggestions would have been debated intelligently in public, by dissenters and supporters alike, torn to shreds if they were untenable or false, and accepted if they were true and reasonable. But the panic suppression of the press conference, and closure of all discussion, has fully exposed the unwritten emergency and media gagging that prevails in our country. However, mercifully, what could not be expunged was the YouTube version. India's position in the Press Freedom Index will slip down a few more positions.

ETHICS & POWER

RAM JETHMALANI www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/ramjethmalani Ram Jethmalani is a senior politician and eminent lawyer.

Two bills that threaten democracy

The effect of the two Bills is to restore the doctrine of executive supremacy in high judicial appointments. wo important bills concerning the judiciary came before the Rajya Sabha on 5 September the Constitution (One Hundred And Twentieth Amendment) Bill, 2013, (LX of 2013) and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013 (LXI of 2013). The two Bills together, as well as individually, are a serious threat to our democratic system and the independence of the judiciary, which, fortunately, are basic features of our Constitution. Experience shows that it is only when the executive gets sunk in corruption and governance bankruptcy, that it resorts to stifling other branches of government unconstitutionally through executive supremacy. The judiciary becomes a red rag before the executive, and judges who are a thorn in the flesh, are shown crude executive muscle power through Bills such as these. It is my belief that even if a Constitutional Amendment is approved by a two-third majority by both the Houses, it would still be void as repugnant to the basic features of the Constitution, which cannot be repealed or diluted even by two-third majority necessary for Constitutional changes which do not tinker with any basic feature. The accompanying simple Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013, purports to deal with the Constitution and working of the proposed Judicial Appointment Commission. Mischievously, though doubtless cleverly, the structure and shape of the Commission are defined in Section 3 of this Bill, and not in the Constitution Amendment Bill. The structure leaves much to be desired. It is both improper and unfair and is no improvement of any kind on the current collegium system, which has existed from 1993 as a result of the Nine Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the Famous Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Others v/s Union of India reported in (1993) 4 SCC 441. The cleverness, however, consists in creating an illusion that even while the structure of the Judicial Appointments Commission prescribed by Section 3 will remain a permanent statutory provision, the One Hundred and Twentieth Amendment Bill, 2013, sanctifies the Commission by the introduction of Article 124 A in the Constitution. This

not only makes the Commission enjoy the longevity of any ordinary Constitutional provision, but also ensures that its actual composition and working shall be regulated by Parliament by a simple majority in both Houses. In other words, any government in power enjoying the majority of even one vote in both Houses can alter its shape and make it utterly useless if not impotent. Let me illustrate. In its present form, the Judicial Appointments Commission will consist of the Chief Justice, two other judges next to the Chief Justice of India in seniority, and the Union Law Minister as ex-officio members. Only two other persons described as eminent persons are to be nominated by a collegium consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People. Being a simple Act passed by the Central Legislature, even all this can be scrapped and the Union Minister of Law and Justice be made the sole appointing authority with or without some consultation with some judge of the Supreme Court. In other words, this Bill is a corrupt and unconstitutional method of setting aside the nine-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court, by throwing dust in the eyes of the people. The least an honest government should have done was to place the entire content of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, that deal with its powers of appointment and transfer of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including some other consequential provisions, into the newly created Article 124A of the Constitution. The combined effect of the two Bills is to restore the pre 1993 position, which had been sanctified by the S.P. Gupta judgment of 1981. It is that judgment, which was set aside by the subsequent nine-judge bench, which, fortunately, put an end to the doctrine of executive primacy in the matter of high judicial appointments. The nine-judge bench accepted the argument made by me, supported by other distinguished counsels, that Article 50 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution within the meaning of that concept enunciated by the thirteen-judge Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973, reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225. It is this judgment, which protected the Indian Constitution and the people of India from the kind of diabolical constitutional subversion by the late Indira Gandhi and her sycophantic advisers. Article 50 of our Constitution is an extremely simple Article consisting of only one sentence. "The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State." This Article does not mean that judges of the Supreme Court will not socially mix with the ministers or live in separate bungalows or in different towns. The Supreme Court rightly construed this Article to mean that the government, which is the cause of more than half the litigation in our courts, cannot be permitted to have any control over the appointment of judges, who must deal with every litigant including the government, on the merits of their case. A frequent litigant cannot

be permitted by any civilised society to be the appointing authority of judges of his liking or choice. The following passage from that judgment is its crux and rationale: "The question of primacy to the opinion of CJI in the matters of appointment and transfers and their justifiability should be considered in the context of the independence of the judiciary, as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, to secure the 'rule of law', essential for the preservation of the democratic system. The broad scheme of separation of powers adopted in the Constitution, together with the directive principle of 'separation of judiciary from executive' even at the lowest strata, provides some insight to the true meaning of the relevant provisions in the Constitution relating to the composition of the judiciary. The construction of these provisions must accord with these fundamental concepts in the constitutional scheme to preserve the vitality and promote the growth essential for retaining the Constitution as a vibrant organism." Having decided that the literal interpretation of Article 50 of the Constitution, which may well support the primacy of executive choice, must be rejected in favour of a construction which is in conformity with the basic features of the Constitution, which cannot but be the total independence of judges from executive control and influence, the collegium system for selection of judges was instituted. It is now the basic feature of our Constitution. I have great respect and affection for my friend Kapil Sibal, the Hon'ble Minister of Law and Justice. I do not wish to expand this lest it may embarrass him with his colleagues in the Congress. I would not easily oppose Bills introduced by him, unless my understanding of the Constitution and my conscience urge me to revolt against acquiescence in such diabolic pieces of legislation. Both my intellect and conscience tell me that these bills will set up an evil precedent of Parliament deliberately damaging a basic feature of the Constitution, making liberty tenuous and gravely attenuated, weakening the judiciary, rendering human rights vulnerable, and exposing democracy to the threat of extinction. These Bills affect the future of the entire Bar of the country, as well as people's life and liberty, which call for protection by an independent judiciary. They will affect the confidence of the industry and agriculture, and would remove all fear from those who have looted our national wealth running into US$1,500 billion, equivalent to Rs 90 lakh crore. Though the present collegium system does ensure independence of the judiciary from the executive, it could do with further reform, though not dilution. A possible reform is certainly a National Judicial Commission with proper structure and mandate. It must

include the Prime Minister or any other minister of his choice, but equally it must include the Leader of the Opposition, for parity between the government and the Opposition. The present Bill has almost destroyed the role of the Leader of Opposition, his role being confined to participation in selecting two eminent citizens along with the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India. The membership of the Chief Justice of India as a chairperson is an absolute necessity. The organised Bar of the country must be represented in the commission, as no one knows the character and calibre of the potential appointees better than practicing lawyers. The Lokpal, whenever the office is created, should be a member, and the academic world and social sciences must also be represented by a process which excludes executive influence. I would like to add that though some members of the judiciary may be accused of some questionable acts, on the whole the judiciary has discharged its responsibility in a much more honourable and conscientious manner than the other branches of government. I had hoped that the government would refer the Bills to a Select Committee of Parliament where the views of the judges, the Bar, jurists, and other opinion leaders would be taken on board, for the education of the nation and enlightenment of its elected representatives. Well, the Bills have been passed, with the saving grace that the BJP, which had earlier supported the Bill, walking out. I was the lone opponent, and I am confident that the Constitution Amendment Bill cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny.

ETHICS & POWER

RAM JETHMALANI www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/ramjethmalani Ram Jethmalani is a senior politician and eminent lawyer.

Reckless decisions ruin economy

A current account deficit of 4.5% is the result of no capital formation as money is illegally deposited in offshore accounts. herever I go, the questions I hear from everyone, urban or rural, rich or poor, young or old are: Can there be a worse government? When will this loot-era end? When will we stop getting battered by sky-rocketing prices and chronic inflation? It is well known that galloping food prices have reduced food consumption levels, both among middle classes, and most tragically, among the poor, whose consumption standards were already at the lowest levels of subsistence, amongst the worst in the world. I fully empathize with them and I am aware of their intense anger at how the UPA government is ravaging the country and their lives. I would like to add to their angst by stating that never in my life since Independence have I seen a government so brazen, so smug and unabashed even when caught red handed looting the nation. Even the oversight of the Supreme Court does not deter the present and previous Coal Minister, who is none other than our Hon'ble Prime Minister, from presiding over the disappearance of files required for investigation by the CBI the lowest ploy typically used by an errant babu when caught in a much lesser misdemeanour than of the Prime Minister. The message that rings clear from the highest executive office of the land to all levels of government is, "Plunder all that you can. If you get caught, you have the licence to destroy all the files that incriminate you, and you will be safe." Never in the last 66 years has it been as brazen as this.

The UPA government had decided from the start that it did not need to govern to stay in power. All it needed was numbers, and these it managed to procure through blandishments or blackmail. But going before the people every five years is a test that must be faced, for which no antidote has yet been innovated.
From what I recall, in the old days, government functionaries were a little wary of

destroying files. Being instruments of their livelihood, a kind of sanctity was attached to them. And if they were caught in situations similar to that of the Prime Minister, they simply started a harmless fire in the room where the files were lodged, after which the files were declared as burnt in an accidental fire. Such mild fires were quite common in official buildings all over India, and were generally greeted with a knowing smirk. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, by virtue of his privileged position, does not have the luxury of practising such techniques. So he used the next best option and became the perfect role model under whose leadership incriminating files acquired the right to vanish and go missing. The unwritten part of the UPA's Common Minimum Programme, the only thing it achieved very successfully in the last decade, was plunder of the country in every possible way, burial of the rule of law, and destruction of every system and institution in the country. The grand team of economists headed by the Prime Minister has destroyed the economy through reckless and anti-national decision making, followed by false promises to the people regarding inflation and rising prices. A current account deficit of 4.5% does not happen overnight. There has been no capital formation, because money that should accrue to the nation is illegally siphoned off to offshore accounts. The manufacturing sector that should be the backbone of an emerging industrial economy was allowed to slump through reckless, intentional policies of the government, and agricultural growth has remained stagnant. Finally, the disgraceful fall of the rupee and the stock market has exposed the myth of India's great growth story, and even the UPA government's committed sympathisers are turning their backs on them in sheer disgust. The UPA government had decided from the start that it did not need to govern to stay in power. All it needed was numbers, and these it managed to procure through blandishments or blackmail. But going before the people every five years is a test that must be faced, for which no antidote has yet been innovated. Since governance has been completely alien to the UPA agenda, alternate methods of wooing the electorate had to be created. It was important to keep the minority vote banks alive, by accusing all political opponents of being "communal", and taking several communal/populist measures to keep them captive. The second vote bank that had to be kept alive was the vote bank of the poor. But the Congress party had already run through its bag of false promises for them, and so it seems to have decided that this vote bank of the poor must be kept hungry as well. This they ensured through unchecked spiralling food prices, and by allowing food grains to rot in godowns rather than channelling them into the market to reduce prices. They now believe that they can once again cheat the poor by promising them "food security", which, according to the ordinance, gives them neither food nor security. Anyone who knows the public distribution system knows that it leaks like a

sieve. The Planning Commission's study of 2005 itself records that about 57% of subsidised grains do not reach the target group, of which a little over 36% is siphoned off the supply chain. I wonder if the government is aware of some of the most unsavoury speculation about the food security legislation: that the huge allocation, 60% of which is bound to be siphoned off, is meant to provide funding for the next election, courtesy the established public distribution leakage system, aided and abetted by the pointless money guzzler Aadhar, the cost of which is even higher than the Food Security Bill. The government should be ashamed of mocking poverty as if it were a tamasha or vaudeville. The Planning Commission makes a claim through some unintelligible methodology that poverty has reduced from 37.2% in 2004-2005 to 21.9% in 2011-12, as per the NSSO 68th round, because of their good governance and rising real per capita consumption figures of goods and services. According to them, in 2011-12 for rural areas, the national poverty line by using the Tendulkar methodology is estimated at Rs 816 per capita per month in villages and Rs 1,000 per capita per month in cities. This, per se, drew disbelief and outrage among all sections of society and academia in India. What it meant was that persons whose consumption of goods and services exceed Rs 33.33 in cities and Rs 27.20 per capita per day in villages are not poor. I ask the Planning Commission, the highest think tank of the nation: Have you become so desperate in wanting to fool the nation that you are prepared to expose your academic dementia to the whole world through such inhuman statements? Please note the same NSSO 68th Round shows a decrease of expenditure on food in rural areas from 55% in 2004-05 to 48% in 2011-12. The expenditure on durable goods has gone up from 3.4% to 6.1% in the same period. These are television sets, mobile phones advertised ferociously, that the poor are spending on instead of on proper diets. This is followed by increased expenditure on miscellaneous goods and services that include medical care and education, entertainment, services, toilet articles, transport and rent. The picture is very clear. The poor are consuming less food per capita, but are spending more on capital goods that the government is recklessly importing into the country; they have to spend more on health and education, because public health and education services are either sub-standard or non-existent. Strangely enough, free meals from the mid-day meal programme and ICDS are included in the calculation of the monthly expenditure, but indebtedness is excluded. One need not be a trained economist to see the hoax in the Planning Commission's claims. I hope that the two Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha will read this and act like leaders of opposition and not collaborators, by silence or

somnolence.

ETHICS & POWER

RAM JETHMALANI www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/ramjethmalani Ram Jethmalani is a senior politician and eminent lawyer.

Food Bill does not provide security

Food security requires adequate calories, protein, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins, minerals and other micro-nutrients.

MPs debate over the Food Security Bill in the Lok Sabha in New Delhi on Tuesday. PTI

he government put up the "historic" Food Security Bill for debate on 27 August following the Ordinance that had curiously been promulgated in July 2013. As the election inches closer, the government's heart appears to bleed even more copiously with populism not just for the poor, but for 67% of the people of India. The government had been preparing them meticulously over the last few years through sustained hunger, reduced food consumption, and sky rocketing food prices, in anticipation of the great Barmecidal feast to be spread by the Food Security Bill. It was stated that the Congress was very happy to fulfil the electoral promise of food security for all Indians (during the last six months of the government), that the food bill was meant for the less fortunate sections of our society (thus admitting that under UPA rule 67% of us are less fortunate), that it is time to take this "historic" step, and to send out a big message that India can take responsibility of ensuring food security for all Indians. This legislation is truly "historic". It signifies the desperate and terminal attempt of the politically bankrupt Congress party to somehow strike a chord with the people. Conning

the voter and marketing a delusion of a non-existent El Dorado is all they have left in their bag of tricks. Even a cursory reading of the Bill reveals its misleading and factually incorrect contents, verging on falsehood. By no standards does it provide food or nutritional security as claimed in the preamble. At best, it can be called a "Prevention of Hunger and Starvation Bill", or "Distribution of Subsidized Food Grains Bill". And despite the disinformation and public claim by the Congress, that citizens were getting a "right to food", there is not even a shadow of a "right" in the Bill. Just a word "entitlement" left without definition, and a shadowy grievance redressing mechanism. The concept of food security in society developed through the UN over the 1980s and 1990s. Its agreed definition is "permanent access for all to food, nutritionally adapted in quantity and quality, and culturally acceptable, for a healthy and active life" (World Food Summit of 1996). Nutrition security goes further and "involves physical, economic and social access to a balanced diet, clean drinking water, sanitation and primary health care for every child, woman and man" (Dr M.S. Swaminathan). I am sure the eminent members of the NAC would have known that food security does not mean prevention of starvation, which appears to be the only logical outcome of the Bill. Nor can it be equated with a subsistence dole of 5 kg of subsidized food grains. Food security requires adequate calories, protein, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins, minerals and other micro-nutrients. And most importantly, the benefits of a balanced diet become available only if it is supplemented by basic hygiene, sanitation and clean water. And yet, in its definition, the Bill preposterously equates food security to its 5 kg of food grains, and thinks it can mislead the nation through its false preamble that claims to provide food and nutritional security. 5 kg food grain per person per month translates into an average of 550 calories per day, as against an average requirement of 1,800 calories, putting together various age groups and occupations in a typical household. And these would be calories without necessary protein, fat, vitamins and micronutrients that provide nutritional and food security. And assuming that this does reach the lowest percentile of the poor, it remains to be seen whether it will be a substitute or actually add to the existing diet. It is with this "historic" freebie that six months before the election, that the UPA government has promised that it will ensure food security for all Indians, wipe out hunger and child malnutrition all over the country, and eradicate hunger forever. I can only advise her not to take the people of India as replicas of her sycophants and lackeys,

who can be frightened or fooled, and not indulge in contempt and disdain for the people of our country. The Bill did not forget to pay due homage to another rip-off called Aadhar, to deliver it from the scourge of fake cards. It is well known that the present coverage of Aadhar cards is a mere 30%, and if cash transfers are envisaged through it in place of food grains, bank coverage in rural India is only 5.5%. The Barmecide's Feast certainly has several acts. There is also a lot of talk going around that Aadhar is being dressed up in public good trappings only to conceal another basic objective, and that is providing the commercial world in India and abroad with a data base paid for by the tax payer of India. Don't forget, ours is the largest consumer market that the world lusts for. The last laugh about the Bill is that in reality 92% of it is already being implemented on the ground, on paper, at least. Of the total requirement of 614.3 lakh tonnes food grains required for implementing the Bill, 563.7 lakh tonnes are already being distributed under the existing public distribution system, of which 40-60% (depending upon which report you read) is reportedly diverted at various points wholesale, retail, transportation, or through false invoicing and bogus ration cards and so many other innovative techniques. In fact, several progressive states presently have larger coverage and per capita allocations, and also distribute other essential commodities, like oil and pulses. Tamil Nadu, actually had apprehensions that their coverage and distribution might be reduced by the Food Security Bill. So there will be nothing new in these states, except a shift of the subsidy burden from the states to the Centre, and that is only after the cost sharing patterns, financial allocations, food grain allocations, storage requirements are finalised. The gap states would be those that really do not require a food security law, but a food grain distribution security law, such as, UP, Bihar, Jharkhand. And that would mean dismantling the age-old food distribution corruption systems, which involve politicians, bureaucrats and contractors. Perhaps, it would have been wiser had the Bill stated that implementation mechanisms must be put in place before implementation starts. A blueprint for this should have been prepared well before the launch of the programme. Otherwise, the suspicion that a large part of the food security budget is intended for funding the next election may have some basis. The government seemed concerned about finding budgetary resources for implementation of the Bill. I have an extremely simple and practical suggestion for that. All that the government has to do is follow the Supreme Court order of 4 July 2011 in the Black Money Case, and recover India's money that is stashed in foreign banks. The government is struggling to find Rs 135,000 crore to implement the fraudulent legislation. I am suggesting a way of getting Rs 90 lakh crore. With this the government

will have enough money to add all the calories, protein, oil, vitamins and micronutrients, for providing real food security to the poor of India, not just for this generation, but for several future generations. The dream that hunger and malnutrition in India truly become a thing of the past will be achieved. The country will bless the UPA for that, and it might even win the next election.