In one of his first addresses after becoming PM, Narendra Modi, reiterated what the BJP manifesto had enunciated earlier that the country’s natural resources should be primarily used for local consumption, a concept first brought out by ex-President Abdul Kalam in 1997. BJP’s Lok Sabha manifesto read thus: Those in power have to realize they are just trustees of the resources. The resources are neither meant for them nor for their masters. In recent years, resources have been looted and the proceeds have not gone to the public exchequer due to misallocation. We will set in place national policies on coal, minerals etc spelling out how much should be utilized and how much should be phased out to ensure sustainability. We will implement auction of resources through efficient mechanisms including e-auction.
Manohar Parrikar, Goa’s BJP CM, has confined PM’s speech and BJP’s manifesto to the waste bin. The recent verdict of the Supreme Court on coal allocations emphasizes that such resources cannot be allotted through a process that is non-transparent and non-competitive, thus contravening the right of equality conferred by Art 14 of the Constitution and the cases wherein the public cause is not served on account of state not gaining the fair value of the resources. The auction route promised by BJP would bring in thousands of crores to the state exchequer. But Parrikar, who keeps crying about losses caused by mining ban, decides to hand over public iron ore resources to the privileged few and that too free of cost.
In order to safeguard their jobs/business, GMPF has also demanded renewal of leases claiming that the MMDR Act does not provide for auction. This demand favours the very people who were responsible for their misfortune and refused to entertain their requests for salaries/compensation, which would have been peanuts compared to the loot they earned from illegalities. The Supreme Court, however, holds a different view on MMDR Act and asserts that it neither prescribes nor bars auction. In the Presidential reference it also said that it is for the State to use best method considering the Constitution Art 14 and 39(b). When resources are given to downtrodden people to the extent of their subsistence, the government is not compelled to resort to the maximization of revenue and therefore can avoid auction. But when they are given to wealthy private parties for commercial exploitation, the public exchequer should be fully compensated for the public asset so alienated, it opines. MCR rules allowed dumping outside the lease but the MMDR Act didn’t. The SC declared the dumps as illegal as the rules cannot supersede the Act. Similarly, the MMDR Act cannot supersede Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. (Principle of equality).
What is however most strange is that the “zero tolerance to corruption” Government has allowed the High Court order on renewal of 27 leases to go unchallenged. Strange also that Clause 4 of the Stamp Duty Notification which reads: “in case of rejection of application for renewal, the stamp duty will be refunded to the applicant without interest” was overlooked. Since the provision clearly envisages possibility of rejection of renewal application, it does not amount to an “unequivocal promise” but only a “conditional offer”. Why the highly paid Advocate General chose not to make this point conspicuous to the Hon. Judges is a question that needs answers from the Government. Surely it was to obtain an order favourable to the miners, which is now confirmed by the decision not to appeal against the order. Surely the lease holders would prefer paying refundable stamp duty of approximately 400 crores instead of 30,000 crores in an auction. The lease policy expected by this month end must be kept open at least for a month for suggestions/objections from public and stakeholders.
Exporters of iron ore and others have been harping on foreign exchange to defend exports. But, last year, the Parliamentary Committee on Steel and Coal chaired by MP, Kalyan Bannerjee had recommended a ban on exports of both high and low grade iron ore. They stressed that a strong steel industry is crucial to the development of any modern economy and the growth of steel industry depends on the availability of iron ore. Therefore, they prescribed that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Steel to ensure the availability of iron ore at least for next 50 years. India’s total economically exploitable iron ore reserve is only 8115 million tonnes (MT), while Ministry of Steel has forecasted iron ore requirement of 11000 MT by 2040 and 23300 MT by 2050. This means India will have no iron ore after 2033 or so and will be forced to import 15,000 MT during 2033-50. Due to this, they recommended a ban iron ore exports. They urged the government to prepare a new policy aiming at exporting finished products instead of exporting raw materials. Instead of exporting iron ore worth $ 10 billion, it is better to export steel (converted from the same ore) worth $ 60 billion. Even better is to export automobiles (made from same steel) worth $ 300 billion.
Why is Parrikar offering public mines worth Rs 30,000 crore for paltry stamp duty of around Rs 400 crore? Isn’t this an anti-people offer and a breach of trust on part of the government, which was defending in the Court on behalf of the people of Goa. Can Parrikar come out with a white paper weighing these issues? Or is this a case of “infantile wisdom” which will perhaps be emphasized once again if and when the issue reaches the Supreme Court?
True that mining needs to restart soon mainly to solve people’s woes but when it does it must be ensured that those who have been suffering due to indiscriminate mining are also taken care of. When illegalities were discovered, these unfortunate people who have been protesting, proved to be right. Yet this insensitive government chose not to drop cases filed against them but only against goons. We must not allow mining to restart unless their cases too are withdrawn. In fact GMPF should also demand this justice to their fellow villagers not only benefits for themselves.
(The author is a retired banker)
