Last Sunday evening, Kenyans witnessed a civilian coup. As he announced the final results of the 2007 presidential election, Electoral Commission Chairman Samuel Kivuitu was interrupted by members of the Orange Democratic Movement. They claimed that the results he was reading out were bogus. Minutes later, General Service Unit troops stormed the Kenyatta International Conference Centre plenary hall and ejected t party agents, politicians and journalists including the numerous television crews that had been filming the results live. Samuel Kivuitu was led into the VIP lounge, where he proceeded to declare President Mwai Kibaki the winner of the election, before the State-run Kenya Broadcasting Corporation and a select number of election observers. Half an hour later, the Chief Justice swore in Mwai Kibaki. Minutes later, the country exploded. As the President took his oath of office, ten people were killed in Kisii in western Kenya. Rioting was reported in several areas countrywide. What followed was an orgy of ethnic violence on an unprecedented scale. In the Rift Valley, western Kenya, Coast province, Nyanza and the slums of Nairobi, members of Kibaki’s Kikuyu people were murdered and their homes -and businesses torched. Bands of youth took to the streets all over the country protesting the results. A circular issued from the Ministry of Information on instructions from the Minister of Internal Security banned all live broadcasts. The public was also warned against spreading hate messages via SMS. Rumors began to serve as news as the country fell into a terrible silence. Five days later, the death toll is over 300 around the country, and rising. There are an estimated 70,000 displaced people all over the country. They are mostly Kikuyu but not exclusively so. Beyond ethnicity, their common label is supporters of the Party of National Unity, the vehicle President Kibaki used for his re-election campaign. Towns and businesses have been shut down across the country. Transport has been paralyzed. The opening date for schools has been postponed. Events have moved at an astonishing speed this past week. The EU’s observer mission cast serious doubts over the election result. After two days, Election Commission Chairman Samuel Kivuitu, in an astonishing admission, said that he could not be sure who had won the election. He also revealed that he had been under intense pressure to declare the results as quickly as possible, despite having grave misgivings himself. He [...]
Archive for January 10th, 2008
Posted in 
STICK NO BILLS
January 10th, 2008 
krishna The Delhi Prevention of Property Defacement Act 2007, introduced in the Delhi Assembly recently, makes a depressing reading. According to its provisions, a mere act of putting posters on the walls or writing anything with chalk, paint or any other material can make you liable for a punishment of one year in jail. Additionally, you can be asked to pay a fine of Rs 50,000. The proposed Act is said to be an improved version of the earlier Act in operation in the state, which was considered lenient. Now, any defacement will be a cognisable offence, which means you can be arrested without even getting into the formality of preparing a warrant. The Delhi Government had adopted the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 1976 to penalise those people who were found to be engaged in ‘defacing public property’. It duly arrested around 2,802 people during a short span of two years (2001-2003) while 1,925 people were punished for wall writing, putting posters, stickers and banners. Looking at the stringent provisions in the proposed Act and the way in which a mere act of putting posters would be bracketed as ‘cognisable offence’, one can easily see a spurt in the number of people getting arrested or punished. Interestingly, the period during which this draft Bill was put before the House for discussion, one came across another decision of the government that talked of the government’s move to allow putting ads behind auto-rickshaws. The government expects that it could see a quantum jump in. its revenue. A few months back, the local Municipal Corporation had also decided to allow putting of ads on the radio taxies to increase the size of its coffers. Any layperson could comprehend the rationale behind the contrary approach adopted by the people in power. While on the one hand, it seeks to penalise those people under the spacious plea of ‘defacement of public property’, it has no qualms of any sort about propaganda, if you are in a position to pay for it. It is clear that only moneybags or big corporate houses would be able to avail this opportunity of putting across their message by paying for it and a large majority of the working population of the city who has to struggle hard to make both ends meet would be denied any such opportunity. [...]
CENTER RULE IN NAGALAND
January 10th, 2008 krishna The Union Government is not in the habit of explaining all its decisions that have a bearing on vital public interest. If the confidence motion that Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio won on December 13 last was controversial, President’s rule now imposed by the Centre in the state is no less contentious. No wonder, Mr. Rio and his supporting parties like the BJP are shouting blue murder. They have a point when they say that if the decision of the Speaker to debar three Independents and nine dissidents of the ruling NPF from taking part in the December 13 voting was wrong, then so was a similar decision taken in Goa some time back. But there the Congress government has been allowed to function smoothly. There cannot be separate sets of rules for states ruled by the Congress and other parties. It is really intriguing why the Congress has again opened itself to allegations of gross impropriety by dismissing Mr. Rio just about six weeks before his term was scheduled to end in any case and Assembly elections were due. Not only that, former Lok Sabha Speaker P.A.Sangma has alleged that the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Center did not consult its partners while recommending imposition of President’s rule. His party and the Left parties had vehemently opposed this move. In fact, the Union Cabinet had taken up the matter last week and had devoted considerable time to it. It was felt that the imposition of President’s rule would be politically incorrect as the decision of the Speaker should not be confronted by the Central Government. But later, it succumbed to the pressure exerted by the State Congress leadership. The turbulence caused by the decision has added substance to the allegations by the ousted Chief Minister and Mr. P A Sangma that the Congress is planning to rig the elections. After all, the dissidents of the NPF had sided with the Congress-led Nagaland Progressive Alliance. That made a mockery of anti-defection law. The bigger worry is that the uncertainty brought in by the decision will affect the law and order situation in the highly sensitive North-Eastern state.
