|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Diary
UN Veto on Gaza: CALL FOR REFORMS, By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri, 23 February 2024 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 23 February
2024
UN Veto on Gaza
CALL FOR REFORMS
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn for
Democratic Socialism)
The United States vetoed the UN resolution calling for
immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Thirteen out of 15 UN Security
Council members, both permanent and non-permanent, voted in favour, Britain
abstained and US voted against. But, since the five permanent members (P-5)
have the veto powers, the United States vetoed it causing the resolution to be
un-implementable. This is the third time the US has vetoed the resolutions on humanitarian
ceasefire in Gaza: October 18, December 8 in 2023 and now this year, February
20. After the veto, the demand for reform of UN organs has become shriller.
The United States is moving, at the time of writing, an
alternative resolution calling for temporary ceasefire linked to the release of
hostages held by Hamas since 7 October 2023.
On this dark day, Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel killing
over 1200 people and taking 256 Israelis, including women and children, as
hostages. What will happen to this resolution is a matter of time and
speculation. Let us focus on the frustrations and desperations by the
international community on the controversial veto process in the UN. Let us
recall that the veto power has been exercised by all the five members on
numerous occasions.
In the recent past, Russia has used the veto 12 times in
favour of the Syrian government which is guilty of genocide of over 400,000 of
its citizens since 2011. Russia even vetoed a resolution calling for ending the
use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in the civil war. China has vetoed
more than once resolutions on Islamic terrorists working against India, to
declare them ‘global terrorists.’ Russia has been vetoing any resolution in
favour of Ukraine with regard to the ongoing Ukraine war. China is also vetoing
any resolution in favour of Muslim Rohingyas as Beijing completely backs the
military regime of Myanmar.
There is a contentious historical context of the veto power
by P-5 members. The P-5 is now divided broadly into two groups – US, France,
United Kingdom on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. However, all
of them act like a club and the club will not change the rules which take away
their privileges. So has been the case.
The question raised now by many countries is whether it is
just, inclusive or equitable to let five countries impose their will on the
rest 188 member-countries of the world. In fact, in the context of the veto, it
is one country out of five imposing its will on the rest. Is this a fair,
prudent and practical way to run international politics? Admittedly, UN
Security Council has acted in unity in some cases, like military actions
against dictatorial regime of Col. Gaddafi in Libya and sanctions against Iran
etc. But in many cases like the ones cited, the one of the P-5 has been able to
monopolise the peace process, in fact in most cases, derailing it.
Let us remember that the UN was created after the Second
World War in order to prevent succeeding generations ‘from the scourge of war’.
The alternative strategy UN adapted to war consists of diplomacy, mediation and
peace initiatives. But because of the unequal composition of the UN organs,
mainly the UN Security Council, the principal objective of the United Nation
has been defeated; hence the call for reforms of its structure.
India, as the biggest democracy and the most populous
country in the world is leading the campaign on UN Security Council reform. The
principle New Delhi puts forth is ‘equity in global decision making’. This will
redress the historical injustices committed on the Global South; “centuries of
injustices”. India’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations Ambassador
Ruchira Kamboj made a powerful case at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on
Security Council Reform on 16 February.
She forcefully put it, “I think we might all broadly agree
that the historical injustices perpetrated against the Global South can no
longer be ignored. It is time to rectify these disparities by ensuring greater
representation for regions like Asia, Latin America and Africa on the Security
Council through reform in both permanent and non-permanent categories of
membership”.
Furthermore, she elaborated, “Equity demands that every
nation, irrespective of its size or power be afforded an equal opportunity to
shape global decision-making.” She added that equity entails that the voices of
the marginalised and the oppressed be elevated on to the world stage. Including
the members of the Global South into the table will lead to more inclusive
decision-making. Also, an inclusive Council will foster a broader consensus and
legitimacy of its decisions.
Let it be noted that India is not only demanding the
expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership of the
UNSC; New Delhi is also asking for restructuring the decision-making process in
the Council, which includes abolition of the veto power. Unless done so, mere
expansion of the membership will not solve the problem; on the contrary, it
will lead to perpetuation of existing inequities.
There is some wind of reforms blowing from the P-5
countries as well. One hears the talk of embracing the concept of ‘voluntary restraint’.
Prof. Jenifer Trahan discusses this concept in her book ‘Existing Legal Limits
to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes, Chapter 3
focuses on ‘Initiatives to Voluntarily Restraint Veto Use as to the Face of
Atrocity Crimes’. There are six initiatives discussed in the chapter.
She addresses a legal issue here, i.e., whether P-5
countries can legally use the veto in the face of atrocity crimes – which has
serious implications on conflicts, and on the lives of all those affected by
the conflict. Crucially, she establishes the linkage between the exercise of
the veto power and ‘continuing death tolls on the ground’, like it is happening
now in Gaza, Ukraine and other ongoing conflicts.
Heeding the arguments and advice of Prof. Trahan, the world
must do its utmost to ensure that UN charter’s voting provisions (veto) are
never used that facilitates or enables the perpetration of genocide, war crimes
or crimes against humanity.
The second much-talked about reform is the expanding the
membership. The United States, UK and France are apparently open to expansion
whereas China and Russia oppose it. The most potential candidate for permanent
membership of the UNSC are India, Brazil, Japan and Germany which somewhat
operate as G-4. This should happen sooner than later.
To sum up, the United Nations has not been effective in
countering conflicts, preventing wars and restraining belligerence by many
countries. But, without doubt, United Nations has done commendable and critical
developmental as well as humanitarian work. As we scan the multiple development
arms of the United Nations, their works across the globe deserve admiration of
the international community. So, one is not writing the obituary of UN. On the
contrary, if UN did not exist, we had to invent it. More power to United
Nations as it resets its structures and functions.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|
|
The Rajya Sabha And Biennial Poll, By Inder Jit, 22 February 2024 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 22 February
2024
The Rajya Sabha And Biennial Poll
By Inder Jit
(Released on 20 March 1990)
The Rajya Sabha is
again in the news. Fresh biennial elections to the House are under way as
one-third of its members are due to retire soon. The outcome of the poll is of
interest any time. But it has greater significance this year in view of the
stakes involved for the ruling National Front and the Congress-I as the
Opposition. The National Front has to get two of its Cabinet Ministers --- Mr.
P. Upendra and Mr. M.S Gurupadaswamy --- returned to the House and another two
Ministers --- Prof M.G.K. Menon and Dr. Raja Ramanna --- elected to it. The
Congress-I also wants some of its leaders back in Parliament via the Rajya
Sabha. Prominent among these are Mr. Buta Singh, Mr. M.L. Fotedar, Mrs.
Mohisina Kidwai, Mr. Balram Jakhar and Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad. It is also eager
to get two of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s close aides --- Mr. R.K. Dhawan and Mr. Mani
Shankar Aiyer --- elected to the House. The BJP and the Left parties, for their
part, are not far behind. They, too, are trying to get some of their prominent
leaders elected from wherever possible.
In the process, the
ruling National Front, the Congress-I and other major parties are poised to
trample the Constitution both in its letter and spirit, ignoring the basic
scheme of the Rajya Sabha in India’s Union of States. Under
the Constitution, any voter in India can contest an election to the Lok Sabha
from anywhere in the country. But the same is not permitted for the Rajya
Sabha. Each member represents a State and is therefore elected by the members
of the Assembly of that State alone. Further, he has to be a registered voter
in the State and is required to be ordinarily a resident of that State. This
principle has been repeatedly undermined and the Constitution violated since
the time of Indira Gandhi. Mrs. Gandhi had, for instance, Mr. Pranab
Mukherjee, her Finance Minister, elected to the Rajya Sabha from Gujarat,
following his defeat in the Lok Sabha poll from his home State of West Bengal
in 1980. At present, we have Mr. Shiv Shankar elected from Gujarat and Mr. M.L.
Fotedar from U.P.
All this has come to
be accepted, thanks mainly to ignorance about the Rajya Sabha and its role. The
Rajya Sabha is not the Upper House or the Second Chamber, an expression which
connotes an inferior position. It has a status of its own and a specific role
to play unlike the House of Lords. In fact, Nehru made his position abundantly
clear in 1953 when a controversy erupted in regard to the respective powers of
the two Houses. He then stated the following in the Rajya Sabha on May 6, 1953:
“Under our Constitution, Parliament consists of two Houses, each functioning in
the allotted sphere laid down in the Constitution. We derive authority from the
Constitution. Sometimes we refer to the practice and conventions prevailing in
the United Kingdom… Our guide must, however, be our own Constitution… To call
either of these Houses as Upper House or a Lower House is not correct…Neither
House by itself constitutes Parliament. It is the two Houses together that are
the Parliament of India…”
Some basic facts about
the Rajya Sabha require to be restated. The Rajya Sabha cannot pass a vote of
no-confidence against the Council of Ministers. Nor is the Council of Ministers
under any obligation to resign if defeated on the floor of the House. The Rajya
Sabha’s powers in relation to financial matters and the budget are also much less
than those of the Lok Sabha. It has the power to discuss the budget. But it is
barred from either rejecting or amending a money bill. It can only make
recommendations to the Lok Sabha which the latter may or may not accept. A
money bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses of Parliament if the
Lok Sabha declines to accept the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya
Sabha also appears to suffer a certain disability in a joint session of the two
Houses because of its numerical weakness --- its membership is limited to 250
as against 544 of the Lok Sabha. Nevertheless, the Rajya Sabha is invested with
certain special powers which add to its prestige and dignity.
The Constitution bars
the Lok Sabha from legislating in regard to matters specified in the State
List. However, the Rajya Sabha as the Council of States and representing the
federal principle is specially empowered under Article 249 to make it lawful
for Parliament to enact “in the national interest” legislation in regard to any
matter enumerated in the State List for the whole or any part of India. Again,
under Article 312(1) of the Constitution, the Rajya Sabha alone can empower
Parliament to create in the national interest one or more all India services
common to the Union and/or States. In exercise of this power, the Rajya Sabha
passed in 1961 a resolution for the creation of the Indian Service for
Engineers, the Indian Forest Service and the Indian Medical Health Service. A
similar resolution for the creation of the Indian Agricultural Service and the
Indian Educational Service was passed in 1965 by the Rajya Sabha by not less
than two-thirds of its members present and voting, a constitutional requirement.
One other aspect of
the Rajya Sabha needs to be emphasized. The Constitution makers wanted the
House to consist of persons of greater experience and eminence. They,
therefore, deliberately opted for three things. First, indirect elections from
the State legislatures. Second, fixation of minimum age for membership at 30
years as against 25 for the Lok Sabha. Third, nomination by the President of 12
persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of
literature, science, art and social service.” But the hopes roused by the
Constitution have been belied during the past two decades. The provision has
been diluted and distorted unconscionably. Several eminent men adorned the
Rajya Sabha during Nehru’s time and for some years thereafter. They included
educationists like Dr. Zakir Hussain and Dr. P.V. Kane, an authority in
Dharmashastras, historians like Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji and Dr. Tara Chand,
scientists like Satyendranath Bose, poets like Maithilisharan Gupta and
Harivansh Rai Bachchan and artists like Rukmini Devi Arundale and Prithiviraj
Kapoor.
Indira Gandhi misused the provision to provide a convenient
berth in the Rajya Sabha for
ex-Ministers such as Mr. Mohanlal Saksena and Mr. Jairamds Daulatram, a
Congress-I General Secretary, Mrs. M. Chandrashkhar and some others undeserving
of nomination. Last year, the Rajiv Gandhi Government nominated four partymen:
Mr. B.N. Pande, Mr. S.P. Mittal, Syeda Anwara Taimur (Assam’s former Chief
Minister) and Mr. M.L. Bhatia. Astonishingly thereafter, it chose Mr. Justice
M.H. Beg, formerly Chief Justice of India, for a vacancy. Mr. Justice Beg,
however, passed away a few days before the formalities could be completed.
Mohd. Yunus was then nominated in his place, causing all round surprise. Not
only that. Independent persons have been encouraged over the years to become
members of the ruling party, making a mockery of the Constitution whereunder
these members are barred from voting in the Presidential poll to emphasise
their non-alignment and independence. At least eight of the 12 nominated
members today are members of the Congress-I in violation of the Constitution
and its spirit.
Surprisingly, there is
serious talk at the time of writing that Dr. Raja Ramanna, Minister of State
for Defence, and Prof M.G.K. Menon, Minister of State for Science and
Technology are likely to be nominated to enable them to continue as Ministers.
Undoubtedly, Dr. Ramanna and Prof Menon are eminent scientists. Both qualify
for nominations to the Rajya Sabha. But it would be wholly wrong to nominate
them to enable them to continue as Ministers. A Union Minister told me in
Parliament on Friday: “There is no bar to the appointment of nominated members
as Ministers.” Yes, technically. But, as I explained to him, nomination of ministers
would go against the spirit of the Constitution and the unwritten convention.
Prof Nurul Hasan, presently Governor of West Bengal, honourably resigned his
nominated membership of the Rajya Sabha when Mrs. Gandhi invited him to join
her Council of Ministers. Nehru in his time inducted a good few eminent
non-partymen into his Cabinet, such as John Mathai and C.D. Deshmukh. All were,
however, elected to Parliament. Not one was nominated.
Where do we go from
here? Both Mr. V.P. Singh and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi need to find honourable ways of
bringing their party or non-party colleagues into Parliament --- and to desist
from violating the constitution and healthy conventions. In the present case,
only voters who are genuine residents in one State or another should represent
that State in the Rajya Sabha. For instance, Mr. Buta Singh, could be found a
safe seat for the Lok Sabha in Karnataka and a sitting member of the House from
that State provided a berth in the Rajya Sabha. Dr. Ramanna should be found a
place in the Rajya Sabha from his home State or a safe seat in the Lok Sabha.
Two points need to be borne in mind in the final analysis. The Rajya Sabha is
not the Second Chamber or the Upper House but the Council of States,
representing India’s federal character. Nominated members represent the
country’s conscience. They are expected to speak up loud and clear in the best
interest of the nation, not of any party. --- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Farmers’ Fresh Stir: ARE THEIR DEMANDS JUSTFIED?, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 21 February 2024 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 21 February 2024
Farmers’ Fresh Stir
ARE THEIR DEMANDS JUSTFIED?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The
conferment of Bharat Ratna to the late M.S. Swaminathan brings to the forefront
the subject of farmers and their conditions of life and living for which the
agricultural scientists had a definite contribution. But just after that, there
has been a fresh agitation by farmers with various demands which include
legally binding minimum support price (MSP) of 23 crops.
It is
well known that MSP is fixed at a level of at least 1.5 times of the all
paid-out costs incurred by farmers.Experts have opined that this should receive
a statutory legal backing and the MSP should be fixed at 50% above the
comprehensive cost of production which includes actual cost incurred to grow
crops and assumed values for other items such as family labour, fertilisers and
chemicals etc.
With no
legal backing, it is a fact that over 80% of the country’s farmers have been
unable to sell their crops at the MSPs fixed by the government. Most analysts
believe that the ruling dispensation has little concern for the farming
community and is not serious in ensuring how their income increases.
However,
it is quite benevolent towards the rich and reports indicate that the ruling
party has allowed tax concessions of around Rs 1 lakh crore every year to
Indian domestic corporate houses but most of them were not increasing their
investments. According to Prof. Atul Sood of the Centre for the Study of
Regional Development, JNU, multinational companies were involved in tax abuse
to the tune of Rs 75,000 crore per annum.
Meanwhile,
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi recently at Chhattisgarh
maintained that the party’s government would accept all the demands of the
farmers, apart from a law guaranteeing MSP. In fact, Kharge unequivocally
stated that the Congress has decided to implement the Swaminathan Commission
recommendations, which are accepted to change the lives of 15 crore farming
families. Recalling the unfulfilled promises made since 2014, the party
president recalled Modi’s had said that “farmers’ incomes will be doubled” and
promised “Rs 15 lakh in every account and two crore jobs every year”. Now other
guarantees are being given, which they contend are also false.
The
Congress recalled that consistently Modi, since his days as Gujarat chief
minister, had advocated MSP and went back on his words after becoming Prime Minister.
It is a known fact that he endeared himself to the farmers in North India only
through his public pledge for 50% profit over input cost and doubling their
income to 2022. Congress spokesperson, Pawan Khera, showed videos of Modi’s
affirmations on MSP and Swaminathan recommendations and also referred to the
Report of the Working Group on Consumer Affairs in March 2011 which, under his
chairmanship, had said that “higher prices would motivate farmers to increase
production”. However, the government took a U-turn and in an affidavit in the
Supreme Court pointed out that giving 50% profit plus input cost was impossible.
According
to government sources, farmers from both Punjab and Haryana benefited immensely
from increased procurement of paddy and wheat at MSP as well as from multiple
farm schemes during the last 10 years under NDA compared to the previous
10-year period when UPA was in office. In the case of Punjab, total procurement
of paddy in 10 years of UPA (2004-05 to 2013-14) was 1263 lakh metric tonnes
(LMT) which went up to 1686 LMT during the NDA government (2014-15 to 2023-24).
Similar has been the case of Haryana.
Meanwhile,
an analysis by the Commission for Agricultural Costs & Prices (CACP) showed
that farmers in Punjab are already getting MSP that is 50% higher than the
comprehensive cost (C2). Applying C2+50% formula in Punjab results in a cost of
Rs 1503 a quintal while the current MSP is Rs 2275 a quintal, which is 51%
higher than the comprehensive cost (C2) or Swaminathan Committee formula.
However, the comprehensive cost for a farmer growing the same commodity in
Bihar and Bengal works out to Rs 1745 a quintal and Rs 2003 respectively. This
means that they are getting less than 50% over the comprehensive costs under
the C2+50% formula.
Apart
from MSP procurement, experts have suggested the need for a more decentralised
and dynamic framework that might play a role in supporting sustainable,
agro-ecological and economic transitions across different regions. The
government needs to look into this aspect to ensure that small farmers at the
grass-root level get the right price for their produce.
While
Europe’s farmers are protesting the EU’s drive to fight climate change, among
other issues, Indian growers are more focused on state-set assured prices for
their crops. They also want the government to honour a promise to double their
incomes, complaining that costs of cultivation have jumped over the past few
years while incomes have stagnated, making farming a loss-making enterprise.
With a
stagnant rural sector and a huge population dependent on agriculture, there is
an imperative need to make agriculture more profitable. It goes without saying
that the path shown by Swaminathan is evolving an integrated approach can help
solve the challenges facing Indian agriculture. The objectives of government
policy should be to develop an effective system, based on research and modern
technological inputs to facilitate high productivity and ensure crop
diversification for value addition and increasing incomes of farmers for which
training programmes for small farmers are needed.
In this
connection, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research should provide inputs
about crop diversification suited in specific areas and set up experimental
farms in this regard, preferably at the block level. Unless this is done at the
grass-root level, it would be difficult for farm incomes to increase. The
approach should be to target over 80% of farming households having a holding
size of less than a hectare.
Additionally,
there have been suggestions to set up farm management cooperatives that would
manage for a fee, i.e., increase productivity without any rights to the land.
These farms would benefit from economies of scale and their owners would have
the option of seeking non-farm work. But even the allocation for the flagship
scheme MGNREGA cannot guarantee employment for more than 40 days.
The
point that needs to be stressed is that if industry can be given so many
incentives, why not agriculture, which employs a huge section of the
population. Moreover, agriculture contributes 17% to India’s economy. But
corporate houses are powerful enough to extract benefits from the government
while agriculture, though providing food to livelihood to a substantial section,
cannot get the attention it needs. Even food and fertiliser subsidy is being
criticised though nobody talks about the incentives given to industry for their
new projects or expansion plans.
If the
country has to develop in a balanced manner, the ruling dispensation has to
give sufficient attention to the rural and farm sectors as they cannot be
allowed to languish. Some economists have stated that if the farmers’ demands
for MSP are met, there may be food inflation. It can only be said that there is
no justification of the rural poor subsidising the rich and middle- income
sections through cheap food when prices of all other items have escalated.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Farmers Protest 2.0: WILL GRIPE REAP DIVIDEND?, By Poonam I Kaushish, 20 February 2024 |
|
|
Political Diary
New Delhi, 20 February 2024
Farmers Protest 2.0
WILL GRIPE REAP DIVIDEND?
By Poonam I Kaushish
In this silly political season when Parties are gearing up
for general elections, protests are the current flavor. On one end, Government is
busy grappling with Punjab-Haryana-UP farmers’ demanding Government's guarantee
on Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crop production in a repeat of their
2020–2021 protest, for over a week.
Camping in Capital Delhi’s 200 kms radius fortified with concrete
blocks, metal barricades, barbed wire and nail strips, Samyukt Kisan Morcha has
rejected Government’s offer of five-year contract to buy pulses, maize and
cotton at old MSP.
West Bengal too is witness to protests over Sandeshkhali
violence with women alleging sexual assault by TMC strongman Shahjahan Shiekh
and his cahoots. What to speak of AAP’s
remonstration against BJP over inflated water bills in Delhi, down pro-Kannada
gripe on English signboards in Bengaluru or Maharashtra’s Maratha leader’s recent hunger strike
demanding reservation for his community and Tamil Naidu’s complaint against
Karnataka over Cauvery water sharing.
Curse all you want but India thrives on protests aka bandh-hartal, chakka jams. The voice of resistance. The voice that says,
enough is enough, which has perfected the saying “jiski laathi uski bhains”! The cause is immaterial. It is all
about registering ones dissent, the louder the better. Success is measured in
terms of causing maximum dislocation and discomfiture to people bringing work
to a standstill. Wherein a person’s freedom ends at the tip of the others nose!
Over the last 10 years India has witnessed number of
protests cutting across cities, classes and communities, from farmers,
students, Dalits, Muslims to women. From the Anna Hazare protest 2007, Nirbhaya
2012, Shaheen Bagh and Citizenship Amendment Act December 2019 to 2021 farmers’
Bharat Bandh and its encore today.
Raising a moot point: What role do protests/ bandhs play in our functioning
representative democracy? Are strikes actually expression of freedom or are
they means of suppressing fundamental rights in a democracy? Why do protestors
resort to this measure? Is the cause
valid? Is the State being unjust or unreasonable?
Importantly, will sit-ins on roads be the new grammar of Naya Bharat’s protests? Is it the new
political paradigm of dissent? To keep its flock together? Ignominy of becoming
irrelevant? Or political considerations?
Why are they allowed, despite innumerable court rulings banning them?
Undoubtedly, protest is an exciting word, sustenance of
democracy, a fundamental right to bring to Government’s notice what is not
acceptable or odious and a catchphrase for free speech. But sweeping and
uncompromising politics of heads-I- win-tails-you-lose on laws is unjustifiable.
Each protest sows hope that the gripe would reap dividend
as people take to streets to defend their rights and Constitutional integrity
against attacks, even from Government. Sure, some laws are changed, some
repealed, some guilty punished, some systems established and on some Government
refuses to budge.
Scandalously, India lost 36.94 lakh man-days in 210 strikes
and lockouts in public and private sectors in the past four years with Kerala,
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka topping the list, according to Labour and Employment
Ministry data. The public sector lost highest number of man-days 19.91 lakh in
89 strikes 2018-20.
Part of the current paradox is explained by the changed
notion of protest. The original concept was centred on the logic the only way
for a disempowered people group to shake the system was agitate, from gherao for more wages to voluntary hartal against policy decisions. But
slowly perversion set in. A strike could be effective only if stoppage of work
could not be overcome easily by the system. Consequently, strikers use their
power base, including violence, to stall anything that spells change from
routine.
Gone are the days when it took months or days to plan a
protest. In today’s digital-AI world it is easy to organize dissent. Remember
Nirbhaya outpourings started with a SMS or Hazare’s dharna reflection of “people power" who came out in droves
against endemic corruption during UPA II.
Besides, it is easy to identify classic protestors who
believe in the cause, others join as they have nothing better to do, few as it
is ‘fashionable’. Some are interested in “épater
la bourgeoisie" (shock the bourgeoisie) than in coming up with viable
solution for the cause they are protesting against.
Many simply shrug off protests as “sab chalta hai, this is Mera
Bharat Mahan at its rudest and crassest best.” Some assert “ki pharak painda hai.” Indeed, India has travelled a long way from
Lokmanya Tilak’s “Swaraj is my birthright” to “protest is my birthright.”
Today, some section of society plans strike as a matter of routine to stall
anything that spells change from routine.
As India marches ahead, are protests the right recourse?
Certainly, Constitution guarantees right to protest, but it does not guarantee
right to infringe upon others rights. Unfortunately, our strikers fail to
realize that strikes negate the basic concept of democracy. These are just a
camouflage for non-performance, self-glorification, to flex their might and
muscle, gain sympathy or wriggle out of working hard.
Remember, democracy is neither mobocracy nor license to
create bedlam. It’s a fine balance between rights and duties, liberties and
responsibilities. One’s freedom pre-supposes another’s responsibilities and
liberty. Importantly, protests cannot set things right but only create
psychological pressure on Government.
Yet unending dissent just to muscle the Government to bend
only threatens to undermine the legitimacy of Indian democracy. Unless
protesters have a viable alternative to offer, continuing a strike could lead
to chilling chaos and mob tyranny. Alongside, human casualties and damage to
economy and businesses.
Paralysing the State, black-mailing corporates, industries
to get attention and policy reversals, xasperates and inconveniences the public, cuts
off money flow, shoos off investors and endangers their own jobs.
Time has come to take a leaf from US law, wherein there is
no Constitutional right to make a speech on a highway or near about, so as to
cause a crowd to gather and obstruct the highway. The right to assembly is to
be so exercised as not to conflict with other lawful rights, interests and
comfort of individual or public and public order.
In UK, Public Order Act, 1935 makes it an offence for any
person in uniform to attend any public meeting, signifying his association with
any political organization. The
Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, makes it an offence to carry any weapon in any
‘public place’ without lawful authority.
The Seditious Meetings Act, 1817 prohibits meetings of more than 50
persons within a mile of Westminster Hall during Parliament sittings.
We need to remember India is a civilized democracy, whereby,
a citizen’s right is paramount. The question we all need to ask is: Can we
afford protests at all, leave aside for what purpose it may have been called?
At some point we have to stand up and bellow, “Bandh karo ye bandh!
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Delhi Vote Trust AAP SURPRISES BJP!: By Insaf, 19 February |
|
|
Round The States
New
Delhi, 19 February 2024
Delhi Vote Trust
AAP SURPRISES BJP!
By Insaf
Delhi
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal undeniably has a knack for springing surprises. This
time he would have stumped rival BJP with his decision to seek vote of
confidence when it wasn’t called for. On Saturday last, his AAP won the trust
vote in the 70-member Assembly allowing him to assert his party has emerged as
the biggest challenger to BJP, which “wants to crush it by any means”. He got the
support of 54 MLAs present of his 64 flock (some in jail, unwell, attending
wedding etc) and claimed no legislator had defected, though BJP was
consistently ‘trying to poach’. The BJP said there was no need for the
confidence motion as AAP government enjoys a majority, ‘but Kejriwal has lost people’s
confidence’, as he was involved in corruption cases, including the liquor scam
and wasn’t cooperating with the police probe on its complaint over MLA poaching
allegations, etc. In his usual style, Kejriwal hit back saying BJP wants to
dissolve the Assembly after Lok Sabha polls and the city will be governed as a
UT, adding if the BJP faces any threat, it’s from AAP. Clearly, he is making
solid grounds for his campaign to retain Delhi, in same way as he is skirting
the ED. He will not be appearing in person for its next summons as he’s busy
with the Budget session. All eyes would be on what’s next on his sleeve.
* * * *
Determined
Farmers
Stopped
from marching to national capital Delhi, protesting farmers have decided to
stay put at the Shambhu and Khanauri points of Punjab-Haryana border. In
addition, they are holding tractor marches at several places and dharnas at BJP
leaders’ residences as 3 rounds of talks with Modi government have made no
headway. Interestingly, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann has become
their mediator as he too is fighting with Centre. Other than the ‘Bharat bandh”
on Friday, plans to intensify the stir have been spelt out: BharatiyaKisan
Union will stage dharnas in UP and Uttarakhand on Wednesday, and the Samyukta
Kisan Morcha is to launch a tractor march to Delhi end-February; in Tamil Nadu,
farmers from various farm associations tried to stage a ‘rail roko’ protest at
Thanjavur station. The big question is whether the government will yield and to
what extent. The list of demands is long -- a legal guarantee for MSP,
implementation of Swaminathan Commission’s recommendations, farm debt waiver,
pension for farmers and farm labourers, withdrawal of police cases during
2020-21 agitation, etc. Remember, Prime Minister Modi had the ‘Kisan’ on his
list of the four pillars of Viksit Bharat! Convincing?
* * * *
Regional Parties Affected?
Opposition parties and civil society groups are upbeat with Supreme
Court’s Thursday order annulling the electoral bonds scheme for political
funding, giving the right to the people to know who gives money to parties.
While it’s being seen as a big blow to the BJP, which got 55% (Rs 6,565 crore)
of the lion’s share of bonds accounting for Rs 12,000 crore funds last fiscal, regional
parties too shall be affected and moresothose which are in power. As per data of
the ADR, while Congress came second to BJP, the BRS then in power in
Telangana got Rs 529 crore, the TMC in West Bengal received Rs 325 crore, DMK in
Tamil Nadu Rs 185 crore, BJD in Odisha Rs 152 crore and opposition TDP in
Andhra Pradesh Rs 34 crore. Interestingly, the SPin Uttar Pradesh saw nil
contribution to its electoral bonds and SAD in Punjab too drew a big zero. Importantly,
nearly half of funds in these bonds have come from corporates and it needs to
be seen how these parties will scramble for funds to fight the big electoral
battle of 2024. Jubilation over the top court’s verdict may be subdued at the
end of the day.
* * * *
WB Village Trouble
Another episode of Governor-Chief Minister tussle surfaces in
West Bengal. This time over the political storm brewing in Sandeshkhali village
in North 24 Parganas district. On Saturday, Governor Ananda Bose said Raj
Bhavan doors are open for victimised women who ‘can come and stay as shelter,
food and security will be provided.’ This on the heels of National Commission
for Scheduled Castes recommending President’s rule in the state after
submitting its report to President Murmu. Past month has seen protests in the
village after scores of women accused local TMC leader Shahjahan Sheikh,
absconding since January 5 after ED raids of he and his men forcibly grabbing their
land for prawn cultivation, torturing and sexually harassing them for several
years!Besides, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
has sought a probe into the assault on a woman and ‘throwing away of her infant
daughter’ by miscreants. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has reacted saying so far 17 persons have
been arrested plus an all-woman police team isin the village to listen to the women’s
grievances. Will it douse the fire?
* * * *
Bihar Vendetta Review
Bihar former Deputy Chief Minister TejashwiYadavand his RJD
must be on tenterhooks. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has ordered a review of all
decisions taken by departments of Health, Road Construction, Urban Development
and Housing and Rural Works, headed by him in the previous government. A review
will also be done of Public Health Engineering Department and Mines and Geology
Department, under two former RJD ministers, Lalit Yadav and Ramanand Yadav.
Nitish, says the JD(U), has a ‘zero tolerance’ policy against corruption and he
had said: “I gave them (RJD leaders) respect, but
they indulged in corrupt practices. Will launch a probe against alleged
corruption by RJD leaders in the previous government”. The RJD reacted saying
‘the party isn’t scared of any review, let them (NDA government) do whatever
they want to’, adding ‘the CM and BJP are scared of our leader (Tejashwi); previous
Mahagathbandhan government undertook lot of welfare initiatives such as
employment and social security, benefitting lakhs of people.’Putting on a
strong face may not work though!
* * * *
Jharkhand
Cabinet Discontent
All is not well in the newly-formed Champai Soren-led
government in Jharkhand. Trouble is brewing as the Chief Minister inducted 8
new ministers, including former Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s brother Basant Soren,
on Friday last.While a JMM MLA is peeved over being ‘dropped’ from the list last
minute under pressure from Congress and threatening to contest as an
independent candidate in Assembly polls, dissidence is brewing in Congress. A
letter signed by 12 MLAs has been handed over to state party chief and 8 MLAs
have joined in him in Delhi to resolve the issue. Their grudge is ‘repetition of 4 ministers from the party’s quota’ in
the 12-member Cabinet, whereas they ‘wanted an opportunity this time.’ Champai
will need to act to keep the JMM-led alliance of 47 MLAs (JMM-29, Congress-17
and RJD one) intact and not allow the BJP to take advantage of the heartburn.
Sooner the better. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
|
More...
-
Farmers Protest: GLOBAL, GOVT MUST LISTEN, By Shivaji Sarkar, 16 February 2024
-
Modi In UAE: REACHING NEW HEIGHTS, By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri, 17 February 2024
-
POLL BODY, PRESSURES & INDEPENDENCE, By Inder Jit, 15 February 2024
-
White & Black Papers: POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK?, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 14 February 2024
| << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 55 - 63 of 5983 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|