|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Highlights
Of ‘Honour’ & Politics: WB ROW GETS MURKIER, By Insaf, 24 February 2024 |
|
|
Round The States
New Delhi, 24 February 2024
Of ‘Honour’ & Politics
WB ROW GETS MURKIER
By Insaf
Sandeshkhali
in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas district is becoming a political hot potato.
It’s not just the ‘honour’ of the village women but also of the Sikh community
in the State. Tempers are far from being pacified. On the one hand, fresh protests
broke out on Friday last in the village as locals set fire to properties
belonging to TMC leaders Shahjahan Sheikh and his brother Siraj for grabbing
their land and sexually assaulting their women and on the other the Sikh
community staged demonstration in front of BJP office in Kolkata on
Wednesday last, expressing solidarity with an IPS officer who has alleged its party
leader Suvendu Adhikari labelled him
as a ‘Khalistani’, as he was deputed to prevent him from visiting
Sandeshkhali. Similar protests were held by the Sikhs in few districts, and Congress,
AAP and TMC promptly grabbed the opportunity and slammed BJP for ‘divisive
politics.’ While Adhikari denied the allegations, TMC launched a digital
protest with theme “I Am A Sikh, I Wear Turban, & I Am Not Khalistani,” and
demanded an explanation from Prime Minister Modi. Guess it will get a response
on his visit scheduled for 6 March. Will tables be turned?
‘Dictator’
Raids
It’s
happened – outspoken and a critic of Modi government, former J&K Governor
Satya Pal Malik has come under CBI’s radar. Vendetta or it is own goal, is the
big question? On Thursday last, raids were conducted at his premises and 29
other locations, all connected to alleged corruption in Rs 2,200-crore Kiru
Hydropower project in Jammu. Recall, he had claimed being offered Rs 300-crore
bribe for clearing two files, including this project, when he was Governor from
August 23, 2018-October 30, 2019. As premises linked to him in Delhi’s Dwarka,
R K Puram, Asian Games Village and in Gurugram and Baghpat were being searched,
he posted on X: “I have been ill for last 3-4 days and am admitted to hospital.
Despite this, my house is being raided by the dictator through government
agencies. My driver and my assistant are also being raided and harassed
unnecessarily. I am a farmer’s son, I will not be afraid of these raids. I am
with the farmers.’ But CBI said raids covered premises of all involved in the
April 2022 case, prompting him to accuse it of ‘harassing the whistle-blower
himself’! Critic may be more appropriate given record of his statements:
Pulwama terror attack could have been averted if Centre had not turned down his
request for aircraft to move CRPF personnel; farmers can’t be humiliated; if
Modi comes back in 2024 it’s the death of democracy and he must be stopped,
etc. Nothing short of inviting wrath?
Concern
Over Farmers’ Stir
Home
Ministry is tightening the screws on the Punjab government, with the farmers
threatening to put their protest into top gear, with some breaks, following the
death of a farmer at Khanouri border on Wednesday last, amid excessive police
action. Agencies report 14,000-odd people have been allowed to gather at
Shambhu barrier, with nearly 1,200 tractor-trolleys, 300 cars, 10 mini-buses
and other small vehicles. Similarly, Punjab has allowed a gathering of around
4,500 people with close to 500 tractor-trolleys at the Dhabi-Gujran barrier. However,
‘law and order situation is deteriorating’ claims North block and has asked AAP
government to take action to ‘curb disruptive activities’. Task impossible, as
Centre itself has failed to make headway with the farmers’ demands so far.
Plans are afoot now by farmers’ organisations to launch nationwide protests; demanded
Rs 1 crore compensation for farmer’s family; called for ‘tractor pradarshan’
(demonstration) on Monday across the country; organise a mahapanchayat at
Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on 14 March, etc. A stitch in time saves nine, is the
idiom the Centre could do well with.
INDIA Ties-UP
Uttar Pradesh and Delhi offer hope to INDIA bloc with seat-sharing
for Lok Sabha polls between Congress and SP and AAP respectively appears to be
working out. In Lucknow, the grand old party and SP announced on Wednesday last
a tie-up in UP and Madhya Pradesh, with the latter leaving 17 of the 80 seats and
getting a solitary seat Khajuraho respectively.
Interestingly, Congress will contest in high profile constituencies of Raebareli,
Amethi, and Varanasi and SP and allies shall fight rest of 63 seats. More good
news followed. Congress and AAP agreed that former will contest 3 of the seven
seats in Delhi. With all 7 seats with BJP in Delhi, the going is not easy,
particularly for AAP. It has fresh accusations against the saffron party now.
On Friday it claimed BJP was scared of the alliance, had asked it not to have
one, and shall soon get the ED to arrest Kejriwal, following its 7th
summons in the liquor case. The allegations don’t cut much ice as it has agreed
to share seats in Chandigarh, Goa, Gujarat, and Haryana with Congress, but will
go solo in Punjab. Guess, have the cake and eat it too!
Justice
For Chandigarh
Three
cheers to Supreme Court. The ‘rigged’ Chandigarh mayor poll has been set aside.
On Tuesday last, not only did it instal declared defeated AAP-Congress nominee Kuldeep
Kumar to the seat, hurriedly taken by BJP nominee Manoj Sonkar, but found
returning officer Anil Masih ‘guilty of a serious misdemeanour’. It directed a
show cause notice be issued to him under Section 340 of CrPC 1973 (offence
affecting administration of justice), as “Pertinently, this is not an ordinary
case of alleged malpractice by candidates in an election, but electoral
misconduct by presiding officer himself.” Underlining ‘a free and fair electoral
process is imperative for maintaining people’s trust in representative
democracy,’ it said, “The ballots hadn’t been defaced when presiding officer
put his mark at the bottom…each of the eight ballot papers, which were
invalidated by Masih, the votes were duly cast in favour of Kumar…”, thereby
upholding Kumar’s plea. Though Sonkar resigned 48 hours before the order, it
didn’t stop the court to invoke Article 142 (empowering it to pass any decree
or order necessary for doing complete justice in matters pending before it) given
the “brazen nature of the malpractice, visible on camera, had made the situation
all the more extraordinary...’ BJP must see it as a warning, lest it goes pink
again!
No
Balm for Manipur
Too little,
too late, is best way to describe Manipur High Court’s action on Wednesday
last. It ordered the deletion of a paragraph from a March 2023 order that had asked
Biren Singh government to consider including the Meitei community in the ST
list within 4 weeks, which recall triggered the ethnic unrest and set the State
on fire claiming hundreds of lives and displacing thousands. The single bench
justified removal of the paragraph during a review petition saying it
conflicted with Supreme Court’s constitution bench position. In effect, it
accepted the thumb rule that courts shouldn’t overstep their jurisdiction in
determining such categorisations. Recall, the top court when petitioned last
May against that order had criticised it as ‘obnoxious’ as the High Court was
‘absolutely wrong’. However, it had refrained from staying the order as petitions
challenging the order were pending with the larger division bench and invited tribal
participation, particularly from the Kukis. Nearly a year since, the State is
far from returning to normalcy. The ethnic divide between Kuki and Meitei
people is complete. Manipur is divided
almost in two parts. It will take a lot more to bridge the gap. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News &
Feature Alliance)
|
|
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)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 51 - 59 of 5980 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|