Enforced disappearances from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, people kept in secret detentions

July 13, 2019

While the views of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on alleged human rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir are well-known, and have been widely published, OHCHR has forcefully criticized human rights violations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), which the UN body refers to as Pakistan-Administered Kashmir. Excerpts from the OHCHR’s latest report:

Pakistan-Administered Kashmir* comprises two administrative regions: Azad Jammu and Kashmir* (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B). In the June 2018 report, OHCHR noted that, the human rights violations in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir are of a different calibre or magnitude and of a more structural nature than those in Indian-Administered Kashmir. OHCHR made several recommendations to the Pakistani authorities to address these issues. In its response to OHCHR’s observations in the June 2018 report, the Government of Pakistan maintained that the constitutional and legal structures of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan adequately protect the rights of its citizens. However, OHCHR’s monitoring and analysis found that these concerns remain. Both regions introduced constitutional changes, but failed to address the main elements that restrict the full enjoyment of all human rights for people living in these regions.

The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed the 13th amendment to its Interim Constitution on 2 June 2018 altering the Kashmir Council’s role to an advisory one. While Pakistani authorities said the amended Interim Constitution will “empower the AJK legislative assembly”, India protested the move. Azad Jammu and Kashmir political leaders suggested that by changing the role of the Kashmir Council to an advisory body, more powers had been shifted to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir Council, dominated by Pakistani federal authorities, was vested with wide-ranging powers, including the authority to appoint and dismiss judges of the superior courts in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner. However, the 13th amendment actually transferred the Kashmir Council’s powers to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

On 22 May 2018, the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan promulgated the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 to replace the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order 2009. The promulgation was met with widespread protests in Gilgit-Baltistan including by mainstream political parties, pro-independence groups and civil society organizations with demands for full democratic rights and representation. On 20 June 2018, the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan suspended the new order. On 17 January 2019, the Supreme Court of Pakistan restored the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018, warned Pakistani authorities against changing the status of Gilgit-Baltistan until a referendum was conducted and extended its own powers over the region. After the Supreme Court judgement, Pakistan’s Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan introduced a new document titled Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Reforms, 2019. This document is identical to the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018.

Unlike Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Indian-Administered Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan does not have a law that reserves the right to own land only to its permanent residents.

Pakistan’s National Commission for Human Rights does not have any jurisdiction over Azad Jammu and Kashmir, but exercises direct jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan.

Restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and association
In the June 2018 report, OHCHR highlighted that the Interim Constitution of Azad Jammu and Kashmir places several restrictions on anyone criticizing the region’s accession to Pakistan, in contravention of Pakistan’s commitments to uphold the rights to freedoms of expression and opinion, assembly and association. OHCHR recommended that Pakistani and Azad Jammu and Kashmir authorities bring these laws into compliance with international human rights standards. However, the amended Interim Constitution of 2018 has retained the clauses that directly contravene international human rights law. It explicitly continues to state, “[N]o person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan.”

Azad Jammu and Kashmir’s electoral law has not been amended, and it continues to disqualify anyone running for elected office who does not sign a declaration that says, “[I] have consented to the above nomination and that I am not subject to any disqualification for being, or being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly and in particular I solemnly declare that I believe in the Ideology of Pakistan, the Ideology of State’s Accession to Pakistan and the integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan.”

Authorities in Gilgit-Baltistan also failed to amend similar provisions in the region’s governance rules that restrict the rights to freedoms of expression and opinion, assembly and association. The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 and the updated Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Reforms, 2019 retain the same language limiting freedom of association from the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009. The Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Reforms, 2019 states, “[N]o person or political party in the area comprising Gilgit-Baltistan shall propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of Pakistan.”

A prominent Pakistani NGO criticised the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 for failing to protect the fundamental freedoms of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) said, “[I]n claiming to grant the people of [Gilgit-Baltistan] their fundamental freedoms, the [Gilgit-Baltistan] Order has clipped their right to freedom of association and expression. It has denied any Gilgit-Baltistani the right to become a chief judge of the Supreme Appellate Court or to have any say in internal security. Above all, it has disregarded people’s needs despite continual public pressure in [Gilgit-Baltistan] to address their problems fairly and in accordance with local aspirations.”

After the Supreme Court of Pakistan restored the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 in January 2019, the HRCP called on Pakistan’s President to delay the enforcement of the order “pending necessary consultations with the people of Gilgit-Baltistan”. In a letter sent to Pakistan President Arif Alvi, the HRCP reiterated its earlier observation that “the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 was a step backwards as compared to the previous order issued in 2009, i.e. the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order 2009. The democratically minded people of Gilgit-Baltistan have long been fighting for the recognition of their fundamental rights.”

Members of nationalist and pro-independence political parties claim that they regularly face threats, intimidation and even arrests for their political activities from local authorities or intelligence agencies. They said often threats are also directed at their family members including children. Such intense pressure has reportedly forced many to either flee Pakistan and continue their political activities in exile or stop them completely.

In November 2018, 19 activists of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front were charged with “treason” for organising a rally in Kotli area of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Protesters raised slogans that called on India and Pakistan to demilitarize and leave Kashmir. On 15 March 2019, 30 members of the Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation were arbitrarily detained by Pakistani law enforcement agencies while protesting at the Rawalpindi Press Club in Rawalpindi. The Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation members were reportedly demanding Kashmiri independence from Pakistan. They were held incommunicado before being released on 20 March 2019 after a court intervention. The Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation allege that the Pakistani authorities did not release their former president, Sardar Talah, who was also detained at the same venue on 15 March 2019 and have expressed concerns for his well-being.

While the 13th amendment has reportedly transferred most powers to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, media owners in the region still have to obtain permission to publish from the Kashmir Council and the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs.

According to journalists working in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, media houses continue to practice self-censorship as a means of avoiding harassment from security agencies and not losing government advertisements, which are the main source of revenue. Journalists claim local administrators use the advertisement revenue as a “carrot and stick” policy with media owners in order to get favourable news published, reduce coverage of their political opponents and censor any criticism of Pakistan by political groups or civil society members.

Journalists in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir continue to face threats and harassment in the course of carrying out their professional duties. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an anti-terrorism court in Gilgit-Baltistan sentenced journalist Shabbir Siham in absentia to 22 years in prison and fined him 500,000 Pakistani Rupees (USD 4,300) on charges of defamation, criminal intimidation, committing acts of terrorism, and absconding from court proceedings. Shabbir Siham was accused of “fabrication and extorting a regional minister in violation of Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act, after he wrote an article for the Daily Times newspaper accusing legislators from Gilgit-Baltistan of involvement in human trafficking and prostitution.” Shabbir Siham told CPJ that he did not appear before the court due to security concerns.

On 21 November 2018, Gilgit-Baltistan authorities arrested journalist Muhammad Qasim Qasimi after he engaged in a verbal argument with a local police official. The newspaper that he worked for reported that he may have been arrested to prevent the publication of his story on a corruption scandal in the local government. According to CPJ, Qasimi has been charged with “criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, defamation, threat of injury to public servant, and obstructing a public servant in discharge of public functions.”

According to the International Crisis Group (ICG), Pakistani intelligence officials have also warned journalists in Gilgit-Baltistan against criticising the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects.

Business and human rights
Several major projects have been proposed in Gilgit-Baltistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is seen as a major infrastructure development boost for the region. While CPEC has raised expectations of bringing development to an impoverished region, civil society groups say the initial optimism has been replaced by disappointment and a sense of outrage.

According to ICG, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan are resentful because they feel CPEC projects were “designed and implemented without their input” and “will be of little benefit to them”. Environmental activists and local communities have also raised concerns about the ecological impact of largescale infrastructure projects. Locals believe most CPEC jobs would go to outsiders from Pakistani provinces and they fear this “could also affect Gilgit-Baltistan’s delicate Sunni-Shia demographic balance.” ICG concludes, “the state’s response to local dissent and alienation has been an overbearing security presence, marked by army checkpoints, intimidation and harassment of local residents, and crackdowns on anti-CPEC protest.”
The fashion in which the CPEC projects are being implemented raises issues in relation to the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Pakistan is State party. In addition, according to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, “business enterprises have an independent responsibility to respect human rights and that in order to do so they are required to exercise human rights due diligence.”

It defines human rights due diligence as “processes that all business enterprises should undertake to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address potential and actual impacts on human rights caused by or contributed to through their own activities, or directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships.” The first pillar of the Guiding Principles highlights the state’s duty to protect against “human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises.” This, the Guiding Principles say, requires taking appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication.
A key concern in both Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan is that the local communities do not control natural resources of the territories as these are controlled by Pakistani federal agencies.Political leaders and activists feel their natural resources are exploited for the benefit of Pakistan while the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan continue to remain largely impoverished.

Impact of counter-terrorism on human rights
Authorities in Gilgit-Baltistan continue to use the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (ATA) to target political activists, human rights defenders and student protesters. As noted in the June 2018 OHCHR report, the ATA is a Pakistani law misused by Gilgit-Baltistan authorities especially after the introduction of Pakistan’s National Action Plan for countering terrorism and extremism in December 2014. The report also indicated concerns raised by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture.

Prominent political activist Baba Jan and 11 other protesters who were prosecuted under ATA for their environmental activism in September 2011 are serving a prison sentence of 40 years and activists believe they have only narrow legal recourse available to challenge false charges against them.

Authorities in Gilgit-Baltistan frequently clamp down on any anti-CPEC dissent with the ATA and the 2016 cybercrimes law. Anyone who protests or criticises CPEC is termed as “anti-national and anti-people”. Moreover, authorities often accuse critics of being Indian spies in order to delegitimize their concerns and protests.

In a joint communication to the Government of Pakistan, a group of Special Procedures mandate holders observed, “[I]t appears that ATA has effectively created a parallel system of unique and exceptional procedures from arrest to custody, detention, prosecution, and sentencing of terrorism suspects by authorizing measures such as the denial of bail, enhanced police powers, arrest without warrant, and extended remand of suspects for up to 30 days, thereby increasing the risk of torture as a means of extracting confessions in police or other law-enforcement’s or security forces’ custody.”

Restrictions on the freedom of religion or belief
In the June 2018 report, OHCHR drew attention to the provision in Azad Jammu and Kashmir’s Interim Constitution that, similar to Pakistan’s Constitution, defines who is a real “Muslim” and uses this definition to discriminate against the minority Ahmadiyya community. The amended Interim Constitution of 2018 has made no changes to this discriminatory provision.
Human rights lawyers and activists informed OHCHR that Pakistan’s blasphemy provisions continue to be in force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. These provisions have been criticized by several United Nations Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures mandate holders for violating a range of international human rights principles and emboldening instigation of violence against religious minorities.

Enforced or involuntary disappearances
OHCHR has received credible information of enforced disappearances of people from Pakistan-Administered Kashmir including those who were held in secret detention and those whose fate and whereabouts continue to remain unknown. The people subjected to enforced or involuntary disappearances included men working with Pakistani security forces or those who were allegedly previously associated with armed groups that operate in Indian-Administered Kashmir. Some cases of alleged enforced disappearances have also been reported from areas close to the Line of Control that are under the control of Pakistani armed forces.

In almost all cases brought to OHCHR’s attention, victim groups allege that Pakistani intelligence agencies were responsible for the disappearances. There are fears that people subjected to enforced disappearances from Pakistan-Administered Kashmir may have been detained in any of the military-run internment centers in Pakistan.

The Human Rights Committee has stated that although the ICCPR does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” as such, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represent continuing violation of various rights recognized in the Covenant, including right to life and the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In April 2017, the Committee against Torture expressed concern at “very broad powers given to the Army to detain people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities without charge or judicial supervision in internment centres under the Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011 (arts. 2 and 15).” It recommended Pakistan “[r]epeal or amend the Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011 in order to remove the power of the military to establish internment centres” and “ensure that no one is held in secret or incommunicado detention anywhere in the territory of the State party, as detaining individuals in such conditions constitutes per se a violation of the Convention.”

The Human Rights Committee has also expressed these internment centres and the “allegedly high number of persons held in secret detention under the Regulation (Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011)”. The Committee welcomed the establishment of Pakistan’s Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances and expressed concerns about “the insufficient power and resources allocated to the Commission; the non-compliance with the Commission’s orders by the relevant authorities; and the high number of cases brought before the Commission that remain unresolved, with no criminal proceedings brought against perpetrators (arts. 2, 6, 7, 9, 14 and 16).”

In May 2018, the Government of Pakistan advised the Supreme Court of Pakistan that 1, people were being held in various internment camps and that it required more time to furnish the Court with details of the legal proceedings against them.

OHCHR has been informed that there are likely several other cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir but they do not get reported like in rest of Pakistan due to the lack of independent media or independent human rights groups working in these areas.

The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has received at least one case of a Pakistani national disappeared from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and a permanent resident of Gilgit-Baltistan disappeared from Pakistan.
—
*Counterview.Org does not endorse the use of “Pakistan-Administered Kashmir” and “Azad Jammu and Kashmir” by OHCHR to identify Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). It believes that the entire PoK, including Gilgit-Baltistan, is under illegal Pakistani occupation, and is inalienable part of India

Courtesy: https://counterview.org/

How Special Coaching Helped A Karnataka District Improve Its SSLC Results

July 13, 2019

Bengaluru: “I want to become an engineer. That’s why I have opted for science,” said 16-year-old Nitin Kumar as he adjusted an orange band around his wrist, gently pulling down the full sleeve of his blue-checked shirt. His father, Muniappa N, a ragi and vegetable farmer in Devanahalli, around 40 km away from Karnataka’s capital, seemed pleased.

Bengaluru Rural district improved its ranking by 11 positions to rank third in Karnataka state in the 2018-19 secondary school examinations. Some 1,983 students who scored poorly in the mid-term examination were given additional attention and support from teachers and officials, in a project financed by the corporate social responsibility arm of the Bangalore International Airport Limited. Nearly 70% of these students passed the exam.

Nitin, who scored 83% in the 2018-19 senior school leaving certificate (SSLC, or class 10) examinations in Karnataka, is the topper among 1,983 vishesha pariganitha gumpu (VPG, or special category) students who got special coaching in mathematics, science, english and social science for the exam.

Some 1,983 students who scored poorly in the mid-term examination were given additional attention and support from teachers and officials, in a project financed by the corporate social responsibility arm of the Bangalore International Airport Limited. Nearly 70% of these students passed the exam.

Compared to its performance the previous year, the district improved its rank by 11 positions to take the third place among the 34 school districts listed for the SSLC exam in 2018-19, as per a 2019 report on the SSLC results accessed by IndiaSpend. More than 88% of all students passed, up six percentage points from 2017-18 and 15 percentage points more than the state average (73.7%). Two of the four taluks (administrative units within districts)–Devanahalli and Nelamanagala–secured the fifth and sixth positions in the state, respectively.

The district’s performance is significant as Karnataka state as a whole had the worst SSLC pass percentage among the south Indian states–73.7% to Andhra Pradesh’s 94.88%, Kerala’s 98.11%, Telangana’s 92.43% and Tamil Nadu’s 95.2%.

Many Indian children leave school without the basic skills required in adult life, the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2018 showed, as IndiaSpend reported on January 15, 2019. Class 10 students performed the worst in mathematics in the 2018 National Achievement Survey conducted by the National Council of Educational Research and Training.

A special category
The project aimed to improve the performance of students who had scored less than 40% in the mid-term examinations held in September 2018. It succeeded to a large extent–70% of VPG students passed, with 30% (584) securing first class (60%-70% marks) and 31% (618) obtaining second class (50-59%).

For the five months between the mid-term and SSLC exams, the project provided VPG students with intensive coaching, as we said, in four subjects–math, science, English and social science–in free-of-cost weekend classes held at centres set up especially for the purpose. The curriculum was custom-made, and the best teachers were deployed. The students were also given transport service and food. “The objective was not to just help students pass, but allow them to learn to the best of their capability,” said R Latha, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Bengaluru Rural district, led the initiative.

“I think that any initiative that helps students who are falling behind in their learning path is a good one,” Sreekanth Sreedharan from the Bengaluru district institute of the Azim Premji Foundation, a philanthropy funding education initiatives in rural areas, told IndiaSpend. “In this case around 2,000 such students were identified and given support in their studies. Such initiatives should be extended to all such students, not only in Class 10, but also from Classes 1 to 5 too.”

A month after Latha took charge as CEO in March 2018, the SSLC results for 2017-18 were announced. The district was ranked 14, down five places from the previous year. The then district minister, Krishna Byre Gowda, expressed his concern about the district’s performance during a review meeting and “left it to me to decide on a strategy”, Latha told IndiaSpend.

Nitin Kumar, Keerthana S, Rakshita M and Nethra K were students in the special coaching initiative of Bengaluru Rural district and obtained first class in the secondary school examinations in Karnataka. Scoring 83%, Nitin topped among the students who were part of the initiative.

An “informal committee” which included the CEO, an education consultant brought in to monitor the initiative, the chief accounts officer, chief planning officer, deputy director of public instruction and an education officer, decided to focus on students who had received less than 40% in the mid-term exams. “We included even those students who failed one subject in VPG,” said Latha. Nitin was one among them.

The committee felt various factors such as “unsystematic way of teaching, lack of professional touch from teachers, shortage of staff in some school[s] and surplus of staff in some other[s], lack of individual attention to slow learners, lack of feedback to students to improve their performance” were responsible for the low percentage, noted the report.

By October 2018, VPG students from different schools in a cluster were accommodated in a nodal centre under the charge of the headmaster or headmistress (HM). Each class in a centre had up to 50 students. “We ensured that a school with the best infrastructure in the cluster was chosen as a nodal centre,” said Latha. In all, there were 42 classrooms in 33 nodal centres.
Source: CEO, Zilla Panchayat, Bengaluru Rural

A team consisting of the “best teachers” in the district, identified with the help of education department officials, created a VPG syllabus. The respective subject teachers shortlisted the topics. Time tables were allotted and teachers at the nodal centres were assigned topics to cover each Saturday.

“We had orientation for HMs and teachers. We wanted to take them into confidence,” R Nagarajaiah, educational consultant and a part of the core committee, told IndiaSpend. “During the HMs’ orientation we clarified that their cooperation, goodwill, and leadership was necessary.”

“Although social science was introduced only by December we conducted a two-day orientation for teachers,” Bhasker R N, a social science teacher at the government high school in Bashettihalli, who was part of the committee that designed the syllabus, told IndiaSpend. “There is a lot of study material, but we had to decide on what and how to teach in a short period of time for the VPG group.”

Though selecting students was an important aspect, creating a syllabus to suit the need and the small window of five months between October and February was priority.

“A group of math teachers created a syllabus that contained 40% of the entire syllabus,” Swamy H R, a math teacher with 15 years of experience who was a part of the team, told IndiaSpend. “Last year the teachers faced a problem because the state government introduced CBSE [Central Board of Secondary Education] syllabus. This was the first batch and we did not know the pattern of the question paper.”

Classes were held every Saturday, and transportation and food was provided to the students using financial assistance of about Rs 31 lakh ($45,000) from the Bangalore International Airport Limited.

The nodal centres were supervised closely by the HMs, who reported to Latha. “I used to check weekly and expect HMs to tell me the status,” she said.

R Latha, CEO of Bengaluru Rural district, led the vishesha pariganitha gumpu initiative. The district stood third in the 2018-19 secondary school examination in Karnataka state, up 11 positions from the previous year.

First preparatory results inadequate
The results of the first preparatory exams in December were underwhelming. While Latha was expecting around 90% of the VPG students to pass, only 70% did. A part of the issue was the change in syllabus, she was told.

All math teachers in the district were summoned to analyse the first preparatory exam papers of all 1,983 students. “We wanted a wider opinion since math is seen as a difficult subject, generally, and had the potential to affect the final results,” said Latha.

After discussion it was decided that a workbook be created. Five of the most experienced math teachers were exempted from other responsibilities. “We created a workbook with 66 questions so that a student did not feel intimidated by the whole syllabus. It was 25% of the syllabus,” said Swamy, the math teacher and one of those who helped create the workbook. Questions in the workbook were based on construction and drawing, and were the most probable questions based on the teachers’ experience.

“Our focus was on ensuring basic topics like diagrams, theorem and classifications were taught and rehearsed thoroughly to the students,” added Rohini Hegde, a science teacher with over a decade of experience.

A page from the math workbook created for Bengaluru Rural district’s special category students. You can access the workbook here.

Source: CEO, Zilla Panchayat, Bengaluru Rural

Later, the use of the workbook was extended to all students in the district, Latha said, adding, “[W]e wanted to ensure that VPG students worked on it for certain. Around 44 marks [worth of questions] came from this workbook in the final exam.”

In smaller groups, students found the confidence to ask questions and clear their doubts, Nitin told IndiaSpend. “My aim was to score more than 90%. Now my sister who will appear for her SSLC this year says that she will get more than I did,” he said.

The teachers in four subjects–Math, English, Science, and Social Science–created a syllabus to suit the needs of the VPG initiative. 70% of the VPG students passed with 30% securing first class.

“The classes made it easier for me to clear my doubts and it was refreshing to meet new teachers, and make new friends,” said Rakshita M, another VPG student who got 79% and wants to work in a bank after graduating in commerce. Her father, Muniraju K M, who studied up to class 6 and is a labourer, said he was keen that his daughter continues her studies. “I think it is a good initiative for the children and should be continued,” he added.

Happy Home Schools
After three preparatory exams, 20% of the students were still failing, having received fewer than 28 marks. In consultation with Nagarajaiah, the education consultant, an initiative called ‘Happy Home Schools’ was started, which would teach a small group of up to 20 students at each school. There would be no teacher migration as classes would be taught by regular teachers.

“It is based on [Johann] Pestalozzi’s educational philosophy to help children learn in their own style,” said Nagarajaiah, explaining why students would sit on a mat on the floor with the teachers. “Each student was expected to repeat a particular topic being taught, which would then be repeated by the larger group.” They were called A1 group and a syllabus was quickly formulated as they had only 10 days before the exams were to begin.

Children were not branded as academically good or bad. “There are slow learners. We cannot expect everyone to learn at the same pace,” said Nagrajaiah.

Happy Home School was developed to help students who secured less than 28% in the third preparatory exams. It was developed by R Nagarajaiah, an educational consultant, using Johann Pestalozzi’s philosophy.

Students including Nethra K and Keerthana S benefited.

Keerthana is the first to pass SSLC in her family. While her mother has studied till class 7, her father is not educated, and both work as cement mortar workers. Her brother is a driver who dropped out of school after class 9.

“We sat around our teachers. The group was smaller than our VPG classes which helped me more,” she told IndiaSpend.

Nethra K, who had failed most of her subjects in the last preparatory, scored 67% after attending Happy Home School. Her mother, Gayathri, who works in a canteen, was glad that the initiative had borne fruit.

“Initially we did not think some of the students would pass. But the results were good,” said Roopa, an English teacher in Channahalli involved with the project. “Children were initially reluctant about VPG classes fearing that they would be called ‘dull’ students.”

Going forward: Formal and streamlined process
Government schools often have to accommodate students let go of by private schools for performing poorly (so that private schools’ performance in the SSLC is not affected), officials and teachers told IndiaSpend.

At the same time, enrolment in government schools is decreasing, overall, leading to a “very segmented and stratified education being provided to vast numbers of children by the private sector”, Sreedharan said. Old infrastructure and teacher shortages in some pockets are also big challenges.

While the effort has yielded results, the challenge is to continue the momentum next year. The initiative had to be micromanaged by the CEO, and coordination took regular updates on six WhatsApp groups.

“We have some wonderful teachers and officials which allowed us to do well,” said Latha. “But we need to formalise and streamline the process. I do not want it to end when I get transferred and move to a different district. It should continue and not require any individual’s presence.”

Individual-driven programmes lose steam very easily and we have seen this time and again, said Sreedharan, suggesting that the new method should be formalised and incorporated into the system. “[A]nd the well-structured education bureaucracy can help this scale across the state,” he said, adding that respective district CEOs can helm the project.

Sreedharan also warns that initiatives that prepare students to perform well in standardized assessments do not necessarily enhance students’ learning. “Nevertheless, given that performance in such high stakes assessments is one of the key measures of performance training students to take such assessments will be of use to them as they move on from school to higher education,” he added.

(Paliath is an analyst with IndiaSpend.)

Bina Paul: “Collective viewing is empowering”

July 13, 2019

Bharathy Singaravel in conversation with the Artistic Director of IFFK

Award winning film editor and an active member of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) Bina Paul talks to Bharathy Singaravel of the Indian Cultural Forum about the “ghettoisation” of regional films and the need to change that; cinema as resistance; censorship and more. Bina Paul is the artistic director of the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) and the International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala (IDSFFK). She is also the Vice Chairperson of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.

Bina curated the Malayalam Film Festival, 03 – 06 July, 2019 at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi. The festival, now in its second edition, was held in collaboration with the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy. Bharathy from ICF spoke to her at the IIC grounds before the screening of Kanthan, Lover of Colours on 05 July.

Image Courtesy: WikiCommons

Bharathy Singaravel [B]: I thought that we could start with the screenings at the India International Centre. What are the ideas that influence your choice of the six films shown here?
Bina Pau [BP]: We did these screenings last year as well. The ideas stem from the fact that there’s so much happening in Malayalam cinema, in terms of younger filmmakers, new ideas and new forms. Now of course Netflix has taken over in a sense, but still a lot of these films just don’t get seen. There is almost a ghettoisation of regional language cinema. I’m really keen to make a statement that we have to get out of these regular spaces, because a lot of these films are released and seen in Kerala, but not outside. When it comes to choosing the films, unfortunately or fortunately we have to work according to certain criteria. So we have to take cognizance of whether these films are recognised in Kerala or if they’re cognised by the festival. Bhayanakam for example has won many accolades. It’s an important film. It’s talking about issues that concern everybody.

B: You mentioned the ghettoisation of regional cinema. This is something that has been bothering me too. What are set aside as “regional” are actually mainstream films. They’re having theatrical releases in multiplexes. But the compelling ones on social justice such as those from south Indian cinema don’t get the praise that an Article 15 does.
BP: They are important films. I think while Hindi cinema seems to be following a certain narrative, what is happening in a lot of south Indian films, in Malayalam especially, because we also have the International Film Festival of Kerala once a year in Trivandrum, there’s a lot of exposure to world cinema. This exposure brings out some incredible work. The kind of filmmakers who are sending in entries, some of them are totally untrained and are often working on a very small budget. Kanthan, Lover of Colour that is being screened here at IIC is one such film. It was made on such a small budget and it is questioning caste and class politics. There’s really cutting edge stuff that is going on and unfortunately, there’s no venue for them to be considered mainstream. Mainstream is not a good word actually, but it’s sad that you don’t even hear of a film like Kanthan. In bringing it to IIC which is a space of thought, I think it also needs to be infused with these different narratives.

B: Cinema as resistance and censorship are issues that have been causing us concern for a while now. Your views on the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and its impact on young filmmakers and independent filmmakers?
BP: The role of the CBFC is to categorise films according to what is suitable for which audience. Not to mention any particular regime, but it’s always been an arm of the state. I think with YouTube and the internet in general, the CBFC is almost irrelevant.

There are many filmmakers who’ve had to fight because of it. But how does one get rid of it? Will the state ever let go of that power? So you find alternatives such as film festivals, internet spaces and film clubs. I see that the film club movement is creating an entire alternative narrative. I am not one who is for the corporate model of film distribution, anyway. I think we need to let go of this kind of distribution as a measure of it reaching a large number of people. A film like Amma Ariyan which was never released has had more screenings than any blockbuster. That was possible because there was a driven group of people who said, “No, this film needs to be seen.”

B: You at the IFFK do not even ask for a censor certification, on the other hand, the India International Film Festival (IIFF) rejected six films, branding them “anti-national”. Would you like to talk about this aspect of the film festival in Kerala?
BP: Certainly. The IFFK has made is very clear. Our only concern is about the date of the film. We don’t want films made more than 20 years ago to apply, because that’s unfair to filmmakers who’re working now. I also have to mention that we are a state-run festival [supported by the State Government of Kerala]. I do know that this space that we are trying to carve out is dodgy. It’s not easy. Right now we have a government that supports us and a ministry that supports us, but one can never say. We’ve managed so far. In the case of the IIFF, it is shocking. It shows the lack of a curatorial angle and the understanding of why you even have a film festival. Why would you have a festival for films that can be screened easily otherwise as well? It stems from a deeper lack of understanding of what a festival has to do. “Anti-national” is one hook that that they’re using today, tomorrow it could be sex or something else.

B: Continuing on the topic of “cinema as resistance”, how do you think the film fraternity has to mobilise right now, given the very specific set of issues that we are facing?
BP: It is the film community that needs to do the resistance. They need to find ways of telling stories that do that. I think it’s happening in Tamil cinema. You’re seeing alternative narratives, you’re seeing different groups of people who are making films together. I think you have to be innovative in resistance. And I think the power of all art and filmmaking is to resist and artists have always found the means to do so. To mourn about the fact that there is censorship is one thing. But we also have to say, we will still make our films, we’ll screen them, we will show the films that need to be shown, tell the stories that we need to and find the means to do that. Especially in today’s world where there are means available. I think that is the challenge, rather than just saying we will fight censorship. We’re never going to win that battle, because no state anywhere in the world is going to give up that kind of power.

B: How do you see the need for collective effort in relation to this, is it already happening?
BP: Certainly. For example there are film societies in Kerala that are subtitling films into Malayalam. Otherwise, what is the narrative? If there is a Hindi film, it gets subtitled into English which will reach only certain audience. These film societies take films from any part of the world and then subtitle them into Malayalam to screen at local film cubs. Big-budget films don’t need to seek out such alternate means of distribution, but I do believe that independent filmmakers, if they face censorship will fight and also find other ways to screen their films for it to reach people.

B: I believe it was in a 2017 interview regarding the IFFK that you mentioned touring film festivals. How have you seen the nature of film festivals change?
BP: In my mind they have changed, because we are living in an age where we think everything is available. You assume that you can get any film you want, but I also know that there are lots of films that are not. You will not so easily be able to find a film from Cuba or Venezuela or from the Pacific Islands. Film festivals these days need to recognise two things. One is of course the providing of a platform for voices that are unheard of. The second is the notion that collective viewing is very empowering. When 10 people sit in a room and watch a film together, something else happens than just sitting in front of a computer.
Film festivals have to realize how much of a social responsibility it is. It’s not just about choosing a good film. It’s about choosing a film that is important to be seen. It’s about choosing a film that otherwise may not get seen. It also means looking at the artistic value of the film. For me, these are the important questions.

Today film festivals have become market-driven. At IFFK, we have tried to remain a viewer’s festival. I know there is the Carthage Film Festival in Tunisia that does the same. There are many festivals that remain viewer festivals that say, “We know that there is the whole business of cinema, but we also know that there is a cultural value to it and that’s what we give importance to.”

B: This year’s Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala (IDSFFK) just wrapped up. What stood out for you?
BP: Well, two aspects. One is the kind of documentary work that is happening in India is amazing. Again most of us hardly get to watch it or even know of it. The second was regarding the Anand Patwardhan film, Vivek (Reason). Despite it being released on YouTube, we were told not to screen it by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. But the Kerala Government [the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy] decided to move the High Court and we were able to screen it. It was important that we could flag the fact that this is a space of independence and resistance, in a sense.

B: Has the style, aesthetics and narrative form of documentary film changed in the years the IDSFFK has been happening?
BP: Very much. From being a sort of top-down experience, documentary has become much more inclusive. Lines between fiction and documentary, their separate aesthetics have infused into each other. I see this a lot in the feature film industry as well. You see a lot of films made in Kerala which do really well in which the aesthetic is almost documentary. So there is a nice understanding of the reality of cinema, which I really like. There is so much now in documentary, which is personal, which is political. You know, it’s all stems from a different base from what it did earlier.

B: Lastly, can we talk about your work as an editor? What are the interventions that an editor makes, what guides your choices?
BP: That’s a big question. Of course, as somebody said there’s bad editing and there’s a good film. You can only say it’s badly edited or that it’s a good film which means it’s well-edited. The art of editing is in the invisibility. It’s how you can put a story together in its best possible form of telling, without drawing attention to how you’ve done it, because it becomes so organically a part of it. Editing is really about how you tell the story when you already have the building blocks. You have the shots. You have the performances, you have the script. It’s in the building of these elements and the way they’re put together which makes the whole picture. It’s not about individual cuts.

That is not the editor’s job only. As an editor, I always think I have to get into my director’s mind. I have to get into that mind to understand what it is that they see is the film or story. Then I can use my skills to bring out the best performance, to place performances in a certain way, to foreground or background action. It’s more than just translating the script. It’s actually building the film.

B: At what point do you come in? Are you present during filming?
BP: I don’t edit much these days. I’m not often at the shooting, but you read the script and you see the rushes several times. You bring certain objectivity when you come in later, because you see things that the director might not have. That’s very important for the film.

B: The physical aspect of editing has also changed drastically, hasn’t it?
BP: Oh yes! Mechanically it’s a wonder now. You press a button and it forwards, it finds, you don’t have to do that work. But I do miss the physicality. I can never forget how when I used to edit on the Moviola, we’d have to join the film with sellotape. It would make a “kadak” sound every time it went by. I could tell by the rhythm of that sound each time a cut arrived. It was amazing being able to tell that from just the rhythm. The only way to see the full film during the editing was to sit in the projector room. Even there you could hear it.

Now, a lot of people work scene-wise because that’s easier for them. So, yes it has seen a lot of changes. I’m glad for the mechanical advantages we have now. I cannot bear the thought of winding and finding. That’s done with. The magic of something is lost though.

B: Thank you, Bina. Anything else you’d like to add to wrap up the conversation?
BP: I wish that people would come and see the kind of films that we’re showing. I do think that watching films is such a world opening experience. Otherwise you don’t really understand the cultural significance of those actors from different parts of the world. It opens your mind even more than reading, I would say. When you’re talking about cinema as resistance, it’s also about telling stories that open up the possibilities for other forms of resistance.Look at Kanthan that we’re showing today. It’s a small-budget film, an adivasi story, the filmmaker is virtually unknown, but it went on to win the 2018 Kerala State Film Award. [Kanthan, The Lover of Colours was made by Shareef Easa, a daily wage labourer who works at a rubber plantation in Kerala’s Kannur district.] Such a film is possible today! Why are we only thinking of big-budget films? I feel very proud that Kerala affords place for such cinema.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

Bengal: No Stranger to Communalism

July 13, 2019

In this episode of Present, Past and the Future, Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay and Prof Partha S Ghosh explore the causes of communalisation in Bengal.

In this episode of Present, Past and the Future, Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay and Prof Partha S Ghosh explore the causes of communalisation in Bengal. Starting from the British attempt of Bengal Partition in 1905, to the current right-wing gain in the state.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

High-value opportunities exist to restore tropical rainforests around the world – here’s how we mapped them

July 12, 2019

The green belt of tropical rainforests that covers equatorial regions of the Americas, Africa, Indonesia and Southeast Asia is turning brown. Since 1990, Indonesia has lost 50% of its original forest, the Amazon 30% and Central Africa 14%. Fires, logging, hunting, road building and fragmentation have heavily damaged more than 30% of those that remain.

Forest restoration is underway in Biliran, Leyte, Philippines led by the local community with support from international researchers and government agencies. Robin Chazdon, CC BY-ND

These forests provide many benefits: They store large amounts of carbon, are home to numerous wild species, provide food and fuel for local people, purify water supplies and improve air quality. Replenishing them is an urgent global imperative. A newly published study in the journal Science by European authors finds that there is room for an extra 3.4 million square miles (0.9 billion hectares) of canopy cover around the world, and that replenishing tree cover at this full potential would contribute significantly to reducing the risk of harmful climate change
But there aren’t enough resources to restore all tropical forests that have been lost or damaged. And restoration can conflict with other activities, such as farming and forestry. As a tropical forest ecologist, I am interested in developing better tools for assessing where these efforts will be most cost-effective and beneficial.

Over the past four years, tropical forestry professor Pedro Brancalion and I have led a team of researchers from an international network in evaluating the benefits and feasibility of restoration across tropical rainforests around the world. Our newly published findings identify restoration hotspots – areas where restoring tropical forests would be most beneficial and least costly and risky. They cover over 385,000 square miles (100 million hectares), an area as large as Spain and Sweden combined.

The five countries with the largest areas of restoration hotpots are Brazil, Indonesia, India, Madagascar and Colombia. Six countries in Africa – Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Togo, South Sudan and Madagascar – hold rainforest areas where restoration is expected to yield the highest benefits with the highest feasibility. We hope our results can help governments, conservation groups and international funders target areas where there is high potential for success.

A native tree nursery for large-scale restoration of Atlantic Forest at Reserva Natural Guapiaçu, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Robin Chazdon, CC BY-ND

Where to start

Intact forest landscapes in tropical regions declined by 7.2% from 2000 to 2013, mainly due to logging, clearing and fires. These losses have dire consequences for global biodiversity, climate change and forest-dependent peoples.

As my work has shown, tropical forests can recover after they have been cleared or damaged. Although these second-growth forests will never perfectly replace the older forests that have been lost, planting carefully selected trees and assisting natural recovery processes can restore many of their former properties and functions.

But restoration is not uniformly feasible or desirable, and the benefits that forests provide are not evenly distributed. To make informed choices about restoration efforts and investments, organizations need more detailed spatial information. Existing global maps of restoration opportunities are based on actual versus potential levels of tree canopy cover. We wanted to go beyond this measurement to identify where the greatest potential payoffs and challenges lay.

Our study used high-resolution satellite imagery and the latest peer-reviewed research to integrate information about four benefits from forest restoration: biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and water security. We also assessed three aspects of feasibility: cost, investment risk and the likelihood of restored forests surviving into the future.

We studied these variables across all lowland tropical moist forests worldwide, dividing them into 1-kilometer square blocks that had lost more than 10% of their tree canopy cover in 2016. Each of the seven factors we studied had equal weight in our calculation of total restoration opportunity scores.

The top-scoring blocks, which we call “restoration hotspots,” represent the most compelling regions for tropical forest restoration, with maximum overall benefits and minimal negative trade-offs.

Forest restoration involves much more than planting trees.

Forest restoration aligns with other global pledges

The top 15 countries with the largest areas of restoration hotspots are distributed across all tropical rainforest regions around the world. Three are in Central and South America, five are in Africa and the Middle East, and seven are in Asia and the Pacific.

Importantly, 89% of the hotspots we identified were located within areas that have already been identified as biodiversity conservation hotspots in tropical regions. These conservation hotspots have exceptionally high concentrations of at-risk species. They have been been focal areas for investment and activities to promote biodiversity conservation for nearly 20 years.

This finding makes sense, since two criteria for designating conservation hotspots – high rates of forest loss and high concentration of endemic, or locally distributed, species – were also variables in our study. Our results strongly support the need to develop and implement integrated solutions that protect remaining forest ecosystems and restore new forests within these high-priority regions.

We also found that 73% of tropical forest restoration hotspots are in countries that have made commitments under the Bonn Challenge, a global effort to bring some 580,000 square miles (150 million hectares) of the world’s deforested and damaged land into restoration by 2020, and 1.35 million square miles (350 million hectares) by 2030. By making these pledges, Bonn Challenge participants have shown that they are politically motivated to restore and conserve forests, and are looking for restoration opportunities.

Forest restoration on small farms bordering Mpanga Forest Reserve, Uganda, can bring high levels of benefits and is relatively feasible to achieve. Robin Chazdon, CC BY-ND

A means toward many ends

The 88% of the lands we analyzed that did not qualify as restoration hotspots also deserve careful attention. These landscapes could be prioritized for restoration interventions that increase food, water and fuel security through agroforestry practices, watershed protection, woodlots for producing firewood and local timber or commercial tree plantations. All of these areas can provide benefits for people and the environment through combinations of different restoration approaches, even if they are not the best candidates for a full-scale effort to restore a high-functioning forest.

Forest restoration is also urgently needed in other types of forests across the world, such as seasonally dry tropical forests and temperate forests that are heavily managed for timber. Identifying key restoration opportunities in these regions requires separate studies based on their unique benefits and challenges.

Our study helps to highlight how restoring tropical forests can provide multiple benefits for people and nature, and aligns with existing conservation and sustainable development agendas, as discussed in a newly published perspective related to the new findings in Science. We hope that our map of restoration opportunities and hotspots will provide useful guidance for nations, conservation organizations and funders, and that local communities and organizations will be engaged in and benefit from these efforts.

Courtesy: The Conversation

FIR against 10 for protest poem in Assam

July 12, 2019

The Assam police have registered an FIR against 10 people, including poets, activists and civil society members after a complaint about a poem criticising the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The complainant alleged that the poem suggests that the people of Assam are xenophobic and can lead to disharmony.

File image of a protest against Assam’s controversial NRC. Image: PTI/Swapan Mahapatr

The poem in question composed in what has come to be known as ‘Miya’ style. It is noteworthy that the word ‘Miya’ which literally means ‘gentleman’, had over time become a communal slur. But now, it is being reclaimed by poets as an act of defiance against those who oppress or discriminate against Muslims. The poem written by Kazi Sharowar Hussain talks about exclusion of Muslims from the NRC. An excerpt from the poem is reproduced below:

Write down I am a Miya
My serial number in the NRC is XXXXXXX
I have two children
Another is coming next summer
Will you hate him as you hate me
Write. Write down I am a Miya.
A citizen of a democratic secular republic without any rights.
My mother is a D voter
Though her parents are Indian.
Write. Write I am a Miya of the Brahmaputra
Your torture has burnt my body black
Reddened my eyes with fire
Write. I am a Miya.

The complaint was filed by one Pranabjit Doloi who says, “The accused person’s intention is to depict a picture of Assamese people as xenophobic in the eyes of the whole world, which is a serious threat to the Assamese people, as well as, towards the national security and harmonious social atmosphere. The real intention of this poem is to motivate and provoke their community against the system.”

Apart from Kazi Sharowar Hussain a.k.a Kazi Neel, Doloi has named activists and civil society members Hafiz Ahmed, Rehana Sultana, Abdur Rahim, Ashraful Hussain, Abdul Kalam Azad, Shalim M Hussain, Karishma Hazarika, Banamallika Choudhury and Forhad Bhuyan in his complaint. The complete complaint letter may be read here.

Curiously, the police have not registered any case under charges related to instigation of communal violence and instead filed charges under section 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust). Dharmendra Kumar Das, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Guwahati Central explained, “So far the poem has not led to any communal disharmony. The charges were filed under sections mentioned in the FIR and could be revised based on the findings of our investigation that is still ongoing.”

Brinda Karat writes to Prakash Javadekar, MOEFF accusing him of “playing down” repressive measures of Indian Forest Act 1927

July 12, 2019

CPI (M) Politburo member Brinda Karat has written to Union Environment Minister PrakashJavadekar accusing the Centre of playing down the “repressive measures” proposed in the amendments of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Image Courtesy: Hindustan Times

In March 2019, the Union government proposed an ‘overhaul’ of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Act was introduced in 1927 by British to regulate and strengthen their control over Indian forests. This was in the context that they required wood, timber etc. for commercial purposes and they wanted minimum control of communities over forests they had helped nurture. Over the years, the law has been repeatedly used to fabricate forest dwellers in false cases as a means to curb their rights over the forest land. In such a scenario, one would have expected amendments to the Act which will be in the interest of forest dwelling and indigenous communities. However, in the draft law to replace the colonial era Act, the Union government has proposed to not only retain but enhance policing and quasi-judicial powers that the forest officials enjoyed under the original act. This includes powers to use firearms with exceptional levels of impunity and lack of accountability.

The draft has been shared with state governments for ‘consultations’ which were to be completed by June 7. The draft law also proposes to gives higher management powers and sort of veto power to the forest bureaucracy over the Forest Rights Act, 2006. In that, forest officials have been given the powers to deny or extinguish rights over traditional forests of forest dwelling communities and Adivasis. Even the rights already recognised under the FRA are at the threat of being revoked. This reduces and diminishes the access of communities over forests. Moreover, the Act has provisions of weakening the Gram Sabha, and talks about consultation, not mandatory consent while talking about development projects. Under the FRA, 2006, GS are the most powerful bodies when it comes to the rights of forest dwelling communities and forest rights. This, they propose to do by running a parallel system of governance which is suggested to be called as “village forests” with utmost powers to forest officials.

The Act also proposes that the Centre will be able to intervene in the states when it comes to matters of management of forest lands, overruling the states on several counts.

Karat noted in her letter, “The amendments are a blueprint for centralization, commercialization andcriminalization. The amendments will not help to conserve forests as is itsdeclared aim. On the contrary, the amendments extinguish existing rights oftribals and other Traditional Forest Dwellers including those recognized inthe Forest Rights Act, in the Wild Life Protection Act as amended in 2006,the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESAA), the Land Acquisitionand Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act 2013 as well as the constitutionalprovisions in Schedule 5 and 6.”

The FRA was formulated after decades of struggle and for the first time recognised the “historical injustice” done to forest dwelling communities. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 was criticised all the while for giving excessive powers to forest officials to prosecute the Adivasis on their whims and fancies. Now the amendments also make provisions of “lock-up rooms” to house the “accused” (innocent Adivasis) within the forests. Some of the provisions of the Act have been compared to the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which gives the rights to shoot at sight to army personnel. Another dangerous provision is that of heavy militarization inside forests. Already, areas like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha, rich in forest and mineral covers remain heavily militarized. In fact the militarization in Bastar, Chhattisgarh has been compared to the level of the militarization in conflict ridden Jammu and Kashmir, one of the world’s highest militarised areas. With these amendments, it is likely to increase several times over.

Read the full text of the letter here:
ShriPrakashJavadekar

Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Government of India
New Delhi

Dear Shri Prakash Javadekar ji,

Namaskar. I am writing to you in connection with the proposed amendments to the Indian Forest Act 1927. I am doing so even though these are in the nature of a first draft circulated by your Ministry, because your written statements in the LokSabha on 28-6-2019 (starred question No. 119) on these amendments tend to be quite misleading. You have defended the amendments. You have sought to play down the extremely repressive measures proposed in the Act and have entirely ignored the bulldozing of the rights of tribal communities in particular. I feel it is therefore necessary to give you a more detailed critique of the amendments which may help to give a more correct picture to parliament.

The Forest Act 1927 was the instrument through which the British colonialists established Government ownership over forests and declared tribal communities to be encroachers thus giving legal sanction to the burden of historical injustices against tribal communities. The 91 clauses in the amendments now proposed, including entirely new sections, go even beyond what the British dared to do, by militarizing forest conservation. The amendments criminalise every aspect of tribal life giving untrammeled powers to the forest bureaucracy to arrest without warrant and use arms to implement the law. Symbolic of this repressive approach is the inclusion of the Chief of Army Staff (s.89-(vii) ) as a member in the proposed National Forestry Board. Presumably the Chief of India’s army now has the time to discuss how to “protect” forests not borders. On the other side the role of the gram sabha particularly in tribal inhabited areas so critical to management, conservation and preservation of forests and tribal rights has been erased altogether.

The amendments are a blueprint for centralization, commercialization and criminalization. The amendments will not help to conserve forests as is its declared aim. On the contrary, the amendments extinguish existing rights of tribals and other Traditional Forest Dwellers including those recognized in
the Forest Rights Act, in the Wild Life Protection Act as amended in 2006, the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESAA), the Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act 2013 as well as the constitutional provisions in Schedule 5 and 6.

They are therefore, in toto, an affront to the Constitution, to democracy and to the legal framework to protect tribal rights in particular and those of traditional forest dwelling communities in general. Further, your Ministry has no jurisdiction over the rights of tribals for which the jurisdiction lies with the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Yet through these amendments, your Ministry seeks to supercede all legislations related to tribal rights and make them subordinate to this poposed Act. This is totally unacceptable.

Some of the details are as follows:

(1)Centralization: (a) Erasing the role of Gram Sabha: It is highly objectionable that the theme that runs throughout the amendments is to equate tribals with other communities in relation to their rights over the forest such as through the redefinition of the word ‘community” to deny the special status of tribals in relation to forests.

The amendments centralize power over decision making over forests and forests produce and all matters related to forests at all levels. The rights of the Gram Sabha are appropriated by the Forest bureaucracy, the State Government and the Central Government. In the entire set of amendments there
is not a single amendment which recognizes the critical role of the gram sabha in forest conservation or which mandates the consent of the gram sabha in any decision pertaining to the forests. India has moved far beyond 1927 in recognizing the crucial role played by gram sabhas particularly in tribal
inhabited areas. But in these amendments all this is erased. Even in areas declared to be “forest villages” (s 28) rights of gram sabhas are taken away and the management of forests is to be handed over to committees appointed by the forest bureaucracy in “consultation” with the gram sabha and not with
their mandatory consent.

(b) Huge Powers to Forest Bureaucracy to Extinguish Recognized Rights : The amendments from s.6 to s.15 concentrate powers in the forest bureaucracy to an unprecedented extent including the right to acquire land. For example, a Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) has the power to decide on claims and
rights, has the power to decide on shifting cultivation rights and the power to decide access to forest produce. He can acquire any land without public hearings under s.11. Under s.16 the FSO has the power even to commute all rights hitherto enjoyed by forest dwellers.

As far as recognized rights under the FRA are concerned, the amendments (s.22) give the right to the FSO to record such rights which is totally out of the jurisdiction of your Ministry and will make tribals vulnerable to the Forest bureaucracy. In s.22A (2) all rights under FRA can be extinguished or
modified if the State Government in consultation with the Central Government decide that this is in the interest of conservation. Here again there is no consultation process, no mandatory right to consent, it is totally arbitrary. This goes against every other law including for tiger reserves which has a full process of consultation and consent. Under this amendment, FRA can be scrapped. Further, the right to forest produce is also made conditional under s.14 in which an FSO can decide the exact amount of minor forest produce that can be used by tribal communities and OTFDs. Further (in s. 69) the presumption is that the forest produce belongs to the Government. This again is in total violation of the FRA. Thus these amendments give overriding powers to the forest bureaucracy to eliminate all rights of tribals including modification or scrapping of rights under the FRA and other legislations.

(c) Central Government’s Enhanced Powers: A new section 76 has been added that gives the Central Government overriding powers to take all decisions for the “protection and management” of forests as it deems fit. The Central Government has the powers to make all Rules pertaining to crucial areas such
as shifting cultivation, gathering of forest produce, “rationalization” of rights. All decisions of State Governments are subject to approval by the Central Government and in case of difference in Rules prepared the Central Governments and its decisions will prevail (77.2). The Central Government has also included for itself the right to notify Reserved Forests (s 3.(2), Protected Forests (s29. (b) and the right to decide working plans for the newly introduced Production Forests (s.34C (3), and also to direct State Governments to do so. The power to declare any forest as “conservation forest” or “community reserve” – new sections – also has been taken by the Central Government. All these amendments constitute an encroachment on the rights of the States.

Most of these provisions in the sections dealing with protected forests are similar in the section dealing with Reserved Forests and are equally objectionable.

(2) Criminalisation of All Aspects of Tribal Life: (a) The amendments actually criminalize all aspects of tribal life.

There is a long list of prohibited acts under s.26 from cultivation of forest land to fishing, right to pasture, right to forest produce unless the person (tribal) has an authorized certificate from the Forest officer. Each and every aspect of tribal life is prohibited and further, is considered an offence unless the tribal can show “authorization” to the satisfaction of the forest department. In Chapter IX which concerns Procedures for Dealing with Forest Offences, section after sections gives draconian powers to the forest bureaucracy. S. 66 and all its sub-sections, some of which have been mentioned at the beginning of this letter are particularly obnoxious. S 66 (2) gives carte blanche to the forest officers the right to use guns to shoot at anyone even suspected of committing a forest offence and provide indemnity for those using the firearms, to arrest any suspect without a warrant (s.64) to search premises without a warrant (s.66a) and to shift the burden of proof on to the accused (s.66D): Sub-clause clauses 66 b criminalize all protests under the category of abetment.

In addition, there are further powers of the bureaucracy and the police to evict any person from land in their occupation if the forest officer is not satisfied as in s 26.4. The evictee can only appeal after the action. In all such cases the decision of the Sessions Court is final. Thus a tribal who is evicted does not even have the right to appeal to a higher court (s. 52 D). There is also a clause which mandates the building of an “infrastructure” to implement the Act through building of “lock up rooms” inside the forests, to have arms, armaments, helmets etc. In other words, to build jails inside the forests. This instruction is matched by the unprecedented recognition of so-called confessions of an accused in custody to be permitted as evidence under s.64c. This is not permitted even in the most heinous crimes but it is introduced as an amendment here. Further any person who does not report or prevent such a crime is also liable to punishment under s. 79 and all their rights can be extinguished. Thus the entire tribal community in any particular area can lose all their rights under this section.

A scenario that arises from all these amendments can be that the forest official locks up the suspect who is arrested without a warrant, puts him in the forest lockup which has all the necessary equipment, extracts a confession from the suspect, places it in the relevant court where it is admissible evidence through a summary trial devoid of all procedures granted by s 67. Not only does he lose all rights, but the entire community may also lose their rights.

The penalties detailed in s78 are also high. For example offences which carried a one month sentence have been increased to one year and offenses which had a sentence of one year have been increased to three to five years.

These amendments will force tribals, in particular tribal women who are the main gatherers of forest produce, into extremely vulnerable positions and constitute an extreme injustice to the rights and dignity of tribals and to the minimum democratic rights they are entitled to as citizens of India.

(3) Commercialisation and privatisation of Forests: For all its claims of preserving and expanding forests and forest cover, the amendments include a new section (Ch IVA) of Production Forests which is nothing but commercialisation not conservation of forests. The State Government has the right under this chapter to declare a certain part of any forest, including reserved and protected forests as production forests without any consultation with the gram sabhas affected. Here land will be given out on lease to commercial interests to grow trees, raise plantations for commercial use, specifically timber and medicinal plants. It is well known that big companies have an interest in taking over forest land for growing commercially important herbal and other plants. This entire section of amendments is a gift to such interests. Further in these Production Forest areas the State Government can levy cess, taxes, duties and so on
which will go directly to the State Government for development of forests.

On the one hand you handover forests to private interests and on the other you take money in the name of developing conservation but without the participation of tribals or their gram sabhas who have no right to decide how such funds are to be utilized.

Ch 5, instead of takeover of private forests, actually gives recognition and rights to ownership of private forests. Both these aspects in the sections mentioned above expose the claims of the Ministry that the amendments are in the interests of conservation.

There are many other amendments which are objectionable. Taken as a whole, the amendments cannot be accepted. We request you to withdraw the amendments. Instead it would be in the interests of forest conservation to bring the Forest Act 1927 in conformity with the FRA and other related laws
that seek to redress the historical injustices faced by tribal communities, now being perpetrated in modern forms in the name of development on the one hand and in the name of conservation on the other.

With regards,
Yours sincerely

Where are India’s Fisherworkers for the Govt in its Budget ?

July 12, 2019

Concerns of fisherworkers not taken into account who allege that there is a greater focus in Budget 2019 on processing and management

The Union budget presented on July 4, seems to have disappointed many communities including fisherworkers. The Kerala SwatantaraMatsyathozhilali Federation, a body of fisherworkerssaid that the Union Budget has let the fishers down. The Federation’s president Kackson Pollayil said that the budget neglected them, denying their pleas for subsidy on kerosene and diesel and a waiver of their debts. The request for a cut in the GST levied on fishing equipment and compensation to those affected by natural disasters was also neglected, reportedly.

Pollayil called for steps to prevent foreign fishing vessels from fishing in Indian waters. He also asked for a ban on pair and bull trawling. Pair trawling has been reportedly been the reason for low catch in the Malabar coast. National Fish Workers’ Forum general secretary blamed unscientific construction of breakwaters for sea erosion.

While presenting the budget, Finance Minister NirmalaSitharaman announced a new scheme which will promote processing in the fishery sector and allocated an estimated Rs. 3737 crore for a new ministry namely Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Although, the emphasis of the schemes appears to be to “address critical gaps in the value chain, including infrastructure, modernisation, traceability, production, productivity, post-harvest management, and quality control”, however there hardly seems any emphasis on protecting the lives and livelihood of traditional fisherfolks who are impacted by large scale fishing and climate change.

The scheme will be known as PradhanMantriMatsyaSampadaYojana (PMMSY) and has been established under the Department of Fisheries. Of the total budget allocated to the new ministry, Rs 2,932.25 crore is estimated to be spent on various schemes to promote animal husbandry and dairying, while Rs 804.75 crore for the fisheries sector in the current fiscal.

However, fisherfolks have different concerns. A fisherman from Chaliyam, whose fishing boat was destroyed during the Kerala floods, reportedly incurred a loss of over Rs. 1 lakh, but the compensation sanctioned to him was only Rs. 9000. Federation secretary Abdul Rasik said the compensation for boats damaged during the rescue operations were sanctioned only two weeks ago. The leaders of the two organisations plan to meet the Union Fisheries Minister to highlight the issues faced by the traditional fishing community.

Earlier, in 2018, in a Dangerous Setback to Coastal Planning and Safeguards in India, the Union Cabinet had approved Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2018.

In a press release issued by the press information bureau, it was confirmed that the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2018 has been approved by the union cabinet. This executive legislature will replace the CRZ 2011.

The draft CRZ 2018 put out for public comments was opposed strongly by fisher groups on grounds that commercial interests like industries, tourism and real estate were prioritised over coastal ecology and livelihoods. The current development indicates that none of the feedback offered by fisherfolk and civil society has been incorporated.

Major Dilutions included –

De-freezing of FSI in coastal areas, making way for high rises.
No Development Zones reduced.
Special considerations for tourism, defence and strategic projects.
Decentralising CRZ clearance procedures.
Opening up rural coastal areas for buildout.

1...1,3661,3671,368...2,697 Page 1,367 of 2,697

Enforced disappearances from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, people kept in secret detentions

How Special Coaching Helped A Karnataka District Improve Its SSLC Results

Bina Paul: “Collective viewing is empowering”

Bharathy Singaravel in conversation with the Artistic Director of IFFK

Bengal: No Stranger to Communalism

In this episode of Present, Past and the Future, Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay and Prof Partha S Ghosh explore the causes of communalisation in Bengal.

High-value opportunities exist to restore tropical rainforests around the world – here’s how we mapped them

Where to start

Forest restoration aligns with other global pledges

A means toward many ends

FIR against 10 for protest poem in Assam

Brinda Karat writes to Prakash Javadekar, MOEFF accusing him of “playing down” repressive measures of Indian Forest Act 1927

CPI (M) Politburo member Brinda Karat has written to Union Environment Minister PrakashJavadekar accusing the Centre of playing down the “repressive measures” proposed in the amendments of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Where are India’s Fisherworkers for the Govt in its Budget ?

Concerns of fisherworkers not taken into account who allege that there is a greater focus in Budget 2019 on processing and management

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT