Home Blog Page 2607

Explain termination of Dr Sandeep Pandey, High Court orders BHU

0


 
In a major setback to its summary and unilateral decision to terminate the services of renowned Gandhian, professor and Magsaysay award winner, Dr Sandeep Pandey on January 6, 2016, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) to explain the Board of Governor (BOG) decision that led to the termination.  
 
It was in pursuance of Resolution No 3.59 passed at the meeting of the Board of Governors held on December 21, 2015 that the decision to terminate the services was taken. The BOG, of the IIT BHU will now have to defend its resolution, which has been passed, casting stigma and making serious allegations against Dr Pandey. Dr Sandeep Pandey was called 'anti-national', without providing any opportunity for him to be heard, or giving him a chance to respond or explain. The BOG simply took cognisance of a letter from a student of M.A. IInd year Political Science (who never attended the IIT classes), even without taking any pains to verify the correctness of the allegations leveled. Dr Pandey was Visiting faculty at the IIT, BHU.
 
This action had drawn widespread condemnation across the country and was seen to be not just arbitrary but a manifestation of the machinations of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sway on the everyday functionings of the Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD).(See story below). The termination of the services of Dr. Sandeep Pandey as visiting faculty in the Department of Chemical Engineering, IIT BHU was challenged by him in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5323 of 2016, Sandeep Pandey Vs. Union of India and others.
 
The matter was taken up before the High Court at Allahabad on Friday, February 5, 2016  before the bench consisting of Justices V.K. Shukla and  M.C. Tripathi. The High Court under its order has asked the counsel appearing for IIT BHU to seek instructions in the matter as to how he defends the termination order and has posted the matter for hearing on February 11, 2016. Advocate Rahul  Mishra, appeared for Dr Pandey and Ajeet Kumar Singh for IIT BHU.
 
Dr Pandey in his petition has argued that his removal is an open abuse of power on ideological and non-academic grounds and it has its roots somewhere else. Besides he has argued that
the Vice Chancellor-Professor G.C. Tripathi was appointed as the Chairman of IIT Board of Governors by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India, bypassing the panel of five names recommended by the resolution of the Board. Professor G.C. Tripathi and Dean of Faculty Affairs, IIT (BHU), Professor Dhananjay Pandey, both gentlemen are associated with RSS, who has primarily forced the decision.

-The decision taken by the Board for terminating the services of Dr Pandey sans any academic considerations and it is merely on account of conflict of ideologies and therefore if such a decision stands vindicated, it will surely pose a threat to the basic fundamental freedoms granted in the Indian Constitution.

-The decision of the Board at the instance of the Chairman is in fact a step further to saffronisation of the IIT (BHU) and the University and in our democratic state such an attempt which is aimed at suppressing the ideologies is required to be nipped in bud as otherwise it will have serious effects.

-The framers of our Constitution have given to us the fundamental right in the shape of freedoms as detailed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, particularly freedom to speak under Article 19 (1) (a), which includes professing even different ideologies and State is prohibited from curbing such freedoms which are subject only to some reasonable restrictions (in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence) and the IIT (BHU) by means of the resolution and the consequent termination order has made a dent upon the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India.   

-The BOG resolution and order under challenge in the petition, has nothing to do with the academic performance of Dr Sandeep Pandey and he has been simply punished by the dictates of the Chairman of the Board. The Board was guided in its decision with the complaint of Avinash Pandey which appears to have been procured, without any verification. The truthfulness of the contents of the complaint were not verified through any preliminary fact finding enquiry. It was a rushed and un-thought through decision. .

-The branding of Dr Pandey as anti-national under the opinion formed by the Board has very serious effects as he is being sought to be permanently non-suited for any appointment/ engagement by any academic institute and that too without any enquiry or opportunity for him to be heard.

-The resolution and termination order under challenge in the High Court, which is stigmatic and passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner, Dr Pandey, and without even any fact finding enquiry-(i) goes to infringe fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 16, 19 (1) (a) & 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) is in complete violation of principles of natural justice & (iii) is wholly without jurisdiction because it was passed in the absence of any agenda on the board. 
 
See also
Intolerance Strikes, Sandeep Pandey is out of BHU
 
https://sabrangindia.in/article/intolerance-strikes-sandeep-pandey-out-bhu
 
RSS hardliners ensured the premature termination, says Pandey
 
My contract at the IIT, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) Varanasi as a visiting faculty has prematurely ended after teaching there for two-and-a-half years. This decision was prematurely taken by the Board of Governors (BOG). In a recent Board meeting the Vice Chancellor of BHU, who was made the Chairman of the IIT Board of Governors by the Minister of HRD, government of India, Smriti Irani, after by-passing the panel of five names recommended by a resolution of the Board of Governors. Thereafter, professor G.C. Tripathi, and Dean of Faculty Affairs, IIT, BHU and professor Dhananjay Pandey, both gentlemen associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), primarily forced the decision.

The charges levelled against me are that I am a Naxalite, showed a banned documentary on Nirbhaya case and am also involved in anti-national activities.

I wish to clarify that I'm not a Naxalite. The ideology that I would consider myself closest to is Gandhian.

But I do identify with the causes taken up by Naxalites even though I may not agree with their methods.

The banned documentary on Nirbhaya made by BBC was to be screened in my Development Studies class during the even semester of academic year 2014-15 but the decision was withdrawn after intervention of Chief Proctor of the BHU and officer of the Lanka Police Station just before the class. However, a discussion on the issue of violence against women in our society was conducted after screening a different documentary.

I do not believe in the idea of a nation or national boundaries, which I think are responsible for artificial divisions among human beings similar to the ones on the basis of caste or religion. Hence I cannot be anti or pro-nation. I am pro-people. I'm not a nationalist but am a universalist. I have no regrets as the decision to terminate my contract has not been taken based on my academic performance but it is because of my political views and activities. I've enjoyed my stay at IIT, BHU and wish the Institute and the University the best.
 
(Sandeep Pandey, a Magsaysay awardee for emergent leadership has trained in Mechanical Engineering but has been working on social justice issues; he is co-founder of Aasha)
 

Why Ambedkar rejected, outright Gandhi’s views on Temple entry

0


Image: Ram Rahman

Gandhi’s refusal to accept that caste was at the core of both inequality and untouchability within Hinduism lay at the heart of their difference

At a historic meeting that marked 83 years ago yesterday, February 4, Ambedkar and Gandhi met at the Yeravada prison in 1933.

Gandhi requested Dr. Ambedkar to lend his support to Dr. Subbarayan’s Temple entry Bill and that of Ranga Iyer. Dr. Ambedkar declined in person. Ten days later, he issued a statement on February 14, 1933. He outlined the impracticability of the bill, crticised it for not making Untouchability illegal and outlined why he would not prefer just temple entry.

Ambedkar in his own detailed arguments, on why he did not support Gandhi on Temple Entry

The main question is: Do the Depressed Classes desire Temple Entry or do they not? This main question is viewed by the Depressed Classes by two points of view. One is the materialistic point of view. Starting from it, the Depressed Classes think that the surest way of elevation lies in education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living. Once they become well placed in the scale of social life, they would become respectable the religious outlook of the orthodox towards them is sure to undergo change, and even if it didn’t happen, it can do no injury to their material interest. Proceeding on these lines the Depressed Classes say that they will not spend their resources on such an empty things as Temple Entry. There is another reason why they do not care to fight for it. Their argument is the argument of self-respect.

Not very long ago there used to be boards on club doors and other social resorts maintained by Europeans in India, which said “Dogs and Indians” are not allowed. The temples of Hindus carry similar boards today; the only difference is that the boards on the Hindu temples practically say: “All Hindus and all animals including gods are admitted; only Untouchables are not admitted”. The situation in both cases is of parity. But Hindus never begged for admission in those places form which the Europeans in their arrogance had excluded them.

Why should an Untouchable beg for admission in a place from which he has been excluded by the the arrogance of the Hindus? This is the reason of the Depressed Class man who is interested in material welfare. He is prepared to say the Hindus, “to open or not to open your temples is a question for you to consider and not for me to agitate. If you think, it is bad manners not to respect the sacredness of human personality, open your temple and be a gentleman. If you rather be a Hindu than a gentleman, then shut the doors and damn yourself for I don’t care to come.”

What is the drive behind this offer of temple entry ? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the advancement in the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold? Or is it only the first step and if it is the first step, what is the ultimate goal? Temple entry as a final goal, the Depressed Classes can never support.

I found it necessary to put the argument in this form, because I want to disabuse the minds of men like Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya of their belief that the Depressed Classes are looking forward for their patronage.

The second point of view is the spiritual one. As religiously minded people, do the Depressed Classes desire temple entry or do they not? That is the question. From the spiritual point of view, they are not indifferent to temple entry as they would be, if the material point of view alone were to prevail. But their final answer must depend upon the reply which Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus give to the questions namely: What is the drive behind this offer of temple entry? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the advancement in the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold? Or is it only the first step and if it is the first step, what is the ultimate goal? Temple entry as a final goal, the Depressed Classes can never support.

Indeed they will not only reject it, but they would then regard themselves rejected by Hindu Society and free to find their own destiny elsewhere. On the other hand, if is only to be a first step they may be inclined to support it. The position would then be analogous to what is happening in India today. All Indians have claimed dominion status for India. The actual constitution will fall short of Dominion status and many Indians will accept it. Why? The answer is that as the goal is defined, it does not matter much if it is to be reached by steps and not in one jump. But if the British had not accepted the goal of Dominion status, no one would have accepted the partial reforms which many are now willing to accept.

In the same way, if Mahatma Gandhi and the reformers were to proclaim what the goal which they have set before themselves is for the advancement of the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold, it would be easier for the Depressed Classes to define their attitude towards Temple entry.

The goal of the Depressed Classes might as well be stated here for the information and consideration of all concerned. What the Depressed Classes want is a religion, which will give them equality of social status. To prevent any misunderstanding, I would like to elaborate the point by drawing a distinction between social evils are which are the result of secular causes and social evils which are founded upon doctrine of religion. Social evils can have no justification whatsoever in a civilised society. But nothing can be more odious and vile than that admitted social evils should be sought to be justified on the ground of religion. The Depressed Classes may not be able to overthrow inequalities to which they are being subjected. But they have made up their mind not to tolerate a religion that will lend its support to the continuance of these inequalities.

The Depressed Classes can say that they are Hindus only if the theory of Chaturvarna and Caste system is abandoned and expunged from the Hindu shastras. Do the Mahatma and the Hindu reformers accept this as their goal and will they show the courage to work for it?

If the Hindu religion is to be their religion, then it must become a religion of Social Equality. The mere amendment of Hindu religious code by the mere inclusion in it of a provision to permit temple entry for all, cannot make it a religion of equality of social status. All that it can do is to recognize as nationals not aliens, if I may use the common terms which have become so familiar in politics. But that cannot mean that they would thereby reach a position where they would be free and equal. , without being above and below anyone else, for the simple reason that the Hindu religion does not recognise the principle of equality of social status : on the other hand it fosters inequality by insisting upon grading people as Brahmins, Kshatrias, Vaishyas and Shudras, which now stand toward one another in an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt.

If the Hindu Religion is to be a religion of social equality then an amendment of its code to provide temple entry is not enough. What is required is to purge it of the doctrine of chaturvarna. That is the root cause of all inequality and also the parent of the Caste system and Untouchability, which are merely forms of inequality. Unless it is done not only will the Depressed Classes reject the temple entry, they will also reject the Hindu faith. Chaturvarna and the Caste system are incompatible with the self-respect of the Depressed Classes. So long as they stand to be its cardinal doctrine, the depressed classes must continue to be looked upon as low.

The Depressed Classes can say that they are Hindus only if the theory of Chaturvarna and Caste system is abandoned and expunged from the Hindu shastras. Do the Mahatma and the Hindu reformers accept this as their goal and will they show the courage to work for it? I shall look forward to their pronouncements on this issue, before I decide upon my final attitude. But whether Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus are prepared for this or not, let it be known once and for all that nothing short of this will satisfy the Depressed Classes and make them accept temple entry. To accept temple entry and be content with it, is to temporise with evil and barter away the sacredness of human personality that dwells in them.

There is, however, one more argument which Mahatma Gandhi and the reforming Hindu may advance against the position I have taken. They may say: “acceptance by the Depressed Classes of Temple entry now, will not prevent them from agitating hereafter for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste. If that is the view, I like to meet the argument right at this stage so as to clinch the issue and clear the road for future developments. My reply is that it is true that my right to agitate for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste system will not be lost, if I accept Temple entry now. But the question is on what side will Mahatma Gandhi be when the question is put. If he will be in the camp of my opponents, I must tell him I can’t be in his camp now. If he will be in my camp he ought to be in it now.

(Almost all the Depressed Classes leaders of Dr. Ambedkar’s persuasions, endorsed the view of their leader. Srinivasan, Permtai and Malik upheld views of their leader.

Gandhi issued a statement in reply in which he stated : “I am a Hindu, not merely because I am born in the Hindu fold, but I am one by conviction and choice. There is no superiority or inferiority in Hinduism of my conception. But when Dr. Ambedkar wants to fight Varnashram itself, I cannot be in his camp, because I believe Varnashram to be an integral part of Hinduism. )

(Source: SECTION- IV Kalaram Temple entry Satryagraha, Nasik and Temple entry movement, Volume-XVII. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches)

Cast Out Caste: Allegations of Abusive Behaviour among Mass Communication students in Delhi

0


Image; Dominic Lipinski/PA
 
Dalit and Adivasi write to the Liason officer, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi urging action

 
Dalit Students of the Indian Instiute of Mass Communication, New Delhi have registered strong outrage and protest against fellow students who have allegedly  launched an especially vicious hate and abusive campaign against them on social media. In a written communication dated February 1, 2016 they have requested sensitisation classes to avoid spreading “ill will” against students belonging to Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe community on the Campus failing which they would be compelled to take legal action.
 
It is shocking that this sort of abuse has been resorted to by an Institute that will produce tomorrow’s journalists, television honchos, advertisement and public relations personnel apart from film makers!
 
The communication has been addressed to the Liason Officer, SC/ST Cell of the Institute.

The post on social media platform – Facebook on the January 18, 2016, “is derogatory and demeaning to the SC and ST students studying in IIMC. It clearly promotes ill will and hurts sentiments of the undersigned students.” There are, on paper, statutory safeguards under the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
 
Students have attached screen shots of their comments on the post which are reproduced below. The usage of Hindi words such as “Randi Rona” by the alleged offenders, shows contempt for the solidarity shown to a brother Dalit student, Malai Khana” on the matter of affirmative action towards social justice and the promotion of equity etc. And these are only some examples of the kind of statements which make the students feel that they are being look down upon.
 
Sabrangindia is in possession of a copy of the complaint. Dalit and Adivasi students have said that they do not want any punitive action “except a public apology and undertaking against the person writing or spreading such messages.” The follow up letter urges that,” we would beg to request a slot in the academic timetable to be allocated for sensitizing of all the students by experts in the field of Caste/Tribe reality and affirmative action, to promote amicability and inclusivity on campus. This initiative would make us feel human and dignified.”
 
Copies of the complaint have been also been addressed to Sunil Arora, IAS, Chairman, IIMC, Anurag Mishra, IIS, OSD, IIMC, All Dept. Heads and Course Coordinators , Ministry of Social Justice, Govt of India  and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Govt of India.
 
In a follow-up communication the students have also appreciated the positive response from the authorities. Students have further drawn attention to certain incidents that have occurred on campus aggravating discontent amidst the Dalit and Adivasi student post the petition filing. These are:

Case 1: 
Social media are now flooded with hashtags (#) of supporting the perpetrator and they say abusing and derogatory remarks made are freedom of speech and expression. (Annexure 1)

Case 2:
 In the campus there is an air of worry that one course is instrumental in trying to raise voice against the issue and it is juvenile on the part of that specific course. (Annexure 2)

Case 3: 
Comments are being passed and remarks made loud when the students pass through the corridors in the college and hostels.
 
Students have urged proactive action by the faculty to ensure harmony and amicability on campus failing which they would be forced to take legal recourse against their will. Dalit and Adivasi students are simply not able to focus on their studies.

Annexure 1 –Signature of students

Annexure 2

 

Daal and Eggs critical to stem hunger in drought areas: Swaraj Abhiyan

0

First Published on: January 29, 2016


Bundelkhand   Image: ndtv.com

Two kilograms of daal per household per month must be provided to every household for the drought-affected period by the Central/State governments as daal is a principle source of high and yet daal consumption has been reducing and is worse in this drought affected year that has severely impacted on hunger. The Tamil Nadu pattern of distributing daal at Rs 30 per kilogram is a feasible one.
 
Besides, eggs (or milk) need to be urgently provided within the Mid-Day Meal Schemes to school going children especially in drought-affected areas. Where milk is in short supply one egg per child is mandatory. These are some among a list of critical suggestions made by the Swaraj Abhiyan in its Written Arguments filed before the Supreme Cort today, January 29. The Abhiyan had filed a detailed petition before the supreme court praying for an enforcement of the National Food security Act, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) especially in drought affected areas of the country. The petition and the written arguments can be read here. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan and academic-activist Yogendra Yadav have formed and led the Swaraj Abhiyan.
 
Twelve states in the country including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Odisha are drought affected; however while all these declared their states as drought-affected between September and October 2015, the notable exceptions were Gujarat, Bihar and Haryana.
 
The Swaraj Abhiyan conducted an intense survey of Bundelkhand district in October 2015 and thereafter filed a petition asking for judicial directives for government schemes to be implemented forthwith to stem the acute distress prevalent in rural India. The petition was heard on January 4 and 22, 2016. The nest hearing of the petition is on February 1, 2016.
 
The petition and the written notes both make a strong plea for the Manual for Drought Management to be followed by the Government for managing water resources in the drought-affected areas including  policy for use of reservoir storage, repair and augmentation of all existing water supply schemes  and other emergency measures for supply of drinking water
 
In its petition, the Swaraj Abhiyan has relied on data collected by the Samvedana Yatra across nine states between October 2 to 15, 2016 to assess the ground situation resulting from the drought and also conducted an independent survey in 108 representative villages in the severely affected Budelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh which shows alarming figures: 39% families had not consumed dal even once in the last 30 days, 60% had not consumed any milk and 14% admitted going to bed hungry at least once during this period; 40% families had to resort to distress sale of their cattle, 24% had to mortgage or sell their land and 79% had to eat roti or rice with just salt of chutney at some point since the crop failure around Holi this year.
 
The Swaraj Abhiyan, in its petition, claims that this has been confirmed subsequently by various media reports, and that though it had addressed letters to Chief Ministers of various states to request urgent action on drought relief, they have failed to redress the misery of this vast population, they have even failed to properly implement the existing schemes that could have provided support during this period of distress. Swaraj Abhiyan has also stated in its writ petition that except for 2 states no other states have implemented the National Food Security Act, resulting in the failure to provide adequate food grains through the Public Distribution System at this hour of crisis.
 
In its petition, the response of the Centre and states have been described as ineffective and sluggish: “The total number of person days employment generated under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Generation Scheme has actually gone down during this drought period, when it was needed most. States have not followed the relief work required under their own drought manual. Not a single state has as yet paid any relief or compensation for Kharif crop loss; most of the respective governments have failed to fully pay for the crop losses during previous Rabi crops; insurance schemes have benefitted only a tiny fraction. State governments do not have adequate funds to handle this disaster and the Government of India does not follow any transparent method to provide funds for this purpose.”
 
While the fact of drought is admitted by the Union of India and various states and that eight states have already officially declared a state of drought, the states of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana have not yet declared a drought despite recording rainfall deficit of 28%, 14% and 38% respectively, states the petition. Slamming the states for their weak, ineffective and tardy response towards alleviating the conditions of drought affected citizens, the petitioner has made the startling claim that no government has provided any compensation or relief to the farmers for crop loss during this drought. The Swaraj Abhiyan has charged the states of being highly negligent in performing their obligations and accused them of causing enormous damage to the lives of the people due to their inaction.
 
The petitioner has claimed that though the states are bound to give open handed employment of 150 days at the legal minimum wage for all willing to avail in the drought affected areas in accordance with the standard laid down by the respondents themselves under the MGNREG Act, 2005, they have failed to provide the same. Further, Swaraj Abhiyan, in its PIL has stated that the States have failed to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013 whose very purpose is to provide food security means and make available sufficient food-grains to meet the domestic at affordable prices.
 
The Abhiyan has asserted that the negligence on the part of the Central Government and the State governments amounts to a contravention of the rights of citizens guaranteed under Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India, and it has also charged the states with having abdicated their constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which makes it mandatory for the Respondents to ensure the right to life of the citizens which includes the right to live with dignity with at least two square meals a day.
 
The petition seeks the intervention of the Supreme Court in such dire circumstances to alleviate the conditions of the drought affected people, the Swaraj Abhiyan has inter alia, sought for directions to the Centre and the 11 states arrayed as the respondents in the writ petition to : (i) declare a drought in their respective states and provide immediate essential relief and compensation to their people to tackle the present natural calamity; (ii) provide adequate and timely compensation for crop loss and input subsidy for the next crop to the farmers affected by drought; (iii) immediately make available and make timely payment for employment of 150 days under the MGNREG Act to the drought affected people, and (iv) immediately make available food-grains as specified under National Food Security Act, 2013 to all the rural people in drought affected areas irrespective of any classification such as APL/BPL; (v) restructure crop loans for damaged crops and other debts of farmers in the drought affected areas; (vi) to formulate uniform standard rules for the purpose of declaration of drought; and (vii) fix fair, objective and transparent package for crop loss compensation.

On the first date of hearing of the matter on January 4, 2016, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to collate data on the various social security schemes being implemented in the 12 drought-affected states. The court asked states to assist the Centre in doing so. The court asked the Centre to collate data on deficit rainfall, implementation of National Food Security Act, midday meal scheme and the Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The petition has sought timely disbursement of crop loans, drought compensation, help in procurement of subsidized cattle fodder and formulating an integrated water policy.

 Meanwhile, the ongoing Right to Food Campaign has collated its findings on the efficacy of the National Food Security Act (NFSA).

Critical data mapping by the Right to Food Campaign (this updated map and this detailed table which depicts the inclusion and exclusion criterion, eligibility lists of beneficiaries and toll free helplines) reflects the rollout of the  National Food Security Act (NFSA)NFSA across India based on statements by the central and state governments. This is a crucial mapping in a year when almost half of the country’s districts reel under severe drought conditions. The situation on the fround however tells a different tale. Especially in states that have only recently enacted and launched the Act, the situation on the ground is far different.
 
Starvation Deaths: There has been a spate of starvation deaths in the news over past months, especially with the 65 deaths in the tea gardens of West Bengal in the last six months of 2015, in the drought-affected districts of Odisha and even Chhattisgarh.  In Uttar Pradesh the drought has been described as a situation of man-made starvation (Hindi). In West Bengal, the Duncan group has agreed to open langars in their gardens but the situation remains grim in other estates.
The findings from the ground on the implementation of the NFSA by the Right to Food Campaign reveal the following:
 
Uttar Pradesh: Uttar Pradesh, where 50 of the 75 districts have been affected by deficit rainfall, was committed to launching the NFSA on December 1, 2015 in three phases till April 2016. But in Bundelkhand the situation is dire. Families are forced to eat rotis made of grass, farmers are mired in debt and out-migration rampant in a situation of official denial of hunger and man-made starvation [Hindi].  A survey conducted by Swaraj Abhiyan in October also found that in 30 days, 39% families had not consumed dal even once, 60% had not consumed any milk and 14% admitted going to bed hungry at least once.
 
Odisha:The NFSA was officially rolled-out on October 2, 2015 and subsidised grain was distributed from early November in 14 districts. But there has been some confusion on the ground at a time when 26 of 30 districts have been affected by drought. The Dongria Kondhs have been denied Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) cards, that they are automatically eligible for as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). In November=December 2015, the Odisha Khadya Adhikar Abhiyan also organised a Lok Adhikar Yatra which converged in Sambalpur.
 
Jharkhand: The NFSA was formally launched on September 25, 2015, but the distribution of new ration cards has been fraught. The state campaign organised a two-day training program to monitor the implementation of the Act. A one-page survey proforma, guidelines and a software program have also been designed to match the list of eligible beneficiaries from the state government website with the Census 2011 Primary Census Abstract population database, which can be adopted by other state campaigns too.
 
Jammu and Kashmir: There has been sustained opposition to the NFSA by some opposition parties and citizens who have taken to the streets to demand that their original guarantee of 35 kilos per person be retained instead of 5 kilos per person.  
 
But on the positive front, there have been a few important developments:
 
West Bengal: In a welcome development the state government has announced that with an additional expenditure from its own coffers, it will expand the coverage to 80-85% of the population eligible for foodgrains under the Act. This will expand coverage from the current 3.33 crore people in the state to almost 9 crore. In September-October 2015, the state campaign had organised an NFSA awareness campaign with motorbike rallies on 5 routes. 
 
Antyodaya Anna Yojana Restored: Some months ago, the Food Ministry had proposed the winding-up the AAY category to provide 35 kilograms of subsidised foodgrain to ‘poorest of the poor’ families over time. But after much opposition by the campaign, citizens and people’s organisations, that provision has been dropped. The original and modified orders are here.
 
Dal in PDS: With the increase in prices of pulses and uproar in Parliament, the central government has instructed the states to provide pulses through the public distribution system. The Agriculture Ministry has also apparently offered to make pulses available for the PDS.  But only a few states (see table) already provide pulses and oil through ration shops. Many more need to follow suit.
 
ICDS: After substantial across-the-board budget cuts for social sector programs and sustained protests by civil society, allocations for the current year for the ICDS has been marginally increased to Rs.15,485.77 crores. But in the midst of drought, there are reports from Uttar Pradesh that 1.5 lakh children have been denied cooked meals at anganwadis for three months due to delays from the centre.

Roll-out of National Food Security Act, 2013 (Table)