Government of India | SabrangIndia

Willing to end struggle but no faith in GoI: SKM

Tue, 07 Dec 2021 13:12:57 +0000

The farmers’ protest is possibly about to reach its conclusion, as the central government appears in favour of accepting the major demands of the struggle, said sources on December 7, 2021. However after a suspended meeting, farmers remain apprehensive, as the move comes at the cost of ending the nationwide movement.

On receiving a written letter from the central government, farmers’ umbrella body Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) leader Gurnam Singh Chaduni said, “We have three objections about the letter sent by the government regarding the demands. Primarily, they want us to stop the movement but we suspect the government’s goodwill after past experiences.”

For nearly 15 months, India’s farmers have been out on the streets, voicing their demands to the central government. Recently, as state elections draw closer, the BJP-led central government has warmed to the idea of listening to farmers’ demands. Prior to the Parliament’s winter session, Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to the crucial demand of the repeal of the three farm laws.

On Tuesday, the government agreed to revoke the FIRs against 50 thousand agitating farmers across India. Additionally, they said that leaders received intimation from the government that it is willing to accept all other major demands of the movement. If this is done, the protesting farmers who have stayed at Delhi borders for over a year, will return to their villages and fields.

“SKM’s five-member committee discussed the letter. Leaders are still figuring out the details with government officials. We have asked for clarifications from the government which we expect to receive by 2 PM on December 8,” said Balbir Singh Rajewal.

As a recap, farmers have the following major demands before the government currently:

– legal guarantee to Minimum Support Price (MSP) for any agricultural produce that they sell;

– withdrawal of Electricity (Amendment) Bill and deletion of penal provisions related to Delhi Air Quality regulation;

– withdrawal of cases against protesting farmers;

– rehabilitation and compensation for the families of people who were martyred during the struggle.

Of these, sources said the government is also willing to work with farmers to compensate and rehabilitate families of the 700 martyred farmers. During the winter session, Union Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Minister Narendra Tomar said it has “no records” of such deaths.

“The government says it is willing to compensate farmers. But we feel if the central government follows the Punjab government model of one job and Rs. 5 lakh for each martyr, then their kin will receive justice to some extent,” said All India Kisan Sabha President Ashok Dhawale.

Similarly, the government promised to table Bills regarding withdrawal of the Electricity (Amendment) Bill after talking to stakeholders. However, as leaders pointed out the government had already agreed to dismiss the Bill in previous discussions. As for the air quality legislature, farmers demanded the deletion of Section 15 that penalises farmers for stubble burning. For MSP, the central government asked SKM representatives to create a committee with officials, experts in this regard. However, leaders have already demanded a written assurance from the government first.

“The government says it will include other farmer leaders. We are worried, the government may include individuals who support WTO motives,” said Chaduni.

Further, Dhawale said, “The SKM struggled for the last one year for the realisation of MSP. As such, farmer representatives of unions that supported the farm laws or dismissed MSP requirements should not be part of the committee.”

Farmers other demands include martyr memorial and the suspension and arrest of Union Minister Ajay Mishra for his alleged involvement in the Lakhimpur Kheri killings. Leaders said that details about the latter will be discussed on Wednesday.

While neither denying nor confirming rumours of an approaching conclusion to the farmers protest, farmer leaders said that the hundreds of farmer deaths in the last one year could have been avoided if the central government had accepted their demands sooner.

The post Willing to end struggle but no faith in GoI: SKM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

PM CARES: Whose Fund is it anyway?

Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:43:46 +0000

Image Courtesy:indiatoday.in

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has finally admitted that the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situation (PM CARES) Fund, does not belong to the Government of India (GoI) and is infact a “third party”. This shocking revelation has set the cat among the pigeons, what with the fund being launched with a high intensity public relations campaign and previous declarations of involvement of not just the Prime Minister, but several top government officials.

Were these previous official statements, just an effort to add a touch of legitimacy to the fund whose ownership remains nebulous? Has the government been gaslighting us so far?

In a written submission made before the Delhi High Court in connection with a petition seeking that PM CARES Fund be declared as ‘The State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, an Under Secretary at the PMO, has stated, “Irrespective of whether the trust is a “State” or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and or whether it is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of section 2[h] of Right to Information Act, Section 8 in general and that of provisions contained in sub section [e] and [j], in particular, of the Right to Information Act, it is not permissible to disclose third party information.” Also, the fund’s amount does not go into the Consolidated Fund of India. The PMO official further submitted that his role in the fund is on an honourary basis and that its funds are audited by a Chartered Accountant from the panel prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

PM CARES Fund: The official story

As per the PM CARES Fund’s own website, “PM CARES Fund has been registered as a Public Charitable Trust. The trust deed of PM CARES Fund has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908 at New Delhi on 27th March, 2020.” It was set up with the primary objective to deal with any kind of emergency situation like the one currently posed by the Covid-19 outbreak and provide relief to those affected. According to the Fund’s official website, “The primary objectives of the PM CARES Fund Trust are:-

To undertake and support relief or assistance of any kind relating to a public health emergency or any other kind of emergency, calamity or distress, either man-made or natural, including the creation or upgradation of healthcare or pharmaceutical facilities, other necessary infrastructure, funding relevant research or any other type of support.
To render financial assistance, provide grants of payments of money or take such other steps as may be deemed necessary by the Board of Trustees to assist the affected population.
To undertake any other activity, which is not inconsistent with the above Objects.”

As far as trustees are concerned, “The Prime Minister is Chairperson (ex-officio) of the PM CARES Fund and Minister of Defence, Minister of Home Affairs and Minister of Finance, Government of India are ex-officio Trustees of the Fund.” Additionally, “The Prime Minister, as the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of PM CARES Fund, has the power to nominate three trustees to the Board who shall be eminent persons in the field of research, health, science, social work, law, public administration and philanthropy. All the Trustees of the PM CARES Fund act in a pro bono capacity.” Moreover, “The fund is administered on an honorary basis by a Joint Secretary (Administration) in the PMO as Secretary to the fund, who is assisted on honorary basis by an Officer of the rank of Director/Deputy Secretary (Administration) in the PMO. The Prime Minister’s Office provides such administrative and secretarial support to the Trustees for the management and administration of the Trust, as may be required by the Trustees.” The website also says, “The Head Office of the Fund is Prime Minister’s Office, South Block, New Delhi.”

Interestingly, on the subject of audits, the website says, “PM CARES Fund is audited by an independent auditor. Trustees of the Fund during the 2nd meeting held on 23.04.2020 decided to appoint M/s SARC & Associates, Chartered Accountants, New Delhi as the auditors of PM CARES Fund for 3 years.” This is not in line with the submission made before the Delhi HC where it was said that the auditor was appointed by a panel prepared by the CAG.

Why you should care about PM CARES

All this creates an interesting grey area for the Fund to operate in. It boasts of honourary / pro bono involvement of top public officials, thus dodging the bullet on their remunerations for their duties to the Fund being paid from public money. The presence of elected government officials as trustees, also adds to the legitimacy quotient. However, it does not say anything about public ownership of the fund.

In light of the latest disclosure, are these government officials, trustees in a private capacity? How are individuals, acting in a private capacity, allowed to be trustees of a public trust?

Why is the Head Office of a Fund that is not owned by the Government of India, located in Prime Minister’s Office?

And, if PM CARES is a Public Charitable Trust and registered as such, in light of the recent revelations, how is it then “not permissible to disclose third party information”?

If all donations have been made via electronic transfers and credit cards, in a purported bid to maintain transparency, why is this “transparency” being hidden behind a veil by preventing scrutiny by way of bringing the Fund under the Right to Information (RTI) Act?

Also, why were public servants and defence personnel such as members of the Indian Air Force (IAF) made to contribute from their salaries to the fund if it is not owned by the Government of India?

How much money is involved?

As per the official website, where the data appears to be outdated, “During 2019-20, an amount of Rs. 3076.62 Crore was collected under PM CARES Fund.” This includes, Rs. 39.68 lakh that was collected in foreign currency. There is no information about donations in 2020-21.

As far as allocations are concerned, the website says, “So far, an amount of Rs. 3100 Crore has been allocated from PM CARES Fund for the following activities:-

Rs. 2000 Crore : For supply of 50,000 ‘Made-in India’ ventilators to Government Hospitals run by Centre/States/UTs
Rs. 1000 Crore : For care of migrant labourers (funds allotted to State/UT Govts.)
Rs. 100 Crore : For vaccine development”

This is interesting because the Made in India ventilators had drawn flak from the Bombay High Court when it was discovered that at least 113 out of 150 ventilators supplied to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, through the PM CARES Fund, were found to be faulty. Six sets of flaws were detected in these ventilators. A company by the name of Jyoti CNC has manufactured the said 150 ventilators with the model name ‘Dhaman III’.

Some of the faults found in these ventilators include ‘no in-let O2 pressure’ display and ‘patient becoming hypoxic’ when on ventilator. The court was also informed that the private hospitals which were given 41 ventilators indicated that all of them were non-functional and declined to use them as it could be life threatening for patients. The Dean of government hospital, Ambajogai, also informed the court that none of the ventilators given to them were worthy of being put to use.

During a hearing on May 25, 2021, a Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and BU Debadwar of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), observed, “We find a serious issue before us as regards the defective functioning of the ventilators. Except the 37 ventilators which are yet to be un-boxed, 113 ventilators put to use are found to be defective…We find the above situation as regards the dysfunctional ventilators supplied through the PM Cares Fund, to be quite serious. We, therefore, call upon the learned ASGI to state, as to what action would the Union of India initiate in these circumstances.”

A few days later, Central Government reportedly submitted that the 150 ventilators in question were supplied through “Make-in-India and not through the PMCARES Fund.” This is interesting because according to PM CARES Fund’s own website the “Made in India” ventilators were allocated Rs 2000 crores under the PM CARES Fund. Which ventilators were then manufactured using these funds, and how did non-PM CARES Fund ventilators get allocated to government run hospitals? What funds were used to supply these defective ventilators under the ‘Make in India’ initiative? In light of poor quality of these ventilators, doesn’t the ‘Make in India’ initiative itself not come under the scanner for manufacturing and supplying defective products, especially amidst a crisis involving life and death situations? The court itself remarked, “We would have appreciated, had that affiant (author of the affidavit) avoided entering into a blame game and would have shown sensitivity towards the patients, it being the paramount object of a welfare state to take care of the health of its citizens.”

PM CARES: Litigations and Revelations

SabrangIndia has been tracing the various claims made by officials, authorities and the Fund website itself, as well as the various litigations surrounding it.

An RTI application seeking the trust deed of the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) fund elicited a response from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) stating that the trust fund is not a public authority. The RTI application was filed by Harsha Kandukuri, a student of LLM at Azim Premji University had sought copies of the trust deed and all government orders, circulars and notifications related to its creation and functioning.

The Fund has been the subject of several court cases. A petition at the Delhi High Court seeks to bring PM CARES under the ambit of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) so that all the information such as amount collected, utilised can be readily available for the public at large. Another petition at Delhi High Court has challenged the rejection of information on PM CARES fund by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in response to an RTI application.

In May 2020, a petition was filed before the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court seeking an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) into the PMCARES Fund. In June, a public Interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions that the Centre transfers all contributions of the PM CARES Fund to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and that it formulates a National Plan as per the Disaster Management Act. This petition was dismissed by the SC in August.

On December 17, 2020, RTI activist Saket Gokhale wrote to Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla seeking prosecution sanction to initiate proceedings against Pradeep Kumar Srivastava who is the Under Secretary (Funds) in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and one of the officials responsible for handling the PM CARES Fund.

Gokhale wanted to initiate action against Srivastava and others handling the fund under provisions of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Gokhale’s letter quotes from the trust deed of PM CARES fund that says, “This trust is not created under the Constitution of India or by any law made by Parliament or by any State Legislature.” It adds, “There is no control of either the Central Government or any State Government/s, either direct or indirect in functioning of the Trust in any matter whatsoever.” This passage is what Gokhale used as the basis for challenging the usage of the national emblem that as per law may only be used by official government entities for official government purposes.

In May 2021, Gokhale also filed an Intervention Application (IA) before the Supreme Court asking for the PM CARES Fund to be made a respondent in the suo motu case being heard by the court on relief efforts related to Covid-19.

The post PM CARES: Whose Fund is it anyway? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pegasus Scandal: SC finally issues notice to GoI

Tue, 17 Aug 2021 07:48:28 +0000

Image Courtesy:financialexpress.com

The Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose has issued a notice to the Government of India after a series of hearings on the Pegasus snooping matter. Several pleas have been filed in the top court against alleged illegal hacking and surveillance of electronic devices of citizens including journalists, human rights activists, academicians, a former minister and even a judge!

The Union government had filed a short affidavit before the court denying the allegations of all the petitioners, and had also stated their decision to form a committee to examine the issue to dispel “any wrong narrative by vested interests”. The petitioners objected to the affidavit as it did not outrightly deny the charges of the use of Pegasus to spy on citizens.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one group of the petitioners (journalists, N Ram and Sashi Kumar) had argued on August 16, “We don’t want the government which might have used Pegasus to set up a committee. Where is the question of a committee coming? They should be given enough time to submit an affidavit on facts. Have they (Centre) sought an FIR? Have they complained to the Israel government? What has the Centre done? This is serious.”

He further took objection to the “limited affidavit” filed by the Centre. He said, “The Government of India must state on oath if they or their agencies have ever used Pegasus. This fact has to be either denied or accepted. That is not done in the affidavit filed by the Centre. Government says there is no issue but the Israel government is investigating the allegations. This is wholly unacceptable.”

Sibal also pointed out that the former Information Technology Minister had told the Parliament in 2019 that phones of nearly 121 Indians were targeted by Pegasus, and highlighted that the Centre has not done anything since. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who has been directly aggrieved as his phone has been reportedly hacked by Pegasus, submitted that even the Minister’s statement before the Parliament does not make a categorical denial of the use of this Israeli spyware. “There is no denial that they are not using it. Privacy is a fundamental right,” he said. On the issue of the technical committee being set up, he argued that a government-controlled committee would not be able to gain the confidence of the courts and the public.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for Rajya Sabha member John Brittas of CPI(M), had contended yesterday that the Government’s affidavit was “delightfully non-committal” on the question of using Pegasus. She asked, “If the government itself has not taken any onus, what will this government set up committee do?”

Today, on August 17, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta argued that their affidavit is sufficient and would not like to file another detailed one. He said that they will set up a technical committee with “neutral people” and that the report of the committee will be submitted to the Supreme Court. He cited national security issues to evade another affidavit.

He contended, “The Affidavit is sufficient. The government of India is before the highest constitutional court. There is a statutory mechanism which permits you to have interceptions as per statutory procedure. Now, all petitions pray that the court should inquire into this. We know that IT encryption rules are there for state security and national security purposes, and this software can be used. These software’s are purchased by every country, they (petitioners) want it to be divulged if the software has not been used. If we divulge this, then the terrorists can take preventive steps. These are issues of national security. We are not hiding anything from this court. Let the committee examine the allegations and let it be monitored by the court, but as a constitutional court, it cannot expect a central government to reveal issues of national security in an affidavit which is in public domain.”

The Chief Justice clarified that they are not compelling the government to reveal information about national security. Justice Surya Kant said, “None of us would like to compromise with the security of the nation or the defence of the nation, we are not going to ask you to disclose anything. But here, we have some persons of eminence who are alleging snooping and hacking of phones. Now this can also be done but only with permission of competent authority. What is the problem if the authority files an affidavit before us?”

The Bench further reiterated that it does not want the government to disclose any information related to national security. Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal intervened at this point, and said that the petitioners too do not want information pertaining to the security of the country. “He (Solicitor General representing the Centre) must reply if Pegasus as a technology was used,” he concluded.

The court then issued a notice to the Government of India and directed the matter to be listed after 10 days. “This is at the stage of admission. I will issue a notice before admission. We will see if we have to constitute a committee, let us see how the matter goes,” CJI Ramana reportedly said.

On one hand where the Centre has not denied the use of Pegasus in its affidavit, the Union Defence Ministry has categorically denied having any transaction with Pegasus maker NSO Group Technologies in the Parliament. The written response provided on August 9, by Ajay Bhatt, Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence, said, “Ministry of Defence has not had any transaction with NSO Group Technologies.”

The order dated August 16 may be read here:

Pegasus spyware trotting into ministers’ phones, who is next?
Pegasus Project: 5 targeted journalists move SC, say have been subject to intrusive hacking
Pegasus Snoopgate: RS MP, Journalists move SC for court monitored probe
India’s Deep State: Is any citizen safe?
Defence Ministry has had no transaction with Pegasus developer NSO Group: Centre in RS

The post Pegasus Scandal: SC finally issues notice to GoI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Farmers’ leaders poke holes in PM’s Independence Day speech

Mon, 16 Aug 2021 06:00:08 +0000

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) on August 15, 2021 announced intentions to expose the “anti-farmer” government, after Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke about the Centre’s contributions for farmers’ benefit during his annual speech from the Red Fort.

AIKS General Secretary Hannan Mollah condemned Modi’s speech at the Red Fort wherein he said, “the BJP Government has been doing a lot for farmers.” Mollah reminded that farmers are still at Delhi borders and other protest sites across India for over nine months.

Over 600 farmers have become martyrs in the struggle. However, their demands for the repeal of the three farm Acts, amendments to the Electricity Act and a call for Minimum Support Price (MSP) as a legal right did not receive due attention during Parliament proceedings.

The AIKS alleged that farmers’ incomes dwindled over the last seven years as opposed to government claims of doubling incomes. Farm suicides have increased.

“The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana [PMFBY] which he highlighted as helping small farmers has actually become a monumental failure. Farmers’ claims are not being settled although premium is paid by them as well as state and central governments,” said Mollah.

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Punjab, Telangana, West Bengal and other states have opted out of the PMFBY scheme because of its inefficacy, said the AIKS. Further, the cheap credit available to small farmers excludes millions of tenant cultivators. Even during the Covid-19 pandemic, farmers said they received no relief or loan waiver.

Modi also said that MSP has been increased to 1.5 times the cost of production. However, even at this MSP – that is 40-50 percent below C2+50 percent – procurement for most crops is not assured.

The AIKS said that in 2020, farmers hailing from 11 major agricultural states received about Rs. 1,900 crores less than MSP for crops sold in October and November. Maize prices were hovering around Rs.1,100 and Rs.1,550 per quintal as against the MSP of Rs.1,850 per quintal. In Karnataka, the average price of bajra was 45 percent below MSP in October, 2020. In Madhya Pradesh, jowar fetched 56 percent lesser than MSP in the same month due to failure of procurement mechanism.

Major paddy states reported 15 percent less than MSP procurement and Bihar reported about 50 percent below MSP. If the C2+50 percent policy was assured for paddy, farmers would have received Rs.650 per quintal more than MSP and Rs.1,400 per quintal more than MSP for moong.

“The costs of all agricultural inputs especially the back-breaking increases in diesel, petrol and fertilisers are making agriculture unviable. The PM-KISAN is pittance [sic] when compared to the increase in production costs and loss of incomes for which the BJP Government’s policies are solely responsible,” said Mollah.

Farmers mark the 74th year of Indian Independence

While government officials gathered for speeches, India’s peasantry took out a Kisan Kavad Yatra from Tankri Rewari to Shahjahanpur border. Farmers participating in the 8-9 km padyatra carried the soil of the field in one hand and the water of the village in the other hand to be kept at the Shaheed Smarak near the Shahjahanpur border. Farmers from Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi etc. were present in this yatra including leaders like Yogendra Yadav and Deepak Lamba.

The post Farmers’ leaders poke holes in PM’s Independence Day speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Don’t maintain records of telephone interception: MHA

Fri, 06 Aug 2021 06:35:57 +0000

Image Courtesy:bharatchugh.in

Amid strong backlash regarding the Pegasus scandal in the ongoing monsoon session, the Government of India has stated that it does not maintain records of telephone interception. Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, sought details from the Centre about the number of persons whose telephones have been intercepted from 2016 till 2021.

Devusinh Chauhan, the Communications Minister apprised the Rajya Sabha that records of such interception are regularly destroyed as per the Indian Telegraph Rules. His answer dated August 5 reads, “As informed by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the records pertaining to lawful interception are destroyed regularly as per provisions contained in Sub-rule 18 of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph (1st Amendment of 2014) Rules, 2014 and Sub-rule 23 of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009. Such records are not being maintained by MHA.”

The government has also justified the act in their reply saying that lawful interceptions are allowed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, read with Rule 419 A of Indian Telegraph (1st Amendment of 2014) Rules, 2014, and Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.

“As per both these Rules, for approving interception, Union Home Secretary is the Competent Authority in case of Central Government and Secretary in charge of Home Department in case of States/UTs”, reads his answer.

Interestingly, John Brittas, who posed this question, was one of the first persons to approach the Supreme Court when news about the alleged snooping surfaced. As previously reported by SabrangIndia, his PIL has asked the court to direct the Centre to conduct an immediate investigation through a special investigating team, which would be monitored by the Supreme Court of India. He has alleged in his PIL that the Pegasus snooping allegations have caused huge apprehensions and great agony to the citizens, and that such snooping violates a citizen’s freedom of speech under Article-19 (1) (a) as well as his/her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. “Only a proper court monitored investigation can alleviate these apprehensions and agonies,” the plea states.

On August 5, the Supreme Court heard the matter pertaining to surveillance using Pegasus for the first time. The Bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant took note of the several petitions filed in the matter and asked the parties to serve copies of their pleas to the central government. The matter will be taken up on August 10.

The answer may be read here:

The post Don’t maintain records of telephone interception: MHA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Urgent action needed against spread of Covid in tribal areas!

Fri, 04 Jun 2021 11:29:20 +0000

Image Courtesy:newindianexpress.com

Provide a response team for tribal and forest dwelling communities adversely affected by the second wave of Covid-19, demanded civil society organisations, activists, researchers in a letter to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) on June 4, 2021.

The group said, “Covid-19 spread, which was sparse during the first wave, has increased and intensified this year compounded with poor or non-existent health service.”

Accordingly, members recommended:

a government Covid-Response Cell to collect data, communicate preventive protocols and conduct RT-PCR and special vaccination drives;
special monitoring of health care structure and services;
immediate removal of forest-entry restrictions, allowing indigenous people to exercise rights approved by their respective Gram Sabha;
state government support for transport of forest produce, its procurement and marketing to prevent distress sale; delivery of essential materials like food grains, vegetables, medicines, masks, sanitizers etc.;
effective coverage with all social security schemes such as MGNREGA.

On the aspect of livelihood, the group said, “Nearly 87 percent of Adivasis are forest dependent. Minor forest produce collection, transport and sales are affected by the lockdown. State procurement and special measures to address livelihood and food security are largely absent or ineffective. Other calamities such as cyclones, forest fires and untimely rains have further pushed them to severe distress.”

The group also suggested activating State Tribal Welfare departments to ensure effective implementation of the above recommendations. It suggested that the State Tribal Welfare departments and MoTA can work together to streamline a flow of information allowing easy monitoring of the situation, status of services and response to emergencies.

Signatories like Madhu Sarin and CR Bijoy of Campaign for Survival and Dignity, Soumitra Ghosh of the All India Forum for Forest Movement, Neema Pathak Broome of Kalpavriksh, noted that 21 particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs) already reported Coronavirus infection.

Prior to the letter, the group submitted a report to the government in May 2020 highlighting problems faced by Adivasis and other forest dwellers during the first wave. It demanded urgent action, including creation of a task force for quick response towards the situation.

While it is unclear whether officials responded to the report at the time, nowadays Adivasi areas lack effective and accessible health care facilities. Absence of basic equipment like oximeters, medicines, and capacity to deal with emergencies have compounded the crisis. Even to access basic health facilities, one has to travel to far away district headquarters where healthcare facilities are functioning at full-capacity.

The post Urgent action needed against spread of Covid in tribal areas! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Centre’s paid vaccination policy for 18 to 44 years, prima facie arbitrary and irrational: SC

Wed, 02 Jun 2021 12:29:11 +0000

Image Courtesy:ndtv.com

Observing that the vaccine policy for the age group 18 to 44 years has been substantially changed by the Government of India, requiring some of them to pay for them, an additional requirement of mandatory digital registration and booking an appointment through CoWin, the Supreme Court has called it “prima facie, arbitrary and irrational.”

The Bench recorded that this ‘Liberalized Vaccination Policy’ submitted by the Centre through its affidavit dated May 9 does not prioritise persons with comorbidities, persons with disabilities, or any other vulnerable groups. Given the experience of the second wave of the pandemic, the court noted that Covid-19 is capable of mutation and now poses a threat to persons in the younger age group too. “Reports indicate that persons between 18-44 years of age have not only been infected by Covid-19, but have also suffered from severe effects of the infection, including prolonged hospitalization and, in unfortunate cases, death,” the Bench reportedly said.

On the issue of vaccine procurement, the three-judge Bench of Justices Chandrachud, Ravindra Bhat and Nageswara Rao said that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. It noted that “many State/UT Governments and local municipal bodies have issued tenders and attempted to negotiate with foreign manufacturers but they have largely been unsuccessful, as foreign manufacturers are not inclined to negotiate with individual State/UT Governments and prefer negotiating with federal governments of countries.”

It recorded the submission made by Amici Jaideep Gupta and Meenakshi Arora that the Centre is better placed to use its monopoly as a buyer (India being the second most populous country) to bargain for higher quantities of vaccines at reasonable prices. In response to this, the court held, “We find that the submissions urged by the Amici are extremely pertinent and have indicated that in practice, the Liberalized Vaccination Policy may not be able to yield the desired results of spurring competitive prices and higher quantities of vaccines.”

With respect to vaccine availability, the top court noted the submissions of the Union in its affidavit, that it is difficult to predict the projections for vaccines given that it depends on variable factors such as introduction of new foreign vaccines, capability of increased production by existing manufacturers, etc.

Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, had during the course of his oral submissions stated that the government aims to vaccinate approximately “100 crore persons by the end of December 2021.” For lack of clarity on this subject, the court asked the Centre to “undertake a fresh review of its vaccination policy addressing the concerns raised” and provide the following clarifications:

1. As noted above, the UoI (Union of India) is directed to place on record a roadmap of projected availability of vaccines till 31 December 2021;

2. The preparedness with respect to specific needs of children in the event of a third wave of the pandemic in terms of medical infrastructure, vaccination trials and regulatory approval, and compatible drugs;

3. Whether under the policy of the UoI, it is permissible for State/UT Governments or individual local bodies to access vaccine supplies of foreign manufacturers;

4. The number of crematorium workers vaccinated in phase 1. A targeted drive can be conducted for vaccination of the remaining crematorium workers;

5. The State/UT Governments are diverting the vaccines (procured by them at a higher price than Central Government) for the persons in the age group of 18- 44 years to vaccinate persons above 45 years of age, due to a shortage of vaccines being supplied by the Central Government. The manner in which the Central Government will factor this quantity and price differential into their subsequent allocation and disbursal of vaccines to States/UTs for the persons above 45 years of age;

6. The mechanism for redistribution, if the 25:25 quota in a particular State/UT is not picked up by the State/UT Government or the private hospitals.

As a consequence of this Liberalized Vaccination Policy of the Centre, 50 percent of the population of any State/UT in the 18-44 age group is expected to pay for its vaccination. After perusing the affidavit, the court said, “We understand that this has been done while taking into account the ability of a certain section of the population to pay for their vaccination. However, the present system of allowing only digital registration and booking of appointment on CoWin, coupled with the current scarcity of vaccines, will ultimately ensure that initially all vaccines, whether free or paid, are first availed by the economically privileged sections of the society.”

The court also pointed out a scenario where people who can afford the vaccines, may opt for a free vaccine simply because of issues of availability, even if it would entail travelling to far-flung rural areas. Hence, the court opined that “any calculations of the economic ability of a given individual may not directly correspond to the vaccination route (paid/unpaid) they opt for.” Consequently, it is also plausible, the court thought, that private hospitals may have vaccine doses left over with them because everyone who could afford them has either already bought it or availed of a free vaccine, while those who need it may not have the ability to pay for it.

To address these issues, the top court has asked the Centre to clarify:

1. The manner in which Central Government will monitor the disbursal of vaccines to private hospitals, specifically those who have hospital chains pan India. Further, whether (i) private hospitals are liable to disburse vaccines pro rata the population of States/UTs; and (ii) the mechanism to determine if private players are genuinely administering the lifted quota in that State/UT alone. The UoI shall place on record any written policy in relation to this.

2. Whether the Central Government conducted a “means-test” of the demographic of a State/UT to assert that 50% of the population in the 18-44 age group would be able to afford the vaccine. If not, the rationale for private hospitals being provided an equal quota for procurement as the State/UT Governments.

3. The manner in which the Centre and States/UTs shall ensure an equitable distribution of vaccines across sections of the society, and how these factors into the rationale of equal apportionment between State/UT Governments and private hospitals.

4. The nature of the intervention with respect to the final, end-user price that is being charged by private hospitals, especially when a cap on procurement by the private hospitals has been set.

The Central Government has been directed to file an affidavit in this regard within 2 weeks.

The judgment may be read here:

The post Centre’s paid vaccination policy for 18 to 44 years, prima facie arbitrary and irrational: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

GoI claims 577 Covid-orphans, but numbers may far exceed official data: Outreach workers

Fri, 28 May 2021 04:41:53 +0000

Image Courtesy:in.news.yahoo.com

Recent government figure of 577 orphaned children may be grossly under-reported, especially after considering the number of semi-orphan children, non-government organisation Save The Children told SabrangIndia on May 27, 2021.

On May 25, the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development talked about committed efforts to support 577 children who lost their parents to Covid-19 between April 1 and May 25, 2021. Union Minister Smriti Irani tweeted this number while talking about children who had lost both their parents during the second wave of the health crisis.

GOI is committed to support and protect every vulnerable child due to loss of both parents to Covid-19. From 1st April 2021 till 2:00 PM today, the State Governments & UTs across the country have reported 577 children whose parents succumbed to Covid-19.

— Smriti Z Irani (@smritiirani) May 25, 2021

Further, she also started a Twitter thread to remind people about their “legal responsibility” to protect such children from harm’s way, while listing a child helpline 1098. Irani warned people against falling into the trap of people who contact people for direct adoption of orphan children. Citizens are to inform the local Child Welfare Committee or Police or the Childline on coming across such illegal activity.

Telephonic aid during Covid-19 second wave

A brief call to the number managed by Childline India Foundation by Sabran India indicated that both, good Samaritans and orphaned children, receive a prompt response on the number and are put in contact with a response team that comes to the child’s aid. This team at times includes Save The Children outreach workers, who are spread across 12 states in India.

According to NGO-member Prabhat Kumar, neighbours or someone in the community calls the helpline more often than the children themselves. Moreover, the condition of each of these children differs. After their parent’s or guardian’s death, the child is generally sent to their relatives or child care institutions. However, even when children live with their kin, people are apprehensive of contracting Covid-19 that caused their parents’ death. This is why Kumar argued that district child welfare committees should be notified about semi-orphan children as well.

Who are semi-orphan?

Kumar defined semi-orphaned children as under-age children, who have lost one parent or guardian. As per state information collected by the NGO, the number of semi-orphan children during the second wave of coronavirus is much higher. Moreover, he said that these children are also more vulnerable to exploitation.

“Semi-orphaned children are vulnerable to child-labour and trafficking. This is because many times the person who has died is the breadwinner of the family. There is no one to support the family after the death of the guardian. Even the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) and the Juvenile Justice system recognises the need to protect them,” he said.

Data on orphaned children during Covid-19

In light of persistent news of underreported Covid-deaths, it is difficult to assess the exact number of children who were orphaned in India. However, Save The Children suspects 577 may not be an accurate number, especially considering recent data on the subject by Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan alone amounts to 402 orphans.

Referring to government data, Kumar said that Andhra Pradesh reported 135 orphans and 1,716 semi-orphans in the last two months. Madhya Pradesh reported 250 orphans and 1,200 semi-orphans between April and May. Meanwhile, Rajasthan said 17 orphans were registered between March and May 15.

“These amount to 402 orphans who have lost both parents in just three states. There are other states that report much higher official Covid-deaths. So, it can be assumed that the number is much higher,” he said.

According to a recent article by The Indian Express, 1,572 children were orphaned in Maharashtra of which 98 children lost both parents. Still, the irregularity in Covid deaths has made such data difficult to compile. Organisations that carry out cremations for abandoned bodies state that most people do not even notify authorities if a death takes place in their vicinity. Families also leave their loved ones in the street for fear of contracting the infection.

How are state governments protecting these children?

Kumar identified nine state governments and one union territory that started initiatives like free education and ration or scholarships for Covid-orphans.

Similarly, the Indian Express reported that Rs 10 lakh were allotted per district for the non-institutional care of orphans under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. However, Kumar argued that this allotment should be increased in accordance with the number of children who have lost their guardian in each district.

“Within child protection system there is the ICPS provision to provide a sponsorship of Rs. 2,000 per month to vulnerable children, including semi-orphans. Health, education and safety needs should also be addressed with all this until the child reaches adulthood i.e., 21-24 years. Our organisation prefers the latter,” said Kumar.

Recently, hospitals were directed to mention whether they have any children in their registration forms to keep a track on minors in case of death. At such times of hospitalisation or isolation, local child welfare communities should also provide temporary care and support. Such a safe space is all the more pertinent, considering claims that the third wave of Covid-19 will affect children as well.

Community awareness about child-protection

Despite central and state provisions, many people are still not aware about the dos and don’ts of child protection, including the helpline number 1098. Nowadays, Save The Children focuses on reporting and verifying messages circulating on social media that talk about child adoptions. This aside from their work to provide around 100 orphaned children across India with food packages.

“We have tried to contact the people circulating these messages but most times the response is very suspect. People either don’t know where the child is or avoid questions. 90 percent of the time, these messages turn out to be fake,” he said.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development website flashes a notice every time a person accesses its website. Yet, people with little access to the internet are still not aware of due procedure.

The post GoI claims 577 Covid-orphans, but numbers may far exceed official data: Outreach workers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Govt aims to eliminate manual scavenging by August 2021

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:49:08 +0000

Image Courtesy:oneindia.com

The Government of India is undertaking some key measures to amend the manual scavenging laws, making the cleaning of septic tanks and sewers mechanised, replacing the word ‘manhole’ with ‘machine hole’ and setting up a dedicated national helpline to register complaints and provide solutions on desludging and overflow.

On World Toilet Day (November 19), launching the Safaimitra Suraksha Challenge at a webinar in New Delhi, Shri Hardeep Singh Puri, Minister of State, Independent Charge, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, said, “We are today setting another milestone by launching the Safaimitra Suraksha Challenge which aims to ensure that no life of any sewer or septic tank cleaner is ever lost again owing to the issue of hazardous cleaning.”

The Government announced that their aim is to eliminate manual scavenging across the country by August 2021. The Senior Minister ensured that no person needs to enter a sewer or septic tank, “unless absolutely unavoidable in the interest of greater public hygiene.”

To make sure that the challenge is efficiently implemented, he also announced that the actual on-ground assessment of participating cities will be conducted in May 2021 by an independent agency and results of the same will be declared on Independence Day and winning cities shall receive hefty prize money.

Manual Scavenging and the question of Caste

The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation (Amendment) Bill, 2020 to the 2013 Act set to be introduced by the Union Government in September this year planned to make the laws more stringent. It focused on provision of protective gears and compensation in cases of accidents but missed out on one major point- the sanitation worker’s rights.

The new Bill maintains silence on the issue of caste. Mechanising manual scavenging is a positive step but why a blinkered approach towards recognising that sanitation work remains a caste-based occupation? The provisions in the Act must be drafted in a way to undo their unjust history.

The 2013 Act recognises that manual scavenging is a ‘dehumanising’ practice which arises from continued existence of unsanitary latrines and a ‘highly iniquitous caste system’, but does very little to rectify it in the 2020 proposed bill.

The lack of proper facilities and water supply in public toilets in urban cities, force workers to manually scavenge human excrements and throw it in the nearby dumping grounds. Sullu, a Safai Karmachari from Begusarai (Bihar) told The Indian Express, “We get harassed by the police regularly for illegal dumping. I do not understand how I am liable for illegal dumping when there are no proper designated dumping points. If there is excrement that I have to clean from the toilets now how am I not a manual scavenger.”

The Act also fails to categorise the sanitation workers into faecal sludge handling workers, railway cleaners, workers in waste treatment plants, community and public toilet cleaning workers, school toilet cleaning workers, etc to set proper wage structures and entitlements. The definition of manual scavengers needs to be more evolved and inclusive.

The National Safai Karamchari Commission had revealed that from 2010 to March 2020, 631 sewer and septic tank cleaners had lost their lives and the highest number of deaths was reported in 2019 at a whopping 115.

According to an assessment by the Social Justice Ministry, despite the enforcement of Manual Scavenging Act and Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, FIRs are seldom lodged in deaths caused by this practice, convictions are rare and the Supreme Court-mandated compensation of Rs 10 lakh is not provided to all families.

At present, engaging anyone for hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks is punishable with imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of Rs 5 lakh or both. The new Bill proposes to make the law banning manual scavenging stricter by increasing both the imprisonment term and the fine amount.

However, Bezwada Wilson, co-founder and national convener of the Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA) told The Wire, “A judge will hesitate to convict an offender of this Act if the prison sentence is higher. So, this is counterproductive.” When the number of cases registered are so low, making the laws stricter will barely protect the workers and continue to fail them.

As recently as 2019, The News Minute had reported that Chennai had seen it’s first FIR under the Manual Scavenging Act, when a young 25-year-old worker choked on the toxic gas in a septic tank and died. He was employed by an independent agency to clean the septic tanks in the mall premises. The legislation must focus on doing away with the contractual employment system that forces workers to indulge in this filthy, thankless job of manual cleaning.

Despite Indian laws deeming manual scavenging illegal, it remains to do very little for the workers and most importantly their safety. So, the aim to eliminate manual scavenging should not be a proposed practice but the only practice.

The entire press release may be read here.

Sanitation & Justice: Classify Sanitation Workers as Health Workers

The post Govt aims to eliminate manual scavenging by August 2021 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Counter-terror raids on civil society groups signal escalating crackdown on dissent: Amnesty

Sat, 31 Oct 2020 12:30:30 +0000

Image Courtesy:freepresskashmir.news

Amnesty International has asked the Government of India to “immediately halt its intensifying suppression of dissent.” The human rights monitor, even though forced to close its work in India has closely been following developments in the country. Most recently the raids conducted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) at the homes and offices of civil society groups, human rights defenders and journalists in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), that started on Wednesday October 28.

October 28, the NIA team conducted raids at multiple places, including properties belonging to human rights defenders, NGOs, and even a media house in Srinagar, in connection with a ‘terror funding’ probe. The NIA raided the office of popular daily Greater Kashmir, as well as the home of well known human rights activist Khurram Parvez, coordinator J&K Coalition of civil society, and journalist Parvez Bukhari. The NIA had also raided a location in Bangalore, Karnataka.

On October 29 were conducted at nine locations, two in Delhi, the rest in Srinagar. In Delhi the property of former Delhi Minority Commission chief Zafarul-Islam Khan was raided by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Khan is the founding editor of the newspaper Milli Gazette and chairman of Charity Alliance, one of the six non-profits that are under the NIA scanner now. The NGOs raided by the NIA are Falah-e-Aam Trust, Charity Alliance, Human Welfare Foundation, JK Yateem Foundation, Salvation Movement, and J&K Voice of Victims. The Charity Alliance and Human Welfare Foundation are based in Delhi, while the rest are based in Jammu and Kashmir’s Srinagar.

Amnesty has stated that prominent human rights activists Khurram Parvez, the co-ordinator of J&K Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), three of his associates and Parveena Ahanger, Chairperson of the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), have reported extensively on human rights abuses in Kashmir, “including the indefinite administrative detention and extrajudicial execution of human rights defenders, torture of people in detention and the widespread impunity of the security forces in the region.”

It added that these raids are an “alarming reminder that India’s government is determined to suppress all dissenting voices in Jammu and Kashmir.” According to Julie Verhaar, Acting Secretary General of Amnesty International, “Authorities are evidently targeting these civil society and media groups because of their continued work reporting and advocating for the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir despite a harsh communications blackout that was imposed by the Indian government in the region since 5 August 2019.”

Verhaar, said this was a “worrying pattern” and that “the UAPA and the foreign funding law are being repeatedly and deliberately weaponized to intimidate, harass and restrict the ability of civil society groups from operating, in clear violation of their rights to freedom of expression and association.”

Amnesty International India had also been forced to halt its work and let go of its employees in the country from October 1, and its bank accounts were frozen by the government, shortly after it released a Situation Update on human rights in Jammu & Kashmir, stated Amnesty International adding that it was in September 2020, that APDP had “submitted almost 40 testimonies of victims who were subjected to arbitrary detention and torture by security forces in Kashmir, to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. On August 5, 2020, JKCCS published its bi-annual human rights review documenting the extrajudicial executions of at least 32 individuals and the impact of internet shutdowns in the region.”

It put on record that “UAPA and FCRA have been criticized by UN human rights experts for their overarching nature, which is used to criminalise religious minorities, political dissidents and human rights defenders. In October 2020, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) Michelle Bachelet appealed to the government of India to review the FCRA and its compliance with international human rights norms, and regretted that it was being “used to deter or punish NGOs for human rights reporting”.

According to Amnesty “since 2014, several organizations have been targeted under the foreign funding law, including Greenpeace India, Lawyers Collective, Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns, Sabrang Trust, Navsarjan Trust, Act Now for Harmony and Democracy, NGO Hazards Centre, and Indian Social Action Forum. In September 2020, amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, the FCRA was further amended, without any public consultation, to choke civil society in India.”

Amnesty International also noted the sealing of the Kashmir Times office, by the Jammu & Kashmir Estates Department and that its editor Anuradha Bhasin, spearheaded the litigation in the Supreme Court of India against the shutdown of internet and telephone services in Jammu & Kashmir from August 5 2019.

“By directly attacking and failing to protect civil society organizations organisations, India stands in a clear violation of its human rights obligations, particularly Articles 19 and 22 of the International Covenant of the Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it’s a state party,” stated the rights body.

Another international rights body, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC), has issued a statement stressing that the freedom of religion or belief and the freedom of expression are “interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing rights rooted in the articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Upholding and protecting these fundamental rights is the primary responsibility of member states. At the same time, freedom of expression should be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.”

The High Representative statement noted “with deep concern the growing tensions and instances of intolerance triggered by the publication of the satirical caricatures depicting Prophet Muhammed, which Muslims consider insulting and deeply offensive. The inflammatory caricatures have also provoked acts of violence against innocent civilians who were attacked for their sheer religion, belief or ethnicity. The High Representative stresses that insulting religions and sacred religious symbols provokes hatred and violent extremism leading to polarization and fragmentation of the society. He calls for mutual respect of all religions and beliefs and for fostering a culture of fraternity and peace.”

The UNAOC statement may be read here:

https://www.unaoc.org/2020/10/a-call-for-mutual-respect/

The post Counter-terror raids on civil society groups signal escalating crackdown on dissent: Amnesty appeared first on SabrangIndia.