The group which planned this included a girl Neelam (with post graduate degree) and a boy (Sagar Shinde) who were spraying the gas outside the parliament around the same time. Neelam Azad, is from Haryana’s Jind and has many degrees to her credit, M.A, M.Ed, M.Phil and has also cleared the National Eligibility Test. She could not get any job. Slogans shouted by them were against dictatorship, and for protection of the Constitution (Tanashahi Khatam Karo, Sambvidhan ki Raksha Karo); they drew attention to unemployment and also shouted Bharat Mata Ki Jai and Vande Matram.

These youth, were part of a social media group, “Bhagat Singh Fans club.” They came in contact with each other through this online platform. Their inspiration came from the socialist revolutionary Bhagat Singhs’ similar action in the Central Assembly hall in 1929. One recalls that Bhagat Singh with his friend Batukeshwar Datt had thrown the bomb from the visitors’ gallery, with a caution that nobody is hurt by that. They also threw leaflets in the assembly against British colonial rule.

These actions of the youth, who have been booked under UAPA, however misguided, is the most powerful attempt to bring the issue of rising unemployment to national attention. To recall, Bhagat Singh and his comrades had resorted to this method as they knew that their voice would not be carried by the media. There is an uncanny similarity to the present situation where the ‘mainstream’ media, appropriately called ‘Godi media’, is totally apathetic to the concerns of average people. The problems of rising prices, decline on the level of hunger Index and rising unemployment has not been its concern at all.

When Modi was campaigning in 2014, BJP promised that they will be creating 20 million (2 Crore) jobs per year. The real picture has been a total betrayal of this promise. The first major blow to the employment situation came with demonetisation, where crores of workers lost their jobs in the small-scale rural sector. The ruling Government has been under total influence of big Corporate and creation of new jobs has been put on the backburner. On the contrary some of the bigwigs (Narayan Murthy) have even given calls for a 70-hour work week for youth! In most of the unorganised sectors, working hours have been pushed up from eight to 12 hours per day.

A report in The Economic Times points out that “The overall rate (of unemployment) rose to 10.05% last month from 7.09% in September, data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Ltd. showed, and the highest since May 2021. Rural unemployment jumped to 10.82% from 6.2%, while the urban rate eased slightly to 8.44%”. Also The same paper on 1^st November 2023 reported, “Last month, Indian tech-services outsourcing firms, including Infosys Ltd. and Wipro Ltd., announced plans to halt hiring of college graduates, potentially leaving thousands of fresh engineering students without jobs.”

All this is taking place in the background where the democratic space for protests is shrinking; the Universities are preventing the student unions’ elections and blocking the seminars which may be critical of Government policies.

While it is an open and shut case of frustrated students-youth expressing their anguish, though through wrong means, the ruling Government has now charged them under the oppressive UAPA. While Rahul Gandhi attributed it to the rising unemployment and rising prices, the Home Minister has not made any statement in Parliament despite the opposition demanding it. Prime Minister Modi, rather than seeing the obvious, stated that this act is a serious breach and there is a need to find the “elements” behind it. It is true that the chink in the armor of security system in Parliament has been exposed; it’s vulnerable to even minor attempts like that of these youth. On the other hand what has come to surface is that there is a need to address the issue of unemployment rather than distracting the attention to try to see it as some sort of a conspiracy.

It is clear these youths are not part of any terror group. Mercifully none of the involved youth is a Muslim or from any other terror related organization. The latter would have given an unfortunate boost to the efforts of those out to intensify Islamophobia.

The youth have brought to fore once again that it is not enough just to pay lip service to Bhagat Singh. His concern for the deprived sections of society needs to be brought to the fore. Let us remember Bhagat Singh’s message of mass movements was central to his ideology. The path of violence was abandoned by him soon enough. He had come to the conclusion that we can achieve independence only through mass mobilization. His act in the Central Assembly of throwing the bomb was meant only to make the ‘deaf hear’ and not meant for killing anybody. It is heartening to note that our youth are turning to Bhagat Singh for guidance in the current troubled times and that many groups in the name of Bhagat Singh have sprung up.

The whole episode should be taken in the proper spirit unlike the attempt of Godi media in looking for villains of the piece. The aim of youth is crystal clear; their inspiration is not from any ideology of terror but from the greatest revolutionary of our freedom struggle.

The youth have adopted a wrong method without doubt. Their anguish should be recognised, however, and the message behind the whole episode of revising our ‘employment generation’ policy needs to be given a fresh and serious look rather than trying to unearth a ‘non-existent’ conspiracy.

Related:

CMIE Unemployment Data: HP & Punjab better than national average; Haryana has one of three persons jobless

Impressive gov’t employment scheme data does not reflect true depth of job crisis

1 crore unemployed labourers in India: Ministry of Labour and Employment

The post Pangs of Unemployment: Invoking Bhagat Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CHANDIGARH: The Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), an umbrella platform of various farmers’ unions, on Thursday, February 9, announced that it would hold a ‘Kisan Mahapanchyat’ outside the Parliament in Delhi on March 20.

The organisation of farmers’ unions also stated that the ‘Mahapanchayat’ will be held to press for a legal guarantee on minimum support price (MSP) and further called the 2023 Budget “anti-farmer.”

The SKM’s  demands include withdrawal of cases against farmers, Rs 5,000 monthly pension for farmers, debt waiver, the sacking of Union Minister of State for Home Ajay Mishra, whose son is an accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, and compensation for those who died during the farmers’ stir among others.

Senior SKM leader Dr Darshan Pal after the meeting of the farmers’ unions at Kurukshetra in Haryana told The New Indian Express that the body has decided to hold ‘Kisan Mahapanchyat’ in Delhi on March 20 and they will seek permission for it to be held at the Ram Lila ground and if not given permission then they will hold it at Jantar Mantar.

Showing a distinct and broader commitment to equality and non-discrimination, the recent meeting also reportedly passed a resolution demanding the dismissal of Haryana Minister Sandeep Singh was accused of sexual assault by a woman coach.

“This March 20, 2023 ‘Mahapanchayat’ will be dedicated to Bhagat Singh Rajguru and Sukhdev. We will reiterate various demands, including a legal guarantee for the minimum support price. This ‘Mahapanchayat’ will be against anti- farmer budget and other pending issues including legal guarantee of MSP procurement of all crops, loan waiver, pension for farmers and agricultural workers, demanding a pro-farmer policy for insurance claims of the damaged crops, withdrawal of Electricity Amendment Bill 2022 and dismissal of MoS Ajay Mishra Teni for his role in Lakhimpur Kheri incident,’’ said Singh.

Singh has described the recently declared annual budget as “anti-farmer” and “anti-agriculture” due to the drastic cuts in all allocations pertaining to farmers, rural development, education, health, food for work rural programme (MNREGA) apart from subsidy cuts in fertilizers, food security etc. “The next course of action for a pan-India farmers movement will be decided in another meeting of SKM,” he said.

The farmers’ movement that captured the imagination of the people and drew support from wider walks of like through 2020-2021, has since been articulating several nuggets that reveal a wholistic alternate political orientation.

November 2022

Three months ago, in Manesar in Haryanathe Bellsonica Mazdoor Union held a Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat from 10 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Gurgaon District Collectors office, protesting the anti-people policies of Modi government and elaborated on the ‘pro-capitalist designs of the rulers.’At the time, as reported by Sabrangindia, the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Ugrahan) president Joginder Singh Ugrahan who had been present with other peasant organisation leaders at the meeting along with workers organisations from Gurgaon and Uttarakhand also supported the collective demands.

A few days before that, in Uttarakhand, theInqilabi Mazdoor Kendra also made a considerable contribution, through ideological-political campaigning and the Intercare Workers in preparation staged a mini-maha panchayat at which cloth Mazdooor Union workers, Intercare workers from Uttarakhand, Hitachi Contract workers, and Kisan workers also participated.Bellsonica Union secretary Ajit Singh, speaking to the media at the time, explained the objectives of the Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat and narrated the goal of the four labour laws instated by Narendra Modi and why it was essential to get them scrapped.

A month before that, on October 22, 2022, last year, farmers under the banner of Samuyukta Kisan Morcha as a part of the 11 day dharna against land takeover in Azamgarh for airport construction, held a peoples’ parliament in Hariram in Khiriya bag. Over a thousand persons participated.Organisations participating were Samyukta Kisan Morcha,Kisan Sangrami Parishad, Kisan Sangram Samiti,Jai Kisan Andolan,and Bhumia Bachao.The event highlighted the strategy of the ruling BJP party in allowing every endeavour of the corporates to grab land and endorsing the International policy of United States of America in agricultural production. Speakers had also analysed on how the 3 bill which had been passed earlier, had stripped the farming community of any bargaining power and the foundation of any democratic aspirations. They explained how all over India such a strategy was being extended, in denying farmers of land rights in favour of a a pro-corporate model of agriculture. It was asserted how the farmers had no expectations of the ruling party bringing the criminals involved in running over the framers to the book, but would still intensify the struggle at any cost.

February 2023

Coming back to the February 9, 2023, recent national-level meeting held at Jat Dharamshala in Kurukshetra was presided by Yudhvir Singh, Dr Sunilam and Raja Ram Singh who also finalised the rules and regulations for the affiliation of various constituents with the platform and its structural composition in order to consolidate and expand the umbrella organization that successfully spearheaded a year-long struggle against three farm laws.

Detailed ‘rules and regulations’ of the Morcha’s day-to-day programme activities were finalised. A coordination committee of 31 members will be formed and representatives from farmers’ unions at the district level and all India level will be taken. There will also be a general body of the Morcha and rotational secretariat to ensure the participation of everyone,” he said.

Two years and five months ago, in September 2021, the Kisan Mahapanchayat held in western Uttar Pradesh (UP) on the eve of the state polls made a significant calls for harmony between all religions and castes. The leader of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) leader Rakesh Tikait says “Allahu Akbar”, crowd responded with “Har Har Mahadev” as sign of unity.

Tikait, a mass leader among farmers had even addressed a gathering where, referring to his father Mahendra Singh Tikait, who is revered in the farming community of the area, had raised both these chants together to encourage unity of farmers. He added that politicians “will divide, we [farmers] will unite people.” 

Related:

Mazdoor Kisan Maha Panchayat staged by Besonika Mazdoor Union in Manesar 

Samyukta Kisan Morcha stages Peoples panchayat in Hariram

Kisan Mahapanchayat calls for harmony, right-wing adds communal twist

The post ‘Kisan Mahapanchyat’ to be held outside Parliament on March 20: Samyukta Kisan Morcha appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In two separate communications, one to the Lok Sabha speaker, Om Birla and Rajya Sabha chairperson, Jagdeep Ghankar, the Editor’s Guild has raised the issue of the immediate need for unrestricted access for journalists to the Central Hall of Parliament as well as coverage of all sessions therein. The communication also states that the constitution of the Press Advisory Committee is also long overdue.

Drawing attention to the new practice of the Secretariat to limit access of journalists to cover the proceedings of Parliament, suspension of Central Hall for senior journalists admitted after procedure and non-constitution of the Press Advisory Committee over the last three years, the communication points out that these restrictions were put in place on account of the covid-19 protocols in 2020. These restrictions have even extended to some accredited media persons.

The Editor’s Guild also states that journalists from print and electronic medium have been given access to cover the proceedings since the Constituent Assembly and later the first Parliament with the objective of keeping the citizens abreast with the work of their representatives, developments inside the House, and the dynamics outside. This is vital in a parliamentary democracy. Seniors recall that even during the Emergency period, members of press who could not get accreditation from the Press Information Bureau for some reasons, were not denied facility to cover the proceedings. As for access to Central Hall, it is a privilege accorded to accredited journalist after minimum of 10 years of reportage and it is a place where informal discussions happen which are not reported as a matter of convention.

In fact, way back in 1956 there was a move to dissociate journalists from the facility and the then Speaker observed that “Central Hall facility helps the journalists in having close discussions with Ministers and the members with a view to know the real and comparatively better background of things than studying from the Press Gallery. The freedom of expression thus keeps the public outside informed not only about the plans of the Government but also the considerations and the motives which prompt it to embark upon such plans…a close contact between the press and the legislature is essential for keeping the public well informed and perhaps not advisable to abolish Central Hall facilities”.

Besides, there is a need for grant of temporary and visiting journalist passes, which has been suspended for two years puts the young members of the media fraternity at a great disadvantage. The process allows youngsters to acquaint themselves with the procedures and processes and pick-up nuances under guidance of seniors, says the Editor’s Guild.

“It is only after a specified period of coverage that media persons qualify to apply for permanent pass. For accreditation under various categories, applications are screened by the Press Advisory Committee appointed by the Speaker with Lok Sabha Press and Public Relations Committee, conducting due diligence as per guidelines approved by the General Purpose Committee. The above role was envisaged by your illustrious predecessor G.V. Mavalankar, who in 1946 decided the Committee should, among other things, discharge advisory functions including examination of temporary and permanent admissions to the press gallery and that applications for such admission would be referred to the Committee for its opinion and advice. Since then, the process remained in place till it was abandoned recently.

“That such a practice was stopped when Parliament completed 70th year of its existence narrates its own story. We are certain under your guidance, these restrictions will be lifted by the Secretariat and members of the media admitted will have unhindered access in the “temple of democracy”, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi characterised Parliament on his first visit in 2014.

The communications of the Editor’s Guild have been signed by Seema Mustafa, president, Anant Nath, general secretary and Shriram Pawar, treasurer. The Press Advisory Committee has also not been reconstituted. The Committee has an historical background and was founded in 1929 under the guidance of the President of the first elected Legislative Assembly, Vithalbhai Patel.

Related:

Will the gov’t continue to restrict journalists’ access to Parliament?

Why are Parliament proceedings still restricted for most journalists? 

The post Journalist access to Parliament still denied: Editor’s Guild lodges strong protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On February 7, Lok Sabha witnessed a fiery address by Congress leader and MP Rahul Gandhi wherein he questioned BJP’s connection with Gautam Adani, who has allegedly committed frauds in his business as per the Hindenburg research report. Gandhi, to prove his point, had even displayed pictures showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi sitting with Adani, thus disclosing a link between them. Further, during his speech, Gandhi put forth a few questions related to the links of Adani with Modi and the BJP.

It was these questions that were expunged from the Lok Sabha proceedings by the Speaker Om Birla. A total of 18 remarks made during his almost hour-long speech have been expunged and this has not gone down well with the Congress and nor does it align with our Constitution and our fundamental rights. By expunging these remarks unwarrantedly, not only is the right to freedom of speech and expression of Gandhi violated but as citizens, our right to know or right to information about the Parliament sessions also gets impinged. 

Gandhi pointed out that in 2014, Adani was at 609 ranks in the world’s richest people’s list and in recent times he became the 2^nd richest (before the Hindenburg report release) in the world. He said that when you speak of ports, airports, roads, everywhere you hear that it is owned or operated or made by Adani. “How did he get so big? How did he enter all these businesses?” he questioned. The remarks/ questions he asked after this have been conveniently expunged by the Lok Sabha. 

Gandhi even showed pictures of Modi with Adani during his speech:

He asked the following questions to Modi:

“On how many of your foreign trips did you and Mr Adani go together?

How many times did Mr Adani join you later on a visit?

How many times did Mr Adani travel to a country immmediately after you did?

And in how many of these countries after you visited did Mr Adani get a contract?

How much money has Mr Adani given to BJP in the past 20 years?

How much (money) has he (Adani) given in Electoral Bonds?

Who owns these shell comnpanies in Mauritius?

These shell companies are routing thousands of crores of rupees into India, who money is it?

Is Mr Adani doing all this for free?”

He said this was “national security issue”.

प्रधानमंत्री जी, आप लोकतंत्र की आवाज़ को मिटा नहीं सकते। भारत के लोग आपसे सीधे सवाल कर रहे हैं। जवाब दीजिए! pic.twitter.com/xlUdLylvUw

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) February 8, 2023

While the questions themselves have not received any response from the BJP or the PM, the fact that they have been expunged from the records of the Parliament can be said to be an unconstitutional act.

When are words expunged?

Removing certain words from a member’s address to the House is fairly routine but it is to be done strictly in accordance with the rules of the House and the authority to do so lies with the person who is presiding the House. IN the case of Lok Sabha, it is supposed to be the Speaker. 

While Article 105(2) of the Constitution gives immunity to members of Parliament from court proceedings for remarks made in the Parliament, that freedom of expression is limited as well.

Article 105(2) of the Constitution states as follows:

“(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings”

At the same time, there are ‘Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha’ which the members have to follow. As per rule 380, only those remarks which are “defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified” are to be removed.

Rule 380 deals with expunction:

380. If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising discretion order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.

There is also a list of unparliamentary words that may not be spoken in the Lok Sabha by the members. Just before last year’s monsoon session words like words like ‘anarchist’, ‘Shakuni’, ‘dictatorial’, ‘taanashah’, ‘taanashahi’, ‘Jaichand’, ‘vinash purush’, ‘Khalistani’ and ‘khoon se kheti’ were declared an unparliamentary.

Here is the entire list of unparliamentary expressions:

If any of these words are uttered, they are deemed as unparliamentary and are expunged from the text of debate that is finally released after a particular session. Veen unedited text of debate is released every day after a session is concluded.

Can one report on expunged remarks?

However, even if these remarks are expunged, does that mean the people have no way of knowing what was said? There’s two ways to go about it, either one watches the Sansad TV while the proceedings are on but while many of us might not have the liberty of such time to sit and watch Sansad TV all day, that is what media houses are for!

There is no restriction on news media to publish these remarks even if they are expunged.

As per Article 361A of the Constitution, no one can be held liable for publishing true report of any proceedings of any house of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly. The Article states thus:

(1) No person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice:

   Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the publication of any report of the proceedings of a secret sitting of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State.

(2) Clause (1) shall apply in relation to reports or matters broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy as part of any programme or service provided by means of a broadcasting station as it applies in relation to reports or matters published in a newspaper.

   Explanation. — In this article, “newspaper” includes a news agency report containing material for publication in a newspaper.

Thus, in such cases, where remarks are unwarrantedly removed and with the people’s right to know about the proceedings in the Parliament, it becomes pertinent that media houses take advantage of this privilege bestowed upon by Article 361A and publish all that matters during the session. 

Kharge’s remarks in RS expunged

Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge’s remarks made in the Rajya Sabha were also expunged by the Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankar. Kharge had, in his speech made on Wednesday, raised similar questions as Gandhi did, related to Adani making big money in a short span, since BJP came to power. He also questioned why Modi had not made any comments about the hate speeches made by BJP leaders. Kharge had demanded formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to probe the Hindenburg report alleging various frauds committed by Adani.

“I don’t think there was anything unparliamentary or accusatory against anyone in my speech… But a few words were misconstrued… If you had any doubt, you could have asked in a different way, but you have asked for my words in six places to be expunged,” Kharge said in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. He also mentioned that similar remarks made by former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee against former prime minister PV Narsimha Rao in the House continue to be part of the proceedings. 

Referring to Article 105(1) of the Constitution, Kharge wrote to Dhankar, “The institution of Parliament of India is a platform to fix the accountability of the Executive. This necessitates that the policies and the decisions of the government are discussed, dissected, and debated on the floor of the House. Any criticism of policies and decisions of the government and their fallouts cannot be construed as the allegation against any individual Member of the House”.  

Further, Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury wrote to Om Birla requesting that he revisit his decision to expunge remarks made by Gandhi in the Lok Sabha.

The Congress MPs staged a walkout in Rajya Sabha today over expunction of Kharge’s remarks.

Related:

Questions on Collegium haunt Budget Session; 18 names with SC for reconsideration

Over 16 lakh Indians renounced citizenship since 2011, 2.5 lakh in 2022 alone: GoI

A total of 6,775 URLs blocked by the IT Ministry in the year 2022

The post To what extent can an MP’s remarks be removed from Parliament records? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 14, 2022, during the ongoing Winter Session of the Parliament, Rajya Sabha Member, Elamaram Kareem [CPI(M)] raised a crucial inquiry regarding the number of potential villages/habitations, district-wise, in each State where the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) was being implemented.

The Minister of Tribal Affairs (MOTA), Arjun Munda, responded to this question by informing the Rajya Sabha that it is the states that are responsible for implanting FRA. There was also another question put on the number of Forest Rights Committees constituted in these villages; however no data was provided by the government on this issue.

Kareem also questioned the ministry regarding the number of villages/habitations in each district that have claimed Community Forest Resource Rights under Section 3(1) (i) of FRA, and out of them how many claims have been approved by the Gram Sabha as well as the number of titles that have been issued. In response to this, the government provided the following figures:

The total number of claims that were received by the state governments, up to June 30, 2022, were 44,46,104, out of which 42,76,844 were claims of the individuals and 1,69,260 were claims for community rights.

With regard to the number of titles distributed up to June 30, 2022, the government informed that a total of 22,35,845 titles have been distributed, out of which 21,33,260 were individual titles and 1,02,585 were community titles. Additionally, the government also provided the details regarding the extent of forest land for which titles have been distributed, which came to a total 1,60,30,640.68 acres. Out of these 1,60,30,640.68 acres, the titles distributed over individual claims were for 45,48,119 acres while the community titles were for 1,14,82,521 acres; which means more than 70% of total land for which titles have been distributed, has been given to community claimants.

Chhattisgarh was the state with the highest number of claims received until June 30,2022 with 9,22,346 claims and it also topped in the number of titles distributed with 4,91,805 titles; out of these 4,46,041 titles were given to individuals. Second in line is Odisha with 6,43,375 claims and 4,60,000 titles disbursed.

On the other hand, the lowest claims were received by Himachal Pradesh, with 3,021 claims and Bihar awarded the lowest number of titles which was 121. It is pertinent to note here that data of only 22 States and UTs has been provided by the Ministry. In all India consists of 28 states and 8 union territories.

The state-wise distribution can be read here in the reply by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

Whose rights does the FRA recognise?

The FRA 2006 enables traditional forest dwelling communities to apply for claims to land and forest produce upon which they have been dependent for their livelihood for generations. The Act recognises the rights of two types of forest dwellers –Adivasi or indigenous tribal communities, many of which as included in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD). While the STs are those who consider this their ancestral and traditional habitat, and depend on forest resources for livelihood, the OTFDs are those who have primarily resided in and depended on the forest land for livelihood needs for at least three generations prior to December 13, 2005. Members of the above recognised communities have to go through an elaborate (even tedious) application process to stake claim to land and forest resources. This path-breaking law also emphasises on women’s holdings in community and individual land claims. Those sections among the Adivasis and OTFDs that are organised, file community claims rather than individual ones.

How different if the ground reality from the figures quoted by the government?

While the figures provided by the government in their reply reflect the number of claims that were accepted and titles that were distributed, the government has (deliberately?) not given any details regards the claims that were rejected, nor provided any data on the reasons for such rejections. While all the states have still not implemented the FRA, even the ones who have do not guarantee any protection of the rights of the tribal communities.

Odisha is often deemed as a high performing state when it comes to implementation of the FRA, yet when one delves into figures at the district level, enforcement appears varied and incongruent. It is the first State in the country to make a budgetary provision for implementation of the Central Act – ₹8 crore for 168 FRA cells in 2021-22. Till last year, forest rights committees were functioning in Tribal Sub Plan areas. Now, they have been extended to the entire State, reported The Hindu.

The state launched Mission 2024 for the FRA and aims to grant all kinds of forest rights including individual, community and habitat rights. As of March 2022, a total of 6,27,998 claims had been received by Gram Sabhas of which 4,52,164 claims were upheld and titles distributed. As many as 1,31,062 claims were rejected. According to the Bhubaneswar-based Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI), Odisha has an estimated 7.32 lakh potential claimants, which indicates that around 3 lakh eligible families are still left out, reports The Hindu.

 According to Down to Earth, a 2021 study[1] by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, which looked at the claim settlement trend in the 15 years since implementation of FRA – “The rate of recognition of forest rights from 2014 to 2021 is only 27% of all individual forest right claims received. Though, for CFR (Community Forest Rights), it is 69%.”

Stories from other states

Forest Dwellers in other states have been a part of this struggle for staking their claims over forest rights for years. Sabrang India’s sister organization, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) along with its partner organization All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) have been helping Adivasis file these community land claims in different states such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh among others.

In November 2021, forest dwelling communities belonging to the Tharu Adivasi community residing in 20 villages of the Dudhwa region of Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, filed their Objections to denial of community land claims with the district administration. These claims had been filed way back in 2013.

In August this year it was reported that, as many as 16,000 claims were rejected in just two regions of Karnataka – Sagar and Shivamogga. Out of the total 16,424 applications filed in Sagar, only 505 were approved and 4,993 were rejected, leaving 10,926 applications pending. Similarly, out of the 19,191 applications filed in Shivamogga, 11,982 were rejected and only 236 approved, leaving 6,973 pending.

Related:

Defending Forest Rights In 2021
Forest Resource Rights Vs. Land Rights Under Forest Rights Act
No Eviction Of Forest Dwellers Without Resolution Of Land Claims: Nhrc Chief
Adivasi Women File Land Claims Under Fra, Cjp And Aiufwp Make History
After Sonbhadra, Additional Forest Lands Claims Filed For Chitrakoot Villagers

[1] 15 years of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006; Lekshmi M, Anup Kumar Samal&GeetanjoySahu; December 18, 2021

The post MoTA: Titles for 50% claims under FRA distributed; 95% titles given to individuals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Correspondents, editors and photojournalists, who have been covering both Houses of Parliament, have called for a protest meeting on December 2, at the Press Club of India. The media fraternity is protesting the various restrictions on the entry of journalists into Parliament and the Press Gallery. The protest has been endorsed by Press Club of India, Editors Guild of India, Press Association, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Working News Cameraman Association and many other associations and unions of journalists.

The journalists will also submit a memorandum to the Speaker Lok Sabha and Chairman Rajya Sabha. The entry of mediapersons in Parliament has been restricted since early 2020 due to Covid-19. However it continues even now, even though all commercial spaces, including malls, restaurants, cinema halls, markets etc are now open to the public. Journalists can’t have any  access to media galleries in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and the Central Hall. Restricted entry is allowed for two days in a week, but journalists can only be on the Parliament premises, and have no access to the proceedings.

On November 27, journalists wrote an open letter to political leaders, and protested the restrictions on the media’s access to Parliament. According to the journalists, the Lok Sabha Speaker, had stated in a press conference in July, that there will be no restrictions imposed on the media’s entry.

We are concerned that there is a depressing trend emerging to isolate parliament and parliamentarians from media gaze.
The trend augurs ill of parliamentary democracy and much against the spirit of our parliamentary democracy.
Once again we have written to @loksabhaspeaker pic.twitter.com/zxFsfCLXTH

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) November 29, 2021

.@adhirrcinc, leader of the @INCIndia in Lok Sabha, has written to @loksabhaspeaker once again pic.twitter.com/aAzO9s389R

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) November 29, 2021

“We are concerned that there is a depressing trend emerging to isolate Parliament and parliamentarians from media gaze,” stated the letter.

In the largest democracy of the world, the entry of journalists in the Parliament is regulated through “lottery system”. This seems to be a ploy to censor transmission of news and the information to people. This is a very dangerous trend in a parliamentary democracy like India

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) November 30, 2021

The media fraternity has demanded that the entry of all journalists having permanent passes to the Parliament complex and the Press Gallery be restored as announced by the  Speaker, Lok Sabha, in July 2021. They have also asked that entry of veteran journalists into the Central Hall of Parliament be restored along with “the L&D [long and distinguished service] category for senior and veteran journalists as a mark of honour of their long services in the profession.”

“Reconstitute Press Advisory Committee at the earliest,” is another major demand. According to the media bodies, the restrictions now in place have “played havoc and made the situation much more difficult for media persons in carrying out their professional duties/responsibilities and had led to large-scale retrenchments in the fraternity.”

Congress leader Adhir Ranjan had also backed the journalists seeking entry to Parliament. He had written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Sunday asking that the restrictions imposed on media be lifted “to ensure free and fair coverage of proceedings during the Winter Session.” According to reports, he said that most of the media people was “denied access to the Press Gallery and interactions with parliamentarians on the pretext of pandemic guidelines,” adding that even though most public places are now open after Covid-19 curbs were lifted, restrictions on journalists covering the proceedings of the Parliament is continue. “It is definitely against the spirit of parliamentary democracy. I am concerned that there is a dangerous trend emerging to isolate parliament and parliamentarians from media scrutiny,” he wrote.

The winter session of Parliament that began on Monday and will continue till December 23. Earlier, the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Press & Public Relations wing) had issued its advisory on media access to the Parliament House Complex and Lok Sabha Press Gallery during the Winter Session, 2021. The arrangements stated that “Only one pass each will be given to accredited newspapers” and “only 60 Correspondents will be allowed inside the Lok Sabha Press Gallery on any given day of sitting” however, 11 of those seats are reserved in the Press Gallery of Lok Sabha for “official media and news agencies” which include “PTI, PTI Bhasha, UNI, Univarta, AIR, Doordarshan, Sansad TV, PIB, ANI, IANS, and Hindustan Samachar.”

It added that “a maximum of two Correspondents from each of the aforementioned official media/news agencies will be allowed inside the Parliament House complex on any given day” and “two Camerapersons/Photographers each DD, ANI, Photo Division, Sansad TV, PTI and UNI will be issued passes for coverage at Media Stands”. Ten “select photographers of Lok Sabha Press Gallery accredited newspapers” would also be “allowed, on rotation basis, on the basis of passes to be issued.” 

Journalists are not allowed to use their mobiles to take bytes/shots of Members of Parliament or Parliament House Complex. Media persons are also not allowed to “interact/interview/photograph anyone other than Ministers/Members of Parliament” and they too can only be interviewed at the designated media stands.

However, on the first day of the Session, November 29, 2021, all accredited electronic channels and agencies were allowed to cover the interaction with the Prime Minister outside the building. It added that journalists “who have not got two doses will have to get RTPCR test for Covid-19 seventy two hours each time prior to coming to the Parliament House for covering the proceedings of Lok Sabha on their allotted day. Such media persons have to carry a negative report to be shown at the Parliament House Reception for entry into the Parliament House Complex and RTPCR test may be repeated after 2 weeks.” 

Most importantly, it says, “Access of media person to the Central Hall will remain suspended until further orders.” Veteran journalists who have covered Parliament for decades do not recall such massive restrictions. On the first day of the Winter Session on November 29, 2021, the Farm Laws Repeal Bill was passed by the Parliament without any debate. It was done with a voice vote even though Opposition party Members of Parliament (MPs) from Congress, TMC and DMK had demanded a discussion of the laws.  

Related:

SKM decries Centre’s tyranny in disallowing debate on farm laws
Parliament repeals farm laws sans discussion, but what’s next?

The post Why are Parliament proceedings still restricted for most journalists? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Farm Laws Repeal Bill that calls for the dismissal of the contentious farm laws was passed by the Parliament without any debate on the first day of the Winter Session on November 29, 2021. While this sets the precedent for a major win for farmers, leaders have pointed out that other crucial demands are yet to be addressed.

On Monday, both Houses of Parliament passed the Farm Laws Repeal Bill to dismiss the three contentious laws:

• Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020
• Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020
• Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020

The same was done with a voice vote although Opposition party Members of Parliament (MPs) from Congress, TMC and DMK demanded a discussion of the laws.

Modi Sarkar wants to push through the 3 farm laws repeal Bill today in Parliament WITHOUT any debate. The passage of the laws 16 months ago was most undemocratic. The manner of repeal is even more so. The Opposition demands a discussion before repeal.

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) November 29, 2021

Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Tomar, who tabled the Bill, wrote in the legislature that “these enactments were made for the overall socio-economic development of farmers and rural sector.” However, acknowledging that even the Supreme Court’s January 2021 order stayed the implementation of these laws, it asked to dismiss the same.

“The Government of India ungraciously gives in to one of the key demands of protesting farmers with this Repeal Bill. It is worth noting that [while] it seeks to recall the laws made in 2020 that led to huge historic protests by farmers of India, in its Statement of Objects and Reasons continues to defend the laws stoutly and mentions that only a group of farmers are protesting against these laws. It links the repeal to Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav, with the need of the hour being to take everyone together on the path of inclusive growth and development,” said the farmers group Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) in a joint press statement on November 28.

संसद में कृषि कानूनों को रद्द करने की कार्रवाई पर किसानों की नजर है।

सिंघु बॉर्डर से तस्वीर।#KisanMajdoorEktaZindabaad#RepealFarmLawsInParliament pic.twitter.com/FX6cUPvSlj

— Kisan Ekta Morcha (@Kisanektamorcha) November 29, 2021

In a letter by SKM, farmers listed as many as six major demands of the movement. These are:

1.       A legal guarantee to Minimum Support Price (MSP) based on the C2+50 percent formula

2.       Withdrawal of the draft Electricity Amendments Bill 2021 that the Centre had promised to dispose in earlier talks

3.       Removal of penal provisions on farmers in the Commission for Air Quality Management in the National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act 2021

4.       Withdrawal of FIRs against farmers that were booked since June 2020

5.       Suspension and arrest of Minister of State Ajay Mishra from the Union Cabinet for alleged role in Lakhimpur Kheir killings

6.       Compensation and rehabilitation of the families of at least 686 martyrs who were part of the farmers struggle for the past year

Along with this, farmers also raised concern about the Indian Maritime Fisheries Bill 2021 decried by India’s fisherfolk who are recognised as farmers as per the National Policy for Farmers 2007.

Denying government assurances on MSP, farmers said that it is “patently unjustified and illogical” to claim that a Committee to deliberate on crop diversification, zero-budget farming, and better MSP system, etc, can fulfil farmers’ demands. The SKM also condemned Tomar’s comment that stubble burning has been decriminalised, by pointing out Section 15 of the AQM Bill. Farmers also questioned the Electricity Amendments Bill 2021 that is to be tabled today despite previous assurances of dismissing the same.

Farmers also questioned the FIRs on approximately 48,000 farmers in Haryana alone for charges like sedition and attempt to murder, rioting etc. In light of all this, the SKM states that the struggle will not end until the government resumes dialogue with farmers.

“Union Government cannot hope to end the farmers’ protests in undemocratic, unilateral ways,” said the SKM.

Related:

SKM postpones Tractor Rally to Parliament

Farmers’ movement: 12 months and still going strong!

Kranti ka Naqsha: Mapping a year of the Kisan Andolan

Union Cabinet completes formalities for repeal of contentious farm laws

Welcome repeal of laws but other demands pending: SKM to PM Modi

Farmers struggle to continue until all demands are met: SKM

The post Parliament repeals farm laws sans discussion, but what’s next? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At an Independence day celebration at the Supreme Court on Sunday, August 15, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, said the Indian Parliament was seeing a “sorry state of affairs” adding that “there was no clarity of laws” being enacted. This, according to the CJI, was leading to “a lot of inconvenience”. 

According to news reports, Chief Justice Ramana who was speaking at a flag-hoisting ceremony, also said that once there used to be wise and constructive debates in Parliament but now there “was lack of quality in the discussions being held while enacting laws”. According to the CJI this kind of a situation arises when “when intellectuals and professionals like lawyers were not present in the House.”

“If we look at our freedom fighters, many of them were also in the legal fraternity. The first members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were filled with lawyers’ community,” Chief Justice Ramana said at an event to mark the Independence Day at the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Bar Association conducting an event to celebrate 75th Independence Day.

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, SG Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh @vikassinghSrAdv attending the event.#IndependenceDayIndia2021 #IndependenceDay2021 pic.twitter.com/yfZJzefi3w

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 15, 2021

The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana hoisting the tricolour in the Supreme Court compound on the 75th Independence Day.#IndependenceDay2021 #IndependenceDayIndia #IndianFlag pic.twitter.com/YIaF0KNbxH

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 15, 2021

This is a strong message from the CJI, the second such message this month. Recently he had at an event organised by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) called out the threat to human rights and bodily integrity at police stations. He had said “custodial torture and other police atrocities are problems which still prevail in our society. Inspite of constitutional declarations and guarantees, lack of effective legal representation at the police stations is a huge detriment to the arrested and detained persons”. He had added that the dissemination of information about the constitutional right to legal aid is significant in keeping police excesses in check.

The CJI’s statement on August 15, came in the wake of the  abrupt end of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, two two days ahead of schedule, and the repeated disruptions in both the Houses. He was quoted in multiple news reports saying, “If you see debates which used to take place in Houses in those days, they used to be very wise, constructive… Now, (it is) a sorry state of affairs…There is no clarity in laws. It is creating a lot of litigation and loss to the government as well as inconvenience to the public.” 

The CJI added, there was “no clarity in laws. We don’t know for what purpose the laws are made. In the absence of quality debate, we are unable to fathom the intent and object behind the new law: This is what happens if intellectuals and professionals like lawyers are not there in the Houses.”

Union Minister of Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju reacted to the CJI’s speech and blamed the Opposition for the ruckus, and lack of debates in Parliament.

What’s more shocking is that there are chest-thumping by opposition MPs who openly boasted that they had blocked & stopped Parliament Session. They behaved very rudely, resorted to physical force and used unparliamentary language, degrading the status of ‘Temple of Democracy’. https://t.co/87Hk7D61l5

— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) August 15, 2021

What’s more shocking is that there are chest-thumping by opposition MPs who openly boasted that they had blocked & stopped Parliament Session. They behaved very rudely, resorted to physical force and used unparliamentary language, degrading the status of ‘Temple of Democracy’. https://t.co/87Hk7D61l5

— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) August 15, 2021

Related:

Threat to human rights and bodily integrity highest in police stations: CJI NV Ramana

The post Sorry state of affairs’ in Parliament: Chief Justice of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A group of concerned citizens, lawyers, activists, human rights workers, researchers and academicians, have demanded that the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2019 should not be passed in Parliament. The bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in July 2019 and was referred to a Standing Committee which submitted its report in February 2021.

The bill is being proposed to regulate the use of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and with a stated purpose of establishing the identity of victims, suspects, undertrials, offenders, missing persons and unknown deceased persons (and their relatives) in criminal and civil cases by permitting the collection and storage of DNA profiles which are specific patterns determined using the DNA.

Such data will be collected, accessed, indexed and recorded in central and local databases. DNA profiles can provide markers specific to each person. Essentially, for allowed cases, bodily substances of persons may be collected by investigation agencies. Such cases include criminal offences, cases of medical termination of pregnancy, immoral trafficking, parental disputes, issues relating to immigration or emigration, establishing the identity of an individual, etc.

Points raised in the statement

The statement asserts that in the light of the Pegasus scandal, the intentions of the government to snoop on its people is evident and this bill will only expand the scope of surveillance and legitimize it. It will put not just a few individuals but all individuals constantly under State surveillance and also violates an individual’s right to privacy.

Here are a few compelling points made against the bill:

•          DNA data is not foolproof: Use of DNA data is a developing field and it may not give the correct ‘profile’ of a person. It works more by association than correlation. So if a person was at a given place at a given time and traces of her DNA are found there, she can be wrongly linked to the incidents occurring therein, even if she isn’t connected to it. The Department of Biotechnology was firm in its belief that DNA technology is infallible and hence can be depended upon unquestionably
•          Gathering Data for an all-encompassing database: The Bill includes the word “suspect” which is a category of people whose DNA can be collected and since it has not been clearly defined any arbitrary definition can be assumed in the rules or in operation
•          Right against Self-incrimination: Article 20(3) of the Constitution states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. No person can be compelled to give any form of evidence against himself/herself that incriminates them in a crime. There is a clause that states that anyone accused of committing a crime for which the punishment is more than 7 years imprisonment, life imprisonment, or the death sentence, then the Magistrate can waive off the requirement of their consent.
•          Different Value of Consent based on offence: Section 21 (1) of the Bill says that consent of the person whose DNA is being collected must be taken in writing, however this is waived off in certain offences. Further, if a person refuses to give consent, the police can go to the Magistrate who will decide whether DNA should be obtained. Thus, clearly the state has an upper hand and in all possibility, the Magistrate is not likely to deny the police such request.
•          Attack on persons dignity and bodily autonomy: Investigators have broad and vague powers to collect DNA from sources that can be specified through a regulation, giving the executive the ability to specify any source they want. The police can collect photographs and or video recordings of genitalia of women, which is absurd since DNA cannot be extracted from such a source.
•          Retention of Data: In criminal matters, an accused person can approach the court to remove their DNA data from the Data Bank after the trial. And by default unless one moves to court, the DNA data stays not only in the Data bank but also in the DNA Lab.
•          Attack on privacy: The fundamental right to privacy covers at least three aspects – (i) intrusion with an individual’s physical body, (ii) informational privacy, and (iii) privacy of choice. All three aspects of privacy have been completely ignored by the DNA Bill. Without a data protection regime and necessary protections to safeguard the right to privacy, the DNA Bill is an attack on our fundamental right.

The complete statement may be read here:

The Parliament Committee report

The Parliament Standing Committee on science and technology submitted its report on the DNA Bill on February 3, 2021. The Committee stated that under the law, the statutory Board should be professional and independent and not comprise almost wholly of serving government officials. The Committee also raised its concerns over the “crime scene index” which will be a national databank of DNA left at the crime scene which could include virtually everyone who may have nothing to do with the crime being investigated. 

There is also DNA to be present of those who were nowhere near the “crime scene” but bodily material like hair may have been transported to the crime scene inadvertently by a variety of ways. Many of these DNA profiles will then find their way into the “crime scene index” without the knowledge of these persons. The committee also raised its concern over the accuracy, integrity and security of Regional DNA Data Banks and insisted that only a National DNA Data Bank be maintained.

The report recommends including the definition of “offender” as a person convicted of an offence and punished with imprisonment of 7 years or more. The Committee is of the view that the “suspects” index and “undertrials” index is unnecessary for the purpose of solving crimes, and it can be misused for targeting certain categories of people

The Committee opines that the functions of the Regulatory Board must include issuing guidelines, standards and procedures for the establishment and functioning of the DNA Labs and the National DNA Data Bank as also advising the government on establishment of DNA labs.

The Committee also states that the function of the Board must include making recommendations to the government in the interest of privacy protection, for timely removal and destruction of DNA profiles and information that (a) is obsolete, expunged, or inaccurate; or (b) after the purpose for which DNA information has been collected has been served. Currently, the Clause 12k(iv) provides for timely removal of only “obsolete, expunged or inaccurate DNA information”.

The Committee recommended that the Bill should regulate DNA testing for the purpose mentioned in the object of the legislation and should not seek to regulate all other DNA testing

The Committee suggests that when the Magistrate passes the order for collecting DNA sample, the person should be given an opportunity to be heard

The Committee calls for deleting the clause that allows for purpose of collecting DNA samples, “taking of a photograph or video recording of, or an impression or cast of a wound from, the genital or anal area, buttocks and breasts in the case of a female”. The Committee states there is no current technology to derive DNA profiles from photographs and videos, and therefore recommends the deletion of the Clause 23(3)(b)(vi) in its entirety.

The Clause 23 (3)(c)(i) provides for taking handprint, fingerprint, footprint or toe print but since there is no current technology to derive DNA profile from these. The Committee recommends the deletion of the Clause in its entirety.

The Clause 30 (1)(c) provides that the DNA data bank can match DNA profiles received from the government with its database and can provide information on a “similar DNA”. The Committee feels that the usage of “Similar” in the Clause is vague and will violate the privacy of relatives of those people whose profiles are in the data bank and recommends the deletion of the Clause in its entirety.

The Bill provides that the data in the DNA data bank will be retained unless removed by certain procedures. The Committee recommends that – “The National Data Bank shall promptly remove the DNA profile entered as an offender within 30 days from the day that the court finds such person not guilty.”

The dissent note from Asaduddin Owaisi stresses upon the need for an overarching regulator to prevent misuse. He cites the example of the United Kingdom where the National DNA Database Strategy Board, which oversees the national DNA database, is overseen by the Ethics Board, Biometrics Commissioner, Forensic Regulator as well as Information Commissioner. He also points out that India still does not have a data protection law and a statutory protection of private data is critical as it provides a mechanism for enforcement of rights.

The Parliament Committee report may be read here:

Related:

Pegasus scandal: SC says serious allegations if reports are true
Pegasus Project: 5 targeted journalists move SC, say have been subject to intrusive hacking
India’s Deep State: Is any citizen safe?

The post The DNA Bill: A perfect recipe for absolute surveillance and zero privacy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Continuing a Kisan Sansad in tandem with the monsoon session of the Parliament, farmers on August 3, 2021 rejected the Commission on Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas Bill 2021.

The farmers’ body demanded that the Parliament likewise dispose of the Bill that was introduced once again before the MPs on Tuesday. Farmers expressed shock at this reintroduction despite prior commitment by the government in December 2020 to do away with the document.

The farmers body Samyukta Kisan Morcha’s (SKM) main contention with the Bill is misleading in the manner in which it targets stubble burning as a major cause of pollution in Delhi NCR. Farmers claim the Bill blames neighbouring farmers for the city’s worsening air quality so as to provide an escape for industries and the central government from fulfilling their responsibilities.

“Various government policies and laws, and government-promoted crops and technologies have pushed Punjab and Haryana farmers into this cycle of paddy and wheat with barely three weeks in between, leaving farmers with little practical choice except burning the stubble,” said the Farmers Parliament in a press release.

Farmer leaders demanded that rather than such laws, the government provide a legal guarantee to Minimum Support Price (MSP) and make financial arrangements to incentivise farmers to take up sustainable practices.

Instead of the Centre, farmers demanded that state governments address the stubble burning issue, “This should include consultative and participatory processes with farmers on all aspects including scientific studies.”

During the three sessions of Kisan Sansad, farmers argued that the main causes of air pollution in Delhi are construction industries and the decreasing green cover. As for stubble burning, leaders said that the practice has a worse effect on farmers and their families, the soil and air quality than the neighbouring city. Despite this, the Bill allows jailing or levying of heavy penalties on farmers for stubble burning. This also comes at a time when there was no economically viable alternative to the practice.

Farmers on their part, recommended government intervention in employing mulching and composting practices through low-cost appropriate machinery.

“There are Supreme Court directions to provide alternatives to farmers to manage the paddy stubble but the Union Government has not provided the necessary financial support to make it happen. Farmers have been demanding an incentive of Rs. 200 per quintal of stubble to make alternative disposal financially viable but the government has not provided even this,” said the SKM.

Similarly, they claimed the Centre also failed to provide Rs.100 per quintal of stubble as per court orders.

In such a backdrop, leaders like Kawalpreet Singh Pannu worried about the Bill’s overriding powers over state officials. Further, while the commission mentioned in the concerned Bill is empowered to direct state government actions to the Centre, it cannot compel the latter to provide resources to implement solutions.

The Commission has wide-ranging powers to issue orders to any person, officer or authority, who will then be bound to comply with the orders, including prohibition or regulation of any process or operation, and stoppage of electricity, water or any other service. In addition, any non-compliance will be punishable with a term up to 5 years and a fine extending up to Rs.1 crore with an exception now put in for farmers. However, the Bill does not define the title of ‘farmer.’

Further, economists Dr Devinder Sharma, Dr Sucha Singh Gill, Dr R S Ghuman and others will attend the Kisan Sansad discussions on August 4 and 5.

Related:

Kisan Sansad: Farmers reject APMC Bypass Act

SKM people’s whip on MPs for repeal of three anti-farmer laws during the monsoon session!

Poll violence, attacks on Dalits, Muslims: What is happening in UP?

Mahapanchayats and hate panchayats are not the same

The post Kisan Sansad urges Parliament to dismiss the AQM Bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.