While the Centre remains adamant on its plan to go forward with the anti-farmer Bills that have received widespread Opposition parties for the cause of farmers, state governments have decided to act in favour of marginalised farmers. Three days ago Kerala started contemplating a legal challenge in the Supreme Court, and yesterday, Rajasthan, Punjab and Maharashtra spoke out.

On the morning of protests on Friday, Punjab followed the footsteps of Rajasthan in taking immediate steps to secure the state government’s control on procurement and pricing.

Shortly after the nationwide farmers protest on September 25, Maharashtra government said that it would not allow the three agriculture Bills – the Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill – to be implemented, said a Rediff report. On the day of the protest, Deputy Chief Minister and NCP leader Ajit Pawar said in Pune that the NCP and other parties are opposed to the new bills. He added that a dharna agitation will be held on October 2 in the state.

Days after Parliament passed the three agriculture-related ordinances to regulate out-of-mandi transactions and provide a framework for contract farming, and the amended Essential  Commodities Act, some states have started guarding their turf, to limit revenue loss on account of off-mandi transactions.

Kerala: Planning Board asked to study impact

Kerala reacted first, soon after the undemocratic manner in which the Bills were passed in Parliament last week-end followed by the arbitrary suspension of eight Members of Parliament. Calling for concerted efforts to oppose the controversial farm Bills, days before the nationwide protest, Kerala’s Agriculture Minister V.S. Sunil Kumar said that the Kerala government had sought advice from it’s legal department on the feasibility of challenging them in the Supreme Court. Kerala government decision was taken at the September 23 cabinet meeting. 

The state government has asked the Planning Board to study their impact on various sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, labour, animal husbandry and dairy development, Sunil Kumar told the media. The Planning Board has been directed to submit its report by September 30.  He also suggested that the Kerala government would seek the cooperation of like-minded States, such as Punjab, in opposing the Centre’s “unilateral decision”. Kerala goes to the polls soon. Though ‘Agriculture, including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases’ falls in the State List as per the Seventh Schedule, the Centre neither discussed the Bills with the States nor heeded their concerns, he said. The legislation serve only the interests of corporates, Mr. Sunil Kumar added.

Meanwhile, Kerala is moving to introduce an alternative mechanism to strengthen the agriculture sector using the primary agriculture co-operative societies and with the support of the Departments of Cooperation and Industries, he said.

Such support for the farmers from the south is particularly significant because Kerala does not have an APMC system. Thus, Kerala’s official support to the farmers counters the pro-Bill argument that the opposition is only limited in APMC-states such as Punjab and Haryana.

Rajasthan, Punjab take control of Mandis

Last month, Rajasthan had acted. The state had passed an order late in August 2020 designating all warehouses of Food Corporation of India (FCI) and state warehousing corporation as mandis, thereby retaining its powers to charge mandi fees. The order was seen by many as a move to neutralise the impact of the Centre’s ordinance designating all out-of-mandi areas, including warehouses and godowns, as trade zones where taxes could not be levied. According to the latest report of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), Rajasthan charged 3.6 per cent as mandi fees and other charges — the third-highest among major wheat procurement states of India.

The Rajasthan government has explored this loophole in the legislation, and declared all FCI and state warehouses mandis, so all transactions taking place in these would be eligible for state taxes.

The Rajasthan government had earlier expressed apprehensions about the impact of these new laws on state policies. On September 21, Revenue Minister Harish Chaudhary and Transport Minister Pratap Singh Khachariawas had told the media that the “anti-farmer Bills,” brought in a hurry, deprive farmers of the bonus on MSP. Last month, Rajasthan had declared all warehouses of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) and the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (RSWC) as procurement centres under the APMC Act.

Punjab

Further north, Punjab government said they were giving serious thought to amending the state’s APMC Act and declaring the whole of Punjab as a Principal Mandi Yard. According to reports, the government believes such an amendment will circumvent the changes in the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill. Declaring ‘mandi yards’ would mean that any procurement outside government ambit would become illegal thus ensuring MSO to farmers and Mandi fees to the state. On September 25 reports suggest that Punjab, the largest contributor of wheat and rice to India’s central pool, might also be looking at amending its Mandi Act to declare the entire state a Principal Market Yard. This would nullify the central law prohibiting imposition of any tax or cess on out-of-mandi transactions.

The central legislation defines a ‘trade area’ as any area outside of mandis notified under the state Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act, including private market yards, private market sub-yards, direct marketing collection centres, private farmer-consumer market yards managed by persons holding any licence, as well as cold storage, silos and warehouses notified as marketplaces under the state APMC Acts. The central legislation clarifies that the definition of a ‘trade area’, where central provisions will apply, will be all areas other than the ones mentioned above. The Rajasthan government has explored this loophole in the legislation and declared all FCI and state warehouses mandis, so all transactions taking place in these would be eligible for state taxes.

Now, if the entire state is declared a Principal Market Yard, the central law would not apply anywhere in the state. And if FCI continues to procure from the state, it will continue to pay tax at a high 8.5 per cent rate on wheat and rice.

These taxes, according to some estimates, earn Punjab over Rs 5,000 crore annually, given the sheer amount of wheat and rice procured from the state every year.

Maharashtra

Pawar acknowledged farmers’ arguments that the laws were not beneficial to them and said that the state government will ensure that such laws are not implemented. He also said that his government had sought legal advice in case the matter went to the court.

Speaking about the Bills, the Deputy Chief Minister said that the new bills scrap the APMC system and hand over the marketing system to traders. He alleged that this would lead to scrapping of labour protection laws as farmers will not get the Minimum Support Price (MSP.)

Related: 

BJP workers should reach out to farmers: Narendra Modi
India ratifies, but doesn’t adopt UN Resolution on farmers’ rights?
Farmers’ stand resolute, block Maharashtra’s expressway
Stranger things: Walkouts, night vigils and intermittent fasting in the Parliament

The post Four states gear up to resist ‘anti-farmer’ bills appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Women working on an MGNREGA site building a pond to assist in farming and water storage in Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh. Wage payments under MGNREGA for nearly 92 million workers in 19 states have not been made, data show
 
In Haryana, wages have not been paid since August 31, 2017. In 12 states, including Jharkhand, Karnataka and Kerala, payments have not been made since September 2017. No payments have been made in six states including Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh since October 2017.
 

Source: MGNREGA, MGNREGA State Fact Sheets

Note: Data for other states unavailable; data as on October 31, 2017
 
Over 92 million active workers may not be getting their wages on time and the delayed wage payments amount to nearly Rs 3,066 crore, according to a statement by NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, a network of grassroot organisations.
 
“Immediate action has been taken on proposals submitted so far by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Jammu & Kashmir and proposals have been processed,” according to this statement by the ministry of rural development on October 27, 2017.
 
It is mandatory for states to send audited reports of the previous financial year after September 30 every year for the central government to release the second tranche of funds.
 
The rural development ministry statement said Rs 40,480 crore has been released so far in this financial year, which is around Rs 4,500 crore more than the release during the corresponding period of the last financial year.
 
The ministry has also sought funds from the finance ministry to meet additional requirements.
 
Centre not clearing payments
 
The central government has not approved most payments for 20 days in March-April 2017, and 80% wage payments in May 2017 were not processed.
 
“While the central government has not approved funds for states that have not submitted audited statements of their funds on time, the government does not have funds for eight states: Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Mizoram, Nagaland and Jammu and Kashmir,” according to Ankita Aggarwal, co-convenor of the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha.

 
Though there are no records of FTOs pending from Mizoram, Nagaland and J & K, all three states have negative balances in their financial statements.
 
Payments to be made within 15 days, compensation not paid
 
Workers must receive payments within 15 days of the closure of the muster rolls under MGNREGA guidelines. If the wages remain unpaid, the workers are entitled to seek compensation at a rate per day during the duration of the delay.
 
No legal compensation has been calculated for these delays. During the financial year 2016-17, the central government estimated the compensation to be only Rs 519 crore, 43% of Rs 1,208 crore that was actually due, Scroll.in reported in August 2017.
 
The rural development ministry calculates the compensation only on the basis of delays caused by the state government, the report said. The delay by the central government in making payments to the workers is not considered.
 
As much as 94% of the compensation due was not approved as of January 13, 2017, according to the 2017-18 budget brief by Accountability Initiative, an advocacy. Of the 6% approved, only 61% (Rs 8.7 crore) was paid.
 
Of Rs 34.7 crore payable as compensation for the current financial year, only Rs 3.6 crore, or 10%, has been paid, the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha claimed.
 
The rural development ministry has said that out of Rs 80.58 crore that has been approved as compensation since the provision of paying it came into force, Rs 51.4 crore (64%) has been paid.
 
The budget allocation for MGNREGA for the current financial year is Rs 48,000 crore, the highest ever under the scheme. As of October 27, 2017, Rs 40,725 crore–that is, nearly 85% of budget allocation–has been spent.
 
Eleven states have negative balances (including payments due) as per financial statements on November 3, 2017.
 
(Nair is an intern with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend
 

The post 19 States Freeze MGNREGA Payments, Centre Not Releasing Funds appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A woman affected by leprosy begs for alms at a traffic junction in Mumbai

 
In most places, people can be arrested for “looking poor”, as our analysis of laws in 18 states and union territories (UTs) shows. Laws allow the police to round up beggars without warrant and judges to confine them in government-run institutions for long or indefinite periods–a violation of constitutional principles. The language of the law essentially allows the law enforcement agencies and the courts to internalise and legitimise a hostile attitude towards a section of society.  
 
Usha Ramanathan, an expert on law and poverty, in her analysis of the anti-begging law in Delhi, observed that the law has “bold signatures of unconstitutionality”. This is true of other state laws on begging as well, and calls for a rethink and a recalibration of the government’s engagement with this community.
 
In October 2016, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment held a consultation on a new model bill for destitute people which has been referred to state governments for comment. Model laws are usually drafted by central government ministries for state governments to adopt on a voluntary basis, with or without changes.
 
The Persons in Destitution (Protection, Care and Rehabilitation) Model Bill of 2016 aims to set up a rehabilitative framework for homeless people, people found begging, and destitute people with disabilities. It does not criminalise begging, other than for repeated and organised begging, and does not allow for detention of dependants. It focuses instead on providing resources for the destitute–in addition to imposing a duty on the state government concerned to set up well-equipped and -staffed rehabilitation centres to provide vocational training and counselling, the model bill envisages setting up of outreach and mobilisation units to identify destitute people, create awareness and mobilise communities.
 
However, the bill falls short of taking a progressive and humane approach towards begging, and needs to be reframed after an informed debate.

 
Who is a ‘Beggar’?
 
More than 400,000 destitute people across the country are classified as “beggars, vagrants, etc.” in government data (based on the 2011 census).
 

Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 457, 01.12.2015;  Press Information Bureau,  ‘Empowerment of Beggar Population’, 26 April 2015
 
But this figure is contested, and the government admits there are no authentic data available. Activists say government statistics underreport the number of beggars. For instance, the 2011 census puts the number of beggars in Delhi at 2,187. However, previous estimations by government departments and civil society organisations put the figure between 60,000 and 100,000 between 2004 and 2010.
 
Further, information about the number of people booked and detained under anti-begging laws is not readily available. In five states, even the text of the laws that criminalise begging is not available in any publicly-accessible resource.
 
Most of the state laws (except of Assam and Tamil Nadu) consider the mere appearance of not having the means to sustain oneself or wandering about in a public place as begging. In other words, if you look poor, you can be arrested. There have been reports of police raids rounding up homeless working people or nomadic tribes as “beggars”.
 
The law in West Bengal uses language similar to early colonial laws, such as the term ‘vagrants’. Some laws date back to pre-Independence times (Tamil Nadu), some are as recent as 2004 (Sikkim), but the classification of begging as a criminal activity remains unchanged.
 
In Karnataka and Assam, an exception has been carved out for religious mendicants who seek alms to fulfill religious obligations or beg in temples and mosques. These laws effectively sanction begging in the name of religion. Yet, seeking alms by singing, dancing and performing tricks falls within the definition of begging, and is illegal.
 
In Tamil Nadu, however, the law exempts “street artists and performers in the oral tradition, bards, jugglers and street magicians” from the definition of a beggar.
 
Under most laws (with the exception of Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar and West Bengal), the court can also order the detention of people who are dependent on the person arrested for begging. So if a man is arrested for begging, his wife and children can be detained. In Himachal Pradesh, the law goes a step further by allowing the court to send people who knowingly live off the earnings of a beggar to jail. Under this law, anyone proved “to be living with or to be habitually in company of, a beggar” can be punished. The police can arrest and detain entire families under this provision.
 
The model bill retains a definition broadly similar to that of existing state laws, one in which “having no visible means of subsistence and wandering, (sic) about or remaining in any public place…” can constitute begging. Essentially, it continues to presume that anyone appearing to be poor could be a beggar, although it does shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation.

 
“Let’s clear the street of beggars”
 
Local police or officers of the welfare department conduct periodic raids to clear the streets of beggars. Those rounded up routinely include members of the transgender community, for whom begging is a significant source of livelihood.
 
Many state laws treat begging as a cognisable and non-bailable offense, for which a summary inquiry can be held to ascertain guilt and award punishment.
 
Under the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, crimes which require the immediate intervention of the police are classified as cognisable crimes; in fact, it is possible for the police to start an investigation and make an arrest even without a complaint from anyone and without prior permission from a court. Most state laws allow the police to arrest anyone they think is a beggar without a warrant.
 
The crime of begging is also non-bailable, i.e., the accused has to make an application in court to get out of jail while the inquiry goes on. The level of awareness regarding free legal representation is very low in India and activists have often found the quality of representation to be poor. A person accused of begging would typically have no means to hire legal representation, and would find getting bail very hard.
 
In its drive to “beautify” the city in the run up to the Commonwealth Games, the Delhi government decided to rid the city of beggars. It set up “mobile courts” where a magistrate would sit in a minibus and summarily try the beggars rounded up.
 
The question arises: if the “crime” of begging is so serious that it is classified as cognisable and non-bailable, how is a “summary” inquiry sufficient to establish guilt?
 
Though the model bill does not criminalise begging per se, it allows for people found begging repeatedly to be detained indefinitely in rehabilitation centres–with police assistance, if necessary–and claims this detention is in their own interest. Further, the bill envisages the issuance of identity cards which can potentially be used for surveillance purposes. These provisions could also allow and assist the police to conduct raids and ‘clean-up drives’, making the situation not very different from now.

 
Where do arrested beggars go?
 
Various state laws prescribe sending those declared beggars, and in some cases, their dependants, to government-run institutions called by different names–certified institution, workhouse, special home, beggar’s home or relief centre. In some states, a distinction is made between a workhouse (where those capable of physical labour are detained) and special homes (for those incapable of physical labour).
 
No comprehensive data are available on the status of these institutions, but isolated reports indicate deplorable conditions and even a significant number of deaths each year at some of these homes.
 
It is easy to see how these laws reflect the commonly perceived nexus between begging and criminality.
 
States which have adopted versions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (for example, Delhi) prescribe detention in a certified institution as normal punishment.
 
In several states such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the court has the option to either send the person to jail or detain them in an institution. In West Bengal, the person can be released only once the manager of the home has found a job for them or if a relative provides personal guarantee, thereby making it possible to detain someone indefinitely.
 
Repeat offence invites harsher punishments. If a person is found begging a third time, they can be sent to a government institution for up to 10 years, of which two years can be in jail. In nine of the states analysed, judges can send an accused person to an institution for up to 10 years. While awarding the maximum punishment of 10 years, the judge has the power to send the person to eight years in an institution and two years in jail.
 
A similar model is followed in states such as Assam, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh although with shorter maximum duration of punishment (between three and five years). In a few states such as Karnataka and Jammu and Kashmir, the judge can only send a repeat offender to an institution. In one state, Himachal Pradesh, the repeat offender (who is not a woman or child) will only be sent to jail. Women and children can be sent to a beggar’s home instead.
 
Here again, the maximum prescribed punishment ranges from three to 10 years. The question arises: why is begging in one state a more serious crime than in another?
 
In some states such as Haryana and Punjab, the law prescribes compulsory manual labour at a certified institution (after a medical check-up). Compulsory labour is again indicative of the nature of detention being punitive rather than rehabilitative.
 
A number of state laws allow for the courts to send a person to jail for up to three months for refusing to give their fingerprints when in a certified institution. In some states such as Gujarat, the remainder of the term in a certified institution can be converted into jail time if the person refuses to follow rules.
 
Existence of State Laws And Maximum Punishment For Begging By Repeat Offenders

Source: State laws compiled and analysed by Nyaaya here.

 
What about children?
 
State laws on begging differ fundamentally in their approach towards the treatment of children found begging. Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, children found begging are treated as victims in need of care and protection to be dealt with by child welfare committees. Some of the state laws, on the other hand, treat them as criminals who can be sent to an institution.
 
There are also inconsistencies in who qualifies to be a child–the maximum age ranges from 14 to 18 among various state laws. A 2010 Delhi district court judgment recognised the inconsistencies in the legal regime involving child beggars in Delhi–the law on begging treats children above 5 years of age found begging liable for punishment as adults, while the juvenile justice law requires these children to be sent to a child welfare committee.

 
Persons with disability
 
A substantial percentage of people who are found begging are persons with disability, infirm or affected by illnesses such as leprosy.
 
A provision found in most of these laws allows for indefinite detention in a certified institution of a person who is “blind, crippled or incurably helpless”. The law does not define ”incurable helplessness” and therefore such indefinite detention can be applied arbitrarily.
 
The very idea of legally sanctioned indefinite detention is antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution. The language used in a similar provision in Karnataka is interesting–people who are “infirm, disabled, decrepit or suffering from any loathsome or incurable disease” have to be immediately sent to their relatives when arrested. The state comes into the picture only if there is no relative to whom the responsibility can be entrusted.
 
Similarly, under these laws, people with mental illness and leprosy are usually clubbed together and are required to be sent to a mental hospital or leper asylum. It is unclear how people with the highly stigmatised disease of leprosy are actually treated given that the law under which leper asylums existed (the Lepers Act, 1898) has been repealed.

 
The shift from a punitive to rehabilitative approach
 
By treating beggars simultaneously as criminals and as those in need of help, different state governments have failed in their duty to reintegrate them into society, with the result that they usually end up begging again. Doing so incriminates them again, and the punishment for repeat offences is higher–extending to detention for an indefinite period of time.
 
India’s policy-makers must develop a consistent and humane approach towards begging, which focuses not on penalising but on rehabilitating them.
 
The model bill marks a shift towards a more rehabilitative approach, but continues to perceive ostensible poverty as indicative of begging, and allows indefinite detention and the involvement of police in certain circumstances.
 
As state governments deliberate on whether and to what extent to adopt the model bill, they must enable an informed public debate.
 
(Nyaaya.in, is a free, online source for India’s laws and has recently made criminal laws of Indian states available here.)

Courtesy: India Spend
 

The post In Most Indian States And UTs, You Can Be Arrested For ‘Looking Poor’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.