Media Blindspot

Racial Prejudice Against North-Easterners in India

2008-01-29T20:47:00.000-08:00

Nenem Misao wrote a stinging response to a news report that appeared in a tabloid which goes by the name of Mail Today. She found the report ‘Drug Peddling by Northeast Girls’ appalling and wanted to “inform my friends and acquaintances about the irresponsible journalism in India and in this specific instance in actively fostering racist prejudices by its sensationalist and biased (English) language press.

I am publishing Nenem’s mail to the Mail Today reporter in my blog so that many more readers on the net would be able to access and read Nenem’s point of view and larger ethical issues that she has raised. The fact is mainstream India continues to harbour racial prejudices and that India’s north-east and its people are often disparagingly treated and their views often dismissed. It's time to correct these imbalances and address the issues of racial prejudice against north-easterners urgently.
“---------- Forwarded message ----------From: nenem misao <nemzalhai@gmail.com>Date: Jan 29, 2008 3:54 PMSubject: article on "drug peddling by northeast girls"To: kumar.vikram@mailtoday.in
Dear mr vikram and the editors of Mail Today,

Your article dated 28 jan 2008 on "Drug lords prey on north east girls to act as peddlers" is highly offensive and reeks of racist misogynistic bias. the headline is very misleadingly neutral as compared to the article.

your language is highly sensationalist and irresponsible. this is one sort of yellow journalism that has no other purpose but to catch attention by appealing to already prevailing prejudices in delhi against the north east people.

obviously this yellow journalism doesnt care for facts and figures and least of all for the consequences of such blatant racism. the numerous hardworking honest youngsters in Munirka and in delhi who are slaving away in call centers to send money back home to their families are also going to deal with the consequences of such prejudices.

every community has its population of drug peddlers and prostitutes or are you saying there are no drug peddlers and prostitutes in the rest of the indian population? this is the classic indian sexual hypocrisy rearing its head again. stereotyping its women as sati savitris and women from other communities as "loose and immoral". the customers for this market are all the delhi north indian population if u want to get down to stereotyping. but that is not hte point.

the point should have been the rise of drugtaking among hte delhi youth especially the elite and to highlight that this is one incident of drug peddling among many more instances. The fight is against drugs and not indians from the north east, especially not north east women. as your article has projected. i would like to put the point of journalism across for you as you seem to have laid it aside. it is to inform the public thru factual and accurate reporting in a fair manner the condition of society so as to foster awareness and knowledge among hte masses. your aim is quite hte opposite.

i would like to remind you that there are indians abroad who are exactly in this same situation facing racial prejudice often leading to violence.. if your mind is too narrow to appreciate hte situation of the northeast people, then at least think from the perspective of the people of your community in similar situations- foreigners in a foreign land. ironically northeast girls are also indian citizens though.

yours in disgust and disappointment,a north east woman who is also between the age of 22 and 30 years.”

Amnesty International Report on Human Rights Abuse During Nandigram "Recapture"

2008-01-27T23:44:00.000-08:00

Contacts For quotes / interviews:
Justice S N Bhargava: 94-140-44461
Vrinda Grover: 98-108-06181
Meenakshi Ganguly: 98-200-36032
Mukul Sharma: 98-108-01919

Amnesty International Press Statement
Urgent Inquiry Needed Into Nandigram Violence
SROLL DOWN FOR THE FULL REPORT

(New Delhi, January 15 2008): The West Bengal state government should immediately create an independent and impartial inquiry into serious acts of violence in Nandigram since early 2007, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.
The state government should prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses and examine both the social-political origins of the violence and the failure of state authorities to provide effective protection to the community.
A fact-finding team—comprised of Justice (Retd) S.N. Bhargava, former Chief Justice, High Court of Sikkim; Vrinda Grover, advocate; Meenakshi Ganguly, senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch; and Mukul Sharma, director of Amnesty International India —visited Nandigram and Kolkata from 28 to 30 November. The team travelled to affected villages, relief camps, and met with the victims of the violence in Nandigram, as well as government officials and rights activists.
"It was obvious during our visit to Nandigram that state authorities had not acted in an impartial manner," said Meenakshi Ganguly, senior South Asia researcher with Human Rights Watch. "The political nature of this violence, involving the ruling party of West Bengal, means there must be an independent inquiry to prevent impunity for the perpetrators."
Throughout 2007, tensions over control of land in Nandigram led to a series of violent incidents between supporters of the ruling Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) and farmers belonging to the Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee (BUPC). Protesting villagers blockaded the Nandigram area to oppose a government plan to acquire land for industry. Instead of responding appropriately to violations of the law by protesters, the authorities appeared to treat the protest as a challenge to the CPI-M and used excessive force against the protestors. BUPC members were also responsible for acts of violence. At least 25 people were killed, hundreds injured and thousands displaced from their homes.

In November, CPI-M supporters and armed thugs forcibly ended the blockade. In retribution for the protest, they attacked villagers supporting the BUPC, burned down their homes, threatened further violence if villagers went to the authorities, and humiliated them by compelling them to join CPI-M rallies. The state administration removed police posts before CPI-M supporters advanced into the area, strongly suggesting governmental complicity in the abuses.

Villagers in affected areas reported to the fact-finding team that CPI-M supporters frequently subjected women to violent attacks, including rape and beatings, as well as to threats and harassment. There is no evidence that the police have sought to arrest those named in police complaints. Victims, particularly women who risk social censure by reporting rape, remained vulnerable to threats and further attacks from perpetrators who roam free.

"The tragedy of the reported rapes at Nandigram has been compounded by the failure of the police to seriously investigate these cases, keeping the victims at grave risk," said Ganguly.

Based on the team's findings, Amnesty International has produced a report titled, " Urgent need to address large scale human rights abuses during Nandigram "recapture.'" The report concludes that the inaction of the West Bengal state government, including tacit acceptance of the violent operations of the armed supporters of the CPI-M, resulted in serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, abductions, sexual assault of women and forced eviction and displacement of thousands of people in 2007.

It is disturbing that the West Bengal authorities failed to prevent the violence at Nandigram and failed to arrest the perpetrators," said Mukul Sharma, director of Amnesty International, India, "Weeks after peace had supposedly been restored, we learned that the perpetrators were still roaming free, celebrating their victory by threatening and beating up local residents."

The impunity enjoyed by those perpetrating abuses in Nandigram since the violence began in early 2007 fuelled the widespread abuses committed later in the year. The Chief Minister of West Bengal, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, contributed to the violence in November by saying that the protesters had been "paid back in the same coin," a comment which he retracted three weeks later, admitting the events were a "political and administrative failure."

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said that access to justice for the victims of the violence went beyond the successful prosecution of those responsible. The West Bengal government has an obligation to protect the rights of all those displaced by ensuring they can safely return to their homes and places of habitual residence and providing restitution for all damage suffered. Women who suffered abuse must receive proper protection and an effective remedy.

"The authorities must show clear political will to end the climate of violence in Nandigram," Sharma said. "For lasting peace, all those responsible for the violence must be prosecuted and the victims must receive redress."

FULL REPORT

Urgent Need to Address Large Scale Human Rights Abuse During Nandigram “Recapture”

Report

Amnesty International India
AI Index: ASA 20/001/2008

January 15 2008

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
AI Index: ASA 20/001/2008
15 January 2008

Urgent need to address large scale human rights abuses during Nandigram “recapture”

Amnesty International is concerned at reports that a range of serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, abductions, sexual assault of women and forced eviction and displacement of thousands of persons, have been carried out at Nandigram in East Medinipore District in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal. This report focuses on recent abuses, in the context of violence in late October and November 2007, which were reportedly carried out by armed supporters of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), which leads the ruling Left Front coalition in the state.

The organisation is also concerned that these abuses took place in the face of inaction by or acquiescence of the Government of West Bengal which to date has also failed to order an independent inquiry into the November 2007 violence.

1. Background

Throughout 2007, Nandigram has experienced violence as CPI-M supporters and farmers belonging to the Bhumi Uchched Pratirodh Committee (Anti-displacement front, BUPC) clashed with each other in attempting to gain control over parts of the area.

On 28 December 2006, authorities at the neighbouring port town of Haldia circulated a notice announcing plans to set up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Nandigram under the Government of India’s Petro-Chemical Petroleum Investment Region (PCPIR) scheme. The project, envisaged as a chemical hub, reportedly required at least 4,000 hectares of land for the proposed SEZ, which was to be jointly developed by the state-owned Industrial Development Corporation and the Indonesia-based Salim group of companies. The land is owned by local farmers.

The BUPC had been formed to protest against forced eviction and displacement of local inhabitants, mostly farmers, as a result of this project. It consisted of activists owing allegiance to several political parties including the Trinamool Congress (TMC), Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Congress(I) and former supporters of the CPI-M.

A range of abuses including unlawful killings, forced evictions, excessive use of force by police, widespread violence against women, as well as failure of the authorities to provide protection to the victims, denial of access and information to the media and human rights organisations, harassment of human rights defenders and the continuing denial of justice to the victims have been reported from Nandigram during the year. The scale of such abuses recently intensified when violence broke out towards the end of October between supporters of the ruling CPI-M, and supporters of the BUPC.

In January and March 2007, at least 25 people, mostly local residents, were killed and more than 100 injured and at least 20 women sexually assaulted by armed supporters of the ruling CPI-M, after 1,500 people, mostly CPI-M supporters, were forcibly displaced from their homes as the BUPC set up barricades to prevent access to some of the disputed land. On 14 March, 14 people were reportedly shot dead by police and over 150 injured in violent confrontations between police, supporters of the CPI-M and BUPC supporters protesting against their displacement due to the proposed industrial project. After this, the Government of West Bengal announced that the industrial project would be relocated. However the BUPC continued its blockade as it doubted that the Government of West Bengal would in fact relocate the project.
Protests continued in Nandigram with the demands for justice and compensation to the victims of the 14 March firing being added to the existing demands.

Various Indian activists and human rights organisations have reported that a wide range of human rights abuses occurred during this period. Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the excessive use of force by the police, called for full consultation with those living in the area about the proposed development and called for investigations into the abuses.

During the latest outbreak of violence in Nandigram beginning on 6 November 2007, at least 15 people were reportedly killed, 100 injured and hundreds of people were displaced as groups of armed supporters of the CPI-M commenced an operation to “recapture” the area. Media and human rights organisations reported large scale violence initiated by armed CPI-M supporters, and alleged inaction by the state’s law enforcement agencies who, according to the reports, failed to take steps to protect local inhabitants.
Reports stated that armed CPI-M supporters rode their motorcycles into the area on 6 November, attacking local residents with guns and home-made bombs and fighting with BUPC supporters. On 12 November, two units of the paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) were deployed in some of the areas in which violence had occurred, reportedly only after CPI-M supporters had stopped blocking their route. Subsequently five more units of the CRPF were deployed. In the meantime, for over five days CPI-M supporters had reportedly established control of the area, forcibly evicting and displacing scores of people and attacking BUPC supporters and other local residents while looting and burning down houses and destroying property. During this period, the media and human rights organisations were excluded from the majority of these areas as CPI-M supporters blocked the main highways.
On 9 November, the Governor of the State, Gopalakrishna Gandhi, described the situation in Nandigram as a “civil war” and stated that the “armed recapture is unlawful and unacceptable.” India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) sought a report from the Government of West Bengal on the violence and a six-member NHRC investigative team, which visited the area on 15-19 November, is expected to submit a report in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, the NHRC chairperson Justice Rajendra Babu has stated, in a reply to CPI-M members of the Indian parliament that it was incontrovertible that human rights abuses on a mass scale took place at Nandigram.
Reports from survivors, eyewitnesses, and relief workers alleged that months of discussions had taken place in the town of Khejuri between CPI-M supporters on their plans to “recapture” Nandigram. CPI-M supporters, armed with weapons, had reportedly been mobilized from other parts of West Bengal and neighbouring states of Jharkhand and Bihar. Both the state administration and the police reportedly took little action to protect the local communities during the violence, and in some cases were alleged to have participated in attacks. The reports also stated that CPI-M supporters were involved in searching villages, detaining and interrogating persons suspected to be close to the BUPC and seizing weapons.

Amnesty International also learnt that hundreds of residents including women and children who managed to flee the violence were housed in two camps at Nandigram. A week after the violence, media and human rights organisations, which had limited access to these camps, reported that the camps were largely self-managed with very limited official assistance, and those in the camps did not have secure access to even minimum essential levels of food, water, shelter, sanitation, and health services. Relief materials had been provided mainly by human rights and humanitarian organisations. Medical teams from non-governmental organisations were able to reach the camps only after four attempts were blocked by CPI-M supporters.

Following this, during 28-30 November 2007, Amnesty International India took part in a research visit to Nandigram and Kolkata, the delegation comprising also a former high court chief justice, a senior lawyer and a researcher from Human Rights Watch. The delegation travelled to interior villages and relief camps, and met with the victims of the violence, relevant officials and others. This report sets out Amnesty International’s concerns arising out of the findings of the visit

2. Preliminary Findings

a. Failure to protect local communities:

At Bhoota Mar in Gorchakraberia in Nandigram, the delegation members were informed by relatives of CPI-M supporters that, on 28 October 2007, BUPC supporters had vandalized their residences. The police said they had little access to interior villages as blockades had been erected by the BUPC. However, the delegation was informed by officials that there were sufficiently early reports from intelligence officials and local police that armed supporters of the CPI-M were gathering around Nandigram. This was also admitted by the District Superintendent of Police Satya Prakash Panda who informed the delegation that the police had information that “arms and people were being mobilized in the region.” The risk of confrontation between BUPC and CPI-M supporters intensified towards 30 October, but the only remaining police posted at Nandigram were withdrawn without any reasons being given. District Superintendent of Police Satya Prakash Panda told the delegation members that orders to withdraw the remaining police came from his superiors in Kolkata. However, it was not until 12 November 2007 that CRPF personnel were deployed to Nandigram.

The withdrawal of the state police and the delay before CPRF personnel were deployed left a period of two weeks in which the CPI-M and the BUPC engaged in armed confrontations attempting to assert control over the area. There appears to have been a controversy as to the reasons for the delay in deploying the CRPF. On 13 November, the state Chief Minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, alleged that it was the Union Government which had caused the delay. He said he had requested their deployment on 27 October but that several days later the Union Government informed him that the CRPF personnel could not be sent to Nandigram at that time as it was necessary to send them to other states where state assembly polls were to be held in December (Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh). On 5 November, the day before the armed CPI-M supporters arrived in Nandigram, the state Home Secretary P R Roy said he was not aware when the CRPF forces would be despatched there. However, the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Sriprakash Jaiswal, said on 16 November that there was no delay in the deployment of CRPF in Nandigram.

The Government of West Bengal had already been excluded from several areas in Nandigram by BUPC barricades and armed CPI-M supporters, and the withdrawal of the state police meant that between the end of October and 11 November there was no significant official security presence in the area. Displaced persons in relief camps and eyewitnesses informed the delegation that during this period CPI-M supporters had closed in on several villages including Sonachura, Adhikaripara, Satengbari and Gokulnagar which had been barricaded by the BUPC. In these villages, residences of BUPC leaders were looted and burnt down by CPI-M supporters. By 11 November, the entire area had been “recaptured” by the CPI-M supporters, resulting in the forced eviction and displacement of hundreds of persons including women and children. During this period, the media (apart from one reporter from the daily Dainik Statesman who chose to stay with the local population) was prevented from entering the villages by CPI-M supporters. On 12 November, a team of social activists from Kolkata was able to start visiting some of the areas in Nandigram. Its report gives a graphic account of the difficulties encountered by that team and the media during the visits.

From the above accounts, it is clear that the recent violence in Nandigram took place against a backdrop of inaction by the Government of West Bengal, including tacit acceptance of the violent operations of the armed supporters of the CPI-M. The state has a responsibility to protect the human rights of everyone within its jurisdiction, and accordingly to uphold law and order. This would include, where necessary, measures by law enforcement agencies such as taking appropriate action to end the blockade by the BUPC. But the manner in which the state authorities have acted, and in particular their failure to take action to prevent abuses by armed supporters of the CPI-M, suggests that they were not acting in an impartial manner. No arrests were carried out prior to the violence despite the flow of intelligence information that arms were being mobilised in the region; no search operations were carried out. No arrests were carried out during the period of the violence, and West Bengal Director-General of Police, Anup Bhushan Vohra has stated that since the police only had access the nearby town of Khejuri, where it was likely that only CPI-M supporters would have been arrested, no arrests had been ordered as “it would have been seen as partisan.”

Many local residents were caught up in the violence and, in the absence of sufficient protection from state law enforcement agencies, had to flee their homes and take refuge with relatives or in relief camps. The delegation found evidence to demonstrate that both the state administration and the police appeared to have taken little action or responsibility to exercise due diligence in preventing, stopping and punishing human rights abuses and to protect the local communities during the violence.

b. Victims of violence:

The numbers as well as the identities of persons killed and missing from Nandigram during this period remain unknown. Officials gave the delegation a list of five persons who died during the violence, but local authorities stated to the delegation that at least 42 people were reported missing from the days of the November 2007 violence, many of whom were presumed to have been killed. BUPC activists informed the delegation that an unknown number of persons, including BUPC supporters, had gone missing; some of whom might have gone into hiding fearing attack by CPI-M supporters. The BUPC stated in addition that complaints made to the police about missing persons had not been properly registered.

On 5 December, a grave with the remains of five half-burnt bodies was discovered at Bamanchok village near Khejuri. . Investigating agencies were trying to establish whether, as claimed by the CPI-M, the five persons were CPI-M supporters, including four from Gokulnagar near Nandigram and one from Belda, 50 km from Nandigram, who were killed in a bomb blast on 28 October. Conflicting information received from local residents by the Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), however, alleged that they had been killed while making bombs at Sherkhan Chak .

On 8 December, human remains were recovered from the Talpati canal in Bhangabera near Nandigram. On 12 December, another body with two bullet holes was found in a field at Maheshpur. Shyamali Pramanick, a woman from the area, was reported to have claimed that the deceased was her husband, Harun Pramanik, a BUPC supporter who had been missing since 7 November. On 14 December, two more local women, Sumitra Mirda and Annapurna Mondol, arrived at the Tamluk hospital to lay claim to the body. They said their husbands had been missing since 7 November.

c. Violence against women
The delegation interviewed several women who had been subjected to violence including rape, beating, threats and harassment. In addition, testimony concerning numerous incidents of violence against women has been gathered by several fact-finding teams investigating events that occurred in March as well as November. Anuradha Talwar, an activist who was part of the first fact-finding team which reached Nandigram on 16 November, in a deposition submitted to the delegation, said in Satangabari village alone, local residents informed them that at least seven women had been raped. In one case, a woman said that she was beaten and her four-month-old son was snatched and flung on the floor. Another woman said that though she was pregnant, she was beaten until she bled.

The delegation questioned officials of the Government of West Bengal and the state police about their efforts to investigate and prosecute violence against women. They found that very few incidents had been reported to the police and there were contradictory accounts from the different police forces as to exactly how many complaints of rape had been filed.

CRPF Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) Alok Raj stated that five cases of rape were registered at Nandigram including three after the November violence. As against this, the Officer-in-Charge, Nandigram police station said only two complaints of rape had been filed in the area.

The Chief Secretary of West Bengal told the delegation that the authorities were taking the allegations of rape very seriously: “The accused generally belong to either political party. We have taken the cases of the women away from the local police. These cases are now being enquired by the Criminal Investigation Department of the State Police (CID).”

However, the delegation is concerned that these words have not so far been translated into action. In each of the cases given by the CRPF, some of the perpetrators were named. Yet, none of these names figured among the list of persons arrested so far. A number of local residents informed the delegation that the offenders were operating with impunity, taunting the people, forcing them to shout slogans in support of CPI-M, or attend CPI-M party meetings

Accounts of both officials and villagers relating to violence against women agreed that the victims were either relatives or sympathisers of BUPC, and named the perpetrators as groups of armed supporters of the CPI-M.

The delegation was told that at least seven women from Nandigram have been admitted to the Government Hospital at Tamluk.. Two of them had been shot at, four were beaten and one was raped. Several others were admitted to hospitals closer to Nandigram.

The delegation met two women who both said they had been raped by several persons during the violence in November. Among the rapists were men whom they knew and could recognize. Although they had named these men when they made their complaints, three weeks later, the police had not made any arrests. The women said they were too frightened to return home.

One of them, Akhreja Bibi, was still at the Tamluk hospital. She said that several men burst into her home in the middle of the night on 8 November. “I tried to run away but they caught me and beat me up. They raped my daughters in front of me and then they raped me.” Akhreja Bibi’s daughters, Ansura, 16, and Mansura, 14, are still among those missing from Nandigram. When the delegation asked about them at the Nandigram police station, the Officer-in-Charge said there was news that the girls had joined a circus at Howrah, Kolkata.

The delegation also met Niyoti Patra, a BUPC supporter, who said she was also raped by several persons; she said she could not return home. “I know those men. They came to my house and asked me to join a meeting,” she said. “When I refused they came inside and abused me. Then they raped me. There were three men. They were my neighbours. I am frightened. I have named them in my police report. Now they will punish me again.” She has since been staying at the Nandigram school relief camp.

Roshomoi Das Adhikari, a woman in her 80s and mother of a prominent BUPC leader, Swadesh Das Adhikari, was beaten with rifle butts by three persons she could recognise as “CPI-M people”. She said she was alone at home on 7 November. Her son and most of the villagers had already fled from the area. Three men burst into her house and started throwing things around. “I ran out into the courtyard shouting for help. Two men with big guns were standing there. They started beating and kicking me. They tore at my sari, slapped me, pulled my hair and cursed me. Meanwhile, the others had set fire to my house. As they left they threatened me and told me that they would kill my son. I just lay there bleeding.” She also was able to name the CPI-M supporters.

Another woman, wife of a prominent BUPC member, said her home had been looted and burnt. Living in a relief camp, she said that when she returned to harvest the paddy, CPI-M supporters shouted abuses and threatened sexual violence. She was still in Nandigram school relief camp when the delegation met her, terrified because the district administration wanted to shut the camp and send her home. “I cannot describe the language they used. They told me, ‘The CRPF will leave. Then we will come find you. We will chop off your head and kill your husband’.”

Several women who returned to their homes after the end of this period of violence, said that threats of sexual violence were made against them if they did not support the CPI-M. One woman said that she was forced to attend a party rally on 28 November because she was warned that she would otherwise be stripped in public and then raped along with her daughters. Mahamaya Das Adhikari said that she went back to her village on 26 November but had to return to the camp a day later because her parents were threatened by CPI-M supporters. They were told that either their daughter had to publicly pledge her support to the CPI-M or not bother to return.

Threats of violence have continued even after those who were displaced returned to their villages. CPI-M supporters are in “effective control” of most of the villages in Nandigram, and in some areas, particularly former BUPC strongholds like Satengbari, they have reportedly threatened women saying “We’ll come back at night – light your lamps and wait for us with open doors. Send your men away, we’ll come back to you at night.”

From the above accounts, it appears that there has been a deliberate pattern of gender based violence directed against women residents of Nandigram who were left behind as local male residents fled the advancing CPI-M supporters. The violence was directed against those women who were at the forefront of the protest against forced eviction and were unwilling to give up their homes and lands. Also, the delegation was informed by local residents that many women had refused to file police reports as they were still afraid of the consequences if they filed complaints with the police and were also unwilling to risk social censure associated with rape.

3. Key areas of concern

a. Due diligence:

Immediately after the violence, the Government of West Bengal defended the violence by the armed supporters of the CPI-M, and blamed the BUPC for the blockade and the subsequent violence. In media briefings Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee claimed that the protesters had been “paid back in the same coin” and that his party was both “legally and morally correct” to “recapture” Nandigram, a comment which he apparently retracted three weeks later while admitting that the Nandigram events amounted to a “political and administrative failure.” Later, on 26 December 2007, he visited Nandigram to express regret for the violence, according to reports.

East Medinipore District Magistrate Anoop Kumar Agrawal informed the delegation members that, after the written notification for withdrawal of the SEZ notice was issued to him on 19 March 2007, he had held meetings with the BUPC and the other parties to resolve the issue; however, by this time, the BUPC appeared to have lost confidence in the administration. As a BUPC activist, Sudhin Bijoli, put it “The Chief Minister may have said that he would not force us to leave, but he was saying so many things and there was nothing in writing. How could we trust him?”

West Bengal Chief Secretary Amit Kiran Deb told the delegation that “we could not create an atmosphere of confidence … We failed to persuade the people to allow the police to enter. They saw the police as partisan and against them.”

Amnesty International is concerned by officials’ apparent readiness to accept this lack of confidence in the police and by the failure of the state authorities to take proactive steps to rectify it. The manner in which the Government of West Bengal failed to take positive action to address the issue suggests that the government was acquiescent in the human rights abuses by the armed supporters of the CPI-M during the November violence.

Amnesty International opposes human rights abuses whoever commits them and regardless of the cause espoused by the perpetrators. States have a responsibility to respect the human rights of all individuals within their jurisdiction – that is, not to commit human rights violations or to permit their officials to do so. They also have a responsibility to exercise due diligence to protect all individuals within their jurisdiction against human rights abuses by non-state actors by ensuring the maintenance of public order and security by state law enforcement agents authorised to do so and acting in compliance with international human rights standards on law enforcement, and by preventing, stopping and punishing human rights abuses by non-state actors.

Amnesty International is concerned that in this instance the state authorities have not fulfilled their responsibility to exercise due diligence to protect human rights. The recent failure to ensure an effective police presence to maintain law and order permitted, or even encouraged organized groups of armed supporters of the ruling party to step in to quell the protests by the BUPC, instead of the state exercising its responsibility to deal with them lawfully by effective, impartial and proportionate law enforcement measures. Amnesty International is also concerned that that state has not taken adequate measures to ensure that the population whose livelihood will be affected by the development of the SEZ is protected against forced eviction, by being ensured their rights to information, adequate consultation, and just and adequate reparation including resettlement in adequate alternative accommodation.

b. Justice for the victims:

In Nandigram, there has been a general failure on the part of the authorities to ensure progress in investigations into earlier violence in January and March 2007. It is to be noted that no departmental or disciplinary action has been initiated against any administrative or police official for despite loss of life and property in the area. The Kolkata High Court, on response appeal filed by the APDR, the Paschimbanga Khet Mazdoor Samity (PBKMS) and other organisations, ordered an investigation by the CBI into the violent confrontations of 14 March when police used excessive force and fired on demonstrators. The CBI’s preliminary report named at least ten CPI-M supporters – who were later released by the state police – as accused persons. The Government of West Bengal obtained a stay on this investigation. However investigations were finally re-instated on 16 November and the CBI commenced its investigations into the 14 March violence on the basis of its preliminary report of 24 March. The CBI, which submitted an interim report to the Kolkata High Court on 17 December, has been directed by the High Court to file its final report by 15 February 2008. As per interim report, the CBI is reported to have filed four new cases against several CPI-M supporters, including a case of sexual assault, bringing the total number of cases against the CPI-M supporters to seven. Even as the CBI was also inquiring into the allegation whether the state police was aware that the CPI-M supporters fired, along with them, on the protestors, the Government of West Bengal has successfully obtained a stay, from the Supreme Court of India, on the filing of charges against state police officials found responsible for the 14 March police firing. .

Chief Secretary Amit Kiran Deb informed the delegation that the Government of West Bengal had allocated funds for compensation of the victims of the 14 March violence as per the Kolkata high court order and that this was being distributed. However, the District Magistrate informed the delegation that he had received no formal notification nor had funds been released for disbursement. On 31 December 2007, the compensation amounts were finally paid to 13 of the 14 victims of the 14 March police firing, according to reports.

The Kolkata High Court, in a judgment delivered on 16 November described the police firing on demonstrators on 14 March as unconstitutional and illegal.

Amnesty International believes that the general impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of human rights abuses in Nandigram since January 2007 was a key contributing factor to the widespread abuses committed there since 6 November.

The CRPF was finally deployed on 12 November, and although this brought an end to overt violence, threats and intimidation continued, putting at risk the lives and safety of the local inhabitants. There has been very little sign of effort to arrest perpetrators, who have allegedly been threatening BUPC supporters against filing complaints, demanding their attendance at CPI-M party meetings and suggesting that they admit to looting and burning their own homes.

CRPF DIG Alok Raj expressed to the delegation his view that the state police force personnel did not appear to be interested in arresting the perpetrators and were interfering in the CRPF’s operations. The CRPF was given a list of 180 people against whom there are registered cases of murder. But those arrested by the CRPF have all been released by the state police. Alok Raj said, on 21 November, he had sent an official notice to the Government of West Bengal, stating that a complete list of persons wanted in connection with offences in Nandigram was yet to be submitted by the state police and that if those arrested by the CRPF were subsequently released by the state police, it “will not allow normalcy to return in the area.”

Amnesty International, while noting that the Government of West Bengal has ordered inquiries as a result of the unearthing of bodies at Nandigram this month, points out that the Government has not so far taken any steps to establish the whereabouts of all those who have been missing from Nandigram since 6 November.

The Constitution of India clearly provides, in Article 32, for constitutional remedies when fundamental rights appear to have been violated, as in the case of the abuses committed during the violence in Nandigram.

Under international human rights standards states have a responsibility to take apporopriate legislative, administrative and other measures to prevent violations and, where they occur, to investigate them effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and where appropriate to take action against those alleged to be responsible. They should also ensure that victims have equal and effective access to justice, and provide them with effective remedies, including full and effective reparation. Reparation should include restitution, compensation for economically assessable damage, rehabilitation, satisfaction – including public acknowledgement of the facts and sanctions against those responsible – and guarantees of non-repetition.

In particular, the obligation of states to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and impartial investigations into killings and other human rights abuses is also provided in international human rights law, including Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by India in 1979. In its General Comment on Article 2 the Human Rights Committee, the expert body charged with overseeing the implementation of this Covenant, has stated, among other things:

“There may be circumstances in which a failure to ensure Covenant rights as required by article 2 would give rise to violations by States Parties of those rights, as a result of States Parties' permitting or failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities. States are reminded of the interrelationship between the positive obligations imposed under article 2 and the need to provide effective remedies in the event of breach under article 2, paragraph 3.”

Amnesty International urges the West Bengal authorities to ensure that the CBI investigations into the 14 March demonstration are not obstructed any further, and that all incidents of human rights abuses in the context of the violence since early 2007 are thoroughly investigated and the suspected perpetrators brought to justice.

In addition, Amnesty International urges the Government of West Bengal to urgently set up an independent and impartial inquiry into the violence at Nandigram since early 2007 including the violence since 6 November. Such an inquiry should examine broader issues than criminal responsibility, such as systemic factors, procedural deficiences, contextual factors leading to the violence, and accountability of the state authorities for failures to provide effective protection.
Such an inquiry should in particular include an investigation into disappearances of persons, illegal possession of weapons by all non-state actors at Nandigram and an assessment of the impact and extent of violence against women at Nandigram. In view of the fact that the Government of West Bengal and different state agencies have been implicated in responsibility for the abuses due to the manner in which they dealt or failed to deal with the violence at Nandigram, there is a need for the inquiry to be carried out by an independent and impartial body . The activities of law enforcement agencies during the violence should also be one of the objects of the inquiry. If the inquiry obtains information indicating that identified individuals or officials may have been responsible for committing, ordering, encouraging or permitting human rights abuses, that information should be passed to the relevant criminal investigation or prosecution bodies. Provisions of immunity should not be allowed to shield those named as responsible for such acts of omission and commission.

The findings of the inquiry should be promptly made public.

c. Reparation and protection of the rights of all internally displaced people (IDPs):

West Bengal Chief Secretary, Amit Kiran Deb, informed the delegation that humanitarian assistance, including the provision of rice, cash payments and medical care was being provided by the authorities. In addition, Rs. 7 million, as compensation to the victims of the 6 November violence, has been released from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund in order to compensate for the loss of homes and other property in the violence.

At least two relief camps were functioning at Nandigram for those displaced since violence began in January 2007. However, neither of these camps were run by the state nor has the state carried out a survey to establish the extent of damage to property.

One relief camp (shivir) is located at the Brij Mohan Tiwari Siksha Niketan in Nandigram Block-I town, and at its height housed around 3,000 to 4,000 persons. Following the violence since 6 November, a fresh influx of local residents had arrived in the camp. However, by 29 November the number of persons housed in the camp had dwindled to around 250, the reason being that a large number of displaced persons had left the camp to stay with relatives and friends.

The delegation found that the camp was being run on limited resources by the Nandigram Bazaar Committee, Bharat Sevashram, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), and a few other NGOs which had supplied rice, other essential food items and blankets. TMC leaders also contributed relief materials to the camp. Medical services are confined to the voluntary services of local doctors.

The second camp was located at a high school at Khejuri and was run by CPI-M party workers who provide some essential services. Most of the villagers, reportedly numbering 1,500, who supported CPI-M had taken refuge in this camp in the wake of the BUPC blockade in January 2007. Towards the end of December, the camp was reported to be hosting around 750 people. The delegation was able to interview several local residents who returned home from this camp after the November 2007 violence.

Amnesty International is concerned that the Government of West Bengal has not taken the necessary concrete steps to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction are protected from forced eviction and displacement, and that all those forcibly displaced during the violence are ensured at the very least minimum essential levels of food, shelter, water and sanitation, health care and education, as well as their right to voluntary return or resettlement, and reintegration.

Amnesty International is concerned that not all those displaced have access to essential services such as adequate food, water, shelter, and medical services.

There is a similar need to ensure access to justice and adequate reparations without discrimination for all of those who were forcibly displaced as well as those who suffered other human rights abuses.

The Government of West Bengal is responsible to ensure the protection of all internally displaced persons within its jurisdiction. This duty arises inter alia from India's Constitution, which guarantees to everyone in India the right to the protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21) (which Indian courts have consistently interpreted to include the right to access the minimum essential levels of food, shelter, and other requirements to live with dignity) and the equality of all persons before the law (Article 14).

The duty of the state to protect the rights of all IDPs is reflected in the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (the Guiding Principles) which clearly affirm, in Principle 3(1), that “national authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons within their jurisdiction.” The state also has a duty under its international human rights obligations, including under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to provide essential services to all IDPs without discrimination. This is reflected in article 18(2) of the Guiding Principles, which state that:

“At the minimum, regardless of the circumstances, and without discrimination, competent authorities shall provide internally displaced persons with and ensure safe access to:
(a) Essential food and potable water;
(b) Basic shelter and housing;
(c) Appropriate clothing; and
(d) Essential medical services and sanitation.”

Amnesty International emphasises the right of all IDPs to voluntary return to their homes or places of habitual residence or resettlement, and reintegration and restitution of their homes and other property, and calls upon the Government of West Bengal to ensure a safe and dignified environment for their return. The organization believes that this will not be achieved unless there is a clear political will on the part of the authorities to put an end to the atmosphere of violence in Nandigram. Amnesty International is concerned that displaced persons who wish to return to their homes will be unable or unwilling to return if those responsible for human rights abuses against them during the violence remain at large, sometimes in positions of authority.

Amnesty International urges the Government of West Bengal that all those responsible for human rights abuses are brought promptly to justice, and to ensure full reparations for victims including adequate compensation delivered promptly and on a non-discriminatory basis.

Amnesty International also urges the Government of West Bengal and the Government of India to ensure that those returning home at Nandigram, irrespective of their political affiliation, are able to return to their homes or places of habitual residence or resettlement, voluntarily and in safety and dignity. They should also be guaranteed their right to reintegration and restitution of their homes and other property, and where this is not possible to adequate compensation, In order for this to happen, there should be the continued and effective deployment of adequate CRPF personnel.

4. Recommendations:

Amnesty International urges the Government of West Bengal to:

• Ensure that all incidents of human rights abuses in the context of the violence since early 2007 are thoroughly investigated and that the suspected perpetrators, whether or not they are officials and regardless of their political affiliation, are brought promptly to justice:
• Establish an independent and impartial inquiry into all the violent incidents at Nandigram this year including the violence since 6 November. Such an inquiry should include an investigation into disappearances of persons, illegal possession of weapons by all non-state actors at Nandigram and an assessment of the impact and extent of violence against women at Nandigram. The findings of the inquiry should be made public.:
• Ensure that all those displaced have access, without discrimination, to essential services such as adequate food, water, shelter, and medical assistance:
• Put in place a policy of adequate reparation, including restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition.

Amnesty International urges the Government of West Bengal and the Government of India to:

• Ensure that those returning to their homes or places of habitual residence in Nandigram, irrespective of their political affiliation, are able to return to their homes or places of habitual residence, voluntarily and in safety and dignity. They should also be guaranteed their right to reintegration and restitution of their homes and other property, and where this is not possible to adequate compensation and resettlement. In order for this to happen, there should be a continued and effective deployment of adequate CRPF personnel:
• Ensure that unlawful methods are not used, or allowed to be used, to quell protests against forced eviction or displacement and ensure that the human rights of all those protesting against forced eviction or displacement are fully protected;
• Protect the rights of the affected communities to information, consultation, participation, and freedom from forced eviction (which requires ensuring their rights to information, adequate consultation, and just and adequate reparation, including resettlement in adequate alternative accommodation.

Criminal Gangs From Bihar and UP Sabotaging Nepal Elections?

2008-01-23T22:38:00.000-08:00

skip to main skip to sidebar
Contact For the Story
E Mail: indonepalpsf@gmail.com
Phone: 9868643690
Here is a story waiting to be done. A citizens group by the name of Indo-Nepalese People's Solidarity Forum has alleged that criminal gangs from Bihar and UP are being drafted in to sabotage the elections in Nepal. If this is true then it’s a huge story. Here’s the press release of the Indo-Nepalese People’s Solidarity Forum for those who are interested in snapping up this lead.
“Kathmandu,December 17, 2007Press ReleaseThe struggle to establish a Democratic Republic on Nepal has reached a decisive stage. As the polarization between the republicans and the monarchists has sharpened there has also been an increase in cross-border instead of curbing the activities of criminal gangs from Bihar and UP has apparently encouraged them. The involvement of notorious politicians such as Anand Mohan Singhm Dadan Pahalwan, Shakuni Chowdhury in the in the Gaur Massacre on March 21, 200 in which 28 Maoist supportersj were killed shows how mercenaries are being recruited. Nepalese media have revelaed the presence of Indian RAW agents at meetings of the Terai factions in Patne. Finally the role of Hindu fascist forces such as Yogi Adityanath in fomenting trouble inside Nepal by organizing conference in December 2006 of Vishwo Hindu Sangam in support of the Hindi king shows how precarious the situation has turned for the Nepalese people. There is a growing fear in Nepal that outside forces and agencies are vitiating the politics in Nepal.
Therefore, we have decided to set up an All India Indo-Nepal People's Solidarity Forum to rally the revolutionary, preogressive and genuine democratic forces of India in support of the Nepalese people's right to decide their destiny without any outside interference.
We have a three member presidium for the time, a general secretary, a treasurer along with 22 members of executive committee from different states of India. Out patron is Professor Randhir Singh, a renowned Marxist thinker and scholar.

The list of executive moeemttee members are as following:Ananda Swaroop Verma, Samkaleen Teesari Duniya (member of presidium)M. Raratnamala, Independent women rights activist (Member of presidium)Prof. Amit Bhattacharya, Jadavpur University (Member of presidium)Pavan Patel (General Secretary)Abhishek Srivastav(Treasurer)Anjani Kumar, Revolutionary Democratic FrontA. Mukundan, President, New Democratic Labout Front, TamilnaduSheomangal Siddhantkar, General secretary CPI (ML) New ProletarianDhruv Narayan, PCC, CPI(ML)Somnath Chatterjee, West Bengal State Organising Committee, CPI(ML)Chandrabhan, Communist Gadar Party of IndiaMrigank, Naujawan Bharat SabhaSidhartha, Struggle IndiaAmitava Bhattacharya, Gen. Secy. Majdoor Kranti ParishadJustice Ajit Singh Bains, Chairman Punjab Human Rights OrganisationAjayprakash, Anti-Inperialist Writer ForumHarish, Krantikari Lok Adhikar SangthanNagendra, Inqlabi Majdoor KendraNarain Dutt, Inqlabi Kendra PunjabProf. Vijay Singh, Revolutionary DemocracyRepresentatives from (CPI(ML) Liberation and Nepali Janadhikar Suraksha Samiti, Bharat
Along with this Gautam Navalakha and Debojoti Basu are special invitees in the forum.
With Regards,Pavan PatelGeneral SecretaryIndo-Nepal People's Solidarity Forum”

A Nandigram in Kakinada?

2008-01-21T05:43:00.000-08:00

Contacts For The Story:

National Alliance of People's Movements in A.P. Contact:
Ram Krishna Raju: 09866887299
Pawan: 09490430944, 040 27228316

District Collector, East Godavari
e-mail: collector_eg@ap.gov.in

A Nandigram in Kakinada?

Last three days have been witness to heavy police deployment in U Kothapalli and Thongdangi Mandals of East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh where the government proposes to set up a Special Economic Zone. Revenue authorities and police have been trying to set up a fence.

According to the National Alliance of People's Movement in Andhra Pradesh the "authorities have been threatening, forcing and spreading misinformation among people to compel them to sell their lands."

"Farmers have been opposing any attempt to take over their land and have earlier foiled one such bid in September 2007. They have got an order in their favour from the State Human Rights Commission that the government should not use coercive methods to acquire land."

"110 farmers had filed affidavits in the SHRC. Next date for hearing was fixed as 7 th February, 2008. The stones and pillars that the authorities had put up to fence the area which they claim has been sold for the SEZ were removed by the people who have been strongly protesting the idea of SEZ since it was floated in 2005. Various newspapers, which seem to have been influenced by the authorities, carry news items about how people damaged property worth several lakhs of rupees."

"Cases have been filed against farmer leaders Surya Narayana Murthi, Narayana Swami and Ganga Dhar under sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 506, 149 of IPC. Police went to their homes at 4 am in the morning and arrested them. Rajendra, who has organized protest meetings earlier against the SEZ was also arrested at 4 pm and has been sent to judicial remand till 31 st January. Close to 150 farmers are reported to have been arrested. Section 144 has been imposed in both Mandals of the E. Godavari district. Police is seen everywhere creating an atmosphere of terror. Fencing work is proceeding and no automobiles are being allowed from outside the area. The District Collector says that the SHRC has not said that the government should not go ahead with the proposed work on setting up the SEZ. He says when he is peacefully carrying out his work of setting up the fence, the people are resorting to violence!"

Counting Muslim votes in Modi’s Gujarat

2007-12-28T22:07:00.000-08:00

Himal/January 2008
ANALYSIS

Counting Muslim votes in Modi’s Gujarat

Gujarat’s Muslim communities tried to send a strong message to the incumbent administration by organising against Narendra Modi. He swept the state, but will he temper his style? Unlikely.

By V K Shashikumar

Narendra Modi’s triumphant return to power in Gujarat, by a huge margin, is as much a victory of Moditva – the brand of rightwing exclusionary politics espoused by Modi over and above Hindutva – as it is an endorsement of the chief minister himself. With the Bharatiya Janata Party’s tally, at 117 out of 182 seats, being just short of the 127 it won in 2002, the Modi phenomenon surpassed even the upper ceiling of exit polls. This win was partly the result of a well-orchestrated media campaign, funded in large part by Gujaratis abroad, through well-timed newspaper advertisements bearing reminders of the Godhra train-burning. There was also a widespread distribution of masks bearing smiling Modi faces.
Yet Modi masks do not the complete picture make. For those who care to notice, Modi lost out in central Gujarat, one of the areas most severely affected by the 2002 anti-Muslim carnage. As results rolled in, it was clear that in central Gujarat alone, the BJP was down 19 seats from 2002, though he later made up for that deficit elsewhere. Here at least, the law of diminishing returns seemed to have worked, after the emotional appeal to communalism went beyond certain limits. These limits evidently included Modi’s last-minute implication that the Muslims of Gujarat could well meet the same fate as Sohrabuddin Sheikh, the small-time criminal killed in 2005 in a fake encounter. But part of the reason that the chief minister gave up his ‘development plank’ and swung back to his time-tested communal rhetoric was because, in the run-up to the elections, the satta, or illegal betting market, had showed an edge for the Congress party.
Despite the whipping up of communal colour in the last few days of campaigning, the state’s Muslim community, which had been backed into a corner in previous assembly polls, had presented a modicum of opposition to the saffron sweep. And yet, the Modi juggernaut was so overwhelming, Gujarat-wide, that Muslim and other activists who campaigned against Modi can for now do nothing more than recall how they tried to stem the Modi tide from tearing through the state for the third time.
In Godhra, the epicentre of the 2002 carnage, Mohammed Hussain Kalota’s family turned out in full strength to cast their votes on 16 December. For the Kalotas, the act of voting was an act of defiance against what they perceived as injustice perpetrated on them by the country’s law-enforcement agencies. Kalota, the former president of the Godhra Municipality, had been at home when the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express went up in flames on 28 February 2002. Although the truth of the train-burning has yet to be ascertained, the police foisted a case on Kalota, accusing him of being part of the conspiracy. Kalota, like many others accused in the case, is currently in jail, but the court case against him is at a standstill. Despite the fact that the chargesheets filed by the police do not have any conclusive evidence, bail has been denied to all.
Kalota’s family got up early to participate in the December elections. For them, the day held more significance than the mere assertion of their democratic right to vote. This was a day when they wanted their individual votes to count, a day when they wanted to ensure that their home state passed the litmus test of inclusiveness. For the Kalotas, this was a day that they hoped would prove that Gujarat does not stand only for Hindus and their development, but rather could be a state where Hindus could live with Muslims and other minorities without fear, a state where access to development and progress would be equitable across all communities. Modi’s victory does seem to have dashed that hope for now, given the fact that the chief minister has not shown remorse for the 2002 incidents, nor has he reconstructed himself.
deshgujarat.com
A plea for moderationA short distance away from the Kalota home, in another locality of Godhra, Ahmed Kalota was busy passing out instructions to groups of errand boys. At each of the seven booths that he was monitoring, there were 30 members of the local Muslim community, each carrying lists of the Muslim electorate eligible to vote. More than just monitoring, the idea behind the exercise was to ensure that the community leaders played an important role in convincing the voters to step out and cast their votes. “Fifteen days prior to the polling date, we visited each and every house in all the seven polling booth areas that have been allotted to me, to ensure everyone from the community votes,” says Kalota. “On the polling day, those who were reluctant to step out, we went to their house and convinced them to queue. And the result is showing, because the polling in all the seven booths that I managed was 73 percent.”
The areas in Gujarat with significant Muslim populations went to the polls on 16 December. Days before the polling date, local-level Muslim leaders, backed by the Congress party, met in each constituency and finalised a plan to ensure a healthy turnout during the polling day. “Generally, the very act of casting one’s vote is a celebratory exercise,” says Kalota. “But in these elections, we were voting to protect our freedom. It was as if we were preparing for a sombre ritual to assert our identity, to assure ourselves that we are equal citizens of a democratic and secular country.”
For the Muslim minority in Gujarat, this election was about attempting to protect a multitude of freedoms – from fear of discrimination, from rabid communal hatred and propaganda, from fear of riots and of denial of justice.
Local-level planning by Gujarat’s Muslim communities over the past year went almost completely unreported in the Indian media. Even the Gujarati press has not been able to capture the rigorous groundwork that was undertaken by local anti-BJP political activists and community leaders, with an eye to both the Muslim and Hindu communities. Even given the final results, as announced on 23 December, many say that this work has paid certain dividends. “By coming out in large numbers and ensuring that our vote counts, we have succeeded in sending out a message to Modi,” explains Kalota. “We want to tell Modi: Please become moderate.” Despite Modi’s win, many Muslim community leaders are convinced that the chief minister cannot continue to play the communal card. This was certainly true in Godhra, where Congress candidate C K Raulji was announced the winner.
Few are under any illusions as to what the election results mean, however. “This is not a defeat of the Congress party, but a victory for communalism,” says Saiyyed Ummarji, the son of a Godhra cleric who is currently a prime accused in the train-burning case. “Modi successfully polarised the electorate in Gujarat, even in areas where there was discontent against him. That is why discontent against Modi could not be crystalised into votes for Congress. Where Congress went wrong was that it went soft on Modi, and failed to take him on headlong.”
The outcome notwithstanding, Kalota emphasises that the Muslim community in Gujarat is for looking forward, not backward. “Like the Hindus, we also want peace,” he says. “Like the Hindus, we also want development. Like the Hindus, we also want to leave the traumatic events of the Godhra train fire and the communal riots that followed behind us. And Modi knows that whenever he talks of Godhra, others will talk about the riots, and there will be tension whenever that happens. So … we are certain we will see a new, moderate Modi as the chief minister.”
For the sake of Gujarat’s minorities, many are now certainly hoping that Kalota is right in his prognostication. On the other hand, Chief Minister Modi might well take his victory as a green light to a forward march to the Centre, and the elevation of Moditva to the national stage. In that case, Muslims not just in Gujarat, but throughout India, will need to beware.

Report No Evil

2007-12-05T06:31:00.000-08:00

So finally the political pundits, the intelligent spin masters, the brain-dead politicians and 'hear no evil, see no evil, report no evil' kind of journalism have all got it wrong. Godhra, Godly communalism and God-speed politics of cold-blooded murder (also jargonised as 'fake encounters') have all magically come to the centre-stage of electoral politics in Gujarat. Is this magic realism inspired psephology? Just a month ago we spoke about how the centre of gravity in Gujarat elections was firmly located in Modi's fantastic development initiatives. But India's urban-centric press, both vernacular and mainstream English have been swept off its feet by the tantalising nuanced trivia of Moditva. With the explosion of shopping malls and cineplexes and middle-class housing being our rather stupid index of real progress and economic growth, it is idiotically fashionable to talk about the Moditva shopping mall. The Moditva shopping mall has vacuous shelf space occupied by goodies that an aggressive media should have picked up and put out to the consumers of news-the readers and viewers.

Gujarat's success in agriculture is largely because of a splendid genetically modified Bt cotton output. Since, both the devil and the truth are in the detail, let's get to that detail. First, if somebody cares to look at the statistics it will be clear that Gujarat's agriculture success is because of a lop-sided growth in cotton cultivation. So how did Modi achieve it? Simple. He allowed illegal varieties of Bt Cotton seed to flourish in the rural agriculture markets. How does one find this out? Drive to the cotton producing outposts in rural Gujarat. Meet the seed merchants. Talk to the farmers. Go their fields. Go to their sheds where they stock cotton seeds and the cotton produce. The truth is out there. Also remember to talk to Monsanto, the huge multinational behemoth that produces and holds the patent for Bt Cotton seeds. Why isn't anyone finding out how much Monsanto would have lost in revenue because of illegal Bt Cotton seeds?

But most importantly why is the department of bio-technology keeping quiet. There is already such an international furore over genetically-modified organisms and even the central government has conceded that genetically modified crops should be grown under a strict regulatory and supervisory conditions. But these are un-sexy stories and so are not reported in the media. By allowing illegal Bt Cotton seed to flood the Gujarat seed market, has Modi ensured mass genetic contamination of natural cotton variety in Gujarat? What portent does it hold for the future of cotton farming in Gujarat? Again un-sexy stories that media will never attempt to accomplish.

Right to Information documents (these are official documents of the Gujarat government) clearly admit that 498 farmers committed suicide in Gujarat. And another 6,695 apparently died in "accidents". Un-sexy story number three. Rakesh Sharma's new film Khedu Mora Re (62 minutes) graphically documents the phenomenon of farmer suicides in Gujarat. The film itself reports 10-12 suicides in Amreli, Surendranagar, Bhavnagar, Rajkot, Bharuch and Surat. The RTI data reveals shocking district-wise figures - Rajkot (63 suicides), Junagad (85), Amreali (34), Mehsana (48), Nadiad (44), Jamnagar (55), Narmada (30) and even in Gandhinagar (13), right under the Chief Minister's nose!

I know nobody has the time to read and get into the details. The fine-print, again, is so un-sexy. If Sherlock Holmes was alive in this all-glitz-no-substance age he would have mockingly said: "Elementary, my dear jokers!" So here's a paraphrased excerpt from Rakesh Sharma's press release on the content of his film Khedu Mora Re.

"Right to Information data collected and collated by activist Bharat Jhala nails government lies and exposes its attempts to suppress the truly horrifying scale of farmer suicides in Gujarat. Modi claimed in a TV interview to NDTV on March 14, 2007 that no farmer commits suicide in Gujarat. A month later, he admitted to 148 suicides on the floor of the assembly. Official data that we finally got in Oct 10, 2007, 5 months after we filed queries, confirms 498 suicides formally. However, even this list is partial as it does not feature several suicide stories painstakingly documented in the film! As many suicides are passed off as accidents, we also filed RTI queries seeking details of all accidental deaths - of the 6,695 farmers who died in "accidents", over 4000 have not been paid any Kisan Vima Yojana money (we've informally learnt that insurance companies have denied many such "accident" claims as many of these are suicides)! Amazingly, on Oct 10 itself, the day the Gujarat gave us RTI data confirming 498 suicides, an official ad released on ETV categorically stated that there are no suicides in Gujarat and people should not believe false propaganda. The ad itself seems to be done in response to the coverage in end Sept and October to our press conferences and the film excerpts we showed!"

Here's un-sexy story number 4. Again something that we journalists should have documented much long ago. Khedu Mora Re exposes the much hyped Sujalam Sufalam scheme that Modi has been going to town with. The film probes the Sujalam Sufalam scheme at "at ground level, especially during the recent floods in Saurashtra -where farmers squarely blame this scheme for their misfortune. Says a farmer in the film, "Till a couple of years ago, there was never a flood in Gokharwada (distt Surendranagar) but ever since this sujalam sufalam, our village and lands get submerged every year due to these new check dams, with faulty planning and construction. Modi keeps announcing packages worth hundreds of crores, but the reality is that people are yet to receive even Rs 5 out of the post-flood package announced for 2005! And now this flood in 2007 - it has destroyed us totally."

Dalits and Tribals were mobilised by the loony and lumpen Hindutva brigade to carry out the Gujarat genocidal killings. Indians have a perfect sense of caste, specially the Hindutva variety of Hindus. Modi elevates picking up other people's excreta to high spiritualism. Yes, he said that the lower caste untouchables who pick up other people's excreta in Gujarat from dry latrines, the Valmikis, also called manual scavengers, are doing God's work. Beautifully put. Upper castes Hindus leave their crap behind for lower caste Hindus to pick up and throw away. This is what Valmikis do for a living. And we talk of a prosperous Gujarat. By the way manual scavenging is prohibited under Indian laws. Anybody forcing anyone to do this horrific work, even in the name of God, can be imprisoned. Yet, in a Hindu resurgent Gujarat, the Chief Minister, the protector of Hindus, the Vanquisher of Muslims, the great reformer, the brilliant political science student, the lithe swimmer, the harbinger of economic development - Mr Narendra Modi - says its fine for some Hindus to pick up s***t for a living.

Little wonder then that Upper Caste Hindus mobilised Lower Caste Hindus and programmed them to take part in riots. If some newspaper or magazine or TV news channel had the foresight to send reporters to the interior tribal areas of Gujarat and spoken to the Dalit and Tribal community leaders, we would have known how remorseful they are for having led their community members in participating in the 2002 genocide against Muslims. Again, civil society must be indebted to Rakesh Sharma for bringing this reality out.

"The back cover of the CD itself contextualises the film - the saffronisation of the Dalit-OBC population and its consequent plight! The film looks specifically at the patterns of arrests and litigation since 2002. A majority of those charged with rioting, arson, murder etc are either tribals or Dalits and OBCs. An analysis of those arrested from 32 police stations in Ahmedabad suggests that of the 1577 detainees, only 30-odd were upper caste! Are these foot soldiers victims too? Cynically recruited, then discarded, left to rot in jails, what do the 'perpetrators of the violence feel today about the VHP and the BJP?"

The film has several personal portraits and conversations. Among the points that emerge:

6-8 families of S-6 passengers who died speak of how they were told people were going for a picnic tour, certainly not any karseva, that the VHP-BJP exploited their tragedy for electoral gains in 2002, how ever since then no one has come to help, how monies raised in their name never reached them... and how some of them who spoke in public about it have been threatened by the VHP!

VHP made tall promises to help the detained and the injured Hindutva cadre, but barring some rations and monetary help in the first month or two, not much came. The VHP/BJP combine simply vanished. A telling story is Kanti and Deepak's account from Gomtipur - both shot by the police, both appealed to the BJP for help (incl the CM) but got nothing. When they went to Togadia's own Dhanvantri hospital for operations/ treatment, they were turned away, asked to bring a deposit of Rs 50,000 first!

Time now for un-sexy story number 5. Fake encounters in Gujarat - 23, yes, twenty-three innocent Muslims were killed and labeled as terrorists. One was a Hindu who converted to Islam to marry the woman he loved. All of them were designated as Lashkar or Jaish terrorists. All that newspapers, magazines and TV news channels had to do was read the absolutely ridiculous and preposterous police charge sheets and the submissions made by the government lawyers in the trial courts. That's all. Again the truth is out there waiting to be reported. Think about it. Modi has never been attacked. Not evenly remotely in terrorist strike. But the people who were allegedly killed for planning to kill him were killed when they were "conspiring" to kill him. Twenty-three people were shot dead for conspiring to kill Modi. No arrests. No detention. No investigation.

Think about it. If you are in Gujarat pay Rs 50 at the local courts where the trial of the fake encounters are going on and get the police charge sheet. Get also the submissions made by the public prosecutor. Listen to the court proceedings. See the court proceedings. Speak about everything you have heard and seen after you have read the documents. But we still continue to See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil.

So We Report No Evil.

That journalism is failing to do what it is supposed to do is a no-brainer. It's an indisputable fact. Thankfully, journalists, newspapers, magazines and TV news channels are not the only ones who are interested in practicing journalism. So, an array of activists is contributing to independent journalism and that is a relief. A honcho of an entertainment channel recently said in response to allegations of rigging following the announcement of the winner of a reality show: "Our show is more real than the news that one sees on news television." Nobody could have dared to make such a derogatory remark on the practice of journalism a decade ago. If citizen journalists can report and put their stories on air, why can't activist film-makers?

The idiot box has really come of age. It has acquired a mind of its own. It is showing our idiocy.

*** Post-Script: What about the Godhra train burning accused? What about the Muslims who supposedly burnt the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express? Yes, what about them? Do we know them? What's the truth?

Narendrabhai Modi is really a bhai who does bhaigiri and saffron dadagiri. But, unfortunately, he has many, many things to hide. And now he no place to run and hide because the TRUTH is catching up with him.

The Myth of Vibrant Gujarat

2007-12-05T00:15:00.000-08:00

Contacts:
For Right to Information data details, contact Bharatbhai on 9979099881. About the film, contact Rakesh Sharma on 9909918575 or rakeshfilm@gmail.com

Rakesh Sharma releases 2 films as a follow-up to Final Solution

Internationally-acclaimed film-maker Rakesh Sharma today released his latest films for previews in Gujarat. The two new films Khedu Mora Re and Chet'ta Rejo have been researched over the last couple of years and shot during the last 8 months. Speaking about his new films, Rakesh Sharma said – "Ever since I started showing Final Solution around, many people urged me to do follow-up films as well. I wanted to go beyond highlighting the events of 2002 and the State and Sangh Parivar's complicity, which by now has been well-documented, especially after the Tehelka expose. These films are also in the nature of my response to Mr. Modi and his propaganda as a member of civil society."

Khedu Mora Re (62 minutes) specifically deals with the myth of Vibrant Gujarat. The film graphically documents the phenomenon of farmer suicides in Gujarat. It also deals with farmers' opposition to SEZs as well as widespread anger against the Modi government and its lopsided policies which many farmers in the film claim are lopsided, tailored to suit corporates and industries. The much hyped Sujalam Sufalam scheme is probed at ground level, especially during the recent floods in Saurashtra -where farmers squarely blame this scheme for their misfortune. Says a farmer in the film, "Till a couple of years ago, there was never a flood in Gokharwada (distt Surendranagar) but ever since this sujalam sufalam, our village and lands get submerged every year due to these new check dams, with faulty planning and construction. Modi keeps announcing packages worth hundreds of crores, but the reality is that people are yet to receive even 5 rupees out of the post-flood package announced for 2005! And now this flood in 2007 – it has destroyed us totally."

A strand that runs through is a specific RTI (Right to Information) campaign designed by the film-maker. Filed through activist Bharat Jhala, the information nails government lies and exposes its attempts to suppress the truly horrifying scale of farmer suicides in Gujarat. Says Rakesh Sharma, "Modi has been trying to reinvent himself as Vikaspurush, hoping that glitzy films and investor summits will whitewash his image as the butcher of Gujarat. I felt it was critical to examine the true story behind the hype, but also realized that the film is liable to be attacked and its credibility challenged. That's why I chose the RTI route to use the government's own figures to bring out the true story. Modi claimed in a TV interview to NDTV on March 14, 2007 that no farmer commits suicide in Gujarat. A month later, he admitted to 148 suicides on the floor of the assembly. Official data that we finally got in Oct 10, 2007, 5 months after we filed queries, confirms 498 suicides formally. However, even this list is partial as it does not feature several suicide stories painstakingly documented in the film! As many suicides are passed off as accidents, we also filed RTI queries seeking details of all accidental deaths - of the 6,695 farmers who died in "accidents", over 4000 have not been paid any Kisan Vima Yojana money (we've informally learnt that insurance companies have denied many such "accident" claims as many of these are suicides)! Amazingly, on Oct 10 itself, the day the Gujarat gave us RTI data confirming 498 suicides, an official ad released on ETV categorically stated that there are no suicides in Gujarat and people should not believe false propaganda. The ad itself seems to be done in response to the coverage in end Sept and October to our press conferences and the film excerpts we showed!"

The film features several suicide stories done as very personal, intimate portraits. Opposition to land acquisition for SEZs in Bhavnagar district as also havoc unleashed by private companies in Kathivadar are intercut with these stories. The film itself reports 10-12 suicides in Amreli, Surendranagar, Bhavnagar, Rajkot, Bharuch and Surat. The RTI data reveals shocking district-wise figures – Rajkot (63 suicides), Junagad (85), Amreali (34), Mehsana(48), Nadiad (44), Jamnagar (55), Narmada (30) and even in Gandhinagar (13), right under the Chief Minister’s nose! For RTI data details, contact Bharatbhai on 9979099881. About the film, contact Rakesh Sharma on 9909918575 or rakeshfilm@gmail.com

The film is in Gujarati (with no English subtitles). For VCDs of the film, please contact Dakxin on 99099 11474. More information about the film-maker is on www.rakeshfilm.com. Photographs and publicity pictures can be downloaded from http://download.yousendit.com/B4DA6A0E72463BCF

Film 2: Chet'ta Rejo (72 minutes):

The back cover of the CD itself contextualizes the film – the saffronisation of the Dalit-OBC population and its consequent plight! The film looks specifically at the patterns of arrests and litigation since 2002. A majority of those charged with rioting, arson, murder etc are either tribals or Dalits and OBCs. An analysis of those arrested from 32 police stations in Ahmedabad suggests that of the 1577 detainees, only 30-odd were upper caste! Are these foot soldiers victims too? Cynically recruited, then discarded, left to rot in jails, what do the 'perpetrators of the violence feel today about the VHP and the BJP?

The film has several personal portraits and conversations. Among the points that emerge:

1. 6-8 families of S-6 passengers who died speak of how they were told people were going for a picnic tour, certainly not any karseva, that the VHP-BJP exploited their tragedy for electoral gains in 2002, how ever since then no one has come to help, how monies raised in their name never reached them...and how some of them who spoke in public about it have been threatened by the VHP!

2. VHP made tall promises to help the detained and the injured Hindutva cadre, but barring some rations and monetary help in the first month or two, not much came. The VHP/BJP combine simply vanished. A telling story is Kanti and Deepak's account from Gomtipur - both shot by the police, both appealed to the BJP for help (incl the CM) but got nothing. When they went to Togadia's own Dhanvantri hospital for operations/ treatment, they were turned away, asked to bring a deposit of Rs 50,000 first!

3. Cops don't arrest the upper castes. They come and take away Dalits/OBCs - any men they can find in the area. The men are normally told to come along for haziri but then booked formally. Women in such families speak of the subsequent harassment and hardships.

4. Dalits ask why violence is engineered in their areas, and not in the posh upper caste areas? They ask a series of searching, probing questions and offer their own analyses throughout the film.

5. Dalit elders speak of how the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya doesn't mean much to them, as they can not even enter the mandir in their own villages - upper castes prevent them from doing so till today!

7. An OBC Hindu boy and a Muslim boy, both friends, used to play cricket together in Behrampura. During the riots, both lost their right hands to bombs during the riots! The film ends with both of them appealing to the youth not to join such parties or get involved in such violence as no one lifts a finger to help while it is them and their families who will suffer forever.

The overall message that emerges through a range of voices - violence and politics of hate destroys the Dalit-OBC-Muslim communities; it is best to stay away from parties that preach hate.

The two films are in the nature of a follow-up to the critically-acclaimed film Final Solution that dealt with the 2002 carnage and its aftermath, the Gaurav Yatra, BJP's subsequent electoral victory in a sharply polarized state in 2002. In October 2007, Final Solution finally got recognition in its own country when the President of India gave it the National Film Award. Earlier, the film was screened at over 80 international film festivals and picked over 20 awards (at Berlin, HongKong, Zanzibar, France, Argentina, USA, Bangkok, Spain, Kathmandu etc). It also got the Best Film award at the prestigious Index on Censorship awards (UK); ironically the film was banned by the Indian Censor Board for a few months in 2004, but following widespread protests by civil society, the film was cleared without a single cut.

Rakesh Sharma began his film/TV career in 1986 as an assistant director on Shyam Benegal's Discovery of India. His broadcast industry experience includes the set up/ launch of 3 broadcast channels in India: Channel [V], Star Plus and Vijay TV as well as several production consultancy assignments. He returned to independent documentary film-making in 2001. His first independent film Aftershocks : The Rough Guide to Democracy has been screened at over 100 international film festivals and has 10 awards {including the prestigious Robert Flaherty prize}.

India-United States Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture

2007-12-02T03:38:00.000-08:00

"RE-LOOK AT NEED FOR & IMPLICATIONS OF INDO-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture"

Courtesy: Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

Farmer leaders, agriculture scientists, environmental and social activists in addition to individual farmers have put out an open letter to the Prime Minister today, asking him to re-look at the need for and implications of the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA), a bilateral deal signed by the Prime Minister during his July 2005 visit to the USA - the same visit that saw the 123 Deal signed too. While the nation has witnessed a huge hue and cry on the nuclear deal, the KIA which was described as the harbinger of the second green revolution in India by the PM, hardly gets any attention as its implementation is quietly underway.

The Open Letter to the PM raises concerns about the way the present agrarian distress is completed ignored by the KIA deal as it describes the present agriculture situation in India as one that presents "exciting opportunities", amongst other things. They question the lack of deliberative democractic processes while such deals are signed and the lack of accountability when it comes to the agriculture research system in India. The first Green Revolution in India needs a thorough assessment and a balance sheet drawn up before any second green revolution through the KIA can be thought of, they argue.

The Open Letter points out that the USA defies the principles enshrined in several international agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, Kyoto Protocol etc., even though the issues that these agreements cover are also central components of the present KIA. Why then did India, which ratified these protocols, decide to align with the USA, the signatories ask.

The regulatory and the legal reforms that the USA wants to impose on Indian agriculture to allow more American investments into Indian farming and allied sectors would prove very detrimental to Indian farmers who are already reeling under a severe crisis related to technologies, markets and other support systems, the Open Letter points out.

The KIA proposal in any case is violating many guidelines of the Biological Diversity Act prima facie and the letter lists out such violations in an annexure.

Given that Indian agriculture does not have anything in common with American farming, given that we have vast amounts of experience, knowledge and capabilities on a variety of subjects within the country, given that the KIA does not seem to have any benefits for farmers but only negative implications, given that the Second Green Revolution if any has to be launched in the country only after due deliberative and democratic processes, given that the IPR implications from the deal are stacked against Indian interests and given that the current agrarian crisis facing Indian farmers needs other fundamentally different solutions, through the Open Letter, the signatories demand the following from the PM:

· Put the implementation of the KIA on hold immediately. Review the whole deal with credible agricultural, political and social scientists along with farmers' union and civil society representatives. Further, debate the agreement within the Parliament and state Assemblies and discuss it with state governments.

· Draw up a fresh research agenda for the Indian NARS and its different local institutions after a broad based consultative process with farmers all over the country.

· Provide income security to all farmers in the country by providing them an assured monthly salary from any special financial mechanism that you evolve for the purpose.

· Allocate all the funds meant for agriculture extension in the hands of the targeted clientele after organizing the farmers for better accountability.

Allow immediate access to indigenous germplasm collections to communities who wish to access such resources for conservation and use, through legislative and administrative means.
The Open Letter to the PM is attached to this mail, along with the list of signatories/endorsees.

To
September 20, 2007
Dr Manmohan Singh,
Hon’ble Prime Minister,
Government of India.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Services and Commercial Linkages – Demand for an immediate hold on implementation

Respected Sir, this letter is being written to you after looking at the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Services & Commercial Linkages (being referred to as the KIA or AKI) in close detail, after extensive discussions held amongst agriculture scientists, farmers’ leaders, civil society representatives, science policy experts and others on the implications of KIA on Indian farmers, especially small and marginal farmers. Through this letter, we would like to convey our deep concerns related to this bilateral deal that you had signed with the US President.

The current agrarian crisis and farmers’ livelihoods:

The KIA hardly makes a mention of the deep agrarian crisis present all over rural India today. In fact, there is very little mention of farmers in the KIA proposals. Where the current problems in Indian agriculture are mentioned, they are described as “exciting challenges and opportunities” – we wonder for whom? How can a high-profile bilateral agreement coming at a juncture of such a crisis ignore the crisis and fundamental ways of addressing it?

The agrarian crisis in India is to be seen as a livelihoods crisis – the government has to answer why agri-business corporations are not in a crisis while farmers are attempting to commit suicides in thousands, if it is truly a farming crisis? The agri-industry is in fact posting growth figures that are impressive.

Increased production and productivity from farmers will not come if the State takes away their very dignity, their resources, their interest in their occupation, erodes all support systems and leaves them only with heavy debt burdens. Productivity cannot just be a factor of a miracle technology that someone introduces but a factor that is closely related to farmers’ self-worth, dignity and morale.

The Indian economy (which is seen as the only domain of development) is appearing to declare its independence from Indian farming and the distress of farmers because the contribution of agriculture to the GDP is going down and your government measures development only in economic growth and GDP terms. We need to get out of this framework to understand farming better and the sustenance it provides to millions of lives.

What farmers need is income security, especially given that the liberalized trade policies that subsequent governments have pursued have pushed them into unfair disadvantage from all sides, even as technologies promoted by the NARS and agri-corporations are unsustainable.

Our analysis also shows that the KIA proposals are certainly not in tandem with other dominant policy discourse related to agriculture in India now, be it the Planning Commission’s approach paper to the 11th Plan or the draft Kisan Policy drafted by the National Commission on Farmers [NCF]. The Planning Commission and the NCF have at least run a semblance of consultative processes while drawing up their recommendations and while adopting a particular discourse. The KIA, however, is at contrast to these other policy articulations.

It is apparent that the National Agricultural Research System [NARS] had never done any deep-thinking workshops institutionally about its role in the entire crisis being experienced by farmers today and about unsustainable and unsuitable technologies foisted upon farmers. Since no such analysis exists, the crisis does not inform decisions on any front, including the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative.

India’s Green Revolution & the ‘Second Green Revolution’:

Numerous studies and papers have brought out the ecological, socio-cultural and other fall-outs from the Green Revolution. The Planning Commission chose to portray the repercussions in terms of ‘technology fatigue’ and the ‘ecological disaster’. While the Green Revolution at least had a stated thrust on improving national food security (that concept of food security is questioned by numerous experts now) and ran on a principle of social contract, it seems that the Second Green Revolution is meant only for agri-corporations.

Before making plans for a Second Green Revolution, the country should have first drawn up a comprehensive balance sheet on the first Green Revolution. Learnings should have been picked up from such an analysis and critique of the earlier Green Revolution. Such learnings should have been internalized and incorporated into all your pronouncements on the second Green Revolution and into the KIA.

Our analysis says that while the country might have obtained self reliance on the food front (that too based on two grains which don’t assure nutrition security and are known to have caused other adverse impacts), Green Revolution has completely eroded farmers’ self-reliance. Farmers’ natural resource base has been degraded almost irrevocably. Our bio-diversity has been eroded irreversibly along with farmers’ knowledge about management, creation and conservation of such resources. While food security is touted to have been achieved, quality of food in terms of safety and nutrition has been badly affected. A diverse variety of foods that used to be accessible and affordable have been lost to the millions of poor in the country. Bio-mass has disappeared on a large scale and organic cycles of crop-livestock-tree-living soil resources have been broken through reductionist science. Local economies have only pumped out their wealth with very little coming back into the villages. In recent decades, any public support system that used to exist for even that kind of intensive agriculture that GR ushered in, is being systematically dismantled, leaving farmers to the mercy of greedy markets of agri-corporations.

We find that the agri-research establishment has been indoctrinated into thinking that “There Is No Alternative” (TINA) to intensive farming using ever-increasing quantities and varieties of external inputs. This TINA syndrome runs deep in the entire NARS to the extent that they cannot even start looking at ecological alternatives with any amount of objectivity or scientificity. The Green Revolution did not happen overnight on the strength of the science behind it but because of massive public investments in creating huge support systems to address pre-production, production and post-production issues. Ecological agriculture however has received no such support in the country and without such public investments going into this paradigm, will not start appealing to our scientists either. When the GR began, no one wondered about where we will get the tonnes of chemical fertilizers/pesticides and HYV seeds that were to drive the GR – the country just set about arranging these through a variety of policy and public investment measures. However, whenever there is a discussion on alternative paradigms, the first question that is asked preposterously is, where will we find so much of organic inputs?

Now, with the Second Green Revolution that you are shaping, there is a formal institutionalization of American corporate interests driving our research agendas and public policy frameworks. This will further indoctrinate the NARS and other systems into the industrial/intensive model of agriculture. You have chosen to give the Monsantos of the US, documented earlier for their anti-farmer policies and known for their lawlessness, a formal place to guide the future of Indian agriculture as suits them, through the KIA. Why did your government not think of placing some key farmers’ organizations and other civil society representatives in the country on the Board on this side?

The Second Green Revolution in the form of the KIA has no mention of farmers, leave alone farming livelihoods or national food security. Who then is this Second Green Revolution for, at the expense of public funds, we wonder.

Finally, why do your government and the NARS shy away from understanding, supporting and promoting an ecological agriculture paradigm – can your scientists compete with some of the best natural and organic farmers in this country on a variety of parameters related to production, productivity, economic viability, sustainability, social benefits and so on, before promoting any other paradigms [given that we have already seen the results of your paradigms]?

India & the USA:

The socio-economic and agro-ecological situations with regard to Indian and American farming are vastly different. In their model of agriculture, less than 2% of the American population depends on farming whereas in India, around 65% of our population continue to depend on farming and allied activities for their very survival.

In India, agriculture is a way of life connected closely with knowledge evolved over centuries of experiential learning from Nature, connected deeply with the culture of our peoples and their livelihoods. On the other hand, in the USA, agriculture is an industry, driven mostly by big agri-business corporations. Even though they claim that it is an efficient model of agriculture to be emulated here in India to attain higher productivity levels and so on, it is a farming model that is constantly propped up by ever-increasing amounts of subsidies. The true efficiency of that model will be clear only when the subsidies are removed. On the other hand, Indian farmers, with very little support from the government and in the face of highly adverse conditions created by the government, have proven that theirs is a more efficient system of farming by feeding millions of Indians and also showing steady increases in production and productivity.

Also important is the fact that the USA has not signed the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] or the Kyoto Protocol or the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. What is interesting to note is that the main themes of these protocols to which India subscribes to through ratification and which USA discounts or fights in the international arena – biological resources including biodiversity, climate change and safety with regard to living modified organisms - are also key parts of the KIA.

These protocols enshrine some principles – for instance, biological resources are sovereign resources of nation-states (CBD), climate change is a big threat to the planet and immediate interventions are needed to reverse it and stop it (Kyoto) and living modified organisms need careful impact assessment and handling and prior informed consent for transboundary movement (Cartagena) which are not respected at all in the KIA or by the USA. Why is India partnering the USA in such an agreement then?

The USA, to this day, has not allocated any resources for the KIA whereas India is paying the USA for unneeded and hazardous technologies from the taxpayers’ money. Ironically, the deal is all set to ultimately benefit American corporations than Indian farmers. Is this kind of unequal partnership what one could call as a bilateral agreement?

Why did you not think of having such a bilateral agreement with Cuba, which has shown the world how to produce more through organic methods even with economic sanctions imposed upon it – is there any reason why India should not learn from such a model of agriculture, to drive its next Revolution in agriculture?

On many of the themes included in the KIA where Indians are supposed to learn from the USA, there is no dearth of knowledge, skills and capabilities within the country. It is not clear why we need to learn from the USA on water management, drought proofing, food processing etc., when some of the best models on these themes are right here in the country within the people’s knowledge domain. While the agriculture research model pursued by the country constantly erodes such rich knowledge right here, you would like to learn from distant USA at a charge, that too technologies that do not suit our needs nor address the present agrarian crisis!

The Americans are clearly proposing through the KIA, and in Board Meetings after Board Meetings, that they would like to use the bilateral deal to make changes in our regulatory regimes related to IPRs or particular technologies like Genetic Engineering. These changes are to suit their interests and not to ensure the basic rights of Indian farmers and consumers. In return, what are you planning to suggest as changes at their end through this bilateral deal? Can you bring down the huge subsidies that American farming is propped up with, to protect Indian farmers’ interests from your side?

Coming to the comparative picture between India and USA again, the Indian IPR regime related to agriculture is very different from the American regime. Whose regime will be applied in this collaborative research? Who will have patents and what will be the implications for Indian farmers and their apriori rights on many resources and technologies?

In the USA, patents are possible on everything from a plant to a gene. As you know, all the notorious cases of bio-piracy from this country involved American scientists and corporations. What guarantees are you providing to the citizens of this country that the collective heritage of this country in the form of its biological resources and knowledge will be protected and given legitimately back to the communities without American bio-piracy now acquiring a legitimate passage you gave them?

The Biological Diversity Act of India, flowing out of the CBD, requires that permission be obtained from the National Biodiversity Authority before any biological resource is accessed by any foreigner. The KIA is not fulfilling any such obligations (Annexure 1). From all accounts, not even Material Transfer Agreements are in place while valuable genetic resources are already being taken to the US laboratories by Indian public sector scientists visiting the USA under exchange programmes or fellowships and so on under the KIA.

India’s Science & Technology and Development framework:

Our development framework focuses only on national economic growth rates and forgets the livelihoods of millions of Indians eking out a living through farming. As a polity, we seem to be feeding the endless lifestyle aspirations of millions of urban, middle class Indians who only want to emulate the Americans and others. This is obviously extremely destructive in an ecological sense – the ecological foot print that we would be leaving as a country would be far higher than the developed countries’, if this development model is pursued mindlessly.

At another level, the S & T framework adopted in the case of agriculture was always one that sought to gain control over nature, rather than working in cooperation with/tandem with nature. The latter, as thousands of years of Indian farming has shown, is the one that ensures sustainable resource use – it took only 4 to 5 decades of intensive farming to erode and degrade our resources to the present situation whereas our forefathers did farming for thousands of years without leaving the future generations gasping for life.

The S & T framework governing Indian agriculture has been one that requires intensive use of external inputs which has its own ecological, economic and political ramifications. Commodification of all inputs has only meant that local economies got drained to fill the coffers of agri-business companies whose sole aim is to seek more and more markets for their products.

Our S & T frameworks should have been reviewed as a response to the farming crisis all around. This did not happen; through the KIA we want to further accelerate adoption of the same S & T approaches in agriculture as in the case of Green Revolution. Those approaches have already been proven as unsustainable and destructive of our natural resources.

This is in fact a destruction of democracy itself. Electoral democracy, as you are aware, is only a narrow understanding of democracy. Participation, public debate, accountability, referendum & recall systems are glaringly absent in our democracy in the context of agriculture. We actually need a Constitution that respects plurality of knowledges, not just what passes off officially as “Science & Technology”. We need a Constitution that is ecologically embedded. We need a Directive Principle of State policy that orders protection of Indian agriculture and the diversity that exists there.

S & T policy makers sitting in the Ministry of Science & Technology or Department of Agriculture Research & Education or in the Planning Commission have not learnt anything from other countries about incorporating alternative paradigms and knowledge systems into the making of an S & T policy. There is ample positive experience to learn from, elsewhere.

National Agricultural Research System [NARS] in India and its orientation:

The NARS is supposed to have been designed along the Land Grant College system in the USA. However, the accountability mechanisms that are apparent in the Land Grant system there are completely missing here. It is a top-down model of institution building that has gone into our NARS, with no accountability at all towards the clientele – the predominantly poor, small and marginal farmers of this country.

The scientific orientation of the NARS is reductionist, piece-meal and fragmented – agriculture being a complex process of synergies and interactions amongst various factors, such a reductionist approach will not solve the real life problems of the farmers. This has been proven again and again – the scientific experiments and their results in a controlled setting in the agriculture research stations are not replicable in real life conditions of farmers.

There should be an inter-disciplinary, dialectical and holistic scientific approach that should be adopted by agriculture scientists. Such an inter-disciplinary approach should encompass other scientific spheres like anthropology, sociology, political science etc. in addition to different specializations within agriculture science. Synergies between crop-livestock and crop-tree husbandry have been completely ignored by the agri-research system, for instance. The sociological ramifications of a particular technology on different kinds of farmers in different locations are not worked out before large scale promotion of a technology. Another example of the narrow orientation of the agri-research establishment is the neglect that dryland farming suffers in the country today.

Even the research agenda of the NARS is not driven by the real life conditions of the farmers. It is a top-down, linear, lab-to-land model that is adopted in almost all research projects. There is no participation apparent from the side of the farmers in individual research projects, leave alone whole institutions and their overall directions of work.

The NARS do not recognize any other knowledge domain other than what gets classified officially as “scientific”. It is this blind approach that had resulted in the erosion of precious knowledge and natural resources amongst farming communities in India. The largest knowledge bank is with the smallholding farmers of India which consists of knowledge of centuries of experiential learning. This technological arrogance is also ignoring larger experiences evolving across the country to sustain farming concurrently with initiatives of farmers, individuals and organizations. Such ready knowledge is constantly being discounted and actively eroded by the NARS in a variety of ways. Today NARS suffers more from ‘Innovation fatigue’ than ‘Technology fatigue’.

There is nothing in the KIA that promises any changes in the existing deep-rooted maladies of the NARS. In fact, the technologies chosen by the KIA will push agriculture scientists farther away from the fields of farmers, deeper into their laboratories (and laboratories in the USA). Agriculture research orientation is now going to be shifted from applied and adaptive research to basic and strategic research, as per the KIA. When it is clear that applied research itself had failed in the Indian agriculture research establishment, what is the rationale behind moving to basic research? How will they then translate it to farmers’ real needs and conditions on the ground?

Worse, the agriculture education and extension models are also being re-cast to shift these services away from farmers.

Historically, there has been an excessive orientation of these NARS institutions to gear their research towards only production and productivity questions rather than looking at farmers’ livelihoods. There are many others, however, in the UN system and elsewhere, who are changing their S & T institutions, curricula, research design and frameworks and so on to meet the Millenium Development Goals. Does the Indian NARS have nothing to learn from them, other than learning from the USA about orienting agriculture research for improving the commercial potential of agri-corporations?

As mentioned before, the so-called modern technologies in agriculture have only proven to be a drain on the local economies of farmers rather than improving their livelihoods in a sustainable manner. It is imperative that any research and extension intervention from the NARS should only be defined and achieved in a livelihoods context and no other context.

The NARS should realize that in today’s complex world, reductionist techno-centricity will not solve any problems. The new mandate of the NARS has to be evolved out of the failure of the earlier mandate and it does not help to continue in the same technological determinism framework. That is the key cornerstone of post-modern agriculture.

It is also important to re-cast completely the reward and incentive system that drives the agriculture scientists today. It is not publication of papers or number of patents that should be the driving parameters of assessing the fulfillment of the mandate of NARS. It is possible for knowledge flows to occur in a manner that farmers derive benefits, without going through the formal, expensive, discriminatory and exclusive intellectual property regime – this has been the experience of civil society work time and again. Agriculture scientists’ reward system should be linked to the quality and effective time spent with farming communities in drawing the research agenda from the farmers, by developing technologies in a participatory manner and by using an interdisciplinary and “expert & non-expert co-inquiry” approach.

At present, the NARS is only turning itself into an outsourcing agency for private corporations. Private corporations want to use the public sector institutions for their own research needs and profit-seeking mandates with the lure of some money put into PPP research collaborations and the agriculture research establishment is ready to forget the needs of their primary clientele. The foundations for this are already laid out in the form a parallel initiative ‘National Agriculture Innovation Project’ supported by the World Bank.

Specific KIA proposals:

· Re-orienting Indian agriculture research to basic and strategic research will mean further cutting off of farmers from these institutions, when the current farming crisis calls for the reverse – of all public sector institutions related to agriculture having to move closer to farmers and work along with them.
· Transgenic agriculture has been given a prominent place in the whole deal, under the theme of Emerging Technologies. It is not clear how this decision has been taken since the debate is unresolved about the very need for such technologies and the various implications from the deployment of such technologies in farming. What is the basis for decisions related to transgenics by the government, given the ever-emerging evidence on the lack of predictability and scientificity in this technology and the hazards that the technology poses? There is no evidence that GM crops increase productivity of crops or can withstand climate change vagaries (In fact, there is USDA data that shows that GM crops might actually mean lowered yields compared to their non-GM counterparts – if the USA is teaching us through the KIA, it is hoped that they are teaching us such facts too). There is clear evidence that such crops are stress-intolerant which means that our national food security itself could be jeopardized by adopting such technologies in the era of climate change.
· Transgenics by the public sector, without MNC presence, is being projected as being farmer-friendly reducing the whole discussion to pricing and IPRs. The reality however is that there are very few farmers who actually demand for and are able to access such public-sector bred seeds in crops like cotton. Further, experience in collaborative research from the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwar and CICR, Nagpur shows that our IPR literacy is very poor and we more or less get cheated during the R & D process in these collaborative projects involving proprietary technologies. Patents and royalties are brought into the picture preventing the institution from actually releasing seeds to farmers. What lessons are we learning from such experiences?
· When it comes to proposals related to food processing technologies, they all seem to favour American capital investments more than the needs of Indian farmers or consumers. Such technologies have to be assessed for their employment potential to begin with, since the food processing sector is being projected as the one that will absorb rural population displaced from agriculture.
· There is also clear evidence of using the KIA for the entry of big (food) retail chains into India, at the front-end too. It is very unclear what share of the retail price will actually reach the farmers of the country.
· The government has to decide whether we as a country should focus on food security and sovereignty of the nation or food processing and value addition meant for export markets. The KIA certainly gives importance to the latter but is that what the country needs?
· On themes like bio-fuels too, there is an urgent need for careful thinking regarding alternate use scenarios for precious resources like land and biomass. The KIA proposals seem to be in contradiction to the dominant discourse with regard to bio-fuels in this country – so far, we have talked about bio-diesels on wastelands in this country. The KIA talks about ethanol-based bio-fuels. The KIA has no mention about such technologies which will assist in backyard production of bio-diesels for community level energy needs by integrating native, hardy bio-diesel crop species into farming, through cooperative institutional structures. The KIA proposals are meant to create technologies that will essentially result in a competition between urban (fuel) and rural (food) needs.
· The KIA has water management as one of its themes of collaboration. India, which is famous for being a ‘hydrological society’ and for the organic socio-cultural links between communities and water resources, would have nothing to learn from a country like the USA on water management and drought-proofing. There is ample experience within this country for the NARS to learn from. No amount of techno-centric solutions will take care of water resources – their conservation or preserving the quality. No remediation of contaminated waters can take place through the NARS especially given the impunity with which contamination from industrial effluents takes place. Only a radically different view and value system associated with water as a basic resource of life will change things.
· As mentioned earlier, the IPR regimes in India and the USA are vastly different and this is an area of great concern with relation to the KIA. Precious germplasm is already moving out of the country in the name of collaborative research and it is not clear what IPR arrangements are in place. There do not seem to be any material transfer agreements in place either. We seem to be legitimizing bio-piracy as never before. On the other hand, communities who are original contributors to our germplasm collections in various NARS centres are being denied access to what is legitimately theirs!

The process of formulating the KIA:

This deal has been projected by you as the harbinger of the Second Green Revolution, which means that it has great significance attached to it. Yet, you chose not to debate it with our elected representatives or with state governments. From all accounts, it did not even get discussed properly within the NARS. This is completely unacceptable.

Further, it is not clear what accountability mechanisms exist in the case of KIA – what reviews, what monitoring, who will be accountable and how. What needs to be done in case an American party needs to be made liable for a particular project, for instance?

OUR DEMANDS:

We invite you to reverse the possibilities with the KIA by rescuing America from itself, its farming and its agri-corporations. Please get into a bilateral deal that teaches Americans alternative paradigms in agriculture and rescues America from the ‘monoculture of mind’ that has evolved there. We want you to understand and make the Americans understand that democracy is not just liberty, equality and fraternity but also sustainability, plurality and generosity.

Given that Indian agriculture does not have anything in common with American farming, given that we have vast amounts of experience, knowledge and capabilities on a variety of subjects within the country, given that the KIA does not seem to have any benefits for farmers but only negative implications, given that the Second Green Revolution if any has to be launched in the country only after due deliberative and democratic processes, given that the IPR implications from the deal are stacked against Indian interests and given that the current agrarian crisis facing Indian farmers needs other fundamentally different solutions, we demand that your government :

· Put the implementation of the KIA on hold immediately. Review the whole deal with credible agricultural, political and social scientists along with farmers’ union and civil society representatives, like you are ready to do with the 123 Nuclear Deal, after pressure from other political parties. Further, debate the agreement within the Parliament and state Assemblies and discuss it with state governments.
· Draw up a fresh research agenda for the Indian NARS and its different local institutions after a broad based consultative process with farmers all over the country.
· Provide income security to all farmers in the country by providing them an assured monthly salary from any special financial mechanism that you evolve for the purpose.
· Allocate all the funds meant for agriculture extension in the hands of the targeted clientele after organizing the farmers for better accountability.
· Allow immediate access to indigenous germplasm collections to communities who wish to access such resources for conservation and use, through legislative and administrative means.

Requesting you to intervene in this matter immediately and take all our concerns on board,

Signed & endorsed by:

S.No
Name
Personal description, if any
Organisational affiliation, if any
Location
1
Adil Ali

The Hunger Project
Delhi
2
Ajay Bhardwaj
Documentary Film maker

Delhi
3
Anand Patwardhan
Film maker

Mumbai
4
Ananthapadmanabhan
Executive Director
Greenpeace India
Bangalore
5
Anasurya
Coordinator
MARI
Warangal
6
Anuradha Mittal

The Oakland Institute
California
7
Aparajita Zutshi
Student
University of Illinois
USA
8
Arun Ambatipudi
Team Leader
Chetna-Organic
Hyderabad
9
Arun Gopalan
Volunteer
Association for India's Development - AID
Maryland, USA
10
Aruna Rodrigues
Economist
Petitioner, SC PIL on GM Moratorium & Sunray Harvesters
Mhow, MP
11
AV Ramana
Coordinator
CHARD
Khammam
12
B lakshmi Narayana

DRDA
Hyderabad
13
B Mallappa
President
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Kurnool Dist.
14
B Narasinga Rao
Member
Dhimsa-Network
Visakhapatnam
15
B Ramesh Reddy

Warangal
16
B Ramulu
Farmer
MARI
Warangal
17
B Shankar
Member
PDSU
Karimnagar
18
B Venkatesh
Coordinator
NSDS
Kurnool
19
B Vijaya Ramarao
State President
BKS
Hyderabad
20
B. Vijaya Rama Rao
State President
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh
Hyderabad
21
Bablu Ganguly

Timbaktu Collective
Anantapur
22
Benson Issac
Social activist & Educator
Samvada
Bangalore
23
Bharat Mansata
Environmental activist, Writer, Editor
Earthcare Books, Kolkatta & Vision Acres, Maharashtra
Mumbai
24
Biraj Patnaik
Principal Adviser
Office of the Commissioners to Supreme Court in Right to Food case
Delhi
25
C Sambi Reddy

Hyderabad
26
Ch Koti
Member
AIKMS
Warangal
27
Ch Parasu Ramulu
Secretary
TRIDS
Nalgonda Dist
28
Champa Devi Shukla
Goldman Prize Winner
Chingari Trust
Bhopal
29
Chandrasekhar
Agriculture Scientist
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
30
Chhaya Datar
Professor, Centre for Women's Studies
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Mumbai
31
Chinnaiah
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Adilabad
32
D Bhaskar
President
RCS
Karimnagar
33
D Kumar
Farmer
MARI
Warangal
34
D Lingaiah
Coordinator
MARI
Warangal
35
D Rajesh
Member
AIFTU
Hyderabad
36
D Sudhakar
Farmer
MARI
Warangal
37
D Vijay
Member
AICTU
Hyderabad
38
D. Harinath

AP Kisan Sabha
Vijayawada
39
Dara Ramesh
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Khammam Dist
40
Debjeet Sarangi

Living Farms
Bhubaneswar
41
Devi
Member
Agriculture Cell, Association for India's Development
USA
42
Devinder Sharma
Agriculture Scientist & Policy analyst
Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security
New Delhi
43
Dharmendar
Agriculture Scientist
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
44
Dharmendra Malik, Rakesh Tikait & Yudhvir Singh

Bhartiya Kissan Union
Delhi & UP
45
Dr A Prasada Rao
Soil Scientist

46
Dr A R Vasavi
National Institute for Advanced Studies
IISc Campus
Bangalore
47
Dr Ananthu
Former Systems Engineer
Navadarshanam Trust
Bangalore
48
Dr Anil Sadgopal
Molecular Biologist & Agriculture Scientist
Former Dean, Faculty of Education, Delhi University
Bhopal
49
Dr Arvind Sivaramakrishnan

Chennai
50
Dr C Shambu Prasad
Associate Professor
Xavier Institute of Management
Bhubaneswar
51
Dr D Narsimha Reddy
Activist

Hyderabad
52
Dr G Nammalvar
Agriculture scientist & President
Tamil Nadu Organic Agriculturists' Movement
Trichy
53
Dr GVK Rao
Agriculture Economist

Hyderabad
54
Dr Jyoti
Former Professor of Sociology
Navadarshanam Trust
Bangalore
55
Dr K R Chowdry
Agriculture Scientist
Member, AP Govt's Commission for Farmers' Welfare
Hyderabad
56
Dr Malla Reddy

RDT
Anantapur
57
Dr Manvir Gupta
MD, Consultant Physician

Faridkot
58
Dr Nandita Shah
Holistic practitioner & homeopath
Sharan
Mumbai
59
Dr S Jeevananda Reddy
Former Chief Technical Advisor - WMO/UN; Expert - FAO/UN
Convenor, Forum for a Sustainable Environment
Hyderabad
60
Dr V Rukmini Rao
Activist in women's movement
Gramya Resource Centre for Women
Hyderabad
61
Dr Vanaja Ramprasad
Director
Green Foundation
Bangalore
62
Dr. A. Prasada Rao
Former Professor of Soil Science
ANGRAU
Hyderabad
63
Dr. GV Ramanjaneyulu
Agriculture Scientist
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
64
Dr. K. R. Chowdary
Former Professor of Agriculture Economics
ANGRAU
Hyderabad
65
Dr. M. S. Chari
Ex Director CTRI
Managing Trustee, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
66
E Srinu
President
ARUNODAYA
Warangal
67
G Bhadraiah
Coordinator
MARI
Warangal
68
G Hussenaiah
Member
AP Rythu Sangham
Hyderabad
69
G koteswara Rao
Asst. Secretary
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Khammam Dist.
70
G Yadagiri

Hyderabad
71
G. V. Raghavulu

AP Agri. Workers Union
Hyderabad
72
G. Yadagiri Reddy
Ex MLA,
AP Rythusangam
Hyderabad
73
Garima Mahajan
Research Fellow, Environmental Chemistry

Punjab
74
Gautama
Principal
The School (KFI)
Chennai
75
Gurpreet Sidhu

People Tree Arts Trust
Delhi
76
GV Raghavulu
Vice Prsident
AP Rythu Coolie Sangham
East Godavari
77
H Mallesh
Vice President
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Kurnool Dist.
78
H R Prakash

ARTIC
Srikakulam, AP
79
Hanumantha Reddy K
NGO activist
Navya Seema Development Society
Kurnool
80
Hasrat Arjjumend
Chief Executive
Grassroots India
Delhi
81
Himanshu Thakkar

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People
Delhi
82
J Venkatadri
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist.
83
J Venkateswararao
District Secretary
AP Rythu Coolie Sangham
Wast Godavari
84
Jagannath Chatterjee

Living Farms
Bhubaneswar
85
Jayarajju
Vice President
KNPS

86
Jayaram Killi
Agriculture Scientist
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
87
K Bhoomaiah
Member
PDSU

88
K Ilaiah
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist.
89
K Kishan
President
RCS
Karimnagar
90
K Kondaiah
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist.
91
K Sai Reddy
State Organiser
Bharathiya Kissan Sangham
Hyderabad
92
K Sateesh
Ag. Coordinator
SVDS
Visakhapatnam
93
K Suresh
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Khammam Dist.
94
K. Kotaiah
State Secretary
AP Agri. Workers Union
Hyderabad
95
K. Sai Reddy
State Organising Secretary
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh
Hyderabad
96
Kaka Linganna
Secretary
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist
97
Kapil Shah
Plant Breeder & Organic Farming activist
Jatan Trust
Baroda
98
Kavitha Kuruganti
Researcher & Campaigner
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
99
Kiran Vissa
Engineer & Social activist
Association for India's Development - AID
Rockville, USA
100
Kolli Nageswarao
General Secretary
All India Kisan Sabha
Hyderabad
101
Kongara Narasimha
Member
AIKMS

102
Kotta Sadanandam
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist.
103
Krithika Srinivasan
Doctoral Student
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Mumbai
104
Linagam
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Adilabad
105
M Anjaneyulu
Farmer
MARI
Warangal
106
M Srinivasa Rao
Coordinator
MRDS
Nalgonda Dist
107
M V Sastri
Convenor
Centre for World Solidarity
Secunderabad
108
Madhumita Dutta
Corporate Accountability Desk
The Other Media
Chennai
109
Maithreyi Nandakumar
Writer
Chair, Vivida (writing group for South Asian women)
Bristol, UK
110
Mallaiah
Vice President
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Kurnool Dist.
111
Mallesam
President
AIFTU
Karimnagar
112
Mallesh
Member
AIFTU
Godavari Khani
113
Manda Sudarshan
President
ARUNODAYA
Karimnagar
114
Mukul Mahant
Consulting Engineer
ATMA
Guwahati
115
N Sanyasi Rao
Social Worker & Engineer
ARTS
Srikakulam, AP
116
Neesha Noronha
Freelance writing & documentation

Mumbai
117
Nilesh Desai
Social worker
Sampark and Beej Swaraj Abhiyan
Jhabua, MP
118
P Babu

ICRA
Bangalore
119
P Chennaiah
Secretary & National Coordinator
AP Vyavasaya Vruthidarula Union
Andhra Pradesh
120
P Damodar Prasad
Journalist
Express Group
Hyderabad
121
P Ganapathi Rao

Sikakulam
122
P Narasimha Reddy
General Secretary
Bharathiya Kissan Sangham
Medak
123
P Prasad
State General Secretary
IFTU
Vizianagaram Dist
124
P Praveen Kumar
Student

Hyderabad
125
P Raghu
Member
HRF
Hyderabad
126
P Rammurthy
President
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist.
127
P. Raghu

Human Rights Forum
Hyderabad
128
Paryada Anji Reddy
State General Secretary
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh
Hyderabad
129
Persis Ginwalla
Independent development professional

Ahmedabad
130
Pittala Satyam
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist.
131
Prasad Jonathan
Architect
"Inspiration"
Cochin
132
Priya
Anti-GMO Working Committee
Organic Farmers' Association of India
Chennai
133
R Venkaiah
General Secretary
AP Rythu Sangam
Hyderabad
134
Rajalingam
President
AIFTU
Karimnagar
135
Ramarao
Secretary
ARNODAYA
Warangal
136
Ramki
Journalist
Veekshanam Monthly Magazine
Hyderabad
137
Ramu
Member
PEOPLE
Ananthapur Dist
138
Rasheeda Bi
Goldman Prize Winner
Chingari Trust
Bhopal
139
Ravela Venkaiah
General Secretary
AP Rythusangam
Hyderabad
140
Rekha Pappu
Independent Researcher

Hyderabad
141
S Bhaskar Rao
Vice President
BKS
Hyderabad
142
S Nageswararao
Coordinator
VIKASA
Visakhapatnam
143
S Raja Mani
President
Pragathiseela Yuvajana Sangham
Khammam
144
S Swapna
President
PDSU
Karimnagar
145
S Venkateswarlu
Farmer
MARI
Warangal
146
S. Bhasker Rao
Vice President
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh
Hyderabad
147
Saraswati Kavula
Independent Film maker

Hyderabad
148
Sayanna
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Adilabad
149
Sd. S Hussain

Adilabad
150
Sharifa Siddiqui

Asmita Resource Centre for Women
Secunderabad
151
Shripad Dharmadhikary

Manthan Adhyayan Kendra
Badwani, MP
152
Sreedevi Lakshmi Kutty
Member & Volunteer
Community Farm Alliance
Louisville, KY, USA
153
Suma Josson
Film maker

Mumbai
154
Sunil
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Adilabad
155
Sunita Rao
Forest gardener & researcher

Sirsi, Karnataka
156
T Devender Rao
Farmer
MARI
Warangal
157
T Sadanandam
Member
RCS
Karimnagar
158
Talha Abdul Rahman
Law Student
NALSAR University of Law
Hyderabad
159
Thomas Samuel
Communications Officer
ATREE
Bangalore
160
Umendra Dutt
President
Kheti Virasat Mission
Punjab
161
Usha Kumari
Agriculture Scientist
Thanal
Trivandrum
162
Utkarsh Sinha

CCSR
Lucknow
163
Uzramma
Founding Trustee
Dastkar Andhra Trust & Decentralised Cotton Yarn Trust
Hyderabad
164
V Buchaiah
Farmer
MARI
Warangal
165
V lakshmi Narasaiah
State Leader
AIFTU
Hyderabad
166
V Rajagopal
Agriculturist

Hyderabad
167
Vallapu Bakkanna
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Warangal Dist.
168
Veesam Bhadraiah
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Khammam Dist.
169
Venu Madhav
Secretary
SECURE
Palvancha, Khammam, AP
170
Vijay Jawandhia
Farmers' leader
Shetkari Sanghatan
Wardha
171
Vithal
Member
Rythu Coolie Sangham
Adilabad
172
Vivek Sharma

Greenpeace India
Bangalore
173
Y Govindu
Member
TIMBAKTU
Ananthapur
Annexure 1

A perusal of the KIA proposal shows that, prima facie, there are violations of the “Guidelines for International Collaboration Research Projects involving Transfer or Exchange of Biological Resources or Information” notified on 8th November 2006 by the Ministry of Environment & Forests under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 [Guidelines notified under Section 5 (3) (a)].

Specifically,

The project violates 1 (a) of the notified Guidelines, which specifies that in the proposal, the collaborative research project should clearly state the Key Investigator in each of the collaborating institutions who shall be responsible for all compliances. As pages 20 and 21 of the KIA proposal attached to this letter illustrate, only tentative list of partners is part of the proposal whereas the project has been underway from December 2005. Section C. BIOTECHNOLOGY, of the proposal is of particular relevance and concern [pp.28-53]. Here, some Indian and American partners are mentioned for the collaborative research including Mahyco (which under Section 3 (2) of the BD Act has non-Indian participation) are listed but no mention is made of Key Investigators of each collaborating institution.

The project also violates 1 (b) of the notified Guidelines which requires the proposal to state the ‘details of biological resources occurring in India and knowledge associated thereto, intended to be transferred and exchanged under the project, namely the biological name, quantity, purpose, source, place of collection and such other activities’. No such details are provided in the attached proposal.

Guideline 1 (d) also provides for biological resources which have any special status under any law in force in India or any international agreement and requires necessary clearances from competent authorities.

It is not clear whether the voucher specimens of the Indian biological resources exchanged or transferred under the project are being sent to the designated repository under Section 39 of the Act. It is not even clear whether the Central Government and the NBA have designated all the repositories for resources being exchanged/transferred under the KIA.

Point (8) of the Guidelines requires collaborators not to communicate or transfer research results of collaborative project to any third party in any manner without entering into an agreement with the National Biodiversity Authority. However, this is not being done while the communication/ transfer to a third party is a certainty given that most US institutions listed in the project proposal of KIA are in collaboration in turn with private corporations in the USA for such research.

It is not clear whether a copy of the approval along with all relevant details has been sent to the National Biodiversity Authority as required by (14) of the notified Guidelines.

Contact For More Details

Kavitha Kuruganti
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
12-13-445, Street # 1, Tarnaka
Secunderabad 500 017
www.csa-india.org; www.indiagminfo.org
kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com
Phone: +91-9393001550

India and Refugees

2007-12-02T03:33:00.001-08:00

The Bharitya Janata Party has demanded a ‘political refugee’ status for Taslima Nasreen. Under the Indian Constitution law and order is a state subject, but international relations and international borders fall exclusively under the domain of the Union government. Therefore, though policies relating with refugees are laid down by the Union Government, the impact of their enforcement has to be borne largely by the state governments.

India has neither signed the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refuges nor its 1961 Protocol, claiming that Refugee Convention adds to the burden of a host country and allows the international community to remain inactive. If a country is signatory to this Convention then it is legally bound to grant asylum to any “person who owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”. By side-stepping the Refugee Convention, India has still managed to build a creditable reputation as a host country for fleeing refugees—Tibetans, Sri Lankans, Afghans, Iraqis and so many others.

There are many ‘political refugees’, most of them beneficiaries of secret operations by Indian intelligence agencies. Taslima Nasreen is not the first Bangladeshi writer in India. There are many others from South Asian countries, not necessarily writers, who while safely ensconced in India write books or carry on activities that are seen as subversive by the countries of their birth. No wonder State patronage is given to people, even ordinary writers, if they are willing to bad mouth the country of their birth!

There is another problem that India has with becoming a signatory to the Refugee Convention. With illegal aliens being identified as suspects in most of the terror attacks in the world, and specially post 9/11, there has been an increased 'securitisation' of the refugee problem. This heightened paranoia has also been witnessed in South Asian countries, including India, where illegal economic migrants from the neighbouring countries, like Bangladesh, have been seen as terror suspects.

But the reason why Nasreen or anyone else facing persecution in their home country should be accorded protection is because India is morally bound to do so. India is a signatory to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and even though the UDHR is not a legally binding document, the fact is its democratic credentials demand that we respect the principle of non-refoulement and not turn back a refugee from its doorstep if turning back is life-threatening for him or her. Under Indian law, all refugees, immigrants and tourists are treated in the same legal category as "foreigners". So in the absence of any Indian law directly referring to refugees, the Registration of Foreigner's Act of 1946, the Foreigner's Act of 1946 and the Foreigner's Order of 1948 are the primary documents used to control the treatment of all foreigners on Indian soil. Thus it has often been criticized that through these Acts the Indian Government has granted to itself wide latitude in deciding which rights and freedoms in the 1951 Refugee Convention should be granted or denied to the various refugee groups residing on its soil. Both these Acts and Order actually allow the Indian Government to restrict movement inside India, to mandate medical examinations, to limit employment opportunities, and to control the opportunity to associate, as well as the ability to 'refoule' or "return" refugees. The 1951 Refugee Convention disallows any of these activities!

Though India has always asserted that its policies towards its refugees have conformed to international standards, the latter are neither supervised by the UN nor do they contain any agreed minimum standards for the treatment of refugees. The Indian government, on grounds of protecting national sovereignty, has repeatedly barred access to many of the large refugee populations residing in its interiors and allowed international assistance and monitoring to only a small number of its urban refugees.

Traditionally following the dictum of 'Vasudaiva Kutumbham' (the whole world is my family) India has essentially been a large-hearted generous host and allowed refugees from numerous other countries like Iran, Sudan, Tibet, Afghanistan, Burma, Sri Lanka etc entry across its borders onto its soil. But in the absence of any national or regional refugee law binding its measures, it has dealt with refugees on its soil with bi-lateral and most importantly, ad-hoc and politically expedient policies, through an ever-changing and unstable domestic policy. The Indian government has only recognised and provided state protection to the Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees and all other remaining groups like the Chin refugees from Burma, the Chakmas and Rohingyas from Bangladesh, Afghanis and the Sudanese receive assistance from the UNHCR office that operates on Indian soil.

However, New Delhi’s treatment and policies towards even the Tibetans and Sri Lankan refugees have also been most ad hoc and discriminatory! Tibetans have always been the most favoured group but when the Chinese Premier visited in 1999 Tibetan refugee camp leaders and activists were arrested; post the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, Sri Lankan refugees fleeing and coming to India were all scrutinized as potential terrorists and made to live in pathetic camp like conditions; East Pakistani migrants pouring into India during the 1971 war were given refugee status and allowed entry but once the independent state of Bangladesh came into being all Bangladeshis were asked to return – today they are treated with utmost hostility, as illegal migrants burdening not just the economy of the north-eastern Indian states but also allegedly altering their demographic profile.

Refugees are slowly becoming pawns in regional South-Asian geo-politics. Taslima Nasreen is one such illustration. Ironical that the same Hindu Right that have made M.F. Hussain flee India and seek refuge in London, are sympathasing with Taslima and asking that she be given political refugee status!

(Co-authored by Priyanca Mathur Velath, Centre for the Studies in Law and Governance, JNU)

2007-11-27T11:10:00.001-08:00

Letter to Meena Gupta, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests by Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)

2007-11-27T10:06:00.000-08:00

To

Mrs Meena Gupta

The Secretary

Ministry of Environment & Forests

Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex

Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003

Subject- Comments/objections on the Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007

Dear Madam,

Please find attached the comments/objections on the Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007.

It is puzzling to note that Schedule – I of Draft on Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007 has only characteristics of Hazardous Materials, no affirmative list of Hazardous Wastes any more. It is not clear as to which hazardous materials would require Prior Informed Consent and which can be freely imported and who needs to get license from Central Pollution Control Board and procedure for Grant of License.

Startled by the proposed Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007 of Ministry of Environment & Forests currently headed by the Prime Minister, environment and public health researchers and activists have termed it as a gross act done at the behest of hazardous waste traders.

Unlike what is being attempted by the Ministry, the classification into hazardous waste is based on the system for the classification and labelling of dangerous substances and preparations, which ensures the application of similar principles over their whole life cycle. It is an effort to undo whatever good has been by the Supreme Court and its committees.

The Draft Rules propose to redefine "hazardous waste" as "hazardous material", contrary to the definition provided by the Supreme Court and UN's Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was adopted. India is a party to this Convention.

The new draft rules are reversing Basel Convention obligations (allowing for example, importing of List A items like batteries, waste oil). Significantly, the Hazardous wastes case is still pending in the Supreme Court and the Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes (www.scmc.info) has moved an application seeking stay on such amendments.

In manifest contempt of court's directions, the proposed Rules entails exempting the transit countries from providing prior informed consent for all shipments of hazardous waste to India. What is baffling is that the proposal states that as long as a material contains less than 60% contamination by a hazardous constituent, then it is eco-friendly and safe for our ecology. Waste asbestos imports are banned unless they are embedded in the structure.

The proposed Rules appear to be a product of those Development fundamentalists who advocate "Economic Growth at any cost"-by poisoning and polluting human body, wildlife and environment- due to the dictates of unbridled market forces and trade.

The apex court in its landmark judgement made the position unambiguously clear. It says, "Hazardous Wastes are highly toxic in nature. The industrialization has had the effect of generation of huge quantities of hazardous wastes. These and other side effects of development gave birth to principles of sustainable development so as to sustain industrial growth. The hazardous waste required adequate and proper control and handling. Efforts are required to be made to minimise it. In developing nations, there are additional problems including that of dumping of hazardous waste on their lands by some of the nations where cost of destruction of such waste is felt very heavy. These and other allied problems gave birth to Basel Convention. The key objectives of the Basel Convention are: " to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and hazardousness; to dispose of them as close to the source of generation as possible; to reduce the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes."

The court further noted, "…the hazardous wastes situation in India is fairly grim. Hazardous wastes, found dumped in the open environment have been the cause of widespread pollution of ground water, creating drought-like situations in areas traditionally not lacking in water suppliers. Public hearings conducted by the High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes (HPC) in several cities brought forward pleas and representations of distress from affected victims and harsh complaints about lack of response from statutory authorities. The authorities appear to have ignored several warnings, reports, investigations and studies that highlighted zones of ecological degradation due to indiscriminate dumping and disposal of hazardous wastes. The High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes noted that there was a lack of policy and vision at the highest level. This has resulted in a very poor management system. This situation cannot be allowed to continue."

Indeed "the administration continued with their efforts could be seen as an act of valour and determination in the face of odds or callousness and insensitivity towards the rights of weaker people depending on the point of view." If ever "development" were turning into its antithesis it must surely be manifest in the hazardous waste trade and its victims in India.

Please find the detailed note attached for your consideration.

Regards
Gopal Krishna
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
B-1/66, Ist Floor
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
Mb: 9818089660
Web:banasbestosindia.blogspot.com

Date: 27/11/2007

Comments/objections on the Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007

2007-11-27T09:47:00.000-08:00

Courtesy: Toxic Links

To
The Secretary
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex
Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003
27th November 2007

Madam,

Subject: Comments/objections on the Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007

Please find below our comments/objections on the Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007:

Background
Supreme Court of India had given two landmark decisions in the matter relating to import of hazardous waste in India. On 5th May 1997, Supreme Court had directed that “no authorization/permission would be given by any authority for the import of hazardous waste items which have already been banned by the Central Government or by any order made by any Court or any other authority and no import would be made or permitted by any authority or any person, of any hazardous waste which is already banned under the Basel Convention or to be banned hereafter with effect from the dates specified therein”.

Upholding the May 1997 order, on October 14, 2003, the Supreme Court gave an elaborate and overarching judgment observing that:
“The ratification of Basel Convention by India shows the commitment of our country to solve the problem… The decision stated to have been taken by 65 conference parties by consensus to ban all exports of hazardous wastes from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to non-OECD countries immediately for disposal and in the beginning of the year 1998 for recycling are, therefore, required to be kept in view while considering the number of items to be banned.”

The 14th October 2003 order gave number of directions for amending the Hazardous Waste Rules 1989, Major Port Trust Act, Customs Act, Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act based on recommendations of the High Powered Committee on Hazardous Wastes. HPC had given recommendations after examining “to what extent the hazardous wastes listed in Basel Convention have been banned by the Govt. and to examine which other hazardous wastes, other than Listed in Basel Convention and Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, require banning.”

The SC Order had observed that although Basel Convention has banned import of 76 items, India had only banned 29 items under the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. It had directed the Union of India to incorporate the Basel list in the existing Rules and had actively argued for expanding the list of prohibited items for import.

Given the above background, one fails to understand the following:
1. What is the need for a completely new legislation when the 2003 amendments of the Rules were in line with Basel Convention and needed only further amendments? The Draft Rules weaken the existing rules and deviates from India’s commitment in Basel Convention.
2. Given that in last few years, even as recently as October/November 2007, the country has seen illegal import of garbage into the country, the draft rule does not address the issue of Municipal Solid Waste at all. Infact the draft rule does not include the issue of illegal import of garbage or medical wastes, which even Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2000 and Bio-medical Rules 1998 (2003 amendment) do not address.
3. Why does this Rule define disposal restrictively as “treatment, deposition of hazardous wastes on land”, while the Basel Convention defines disposal as any expression of intent to dispose, and covering operations included in Annex IV of the Convention? By defining disposal so restrictively, the Rules legitimize an entire range of operations under the garb of recycling. Disposal must be defined in line with Basel Convention definitions.
4. Given the controversy generated by shipbreaking, and the unequivocal definition by Basel Convention that contaminated ships-for-scrap are hazardous wastes under the Convention, it would have been prudent, for the specific case of India, to include a clear elucidation of assessing the hazardous nature of ships-for-scrap, and thereby prevent the import of toxic ships-for-scrap.
5. Section 7(3) of Draft Rules states that the importer of an illegal shipment shall re-export it within 30 days of date of arrival of shipment. This runs counter to the Government’s own experience where it has been demonstrated that a bulk of the illegal consignments are not detected at the time of import but many years later. This was the case with waste oil, for instance.
6. In the instance of waste oil (listed as Item 19, Schedule IV), the Ministry has purposefully, but without explaining, deviated from the Basel Convention. Rather than follow Basel’s conclusion that Waste Oils are hazardous wastes unless it can be demonstrated that they do not exhibit hazardous characteristics or are contaminated with hazardous contaminants, the Draft Rules group waste oil under a new category: “List of Hazardous Materials for Recycling, Reprocessing and Reuse.” The hazardous nature of waste oils (and all other items listed in Schedule IV) will be decided not by application of criteria, but independently by the Ministry of Environment & Forests.
7. Schedule IV also dangerously legitimizes electronic wastes in Item 18. This should be dropped.
8. Under the existing rules, hazardous wastes were banned unless it could be demonstrated to be non-hazardous. This was in line with Basel Convention. The Draft Rules permit their import unless it can be proven that they are hazardous. Besides being a dilution, it also places the responsibility of sophisticated laboratory verification on a system that neither has the capacity nor the integrity to deal with this.
9. The draft Rule has complicated the legislation by including confusing definitions and making several distinctions between hazardous waste, hazardous materials, occupier, operator of a facility, recycler, recycling.
10. The draft rules do not explain their interaction with the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 (amended 2000). If a hazardous material is not a waste, why should it not be covered under MSIHC Rules?

Specifically, we have following comments on the draft Rules:

1. The Draft Rules have incorporated a new system of control over import and export of hazardous wastes, under Rule 6. It lays down a complicated classification for differential treatment of different materials.

Clause 1
Hazardous Materials (H.M) not listed as Haz. Waste in Part A or B of Sch.III
No characteristics of Part C
Can be Imported for Reuse, Recycle and Reprocessing – by licensed users

Clause 2
H.M. Listed as waste in Part A or B of Schedule III
Exhibits characteristics listed in Part C
Import and Exports – regulated

Clause 3
H.M. listed as waste in Part B of SCh. III and not contaminated with materials listed in Part B
Exhibits characteristics listed in Part C
And safe for recycling
Free Import and export allowed

Clause 4
H.M. listed as waste in Part B of SCh. III and contaminated with materials listed in Part B
Exhibits characteristics listed in Part C
Recyclable
Import under R.12 allowed – under the principle of prior informed consent

Clause 5
H.M. listed as waste in Part B of SCh. III and contaminated with materials listed in Part B
Exhibits characteristics listed in Part C
Not recyclable
No import

The basis for such a complex classification for the purposes of import and export is not clear. A similar classification is not available in any of the following - in Basel Convention, Supreme Court orders, HPC or SCMC recommendations. Infact the Supreme Court and the HPC had directed for forming a clear list of Banned items based on the Basel list and further expanding it. Even the amendment to the 2003 Rule had a clear list of hazardous wastes and processes which were prohibited for import. But the present classification, which is very ambiguous, seems to be allowing import of all hazardous wastes under the garb of hazardous material.

Further, Section 6(1) states: “The hazardous material not listed as a hazardous waste in Part A and Part B of Schedule III, of these rules and which do not exhibit hazard characteristics specified in Part C of that Schedule shall be allowed for imports to actual [authorized] users.” Then, Part A of Schedule III contrarily states: “Lists of hazardous materials where import shall be permitted with prior informed consent in writing from the importing country.” These lists seem to be defined to confuse to a point where any shipment can be allowed.

2. The Sub-Committee on Waste and Used Oil of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee had suggested changes to the definition of wastes oil and mustard oil provided in the Hazardous Waste Rules, 1989 (As amended). Surprisingly, these draft rules have been altogether removed the definition of these two terms.

3. The Draft Rules also fail to incorporate the directions of the Supreme Court made in the case of Research Foundation for Science and Technology v Union of India.

A. Notification on Banning 76 items
The Supreme Court had recommended that the MoEF should ban the entire list of 76 items banned under the Basel Convention. Para 24 of the 14th October 2003 Order in the case stated:

“The import of 29 items has already been prohibited under Schedule - 8 of the Hazardous Waste Rules as amended in May, 2003. We see no reason why Notification under Section 11 prohibiting the import of the said 29 items shall not be issued forthwith. We direct the Central Government to issue such a Notification without any further delay.”

These directions are not incorporated in the Draft Rules.

B. Banning import of edible oil, cow dung, plastic scrap, used PVC
Para 36 of the aforesaid Order stated:
“Further, the Ministry would also examine the question of banning used edible oil, cow dung, plastic scrap used PVC in any form, pet bottles etc. which, though not covered by Basel Convention, has hazardous impact in terms of the HPC Report. According to the recommendations of HPC, these items also deserve to be banned. The Ministry shall also examine any other item which may have hazardous impact.”

However, these recommendations have not been implemented in the Draft

C. Inquiry and Action against Negligent Officials

Para 48 of the 14th October Order stated:

“Having regard to above, we direct that besides other action, when illegal import of hazardous waste takes place due to non-fulfilment of the requisite conditions required under the Rules, an enquiry should be conducted and appropriate action taken against concerned officer/officers of department responsible therein and, if necessary, a specific provision to that effect can be incorporated in Rules, wherever needed.”

In spite of such categorical direction, there is no hint of any provision empowering authorities to conduct enquiry against negligent officials in case of illegal imports not having taken place.
D. Punishment for Illegal traffic
The Apex Court had also directed legislation for preventing and punishing illegal traffic.

“Under Article 9 the HPC has recommended that in order to deter any transboundary movement of hazardous wastes or other wastes, i.e. illegal traffic, the national/domestic Legislation shall be enacted/amended appropriately to prevent and punish illegal traffic. The Government is directed to examine this aspect and file a report.

The Draft rules do not have any provision for punishing illegal traffic.

Since the draft Rule 2007 intends to replace the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 (as amended in 2000 and 2003), a comparison of the following sections between the two illustrates major flaws in the new draft Rules:

4. Liability for cleanup of contamination

Section 16 of the existing rule states:
* * * * *
Liability of the occupier, transporter and operator of a facility

(1) The occupier, transporter and operator of a facility shall be liable for damages caused to the environment resulting due to improper handling and disposal of hazardous waste listed in schedule 1, 2 and 3;

(2) The occupier and operator of a facility shall also be liable to reinstate or restore damaged or destroyed elements of the environment at his cost, failing which the occupier or the operator of a facility, as the case may be, shall be
liable to pay the entire cost of remediation or restoration and pay in advance an amount equal to the cost estimated by the State Pollution Control Board or Committee. Thereafter, the Board or Committee shall plan and cause to be executed the programme for remediation or restoration. The advance paid to State Pollution Control Board or Committee towards the cost of remediation or restoration shall be adjusted once the actual cost of remediation or restoration is finally determined and the remaining amount, if any, shall be recovered from the occupier or the operator of the facility.

(3) The occupier and operator of a facility shall be liable to pay a fine as levied by the State Pollution Control Board with the approval of the Central Pollution Control Board for any violation of the provisions under these rules.
* * * * *

This section would be replaced by section (Section 22) of the draft 2007 HW Rule:

* * * * *
Liability of the occupier, transporter, operator of a facility and importer.-

(1) The occupier, importer, transporter and operator of a facility shall be liable for all damages caused to the environment or third parties due to improper handling of hazardous materials or disposal of hazardous wastes in violation of the conditions of the respective license.

(2) The occupier and the operator of a facility shall be liable to pay financial penalties as levied for any violation of the provisions under these rules by the State Pollution Control Board under the direction issued by the Central
Pollution Control Board.
* * * * *

Missing from the draft 2007 HW rule is the important provision - Section 16(2) of the existing rule – that enables the government to cleanup toxic contamination and then recover these cleanup costs from liable parties. Without this provision, there would be a serious impediment for State Governments throughout India to cleanup toxic contamination and that this contamination would languish, causing increased human exposure to toxic contamination, rather than be dealt with expeditiously.

5. List of hazardous materials and waste – industry specific wastes and flammable materials

The draft Rules have introduced a completely new system of classifying items into two categories – hazardous waste materials and hazardous wastes

Section 3(14) of the existing rule states:

* * * * *
"(i) Hazardous Wastes means,-

(a) Waste Substances which are generated in the process indicated in column-2 of Schedule-1 and consists of wholly or partly of the waste substances referred to in column - 3 of the same schedule;

(b) Waste substances which consists wholly or partly of substances indicated in Schedule-2, unless the concentration of the substances is less than the limit indicated in the same schedule: and

(c ) Waste substances indicated in Part-A, List 'A' and 'B' of Schedule -3 applicable only to rule 12, 13 and 14 unless they do not possess any of the hazardous characteristics in Part-B of the same schedule.

* * * * *
This would be replaced by the following definition in the draft 2007 HW rule:

(k) “hazardous materials” means any material which conform to one or more criteria set forth in Schedule I or contains or contaminated with hazardous constituents listed in Schedule II exceeding the concentration limits indicated therein;

(l) “hazardous waste” means any waste which are destined for final disposal and conform to one or more criteria set forth in Schedule I or contains or contaminated with hazardous constituents listed in Schedule II exceeding the concentration limits indicated therein;

* * * * *
This distinction is intended to confuse and leaves room for illegal import. Basel Convention gives a very clear and simple definition of waste: “wastes” are materials which are disposed of, or intended to be disposed of, or required to be disposed of, to the environment”.

The proposed definitions represent a drastic narrowing of what constitutes hazardous materials and wastes for the purpose of domestic regulation in India, at least in the following two ways:

A. Industry-specific wastes

Schedule I of the existing rule sets forth 36 types of industry-specific hazardous wastes that are entirely missing from Schedules I and II of the draft 2007 HW rule. It raises the distinct possibility that these 36 types of industry-specific hazardous wastes would no longer be regulated domestically as hazardous waste in India. It seems
under the scheme of the draft 2007 HW rule, the burden would be on the government, rather than the waste generator (as it is under the existing rule), to show that these types of industry-specific wastes do not possess hazardous characteristics.

B. Flammable materials and wastes

Schedule I of the draft 2007 HW rule sets out the following definition of flammable material:

* * * * *

(ii) Flammable materials

Flammable materials with flash point 20o C or below

* * * * *

This definition, absent from the existing rule, is an extraordinarily narrow definition of flammable material. Many “flammable” solvents have flash points well above 20

C. The internationally-accepted standard is to classify a liquid as flammable if the flash point is below 37.5o C. Also, there are a large number of “combustible” liquids with flash points well above this value. For example xylene, a very commonly used chemical solvent, has a flashpoint of 25 C and has the highest assigned flammability rating under the U.S. National Fire Protection Association rating system. (See:
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Chem/solvents.htm)

Yet, under the draft 2007 HW rule a drum of xylene (or spent xylene) may not be classified at all as a hazardous material (or hazardous waste).

Given that the draft Rule 2007 will have a far reaching impact on the regulation of indigenously generated and import of hazardous wastes, there is an urgent need for the Ministry of Forests and Environment to hold country wide consultations with all concerned citizens/communities, before the Rules are finalized, although one fails to understand the rationale behind formation of a new Rule.

We would like to submit that our objections and comments mentioned above be taken on board.

Sincerely

Globalization of the toxic waste on the anvil

2007-11-27T09:45:00.000-08:00

For details:

Email: toxicswatch@gmail.com
Mobile: 9818089660

Is it impossible for a consignment of hazardous/toxic/biological/radioactive material to be transported by enemy outfits and countries to India? Environment & Commerce Ministry is out to ensure that it is made quite possible
New Delhi-27/11/2008: Amid massive criticism of the proposed of the Draft on Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007 (copy attached) from environment and public health groups, even Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has expressed its concerns about "Implications on Hazardous Materials which has been added apart from hazardous wastes". It is noteworthy that the last date of comments and criticism from the citizens is on 28 th November, 2007.

It is puzzling to note that Schedule – I of Draft on Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007 has only characteristics of Hazardous Materials, no affirmative list of Hazardous Wastes any more. It is not clear as to which hazardous materials would require Prior Informed Consent and which can be freely imported and who needs to get license from Central Pollution Control Board and procedure for Grant of License.

Startled by the proposed Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007 of Ministry of Environment & Forests currently headed by the Prime Minister, environment and public health researchers and activists have termed it as a gross act done at the behest of hazardous waste traders.

Unlike what is being attempted by the Ministry, the classification into hazardous waste is based on the system for the classification and labelling of dangerous substances and preparations, which ensures the application of similar principles over their whole life cycle. It is an effort to undo whatever good has been by the Supreme Court and its committees.

The Draft Rules (available at http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/HAZMAT_Draft.pdf) propose to redefine "hazardous waste" as "hazardous material", contrary to the definition provided by the Supreme Court and UN's Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was adopted in Basel, Switzerland on 22 March 1989 and entered into force on 5 May 1992 with its Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. India is a party to this Convention. ( http://www.basel.int/text/documents.html ) The new draft rules are reversing Basle Convention obligations (allowing for example, importing of List A items like batteries, waste oil). Significantly, the Hazardous wastes case is still pending in the Supreme Court and the Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes (www.scmc.info) has moved an application seeking stay on such amendments.

As per the notification signed by R.K.Vaish, Joint Secretary, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of Environment & Forests and dated 28 September 2007, the Ministry has announced its motive to amend the existing Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 that too has been amended from time to time imposed restrictions and prescribed procedures for management, handling and disposal of hazardous wastes as per Supreme Court's directions. The notification says, "after expiry of a period of sixty days form the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette..." (A ttached letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests and the comments/objections on the Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007 )

In manifest contempt of court's directions, the proposed Rules entails exempting the transit countries from providing prior informed consent for all shipments of hazardous waste to India. What is baffling is that the proposal states that as long as a material contains less than 60% contamination by a hazardous constituent, then it is eco-friendly and safe for our ecology. Waste asbestos imports are banned unless they are embedded in the structure. The proposed Rules are a product of those Development fundamentalists who advocate "Economic Growth at any cost"-by poisoning and polluting human body, wildlife and environment- due to the dictates of unbridled market forces and trade.

The apex court in its landmark judgement made the position unambiguously clear. It says, "Hazardous Wastes are highly toxic in nature. The industrialization has had the effect of generation of huge quantities of hazardous wastes. These and other side effects of development gave birth to principles of sustainable development so as to sustain industrial growth. The hazardous waste required adequate and proper control and handling. Efforts are required to be made to minimise it. In developing nations, there are additional problems including that of dumping of hazardous waste on their lands by some of the nations where cost of destruction of such waste is felt very heavy. These and other allied problems gave birth to Basel Convention. The key objectives of the Basel Convention are: " to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and hazardousness; to dispose of them as close to the source of generation as possible; to reduce the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes."

The court further noted, "…the hazardous wastes situation in India is fairly grim. Hazardous wastes, found dumped in the open environment have been the cause of widespread pollution of ground water, creating drought-like situations in areas traditionally not lacking in water suppliers. Public hearings conducted by the High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes (HPC) in several cities brought forward pleas and representations of distress from affected victims and harsh complaints about lack of response from statutory authorities. The authorities appear to have ignored several warnings, reports, investigations and studies that highlighted zones of ecological degradation due to indiscriminate dumping and disposal of hazardous wastes. The High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes noted that there was a lack of policy and vision at the highest level. This has resulted in a very poor management system. This situation cannot be allowed to continue."

Commerce Ministry working in tandem with Environment Ministry

In the meanwhile, the Ministry of Commerce has abandoned its decision to have a registration scheme for overseas suppliers of scrap as applicable in China. Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had announced a plan in March 2006 to introduce a registration system covering imports of unshredded ferrous and non-ferrous scrap. This was proposed in the wake of explosions and loss of life linked to the presence of munitions in consignments arriving at Indian ports. As per para 2.17 of the EXIM Policy 2002-2007, import of second hand goods is restricted and can be imported only with the permission of DGFT. Once Hazardous waste gets classified as hazardous material. It would fall in the category of second hand materials. In this way almost every conceivable toxic waste will reincarnate itself as a reusable or recyclable product.

It is noteworthy that US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and Indian scarp steel industry had sought scrapping or dilution of the proposed scheme, following which DGFT caved in to their pressure and has suggested self-regulation to the industry.
This is complete contrast to the revised EU Waste Shipment Regulations that has been introduced in July, 2007. This amounts to abandoning the Prior Informed Consent procedure that is in keeping with the proposed Draft on Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007.

The proposed Rules that will have all citizens believe that hazardous waste and hazardous material is one and the same thing. The new Rules are sought to be enacted by amending existing Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 1989 and Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Amendment Rules 2003.

Dire need for potent citizens voices

In effect, the proposed Rules tantamount to formal announcement of globalization of the toxic waste and chemical waste crisis . The co-opted silence and self-serving lip-service of a section of environmental outfits who swear by environmental justice is starkly evident. It creates a unique moment for all the environment, public health, human rights and civil rights institutions, academicians, activists, NGOs and trade unions to join hands in opposition to toxic trade in toxic wastes, toxic products and toxic technologies, that are sought to be exported from rich countries to India and to resist a similar trend within the country as well.

There is no alternative to corporate accountability; waste management through clean production and reduction in the use of toxics chemicals through life cycle assessment, precautionary principle, eco-design, extended producers' responsibility and polluter pays principle but the same is sought to be undermined by the proposed Rules .

.

For details: toxicswatch@gmail.com, Mb: 9818089660

Impact of floods in Nellore on the Handloom Sector, October 2007

2007-11-27T02:52:00.000-08:00

According to Mr D. Narasimha Reddy, who along with others have documented the 'Impact of floods in Nellore on the handloom sector' it is important to disseminate their report so that the handloom sector is included in National Disaster Mitigation Plans. "We hope all of you would help in various ways, to enable that to happen. Mr.Marri Shashidhar Reddy, Member, National Disaster Management Authority, promised to work on this, if a detailed national report can be
developed."

Scroll down for the full report.

For more information contact D Narasimha Reddy at:

201, Aarthi Residency, Laxminagar Colony,
Saidabad, Hyderabad 500 659 (AP), India
Ph. 0091-40-24077804
E-mail:
nreddy.donthi@gmail.com
narasimha_donthi@yahoo.com

Nellore: Flood Impact on Handloom Weavers

From the third week of October, 2007, it has been raining everyday in Nellore district. As a result, water has inundated all low lying areas, submerging crops and living places. On 29th October, water flow increased causing floods. Elderly persons do not recall having witnessed such rains and floods of this magnitude. Madira Subbaramaiah and Pamujula Subba Rao, Narayanareddypeta village, said they have not seen such a situation in the last 25 years. Though there were floods in 1991 and 2005, present floods surpass them in terms of volumes and damage.

This low pressure and its aftermath have increased stress on the handloom weavers, who were already caught in problems of low wages, diminishing livelihood options and poverty. Their average income, despite contributions from all family members, is not exceeding Rs.2,500 per month. With growing costs of living, most families have resorted to loans, and now everyone is in debts. At this juncture, nature has also increased its pressure. Continuous rains for the past fifteen days has deprived them of opportunity to work, leading to loss of even those meager income. This also has lead to situation of starvation among family members, as defined by the structure of the family. Often male members getting priority over women and girls, in terms of access to food as is the wont of patriarchal families.

This highlights the problem of lack of infrastructure for handloom production. Without proper sheds and cover, handloom production can happen only in dry days. During rains and wet circumstances, handloom production would have to wait. Government programmes and schemes have miserably failed in responding to such disruption of production. With predictions of climate change by scientists becoming gradually true, more wet days would mean more number of days of loss of income and starvation for handloom weaver families. Even though handloom production is relatively climate friendly, it is bearing the brunt of climate change.

CHIP has carried out diagnostic study of villages affected by rains, floods, inundation and wet conditions. So far, we could gather information on 40 villages. This includes the following:

Venkatagiri: This is a major handloom town famous for “Venkatagiri” silk sarees. Several colonies in this town were affected such as Ranipeta, Bangarupeta, NTR Colony, Rettapalli colony, Molalpeta, Salipeta, Sali colony, Kampalem and BC colony. In this town, estimatedly 2,500 handlooms were affected.

Villages Affected looms (estimation)
Narayanareddypeta 600
Kovur 150
Paturu 100
Minagallu 40
Chennur 423
Sangham 300
Mulumudi 175
Podalakuru 140
Chillakuru 100
Sullurpeta 200
Marlagunta 100
Thatiparthi 100
itioManubolu 280
Vinjamuru 500
A. N. peta 70
Gummalla dibba 100
Alaganipadu 75
Pudiparthi 30
South Mopuru 150

In Buchireddy palem area, 250 handlooms were affected, belonging to Vaddipalem, Beldaripalem, Suhasininagar, Chamundeshwari veedhi, Kashipalem and Jeenigalaveedhi.

Areas, where water has been found in pit looms on 5th November, 2007:

Thatiparthi, Chennur, Vaddipalem, Buchireddypalem, Nedurumalli (not a complete list)

What does affected mean?

Most often, handlooms in this area are in pits. These pits gather water, either from the surface (if it is a low-lying area) or oozes from the ground. In some places, water levels are very high and in some places it is low. In a few places one could see tortoises in the pits, which probably were washed by the floods. As a result, the pit, usually a mudpit with rudimentary cement lining crumbles, in places or completely. Handloom being made of wood, old enough, would also get ‘weakened’. In some places, there has been a collapse of pit and the loom along with it. Further, the handloom if in operation would have connection with yarn and operational part of woven fabric. This was damaged also.

Most of the dwellings, where handlooms are established, are poorly constructed and/or badly maintained huts, or mud walls, or mudwalls with modicum of some lining. Rooftops are usually in a poor condition. Any damage to the roof, sidewalls or the whole structure would also lead to damage of equipment, material, and loss of income. Most weavers live and work under the same roof, which usually are small places. They would become tiny depending on the number of members in the family, and their income levels. Many houses would like places that can crumble anytime. These structures would be able to withstand only neutral, compared to extreme, weather conditions, winds, rains or sunshine. A tree, or number of trees in the vicinity, would be helpful.

Pre-loom activities in handloom production are done in the open, in streets, in the shadows of houses, under awnings (usually thatched), or trees. Most of these places are also not lined with any flooring. Under the open sky, above the soil, most of the important pre-loom yarn processing is done. Rains, winds or hot sun would not help. Work has to be postponed, until the weather remains to normal or tolerable levels. With continuous rains, even these tasks had to be ‘closed’ for days. Without supply of processed yarn, weaving on handlooms is also closed, even if the loom is not affected by rains or inundation.

Bad roads, or no roads, has affected all kinds of transport to villages.

Thus, the impact of simple or severe rains would be severe and differential on the handloom weavers. These impacts would make them more vulnerable, pauperise them and leave them to the mercy of philanthropy, voluntarism and apathy. A proud handloom weaver would be reduced to destituteness. This has happened before, and is happening in Nellore.

Loss:

Handloom and other equipments
Yarn and other material (finished and semi-finished)
Dwellings and working places
Working days (6,00,870) and hours
Stored food material and eatables
Sleep and ‘life-as-usual’

Number of people who lost work:
Handloom weavers 6,686 (based on number of looms)
Ancillary workers 13,388
Total 20,058

Number of person-days lost:
Upto 6/11/07 15 days x 20,058 3,00,870
Further 15 days x 20,058 3,00,870
Total 6,00,870

Impacted looms:
Plain handlooms 334
Dobby and chain handlooms 5,015
Jacquard looms 1,337
Total 6,686

Loss Plain loom Dobby and chain loom Jacquard loom
Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial
Damage to loom 3,000 1,000 5,000 1,500 10,000 6,000
Damage to warp (on the loom) 1,500 800 2,500 1,300 10,000 4,500
Wages (for 30 days) 2,200 2,200 3,000 3,000 4,500 4,500
Total (in Rs.) 6,700 4,000 10,500 5,800 24,500 15,000
No. of looms 33 301 501 4514 134 1203
Grand total (in Rs.) 2,21,100 12,04,000 52,60,500 2,61,81,200 32,83,000 1,80,45,000

Thus, the total physical damage is estimated at Rs.5,41,94,700 (or, Rs.5.4 crores). This is a conservative estimate. This does not include damage to living and working spaces, and other socio-economic losses.

Emerging needs

Detailed study of loss and needs
Provision of Food and relevant accessories
Pumping out water from villages
Epidemic/disease prevention measures
Working capital to restart production
Provision of new looms
Construction of worksheds/common processing facilities
Construction of roads
Construction of houses, walls, etc.
Basic toilet facilities in some inundated villages and living areas
Responding to water and sanitation needs, especially of women

Present situation

Rains are still coming down in some places. There is water everywhere in pits, and all low lying areas. Villages and living places are surrounded by water. There is no food, because the stored food is washed away. Cooking space and coking accessories are also required. Many villages can be accessed only by tractor – approaches are full of water.

What is the government doing?

1. Department of Handlooms and Textiles has undertaken a survey of damage.
2. Relief, in terms of food, has not been provided
3. No health and sanitation measures are being taken up.
4. People have not been shifted to shelters, other than their homes

Taslima Nasreen Is Not On The Run

2007-11-25T08:50:00.000-08:00

“Kolkata has seen three curfews. One was called in my name.” This is what Taslima Nasreen reportedly told her friends in a jocular manner when she heard the news of the imposition curfew from 10 pm to 6 am in the wake of arson and heavy stone pelting in some Eastern parts of Kolkata city on Wednesday.

On Wednesday and Thursday I kept calling her on phone numbers provided to me by her friends. Her phone would be ringing when she was not busy talking. But she wouldn’t respond. She only spoke to journalists from a particular media group. In fact, a senior leader of the BJP spoke to her directly with the help of a Delhi-based journalist of this media group. This particular journalist is also known to readily and proudly plug a senior BJP leader’s brief.

‘Access Journalism’—a unique variety of journalism perfected in India has ensured that politicians nurture journalists across newspapers, magazines and TV news channels. They sometimes pass on privileged information. This enables a journalist to deliver one-sided ‘exclusive’ news stories, but more often than not they pass on ‘plugs’ (not the one you use at home for electric appliances), which is planted information in the guise of news.

Having set the context, let’s get back to the point. Here’s a recap: A senior BJP leader spoke directly to Taslima facilitated by a Delhi-based journalist of a Kolkata-based media group. He offered to host her either in Rajasthan or Gujarat (both mind you BJP ruled states).

Now here’s the sequence of events that fooled the media into believing that “Taslima Nasreen is on the run.”

Nasreen calls up Sundeep Bhutoria—a businessman who also calls himself a social activist.

Bhutoria arranges her travel and stay in Jaipur. Simultaneously, he also informs a senior CPI (M) politician who holds an important constitutional post in the West Bengal legislative assembly. Bhutoria is very close to this politician. Businessmen have close links with politicians. We all know that. But in West Bengal these kinds of relationship is unique. Most businessmen, irrespective of their ideology, have close ties with the CPI (M). Take the classic case of RP Goenka. He is allegedly close to the CPI (M) in West Bengal, but is a BJP Rajya Sabha MP from Rajasthan. Anyway, lets for a while forget the bastardized power broking that is popularly known as politics in India.

Apologies for digressing!!! Lets get back again to Taslima Nasreen NOT being on the run. Bhutoria informs this senior CPI (M) politician who is also a constitutional functionary in the West Bengal legislative assembly that Nasreen wants to leave for Jaipur. He in turn informs the State Government. The West Bengal police are informed. By then the Writer’s Building is buzzing.
The media begins speculating and believes that the West Bengal government has asked her to go. Bhutoria has himself admitted that the State Government had nothing to do with her journey to Jaipur. She did it voluntarily. She did it out of a political motive. And it will be evident in the next few days. Will she take on the Muslim Right by aligning herself with the Hindu Right? Well, well…

Contrary to all stories appearing in the media, Taslima Nasreen is neither on the run, nor is she traumatized. Yes, she is worried about her safety as any ordinary writer catapulted to fame by being unnecessarily provocative would be. It’s not as if she is not aware that she is facing the ire of a section of the Muslim community in Kolkata and elsewhere. She is worried because she has had to finally use her anti-Muslim card to justify the need for her to stay in India.

We need to keep going back to the successful Hindu right wing propaganda that ‘Taslima is on the run’. It serves the interests of both the CPI (M) in West Bengal for the moment, and in the long run it serves the interests of the Hindu right-wingers. Her visa expires on February 17th, 2008. Just stand by and the watch the politicization of Taslima’s asylum in India.

Most importantly Taslima never said she will not return to Kolkata. So how come the media is saying she is on the run? Of course, she will return to Kolkata. The West Bengal government has not said that they will not allow her to set foot in Kolkata. The West Bengal Home Secretary has assured her through an official statement that she can return to Kolkata and implied in it is the fact that the state government will ensure her security.

So what is this farce all about her being on the run?

If indeed the Rajasthan government wanted her out of Jaipur, why is she staying in Rajasthan Bhawan in Delhi with the full hospitality of the state government? I mean people are not fools. Even though politicians and talk-down-to-people media believe that the consumer of news and views has no mind of their own.

Taslima is not on the run. The BJP invited her to avail its hospitality either in Rajasthan or Gujarat. She chose Rajasthan because she has visited the state on many different occasions. And on quite a few of them she has been accompanied by Sundeep Bhutoria. A fact admitted by him in media interviews. He admits to knowing her socially. So cordial is the relationship that both of them together watched the violence that happened in her name in Kolkata on the same Wednesday evening at her Rawdon Street residence. Bhutoria arranged her ticket and stay. No businessman or even a social activist does anything for free!!! By pitch-forking himself into the centre he did what every wannabe power-broker dreams of doing. To garner the maximum goodwill out of both ends, a goodwill credit, to be encashed at a later date. He made the CPI (M) happy, especially the CPI(M) politician to whom he owes his rise. And by enabling Taslima to accept BJP’s invitation to host her at their expense, Bhutoria has charmed his way into the BJP circles not only in his home state, but also in Delhi. Why should this be surprising? What is surprising, though, is the media’s blindspot!!! The fact that Taslima Nasreen is staying at the Rajasthan Bhawan as the state guest of Rajasthan raises another question—who is paying for it? The BJP or Vasundhara Raje’s BJP government?

Meanwhile, for those who might be interested in Bhutoria’s link with the CPI (M)…here is some grist for gossip: Hashim Abdul Halim, speaker of West Bengal legislative assembly, has been associated with World Federation of United Nations Association. He was WFUNA president and also it’s Honorary President. Sundeep Bhutoria has often represented India on behalf of the United Nations Associations.

So?

Is Taslima really on the run?

Aldeia de Goa--Documents

2007-11-12T11:45:00.000-08:00

Real Estate Sharks Gobbling Up Goa

2007-11-12T11:27:00.000-08:00

In December 2006, a people's movement in Goa, ensured that the lovely rolling hills of Goa could not be preyed upon by real estate sharks. The case in point Aldeia de Goa, a hugely expensive sheltered cocoon for the rich and famous. This is a project backed by a Union Cabinet Minister and apparently filmstars, media tycoons, corporate honchos and such similar power elites from India's booming metropolises have booked their dream houses in the real estate project. There were grave allegations of the project not only violating CRZ norms, but also of shaving off robust hills full of thick forests. But now nearly a year later the state government has regularised the illegality and has even withdrawn the police complaint filed by the Town and Country Planning of the State Government. No reasons have yet been provided. It would be interesting to note that all files of this project are still missing.

The Goa Bachao Abhiyan is agitated with these recent developments, and
has decided to take a team to the Town and Country Planning Dept. on
Monday Noon, followed by meeting with the Chief Minister.

With IFFI (International Film Festival ) starting in Goa on 23 Nov - 3
Dec, the entire prime time might of TV news channels might come to Goa. This is a right time for TV news channels to do some sensible journalism.

Goa is just a dot on the world map, and the real estate lobbying for
the metro dwellers might just erase this paradise from its peace and
serenity.

Journalists wanting to do impactful journalism should contact Navendu Shirali
Mobile-9342593393