In this issue:-
VOLUME 1 ISSUE 8
Telangana and its distant cousin in Bodoland Baby food giants Nestle and other violate IMS Act
1st September 2013
Exclusive interview with Dr. P. K. Sundaram of the Coa-
lition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace
RTI AMENDMENT: SIGNIFICANCE OF A STANDING COMMITTEE Meghna Majumdar
MOI e-BULLETIN
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE’S MOVEMENTS
T
he latest attempt of the government to amend the Right to Information (RTI) Act and effectively remove all political parties from its purview by definition is a direct reaction to the Chief Information Commission (CIC)’s ruling that declared some prominent political parties to be “public entities” and instructed them to appoint information officers. The amendment was recently stalled due to pressure from civil society, as Union Minister V Narayanasamy informed the press on 24th August that he has written to Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar to refer the Bill to a standing committee. The referral, which has given space to scrutiny and discussion of the hasty amendment, is the result of sharp criticism and opposition from civil society, particularly the National Council for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and its leadersthe same who had researched, lobbied for and drafted the RTI more than a decade ago. NCPRI Co- Convenor Nikhil Dey pointed out to MoI that a Parliamentary Standing Committee is not standard procedure for all legislation- an extra step in the direction of informed deliberation, which is only taken for important Bills that are introduced in Parliament. “No standing committee was appointed to look into the SEZ (Special Economic Zone) ACT”, says Dey, “Considering that the legislation we are opposing is a mere amendment and won’t be an entire new law, the government may well have said that a standi-
committee is unnecessary. Hence, we consider this an important step”. When asked about the likelihood of the Standing Committee report being given due importance in the end, Dey said that Parliamentary standing Committees do have value, adding, “Standing Committees had been recommended in the cases of the first Right to Information (RTI) Bill, the Right to Food (RTF) Bill and the Unique Identification (UID) Bill. While a number of the recommendations of the RTI and RTF standing committees were acted upon, recommendations of the UID standing committee were not listened to. We will have to hope for the best”. Dey is of the opinion that the very appointment of a standing committee is a step in the desired direction. “This is an important process. The fact- finding carried out by a standing committee allows public participation, and ensures that public opinion is heard ”, he says, “In most cases, the fact that such a committee is bound to be a multi-party committee is an added advantage”. The NCPRI had brought out a public petition against the amendment, and were able to hand it over to the Prime Minister on 19th August, with over one lakh signatures to the cause. “We found the public response very prompt and enthusiastic”, says Dey, “We visited a large number of villages and towns in districts of many states, explaining the situation and asking for support. Once the people understood what it was about, they were more than
2
MOI:
CONTENTS RTI Amendment: Significance of a standing Committee
1
E-BULLETIN
amendment excludes political parties totally (from the purview of RTI). No one is in favour of this”.
Amendment in reaction to CIC (chief information commissioner) Nuclear Safety Bill: The bill fails to address issues of autonomy regulation and transparency.
3
JSA Writes Open Letter to PM: The Jan Swasthya Abhiyan’s holds PM accountable for the latter’s promise to provide free medicines to government hospitals and health centres .
4
Uttarakhand Disaster: Supreme Court orders probe into role of dams in the Uttarakhand floods.
6
decision in June to bring major political parties under purview of RTI It is not the first shot at amending the 2005 Act; earlier attempts on different grounds had failed in 2006 and 2012. Certain sections of the Act already allow
Editorial 1: A look at the National Food Security Bill
7
authorities
to
refuse
information on grounds of security, intelligence concerns, absence of public interest etc.
Editorial 2: Land Bill - A historic opportunity lost to address historical injustice
8
Six parties, including Congress and BJP, specified in CIC ruling due to
willing to sign. This was the first time we went beyond physical signatures to send a petition online as well. The response to that has also been very warm. A number of people have come up to me to say that they have signed the petition online”. Dey says, “The general stand of most political parties is that they don’t want their personal work and their financial information to be discussed publicly. The personal functioning may be exempt in certain cases, even in the eye of the public. But the people do not agree to the keeping of financial data of political parties away from public light, at all. The problem here is that the language of the
governmental funding and work in public interest. The PIB announcement of Cabinet approval for the amendment lists out
provisions
in
the
Representation of People Act and the Income Tax Acts that obligate parties to make certain information public.
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
3
Nuclear Safety Bill Fails to Address Issues of Regulatory Autonomy and Transparency Surabhi Agarwal
T
he Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill, 2011 was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 12th August, 2013. The bill was first introduced in parliament by the Indian government in September 2011, in the light of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. Subsequently, it was sent to the the Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment and Forests for review. It was approved by the committee early last year with minor modifications, and has now been tabled in parliament once again. The bill provides for the creation of a new organisation to replace the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) as the regulator of nuclear safety in India. It will also establish the Council of Nuclear Safety, which will include the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), to review policies on nuclear safety. Currently, the AERB has the responsibility of overseeing and enforcing safety in all nuclear operations which have not been demarcated as military. However, the AERB reports to the Atomic Energy Commission, which includes of members from the Department of Atomic Energy and the Nuclear Power Corporation. This has often raised concerns about the AERB lacking the autonomy required to carry out its duties effectively. According to nuclear scientist MV Ramana in his recently published book ‘The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India’ (Penguin India, 2012) the bill does not adequately address the issue of greater autonomy and independence in safety regulation: “Looking at the content of the bill and the context under which the NSRA has been created, it seems unlikely to create an effective separation between the nuclear authority and the nuclear establishment. Many of the key processes involved in ensuring effective regulation will continue to be controlled by the AEC. The power for crucial steps like
the appointment of members is vested with the central government. But for most purposes the authority empowered to act on behalf of the central government is the AEC. The AEC chairman is also one of the key members of the Council of Nuclear Safety that will set the policies with respect to radiation and nuclear safety that will fall under the purview of the NSRA.” The lack of transparency within the nuclear establishment has been another long standing concern for anti-nuclear and transparency activists. However, the bill appears to further compound the problem by stating in clause 20(2) that the Authority not disclose “sensitive information” or compromise the “confidentiality of commercially sensitive information of technology holders.” The term ‘sensitive information’ has been defined to include information pertaining to the physical security of nuclear material and facilities, the reprocessing of spent fuel, the enrichment of fissile material and heavy water production technologies. This provision implies an amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2005, and has been widely criticised by citizens and activists. A second amendment to the Act is sought in clause 26 of the Bill. The clause allows nuclear regulatory bodies set up by the government under clause 25 of the Bill for regulating nuclear material, facilities and activities outside the jurisdiction of the NSRA “for purposes of nation defence and security”, to not “disclose to any person the information relating to the activities falling under their jurisdiction”; thus exempting them from the RTI Act.
4
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
“Distribution of free medicines” JSA Reminds PM of His Promise Agrima Gupta
W
e are also formulating a scheme for distribution of free medicines through Government hospitals and health centres were the words of our honourable Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech, 2012. The Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (an Indian circle of the People's Health Movement), in an open letter to the Prime Minister, reminds him of this announcement which he had made exactly a year ago. JSA believes that no progress has been made in the realization of this declaration and they fear that the programme might altogether be put on hold. The distribution of free medicines is
one of the main demands that was given a light of hope with its mention by the PM in his speech. “This letter is not just a mere outcome of the PM’s commitment but a fight that the JSA has been putting up with for over a decade for People’s Right to Health. We strongly believe that health is people’s right and a responsibility of the government” says Suhas Kolkekar, Convener, Maharashtra, National Alliance of People's Movements. Apart from The JSA, a number of other organisations and individuals have endorsed this letter.
The Letter reads as follows: 13th August 2013 Open Letter To The Prime Minister Of India: Dr. Manmohan Singh Dear Prime Minister, Your announcement during last year’s Independence Day speech that free medicines would be distributed through government hospitals and health centres raised expectations in many quarters. A year since your announcement, we, representing the public health community are concerned that realisation of this declaration has made no progress. Developments over the past year suggest that the programme will be silently shelved. Following your announcement, in September 2012, the Health Minister had promised to provide Rs.1,300 crores to states for the purchase of medicines and setting up of a Central Procurement Agency for bulk procurement of drugs. Unfortunately, these promises have not been realised. Instead, the budgetary allotment for the current year on the medicines scheme was a mere sum of Rs.100 crores, though a realistic estimate would show an actual requirement of at least Rs.6,000 crores. While your announcement was widely appreciated and highlighted in the national and international media, we in the public health community had specific reasons to welcome the announcement as a promising initiative. Various surveys have reported that households in India spend significant amounts on medicines, and expenditure on medicines account for 70% of out of pocket expenses incurred by families on medical care. Expenditure on buying medicines, thus, is a major portion of private expenditure on health care. The Planning Commission estimates that out of pocket expenditure, which accounts for 70% of all health care expenditure in India, is responsible for pushing over 5 crore people below the poverty line every year. Even though India is the world’s third largest producer of medicines and exports medicines to over 200 countries, an estimated 65% of its population is
5
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
not able to access all the medicines they need. Medicine prices have shot up phenomenally in India over the past decade and this has been one of the main drivers of the multiplying cost of medical care. While millions of Indian households have limited access to medicines, several state governments have decreased fund allocation for the procurement of medicines over the last few years. Only a tenth of government spending on health is currently set aside for drug procurement, with some states spending less than five percent. A significant increase in the allocation for public procurement of medicines from current level to around 0.5% of GDP over the next few years will improve access to essential drugs in public facilities and will greatly reduce the burden on out of pocket expenditures and increase the financial protection for households. The scheme that you had announced, if implemented, would have significantly changed the healthcare scene in India. Availability of medicines will contribute to the image of public healthcare institutions and will renew interest among public in these institutions. We have experience within our own country that such a scheme can make a huge difference to health outcomes. Significant progress has been achieved in states such as Tamilnadu, Kerala, and more recently in Rajasthan, where free medicines schemes have been implemented. The experiences of these states show that medicines procured in bulk by their generic names cost 40-4000% less to that of the market rates. Reports from Rajasthan suggest that the scheme has led to considerable increase in the number of people accessing public health centres in the state. In this backdrop, as you are preparing to address the nation on yet another Independence Day, we would like to remind you of the promise you made to the people of India, exactly a year back. We urge you to redeem this promise of making available free medicines in all public facilities and take immediate steps to implement such a scheme across the country. This has a potential not only of ensuring people’s right over access to essential medicines, but also in strengthening the public healthcare system as well as in tackling poverty. Sincerely Jan Swasthya Abhiyan
On 15th August 2013, JSA also launched the campaign “We are in the queue, where are the medicines?” “JSA has still not received any concrete response to their letter” says Dr. Amit Sengupta, Convener, JSA. He adds further that the whole point of the letter was not to get a reply but to make a public statement.
“The whole point of the letter was not to get a reply but to make a public statement”
6
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
Supreme Court Orders Probe Into Role Of Dams in Uttarakhand Disaster Bilal Khan
T
he June 2013 Uttarakhand tragedy was a horrendous disaster in the history of India and world. This tragedy has demonstrated what was predicted since a long time by the experts and the studies. In Uttarakhand, local opposition to dams is a blatant reality. After the recent calamity in Uttarakhand, dams have proven to be time bombs that can burst at any moment- though while a time bomb has a set time limit, dams and their vulnerability to risks cannot be predicted by available data and studies, especially because they are dependent on erratic and changing weather patterns. One bitter lesson brought to the fore by the recent calamity in Uttarakhand is that this natural disaster could have done less harm if the human interference in the region had been minimal. The magnitude of each disaster across the regions was directly proportional to the level of human interference in the areas. The devastation was particularly higher in the areas that house hydroelectric projects (HEPs) and in places where activities related to HEPs are currently underway. For instance, areas downstream of big hydroelectric projects in the Ganga valley, such as the Vishnupryag HEP on Alaknanda, the Phata-Buyong HEP, the Singoli-Bhatwari HEP on Mandakini, and the Srinagar HEP on Alaknanda, have fared the worst. The recent judgment and order of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. vs Anuj Joshi & Ors, which was delivered on August 13th,2013 has strengthened the argument of Matu Jansangathan –an organization allied with NAPM which holds that dams had played a key role in increasing the level of disaster. The apex court in the order restricted the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) and the Government of Uttarakhand (GoU) from allowing any more envi-
ronment clearances for hydroelectric power projects in Uttarakhand. The Court also directed MoEF to appoint an expert body consisting of representatives of the State Government, WII, Central Electricity Authority, Central Water Commission and other expert bodies to study and ascertain whether the and under-construction hydropower projects and plants contributed to the June 2013 disaster in Uttarakhand. The Supreme Court further directed MoEF to examine the significant impacts on the biodiversity of Alaknanda and Bhagirath River basins. The Disaster Management Authority (DMA) has also been asked by the Court to submit a Report explaining the DMA’s Disaster Management Plan effectiveness in handling the unprecedented tragedy at Uttarakhand.
The Court concluded concerning the impact of
hydroelectric projects in
Uttarakhand on the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi
river basins
“The cumulative impact of those project components likedams, tunnels, blasting, power-house, muck disposal, mining, deforestation etc. on the ecosystem is yet to be scientifically examined’’
7
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
EDITORIAL: A look at the National Food Security Bill
A
fter years of struggle by various movement groups, the Lok Sabha has voted and passed the National Food Security Bill (NFSB) which will cover at least two- thirds of the Indian population. The Bill is not what the Right to Food Campaign- of which NAPM is a constituent group- has been struggling for, but it is still an important beginning to ensuring entitlements to the nation’s poor. These entitlements come at a cost, since they will be replacing the Universal Public Distribution System (PDS) and promoting Targeted PDS, and then will soon lead to Cash Benefit Transfer (CBT), which has been opposed by many communities and movement groups. CBT is limited to certain areas at present, but will soon see its expansion to core areas and lead to doing away with subsidies. There are many different views on this, but those on the margins need cereals, pulses and other benefits directly- not cash- since they are in no position to compete in the current market situation. The rising prices of essential items, health and education is taking these services out of the reach of the poor and pushing them to further marginalisation. NFSB is seen more as an election tool, but the way most of the parties harped back on the points which RTFC has already been raising over the years, helped vindicate our issues. The UPA may portray this as part of their social agenda but the fact remains that numerous damaging laws have been promoted in all sectors, for this one 'social' legislation. The fact that the Congress, and every other political party, wants to be seen “with the people” is indicative of electoral compulsions. We know that it is committed to the reforms agenda in reality, and in the longer run will harm the interests of the people. Even then, the National Food Security Bill is a significant step. In no way, however, does it mark the end of our struggle to ensure food security in the country- the struggle for the guarantee of an income to all farmers, against the promotion of Geneti-
cally Modified (GM) crops, and against the wanton diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural lands in the name of industrialisation and urbanisation. In the specific context of the food bill, this is where we stand today: What we got 1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Acknowledgement of hunger and malnutrition, and the question of food becomes a legal entitlement. Doubling of the coverage, from 36% to 67% in the PDS. Strengthening and expansion of the PDS, from a situation of impending dismantlement, to the fair price shop and the ration system being here to stay. Although we are disappointed that is not universal, it is the first step towards moving away from the poverty line- based divisions of APL (Above Poverty Line) and BPL (Below Poverty Line). The struggle will now move to the states for criteria in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand, where the coverage of the rural population will be over 80%. We hope that we can fight for a simple exclusion criteria-based approach for selection. The States who were buying huge quantum of APL grain like Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh will continue getting it at the current APL prices, so at least there is no loss (Schedule IV). The maternal entitlements will now be universal; we will have to fight the rules, to ensure that they do not bring in the two- child norm and other conditions. In Schedule II, the deletion of note 1, 2 and nb has at least prevented the logic for the entry of contractors, although the clauses asking for removal of commercial interest from all food schemes, and preferences to local community women’s groups and Panchayats, have not come in.
10
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
EDITORIAL: Land Bill: Historic Opportunity Lost to Address Historical Injustice Justice denied to 10 crore Displaced at the Alter of Development Since 1947
L
and Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011 was discussed and debated in late August, with many members of Parliament appreciating the fact that colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will be replaced.
NAPM welcomes the introduction of a comprehensive bill and recognition of resettlement and rehabilitation as right but is disappointed at the neglect of ground realities and legitimacy of acquisition for 'private profit' in the name of public purpose.
Members of many political Parties during the debate echoed the sentiments prevailing in the country amongst farmers and those dependent on land but those aligned with UPA advocated the agenda of inclusive growth and PPP. UPA is hiding behind the poor and this brazen push for the land acquisition for the private companies will threaten food security and livelihood of millions. The Lok Sabha passed the 'National Food Security Bill' early last week, but the new land bill will divert more agricultural land. For decades people's movements have been struggling against the forced land acquisition, without any recourse to satisfactory R&R. Today, in an atmosphere, where everything from roads, hospital to tourism, mining, electricity developed by public or
private corporations, is considered as public good, we feel that Bill will continue to betray the faith of people in development process. Since 1947, millions of hectares of land have been acquired in the name of development, displacing nearly 100 million people and leaving them to fend for themselves. The attempt to repeal the 1894 Act was initiated in the context of the killings and land conflict in Nandigram and Singur, but today the whole debate is centred only on growth and industrialisation. Political and elite class of this country is driving this hype at the cost of alienating large section of population, who have no choice but to resist and challenge forced acquisition of their land and natural resources by corporations in name of development and growth. We welcome some provisions like Social Impact Assessment and Concurrent Environmental Impact Assessment, but are concerned that historical justice has not been done.
The nation expects Parliament to tend for majority of the people, for whom this development is planned and not worry about industrial houses alone.
Even as we publish this, the amendments are being voted in the parliament but our concerns- expressed to political parties
11
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
and Parliament- remain unanswered. The proposed amendments introduced by the Ministry of Rural Development earlier this year were to further take away the rights of the people in planning process and the principle of prior informed consent.
Until then, put a moratorium on all ongoing land acquisitions in the country. We oppose all such undemocratic attempts, legislative or otherwise.
The Bill in its current form has refused to accept the key recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, something which Chairperson fails to see but, a concern shared by many other members of the Committee.
In public domain, we have the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s report (on Rural Development) on the Bill as well as the amendments introduced by the Ministry of Rural Development.
The Bill has now been renamed Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill, with a claim to better reflect Government’s Commitment towards securing a legal guarantee for the rights of project affected, and ensuring greater transparency in the land acquisition process. It is also claimed that the Bill will ensure, in concert with local institutions of selfgovernment and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed, consultative and transparent process for land acquisition.
We, the people's movements,
However, we feel that the Parliament should not pass the proposed Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill, in its current form. It needs to be debated democratically debated by all and take those in account, rather than succumb to private corporate interests and pursue undemocratic growth.
is shocking.
have taken serious cognizance of the fact that the strong position taken by the Standing Committee on certain critical issues are either diluted or rejected by the Ministry of Rural Development, which
EDITORIAL TEAM Agrima Gupta Madhuresh Kumar Meghna Majumdar Surabhi Agarwal Stephanie Samuel
MOI eBULLETIN is an NAPM initia-
National Alliance of People’s Movements
tive towards providing our friends
(NAPM) started as a process in 1992
and supporters updated news of NAPM’s and its associates activities, analytical articles, views and interviews. The newsletter runs on a fortnightly basis and is issued on the 1st and 16th each month. We encourage you to send in press releases, photographs, articles, situation updates to be featured in Footprints. Movement of India, NAPM’s English magazine, will continue as before.
amidst the Ayodhya backlash and globalization spree and took a definite shape in 1996 after a long national tour of 15 states by senior activists. It is an alliance progressive people’s organisations and movements, who while retaining their autonomous identities, are working together to bring the struggle for primacy of rights of communities over natural resources, conservation and governance, de-centralised democratic development and towards a just, sustainable and egalitarian society in the true spirit of globalism.
Please send in all press releases to nampdelhi@gmail.com. Mention ‘eBULLETIN’ in the subject line. National Alliance of People’s Movements C/O 6/6, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 014 India 91 - 11 - 2437 4535 9818 - 411 - 417 napmindia@gmail.com www.napm-india.org www.facebook.com/ napmindia www.twitter.com/napmindia
We stand against corporate globalisation, communalism and religious fundamentalism, patriarchy, casteism, untouchability and discrimination of all kinds. We believe an alliance emerging out of such a process with shared ideology and diverse strategies can give rise to a strong social, political force and a national People's movement. In its quest for a larger alliance, beyond the people’s movements, NAPM also reaches out to integrate various civil society organisations and individuals working towards similar goals.