In this issue:-
VOLUME 1 ISSUE 7
Telangana and its distant cousin in Bodoland Baby food giants Nestle and other violate IMS Act
16th August 2013
Exclusive interview with Dr. P. K. Sundaram of the Coa-
lition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace
Telangana and its distant cousin in Bodoland Richard Kamei
MOI e-BULLETIN
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE’S MOVEMENTS
T
he recent judgement of Telangana has led to a revival of demand for statehood from different parts of India. A famed politician and former CM of Uttar Pradesh opined for carving four states out of the present Uttar Pradesh. Then, there is a mention of Vidharbha as separate state from Maharashtra and there are possibilities of similar demand from other states in India. The affirmation of the creation of Telangana as separate state has spread like wildfire to the eastern part of India, to be precise, to Northeastern states where there have been ongoing movements for decades, for creation of separate states by several communities.
hood. According to sources from the government, various outfits including Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) whose prominence is in the Darjeeling hills, and the Bodoland People’s Front and the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU), are planning to come together in a joint platform to strategise their respective demands for statehood. The All Bodo Students' Union (ABSU) reiterated a week ago that creation of Bodoland is legitimate and it is only through this step that the rights and interests of the Bodos will be safeguarded, despite the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to which they objected for failing to uplift them.
The news of Telangana has reinvigorated agitations for separate statehood- prominent agitations being that of Gorkhaland and Bodoland in West Bengal and Assam respectively. There are four separate agitations for statehood in Assam led by Bodo, Karbis, Koch Rajbongshis and Dimasa people; besides the Kukis of Manipur and Nagas of Nagaland/Manipur. West Bengal and Assam have been shut down for some time now with the protestors clamping down the functioning of the states and there has been heavy deployment of armed personnel to check any untoward incidents through curfew, patrolling and flag marches.
"The demand for a separate Bodoland is the aspiration of the Bodo people, based on which our leader Upendranath Brahma had launched the movement in 1987. In the 1990s, the government created the Bodoland Autonomous Council. Then the Bodoland Territorial Council was formed under the Sixth Schedule. All these arrangements failed to fulfill the aspirations of the Bodo people and only a separate state can help realise them. A separate Bodoland is our constitutional right and our struggle will be a relentless one," said ABSU president, Pramod Boro.
The news of the creation of Telangana is being perceived as betrayal by Bodo and Gorkha leaders and the ongoing agitation is now more aggressive, putting greater pressure in asserting their demands for state-
Boro criticised the Sixth Schedule by drawing inferences from the similar agitations for statehood of the Karbis and Dimasas, hinting that had the Sixth Schedule safeguarded the tribals effectively, there wouldn’t
2
MOI:
CONTENTS zCover Story: Telangana opens Pandora’s Box: The recent judgement of Telangana has led to a revival of demand for statehood from different parts of India
1
Policy Watch: Right to Information (Amendment) Bill 2013
4
Nestle and Others Threaten Nutritional Security of Children: Baby food giants violate IMS Act
6
MOI Interviews Dr. P. K. Sundaram of Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace
7
Updates and Events
Editorial
10
11
have been a demand for statehood from them today. "The Sixth Schedule status to Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao were the oldest ones in the state. But the extent of backwardness and poor governance over the years have compelled the people of these two district to realize that the administrative arrangement under sixth schedule is not an adequate measure to help them develop in all fields," Boro said.
E-BULLETIN
The latest development in the agitation for Bodoland, as reflected by Tarun Gogoi, Chief Minister of Assam, glaringly highlights his cautious efforts at putting the onus on the centre. "Till today I have not discussed it but I am open to it, neither am I opposing it.... If the Government of India decides (to create Bodoland), I have no objection," Gogoi said. "The demands have been going on for a long time... the moment they announced (Telangana), it triggered off. The demand has been going on, it is not that this is a new one. As you know, most of the insurgency groups also have been demanding for a separate state," Gogoi added. The assurance for creation of Telangana irrespective of its merits or demerits can also be viewed as political opportunism, as the general elections are coming up in the year 2014. According to critics, the UPA has been accused of having opened the Pandora’s box with its decision to create Telangana, in view of the spurt of agitations for separate statehood and another protests opposing them. The creation of a separate state from an existing one is a debatable issue- the rationality of it is reflected in some states for example Uttarakhand. The larger question that needs to be sorted out is how such creation fuels further demands for statehood. It remains a challenge to find middle ground, and an even bigger challenge to know which side to take. The legitimacy of giving in to demands for separate state needs to be drawn from merits (after measuring the demerits) rather than political opportunism.
3
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
Yeshwanth Student, Hyderabad
“KCR is telling people that PS Ajay NAPM Convener
with the new state, those who are originally from
In its early years, NAPM had Andhra will have to leave conducted a conveners their jobs and go, and those meet in Hyderabad and jobs will be given to passed a resolution to Telangana locals. In India, extend our support to the we have the right to move cause of smaller states. and settle in any part of the This country we want. How can decision has long been KCR ask us to leave? awaited. What have the MLAs from the region been doing about Telangana’s development issues till date? Why didn't they pass bills and take steps to improve it?”
e
4
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
Policy Watch: Right to Informati
I
n June 2013, activists Subhash Agrawal and Anil Bairwal had approached the Chief Information Commission (CIC), and pointed out that since numerous political partiesapart from government offices and governmental organisations- also receive governmental funding and work for the public interest, they should be brought under the purview of the RTI. The CIC ruled six political parties, including the Congress and the BJP, to be “public entities” and gave them six weeks to appoint information officers. As RTI founder and former National Advisory Council member, Aruna Roy pointed out, the government could have legitimately challenged the ruling in court. Instead, it chose to altogether change this crucial legislationhailed as one of the major positive landmarks of its own governance-, and bring all political parties out of the purview by definition. The Union Cabinet approved a proposal to amend the RTI Act by changing the definition of the term “public authority”, in order to make political parties immune to the law. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, passed in 2005, is widely hailed as a turning point in the attempted shift of Indian administration from stonewalled bureaucracy to transparent citizen- centrism. The Act is today used by citizens across different strata of society as a tool to demand their dues, hold government offices accountable and glean out corruption. The origins of this landmark Act are famously humble. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), while working with farmers and daily wage labourers in rural Rajasthan, found it difficult to get hold of employment and payment records called “muster rolls” to prove irregularities in wages. Basic data like bills had to be lobbied for with higher levels of Government. The information that was finally obtained, was cross- checked with people on the ground at public hearings or “Jan Sunwais”, and crass inconsistencies began coming to light. Deceased people had been named on payrolls so that “wages” could be siphoned, labourers had been “paid” on record without having received a paisa in reality, and numerous incomplete projects had been
Meghna Maju marked “complete”. Jan Sunwais were conducted time and again, and started garnering media attention because of their success at calling the ad-
Aruna Roy pointed out that
legitimately challenged the
it chose to altogether chan
hailed as one of the major p governance- and bring all purview by definition. The
proposal to amend the RTI Ac
of the term “public authority
parties immun While the Act defines “public
obligation of public entities t
to the public, it also safeg
untoward scrutiny by specif The government seems to
transparent enough by law a
RTI Act to mak ministration’s bluff and ensuring fulfilment of dues. They highlighted the need for transparent, easy access to public information for the people to be able to demand their rights. This was in the early 1990s. In 1996, in the town of Bewar, the MKSS began a protest in demand for transparency and right to information in local administration. They de-
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
5
ion (Amendment) Bill 2013
umdar manded that the State Government take concrete steps to ensure that information related to development projects and expenditure is accessible to common citizens. The right to view and make copies of such data
the government could have
e ruling in court. Instead,
nge this crucial legislation-
ositive landmarks of its own political parties out of the Union Cabinet approved a
ct by changing the definition
y”, in order to make political
ne to the law. authority” and spells out the
o make information available
guards such entities from
fying numerous exemptions be of the opinion that it is
lready, and doesn’t need the
ke it more so. was finally granted in 1997, and Right to Information was made an election issue in the 1998 state elections. However, it took the MKSS and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) years of further hard work, ground research, spreading awareness among the
people and lobbying for the Rajasthan Right to Information Act to be passed in 2000. The RTI Act was passed in the Indian Parliament in May 2005. Since then, RTI has become synonymous with anti-corruption and accountability in India. The tool is being used by social workers, labourers, students and the public in general in thousands of cases every year. While the Act defines “public authority” and spells out the obligation of public entities to make information available to the public, it also safeguards such entities from untoward scrutiny by specifying numerous exemptions, which enable authorities to deny information on certain grounds. These exemptions are listed in sections 8, 11 and 24 of the Act, on grounds ranging from security and intelligence concerns to trade secrets. A number of these exemptions are also based on the “absence of public interest”, a term often repeated in this context to stress that no information is to be made public if doing so does not serve a public purpose. These safeguards, however, don’t appear to be enough for the UPA government. The PIB (Press Information Bureau) announcement regarding the Cabinet approval has spelt out the definition of public authority as given in the RTI Act, and stated that political parties “do not fall within the parameters of the definition of public authority given in the RTI Act, as they are only registered and recognised under the RP Act, 1951.” The notice also lists out a number of provisions within the RP (Representation of People) Act which call for disclosure of information, and even mentions sections of the Income Tax Act that deal with making information public. The government seems to be of the opinion that it is transparent enough by law already, and doesn’t need the RTI Act to make it more so.
6
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
Nestle and Others Violate IMS Act, Threaten Nutritional Security of Children Agrima Gupta
A
s per a press release on July 31st by the Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI) / International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN Asia), baby food giants like Heinz, Nestle and Abbott have been blatantly violating the IMS Act [The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 as Amended in 2003]. The IMS Act, bans all kinds of promotion for 0-2 years of age of baby foods and feeding bottles, including advertisements, inducements on sales, pecuniary benefits to doctors or their associations including sponsorship, commission to salesmen, and prescribes certain labeling requirements. But the baby food giants have been allegedly violating the Act. For example, Heinz advertises its cereal food “Oat and Apple” at ‘4+ months’ through the label on the container and various websites. It also offers free ‘gifts’, ‘discounts’ and loyalty schemes to mothers for using the website, which is banned under the law. Nestle uses health claims to promote its baby foods “Nan 1” and “Lactogen 1’ through various websites and has tied sales of its “Cerelac Stage 2 Wheat Orange” with baby detergents. The “Nestle Nutrition Institute” continues to organize doctors’ meetings despite objections from the Government of India. Also, several bottle manufacturers such as Pigeon, Farlin, Winnie-the-Pooh, Morrison, Baby Dreams and Mee Mee Feeding Bottles have been selling bottles and cereal foods on discount on e-marketing websites. According to WHO (SEARO) Regional Advisor of Nutrition Dr Kunal Bagchi “Introducing cereal foods to a child before 6 months of age displaces mother’s milk and can lead to serious health risks including diarrhea. Babies should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months”. Dr. Uday Bodhankar, pediatrician and International President Commonwealth Association for Health & Disability says, “There is no
doubt that multinational companies are trying their best to enter the huge Indian market by hook or crook. The media’s role is vital in sensitizing people about the importance of the IMS Act which is for the benefit of the people and for the better survival of the baby and the mother. Involvement of medical NGOs like NNF (The National Neonatology Forum), IAP (Indian Academy of Pediatrics), BPNI, IMA (Indian Medical Association) in the monitoring of the Act and its implementation in the most effective manner is essential. Lastly our government will need to expedite this important matter on top priority. It should be in the political manifesto of each ruling /opposition parties.” Gynaecologist, Dr. Mukherjee says that in certain rare cases where the mother’s body is infected or the child cannot be breast fed for any reason, it becomes essential to give the child other milk supplements. But that should only be done once prescribed by a practicing doctor. He also added laughingly that kids are extremely cunning because if they get the taste of outside milk or any other milk supplement, they would refuse to take breast milk anymore, since it is less sweet. A new study says that the longer a mother breast-feeds, the greater the benefit to the child’s brain development. “One of the theories as to why breast-fed children tend to have better cognitive development is there are nutrients in breast milk that benefit the baby’s developing brain,” said Dr. Mandy Brown Belfort, a neonatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. BNPI demands, since violating any provision under IMS Act is a cognizable offence the Government of India should appoint a District and State level officer to monitor, investigate and launch a prosecution against the violator whether it’s an individual or corporation.
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
7
MOI Interviews Dr. P. K. Sundaram of Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Surabhi Agarwal
T
he People’s National Convention Against Nuclear Energy was organised in Ahmedabad from 25th to 26th July, 2013 by the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP). At the convention representatives of anti-nuclear movements from across the country including those in Jaitapur, Kudankulam, Chukta, Gorakhpur, Mithi Virdi, Karkrapar and other sites of existing and proposed nuclear facilities came together to share their vision for a safer and more sustainable energy future, and to draw out a plan for collective action. CNDP is an alliance of over 200 organisations, including grassroots groups, mass movements and advocacy organisations. The coalition came into being as a response to the nuclear tests of 1998 in Pokharan, which led to the realisation of the need to strengthen resistance to nuclear activity in India in the face of the dangerous ambitions of India's nuclear establishment. The CNDP works towards preventing any further nuclear testing, opposes the induction or deployment of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan, and calls for global and regional nuclear disarmament. It is also strongly opposed to India's nuclear energy programme, due to the inherent safety and health hazards associated with the production of nuclear power, and the monumental financial and social costs of building and operating nuclear reactors. The organisation believes that the thick veil of secrecy and unaccountability which shrouds nuclear activity in India, and the mindless urgency and ruthlessness with which it is being thrust on the Indian people indicate that the programme is far from being the peaceful path to growth and development which it is often touted to be. The convention in Ahmedabad was a culmination of the conversations which have been taking place within the Indian anti-nuclear movement in recent years, and led to the adoption of the People's Charter on Nuclear Energy, a consolidation of the ideas which
have emerged from these discussions. The charter urges the government to stop turning a blind-eye to the shortcomings of India's nuclear energy programme, acknowledge that there are serious concerns regarding the hazards of nuclear power, and allow open and democratic debate on nuclear energy and its alternatives. It calls for a moratorium on all proposed nuclear reactor projects in India, and expresses the need to constitute a citizens’ commission to examine the appropriateness, desirability, safety, environmental soundness, costs and long-term problems posed by nuclear power generation. Calling the existing process of environmental impact assessment for nuclear projects unacceptable, the charter advocates the conduct of mandatory public hearings and full disclosure of all pertinent facts related to the project in particular and nuclear energy in general to the local population, without whose approval the project should not be given clearance. Other demands include bringing in stronger legislation to replace the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and amendments to the Nuclear (Civil Liability) Act, 2010 which will maximise the transparency of functioning and public accountability of the nuclear programme and ensure absolute liability of suppliers; and the immediate and unconditional withdrawal all charges of sedition and other false allegations against people protesting against nuclear projects. The charter states, “it is imperative to prepare a comprehensive alternative energy policy based on principles of equity, environmental sustainability and affordability, and on conventional and nonconventional energy resources…The nuclear energy fuel cycle is too important a matter to be left only in the hands of scientists, bureaucrats, industrialists and politicians.” MoI met with Dr. P. K. Sundaram, a research consultant with the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, and one of the main organisers of the conference to know
10
more about the current state of India's nuclear energy programme: Q: The people's charter talks about the hyperbole that surrounds India's nuclear energy programme inspite of its many failures. Why does the nuclear establishment refuse to learn from its mistakes? A: To understand this, one needs to look closely at the Indo-US nuclear deal of 2005, in which India promised to import reactors, uranium and other materials and technologies required for nuclear energy production from the US and other countries. As a result of this, the nuclear programme has become more about fulfilling the promises we have made to the West than any of the stated reasons of concern for development or the environment. This is why the establishment displayed such utter disregard for an incident like the meltdown in Fukushima, and refused to even acknowledge its severity, let alone learn from it. This is also why India is so keen to start using foreign technology, even when it is contentious and untested elsewhere. For example, a reactor built by the French company Areva, which has never been properly tested, and whose construction was recently stalled by a court order in Finland due to spiralling costs and construction delays, is being pushed through for construction in Jaitapur. Another reason for the tremendous support our nuclear programme receives from the establishment is that nuclear energy perfectly suits the bill when it comes to India's current growth model, which is highly energy and capital intensive, and based on tight centralized control. Also, there are political motivations to keep the programme going across India's political spectrum. If a party like the BJP comes to power, they focus more of the nuclear weapons programme in the name of national security, and if the Congress comes to power, they will emphasize the need to generate electricity for faster development etc., but there is a fine line dividing research and development for nuclear weapons and that for nuclear energy, and supporting one inevitably means supporting the other. So the programme continues to receive massive financial and political back-
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
ing. Q: What do you think were the incentives for both India and the USA for entering into the Indo-US nuclear deal? A: The Indo-US nuclear deal was basically a bargain for India which lifted the restrictions on nuclear imports which had been imposed on it after its deceitful nuclear tests in 1974, which were further tightened after the second round of tests in 1998. Even though technically India is still a nuclear pariah - as it has not signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and is not counted among the five nuclear powers of the world the deal has legitimised its nuclear weapons and allowed it to further expand its nuclear programme. The interesting part is that the deal, with its emphasis on large-scale imports of materials and technologies, actually came as quite a surprise to scientists and bureaucrats in the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), who had been for so long conditioned to prioritise self-reliance and indigenous technology in the face of the restrictions. They suddenly found themselves being asked to justify why India needed these imports, when they had earlier harped about their ability to develop nuclear technology independently. This led to arguments being peddled of India's dire need for energy to allow its development and growth to continue unabated, and a rush to identify and acquire sites for building new nuclear facilities. So in some ways, the sane way of expanding the programme - which would have involved analysing its current status, determining requirements and arriving at conclusions about what steps to take to meet them - was turned on its head. We found ourselves having agreed to import all this material and technology and were required to find ways to utilise it and justify its usefulness. This has inevitably lead to a great deal of dishonesty and disingenuity, and to the bulldozing of dissent and democracy. Q: The structure of the nuclear establishment in India is said to be undemocratic, making it unaccountable and its activities shrouded in secrecy. How would you like to see it restructured?
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
A: To make the nuclear energy programme in India more democratic it is important that the provisions of the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill, 2011, which is currently under consideration in parliament, be publicly debated, leading to suitable amendments. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, which is the current nuclear safety regulator is highly subservient to the DAE, as it depends on it for funding and expertise. The bill proposes to replace the AERB with the NRSA, but does not sufficiently address issues of independence. According to the bill, the authority will be headed by nuclear experts who have worked within the establishment. This will obviously compromise its objectivity. It should instead be headed by a body of independent experts from the fields of health, rural development, disaster management etc. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 also requires urgent amendments. The whole nuclear sector should come under the ambit of the Right to Information Act. Operation and safety reports of all nuclear facilities should be made public every year. There should be mechanisms to monitor radiation levels at these facilities, with the data being made available to the public. The health of communities living around and working inside the plant also should be monitored. There is a dire need to curtail the huge amounts of direct and indirect subsidies provided to the sector by the government. For example, uranium mined by the Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL) is sold at ridiculously low rates to the NPCIL. This leads to false accounting and allows nuclear agencies to present a highly misleading picture of the costs associated with nuclear energy. These subsidies are also one of the reasons foreign companies are so interested in being part of the Indian nuclear programme. In countries like the US where the sector is completely privatised, nuclear energy has been found to be unviable due to the high costs associated with it. In India, a large portion of these costs is borne by the taxpayer. In addition, the companies get a free-run when it comes to liability in case of accidents, thanks to the Nuclear Liability Act. In the context of recent events, I would also
11
like to see the appointment of a committee of independent experts by the government to review the reasons and consequences for the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima. So far the establishment has completely refused to acknowledge the seriousness of what is happening there. In fact, some committees were appointed soon after the accident, and they came out with reports which were rather general in nature and which made some non -specific recommendations for India's nuclear programme. But even these have been not been followed. As there have been many new developments since then, there is a need for a fresh comprehensive review of the situation and what it means for India's nuclear sector. Q: What is the current status of India's anti-nuclear movements? What kind of a role do you see them playing in the future? A: Despite the recent Supreme Court verdict on Kudankulam, which was a setback for anti-nuclear movements everywhere, the protests will inevitably continue because the questions and concerns they raise have not been addressed. For most of the people protesting, this is not a question of the statistics of reactors built, money spent or electricity produced; for them it is a question of their lives and livelihoods, and they will not back out so easily. In Jaitapur for example, where land has been acquired but construction of the nuclear plant is yet to begin, about 2400 farmers are being displaced. From these, over 2000 have refused compensation and are asking to be given back their land. Yet the government continues to turn a blindeye. This says something of the state of Indian democracy. And ironically, the Indo-US nuclear deal was touted as a historic agreement between two of the world's biggest democracies. Recently, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ordered the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to share basic safety-related reports of its nuclear facilities with local people. The NPCIL declined and took the matter to court, citing all kinds of spurious reasons why the reports could not be made public. Meanwhile developments at existing nuclear sites like Fukushima continue to reaffirm the safety and
10
health hazards associated with nuclear energy. Just yesterday, there were reports that the containment walls at the Fukushima plant have collapsed and it is leaking hundreds of tonnes of radioactive water into the Pacific every day. So, the movements will continue until these issues of accountability, of livelihoods and of post-Fukushima concerns are adequately addressed. I think that the movement could gather more strength if they were to collaborate with other movements fighting similar battles against the injustices of our current development model; for example the anti-coal and anti-mining movements. The anti-nuclear movement has faced unprecedented levels of repression. The government has launched a massive crackdown, sending thousands of people to jail on spurious charges of sedition, even more than in Kashmir or the Maoist movement. Inspite of this, very few people from the human rights community have spoken out against these atrocities. So there is a need to garner more support from the wider community of activists and connect with the larger democratic struggle which is taking place in the country. Q: What do you think are the alternatives to fossil-fuel based energy? A: What is frustrating is how narrow the
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
spectrum of debate on this issue is in our media. We are presented with a binary between nuclear energy and coal-based energy; if you don't support one, you are assumed to support the other. India is still a largely rural, agrarian country, so the need of the hour is a decentralised model, which concentrates on meeting local energy needs through local, renewable resources. These models could be customised according to resource availability, and could be hybrids of solar, wind and biomass energy production systems. Along with this, it is important to reduce transmission and distribution losses which currently account for over 30% of the energy produced. In contrast to this, nuclear energy currently makes up less than 3% of the total energy produced, and even if the superlative projections of the DAE were to come true, it would not give us more than 7% for many years to come. So, a good strategy would be to take all the money currently being pumped into nuclear research and development, and use it to develop a more efficient electricity transmission and distribution system. Our centralised grid system is highly archaic and based on a western model which has long been rejected in the countries which inspired it. We don't need to be producing electricity in Uttrakhand, sending it to the central grid in Delhi, only to be transmitted to consumers in Bihar. We need a smarter, more flexible and decentralised grid system.
UPDATES Bhartiya Kisan Union, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti and NAPM brief press on Land Bill 13th Aug, New Delhi: The National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), along with leaders of Bhartiya Kisan Union and Kisan Sangharsh Samiti briefed the press at the Women’s Press Club in New Delhi about the shortcomings of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill that was scheduled to be introduced into the Lok Sabha that very day. The conference was addressed by Medha Patkar of NAPM, Yudhvir Singh of Bhartiya Kisan Union, Dr. Sunilam and Rupesh Verma of Kisan Sangharsh Samiti.
Protest at Jantar Mantar against BRAI Bill 8th Aug, New Delhi: Members of NAPM participated in large scale demonstrations held at Jantar Mantar with agitators protesting against the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2013 and demanding that transnational corporation Monsanto leave India. Farmers, members of farmers’ organisations and representatives of organisations such as Greenpeace India, Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), and Coalition for a GM Free India came together at the venue from around 20 states across the country. Though the protesters were not able to meet the Prime Minister, they met Minister of State V Narayansamy and presented him with an Indian flag made of
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
non- GM cotton, requesting that it be unfurled at the Red Fort on Independence Day.
EVENTS Meet at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, to demand universal pension on August 22 During the budget session on March 6, 2013, over 15000 elderly persons from 26 states assembled at Parliament Street to demand some assurance from the government. Minister for Rural Development, Jairam Ramesh responded to Comrade Raja's and Shri Hussain Dalwai's questions in parliament and assured the house that he would come back to parliament in five weeks with a restructured National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) that includes pensions for the elderly, the differently abled and single women. The ripples from Delhi reached Rajasthan where the Government issued a set of GRs on April 1, which made pensions near universal. The Rajasthan government commenced an enrolment campaign and many hundreds of thousands of the elderly have already started getting pension. So we meet at Jantar Mantar on 22nd August for a day, to remind the Minister of his promise to restructure NSAP and also to appeal to State governments for supplement. Visit to witness the Narmada Projectaffected villages from August 17 to 19 In response to numerous persons expressing interest to witness the plight of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and ISP-OSP Canal affected villagers and review the situation for themselves, the NAPM has organised a three-day visit to a few affected villages in the valley.
11
The visit will enable visitors to see submergence affected villages in the hills and plains, canal affected villages, illegal sand mining spots and Narmada Jeevanshalas (Life schools), among other things. The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) team will be at Indore on the 17 morning, to guide those who arrive by the Intercity train from Delhi and the Avantika train from Mumbai. All writers, journalists and others who wish to see the situation for themselves and can extend their support to the cause, are welcome. Meeting regarding the unresolved Tamil question in Sri Lanka on August 13 NAPM Tamil Nadu has been involved with the Sri Lankan Tamil issue in various capacities and has collaborated with the Save Tamils Movement, May 17th Movement, group of Socilalists and so on. In May– June this year, at a meeting organized in Chennai, a decision was taken that during Parliament session a national meet would be organized in Delhi to highlight the issue. It is in this context that NAPM held a meeting on August 13 at Indian Social Institute, 10, Lodi Road from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm. The meet included screenings, discussions and talks by Medha Patkar, Satya Sivaram, Justice Ravindra Sachar, Revat Lal, Mahu Choudhury, Dr. Ezhilan Naganathan, Mr. Valarmathy, Vijay Pratap and Dr. Sunilam. All the presentations and discussions at the meet were aimed at bringing forth the ground realities of the situation today, examining the role played by various parties concerned including the United Nations Organisation and stressing the need to ensure to Tamils their rights and deliver justice.
10
MOI:
E-BULLETIN
EDITORIAL: The New LARR Bill will not End the British Legacy of Forced Land Acquisition People’s Consent for Every Development Project is a MUST, Niyamgiri Shows the Way Forward All Agricultural Land Should be Protected from Acquisition and Diversion The Consensus on the Bill amending Land Acquisition Act 1894 have eluded for long and that's the one reason that it has been under the discussion for 7th year now. It was introduced in the 13th Lok Sabha in 2007 as two separate Bills and in 14th Lok Sabha as a comprehensive Bill, as demanded by us, which is a welcome step. However, after its introduction in 2010, Bill has got changed for worse and continues to advocate acquisition for PPP projects, private projects, flexible definition of 'public purpose', and acquisition of agricultural land undermining not only the livelihood of the communities dependent on the Bill but also the food security of the nation. The bill though has some positive points to its credit like seeking a majority consent, conducting Social Impact Assessment, expanded definition of project affected persons, return of land in some cases to land owners but overall states role in acquisition has increased and law is titled towards facilitating land acquisition. The Consensus on the Bill amending Land Acquisition Act 1894 have eluded for long and that's the one reason that it has been under the discussion for 7th year now. It was introduced in the 13th Lok Sabha in 2007 as two separate Bills and in 14th Lok Sabha as a comprehensive Bill, as demanded by us, which is a welcome step. However, after its introduction in 2010, Bill has got changed for worse and continues to advocate acquisition for PPP projects, private projects, flexible definition of 'public purpose', and acquisition of agricultural land undermining not only the livelihood of the communities dependent on the Bill but also the food security of the nation. The bill though has some positive points to its credit like seeking a majority consent, conducting Social Impact Assessment, expanded definition of project affected persons, return of land in some cases to land owners but overall states role in acquisition has increased and law is titled towards facilitating land acquisition.
The amendments tabled in Lok Sabha, which were later withdrawn last year, neglected major recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Rural Development. In the long drawn discussion on various issues, it is unfortunate that towards the end discussion was just limited between BJP and Congress on the issue of lease of land and increased monetary benefit to farmers whose land were wrongfully purchased by middlemen. Communist Party of India (Marxist) has moved over a hundred amendments to the Bill, which has not been taken up by the government. It is against parliamentary democracy that a unanimous report, across the party line, of the Standing Committee is not given due importance before finalizing the draft and being introduced in the Parliament. We would also like to point out that whole process since PSC gave its report has been extremely opaque and other stake holders have not been shared any detail with, even after repeated requests. Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Rural Development have eagerly met various groups on many occasions but once it went to the Cabinet, many of us have remained in dark, and only got news from media. The pre -legislative process must involve the stake holders at all levels, rather than media being the only source of information. There is no doubt that the union government was compelled to bring in certain provisions to control the unjustifiable forcible acquisition of land and associated Natural Resources, such as minerals, for the private companies and their projects. The consent of 80% of affected land losers in the case of private projects and of 70% for PPP projects has now become a precondition, which no doubt is a major change. However, why not consent for the Government projects, as recommended by Standing Comiittee? Infact, ex-
11
VOL 1 ISSUE 7
cluding the Government projects & all Infrastructure projects, has left the Bill a lame one, and not applicable to land acquisition in many conflict ridden projects. It is also unacceptable that out of 16 central acts and 100 plus state acts under which there are provisions for forcible land acquisition, only 3 acts are brought under the purview of the new Bill i.e. SEZ Act, Defence Act and Cantonment Act, against the standing committees recommendations. This means that most of the private or public projects where land is being acquired under Mines and Minerals Act, or State wise Industrial Development Acts, or National Highway Act, Coal Bearing Area Act, etc will remain outside the ambit of this Bill. There is only a recommendation made that all necessary laws may be amended and brought under this act within a year. It may be done partially as in the case of PESA act. So, the remote possibility of its retrospective application will not have much impact and only in cases where only LAA is being used will get some relief. All this indicates that the British legacy is to continue, with some exception. The UPA has lost the opportunity to make the development planning truly democratic and bring in the role of Gram Sabhas and the Urban Basti Sabhas in planning all the projects, including government and private projects. The Bill also rejects the Standing Committees recommendation to leave all agricultural land under cultivation out of the purview of forcible land acquisition. Instead it no doubt puts in certain preconditions such as bringing in alternative land under cultivation for acquiring multi crop land as the last resort, but that does not prevent acquisition of single crop land. Thus 75% of India’s farmers engaged in rain fed agriculture will con-
tinue to have sword of land grab and eviction hanging on their heads. The Bill also gives State Governments undue freedom to decide what percentage of irrigated land in a district can be acquired- an issue of national importance. The food security of the country will be jeopardised, we wonder how will UPA ensure the amount of food required for Food Security Bill if they continue to brazenly acquire the land from farmers, 180 lakh hectares of land diverted in two decades. Ministry of Rural Development has recently come out with a land reform policy, yet we wonder how will they ensure land for the landless. The current bill is completely antithetical to the whole idea of protecting land rights of those who already have land, and it will make more people landless. There is no doubt that Resettlement & Rehabilitation is linked with Land acquisition and for the first time, been brought into a single act. However, the R & R provisions are more cash based and seem not to be providing for an alternative Livelihood as a mandatory measure. There is a strong doubt therefore that the increased offer of high cash compensation including 100% solatium, will act as a luring force to make the farmers loose land. In the present situation of inequity between the prices for the agricultural produce vis-Ă -vis industrial products and services this is sureto happen. Provision of one hectare of land for SC/ST or 1 acre of land in the command area for irrigation project affected SC/ST Families is highly inadequate and will neither ensure alternative livelihood nor better standard of living. It is also unnecessary that the Bill leaves Resettlement and Rehabilitation responsibility for the Private project proponents, to be decided by the State Government. The monitoring of the R&R measures are bureaucratically
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.