Panaji: While the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is busy implementing Aadhaar, the unique identification project across India, Bharat Mukti Morcha (BMM) has petitioned president of India Pratibha Patil through the North Goa collector, objecting to the implementation of the biometric project.
Alleging that the UID is a conspiracy to put private citizens under surveillance, BMM has urged the Union government to scrap the unique identification project as it is a violation of the privacy of citizens.
"Through UID, tracking of individuals becomes easy. All information collected by UIDAI will be easily accessible to intelligence agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) through the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)," said Goa convener of BMM Sebastian Rodrigues. "This may lead to suppression of democratic liberties," he said.
The BMM has noted that while the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, is yet to be passed by Parliament, biometric enrolment for the National Population Register ( NPR)) is being carried out under Citizenship Act 1955 and Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003.
Unlike the Census Act 1948, which declares in Section 15 that census records 'will not be open to inspection or admissible as evidence', these other laws do not have such safeguards.
"Biometric cards invade privacy and as such are a violation of the fundamental right to life with dignity guaranteed by the constitution. Even developed nations such as Britain, USA and Australia which tried to enforce such cards were forced to scrap them after public protests," Rodrigues added.
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has already begun issuing unique numbers to residents in different parts of India. The numbers will be stored in a centralized database and linked to biometric information such as photographs, fingerprints and iris scans of citizens.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/Group-decries-Centres-Aadhaar-biometric-project/articleshow/9389041.cms
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Achuthanandan Against Unique Identification Number (UID) Scheme
Note: One of the senior most and honest politicians of South Asia, 87 years old, V S Achuthanandan, the Leader of the Opposition in the Kerala State Assembly and the supporter of free and open source software movement initiated by Richard Stallman, a US based computer programmer, has objected to Unique Identification Number (UID) scheme of the Prime Minister which has been abandoned in United Kingdom, Philippines and other countries.
The Centralised Identities Data Register (CIDR) of UID Numbers is linked to the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) under Union Home Ministry. Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley has rejected NATGRID citing certainty of wikileaks.
Gopal Krishna
Member, Citizens Forum for Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
V S Achuthanandan voices misgivings about UID project
27 JUL, 2011, PTI
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: CPI(M) veteran V S Achuthanandan today expressed misgivings about theUID scheme launched by the Centre "without proper debate" in Parliament and alleged that the true intention behind the programme was to help IT firms hit by the global downturn.
The Centre was moving ahead with the Unique Identification Number (UID) campaign without bothering about its implications or taking into account the experiences of countries which had abandoned it mid-way after realising the dangers involved, Achuthanandnan, who is Kerala Opposition Leader, said.
The UID programme envisaged collection of bio-metric details of each citizen,without factoring in the security implications or invasion of privacy. Countries like the United Kingdom and Philippines had abandoned the project mid-way after realising the latent dangers,he said.
In India, the project had been announced without a proper debate in Parliament or bringing in a draft bill, the former Chief Minister said in a statement here.
The true intention behind the scheme was to help IT companies hit by the global downturn, he alleged.
Achuthanandan took strong objection to UDF government's decision to fast-track the UID campaign in the state, as announced by Chief Minister Oommen Chandy soon after coming to power.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/V-S-Achuthanandan-voices-misgivings-about-UID-project/articleshow/9385650.cms
The Centralised Identities Data Register (CIDR) of UID Numbers is linked to the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) under Union Home Ministry. Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley has rejected NATGRID citing certainty of wikileaks.
Gopal Krishna
Member, Citizens Forum for Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
V S Achuthanandan voices misgivings about UID project
27 JUL, 2011, PTI
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: CPI(M) veteran V S Achuthanandan today expressed misgivings about theUID scheme launched by the Centre "without proper debate" in Parliament and alleged that the true intention behind the programme was to help IT firms hit by the global downturn.
The Centre was moving ahead with the Unique Identification Number (UID) campaign without bothering about its implications or taking into account the experiences of countries which had abandoned it mid-way after realising the dangers involved, Achuthanandnan, who is Kerala Opposition Leader, said.
The UID programme envisaged collection of bio-metric details of each citizen,without factoring in the security implications or invasion of privacy. Countries like the United Kingdom and Philippines had abandoned the project mid-way after realising the latent dangers,he said.
In India, the project had been announced without a proper debate in Parliament or bringing in a draft bill, the former Chief Minister said in a statement here.
The true intention behind the scheme was to help IT companies hit by the global downturn, he alleged.
Achuthanandan took strong objection to UDF government's decision to fast-track the UID campaign in the state, as announced by Chief Minister Oommen Chandy soon after coming to power.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/V-S-Achuthanandan-voices-misgivings-about-UID-project/articleshow/9385650.cms
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Isn't UID, a tool for holocaust?
Apropos of "Is UIDN a tool for holocaust?", Nirad Mudur attributes benevolent motives to a regressive and malevolent project like UID Number. Mudur says, "UIDN is NOT an identity proof." His contention is factually incorrect.
According to the Press Brief for National launch of Unique Identification Numbers issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), "The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the number". This release was issued on 29th September 2010 when Unique Identification Numbers (Aadhaar) were first distributed.
Mudur says, "What is the guarantee that the already existing 15 identity proofs (including voters' identity card or ration card) mentioned by Gopal Krishna will not be tapped to identify minorities to launch a holocaust-like pogrom?" The answer to this question is there in Government of India's Draft Discussion Paper on Privacy Bill which states, "Data privacy and the need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralized manner. Data that is maintained in silos is largely useless outside that silo and consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage."
As to Mudur's blind faith in the US system, he has not checked relevant facts. Draft Discussion paper on Privacy Law reveals, "There is no data protection statute in the country" unlike the U.S. Federal Privacy Statute or the European Directive on Data Protection.
UID Number is an attempt to convert a resident into a number, Indian population into a market, and then citizens into subjects. Mudur says, "Government's fault lies in not ensuring a series of open discussions on the project before launching it." Is it an innocent fault or a grave and unpardonable sin?
Monday, November 22, 2010
SARKOZY'S MISTAKE
SARKOZY'S MISTAKE
By Ignacio Ramonet (*)
By Ignacio Ramonet (*)
PARIS, Nov (IPS) It's no surprise. For over two centuries, protest has been a part of the political genetic code of French society. In addition to being constitutionally guaranteed, street protests and strikes are natural ways of fully exercising citizenship. Each new generation considers that participating in cyclic fits of social anger is a rite of passage to become a full member of the democracy. This time the crisis was triggered by the French president. Discredited and besmirched by various rank scandals, blinded by the International Monetary Fund and credit ranking agencies, Nicholas Sarkozy is proving oblivious to people's concerns and is trying to demolish one of the crown jewels of the welfare state: the right to retire at the age of 60. Won after decades of struggle, this social victory is seen in the French collective imagination as untouchable. Sarkozy, who in 2008 promised to respect it, has underestimated the public's attachment to this right. Taking advantage of the shock produced by the global economic crisis, he is trying to push through a reform that would raise the legal retirement age from 60 to 62, increase the contribution period to 41.5 years, and raise the age at which you can collect a full pension from 65 to 67 years. Some believe that Sarkozy's real goal is dismantling the public social security system based on solidarity among generations, and replace it with a private scheme that would represent a market of between 40-100 billion euros. They note that the insurance company that would benefit most from such a move is the Malakoff Mederic group, whose CEO is none other than Guillaume Sarkozy, the brother of the president. The reaction of the major unions is unanimous. Without rejecting the proposal entirely, they are demanding changes, arguing that the cost of the reform would fall primarily on salary workers, already reeling from the crisis, and that this would create greater inequality. They organised a few days of protests before the summer. But the government arrogantly maintained its blanket refusal to negotiate. That was a major error. When people returned to work in September after the holidays, the general assemblies met in hundreds of workplaces and salary workers reaffirmed their "not a step backwards" position. They were convinced that giving up something as sacred as retirement at 60 would trigger an avalanche of additional cuts in social security, health care, education, and public services. These meetings demonstrated that union leadership was much less radical than the rank and file, exasperated by the constant erosion of social advances. Immediately after, there was a rash of collective actions across the country; millions took to the streets; the prolonged general strike slowed transport to a crawl; certain cities, like Marseilles, were entirely paralysed. With every addition day of actions new elements of society joined the protest, which assumed unprecedented forms. The most original is the blockade of refineries and oil depots. The most notable is the massive incorporation of secondary school students into the protests. Many assumed this was the Facebook generation, autistic and self-absorbed, but their confrontational energy revealed an anxiety about the future and a fear that for the first time since 1945, if nothing changed, they would be worse off than their parents. The new neoliberal model destroyed the social ladder. The protests are the crystallisation of a profound social malaise and an accumulation of woes: unemployment, precariousness, poverty (there are 8 million poor), the hardships of daily life. Thus it is not merely a matter of pensions but a fight for another social model. What is most important is that a sizable majority of the French people -60-70 percent- support the protests. How is it possible that the France of 1945, ravaged by World War Two, could afford a welfare state and yet today's France, the fifth greatest economy in the world, cannot? Never before has there been such wealth. In 2009 the five largest banks reported profits of 11 billion euros while the 40 largest companies cleared 47 billion euros. Why not tax these colossal sums to benefit the pensioners. The European Commission estimates that a small tax on financial transactions would bring EU governments between 145-372 billion euros per year -certainly enough to shore up the pension systems. But neoliberal dogma requires that capital remain off limits for taxation, which would be increased instead on individual income. And thus the current mood in France. The general feeling is that neither of the opposing forces can give in. The unions, driven by a ground swell of radicalisation, remain united after months of their offensive. To give in would be a defeat like that of the British miners by Margaret Thatcher in 1985, which spelled the end of workers resistance in the UK and opened the door to ultraliberal "shock therapy". Sarkozy has the backing of the EU, the IMF, and European banking and business sectors, which are terrified that the "French spark" could ignite the whole continent. The defeat of his reforms would condemn him to defeat at the polls in 2012. The social history of France teaches that when protests spread to the extent they have today, they will never recede. They always win. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS) (*) Ignacio Ramonet is director of "Le Monde diplomatique en espanol" ------------------------------ [1] European Council in Barcelona in March 2002 recommended: "undertaking to progressively raise the average retirement age in the European Union by about 5 years as of 2010." [2] In Spain, the president of the Confederation of Employers and Industries (CEOE), Gerardo Diaz Ferran, defends as "advisable and indispensable" increasing "the retirement age to 70". He adds that "salary workers must work more and, unfortunately, earn less." He calls for a broadening of the pension contribution period to "the entire working life" and for workers to create "private pensions". Europa Press, July 26, 2010, and ABC Madrid, October 15, 2010. |
Friday, August 27, 2010
'Drafters of N-Bill ignored ILO recommendations'
| Press Trust of India / New Delhi, August 25, 2010 |
An environmental health researcher has sought intervention of the National Human Rights Commission, alleging that drafters of the Nuclear Liability Bill have ignored recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on radiation protection.
"India has ratified Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) but its provisions have not been complied with. It is yet to ratify ILO's Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 which is concerning Prevention and Control of Occupational Hazards caused by Carcinogenic Substances.
ILO's Radiation Protection Convention with regard to maximum permissible doses of ionising radiations which may be received from external or internal sources and the maximum permissible amounts of radioactive substances has been ignored, he claimed.
In his petition to NHRC, Krishna also submitted that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests in its 25-page report on the Bill, which was tabled in Parliament on August 18, was of the opinion that Government must have sought the opinion of Ministries which are even "distantly" related to any provision of the legislation.
"When the Committee inquired from the Secretaries of Ministries/Departments of Government of India who appeared before the Committee as to whether the draft nuclear liability Bill was referred to them for their views/comments, some of them viz the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare, Agriculture, Labour & Employment, Food & Public Distribution, etc replied in the negative," he quoted the Committee as saying in the report.
He pleaded the Commission to take cognisance of the submissions of "these Secretaries" and direct the concerned authorities to internalise their suggestions in the text of the Bill to protect the human rights of Indian citizens and safeguard intergenerational equity.
Krishna requested the Commission to start proceedings to ascertain from the authorities concerned both at Centre and the state as to how would they respond in the event of a nuclear disaster, number of existing factories and industries in the country where radioactive material is used and whether they maintain an inventory of such products.
He also wanted the commission to ascertain the total number of workers employed in the nuclear power industries and other nuclear installations, institutions which have the competence to decontaminate and the medical, occupational health and scientific institutions which can diagnose radiation exposure.
Among other things, he also urged the Commission to ascertain what action has been taken by the central government and the state governments to protect exposure from radiation in the future.
"Commission may inquire or investigate into the problem of radioactive radiation and issue necessary directions/ recommendations for its prevention and appropriate remedial steps to the Central Government/State Governments and UTs," he pleaded.
Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/\draftersn-bill-ignored-ilo-recommendations\/106434/on
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
National People's Audit of Special Economic Zones
The National People's Audit of Special Economic Zones in India was conducted on 19-20 April, 2010 in New Delhi, at the Nehru Memorial Auditorium. It was organised by a collective of people's movement groups, social and research organisations and academics. This two-day national convention was a culmination of state-level people's audit of SEZs that was conducted in several states of India, through last year (2009-2010).
The National Audit panel comprised of Kuldip Nayar, Devaki Jain, Admiral (Retd.) Ramdas, K. B. Saxena, Meher Engineer, Rahul Bose, Ashish Kothari and Advocate Vrinda Grover. On day one, the panel heard depositions and testimonies of affected people and activists from the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The second day it focussed on the situation in Tamil Nadu, Goa and Northern Region (Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi) along with an national overview and the observations of the Jury which will be released to the public and media .
The People's Audit, over the last year, has emerged as a process of critical importance to evaluate state policies, their impact on people and implementation, in a manner that is more inclusive and places importance on people's perception and views on the issue. The SEZ policy, enacted in 2005, has been severely criticised for the manner of implementation, dispossession and displacement caused to people, on a large scale. Issues evaluated were those of land acquisition, displacement, environmental impact, compensation, employment generation, livelihood loss and labour rights.
Ulka Mahajan from Jagatikikaran Virodhi Kruti Samiti, Maharashtra presented an overview of the SEZ Act and issues around it. According to her, “the anti-SEZ movement in Raigad against the Reliance promoted Mumbai SEZ, where a historic referendum resulted in 95% farmers saying “NO” to the project is a undeniable declaration of common people's resistance to such 'development' that is being forced upon them.” However she lamented the fact that the result of this referendum was not made public and neither did government officials or corporate representatives attend any of the state audits, proving their lack of interest and emphathy to people's voes.
According to her, narratives from farmers, agricultural labourers and fisher-people across most states was similar. Farmers everywhere are asking “This land - my life, my labour, my work has been providing for me generations. Why should i give up my life and my livelihood? We will continue to fight to save our environment.” She also said that agricultural land was being targeted and all resources, especially water diverted for industrial use. gLaws everywhere, labour and environment protection for example, are being diluted, manipulated, to make way for the SEZ Law.
People's struggles against SEZs in Raigad, Vagholi, Mann andGorai have been successful after immense struggle against all odds. Even others like Shahapur, Dherand, Aurangabad, Nashik, Chakan and Khed SEZs were seeing the results of the combined agitation.
On the resistance against the Mihan SEZ project in Nagpur, an affected person who deposed before the panel talked about corruption and lack of accountability in the Government and corporates. As example he spoke about the CEO of Satyam who despite the scam and allegations had been made the Vice President of the Mihan project. “Approximately 2000 families will be displaced in this project.
As protest, men and women in the village organised a Mundan Andolan (Shaving of the Head). Normally such a ceremony takes place to mourn the loss of a parent. In this case we were mourning the abandonment by the Government, who is considered to be the mai-bapp (mother and father) of all people.”
Sister Cinderella from Gorai discussed land acquisition that was initiated by developers Pan India Paryatan Ltd. for 5740 hectares on Dharavi Island. While it was true that almost 80% of the land was owned by the Government, people still had been residing in these areas for decades. The developers, after the agitation were forced to give up on 5740 hectares and only applied for 120 hectares.
Two Maharashtra state-level panelists also presented their findings to the National panel and raised a few questions. Trilochan Shastry said “A few individuals make laws and policies, completely ignoring the opinions and needs of ordinary farmers and workers in the country. They have to be exposed, or they have to be removed.” Dr Anand Teltumbde said that India was erroneously trying to emulate the SEZ and industrial policy of the western world and China. “However while the China model of SEZ uses only 8.5% cultivable land, the contrast in India is for everyone to see.”
Manshi Asher, activist and researcher, introduced the Gujarat chapter and tried to lay out the details before the audience. “Gujarat is being trumpeted by its Chief Minister as the SEZ capital of India. The first claim is that most of the export revenue earned from SEZs originates from Gujarat while the second claim is that SEZ implementation has been virtually resisatance or protest-free – since no agricultural land has been forcibly acquired from farmers and farmers have either been willing to sell their lands or wasteland land has been allotted to SEZ.”
According to Manshi, who has worked extensively on this issue, “the lie behind the first claim can be nailed on the fact that bulk of the export revenue originating in Gujarat is from the Jamnagar refinery. Also, the other so called successful and high export SEZs were already operational and profitable industry hubs, before being conferred with the status of SEZs. This is a lie that the Government presents to the people and has to be exposed to the all.” For the second claim of the
Government, she said “most land that was originally given to SEZs was acquired decades back, by the Gujarat State Industrial Development Corporation. Obviously there will be no protest for land that was acquired in the 80's and 90's.”
Bharat Patel from the Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti presented the resistance against the Mundra Port and SEZ which was endangering the livelihoods of over 1000 fisher-families in the region. “The area around the Kutch coast has been labelled as an ecologoically sensitive area in Government and MoEF reports, yet the Adani group proceeded with construction and cutting down of the Mangrove forest without any Environment clearance. This just shows the extent to which there is collusion between the Government and the corporates.”
Testimonies from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Goa were all disturbingly similar in their narratives of how Government officials and land agents adopted manipulative methods to coerce and fool people into selling their lands without their knowledge. Case after case deposed on how District Officials forged signatures, opened fake accounts and transferred the compensation amounts which villagers' had refused to take the same. Mallapa Gowda, a tribal whose land was grabbed after his signature had been forged on the land document, said “I have sweated my whole life and put together a complex irrigation system for my fields, digging a well, putting in piping – I want my land back.”
The Audit was jointly initiated by the National Alliance of People fs Movements (NAPM); the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI); Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS); and National Centre for Advocacy Studies (NCAS) as the core group of organizations and jointly organized with state – level groups including Jagtikikaran Virodhi Kriti Samiti (JVKS), Maharashtra; Andhra Pradesh Dalita Samakhya (APDS); Anti-KSEZ Farmers f Committee, Kadali Network, Praja Udhyama Aikya Vedika, Dalita Bahujana Bhoo Parirakshana Samiti, Coastal Corridor Praja Hakkula Parirakshana Samiti in Kakinada; Krushibhoomi Samrakshana Samiti (KBSS), Karnataka; Karaavali Karnataka Janaabhivrudhi Vedike (KKJV), Karnataka; Sirappu Porulaadhara Mandalam Edirippu Iyaikam (SPMEI), Tamil Nadu; SEZ Virodhi Manch, Goa; POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti, Orissa; SEZ Virdodhi Manch, West Bengal; Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS), Gujarat; Matru Bhoomi Raksha Sangharsh Samiti, Una, Himachal Pradesh; India Centre for Human Rights and Law (ICHRLN); and the Delhi Solidarity Group (DSG).
The National Audit panel comprised of Kuldip Nayar, Devaki Jain, Admiral (Retd.) Ramdas, K. B. Saxena, Meher Engineer, Rahul Bose, Ashish Kothari and Advocate Vrinda Grover. On day one, the panel heard depositions and testimonies of affected people and activists from the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The second day it focussed on the situation in Tamil Nadu, Goa and Northern Region (Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi) along with an national overview and the observations of the Jury which will be released to the public and media .
The People's Audit, over the last year, has emerged as a process of critical importance to evaluate state policies, their impact on people and implementation, in a manner that is more inclusive and places importance on people's perception and views on the issue. The SEZ policy, enacted in 2005, has been severely criticised for the manner of implementation, dispossession and displacement caused to people, on a large scale. Issues evaluated were those of land acquisition, displacement, environmental impact, compensation, employment generation, livelihood loss and labour rights.
Ulka Mahajan from Jagatikikaran Virodhi Kruti Samiti, Maharashtra presented an overview of the SEZ Act and issues around it. According to her, “the anti-SEZ movement in Raigad against the Reliance promoted Mumbai SEZ, where a historic referendum resulted in 95% farmers saying “NO” to the project is a undeniable declaration of common people's resistance to such 'development' that is being forced upon them.” However she lamented the fact that the result of this referendum was not made public and neither did government officials or corporate representatives attend any of the state audits, proving their lack of interest and emphathy to people's voes.
According to her, narratives from farmers, agricultural labourers and fisher-people across most states was similar. Farmers everywhere are asking “This land - my life, my labour, my work has been providing for me generations. Why should i give up my life and my livelihood? We will continue to fight to save our environment.” She also said that agricultural land was being targeted and all resources, especially water diverted for industrial use. gLaws everywhere, labour and environment protection for example, are being diluted, manipulated, to make way for the SEZ Law.
People's struggles against SEZs in Raigad, Vagholi, Mann andGorai have been successful after immense struggle against all odds. Even others like Shahapur, Dherand, Aurangabad, Nashik, Chakan and Khed SEZs were seeing the results of the combined agitation.
On the resistance against the Mihan SEZ project in Nagpur, an affected person who deposed before the panel talked about corruption and lack of accountability in the Government and corporates. As example he spoke about the CEO of Satyam who despite the scam and allegations had been made the Vice President of the Mihan project. “Approximately 2000 families will be displaced in this project.
As protest, men and women in the village organised a Mundan Andolan (Shaving of the Head). Normally such a ceremony takes place to mourn the loss of a parent. In this case we were mourning the abandonment by the Government, who is considered to be the mai-bapp (mother and father) of all people.”
Sister Cinderella from Gorai discussed land acquisition that was initiated by developers Pan India Paryatan Ltd. for 5740 hectares on Dharavi Island. While it was true that almost 80% of the land was owned by the Government, people still had been residing in these areas for decades. The developers, after the agitation were forced to give up on 5740 hectares and only applied for 120 hectares.
Two Maharashtra state-level panelists also presented their findings to the National panel and raised a few questions. Trilochan Shastry said “A few individuals make laws and policies, completely ignoring the opinions and needs of ordinary farmers and workers in the country. They have to be exposed, or they have to be removed.” Dr Anand Teltumbde said that India was erroneously trying to emulate the SEZ and industrial policy of the western world and China. “However while the China model of SEZ uses only 8.5% cultivable land, the contrast in India is for everyone to see.”
Manshi Asher, activist and researcher, introduced the Gujarat chapter and tried to lay out the details before the audience. “Gujarat is being trumpeted by its Chief Minister as the SEZ capital of India. The first claim is that most of the export revenue earned from SEZs originates from Gujarat while the second claim is that SEZ implementation has been virtually resisatance or protest-free – since no agricultural land has been forcibly acquired from farmers and farmers have either been willing to sell their lands or wasteland land has been allotted to SEZ.”
According to Manshi, who has worked extensively on this issue, “the lie behind the first claim can be nailed on the fact that bulk of the export revenue originating in Gujarat is from the Jamnagar refinery. Also, the other so called successful and high export SEZs were already operational and profitable industry hubs, before being conferred with the status of SEZs. This is a lie that the Government presents to the people and has to be exposed to the all.” For the second claim of the
Government, she said “most land that was originally given to SEZs was acquired decades back, by the Gujarat State Industrial Development Corporation. Obviously there will be no protest for land that was acquired in the 80's and 90's.”
Bharat Patel from the Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti presented the resistance against the Mundra Port and SEZ which was endangering the livelihoods of over 1000 fisher-families in the region. “The area around the Kutch coast has been labelled as an ecologoically sensitive area in Government and MoEF reports, yet the Adani group proceeded with construction and cutting down of the Mangrove forest without any Environment clearance. This just shows the extent to which there is collusion between the Government and the corporates.”
Testimonies from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Goa were all disturbingly similar in their narratives of how Government officials and land agents adopted manipulative methods to coerce and fool people into selling their lands without their knowledge. Case after case deposed on how District Officials forged signatures, opened fake accounts and transferred the compensation amounts which villagers' had refused to take the same. Mallapa Gowda, a tribal whose land was grabbed after his signature had been forged on the land document, said “I have sweated my whole life and put together a complex irrigation system for my fields, digging a well, putting in piping – I want my land back.”
The Audit was jointly initiated by the National Alliance of People fs Movements (NAPM); the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI); Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS); and National Centre for Advocacy Studies (NCAS) as the core group of organizations and jointly organized with state – level groups including Jagtikikaran Virodhi Kriti Samiti (JVKS), Maharashtra; Andhra Pradesh Dalita Samakhya (APDS); Anti-KSEZ Farmers f Committee, Kadali Network, Praja Udhyama Aikya Vedika, Dalita Bahujana Bhoo Parirakshana Samiti, Coastal Corridor Praja Hakkula Parirakshana Samiti in Kakinada; Krushibhoomi Samrakshana Samiti (KBSS), Karnataka; Karaavali Karnataka Janaabhivrudhi Vedike (KKJV), Karnataka; Sirappu Porulaadhara Mandalam Edirippu Iyaikam (SPMEI), Tamil Nadu; SEZ Virodhi Manch, Goa; POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti, Orissa; SEZ Virdodhi Manch, West Bengal; Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS), Gujarat; Matru Bhoomi Raksha Sangharsh Samiti, Una, Himachal Pradesh; India Centre for Human Rights and Law (ICHRLN); and the Delhi Solidarity Group (DSG).
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Bhopalis seek PM's Response
At a Press Conference on 13 April 2010, four Bhopal based organizations representing people exposed to Union Carbide’s toxic chemicals and their children announced their indefinite protest in the capital calling for the establishment of an Empowered Commission on Bhopal for long term medical care and rehabilitation of the victims.
Bhopalis reached Delhi on 15th to stay as long as it takes the Prime Minister to fulfill his two year old promise to set up the Empowered Commission,” said Rashida Bee, President of Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmchari Sangh, who has been awarded Goldman Environmental Prize for her work in Bhopal.
The Bhopalis, including two survivors of the December 1984 disaster and two children exposed to toxic contamination from Union Carbide’s untreated chemical waste, presented a document read out on 29 May, 2008 by the then Minister of State for PMO, Prithviraj Chavan, in which he publicly declared the Government's “in-principle” agreement to set up an Empowered Commission on Bhopal. This was followed by a decision of the Group of Ministers on Bhopal, headed at that time by Arjun Singh, recommending the setting up of the Empowered Commission.
April 17th marks the fourth anniversary of the Bhopalis' first meeting with Prime Minister Singh, where he assured them that the lingering issues of medical, environmental, economic rehabilitation in Bhopal would be taken care of.
“It wasn’t easy getting to meet the Prime Minister,” said Syed M Irfan, President of the Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush sangharsh Morcha. “We had to walk 800 kilometers and then we had to do another Bhopal to New Delhi Padyatra in 2008 for the Prime Minister to issue a written promise.” He said that the Empowered Commission is urgently needed to stop the ongoing disasters in Bhopal that are still killing, injuring and maiming the unborn.
“Despite the promises, 20,000 people are still drinking poisoned water; 10,000 gas victims who were promised jobs are jobless; medical treatment for the indigent victims remains elusive; the site and its surroundings are polluted, and the culprit – Dow Chemical – is freely doing business in India,” said Safreen Khan from Children against Dow-Carbide an organization of second generation victims.“What is the worth of the PM's word?” she asks.
According to Rachna Dhingra from the Bhopal group for Information and Action, since the first time that Prime Minister Singh promised action in 2006, nothing has moved in favour of the Bhopalis. Rather, 22 survivors have spent time in high security Tihar jail; 36 people including 12 children have been beaten in the Parliament Street police station; serious charges of assaulting police officers have been filed against a 16-year old Carbide victim and another 75-year old gas victim, and four Chennai-based supporters are facing charges in a Delhi court that could result in a maximum jail term of 5 years. All these people took action to remind the Government of its unkept promises.
Rashida Bee said that they anticipated violence by Delhi . She said that they have been told by the Parliament Street police station that out of state protestors, such as those from Bhopal, will not be allowed to camp in Jantar Mantar because of the Commonwealth Games.
“We are beaten and falsely charged just for peacefully reminding the Prime Minister of his unkept promise. If all non-violent and democratic means of articulating our frustration over 25 years of broken promises are prohibited, what does the government expect us to do? Go in to hiding? Take up guns?” asked Rashida Bee.
Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action said that the Prime Minister’s apathy toward the plight of the Bhopalis is in stark contrast to his commitment to keeping their promise to the US Congress and nuclear equipment suppliers. By actively moving the Nuclear Liability Bill even as Bhopalis are fighting for resolution of Dow Chemical and Union Carbide's liabilities 25 years after the disaster, the Prime Minister is busy indemnifying the likes of GE and Westinghouse Electric from future liabilities that may arise due to nuclear disasters.
Rashida Bee, Champa Devi Shukla
Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmachari Sangh
Syed M Irfan,
Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush Sangharsh Morcha
Rachna Dhingra, Satinath Sarangi,
Bhopal Group for Information and Action
9582314869
Bhopalis reached Delhi on 15th to stay as long as it takes the Prime Minister to fulfill his two year old promise to set up the Empowered Commission,” said Rashida Bee, President of Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmchari Sangh, who has been awarded Goldman Environmental Prize for her work in Bhopal.
The Bhopalis, including two survivors of the December 1984 disaster and two children exposed to toxic contamination from Union Carbide’s untreated chemical waste, presented a document read out on 29 May, 2008 by the then Minister of State for PMO, Prithviraj Chavan, in which he publicly declared the Government's “in-principle” agreement to set up an Empowered Commission on Bhopal. This was followed by a decision of the Group of Ministers on Bhopal, headed at that time by Arjun Singh, recommending the setting up of the Empowered Commission.
April 17th marks the fourth anniversary of the Bhopalis' first meeting with Prime Minister Singh, where he assured them that the lingering issues of medical, environmental, economic rehabilitation in Bhopal would be taken care of.
“It wasn’t easy getting to meet the Prime Minister,” said Syed M Irfan, President of the Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush sangharsh Morcha. “We had to walk 800 kilometers and then we had to do another Bhopal to New Delhi Padyatra in 2008 for the Prime Minister to issue a written promise.” He said that the Empowered Commission is urgently needed to stop the ongoing disasters in Bhopal that are still killing, injuring and maiming the unborn.
“Despite the promises, 20,000 people are still drinking poisoned water; 10,000 gas victims who were promised jobs are jobless; medical treatment for the indigent victims remains elusive; the site and its surroundings are polluted, and the culprit – Dow Chemical – is freely doing business in India,” said Safreen Khan from Children against Dow-Carbide an organization of second generation victims.“What is the worth of the PM's word?” she asks.
According to Rachna Dhingra from the Bhopal group for Information and Action, since the first time that Prime Minister Singh promised action in 2006, nothing has moved in favour of the Bhopalis. Rather, 22 survivors have spent time in high security Tihar jail; 36 people including 12 children have been beaten in the Parliament Street police station; serious charges of assaulting police officers have been filed against a 16-year old Carbide victim and another 75-year old gas victim, and four Chennai-based supporters are facing charges in a Delhi court that could result in a maximum jail term of 5 years. All these people took action to remind the Government of its unkept promises.
Rashida Bee said that they anticipated violence by Delhi . She said that they have been told by the Parliament Street police station that out of state protestors, such as those from Bhopal, will not be allowed to camp in Jantar Mantar because of the Commonwealth Games.
“We are beaten and falsely charged just for peacefully reminding the Prime Minister of his unkept promise. If all non-violent and democratic means of articulating our frustration over 25 years of broken promises are prohibited, what does the government expect us to do? Go in to hiding? Take up guns?” asked Rashida Bee.
Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action said that the Prime Minister’s apathy toward the plight of the Bhopalis is in stark contrast to his commitment to keeping their promise to the US Congress and nuclear equipment suppliers. By actively moving the Nuclear Liability Bill even as Bhopalis are fighting for resolution of Dow Chemical and Union Carbide's liabilities 25 years after the disaster, the Prime Minister is busy indemnifying the likes of GE and Westinghouse Electric from future liabilities that may arise due to nuclear disasters.
Rashida Bee, Champa Devi Shukla
Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmachari Sangh
Syed M Irfan,
Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush Sangharsh Morcha
Rachna Dhingra, Satinath Sarangi,
Bhopal Group for Information and Action
9582314869
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)