NANDIGRAM WINS
SAY NO TO SEZ AND YES TO PROPERTY RIGHTS
A rare win in Indian history. Not just for the people of Nandigram but for India itself.
When Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya announced that he will withdraw the SEZ project from Nandigram it marked a turning point in India's politics and it will go a long way in strengthening the liberties of the Indian people against the power of the State.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Oil Corruption
NARAYANA MURTHY FLAYS ABSENCE OF PM AND IOC AT INTEGRITY AWARD
March 24: Infosys Chief Mentor N R Narayana Murthy flayed the absence of any representative from Indian Oil Corporation Limited or the Centre at a function in Bangalore to give away the award instituted in memory of Manjunath Shanmugam, an IOCL sales officer who was murdered for exposing the oil mafia.
"I am sad that today here we do not have any representative from IOC, an organisation that Manjunath fought for. I am sad we do not have at least one symbolic representative from the Government of India", he said, presenting the first Manjunath Shanmugam Trust's award for 2007 to Prof R P Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
"Ideally a person like the Prime Minister should have been present as he knows the importance of honesty, integrity and ideals. Dr Manmohan Singh is one of the finest and most honest politicians in the country", he said.
The award has been instituted for deserving candidates who have reported and worked to rectify corrupt practices in government, public or corporate life.
Courtesy: PTI
March 24: Infosys Chief Mentor N R Narayana Murthy flayed the absence of any representative from Indian Oil Corporation Limited or the Centre at a function in Bangalore to give away the award instituted in memory of Manjunath Shanmugam, an IOCL sales officer who was murdered for exposing the oil mafia.
"I am sad that today here we do not have any representative from IOC, an organisation that Manjunath fought for. I am sad we do not have at least one symbolic representative from the Government of India", he said, presenting the first Manjunath Shanmugam Trust's award for 2007 to Prof R P Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
"Ideally a person like the Prime Minister should have been present as he knows the importance of honesty, integrity and ideals. Dr Manmohan Singh is one of the finest and most honest politicians in the country", he said.
The award has been instituted for deserving candidates who have reported and worked to rectify corrupt practices in government, public or corporate life.
Courtesy: PTI
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Property Rights in India
Ground reality
By Barun Mitra
New Delhi: Much has been written about the tragedy of Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal. Yet not much light has been shed on the real significance of the protests by farmers on land acquisition. Brand Buddhadeb has suffered a serious blow much beyond West Bengal. But, more importantly, an undercurrent of awareness is spreading through the grassroots of society on an almost unheralded issue — the protection of property rights.
Political and social activists have been hurling arguments to score points against rivals. If one side stresses on the need for industrialisation, the other calls for inclusive growth. The self-proclaimed champions of the poor are hobnobbing with big businesses, while the Opposition spectrum, from the fringe Left to the far Right, want to be seen to be siding with the rural poor. And business leaders, who have been enjoying the freedom to mobilise capital, want investment opportunities to be sugar-coated with a range of privileges and subsidies, including tax breaks and land at low costs.
Sixteen years after India began dismantling the licence and permit raj, it is clear that reforms have improved the economic environment for entrepreneurs. Yet, the issue of land acquisition in the name of promoting industrialisation or special economic zones (SEZs), shows how deeply entrenched the sense of political patronage continues to be in the influential sections of Indian society.
Nothing else can explain the desire of so many Indian business houses to ask the government to procure land for their projects. Since these businessmen have been the biggest beneficiary of liberalisation of the capital market, one could have expected them to demand a similar liberalisation of the land market in the country.
If businesses cannot legitimately acquire the necessary land for their purposes, then it is the land market that needs to be reformed. Instead, they have sought to eliminate the land market completely by asking the government to act as the middleman and perpetuate the land mafia.
Similarly, the opinion among social activists range from those who want land to perpetually remain under agriculture or forests, to others who focus more on an adequate rehabilitation and compensation package. Despite their concern for the poor, most of them fail to realise that property rights is not a luxury of the rich, but a necessity for the poor. The rich can survive in most societies, irrespective of their legal rights, because with their wealth they can buy protection from the powers that be. It is the poor who are left most vulnerable if they are denied the right, because they have no other recourse, except to become political pawns.
Economist Hernando de Soto, among others, has shown that the poor are trapped in poverty primarily because of their inability to capitalise on their assets, including land.
Today, Indian businesses can raise capital freely at home and abroad, they can buy and sell assets, engage in mega mergers and acquisitions. Yet, most Indian farmers hardly enjoy the freedom to buy, sell, lease or rent land. In most parts of India, farm land is regulated under land ceiling and land usage laws. In addition, laws make it difficult to even change crop patterns, and restrict the movement of agricultural produce.
The astronomical rise of real estate prices in urban India is also a reflection of the rigidities that have hobbled our cities. Rent control, land ceiling and zoning, coupled with weak legal avenues for the enforcement of contracts, have all made land in urban India artificially scarce. All — the land mafia, politicians, bureaucrats and businesses — have benefited, except the land owner himself.
Indians have been slowly, but steadily, surrendering the most fundamental of rights — the right to property — from almost the very inception of the Republic. Jawaharlal Nehru began the process with the creation of the Ninth Schedule in 1951, in an attempt to put land acquisition beyond the purview of judicial review. With her populist nationalisation, Indira Gandhi greatly diluted the scope of property rights protections. The first non-Congress government took one more step. In 1978, it amended the Constitution such that property rights no longer remained a fundamental right. Except a few brave voices, hardly anyone mourned the demise of the individual’s right to property.The law is quite distinct from legislation. It is easy to write legislation that violates the spirit of the law as commonly understood. So the State passed legislations undermining basic principles of law in the name of helping the poor. First, land was sought to be confiscated from big landlords and redistributed to the poor. And now, the same land is being forcefully acquired through the use of eminent domain from the poor to be given over to large private investors.
Once a fundamental legal principle, that of property rights, is sacrificed, ‘might’ becomes right, and people are left vulnerable to the coercive power of the State. Since the communists in West Bengal lay their first claim to legitimacy on rural land distribution in the name of the landless, it is not surprising that they are now caught between a rock and a hard place as they try to facilitate land acquisition for the sake of industrialisation.
Yet, in the past two decades, there has been a steady and growing demand for greater recognition of private property rights in one form or another. Twenty years ago, at the height of the agitation against the Narmada dam, the issue was polarised between whether to build the dam, and the quality of the rehabilitation package for the people who lost their property. In the last few years, the tribal rights debate brought to the fore the issue of securing property rights for forest dwellers.
The violence over land acquisition in Orissa’s Kalinganagar two years ago, and the recent tragedy in Nandigram in West Bengal, mark more milestones on the long road to property rights. A couple of months ago, ministers in the West Bengal government asserted that under the land acquisition laws, consent of the landowner was not required. They would then go on to highlight the compensation and rehabilitation packages. The law remains the same, but the protests in Singur and Nandigram have forced the state government to announce that no land will be acquired without consent.
A similar sentiment at the grassroots in urban India, following the demolitions and sealing drives is forcing the political establishment to recognise the potential political cost of the violation of property rights.
A momentum seems to be building from the grassroots. Property rights could be an issue that unites Bharat and India, the poor and the rich alike. The time seems ripe for a people’s campaign for the restoration of the right to property as a fundamental right. This would empower the people and unleash the much-needed second generation reforms by including all sections of society into the growth path. The tragedy at Nandigram will not be wasted if the country joins hands for a campaign to restore property rights.
By Barun Mitra
New Delhi: Much has been written about the tragedy of Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal. Yet not much light has been shed on the real significance of the protests by farmers on land acquisition. Brand Buddhadeb has suffered a serious blow much beyond West Bengal. But, more importantly, an undercurrent of awareness is spreading through the grassroots of society on an almost unheralded issue — the protection of property rights.
Political and social activists have been hurling arguments to score points against rivals. If one side stresses on the need for industrialisation, the other calls for inclusive growth. The self-proclaimed champions of the poor are hobnobbing with big businesses, while the Opposition spectrum, from the fringe Left to the far Right, want to be seen to be siding with the rural poor. And business leaders, who have been enjoying the freedom to mobilise capital, want investment opportunities to be sugar-coated with a range of privileges and subsidies, including tax breaks and land at low costs.
Sixteen years after India began dismantling the licence and permit raj, it is clear that reforms have improved the economic environment for entrepreneurs. Yet, the issue of land acquisition in the name of promoting industrialisation or special economic zones (SEZs), shows how deeply entrenched the sense of political patronage continues to be in the influential sections of Indian society.
Nothing else can explain the desire of so many Indian business houses to ask the government to procure land for their projects. Since these businessmen have been the biggest beneficiary of liberalisation of the capital market, one could have expected them to demand a similar liberalisation of the land market in the country.
If businesses cannot legitimately acquire the necessary land for their purposes, then it is the land market that needs to be reformed. Instead, they have sought to eliminate the land market completely by asking the government to act as the middleman and perpetuate the land mafia.
Similarly, the opinion among social activists range from those who want land to perpetually remain under agriculture or forests, to others who focus more on an adequate rehabilitation and compensation package. Despite their concern for the poor, most of them fail to realise that property rights is not a luxury of the rich, but a necessity for the poor. The rich can survive in most societies, irrespective of their legal rights, because with their wealth they can buy protection from the powers that be. It is the poor who are left most vulnerable if they are denied the right, because they have no other recourse, except to become political pawns.
Economist Hernando de Soto, among others, has shown that the poor are trapped in poverty primarily because of their inability to capitalise on their assets, including land.
Today, Indian businesses can raise capital freely at home and abroad, they can buy and sell assets, engage in mega mergers and acquisitions. Yet, most Indian farmers hardly enjoy the freedom to buy, sell, lease or rent land. In most parts of India, farm land is regulated under land ceiling and land usage laws. In addition, laws make it difficult to even change crop patterns, and restrict the movement of agricultural produce.
The astronomical rise of real estate prices in urban India is also a reflection of the rigidities that have hobbled our cities. Rent control, land ceiling and zoning, coupled with weak legal avenues for the enforcement of contracts, have all made land in urban India artificially scarce. All — the land mafia, politicians, bureaucrats and businesses — have benefited, except the land owner himself.
Indians have been slowly, but steadily, surrendering the most fundamental of rights — the right to property — from almost the very inception of the Republic. Jawaharlal Nehru began the process with the creation of the Ninth Schedule in 1951, in an attempt to put land acquisition beyond the purview of judicial review. With her populist nationalisation, Indira Gandhi greatly diluted the scope of property rights protections. The first non-Congress government took one more step. In 1978, it amended the Constitution such that property rights no longer remained a fundamental right. Except a few brave voices, hardly anyone mourned the demise of the individual’s right to property.The law is quite distinct from legislation. It is easy to write legislation that violates the spirit of the law as commonly understood. So the State passed legislations undermining basic principles of law in the name of helping the poor. First, land was sought to be confiscated from big landlords and redistributed to the poor. And now, the same land is being forcefully acquired through the use of eminent domain from the poor to be given over to large private investors.
Once a fundamental legal principle, that of property rights, is sacrificed, ‘might’ becomes right, and people are left vulnerable to the coercive power of the State. Since the communists in West Bengal lay their first claim to legitimacy on rural land distribution in the name of the landless, it is not surprising that they are now caught between a rock and a hard place as they try to facilitate land acquisition for the sake of industrialisation.
Yet, in the past two decades, there has been a steady and growing demand for greater recognition of private property rights in one form or another. Twenty years ago, at the height of the agitation against the Narmada dam, the issue was polarised between whether to build the dam, and the quality of the rehabilitation package for the people who lost their property. In the last few years, the tribal rights debate brought to the fore the issue of securing property rights for forest dwellers.
The violence over land acquisition in Orissa’s Kalinganagar two years ago, and the recent tragedy in Nandigram in West Bengal, mark more milestones on the long road to property rights. A couple of months ago, ministers in the West Bengal government asserted that under the land acquisition laws, consent of the landowner was not required. They would then go on to highlight the compensation and rehabilitation packages. The law remains the same, but the protests in Singur and Nandigram have forced the state government to announce that no land will be acquired without consent.
A similar sentiment at the grassroots in urban India, following the demolitions and sealing drives is forcing the political establishment to recognise the potential political cost of the violation of property rights.
A momentum seems to be building from the grassroots. Property rights could be an issue that unites Bharat and India, the poor and the rich alike. The time seems ripe for a people’s campaign for the restoration of the right to property as a fundamental right. This would empower the people and unleash the much-needed second generation reforms by including all sections of society into the growth path. The tragedy at Nandigram will not be wasted if the country joins hands for a campaign to restore property rights.
Barun Mitra is the director of Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in Delhi.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Oil Corruption
MANJUNATH MURDER JUDGEMENT
Does not address oil company role
By Manuwant Choudhary
A district court convicts all eight accused in the murder of Indian Oil Corporation Sales Officer S. Manjunath who was killed in November 2005 at Gala in Lakhimpur Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh when he threatened to cancel the licence of Mittal petrol pump on charges of adulteration.
While the judgement deals with the actual crime its ironic that the father of the late Mr. Manjunath Mr. Shanmugam thanks the petroleum minister Murli Deora and IOC employees.
Its ironic because the petroleum company is as much responsible for the killing of Manjunath as the bullets that hit him. All public sector oil companies give huge oil shortages to petrol dealers forcing dealers to either short supply to consumers or adulterate.
This judgement does not go all the way on why petrol pump dealers adulterate and what leads to the actual friction between dealers and sales officers on the ground.
The Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association has warned oil companies that dealers would go on an indefinite strike if shortages do not stop. Every tank lorry of 12000 litres has an average shortage of 150 litres.
Does not address oil company role
By Manuwant Choudhary
A district court convicts all eight accused in the murder of Indian Oil Corporation Sales Officer S. Manjunath who was killed in November 2005 at Gala in Lakhimpur Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh when he threatened to cancel the licence of Mittal petrol pump on charges of adulteration.
While the judgement deals with the actual crime its ironic that the father of the late Mr. Manjunath Mr. Shanmugam thanks the petroleum minister Murli Deora and IOC employees.
Its ironic because the petroleum company is as much responsible for the killing of Manjunath as the bullets that hit him. All public sector oil companies give huge oil shortages to petrol dealers forcing dealers to either short supply to consumers or adulterate.
This judgement does not go all the way on why petrol pump dealers adulterate and what leads to the actual friction between dealers and sales officers on the ground.
The Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association has warned oil companies that dealers would go on an indefinite strike if shortages do not stop. Every tank lorry of 12000 litres has an average shortage of 150 litres.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Something patently wrong
The smear campaign against R. A. Mashelkar symbolises the politicised prism thorough which healthcare is viewed by the State and industry in India . A vague patent law makes matters even worse.
By Barun S Mitra
New Delhi: Last Sunday, Indians woke up to mourn the unexpected loss of its team to Bangladesh in India's first World Cup match. The news that ought to wake up the nation is the situation that led to the resignation of RA Mashelkar from the technical committee formed to look into India's patent law. Mashelkar resigned because of personal attacks and political machinations. Among his critics were political activists who put their populist agenda ahead of the country's interest, and social activists who make a career in perpetuating ill-health.
Mashelkar is one of India's most respected scientists and a pioneering administrator of its public sector scientific establishment. Most importantly, he encouraged scientists to file patents to harness the commercial potential of innovations. Mashelkar truly realised the potential of the scientific community and foresaw the need for a good intellectual property (IPR) law that could provide an institutional framework for new opportunities.
But over the last few weeks, his critics have portrayed Mashelkar as a Bollywood-style villain. The Mashelkar committee was formed to review technical aspects of the Indian Patent Amendment Act, 2005. From the time it was passed, recognising among others things product patent in pharmaceuticals, there have been questions. One contentious issue was Section 3(d), which states that "the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant".
The issue here is of 'ever-greening' of patents, or an attempt to extend the life of a patent by incorporating cosmetic changes. The Indian law complicated things by using terms like "mere discovery" or "efficacy of the substance" — difficult to define and easy to misinterpret.
The contentious nature of these provisions was also brought to light by a case filed by Novartis before the Chennai High Court. It challenged an order of the patent registrar who refused a patent for 'Glivec', although the same product has been granted a patent in other countries. In its report two months ago, the Mashelkar committee had noted that the said provision would be a violation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips). Unfortunately, this technical recommendation got mired in a new controversy over plagiarism. Certain sections of the recommendations had been directly taken from another study submitted to the committee during its deliberations. Mashelkar immediately apologised to the author whose work was incorporated without due acknowledgement. He also requested the government to withdraw the report and offered to redo it.
The debate over pharmaceutical product patent has always been politicised. Politicians are eager to seize an opportunity to bash MNCs. It is a convenient tactic to divert attention away from India's dismal healthcare. After all, in a country which has not recognised patent in medicines for over three decades — where 97 per cent of medicines is believed to be off-patent — India is quite far from becoming the world's healthcare capital.
About 70 per cent of Indians never access modern healthcare systems. No doctor in public sector healthcare can claim that patients' problems are related to patents. But rather than looking into the whole chain of delivery — medical professionals, diagnostic facilities, dispensaries and hospitals — it is easier to wave the national flag. The reality is that even if there were no patents, or if medicines were distributed free, many patients would still not benefit. Nothing else can explain the failure to provide ORS to diarrhoea patients, or the failure to vaccinate children against polio.
Mashelkar has been criticised by the Indian pharmaceutical industry — an industry so concerned about Indians that they see their growth potential in markets abroad. Indeed, the aspects of the patent law that these businesses are opposed to are similar to the ones under US law, where some of the Indian companies are rapidly filing for their own incremental patents. The US patent law has been criticised but it can hardly be a coincidence that a stable patent law has contributed to making the US the most attractive destination for research and development, hosting some of the largest and best pharmaceutical research establishment, and at the same time being the largest market for patented medicines as well as generic drugs. The US pharmaceutical market today is close to $100 billion, about half of which is generic, and the total Indian market is just about a fifth of the US generic market.
One may differ on the interpretation of Section 3(d). The court is expected to rule on it. But IPR will assume even greater significance in the knowledge economy. And to engage in character assassination of Mashelkar, in an attempt to undermine IPR, will neither improve our healthcare system nor lay the foundation for our entry in to the knowledge era. That surely will not be cricket.
Barun Mitra is the director of Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in New Delhi
The smear campaign against R. A. Mashelkar symbolises the politicised prism thorough which healthcare is viewed by the State and industry in India . A vague patent law makes matters even worse.
By Barun S Mitra
New Delhi: Last Sunday, Indians woke up to mourn the unexpected loss of its team to Bangladesh in India's first World Cup match. The news that ought to wake up the nation is the situation that led to the resignation of RA Mashelkar from the technical committee formed to look into India's patent law. Mashelkar resigned because of personal attacks and political machinations. Among his critics were political activists who put their populist agenda ahead of the country's interest, and social activists who make a career in perpetuating ill-health.
Mashelkar is one of India's most respected scientists and a pioneering administrator of its public sector scientific establishment. Most importantly, he encouraged scientists to file patents to harness the commercial potential of innovations. Mashelkar truly realised the potential of the scientific community and foresaw the need for a good intellectual property (IPR) law that could provide an institutional framework for new opportunities.
But over the last few weeks, his critics have portrayed Mashelkar as a Bollywood-style villain. The Mashelkar committee was formed to review technical aspects of the Indian Patent Amendment Act, 2005. From the time it was passed, recognising among others things product patent in pharmaceuticals, there have been questions. One contentious issue was Section 3(d), which states that "the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant".
The issue here is of 'ever-greening' of patents, or an attempt to extend the life of a patent by incorporating cosmetic changes. The Indian law complicated things by using terms like "mere discovery" or "efficacy of the substance" — difficult to define and easy to misinterpret.
The contentious nature of these provisions was also brought to light by a case filed by Novartis before the Chennai High Court. It challenged an order of the patent registrar who refused a patent for 'Glivec', although the same product has been granted a patent in other countries. In its report two months ago, the Mashelkar committee had noted that the said provision would be a violation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips). Unfortunately, this technical recommendation got mired in a new controversy over plagiarism. Certain sections of the recommendations had been directly taken from another study submitted to the committee during its deliberations. Mashelkar immediately apologised to the author whose work was incorporated without due acknowledgement. He also requested the government to withdraw the report and offered to redo it.
The debate over pharmaceutical product patent has always been politicised. Politicians are eager to seize an opportunity to bash MNCs. It is a convenient tactic to divert attention away from India's dismal healthcare. After all, in a country which has not recognised patent in medicines for over three decades — where 97 per cent of medicines is believed to be off-patent — India is quite far from becoming the world's healthcare capital.
About 70 per cent of Indians never access modern healthcare systems. No doctor in public sector healthcare can claim that patients' problems are related to patents. But rather than looking into the whole chain of delivery — medical professionals, diagnostic facilities, dispensaries and hospitals — it is easier to wave the national flag. The reality is that even if there were no patents, or if medicines were distributed free, many patients would still not benefit. Nothing else can explain the failure to provide ORS to diarrhoea patients, or the failure to vaccinate children against polio.
Mashelkar has been criticised by the Indian pharmaceutical industry — an industry so concerned about Indians that they see their growth potential in markets abroad. Indeed, the aspects of the patent law that these businesses are opposed to are similar to the ones under US law, where some of the Indian companies are rapidly filing for their own incremental patents. The US patent law has been criticised but it can hardly be a coincidence that a stable patent law has contributed to making the US the most attractive destination for research and development, hosting some of the largest and best pharmaceutical research establishment, and at the same time being the largest market for patented medicines as well as generic drugs. The US pharmaceutical market today is close to $100 billion, about half of which is generic, and the total Indian market is just about a fifth of the US generic market.
One may differ on the interpretation of Section 3(d). The court is expected to rule on it. But IPR will assume even greater significance in the knowledge economy. And to engage in character assassination of Mashelkar, in an attempt to undermine IPR, will neither improve our healthcare system nor lay the foundation for our entry in to the knowledge era. That surely will not be cricket.
Barun Mitra is the director of Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in New Delhi
Sunday, March 18, 2007
China passes new law on property
China's parliament has wrapped up its annual session, passing a landmark law to increase private property rights.
It also approved a bill ending preferential tax treatment for foreign firms, setting a standard rate of 25%.
Premier Wen Jiabao ended the session as he had begun it last week, promising a move to more sustainable growth.
He also raised issues such as corruption, regional ties and international fears over China's military build-up.
Contentious law
China's leaders have been struggling for decades to enact a law to cover private assets - seen an important step away from Communist collective ownership and towards a market economy.
But some legislators feared that while the new property law would undoubtedly increase protection for home owners and prevent land seizures, it would also erode China's socialist principles.
Netizens unmoved by NPC
Long road to property bill
In fact, according to Daniel Griffiths, BBC correspondent in Beijing, this has been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation introduced in China in recent times.
But despite the concerns, when it came to putting the bill to the vote, 99.1% of the 2,889 legislators attending the NPC backed the property law.
The tax legislation - designed to wean China off an export-driven economy dominated by the manufacture of cheap goods - was passed with only slightly less support.
These high percentages are not unusual. The parliament - the National People's Congress (NPC) - meets just once a year and is largely a rubber stamp to endorse the policies of the ruling Communist Party. Courtesy: BBC News
China's parliament has wrapped up its annual session, passing a landmark law to increase private property rights.
It also approved a bill ending preferential tax treatment for foreign firms, setting a standard rate of 25%.
Premier Wen Jiabao ended the session as he had begun it last week, promising a move to more sustainable growth.
He also raised issues such as corruption, regional ties and international fears over China's military build-up.
Contentious law
China's leaders have been struggling for decades to enact a law to cover private assets - seen an important step away from Communist collective ownership and towards a market economy.
But some legislators feared that while the new property law would undoubtedly increase protection for home owners and prevent land seizures, it would also erode China's socialist principles.
Netizens unmoved by NPC
Long road to property bill
In fact, according to Daniel Griffiths, BBC correspondent in Beijing, this has been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation introduced in China in recent times.
But despite the concerns, when it came to putting the bill to the vote, 99.1% of the 2,889 legislators attending the NPC backed the property law.
The tax legislation - designed to wean China off an export-driven economy dominated by the manufacture of cheap goods - was passed with only slightly less support.
These high percentages are not unusual. The parliament - the National People's Congress (NPC) - meets just once a year and is largely a rubber stamp to endorse the policies of the ruling Communist Party. Courtesy: BBC News
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
NEPAL HEADS TOWARDS CHAOS
40 killed and a 1000 injured in clashes so far
Madhesis and Maoists abduct one another: Phase 2
By Manuwant Choudhary
40 killed and a 1000 injured in clashes so far
Madhesis and Maoists abduct one another: Phase 2
By Manuwant Choudhary
“If democratic demands like proportional representation at all levels are not accepted then Nepal’s secessionist violent forces could take over the Madhesi movement and demand full independence,’’ says Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, general secretary, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum.
Speaking over telephone from Nepal Mr. Sharma said while the movement is happy with the Nepal government accepting a federal structure for Nepal it is only one stop towards real democracy for half of Nepal’s disadvantaged population. “The Maoists took our help but now when they are a part of the government they have forgotten about our genuine cause.”
He said, “Two of the powerful Maoist factions Jwala Singh and Jai Krishna Goyit groups under Terai Jantantrik Mukti Morcha are already demanding full independence. What we are demanding is only statehood that is economically viable and not what politicians in Kathmandu are trying to do. They are making states combining the hill and plain areas only to weaken the terai people politically and economically.”
Basically, Nepal is up for grabs.
Maoists who after waging a ten year violent revolt have found a place in the interim government and have a say in the formation of states, Madhesis (people living in the terai region) have no say.
Its quite ironical since the Madhesi’s have played an important role in the democratic movement since the 60s and now when the royal power is at its nadir they still have not had their demands met. Says Mr. Sharma, “The earlier Madhesi leaders in movements for democracy only demanded Hindi as a language, wearing of dhoti-kurta as their cultural rights and citizenship as their political right. But that did not solve our problems.”
And this movement is growing. “In the movement for democracy 23 people were killed but in the Madhesis movement already 40 people have been killed and a thousand injured.”
The facts are in fact quite astonishing for a nation where the democractic movement is 50 years old.
According to the 2001 population census Nepal’s total population is 2 crore 34 lakhs of which 43 per cent are Madhesis. Madhesis however say their population is 55 per cent of the total poulation but the next population census will only be in 2011.
The Madhesis as a people have all along supported the movement for democracy in Nepal and some key leaders of the Maoists were also from the Madhesis and it was natural to assume that once the King was gone and the Maosists became a part of the Nepal government and an interim constitution came into being the Madhesis would get their rightful place under the sun.
But that was not to be.
Madhesis say they contribute 60 per cent of the revenue but only 23 per cent are spent in the terai region as of the total 75 districts in Nepal only 20 are in the terai region.
There are no Madhesis – not even a single soldier – in the Nepal army.
In the Nepal police in 75 districts there is not a single Madhesi Superintendant of Police.
None of Nepal’s ambassadors are Madhesi.
No Madhesi even at the secretary level.
Currently there are 205 parliamentary seats, of them 80 seats are in terai. Of the 80 seats 40 seats have gone to Madhesis while 40 to others which include prominent politicians like Nepal’s prime minister Grija Prasad Koirala and Nepal Communist Party (Ekikrit ML) Madhav Nepal.
Even the Maoists joining the democratic mainstream is being questioned since only 3,400 weapons have been surrendered before the UN representative mostly those looted from the police and army while there were 30,000 armed Maoists.
The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum is not a political party but a movement and it has five demands namely proportional representation in Nepal’s parliament and not first past the post system, full autonomy for the new states, proportional representation in jobs, electoral reforms and a Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)