NA

TIO

NA

L A

LL

IAN

CE

OF

PE

OP

LE

’S M

OV

EM

EN

TS

MO

I e-BU

LLET

IN

In this issue:- Telangana and its distant cousin in Bodoland

Baby food giants Nestle and other violate IMS Act

Exclusive interview with Dr. P. K. Sundaram of the Coa-

lition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace

VOLUME 1 ISSUE 7

16th August 2013

hood. According to sources from the

government, various outfits includ-ing Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM)

whose prominence is in the Darjee-ling 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 demand for a separate Bodo-land 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 Coun-cil 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 sepa-rate Bodoland is our constitutional right and our struggle will be a re-

lentless one," said ABSU president,

Pramod Boro.

Boro criticised the Sixth Schedule by drawing inferences from the simi-lar agitations for statehood of the

Karbis and Dimasas, hinting that had the Sixth Schedule safeguarded

the tribals effectively, there wouldn’t

T he recent judgement of Telan-gana has led to a revival of de-

mand 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 Te-langana as separate state has

spread like wildfire to the eastern part of India, to be precise, to North-eastern states where there have been

ongoing movements for decades, for creation of separate states by several

communities.

The news of Telangana has reinvigo-rated agitations for separate state-hood- 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 Di-

masa people; besides the Kukis of Manipur and Nagas of Na-

galand/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 news of the creation of Telan-gana is being perceived as betrayal by Bodo and Gorkha leaders and the

ongoing agitation is now more ag-gressive, putting greater pressure in

asserting their demands for state-

Richard Kamei

Telangana and its distant cousin in Bodoland

MOI: E-BULLETIN 2

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 com-pelled the people of these two district to real-

ize that the administrative arrangement un-der sixth schedule is not an adequate meas-

ure to help them develop in all fields," Boro

said.

zCover Story: Telangana opens

Pandora’s Box: The recent judge-ment of Telangana has led to a re-vival of demand for statehood

from different parts of India

1

Policy Watch: Right to Informa-tion (Amendment) Bill 2013

4

Nestle and Others Threaten Nu-tritional Security of Children:

Baby food giants violate IMS Act

6

MOI Interviews Dr. P. K. Sunda-ram of Coalition for Nuclear Dis-

armament and Peace

7

Updates and Events 10

Editorial 11

CONTENTSCONTENTS 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 irre-spective of its merits or demerits can also be

viewed as political opportunism, as the gen-eral 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 state-hood and another protests opposing them. The creation of a separate state from an ex-

isting 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 de-mands for statehood. It remains a challenge

to find middle ground, and an even bigger challenge to know which side to take. The le-gitimacy of giving in to demands for separate

state needs to be drawn from merits (after measuring the demerits) rather than political

opportunism.

VOL 1 ISSUE 7 3

Yeshwanth

Student, Hyderabad

“KCR is telling people that

with the new state, those

who are originally from

Andhra will have to leave

their jobs and go, and those

jobs will be given to

Telangana locals. In India,

we have the right to move

and settle in any part of the

country we want. How can

KCR ask us to leave?

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?”

PS Ajay

NAPM Convener

In its early years, NAPM had

conducted a conveners

meet in Hyderabad and

passed a resolution to

extend our support to the

cause of smaller states.

This

decision has long been

awaited.

MOI: E-BULLETIN 4

As per a press release on July 31st by the

Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI) / International Baby Food Action Net-

work (IBFAN Asia), baby food giants like Heinz, Nestle and Abbott have been blatantly violating the IMS Act [The Infant Milk Substi-

tutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distri-

bution) 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, induce-ments on sales, pecuniary benefits to doctors

or their associations including sponsorship, commission to salesmen, and prescribes cer-

tain labelling requirements.

But the baby food giants have been allegedly

violating the Act. Heinz advertises its cereal food “Oat and Apple” at ‘4+ months’ through the label on the container and various web-

sites. It also offers free ‘gifts’, ‘discounts’ and loyalty schemes to mothers for using the web-

site, 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.

Abbott uses claims of brain development to promote its “Similac advance infant formula stage 1” for babies up to 6 months of age.

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 ce-

real foods to a child before 6 months of age displaces mother’s milk and can lead to seri-

ous health risks including diarrhea. Babies should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months”.

Policy Watch: Right to Information (Amendment) Bill 2013

I n June 2013, activists Subhash Agrawal

and Anil Bairwal had approached the Chief Information Commission (CIC), and pointed

out that since numerous political parties- apart from government offices and govern-mental organisations- also receive govern-

mental funding and work for the public inter-est, they should be brought under the pur-view 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 chal-

lenged the ruling in court. Instead, it chose to altogether change this crucial legislation- hailed 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 po-

litical 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 pay-ment 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 Sun-

wais”, and crass inconsistencies began com-ing to light. Deceased people had been named on payrolls so that “wages” could be si-

phoned, labourers had been “paid” on record without having received a paisa in reality, and

numerous incomplete projects had been

marked “complete”.

Jan Sunwais were conducted time and

again, and started garnering media attention because of their success at calling the ad-

ministration’s bluff and ensuring fulfilment of dues. They highlighted the need for trans-

parent, 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 infor-

mation in local administration. They de-

Aruna Roy pointed out that the government could have

legitimately challenged the ruling in court. Instead,

it chose to altogether change this crucial legislation-

hailed 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.

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

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.

Meghna Majumdar

VOL 1 ISSUE 7 5

Policy Watch: Right to Information (Amendment) Bill 2013

manded that the State Government take con-

crete steps to ensure that information re-lated to development projects and expendi-

ture is accessible to common citizens. The right to view and make copies of such data

was finally granted in 1997, and Right to In-formation 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

Aruna Roy pointed out that the government could have

legitimately challenged the ruling in court. Instead,

it chose to altogether change this crucial legislation-

hailed 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.

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

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.

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 ac-countability 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 intelli-

gence concerns to trade secrets. A number of these exemptions are also based on the “absence of public interest”, a term often re-

peated in this context to stress that no infor-mation 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 defi-nition of public authority given in the RTI Act, as they are only registered and recognised un-

der 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 transpar-ent enough by law already, and doesn’t need

the RTI Act to make it more so.

Meghna Majumdar

Nestle and Others Violate IMS Act, Threaten Nutritional Security of Children

MOI: E-BULLETIN 6

A s per a press release on July 31st by the

Breastfeeding Promotion Network of In-dia (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 Substi-

tutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distri-bution) 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, induce-ments on sales, pecuniary benefits to doctors

or their associations including sponsorship, commission to salesmen, and prescribes cer-

tain labeling requirements.

But the baby food giants have been allegedly violating the Act. For example, Heinz adver-tises 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 pro-

mote 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 Insti-tute” 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 Feed-ing Bottles have been selling bottles and ce-

real foods on discount on e-marketing web-sites.

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 seri-ous health risks including diarrhea. Babies

should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months”. Dr. Uday Bodhankar, pediatrician and Inter-

national President Commonwealth Associa-tion for Health & Disability says, “There is no

doubt that multinational companies are try-

ing their best to enter the huge Indian mar-ket 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 Fo-rum), 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 theo-ries 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 Dis-

trict and State level officer to monitor, inves-tigate and launch a prosecution against the

v i o l a t o r w h e t h e r i t ’ s a n i n d i v i d u a l o r c o r p o r a t i o n .

Agrima Gupta

Surabhi Agarwal

VOL 1 ISSUE 7 7

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 repre-sentatives of anti-nuclear movements from

across the country including those in Jaita-pur, Kudankulam, Chukta, Gorakhpur, Mithi Virdi, Karkrapar and other sites of ex-

isting 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 organisa-tions, 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 nu-clear testing, opposes the induction or de-

ployment of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan, and calls for global and regional

nuclear disarmament. It is also strongly op-posed to India's nuclear energy programme, due to the inherent safety and health haz-

ards associated with the production of nu-clear power, and the monumental financial

and social costs of building and operating nuclear reactors. The organisation believes that the thick veil of secrecy and unaccount-

ability which shrouds nuclear activity in In-dia, and the mindless urgency and ruthless-ness with which it is being thrust on the In-

dian 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 culmi-nation 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, acknowl-edge that there are serious concerns regard-ing the hazards of nuclear power, and allow

open and democratic debate on nuclear en-ergy and its alternatives. It calls for a mora-torium on all proposed nuclear reactor pro-

jects in India, and expresses the need to con-

stitute a citizens’ commission to examine

the appropriateness, desirability, safety, en-

vironmental soundness, costs and long-term problems posed by nuclear power genera-

tion. Calling the existing process of environmental

impact assessment for nuclear projects un-acceptable, the charter advocates the con-

duct 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 li-ability of suppliers; and the immediate and

unconditional withdrawal all charges of sedi-tion and other false allegations against peo-ple 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 con-ventional and nonconventional energy re-

sources…The nuclear energy fuel cycle is too important a matter to be left only in the hands of scientists, bureaucrats, industrial-

ists 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

MOI Interviews Dr. P. K. Sundaram of Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and

Peace

MOI: E-BULLETIN 10

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 sec-

ond round of tests in 1998. Even though technically India is still a nuclear pariah - as it has not signed the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation 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 im-ports 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 con-

ditioned to prioritise self-reliance and indige-nous technology in the face of the restric-tions. They suddenly found themselves being

asked to justify why India needed these im-ports, 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 al-

low 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 re-quirements and arriving at conclusions about what steps to take to meet them - was

turned on its head. We found ourselves hav-ing 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 establish-

ment in India is said to be undemocratic, making it unaccountable and its activities

shrouded in secrecy. How would you like to see it restructured?

more about the current state of India's nu-

clear 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 establish-

ment 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 technolo-gies 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 rea-sons of concern for development or the envi-

ronment. This is why the establishment dis-played such utter disregard for an incident like the meltdown in Fukushima, and re-

fused 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 construc-tion was recently stalled by a court order in

Finland due to spiralling costs and construc-tion delays, is being pushed through for con-

struction in Jaitapur. Another reason for the tremendous support

our nuclear programme receives from the es-tablishment is that nuclear energy perfectly

suits the bill when it comes to India's cur-rent 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 empha-size the need to generate electricity for faster

development etc., but there is a fine line di-viding 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-

VOL 1 ISSUE 7 11

A: To make the nuclear energy programme in

India more democratic it is important that the provisions of the Nuclear Safety Regula-

tory 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 ex-

perts who have worked within the establish-ment. This will obviously compromise its ob-

jectivity. It should instead be headed by a body of independent experts from the fields of health, rural development, disaster man-

agement etc. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 also requires

urgent amendments. The whole nuclear sec-tor should come under the ambit of the Right

to Information Act. Operation and safety re-ports of all nuclear facilities should be made public every year. There should be mecha-

nisms to monitor radiation levels at these fa-cilities, 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 indi-rect 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 nu-clear 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 pro-

gramme. In countries like the US where the sector is completely privatised, nuclear en-

ergy 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

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 ac-knowledge the seriousness of what is hap-

pening 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 nu-

clear 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 nu-

clear 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 fu-ture?

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 pro-testing, 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 blind-

eye. This says something of the state of In-dian democracy. And ironically, the Indo-US nuclear deal was touted as a historic agree-

ment between two of the world's biggest de-mocracies. Recently, the Central Information

Commission (CIC) ordered the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to share basic safety-related reports of its nuclear fa-

cilities 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 develop-ments at existing nuclear sites like Fuku-

shima continue to reaffirm the safety and

MOI: E-BULLETIN 10

spectrum of debate on this issue is in our me-

dia. We are presented with a binary between nuclear energy and coal-based energy; if you

don't support one, you are assumed to sup-port 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, re-newable resources. These models could be

customised according to resource availability, and could be hybrids of solar, wind and bio-

mass energy production systems. Along with this, it is important to reduce transmission and distribution losses which currently ac-

count 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 projec-tions 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 nu-

clear research and development, and use it to develop a more efficient electricity transmis-

sion 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 Uttra-khand, sending it to the central grid in Delhi,

only to be transmitted to consumers in Bihar. We need a smarter, more flexible and decen-

tralised grid system.

health hazards associated with nuclear en-

ergy. Just yesterday, there were reports that the containment walls at the Fukushima

plant have collapsed and it is leaking hun-dreds 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 con-cerns 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 develop-

ment 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 spo-ken 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

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, Reha-bilitation and Resettlement Bill that was

scheduled to be introduced into the Lok Sabha that very day. The conference was ad-

dressed by Medha Patkar of NAPM, Yudhvir Singh of Bhartiya Kisan Union, Dr. Sunilam and Rupesh Verma of Kisan Sangharsh Sa-

miti.

Protest at Jantar Mantar against BRAI Bill

8th Aug, New Delhi: Members of NAPM par-ticipated in large scale demonstrations held at

Jantar Mantar with agitators protesting against the Biotechnology Regulatory Author-ity of India (BRAI) Bill, 2013 and demanding

that transnational corporation Monsanto leave India. Farmers, members of farmers’ or-ganisations and representatives of organisa-

tions such as Greenpeace India, Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA),

and Coalition for a GM Free India came to-gether 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

UPDATES

VOL 1 ISSUE 7 11

non- GM cotton, requesting that it be un-

furled at the Red Fort on Independence Day.

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 de-mand some assurance from the government.

Minister for Rural Development, Jairam Ramesh responded to Comrade Raja's and

Shri Hussain Dalwai's questions in parlia-ment and assured the house that he would come back to parliament in five weeks with a

restructured National Social Assistance Pro-gramme (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 uni-

versal. The Rajasthan government com-menced an enrolment campaign and many hundreds of thousands of the elderly have

already started getting pension.

So we meet at Jantar Mantar on 22nd Au-gust for a day, to remind the Minister of his promise to restructure NSAP and also to ap-

peal to State governments for supplement. Visit to witness the Narmada Project-

affected 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 vil-

lagers and review the situation for them-selves, the NAPM has organised a three-day

visit to a few affected villages in the valley.

The visit will enable visitors to see submer-

gence 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 wel-come.

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 ca-

pacities 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 meet-

ing 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, exam-

ining the role played by various parties con-

cerned including the United Nations Organi-

sation and stressing the need to ensure to

Tamils their rights and deliver justice.

EVENTS

MOI: E-BULLETIN 10

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 intro-duced 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 defi-

nition 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 na-tion. The bill though has some positive points to its credit like seeking a majority

consent, conducting Social Impact Assess-ment, expanded definition of project af-fected persons, return of land in some

cases to land owners but overall states role in acquisition has increased and law is ti-tled 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 intro-

duced 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 defi-nition 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 na-tion. The bill though has some positive points to its credit like seeking a majority consent, conducting Social Impact Assess-

ment, expanded definition of project af-fected persons, return of land in some cases to land owners but overall states role

in acquisition has increased and law is ti-tled 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 Develop-ment. In the long drawn discussion on vari-

ous 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 amend-ments 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 Parlia-ment. 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 re-quests. Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Ru-

ral 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 acquisi-tion of land and associated Natural Re-sources, such as minerals, for the private

companies and their projects. The consent of 80% of affected land losers in the case of pri-vate 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 recom-mended by Standing Comiittee? Infact, ex-

EDITORIAL: The New LARR Bill will not End the British Legacy of Forced Land Ac-quisition

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

VOL 1 ISSUE 7 11

cluding the Government projects & all In-frastructure projects, has left the Bill a

lame one, and not applicable to land ac-quisition 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 acquisi-tion, only 3 acts are brought under the pur-

view 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 out-side 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 par-tially as in the case of PESA act. So, the re-

mote possibility of its retrospective applica-tion will not have much impact and only in

cases where only LAA is being used will get some relief. All this indicates that the Brit-ish legacy is to continue, with some ex-

ception. The UPA has lost the opportunity to make the development planning truly de-mocratic and bring in the role of Gram Sab-

has and the Urban Basti Sabhas in planning all the projects, including government and

private projects. The Bill also rejects the Standing Commit-

tees 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 bring-ing in alternative land under cultivation for

acquiring multi crop land as the last resort, but that does not prevent acquisition of sin-gle crop land. Thus 75% of India’s farmers engaged in rain fed agriculture will con-

tinue to have sword of land grab and evic-

tion 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 coun-try 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 protect-ing land rights of those who already have

land, and it will make more people land-less.

There is no doubt that Resettlement & Reha-bilitation 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 pro-

viding 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 ineq-uity between the prices for the agricultural

produce vis-à-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 pro-ject affected SC/ST Families is highly inade-

quate and will neither ensure alternative live-lihood nor better standard of living. It is also unnecessary that the Bill leaves Resettlement

and Rehabilitation responsibility for the Pri-vate 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

National Alliance of People’s Movements

(NAPM) started as a process in 1992

amidst the Ayodhya backlash and glob-

alization 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 to-

gether 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.

We stand against corporate globalisa-

tion, communalism and religious funda-

mentalism, patriarchy, casteism,

untouchability and discrimination of all

kinds. We believe an alliance emerging

out of such a process with shared ideol-

ogy 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.

C/O 6/6, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 014 India

Nat ional A l l iance of People ’s

Movements

91 - 11 - 2437 4535 9818 - 411 - 417

napmindia@gmail.com

www.napm-india.org

www.facebook.com/ napmindia

www.twitter.com/napmindia

MOI eBULLETIN is an NAPM initia-

tive towards providing our friends

and supporters updated news of

NAPM’s and its associates activi-

ties, 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.

Please send in all press releases to

nampdelhi@gmail.com. Mention

‘eBULLETIN’ in the subject line.