Tag: Politics

Communalism

Communalism can be defined as an ideology stating the division of states on the Basis of ethnicity, religion, believes, values etc. The difference of two or more religious, Ethnic and social communities can sometimes produce clashes in the Society.

Communalism is a theory of government in which autonomous play song communities from Confederations. Communalism as a historical method follows the development of communities. It is a political trade in religion and an ideology On which communal politics is based. Communal Violence is conjectural consequence of communal ideology. Communalism has a major effect on the public it tends 2 separate people based on religion, language, territory, and ethnic origins. It leads to communal riots, Curfew situations, and can even cause terrorist activities. A communal Thought always tends to Establish political dominance Over a particular religious community. The country weakens when Political parties are formed and political activities are conducted on communal lines. The most negative impact of Communalism is riots, violence, and homicides. Communalism is a significant social issue in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

When it comes to India, communal conflicts between religious communities in the country have Occurred since the period of British colonial rule, occasionally leading to serious inter communal Violence. Communalism is not just unique to South Asia as it can also be found in countries like Africa, America, Asia, Europe, and Australia.

The rising movement of communalism and the coexistence with violence have created a insecurity feeling between religious minorities among them Muslims, Sikhs and Christians in particular has feared of discrimination and confrontation in the coming days.

To prevent damages of the peace and integrity of the nation. It has many ways needed to analyse and debate the problem of communalism and communal violence. It’s became an absolute importance to be define communalism between people and also made equally pertinent to discovery of ‘commu-nal’.

The major factors towards the emergence and growth of communalism in modern India involves:

  • Indian Britishers create a new policy during the Indian colonial is ‘Divide and Rule’ this made division between two countries.
  • The disappointments and frustration among younger generations and aspiring middle class of youths, caused by static agriculture, absence of modern industrial development and inadequate employment opportunities, which is exploited by political opportunists.
  • Hindu and Muslim revivalist movements.
  • A communal and distorted view of Indian history, taught in school and colleges played a major role in rise and growth of communal feelings among the masses.
  • The separatism and isolation between religious communities.
  • The rise of communal and fundamentalist parties.

Factors that responsible for Communal Violence:

  • Politics division – Communalism is often defined as a political perspective that makes use of religious and cultural differences in achieving a political gains.
  • Economy problems – Uneven development, class divisions, poverty and unemployment aggravates insecurity in the common men which make them vulnerable to political manipulation.
  • History of Communal Riots – Probability of recurrence of communal riots in a town where communal riots have already taken place once or twice is stronger than in a town when such riots have never occurred.
  • Politics of Appeasement – Prompted by political considerations, and guided by their vested interests, political parties take decisions which promote communal violence.
  • Isolation and Economic Backwardness of minority religion Community – The failure to adopt the scientific and technological education and thus, insufficient representation in the public service, industry and trade etc has led to the feeling of relative deprivation among minorities.
  • The resurgence of religious economic competition, especially among the lower and middle class strata has fuelled the communal ideology.
  • The lack of Administrative – A weak law and order is one of the causes of communal violence.
  • Psychology problem between communities – The lack of inter-personal trust and mutual understanding between two communities often result in perception of threat, harassment, fear and danger in one community against the members of the other community , which in turn leads to fight, hatred and anger phobia.
  • Role of Media – It is often accused of sensationalism and disseminates rumours as “news” which sometimes resulted into further tension and riots between two rival religious groups.
  • Social media has also emerged as a powerful medium to spread messages relating to communal tension or riot in any part of the country.

Measures to Deal with Communalism

There is need to reform in present criminal justice system, speedy trials and adequate compensation to the victims, may act as deterrent.

Increase in representation of minority community and weaker sections in all wings of law-enforcement, training of forces in human rights, especially in the use of firearms in accordance with UN code of conduct.

Codified guidelines for the administration, specialised training for the police force to handle communal riots and setting up special investigating and prosecuting agencies can help in damping major communal disgruntlement.

Emphasis on value-oriented education with focus on the values of peace, non-violence, compassion, secularism and humanism as well as developing scientific temper (enshrined as a fundamental duty) and rationalism as core values in children both in schools and colleges/universities, can prove vital in preventing communal feelings.

Government can adopt models followed by countries like Malaysia that has developed early-warning indicators to prevent racial clashes.

The Malaysian Ethnic Relations Monitoring System (known by its acronym Mesra) that makes use of a quality of life index (included criteria such as housing, health, income and education) and a perception index to gauge people’s needs and feelings about race relations in their area.

Also the Hong Kong model of combating communalism by setting up a “Race Relation Unit” to promote racial harmony and facilitate integration of ethnic minorities, can be emulated by India.

RRU has established a hotline for complaints and inquiries on racial discrimination. Meanwhile, to create awareness about communal harmony, RRU talks to schools on culture of ethnic minorities and concept of racial discrimination.

Government can encourage and support civil society and NGOs to run projects that help create communal awareness, build stronger community relation and cultivating values of communal harmony in next generation.

There is a need for minority welfare schemes to be launched and implemented efficiently by administration to address the challenges and various forms of discrimination faced by them in jobs, housing and daily life.

A pro-active approach by National Foundation for Communal Harmony (NFCH), the body responsible for promoting communal harmony is needed.

NFCH provides assistance for the physical and psychological rehabilitation of the child victims of communal, caste, ethnic or terrorist violence, besides promoting communal harmony, fraternity and national integration.

A legislation is required to curb the communal violence. Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005 must be enacted soon.

The enormous scope and changes for transformation due to our new generation and their progressive of the countries. The new generation can give new hopes and changes towards the making of new India which would help to free from all kinds of communal and caste conflicts, prejudices, hatred and discrimination, this may not possible through law but it can help us to have positive efforts of the new generation.

A Struggle of many people to make Uttarakhand a state.

Credit- TOI

Uttarakhand became a state on November 9, 2000. The establishment of Uttarakhand was achieved after a lot of hard work and sacrifice. The voice for Uttarakhand to become a state was first raised in a special session of the Indian National Congress in Srinagar, May 5-6, 1938. In 1994, after a series of events, demand gradually increased for another state eventually which took the form of a mass movement, leading to the formation of India’s 27th state by 2000.

In March 1994, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav recommended the Mandal Commission to secure 27% of government positions and places in schools and universities for socially and economically weaker classes,which was later on carried on. The Hill region OBC population was very small at 2.5% and reserving OBC seats meant that all government seats would go to the plains of Uttar Pradesh. This led to intensified protests against the nation.

In 1994, the students throughout the region participated in separate state and group movements for reservations. The Uttarakhand movement was further intensified locally by the anti-Uttarakhand statement by then-Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav. Uttarakhand leaders continued to support their call for another state until their death. State officials went on strike for three months, and the Uttarakhand movement was exacerbated by the blockade and confrontation with police. Uttarakhand activists in Mussoorie and Khatima were shot dead by police. On October 2, 1994, in Delhi, the capital of the country, a large-scale demonstration and protest was held in support of the state under the support of Samyukta Morcha. Uttarakhand activists marched to Delhi to participate in the struggle. Activists who participated in peaceful demonstrations near Ranpur Tiraha Junction in Muzaffarnagar were tortured and shot dead openly without warning. Police officers were also charged with obscene behavior and rape with female activists. Satya Pokhriyal was a leader who led all people out of misery and other Andolankari helped others and showed courage. Several people were killed and many were injured. These incidents has fueled the Uttarakhand movement. The next day, October 3, the destruction of gunfights across the region and protests over multiple deaths broke up.

Credit- Himalaya Buzz

On October 7, 1994, a female activists died after police brutally attacked her in Dehradun while she protested against the shooting at Rampur Tiraha and many activists attacked the police station in return. A curfew was imposed in Dehradun on October 15, and one activists was also killed on the same day. On October 27, 1994, then Indian Minister of Home Affairs Rajesh Pilot met with state activists. Meanwhile, a brutal police attack in Srinagar’s Sriyantra Tapu killed several activists while they were protesting.


On August 15, 1996, then Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda announced at the Red Fort of Delhi the forming of a new state Uttarakhand.

In 1998, the BJP-led coalition government at the centre sent the “Uttarakhand Bill” through the President of India to the Uttar Pradesh state government . The Uttar Pradesh State Assembly passed , the Uttarakhand bill with 26 amendments and sent back to the central government. On July 27, 2000, the central government submitted the 2000 Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Bill to the Parliament of India. Lok Sabha passed the bill on August 1, 2000, and Rajya Sabha passed the bill on August 10, 2000. The Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act was approved by then President of India, K.R. Narayana on August 28, 2000 and on November 9, 2000, the new state of Uttaranchal was established as the 27th state of India, now known as Uttarakhand.

What a filibuster is.

Traditionally, the Senate filibuster was reserved for only the most controversial issues, but its use has escalated in recent years, often slowing business in the chamber to a halt. Some lawmakers acknowledge that the filibuster, which has effectively set a 60-vote super­majority requirement for passing legis­la­tion in the Senate, could doom many of the propos­als they have cham­pioned, including meaningful reforms on issues ranging from health care to climate change to gun control. Behind this dysfunc­tion, the filibuster also has a troubling legacy: it has often been used to block civil rights legislation intended to combat racial discrimination.

As advocates push for pro-democracy legislation, calls for eliminating the filibuster have grown louder. In his remarks at the funeral of civil rights hero and congressman John Lewis in July 2020, former President Barack Obama called the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic,” arguing that the procedure should be eliminated if it is used to block voting reforms. Others note that certain types of legislation are already exempt from the fili­buster’s super­majority require­ment and argue that a similar exemp­tion should be made for voting rights.The stakes were raised in March 2021, when the For the People Act — a comprehensive democracy reform bill — was passed by the House of Representatives and introduced in the Senate, where the filibuster may determine its fate. Whether through elimination or reform, the filibuster cannot be allowed to impede the expansion of Ameican democracy or the rights of all eligible voters.

What is the filibuster?

The filibuster is a 19th-century procedural rule in the Senate that allows any one senator to block or delay action on a bill or other matter by extending debate. While a final vote in the Senate requires a simple majority of 51 votes, a supermajority, or 60 votes, is needed to start or end debate on legislation so it can proceed to a final vote. Therefore, even if a party has a slim majority in the Senate, it still needs a supermajority to even move forward with legislation a tall task for a hyper-partisan Washington. The House of Representatives does not use the filibuster. Instead, a simple majority can end debate.

How can the filibuster rule be changed?

Senators have carved out exceptions to the filibuster rule before.One option to do so is called “going nuclear” — when senators override an existing rule, such as the number of votes needed to end debate. This is usually done by lowering the threshold needed to end a filibuster to 50 votes.In 2017, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, clearing the way for then-President Donald Trump’s first nominee to be confirmed.

Why a call for change now?

In the last 50 years, the filibuster has been used more and more to kill major legislation. And with Biden’s agenda stalled, Democrats are calling for a carve out to pass voting rights legislation. In the last year, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. If the threshold to end debate on a bill is lowered to 50 votes, for instance, Democrats could end debate on their voting reform bill and eventually move to a final vote, with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as a tie-breaking vote in the 50-50 Senate to pass the legislation. Incidentally, Harris, as president of the Senate, would play a key role in any potential rules change. She would be expected to occupy the chair and preside over any rule change action.

What’s the differ­ence between “talking” and “silent” fili­busters?

Filibusters traditionally involved long speeches in which a senator attempted to block a vote from proceeding by refusing to yield the floor. To stage such a “talking” fili­buster, a senator would hold the floor by stand­ing and talking for as long as they could, sometimes overnight. This was popularized in the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Wash­ing­ton. The longest filibuster ever recor­ded, by South Caro­lina Sen. Strom Thur­mond in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, lasted for more than 24 hours. But since the early 1970s, senators have been able to use a “silent” filibuster. Anytime a group of 41 or more senators simply threatens a filibuster, the Senate majority leader can refuse to call a vote.

How has the fili­buster changed over time?

The use of the filibuster, once reserved for only the most controversial issues, has increased dramat­ic­ally in recent years along­side grow­ing polar­iz­a­tion in Wash­ing­ton. There have been more than 2,000 fili­busters since 1917; about half have been in just the last 12 years. Crit­ics argue that this increased use has slowed busi­ness in the Senate to a halt, often entangling the cham­ber in proced­ural maneuv­er­ing instead of substant­ive debate and, ulti­mately, lawmak­ing.

What a filibuster is.

Traditionally, the Senate filibuster was reserved for only the most controversial issues, but its use has escalated in recent years, often slowing business in the chamber to a halt. Some lawmakers acknowledge that the filibuster, which has effectively set a 60-vote super­majority requirement for passing legis­la­tion in the Senate, could doom many of the propos­als they have cham­pioned, including meaningful reforms on issues ranging from health care to climate change to gun control. Behind this dysfunc­tion, the filibuster also has a troubling legacy: it has often been used to block civil rights legislation intended to combat racial discrimination.

As advocates push for pro-democracy legislation, calls for eliminating the filibuster have grown louder. In his remarks at the funeral of civil rights hero and congressman John Lewis in July 2020, former President Barack Obama called the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic,” arguing that the procedure should be eliminated if it is used to block voting reforms. Others note that certain types of legislation are already exempt from the fili­buster’s super­majority require­ment and argue that a similar exemp­tion should be made for voting rights.The stakes were raised in March 2021, when the For the People Act — a comprehensive democracy reform bill — was passed by the House of Representatives and introduced in the Senate, where the filibuster may determine its fate. Whether through elimination or reform, the filibuster cannot be allowed to impede the expansion of Ameican democracy or the rights of all eligible voters.

What is the filibuster?

The filibuster is a 19th-century procedural rule in the Senate that allows any one senator to block or delay action on a bill or other matter by extending debate. While a final vote in the Senate requires a simple majority of 51 votes, a supermajority, or 60 votes, is needed to start or end debate on legislation so it can proceed to a final vote. Therefore, even if a party has a slim majority in the Senate, it still needs a supermajority to even move forward with legislation a tall task for a hyper-partisan Washington. The House of Representatives does not use the filibuster. Instead, a simple majority can end debate.

How can the filibuster rule be changed?

Senators have carved out exceptions to the filibuster rule before.One option to do so is called “going nuclear” — when senators override an existing rule, such as the number of votes needed to end debate. This is usually done by lowering the threshold needed to end a filibuster to 50 votes.In 2017, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, clearing the way for then-President Donald Trump’s first nominee to be confirmed.

Why a call for change now?

In the last 50 years, the filibuster has been used more and more to kill major legislation. And with Biden’s agenda stalled, Democrats are calling for a carve out to pass voting rights legislation. In the last year, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. If the threshold to end debate on a bill is lowered to 50 votes, for instance, Democrats could end debate on their voting reform bill and eventually move to a final vote, with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as a tie-breaking vote in the 50-50 Senate to pass the legislation. Incidentally, Harris, as president of the Senate, would play a key role in any potential rules change. She would be expected to occupy the chair and preside over any rule change action.

What’s the differ­ence between “talking” and “silent” fili­busters?

Filibusters traditionally involved long speeches in which a senator attempted to block a vote from proceeding by refusing to yield the floor. To stage such a “talking” fili­buster, a senator would hold the floor by stand­ing and talking for as long as they could, sometimes overnight. This was popularized in the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Wash­ing­ton. The longest filibuster ever recor­ded, by South Caro­lina Sen. Strom Thur­mond in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, lasted for more than 24 hours. But since the early 1970s, senators have been able to use a “silent” filibuster. Anytime a group of 41 or more senators simply threatens a filibuster, the Senate majority leader can refuse to call a vote.

How has the fili­buster changed over time?

The use of the filibuster, once reserved for only the most controversial issues, has increased dramat­ic­ally in recent years along­side grow­ing polar­iz­a­tion in Wash­ing­ton. There have been more than 2,000 fili­busters since 1917; about half have been in just the last 12 years. Crit­ics argue that this increased use has slowed busi­ness in the Senate to a halt, often entangling the cham­ber in proced­ural maneuv­er­ing instead of substant­ive debate and, ulti­mately, lawmak­ing.

All about Article 370

On October 17, 1949, Article 370 was added to the Indian constitution, as a ‘temporary provision’, which exempted Jammu & Kashmir, permitting it to draft its own Constitution and restricting the Indian Parliament’s legislative powers in the state. It was introduced into the draft constitution by N Gopalaswami Ayyangar as Article 306 A.

Under Article 370: The Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir was empowered to recommend which articles of the Indian Constitution should apply to the state,The J&K Constituent Assembly was dissolved after it drafted the state’s constitution. The article allowed the state a certain amount of autonomy – its own constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws. Foreign affairs, defence and communications remained the preserve of the central government.As a result, Jammu and Kashmir could make its own rules relating to permanent residency, ownership of property and fundamental rights. It could also bar Indians from outside the state from purchasing property or settling there.

On 5th August 2019, President of India in the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 370 of the Constitution had issued the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019. Through this, Government of India has made modifications in Article 370 itself (not revoked it).With this, the Government of India has dramatically altered the relationship between the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Union. Order, 2019 has replaced Presidential Order of 1954.Subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, passed by Parliament divides the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two new Union Territories (UTs): Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh.This is the first time that a state has been converted into a UT.Of the six Lok Sabha seats currently with the state of Jammu and Kashmir, five will remain with the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, while one will be allotted to Ladakh.The UT of Jammu and Kashmir will have an Assembly, like in Delhi and Puducherry.Instead of 29, India will now have 28 states. Kashmir will no longer have a Governor, rather a Lieutenant .The special status provided to J&K under Article 370 will be abolished. Jammu & Kashmir will no longer have the separate constitution, flag or anthem. The citizens of Jammu and Kashmir will not have dual citizenship. As the new union territory of Jammu and Kashmir will be subject to the Indian Constitution, its citizens will now have the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Indian constitution. Article 360, which can be used to declare a Financial Emergency, will now also be applicable. All laws passed by Parliament will be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir, including the Right to Information Act and the Right to Education Act. The Indian Penal Code will replace the Ranbir Penal Code of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 35A, which originates from the provisions of Article 370 stands null and void. Since Presidential Order has extended all provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, including the chapter on Fundamental Rights, the discriminatory provisions under Article 35A will now be unconstitutional.

The Need for Changes in abolishing A370 was dire. Article 370 was added in the Indian constitution to provide autonomy to J&K.However, it failed to address the well-being of Kashmiris who have now endured two generations of insurgency and violence. It contributed to the gap between Kashmir and the rest of the nation. In the newly-formed Union Territory of J&K, the central government is trying to formulate new rules that will give domicile rights to residents over land and in government jobs. This has been a response to the perception that the unemployment rate in J&K is higher than the national average.Domicile rights have also been a long-standing demand of the Dogras of Jammu and the Buddhists of Ladakh. While most of those interviewed by this author chose to remain silent on the issue of domicile rights, a few expressed their fears that such a move will further limit the employment opportunities for the local youth and also lead to a demographic disruption in the Valley.

Possible Consequences include rise in militancy as  Article 370 was seen by Kashmiris as a marker of their separate identity and autonomy. Widespread protests and violence as a reaction to the dilution of Article 370 are bound to take place .Terror elements in Pakistan would find Kashmir to be the most fertile ground for breeding terrorism. The unrest can affect the democratic progress that has been made so far. Opposition political parties could launch a legal challenge but Kashmir is an emotive issue with many Indians, and most parties would be wary of opposing the move lest they be branded anti-India. All in all, Kashmir and the people there are reaching towards normalcy after 2 years of removing article 370, but for how long will peace prevail? India is hoping for a long one.

Contemporary anarchism

Anarchism is a process whereby authority and domination is being replaced with non-hierarchical, horizontal structures, with voluntary associations between human beings. It is a form of social organisation with a set of key principles, such as self-organisation, voluntary association, freedom, autonomy, solidarity, direct democracy, egalitarianism and mutual aid. Based on these principles and values, anarchism rejects both a capitalist economy and a nation state that is governed by means of a representative democracy. It is a utopian project that aspires to combine the best parts of liberalism with the best parts of communism. At its heart is a mix of the liberal emphasis on individual freedom and the communist emphasis on an equal society. Let’s unpack this a bit. The etymology of the term traces back to the Greek word “anarkhia”, which means “without rulers” or “without authority”. It stands for the absence of domination, hierarchy and power over others.

Whenever public protests ignite into violent behaviour, the mainstream media are often quick to refer to “anarchy” and to “anarchists”. Those who are referred to as anarchists are protesters who burn tyres or engage in battles with the police. In this narrative, anarchists are lawless hooligans and anarchy is about chaos and pointless violence. The political philosophy of anarchisms emerged in the mid-19th century – as part of the thought of Enlightenment. Key anarchist thinkers include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William Godwin, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and Max Stirner. Proudhon is credited as the first self-proclaimed anarchist and is often seen as the founder of classic anarchist thinking. In particular, he developed the concept of spontaneous order in society, where organisations can emerge without central or top-down coordination.

The most common definitions of anarchism stress two points; first, anarchists are opposed to any form of coercive authority; following from this, anarchists are opposed to state power and seek to destroy it. But even this basic definition ignores the important distinction between anarchists who emphasize collective action rather than individualism, or who avoid any strategies focused on the state (even its destruction. The last stand of traditional anarchism, which reached its high point in Spain during the 1930s, suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Franco’s fascists and the criminal policies of the Stalinized Communist Party. A once vibrant international anarchist movement was in ruins by the end of the Second World War. In the United States, political repression and Red Squad terror decimated the anarchist ranks more than a decade earlier. Small, isolated groups of anarchists survived, but never again reached the influence once attained during the Spanish Civil War.

After World War II, anarchist groups and federations reemerged in almost all countries where they had formerly flourished—the notable exceptions being Spain and the Soviet Union—but these organizations wielded little influence compared to that of the broader movement inspired by earlier ideas. This development is not surprising, since anarchists never stressed the need for organizational continuity, and the cluster of social and moral ideas that are identifiable as anarchism always spread beyond any clearly definable movement.

Anarchist ideas emerged in a wider frame of reference beginning with the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, which aimed to resist injustice through the tactic of civil disobedience. In the 1960s and ’70s a new radicalism took root among students and the left in general in the United States, Europe, and Japan, embracing a general criticism of “elitist” power structures and the materialist values of modern industrial societies—both capitalist and communist. For these radicals, who rejected the traditional parties of the left as strongly as they did the existing political structure, the appeal of anarchism was strong. The general anarchist outlook—with its emphasis on spontaneity, theoretical flexibility, simplicity of life, and the importance of love and anger as complementary and necessary components in both social and individual action—attracted those who opposed impersonal political institutions and the calculations of older parties. The anarchist rejection of the state, and the insistence on decentralism and local autonomy, found strong echoes among those who advocated participatory democracy. The anarchist insistence on direct action was reflected in calls for extra parliamentary action and violent confrontation by some student groups in France, the United States, and Japan. Anarchists also took up issues related to feminism and developed a rich body of work, known as anarcha-feminism, that applied anarchist principles to the analysis of women’s oppression, arguing that the state is inherently patriarchal and that women’s experience as nurturers and caregivers reflects the anarchist ideals of mutuality and the rejection of hierarchy and authority.

The most prevalent current in anarchist thinking during the last two decades of the 20th century (at least in the United States) was an eclectic, countercultural mixture of theories reflecting a wide range of artistic, literary, political, and philosophical influences, including Dada, Surrealism, and Situationism; the writers of the Beat movement; the Frankfurt School of Marxist-oriented social and political philosophers—especially Herbert Marcuse—and post-structuralist and postmodern philosophy and literary theory, in particular the work of the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault.

Contemporary anarchism has some important differences, but also a great deal of continuity, with historical anarchism. Where it focuses on building an alternative in the “interstices” of capitalism, it accommodates to, rather than challenges, capitalism; and where it fetishizes street tactics, it generates more press than tangible success in either building the struggle or in challenging the state.But struggle teaches, and those anarchists most engaged in struggle and most concerned with finding the most effective means of winning a better world are looking for alternative ideas to make sense of the crises around us. Marxists and these anarchists should stand shoulder-to-shoulder in every aspect of struggle, whether fighting evictions, the far right, or budget cuts. And serious revolutionaries must consider what tactics will strengthen the movement and its chances of victory. Foolish acts of vandalism by unaccountable individuals only serve to disrupt and weaken the movement, and the best anarchists recognize this.

The women’s suffrage movement

The Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on August 18, 1920. It declares that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. “The amendment, which granted women the right to vote, represented the pinnacle of the women’s suffrage movement, which was led by the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA).In their decades-long struggle for female enfranchisement, women’s rights advocates met with strong opposition from anti-suffrage activists.

The women’s suffrage movement has its origins in the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, the first women’s rights convention ever held in the United States. Approximately three hundred activists, female and male, gathered to discuss the condition of women and to devise strategies for achieving social and political rights for women. Though women’s suffrage was a topic of debate at the convention, it was not the main goal of the movement at this early stage, and the convention’s resolution demanding women’s suffrage was the only resolution that was not passed unanimously.

The first women’s suffrage organizations were created in 1869. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA), while Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, and Henry Blackwell founded the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). These two rival groups were divided over the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed African American men the right to vote. The AWSA supported the Fifteenth Amendment, while the NWSA opposed it because it did not include suffrage for women. In 1890, the two competing organizations were merged into the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA).

During the 1870s, suffragists (women’s suffrage activists) began attempting to vote at polling places and filing lawsuits when their attempts were rejected. This drew attention to the women’s rights movement, particularly after Susan B. Anthony was arrested and put on trial for voting in the 1872 presidential election. Suffragists hoped that the lawsuits would work their way up to the Supreme Court, and that the justices would declare that women had a constitutional right to vote. In 1875, the Supreme Court, rejected women’s suffrage, ruling that the US Constitution did not confer the right of suffrage to anyone.

After the Supreme Court ruling, leaders of the women’s rights movement adopted other strategies for securing universal suffrage. Activists began organizing a drive to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. The National American Woman Suffrage Association launched a campaign to achieve victories at the state level, in the hopes that if enough states allowed women the right to vote, federal legislation would follow. These efforts were so successful that by the time of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, over half of all states had already granted limited voting rights to women.

The Nineteenth Amendment

In January, 1878, Republican Senator Aaron A. Sargent of California formally introduced in the Senate a constitutional amendment to guarantee women the vote. The bill languished in committee until 1887, when it finally went up to a vote, and was defeated. Not until 1914 was another constitutional amendment for women’s rights considered, and again rejected, by the Senate.

Though the movement for women’s suffrage was well-organized and gaining momentum by the early twentieth century, it met with strong opposition from some sectors of US society. Brewers and distillers were opposed to female enfranchisement because they assumed that women would vote for the prohibition of alcoholic beverages, while businesses that employed children feared that women would vote to eliminate child labour. Anti-suffrage organizations sprang up all over the country to oppose the drive for female enfranchisement. Anti-suffrage activists were not just men; indeed, many upper class women joined the movement, arguing that politics was a dirty business that would sully the moral and spiritual authority of women

The National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1900, launched an effort to link the drive for female suffrage to the US war effort in the First World War. Though many of her fellow suffragists were anti-war pacifists, Catt made the controversial decision to support the war and to thereby portray the women’s suffrage movement as patriotic. The effort was a success; in his 1918 State of the Union address, President Woodrow Wilson declared his support for female enfranchisement.

On August 18, 1920, Congress ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed the right to vote to all US citizens regardless of sex. The Nineteenth Amendment represented a major victory and a turning point in the women’s rights movement.

The women’s suffrage movement

The Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on August 18, 1920. It declares that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. “The amendment, which granted women the right to vote, represented the pinnacle of the women’s suffrage movement, which was led by the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA).In their decades-long struggle for female enfranchisement, women’s rights advocates met with strong opposition from anti-suffrage activists.

The women’s suffrage movement has its origins in the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, the first women’s rights convention ever held in the United States. Approximately three hundred activists, female and male, gathered to discuss the condition of women and to devise strategies for achieving social and political rights for women. Though women’s suffrage was a topic of debate at the convention, it was not the main goal of the movement at this early stage, and the convention’s resolution demanding women’s suffrage was the only resolution that was not passed unanimously.

The first women’s suffrage organizations were created in 1869. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA), while Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, and Henry Blackwell founded the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). These two rival groups were divided over the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed African American men the right to vote. The AWSA supported the Fifteenth Amendment, while the NWSA opposed it because it did not include suffrage for women. In 1890, the two competing organizations were merged into the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA).

During the 1870s, suffragists (women’s suffrage activists) began attempting to vote at polling places and filing lawsuits when their attempts were rejected. This drew attention to the women’s rights movement, particularly after Susan B. Anthony was arrested and put on trial for voting in the 1872 presidential election. Suffragists hoped that the lawsuits would work their way up to the Supreme Court, and that the justices would declare that women had a constitutional right to vote. In 1875, the Supreme Court, rejected women’s suffrage, ruling that the US Constitution did not confer the right of suffrage to anyone.

After the Supreme Court ruling, leaders of the women’s rights movement adopted other strategies for securing universal suffrage. Activists began organizing a drive to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. The National American Woman Suffrage Association launched a campaign to achieve victories at the state level, in the hopes that if enough states allowed women the right to vote, federal legislation would follow. These efforts were so successful that by the time of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, over half of all states had already granted limited voting rights to women.

The Nineteenth Amendment

In January, 1878, Republican Senator Aaron A. Sargent of California formally introduced in the Senate a constitutional amendment to guarantee women the vote. The bill languished in committee until 1887, when it finally went up to a vote, and was defeated. Not until 1914 was another constitutional amendment for women’s rights considered, and again rejected, by the Senate.

Though the movement for women’s suffrage was well-organized and gaining momentum by the early twentieth century, it met with strong opposition from some sectors of US society. Brewers and distillers were opposed to female enfranchisement because they assumed that women would vote for the prohibition of alcoholic beverages, while businesses that employed children feared that women would vote to eliminate child labour. Anti-suffrage organizations sprang up all over the country to oppose the drive for female enfranchisement. Anti-suffrage activists were not just men; indeed, many upper class women joined the movement, arguing that politics was a dirty business that would sully the moral and spiritual authority of women

The National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1900, launched an effort to link the drive for female suffrage to the US war effort in the First World War. Though many of her fellow suffragists were anti-war pacifists, Catt made the controversial decision to support the war and to thereby portray the women’s suffrage movement as patriotic. The effort was a success; in his 1918 State of the Union address, President Woodrow Wilson declared his support for female enfranchisement.

On August 18, 1920, Congress ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed the right to vote to all US citizens regardless of sex. The Nineteenth Amendment represented a major victory and a turning point in the women’s rights movement.

POLITICS IN INDIA

Politics work with inthe constitution of India.India is a parliamentary democratic republic in which the president of India is the head of state and the prime minister of India is the head of government.

POLITICAL PARTY IN INDIA:-

As per 23, September 2021 the election commission of India total number of parties registered was 2858, with 8 national parties, 54 state parties and 2796 unrecognised parties.

THREE BRANCHES OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT:-

* Executive.

*Legislative.

* Judiciary

Executive type of Indian government include,

* president of india.

* prime minister of India.

* union cabinet.

* council of ministers.

* Bureaucrats.

PRESIDENT OF INDIA:-

President of India is the highest post and is the constitutional head of the country. According to our constitution, President is the first citizen of our country and a symbol of unity and integrity.President is also responsible for appointing other executives and judicial members in the country like the Chief Justice of India, Judges of all the High courts, the Election Commissioner of India and states too. President of India is also the Commander in Chief of all the Indian forces i.e. Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air force.

PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA:-

Prime Minister is the chief of the Central government of India and also acts as the advisor of President. He is also head of the Council of Ministers and is responsible for appointing or dismissing any minister from the council. In case Prime Minister resigns from his office or dies during his tenure then the cabinet will automatically dissolve.

UNION CABINET:-

Union Cabinet consists of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. This is the decision making body in the central government.The Cabinet Minister cannot make a law concerning his department on its own, he can only propose the decision and then the Union Cabinet will make the final law.

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS:-

Council of Ministers works under the Union Cabinet. All the members of the Union Cabinet are members of the Council of Ministers and here the Minister of States appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

BUREAUCRATS:-

Bureaucrats are selected and appointed by Union Public Service Commission and for states there is a State Public Service Commission. They are responsible for implementing the laws and all the other functions of government. Bureaucrats consist of IAS, IPS, IFS and other officials leading various government agencies.

DISTRICT COURT:-

District court or sub-ordinate courts function under High court. They maintain rule of law in a particular district or locality in which they function. They look after the civil and criminal matters of that particular region.

RECOGNISED NATIONAL PARTIES IN INDIA:-

* Bahujan samaj party.

* Bhartiya Janata party.

* Communist party of India.

* Communist party of India (Marxist).

* Indian National Congress.

* Nationalist Congress party.

POLITICS IN INDIA

Politics work with inthe constitution of India.India is a parliamentary democratic republic in which the president of India is the head of state and the prime minister of India is the head of government.

POLITICAL PARTY IN INDIA:-

As per 23, September 2021 the election commission of India total number of parties registered was 2858, with 8 national parties, 54 state parties and 2796 unrecognised parties.

THREE BRANCHES OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT:-

* Executive.

*Legislative.

* Judiciary.

EXECUTIVE:-

Executive type of Indian government include,

* president of india.

* prime minister of India.

* union cabinet.

* council of ministers.

* Bureaucrats.

PRESIDENT OF INDIA:-

President of India is the highest post and is the constitutional head of the country. According to our constitution, President is the first citizen of our country and a symbol of unity and integrity.President is also responsible for appointing other executives and judicial members in the country like the Chief Justice of India, Judges of all the High courts, the Election Commissioner of India and states too. President of India is also the Commander in Chief of all the Indian forces i.e. Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air force.

PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA:-

Prime Minister is the chief of the Central government of India and also acts as the advisor of President. He is also head of the Council of Ministers and is responsible for appointing or dismissing any minister from the council. In case Prime Minister resigns from his office or dies during his tenure then the cabinet will automatically dissolve.

UNION CABINET:-

Union Cabinet consists of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. This is the decision making body in the central government.The Cabinet Minister cannot make a law concerning his department on its own, he can only propose the decision and then the Union Cabinet will make the final law.

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS:-

Council of Ministers works under the Union Cabinet. All the members of the Union Cabinet are members of the Council of Ministers and here the Minister of States appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

BUREAUCRATS:-

Bureaucrats are selected and appointed by Union Public Service Commission and for states there is a State Public Service Commission. They are responsible for implementing the laws and all the other functions of government. Bureaucrats consist of IAS, IPS, IFS and other officials leading various government agencies.

LEGISLATIVE:-

Legislative type of government include president,lok sabha also known as lower house,Rajya sabha also known as upper house.

LOK SABHA:-

Lok Sabha is more powerful in both the houses. Members of Lok Sabha are elected directly by citizens of India. There are total 530 members from the states and 20 members from the union territories. They are elected in general election. Their term is five years.

RAJYA SABHA:-

There cannot be more than 250 members in the Rajya Sabha. Members of Rajya Sabha are elected by state legislative assemblies out of which 12 members are directly appointed by President who come from different backgrounds like Literature, Art, Social Services etc.

JUDICIARY:-

Judiciary type of government includes supreme court,high court and district court.

SUPREME COURT:-

Supreme Court is the highest judicial body of the country. The decision by Supreme Court of India is acceptable by all judicial bodies and no other judicial body has the power to change a decision by Supreme Court. Indian judiciary is an independent body and is not affected by Legislature or Executive. Supreme Court has the power to question any decision made by Legislative Bodies or Executive if the decision is not in accordance with the Constitution of India.supreme court of india consists of 34 judges maximum in which there can be a Chief Justice and 33 other judges.

HIGH COURT:-

The High Court is the highest judicial body of a state. High court functions under Supreme Court. High court maintains the rule of law in the particular state and in case of two small states there can be one common High court.

DISTRICT COURT:-

District court or sub-ordinate courts function under High court. They maintain rule of law in a particular district or locality in which they function. They look after the civil and criminal matters of that particular region.

RECOGNISED NATIONAL PARTIES IN INDIA:-

* Bahujan samaj party.

* Bhartiya Janata party.

* Communist party of India.

* Communist party of India (Marxist).

* Indian National Congress.

* Nationalist Congress party.

Women in Indian Politics

Women In Indian Politics

India is the largest democracy in the world and to sustain its democracy, it has undergone various struggles. As soon as it was freed from the clutches of colonialism, it was faced with the challenges of social and economic development of the country. The Constitution of India has bestowed various rights to its citizens to ensure equal rights and equality, liberty, gender justice etc. Though the constitutional provisions allowed the women to leave the relative calm of the domestic sphere to enter the male-dominated political sphere, the involvement of women in politics has been low key (Khanna, 2009). Khanna has classified the factors which affects the political participation of women in politics into three categories-psychological variables, socio-economic variable and political variable. The questions of reservation for women in representative institutions has long been debated in India. The issue of reservations for women had come up in the Constituent Assembly had been rejected by women representative as it was felt to be unnecessary, since the working of democracy in the normal course would ensure the representation of all sections of Indian society. The suggestions were also seen to underestimate the strength of women to compete as equals (Menon, 2000).

Reservation as a strategy for enhancing women’s status within the new polity had been rejected very early on by women leaders as a retrograde step (Rai & Sharma, 2000). But by 1996, women had emerged as a significant force in politics and almost the same representative of women’s movement who rejected any such demand, demanded reservations. Women had been at the forefront of the movements against corruption and price-rise that preceded the imposition of Emergency. The 1980s saw the emergence of the vocal and visible autonomous women’s groups (Menon, 2000). The question that looms before these is-if increase in the number of women in parliament will bring any socio-economic benefits to them. However, while the political ground in India is shifting with regard to women participation in politics, this is a slow and difficult process, which needs constant vigilance by movements and groups within and outside of state institutions (Rai and Sharma, 2000).

The debate regarding women’s reservations in parliament has taken various shapes. There have been number of arguments for and against it. But a fact that cannot be ignored is that women in India have climbed the ladder too. Although they are not huge in number but they are there. But being a woman, they have faced many brickbats and mud slung. The criticisms that they faced carried an ingrained sexism reflecting the very nature of a male dominated politics.

Access to politics for women has never been a bed of roses. Participation of women anywhere has never been easy but politics being a male bastion traditionally, makes it difficult for the presence of women in it. To penetrate this highly male dominated arena, women have to go through various struggles to consolidate one’s position in it. While it becomes relatively easier for some as compared to others, but it’s never without any struggle or completely easy for any woman.

If we analyse the journey of three women i.e., Indira Gandhi, Jayalalitha and Sushma Swaraj to politics, it will come to view that – initially, these women were not into politics either because they wanted to pursue some other career or they had no one to guide them to it but eventually as in the case of Indira Gandhi, the atmosphere (her house being the centre of freedom movement) during her time as well the pursuance of her father got her into politics. In case of Jayalalithaa, her mentor and guide MGR introduced her to politics while Sushma Swaraj after the pursuance of law developed an interest in politics with moral support from her family. Though Indira Gandhi had a background – involvement of her family in freedom struggle as well as in Parliamentary politics and Jayalalithaa was introduced into politics by the most loved figure of his time MGR and Sushma Swaraj dug her own well, none of these women had an easier path. Being a woman, they had to fight to consolidate their positions in the party. The path through which they got into politics and the intensity of struggle faced by them though differ, but nevertheless, they had to work twice as men to stay, to establish themselves. Jayalalithaa’s modesty had been violated in the Assembly Hall; Indira Gandhi had been dubbed as ‘only man in the politics’ and Sushma Swaraj had been the target of derogatory online trolls. Evaluating the leaders on the basis of their decisions in a democracy is one thing while criticism based on sexism is an entirely different thing.

Being from different family background, lives of every woman is bound to differ, the only common thing is that they are ‘woman’. Being a woman is all that takes for people to throw harsh comments. Indira Gandhi’s tenure was termed as authoritarian while Jayalalithaa was termed as irresponsible and inconsistent. It was so because they were able to keep in check their male counterparts. Any action by a women minister is judged by a gendered perspective and the online trolls faced by Sushma Swaraj while she was the Minister of External Affairs points to this. Jayalalithaa claimed that baseless questions were asked to her because she is a self- made woman.

Why is it that the corruption case of Jayalalithaa has been in the talk for a long time and not that of Mr. Karunanidhi (Jayalalithaa was condemned for arresting him on corruption case just because he was an old ‘man’)? Why is it that the decisions of Indira Gandhi have been equated with an authoritarian rule and not that any other male counterparts? Why the evaluation against every women politician involves threats of rape and beating? Is it because in this highly male dominated politics, participation of women is not accepted for it seems to threaten the authority of men?

The point is that it is not at all unfair evaluating any leader-women or men on the basis of their decisions but criticising them with ingrained sexism in it doesn’t seem to be compatible with the values that we cherish in our democracy. Women continue to be target of sexist remarks but it doesn’t mean that they have stopped asserting themselves with force. Women have taken very active part in various political activism. It doesn’t apply only to urban areas but also to rural women. They have been engaged in political acumen from protesting against the British rule to demands for equal wages. Feminist issues usually appear something else in public discourse (Menon, 2000) be it Uniform Civil Code or Women’s Reservation Bill. While women participation in politics is improving overtime but they constantly have to fight for their presence to be felt. They have to constantly engage in negotiations to consolidate their positions. India, though largest democracy in the world has long way to go to sustain its democratic principles and rights. It still lacks in many ways in terms of gender parity, not only in politics but in many other spheres. But participation of women in politics become important because until and unless women are in decision making position, safe and sustainable cities or lifestyle will be out of reach. Though, legally women have been granted rights but only with social development as well as change in the mind-set will bring life to these rights!

P.S. This is an opinionated piece – believing that everyone is entitled to opinions!

Image Credit: Google

नितिन अग्रवाल को राहत, बने रहेंगे विधायक

हरदोई।

सदर विधायक नितिन अग्रवाल को बड़ी राहत मिली है. विधानसभा सदस्यता रद्द करने के लिए सपा नेता द्धारा दाखिल की गई याचिका को विधानसभा अध्यक्ष हृदय नारायण दीक्षित ने खारिज कर दिया है। इसकी जानकारी मिलते ही सदर विधायक के समर्थकों में खुशी की लहर दौड़ गई।


विधानसभा में नेता प्रतिपक्ष रामगोविंद चौधरी ने 11 नवंबर 2019 को विधानसभा अध्यक्ष के सामने याचिका दाखिल की थी। इसमें कहा था कि सदर विधायक नितिन अग्रवाल 2017 में हुए विधानसभा चुनाव में सपा के टिकट पर निर्वाचित हुए थे। 2019 में गांधी जयंती के मौके पर हुए मैराथन विधानसभा सत्र के दौरान सपा ने विह्प जारी की थी कि सपा का कोई भी विधायक उक्त सत्र में शामिल नहीं होगा।

इसके बावजूद नितिन अग्रवाल सत्र में शामिल हुए। विह्प का उल्लंघन किए जाने का आरोप लगा उनकी सदस्यता रद्द करने की मांग की गई थी। पूरे मामले पर चली सुनवाई के बाद विधानसभा अध्यक्ष हृदय नारायण दीक्षित ने रामगोविंद चौधरी की याचिका खारिज कर दी है। सदर विधायक नितिन अग्रवाल ने इसकी पुष्टि करते हुए बताया कि गुरुवार को ही इस संबंध में विधानसभा अध्यक्ष ने आदेश पारित कर दिया था

बता दें कि हरदोई सदर विधानसभा पर कई पंचवर्षीय से नितिन अग्रवाल के पिता नरेश अग्रवाल का दवदवा रहा है. इस सीट पर हमेशा से ही नरेश ही जीतते आये हैं. 2017 के विधानसभा चुनाव में बेटे नितिन अग्रवाल सपा की टिकट पर विधानसभा पहुंचे थे. बाद में वे सत्ताधारी पार्टी भाजपा में शामिल हो गए थे।

अनन्या कौशल द्वारा संपादित।

How we create equality

While surfing through linkdein I came across a post where a doctor sir Ganeshan, he was providing free medical deliveries to girl. Many people of community have distinct view of it as if it is a right way and right thing.

In my view, this is how we create equality,
there are two ways
first, we share everything we have equally and eventually with time everything gets equalize,
another way is we try balancing both sides like if people are not happy after having girl child we will free them from fee charge(its temporary solution of a big part of solution) and as societies are progressing they will learn and improve with time.
Example of first one is colonized countries they doesn’t got support from developed countries and they got bullied many time but we are slowly progressing toward equality,
Example of second one is solutions for girl equality by indian govt, it involves temporary(situation based) solution like dowry punishment to educating and reservation, the benefits of having second way is it’s fast, and it has lots of temporary solution to big problems like girl foeticide case.

You can see post here

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ashwini-mahesh_activity-6846473782144630785-ZcoR

Connect me on LinkedIn here

https://www.linkedin.com/in/shivam-soni-a99a4a186

Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami

 

By: Astha Raghav. 

Pushkar Singh Dhami (born 16 September 1975) is an Indian politician and member of the Bharatiya Janata Party serving as the 11th and the current Chief Minister of Uttarakhand.Dhami is a member of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly from the Khatima constituency in Udham Singh Nagar district.

Dhami was born in a Kumaoni Rajput family in the Tundi village of Pithoragarh district.His ancestral village is Harkhola, Pithoragarh. His family moved to Tundi village where he studied till 5th standard after that they moved to Nagla Tarai Bhabar, Khatima. His father was in the army and retired as a Subedar.

He has graduated from Lucknow University in Human Resource Management & Industrial Relations and pursued LL.B from University of Lucknow. He has also served as an adviser and officer on special duty to now Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari when the latter became chief minister of Uttarakhand in 2001.

Dhami started his political career in the year 1990 with Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He also served as the state president of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha till 2008. During this time, he was credited for asserting the state government to reserve 70% of opportunities for the local youth in industries of the state.

On 3 July 2021, he was sworn-in as the 10th Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, after the resignation of Tirath Singh Rawat due to political crisis regarding his legitimacy to hold the post and assumed office on 4 July 2021. Pushkar Singh Dhami worked as a political adviser to former CM Bhagat Singh Koshyari. He became the youngest Chief Minister of Uttarakhand at the age of 45.

After Dhami took over as the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand in 2021, one of his 2015 tweets became viral on social media in which he shares his notional map of ‘Akhand Bharat’ which includes neighboring countries, but its erroneous stance was conspicuous as it omitted Ladakh and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The image of Bharat Mata was at the center of the saffron map, which carried the caption “Akhand Bharat — the desire of every Rashtrabhakt” (nationalist). 

Thank you!

The Toil Which Screams For Justice

Source: Times Of India

A Bharat bandh has been called by the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) on 27th of September from 6 am to 4 pm. The prime reason behind the protests is pressurizing the government in repealing the three farmer laws passed in the September (monsoon session of the Parliament) of last year.
The ruling Congress in Punjab however, has shown its support to the cause of the Farmer’s Union. The national highways, link roads and railway tracks have been blocked and vehicular movement has been prohibited within the bandh’s time frame in Punjab.
In Noida, Barricades were broken by the protestors who reached the Noida Authority Office in sector-6. The farmers were protesting over their demands and the compensation for their lands which was acquired by the Noida Authority.
In Punjab, farmers have protested in 350 places and in Haryana 25 places have been blocked in the Jind district itself.
The protests led to the vehicular disruption in Jharkhand where the supporters blocked the highways.
Similar demonstrations have been witnessed in Jammu demanding the laws to be repealed. The protest was led by CPI(M) leader MY Tarigami who sat on a dharma and took out a rally. Thereby, blocking the road.
Chaos was witnessed in many parts. In Jalandhar for example, Army vehicles were stopped by the protestors and said that the jawans should support them in their protest. In Bengaluru, on the other hand, a protestor ran his car over the DCP(Deputy Commisioner of Police)and was arrested.
However, states like Arunachal Pradesh and Maharashtra remained unaffected
The BKU leader Rajesh Tikait spoke about how Yogi Adityanath had promised in the manifesto to increase the price of the of sugarcane to Rs 375-450 but ended up being increased by mere Rs 25 and therefore asked for the accountability of the losses faced. However, he also mentioned the Bandh to be successful and the main reason for the protest to talk with the government which is not happening.




Let’s Rewind



What were the farm laws of 2020?

•The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020
•The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance
• Farm Services Bill, 2020, and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020


Why were they resented?

The provisions of the new farm law intends to help the marginalized farmers who lack the means to bargain or invest in technology for their farms.
The provision of the act of Agri Market is one of the key reasons for the current protests. It mentions that the farmers can sell their produce to whoever they want, outside than the APMC mandi but however it may lead the commission agents to be deprived of their mandi fees. Better prices were also promised through cost cutting on transportation and competition.

The law on contract farming seeks to help the marginal farmers by the provision which states that the farmers can enter into contract with agri business firms on pre agreed prices of their produce. This will shift the market unpredictability from the farmer to the sponsor.

Why are the farmers resenting the laws?

Firstly, they fear that the companies may change the terms of the agreement and they will have to suffer loses for the crops. The primary fear is the dismantling of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system.
Secondly, the farmers fear that selling the produce to WHOEVER they want might not provide them with an assured price. The disbanding of the mandi system and the losses of the arthiyas(commission agent who provides farmers with loans) is indeed a fact to be feared of.

What are the farmers demanding?

The farmers are demanding the withdrawal of the three laws which is putting a question on the further existence of the MSP system. The farmer unions are also ready to accept if the MSP is legally assured to stay prevalent.


What is the root of the protest?

It is the system of Minimum Support Price which is prevalent in India. MSP is the minimum price provided by the government to the farmers on buying on their produce. The MSP is decided by the the state-run Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) which consists of 23 commodities which it procures.
The Food Corporation of India on the other hand largely procures only wheat and paddy which it sells to the poor at a subsidized price.