This above argument is a joke. A good majority of the mainstream media in India are paid for and/or afraid of the current government. There is plenty to be said about this but I want to stick with farm bill issue.
You say: “ current farmer protests, they are demanding that minimum price supports not be removed.” That is not the demand. The demand is to ensure that these new trading places outside of the mandis support the minimum price. The minimum price is a not a law but these mandis do follow them especially since the government also procures crops from the farmers. The farmers fear that with non-government buyers entering the market they would be less incentivized to buy them at minimum price. There are couple of links below that go into more of the nuances of the bill and what the farmers fear.
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-is-the-basi...
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/in-three-ordinan...
There is a law that authorizes the government to set an MSP. That is precisely all an actual piece of legislation should do. Governments and administrative bureaucracies need flexibility to function. The details in any sane government are worked out by administrative rule making which is constrained by other laws.
This authority is used by the government and has been used by the government to set an MSP every year for 70 years with the MSP constrained by other legislation that also constrains other budgetary activity.
Or do you think instead parliament should instead figure out the MSP for 2050 now or maybe have a legislative session including a massive lobbying free for all by the buyers and sellers every year. I’d rather have the MSPs set in a rule based fashion with some limited and rarely used discretionary authority to change the rule based levels as is the case under the law now.
Under the law, all parties have to abide by the MSP, period and in any event even if they didn’t, which they have to do, the farmers can get the MSP at the mandis and directly from government buyers. Why protest? If the new buyers won’t pay up, don’t sell to them.
Have you ever in the history of the world, heard of any bona-fide business person acting in good faith, protesting a new buyer, who was previously prevented from buying their product by legislation, entering the market? The actual farmers, the vast silent majority, are, if anything happy to see this happen.
First one is giving the freedom to sell produce anywhere instead of designated grain markets. Sounds good? Until you realise that Grain Markets Officials were there kind of observers (at least in the spirit of law). Now Companies with teams of lawyers can deal directly with illiterate of private farmers. the las specifically gives only DM as highest arbiter in event of disagreement.
Second one is giving freedom to store produce as much as one wants. Sounds good on paper until you realise most of the produce (wheat, rice, veggies, anything) need special environment to store. Which private farmers lack & only Adani Ambani have access to those modernized silos. Guess who is going to buy it cheaply at harvesting season & then store it for months/years & release the produce to market to maintain the artificial scarcity? Sounds similar to modern diamond industry.
Third One, removing the MSP, Minimum Support Price. Anybody can pay as high as they want to buy the produce in open market. Ambani gave free 1GB internet for two years to drive out the competition in mobile network market. Its a known business plan in SV to bleed money to drive other competitors out. Ambani's competitors are small scale flour mills, shop owners, contartors, small scale sellers. Guess who will be out of business in 2-x years by Ambani's unlimited money & guvernment support?
Do you realize how many inefficiencies are caused by pre-Independence and 1960s rules around how much food you can buy and store? Again, if you think they are cornering the market, buy or build a grain silo and compete.
India has the absolute lowest costs of mobile service in the world today. Jio remains the cheapest option in India and in my experience has by far the best service. Jio no longer offers free service but it's still cheaper than anyone else and is almost an order of magnitude cheaper than the prices offered by legacy mobile companies when they came on the scene. How exactly is Jio fleecing consumers?
Why shouldn't a better, cheaper service drive out the old players who can't compete at the same level? That's how market economies should work.
The Supreme Court determined that as a general matter communications should not be restricted and that any ordinance to restrict communications needed to be on the basis of a determination that restrictions were needed that was reaffirmed periodically. The Supreme Court could have required the government to restore mobile access to Kashmir as of a specific date and the government would have been compelled to do so. They didn't, because the Supreme Court of India like most of the silent majority in India understands that a citizen's rights only exist so long as the State itself exists. All rights can be suspended in an emergency. A bill of rights is not a suicide pact.
The restrictions are not a restriction on any individual or group. They are a restriction on a geographic area. The majority of state citizens of Kashmir, certainly a majority of the residents and descendants of residents of Kashmir in the 1970s, today resides outside Kashmir. Most left due to terrorism. There are no restrictions on them, no matter their religion or political beliefs. Remember, there are areas in the US where no radio transmissions are allowed[1]. If you reside in Kashmir today, you are free to travel outside the state. If you do travel outside, you can use your mobile phone to your heart's content. If you aren't a resident of Kashmir and you travel to Kashmir, no matter your religion, ethnicity or other grouping, you can't use a mobile phone while there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Q...
There is basic structure doctrine, no? Otherwise why not just have Emergency again
> The majority of state citizens of Kashmir, certainly a majority of the residents and descendants of residents of Kashmir in the 1970s, today resides outside Kashmir. Most left due to terrorism.
Only Pandits are state subjects?
Displaced Hindus = 6 Lakh [1]
Population = 78 Lakh [2]
Percentage: 7.69%
Sources:
[1] Wikipedia Exodus of Hindus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
[2] Wikipedia Historical Population of Kashmir, estimated in 1991 through religious organisations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir_(state)
the hindu reports only 19 pandits were killed > A total number of 38,119 families comprising 1,42,042 Kashmiri migrants were registered with the Revenue and Relief Ministry till now.
where the fuck did you get the 6lakh figure from?
https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/right-wing-exaggerate...
this even mentions this exaggerated figure
> A total of 38,119 Kashmiri Pandit families were registered with the government, of which 24,202 migrated in January 1990.
4 persons per family is how much? 6lakh? 24202*4-600000???
are this this fucking dumb?
I just wanted to be safe & took the highest from the range posted on Wikipedia. 5,98,000 rounded to 6 Lakh.
& Real the originals posts, the other guy is saying some 50% something people migrated. I was proving it's AT MOST only 7% you mf¥¥ker.
I mean the BJP government passed a law that said "we will allow citizenship for minorities who are of all religions, except Tibetans and Muslims" Then in the next breath talk about how this is not targeting a specific religion.
I really do hope people argue the case, because at least for external observers the hypocrisy is clear.
Not disbelieving but I want to see a non-partisan citation.
BTW the polling rate of these elections were around 50%. The remaining 50% didn't agree to vote for any of them.
(Disclaimer: not an expert) As far as I understand it, the specific thing that is problematic is that the rule discriminates by religion. The original agreement did not, and even if it did, why would you want to take a policy enacted half a century ago and implement it unchanged without revising it to be less prejudicial?
Pre 1947, India was all of modern day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Afghanistan. When the country was partitioned, it was partitioned into Pakistan (modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh) which was set up as an explicitly Muslim nation with a state religion and an explicitly secular India which welcomed all religions. There was a massive migration of people which was extremely violent. It would not be exaggeration to call it a holocaust. Neighbors joined mobs and killed neighbors of the wrong religion, entire trains were burned. There was plenty of violence on both sides of the new border. As this violence was stopped, Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah made an appeal to people to stop leaving because the more people that left and hence abandoned businesses and jobs, the more the economy was hurt. As part of this appeal a promise was made that any Muslim who wanted to migrate to Pakistan at a later date would be permitted to do so and be treated as if he or she had migrated at that time and any non-Muslim who wanted to migrate to India would be treated the same in India. The promise was further voted on and approved by a precursor to the constituent assembly of India which setup the constitution.
As it turns out, at the end of the day, virtually all non-Muslims who lived in modern Pakistan left for India. Lahore, a city in modern Pakistan was 50% Hindu, 20% Sikh in 1945. Today it's 99% Muslim. In contrast more Muslims live in India today than in Pakistan. What this means in practice is that the non-Muslims who chose to remain in Pakistan were the ones who were relatively wealthy and/or powerful and often individuals with large businesses who decided not to leave due to a combination of wanting to protect their assets and a reliance on the promises made in case things change. As the years went on, many of these individuals wanted to get the hell out of Pakistan so they liquidated their property and came to India, often with large amounts of liquid assets. Now, if you are an enterprising, corrupt immigration official, they were great targets and they would often end up having to pay material percentages of their assets as bribes. These individuals have a further problem. Unlike Muslim refugees from Pakistan, when they left Pakistan, their Pakistani citizenship would be revoked so they were stateless and desperate. The ACA was primarily designed to solve this problem.
India has taken in and continues to take in plenty of Muslim refugees, far more than the US or the EU takes in. There is a recognition that the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India are to this date discriminated against in Pakistan as Mojahirs, entire sects of Islam like the Ahmadis, who choose not to ascribe to the harsh interpretation of Islam are classified as non-Muslim and then have to deal with frankly ridiculous treatment. However, when these refugees come to India, they are typically destitute. So there is no incentive to bother them to try and get them to cough up bribes. As a result there was no problem to solve.
Could something different have been done? Sure. But legislatures are sausage factories. The government needed to ensure that it had the votes for legislation that made it easier to immigrate from a country which has sent terrorists to India and taken over a major city and killed hundreds of people there and attacked parliament. And this legislation solved the actual problem and got passed. You can't let the perfect, particularly when the so called perfection is mostly cosmetic, be the enemy of the good.
Again, any refugee from anywhere in the world, of any religion can seek asylum in India. It's fairly straightforward to be allowed to live and work in India, far easier than anywhere in the West, no matter your religion or background. Refugees can get Indian citizenship by following a series of steps, typically in 12-14 years. The ACA does not change any of this. The ACA simply gives affect to the promise made in 1947 which was also voted on by the constituent assembly and is hence binding on Parliament that non Muslims who did not emigrate at that time from certain areas would be treated as if they had emigrated at that time if they emigrated at a later date. It creates a process by which these individuals, who still have to go through the same security checks etc as any other refugee from Pakistan can get citizenship in 5 years. Rather than getting permanent residence in 5 years, while still being stateless, they are granted Indian citizenship.
It is a known fact that a majority of Indian channels are now completely beholden to the government.
Finally - the laws in question include a clause that prohibits access to courts for anyone with a dispute. Even people not affected by the laws are not allowed to bring a public interest suit to the courts.
The Indian courts are slow and bad. The Indian farm sector needs reform.
These are not those reforms, and this governments track record on execution of complex economics is terrifying.