English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Scholars question EPW Trust decisions on article on Adani, action against editor

Published

on

Scholars question EPW Trust decisions on article on Adani, action against editor

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]More than 150 members of the academic community and contributors to the EPW have written an open letter to the directors of Sameeksha Trust, which brings out the journal Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), questioning their decision to remove an article on the Adani Group from the EPW website and impose restrictions on the editor. They have asked the trustees to make an effort to engage with the larger community on recent events and restore the independent nature of the journal, questioning their decision to cow down to corporate pressure.

On July 18, Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) editor Paranjoy Guha Thakurta resigned from his position after directors of the Sameeksha Trust ordered that he take down an article on the Adani Group. The Adani Group had written to the board and Guha Thakurta saying that the article was defamatory and threatened to take them to court.

Guha Thakurta has said that, in addition to asking that the article be taken down, the board told him he could no longer publish articles with his by-line in the journal and would have to work with a co-editor in the future.

The board members, in their statement, have not denied this or questioned the factual nature of the original articles. They said instead that Guha Thakurta had “exceeded his brief” by responding to the Adani Group’s letter on his own and initiating legal process on behalf of the Sameeksha Trust “without informing, let alone obtaining approval of, the Trust”.

The Sameeksha Trust’s actions upset the wider community of scholars who have been part of the ‘EPW community’ as readers and writers. Their letter to Sameeksha Trust directors and the list of signatories is reproduced below:

Open letter to the board members of the Sameeksha Trust

As long-standing well-wishers and members of the intellectual community served by the EPW, we are appalled and dismayed by the recent events leading to the abrupt resignation of the editor, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.

We are distressed that the board of the Sameeksha Trust has insisted that the editor retract an article published in the journal, and is preparing to introduce new norms for the board-editor relationship and appoint a co-editor. It is obvious that, taken together, these actions (mentioned by the editor in interviews to the press and not denied in the statement issued by the trust) would force any self-respecting editor to resign. By failing to distinguish between internal issues of procedural propriety in the board-editor relationship from the much larger question of the EPW’s public reputation for integrity, the board of the Sameeksha Trust has dealt a strong blow to the journal’s credibility.

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s professional reputation has been primarily that of an investigative journalist of several decades standing. His well-known past exposés have delved into the malpractices of large corporations and the frequent complicity of state institutions in such corrupt practices. That such journalism could provoke retaliation by those investigated may be expected. These facts must have been known to the board of trustees of the Sameeksha Trust when they appointed Guha Thakurta as editor just 15 months earlier. It is one thing to wonder if the editor may have erred in initiating legal action on behalf of the Trust without first consulting its board, and quite another to withdraw an already published article from the journal. If the board believes the article to be mistaken in its facts, it must issue a public apology and retraction.  If it is only concerned that due deference was not shown to the board, it must publicly stand by the article. By forcing the editor’s resignation without clarifying its stand on the substance of the article, the board has diminished the institution that it is mandated to nurture.

The fact that a legal notice was sent to the editor and the publishers (Sameeksha Trust) of EPW, for an ongoing investigation on the tweaking of rules that have benefited the Adani Group, is not surprising. Legal notices have unfortunately become the standard means used to intimidate and suppress investigative journalism. When they translate into court cases that can extend over years, they obviously add to costs and further harassment of honest journalists. However, as long as all the published material can be adequately substantiated and verified, there is little reason to fear an adverse result from the judicial process. But publishers MUST stand behind and back their editors on this if the journals are to maintain their independence and credibility.

India is currently living through a dark period in which there are real concerns about freedom and independence of intellectual expression, both for academics and journalists, with significant corporate takeover of major media houses and increasing instances of overt and covert intimidation of independent thinking and debate. In this context, reports of what appears to be a capitulation by the board of trustees of Sameeksha Trust –  removing the “offending” article from the EPW website and trying to impose humiliating terms on the editor – are alarming. The EPW has a long and distinguished tradition of promoting independent and critical thinking that is vital in a democracy. We expect the current trustees to be mindful of our inherited legacy that they hold in trust on behalf of us as scholars, analysts and activists in India and abroad, who have contributed to EPW over long decades. They need to take immediate steps to restore the prestige and credibility of the journal and the Sameeksha Trust. This letter is therefore also asking the Trust, which (regardless of its purely legal status) is in the nature of a body accountable to a larger public, to create channels of communication between the Trust and the EPW community so as to strengthen the autonomy and integrity of EPW.

  1. AR Vasavi, Independent researcher Bangalore
  2. Aabid Firdausi, Kerala University
  3. Abdi Seido, Dire Dawa University, Ethiopia
  4. Abhijit Banerjee, Professor, MIT
  5. Abhijit Sen, Retired Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  6. Aditya Nigam, Professor, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
  7. Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University
  8. Alicia Puyana Mutis, Professor, Flacso, Mexico City
  9. Amar Yumnam, Professor, Manipur University, India.
  10. Amita Baviskar, Professor, Institute of Economic Growth
  11. Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Emeritus Professor, Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata
  12. Anamitra Roychowdhury, JNU
  13. Anand Chakravarti, Retired Professor, University of Delhi
  14. Anandhi S., Professor, MIDS Chennai
  15. Andrew Cornford, Geneva Finance Observatory
  16. Anis Chowdhury, Professor, University of Western Sydney
  17. Anupam Mitra
  18. Arindam Sen, Editor, Liberation, Kolkata
  19. Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Independent researcher, Bangalore
  20. Ashok Chowdhury, All India Union of Forest Working People
  21. Ashwini Deshpande, Professor, Delhi School of Economics
  22. Avinash Kumar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  23. Avnesh Kumar Gupta, World Forum of Economists
  24. Balwinder Singh Tiwana, Punjabi University
  25. Bina Agarwal, Professor, University of Manchester
  26. Bindu Oberoi, Indraprastha College for Women, Delhi University
  27. CP Chandrasekhar, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  28. Carol Upadhya, NIAS Bangalore
  29. Chandra Dutt, Director, COSTFORD, Kerala
  30. Collins Mtika, Director – Centre for Investigative Journalism – Malawi
  31. Dhruva Narayan, Centre for Social Development
  32. Dia Dacosta, University of Alberta
  33. Dipa Sinha, BR Ambedkar University, Delhi
  34. EAS Sarma, IAS Retd, Hyderabad
  35. Eleuterio Prado, Professor, São Paulo University, Brazil
  36. Farah Naqvi, Writer and activist, Delhi
  37. Geeta Kapur, Art scholar, Delhi
  38. Gita Chadha, University of Mumbai
  39. Gopi Kanta Ghosh, Independent researcher
  40. Hemant Adlakha, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  41. Himanshu, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  42. Itty Abraham, National University of Singapore
  43. J Devika, Centre for Development Studies, Kerala
  44. J George, (Rtd) Independent Researcher, DELHI
  45. Jai Sen, World Social Forum
  46. Janaki Abraham, Delhi School of Economics
  47. Janaki Nair, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  48. Jayati Ghosh, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  49. Jeemol Unni, University of Ahmedabad
  50. Jesim Pais, Society for Social and Economic Research
  51. Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Malaysia
  52. Joseph MT, University of Mumbai
  53. K Ramakrishnan, Chennai
  54. K Srivatsan, Anveshi Research Centre Hyderabad
  55. Kalpana Kannabiran, Council for Social Development, Hyderabad
  56. Kalyan Shankar Ray, Bhubaneswar
  57. Kannan Srinivasan, New York
  58. Kunibert Raffer, retired Professor, University of Vienna
  59. Kushankur Dey, Xavier University Bhubaneswar
  60. Kuttappan Vijayachandran, Industrial Research Services
  61. Lata Mani, Bangalore
  62. Laurence Cox, National University of Ireland and Fondation des Sciences des Hommes Paris
  63. Lawrence Shute, Prof Emeritus, California State Polytechnic University
  64. Laxmi Murthy, Bengaluru
  65. M Vijayabaskar, Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies
  66. MS Bhatt, retired Professor, Jamia Millia Islamia
  67. MV Ramana, Professor, University of British Columbia, Canada
  68. Malancha Chakrabarty, Observer Research Foundation
  69. Mandeep Kaur, Dyal Singh College
  70. Mandira Sarma, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  71. Mani Kumar, Independent researcher
  72. Manoranjan Mohanty, retired Professor, Delhi University
  73. Mary E John, Professor, CWDS, New Delhi
  74. Martha Nussbaum, University of Chicago
  75. Matt Meyer, International Peace Research Association
  76. Meyer Brownstone, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
  77. Mohammad Konneh
  78. Mritunjoy Mohanty, Professor, IIM, Kolkata
  79. Mustafa Ozer, Anadolu University, Turkey
  80. N Krishnaji, retired, Centre for Development Studies
  81. N Mani, Erode College, Kerala
  82. Nandini Sundar, Professor, University of Delhi
  83. Navnita Behera, IRIIS
  84. Nayanjyoti, Research Scholar, Delhi University
  85. Nirmalangshu Mukherji, Professor, Delhi University
  86. Nivedita Menon, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  87. Noam Chomsky, Professor, MIT
  88. Oishik Sirkar, Jindal Law University, Sonepat
  89. Padmini Swaminathan, retired Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad
  90. Paris Yeros, Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  91. Partha Chatterjee, Professor, Columbia University
  92. Partha Ray, IIM Calcutta
  93. Patrick Bond, Professor, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
  94. Prabhu Mohapatra, University of Delhi
  95. Pradip Kumar Datta, JNU
  96. Pranab Bardhan, University of California Berkeley
  97. Praveen Jha, Professor, JNU
  98. Prem Chowdhry, Historian
  99. Pushpendra, Professor Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Patna
  100. R Nagaraj, IGIDR
  101. R Ramakumar, Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
  102. R Srivatsan, Anveshi Research Centre for Women’s Studies
  103. Radha D’Souza, University of Westminster
  104. Radhika Desai, Professor, University College, Manitoba
  105. Radhika Singha, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  106. Rajarshi Dasgupta, Journalist, Kolkata
  107. Rajender Singh Negi
  108. Rajni Palriwala, University of Delhi
  109. Rama Melkote, retired Professor, Osmania University
  110. Ramchandra Guha, Bengaluru
  111. Ranjini Mazumdar, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  112. Ravi K Tripathi, Université Pairs XIII – Sorbonne Paris
  113. Ravi Sundaram, CSDS, Delhi
  114. Rohit Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  115. Rosa Abraham, Institute of Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru
  116. S Parasuraman, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
  117. SV Narayanan, Independent Analyst
  118. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Professor Emeritus, JNU
  119. Sakuntala Narasimhan, Independent scholar
  120. Samuel H Daniel, Independent researcher USA
  121. Sanjay Srivastava, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi
  122. Sashi Kumar, Chairman, Media Development Foundation, Chennai
  123. Satish Deshpande, Professor, Delhi University
  124. Seth Sandrowsky, Sacramento, California
  125. Shambhu Ghatak, Associate Fellow, Inclusive Media for Change
  126. Shipra Nigam, Research Scholar
  127. SK Godwin, SK, IIM Kolkata
  128. Sudeshna Banerji, Jadavpur University
  129. Sudip Chaudhuri, Professor IIM Kolkata
  130. Sumit Mazumdar, Institute of Public Health, Kalyani
  131. Sumit Sarkar, retired Professor, University of Delhi
  132. Sunanda Sen, retired Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  133. Suneetha Achyuta, Coordinator, Anveshi Research Centre for Women’s Studies
  134. Sunil Khilnani, Professor, King’s College London
  135. Sunil Mani, Director, CDS Trivandrum
  136. Surajit C Mukhopadhyay, Seacom Skills University
  137. Sushil Khanna, Professor, IIM, Kolkata
  138. Susie Tharu, Professor Emerita, English and Foreign Languages University Swati Pillai, Watershed Organisation Trust Pune
  139. T M Thomas Isaac, Finance Minister, Government of Kerala
  140. Tanika Sarkar, retired Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  141. Tejaswini Niranjana, Professor, Lingnan University, Hongkong
  142. Uma Chakravarti, retired historian, Delhi University
  143. Uma M Bhrugabanda, EFLU Hyderabad
  144. Uma Maheswari Bhrugubanda, EFL University
  145. V Geetha, Independent scholar, Chennai
  146. Veena Naregal, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University
  147. Veena Shatrugna, retired, National Institute of Nutrition Hyderabad
  148. Venkatesh Athreya, Professor of Economics (Retired), Bharathidasan University
  149. Vikas Rawal, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  150. Vipin Negi, University of Delhi
  151. Vishal Sarin, LP University
  152. Vivan Sundaram, Artist, Delhi
  153. Yılmaz Akyüz, Chief Economist, South Centre (Former director, UNCTAD)
  154. Zoya Hasan, Professor Emerita, Jawaharlal Nehru University

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

G RAM G bill replacing MGNREGA passes Parliament amid opposition walkout and protests

The G RAM G Bill replacing MGNREGA has been passed by Parliament after overnight debate in the Rajya Sabha, triggering protests and walkouts by opposition parties.

Published

on

Parliament

Parliament has cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the G RAM G Bill, paving the way for the replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The legislation was passed within two days amid sharp political confrontation, walkouts and overnight protests by opposition parties.

The bill was approved by the Lok Sabha despite repeated disruptions and protests. In the Rajya Sabha, the debate stretched beyond midnight, with voting held around 12.15 am. The bill was eventually passed by a voice vote after opposition members staged a walkout, leaving the ruling alliance members present in the House.

Opposition objects to name change and provisions

The Congress and other opposition parties mounted a strong challenge to the bill, objecting both to the change in the scheme’s name and its revised framework. A key point of contention was the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the legislation, which opposition leaders said reflected an ideological shift rather than a policy necessity.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge launched a sharp attack during the Rajya Sabha debate, urging the government to withdraw the bill and warning that it would harm the rural poor. He accused the government of speaking in the name of welfare while undermining the interests of vulnerable communities, making an emotional appeal to reconsider the legislation.

Several opposition members initially demanded that the bill be referred to a standing committee for detailed scrutiny. When that demand was not accepted, they called for the bill’s withdrawal and later staged a walkout. Members of the Trinamool Congress and other parties subsequently sat on a dharna within Parliament premises.

Heated exchanges in the Upper House

The debate witnessed intense exchanges between the treasury benches and the opposition. Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien linked the passage of the bill with developments in West Bengal, alleging that the Centre’s actions had consequences for the implementation of rural employment schemes in the state. He also referred to the state government’s decision to rename its employment initiative following the Lok Sabha vote.

As Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan rose to reply, opposition members raised slogans demanding the withdrawal of what they termed a “black bill”. When the protests continued, opposition MPs walked out, allowing the bill to be passed without their presence.

Responding sharply, Chouhan criticised the walkout and accused the opposition of refusing to engage in debate. He defended the government’s move, arguing that the earlier scheme had suffered from corruption and inefficiencies, and said the new law was drafted after consultations with stakeholders.

Government defends overhaul of rural employment scheme

The government has maintained that updating the two-decade-old MGNREGA framework was necessary to address structural shortcomings and align it with current rural needs. According to the provisions outlined, the new law increases the guaranteed days of work from 100 to 125 while retaining key elements of the earlier scheme.

However, critics have pointed out that employment under the new framework will be based on pre-approved plans rather than demand-driven applications at the gram panchayat level. The work categories have also been streamlined into four segments—water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related assets, and climate resilience—raising concerns that local flexibility may be reduced.

Opposition leaders have argued that these changes dilute the original spirit of MGNREGA, which was designed as a rights-based, demand-driven employment guarantee programme.

Protests continue after passage

Following the bill’s passage, opposition parties reiterated their charge that the legislation weakens the guarantee, livelihood assurance and social security that formed the core of the original programme introduced in 2005. Despite these objections, the government’s numerical strength ensured the bill’s smooth passage through both Houses.

With parliamentary approval now secured, the G RAM G Bill is set to replace MGNREGA, marking a significant shift in India’s rural employment policy framework amid continuing political debate.

Continue Reading

India News

Priyanka Gandhi meets Nitin Gadkari over Kerala road projects, light moments mark discussion

Priyanka Gandhi met Nitin Gadkari in Parliament to discuss road projects in Kerala, with the meeting marked by humour, political remarks and an informal food tasting.

Published

on

Priyanka Gandhi meets Nitin Gadkari (1)

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Thursday met Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari at his office in Parliament to raise issues related to road infrastructure projects passing through Kerala. The meeting combined formal discussions with lighter moments, including a humorous exchange and an unexpected food tasting session.

Kerala road projects discussed at Parliament meeting

Priyanka Gandhi, the Member of Parliament from Wayanad in Kerala, discussed six road projects that pass through the state. During the interaction, Nitin Gadkari clarified that some of these projects fall under the jurisdiction of the Kerala government and therefore cannot be directly handled by the Centre. However, he assured the Congress leader that the remaining proposals would be examined.

According to those present, the discussion remained cordial, with both sides acknowledging administrative limitations while exploring possible ways forward.

‘Bhai ka kaam ho gaya’ remark draws laughter

The meeting also saw a light-hearted moment when Gadkari referred to a recent interaction with Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. He said Rahul Gandhi had met him earlier regarding road-related concerns in Rae Bareli.

In a humorous remark, Gadkari said that if work was done for the brother but not for the sister, it could lead to complaints. The comment prompted laughter from Priyanka Gandhi and others present in the room.

Congress confident of future action in Kerala

During the conversation, Priyanka Gandhi expressed confidence about the Congress party’s prospects in the upcoming Kerala Assembly elections. She indicated that proposals currently under the purview of the Left Front government in the state would be taken forward once Congress comes to power.

Her remarks reflected political confidence while keeping the focus on infrastructure needs in Kerala.

A homemade dish adds informal touch

Apart from policy discussions, the meeting included an informal culinary moment. Nitin Gadkari had prepared a rice-based dish after learning the recipe from online videos. Visitors to his office were offered rice balls served with chutney.

Gadkari encouraged Priyanka Gandhi to taste the dish, and she, along with Congress leader Deepender Singh Hooda, was seen sampling the food while continuing their conversation with the minister.

Continue Reading

India News

AAP dominates Punjab zila parishad polls, leads in most panchayat samiti zones

AAP has won 201 out of 317 declared zila parishad zones in Punjab so far and is leading in a majority of panchayat samiti seats, with counting still underway.

Published

on

Punjab Zila Parishad Polls

The ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has recorded a strong performance in the Punjab zila parishad elections and is leading in the majority of panchayat samiti zones, as per results declared so far on Thursday. The counting process is still underway and complete results are awaited, officials said.

Polling for the rural local bodies was held on December 14 to elect representatives across 347 zones of 22 zila parishads and 2,838 zones of 153 panchayat samitis in the state.

AAP secures clear edge in zila parishads

According to the available results, outcomes have been declared for 317 zila parishad zones so far. Of these, the AAP has won 201 zones, placing it well ahead of other parties.

The Congress emerged second with victories in 60 zones, followed by the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) with 39 zones. The BJP won four zones, the BSP secured three, while independents claimed 10 zones.

District-wise data shows that the AAP won 22 zones in Hoshiarpur, 19 each in Amritsar and Patiala, 17 each in Tarn Taran and Gurdaspur, and 15 zones in Sangrur. The Congress registered its best performances in Gurdaspur and Ludhiana with eight zones each, followed by Jalandhar with seven zones. The SAD performed strongly in Bathinda with 13 zones, while the BJP managed to win four zones in Pathankot.

AAP leads in panchayat samiti results

In the panchayat samiti elections, trends declared so far indicate that the AAP is leading in a majority of zones. However, officials clarified that counting is ongoing and the final picture will be clear only after all ballot papers are tallied.

Kejriwal, Mann reject opposition allegations

Reacting to the trends, AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal said the party’s performance reflected strong rural support for the Bhagwant Mann government’s work. Addressing the media in Mohali along with Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, Kejriwal dismissed allegations of irregularities raised by opposition parties.

He said the elections were conducted in a fair and free manner and claimed that the results so far showed a clear wave in favour of the AAP in rural Punjab. Kejriwal stated that nearly 70 per cent of the zila parishad and panchayat samiti seats had gone in favour of the party.

Congress, SAD question poll conduct

The Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal, however, accused the ruling party of misusing official machinery. Punjab Congress chief Amrinder Singh Raja Warring alleged that the AAP had “stolen” the rural mandate and claimed that the results did not reflect genuine public support.

Opposition parties had earlier also accused the AAP government of high-handedness during the polling process, allegations that the ruling party has strongly denied.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com