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

Two election commissioners complained against senior poll officer, RTI reveals

An RTI response has shed light on complaints by two Election Commissioners against a senior poll panel officer and the Cabinet Secretariat’s decision not to intervene directly.

Published

on

An RTI response has brought fresh details to light about complaints submitted by two Election Commissioners against a senior official of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including the Cabinet Secretariat’s decision not to intervene directly in the matter.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote separate letters to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, 2026, raising concerns about the working of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg.

The complaints followed an order concerning the allocation of responsibilities among senior officers in the poll panel. The Cabinet Secretariat subsequently acknowledged the communications and shared them with relevant offices, while noting that direct action could be inappropriate without an official communication from the Commission as a whole.

Why the two Election Commissioners raised concerns

The dispute centred on a work-allocation order issued on July 28, when Garg took temporary charge as the link officer for the Deputy Election Commissioner handling administration, who was on leave.

According to the complaints, Garg issued an order reallocating responsibilities among senior and equivalent-ranking officers without discussing the changes with the Commission or the officers concerned.

Sandhu reportedly objected that the revised allocation had been made without consultation, while Joshi stated that a file he requested from the Administration Division was not provided to him.

The two Commissioners also referred to previous instructions against making such changes without prior discussion or approval from the Commission.

Why the Cabinet Secretariat did not intervene

Records disclosed through the RTI process indicate that the Cabinet Secretariat considered the complaints but concluded that direct intervention could be inappropriate.

In its internal deliberations, the Secretariat noted that the Election Commission is a constitutional body designed to function independently of executive interference. It also observed that the letters had been sent by the two Commissioners in their individual capacities rather than as an official communication from the Commission collectively.

The Secretariat therefore considered it appropriate to acknowledge the letters and inform the Chief Election Commissioner’s office, rather than take direct action against the official.

The Department of Personnel and Training was also informed so that the matter could be placed on record for future consideration concerning the officer.

What happened after the complaints

The Cabinet Secretariat’s records show that internal discussions took place on August 3 and August 4. The Cabinet Secretary acknowledged the two letters on August 5 and forwarded the matter to the relevant offices.

The Election Commission had also issued a clarification on September 26, stating that the dispute did not concern a policy matter or the Commission’s IT division, but the functioning of an officer posted to the poll panel.

The Commission said the work-reallocation orders were not implemented following directions from the two Commissioners and that oversight of the IT division had not actually been withdrawn.

The RTI disclosures provide an official record of how the complaints were handled by the Cabinet Secretariat, while also highlighting the institutional considerations involved in deciding whether the executive should intervene in the functioning of a constitutional body.

Continue Reading

India News

Punjab strike hits public services as 3 lakh employees and roadways workers protest

Punjab is facing disruption to government work and public transport as over three lakh government employees participate in a mass leave protest and roadways workers continue their strike over pending demands.

Published

on

Public services in Punjab have been affected as government employees and transport workers continue their agitation over long-pending demands. The protests involve a mass casual leave programme by more than three lakh government employees and a separate strike by workers associated with state-run transport services.

The agitation has disrupted government office operations and public bus services, adding to the pressure on the Punjab government to address employees’ grievances.

Why Punjab government employees are protesting

Government employees have been pressing for the release of pending dearness allowance (DA) instalments and arrears, restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), regularisation of contractual workers and resolution of pay-related issues.

The demands also cover service conditions and benefits for workers employed across different government departments. Employee organisations have called for concrete decisions on these matters, arguing that several issues remain unresolved despite discussions with the state government.

The mass casual leave programme has affected the functioning of government offices and administrative establishments across the state.

Roadways workers’ strike affects bus services

Separately, workers associated with Punjab Roadways, PUNBUS and the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) have continued their agitation over employment-related demands.

The transport workers’ protest has affected the availability of public buses, creating difficulties for commuters who depend on state-run services for their daily travel.

The transport workers’ demands include regularisation under applicable service rules, changes to employment arrangements for outsourced workers and action on cases linked to previous protests.

The government employees’ agitation and the transport workers’ strike are separate actions, although both concern outstanding demands and the state government’s response to employee organisations.

Talks fail to resolve the deadlock

Discussions between employee representatives and the state government have so far failed to produce a comprehensive resolution to the dispute.

Employee organisations have continued to seek assurances and concrete action on their demands. The continuation of the agitation reflects the lack of an agreement that would persuade the protesting groups to withdraw their actions.

The dispute has also placed the state government under pressure to restore normal public services while addressing the concerns raised by government staff and transport workers.

Continue Reading

India News

Amit Shah says congress won’t return to power for 30 years

Union Home Minister Amit Shah took a swipe at Rahul Gandhi over the Opposition’s vote theft allegations, asserting that the Congress would not return to power for the next 30 years.

Published

on

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday launched a fresh attack on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, questioning the Opposition’s allegations of vote theft and asserting that the Congress would not return to power for the next 30 years.

Addressing an event in New Delhi, Shah criticised Gandhi over his absence from the country and challenged the Congress’s objections to the Election Commission of India (ECI), arguing that the party accepted the electoral process when it won elections but questioned it after defeats.

The remarks came during an event related to projects for the rejuvenation of the Yamuna, where Shah also targeted the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) over their political record in Delhi.

Amit Shah’s warning to Rahul Gandhi

Taking a dig at Gandhi over his reported foreign visit, Shah said the Congress leader would have to remember his words when he returned to Delhi.

The Home Minister argued that the Congress’s political setbacks had begun long before Narendra Modi became Prime Minister and said the party could not attribute its electoral losses solely to allegations of irregularities in elections.

Shah also defended his confidence in the BJP’s electoral prospects, contrasting his prediction of the party remaining in power with the Congress’s prospects under its current political approach.

He asserted that the Congress would not get another opportunity to form a government for the next 30 years. The statement was a political prediction made by Shah, rather than an established electoral outcome.

Shah questions Congress over vote theft allegations

Shah accused the Congress and other Opposition parties of adopting inconsistent positions on the Election Commission, depending on whether election results favoured them.

Citing electoral victories in states including Kerala, Telangana and Himachal Pradesh, he argued that the Congress and its allies had accepted the electoral process when they won.

He questioned why the same institutions and electoral arrangements became subjects of criticism when the Opposition lost elections.

Shah also targeted the Opposition’s protests against alleged electoral irregularities and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He alleged that the Congress was using vote theft claims to protect the votes of infiltrators.

These were allegations made by the Home Minister and should be understood as his political assertions, not as independently established findings.

Amit Shah targets Opposition’s protest strategy

The Home Minister also criticised the Opposition’s demonstrations in Delhi, arguing that protests could not overturn the public mandate.

He said political parties seeking electoral victories should engage with people and address their concerns rather than rely on demonstrations and allegations against constitutional institutions.

Shah further accused the Opposition of applying different standards to court decisions, suggesting that it welcomed judgments in its favour while questioning those that went against it.

His remarks came amid continuing political disagreements over the electoral process and the Opposition’s criticism of the Election Commission.

Yamuna projects and attack on AAP

During the same event, Shah inaugurated and laid the foundation stones for 43 Delhi Jal Board projects worth Rs. 8,941 crore, aimed at improving wastewater treatment, drinking water infrastructure and the rejuvenation of the Yamuna.

He criticised previous governments in Delhi over the river’s pollution and accused the Congress and AAP of failing to address the problem adequately.

Shah also targeted AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, arguing that political parties should be judged by their performance rather than their explanations for failing to deliver results.

He said the BJP would work towards cleaning the Yamuna and improving water and sewerage infrastructure in the national capital.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com