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

BJP’s Punjab outreach faces fresh challenge as farmers return to Shambhu border

The BJP’s push to shift Punjab’s political focus towards development has encountered a fresh challenge as farmers resume protests at the Shambhu border over concerns surrounding the proposed India-US trade agreement.

Published

on

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Punjab had signalled what many viewed as a fresh political outreach by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a state where it has struggled to recover from the fallout of the 2020-21 farm laws protest. However, the return of farmers to the Shambhu border over concerns surrounding the proposed India-US trade agreement has once again brought agrarian issues to the forefront.

Thousands of farmers gathered at the Punjab-Haryana border, while Haryana Police stopped them from marching towards Delhi. The scenes have drawn comparisons with both the 2020-21 farm laws protest and the farmers’ agitation witnessed in 2024.

BJP’s development narrative faces disruption

During his recent Punjab visit, Prime Minister Modi focused on development, infrastructure and investment, signalling the BJP’s intention to shift political discussions away from the farm laws controversy ahead of the Assembly elections, which are expected in about six months.

His decision to wear a green turban, a colour closely associated with Punjab’s farming community, was widely viewed as a symbolic gesture aimed at reaching out to rural voters.

However, the ongoing protest over the proposed India-US trade agreement has interrupted that narrative, with farmers once again mobilising at the Shambhu border.

Concerns over proposed India-US trade agreement

Farmer organisations have expressed concern that lower import duties under the proposed India-US trade agreement could allow heavily subsidised American agricultural and dairy products to enter the Indian market. They argue this could reduce domestic prices and negatively impact farmers’ incomes.

The groups have also maintained that waiting until the agreement is finalised would leave little opportunity to safeguard farmers’ interests.

Punjab BJP president Kewal Singh Dhillon has appealed to farmers not to draw conclusions before the agreement is finalised. He said no final pact has been signed and asserted there would be “no compromise on the interests of farmers and livestock rearers”. He also said Prime Minister Modi has assured that Punjab’s farmers would not be adversely affected.

Opposition steps up attack

The issue has quickly become a political flashpoint in Punjab.

The Congress has launched a campaign against the proposed trade agreement, alleging it could adversely affect the state’s agriculture and dairy sectors.

The Aam Aadmi Party has described the proposed pact as the “biggest betrayal of farmers” and has demanded that the Centre make the draft agreement public.

The Shiromani Akali Dal has also extended support to the agitation, accusing the Centre of ignoring the concerns of Punjab’s farming community.

Political implications ahead of Punjab polls

The BJP has been attempting to broaden its support beyond its traditional urban voter base by expanding its presence in rural Punjab ahead of the Assembly elections.

Political observers had viewed Prime Minister Modi’s recent visit as the beginning of that outreach. However, the renewed farmers’ mobilisation risks reviving memories of the 2020-21 farm laws agitation, which had significantly affected the BJP’s standing among many farmers in the state.

Unlike the earlier movement, which centred on domestic agricultural reforms, the current agitation focuses on a proposed international trade agreement. If the movement gathers further momentum, it could become India’s first large-scale farmers’ protest against a foreign trade pact, bringing renewed attention to how political parties balance international trade objectives with the interests of domestic agriculture.

With Assembly elections approaching, the renewed agitation has the potential to once again make farmers’ concerns a central issue in Punjab’s political discourse.

Continue Reading

India News

CJP warns of fresh protest if cases against students not withdrawn by Tuesday

The Cockroach Janta Party has threatened to resume protests if cases against students are not withdrawn, alleging the Centre violated assurances made during recent talks.

Published

on

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has warned that it will resume protests from Tuesday if the Centre does not withdraw cases filed against demonstrators and stop further police action against students involved in the nationwide agitation.

The Abhijeet Dipke-led movement, which began as a satirical campaign and later evolved into a nationwide protest over alleged examination irregularities, had ended its 37-day sit-in at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar over the weekend following discussions with the government.

According to the organisation, the protest was withdrawn in “good faith” after Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned, one of the group’s key demands.

CJP alleges breach of assurances

CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka alleged that authorities had failed to honour assurances made during negotiations by continuing police action against protesters.

In a post on X, he claimed that hundreds of students had been arrested in Bihar and West Bengal, while volunteers and protesters in Delhi and other states were facing surveillance and harassment.

Ranka urged senior ministers JP Nadda and Jitendra Singh, who represented the government during the talks, to ensure that all FIRs registered against protesters are withdrawn and that no fresh cases are filed by Delhi Police, central investigative agencies or police forces in BJP-allied states.

He also sought a written copy of the understanding reached during the negotiations regarding legal action against protesters.

Demands raised after talks with Centre

Following the third round of discussions held at the Constitution Club on Saturday, the CJP had said the Centre agreed to provide suitable compensation to the families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide and assured that FIRs lodged against protesters across the country would be withdrawn.

The organisation had submitted a five-point charter of demands to the government and said another round of talks would be held after four weeks.

One of the group’s major demands was the withdrawal of FIRs registered after the July 20 ‘Chalo Sansad’ march and a commitment that no further legal action would be initiated against protesters.

Police action and Parliament debate

Several FIRs were filed following clashes during the July 20 protest near Parliament after demonstrators attempted to march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament.

Police used tear gas and batons to disperse the crowd, leading to clashes and multiple detentions.

On Monday, the issue echoed in Parliament as Opposition members repeatedly demanded a government response over the police crackdown on protesters.

Meanwhile, despite disruptions in the House, the government introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha proposing stricter penalties for examination paper leaks.

Continue Reading

India News

India summons Ukrainian envoy after ships with Indian crew attacked in Black Sea

Published

on

India has summoned the Ukrainian Ambassador after two merchant vessels carrying Indian crew were attacked in the Black Sea, raising concerns over the safety of Indians working in the conflict zone.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) described the incidents as a matter of serious concerns and conveyed India’s position directly to the Ukrainian envoy.

According to the MEA, the attacks took place amid the ongoing Russia-Ukrainian war, where commercial shipping has increasingly come under threat due to military operations. Although no deaths have been reported, several Indian seafarers were on board the affected vessels, prompting the government to seek immediate clarification from Ukraine and stress the need to ensure their safety.

During the meeting, the MEA reiterated that merchant ships engaged in commercial trade and civilian crew members must not become targets during armed conflict. India urged Ukraine to take all possible steps to prevent such incidents and to uphold international maritime law, which protects civilian shipping operating in international waters.

The ministry said it is in constant contact with Indian missions abroad, shipping companies, and maritime authorities to monitor the condition of Indian crew members. Officials have assured that diplomatic and consular assistance for the crew.

The attack have once again highlighted the dangers faced by thousands of Indian seafarers employed on international cargo vessels operating in conflict-affected regions. The continuing war has disrupted shipping routes in the Black Sea, creating risks for commercial trade and the safety of multinational crews.

The latest diplomatic move reflects India’s consistent position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While maintaining relations with both countries, India has repeatedly called for dialogue, a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and the protection of civilians and commercial vessels under international law.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com