Understanding the situation in THAILAND !!!

Why are the protests happening in THAILAND ?

• A failed attempt last month by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to push an amnesty bill through parliament which would have pardoned all those involved in political conflict in recent years. 
• Protestors believe the bill would have allowed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to return from exile.

 

Who is Thaksin?

• He's a deeply polarizing figure -- a billionaire telecommunications mogul who built his political power on policies popular with Thailand's rural villagers. 
• His success ruffled a lot of feathers among the country's established elites, and critics accused him of corruption and autocratic rule. 
• He was prime minister between 2001 and 2006, when the military deposed him in a bloodless coup.

What happened in 2010?

• Thaksin's ouster spurred the protest movement that developed over the years into the widespread "red shirt" demonstrations that occupied upscale parts of Bangkok in 2010. 
• By that stage, the movement had broadened to represent other issues, including resentment at the military's involvement in politics and economic inequality. 
• The crackdown by security forces on the red shirts resulted in clashes that left around 90 people dead. 
• It has been described as the worst civil violence in Thailand's history, and the country remains severely scarred by the experience.

Are the protests happening right now (2013) legitimate?

• They are anti- THAKSIN protests contrary to those in 2010, which were pro-THAKSIN. 
• While Thailand’s constitution allows political demonstrations, the protestors are trying to overthrow a democratically-elected government and replace it with an unelected “people’s council”.

Where is THAKSIN right now ?

• He has been living in exile in a number of different places, most recently Dubai, while continuing to play an active role in Thai politics.

• He briefly returned to Thailand in 2008. Later that year, he was convicted by a Thai court of corruption and sentenced in absentia to two years in prison over a controversial land deal. Courts have also frozen billions of dollars of his assets, but he is believed to still have a great deal of money held elsewhere.

• He's also stayed heavily involved in Thai politics over the years, communicating with supporters via social media and video messages. With his younger sister in power since 2011, his influence remains strong. Critics say Yingluck is Thaksin's puppet, but she insists she has always been independent.

Who are the protestors?

• Mostly metropolitan and middle-class, they are a loose coalition of anti-Thaksin groups associated with the opposition Democrat Party and likely backed by Thailand’s traditional elite: big businessmen, conservative generals, aristocrats and royal advisors.

Who supports the government?

• Pheu Thai’s populist policies ensure it commands huge support in the densely-populated rural north and northeast of Thailand and among the urban working-class.
• So even if re-elections happen they are again going to win the elections !!!

Why is Thaksin such a divisive figure?

• Protestors view Thaksin and the Yingluck government as hopelessly corrupt and as a challenge to the authority of Thailand’s revered monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

What is likely to happen next?

• Questions remain over the ability of Yingluck's government to maintain order in the capital and weather the heavy political pressure in Parliament. 

• Some observers are concerned that government supporters, tens of thousands of whom rallied in Bangkok on Sunday, could clash with opposition demonstrators.

• Yingluck has said authorities would "absolutely not use violence" to disperse the demonstrators.

• Even if Yingluck survives the "no confidence" motion against her, the situation appears unlikely to calm down soon.

What is the latest news ?

·  Thailand's government has rejected calls to delay February's election, amid increasingly violent protests in which a policeman has been shot dead.

·   The Electoral Commission urged the postponement over safety fears for candidates on the campaign trail.

·      But government officials said parliament was already dissolved so there was no legal reason for a delay.

·  The protesters want the government to stand down and be replaced by an unelected "people's council".

LEFT MOVEMENT IN INDIA :: PRE - iNDEPENDENCE PHASE !!

The emergence and growth of the leftist movement was the result of a combination of factors 

• Development of Indian industries. 
• Economic crunch caused by the two World Wars. 
• Success of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. 

Emergence of Indian Communism !!!

• The emergence of Indian Communism out of the shortcoming of the mainstream national movement is quite undeniable. It was borne out of mostly of peasant and labour activists, Non-Cooperators, Khilafatists and revolutionaries whose aspirations and participation in the national movement remained either unfulfilled or insufficient. They sought alternate roads for their demands and some joined the Left Movement.

The founder of the Indian communism was Naren Bhattacharki (alias Manabendra Mikhail Nath Roy), a Yugantar revolutionary. 

• After meeting the Bolshevik Mikhail Borodin in Mexico in 1919 and helping in the establishment of a Communist Party, Roy attended the second Congress of Communist International in Russia in 1920. 

• Hereafter ensued a much celebrated dialogue between Naren Bhattacharki and Lenin on the strategy of Communists in the colonial world. 
• He then founded the Communist Party of India in Tashkent in October 1920. 
• Various formal Communist bodies were formed in the period 1921-25 in different parts of the country. 
• Satyabhakta organised an All-India Conference of the communists at Kanpur in December 1925. 
• The convening of this Conference under the President-ship of Singaravelu Chettiar of Madras is considered as the formal beginnings of Indian Communism. 

• Between 1922 and 1927 a number of organisations cropped up, essentially to provide legal cover to workers and peasants. These included Labour Swaraj Party of Bengal, Congress Labour Party in Bombay, Kirti Kishan Party in the Punjab and Labour Kisan Party of Hindustan in Madras. Ganbani, Mehnatkash, Kranti and Krantikari were some of the popular journals and newpapers.

With the agreement of supporting the national movement as encouraged by Lenin, the Communist Party of India (CPI) asked its members to join the ranks of the Congress and to form a strong Left wing within it.

The labour movement was not far behind in its development. In the first half of 1920 there were approximately 200 labour strikes. Under the Presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai All-India Trade Union Congress held its first session in October in Bombay. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, and Subhas Chandra Bose were also Left inclined and brought Left-wing tint in Congress. The left influences was very, strongly visible in the second, phase of revolutionary terrorism between 1922 and 1928. 

In December 1928, a Conference of different labour-kisan parties was called forth and they merged into All-India Workers and Peasant’s Party (WPP). Its’ aim was to work within the Congress and infuse in it a more radical orientation. Their programme comprised 

• abolition of zamindari and redistribution of land, 
• development of the peasants and workers movement and 
• raising the general standard of the masses. 

Their presence in the Congress gave the Communists a strong entrée point. However, the Government, ever paranoid of socialism, grew alarmed at the increase in Left activities and subsequently arrested 32 political and trade union leaders in March 1929 under Meerut Conspiracy Case which dragged on for three odd years. These were defended by Jawaharlal Nehru, M. A. Ansari and M. C. Chagla. 27 of the accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment while Muzzafar Ahmed was given life imprisonment.

In 1928 with the adoption, in CPI meet at Calcutta in 1929, of the Comintern change of policy, the Congress was declared as the class party of the, bourgeoisie and all connections with it were broken. 

ACHARYA NARENDRA DEV

There was another shift when in 1934, the Communists were asked to join back the national movements against imperialism. Many Communists joined the leadership of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP). CSP was formed in 1934 in Pune under the chairmanship of Narendra Dev with the aim of consolidating Leftist proposals after gaining independence. It was geared towards moulding Congress along socialist lines. Nehru and Bose supported CSP from outside. However, CSP could not really gain much headway. Neither could it leave Congress that this point in time as it would have weakened the CSP. Gradually, within Congress there emerged two camps on account of the rowing socialist influence in INC. Congress got divided along “Leftist” and “Rightist” predilections. The radical leaders like G. B. Pant, P. D. Tandon and Sri Prakash joined CSP and harped on the local Congress executives to implement radical measures like removal of middlemen; cancellation of debts of peasants owed to the landlords and regulation of land tax. This was criticized by the right wing leaders like Patel.

The Cabinet Mission Plan was rejected by the CSP and it boycotted the Constituent Assembly. CSP dropped Congress from its nomenclature in February-March 1947 and threw its door open to non-Congress members. Its connections with the Congress were formally severed in 1948 after Patel’s declaration that all political parties formed within Congress were outlawed. Given the option to join or opt out, the Socialist Party chose the latter. However, socialist influence was carried on by Nehru who did not agree with forming a separate organisation or breaking away from Congress and severing the ties with Gandhi and right wing nationalists.

Slums in India :: Factors :: Case Study

What is a SLUM ?

A slum is that unplanned area which is not figured in the master plan of the city and are encroached upon the government lands. Most of the times they lack basic amenities such as street lighting, water supply, sewage, regulated electric supply, schools etc. Slums are mostly visible in mega urban areas and are rare occurrence in rural areas and towns.

According to the recent government surveys, a slum has been defined as such settlements of at least 20 household where conditions of living are undesirable i.e. overcrowded, lack of sanitation and drinking water facilities, poor construction, and improper hygiene.

What are the factors that contribute to growth 

of slums in India ?

Factors that contribute to the growth of slums in India are:

a) Employment Opportunities in Urban Centres are high as they are commercial, economic and manufacturing hubs. Employment opportunities in both organised and unorganised sectors are available in greater numbers when compared to rural areas. As a result they attract huge number of skilled as well as unskilled  workers. Skilled workers are mostly educated and get better jobs and have good standard of living whereas unskilled workers are illiterate and are mostly wage labourers, construction workers, vegetable vendors, etc. with with a poor standard of living. They have no choice but to accommodate in slums as their incomes cannot afford huge cost of living in other parts.

b) Unemployment and lack of employment opportunities in rural areas due to overcrowded agricultural sector, absence of large-scale industries, closure or underperformance of small-scale and cottage industries due to globalization.

c) Uneducated persons are forced to take up jobs in informal sector that pay them less wages. As the low wages cannot meet the cost of living, they are forced to live in slums.

d) Companies and organisations that employ the unskilled workers does not provide them with minimum hygienic residential facilities. Even the wages are low. As a result they are driven to live in slums.

e) Administrative actions against the growth of slums are tough and almost impossible as the slum dwellers do not cooperate with the authorities.

f) Poor governance leads to impoverisation of local unskilled population who have no choice but to live in slums.

g) Due to Lack of secure tenure, the slum dwellers have very small incentive to maintain their surrounding areas. Lack of secure tenure is an obstruction to economic and social opportunities like credit facilities, public services and livelihood opportunities. The property registration procedure are complicated and expensive, even more so in slum area.

h) Lack of political will to relocate the slum dwellers or to legalize the slums in fear that it would encourage more illegal settlements.

i) Anthropogenic factor is another dimension that leads to the growth of slums. Mobilisation of people based on religion,language and region and vandalising the habitats of enemy camps ultimately results in loss of habitat and fear that would lead to large scale migration

===============================================================

Model Property Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 

2011

The Minister for Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation has circulated the draft of Model Property Rights to ‘Slum Dwellers Act, 2011’, having salient features as:

• The Act states that every landless person living in a slum area in any city or urban area shall be entitled to a dwelling space at an affordable cost.

• Every Slum dweller shall be given a legal entitlement, which shall be in the name of the female head of the household or in the joint name of the male head of the household and his wife.

• The dwelling space so provided shall not be transferable but shall be mortgageable for the purpose of raising housing loan.

• It provides for the establishment of City / Urban Area Slum Redevelopment Committee for carrying out functions specified under the Act and the establishment of a State Slum Redevelopment Authority to continuously monitor implementation of the Act and to recommend corrective measures, wherever necessary.

Land is a State subject thus it is up to the States to adopt and introduce the Property Rights to Slum Dwellers Act.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Case Study :In-Situ Slum upgradation under 

JNNURM 

What INDIA (& developing nations) "LOSED" at WTO Ministerial in Bali !!!

Contrary to whatever Union Commerce Minister Anand Sharma said about the success of India at the WTO Ministerial in Bali, the actual picture is completely different picture. 

India has wilted under pressure from the US and agreed to accept conditionalities that were not part of the G-33 proposal. This is clear from the text of the agreed draft.

What India has traded away:

1. Anand Sharma had unambiguously stated that the “peace clause” should be in place till such time that a permanent solution is found. The word “interim” that he had used is in the text (a clear victory), but in what is being described by the WTO Secretariat as “constructive ambiguity” the US position that it should be only for four years also finds its place (Para 1) in the text by adding, “for adoption  by the 11th Ministerial Conference” (there is a WTO Ministerial once every two years and Bali was the 9th Ministerial. (Some experts though are interpreting it as being in India’s favour since “interim” can be interpreted as holding on till a permanent settlement is found irrespective of the reference to the 11th Ministerial).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. While India (G-33 draft) had demanded that no member-country can drag a member-state to the dispute settlement mechanism, till a permanent settlement is found under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and the Agreement on Subsisdies and Countervailing Measure (ASCM), only the AoA is mentioned in Para 2. which means that member-states can still drag India to the dispute settlement process under the ASCM. The language has also been whittled down and instead of “shall not” replaced with “shall refrain from”, which means this guarantee is not secure even under the AoA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Most disturbingly, this agreement is (Para 2) only “in pursuance of public stockholding programmes for food security purposes existing as of date”. This has the following implications:

(a) The Minimum Support Price Mechanism cannot be introduced for crops other than those already provided for.

(b) The quantity of foodgrains procured under the MSP cannot be increased beyond the procurement as of date which would threaten the NFSA in the near future.

(c) Pulses, cooking oil and other foods (other than rice, wheat or millets specified in the NFSA) can no longer be introduced in the PDS either by the Government of India or the State governments if they are not being provided now.

(d) Future governments cannot increase the entitlements of foodgrains guaranteed under the NFSA which has been notified. For instance, Chhattisgarh, amongst other States, provides 35 kgs per household but no other State which is now providing 20 kgs or 25 kgs can increase the quantity to 35 kgs.

(e) This may also be interpreted to mean that Government of India  or the State Governments cannot increase the price of the MSP from beyond what has been specified now for the next four years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. India will now be subject to requirements that have been made mandatory in the agreed text. This was there in the US/ EU text but not in the G-33 proposal which means that India has accepted to provide details of all holdings in procurement by both the States and Government of India.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. India will also now have to notify that they have been exceeding the de minimis level (10 per cent of agricultural production as the permissible subsidy for developing countries). Para 3 (a)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Para (4) is one of the most problematic propositions for India which has made its way from the US/ EU draft, “shall ensure that stocks procured under such programmes do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other members”. This leaves open to interpretation that the entire MSP mechanism that is in place for decades and India can be dragged to the dispute settlement mechanism by the US alleging that the entire MSP mechanism distrorts trade. So can Pakistan alleging that India’s rice exports is distorting trade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. This also means that even with the most generous interpretation of this agreeement, India will still have to continue negotiations for the next four years till a permanent settlement is done and we have to continue to agree to further concessions to the US/ EU while this is being negotiated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. In Bali, the African Group, many members of the G-33 and LAC are very upset with India for having produced bilaterally with the US a text, whereas till this morning, they were seeking the support of all the countries for the G-33 and Indian position. Anand Sharma had taken a strident note till last night, and raised the hopes of most developing countries that India would not buckle to pressure from the US/ EU. Today his credibility and that of India is severely eroded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moral of the Story !!!!

As is evident, what is contained in the agreed text is a big climbdown from what had been stated by Anand Sharma in his strongly-worded statment. We have put at stake not just the interests of 650 million Indian farmers but also every single one of the 820 entitlement holders under the NFSA.