Why did Govt of India maintain ominous silence in PepsiCo case against Gujarat farmers?: Activists

By A Representative
PepsiCo India Holdings Ltd, which withdrew their legal suits against the farmers at the Commercial Court of Ahmedabad and the district court of Modasa, have done it under intense public and political pressure, farmers’ rights groups have asserted in a statement, warning, this in no way means that the public campaign is over. The battle is only half won on the field. The Government of India maintained an ominous silence on the issue, taking cover of the matter being sub judice.
Addressing media, their advocate Anand Yagnik stated that these farmers are into subsistence farming and not commercial farming. It must be kept in mind that in India the right of farmer to cultivate land and agricultural produce is superior to the right of MNCs seeking protection in the name of registration. The law of India allows farmers to use even registered seeds and take produce.
Kapilbhai Shah, Coordinator, Beej Adhikar Manch, a newly formed platform to protect farmers’ seed sovereignty, recalled, when PepsiCo India made an application in February 2012 to the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority for the registration of a particular potato variety, it had given a Declaration that it shall abide by all the provisions and guidelines of the PPV&FR Act 2001. It is highly objectionable that having agreed to compliances of registration, the company tried to find ‘long term amicable solution to protect its variety’ with the help of government.
Dr Rajendra Khimani, President of Gujarat Association of Agricultural Sciences, said any reference to some discussions that PepsiCo India was having with government was not acceptable, when such discussions did not involve the affected farmers and farmers’ organisations and when there was no need for such discussions in the first instance.
Khimani added, the Gujarat government can neither persuade nor dictate to farmers of this state that they need to take permission from some company that is claiming exclusive rights which then means that the government itself would be misleading the farmers on the law of the land.

Xi Jinping’s visit to USA: Recognition that China can't be contained?

By Vijay Prashad President Xi Jinping’s forthcoming visit to the United States must be understood as more than an encounter between two heads of state, but it must be seen as an encounter between two possible futures. In one future, the United States imposes a spiral of confrontation against China. Trade disputes harden into economic warfare, then economic warfare intensifies into technological blockades, technological blockades produce military encirclement, and finally military encirclement creates incidents, and incidents the danger of becoming an unimaginable war.

Swaminarayan, untouchability and the 'we are not Hindu' argument

By Rajiv Shah Following my blog on why the Eiffel Tower authorities should take all the blame for giving in to the Swaminarayan sadhus ’ bizarre demand to “invisibilise” women, including its female staff, during their visit to the internationally renowned Paris tourist centre on September 5, an interesting comment by one of the top academics drew my attention to something I vaguely knew about one of India’s most powerful and richest religious sects.

From margins to microphones: The rise of Dalit hip-hop in India

By Tersina Maria Toppo* A protest does not always arrive as a slogan shouted from a street corner. Sometimes, it arrives on a beat. A microphone replaces the megaphone, a music video becomes a public square, and the smartphone becomes the space where a history once pushed to the margins is narrated, debated, and shared.

Counterview

Search This Blog