After Hindenburg, Forbes Reveals About Mysterious Offshore Companies Of Adani’s Brother

0

Delhi: A report prepared by the New York-based short-selling firm Hindenburg Research created ripples in the Indian corporate world and rocked its stock markets like never before.

Adani group of companies and its owner Gautam Adani were at the centre of the storm that shook the political establishment too. But the information unearthed by the US firm seems to be the tip of the iceberg.

If a recent report by US media giant Forbes is to be believed, the Adani group controlled several shell companies, siphoned off billions of dollars, pumped money into its Indian entities illegally and held information from the regulators. Gautam Adani’s brother Vinod was at the vortex of these operations.

Vinod Adani is a man who keeps himself away from the media glare and limelight, prefers to remain in the shadow of his brother and works silently. He holds a Cypriot passport, has his residence in Singapore and has spent a large part of his life abroad.

But he also holds many offshore firms in tax havens like Mauritius, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, the Virgin Islands, and the United Arab Emirates. He has used these bases for investing money into Indian companies, avoiding taxes, and withholding information from the Securities and Exchange Board of India and other government agencies, that too preferred to look the other way.

The report published by Hindenburg Research says that Vinod Adani, “Manages a vast labyrinth of offshore shell entities,” that have, “Collectively moved billions of dollars into Indian Adani’s publicly listed and private entities, often without required disclosure of the related party nature of the deals.”

By doing this, Vinod Adani has helped the Adani Group evade Indian laws that require at least 25% of a company’s publicly traded stock to be owned by non-insiders.

The Adani Group hit the headlines in 2022 when it bought the Swiss company Holcim’s stakes in its Indian cement giants Ambuja Cements Ltd and ACC Ltd for USD 10.5 billion. With this takeover, the Adani Group became the second-largest cement company in the country.

It is interesting to note that Vinod Adani’s company Endeavour Trade and Investment Ltd served as the acquisition vehicle for this takeover.

But other dealings and investments of Vinod Adani are not this much transparent.

According to the Forbes report, Vinod Adani’s company Singapore-based Pinnacle Trade and Investment Pte. Lte., took a loan of USD 263 million from Russia’s government-controlled VTB Bank. But out of the borrowing, Pinnacle gave away USD 258 million to an unnamed firm.

Pinnacle pledged two investment companies-Afro Asian Trade and Investment Ltd and Worldwide Emerging Market Holdings Ltd as guarantors for the same loan.

It is interesting to know that Vinod Adani owns Mauritius-based Acropolis Trade and Investments Limited, which holds 100% stakes in Worldwide Emerging Market Holdings Ltd.

These two companies, Afro Asian Trade and Investment Ltd and Worldwide Emerging Market Holdings Ltd, are large Adani Group shareholders. They hold about USD 4 billion worth of shares in Adani Enterprises, Adani Power, Adani Ports and Adani Transmission. These two companies are also the promoter entities of these firms.

These offshore companies were pledged by Pinnacle for the VTB Bank loan.

But, neither Afro Asian Trade and Investment Ltd nor Worldwide Emerging Market Holdings disclosed the share pledge for the four Adani Group companies.

Actually, Pinnacle pledged these offshore funds instead of the Adani Group shares to secure the Russian loan so that they might enjoy the exemption of the obligation of disclosing the pledged share.

The SEBI was in complete oblivion of these pieces of information and developments till recently. The regulator came out of its slumber after the Hindenburg Report and the subsequent hullabaloo.

The regulator told the Supreme Court last Monday that it was “enquiring into both the allegations made in the Hindenburg report as well as the market activity immediately preceding and post the publication of the report.”

Indeed, but only after the opposition rocked the Parliament for several days on this issue.

Vakodar Investment, a Cyprus-based company owned by Vinod Adani received a loan of USD 230 million from Vinod and an offshore firm in Dubai. But immediately after that, it purchased the convertible debentures of Adani Estates and Adani Land Developers.

Convertible debentures are loan instruments that pay interest at a fixed rate for a fixed period and get converted into equity of the company at a fixed date.

The two firms are subsidiaries of another group company Adani Infrastructure and Developers.

Adani Infrastructure and Developers was a subsidiary of Adani Enterprises, the publicly-traded and flagship company of the group. But Adani Enterprises revealed in its 2013 annual report that it had sold the company in June 2012 with a profit of USD 8.15 million.

It may appear bizarre, but Adani Enterprises in its annual report of 2017 mentioned Adani Infrastructure and Developers as its ‘related enterprise.’ In other words, the company became a ‘related enterprise’ of Adani Enterprises four years after it was sold.

It raises the question if the reported profit from the sale of the company was genuine or whether it was window dressing.

If the Forbes report is to be believed, the Adani family controlled Adani Infrastructure and Developers in 2017 through another group company Adani Properties.

The SB Adani Family Trust, Gautam Adani’s son Karan Adani and Adani Commodities own Adani Properties. Adani Commodities is a subsidiary of Adani Enterprises. So, Adani Enterprises owns, at least partially, the company it sold in 2012.

Will CPIML’s Party Congress work as a catalyst for opposition unity before 2024 Lok Sabha polls?

0

Patna: Call for the opposition unity against Bharatiya Janata Party given at the Party Congress of CPIML seems to have hit the right chord, as several leaders across the parties and country attended the convention in Patna and pledged to form an anti-fascist alliance.

CPIML is also an ally of the ruling Mahagathbandhan in Bihar. 

Themed as ‘Save Constitution, Save Democracy, Save India’ convention had the participants not only the gathbandhan leaders including Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, deputy CM Tejashwi Yadav, senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid but also Left leaders like Md Salim and critical thinkers like Arundhati Roy in attendance. The meet stressed on the need of a strong opposition unity against the BJP, which they termed as Anti-Fascist resistance alliance.

Speaking on the third day of the convention, chief minister Nitish Kumar said, “The decision we have taken towards the Mahagathbandhan has gone well with the people, so we will continue to work like this together. But we have a responsibility beyond Bihar, and in light of the 2024 election, we must fight together and get rid of the current regime.” He reiterated that he has no wish for any post now but he wants to dislodge BJP from the center. 

Deputy chief minister Tejashwi Yadav mentioned, “We do not have Ambani-Adani to bankroll us. We also don’t misuse the government institutions to crack down on opposition, yet despite the attacks on us, we came together in Bihar to teach BJP a lesson and establish a unity based on the country’s interest”. He added, “We have said it time and again that in places where regional parties are strong, they should be given the driving seat and where there is a bipolar contest between the Congress and BJP, we will support Congress.”

Salman Khurshid, former cabinet minister pointed out, “What we face today are fascist powers. But they are cowards. Our unity will scare them to retreat.” He said that oppositional unity will show the way forward to counter hatred mongered by the BJP. He assured that he will take forward the message of unity in the Congress party, which is also ready to build oppositional unity.

Earlier, CPIML General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya had said, “The agenda of this convention is very clear – if the Constitution and democracy are in danger, there is a need for a decisive struggle to save them from the fascist forces and we need a grand unity for that.” He added that time and again, Bihar has shown how opposition is built both on the streets and electorally. The General Secretary added that the convention being called as part of the 11th Party Congress is a clarion call for resistance and opposition to the emergency-like situation in the country.

cpiml party congress opposition unity anti-fascist alliance
Arundhati Roy | Courtesy: Facebook/CPIML Liberation, Bihar

It was also attended by Member of Parliament from Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, Tamil Nadu, Thol. Thirumavalavan, who said “We must oppose bigotry uncompromisingly. Fascism is hitting Indian democracy like a tsunami. It wants to make sure that a majority government will function as a majoritarian government.”

A day ahead of the convention, eminent writer Arundhati Roy called upon social groups and political parties to unite to fight against fascist forces in the country. Roy said on the second day of the convention, “The Social groups and the parties engaged in anti-caste and anti-capitalist struggles in the country have to come together.” Roy had earlier also attended CPIML’s Party Congress but this time, her presence and appeal for the opposition parties as well as civil society to unite has more significance ahead of 2024 Lok Sabha polls.

The same day, CPIML delegates adopted two resolutions. The first one, to recognize fascism as the main threat to people and democracy and the second to identify the nature of Indian fascism at the present juncture—as the manifestation of the corporate-communal nexus. 

Several dignitaries of fraternal organizations from Australia, Venezuela, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal and Palestine were present in the convention. Communist groups from Cuba, Laos, Philippines, Cyprus, Germany, Argentina, Iran, Namibia and Afghanistan sent their solidarity messages to the Congress. 

Before the convention, CPIML had a major rally at Gandhi Maidan, Patna on February 15, which political observers believed that it reflected the increasing mass presence of the party.

देश के शहरों की संस्कृति पर आधारित दो दिवसीय ‘शहरनामा’ रविवार से

जयपुर: प्रभा खेतान फाउण्डेशन की ओर से 19 और 20 फरवरी को आईटीसी राजपूताना होटल, जयपुर में दो दिवसीय साहित्योत्सव ‘शहरनामा कहानी-अपने शहरों’ ऐ बुटीक लिट्रेचर फैस्टिवल का आयोजन किया जाएगा। शहरनामा फेस्टिवल की डायरेक्टर नीलिमा डालमिया और अपरा कुच्छल ने बताया कि शहरनामा जैसे कार्यक्रमों के जरिए यह प्रयास है कि देश के सभी दूसरे शहरों के इतिहास सहित स्थानीय परम्पराओं, लोकोक्तियों और ऐतिहासिक स्थलों के बारे में जानकारी लोगों को शेयर की जाए। ‘शहरनामा कहानी अपने-अपने शहरों की’ फैस्टिवल के आयोजन की पहली बार जयपुर शहर से शुरु हो रही है।

पर्यटन विभाग एवं श्रीं सीमेंट के सहयोग से आयोजित होने वाले इस कार्यक्रम में उन लेखकों से चर्चा होगी जिन्होंने देश के ख्यातनाम शहरों पर किताबें लिखी हैं। जयपुर, जोधपुर व पुष्कर, दिल्ली भोपाल व लखनऊ सहित देश में कई ऐसे कई शहर हैं जो अपने आप में एक इतिहास समेटे हुए हैं। इन शहरों पर किताब लिखने वाले लेखक अपने-अपने शहरों से जुड़ी यादें, किस्से, कला-संस्कृति, खानपान, पुरामहत्व व प्राचीन इमारतों के बारे में बात करेंगे और अपने अपने अनुभवों के बारे में बताएंगे। शहरनामा में दो दिन में 18 सैशन्स आयोजित किए जाएंगे।

19 फरवरी को सुबह 9.45 पर कव्वालियों से होगी शुरूआत

दो दिवसीय इस उत्सव की शुरूआत 19 फरवरी को होटल आईटीसी राजपूताना में सुबह 9.45 बजे आफाताब कादरी और तारीक फैज़ के सूफी कव्वाली गायन से होगी। 10.45 से 11.15 बजे तक उद्घाटन सत्र आयोजित किया जाएगा इसके बाद 11.25 शाम 5.45 बजे तक विभिन्न सत्र आयोजित किए जाएंगे जिनमें शिरकत करने वाले लेखक अपने अपने अंदाज़ में देश के विभिन्न शहरों की संस्कृति से संबंधित विचार व्यक्त करेंगे।

20 फरवरी के कार्यक्रम

इसी तरह 20 फरवरी को समारोह की शुरूआत  सुबह 9.45 बजे पद्मश्री गुलाबो और शकंुतला सरूपुरिया की प्रस्तुतियों से होगी। इसके बाद सुबह 10.30 बजे से दोपहर 1.40 बजे तक विभिन्न सत्र आयोजित किए जाएंगे जिनमें शिरकत करने वाले लेखक अपने अपने अंदाज़ में देश के विभिन्न शहरों की संस्कृति से संबंधित विचार व्यक्त करेंगे।

देश के ये नामी लेखक करेंगे शिरकत

फैजल अलकाजी, डॉ.संदीप पुरोहित, अभय के, अनूठी विशाल, मेहरू जफर, मिहिर वत्स, अदिति दुग्गड, मनीष मल्होत्रा, महक माहेश्वरी, वर्तुल सिंह, हिमांशु बाजपेई, सलमान चिश्ती, अनंत विजय, आलोक श्रीवास्तव, रशीद किदवई, अनीसुर रहमान, सुधा सदानंद, तृप्ति पांडे, यतींद्र मिश्रा, सुतापा मुखर्जी, जितेंद्र दीक्षित, अधिरजा रायचौधरी, अमनदीप संधु, स्वप्ना लिंडले, आशुतोष जी पोद्दार, संदेश भंडारी, स्मिता भारद्वाज,मोजेज सिंह, लक्ष्मीप्रसाद पंत,प्रो. विनोद शास्त्री व जितेंद्र सिंह शेखावत।

Kolkata Slum Kids Shine As New Kickboxing National Champions Of India

0

Kolkata: Mohammad Rahul Haldar, a 15-year-old boy from Kolkata, won a gold medal in the 42-kilogram weight category at the Kickboxing National Championship in Delhi, along with four other students from the Umeed Academy. The students’ achievements are particularly significant, as they come from underprivileged background and live in slums.

Shahnaz Perween won silver in the 42-weight category, Afifa Perween won silver in the 32-weight category, Md Husnain Ali won bronze in the 40-weight category, and Raunak Khatoon won bronze in the below 10-year category.

Umeed Academy, which is home to 230 students from impoverished families, provides not just free education but a holistic approach to the overall development of its children. The academy sent six children to the championship, and five of them won medals.

Haldar’s father is a mason, while Afifa’s father is a barber. Husnain’s father operates an eatery, and Raunak’s mother works in a slipper factory, while her father has gone missing. Their achievement is significant as it demonstrates the potential of the underprivileged youth, who are often overlooked in sports.

The kickboxing participants were daily trained for two and a half hours by professional coach Sahil Akram, who is a state-level kickboxing player himself. Akram works with Toponomics, a center of training for Kickboxing.

Coach Akram has all praise for the champions. “The kids used to do cage fights in the academy under the guidance of Nuur Bhutia sir. In the last two months, they have undergone rigorous training. They had a lot of injuries too. They played in nationals without sparing. But they are born fighters, and it is in their genes to stand up to overcoming the injuries. The academy had hired a nutritionist for them, so their diet was good too,” he told eNewsroom over phone from Delhi.

“We need to work hard for future events, but I am optimistic about it as they are very talented kids,” Akram added.

Umeed Academy, the brainchild of social activist Wali Rahmani, has a twelve-hour curriculum for its pupils, which includes education, three meals, books, uniforms, and sports activities. He informed that annually, Rs 35000 expenses occurred on every child. The academy has been running for the last four years. It use to train its students in a variety of sports categories.

Rahmani claims that at least thirty students can be sent for championships under the mixed martial arts category but lack of funds has been preventing the academy from doing so.

The academy has had to bear a cost of around one lakh rupees to make it possible for six of its children to participate in the championship hosted at the national capital.

Rahmani during foundation stone laying ceremony of Umeed’s new building had highlighted on the need for funds to expand the academy’s operations.

He also has special thanks for Partha Sarkar and Supriyo Samanta, Heads of the Kickboxing Federation of West Bengal. They have acted as a catalyst for Umeed children otherwise, it would not have been possible, Rahmani mentioned.

The five medalists will now be participating in the next Asian Games in their respective categories.

Raids on BBC: Intimidating Indian Democracy!

0

New Delhi: When the news of the Income Tax raids on New Delhi and Mumbai offices on the BBC was broken on the television channels, many people were surprised, some of them were utterly shocked.

It came suddenly. But it is just a continuation of the government’s intimidation process, where media outlets critical of the government and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, are being threatened, silenced, or bought.

The raids came weeks after the BBC screened its documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’. The two-part documentary traces the rise of Narendra Modi and analyses his politics after the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat when he was the chief minister of the state.

More than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in the riots.

The riots erupted after a compartment of Sabarmati Express was set on fire, killing dozens of Hindu pilgrims.

The documentary was aired in the UK, not in India. The government called it a ‘bundle of lies’, and ‘propaganda’ and rejected it as a ‘colonial mindset’.

It also ordered Youtube and Twitter to block the links to the documentary.

The police swung into action and thrashed the students gathered to watch the documentary in the central university of Jamia Millia Islamia and other places. The screening was banned at iconic Jawaharlal Nehru University and many other universities. Nevertheless, the documentary was screened in many places.

Earlier too, the government raided many media outlets, though nothing much came out afterwards.

Raghav Behl’s Quint was raided, and Behal himself was questioned for hours by the Enforcement Directorate sleuths in Mumbai.

Later, he sold the Quint.

NDTV head Pranoy Roy, considered by many the father of television journalism in India, was also grilled. He was accused of bank fraud and money laundering. All charges were dropped later as the agencies failed to prove these in court.

Gautam Adani, considered close to Modi, bought NDTV recently.

Premises of the Hindi daily Bhaskar were raided in Madhya Pradesh.

Before the raids, Bhaskar had published stories on the floating corpses on the Ganges and the makeshift graves on its banks in the wake of Corona. Its Editor also wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times, titled ‘The Ganges is returning the dead, it does not lie’.

Bharat Samachar, a small television channel in Uttar Pradesh was not spared either. It said that it was punished for its coverage of bodies on the holy river.

Exactly two years ago, NewsClick, an independent digital-only media organization was raided too.

Whereas, most of the media houses in India, now are completely biased and carry out propaganda on behalf of the government and the ruling party. Many of these media outlets also indulge in Islamophobia and air stories and programmes demonizing Muslims and Islam.

The raids on the BBC have sent a strong signal to the media to fall in line or face government wrath.

But many people believe that the government has exposed itself to these raids. It has made it clear that none will be spared if it goes against the government, ruling party and the Hindutva brigade.

Press bodies, Editors Guild of India, Press Council of India, DigiPub News India Foundation and Press Club of Bangalore have issued statements and condemned the IT Survey on BBC in the strongest terms. They all mentioned that it is an attempt to stifle the media.

Shivkant, a retired Editor of BBC Hindi writes on his Facebook page, “The Modi government has proved the proverb a guilty conscience accuses itself right as the Income Tax department has raided the offices of the BBC. Questioning the bias of the BBC and losing its balance is a strategy difficult to comprehend. The raids have provided firm background to the questions raised by the BBC documentary and the Adani controversy that has enraged the government.”

The BBC is not a local newspaper or a regional television channel with a limited impact. It is the most reputed and trustworthy media outlet, with tremendous impact and far-reaching consequences. The BBC is watched and listened to in almost all countries in the world with its operations in about 150 countries and 42 languages.

One can recall the BBC story exposing the false claims of the British government on the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

People still remember the Princess Diana interview taken by Martin Basheer of the BBC. Diana accused then-Prince Charles of adultery and also accepted her relationship with Hasnat Khan, a Pakistani-origin doctor. It shook the monarchy and the two soon separated.

And the Modi government has raided this media behemoth!

The image of India is already in tatters for its Islamophobia and treatment of Muslims.  It will be further damaged. The MEA mandarins will find it more difficult to justify this kind of high-handedness.

But the raids are not about the BBC. It is about the freedom of expression, democracy in the country, and the Fascism it is moving towards.

Is Membership Of A Banned Organisation Enough To Be Punished Under UAPA?

0

Is only membership of a banned organisation or ‘unlawful association’ sufficient enough to be punished under the UAPA? Or some overt actions over and above the membership is necessary to attract the penal provisions of the act?

A Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol has begun hearing the judgment of a two-judge bench of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Sapre. This case is related to Arup Bhuyan, Sri Indra Das and Raneef and the judgment was announced in 2014.

In the case related to Raneef, the two-member bench of the apex court in its judgment upheld that mere membership of a banned outfit will not incriminate a person until he resorts to violence or incites people to commit violence or does an act intended to create a disturbance of public peace by resorting to violence.

In the Arup Bhuyan case, the same two-member bench of the Supreme Court reiterated this view in the context of Section 3(5) of TADA.

In Indra Das’ case, the bench upheld this view once again.

Representing the view of the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that if an organisation is banned under Section 3, its members will be liable to punishment up to two years and a fine may be slapped beside it. Under Section 10 (b) if a man does something more besides being a member of the banned organisation, his offence will be graver. So his punishment will be more.

Section 10 (b) (i) says that if a man continues to be a member of a banned organisation and does an act that aids and abates the offence in any way or has fire-arms or weapons or explosives that cause mass destruction and death or injuries that might lead to death, he will be liable for death punishment or life imprisonment.

The solicitor general said that if a man is a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a banned organisation, he can not say that he is only a member. He added further that if a man invites the leader of a banned outfit, he can not say that he just invited the leader for a dinner and that he did not intend to collect money or weapons or he did not conspire.

Justice Shah said that if an organisation is banned, and a person is found to be associated with the outfit or a member of the organisation, he should know that this organisation is banned. He said further that the Parliament had made being a member of the banned organisation itself an offence.

Justice Shah said further that if a person becomes a member of a banned organisation, he should be wiser, he should know that the outfit is unlawful.

This matter is significant because, in the Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar case of 1962, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India was tasked with deciding on the constitutionality of the provision, which, over the years, has been used as a tool to curb dissent against the powers that be.

The Bench of then Chief Justice of BP Sinha and Justices SK Das, AK Sarkar, RN Ayyangar and JR Mudholkar tried to balance the offence of Sedition against the right to free speech and expression.

The Bench was to decide multiple appeals and petitions filed before it. One of these was an appeal filed by Kedar Nath Singh against a judgment of the Patna High Court which upheld his conviction under Section 124A of the IPC.

The Court upheld that any spoken or written words which have “implicit in them the idea of subverting government by violent means” will fall under the definition of Sedition.

However, the Court clarified that any strong statements expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government or any action taken by the government will not fall within the ambit of Sedition.

The Apex Court is yet to come out with its judgment that may be considered the final word on the subject.

When Words Are Expunged From Records of Parliament?

0

When words are expunged from the records of Parliament? What are the constitutional provisions? What are ‘unparliamentary’ words and who decides on them?

These questions came to the forefront after parts of Rahul Gandhi’s speech in parliament containing allegations favouring the Adani group of companies were expunged. Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla ordered to remove parts of Rahul Gandhi’s observations on President Droupadi Murmu’s speech at the outset of the budget session.

There is nothing new in it and it is not rare, rather it is fairly routine that parts of speech or sentences or words are removed and there are laid down rules for this. The Presiding Officers of the House decide on which parts of the proceedings should be removed.

Article 105(2) of the Constitution says, “No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said…in Parliament or any committee thereof”.

But members can not say whatever they want and their freedom of speech is limited or restrained.

There are ‘Rules of the Parliament’ that govern members’ speech in either house of the parliament, good sense of members and the presiding officers have the right to control the members.

The main motive of these provisions is to ensure that members do not use defamatory, indecent, undignified or unparliamentary words inside the Parliament.

According to Rule 380 (‘Expunction’) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha: “If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in the debate which is defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising discretion order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.”

Besides, Rule 381 says, “The portion of the proceedings of the House so expunged shall be marked by asterisks and an explanatory footnote shall be inserted in the proceedings as follows: “Expunged as ordered by the Chair’.”

But what are unparliamentary words and who decides on them?

The speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha have the sole discretionary right to take a call on ‘unparliamentary’ words.

They have found a large number of words in English, Hindi and other Indian languages to be ‘unparliamentary’ and expunge these words.

At the end of each session of the parliament, a compilation of ‘unparliamentary’ words is published.

When such a compilation was published for the first time, references were taken from debates and phrases, declared unparliamentary by the pre-Independence Central Legislative Assembly, Constituent Assembly of India, the Provisional Parliament, the first to the tenth Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, state legislatures, and Commonwealth parliaments like that of the United Kingdom.”

Some of the words declared unparliamentary are: Abused, Ahankar, Anarchist, Apmaan, Asatya, Ashamed, Baal Buddhi, Bechara, Behri Sarkaar, Behri Sarkaar, Betrayed, Bloodshed, Bloody, Bobcut, COVID Spreader, Chamcha, Chamchagiri, Cheated, Chelas, Childishness, Corrupt, Coward, Criminal, Crocodile Tears, Dadagiri, Dalal, Danga, Dhindhora Peetna, Dictatorial, Disgrace, Dohra Charitra, Donkey, Drama, Eyewash,
Foolish, Fudge, Gaddar, Ghadiyali Ansu, Girgit, Goons, Hooliganism, Hypocrisy, Incompetent, Jaichand, Jumlajeevi, Kala Bazaari, Kala Di, Khalistani, Khareed Farokht, Khoon see Kheti, Lie, Lollipop, Mislead, Nautanki, Nikamma, Pitthu, Samvedanheen, Sexual Harassment, Shakuni, Snoopgate, Taanashah, Taanashahi, Untrue, Vinash Purush, Vishwasghat.

The later compilations also include references to phrases that, in addition to those forbidden in some Commonwealth Parliaments in 2020, were deemed unparliamentary in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, and state legislatures of India in 2021.

It is also significant to note that certain keywords might not seem unparliamentary unless they are read in context with the other terms used during legislative sessions.

“If a member uses a word that could be unparliamentary or indecent and hurts the decorum or dignity of the House, the head of the reporting section sends it to the Speaker or the Presiding Officer citing relevant rules and precedence with a recommendation to expunge them.”

Under Rule 380, the Speaker has the discretion to expunge the word or usage. Once the Speaker expunges the word or usage, it comes back to the reporting section which removes the word from the records and mentions it in the proceedings as “expunged as ordered by the chair”.

At the end of the session, a compilation of words removed from the records, along with reasons, is sent to the Speaker’s office, Sansad TV, and the editorial service for information.

Expunged portions of the proceedings cease to exist in the records of Parliament, and they can no longer be reported by media houses, even though they may have been heard during the live telecast of the proceedings.

Speaker Om Birla ordered to expunge 18 portions from Rahul Gandhi’s speech in Lok Sabha in the debate on the motion of thanks to the president.

Congress spokesperson Gurdeep Singh Sappal announced on Twitter that on Birla’s order, 18 portions of Gandhi’s speech were expunged.

Birla objected to some of the claims made by Gandhi. He also asked him to stop showing two photographs, one of which showed Modi and Gautam Adani together in a flight cabin and the other Modi waving at people while boarding a flight allegedly owned by the Adani Group.

Amidst the BJP MPs’ protests against Gandhi’s allegations, Birla kept requesting the Congress leader and other members to not make any accusation without proof.

Best vs the Best – Will Indians outshine Aussies again in Border Gavaskar Trophy?

0

As India and Australia get ready to lock horns once again, it is indubitable that a Test series between the two giants is one of the most exciting chapters in the annals of cricketing lore. When the two sides begin the battle for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy in Nagpur, arguably the biggest rivalry in world cricket will unfold in a 4-match Test series where the touring Aussies and the Indians are likely to be tested to their limits.

There’s plenty at stake for both teams and if Team India manages to win the series 2-1 or with a better margin, they will virtually seal a spot to meet the Aussies again in the World Test Championship final. If they clinch the series, India also will be the top ranked side across all formats which is a huge feat itself. For Australia, it’s a series their star player and former skipper Steven Smith has termed crucial and added that if they win, it will be “bigger than an Ashes series (win).”

The sobering fact for Australia and a grim reality that stares them ahead of the series is that they have won a series in the country only once in the last 54 years. It was the win under Adam Gilchrist’s captaincy in 2004. In fact, Aussies have won just 1 Test match in their last 4 tours of India. No wonder most Aussies now regard a win in India as their ‘final frontier’.

Both sides are evenly matched and are coming off great seasons since their disappointments in the T20 World Cup in Australia last year. The Aussies have come for this litmus test of their test-playing skills after an undefeated summer. With four wins out of five Tests this summer, as well as recent tours of the subcontinent under their belt.

India too is on a roll in the past few months. But much of their focus has been on White ball cricket. While Rohit and Virat are both in good touch, an added bonus for India is the efflorescence of Shubhman Gill who has been in sparkling form in recent months and lends an added dimension to India’s batting riches. Another move that many fans are looking forward to is the introduction of Suryakumar Yadav in Test Cricket. As the series may well be decided on who plays spinners better, experts feel Surya in the middle order can be a game changer.

A few injuries, however, have altered some of India’s initial plans for the team combination. Shreyas Iyer, having been in remarkable form of late, is not yet certain to play the first Test in Nagpur. With Rishabh Pant recovering from his freak accident, the place for a keeper in the side is up for grabs too. Cricket pundits feel that while K.L.Rahul can do the job, it might be too big an ask of him, especially since he is a key element in the batting department. Luckily, in Ishan Kishan India have an effective replacement for Pant, both as keeper and aggressive, left-handed batter. 

Meanwhile, Australia is going through injury concerns of their own. Cameron Green, Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazelwood will miss the first test. The Aussies have a powerful batting line up with great depth. Their recent success in Pakistan was on the back of some heavy scoring by Usman Khwaja and Steve Smith. However, veteran David Warner is in patchy form and has a rather modest Test record in India. Also, Khawaja, Alex Carey, Travis Head and Marcus Labuschagne will face a far sterner spinning test than what they battled in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

But a slew of left handers in the top order will have Ashwin licking his lips. If most experts are to be believed pitches for the series are likely to be dry, spin-friendly tracks with uneven bounce, something that Ashwin will look forward to. The wily off-spin wizard had created history in 2021 by becoming the first bowler to take 200 wickets of left-handers. Ashwin is likely to be one of the toughest tests for the Aussies and the entire series could well hinge on how well the Aussies tackle Ashwin.

India’s spin contingent poses quite a stern test overall. There are reports that Kuldeep Yadav, who has been bowling with a lot of guile in recent months, may also be in the playing XI as India could start the series with 3 frontline spinners. In such a scenario, it is a toss-up between Yadav and Axar Patel since a fit Ravindra Jadeja will surely figure in the playing 11 and could be a potent threat to the Aussies.

In contrast, a spate of injuries to the finest pacers on both sides – Bumrah, Starc, Green, Hazelwood – have blunted the pace threats for the moment. But if India produce rank turners through the series, Nathan Lyon would be a major factor in the series. Indian batters have not been very good in playing spin for the past many years as was recently highlighted by the dramatic collapse in the second Test against Bangladesh.

Moreover, Lyon has also been very effective against Cheteshwar Pujara and Virat Kohli. Both the Indian batters have scored prolifically against him in Australia but on Indian pitches, story is far different. Lyon has dismissed Kohli 4 and Pujara 5 times respectively and he is also just behind the Aussie legend Shane Warne for most wickets in Asia by a non-Asian spinner. He has 34 wickets in India from 7 Tests and his economy rate has been getting better with every tour.

The Aussies will look to partner Lyon with one of Ashton Agar, Todd Murphy and Mitchell Swepson. But what strengthens the Aussie spin attack are the additional options of part-time spinners like Travis Head and occasional leg spinners Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne. While many fans may care about who scores more runs between Kohli and Smith, the series may well be decided by who picks up more wickets between Ashwin and Lyon!

Debate Rages In India Over Who Should Pick Judges: Government Or Collegium?

0

Should judges pick their colleagues or the government should have a bigger role in picking judges?

This question has surfaced in India with the federal Law Minister and the Chief Justice going public on the issue.

The judges of the Supreme Court got selected by their colleagues through a system called the collegium. Under the system, the collegium, comprised of the judges of the apex court, recommend names to the government. The law minister forwards the recommendation to the Prime Minister, who advises the President to appoint judges.

But the government wants radical changes in the system and a bigger role for itself. The vice president and the law minister have been vocal on this issue. Law Minister Kiren Rijiju taunted by saying, “Across the globe, judges do not appoint judges. But in India, they do.”

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar also attacked the system and questioned the Supreme Court judgement that over- ruled the government decision of abrogating the Judicial Service Act.

The Narendra Modi government enacted a law in 2015 enabling the federal government to constitute a federal commission that would include the law minister. This commission would replace the decade-old collegium system.

The apex court said only it could safeguard the rights of the citizen ‘by keeping it absolutely insulated and independent from the other organs of the government.’

India’s higher judiciary has capitulated to the governments and the ruling parties in the past. The government too had put pressure on the judges by superseding, transferring and not confirming them.

On the other hand, there are instances of judges being given plum postings after their retirement.

The collegium system might have taken away the power of the government of intimidation and applying the carrot and stick policy.

However, the collegium has been criticised for being slow and lacking transparency.

The Supreme Court has the recommended strength of 34 judges, but it has only 27 at present. Less number of judges means slower justice. More than 40 million cases are pending in courts at different levels, 70,000 of these in the apex court.

There are reasons for the slow process of the collegium system. It meets too infrequently, it meets only when the chief justice and other four judges of the panel are available. It met only 12 times between 2017 and 2020.

Second, the collegium system does not foresee a vacancy and plans in advance though it is clear that all judges would retire at 65. Seldom a vacancy has been filled immediately after the retirement of a judge.

The recommendations are sent to the judges in batches of two to four.

The government sits on the recommendations too long. It has also been found that the government has sent back the recommendations after long and on sometimes on frivolous grounds.

On the other hand, instead of trying to improve the condition by co-operating with the collegium, the government asserts that it can seek a reconsideration of the names.

In a written reply to a question posed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) member John Brittas, Rijiju said, in parliament house that there are 18 such cases.

“Government can seek reconsideration of names recommended by the SCC, and as on 31.01.2023 there are a total 18 proposals on which reconsideration of SCC has been sought. SCC decided to reiterate 06 cases, in 07 cases SCC has desired updated inputs from the High Court Collegiums, and 05 cases have been decided to be remitted by the SCC to the High Courts.”

In a veiled attack, the Law Minister, in response to another question said that various High Court collegiums were in ‘breach’ of the six-month timeline to send advance recommendations to fill upcoming judicial vacancies.

Elaborating his point of view, Rijiju said that the government has yet to receive recommendations for appointment of 236 vacancies-191 for present and 45 anticipated vacancies during the next six months.

Explaining the delay and claiming that the government was doing its best to clear the backlog as soon as possible, he told the upper house that a total of 142 proposals recommended by the High Court Collegiums were at “various stages of processing”.

He also said that four recommendations were pending with the Supreme Court Collegium and 138 were under various stages of processing within the government.

The collegium system has also come under scathing attack for alleged lack of transparency, nepotism and ignoring people from marginalised segments of the society.

The High Court and the Supreme Court collegia have been attacked for ignoring people of the SC, ST,OBC and religious minorities.

Replying to a question raised by BJP member Sushil Modi, the Law Minister said that out of 554 High Court judges appointed since 2018, as many as 430 belonged to the general category.

Rijiju also informed that 58 judges were OBCs, 27 were religious minorities, 19 were SCs and six belonged to the ST community. He mentioned that the general category judges accounted for over 77% of all appointments.

As it may appear lopsided, Rijiju explained the reason. He said that constitutional provisions guiding the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts do not provide for any specific reservation.

He said, “The government remains committed to social diversity in the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary and has been requesting the Chief Justices of High Courts that while sending proposals for appointment of judges, due consideration be given to suitable candidates belonging to SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and women to ensure social diversity.”

It is interesting that the present central government, which is on a privatization spree that is effecting reservation system, is taking the plea of reservation against the collegium system.

“Collegium system is better than government appointing judges; but it is non-transparent, non-objective and riddled with nepotism,” said senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan in an online event published by Live Law.

कृषी प्रधान देश में किसानों के साथ बजट में छल 

हर साल देश में बजट देश की आर्थिक आवश्यकताओं की समीक्षा  करने व उनके लिए उचित धन आवंटन करने के उद्देश्य से बनाया एवं प्रस्तुत किया जाता है। यह प्रक्रिया समान्यतया हर देश प्रदेश इकाई यहाँ तक की किसी गरीब व्यक्ति के घर तक में की जाती है। बजट के द्वारा आवश्यकता व् उपयोगिता के आधार को निश्चित किया जाता है ताकि सामान्य संतुलन बना कर भविष्य की चुनौतियों को साधा जा सके। उपलब्ध संसाधनों में धन को अर्जित करना व् उसके खर्च को नियंत्रित करना ही बजट की सफलता निर्धारित करता है। एक विशाल देश में सभी वर्गों की मूलभूत आवश्यकताओं के अनुरूप ही सुचारू व्यवस्था स्थापित करके देश को प्रगति की राह पे बढ़ाया जा सकता है। भारत में हर साल देश के बजट का निर्धारण किया जाता है। देश के वित मंत्री को ये जिम्मेदारी दी जाती है जो समय की सरकार की नीतियों को स्पष्ट करता है।

इस वर्ष 2023-24 का बजट अधिक महत्वपूर्ण माना जा रहा था क्योंकि अगले वर्ष वर्तमान सत्ताधारी नरेन्द्र मोदी सरकार की फिर से आम लोकसभा चुनाव में परीक्षा होनी है। नरेन्द्र मोदी सरकार का ये लगातार दूसरा कार्यकाल है। बजट के द्वारा सरकार अपनी योजनाओं दृष्टिकोण और उपलब्धियों को भी देश की जनता के सामने पेश करती है। 1 फरवरी को लोकसभा में प्रस्तुत बजट से कई तरह की प्रतिक्रियाएं सामने उभरने लगी है। कई वर्गों से निराशा के स्पष्ट संकेत सामने आये हैं।

कृषि प्रधान देश में आबादी का एक बड़ा भाग खुद को उपेक्षित व् ठगा हुआ पा रहा है। बढ़ती महंगाई घटते रोजगार से परेशान हालत में समानय नागरिक सरकार से अपेक्षाएं रखे हुए था की पिछाले कुछ वर्षों की विषम परिस्थितियों जिनमे महामारी काल भी शामिल है का कोई समाधान निकलेगा परन्तु बजट की समीक्ष करने पर उसकी समान्य बुद्धि को भी एक झटका महसूस होने लगा। दूसरी और इस बजट ने विशषज्ञों को भी हैरान कर दिया है की आखिर सरकर किस दिशा में बढ़ना चाहती है।

बजट में सबसे महत्वपूर्ण कृषि क्षेत्र को वर्तमान सरकार ने जिस तरह से उपेक्षित किया वह किसानों को स्तब्ध कर रहा है। अभी एक वर्ष पहले ही देश के प्रधानमंत्री ने किसानों से माफ़ी मांगी थी और उनके हितों को सुरक्षित करने के अपने प्रयसों को दोहराया था। लेकिन बजट में वह संकल्प बिलकुल नदारद है।

नियत और नीतियों में अंतर धरातल पर साफ दिखाई देने लगा है। फसलों पर न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य सुनिश्चित करने के लिए कानून बनाए जाने, किसानों के कर्ज माफ़ी, बीज व् उरवर्क की गुणवत्ता पूर्ण उपलब्धि, बिजली सिंचाई की सुचारु व्यवस्थाओं का निर्माण, फसलों की सरकारी खरीद के लिए मंडियों का विस्तार व् आधारभूत ढांचा, फल सब्जियों के लिए मुल्य निर्धारण व् भंडारण व्यवस्था, फसल बिमा योजना द्वारा किसानों को समयसार उचित मुआवजा, प्रकिर्तिक आपदा से फसलों के नुकसान की भरपाई, कृषक  समाज को स्वास्थ्य व् शिक्षा के लिए अनुदान, ग्रामीण क्षेत्रों में रोजगार की उपलब्धता अदि अनेक बिन्दुुओं को वित् मंत्री ने छूआ तक नहीं।

बजट में कृषि मद में पिछले वर्षों की अपेक्षा अबकी बार अधिक प्रावधान किये जाने की उम्मीद थी जिस से सरकार द्वारा 2016 किये गए किसानों की आय को 2022 तक दुगना करने के वायदे को सार्थक किया जा सकता लेकिन इसके विपरीत कई कटौतियां कर दी गयी।

कृषि क्षेत्र के लिए पिछले वर्ष एक लाख चौबीस हजार करोड़ का खर्च का प्रावधान था (1,24,000) जो इस बार 6.8% घटा कर एक लाख पंद्रह हजार पांच सो इकतीस (1,15,531) कर दिया गया। लगभग आठ हजार चार सो उनहतर (8469) कम किये गए। जबकि पिछले  कुछ वर्षों से मौसम कृषि के लिए अनुकूल ही रहा है, मानसून निरंतर खेती के लिए बेहतर रहा।

प्रधानमंत्री फसल बिमा योजना में पंद्रह हजार पांच सो करोड़ (15,500) को 12% घटा कर तेहरा हजार छै सो पचीस (13,625 ) करोड़ कर दिए गए।

प्रधानमंत्री किसान सम्मान निधि में पिछले वर्ष अड़सठ हजार करोड़ (68,000) रखे गए थे वो भी 12% घटा कर  साठ हजार करोड़ (60,000) कर दिए गए हैं।

बजट में कृषि का हिस्सा पिछले वर्ष कुल बजट का 3.36 % था वो भी लगभग तीस हजार करोड़ (30,000) कम करके इस वर्ष 2.7% कर दिया।

उर्वरक पर जो अनुदान पिछले वर्ष  तक जो दो लाख पच्चीस हजार करोड़ की (2,25,000) की थी उसको  22% कम करके एक लाख पिचहत्तर हजार (1,75,000) कर दिया गया है।

कृषि यंत्रों पर जो जी एस टी लगाया गया था उसको कम नहीं किया गया। उसके कम होने से किसानों का फसल उत्पादन के ख़र्च में कमी आ सकती थी जिस से उनको लाभ मिलने की संभावना बढ़ सकती थी। उसपे कोई बदलाव नहीं किया गया।

इसी प्रकार मनरेगा के मद में जो राशि पिछले वर्ष नवासी हजार चार सो करोड़ (79,400) थी को घटा कर साथ हजार करोड़ (60,000) कर दिया गया जबकि  इस योजना के तहत अधिकतर ग्रामीण क्षेत्रों के छोटे व् भूमिहीन किसानों व् मजदूरों को स्थानीय स्तर पर कुछ दिन निश्चित काम मिल जाता था जिस से उनके लिए कुछ आय हो जाती थी।  हालाँकि इस योजना के अंतर्गत कम से कम 100 दिन निश्चित रोजगार देने के प्रावधान हैं।

कृषि भूमि सिंचाई के लिए बारह हजार नो सो चव्वन करोड़ (12,954) को घटा कर अब दस हजार सात सो सतासी (10,787) करोड़ कर दिया गया।

राष्ट्रिय कृषि विकास योजना के तहत पूर्व वर्ष में दस हजार चार सो तेत्तिस करोड़ (10,433) का प्रवधान रखा गया था जिसे कम करके सात हज़ार एक सौ पचास (7,150) किया गया !

कृषि उन्नति योजना के लिए विगत में सात हजार एक सौ  तिरासी करोड़ (7,183) मंजूर किये गए थे अबकी बार वहां भी कमी कर के सात हजार छियासठ (7,066) किया गया है।

मूल्य सहायता व् बाजार हस्तक्षेप व् अन्नदाता आय संरक्षण योजना में भी आबंटन करीब समाप्त कर दिया गया। पिछले बजट में जिसमे पंद्रह सौ करोड़ (1500) रखे गए थे उसमे अबकी बार केवल एक लाख रुपये ही रखे गए हैं।

खाद्य सुरक्षा जिसे राष्ट्रीय खाद्य सुरक्षा  कानून के अधीन लागू किया गया था जिसमे धन का आबंटन  केंद्रीय सरकार की प्रतिब्धता है जो पिछली बार दो लाख सतासी हजार एक सौ चुरानवे (2,87,194) था को कम करके एक लाख सतानवे हजार तीन सौ पचास (1,97350) करोड़ किया गया है।

बजट व् वित्तमन्त्री निर्मला सीतारामन् के भाषण में ऐसा प्रतीत हुआ के सरकार अनुमानित खर्च कम करके निजी क्षेत्र को बढ़ावा देना चाहती है। 2011-12 में कृषि क्षेत्र में कुछ खर्च जो की 5.4% था से तुलना करने पर अब खर्च कम करके 4.3% कर दिया गया है। वित् मंत्री द्वारा कृषि क्षेत्र में निजी निवेश को बढ़ावा देने के लिए जो सुझाव सामने रखे गए जैसे की एग्रीकल्चर एसकलेटर फण्ड जिसके द्वारा ग्रामीण क्षेत्रों में एग्री स्टार्ट अप के लिए युवाओं को प्रोत्साहित किया जा सकेगा धरतल पर कल्पनिक अधिक लगता है। ज़्यदातर घोषणाएं कृषि व्यपार केंद्रित ही सुनायी पड़ी जबकि कृषि व्यपार कृषि उधम से बिलकुल भिन्न है।

प्रकिर्तिक खेती व् जैविक खेती को प्रोत्साहित करने के लिए एक नए मिशन की घोषणा की गई जिसके अंतर्गत चार सौ उनसठ करोड़ का खर्च प्रवधान किया गया। जिसके  क्रियांवन की कोई रूपरेखा स्पष्ट नहीं।

फरवरी 2019 में पीएम किसान सम्मान निधि की पहली किश्त 11.84 करोड़ किसानों को दी गयी थी, मई-जून 2022 में 11वीं किश्त मात्र 3.87 करोड़ किसानों को दी गयी है, किसानों की संख्या में 67% की कमी आ गई है। कृषि मंत्री ने ये नहीं बताया के ये संख्या कम क्यों की गई।

इन सब पहलुओं के कारण किसानों की निराशा मुखर रूप से सामने आई है। किसान अपनी समस्याओं के लिए स्थायी व् ठोस समाधान चाहते हैं। बढ़ते कर्ज के कारन किसानों की आत्महत्य करने की घटनाओं में पिछले कुछ वर्षों में बहुत वृद्धि हुयी जिसके समाधान के लिए वर्तमान सरकर ने किसानो को आस्वस्त किया था लेकिन उस दिशा में कुछ खास बदलाव नहीं आ पाया।

एक अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका किसानों की हमेशा से रही। किसान सदियों से जलवायु का संरक्षक रहा है, उद्योगों, मशीनीकरण, वाहन, शहरीकरण, पूंजीपति उपयोगितावाद ने जलवायु को, पर्यावरण के अति दोहन से अनियंत्रित किया है। जितना कार्बन प्रदूषण उद्योगों द्वारा किया गया उसके लिए विकसित देश ज़िम्मेदार हैँ लेकिन उन्होने अपने किये को चालाकि से ढ़कने के लिए ऐसा प्रचार तंत्र खडा किया जिसने विकासशील देशों को इसका जिम्मेदार ठहरा दिया। कार्बन क्रेढ़िट के नाम से मिलने वाले अर्थिक समायोजन को सरकारें उद्योगपतियों को जलवायु संरक्षण के नाम पे बांट देती हैं। किसान को कुछ नहीं मिलता  सिवाये दोष के।

किसान कौमों, ज़मींदार कौमों, खेतिहर कौमों क्षेत्रपति समाज के लिये हमेशा ही बड़ी चुनौतियां खडी रही लेकिन सरकारों ने उनके प्रति गंभीरता से समाधान नहीं किये, इस लिये ये समाज पिछड़ता रहा। एक असंतोष निरंतर इस समाज में बना हुआ है। वर्तमान मे पूंजीवादी ताकतें क्षेत्रपति समाज की जमीनों पे आँख लगाये है। एक बड़ी साजिश की बड़ी चुनौती फिर से सामने है। अगर क्षेत्रपति समाज अब भी धर्म जातियों मे बंटा रहा तो आने वाले भविष्य मे अस्तित्व नहीं रहेगा।