SC asks Cong MP to bring on record EC orders giving clean chit to Modi, Amit Shah

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.

New Delhi, Feb 5: Over five crore farmers were yet to get the third instalment of money under the Centre's ambitious PM-Kisan scheme, aimed at providing direct support of Rs 6,000 annually to them, according to the latest Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare data.

The total amount of the scheme, which came into effect on December 1, 2018, is to be paid in three equal instalments of Rs 2,000 every four months.

The data showed about 2.51 crore farmers have not got even the second instalment and 5.16 crore of them were yet to get the third instalment.

Over 9 crore farmers have registered themselves under the scheme between December 2018 and November 2019, it said.

Of these, 7.62 crore or 84 per cent of farmers have received the first instalment.

The money through the second instalment was given to nearly 6.5 crore farmers and the amount under the third instalment was given to 3.85 crore beneficiaries, according to the data received in response to an RTI query filed by this PTI journalist.

The agriculture ministry, in its response, gave three sets of data mentioning the benefits given to farmers under the scheme between December 2018 and November 2019.

It said 4.74 crore farmers were registered between December 2018 and March 2019.

Of them, 4.22 crore received the first instalment, 4.02 crore the second and 3.85 crore the third.

There was no mention why nearly 50 lakh, 70 lakh and 90 lakh registered farmers during this period did not get the first, second and third instalment respectively.

There was no registered beneficiary in West Bengal and Sikkim, hence no amount was disbursed during this period, according to the data.

Giving details of the 3.08 crore farmers registered between April and July last year, it said 2.66 crore and 2.47 crore beneficiaries have got their first and second instalments respectively.

The RTI reply did no mention why around 40 lakh and 61 lakh registered farmers during this period did not get their first and second instalment respectively.

"The beneficiaries are eligible for the instalment for the period in which he/she gets registered and subsequent periods, thereafter. Therefore, the third instalment is not due for the beneficiaries registered in the period April 2019-July 2019," the ministry said.

There was no registered beneficiary during this period in West Bengal, Punjab and Chandigarh and therefore nobody was paid first and second instalments.

The ministry said around 1.19 crore beneficiaries were registered between August and November 30, 2019, of these nearly 73.66 lakh farmers have been given the first instalment.

There was no mention of payment of first instalment to over 45 lakh eligible beneficiaries during the period.

"The beneficiaries are eligible for the instalment for the period in which he/she gets registered and subsequent periods, thereafter. Therefore, the second and third instalments are not due for the beneficiaries registered in the period August 2019 to November 2019," it said.

The ministry was asked to provide the total number of farmers, state-wise, and the amount received by them under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi or PM-Kisan scheme.

"PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme has been implemented from December 1, 2018. It is stated that PM-Kisan is a continuous and ongoing scheme, in which the financial benefits are transferred to the bank accounts of the identified beneficiaries as and when their correct and verified data is uploaded by the concerned states/union territories on PM-Kisan web portal," the ministry said in the RTI response vide its letter dated December 26, 2019.

The data of beneficiaries so uploaded by them undergoes a multi-level verification, including by banks, and only then the amount is released to the beneficiary, it said, adding that www.pmkisan.gov.in website can be accessed to get more details on the operational guidelines of the scheme.

According to the data updated on the website on February 3, around 8.82 crore farmers have been registered and 8.41 crore have received the first installment, 7.56 crore the second instalment, 6.19 crore the third and 3.03 crore have received the fourth installment.

In Assam, out of 16.97 lakh farmers registered during this period, 14.02 lakh got the first instalment, 13.72 lakh received the second and 9.87 lakh the third.

Of the 42.34 lakh registered beneficiaries in Maharashtra, 36.98 lakh got the first instalment, 31.53 lakh the second and 27.67 lakh got the third instalment.

As many as 23.83 lakh farmers in Kerala received their first instalment, 18.79 lakh got the second and 18.43 lakh the third. A total of 26.13 lakh beneficiaries were registered in the state between December 2018 and March 2019.

There was no beneficiary registered during the period from West Bengal, which has refused to implement the scheme, according to the ministry's response.

In Uttar Pradesh, nearly 9.57 lakh out of 19.64 lakh farmers have got the first instalment. In Gujarat, nearly 1.22 lakh out of 1.98 lakh registered farmers got the first instalment.

Around 9.78 lakh farmers out of the 17.18 lakh registered beneficiaries have received the first instalment in Madhya Pradesh. In Odisha, only 5,507 farmers out of 5.6 lakh registered farmers have got the first instalment, the ministry said.

None of the 7,326 farmers registered in Sikkim was paid the first instalment, according to the ministry's reply. In Delhi, 1,447 farmers out of 1,734 have got the first instalment.

Mumbai, Jan 19: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling over a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.

Speaking to news agency, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said: "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."

If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.

He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal tweeted.

Earlier speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".

Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.

Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.