General Awareness Topics: 2013

Telangana
Why Telangana 1. There are 10 districts in Telangana, 9 in Andhra and 4 in Rayalaseema. Out of these Districts, 7 are in Telangana, 3 are in Andhra and 1 in Rayalaseema are considered as severely backward districts which means 70% of districts in Telangana are backward while in Andhra it is 35% and in Rayalaseema it is 25%. Apart from these there are some areas in all parts of the state which are also backward. 2. 45% of the state income comes from Telangana region. When it comes to utilization of funds, the share of Telangana is only 28%. 3. Two major rivers Krishna and Tungabhadra enter the state of AP in the district of Mahaboobnagar (the biggest district in Telangana) but the district always remains the worst draught hit areas along with Anantapur because there is no project and process with which the water can be utilized. The plan for utilization has been pending for decades. 4. In Telangana regions, only few areas cultivate one crop a year and very rarely two crops a year while most of the land doesn't even cultivate single crop. In both the Godavari districts, Krishna and Guntur district, two crops a year is common and there are times where even 3 crops a year are cultivated. The only reason is WATER. 5. Not even a single project was completed in Telangana in the last 5 years while several projects were completed in Andhra and Rayalaseema. Not just Telangana but areas of Northern Andhra, Prakasham and parts of Rayalaseema are still backward. The state needs to progress as a unit. People are suffering across the state and they need a solution.

Points for : 1. Why are we hearing separate Telangana slogan again? The demand for a separate state of Telangana isn't new. Telanganites have very clearly expressed their opposition a decade before Andhra Pradesh was formed. They reasoned that in a united Andhra Pradesh they will not get justice. Even after five decades, this demand is continuing. The reason for this is the experience of past 48 years that justice will not be done to Telangana and belief that it will continue to be denied to Telanganites in united AP. 2. Isn't Telangana slogan the creation of unemployed politicians? Telangana demand is a peoples' movement born out of their problems. Are all the people robbed unabatedly, continuously for the 48-years and raising their voice again, unemployed political leaders? Who are the unemployed political Leaders? Are they the farmers that have been suffering for lack of drinking water, irrigations water, and cuts in electric supply? Are they the workers who lost their

livelihood due to lack of new industries, and closure of existing industries? Are they the unemployed youth whose job opportunities are hijacked by outsiders? Are they the innumerable people who have been labelled and suppressed as terrorists because they raised their voice for Telangana? When people are subject to robbery and injustice and take to the streets, it is natural for leaders to enter the fray. Just because out of power politicians support Telangana statehood, does it stop being peoples' movement? In any movement, politicians in and out of power join in. Some even deceive and attempt to side line the movement, but they can't stop the movement. Movements continue until justice is served to the people. The educated that are the pillars of this movement aren't unemployed. They aren't even after employment for themselves. 3. Why didn't the Chief Ministers that came from Telangana area work to develop Telangana? It is true that PV Narasimha Rao, Marri Chenna Reddy (twice), T. Anjiah from Telangana were Chief Ministers of AP. Altogether they were in power for 6-years in four terms. It is also true they haven't made any noticeable development of Telangana. Jalagam Vengal Rao was a settler. He never assimilated himself in Telangana. He is credited with the disservice to Telangana by extending Nagarjun Sagar left canal. Then what about, Rayala Seema? There were stalwarts from Rayala seems that were in power for twenty years. (N. Sanjeeva Reddy-2terms, Damodaram Sanjeeviah, K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy-2 terms, CB Naidu-2 terms). Why is Rayalaseema backward? Fact is they slaved for the Coastal Andhra wealth and the privileged few of these wealthy that control the politics of the state. Fazal Ali commission recognized the consequences of mixing a developed area with a backward area and recommended that Telangana be kept as a separate state. If this country's politicians had the wherewithal to listen to the wise men, we wouldn't be in this situation! 4. Isn't it detrimental to Indian national unity if small states are continuously created? Out of the 35 states currently in India (28 states and 7 central possessions), 70% are smaller than Telangana. Telangana's population is 30 million plus. There are 25 states that are smaller than Telangana. If these twenty-five don't cause national unity issues, why would creation of a larger state be any dangerous? 7. Isn't a separate state, a nation dividing, people separating and demand? If the desire of a people of a region to have their own state is a divisive act, then all states formation is a divisive act. In fact language based state formation itself is a divisive act. Same reasons that Potti Sriramulu, the architect for separation of Andhra from Madras state, presented are the reasons Telanganites want their own state. The same argument used by the Andhras in the past is used by Telanganites now. If it was not an objectionable demand then how could it be objectionable now? 9. There are other backward areas in the state. Why should only Telangana people have a separate state of their own? Just as Telangana, Rayalaseema and north Andhra have been discriminated. True. But, additionally Telangana has been systemically robbed. Diversion of this regions natural resources, water, underground resources and their income to other areas, the robbing of jobs from the region's people, Colonization aren't directed at other areas. Additionally the Telanganites have been subject to ridicule with respect to the language and the politicians have been looked down upon to the extent they lost their self-image. To preserve their self-respect and to protect their region's natural resources, people of Telangana want their own state. 11. Instead of asking for a separate state, why can't you fight for development within the frame work of united AP?

The promises of Telangana development have been made for the past 48 years in united AP. Before and after the formation of AP, Which promises were kept? Which agreements were respected? Which projects were implemented? Which principles were they bound to? From the first day of AP formation, till to-day, agreements are being broken. What were the united AP wishers do? Did they even express any concerns? How long should the Telangana people bear this and put up with this injustice?

Lokpal Bill:
      The term Lokpal was coined in 1963 by Laxmi Mall Singhvi, a Member of Parliament during a parliamentary debate about grievance mechanisms Maharashtrawas the first state to introduce Lokayukta through The Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act in 1971 Lokayuktas: The new bill mandates states to set up Lokayuktas within 365 days. States have the freedom to determine the nature and type of Lokayukta. The old bill said the law shall be applicable to states only if they give consent to its application. The old bill gave power to the central government to appoint state Lokayuktas while the new draft gives this power to the states. Constitution of Lokpal: The Lokpal will consist of a chairperson and a maximum of eight members, of which fifty percent shall be judicial members. Fifty percent members of Lokpal shall be from among SC, ST, OBCs, minorities and women. The older version said the chairperson shall be the Chief Justice of India or a present or former judge of the Supreme Court or a non-judicial member with specified qualifications (chief justice or a judge of a high court). Selection of Lokpal: The selection committee will have prime minister, Lok Sabha speaker, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. A fifth member of the selection committee for selection of Lokpal under the category of "eminent jurist" may be nominated by the president on the basis of recommendation of the first four members of the selection committee. In the old bill, selection of the fifth person was left entirely to the president. Religious bodies and trust: The new bill includes societies and trusts that collect public money, receive funding from foreign sources, and have an income level above a certain threshold, it excludes bodies creating endowments for or performing religious or charitable functions. The old bill expanded definition of public servant by bringing societies and trusts which receive donations from the public (over a specified annual income) and, organisations which receive foreign donations (over Rs.10 lakh a year) within the purview of the Lokpal. Prosecution: In the new version, before taking a decision on filing a charge sheet in a case upon consideration of the investigation report, the Lokpal may authorise its own prosecution wing or the concerned investigating agency to initiate prosecution in special courts. Under the old bill, prosecution of the case could be done only by the prosecution wing of the Lokpal. Central Bureau of Investigation: For independence of the CBI, in the new bill a directorate of prosecution will be formed. Appointment of the director of prosecution will be on the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. Transfer of officers of CBI investigating cases referred by Lokpal will be only with the approval of Lokpal who will also have superintendence over CBI in relation to Lokpal referred cases.





 





 



  





Hearing: The new bill says a government servant will get a hearing before a decision is taken by the Lokpal. Prime Minister: The prime minister will be under the purview of the Lokpal with subject matter exclusions and specific process for handling complaints against the prime minister. Investigation: Inquiry has to be completed within 60 days and investigation to be completed within six months. Lokpal shall order an investigation only after hearing the public servant. Inquiry against the prime minister has to be held in-camera and approved by two-thirds of the full bench of the Lokpal. Penalty: False and frivolous complaints - imprisonment up to one year and a fine of up to Rs.1 lakh. Public servants - imprisonment up to seven years. Criminal misconduct and habitually abetting corruption - jail term up to 10 years. The existing anti-corruption agencies [CVC], departmental vigilance and the anti-corruption branch of the [CBI] will be merged into Lokpal which will have complete power authority to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.

IPC 377:
• • On 11 December 2013, the Supreme Court of India ruled homosexuality to be a criminal offence setting aside the 2009 judgement given by the Delhi High Court. The bench of justices G.S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya however noted that the parliaments should debate and decide on the matter. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code that makes anal sex a punishable offence. The central government has filed a review petition on 21 December 2013. In its review petition the Centre said: “The judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, and is contrary to well-established principles of law laid down by the apex Court enunciating the width and ambit of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.” The IPC, when enacted in 1860, was justified; but with the passage of time it had become arbitrary and unreasonable, the petition added. Naz Foundation has also filed a review petition against the Supreme Court order on Section 377 Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code dating back to 1861,[1] introduced during the British rule of India, criminalises sexual activities "against the order of nature", including homosexual acts. The section was declared unconstitutional with respect to sex between consenting adults by the High Court of Delhi on 2 July 2009. That judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court of India on 11 December 2013, with the Court holding that amending or repealing Section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary. Supreme Court ruled there was no constitutional room for change in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that holds same gender sexual relationship an offence.

•

•

•

•

• Supreme Courts verdict in detail: • Para 40-- The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (The Naz Foundation) was singularly laconic in as much as except giving brief detail of the work being done by it for HIV prevention targeting MSM community. The Naz Foundation, the SC observed, miserably

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

failed to furnish the particulars of the incidents of discriminatory attitude exhibited by the State agencies towards sexual minorities and consequential denial of basic human rights to them. Naz Foundation did not furnished the particulars of the cases involving harassment and assault from public and public authorities to sexual minorities. Only in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AIDS Control it has been averred that estimated HIV prevalence among: • FSW (female sex workers) is 4.60% to 4.94% • MSM (men who have sex with men) is 6.54% to 7.23% • IDU (injecting drug users) is 9.42% to 10.30%. The affidavit also states that the total population of MSM as in 2006 was estimated to be 25,00,000 and 10% of them are at risk of HIV and it further provides the State-wise break up of estimated size of high risk men who have sex with men and the State-wise details of total adult population, estimated adult HIV prevalence and estimated number of HIV infections as in 2009. These details the SC held are wholly insufficient for recording a finding that homosexuals, gays, etc., are being subjected to discriminatory treatment either by State or its agencies or the society. Para 42 -- Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and the people falling in the later category cannot claim that Section 377 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification. The High Court was not right in declaring Section 377 IPC ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution because Section 377 merely defines the particular offence and prescribes punishment for the same which can be awarded if in the trial conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other statutes of the same family the person is found guilty. Para 43 -- The SC judges observed that the Division Bench of the High Court while reading down Section 377 of the India Penal Court overlooked that a miniscule fraction of the country’s population constitute lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgender and in last more than 150 years less than 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing offence under Section 377 of the IPC. This, the SC said, cannot be made sound basis for declaring that section ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Para 45 – (The issue of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution) The requirement of substantive due process has been read into the Indian Constitution through a combined reading of Articles 14, 21 and 19 and it has been held as a test which is required to be satisfied while judging the constitutionality of a provision which intents to restrict or limit the right to life and liberty, including the rights of privacy, dignity and autonomy under Article 21. In order to fulfill this test, the law must not only be competently legislated but it must also be just, fair and reasonable. Arising from this are the notions of legitimate state interest and the principle of proportionality. Para 51 -- The Naz Foundation attacked Section 377 of the IPC on the ground that the same has been used to perpetrate harassment, blackmail and torture on certain persons, especially those belonging to the LGBT community. In our opinion, this treatment is neither mandated by the section nor condoned by it. The mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of

•

•

•

the section. It might be a relevant factor for the Legislature to consider while judging the desirability of amending Section 377 of the IPC. Para 52 -- In its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare that Section 377 violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the High Court has extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions. Though these judgments shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature. Para 54 -- The SC held that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally unsustainable. Para 55 -- The appeals are accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (The Naz Foundation) is dismissed.

Food Security Act:    The Act proposes food grain entitlement for up to 75 % of the rural and up to 50 % of the urban population, i.e. 67% of the overall population. This Act proposes to give 5 kg of grains per month per person at subsidized prices, i.e. Rs 3/- per kg for rice, Rs 2/- per kg for wheat and Rs 1/- per kg for coarse grains. The poorest households would continue to receive 35 kilograms of grains per month under the “Antyodaya Anna Yojana” at subsidized prices. Every pregnant and lactating mother shall be entitled to get free meal during pregnancy and 6 months after child birth. And they will also get maternity benefit of not less than Rs.6000/-. If the Central Govt. fails to provide food grains, it will give food security allowance to the entitled persons. States will identify the beneficiaries. Argument for: o 'Right to food' will become a legal right. o This Act will help to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in the country. o Inflation is on the rise; this is the time poor people need food security. o It helps to empower women as the eldest woman will be the head of the family. o Nutritious food will be given to pregnant and lactating mothers. This will lead to healthier families. Arguments against: o These food grains will be distributed through the already existing PDS (Public Distribution System). This PDS has many loopholes such as leakage of food grains, corruption, etc. o The exact number of poor has not been calculated correctly. Different departments give different numbers. And the criteria for measuring the percentage of poor people is not up to the mark. o The cost of this bill Rs.1.24 lakh crores, which will be a burden for the government, and may lead to fiscal deficit.

 



o

o o

As India exports grains to other countries, Food Security Act will hamper our exports, leading to more current account deficit. More CAD means more rupee fall, means more expensive imports, means more inflation. Farmers have to sell their food grains for procurement prices rather than market prices. It will be a loss for farmers. Small farmers may shift to other crops, as they will get the subsidized food grains. This will reduce the production of food grains.

Land Acquisition Bill





 



 







Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is a legislation that regulates land acquisition and provides rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons in India. Public Concern- There was heightened public concern on land acquisition issues and on the absence of a national law to provide for the resettlement, rehabilitation and compensation for loss of livelihood. Outdated Law- While multiple amendments have been made to the original act, the principal law continues to be the same i.e. the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 Need for Balance- Addressing concerns of farmers and those whose livelihood is dependent on the land being acquired and at the same time facilitating land acquisition for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization. Although the act is a huge improvement over the existing law, it has its own share of shortcomings and policy ambiguities that overshadow much of the progressive measures. Despite all claims of having restored clarity, the Act fails to address the most problematic issue of "public purpose". Public purpose has been defined as "the provision of land for infrastructure, industrialization and urbanization projects of appropriate government, where benefits largely accrue to the general public". Different stakeholders can interpret this differently. In effect, the Act does not clarify how private and public purpose in a private sector-led project will be evaluated. By raising the consent requirement to an unrealistic 80% in case of private land acquisition and 70% in the case of public-private projects (PPP) in critical sectors of the economy such as mining, defense, infrastructure, manufacturing zones, roads, railways and ports, the process of land acquisition has actually become extremely lengthy and difficult. Such is the proposed law that a handful of motivated land-owners can block or jeopardize projects of strategic importance.

 















The issue of consent and time period is nothing compared to the price that would be paid for future land acquisition. An arbitrary method of fixing price of land acquisition at the rate of four times for rural land and two times in the case of urban land not only ignores the dynamics of land markets, it is also against any logic. Not only would it lead to speculative activities by simplistically clubbing all lands into two categories (rural and urban), the proposed law would further complicate much of the land acquisition process and may erect new zones of conflicts. For instance, the Act clubs rural land in Haryana with rural land in Mizoram as the same, ignoring the land holding sizes, varied demand patterns and their use. Importantly, the Act fails to price the per-urban lands and thus, would greatly harm lands in scheduled areas. While concerns over loss of multi-crop agriculture land (reasons of food security and other agrarian concerns including the loss of livelihood) is understandable, such a blanket ban would create havoc for the country's urbanization plan as it would affect spatial urban spread. While the Act promises transparency and certainty in the acquisition process and later, by having several layers (at least five) of bureaucracy for all land acquisition cases, it makes simple land acquisition a complicated exercise. Adding a retrospective clause to pay in cases where land was acquired five years ago without compensation is a retrograde step. Not only does it spike the project costs for thousands of entrepreneurs who are still struggling with acquisition hurdles, but also sends a wrong signal to prospective investors. It's a naïve treatment of rapidly evolving land markets (clubbing as merely rural and urban) and casting every entrepreneur as a 'predator' could harm future industrialization of the country – one of the most important ways to lift millions of impoverished laborers out of a stunted farm sector. Finally, while the bill has brought transparency in land acquisition, by incorporating too many instruments and agencies to ensure the same, it instead risks making the process overly bureaucratic. In short, the bill ends up replacing a coercive colonial law with a cumbersome one.