What should the next PM do to address agrarian crisis

Woh Subah Kabhi To Aayegi

Pic courtesy: Hindu Business Line

The launch of PM –Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojna (PM-Kisan) scheme just before the code of conduct came into force, providing for a direct transfer for Rs 6,000 per year into the bank accounts of small farmers, even though meagre, was in a way an obvious admission of the severity of the agrarian crisis. Five years into power, and despite the promise of doubling farmers’ income by the year 2022, farm incomes had in reality plummeted to its lowest in 15 years necessitating a dramatic policy measure to provide farmers with some semblance of hope.

At a time when the Niti Aayog had admitted that farm income rise in the past two years (post 2016) had remained almost at near-zero and prior to that, in the five year period 2011-12 to 2015-16, real farm income had risen by less than half a per cent every year, 0.44 per cent to be exact, the introduction of PM-Kisan was the outcome of a realisation that agriculture is in dire crisis and was crying for direct income support. For the first time, the government signalled willingness to move from ‘price policy’ to ‘income policy’ and this in my understanding is a tectonic shift in economic thinking.

The launch of PM-Kisan under which the transfer of the first instalment of Rs 2,000 was swiftly made in to the accounts of beneficiary small farmers that the government could immediately identify, was soon followed with an electoral promise of Nyuntam Aay Yojna (NYAY) by the Congress president Rahul Gandhi. Promising to provide Rs 6,000 per month into the bank accounts of 20 per cent of the poorest if voted to power, the Congress too has finally admitted that direct income support is what is urgently required to pull out the poorest of the poor from abject poverty, which would in case include a large proportion of small and marginal farmers. Let’s not forget, as per Economic Survey 2016, the average income of a farming family in 17 states of India, which means roughly half the country, is a paltry Rs 20,000 a year or in other words less than Rs 1,700 per month.

Agriculture has remained at the bottom of the spectrum. For almost four decades, farm incomes have practically remained static, if adjusted against inflation. Farmers have been denied their rightful price, and in fact market prices have prevailed much below the administered prices for most crops for most harvesting seasons. According to a joint study by OECD-ICRIER, between 2000 and 2017, farmers have suffered a cumulative loss of Rs 45-lakh crores on account of low prices. And still, the farmers have demonstrated immense resilience and somehow survived against all odds. Any other sector of the economy would have collapsed by now. No wonder, rural distress is at its peak, which is quite evident from the spate of farm suicides that shows no signs of ending. To avoid any more embarrassment, the government has refrained from making public the farm suicide data for the past two years.

Although the political narrative of muscular nationalism after the attack at Pulwama has overshadowed the issue of agrarian distress, the biggest challenge for the incumbent government would be to first address the complex issue of continuing rural distress. Considering the massive increase in the number of farm protests across the country over the past few years, the new Prime Minister will find it difficult to postpone the problem anymore. Continuing with the promise of direct income support, a series of initiatives both short term and for the long run will be required to pull agriculture out of crisis. In my understanding, here are a series of steps that the Prime Minister must focus on:

      1. Set up a Commission for Farmers Income and Welfare: This Commission should work out farm prices, provide an assured farm income package and spell out other welfare measures. This Commission should subsume the existing Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and ensure a minimum monthly income package of Rs 18,000 per farmer family. The income package should be arrived as a top-up over the monthly average income a farming family is getting in a district. This data is available and it should not be difficult to work out the prevailing average farm income per district.   

2    2. Farm Loan Waiver: A one-time loan waiver for farmers should be immediately done. Already some states have waived farm loans totalling Rs 1.9 lakh crore since 2017. It s expected that the total quantum of bad loans in agriculture should be around Rs 3.5 lakh crores, which needs to be waived. Farmers cannot be expected to become economically productive without first offloading the past burden. The nation needs to stand with farmers at this hour of difficulty. The farm loan waiver should not be a financial burden on the state governments either, but instead be routed through the banks like in the case of corporate loan write-off. Let the Centre recapitalise the banks for the farm loan waivers just as it does for the corporate NPAs.

      3. Public Sector Investments: Reserve Bank of India data shows that public sector investment in agriculture had hovered between 0.3 to 0.4 per cent of the GDP between 2011-12 and 2016-17. Consequently private sector investment in agriculture too has been low. Considering that nearly 50 per cent population is directly or indirectly engaged in farming, it is time to shift the focus on strengthening agriculture by boosting public sector investment. Unless agriculture receives adequate investments it is futile to expect farming becoming a profitable enterprise.

      4. Ease of Doing Farming: Agriculture is stranded because of tremendous bottlenecks that farmers encounter at every stage. It is more a victim of lack of governance. If industry can be provided with 7,000 steps for ease of doing business I see no reason why agriculture cannot be accorded a similar priority in farming operations. This should be accompanied with the setting up of a task force at the national (as well as state levels) to monitor its implementation at every stage. It should identify the steps that need to be initiated to make farming farmer-friendly.

5    5. Price and Marketing Reforms: There is an urgent need for market reforms, which should essentially begin by expanding the existing network of APMC regulated markets. At present there are about 7,600 APMC mandis against the requirement of 42,000 mandis to be set up in five kms radius. This must be accompanied by reforms in APMC set up helping in breaking the cartels that operate. At the same time, APMC reforms must be accompanied by complete procurement of farmers produce at the minimum support price (MSP). #     

What the next PM should do to alleviate rural distress. Deccan Herald. April 24, 2019

https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/comment/what-the-next-pm-should-do-to-alleviate-rural-distress-730400.html?fbclid=IwAR0lNi-G_qdV63wiZebFj6ICPVElwNexAo_dy0ytzJdbwDMYyPNlxqGmnkk

READ MORE - What should the next PM do to address agrarian crisis

Northern Ireland media teaches lesson on responsible coverage
In any conflict or post-conflict zone, the hundreds of journalists I’ve worked with agree that they bear a particular responsibility to serve their communities by not exacerbating ongoing conflicts or re-ignite simmering ones.

Sadly, this point was driven home last weekend with the murder of 29-year old journalist Lyra McKee during civil unrest in Derry.

It would have been understandable, if regrettable, if the press in Northern Ireland had gone on a rampage after the murder, making false accusations, inflaming sectarian passions, using extreme and demonizing language, and generally pouring gasoline on the fire.

A small study of reporting about McKee’s murder shows that this did not happen, and that instead Northern Irish media actively sought to not make a bad situation even worse.

I randomly chose 15 articles* about the murder and its aftermath, and analyzed them using a content analysis rubric developed by my students at Park University and I. 8 of the 15 articles were classified as non-inflammatory journalism; 5 of the 15 showed some characteristics of inflammatory and traditional (inflammatory) journalism; and only 2 were considered traditional journalism.

One of the two traditional journalism stories was an opinion column that appeared in the Independent. Especially noteworthy was its angry tone, name calling (“dinosaurs”), and homage to the Troubles (“blood spattered past.”)

Otherwise, the reporting worked hard to remain informative and objective without exacerbating the situation. Sectarian bias was seldom on display. Many voices across the political spectrum were heard, and they universally condemned the murder. Most of the language used in the articles was measured, although overly sympathetic, victimizing language (seem in 9 of 15 articles) was hard for many writers to avoid.

One key point: Historical wrongs (the Troubles, in this instance) were mentioned in only four of the 15 articles. Imagine covering every contemporary Northern Irish news story, like this murder, through the prism of the Troubles. The impact, to continuously re-open wounds and re-stoke the flames of sectarianism, could be devastating to peace.

Many of the stories analyzed featured portrayals of McKee—an emphasis aligned with responsible journalism that focuses on victims instead of perpetrators. There were several excellent articles featuring memories fromMcKee’s partner, and one other article about the outpouring of support McKee’s family has received. In addition, her picture, and links to her outstanding Ted Talk, were posted everywhere.

How could this reporting be even better? I would have liked to see a few more of the articles look forward, the way that Alex Kane’s columndoes in the News Letter. Is this murder, and the underlying unrest and political turmoil, part of a growing trend? What lessons can be learned from this tragedy, and how can it be a gateway to a more peaceful future for Northern Ireland? In fact, this theme was prevalent in articles about McKee’s funeral in Belfast. More of the coverage could have examined solutions, especially those that transcend merely catching and punishing the perpetrator(s).

I will be in Northern Ireland next month working with journalists and students on a State Department project that deals with just these issues of responsible, non-inflammatory reporting. Based on the coverage of this incident, it looks like my Northern Irish colleagues will be teaching me a thing or two.

*Articles analyzed from Irish News, News Letter, Independent, Derry Journal, Belfast Telegraph.

NOTE: Lyra McKee's friends and family have set up a GoFundMe page. The money will go towards her funeral expenses and "to decide her legacy."

READ MORE -

Only a vibrant agriculture can address the employment crisis

In April, the Railway Recruitment Board received over 1.6-crore registration for 35,000 jobs of typists, stenos, account clerks, ticket collectors etc. In Punjab, over 6-lakh students appear for an International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the examination that young students aspiring to migrate abroad must first clear. Such is the crave for leaving abroad that IELTS coaching has become a roaring business, estimated to be over Rs 1,100-crore. With agriculture becoming economically non-viable and with no jobs to look up to, Punjab youth is increasingly keen on leaving the country.

While you are still grappling with the long-term implications of growing unemployment in the country, here comes another shocker. The Bangalore-based Azaim Premji University has in its State of Working India-2019 report said that 50 lakh people lost their jobs between 2016 and 2018. A month earlier, a leaked Periodic Labour Force Survey 2017-18 report of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) had shown that 3.2 crore casual labourers in rural areas lost their job between 2011-12 and 2017-18. Of these, roughly 3-crore were the farm workers showing a decline of 40 per cent in jobs availability for farm workers. Some economists have analysed this report and found out that between 2011-12 and 2015-16, manufacturing jobs alone declined from 580.6 lakh to 480.3 lakh, showing a job loss exceeding 1-crore.  

From unskilled to skilled, from uneducated to educated and even to those with high qualification, jobs have been shrinking. In Uttar Pradesh, 3,700 doctorate degree holders, 28,000 post-graduates and 50,000 graduates applied for just 62 jobs of peon. The job basically requires a minimum qualification of class V pass and the ability to ride a bicycle. And this is not the first time highly qualified people have applied for such low jobs. No wonder the Azim Premji University study shows that rising unemployment among the higher educated, the less educated as well as for the informal labour force there has been job losses and reduced work since 2016, the year demonetisation was announced.

At a time when massive unemployment prevails in the urban areas, the number of workers in agriculture too shrunk between 2004-05 and 2011-12. This is being hailed by mainline economists as a brighter side of the job loss nightmare that the country is witnessing. The argument is that the translocation of agricultural workforce to the cities is a sign of economic growth, and it is for the first time that such a clear sign of people moving away from the villages has been seen. Like his predecessor, even the new Chief Economic Advisor Krishnamurthy Subramanian has called for shifting people from agriculture to the cities, which are in need of cheaper labour.

I find this argument regressive. It comes from the same flawed economic thinking that the World Bank/IMF has been promoting all these years. Since Indian economists, and considering most of them occupying higher positions in India have been trained abroad, this flawed thinking has become the unwritten policy design. Way back in 1996, the World Bank had directed India to move out 40-crore people from the rural to the urban areas in the next 20 years, by the end of 2015. More recently the National Skill Development Policy document had made a promise of reducing rural workforce from 57 to 38 per cent by the year 2022. This was based on the premise that urban areas need dehari mazdoor and that can only come from agriculture.

This is a sad reflection on the way economic prescription are borrowed and blindly implemented. In a country where 70 per cent work force still lives in the rural areas, imagine the futility of moving a large percentage of the population to swarm into the cities looking for menial jobs. I have always wondered why can’t Indian economists and policy makers for a change spell out a policy design that aims at making agriculture profitable and thereby revitalise the rural industry. Once there is more money in the hands of rural work force, more demand would be generated, and that would mean the wheels of economic growth will zoom to a much higher trajectory.

While Indian economists failed to emerge out of the World Bank’s blinkered economic thinking, China has taken a leap forward. With nearly 60 per cent of its population forced to move into the cities over the past few decades of rapid industrialisation, China now realises its mistake. With most of the skilled jobs in the cities moving away to Africa where a still cheaper labour force is available for the foreign investors, China has now launched a ‘reverse urbanisation’ programme to take care of the idle or underemployed work force.

According to a report in South China Morning Post, an estimated 70-lakh people, most with higher educational qualification, have moved back to the countryside last year, with 60 per cent reportedly getting back to farming. This also became essential considering the decline in domestic agricultural production as a result of which imports soared. With unemployment and underemployment rising, and with agricultural production dipping, China has taken the right step to what is proverbial known as killing two birds with one stone. Adequate rural infrastructure is being laid out, and a translocation subsidy is also being provided to those who opt for rural areas.

In India, there is no other alternative to creating more jobs than to strengthen agriculture, create more infrastructures in the rural areas, and at the same time provide for more social security in the form of public sector education and health services. With the introduction of PM-Kisan scheme, which initially promise a direct income support of Rs 6,000 per year for farmers, which I am sure will be enhanced in the times to come, the first step of providing an additional income into the hands of farmers has already been taken.

While economists are refusing to change, it’s the political thinking that is beginning to show signs of maturity. First, NDA announced PM-Kisan scheme, and this was followed by Congress with an electoral promise of Nyuntam Aay Yojna (NYAY) promising Rs 6,000 per month to the lowest 20 per cent of the population, a clear pointer to what political leadership sees as a road ahead for economic development that is more inclusive. Both the parties are now beginning to realise what I have said for long: agriculture alone has the potential to reboot the economy.#

कृषि क्षेत्र से ही पैदा होगा रोजगार  Amar Ujala, April 19, 2019

https://www.amarujala.com/columns/opinion/employment-will-arise-only-from-agriculture-sector?src=foryou&fbclid=IwAR2QD-8_OPS8L1E0qeIx2ubXez03zBvKuan9OW4fha7ES2F_CPrGMQj1JDw  

Reboot from farms. Orissa Post. April 18, 2019

http://www.orissapost.com/reboot-from-farms/

READ MORE - Only a vibrant agriculture can address the employment crisis

Minimum Support Price for agriculture is increasingly under WTO scanner

Farming will increasingly come under more pressure 

At a time when agriculture distress is at a peak, the pressure from World Trade Organisation (WTO) to seek reduction in the procurement prices for wheat, rice, pulses, cotton and sugarcane is posing a renewed threat to the future of agriculture. WTO pressure to reduce Minimum Support Price (MSP), and Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) in case of sugarcane, comes at a time when Niti Aayog has accepted that the growth in real income of farmers in the past two years has been almost zero.

While Australia and Brazil have dragged India on its burgeoning sugar subsidies to the dispute settlement panel of WTO, which for all practical purposes acts as a court to settle trade disputes, five other countries – Guatemala, European Union, Russia, Costa Rica and Thailand – want to join the dispute settlement consultations, which in simple word means these countries want to be a party in the case against Indian sugar subsidies. Interestingly, while the WTO is planning to question India’s massive subsidisation of sugar, non payment of sugarcane arrears have been ballooning. In Uttar Pradesh alone, cane arrears have grown substantially in past two years, from Rs 4,497-crore in Mar 2017 to reach Rs 12,700-crore on Mar 2019.

The first round of dispute consultations on sugar subsidies with the seven countries begins in the third week of April.

Earlier, 12 countries – including European Union, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan and Sri Lanka – had become party to the US challenge of India’s export subsidies, including export incentives for SEZ and merchandise exports. Citing the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) of the WTO, the US had computed the explicit and implicit export subsidies that India is giving at $ 7 billion. That India is under a sharp scanner at the international negotiations was never in doubt but the increase in the number of countries questioning India’s subsidies is certainly a cause for worry.

Let’s go back to the issue of agriculture to see how the WTO is hitting India where it will pain the most. In a separate development, Canada has joined the US in questioning the hike in MSP for pulses over the past few years. On Feb 12, the US along with Canada, filed a notification in the WTO Committee on Agriculture (COA) questioning India's market price support for five types of pulses. Accordingly, India exceeded the permissible limit as defined by WTO in case of price support for chickpea, pigeonpea, moong, black matpe and lentils. The argument US and Canada are using is that India has “under-reported” its market price support for pulses, which is a violation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  

The US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue have at the time of filing the complaint, said: “When calculated according to WTO Agreement on Agriculture methodology, India's market price support for each of these pulses far exceeded its allowable levels of trade-distorting domestic support.” Giving specific details, they have blamed India for deliberately keeping the subsidies under wrap, and presenting a data which is questionable. Claiming that India’s total market price support for pulses ranged from 32 to 85 per cent and adds up to $9.5 billion, they accused India of “under-reporting” these subsidies.

India on the other hand maintains that its total subsidy support for all kinds of pulses comes to 1.8 per cent, and is far less than the permissible limit of 10 per cent. As per WTO norms, the product specific support (which is counted as subsidy) cannot exceed 10 per cent of the value of total production. To understand, in simple words what it means is that if the value of total production of chickpea is Rs 500-crores, the MSP that farmers get for chickpea cannot exceed Rs 50-crore.

While the US, EU, Canada and other countries are saying that India is using a methodology (to calculate the subsidies) which is non-compatible with the WTO methodology, India’s position is that the complainant countries are actually using a faulty methodology. The mistake these countries are doing is that they taking the MSP figures, and reduce from it the external reference price (ESP), set by WTO which is fixed on 1986-89 statistics, and then multiply with the total value of production of a particular crop. This gives a much exaggerated figure. In reality, India does not purchase the entire production at MSP but only a fraction of the total production to meet the food and nutritional security needs of the marginalised communities. The correct way therefore should be to multiply the amount of crop harvest that is purchased at MSP instead of multiplying with total production.

In case of wheat and rice also, US has been challenging India’s calculations for a number of years, saying that the 2013-14 compilation by India was far short of the actual 65 per cent of price support for wheat and 77 per cent for rice. India had claimed that its MSP for both these crops was well within the prescribed limit of 10 per cent.

The basic objective behind the aggressive stance at WTO is to seek more market access for agricultural and dairy products. The US has made this abundantly clear after the US President Donald Trump had withdrawn benefits to steel and aluminium products under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). But the failure on the part of India to impose retaliatory tariffs on 29 US products, including several important agricultural commodities, shows the weakness in its trade policy. India has further extended the deadline for imposing retaliatory custom duties to May 2, hoping that the US may relent.

Much of the blame for opening up the domestic markets to flood of agricultural imports actually rests on India’s failure to take the US to the WTO dispute settlement panel on the question of massive subsidy support being given to US agriculture. We are actually suffering the consequences of our own failure to be combative in trade diplomacy. But what is worrying is that the consequences of all the collective failures to stand up and protect domestic agriculture and thereby India’s food security will fall on the beleaguered farming community, already reeling under a terrible distress. #  

खेती के मोर्चे पर भारत की नई चुनौतियां. Dainik Jagran. April 19, 2019
https://www.jagran.com/editorial/apnibaat-world-trade-organization-concern-report-india-new-challenges-on-farm-focus-19145965.html?fbclid=IwAR286RG7B6dyWHy_F03oRZM5n2Iw6Y4qNkOzc-7eohhl6H51xK8ocRYKzIw

READ MORE - Minimum Support Price for agriculture is increasingly under WTO scanner

Nearly 50% country reeling under drought but fails to top election agenda

Pic courtesy: DW Blogs

WHEN The Tribune reported on March 1 that nearly 47% of the country was in the grip of a severe drought, with at least 16 % falling in the category of ‘extreme’ or ‘exceptional’, and knowing that drought could further worsen farm distress, lead to increased migration from rural to urban areas, I thought the misery being encountered by roughly 500 million people or 40% of the population would shift the focus, even in an election year, to provide immediate relief measures. 

My belief that the dominant narrative would change, with each party trying to outdo what the other promised, and perhaps move its cadre to the rural hinterland, providing a helping hand to the drought-affected, too, remained wishful thinking. To make it still worse, Skymet Weather Services, a private agency, has forecast a deficient monsoon ahead, and the Indian Meteorological Department has shown that the country has received 36% less rainfall between March 1 and March 28 compared with the long-term average. Another report by IndiaSpend points to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Bihar, Jharkhand, parts of Northeast, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan being the worst hit. ‘In 31 reservoirs in the southern states, water availability stands at 25% of total capacity, which has gone down by 36 percentage points over five months from 61% of the capacity in November 2018.’ There is more trouble ahead.

In another well documented report, IndiaSpendconveys the agony and plight of the drought hit Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh, comprising four districts of Anantapur, Kurnool, Chitoor and YSR Kadapa. Accordingly, the region has faced 15 droughts in the 18 year period between 2000 and 2018. Quoting the district administration, the report says the region continues to face nine consecutive years of drought. This year again, the drought continues. An estimated 700,000 people have moved out in 2018 looking for menial labour to survive. Villages after villages are empty with only the elders and small children left behind by some couples who migrated. This year, there is hardly a crop field which doesn’t look barren and abandoned.  

Even in the drought-affected areas in Maharashtra, where the continuing agrarian crisis is expected to cast its impression in the ensuing elections, news reports point to how the ruling party is trying to instead build up an election campaign based on muscular nationalism but very quietly bypassing the central issue of farm distress gripping the seven districts of the region. Opposition parties are however focusing on the neglect of the farm sector over the years and how agrarian distress has worsened. So much so, seeing that the real issues gripping the region are being swept under the carpet, a farm widow Vaishali Yede has decided to take the battle to the ballot. She is contesting from Yavatmal-Washim constituency in eastern Maharashtra, a farm suicide prone region. Her simple message is: “mahyavar laksh asudya ji” (keep me in your prayers and thoughts), ostensibly telling people to remember the plight of farmers when they go out to vote.

In Telangana too, there are 170 farmers contesting against K Kavitha, daughter of Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, who is standing from Nizamabad Lok Sabha constituency. Reports also say that 111 Tamil Nadu farmers, who had earlier campaigned at New Delhi, will be contesting against the Prime Minister Narendra Modi from Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency. While the intent in both the cases seems to be rather symbolic in nature, but it does however signify the anger and frustration sweeping the countryside.

At a time when farm incomes have plummeted to its lowest in the past 15 years, and the real rural wage growth has seen a steep fall – from 11.8 per cent growth in 2013-15 to 0.45 per cent in 2016-18, the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) estimates 3.2-crore casual rural workers losing their job between 2011-12 and 2017-18. Of these, 3-crore labourers were working on the farm. But yet, after the news has been reported in the newspapers, and after a few news analyses published, the dominant narrative again shifts back. Agricultural crisis that took so long to emerge at the centrestage of the political debate has once again been relegated to the background. “The effort to bring emotions (nationalism) in the elections will lead to all other issues going under the carpet. The farmers will continue to die,” says farmer leader Vijay Jawandhia from Maharashtra, visibly displeased.

One reason why people in the cities do not feel concerned, and that is why the prominent discourse remains impervious of the pain and suffering being felt in the rural areas is because of a development inequality woven through the process of economic growth. To illustrate, why only water shortage, the problems that crippling drought would normally bring are rarely felt in the cities. Simply because all efforts have been to build the cities, turning them drought proof over the years. All efforts have gone to ensure that the urban population do not have to suffer the consequences of a drought. The rivers flowing in rural areas can go dry, the soil becoming parched, crops withering but the development design ensures regular tap water supply in the cities or for at least a few hours during the day. While cities have 24 hours power supply, ask a farmer for how many hours does he get electricity? I have seen farmers waking up early, going to the fields to water the standing crops.

A few hours away from Mumbai, life comes to a standstill. Go to Bangalore, and it is rare that you can even get a distant feeling of a severe drought that prevails just a few kilometres outside the metropolis. It is this kind of insinuation that keeps the urban population largely disconnected with its rural hinterland. Why only blame the urban centric media, which hardly has any roots in the mofussil towns what to talk of villages, even the academia and bureaucracy remains oblivious. When the urban elite as well as middleclass is least interested, it is futile to expect the politicians alone to fill in the gap. Unless each one of us, irrespective of our political ideology, thinks of a farmer when talking of elections or when you go to vote I don’t think farming will ever swing political decision making. But as the Prime Minister said the other day in a newspaper interview thinking of a farmer too is nationalism. #  

Toiling to be heard. The Tribune.April 13, 2019.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/toiling-to-be-heard/757590.html 

READ MORE - Nearly 50% country reeling under drought but fails to top election agenda

Somber anniversary reminds journalists of responsibilities

This weekend marks a somber anniversary in greater Kansas City—the fifth anniversary of a racist-motivated shooting at the Jewish Community Center in Overland Park that killed three people.

At the time, I was concerned about coverage of the event in the Kansas City Star that “gave voice to racism and hatred,” but encouraged by a thoughtful column that ran a few days later titled, “Reporting on Extremism: Ignore it or expose it?” See my full column below.

Five years later, these same questions about how to cover extremism and terrorism remain. Just last month, I published a column in the Kansas City Star upbraiding the paper, again, for its coverage. This time, my concern was about whether the Star should have printed a lengthy piece analyzing the New Zealand shooter’s racist manifesto.  I wrote, Printing manifestos in whole or in part gives shooters exactly what they crave: publicity for their hateful ideas.”

Yesterday, the Star ran a revealing interview with a white supremacist about his transformation away from hatred. The forward looking, solution-seeking tone of the article was excellent, as was the online publication of photos of each of the victims. However, I was disappointed, once again, to see the Star publish another photo of white supremacists giving a Nazi salute with a Confederate battle flag in the background. Isn’t publishing this photo giving the haters exactly what they want?

As I said in my column about the New Zealand shooting, “Media outlets walk a fine line between providing necessary context and giving violent racists or terrorists a megaphone. Next time, and there will sadly be a next time, let’s hope journalists err on the side of choking off publicity for the haters.”

Peace Journalism Insights, April 16, 2014

Does KC shooting coverage give voice to hate, extremism?

Peace journalism is about much more than peace and war.

That lesson is being underscored this week in Kansas City, where we are in mourning over a series of shootings that killed three people last Sunday.

Peace journalists always consider the consequences of their reporting, and, at minimum, pledge to avoid exacerbating an already bad situation—to not pour gasoline on an already raging fire.

The balance, the fine line, between giving the public the information they need and fueling the fire has been on display the last few days here in Kansas City.

From a peace journalism perspective, or the perspective of journalism in general, there’s no question that this story had to be covered. Peace journalism, contrary to some misperceptions, doesn’t ignore or soft-peddle violent acts.

On Monday, the day after the shootings, The Kansas City Star ran a banner headline that read, “Black Sunday.” The front page featured an article about the shooter titled, “Racist views, a prison record.” The following day, The Star’s front page showcased a large photo of the shotgun-wielding shooter framed by KKK flags.

Was the Star’s coverage appropriate, or did they sensationalize the crime and give voice to hate and extremism?

The Star’s coverage of the victims was outstanding—thorough, thoughtful, respectful. Profiles of the victims were prominently displayed on page one on Tuesday, as they should have been.

The difficult question for the Star and others covering this was how to handle the alleged shooter. This is the same dilemma faced when covering other hateful acts. The Boston bombing anniversary, for example, has sparked new stories about Dzokhar Tsarnaev and questions about whether he deserves even one more word of press coverage.

In the KC case, Peace journalism asks, what is the consequence of giving voice to the alleged shooter’s extremist, racist views? What impact does showing a KKK photo have? Does any of this coverage give credibility, gravitas, to the alleged shooter or his racist cause?

I agree that the alleged shooter must be covered, but I disagree with the Star’s decision to cover him on page one, particularly on Tuesday, where the shooter’s profile was carelessly laid out alongside profiles of the victims. (Click here to see .pdf of Tuesday's front page). Some might believe that this implies some equivalency between shooter and victim. As for the front page photos of the shooter (mug shot on Monday; shotgun-toting KKK flag shot Tuesday), I challenge the decision to run these on page one. Does featuring a prominent front-page photo of the alleged shooter that is much larger than the tiny photos of the victims imply that the alleged shooter is of primary importance? That certainly wasn’t the Star’s intention, even though the way the page is laid out might leave some with that misimpression.

To their credit, The Star ran a thoughtful, introspective column by reporter Dave Helling in Tuesday’s paper titled, “Reporting on Extremism: Ignore it or expose it?” In this piece, Helling wrote, “It’s unlikely daily front-page coverage will stop the damage from the worst people out there. It could make it worse.” I agree. Will the kind of celebrity now enjoyed by the alleged shooter encourage others to act on extremist views?

Helling is also correct when he wrote, “The journalist’s usual answer is balance—expose what you can without overexposing the rantings of an anti-Semite.”

It’s encouraging to see Helling’s analysis of the impact of the Star’s reporting. It is this kind of reflective, deliberate decision making about coverage, as opposed to the press’ usual reflexive sensationalism, that gives me hope that journalists can operate more professionally and responsibly.

READ MORE -

Corporal Punishment: Intentionally Causing Physical Pain To A Student Is Prohibited in California

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

School staff willfully inflicting physical pain to students is considered corporal punishment and prohibited in California unless certain exceptions exist.  As such, hitting, pulling hair, pinching, kicking, and other forms of physically painful contact with a student, usually are unacceptable and illegal.

In California Education Code section 49001, "Corporal Punishment" is defined as: "willful infliction of, or willfully causing the infliction of, physical pain on a pupil."  This means that any PHYSICAL PAIN caused intentionally to a student, by a person employed or engaged by a school, is not okay.  Would purposefully slamming a student into a wall, spanking a student, slapping their hand with a ruler, and/or lifting a student out of a pool by their hair be considered "corporal punishment?"  To determine this, ask yourself: was physical pain caused to the student?  Was the physical pain intentionally caused by the school representative?  If the answer is yes, the conduct could constitute prohibited corporal punishment under section 49001 so long as it does not fit under an exception.

Education Code section 49001 lists the exceptions to corporal punishment as follows:

"An amount of force that is reasonable and necessary for a person ... to quell a disturbance threatening physical injury to persons or damage to property, for purpose of self-defense, or to obtain possession of weapons or other dangerous objects within the control of the pupil is not ... corporal punishment.  "

If a student were pulled by their hair to prevent drowning, knocked into a wall in an attempt to obtain a gun, or hurt when the staff member was trying to stop them from being punched, causing physical pain might not be considered prohibited under the circumstances.  But we can all see how that is different from going after a kid to cause them pain with no legitimate reason.  If there were harm caused in a justified situation, the only question then would be, was the physical pain caused "reasonable and necessary?"  That may be a matter of opinion as even in "self-defense," staff can go to far.

If parents encounter what they believe to be intentionally caused physical pain and/or harm by a teacher or other school representative, they may want to file a personnel and/or other type of complaint to ensure the person involved is corrected and the matter resolved.  Otherwise, the staff member could continue their improper conduct with even more dire consequences the next time.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

originally published 5/16/2011, updated 4/8/2019

READ MORE - Corporal Punishment: Intentionally Causing Physical Pain To A Student Is Prohibited in California

Is Rahul Gandhi's minimum income guarantee scheme, NYAY, economically viable? My interview

Pic: from the web

Will Congress president Rahul Gandhi's proposed minimum income guarantee scheme, Nyuntam Aay Yojna, or NYAY, free India from poverty? This question was asked by India Today to six economists.  

Here is my reply. You can see the detailed response from all of us if you click on the link at the end of the interview. 

Q: Is a scheme that promises Rs 72,000 a year to 25 crore Indians below the poverty line economically viable?

Surely, implementing a guaranteed minimum income package benefitting 20 per cent of India’s poorest is economically viable. It all depends on the intent behind it. If the government wants to really help the poorest, finding adequate money is never a problem. But I find it strange that this question is invariably asked whenever some allocations are made for the poor. No one asked when the 7^TH Pay Commission was announced, which when implemented across the States, PSUs, Colleges/Universities will bring in an additional annual burden in the range of Rs 4.5 to Rs 4.8-lakh crore every year. No one ever asked the same question when massive corporate bad loans are written-off by the banks, Rs 3.17-lakh crore between 2014 and 2018. Former CEA Arvind Subramanian had even said that writing-off corporate loans leads to economic growth. But on the contrary waiving farm loans for the poor farmers are viewed as credit indiscipline. This is a reflection of the inherent bias in modern economic thinking.  

Q: What do you think will be the challenges in implementing such a scheme?

Although Rahul Gandhi has still to spell out the delivery mechanism that is expected to provide Rs 6,000 every month to 20 per cent poorest households in the country, the task of indentifying the real beneficiaries will certainly be an administrative nightmare. Estimating the income level of the poor to draw out the real beneficiaries will of course be a cumbersome process. But I am sure as the scheme progresses, since it is to be implemented in a phased manner, it will be possible to iron out the bottlenecks and remove other hurdles. It has to be planned in such a manner that it turns out to be inclusive. 

Take a lesson from Telangana, which launched the much talked about Rythu Bandhu scheme, providing direct financial support twice in a year to farmers. In 2018 kharif season, Telangana government has transferred Rs 5, 257-cr to over 51 lakh farmers. Not a small achievement but before launching the scheme, Telangana officials had moved in swiftly across the districts to set the land records right and to remove other hiccups. If the will is there, a suitable pathway can always be created.    

Q: Will it address the issue of rural distress and can it boost the economy?

Investing in rural areas is the only viable long term solution to many of the problems India faces – hunger, poverty, youth unemployment, forced migration and climate change. The promise of Rs 72,000 per year to the poorest points to a significant shift in economic thinking – moving from credit to income support. More money in the hands of the rural poor means more demand will be created, and more demand will reignite the wheels of the industry thereby boosting economic growth.

Considering a decline in casual farm labour to the extent of 40 per cent between 2011-12 and 2017-18, and even the non-farm wages shrinking in the last five years, the job crisis in rural areas is certainly explosive. Added with the steeply declining farm incomes, which have already touched the lowest in 14 years, rural India is crying for attention. More so at a time when public sector investments in agriculture had remained abysmally low, hovering between 0.3 to 0.5 per cent of the GDP between 2011 and 2017.  Rural India therefore is the future. In fact, I have been saying for long that addressing rural distress, beginning with revival of agriculture alone has the potential to reboot the economy.

Q: What are the long term implications of such a scheme on poverty reduction?

In the long-term, direct income support is one of the major effective instruments to fight poverty. MNREGA in that sense is a classic example. This has to be of course accompanies by a set of economic reform measures, including investments education, health and rural infrastructure. Providing more money into the hands of the poor, who also carry dreams and aspirations like anyone else, gives them an opportunity to unleash their entrepreneurship ability.

To be born in debt and live in debt all through his life is virtually like living in a hell. Normally the poor, and that includes farmers, often are born in debt and die in debt. A direct income support provides them an opportunity to emerge out of the shackles of indebtedness. And this will have long term consequences in making poverty history.

Trickle-down theory has failed to make an impact. Trickle-up is what is desperately required.

Q: How does the promised scheme compare with existing welfare schemes of the government?

The proposed Nyay scheme should not be considered as a welfare scheme that we generally know about. It is an income augmentation scheme, and should be considered as a powerful mechanism to revitalise economic activity in the rural areas thereby reducing rural to urban migration. It will reduce inequality, help reduce rural distress, and pull out masses from abject poverty. Unlike the existing 950 central government schemes, direct income support alone has the potential to reboot the rural economy, and if executed well it may perhaps change the face of Indian economy – leading truly to Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas.

Q: Do you think it will help the Congress woo the electorate better?

Well, that depends on how the Congress is able to take the message to the masses. #

The price of NYAY. India Today. April 8, 2019.

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20190408-the-price-of-nyay-1488343-2019-03-29?fbclid=IwAR0_6eou841nOP7Xf3tI523Ujjjjf3Yesbb4LQnIq1fhS7DTWcAosT3ups0

READ MORE - Is Rahul Gandhi's minimum income guarantee scheme, NYAY, economically viable? My interview