For farmers, another depressing year passes by.

Another year passes by. While there were a lot of expectations for a better future for farmers, but as 2019 fades into history, the farming community is still grappling to recover the cost of cultivation. With prices dropping across the spectrum, barring a few crops where assured procurement takes place, farmers incurred massive losses. With agriculture is crisis, the farm labour too had to bear the brunt. Farm wages had prevailed at a five-year low.

For almost two decades now real farm incomes have been on the decline. The depressing trend continued in 2019 as well, and when nearly 42 per cent of the country was reeling under a severe drought in April, spanning across Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Bihar and parts of Northeast, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Telengana, I thought the plight of farmers undergoing a severe drought at the time of Lok Sabha elections would dominate the electoral campaigns. Except for some mention in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Telengana, the worsening agrarian crisis failed to evoke a political response.

The raging drought was followed by an erratic monsoon causing huge crop damage in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Kerala and parts of Madhya Pradesh. So much so that after three years of continuous drought, torrential rains that lashed Marathwada region of Maharashtra in August were termed as ‘wet drought’. And yet, foodgrain production jumped to 281.37 million tonnes in 2018-19, showing an increase of 15.63 million tonnes over the average production achieved in the preceding five years (2013-14 to 2017-18). However, in an era of record harvests, the gain in foodgrain production failed to translate into higher income for farmers. According to Niti Aayog, growth in real farm incomes has been ‘near zero’ in the past two years, and prior to that in the five year period between 2011-12 to 2015-16 real farm income growth had hovered at less than half a percent every year.

This has been the travesty of Indian agriculture clearly pointing to a perennial neglect of farming. Somehow agriculture continues to be seen as a non-economic activity which somehow has to be sustained by pumping in subsidies. With dominant economic thinking aimed at pushing a large section of the population from the rural to the urban areas, which are in need of cheap labour, the neglect of agriculture is a natural outcome of flawed economics. After all, with public sector investment in agriculture, between 2011-12 and 2017-18, remaining at 0.3 to 0.4 per cent of the GDP, and with nearly 50 per cent population engaged in agriculture, the reasons for the continued neglect becomes all too apparent. 

Unfortunately what is not being realised is that with unemployment rising to a 45-year high, and the economy on a slowdown spiral, strengthening agriculture is the only way to improve rural spending thereby creating more demand, which in turn will drive the wheels of the national economy. If only farmers could earn a profit from every crop they harvest, the face of agriculture will change for the better, forever. And once agriculture becomes profitable, it will see a reverse migration from the cities to the villages, and will end up absorbing a large proportion of unemployed youth. As I have often reiterated agriculture alone holds the potential to reboot the sagging Indian economy.

The continued decline in farm incomes over the past two decades was reflected in a leaked consumption expenditure survey report for 2017-18 – which has been shelved by the government – showing an average rural household spending on food to be at a paltry Rs 580 per month, roughly Rs 19 a day. Seen in conjecture with the findings of the Global Hunger Index 2019 which ranks India at 102nd position among 117 countries, and considering that 600 million people are dependent on agriculture, it becomes easier to draw a link between falling farm incomes, declining household food consumption and the worrying levels of hunger. The challenge therefore is to increase rural household consumption, which depends on focusing on income generation at the farm and non-farm level in rural areas.

In the interim budget 2019, an effort was made to provide direct income support to agriculture to partly offset the losses farmers have been suffering, something that I have been asking for over the years. Under the PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme a provision was made for providing Rs 6,000 per year for every land owning farmers. With an additional budget provision of Rs 75,000-crore, it resulted in 141 per cent rise over the allocation of Rs 57,600-crore for agriculture in the 2018-19 Budget. While this translates to a miniscule support of Rs 500 per month, it is in reality a tectonic shift in policy planning, moving from ‘price policy’ to ‘income policy’ support in agriculture.

Instead of providing a slew of booster doses for the industry to prop up the economy in downturn, which includes Rs 1.45-lakh crore corporate tax concessions, Rs 75,000-crore for bank recapitalisation and a stimulus package of Rs 25,000-crore to real estate, what can really spur demand is to provide more money into the hands of poor. This is only possible if the focus shifts to bolstering PM-Kisan and MNREGA as the two policy interventions that can make a difference. My suggestion would be to provide for an economic stimulus package of Rs 1.50-lakh crore under the PM-Kisan scheme which would ensure that the direct income support for farmers rises to Rs 18,000 per year or Rs 1,500 per month. In addition, the PM-Kisan scheme needs to be expanded in such a manner so as to bring the estimated 40 per cent tenant farmers in its fold. Spruce it with an extra allocation for MNREGA, at the same time ensuring its effective implementation, and the stimulus would shift to those who actually need it.

This has to be accompanied by a series of reforms in agriculture and rural development, and the country will see resurgence in rural spending thereby reinvigorating the economy. Tax cuts for corporate can wait, but the poor cannot. #

Depressing trend. Orissa Post. Dec 29, 2019. 
https://www.orissapost.com/depressing-trend/

किसानों की मायूसी का एक और साल. Amar Ujala, Dec 29, 2019.

https://www.amarujala.com/columns/opinion/another-year-of-despair-of-farmers?fbclid=IwAR223lKUV9ddHCTsko34z6jLMbTF2E-XBywc2x5jTg7FDstGMUMiv6W5gCI

READ MORE - For farmers, another depressing year passes by.

2019 Peace Journalism Year in Review
Part One: January-June

2019 was another busy and productive year for the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University. Here’s a quick look back, organized by month:

NYT photo of terrorist victims in Kenya. I added the pixelation.

January: I took the New York Times to the woodshed for publishing bloody photos of terrorism victims in Nairobi. My take was that the photo disrespected the victims in a way that wouldn’t have occurred had they been Westerners. I wrote, “While there have been published pictures of dead Americans, there are no images as graphic or sensational as this one. A body covered by a sheet at a crime or terrorist attack scene, or taken from 200 yards away, is not the same as a zoomed-in image of uncovered, bullet riddled, bloody, slumped over victims taken at the scene.”

February: I wrote about the kidnapping, and release one day later, of Cameroonian journalist Ambe McMillan. His safe release, I wrote, was a testament to collective advocacy on his behalf. My blog noted, “Ambe’s kidnapping set off an avalanche of advocacy on his behalf by CAMASEJ, the Cameroon Community Media Network (CCMN), of which Ambe is an active member, the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University, and, crucially, the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Angela Quintal was on the case immediately, seemingly moments after Ambe’s abduction, making inquiries, and bombarding social media with messages about his disappearance, and demanding his release.”

March: In March, I had an interesting exchange with journalists at the Global Sisters Report at their Kansas City headquarters. After my presentation on peace journalism basics, I opened up the floor for Q&A. One journalist was concerned that peace journalism amounts to no more than self-censorship. This is because it asks journalists to consider the consequences of their reporting and yes, to exclude words and images that are inflammatory without adding any value to the story. This is, incidentally, an oft-repeated criticism of PJ. My response was that I do not consider this to be self-censorship. Instead, this is journalists merely employing a filter—the same filter that journalists use hundreds of times a day to make decisions about newsworthiness, appropriateness for audience, what information to include or exclude, etc.

April: Before my May trip to Northern Ireland, I wrote about the responsible coverage in NI media on the murder of young journalist Lyra McKee in Derry. I wrote, “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.”

Also in April, a new edition of the Peace Journalist magazine was published. It featured dispatches from Nigeria, Costa Rica, DR Congo, and elsewhere. The cover story was about a peace and media conference in South Korea.

May: I visited Northern Ireland, and met with journalists in Derry and Belfast to discuss, among other things, social media and peace journalism. In one session, I presented a list on how to apply social media principles for peace journalism, including using SM to fact check, to broaden societal conversations, and to connect peace journalists. The participants added two important items: 1. Use social media to seek opinions outside your ideological bubble; 2. Use social media to tag those with opposing viewpoints, as a way of engendering conversations.

We also discussed an interesting fact checking initiative directed by workshop participant Allan Leonard called factcheckNI. His perspectives on fact checking as a reconciliation tool were fascinating. He said factcheckni.org is not about changing minds, but instead seeks to engage viewers to ask, ‘Do you think that the data presented constitute a basis for investigating the accuracy of a claim?’

June: I wrote a short piece for the Los Angeles Times about the liberal use of the term “concentration camp” to describe immigrant detention centers. I said, “My purpose in writing this brief column was not to argue about immigration policy. There are plenty of voices on both sides doing that. Rather, I wanted to make it clear that the tone of the discourse matters, that when liberals use phrases like “concentration camp,” they inflame already heated partisans, and further polarize our society. The same can be said of conservatives who label immigrants “illegal,” a phrase contained in your letter. Conservatives use “illegal” pejoratively, to smear new arrivals with a broad brush that implies criminality.

Both liberals and conservatives hide behind the technical definitions of these terms. Yes, technically, some immigrants have broken the law, and the detention centers may be concentration camps. But we know the baggage that this language carries—the dog whistles that appeal to partisans on both sides of the political spectrum. Until we can rid our society of inflammatory language on both sides, how can we even begin a substantive discussion about reforming our broken immigration system?”

July: I tackled the sticky issue of whether to call Donald Trump a racist. I wrote, “I frame this debate in terms of peace journalism, and the notion that journalists should lead substantive societal discussions without deepening divisions and falling into the ‘us vs. them’ narratives that many politicians seek. In a previous column, I wrote about the inadvisability of using the term ‘concentration camp’ to describe immigrant detention centers. I oppose this term because I think it further divides us, and makes discussion across political boundaries even more difficult. The same can be said about the term ‘racist.’ When we call Trump racist, are we tarring his supporters with the same brush? And if we are, aren’t we making it more difficult to have an adult dialogue with them about important issues like race and immigration?”

Coming up: Part two of the 2019 year in review

READ MORE -

Impeachment: A great time to break out of your news bubble
As you watch and listen to impeachment news and commentary, how much thought are you giving to the information you're consuming? Does it present the impeachment as a sham and a hoax, engineered by sore losers to disenfranchise 63 million U.S. voters? Or, does the coverage insist that the impeachment was necessary to combat a lawless, out of control, delusional traitor who puts himself before his country?

The answer, of course, depends on which media bubble you live in. Media bubbles (or news bubbles) seal in media consumers so that they end up reading only stories that are consistent with their world view.

These news bubbles are partially constructed by individuals who choose media that confirm their biases (liberals watching Rachel Maddow, conservatives tuning in to FOX News). Bubbles are also partially created by social media which feed us stories that confirm our biases. Click on an anti-Trump story, and you’ll get many similar stories fed to you on Facebook, for example.
A related concept is the echo chamber. Internet activist Eli Pariser defined echo chamber as a “personal, unique universe of information that you live in online. And what’s in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do. But the thing is that you don’t decide what gets in. And more importantly, you don’t actually see what gets edited out.” (https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896)

The important thing about an echo chamber, writes media analysis C. Thi Nguyen, it that it “leads its members to distrust everybody on the outside of that chamber. And that means that an insider’s trust for other insiders can grow unchecked.” Citing examples like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, he writes that “an echo chamber is a lot like a cult. Echo chambers isolate their members, not by cutting off their lines of communication to the world, but by changing whom they trust. And echo chambers aren’t just on the right. I’ve seen echo chambers on the left, but also on parenting forums, nutritional forums and even around exercise methods.” (http://theconversation.com/the-problem-of-living-inside-echo-chambers-110486)

These media bubbles create many problems for society. Bubbles have facilitated what researchers call Cyberbalkanization, or “the loss of shared experiences and values (which) may be harmful to the structure of democratic societies as well as decentralized organizations.” (https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/dec/04/echo-chambers-are-dangerous-we-must-try-to-break-free-of-our-online-bubbles)

Other corrosive impacts of media bubbles include overestimating the prevalence of our perspective—thinking that everyone agrees with us. “Our brain constructs a model of the world from interactions with our environment. If all our interactions are one-sided, then our brain’s model will be biased,” noted Don Vaughn, a neuroscientist at the department of Psychology at UCLA.

Additionally, the bubbles decrease empathy for those with whom we disagree. “My neuroscience research on empathy underscores the point that simple notions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ [affect] how our brain processes the pain of another. When ‘they’ are in pain, we simulate their experience less, and show less empathy,” said Vaughn. (https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896)

So, what can we do to break out of our news bubbles?

1. Be skeptical about the information you hear and see, and be your own fact checker. Analyze the news you consume. Is it biased? What’s the message beneath the news? What news and viewpoints aren’t being covered? Then, analyze the veracity of the news you’re consuming, using fact checkers like Politifact, FactCheck.org, Fact Check NPR, and Snopes.com.

2. Seek out those with differing opinions, both in person and online. Yes, online discourse can often be coarse, but you can still find those who share your commitment to hearing many sides. Seek out interest groups on all sides of issue, and look for hashtags on Twitter that both favor and oppose your position (#MoscowMitch and #WitchHunt, for example). This also means not deleting from your social media those with whom you disagree.

3. Consume news from across the political spectrum. In my classes, students are required to watch and analyze both Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity. I do this myself. I can’t guarantee that you won’t throw things at the TV, but I will promise you will be better informed by learning about different perspectives.

Acknowledging biases in the news we consume, and taking steps to educate ourselves from different perspectives, are invaluable first steps towards establishing civil political discourse in our country.

READ MORE -

Agriculture is in need of an economic stimulus

The writing was on the wall, a clear pointer to the deep agrarian distress that continues to prevail over the decades. Before a ‘leaked’ 2017-18 National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) report on consumption expenditure — which the government decided to shelve — showed that rural households were spending less and less on food, the Economic Survey 2016 had brought out the unpleasant truth. The average farm income in 17 states, which means roughly half the country, stood at a paltry Rs 20,000 a year, which indicated the low farm household expenditure on consumption.

While the leaked consumption expenditure survey pegged the per capita monthly expenditure on food in rural areas at Rs 580 (roughly Rs 19 a day), the Economic Survey had shared data pertaining to average farm income based not only on what the farming families were able to sell, but also adding what they saved for household consumption. One was often left wondering how these families would be surviving with income levels of less than Rs 1,700 a month. With farm prices remaining depressed, several other studies pointed to farm incomes sliding to a 14-year low, and farm wages, too, showing a marked decline over the past few years.

Another leaked document, the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2017-18 report of the NSSO, had shown that 3.4 crore casual labourers in rural areas (3 crore were farm workers) had lost their jobs between 2011-12 and 2017-18. With unemployment worsening over the past 45 years, the crisis had certainly gone beyond farming.

While all these reports pointed to the deteriorating economic wellbeing of a rural family, the implications it had on pulling down rural spending were not difficult to foresee.

Economists, however, remain divided over trying to manoeuvre a reliable way out of the downturn. While mainline economists agree that weaker consumer demand and slowing private investments are the two key factors that have slowed the economy, leading economic growth to a six-year low of 4.5 per cent in the July-September quarter, the prescriptions being suggested are aimed at the top of the ladder.

Industry associations find the slowdown to be an appropriate opportunity to push for more reforms in the form of cheaper and easy land acquisitions, labour laws, reducing corporate tax, removing tax terrorism, fast-tracking of bankruptcy resolutions and, of course, providing yet another sector-based stimulus.

While mainline economists generally agree that it is the bottom of the pyramid that needs more attention, a set of booster doses that have already been announced to reinvigorate the economy relate essentially to corporate tax stimulus, real estate, automobile sector, bank consolidation and recapitalisation, export incentives, and some sops to micro, small and medium enterprises. A few economists have questioned the need to provide tax breaks to an industry which is already sitting comfortably over cash. They have said that it is not the way to bolster the sagging economy.

With already 5 per cent of the GDP going as revenue foregone, an additional cut in corporate tax rate providing a stimulus of Rs 1.45-lakh every year is only going to further weaken the tax revenue position. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has also hinted at a relief on the personal income tax in the next Budget.

To say that tax concessions will encourage businesses to invest more in greenfield projects, and eventually help in providing more jobs is not backed by international experience. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has shown that corporate rate tax cuts in the United States, which received a fillip after President Donald Trump took over, have neither brought in investments nor created jobs. The money the corporate saved was, instead, invested in the stock markets.

No wonder, the Indian stock markets too went into a celebration mode the day after the corporate tax rate cuts were announced.

While the celebrations still continue, and the inflow of foreign funds has increased after the tax rate cut, my worry remains about a large section of the poor who are finding it difficult to buy a Rs 5 pack of biscuits; about those who are struggling hard to market their crop harvest at a remunerative price; about those farm and non-farm workers who are finding it hard to secure a sustainable daily wage.

For the population in the poor category, especially in agriculture, no specific incentives are being announced. More so at a time when a study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (OECD-ICRIER) had earlier shown that farmers lost an estimated Rs 45 lakh crore in the 16-year period, from 2000-01 to 2016-17, on account of being denied the right price. Niti Aayog’s own estimates showed the growth in real farm incomes, in the past two years, to be ‘near zero’.

In other words, for two decades in a row, farmers have been at the receiving end, with almost stagnant or declining incomes. It only elaborates the primary reason behind what is seen as a deepening survival crisis. The growth rate in farm wages, too, has been slipping. When agriculture, which engages nearly 50 per cent of the population, is in a crisis, the reverberations it carries on the economy are bound to be intense.

The revival of agriculture, therefore, holds the key. If there is one sector of the economy which is in dire need of an economic stimulus, it is agriculture. The time is appropriate to compensate farmers.

To begin with, if an amount equivalent to the Rs 1.45-lakh-crore tax relief per year to the industry was allocated, instead, to agriculture, it would triple the direct income support amount under the PM-Kisan scheme to Rs 18,000 per year (Rs 1,500 per farmer per month) and extend the scheme to landless farmers as well. Already Rs 75,000 crore is allocated for the PM-Kisan scheme, which needs to be raised by adding another Rs 1.45-lakh crore. The more money in the hands of the poor, the more will be the demand generated, which is the crying need.

Follow it up with measures to make public procurement more effective, expand the network of APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee)-regulated mandis; and assure MSP (minimum support price) for all crops for which it is announced, meeting the gap in MSP and market prices by deficiency payments. In addition, drawing from the experience of Kerala, set up a debt relief commission in every state. And invest more in rural roads and public services like schools and health centres in rural areas.#

Agriculture in need of economic stimulus. The Tribune. Dec 17, 2019

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/agriculture-in-need-of-economic-stimulus-12963?fbclid=IwAR3dUiV_lrhgeDZoRrk7F4GopZvivR47CFrrJnIau7d_7B5SCIHzX9cu2K0

READ MORE - Agriculture is in need of an economic stimulus

Peeling the layers of Onion crisis

Pic courtesy: Economic Times

With a significant shortfall in onion production this year, the onion price rise has left consumers teary-eyed.

For over two months now, onion prices have been on the boil. While prices crossed the benchmark Rs 100/kg in several parts of the country, touching Rs 150/kg or more in some metropolitan cities on certain days, an over-cautious government had earlier swung into a fire-fighting mode to bring down the prices. It followed the usual pattern -- first, enhancing the minimum export price to $850 per tonne (the rate below which exports are not allowed), and when the prices still continued to climb, clamp a complete ban on exports. This was accompanied by reducing the stock holding limit for wholesalers and retailers, and a strict warning of a crackdown on hoarding. At the same time, a frenzied search was made for onion supplies from countries from where immediate imports could be allowed.  

Placing an order for imports of 6,090 tonnes of onion from Egypt, another 11,000 tonnes from Turkey and finally directing the state-run MMTC to import one lakh tonne of onion, the government had even relaxed the fumigation norms at the time of imports against pests and diseases. While the supplies from Egypt have started to trickle in, most imports are unlikely to materialise before mid-January. Meanwhile, 110 trucks of onions arrived at the Attari border in Punjab from Afghanistan on Monday, and more are likely to follow in the days to come. There is no denying that the imports will certainly bring some psychological relief to the heated market sentiments prevailing, but it isn’t going to make much difference in offsetting the production shortfall. After all, the total imports contracted so far does not exceed 1.5-lakh tonnes, and considering that roughly 50,000 tonnes is the daily requirement, the imports will be enough for only three days consumption. The government had earlier allowed import of 1 million tonne of onions. 

Excessive rains in the two major onion growing states -- Maharashtra and Karnataka – which produce around 50 per cent of the country’s onion requirement resulted in a shortfall in production. After an initial round of dry spell excessive rainfall followed coinciding with the harvest period. A delayed withdrawal of monsoon rains from Maharashtra and Karnataka added to farmers’ woes by affecting harvesting. According to news reports, at the time of harvesting that staggers from early October to early November, Maharashtra alone received 1.5 times the average rainfall. In Karnataka, roughly 45 per cent of the area under onion was hit by untimely rains at the time of harvest.

The unseasonal rains at the time of harvest, which many attribute to climate change, had pulled down the official production estimates by 18-lakh tonnes. This was enough to send the prices spiralling.

But as it normally happens, the trade is more than eager to take advantage of the supply demand gap, thereby driving the market prices up north. As a knee-jerk reaction, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution had first imposed a stock limit of 50 tonnes for wholesalers and 10 tonnes for the retailers to improve domestic supplies. It subsequently reduced the limit to 25 tonnes for wholesalers and 5 tonnes for retailers. And when the pressure from the retail trade grew, essentially from the organised retail, the stock holding limit for retailers was further reduced to 2 tonnes. The importers however were kept free from these norms for the imported stocks of onions. At the same time, there was a build up in the demand for putting an end to unnecessary harassment of traders. Last week, the Karnataka traders, and earlier Andhra Pradesh traders, had officially conveyed their resentment to the State governments seeking an immediate stop to raids by Vigilance and Enforcement officials.

This year, onion production has seen a drop by a quarter in productions but still this is no justification for prices to spiral out of reach of a common household when the higher prices have not translated into higher prices for farmers. While video of a Maharashtra farmer selling onions at about Rs 8 per kg had gone viral, farmers have remained more or less at the receiving end. In early December, wholesale prices did jump to Rs 60 to Rs 70 per kilo in Solapur APMC market but the benefit was largely reaped by traders who had hoarded the produce. In Karnataka, farmers say the best price they received was Rs 25 to Rs 30 per kg, with most of them getting not more than Rs 18-20 per kg. In Andhra Pradesh, some farmers claim they got a price of Rs 60 per kg for the late harvested crop but a majority ended with a price not exceeding Rs 30 per kg. Generally, the market prices remain low when farmers have something to sell. But when the prices begin to sky rocket, the traders make a windfall, selling onions they had already purchased from growers.

That the consumers finally paid a price three to four times more than the price at which the farmers were able to sell is a clear pointer to the well-oiled cartels that operate. Otherwise I see no reason why onions should cost Rs 120 a kilo when what the farmers received was less than Rs 30 a kilo. The government’s stern warning to wholesale and retail trade notwithstanding, the fact remains that when the going gets tough, politicians as well as industry associations jump in building pressure to go soft on the trade. Even way back in 2010, when retail prices for onions had increased from Rs 35 per kg to Rs 70 per kg, there was no plausible reason behind the price hike except for large scale hoarding. Interestingly, 2010 was a year when the supply was 20 per cent higher with an additional one million tonne high output. There was no supply constraint and yet the prices had ruled high. Subsequently, the spike in onion prices in 2011 and later in 2013 when prices shot up by 400 per cent against a production drop of barely 4 per cent, the unwarranted rise in prices was actually played out well by the onion cartels.

While it has become customary to issue warnings to hoarders, the fact remains successive governments have failed to tame the trade, both wholesale and retail. Instead much of the blame is shifted to the lack of adequate storage at the farm level. If only farmers could hold on to onion harvests for some weeks before the prices begin to rise, the argument is that farmers would not be forced to dispose off their produce at a low price. Like in Nov-Dec last year, farmers received a price as low as 30 paise a kilo and many farmers had dumped onions on the streets. Strangely, there was no hysterical media at that time drawing the nation’s attention to farmer’s plight as if the terrible economic hardship that farmers have to undergo is of no consequence. It is only when prices begin to firm up in the cities that the media begins to howl.

Well, there is no denying that the government needs to provide support to farmers for building more storage capacity, but the problem is much beyond storage. If storage alone was the problem, I see no reason why onion growers in America, who have state-of-art storage facilities, are finding it difficult to sell. In Florida, farmers are not getting more than $ 2.50 for a three-pound bag, which is less than the cost of production. In fact, an American farmer tweeted the other day saying that the price she is getting this year is exactly the same price at which she sold onions 30 years back. No wonder, while it is the trade which exploits gullible onion farmers in India, it is the Supermarkets that fleece farmers in America. Mainline economists want market linked solution to the recurring onion crisis but fail to explain why the markets in America are unable to help onion growers.

Since the markets have failed to provide farmers with the rightful price, there is a dire need to bring in a price stabilisation fund for farmers. At present, there exists a Rs 500-crore price stabilisation fund that is primarily meant to subsidise onion sales for the consumers. In addition to creating a mechanism to meet price fall for the producers, the need is to adopt a cooperative structure for tomato-potato-onion (TOP) production and marketing on the pattern of Amul cooperative. The Milk Man, the late Dr Verghese Kurien, had in fact planned Mother Dairy outlets for vegetables on the lines of milk cooperatives. It is time to reclaim the space, and usher in a cooperative movement for vegetables. That’s the only way to get a respite from the volatility in prices, both for the producers and the consumers. #

Rise in onion prices: A cooperative movement for veggies need of the hour. National Herald. Dec 15, 2019. https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/rise-in-onion-prices-a-cooperative-movement-for-veggies-need-of-the-hour?fbclid=IwAR069wW5l4R7zTFEipB7L_gSP22EqLpSXivGJ9lFBYiRzw2hdqvvyJC6600

READ MORE - Peeling the layers of Onion crisis

Suicide Warnings, School Legal Requirements in California- Is Parent Notification Included In Your District Policy?

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

California public schools can be places of great joy, and terrible sorrow.  We all know that kids really can have it rough, and sometimes they don't talk to their parents to let them know they are suffering.  To address this, California public schools must, per state law, have a current Suicide Awareness Policy, which includes training for staff.

School districts are mandated, to have such a policy in all schools where seventh-twelfth graders attend (e.g. junior and high schools, or even K-8 schools if they cover seventh grade or up). This policy should address the needs of youth who are considered "high-risk" who are defined per Education Code §215(a)(1) as:

1)  Youth bereaved by suicide. [e.g. someone they know killed themselves]

2)  Youth with disabilities, mental illness, or substance use disorders.
3) Youth experiencing homelessness or in out-of-home settings, such as foster care.
4)  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning youth.

The policy must contain training guidelines for school staff and information on when and how to inform families of suicide prevention services.

One glaring omission in the code is a mandate to inform parents when a student expresses suicidal thoughts.  So, although a Suicide Awareness Policy may be in effect, that does not mean parents will be informed.

Additionally, sometimes schools report students to mental health authorities for an involuntary evaluation if they think the child presents a danger to themselves or others, with no warning to parents (called a "5150 hold" see Welfare and Institutions Code §5150).  

Over the years, I have had many worried parents who found their child (sometimes a disabled child who may be lacking in certain communication skills), was shipped off by their school to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation, with no call to a parent first, after an allegedly alarming communication.  Child Protective Services (CPS) may also become involved.

It is a sad day for parents when a child is moved to a psychiatric ward without forewarning, as the impacts can be devastating for a child and their family.  Yes, schools should act on true threats, but parents rights to provide medical or other care must be balanced into the mix.  It is a tough wire to walk for all concerned.

As the code does not define what should go into the school policy, and identifies that "stakeholders" must be involved in developing the policy, I would suggest that parents, although not specifically named in the code as "stakeholders," should be included in a policy's development and improvement.  

Parents may want to research their district/school policy and see if the policy includes a notification to PARENTS of issues that arise.  

Some parents may already have a family doctor or therapist, may have alternative mental health services available, or may simply be able to address the alleged issues directly with their child.  If the policy does not include parents in the mix (e.g. no required notification of parents when suicidal thoughts expressed), parents may be completely unaware of a suicidal communication from their child, which can lead to devastating consequences if the child acts on their threats.

Simply, if parents are not notified, they cannot act to help their child, and sometimes they may not know of their child's pleas until it is too late.

Ultimately, kids need monitoring in school and competent, thoughtful communication between responsible adults and their families who love them.  Parents and all those who are responsible for them, can't help them if they don't know.  As such, parents may want to make sure they are part of the school notification loop before it is too late.

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!]

READ MORE - Suicide Warnings, School Legal Requirements in California- Is Parent Notification Included In Your District Policy?

Northern Ireland Journalists:
Do yourself a favor-Don't call yourself a peace journalist
Anyone engaging in peace work anywhere in the world has learned the discouraging, ironic truth about the word “peace.”

The word “peace” is incendiary, and provides a blank screen upon which self-righteous critics and “glass half empty” skeptics project their anger, ignorance, and cynicism. In fact, in some places, leading discussions about peace can be dangerous. Just ask the colleagues and friends of Shujaat Bukhari, a newspaper editor who was shot and killed outside his papers’ office in Kashmir. His crime: embracing non-inflammatory, non-sectarian reporting and leading discussions about peace in Kashmir. Or, ask my journalism colleagues in Cameroon, where discussing peace can arouse the suspicions of both government authorities and rebels which in turn can get one arrested or kidnapped. This happened to me: gendarmes shut down a peace journalism seminar I was conducting in Cameroon, and threatened to arrest all presenters and attendees.

Then there’s Northern Ireland, where mention of the word “peace” won’t get you kidnapped or killed, but will subject you to sneering derision. I know, since I’ve written about peace journalism in Northern Ireland and made several visits there this year for peace journalism seminars and workshops. A recent spate of columns, broadcasts, and social media posts have taken aim at anyone who has the audacity to link the words “peace” and “journalism.”

Take Alex Kane’s recent column in Newsletter:

   "Over the past couple of decades I have heard a number of academics (and some politicians, as it         happens) push something which is described as ‘peace journalism.’ It’s the Pollyanna approach to       politics: no matter how bad things may look on the surface, and no matter how much worse you         actually know them to be below the surface, you should simply ignore that reality and find                   something positive to say. Yet nobody ever asks why, if things really are so good, the Pollyannas         rarely offer anything more substantial than, 'Well, it’s better than it used to be.'” (25 Nov. 2019)

In another example, on the BBC’s The Nolan Show (21 Nov. 2019), one speaker said that there is a presumption that “for peace journalism to work” in support of the peace process, it must look closely at unionist politicians, but avoid looking into the “deep, dark hole” of Sinn Fein politics.

Finally, a Twitter discussion recently suggested that a peace journalist would “kill” an accurate story if this story damaged the peace process.

These criticisms are all off base, and reflect a complete misunderstanding of the nature and goals of peace journalism. Yet, I’m coming to realize that all the corrections in the world in defense of peace journalism won’t help skeptics understand what PJ really does, since all they seem to see is the word “peace” and its accompanying baggage.

In fact, as long as peace journalism contains the word “peace,” it will be criticized not for what it actually proposes, but for what its critics ignorantly and erroneously project onto the concept.

So, rather than spending our precious time and energy putting our fingers in the dyke leaking misinformation about peace journalism, perhaps peace journalism proponents should direct discussions away from the term peace journalism, and more towards its concepts.

Let me start.  Journalists and journalism academics and students in Northern Ireland, do you agree with these principles?

--Journalists should avoid inflammatory, sensational language that exacerbates or fuels conflict
--Journalists should reject “us vs. them” narratives and instead build bridges between communities
--Journalists should lead societal discussions about solutions (without advocating for any one solution)
--Journalists should balance their stories by giving peace proposals and peacebuilders a voice proportionate to voices of those advocating violence and war (without advocating for peace)
--Journalists should give a voice to the voiceless in their societies—victims, migrants, women, etc.
--Journalists should reject formulaic, stereotyping coverage and instead offer counternarratives about marginalized groups and perceived enemies (“them”)

Northern Irish journalists, if you embrace these concepts, do yourself a favor and don’t call yourself a peace journalist. Say that you’re a good journalist, or a socially responsible reporter—anything that doesn’t use the word “peace.” What really matters anyway is promoting and practicing these principles of good, fundamental journalism, regardless of what the label we use.

READ MORE -