AIPSN is releasing videos on the occasion of NSTD 2025 in which scientists and others go into the some aspects related to scientific temper. They are available on AIPSN YouTube channel @aipsnmedia
https://youtu.be/JekBsVdy6eM?si=Az5vrYNFaUl0rFnC
Click here to read the full version
Click here to read a short version
6 Aug 2025
80 Years After Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Need Total Nuclear Disarmament
The All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) strongly condemns the development, use, and continued deployment of nuclear weapons. It calls for the rebuilding of a global people’s movement dedicated to peace, against war and militarism, and in particular for complete nuclear disarmament. In a significant move, a gathering of Nobel Laureates issued a declaration in July 2025 calling for the prevention of nuclear war—the first such unified statement from that community.
Eighty years have passed since the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, during the closing stages of World War II. Japan was looking for ways to surrender, having already been decisively defeated. Still, hundreds of thousands of civilians, including children and the elderly, were killed when the bombs were used. About 350,000 people had perished as a result of the bombings by the end of 1945, and both cities were completely destroyed. The extent of the damage to civilians was never seen before in human history.
Following the war, the world entered a prolonged arms race. By the 1980s, the global nuclear arsenal had ballooned to nearly 70,000 weapons. Since then, arms control agreements have reduced this number to an estimated 12,000. However, the threat has not diminished. India and Pakistan became nuclear-armed states by the end of the 20th century. Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons has led to decades of sanctions and, more recently, direct military attacks by Israel and the U.S.—despite the fact that Israel itself is the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East.
The nuclear weapons of today are far more potent than those of 1945. Delivery systems are more accurate, faster, and lethal, including submarine-launched missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). A new level of uncertainty and possible risk is introduced by the use of cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence in command, control, and targeting systems, which have the potential to further enhance nuclear arsenals’ destructive potential. Some contend that “nuclear deterrence” is effective because there haven’t been any nuclear weapons deployed in the previous 80 years. However, the threat of widespread civilian casualties and complete devastation is what deterrence is based on. It is against international humanitarian law, unethical, and morally repugnant. The International Court of Justice has already ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with this body of law, which has been ratified by most United Nations member states.
Moreover, nuclear deterrence has not prevented wars between nuclear-armed states. Ukraine, backed by NATO, is fighting a long war against Russia, which has nuclear weapons. Similarly, there have been several small-scale battles and military stalemates between India and Pakistan. A nuclear war could result from any one of these disputes. Proponents of deterrence claim that it only functions between “responsible” states. However, this argument is useless in the current unstable geopolitical environment, which is marked by increasing instability, a disrespect for international norms, and provocative rhetoric from world leaders. Diplomatic solutions are jeopardized when superpowers like the US and Russia flagrantly breach international organizations and agreements.
The promises made by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have not been fulfilled. Under Article VI of the NPT, nuclear-armed countries pledge to pursue disarmament through sincere negotiations. This obligation has largely been ignored. Instead, nuclear powers, like the US, continue to upgrade their arsenals. They also oppose other international agreements and undermine institutions like the United Nations. The existence of non-NPT nuclear-armed states, such as Israel, emphasizes the NPT’s shortcomings even more. New risks have emerged as a result of recent events. Strikes have occurred close to nuclear or radioactive sites during conventional military conflicts, including the Dimona facility in Israel, the Kirana Hills in Pakistan, the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine, and the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities in Iran. Attacks near such sites risk catastrophic radioactive contamination and raise the threat of inadvertent nuclear disaster.
In order to eliminate the nuclear threat, AIPSN urges the adoption of measures that will reduce risk and lead to disarmament:
1. Recognize the threat of nuclear weapons to humanity: Declare that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons constitutes a crime against humanity; Prohibit all threats or uses of nuclear weapons until they are abolished.
2. Implement measures to build confidence such as: A “no first use” policy among nuclear states; Remove deployed nuclear weapons; Remove nuclear warheads from delivery systems; Revive the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; Prohibit militarization of outer space; Ban the development of new nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
3. Challenge legal and moral justifications: Reassert that Article 51 of the UN Charter (Right to Self-Defence) does not permit genocide or mass destruction; Reject the idea that nuclear states have any special right to possess or use such weapons; Expose the myth of deterrence – nuclear weapons do not protect life but they only guarantee mutual destruction.
A world under the shadow of nuclear weapons is not a world at peace. The suffering endured in Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never be repeated. AIPSN renews its call to end the nuclear threat by abolishing all nuclear weapons and rebuilding a powerful people’s movement for peace, disarmament and saving lives.
16 June 2025
AIPSN is deeply saddened by the horrendous crash on 12 June 2025 of Air India’s Boeing 787-8 “Dreamliner” flight AI-171 almost immediately after take-off at Ahmedabad heading for Gatwick, London. All but one of the 242 crew and passengers perished, tragically along with (so far) an additional 30 persons where the plane crashed into a medical college student’s mess and hostel.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has started its independent inquiry into the causes and circumstances surrounding the crash as called for by protocols of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). AAIB has started the important step of decoding the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Digital Flight Data Recorder (FDR) recovered from the crash site. It is understood that teams from the US and UK are also arriving in India to assist. The AAIB should also issue a public notice inviting suggestions from experts and interested persons.
However, for unexplained reasons, the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation has constituted a High Level Committee (HLC) to also inquire into the crash! Although the Order constituting the HLC states that it “will not be a substitute for other inquiries,” this is directly contradicted by its Objective to “ascertain the root cause of the crash,” assess factors such as mechanical failure, human error, weather conditions etc and examine the black boxes and aircraft maintenance records, interview Air Traffic Controllers, and collaborate with international agencies. All of these fall squarely under the ambit of the AAIB investigation as mandated by ICAO Article 13.
Clearly, the HLC is an undesirable parallel investigation which will, by virtue of its backing by highest levels of government, undermine the AAIB investigation. AIPSN calls upon the Ministry of Civil Aviation to immediately revise Terms of Reference of the HLC, and remove all objectives, scope of work and mandates which overlap those of the AAIB investigation.
It is to be noted that India constituted the AAIB precisely to address the prolonged dispute with ICAO regarding perceived government interference and conflict of interest in DGCA being the regulator, certifying authority and safety inspector also conducting accident inquiries over decades. The formation of HLC reignites this controversy by interfering with the AAIB inquiry. Air accident investigations are best left to professionals and experts.
At the same time, AIPSN welcomes the broader scope of the HLC inquiry for promotion of aviation safety, excluding investigation into the crash. In Ahmedabad, the aircraft crashed into a 5-storey medical college building just 1.5km from the airport, but there were larger hospitals and establishments in crowded areas nearby, missed only by chance. Recommendations of earlier crash inquiries regarding norms for operations at “table-top” airports, distance of settlements from airports, maintenance of airports, specifications for runway end safety areas (RESA) etc, are crying out for standards, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement in the interests of public, passengers, crew, and aircraft safety. The HLC would indeed perform a valuable service if it addressed these aspects holistically.
Many questions are being raised in the US and elsewhere about the safety record of Boeing, in the context of widely publicized whistleblower accounts of manufacturing malpractices affecting safety of Boeing aircraft. Any Government intervention at this stage will raise unnecessary suspicions around the world.
Asha Mishra Satyajit Rath
General Secretary, AIPSN President, AIPSN
27 May 2025
The All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) strongly condemns the action of the Haryana police lodging FIRs at the direction of the chair of the Haryana State Women’s Commission and others against Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, Associate Professor at Ashoka University, and his subsequent arrest for his social media posts which were in the public domain. AIPSN also views with concern the subsequent pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court two judge bench while giving interim bail. Stringent restrictions of freedom have been imposed and formation of SIT has been ordered even while no criminal intent was found.
The whole process is not just an attack on Dr. Mahmudabad’s right to freedom of speech and expression but an unlawful denial of his right to personal liberty. The lodging of the FIRs by itself required no custodial interrogation, given that his movements and place of residence and work were known.
We condemn the action of the state police which chose to go ahead with two FIRs, arrested him and sought extension of his police custody to more than a week to harass him. It is apparent that in an effort to drum up so called public opinion and influence judicial decision making, several vice chancellors were mobilized to send a message to academics to remain quiet. It is apparent that legitimate opinions on the developments in the country which differ from the official government narrative are not being tolerated but being treated as a crime.
Clearly, the social media posts neither contained any divisive overtone nor a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India, as alleged. Dr. Mahmudabad spoke on a matter of public interest and expressed a view that many people may share. The AIPSN believes that we cannot remain silent because the arrest of Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad is an issue of wider concern for the scientific community and for society. As the citizens of a constitutional democracy, we are concerned that the freedom of people to express themselves and to be informed by scholars is under threat now. The attack on him is not just an attack on academic freedom but it is an attack on the democratic rights of the people.
With due respect for the Honourable Court, we believe that the court went beyond the call of duty in commenting on the case in a manner that led to the impression that any departure from the official narrative of the state would lead to an arrest. We are disturbed that an academic who should enjoy academic freedom is facing an SIT for merely expressing his opinion.
The court order issued is seemingly a gag order, restraining him from expressing his opinion and depriving his students of the benefit of his views on matters of public interest.
Although Dr Mahmudabad has been released on interim bail, we are deeply concerned about the entire premise of the complaints filed against him.
The legal system is operating in a selective form against a chosen few who are perceived to be political and ideological opponents of the regime. Persecution is replacing prosecution and the process itself is becoming a punishment. And it is not the rule of law but the rule of the police that is in operation.
The proceedings on this matter do not augur well for a constitutional democracy founded in the wake of a glorious struggle of the Indian people against the British rulers who often used the provision of sedition to put the freedom fighters behind bars for expressing themselves in public. The complaints filed against him under several sections including Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita for alleged “acts endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity” make a mockery of the right to freedom of expression.
Since the official motive behind the arrest is unsupportable, the severity in approach towards Dr. Mahmudabad gives reason to believe that a Muslim is being targeted for his identity.
Dr. Mahmudabad’s social media posts, which critique jingoism and underscore the human cost of war, fall squarely within the realm of legally protected right to speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. His remarks, including concerns about communal polarisation and the imperative to safeguard marginalised communities, reflect a commitment to constitutional values. To equate such critiques with “sedition” or threats to sovereignty is morally and legally untenable. It is an attempt to undermine the very foundations and ethos of constitutional democracy.
We disagree that Dr. Mahmudabad’s nuanced commentary, which seeks to locate the role of women officers within the larger context of the current political scenario, is any form of “disparagement” of women or an “attempt to create disunity”. His posts explicitly lauded the armed forces’ professionalism while urging vigilance in protecting the socially oppressed from state-sanctioned, communally motivated persecution.
While appreciating the fact that Dr. Mahmudabad has been provided interim bail, we wonder why the SIT has been constituted, even though the court noted that it has found nothing incriminating in the posts. The restrictions imposed on him deprive him of his constitutional rights and the order signals that any form of reasoned disagreement with government policies—no matter how well-founded – may be met with criminal proceedings and loss of liberty.
AIPSN notes that critical pedagogy and dissent are essential pillars of democracy and the rule of law. The AIPSN stands in solidarity with Dr Mahmudabad and calls for immediate withdrawal of all charges against him which are legally baseless in their entirety. We hail the solidarity shown by Ashoka University students and faculty and salute the larger academic community that has come out to stand in solidarity with Dr. Mahmudabad.
The AIPSN calls upon the Honourable Court to recall the order and recognise the action of the state as a misuse of law and take remedial action to protect his right to free speech and liberty. AIPSN resolves to continue the struggle to protect and uphold the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression.
Asha Mishra Satyajit Rath
General Secretary, AIPSN President, AIPSN
Click here to download pdf in letter head
ALL INDIA PEOPLE’S SCIENCE NETWORK (AIPSN)
With the passing of Dr. Jayant Narlikar on May 20th 2025, the world has lost an outstanding Astrophysicist and Relativist, and India, one of its most eminent scientists . In addition to his important research contributions, Prof. Narlikar made outstanding contributions in the area of scientific outreach. He authored numerous popular books and articles on Astronomy, Cosmology, History of science, science fiction, in Marathi, English and Hindi. In the field of science and mathematics education, he along with his life partner Dr. Mangala Narlikar, played leadership roles in curricular and textbook development at both the national level and at the Maharashtra state level. He was the founder Director of the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, which developed under his leadership as a world renowned centre for scientific research as well as public outreach in science.
In his preface to his book ‘The Scientific Edge: The Indian Scientist from Vedic to Modern Times’, Prof. Narlikar writes “ When as a young lad of twenty-two I enrolled myself as a research student in science my aim was to restrict my attention and career to research in astronomy. More than four decades later, I see that aim as confining myself to the proverbial ivory tower.
Indeed it was fortunate that my research supervisor was Fred Hoyle, a man hailed as the most original astronomer of the twentieth century and a distinguished popularizer of science and a writer of science fiction. A close association with him gradually introduced me to the wider vista of the interaction of science and society as well as the subject of the historical evolution of science. Hoyle’s example showed me that it is possible to maintain a satisfactory level of research productivity while enlarging one’s interest in these wider issues. In fact these interests provided a more mature background to my research.
So it was that while in the UK and later after having returned to India I continued and expanded these interests through writing and lecturing. I discovered that the evolution of science in the subcontinent has followed a different track from that in the West. While interacting with the public one runs into two different viewpoints. On the one hand there is awareness that for various reasons India mounted the bus of science and technology rather late and has to make up for this. On the other hand , there is the feeling that in our ancient past we led the world in knowledge. More often than not these views are stated with undue vigour”
In his writings and speeches , Prof. Narlikar consistently articulated a critical view of undue or ahistorical glorification of the past and stood unambiguously with those promoting scientific temper. Together with Dr, Narendra Dabholkar and two others, he authored a research paper which clinchingly demolished any claim of astrology to being scientific . A few weeks after the martyrdom of Dr. Dabholkar in 2013, he presented these ideas and explained the importance of scientific temper, secularism and the values of the Indian constitution as the keynote speaker to a mass public meeting organised in Pune to protest the murder.
When the AIPSN resolved in 2018 and joined hands with MANS to initiate observance of August 20th as National Scientific Temper Day, Prof. Narlikar was the first signatory to the joint AIPSN-MANS appeal for schools , colleges and organizations to publicly observe NSTD each year. He was the main speaker the first NSTD public meeting held on the eve of NSTD 2018 in Pune in which he spoke eloquently and movingly about his association with Dr. Narendra Dabholkar.
The scientific work and writings of Prof. Narlikar will continue to inspire coming generations of young scientists. The AIPSN pays respectful homage to this great scientist, science publicist and promoter of scientific temper.
Asha Mishra Satyajit Rath
General Secretary, AIPSN President, AIPSN
09 Feb 2025
To
Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
New Delhi- 110 003
e-mail: sohsmd-mef@gov.in
Sub: AIPSN Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024
Ref: Yr. Gazette Notification dt 9.12.2024
Please find below the comments from All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) on the Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024.
The comments are regarding Segregation at household level, Segregation after Collection at Waste Collector/Processing Facilities, Waste pickers, Waste to Energy (WtE) Plants, Sanitary/Operational Landfills & Existing Dumpsites, Over-centralization, Monitoring in public domain and Penalties.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this document.
The comments received and the action taken should be put in the public domain in the interests of transparency.
Yours sincerely
Asha Mishra
General Secretary, AIPSN
AIPSN Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024 (hereafter SWM 2024)
1) Segregation at household level At the very outset, SWM 2024 sets itself for failure by imposing an onerous responsibility on the household waste generator, namely to segregate and hand over 4 (four) segregated waste streams to the waste collector viz. wet waste, dry (recyclable waste), sanitary waste and “special” or bio-medical or other hazardous waste, and also requires the householder to separately store and dispose of horticultural/garden waste and construction and demolition waste (CDW)! Even now, India is struggling to ensure that households (HH) even segregate into 2 streams (wet and dry waste). One understands that technically, garden waste is different from kitchen/ food waste but again to expect HH to segregate these is too much. 2 Streams from HH are adequate, and the rest should be left to the Segregation/Pre-processing/ Waste Processing facilities as further defined in the Draft Rules.
2) Segregation after Collection at Waste Collector/Processing Facilities is the achilles’ heel of SWM systems. Improper segregation causes multiple problems at Dumpyards, Waste to Energy (WtE) plants etc. This is not emphasized enough in the Rules. Payments to Waste pre-processing Contractors (the system most Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) are following these days) should be linked to the extent of Segregation achieved, not total quantity of Solid Waste handled as provided for.
3) Waste pickers can play a significant role in proper segregation, and have not been adequately emphasized in the Draft SWM2024. Peculiarly, their role has been stressed in Rural Areas, where even the role of CSOs in organizing them has been mentioned, but not in Urban Areas! New clauses should be inserted calling upon ULBs to actively involve Waste Pickers organised in SHGs or other collectives, hopefully with CSO assistance, and incentivize them through payments for segregation achieved and share from sale of recyclables to recycling units as provided for in the Rules.
4) Waste to Energy (WtE) Plants There is huge confusion in the Rules regarding WtE or other methods of processing dry/recyclable waste. Chapter II.9.1 says that non-recyclable waste with high Calorific Value shall only be used to produce Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) or given to a facility producing RDF, but various other parts of the Draft SWM Rules 2024 appear to suggest that WtE Plants would be directly using such wastes. Simultaneously, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) is encouraged (Chapter VII(2)(xii) to “drive” setting up of “adequate numbers” of WtE plants by 2028, contradicting other parts of the Rules underplaying WtE and speaking only of RDF. This appears to be a thinly disguised attempt at making WtE plants using the Incineration method a mainstay of the SWM system. Although the Draft Rules specify standards for emissions from WtE Plants, which are close to EU standards, experience from Delhi so far clearly testifies to highly inefficient, non-conforming and polluting WtEs, often if not mostly using unsegregated solid waste. Without going into details, Incineration-based WtE Systems have been a total disaster in India and should be avoided altogether, or strictly defined and monitored as regards process, technology, temperature, emissions etc.
5) Sanitary/Operational Landfills & Existing Dumpsites A similar situation obtains regarding Sanitary/ Operational Landfills (Chapter III.1) and Existing Dumpsites (Chapter III.2). Both these very different systems are spoken of in different places of the Draft SWM2024 with various different specifications, technologies and standards. Chapter III.1.(4) states that “only non-recyclable and non-energy recoverable dry wastes and inerts shall be disposed of” in Sanitary/Operational Landfills,” while Schedule I governing Specifications for Sanitary Landfills say Landfill gas including collection and utilization “should be considered,” (Schedule I(F)(i) to (iii), incidentally without specifying methane emission limits, clearly implying that Landfills can also be used for wet/bio-degradable wastes! Further, the Draft Rules in III.1(5) and.1(6) provide for charging fees for dumping unsegregated solid wastes “till the time” proper Sanitary Landfills are built and made operational, without specifying any outer time limit! This is not acceptable. Especially so, since provisions for Existing Dumpsites speak only of Mapping by 2026 (III.2(a)) and talk of bio-mining and bio-remediation only “as practicable.” If the current provisions in the Draft SWM2024 remain, it suggests that unsanitary Dumpyards will likely continue well into the future. Some time may be given to Local Bodies to shift completely away from Dumpyards, but Sanitary Landfills should be unambiguously defined in the Rules.
6) Over-centralization The Draft SWM2024 calls for vast amounts of information including monitoring details to be uploaded into a Centralized portal. This is an unnecessary over-burdening of a single Portal and an unnecessary degree of over-centralization. It is suggested that all Information be uploaded in State portals and then also compiled into a single National-level portal. This will make State Governments more partners of SWM processes than they appear to be at present.
7) Monitoring in public domain and Penalties Most of the penalties and fines seem aimed at the first rung of the waste-management chain namely the household, who can be penalized even by the Waste Collector (!), or contracted (private) facility operators for simple or obvious infractions. For example, the Draft speaks of heavy penalties for anyone burning horticultural or garden wastes (IV(7)). However, there is no mention of monitoring of performance of Local Bodies (LB) or their licensed operators and penalties for failures to adequately or properly collect, segregate, handle, treat etc. For example, if a LB continues to run Dumpsites with unsegregated waste, or a WtE Operator does not ensure conformity to air pollution standards, what will be the penalties? There is also no provision for making public the data from Monitoring of pollution levels of air, ground, water bodies or sub-soil water. Without provisions for these, and without strict timelines for the Rules, the Draft SWM Rules 2024 will remain a paper tiger with a set of pious expectations.
For Contact:
Asha Mishra D. Raghunandan
General Secretary, AIPSN Convenor, Environment Desk, AIPSN
Mobile: 9425302012 Mobile 9810098621
Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com Email: raghunandan.d@gmail.com
The feedback was accompanied by a cover letter signed by the General Secretary on AIPSN letter head .
The text of the letter and feedback is given below
02 Feb 2025
To
Prof. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar
Chairman, UGC
Sub: Feedback on the draft UGC Regulations 2025
Ref: UGC Secretary Lr No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025
Based on the request in your above referred letter from the UGC site, please find attached the feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025
Do acknowledge the receipt of this document.
Look forward to having all the inputs received made available publicly.
There are 11 points of concern that AIPSN has raised in the 2 pages below. Importantly AIPSN demands the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC Regulations-2025 which goes against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate.
Yours sincerely
Asha Mishra
General Secretary, AIPSN
Mobile: 9425302012
cc: Secretary, UGC Email: secy.ugc@nic.in
02 Feb 2025
Feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025
UGC Secretary Lr. No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025
Points of serious concern:
We demand the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC regulations-January 2025 which go against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate
For Contact:
Asha Mishra P.Rajamanickam
General Secretary, AIPSN Convenor, Higher Education Desk AIPSN
Mobile: 9425302012 Mobile 9698025569
Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com Email: rajamanickamponniah@gmail.com
QR code for 18AIPSC photos Click here for the URL
QRcode for 18AIPSC presentations Click here for the URL
6 Nov 2024
With the passing of Professor Parthiba Basu, on 4th November 2024 at Kolkata, at the fairly young age of 60 years, the All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN), People’s Science Movement (PSM) and the larger democratic movement has suffered a heavy loss, losing a colleague whom people from many walks of life would turn to on various political, organizational, administrative and personal issues.
Hailing from a family with a long active background in left and democratic politics, Parthiba Basu joined the PSM in the late 1980’s, when he was a doctoral scholar at the newly established Central University, Pondicherry. For several years Parthiba was an active member of the Pondicherry Science Forum (PSF) and maintained links with the PSMs in South India, particularly with those of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. For the last thirty years, he was a leading member of the Pashchim Banga Vigyan Mancha (PBVM).
As an academic and researcher, Dr. Parthiba Basu contributed to wide areas of ecological sciences, with intensive fieldwork followed by modeling, for which had gained recognition amongst his peers, in national and international levels. Notably,he was awarded the Boyscast, Smithsonian and Darwin fellowships. He and his group focused on problems of pollination, which has a deep bearing on food production and food security. He was a core member of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations’ Pollination Action Team, where he articulated steps to mitigate pollination loss globally. Under Professor Parthiba Basu’s guidance about twenty researchers have completed their doctorate degrees and some more will submit their theses soon.
Dr. Parthiba Basu had several research collaborations at the national and international levels. He considered agroecology to be a field that combined science, transformative practice and social movement. In the last decade or so, he had trained about 100 resource persons in the field of agroecology, who continue to be active in this field giving important inputs in different branches of the field and to different communities and groups.
For the PSMs, he utilized this practical experience to impart training to PSM activists by intensive training in agroecology workshops. He was the convener of the AIPSN’s agriculture desk, since the 17th Congress at Bhopal, held in 2022.
Professor Parthiba Basu had a long career in teaching, at the college and university levels, establishing a living bond with students, teachers and administration. He served both as secretary and president of Calcutta University teachers’ association and was an active critic of NEP 2020. He fought for the democratic environment and autonomy in higher education. While activating his organization through different mass actions, he always kept the movement’s focus on challenging the ideology of neoliberalism and facing the social threats that this ideology has unleashed upon people’s lives.
This challenge has intensified in the last few decades in India, more so, with the rise of communal, obscurantist, fascistic forces and corporate communalism. In such a scenario, Parthib articulated how PSM ideology, livelihood issues and agroecology itself can be built to counter this. In this, he emphasized “self-reliance for life and livelihood.”
His contributions to the PBVM encompassed many areas. Parthiba enriched the AIPSN as a whole, for which he was elected to the Executive Committee of the AIPSN in its 17th Congress in Bhopal in 2022.
Deeply interested in culture and politics, Parthiba Basu was deeply conversant with Bengali literature and was associated with many publications and publishers. While busy with several commitments, he also enjoyed his holidays, with long drives to different parts of the country.
The AIPSN, while mourning Parthiba’s passing, will celebrate his contributions to the movement and surge ahead.
The AIPSN conveys heartfelt deepest condolences to his family, friends, and comrades in the PSM and the PBVM. He was very eager to witness a very successful AIPSC 18, to be held in his own city, Kolkata. He will not be there with us at the congress. But its success will owe a great deal to the team, of which Parthiba, till the end of his life, remained a very important and inspiring member.
