policy

by

AIPSN Comments/Suggestions to Consultation Paper, 2021 on Proposed Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act (1980) released by MoEF&CC on 2.10.2021

Click here for the pdf of this post

1 Nov 2021

AIPSN Comments/Suggestions to Consultation Paper, 2021 on

Proposed Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 released by MoEF&CC on 2nd Oct 2021

click here to see the email sent to fca-amendment@gov.in 

Click here for the pdf of the letter sent to MoEFCC 

 

As per the Circular F. No. FC-11/61/2021-FC dt 20th Oct the last date for submitting comments/suggestions was given as 1.11.2021. Please find attached the AIPSN Comments/Suggestions to Consultation Paper, 2021 on Proposed Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 released by MoEF&CC on 2nd Oct 2021. All the comments received and the responses must be made publicly available with full transparency.

The All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) is the largest network of organizations working on policies and actions related to science, technology and society in India, comprising over 40 member organizations across the country. We would firstly draw attention to the fact that the response period to the Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was initially set at only 15 days from issue of the consultation paper and extended by 15 days only after requests for extension. It is essential that more time be given for public responses to enable wider consultation and more intensive discussions on such integral policy changes. Time period for such consultations should be at least 30 days as called for by the Pre-legislative Consultation Policy.

AIPSN also disapproves of the fact that no actual Text of Amendments are being put forward for Consultations, instead a “Consultation Paper” has been offered. This is not satisfactory, and it is also possibly not legally correct. Actual text of Amendments may have very different language, with quite different implications, that the language used in the Consultation Paper to which responses are now sought.

Nevertheless, we are submitting our comments and suggestions based on consultations with member organizations from different states and field level engagement with local communities, with the assumption that the Text of a proper set of Amendments will subsequently be re-circulated for comments by the public.

  1. Amidst global action on climate change, India’s Nationally Determined Commitments (NDC) under the Paris Agreement on climate change targets creating ‘carbon sink’ of additional 2.5 to 3.0 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. Along with the massive investments this would require in afforestation, maintaining and recovering forest cover, and prevention of deforestation, India has also pledged to restoration of among the largest amounts of degraded and deforested land in Asia, as part of the Bonn challenge. Forest policy is central to fulfilling these commitments and the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) 1980 lays the foundation for India’s current forest governance framework. The FCA (1980) prioritizes forest conservation and halting deforestation, and was a major shift away from the focus on timber extraction in the British era law, the FCA (1927). The Amendments in 1988 brought in provisions of participatory forest management and the Forest Rights Act (2006) further secured the rights of forest dwellers. Any further amendments to the FCA (1980) are therefore expected to continue strengthening people’s rights while enabling India to meet its forest and green cover targets, protect the rights of tribals and other forest dwellers, and promote sustainability.
  2. In this context, we are dismayed to see that the proposed Amendments to the FCA will neither help India meet its commitment targets nor secure the rights of the forest dwelling communities. Rather, the ‘Consultation Paper’ weakens regulatory systems and promotes transfer of forest land for non-forestry purposes through various means including effectively changing the definition of ‘forest’ land. At the same time, the rights of tribal people and other forest dependent communities fail to find a single mention in the Paper! In many cases where confusion or problems in existing FCA regulations are pointed out, only problems faced by private, corporate or institutional landowners are considered, but problems of forest-dwelling communities are never even mentioned, nor are ecological issues considered. And wherever solutions to such problems are offered, they often involve simply removing such situations from coverage under the FCA solutions, rather than providing for more effective regulation through consideration of the special circumstances. The possibility of providing for State-level regulation of such problem cases, which is likely to be more effective and provide a timely response, rather than solutions from distant Union Government authorities, is also never considered. The proposed amendments will therefore encourage private, corporate or other institutional takeover of lands earlier recognized as forest land for non-forestry purposes at the cost of both the local communities and the environment. Unfortunately, this follows recent trends in MoEFCC notifications and rules diluting environmental regulations such as the Draft EIA Notification 2020.

To elucidate and clarify the above, we offer the following detailed responses to different specific provisions in the Consultation Paper for consideration and hope that responses received and discussions leading to issue of Amendments etc be placed transparently in the public domain.  The numbering of Paragraphs below follows the numbering pattern in the Consultation Papers. The suggested Amendments seek to provide exemption of different kinds in various contexts for conversion of forest land to non-forestry purposes to private landowners, corporate entities and government departments or institutions. These are discussed below, with our suggestions recorded in some cases.

B1       describes various scenarios wherein, over the years, different kinds of lands have come to be defined as “forest” by different Local, State or Union authorities as also by what may be termed common law usage and customs, with some of these definitions as “forest” being termed “arbitrary.” The Discussion Paper claims that this results in all kinds of anomalies and injuries to interests of different parties, especially private land owners who are deprived of the right to use their private lands for non-forest purposes. The Paper goes on to argue that landowners often leave such land fallow and do not allow any vegetation to grow on it lest it be declared a “forest.” The Paper then recommends that the scope of application of the FCA be defined more in a “more objective manner.”

There is no evidence provided in the Paper as to the extent of such anomalies and the circumstances under which they arose. In many cases, such lands have been classified as “forests” by State Forest Departments and/or State Governments as a result of customary usage and practice with substantive rationale for the same which cannot be dismissed as “arbitrary.” There is also no recognition of the already existing distinction between unclassified forests, un-demarcated forests, deemed forests, protected forests, and reserved forests etc which cover many of the aspects touched upon in B1 and in defining which State Governments and State Forest Departments have a big role. The Paper also does not go into what the envisaged “objective criteria” may be to define “forests” and who will lay down these criteria. This is a prime example of why the Paper cannot be responded to as “Amendments” to the FCA since the latter would presumably have spelled out these criteria which could then be specifically responded to. As it stands, the problematic as stated in B1 lends itself to sweeping and equally arbitrary recommendations in the Paper.

If at all required, it is suggested that a comprehensive exercise be undertaken involving MOEF&CC, State Governments, State Forest Departments, representatives of tribal communities and other forest-dwellers and other stakeholders to evolve criteria to broadly categorize “forest lands” and examine in what manner provisions in the FCA could be applicable to them or whether any specific amendments are required in special categories. Formal Amendments to FCA may thereafter be formulated and placed appropriately in the public domain for scrutiny and comments. It is specifically recommended that no unilateral re-classification of “forest lands” by the MoEFCC be done on the basis of the vague “anomalies” described in B1.

B2       deals with lands currently held by different mostly Government agencies like the Railways and Ministry of Road Transport, particularly “Right of Way” (ROW) lands held on either side of the main non-forest projects for which exemption had been granted from FCA provisions. B2 argues that in some cases, the project agency has undertaken plantations under different Government programmes and had obtained classification of these plantations as “protected forests,” having in mind perhaps jatropha plantations for biodiesel etc., so as to obtain protection for such plantations. B2 claims that now there is considerable “resentment” among such Agencies about the restrictions accompanying such classification if they wish to use such ROW lands for non-forest purposes. B2 proposes to exempt all such lands acquired before the coming into effect of the FCA in 1980 from provisions of the Act.

It must be underlined here that these Agencies had, in the first place, obtained clearance for using these lands, perhaps much of them in forest areas, for non-forest purposes, and thereafter sought declaration as “forests” after 1980 when they benefited from it, and now want exemption from FCA when they feel they could benefit from non-forest uses of this land. It should further be noted, these lands have not been used for the originally sanctioned Projects. This whole issue is now further complicated by the fact that the Government now proposes to “monetize” many such assets through long-term leases to private parties, and therefore such benefits will accrue to these private and corporate parties, even though the ROW lands are not being used for the original purpose for which they were acquired.

As such, there is no justification for a blanket, unconditional exemption from FCA. Parties which consider themselves to be affected may seek such exemption and the cases may first be considered by the State Governments and their relevant agencies/committees who had given the lands for the projects in the first place, and then by the MoEFCC and its relevant Committees. Since the land is not being used for the original purpose, the concerned former land-owning agency may even rule that land be taken back by them.

 

B3 (i), (ii) and (iii)      deal with potential cases of private landowners allowing their lands to deliberately not only lie fallow, but clear of any vegetation or tree-like growth so as to ensure that they are not classified as “forest” which would then render these lands unusable by the farmer for any other purpose.   The Paper then recommends that provisions be made to ensure that these lands do not come under purview of the Act, arguing that this will enable “tree owners” to freely grow trees, thus aiding India’s tree cover and carbon sequestration programmes. This seems a rather odd recommendation considering that plantation is already widely practised in India for poplar, eucalyptus, teak and other species with due ability to cut trees for sale. If such lands are completely outside forests of any description and located in land otherwise classified as agricultural land, then there should be no difficulty in making suitable provision to allow the farmer to switch between tree plantation and any other farming activity. However, if such lands are located within any kind of “forest” as variously defined under the FCA and relevant Supreme Court rulings, then no such relaxation may be considered, as this would lead to rampant deforestation, corruption and false declaration of “non-forest land” even inside forests. It should be noted that similar provisions for “production forests” under PPP in so-called “degraded forest lands” as provided for in the Draft Indian Forest Act 2019 have been met with widespread objections from different quarters including the state governments.

B4       relates to supposed confusion or conflict regarding status of land as registered in revenue or forest records, and the possibility of doubt or litigation regarding tree plantation or “afforestation” projects in such lands, once again on the grounds of further enabling “agroforestry or other tree plantation systems.” It is not understood why this point figures in this Paper relating to possible amendments to the FCA. As in B3 above, provision may be made to allow aggrieved farmers engaging in plantation activities outside forests i.e. in agricultural land to apply to local relevant authorities to clarify status, with the understanding that tree plantation activities in non-forest agricultural lands be regarded on par with other kinds of cultivation, avoiding any possibility of getting included in the proposed amended FRA 2019 as “production forests.”

B5       suggests exemption for 0.05 ha for each road/rail access passing through strip plantations on either side of road/rail tracks to “amenities/habitations [that] have developed all along such lands.” There is much confusion here. For instance, it is not known whether such “amenities/habitations” are legal or are unauthorized, and if the latter why such access should be provided rather than these being removed from the forest lands. Secondly, it is also not clear how many such accesses of 0.05ha each will be required or constructed. Therefore, this is another case in which blanket exemption cannot be granted, rather case-by-case exemption may be granted based on examination of the specifics of each case. This is another case in point in which more reasoned response cannot be given unless the exact wording of the proposed Amendment is provided.

B6       calls for declaring certain areas as “pristine” in view of their unique ecological and other values, and suggests that this would require prohibiting non-forest activities which the current FCA may not permit being regulatory rather than prohibitory.  The clear implication is that at least some if not all human activities be prohibited in these areas. The proposal harks back to the idea of “Go- No Go” areas in forests once considered by the Ministry. Certain pristine and biodiversity-rich areas may indeed be kept away from industrial or commercial activities, and this is very much already in the hands of MoEFCC and its duly constituted Expert Committees, provided they are allowed to function on scientific basis without political interference biased in favour of “ease of doing business.”  Examination of properly and independently prepared EIA would enable protection of such pristine areas which have, however, been repeatedly violated by MoEFCC itself by permitting large-scale activities even in critical wildlife habitats. The recently amended Draft EIA 2020 is further evidence of the intention of the Government to provide exemption to many activities in ecologically sensitive areas. All such attempts are manifestly against the spirit of FCA and deserve to be opposed. Perhaps the real intention of this suggestion is to prohibit any human dwelling or other sustenance activity including for traditional tribal or forest-dweller inhabitants. No violation of the Forest Rights Act should be permitted through the back door. A properly drafted Amendment would clarify the real purpose of this suggestion, and clearly reasoned response can only be given after that.

B7       suggests blanket exemption for building infrastructure etc along the international border areas for securing strategic and security interests. Such exemption was also sought in the Draft EIA 2020 but was opposed by many when it was put forward for public response. AIPSN had suggested even in that case that blanket clearance of undefined “security interests” is untenable and that a case-by-case approach, with duly constituted Expert Committees cognizant of the security concerns, would be preferable rather than a blanket exemption.

B8       points to the confusion between Sub-sections 2(ii) and 2(iii) of the Act relating to mining and other such leases, and points out that while 2(iii) allows long-term leasing by paying only the NPV, the 2(ii) requires detailed and protracted procedures and payments, thus privileging 2(iii) and enabling project promoters to violate the letter and spirit of the Act in many ways. This is a serious matter and must be resolved, especially since all kinds of provisions are being made in favour of mining companies and similar industries citing “ease of doing business.” Therefore, in this case, it is essential that a properly formulated Amendment is put forward enabling a considered and reasoned response.

B9       proposes that technologies like Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) which are considered by the Ministry to be environmentally friendly should be exempt from purview of the Act.  Forest areas have buffer zones and inflows and outflows of rivers which could be affected by these and other similar new technologies. For instance, implementation of ERD in two projects in Assam has met with opposition. A case-to-case decision may be taken based on EIA and expert examination of impacts of the new technology rather than a blanket exemption.

B10     suggests permission being given to “bonafide” structures up to 250 sq.m. for forest protection measures and/or residence within forests as defined under the Act and read with applicable Supreme Court judgements. Here again, since what is or is not “bonafide” will require some examination, it is better that such exemptions be granted on case-by-case basis and a properly formulated Amendment be placed for response by the public and concerned citizens.

B11    suggests that activities considered “ancillary” to forestry such as zoos, safaris, Forest Training infrastructures should not be perceived as “non-forestry” activities and therefore could be exempted from the FCA. Under the proposed amendment, many different and undesirable forms of tourism-related activities in forested areas could gain exemption from FCA if not properly examined. There is already a concerted effort to promote tourism in wilderness areas. A new ‘Guidelines on Ecotourism in Forest and Wildlife Areas 2021’ has been drafted. While the FCA (1980) has been placed in the public domain the new eco-tourism guideline has till now been kept away from public scrutiny.

We recommend that, with the exception of Forestry Training Infrastructure of limited and appropriate size which should be properly defined here, zoos and safaris and related facilities should be examined on case-by-case basis depending on the forest concerned. No blanket exemption should be granted to such facilities. Again, a properly drafted Amendment would enable a more reasoned response.

B12     suggests that if a compensatory levy has already been obtained at the time of initial lease, further levy at the time of renewal of lease is “not rational.” On the contrary, since the compensatory levy is specific to the period of lease when first levied, it is only rational that a further proportional levy for the period of extended lease, covering inflation and increased costs, should also apply.

B13     proposes exemption for survey and investigation activities whose “impact is not perceptible.” In the first place, this is a highly subjective and unscientific assumption. There must be a case-by-case examination of what the survey and exemption entails, how much environmental impact it would cause and what would be the economic cost of any damage caused etc. The Draft EIA 2020 had also suggested exemption of this activity. It may be recalled that exploratory drilling for oil had been granted permission in the fertile 3-crop area in the Thanjavur delta area, but public furore by affected farmers had led to withdrawal of this order. We recommended proper EIA and thorough examination of all such activities preparatory to actual industrial or commercial activities.

 

 

For clarifications contact:

 

P.Rajamanickam                                 Dr. D. Raghunandan

General Secretary AIPSN                   Convenor, AIPSN Environmental Desk

Mobile 9442915101                            Mobile 9810098621

Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com                Email: raghunandan.d@gmail.com

 

 

by

WHO refusal of Emergency Use Approval for Covaxin

click here to read pdf of AIPSN Statement of 29 Sept 2021

click here to read the Press Release of the AIPSN Statement

WHO refusal of Emergency Use Approval for Covaxin

          All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) notes with sorrow and grave concern that the World Health Organization (WHO) has not granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) for ICMR-Bharat Biotech’s (BB) Covaxin vaccine, but has asked BB for more technical details. This is a serious setback for Covaxin and for India’s vaccination programme in the country, and a blow to India’s plans to distribute vaccines to other countries. Many Indians traveling abroad, especially students, who took Covaxin, are already finding it difficult to obtain visas or entry into other countries which generally recognize only WHO-approved vaccines. This sorry state of affairs will continue as long as there is no public accountability, transparency along with scientific rigour.

Covaxin will also once again face vaccine hesitancy in India as it did during the earlier controversial approvals process. AIPSN had earlier urged the public disclosure of trial data and now mourns the serious damage done to the reputation of India by this flawed application to WHO regulators, which has also besmirched the standing of Indian science and regulatory systems, which will now come under heightened international scrutiny and suspicion.

Unfortunately, this was entirely foreseeable. BB has played ducks-and-drakes with regard to transparency of clinical trials data and respect for regulatory processes and institutions. In December 2020/January 2021, BB applied to the Indian regulator, DCGI for EUA with grossly inadequate data from clinical trials inviting rejection, followed by behind-the-scenes arm-twisting by the Union Government resulting in grant of EUA. More detailed results of Phase-3 clinical trials were then released by BB in installments, interim results two months later and complete trial data in June 2021. Despite much criticism from scientists and others in India, including by AIPSN, BB has regrettably not published these results in a peer-reviewed journal even to date, but has only posted a pre-publication paper. BB could get away with all this because of the open backing of the Union Government which echoed all excuses and justifications put forward by BB, such as saying in June 2021 that BB would publish results in a few weeks, and even recently announced that it was expecting WHO approval soon.  Criticism of this chain of events, and calls for greater transparency on clinical trial data by BB and also by its governmental partner ICMR, in the interests of Indian science and its international reputation, were attacked by the Government as anti-national and undermining the prestige of India and its scientists. The chickens have come home to roost with WHO’s refusal of EUL for Covaxin.

Compounding these errors of judgment by the Government and by DCGI bending to its will, India looks set to repeat these blunders in the approvals process for Zydus Cadilla’s ZyCov-D 3-dose Covid vaccine for those 12 years or older. Zydus had applied for EUA on 1st July 2021 based on interim data and obtained it on 20th August. However, this interim data has not been made public or published anywhere, even in pre-print form, raising the same concerns and criticisms as with Covaxin. Covaxin was one of the first Covid vaccines developed by a middle-income, and would have indeed boosted India’s prestige if it had obtained approvals in India and abroad with transparent and published peer-reviewed data. ZyCov-D too would similarly have enhanced India’s image as the only one of just 11 DNA-based vaccine candidates worldwide. Regrettably, the powers that be seem to have decided to follow a non-transparent government-ordered vaccine approval process that achieves precisely the opposite. As is said history repeats itself “First as tragedy and second time as farce”.

All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) urges the Government of India, its concerned ministries, departments, institutions and authorities of the need to adhere to scientific standards for conduct and analysis of clinical trial results, publication of results as peer-reviewed articles and complete transparency. Regulatory agencies should also assert their independence from both government and corporate interests, and make judgments based on scientific analysis. Vaccine producers must build transparency in this regard, while fulfilling their responsibilities and accountability. We need to ensure that urgent approval of vaccines, publication of clinical trial data and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine all receive equal and due importance.

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

AIPSN Call to Reconstitute National Steering Committee for National Curriculum Framework

Click here to read the AIPSN Press Statement

23 Sept 2021

 

“Reconstitute National Steering Committee for National Curriculum Framework”

 

The Union Ministry of Education has set up a National Steering Committee for the Development of National Curriculum Frameworks as per the perspectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The Committee is expected to develop four National Curriculum Frameworks, namely,

1) National Curriculum Framework for School Education

2) National Curriculum Framework Early Childhood Care and Education

3) National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education

4) National Curriculum Framework for Adult Education.

According to the terms of reference, the 12-member Committee chaired by Prof. K. Kasturirangan will have tenure of three years. It will “discuss different aspects of School Education, Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), Teacher Education and Adult Education keeping in focus all the recommendations of NEP 2020 related to these four areas for proposing curriculum reforms”.

It is a matter of deep concern that the entire span of educational curriculum reform, from the early childhood years to adult education, has been entrusted to a small committee with no expertise in these crucial areas. Members include educational administrators and even entrepreneurs. This seems to be in line with the trend of the National Education Policy 2020 to usher in private players while making subservient established institutions of public education. Indeed surprisingly, no faculty members of NCERT are included, even though it is the apex national body responsible for the development of curricula; rather, the Director of NCERT is expected to ‘assist’ the Steering Committee.

A National Curriculum Framework is meant to provide a sound academic basis to guide a range of curricular interventions, for the development of syllabi, textbooks, teaching learning processes and assessments. It is worth noting that the Steering Committee for the NCF 2005 had thirty five members, with eleven from NCERT and twenty four persons from across the country with experience and expertise in different domain areas. These included eminent academics from the social sciences, sciences, language and mathematics; school teachers, principals of schools and colleges, educationists, and leaders of educational and rights based NGOs. An even larger group of well known experts were invited as members of the different Focus Groups to work on the set of position papers.

AIPSN calls for a re-constitution of the Steering Committee with persons having a deep understanding about learners in diverse and disparate socio-cultural contexts, disciplinary knowledge of school education and domain expertise in teacher education/adult education, as well as sound experience of the pedagogical processes required to develop a National Curriculum Framework. Moreover, if there is serious concern for the future of all our learners, the Committee will need to address the challenges of education with commitment to the Constitution and a focus on equity, quality and inclusion.

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

No to Oil Palm plantations in India’s Bio-diversity hotspots

Click here to read the pdf  of AIPSN Position Paper on Oil Palm Mission

Click here to read the pdf of this Press Release 

 

Press Release – 13 Sept 2020

 

AIPSN Statement  on recently announced Mission on Oil Palm

 “No to Oil Palm plantations in India’s Bio-diversity hotspots”

The Union Government recently approved a new and poorly conceived National Mission on Edible Oils-Oil Palm (NMEO-OP) with an ecologically damaging focus on large-scale cultivation of Oil Palm in the North-East and the Andaman Islands purportedly due to favorable rainfall and temperature conditions here. It is proposed to raise additional area under Oil Palm plantation to reach around 1 million ha by 2025-26, with production of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) of around 2.8 m Tonnes by 2029-30, aiming to reduce edible oil imports and boost domestic production.

However, the Mission’s thrust on the ecologically fragile bio-diversity hotspots of the NE and the A&N Islands is highly problematic. Oil Palm plantations, especially in the world’s major producing areas of Indonesia and Malaysia involving massive deforestation, have been observed be a major driver of biodiversity loss.  Deforestation including clearing of grasslands would certainly be involved in the Andamans, as indeed happened in the mid-1970s during earlier such plantation there which Forest authorities objected to. The Andamans also saw displacement of many Jarawa and Onge extremely vulnerable indigenous tribes. Due to these adverse impacts, the Supreme Court in 2002 imposed a ban on commercial and monoculture plantations, and introduction of exotic species, in the A&N Islands.

Niti Aayog and the Union Government have been pushing hard to overcome this SC stay. But Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) recommended, in a January 2020 report, that introduction of Oil Palm should be avoided in biodiversity rich areas, including grasslands, without detailed studies on its ecological impact. Instead, the Union Government called for submission to the SC of a joint report by ICFRE and the more favorable ICAR Institute of Oil Palm Research (ICAR-IIOPR). Again, in its affidavit to the SC in August 2020 accompanying the confidential report, ICFRE underscored the absence of relevant data, and reiterated its call for comprehensive studies on the ecological impact in the A&N.

The Union Government’s decision to launch NMEO-OP Mission has therefore clearly been taken in the face of staunch and repeated opposition by ICFRE, brushes aside the call for prior studies, and appears to be a political decision, rather than one guided by evidence and expert opinion.

In the NE, while government spokespersons claim that plantations will only be agricultural lands, past experience shows that shortage of cultivable land, and tribal rather than personal ownership of forest lands in the NE, would inevitably lead to deforestation or conversion of forest fringe areas.  Further, Oil Palm plantations in so-called degraded and waste lands near forests also tend to drive encroachment of forests and subsequent deforestation as witnessed earlier in India.

Currently, Mission schemes favor large farmers and corporate leases of community land or other commons due to long gestation periods and high water demand, potentially straining groundwater resources. Many experts have therefore suggested that, even elsewhere in India, promotion of Oil Palm among small farmers with appropriate support would yield more equitable socio-economic benefits and increased sustainability. Others have suggested that, if similar subsidies as provided in the Mission are extended to conventional oilseed cultivators, their productivity too could be boosted substantially as evidenced in earlier Oilseed Missions. Even industry leaders have said that the Mission goals could be met by focusing on groundnut, soyabean and mustard along with Oil Palm.

In sum, programmes for expansion of Oil Palm plantation in India require a research- and evidence-based, locale-specific and multi-dimensional plan to expand Oil Palm acreage wherever economically feasible and ecologically suitable. Oil Palm cultivation in the most ecologically vulnerable A&N Islands, in violation of earlier Supreme Court directions and without rigorous studies, should be ruled out. Mission activities in the biodiversity rich and ecologically sensitive NE should proceed only in limited areas with great caution and based on prior studies. NMEO-OP needs to be thoroughly re-cast in conjunction with efforts to boost productivity of other oilseeds in different parts of India.

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

All India Save Education Day on 05th September Teachers Day

Click here to read the Press Release for Save Education Day 5th Sept 2021

 

Click here to read the related AIFUCTO Circular AIFUCTO GS Circular 26.08.2021

Time has come for more vigorous protest against the stubborn and undemocratic attitude of the Government of India and showing our teeth against undemocratic, unscientific, retrograde and exclusionary nature of NEP.

Joint Forum for Movement on Education (JFME) considering the gravity of the situation has a given a call for All India Save Education Day on 05th September, 2021 to be more demonstrative of our protest against NEP to Save Education, Save Campus and Save Nation.

Please where ever possible organize demonstrative action either in front of Rajabhavan or State Capital or university or college campus on the day.

Submit memorandum to the state as well as Central government on our stand on NEP and also highlights state issues.

Organize JFME at your level and carry on the program.

Click here to read the related JFME Circular JFMECircular-22.08.2021

Click here to read the related JFME Statement JFME Joint Statement July 25

Click to read the AIPSN Campaign note in English and Hindi 

by

AIPSN Position Paper on Lakshadweep and Controversial Islands Development Plan

click here to see the pdf of the position paper

click here to read an article published in NewsClick relating to this issue

Lakshadweep and Controversial Islands Development Plan:

(World Environment Day, 5 June 2021)

 

World Environment Day falls on 5 June each year, and the theme for the coming decade has been declared as ‘Ecological Restoration’. Tragically, however, a central concern in India these days is the ecological and human disaster unfolding in the Lakshadweep archipelago in the Arabian Sea, as well as in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands chain on the eastern flank of peninsular India in the Indian Ocean, all in the name of ‘island development.’

In a keynote address to a Conference of Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in 2019, the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi, announced an increase of India’s commitment to restoration of degraded lands from 21 million hectares to 26 million hectares by 2030. India’s Nationally Determined Commitments (NDC) under the Paris Agreement on climate change pledges to reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 33-35% by 2030, increase share of renewable energy in electricity generation to 40% of total by 2030 (stepped up further since then with a new goal of 450 GW of renewables compared to 175 GW earlier).  These and other similar commitments have often been made by the PM and other government leaders to international audiences and in different international Treaties. These promises are made while repeatedly citing Indian (Hindu) traditional and civilizational values of respect for nature and sustainable lifestyles.

Closer examination shows some of these targets to be modest at best, and many concerns persist on the conditions, qualifications and negative impacts related to these targets, as discussed further below. Perhaps more importantly, policies and actions of this government in India reveal its international stance to be mostly posturing, and the professed environmental concerns to be largely for the sake of image-building. Domestically, in sharp contrast, this government has systematically worked to promote ‘ease of doing business’ and consistently acted in favour of corporate industrial and commercial interests in extraction of value from nature at the cost of both the ecosystem and local populations. Mining, industrial and commercial projects inside forest areas and even infringing upon wildlife sanctuaries especially through the contrived device of ‘linear projects’ have now become commonplace. The transfer of wealth to corporations through shifting of natural public commons to private hands, has been facilitated by drastic dilution or reversal of several key environmental regulations.

Framing the Context: Changing Environmental Regulations

Earlier violations and piecemeal regulatory changes through executive notifications have been sought to be regularized through the draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020. Draft EIA 2020 sought to vastly enlarge the categories of projects which require only cursory regulatory examination or even avoid regulatory clearance all-together.  It severely dilutes environmental appraisal norms and reduces, or even completely omits, the role of public consultations in many sectors, while allowing the central government unlimited authority by reducing clearance requirements for projects of ‘strategic importance’ the parameters of which remain undefined. Draft EIA 2020 also turns a blind eye to egregious violations of environmental regulations and outright illegal activities by permitting post-facto environmental clearance of impermissible projects after simply paying a small compounding fine. Following widespread opposition, this Draft is currently in limbo, but many of its provisions are being implemented nonetheless, and it appears that the trend of roll-back of environmental regulations and people’s participation in safeguarding them will continue.

Regulatory changes have also been brought about across various sectors including forests, water resources, coastal areas, land use, mineral resource extraction, industrial safety and hazardous materials. Key amendments have been introduced in the Land Acquisition Act 2015, diluting the earlier Act by increasing exemptions from local consent and social impact assessment. The Coastal Regulations Zone (CRZ) rules have also been weakened by reducing the exclusion zone from 100m to 50m and other measures that are expected to open up the fragile coastline, already subject to erosion and impact of sea-level rise, for industry, real estate and tourism. Experts say this would also be exploited by corporate houses including under the Sagarmala programme which envisions a ‘garland’ of major ports. The draft National Forest Policy of 2018 promotes the interests of forestry corporations and private players, and weakens the Forest Rights Act 2006 secured by prolonged and sustained struggles of forest dwellers and other popular movements. Between June 2014 and May 2018, less than 1% of proposed projects seeking clearance have been rejected by the wildlife authority. In the government’s scheme of things, issues of environmental damage and linked people’s survival, sustenance and livelihoods come a distant second to business interests, so much so that some have dubbed the concerned department the ‘Ministry against Environment!’ Government inaction on aspects like solid waste management, air pollution and river cleanliness continue to worsen local environments and adversely impact people’s health.

Government Inaction on Climate Change

The Government’s response to the challenges of climate change follows a similar dual path, a seemingly strong posture abroad including in the international negotiations, and contrasting weak actions domestically. To put things in perspective, while India’s NDC compares favourably with hitherto low-ambition emission cuts promised by developed countries especially the US, these targets have been rated by the well-reputed Climate Tracker as ‘moderate’ and compatible with the 2 degrees C goal. Perhaps more seriously, India continues to pursue an externally-driven climate policy driven mainly by foreign policy considerations. Domestic action to adapt or build resilience to serious climate impacts in India, which is considered among the most affected regions of the world, is scarce. This is in sharp contrast to the stance of most developing countries, especially the least developed countries (LDCs) and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) who have approached climate change and international negotiations based on the severe impacts they are experiencing and the existential challenge posed by these impacts.

With worsening polar ice melt and sea-level rise, India’s coastal areas with over 170 million people are expected to be seriously impacted by coastal erosion, sea-water ingress and extensive permanent coastal submergence due to sea-level rise added to high tides and storm surges. The think tank Climate Central has projected that 36 million people could be affected in India in the near term, with the portal also providing extremely interesting data as well as dramatic interactive maps based on latest satellite data showing extensive inundation, particularly of densely populated urban agglomerations around Kochi, Mumbai and Surat on the west coast, and Chennai, Puri and Kolkata in the east. All these impacts are being worsened by rapid construction and other economic activities on or near the coast, and degradation of natural protective barriers such as mangroves.

There is an imminent threat for Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar, with experts predicting that many of the islands may become uninhabitable by 2100 because of sea-level rise due to climate change. Yet, government action on any of these issues is insubstantial. Programmes initiated such as the Technology Missions under the UPA Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008-10 have been allowed to drift and fade away, being under-funded and lacking political support especially under the present Government. Even serious scientific studies of climate impacts have not yet seen the light of the day, with one major study expected to release its report only in the next year or so. Adaptation actions mostly fall under jurisdiction of State governments which are starved of funds and lack the necessary knowledge and capabilities required, calling for the Central government to take the initiative and the major burden. It needs emphasis that adaptation programmes are cost intensive, and the later the actions are undertaken, the more expensive they will become. This is a monumental problem facing the present and future generations of the Indian people.  In this scenario, it is surprising that the main policy being discussed in the case of Lakshadweep is not on building protection against climate disasters, but instead on real estate development in the islands.

Recent Developments in Lakshadweep

The recently appointed Administrator of Lakshadweep, Praful Khoda Patel (he is the first political appointee to this post in the Union Territory and had earlier served as Home Minister in the Narendra Modi-led Gujarat government), has drawn up and sent to the Home Ministry for approval, a new Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021 and a whole raft of other draft Regulations on Panchayats, Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) and Animal Preservation. Together, these assign unquestionable authority to the Administrator including giving him total eminent domain powers over the territory and people of the Islands, enabling the administration to take-over of any part of the islands in the name of ‘development activities’ including ecologically damaging mining and extraction of mineral resources. This also allows forcible removal or relocation of any islander owning that land, despite the fact that over 95% of islanders belong to Scheduled Tribes whose lands cannot be easily alienated by earlier laws; to by-pass panchayats and other local government bodies; and, amazingly, placing any such actions by the Administrator beyond appeal or judicial review. The recent control asserted by the administrator extends beyond the environmental realm, with measures like relaxation of customary alcohol prohibition in the Muslim-dominated islands and even arbitrary reduction of Covid-19 related restrictions.

The Administrator claims that all these measures have been taken in pursuit of development of Lakshadweep ‘along the lines of the Maldives’.  His plans, so far unchecked by the Home Ministry under which the UT administration functions, mark out a developmental model which is sought to be imposed on the Lakshadweep people irrespective of their desires or interests. As a pre-emptive measure, the changes proposed allow for throttling of local opposition. In addition, measures taken by the Administrator include banning the sale, storage or consumption of beef, integral to the food habits of the overwhelmingly (95%) Muslim population with ST status; removing non-vegetarian food from school meals programmes; and closing down the islands’ only government-run dairy farm and ferrying in milk from Gujarat instead. There is also a clear attempt to de-link Lakshadweep from its historical links with Kerala by diverting supply ships from Beypore Port near Kochi to Mangalore in BJP-ruled Karnataka. Despite Malayalam being the lingua franca in Lakshadweep, recent news reports claim an attempt by the administration to shift its legal jurisdiction from the Kerala High Court to Karnataka High Court.

Widespread opposition by the locals has been met with heavy handed repression by the administration. Protesters have been arrested and incarcerated without trial using the PASR or ‘Goonda Act’. Local artisanal fishers have been attacked and their nets, gear and huts destroyed in the name of coastal regulations. Thousands of contract workers have been summarily laid off. The local people and their culture are seen as obstacles to be eliminated, while their island home is viewed as real estate and for its potential to generate wealth for the ruling state government. From the measures taken, the administrator seems hell-bent not only on stamping out dissent but also undermining the democratic roots of local governance and popular mobilization in Lakshadweep.

The Controversial Islands Development Plan

The recent proposals of this administrator cannot be seen in vacuum or as the actions of an individual alone, and applicable only in the case of Lakshwadeep. The larger and uncomfortable questions remain, particularly regarding the nature of the envisaged ‘development’ plans in the islands and the interests behind them. In June 2017 itself, the Indian Government had constituted an Island Development Agency under the Chairmanship of the Union Home Minister, which had mandated Niti Aayog to steer the programme for ‘Holistic Development of Islands.’ Important to note is how a body introduced by the government as ‘just’ a think-tank to replace the earlier supposedly authoritarian Planning Commission, is essentially acting as a centralized project planning and implementation oversight body with quasi-executive powers and outside all existing government structures, with accountability only to the home minister. Following preliminary studies, the CEO of Niti Aayog made a presentation to potential investors in August 2018, stating that the Government had accorded high priority to the development of the islands and was putting forward concrete and carefully worked out project ideas for the same. In order to further ease the path of investors, local Island Development Authorities were empowered to provide single-window facilitation to projects, with pre-obtained regulatory clearances for land use, environmental impact and so on!

More studies and information on the proposed projects are available in a May 2019 ‘think’ report by Niti Aayog staffers titled ‘Transforming the Islands through creativity and innovation’. Tourism related projects are central to the plans for Lakshadweep, unabashedly modelled after the Maldives. Plans for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are even more ambitious and fanciful including several airports, container trans-shipment ports, a new greenfield city to act as a financial hub ‘on the lines of Singapore and Hong Kong,’ with strategic value given proximity to the Malacca straits. The Maldives is a group of larger islands with a high-end tourism model, with few links to the bulk of the island population although adding hugely to the Maldivian GDP. Even there, the strains of the current tourism-based model of development are showing both on local ecosystems especially on the coral reefs, the very lifeline of the archipelago, and in adverse socio-economic impacts.

 

The feasibility and desirability of the replication of these international models, both in Lakshadweep (a group of 36 small islands comprises just 10 inhabited islands, 17 uninhabited islands, 4 newly formed islets and 5 submerged reefs) and the contrasting Andaman and Nicobar group (consisting of 576 relatively larger islands of which only 38 are inhabited) is not examined. Instead, the Niti Aayog studies bemoan the stagnation of international tourists at 15,000 in A&N and 500-odd in Lakshadweep in contrast with 1.5 million foreign tourists hosted by the Maldives annually.  The potential of integrating island tourism with tourism in mainland India, whereby a wider set of attraction can be offered to international tourists, simultaneously promoting forms of environmentally friendly tourism and involving the local population in more sustainable tourism models are left explored. Rather, further studies by the Niti Aayog in association with international agencies, project feasibility of huge tourist inflows of 5,000-10,000 persons per day in the A&N islands which would be around 1.5 million per year in each of several islands, unimaginably, more than half the current foreign tourist arrivals in the whole of mainland India! Other Niti Aayog studies apparently also confirm such high carrying capacity estimates. This level can only be realized if all resources are ferried from the mainland, along with huge cost to the local ecology due to deforestation, change of land use patterns and disposal of the enormous quantities of wastes generated. With a large mainland back-up in India, the local population of the islands become virtually irrelevant.

Consequences of the Envisaged ‘Development’ Model

Lakshadweep is already suffering from severe coastal erosion, and experts predict that some islands may become uninhabitable due to sea level rise related to climate change. Various other negative ecological impacts are also predicted by experts such as coral reefs bleaching, damage to fish habitat and breeding grounds etc.

The Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects in the Little Andaman Island records the enormous ecological risks to pristine local forests, mangroves, marine life and endangered species such as Leather-backed Turtles. One of the proposed projects, in Little Andamans envisions a full-size airport and aerocity, expanded tourism centres, convention centres, and hospitals or ‘medicity’, a leisure district spread with a tourism SEZ and ‘nature’ retreats, and a development of a new 100 km east-west coastal ring road and a mass transit system. The total area of the island is only around 737 sq. kms – about the size of Mumbai or Hyderabad, of which 95% or about 700 sq. km is reserve forest. Of this, about 450 sq. km is designated as the Onge Reserve, home to this highly endangered early aboriginal tribe of whom there are only 100 or so persons left. This Project calls for clearing about 224 sq. km or 32% of the reserve forest with around two million trees and de-notifying 135 sq. km or about 30% of the Onge Reserve. But all this may not matter to Niti Aayog planners and their supporters in the Union Government. Even reported opposition from the forest department has met with little response from the government. The Union Environment Ministry has granted environmental clearance in the Andamans, coolly noting that the Onges, for instance, can simply be relocated elsewhere. Clearly, in this model of island development, the environment matters little and the local population matters even less.

 

In the three years since the Island Development plans were advanced, including the recent Little Andamans ‘super’ project dangling all kinds of inducements to the corporate sector, reports say that investors are yet to come forward, possibly due to the risks, challenges and viability doubts. But, irrespective of the actual tourist impact in these islands, the government in charge stands to make huge profits from land rents and prospective corporate deals.

As the Union Government grows more authoritarian and asserts greater authority especially in the Union Territories, environmental regulatory systems are being either captured or strangulated, and local populations are simply ignored or crushed in the name of development. National and internationally committed environmental goals like the forestry targets appear unrealistic in the face of systematic encroachment upon forest areas as discussed above, which cannot be offset by increasing ‘green cover’ outside forests, for instance along highways, since a group of trees however large simply cannot perform the same ecological services as a forest. The forests of Andaman cannot be compensated by afforestation in mainland India and neither can the lives of the indigenous peoples. Across India, not only have many of the recent changes been detrimental to the environment and people’s lives and livelihoods, they uniformly suppress people’s rights and seek to reverse many of the hard won regulations resulting from people’s movements in the past few decades. Institutional autonomy, regulatory structures and even judicial oversight are being systematically undermined in the field of environment as much as in other arenas of governance. Even the National Green Tribunal has been repeatedly attacked and sought to be weakened in several ways. While rarely compromising in the face of opposition by peoples movements, civil society organizations and experts, the relentless assault continues in different forms and across various theatres. This situation calls for urgent and large coalitions across the country to resist the grandiose so-called “development” plans of the current ruling dispensation.

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

 

by

On the draft STIP2020: Need for a people-centered and future-oriented STIP based on reality

click here to see the Gmail submission of AIPSN Response to draft STIP2020

click here for the AIPSN-response-DraftSTIP2020-30Jan2021 in English

 

30Jan2021

All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) Response

 

On the draft STIP2020:

Need for a people-centered and future-oriented STIP based on reality

  1. During the ongoing pandemic, the Science Policy Forum and Department of Science and Technology initiated a series of discussions in different tracks to discuss various parts for formulating a draft STIP2020. On Dec 31st a draft was released in English online and a feedback response date of 25th Jan was given. Two days before the date, the deadline was extended to 31st Jan.
  2. In the economic transformation of Japan, South Korea and China their policies relating to Science, Technology and Innovation played a significant role in these countries’ development with advanced capabilities in technologies of the second and third industrial revolutions, poised to also develop such capabilities in 4th generation technologies expected to dominate the global economy over the next two decades. Several other Asian countries such as Singapore and Taiwan have also developed advanced manufacturing capabilities and know-how. All these nations have followed what we may broadly call a self-reliant pathway in S&T, consciously investing in developing their own knowledge, industrial and human resource capabilities over the years, as against depending on “Western” MNCs or companies for this. In the Global Innovation Index China now a rank 14th for the 2nd time in a row and remains the only middle-income economy in the GII top 30. India is at the 48th position. This follows the consistent growth of Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) with respect to the GDP in the case of China that grew from 0.6 in 1996 to 2.2 now, while in contrast India has remained hovering around 0.6 since 1996. GERD of the “Asian Tiger” economies follows a similar trajectory. It is also important to highlight the fact that China has used per capita GDP as a metric to measure its progress, thereby placing emphasis on the share of its working population in growth, rather than just GDP as India and many other countries do.
  1. The biggest weakness of draft STIP 2020 is that the policy is not rooted in the economic and industrial scenario of the country, and the direction in which these are visualized to transform over the next, say ten to fifteen years. Without such a vision, draft STIP2020 is cast in a vacuum. Further, the draft STIP2020 does not take cognizance of the present state of Science, Technology and Innovation in India, and put forward a policy that starts from where we are and leads to where we want to go. Similarly, the suggestions proposed do not also reckon with the institutional and systemic weaknesses or strengths. In this context, the very feasibility and utility of the draft STIP2020 are open to question, however nice this or that proposal sounds. Incidentally, STIP 2013 envisioned positioning India among the top 5 global scientific powers by 2020. Do we then presume that India has achieved that and now moves towards the top 3?
  1. A well thought out and designed policy that is sensitive to the needs of not only the people of India but of the world can make a tremendous difference. However, for inclusive and sustainable growth, it is important to first chart the practical steps for effective implementation of S&T policies. Such an approach is needed for balanced and integrated development taking into account the social and environmental aspects. In order to do this, it is important to first ensure the penetration of basic infrastructure of roads, electricity, communications and internet, water, public health, education and skills, to all parts of the country. Just as India’s R&D expenditure has historically been miserably low, so too has India’s investment in the health and education of the majority of its population and potential work force.  No less is the importance of a federated approach to take into account the geographical and developmental diversity amongst the States and Union Territories of India. A rigid one shoe fits all approach will not be useful. There has to be inbuilt flexibility in terms of structures, funding and implementation considering the developmental and infrastructural variations in different regions.
  1. The draft STIP2020 is not an authentic national STI policy. At best, it is like a policy for the Department of Science and Technology (DST). A transformational STI policy needs to bring on board all the government departments of the union Government, the state governments and the public in a collaborative mode for the formulation of STIP 2020 draft.
  1. The vision of the policy as mentioned “to build individual and institutional excellence in STI with the aspiration to achieve the highest level of global recognitions and awards in the coming decade” is completely flawed. One cannot have a national policy based only on awards and recognitions: if India does outstanding science and develops novel advanced technologies, awards and recognitions will follow. As the Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan has said “Science flourishes when people are free to question authority”. But that cannot be built into a policy. It is an academic, research and society-wide culture and part of the scientific temper which is encouraged by our Constitution.
  1. The draft policy keeps referring to undefined Traditional Knowledge Systems and in one place links it with heritage. This along with references to undefined grassroots innovations is in dissonance with the vision to position India among the top three scientific superpowers in the decade to come. However, highlighting these in the draft STIP2020, in the context of what is currently being done in India under the rubric of these terms, does pave the way for significant funding for spurious and inefficacious efforts, often pulling in an opposite direction to the desired future-oriented STI.
  1. The draft STIP2020 is astonishingly filled with a plethora of new Institutions and Funding Schemes: the Capacity Building Authority, the STI Policy Institute, the overarching Strategic Technology Board, a Strategic Development Fund, a national STI Financing Authority, an STI Development Bank, the national STI governance mechanism, the National STI Observatory, Indian Science and Technology Archive of Research (INDSTA), Advanced Missions in Innovative Research Ecosystems (ADMIRE), a centralized database on all forms of Financial Incentives, and Inter-State Science, Technology and Innovation Council (IS-STIC). While it is necessary that funding mechanisms be centrally coordinated, the structural framework along with the control structure also needs to be decentralized in order to take into account the spirit of cooperative federalism envisaged in the Constitution of India.  These numerous new Institutions would only lead to additional bureaucratic structures in an already top-heavy science administration, draining even more funds from actual research. There is also no point creating new institutions and funding schemes without examining the problem of non-functioning or malfunctioning of existing ones.  It is ironic that these suggestions for new Institutions come at a time when the government is engaged in closing down many S&T Institutions and driving them to raise their own funds, therefore reducing the amount of research done, showing again how distanced the draft STIP2020 is from ground realities.
  1. The draft STIP2020 talks of attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in STI, reduction in corporate tax rates for foreign MNCs, fast track clearances, easing land acquisitions, adequate means for incorporating FDI etc. to be explored on a need basis. This is definitely detrimental to public  sector research in agriculture  aiming  to strive  for food  self sufficiency, security and especially nutritional security. Self-reliant STI can certainly not be built through FDI or by foreign MNCs who may manufacture in India but will not transfer technologies as experience hitherto has amply shown. Experience of Japan, S.Korea and China is exactly the same: they embarked on a self-reliant path precisely because MNCs and Western companies will never part with their technologies, since they know full well that it is knowledge and technology, which controls industry and the economy. This is yet another cardinal mistake in the draft STIP2020; following the present Governments idea that manufacturing in India by foreign companies/MNCs directly or through FDI in junior Indian partners, is also “Make in India” and also represents Atma Nirbhar Bharat. Nothing could be further from the truth. The draft STIP2020 is extremely permissive to imports, and by this route it plans to achieve ” Atmanirbhar Bharat” and India’s emergence as the third global power in STI! And for that, science is now given a new role: “S&T for diplomatic benefits” and “diplomacy for S&T development”! In this draft STIP2020, the Indian Diaspora are to serve as conduits in the mercantilist exploitation of science, in which India’s intellectual resources, like her scientists, will be the basic inputs in this Atmanirbhar Bharat’s Global Assembly Line.
  1. The long-term and continuing reluctance of the private sector in India to invest in R&D is notorious but is not meaningfully addressed in the draft STIP2020. Much of this is due to Indian corporates’ preference to take the easy route of foreign collaboration or technology imports repeatedly incentivized by industrial and taxation policies of successive governments, even further promoted by the current emphasis on FDI as the major engine of industrial and technological development. Minor policy incentives or inducements will not change this, and a thrust for genuine self-reliance is a must.
  1. The draft STIP2020 also provides an escape clause for the Central Government from the need for enhanced investments in R&D by proposing that all other stakeholders such as State governments, PSUs, SMEs, private sector, Universities, Research Institutions and so on would be required to set aside earmarked funds for R&D. This is a futile and sub-optimal exercise and would only lead to ineffectual “R&D” on paper, merely to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement. In the absence of mission-oriented R&D programmes at scale, the goal of transformative R&D to take India into a leading position in the 4th industrial revolution would remain a pipedream.
  1. There is no meaningful discussion of employment in a potentially changed capital and technology-intensive industrial scenario, and how the draft STIP2020 proposes to address this issue. There is therefore no mention of the working people, farmers, workers, migrants, unorganized workers, rural unemployed and under-employed. Nor is there any indication of how the STI is going to benefit and take them along in the process of inclusive and sustainable growth. This begs the question as to who this draft STIP2020 bell tolls for?
  1. Another big miss in the draft STIP2020 is the absence of addressing societal goals that can be targeted through S&T and by promoting scientific temper, issues that were emphasized in the Scientific Policy Resolution 1958 (SPR1958).Even in its mention of the SPR1958 document, the draft STIP2020 does not mention these aims of the SPR1958 and limits itself to stating that “S&T were seen as vehicles for the onward journey towards socio-economic transformation and nation building”. The role that S&T can play in alleviating hunger (India stands 102 among 117 countries in World Hunger Index), combating disease, ensuring health, hygiene, housing, employment and making the reach of science equitable are not addressed at all in the document.
  1. The draft STIP2020 is anything but what it says: “It is to be noted that the new STIP policy revolves around the principles of being decentralized, evidence-informed, bottom-up, experts-driven, and inclusive.” There are a lot of hollow claims of producing an evidence-driven, inclusive and bottom-up policy process steered and coordinated for the well being of the nation and its people with socio-economic and environmental considerations. The rambling draft policy makes all the right noises but lacks foundations of reality making it a catch all bucket list which without the grounding will remain wishful thinking. It is essential to cut the fluff and make it lean but meaningful.
  1. A major appreciative aspect of the draft STIP2020 is the very mention of LGBTQ+ and all that follows. But again it is dampened by the lack of specifics and arriving at how the changes can be made. The other aspect that is appealing is the talk of Open Science but the sheen is lost, due to not trying to figure out why it has not progressed, as needed, so far.
  1. The importance given to Science Communication is welcome, but it is disappointing to see the stress on scientists rather than on imbuing the lay citizen with scientific temper, critical thinking and the world view of science. It is puzzling that, rather than acknowledge and build upon the existing almost 40 year old people’s science movements in the country committed to and involved with activities towards this goal; this policy glibly seeks to “create” new science movements. Civil society organizations should be left to themselves and supported, but government-created “science movements” would be self-defeating and work against developing critical thinking which often requires looking at governmental S&T policies with a critical eye.
  1. The STIP will affect all sections of the public and, as mentioned in the draft STIP2020, it is meant to be inclusive. Moreover, it also intends to make science literature available in all languages and geographic regions. So a good starting point will be to make the draft STIP2020 available in all the Scheduled languages in the Constitution of India so that the public including researchers at all levels can meaningfully understand and discuss it to come forward with suggestions.
  1. There is no particular urgency to have the STIP brought out within the coming months especially in the time of the pandemic. It may therefore be a good idea to revise the Draft in a transparent manner taking into account comments received, and the revised STIP then placed before parliament allowing for scrutiny by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on S&T.

 

AIPSN demands for transforming the draft STIP2020

into a people-centered and future-oriented STIP based on reality:

 

a) The draft STIP2020 be made available officially on the website in all the Scheduled languages and propagated through social media and TV. After that is made available at least two months period should be given for wide dissemination and involvement in discussions. 

b) There should be a provision for giving feedback through hard copies also apart from only online as online access is still limited in the country. One contact person should be mentioned to ensure that the hard copies will be received correctly. 

c) All the suggestions received, as hard copies and online, must be put into an indexed publicly available online database so that there can be cross checking about incorporation in the STIP. 

d) The draft STIP2020 has to reduce the rhetoric and make it more realistic 

e) The NEP has not been debated in the Parliament. Therefore, endorsing or linking NEP in sections of the STI is not democratic. It is important to involve the Parliament in the STI through formation of a Parliamentary Standing Committee for STI. This is also one of the recommendations by UNESCO for countries to democratise the STIP. 

f) The many structures that are envisaged in the STI need to be decentralised, not in funding but in functionality and structure, taking into account the cooperative federalism which is the spirit of the Constitution. 

g) The four decades old popular science movements and some even older science popularization organizations in the country need to be acknowledged and built upon rather than artificially “creating” new science movements to act at the behest of the government. 

h) There were only limited online attempts to involve or seek the opinions of the wide thriving S&T community in the country. There needs to be more engaged consultations with such S&T communities distributed across the country to evolve this national policy. 

30Jan2021

 

For clarifications contact:

  1. Krishnaswamy 9442158638
  2. Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn