#FarmReforms
#FarmBills
Who Is Protesting and Why?
Reforms have proved controversial. In Sept, BBC wondered whether they were a “death warrant” for farmers.
Some worry whether reforms might lead to the end of wholesale markets and guaranteed
Farmers might go from the local monopsonies of APMCs to the national oligopoly of Amazon-like behemoths.
Other crops do not qualify, nor do fruits and vegetables.
This was higher than the market price, but a hefty chunk of the support price ends up in the hands of middlemen through various fees and charges.
As a result, farmers in 25 of India’s 28 states and all eight union territories have not taken to the streets.
As per this farmer leader, open and competitive markets, instead of a top-down command-and-control agricultural economy, served farmer interests better.
In fact, it wants to go much further.
It wants the government to remove the ban on the export of onions and threatened to pelt BJP MPs with onion bulbs if the government fails to do so.
Not all farmers are protesting. Protests are largely confined to Punjab, Haryana and Jat strongholds in western Uttar Pradesh.
It elects 38 out of 543 MPs in the Lok Sabha, but its proximity to the capital gives it disproportionate power.
Home to Green Revolution, it has benefited from massive govt spending for decades
Irrigation subsidies account for another $190 per year. Punjab, Haryana and western UP benefit from other subsidies as well.
Some of their family members are part of the Indian diaspora in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US and elsewhere.
Some of them continue to be absentee landlords.
As a result, a narrative has emerged in the English-speaking press that is not entirely unbiased.
Some attacked the police, destroyed public property and flew flags on the Mughal-built Red Fort from where prime ministers address the nation.
This caused outrage and weakened the movement.
He broke down in tears and threatened to hang himself if the BJP government did not repeal its reforms.
Per the Indian press, Rakesh Tikait is a former policeman with assets worth 80 crore rupees ($11 million), a significant sum for a farmer in India.
They form part of the almost feudal elite that has dominated the APMCs and the rural economy for decades.
Winners of old sys and desperate not to lose what they have.
More from India
Ambedker's 22 vows Vs BUDDHISM
/Read it Full /
Ambedker-1: I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them
BUDDHISM: I believe in them as a subordinate to buddha, we have different philoshphical model regarding them,we have many eg ,My many sect...
.Worship them , respect them ; some sects consider them to be emanation of Boddhisatva Avlokiteshwara,In tantra they are worshipped
A2: I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them
B: Buddha says Rama was his.
.. previous life ,and Krishna was one of previous life of Sariputta ,My many sects worship them as previous life of Buddha, Krishna is not very much known but his sculpture is seen in Buddhist temples,you can pay respect to them atleast
A3: shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them
B: Hindu goddess gauri and Ganesha is widely accepted by us we have our own mantra for them ,they seek dharini from buddha ,Our some sects worship them
A4: I do not believe in the incarnation of God
B: Ok! This is acceptable,but we do have previous life/births of Buddha and rebirth ,which you Rejected
A5: I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu I believe this to be sheer madness and false
/Read it Full /
Ambedker-1: I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them
BUDDHISM: I believe in them as a subordinate to buddha, we have different philoshphical model regarding them,we have many eg ,My many sect...
Navayan and Buddhism of Ambedkar
— \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3Sonal \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@Dharma_Vaarta) January 2, 2021
BR Ambedkar announced to accept Buddhism on 14th October, 1956 in a press conference.
He formed a new sect Navayan inspite of following pre existing sects such as Mahayana, Vajrayan and Heenayan. pic.twitter.com/gQgYtSDzf7
.Worship them , respect them ; some sects consider them to be emanation of Boddhisatva Avlokiteshwara,In tantra they are worshipped
A2: I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them
B: Buddha says Rama was his.
.. previous life ,and Krishna was one of previous life of Sariputta ,My many sects worship them as previous life of Buddha, Krishna is not very much known but his sculpture is seen in Buddhist temples,you can pay respect to them atleast
A3: shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them
B: Hindu goddess gauri and Ganesha is widely accepted by us we have our own mantra for them ,they seek dharini from buddha ,Our some sects worship them
A4: I do not believe in the incarnation of God
B: Ok! This is acceptable,but we do have previous life/births of Buddha and rebirth ,which you Rejected
A5: I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu I believe this to be sheer madness and false
Hindutva does not belong to Modi nor his party, it belongs to the people as a unifying, decolonial ideology similar to pan-Africanism or Yugoslavism.
His own brand of "positive secularism" is even milder - deepening special rights and welfare schemes for religious minorities.
After the disbanding of the Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh, Hindutva as a political ideology does not even exist, except as a bogeyman in the minds of the Anglophone elite.
Even the BJP gave up Hindutva for civic nationalism, Gandhian socialism, and positive secularism in 1980s.
Under Modi, there has been compete policy continuity on minority rights and welfare from the Congress era, with little to no "Hindutva agenda" coming to see the light of day.
The most radical policy they can dream of is religion-neutral laws and equal rights for equal citizens.
Hindutva was essential in forming a national consciousness, but was abandoned with time. The modern BJP refuses to self-identify as a Hindutva movement, adopting moderates like Sardar Patel, Deendayal Upadhyay, and JP Narayan as their icons, rather than Savarkar or the Mahasabha.
When they say Hindu Rashtra, all they mean is an "Indic polity".
When British India was partitioned into a Muslim homeland and a Dharmic homeland, one state became a 'Ghazi' garrison state, and one the successor state to the Indic
His own brand of "positive secularism" is even milder - deepening special rights and welfare schemes for religious minorities.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Modi's "Hindutva".
— Onye Nkuzi (@cchukudebelu) February 2, 2021
I know many of my Indian followers will come at me, angrily - but let me just say this out.
I'm not sure it is a great model for democracy in a diverse, multi-cultural developing nation.
After the disbanding of the Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh, Hindutva as a political ideology does not even exist, except as a bogeyman in the minds of the Anglophone elite.
Even the BJP gave up Hindutva for civic nationalism, Gandhian socialism, and positive secularism in 1980s.
Under Modi, there has been compete policy continuity on minority rights and welfare from the Congress era, with little to no "Hindutva agenda" coming to see the light of day.
The most radical policy they can dream of is religion-neutral laws and equal rights for equal citizens.
Hindutva was essential in forming a national consciousness, but was abandoned with time. The modern BJP refuses to self-identify as a Hindutva movement, adopting moderates like Sardar Patel, Deendayal Upadhyay, and JP Narayan as their icons, rather than Savarkar or the Mahasabha.
When they say Hindu Rashtra, all they mean is an "Indic polity".
When British India was partitioned into a Muslim homeland and a Dharmic homeland, one state became a 'Ghazi' garrison state, and one the successor state to the Indic
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
