Farmers urged to unite against corporatisation of agriculture
Speaking as the keynote speaker in a seminar titled 'Impact of corporatisation of the agricultural sector' organised by Andhra Pradesh Farmers' Association Prakasam District Committee in Ongole on Saturday (July 5), he said united farmer movements are the only way to stop this process.
Mr. Amra Ram accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of changing the agricultural laws in favour of corporate companies and alleged that the Union government was looking down on agriculture. He lauded the efforts of the farmers in Prakasam district due to which the State government agreed to procure burley tobacco through Markfed.
He said that the Prime Minister, who had promised to implement the recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee, created the conditions that led to the farmers' movement for the implementation of the recommendations. He also recalled the long struggle of farmers' unions in Delhi against the black agricultural laws.
'The price of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) fertiliser has increased from ₹400 to ₹1,400 after the Modi-government came to power. Also, the adulteration of DAP has become a serious issue. Prevention of Adulterated Fertilisers Act has been framed in such a way that a penalty of only ₹500 will be levied if adulterated DAP worth ₹1,400 is caught.' These laws are demoralising farmers who are suffering due to adulteration of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides.
'The Modi government is giving away electricity to corporate companies in the name of smart meter. Similarly, the railways, ports, airports and industries are getting privatised,' he said, urging the farmers to protest against the corporatisation of agriculture.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
37 minutes ago
- Hans India
Ramchander Rao ups the ante against Congress and Kharge
Hyderabad: On his very first day as the Bharatiya Janata Party Telangana unit chief, N Ramachander Rao strongly criticized the Congress and its recently held 'Samajika Nyaya Samara Bheri' meeting, which was anchored by AICC chief Mallikarjuna the senior leader of BJP paid tributes at the Telangana Martyrs Memorial. He then led a colourful procession to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Bhavan, the BJP's state headquarters, where he formally assumed charge in the presence of party leaders and supporters. Addressing the media later, he stated that the Congress had failed to consider the needs of people during its 50 years of governance. "The public, fed up with the corrupt rule of the Congress, has defeated the party three times in a row, demanding a Congress-mukt Bharat. While the BJP works for the people, the Congress works for power and corruption," he observed. Deploring the Congress, he remarked that 'AICC' stands for the 'All India Cheating Committee'. He said that the Congress party in the state had been encountering significant opposition from the public shortly after assuming power—something no other party had experienced so quickly. He predicted that in the upcoming elections to local bodies, people would send a strong message to the Congress. Regarding the Congress's claim that it would win 100 MLA and 15 MP seats in the next Assembly and parliamentary elections respectively, he commented that perhaps the Congress leaders misspoke and actually intended to say that the BJP would achieve these numbers. Ramachandra Rao expressed his confidence that in the coming days, people of Telangana would chant slogans like "Congress- mukt Bharat," emphasizing that the BJP would mount a just fight against the Congress government for deceiving the public. He decried that Telangana, once a prosperous state, had been reduced to a state of begging under the Congress now and BRS earlier. However, he asserted that the BJP would work unitedly to bring the party to power in the state, contesting all positions in the elections to local bodies, from ward members to ZPTCs, and winning the most seats. The state BJP chief stated that the BJP was growing stronger and was certain to come to power in Telangana soon. He said that terms like "secularism" and "socialism" were introduced after the Emergency imposed by the then Congress regime. He claimed that the Congress had intertwined these concepts with religious politics, violating the rights of the people. Ramachandra Rao emphasized that the Modi government was dedicated to serving the poor and marginalized, adding 'Prime Minister Modi comes from a backward class'. More than half of the Chief Ministers in BJP-ruled states belong to Backward Classes. Ramachandra Rao highlighted that the BJP was gaining special support in rural areas. With victories in the last Assembly elections, when they won eight MLA and 8 MP seats, along with 3 seats in the recent MLC elections, the party was showing signs of strengthening, which is reflected in its steadily increasing vote share across the state. The BJP chief accused the Congress government of betraying the Backward Classes, stating that it had no genuine plan for ensuring 42 per cent reservation in elections to local bodies. It had merely made promises to divert attention from the BJP. He pointed out that the BJP supported the BC bill for 42 per cent reservation, and now it would implement its promise. Ramachandra Rao contested claims that the state was facing a shortage of urea and said that under PM Modi, the Centre had allocated 12 lakh metric tonnes of urea to Telangana -- 2 lakh metric tonnes more than what the state requires. He blamed the Congress-led state government for not supplying urea to farmers in time. He dared the Congress to debate the urea supply issue and disclose what they had done with the stocks received. Finally, he pointed out that the Congress government had pledged to provide 2 lakh jobs annually. With 1.3 lakh job vacancies remaining when the BRS government yielded power to the Congress, he questioned why the Congress government had not filled these positions. He reiterated that the Modi government had allocated Rs. 12 lakh crore for the development of Telangana and invited the Congress to debate this allocation.
News18
40 minutes ago
- News18
Can BRICS Be Compromised As The SCO Was?
Last Updated: BRICS is not the SCO, and Rio is not Qingdao. With Xi absent and Putin constrained, Modi arrives as the undisputed senior-most leader from the founding members On July 6, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will represent India at the BRICS Summit in Rio. At the summit, India will be joined by nine other participating nations, along with the host nation, Brazil, and observer countries. At the summit, India's major objective is to push through its counter-terrorism agenda in light of the Pahalgam attack and the aftermath of it, which led to a conflict with the Pakistani state, and name and shame the terror-breeding nation. However, it's not the first time India has been pushing this agenda with a similar group of nations in attendance. Last month, at the SCO defence ministers' meeting in Qingdao, India tried to raise the issue of cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan, only to be rebutted. Pakistan, with the help of China, forced down a counter-terror joint statement that failed to mention Pahalgam but conveniently included the struggle for independence in Balochistan, a pain point for the Pakistani state nonetheless, and conveniently labelled it terrorism. India refused to sign it. Nine of the 10 participating nations that did sign the joint statement included Iran, Russia, and China. Three of those nations will also be present at the BRICS summit; therefore, the question arises whether they'd still try to rebut India's genuine counterterror agenda. Will Russia ally with China and Iran? Will China once again be allowed to steamroll through the summit? Quite plainly, the answer is no. For the first time in 12 years of the BRICS summit, the Chinese President has chosen to skip the forum altogether. The decision is even more surprising given that almost all member countries are facing imminent and costly tariff wars with the United States. Does Beijing no longer have leadership ambitions? Or is it now aware that, outside of inconsequential multilateral summits such as the SCO, its flat-track bullying and bulldozing diplomacy will not work? Or it's the fact that Xi knew that he would be upstaged by Modi, who is the guest of honour in Brazil, and chose to spare his blushes. Whatever the reason, Xi's absence is telling. With a constrained Vladimir Putin appearing via video, PM Modi will be the most senior and most formidable leader present among the founding members. The centre of gravity at BRICS has decisively shifted. Unlike the SCO, this is a genuinely multipolar grouping where countries like Brazil and South Africa have robust, independent partnerships with India that act as a natural counterbalance to any Chinese overreach. SCO: A Stage for China's Games The charade at Qingdao was predictable. The SCO has long been China's diplomatic playground, a place where its writ runs large and inconvenient truths are swept under the carpet. The joint statement was a masterclass in Chinese manipulation designed not to combat terror but to protect its all-weather ally, Pakistan. What's even more appalling is that the very attack the SCO refused to condemn was enabled by Chinese technology. According to a detailed report by the ORF, militants in Kashmir are increasingly using sophisticated, military-grade Chinese hardware, such as Huawei satellite phones, encrypted communication systems, and GPS devices. China's diplomatic cover for Pakistan at the SCO is, in reality, a cover for its own strategic footprint in the region's terror ecosystem. It's easy to be a bully when you own the playground. It's why the SCO fails to get a serious mention in geopolitical circles. Everyone knows it's a rigged forum where China's strategic interests trump any genuine commitment to collective security. But Beijing's ability to dominate such a forum is a measure of the SCO's weakness, not China's strength. In the real world, among platforms of consequence, this kind of behaviour doesn't fly. India's Shining Moment BRICS is not the SCO, and Rio is not Qingdao. With Xi absent and Putin constrained, Modi arrives as the undisputed senior-most leader from the founding members. The spotlight will be on India, and for good reason. India's economy, projected by Morgan Stanley to be the world's fastest-growing in 2025-26, gives it the clout to match its ambitions. Most importantly, unlike at the SCO, India is confident that the BRICS declaration will not only condemn the Pahalgam attack but will do so in language that is 'to India's satisfaction", backed by a consensus of partners who understand the threat of state-sponsored terror. Key partners have already offered their solidarity. India's position is further fortified by its robust bilateral ties that serve as a powerful counterbalance to Chinese influence. The India-Brazil partnership, marked by talks of major defence pacts, including the sale of Indian Akash air defence systems, along with India's strong relationships with South Africa and the UAE, creates a web of influence that China cannot simply bulldoze. At BRICS, India has the partners, the power, and the platform to ensure its voice is heard and its security interests are upheld. But it's not just that because India has favourable conditions, its concerns will be heard or met with interest. At the G7 summit this year in Canada, despite the geopolitical 'khichdi", which seems to be the theme wherever US President Donald Trump goes, India raised the issue, stood its ground, gathered the support needed, and pushed through with its agenda. Modi also rebuffed Trump's claims that he was the one who made the ceasefire possible after pressing India and Pakistan on trade. And he did it directly to him on a call, after the US President couldn't be bothered to stay for the entire summit. The point of it is that India is not going to be bullied into signing or accepting narratives. India will carve its agenda, it will rise for itself and the Global South, and it will make itself heard on the world's stage, and it will do so at a forum that keeps the West on the edge of their seats, unlike the SCO, which does not even get a whisper. About the Author Sohil Sinha Sohil Sinha is a Sub Editor at News18. He writes on foreign affairs, geopolitics along with domestic policy and infrastructure projects. First Published:
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
P Chidambaram writes: The spectre never went away
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is unwavering in its goal to establish a Hindu rashtra (Hindu nation). The concept of a Hindu rashtra is borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire (800-1800 CE) or the Caliphate (632-1258 CE), and prescribes a nation governed according to Hindu scriptures. Sometimes, the RSS may seem to retreat but will not wander or go astray; it will wait for a propitious time to strike. Hindu rashtra has many sub-goals such as repealing Article 370 of the Constitution, building a grand Ram temple at Ayodhya, laying exclusive claim to holy places like Varanasi and Mathura, and replacing the Babasaheb Ambedkar-drafted Constitution by a constitution based on Manusmriti. The modern nation-state is based on citizenship. The central pillar of a Hindu nation will be the Hindu religion. M. S. Golwalkar, the second sarsanghchalak of the RSS (1940-1973), called 'Guruji', in his book, We, or Our Nationhood Defined, wrote: 'The foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen's rights.' Golwalkar is venerated by the RSS and remains the fountainhead of RSS-thought. There is no evidence that the RSS has changed its views on Hindu rashtra. On the contrary, the RSS vocally supported the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The RSS also supports the government's efforts to throw out or push back 'unlawful' immigrants, especially Bangladeshis and Rohingyas. (The government paused the NRC only when it found that the implementation of the law had the unintended result of identifying many thousands of Hindus as non-citizens.) Soon after Mr Modi formed his second government in 2019, he struck at the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). The use of Article 370(1)(d) and (3) to nullify Article 370 was, to say the least, bizarre and constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court held that the 'amendment' to the Constitution without following the procedure laid down in Article 368 was unconstitutional. Yet, the Supreme Court saved the situation for the government by holding that the exercise of power by the President under Article 370(1)(d), applying all the provisions of the Constitution to J&K, had the same effect as abrogation of Article 370. However, the Court left several seminal questions unanswered. The government won bragging rights though it lost on the legal issue of abrogation. In April 2024, emboldened by his belief that his 10-year rule had ushered in the Amrit Kaal (golden age), Mr Modi raised his sights and aimed at winning 400 seats in the Lok Sabha election. The I.N.D.I.A. parties waged a spirited battle with the slogan 'save the Constitution'. The slogan resonated with the people who voted in favour of continuing a BJP-led government but with a severe limitation: they gave the BJP just 240 seats, less than a simple majority in the Lok Sabha. That check has constricted Mr Modi's power to amend the Constitution — so far. 🔴 The first arrow was the pseudo-democratic idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE). A pre-scripted report was obtained and a joint parliamentary committee has been enabled to go around the country to obtain 'views' — until the time is ripe to pass the O.N.O.E. Bills. 🔴 The next arrow was shot by Mr Dattatreya Hosabale, general secretary of RSS. He dubbed as unconstitutional the addition of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble to the Constitution, and demanded their deletion. The Congress and other Opposition parties condemned the demand. The Vice President of India, Mr Jagdeep Dhankar, weighed in with the observation that the two words were a 'festering wound'. Mr Hosabale's demand triggered a political debate and Mr Dhankar wading into the debate raised eyebrows. The word 'secular' is anathema to the supporters of Hindu rashtra but can a plural, diverse, multi-religious and democratic country be anything but secular? I admire the French who are pre-dominantly Catholic but fiercely secular. The other word 'socialist' has no fixed meaning; it is often used to describe a welfare state and the BJP cannot deny that India is a welfare state. The addition of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' did not radically alter the basic structure of the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme had held in 1973 that 'secularism' is a basic feature of the Constitution and in 1980 that 'socialism' permeated the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36 to 51). The demand of Mr Hosabale is not based on any constitutional principle or societal need but is raised only to stoke the fires lit by the communal forces. It will be a betrayal of their core principles if the TDP, JD(U), AIADMK, LJP, JD(S), NCP and others support the RSS/BJP. The I.N.D.I.A. parties must gear up for a battle which they will surely win.
