JKSSB SI Result 2022: Fraud, say aspirants as more than 20 siblings qualify JK Police Recruitment exam.

 

JKSSB SI Result 2022 has been released but questions are being raised. In a surprising turn of events, candidates are calling the JKSSB SI result 'fraud' as more than 20 siblings have qualified. Such a bizarre incident has made people raise questions on JK Police Recruitment exam.

Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, Sub Inspector or JKSSB SI Result 2022 has been declared online on June 4, 2022. With the list of shortlisted candidates out, J&K Police Recruitment exam has come under the scanner for a very bizarre yet new experience. This time, in JKSSB SI Result, over 20 siblings  qualified for the police recruitment.

JKSSB SI Result 2022 is now being questioned as never before, such a thing has been seen. In the result analysis shared here, the marked colours show the names of 22 siblings shortlisted for J&K Police Recruitment. If one sees carefullt, one would notice that even the names of family members are same, raising questions on this bizarre phenomenon.

Adding to the chain of events to the JKSSB SI Result 2022, some aspirants have also called the JK Police Recruitment exam a 'fraud' and 'unfair.' Some have also taken to social media and demanded answers as to how such an incident occurred where so many siblings got selected together.

While questions continue to be raised on JKSSB SI Result 2022, the authorities have not come forward yet or said anything on the same. With the JK Police sarkari naukri recruitment still on, netizens have also taken this 'siblings issue' to social media, leading to both angry and funny discussions.

JKSSB SI Result 2022 was declared for the exam that was held for recruitment to 1200 posts of Sub Inspectors in the Jammu and Kashmir police under the Home Department, UT Cadre. As per reports, over 97,000 candidates appeared for this exam.

Russia Ukraine conflict: bring russia closer to china.

 

Between 1991 and 2014, Russia ramped up its global standing and emerged as a considerable military power. As Ukraine veered towards the West, Moscow grew increasingly concerned that its strategic interests in Crimea were being threatened. 

Increasing hostilities with Ukraine and the West is advantageous to Russia given the tattered relationship between the USA and its European allies, the domestic support for such an endeavour and Putin’s need for a popularity boost ahead of the 2024 Russian Presidential elections. But how do the Ukrainians perceive the current state of affairs, and what they are prepared to do in order to protect their national sovereignty?

Historic relations 

When the Soviet Union broke up in the early 1990s, Ukraine, a former Soviet Republic, had the third largest atomic arsenal in the world. Anticipating a friendly relationship with Moscow moving forward, Kyiv gave its considerable nuclear stockpile back to Russia in exchange for security guarantees that protected it from a potential Russian attack. At the time, Ukrainians had little to fear from Russia, especially given the fact that in a 1991 referendum, more than 83 per cent of Donbas residents and 54 per cent of Crimea residents voted to have Ukraine secede from the USSR. Even Russian speaking Ukrainians overwhelmingly supported Ukraine’s independence and following years of military and economic decline during the Cold War, Russia seemed to be a toothless power on the international stage.

However, between then and 2014, Russia ramped up its global standing and emerged as a considerable military power once again. As Ukraine veered towards the West, Moscow grew increasingly concerned that its strategic interests in Crimea were being threatened. 

In 2014, Kremlin-leaning Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych rejected an association with the European Union (EU) in favour of closer ties with Moscow. This resulted in a series of protests across Ukraine, ending with Yanukovych’s removal from power the same year. Russia in turn responded by annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and throwing its weight behind a separatist rebellion that broke out in eastern Ukraine. 

Immediately after the annexation, Ukraine seemed to have the upper hand. In response, Russia was forced to send a large part of its regular troops to Donbas in eastern Ukraine, succeeding in causing huge casualties on the Ukrainian side but ultimately failing to capture the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

In a show of compromise, Ukraine and Russia adopted the Minsk Agreements in 2015 which stipulated that Russia must remove all its troops and machinery from Ukraine in exchange for Kyiv agreeing to hold special elections in Donbas. According to Ukrainian journalist, Olya Vorozhbyt, who spoke with some news agency, Ukraine has held up its side of the bargain, even though Russia has not. “The Minsk agreements established a ceasefire,” Vorozhbyt notes, and “while Ukrainian soldiers have defended themselves, they haven’t actively attacked Russian soldiers or separatists.

Conversely, Russia continued to adopt a series of unconventional tactics against Ukraine including cyber-attacks, funding and arming irregular militias, and spreading mass disinformation. Russia also installed puppet governments in Donetsk and Luhansk, creating military dictatorships in the occupied territories which were initially run by Russian citizens. Over time, the Kremlin began to change the narrative of the conflict, framing it as a Ukrainian civil war that Russia was involved in simply as a mediator. Ukrainians have staunchly rejected this notion. Vorozhbyt stresses that the conflict was between Ukraine and Russia and not nationalists and separatists. 

Russia’s rationale behind supporting so-called Ukrainian separatists is bellied by its claim that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. Putin has depicted Ukraine as the “holy Rus”, the birthplace and antecedent of the Russian state. In his writings in 2014 and 2021, Putin argued that Russians and Ukrainians were not just fraternal peoples, but one, single, united people, part of the same civilisation. This claim stems from the fact that in the late 18th century, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which collectively came to be known as Novorossiya or New Russia.

However, Russians and Ukrainians have lived apart longer than they have lived together and, in a poll, conducted in 2021, 70 per cent of Ukrainians disagreed with the ‘one people’ claim. A report from the Brookings Institute further argues that Ukraine was a colony of Russia, much like India and America once were of the British. The fact that many Ukrainians speak Russian and parts of Ukrainian territory were incorporated into the Russian Empire is therefore “irrelevant” akin to any claim that the Brits may have over America due to their shared cultural similarities. However, the devils in the margins, and even with limited Ukrainian support, Russia can point to the interests of the few Russian ‘citizens’ in eastern Ukraine as justification for its involvement in the conflict.

Since 2014, over 14,000 people have been killed in the Donbas and an additional 1.4 million residents internally displaced, with approximately 75,000 of them fleeing to Russia.

Security Threat

Russia has gathered as many as 130,000 troops along different parts of the Ukrainian border with 30,000 troops stationed in Belarus (near Kyiv) alone. The Kremlin seems to be making all the preparations for war, including moving military equipment, medial units and blood to the front lines. Diplomatic talks between Russia and the West have thus far not yielded any solutions. Putin has issued a series of demands on Ukraine and NATO ranging from the removal of NATO forces in Eastern Europe, a guarantee that Ukraine will not be allowed to join the alliance, the granting of autonomy to the Donbas and a recognition that the conflict in Ukraine is a civil war. Those demands have been hotly rejected by all parties involved.

That brings us to the situation today and how it may escalate in the coming months. There are three main theories surrounding this debate. The first is that Russia will continue to destabilise eastern Ukraine without sending additional troops into the country. The second is that Russia may make a play for the Donbas, thus establishing a corridor between Russia and Crimea (and by extension, the strategically significant port of Sevastopol.) The third, and most concerning scenario, is that Russia may wage an all-out offence against Ukraine, including taking Kyiv and subsequently occupying the entire country. 

If Russia pursues the first option, much like it has done in Azerbaijan and Georgia, Moscow could continue exerting its influence in Ukraine while prima facie denying its involvement in the conflict. Russia has already issued almost 200,000 passports to Ukrainians in the Donbas in a bid to exert pressure on Kyiv to grant the region autonomy. This would succeed in hurting Ukraine without occupying it and mitigate the risk of a full-blown conflict. Given that Ukraine is as large and populous as Afghanistan with over 300,000 people who have some form of military experience, the Kremlin may look to the past and determine that occupation is not the best route forward. Continuing to issue passports in the Donbas, while covertly supporting the separatist movement, would meet Russian foreign policy objectives while sparing Moscow from much needed international accountability. Vorozhbyt doubts the efficacy of such a strategy however, pointing to the fact that Ukrainians want to have both Crimea and the Donbas returned to them as a matter of state sovereignty. Whether or not they could contend with Russia’s asymmetrical tactics of warfare or amass the support of Western allies in doing so, is yet to be determined.  

Another scenario is that Russia might seek to establish a land corridor to Crimea, by seizing 300km of territory along the Sea of Azov. To do so would require imposing massive costs on the government in Kiev including decimating its armed forces and destroying critical infrastructure. Russia could do this with or without placing troops on the ground. Similar to NATO’s airstrikes against Serbia in 1999, Russia could conceivably wage a “stand-off” war against Ukraine, using rocket launchers and cyber-attacks to undermine Ukrainian resistance.

A full-on invasion of Ukraine would be something Europe hasn’t seen in decades. Russia has amassed troops alongside Ukraine’s eastern border and more concerningly, has placed 30,000 troops in Belarus under the guise of routine military exercises. Were those troops to advance, Putin could take Donbas in the east and launch an attack on Kyiv in the west from Belarus. The US has estimated that such an attack would result in a civilian death toll exceeding 50,000.

(Indian Express)

However, Ukrainians have indicated that they would not take such hostility sitting down. A December survey by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology (KIS) found that 33.3 per cent of Ukrainians would put up armed resistance if Russia started large-scale military actions while a further 21.7 per cent said that they would participate in civil resistance in the form of protests, strikes and demonstrations. In January, the Ukrainian parliament wrote a law for national resistance, according to which, people across the country will be trained to resist Russian aggression. Russian occupation would thus encounter the sort of insurgency that the Russian military was unable to subdue in both Afghanistan and Chechnya, despite the brutality inflicted in both regions.

(indian Express)

What is the likelihood of war?

In January 2022, the College of William and Mary, in association with the University of Denver, asked 362 International Relations scholars for their views on the Russia Ukraine crisis. The respondents expect Russia to use military force in Ukraine by a 3-1 margin, although many experts expressed uncertainty. When asked if Russia would use military force in the next year, 56 per cent of scholars said yes, and only 20 per cent said no. These assumptions have some basis in Russian popular opinion. For the past eight years, Russian public support for the Crimean takeover has hovered between 84 and 86 per cent. Another recent survey shows that 50 per cent of Russians blame the US and NATO for escalating tensions, while only 4 per cent blame the Kremlin. Moreover, two US officials have said that Russia has in place 70 per cent of the combat power it would need to occupy Ukraine.

That being said, only 25 per cent of Russians support the incorporation of the Donbas into Russia, while 26 per cent believe that the contested republics should remain within Ukraine. A report by the Critical Threats Project of the American Enterprise Institute, together with the Institute for the Study of War also argues against the probability of a Russian invasion, insisting that the economic costs of such an endeavour would be more than the Kremlin is able to sustain. The report states that “Putin may be attempting a strategic misdirection that impales the West in a diplomatic process and military planning cycle that will keep it unprepared,” thus destabilising the country and dividing NATO without directly invading Ukraine. According to a recent KIS study, a slim majority of Ukrainians agree with this assessment. It found that only 48 per cent of Ukrainians believe that Russia will attack, however another poll by the Ramzukov Center in Ukraine, found that 71 per cent of Ukrainians think the country is already at war with Russia.

Another deterrent to war is how much Russia would struggle to retain the occupied territories. According to Vorozhbyt, “while perceptions of Russians by Ukrainians was quite high before 2014, when the aggression in Donbas started and Russia annexed Crimea, attitudes towards the Kremlin changed.” Since the outbreak of hostilities, Putin and his allies have repeatedly depicted Ukraine as a brotherly nation that has fallen under the control of extremist elements and foreign control. However, recent polling from the Ukranian Ratings Institute indicates that 72 per cent of Ukrainians consider Russia to be a “hostile state.” Even in separatist held parts of the Donbas, 55 per cent of respondents expressed a preference for being part of the Ukrainian state. In Donetsk and Luhansk, 65 per cent of residents wanted to see the Donbas reintegrated into Ukraine.

This change in perceptions is significant argues Vorozhbyt. Pointing to huge rallies in Russian speaking areas of Ukraine, she states that “even people who weren’t interested in politics are now more patriotic and anti-Russia,” a trend that is likely to continue. “The more aggressive Russia is, the more resistance Putin faces,” she adds.

This resistance holds firm from the top to the bottom. Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelensky is adamantly opposed to Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine and his stance is validated by his landslide victory in 2019, winning the election with 73 per cent of the vote. It is noteworthy that Zelensky also won all of the constituencies in eastern Ukraine, despite the pro-Russian candidate initially having the upper hand. Leading Ukrainian newspapers are also resolute in their opposition to Russia, with one comparing the West’s inaction in Ukraine to the disastrous policy of appeasement pursued by UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin in response to the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Speaking about the West, its role will also prove important. The EU and America have tolerated Russian aggression in Ukraine in the past but have seemingly drawn a red line against any escalations that would involve a direct attack.

Ukrainian allies

Moscow has demanded that no former Soviet states be allowed to join NATO and has accused the West of flooding Ukraine with weapons and stoking tensions in the region. While Russia does have some legitimate security concerns, given that NATO was formed as an anti-Russian alliance, upon observation, the Kremlin’s claims seem unsubstantiated. Only five NATO countries neighbour Russia accounting for under 6 per cent of its total borders. Furthermore, European military spending has declined over the last few decades, relative to Russia and for its part, NATO has repeatedly declined calls for Ukrainian membership.

A December 2021 KIS survey found that 67 per cent of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU while 59 per cent want to join NATO. Three years ago, Ukraine even changed its constitution to include a pathway to those organisations as a part of the country’s future development. However, despite public support, Ukraine doesn’t seem likely to join NATO anytime soon. This view has been reiterated by the alliance and by President Biden, with both claiming that Ukraine must root out corruption and meet other development goals before it is considered for membership. This puts Kyiv in a tricky situation. By applying for NATO, it has annoyed Russia and now faces a hostile and powerful neighbour without any protections from the alliance.

Individual countries have pledged their assistance though, and if they maintain their current positions, it seems likely that Putin will have to account for Western support in any calculus for an invasion. In a press conference, Biden warned that “Russia will pay a heavy price” if it chooses to invade Ukraine. His administration has already approved an additional USD200 million in defensive military aid to Ukraine, in addition to the USD450 million provided in the last fiscal year. Earlier this month, Biden directed the Pentagon to deploy more than 3000 American troops to bolster the defence of European allies.

However, only 15 per cent of American voters support troops being deployed to Ukraine, and therefore, the likelihood is that Washington will continue to provide monetary support and impose sanctions on the Russian economy, but will stop short of an active military involvement. Vorozhbyt believes that may be enough. She says that “the main thing that Ukraine needs from the West is more weapons, more sanctions and vocal public support.”

European nations have responded to Ukraine’s calls for assistance in various ways. In January, Britain began airlifting thousands of antitank missiles to Ukraine. Days before, Sweden rushed armoured vehicles to the island of Gotland. The BBC has also reported that Spain is sending warships to join NATO’s naval forces in the Mediterranean and Black Sea while French President Emmanuel Macron has offered to send troops to Romania. However, Germany, arguably the strongest European nation, has remained notably subdued. This is likely due to its reliance on Russian natural gas.

Vorozhbyt decries that Russia constantly uses gas as a weapon, alleging that German politicians like former Chancellor Schroder, have been “bought by Russia” due to their dealing with Russia’s largest energy company Gazprom (of which Schroder is a board member.) Reserving a significant amount of the blame on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, she asserts that “there is enough capacity to transport gas without Nord Stream 2, which is transparently a way to reroute gas transportation systems to bypass Ukraine.” Another Ukrainian publication argued that the Germans are literally financing Russia’s war on Ukraine, pointing to the fact that Russia’s foreign gas sales totalled USD54 billion in 2021, while its defence budget was USD62 billion.

Even though Russia has bolstered its economy against Western sanctions, halting the Nord Stream 2 project would have severe ramifications for its economy. While German politicians have muddied around the issue in the past, stating that the pipeline is private sector project, separate from Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz seemed to change his tune after meeting Biden at the White House this month. “If Russia invades…there will no longer (be) a Nord Stream 2,” Biden said during a joint press conference with Scholz. Asked specifically whether Germany was prepared to pull the plug on the pipeline, the Chancellor said, “we are absolutely united

According to Vorozhbyt, Ukraine is prepared for any and all eventualities. “My friends in Kyiv are packing their bags,” she says. “People are going to restaurants and cafes but over the weekend, they are training to fight against an invasion.” Vorozhbyt echoes what seems to be the public sentiment in Ukraine at the moment, stating that “people are calm, but they are also preparing for resistance and will not accept any more infringements upon the sovereignty of Ukraine.”

Pahari Tribe’s ST Status struggle in J&K

 

Pahari Tribe of Jammu and Kashmir is as embedded in a mosaic of collective traditionalism and reflected through their common origin, common language, distinctive dress pattern, distinctive food habit, common psychological makeup, similar physical feathers, tradition organization in basic institutions of marriage, family and kinship, lower positions in socio-economic scale and relative isolation from the mainstream society, tantamount to make the Pahari Tribe of Jammu and Kashmir an ethnic Group.

Struggle for Recognition of endangered Cultural, ethnic and linguistic identity of the Pahari Tribe started in early 70′ when “All Jammu and Kashmir Pahari Cultural and Welfare Forum was constituted. Pahari Tribe having compact population, major pockets are found among the foothills of the Pir- Panchal range with major concentrations in Poonch, Rajouri, Baramulla and Kupwara. Besides these four major pockets, their habitations are also found in Anantnag, Kulgam, Shopian, Pulwama,Budgam, Ganderbal and Bandipora districts as well.
Constitution of All Jammu and Kashmir Pahari Cultural Welfare Forum on 1969-70, Karnah Cultural Club (1973), Establishment of Pahari Section in Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Art, Culture and Languages (1978), Pahari Programme and News from the then Radio Kashmir Srinagar ( 2nd October 1979), establishment of Pahari Advisory Board vide Order Number GAD-1439 (1989), twice Unanimous Resolutions in J&K Assembly and Council for ST to Paharis. Passing of Reservation act to Pahari Speaking People in 2014. Pahari Reservation Amendment Bill 2018 and granting of 4% reservation in Jammu and Kashmir from 2020, construction of Pahari Hostels are result of Five decades old struggle of Pahari Tribe for Status which is still pending.

The Govt of Jammu and Kashmir vide Cabinet decision No. 159 dated 8-8-1989 identified and recommended to GOI the name of Pahari Tribe at serial Number One of along with other various groups for ST status but GOI denied ST to them on the justification that they don’t qualify the required criteria. Apart from this the Pahari tribe also believes that their demand was turned down by Rajesh pilot who was himself a Gujjar leader and Union Home Minister at that time. On 6th of February 1993 the then Governor of State G.C Saxena addressed a letter to Shiv Raj Singh Chouhan the then Union Home Minister urging acceptance of the State Government recommendations regarding the grant of ST Status to Pahari Tribe. Governor of the State General KV Krishna Rao in his communication vide DO No GS/GOV(C) IG 193 dated 26 Dec. 19993 to Sita Ram Kesri, Union Minister of Social Welfare Department made a strong case for early inclusion of Paharis among Scheduled tribes. The Governor reiterated the state Governments view that Paharis and Gujjars/ Bakarwals were culturally and racially similar and face the same problems arising out of socio-economic backwardness. Prime Minister HD Dev Gowda in Feb 1997 in public meetings in Uri and Rajouri committed for ST Status but his Government didn’t last long as it fell short.

Former PM Atal Bihar Vajpayee in a public rally in Karnah in 1998 assured ST Status to Pahari Tribe. This can be verified from un-starred Rajya Sabha question No. 2399 in 13-08-20001. On 29 May 2011 the then Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State addressed a letter to the Prime Minister pleading for grant of ST Status.

The chief minister drew the prime minister’s attention to the assurance held out to the Paharies by late PM Indra Gandhi and A. B . Vajpayee. It was also mentioned in the letter that pahari people are socio-economically very backward and are facing the brunt of being inhabitants of the line of Control. In 2007 this matter was discussed in the meeting of the consultative committee of Parliament for the ministry of Home Affairs. The Minister of Tribal Affairs had informed the committee that ST Status had not been granted to the Pahari community of the state because the Registrar General of India (RGI) had not accepted their claim to be a tribe. The RGI was of the view that Paharis were linguistic rather than an ethnic Group. The Registrar General of India raised seven queries and sought their reply from Jammu and Kashmir State via a communication on 16 of March 2001. In response, the State Govt. Appointed S.L Bhat Principal Secretary to Govt Social welfare Department) who responded to queries of RGI vides Letter No. PSSW/03/261 dated 23/06/2003 and justified ST Status for Paharies by referencing different census reports and commitments from the time to time.

In 2012 Home Secretary suggested that the State Govt may constitute a commission to look into the issue and make suitable recommendations. A detailed socio-economic survey was conducted under Prof (Dr) Pirzada Mohammad Amin Committee which was approved by the J&K Govt Cabinet and sent to GOI. The Peerzada Amin Committee Report in its recommendations have categorically stated that owing to the cultural distinctiveness, vulnerable, socio-economic condition and isolation of Pahari Community, there is a desperate need to mainstream this community by bringing them within the ambit of positive discrimination as governed by the constitutional principle of affirmative action and as applied to other marginalized communities of the country. It has been observed during the macro-field study that the Pahari community people of Jammu and Kashmir state largely resembles stock of people with primitive traits like traditional marriage practices, dress pattern, shyness of contact, hairstyle. etc. The inhabitants of mountainous and border areas live in close proximity with nature and still depend on it for their basic needs such as food, fuel and energy. Agricultural and allied agricultural activities are their main occupation. A remarkable resemblance underlying the patterns of social organizations, culture and way of life can be found between them and other tribal communities of the state.
Pertinent to mentioned here that Kaka Kalelkar Commission, Gajendragadkar Commission, Sikri Commission, Wazir Commission, and the Anand Commission were constituted for different purposes by the successive Governments and none of the commissions recommend ST Status neither for Gujjar/Bakerwal nor for Pahari Tribe. For the first time in 1989 vide Cabinet decision No. 159 dated 8-8-1989 Government of Jammu and Kashmir Recommended to GOI the name of Pahari, Gujjars, Bakerwal along with others communities. Under EWS/RBA/ALC categories reservations, Gujjar/Bakerwal Tribe also get benefits besides ST category.
Pahari Tribe case is more strong for ST status than any other community as it has been recommended by different commissions, committees from time to time may by it SL Bhat Report, Justice Sagheer Report , Interlocutors, Institute of Peace and Conflict, Pirzaad Amin Committee report and time to time J&K Govts recommendations. S.LBhat Report is worth mentioning here because it clears many doubts and justified ST Demand
In 1901 census both Pahari and Gujjari were treated as languages of respective communities along with Kashmir, Dogri, Punjabi etc. No distinction was made between two as regards their tribal or non-tribal character. Further Gujjars have been treated as caste rather than tribe along with other social groups like Hajjam, Lohar, Mochi, Teli etc. Bakarwali is not even mentioned as a language nor did Bakerwal Community return as a tribe.
As far as Justice A. S Anand Commission’s Report and its recommendations are concerned it is regarding socially educationally backward communities. This commission was constituted to remove defects in the rules that governed reservation in appointments and promotions of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes as were in vogue at that point of time. It did not have the mandate to identify the communities which were eligible or otherwise for grant of Scheduled Tribe Status. It is not correct to hold that even Justice Anand Commission did not consider Paharis entitled to affirmative action of the state.

S.L Bhat in his report clarifies the Jammu and Kashmir State Govt Position regarding Pahari Tribe ST Status No census since 1901 has returned Gujjars, Gaddis or Bakarwals as Tribes. Not even people of Ladakh region. Exceptions seems to be the 1987-88, which followed the statement of political intent to declare certain groups as ST and was prelude to declaration of these Groups as ST, therefore, the question of Paharis not having been enumerated as tribe does not arise and it is not relevant.

All the census have treated Paharis, Gujjars, Bakarwals and others who have been given ST status as linguistic and social groups rather than tribes in the classical sense. There have been some stray references to Bakarwals as nomads. But there is no such description in favor of Gujjars. As a matter of fact, quite a few census reports have described Gujjars as settled group and Paharis as those who migrate in search of employment opportunities.

Denial of ST Status to Paharis in neighboring states cannot be a tenable ground for turning down a legitimate demand. Gujjars/Bakarwals and Paharis share Common social, economic and geographical disabilities and are more or less at the same level of development. If Gaddis who are not nomadic but upland shepherds have been treated as Hindus counterparts of Bakarwals, there is no reason why Pahari Tribe should not be treated at par with Gujjars with whom they have much in common.
Initially, Registrar General of India /GOI was not convinced about the merit of the demand of Gujjars and Bakarwals for ST Status. That is why they were not included in the original notification issued in 1989.They were included in the subsequent notification after reconsideration of their demand. RGI treated Gujjars and Bakerwals as a marginal case. Same consideration needs to be accorded to Paharis.
The Pahari Tribe has as strong a claim to the Status of a scheduled tribe as any other ethnic group that has been notified as a scheduled tribe. The Government of India, at the level of the Prime Minister, has repeatedly held out assurances that this demand will be accepted. To satisfy the genuine aspirations of the Pahari and to honor the political commitments made by the leadership of the country it is absolutely essential that the paharis are granted Scheduled Tribe Status.

Why the collegiums system, while the best for judicial appointments, needs course corrections

 Lord Denning said, “Every judge, in a sense, is on trial to see that he does his job honestly, and properly”, and that “justice is rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking that the judge is biased”. It goes to the credit of our earlier judges, though appointed by the state, that they administered justice judicially, and with the requisite detachment within the rule of law.

The situation, however, changed with Indira Gandhi assuming office. In the matter of appointment of judges, political philosophy, and the political leaning of a candidate became a major consideration. And then came the Emergency. Judges were put to test in the matter of ADM Jabalpur, and barring one brave exception, the judges failed the Constitution, and thus the nation. They just forgot, nay ignored, the words of Lord James Mansfield in Rex versus Wilkes: “The constitution does not allow reasons of State to influence our judgments: God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences; how formidable soever they might be: If rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say ‘fiat justitia, ruat caelum’, meaning, let justice be done though the heaven fall

Farmer Protest 2020

 Recently, there have been strong protests from farmers, especially from the states of Punjab and Haryana, against three farm bills that seek to replace ordinances issued in june 2020.

These bills envisage to bring change in some of the key aspects of the farm economy — trade in agricultural commodities, price assurance, farm services including contracts, and stock limits for essential commodities.

These bills sought to bring much needed reforms in the agricultural marketing system such as removing restrictions of private stock holding of agricultural produce or creating trading areas free of middlemen and take the market to the farmer.

However, farmers are apprehensive that the free market philosophy supported by these bills could undermine the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system and make farmers vulnerable to market forces.

Note :

Three Farm Bills that are bond of contention:

• The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020,
• The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020,
• Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020.

Intended Benefits Associated with These Bills

• The Bills aim to do away with government interference in agricultural trade by creating trading areas free of middlemen and government taxes outside the structure of Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs).
  
  • It will allow farmers an option to sell their produce directly to these new zones, without going through the middlemen and paying levies such as mandi fees.
• It sought to remove stock holding limits as well as curbs on inter-State and intra-State trade, and create a framework for contract farming.
• Also, these bills promote the creation of Farmer Producer Organisations (FPO) on a large scale and will help in creating a farmer-friendly environment for contract farming where small players can benefit.
• These bills may enable private players to invest in warehousing, grading and other marketing infrastructure.
• A combined effect of these bills will help in creating a ‘One Nation, One Market’ for agricultural produce.

Issues Raised by The Farmers & Opposition

• Federal Angle: The provisions in the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, provides for unfettered commerce in designated trade areas outside APMC jurisdictions.
  
  • Apart from this, the bill empowers the Centre government to issue orders to States in furtherance of the law’s objectives.
  • However, matters of trade and agriculture being the part of subjects on the State list, have caused resentment in States.
• Lack of Consultation: First the ordinance route and now the hastily attempt to pass the Bills without proper consultation adds to the mistrust among various stakeholders including farmers.
  
  • Also, by allowing ‘trade zones’ to come up outside the APMC area, farmers have become apprehensive that the new system would lead to eventual exit from the minimum support price.
• Absence of any regulation in non-APMC mandis: Another issue that is raised by the farmers is that the proposed bills give the preference for corporate interests at the cost of farmers’ interests.
  
  • In absence of any regulation in non-APMC mandis, the farmers may find it difficult to deal with Corporates, as they solely operate on the motive of profit seeking.
• Non-Favourable Market Conditions: While retail prices have remained high, data from the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) suggest a deceleration in farm gate prices for most agricultural produce.
  
  • With rising input costs, farmers do not see the free market based framework providing them remunerative prices.
  • These fears gain strength with the experience of States such as Bihar which abolished APMCs in 2006. After the abolition of mandis, farmers in Bihar on average received lower prices compared to the MSP for most crops.

Way Forward

• Improve Agricultural Infrastructure to Strengthen Competition: Government should massively fund the expansion of the APMC market system, make efforts to remove trade cartels, and provide farmers good roads, logistics of scale and real time information.
• Empowering State Farmers Commissions: Rather than opting for heavy centralisation, the emphasis should be on empowering farmers through State Farmers Commissions recommended by the National Commission for Farmers, to bring about a speedy government response to issues.
• Consensus Building: The Centre should reach out to those opposing the Bills, including farmers, explain to them the need for reform, and get them on board.

Conclusion

Without strong institutional arrangements, the free market may harm lakhs of unorganised small farmers, who have been remarkably productive and shored up the economy even during a pandemic.