Pay Level
|
Higher Transport Allowance cities (A, AI)
|
Other places
|
9 and above
|
7200 + DA
|
3600 + DA
|
3 to 8
|
3600 + DA
|
1800 + DA
|
1 and 2
|
1350 + DA
|
900 + DA
|
The Study
about telecom issues and social issues
21, నవంబర్ 2015, శనివారం
BSNL got Operating Profit Rs 672 crore and Net Loss Rs 8234 crore for the year 2014-15---Net loss should have decreased, but increased due to change in accounting procedure! Is Next Wage Revision from 1.1.2017 Possible?
15, నవంబర్ 2015, ఆదివారం
Modi Government to speed up privatisation of PSUs
13, నవంబర్ 2015, శుక్రవారం
What an Indian Muslim wants?
1, సెప్టెంబర్ 2015, మంగళవారం
The Past Cannot be Righted by Inflicting Wrongs on History
On August 1, a first time MP from Delhi, Maheish Girri, petitioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi to change the name of Aurangzeb Road in Lutyens’ Delhi to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Road. Within weeks, the job is done, notwithstanding official rules against such renaming—the surest sign of decisive leadership we have seen so far!
What was wrong with Aurangzeb Road? Aurangzeb was—in Girri’s authoritative historical view—oppressive and cruel and had inflicted so many atrocities that commemorating him would send a wrong message to posterity. Changing the name of the road to honour the memory of the benign Kalam would right a “wrong” of history. Just as was done on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, presumably.
As a professional historian of medieval India—having spent nearly six decades unraveling and understanding our complex history—I am unfamiliar with Girri’s authority to pronounce judgments on my discipline.
But then, history is everyone’s discipline. Everyone is a born historian with equal entitlement to speak with full confidence. Especially if you have learnt the subject at an RSS shakha. So unlike any other discipline like physics or chemistry or even economics and sociology—where one has to devote to a lifetime to master it.
Colonial prism
James Mill was the first great colonial historian who taught us to study Indian history in terms of the religious identity of its rulers in any epoch prior to British rule; hence his division of this land’s past into Hindu, Muslim and British periods in his influential work, The History of British Rule in India, published in 1817-18.
Mill had contempt for both Hinduism and Islam – a little more for the former – which had apparently kept India in the age of darkness vis-à-vis the march of progress that modern colonial rule had brought. This was indeed the predominant view of India, with some important variations, among front-ranking European thinkers—from Montesquieu to Hegel and Marx during the 18th and 19th centuries.
This image of India’s past was substantially modified post-Independence by leading Indian historians who began to look at history in terms of several variables, of which which religious identity was only one. This was a marked departure from the colonialist historiographical legacy. In this departure, the notion of class—and conflicts arising in society on account of it—played a significant role. From the 1980s onwards, even more facets of the past have come to the fore, facets that the category of class had ignored: culture, family, gender, ecology, visions of time and space and habitat, the gender identity of polities, the history of the constructions of the past, history as it was imagined through the ages, and so forth. The world of history writing has changed in the past five or six decades like never before—in India, as elsewhere.
In the midst of this phenomenal metamorphosis, the popular image of history has remained unaltered—the product of of a great and organised effort to keep it tied to the singular pole of religion. History at this level is simplicity itself, the kind mouthed by Girri or by TV experts who are otherwise surgeons or dentists by profession. Or by the Hon’ble Prime Minister, who publicly declared that Alexander was defeated in Bihar and that the great Taxila University was located in Bihar, probably as he was unable to distinguish between Taxila and Nalanda.
Changing exigencies
At this level of simplicity, history evolves as something shaped by rulers or great men (rarely women)—a notion not even considered by professional historians any more—and that the religion of the ruler is the single determinant of his political actions, a notion historians discarded decades ago. An equally strong assumption underlying this simplistic understanding is that a ruler’s “policies” remain the same from the beginning of his rule to the end, something demonstrated as untenable many times over. Let us take two examples for illustration: Akbar and Aurangzeb.
The popular image of the two rulers is of Akbar being liberal and Aurangzeb being dogmatic in their “religious policy” (itself a very dubious term). That’s about all that is known about them. As long ago as the 1960s, two “Marxist”, i.e. non-BJP, historians Iqtidar Alam Khan and M Athar Ali, demonstrated that the religious stance of each was guided by—and fluctuated with—the changing demands of political events during their 50-year-long reigns, and that there were “phases” in which each became “liberal” or “orthodox” depending on which crisis they were confronting. This means the religious stance of a ruler was not an independent and unchanging variable but a political resource to be drawn upon as and when required. His personal religious predilections played a role, but were greatly circumscribed by the demands of the situation.
It is thus that Aurangzeb, both as an aspirant to the throne and as Emperor, abandoned any dreams he had of making puritanical Islam the centrepiece of his rule—even as his heart lay in it. In his 1966 book, Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, Athar Ali had tabulated the number of nobles from different groups who sided with the “liberal” Dara Shukoh and the “dogmatic” Aurangzeb (and the two other brothers) during the War of Succession in 1658-59. It turns out 24 Hindus were on Dara’s side and 21 on Aurangzeb’s, including the two highest-ranked Rajputs, Mirza Raja Jai Singh Kachhwaha of Amber and Raja Jaswant Singh Rathore of Jodhpur, who stayed with him till their end. It was Raja Jai Singh who defeated Shivaji and brought him to Aurangzeb’s court seeking peace. It was in 1679, 21 years after his accession to the throne, that Aurangzeb reimposed the jaziya tax on Hindus that Akbar had abolished in 1562—and he did this after the death of Jaswant Singh, when tension began with the Rathores.
Aurangzeb demolished some 15-odd temples—including ones at Mathura and Kashi, where he built mosques. Paradoxically, at the same time he also gave land and cash grants to Hindu temples and maths, including at Kashi, and these are all well documented.
What explains the paradox?
The same paradox that led a democratically elected leader in late 20th century India, Rajiv Gandhi, to mobilise religious support as a political resource when he had the gates of the disputed Ayodhya structure opened even as he succumbed to the outrageous demands of the Muslim clergy to upturn the Supreme Court judgment on Shah Bano. Rajiv Gandhi imagined he would be able to please both; in fact, he lost out on both fronts. Just like Aurangzeb, who spent the second half of his reign fighting on numerous fronts, both Hindu and Muslim.
James Mill had taught us to treat the rulers of the “Hindu” and the “Muslim” periods not as rulers whose actions are guided by complex considerations but simply by their religious affiliation. It is this colonial lesson that we propagate today when we view Akbar and Aurangzeb (and everyone else) as merely a “good” Muslim or a “bad” Muslim. Of course, all Hindu rulers are invariably “good”, no questions asked. One wonders whether Kalam, the great scientist and even greater human being and nationalist, would have felt honoured to be evaluated through this colonial prism and treated as a “good” Muslim whose claim to a road—that too from some Muslim ‘quota’—comes only as a counterpoint to the “bad” Aurangzeb and not as a product of his enormous accomplishments.
--Harbans Mukhia
The author is National Fellow, Indian Council of Historical Research
30, ఆగస్టు 2015, ఆదివారం
IMPERIALISM, PROGENITOR OF THE BIGOTS
"All the major theatres of Islamic fundamentalism today are places which were once in the forefront of progressive struggles in the third world, and every one of such struggles was destroyed by imperialism.
Mosadegh’s secular democratic regime supported by the Tudeh Party in Iran was overthrown, with the help of Ayatollah Kashani, because it dared to nationalise oil.
Saddam Husain’s Baath Party was helped by imperialism to overthrow the progressive regime of General Kassem in Iraq, which had been supported by the Communists; and later Saddam Husain’s own regime which at least professed secularism was overthrown, again by imperialism, which deliberately promoted the Shia-Sunni divide to bolster its position.
President Soekarno’s regime in Indonesia, which had the support of the Communists, was overthrown by imperialism in a bloody military coup by Suharto, which was followed by a pogrom that left half a million Communists dead; and today fundamentalism is making its presence felt in Indonesia.
Sudan, another place where fundamentalist forces are rearing their head, had the largest Communist Party in Africa, but an imperialist-backed coup by Nimieri seized power and the Communist leader, Comrade Mahjoub, was executed.
And of course in Afghanistan, it was the imperialism-promoted jihad against the Communist regime supported by the Soviet Union that spawned the Taliban and the Al qaeda.
In short, imperialism which appears as the benign defender of “human values” against the fundamentalist bigots everywhere, is itself the progenitor of the bigots; it systematically destroyed all progressive, secular nationalist regimes in the third world, while directly promoting, or leaving the stage empty for, the fundamentalist bigots.
This is not to say that the secular nationalist regimes of the third world did not have their own failings, weaknesses and contradictions.
We know in India the compromise with landlordism that the post-independence government entered into which sapped the viability of the dirigiste economic regime; similar stories can be repeated from other contexts.
But the basic point is this: it was never left to the third world countries to work out their own class contradictions and class antagonisms. Imperialism, inevitably, entered everywhere; it intervened everywhere, and the result of its intervention was a strengthening everywhere of the forces of reaction."....Prabhat Patnaik
Hence delinking from imperialist globalisation is required to strengthen nationalism and progress. But the pseudo nationalist BJP is surrendering to imperialism while raising some noise as if they are the only real nationalists!
19, ఆగస్టు 2015, బుధవారం
The 12 common demands of the working class for the General Strike on 2nd September 2015 and their importance to BSNL Employees
8. Universal
social security cover for all workers
Only 4% of the workers in India are in organized sector and 96% of the
workers are in unorganized sector. Establishments with less than 10 workers
are in unorganized sector. Also, self-employed workers, home based workers,
workers in Government schemes like anganwadi, mid-day meals etc. are
unorganized sector workers. The unorganized sector workers who comprise 96%
of the work force have no social security schemes like medical, accident
compensation, PF, pension etc. Due to the continuous struggles of the working
class, the UPA=1 Government enacted “The Unorganized Sector Workers Social
Security act, 2008”. But there is nothing new in it except bringing the 10
earlier existing schemes like Indira Gandhi national old age pension scheme,
Aam aadmi bima yojana, raashtriya svaasthya bima yojana etc. under its
purview. Even these schemes are not applicable to the vast
majority of the unorganized sector and applicable to only those below poverty
line. Out of the 43 crore unorganized sector workers, only 6 crore are
covered under this Act. Even for these 6 crores, adequate funds are not
allotted for implementing the social security benefits. The UPA Government
has allotted Rs 1000 crore only to implement the benefits under this Act. But
not a single paisa in it is expended so far. Modi Government also is doing
nothing except giving new names to the old schemes under this Act and
campaigning as if they are doing great service to the unorganized sector
workers by such change of names. Moreover, the Modi Government has imposed
drastic cuts in budgetary allocations to the welfare schemes like ICDS
(anganwadi), mid-day meals etc. which are beneficial to the unorganized
workers and their families.
The trade unions are demanding that all the unorganized workers and
government scheme workers should be brought under the purview of the
Unorganized sector workers social security act, whether they are below or
above poverty line, and sufficient funds should be allocated for implementing
social security benefits like medical facilities, accident relief, maternity
benefits, provident fund, pension etc. to all
unorganized workers.
9. Compulsory
registration of trade unions within a period of 45 days from the date of
submitting applications; and immediate ratification of ILO Convention C 87
and C 98.
After the advent of the neo-liberal economic policies, managements in
most of the private sector establishments and even in some PSUs are becoming
increasingly intolerant towards the existence of trade unions. Workers are
removed and leaders are harassed and removed for forming trade unions. The
registration of trade unions has become difficult and thousands of
applications for registration of trade unions are kept pending since a long
time. The trade unions are demanding that the registration of trade unions
should be done within 45 days of application.
As per the convention 87 approved by the ILO (International
Labor Organization), all the workers should be allowed unconditional right to
form trade unions without intervention from managements and without any
discrimination. But the Government of India is rejecting to ratify this
convention. The Government is not willing to grant trade union right to
government employees and they are allowed to form associations only. The
Trade Union Act lays down the c condition that to form a trade union, at
least 10% of the workers or 100, whichever is less, should come together,
instead of the earlier prescribed 7. There are several such restrictions and
conditions on the formation of trade unions. The trade unions are demanding
that the Government should ratify the convention 87 of the ILO and thus agree
for the right of the workers to form their trade unions without any conditions
imposed by the Government or management.
As per the convention 98 approved by the ILO, the workers should have
the right of collective bargaining. Recognizing the majority union/unions
based on secret ballot and negotiating with the union/unions thus recognized
to come to agreement on the demands of the workers is the essence of
collective bargaining. But the Government of India did not ratify this
convention 98. In India, there is no Act at central level and in many states
for recognizing trade unions. In PSUs and in some private companies the
unions are recognized through secret ballot/check off system as per the Code
of Conduct, which was only a gentleman agreement between the managements and
trade unions in 1961. But in most of the private sector, the trade unions are
not recognized on the basis of secret ballot and no collective agreements are
reached with the recognized unions. Instead, the managements are making
agreements with individual workers or with their pocket unions having no
support of the workers. Hence all the trade unions are demanding that the
Government of India should ratify the ILO convention 98 and ensure collective
bargaining.
10. Containing
unemployment through concrete measures for employment generation.
In our country every year 1.2 crore people join in the labour market
searching for work. As per the statistics of the Labour Bureau, only 4.19
lakh jobs were created in 2013 in the 8 sectors-garments, leather, metals,
automobiles, gems and jewelry, transport, IT/BPO and handlooms and power
looms. When the jobs required is 1.2 crores, how it can be
satisfied with this meagre creation of 4.19 lakhs?
Modi came to power campaigning that Manmohan Singh failed to solve
unemployment and he would solve it. After becoming PM, he announced “Make in
India” policy in the name of creating crores of jobs. Foreign investors
coming in large scale and establishing factories in India either by
themselves or jointly with Indian investors to produce in India for selling
in other countries is the sum and substance of this policy. For this, Modi
has been touring several foreign countries inviting the foreign big
corporates. He announced several concessions to foreign investors and Indian
investors. He issued land ordinance thrice to grab land from the farmers
without their consent, in the name of industrialization.
In spite of this, investment has not come in a big way. A major portion
(54%) of whatever has come, has come for investing in stock market, which
will neither produce goods/services nor create jobs. In spite of all this, in
2014, only 4 lakhs jobs were created under Modi Raj whereas 4.19 lakh jobs
were created in 2013 under Man Mohan Singh in 2013 in the 8 sectors mentioned
above.
Moreover, the strategy to produce in India for selling in other
countries is a flawed strategy. Due to the recession prevailing in the USA
and European countries and worldwide, our exports are falling down. This is
the reply given by the Commerce Minister Mrs Nirmala Sitaraman in Rajyasabha
on 22.7.2015.
Even in our country the market is not growing due to lack of sufficient
purchasing power in the hands of the people. As per the reply given by the
Finance Minister in the Parliament on 21.7.2015, as on 31.3.2015 the number
of companies closed was 45603 and it increased to 61449 by 16.7.2015. As per
the latest statistics, 1.40 lakh companies in the country are at the brink of
closure.
Under these circumstances, when there is no market either in other
countries or in India, how foreign investors will come to produce in India?
They will come only to the unproductive sectors like stock market, finance,
real estate and to loot our natural resources, to get some quick profit with
the concessions given by the Government. This is what is now
happening.
It is also proved that the “development” said to be achieved by the
foreign and Indian Corporates is helping the Corporates to increase their
profits, but not helping in creating more jobs. During 2004-05 to 2009-10,
the average GDFP growth was spectacular 8%, whereas the growth in jobs was
only 0.8% whereas the population growth is 1.5%. It is thus proved that the
concessions given to foreign and Indian capitalists are not helping in job
creation.
Therefore the private sector cannot be depended upon for job creation.
It should be the responsibility of the Government. But Government is shirking
this responsibility. As a result the jobs in organized sector have decreased
from 2.82 crores in 1998 to 2.75 crores in 2008-09. While only 20% among the
workers were contract workers in 1999-2000, it increased to 32% in 2008-09
and 50% at present. Thus, due to increase in unemployment problem, the number
of contract workers is growing rapidly.
The largest employer in organized sector in our country is the
Government. But the Government itself has imposed ban on recruitment. It is
abolishing vacant posts and outsourcing works. The number of posts unfilled
in various central government departments is around 10 lakhs. The number of
Railway employees has decreased from 16 lakhs to 13 lakhs during the last 10
years. The number of emp0loyees in BSNL was 3.5 lakhs as on 1.10.2000 and it
came down to 2.25 lakhs as on 31.3.2015. Due to this drastic reduction of
jobs in Government Department and Public Sector, the possibility of social
justice for SC/ST/OBC is drastically reduced.
The Modi Government is shirking its responsibility of job creation and
moreover it is attacking even the existing job creating schemes like MNREGA
(Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) by drastic reduction
in allocation of funds to it. This is reducing the work opportunities
available to SC/ST/OBC sections of the people.
While thus adding to the increase in unemployment and thus creating the
unrest, the ruling classes are utilizing this unrest to create communal
conflicts and sectarian trends.
This increasing unemployment is resulting in more and more number of
casual/contract workers forced to work for a pittance, thus weakening the
power of the trade union movement, thereby negatively effecting the future of
the workers and employees.
Therefore in the interest of the society and in the interest of the
future of the working class, it is necessary to solve this dangerous problem
of unemployment. The trade unions are demanding the Government to
take the following steps to curtail unemployment:
a) Lift the ban on recruitment in
Central/State Government Departments and PSUs.
b) Fill up all the vacant posts
without abolishing them.
c) Stop outsourcing the work in Government
departments and PSUs.
d) Improver the Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme so that all the unemployed in rural areas will get work. For
urban areas also, an urban employment guarantee scheme with ensured minimum
wage be implemented.
e) Extend the required financial
support to self-employment/self-help schemes and small industries.
f) Unemployment Allowance for
unemployed and modernization of employment exchanges.
11. Urgent
measures for containing price-rise through universalisation of public
distribution system and banning speculative trade in commodity market.
Sometimes it may be fast, sometimes it may be slow, but certainly the
prices of essential commodities are increasing continuously. This
can be understood from the fact that the IDA of BSNL employees which was 0 as
on 1.1.2007 has become 102.6% as on 1.7.2015. Thus within 9.5 years, the
prices increased more than 100%, i.e. more than 10% increase per year. But
the price index and DA formula are such that the actual price rise will not
be fully compensated. Although the Central Trade Unions in their meeting with
the Finance Minister on 17.1.2015 have demanded merger of 100% DA for Central
Government/PSU employees, there was no response. The price rise will more
seriously impact the workers who are not getting any DA for price rise. The
privatization of education and health has added more burden on the low paid
workers and common people. Added to this, the Modi Government has lifted the
price control on drugs required in the case of critical diseases like heart,
cancer, diabetes and their prices increased considerably.
Internationally, the prices of petroleum were reduced by 50%. If prices
of petroleum and diesel in our country are reduced accordingly, it would have
resulted in reduction in the prices of all commodities due to reduction in
power/transport charges. Due to such reduction in diesel prices, the losses
to BSNL would have reduced accordingly. But in our country there
is no such reduction in the prices of petroleum products since the Modi
Government has increased the taxes on petroleum products and deprived this
benefit to the people.
The main reason for price rise is black market and speculation. The
speculation on essential commodities is allowed in the name of forward/future
trading. Besides this, the Government is destroying the food security act by
resorting to cash payment for food subsidy. This is nothing but a conspiracy
to kill public distribution system.
Therefore the trade unions are demanding the following measures to
control price rise:
a) Don’t allow black market in
essential
b) Ban speculation in essential
commodities
c) Universalize Public Distribution
System and provide essential commodities through it.
12. No
FDI in Railway, Insurance, Pension and Defense
Modi Government has enacted increase in FDI ceiling limit in insurance
sector from 26% to 49%, with the help of the Congress. This increase is
automatically applicable to pension sector. The Modi Government decided to
allow 100% FDI in railway infrastructure and to increase FDI ceiling from 26
to 49% in defense production sector. Allowing FDI in large scale in pension
and insurance is dangerous to the pension security and medical schemes
available to employees. The Pension Fund Companies with more and more FDI
will increase the pressure on the Government to handover the pension fund of
the Government employees also to them, thereby threatening the security of
government pension. Similarly the increase in FDI in insurance sector will
lead to increasing pressure on the Government to cancel the medical
facilities available under EPS, CGHS, and various medical schemes in PSUs
like BSNL MRS and to divert all employees and workers to health insurance,
which is less beneficial compared to the existing medical schemes. This
increased FDI will thus lead to a serious threat to EPF, EPS, Pension and
medical benefits. The increased FDI in defense production will endanger our
self-reliance in defense production. Allowing FDI in Railways will lead to
its privatization. The Bibek Deb Roy Committee appointed by Modi Government
has already recommended for allowing private companies in installing and
maintaining railway tracks and in running trains.
Hence trade unions are demanding not to allow FDI in insurance, pension,
defense and railways.
The Alternative path of development proposed by the trade unions
The theory that the foreign and Indian big corporates must be satisfied
by abolishing the rights of the workers, employees and peasants and by
abolishing the welfare measures available to the people and then only they
will invest and develop the country is a bankrupt theory. It is not
development, but enslaving the people for the benefits of the Indian and
foreign corporates.
The trade unions are opposing such a bankrupt, anti-worker, anti-people
theory of development. All the Central Trade Unions have unitedly presented
an alternative proposal for developing the country, in the pre-budget
consultation held by the Finance Minister Sri Arun Jaitley on 17.1.2015. The
proposal of the trade unions is as below:
a) To improve employment, Government
has to invest in large scale for developing infrastructure.
b) The funds for such investment can
be gathered by cancelling the unjustified concessions given to Corporates(
more than Rs 5 lakh crore every year), by collecting the NPAs of Banks (Debts
not paid) due from the Corporates and by collecting the more than Rs 5 lakh
taxes evaded by the Corporates.
c) The black money in foreign
countries diverted from India illegally is double the amount of foreign debt
of India. It should be brought back.
d) The resources thus pooled can be
used for developing the country by investing for improving infrastructure and
agriculture and for implementing social security to all workers and the
people and for implementing welfare of the people.
Thus there are enough resources for developing the country and for
solving unemployment and for providing social security and welfare.
This is the alternative proposed by the working class for developing
the country.
Real Problem
The real problem in our country is not the lack of adequate resources
for development and for satisfying the demands of the workers and for welfare
measures for the people.
The real problem is the lack of political will with the Government, be
it of UPA or NDA variety, to gather resources by abolishing unjustified
concessions to the Corporates, by bringing back the black money and by
collecting taxes evaded by corporates etc. The reason for this is the previous
UPA and the present NDA are representing the interests of the Corporates and
not of the people. The Modi Government has now resorted to an all-round and
severe attack on the rights and facilities of the working class and the
people and it is hell bent on selling the PSU stocks quickly, in large scale
and implement large scale privatization.
Therefore the issue before each and every worker and employee, be it in
any sector, is to decide whether to accept slavery by agreeing to all these
attacks by Modi Government and State Governments or to come forward to fight
unitedly against this attack.
Task
It is the task and responsibility of all workers and employees in all
sectors to participate in the nation wide general strike of the working class
against the anti-worker and anti-people policies of the Central and State
Governments to protect the future. This strike is a patriotic strike for
saving the future of the working class and the people of India from the
barbarous attacks of the foreign and Indian Corporates. This struggle is
nothing but a struggle for saving our independence. Hence it is necessary for
each and every worker and employee to participate in such a great and sacred
general strike.
|
||