People's issues ignored in UP elections

Published in:



26.4.07: REDIFF NEWS: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/26uppoll2.htm

27.4.07: ASIAN TRIBUNE (Thailand/Sri Lanka): http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5469

30.4.07: SCOOP INDEPENDENT NEWS (New Zealand): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00457.htm

-----------------------

'People's issues ignored in UP elections'


Bobby Ramakant in Lucknow

"People's issues highlighted through various people's movements going on in the UP state are sadly not at centrestage in the UP elections," said Dr Sandeep Pandey, Magsaysay Awardee 2002 and National Convener of NAPM (National Alliance of People's Movements). "Caste-based politics is becoming decisive in UP," he said at a press conference in Lucknow on Thursday.


NAPM, the largest network of grassroots people's struggles in India, came up with People's Political Front before the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. PPF gives voice and a platform to grassroots activists to participate in the electoral process in UP.




Arundhati Dhuru, a Narmada Bachao Andolan frontline veteran activist, who is actively working on Right-to-food, RTI (Right to Information) and NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) all across UP, said, "PPF is trying to increase representation and meaningful participation of the most underserved communities. It is within this context that the role of people's movements becomes imperative. The movements have been 'in politics', as they have been shaping and trying to change the power structure and decision making processes within society. That is what politics is all about. Electoral politics is one of the dimensions of the larger political sphere."


"Even within electoral politics, the people's movements have been participating in various capacities, either by pressurising existing political parties to integrate peoples' issues into their agenda, creating awareness among the voters, trying to weed out corruption and malpractice, and supporting suitable political parties. Contesting the election by the members of people's movements is again one of the ways of direct intervention into electoral politics."


Keshav Chand, another grassroots leader from Deoria, said that "people's movements must have a say in policy making. Right to work and food for work must be made fundamental rights."


There were many grassroots leaders supported by PPF from all across UP. Mahesh Kumar from Kanpur, Ram Sagar Verma from Hardoi, Keshav Chand from Deoria, Jaishankar from Chandauli, Prem Kumar from Moradabad, Jashodhara Dasgupta from Lucknow, Gyan Kumar from the Dynamic Action Group, Professor Ramesh Dixit from Nationalist Congress Party, Kamta Prasad Vishwakarma from Indian Justice Party, Arun Kumar from CPI-ML, Rakesh from CPI, Arundhati Dhuru and Sandeep Pandey from NAPM/PPF.

They resolved to struggle for the right to life, right to work, and protection of livelihoods of the workers in the unorganised and organised sectors.

"We will struggle for the enactment of legislation to ban the water extraction and water utilisation for soft drink industries and ban on all non-essential water-based consumer luxury products. We are in and take ahead the struggle against Coca Cola and Pepsi factories in Uttar Pradesh, and call for a national campaign to boycott all products of multi-national companies," said another grassroots leader Master Nandlal from Mehndiganj village in Varanasi.


Dr Pandey adds that, "We assert that water, land, forest, mineral, and aquatic wealth belong to people. It has community ownership and does not belong to either the state or corporate powers. We reject and will fight against attempts to privatise water bodies, water supply depriving common people of the right to water for drinking, domestic use, and livelihood."


"Corporatisation and criminalisation of politics is a major concern," said Dr Pandey. "The PPF's decision to enter electoral politics was aimed at changing the nature of politics," he said.


A people's forum was held in Hardoi on April 23 to question the candidates about their stand on these issues. This sheet with a list of people's issues is being circulated in a number of assembly areas to encourage people to ask questions from candidates in their areas, informed Dr Pandey.

Published in:

26.4.07: REDIFF NEWS: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/26uppoll2.htm

27.4.07: ASIAN TRIBUNE (Thailand/Sri Lanka): http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5469

30.4.07: SCOOP INDEPENDENT NEWS (New Zealand): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00457.htm

People's issues ignored in UP elections

Published in:



26.4.07: REDIFF NEWS: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/26uppoll2.htm

27.4.07: ASIAN TRIBUNE (Thailand/Sri Lanka): http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5469

30.4.07: SCOOP INDEPENDENT NEWS (New Zealand): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00457.htm

-----------------------

'People's issues ignored in UP elections'


Bobby Ramakant in Lucknow

"People's issues highlighted through various people's movements going on in the UP state are sadly not at centrestage in the UP elections," said Dr Sandeep Pandey, Magsaysay Awardee 2002 and National Convener of NAPM (National Alliance of People's Movements). "Caste-based politics is becoming decisive in UP," he said at a press conference in Lucknow on Thursday.


NAPM, the largest network of grassroots people's struggles in India, came up with People's Political Front before the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. PPF gives voice and a platform to grassroots activists to participate in the electoral process in UP.




Arundhati Dhuru, a Narmada Bachao Andolan frontline veteran activist, who is actively working on Right-to-food, RTI (Right to Information) and NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) all across UP, said, "PPF is trying to increase representation and meaningful participation of the most underserved communities. It is within this context that the role of people's movements becomes imperative. The movements have been 'in politics', as they have been shaping and trying to change the power structure and decision making processes within society. That is what politics is all about. Electoral politics is one of the dimensions of the larger political sphere."


"Even within electoral politics, the people's movements have been participating in various capacities, either by pressurising existing political parties to integrate peoples' issues into their agenda, creating awareness among the voters, trying to weed out corruption and malpractice, and supporting suitable political parties. Contesting the election by the members of people's movements is again one of the ways of direct intervention into electoral politics."


Keshav Chand, another grassroots leader from Deoria, said that "people's movements must have a say in policy making. Right to work and food for work must be made fundamental rights."


There were many grassroots leaders supported by PPF from all across UP. Mahesh Kumar from Kanpur, Ram Sagar Verma from Hardoi, Keshav Chand from Deoria, Jaishankar from Chandauli, Prem Kumar from Moradabad, Jashodhara Dasgupta from Lucknow, Gyan Kumar from the Dynamic Action Group, Professor Ramesh Dixit from Nationalist Congress Party, Kamta Prasad Vishwakarma from Indian Justice Party, Arun Kumar from CPI-ML, Rakesh from CPI, Arundhati Dhuru and Sandeep Pandey from NAPM/PPF.

They resolved to struggle for the right to life, right to work, and protection of livelihoods of the workers in the unorganised and organised sectors.

"We will struggle for the enactment of legislation to ban the water extraction and water utilisation for soft drink industries and ban on all non-essential water-based consumer luxury products. We are in and take ahead the struggle against Coca Cola and Pepsi factories in Uttar Pradesh, and call for a national campaign to boycott all products of multi-national companies," said another grassroots leader Master Nandlal from Mehndiganj village in Varanasi.


Dr Pandey adds that, "We assert that water, land, forest, mineral, and aquatic wealth belong to people. It has community ownership and does not belong to either the state or corporate powers. We reject and will fight against attempts to privatise water bodies, water supply depriving common people of the right to water for drinking, domestic use, and livelihood."


"Corporatisation and criminalisation of politics is a major concern," said Dr Pandey. "The PPF's decision to enter electoral politics was aimed at changing the nature of politics," he said.


A people's forum was held in Hardoi on April 23 to question the candidates about their stand on these issues. This sheet with a list of people's issues is being circulated in a number of assembly areas to encourage people to ask questions from candidates in their areas, informed Dr Pandey.

Published in:

26.4.07: REDIFF NEWS: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/26uppoll2.htm

27.4.07: ASIAN TRIBUNE (Thailand/Sri Lanka): http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5469

30.4.07: SCOOP INDEPENDENT NEWS (New Zealand): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00457.htm

Stop PMI from worsening the global tobacco epidemic

Stop PMI from worsening the global tobacco epidemic


As World’s largest tobacco company Philip Morris ‘combined’ hold their annual shareholders meeting on 26 April 2007 (in East Hanover, New Jersey, USA) to celebrate the tobacco giant's profitability, public health advocates say there is heightened urgency for governments to enact comprehensive laws to control Philip Morris and other tobacco companies.

Philip Morris' parent company has just recently spun off its Kraft affiliate, and there is now widespread speculation that Philip Morris International and Philip Morris USA will separate soon, which will have major public health ramifications.

"The proposed breakup of Philip Morris poses the risk that Philip Morris International will become even more predatory," says Anna White, Coordinator of Global Partnerships for Tobacco Control (GPTC). "An independent Philip Morris International, which is likely to be based in Switzerland, will no longer feel constrained by public opinion in its home country and most important market, the United States"

Last year, over 100 organizations in 50 countries asked Philip Morris International and its subsidiaries to make commitments -- in advance of a breakup -- to ensure that the separation of Philip Morris International and Philip Morris USA does not worsen the tobacco epidemic. To date, Philip Morris has declined to agree to these demands.

This year by 22 April 2007, more than 140 public health organizations in 65 countries worldwide had already endorsed a call on governments to adopt comprehensive tobacco control measures to ensure that the separation of Philip Morris International and Philip Morris USA does not worsen the tobacco epidemic. Among other measures, they are urging that governments ratify and implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and ban the tobacco industry from lobbying or working on legislation to implement the global tobacco control treaty.

"An independent Philip Morris International based outside of the United States will be immune to even the possibility of domestic regulation in the United States or litigation in U.S. courts," said Anna White, of GPTC. Anna, who also represents the U.S.-based corporate accountability group Essential Action, further added that "This has been a real threat to Philip Morris International."

The litigation risk to Philip Morris International was recently made apparent in the U.S. government case against Big Tobacco. In that case, U.S. Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that Philip Morris and the rest of Big Tobacco must stop using misleading terms like "light," "mild" and "low" (as in "Marlboro Lights"). Big Tobacco has used these terms to deceive smokers into thinking they are using a reduced risk product, when they are not. Judge Kessler ruled that the prohibition on use of these misleading terms extends to Philip Morris International. If an independent PMI had no connection to the United States, the judge would not have been able to issue this order.

Philip Morris is the world's biggest tobacco multinational. Eighty percent of its sales are outside of the United States.

Anna White further elaborates that Philip Morris USA is prohibited from paying for product placements in movies and other media by the U.S. Master Settlement Agreement, but this does not apply to Philip Morris International. Philip Morris International states in its marketing code that it will not pay for product placement, but it does not address: indirect efforts to facilitate product placement; direct or indirect placement of unbranded tobacco products; or direct or indirect efforts to promote smoking in movies or other media.

Tobacco continues to kill more than 5 million people annually worldwide. "Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, which kills consumers when used as intended; The World Health Organization projects that 10 million people will die annually from tobacco-related disease by 2030, 70 percent in developing countries," says Professor (Dr) Rama Kant, Head of Tobacco Cessation Clinics and International WHO Awardee (2005) in UP, India.

We therefore call on governments worldwide to ratify and strongly implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – the first ever global public health and corporate accountability treaty which came into force and became legally binding on 27 February 2005. Presently 146 countries have ratified this global tobacco treaty.


Bobby Ramakant

(The author is a senior health and development journalist, and member of Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals (NATT) and Global Youth Advocacy Network. He can be contacted at: bobbyramakant@yahoo.com)

Online links: PUblished IN:

Pakistan: Pak Tribune: 25 April 2007:

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?176202

New Zealand: Scoop Independent News: 25 April 2007:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00433.htm#a

South Korea: The Seoul TImes (South KOrea): 29 April 2007

http://www.theseoultimes.com

Nepal: The Kathmandu Post: 29 April 2007
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=108047

Stop PMI from worsening the global tobacco epidemic

Stop PMI from worsening the global tobacco epidemic


As World’s largest tobacco company Philip Morris ‘combined’ hold their annual shareholders meeting on 26 April 2007 (in East Hanover, New Jersey, USA) to celebrate the tobacco giant's profitability, public health advocates say there is heightened urgency for governments to enact comprehensive laws to control Philip Morris and other tobacco companies.

Philip Morris' parent company has just recently spun off its Kraft affiliate, and there is now widespread speculation that Philip Morris International and Philip Morris USA will separate soon, which will have major public health ramifications.

"The proposed breakup of Philip Morris poses the risk that Philip Morris International will become even more predatory," says Anna White, Coordinator of Global Partnerships for Tobacco Control (GPTC). "An independent Philip Morris International, which is likely to be based in Switzerland, will no longer feel constrained by public opinion in its home country and most important market, the United States"

Last year, over 100 organizations in 50 countries asked Philip Morris International and its subsidiaries to make commitments -- in advance of a breakup -- to ensure that the separation of Philip Morris International and Philip Morris USA does not worsen the tobacco epidemic. To date, Philip Morris has declined to agree to these demands.

This year by 22 April 2007, more than 140 public health organizations in 65 countries worldwide had already endorsed a call on governments to adopt comprehensive tobacco control measures to ensure that the separation of Philip Morris International and Philip Morris USA does not worsen the tobacco epidemic. Among other measures, they are urging that governments ratify and implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and ban the tobacco industry from lobbying or working on legislation to implement the global tobacco control treaty.

"An independent Philip Morris International based outside of the United States will be immune to even the possibility of domestic regulation in the United States or litigation in U.S. courts," said Anna White, of GPTC. Anna, who also represents the U.S.-based corporate accountability group Essential Action, further added that "This has been a real threat to Philip Morris International."

The litigation risk to Philip Morris International was recently made apparent in the U.S. government case against Big Tobacco. In that case, U.S. Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that Philip Morris and the rest of Big Tobacco must stop using misleading terms like "light," "mild" and "low" (as in "Marlboro Lights"). Big Tobacco has used these terms to deceive smokers into thinking they are using a reduced risk product, when they are not. Judge Kessler ruled that the prohibition on use of these misleading terms extends to Philip Morris International. If an independent PMI had no connection to the United States, the judge would not have been able to issue this order.

Philip Morris is the world's biggest tobacco multinational. Eighty percent of its sales are outside of the United States.

Anna White further elaborates that Philip Morris USA is prohibited from paying for product placements in movies and other media by the U.S. Master Settlement Agreement, but this does not apply to Philip Morris International. Philip Morris International states in its marketing code that it will not pay for product placement, but it does not address: indirect efforts to facilitate product placement; direct or indirect placement of unbranded tobacco products; or direct or indirect efforts to promote smoking in movies or other media.

Tobacco continues to kill more than 5 million people annually worldwide. "Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, which kills consumers when used as intended; The World Health Organization projects that 10 million people will die annually from tobacco-related disease by 2030, 70 percent in developing countries," says Professor (Dr) Rama Kant, Head of Tobacco Cessation Clinics and International WHO Awardee (2005) in UP, India.

We therefore call on governments worldwide to ratify and strongly implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – the first ever global public health and corporate accountability treaty which came into force and became legally binding on 27 February 2005. Presently 146 countries have ratified this global tobacco treaty.


Bobby Ramakant

(The author is a senior health and development journalist, and member of Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals (NATT) and Global Youth Advocacy Network. He can be contacted at: bobbyramakant@yahoo.com)

Online links: PUblished IN:

Pakistan: Pak Tribune: 25 April 2007:

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?176202

New Zealand: Scoop Independent News: 25 April 2007:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00433.htm#a

South Korea: The Seoul TImes (South KOrea): 29 April 2007

http://www.theseoultimes.com

Nepal: The Kathmandu Post: 29 April 2007
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=108047

When the legislature starts functioning like Executive

When the legislature starts functioning like Executive

Dr Sandeep Pandey

In Asia we do not follow the practice of debating international agreement entered into by our Government in the parliament or state assemblies before approving them. This lacuna was again brought to the fore in the case of India’s Kerala Government cabinet trying to push an agreement with Asian Development Bank through amidst major controversy. The chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan almost created a constitutional crisis by insisting that his dissenting note be recorded that his approval was not secured before signing of the loan agreement with ADB and that he was not even shown the file!

The Rs. 1422 crore loan agreement was signed between the Central Government and the ADB on 8th December, 2006 and then the State Government also signed on it as the project executor. The loan is sought to be obtained on behalf of the municipal corporations of Kerala, making a complete mockery of the 74th Constitutional amendment empowering these municipal corporations as local self-government institutions. The matter was not put before the Parliament, the Kerala State Assembly or the concerned Municipal Corporations for discussion and debate. What is the hurry to push this loan agreement through without following a due democratic process? What are the pressures under which our governments are acting? All is not well with this agreement has been highlighted by the chief minister as well as number of people’s organizations working in Kerala who burnt the copy of the agreement with the ADB in Kochi on 3rd March, 2007.

The Kerala CPM general secretary M.V. Raghavan has demanded the chief minister’s resignation saying that he has lost confidence in his cabinet team. It is quite unfortunate that instead of initiating a debate within the party and the government, the CPM too is following the model of bigger opportunistic political parties which lack complete internal democracy. That the mainstream Indian political parties have now subsumed themselves to the international monetary agencies and private corporations is clear beyond doubt. By corollary, their commitment to the sovereignty of the people of this country has reduced. CPM first exhibited these tendencies in West Bengal and now it is doing it in Kerala.

The CPM says that it is supporting the ADB loan for Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project because the conditionalities of the loan agreement have been changed since the time it was in opposition and was opposing the ADB loan agreement. However, going through the loan agreement it is quite obvious that the anti-people nature of it remains intact. For example the following texts from the agreement expose the truth.

‘By not later than March 2007, Government of Kerala will formulate a policy on conversion of standposts to individual metered house service connections and/or metering standposts, for the purpose of efficient demand side management and reduction of Non Revenue Water.’

‘Government of Kerala will ensure that all the municipal corporations pass a resolution by March 2008 to introduce service tax and/or other revenue mobilization measures in each municipal corporation to meet the shortfall of revenues needed to fund the operations and management of the expanded water supply.’

‘Government of Kerala will ensure that all the municipal corporations will prepare and implement a financial improvement action plan to (a) introduce a sewerage charge, (b) introduce a solid waste management charge, and (c) improve collection efficiency, by no later than one year after related sub-project completion.’

‘…the tariff will be increased twice during the project implementation period to a level which is sufficient to cover the operations and management costs of new and existing infrastructure…’

One wonders looking at above statements whether the job of our legislatures is being reduced to that of executive, with decision making having been left to external agencies. And there is an eerie feeling that we cannot change any of these things. The reforms are being virtually dictated to us by the international monetary agencies backed by the vested interests of private corporations who stand to gain as contenders of many contracts which will be thrown open once the privatization process is underway.

Is it difficult for a political party like CPM to understand that privatization of basic services like sewerage and natural resources like water and land will hurt the interests of the poor?

The people’s organizations in Kerala opposed to the ADB loan are demanding that the Government should announce withdrawl from this loan agreement immediately. It should publish all relevant documents regarding this loan in local language and specifically list those conditionalities which it is claiming have changed after it came to power. The draft of the agreement must be placed for discussion in the cabinet, assembly and municipal corporations. This is the minimum action needed on the part of the Government to demonstrate that as a legitimately elected sovereign body it has the capacity to modify or reject an agreement coming from an external agency which is not accountable to the people. It must come out clearly on where it thinks its basic commitment lies.

Efforts by the CPM to suffocate the voice of their chief minister are tantamount to strangulating democracy. It is a cowardly act to demand his resignation. V.S. Achuthanandan has shown rare courage going against his party line risking his coveted position in voicing his protest. If he resigns then the only voice of dissent will be silenced. It is not V.S. Achuthanandan but the CPM which has to introspect. They have to decide whether there is any room for inner party democracy in their structure? Will they debate an issue which is generating opposition within and outside the party and government or will they simply force a pre-decided agreement upon the people? It is a test not only of CPM’s commitment to the people and but also to its ideology.

(Author Dr Sandeep Pandey is recipient of Ramon Magsaysay Award for the year 2002 and leads National Alliance of People’s Movements in India. He can be contacted at: ashaashram@yahoo.com)

Published in:

The Scoop Independent News (New Zealand): 25 April 2007
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00434.htm

The Kashmir Times (India): April 7, 2007
http://www.kashmirtimes.com/feature.htm

When the legislature starts functioning like Executive

When the legislature starts functioning like Executive

Dr Sandeep Pandey

In Asia we do not follow the practice of debating international agreement entered into by our Government in the parliament or state assemblies before approving them. This lacuna was again brought to the fore in the case of India’s Kerala Government cabinet trying to push an agreement with Asian Development Bank through amidst major controversy. The chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan almost created a constitutional crisis by insisting that his dissenting note be recorded that his approval was not secured before signing of the loan agreement with ADB and that he was not even shown the file!

The Rs. 1422 crore loan agreement was signed between the Central Government and the ADB on 8th December, 2006 and then the State Government also signed on it as the project executor. The loan is sought to be obtained on behalf of the municipal corporations of Kerala, making a complete mockery of the 74th Constitutional amendment empowering these municipal corporations as local self-government institutions. The matter was not put before the Parliament, the Kerala State Assembly or the concerned Municipal Corporations for discussion and debate. What is the hurry to push this loan agreement through without following a due democratic process? What are the pressures under which our governments are acting? All is not well with this agreement has been highlighted by the chief minister as well as number of people’s organizations working in Kerala who burnt the copy of the agreement with the ADB in Kochi on 3rd March, 2007.

The Kerala CPM general secretary M.V. Raghavan has demanded the chief minister’s resignation saying that he has lost confidence in his cabinet team. It is quite unfortunate that instead of initiating a debate within the party and the government, the CPM too is following the model of bigger opportunistic political parties which lack complete internal democracy. That the mainstream Indian political parties have now subsumed themselves to the international monetary agencies and private corporations is clear beyond doubt. By corollary, their commitment to the sovereignty of the people of this country has reduced. CPM first exhibited these tendencies in West Bengal and now it is doing it in Kerala.

The CPM says that it is supporting the ADB loan for Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project because the conditionalities of the loan agreement have been changed since the time it was in opposition and was opposing the ADB loan agreement. However, going through the loan agreement it is quite obvious that the anti-people nature of it remains intact. For example the following texts from the agreement expose the truth.

‘By not later than March 2007, Government of Kerala will formulate a policy on conversion of standposts to individual metered house service connections and/or metering standposts, for the purpose of efficient demand side management and reduction of Non Revenue Water.’

‘Government of Kerala will ensure that all the municipal corporations pass a resolution by March 2008 to introduce service tax and/or other revenue mobilization measures in each municipal corporation to meet the shortfall of revenues needed to fund the operations and management of the expanded water supply.’

‘Government of Kerala will ensure that all the municipal corporations will prepare and implement a financial improvement action plan to (a) introduce a sewerage charge, (b) introduce a solid waste management charge, and (c) improve collection efficiency, by no later than one year after related sub-project completion.’

‘…the tariff will be increased twice during the project implementation period to a level which is sufficient to cover the operations and management costs of new and existing infrastructure…’

One wonders looking at above statements whether the job of our legislatures is being reduced to that of executive, with decision making having been left to external agencies. And there is an eerie feeling that we cannot change any of these things. The reforms are being virtually dictated to us by the international monetary agencies backed by the vested interests of private corporations who stand to gain as contenders of many contracts which will be thrown open once the privatization process is underway.

Is it difficult for a political party like CPM to understand that privatization of basic services like sewerage and natural resources like water and land will hurt the interests of the poor?

The people’s organizations in Kerala opposed to the ADB loan are demanding that the Government should announce withdrawl from this loan agreement immediately. It should publish all relevant documents regarding this loan in local language and specifically list those conditionalities which it is claiming have changed after it came to power. The draft of the agreement must be placed for discussion in the cabinet, assembly and municipal corporations. This is the minimum action needed on the part of the Government to demonstrate that as a legitimately elected sovereign body it has the capacity to modify or reject an agreement coming from an external agency which is not accountable to the people. It must come out clearly on where it thinks its basic commitment lies.

Efforts by the CPM to suffocate the voice of their chief minister are tantamount to strangulating democracy. It is a cowardly act to demand his resignation. V.S. Achuthanandan has shown rare courage going against his party line risking his coveted position in voicing his protest. If he resigns then the only voice of dissent will be silenced. It is not V.S. Achuthanandan but the CPM which has to introspect. They have to decide whether there is any room for inner party democracy in their structure? Will they debate an issue which is generating opposition within and outside the party and government or will they simply force a pre-decided agreement upon the people? It is a test not only of CPM’s commitment to the people and but also to its ideology.

(Author Dr Sandeep Pandey is recipient of Ramon Magsaysay Award for the year 2002 and leads National Alliance of People’s Movements in India. He can be contacted at: ashaashram@yahoo.com)

Published in:

The Scoop Independent News (New Zealand): 25 April 2007
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00434.htm

The Kashmir Times (India): April 7, 2007
http://www.kashmirtimes.com/feature.htm

JANSATTA Editorial of Amit Dwivedi: Tobacco control in India

JANSATTA
Hindi national newspaper
Amit Dwivedi's editorial article
14 April 2007
जनसत्ता
अमित द्विवेदी का सम्पादिकिये लेख

Jansatta (national newspaper)

JANSATTA Editorial of Amit Dwivedi: Tobacco control in India

JANSATTA
Hindi national newspaper
Amit Dwivedi's editorial article
14 April 2007
जनसत्ता
अमित द्विवेदी का सम्पादिकिये लेख

Jansatta (national newspaper)

Amit Dwivedi's editorial article in Jansatta: Staying alive with HIV

अमित द्विवेदी का जनसत्ता का लेख

एचआईवी के साथ जिंदगी

Amit Dwivedi's editorial article in Jansatta: Staying alive with HIV

अमित द्विवेदी का जनसत्ता का लेख

एचआईवी के साथ जिंदगी

Why should we enforce global tobacco treaty (FCTC)?

Why should we enforce global tobacco treaty (FCTC)?


The global tobacco treaty, better known as Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), was developed as a global response to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic. Adopted in May 2003 by the 56th World Health Assembly, the first ever global public health and corporate accountability treaty - FCTC - quickly became one of the most widely embraced treaties in United Nations' history, becoming international binding law on 27 February 2005.

Increased trade, foreign investment, global marketing and other complex international phenomena have led to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic. As the epidemic transcends national borders, its control requires international cooperation and multilateral regulation.

Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the world, with an estimated 4.9 million deaths a year. If current smoking patterns continue, the toll will nearly double by 2020. A high percentage of deaths (70%) will occur in developing countries. Tobacco kills people at the height of their productivity, depriving families of breadwinners and nations of a healthy workforce.

There is no doubt that reducing the rates of uptake and consumption of tobacco will save lives and that the FCTC is the evidence-based tool with which to do it. It has been projected that with a progressive 50% reduction in uptake and consumption rates, as many as 200 million lives could be saved by the year 2050 ― and hundreds of millions more thereafter.

By becoming Parties (signing and ratifying FCTC by national parliaments) and implementing the provisions of the treaty where it counts most – at country level – countries are working towards a tobacco-free world and towards millions of lives saved. 146 countries have signed and ratified the treaty so far.

It is the first legal instrument designed to reduce tobacco-related deaths and disease around the world.

Among its many measures, the FCTC treaty requires countries to impose restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion; establish new packaging and labelling of tobacco products; establish clean indoor air controls; and strengthen legislation to clamp down on tobacco smuggling.

Advertising, sponsorship and promotion
-----------------
Tobacco products are advertised through sports events, music events, films, fashion - in fact, any place where the tobacco industry can target potential new smokers (young people). The treaty obliges Party States to undertake a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, as far as their constitutions permit.

Packaging and labelling of tobacco products
-----------------
As advertising restrictions are implemented, tobacco packaging plays an increasingly important role in encouraging tobacco consumption. The treaty obliges Party States to adopt and implement large, clear, visible, legible, and rotating health warnings and messages on tobacco products and its outside packaging, occupying at least 30% of the principal display areas. This is required within three years of entry into force of the Convention.

Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke
-----------------
Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health. Children are at particular risk - exposure to tobacco smoke in children can cause respiratory disease, middle ear disease, asthma attacks, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The treaty obliges Party States to adopt and implement (in areas of existing national jurisdiction as determined by national law), or promote (at other jurisdictional levels), effective measures providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.

Illicit trade in tobacco products
-----------------
Cigarettes are smuggled widely throughout the world. In addition to making international brands more affordable and accessible, illegal cigarettes evade restrictions and health regulations. The treaty obliges State Parties to adopt and implement effective measures to eliminate illicit trade, illicit manufacturing, and counterfeiting of tobacco products.

Effective implementation of FCTC is indeed a huge challenge countries are confronted with. There is a long way to go for effective comprehensive tobacco control to become a reality.

(Bobby Ramakant)

Published in:

Yemen Times (Yemen): 23 April 2007:

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1044&p=health&a=1

Central Chronicle (India): 24 April 2007:

http://www.centralchronicle.com/20070424/2404303.htm

Scoop Independent News (New Zealand): 23 April 2007:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00365.htm

Brunei Times (Brunei Darussalam): 24 April 2007
http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.php?shape_ID=28008

The Seoul TImes (Republic of Korea - South Korea): 25 April 2007

http://www.theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=5211

The Statesman (India) 27 April 2007

http://www.thestatesman.net/

Nepal: The Kathmandu Post: 29 April 2007
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=108047

Why should we enforce global tobacco treaty (FCTC)?

Why should we enforce global tobacco treaty (FCTC)?


The global tobacco treaty, better known as Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), was developed as a global response to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic. Adopted in May 2003 by the 56th World Health Assembly, the first ever global public health and corporate accountability treaty - FCTC - quickly became one of the most widely embraced treaties in United Nations' history, becoming international binding law on 27 February 2005.

Increased trade, foreign investment, global marketing and other complex international phenomena have led to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic. As the epidemic transcends national borders, its control requires international cooperation and multilateral regulation.

Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the world, with an estimated 4.9 million deaths a year. If current smoking patterns continue, the toll will nearly double by 2020. A high percentage of deaths (70%) will occur in developing countries. Tobacco kills people at the height of their productivity, depriving families of breadwinners and nations of a healthy workforce.

There is no doubt that reducing the rates of uptake and consumption of tobacco will save lives and that the FCTC is the evidence-based tool with which to do it. It has been projected that with a progressive 50% reduction in uptake and consumption rates, as many as 200 million lives could be saved by the year 2050 ― and hundreds of millions more thereafter.

By becoming Parties (signing and ratifying FCTC by national parliaments) and implementing the provisions of the treaty where it counts most – at country level – countries are working towards a tobacco-free world and towards millions of lives saved. 146 countries have signed and ratified the treaty so far.

It is the first legal instrument designed to reduce tobacco-related deaths and disease around the world.

Among its many measures, the FCTC treaty requires countries to impose restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion; establish new packaging and labelling of tobacco products; establish clean indoor air controls; and strengthen legislation to clamp down on tobacco smuggling.

Advertising, sponsorship and promotion
-----------------
Tobacco products are advertised through sports events, music events, films, fashion - in fact, any place where the tobacco industry can target potential new smokers (young people). The treaty obliges Party States to undertake a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, as far as their constitutions permit.

Packaging and labelling of tobacco products
-----------------
As advertising restrictions are implemented, tobacco packaging plays an increasingly important role in encouraging tobacco consumption. The treaty obliges Party States to adopt and implement large, clear, visible, legible, and rotating health warnings and messages on tobacco products and its outside packaging, occupying at least 30% of the principal display areas. This is required within three years of entry into force of the Convention.

Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke
-----------------
Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health. Children are at particular risk - exposure to tobacco smoke in children can cause respiratory disease, middle ear disease, asthma attacks, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The treaty obliges Party States to adopt and implement (in areas of existing national jurisdiction as determined by national law), or promote (at other jurisdictional levels), effective measures providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.

Illicit trade in tobacco products
-----------------
Cigarettes are smuggled widely throughout the world. In addition to making international brands more affordable and accessible, illegal cigarettes evade restrictions and health regulations. The treaty obliges State Parties to adopt and implement effective measures to eliminate illicit trade, illicit manufacturing, and counterfeiting of tobacco products.

Effective implementation of FCTC is indeed a huge challenge countries are confronted with. There is a long way to go for effective comprehensive tobacco control to become a reality.

(Bobby Ramakant)

Published in:

Yemen Times (Yemen): 23 April 2007:

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1044&p=health&a=1

Central Chronicle (India): 24 April 2007:

http://www.centralchronicle.com/20070424/2404303.htm

Scoop Independent News (New Zealand): 23 April 2007:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00365.htm

Brunei Times (Brunei Darussalam): 24 April 2007
http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.php?shape_ID=28008

The Seoul TImes (Republic of Korea - South Korea): 25 April 2007

http://www.theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=5211

The Statesman (India) 27 April 2007

http://www.thestatesman.net/

Nepal: The Kathmandu Post: 29 April 2007
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=108047

Mandatory HIV testing will boomerang

Mandatory HIV testing will boomerang
Bobby Ramakant

"TESTING FOR HIV IS MORE THAN A MERE BIOLOGICAL TEST"

India is increasingly getting into the grips of a division over mandatory HIV testing versus voluntary HIV testing.

Last month Karnataka state in India had proposed mandatory HIV testing for couples. This month in April 2007, another state of India (Andhra Pradesh) came up with mandatory HIV testing before marriage. Also Goa had proposed mandatory pre-marital HIV testing ‘by law’ in April 2006.

But will mandatory HIV testing alone reduce the new HIV infections? Public health experts disagree. “We need to raise awareness about HIV, reduce stigma associated with HIV, especially stigma within healthcare settings which keeps people away from accessing these services (which are often life-extending and also contribute towards prevention), strengthen primary healthcare services and raise sensitivity to the issues of confidentiality and dignity of life of those living with HIV” said noted health rights’ advocate Jashodhara Dasgupta of SAHAYOG (www.sahayogindia.org).

The paramount progress we have made in terms of NOT thinking about prevention and treatment in isolation is at risk to be lost with Indian states promoting HIV prevention strategies completely ignoring the treatment, care and support provisions for people living with HIV.

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhar Reddy on 17 April 2007 said that (Source: Rediff News: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/17ap.htm) "I fail to understand the reasons behind the objections raised by some human rights activists on the government's initiative for making HIV/AIDS tests mandatory for couples before marriage.”

India has never been on such a HIV control crossroad with people divided over mandatory HIV testing versus voluntary HIV testing.

What human rights’ advocates will like to tell Dr Reddy is that the impact of HIV positive diagnosis on an individual’s life is enormous. The triad of stigma, discrimination and denial associated with HIV, thwarts an individual’s life in a myriad of ways. What are the plans for people who test HIV positive? Will they be left to face life without having access to even the primary healthcare services? With complete disregard to NACO’s (National AIDS Control Organization) confidentiality guidelines, the HIV positive status becoming a public knowledge in the to-be bride and groom’s communities, are we prepared to meet the healthcare needs of these people who test positive, and to ensure that they will not be forced to lead a life adversely impacted by HIV associated stigma, discrimination and denial?

United Nation's HIV Programme official said that the State has to think again as mandatory HIV testing will prove to be counter-productive. He said that it not only violates privacy but also stigmatizes the entire family, and also ‘tends to create a black market in false HIV test results’.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonzalves said that "any mandatory testing is wrong. Couples should rather be counseled and educated," adding, "If they want to get a testing done by choice after that, it's their business. But a mandatory test can't be imposed on them".

NACO guidelines say that “Testing for HIV is more than a mere biological test for it involves ethical, human and legal dimensions. The government feels that there is no public health rationale for mandatory testing of a person for HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, such an approach could be counter productive as it may scare a large number of suspected cases from getting detected.”

HIV Testing by itself does not result in behavioural changes that restrict transmission of HIV to others and therefore, testing should be a part of the comprehensive control programme which is conducive for behavioural change of the individual by providing social support, means and skills to reduce or eliminate risk behaviour. NACO official further adds that “Otherwise such testing can drive the target people underground and make it more difficult for launching intervention.”

As access to antiretroviral treatment is scaled up, there is a critical opportunity to simultaneously expand access to HIV prevention, which continues to be the mainstay of the response to the HIV epidemic. Without effective HIV prevention, there will be an ever increasing number of people who will require HIV treatment. Among the interventions which play a pivotal role both in treatment and in prevention, HIV testing and counselling stands out as paramount.

The current reach of HIV testing services remains poor. The reality is that stigma and discrimination continue to stop people from having an HIV test. To address this, the cornerstones of HIV testing scale-up must include improved protection from stigma and discrimination especially within healthcare settings, as well as assured access to integrated prevention, treatment and care services.

Just earlier this month, a pregnant woman with HIV died after being denied medical attention in Indore. Undoubtedly public health strategies and human rights promotion are mutually reinforcing. It is clear that India has a long way to go before we have a public health system strong enough to deliver effective healthcare to most underserved communities. And mandatory HIV testing alone is certainly not the short-cut.

Bobby Ramakant

(The author is a senior health and development journalist writing for newspapers in Asia, Middle East and Africa. He can be contacted at: bobbyramakant@yahoo.com)

Published in:

DECCAN HERALD, Bangalore, Karnataka: 3 May 2007

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may32007/panorama21333200752.asp

Mandatory HIV testing will boomerang

Mandatory HIV testing will boomerang
Bobby Ramakant

"TESTING FOR HIV IS MORE THAN A MERE BIOLOGICAL TEST"

India is increasingly getting into the grips of a division over mandatory HIV testing versus voluntary HIV testing.

Last month Karnataka state in India had proposed mandatory HIV testing for couples. This month in April 2007, another state of India (Andhra Pradesh) came up with mandatory HIV testing before marriage. Also Goa had proposed mandatory pre-marital HIV testing ‘by law’ in April 2006.

But will mandatory HIV testing alone reduce the new HIV infections? Public health experts disagree. “We need to raise awareness about HIV, reduce stigma associated with HIV, especially stigma within healthcare settings which keeps people away from accessing these services (which are often life-extending and also contribute towards prevention), strengthen primary healthcare services and raise sensitivity to the issues of confidentiality and dignity of life of those living with HIV” said noted health rights’ advocate Jashodhara Dasgupta of SAHAYOG (www.sahayogindia.org).

The paramount progress we have made in terms of NOT thinking about prevention and treatment in isolation is at risk to be lost with Indian states promoting HIV prevention strategies completely ignoring the treatment, care and support provisions for people living with HIV.

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhar Reddy on 17 April 2007 said that (Source: Rediff News: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/17ap.htm) "I fail to understand the reasons behind the objections raised by some human rights activists on the government's initiative for making HIV/AIDS tests mandatory for couples before marriage.”

India has never been on such a HIV control crossroad with people divided over mandatory HIV testing versus voluntary HIV testing.

What human rights’ advocates will like to tell Dr Reddy is that the impact of HIV positive diagnosis on an individual’s life is enormous. The triad of stigma, discrimination and denial associated with HIV, thwarts an individual’s life in a myriad of ways. What are the plans for people who test HIV positive? Will they be left to face life without having access to even the primary healthcare services? With complete disregard to NACO’s (National AIDS Control Organization) confidentiality guidelines, the HIV positive status becoming a public knowledge in the to-be bride and groom’s communities, are we prepared to meet the healthcare needs of these people who test positive, and to ensure that they will not be forced to lead a life adversely impacted by HIV associated stigma, discrimination and denial?

United Nation's HIV Programme official said that the State has to think again as mandatory HIV testing will prove to be counter-productive. He said that it not only violates privacy but also stigmatizes the entire family, and also ‘tends to create a black market in false HIV test results’.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonzalves said that "any mandatory testing is wrong. Couples should rather be counseled and educated," adding, "If they want to get a testing done by choice after that, it's their business. But a mandatory test can't be imposed on them".

NACO guidelines say that “Testing for HIV is more than a mere biological test for it involves ethical, human and legal dimensions. The government feels that there is no public health rationale for mandatory testing of a person for HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, such an approach could be counter productive as it may scare a large number of suspected cases from getting detected.”

HIV Testing by itself does not result in behavioural changes that restrict transmission of HIV to others and therefore, testing should be a part of the comprehensive control programme which is conducive for behavioural change of the individual by providing social support, means and skills to reduce or eliminate risk behaviour. NACO official further adds that “Otherwise such testing can drive the target people underground and make it more difficult for launching intervention.”

As access to antiretroviral treatment is scaled up, there is a critical opportunity to simultaneously expand access to HIV prevention, which continues to be the mainstay of the response to the HIV epidemic. Without effective HIV prevention, there will be an ever increasing number of people who will require HIV treatment. Among the interventions which play a pivotal role both in treatment and in prevention, HIV testing and counselling stands out as paramount.

The current reach of HIV testing services remains poor. The reality is that stigma and discrimination continue to stop people from having an HIV test. To address this, the cornerstones of HIV testing scale-up must include improved protection from stigma and discrimination especially within healthcare settings, as well as assured access to integrated prevention, treatment and care services.

Just earlier this month, a pregnant woman with HIV died after being denied medical attention in Indore. Undoubtedly public health strategies and human rights promotion are mutually reinforcing. It is clear that India has a long way to go before we have a public health system strong enough to deliver effective healthcare to most underserved communities. And mandatory HIV testing alone is certainly not the short-cut.

Bobby Ramakant

(The author is a senior health and development journalist writing for newspapers in Asia, Middle East and Africa. He can be contacted at: bobbyramakant@yahoo.com)

Published in:

DECCAN HERALD, Bangalore, Karnataka: 3 May 2007

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may32007/panorama21333200752.asp