Dear elders, friends and wellwishers,
Pranam !
I am deeply disturbed that heir of a well known political and intellectual family of Odisha has hijacked my article as his creation. I found this today. Please know details about that from my mail that I have written to him just a shortwhile ago (pasted just below this paragraph). Below the text of my mail, I have also pasted the exact article for your reference. Just see, how intellectual property rights are blatantly transgressed by so called intellectuals.
Exact text of my mail to Suporno Satpathy:
Dear Suporno babu,
Pranam !
I found a posting titled 'A Special Package of Lies from the Govt of Odisha' under the article segment of 'www.orissabarta.com'.
With all politeness, I will like to inform you that the said piece is written entirely by me and was posted in various listserves in public domain along with posting in my own blog 'www.bimalpandia.blogspot.com' on 23.12.2010 under heading 'A Package of Lies'. But ironically and to my utter bemusement, in your posting (URL: http://orissabarta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4043:a-special-package-of-lies-from-the-govt-of-odisha&catid=41:articles&Itemid=27) it has been shown that the piece has been written by Suporno Satpathy (Chairman SNSMT). No where in website it has been shown that I am the original writer of that piece of article.
I am sure that this is a deliberate act on your part to hijack my article as yours. For the only changes that you have made are the names whom I have quoted in my piece. While my piece carries quotes from Annada Mishra of Bankia village, Ananta Bariha of Dhatuk village, Ashok Pradhan and Murari Prasad Purohit (both farmer leaders) and Vijay Dishari of Mukhiguda village; the piece that you claim as yours just tries to cleverly change those names to Girdhar Padhan of Chhedipada and Dinu of Balangir district. In other cases you have cleverly deleted the names and the quoted portions have been mainstreamed into the article as narration.
Being educated, being the heir of a bright family of the state, and being in the socio-political field, I hope that you are matured enough to understand that I should be deeply disturbed, peeved and angry with such an incursion into my rights and creativity. I hope that I will get an explanation in this regard from you.
Just to introduce myself further, let me tell you that I am the son of highly respected person in erstwhile Balangir district who was also a very close confidant of your mother Nandini Satpathy. Your mother was treating my father and family with reverence and respect and my father and family had the same for your mother and your family. Besides, I give your brother Tathagat babu immense respect and has a very close rapport with the Dharitri family. I too had a political lineage such as yours (though I have left politics now).
Considering this, I do not wish to take this matter to public or other forums until I get a reply from you. But the reply should not be inordinately delayed. I hope you will be apologetic about this transgression and blatant abuse of intellectual rights and rest this matter to piece.
Regards
Bimal Prasad Pandia
Exact copy of my article that Suporno Satpathy has shown as his:
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
A PACKAGE OF LIES
By: Bimal Prasad Pandia
Odisha government’s ‘special package’ for rain affected farmers not only makes a mere routine and mandatory minimum relief measure as a grand compensation package but also it mocks the farmers on their face as it grossly misleads all in its quantitative and qualitative coverage.
“Only Rs 2,000 compensation for a hectare is awfully ridiculous and unacceptable,” says Ashok Pradhan, Convener of Paschim Odisha Krushak Sangathan Samanyaya Samiti (POKSSS). The Samiti has started a massive farmer movement in western Odisha now. “This time crop loss happened at the last stage and during harvesting. By the time we have almost made all expenditures required for raising and harvesting a crop,” informs Murari Prasad Purohit, President of POKSSS. “Cultivation of paddy has become hugely capital intensive. Now we are spending at least Rs 12,000 for one acre (Rs 30,000 for one hectare) of paddy. What is the value of a mere Rs 800 compensation then,” questions Mr Purohit.
The writer may be contacted at: bimalpandia@gmail.com
Odisha government’s ‘special package’ for rain affected farmers not only makes a mere routine and mandatory minimum relief measure as a grand compensation package but also it mocks the farmers on their face as it grossly misleads all in its quantitative and qualitative coverage.
A half page colour advertisement, prominently gracing all major newspapers and medias of Odisha, blaring “Hon’ble Chief Minister’s declaration of special relief package to farmers affected by low-pressure induced rain” has generated more condemnation than kudos. The opposition is expectedly sniffing ‘inefficiencies’. The treasury bench, too, find it awfully awkward to defend a declaration which their government woefully terms as a ‘package’. While the who’s who debate it at their levels, nature ravaged farmers are doomed to a sense of big letdown. “As you can see, I have lost the whole crop. But now I get to know that the package is not for me,” says a bemused Annada Mishra of Bankia village in Sonepur district while he was trying his hands a salvaging operation fully knowing that “the cost of the salvage operation will be more than the value of the salvaged crop”. While Annada, a big farmer, is peeved because he is entitled to a maximum compensation of only 2,000 rupees; Anata Bariha, a small farmer of Dhatuk village in Balangir district, is dumbfounded as the so called package is barely a fraction of what he did spend on his now ruined crop. “I am being told that I will get only 1,200 rupees compensation for the lost crop in crop in my one and half acre holding,” informs Ananta and adds “I had spent 20,000 rupees on the crop.”
To cover so less and so few
The Rs 900 Crore package that the state government did so proudly announce and so profusely advertise is like rubbing salt to farmer’s rotting wounds. And they have reasons to presume so. While announcing the package, Naveen Pattnaik, the Chief Minister of Odisha, did mention that prima-facie estimation of more than 50 percent of crop loss has been reported from ‘around 12 lakh hectares under paddy and non-paddy crops’. Even if we assume that all affected lands are irrigated land, which is entitled to highest compensation, still the total compensation that the farmers will get will be a mere Rs 480 Crore rupees – barely a half of the so called 900 Crore package.
But hold on… there is a catch. Neither all lands are irrigated, nor will all affected lands be provided compensation. Orissa Agricultural Statistics for year 2009-10 claims that irrigation potential has been created in 47.5 percent of the state’s total cultivable area. But a huge chasm between irrigation potential created and utilized undermines all claims. Even the state department of water resources puts irrigation utilization at 81 percent of the potential created. That means about 20 percent of land presently being considered as irrigated is in fact not getting any irrigation cover. Thus effective area under any sort of irrigation is only 38.5 percent of the total cultivable area. But, there are not many takers for this figure either and they reject this claim as being highly optimistic. Still for the sake of calculation let us assume that 38 percent of the 12 lakh hectares of land supposedly identified as rain affected are irrigated land. Thus the maximum possible total compensation - assuming an unrealistic supposition that all land holders are eligible for compensation for all of their holdings - for irrigated lands will be Rs 182.4 Crore only (4,56,000 hectares getting compensation @ Rs 4,000 per hectare) and the maximum total compensation for non-irrigated lands will be Rs 148.8 Crores only (7,44,000 hectares getting compensation @ Rs 2,000 per hectare). Thus even in the best possible scenario, where all affected lands become eligible for compensation irrespective of land holding pattern, still require the government to spend only Rs 331.2 Crores on compensation, not Rs 900 Crores. But the best possible scenario is not at all a reality, as only a fraction of land identified as rain affected are likely to be eligible for compensation. The reason is the land holding pattern and the ceiling condition laid out in the so called ‘package’. Farmers who are not ‘marginal’ or ‘small’ will be entitled to a maximum compensation for one hectare only. Thus a farmer having lost more than 50 percent of crops in 10 acres of land will still get a maximum compensation of Rs 2,000 for non-irrigated land and Rs 4,000 for irrigated land.
Land distribution aspect has significant bearing on compensation coverage and ex-gratia amount. As per the 2001 population census there are 42,34,000 farming households in Odisha. Though 83 percent of them are small and marginal farming households, they own only about 40 percent of the total land. In other words, about 13 percent of big and medium farmers own about 60 percent of the lands. Thus a ceiling of compensation for a maximum of one hectare land for big and small farmers will eliminate scope of compensation to as high as about 40 percent of affected lands which belong to medium and big farmers.
This is not the end of the gaffe. The December rain mostly caused losses in low lands where farmers normally go for late duration crops. The pattern is such that ownership of such low lands mostly lies with the big and medium farmers. This kind of pattern is more prominent in western-southern parts of Odisha. Thus, by virtue of this, a majority of the estimated 12 lakh hectares of land affected by December rainfall belong to big and medium farmers and thereby further erode coverage of the declared compensation package.
‘Why did you prompt us to take up high-cost high risk crops?’
While the very basic claim of the ‘Rs 900 Crore special package’ is hollow, based on untruth and misleading, the compensation ‘package’ itself is atrociously humiliating to farmers. The ‘package’ is nothing but a mere declaration of ‘Calamity Relief Fund (CRF)’ norms. Section 3(e)(i) of the CRF norms mentions an “Assistance to small and marginal farmers for agricultural crops, horticulture crops and annual plantation crops @ Rs 2,000 per hectare in rainfed areas, Rs 4,000 per hectare under assured irrigation area.. (a) No input subsidy will be payable for agricultural land remaining unsown or fallow. (b) Assistance payable to any small farmer with tiny holding may not be less than Rs 250” where more than 50 percent of crop losses have been reported.
“Only Rs 2,000 compensation for a hectare is awfully ridiculous and unacceptable,” says Ashok Pradhan, Convener of Paschim Odisha Krushak Sangathan Samanyaya Samiti (POKSSS). The Samiti has started a massive farmer movement in western Odisha now. “This time crop loss happened at the last stage and during harvesting. By the time we have almost made all expenditures required for raising and harvesting a crop,” informs Murari Prasad Purohit, President of POKSSS. “Cultivation of paddy has become hugely capital intensive. Now we are spending at least Rs 12,000 for one acre (Rs 30,000 for one hectare) of paddy. What is the value of a mere Rs 800 compensation then,” questions Mr Purohit. Even the banks and cooperative societies provide crop loan @ Rs 9,000 per acre for rainfed paddy. “This compensation at best covers less than nine percent of the loan amount,” points out Bijay Dishari of Mukhiguda village in Kalahandi district. Farmers naturally feel brutalized. “The government wants us to go for high-yielding and high-cost cropping practices to feed a growing population. But it does precious little to cushion our losses.”
As magnitude of losses keep on increasing owing to a variety of vagaries and the government continues to be found more and more wanting, farmer’s quandaries continues to mount. “Why are our farmers being asked and encouraged to go for high-cost cropping practices,” questions Saroj Mohanty, a noted farmer activist. “In the long term, total cumulative output from a high-cost method invariably equals that of a traditional and low cost method,” Mohanty adds. Increasing natural disasters, pest attacks and untimely supply or shortages of inputs are growingly affecting high-cost crops more than a traditional crop. And the burden of shouldering such losses has squarely fallen on the hapless farmers. “We were better off growing our crops traditional way where cost of production was very low,” says Daktar Bhoi of Darlipali village in Balangir district. He too echoes Mr Mohanty and innocently questions, “Why did you prompt us to take high cost crops which not only increased our risks but also increased our losses. We are worst off now”.
Perplexed farmers of Odisha are peeved at the way their government is dealing with them. While other state governments have acted differently, Odisha government’s indifference has struck them badly. The state government is propagating what should have been a minimum and routine ex-gratia aid as ‘Chief Minister’s special package’. Odisha government has declared nothing more than what has been stipulated in the CRF norms except raising the minimum compensation from Rs 250 to Rs 1,000. Losses and damages in Tamilnadu are not very different from Odisha, yet the Tamilnadu government has already declared a uniform compensation of Rs 10,000 for every damaged hectare.
As farmers having crop loss of more than 50 percent rue their fate, farmers having lesser crop loss complain why their losses are not been taken into account at all. “We too will not be able to make up the cost incurred on the crop,” complains Santosh Padhi of Panchamahala village in Sonepur distirct. “Further, paddy has become discolored and no one is buying them,” adds M. Govindu a big farmer in the Hirakud command area of Sambalpur district. The package does not even make a consideration for those.
Even as mysteries of the ‘package’ keep unfolding, our bewilderment grows more and more. How a democratic government claim a so little, so less covered and such a routine relief measure as a ‘special package’ and barb about doing that. As farmer movement start growing and politicians are awakening to take some mileage, indications are clearly coming from the grassroots that farmers are not that aloof and ignorant anymore.
The writer may be contacted at: bimalpandia@gmail.com
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Where is Paddy Bonus, Mr. Minister?
Mr Minister, you have made a statement that farmers are getting Rs 50 bonus on a quintal paddy. Sadly, that is nothing but blatant falsehood
(My open letter to Dr Damodar Rout, Agriculture Minister, Odisha)
Dear Dr. Damodar Rout ji, Hon’ble Agriculture and Cooperation Minister, Government of Odisha
Pranam !
Sir, you are a seasoned politician; a senior member of the present cabinet holding agriculture and cooperation portfolio; and also you claim to be an active farmer. You are the most active member of the present cabinet on various media and public communication platforms. Having all these traits, the farming community expects from you a reflection of the true status of the agriculture sector. But, I am constrained to allege that, on many occasions, you have belied the trust reposed on you by the farmers. Your statement made on Friday that a bonus of Rs 50 is being paid now, over and above the Minimum Support Price (MSP) of paddy, adds another leaf to that growing list falsehood.
You are grossly wrong in reporting that farmers are being paid a bonus of Rs 50 on every sell of a quintal of paddy. The farmers are not getting any bonus this year at all and the net sell proceed from a quintal of paddy remains exactly the same as last year. In addition to the MSP of Rs 950 per quintal, farmers were also getting a bonus of Rs 50 last year. The MSP for this year has been increased to Rs 1,000 per quintal. However, the government is providing no bonus this year. Thus, the effective price that a farmer gets by selling a quintal of paddy still remains Rs 1,000.
Your statement is like an insult to injuries to the farming community which is grappling with increasing adversities. If you have made the statement after ascertaining true facts, then your department and your government has failed to convey the decision - to pay Rs 50 per quintal bonus - to your procuring officers. That shows the incompetence of you and your government. But, if you are not aware of the true facts and still preferred to make an announcement that Rs 50 per quintal of bonus is being paid then that is no less than brute treachery towards the public in general and farming community in particular.
You definitely owe us an explanation on this guff.
With regards
Bimal Prasad Pandia
Bank Colony, Sakhipada, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768 001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)