Opinion Ground reality

It says that the bill’s provisions will not apply to land acquisition under 16 important legislations and gives sweeping powers to the government to include any other act in this list through a notification and to acquire land in the case of certain emergencies. “The very purpose of the legislation is defeated by these exclusions,” CPM Politburo member S.R. Pillai argues. Besides,he says,the bill gives the government arbitrary powers to occupy land temporarily for public purposes and also for the use of private companies. “The cumulative effect of all these types of exclusions makes the bill totally worthless,” he argues. Further,according to the article,the definition of “public purpose” in the bill includes almost all human activity while the definition of “affected families” is a narrow one.

The article demands the inclusion of elected representatives in committees that conduct social impact assessment studies. It also objects to the fact that the bill bars the jurisdiction of the civil court for disputes relating to land acquisition,saying that such a move is unconstitutional.

Nuclear mistakes

With the government notifying the rules of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act,an article in People’s Democracy claims the rules do “what the US government has been demanding of India — completely dilute the liability of the nuclear suppliers.”

“No rule can override the basic act itself: this is precisely what these rules are doing,” the article says,arguing that Article 17 — which laid down the provision of a right to recourse by the nuclear operator — was nullified in three different ways.

“The right to recourse has been restricted to either the period of granting of initial licence or the product liability period,whichever is longer,” it says. Referring to Clause 24 of the rules,it says the clause states that the amount of liability in the right to recourse will be up to the operator’s liability if this is provided explicitly in the contract,or the value of the contract,whichever is less. “As the contractor will not agree — given this choice — of including such a liability in his contract,this effectively limits the liability only to the value of the contract,” it argues.

It also draws attention to Explanation 2 to Clause 24 of the rules,which states the operator’s claim shall not exceed the actual amount of compensation paid by him up to the date of filing such claim. “By this clause,the accident has to take place,the compensation claim would have to be filed by the victims,should be settled and paid by the operator,all within the first 12 months of the operation of the plant,if the operator has to exercise his right to recourse. This is as good as no recourse at all,” it says.

Bias and injustice

An article in CPI weekly New Age focuses on the granting of bail to nine Muslim youths who spent five years in jail in connection with the Malegaon terror blasts. It asks: “Why do the government probe agencies not bother about the consequences of ‘falsely implicating innocent Muslims’?”

“Their lives are ruined and their families shattered because of the terror tag on them. Who could be the guilty? Is it the investigating agencies? Or was it the government itself? Or is it the mindset of a section that brands people belonging to a minority group as terrorists? Should we blame the media?” it asks.

It says that the Malegaon case is not an isolated incident. “In other incidents in Mecca Masjid,Nanded,the Godhra train mishap,the blast at an RSS worker’s residence,Modasa,Parbhani,Jalna,Aurangabad,Ajmer and the Samjhauta blasts,the bias against Muslim youth can be seen. There are about 225 Muslims,charged in 39 cases,languishing behind bars whereas these terror activities are the handiwork of the RSS,” says the article. It demands that all these cases be reinvestigated and the terror tags dropped.