Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture
@kkuruganti
Aug 10, 2020 • 3 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
#Ban27Pesticides Expert View 7- Watch Dr Narasimha Reddy (PAN-Pesticide Action Network) respond to GoI's proposed ban on 27 pesticides:
Please don't forget to sign on this petition: act.jhatkaa.org/campaigns/218
Get your voice heard too, by putting out your own video on social media with this hashtag #Ban27Pesticides. Also send your comments to the Government of India before 15th Aug'20: ban27pesticides.org/contact-goi
More information available on ban27pesticides.org

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Kavitha Kuruganti

Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kkuruganti

Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture
Oct 1, 2020
I just found APMC Bypass Bill has: 2(n) TRADER means a person who BUYS farmers’ produce by way of inter-State or intra-State trade ... for purpose of wholesale trade, retail, END USE, value addition, processing, manufacturing, export, CONSUMPTION or for such other purpose!!! 1/4
Trade is not explicitly defined other than buying and selling of farmers' produce, and defined in the context of inter-state or intra-state in the Act. 2/4
It means that CONSUMERS buying from farmers (let us say in rural haats or in rural India generally etc.) have been equated with traders. And now, as per Sec.4(1) all these consumers who are = traders have to have PAN cards!! Otherwise, penalties under Sec.11 (1) will apply. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture
Sep 14, 2020
Disconnect from ground, ambiguities and deficiencies galore in the APMC Bypass Bill 2020.
*farmers' freedom was not curtailed earlier either in state APMC Acts
* trader to trader transactions are being regulated now - that cannot be farmers' produce
#APMCBypassBill 1/13
It is unclear why separate definitions and clauses have been included for Farmers’ Produce (Sec.2(a)) and Scheduled Farmers’ Produce (2 (j)) when the intention is to de-regulate both, but one category now put under state APMC Act discretion!!? #APMCBypassBill 2/13
Sec 2(d) Farmer means a person engaged in production of farming produce by self or by hired labour or ...and includes FPOs! FPOs not engaged in production & cannot be equated with Farmer. Why regulate decisions within autonomous farmers’ body with decisions made by farmers? 3/13
Read 13 tweets
Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture
Sep 14, 2020
Now, to the APMC BYPASS BILL 2020. It seems to be about replacing current local traders' monopsonies with big business monopolies without government addressing the basic issues around protecting farmers. 1/7 Image
Farmers’ freedom was not curtailed legally in APMCs Act. It's also important to note that only 35% of produce traded in regulated markets. Many things going wrong in these APMCs. However, APMCs provide space for farmers' collective bargaining on price & non-price issues. 2/7 Image
While non-Mandi trade needs to be de-criminalised, that is NOT to be made de-regulation which will b callous neglect of farmers’ interests. Farmers’ woes with markets & low prices are due to many inter-locked factors incl. agri-credit & dumping from unequal international trade3/7
Read 7 tweets
Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture
Sep 14, 2020
CONTRACT FARMING BILL 2020 AKA Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020. THERE IS NO ‘PRICE ASSURANCE’ OR ‘FARMERS’ EMPOWERMENT’ –
title of Bill is a misnomer. Is this allowed in law-making?
1/4 Image
IN AN ACT THAT KEEPS THINGS VOLUNTARY (Farmer ‘may’ enter agreement, ‘may’ have written agreement, it ‘may’ have xyz terms & conditions etc.-- It's not about Sponsor SHALL enter written agreement etc.)- THERE SHALL BE A BAR ON CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION (Sec.19)? How & why? 2/4
Isn’t concept of “Production Agreement” in this Bill a proxy for CORPORATE FARMING??
Aren't 'farm services' being equated with inputs?
How are FPOs included in the definition of Farmer? 3/4
Read 4 tweets
Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture
Sep 14, 2020
Yes, agri-businesses in post-harvest supply chains need predictable regulation to invest. But that doesn't mean govt can give up on its power to regulate for protection of weakest. So, what's wrong with Essential Commodities Amendment Bill 2020, to be introduced today? 1/7 Image
Preamble says it's for enhancing income of farmers but EC Act was never about Farmers or their incomes. There was no restriction under ECA on Farmers or FPOs from stocking produce/selling it. It's established that during retail price rise, benefit is not passed on to farmers.2/7
Now, restrictions are being removed for all foodstuffs to give Companies freedom to purchase & store any quantities, hence indulge in hoarding. This is “Food Hoarding (Freedom for Corporates) Bill”. Cos like Adani-Wilmar & Reliance will now stock any amount of food stuffs. 3/7
Read 8 tweets
Kavitha Kuruganti Profile picture
Aug 14, 2020
#PrashantBhushan & Non-existent legal reasoning of SC - Crisp analysis by @gautambhatia88 - "It reminds me of times I used to take a football from halfway line, dribble it across the pitch, and kick it into the goal – without any opposition players on the field.
It stands to reason that if an individual has been accused of CoC because they expressed an opinion about role of 4 CJs in undermining democracy, & that individual has filed a Reply setting out the facts upon the basis of which they arrived at that opinion, ....
a “judgment” holding that individual guilty of contempt cannot pretend that the Reply does not exist. .. "In the 108-page long judgment (the substantive part of which begins at page 93), the Supreme Court refuses entirely to engage with Mr. Bhushan’s reply."
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(