Parliament of India Winter Session 2016 *Day 1*

Parliament of India Winter Session 2016 *Day 1*

My specialized OBSERVATIONS:

The Lok Sabha was adjourned for the day after orbituary refrences, as a sitting memebr had passed away.

In the Rajya Sabha: A discussion began (and is continuing into the next day), on the controversial notifications by the Reserve Bank of India, whereby:

a) currency notes of rupees one thousand and five hundred -INR 1,000 and INR 500 were announced to be invalid (with transitory provisions);

b) the introduction of new Rs 2000 note, as well as a new Rs 500 note instead was announced.

This policy decision was announced by the Prime Minister on live television at 8pm on the 8th of November, 2016.

The move was said to be in order to deal with the problem of counterfeit notes, as well as to tackle the problem of black money and terror funding.

So far, all parties that have spoken are supportive, overall, of the need to tackle the problem of black money, counterfeit notes and terror-funding.

However, concerns raised have been as follows (My specialised SUMMARY of the speeches made):

1. Serious concerns about immediate and short-term impacts of a cashless economy on the poor, especially farmers, labourers and the unorganized sector, and also those planning, or about to hold big events such as weddings;

2. A concern that introducing a 2000-Rupee note in place of a 1000-rupee note will not help curb corruption, and might be counter-productive;

3. Logistical glitches in connection with the immediate implementation of the measure such as ATM machines not being calibrated to the new notes, long queues at ATM machines, change not being available for people to carry out business etc.

4. Only one concern regarding the legality of the move has been articulated so far, where an INC member has said that the RBI is only empowered to end a series of notes in this manner.

5. Grave concerns have been articulated, regarding the failure of the secrecy-aspect of this measure on the side of the establishment, and related allegations made, and a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) has been called for, to investigate the matter.

6. The presence of the Prime MInister, to hear the debate in the Rajya Sabha was sought, especially since he had made the announcement, and not the Finance Minister. It was, in fact, said that the RBI or at least the Finance Minister should have been the ones making the announcement.

7. It was suggested that this is the right time to introduce a scheme for declaration of black money. It was felt that this would draw in much more money to the banks. And that at present, only innocent people were being made to stand in queues. That the government had made all citizens suspect, and that the real culprits and rich people were not to be seen in these queues.

8. The issue of other major sources of black money such as offshore wealth, undeclared wealth and illegal mining etc. were raised, and it was said that the bulk of black money was in these areas, and needed to be tackled. The concept of the state funding of elections via the election commission was pointed out as an importanr solution.

9. Members raised concerns regarding the Prime Minister having said he is under threat, and wanted to know from the Prime Minister, who the threat was from, or whether it was a false claim.

10. The government, while defending its moves, also made a reference to international efforts and agreements to curb black money, and India's role. Mention was also made, of the Panama Papers.

My specialized and political ANALYSIS of the speeches so far:

1. All those who spoke seemed equally mystified by the move and its genesis;

2. Genuine concerns as listed above were raised, and need to be addressed;

3. The only politically-motivated aspects might be the over-magnifying of the immediate logistical glitches caused...this should not be done mischievously in a manner that benefits the rich and allows the poor to remain in queues;

4. It must be noted that there is a PIL in the Supreme Court, and though the court has refused to grant a stay, it has asked for certain responses. The court is well within its rights to monitor and observe (though not adjudicate on) whatever processes it feels fit to monitor.

5. Other significant legal questions that do arise have not yet been asked. However, the discussion continues into today, so one will have to see what transpires today. (Members do not seem to be adequately briefed by the correct quarters on the exact wordings and implications of the notifications, and are only going by the PM's speech and media reports).

6. The aspect of Indian currency notes in foreign countries and in disputed areas has not yet been adequately discussed. It might be useful to hear from the external affairs minister on the subject.

7. A government response-and-monitoring mechanism needs to be made more concrete and announced on the floor of the house with assurances. Such a mechanism would need to look into several aspects of how to deal with the ongoing crisis.

8. From an anti-corruption, sociological and gender-justice perspective, the stoppage of weddings need NOT be looked at from a sympathetic point of view.

9. As far as farmers go, the lack of access to chemical fertilizers or lack of access to seeds from large corporations, including genetically modified seeds such as GMOs (Bt cotton etc., any other GMOs in vogue etc.) need NOT be viewed sympathetically.

10. The inability of the poor to furnish bail amounts when accused of crimes during this period needs to be appropriately addressed.

[Please note that this was first posted a few hours ago on my Facebook wall. The wall has previous posts including links to two articles from the press, on the topic of "demonetisation". The Follow option at V Shruti Devi on Facebook is open to all.]