It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, December 21, 2020
Recently discovered comet seen during 2020 total solar eclipse
IMAGE: (LEFT) THE LASCO C2 CAMERA ON THE ESA/NASA SOHO OBSERVATORY SHOWS COMET C/2020 X3 (SOHO) IN THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND CORNER. (RIGHT) A COMPOSITE IMAGE OF THE TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON... view more
CREDIT: ESA/NASA/SOHO/ANDREAS MÖLLER (ARBEITSKREIS METEORE E.V.)/PROCESSED BY JAY PASACHOFF AND ROMAN VANUR/JOY NG. ECLIPSE IMAGE USED WITH PERMISSION.
As Chile and Argentina witnessed the total solar eclipse on Dec. 14, 2020, unbeknownst to skywatchers, a little tiny speck was flying past the Sun -- a recently discovered comet.
This comet was first spotted in satellite data by Thai amateur astronomer Worachate Boonplod on the NASA-funded Sungrazer Project -- a citizen science project that invites anyone to search for and discover new comets in images from the joint European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO.
Boonplod discovered the comet on Dec. 13, the day before the eclipse. He knew the eclipse was coming, and was eager to see whether his new comet discovery might appear in the Sun's outer atmosphere as a small speck in eclipse photographs.
The comet, named C/2020 X3 (SOHO) by the Minor Planet Center, is a "Kreutz" sungrazer. This family of comets originated from a large parent comet that broke up into smaller fragments well over a thousand years ago and continues to orbit around the Sun today. Kreutz sungrazing comets are most commonly found in SOHO images. SOHO's camera works by mimicking total solar eclipses: A solid occulting disk blocks out the otherwise blinding light of the Sun, revealing dimmer features in its outer atmosphere and other celestial objects like comets. To date, 4,108 comets have been discovered in SOHO images, with this comet being the 3,524th Kreutz sungrazer spotted.
Around the time the eclipse image was taken, the comet was traveling at roughly 450,000 miles per hour, about 2.7 million miles from the Sun's surface. The comet was around 50 feet in diameter -- about the length of a semitruck. It then disintegrated to dust particles due to intense solar radiation, a few hours before reaching its closest point to the Sun.
###
Potentially damaging surface ozone levels rose in lockdown
Less traffic in first lockdown reduced air pollution but caused potentially damaging surface ozone levels to rise
Less traffic on the roads during the first lockdown led to a reduction in air pollution but may have caused potentially damaging surface ozone levels to rise, a new study has revealed.
The study - led by the University of York - shows levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) down on average across the UK by 42 per cent, but surface ozone (O3) increased by 11 per cent on average.
Surface, or ground-level ozone, can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma.
Scientists believe our warm and sunny spring weather may have been a contributing factor.
The report concludes that if the Covid-19 lockdown is taken as an example of how air quality will respond to future reductions in vehicle emissions - with more electric vehicles being introduced - it serves as a warning that the problem of O3 must also be considered.
Professor James Lee from the Department of Chemistry and the National Centre for Atmospheric Science said during the first lockdown levels of O3 were the worst in the South of England.
Professor Lee added: "The problem is being created by the change in chemistry between NOx (nitrogen oxide) and O3. The main reason is the change in the nitrogen dioxide levels but the warm sunny weather in April and May also increased the ozone level. As a result we found UV radiation across the UK was higher in 2020 compared to previous years, with the largest increases in southern England.
"London, Chilton in Oxfordshire and Camborne in Cambridgeshire saw increases of around 50% compared to previous years, with Glasgow and Inverness showing smaller increases of around 30%.
"These results are a cautionary tale. As well as looking at how we reduce levels of nitrogen dioxide by cutting diesel and petrol emissions, we also need to keep an eye on what is happening with ozone so we don't create other forms of pollution dangerous to human health."
The report says in China nitrogen oxide reductions have also led to increases in O3 and air quality abatement strategies are being developed in order to offset the problem. This can be achieved by controlling volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - which are gases emitted into the air from products or processes of industry and other man-made activity.
Professor Lee added: "Our research shows it will be vital to control man-made VOCs to avoid any health gains made by the reduction of NO2 being offset by O3 increases."
###
Data was collected from 175 Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN) traffic monitoring sites across the UK between 23rd March and 31st May 2020 and compared with figures from the previous five years.
The study, "UK surface NO2 levels dropped by 42?% during the COVID-19 lockdown: impact on surface O3" is published in the journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
ANN ARBOR, Michigan -- While many people have listened to messaging about wearing a mask and following social distancing guidelines to limit the spread of COVID-19, resistance remains. A new study finds that appealing to people's concerns for their loved ones could overcome this resistance. And it may have implications for encouraging people to get the new vaccine.
In a recent survey, people who said social distancing and COVID-safety guidelines violated their personal freedoms responded more positively to these ideas when they felt a loved one might be at risk of severe illness for COVID-19.
"Emphasizing the benefits of being a protector for others (instead of yourself) looks to be more effective in promoting greater adherence to recommended practices," says study author Lawrence An, M.D., associate professor of general medicine at Michigan Medicine and co-director of the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center's Center for Health Communications Research.
As the coronavirus pandemic continues to ravage the United States, messaging focused on shaming or pressuring people to wear a mask or avoid crowds are backfiring.
"People who respond negatively to being 'told' what to do are much less likely - by more than 50% - to routinely wear a mask. However, at the same time, concern for others increases mask wearing, especially among those who report greater negativity," An says.
An and colleagues surveyed 1,074 people across the United States about their attitudes toward the coronavirus. They discovered two distinct sets of attitudes toward social distancing:
Positive beliefs that largely mirror public health messaging
Negative beliefs, including the idea that social distancing violates individual rights and freedoms
Concern about a loved one's risk of severe COVID-19 infection was tied to both higher positive attitudes and lower negative attitudes toward social distancing. When people considered their own personal risk, they had higher positive attitudes but it did not impact their negative attitudes.
"When people think about what protective behaviors to follow, negative beliefs - the perception of external control - override positive beliefs. This means that simply repeating that people should follow public health guidelines is unlikely to be effective," says study author Kenneth Resnicow, Ph.D., professor of health behavior and health education at the U-M School of Public Health and associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Rogel Cancer Center.
"However, our data show that when people consider being a protector for others, they approach risk differently. They are less likely to let their personal beliefs and politics discourage them from practicing COVID protection. Emphasizing the act of protecting others may help people who would otherwise be reluctant to practice COVID protection to feel independent and strong, rather than compliant or obedient," he says.
Recognizing that these distinct positive and negative attitudes about social distancing could help shape social distance policies and inform efforts to encourage people to follow them, An and Resnicow teamed up with CULTIQUE, an LA-based firm that advises the entertainment industry on cultural issues, to encourage messaging about protecting loved ones from the coronavirus in content, social media and news.
According to the latest data from the CDC, 40% of the population is considered at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. People with chronic health issues are 12 times more likely to die from COVID-19.
"For those who are caring for someone with cancer or other conditions, protecting your loved one is critical," An says.
Protectors can take responsibility for monitoring the at-risk person's COVID exposure and protecting them from the disease by limiting the person's exposure to others. This includes doing the shopping, maintaining cleaning protocols and PPE, and providing safe transportation to appointments.
"The prospect of losing someone is even more terrible knowing that we could be in the homestretch of this pandemic. With vaccines on the horizon, it's more important than ever to follow social distancing measures to help end COVID-19 sooner," Resnicow says.
###
Additional authors: Sarah Hawley, Ph.D.; M. Lee Van Horn, Ph.D.; Elizabeth Bacon, MPH; Penny Yang
Funding: National Cancer Institute grants P30CA046592-29-S4 and P30CA046592, Google Focus Award
Disclosure: None
Reference: Patient Education and Counseling, doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.11.027
What The Study Did: Researchers assessed the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the U.S. public.
Authors: Emily A. Largent, J.D., Ph.D., R.N., of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, is the corresponding author.
IMAGE: PUBLISHED BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE 2020. THIS WORK IS WRITTEN BY (A) US GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE(S) AND IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN... view more
CREDIT: PUBLISHED BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE 2020. THIS WORK IS WRITTEN BY (A) US GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE(S) AND IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN...
Wearing a face covering in public is dependent upon how often people observe others wearing them, according to recent findings. Other important motivating factors are among findings of a national study undertaken by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through lead author Jack Barile, interim director of the Social Science Research Institute in University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences. More than 1,000 U.S. adults, ages 18 and older, who are representative of the U.S. population by gender, age, region, race/ethnicity and education, were surveyed.
"In this study, we examined what motivators are behind an individual's choice to wear or not wear a face covering in public," Barile said. "This understanding is critical to developing successful messaging strategies to encourage acceptance and use of face coverings to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19."
The study suggests that being female, perceived importance of others wanting the respondent to wear a face covering, confidence to wear a face covering and perceived importance of personal face covering use were all factors positively associated with intention to wear a face covering in public.
No evidence was found that a perceived susceptibility to becoming ill and a perceived severity of COVID-19 correlated with an increase in the intent to use a face covering in public.
"The survey allowed us to explore both the barriers and facilitators to the public's use of face coverings, as well as to identify possible pathways through which the use of face coverings while in public could be increased among the U.S. population," Barile said. "Based on our findings, it is possible that messaging strategies that focus on susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19 may not be as effective as targeting actions that influence individual intentions and social norms."
Barile noted that, while distributions of the first vaccine to prevent COVID-19 have begun in the U.S., health officials predict that it will be months before the vaccine is readily available to all individuals who seek it.
"This makes mask wearing in public, especially when social distancing is difficult to maintain, an essential component in the continuing effort to reduce the virus' transmission," he said.
The study was published in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine, the Society of Behavioral Medicine's flagship journal. It publishes original empirical articles on behavioral medicine and the integration of biological, psychosocial and behavioral factors and principles.
Theoretical Model of Assessed Paths for Face Covering Use in Public (IMAGE)
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA
CAPTION
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 2020. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
CREDIT
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 2020. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Socioeconomic background linked to survival after having a cardiac arrest in hospital
Hospital in-patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to receive prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after their hearts stop beating and less likely to survive than patients from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
These are the findings of a new study in over 24,000 patients in Sweden, published in the European Heart Journal [1] today (Monday). It is the first European study to investigate this and the first to show that socioeconomic status (SES), rather than other factors, is important. The authors believe their findings could hold true for other European countries as well.
It is known that people with lower SES are less likely to survive a sudden cardiac arrest outside the hospital setting compared to those of higher SES but, until now, it has not been clear whether this was the case for patients already in hospital where they could expect to receive the same standard of care regardless of their backgrounds.
In the current study, Professor Jens Agerström, from Linnaeus University in Kalmar and Växjö, Sweden, and his Swedish colleagues, found that patients in hospital with higher incomes and education were significantly less likely to experience a delay in receiving CPR after a cardiac arrest, and significantly more likely to survive until discharge from hospital and for 30 days after the cardiac arrest.
Prof. Agerström said: "The good news is that for most of the cardiac arrest cases in this study, socioeconomic status didn't seem to matter. Nevertheless, there seems to be a significant number of deaths that can still be attributed to socioeconomic factors, even when we take account of things that could affect the results such as gender, age, ethnicity, other health conditions, cause of the cardiac arrest, and the specific hospital providing the treatment.
"The study investigated several outcomes but, for example, if we look at survival for 30 days after the cardiac arrest, approximately 280 people in 1000 from a low socioeconomic background will survive; however, for patients from a high socioeconomic background approximately 320 people may survive to 30 days."
The researchers also found that patients with higher SES were significantly more likely to have their heart rhythm monitored before they suffered a cardiac arrest and this was associated with less delay before CPR, a shorter duration of CPR and increased survival immediately afterwards and 30 days later. This could partially explain the differences in survival.
Prof. Agerström said: "Even when we took account of patients' other medical conditions, we found that patients with higher income and education were more likely to receive heart rhythm monitoring. In fact, we found that patients from high socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be monitored even if their health status was better than patients from low socioeconomic backgrounds. This suggests that there may be a bias in the way treatment is provided. Although doctors make the decision whether or not to monitor heart rhythm, we cannot rule out that patients from high socioeconomic backgrounds may request more monitoring."
The researchers write in their paper: "The finding that SES difference remain after controlling for major demographic, clinical and contextual factors suggests the presence of treatment bias/discrimination. Such bias, where patients are treated differently due to their SES, may stem from prejudiced attitudes among hospital staff."
They continue: "Reassuringly, however, most of the uncovered associations between patient SES and the studied outcomes are small, meaning that a large majority of IHCA [in-hospital cardiac arrest] patients with low SES is not subjected to disparate treatment. However, because human lives are at stake, a SES-related survival odds difference of approximately 21% (our effect size for 30-day survival) should not be ignored. This would mean that 818 of the 14,714 IHCA deaths of the lowly educated patients . . . could be attributed to education." They suggest that hospitals may want to consider enrolling their cardiac arrest teams in equality training programmes to help them be aware of their possible bias and how this could translate into discriminatory treatment.
The researchers analysed data from the Swedish National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for 24,217 cardiac arrests that occurred in patients aged 40 or over in Swedish hospitals between 2005 and 2018. They obtained socioeconomic data on patients from a second database and they used highest level of education and annual income as indicators of SES. They adjusted their results to take account of factors that could affect them, such as age, gender, ethnicity, other medical conditions, hospital where they were treated, heart rhythm and the cause of the cardiac arrest.
Prof. Agerström said: "The current study only examined cases where resuscitation was started because these are the cases that appear in the Swedish National Registry of CPR. It's possible that SES disparities are more pronounced when the medical staff decide whether or not to initiate CPR in the first place."
Other limitations of the study include that it can show only that the SES is associated with CPR and survival, not that SES causes fewer CPR attempts and lower survival rates among people with low SES. The researchers did not have access to smoking habits and other lifestyle factors and, because the study was conducted in Sweden, it might not be possible to generalise to other countries.
"Because it has been shown that people with low SES face prejudiced attitudes in many societies and cultures, it is possible that there are SES disparities in in-hospital cardiac arrest care and outcome in other European countries too. This, of course, rests on the assumption that prejudice plays an important role in the observed differences," said Prof. Agerström.
He said he was prompted to carry out the research because of his own experiences. "After having studied discrimination in the labour market for many years with Dr. Magnus Carlsson, one of my co-authors, we thought that a natural next step would be to look at the health care system and possible treatment discrimination, which is much less researched. My own medical visits also played a role, as I got the impression that the staff often became more thorough after they had asked me about my profession."
###
[1] "Discriminatory cardiac arrest care? Patients with low socioeconomic status receive delayed cardiopulmonary resuscitation and are less likely to survive an in-hospital cardiac arrest", by Jens Agerström et al. European Heart Journal. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa954
Sunday, December 20, 2020
EDITORIALS
COVID-19 proved 2020 was truly the Year of the Nurse
New Mexico Lt. Governor Howie Morales
When the World Health Organization (WHO) named 2020 as the ‘International Year of the Nurse’, it had no inkling of how true that would become. The designation was meant to honor the 200th anniversary of the birth of Florence Nightingale, a Victorian-era reformer of hospital care, and to raise recognition of the nursing profession. Then the Coronavirus pandemic struck. As the year draws to a close, we truly have learned how essential nurses are to everyone’s lives in 2020. We must not forget it.
Hospitalizations for COVID-19 infection across the U.S. have soared daily, setting new records for weeks on end. More than 3,000 Americans are dying every day from the virus, and infected patients are stretching U.S. medical facilities to the breaking point. In New Mexico the trends are no different. ICU beds are full across the state.
Who are on the frontline in our hospitals today? Nurses. During the decade in which I worked in healthcare, I observed dedicated nurses delivering personalized, patient-centered care consistently.
New Mexico’s nurses are the backbone of the state’s health care system, and they always have been. Nurses are the ones who step forward to try to keep gravely ill patients alive, and uniquely are present to give comfort and consolation to patients’ families. They perform irreplaceable, vital work in our system of health care.
Since the onset of the pandemic in March, nurses have been in the eye of the storm, along with doctors, nursing assistants, respiratory therapists, housekeepers, maintenance, dietary, patient care techs, administration, and other support staff. All of them are essential workers risking their lives during the pandemic. But are there enough nurses?
Globally the WHO identified a severe shortage of health workers, in particular nurses, who account for more than 50% of the current shortage in health workers. The WHO estimates that 2020 will have seen a shortage of nearly 9 million nurses. In the U.S., employment of nurses is projected to grow 12% from 2018 to 2028, much faster than the average for all occupations, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS predicts that the U.S. will need an additional 200,000 plus nurses per year from now through 2026, adding up to more than one million nurses. It is a big number to reach.
In New Mexico there are just under 16,000 licensed RNs, Clinical Nurse Specialists, Certified Nurse Practitioners and Certified Nurse Midwives actively practicing today. We know we need more of them, especially in rural, low-income and Native communities.
The state legislature has long recognized the shortage of health care providers in New Mexico, and with Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has taken positive steps to meet the health care needs of our residents. They have taken action to strengthen the state’s nursing workforce with incentives including new education loan programs, the Safe Harbor Act, authority for prescribing controlled substances, and training and retention measures. All of them are important.
The pandemic has put nurses and health care workers under enormous mental, emotional and physical strain. They worry and are exhausted by unusually long shifts, day after day because of staffing issues. Nurses have been concerned about staff falling ill to the virus. The re-use of N95 masks and a lack of adequate personal protective equipment at times that may have put them at risk for infection are also serious causes for alarm. Despair and PTSD from dealing with so much death firsthand are having a harsh impact on many nurses’ lives.
When the pandemic is over, we cannot allow the current emergency standards to become the new normal in our hospitals. The COVID-19 crisis has shown that New Mexico must make investing in our nurses and health care workers a top policy priority for the future – better pay along with more respect. That is how we retain and recruit nursing and health care professionals, who also have families to raise, like the rest of us. And nurses and other health care workers should also receive pandemic hazard pay.
President Donald J. Trump joins Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in conversation during their visit to the home of Mohandas Gandhi Monday, Feb. 24, 2020, in Ahmedabad, India. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
India's farmers are revolting against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government in a mass movement that has drawn international attention. The world's largest democracy is witnessing a collective groundswell of protest as hundreds of thousands of farmers, largely from the states of Punjab and Haryana, have laid siege to the outskirts of the capital of New Delhi, determined to occupy the edges of the city until Modi reverses unpopular new laws that they say are anti-farmer.
About half of India's workers depend on the agricultural industry, and the government has long had in place regulations to protect farmworkers, acting as a middleman between farmers and buyers of their produce. Now those protections have been upended. In September 2020, Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) pushed three deregulatory bills through Parliament amid chaos and even some opposition from within his own party.
Amandeep Sandhu, author of Panjab: Journeys Through Fault Lines, has been closely following the farmers' protests. In an interview, he explained to me that the first of the three bills scrapped the Essential Commodities Act, a 1955 law that stabilized food prices by preventing traders from hoarding supplies. According to Sandhu, "now traders can stockpile as much food as they want and can play the markets as they wish." Two-thirds of India's population of 1.3 billion rely on subsidized food rations, which Sandhu says are now endangered.
Another of the deregulatory laws would leave farmers to negotiate directly with buyers without government intervention to set basic minimum prices. Although this theoretically could result in farmers being able to demand higher prices, during years when there is a surplus of crops and subsequent plummeting prices, farmers could be financially destroyed. In short, the new laws are designed to subject hundreds of millions of poor farmers to the whims and demands of the market.
Modi's third controversial law centers on contract farming and enables corporate buyers to directly hire small farmers to produce specific crops. But Sandhu explained that it also protects corporations from liabilities. "If a small farmer has entered into a contract with a corporation and the corporation reneges on the contract, the farmer cannot go to court."00:00
Even before these new laws were put in place, India's farmers were being pushed to the brink. Millions are in debt as banks refuse to lend to the cash-strapped workers, driving them to illegal lenders that charge exorbitant interest rates. Farmer suicides in India have been on the rise, exacerbated by the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic this year.
According to Sandhu, "for many decades farmers have been protesting against the 'green revolution' model of agriculture," which emphasizes an increase in productivity above all else including farmer livelihoods. Writing for CNN.com, Simran Jeet Singh and Gunisha Kaur explained, "Just as some medications are tested on humans of developing countries before being accepted in developed nations, the Green Revolution was an agricultural experiment tested out on the fields of Punjab."
In further unleashing market forces on farmers through his new laws, Modi may have gone too far. "These very farmers are the BJP's core constituency," said Sandhu. "These are the ones who got the government elected in the first place."
Offering a stark contrast with struggling farmers are wealthy Indian elites who have seen their riches multiply each year. A 2018 report found that the wealth of the richest 831 Indians amounted to a quarter of India's gross domestic product. Chief among them is Mukesh Ambani, Asia's richest man, who has launched dozens of new businesses in the agricultural sector in just the last few months. India's second wealthiest person is Gautam Adani, and both men are considered close political allies of Modi. Protesting farmers say Modi's controversial farm bills were written to benefit the likes of Ambani and Adani. Earlier in the protests, farmers burned effigies of the prime minister and his billionaire buddies.
Modi has claimed that deregulation will bring wealth and prosperity to farmers and that objections to the laws are purely political. Because most of India's left-wing parties and prominent political figures from the opposition Congress Party have expressed support for farmers, the BJP-led government claims that farmers are being misled into believing the laws are bad for their bottom line. But one farmer from Punjab told Al Jazeera, "There is no politics in it, we feel the laws are going to benefit corporates and not poor farmers like us."
Modi has implored the farmers occupying the edges of Delhi to go home, claiming that the new laws are written to benefit them and are a "gift." He has offered to amend the laws as a compromise, but the farmers are standing firm, saying nothing less than a complete repeal of the laws will be satisfactory. India's former economic adviser Kaushik Basu agrees with them. Basu, who also served as chief economist of the World Bank and is currently a professor of economics at Cornell University, said the bills were "flawed" and "detrimental to farmers." He explained, "Our agriculture regulation needs change but the new laws will end up serving corporate interests more than farmers."
The new laws impact farmers' control over what to grow, whom to sell to, what prices they can rely on, and whether or not their crops will have buyers—all presented in the form of an unsolicited "gift" from a government that for years has ignored their plight. It's no wonder they are rebelling.
Solidarity with Indian farmers is high across the nation. In late November, nearly a dozen trade unions launched a massive general strike, bringing the nation to a standstill for a day. More than 250 million people are estimated to have participated, making it the world's largest protest in history. The farmers called for a second strike a week later and remain on the outskirts of New Delhi, blocking five major highways and saying they aren't leaving anytime soon. Sandhu shared that "farmers from Punjab and Haryana came with rations of their own for six months to one year and are willing to stick it out. The farmers who are coming from longer distances will be fed by those who are already there."
Indian agriculture affects the rest of the world, with a large percentage of the global spice market originating from Indian farms. Exported staples such as rice and milk and even cotton used by the apparel industry could be impacted by the new laws.
Diaspora Indians are now speaking out. Thousands of Indian origin residents of Britain rallied in London, declaring, "We stand with farmers of Punjab." Canadian Indians protested in various cities, with many saying they still had family who farmed in India. In California—home to a large population of Punjabi Indian Americans, many of whom are farmers themselves—a massive car rally in Silicon Valley called attention to the farmers' demands. And in Seattle, Councilmember Kshama Sawant of the Socialist Alternative Party sponsored a resolution to express solidarity with Indian farmers.
For now, a stalemate remains with the government and farmers facing off against one another, refusing to back down. Sawant had perhaps the most eloquent framing of what's at stake, saying, "Indian farmers are facing the same exploitation by the billionaire class that farmers and workers are facing worldwide." Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of "Rising Up With Sonali," a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Intensifying their agitation against the Centre's new agri laws, farmers on Sunday announced that they will observe a day-long relay hunger strike on Monday at all sites of protest in the national capital and halt toll collection on highways in Haryana from December 25 to 27.
Farmer leaders also urged people to beat utensils on December 27 during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Mann Ki Baat' radio programme, the same way the prime minister had asked people in March to beat 'thalis' (steel plates).
Modi had asked people to express gratitude towards those at the forefront of combating the coronavirus and extending essential services by giving a five-minute standing ovation by clapping, beating plates or ringing bells.
Thousands of farmers, mainly from Punjab and Haryana, are protesting against the laws for the last over four weeks at various border points of Delhi and demanding that the legislations be repealed.
"Farmers will begin a day-long relay hunger strike on Monday at all sites of protest against the new agri laws. It will be started by a team of 11 members at protests sites here, including the Singhu border," Swaraj India chief Yogendra Yadav said and added that "we appeal to everyone at all protest sites across the nation to participate in the same".
"Protesters are being threatened by the Haryana government. This is against the direction of the Supreme Court. I urge them to stop harassing farmers from tomorrow," he said at a press conference at the Delhi-Haryana Singhu border.
The Supreme Court on Thursday had said the farmers agitation should be allowed to continue "without impediment" and this court will not "interfere" with it as the right to protest is a fundamental right. It had also put a sole caveat that there should not be any breach of peace either by farmers or police.
While announcing the next move by protesting farmers after their hunger strike, farmer leader Jagjeet Singh Dalewala said farmers will halt toll collection on highways in Haryana from December 25 to 27.
"From December 25 to 27 all toll booths in Haryana will not be allowed by us to collect toll, we will halt them from doing so. On December 27, our prime minister will say his 'Mann ki baat' and we want to appeal to the people to beat 'thalis' during his address, the same way the PM had asked the country to bang utensils for coronavirus," the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) leader said at the press conference.
When the prime minister will speak, "we appeal to the people of the entire country to bang utensils in your houses throughout the duration of his programme to drown out his Mann Ki Baat", he said.
The 'Mann Ki Baat' is Prime Minister Modi's monthly radio address to the nation.
Farmer leader and senior BKU member Rakesh Tikait, who was also part of the press conference, said that farmers protesting the new agri laws will celebrate Kisan Diwas on December 23 and "we request people to not cook lunch for a day".
Earlier in the day, the protesting agriculturists paid tributes to farmers who died during the agitation and also lit candles in their memory.
The All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) also wrote to various traders' unions requesting their support to the ongoing farmers' agitation.
Farmers are protesting against the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
The three farm laws, enacted in September, have been projected by the government as major reforms in the agriculture sector that will remove middlemen and allow farmers to sell anywhere in the country.
However, the protesting farmers have expressed apprehension that the new laws would pave the way for eliminating the safety cushion of Minimum Support Price and do away with the mandis, leaving them at the mercy of big corporates. The Centre has repeatedly asserted that these mechanisms will remain.
INDIA In court, the government continues its game to drive a wedge between farm protest leadership
Farmers protest at the Singhu border against three recently enacted farm laws. Farmer unions have not yet agreed to become party to a petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the protests.
SHAHID TANTRAY FOR THE CARAVAN
On 16 December, the Supreme Court proposed the formation of a committee comprising representatives of the central government and farmers organisations to resolve the ongoing deadlock over three recently enacted farm laws. In its interim order on 16 December, the court granted eight farmer leaders, the “permission to implead as respondents” to a petition seeking the removal of the protesting farmers from the Delhi border. Though not officially stated, it is likely that these eight names were proposed by the centre. It is telling that the list of eight names does not include Joginder Singh Ugrahan, the leader of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Ekta Ugrahan), and one of the key people leading the ongoing protests.
Ugrahan has been at the forefront of the agitation at the Tikri border between Delhi and Haryana, leading over one lakh farmers. The central government had earlier invited Ugrahan alone for talks on 28 November when protesting farmers had first gathered at the Tikri and Singhu borders. Ugrahan had refused to participate. “They should call everyone and not try to divide us,” he told me at the time. The centre later attempted to isolate Ugrahan. He was not part of a delegation invited by the union home minister Amit Shah for an informal meeting on the evening of 8 December. That meeting did not yield any conclusive agreement.
On 16 December, I spoke to Ugrahan. He described the SC order as a “judicial intervention that the central government wants, to kill democracy.” He added, “Whenever there is a mass movement governments look forward to support from courts. I think such an act is an attack on the people’s democratic rights.” Ugrahan continued, “The court is looking at the masses, including women and children, sitting in protest in cold wave conditions as their democratic right. The judiciary knows that the farmers in the country are facing severe economic crisis.”
The eight farmer leaders named by the court represent different factions of farmers’ unions, primarily the Bharatiya Kisan Union. The list includes the following leaders—Rakesh Tikait of the BKU (Tikait), Jagjeet Singh Dallewal of BKU (Sidhupur), Balbir Singh Rajewal of BKU (Rajewal), Harinder Singh Lakhowal of BKU (Lakhowal), Buta Singh Burjgill of BKU (Dakaunda), Manjit Singh Rai of BKU (Doaba), Kulwant Singh Sandhu of Jamhoori Kisan Sabha, and Prem Singh Bhangu of Kul Hind Kisan Federation.
CURRENT ISSUE DECEMBER 2020
However, the farmer unions have not yet agreed to become party to the petition in the court. On 16 December, the leadership of the 30 main farmer organisations from Punjab, camped at the Singhu border, resolved not to become impleading parties suo moto in the court case. This includes all the eight leaders named by the court and their respective unions. This decision was taken at a meeting of the 40-member Sanyukt Kisan Morcha on 16 December. The SKM is a national farmer’s collective, comprising of 40 farmer organisations—the 30 farmer unions from Punjab, and 10 other organisations from outside the state. The SKM includes farmer leaders from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala.
One of the key participants of the 40-member group spoke to me on the condition of anonymity. “It was a trap that we decided to avoid,” he said. Several other farmer leaders also described the act of joining the court process as a “trap” set up by the government. They implied that this was a way to get them to negotiate and comprise on their key demand that the three laws be fully repealed.
While briefing the media after the SKM meeting, Balbir Singh Rajewal of BKU (Rajewal), was somewhat more restrained. He is one of the eight leaders named by the court. He said that “any decision on the court matter” would be taken after consulting lawyers that the farmer unions had reached out to. He disclosed four shortlisted lawyers—Prashant Bhushan, Colin Gonsalves, H S Phoolka and Dushyant Dave.
I also spoke to Darshan Pal of the Krantikari Kisan Union, one of the key leaders during the talks with the government. Referring to the court petition, he said, “It seems this move is the BJP’s game plan after its failure during the talks with us.” Pal does not feature on the list of eight names proposed by the court. Since 3 December, the central government has held several rounds of talks with representatives of farmer unions at Delhi’s Vigyan Bhawan. These talks have failed, with the farmers demanding a complete repeal of the three laws.
On 17 December, a day after the entire farmer union leadership declined to join the court case suo moto, the SC issued a second interim order. “In order to bring about an effective solution to the present stalemate between the protesters and the Government of India, we consider it appropriate in the interests of justice to constitute a Committee comprising of independent and impartial persons including experts in the field of Agriculture for the purpose,” the court said. “This may not be possible without hearing all the necessary parties. Till the parties come before us, it would be advisable to obtain suggestions about the constitution of the said Committee from all the parties which may be submitted by them on the date of next hearing in the matter.”
In its 17 December order, the court added, “We clarify that this Court will not interfere with the protest in question. Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order.”
During the proceedings, the court asked the government’s standing counsel whether the centre can give a commitment that the contentious farm laws will not be implemented while the court is hearing petitions seeking removal of the farmers’ protests. When SA Bobde, the chief justice of India asked KK Venugopal, the attorney general, whether the centre could assure that no executive action will be taken under the laws, Venugopal replied that he would get back after “taking instructions.” Tushar Mehta, the solicitor general, added, “It will be tough.”
Since September, at least three petitions have been filed in the SC challenging the centre’s farm laws. While hearing Sharma’s petition to remove the farmer protests, the court made a mention of these petitions, but did not state when they will be heard. Referring to the three farm laws, the court said, “The writ petitions challenging the said laws have been filed before this Court and will be decided in due course.” In October, the court had asked the attorney general to file a reply to the petitions within six weeks.
After the court stated that it would not interfere in halting the protests, the farmers’ leadership at both Tikri and Singhu borders seemed to be in an upbeat mood. On 18 December, Ugrahan was speaking to the media at the Singhu border. “Imposing the flawed laws on the people is not right,” he said, pointing out the government’s “double standards” since the protests began. “The government has brought in some non-entity organisations of farmers which were never heard of and is trying to portray that the farmers were all for the farm laws,” Ugrahan told the media. “On the one hand they are talking about amending the laws, on the other hand they are telling the people that the laws were right. We won’t leave Delhi till the government annuls these farm laws.”
