CPI (M) said the decision of oil companies to make Aadhaar-linked bank account compulsory for LPG subsidy is unacceptable as only 25% of the country's population had so far obtained the UID
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M) has asked the Indian government to withdraw its decision to make unique identification (UID) number or Aadhaar compulsory for providing various benefits like cooking gas subsidy to citizens.
The Kerala state plenum of CPI (M) adopted a resolution in its meeting at Palakkad on Thursday. The resolution alleged that Aadhaar had been made compulsory by the Centre without having the backing of any parliamentary legislation and in disregard to the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court on the issue.
"The government has been pressurising the people to open bank accounts and link them to Aadhaar. Instead of allowing the people to open zero-balance accounts, many banks are insisting they should deposit Rs500 to Rs1,000 to open accounts," CPI(M) said.
Though a bill was introduced in Parliament on the matter, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee to which it was referred, had negated the salient provisions of the bill, the resolution said.
It said, "The decision of oil companies to make Aadhaar-linked bank account compulsory for cooking gas subsidy is unacceptable as only 25% of the country's population had so far obtained the Aadhaar. This means that the vast majority of the people are anxious whether they would continue to receive the benefits for which they are entitled."
CPI (M) alleged that it is part of the government's neo-liberal policy of phasing out subsidies and welfare payments.
"The Government's decision to set a time-frame for linking the benefits with Aadhaar has caused serious concern among the beneficiaries of various welfare schemes," the resolution added.
In a statement, the woman journalist said, this crisis was caused by the abusive violence of the magazine’s editor-in-chief, and not by an employee who chose to speak out
Rejecting 'insinuations' that her complaint is part of a pre-election political conspiracy, the woman journalist, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by Tarun Tejpal, on Friday said what the Telelka editor did to her 'falls within legal definition of rape'.
In a statement, she said that she was heartened by the broad support she has received over the past fortnight.
Here is the statement issued by the journalist...
I am heartened by the broad support I have received over the past fortnight. However, I am deeply concerned and very disturbed by insinuations that my complaint is part of a pre-election political conspiracy.
I categorically refute such insinuations and put forward the following arguments:
The struggle for women to assert control over their lives and their bodies is most certainly a political one, but feminist politics and its concerns are wider than the narrow universe of our political parties. Thus, I call upon our political parties to resist the temptation to turn a very important discussion about gender, power and violence into a conversation about themselves.
Suggestions that I am acting on someone else’s behest are only the latest depressing indications that sections of our public discourse are unwilling to acknowledge that women are capable to making decisions about themselves for themselves.
In this past week, television commentators who should know better, have questioned my motivations and my actions during and after Mr. Tejpal molested me. Some have questioned the time it took for me to file my complaint, more inquisitive commentators have questioned the use of the word “sexual molestation” versus words like “rape.”
Perhaps the hardest part of this unrelentingly painful experience has been my struggle with taxonomy. I don’t know if I am ready to see myself as a “rape victim”, or for my colleagues, friends, supporters and critics to see me thus. It is not the victim that categorizes crimes: it is the law. And in this case, the law is clear: what Mr. Tejpal did to me falls within the legal definition of rape.
Now that we have a new law that broadens the definition of rape, we should stand by what we fought for. We have spoken, time and again, about how rape is not about lust or sex, but about power, privilege and entitlement. Thus this new law should be applicable to everybody – the wealthy, the powerful, and the well connected – and not just to faceless strangers.
As seen by some of the responses to this case, instances of familial and custodial rape present doughty challenges to even the most adamantine feminists.
Unlike Mr. Tejpal, I am not a person of immense means. I have been raised singlehandedly by my mother’s single income. My father’s health has been very fragile for many years now.
Unlike Mr. Tejpal, who is fighting to protect his wealth, his influence and his privilege, I am fighting to preserve nothing except for my integrity and my right to assert that my body is my own and not the plaything of my employer. By filing my complaint, I have lost not just a job that I loved, but much-needed financial security and the independence of my salary. I have also opened myself to personal and slanderous attack. This will not be an easy battle.
In my life, and my writings, I have always urged women to speak out and break the collusive silence that surrounds sexual crime. This crisis has only confirmed the myriad difficulties faced by survivors. First, our utterances are questioned, then our motivations, and finally our strength is turned against us: a politician will issue a statement claiming that speaking out against sexual violence will hurt our professional prospects; an application filed in the Delhi High Court will question why the victim remained “normal”.
Had I chosen silence in this instance, I would not have been able to face either myself or the feminist movement that is forged and renewed afresh by generations of strong women.
Finally, an array of men of privilege have expressed sorrow that Tehelka, the institution, has suffered in this crisis. I remind them that this crisis was caused by the abusive violence of the magazine’s Editor-in-Chief, and not by an employee who chose to speak out.
Thank you everyone for your support.
Since 2011, the entire bullion trade is reeling under increased prices, however, Malabar Gold and Diamond’s turnover witnessed 550% jump!
Malabar Group made a modest start in Calicut in 1993 with a capital of about Rs50 lakh. In just 20 years, it has grown in to a Rs22,000 crore empire, which is 44 lakh times its original capital. And all this only through jewellery, infrastructure as well as domestic and commercial building business. This is a rags to riches story. As of today, Malabar group consist 1,600 investors, 6,000 management staff and about 10 companies in India and abroad.
The group has expanded rapidly in the last decade in India and overseas, especially in gulf countries. Since 2005, the jewellery group has roped in famous personalities to act as its brand ambassadors. This includes, its current brand ambassadors are Kareena Kapoor, the Bollywood actor, south Indian actor Suriya, famous Malayalam Superstar Mohanlal and Bollywood’s ‘dream-girl’ Hema Malini. Earlier, several film actors like Junior NTR and Puneeth Rajkumar, music director Ilayaraja and tennis start Sania Mirza were associated with Malabar Gold.
During 2005, Malabar Gold was reported to be a group worth Rs500 crore.It also signed its first brand ambassadors, Tennis star Sania Mirza and Malayalam superstar Mohanlal during that period.
Over the next two years, Malabar Gold increased its reach beyond Kerala and became a group worth Rs800 crore. In April 2007, its chairman MP Ahammed was quoted as planning to invest Rs200 crore over next one year to expand its footprint in south India and abroad. ()
Malabar Gold made rapid progress over the next four years to increase its single jewellery showrooms to 54. During June 2011, it hired Brand Union to enhance its corporate image. At that time, Malabar Gold reportedly had a turnover of Rs4,000 crore.
However, within next four months, PA Ibrahim, co-chairman of Malabar Gold, told reporters, that the group’s turnover was Rs6,000 crore with Rs2,000 crore coming from abroad. In September 2011, Malabar Gold had 1,000 members from India and abroad as investors. ( )
However, before ending the FY2011-12, Malabar Gold said its total sales were about Rs12,000 crore. KP Abdul Salam, its group executive director, reportedly said, “The group sales is around Rs12,000 crore ($2.4 billion). In India we will be opening outlets in Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and other states. The group will also open outlets in Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Europe, US and Canada.”
Tiny Philip, chief executive of Results Consulting Group and advisor of Malabar Gold during March 2012, endorsed the phenomenal growth. He said, “Malabar Gold & Diamonds group has grown at 60% between 2002 and 2012. For other companies dependent on debt for expansion, consolidation of operations has to be there. But for Malabar Gold & Diamonds which is mainly dependent on equity investments, the issue of consolidation does not apply.”
Set up in 1993 in the south Indian state of Kerala, Malabar Gold & Diamonds at present has a retail network of 103 outlets spread across seven countries, 10 wholesale units in addition to offices, design centres and factories spread in India and the UAE.
For FY2013-14, Malabar Gold expect a turnover of $3.5 billion (Rs22,000 crore), and claims that it is the world’s third largest jewellery retailer in terms of annual turnover. The company had targeted a turnover of $6 billion when it had gone for re-branding over a year ago. It would mean a turnover of over Rs36,000 crore as per current calculations.
MP Ahammed, the chairman of Malabar group wrote on the company website that “We have over 80+ showrooms worldwide, with a strong presence in both India and the Middle East, and are well on our way to achieving our aim of becoming the world's number one jewellery group by 2015.”
What is interesting is Malabar group reportedly claims that it does not have any debt and its expansion is funded through its own sources and from investors. As per the company portal, it has 1,600 investors. However, their names were not revealed by the jeweller. In the absence of any official record like balance sheet and auditor’s report, it is very difficult to assess the business activity of Malabar Gold and we have to rely only on media reports.
Malabar Gold Pvt Ltd, which was registered on 19 June 2001, has 10 directors, including Ahammed, Nishad Athikkot, Shamlal Madathum Parambath (MP), Veerankutty Kandambath Puthiyapath, Asher Ottamoochikkal, Abdul Salam Kandampath, Ibrahimhaji Pallikere Abdulla, Mayan Kutty Cholakkal, Beerankoya Kakkodi and Abdul Majeed Mozhangal.
As per press reports, last year (FY2012-13) Malabar Gold had a turnover of about Rs12,000 crore. It is expected to touch Rs22,000 crore in the current fiscal. That too when the overall bullion trade was reeling under the sky-high prices of the yellow metal. Another surprise is the 550% jump in the group’s turnover between 2011 and 2013. It reported a turnover of Rs4,000 crore in June 2011 and expect it to reach to Rs22,000 crore. The question here is how could the jewellery group achieve such a stupendous growth within such a short span of time that too when the entire bullion trade is hit by slowdown and sales affected due to increases in the price of gold?