STATE TO IDENTIFY CHILDREN ENGAGED IN CHILD LABOUR AND BEGGING
Under Mission Shakti, these children are being admitted to primary schools
To ensure a better future for the children living below the poverty line, the Yogi government has started identifying children engaged in child labour and begging. The exercise has been started under the Mission Shakti campaign launched by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in October.
The theme of January 2021 was designed with special focus on children under Mission Shakti campaign and is based on children engaged in child labour, begging and elimination of child trafficking. To improve the childhood of these poor children and ensure protection and respect to them, the Department of Women and Child Development has started working extensively in all the districts of UP including the state capital, Lucknow. These children are being admitted to primary schools and are also being empowered financially.
Officials are preparing a list of ration card holders at district level. In this task, teams of labour department, police department, Women and Child Development Department and the health department are identifying and surveying the children at the ground level. After identifying these children, they are being admitted to primary schools and provided with hygiene kits besides food items. In view of January’s theme of Mission Shakti an action plan had been prepared for providing benefits of the government schemes to these children, government and non-government institutions are being encouraged to adopt city crossings and blocks. 50 NGOs including the Childline and Bal Kalyan Samiti have adopted 31 city crossings of Lucknow. With the commencement of the adaptation process, the children identified by the institutions are being directly benefitted from the schemes.
The campaign against forced child labour and begging from poor children is being carried out at a large scale in the state. Due to this campaign, cases of child labour and child crime are declining in the state and the number of families migrating to other states for employment is also coming down.
OPERATION KAYAKALP
Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s dreams of all-round development of the students studying in the primary schools of Uttar Pradesh is eventually turning into a reality.
The Yogi government’s ‘Kayakalp’ (transformation) scheme of primary schools is taking shape across the state. In Bareilly district, as many as 17,000 students of primary schools are mastering skills like, dance, singing, yoga, painting, art crafts by joining the portal ‘Bareilly Ka Hunar’, as many as 1,451 primary schools in Bareilly have been transformed under it. Under this scheme, 8,646 classrooms, renovation of 754 school toilets and multiple hand wash systems have been put in place in 1,070 schools.
Besides this, Panchayat buildings have also been renovated and 200 libraries have been established to promote the tendency of reading in children, to increase interest in sports, MNREGA parks and open gyms have also been developed in 75 schools. In 750 schools, boundary walls have been constructed under MNREGA and furniture has also been arranged with the help of public representatives.
About 1,450 primary schools of state capital Lucknow have also been rejuvenated under the ‘Kayakalp’ Scheme. According to the statistics of the education department, more than 1.35 lakh primary schools of the state have been rejuvenated under the ‘Kayakalp’ scheme and the state government aims to cover all 1.58 lakh primary schools by 2022.
Over 1.35 lakh primary schools in UP transformed under operation ‘Kayakalp’
UP Govt aims to cover all 1.58 lakh primary schools by 2022
More than 51.25 lakh girls benefitted under Beti BachaoBeti Padhao yojana
Free education to girls till graduation
4.80 crore children admitted in primary schools
NEW DELHI: Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, who will be ending his Rajya Sabha stint on Monday after a four-decade-long career in Parliament, spoke to Sunetra Choudhury and Saubhadra Chatterji about his farewell by the Prime Minister, speculation that he may join the BJP, about being a ‘Hindustani Muslim’, and the thinking behind the letter written by the ‘Group of 23’, among other issues. Edited excerpts:
Your farewell grabbed the headlines. Can you tell us about your relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi?
We know each other since the ’90s. We were both general secretaries, and we used to come on TV debates representing different views; we used to fight also in the debates. But, if we reached early, we used to share a cup of tea also and chit-chat. Later we knew each other as chief ministers, meeting at the Prime Minister’s meetings, home minister’s meetings. Then he was CM and I was health minister, and we would speak every 10-15 days...
Why we were both crying was not because we knew each other, but the reason was that, in 2006, a Gujarati tourist bus was attacked [in Kashmir], and I broke down while speaking to him.
The PM was saying that here is a person who’s retiring who is also a good human being. He couldn’t complete the story because he broke down, and when I wanted to complete, I couldn’t because I felt I was back in that moment 14 years ago when the attack took place.
Do you think this gesture of the Prime Minister will resonate with a wider audience of Jammu & Kashmir?
I think this will not affect the issues of Jammu & Kashmir. The entire population is so concerned, not just about Article 370. Downgrading the state to a Union territory, which was not a BJP agenda, and the division of the state, have hurt everybody; we’ve been reduced to ashes. I’ve only seen upgradation of UTs into states, and my own state, which is among the largest and oldest states in the country, has been made a UT. Nobody can digest that.
Shashi Tharoor described the PM’s crying as an ‘artfully crafted performance’.
I don’t know in which sense, and most of the people didn’t know the background. A lot of people thought the Prime Minister was doing it artificially, because why should he bother that a Congressman is going. As I said, the words he used were for me, but our emotion was in a different context.
What do you make of the speculation that you may now join the BJP?
I will join the BJP when we have black snow in Kashmir. Why BJP — that’s the day I’ll join any other party. Those who say this or spread these rumours don’t know me. When Rajmata Scindia was the deputy leader of the Opposition, she stood up and said some allegations about me. I got up and I said that I take the allegation very seriously, and on behalf of the government, I would like to suggest a committee which would be chaired by [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee, and would have her and [LK] Advani as members. I said that they should complete the report in 15 days, and whatever punishment they suggest, I’ll accept it. Vajpayeeji came in as I mentioned him, and asked why. When I told him, he stood up and said — I offer my apologies to the House, and also to Ghulam Nabi Azad. Maybe Rajmata Scindia doesn’t know him, but I do.
What did your own party people say about the term ending?
The party president had written a long letter appreciating my work all through, as general secretary, as LoP. She also said that we have to work together to strengthen the organisation, and after that I met her. She said we have to prepare for elections.
Did you also meet Rahul? We met, we met. Once, twice.
In the speech, you talked about being a ‘Hindustani Muslim’. Why did you bring this up — recently you said that the number of invites that you get to campaign have reduced.
I had said in AMU that the atmosphere in the country is so vitiated that contrary to the past where 99% of Hindu candidates would invite me to campaign for them to get the Muslim vote, the number of invitations has gone down to 40%. My message was also to the alumni who had gathered there, that it’s their job to be ambassadors, and to bring that India back — the India where I contested in 1979 in the Lok Sabha from Maharashtra, where 95% where Hindus. There was a Janata Party Hindu candidate against me, but I still won.
Do you think this is the same India? Could a young Muslim leader aspire to be PM?
It’s very difficult. I don’t foresee it in the near future, maybe a few decades.
The PM referred to the conflicting strategies in the Congress — joined the debate in Rajya Sabha but not in Lok Sabha. How do you look at it?
I think the honourable Prime Minister was not fair by taking the Congress’s name. It was all political parties; they were all unanimous in having the discussion in RS. He should have used the word ‘Opposition’ and not Congress. There has to be a difference between LS and RS. The bills, if not referred to Standing Committee, can always be referred to Select Committee. Lok Sabha members have their constituency on their mind and may take hasty decisions; that’s why the House of Elders will coolly apply its mind, and do what’s good for their country.
Can you share with us now how the ‘Group of 23’ started and came to write the letter to Sonia Gandhi?
We have lost elections earlier — we got only 153 seats in 1977; we lost again in Rajiv Gandhi’s time, getting only 197 seats, in Narasimha Rao’s time we got 140 seats. But losing twice and getting 44 or 52 seats and not even having a Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha was unacceptable to us. Some people feel very bad that we’ve fallen from the sky to even below the ground.
We have come from the organisation, so our accessibility to people is much more than anybody. If people can’t meet someone, they come to us. They gave us a list of things that needed to be corrected. Then we put it all together, and this is what we wanted the leadership to see. It was unfortunate that someone leaked it. That was not our purpose — and I wouldn’t call it a leak as it’s not a state secret; it was how to strengthen the organisation. There’s a big para on Nehru, big para on Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi. We didn’t have really a president at the time because the elected president had resigned. And the other president had said only one year and that year was going to end that month itself. That was the reason that we wanted a full-time president, we wanted elected bodies at each level, so that we could rise from the ashes. We wanted to strengthen the organisation and not challenge it.
But critics point out that in Talkatora session you empowered the Congress chief to nominate members to CWC and not elect?
I supported Rahul Gandhi, but he resigned. We spent one hour convincing him, but he said no. So once he’s out, who’s there? We requested Mrs Gandhi, she said no. Then there was a break for one hour. Then we all got together and told her that you have to be there. Some said six months, some said four months — we all decided one year. We had no president, the elected one had resigned. And so when we wrote the letter, there was no president and we were talking of a third person.
Four months later, the process for AICC to choose candidate will start. Who is your preferred candidate?
Let the bridge come.
Long before Akshay Kumar, there was Kishore Kumar. In 1975, soon after the Emergency was declared, Indira Gandhi’s government was keen to get Bollywood to push her 20-point programme and asked the singer-actor to perform at a Youth Congress rally. Kumar refused. In a patently vindictive action, the then information and broadcasting minister, VC Shukla “ordered” a ban on the singer across All India Radio and Doordarshan. Kumar was not alone in the film industry in standing up to the Emergency. Others such as Dev Anand, Manoj Kumar and Shatrughan Sinha also refused to toe the line.
Long before the present stars of Indian cricket, there was Bishan Singh Bedi. The legendary left arm spinner tangled with the cricket board authorities on several occasions, once even being banned for a test in 1974 for protesting against the meagre allowances given to the players on tour. Now in his 70s, Bedi has been a rebel without a pause — a perennial anti-establishment figure.
So where are the Kumar and Bedi equivalents in today’s world? Why are today’s film and cricketing superstars so unwilling to stand up to any form of executive power and instead resort to obsequious sycophancy, the latest example being the flood of near-identical tweets on farm laws? Those who have never said a word on hundreds of farmer suicides are suddenly expressing their concern over the kisan protests. But by being so obviously part of a central government-organised social media counterblast, in response to a single tweet on farm protests by artiste Rihanna, our iconic stars have reduced themselves to copy-paste cheerleaders, seemingly lacking a mind of their own. In a regime paranoid about image management, the hugely popular stars are pawns in a perception war, remotecontrolled by an all-powerful Big State, any defiance of which could lead to unforeseen consequences.
It isn’t as if this is entirely a post2014 phenomenon. Controlling or at least co-opting popular culture icons has been a favourite pastime of every political party in power. Only now, it is much more brazen in intent and execution.
When the State bestows patronage on its ideological fellow-travellers and ruthlessly targets its critics, the temptation to follow the leader is that much greater.
Fear of retribution is a key factor in pushing our celebrities to toe the official line. From opening up income tax files to lodging enforcement directorate inquiries, State agencies are routinely used to expose the soft underbelly of the rich and famous. The Rhea Chakraborty case last year is a classic example of how untrammelled State power can terrorise the film industry — the danger of a knock on the door from the Narcotics Control Bureau is omnipresent.
Moreover, it isn’t just the ruling political elites which are guilty of threat and intimidation. We now have self-styled vigilante groups, Statesponsored social media armies and even some citizens who act as big bullies, unleashing a deadly campaign of cyber abuse and violence.
The common strand that unites these forces is their strident espousal of a majoritarian nationalism that effectively criminalises even the slightest expression of dissent as antinational. In Hollywood, stars such as a Meryl Streep who speak truth to power are celebrated; in India, they are censured.
Recall when, a few years ago, actors Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan were accused of speaking out on the rising culture of intolerance in society. The street protests against the
stars were engineered by an array of groups aligned to the Hindutva ideology, all aiming to question the “patriotism” of the Khans, their surname making them particularly vulnerable in a climate of rising religious bigotry. By threatening to boycott their films and coercing sponsors to withdraw their ads, the protesters were also consciously targeting the financial viability of these high-value brands. The stakes involved in commercial cinema are just too astronomical for most people to take a risk. This might at least partly explain why a top producer-director like Karan Johar had to personally apologise to a political figure like Raj Thackeray for the “hurt sentiments” of the Marathi manoos ahead of the release of one of his films.
Ironically, while most of our A-list celebrities have chosen the path of least resistance, it is those on the fringes of the fame industry who are braver and bolder. Perhaps because they feel they have less to lose, they tend to be more courageous. Take, for
example, the growing tribe of popular stand-up comedians. A Kunal Kamra has refused to bend before a Supreme Court contempt notice while many others carry on regardless with their plucky entertainment acts. But when a stand-up comedian like a Munawar Faruqui is arrested and kept in jail for a month for an act he didn’t even perform, you ask yourself — how long before they too are reined in? As Kumar might well have sung: Yeh kahan aa gaye hum? (Where have we come?)
Post-script: While our film stars bend, what of our champion cricketers who are surely less dependent on government support? Well, when the key official in the cricket board is the son of the second-most powerful person in the country, do we really expect our cricketers to do anything else but discuss farm laws at pre-match team meetings!