This week, host Pratyush Deep is joined by Scroll’s Rokibuz Zaman and Newslaundry’s Drishti Choudhary.
Rokibuz reported on the Supreme Court’s judgement upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – a provision added exclusively for Assam. He says that the judgement upholds 1971 as the year of entry, which contradicts the government’s 2014 cut-off under the CAA.
Drishti’s report was on the Delhi administration’s efforts and failures in tackling air pollution. She explained the measures undertaken by the Delhi government and that despite spending crores of money and sanctioning extensive resources, the situation has worsened.
Tune in.
Timecodes
00:00:00 - Introduction
00:02:38 - Citizenship laws in Assam
00:25:45 - Delhi air quality crisis
00:33:20 - Recommendations
Recommendations
Drishti
Rokibuz
Pratyush
Modi Gov’t Produces Spurious Expert Opinion To Remove Health Warning on Fortified Rice
Produced and edited by Saif Ali Ekram, recorded by Anil Kumar.
Sting: [00:00:00] This is a News Laundry podcast and you're listening to Reporters Without Orders.
Pratyush: Order, order. Hello and welcome to another episode of Reporters Without Orders, a podcast where we discuss what made news, what did not and what absolutely should not have. I am your host Pratyush and today we are joined by Rakibus Zaman, reporter with Scroll.
in, uh, who covers North East. He's joining from Assam and my colleague Dristi from our studio in Delhi. So, Drishti and Rockybus, welcome to Reporters Without Orders. Rockybus, how is the weather there?
Rokibuz: Uh, the weather is very nice today, uh, uh, because of the, some cyclone effect. It's cloudy and overcast in Guwahati.
So, uh, there is a forecast that, uh, there, there may be rain in Guwahati in the next two days. So it will be the last leg of rainfall before the onset of winter here in northeast.
Pratyush: Okay. So you're having good [00:01:00] weather, but in Delhi we are like, you know, suffocating in pollution.
Drishti: Exact opposite of what you just said.
Pratyush: Yeah. And my colleague Drishti has done a very detailed piece on like, you know, the pollution in Delhi. So she has covered it very extensively. She has audited the whole pollution and Drishti Rockyboos has been covering Northeast and Assam for like last three, four years. And he has been doing some great work.
He has been covering the citizenship issue in the state for quite a long time. So, yeah, so we'll be discussing with Rockyboos about the recent Supreme Court judgment on the 6A of the Citizenship Act. He's doing a story on the same. So he will be discussing the impact of this judgment on the politics of Assam and the whole citizenship crisis in the state.
And we'll be speaking to you about the pollution in Delhi and why Delhi and the state government and as well as the central government has failed to tackle the situation despite like, you know, many efforts and many adjustments. And like, you know, we all [00:02:00] know, like, you know, pollution is a issue every year this time.
So, yeah, so I would like to start with Rocky Bush. So the Supreme Court judgment on six, a section six, a of Citizenship Act has made headline last week, and it is discussed in many platforms, many media organizations as well. So you are from Assam, you have been covering the citizenship issue for quite a long time.
So you were you told us you were also working on a story on the section six, a of like, you know, this judgment basically does on the judgment. So can you tell us, like, you know, what is the significance of the judgment, uh, in the, you know, whole citizenship issue? Uh, yeah, especially in Assam.
Rokibuz: Yeah. Um, so one of the main takeaways from the judgment is that, you know, yeah, it, uh, basically it maintains the status quo in the, in the, in Assam.
Uh, like who will be the, uh, citizen. Who will be Indian in asam. So basically has failed the six A of the, uh, citizenship Act, uh, who basically says that, uh, you [00:03:00] know, um, uh, 19, uh, 71 March, uh, 24 is the cut date basically to determination of, uh, citizen in, in, um, asam. So, uh, uh, you know, uh, Assam has seen a waves of migration, um, before independence, and both Muslims and the Bengali, uh, from Bangladesh.
And because of that, uh, you know, uh, SMS people were anxious about that they will be, that that migration is, uh, is seen as a state to the, uh, native culture and, and also the identity that that anxiousness had, uh, lead to the ASAM movement in 79. So, and, uh, you know, the of the Accord isation of the movement is the Accord and, um, who, which was held by the, uh, the history accord.
Uh, some is, uh, nationalist groups like us. So and other groups. So basically, uh, you know, uh, the Supreme Court, uh, basically says that, um, uh, I feel the [00:04:00] institutional validity of the six a Right. This means that the cut off date is 1971, March 24, and, uh, basically it's huge, uh, relief for the, the migrants, uh, especially Muslims and new migrants, the refugees who came, uh, during 1950s and 1960s.
So, uh, if, you know, um, according to the, the, the, uh, the Bengali, uh, Hindu Bengali, uh, organization and also the Muslim organizations, the, you know, uh, uh, the cut update was altered. Uh, and, uh, and some of the demands would, that it should be 1951 if it would have happened, and, uh, it would happen very catastrophic for the, this category of people, you know, who came, uh, between, uh, 1,951 to, uh, 71.
Those people would have been declared, uh, uh, uh, maybe illegal,
Pratyush: right?
Rokibuz: And, uh, that will be, uh, tro because these people already enjoying, already declared Indian [00:05:00] by as for the, uh, and the court. Right. Yeah. This is one of the key takeaways on the judgment.
Pratyush: So you are in Assam and, uh, you know, uh, so what is the, like, you know, what is the different political groups, like all of some student union, uh, like, you know, Muslim student unions, AMSU is there.
So, so, and obviously, BJP there. So a lot of political organizations are there who, like, you know, who have a different ideological leanings and like, take a, like take on the whole Assam accord as well as the citizenship issues. What is the reaction from this different nationalist and like, you know, nationalist group, Assamese nationalist group to this, uh, verdict of the Supreme Court?
And what is the, how, what do you see the political, like, you know, because we know that citizenship is the main political issue in the state. So in that context, so what is the current political, you know, implement, impact of the judgment?
Rokibuz: Most of the political parties and Assamese nationalist groups, [00:06:00] Mainly the ASU they have all come that uh, the court has maintained 1971 as a cutoff date so one point I have to make it clear that you know, even the government both center and the Uh, state.
Uh, they have are in favor of 1971. They, they, they've submitted, uh, that 1971 should be the cutoff date. Uh, uh, and even the ASU. This is the unlikely allies. That's what, uh, you know, one of the, uh, thing. Uh, all the, all the parties like, uh, jam, asu, uh, uh, and, uh, asu and even the governments, both center and state, they were in favor of 71.
Hmm. But, uh, now the demands of the, uh, the people, the nationalist groups. you know, uh, they want the review of the NRC, which was, uh, you know, uh, updated closely monitored. And it's the Supreme court mandated, uh, national register of citizens. And mostly monitored by the, uh, [00:07:00] you know, uh, Supreme court. So, but despite its publication in 2019, uh, uh, the NRC has not been notified by the.
Uh, uh, center that's rgi, I, uh, uh, registers in all of India. They should notify it and, and it, you know, it can, uh, go to the letter, uh, next steps,
Pratyush: right?
Rokibuz: But, uh, because, uh, uh, the, some government and, uh, ASAM nationalist groups, uh, you know, they think that, uh, uh, more people, uh, should be excluded from the NRC.
Uh, so they, they want, that's why they want more, uh, you know, they want re verification of the whole entire exercise. Uh, uh, that is the, uh, that's why now the demand is that the NRC should be verified. And also, uh, another fact is that the judgment didn't, uh, uh, the judgment is silent about the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.
Essentially, which allows, you know, uh, Non Muslims, uh, especially Hindu Bengalis and other, uh, non Muslim, uh, [00:08:00] communities, uh, to get citizenship, uh, to, you know, eligible for, which makes eligible for the Indian citizenship, uh, till 2014. Right. This, this is the contradiction is there, like, uh, you know, Sikhs, uh, are filled, uh, the 1971 is a cut off date, and Sikhs is religion neutral.
Right. It, it means that, um, anyone who comes after 1971
Pratyush: hmm. Uh, you
Rokibuz: know, is, uh, is deemed, is considered illegal as for the, uh, six A. But, uh, you know, the, uh, citizenship Amendment Act, uh, this, uh, the contradicts this cut update because it allows, uh, non-Muslims to, uh, apply for citizenship, uh, till 2014.
Pratyush: Hmm.
Rokibuz: So contradiction is there. So Theam national groups want, uh, ca to be scrapped because of this contradiction. Hmm. And um, also there is another debate over, uh, you know, who is, uh, ANAM in, in Inam. Okay. Uh, you know, because they talk about clause six of Asam Accord, who is, [00:09:00] who talks about the, uh, uh, constitutional safeguard, uh, of the Samis people.
Right. But, uh, you know, uh, there has been several attempts in the past. to define the Assamese people. I know, uh, even the MHC, the High Power Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, uh, you know, they had submitted a report, uh, you know, uh, and that, uh, that report had said that 1951 should be the, uh, 1951 should be the, uh, cutoff date, uh, for an Assamese.
Right. Uh, so Sams nationalist groups, um, they argue that, you know, uh, they, uh, the, the definition of a samis should be 1951 because, uh, you know, uh, Sam has considered, I, I I quoted like they have considered, quote unquote, considered, uh, uh, 20 years of Biden.
Pratyush: Yeah.
Rokibuz: Uh, burden of, uh, migration because they have took the burden of around 20 years of migration.
Like from 1951 to 71. Correct. Because they said that, uh, you know. [00:10:00] Um, you know, all India, uh, cutoff date is 1951, uh, and, uh, it should be, that's why, uh, they, uh, basically accepted the, um, migrants of two, 20 years. That's why there should be some sort of, uh, constitutional safeguards for the Assamese people.
Um, so after this judgment, there are many opinions, uh, that, uh, you know, uh, the legal experts say that it basically, uh, clears two things, like who is an Indian, uh, in Assam. And, uh, uh, Anyone who, who, who was in Assam before 1971 is an Indian in Assam. And, um, you know, in India, there is no, um, um, dual citizens or, you know, uh, it is, it is, citizens cannot be, uh, discriminated, uh, discriminated, uh, based on, uh, different groups.
Pratyush: Right.
Rokibuz: So there has to be an equal rights, uh, in terms of citizenships. So this is the contradictions, uh, some of the contradictions [00:11:00] like, uh, you know, uh, so, so we, we have to see like how it plays out in the next, uh, few years. Uh, but, uh, you know, some of the schemes and policies in Assam, you know, the government of Assam that implementing some of the policies, uh, in related to lands, and they have said some idea that a person has to be, uh, you know, A person or their family or their, uh, you know, uh, ancestor has to be in the, uh, have, have, have possess some sort of documents dated back to 1951 to get lands in Assam.
Right, right. We'll come to
Pratyush: those other politics around this, you know, the religion lines, which is always a part of the political, you know, the narrative in Assam, like mostly after when BJP came to power, uh, during Sarbananda Sunwal's period, or even during the Himanta Biswas Sarma's period, it has been intensified.
So, uh, yeah, as you, as you have mentioned in your prayer, like, you know, uh, [00:12:00] earlier, like, you know, you, you were talking about how this judgment is going to, you know, have impact on NRC as well as the definition of SMEs for the national viewers. Just, can you just tell us the, uh, you know, the, IM, what would be the, like, you know, does this judgment have any direct impact on the C process?
Because C has not been yet notified and, uh, already 19 x people has been excluded. So what exactly the impact the, like, you know, now it has, say 1971 is the cutoff date and NRC was updated based on the 1971 only. Yeah. So now it is clear that you know, uh, like whoever has been left out or whoever has been included, uh, uh, so will it be the 19 like the final number or you think that number will increase or number will decrease or like, I wanted to understand from that perspective.
Yeah.
Rokibuz: So, uh, like you said that, uh, you know, NRCS updated as for the 6A of the, uh, Citizenship Act, like, uh, um, it is the, uh, cutoff date, uh, you know, who can be included [00:13:00] in the NRC. Okay. . Um, and it is basically Supreme Court mandated, uh, NRC, uh, right. Uh, the whole process has been, you know, because of, uh, the directions and the Supreme Court orders has means, and, uh, you know, I, I don't think you know this Jasmine have, will have any impact in the.
Uh, NRC, uh, you know, directly, uh, I mean, it will be too early to say, uh, for me to, if you, you know, how it will impact going to impact NRC, but, you know, my only concern is that in the judgment, uh, the majority judgment, they say that, uh, you know, there has been a large scale, uh, migration post 1971 and, uh, you know, and, um, by saying so.
Um, they also directed, uh, that, uh, uh, there should be court monitored, uh, implementation of the, uh, uh, Supreme Court monitored implementation of the citizenship laws [00:14:00] and a detection of illegal, uh, uh, migrations. But I want to point out that it has been already being done by the Supreme Court itself. And the judgment didn't mention about the debt process, like, uh, uh, the NRC process.
Like
Pratyush: Yeah.
Rokibuz: Uh, you know, uh, the whole NRC process, the, the government spend like 1600 crow to update this NRC and, um, uh, it's not, it's the same government like, uh, under the same government, like, uh, uh, the incentive is BGP and, and BGP government and both the governments, uh, the officials under, under them.
Basically, their officials, their, their government, and under the provision, under the monitoring of the Supreme Court. And, um, you know, that exercise excluded 19 lakh people. So, but, uh, the judgment is totally silent about this fact. Uh, and, um, they didn't mention at all, I mean, um, in the, in the direction that there is already a process, there [00:15:00] is already an, uh, uh, mechanism in place.
Pratyush: Right.
Rokibuz: So, but, uh, that, uh, I'm not sure, like, why the Supreme Court Uh, didn't mention about the NRC and they, and now they want to say that there should be court monitored, uh, uh, you know, implementation of this loss. So there'll be an NRC 2
Pratyush: or what NRC 2, NRC or like already court has, Supreme Court has monitored the whole NRC process.
So now,
Rokibuz: that's why the, you know, those who follow the citizenship laws in Assam. So this, this, this neglect of, or the not mentioning of NRC while directing, uh, to monitor the implementation of the laws as view as, or as seen as, you know, some little bit of short sighted. Okay. You know, uh, like, uh, why, uh, you know, why they're silent
Pratyush: on NRC.
Right. They're considering it as a vague judgment or what? Like kind of vague, it needs more specification.
Rokibuz: You know, uh, there are two things like [00:16:00] NRC, CAA. I mean, you have to take. Uh, all this issue as a whole, it cannot take these things separately. Um, you know, um, even though, uh, it was not in the, under the consultation of the Supreme Court, or the CA is valid or, or not in this judgment, but, uh, I feel like it's all connected.
When you talk about, uh, the migration, when you talked about citizenship issues in Assam.
Pratyush: Right.
Rokibuz: Uh, this whole, uh, uh, you know, foreign aid tribunals, NRC, CAA, uh, these are all connected. And, you know, um, I mean, we don't know what will happen to these 19 lakh people. Right. Uh, because since 2021, the Supreme Court hasn't heard the NRC matter.
It has been like, uh, three or three years,
Pratyush: right? As I also belong to the same state and I have, I do follow the politics out there. Like, uh, as you have rightly was saying about the, like recent, uh, you know, the cabinet decision about, uh, so actually there is a [00:17:00] cabinet decision where like, you know, the, uh, Under Basundhara 2.
0, some government has said, you know, the, there's a rule for three generation ownership, right? There's a rule. One generation means 25 years. One generation means 25. So you, you have to show 75 years of ownership in a, uh, on a land. to claim the, you know, the, uh, land rights. So, uh, in that case they have excluded SC, ST and, uh, you know, Gurkhas, uh, right.
Gurkhas, they have excluded. And Hindu Bengali, Hindu Bengali is also, yeah. Yeah. Those who have refused the certificate. Yeah. Those who have refused the certificate. So basically Hindu Bengali. But they haven't. So it means the only Muslims have been left for this huge task of proving their land land ownership for 75 years, which is very difficult.
So in that case also, like, you know, there has been a lot of, so if I see this activities of the government on the background, it really seems like a, like, you know, busy, you will play out on it in this judgment as well, or [00:18:00] around the citizenship to play out, like, you know, give a communal. Whole, uh, narrative to the poli, uh, asam, uh, a narrative in the ASAM politics.
What do you think? Uh, bro Bus, like how is it playing out the BAP and its role in like, you know, using all this c to be Erma committee, as you have said, and, uh, uh, you know, but again, this jasmine may also be, you know, kind of, they can. Put some something else to, you know, make it, give it a communal narrative to the whole thing.
Rokibuz: Uh, the official response from the ministry is that, uh, the, is not native historic, I mean. Uh, he said that Assamese people have to continue to live, uh, uh, to move ahead through this struggle. Uh, I'm not sure what he's talking about. What did he say?
Pratyush: He's positive to the judgment or he's not?
Rokibuz: He accepted it because the government has accepted, accepted it, uh, uh, even the, you know, the own MP from Assam, this Mongolian MP, he said that Assam has to take the burden of 20 years of [00:19:00] migration, migrants.
So he didn't, uh, uh, support that. So there is contradiction among the BJPs, uh, especially the state BJP and the, uh, the central BJP leadership.
Pratyush: What is central BJP leadership is saying about the judgment? They accepted it.
Rokibuz: I mean, uh, yeah, they, uh, you know, because they, they, they, they have to accept it because they are the one who submitted, uh, you know, uh, in favor of the affidavit in favor of the judgment.
Pratyush: Right.
Rokibuz: Uh, but you know, uh, Even though they think that, uh, they don't want, many people in Assam wanted 1951 as a cutoff date. But how conveniently they, you know, they forget that. Uh, the cut off date has already been altered, uh, and, you know, it has been made 2014. True CAA. Yeah. So, I mean, what does it mean, like, what they're trying to, you know, point out?
Uh, they're trying to say that, you know, uh, uh, the illegal migrants belong to just one specific community. [00:20:00] They're trying to portray that, you know, in Assam, there is only one kind of, uh, migrants. This is my next story, like how Indian citizenship laws treat, you know, two different migrant communities.
Separately,
Pratyush: who are these two? One is the Hindu Bengalese and one is the Muslim Bengali Muslims.
Rokibuz: The Muslim migrants, uh, migrants, you know, uh, they arrived in a Islam before, most of them, before independence. Hmm. And, uh, and, and some are upper independence also because, you know, there is a Nero Act in 1950 because there is some accent of people.
Uh, and there are riots, so that's why people fled to Bangladesh and then they returned to their, uh, their home in Assam. So, those things are there, you know, um, uh, like And, uh, you know, most of the people came during 1930s, 40s, uh, and before that also.
Pratyush: Okay.
Rokibuz: So this contradicts, right? Like, so, uh, one of the [00:21:00] core issue, you know, the Muslims are now, uh, flagging that, you know, uh, Muslims have accepted 1951 as a cutoff date.
Muslims have accepted
Pratyush: 1951 as a cutoff date.
Rokibuz: But their concern is that how this, uh, you know, uh, Aptis, foreigner travelers. And authorities are going after a genuine Indian people, citizens, like, um, even though they came before partition and they have solid papers, I mean, uh, uh, you know, their names in the voter list, but they have to prove their citizenship before the courts, before the tribunals.
Because, uh, you know, it's the genuine Indians who have been according to them, uh, genuine Indians who have been you know, put to citizenship test and they have been sent to detention centers because of some small, uh, errors in the names or, uh, you know, uh, uh, uh, they failed to, uh, prove their linkage with their parents.
Pratyush: Hmm. Or,
Rokibuz: or, you know, some [00:22:00] small, small, uh, mistakes in their names. Hmm. Surnames and in, in, in this process. It's the women, uh, basically the women who, who, who, who didn't went to the college schools at the time, who doesn't have his educational certificates, who doesn't have a electoral role because, you know, it's very, very difficult for a woman who, who get married before 18 to linkage with his parents, with their parents, because she doesn't have a school certificate, In 1670s, you know, uh, uh, I mean, the literacy among the women is very, uh, very less.
And, uh, they, they get married before 18. So by doing so, you know, there is no documents which can prove that, uh, she is the daughter of her, uh, parents. So, um, so this, this, this complexity is there. Um, so, uh, that's why I'm saying that, uh, even though 1971, Katowice Day [00:23:00] is there, uh, uh, the genuine Indians are being harassed, uh, because, uh, they feel that these people are migrants and, uh, uh, they, uh, they, they had to prove their, uh, citizenship in the courts.
Pratyush: So
Rokibuz: that's why, you know, my reports talk about there is, uh, in this judgment, nothing changes in the, on the ground. And the, uh, there will be a status quo, uh, and only the Muslims have to, uh, go to the tribunals. They have to prove their citizenships because, uh, even the government of Assam, they have asked the border police not to refer the Hindu Bengalis to the new, uh, new cases, obviously, to the foreign arts tribunals, uh, this year.
I think it is in the notification issued on July 5. Okay.
Pratyush: So, are, uh, are still foreigners tribunals are like, you know, they're still like, you know, calling people Muslim people still now?
Rokibuz: Yeah. So basically because of the NRC process is going on, according to, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, the SIPNISTAR, uh, you know, this [00:24:00] detection of, uh, so called illegal immigrants was stopped.
And, um, so they have issued a, uh, a new notification last, uh, last month asking the border police to detect and, uh, uh, and, uh, and apprehend the declared foreigners. Um, so that's why now, you know, the number of inmates in the detention center has also increased. It's now around 70, which was around, uh, uh, around, um, declared foreigners this year.
We had around 17 people in April. So there is a steady increase in the inmates in the detention center. I'm talking about declared foreigners, not the refugees.
Pratyush: Okay, declared. So this has increased after like, you know, the notice last month, right? Yeah, there
Rokibuz: has been a steady increase in the last two, three months.
Pratyush: Okay. And
Rokibuz: new people are being sent notices. So that's my next story actually.
Pratyush: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So basically these, most of the, these inmates are [00:25:00] Muslims.
Rokibuz: Yeah. Because, uh, the, uh, the government, Sam has said that, uh, uh, um, you know, don't forward forward the Hindu, uh, migrant cases to the ti. Right. There is official order.
Pratyush: So now moving on to dti, uh, ti uh, you have, you are doing very, really good work and I was like going through one your story. It's about the air pollution in Delhi and you have, you have written a very detailed piece on like, you know, why Delhi has failed to tackle the pollution despite, you know, spending crores of money.
So can you just tell us like, you know, every year, like, you know, this time around October, November, like, you know, Pollution is the headline in Delhi. So what did you find out? What new you have found in this whole pollution scene in the Delhi?
Drishti: I don't know if it's new or not, but, uh, as you said also, because in October and November, this, there's this sudden urge.
You know, AQI levels in Delhi. One of the scientists that I talked to when I was doing the story, uh, he also said [00:26:00] that, you know, we really wish that, uh, as a citizen of Delhi and, you know, as a scientist as well, that this conversation just doesn't happen in October and November only.
Pratyush: We
Drishti: need like an all year round approach to actually combat air pollution.
Um, if we go into the facts, I think, um, My story is more or less on based on data only. So, uh, according to the scientists as well, all these initiatives that have been taken, be it NCAB, be it GRAB, the Winter Action Plan that comes in, odd even scheme that comes in, all of these, uh, according to them, they, They are not scientifically bagged as much as they should be, like NCAP, a few scientists did like, you know, appreciate it because it's like a nationwide program for air pollution.
But the fact that it majorly, um, focuses on PM 10. Was kind of disturbing to a lot of scientists because pm 2. 5 is something we should be more concerned about because it affects our [00:27:00] health more than the pm 10 but the n cap is entirely based on pm 10 and even then even then when n cap is uh focusing on pm 10.
Uh, we have not been able to reduce that. So, like, the target for the 2023 24 was, uh, to reduce it by 13%. But if you go out and look out in the data, which is also mentioned in my story, there was 0 percent reduction.
Pratyush: Okay.
Drishti: So, I mean, even if your program is based on PM10, it should work. It should be reduced.
So scientists believe that it is not scientifically backed and that is the reason that it is not performing well. Um, then there's this odd even scheme. So Pallavi Panth, Dr. Pallavi Panth, she, you know, did her research about the vehicular emissions, which like, is a huge contributor to Delhi's pollution.
Uh, she said that we need to do this odd even again for the entire year. We cannot just do it for like 2 3 months when the winter action plan comes in and we are just doing it at that point because it won't reduce it then. We need to reduce the number of vehicles on [00:28:00] the road. We need to electrify the roads.
The vehicles more. Um, even the government also like, did take some steps in that way. Uh, it has like reduced the tax on the ev and it promised to, you know, electrify the, all the bus depots in Delhi. So I, I got some numbers, like there was like 7 57 depots that were to be electrified. Hmm. But in July till this year, only 18 were done.
Pratyush: It is less than half.
Drishti: Yeah. So, you know, these are the, the, these right. Small, small things where the government is falling back where the, these initiatives are falling back. And that is why I think we have not been able to combat the,
Pratyush: what is the contributor, as you have said, is uh, one scientist told you, you know, it is basically the vehicle pollution, which is called, which is the main contributor to this one of the, yeah.
What is the stubble burning that we have heard every year, burning Punjab? Is it true or what is the, what is this? Contribution of stubble burning, because it is also contested because many scientists and many, you know, academics from Punjab was telling me one day, you know, [00:29:00] it is not actually like, you know, the Hawaii is not so fast that it can reach to Delhi.
So they have an another theory, you know, stubble burning is not actually the main cause of Delhi's, you know, pollution, but perhaps it is Delhi's own vehicle and other pollution. So what did you find out?
Drishti: Uh, so it's like bit of that part is true and bit of it cannot be. I mean, because according to the scientists that I talked to.
So if we go by the data, so stubble burning forms like 4 percent of daily pollution, right? But, uh, as you said about the winds as well. So Gufran Baig, he's, he's the, uh, meteorological department in the IIM. So according to him, the winds that flow during these months, Uh, October, November, majorly. That is the reason why all this stubble burning while a pollution comes to, uh, Delhi, but just 4 percent of it contributes to Delhi's pollution.
So we cannot put on the entire blame on stubble burning, right? Okay. We need, we need to focus on other things. One of the things that I think the government [00:30:00] is not majorly focusing on is the open burning of the garbage or some other materials.
Pratyush: Uh, you know, what is, uh, Garbage Hills?
Drishti: Yeah. No, not the hills.
But like even in the general, uh, daily life that people burn, uh, again, I've got some numbers. Uh, so from Jan to October last year, the fire department got 2, 400 calls about the open burning.
Pratyush: Open burning means like the plastic and other garbage
Drishti: burning that normal people would do like some old, uh, poor people because they don't have any other source to dispose of.
Just garbage
Pratyush: dumps there. No, I see somebody like, yeah, yeah. 2,
Drishti: 400 calls is a big number.
Pratyush: 2400 calls in one year,
Drishti: not even one year from January to October, we don't have the number for the November and December.
Pratyush: Okay. Yeah.
Drishti: But for like, uh, yeah, I mean, that is also a huge number. Correct. 2400. Uh, if we go for the landfills, there was just one fire in the Ghazipur landfill.
Just, just one fire. And,
Pratyush: but in, [00:31:00] It is mostly in the residential or commercial areas. Yeah,
Drishti: 2400 is a big number. You need to take care of that so that you can take care of the pollution in Delhi. You cannot ignore that number. And I don't know. Why does this
Pratyush: happen? It is just because people do it. Yeah,
Drishti: it's just normal garbage burning.
Pratyush: That means MCD also not taking up the garbage to the, you know, like, you know, they're not as per the laws, they should take the garbage and dump it in the landfill or wherever possible. Yeah. So they are not doing their proper job. That means civic agencies.
Drishti: They should. I mean, there is a lot of things that they should, but they aren't.
And the government then comes up with solutions like cloud seeding for it. Or like what is this
Pratyush: cloud seeding? I was like, I read it here. It is
Drishti: sort of like a scientific thing, but basically it's about artificial rain that you could do. But according to the scientists and even environmentalists, it's not very natural.
It's not very good for the environment also. And there are no studies which indicate that cloud seeding does bring down air pollution. There are no such studies. So [00:32:00] it's like a gamble that we are doing. We'll do cloud seeding and we'll see if It actually brings down and you're putting in so much money for it.
You should at least be, you know, sure about, uh, it's results, but there are no such studies to say that cloud seeding does bring air pollution down.
Pratyush: What about the two smoke towers that the government, the Delhi government claimed to have installed in Delhi, you know, it was supposed to clean air. I think one was in CP and another was in somewhere else.
Anand Bihar. So are they working? And what about the status of this? I have also seen this, like, you know, truck sparkling water on the Delhi roads. Yeah,
Drishti: those are the anti smog guns. Anti
Pratyush: smog guns, yeah. So what about their, like, you know, has there been any study to say that these equipments are, you know, Really working, uh, you know, or what is the impact of their, like, installation of a smog tower or running all this, like, you know.
Drishti: So, uh, for the smog towers, there was a study done. And DPCC, Delhi Pollution Control Committee, they also, [00:33:00] uh, you know, said it, presented it to the court that, uh, they are not working. The smoke towers are not working, but they are still there. Okay,
Pratyush: how much money they have spent on these smoke towers? Have you also find?
Drishti: I must have written it in the report. I don't have the numbers right now.
Pratyush: Okay. Okay. But yeah, like huge amounts of money. You have to read the story to get the numbers. Yeah. See, it's not here to tell all the numbers, no? Because the story is also more
Drishti: or less about the numbers itself. Yeah.
Pratyush: It's
Drishti: entirely the number game.
But yeah, smoke towers are not working. I mean, how is it possible to suck in some part of You air and then you filter it out and that filtered out air to just stay there. That's not possible. Right. There are vehicles on the road, right? The air will get polluted again. How is this supposed to work? I mean, I'm not a scientist and still I understand this basic logic, so I don't know.
Yeah. About the anti smoke guns, uh, they sort of work. Uh, according to scientists also, they sort of have, has there been any study,
Pratyush: like only like Yeah. What is the impact of their [00:34:00] work in last one year, two years? Because I have seen it for last two, three years at least.
Drishti: Yeah. Yeah. Uh, I'm not sure if about the year wise, but it does have effect, like, uh, there's this particular, uh, substance that you are supposed to add it, read the story for that substance.
Also . Uh, so that substance, she's given so
Pratyush: many ubstance in the, uh, in our whole thing so that people read the story. So that
Drishti: substance is supposed to bring the air pollution down and that is working. It has brought down some percentage of air pollution. So anti smoke guns do work, but in a city like Delhi where there's water crisis now and then, how can we be so sure that it will work for a longer time?
Right.
Pratyush: Do
Drishti: you have this water crisis? So yeah, anti smoke guns also, but yeah, there were nearly like 200, uh, anti smoke guns, uh, which were, uh, Set out in Delhi last year.
Pratyush: So tell me one thing, you know, like when we cover Delhi and we have [00:35:00] seen like over the last two, three years, there has been a, you know, power tussle, power tussle between the center and the state government, like not state, UT government, like the Delhi government, AAPADMI party.
So has there been any impact of this kind of power tussle? On taking action to mitigate pollution, because see, if the, if the state government is not with you and the center and the state is in conflict, how can they implement some of this measure, which can be implemented by the border agency? Because in Delhi, some like whole Delhi, it has different agencies, you know, for example, land is with, uh, DDA, which is controlled by the center.
Then police is with the, uh, center, MHA. So this kind of like, you know, power has been distributed. between state and the center. So, uh, so one, if you want to have a real impact on the things, but what this, uh, you know, the government center and the state has to work together. Did you find any, any, any impact of this power tussle also on this, on taking measures again, to tackle [00:36:00] the pollution?
Drishti: Some of it, yes, because like NCAP, as I said, it is a national initiative, but it has not brought out any results in Delhi because it was supposed to be done by the government of Delhi, right?
Pratyush: Okay, it was a center scheme, but it had to be implemented by the state.
Drishti: State or the Union Territory Government. So it has not brought out any results.
So I mean, that's like a clear cut. Oh,
Pratyush: okay. So he can see. Yeah. But again, this.
Drishti: Like on 10th October, uh, Environment Minister of Delhi, Gopal Rai, he also wrote like a letter to the Union Ministry, if I'm not wrong, about the cloud seeding thing, that they are not uh, leaving out the funds for it, like they are not sanctioning, yeah, sanctioning the funds.
So he had written to do it, uh, the BJP or even, even the Congress, they are against it. They are against the cloud seeding thing. They don't think that it's scientifically rational to do this. So because of that, but yeah, this on and off tussle, it keeps on going. They blame, uh, the [00:37:00] center government keeps on blaming the Delhi government.
Delhi government keeps on blaming the government. Yeah. It's blame game. It's Just blame game. Uh, right now also like when the, uh, firecracker ban happened, center government was like, what is the firecracker ban actually going to do? But if you go by numbers, uh, some like one to 2 percent of daily pollution is because of firecrackers.
So not entirely, they're not entirely wrong to ban it. Although how much this ban is actually in action is a different story. Right.
Pratyush: Right. That's true. We always know. Yeah. Whatever you say, but you also mentioned about another thing that, you know, and kept like, you know, underutilization of and kept funds, right?
What is it like, you know, can you just
Drishti: They were given like 42. 69 crores up that the Delhi government has been given by center, but they have used only 12, uh, 12 some point crores. So which is like 29 to 30 percent of the funds.
Pratyush: Right.
Drishti: So the [00:38:00] underutilization is happening according to the experts that I talked to is because the government doesn't know where to put the money,
Pratyush: right?
Drishti: They don't have the scientifically bagged initiatives. So they don't know what to do with the money. All the scientists that I talk to, they were saying that we should focus on the source of pollution, which is vehicular and this open burning. Then there's domestic fuel burning, you know, all these things, which is not being taken into action.
Pratyush: Okay. So we
Drishti: need to focus on that. And that is the reason that there is underutilization because government doesn't know where to put the money. And if you don't know, and there's this clause in the end cap scheme that, uh, to get the money for the next year. You need to use at least 75 percent of the money.
Pratyush: 75?
Drishti: Yeah. So government, Delhi government has used only 30%. So it is probably not getting any money next year.
Pratyush: Okay. So Delhi government is not probably getting any money for this scheme.
Drishti: Yeah. If they don't use it up to 75%.
Pratyush: Like, you know, what did the people tell you about if there is any [00:39:00] hope or like, you know, what is the best possible way to, you know, tackle this whole situation?
Like, did you get any kind of this kind of response from like, you know, experts as well?
Drishti: Yeah, as I said, they, they, uh, said that we should focus on the sources. First, so for vehicular, we should try to reduce down the numbers of the vehicles, private vehicles on the road. We should focus more on public transport than electric, obviously.
But when you talk, talk about the electric vehicles as well, there's this another problem which is of infrastructure. Like you need charging points for that, right? I have done a
Pratyush: story how two kids, one kid
Drishti: and another
Pratyush: young man died because like, you know, this thing, this thing. You know, illegal charging stations.
Drishti: So the legal ones are very less in Delhi. So you need that. But yeah, majorly the vehicular, uh, you know, emissions need to be cut down by a major number if we want to reduce both PM 10 and PM 2. 5. Then this open burning that need to be reduced.
Pratyush: [00:40:00] Open burning is you mean in a very. Uh, like, you know, it's a very big problem.
Yeah.
Drishti: Also about the landfills, I have mentioned it in my story as well. So there's this methane gas that comes out of it. But if you'll go and check out how much of it is coming out, there's no like, the government doesn't have a meter to check that. It doesn't have a system to check how much methane is coming out of the garbage landfills.
I've mentioned in the story as well. So we need to focus on that as well. As the scientists obviously talked about. They appreciated ODD and EVEN also, but again, they said that we need to do it all year round.
Pratyush: Majorly
Drishti: all of them said that we need to focus on all these, all the initiatives, be it any we take, we need to do it all year round.
We cannot just do it for two months. You bring in the Winter Action Plan at the start, beginning of the year. October and you drag it up to February or March beginning and you said that now we have curbed air pollution, but that's not how it works. So according to them, we need a year around plan and more research, uh, more, uh, [00:41:00] scientific based initiatives like cloud seeding and anti, like anti smoke towers.
Uh, they are not actually scientific based, so we need more scientific based.
Pratyush: But do you think that citizens also has some kind of responsibility on there?
Drishti: We do, don't we?
Pratyush: Yeah. For the vehicles part only, I have seen, like, I was going to, going from host cars to CP and I could see like, you know, four wheelers with one person.
They are like, you know, going from one, somebody is like, there is only two person. So they can easily avoid this two four wheeler to, you know, and it's not even in the, You know, it's not even hot sun, like, you know, it is not even in the evening or afternoons at night around seven, eight. So I can see that.
And, and of course, but when we talk about the public transport and of course, Delhi has some kind of better in terms of other cities because it has a well networked metro metro. But, uh, in case of public buses, it's condition is worst. [00:42:00] Only the new electric buses are in a somehow better condition, but others like all those CNG vehicles are in a very worse condition.
You can't even like, you know, it's like they don't have proper, you know, some seats are not even there. Like, you know, it's, it's a very poorly maintained state.
Drishti: Yeah. So as I was telling you about Pallavi Panch, she also said this, uh, So to combat vehicular emissions, you need great, uh, public transport system, right?
And we don't know how much longer that's going to take, you know, for just, um, electrifying the buses, which was supposed to happen for to electrify 57, we have done just like 18. It's just a drag on game. I think.
Pratyush: Yeah. And like, you know, because there is a political tussle also, it also delays the whole thing.
Even if it's, it doesn't stop maybe, but it delays. It will take time. If it. Like, you know, if it should have taken one month, it could now take six months. That's the problem. So this is the Delhi pollution story that, uh, you know, Drishti [00:43:00] has done. So we'll plug it here so that everybody can read it, but it is only for subscribers and you have to subscribe.
To read her story because we at News Laundry don't take any advertisements from any corporates. We rely on you for our reporting because, and of course, this reporting, this kind of long form reporting takes a lot of time, resources, and money. And, uh, your subscription, your one subscription can contribute to, uh, you know, uh, towards this independent journalism that we at News Laundry do.
So, uh, Distri at where, you know, at the last phase of this, you know, podcast. So tell us your recommendation for this week.
Drishti: I'll recommend something that I've already read. It's called a hippie. It's a book by Paulo Coelho. He's a Brazilian Portuguese writer. It's amazing. Amazing book. Uh, it's, it's sort of his story only his life story, how he lived.
But, uh, we all have this, uh, [00:44:00] Very prejudiced notion of a hippie. Right? Yeah. When you'll read this book that that'll change, HiPE,
Pratyush: you mean the, the hippies of 1960s?
Drishti: Yeah. Yeah. Sort of that. I don't wanna like Okay. bring out a lot of the book. But yeah, it's an amazing book. He's an amazing writer. He will just fall in love with him.
He's one of my favorites, so. Okay. Yeah. I'll recommend that book.
Pratyush: So Rokibus, what is your recommendation for this week? Do you have any recommendation for our audience?
Rokibuz: As a journalist and someone who follows the, you know, world affairs or, you know, the current affairs in the world. So what is being done to the people in Palestine or in Gaza?
You know, it's very, the horrific videos emerging every day. Uh, like, you know, it's, it's been last just one year, you know, there is, there is ongoing genocide. And, um, like that way the people are being killed, uh, and the way the children are being treated, you know, so, uh, I, I would just suggest like, uh, you know, to, [00:45:00] to watch some of the films, uh, um, on, on the struggle of Palestine.
So there is one non profit organization, uh, uh, Palestine Film Institute, and they have initiated a, um, they have started an initiative called, uh, you know, Provoked Narratives. Uh, they have listed some films which talks about, uh, you know, the struggle of Palestine and, you know, their, uh, their grief, their struggle, their resistance.
Thanks. Between 1967 and, uh, some 1984, um, you know, and how, um, they are reacting to this, uh, you know, whole kind of, uh, occupation by the Israel government. So I would suggest that people, uh, you know, they can, um, um, watch this, uh, this films, you know, um, who said it's, it's, it's, it's for everyone. It's free and they can watch these films to understand the struggle of the [00:46:00] distant people.
Uh, where can we watch this? It's in the website of the, uh, uh, Palestine, uh, uh, Feminist Institute. Okay. And, uh, uh, so, uh, if you just Google it, Palestine Film Institute, uh, with the title that, uh, Provoke Narratives. So it's,
Pratyush: uh, yeah, Provoke Narratives. Okay. So, uh, my recommendation for the week is, uh, it's a report from Reporters Collective.
Its headline is Modi government's produces spurious expert opinion to remove health warning on fortified rice. It's by Srigiresh Jalihal. He's a very nice reporter. He has done very good reporting. And this is also an interesting report who is interested in the, you know, policies, government policy, public policies, and like, you know, investigative journalism.
It's a very good report. So I would like to recommend that. So Rocky Bose, thank you for joining us. It's nice speaking to you. You have given like, you know, you told us very interesting insight into what is the impact of the [00:47:00] judgment on the citizenship. Uh, crisis in the state and you have given us very new insight ki how, uh, inmates in detention camp has been increasing, uh, over after the government.
Uh, you know that no notice from the state government, so it was nice speaking to you. Thank you for joining us, bu thank you.
Rokibuz: Yeah. Thank you for having me. Yeah.
Pratyush: Yeah. Thank you. With this, this podcast is a zone.
Sting: News laundry is possible because of our paying subscribers. We don't run on corporate or government ads.
You too can be part of changing the news model. Go to newslaundry. com slash subscription. Be a part of the community that pays to keep news independent for the smoothest news laundry experience. Download our app, watch our shows, listen to our podcasts, read our reports, stay informed, pay for news, protect democracy, save the world.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
