The Farmers' Trade and Commerce Bill - Has the Centre encroached upon the States' legislative powers?

Over the previous two weeks, we have witnessed nationwide protests from farmers – against the three agriculture reform Bills passed by Parliament. The Bill that has led to the maximum amount of consternation is the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 (‘the Trade and Commerce Bill’). This Bill aims to do away with the system where farmers can sell their produce only at mandis – which are specified markets regulated by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws of each State. The Bill removes this monopoly of the APMC-regulated mandis, and allows the farmers to sell their produce directly to private players.

Farmers fear that this Bill will result in further losses for them – as they will not receive the Minimum Support Price (MSP) guaranteed by the Government if they are forced to sell their produce to private players. In States such as Punjab and Haryana, small and marginal farmers feel that they shall lose out on the support system provided to them by the traders, who act as intermediaries. This, according to them, shall leave them in a situation where they will have no assurance of a stable selling price for their produce – and they will be forced to bargain with big corporates.

Opposition Parties demanded the incorporation of specific provisions in the Trade and Commerce Bill to address the farmers’ concerns. This request was not taken on board, as the Bill was rushed through Both Houses of Parliament. Members of the Opposition also hinted at how the Trade and Commerce Bill may go against India’s federal structure – as making laws relating to agriculture falls within the legislative power of the State Governments. We shall explore and discuss this claim below – and examine whether the Central Government has the power to regulate agricultural markets.

Legislative Powers of the Centre and the States

Under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, law-making powers are divided between the Centre and the States. The Union List (List 1) consists of 97 subject matters over which the Centre has the exclusive power to frame laws. The State List (List 2) has 66 subject-matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the States. For entries in the Concurrent List (List 3) – laws can be made by both the Centre and the States. If there is a conflict between a Central and State law for subject matters that fall within the ambit of the Concurrent List, Article 254 of the Constitution steps in. Article 254(1) provides that in such a situation, the provisions of the Central law shall prevail. Under Article 254(2), a State law can prevail over a Central Law if the assent of the President (who represents the Central Government) is received.

The legislative power to regulate agricultural markets

Entry 14 of the State List deals with ‘agriculture’, and Entry 28 deals with ‘markets and fairs’. Making laws relating to agriculture and markets hence falls within the legislative powers of the State Governments. The APMC legislation made by every State falls within the ambit of these entries – as they regulate the functioning of agricultural markets, which are commonly known as mandis.

This begs the question – how did the Centre justify passing a law that also deals with the sale of agricultural produce? The Centre made reference to Entry 33(b) of the Concurrent List, which deals with – “Trade and commerce in the production, supply and distribution of foodstuffs”. As Entry 33(b) deals with foodstuffs, it overlaps and conflicts to a certain extent with Entries 14 and 28 of the State List, which deals with agriculture and markets.

While the Centre has not referred to this overlap and possible conflict of legislative powers, it has taken note of the wording of Entry 33(b) - and has cleverly worded the Bill as the Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill. However, the mere similarity between the wording of Entry 33(b) and the name of the Bill is not sufficient to bring it within the ambit of the Centre’s legislative powers. To resolve such situations where there is an overlap and conflict between the legislative powers of the Centre and the States, two principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court.

The first principle is the doctrine of harmonious construction – which states that the overlapping entries should be harmoniously construed. The second principle, which is directly applicable here, is the doctrine of ‘pith and substance’. Under this doctrine, an overlap or conflict in the legislative powers of the Centre and the States should be resolved by examining the true nature and objective of the legislation. Once this is determined, any incidental encroachment on other subject matters shall be permissible – and shall not lead to the invalidation of the statute.

This doctrine of ‘pith and substance’ can be applied to argue that the Trade and Commerce Bill infringes on the power of State Governments to regulate agricultural markets.  Using this doctrine, the State Governments can argue that the true nature of the Trade and Commerce Bill is to regulate the functioning of agricultural markets - as the Bill nullifies the exclusive powers granted to the State APMC markets. Although the Preamble of the Bill talks about giving freedom to the farmers to sell their produce, it effectively infringes on the powers of the State APMC markets. This is evident from provisions such as Section 6, which forbids the State Governments from levying market fee, cess or any other levy through their State APMC Acts.

On the other hand, if this Bill is challenged in the Supreme Court, the Centre can contend that by virtue of Entry 33(b) [that deals with trade and commerce in the production, supply and distribution of foodstuffs] of the Concurrent List, it has the legislative power to give farmers the freedom to sell their produce beyond the confines of the APMC market. The Centre can argue that the true nature of the Bill is to give farmers the flexibility in trading with their produce, and the encroachment of the State List is of an incidental nature. There are hence equally persuasive arguments from both sides, and a legal challenge before the Supreme Court can go either way.

But, the State Governments may have one more option before them – through which they could overcome those provisions of the Bill that they construe to be against the interests of the farmers. The State Governments could amend their APMC laws in a manner that would nullify the provisions of the Trade and Commerce Bill. This may be constitutionally permissible, as Entry 14 and Entry 28 of the State List grants the State Governments with the legislative power to regulate agricultural markets. The Punjab Government is already considering this option, which in its view, shall ensure that private players do not exploit farmers.

If States were to amend their APMC laws to nullify the implementation of the Trade and Commerce Bill, the Centre may also not be able to take recourse to Article 254 of the Constitution. This is because Article 254 is applicable only when the laws of both the Centre and the State deal with a subject-matter present in the Concurrent List. Hence, as long as the States are able to establish that their amendments fall within their legislative power to regulate agricultural markets – their laws shall not be struck down on the ground that they are repugnant to the Trade and Commerce Bill.

As the Constitution gives sufficient leeway to the State Governments in this situation – there is a definite possibility that State Governments may amend their APMC laws to nullify the contentious provisions of the Trade and Commerce Bill. Such a possibility could have been avoided at the outset – if the Centre had taken all stakeholders on board before framing a law that possibly infringes on the State’s legislative powers. Irrespective of which way a possible legal challenge may go, this situation highlights the perils of bypassing stakeholder consultations before law-making, through which possible conflicts may be resolved in Parliament itself, rather than leaving it to the judiciary. 

The legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

In 1956, 23-year old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, fondly called ‘Notorious RBG’, got her admission in Harvard Law School. She was one among the nine woman - in a class strength of 500. Her dean invited all nine women law students home for dinner, and asked each one of them what they were doing taking the place of a man. The fact that this could happen in the country with the oldest written Constitution of the world, and in one of the world’s most prestigious law schools, reflects how deeply embedded gender bias has always been.

Around 4 years later, just as RBG finished law school with good grades, another Dean at Harvard recommended her for a clerkship with Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court. Justice Frankfurter refused to hire her, stating that although her candidature was impressive, he was still ‘not ready’ to hire a woman. RBG could also not find a job in any law firm in New York, as all of them refused to hire a woman. But, none of this deterred her, and only strengthened her resolve to fight against gender-based discrimination.

From 1963-1972, RBG spent the early years of her career as a Professor in Rutgers Law School, where she taught courses on civil procedure and ‘gender and law’. In 1971, RBG wrote her first brief for the US Supreme Court in Reed v. Reed. In Reed v. Reed, the issue was whether a State could directly prefer men over women as executors of family property. The US Supreme Court answered in the negative, and struck down the State law on the ground that it violated the equal protection clause, present in the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution. This was the first time that the US Supreme Court had struck down a State law for being gender discriminatory.

RBG firmly believed that the equal protection clause should invalidate any law that was gender discriminatory. While this interpretation may seem obvious today, RBG says that she had faced a tough challenge in convincing the Court - as many judges did not even believe that there was something known as gender-based discrimination! She had to tap into the emotions of the judge, and would ask them about the kind of world they wanted to leave behind for their daughters and granddaughters.

She argued her first case before the US Supreme Court in 1973, where she represented Sharron Frontiero - an Air Force employee who had been denied housing allowance because she was a woman. RBG was among the first to convince the Court that along with affecting woman, gender discrimination of any kind also affects society at large. This was a point she stressed on while representing Steven Wiesenfield, who was denied social security benefits after losing his wife as soon as she gave birth to their child. 

Steven was denied social security benefits on the ground that only widows were eligible to receive it, and not widowers like him. Before the Supreme Court, RBG argued that denying social security payments to a man was based on the stereotype that only women can be homemakers - for taking care of their children. This case epitomized her approach, where she focused on gender discrimination from a perspective of social consequences, and not solely as a man-woman binary.

After her stellar work for gender justice, she was nominated as a Federal Judge in the Columbia Circuit, where she served for 13 years before being nominated to the US Supreme Court in 1993, at the ripe age of 60. RBG was just 1 out of almost 30 candidates who were shortlisted for elevation. But, when she was called to the White House for an interview with President Bill Clinton, it took her just 15 minutes to convince him about what she could bring to the table – as the 2^nd woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

In her 27 years in the Supreme Court, RBG’s judgments reflected the changes that she wanted, and had always fought for. She struck down the admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute, which forbade women from applying for admission even if they were capable of satisfying the admission criteria. Although inducting women faced resistance at multiple levels, RBG stuck to her view of the equal protection clause, stating that if women were given equal opportunity, even they can do us proud.

RBG also penned a number of landmark dissents, where she hoped that her views would “appeal to the intelligence of a future day”. She dissented from the majority view in the Ledbetter case - where the majority refused to honour Lilly Ledbetter’s right to receive equal pay in comparison to her male counterparts. While upholding Ledbetter’s right to receive equal way, she called out the majority judges’ indifference towards the different ways in which gender-based wage discrimination can take place.

She concluded her dissent by stating that now, “the ball is in Congress’ Court”. This definitely appealed to the intelligence of a future day, as two years later, the US Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 2009.

During her tenure in the Supreme Court, RBG also developed a close friendship with Justice Scalia, even though he was a conservative, and disagreed with her at an ideological level. Their opposite ideological viewpoints and disagreements on the Bench did not affect their personal equations. In fact, Justice Scalia had once jokingly remarked that the only thing he didn’t like about RBG was her reading of the law! Their friendship is a lesson for everyone in these polarized times, where we tend to hamper our personal equations with those who disagree with us ideologically.

From being denied clerkships and law firm jobs on account of her gender, RBG charted her own journey - by providing a new name to gender justice. Her vision of creating a better world for our daughters and granddaughters must be cherished, preserved and fought for. RIP. 

Remembering C.K. Daphtary - India's first Solicitor General

“The boy who wrote the best essay got the first prize”. Many of us would have come across this anecdote, where Chander Kishan Daphtary, India’s first Solicitor General, perfectly summarized the Indira Gandhi government’s decision to appoint Justice A.N. Ray as Chief Justice of India, by superseding 3 of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court (Justices Shelat, Grover and Hegde). [A.N. Ray was rewarded for his ‘essays’, after he held in favor of the Government in the Keshavananda Bharathi case, and was also the only judge who upheld Indira Gandhi’s bank nationalization ordinance of 1969].

This is just one among the many sharp and memorable anecdotes from Daphtary’s career, where he served as independent India’s first Solicitor General (from 1950-1963), and succeeded M.C. Setalvad to serve as India’s second Attorney General from 1963-1968. After serving as Attorney General, he was also nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 1972. In fact, his one-line description of Justice A.N. Ray getting the ‘first prize’ for his ‘essay’ was made in the Rajya Sabha itself!

C.K. Daphtary, who was fondly known as Chandubhai, is still remembered for his sharp and witty one-liners in Court. Perhaps the most ‘savage’ of all his one-liners was when Daphtary was practicing in the Bombay High Court. Daphtary was appearing before a Bench headed by Justice Somjee, on a matter relating to stock exchange transactions. It was also well-known that Daphtary himself regularly dabbled in stocks.

Justice Somjee had refused to grant Daphtary permission to continue cross-examining a witness regarding a stock exchange transaction he had undertaken. When Daphtary persisted, Justice Somjee had remarked – ““Mr Daphtary, you will of course know all about stock exchange transactions”.

Daphtary did not react. A few moments later, a law report had to be passed by him to the Bench. As soon as the book was handed over, Justice Somjee remarked – “Mr. Daphtary, there is a bug in this book”. Daphtary immediately seized the opportunity and said – “My Lord, it is not the first time that a bug has travelled from the Bar to the Bench”. This was a sly remark at Justice Somjee himself, who had been elevated as a Judge from the Bar.

While there are many more witty anecdotes and one-liners, Mr. Daphtary’s memory lasts beyond his sharpness and sense of humour. He was also a man who stood by principles, some of which are relevant even today. Three such incidents from Daphtary’s journey bear utmost relevance even today.

A stern request asking Chief Justice Gajendragadkar to recuse

In 1965, two matters dealing with a cooperative housing society came before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Gajendragadkar. A bunch of intervenors from Bombay argued that Chief Justice Gajendragadkar should recuse himself, as he was a member of one of the cooperative housing societies, for which the Government of Bombay had acquired land. Initially, Justice Gajendragadkar stated that he would recuse himself only from one out of two matters, where he had an indirect interest. But, this was objected to C.K. Daphtary, who was then the Attorney General.

Daphtary categorically stated that Chief Justice Gajendragadkar should recuse himself from both matters, as he had a common indirect interest in them. The Bench was reconstituted the next day, and Justice Subba Rao was asked to preside. As Fali Nariman points out in his autobiography, Before Memory Fades, Daphtary stood up for principle and asked for Chief Justice Gajendragadkar’s recusal - even though there was a strong belief in the Bar that Chief Justice Gajendragadkar would decide in favor of the State, as his views on the legal questions involved were well-known.

Daphtary’s role in the constitution of the ADM Jabalpur bench

Daphtary also had an important role to play in the constitution of the bench that decided the ADM Jabalpur case in 1976, during the emergency. After Indira Gandhi’s proclamation of a national emergency in 1975, a number of political leaders and activists had been arrested under the infamous MISA – Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.

Different High Courts had taken contrary views on whether fundamental rights (including the right to life under Article 21) can be suspended when a national emergency was declared. This was crucial, as if fundamental rights stood suspended during an emergency, anyone who had been detained would have no right to challenge his detention before the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

As 9 High Courts had held against the Indira Gandhi Government, the Government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. There was a growing suspicion in the Supreme Court Bar that Chief Justice A.N. Ray (the boy who wrote the best essay and got the first prize) would constitute a bench of judges who would without doubt give their decision in favor of the Government. Daphtary, who was then the President of the Bar Association, approached Chief Justice Ray and suggested that as there was some concern in the Supreme Court Bar, a bench consisting of the 5 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court should be constituted.

Chief Justice Ray retorted - and asked whether there was ever an occasion where suggestions were made to the Chief Justice of India regarding whom to put on a bench. Daphtary was quick to the task, and responded that he does recall a previous occasion where Chief Justice S.R. Das was told about concerns regarding the composition of a bench, and S.R. Das never took it in the wrong spirit.

This struck the right nerve with CJI A.N. Ray, as S.R. Das happened to be his mentor! CJI A.N. Ray then went on to constitute a Bench with the 5 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. However, Daphtary’s efforts obviously went in vain, as 4 out of 5 judges held in favor of the Government.

It was only Justice H.R. Khanna who dissented and held that even during a national emergency, fundamental rights cannot be suspended. This ‘essay’ also cost him the post of Chief Justice of India, as the Government superseded him and appointed Justice Beg. In an era where serious questions have been raised regarding composition of benches and assignment of politically sensitive cases to certain judges, even A.N. Ray’s reluctant approval of Daphtary’s request seems to look bright.

Daphtary’s views on the UAPA

Daphtary’s views on the UAPA are most relevant today, when the law is being used to muzzle political dissent. In October 1967, a Joint Parliamentary Committee was set-up to examine the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Bill, 1967 (UAPA). This was the original draft of the UAPA, which did not deal with terrorist activities, and only penalized ‘unlawful activities’ that affected India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. As Daphtary was the Attorney General, he was asked to depose before the Joint Parliamentary Committee.

Taking into account the overbroad definition of ‘unlawful activity’ that could be penalised, Daphtary noted that “these are drastic powers”, and that “the law was going as far as one could go”. In his view, the UAPA Bill was constitutional, but not ‘perfectly constitutional’. He also stated that while we may assume that powers granted by the UAPA would be exercised honestly and properly, we cannot say whether that shall always be the case.

Although Daphtary was to a certain extent ambiguous in his opinion, he has been proven correct in hindsight – as the UAPA today is only used against activists and protesters, who disagree with the ruling establishment. Even though the UAPA has been substantially amended since 1967 and terrorist activities have also been brought within its ambit, Daphtary’s views highlight how the law always had the potential to be misused – in the manner that we are witnessing today.

Along with his sharpness and wit, Daphary’s commitment towards rights and freedoms was also steadfast. In June 1975, after Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency, Daphtary was pained to see how High Court judges who decided against the Government were arbitrarily transferred. He told Fali Nariman – “Fali, what we need now is a Subba Rao”.

In fact, Fali Nariman has stated in his autobiography that the most important advice he ever received was from Daphtary, who told him – “Always remember, Fali, it is better to spend more time thinking about a case than merely reading the brief”. All of his words and actions continue to stand the test of time.

Patriots from a neighboring land - The Tibetan refugee community in India

As the military stand-off with China continues in Ladakh, India has received unflinching support from Tibetan refugees - who live in India under exile. In this piece, we will discuss the historical background behind Tibetans taking refuge in India, and why their contribution to India should be rewarded, instead of being ignored or sidelined.

Historical Background

India’s decision to provide homage to Tibetans goes back to the 1950s. In 1950, China invaded and annexed the then autonomous region of Tibet. Despite resisting the invasion with valour, the Tibetan army could not match up to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China. After the invasion, China effectively coerced Tibet to sign an Agreement that would bring Tibet under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, and grant it a limited amount of regional autonomy.

After facing more than 8 years of repression from the Chinese establishment, a revolt erupted in Lhasa (the capital of the Tibetan region) in 1959. Tibetans flung the streets to protest for independence from China, and for the formation of a People’s Assembly. They also surrounded the Palace of the Tibetan God-king and spiritual leader – The 14^th Dalai Lama. This is because there was a brutal crackdown by the Chinese PLA, and the Tibetans feared that the Dalai Lama would be assassinated. On 12^th March 1959, thousands of women gathered on the streets to fight for Tibetan independence, and also approached the Indian Consulate in Lhasa to demand the help of the Indian Government. 12^th March is now recognized as Women’s Uprising Day in Tibet.

5 days later, the Chinese PLA fired 2 shells at The Dalai Lama’s Palace. This left the Dalai Lama with no choice but to prepare for an escape. At 3 AM on the next morning, the Dalai Lama and members of his family began their escape from Lhasa. The Dalai Lama disguised himself as a soldier, and was accompanied by Tibetan resistance fighters. Their goal was to safely reach the Indian border. During their journey, they caught up with other Tibetan resistance fighters who had been trained and supported by the CIA – the primary foreign intelligence agency of the United States.

The CIA-trained resistance fighters sent a radio message conveying Dalai Lama’s intention of reaching the Indian border to a US military base in Okinawa, Japan. This base had been occupied by the US during the concluding stages of World War II, and had not yet been handed back to Japan. The CIA then personally requested Prime Minister Nehru to grant asylum to The Dalai Lama, before he reaches the Indian border. After extensive deliberations within the Government, Nehru agreed, and welcomed the Dalai Lama. The Indian Government then decided to house the Dalai Lama in McLeodganj, in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh. Soon after The Dalai Lama’s escape, the revolt in Lhasa was brutally crushed by the Chinese PLA. But, despite this repression, Tibetans continue to fight for their independence from China even today.

Since 1959, The Dalai Lama has continued to reside in the Namgyal Monastery of McLeodganj, and has provided support to the struggle for Tibetan freedom. The Tibetan Parliament and government-in-exile is also based in Dharamshala, even as of today. Post India’s decision to grant asylum to The Dalai Lama, around 1 Lakh Tibetans have come to India over the years. They stay in regions such as Ladakh as refugees. As Tibetans practice Buddhism, the Tibetan refugees share cultural and ethnic similarities with the populations of Ladakh, and other Himalayan regions. While continuing to support the Tibetan demand for freedom, the Tibetan refugees have stated that they consider India as their ‘second-home’.

The 1962 India-China war and its aftermath

India’s decision to grant asylum to The Dalai Lama in 1959 came at a cost. This decision received severe backlash in the Chinese Communist Party. As Bertil Lintner points out in his book, China’s India War – Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Chairman Mao Zedong felt that India had provided tacit support to the Tibetan uprising in Lhasa. They had already made up their mind to ‘teach India a lesson’ - for granting support to the freedom movement and asylum to The Dalai Lama. This, according to Bertil Lintner, was among the prime reasons why China decided to go to war with India – when they got an opportunity in October 1962.

The war had been meticulously planned in advance, and contrary to popular belief - China did not go to war solely because it wanted to occupy Arunachal Pradesh or the Aksai Chin region, and settle the boundary dispute.

Even after India’s defeat in the 1962 war, Tibet has continued to occupy an important focal point in India and China’s military and diplomatic relations. Immediately after the war, the Indian Government set-up the Special Frontier Force (SFF), which was a covert military unit that recruited Tibetans living in exile as its soldiers.

The contribution of the Tibetan SFF and other refugees

The SFF also worked with the Indian army in the India-Pakistan war of 1971, which liberated East Pakistan to create the separate State of Bangladesh. During the 1971 War, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sent a message to the Tibetan commandos, stating that while the Indian Government could not compel them to provide assistance in the war, they should remember that the Pakistan army’s genocide against Bengalis in East Pakistan was similar to the way in which the Chinese establishment had treated the Tibetans. Soon thereafter, Operation Eagle was launched, where the Tibetan SFF commandos helped in neutralizing Pakistani positions in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and prevented Pakistan army personnel from escaping to Burma.

The role of Tibetan SFF commandos in India’s 1971 victory is an inspirational story – as they assisted India in a full-scale war even though they were only refugees, and not Indian citizens. Over the years, the SFF has taken part in covert operations in Operation Blue Star in the Golden Temple, and in the Kargil conflict. The SFF has also played a game-changing role in the current military standoff with China. They played a crucial role in India’s operation to capture certain unoccupied heights in the Chushul sector of eastern Ladakh. This operation was conducted between August 29 - 31, and as defence experts have pointed out – occupying these heights have given the Indian army a crucial advantage against the Chinese PLA.

One commando of the SFF, Subedar Nyima Tenzin also lost his life during one of these operations in eastern Ladakh. He had served in the SFF for 33 years, which highlights how members of the Tibetan refugee community have given their blood, soul and life for India, even though they only stay here as refugees. Other members of the Tibetan refugee community have also established small shops and undertakings of their own, in places like Ladakh. Amidst this standoff with China, and even otherwise, the contribution of this community should not be forgotten. India must remember the Tibetan sentiment – where members of the Tibetan refugee community staunchly consider India as their second home.

Despite the strong bond between India and the Tibetan community, the Indian Government has in the recent past tried to distance itself from the issue of Tibetan independence. This was done with the intention of ensuring stable relations with China. China states that Tibet is part of its ‘core interests’, and is hence non-negotiable. But on the other hand, China has refused to condemn Pakistan for sponsoring terrorist-activities in Kashmir. China has also refused to fully acknowledge the Indian Government’s stance that the Kashmir issue is to be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan. In fact, Shaksgam Valley, which is a part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (a disputed territory) – was gifted by Pakistan to China in 1963.

Moreover, China still continues to claim that Arunachal Pradesh is a part of China. The Chinese authorities still issue stapled visas to Arunachal Pradesh residents who visit China – on the ground that Arunachal Pradesh is nothing but Chinese territory that is occupied by India. If Tibet is China’s ‘core interest’, aren’t Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh also core interests for India, which China should recognize? India must hence avoid falling into this kind of trap, and should continue to recognize and reward the Tibetan community for their love and valour.

Despite their stellar contribution to India, the Tibetan refugees were not among the communities that were eligible for fast-tracked citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), which was passed in December last year. A first step to recognize the efforts of the Tibetan refugee community is to make them eligible for fast-tracked citizenship, and grant them all the rights and privileges available to citizens. Instead of falling to Chinese pressure, the Government should take concrete steps to fulfill the needs and requirements of the Tibetans in India - who are equal patriots, belonging to a neighboring land.

As The Dalai Lama himself said – “I am a son of India, who has survived on dal, rice and roti”.