Talk:Bijoy Krishna Handique

Needs neutrality and referencing
I've reorganized the biography sections, however, there is not much about his pre-Parliament work, and sections for early work before he became a Minister of Mines. The school creation thing needs context (how did he start the school? what work did he do before then?) The bulk of the Minster of Mines section contains controversial information. The article should be just a summary of his major work in Parliament, with some chronological aspect over the particular terms. This information should be compressed and summarized better with sufficient references, and then rewritten in a neutral, balanced tone. Once that's ready you can resubmit for copyediting. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The references should be redone in cite web format instead of "all the references can be found here" or "more information can be found here" links. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sectioning by Lok Sabha
It might be helpful to list his career highlights using Lok Sabha subsections:

10th Lok Sabha (1991)

11th Lok Sabha (1996) 12th Lok Sabha (1998)

13th Lok Sabha (1999)

14th Lok Sabha (2004)

15th Lok Sabha (2009)

16th Lok Sabha (2014) (if he plans for re-election and is successful)

Why is Rajya Sabha mentioned in Volume 3 2004-2014? -AngusWOOF (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He did not get re-elected for the 16th Lok Sabha (2014): -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over mines
I moved this section here as it contains POV statements and needs to be completely rewritten. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Handique's proposal on profit (and later, revenue) sharing faced enormous resistance from the corporate sector. Business chamber FICCI said: “ However, the equity sharing proviso was opposed fiercely by industry, especially business chamber FICCI ”. Government was * sensitive * and * considerate * to what industry thought.

Thus, it dropped the proviso for 26% equity like a hot potato. A layperson may feel what difference it makes if it is 26% equity or 26% profits; finally the benefits to locals won't change. But, * profit * is only one motive in running corporations, the other is * power *. The 26% equity sharing proviso would have threatened that.

India's Companies Act treats anybody holding more than 25% share in a company as a *special minority* shareholder with power to veto any major resolutions moved by the board of directors. It is true that many locals would have held this 26% equity, but what would a company do if they decided to act in concert. What strikes fear in the heart of rulers is the unity among people. I moved this section out of the main article. It needs a complete rewrite for neutrality. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As late as in January 2011, an official of the Mining Ministry was quoted to have said, “ While the mines ministry has managed to get green signal from the group of ministers (GOM) on the proposal that mining firms would share 26% of their profit with the affected people, the discretion to decide who is affected and the list of affected people has been left to the state governments ”.

Then the report added, “ However, the industry opposed the profit sharing proposal and had said that if enacted it would choke investments. The draft has gone to the law ministry for its views and soon will go for the Cabinet approval ”. Usually when an approved draft is –this one was an approved draft- sent to Law ministry it is to make it consistent with legalese and other laws in force, and also to make sure it does not violate Constitution.

This date, 3 January, is very crucial here. Didn't Handique cease to be a minister of Mines in January 2011? Then how come ministry still continued to maintain his vision of 26% profits to affected local people.?

Handique lost Mining Ministry on 19 January 2011, the day PM Manmohan Singh affected reshuffle of his cabinet. Tehelka of 23 January 2011 had this to say, “ A central battle in the country is over its mineral resources. Some of the biggest foreign investment proposals are in this sector, with many conflicts already raging over corporate mining interests in India's interiors. Just at this time, Singh has taken away a Cabinet minister, BK Handique, and put mining in charge of a new and junior minister, J Dinsha Patel.

It is possible that the Prime Minister has bigger plans for mining, which he wants to put in action after the Budget session of Parliament. But if he doesn't, the move to leave the ministry for mines open to influence, national and international, could haunt him ”. Unfortunately, Tehelka prophesy has been fulfilled. Why was charge of Mining Ministry downgraded from Cabinet to Junior minister? Why was Handique, who ably piloted the draft Mining Bill in consonance with Prime minister's oft repeated mantra of *Inclusive Growth* removed ? Or did he go because he took PM too seriously and literally ? These are serious issues indicative of another swindle and of huge quantum of money changing hands to get desired outcomes as happened in case of 2G spectrum allocation & Raja's appointment in Ministry of Communication.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bijoy Krishna Handique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305194850/http://www.dainikjanambhumi.co.in/27feb/index.php?q=3 to http://www.dainikjanambhumi.co.in/27feb/index.php?q=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)