From: Viney Singh [mailto:
Sent: 11 March 2018 19:35
To: 'Prableen Sabhaney' <>; 'Satyajit Sarna' <>
Cc: 'William Bissell' <>; 'Charu Sharma' <>; 'Vijai Kapoor' <>; 'Mukesh Chauhan' <>; 'Karan Kumar' <>; 'Harpreet Duggal' <>
Subject: RE: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
Dear Prableen,
The consensus is to lie low.
It will be discussed at my RA tomorrow. I will revert in case of any change.
Regards
Viney
From: Prableen Sabhaney [mailto:
Sent: 11 March 2018 13:01
To: 'vijaikapoor' <>; 'William Bissell' <>
Cc: 'Charu Sharma' <>; 'Viney Singh' <>; 'Mukesh Chauhan' <>; 'Satyajit Sarna' <>; 'Karan Kumar' <>; 'Harpreet Duggal' <>
Subject: RE: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
Dear Mr Kapoor: Thank you for your observations - we will only take a call after review of legal inputs and discussion.
Just to contextualize the request, the journalist got in touch for a comment post a conversation with Mr Saxena on the 8th during the course of which he stated that KVIC will proceed with the Legal option as Fabindia continues to sell Khadi. This could be an opportunity to state categorically that we currently do not sell any product, item or fabric as ‘Khadi’.
Dear all: Am pasting the report on Charkhas and loss of employment below.
Regards,
Prableen
7 lakh 'lose' jobs in khadi industry, but production goes up by 32%
RadheshyamJadhav | TNN | Updated: Mar 11, 2018, 08:57 IST
Highlights
- A major chunk, 3.2 lakh out of the drop of 6.8 lakh jobs, was in the central zone comprising Uttarakhand, UP, Chhattisgarh and MP.
- Nearly 1.2 lakh jobs were lost in the east zone that includes Bihar, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha and Andaman and Nicobar.
Are people working in khadi industries leaving their jobs in droves? The official figures seem to suggest so. Data recently provided by the ministry of micro, small and medium enterprises to the Lok Sabha shows that the number of people employed in the khadi sector fell from 11.6 lakh to 4.6 lakh between 2015-16 and 2016-17.
A closer look suggests that at least some of this may be just records getting cleaned up. But how much is due to this factor and how many jobs have been lost to modernisation is not clear.
Interestingly, the years during which the jobs plummeted — 2015-16 to 2016-17 — the production of khadi increased by 31.6% and sales grew 33%. According to the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), the employment numbers till 2015-16 did not reflect the true picture because while new job creations were being added, the figures on people leaving the sector were not being updated.
KVIC: New model charkhas too made khadi artisans lose job
The KVIC also accepts that introduction of new model charkhas to replace the traditional single spindle ones could be the cause of some job loss.
“Most spinners were working on single spindle traditional charkhas earlier which are more employment intensive. With the adoption of new model charkhas many old artisans have exited,” states the commission’s annual report. However, neither the ministry nor the commission have spelt out how much of the drop in jobs is due to this factor.
A major chunk, 3.2 lakh out of the drop of 6.8 lakh jobs, was in the central zone comprising Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. Nearly 1.2 lakh jobs were lost in the east zone that includes Bihar, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha and Andaman and Nicobar.
Employment generation under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) also appears to be on the decline in 2017-18. According to the data given to the Lok Sabha, about 3.2 lakh people were employed under the programme in 2015-16, which rose to 4.1 lakh in 2016-17.
However, in the first ten months of 2017-18, only 2.5 lakh people were added. The number of projects assisted under PMEGP also seem to be declining with 31,000-odd in April-January of the current financial year against nearly 53,000 in 2016-17. PMEGP is a credit linked subsidy scheme, for setting up new micro-enterprises and generate employment opportunities in rural and urban areas.
From: Satyajit Sarna [mailto:
Sent: 11 March 2018 12:39
To: Prableen Sabhaney <>
Cc: William Bissell <>; Charu Sharma <>; Viney Singh <>; Vijai Kapoor <>; Mukesh Chauhan <>; Karan Kumar <>; Harpreet Duggal <>
Subject: Re: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
Dear Prableen, All,
I agree with Mr. Kapoor's suggestion. If possible, media interaction on this issue should be minimized. We can perhaps leave it by saying that we had replied to their notice through our advocates. That makes it clear that we are being responsible, but does not reopen any points of controversy.
Best regards,
Satyajit
From: Prableen Sabhaney [mailto:
Sent: 11 March 2018 12:34
To: 'William Bissell' <>; 'Charu Sharma' <>; 'Viney Singh' <>
Cc: 'Vijai Kapoor' <>; 'Mukesh Chauhan' <>; 'Satyajit Sarna' <>; 'Karan Kumar' <>; 'Harpreet Duggal' <>
Subject: RE: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
Dear William: Noted.
Ref Mr Kapoor’s observations, will also check with both Satyajit and Lall & Sethi before discussing this further.
Regards,
Prableen
From:vijaikapoor [mailto:
Sent: 11 March 2018 11:42
To: William Bissell <>
Cc: Charu Sharma <>; Prableen Sabhaney <>; Viney Singh <>; Mukesh Chauhan <>; Satyajit Sarna <>; Karan Kumar <>; Harpreet Duggal <>
Subject: Re: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
In our discussion Mr ChanderLall and in his later interaction with the Board he was emphatic that after we have sent our response to KVIC notice we should avoid engaging with media. I don’t know of any development warranting a change in that stance. I suggest that Viney consult Mr Lall and, thereafter if necessary we can discuss the matter among us on Tuesday.
I wonder if you all have seen in today’s TOI a major report of massive loss of employment among artisans consequent to specifications of charkha permitted for production of Khadi yarn. That matter is likely to engage KVIC’s prime attention in immediate future. Perhaps, Prableen may gently suggest to Sapna that that is a matter which merits her journalistic application. And that is the context in which KVIC’s restrictive approach to grant of Khadi mark registration needs to be viewed.
Regards.
Vijai Kapoor
Sent from my iPhone
From: William Bissell [mailto:
Sent: 11 March 2018 09:27
To: Charu Sharma <>; Prableen Sabhaney <>; 'Viney Singh' <>
Cc: 'Vijai Kapoor' <>; 'Mukesh Chauhan' <>; 'Satyajit Sarna' <>; 'Karan Kumar' <>; Harpreet Duggal <>
Subject: Re: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
RA – CEO
Dear Prableen,
Your answers are very well drafted. I feel its best that you run this by Viney, Vijai and Satyajit on Monday.
My only addition would be to mention in the answer to either Q2 or Q3 that inspite of applying KVIC has not let us get a “license”. That we have been denied a “license” to sell Khadi shows that the process is very arbitrary on how license permits are granted.
My best,
William
From: Charu Sharma <
Date: Sunday, 11 March 2018 6:50 am
To: Prableen Sabhaney <>, William Bissell <>, 'Viney Singh' <
Cc: 'Vijai Kapoor' <>, Mukesh Chauhan <>, 'Satyajit Sarna' <>, 'Karan Kumar' <
Subject: Re: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
Dear All,
In addition to point No 5, would we want to mention that the Khadi Material being supplied to Raymond includes fair amount of polyester blend.
Regards,
Charu Sharma
# 09312508194
From:
Date: Sunday, 11 March 2018 at 1:07 AM
To: >, 'Viney Singh' <
Cc: 'Vijai Kapoor' <>, Charu Sharma <>, >, 'Satyajit Sarna' <>, 'Karan Kumar' <
Subject: RE: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
Dear William and Viney: I am pasting below some of the issues raised by Sapna (in black), and draft responses for discussion.
Dear Satyajit: Would appreciate your inputs from the legal perspective. Thanks.
- As per my conversation with KVIC chairman, he is of the opinion that Fabindia continues to sell Khadi items. What do you have to say?
Fabindia has time and again clarified that the company currently does not sell any items, garments or fabric as Khadi.
- The KVIC chairman said his next steps is to take this up legally. You have also been served notices and have failed to comply, he says.
Fabindia has been in dialogue with KVIC since 2015 for Registration for the Khadi Mark, and has responded to every notice. The company continued to seek and participate in meetings to resolve the issues of registration with KVIC, while complying with the Regulations, even after the application was closed by KVIC in September 2016.
The allegations and financial demands currently being made are arbitrary and have no basis in fact.
- What according to you are the contentions?
This is a very complex area that impacts the livelihood of thousands of artisans and entrepreneurs working in this sector, especially as the definition of ‘Khadi’ has now been extended to include ‘handwoven’. The re-definition of Khadi beyond a very clearly understood handspun and hand woven natural fabric seeks to change the entire scope and purview of the Act and the Regulations formulated thereunder. This could have major ramifications, and needs to be examined and understood.
While Fabindia has applied for Khadi Mark, and continues to seek this certification from KVIC, this broader interpretation I of concern and needs clarification.
- How do you propose to take this up with KVIC?
We have always sought dialogue to resolve the issues of registration raised by KVIC.
- KVIC is selling khadi material to Raymond, ABFRL and Arvind. Why have you not been able to procure the Khadi material from KVIC?
Fabindia has been sustaining artisan-based livelihoods for almost six decades. The company sources fabric and hand-crafted product from across the country, working with craft-persons, co-operatives, clusters, non-government bodies, besides certified institutions to promote artisan based products and contributing to economic betterment.
The company looks forward to an early resolution, and to be able to resume Khadi-based work that has been stopped since the closure of the application for Khadi Mark.
FYI - Sapna has made no mention of the our response to the Notice.
Regards,
Prableen
From: William Bissell [mailto:
Sent: 10 March 2018 16:11
To: Harpreet Duggal <>
Subject: FW: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
RA – CEO
My best,
William
From: Prableen Sabhaney <
Date: Saturday, 10 March 2018 12:04 pm
To: William Bissell <>, 'Viney Singh' <
Cc: 'Vijai Kapoor' <>, Charu Sharma <>, Mukesh Chauhan <>, 'Satyajit Sarna' <>, 'Karan Kumar' <
Subject: FW: Request for comment/Mint/ 10032018
Dear William and Viney: Ref trail mail from SapnaAgarwal who writes for Mint, I spoke with her today to understand the context to this request.
She said that she had spoken with Mr VK Saxena on Thursday, and he stated that KVIC will proceed with legal action, as according to him, Fabindia continues to use the word and sell ‘Khadi’ without registering for the Khadi mark.
Mr Saxena did not share our response to the Notice with her.
Sapna is looking for an official response to the Notice, and the fact that we no longer sell Khadi – something that Mr Saxena claims we are still doing.
I would like to discuss the pro and cons of using the opportunity to present ‘our side’, to the extent of stating that we do not use the word or sell Khadi and have consistently sought dialogue/ meetings to resolve the issue with KVIC, without committing to sharing our response to the Notice. This could be by way of a stated quote from the Spokesperson.
Please could we meet on Mon (12th) or Tue(13th) to discuss this – Sapna is willing to wait over next week as the story only has value with our response. Else, by sending their Notice, KVIC has already put their intent in public domain.
Regards,
Prableen
From: [mailto: On Behalf Of Sapna Agarwal
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 6:42 PM
To: Prableen Sabhaney <
Subject: Request for comment
Hi Prableen,
This is with reference to the KVIC notice sent to fab India last month.
We understand that KVIC is now planning to take legal action as you continue to use the term Khadi and have not got the required certificate from them.
Request you to kindly share with us your contentions and reasons for continuing to use the term Khadi.
Thanking you in advance.
Regards,
Sapna Agarwal
Mint