Hezbollah killed its own commander in Syria, claims Israel

General says Israel believes Hassan Nasrallah ordered death of Mustafa Badreddine in Syria after dispute with Iranian allies

Hezbollah maintains Badreddine was killed in a rebel strike near Damascus (Hezbollah media centre)

Mona Alami-Tuesday 21 March 2017

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah's chief commander in Syria was killed by his own troops on the orders of the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah, according to claims in Israel on Tuesday amid growing tensions with the Lebanese militant group.

Gadi Eisenkot, an Israeli army general, told a conference in Netanya that Mustafa Badreddine died last May at the hands of his own fighters, and said his killing highlighted "the depth of the internal crisis within Hezbollah" and betrayed "the extent of the cruelty, complexity and tension between Hezbollah and its patron Iran".

An Israeli military official told the AP news agency that Israel believed the order to kill Badreddine, known by the nom de guerre "Zulfikar", was given by Hassan Nasrallah. The official provided no evidence, however.

Read more ►

Hezbollah's Aleppo: Victory at any cost, even to civilians

AP said Israeli intelligence believed Badreddine had been feuding with Iranian military commanders in Syria over heavy Hezbollah losses.

Eisenkot said Badreddine's assassination showed Hezbollah was suffering "an internal crisis over what they are fighting for, an economic crisis and a leadership crisis".

The claims come weeks after Middle East Eye reported Hezbollah fighters as saying a man named "Zulfikar" had killed several Iranian fighters in an incident in Tell Eiss, south Aleppo, during a dispute over lack of Iranian support in the battle for the provincial capital.

At the time of his death last year, the group said Badreddine had been killed in a strong explosion at one of its centres near the Damascus International Airport.

There was however no record of an attack taking place at the time and no rebel group claimed credit.

Hezbollah said Badreddine was a "great jihadi leader", and blamed Syrian rebels for his death, although Hezbollah MP, Nawar al-Saheli, attributed the attack to Israel, and vowed that "the resistance will carry out its duties at the appropriate time”.

Wanted man

In a letter, Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, extended condolences "for the martyrdom of this great jihadist ... who embodied devotion and vigour and was legendary in his defence of high Islamic goals and his defence of the Lebanese people who resist oppression and terrorism."

For years, Badreddine masterminded military operations against Israel from Lebanon and overseas and managed to escape capture by Arab and Western governments.

The 55-year-old was also one of five people tried in absentia for the murder of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, alongside 22 others. 

According to the New York Times, the commander was accused of having helped plan the truck bombing that killed 241 US marines in Beirut in 1983.

Badreddine was also suspected of involvement in the 1983 bombings of the US and French embassies in Kuwait that killed five people.

He was imprisoned for years in Kuwait until he fled jail in 1990 during Saddam Hussein's invasion.

Read more ►

Hezbollah facing loss of morale over Syrian quagmire: Report

Mohammed Afif, a Hezbollah spokesman, said Israel's allegations were "lies that do not deserve comment".

However Brahim Beyram, a Hezbollah expert for Beirut newspaper an-Nahar, discounted the Tuesday statements from Israel as part of a "propaganda war Israel is launching on Hezbollah". 

"Regarding the Tell Eiss incident, the name Zulfikar is a common name within Hezbollah ranks and I do not believe a military man with the stature of Badreddine could act in such a rash way.

"He was a very aware man who knew his responsibilities, and it’s highly improbable he would be involved in anything like that."

The Israeli claims come amid rising tensions between the two foes. On Tuesday, the Israeli military confirmed that a "Skylark" surveillance drone crashed in Syria earlier this week.

Hezbollah's media centre published photographs of what it said was a drone it had shot down in Syrian airspace in the Golan Heights.

Last week, Israel shot down a Syrian anti-aircraft missile fired at an Israeli aircraft carrying out an air strike on a suspected Hezbollah weapons convoy in Syria.

New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort talks to reporters on the floor of the Republican National Convention in July. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

By Andrew Roth March 21 at 10:42 AM 

KIEV, Ukraine — A Ukrainian lawmaker released new financial documents Tuesday allegedly showing that a former campaign chairman for President Trump laundered payments from the party of a disgraced ex-leader of Ukraine using offshore accounts in Belize and Kyrgyzstan.

The new documents, if legitimate, stem from business ties between the Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who enjoyed Moscow’s backing while he was in power. He has been in hiding in Russia since being overthrown by pro-Western protesters in 2014, and is wanted in Ukraine on corruption charges.

The latest documents were released just hours after the House Intelligence Committee questioned FBI Director James B. Comey about possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The hearing that also touched on Manafort’s work for Yanukovych’s party in Ukraine.

Comey declined to say whether the FBI is coordinating with Ukraine on an investigation of the alleged payments to Manafort.

[Inside Trump adviser Manafort’s world of politics and global financial dealmaking]

As a lobbyist and political consultant in the 1980s, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked with international clients that included two dictators who were then allied with the United States. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Manafort, who worked for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions for nearly a decade, resigned from Trump’s campaign in August after his name surfaced in connection with secret payments totaling $12.7 million by Yanukovych’s party. Manafort has denied receiving those, listed in the party’s “black ledger.”

Serhiy Leshchenko, a lawmaker and journalist, released a copy of an invoice on letterhead from Manafort’s consulting company, based in Alexandria, Va., dated Oct. 14, 2009, to a Belize-based company for $750,000 for the sale of 501 computers.

On the same day, Manafort’s name is listed next to a $750,000 entry in the “black ledger,” which was considered a party slush fund. The list was found at the party headquarters in the turmoil after Ukraine’s 2014 revolution. The ledger entries about Manafort were released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, a government law enforcement agency, last August. 

Leshchenko alleges that Manafort falsified an invoice to the Belize company to legitimize the $750,000 payment to himself.

“I have found during this investigation that [Manafort] used offshore jurisdictions and falsified invoices to get money from the corrupt Ukrainian leader,” Leshchenko said during a news conference in downtown Kiev, where he provided a copy of the invoice to journalists. 

[If Moscow tried to influence the U.S. election, things aren’t going as planned]

He said he received the invoices and other documents in January from the new tenants of Manafort’s former offices in downtown Kiev. The documents were left behind in a safe, he said, adding that Manafort’s signature and his company seal were proof that the documents were authentic.

Leshchenko said he was not aware of any formal Ukrainian investigation of the documents. He declined to comment on whether he had discussed the documents with U.S. law enforcement agencies. 

Nazar Kholodnytskyi, a deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine whose department specializes in corruption cases, said in an interview on Tuesday that the documents hadn’t been confirmed by law enforcement or, to his knowledge, submitted for examination. There is an ongoing investigation into the black ledgers, he said, but Manafort was not a target of that investigation.

Manafort has previously accused Leshchenko of blackmailing him by threatening to release harmful information about his financial relationship with Yanukovych. That correspondence between Leshchenko and Manafort’s daughter was released in February as the result of a purported cyberhack. Leshchenko has called the exchange a forgery.

Manafort was involved in crafting the political strategy that brought Yanukovych to power after a crushing defeat in the 2004 elections. Yanukovych’s party has been accused of ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly through wealthy oligarchs from the country’s east with interests in both Russia and Ukraine.

This Is What It Looks Like When Courts Don’t Trust the Commander in Chief

BY YISHAI SCHWARTZ-MARCH 21, 2017

At the heart of the relationship between the federal judiciary and the president lies the principle of deference. Courts have long recognized that they lack the knowledge and standing to decide some political issues on their own. When cases present themselves that raise these issues, the courts tread carefully, showing deference to the determinations of the other branches. Nowhere is this deference more powerful than in cases of national security.

Yet last week, the courts once again suspended a policy that the president claims is essential to national security. In the process, they questioned, and indeed dismissed, President Donald Trump’s security determinations. With regard to these travel bans, judicial deference is dying, if not already dead. The question now is why exactly the courts killed it.

Until recently, the judiciary’s deference to executive determinations on national security matters had seemed deeply ingrained. Consider, for instance, the Supreme Court’s decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. In the 2010 case, the court ruled that Americans could be prosecuted simply for providing advice about political advocacy to a terrorist group. The court explained that despite the clear First Amendment interest at stake, this was a case where free speech principles needed to yield before “an urgent objective of the highest order,” namely combating terrorism.

But how did the court determine that the prosecution of these advice-givers was necessary for combating terrorism? In short: deference. “We have before us an affidavit stating the Executive Branch’s conclusion on that question,” the court explained. Because that question turned on “sensitive and weighty interests of national security and foreign affairs,” the affidavit was “entitled to deference.”

Civil liberties lawyers were livid. In a scathing review of the decision, the now-legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (and the attorney for the losing side in Holder) flayed the court for trampling the First Amendment in favor of a national security rationale where “the only evidence the government offered was a single affidavit from a State Department official … which combined conclusory assertions … with hearsay allegations.”

But the Holder decision’s deferential approach is no outlier. The Supreme Court has invoked the principle in cases as diverse as the necessity of testing underwater sonar and the maintenance of an Army dress code. In those rare cases where the court has overruled the president’s national security determinations, it does so hesitantly, taking care to affirm, as in Boumediene v. Bush, that “proper deference must be accorded to the political branches. Unlike the President and some designated Members of Congress, neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people.”

But in the travel ban cases, the principle of deference has evaporated. In Wednesday’s ruling blocking the travel ban nationwide, Judge Derrick Watson of the District of Hawaii gave the president’s national security determination the back of his hand. Without waiting to hear evidence, he accepted the plaintiff’s label of the ban’s national security rationale as “pretextual.” When weighing the balance of harms — a necessary step before issuing an emergency “temporary restraining order” — Watson never paused to discuss how the executive claims of national security might stack up against the delay in a mother-in-law’s trip to the United States. This is a far cry from the court’s posture in Holder.

In part, the disappearance of deference is the product of general judicial distrust of Trump’s honesty and integrity. Despite the executive order’s stated purpose — “to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks” — and enumeration of the governance and terrorism problems in the affected countries, some judges are skeptical that the president means what he says. Or as Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes and Quinta Jurecic put it, we inhabit “a world in which other actors have no expectation of civic virtue from the President … a world in which the words of the President are not presumed to carry any weight.”

But there is something more specific operating as well. Consider again the court’s statement in the Boumediene case that “unlike the President … most federal judges [do not] begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people.” Or consider Justice Stephen Breyer’s colloquy in another national security case, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council: “I don’t know anything about this. I’m not a naval officer. But if I see an admiral come along with an affidavit … and he swears that under oath. And I see on the other side a district judge who just says, you’re wrong, I then have to look to see what the basis is, because I know that district judge doesn’t know about it, either … the basis so far I’m thinking on this one is zero.”

The primary rationale for the courts’ deferential posture in national security cases is expertise. Congress and the executive are the branches that employ experts with deep regional, strategic, and military knowledge. They have the experience associated with the day-to-day work of diplomacy and statecraft, and they receive regular access to classified information. It is only fitting that the courts tread carefully when second-guessing their determinations.

None of this applies to the travel ban. Because of Trump’s statements on the campaign trail, we are in the unusual position of knowing that this major national security determination was made well before he took office. Of course, this was also well before he received classified briefings or the insight of the executive branch’s national security apparatus. The expertise that went into the travel ban was that of a layman. Federal judges feel no need to defer to the instincts of a New York real estate mogul.

Moreover, the judgment of national security professionals — precisely the folks to whom courts generally defer — seems to be contrary to the determination of the president. Regular leaks have indicated that intelligence professionals were resisting White House pressure to produce reports supporting the travel ban. In an astonishing display of bipartisan national security star power, 35 leading former government officials, including former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, signed an amicus brief declaring that the ban “serves no rational national security or foreign policy purpose.” Perhaps most damning are the signatures of more recent officials, including former Deputy National Security Advisor Avril Haines, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Deputy CIA Director David Cohen. Having left office just two months ago, these officials were receiving classified briefings when candidate Trump was promising his travel ban.

Traditionally, the executive branch marches into court bearing affidavits and the president demands that judges defer to the executive’s national security expertise, experience, and classified information. But with the travel ban, the tables have turned. This policy developed on the campaign trail based on politics, not technical expertise. The litigation is just beginning, and the ban may yet be reinstated. For example, if the courts decide that the ban’s challengers lack legal “standing,” the courts would never reach the underlying question of the ban’s security effectiveness. But when the courts meet the core issue directly, skepticism rather than deference will be the order of the day.

Photo credit: DREW ANGERER/Getty Images

East Timor: Ex-guerilla fighter set to be next president



East Timor presidential candidate Francisco Guterres of the FRETILIN party casts his ballot during the presidential election in Dili, East Timor March 20, 2017. REUTERS/Lirio da Fonseca

21st March 2017

ASIA’S youngest and poorest nation, East Timor (Timor Leste), has cast its ballots in a general election, with former guerrilla leader Francisco “Lu-Olo” Guterres looking to be made president.

In the first election to be held since peacekeeping troops left the country in 2012, a high proportion of East Timor’s almost 750,000 registered voters turned out to polling stations in the former Portuguese colony.

Eight candidates contested the election, but with 90 percent of the vote counted after Monday’s election, Guterres had secured 57 percent of the vote.

East Timorese line up to vote in the presidential election in Dili, East Timor, on March 20, 2017. Source: Reuters/Lirio da Fonseca

Guterres is the president of leftist party and former guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (Fretilin). Prior to East Timorese independence, he was elected as general coordinator of the Council of Armed Resistance and elected Fretilin president in 2001.

A second-round election was set to be held on April 20, 2017, if required, but preliminary results suggest a runoff won’t happen. The other front-runner, current Education and Social Affairs Minister Antonio de Conceicao of the Democratic Party, received only 32 percent of the vote.

Democracy watchdog Freedom House says the elected president is a “largely symbolic figure”, whose formal powers are limited to the right to veto legislation and make certain appointments.

Nevertheless, the election of a former revolutionary guerrilla is emblematic of the current political sentiment of the nation of 1.2 million people.

Arlindo Sarmento‏ @a_sarment

Mai Ita VOTA ba Kandidatu Numeru 2 Dr. Francisco Guterres "Lu-Olo" Presidente ba Povo tomak! Hamutuk Ita Bele! Mai, Hamutuk Ita Manang!

• LIKE1
• 

3:18 AM - 19 Mar 2017

Guterres ran against Nobel laureate José Ramos-Horta in the 2007 election and was definitively beaten at a runoff poll. In the 2012 election, Guterres again lost to former military commander Taur Matan Ruak, the current president.

Yet in 2017, his overwhelming victory came after he secured the support of Xanana Gusmão – East Timor revolutionary hero in the struggle against Indonesian occupation. He led the resistance from a jail cell in Jakarta until he was released in 1999, after the fall of Indonesian dictator Suharto, and was elected the first East Timor president in 2002.

SEE ALSO: East Timor Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao submits resignation

“We are not a perfect state … it is very early. That is why you have to trust Lu-Olo to keep the country united,” Gusmão said, adding “there is some opinion younger leaders should be elected. But no way.”

During the campaign, Guterres promised if “chosen to be president of East Timor, I will prioritise the economic and education sectors, to support the welfare of the people.”

Some netizens were quick to congratulate the presumed next president, including an official from Conceicao’s rival Democratic Party who posted about the impending victory on Facebook.

“Congratulations to Dr Francisco Guterres Lu-Olo, elected president of the RDTL (Democratic Republic of East Timor) for the period 2017-2022,” wrote Carlos Saky.

Milca‏ @Mirakhiil

Congratulations to our newly elect President, Dr. Francisco Guterres Lú-Olo! Viva Timor-Leste! #TogetherWeCan #PresidentForAllCitizens

• 
  

11:27 PM - 20 Mar 2017

East Timor’s economy is highly reliant upon oil and gas, which accounted for more than 90 percent of government revenue in 2014.

“The next five years with new leadership is a critical time because the currently used oil fields are mostly depleted,” said Charles Scheiner of La’o Hamutuk, a think tank in Dili.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index recognised East Timor as the strongest democracy in Southeast Asia, ranking higher than the older democracies of Indonesia and the Philippines based on 60 indicators.

Election officials start the vote counting process of the presidential election in Dili, East Timor, on March 20, 2017. Source: Reuters/Lirio da Fonseca

As the region’s newest democracy, East Timor’s 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections were declared by international observers to be largely free and fair.

East Timor voted overwhelmingly in 1999 to end 24 years of brutal Indonesian occupation which had left more than 170,000 people dead.

Record fine for Conservative Party in election expenses scandal

MICHAEL CRICK-Political Correspondent16 MAR 2017

The Conservative Party repeatedly broke the law by failing to properly declare its election expenses during the last general election. That’s the categorical and damning finding of a year long investigation by the Electoral Commission – the official body charged with regulating political parties and elections.

It follows a long-running investigation by Channel 4 News which uncovered hundreds of thousands of pounds of improperly declared spending by the Conservative Party in three by-elections in 2014 and the 2015 general election.

Today Theresa May went on television to insist “we have complied fully” with the Commission’s enquiries. However on page ten of its report the Commission notes “the Party did not co-operate fully.”
The Crown Prosecution Service is now examining evidence gathered by 12 police forces across the country – covering dozens of sitting MPs.

Taking Igbo out of Nigerian bondage

What Igbo people want is to leave Nigeria

by Osita Ebiem-Mar 21, 2017

( March 21, 2017, New York City, Sri Lanka Guardian) On the 29th of May 1966 the Igbo irreversibly renounced their colonially imposed Nigerian citizenship. That date marks the official beginning of the 1966 Pogrom of Igbo people in Nigeria. So, it goes without saying that what the Igbo want is to cut clear and exist sovereignly, politically and territorially independent of the Nigerian state.

Taking Igbo out of Nigerian bondage.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Student strike empties classes and fills streets on 9 March

Over 100,000 take to the streets in SE demonstrations

Sindicato de Estudiantes (SE), Spanish Students' Union

Click here for a photo gallery-21/03/2017

The general strike of the education sector called by the Sindiato de Estudiantes and the Platform in Defence of Public Education (which brings together teachers unions, parents associations and the Sindicato de Estudiantes) for 9 March was massive and solid. There was mass participation of students at all levels and in all parts of the state. Over 80% in universities and over 90% in secondary schools participated in the strike.

The Sindicato organised over 70 morning demonstrations which were also massive: in Barcelona, Madrid, Bilbao, Valencia, Alacant, Sevilla, Granada, Málaga, Almería, Cádiz, Ferrol, Santiago, Vigo, A Coruña, Tarragona, Oviedo, Gijón, Zaragoza, Tenerife, Mallorca, Guadalajara, Toledo, Murcia and many other cities, tens of thousands – over 100,000 in total – filled the streets. Despite this huge show of strength, the Education Minister, Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, declared that the strike was “insignificant”. Could he lie any more blatantly? This man, like his predecessor, needs to resign and stop insulting students and teachers.

This tremendous strike, which culminated in the evening with massive united demonstrations of parents, teachers and students – with 200,000 marching in Madrid – sent a clear message to the PP and all parties which prop it up – Ciudadanos and the illegitimate leadership of PSOE. The message was clear: we will not accept the so-called “education pact” which this triple alliance is drawing up, for the simple reason that it only represents a continuation of cuts and laws which have attacked public education over the last years.  

Some days ago, Ana Garcia, spokesperson for the Sindicato de Estudiantes, was invited by Unidos Podemos (parliamentary group of Podemos and United Left) to speak on the government’s education policies. She backed up her arguments with figures and objective facts - €9 billion cut from school and universities, 30,000 teachers sacked. Degradation of classrooms, rising failure rates and over 20,000 students not admitted to professional training over the last 2 years. 100,000 students expelled from university because of inability to pay fees which have risen by 60% in six years. As Ana explained, these and other attacks are also implemented in regions governed by PSOE, such as Andalucia.

For denouncing this social emergency in parliament, she earned the disdain of the representatives of the triple austerity alliance. Teófila Martínez, President of the commission, as well as several MPs from Ciudadanos and PSOE, constantly interrupted, denigrated and ridiculed her to try and stop her explaining these home truths. If anything was clarified in this commission, it was that the PP, Ciudadanos and the current PSOE leadership are totally out of touch with the problems which millions of working class families face every day.

We in the Sindicato de Estudiantes will not accept anything less than the putting into practice of the just demands of the education movement. Enough games and words! We call for the immediate elimination of the anti-social education bills (LOMCE and 3+2) That all money cut from public education is returned and all attacks are reversed, such as the sackings of teachers. That the degradation of classrooms is ended and that free professional training schemes are restored. All students expelled from education for not having money to pay fees must be re-admitted, abusive fees abolished and decent grants be paid to working class families.

Struggle is the only way. The strikes and demonstrations called by the Sindicato de Estudiantes on 26 October and 24 November were participated in by millions of students in all areas, and this was how we obliged the PP to withdraw the francoist “revalidation” exams. But this one victory does not satisfy us. If the right-wing government and its accomplices in the parliament continue to disrespect the demands of the education movement, the student movement, of the millions of working class families which have been struggling for years now to stop this offensive on the right to study, our mobilisations will continue and get stronger, harder and longer in the next months.

We also want to underline the great response of students to our call for one-hour strikes on 8 March against violence against women and for the rights of working class women. The massive protests which took place all over the country were historic: more than one million people participated. These mobilisations, as well as the education strike, show that we are close to a new phase of social rebellion. Working class people and youth are not tolerating this government, and its hypocrisy.

They call it democracy, but it’s not. It is an utterly corrupt system, which leaves corrupt politicians, businessmen and members of the royal family walking free while they cut the public budget to obscenely enrich themselves. They cut public health, education, and essential social services every day, while eliminating our rights and freedoms. They are the extremists, and they are showing it clearly.

Off the pulse - India farmers switch crops as lentil prices plunge

A labourer carries a sack filled with pulses at a wholesale pulses market in Kolkata, July 31, 2015. REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri/Files

A labourer marks the sacks filled with pulses before loading them into a truck as others wait in a queue to load at a wholesale market in Kolkata, May 16, 2016. REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri/Files

By Rajendra Jadhav and Mayank Bhardwaj | LATUR, INDIA/NEW DELHI

Millions of Indian farmers look set to switch from growing pulses and oilseeds after a government campaign to boost output became a victim of its own success by flooding markets with the crops, used in everything from fragrant curries to sticky desserts.

Storehouses are overflowing with commodities such as lentils and soybeans after waves of farmers answered Prime Minister Narendra Modi's call last summer to ramp up local production to cut a hefty import bill, driving prices sharply lower.

A shift to planting crops such as sugarcane and wheat could drag on global prices in those markets as supply swells, while raising the spectre of a swing to a shortage further down the line of the oilseeds and protein-rich pulses that are a staple of Indian cuisine.

"If farmers keep getting lower prices then they will shift to other crops and the entire cycle of shortages, price rises and higher imports will get repeated," said Pravin Dongre, chairman of industry body the India Pulses and Grains Association.

Local prices for oilseeds have plunged around 40 percent in the last six months, while pulses have dropped by nearly a third.

That came after farmers lifted pulse production to what is expected to be a record of around 22 million tonnes in the 2016/17 crop year that ends in June, up 35 percent from a year earlier. Oilseed output is seen soaring 33 percent to nearly 34 million tonnes.

Farmers and industry officials said a government plan to buy 2 million tonnes of pulses at guaranteed prices was not enough to support the market, adding that the volume was too small and that oilseeds should be included as well.

The government declined to make official comment on the issue, although some staff told Reuters that New Delhi could not do more due to factors such as cost, limited warehousing and a lack of transportation. They asked not to be identified as they were not authorised to speak with media.

And the programme doesn't appear to have helped Bapurao Suryawanshi, who owns 36 acres of land in Maharashtra.

"I was waiting in a queue outside a government procurement centre for six days to sell my pigeon peas," said Suryawanshi, who stopped growing sugarcane to churn out the peas.

"As luck would have it, just before my turn came, they suspended the procurement operation citing the shortage of gunny bags."

Jute packaging is compulsory for most commodities in India as the government looks to protect jobs in jute factories.

Left with no choice, Suryawanshi, 61, sold his 3 tonnes of peas to private traders at 46,000 rupees ($704) a tonne against last year's price of 110,000 rupees. The state-guaranteed price was 50,500 rupees.

He has decided to switch back to growing sugarcane, a crop that environmentalists say stokes water shortages in Maharashtra.

SOWING THE SEEDS OF SHORTAGE?

Boosting local production of crops such as sugarcane and wheat will likely stifle demand for imports from one of the world's top buyers of those commodities. It purchases most of its wheat from Australia, while also importing sugar from that country as well as from Thailand and Brazil.

Lower Indian imports could drag on global wheat and sugar markets that are facing swelling global inventories. Benchmark wheat prices have slipped roughly 3.6 percent this month, while sugar futures have dropped nearly 5 percent to nine-month lows.

And further down the road, the looming plunge to a shortage of pulses and oilseeds will likely deal a major blow to the government's push to become self-sufficient in these crops by the end of the decade.

Future price rises of such popular foodstuffs in a nation of over 1.3 billion people would also like stoke inflation, that rose to around 2 percent last month.

The country in the 2015/16 fiscal year spent nearly $10 billion importing vegetable oils from places such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil and Argentina and $2-$5 billion buying pulses from Austria, Canada and Myanmar.

But many farmers remain convinced they should switch to other crops.

"I have made a mistake by cultivating pulses and oilseeds," said Satish Patil, a farmer who had produced pigeon peas on his 25 acres land.

"I am now going to rectify the mistake in the coming season by replacing the area with sugarcane."

($1 = 65.36 rupees)

(Reporting by Rajendra Jadhav and Mayank Bhardwaj; Editing by Joseph Radford)