NEW DELHI, India — Nearly 30 years after its inception, India's supersonic light combat aircraft was finally cleared for induction into the air force this week — four years behind schedule, $500 million over budget and still propelled by an American-made engine.
Now, New Delhi is getting ready to double-down.
"After the Tejas [aircraft] accomplishes a series of milestones, the country is poised for a major turning point," Defense Minister A.K. Antony said at the test flight ceremony in Bangalore on Monday.
With a whopping $100 billion earmarked for defense purchases this decade, India has its sights set on simultaneously modernizing its moribund military and jumpstarting its own lame duck defense industry.
But there's a long way to go. Shortly before YouTube videos surfaced of a Chinese stealth fighter, India's Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) in all seriousness unveiled a domestically designed and developed... airship.
"There's a gap between their ability and their claims," said Anit Mukherjee, a research fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses. "They may not be able to do a Fiat, but they claim to be able to build a Ferrari."
Meanwhile, the stakes couldn't be higher. A modern military is essential if India is to take a larger role in Asia and the Indian Ocean — where China is swiftly gaining influence. The DRDO is 40 years behind schedule and $1.6 billion over budget, the defense minister said in May. And its most ambitious and vital projects have by and large been failures.
While that might be embarrassing for India, it's a huge opportunity for U.S. suppliers like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. But Washington will need to cut some of the red tape associated with U.S. arms deals to leverage American industry's cutting-edge defense prowess to reshape U.S.-India relations. And New Delhi will need to defeat the rearguard resistance to private industry posed by the left to transform its domestic defense industry.
"There are three gods in Hinduism: Brahma, the creator; Shiva, the destroyer, and Vishnu, the preserver. You will need all three to reform our aerospace sector," said former Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak, who now heads a think tank called the Center for Air Power Studies.
The first step will be Shiva's job: destroying — or radically restructuring — the existing system.
India's department of atomic energy has built a nuclear bomb and its space agency has sent a rocket to the Moon. But since 1992, when APJ Abdul Kalam declared that India should aim to make 70 percent of the equipment used by its military by 2005, the DRDO has "invented" radar and sonar systems, combat rifles, an artillery gun and cold weather gear for soldiers posted on the Siachen glacier — all of which it could have bought off the shelf elsewhere (including North Face).
Various ballistic missiles have failed in the testing process. Army personnel say the Arjun tank doesn't shoot straight. And even after it gets a second-generation engine in 2014, again from General Electric, critics say the Tejas — which was jointly produced by the DRDO and state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. — will not be able to compete with state-of-the-art fighters.
"DRDO has not produced anything that would change India's strategic condition in any way," said Sunil Dasgupta, a defense expert with the Brookings Institution. "After all, that's the entire point of military research and development."
As a result, India is preparing for a foreign shopping spree. According to a recent study by the consultancy firm KPMG, India is expected to buy $100 billion in foreign weapons by 2022. In the pipeline already are a $10 billion contract for 126 multi-role combat aircraft, a $7.6 billion tender for 12 stealth frigates, a $3.5 billion deal for seven submarines and a $3 billion contract for 197 light helicopters, among other items.
But Indian industry could benefit, too, if New Delhi plays its cards right. If it succeeds in leveraging its planned big-ticket purchases and its attractiveness as a manufacturing center for global suppliers to encourage technology transfers, KPMG argues, India could become one of the world's key sourcing destinations for defense systems and equipment, fueling technology spinoffs for a host of industries.
"If you look very conservatively, over the next 20 years, India will require about 1,200-1,500 aircraft in the civil sector alone," said Kak. "If you take the military aircraft, the military and civilian infrastructure, and you put it all together I see in the next 20 years a market of between $250 and $300 billion."
crazy nationalist
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Liv-ins- A new challenge
The world is changing at a rapid pace. Let it be technology, culture, education, religion and even marriage. The trend of liv-ins is probably new to our country and thus various questions and challenges are bound to obstacle this phenomenon. Marriage is a sacred event in the life of both Hindus and Muslims who are a major chunk of the population of India. Due to the fast paced life more and more people primarily in metro cities are shifting towards liv-in relations where a couple starts residing in the same house and carries on activities of a married couple, just that they dont marry. It might be practical as the couple are not compulsarily bound to each other and further it might reduce the occurence of domestic violence and eliminate vices like dowry but on the whole it has given India a Big Cultural Shock.
The Bombay High Court, recently on 16.09.2009 in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., held that it was not necessary for the woman to strictly establish the marriage to claim maintenance under Section 125, CrPC. This progressive judgement by Justice Abhay Oka is yet another strive towards securing legal recognition to live-in relationships at par with marital relationships.
A Global View
The boundaries between marriage and cohabitation are being debated intensely across the globe. Since 1999, unwed couples have received legal recognition in France. In Scandinavian countries, being unmarried is increasingly the norm. In Italy, a law for the first time grants some legal recognition to such couples. Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Prevalent Norms
India, however, is known for its moral and traditional values. According to age old Indian ethics, man and woman are not allowed to live together unless they are married. Indian culture still perceives live-in relationship sacrilegious. For decades, laws in India have displayed an unwillingness to enter the private space between men and women. Not surprisingly, Indian laws are hardly ready to address this issue. The entire gamut of laws, the personal laws like Hindu Marriage and Adoption Act, besides some other harassment laws—nothing recognises live-in relationships
The attitude of the court had also been negative. Various High Courts across the country have opined that a presumption of marriage in law arises only when the factum of marriage is proved or some evidence has been established to prove the fact of performance of a marriage function. Some of these are: Narayanamma v. Suryapandurangappa, (1969) Deivanai Achi v. Chidambaram Chettiar, (1954), Yamunabai v. Anantrao,(1988), Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary, (1985) .
In Gokul Chand v. Parvin Kumari, (1952), the Apex Court held that a petition under S.125, Cr.P.C. is maintainable at the instance of the wife only when she establishes that she is the wife. A concubine is not entitled to file a petition under S125, Cr.P.C. of maintenance against her paramour.
Modern societies face modern challenges
Live-in relationship, in its present form, is new to India. Some claim that the culture has reached India from Western shores. Some cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore already have a huge population of youngsters in live-in relationships. Besides these big cities, the trend has caught on at other places, as well. These young men and women who are away from home without any family or local guardians fall back on such arrangements due to circumstances. Apart from emotional support, they get to pool up finances for accommodation. There will also be some savings as the expenses are shared between the two people. Besides, help is always available in case of any distress. The far and wide bridge that existed between Indian marriage system and western world until recently is slowly dwindling. Such arrangement seems to be the growing need of the day.
A Quick Reminiscence
Gujarat for a long time had Maitri Karaar or a ‘friendship contract’ entered into voluntarily between a man and a woman, which decreed that the woman would exercise no claim on the man during or after the relationship beyond ‘friendship’. The man in such relationships was always married while the woman was single and most often responsible for the upkeep of her parental family. As she knew that she could never marry, she and her family willingly consented to such a contract because this was the only way she could enjoy a physical relationship with a man. It offered the married man a convenient plea to take on a mistress without the responsibilities incumbent upon a husband. The signed contract specified the period of liaison and had sub-clauses like neither of them having any claim to the other’s property. Children were not usually a part of this relationship. But at the end of the day, it was the woman who bore the brunt when the man went back to his legally sanctioned family. In many cases, he kept his links with both, his Maitri Karaar ’friend’ and his legally wedded wife.
The Domestic Violence Act covers Live-in relationships
No law, presently, deal specifically with the concept of live-in-relationships and their legality. Still, under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, all benefits are bestowed on woman living in such kind of arrangement by reason of being covered within the term “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f). The Domestic Violence Act provides protection to women at the hands of their husbands as well as live-in partners, and his relatives. When the law came into force in October 2006, it did not distinguish between the woman who is married and the woman who is in a live-in relationship.
It is the only Central act, which goes beyond traditional relationships under which a live-in partner has equal rights as a wife and can claim shared residence, maintenance and compensation, protection against abuse. The Act is very wide in its scope and includes economic abuse as well. If any economic assistance that is entitled to the aggrieved is denied, that also constitutes domestic violence. In fact, the Act also includes emotional abuse. But the Domestic violence Act just provides protection it does not give social and legal legitimacy to a live-in partner.
Changing views: Recommendations & Proposals
The Malimath Committee was formed by the Centre to suggest reforms in the Cr.P.C. Justice Malimath Committee’s recommendation to the Law Commission of India in 2003 states that if a woman has been in a ‘live in’ relationship for a reasonable period, she should enjoy the legal rights of the wife.
In June, 2008 in response to recommendations made by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the National Commission for Women (NCW) sought a change in the definition of ‘wife’ as described in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), which deals with maintenance. The NCW recommended that women in live-in relationships should be entitled to maintenance if the man deserts her.
On 8th October, 2008 the recommendation of the Malimath Committee was accepted by the Maharashtra government. Taking forward its decision to give some sanctity to live-in relationships and ensure that women in such relationships are not taken for a ride, the Maharashtra government proposed to amend Section125, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) and expand the definition of the word ‘wife’ to include a woman living with a man like his wife for a ‘reasonably long’ period.
If the government walk the talk, it would allow the woman in such a relationship to be entitled to alimony if the relationship breaks down as it legalises a live-in arrangement. Of course, it would need the Centre’s stamp of approval before it can become a law. Since the CrPC is in the concurrent list, the state cabinet proposal has been sent to the Centre for obtaining the President’s assent.
However, Debate in the Lok Sabha On 15th December, 2008 in the question hour, Mr.H.R.Bhardwaj, Union Law Minister (as he then was) while answering to the question related to live-in-relationships said that if live-in- relationships are acceptable by society, then the government can make laws. Laws are made keeping in view societal trends. It is hypothetical to ask a question whether we are contemplating a law to govern live-in relationships. Less than one percent of the people are in such relationships. If a law is enacted, it will only be misused.
Judicial Trend
As early as 1927 in Dinohamy v. WL Blahamy the Privy Council, laid down that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.
The Council made significant additions to the 1927 ruling in 1929 in Mohabhat Ali Vs Mohammad Ibrahim Khan. It said: “The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.” For a live-in couple to be considered validly married, the court wanted evidence of cohabitation for a number of years, without specifying the minimum number of years.
In Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. (1978), the Supreme Court recognised a live-in relationship as a valid marriage, accusing the authorities of questioning a relationship 50 years after the couple had begun living together, and were treated as a married couple even by their relatives.
In a path-breaking judgement of Payal Sharma Vs Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and others, in which a court stated in 2001 that a live-in relationship was not illegal. The Allahabad High Court on 4th March 2002 came up with a bold judgment by stating that anyone, man or woman, could live together even without getting married if they wished.
In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam Vs. State of A.P., the Supreme Court extended the protection against dowry under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code to women living in such relationships. It said that ‘the nomenclature “dowry” does not have any magical charm written over it. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship’. Drawing parallels with the law which recognises the legitimacy of children born of void and voidable marriages, it explained its stand asking: “Can a person who enters into a marital agreement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise?” This judgment seems to go a long way in saying that men can’t dodge either responsibility or liability to women they live with by simply not getting married to them.
In January 2008, the Supreme Court validated long-term live-in relationships as marriages. A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat with P Satasivan declared that children born out of such a relationship will no longer be called illegitimate.
The recent ruling in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. is only the latest in a series of recommendations by various bodies seeking equal rights for the married woman and live-in female partner.
Conclusion
On one hand when the judiciary is redoing its liberal face with the recent ruling of Justice Oka of Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court’s decision in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and Ors., (2009) to recognise same sex relationships, the need for a legal provision is felt to secure the future of a child born from a relationship which has not taken the shape of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the status of a legitimate child to every child whether result of void, voidable or valid marriage. However, a legal provision is required to grant property and maintenance rights. The child is entitled to get a share in the property of both the father as well as the mother who may decide to move out of the live-in arrangement.
The recognition of the live-in relationship would allow a ‘mistress’ to get the status of a legally married wife in all matters, including share in property, inheritance, maintenance. Nevertheless, this essentially goes contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which has no provision for a second wife among Hindus. Moreover, once live-in couples invoke the proposed amended law, it would mean an admission on their part that there is a ‘second wife’ - which is again not permitted as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Further, the judiciary, the Malimath Committee Report and the Maharashtra government’s proposal are all fuzzy on the duration of cohabitation. Since the term “reasonably long” period of live-in relationship in the proposed law has not been quantified, it is left open to varied interpretation.
The very idea of cohabitation is that the partners don’t want commitments and responsibilities that come with marriage. In that case, we cannot expect social and legal bond to a relationship that by definition can be terminated at will. Any decision to bring change in Section 125, CrPC with regard to live - in - relationship invites amendments in other laws as well including law of evidence, succession, adoption, bigamy, marriage etc. Therefore, if even inspite of no relationship in the eyes of law (marriage), one has to be made liable to pay maintenance after a reasonable time period.
The Bombay High Court, recently on 16.09.2009 in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., held that it was not necessary for the woman to strictly establish the marriage to claim maintenance under Section 125, CrPC. This progressive judgement by Justice Abhay Oka is yet another strive towards securing legal recognition to live-in relationships at par with marital relationships.
A Global View
The boundaries between marriage and cohabitation are being debated intensely across the globe. Since 1999, unwed couples have received legal recognition in France. In Scandinavian countries, being unmarried is increasingly the norm. In Italy, a law for the first time grants some legal recognition to such couples. Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Prevalent Norms
India, however, is known for its moral and traditional values. According to age old Indian ethics, man and woman are not allowed to live together unless they are married. Indian culture still perceives live-in relationship sacrilegious. For decades, laws in India have displayed an unwillingness to enter the private space between men and women. Not surprisingly, Indian laws are hardly ready to address this issue. The entire gamut of laws, the personal laws like Hindu Marriage and Adoption Act, besides some other harassment laws—nothing recognises live-in relationships
The attitude of the court had also been negative. Various High Courts across the country have opined that a presumption of marriage in law arises only when the factum of marriage is proved or some evidence has been established to prove the fact of performance of a marriage function. Some of these are: Narayanamma v. Suryapandurangappa, (1969) Deivanai Achi v. Chidambaram Chettiar, (1954), Yamunabai v. Anantrao,(1988), Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary, (1985) .
In Gokul Chand v. Parvin Kumari, (1952), the Apex Court held that a petition under S.125, Cr.P.C. is maintainable at the instance of the wife only when she establishes that she is the wife. A concubine is not entitled to file a petition under S125, Cr.P.C. of maintenance against her paramour.
Modern societies face modern challenges
Live-in relationship, in its present form, is new to India. Some claim that the culture has reached India from Western shores. Some cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore already have a huge population of youngsters in live-in relationships. Besides these big cities, the trend has caught on at other places, as well. These young men and women who are away from home without any family or local guardians fall back on such arrangements due to circumstances. Apart from emotional support, they get to pool up finances for accommodation. There will also be some savings as the expenses are shared between the two people. Besides, help is always available in case of any distress. The far and wide bridge that existed between Indian marriage system and western world until recently is slowly dwindling. Such arrangement seems to be the growing need of the day.
A Quick Reminiscence
Gujarat for a long time had Maitri Karaar or a ‘friendship contract’ entered into voluntarily between a man and a woman, which decreed that the woman would exercise no claim on the man during or after the relationship beyond ‘friendship’. The man in such relationships was always married while the woman was single and most often responsible for the upkeep of her parental family. As she knew that she could never marry, she and her family willingly consented to such a contract because this was the only way she could enjoy a physical relationship with a man. It offered the married man a convenient plea to take on a mistress without the responsibilities incumbent upon a husband. The signed contract specified the period of liaison and had sub-clauses like neither of them having any claim to the other’s property. Children were not usually a part of this relationship. But at the end of the day, it was the woman who bore the brunt when the man went back to his legally sanctioned family. In many cases, he kept his links with both, his Maitri Karaar ’friend’ and his legally wedded wife.
The Domestic Violence Act covers Live-in relationships
No law, presently, deal specifically with the concept of live-in-relationships and their legality. Still, under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, all benefits are bestowed on woman living in such kind of arrangement by reason of being covered within the term “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f). The Domestic Violence Act provides protection to women at the hands of their husbands as well as live-in partners, and his relatives. When the law came into force in October 2006, it did not distinguish between the woman who is married and the woman who is in a live-in relationship.
It is the only Central act, which goes beyond traditional relationships under which a live-in partner has equal rights as a wife and can claim shared residence, maintenance and compensation, protection against abuse. The Act is very wide in its scope and includes economic abuse as well. If any economic assistance that is entitled to the aggrieved is denied, that also constitutes domestic violence. In fact, the Act also includes emotional abuse. But the Domestic violence Act just provides protection it does not give social and legal legitimacy to a live-in partner.
Changing views: Recommendations & Proposals
The Malimath Committee was formed by the Centre to suggest reforms in the Cr.P.C. Justice Malimath Committee’s recommendation to the Law Commission of India in 2003 states that if a woman has been in a ‘live in’ relationship for a reasonable period, she should enjoy the legal rights of the wife.
In June, 2008 in response to recommendations made by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the National Commission for Women (NCW) sought a change in the definition of ‘wife’ as described in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), which deals with maintenance. The NCW recommended that women in live-in relationships should be entitled to maintenance if the man deserts her.
On 8th October, 2008 the recommendation of the Malimath Committee was accepted by the Maharashtra government. Taking forward its decision to give some sanctity to live-in relationships and ensure that women in such relationships are not taken for a ride, the Maharashtra government proposed to amend Section125, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) and expand the definition of the word ‘wife’ to include a woman living with a man like his wife for a ‘reasonably long’ period.
If the government walk the talk, it would allow the woman in such a relationship to be entitled to alimony if the relationship breaks down as it legalises a live-in arrangement. Of course, it would need the Centre’s stamp of approval before it can become a law. Since the CrPC is in the concurrent list, the state cabinet proposal has been sent to the Centre for obtaining the President’s assent.
However, Debate in the Lok Sabha On 15th December, 2008 in the question hour, Mr.H.R.Bhardwaj, Union Law Minister (as he then was) while answering to the question related to live-in-relationships said that if live-in- relationships are acceptable by society, then the government can make laws. Laws are made keeping in view societal trends. It is hypothetical to ask a question whether we are contemplating a law to govern live-in relationships. Less than one percent of the people are in such relationships. If a law is enacted, it will only be misused.
Judicial Trend
As early as 1927 in Dinohamy v. WL Blahamy the Privy Council, laid down that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.
The Council made significant additions to the 1927 ruling in 1929 in Mohabhat Ali Vs Mohammad Ibrahim Khan. It said: “The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.” For a live-in couple to be considered validly married, the court wanted evidence of cohabitation for a number of years, without specifying the minimum number of years.
In Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. (1978), the Supreme Court recognised a live-in relationship as a valid marriage, accusing the authorities of questioning a relationship 50 years after the couple had begun living together, and were treated as a married couple even by their relatives.
In a path-breaking judgement of Payal Sharma Vs Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and others, in which a court stated in 2001 that a live-in relationship was not illegal. The Allahabad High Court on 4th March 2002 came up with a bold judgment by stating that anyone, man or woman, could live together even without getting married if they wished.
In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam Vs. State of A.P., the Supreme Court extended the protection against dowry under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code to women living in such relationships. It said that ‘the nomenclature “dowry” does not have any magical charm written over it. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship’. Drawing parallels with the law which recognises the legitimacy of children born of void and voidable marriages, it explained its stand asking: “Can a person who enters into a marital agreement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise?” This judgment seems to go a long way in saying that men can’t dodge either responsibility or liability to women they live with by simply not getting married to them.
In January 2008, the Supreme Court validated long-term live-in relationships as marriages. A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat with P Satasivan declared that children born out of such a relationship will no longer be called illegitimate.
The recent ruling in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. is only the latest in a series of recommendations by various bodies seeking equal rights for the married woman and live-in female partner.
Conclusion
On one hand when the judiciary is redoing its liberal face with the recent ruling of Justice Oka of Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court’s decision in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and Ors., (2009) to recognise same sex relationships, the need for a legal provision is felt to secure the future of a child born from a relationship which has not taken the shape of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the status of a legitimate child to every child whether result of void, voidable or valid marriage. However, a legal provision is required to grant property and maintenance rights. The child is entitled to get a share in the property of both the father as well as the mother who may decide to move out of the live-in arrangement.
The recognition of the live-in relationship would allow a ‘mistress’ to get the status of a legally married wife in all matters, including share in property, inheritance, maintenance. Nevertheless, this essentially goes contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which has no provision for a second wife among Hindus. Moreover, once live-in couples invoke the proposed amended law, it would mean an admission on their part that there is a ‘second wife’ - which is again not permitted as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Further, the judiciary, the Malimath Committee Report and the Maharashtra government’s proposal are all fuzzy on the duration of cohabitation. Since the term “reasonably long” period of live-in relationship in the proposed law has not been quantified, it is left open to varied interpretation.
The very idea of cohabitation is that the partners don’t want commitments and responsibilities that come with marriage. In that case, we cannot expect social and legal bond to a relationship that by definition can be terminated at will. Any decision to bring change in Section 125, CrPC with regard to live - in - relationship invites amendments in other laws as well including law of evidence, succession, adoption, bigamy, marriage etc. Therefore, if even inspite of no relationship in the eyes of law (marriage), one has to be made liable to pay maintenance after a reasonable time period.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
GANDHI UNMASKED
He did portray a saint like image. This probably was just because of the virtue of his bare body and shortage of clothes or maybe due to his low diet and lean body. He looked like the poorest man in the country and gained sympathy for the same.
Firstly the Great Mahatama’s stance towards the Africans was racist. In South Africa he never did anything for the blacks. In fact he wanted to create a stratified society with Whites at the top and the Africans at the bottom. One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black native. He totally supported the British and accepted them as our rulers. One might say that it is significant that his well-known struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians only, and not of the blacks whose living conditions were even worse.“
Major disappointment arrived in 1918, when Gandhi was persuaded by the British to help raise soldiers for a final victory effort in the war. Charlie Andrews criticized Gandhi for recruiting Indians to fight for the British.
Alarmingly the mahatama supported all the wars. There wasn’t a war that the so called non- violent man Gandhi did not support. The prophet of peace Gandhi’s support for the British in the Boer War, the Zulu War, World War 1 and World War 2.
“Suffice it to say that my loyalty to the British rule drove me to participation with the British in that war ”( MK Gandhi, My Experiments With Truth, pg.138)
Our national hero even had the courage to say that “All Jews should commit mass suicide!”, and he himself had Jewish friends. Gandhi wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him.
“We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler.
Bapu had two choices: either to resist or collaborate with the oppressive and exploitative colonists. Sadly, he preferred to be a collaborator of the British. He was the voice and conscience of three hundred million Hindus. Instead of fighting the colourless, he betrayed his people by prolonging their misery by merely supporting the empire and requesting for amendments rather than freedom.
“But I believed that the British empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the empire. ” ”( MK Gandhi, My Experiments With Truth, pg.172)
The British continuously fooled Gandhi by taking him in favour of the British – Indian co-existence. This trap was in the form of representative institutions, distribution of power, bureaucratic positions, business, contracts etc. and those who were willing to play this game under the devious rules set by the colonists were rewarded for their cooperation and those who tried to scuttle the game were brutally punished. And the father of the nation belonged to the former category.
In fact, when the oppressed sections of the society – the poor peasants and workers – tried to rebel against their exploitation, Gandhi and his co workers hastened to pacify such resistance movements which directly ceased their growth and indirectly prolonged the British stay. A typical example was the peasant movement in the district of Bardoli in Bengal. When the peasants refused to pay the rents and taxes to the Indian landlords and the imperial government, Gandhi sent a Congress committee, which ‘liquidated’ the conflict and assured the zamindars that Congress had ‘no intention of encroaching on the legal rights’
The ‘ Great Mahatma’ who proclaims to have sacrificed everything for the nation, enjoyed his ‘rest periods’ in the jail because in addition to special servants, his prison suite consisted of three rooms with a garden. In the comfort of this imprisonment, he leisurely negotiated with Viceroy Lord Irwin and betrayed the cause of the people by calling off the Civil Disobedience Movement and agreeing to attend the second Round Table conference in London
Gandhi was considered as the messiah working for the betterment of the oppressed, on the other hand, he remained completely unmindful to the pathetic plight of the working class in Ahmedabad – the home of Gandhi. Over there, 92 percent of the houses were one-roomed, unsanitary, and ill-ventilated, with inadequate water supplies and latrine accommodation entirely wanting. The question arises is that why didn’t he fight for their welfare?
The reason behind this was that this would have brought him in conflict with the mill-owners of Ahmedabad, who were the main source of his funds. Instead of creating awareness about the class conflict in the society, Gandhi preached docility and collaboration. But his autobiography remains silent about this fact.
Critics of Gandhi have argued that his tactics and actions unnecessarily delayed the departure of the British, precipitated the partition of India, and led to the Hinduisation of Congress because of his over-emphasis on religion. His defence of caste especially annoyed the untouchables who were denied political independence.
Sarojini Naidu once said it costs us billions to keep Mahatma Gandhi in poverty. He who is called the “apostle of peace,” counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.
This great personality MK Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. This “ahimsa” racist who did not support the Africans in their efforts to get freedom from the British.Mahatma that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire. This true human being supported the British effort in World War 1, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder.
The great mahatama has still not been able to give the answer to the question raised upon him a million times that why couldn’t he save freedom fighter Bhagat Singh from being hanged. If he wanted he could have saved the young freedom fighter but this selfish man did not.
Another amazing truth belonging to his kitty is that he even told the Sikhs “don’t let your swords rust”. He himself wanted India to attack Kashmir. He was a freedom fighter and a dictator. But despite his distaste for it, Mahatma was a title he would bear until his death and beyond, and while there were other Mahatmas in the India of his lifetime, Gandhi is the only one remembered today. He is called the father of the nation, but still his strategies are considered to be naïve and impractical.
. There is a big myth that Gandhi was successful as a lawyer, but this is absolutely wrong. He was a failure and was unable to even find himself a living and even was unable to capitalise on the chances donated to him by his brother and other friends.
“I hastened from the court, not knowing whether my client won or lost her case, but i was ashamed of myself, and decided not to take up any cases until I had courage enough to conduct them.”(My experiments with truth, MK Gandhi, pg. 66)
None of his movements were successful. All his movements were either called off or were oppressed. But still he gets the credit of the independence of India though on the contrary he hampered it.
.
In his book Gandhi sadly did not mention everything. Still there are a lot of things unsaid about him which if he wanted he could have inculcated in his book. He did not answer a lot of questions like the reason he had for not saving Bhagat Singh etc. , which advisably should have been addressed.
He was a famous man and did a lot for the country but certainly did not deserve the acclamation he got.
Firstly the Great Mahatama’s stance towards the Africans was racist. In South Africa he never did anything for the blacks. In fact he wanted to create a stratified society with Whites at the top and the Africans at the bottom. One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black native. He totally supported the British and accepted them as our rulers. One might say that it is significant that his well-known struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians only, and not of the blacks whose living conditions were even worse.“
Major disappointment arrived in 1918, when Gandhi was persuaded by the British to help raise soldiers for a final victory effort in the war. Charlie Andrews criticized Gandhi for recruiting Indians to fight for the British.
Alarmingly the mahatama supported all the wars. There wasn’t a war that the so called non- violent man Gandhi did not support. The prophet of peace Gandhi’s support for the British in the Boer War, the Zulu War, World War 1 and World War 2.
“Suffice it to say that my loyalty to the British rule drove me to participation with the British in that war ”( MK Gandhi, My Experiments With Truth, pg.138)
Our national hero even had the courage to say that “All Jews should commit mass suicide!”, and he himself had Jewish friends. Gandhi wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him.
“We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler.
Bapu had two choices: either to resist or collaborate with the oppressive and exploitative colonists. Sadly, he preferred to be a collaborator of the British. He was the voice and conscience of three hundred million Hindus. Instead of fighting the colourless, he betrayed his people by prolonging their misery by merely supporting the empire and requesting for amendments rather than freedom.
“But I believed that the British empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the empire. ” ”( MK Gandhi, My Experiments With Truth, pg.172)
The British continuously fooled Gandhi by taking him in favour of the British – Indian co-existence. This trap was in the form of representative institutions, distribution of power, bureaucratic positions, business, contracts etc. and those who were willing to play this game under the devious rules set by the colonists were rewarded for their cooperation and those who tried to scuttle the game were brutally punished. And the father of the nation belonged to the former category.
In fact, when the oppressed sections of the society – the poor peasants and workers – tried to rebel against their exploitation, Gandhi and his co workers hastened to pacify such resistance movements which directly ceased their growth and indirectly prolonged the British stay. A typical example was the peasant movement in the district of Bardoli in Bengal. When the peasants refused to pay the rents and taxes to the Indian landlords and the imperial government, Gandhi sent a Congress committee, which ‘liquidated’ the conflict and assured the zamindars that Congress had ‘no intention of encroaching on the legal rights’
The ‘ Great Mahatma’ who proclaims to have sacrificed everything for the nation, enjoyed his ‘rest periods’ in the jail because in addition to special servants, his prison suite consisted of three rooms with a garden. In the comfort of this imprisonment, he leisurely negotiated with Viceroy Lord Irwin and betrayed the cause of the people by calling off the Civil Disobedience Movement and agreeing to attend the second Round Table conference in London
Gandhi was considered as the messiah working for the betterment of the oppressed, on the other hand, he remained completely unmindful to the pathetic plight of the working class in Ahmedabad – the home of Gandhi. Over there, 92 percent of the houses were one-roomed, unsanitary, and ill-ventilated, with inadequate water supplies and latrine accommodation entirely wanting. The question arises is that why didn’t he fight for their welfare?
The reason behind this was that this would have brought him in conflict with the mill-owners of Ahmedabad, who were the main source of his funds. Instead of creating awareness about the class conflict in the society, Gandhi preached docility and collaboration. But his autobiography remains silent about this fact.
Critics of Gandhi have argued that his tactics and actions unnecessarily delayed the departure of the British, precipitated the partition of India, and led to the Hinduisation of Congress because of his over-emphasis on religion. His defence of caste especially annoyed the untouchables who were denied political independence.
Sarojini Naidu once said it costs us billions to keep Mahatma Gandhi in poverty. He who is called the “apostle of peace,” counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.
This great personality MK Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. This “ahimsa” racist who did not support the Africans in their efforts to get freedom from the British.Mahatma that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire. This true human being supported the British effort in World War 1, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder.
The great mahatama has still not been able to give the answer to the question raised upon him a million times that why couldn’t he save freedom fighter Bhagat Singh from being hanged. If he wanted he could have saved the young freedom fighter but this selfish man did not.
Another amazing truth belonging to his kitty is that he even told the Sikhs “don’t let your swords rust”. He himself wanted India to attack Kashmir. He was a freedom fighter and a dictator. But despite his distaste for it, Mahatma was a title he would bear until his death and beyond, and while there were other Mahatmas in the India of his lifetime, Gandhi is the only one remembered today. He is called the father of the nation, but still his strategies are considered to be naïve and impractical.
. There is a big myth that Gandhi was successful as a lawyer, but this is absolutely wrong. He was a failure and was unable to even find himself a living and even was unable to capitalise on the chances donated to him by his brother and other friends.
“I hastened from the court, not knowing whether my client won or lost her case, but i was ashamed of myself, and decided not to take up any cases until I had courage enough to conduct them.”(My experiments with truth, MK Gandhi, pg. 66)
None of his movements were successful. All his movements were either called off or were oppressed. But still he gets the credit of the independence of India though on the contrary he hampered it.
.
In his book Gandhi sadly did not mention everything. Still there are a lot of things unsaid about him which if he wanted he could have inculcated in his book. He did not answer a lot of questions like the reason he had for not saving Bhagat Singh etc. , which advisably should have been addressed.
He was a famous man and did a lot for the country but certainly did not deserve the acclamation he got.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
service or disservice
This is the first time im writing for my blog. I’ll start with an issue that concerns the masses. Today almost every individual living in a city owns a cell phone and similarly its popularity not unknown in villages. The market consists of various telecom service providers. Airtel, reliance, Vodafone, Tata being a popular few.
We consumers of these service providers should expect some service in return. I want to share my appalling experience I had with Vodafone last month. I’m very surprised to see the service (if u even can call it so) bestowed by Vodafone on its customers in this era on consumer awareness. Vodafone takes its customers for granted and thinks that we the customers will adhere onto it just by attractive offers and cool advertisements. It fails to understand that the basic thing is providing service in which it terribly fails. Vodafone lacks in provision services by a plethora of miles as compared to other networks. I have been bothered and harassed by the so called customer service employees many a times and its not just me but many individuals who have suffered the same treatment. The customers service employees shout back, talk rudely to the customers and delay work unnecessarily thus maltreating us the customers.
Vodafone is thinking of itself to be the boss of the market just by virtue of the zoo zoos and other marketing techniques used by it. Hats off to the Vodafone marketing thing that the Vodafone ship is still sailing.
Wake up consumers, there is no shortage of telecom service providers. Chose a network that doesn’t cheat you. We are Indians and will not be cheated by just any company. That’s it for now and I’m signing off.
Have a nice day folks.
We consumers of these service providers should expect some service in return. I want to share my appalling experience I had with Vodafone last month. I’m very surprised to see the service (if u even can call it so) bestowed by Vodafone on its customers in this era on consumer awareness. Vodafone takes its customers for granted and thinks that we the customers will adhere onto it just by attractive offers and cool advertisements. It fails to understand that the basic thing is providing service in which it terribly fails. Vodafone lacks in provision services by a plethora of miles as compared to other networks. I have been bothered and harassed by the so called customer service employees many a times and its not just me but many individuals who have suffered the same treatment. The customers service employees shout back, talk rudely to the customers and delay work unnecessarily thus maltreating us the customers.
Vodafone is thinking of itself to be the boss of the market just by virtue of the zoo zoos and other marketing techniques used by it. Hats off to the Vodafone marketing thing that the Vodafone ship is still sailing.
Wake up consumers, there is no shortage of telecom service providers. Chose a network that doesn’t cheat you. We are Indians and will not be cheated by just any company. That’s it for now and I’m signing off.
Have a nice day folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)