cowards Called Terrorists

India was once again attacked by terrorists. Once again they have targeted our financial capital…and Once again it has been proved that our intelligence agencies, our CBI, CID, IB and military intelligence have failed at many fronts.
But see we are not bothered, we are not shaken. Come you all bastards .we are ready .we will fight, every Indian will fight till his last breath. My last drop of blood will stand in your path of terror. You all are not warriors but cowards. Who target innocent people…innocent civilians, foreign tourists, to prove their point. But your point is simple to create panic in the corridors of governance, in the hearts of common people, which they will never succeed. It’s a shame for you all o evils o chicken hearts to slain our people our brothers and our friends from different countries. Who were our guests, whom we regard like our gods. This country has been attacked thousands times and still we are here. we are here in this world to announce that we will be proud Indians for thousand years and the years coming after.
Its not rhetoric, its not said to please and to feel good, but its truth which never requires a proof.
Yes ,I agree we have failed ….,to get info about your activities, about your planning and your movements…but the time is ripe that you all will be uprooted from the soils of my motherland and from the rest of the world. We are required to take adequate measures and we need the support of each and every individual. We are required to revolutionize our system our intelligence agencies, our paramilitary forces and all security personnel those who are directly or indirectly involved in providing security to the nation.

You give us a point, a point to stand up, point to stay together, to fight together and to strive together for peace and prosperity. Its not we but you all o merchants of terror, who is in panic. India is united from Kashmir to kanyakumari….from Assam to Gujarat, Punjab, Bihar, Bengal and of course Maharastra. We salute the brave hearts our heroes Like Mr. kamte,Mr. Karkare,Mr. Salaskar for their brave deeds. Nation will never forget to take care of their families and will always be proud of her sons like them.

The Failure and Unfailure of Public sector

Nehru was a great thinker and philosopher. He was a socialist, but was much influenced by western thought. Though there were Indian influences as well, the problem has been that there have never been any indegenious theories. All have been imported from the west. Applying them to local conditions brings about inherent contradictions. They are bound to fail.

All these various theories have been the result of a revolt against inequalities prevalent in the society... But removing inequalities is in itself a very tricky business... Equality is an end and never a means, if it becomes a means then it increases inequalities... In the era of welfare state it is the duty of public sector to promote equality... because the private sector cannot do it, its only aim is to earn profit. The private sector may be economically sound and flourishing, because it earns profit. But public sector is not failing because it is not economically sound. To judge public sector solely on economic criteria would be sheer narrow-mindedness...
The aim of public sector in India was never solely economic development but also social development... And it stays so even today. The argument that public sector has become loss making is a fallacious one. Its aim was never profit making so it was a loss making business from the word go... The public sector was established in public interest with a different motive... For example let us consider the case of the department of telecommunications. It was established not with the aim to earn profit, but to connect each and every nook and corner of India through telephone lines. And it did.
Private sector would never have invested in remote inaccessible tarrain where there was little chance of profit. Public sector could do it because it was not driven by profit motive...

Here, in India lies the biggest contradiction relating to public sector... The aims and objectives of the public enterprise was fixed on the criteria of social and public interest and it was judged on the criteria of economy and efficiency. It was bound to fail... This contradiction created a clash of interest within the public sector... It was unable to comprehend as to what was required of it, public interest or profit... In this confusion nothing was achieved... they were never supposed to earn profit and they never did... And they were never held accountable for public or social interest, so the main objective failed as well. Public sector had failed... Or has it...

Now starts the talk of disinvestment... If the public sector has failed then it must be disinvested... Infact I believe that even if it has achieved its utility then also it should be disinvested... By achieving its utility it has achieved its objective and now public interest must give way to profit and so this can be opened to private sector. But wherever the public sector has not achieved its utility, whether it is loss making or profit making it must not be disinvested. This is because the private sector shall never work in the public interest, it shall work only for profit... And the social or public goal for which the public sector was established would perpetually remain unachieved. In this case the remedy is not disinvestment but reorientation... The contradiction between goal and accountability must be removed... The public sector must be held responsible for its public responsibilities and not profit. The public sector has not failed instead we have not been able to gauge its utility... And this ignorance on our part has resulted in it being steered the wrong way...

Disinvestment should be done and must be done only where public sector has grown, where there was no public responsibility, or where it has achieved its utility. In cases where it has been a mere economic failure, it must be reorinted towards its public goal and not in any case disinvested.

In Case Anyone is Having Problems Reading this Post by Environment, Kindly click on the image to enlarge it. Thanks!!!

USAF Pilot mocks IAF

USAF Pilot mocks IAF:
Great news guys, we got this news yesterday that one USAF pilot at the rank of Lt.col. mocked about Indian air force pilots and their Russian made state of the art SU-30MKI fighter planes. Actually the comments came on the back drop of India participating first time in the RED FLAG, an advanced aerial combat training exercise hosted at Nellis Air force Base Nevada and Eielson Air Force Base Alaska,which is meant for the NATO and other allied countries for real aerial combat situations. India was invited first time for this exercise in which more than 25 nations have already participated.
As far the reviews goes which I have read and heard in the talk shows..india proved far more better than is considered…..they even beat their USAF counter parts in drill and mock combats.and many new points have been appreciated about indian air force…one of them being the average age of the indian contingent ,which comprised a 247-IAF gentlemen of the Indian Air Force, was something like 25/26 years only..lowest in the whole group.
That means a lot…even our rookies can beat their expert fighter pilots.

In this 15-day multinational air exercise , the IAF involved eight SU-30 MK-Is, two IL-78 air-to-air refuellers and one IL-76 transport aircraft. The contigent comprised 156 personnel below the officers rank and 91 officers (including 10 members of ‘Garud’ — IAF’s special force).while Americans came with their billion dollars mad amchine F-22.

Reservation:The other side of the coin

india ...our beloved motherland ..the country of diversity,integrity,social justice...and a place where every body has got equal rights.but alas ! these things are always repeatedly said...but never realized.....in real, in truth.do we realise why we ever required this system of reservation in free india?and why this system was exclusively based on caste,and not any other relevant parameter?is the condition the same after 50 years...or we really require some change?considering the reports at that time the dalits could directly be substituted with highly backward,poor,illiterate and suffering.Mandal -1 commission was implemented 16 years back.condition still is almost the same if we could realise it.a very lopsided growth of our society.we talk of merit and quality......and not social justice.do we really compromisewith merit/quality?that shows our mentality ,our blind belives that some castes/communities are indeed fit for menial jobs and don't have the capabilities....to compete with so called "Sawarna"(upper class). we belive in the darwinian philosophy......survival for the fittest..so its never equal.......then what was wrong with britishers ruling ...the black,backward(comparetively) and illiterate indians?they were far more superior to us ,more fit to fight and survive.....what was wrong if they were ruling us?we don't require any reservation/Mandal if we can give answers to a few questions.do we really belive in "equality" and behave and think accordingly?Are not we ashamed of sharing a seat with a begger in a local bus?how could a begger be given the same rights as our Prime minister?can we tolerate one indigent sitting in a local train and we standing,waiting for the seat to get vaccant.never! don't we feel annoyed .we find /consider ourselves more superior in some way or other. so its truth that here we are still animals and we are required to fight for our survival.......and we should kill all our competitors......to make our survival more easy.A very Jungle raaj.....where only fittest could live.we want to make our country a developed nation within 20 years,with 36% obc, 23% sc, 9%st (statistics not standard)......under educated,under developed....suffering.about 35%(350 million) are below the poverty line, 75 per cent of them in the rural areas.why should we consider them?because they are indians ......or humans like us....why not our competitors,.....who will share our everything...bread,clothes and land......so why not kill them or let them die their own.......let them be suffering.....so that they couldnot stand to give us a challange. why should we suffer on behalf of development of india.with more than 75% of india in this poor condition we want to develop our nation. we want to say with pride that we belong to india.......where cast system is prevelent for last 2000 years .is not it glorifying?....and after 2000 years of social struggle and social education to eradicate this outdated and most irrelevant social institution ,this utter shameful social stigma.....we still feel proud being called as a Brahmin,or Rajput? Mahatma gandhi gave a new name "Harijans"to the so called untouchables. going with the literal meaning of "Harijan",can we call a brahmin with the same name?no,we cannot......the meaning of harijan is still substituted with untouchables .this is the power of the stigma .do we feel anything wrong in it?if we...then we don't require anyshort of reservation......if not then we don't have the right to go against,demonstrating...and making the whole system defunct and jeopardized.do we feel helping the poors and suffering in our neighbour,and do we take real actions to help them.....if we then we don't need this reservation.if not then yes, why not?a second missing aspect of all the discussions is pervasive lack of attention to what reservation has achieved in india.it has indeed created awareness amongst the backward classes and will produce some acts of balancing.even though this system will benefit many classes in many ways, a great deal of caution is to be exercised in ensuring that the policy strenthens only those who really require it. i.e we are require to take in account ,every aspect of it......this may be a ripe time for reconsideration of the exclusively caste based criteria.

Discrimination in India

Around the world societies have been segmented along different lines. But in the modern times when liberty, equality and fraternity is the Philosophy in most civilised societies including India (See also the Preamble to the Constitution of India), these social divisions are almost extinct. But India seems to have carried forward this legacy of differentiation in society along a very distinctive line that is called Caste. Historically, the Caste System as it is prevalent in India today is based upon the Varnashram, one of the two basic constituents of an ideal Hindu way of life. This system finds mention in the Rig Veda, a hindu scripture that was written and compiled somewhere between 2000 B.C. and 1500 B.C. According to Varnashram the division in the society was to be made on the basis of the vocation of the people. Every individual belonged to a caste to which his profession related. Originally there were only four caste; Brahmin (the learned one, who interpreted the scriptures), Kshatriya (the Warriors), Vaishya (the entrepreneurs), and Shudras (the peasants). With time appeared sub-castes and instead of the basis being that of profession, it became birth. Anyone born to a Brahmin was a Brahmin and so on... With time inequalities in the society got entrenched and the lower castes started getting exploited at the hands of the upper castes. And this continues even till date. Today the Indian society looks more or less as follows;

· Upper Castes (the original Brahmins and Kshatriyas and some Vaishyas)

· Backward castes (some of the original Vaishyas and some shudras)

· Scheduled Castes (the Untouchables, as they were prior to 26 Jan 1950)

· Scheduled Tribes (the original tribes of India)

Most of the Higher echelons of management whether in the Private sector or the Public sector are occupied and controlled by the upper castes (Out of the 60 odd years of our independence, for more than 40 years we have had a Brahmin Prime Minister). Most of the Economic wealth in India is controlled by the upper castes, the industries are owned by upper castes, the land is owned by the upper castes, the print and electronic media is controlled by the upper castes. The power elite in India are the upper castes.

In India discrimination at workplace starts at the recruitment stage, and more often than not it is through informal modes that discrimination is practiced. Article 14 of the constitution prohibits unequal treatment of any kind, and imposes a positive obligation on the state to ensure equality. Articles 39 (b) and (c) also impose an obligation upon the state to remove social and economic inequalities. And discrimination of any sort that is direct or formal would invite legal action. Therefore more often than not what is practiced is indirect or informal discrimination. The most common excuse of discrimination is so called Merit, where candidates are rejected on flimsy grounds such as poor English. Even where they are called up for interview or assessment they are judged primarily on grounds based on extraneous factors such as caste and mother tongue rather than on merit.

Most of the people belonging to the lower castes live below poverty line, and though government provides them with free education it is never up to the level of good English medium public schools. And most of them lag behind in competitive exams and interviews. Add to that indirect discrimination in organisations on caste lines, their representation in the higher echelons of management remains meagre. Most of the people belonging to the lower castes still work in the lower rungs of the organisational setup (where they were supposed to work according to their respective castes) and do menial jobs.

It is not like you would not find people of lower castes any more unemployed as compared to upper castes. In fact it is the other way round, most of the people of lower castes in India are employed and more of upper caste work force is unemployed, this is because most of the lower caste people do manual labour intensive works in the lower rungs of the organisation where it is easy to find employment where as upper castes people do skilled work in the higher echelons and not many jobs are actually available there.

Discrimination occurs when it comes to offering them positions higher up in the hierarchy. This happens to be the upper caste bastion and they don’t want to lose their ground and rarely allow workers from other caste to breach it.

Even if someone is able to breach this barrier and reach the top, he faces lots of difficulty working within the organisation. If there are upper caste workers below him in the hierarchy they will not cooperate with him fully at work. Informal groups within the organisation would come up which would start restricting work.

Article 15(1) of the constitution of India prohibits discrimination broadly; it says that the government cannot discriminate against the citizens on the grounds ‘only’ of religion, race, caste, sex, language and pace of birth. (Granville Austin, 1999)

The government of India has, from time to time right since the constitution came into force on the 26^th of January 1950, made laws to provide protection to the weaker sections of the society. And right from that day the upper castes have challenged these legislations on the ground of being discriminatory. In 1951 The Supreme Court of India, struck down one such legislation (the communal GO) as being discriminatory and unconstitutional as it prohibited a Brahmin from getting entry into a medical school on grounds other than merit. (State of Madras Vs C Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 227, cited in Granville Austin, 1999) (Interestingly even the Higher judiciary in India is dominated by the upper castes, though at the moment we have a scheduled caste Chief Justice of India, a first in 60 years of Independence.)

The government had no option but to amend the constitution to accommodate such legislations and the Constituent Assembly acting at that time as the parliament of India promulgated the first amendment to the constitution of India inserting Article 15(4) which said that the state could make special provisions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally backward classes of citizens. Since then the constitution has been amended several times in order to remove disparities in the Indian Society. (It must be noted that Article 15 is a fundamental right and Article 15 (4) is no exception to Article 15(1) it is a separate fundamental right guaranteed only to those belonging to the backward classes. And it does not seek to create an exception into the concept of equal opportunities but as a matter of fact modify the definition of equal opportunities in the Indian context.)

Since the very beginning, the government of India has followed a policy of Positive Discrimination (Reservations) in favour of the backward castes. Though it is illegal in UK, it is perfectly legal in India and has shown considerable results in India. The representation of people belonging to the backward classes in the power elite has increased many folds since independence. And there has been a considerable change in the attitude of people as well in relation to their acceptance. Though this is mostly in the urbanised centres and the effect has still to reach the hinterland, where disabilities relating to caste are very much prominent.

The critics of this approach though would say that those who have reached the top never needed any reservations in jobs or education, because they belonged to economically well off families and had the capacity reach the top on their own. But all said and done they forget one major point and that is; discrimination within the organisation is not on economic lines but on caste lines. And even if they were meritorious, would the upper castes who dominate the power elite in India allow them to enter their bastion without resistance? The answer is plain and simple NO. The attitude now may have changed considerably in the cities, but it took 60 years of reservations, and how many more it will take so that it reaches the villages is anybody’s guess. (It must also be noted that more than 70% of India lives in Villages and another 15% in small towns where the effects have been only partial.)

Reservations as a means of positive discrimination has only been able to help the lower castes break free of the caste barriers and reach the top in the organisation even at the cost of merit, but it cannot change the attitude of people. It can only help where people are ready to accept change, and change is least accepted where it relates to losing power. The attitudes will never change if an upper caste worker keeps asking himself; how can a lower caste officer, issue me orders? It will only change if they start believing that both of them are EQUAL.

This also leads us to the modified concept of equal opportunities in India. Equal opportunities has a significance in societies where there is some sort of equality of status, and discrimination is practiced on extraneous factors such as workers not willing to work alongside a particular group of people. But both groups as such should not be treating themselves as any less than other. In other words the conflict is more on ideology, for example, conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Or the opinion among some that disables are any less competent than others or that some person doesn’t wish to employ someone of a different sexual orientation or on part-time basis. In all these cases the conflict is of opinion or ideology, and there is not much difference in the social status of the two groups.

In India the case unfortunately is not so. There is a large difference in the social status of people belonging to lower castes and those belonging to upper castes. In other words India is a primarily unequal society. And everyone cannot be treated equally. Because if we treat unequals equally, we will inevitably lead to more inequality in the society. And therefore in places like India, UNEQUAL TREATMENT AMONG UNEQUALS should be the guiding principle.