Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Home Blog Page 757

Paradise Papers: BJP MP hauls Indian Express up

Ashish Shukla
-
0
Paradise Papers: BJP MP hauls Indian Express up

Bharatiya Janata Party Rajya Sabha MP, Ravindra Kishore Sinha, has sought Privileges Proceedings against top brass of Indian Express, namely, (a) Vivek Goenka, chairman; (b) Rajkamal Jha, chief editor; (c) Ritu Sarin and (d) Shyamlal Yadav on its “motivated attempt to tarnish his reputation” via expose on “Paradise Papers” on November 6, 2017.

In a letter written to Venkaiah Naidu, Chairman, Rajya Sabha, published as an advertisement in newspapers on Wednesday, Sinha has accused Indian Express of “unethical journalism…in the name of freedom of the press.”

Indian Express had alleged that Sinha was “illegally associated with (a) an offshore company, viz SIS Asia Pacific Holding Limited (SAPHL), incorporated in Malta; (b) that his nomination papers of Rajya Sabha election in 2014 didn’t declare his interest in offshore entities.

In his detailed letter/advertisement, Sinha has pointed out

  • Malta has an approved jurisdiction of full Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with India and doesn’t amount to “tax evasion, money laundering or any malafide intent”;
  • His holding company recently underwent “in-depth scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)…covering all regulations, including the Companies Act, Income Tax Act, SCRA, Stamp Act, FIPB, FEMA etc…no deficiency was found in terms of compliance.”
  • Rajya Sabha nomination form requires only “provisions of details of Assets and Liabilities of which I am the owner or direct beneficiary” which is not true in Sinha’s case (see the full advertisement in pic).

Sinha’s anguish stems from a clearly “vested interest” of Indian Express in publishing the report—and a sneering a mocking version of it online—which he termed as “misleading and devoid of facts,” despite Sinha having shared the details with Indian Express !

Over to Sinha:

“These facts were transparently shared with the Indian Express team prior to publication of the news report. Despite that, they have carried the misleading report devoid of facts and indulged in reputation assassination for vested interests.”

“If the Indian Express claims to be the beacon of independent journalism, why are they not targeting other reputed public figures such as Sachin Pilot, P. Chidambaram, Pinarayi Vijayan etc who have all been named in the ICU Paradise Papers?”

“The Indian Express report is unethical journalism in the name of freedom of the press/freedom of speech and is motivated attempt to tarnish my reputation built over decades. It is extremely sad to see the high standards of neutral and independent journalism set by Ramnath Goenka being destroyed under the current editorial leadership.”

In one word: Damning!!!

One doesn’t know if Sinha tried to put this advertisement in Indian Express for it’s not in its today’s edition. Or, if he did and failed in his attempt. Still, the matter is now in public domain and Express would’ve to come up with an explanation.

At least the Privilege Proceedings against Indian Express is being sought for. Whether Editors’ Guild of India reacts to it is a guess as good as yours as mine. Press Council of India, a Central Statutory Authority, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting—Mrs Smriti Irani being at the helm—surely should step in as Fake News in Mainstream Media—Lutyens’ Media—is more rampant than ever.

Remembering Bipin Chandra Pal: Who called Gandhi “Papal Autocrat”

Ashish Shukla
-
0
Remembering Bipin Chandra Pal: Who called Gandhi “Papal Autocrat”

The popular history has Indian National Congress-Mahatma Gandhi-Ahimsa-Independence as a sequential thread embedded in the mind of free Indians. The disruptive truth of 1905-1920 is hardly in circulation; the parallel flow of revolutionaries beginning with Lal-Bal-Pal and extending till Subhas Chandra Bose are like distant relatives we haven’t been keeping in touch with.

Between 1905-1920, India buzzed with the cry of Purna Swaraj, Swadeshi, boycott and the educational reforms. The triumvirate of Lala Lajpati Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal shook the conscience of the masses with oratory, vision and action. The Moderates, who had controlled the levers of Congress from its inception since 1885, became a side story in people’s mind for this decade and a half.

The years 1905-1920 are not just about Congress in modern India; these are years where you could trace back the roots of Muslim appeasement and the horrors of the Partition.

The birth anniversary of Bipin Chandra Pal (November 7, 1858) affords us an occasion to view these times through the prism of this man who for his magnificent oratory was called the “Burke of India” and whom Sri Aurobindo was apt to refer as one of the “Mightiest Prophets of Nationalism.” His wealthy background in his birthplace Sylhet (now in Bangladesh); the remarkable pen he wielded as an editor and author; and his commitment for improving the lot of women- Pal married widows twice- pale in significance to his role in India’s freedom struggle, beginning 1905.

This catalyst of a year was when Bengal was partitioned between commercially rich but largely Hindu West Bengal and economically weak and largely Muslim East Bengal. British clearly had Hindu-Muslim divide in mind as Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, wrote in a letter to the then Secretary of State for India, St. John Brodrick on February 2, 1905:

“Calcutta is the centre from which the Congress party is manipulated throughout the whole of Bengal; and indeed the whole of India. Its best wire-pullers and its most frothy orators all reside here. The perfection of their machinery…are truly remarkable.” Curzon further wrote in the letter that if Bengal was divided, it would dethrone Calcutta “from its place as the center of successful intrigue.” Curzon assured the secretary that Indians “always howl until a thing is settled; then they accept it.” (1)

Pal, along with Lalaji and Tilak, was instrumental in ensuring ruling British didn’t meet with their objective and were forced to reunite Bengal only six years later in 1911. He travelled around the country and unleashed a wave of resistance from the masses with his subliminal oratory. Boycott wasn’t limited to British goods alone; it extended to even British public institutions. Groups and committees, gatherings and demonstrations, mass pamphleteering and rousing speeches had the country inflamed. The more British tried to repress the wave; the more it gained in intensity. Its froth extended to expressions in culture, literature and science. Rabindranath Tagore wrote Banglar Mati Banglar Jolas, a rallying cry to advocates of annulment of Bengal Partition. (2)

The fervour of this national response evoked anxiety and not a little envy from the Moderates who still controlled the Congress and who had believed all along in the philosophy of “prayers, petitions and protests.” Most of the Moderates were on good terms with the high-ranking British officials in 1905 and had also held cushioned jobs.

Six months after the Bengal Partition, The Congress session was held in Banares in December 1905. The division between Moderates and Extremists was out in the open. The Extremists wanted the visit of Prince of Wales to be boycotted in protest to the Partition; the Moderates opposed this move. Moderates invited one of staunchest in its ranks, Dadabhai Naoroji, a founder of Congress, a former MP in British Parliament and then living in England, to come and preside over the session in 1906. However, Extremists prevailed in the session and “Swaraj” was declared the aim of the Congress (against the wishes of Moderates who still preferred Constitutional reforms).

The Surat Session in 1907 was a monumental moment for Congress and India’s future. Moderates stood in opposition to Purna Swaraj and Swadeshi; Bal Gangadhar Tilak was not even allowed to speak by none other than Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya. The Extremists thereafter were debarred and ruling British moved in for the kill. (3)

British unleashed a brutal crackdown on the Extremists. Their newspaper was closed; Tilak was banished to Mandalay Jail for six years; Pal was arrested for not giving evidence against Sri Aurobindo and compelled to opt out to England between 1908-1911. British followed up this measure by snuggling up to Muslims and the Moderates and took the wind out of India’s resistance.

Pal returned to Congress in 1916 but by then the stage was set for the advent of Mahatma Gandhi on another moderate Gopalkrishna Gokhale’s invitation. Gandhi’s subsequent movement of non-cooperation, as an allied action to Khilafat Movement, was seen as fanning the Pan-Islamism, and introducing the religious element in India’s politics by the likes of Pal. Khilafat Movement, to the uninitiated, was launched by Muslims in support of restoration of Ottoman Sultan in faraway Turkey, fully backed by Gandhi and Congress in a bid to promote Hindu-Muslim Unity.

The envisioned unity was a pipe-dream and start of Muslim appeasements by Gandhi-led Congress. It fanned the ambition of Mohammad Ali Jinnah for a separate Muslim state. The resultant Partition and rivers of blood which flowed in its wake still carries scars and repercussions for India’s future. As for the British, they were all too happy to introduce “separate electorates” and fan the communal divide between Hindu and Muslims.

Pal turned his back on Congress but not before he made a scathing attack on Gandhi in the 1921 session. “You wanted magic. I tried to give you logic. But logic is in bad odor when the popular mind is excited. You wanted mantaram, I am not a Rishi and cannot give mantaram…I have never spoken a half-truth when I know the truth…I have never tried to lead people in faith blind-folded.” He was critical of Gandhi for his “priestly, pontificating tendencies.” Comparing Gandhi with Leo Tolstoy, Pal noted that Tolstoy “was an honest philosophical anarchist,” while Gandhi to him was a “papal autocrat.” (4)

Pal, who kept out of public life between 1921-1932, died in a state of penury.

Kamal Hassan: Red opportunism

Sanjay Dutta
-
0
Kamal Hassan: Red opportunism

A wise man once said and I quote “Terrorism has no religion.” But the recent developments in Indian politics and media regarding it’s usage has got me thinking about the hypocrisy and double standards of the people using it either to propel their political career or simply to throw in their reaction or push for their ideology to the common public.

Now the incident started with a statement from Mr. Kamal Hassan who said that Hindu extremism and terrorism does exist and found overwhelming support from left parties and from Kerala CM Pinari Vijayan in particular. Now learned and well articulated man like Mr Hassan should first remember that terrorism has no religion and the cases he is referring to as Hindu terrorism is nothing but mob violence or hooliganism which in my opinion should be dealt with strictly and offenders punished aptly. But terming it as Hindu terrorism in my opinion is a pure case of trying to earn political brownie points.

I am huge admirer for Mr. Hassan’s work and I always thought of him as someone who is genuinely interested in the welfare of the common people. He was always anti establishment and pro people as is evident in his wide range of movies he has done over the years. I always knew him has someone who was extremely patriotic and stood up for what is right. In fact he was one of the very few big stars to openly slam the Award Wapsi Brigade.

But the developments have made me question my opinion on him. He firstly announced his political aspirations, backtracked on his statement on demonitization, spoken about the so called Hindu terrorism, told the media that his political colour was definitely not saffron.

These statement wrecks of political opportunism from Mr. Hassan’s part who clearly is trying to create a space for himself in the current political scenario. He should remember that it was not Hindu terrorism which targeted his films like Hey Ram and Vishwaroopam, he of all people should know the difference between hooliganism and terrorism.

Now the same sentiments have been echoed by his peers in the South Indian film Industry, namely Arvind Swamy and Prakash Raj. Now I didn’t read the interview where Arwind Swamy spoke about it and would rather not comment on him. But Prakash Raj seems like Hardcore Communist Comrade who blamed the PM and even Yogi Aditynath for the murder of Gauri Lankesh and said they were better actors than he.

Now my only question to Mr. Raj, do you pick and choose the issues that satisfy your ideology? You have openly slammed the incumbent government on the murder of the above mentioned scribe but haven’t seen you speak on the brutal murder of Shantanu Bhoumick, killed by a group while covering the clashes between groups of your comrades. You have openly spoken about Hindu terror but fail to utter the type of name of terror playing the entire world. You can will speak up openly against the hooliganism by some alleged Gau Rakshas but never utter a single word on the violence and rage faced by people reporting illegal slaughter in your own city- Bangaluru.

Both Kamal Hassan and Prakash Raj have openly come out either in support of people in the left wing or taken a leftist stand, which I think is a very dangerous stand to take in our country. I say this because you compare Left parties in our country and West. The left parties in West are anti establishment, both authoritarian and religions, liberals in their thoughts. Whereas in India the left is not anti establishment, it is selective in it’s criticism of religious institutions. They only Target the Hindu practices and beliefs openly but stay mum on radicalization in Islam or evangelical organisation.

The ideology of Communism or Left centric politics is flawed because the left appears to be nothing but selective liberalism who believe in appeasing the minorities and slamming the majority. Their only agenda is pushing forth their political ideology and they could care less about the welfare of the nation because they do not believe in the idea of this nation as was made evident by Mr. Ritabrata Banerjee who was suspended from CPI(M) for saying “Joy Bangla” (Long Live Bengal) and singing Vande Mataram.

In the end, I would like to quote Mr. Ronald Reagan, former US President who said this on Communism “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

‘द वायर’ के निशाने पे शौर्य दोवाल भले दिखें, पर असली निशाना कहीं और है

nopretence
-
0
‘द वायर’ के निशाने पे शौर्य दोवाल भले दिखें, पर असली निशाना कहीं और है

हाल ही में वेब पोर्टल ‘द वायर’ द्वारा प्रतिष्ठित थिंक-टैंक ‘इंडिया फ़ाउंडेशन’ के सम्बंध में छपी एक रिपोर्ट ने मीडिया के सम्बंध में यह छवि और पुख़्ता कर दी है कि आज का मीडिया ख़बरें कम और राजनैतिक निशानेबाज़ी में ज़्यादा संलिप्त है।

यह ख़बर मीडिया जगत में जाली-ख़बरों के लिए कुख्यात स्वाति चतुर्वेदी की तथाकथित ‘खोजी पत्रकारिता’ पर आधारित है, जिसमें ना तो कोई खोज हैं, ना ही पत्रकारिता, और ना ही पत्रकार। स्वाति चतुर्वेदी के माध्यम से इस वेब पोर्टल में ‘इंडिया फ़ाउंडेशन’ पर निशाना लगाते हुए यह दर्शाने की कोशिश की गई है कि फ़ाउंडेशन और उसकी गतिविधियाँ दरअसल देसी-विदेशी कॉरपोरेट्स और सरकार के मंत्रियो को क़रीब लाने का बहाना भर है।

और ना सिर्फ़ इतना, बल्कि फ़ाउंडेशन के बहाने देश के राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार पर उनके पुत्र शौर्य दोवाल के ज़रिए निशाना साधने की कोशिश की गयी हैं। दरअसल रिपोर्ट का शीर्षक ही फ़ाउंडेशन के बारे में नहीं बल्कि ‘राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार के बेटे’ द्वारा चलायी जा रही संस्था के बारे में है।

परंतु रिपोर्ट पर एक सरसरी निगाह ही यह समझने के लिए काफ़ी हैं की इसमें ना तो कुछ भी तथ्य हैं और न ही शब्दों के मायाजाल में कोई करणीय संबंध।

यह कहना कि समकालीन भारत सरकार के कुछ मंत्री इंडिया फ़ाउंडेशन में निदेशक हैं और इसीलिए यह ग़लत है, तर्कहीन बात है। पहला की ये सदस्य सरकार बनाने से पहले से ही फ़ाउंडेशन में निदेशक पद पर आसीन थे और दूसरा सरकार का कोई भी क़ानून या आचरण सम्बंधी निर्देश उन्हें इस प्रकार के मानद निदेशक का पद स्वीकार करने से नहीं रोकता है। इनका फ़ाउंडेशन की दैनिक गतिविधियों से या वित्तीय कार्यों से कोई लेना देना नहीं होता है।

यहाँ ये याद दिलाना आवश्यक है कि सोनिया गांधी, पी चिदंबरम, मनमोहन सिंह इत्यादि यू॰पी॰ए॰ के कार्यकाल में अपने-अपने पद पर रहते हुए भी राजीव गांधी फ़ाउंडेशन में शामिल थे। वही राजीव गांधी फ़ाउंडेशन, जिसे ज़ाकिर नाइक की संस्था इस्लामिक रिसर्च फाउंडेशन (आईआरएफ) ने यू॰पी॰ए॰ के कार्यकाल में 50 लाख का फ़ंड दिया था। वही ज़ाकिर नाइक जिस पर आतंकवाद को समर्थन और बढ़ावा देने का आरोप हैं और जिसके मलेशिया से प्रत्यर्पण की तैयारी राष्ट्रीय जांच एजेंसी कर रही है। वही इस्लामिक रिसर्च फाउंडेशन जो भारत में इस्लामिक स्टेट के लिए भर्ती करने वाले अबू अनस को भी फ़ंड करती थी और आज मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग और टेरर फंडिंग के चलते अलकायदा जैसे संगठनों के साथ प्रतिबंधित सूची में है।

दूसरा यह कहना की सरकार के मंत्रियो का उद्योग-जगत, शिक्षा-जगत, सिविल-सॉसाययटी, लेखकों व अन्य लोगों से मिलना कोई संदिग्ध गतिविधि हैं अपने आप ही में हास्यपद हैं। सरकार और उसके मंत्री-अधिकारी हर क्षेत्र के लोगों से मिलते हैं और बातचीत करते हैं और उसके लिय उन्हें किसी फ़ाउंडेशन के प्लाट्फ़ोर्म की आवश्यकता नहीं है।

फ़ाउंडेशन द्वारा किए गए सम्मेलनों, परामर्शों की सारी सूचना सार्वजनिक हैं। उनके विडीओज़, वक्ताओं, प्रायोजकों सभी की जानकारी किसी से भी छुपी हुई नहीं हैं। ऐसे में इस रिपोर्ट में आख़िर ‘न्यूज़’ क्या हैं यह पता करना मुश्किल है। हाँ ज़ाकिर नाइक और माओवादी तरीक़े की कन्स्पिरसी-थेओरीस बहुलता में हैं।

और रही बात शौर्य दोवाल और उनकी कम्पनी की, तो जब तक यह नहीं दर्शाया जाता की कोई ग़ैरक़ानूनी गतिविधि हुई है या फिर कोई लॉबीइंग हुई और उसके एवज़ में फ़ंड ट्रान्स्फ़र हुए हैं, सिर्फ़ यह कहना की किसी निदेशक की कोई वित्तीय कंपनी हैं और अंतरराष्ट्रीय बाजार में डील करती हैं और इसीलिए कुछ ‘गड़बड़’ हैं सिर्फ़ व्यर्थ का प्रवाद हैं। शौर्य दोवाल फ़ाउंडेशन के अनेको निदेशको में से सिर्फ़ एक हैं, लेकिन रिपोर्ट में यह दर्शाने की क़ोशिश की गई हैं जैसे इंडिया फ़ाउंडेशन उनकी संस्था है।

दरअसल निशाना तो वो भी नहीं हैं, जैसा कि शीर्षक से स्पष्ट हैं की निशाने पर तो भारत के राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार और सुरक्षा नीति हैं। मीडिया के कई लोगों ने लगातार दोक़लम मुद्दे पर फ़ेक न्यूज़ चलाई हैं और पूरे मुद्दे तो भारत की पराजय के रूप में दिखाने की कोशिश की है।

दोक़लम पर भारत सरकार, सेना और राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार द्वारा उठाए गए कठोर और अप्रत्याशित क़दम और कश्मीर में अलगाववादी और नक्सलियों पर कड़ी कार्रवाई ने ना सिर्फ़ चीन बल्कि भारत में भी ‘भारत तेरे टुकड़े होंगे’ के नारों का अभिव्यक्ति की आज़ादी के नाम पर समर्थन करने वालों को बड़ा सदमा पहुँचाया है। ऐसे में इस रिपोर्ट का असल उद्देश्य क्या हैं यह भी एक प्रश्नचिह्न है?

यह प्रश्न इसलिए भी उठता हैं क्यूँकि रिपोर्ट में रक्षा-क्षेत्र की अमेरिका और इजरायल की कम्पनीज़ को ख़ास तौर पर टार्गेट किया गया हैं। एक ऐसा पोर्टल जिसे सिद्धार्थ वरदराजन नाम का एक विदेशी नागरिक चलता हैं, जिसकी ख़ुद की फ़ंडिंग भी पारदर्शी नहीं हैं, और जो जाली न्यूज़ के लिया बदनाम हैं उसमें एक ऐसी ‘पत्रकार’ द्वारा, जिसे उसके अखबार ने जॉर्ज फर्नांडीस के फ़र्ज़ी इंटर्व्यू के लिए बर्खास्त कर दिया था, एक ऐसी रिपोर्ट छपवाना जिसे कोई भी ज़िम्मेद्दर और विश्वसनीय मीडिया हाउस ख़ारिज कर देगा एक गम्भीर मुद्दा है।

Revolution for Kashmir

mihirujjainwal
-
0
Revolution for Kashmir

As 26th October came, while the rest of the India was celebrating Accession day of Kashmir, the Kashmiri separatists had called for a day protest in the valley, calling it a black day. This year has already been bloody humid for the separatist leaders already because the return of the Cordon and Search Operations and 180 terrorists are already sent to their makers by the Armed Forces while 2 more months are still left on the calendar. The ongoing momentum of psuedo-freedom movement has been badly damaged with the decreased number of stone-pelting incidents by many-folds. On one hand the army has crushed the back-bone of the militancy, the NIA has been consistent in their raids to look out for the source of the terror funding.

The Army will continue to kill the enemies of the state, but the question occurs: what we need to do to stop militancy from the roots. It’s not the job of the Armed forces to solve the Geo-political drama of the valley. Well, it hasn’t been political or geographical since 1989, when the Jihad exploded and since then Kashmir has to compromise with the actual freedom, the freedom of thinking. There is a great saying, “If you can win hearts, you can win the whole world”. The center government now must understand as the time passes and the militancy is contained by the army, it is the time when they call up for the most needed Revolution in Kashmir.

On the basis of actual facts, Kashmir never developed either in the terms of infrastructure or the state of mind. You can simply call out the reason for this, whether the tensions with Pakistan or the unrest going on, but the only thing which can get up Kashmir in the real value is getting Kashmir out of the Third World and put it in the front. But, how would that happen? No, it won’t happen in one or two months, or even months, but it is worth doing. Article 370 and Article 35A has already been a headache for private industrialization, no one can buy land or set up industries, not at least they get the permission from the Legislative Assembly. There is some place where we need to soften the laws, even if they don’t want to completely or partially remove these laws, they have to provide certain exceptions and permissions for the businesses to set up and companies to flourish, to produce more job.

Coming to the psychological state of the people, Jammu and Kashmir is much more developed than Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, but it’s just not enough, is it? The people of Kashmir has actually not tasted the freedom of thinking, choice and work. The state and central government need to promote more and more things related to entertainment or technology and most importantly education. Education would be the last thing the terror organisations would want the Kashmiris to do, cause they hide the truth and “Education is the key to open the lock of these closed minds”. Promoting or even enforcing Education, other things like entertainment, when was the time when a cinema hall was open in Kashmir? I don’t remember it eventually. Especially promoting things which these terror groups oppose, like freedom of clothing.

Cause the separatists don’t want to spoil their craft work, they will go to any extent to keep the unrest going, whether it means burning down schools or shutting malls or cinema halls, they don’t the youth to look outside the window and breathe some fresh air. The revolution of Kashmir is not a small step, it will need consistency, some large efforts and very observed and calculated steps. Even so it would take a lot of time, but we have given 70 years of peace, why don’t 5-10 more?

विश्व बैंक रिपोर्ट एक ठंडी हवा का झोंका बनकर आई है

डॉ नीलम महेंद्र
-
0
विश्व बैंक रिपोर्ट एक ठंडी हवा का झोंका बनकर आई है

जब नोटबंदी और जीएसटी को देश की घटती जीडीपी और सुस्त होती अर्थव्यवस्था का कारण बताते हुए सरकार लम्बे अरसे से लगातार अपने विरोधियों के निशाने पर हो, और 8 नवंबर को विपक्ष द्वारा काला दिवस मनाने की घोषणा की गई हो, ऐसे समय में कारोबारी सुगमता पर विश्व बैंक की हालिया रिपोर्ट सरकार के लिए एक ठंडी हवा का झोंका बनकर आई है।

लेकिन जिस प्रकार कांग्रेस इस रिपोर्ट को ही फिक्सड कहते हुए अपनी हताशा जाहिर कर रही है वो निश्चित ही अत्यंत दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है। उसकी इस प्रकार की नकारात्मक रणनीति के परिणामस्वरूप आज न सिर्फ कांग्रेस खुद ही अपने पतन का कारण बन रही है बल्कि देशवासियों को पार्टी के रूप में कोई विकल्प और देश के लोकतंत्र को एक मजबूत विपक्ष भी नहीं दे पा रही है।

सरकार के विरोधियों को उनका जवाब शायद वर्ल्ड बैंक की “ईज आफ डूइंग बिजनेस” रैंकिंग की ताजा रिपोर्ट में मिल गया होगा जिसमें इस बार भारत ने अभूतपूर्व 30 अंकों की उछाल दर्ज की है।

यह सरकार की आर्थिक नीतियों का परिणाम ही है कि 190 देशों की इस सूची में भारत 2014 में 142 वें पायदान पर था, 2017 में सुधार करते हुए 130 वें स्थान पर आया और अब पहली बार वह इस सूची में 100 वें रैंक पर है। अगर अपने पड़ोसी देशों की बात करें तो महज 0.40 अंकों के सुधार के साथ चीन 78 वें पायदान पर है, पाकिस्तान 147 और बांग्लादेश 177 पर। सरकार का लक्ष्य 2019 में 90 और  2020 तक 30 वें पायदान पर आना है।

प्रधानमंत्री का कहना है कि “सुधार, प्रदर्शन और रूपांतरण के मंत्र की मार्गदर्शिका के अनुसार हम अपनी रैंकिंग में और सुधार के लिए और अधिक आर्थिक वृद्धि को पाने के लिए प्रतिबद्ध हैं।” रिपोर्ट की सबसे खास बात यह है कि भारत को इस साल सबसे अधिक सुधार करने वाले दुनिया के टॉप टेन देशों में शामिल किया गया है और बुनियादी ढांचे में सुधार करने के मामले में यह शीर्ष पर है।

भारत के लिए निसंदेह यह गर्व की बात है कि इस प्रतिष्ठित सूची में वह दक्षिण एशिया और ब्रिक्स समूह का एकमात्र देश है। 2003 में जब यह रिपोर्ट जारी की गई थी, तब इसमें 5 मुद्दों के आधार पर 133 देशों की अर्थव्यवस्था को शामिल किया था लेकिन इस साल 11 बिन्दुओं के आधार पर 190 देशों की अर्थव्यवस्था में यह रैंकिंग की गई है।

चूंकि विश्व बैंक की यह रिपोर्ट हर साल 1 जून तक के प्रदर्शन पर आधारित होती हैं इसलिए इस साल एक जुलाई से लागू किए गए जीएसटी और उसके प्रभाव को इसमें शामिल नहीं किया गया है। वर्ल्ड बैंक के साउथ एशिया के उपाध्यक्ष डिक्सन का कहना है कि यह रिपोर्ट संकेत देती है कि भारत के दरवाजे कारोबार के लिए खुले हैं और अब यह विश्व स्तर पर व्यापार करने के लिए पसंदीदा स्थान के रूप में कड़ी टक्कर दे रहा है।

मुख्यमंत्री के रूप में अपने कार्यकाल के दौरान मोदी ने गुजरात को व्यापार की दृष्टि से “गेटवे आफ इंडिया” बना दिया था। देश के लगभग सभी बड़े औद्योगिक घराने अन्य राज्यों की अपेक्षा गुजरात को उसकी आर्थिक नीतियों के कारण निवेश के लिए सर्वश्रेष्ठ राज्य मानते थे। विश्व बैंक की यह ताजा रिपोर्ट इस बात का सुबूत है कि अपनी नई आर्थिक नीतियों के सहारे भारत आज व्यापार और निवेश की दृष्टि से दुनिया की नजरों में पहले के मुकाबले कहीं अधिक आकर्षक और उपयोगी सिद्ध हो रहा है। आने वाले समय में शायद भारत विदेशी निवेश की दृष्टि से “गोटवे आफ द वर्ल्ड” बन जाए।

दिल्ली और मुंबई के कॉर्पोरेट जगत से मिली जानकारी के आधार पर तैयार की गयी इस रिपोर्ट के अनुसार जहाँ पहले नया व्यवसाय शुरू करने के लिए व्यक्ति को बैंक से लोन लेने से लेकर विभिन्न कानूनी प्रक्रिया का पालन करते हुए महीनों पसीना बहाने के साथ साथ अपनी मेहनत की कमाई भी भ्रष्टाचार की भेंट चढ़ानी पड़ती थी। आज अधिकतर प्रक्रिया आनलाईन करके लालफीताशाही पर भी लगाम लगाने की काफी हद तक सफल कोशिश की गई है।

कर्ज लेना आसान बनाकर न सिर्फ देश में ‘स्किल इंडिया और मेक इन इंडिया’ के द्वारा उद्यमिता को बढ़ावा दिया गया बल्कि विदेशी निवेश को भी आकर्षित किया गया।

देश में अब तक छोटे निवेशकों के हितों को अनदेखा किया जाता था लेकिन अब सेबी द्वारा छोटे निवेश में भी सुरक्षा देने के लिहाज से कई कदम उठाए गए  जिनके आधार पर भारत ने इस क्षेत्र में नौ पायदान ऊपर आते हुए चौथी रैंकिंग हासिल की। टैक्स सुधारों के परिणामस्वरूप पहले की 172 रैंकिंग के मुकाबले इस बार 53 अंकों की उछाल के साथ भारत 119 वें स्थान पर है।

हालांकि आयात निर्यात जैसे क्षेत्र में भारत सरकार को अभी और काम करना है लेकिन दस में से आठ क्षेत्रों में सुधार के साथ यह कहा जा सकता है कि विरोध करने वाले जो भी कहें, देश प्रगति की राह पर चल पड़ा है।

Political bigotry of self-proclaimed left-liberals : Dichotomy of INC politics

Sreerag Raman Sreenivasan
-
0
Political bigotry of self-proclaimed left-liberals : Dichotomy of INC politics

The other day, Indira Gandhi Award for National Integration, as Congress would call it, was awarded to Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna. The award is advertised to be given annually to distinguish persons/institutions for promoting national integration and understanding and fellowship amongst religious groups, communities, ethnic groups, cultures, languages and traditions of India and strengthening, through thought and action of the nation’s sense of solidarity.

It is hard to find objective reasoning on how Mr. Krishna by choosing to sing, or not to, at certain venues was bolstering national integrity and not deepening the caste-divide. Obviously enough, Mr. Gandhi who read out his mother’s speech in her absence also couldn’t annotate more than, “Krishna’s engagement with the artistic scene has converged with his parallel reflections on the state of our society”, an ornamental statement which practically doesn’t make any sense. All of these are inconsequential as this was nothing more than a bonafide Congress party business to commemorate one of its leaders.

Iconic photograph of George Fernandez in shackles after declaration of National Emergency

But the speech read out by Mr. Gandhi at the event has some intrinsic inanities that warrant little intellectual discourse. In it Mr. Gandhi said the “idea of India that Indira Gandhi fought for has been thrown fundamentally into question by the rising intolerance that we are witnessing today.”  It is baffling what exactly was the idea of India that Indira Gandhi stood and fought for which is being challenged. What are the “liberal, tolerant Indian ethos Indira Gandhi embodied in her life that are being openly rejected and repudiated”?  Was he subtly mentioning the Louis XIV idea of ‘I’m the State’ which Ms. Gandhi manifestly stood and fought for in the 21-month period from 1975 to 1977? Or was he mentioning the bombing she ordered on her own countrymen in 1966?

That being ambiguous, he proceeds to express his agony on the challenge raised by alternative to Indira Gandhi’s idea of India in one part of the speech and later contradicts himself by alleging that the “view of Indianness is becoming one-sided, discriminatory and warped”. Thus by this paradoxical read-out speech he explicates that Indianness can’t be one-sided if it is other-sided but it essentially should be one-sided, which is ‘Indianness as thought by Indira’. The man himself while reiterating the need to protect Right to Dissent is vehemently disapproving the claim for the same by his political opposition. Mr. Gandhi ends the equivocal oration by targeting ruling dispensation by alleging of it “stifling independent thinking” while innately failing to realize that he himself was critical, all through, of the rise of independent thinking which posed a challenge to “idea of India that Indira Gandhi fought for”. Public remain amused by the evident dichotomy of disguised political bigotry inherent in Congress.

Book Review: Securing India the Modi Way

Ravi Singh
-
0
Book Review: Securing India the Modi Way

I have been an avid reader of Nitin Gokhale’s books. The latest being the 3rd part of the trilogy following ‘BEYOND NJ 9842: THE SIACHEN SAGA’ & ‘1965: Turning the tide’. ‘Securing India, the Modi way’ takes you to the decision-making table in Delhi, the MoD and the Army HQ. From the border conflicts on its eastern and western flank to the re-invigoration of Indian foreign policy, this book tries to covers a lot of ground.

A lot of accounts mentioned in this book are still ongoing, especially the Doklam issue, which makes for a more clear reading of the current situation.

Comparing the Accounts of Surgical Strikes

One of the first comparisons I made was with the recently released book – ‘India’s most fearless’ by Shiv Aroor & Rahul Singh. Nitin Gokhale had focused more on the broader context of what was going on behind the scenes in Delhi while Shiv Aroor had given a personal account of the Surgical strikes in Pakistan and Myanmar. A combined reading of both books gives a more holistic picture. That is good enough material to make a movie for an enterprising filmmaker.

Additionally, my perception of the Pathankot attack changed after reading the book as he gave a more balanced perspective of the magnitude of damage the terrorist would have inflicted had they succeeded. This was a far cry from the mainstream media which had deemed the attack as a major failure of the Modi Government.

Foreign Policy Czar

The author takes us through the 3 years of Modi Sarkar’s global outreach. From the Gulf countries to Israel to the West, Modi’s strategy of developing a personal equation with world leaders was something new. The fact that PM Modi was the first Prime Minister in over 34 years to visit UAE stands testament to the fact that this administration wants to reimagine India’s global standing.

When it comes to China, the government appears to have decided that the only way to counter aggressive Chinese moves on the border is to stand firm and not give into their tactics of creeping nibbling of territory. The Doklam (Dolam) standoff story mentioned in the book gives a clear picture of the context in terms of previous border crisis in Chumar (2014) & Depsang (2013). The standoff was itself resolved peacefully before the BRICS summit in Xiamen when PM Modi surprised President Xi Jinping by having an impromptu meeting during the G-20 summit in Hamburg, giving the opportunity of a face-saving resolution to China.

In its short-term, Modi government has quietly buried the non-alignment stand of India and moved India closer to the US, at the same time maintaining ties to Russia and Iran. A strong and decisive government has enhanced India’s credibility in the international arena

Defense Reforms

The author deftly covers the complexity of Defence procurement in India through his behind scenes take on the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) Rafale deal. Recent reforms in Defence procurement procedures (DPP) and allowing FDI in defence will definitely take time to show results. Despite the steps taken in the right direction, the administration’s handling of the OROP reforms stands out. What could have earned the government, some brownie points turned into a PR disaster. Looking back, this should have been avoided.

Space & Cyber Domain

Very few desi books have given a separate chapter to these areas despite its military and strategic importance in a technology-driven world. ISRO today has developed indigenous high imaging satellites with a spatial resolution of 65 cm can be used for urban development and monitoring terrorists at the same time. The author covers the recent completion of India’s very own Regional GPS satellite systems and the NavIC application being tested.

In the cyber domain, however, one is not sure how much of an impact will structural changes like the appointment of a National Cyber Security coordinator have. Right now, very little is known of India’s offensive and defensive capabilities in cyber warfare.

What was missed?

There was only a brief mention of the successful evacuation operations at Yemen by the Indian Navy. However, I would have loved to read the insider account of the events in South Block at that time. For those who are interested, Shiv Aroor covers the operations carried out by INS Sumitra through the personal account of Commander Milind Mohan Mokashi.

Although the book mentioned intelligence agencies in general, they were not covered in detail. It is hard to say for any outsider if there have been any significant reforms in the spy bureaucracy. My personal suggestion to Gokhale sir if he is reading this; there might be room for one last project on the intelligence services of India.

When Jairam Ramesh was asked to clear his stand on Aadhaar

Sunil Mishra
-
0
When Jairam Ramesh was asked to clear his stand on Aadhaar

Last week I attended a session on “Aadhaar- Dystopia or Utopia” in Bangalore lit fest. The moderator of the discussion who was writing a book on this subject began with a question to Mr. Jairam Ramesh –

“Sir, you have been one of the originators of the Aadhaar, the idea was first proposed by your ministry, but now you have turned out one of the fiercest critic of Aadhar. Where do you stand now?”

“I am not in a TV debate that I need to clear my stand” – Mr. Ramesh responded.

But the question kept coming back, the moderator was relentless in repeating that question.

Finally Mr. Ramesh responded on lighter note – “In parliamentary democracy you stand where you sit”.

The response was an indirect admission that the logic changes in politics based on which side of treasury bench one is. It was also an honest assessment as to why there are so many opposition voices for Aadhaar today.

To be fair to Mr. Ramesh, he did try to explain why he hates the program that he was an architect of. His principal argument was that Aadhar was planned only for government benefits schemes to solve the problem of leakages. He believed that the Aadhaar should have been limited for things like pension, subsidies and welfare schemes for rural people in particular.

His second argument was- technology is not foolproof. Some old people were inconvenienced while getting Aadhar biometric captured. But being an IIT graduate he himself was not convinced of his own logic. A passport can be faked, so can be a PAN card. If anything, the Aadhaar was far more difficult to fake. No technology can be fool proof ever, but it serves the purpose if it is a better tool than the prevailing process.

His third argument was the law was not ready before the implementation. The law should have been passed in 2010 but got delayed till 2016. But wasn’t it his own failing – “his ministry should have waited till the enactment of law.”  His defense “I only okayed for a small scale pilot program and not the real implementation”; it was a very weak argument because the UIDAI has been envisaged for a massive plan from day 1.

So when did he start hating the program?

It was sometime in 2014, when the new government picked up the legacy of the previous government and apparently tried to make a monster out of Aadhaar- in bank account, tax filing, direct benefit transfer and even telephones. The most convenient reason- even the BJP government opposed Aadhaar when they were in opposition. So Mr Ramesh’s change of view should not be seen from any particular interest.

From the lense of banking technologies, I believe Aadhar is the base that sets India apart on the world stage. UPI architecture is today the envy of most developed countries in the world. It is a unique program that will propel India faster on digital wave. I still can’t understand the issue of privacy that many people are perturbed so much. We are all happy to knowingly or unknowingly give all our data to Facebook and Google without even blinking an eye. At every click of at FB and Google we are sending our personal data to unknown consequences. We can at least sue our government for Aadhaar misuse if they fail in their custodial duties, can we sue Facebook and Google? We don’t even know what data laws and jurisdiction govern them?

Finally in the end, one from the audience asked a point blank question “shall we refuse to comply with the government mandate like linking PAN or bank account etc.?”

Thankfully Mr. Ramesh did not suggest him to defy the parliament enacted law. He said – “please don’t defy it, follow it wherever it has been mandated but fight it out after complying – in the media, court, public opinion etc.” The audience clapped and the session ended.

#Aadhaar #Blrlitfest #DigitalIndia

Motivating compliance to Anti-Sexual Harassment law: Two suggestions

Surya Prakash Pati
-
0
Motivating compliance to Anti-Sexual Harassment law: Two suggestions

Recently the Honourable Bombay High Court found Vodafone guilty of non-compliance with the Vishaka guidelines in a sexual harassment case. This, despite finding little material to substantiate the allegations of the complainant. Specifically, two violations were singled out. First, it came to light that a complaints committee was not available in the company during the time of occurrence of the alleged incident. Second, when the company brought to light that it did constitute an Inquiry Committee to investigate the allegation, the Court remarked, “Curiously that Inquiry Committee has admittedly not issued any notice to the Petitioner pertaining to her complaint and she was not examined and no opportunity of hearing was given to her. That inquiry was therefore no inquiry in the eyes of law”. Essentially the Court was holding Vodafone guilty of violating natural justice. The company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50000/- to the War Widow’s Association in New Delhi as fine.

Sexual harassment in organisations operating out of India is a recurring plague. The National Commission for Women recorded 542 complaints of sexual harassment in its Annual Report 2015 -16. More significantly, it figured among the top ten complaints received by the Commission concerning women. While often the cause of it is explained away in feminist literature as significant abuse of power by individuals in higher status (usually male supervisors) over that of lower status (mostly women), yet a more meaningful explanation is provided by the theory of Established – Outsiders relationship. According to it, sexual harassment is a resistance offered by the Established social group (usually men) to the Outsiders (usually women) in the latter’s quest for equality in opportunities and status. Therefore with the increase in number of women finding their way into the labour market, their decibels for acceptance across ranks will rise, threatening the “ordered” society and acknowledged status of the Established. And with it will grow the counts of sexual harassment incidents. This will continue till the balance of power becomes less unbalanced between both the genders. An expert report on sexual harassment in workplace commissioned by the European Union (completed in 1998) cited evidence in support of the above argument. In companies that employed more than 75% women, no sexual harassment incidents against women were reported, while majority of such incidents originated in companies where strength of women and men were equal.

So we need organizations to act as active conciliators during the negotiation of power between the Established and the Outsiders. We desire that they smoothen the transition and foster inclusivity in the limited but very well defined social space within their walls. This is important, for sexual harassment not only threatens individual safety and dignity of women, but also promises to dent the profitability of the businesses significantly. It may be recollected that after Mr. Phaneesh Murthy resigned from Infosys post a sexual harassment scandal in 2002, the company’s share price fell by 6.6%. This is in addition to the substantial payout that was made to settle the case. Despite this huge financial cost associated with sexual harassment, it’s often surprising that organisations show reluctance to follow the legal guidelines to prevent this. This was even acknowledged by the Honourable Bombay High Court in the Vodafone judgment. While opinions regarding this apparent hesitation may vary, I believe it’s because companies see little or no interest of theirs being served in driving this conversation for equality. Specifically, one section of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (2013) legislation disincentivizes all intended goodwill to act.

Section 22 of the said law reads, “The employer shall include in its report the number of cases filed, if any, and their disposal under this Act in the annual report of his organisation or where no such report is required to be prepared, intimate such number of cases, if any, to the District Officer”. Contrary to popular opinion that this clause would “size up” companies in taking sexual harassment in their premises seriously, I argue that this section could contribute in making organisations more passive witnesses in this struggle for equality and dignity. For there is little motivation to do the right and more loss in being just. The announcement of number of sexual harassment cases in the annual report could influence a certain imagery about the company in the labour market. In this globalised environment that demands the acquisition and retention of the best possible talent for a sustained competitive advantage, a knowledge of number of sexual harassment occurrences could possibly make the workplace significantly unattractive. This could make organisations unwelcoming to the aggrieved women and cautious to register their grievances. The Internal Complaints Committee, despite being present, would be reduced to a mere cosmetic tool to showcase compliance than action. For example it could never be a badge of honour for Wipro to top the list of highest number of recorded sexual harassment cases in the last financial year. Not even for ICICI which follows it at number two. Loss of reputation is undesirable. Further it inhibits access to resources. And in this case, human resources. Hence Section 22 must be repealed.

Last, the Indian law acknowledges that only women could be sexually harassed, which is an erroneous position to be in. Data across the world provide evidence that men have also been the victims this trauma, if not in equal proportion. For example the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US-EEOC) reported that 11.6% of the complaints of sexual harassment in workplaces received in fiscal year 1997 were from men which rose to 16.3% in 2011. A conversation on equality can never succeed if power of the State or the organisation is inclined towards a single gender. This is discriminatory to say the least. It only aids in repeating the history of dominance with a different axis of power, rather than creating a history of progress. Further every harassed employee, irrespective of gender, becomes a disengaged cog in the wheel of business. Taking a leaf out of the US-EEOC, it would be progressive to recognise that “the victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man”, and that “the victim does not have to be of the opposite sex”. This would provide more teeth to the law where employees would be treated as individuals having rights rather than genders seeking support and endorsement. For in the end it is individual justice that is of paramount importance.

1...756757758...890Page 757 of 890

Contact: [email protected]

About us

User generated chapter of OpIndia. Selected articles submitted here are published at main English or Hindi websites of OpIndia.

ऑपइंडिया

OpIndia

© OpIndia.com