Tuesday, October 22, 2024
Home Blog Page 847

Clinton Versus Trump Debate – No Clear Winner

0

The first 2016 Presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was held on Monday, September 26th at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. The debate, organized by the commission on presidential debate, a non-partisan non-profit body, had the sports fraternity worried as the Monday night football viewership took a ntrump_clinton2osedive as Americans flipped channels to watch it. An estimated 81 million viewers were glued to their television sets making it the most watched debate ever. The debate had also set the social media on fire. With over ten million tweets, it was the most tweeted debate ever. America and many elsewhere in the world were transfixed watching Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump spar at their first debate.

The cable TV networks had spent the entire week speculating and ratcheting up the excitement about the debate. They discussed at length on how the candidates should prepare, what questions to expect and what to wear and so on. This drew sharp comments from some politicians. The indefatigable Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont and failed Democratic candidate, blasted the media and its coverage leading to the debate. He wanted the media to focus on the views of the candidates on burning issues – economy, jobs, living wage, healthcare, college tuition etc. rather than their personal styles and attires.

At the debate, the candidates were on their Sunday best – all dressed up and at their behavioral best and displaying dignified courtesies to each other. Many were indeed impressed to see a pleasant side of Trump.

The moderator – Lester Holt of NBC News – drew attention for different reasons. Holt, as a moderator, was at best, tepid. There was a robot-like quality about him– devoid of enthusiasm and passion in his questions and interventions. Like a strict disciplinarian, he admonished the audience for cheering and clapping but said nothing when they cheered Clinton.

Holt had six follow up questions for Trump, but none for Clinton. He tried to pin him down on the birther issue, but conveniently forgot to ask Clinton about propriety of using private email server or hacking of DNC emails that exposed racism.  Many Trump supporters tweeted later that the moderator deftly steered the debate away from issues, reinforcing an anti-Trump bias. It should be pointed out that the Trump campaign had raised doubts about his neutrality even before the debate.

Back at the debate, Trump had a lot of surprises up his sleeve. His responses were measured and controlled. Judging by the post-debate discussions, the pundits were indeed disappointed that they did not see the real maverick Trump. He seemed to be in full control in early part of the debate when the debate was on trade and Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular. Clearly Clinton was cornered for calling it the “gold standard” and later opposing it. However, she took control in the later half by attacking Trump on his comments on women.

The pre debate polls have given no easy pointer as to who the new President would be. Trump led in Colorado, Nevada and Florida – all key states. He has further consolidated his position in Ohio, a state which Hillary has not visited for a long time. While Trump leads in rural Maine, Clinton holds the rest of Maine. This even fight also played out in many other states. Clinton is way ahead in California, Oregon, and Washington where the lead is substantial. But the respective leads in individual states did not help either of them in the national tally where they are locked even.

The debate itself may not provide any significant bounce for either candidate. While the pundits have had a field day dissecting the performance, they too may not be able to sway the voter’s opinion one way or the other in this rather difficult race. Media analysts who have favored Clinton all along thought that her performance was the best and that she won the debate. But Republican supporters on the other hand were convinced Trump’s performance in the first half cornered Clinton. They were all in admiration for the restraint and statesman-like conduct of Trump. Even many Clinton admirers seem to be in agreement.  The next debate may see the return of the true Trump.

But did Clinton win the debate? Clinton’s supporters think she won. But the problem is even if she had won the debate, this may not win her new supporters who will vote for her. The reason is her problems – email scandal, Clinton Foundation, hacked DNC email and other scandals – have weighed her down. Further her personal health issues will continue to dog her in the coming days. Most important, there is no indication that her debate performance has induced a change of heart in Sanders supporters who remain a considerable voting bloc.

Did Trump win the debate then? Most cable television networks don’t seem to think so. But some have pointed out that the Trump we saw at the debate was someone who was clearly exercising self-restraint and reluctant to go after Clinton. Americans have admired this change in him. But the next debate promises to be a no holds barred debate where Trump’s plain speak and absence of political correctness will be evident. This will again play to his supporters and may even influence the fence sitters who do not want to support Clinton.

The debate outcome by itself is a non-issue. Recall how Obama did not do well against Mitt Romney in the debate, but bounced back quickly and the rest is history. It would be political naiveté to rule out Trump at this stage. In fact, the core issues that he stands for – immigration, unemployment and security – continue to resonate very well with most Americans and will be a huge positive for him. Clinton on the other hand continues to be perceived as ‘not trustworthy’ and her truck load of troubles will continue to haunt her.

The big question however is how will the election go. Given that the pre-debate polls have shown that both are almost evenly placed – except that Trump has caught up with Clinton – the answer may be with undecided voters. Supporters of Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Johnson may hold the key and may tip the balance in favor of Trump. However, even at this late stage – with just forty days to go for the big day – it may be too early expect this as the contestants have more wooing to do. Clinton and Trump may have, at best, tied at the first debate. But the real winners were the political pundits and armchair experts on cable networks who had a hell of a day and laughed their way to the banks. The 2016 US Presidential election promises to be another close election.

The Fourth Estate and the Fifth Column!

0

The word NEWS, I learnt in school, has an etymology that associated it with the four cardinal directions. I learnt about the existence of News Reporters and News Readers, responsible for “reporting” news as it happened or “reading” it at an anointed hour on TV. This was the media of my growing years – responsible for merely conveying What happened, When and Where! Sometimes a How.

But No Why, Never!

Objectivity and faithful reproduction of events as they transpired, accurately without distortion was the underlying Dharma of this pillar of Democracy – So I learnt. This was Mass Media – the media of the masses!

Not any longer- Today, my son learns something entirely different. He learns that in this age of instant noodles, fast cars and instant gratification – not to mention the obsession with choices- he must choose what he reads, and that includes individual opinions, viewpoints and perspectives. Not a bad idea in itself.

So, we had this Internet and Social Media boom and Media stopped being Mass, despite retaining and exceeding its traditional reach. Borders and definitions between News, News makers, News Providers and the views they held in their personal lives blurred. As I adapted to this new generation blitzkrieg, I learnt that every news agency or channel had a “viewpoint” and “agenda”. Suddenly, I was being bombarded with details of personal lives of a Barkha Dutt and a Rajdeep Sardesai and such others, and constantly being tutored that personal lives of these journalists (see, they weren’t reporters and editors any more) and where they “came” from, did in fact, influence, what or how they published or covered an event.

Lo and Behold, I was seeing a new pattern. Channels covered the same news differently- They clearly took Sides – With or against an institution or an issue and that stand dictated the tone and tenor and extent of the coverage. Headlines were subjective, and newsreaders transitioned into opinion makers.

Multiple news channels beamed into my living room through a digital set top box in high definition mode and screamed for my attention 24×7, and were willing to creating a ruckus over it.

Suddenly, as a viewer of news, I wasn’t sure of what was happening – What was the News, after all? My dilemma was akin to that of a man who has two watches, and yet, is never sure, what is the right time!

Concurrently, in what Arnab Goswami so fondly calls the Pseudo Liberal Lutyen’s Delhi Cocktail Circuit, there was yet another species in the making – the Rohit Vemulas and the Kanhaiya Kumars and the John Dayals and the Arundhati Roys and the Kavita Krishnans and the Teesta Setalwads and the Shabnam Lones of the world – People with opinions and viewpoints divergent from the mainstream India. Armed with a laptop and a website which willingly hosted their thoughts on various issues – these were the new generation news broadcasters and newsmakers – the word “makers” itself being a strange paradox. National interest was no longer a consideration, merely the compulsive need to state a viewpoint.

Opinions, viewpoints, Freedom of Expression, Democracy – All of this was News!

Amidst all of this, I asked myself – Is National Interest Absolute, Is Truth Absolute, or are those too, subjective issues, best reserved for television debates?

The Truths l have learnt just yesterday through the fourth estate will shock you, surprise you and shatter you – if you love your country.

(a) I learnt that in this country we have a Supreme Court Lawyer – an authorized practitioner of law in the highest temple of justice in this country – with a sworn allegiance to the constitution of my land- who cannot answer a straight question with a Yes or a No- if Burhan Wani was an enemy of the state as a self-proclaimed Commander of a known terror outfit, globally acknowledged with a history of killing and openly flaunting his credentials on social media.

(b) I learnt that there are many liberals in this country who dare to call a patriotic, decorated Army Officer, with an impeccable record of service, as a Deshdrohi on live national television when all he said was that if you were on the side of the terrorists, you were against the Indian state.

(c) I learnt that Democracy in this country is a term can be used, abused or seduced to further all kinds of agendas and that intellectual one-upmanship scored each and every time over national interests.

Moral of the Story – I always knew Freedom of Speech wasn’t absolute and came with riders. Truth and National Interest are pretty much the same!

Jai Hind

Modi is at crossroads and possibly facing biggest test of nerves

0

Modi-Doval Huddle

Uri attacks, timed with the intent to internationalize Kashmir at UNGA, seem to have failed its objective, and instead dented Pakistan’s diplomatic credits (whatever is left of it), as both USA and UK – the two key western powers with history and interest in the region – choose to ignore call for “talks”, while strongly condemning the act of terror. Equally eroding Kashmiri’s moral legitimacy of indigenous freedom struggle.

However, for Pakistani establishment, international shame is no longer a matter of concern, as it’s perfected the art of subduing these under the rhetoric of victimhood and western saazish. The net tangible gain for Pakistan in this entire episode has been sifar – but then it has never been in the past – be it Kargil or Mumbai 26/11 & alike incidents. What it does though is help satiate domestic thirst for standing up against the hegemony of Hindu India, especially the current Hindu nationalist dispensation of Modi, and therefore domestically the costs of such episodes are deemed acceptable.

That said, what the Uri episode managed to do is, inadvertently put focus on Prime Minster Modi’s self-set rhetorical benchmark when dealing with Pakistan inflicted terrorism, increasing the possibility of overt conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Over the couple years, Modi-Doval combo has managed to create trouble for Pakistan army, first for India since 1980’s and reversing an otherwise ‘muted’ security policy. While covert means can be effective and be sustained for long, as they comes along with a cloak of deniability, but are politically ineffectual as laypersons back home don’t read between lines. The Modi-Doval combo has inflicted cost on Pakistani terror misadventures by worsening already fragile ethnic fault lines within Pakistan, be it in Balochistan or Khyber Pakhtunkha, or the widening Shia-Sunni rift, or even pushing back fauji encirclement of Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif. But to expect, only covert policies can bring about a change in Pakistan army’s behavior is naïve and preposterous. Further, as seen in the context of Uri attacks, it doesn’t assuage public perception, pushing Indian government to the brink of overt, visible action. But can Modi risk priorities of economic growth, that aspirational India voted him for, again – something which India absolutely needs to counter the threat of a rising China?

Modi is at crossroads and possibly facing its biggest test of nerves, especially when your options are limited due to lack of conventional military strength that can deliver on strategic gains quickly. Any full-fledged action, in the current balance of power, would most likely result in stalemate, not to mention its impact on economic growth for India. Even assuming, in near future, India musters and delivers surgical strike, restoring J&K to pre-1947 territory, but would it result in change of Pakistan army’s behavior? Absolutely not, in fact, this would further amplify its already irrational and violent behavior.

What is the solution?

Pajer (1998) established the theory of “homotypic continuity”, basically the relationship between delinquent behavior among boys and criminal behavior as adults. The theory proposes that, difficult childhood could eventually cause the grown up adult to take more impulsive risks and possibly increase the risk of mental health problems and behavioral issues.

As argued earlier, Pakistan is an abnormal country. And if it were a person, it would fit perfectly in the theory of homotypic continuity. Pakistan’s problem began in the seeds of its creation, with the narrative built around the premise of Muslims of the sub-continent being superior, if not equal, to the Hindus and thus yearning for literal equity in governance and rule, despite numerical insufficiency, and thus disparaging the idea of modern secular republic.

The seeds of this animosity with Hindus, along with violent birth and continued defeats in pursuit of supremacy, had only turned Pakistan irrational, impulsive, violent and in the apt diagnosis of Prof. Christine Fair – a revisionist state.

Psychologists suggest that once into adult, the person with such behavioral disorder is very likely to continue to have it for most of their lives, unless there is occurrence of psychological mutation resulting in healing of brain. A terrible conclusion in our case, especially for India, Afghanistan and Iran, given that you cannot incarcerate an entire nation for eternity and neither can you choose to ignore a neighbor, nor hope for psychological mutation to happen in a degenerating society.

The clinical solution, to this, then is – death, not in the literal sense of the word but the idea of Pakistan or to use the cliché – nazaria-e-pakistan. And for this to happen, Pakistan as it stands today, in name, identity, form must cease to exist. The, How – of demise of nazaria e pakistan, is debatable. And while we continue to hope for psychological mutation in the form of leadership change in Pakistan to deliver it for us, until then the region as a whole would not see peace.

In this context of unyielding behavior issue, Modi’s India cannot afford to remain mute nor rely solely on covert means, risking loss of political audience back home. And, to bring about the demise of nazaria e pakistan – it would take more than a Modi to pull it off.

What went wrong with Pakistan?

0

It has been almost 70 years since we broke the chains of oppression and woke up to the reality of a democratic republic in our motherland. India was one of the first experiments of democracy in Asia, and leaders like Pandit Nehru, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Sardar Patel, and Maulana Azad worked hard to make this into a democracy that has lasted this long (except the period of brief emergency). The first cabinet of Pandit Nehru included Babasaheb Ambedkar, who was one of the most vicious critics of the congress party. This outreach to the leaders of various ideological leanings and backgrounds sowed the seeds of a modern tolerant democracy. However, these leaders were not alone in their endeavours and it would be blasphemous to assign all the credit or all the blame for the initial achievements and failures of our democracy to them. Having said that it is also important to hold these leaders accountable for the mistakes they have made in the past, even if their intentions were noble and the error was in their judgements. Dissent and criticism are one of the things that has made us into a vibrant democracy and we should strive to keep it that way.

Our benign neighbour with which we have shared most of our history took a very different path after it’s independence. Instead of having a plethora of great leadership like India, it had as it’s founding father, one politician driven by his ego.  His demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims was based on the concept of ‘two nation theory’ which states that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. I doubt that Jinnah actually believed in it, at least his own daughter did not. Soon after Pakistan’s independence, it lost its only founding father and a lack of robust leadership started the devolution of the “land of Taxila” into an”Ivy League of terrorism”. A country whose roots are derived from hatred against a particular community / religion, and one which didn’t have a political direction or a vision for the future became subservient to it’s army and the Islamists within a decade.  The failure of the founding principle of Pakistan, “The Two Nation Theory”, became self-evident after the Independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Linguistic ethnicity trumped religious unity.

While India was an experiment in Secular Democracy, Pakistan was an experiment in Islamism. Some termed it as an “Islamic Democracy”, a fine example of an oxymoron. The politically incorrect but the factually precise point is, “Islamism is inherently anti-democratic”. Islamist principles and democratic principles are miles apart and they can only intersect if you brainwash your people and slather them with orthodox Islamist ideologies. Although they tried, but it was difficult for them to assiduously manipulate their people even with the help of bigoted ideologues like Maududi and eventually they ended up becoming a security state.

Secularism, on the other hand, led India through a very different path, there were roadblocks and accidents, but our democratic values survived. India not only survived the religious tensions but also survived the linguistic barriers. A person from Amritsar may not have much in common with one from Kerala, but love for their motherland binds them together. Malayalis, Punjabis, Biharis, Bengalis all fight together in the Indian Army, work together in Indian companies and live together peacefully in various cities.

Being the first Islamic state and one without a proper leadership, Pakistan had to fight the obvious identity crisis. It chose to do so by whipping up the concept of Pan-Islamism, the root of all Islamic terror in the world.

While Pakistan built relationships based on quid pro quo with other nations, India developed mutually beneficial and long lasting relationships. While Pakistan built numerous Madarsas in their country, our forefathers laid the foundations for IITs and IIMs.

Coming back to the present day, we are still in a state of cold war with Pakistan, a neighbour that has inflicted numerous wounds on our body and still continues to do so. They use their children like canon fodder, turning them into fidayeen and targeting our military and civilian installations. The perverse amalgamation of Mosque and Military has converted Pakistan into a terrorist state and a threat to the civilised world and the world needs to take this threat seriously before it’s too late.

Creating a Dictator, democracy style

0

Let me start with this piece with how the piece will end – Is the nature of our current discourse leading to the creation of Narendra Modi as a dictator?

Now, at the onset, let me clear the air. No, I do not believe that Mr. Modi is a dictator.  Neither am I of the “camp” that hates Modi. On the contrary, my scale tilts in favor of the man when squarely evaluated through the lens of democracy – we have elected representatives, who needs to work tirelessly for the development of the country and its people, which Mr Modi is largely attempting to do, atleast at an individual level. That does not say I agree with everything that comes from him or his government or party and that’s how I believe it should be.

That said, this piece is not about dissecting Narendra Modi.  It’s about “nature of our discourse leading to the creation of a dictator”, Mr Modi being the beneficiary in a sense.  And we seem to be going about it without recognizing the potential outcome and of course doing so in a way which is absolutely democratic. This piece is about “us” and “our” reference points in political discourse today.

To contextualize this, let’s go back to history. The German Workers Party (DAP) was not started by Hitler but “over-reliance” on him (oratory skills apart from other traits that can be avoided here), allowed him to negotiate and become the party’s chief.  And the rest as they say is history. In short, the danger signs appear when an individual starts becoming larger than the institution and the institution (with other stakeholders), directly or indirectly fuel the development. Closer home, and not in the very distant past, a certain part of Indira Gandhi’s tenure reflected the same.

Now, in a blooming democracy like India’s, the possibility of someone usurping power and becoming a dictator is somewhat remote (whether it is a banana republic is a topic of another discussion).  In democracies, its citizens are the main stakeholders; they are the source of power for a leader. So then, is it possible that “too much” power can be accorded to someone to tip him or her from being a leader to a dictator?

That reminds me of one gentleman named Arvind Kejriwal. He was the flavor of the season and what a flavor it was. Cited as being different, the so-called intellectuals and even professions quit their jobs to shape a new India with him. Our discourses were largely about the man and then the change HE promised to herald. It was faith (blind) for the individual, not as much the institution and our discourse on the man were fueling the flame. The danger signs posts were cropping up. Soon enough, we started seeing another face of Arvind Kejriwal, this one reflecting a style more dictatorial. But we kept the blinkers on (some still have it on).  But now the discourse is changing. Yes, there still exists the breed termed as “AAPtards” potentially implying blind faithful’s. But the power source is diminishing, hence a good chance there is a reversal on the continuum for the man.

That brings us back to where we started. Is the nature of our discourse leading to the creation of Narendra Modi as a dictator? Let us look at the danger signs. Earlier we had BJP sympathizer (and/or RSS supporters). Today we have seen the emergence of the “Bhakts” who will not tolerate any criticism of their (supreme) leader. And the kind of support you see them have for Mr. Modi does not follow through if another member of BJP, even a minister is criticized. Ironically, the opposition (the opposition parties as well as the public that supports these parties) are actually supporting the cause. Consider recent events, whether it was the church attacks, beef controversy or whatever else comes to memory; it was Mr Modi, who was largely called out to explain.  Politics of personal slander aside, why isn’t there a similar reaction towards other personnel of the government or ruling party by the opposition. Surely, Mr Modi, the individual is not above the institution ie the BJP, or is he? What this potentially does is only add to the troops of Bhakts getting them to harden their support of their (supreme) leader.  More power source for Mr. Modi. And that, my friends, are warning signs. It didn’t take very long for our friend and charismatic leader Mr Putin to get to that place, starting as has Mr Modi.

Open Letter to PM Modi on Uri Attacks

0

Dear Narendra Modi,

Before anyone gets me wrong, Let me clarify that I am your huge supporter & voted for BJP in 2014.

I have few questions in my mind which are giving me sleepless nights since Uri Attack. Today, I heard your speech in Kerala & thought of sharing this with you because my faith in you is still intact.

What is the Lesson Learnt from Gurdaspur attack and Pathankot attack?

For any kind of National emergencies like Flood, Earthquake & even for incidents like Fire breakout, we normally have a disaster recovery plan. We know, what all steps need to be taken,who is responsible to execute those steps & in which sequence.

We were not ready for attack like 26/11 but immediately after that we formed NIA. Surely, We have a plan to handle such situation now and that’s why such incidents didn’t happen. Proud of NIA.

What did we learn from Pathankot & Gurdaspur attack? I have read so many options floating on internet to take strong steps against Pakistan.
1. Declare war.
2. Break Indus water Treaty.
3. Strong response in UN.
4. Send back the Pakistani Ambassdor.
5. Break Trade Relationship.
6. Stop Amritsar-Lahore Bus.
7. Stop Samjhauta Express.
8. Send back Pakistani Artist & Cancel VISA.

You must be having many more options other than above mentioned and you must be exploring it.

My only question is what ever action we are going to take, why is it taking so much time to execute. This is time to execute the options and not to explore . May be some friends will say that why am i so sure that we are still exploring the options. My answer to them is “If not, then why are we not executing it”.

And if we have executed some options which cannot be declared in open forum then I hope there won’t be any more attacks. Pakistan must have learnt the lesson.

And if we have not executed any options than is it so tough to Ban Bus & Rail Services? so tough to break the treaty? They can send terrorists and we cant even send their artists immediately? So tough to break trade relationship? Etc.

Hope, we have learnt from Uri Attacks and ensure that Pakistan will never, NEVER EVER dare to send terrorists to India.

Regards,
S. Saurabh
@ChickenBiryanii

Changes to Direct tax

0

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on 19 August 2016 had placed a new version of the income distribution data for assessment year (AY) 2012-13.This data was the first since 1998-99. Also with rescheduling the budget session earlier Modi Government has already started preparation for next year budget. In light of these facts I would like to suggest some changes based on the data published by CBDT.

Major highlights of 2012-13 data were published in several papers/blogs so I am not going to repeat the same. What I am doing to discuss is the analysis which I have done on Section 2 Income Tax Returns – Individuals of the report.

On 28 Feb 2011 our Finance minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee declared enhancing IT slabs by 20,000 for all categories which changed the IT slabs to the following:

Category Man <60 Yr Woman <60 Yr 60-80 Yr >80 Yr
0% 1.8L 1.9L 2.5L 5.0L
10% 1.8L to5.0L 1.9L to5.0L 2.5L to5.0L
20% 5.0L to8.0L 5.0L to8.0L 5.0L to8.0L 5.0L to8.0L
30% > 8.0L > 8.0L > 8.0L > 8.0L

 

But for sake of simplicity (as I don’t had breakup of male/female/senior citizen) I have done my calculations by taking following IT slabs (Deliberately taken 10L instead of 8L to align with current numbers)

Category All
0% Upto 2,00,000
10% 2,00,000 to 5,00,000
20% 5,00,000 to 10,00,000
30% > 10,00,000

 

From table 2.1 of Individual– Gross Total Income (AY 2012-13) from Income Tax Return Statistics for Assessment Year 2012-13 (version 2.0) it is evident that there were 2,89,25,598 Individuals returns filed.  Major points of my observations are:

  1. These 2.89 cr people (which were<3% of Indian Population) declared almost 12.15 Lakh cr as income.
  2. If there were no exemptions other than mentioned in IT slabs GoI would have got 1.55 lakh cr as tax revenue but instead they got 1.12 cr lakh cr (Table 2.11 Individual- Range of Tax Payable (AY 2012-13).
  3. The reason for this difference is the range of exemptions given by GoI. As of today an Individual can avail 22 different types of exemptions but majority of Indian salaried persons are not using it. There are many reasons of such behaviour. First and foremost is ignorance of such large number of exemptions. Second reason is that majority of salaried people (94.5% ) fall under salary bucket of 10 lakh which does not give incentive of putting up resources to avail all exemptions.
  4. Majority of people still avail section 80 exemptions for future savings, purchase of house, tution fees etc. If UPA -II would have removed all exemptions and increased exemption to 2 lakh in 2011 than also they would have collected 1.31 lakh cr as Tax (excluding surcharges). In addition they would have got support of atleast 2.73 cr Individuals (having gross income <10lakh) and their dependents.

For example there were 3 people in India who had income of more than 500 cr in 2011-12 and they had total Gross salary of 1,920 cr on which they paid 437 cr as tax while in No exemption scenario GoI would have realised atleast 575 cr. This shows that if you have good income you can probably pay less after hiring a competent CA.

Range No. of Returns Sum of Gross (cr) Average Gross (lakh) If no exemptions (cr) With 1 lakh limit Exemption (cr) With 2 lakh limit Exemption (cr)
< 0 155501 0 0
>0 and <=1,50,000 30,13,171 25,679                      0.85 0 0
>150,000 and <= 2,00,000 73,61,219 1,32,623                      1.80 0 0
>2,00,000 and <=2,50,000 44,00,926 97,667                      2.22                     964.85                                  –
>2,50,000 and <= 3,50,000 47,92,311 1,40,556                      2.93                  4,470.98                                  –
>3,50,000 and <= 4,00,000 14,11,154 52,758                      3.74                  2,453.49                     1,042.34
>4,00,000 and <= 4,50,000 11,84,934 50,260                      4.24                  2,656.13                     1,471.20                             286.26
>4,50,000 and <= 5,00,000 10,25,891 48,669                      4.74                  2,815.12                     1,789.23                             763.34
>5,00,000 and <= 5,50,000 8,67,289 45,415                      5.24                  3,011.98                     2,144.69                         1,072.34
>5,50,000 and <= 9,50,000 29,70,300 2,07,009                      6.97               20,609.70                  17,639.40                       14,669.10
>9,50,000 and <= 10,00,000 1,52,453 14,858                      9.75                  1,904.43                     1,751.98                         1,599.52
>10,00,000 and <=15,00,000 8,22,430 99,029                   12.04               28,063.84                  27,241.41                       26,418.98
>15,00,000 and <= 20,00,000 3,02,371 51,905                   17.17               14,966.76                  14,664.39                       14,362.02
>20,00,000 and <= 25,00,000 1,56,984 34,972                   22.28               10,177.63                  10,020.65                         9,863.66
>25,00,000 and <= 50,00,000 2,05,342 68,695                   33.45               20,197.82                  19,992.47                       19,787.13
>50,00,000 and <= 1 cr 66,632 45,364                   68.08               13,475.94                  13,409.30                       13,342.67
>1 cr and <=5 cr 33,928 61,052                 179.95               18,247.74                  18,213.82                       18,179.89
>5cr and <=10cr 1,826 12,375                 677.71                  3,708.85                     3,707.02                         3,705.20
>10cr and <=25cr 729 10,635             1,458.78                  3,188.89                     3,188.16                         3,187.44
>25cr and <=50cr 128 4,225             3,300.95                  1,267.31                     1,267.18                         1,267.05
>50cr and <=100cr 50 3,467             6,933.71                  1,039.96                     1,039.91                         1,039.86
>100cr and <=500cr 26 5,154           19,821.65                  1,546.04                     1,546.01                         1,545.98
>500cr 3 1,920           63,997.96                     575.98                        575.97                             575.97
Total        2,89,25,598        12,14,287            1,55,343.42               1,40,705.12                   1,31,666.41

After going through one year data we can’t actually judge the quantum of effect of removing exemptions but my suggestion to Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Arun Jaitley is to remove exemptions slowly for Individuals as well and replace it with flat exemptions. As a first I would suggest remove MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT (15000) & Transport TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE (19200) and increase IT slab by 50,000 to INR 3,00,000 or increase the 80 c limit. The rationale behind for this proposal is bitter truth that most of the people produce fake bills to realize these kinds of exemptions. The revenue lost would be minimum to GoI and it would reduce atleast 1 piece of complex puzzle of tax for salaried people.

धर्म की राजनीति

0

सत्य ही धर्म है। परंतु सत्य क्या है? सत्य वह है जो क्रमानुसार सृष्टि, जीवन, मानवजाति, समाज, परिवार फिर व्यक्ति के लिए कल्याणकारी हो। मानव ने धर्म (सीमित अर्थों में विचारधारा) सत्य की व्याख्या के लिए गढ़े हैं। इसमें यह भी ध्यान रखा जाना चाहिए कि सामाजिक, राजनैतिक तथा भौगोलिक परिस्थितियों के अनुसार व्याखाएँ भिन्न हो सकती हैं परंतु कोई भी व्याख्या उपरोक्त क्रम को अस्वीकार नहीं कर सकती।

मनुष्य का सबसे बड़ा लक्ष्य स्वयं के अहम् को संतुष्ट करना है। अहम् को संतुष्ट के लिए स्वयं को श्रेष्ठतम साबित करना एक महत्वपूर्ण शर्त है। इसलिए वह अपनी मूलभूत आवश्यकताओं की पूर्ति के बाद श्रेष्ठता की प्रतिस्पर्धा में शामिल हो जाता है। समस्या तब विकट हो जाती है जब प्रतिस्पर्धा अस्वस्थ हो जाती है अर्थात् जब वह एक दूसरे के अधिकारों का हरण करने लगता है।

विश्व में चली आ रही धार्मिक अतिवादिता का मूल कारण यह है कि हम सत्य को ही धर्म मान चुके हैं और धर्म को श्रेष्ठतम। अपने अपने व्याख्याओं को श्रेष्ठ साबित करने के लिए हम सत्य को भूल चुके हैं। वास्तव लड़ाई धर्म को बचाने के लिए नहीं अपितु अपने अहम् को संतुष्ट करने के लिए है। इस प्रकार के अत्यंत व्यक्तिगत आकांक्षा की पूर्ति के मार्ग को सुगम बनाने के लिए हम ईश्वर के नाम का दुरुपयोग करते हैं और इसे सामूहिक रूप देने के लिए लोगों को प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से जोड़ते हैं। अपने धर्म को श्रेष्ठ साबित करने के लिए हमारे पास दो रास्ते हैं, एक सकारात्मक तथा दूसरा नकारात्मक। सकारात्मक तरीके से हम लोगो की सेवा करके, मदद करके और अपने धर्म की सबसे अच्छी बातों को प्रचारित करके अधिक से अधिक लोगों को प्रभावित करते हैं कि वो हमारे धर्म के बारे मे अच्छा सोचे व समझें। नकारात्मक तरीके से हम लोगों को अपने धर्म को छोड़कर हमारे धर्म को अपनाने के लिए लालच देकर, बलपूर्वक अथवा अन्य तरीके से प्रेरित करते हैं। कभी कभी दोनों तरीके एक दूसरे में ऐसे घुले- मिले होते हैं कि अन्तर सुस्पष्ट नही हो पाता।

जब कभी कोई अन्य हमारे धार्मिक विचारों पर प्रश्न खड़ा करने लगता है तो हमारी असहिष्णुता हम पर हावी हो जाती है और हमें अपने धर्म की श्रेष्ठता पर खतरा महसूस होने लगता है। अपनी श्रेष्ठता को स्थायी रुप से पुनर्स्थापित करने के लिए दो तरीके अपनाए जाते रहे हैं। एक अप्रत्यक्ष तरीका जिसमें राजनीति, सामाजिक तथा बौद्धिक प्रभावों का उपयोग करके अपने धार्मिक विचारों को संरक्षण प्रदान करना जैसे किसी देश को मुस्लिम, क्रिश्चन, बौद्ध या हिन्दू देश घोषित करना या धार्मिक मान्यताओं के अनुसार शिक्षा व्यवस्था अपनाना। दूसरा प्रत्यक्ष तरीका जिसमें विरोधी विचारों को छल या बल से समाप्त करने का प्रयास किया जाता है जैसे कि आजकल धर्म के नाम पर हिंसा को बढ़ावा दिया जा रहा है। किन्तु इतिहास साक्षी है कि ये दोनों तरीके या कोई अन्य भी वैकल्पिक विचारों को देर तक दबा कर नहीं रख सकते। विचार बहती नदी की की तरह होते हैं, कोई कितनी भी कोशिश कर ले नदी अपना रास्ता ढूंढ ही लेती है।

अब प्रश्न यह उठता है कि इन सब समस्याओं का समाधान क्या है? यह एक बहुआयामी समस्या है क्योंकि धर्म लगभग जीवन के हर क्षेत्र को प्रभावित करता है। इसलिए इसके समाधान के लिए कई मोर्चों पर एक साथ काम करने की आवश्यकता है । एक अत्यंत ही महत्वपूर्ण पहलू है धर्म का वैचारिक पहलू जिस पर बात करने से अधिकतर लोग बचते हैं या यूँ कहे कि लोगो को उस पर बात करने रोका जाता है। क्योंकि धर्म का सबसे कमजोर पक्ष भी यही है जो तार्किकता के सिद्धांतों के विपरीत है। इसलिए धर्म को विश्वास का विषय मान लिया गया है। पर समय की आवश्यकता है कि धर्म के इस अवैज्ञानिकता पर विचार किया जाए।

एक परिकल्पना जो सभी धर्मों में समान रूप से विद्यमान है वह है ईश्वर की परिकल्पना । ईश्वर है या नहीं यह तो कोई नहीं जानता इसलिए इस परिकल्पना को एक सिरे से नकारा भी नहीं जा सकता। पर असली समस्या इस परिकल्पना के बाद आती है जब इन्सान द्वारा बनाए गये धार्मिक नियमों को ईश्वर के द्वारा बनाया हुआ मान लिया जाता है। हमें इस बात को समझना चाहिए कि किसी भी धार्मिक पुस्तक में जो बातें लिखी हुई वह इन्सानों ने ही लिखी है ईश्वर ने नहीं। और उन बातों की आलोचना करना ईश्वर की आलोचना करना नहीं है। इन पुस्तकों की बातों को लिखने वाला कितना भी महान क्यों न हो परन्तु ये सारी बातें एक विशेष समय, समूह, परिस्थिति के हिसाब से लिखी गई थीं जिनमें से कुछ का आज के समय कोई उपयोग नहीं है। इनमें से कई बातें आज के समाज को नुकसान पहुंचा रही हैं। इसलिए इन सभी से छुटकारा पाना अत्यंत आवश्यक है। हमें इन्सान और तथाकथित भगवान के बीच के अन्तर को समझना होगा। इन्सान की कही बातों को भगवान की कही बातें मानना मूर्खतापूर्ण है। हमें अपने धर्मग्रंथों को फिर से निष्पक्षतापूर्ण पढ़ना होगा और उनका पुनर्लेखन भी करना होगा। हम हजारों साल पहले किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा बनाए गए नियमों के आधार पर अगले हजार साल तक नहीं चल सकते। इसके बचाव के पक्ष में यह तर्क दिया जाता है कि नियमों की व्याख्या गलत की जाती है। इस सम्बन्ध में यह ध्यान रखा जाना चाहिए कि किसी बात की यदि गलत व्याख्या की गई है तो उसकी सही व्याख्या क्या है यह स्पष्ट किया जाना चाहिए। यदि वास्तव में कुछ गलत बातें लिखी गईं हैं अथवा वर्तमान में अप्रासंगिक हो गई हैं तो उनका त्याग करना होगा। हम इस बात को नज़रअंदाज नहीं कर सकते कि इन्सानों ने धर्म को बनाया है धर्म ने इंसान को नहीं। इसलिए धर्म इंसान से ज्यादा महत्वपूर्ण नहीं हो सकता। जहाँ तक धर्म की आलोचना का प्रश्न है तो हम अक्सर यह भूल जाते हैं कि बुद्ध ,नानक, जीजस, महावीर, मुहम्मद, शंकराचार्य इत्यादि सभी पहले से व्याप्त धर्मों की आलोचना करके नया मार्ग दिखलाया। इस कारण हम भी धर्म की आलोचना करने के पूर्ण अधिकारी हैं।

लेकिन आलोचना तथ्यात्मक तथा निष्पक्ष होनी चाहिए अन्यथा आलोचना महत्वहीन हो जाती है। यदि इससे किसी की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचती है तो उन्हें ठेस पहुँचनी भी चाहिए क्योंकि बिना किसी की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाए परिवर्तन संभव नहीं। और इस संसार में परिवर्तन ही स्थायी है अन्य कुछ नहीं।
जब तक हम धर्म की तथ्यात्मक आलोचना करने से बचते रहेंगे तब तक हम अतिवाद से मुक्त नहीं हो पायेंगे। हमें इस अतिवाद की जड़ अर्थात् इसके वैचारिक पक्ष पर प्रहार करना ही अन्यथा हमारी आगे आने वाली पीढ़ियाँ हमें क्षमा नहीं करेंगी। अन्त में इतना ही कहना चाहूँगा कि ईश्वर है या नहीं यह हमें नहीं पता, उसे दर्द होता है या नहीं हमें नहीं पता परन्तु इन्सान तो हम ही हैं। इसलिए किसी अज्ञात ईश्वर के लिए इंसानों की बलि देना कहाँ तक जायज है? आप स्वयं सोचिए।

Understanding communist conspiracy, Penetrating ‘Ambedkarite’ Movement.

0

Understanding communist conspiracy, Penetrating ‘Ambedkarite’ Movement.



Roots and international expansion

Everyone is aware of the origin and roots of communism. Communism was proposed by German ideologue Karl Marx and Fredric Angels back in 1848 by publishing “The communist manifesto”. Communism was born due to the industrial revolution that was started in Britain and spread all over Europe and Russia in relatively short spam. Due to industrial revolution and lack of labour laws there was a feeling of umbrage in the labours. Marx was heavily benefited by the discontent among the labours and peasants working in factories. Pitch was ready for the communists and they became successful in transforming Russia to a red nation. Did labours get their cut or not is secondary question though.

Once a recipe is successful at one place people tend to experiment in different places. Just like that after the successful inception of red flag in Russia comrades flew in other parts of the world with the constitution of their ‘-ism’. In few countries they were successful where there were kind of similar conditions. But the problems grew when comrades swore to convert blue planet into a red one.


Entry in India

When comrades approached India for the expansion of their –ism, they initially targeted their most suitable and easy target, labour movement of mill workers in Mumbai. Unlike Russian labour revolution they couldn’t prevail and sequenced into the axe of unemployment on the mill workers, which resulted in completely destroying their fortune. After the unsuccessful attempt of inception in India with the labour rebel, comrades started to find new hosts for survival. Their cunning eye went on the backward, abandoned aboriginal tribes.

Extermination of tribal movement and rise of ‘Naxalism

After losing credibility of the Indian mill workers commies swivelled their guns towards the abandoned and ignored tribes in the forests. Ignorance of the government and lack of interest of the society towards the tribal welfare was on the fortune of the communists. Hence they could get through support from the tribes. They brought the tribes to faith that the government has always failed or has no interest in their welfare hence they need to rebel against the government. And this was the first time when “laal salaam” echoed in the forests of India.

That was a kick start. Then there was no looking back. For about 60 years communists fooled the tribes that they are their messiah and are here for their uprising. With the help from some capitalists and NGOs communists kept the forests burning. After the intervention of other political and social powers this conspiracy was brought into light. But it left the huge scares on the ‘Adiwasi Movement’. It couldn’t affect us as it was very much limited with the government, security forces and the ‘adiwasis’.

Now there is somewhat hope of bringing those backward and exploited tribes into mainstream. But still the big challenge to extricate the tribal youth from the ghettos of naxalites.


Eying to hijack “Ambedkarite Movement”

After the several unsuccessful attempts to pierce their feet in Indian soils comrades were in search of new pabulum. Their astute acumen went on ‘dalit movement’, which seemed to be scattered after the demise of ‘Namdeo Dhasal’ and schism in ‘Republican Party’. This is the biggest and real threat of the communists to Indian society to misguide the ‘Ambedkarites’. What it looks ostensibly is really alarming to all of us believing in democracy.

For consideration why this happened?

The answer lies within the feeling of discomfort in ‘dalits’ roused due to racial hierarchy. This gap of miscommunication between the upper class and dalits is being filled presto by communists. The biggest irony is that Dr. Ambedkar always opposed communism. In his speech in Nepal he condemned communism and advocated to his followers not to get in to the clutches of the communists.

Another significant angle is blind following of the dalit activists towards their leaders. Many of the dalits blindly follow those who politicize Ambedkar.

To overcome this lapse RSS (Rashtriy Swayamsevak Sangh) is rushing to adopt Ambedkar. This was the main reason of restlessness of RSS on 125th birth anniversary year. It was widely celebrated by the sangh parivar in order to rapport with Dalits. The action was not much delayed as the significant destruction was yet to be done.
This is the time when we all those believe in democracy need to join our hands to bring the dalit community in to the mainstream to fight with the foreign powers which intend to break India. Unlike the tribal we can’t afford to lose one of the integral part of our society. Let’s unite and vanquish red malady.

Here’s what Dr Ambedkar said about the Communists and Socialist. An excerpt from his speech-

The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.
Dr.B. R. Ambedkar

Where there is discontent, there are communists…
Akshay Bikkad
T.Y.B.Sc.
Fergusson College
[email protected]
8975332523
References
What Dr Ambedkar said about Communists & Socialists criticizing the Constitution of India



 

Uri Attack and India’s response: Why India is getting it all backward

0

Identify the central question before finding answers!

Looking at the call of war cries emanating from Indian newsrooms and twitter feeds as India’s potential response to the Uri attack ( attack by heavily armed terrorists on Indian security forces on 18 September 2016, near the town of Uri in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir), I am reminded of what Late Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw is reported to have once said “I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defense of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla, although a great many resemble the latter.”

I can vouch that if he were alive today and happened to watch any Indian news channel dissecting and debating this subject (with a war like frenzy albeit within the confines of an air-conditioned studio and participants subtly assured they are not going to war themselves), he would definitely have extended the reference of his quote beyond political masters and include the esteemed news anchors and most experts doing the rounds on these debates ( aka shows).

The argumentative nature of Indians (to borrow from the title of Amartya Sen’s book of the same name), plays itself out in such situations and that’s par for the course. Everyone is entitled to their views on how India should stand up against cross border terrorism and taking it further, grow a spine and revenge the death of its soldiers. (Sorry, Mr Gandhi, India has moved on from non-violence and from offering the second cheek if someone slaps you on one). Just that such discourse sounds like hyperbole.

As a start, what comes out in public domain is not always the full truth (or facts, if there is any such thing). The story often gets an angle, a color shaped by the disposition of the one bringing out the story. The noise surrounding the story further blurs the core elements and emotions work up the rest. So, in every story, it is absolutely imperative to take a step back and re-evaluate. This is a serious and sensitive issue. Soldiers have been martyred. Questions need to be raised, accountability established.

Every issue has a central question – but the central is definitely not how we make the neighbouring state/its army/the terrorist camps within that state pay for this (or earlier) attack on Indian soil. And the concept of “enough is enough” is not even a question – it is just rhetoric. In my mind, the central question here is how India can prevent attacks of similar nature (considering a similar attack in Pathankot in the recent past). And if that is the central question, then a lot of the accountability shifts back to India. What did India learn from Pathankot to ensure such attacks would not be repeated? What is it about India’s intelligence sharing and implementing process that India cannot prevent such attacks? Who are/should be accountable for such lapses?

For me, whether Pakistan is a sponsor of terrorism and whether the responsibility of proving and punishing them should lie with India is a question which is much larger than the current one which is around India’s preparedness to prevent such attacks on its soil. If a country created the capabilities to prevent incursions and attacks (irrespective of the source), would there actually ever be a need to even consider an attack on another country (unless one has imperialistic tendencies, which India certainly doesn’t)?

While no two situations are similar, there are adequate pointers in history that whether it has been the US attempt to smoke terrorists in Afghanistan or its operations in Yemen or the Russian surgical strikes in Syria, none of these have truly achieved their intended purpose ( to put it mildly ). And to use a fancy phrase, there has been collateral damage, often more than one bargained for.

Not that the fear of collateral damage should prevent a country from pursuing its goals provided the goals are not guided by jingoism. And here a side note to all those want India to call off Pakistan’s nuclear bluff, my question is what in the world makes you believe that India has been running scared on that account in the first place? That has been your naïve assumption. Such talk only feeds in itself.

Coming back, we seem to be in an era of act first, think later (and acknowledge last) fueled by the need to show capable leadership (amplified by new age media). That’s a trap that Indian leadership needs to side step even if it causes political loss of face. By all means, isolation of what India considers as a terrorist state can be pursued (specifics of which are already doing the rounds ) but the major impetus should be on making India attack proof ( for the lack of another word). That to me would be real leadership. And that to me would also be a befitting tribute to the dead soldiers as well as to the ones living, when the country acts to reduce the risk to their lives.

There is no better way to end this thought but to quote the famous Indian poet Allama Iqbal – ‘Khudi ko kar buland itna ke har taqder se pehle Khuda bande se khud pooche bata teri raza kya hai’ loosely translated as “develop yourself so much that that before every order, God will ask/ascertain your wish” Will India focus on itself?