Dear pseudo intellectuals of India, it is high time you stopped sympathizing with the Maoist devils, provided you have at least an iota of shame. For long we have been listening to your “intellectual” interpretations of the “root causes” of Maoism – abject poverty, lack of development, discrimination, oppression, blah blah blah! In fact your so-called “conscientious” opposition to Government’s plans and programmes to counter Maoist menace (“revolution” in your language) is one of those factors that are preventing Mr. Chidambaram from going ahead with a genuinely strong step against the scoundrels who are unabashedly creating mayhem on a regular basis.
You pseudo intellectuals are so shameless that you people did not bother to utter any word of criticism even after your beloved Maoist bastards massacred 76 CRPF personnel in Dantewada. Your sympathy for the so-called oppressed people turned Maoists is endless. But your hypocrisy held you back from shedding a single drop of tears for the bereaved families of those hapless security personnel, who had joined CRPF to serve the common people of India, including you people.
However, you still had the excuse that the Maoists had after all killed security personnel, i.e. the agents of “state atrocities”.
You people again tried to defend those savages when they blew up a bus full of civilians (again in Dantewada), by saying that their actual target were the Special Police Officers (SPOs) who were traveling in that bus. (Causing the death of so many innocent people for killing just a few SPOs. Wow, what an idea!)
But what is your excuse now, after the brutal and devastating attack on the innocent civilians who were traveling in the ill-fated Jnaneswari Express? Is there any excuse, even an ultra-idiotic or ultra-illogical one, which you can come up with to justify this bastardly act? What cause are these Maoist scoundrels fighting for, which entails the tears and pain of so many common people? Is it at all a fight that worths any sympathy? NO!
The Maoists have proved themselves to be a cancer for India, a despicable burden for the civilized society of this country. And you, the pseudo intellectuals of India have proved yourselves to be as contemptible as your beloved Maoist devils are, by shamelessly supporting their so called cause even after so many acts of devastation and bedlam on their part.
Have you people ever wondered what a great crime you are committing by extending moral support to those scoundrels?
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Madan Tamang's Assassination In Darjeeling – GJM’s Ugly Character Out In The Open
The real character of Bimal Gurung’s Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) – i.e. an ugly and nasty one – came out in the open with the dreadful murder of All India Gorkha League president Madan Tamang on 21st May 2010, in the picturesque hill town of Darjeeling in north Bengal.
GJM had already proved its ruffian character through the various acts of hooliganism that it was conducting in the name of Gorkhaland movement. It had already turned the “Queen of Hills” Darjeeling into a hell, turning this once darling of tourists into a nightmare for visitors.
But the terribly shocking assassination of Madan Tamang (who was hacked to death by suspected GJM supporters) is different from the other uncivilized activities of GJM. No, not in terms of the seriousness of the offence. The significance of Tamang’s assassination lies in the fact that Tamang’s All India Gorkha League actually belongs to the same “ilk” to which GJM belongs, i.e. both the parties are fighting for a separate Gorkhaland state. In that sense, Tamang’s party and GJM are actually supplementary to each other.
But still GJM supremo Bimal Gurung ordered his followers to kill Tamang. Why? Because he wants to keep only his GJM in the forefront of the so-called Gorkhaland movement, without letting any other party to come in the limelight. For Bimal Gurung what is more important is to establish himself as the one and only leader of the Gorkhaland movement, even if that results in the isolation of other similar groups, eventually resulting in the weakness of the Gorkhaland movement as a whole. This is because Bimal Gurung’s ultimate objective is not merely the establishment of a separate Gorkhaland state, but becoming the first Chief Minister of that state.
In fact, this is true about all the leaders of the so-called Gorkhaland movement. Whether it is Subhash Ghising (who actually started the movement in the mid 1980s) or Bimal Gurung, none of the Gorkhaland movement leaders has any headache for their Gorkha brothers and sisters. And they are certainly not trying to set up a separate state for addressing the so-called “discrimination” that the Gorkha community is facing in West Bengal. Actually all these leaders are fighting only for their own interests. Officially they are claiming that they want a separate state for the Gorkhas as only a state of their own can ensure the optimum growth and development of the Gorkha community of West Bengal. But in reality these leaders want a separate Gorkhaland so that they can have a fiefdom of their own, where they can lead the lives of demi-gods.
If at all the Gorkhaland movement becomes successful and a separate Gorkhaland state is set up, even then there will be no drastic development in the lives of the ordinary Gorkha people of Darjeeling. Did a separate Jharkhand bring any drastic change in the lives of the ordinary tribals, for whose development that state had originally been claimed?
And finally, a humble question for the educated and cultured members of the Nepali community of Darjeeling.
My dear brothers and sisters, will you people still continue to support a ruffian like Bimal Gurung? Do you people understand that voicing support for such a devilish person is actually disgraceful for yourselves? Can a hooligan like Bimal Gurung be really your leader? Just ask your own mind, and you will get the answer.
GJM had already proved its ruffian character through the various acts of hooliganism that it was conducting in the name of Gorkhaland movement. It had already turned the “Queen of Hills” Darjeeling into a hell, turning this once darling of tourists into a nightmare for visitors.
But the terribly shocking assassination of Madan Tamang (who was hacked to death by suspected GJM supporters) is different from the other uncivilized activities of GJM. No, not in terms of the seriousness of the offence. The significance of Tamang’s assassination lies in the fact that Tamang’s All India Gorkha League actually belongs to the same “ilk” to which GJM belongs, i.e. both the parties are fighting for a separate Gorkhaland state. In that sense, Tamang’s party and GJM are actually supplementary to each other.
But still GJM supremo Bimal Gurung ordered his followers to kill Tamang. Why? Because he wants to keep only his GJM in the forefront of the so-called Gorkhaland movement, without letting any other party to come in the limelight. For Bimal Gurung what is more important is to establish himself as the one and only leader of the Gorkhaland movement, even if that results in the isolation of other similar groups, eventually resulting in the weakness of the Gorkhaland movement as a whole. This is because Bimal Gurung’s ultimate objective is not merely the establishment of a separate Gorkhaland state, but becoming the first Chief Minister of that state.
In fact, this is true about all the leaders of the so-called Gorkhaland movement. Whether it is Subhash Ghising (who actually started the movement in the mid 1980s) or Bimal Gurung, none of the Gorkhaland movement leaders has any headache for their Gorkha brothers and sisters. And they are certainly not trying to set up a separate state for addressing the so-called “discrimination” that the Gorkha community is facing in West Bengal. Actually all these leaders are fighting only for their own interests. Officially they are claiming that they want a separate state for the Gorkhas as only a state of their own can ensure the optimum growth and development of the Gorkha community of West Bengal. But in reality these leaders want a separate Gorkhaland so that they can have a fiefdom of their own, where they can lead the lives of demi-gods.
If at all the Gorkhaland movement becomes successful and a separate Gorkhaland state is set up, even then there will be no drastic development in the lives of the ordinary Gorkha people of Darjeeling. Did a separate Jharkhand bring any drastic change in the lives of the ordinary tribals, for whose development that state had originally been claimed?
And finally, a humble question for the educated and cultured members of the Nepali community of Darjeeling.
My dear brothers and sisters, will you people still continue to support a ruffian like Bimal Gurung? Do you people understand that voicing support for such a devilish person is actually disgraceful for yourselves? Can a hooligan like Bimal Gurung be really your leader? Just ask your own mind, and you will get the answer.
Obama Administration’s Strategic Mistake In The North Korea Issue
I feel that the Obama administration has committed a serious strategic blunder by openly siding with South Korea in the latter’s latest tussle with North Korea. By doing this the USA has not only diluted the opportunity to strengthen its own diplomatic interests, but has also created problem for South Korea, as well.
It must be understood that South Korea’s tussle with North Korea is very much likely to turn into a full scale war. And if that happens, then North Korea might get military and diplomatic support from other communist countries, which will certainly make matters worse for South Korea. However, if somehow South Korea can convince the world that its fight is just against some actions of the North Korean government and not against the latter’s communist ideology, then the possibility of other communist countries extending help to North Korea will be lesser.
But now with the US government candidly showing its support for South Korea, the latter might be perceived by the Communist world as a stooge of the USA. And in that case they will certainly join the fight in one way or the other, as they will now perceive the fight against South Korea as a fight against the latter’s mentor the USA (i.e. the bête noire of the communist world).
The USA should have kept itself behind the curtain. It could have maintained the image of a “non interested party”, while secretly extending military, logistics and other necessary support to South Korea. The USA has personal interest in launching a strong diplomatic and military offensive against North Korea, and it is quite understandable that the former does not want to lose any relevant opportunity. However, in this case the USA had the opportunity to serve its interests through South Korea, without getting personally involved in the issue. It was precisely this opportunity that the USA did not have during its fight against Vietnam, as it did not have any ally in that region which could have acted on her behalf. But this time the USA had one such suitable ally, whom the US government could have effectively used against the common foe in that region, without getting personally involved. Obama and his mandarins could have at least waited for the first attack from the North Korean government against South Korea (like a missile attack, or bombing, or something like that). And then the US government could have come into the picture, with the world’s sympathy with South Korea. (Let us remember the Gulf War in 1990, when the US government launched an attack against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the name of liberating Kuwait from Iraqi invading army, while actually the USA was fighting for its own interest).
Unfortunately, the US government misread the situation this time, and jumped into the fight between the North and South Korea without thinking much.
Or is it so that actually it is me who is wrong? May be. After all I am not a seasoned diplomat. I am just an ordinary person who avidly follows the national and international developments.
It must be understood that South Korea’s tussle with North Korea is very much likely to turn into a full scale war. And if that happens, then North Korea might get military and diplomatic support from other communist countries, which will certainly make matters worse for South Korea. However, if somehow South Korea can convince the world that its fight is just against some actions of the North Korean government and not against the latter’s communist ideology, then the possibility of other communist countries extending help to North Korea will be lesser.
But now with the US government candidly showing its support for South Korea, the latter might be perceived by the Communist world as a stooge of the USA. And in that case they will certainly join the fight in one way or the other, as they will now perceive the fight against South Korea as a fight against the latter’s mentor the USA (i.e. the bête noire of the communist world).
The USA should have kept itself behind the curtain. It could have maintained the image of a “non interested party”, while secretly extending military, logistics and other necessary support to South Korea. The USA has personal interest in launching a strong diplomatic and military offensive against North Korea, and it is quite understandable that the former does not want to lose any relevant opportunity. However, in this case the USA had the opportunity to serve its interests through South Korea, without getting personally involved in the issue. It was precisely this opportunity that the USA did not have during its fight against Vietnam, as it did not have any ally in that region which could have acted on her behalf. But this time the USA had one such suitable ally, whom the US government could have effectively used against the common foe in that region, without getting personally involved. Obama and his mandarins could have at least waited for the first attack from the North Korean government against South Korea (like a missile attack, or bombing, or something like that). And then the US government could have come into the picture, with the world’s sympathy with South Korea. (Let us remember the Gulf War in 1990, when the US government launched an attack against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the name of liberating Kuwait from Iraqi invading army, while actually the USA was fighting for its own interest).
Unfortunately, the US government misread the situation this time, and jumped into the fight between the North and South Korea without thinking much.
Or is it so that actually it is me who is wrong? May be. After all I am not a seasoned diplomat. I am just an ordinary person who avidly follows the national and international developments.
Burqa Banning In Europe – Possibility Of A Negative Impact On Local Muslim Women
Like any forward thinking and progressive person I was also elated to know about the decision of the governments of France, Belgium and Italy to ban Burqa in their respective countries. The reason why I dislike Burqa is not only because I feel it to be an unjustified baggage forcibly imposed on my mothers and sisters from the Muslim community. I also dislike it because I sincerely doubt whether the great Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) had at all issued any diktat, in the first place, by commanding the Muslim women to wear Burqa. From whatever I have read and learned about the great Prophet’s life and philosophy, he was a pragmatic person with a huge respect for women. And honestly I find it very difficult to accept that he issued any such command.
However, while I eagerly welcome the firm steps taken by the governments of the above mentioned European countries, I have also started feeling a bit uncomfortable about the possibility of certain negative developments. Few days back I read in news that a Muslim gentleman from Italy has said that since his wife can no more wear Burqa in public, therefore now he will not allow her to go out at all. And from now onwards she will remain confined within her home.
It was this news that left me quite nervous. We the progressive people (including the progressive members of the Islamic sect) might feel very jubilant that Burqa is getting banned in certain countries. But have we thought about the possible negative impacts that the Muslim women of those countries might have to face?
I am 100 per cent sure that are some Muslims in all these countries who will never be able to accept these ban on Burqa for their wives, daughters, sisters, etc. But at the same time they will be unable to defy the ban, as it is a government decision. So what will they do? They will put a complete “ban” on the “public life” of the women in their families, forcing the latter to sever all ties with the external world and lead the life of a detainee within the four walls of their respective homes.
I feel the governments banning Burqa in their countries must think about this possible outcome, and take suitable steps beforehand to prevent any such outcome.
However, while I eagerly welcome the firm steps taken by the governments of the above mentioned European countries, I have also started feeling a bit uncomfortable about the possibility of certain negative developments. Few days back I read in news that a Muslim gentleman from Italy has said that since his wife can no more wear Burqa in public, therefore now he will not allow her to go out at all. And from now onwards she will remain confined within her home.
It was this news that left me quite nervous. We the progressive people (including the progressive members of the Islamic sect) might feel very jubilant that Burqa is getting banned in certain countries. But have we thought about the possible negative impacts that the Muslim women of those countries might have to face?
I am 100 per cent sure that are some Muslims in all these countries who will never be able to accept these ban on Burqa for their wives, daughters, sisters, etc. But at the same time they will be unable to defy the ban, as it is a government decision. So what will they do? They will put a complete “ban” on the “public life” of the women in their families, forcing the latter to sever all ties with the external world and lead the life of a detainee within the four walls of their respective homes.
I feel the governments banning Burqa in their countries must think about this possible outcome, and take suitable steps beforehand to prevent any such outcome.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Does The Mangalore Air Crash Suggest That We Should Bid Farewell To “Special Airports”?
Among many factors that are being highlighted as the ones to have triggered the tragic Mangalore air crash is the point that the Bajpe airport of Mangalore is a “special airport”.
What are “special airports”? Well, “special airports” are usually the ones which are located in hilly and mountainous regions, and also the ones which lie close to water bodies (such as rivers and seas). Landing and take-off activities on such airports are much tougher in comparison to that on other airports, with just a fraction of mistake on the part of the pilot likely to cause serious mishaps. No wonder that only experienced pilots are permitted to take off from or land on “special airports”.
The Bajpe airport was in the list of the “special airports” of India, thanks to its location on a hillock, and its runway being built on a flat stretch of land. Both ends of the runway slope downwards, with its safety area being just of 90 meters against the 300-metre norm.
The other “special airports” of India include the airports in Leh, Kozhikode (or Calicut), Port Blair, Srinagar and Agatti (Lakshadweep).
After the heartbreaking Mangalore mishap the Civil Aviation Ministry and DGCA should take a fresh and analytical look at the existing operational mechanisms that the Indian civil aviation sector adheres to. And one of the issues that they should very seriously look at is whether they should at all retain the use of “special airports”.
Three more issues I will request them to look at.
a.)They should decide whether they will retain the existing bar on “hard landing”. Notably, some experts have pointed out that the existing bar on hard landing might have forced the pilot to try landing in a different way, which eventually resulted in the accident. And significantly “hard landing” is a safe option.
b.)They should also ensure that pilots (and also other crews) get adequate break and rest before flying. This will understandably reduce the possibility of accidents due to pilot fatigue.
c.)Every airline must have a single, toll-free number which can be contacted by relatives and friends on the event of an accident. Every time a plane or rail accident takes place, I find TV channels flashing such “emergency contact nos”, which keep moving away before one notes them down. More importantly, is it possible for a person to sit calmly and watch the TV if he comes to know that the plane or train his relative was traveling has met with an accident? He will be excited, dumbstruck, perplexed, etc. Under such circumstances, it will be very helpful for him or his friends and other relatives to have the ready knowledge of a number where they can contact to make queries about their loved one.
What are “special airports”? Well, “special airports” are usually the ones which are located in hilly and mountainous regions, and also the ones which lie close to water bodies (such as rivers and seas). Landing and take-off activities on such airports are much tougher in comparison to that on other airports, with just a fraction of mistake on the part of the pilot likely to cause serious mishaps. No wonder that only experienced pilots are permitted to take off from or land on “special airports”.
The Bajpe airport was in the list of the “special airports” of India, thanks to its location on a hillock, and its runway being built on a flat stretch of land. Both ends of the runway slope downwards, with its safety area being just of 90 meters against the 300-metre norm.
The other “special airports” of India include the airports in Leh, Kozhikode (or Calicut), Port Blair, Srinagar and Agatti (Lakshadweep).
After the heartbreaking Mangalore mishap the Civil Aviation Ministry and DGCA should take a fresh and analytical look at the existing operational mechanisms that the Indian civil aviation sector adheres to. And one of the issues that they should very seriously look at is whether they should at all retain the use of “special airports”.
Three more issues I will request them to look at.
a.)They should decide whether they will retain the existing bar on “hard landing”. Notably, some experts have pointed out that the existing bar on hard landing might have forced the pilot to try landing in a different way, which eventually resulted in the accident. And significantly “hard landing” is a safe option.
b.)They should also ensure that pilots (and also other crews) get adequate break and rest before flying. This will understandably reduce the possibility of accidents due to pilot fatigue.
c.)Every airline must have a single, toll-free number which can be contacted by relatives and friends on the event of an accident. Every time a plane or rail accident takes place, I find TV channels flashing such “emergency contact nos”, which keep moving away before one notes them down. More importantly, is it possible for a person to sit calmly and watch the TV if he comes to know that the plane or train his relative was traveling has met with an accident? He will be excited, dumbstruck, perplexed, etc. Under such circumstances, it will be very helpful for him or his friends and other relatives to have the ready knowledge of a number where they can contact to make queries about their loved one.
John Shepherd-Barron, Father of ATM, Dead
John Shepherd-Barron is no more. The 84 years old Scottish breathed his last on 20th May 2010 at Inverness’s Raigmore Hospital in northern Scotland.
But who was this John Shepherd-Barron, in the first place?
Well, he was the man credited with inventing something that you and me (and millions of people across the world) use on a regular basis. In fact, it is a key constituent of the modern human civilization. And that is Automated Teller Machine or ATM.
Shepherd-Barron reportedly came up with the concept of ATM in 1965, while he was having bath. And interestingly, he got the idea of ATM from machine dispensing chocolate bars.
By the way, Shepherd-Barron had an “Indian” connection. How? Well, he was born in the small town of Shillong in North-East India.
But who was this John Shepherd-Barron, in the first place?
Well, he was the man credited with inventing something that you and me (and millions of people across the world) use on a regular basis. In fact, it is a key constituent of the modern human civilization. And that is Automated Teller Machine or ATM.
Shepherd-Barron reportedly came up with the concept of ATM in 1965, while he was having bath. And interestingly, he got the idea of ATM from machine dispensing chocolate bars.
By the way, Shepherd-Barron had an “Indian” connection. How? Well, he was born in the small town of Shillong in North-East India.
Having A Test Tube Baby At Rs. 20,000
Are you planning to have a test tube baby, but wary of the huge cost that it entails? Well, now you have the option to fulfill your dream by spending just Rs. 20,000.
A team of doctors at AIIMS has come up with a new In vitro fertilisation (IVF)technique, wherein there will be a limit on the number of egg cells to be produced. This will be accompanied by the use of a lesser number of fertility medications (such as gonadotropins). The ultimate result is a reduction in the cost of having a test tube baby.
Congrats AIIMS!
A team of doctors at AIIMS has come up with a new In vitro fertilisation (IVF)technique, wherein there will be a limit on the number of egg cells to be produced. This will be accompanied by the use of a lesser number of fertility medications (such as gonadotropins). The ultimate result is a reduction in the cost of having a test tube baby.
Congrats AIIMS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
