The Technocratic Government of India

 

So what exactly is a technocrat anyway?

Destined to save our economy and our country, we Indians have been graced with the appearance of a technocratic government since last seven years, where economist Dr. Manmohan Singh (PhD) has been the prime minister. As the hero of our day – the UPA technocratic government - is largely unknown to many of our people, we summon a brief dialogue on technocratic government

Q: What's a technocratic government?

A: To answer this question we first need to be clear about how governments are formed in parliamentary systems. First - in a parliamentary system, the government must be approved by the parliament. Often this will require the agreement of more than one political party, resulting in a coalition of parties to support the government. As part of this "coalition agreement", the heads of ministries (or what are ‘Ministers’) are allocated to the different parties, who place representatives from their parties as the heads of their respective ministries. Moreover, the parties agree on a "Prime Minister" to head the government, usually but not always from the largest party in the coalition. Most of the time, the identity of this "Prime Minister" - conditional on election results - is known during the election campaign.

Q: Ok, so what's really a technocratic government?

A: Technically, a technocratic government is one in which the ministers are not career politicians; in fact, in some cases they may not even be elected members of parliament at all. They are instead supposed to be "experts" in the fields of their respective ministries. So the classic example is that the Finance Minister would be someone with an academic background in economics who had worked for years at the IMF, but has not previously run for elective office or been heavily involved in election campaigns.

Q: Is it required for the Prime Minister also to be a "technocrat"?

A: Not necessarily. You could have a prime minister from a major party who heads a technocratic government (i.e., most of the ministers meet the definition laid out above), or you could have a technocratic prime minister as well. In the current UPA government, the Prime Minister is both a technocrat and an economist. [To be clear: there is nothing in the definition of a technocratic government that requires it be led by an economist!]

Q: Why did the UPA appoint a technocratic Prime Minister, two times in a row?

A: The practical reason is often because a government has lost the support of the people who elect them to parliament, but also for various other reasons (including legal, pragmatic or political). If the parties in the parliament can't agree to form a normal government, then sometimes they can all agree to support a technocratic government. Just to make things even more complicated, it is possible to have a ‘partisan caretaker prime minister’ (which is basically what is going on in India right now), which then would not be known as a technocratic government, but instead is often called a "lame duck government".

Q: So why would elected politicians ever turn over power to unelected technocrats? Doesn't that go against the facts of everything we think we know about politicians: that they are above all else interested in holding elected office for self gain?

A: This brings us to the crux of the matter in terms of current developments. What seems to be going on is that a "received wisdom" is developing that only technocratic governments can carry out the "painful reforms necessary" to save our country. The theory here is that no major party is going to want to pay the costs of instituting painful policies alone. If this is the case, then one way around this predicament is to appoint a technocratic government that is not "of" any party but is supported by all the parties. In this way, blame can essentially be shared, and government can do the right thing, whatever that may be.

Q: Does it work?

A: Does anyone know?. First, politicians are not particularly good at "sharing blame", which will make the temptation for any of a number of major parties to undercut the technocratic government for political gains. Second, even if mainstream parties get behind a technocratic government, that doesn't mean fringe parties will as well. Indeed, a technocratic government supported by all of the mainstream parties seems a perfect recipe for the rise of non-mainstream parties.

Q: OK, but even with those caveats, technocratic government still sounds pretty good! Why doesn't everyone have one?

A: Well, there is this one small problem, which is that in a democracy; people are supposed to elect their rulers. Since, by definition, a technocratic government does not get elected for office, it is hard to call a country with a technocratic government, a democracy. Instead, we have a system where the people only get to vote for people that they send into Parliament; who then get to decide on who the real leaders of the government will be.

Q: Will technocratic governments save India?

A: The UPA made it possible for certain policies to be implemented in the short-term. But India’s longer-term problems are going to need to be solved (or not solved) by India’s elected officials. Democracy is about accountability. While UPA has made it possible to duck accountability, long-term policies are going to have been enacted - or at the very least maintained - by elected officials. The UPA technocratic government has failed miserably on most accounts and will never be an effective Government ‘of the people, for the people, by the people’.

Mumbai's illegal hawkers and the corrupt money economy.

All the citizens of Mumbai are fed-up with the growing number of illegal hawkers taking over all the foot-paths and open spaces of Mumbai city. The Municipal Corporation and police and the various political parties seem weak and unable to stop this menace. And it is a menace of huge proportions because most of the hawkers are from Bangladesh.

So, why is the Government so weak and ineffective in front of these illegal immigrants? It’s the money, big amounts of money.


A rather unscientific survey in 2010 – 11, states that Mumbai has more than 8 lakh (800 thousand) illegal hawkers spread over 227 municipal wards. These hawkers pay off the Police, the municipal officers and the local political parties for the right to occupy our city’s foot-paths & open spaces. Payment is either daily (for floating hawkers who move from ward to ward) to weekly payments by those who set up stalls either during rush hours or specific days of the week. Semi – permanent and almost permanent stall owners / operators pay on monthly basis and in some cases of large turnover, on a profit sharing basis.

These amounts of payments range from as little as Rs. 2000 ($ 42) to Rs. 50,000 ($ 1064); on a monthly basis.

Assuming an average amount of Rs 5,000 per hawker per month for 800 thousand hawkers; the monthly corrupt money economy is Rupees 40 Crores ($ 85 million) which works out to Rs 480 Crores ($ One hundred million plus) per year.

This entire amount bypasses the City Treasury and makes its way straight to the pockets of those who are supposed to stop this illegal activity. This is the reason that the illegal hawkers menace is not controlled or stopped by the Government officials. It’s their “super income” and it is fully tax free.

And who are the real culprits behind this menace? We, the People. It is we, the people who buy goods from these illegal hawkers at cheaper than store prices and think that we are being smart. But in reality, we are the idiots who lose a lot, to gain a little.

Congress Party's pathetic attempt towards Censorship... Again

 

Times of India reports that Union Minister Kapil Sibal has been in talks with Internet social media companies to put in place a monitoring mechanism. On Monday (05 Dec), the telecom & IT minister met executives from the Indian units of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook to discuss the issue.

The executives were shown content which could allegedly hurt religious sensibilities and obscene images of Indian political leaders.

But the reality seems that Kapil Sibal is more concerned about the negative image of his master(s) Sonia Gandhi & Rahul Gandhi.

The New York Times reported that about six weeks ago Sibal called legal representatives from the top internet service providers and Facebook into his office and showed them a Facebook page that maligned Congress president Sonia Gandhi. "This is unacceptable," he said, reported an executive.

How dare Sibal say that critisism of Sonia Gandhi is unacceptable? Is she above the law or does the Minister think that the law of freedom of expression in India is a slave to the whims & fancies of the Congress party?

Sibal wants the above companies to appoint people to screen content before it is uploaded, with staffers looking for objectionable content and deleting it before it is posted. THIS IS CENSORSHIP.

Assuming that Minister Sibal is acting on the instructions of his bosses to curtail our freedom of expression, let us respond by a scathing critisism against him & his party all over the internet.

The net cannot be controlled by politicians who want to censor the right to free speech just for their self-survival; and it is time this point was made clear to them in the most direct fashion.

Wal - Mart Overview

 

Wal-Mart, the biggest American retailer, has a huge impact not only on the local economy but on the global one as well. The company’s strategy of having the lowest prices (which is not always necessarily true) seems to have much more implications than people think. The fact is that a low cost for a Wal-Mart customer is actually a higher cost for many other stakeholders, mainly referring to the American economy.

Wal-Mart was one of the first retailers to discover and leverage the power of information that is hidden in the barcode of every product on their shelves. The black and white stripes hold an encyclopedia of information, from tracking sales throughout the time to product and inventory information. This gives Wal-Mart a competitive advantage, making it an efficiency machine: it allowed to speed up deliveries from plants to shelves (Wal - Mart has a high turnover and low inventories). In this way, Wal-Mart became a world leader in logistics, giving them the edge to change the way goods are produced: a shift from “push production” to “pull production” where the retailer is the one making the decisions– the manufacturer is being told what and when to produce.

An interesting story refers to the relationship between Rubbermaid and Wal-Mart. Changes in the market made Wal-Mart Rubbermaid’s most important customer since it significantly contributed to its growth in a very short period of time. Their relationship went well until the moment when the price of a production material went up. Wal-Mart, a strictly cost focusing company, did not accept the price increase for the Rubbermaid products, which lead to less shelf space for the supplier. This case reflects the risks a supplier takes when focusing too much on a single customer with such a big market share. Having such a high negotiation power, Wal-Mart can always go for the best deal, most of the times bargaining for an amount as low as 20 paise.

Lately, the markets have become more and more competitive among the suppliers in their quest of getting on retailers’ shelves. China, the world’s supermarket for the production market, has a lot to do with Wal-Mart’s strategy to keep costs as low as possible. 90% of Wal-Mart’s suppliers are Chinese. In order to sell in a Wal-Mart, a supplier has to be very competitive in finding ways of cutting costs. In most of the cases, the place where that is possible is actually China.
The bottom line is that Wal-Mart offers consumers a wide range of products at very low prices at the expense of putting local people out of work and lowering living standards.

Promise of a Generation

Our concern is that for the first time since Independence, the next generation will struggle harder to do better than the last. In the past we took it for granted that if we worked hard, if our children worked hard, they would be more prosperous, and have greater opportunities.
But the last few years show that the promise to the next generation, cannot be taken for granted. As a parent, like all parents, we judge Ourself on the opportunities Our children will have, should have and the happiness that can provide. As citizens, we will judge the nation on the opportunities that India should provide for the next generations.

What unites us is that there is too much politics and not enough action. And what is happening to our next generation is those unspoken facts that people know about – but the politicians refuse to discuss. Rampant uneducation and growing unemploment. Parents who don't understand, that despite their hardest efforts – raising their children correctly and giving them every opportunity, their children have no prospects of a successful life. Parents are working longer hours than ever before and spending less time with their family, with no real success in sight.

Our generation is on the road to failure in our duty to the next; to uphold the promise of a Society from which we all should benefit; not only because our elder generation has failed us, but also because we are not willing to take corrective action to change our path to the road of success.

Some of these are big problems that are rooted in the way the country's been changing for years, not just over the decade. And our governments are doing nothing to turn things around. In fact on many issues, they are making the situation worse. Their only benchmark of success is dividing to rule. Our government have, and are, piling debts on our economy; debts will make it far harder for the next generation to start a business or buy a house. It is harder for families to survive, and that's not just bad for them but for the country as well. They have consitantly failed to understand the problems and decline in economy. They will quote statistics and talk about rising GDP, but refuse to accept the growing poverty. They have no ambition to change, no national concern except political survival.

Ask the people if they or their children will find it easier to find jobs, own a home, have a bank balance, have a secure retirement or fulfil their potential and they will tell you by vast majorities that 'the answer is No'. In these circumstances, how could we, the people possibly believe the country is heading in the right direction towards growth and prosperity?

To replace despair with hope will require us, once again, to be a force for major change in India. So the task we must set for our selves and our society is to identify how we can turn failure into success.

First, we need to increase and create jobs for people. We cannot just stand by when nearly 350 million people are out of work. We also have to recognise that seven out of ten graduates who work are not doing jobs for which they studied. In other words they are not being given the opportunity to use the skills for which they have worked so hard. Our ambition has to be to reshape our economy so that Indians can choose a business based on higher skills and higher wage jobs; not in low skill, low wage jobs.

And for those young people who choose not to go to university we need to construct a better route through vocational training, apprenticeships and entrepreneurship which give people fulfilling work and chances to achieve success and their dreams of a secure life. That is why our challenge is not just to open the economy to all our people, but also to change something that politicians hardly talk about – the culture of long working hours, low pay and insecurity at work.

When the time comes, future generations will look to our record just as we look towards those of the earlier generations. We owe a committment to equality, democracy, and freedom; not only to ourself but to our children and their children. A committment of a better and secure future, a promise of a generation.

We do not need another Gandhi

 The Confusing Anna Hazare

The anti- corruption crusader Anna Hazare is preparing for battle again with his demand of the tabling of his (the Civil society’s) version of the “Jan Lok Pal Bill”. However; news reports about his plan of action are confusing at the best.

The news reports on Tuesday (Oct 4th) state as follows: “Anna Hazare on Tuesday put Congress on notice on the Lokpal issue, saying he will campaign against it in election-bound states if the Centre fails to get his version of the anti-corruption bill passed in Parliament's Winter Session. To begin with, Hazare said, he will appeal to voters in Hisar Lok Sabha constituency in Haryana where bypolls are scheduled on October 13 not to vote for the Congress candidate as the party was "deliberately" not bringing the Jan Lokpal bill.

"If the Jan Lokpal Bill is not passed in the Winter Session, then I will name the Congress and ask people not to vote for it in the Assembly polls scheduled in five states next year," he said addressing a press conference in his native village, 50 km from Pune.”

This report in itself states Hazare’s focus to take the anti- corruption fight to the Government, since it is the Congress (I) that leads the UPA coalition in the center. Which is good & fine and it will attract the support of the educated middle class that is sick & tired of the prevailing corruption.

However; IBN Live reports on the same day that: “Social crusader Anna Hazare on Tuesday came out in support of arrested Gujarat police officer Sanjeev Bhatt who has accused Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of complicity in the 2002 communal riots. What Narendra Modi has done is wrong. It is not good for democracy in the country.”

So, Anna Hazare has opened a second battle front against the BJP. That is now raising some questions in the mind of the public:

a) Since when did the Hazare agenda change from being against Corruption to being against politicians?

b) Is the agenda for support of the Civil society’s version of the Lok pal bill now turned into a political agenda of Anna Hazare where he has started to criticize on Government & political actions across all parties?

c) If Hazare is against the Congress and also against the BJP; who exactly is he supporting on the political front, since he and his team have denied any political aspirations?

d) When there are elections, people will vote and someone will win the majority in elections. What happen’s post elections? If Hazare does not like the new party, will he agitate against that party who has won the election? Will this not be considered that Hazare is actually against the people just because they do not agree with him?

e) And if Hazare is against the Congress and also against the BJP; then who exactly does he expect to be occupying the seats in the Legislative assemblies in the States?

We have had one such person before in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who wreaked havoc in the democratic process of the then Indian National Congress with his selfish “i, me & mine” attitude. We do not need another Gandhi to create a new havoc.

How can India reduce Corruption?

Bharatvarsh (India), as we all know; is a land of diverse cultures, ethnic languages and multi- religious social groups all trying to find space in a over populated mass of land that has been divided once before by the British (1947).

Regardless of the diversity of our Nation's population, almost all residents of India are victims of food inflation, lack of required income for human standards of living and a corrupt Government at all levels; from village administrators to the Central Government bureaucrats & ministers.

Everybody agrees that corruption needs to be removed or at least reduced drastically for our Nation to survive. Here are some ideas that may be considered, not by those in power: but by those whose lives are constantly threatened by corrupt people in power.

1. All members to Rajya Sabha, must be elected by the People by direct voting.
 

2. All Governers of State(s) and Lt. Governers must be elected by the People by direct voting.

3. The President, Prime Minister & Deputy Prime Minister of India must be elected by the People by direct voting, No longer should we allow the political parties to dictate to the People as to who will be the Prime Minister or President. Let it be the choice of the People. The same applies for Lok Ayukta at State level and Jana Lok Pal at national level. All have to be elected directly by the People.
 

4. Immediate dissolution of the IAS & IPS. The entire concept of the IAS & IPS is a remnant of the British Raj policies where the natives (us Indians) needed to be governed by a "higher class" of rulers (initially the British and now the pseudo Brits). Every State in India has its own cadre of Administrators & Police officials who are more capable than the IAS or IPS.
 

5. Segregation of Police departments at the levels of town / village, district, state and national police. Each town / village & district police department will be independent of each other and independent of the state police dept in terms of administration and duties but will report directly to the Governor of the State. The state police will report to the Chief Minister of the state. Even the Courts can have their own police department that reports to the Chief Justice of India. All police departments will be answerable to the President of India, independently.
 

6. The Central Police organizations will be answerable to the President of India directly. They can also be made answerable publicly to the full session of the Parliament of India.
 

7. Draconian punishment for Capital offenses. Capital offenses should include per-meditated murder, kidnapping, rape / gang-rape, misuse of Government office, misuse of Political office, and any other crime that benefits the person or their family at the cost of the Nation's treasury. Punishment should include confiscation of all assets of the guilty (including ancestral property & property in name of spouse, children and siblings), naked flogging in public and hanging to death in public.
 

8. Enforcement of law& order and public discipline. The law must be applied equally to all residents of India, regardless of their status in Government or position in the bureaucracy or other administrative positions. Family members of people in power have a tendency to misuse Government (i.e: People's resources). In such matters the person in power should also be prosecuted along-with his family member to the full extent of draconian law.
 

9. Today criminality is on the rise due to the 'economics of crime' that favor the criminals. This 'economics of crime' must be made extremely expensive for the criminal by use of draconian punishments (both financial & physical). Only this will put an almost instant brake on the criminal and lawless activities in India. Financial punishment should start with fines that are minimum at 11,000 and increase in multiples of 10 for every additional offense. Physical punishments should include flogging and daily physical work on the roads of India during the term of the punishment. The prisoners to be isolated from family & friends at all times during the full duration of prison sentence being served.
 

10. Every resident of India (regardless of whether Indian citizen or not) must be brought into a electronic / bio-metric database. Every law enforcement & judicial department must have easy access to each Indian resident(s): I.D photo, finger prints, iris scan (eye print), blood group and DNA profile. When criminals know that they can be traced and caught, their enthusiasm to commit crime reduces drastically.

These are only some of the suggestions that I can think off to start the process of a disciplined society with drastically reduced crime and lowest corruption index. When those in power are answerable to the People and also to the Laws of India; I am confident that crime and corruption will reduce drastically.

जय हिन्दुस्तान

The Mohandas Gandhi that Congress Party does NOT want you to know.

 

Over the years since Independence from British rule; the Congress party in it's various forms has always projected Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (aka the 'Mahatma") as a paragon of virtue, a Saint of heavenly virtues and maybe 'God' himself.

But the reality of M.K. Gandhi was very different. He had his flaws and his negative character, as can be seen from the facts of history that the Congress Party has tried to suppress over the last 60 years.

1. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in 1869 in a rich, stately and princely three-storied home in Porbandar, grandson of the chief administrator of the small Princely State in coastal Gujarat. He was not a poor man with no clothes or adequate food.

2. At a time when literacy in British India was barely 8%, Gandhi enjoyed the rare option of studying in Britain and spent the years 1888-1893 in London.

3. It is especially notable that at the age of 45, Gandhi saw in the British empire a "spiritual foundation" - a sentiment many in the Indian Freedom Movement would have found astounding, even nauseating. As early as 1884, the most advanced Indian intellectuals were already quite clear that British rule in India was built on a foundation of economic pillage and plunder - and was devoid of any high social or moral purpose.

4. Although Gandhi was critical of specific aspects of colonial rule, in 1914, his general outlook towards the British was more of the loyal subject than that of the most advanced of India's national leaders. Particularly onerous was his support of the British during World War I.

5. Gandhi's ideas on non-violence did not then extend to the British Imperial War and Gandhi put in big efforts to mobilize Indians on behalf of the British war effort (World War I). To return to London in wartime: Gandhi quickly raised his ambulance corps among the Indians in England. As before, he had offered his volunteers for ANY KIND of military duty, but the authorities preferred medical workers.

6. For Gandhi to demand of the poor, downtrodden, and bitterly exploited Indian masses to first demonstrate their unmistakable commitment to non-violence before their struggle could receive with Gandhi's approval (just a few years after he had apologetically defended an imperial war) was simply unconscionable. Clearly, Gandhi had one standard for the Indian masses, and quite another for the nation's colonial overlords.

7. Gandhi often engaged in tactical and ideological hypocrisy to suit his political needs. Although Gandhi's defenders may disagree, not only were Gandhi's ideas on non-violence applied very selectively, they were hardly the most appropriate for India's situation. At no time was the British military presence in India so overwhelming that it could not have been challenged by widespread resistance from the Indian masses.

8. The Chauri Chaura incident of 1921 exposed a crucial flaw in Gandhi's character. Gandhi's Chauri Chaura turnaround was indicative of his deep fear and distrust of the Indian masses - and that Gandhi feared the spontaneous energy of the poor and the downtrodden more than the injustice of British rule.

9. In much of Motilal Nehru's correspondence with his son Jawaharlal, (and with others in the Congress), there are expressions of frustration with Gandhi's tendency towards moderation and compromise with the British authorities and his reluctance to broaden and accelerate the civil disobedience movement. There are also references in Motilal Nehru's letters to how large contributions from the Birlas were enabling certain political cliques (led by Madan Mohan Malviya - a close confidante of Gandhi) to "capture" the Congress party. That Gandhi was close to the Birlas is widely acknowledged.

10. Motilal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose both complained of Gandhi's tendency to ignore party resolutions when they went against his wishes, and to work with cliques rather than consult and cooperate with all party members. In a letter dated March 28, 1939, from Manbhum, Bihar - Bose complained bitterly to Nehru of Gandhi's quiet campaign of non-cooperation with him after Bose had just won the position of President of the Indian National Congress, defeating Gandhi's chosen nominee, Dr Pattabhi.

11. Gandhi, along with Nehru formed a tactical block against Bose, and prevented him from functioning effectively as leader of India's preeminent national organization. Eventually, this led to Bose having to quit the Congress, and organize outside it's tedious confines.

12. On more than one occasion, Gandhi would begin with statements such as "God has warned me", or "...God has spoken as such to me.....". Coming from any ordinary person, such claims would normally be viewed with great suspicion and skepticism because they can only be accepted on faith, never independently verified. In fact, any ordinary person who claimed as often to have a 'hotline' to 'God' might even be seen as a lunatic, as someone prone to hallucinations, but Gandhi seemed to be an exception from humanity on this aspect.

13. In all other theories of democratic liberation, ethical and moral codes emanated from one essential principle - which is the fundamental right of enslaved people to be free from alien exploitation. But in Gandhi's moral framework, the need of the Indian masses to liberate themselves from a brutally unjust colonial occupation did not come first, it was subject to his kind of one-sided conditionality.

For instance, in the context of Bhagat Singh's hanging, even as Gandhi condemned the British government, he observed: "The government certainly had the right to hang these men." Whether Gandhi was confusing the term "right" with the term authority or might, or he actually granted the colonial government the "right" to execute Indian freedom fighters is hard to tell. But in general, it appears that Gandhi had not worked out in his mind the true essence of natural human rights, and desirable human duties in a civilized society.

14. While there will always be admirers of Gandhi, detailed study of his historical records reveals him to be a seriously flawed leader, popular more due to the particular conditions and circumstances of British ruled India; rather than an "enlightened visionary" that the Congress party likes to portray to the world.

*************

Social Discipline and Crime:

 

The issue of the lack of social discipline and the growing criminal tendencies cannot be ignored any longer. The growing criminal activity is a direct result of socio-economic-political factors and can be attributed to a succession of weak governments and an even weaker and inappropriate legal structure. Criminality is on the rise, simply because the mechanism of law and order and prosecution of crime is both inadequate and slow in its process.

This problem can only be tackled by a complete overhaul of our legal system and its mechanisms. While legal luminaries in India could give much better advise on the changes required in our legal system, the basic requirement is making the courts more people friendly and efficient. It is strongly believed that a ‘jury’ system will not only ensure a fair trial for the accused, but will also ease the strain that is put upon the judges as they singularly tackle a ever increasing work load.

A social code of conduct is required on an immediate basis that not only prescribes the way that the individuals should conduct themselves in public places, but would also emphasize the manner in which social groups have to conduct themselves as a whole. This code of conduct, strictly enforced, will definitely reduce the social crimes that afflict the majority of our people today. This will not, in any form or manner, impinge upon the individual’s right to privacy, but will help in streamlining social interaction amongst the people. Social code of conduct would cover the areas of noise pollution, cleanliness in the streets and in municipal wards, ease of removal of garbage, prohibit the misuse of public areas as open air urinals and latrines, prohibit the use of public areas as spittoons, and allow for a smooth and easier use of public facilities like footpaths and foot bridges.

The removal of footpath vendors would be a prime concern towards a better and safer use of footpaths, as would be the redesigning of the pubic facilities for use by handicapped persons.

Most of the social issues in our nation today can be attributed to a weak mechanism for prosecution of crime. Criminality has been glorified as a medium of social change, but this in fact has proven (by recent events in Maharashtra and Karnataka) to be precursor in organized crime involving all strata of society and the bureaucracy. Crime prosecution figures are as varied as the groups that poll these figures. But, the perception among the general population is that much of the criminal activity is unchallenged by the government; thereby reinforcing in the mind of both the people and the criminals that the rule of the law is weak and impotent. The suggestions for improving the current situation is as follows:

a) The deployment on a crisis basis of Citizens Identity Cards.
b) Upgrading of the police and law enforcement departments with modern machinery to track and investigate crime and persons associated with criminal activities.
c) Sharing of criminal files among city, state and central law enforcement agencies on a real time basis to ensure a free flow of information for prevention of crime.
d) A stronger and affirmative legal structure that allows for a faster prosecution of criminals.
e) A hard labor based punishment policy for criminals that allow the society to utilize the physical and mental talents of convicted criminals.
f) A provision under law to appropriate and sell assets of economic and serious crime offenders, in order to confiscate illegal earning and return them to the government treasury, which in turn will self-finance the criminal prosecution efforts.
g) The restoration of the death penalty for heinous crimes.

It has been proved in societies around the globe and over periods of time that a successful and strong nation is always the result of the strength of character and discipline among its individual citizens.

:::::::::POSTED EARLIER TWO YEARS AGO::::::::

Non Corrupt Leadership- Call of the Nation

While each and every line written about Politicians might be true, our question is what have we done to change the scenario? We may have voted to the best possible candidate. Is that really enough? When our politicians rule the nation, they go out of the way by taking initiative to connect to people and become successful in reaching their goals. History has time and again proved that the politicians irrespective of their parties are loyal to making best for themselves in terms of power and money. Fault lies in our own non-initiative! Its very convenient for us to become an intelligent analysts who do everything- except taking a plunge. We also have enough cases to point out that this area is not for straight forward honest people. We believe real culprit is us by way of personal in-competence as well as guarded convenience in terms of not taking an action and demanding answer-ability. We are used to getting things done thru others even if we have to pay a heavy price for it. Basically we have become a politically and socially impotent citizens. Friends, surely speaking, there needs to have better mutual understanding among us- “the people” to use these politicians ( as they have used us till date and vote the right candidates into the lok sabha). LET US HAVE "YOUNG & COMMITTED LEADERSHIP" Note: I had originally posted this in March 2009; but we have forgotten our own needs to be a successful Nation.

Indians in the 'Land of the Free' .......

 

 (Reuters) - A federal agency has sued over unequal treatment of more than 500 workers from India recruited to work at shipyards in Mississippi and Texas, officials said on Wednesday. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission contends the workers were forced to live in substandard housing and exploited with fees, to the point where some had net earnings of nearly nothing. The EEOC said the treatment of the Indian workers amounted to human trafficking, even though they were brought to the country with work visas. "Foreign workers should be treated as equals when working in the United States, not as second-class citizens," said Olophius Perry, district director for the EEOC Los Angeles district office. The workers earned about $8.50 to $9.50 an hour, but many of them were forced to pay recruitment fees of between $12,000 and $25,000, EEOC officials said. Some of the workers had to take out high interest loans or mortgage their ancestral lands and they were charged for lodging and food, officials said. "They were nickeled and dimmed to the point where they really didn't have any pay," said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC Los Angeles office. Also, workers had their passports taken and were threatened with deportation if they complained, officials said. Some of them were forced to live in crowded conditions amid rats and insects, according to the EEOC. Workers of other nationalities were not subject to the same kind of treatment, Park said. In the case of these 500 Indian workers, the EEOC alleged in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in Mississippi that Gulf Coast marine services company Signal International LLC subjected the welders and pipe-fitters to segregated facilities and discriminatory treatment. The Indian men paid recruiters up to $20,000 to come to the United States, and when they arrived at Signal shipyards in late 2006 and early 2007, they were forced to pay rent for crowded housing in fenced labor camps, according to the EEOC. In some cases, 24 men shared a trailer with only two toilets, the EEOC said. A Signal International LLC representative did not return calls. In the cases of Indian workers, the EEOC has sued under the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it is seeking back pay, compensatory damages and injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.

The Re-Colonization of Africa

 

The Libyan uprising is entering its sixth week. The western media is working 24/7 to advertise the courage and persistence of the Libyan people's efforts to overthrow Gaddafi and are highlighting his regime’s (legitimate government’s?) brutality ranging from alleged shoot-to-kill policies to the indiscriminate use of artillery against unarmed civilians. In addition to the current no-fly zone, the UN Security Council unanimously issued a resolution imposing measures against the Libyan Government including an arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban and a referral of the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court for investigation. Put simply, coercive external intervention by the Western nations to alter the balance of power on the ground in Libya in favor of the anti-Gaddafi revolt is likely to have devastating effects globally. The attendant costs would be borne not by those who call for intervention from outside of Libya but by the Libyan people with whom the west is showing solidarity. The no-fly zone serves as a predicated move for the subsequent invasion and occupation of Libya insofar as the ongoing use of this coercive measure against the Gaddafi government is being cited as a support to the argument that there is "implied authorization" to forcibly topple the regime. While humanitarian considerations are being invoked in defense of intervention, humanitarianism is far from the only issue. The real issue is re-establishing the leadership of the USA in the region and the stabilization of crude oil markets. If the Libyan people are struggling to change their regime on their own terms then there is no reason to presume an overlap between the logic of intervention and their interests. History in Iraq clearly establishes that an external regime change intervention based on mixed motives - even when accompanied with claims of humanitarianism - usually privileges the strategic and economic interests of USA & Europe and results in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground. Indeed, the current discord among Western powers concerning their intervention in Libya is precisely based in their doubts as to whether their own individual strategic interests are adequately served by these actions. The fact that western powers did not act while their nationals were on Libyan soil demonstrates their acceptance that treating the regime with armed coercion will lead to civilian deaths either directly as a result of an intervention or indirectly through reprisals against civilians identified as opponents. Furthermore, the evacuation channels made available to Western nationals – airlifts across the Mediterranean – were not and are not being offered to Libyan civilians or to African & Asian migrant workers trapped in Libya. If the humanitarian welfare of civilians in Libya were paramount, they, too, would have been offered this secure escape route. Instead, once Western nationals were safely out of harm’s way, coercive measures were adopted without any effort to protect or evacuate the Asian & African civilians that were left behind in Tripoli and beyond. This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that neither the Western nor Arab powers currently calling for intervention have a record of privileging particular domestic partners based on the interests or aspirations of local populations. There is little reason to expect that Libya will be exceptional in this regard, particularly in light of the mixed motives of all the interveners. Further, the identities of involved in the process of intervention reinforce concerns about such proposals. Many members of the Arab League are currently undertaking repression against democratic uprisings against their current governments. The legitimacy of any call they issue on behalf of the Libyan people is being questioned by their own internal anti-democratic practices. Members of the Group of 8 (mostly Western countries) are also compromised by their disregard towards democratic demands met with repression, within countries that are their regional allies and their own long history of brutal interventions and direct support of authoritarian regimes. The Western “Liberators” are giving little priority to addressing shortages of medical supplies and provision of essential foods and clean water. Beyond these basics, an evacuation corridor for civilians – including non-Libyan African workers trapped in the territory – has yet to be secured and responsibility for shouldering the burden of refugee flows is restricted to Tunisia and Egypt. Rather than imposing these costs on Libya's poorest neighbors; Libya’s wealthy northern neighbors in Europe should be absorbing a much larger share of the costs, human and material, of offering refuge to fleeing civilians. The fact that the airlifting of Libyan and other African civilians to safety out of Tripoli is an option that is not currently on the table speaks eloquently to the misalignment of priorities. Dropping the xenophobic European rhetoric on the "dangers" of African immigration would also have the benefit of removing one of the Libyan regime's major levers with the EU. As Gaddafi threatens to terminate the agreements by which he has been warehousing African migrants at Europe's behest, he lays bare the cruel logic of tacit alliances (based on immigration, energy, and security interests) that has long lent support to his rule. If Europe was willing to take concrete steps to facilitate the evacuation to its own countries, of civilians who wish to leave Libyan territory regardless of nationality; they would at least have broken with their past record of shameful complicity in regime brutality.