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.

'Expression of regret' is not an apology.

 

 

Recently the Indian Ambassador to the USA was singled out by the TSA in the USA for a full body pat down. This has violated not only the rules of diplomatic behavior but also the laws of humanity since the Ambassador was singled out just because she was wearing the traditional Indian dress of a saree. This points out towards discrimination without any doubt. Over the past two years, the Americans have insulted one former President of India; rwo Cabinet Ministers and as umpteen other Indian dignitaries. All this.while the American Ambassador to India scampers around New Delhi with a special Delhi police escort. Traditionally, Indians are a Nation that respect humanity and social norms. Americans seem to be lacking in the required values of tradition and diplomacy. The Indian humility should not be considered a weakness. Soft at heart, Indians are also strong of resolve and determination. The Indian nation must receive a full apology from the American government. An 'expression of regret' is frivolous and indicates a " high and mighty attitude" that will only bring more negativity in the Indo - US relationship.

Nigerian cocaine peddlers in India

 

The increasing number of Traffic accidents and acts of insane rage by the youth of India are mostly due drug abuse, cocaine being the illicit drug of choice. In most cases, the cocaine is said to be supplied by Nigerians in India. The Indian police are said to be afraid of the Nigerian drug peddlers, as these Nigerian drug suppliers are supposedly HIV-carriers. Nigerians use one of their local dialects to communicate with one another and have thus built an impressive drug supply chain all across India, especially in India’s big cities. These drug dealers come to India pretending to be students, and once they’re in, become part of an already-existing impressive network of operatives. One of the first things The Indian Government needs to do is stop approving student visas for Nigerian students. Secondly, as soon as the Nigerians are caught, instead of leting them loose to their consulates, they should be taken directly to the prison and have their hand chopped off. (In Africa it's called as giving criminals the "half sleeve" choice). Thirdly, the Indian government needs to raise this issue all the way to the top of Nigerian food chain. We can’t have these guys messing our youth up. And if any Nigerians are found bribing the local police (how else have they been able to do what they’ve been doing for last 20 years), let us deport those local police officers to Nigeria as well. The real perpetrators are the cocaine supply chain specialists who need to be either hanged to death for messing up with India’s next generations or sent back to their dismal tribal life in the Nigeran delta, minus a hand or two.

Is it time to pull out of the Commonwealth?

 

 Over the last one year, India and Indians have been put down by the three leading nations of the Commonwealth. First, Australia started the ball rolling with their total disregard for International norms and stated as a matter of their Government's policy; that they would not supply Nuclear Reactor material to India for peaceful purposes. 

Australia stopped just short of calling India a "nuclear non-trustworthy state". And this does not even start to cover the blatantly racial crimes of assault against and murders of Indian students in Australia. The policy of Racial discrimination against Indians was then shouldered by England; where 10 days ago, members of the Indian Shooting Contingent were insulted verbally and then left stranded by the employees of a Transport company which was contracted to transport the participating teams to & from the ranges to their hotels. 

Whether this transport company had an additional contract for Insulting Indians is yet to be clear. The latest incident is the first secretary of the Canadian Embassy in New Delhi; accusing in writing the Border Security Force of War Crimes and Actions against Humanity. (This insult would be the equivalent of calling the Canadian Mounties as Mafia in Red Tunics). 

A First Secretary of an Embassy represents his / her nation in a foreign country. Are the comments of the First Secretary of the Canadian embassy the official position of Canada towards a legal Police Force of the Indian Government? This has not been clarified till date. 

 All in all, it is time that India & Indians world-wide gave up the 'slave mentality' towards the Commonwealth countries and withdrew immediately from the Commonwealth.

Non Confidentiality In India

 

With the increase in cross-border trade and an enhanced competitive climate in India, confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation agreements are becoming increasingly popular there, especially in the IT and technology sectors. An increasing number of outsourcing and IT companies are including confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in agreements with their employees, with terms ranging from a few months to several years after the employment relationship is terminated. The companies claim that such restrictions are necessary to protect their proprietary rights and their confidential information. Similarly, foreign companies doing business in India often seek to include confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in their agreements with senior management and employees, as is customarily done in certain foreign jurisdictions. However, Indian courts have consistently refused to enforce post-termination non-compete clauses in employment contracts, viewing them as “restraint of trade” impermissible under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (the Act), and as void and against public policy because of their potential to deprive an individual of his or her fundamental right to earn a livelihood. The principles of Section 27 were aptly summarized by the Supreme Court of India in Percept D’ Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd v Zaheer Khan (AIR 2006 SC 3426), in which the Supreme Court observed that under Section 27 of the Act a restrictive covenant extending beyond the term of the contract is void and not enforceable. The court also noted that the doctrine of “restraint of trade” is not confined to contracts of employment only, but is also applicable to all other contracts with respect to obligations after the contractual relationship is terminated. This long-standing stance was clearly reaffirmed recently in a 2009 decision by the New Delhi High Court in Desiccant Rotors International Pvt Ltd v Bappaditya Sarkar & Anr (I.A. No.5455/2008, I.A. No.5454/2008 & I.A. No.5453/2008 in CS(OS) No.337/2008), which involved a senior marketing manager at a manufacturer of evaporative cooling components, products and systems. As part of his employment agreement with Desiccant, the manager agreed that for two years following the termination of his employment, he would be bound by a covenant with Desiccant that would require him to keep Desiccant’s matters confidential, and that would prevent him from competing with Desiccant and soliciting Desiccant’s customers, suppliers and employees. Expressly embodied in the employment agreement was an acknowledgement by the manager that he was dealing with confidential material of Desiccant, including know-how, technology trade secrets, methods and processes, market sales and lists of customers. After a few years of employment, the manager resigned and, notwithstanding the terms of his old employment agreement, within three months of his resignation joined a direct competitor of Desiccant as country manager in charge of marketing and started contacting customers and suppliers of Desiccant. In injunctive proceedings against the manager by Desiccant, the High Court reiterated the principles embodied in Section 27 of the Act and the individual’s fundamental right to earn a living by practicing any trade or profession of his or her choice. Brushing aside any argument by Desiccant that the restrictive covenants were primarily designed to protect its confidential and proprietary information, the High Court ruled that in the clash between the attempt of employers to protect themselves from competition and the right of employees to seek employment wherever they choose, the right of livelihood of employees must prevail. Similarly, in a 2007 decision in V.F.S. Global Services Ltd. v. Mr. Suprit Roy (2008 (2) BomCR 446 ) the Bombay High Court held that a fully paid three-month “garden leave” agreement with a senior manager did not renew the employment contract and constituted a “restraint of trade” unenforceable by V.F.S. Foreign investors in India need to be aware of Section 27 of the Act and the well-established line of court cases under it, as they structure their employment relationships and incentives with local management. As a general principle, confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation agreements will be enforceable during the term of the employment relationship. After termination of employment, however, many provisions of these agreements will be struck and deemed unenforceable by Indian courts in enforcement proceedings, even if the provisions are reasonable in scope and duration, subject to certain exceptions. One of the few instances in which non-competition clauses will generally be enforceable is in the context of the sale of a business, where the owners of the business will agree to a non-compete in exchange for consideration for the goodwill associated with the business (for example, in a stock sale where the promoters will sell their stock in the business to a buyer in exchange for consideration). To be enforceable, the non-compete will need to be reasonably limited in time and scope, and consideration will need to be attributed to the goodwill in the transaction, as evidenced in the documentation. Similarly, a non-compete clause in a joint venture in which shareholders mutually agree not to compete with each other on certain terms and conditions, which include time and geographic restrictions, will generally be enforceable in India. Non-solicitation obligations post-termination of employment may be enforced in limited circumstances, based upon the facts of each individual case. For example, they were upheld in the Desiccant case, in which the High Court did allow an injunction against the manager prohibiting him from soliciting Desiccant’s customers and suppliers to stand in effect. In the V.F.S. case, however, relief for breach of non-solicitation obligations was denied on the basis of vagueness of the relief claimed. Confidentiality obligations post-termination of employment will similarly be enforced in limited circumstances so long as they remain reasonable and limited in time and scope and the employer can support that the information is confidential and proprietary to it. Indeed, while denying enforcement of the garden leave in the V.F.S. case, the Bombay High Court established the principle that a restraint on the use of trade secrets during or after cessation of employment is not tantamount to a “restraint on trade” under Section 27 of the Act and therefore can be enforceable under certain circumstances. This case and others show that Indian courts will in certain circumstances enforce confidentiality agreements intended to protect an employer’s proprietary rights. But the courts remain sensitive to the possibility that employers may try to use these covenants as a back-door means of restraining employees from exercising their trade and will place an extremely high burden of proof on employers seeking to enforce these provisions. In the Desiccant case for example, the court held that a marketing manager could not be deemed to possess confidential information and that his written declaration to that effect in his employment agreement were meaningless; the court rejected Desiccant’s claim to enforce the confidentiality obligations of the manager. Therefore, when dealing with local management and key employees in India, foreign investors need to remember that the position of Indian courts on the question of non-competes is unmistakably clear—any restriction with regard to freedom of employees to seek employment and earn a living after termination of their employment contract will generally be unenforceable as contrary to public policy as set forth under Section 27 of the Act. Quote-pull, if needed: Indian courts remain sensitive to the possibility that employers may try to use restrictive covenants as a back-door means of restraining employees from exercising their trade and will place an extremely high burden of proof on employers seeking to enforce these provisions.

Paradox of our times....

 

 

Today we have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees, but less common sense; more knowledge, but less judgment. We have more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness. We spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get to angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too often, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too little and lie too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years. We have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider highways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less. We've split the atom, but not our prejudice, we write more, but learn less; plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait; we have higher incomes, but lower morals. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies, but have less communication. We are long on quantity, but short on quality. These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men and short character; steep profits and shallow relationships. More leisure and less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition; two incomes, but more divorce; fancier houses, but broken homes. That's why I propose, that as of today, you do not keep anything for a special occasion, because every day that you live is a special occasion. Search for knowledge, read more, sit on your front porch and admire the view without paying attention to your needs. Spend more time with your family and friends, eat your favorite foods, and visit the places you love. Life is a chain of moment of enjoyment, not only about survival. Let's tell our families and friends how much we love them. Do not delay anything that adds laughter and joy to your life. Every day, every hour, and every minute is special. And you don't know if it will be your last.

Bloody Tuesday as Maoists massacre 75 security personnel

 

 On Tuesday 06 April, Maoist guerrillas Tuesday carried out the worst ever massacre of security personnel by trapping and slaughtering 75 men of the CRPF in the dense forests of Chattisgarh. Over the last 3 months the Maoists have shown a remarkable improvement in their battle tactics, inflicting massive damage on the security forces of India. This cannot be attributed to either a large number of Maoists forces attacking smaller numbers of security personnel or to the sudden high level of efficiency in the Maoist cadres. The finger of suspicion points unwavering to the other “Mao forces” namely elements of the People’s Republican Army (PLA) of China. Over the last 18 months, Chinese companies invested into projects in India. Some of these projects are in the mining sector in Central India regions. Based on this contract the Chinese companies brought into India 100,000 Chinese laborers and strangely enough the Indian Government allowed this to happen. Nobody in the Government of India even thought about the fact that maybe, just MAYBE these 100,000 young Chinese laborers could be members of the PLA. Can the Indian Intelligence services track down the locations of these 100,000 laborers? Is there any system in India that can track the movement of foreigners in India? The real answer is a big ‘NO’. It is my opinion that today we our forces and our nation are suffering from the consequences of inefficient bureaucracy compounded by wide scale corruption in our society. Till June 2008 attacks by Maoists usually resulted in casualties in single digits. It’s only after June 2008 till date that the efficiency of the Maoists has suddenly shot up that they are planning and executing operations on a battlefield combat level with Indian security forces sustaining climbing number of casualties in every incident. Our police are not combating half starving bands of guerillas; but a disciplined and well trained army. And that can only be the PLA of China. Our politicians and our bureaucracy may or may not admit this fact but, India today is in a ‘State of War’. Our enemies are as yet undefined, but are well trained, well equipped, strongly financed and highly motivated. And the finger of suspicion points towards China. Recent violent activities by Maoists • April 6, 2010: At least 73 CRPF and district force personnel were killed when a large group of Naxals ambushed them in the Mukrana forests of Chhattisgarh's Dantewada district. • February 20, 2010: Maoists killed a village guard by slitting his throat. • February 18, 2010: Twelve villagers were killed and 9 injured in indiscriminate firing by the Maoists in Jamui district of Bihar. The dead included three women and one child. Twenty five village houses were also burned down by the Maoists. • February 16, 2010 : Silda camp attack • October 8, 2009 : About 150 Maoist ambushed a Police patrol and killed 17 Policemen in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra • October 6, 2009 : Police inspector Francis Induwar was beheaded by Maoists in Jharkhand. The action has been compared to the tactics of the Islamist Taliban of Pakistan-Afghanistan • April 13, 2009: 10 paramilitary troops are killed in eastern Orissa. • February 23, 2009: Maoists kill a contractor, sets fire in police post at Govindpalli of Malkangiri. • July 16, 2008: A landmine hit a police van in Malkangiri district, killing 21 policemen. • June 29, 2008: CPI forces attacked a boat on the Chitrakonda reservoir in Orissa carrying members of an anti-Naxalite police force. The boat sunk, killing 33 policemen, while 28 survived. • In November 2007 reports emerged that the anti-SEZ movement in Nandigram in West Bengal had been infiltrated by Naxalites since February; the reports quoted unnamed intelligence sources. Recently, police found weapons belonging to Maoists near Nandigram. • In 2008, The Hindu newspaper reported that a Maoist killed a man and publicly cannibalized him in Malkangiri district of Orissa to terrorize villagers. The alleged incident occurred in Bandiguda on August 14, 2007. • On March 15, 2007 an attack happened in the rebel stronghold area of Dantewada, in Chhattisgarh state. Fifty-four persons, including 15 personnel of the Chhattishgarh Armed Force, were killed in an offensive by 300 to 350 CPI (Maoist) cadres on a police base camp in the Bastar region in the early hours of Thursday. The remaining victims were tribal youths of Salwa Judum, designated as Special Police Officers (SPOs) and roped in to combat the Maoists. Eleven person were injured. The attack, which lasted nearly two-and-a-half hours, was spearheaded by the "State Military Commission (Maoist)", consisting of about 100 armed naxalites. • On March 6, 2007 the CPI (Maoist) reportedly claimed responsibility for the Mahato assassination, but JMM members of the Jharkhand state cabinet, including the Chief Minister, subsequently announced that a state police investigation is under way into the authenticity of this claim. Police reportedly believe that political rivals of Mahato, including organized criminal groups, may have been behind the assassination. • On March 5, 2007 Maoist shot dead a local Congress leader (Prakash, a member of the local Mandal Praja Parishad (MPP)) in Andhra Pradesh while he was inspecting a road construction project in Mahabubnagar district. • On March 4, 2007 Maoist shot dead a member of the parliament (Sunil Mahato) of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) party from Jharkhand state. • On December 2, 2006 the BBC reported that at least 14 Indian policemen had been killed by Maoists in a landmine ambush near the town of Bokaro, 80 miles from Ranchi, the capital of the State of Jharkhand. • On October 18, 2006 women belonging to the Maoist guerrilla forces blasted four government buildings in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh. On the day before, over a dozen armed cadres of the group, with support from male colleagues, blocked traffic on the Antagarh-Koylibera Road in the Kanker district, near the city of Raipur. They also detonated explosives inside four buildings, including two schools, in Kanker. This incident occurred two days after a major leader of the party's operations in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, Kone Kedandam, surrendered to authorities in the town of Srikakulam. • On July 16, 2006 the Maoists attacked a relief camp in the Dantewada district where several villagers were kidnapped. The death toll was 29. • On February 28, 2006 the Maoists attacked several anti-Maoist protesters in Erraboru village in Chhattisgarh using landmines, killing 25 people. • On 13 November 2005 CPI (Maoist) fighters stunned authorities by attacking Jehanabad in Bihar, freeing 250 captured comrades and taking twenty imprisoned right wing paramilitaries captive, executing their leader. They also detonated several bombs in the town. A prison guard was also reported killed. • In August 2005 Maoists kidnapped from the Dantewada district of the state of Chhattisgarh.This follows violent incidents in 2004 in the same region when 50 policemen and about 300 villagers were killed in the Dantewada district and over 50,000 villagers were staying in relief camps out of fear from Maoists. • In February 2005 the CPI (Maoist) killed 7 policemen, a civilian and injured many more during a mass attack on a school building in Venkatammanahalli village, Pavgada, Tumkur, Karnataka. On August 17, 2005, the government of Andhra Pradesh outlawed the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and various mass organizations close to it, and began to arrest suspected members and sympathizers days afterwards. The arrested included former emissaries at the peace talks of 2004.