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.

'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.