Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Its high Time &need of hour for Educated Youths to take part in Nation building.: Politics influences every individual,common man th...
Its high Time &need of hour for Educated Youths to take part in Nation building.: Politics influences every individual,common man th...: Dear Readers, (Caution: Very useful and detailed Post). We have been frustrated by experimenting so many methods for evading the corrupt...
Politics influences every individual,common man though you are not involved
Dear Readers, (Caution: Very useful and detailed Post).
What is public policy? A public policy is a law or rule that is enforced by any level of government, whether central, state, or local. Our activist judiciary also makes public policy: that all public transport in Delhi must run on CNG, for example, was a Supreme Court decree.Governments frequently makes broad statements about the future direction of development in a sector, also generally called ‘policy.’ The New Education Policy of 1986 or the Telecom Policy of 1994 are examples of ‘policy’ in this sense. Various tiers of government also formulate a variety of schemes and programs. When I say ‘public policy,’ I include all of the above: schemes, programs, sectoral Policies, rules, regulations, laws, as well as judicial policy-decisions.
Who makes policy? It is clear from the above definition of public policy that it is made by different tiers of government as well as the judiciary. (IAS officers under each ministry)
Who is affected by public policy? By penalizing some forms of behavior and rewarding others, policies change the costs and benefits of different directions of action. Policies can be thought of as ‘rules of the game’ of everyday life. These rules affect the way people choose to pursue their goals and thus influence
the combined, overall, and unintended results of everyone’s actions. Policies mainly affect the individuals under the jurisdiction of the government that makes and enforces the rules. However, as we shall see in a moment, who exactly is effected by policies and how is not as clear and straightforward as you might expect.
Who influences public policy? This is an interesting and serious question nowadays. The first answer people usually give is that, in a democracy, citizens influence policy. This is true. In a representative system of government, policy makers’ ability to hold office ultimately rest on their ability to acquire votes from their constituents.However, to have a deeper understanding of who influences policy, we must ask: who has an interest in the outcome of a policy?
Policies create benefits and costs to different groups. Individuals in these groups thus have an incentive to try to influence the final shape of the policy environment. It is important to realize that this incentive is greater for some groups than others. Definite groups, such as businesses in the same industry, unions, bureaucrats, lobby to influence policies in their favor. They plead with politicians for a policy and give money for campaigns, perhaps even direct or indirect bribes of one kind or another. Groups that experience highly concentrated benefits or costs and that can easily organize their members will tend to have a greater influence on policy.2So-called ‘special interest groups’ are also more likely to know how policies will affect them than average citizens are. As a consequence, in a democracy (where politicians compete for votes),
“Most policies are constructed to favor particular groups, but may not actually be beneficial to the greater population.”
This is where the crony capitalist are developed, market becomes narrow, and monopolistic where small business are tampered and perished.
Let me give a quick example of the power of public policy:
�The Indian Forest Act classifies bamboo as a tree. All the rules that apply to trees apply to bamboo and the Forest Department controls its use. As a result, only some connected contractors have access to forest bamboo. If it were classified as a grass, however, as it scientifically is, then the bamboo would be out of the Forest Department’s control. Tribal would be able to access it as a resource to earn their livelihood. A large-scale use of bamboo would also save trees and timber, a tremendous environmental benefit.
We have been frustrated by experimenting so many methods for evading the corruption, poverty and security lapse etc in our country, though we have changed the political parties etc but the result we gained is moderate or nil sometimes. This is all because we have very shallow understanding of the governance system. In today's India, we have multiple political parties with no goals but merely speaking about the welfare of people. Have we ever put a question how those false propaganda or manifestations are going to be achieved by them? The answer is no, i will detail briefly about this in my next blog "Get Interested, Get Informed, Get Involved".
Also though you run away or doesn't take part,involve or at-least aware of the governance system you will be indirectly affected by the politics,because politics decides policies for our citizens.If you are travelling outside India then you are indirectly bounded or influenced by the politics,a Japanese can travel to U.S.A without visa where as Indian cannot this is the political or policy understanding between the two nations.Like wise in many cases though we run away from politics,we will be indirectly bounded to it.So being politically literate is essential.
***************Politics determines policy, and policy determines our lives ***************
We all want to bring about social change through Dharna, fasting, civil dis-obedience, strikes, and some through violent measures etc. In today’s talk I will argue that among all the options, public policy is the most effective tool for real, lasting social and economic change in this country, which I vehemently stress all educated youths of this nation should be well aware of this.
Also it impacts whether our children will be around to look after us in our old age; whether we will be taken quickly to hospital after a hit-and-run road accident – indeed, whether there will be an emergency vehicle available at all or even whether a hospital will exist; whether we will find a job; whether we will find a house to live in; whether our street will have functioning drains; and so on. Virtually everything in our lives is determined by politics, even how we respond to relentless terrorism. We neglect politics only at great peril.
The difference between the life of citizens in genuinely free countries and in India boils down to the difference in the quality of politics in these countries. It is therefore better to control politics than to let it control us. Our actions today: whether we choose the politics of freedom, or connive with the politics of collectivism and corruption, will determine our future.
Let us have a brief look at public policy.
***************Politics determines policy, and policy determines our lives ***************
We all want to bring about social change through Dharna, fasting, civil dis-obedience, strikes, and some through violent measures etc. In today’s talk I will argue that among all the options, public policy is the most effective tool for real, lasting social and economic change in this country, which I vehemently stress all educated youths of this nation should be well aware of this.
Also it impacts whether our children will be around to look after us in our old age; whether we will be taken quickly to hospital after a hit-and-run road accident – indeed, whether there will be an emergency vehicle available at all or even whether a hospital will exist; whether we will find a job; whether we will find a house to live in; whether our street will have functioning drains; and so on. Virtually everything in our lives is determined by politics, even how we respond to relentless terrorism. We neglect politics only at great peril.
The difference between the life of citizens in genuinely free countries and in India boils down to the difference in the quality of politics in these countries. It is therefore better to control politics than to let it control us. Our actions today: whether we choose the politics of freedom, or connive with the politics of collectivism and corruption, will determine our future.
Let us have a brief look at public policy.
What is public policy? A public policy is a law or rule that is enforced by any level of government, whether central, state, or local. Our activist judiciary also makes public policy: that all public transport in Delhi must run on CNG, for example, was a Supreme Court decree.Governments frequently makes broad statements about the future direction of development in a sector, also generally called ‘policy.’ The New Education Policy of 1986 or the Telecom Policy of 1994 are examples of ‘policy’ in this sense. Various tiers of government also formulate a variety of schemes and programs. When I say ‘public policy,’ I include all of the above: schemes, programs, sectoral Policies, rules, regulations, laws, as well as judicial policy-decisions.
Who makes policy? It is clear from the above definition of public policy that it is made by different tiers of government as well as the judiciary. (IAS officers under each ministry)
Who is affected by public policy? By penalizing some forms of behavior and rewarding others, policies change the costs and benefits of different directions of action. Policies can be thought of as ‘rules of the game’ of everyday life. These rules affect the way people choose to pursue their goals and thus influence
the combined, overall, and unintended results of everyone’s actions. Policies mainly affect the individuals under the jurisdiction of the government that makes and enforces the rules. However, as we shall see in a moment, who exactly is effected by policies and how is not as clear and straightforward as you might expect.
Who influences public policy? This is an interesting and serious question nowadays. The first answer people usually give is that, in a democracy, citizens influence policy. This is true. In a representative system of government, policy makers’ ability to hold office ultimately rest on their ability to acquire votes from their constituents.However, to have a deeper understanding of who influences policy, we must ask: who has an interest in the outcome of a policy?
Policies create benefits and costs to different groups. Individuals in these groups thus have an incentive to try to influence the final shape of the policy environment. It is important to realize that this incentive is greater for some groups than others. Definite groups, such as businesses in the same industry, unions, bureaucrats, lobby to influence policies in their favor. They plead with politicians for a policy and give money for campaigns, perhaps even direct or indirect bribes of one kind or another. Groups that experience highly concentrated benefits or costs and that can easily organize their members will tend to have a greater influence on policy.2So-called ‘special interest groups’ are also more likely to know how policies will affect them than average citizens are. As a consequence, in a democracy (where politicians compete for votes),
“Most policies are constructed to favor particular groups, but may not actually be beneficial to the greater population.”
This is where the crony capitalist are developed, market becomes narrow, and monopolistic where small business are tampered and perished.
The above is the reason why certain business houses and magnets buy the politicians who favor them and the result is tragedy like Coal gate scam,2G Spectrum and Karnataka mines scam as the list keep on going without end, so I stop here voluntarily.
Let me give a quick example of the power of public policy:
�The Indian Forest Act classifies bamboo as a tree. All the rules that apply to trees apply to bamboo and the Forest Department controls its use. As a result, only some connected contractors have access to forest bamboo. If it were classified as a grass, however, as it scientifically is, then the bamboo would be out of the Forest Department’s control. Tribal would be able to access it as a resource to earn their livelihood. A large-scale use of bamboo would also save trees and timber, a tremendous environmental benefit.
To bring about this policy change, CCS ran a campaign: Bamboo is Not a Tree.
�1. What would be the impact of this small change in policy? It would help millions of tribals all over the country whom we do not even know. It might save millions of trees too. That is the power of public policy.Like wise there are so many public polices which are not reviewed properly favoring one section of wealth class and certain policies does not have even sunset clause which has now become dangerous like caste based reservations.
In addition to groups that attempt to influence policies for their own material benefit, there are also policy or idea organizations called ‘think tanks.’ Think tanks advocate for one kind of policy rather than another, not because of material benefits or costs to themselves, but because they believe certain policies are morally superior and/or more effective in promoting the interests of the general population. Centre for Civil Society is an example of such an organization. To my best of knowledge I stringently bolster a team called Freedom team of India which has high class well experienced elites working with clear long term vision for India on world best public policy required for this nation in a very structured way,pls get informed and visit at http://freedomteam.in/blog/main
References:
1. � An excerpt from Center for civil society, Social change and Public policy by Parth shah.
2. CCS-Center for civil society, Newdelhi, web www.ccs.in.
�1. What would be the impact of this small change in policy? It would help millions of tribals all over the country whom we do not even know. It might save millions of trees too. That is the power of public policy.Like wise there are so many public polices which are not reviewed properly favoring one section of wealth class and certain policies does not have even sunset clause which has now become dangerous like caste based reservations.
In addition to groups that attempt to influence policies for their own material benefit, there are also policy or idea organizations called ‘think tanks.’ Think tanks advocate for one kind of policy rather than another, not because of material benefits or costs to themselves, but because they believe certain policies are morally superior and/or more effective in promoting the interests of the general population. Centre for Civil Society is an example of such an organization. To my best of knowledge I stringently bolster a team called Freedom team of India which has high class well experienced elites working with clear long term vision for India on world best public policy required for this nation in a very structured way,pls get informed and visit at http://freedomteam.in/blog/main
References:
1. � An excerpt from Center for civil society, Social change and Public policy by Parth shah.
2. CCS-Center for civil society, Newdelhi, web www.ccs.in.
Friday, 20 July 2012
Its high Time &need of hour for Educated Youths to take part in Nation building.: காந்திஜி கொல்லப்பட்ட வழக்கில் கோட்சே யின் வாக்குமு...
Its high Time &need of hour for Educated Youths to take part in Nation building.: காந்திஜி கொல்லப்பட்ட வழக்கில் கோட்சே யின் வாக்குமு...: This is an excerpt from the court report of Godse translated in Tamil-"why i killed Gandhi";Many hidden truths are uncovered as its masked ...
காந்திஜி கொல்லப்பட்ட வழக்கில் கோட்சே யின் வாக்குமுலம்
This is an excerpt from the court report of Godse translated in Tamil-"why i killed Gandhi";Here its for your reading...
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
| காந்தி கொலை செய்யப்பட்டதற்கு முழுக்க முழுக்க
நானே பொறுப்பு. வீரசவர்க்கார் உள்பட வேறு எவருக்கும் தொடர்பு இல்லை" என்று கோட்சே கூறினான். டெல்லி செங்கோட்டையில் அமைக்கப்பட்ட சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தில் கோட்சே தொடர்ந்து வாக்குமூலம் அளித்தான். வாக்கு மூலத்தின் பின்பகுதி வருமாறு:- |
| ஜின்னாவின்
இரும்புப்பிடி, எக்கு உள்ளத்தின் முன் காந்திஜியின் ஆத்ம சக்தி, அகிம்சைக் கொள்கை அனைத்தும் தவிடு பொடியாகிவிட்டன. ஜின்னாவிடம் தம் கொள்கை ஒருக்காலும் வெற்றி பெறாது என்று தெரிந்திருந்தும் அவர் கொள்கையை மாற்றிக் கொள்ளாமலேயே இருந்தார். |
| தம் தோல்வியையும்
அவர் ஒப்புக்கொள்ளவே இல்லை. மற்ற மேதைகள் ஜின்னாவுடன் பேசி அவரை முறியடிக்கவும் வழிவிடவில்லை. இமயமலைப் போன்ற பெரிய தவறுகளைச் செய்த வண்ணம் இருந்தார். நாட்டைப் பிளந்து துண்டு துண்டாக்கியவரைத் "தெய்வம்" என மற்றவர் மதித்தாலும் என் உள்ளம் ஏனோ அவ்வாறு ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள மறுக்கிறது, அவர் மீது கோபம்தான் வருகிறது. |
| காந்தியைக் கொன்றால்
என் உயிரும் போய்விடும் என்பதை அறிவேன். சிறிதும் சந்தேகம் இல்லாமல் என் எதிர்காலம் பாழாய்ப்போவது உறுதி. பாகிஸ்தானின் ஆக்கிரமிப்பிலிருந்தும் அட்டூழியத்திலிருந்தும் இந்தியா விடுதலையடையும் என்பது என்னவோ உறுதியாகும். மக்கள் என்னை "முட்டாள்" என்று அழைக்கலாம். அறிவில்லாமல் அண்ணல் காந்தியடிகளைக் கொன்றதாகக் கூறலாம். நம் இந்தியா ஒரு பலமுள்ள நாடாகவும், சுதந்திர நாடாகவும் இருக்கவேண்டும் என்பதே என் விருப்பம். |
| நம் நாடு வல்லரசாகத்
திகழவேண்டுமானால், காந்தியடிகளின் கொள்கையை நாம் கைவிடவேண்டும். அவர் உயிரோடிருந்தால் நாம் அவர் கொள்கைகளிலிருந்து மாறுபட்டுச் செயல்பட முடியாது. நான் இந்த விஷயத்தை நன்கு அலசி ஆராய்ந்த பிறகே அவரைக் கொல்ல வேண்டும் என்று முடிவு எடுத்தேன். ஆனால் நான் அதுபற்றி யாரிடமும் பேசவில்லை. எந்த வகையான யோசனையையும் எவரும் சொல்லவில்லை. |
| பிர்லா மாளிகையில்
பிரார்த்தனை மைதானத்தில் 30_1_1948_ல் மகாத்மா காந்தியைச் சுட என் இரு கைகளுக்கும் வலிமையை நான் வரவழைத்துக்கொண்டேன். இனி நான் எதையும் சொல்வதற்கில்லை. நாட்டின் நலனிற்காகத் தியாகம் செய்வது பாவம் எனக் கருதினால் நான் பாவம் செய்தவனாவேன். அது கவுரவம் என்றால் அந்த கவுரவம் எனக்கு வரட்டும். |
| நேதாஜி
விடுதலைப்போரில், வன்முறையை ஆதரிப்பவர்களை மட்டும் காந்திஜி எதிர்த்தார் என்பதில்லை. அவருடைய அரசியல் கருத்துக்கு எதிரான கருத்துக்கள் உடையவர்களையும் வெறுத்தார். அவருடைய கொள்கைகளை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளாதவர்கள் மீது அவருக்கு இருந்த வெறுப்புக்கு சுபாஷ் சந்திரபோஸ் ஓர் எடுத்துக்காட்டு. காங்கிரசில் இருந்து சுபாஷ் சந்திரபோஸ் தூக்கி எறியப்படும் வரை, காந்திஜியின் வன்மம் முற்றிலும் அகலவில்லை. |
| சுபாஷ் சந்திரபோஸ் 6
ஆண்டுகள் நாடு கடத்தப்படவேண்டும் என்று பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசு உத்தரவிட்டதை எதிர்த்து எனக்குத் தெரிந்தவரை காந்திஜி ஒரு வார்த்தைகூட சொல்லவில்லை. மற்ற எந்த தலைவர்களையும் விட நேதாஜியை மக்கள் விரும்பினர். 1945_ல் ஜப்பானியர் தோல்விக்குப்பிறகு சுபாஷ் சந்திரபோஸ் இந்தியாவுக்குள் நுழைந்திருந்தால், இந்திய மக்கள் ஒட்டுமொத்தமாக அவரை வரவேற்று இருப்பார்கள். ஆனால் காந்தியின் அதிர்ஷ்டம் சுபாஷ் சந்திரபோஸ் இந்தியாவுக்கு வெளியில் இறந்துவிட்டார். |
| முஸ்லிம்கள் மீது
காந்திஜி அதிகமான மோகத்தை வளர்த்துக்கொண்டார். பாகிஸ்தானில் இருந்து இந்தியாவுக்கு அகதிகளாக ஓடிவந்த இந்துக்கள் மீது இரக்கப்பட்டு ஆறுதலாக ஒரு வார்த்தைகூட பேசவில்லை. மனிதாபிமானம் பற்றி அவருக்கு ஒரு கண்தான் இருந்தது. அது முஸ்லிம் மனிதாபிமானம். காந்திஜிக்கும், எனக்கும் இடையே தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் எவ்வித பகையும் இருந்தது இல்லை. காந்திஜி மீது நான் இந்த தீவிர நடவடிக்கையை மேற்கொள்ளக் காரணம், நம் நாட்டின் மீது நான் கொண்டிருந்த பக்திதானே தவிர வேறு ஒன்றும் இல்லை. பாகிஸ்தான் நிறுவப்பட்ட பிறகாவது, பாகிஸ்தானில் வாழும் இந்துக்களின் நலனைக்காக்க இந்த காந்தீய அரசாங்கம் ஏதாவது நடவடிக்கை எடுத்திருந்தால், என் மனதைக் கட்டுப்படுத்திக் கொண்டிருக்க முடியும். ஆனால், விடியும் ஒவ்வொரு நாளும் ஆயிரக்கணக்கான இந்துக்கள் படுகொலை செய்யப்பட்ட செய்தியைக் கொண்டு வந்தது. |
| 15 ஆயிரம்
சீக்கியர்கள் சுட்டுக் கொல்லப்பட்டனர். நூற்றுக்கணக்கான பெண்கள் நிர்வாணமாக்கப்பட்டு ஊர்வலமாகக் கொண்டு செல்லப்பட்டனர். அந்த இந்துப்பெண்கள் சந்தைகளில் ஆடு_மாடுகள் விற்கப்படுவதுபோல விற்கப்பட்டனர். இதனால் இந்துக்கள் தங்கள் உயிரைக் காப்பாற்றிக் கொள்ள இந்தியாவை நோக்கி ஓடிவந்தனர். இந்தியாவை நோக்கி வந்த இந்திய அகதிகள் கூட்டம், நாற்பது மைல் நீளத்துக்கு இருந்தது. இந்தக் கொடிய நிகழ்ச்சிக்கு எதிராக இந்திய அரசு என்ன நடவடிக்கை எடுத்தது? அவர்களுக்கு விமானத்தில் இருந்து ரொட்டித் துண்டுகள் போடப்பட்டன. அவ்வளவுதான். "தேசத்தந்தை" என்று காந்தி அழைக்கப்படுகிறார். அது உண்மையானால் அவர் ஒரு தந்தைக்குரிய கடமையிலிருந்து தவறிவிட்டார். பிரிவினைக்கு (பாகிஸ்தான் அமைப்புக்கு) சம்மதம் தெரிவித்ததன் மூலம் இந்த தேசத்துக்கு நம்பிக்கைத் துரோகம் செய்துவிட்டார். |
| பிரிவினைக்கு
காந்திஜி சம்மதித்ததால் அவர் இந்தியாவின் தேசத்தந்தை அல்ல; பாகிஸ்தானின் தேசத்தந்தை என்று நிரூபித்து விட்டார். பாகிஸ்தான் பிரிவினைக்கு நாம் இணங்கியிருக்காவிட்டால், நமக்கு சுதந்திரம் கிடைத்திருக்காது என்று சிலர் கூறுவது தவறான கருத்து. தலைவர்கள் எடுத்த தவறான முடிவுக்கு அது வெறும் சாக்குப்போக்காகவே எனக்குத் தோன்றுகிறது. 1947 ஆகஸ்டு 15_ந்தேதி பாகிஸ்தான் சுதந்திர நாடானது எப்படி? பஞ்சாப், வங்காளம், வடமேற்கு எல்லை மாகாணம், சிந்து முதலிய பகுதி மக்களின் உணர்வுகளுக்கும், கருத்துக்களுக்கும் எந்த மதிப்பும் தராமல் பாகிஸ்தான் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப்பட்டது. பிரிக்கக்கூடாத பாரதம் இரண்டாகப் பிரிக்கப்பட்டு, அதன் ஒரு பகுதியில் மதவாத அரசு நிறுவப்பட்டது. முஸ்லிம்கள் தங்கள் தேச விரோத செயல்களுக்கு வெற்றிக்கனியை பாகிஸ்தான் வடிவில் பெற்றனர். பட்டப்பகலில் சுமார் 400 பேர் கூடியிருந்த கூட்டத்தில் காந்திஜியை நான் சுட்டேன். அது உண்மை. |
| சுட்ட பிறகு
ஓடுவதற்கு நான் முயற்சி செய்யவில்லை. தப்பி ஓடும் எண்ணமும் எனக்கு இல்லை. என்னை சுட்டுக்கொண்டு தற்கொலை செய்து கொள்ளவும் முயலவில்லை. கொலை பற்றி நீதிமன்றத்தில் என் உணர்ச்சிகளைக் கொட்டித் தீர்க்கவே விரும்பினேன். மரியாதைக்குரிய நீதிமன்றம் எனக்கு எந்த தண்டனையையும் விதிக்குமாறு கட்டளையிடலாம். என் மீது கருணை காட்டவேண்டும் என்றும் நான் கேட்கவில்லை. |
| பிறர் என் சார்பாக
கருணை வேண்டுவதையும் நான் விரும்பவில்லை. `கொலைக்கு நானே பொறுப்பு' என்னோடு பலர் குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டு இருக்கிறார்கள். கொலைக்கு சதி செய்ததாக அவர்கள் மீது குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டுள்ளது. நான் முன்பே கூறியபடி என் செயலுக்கு கூட்டாளிகள் யாரும் கிடையாது. என் செயலுக்கு நானே முழுப்பொறுப்பு. அவர்களை என்னோடு குற்றம் சாட்டி இருக்காவிட்டால் எனக்காக எந்த எதிர்வாதமும் செய்திருக்கமாட்டேன். வீரசவர்க்காரின் தூண்டுதலில் நான் செயல்பட்டேன் என்று கூறுவதை நான் ஆணித்தரமாக மறுக்கிறேன். அது என் அறிவுத்திறனுக்கு ஏற்படுத்தும் அவமதிப்பாகக் கருதுகிறேன். |
| 1948 ஜனவரி
17_ந்தேதி சவர்க்காரை பார்த்தோம் என்றும் அவர் "வெற்றியோடு திரும்புங்கள்" என்றும் வாழ்த்தி வழியனுப்பினார் என்று கூறுவதையும் மறுக்கிறேன். இந்து மதத்தை அழிக்க முயலும் சக்தியை ஒழித்துவிட்டேன் என்ற மன நிறைவு எனக்கு ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது. மானிட வர்க்கத்தின் நலனுக்காகவே இந்தச் செயலை செய்தேன். இந்தச் செயல் முற்றிலும் இந்து தர்மத்தையும், பகவத் கீதையையும் அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்டதுதான். நம் நாடு "இந்துஸ்தான்" என்ற பெயரில் இனி அழைக்கப்படட்டும். இந்தியா மீண்டும் ஒரே நாடாக வேண்டும். இந்திய வரலாற்றை எவ்வித பாரபட்சமும் இன்றி நேர்மையாக எழுதக்கூடிய வரலாற்று ஆசிரியர்கள் எதிர்காலத்தில் உருவானால், அவர்கள் என் செயலை மிகச்சரியாக ஆராய்ந்து, அதிலுள்ள உண்மையை உணர்ந்து, உலகறியச் செய்வார்கள் என்ற நம்பிக்கை எனக்கு இருக்கிறது." இவ்வாறு கோட்சே கூறினான். **************************************************************************** |
Saturday, 19 May 2012
Indians – the slave “species”
I have recently read a blog of Mr.Sanjeev to brief him in concise "he is the Modern day Active Indian reformer and FTI Colleague of mine too";A thought provoking,sensational and really it brings the truth,ironically truth is always bitter to hear and listen.Pls kindly go through, read patiently and my sincere request to my fellow Indian citizens is that pls be united to fight for the common cause which is against the human and well being of our people like "Extreme Poverty,poor economy,Majority of people living with extreme diseases, Poor infrastructure,poor security, impoverished farmers,No Economic liberty,Extremely poor life style and we need to get rid of all the nasty caste based reservations & Politics".
I once again reinstate my several times preached words "A disintegrated society,people weakens the entire nation and we cannot get good things done;Pls be united,aware and awakened to fight for righteousness and good cause".
The below is the blog of Mr.Sanjeev which i would like to share in his own words as follows.....*******************************************************************************
In 1947 there was one Britisher in India for every 1,000 Indians (300 million Indians, 300,000 Britishers).
A more useless group of people can't be imagined where 1000 of them will point a finger towards ONE person and say: "You are evil since you are oppressing us". All that is needed is to KILL the oppressor. End of oppression.
Unless, of course, we are talking not about humans but about a slave species.
The truth remains that Indians could not organise themselves to defeat the British till the British left largely on their own accord because they had been weakened by two World Wars, and governing India was becoming a drain, not a source of wealth.
For 999 Indians to fight ONE Britisher was just too hard. That systematic organisation is needed to overcome such oppression did not strike the Indians.
I'm not undermining the enormous contributions of the independence fighters, but let it be known and always remembered (when we try to point fingers at the British for what they presumably did to India) that for every 1000 Indians there was just one Britisher.
A more damning criticism of a "race", than this, can't exist.
And now that the British have left and gone – long ago – why do we still follow ALL their systems and practices without even reviewing whether they themselves follow such things any longer?
Does the idea of a slave "species" come to mind?
Mt Everest
Mt Everest had been sitting next to India's borders for 10,000 years, but no Indian everdared to climb the mountain. Instead, Indians worshipped the mountain: any mountain. Anything difficult was worshipped, not conquered.
It took the planned organisation of tens of dedicated mountaineers from the West
(a) to identify that climbing Mount Everest is a valid challenge, and
(b) to organise systematically to meet the challenge.
Many Western lives were lost in the process, the unsung heroes of the great conquest of nature by man. But the West kept studying and attacking the mountain until it was vanquished. Today people climb it without even oxygen masks. Only after the West had opened the road, did Indians follow, claiming to be great heroes, even though they had failed to show any heroism in this regard for 10,000 years.
The poles
Similarly the North Pole and South Pole. It was not Indians, I can assure you, who identified the challenge and determined to overcome it. Today, some Indians work at the magnetic poles, but they are merely following like sheep behind those who had opened the path and demonstrated that this could be done.
Australia and America
In 1999 (or early 2000), Liberty Institute Delhi organised a seminar in which they invited me as a speaker. One of participants was a BJP MLA. Among the ridiculous claims this man made was to criticise the West for having "taken over" the vacant lands of the Americas and Australia and "oppressed" the aborigines and native Indians. In response I asked him: What had prevented India from occupying these lands first? Surely if you don't have the courage to explore new lands and settle them, you can't complain when others do it.
The West lost thousands of ships and millions of lives in its quest to find and populate new continents. Why were Indians sitting on their haunches for 10,000 years? Praying to the Gods without having the GUTS to get out into the deep ocean and fight the elements.
Each such story shows only one thing: that Indians are probably a slave "species". Not for them the independence of mind and determination of purpose that Vivekananda talked about. Content to be copycats and followers, they are happiest when governance is left to the hands of Westerners. Indians are the happiest, for instance, in the West, where high quality governance is provided by others and they enjoy the benefits.
When it comes to governing their own nation, though, they are totally unable to organise themselves to overcome any challenge.
All am asking is that Indians organise themselves to defeat 500 corrupt incompetent socialist MPs. Just 500. Not even 300,000.
And what's the response? It is too difficult.
Too difficult to defeat an enemy force of 500 people? We can't do that?
Note that no achievement comes from wishful thinking. It requires ENORMOUS preparation.
Are Indians ready to work hard to prepare? That's why theFreedom Team of India.
To beat this enemy force of 500 MPs, we need to organise systematically.
In 1947 there was one Britisher in India for every 1,000 Indians (300 million Indians, 300,000 Britishers).
A more useless group of people can't be imagined where 1000 of them will point a finger towards ONE person and say: "You are evil since you are oppressing us". All that is needed is to KILL the oppressor. End of oppression.
Unless, of course, we are talking not about humans but about a slave species.
The truth remains that Indians could not organise themselves to defeat the British till the British left largely on their own accord because they had been weakened by two World Wars, and governing India was becoming a drain, not a source of wealth.
For 999 Indians to fight ONE Britisher was just too hard. That systematic organisation is needed to overcome such oppression did not strike the Indians.
I'm not undermining the enormous contributions of the independence fighters, but let it be known and always remembered (when we try to point fingers at the British for what they presumably did to India) that for every 1000 Indians there was just one Britisher.
A more damning criticism of a "race", than this, can't exist.
And now that the British have left and gone – long ago – why do we still follow ALL their systems and practices without even reviewing whether they themselves follow such things any longer?
Does the idea of a slave "species" come to mind?
Mt Everest
Mt Everest had been sitting next to India's borders for 10,000 years, but no Indian everdared to climb the mountain. Instead, Indians worshipped the mountain: any mountain. Anything difficult was worshipped, not conquered.
It took the planned organisation of tens of dedicated mountaineers from the West
(a) to identify that climbing Mount Everest is a valid challenge, and
(b) to organise systematically to meet the challenge.
Many Western lives were lost in the process, the unsung heroes of the great conquest of nature by man. But the West kept studying and attacking the mountain until it was vanquished. Today people climb it without even oxygen masks. Only after the West had opened the road, did Indians follow, claiming to be great heroes, even though they had failed to show any heroism in this regard for 10,000 years.
The poles
Similarly the North Pole and South Pole. It was not Indians, I can assure you, who identified the challenge and determined to overcome it. Today, some Indians work at the magnetic poles, but they are merely following like sheep behind those who had opened the path and demonstrated that this could be done.
Australia and America
In 1999 (or early 2000), Liberty Institute Delhi organised a seminar in which they invited me as a speaker. One of participants was a BJP MLA. Among the ridiculous claims this man made was to criticise the West for having "taken over" the vacant lands of the Americas and Australia and "oppressed" the aborigines and native Indians. In response I asked him: What had prevented India from occupying these lands first? Surely if you don't have the courage to explore new lands and settle them, you can't complain when others do it.
The West lost thousands of ships and millions of lives in its quest to find and populate new continents. Why were Indians sitting on their haunches for 10,000 years? Praying to the Gods without having the GUTS to get out into the deep ocean and fight the elements.
Each such story shows only one thing: that Indians are probably a slave "species". Not for them the independence of mind and determination of purpose that Vivekananda talked about. Content to be copycats and followers, they are happiest when governance is left to the hands of Westerners. Indians are the happiest, for instance, in the West, where high quality governance is provided by others and they enjoy the benefits.
When it comes to governing their own nation, though, they are totally unable to organise themselves to overcome any challenge.
All am asking is that Indians organise themselves to defeat 500 corrupt incompetent socialist MPs. Just 500. Not even 300,000.
And what's the response? It is too difficult.
Too difficult to defeat an enemy force of 500 people? We can't do that?
Note that no achievement comes from wishful thinking. It requires ENORMOUS preparation.
Are Indians ready to work hard to prepare? That's why theFreedom Team of India.
To beat this enemy force of 500 MPs, we need to organise systematically.
********************************************************************************
Sunday, 13 May 2012
Its high Time &need of hour for Educated Youths to take part in Nation building.: How were the British able to conquer India?
Its high Time &need of hour for Educated Youths to take part in Nation building.: How were the British able to conquer India?: The colonization of India by Britain started when the East India Company was formed by some British traders, who saw an opportunity in Indi...
How were the British able to conquer India?
The colonization of India by Britain started when the East India Company was formed by some British traders, who saw an opportunity in India and took it. To store the goods they had they built many warehouses, which gave them an excuse to build forts and build up armies to "protect" them. Britain saw how well India was in the trading business, and wanted to take control of it to have all the trading posts for themselves.
During the time of the colonization, the many kingdoms were fighting with each other for many different reasons; they would also do whatever they could to gain some ground on the other kings. So when Britain saw what a great opportunity they had in front of them, they took it; this gave them a great advantage over the other kingdoms with the power and wealth they gained. They also took advantage of the people, training them to be soldiers and employing them for the British army; the new army was better trained and more disciplined than the smaller ones that they had come from. After time, the British were able to conquer very many large parts of India. They made treaties with most of the kings to keep them satisfied so that they would not try and fight against the British.
Recently I came across a review written in 1893 (March 19) in New York Times of book “The Rise of the British dominion in India” by Sir Alfred Lyall. The piece describes the view of the “other side” on how British came to conquer India. Some of the observations are very potent – especially with regards to how the local Armies would fight battles against the British. It is apparent that the Indian rulers were nothing more than a bunch of megalomaniacs and rich idiots who had no more than rag tag group being called as an Army.
With the help of the Indian soldiers, the British were able to capture India; however, they in no way treated the Indians properly. Despite the abilities they continued to show, they were not able to rise to any higher position than being a soldier. To other British colonies, they were treated as slaves, and therefore acted like slaves. They did not care about them, so the education system that they had used for years "suffered under the British rule." In the year of 1857, the power that the East India Company had shifted to the British government, and then India was a British colony. They were forced to fight with each other; in fact, there were a total of 111 wars that the British caused, always making their Indian troops fight the Indian kingdoms that did not want to be subjugated to England. Only when the British had control of most of the country did they allow the people of India to stop fighting their brothers.
After they had managed to capture much of India, they told the people that they were to trade only with them, and anyone caught doing otherwise was punished. Even the people that weaved cottons and silks were made to sell and trade with the British, at a price that was not of their own choosing. Before the British had come, a price had had to be paid if you were going to bring goods into India; the British told them that the rule no longer applied to them and started to import many of their goods for free. The "India cottage industry" was probably what suffered the most; India had it's own handloom industry that was quite large, but in England there were many cotton textile mills. They needed a large amount of cotton for the mills, so they started to purchase the cotton at very low prices and send them to England; in exchange, they sent a lot of cloth over to India to be sold. This put many of the people that worked at the cottage industry out of work; the newly unemployed people had to buy the much more expensive cloth that was being sent in from England. All the wealth collected from the cloth merchants were sent back to England, starting the vicious cycle again.
"The Indian farmers, weavers, traders, kings, Nawabs, craftsmen were all unhappy and this discontent led to the mightiest revolts in 1857 which was also joined by Sanyasis, Fakirs, disbanded soldiers and British soldiers too." As the quote says, the people of India were not happy at all with the things they were forced to do.
This absolutely teaches a stringent lesson that
"A disintegrated society weakens the nation and ultimately it will lead to enslave its own citizens to others"
Hence we must be united first as Indians and forget all the nasty fundamentalist thoughts dictated by some evil elements through caste and religions by which we are Greedily segregated.
Best Regards,
A.Stalin
During the time of the colonization, the many kingdoms were fighting with each other for many different reasons; they would also do whatever they could to gain some ground on the other kings. So when Britain saw what a great opportunity they had in front of them, they took it; this gave them a great advantage over the other kingdoms with the power and wealth they gained. They also took advantage of the people, training them to be soldiers and employing them for the British army; the new army was better trained and more disciplined than the smaller ones that they had come from. After time, the British were able to conquer very many large parts of India. They made treaties with most of the kings to keep them satisfied so that they would not try and fight against the British.
Recently I came across a review written in 1893 (March 19) in New York Times of book “The Rise of the British dominion in India” by Sir Alfred Lyall. The piece describes the view of the “other side” on how British came to conquer India. Some of the observations are very potent – especially with regards to how the local Armies would fight battles against the British. It is apparent that the Indian rulers were nothing more than a bunch of megalomaniacs and rich idiots who had no more than rag tag group being called as an Army.
It is obvious that these rulers would have only anticipated fighting dacoits and / or neighborhood Maharaja, who themselves were nothing great. Under the patronage of the Mughals – while acting subservient to them and gaining their protection – these Maharajas didn’t even think that defense was a major subject. What is exceptionally amazing is that any person of ordinary sense of defense and understanding of threats that existed around the world, would have known or understood that having small and thin armies over many rulers was far inferior to having one confederate army of the many rulers. And yet, there was no one to bring about the alliance?!
With the help of the Indian soldiers, the British were able to capture India; however, they in no way treated the Indians properly. Despite the abilities they continued to show, they were not able to rise to any higher position than being a soldier. To other British colonies, they were treated as slaves, and therefore acted like slaves. They did not care about them, so the education system that they had used for years "suffered under the British rule." In the year of 1857, the power that the East India Company had shifted to the British government, and then India was a British colony. They were forced to fight with each other; in fact, there were a total of 111 wars that the British caused, always making their Indian troops fight the Indian kingdoms that did not want to be subjugated to England. Only when the British had control of most of the country did they allow the people of India to stop fighting their brothers.
After they had managed to capture much of India, they told the people that they were to trade only with them, and anyone caught doing otherwise was punished. Even the people that weaved cottons and silks were made to sell and trade with the British, at a price that was not of their own choosing. Before the British had come, a price had had to be paid if you were going to bring goods into India; the British told them that the rule no longer applied to them and started to import many of their goods for free. The "India cottage industry" was probably what suffered the most; India had it's own handloom industry that was quite large, but in England there were many cotton textile mills. They needed a large amount of cotton for the mills, so they started to purchase the cotton at very low prices and send them to England; in exchange, they sent a lot of cloth over to India to be sold. This put many of the people that worked at the cottage industry out of work; the newly unemployed people had to buy the much more expensive cloth that was being sent in from England. All the wealth collected from the cloth merchants were sent back to England, starting the vicious cycle again.
"The Indian farmers, weavers, traders, kings, Nawabs, craftsmen were all unhappy and this discontent led to the mightiest revolts in 1857 which was also joined by Sanyasis, Fakirs, disbanded soldiers and British soldiers too." As the quote says, the people of India were not happy at all with the things they were forced to do.
This absolutely teaches a stringent lesson that
"A disintegrated society weakens the nation and ultimately it will lead to enslave its own citizens to others"
Hence we must be united first as Indians and forget all the nasty fundamentalist thoughts dictated by some evil elements through caste and religions by which we are Greedily segregated.
Best Regards,
A.Stalin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)