*Narendra Modi tops negative votes in global poll*

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Narendra-Modi-tops-negative-votes-in-global-poll/articleshow/12575440.cms

*Narendra Modi tops negative votes in global poll*
TNN | Apr 8, 2012, 02.03AM IST

AHMEDABAD: Chinks in his e-armour have left Gujarat chief minister Narendra
Modi worried. Despite a large, loyal army of supporters in the cyber space,
Modi, in a last minute upset, lost an internet poll conducted by a leading
global magazine to choose 100 most influential people across the world.

Modi lost out to Anonymous, which is a group of hackers and Eric Martin, a
champion of anti-piracy law.

But what shocked Modi's supporters the most was the fact that chief
minister got more negative votes (2,66,684) than positive (2,56,792) - in
fact Modi topped the list in negative votes.

Till about 24 hours to go for the poll to close on Saturday, Modi had
almost double the number of positive votes, over negatives. However, he
seems to have got ambushed by those who want to reinforce his anti-Muslim
image.

The net-savvy chief minister, who Congress leaders call an internet
manipulator, was outsmarted by a gang of activists, who mobilized votes to
prevent Modi from topping the list. The defeat comes at a time when the
chief minister is trying hard to wash the stains of post-Godhra riots.

Modi supporters believe the results will wash away the impact created by a
series of articles carried in the Western media.

The only consolation for Modi remains that he tops the list of six Indians,
including his bete noire and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, who were
nominated for the 100-strong list. Other Indians were Sachin Tendulkar,
Salman Khan, Vidya Balan and Anna Hazare.

The final results will be announced on April 17.

Supreme Court upholds jail strip searches, including for minor offenses

Supreme Court upholds jail strip searches, including for minor offenses

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that those arrested for even minor violations may be strip-searched before being admitted to jail, saying safety concerns outweigh personal privacy rights. The court’s conservatives ruled against a New Jersey man who was strip-searched after being mistakenly arrested on an outstanding warrant. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 ruling, saying that correctional officials have good reason to “perform thorough searches at intake for disease, gang affiliation, and contraband.”

“There is a substantial interest in preventing any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted to the general population,” Kennedy wrote. More than 13 million people are admitted to jails each year, Kennedy wrote.

The Supreme Court’s decision continued a trend that began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of giving jailers more leeway in searching those picked up even for the most minor offenses, such as expired licenses or noisy mufflers. At the same time, at least 10 states have forbidden strip searches without reasonable suspicion. And the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not subject those arrested for misdemeanor or civil contempt offenses to visual body-cavity searches without their consent or reasonable suspicion that they may be hiding contraband. They are kept from the general prison population.

Kennedy noted there are many definitions to the term “strip search” and said the decision relates to close visual inspection of a person’s body without touching. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with the outcome of the case but wrote separately to emphasize that the decision concerned only those admitted to the general population of a correctional facility. An exception to the rule might apply to those detained on minor charges and kept apart from the rest of the jail population, they said.

Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the decision “jeopardizes the privacy rights of millions of people who are arrested each year and brought to jail, often for minor offenses.”

But he noted that states were still allowed to forbid such searches and said the justices were “careful to recognize that strip searches may still be unconstitutional under certain circumstances.” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by the rest of the court’s liberals. He said corrections officials must have reason to believe that the person arrested poses a danger before subjecting them to a strip search that is “inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading.” “And the harm to privacy interests would seem particularly acute where the person searched may well have no expectation of being subject to such a search, say, because she had simply received a traffic ticket for failing to buckle a seatbelt, because he had not previously paid a civil fine, or because she had been arrested for a minor trespass,” Breyer wrote.

The case was brought by Albert Florence, a New Jersey man who said he was subjected to two invasive inspections in 2005 after being mistakenly arrested for not paying a fine. A state trooper pulled over Florence’s BMW in 2005 as he and his family were on the way to his mother-in-law’s to celebrate the purchase of their new home. He was handcuffed and arrested in front of his distraught, pregnant wife and young son.

He spent seven days in jail because of a warrant that said, mistakenly, that he was wanted for not paying a court fine. In fact, he had proof that the fine had been paid years earlier; he said he carried it in his glove box because he believed that police were suspicious of black men who drove nice cars. Florence was jailed in Burlington County and then Essex County before a magistrate ordered him released. At Burlington, he said, he was forced to disrobe in front of an officer and told to lift his genitals. At Essex, he was strip-searched again and, he said, was made to squat and cough in front of others, a maneuver meant to expel anything hidden in a body cavity.

In 1979, the Supreme Court said that prisons could conduct body-cavity searches of inmates after visits with outsiders, on the theory that those from the outside world might attempt to bring contraband to the prisoner. But for decades afterward, courts held that there were constitutional issues involved when someone was being arrested and detained. In 2008, appeals courts began giving correctional officials approval for more invasive searches, even for minor offenses.

Kennedy’s opinion said corrections officials “must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face.”

He said jailers must be effective in ensuring that weapons are not brought into jails. They have an interest in examining detainees for wounds, signs of disease or gang tattoos. They have a need to stop the smuggling of drugs. Corrections officials do not have to have a reason to believe an individual detainee might pose a risk if he or she is being admitted into the general population, Kennedy said.

“The record provides evidence that the seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of who has contraband and that it would be difficult in practice to determine whether individual detainees fall within the proposed exemption,” Kennedy wrote.

He noted that Timothy Mc­Veigh was stopped by a state trooper after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing for driving without a license plate. And one of the Sept. 11 hijackers was “stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.”

Kennedy’s ruling indicated that those subjected to a search but not placed in the general population might have a case. Justice Clarence Thomas did not join that part of the decision.

Breyer said the decision would legitimize searches conducted to harass or humiliate people for their political views, such as a nun who was strip-searched after being arrested in an antiwar protest. He mentioned instances in the briefs filed with the court in which individuals were searched for “such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, or riding a bicycle without an audible bell.”

Breyer said that he agreed that jailers have a difficult job but that neither Kennedy’s opinion nor the briefs submitted to the court contained any examples in which “contraband was smuggled into the general jail population during intake that could not have been discovered if the jail was employing a reasonable suspicion standard.”

His dissent was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-jail-strip-searches----even-for-minor-offenses/2012/04/02/gIQAsZB4qS_story.html

Unravelling Religious Supremacism

Unravelling Religious Supremacism

By Robert Nolly

The diversity of religions, each claiming to represent the Ultimate Truth, never ceases to amaze me. But, I have to say, this diversity also confuses me—often, to the point of terrific distress. Surely, if there is one Ultimate Truth (or what believers in a personal deity call God), ‘true’ religion can only be one. Supposing that indeed is the case, there are two logical possibilities with regard to the question of ‘true’ religion: Firstly, that of all the many religions that exist in the world, one alone is absolutely true, and the rest are completely, or at least partially, false.  Or, secondly, that none of the religions are true in the ultimate sense, all of them being limited in some way or the other.

In this article, I wish to explore the claims of religions that are premised on the notion of a god and that claim to represent the ‘only true’ way to this god. Such religions are adhered to by hundreds of millions of followers, and, taken together, might account for the majority of humankind. Typically, such religions are based on the notion that human beings were created by God, and that they come into this world just once, after which, upon death or on the ‘Day of Judgment’, they will be transported to everlasting bliss in heaven or dispatched to eternal torment in hell—it all depends on whether or not they truly believed in and followed the ‘one true’ religion while on earth.

Religious traditions that are framed on these lines are intrinsically supremacist and intolerant. They instill in their followers the belief that their faith alone is correct and in accordance with the divine will, and that those who do not accept their religion will be doomed to painful torment in hell, which will last forever. This leads to an irrepressible urge to convert ‘unbelievers’ to their fold through missionary activism or else to combat them, through persuasion or force, if necessary. A great deal of bloodshed throughout human history since these religions came into being is a direct result of this supremacism that these religious traditions encourage. It is difficult, if not impossible, for many adherents of these religions to accept people of other faiths as equals and to genuinely love them as they are, for they are trained to view them as ‘followers of falsehood’, ‘disbelievers’, ‘infidels’, ‘enemies of God’, ‘people of lesser worth’, ‘impure’, ‘evil’, and so on.

But it isn’t just the frightful consequences of such supremacism that these religions almost inevitably promote that worries me. What is equally troubling is the terrifying concept of God that they operate with, which has nothing in common with the notion of a just and loving omnipotent being that God is often made out to be—including, and ironically, by many of these ‘believers’ themselves.

I’ve often asked believers in these religions how, if at all, they reconcile their notion of a just, loving, omnipotent deity with their fervent belief that those who do not follow their supposed ‘one true’ religion would inevitably be thrown into hell by such a god. I have yet to receive any satisfactory reply to this paradox—and I guess I never will.

It doesn’t require much theological expertise to understand what this insoluble dilemma is all about. Suppose a religion named X is considered by its adherents to be the only true religion. Faithful followers of religion X alone, its followers believe, qualify to go to heaven, while all others will be consigned to everlasting doom in hell. No matter how good and kind a person who follows a religion other than religion X may be, it is believed that she will merit everlasting punishment in hell simply because she did not accept and believe in religion X while on earth. God, so it is argued, will never accept such a person, no matter how loving and kind or how devoted he or she was to his or her own understanding of the divine simply because it did not correspond exactly with the teachings of religion X. 

The utter injustice of this belief is obvious. Believers in religion X will argue that God is the creator of all of humankind and that He decides in which family a person will be born.  Now, this obviously means that if I am born into a family that does not follow religion X, it is because God willed it to be so. It was no fault of my own that I was born into such a ‘disbelieving’ family, the decision being entirely God’s. This basic argument, which believers in religion X will have no problem with, poses major questions for the concept of a truly loving and just God.

The vast majority of people follow the religion they were born into. From an early age onwards, they are reared into believing it to be true by their parents, and many of them faithfully follow it, honestly thinking that in this way they can win the favour of God. Surely, then, you will agree, they can hardly be ‘blamed’ for adhering to the religion of their birth. To think that God will punish them—to the extent of torturing them in hell forever—simply because they followed a religion other than X  makes this God out to be an unjust tyrant, who punishes innocent people for His own ‘fault’. After all, it was God’s ‘fault’ for making such people be born into a family that followed a religion other than X, because of which they grew up to believe that their parent’s religion, and not religion X, was the true one! What this absurd belief means is that God first makes the ‘mistake’ of making someone be born and, therefore, reared into a ‘wrong’ religion and into fervently believing it and then compels that innocent person to suffer for eternity for this ‘mistake’ which God made! This is what the supremacist claim of religion X really boils down to. Does this not mean that such a God, at least as religion X imagines him to be, is utterly unjust, cruel, brutal and unloving?

There is another aspect of this God, as adherents of religion X imagine him, that goes completely against the claim that he is just and fair. If He is truly fair, he should have given an equal chance to everyone to believe in and have access to religion X, the supposed one true religion. But He does nothing of the sort at all. Instead, he forces the whole of humankind into a grossly unfair race that is heavily loaded, from their very birth itself, against all who are born into families that do not follow religion X. He causes—for which adherents of religion X have no satisfactory explanation—some people to be born into families that adhere to religion X and many others to be born into families that don’t accept religion X or may not have even heard of it at all! Given that, as noted above, almost all people are socialized into believing that the religion of their parents is true, the former have an infinitely better chance of being ‘saved’ and transported into heaven than the latter—not because they are better or more ‘pious’ human beings but simply because of their birth into families that follow the supposedly ‘only true’ religion. In contrast, the latter have an infinitely remoter chance of entering heaven and, conversely, a much greater chance of going to hell, only because God willed them to be born into a family that follows a ‘wrong’ religion. Is this at all just or fair? Does this not make God, as religion X conceives Him, to be utterly unfair, whimsical, cruel, arbitrary and partial?

The claims that adherents of religion X make about their religion being the only true one also fail to square with their claims of believing in a God who is omnipotent while also being fair and just, loving and kind. If He is truly omnipotent, surely, if he were also fair and just, loving and kind, He could have given every human being the same chance or possibility of accessing X, the supposedly ‘only true’ religion. This could only happen if all human beings were born into families that follow religion X, and an omnipotent God could easily have done that. In such a case, everyone would enjoy an equal and fair chance to be ‘tested’ by God for their sincerity, devotion, love, kindness and faith. They would have all started from the same starting point and only then the test would be said to be fair. But God does nothing of the sort. Instead, He causes only some people to be born into families that follow religion X and most others into ‘disbelieving’ ones. In this way, He makes it infinitely easier for the former, for no reason at all, to believe in the supposedly ‘one true’ religion than the latter, who have, for no ‘fault’ of their own, a very remote chance of believing in this religion. What this suggests is that God, at least as followers of X make him out to be, is either not omnipotent or that He is unfair and unjust. Either way, it casts great doubts about the notion of God as being omnipotent as well as fair and just that religion X claims to be premised on.

Let me clarify this important point with the help of an analogy. Suppose you and I are classmates at school and we are asked by our headmistress to run in a race. The intention of the race is, of course, to discern who is a faster runner, and the winner gets a fabulous trophy. If the headmistress is fair, she should have both you and I starting the race from the same line. Only then can she be said to be fair, just and impartial, and only then can we be tested to find out who of us is the faster runner. But, instead of doing that, suppose she makes you stand almost near the finishing line and me a long mile behind and then asks us to begin running. It doesn’t need much intelligence to know that she is being absolutely unfair and unreasonably partial to you and grossly unjust to me, because, inevitably, you will land up at the finishing line much before I will. And that would be not because you are a better runner than I am but simply because the headmistress has unduly favoured you. If you were to said to have won the race and I were told that I had miserably failed in my performance, you will agree that this would be absolutely unfair on her part. Such a race would certainly be no fair test of our respective running abilities. In such a case, if you win the trophy I would be amply justified in claiming that the race was rigged at the very outset itself and that the head-mistress was absolutely unjust.

Apply the same logic to the arguments of adherents of religion X. They claim that God has sent us into the world in order to test how faithfully we adhere to the supposedly ‘one true religion’. In the face of the fact that God causes only some people to be born into families that adhere to religion X and many others to be born into other families, it is obvious that the former have a much greater chance of believing in and following religion X than the latter simply because of the families into which they were born, which was decided by God. They have a much better chance of winning the ‘test’ of believing in the ‘one true religion’ not because they are better or more sincere and righteous people than the rest of humankind but simply because they were born into families that adhere to religion X. In such a case, those who are born into the ‘wrong’ religion can justifiably complain that the ‘test’ that they were made to appear for by God had been rigged and heavily loaded against from the very beginning, from birth itself, and if they have failed the ‘test’ it is God’s fault and not their own. Surely, they would argue, if God were truly just, he should have made everyone start the test of faith from the same line, causing them all to be born in families that follow the one supposedly true religion. They can justifiably complain that causing them to be born into the ‘wrong’ religion and others to be born into the supposedly one true religion, He is behaving just like the unfair headmistress described in the analogy above. They would not be wrong in contending that such a God is not the fair and just being that adherents of religion X claim him to be.

What does all this mean, then, for the notion of Ultimate Truth? At the very least, it indicates clearly that the idea of an omnipotent, loving and just God simply cannot gel with the belief of adherents of religion X that He consigns people into everlasting Hell simply because they do not follow the supposed ‘one true’ religion. Were God to do so, he would definitely be neither loving nor just. And that is a god I don’t think any sensible person can ever be tempted to accept.

The notion of God as consigning all non-adherents of the supposed ‘one true religion’ to punishment in hell simply because they do not believe in its doctrines indicates, as far as I am concerned, that the claims of adherents of this theory are both immoral as well as illogical. Supposing that God, in the form in which the divine is commonly imagined, does indeed exist, I would imagine that such claims about Him would be tantamount to nothing less than casting aspersions on Him, attributing to him a character wholly opposed to the notion of him as a loving and kind force or being. And that adequately convinces me that the supremacist claims of adherents of religious traditions such as X are wholly suspect and man-made and that their belief is fundamentally opposed to what the Ultimate Reality, or God, if you like, truly must be.   

  

Hundreds of Libyans protest against militias

Hundreds of Libyans protest against militias
Soldiers, police join demonstration in Benghazi against armed groups still active months after helping to oust Gaddafi
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\04\08\story_8-4-2012_pg4_6

BENGHAZI: Hundreds of people, including police and soldiers, have staged a protest in Libya`s second biggest city calling on militias to lay down their weapons as the government tries to impose its authority.

Chanting: "Army and police, we want nothing else," and: "No militias, no brigades, one army, one flag," about 300 people took to the streets of Benghazi, including soldiers driving a convoy of about 50 military and police vehicles.

Militias fought to end Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule, but six months later their heavily armed units still occupy government buildings and patrol the streets, answering only to their own commanders. The interim leadership, the National Transitional Council, wants militias to fuse into the new national police force and army, but so far only a small proportion have joined up.

"We call on the armed groups and militias that occupy the army camps, police stations, schools or any other state-owned properties to hand them over immediately," one air force officer told the crowd that gathered in the eastern city's central Freedom Square. "Otherwise, we will take the proper procedures to get these properties back, even if it means by force."

The interior minister, Fawzi Abdel A'al, has warned the militias to put down their arms or face confrontation with the new national security forces. International rights groups and the United Nations have identified the militias as one of the biggest challenges to stability as Libya tries to build new institutions.

Underscoring how volatile the north African country remains, 18 people were killed this week in clashes between rival militias in western Libya. In another confrontation that has underlined Libya's fragility, about 150 people were killed in clashes last month between rival tribes in the southern city of Sabha. agencies

सियाचिन सेक्टर में 135 पाकिस्तानी सैनिक हिमस्खलन की चपेट में आये

सियाचिन सेक्टर में 135 पाकिस्तानी सैनिक हिमस्खलन की चपेट में आये

Saturday, 07 April 2012 12:44

इस्लामाबाद, सात अप्रैल (एजेंसी) सियाचिन सेक्टर स्थित एक शिविर में करीब 135 पाकिस्तानी सैनिक आज सुबह हिमस्खलन की चपेट में आ गए। टेलीविजन चैनल की खबरों के अनुसार सियाचिन सेक्टर के ग्यारी स्थित एक बटालियन सुबह छह बजे हिमस्खलन की चपेट में आ गई।  रिपोर्ट के अनुसार ऐसा माना जा रहा है कि इस हिमस्खलन में एक कर्नल सहित करीब 135 सैनिक बर्फ में दब गए हैं। हिमस्खलन के बाद इस क्षेत्र में राहत अभियान शुरू कर दिया गया है।  हिमस्खलन की घटना में जनहानि होने की रिपोर्ट है लेकिन इसकी स्वतंत्र रूप से पुष्टि नहीं हो पायी है। पाकिस्तानी सेना की ओर से इस घटना पर कोई आधिकारिक बयान जारी नहीं किया गया है।  ग्यारी में महत्वपूर्ण बटालियन मुख्यालय स्थित है और एक समय में यहां पर करीब तीन हजार सैनिक तैनात थे। जम्मू कश्मीर सीमा पर संघर्षविराम होने के बाद भारत और पाकिस्तान दोनों ने अपने सैनिकों की संख्या मेें कटौती कर दी थी।  सियाचिन ग्लेशियर विश्व का सबसे उच्च्ंचा और सबसे ठंडा युद्धक्षेत्र है। इस क्षेत्र में जितने सैनिक संघर्ष में नहीं मारे गए उससे अधिक खराब मौसम के चलते मारे गए हैं।

शंख पर बैठे अंबेडकर और हांकते नेहरू

http://www.janjwar.com/2011-06-03-11-27-02/71-movement/2536-ambedkal-cartoon-shankh-neharu-ramdas-athvale

नेहरू द्वारा अंबेडकर को शंख पर बैठाकर हांकने वाले कार्टून को लेकर बढ़ते रोष के मद्देनजर सफाई यह दी जा रही है कि ​अंबेडकर कच्छप चाल से संविधान लिख रहे थे और उनके लेखन में गति लाने के लिए पंडित नेहरु हांका लगा रहे थे...

एक्सकैलिबर स्टीवेंस विश्वास

नेशनल काउन्सिल ऑफ़ एजुकेशन रिसर्च एंड ट्रेनिंग (एनसीआरटी) की ग्यारहवीं कक्षा की राजनीति विज्ञान की पुस्तक में प्रकाशित एक कार्टून में शंख पर सवार बाबासाहेब भीमराव अंबेडकर को पूर्व प्रधानमंत्री जवाहरलाल नेहरु द्वारा अंबेडकर को हांकते हुए दिखाया गया है. शंकर नाम के कार्टूनिस्ट द्वारा किताब के 18वें पेज पर बनाये इस कार्टून को लेकर विवाद शुरू हो गया है और इस कार्टून के तमाम मायने निकाले जा रहे हैं और इसे अंबेडकर के लिए अपमानजनक कहा जा रहा है.

महाराष्ट्र में भाजपा-शिवसेना गठबंधन के हिस्सा बन चुके आरपीआई (ए) के नेता रामदास अठावले ने इस मामले में सख्त एतराज जताया है और पुस्तक पर प्रतिबन्ध की मांग की है. जाने-माने दलित नेता अठावले ने मुबई में 3 अप्रैल को प्रेस वार्ता आयोजित कर पुस्तक के उस पेज की प्रतियाँ भी जलाईं और कहा कि यह अम्बेडकर को बेईज्ज़त करना है. अठावले ने मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्री कपिल सिब्बल के इस्तीफे की भी मांग की है. 

विश्लेषकों के मुताबिक शंख ब्राम्हणवाद का प्रतिक है. उसपर एक दलित नेता अंबेडकर को एक ब्रह्मण नेता नेहरू द्वारा हांका जाना जाहिर करता है कि अंबेडकर ने जो किया वह ब्राम्हणवाद के इशारे पर किया या ब्राम्हणवाद के लिए किया. भारतीय राजनीति में अंबेडकर का बड़ा योगदान दलितों के संघर्ष को मुखर और आंदोलित करने और भारतीय संविधान को बनाने में माना जाता है. हालाँकि कुछ विद्वानों का यह भी मत है कि जैसा संविधान अंबेडकर बनाना चाहते थे, मौजूदा संविधान उसका प्रहसन मात्र है. 

अठावले के विरोध के बाद यह मामला ​​तूल पकड़ने लगा है.महाराष्ट्र में दलित जातियों के अलावा दूसरे समुदायों के लोगों में भी इस कार्टून को लेकर प्रतिक्रिया हो रही है.इसके मद्देनजर मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय अब हरकत में आया है और लीपापोती में लग ​​गया है.

नेहरू द्वारा अंबेडकर को शंख पर बैठाकर हांकने वाले कार्टून को लेकर बढ़ते रोष के मद्देनजर मानव संसाधन मंत्रालय अब एनसीआरटी से इस प्रकरण की समीक्षा करने की बात कह रहा है. सफाई यह दी जा रही है कि ​अंबेडकर कच्छप चाल से संविधान लिख रहे थे और उनके लेखन में गति लाने के लिए पंडित नेहरु हांका लगा रहे थे.यानी सरकार इस कार्टून में कोई बुराई नहीं देखती.

वैसे भी यह कार्टून कोई नया नहीं है.यह सरकारी संस्था नेशनल बुक ट्रस्ट की संपत्ति है, जिसका एनसीआरटी ने इस्तेमाल किया है.प्रकाशित कार्टून को सरकारी सफाई के नजरिये से देखें तो संविधान रचने के लिए पूरे तीन साल लगाने के दोषी थे बाबा साहेब.

बहरहाल एनसीआरटी को इसका पछतावा नहीं है और इससे जुड़े अफसरान इसे निहायत अकादमिक मामला बताते हुए अपनी गरदन​ ​ बचा रहे हैं, लेकिन महाराष्ट्र में हो रहे हंगामे से लगता नहीं कि मामला इतनी जल्दी शांत होनेवाला है.

What did not happen even after the demise of USSR nad what United States of America and International anti Communist Movement could not do, is happening in Bengal after PORIBORTAN. Mamata Banerjee's effort to cut Marx down to size is bang on.Texts ar

What did not happen even after the demise of USSR nad what United States of America and International anti Communist Movement could not do, is happening in Bengal after PORIBORTAN. Mamata Banerjee's effort to cut Marx down to size is bang on.Texts are to be rewritten to paper over the roles of Marx, Engels and the Bolsheviks and highlight modern democratic movements, according to the recommendation of a syllabus reform committee. The great indian commmunist Movement still having dominance in trade Union Movement is so much so marginalised that it dare NOT Resist, I am afraid.
Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - Eight HUNDRED Twenty FIVE

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/


http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/

What did not happen even after the demise of USSR nad what United States of America and International anti Communist Movement could not do, is happening in Bengal after PORIBORTAN. Mamata Banerjee's effort to cut Marx down to size is bang on.Texts are to be rewritten to paper over the roles of Marx, Engels and the Bolsheviks and highlight modern democratic movements, according to the recommendation of a syllabus reform committee. The great indian commmunist Movement still having dominance in trade Union Movement is so much so marginalised that it dare NOT Resist, I am afraid.The West Bengal government has now decided to overhaul the history syllabus radically. Not satisfied with bringing to a close more than three decade Left rule in West Bengal, chief minister Mamata Banerjee would now like to obliterate Marx from history textbooks.


Mamata Banerjee's Trinamool Congress government intends to replace references to Marx, Engels and Bolshevik that were current in the CPM-ruled phase, with references now to globalisation, women's movement and Nelson Mandela.Mamata Banerjee wants to remove all traces of the Left Front government from West Bengal. After uprooting the Left Front government from West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee now seems hell-bent on removing all traces of it from the state.Mamata Bannerjee did promote Bengali Icons and renamed Railway and metro stations while she was the Railway Minister of India. Getting the helms in writers Building, she ordered to play Rabindra sangeet at every Crossing. Mind you,  i had warned that she would wipe out the Marxist Ideology. But it seems  taht the Left has underestimated Mamat as it has been doing all the way. Mamat is so much so dare devil these days that she banned the Most Powerful Media House which had been playing the role of Policy Maker in bengal since Independence! She has gained so much so that she would never care to lose anything and playing very aggresive. The Intelligentsia which played  agreat role along with the media to uproot the Marxists, has NO laternative but to support her s most of them are on Pay Roll!

In a move certain to raise the hackles of academicians as well as the Left, the Mamata Banerjee government has decided to restructure the history curriculum in the state's schools by removing all reference to Marx and Engels, the founders of Communism, as well as Russia's 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, from the textbooks.Instead, the focus will be on non-political history, like women's history and the history of sports. This has been suggested by the Trinamool Congress government's school education syllabus committee, which had been asked to suggest ways to modernise the syllabus and lessen the burden of unnecessary topics.The committee has also recommended that instead of Karl Marx and the truly epochal Russian revolution, higher secondary students in government schools should read about the historical background of Latin America, anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela and the Chinese revolution.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) expressed shock at Banerjee's decision. Veteran leader Somnath Chatterjee slammed the West Bengal government, saying that "Mamata's move will keep students aloof from one of the finest ideologies."

Defending the state government, Trinamool MP Dereck O'Brien also made it clear that the government was not trying to doctor history, "Marx, I believe, should be studied as a historical phenomenon, but not at the expense of the Mahatma, and not at the expense of Mandela ... Bengal is redressing balance, not doctoring history. History doesn't begin with the Bolsheviks and end with the Basus and Bhattacharyas. History preceded them and will survive them," O'Brien said.

This is the second controversial move by Banerjee regarding dissemination of information. Recently, it had banned certain English newspapers from state libraries.

"It is a complete misconception that we are doing away with Marxist movements or communism from history. In the present syllabus, a student might feel that there are only three countries in the world – India, England and Soviet Russia but a student needs to get exposed to the latest trends of the world and the history naturally," said committee chairman Avik Majumdar.

"So to make the syllabus more dynamic and realistic, we have only suggested to include democratic movements, invasions by various explorers and the 20th century history. While elaborating on the theme, we have brought in Latin America, China as well as various movements in India. Also, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have been included keeping in mind their significance in the post 1947 era," Majumdar said.
Claiming that the syllabus during the Left regime was partial, Majumdar said "the syllabus should not be used as a tool to brainwash the student."

The CPM was also critical about the change and according to one of their top leaders "The new government is trying to wipe away everything of the Left regime and to change the syllabus is such an unrealistic manner is also an example of that."
Claiming that Marx and Engels are not "great" characters in history, Majumdar said: "We have omitted Russian revolution, but kept Lenin and the Chinese revolution in the syllabus. If we had any intention to leave out communism, then why did we include Chinese revolution, Lenin?  It is unfair if the children are only taught about these theories and they do not have any understanding of the Green Revolution, Chipko movement or Nelson Mandela."

The new recommendations also suggest that the students of the state board may get an exposure to the literary genius of stalwarts who have introduced Indian writings to the West. Works of Amitav Ghosh, Jhumpa Lahiri, Mulk Raj Anand, Vikram Seth, R K Narayan, Anita Desai, Upamanyu Chatterjee and Arundhuti Roy are all set to be part of the English syllabus for classes XI and XII.

Educationist Pabitra Sarkar was critical about the changes. He told Deccan Herald,  "I don't know what makes someone 'great' but this kind of an approach is absolutely foolish."

Mamata Banerjee is now taking 'poribartan' to Bengal's school history syllabus, by advocating that communism be erased from textbooks. Texts are to be rewritten to paper over the roles of Marx, Engels and the Bolsheviks and highlight modern democratic movements, according to the recommendation of a syllabus reform committee. times of India reports.

The Left protested the move, but officials insisted it had nothing to do with politics and aimed to correct the "lopsided" syllabus followed during the Left rule. "It is a complete misconception that we are doing away with Marxist movements or communism from history. We have only suggested including democratic movements, invasions by various explorers and 20th century history," syllabus reform committee chairman Avik Mazumdar said on Thursday. "We have brought in Latin America, China as well as various movements in India. Also, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have been included, given their significance in the post 1947 era."

The panel's recommendations will be submitted next week.

"Marx ... should be studied as a historical phenomenon but not at the expense of the Mahatma and not at the expense of Mandela," Trinamool MP Derek O'Brien said in an online post. He added that the move was a corrective one and not an attempt to doctor history.

'Marx and Engels were not great characters in history'

As the war of words has erupted in Bengal, with the CPM alleging the Trinamool Congress is assaulting democratic principles with its latest move to change the history syllabus, the authorities said they were merely correcting a communist slant that had prevailed since Left Front times.

Syllabus reform committee chairman Avik Mazumdar said the present syllabus highlighted only communist movements. "We have omitted the Russian Revolution, but kept Lenin and the Chinese revolution in the syllabus. If we had any intention to leave out communism, then why did we include Chinese revolution and Lenin?'' said Mazumdar.

"It is unfair if the children are only taught about these theories and do not have any understanding of the Green Revolution, Chipko movement or Nelson Mandela." He said Marx and Engels were not "great" characters in history, but they have been taught since they are part of the syllabus. "Lenin is still relevant for his contribution on imperialism. So are a few others. It is unfair to claim that we have kept communism away."

"The students and parents of Bengal will give a fitting reply to such acts," CPM politburo member Brinda Karat retorted, accusing the Trinamool Congress of launching an "assault on the democratic principles accepted by all''.

Leader of the opposition in the West Bengal assembly Surjya Kanta Mishra said he was yet to go through the committee's recommendations. "What I gathered from the media is alarming."

In another recommendation, the syllabus committee has recommended that the state board students be taught about literary stalwarts who introduced Indian writing to the west. Works of Amitav Ghosh, Jhumpa Lahiri, Mulk Raj Anand, Vikram Seth, R K Narayan, Anita Desai, Upamanyu Chatterjee and Arundhati Roy are set to be part of the English syllabus for classes XI and XII.

Amidst reports of corruption, nepotism and infighting in the party, Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee on Saturday warned party leaders of stern action saying that it would not be tolerated.

Addressing a party meeting, Banerjee said that corrupt practices, nepotism, promoting buildings and activities such as filling up of ponds by party leaders and workers were bringing the party into disrepute.

"Why should our party earn a bad name for the acts of a few? Those involved in such activities will not be spared," party insiders quoting Banerjee at the close door meeting said.

Reports of infighting in the party had been received from 10 to 12 places, Banerjee said the latest being Hooghly district where Tourism minister Rachpal Singh's car was ransacked.



Asking party workers and leaders to prove that the Trinamool Congress was different from the CPI(M), Banerjee said no infighting or groupism would be tolerated in the party.

Union and state ministers, councillors, panchayat leaders, MPs and MLAs, attended the meeting presided over by party secretary-general Partha Chatterjee.

Talking tough against raising of funds in the name of the Trinamool Congress, Banerjee said, "raising subscription by citing instances of celebrating Tagore or Nazrul will not be tolerated."

The Trinamool chief alleged that concerted attempts were being made to defame her party by sending SMS and asked party workers to be careful about this trend.

Quoting her, the insiders said that Banerjee defended her government's circular on newspapers that state-sponsored and aided libraries could keep and said that the move was taken to promote small newspapers.

"She was strongly against exaggerated reports in a section of the media intended to malign her government," they said.

Banerjee also urged her party leaders to gear up for the panchayat polls next year.

The party's all-India general secretary and Railway Minister Mukul Roy said that Banerjee discussed future plans about the party.

Asked if there would be any alliance with the Congress in coming panchayat polls, Roy said "it depends on the situation."

Asked about Congress leader Adhir Choudhury, MP, asserting during the day that the Congress would contest the panchayat elections alone in his home district Murshidabad, Roy said "I don't want to make any comment.

"But we know that Congress' decision is taken by Sonia Gandhi... like Mamata Banerjee of our party."

To a question, he said that former railway minister Dinesh Trivedi, besides Somen Mitra, MP, were absent at the meeting.

"Most party MPs attended the meeting. Those who could not, gave prior intimation that they would not be able to make it," he said.

He alleged that the party was facing opposition from a section of the media, but denied allegations that the state government was out to curb the right of the media.

"We have not created any hurdle in the way of the media's production and distribution," he said.

Roy said that like previous years, Trinamool Congress would organise a large rally at the Brigade Parade Ground here on July 21.

He said that it was decided that a month-long campaign would be launched from May 10 to highlight achievements of the state government.

The UPA government has ruled out the West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee's request for allotting additional foodgrain for the backward villages, Maoist-affected districts and other remote areas in West Bengal.

The Union Ministry of consumer affairs and public distribution has refused the requisition for extra rice and wheat for the below the poverty line (BPL) people as Mamata decided to distribute it among them.

"We had sent a requisition for 17,78,592 tonnes of rice and 26,37,636 tonnes of wheat as additional allocation for 2012-13. But the Centre has refused to allot the additional foodgrain," said Jyotipriyo Mallik, West Bengal food and supplies department minister.

"Whatever foodstock we have, we can distribute it among the BPL category for, at the most, another five-six months," he added.

The West Bengal receives about 79,707 tonnes of rice and 49,758 tonnes of wheat per month for distributing it among the BPL people, said sources.