As I was reading the paper and listening to news, I kept wondering about all the people I had come across in my journey to my favourite state- Sikkim. And now, I can only hope that all of them are fine.
I remember our driver was a fun-loving 21 year old boy who said that he wanted to make a bit of money and then would get married to his girlfriend in a year's time. Infact we even saw his girlfriend. Actually she travelled with us from yumthang to lachung. Both of them kept chattering all the way, the driver paying little attention to the road and the background music so very apt..."jab koi baat bigar jayee, jab koi mushkil par jayee, tum dena saath mera, O hamnava...". On my part I was wondering, "jab koi road khisak jayee, jab koi blind turn mil jayee, tum dena saath hamara, O bhagwan". Obviously, the young chap was too young to understand.
Is he married now?
Our host in Lachen was extending his hotel. He had a four year old boy and hs wife was expecting. Does he have a beautiful daughter or a bouncy baby boy now? It was such a family place and we had dinner in his kitchen. A traditional one. I hope his hotel is built now.
I hope the earthquake didn't shatter too many dreams...
Did this survive this earthquake?
This was taken on my journey towards lachen on a particularly rainy day. I couldn't help wondering how it did such a balancing act. I don't think this survived...
Considering his ability to influence markets, he seems so.
Buffet recently announced a massive investment plan of 5 billion dollars in Bank of America (in form of preferred shares, with a dividend of 6% a year and redeemable anytime at a premium of 5% ), which at this time was in dire need of credibility (and he made some...well, a lot of money in the process). BofA's stock rose 25% and ended the day 9.44% ahead.
Good business which was made to look as philanthropy...?
If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it. ~ Warren Buffett
I was wondering where are the banks getting their money from right now (apart from people like Buffet, which lets face it...is rare!)?
The treasury which decided to lend at phenomenally low interest rates to encourage investment and get the economy going has certainly failed. A lot of banks have just gone and put that money in Fed. So who is gaining in all of this?
You spend billions trying to bail out banks…with whose money?
Banks invest in toxic derivatives (nothing but financial weapons of mass destruction...all tax payer’s money originally invested in “good” securities) which with a slight disturbance leads to considerable erosion of wealth and then their default is paid for by using the tax-payers money (at a discounted rate).
This then is followed by an investment in the same banks by people like Buffett… giving the impression that one is doing philanthropy? Even in that philanthropy you are making substantial profit.
Hmmm...so, where is the taxpayer gaining in all of this? I suppose, financial markets don't quite have the ordinary taxpayer in their mind...do they?
In the end, Buffett is right...some earn extra-normal profits...at the expense of others.
This is the case of a bank called Chase (no, no…its just a name :-D ) and its mum and Dad being the Treasury and The FED.
Chase, as any other kid on the block wants to make money and so it goes to daddy (the FED) and asks for money. Now, in times such as these the Fed would do anything to make the market moving and so gives the money at near zero interest rate. Now, Chase wants to invest his money in a place where he is going to make money and be sure of it. So what does our smart chap do? He goes to the Treasury and buys bonds worth millions (almost risk free) at an interest rate which is definitely higher than what the FED charged. Consequently, Treasury returns the money with interest rate and the former is returned to the Fed leaving Chase with a bagful of money.
Now suppose that Chase represents the entire banking community…
So what is the irony? The money that The FED lends to Chase was meant for increasing capital, lending to the public but then he (the bank/banks) didn’t want to take any risk whatsoever. So basically, it didn't help the economy in any substantial way.
And what does treasury do with that money…well, sometimes it just pays The FED!!!
So where does that leave us, "the common man"? Not in a very good place I suppose…
Surrogacy is just an arrangement or a contract by which a woman carries and delivers the child for another couple. The child(i.e., egg) could belong to the surrogate or she could just be carrying an embryo.
I don't doubt the basis, intent, thought behind resorting to surrogacy or an altruistic act of a surrogate. Afterall, she is helping a couple who are incapable of having their own child. She delivers this enormous amount of happiness and joy to a couple in form of a beautiful baby. This is indeed an act of supreme kindness. But then, there is commercial surrogacy too. And that is what India specializes in.
Some of the surrogates interviewed in Gujrat have said that they don't consider the baby as their own from the moment they sign the contract. So when he/she kicks in the middle of the night and makes his presence felt, he doesn't belong to her. They have somehow managed to convince themselves about this. But, how could a woman not feel anything (no, its not a question mark...we all know the answer).
The reason they do it - it is noble and nice to help out people and give them this enormous joy of being a parent and filling their lives with a bundle of joy. And, it helps them economically. The later is an issue which requires some discussion (by the policy makers).
The question isn't exactly whether surrogacy is legally correct or not (though there are legal implications to be considered)? In India, it is. In fact here surrogacy is particularly attractive for two reasons. Surrogacy comes at a considerably cheaper price and there are hardly any legal hurdles. But then, just as India is becoming a hub of "baby-production", new issues seem to crop up.
For instance, what if the foetus dies prematurely? What if the surrogate dies while in labour or immediately after that? What if she gives birth to a stillborn baby? Every birth leads to calcium depletion in a woman. Is there any follow-up or any method by which some help could be provided in that regard? India doesn't have a proper legal framework to handle such cases.
What about the rights of the child? Does he ever get to know his surrogate mother? What if the couple get divorced during the nine months? Sometimes due to legal issues, few couples just end up adopting their own child because the laws in their country do not approve of surrogacy. The case of the twin brothers in Mumbai is very poignant, disheartening and raises a lot of questions. The Norwegian government has refused to make this surrogacy legal and India has refused to grant them citizenship too because they belong to the Norwegian couple. The problem is that the DNA of the children do not match with the couple's DNA, even though the clinic has claimed that no foul play is involved. The problem remains- the children have nowhere to stay! No place to call their own place! India does have a surrogacy bill which addresses citizenship issues but that might not be of much help in providing a home to these two babies.
In such cases...I mean where the couple are unable to conceive for whatever reasons, what is so bad about adopting an orphan? A baby is a baby...as pure as a flower. How does it matter whether its yours or mine? If you give someone love, they'd love you back...isn't that what the world is about? Afterall, Yashoda wasn't any less of a mother than Devaki!!! Krishna wasn't any less closer to Yashoda (if not more!).
There are ethical issues which crop up too. Is surrogacy some sort of exploitation? The maternal mortality rate is very high in India and so something like this does increase the risk to life. Surrogacy has become a flourishing profession in some places. Sometimes, it isn't exactly voluntary in the true sense of the word. When there are a couple of mouths to feed at home and income too little, such a step would be considered normal. So then, is this another form of outsourcing? There are travel agencies which specialise in medical tourism. They often offer a package deal, with flight tickets to the actual babies!!!
There is an interesting example. Haryana is a male dominant state where the M/F ratio is seriously skewed. Women aren't very educated and have little rights/say about anything. In fact family members (male) have killed their daughters when they tried to marry on their own will or marry someone of their own caste/gotra/village etc in the name of honour killing. The father of a CWG gold-medalist says that he would kill his daughter if she married against his wishes, infront of the entire media! They do not approve of western wear (jeans) for women. They have "khap panchyats" which are almost like parallel governments and make legally binding decisions. But...but when it comes to surrogacy, then everything is okay! And why is that- because it is economically profitable, at the cost of a woman's health! A woman gets about a lac or two (above all medical bills) and that is definately alluring. So there is an entire village which does this! Is this not exploiting a woman?
Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.
~ JawaharLal Nehru
Happy Republic Day to all.
Tomorrow will be the sixty second Republic Day for India.
It has been 63 years since we got freedom from British rule, freedom for both India and Pakistan. Independence from the 350 year old British presence in the Indian subcontinent. Independence that everyone had fought for and cherished for a long time. But with independence came division. The Indian Union was divided on the basis of religion, into a secular India(with a Hindu majority) and Pakistan which was formed keeping in mind the Indian Muslims. The moment of glory and joy was soon overtaken by moments of pain and horror. Independence however desirable and dearly fought for, was tainted with blood of millions of innocent people. The price of it was enormous and losses too huge to recover, even after decades. Memories remain...
The partition of India (Indian Union) beyond doubt is one of the greatest tragedies in the recent history of the world. India’s independence was inevitable and certain but not the partition. The unity could have been preserved if it had not been for political motives and miscalculations, personal aspirations and British policies.
Even though Muhammed Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League are chiefly blamed for the partition, the Congress (and Hindu leaders) cannot escape blame either. For instance political leaders like Savarkar (of Sangh Parivar) spoke of the two nation theory in 1923, much before Jinnah came up with it. In fact even Lala Lajpath Rai thought of a scheme under which Muslims would have the four main states of North-west frontier, Western Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal. He was clear in the theory of a Muslim and a non-Muslim India. This happened in 1924, much before the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore. Jinnah initially didn’t want a separate state, as is often described and believed. He wanted a form of federation which would be equipoise. By that he meant a territorial adjustment of votes which would give a Hindu-Muslim balance and this was to be attained by a weightage of votes or seats. But when the Viceroy suspended the idea of a federation, Jinnah for the first time started talking about a two nation independence theory but that was more of a tactical move which he thought would help him later on. According to him a common coordinating agency(1) would be required for providing adequate safeguards for minorities whereby an organic relationship was to be achieved by sharing control at the centre in terms of perfect equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Now, this is where opinions start forming and interpretations differ. While India blames Jinnah for the partition (by coming up with the idea and showing little flexibility) and hence the riots and massacre, Pakistan looks at him as the Father of their nation who has helped them provide security. The truth is both Jinnah and Nehru used popular sentiments to achieve political gains. They both had strong political aspirations. A share in central power might have threatened Nehru’s position considerably. Hence he rejected Jinnah’s proposal.
A complete bloodbath occurred in village after village2. The country went into an anarchy. In fact it isn't just the bloodbath or massacre but the independence shattered the economy too. For instance jute was grown in East Bengal and mills were in West Bengal, which shipped them abroad.People were out of jobs, homeless and hungry. And to add to that a riot
A sense of helplessness. The Calcutta -Noakhali and Lahore-Amritsar riots totally shook the newly formed nations. Had it not been for Gandhi, lord knows when the riots would have stopped. Gandhi was the only one who opposed the division vehemently and left active politics due to that. He probably envisaged this disaster, something Jinnah or Nehru couldn't have imagined.
In fact on the western front, in a Sikh camp it is documented that the male members killed the female members (beginning with younger women) of their family themselves by stifling them or putting kerosene on them after being surrounded by Muslims and realising that there was no way out. A child recalls that in the camp everywhere around him, he saw people dying or dead people and his mother saved his life by hiding him beneath his father's dead body. Communal riots seemed to take away the very sense of happiness and glory that the independence sought to achieve. Before this India had not seen such a mass participation in mass murders
One reason for the chaos is the hurried withdrawal of the British state (after the Labour party came into power) which could not afford an extended empire, especially one which was getting too rebellious.
Interestingly although Pakistan celebrated its independence on 14 August and India on 15 August 1947, the border between the two new states was not announced until 17 August. Cyril Radcliffe who had little knowledge of the Indian terrain and conditions drew it in a hurry using out-of-date maps and census material. Hence despite the fact that riots took place, British do not take the blame for it since they demarcated the boundaries much later. After the boundaries were announced , people moved out of their homes and crossed over believing that they could no longer live in peace with each other. This meant thousands of people leaving their homes and travelling barefoot, carrying almost nothing and reaching camps which were already over-filled. And it meant "ghost trains ". The wounds of 1947 ( and the riots before and later) have still not healed for some people and the two nations are still trying to cope with the history.
This post doesn't have much to do with the Republic Day but is written to look back into history...a history that two neighboring countries share. It is significant because the welfare of one country affects the other directly and hence it is in our best interest to live amicably. The past cannot be changed but the present could be made more peaceful and future more beautiful. With growing tension between countries, for whatever reasons, it becomes imperative to make a substantial effort.
As for 1947, I would think that it is time to bury the hatchet now and look at the possibility of a bright future!
~~~
#1 A subtle creation of alienation by mistrusting welfare of one population on the other. In some pockets Muslims felt a bit alienated due to the many notions and opinions the other religions had about them. This feeling was fueled by Jinnah, which ideally should have been taken care of then but no action was taken to that regard. Nothing done to reassure the common man that Muslims were an integral part of India and this was as much their country. However this was not the only instance. The first creation of this feeling of difference on basis of religion was created in 1905 when Bengal was divided into West and East - the famous "Divide and Rule" policy.
#2 A lot of historians claim that the riots were actually started by Muslims in Dec 1946 and Sikhs and Hindus in Bengal retaliated after sustaining a fair amount of casualties, when protecting their own became difficult. So the only way out was to retaliate in the same fashion. So just as lots of Hindu Bengalis were butchered in Noakhali riots, lots of Muslims were murdered in Calcutta riots
Note: Pictures have been taken from the following websites-
Needless to say it is definately one of the most complex and gruesome murder cases that one has read in the papers in recent times-The Arushi Murder case needs no introduction and it remains unsolved.
Due to lack of evidence, the CBI has decided to close the case. However, the parents of the victim wanted to keep the case open. And now the Law minister M.Veerappa Moily has met the CBI director and discussed the possibility of reopening the case.
Now the irony is- the parents, actually her father, Mr. Rajesh Talwar who wants the case to be opened is the prime suspect! There is no one else that could be linked to this murder. However any man with a little bit of sanity and sensibility would realise that there could be no possible motive for a father to kill his only daughter and that too, in such a gruesome manner. But someone killed her. And CBI claims that all the evidence points at Mr.Talwar and that "technically" he is the only person who could have murdered her. But then, there is no motive!
Even if one were to re-open the case, could they possibly find new suspects now? The law minister has insisted that CBI has carried out its duties and investigations well. So if the case were to re-open, could the CBI do anything which it hasn't done already? But there is crucial evidence which has been overlooked in Arushi Murder case. No, it would be wrong to say that it has been overlooked. The media has got to know about it now. But all the evidence that CBI has gathered cannot help find the killer ...and why? Because there is "no motive"!
My contention is- the likelihood that Mr.Talwar killed his own daughter in such a gruesome manner is hard to digest (though there is a saying that reality is stranger than fiction). But destroying evidence in itself is a crime. There is evidence that Mr.Talwar tried to influence initial investigation. Why would an innocent father want to influence or stand in the way of a proper investigation? An attempt to hide and cover up any facts or evidence is in itself a crime!
News : Two 17-month old tiger cubs were poisoned in Ranthambore tiger Reserve, India a few months back and now in Sariska Reserve. A tiger was killed in Assam some time back when it killed two people in nearby village.
“Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion or the tiger or even the elephant. It’s a shark riding on an elephant’s back, just trampling and eating everything they see.” ~ Jack Handy
The main reason for killing has been poaching for a very long time. In fact, tiger skin can be arranged in as short as a week’s time in some markets in places like Bhutan or Tibet. This can be curbed only when people would stop thinking of (dead)tigers as an object of decoration or fancy clothing. And no, tiger testicles are NOT going to make anyone more potent. Tiger bones are NOT going to cure you of some rare diseases, or even not-so-rare diseases. Education and sensitivity – both are seriously lacking in people. And the government has been unable to stop this mostly because of lack of governance and administration coupled with a lack of serious effort from the common man.
“When a man wants to murder a tiger, he calls it sport; when the tiger wants to murder him, he calls it ferocity. The distinction between crime and justice is no greater.”
~ George Bernard Shaw
But then, it isn’t just poaching now. Tigers are now killed because they come in direct conflict with “man”. One should realise that a tiger is a territorial and solitary animal. Only when his territory is threatened & encroached upon and there is lack of food that he attacks anyone.
Suppose you let your cattle graze in forests or outskirts of forests (after having encroached a part of it and living there), why would the tiger decide to leave an easy meal and wait for a deer. I mean it takes substantial effort to make a kill. You can’t go to a tiger’s home and blame him for acting like a tiger!
In any case, the two tiger cubs in Ranthambore were poisoned this March. Goats were coated with poison and tied to a tree and the tiger cubs died after eating it. They were killed by villagers since the tigers had been attacking their livestock. At that time the officials lamented and said that had few tigers been relocated to Sariska, these cubs would have got more space and wouldn’t have strayed to the outskirts.
And look what happened in November. The relocated, collared tiger was killed too and most probably, by villagers. A Revenge Kill! Tigers unlike lions are solitary creatures and hence do not live in groups. There is no one to protect the cub when the tigress goes hunting. They have high mortality rate and very few cubs survive till adulthood. In these circumstances, it is very disheartening to hear such news.
