Indian Politics

digitalnirvana said:
@redindian1987 you make some valid points in that post, but the vitriol towards the right wing and their "fascist masters" (in the other thread) overshadows it (and also gives a context). But their working class and our lower middle class are completely different things. So have to disagree with your posts in the other thread

I am left of centre coming from what has been a left bastion for 34 years, and would not really mind something similar to new Labour in India (so long it is not the militant trade unionism of communist red). But there was a need for the government to change, after 5 years of corruption and stagnancy in the second UPA term
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You're probably right I did go a little bit over the top, it's just frustrating to see left-wing forces lose elections they should be winning. Plus, I come from a family decidedly left-wing, one of my grandfathers was really inspired by the leftism of Bhagat Singh (more anarchism than communism). Even in such a family, my parents voted for Modi last year. My father regrets that, but my mother still defends Modi.

If I had to borrow a party from the UK, I'd like something like the Greens. Agreed though, we need the left to be strong in this country, especially with dangerous legislation being brought in.
 
The Man Himself said:
The mixed economy label given by Nehru was just for name sake. It was never mixed. The industries were totally state driven and economic freedom was taken away from people. Step by step, all industries and later banking was nationalized. People who are not capable of creating anything and hate achievements of others will obviously think of this kind of 'nonsense' as good. Whether it was Nehru or his daughter Indira, both destroyed the able people of this country and being true socialist, Nehru focused on bringing everyone down to mediocrity levels while he himself lived King's life. Not surprisingly, the culmination of all these policies drove Indian economy on verge of collapse. Thankfully now, a great number of people in Country see past this socialist nonsense and what is actually right which can only be good news for country.

Shastri was a prime minister from Congress era from whom people could have hoped. He died of 'mysterious' circumstances. Why? A topic in itself. I am sure Congress knows the answer.
Click to expand...

That reads like something you find in the Times of India or Firstpost comment section. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to respond to drivel; something which makes some sense, I'd love to.
 
The Man Himself said:
I would love to know from people who talk about ghar waapsi and no morality to remain in power, to explain conversions by Christian missionaries in India. It is going on Kerala forever, a communist state. By what right are they in power? Or for socialist hypocrites it doesn't matter? Why similarly the conversions in eastern parts are ignored?
Click to expand...

:lol:

Yes, let's compare fundamentalism propagated by the ideological bedfellows of the government to missionaries converting people by promising the sky. Having said that, if the Hindutva crowd is so bothered by conversions, maybe they should tackle the injustice of the caste system and the million injustices Dailts and Tribals are still subjected to instead of willy-waving on whose religion has more believers.

How is Kerala a Communist state? Bengal, yes. Kerala is hardly a communist state.
 
VP said:
Every successful development story over the last fifty years - see China and the Asian tigers - have been led by the state. Anyone who thinks that unfettered capitalism will help the country, or any country, is clueless. Nehru's mistake was not in believing that the state could drive development but in selecting the wrong industries to do it. When India needed labour-intensive industries to get people out of low-value agriculture, he chose to invest in capital-intensive industries. In hindsight, a mistake - but that's all it was a mistake and he was merely a product of his times; everyone thought that was the way to go. Anyway so many other aspects of his legacy - establishing the IITs, for instance, were crucial for growth in the 00s - have helped the country.

This rewriting of Nehru's legacy and general Indian history is genuinely pathetic and it seems to be the only feature of the current government. I'm still baffled at how Modi has become so popular - this demi-god who will lift India out of poverty. Where is the evidence for this? At worst, he's a murderer. At best, he is an able statesman who took a relatively rich state and made it richer.
Click to expand...

What is hilarious is how the Modi fanboys immediately ask us to "respect our Prime Minister". Such respect was never shown in the slightest to Manmohan Singh. Nehru, the same lot use videos on youtube talking about how he "had no character" because he smoked, loved a drink and talked to women in a way which is different to the ultra-conservative sensibilities of the average Bhakt.

The other day I visited his house in Delhi, now a museum. What struck me was Nehru's love of books and knowledge. Literally in every room, you could find books on all topics from philosophy to history to science. What he gave to this country, not only him all the freedom fighters who went to jail for our freedom when it would been so easy to be pliant to be British. This lot are judging him? How do they call themselves nationalist when they can't respect a freedom fighter who solidified democracy in a deeply feudal society, I fail to understand.
 
Talks nonsense himself, posts drivel and laughs of others. Irony oh the.
 
Jayalalitha acquitted.

I've said this before: People despise and distrust politicians in our country, but the far bigger joke is our judiciary. I'd laugh at it nonstop, if it wasn't so sad at the same time
 
Kerala. First democratically elected communist government in 1957. Have held power for majority of time since then till 2011 and even when they were in opposition to Congress, communist front has been the major opposition gaining considerable no. of seats. Yup, not communist state at all.
 
MDFC Manager said:
Jayalalitha acquitted.

I've said this before: People despise and distrust politicians in our country, but the far bigger joke is our judiciary. I'd laugh at it nonstop, if it wasn't so sad at the same time
Click to expand...
@berbatrick has full confidence in our judiciary and thinks they do good job (based on what he has mentioned few times) :)
The cases like Salman's and Jaya weaken that argument somewhat. I know where he is coming from but given the corruption and politics of pull, one can't rely on judiciary fully too. Not to mention the time it takes to receive justice, if at all.
 
The Man Himself said:
@berbatrick has full confidence in our judiciary and thinks they do good job (based on what he has mentioned few times) :)
The cases like Salman's and Jaya weaken that argument somewhat. I know where he is coming from but given the corruption and politics of pull, one can't rely on judiciary fully too. Not to mention the time it takes to receive justice, if at all.
Click to expand...

Two things:


1. Well, she was convicted by the lower court, acquitted by the high court, the SC is still left. I'm quite surprised since when I read about the trial in the lower court the case against her seemed solid.
With Salman: the HC judge who gave him bail is one of the strongest (free from influence; he gave the Best Bakery judgement) judges as far as I know.He always gives bail unless there are exceptional circumstances (witness intimidation, possibility of escape) none of which apply to this case.

2. My love for our courts (mostly the SC) is based not on individual criminal cases but the way they have handled PILs (construction labourers in Asiad, street dwellers in Bombay, Maneka Gandhi's case, Salwa Judum, the expansion of the right to life) and scams (2G, coal), and especially their record on environmental issues where they almost alone have done a great job.

Of course they are not perfect (Sec 377 is an uncontroversial example I guess) but as a whole I believe the SC is the most positive force in the country. It is not surprising the amount of energy and effort Modi is willing to spend in order to curb them a little (UPA had tried for the same of course)
 
berbatrick said:
Two things:


1. Well, she was convicted by the lower court, acquitted by the high court, the SC is still left. I'm quite surprised since when I read about the trial in the lower court the case against her seemed solid.
With Salman: the HC judge who gave him bail is one of the strongest (free from influence; he gave the Best Bakery judgement) judges as far as I know.He always gives bail unless there are exceptional circumstances (witness intimidation, possibility of escape) none of which apply to this case.

2. My love for our courts (mostly the SC) is based not on individual criminal cases but the way they have handled PILs (construction labourers in Asiad, street dwellers in Bombay, Maneka Gandhi's case, Salwa Judum, the expansion of the right to life) and scams (2G, coal), and especially their record on environmental issues where they almost alone have done a great job.

Of course they are not perfect (Sec 377 is an uncontroversial example I guess) but as a whole I believe the SC is the most positive force in the country. It is not surprising the amount of energy and effort Modi is willing to spend in order to curb them a little (UPA had tried for the same of course)
Click to expand...
Supreme Court is definitely better but each and every case doesnt/cant go till them and if at all, it takes long time. For our judiciary to be actually strong, even lower courts will need to be strong and impartial. Otherwise so many cases will be closed with injustice.
 
The Man Himself said:
Supreme Court is definitely better but each and every case doesnt/cant go till them and if at all, it takes long time. For our judiciary to be actually strong, even lower courts will need to be strong and impartial. Otherwise so many cases will be closed with injustice.
Click to expand...

Yes, no question. Like with everything else, there's a shortage of judges in India, especially good ones.
 
The Man Himself said:
The mixed economy label given by Nehru was just for name sake. It was never mixed. The industries were totally state driven and economic freedom was taken away from people. Step by step, all industries and later banking was nationalized. People who are not capable of creating anything and hate achievements of others will obviously think of this kind of 'nonsense' as good. Whether it was Nehru or his daughter Indira, both destroyed the able people of this country and being true socialist, Nehru focused on bringing everyone down to mediocrity levels while he himself lived King's life. Not surprisingly, the culmination of all these policies drove Indian economy on verge of collapse. Thankfully now, a great number of people in Country see past this socialist nonsense and what is actually right which can only be good news for country.

Shastri was a prime minister from Congress era from whom people could have hoped. He died of 'mysterious' circumstances. Why? A topic in itself. I am sure Congress knows the answer.



From what I have read here, the definition of middle class for us and in UK defers a lot. Don't think the 'middle class in UK' is Labour's vote bank. Also, no, we don't need a party standing for any particular class. In salaried class itself, there is huge difference, so which salaried class you mean? Those earning salary of 15-20k a month or those earning more than 100k a month? I don't understand by what definition is a party which 'stands' for lower class or now the salaried class is morally good than say if some party stands for rich class. Because salaried class are in majority? Isn't that doing exactly what everyone blames rich for? Selfish gains? What if what the majority is asking for is not right and is against individual rights of rich who are in minority? A government rather, because a party's true nature comes forth after coming in power, should provide fair opportunities for everyone to grow, as per their ambitions and ability, whether it is a poor or rich. Of course, a kid of poor will have it tough to succeed initially than that of rich but the problem of poverty can only be solved by creating job opportunities by allowing markets to develop.

Oh and btw, Congress is supposedly 'centre-left' party of India and we know what it did all these years and where salaried class was under their government. Also, by Congress's own definition and criticism, BJP is the party of middle and salaried class. Congress supposedly represents poor, who remained poor throughout their government and only people who grew rich were those supported by Congress and grew rich through unfair means and by pull.

BJP is not a totally correct party ideologically, there are some contradictions and they carry some religious nutters, but it is the party, at least in current scenario best for Country and by best of available options I don't mean for any particular class. It is exciting anyway because the challenges are huge and making a country of so much diversity in every sense 'developed' is going to take time.
Click to expand...

India was never a socialist economy. Mixed economy would always be accurate. The idea behind a socialist economy would presume that the capital invested and accumulated would be done by the State which was never the case with Indian economy. While some areas of the economy were controlled by the State, a large section of the industrial capital largely came from huge conglomerates. The Tatas, Birlas, and other ilks were dominant forces determining not only fate of the Indian industrial output but also the State. I can provide you with considerable literature which supports this notion. However a good start can be R.K. Hazari's "The Structure of the Private Corporate Sector" and A. Ghose's "Monopoly in the Indian Industry: An Approach". This fact is further complemented by the fact that public investment in domestic industries were marginal compared to total investments and its share actually started to decline after then 60s. While there is no doubt that protectionist measures were indeed the norm the industries protected were not necessarily State led.

One of the reasons why Indian economy couldn't compete with the rising Asian tigers was precisely because of the fact that the State couldn't play a deterministic role in channeling the domestic as well as foreign capital. Undoubtedly nationalization of the banks during the 70s was a major political move, but you would find that post 1970s were some of the most promising years of the Indian banking sector with regards to its reach and spread in the rural economy. One must closely examine the data available at the time to realize that what seems apparent in front our eyes can be misinformation perpetrated over the years which sound like the fact.

With regards to the so called collapse of the 1990s and the following economic crisis, you would find that large even during in 1989s, the Indian economy had sufficient amount of reserves to counter the BOP deficit and it was indeed the speculative flight of capital that was determinant in causing the crisis. You would also find that actual liberalization of the Indian economy started not after the crisis but since early 1980s and in many ways, was a responsible factor for the resulting crisis. The case of Indian economy is a very peculiar and a curious one with various underlying facets. Generalizing it to be termed as one or the other not only does injustice to the nuances that have shaped its structure but also displays false presumptions.

I am also not going to enter into a debate here on the class alignment of the various parties since it is utterly ridiculous to do so. To believe that any populist party which receives support from the Capitalist class is or will work for the poor (including Congress) and is lying. Feel free to discuss with me the merits of the markets though.
 
Stanzin Lama said:
India was never a socialist economy. Mixed economy would always be accurate. The idea behind a socialist economy would presume that the capital invested and accumulated would be done by the State which was never the case with Indian economy. While some areas of the economy were controlled by the State, a large section of the industrial capital largely came from huge conglomerates. The Tatas, Birlas, and other ilks were dominant forces determining not only fate of the Indian industrial output but also the State. I can provide you with considerable literature which supports this notion. However a good start can be R.K. Hazari's "The Structure of the Private Corporate Sector" and A. Ghose's "Monopoly in the Indian Industry: An Approach". This fact is further complemented by the fact that public investment in domestic industries were marginal compared to total investments and its share actually started to decline after then 60s. While there is no doubt that protectionist measures were indeed the norm the industries protected were not necessarily State led.

One of the reasons why Indian economy couldn't compete with the rising Asian tigers was precisely because of the fact that the State couldn't play a deterministic role in channeling the domestic as well as foreign capital. Undoubtedly nationalization of the banks during the 70s was a major political move, but you would find that post 1970s were some of the most promising years of the Indian banking sector with regards to its reach and spread in the rural economy. One must closely examine the data available at the time to realize that what seems apparent in front our eyes can be misinformation perpetrated over the years which sound like the fact.

With regards to the so called collapse of the 1990s and the following economic crisis, you would find that large even during in 1989s, the Indian economy had sufficient amount of reserves to counter the BOP deficit and it was indeed the speculative flight of capital that was determinant in causing the crisis. You would also find that actual liberalization of the Indian economy started not after the crisis but since early 1980s and in many ways, was a responsible factor for the resulting crisis. The case of Indian economy is a very peculiar and a curious one with various underlying facets. Generalizing it to be termed as one or the other not only does injustice to the nuances that have shaped its structure but also displays false presumptions.

I am also not going to enter into a debate here on the class alignment of the various parties since it is utterly ridiculous to do so. To believe that any populist party which receives support from the Capitalist class is or will work for the poor (including Congress) and is lying. Feel free to discuss with me the merits of the markets though.
Click to expand...
Valid points but let's get the understanding on definitions sorted.. That mixed economy which Nehru proposed was always more leaning towards state controlled ones and not some, a lot many. The 2nd planning commission I think put many other industries under that control. I dont think license raj bit is overstated as well. There cant be any denial how great control state had on economy. It definitely stifled the economy and gave rise to corruption.

So strictly going by definition, maybe it isn't socialist economy but it was as close to it as it can be. If very few industries are free even there with regulations and more are state controlled then also some will it call it mixed but it is meaningless. Tatas and Birlas are too big names and government knew they can't survive without them. Letting them have their way was not out of choice but compulsion. That is not exactly free market.

All said & done, the results speak. We know where India's economy was till 1991 and where it is now post privatization and globalization. We also know the difference in policies pre 1991 and post. Some events here and there in 1980s make no difference. If you start with wrong policies and then later on when things start to go wrong, you open the market, it is not something to admire. It is then just desperate attempt towards survival knowing your initial policies were wrong.
 
Last edited:
The Man Himself said:
Valid points but let's get the understanding on definitions sorted.. That mixed economy which Nehru proposed was always more leaning towards state controlled ones and not some, a lot many. The 2nd planning commission I think put many other industries under that control. I dont think license raj bit is overstated as well. There cant be any denial how great control state had on economy. It definitely stifled the economy and gave rise to corruption.

So strictly going by definition, maybe it isn't socialist economy but it was as close to it as it can be. If very few industries are free even there with regulations and more are state controlled then also some will it call it mixed but it is meaningless. Tatas and Birlas are too big names and government knew they can't survive without them. Letting them have there way was not out of choice but compulsion. That is not exactly free market.

All said & done, the results speak. We know where India's economy was till 1991 and where it is now post privatization and globalization. We also know the difference in policies pre 1991 and post. Some events here and there in 1980s make no difference. If you start with wrong policies and then later on when things start to go wrong, you open the market, it is not something to admire. It is then just desperate attempt towards survival knowing your initial policies were wrong.
Click to expand...

I never said it was a free market. It was a oligopolistic market structure which thrived under state protection, but it wasn't state controlled and there in lies the crucial difference. Socialism implies that capital is controlled by the State which wasnt the case at all in the Indian economy and therefore it can't be called socialism at all. And once again, I implore u to go through those readings. Except for specialised designated industries, most capital as well as consumer oriented industries, including banking and financial institutions, weren't controlled by the State at all. The state allowed monopolistic industries to thrive via offering protection so there is a crucial differenyou.

There is no doubt that India got many of its policies wrong before 1960s and after 1970s but it got some right as well. A closer examination would reveal that even the so called successful policies like the green revolution were hardly good policies. With regards to the policies and their success after 1991, I would hardly call them any good. That would include policies by BJP as well as Congress. I would be happy to debate on that with you
 
Stanzin Lama said:
I never said it was a free market. It was a oligopolistic market structure which thrived under state protection, but it wasn't state controlled and there in lies the crucial difference. Socialism implies that capital is controlled by the State which wasnt the case at all in the Indian economy and therefore it can't be called socialism at all. And once again, I implore u to go through those readings. Except for specialised designated industries, most capital as well as consumer oriented industries, including banking and financial institutions, weren't controlled by the State at all. The state allowed monopolistic industries to thrive via offering protection so there is a crucial differenyou.

There is no doubt that India got many of its policies wrong before 1960s and after 1970s but it got some right as well. A closer examination would reveal that even the so called successful policies like the green revolution were hardly good policies. With regards to the policies and their success after 1991, I would hardly call them any good. That would include policies by BJP as well as Congress. I would be happy to debate on that with you
Click to expand...
The readings I will go through later but it is totally wrong to say that state had minimal control. Economy was heavily regulated. The 1956 industrial resolution permitted only govt to undertake ventures in many additional sectors. Also, I am not just talking about PSUs here but government's interventions and controlling in supposedly private sectors. They had kept themselves open to intervene any time as needed. Just in case they needed a new sector to enjoy upon.

What are you talking about banks not being regulated? 1969 saw 14 private banks nationalized, 6 more were in 1980 and in 1950s first nationalization happened.

As soon as you say 'state allowed monopolistic indusutries to thrive' there is contradiction and the wrong policy. State should have no role in deciding whether industry should be monopoly or not. Sugarcoating it as 'allowing businesses to prosper' and government offering protection at the same time is just fooling people and at the same time controlling something which they have no right on.

You may not call policies after 1991 good but they changed India's standing as economy both internally as well as externally, for good and that is what matters.

If above names you have mentioned are big books and not articles, I am afraid I won't have that much time to take out from work to read completely any time soon. What I will say is though, it is very clear that Nehru being a socialist tried to style economy on Soviet Union and though initially during 1948 he said it will be mixed, it wasn't. Of course, I have already said above that mixed is just too broad and convenient term to play around. Government naturally dont want anyone to feel that govt. decide and control everything so tell that 'there is freedom for everyone including businesses but we for greater good will ensure there is protection.' Just a clever way of regulating and controlling everything.

btw, how is relief work going on in Nepal?
 
Stanzin Lama said:
Socialism implies that capital is controlled by the State which wasnt the case at all in the Indian economy and therefore it can't be called socialism at all.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought socialism was for common ownership, not state owned which was more of communism at least from the Lenin/Stalin versions. For example, credit unions, cooperative banks etc are encouraged in a socialist economy but not in a communist one. I think they are popular in India. Maybe it's not a pure form of socialism, esp with the more market oriented moved in past decade, but still there are lots of ties to the original concept of socialism.
 
The big problem with Indian political outlook is that it is short term. With the fluctuating political scenario, long terms projects are usually not followed up and the short terms ones are those which has a political gain.

Banks give millions to poor farmers, yet nothing is done to improve agriculture as a segment. Giving loans get them votes immediately, whilst improving agriculture is intangible politically. Somebody dies in a building collapse, pay his family money, but no rules in infrastructure development..lots of examples.

The whole concept of any 'ism's are outdated in any democracy. They have to be a hybrid of all to survive. The objective of the government should be to make profit, the use of the profit should be for the development. Draining tax money and running a deficit governance can never be sustainable in the long run.
 
The purest form of Communism has no state at all...
(EDIT: was a reply to the previous post)
 
The Man Himself said:
The readings I will go through later but it is totally wrong to say that state had minimal control. Economy was heavily regulated. The 1956 industrial resolution permitted only govt to undertake ventures in many additional sectors. Also, I am not just talking about PSUs here but government's interventions and controlling in supposedly private sectors. They had kept themselves open to intervene any time as needed. Just in case they needed a new sector to enjoy upon.

What are you talking about banks not being regulated? 1969 saw 14 private banks nationalized, 6 more were in 1980 and in 1950s first nationalization happened.

As soon as you say 'state allowed monopolistic indusutries to thrive' there is contradiction and the wrong policy. State should have no role in deciding whether industry should be monopoly or not. Sugarcoating it as 'allowing businesses to prosper' and government offering protection at the same time is just fooling people and at the same time controlling something which they have no right on.

You may not call policies after 1991 good but they changed India's standing as economy both internally as well as externally, for good and that is what matters.

If above names you have mentioned are big books and not articles, I am afraid I won't have that much time to take out from work to read completely any time soon. What I will say is though, it is very clear that Nehru being a socialist tried to style economy on Soviet Union and though initially during 1948 he said it will be mixed, it wasn't. Of course, I have already said above that mixed is just too broad and convenient term to play around. Government naturally dont want anyone to feel that govt. decide and control everything so tell that 'there is freedom for everyone including businesses but we for greater good will ensure there is protection.' Just a clever way of regulating and controlling everything.

btw, how is relief work going on in Nepal?
Click to expand...

I am not implying State had no control on the economy, what I am saying is, State didn't own majority of capital, which is the essence of socialism. Therefore, calling Indian economy a socialist economy would be wrong. In fact, if you go into the nitty-gritty of the term "socialism", it would refer to the idea of "social ownership" which as @Edgar Allan Pillow says here would encourage co-operative systems and communal ownership of resources, and therefore, even State-owned ownership (as of Russia or to a large extent early China) would be called State-led Capitalism since there is a disconnect between labour and ownership of resources which wouldn't be the case in a Socialist economy. The difference, while superficially would look minimal, is even in practice immense. It would mean that the State apparatus (or the so-called Socialist state) while pretending to be working for the people, is catering to the interests of few who own those resources which is against the spirit of socialism. This can be forming policies that cater to such big conglomerates (consciously or unconsciously, see government policies on agriculture which primarily catered large farmers instead of small ones, or even protectionist policies in areas where private companies were operating), or big companies bypassing government rules and operating despite government policies (see conspicious consumption during the 80s, imports of expensive consumables, and transfer of capital by the foreign partners out of India) which means that State would be unable to direct capital in the areas it wanted (which is an extremely important development). And I don't claim that this form of policy-making was or is any better than today's Indian economic policy, all I am saying is it is not what is popularly termed as socialism.

And I disagree with this statement as well and am willing to debate on it as well.
You may not call policies after 1991 good but they changed India's standing as economy both internally as well as externally, for good and that is what matters.
Click to expand...


Relief work in Nepal is going at snail's pace but its moving along. Support materials are reaching their destination. Unfortunately, the government has no money because everyone has decided that government is corrupt and all donors are opting out of government support. Since government will be the one responsible for rehabilitation and reconstruction, i don't know where they will get the money for that. And the monsoon is approaching so cracks will lead to landslides and even more damage. Myself, I have been busy with office works but my friend's school has collapsed. Also, one of the staff's entire village has been wiped out. So we are looking at alternative forms of buildings that are cheaper to build and are less risky earthquake wise. Let me know if you have any ideas on the same.
 
Stanzin Lama said:
Relief work in Nepal is going at snail's pace but its moving along. Support materials are reaching their destination. Unfortunately, the government has no money because everyone has decided that government is corrupt and all donors are opting out of government support. Since government will be the one responsible for rehabilitation and reconstruction, i don't know where they will get the money for that. And the monsoon is approaching so cracks will lead to landslides and even more damage. Myself, I have been busy with office works but my friend's school has collapsed. Also, one of the staff's entire village has been wiped out. So we are looking at alternative forms of buildings that are cheaper to build and are less risky earthquake wise. Let me know if you have any ideas on the same.
Click to expand...

Not much but remember reading about this some time ago.
 
In the Ghogalgaon village of Madhya Pradesh, 213 protesters have been standing in water for 32 days now. Here’s why, in spite of all the hardships they have to bear, they seem stubborn in the hope that the government will eventually provide them with justice.

In the Khandwa region of Madhya Pradesh, 213 protesters stand with half their bodies submerged in water. This act, embodying profound perseverance, is being carried out in the hope of persuading the government to provide the low-lying villages of the region with rehabilitation. This demand has risen in the face of the threat which haunts these villages, posed by the opening of gates of the Omkareshwar dam.

Marching into the 32nd day of the Jal Satyagraha, the gravity of the situation runs deeper than the water level of the dam which is creating such havoc.

In the event of such a transition being made on the part of the government, like the one concerning the Omkareshwar dam, the Supreme Court must notify the villagers and provide them with rehabilitation 6 months prior to the action being undertaken. However, not only were the villagers notified late, they were also not provided with any such compensation.

Continuous dialogue is taking place between the government and the protesters, albeit with barely any progress made so far. The government is forcing the villagers to accept the remuneration, which is in the form of a land, being provided to them.

The woe of the people rests in the fact that the land which has been given to them is of extremely poor quality and the hope of bountiful cultivation seems scarce.

The silver lining amidst all this painful chaos rests in the tenacity of the protesters. They hold profuse faith in their cause. Even though protesters have been fainting, with many having to be carried out, the number seems to be adamantly rising.

A majority of the them stand undeterred, even though their limbs have gone numb. With fishes feasting on their wounds, it seems as though their resilience is only growing stronger.

Their claim is that they only ask of the law, the policy makers and the Supreme Court, that which is right. Nothing else. A similar fight such as theirs in 2012 won, then how is their cause any different?

“We know we are going to win,” says Chittaroopa Palit, writer and one of the activists protesting the move.

When Ms. Palit was asked if she wanted to convey anything to the people of India through the medium of this article, she sheepishly asked, “What should I say?” Such is the honesty of their fight. It does not matter to them what the magnitude of their reach is, so long as the ones who are being hurt the most have justice served to them.

With the threat of such an impending disaster of broken houses and shattered livelihoods looming over their heads, their only hope is that the country also sides with them.

There has been police intervention and without due support, their physical capabilities can only survive for so long.

When Chittaroopa was probed further to say at least a few words, this is what she had to say,

“I appeal to the people of India to support the farmers who are being sidelined. In the process and name of development, resources are being taken away. Are we going to afford lives for them? Or shall they be pushed to the margin?”

The funny thing is, that even though it may seem like a lost cause to us, there was not a hint of surrender in her voice. It was almost like she knows the only ending is a happy ending. This faith is one which resonates with all the protesters. They seem far from defeated, injured as they may be.

They know that their cause is a just one and the fight has only just begun.
Click to expand...

http://www.thebetterindia.com/23204...l-the-story-of-jal-satyagraha-madhya-pradesh/
 
@Stanzin Lama prefabricated buildings could help, I know people who work on it - can pm if you are interested. Best of luck in getting things sorted closer home. Your posts are always good to read
 
digitalnirvana said:
@Stanzin Lama prefabricated buildings could help, I know people who work on it - can pm if you are interested. Best of luck in getting things sorted closer home. Your posts are always good to read
Click to expand...

Please let me have their contacts DN. An Indian company called Looms Craft has arrived here. Their prices seem quite steep though, so its always good to have comparative figures.
 
redindian1987 said:
Not much but remember reading about this some time ago.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that. I've been working in a village in Sindhupalchowk district along with few friends. We've been working on this concept of soil in sack concept of house where you basically fill sacks with plenty of soil, put military wires in between the sacks so they don't fall off and basically construct a whole house using the sacks. Afterwards, you plaster the structure with a mixture of mud, clay and dry soil. Its of course temporary for the monsoons but research says it should hold, and should be fatal in case of big earthquakes. Lots of new concepts have emerged here and finding a best one seems largely arbitrary and dependent on local resources. Bamboos have gained immense popularity. But these are sort of medium term ideas. At the moment, we're just basically setting up small tin roofed huts that can protect against rain and small wind and that's it.

Setting up of a toilet seems very important though keeping in mind the possibility of contamination of water source and transmission of diseases. DFID (the british aid) have offered to help us in setting up Eco-sans toilet which requires storing of human waste in sort of a container and using it for manure purposes. The locals don't want to have anything to do with recycling human waste (they don't care that they don't have a choice) and the donor won't budge on any other toilet format. The standoff is quite incredible as in one side is in desperate need of toilets and other side shouldn't have an agenda against other forms of toilets but it still persists. Amazing really. So we are still trying to negotiate with local leaders here. Lets see how it goes.

One thing I realize is a lot of this cheap and important technology already exists. There is this water filter which looks like a thermos with two pipes, where you put a spoon of salt and it can filter water at an astonishing rate of around 15-20 gallons per minute. Same with different house structures as you mentioned there. Sources of electricity using solar. These amazing insect repellents which make "inaudible noises". Earthquake sensors. All of these are available at very affordable rates and should be a part of every community if not households. We just hadn't been looking because no one thought they were necessary, but these are all so convenient and important as well.
 
Stanzin Lama said:
Please let me have their contacts DN. An Indian company called Looms Craft has arrived here. Their prices seem quite steep though, so its always good to have comparative figures.
Click to expand...
Try this disclaimer - I know them, if you do decide to contact them pm me first
 
Britain Does Owe Reparations



worship.gif
 
Rising Muslim population a worry, says Praveen Togadia
Click to expand...
BB1iC09.img

The Indian Express
dipti singh52 minutes ago
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BBmcyue.img
© Provided by Indian Express ‘Must act so that India remains a Hindu nation,’ says Togadia


Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Praveen Togadia has said that the rising Muslim population in India is a cause of worry and that the Hindu community may have to brace itself for “ethnic cleansing” in the near future.

“Hindus must act immediately so that India remains a Hindu majority nation. Or they should get ready for ethnic cleansing like it was done in Kashmir and Afghanistan,” he told reporters in Nashik.

Togadia said that the rising Muslim population in India, as suggested in the census, is a cause for concern.

According to Togadia, the issue will be discussed in a closed-door meeting — or ‘Sant Sammelan’ — between VHP leaders on September 5 at the Rashtriya Sant Shri Sadguru Janardan Swami Ashram in Nashik. The decision made at the meeting will be made public on September 6 — VHP’s Golden Jubilee anniversary.

“The declining number of Hindus is taken very seriously by Hindu seers. What is more worrisome is the increasing number of Muslims. Increasing number of Muslims and declining numbers of Hindu post Independence and post separation is alarming,” Togadia said.

The census findings on the religious make-up of the country show that the proportion of Hindus within the total population declined by 0.7 percentage points between 2001-2011, while the proportion of Muslims within the total population has increased by 0.8 per cent.

“We wish to work with government on resolving these issues,” Togadia added.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to put down this extremist dog.

I'm sure the discussion in 'Sant Sammelan' would also include how to instigate riots and kill muslims to regulate the population.
 
Last edited:
"The declining number of Hindus..."

Someone needs to give him some math lessons. :lol:

Akshay said:
He's concerned about a less than 1% change over a decade? Really? Even if the number of Hindus vs Muslims actually mattered it would still be a stupid point.
Click to expand...
This census seems like a huge waste of money for no apparent use?
 
Yeah, THIS is the big issue in the country atm. What a load of cnuts we have.
 
MDFC Manager said:
This census seems like a huge waste of money for no apparent use?
Click to expand...

The census measures a lot more information than just religion. It's actually woefully underfunded compared to the international average census expenditure. Very little is known as a consequence about health, literacy, and employment in rural India, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of national and state policies (as if our policy-makers actually gave a damn in the first place).
 
We don't see him in the news for a while, so he decides to make a controversial statement to get the headlines again.. Don't know why these idiots never let us all live in peace. I am sure there is some audience for what he says, getting wrapped up in anger right now...
 
4-day Meat Ban in Mumbai Provokes Controversy, Debate

MUMBAI: Months after a controversial beef ban in Maharashtra, a move to prohibit meat for four days in Mumbai has provoked anger, with comments on social media calling it a breach of the freedom to choose.

The ban was introduced in 1994 by the then Congress government, for the Jain festival of fasting. Ten years later, the two-day ban was extended to four days, but according to officials, never properly implemented.

An order passed yesterday by the city's civic body, ruled by the Shiv Sena-BJP coalition, makes it clear that this year, the sale and slaughter of meat will be banned on four days, beginning Friday.

Spurred by outrage, #meatban has been among top trends on social media.

Sources say Maharashtra's ruling BJP had asked for the number of days to be extended to eight, but it was rejected by the civic body.

Even the BJP's ally Shiv Sena, which has a majority in the civic body, says the ban is insupportable and alleges a political move to appease the Jain community in Mumbai, which goes to polls in 2017.

"I think this is another kind of violence in the name of non-violence. It is one's own choice to have what they want To use it for political reason is not right and we condemn it," said Sena spokesperson Neelam Gore.

On this, the Sena finds itself on the same side as the opposition Congress, which, ironically, introduced the ban. "Is it for the government to decide what I eat, what I drink, what I wear, where I sleep, when I speak? What you are seeing across the country is the creeping spectre of fascism," Congress leader Manish Tewari said.

BJP's Shaina NC responded that "this is about respecting religious sentiment."

For now, Mumbai faces a four-day ban. But in the district Thane on its outskirts, a BJP-led civic body has enforced an eight-day ban.

Here too, the Shiv Sena had dissented. It has served notice to four of its corporators for missing the vote that cleared the ban.

After coming to power in the state last year, the BJP-led government banned the slaughter, sale and import of beef.
Click to expand...


:lol: Bjp are a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.