Political World

Gadkari says Congress and Janta Dal attempted to destabilize BJP in Karnataka

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:17:15 PDT

Bharatiya Janata Party chief Nitin Gadkari said on Monday that the Congress and the Janta Dal (Secular) made an attempt to destabilize the BJP government in Karnataka by using money and power.

He blamed the opposition Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) for trying to destabilize the government. Despite all these attempts he said the BJP won the trust vote in the assembly.

"The Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular) tried to destabilize the democratically-elected government of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Many MLAs were bought, pressurized and they (Congress) even tried to misuse all instruments of democracy. Despite this, in the Karnataka Assembly, Bharatiya Janata Party has won," said Gadkari.

Meanwhile, Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari said that a minority government had been turned into a majority by manipulative Speaker of the Assembly.

"What happened in the Karnataka Assembly on Monday was the complete murder of not only democracy but constitutionalism as it stands constituted in this country. You had the unfortunate spectacle of a minority government being turned into a majority by a collusive, manipulative and unethical act perpetrated by the Speaker of the Assembly," said Tiwari.

The BJP government won the Trust Vote in the Assembly in Bangalore on Monday amid protest after the Speaker disqualified 16 lawmakers, including 11 of BJP, hours before the trial of strength.

source: economictimes

TELSTRA shareholders yesterday enjoyed a brief moment in the sun.

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:00:24 PST

TELSTRA shareholders yesterday enjoyed a brief moment in the sun.

The telco giant's shares soared almost 1 per cent during the day, meaning it was no longer plumbing all-time lows.

Unfortunately, late in the afternoon, once that rush of blood had abated, investors took a more sober view and the stock resumed its southerly course, settling back at $2.91.

Behind all the politicking, the threats, the arguments about ''complexity'', Telstra's future gets down to a single issue: how much?

How much will it accept for handing over its existing fixed line infrastructure to the National Broadband Network Ltd?

Telstra boss David Thodey last year started with an ambitious opening gambit of $33 billion, but most analysts have settled on a number closer to $8 billion.

That lower number comes from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, a body that has not featured fondly at team Telstra for a number of years.

What should be remembered, though, is that the ACCC analysis was based on a fully depreciated valuation model that had been agreed to by Telstra and the regulator and which had been applied for years.

That $8 billion covers the entire network, copper wires and all.

The most valuable components, however, of Telstra's network - from the NBN viewpoint - are the ducts and pipes that will make it easier to lay the new fibre optic cable through to households.

The ACCC valuation for those pipes was a mere $3.9 billion while the copper line itself was valued at just $2.7 billion.

On Telstra's analysis, its ducts and pipes alone are worth $15 billion.

There is an argument that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy would do better to go it alone at anywhere near that figure.

While there have been reports that both sides have moved closer to agreement on price, a furious lobbying campaign is under way from the rest of the telco industry as to the ''appropriate'' value of Telstra's network.

Handing over too much cash to Telstra, they argue, is akin to a funds transfer from taxpayers to Telstra shareholders, again tilting the playing field in favour of the incumbent.

During the past few years, the tactics from Telstra have been based on delay and obfuscation. And why not? The longer the delay, the longer Telstra can reap that magnificent 60 per cent margin on its monopoly fixed-line service - even if it is an antiquated technology with a withering client base.

Hence the decision by Sol Trujillo to lob a non-conforming bid under the initial broadband tender proposal. New boss David Thodey also is a dab hand at delay. Last week he indicated he was prepared to spend six months cutting a deal with NBN.

But the government appears to be adopting a similar tactic, again because of numbers, or rather a lack of them, in the Senate.

The first part of the assault on Telstra - legislation aimed at forcing the company to split into a wholesale network company and a separate retail group - is due to be introduced in the Senate on Thursday.

But there is almost no chance the debate will take place because there simply is not enough time before Parliament breaks.

That works out fine for Conroy because he is at least a couple of votes short of getting the legislation through. And there is nothing more embarrassing than having your bill returned. It does nothing for your negotiating power. Leaving that threat dangling is far more effective.

Here is how the politics are placed. The government needs seven extra votes in the Senate. It has the Greens onside and Nick Xenophon looks as though he has signed up. But Steve ''I've got an engineering degree, you know'' Fielding has an eye on garnering votes from Telstra's 1.4 million disgruntled shareholders. So he's dead against the legislation.

Sadly for Conroy, National Party senator Barnaby Joyce was elevated to the opposition frontbench during the recent reshuffle.

Joyce and colleague Fiona Nash were prepared to cross the floor and vote with the government. But after several early gaffes, Joyce will be unlikely to infuriate his colleagues by breaking ranks and Nash is considered unlikely to go it alone.

It is worth remembering that back in 1992, the federal government attempted to introduce competition into the industry. And when Telstra was floated, it was governed by legislation that enshrined competition and obliged the company to make its network available to its rivals at competitive prices. The ACCC was to be the arbiter of any disputes over pricing.

During the Trujillo era, Telstra played hardball with the government and refused to adhere to the spirit of the law that governed it. This is the regulatory response.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au

India ranks 99 in world in women participation in politics

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:58:57 PST

As the country debates the Women's reservation Bill, data on Parliaments across the world show that India, the largest democracy, lags much behind other countries, including its neighbours Pakistan and Bangladesh, when it comes to participation of the fair sex in politics.

With only 10.8 percent of women representation in the Lok Sabha and 9.0 percent in the Rajya Sabha, India ranks 99 in the world, according to the comparative data by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an international organisation that works for promoting democracy, peace and co-operation among people in the world.

At present India has only 59 women representatives out of 545 members in Lok Sabha, while there are 21 female MPs in the 233-member Rajya Sabha.

The figure, however, is better than that of last year as only nine percent of the members in Lok Sabha and 9.5 percent in the Upper House were women in January 2009

India ranks 50 places below Pakistan which is placed at 49 in the list with 22 percent women representation in its Lower House and 17 percent in the Upper House.

Similarly, China and Bangladesh have also much higher representation of women in national politics compared to India.

While the Communist country is placed at 55 in the list with 21.3 percent women representation, Bangladesh is ranked 67th with 18.3 percent female participation in national politics, the data revealed.

Source: http://www.zeenews.com

Peer claims victory for separating politics and sport

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:29:40 PST

Shahar Peer, who became the first Israeli woman to compete in the United Arab Emirates when she beat Yanina Wickmayer in the Dubai Open here Monday, says that her win was also a victory for keeping politics and sport apart.

Peer was denied a visa to compete in the UAE in 2009, but after a lengthy struggle by the WTA Tour on her behalf, earned the right to compete this year - one year after the Israeli man, Andy Ram, made his pioneering appearance in Dubai.

"I think there should not be any involvement of sport and politics," Peer said after her 3-6, 6-2 7-5 win over the world number 15 from Belgium.

"I was not really thinking about the victory that I am here," she said after volunteering that she had had a lot of support around the world after being denied a visa last time.

"But there are a lot of emotions coming on after this win.

"It's more than beating Yanina, it was more of me handling all the stuff around and able to put everything on the side and just play tennis, and do what I like to do, and just concentrate on the (match) and not the politics.

"It was a lot of emotions for me and a really tough first round and I am so happy I was able to win this."

To achieve Monday's win Peer had to travel from the hotel to the venue with a special guard, ignore the lookouts on the top of nearby roofs, and accept unusual scheduling, on an outside court at noon, which had been designed for her safety.

Asked afterwards if it felt like a normal tennis match, despite the security arrangements, she replied: "I mean I started pretty bad.

"I was very frozen and I didn't move. Actually, I twisted my ankle on the second point and I was like 'oh my god, I mean, I don't need this'.

"I thought 'finally I'm here and on the second point I might go home.' But it was a little bit different (from that).

"I really wanted to win this match, not only because of tennis, but because, make a statement that politics and sport should not be involved, you know. There is no place for that for me, so if I can make it better, you know....... I really wanted to win this match and obviously it was not a normal match, but I am happy I won it."

Victory earned Peer a second round encounter Tuesday with Virginie Razzano, the world number 24 from France, which is another tough, but winnable match.

If the Israeli did win again, she would almost certainly earn a quarter-final with the top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki - and create a dilemma.

Security concerns which put Peer on to an outside court early in the day would conflict with the custom that a tournament promotes itself by scheduling its best players on to its centre court.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp

Why is India burning its relationship with Australia?

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:04:18 PST

India is jeopardising its relationship with Australia by falsely insisting that Indian students are being targetted for violence on racial grounds.

In a big bad world, the ranks of the free are few in number.

India is a natural Australian ally and close friend. We have much in common.

It is a democracy. It has demonstrated a consistent determination to stand up to China. Its development and transformation from a country overwhelmed by desperate poverty to a place of prosperity and innovation is one of the most exciting stories in the world today.

Australia should be part of that story. Our government and many Australian businesses are doing much to make that so.

And yet the Indian media and one irresponsible self-appointed Indian student spokesman Gautum Gupta is putting it all at risk by resorting to emotive and false attacks on the reputation of Australia and the people of Melbourne in particular.

Melbourne is widely regarded in Australia as our most cosmopolitan, inclusive and progressive city. And our safest.

That’s partly why so many international students came here in the first place.

And we’ve welcomed them and hoped that many would like it here and stay, injecting young, ambitious, can-do people into our great city. In many cases, they intend and we hope that they stay on and make a life here.

And that’s exactly what’s happened.

It’s to be celebrated.

And of course there are challenges.

source and for more details please visit : vexnews

Shane Warne has urged his fellow Australians to play in the upcoming edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) despite threats from an Indian political party.

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:03:03 PST

The Mumbai-based Shiv Sena, a right-wing party, has said Australians will be barred from playing matches in the city in retaliation for recent attacks on Indians living in Australia, including last month's murder of 21-year-old Punjabi Nitin Garg in Melbourne — Warne's home town.

But Warne, captain and coach of the Rajasthan Royals, told reporters at Lord's here on Monday: “As far as I've said, and what I have heard and read, I've got no security issues whatsoever.

“There's been things put in the press about minority incidents happening in Melbourne, which is a terrible shame and very unfortunate.

“I've been meeting with the premier of Victoria (John Brumby) to address a lot of those issues and come up with a plan to help the relationship between India and Australia,” Warne said.

“As far as the IPL is concerned, I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever. I'm sure the other Australian players will be looking forward to it too."

Legendary leg-spinner Warne, who led Rajasthan to victory in the inaugural IPL in 2008, added: “There's a lot of security with the teams. I've got no issue whatsoever travelling to India.

“It took me a while to appreciate the culture, the people and to enjoy India. The first few (Australia) tours, when you are losing, getting smashed all over the park and getting none for a hundred, it's not much fun.

“But the last couple of tours we managed to beat India over there, I really started to enjoy the people and their passion,”

explained Warne, who retired from Test cricket following Australia's 5-0 Ashes whitewash of England in 2007.

“And being involved in the last few years in the IPL, I've got no issues whatsoever in going to India."

Indian cricket officials, including International Cricket Council (ICC) president-elect Sharad Pawar, held talks on Sunday with Bal Thackeray, the leader of Shiv Sena, in a bid to have the party's threat against Australian cricketers rescinded.

The third edition of the IPL, which last year was moved to South Africa because of security concerns, is due to start with a match between the Deccan Chargers and the Kolkata Knight Riders in Mumbai on March 12.

Warne was speaking at the launch of Royals 2020, which will involve domestic sides from several countries in a new Twenty20 event.

Teams signed up so far include Rajasthan Royals, the driving forced behind the plan, English county Hampshire, where Warne was once a player and captain, West Indies’ Trinidad and Tobago and the Cape Cobras from South Africa.

Warne could have connections with three of the competing sides, who also plan commercial tie-ups, if ongoing talks to bring his native Victoria on board are successful.

Organisers said they were looking to stage the first Royals 2020 event in July during a ‘window’ in the English season, with matches in either Australia or South Africa during the Christmas holiday period in December.

“I'm so excited by this,” said the 40-year-old Warne. “It would be nice to be 20 years younger."

Source: timeslive.

Queensland - Council to help ease sentencing concerns

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:00:56 PST

Queensland's Attorney-General Cameron Dick says a new advisory council will help ease community concerns about lenient sentencing.

He said the council would advise the government on sentencing matters and would include community representatives, some of whom would be victims of crime.

"I think there is a perception (that some sentences are too soft)," he told ABC radio.

"This is one of the institutions we want to put in place to have that dialogue with the community, to hear their views."

He said the council would have the opportunity to offer advice on appropriate sentencing ranges for particular offences.

It would also conduct research into sentencing, and help educate the community about the sentencing process.

Mr Dick said independent analyses of similar councils in place in southern states had shown they were an effective tool in managing community perceptions about justice issues.

He said legislation to set up the council would be introduced to parliament by the end of the year, with expressions of interest to be called after that.

"It will be people like retired judges, people who are experts in law enforcement, people in corrective services, defence lawyers, prosecution lawyers, but also a number of community representatives including people who are victims of crime."

But opposition legal affairs spokesman Lawrence Springborg accused the government of pinching a Liberal National Party idea that Labor had voted against in 2005.

"In actual fact the government will be voting for the LNP's policy," he told ABC radio.

He said there was a lot of community anger about suspended sentences being handed out to repeat offenders and offenders escaping jail time for crimes such as rape.

"Now that is against community expectation," he said, accusing the government of playing politics on the issue.

Source: ttp://news.smh.com.au

Criminalisation of politics is dangerous to democracy

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:15:45 PST

The Allahabad High Court said commercialisation and criminalisation of politics had poses imminent danger and new challenges to Parliamentary Democracy.

Such developing trend have polluted the political atmosphere and scenario of the country to an extent that the survival of democracy has been put into peril, the court observed.

Passing an order, Justice Sabhajeet Yadav drew the attention of the courts and tribunals saying that courts trying the election disputes have to be more careful and cautious about ensuring free and fair elections.

Directing recounting of votes in the election of member of ward of Nagar Palika Parisad Deoria , the court observed, ‘ when specific complaints are made through the election petition with material particulars in respect of irregularities and illegality in counting of votes or of manipulation or fraud in counting of votes or tampering of ballot papers etc, in such counting on vague, frivolous and indefinite allegations, the court or tribunals trying the election petition should readily allow the prayer for recounting of votes to maintain purity in election process which is basic postulate of our parliamentary democracy.’ S K Singh had filed the petition alleging the order passed by ADJ(Deoria) in the election petition, whereby the petition demand of re-counting of votes was rejected.

The court ordered recounting of votes within one month and set aside the order of the ADJ Deoria given on December 22,2007.

Source: indlawnews

Politics 2010: a crystal ball view

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:23:45 PST

In broad terms we are 25 months into what the Rudd government earnestly hopes will be its first term ... and we are eight months out from an election.

August looks the likely date for that federal vote. That month provides the government with maximum benefit in terms of double dissolution options, future government terms and effectively running a full term.

So when Antony Green runs his theodolite over electoral evidence the answer is something like August 14.

The answer is also, on the available evidence, Labor.

There is a sense of renewal in the Liberal heartland through the first weeks of the Abbott era. And, particularly after reading The Australian on some days, you can have a sense the game has changed and that the opposition leader may be destined for glory rather than to be, in his own phrase, political road kill.

Coalition optimists point to straws in the wind like a handful of polling booths in Bradfield and Higgins by-elections that suggest a blue-collar trend to Abbott.

But there is a haystack blowing the other way. Polls and history suggest the coalition is going to stay on the wrong side of the despatch box for some time.

The bookies are a good guide to electoral prospects and Labor is now the favourite it has always been. Put a dollar on the outcome now and if you back Labor you'll get about $1.20 back if you're right. The opposition is paying $4.40.

The odds are not good for the opposition but they have been longer. But even with the new leader in the saddle the coalition mount has only looked a marginally less guaranteed loser.

Tony Abbott's first month has been marked by huge energy and a reasonable helping of luck.

He is surfing a wave of mid-range policy reversals and disappointments for the Prime Minister from Copenhagen to sea-faring arrivals from the north.

From now till August the Greek Chorus of the opposition will chant: "One big tax ... border protection ..." and toss in the occasional reference to a government not delivering on health, grocery prices, strikes, interest rates et al.

It sounds like a good case to sell, but the public hasn't been buying on any of those themes so far.

Malcolm Turnbull had a lot of luck, all of it bad.

His successor is going to need things running his way to keep up any early momentum that might take him into the new year.

The best bit of Abbott luck at the moment is that Newspoll is on holidays. The fortnightly drumbeat of the Tuesday numbers drove Turnbull mad. They kept him permanently off balance and vulnerable to the first passing "ute" that bowled him over.

Tony Abbott has a few poll-free weeks of letting the public and his colleagues make up their own mind before the numbers start tumbling in.

But as things stand, even with a bit of an Abbott honeymoon, it's a Labor win in August.

By the way while the crystal ball is on the desk I see the following results:

In March Labor holds office in South Australia and loses in Tasmania. In Victoria Labor wins the November poll. Labor loses in NSW March 2011.

Internationally David Cameron takes the Conservatives back into government in Britain in May next year. And in 2012 Obama wins in the States.

The evidence is in, the conclusions are inescapable.

But don't hold me to it. All predictions are subject to the caveat best expressed by John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind ... what do you do?"

In federal politics Tony Abbott has eight months to change the facts.

Source: abc.net.au

Leading article: Old-school politics

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:21:21 PST

The sudden death of David Taylor, the MP for North West Leicestershire, is a tragedy for his family and his constituents. He will be remembered fondly as an old-fashioned rebel and genuinely independent thinker. Never in hock to the Labour whips, he put the interests of his constituents first, whether or not they appeared to collide with the demands of the executive.

Old school in the best sense of that word, Mr Taylor's Commons career is a reminder that Parliament contains many men and women inspired by the ideal of public service alongside those less admirable individuals motivated more by ambition for high office and personal gain.

Source: independent.co.uk

Divided States of India

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:35:50 PST

On October 19, 1952, Potti Sriramulu commenced a fast-unto-death on behalf of tens of millions of Telugu speakers, who wanted to carve out their own state within India. After 58 days of fast, Sriramulu died. His death triggered riots, pressurising New Delhi to acquiesce to the formation of the Telugu-speaking state of Andhra Pradesh in 1953. In fact, his death also led to the linguistic re-organisation of Indian states.

After 60 years, K Chandrashekar Rao brought into play the tactics of Sriramulu and went on a hunger strike demanding the division of the state the latter died for. This time, New Delhi has been more cautious. As Rao's health started deteriorating, the Central government okayed the carving out of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh.

A number of debates have followed the government’s announcement; many criticising New Delhi for setting a wrong example for other regional movements calling for separate statehood. Some of the regional movements are: Bodoland (Assam), Bundelkhand (Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh), Bhojpur (Uttar Pradesh and Bihar), Coorg (Karnataka), Gorkhaland (West Bengal), Marathwada (Maharashtra), Mahakaushal (Orissa), Harit Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh), Mithilanchal (Bihar), Muru Pradesh (Rajasthan), Poorvanchal (Uttar Pradesh), and Vidarbha (Maharashtra).

I do not disagree with those who side with the formation of Telangana, arguing fragmentation will help strengthen governance and hence ensure development. After all, more focus on remote and impoverished regions will pave the way for their development.

The people demanding separate statehood for Telangana cite reasons such as inadequate industrial infrastructure, lack of educational and employment opportunities, inter-regional inequalities, among others. But do we really need to carve out another state in a bid to focus more on poor regions? Or shall I say there will be no disparity left in Telangana once it is out of Andhra Pradesh? Is fragmentation truly an alternative of good governance and development? I wonder if dividing a state is a solution to the problems that provoke separatist sentiments.

In 1953, Andhra Pradesh was carved out of Madras Presidency, and three years later the Telangana part of Hyderabad was merged with the state. In 2009, Telangana is on its way out of Andhra Pradesh. Can the torchbearers of fragmentation ensure that Telangana will stay intact in the future?

India is famous for its multi-cultural and multi-lingual society, and I feel that dividing states will aggravate already-high regionalistic discrimination. I fear that the concept of regional identity may soon overshadow the one of national identity.

It is significant to pay attention to the specific needs of the backward regions across the country, to allot ample funds, and to share resources with them. Better administration and governance should not come only after states are divided into smaller fragments. The policies should be devised to ensure better and equitable economic distribution of resources within states and better protection of the marginalised sections of the population for a more plural and participative developmental politics in India.

At a time when the international community is trying to wipe out borders and come closer to ensure better development, India is drawing new borders within itself. It is high time that India should ensure better political representation of different communities within one state, rather than caving in to the demands of political fiefdom by them. I fear such divisions will turn diversity into India’s weakness, not strength.

Source:zeenews.com

Pakistan Govt Struggles For Survival

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:32:18 PST

ISLAMABAD – Shaken to its foundations by a court ruling scrapping amnesty to corruption-tainted politicians, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led government is struggling to contain the fallout of the landmark verdict and prevent its collapse.

“Legally, the PPP can continue until it loses its majority in the parliament,” political analyst Rasul Baksh Raees told IslamOnline.net Saturday, December 19.

“But yes, morally, the government is on a weak wicket, and facing a moral crisis.”

The Supreme Court on Wednesday scrapped the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), under which corruption charges were dropped against PPP leaders, including President Asif Ali Zardari.

Following the ruling, Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar was banned from leaving the country on an official visit to close ally China.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik was also summoned by a Pakistani court over re-opening a corruption case.

Corruption cases were also opened by the anti-corruption bureau against 52 officials.

“The Supreme Court has very wisely decided this complicated issue,” Abdul Khalique Ali, a Karachi-based political analyst, said.

“There is no ouster of the elected government. It’s very simple equation that the all the accused has been given a chance to prove themselves not-guilty in the courts of law.”

The ruling party was to hold crisis talks Saturday under Zardari in a bid to contain the fallout of the court ruling on the government.

"The meeting will discuss the present political situation," said Zardari spokesman Farhatullah Babar.

Zardari is immune from prosecution as president, but his eligibility for office could be challenged over corruption charges. Cabinet ministers have no such immunity.

Officials were tight lipped on the options up for discussion during the meeting.

"The party would like to take into account the point of view of its members, their suggestions and the strategy that the government should adopt," said PPP spokeswoman Fauzia Wahab.

Continue.........

Source: islamonline.net

Art imitates politics

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:23:39 PST

When the pugnacious former Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett, was asked by the Catholic Church - a long, long time ago - to get in between them, the public and a particularly controversial work of art, the political leader best known for shoving his foot in his mouth on many occasions, performed a surprisingly graceful sidestep.

The work in question was Adres Serrano's photograph, 'Piss Christ' (urine, a crucifix) and the furore of this photo being exhibited at the state's National Gallery was being well-fanned by the usual suspects: art lovers who would go to the wall for anything, even something as silly as this; conservative broadcasters; the Church; the telegenic artist himself. Surely, the Church pleaded with the Premier, a work as blasphemous as this should be removed from state-funded walls? Jeff Kennett wasn't biting. He blithely cautioned that if anyone thought they might be offended by seeing the photo, then they should go and see a Rembrandt painting instead. Or play a game of tennis. He'd seen both, so he was off for a few sets himself.

The days when politicians knew to deal themselves out of art controversies if they weren't going to join the aficionados at the barricades, are long gone. Provocative photos, barely glimpsed in reproduction, are deemed "revolting" by a Prime Minister, just in time for that night's edition of the tabloid news; any even faintly stimulating image is now inspiration for yet another lecture on the erosion of family values. Kennett knew one more bushfire he didn't need when he saw it: the Federal Government appears to be less squeamish about wading into a fight about censorship.

The surprising decision taken this week by the Federal Government to prevent a clutch of North Korean artists from arriving in Australia for an exhibition of their work - pieces already in the country and hung by Australian curators - twists Governmental anxiety over the grave dangers of art into a strange, new shape. Fear not the image, anymore - creator, get thee hence.

The six artists, Pak Hyo Song, Kang Yong Sam, O Song Gyu, Rim Ho Chol, Ri Jong, and Pak Yun Chol, had been selected as part of the sixth Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art at the Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane. They are members of the Mansudae Art Studio in Pyonyang, which is reportedly the official atelier of the father of the Dear Leader, Kim Il Sung.

Their work is already here; but the artists cannot be because, according to the Government, "Australia's visa ban on North Korean nationals is part of the Government's response to North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs".

Their images of benign, benevolent leaders and happy, toiling workers are astonishingly well-painted (A grim fact of totalitarian art is that it is invariably of a remarkably high technical standard - remember all those grand Soviet-realist visions of brilliant sunsets, the ruddy, happy faces of the workers, the future represented in rolling hills without end?) The gallery maintains the work is not propaganda, but it is impossible to imagine that art produced in North Korea and then cleared for temporary export could be anything else. The more important issue is that it hardly matters if it is.

There has always been great merit and fascination in the presentation and analysis of the art of propaganda. A chance to sneak any kind of glimpse into the working life of a North Korean artist when the West is actively trying to engage its truculent leadership is surely not to be missed - and especially not when the apparently poisonous fruits of their labour are nonetheless deemed fit for consumption. What does the Government fear? Reverse-indoctrination by the tourists seems a remote possibility, but a discomfiting defection or two is a little more likely.

The timing of the decision is curious, coinciding with US President Barack Obama's special representative to North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, arriving in Pyonyang, signalling a new phase in US diplomacy. It's the highest level official American visit in more than a year. Is the Australian government's decision helpful to that process? Unhelpful? Does it even matter?

It surely would to the artists. Just as the hard-baked edges of nationalistic self-protection softened a little to see North and South Korean athletes walk hand in hand onto the Olympic arena in Bejing, the "soft diplomacy" of cultural visits between the isolated regime and the West are flashes of a possible world. It's significant to remember that the New York Philharmonic travelled to Pyongyang for performances in 2008: the US government clearly had no qualms about official disapproval of the North's nuclear ambitions being diluted by a little Gershwin.

I am, like others, now left to imagine the lost opportunity of pairing this current-day socialist-realism with the ironic and sly faux-propaganda of so many of the contemporary Chinese artists who enjoy great success in this country, and that the Queensland Art Gallery has been so perceptive in displaying: Guo Jian's hysterical Red Army members or Zhang Xiaogang's ghostly family portraits, commentary on authoritarian regimes that would seem shocking to the North Koreans.

The juxtaposition would be remarkable: the constructed fantasy of the North Koreans meeting the bitterly-experienced reality of the Chinese. Would that the North Korean artists could have been around for that encounter: it would have been a discussion without precedent. A true cultural clash. And we squibbed the opportunity.

But what has been lost, too, is the human element. How wonderful for the citizens of one of the most benighted countries on earth - whose art bears no relation to the life of privation and oppression lived by the real inhabitants of their painted land - to spend some time among our rolling hills without end.

Source: abc.net.au

BJP gets its youngest chief in Nitin Gadkari

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:20:42 PST

Nitin Gadkari was on Saturday appointed the BJP President at a meeting of the Parliamentary Board of the party, marking a generational change in its hierarchy.

The 52-year-old leader succeeds Rajnath Singh to become the youngest president of the party and the first one from Maharashtra.

Gadkari was elected the party chief at the meeting attended by senior BJP leaders L K Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley and others.

Earlier in the day, Gadkari said he did not view politics as a career but as an instrument of socio-economic reforms to bring about a change in the lives of the poor and the downtrodden.

"I don't work as if I am making a political career. I work for the poor and downtrodden sections of society who don't have food to eat, house to live in or clothes to wear. I strive to bring about a transformation in their lives," he said.

The party was effecting a generational change in its hierarchy. Advani yesterday stepped down as the Leader of Opposition paving way for Sushma Swaraj to don the mantle. He was chosen at a meeting of party MPs to the newly-created post of Chairman of the party's Parliamentary Party.

Source: hindustantimes.com

Another form of corruption

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:50:22 PST

The reported altercation between a PML-N parliamentarian and a local government officer in Rawalpindi is not something entirely unheard of in Pakistan. According to our reporter, the MNA had ordered the Executive District Officer (municipal services) to transfer some municipal staff, something the EDO refused to do. This won him the ire of the lawmaker who has brought a number of charges of corruption against the local body functionary and has even got the Punjab chief minister to have the defiant official investigated. The case has come to light because the EDO’s non-compliance caused a backlash from the angry elected official.

Otherwise, politicians, especially from the ruling party, flexing their muscles to obtain favours illegally is quite a common story in Pakistan. Generally, the subordinate officers do not resist because they fear the consequences of confronting a politician who derives his strength not from the popular support he enjoys but his feudal/industrial clout and political influence. Such politicians, in effect, have the backing of the leader of their political party who lacks the moral and political strength to hold his own in politics and is therefore willing to appease all and sundry to hold on to power.

Those in the administration understand this very well and choose not to challenge a politician attempting to take advantage of his position. Many of the officers are themselves corrupt and simply go along with the political leaders viewing this as an opportunity to enhance their own influence and derive financial benefits from the situation. The most serious effect of such graft and nepotism is the undermining of the possibility of good governance. Simply put, political interference of this sort deters professionalism and efficiency in the performance of any service. It has been widely recognised that administrations in which the politicians observe a hands-off policy generally produce better results.

Source: dawn.com

Rights under attack

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:54:21 PST

Ramesh Thakur:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the central organizing principle of global human rights, transformed a noble aspiration into binding standards and a source of power and authority on behalf of victims. Now human rights are under threat on three fronts.

Many civil liberties and privacy rights have been sacrificed on the altar of enhanced security measures. Our government has abandoned some Canadians jailed and abused overseas under the anti-terrorism label. Our military is accused of handing over suspects to Afghan interrogators skilled at breaking more than toothpicks.

Our law-enforcement officers have transferred the burden of risk of death and injury to innocent people – through lax protocols on using tasers, for example. A new British inquiry has recommended a return to community consent-based policing, arguing that the police too often conflate proportionate into reciprocal use of force in dealing with potentially violent offenders. Canadian police should take note.

Border agents are drifting into a “make my day” machismo as their default mode of dealing with international travellers. Banning gadfly British MP George Galloway from visiting Canada was especially egregious and counterproductive in giving him extra publicity.

The former chief human-rights champion became a leading delinquent. U.S. abuses in Guantanamo and Iraq weakened our collective capacity to protect human rights. When others mimic open defiance of the law by the world's dominant country, Washington cannot ask them to uphold principles it itself violates. The post-9/11 debate on justifying torture to prevent terrorist attacks ignores the fact that torture makes it to every short list of acts so abhorrent that they can never be publicly defended.

The post-9/11 climate of fear rippled outward, fed Islamophobia and, most recently, resulted in the good citizens of Switzerland banning the construction of minarets – an act of intolerance worthy of Saudi Arabia.

A second source of alarm is that human-rights machinery is threatening to become a monster mocking the meat it feeds on. Human rights should protect individuals from political, social and religious oppression. The state has the responsibility for enacting laws and creating institutions to monitor and enforce them. Groups can capture the political agenda and subvert the process to “protect” group human rights by penalizing individuals who dissent from community views and behaviour.

Criminalizing hate speech is a case in point, especially when offence is established by the hurt sensibilities of a complainant. University campuses, which should be among the front-line defenders of free speech, have been among the first to succumb to political correctness and lobby group pressure. Yale University Press, for example, published a book on the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed but refused to reprint the cartoons.

In some jurisdictions, in hearings before quasi-judicial bodies such as government-appointed human-rights commissions, complainants suffer no penalty even if their case is found to be frivolous and wholly without merit. Defendants can have their lives ruined financially, professionally and socially. Eventual vindication offers little solace or compensation. Machinery meant to defend human rights has become politically motivated attack organs, using taxpayer money to curtail public freedoms. They are paradigms of a bureaucratic solution: well-intentioned, labour intensive and expensive. The value of an end – promoting human rights – is used to employ a self-defeating means to achieve it.

Who will take the state out of the debating halls of Canada?

The final source of threats to human rights is from intergovernmental organizations – a Canadian citizen, for example, being put on a secret United Nations blacklist with no judicial oversight on the basis of unknown, unchallengeable, unreliable and often flimsy evidence.

Parts of the UN human-rights machinery have long been captured by its enemies. Its scandalous performance has sometimes been a travesty of the noble vision and ideals animating the global movement. The protection of internationally recognized human rights are likely to remain fraught. The UN is made up of states that are not overly eager to create enforceable machinery against themselves. Even liberal democracies often sacrifice human rights to national security and commercial calculations, proving their courage against Myanmar while remaining discreetly silent on China and Saudi Arabia.

States can also band together at the UN to stifle free speech by proscribing injuries to religious sensibilities. In March, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution sponsored by Pakistan and supported by the Organization of Islamic Conference urging all countries to pass laws banning criticism of religion. The resolution was dressed up in the language of human rights (freedom of religion).

This is why, even as advocates seek advances in the human-rights agenda, they must hold fast to the truth that human rights is about protecting individual beliefs and actions from group-sanctioned morality at local, national and global levels of governance.

Ramesh Thakur is director of the Balsillie School of International Affairs, distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and professor of political science at the University of Waterloo.

Source: theglobeandmail.com

Between Politics, Morality And Criminality

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:49:11 PST

Lagos — The current scandal of certificate forgery and perjury being pushed against some members of the Lagos House of Assembly has called for concern. Ironically, stories have always moved around places albeit, in different parts of the country on similar issue, it however generates as much interest when Lagos is drawn into such ignominy.

Worrisome is the fact that no genuine effort appears to have been worked out with a view to addressing the issues and ascertaining the veracity of the claims. Instead, what is being said about places today is an alleged "scheme" to cover up the "shame" in lieu of certain interests. And all that has gone on in the assembly over the last few weeks has shown nothing but vindicate those alleging conspiracy.

Perhaps, the assembly has a right to protect its interest and those of its members in areas where such interest as it pertains the image and integrity of the legislature is at stake. But will it amount to doing just the right thing when such developments attempt to put the integrity of the assembly in a serious integrity crisis; exemplary leadership and genuine intention to lead the state- setting pace.

Look at it this way: last week, the speaker who had maintained his calm over the issue since it became public knowledge went all out and put up some subtle defence for the accused in the assembly. According to him, what is going on with respect to the issue is being sponsored by detractors of the assembly. It is not impossible that the speaker spoke against the backdrop of the politics that has been playing out in the assembly for some time now. But he has not factored into context, the morality and criminality of the allegation within the context of the manner of politics that the state seeks to offer.

But before you concur with any opinion, first hear him: "There are some people who don't like the cordiality in the House and they are looking for ways to cause havoc. Ordinarily, I have said I would not discuss this issue. We have those who don't see anything good in what we do. They have tried in several ways to get in between us, but they have not succeeded.

What is bothersome here is the fact that the speaker does not seem to have a grasp of the issue involved. And for purposes of this discussion and its import for both the executive and the legislature, it is imperative that he does. Now, where is the morality in this deliberate criminality all for political use? What is in there for Lagos- the state of aquatic splendor to lead a politics of example? How do you defend the fact that somebody not only lied under oath by deceiving the state and the people but also committed a crime that is punishable under law?

The police may not have submitted its report for political reasons, but evidence since provided by the petitioners of this case are so damning that the accused has not been able to defend not even in the house, let alone in the public. For how long are we going to be applying the George Owel's law of equality- placing some above the others against the interest of the state? In what ways are the suspects different from others who have soiled their hands in similar criminality that she deserves to be protected the way she is being protected? One cannot but ponder how important this woman is when placed side-by-side with the former deputy national chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Olabode George who was recently convicted for abuse of office and disobedience to the authorities of the land and has since been kept in detention and also denied bail? Is the Action Congress (AC) advancing a cause on one hand and running in contrary with same on the other? Else, where within the context of rationality, morality and legality would you place the case of the deputy speaker who has defied all the decency and still stays-put in office, hoping that the heavy weight in the state would wade into her case?

This is nothing but an opportunity for the state to set the pace as the centre of excellence. This is the time we must begin to learn to say and stand by the saying that "no sacred cows" in our polity if genuinely, we intend to move forward; sanitise the system and leave lasting legacies that would outlive generations to come.

We must not be oblivious of precedence, especially in cases of this nature so that posterity would place us where we truly belong when the time is right.

In all of this therefore, the police have a responsibility to also begin to clean up its image and not confirm the fears that they have sold out as far as this matter is concerned. It is being said in certain quarters now that the report is ready, but the findings would certainly not offer respite for the accused and her backers, hence the strategy to hold back for some time, perhaps until such a time when this will die down and the people would have put it behind them.

Again, posterity would not condone the police if this thinking is true. If there has been similar development in other parts of the country and has been handled normally, Lagos is certainly no exception and until the police see this as an opportunity to stand out and clean, the people from whom the system is being sustained through their hard earned money would not let go. And the real battle may have just begun.

This is because what is presently playing out at the Lagos House of Assembly is simply a case of criminality that is designed to rub-off on the morality of our system through the instrumentality of our peculiar politics. But this would not be swept under carpet. All eyes on the police and the political leadership as any attempt to cover up this jumble would back-fire. Simple!

Source:allafrica.com

Politicians give away donations from Elliott Broidy after conviction for bribery

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:08:33 PST

Some California politicians are ridding their campaign coffers of cash from a Los Angeles venture capitalist who has pleaded guilty to bribing pension officials in New York.

Elliott Broidy, who had California government contracts worth tens of millions of dollars, showered his personal fortune on officeholders and candidates. Over the last decade, Broidy and his wife, Robin Rosenzweig, have made nearly $900,000 in campaign contributions in California, including $57,000 to candidates and ballot measures in the city of Los Angeles.

Candidates for governor, state attorney general and other offices declared Monday that they would return tens of thousands of dollars received from Broidy, who on Friday admitted in court that he paid $1 million in bribes in New York to land $250 million in pension fund business.

Broidy faces up to four years in prison. His business with pension funds in California is under investigation by state and federal authorities.

Tom Hogen-Esch, a professor of political science at Cal State Northridge, said Broidy's confession to bribery taints the donations.

"If somebody has admitted to a crime, anyone receiving money from him in large sums should consider donating it to charity or some other action, to protect the political process itself," he said. "The appearance of corruption is quite obvious."

Among the recipients of Broidy's largess was state Insurance Commissioner and GOP gubernatorial hopeful Steve Poizner, who until four months ago had Broidy on his campaign's steering committee. A spokesman for Poizner said Monday that the commissioner is giving away the $34,000 that Broidy and Rosenzweig contributed to his campaigns.

"Steve did not feel it would be appropriate to accept the funds and felt the money would be best served by Toys for the Troops' Kids," said Jarrod Agen.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa plans to donate to charity the $2,000 that Broidy gave him. "It simply would not be appropriate or right" to keep the money, said spokeswoman Janelle Erickson.

Michelle Steel, a Republican who serves on the Board of Equalization, which sets state tax policy and presides over tax disputes, said she was also donating to charity the $6,000 Broidy gave her.

"Because there is that level of impropriety with that donor, it's important we not spend that money on the campaign," said Steel spokesman Tim Clark.

Rocky Delgadillo, a former Los Angeles city attorney who is a candidate for state attorney general, is giving to charity the $3,000 in contributions he received from 2002 to 2006. Assemblyman Van Tran (R-Garden Grove) said he plans to donate to charity the $1,800 he received.

Not all politicians are divesting themselves of Broidy's cash. A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who received at least $86,000 from Broidy between 2003 and 2005, said the money is gone.

"This is money that was donated and spent years ago from campaign committees that no longer exist," said Schwarzenegger press secretary Aaron McLear.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), who received a $3,200 contribution from Broidy in 2004, said he was in the same predicament.

The state Republican Party did not respond to queries about the $79,000 Broidy pumped into its Victory 2006 campaign fund.

There was no comment, either, from the offices of sate Sen. Tony Strickland (R- Thousand Oaks) and Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks). The couple got $8,500 combined from Broidy. Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich did not return calls about his $2,000.

The United Food and Commercial Workers, which accepted thousands of dollars from Broidy for its political committee, also did not return calls seeking comment. The donation was made about the time Broidy was lobbying a top union official who served on the state pension board for a major investment contract.

Source: latimes.com

9/11 in the Shadow of Pearl Harbor

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:04:38 PST

As December 7th passes on our calendars, I cannot help but compare the surprise attack of Pearl Harbor to 9/11 just a little bit. Both resulted in a declaration of war but the results could not be more catastrophically different. America extracted its blood and guts from Pearl Harbor in a matter of five years. The suffering was enormous but the lines of the good guys versus the bad guys and why we were fighting were clearly marked. Yes, mistakes were made on the home front with the American Japanese, as has been recognized. But as for the support of the nation -- that was never in question. If ever there was a war where the lines between good and evil and right and wrong were clearly defined, it was World War II.

But then the war was over and the soldiers came home and America thrived. In fact, America entered its Golden Years. Pearl Harbor was not forgotten -- hardly -- but it was not a trauma continually thrust into the forefront of the American people day after day. Americans got even and it was over. My father fought in the Pacific theater including the nightmare of Guadalcanal and several other island invasions. I grew up surrounded by Marines who simply wanted to get on with the business of life after the war.

As the war in Afghanistan moves into its ninth year, support on the home front wanes weekly. Never mind the confusion in the Congress -- it's the confusion in the nation that is just as problematic. Few people feel comfortable when their nation is at war. But most citizens will support their nation going to war when the cause and the enemy are clearly defined. This is a war, however, that has fallen down the Rabbit Hole. It has absurdity written all over it, from the war beginning in a cesspool of Bush/Cheney lies to this escalation of 30,000 soldiers being sent into a desert to fight who exactly? Ghosts in caves and human bombs -- is this the new face of war?

Listening to President Obama announce his decision to pour more billions if not a trillion dollars into this scheme to get the Afghan people and the Pakistanis to succumb to a Christian democracy in eighteen months, the image of Osama bin Laden leaped into my mind. Perhaps he, too, was listening to the president, maybe from a cave or the unthinkable -- a comfortable hidden mansion somewhere in Pakistan. Eighteen months is the time line we are giving these essentially tribal people to get their acts together to become high functioning, trustworthy soldiers, armed to the teeth with American weaponry, who promise to be more loyal to Christian invaders than to their brother Muslims, regardless of whether they are members of the Taliban or Jehovah's Witnesses or Druid converts. Let's face it -- blood, and especially tribal blood, is thicker than water, especially while having an invaders gun pointed at you.

As President Obama spoke the other day, memories of a taped message that bin Laden sent out in the early days of this war ran through my mind. He promised that he would break America financially just as he did to the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan. Sure their bombs and bullets killed and maimed thousands but in the end, the Russians left Afghanistan having spent billions of dollars and accomplishing nothing. I imagine bin Laden emailing instructions to his minions that go something like this, "Okay team, suit up for the next eighteen months in your best western wear. Look cooperative because the U.S. is about to pour even more money into our coffers. They just don't get how we work, who we are, and how we really think -- and that foolishness is our best defense. As soon as this next infusion of cash is done, get out your militant wardrobe, pull out those burkas for your women and get this country back just the way it always was -- ours."

Reports are that there are but 100 Al Qaeda militants left in the whole of Afghanistan, at least that was the statistic offered during the past days as the debate regarding the president's decision continues. Escalating a war while the home nation disintegrates has, historically, done in more than one world leader. Every leader needs the support of his or her nation when that nation is at war. Equally important is that the people of that nation need to understand who and where the enemy is and not be fed a continual line of spin as to why our soldiers and our resources are being evaporated in a vast wasteland while the home front is left to listen to Congressional has-beens like McCain spout off about what the president should be doing. That's just what we need -- more Republican "experts" who do nothing but babble. If McCain was a real patriot and not just an angry, raging, jealous bitter man that he is, he would be doing all he could to unite the Republican Party. He of all people knows how dangerous it is for a nation to endure a nearly decade long war.

So here we are, nine years later, still pouring our soldiers and resources into this war, still using 9/11 as our battle cry, and all the while our own nation is on an economic and psychic respirator. What are we thinking? Is this what winning a war looks like? Seems to me that our nation has paid and is continuing to pay a price for 9/11. Perhaps there are other reasons for the ongoing war that have nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11 -- oil, perhaps? And if that's so -- if it turns out that oil interests are even a small part of why this nightmare has been extended for almost a decade -- how shall we respond to that as Americans, especially if the previous administration as well as this one used 9/11 as their battle cry for support. Is it any wonder why the politics of our nation have that "Alice in Wonderland" quality to them?

If we really wanted to "get even" for 9/11, would it not be to our benefit to pour that money into us and not them? Would it not benefit us more if those endless financial resources went to rebuilding this nation and not that one? Seems to me that if all those billions were directed toward assisting new businesses, educational aid, repairing bridges, streets, and other disintegrating infrastructures, and all seriously launching green technology, we could rise out the ashes of 9/11 and get on with the business of life again. Granted nothing is that simple but even the simplest of us can see how foolish it is to escalate a war that will only continue to shatter an already broken nation.

Source: huffingtonpost.com

Manmohan Singh - Prime Minister of India

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:20:24 PST

Manmohan Singh is the 14th and current Prime Minister of India. He is the first Indian Prime Minister since Jawaharlal Nehru to return to power after completing a full five-year term. Earlier, during his tenure as the Finance Minister from 1991 to 1996, Singh was widely credited for carrying out economic reforms in India in 1991 which resulted in the end of the infamous Licence Raj system.

Born : 26 September 1932 (1932-09-26) (age 77) Gah, Punjab, British India

Political party : UPA-INC

Spouse(s) : Gursharan Kaur

Children : Upinder Singh, Daman Singh, Amrit Singh

Residence : 7 Race Course Road, New Delhi, India

Profession : Economist

An economist by profession, Singh was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India from 1982 to 1985,[2] the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India from 1985 to 1987 and the Finance Minister of India from 1991 to 1996. He is also a Rajya Sabha member from Assam, currently serving his fourth term.

Manmohan Singh is a graduate of Panjab University, Chandigarh, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Oxford. After serving as the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, Singh was appointed as the Union Minister of Finance in 1991 by then-Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. During his tenure as the Finance Minister, Singh was widely credited for carrying out economic reforms in India in 1991 which resulted in the end of the infamous Licence Raj system.

Following the 2004 general elections, Singh was unexpectedly declared as the Prime Ministerial candidate of the Indian National Congress-led United Progressive Alliance. He was sworn in as the prime minister on 22 May 2004, along with the First Manmohan Singh Cabinet. After the Indian National Congress won the 2009 general elections, Singh was reappointed as the Prime Minister of India on 22 May 2009.

Degrees and Posts held

BA (Hons) in Economics 1952; MA First Class in Economics, 1954 Punjab University, Chandigarh, India

First Class Honours degree in Economics, University of Cambridge, St John's College, Cambridge (1957)

Senior Lecturer, Economics (1957–1959)

Reader (1959–1963)

Professor (1963–1965)

Professor of International Trade (1969–1971)

DPhil in Economics, Nuffield College at University of Oxford,(1962)

Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi

Honorary Professor (1996)

Chief, Financing for Trade Section, UNCTAD, United Nations Secretariat, New York

1966 : Economic Affairs Officer 1966

Economic Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Trade, India (1971–1972)

Chief Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, India, (1972–1976)

Honorary Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (1976)

Director, Reserve Bank of India (1976–1980)

Director, Industrial Development Bank of India (1976–1980)

Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs), Government of India, (1977–1980)

Governor, Reserve Bank of India (1982–1985)

Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission of India, (1985–1987)

Advisor to Prime Minister of India on Economic Affairs (1990–1991)

Finance Minister of India, (21 June 1991 – 15 May 1996)

Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha (1998–2004)

Prime Minister of India (22 May 2004 – Present)

Source: Wikipedia

'Political storm brews for Pakistan's Zardari'

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:06:51 PST

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari is facing mounting pressure to relinquish many of his powers, raising the spectre of a damaging political fracas just as the nation battles the Taliban.

Only 15 months into his rule, Zardari is contending with rock-bottom public opinion, strained relations with the powerful military, a bloody Islamist insurgency and a vocal opposition party challenging his rule.

He has lost much of the public sympathy that helped his Pakistan People's Party (PPP) win elections in early 2008, soon after the assassination of his wife, the hugely popular two-time prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Political tensions that have simmered for months bubbled to the surface over the weekend, when a legal amnesty protecting Zardari and key aides from corruption cases expired, plunging the nation into uncertainly.

"At this point of time when the country needs undivided attention to face its challenges, the government could get entangled in legal battles and their future is so uncertain," said independent political analyst Talat Masood.

The corruption amnesty, known as the National Reconciliation Ordinance, was passed by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf in 2007.

It quashed charges against Zardari, Bhutto and other politicians in an gesture of political reconciliation as Musharraf faced increasing pressure to end nearly nine years of military rule and restore democratic elections.

Zardari spent several years in jail for corruption and is still referred to as "Mr Ten Percent" because of his reputation for taking kickbacks on deals.

Succeeding Musharraf as president in September 2008, Zardari has immunity from prosecution. But that immunity could now be challenged in the Supreme Court, opening the door for prosecution on outstanding cases.

Rasool Bakhsh Raees, a professor of political science at Lahore University of Management Sciences, said there were numerous grounds for challenging his immunity. And with so many foes, Zardari's position looked perilous.

"The legal process is going to take its course, and if it does I see slim survival chances for the PPP leadership including President Zardari," he said.

Weathering the storm will take political savvy on Zardari's part.

The president on Saturday gave control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, widely seen as a move to fend off criticism by making good on electoral promises to devolve greater power to parliament.

"It is a signal to political parties and the army that he is willing to accept his reduced position as a figurehead," said Raees.

But this will unlikely be enough to appease his critics.

The opposition Pakistan Muslim League-N is calling on Zardari to relinquish powers he inherited from Musharraf to dissolve parliament and sack the prime minister -- the so-called 17th amendment to the constitution.

A key problem, Masood said, was that Zardari had very few allies left. "The media and military are not very supportive, which means his future is really uncertain and he will have to surrender his powers."

Tensions have simmered between the army and Zardari for months, notably over a US aid package signed into law in Washington in October.

It earned a terse rebuke from army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, who expressed "serious concerns" about strings attached to some of the funding.

Any political fracas will likely unnerve Pakistan's Western allies, who have been pressing Islamabad to expand a multi-pronged offensive launched earlier this year against Taliban rebels across swathes of the northwest.

The offensives have sparked a wave of retaliatory suicide bombings by the Taliban, with more than 430 people killed in Pakistan in the past two months.

"Politicians are not paying attention to real issues; the war against the Taliban, suicide bombings and the economy," said Hasan Askari, a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University.

"Pakistani politics is personalized, and only the issues which can pull down Zardari are being focussed on."

Source : AFP

'Parties Totally Don't Care About Women's Rights'

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:17:18 PST

"Political parties do not put their money where their mouth is," says Sarry Xoagus-Eises, country organiser for Gender Links, a non-governmental organisation that promotes gender equality throughout the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

"In their manifestos parties enshrine equal opportunities for men and women, but when the candidate list comes out, it’s dominated by men."

A recent workshop of Gender Links and the Gender and Media Southern Africa (GEMSA) network revealed a likely drop from 30.8 percent to 25 percent in the female caucus in parliament. This outcome is based on a comparison of election forecasts, and women candidates’ ranking on 13 out of 14 lists of participating political parties.

"It looks like the next National Assembly will have below 30 percent representation for women, which will be a backward step for Namibia, and make the achievement of gender parity by 2015 highly unlikely," confirms Graham Hopwood, political analyst and director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in Windhoek, supplier of the data Gender Links used in its forecast.

The prediction most likely means business as usual for Namibia, which scored a participation rate for women of only 26 percent in the 2004 elections. This percentage rose in the years after, as women took the place of male members of parliament (MPs) who left.

But business as usual is nowhere near good enough, argue activists. Especially since 52 percent of the voters are female.

The 2008 SADC Protocol on Gender and Development has set an ambitious objective of raising the number of women in decision-making positions to 50 percent by 2015, in line with African Union targets. It’s one of 28 goals the SADC heads of state (all men) set to improve gender equality.

But out of the 16 member states of the regional bloc, only South Africa – where female representation in parliament shot up from 33 percent to 43.5 percent after the 2009 elections – seems on track.

Botswana, after elections in mid-October, saw its number of female representatives dwindle from 11 percent to a dismal 6.5 percent, consigning the country to the bottom of the league.

According to Gender Links, Namibia ranks fifth in SADC and 87th worldwide in terms of female representation. Currently 24 out of 72 elected MPs are women. At the local government level Namibia scores much better, with 43 percent of councillors being female, second only to Lesotho where women dominate local politics (58 percent).

"This success is due to a quota for women candidates at this level," clarifies Xoagus-Eises. "Because of this quota we are pretty sure we will hit the 50 percent mark in the 2010 local elections. It’s also easier to mobilise women in the communities. Local politics are about the grassroots issues, and that’s exactly where women are."

"But we also need women in parliament," she stresses. That’s why Namibia needs a voluntary quota like South Africa or Tanzania, Xoagus-Eises says. "Only with a quota system can you ensure enough women get put in the top 15."

But the trend is the reverse. "The ruling SWAPO (South-West African People’s Organisation ) Party has only two women in the top 10. Overall women make up only 23.6 percent of the SWAPO list. Civil society has tried to convince the electoral commission of the need for a quota, but we are at a dead end," Xoagus-Eises says.

In Namibia there are no female presidential candidates, and the cabinet of 25 counts only six women. SWAPO holds 55 seats in parliament, a portion that’s expected to decrease slightly in the upcoming polls.

"Where does that leave the minister of gender, equality and child welfare, who’s placed 63 on the list?" wonders Xoagus-Eises.

Other parties fare little better. A SWAPO breakaway faction, the Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP), expected to garner a significant share of the votes, has only seven women on its 72-member list, or 9.7 percent.

Apart from the absence of a quota, Xoagus-Eises blames traditional and patriarchal attitudes for the poor showing of women on party lists.

"When the electoral college convenes it’s the men who get voted in. It’s a socialisation issue, the conviction that politics is best left to the men, and that the role of women is elsewhere."

This sentiment is shared by aspiring female politicians. "Political parties do not see women as their partners. The Namibian context is dominated by male voices," says Maria da Conceiçaó Lourence, candidate for the Namibian Democratic Movement for Change (DMC).

"Parties totally don’t care about women’s rights. Legislation like the Marital Equality Act or the Maintenance Act is passed, but these things are never really enforced. Every morning dozens of women queue up at the magistrate’s court to fight for their payments."

Da Conceiçaó Lourence says: "We, the mothers, sisters and wives, are the ones that are hurt. It’s time we get a woman president to change things. The men have proved they can’t."

Tradition also determines who women vote for, she says. "You don’t vote for yourself, you do as you are told. A woman listens to what her husband says, which means they will vote for men."

Gretchen Boois, number 10 on list of the largest opposition party, the Congress of Democrats (CoD), doesn’t believe women do not vote for each other. "That’s a story made up by men. Everywhere I go the first thing women want to know is how many ladies there are on the list, and what place they occupy."

CoD is the only party that has adopted a zebra-style representation list by alternating men and women, earning praise from women’s groups. Three out of its five MPs are women.

"Women shouldn’t just be voted into power, but be given real decision-making positions," feels Boois. "Only then can they wield influence and clear the way for a new generation of female decision-makers. Only they can level the playing field, because they understand what it takes to come from nowhere."

She admits that it’s not easy. "Because of our cultural upbringing, women aren’t confident speaking in public," she says. "We tend to keep quiet."

Researchers support these observations. "In general, parties pay lip service to gender- equity issues. Very few adopt regulations that would lead to more balanced representation," says Hopwood.

"The only means of achieving a 50-50 situation by 2015 would involve enforcing a zebra-quota system by amending the Electoral Act before the 2014 elections.

"However, it is not only about numbers. IPPR research into MPs’ contributions to debates in the National Assembly from 2005 to 2007 found that a high proportion of women MPs rarely spoke in parliament, effectively acting as ‘bench warmers’," Hopwood says.

"Quite a few of those MPs were left off party lists because they were perceived to be under-performing. So we should also look at the overall quality of MPs, and the effectiveness of women MPs, particularly in a party list system where they are chosen by parties rather than voters.

Hopwood says parties need to introduce their own gender empowerment programmes and training for prospective MPs.

Boois agrees training is needed. "We need to remove these barriers and train women in public speaking. Because we are actually much better in arguing a point. Unlike men we leave our egos at the door and focus on the issue."

source: ipsnew

Anxiety mounts over Yar’Adua’s health

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:05:21 PST

Fears and rumours enveloped the nation yesterday as the state of President Umaru Yar’Adua’s health became a matter of concern amongst the populace.

Mr. Yar’Adua, who is undergoing medical treatment at a hospital in the western seaport city of Jeddah, the Saudi Arabian capital, was rumoured to have passed away, yesterday morning. He was flown out of the country late on Monday night and was reportedly admitted.

NEXT received myriad phone calls and comments on its website (234next.com) from readers across the world, who showed great concern, as they demanded to know the true state of the president’s health.

Majority of those who made comments wished Mr. Yar’Adua speedy recovery. The anxiety reached a crescendo in newsrooms across the nation with journalists and politicians exchanging calls in a bid to confirm what the situation was.

No cause for alarm

In the midst of the confusion surrounding the president’s health, the Federal Executive Council held its weekly meeting. After the meeting, which was chaired by the Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan, Mr. Jonathan and the members of the council did not make any comment to allay the fears of the citizenry. In fact, no action from any of the members betrayed any emotion that anything untoward had happened, leading some to conclude that the rumours were untrue.

Mr. Yar’Adua’s special adviser on media, Olusegun Adeniyi in a statement on Monday informed the nation that the president will be calling on his personal physicians while on a visit to Jeddah for “follow-up medical checks.” The President, who has long been known to suffer from a kidney ailment, was admitted in a Jeddah hospital last year when he left to perform the lesser hajj.

Rumour of Mr YarAdua’s demise were also rife weeks into his presidential campaign in 2007 when he was in Germany receiving treatment. It took a phone call from former President Olusegun Obasanjo to him, at a campaign rally to confirm that he is alive.

This is the third trip the president is making in four months, to treat an ailment that has not been fully disclosed to the nation.

On August 14th, he made a two-week trip to Germany, and about five weeks later, on September 22, he made another trip to Saudi Arabia. The presidency officially claimed that he had gone to witness the opening of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, during which he would also receive medical attention for an asthmatic condition. He was billed to attend the United Nations’ General Assembly meeting in New York at the same time, but he was represented at the meeting by the minister of foreign affairs, Ojo Maduekwe

source: 234next

CLIMATE CHANGE: "No Politics in the Melting of the Ice Sheet"

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:00:39 PST

"The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science" is intended to fill the gap between the last assessment of climate research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in 2007, and the climate summit in Copenhagen less than two weeks away.

The report comes as climate change sceptics are crying foul in the U.S. Congress, editorial pages and elsewhere over recently hacked and publicised emails that they say reveal a manipulation of the science to paint climate change as more human-caused than they believe it is.

Unfazed by this uproar, the report's authors released their findings Tuesday after combing academic journals for the hundreds of papers that have been written on climate change-related topics since the IPCC's last cut-off, in 2006.

What they uncovered was a climate changing at a rate that outstrips what the IPCC projected based on the best available data of just three years ago.

"We're not the IPCC, we're not criticising the IPCC. We're just saying the science has not stopped since the last IPCC report," said Richard Somerville, a coordinating lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 and one of the 26 authors of Tuesday's report. "There's new science and there's also three more years of data."

The authors are quick to point out the assessments are simply science, meant for the edification of those who craft policy responses to climate change, not a prescription of what those policies should be.

"As we've repeatedly said, we're climate scientists, not policymakers, so we're saying what the science says, not what policy action should be taken," said Somerville Tuesday. "There's no such thing as liberal or conservative ocean circulation theory, for instance."

"There are no politics involved in the melting of the ice sheet; it is what it is," said co-author Michael Mann, a lead author of 2001's IPCC Third Assessment Report.

The most significant findings of this latest report – which is not officially connected with the work of the IPCC – include the fact that global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were nearly 40 percent higher in 2008 than they were in 1990.

This means if present emissions levels remain the same for just the next 20 years, the planet may warm beyond the two degrees Celsius threshold set as a target by world leaders, Mann said Tuesday.

The inference from this is that "if we continue to burn at our current rate...we've only got 20 years and then we need to stop right then. That's obviously unrealistic," said co-author Eric Steig, professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington. The only solution, he says, is to reduce emissions.

Some findings agreed with past reports, like the steady of increase of temperatures at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade over the past 25 years – a fact, the authors say, that, looked at in the light of increases in greenhouse gas emissions over that same time span, illustrates the human-made origins of warming.

"Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend," notes the report, in order to explain how cool weather patterns caused by phenomena like El Niño or La Niña do not mean climate change is no longer a threat, as some have suggested.

More striking, though, are recent findings that far outstrip what was foreseen by the 2007 IPCC assessment. The summer melting of Arctic ice over the three years since then, for instance, has been about 40 percent greater than the average prediction of the models in that earlier report.

Due to melting like this, satellites have shown sea levels rising about 3.4 millimetres a year over the past 15 years, about 80 percent more than IPCC predictions, the report finds. This rate means seas would rise three feet or more by the end of the century, according to Mann.

Despite their non-prescriptive approach, the authors do offer several recommendations for policymakers based on the science the report surveyed.

"Average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under one metric ton CO2 by 2050," the report concludes. "This is 80-95 percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000."

A bill in the U.S. Senate hopes to mandate an 83 percent cut in domestic emissions by 2050, based on 2005 levels. The EU has committed to a 60 to 80 percent cut over that time, based on 1990 levels.

The report comes in the face of an unfolding controversy in which emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were stolen by hackers and have been posted online. The content of these documents have caused climate change sceptics to levy accusation that climate researchers manipulated the data to strengthen evidence that climate change is human-made.

The authors of Tuesday's report rushed to their colleagues' defence.

"It is, of course, a criminal activity...and it really has nothing to do with the science," said Somerville. "The science is not going to be changed by a smear campaign."

"When all these personal emails are subject to cherry picking...it's easy to take something that is actually quite innocent and make it somehow nefarious," explained Mann, whose own work had been the subject of attacks by climate science sceptics in 2003.

"If the critics had succeeded in discrediting Mike [Mann], it wouldn't have changed anything because there would have been others with the same conclusions," said Steig. "The science precedes us."

source: ipsnew

The politics of skin color in US

noreply@blogger.com (ahmjaynath) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:22:18 PST

President Obama's politics may influence on how dark- or light-skinned you think he is, according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research shows that in some of the photographs, the candidate's skin tone was darkened or lightened, while others were left untouched.

Study participants, who were also polled about their political views, were shown the various photographs. In the first experiment, where an unknown candidate was used, participants were made to believe that he either shared or opposed their views. In the second two experiments, images of Barack Obama from the 2008 presidential campaign were shown to participants. In all three cases, people who agreed with the politician's views were more likely to pick lighter-skinned images of him; people who disagreed were more likely to pick darker-skinned images.

The studies were conducted by Eugene Caruso from the University of Chicago's business school, in collaboration with Nicole Mead from the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research at the Netherlands' Tilburg University, and Emily Balcetis, in the psychology department at New York University.

For the two experiments that used photographs of President Obama, there were not enough African American participants to accurately assess whether there were any major differences in perception between black and white participants (10% or fewer of the subjects were African American in both trials), but for the first experiment, which had a broader subject pool, researchers say that demographics had no bearing on the influence of political bias. They write: "[P]articipants completed a number of demographic measures, none of which had a significant effect"

source:wellness.blogs.time.com