THE LOOMING THREAT OF IMPENDING LITIGATION

The unprecedented public health emergency COVID-19 has posed to the world, has demonstrated the myriad ways in which different jurisdictions are tackling the situation. Grappling with the unrelenting rise in the number of COVID cases, the situation has revealed deficiencies in law-making, legislative and executive, to address difficult constitutional medico-legal questions which has the potential of opening the floodgates to massive litigation.

The rapid spread of COVID-19 will likely result in the number of intensive care patients exceeding capacity. Decisions of allotting scarce resources from one patient to another shall also require consideration. How does a Clinician determine which patient to treat without violating his legal, ethical and moral duties? What parameters must be taken into consideration to save different human lives? An extremely challenging question is extraneous factors influencing the decision of allocating resources. Who decides, that a ventilator be allotted to a father of three over an aged widow? The Constitution of India guarantees right to equality and right to life to every citizen. How would an action of giving preference to younger people over the elderly be justified under these enshrined constitutional rights? Would Section 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, which exempts suits or legal proceedings taken in good faith, expressly ratify the acts of doctors who could likely be influenced by such superfluous factors? How does the state propose to tackle possible legal ramifications of either withholding or withdrawing a ventilator from a patient who would ordinarily receive such aid in the absence of a public health emergency? Given that there is no legislative enactment, rules prescribed by the state or any regulation adopted by the local administration under the sanction of the state government to determine the sanctity of actions being taken by various states and the Centre, the potential of setting off a maelstrom of legal disputes looms large over the courts. In an emergency situation, such as the present pandemic, the circumstances are greatly altered. Consequently, decisions or actions that might normally constitute negligence in routine care may not constitute negligence in an emergency. Yet, Clinicians could be sued for negligence, medical malpractices, criminal charges and civil suits by survivors of the thousands of people who could die as a result of ventilator triage decisions. The medical ‘standard of care’ in India which is basically what a minimally competent physician in the same field would do in the same situation, with the same resources, has evolved largely from the decisions of the Supreme Court. There is no legislation which defines the applicable standard of care in different situations such as a pandemic which shall differ from the standard of care under ordinary circumstances. A clinician facing such charges could argue that removing the ventilator helped in saving the life of a patient who had a higher survival rate. However, if the loss of one life is nullified by saving another life, it falls foul of the Constitution which prescribes equal value to each life. Other significant constitutional questions delve upon the state’s power to restrict the movement of people and enactment of travel restrictions violating interstate commerce thus falling foul of Article 301 of the Constitution. The government has adopted various measures to curb the spread of the virus. However, each public health strategy adopted by the government entails legal ramifications. Mandatory testing, reporting, isolation and quarantine are strategies which curtail individual liberties as they can be physically intrusive, violating individual autonomy and the norms of confidentiality. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right of privacy, the Supreme Court of India in its decisions has recognized that a right of personal privacy exists and that certain areas of privacy are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

While the full legal impact is difficult to ascertain, at the federal level and state level mere reliance upon the archaic Epidemic Diseases Act shall hardly be an effective counter to constitutional principles enshrined under the Constitution of India. The United States has adopted the "Crisis Standards of Care" guidelines to determine how the medical community should allocate scarce resources such as ventilators and intensive care beds during a catastrophic event requiring substantial changes in usual health care operations. The state of Himachal Pradesh has retrospectively notified the Himachal Pradesh Epidemic Disease (COVID-19) Regulations, 2020 which has defined COVID-19 as an epidemic disease and outlines important terms such as Quarantine & Isolation facilities. It has also empowered a Surveillance Personnel to discharge all necessary functions to contain the spread of the disease. However, pertinent legal quandaries still remain unaddressed.

The present vacuum in determining these decisions will largely be left to interpretations by Courts of law. The Centre and States must bring into place either legislative enactments, Ordinances or Regulations to provide a solution to these impending questions to safeguard themselves and health care officials from potential future litigation. In such a situation, since the Parliament is not in session, it is imperative that the Executive exercises its functions in tackling the fate of all actions taken in this unprecedented scenario.

THOSE WHO LIVE BY THE LAW, SHOULD KEEP THE LAW

The past few years have witnessed a rise in advocates strike work for a myriad of reasons.The last two months saw Bengal demonstrate an absolute shutdown for a month to protest against alleged excesses by the police during a clash between advocates and civic employees, Uttar Pradesh striking work demanding better working conditions and security for all lawyers following the killing of Uttar Pradesh Bar Council President Darvesh Yadav, Madhya Pradesh lawyers demanding enactment of the Advocate Protection Act in protest against the disapproval of the Bill by certain Cabinet Ministers, Orissa suspending work following grant of bail to a prime accused in a cricket betting racket, while the Punjab Haryana High Court witnessed a paralysis for one week with lawyers protesting against the setting up of a tribunal to deal with service-related matters of Haryana government employees. In April, they had struck work against an alleged attack on three lawyers at an eatery.

Such state of affairs is disconcerting. The Supreme Court of India in its landmark decision of Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt) v. Union of India had put a finality to the question of whether lawyers have a right to strikeand/or give a call for boycott of courts and concluded that lawyers have no such right, even as a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour armbands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts. The judgment empowered dissenting lawyers to boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott and stated that no lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. The only exception carved out was in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar or the Bench are at stake, that the courts may ignore to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. This exception was also clarified to state that it is only for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar/Bench and a procedure was established before Advocates decided to absent themselves from Court.

Should a civic society allow an ‘indefinite strike’ to take precedence over the fundamental rights of people? There are under trials languishing in jails and litigants who have endured years in waiting for their case to be listed, wading in despair. In a judicial system, where the obscene amount of pendency has subtly impinged on the rights of individuals, such unprecedented moves, solely to coerce a favorable administrative decision cannot be tolerated. Let’s look at the larger picture of how this institution has been reduced to its most vulnerable state. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 stated that the Judicial Branch in the United States is the weakest. Despite, having a similar system of governance, the Indian judiciary has taken the executive hands on in the past, struck down unconstitutional provisions and ensured that the envisaged system of checks and balances is maintained. However, with recent strikes, boycotts and violent tactics, Hussainara Khatoon’s right to speedy trial has been reduced to a metaphoric statement, Article 39A, a mere rhetoric and fundamental rights a relic of the past. Law School teaches every lawyer the theory of Utlitarianism, i.e. ‘The greatest amount of good for the greatest number’. As one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches of normative ethics, an evaluation of incumbent actions of the advocates on strike, would testify to the fact that there is no ‘good’ being derived from current status quo. Rather, it is diluting the very essence of the profession, its members and the institution itself. Who is to blame in such a scenario? The majoritarian measures adopted by Bar Associations across the country cannot be allowed to coerce and threaten others to follow suit. Such anarchistic pursuits, should be repressed at their very genesis, rather than being encouraged by silent participation.

An act to boycott the Court by the pleaders of Habibganj against the arrest of Mahatama Gandhi qualified as misconduct under Section 13(b)(7) of the Legal Practitioner’s Act and the Court, even during such testing times held that such attempt by the pleaders was to impede the administration of justice amounting to deliberate failure in duty to the clients and duty towards the court. In the words of Justice Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee in Emperor v. Rajni Kanta Bose and Ors, “amongst other types of misconduct, there is none more reprehensible than such conduct as tends to impede, obstruct or prevent administration of justice or to destroy the confidence of the people in such administration and any attempt on part of the pleader to boycott the court or to obstruct administration of justice by any form of device constitutes in his opinion a ground for debar or suspension.”The Supreme Court recently, in a 4thof July, 2019 order mandated all State bar Councils to furnish on an affidavit all the data pertaining to periodic strikes and cease work which are taking place in the country at various places recognizing the same to be impermissible and contrary to the Resolutions of the Bar Council of India and judgment(s) of this court.

With a judiciary overburdened with pendency, the ultimate sufferers are the litigants. The reputation of the institution is being marred by such unabated incidents. Such actions amount to professional misconduct, breach of trust, breach of contract and a breach of professional duty.It is imperative that the fraternity self-regulates itself and adopts measures to curb such vindictive recourses, which are gradually eroding the spirit of the profession and the responsibility it owes to society. Unbridled freedom of speech and expression has been held to be unconstitutional even by the United States Supreme Court in its 1989 decision of Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers' Assn. wherein the actions of a group of attorneys to boycott the courts was held to constitute restraint of trade. The Court observed that though the object was enactment of a favorable legislation, the boycott through which the Attorneys sought to obtain it was not protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment. As the Indian Supreme Court stated in Sanjeev Datta, In Re,“The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the Court.” The Vakalatnama, which a lawyer holds from his client constitutes the ethical, legal and moral responsibility a lawyer owes. The ‘Rules governing Advocates’ under the Advocates Act, 1961 provide that an advocate shall not withdraw from engagements once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the client. It also provides that an Advocate shall not do anything whereby he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.

Senior legal luminaries of the country have opined on this issue and condescended such actions. Shri K.K. Venugopal, the incumbent Attorney General of India in his article “The Legal Profession at the Turn of the Century” opined that boycott amounts to contempt of court and advocates participating in the strike keep their clients as hostages and their interests in jeopardy. Shri H.M. Seervai, a noted distinguished jurist in his article “Lawyers' Strike and the Duty of the Supreme Court”opined that lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Shri Fali S. Nariman, in his article “Boycott — a Lawyer's Weapon”discoursed that when the lawyers boycott the courts, confidence in the administration of justice is shaken and amounts to holding justice to ransom contributing to the law's delays.

If the Courts, with all its stakeholders do not step-in to self-regulate and rectify the repercussions of such acts, the sense of foreboding might just be too real. Such actions will reduce the Bar’s resilient and courageous mandates for redressing legitimate and genuine grievances, to acts without an audience. The centralizing power of Bar Associations to make such unilateral decisions is an imminent threat to the institution and the disturbing quietus, a mere calm before the storm. The allegory in following the majority view might not be evident in its first glace but its ripple effect will surface sooner than one would realise. Redemption may not be a choice then.

COPING WITH THE LOSS OF A PET

Georgio 

12.03.2009 - 23.01.2020

I wasn't willing to use the word "Pet" in the title.  Georgio wasn't a pet. He was my brother, my confidante, my best friend. It was my 15th birthday and I was adamant about getting a dog. My family wasn't too keen on that idea. My Mom had never kept a pet so she was stubbornly averse to having one. I was stubborn too. My uncle and aunt took me someplace. Where, I have no recollection, but I had three puppies to choose from. A Golden Labrador, a Lhasa Apso and a Pug. It didn't take too long. I picked up Georgio, the Golden Lab and took him home. My Uncle and Aunt had told me that if my family wouldn't relent, they'll adopt him. 

A month passed. My mom who had initially opposed the idea of Georgio around, citing Class 10 board exams, took on the responsibility of catering to every single need of his. She kept a tab of all the vaccinations he was to receive, buying gorgeous accessories, coats and beds for him and ensuring he took his walks as an absolute hunk, well combed and showered. The royal way in which he sat and posed was a spectacle. 

Georgio quickly made his place. He divided his day ensuring that he spent a substantial amount of time with every single person. Wake up with my dad at around 6:00 AM and wait till he got back after exercising, sit with my grandma and then accompany her to the garden outside, shadow mom around the house till she left and get his daily quota of biscuits from every single person running errands in the house. But he was different with me. He didn't ask me for anything. He commanded it. After he turned two, if I was in the house, he would refuse to go for a walk with any of the workers. He'd control himself, never passing his feces inside the house premises, but would refuse to leave till I accompanied him. At  the age of 18, I left for college and two years later, my brother left for his under-graduation. We'd try to solicit Georgio's reactions through FaceTime though we made recurrent trips back home. But Georgio needed his siblings around. Mom would call and say that he wasn't his chirpy self in our absence. He was trained by my grandma to bark hysterically when the bell rang or as soon as anyone would say "Shoo". He recognized the horn of every single car of ours. You could have us fooled but not him. He was intelligent beyond measure. His antics differed with every person. He knew not to obstruct my grandma's way or jump on her. He would do that to my brother and I, all the time. He knew that dad could not be disturbed till after dinner. Once dad would be done with his meals , he'd walk up to him every single day and put his front paw on his lap beckoning him to tummy rub or pat him. He only asked for love. His cheek to cheek smile emerged not at the sight of his mutton biscuits but when you called his name out, took him for a walk, hugged him, called him a good boy or just pat him on his head. 

My paternal aunt (Bua) has had pets all her life. She taught Georgio to "Hi5", "shake hands" and sit with both his paws up. Her inseparable poodle of 13 years devoted his entire life to her. And she did the same for him in his last few years. I narrate this because despite this unseen of, unheard of bond that we witnessed with them, she always said that Georgio was the most intelligent dog she had ever seen. Her attachment to dogs would be well-demonstrated by the fact that she lost consciousness when her Pomenarian passed away in an accident when she was a teenager. So perhaps it's easier now to imagine how special Georgio was. The boy only gave. Unconditionally, selflessly. 

I went away to the States for an entire year in 2017. My brother was working with a consulting firm then. We'd again hear that Georgio would just lie in some corner of the house with barely any activity. That year, I craved the companionship of George. My brother and I would drag his bed either to my room or his. Just his presence (and loud snoring sometimes coupled with extremely pungent farts) would suffice. I was sitting for the New York State Bar Exam which involved, quite literally, solitary confinement and long hours of isolation. Perhaps, with my puppy around (I called Georgio a puppy till the end. I always thought that this entire 'average life span of a dog' theory was psychological. In my head, I had already created the record of George being the longest living canine.) I would have been better. He'd hear all my sob stories, my sermons and my karaoke with utter amusement. He was my ideal audience. 

I returned in October 2018. My walks with Georgio resumed. I kept him on a strict diet knowing that labradors were susceptible to muscle weaknesses if they were overweight. I monitored his food and snubbed anyone for feeding him junk. (In hindsight, I wish I would have just let him devour whatever he wanted. He would have been a chubby puppy. It also did not stall any of my family members from giving in to his puppy-dog eyes and his drools every time anyone would be eating anything. He had an uncanny ability to sense when my grandma was going for her monthly religious kitties and he'd patiently wait for her to come back since one of the 'prasad' ladoos would inevitably be set aside for him. The Boy knew everything!) 

But it was short-lived. In December 2019, his lymph nodes swell. We took him to a Vet who conducted various tests and told us that this could potentially be life threatening but asked to wait for his reports. His reports came two days later and they were all fine. We were told it was a manageable infection. Three days of continuous medication controlled his swelling. Two weeks later we could still feel his swollen nodes but we were told that they would take time to heal.

On 22.01.2020, I got home from work later than I usually do and was told that Georgio had thrown up repeatedly and wasn't consuming anything. His tail wagged a little when I got home, which was very unusual, since he'd come charging at me every day before and after work. I asked my brother to lift him and get him to my room. He slept in my room that night, but his breathing didn't seem normal. He woke up multiple times to drink water but would go back to sleep every time. At 7:00 AM, he somehow mustered the courage to walk downstairs and beckoned my mom to take him to the doctor. Mom, accompanied with my brother rushed him to the nearest doctor. He received two injections, a pain killer and an antibiotic was prescribed. They got him back home. I came downstairs, to leave for an urgent office filing but was appalled to see Georgio's state. He was breathing from his mouth. Not the way they do after coming back from a walk, but his mouth would open and he would gasp for air. Every fleeting second his condition was getting worse. With the aid of Ranjeet, who's been with us for years now, we got him into the car and sped to the Vet. 

Georgio, who could stay two days without passing his feces only to guilt-trip me into taking him for a walk, for the first time in his life, seconds before he was to breathe his last, urinated on Ranjeet while being taken inside the hospital. Ranjeet shrieked saying "Didi, hurry, he's in a terrible state!" We rushed inside and the Doctor, who had seen Georgio through everything, screamed saying that he was very serious. A team of 7-8 doctors surrounded George and did something. A bunch of things. All I remember is seeing an oxygen mask around his mouth. Seconds later, they all took a step back. 

I wasn't prepared for this. No one was. We had no warning signs and Georgio displayed no symptoms until that night. 21st night, we had gone for a walk and he was his usual self: Barking at other dogs, sniffing the strewn-around feces, showing me which route he wished to take. My brother called me to ask what was happening. I was still in that room. I couldn't even look at George. I whispered... "Georgi's dead". He screamed saying "What are you saying?" and I disconnected. I left the room with our driver and Ranjeet still around George and ran. I was inconsolable. 

15 minutes later when I got back, my brother and mom were in the room, inconsolable. Dad, who can never express his emotions was speechless. He hugged me, which isn't very frequent and said "He went without suffering. He's in a better place now." We took him to our under-construction house and buried him in the backyard. Most of our memories with him were in that house. Despite his half-shut eyes and numb body, we all checked in our individual capacities if it was true. Dad at one point said "He's moving!" My brother didn't leave him till he was lowered into the ground and my mom held onto the coat he was last wearing. I planted a shrub the next day there, which shall grow full blooms of yellow serrated petals. My Grandma has a better idea though. We shall plant a chico tree in his memory at that spot. 

Georgio was a gift. Not just literally but metaphorically too. Losing George is perhaps one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. He was 30 kgs of pure happiness. In his 10+ years, he redefined the meaning of selflessness for all of us. The boy just gave! We'd all look forward to getting back home knowing that a happy puppy would come charging at us with his tail hysterically wagging. It's strange what life makes you do but the last walk I took with him was perhaps the longest walk we had ever taken, on a route we both had never treaded on. We spotted four peacocks. Not a usual sight. I would have been in court the morning he passed away, but somehow I was asked to head to office that day. Our last drive was an erratic trip to 24*7. I don't know if it was, as they say, "his time to go" or if I failed in getting him the right treatment or he was too sensitive to bear that kind of pain, but he left too soon. 

I wish we had longer with you George. You touched so many lives and created innumerable memories. It's haunting to sit in the house knowing I'll never see you again. I wish you'd asked for more, allowed us to do more. You enriched our lives for more than a decade. Like dad said, I hope you're in a better place now puppy....

Always & Forever,

Georgio on our last birthday. We celebrated it together every year. 

Always quite the poser 

He loved Spring; March 2019 

WHY WE, AS CONSUMERS, MUST SUPPORT VODAFONE IDEA AND BHARTI AIRTEL’S TARIFF HIKE

Prior to Reliance Jio Infocomm’s entry in September 2016, there were more than ten wireless providers in India. Unfettered 4G data service, free voice calls and low data tariffs by Jio, saturated the Indian telecom industry market to roughly five players. Two of these players, BSNL & MTNL are sick public sector units. Vodafone Idea Limited, two entities which merged in 2018 to counter stiff competition posed by the new entrant, reported an unprecedented net loss of Rs. 50,992 crore for its September quarter while Bharti Airtel posted a record Rs. 23,045 crore. These colossal losses account for the setback suffered by the Supreme Court’s judgment in October this year, which ordered telecoms to pay license fees and Spectrum usage charges on higher adjusted gross revenue base compared to earlier. The claims made by the Department of Telecommunications against these companies as per reports are, Rs. 217 billion for Bharti Airtel and Rs. 283 billion for Vodafone Idea, with the latter probably the worst hit. With no foreseeable relief from the government and a deadline by the telecom department to pay up the dues within three months of the Supreme Court’s orders, rumours are rife that the Vodafone Group may exit Indian operations.

We, as users have benefitted from declining prices until now. However, if major players were to exit the market, this would be a short-lived gain. The central goal of antitrust is to ensure that the only way firms can get ahead is to make a better product or make it more cheaply. Competition brings consumers high quality innovative services at the lowest possible prices. Each firm in a competitive market has a unilateral incentive to destabilize its rival’s price slightly and capture the whole market. Given the tumult faced by the sector, if it was to be reduced to just one private operator, the fear of consumer exploitation may loom large. As significant scale economies are present in the telecom industry, such operators will typically have cost advantages which shall further prohibit the entry of smaller rivals in the future. Given recent aggravating factors, we must be mindful that a hike in tariffs by the incumbents to sustain their operations shall ensure that the market shall function in a healthy, competitive manner in the long run.

DIDI AND HER PLOT!

THE INSIDE STORY OF DINESH TRIVEDI STEPPING DOWN AS THE RAILWAY MINISTER AND THE ROLE OF MAMATA BANERJEE IN IT!

The literal meaning of the Hindi word "Didi" means an older sister, right? And an older sister's one who helps you in the direst of stress, protects you from all harm and danger, fights for your right and restores your dignity and honour in the face of others.
Fine, ok.

That's not your sister or mine. But the "didi" I'm referring to here is none other than the "Always clad in cotton sarees...... spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi.....in the process of establishing herself as a national leader..... Chief Minister of Paschim Banga: Ms. Mamata Banerjee!"
She is a true leader because of which I'm in complete awe of her.

And why is that, you ask? So let me tell you here that she is extremely modest, down to earth and works only for the welfare of the down-trodden. I mean, just look at the recent case of the railway budget where the railway minister Mr. Dinesh Trivedi, was asked to step down.
WHY?
Because the budget for the railways for the year 2012-13 had explicitly increased the fare for the passengers commuting by train. A budget which had been ratified by the Government, A budget which had been expressed to "DIDI's" closest aid, a senior
bureaucrat, a budget which would have rendered 2 lakh people employment....!!!
But No. My true National leader who works ONLY for the welfare of the Aam Aadmi, felt it did grave injustice to the people whose daily mode for commuting is the railways.

SHE KILLED THREE BIRDS WITH ONE STONE!
HA...

Its like watching a Hindi movie where a group of corrupt politicians are sitting in the living room of a huge mansion sipping tea, or more likely indulging in alcohol and plotting their next move after harassing an innocent and law abiding citizen. I can so imagine Mamata Banerjee along with Gautam Sanyal and other politicians deriving sadistic pleasure on Dinesh Trivedi's stepping down as the Railway Minster.

Sorry, i completely forgot to tell you how she killed the birds... So pay heed to this. It is all substantiated and not just manifestations of my mind.

NUMBER 1:
She NEVER wanted Dinesh Trivedi to be the Railway Minster, She had recommended
Mukul Roy's name but due to certain objections he was rejected. A mere puppet in her
hand and a complete yes-man, Mukul Roy was shown the door and in came a principled
man, who practiced what he preached and a true patron of Rabindranath Tagore: Mr.
Dinesh Trivedi.

NUMBER 2:
Mukul Roy becomes the railway minister due to her persistent nagging and threats, that Dinesh Trivedi should step down as the railway minister, Knowing fully well, that if her demands were not paid heed to she would withdraw her party's support from the UPA government which is already on crutches. Several allegations leveled against Dinesh Trivedi and he gets humiliated on national television.

NUMBER 3:
She garners the support of the middle class by quoting fare hike as an increase of woes for them and proceeds a step further in establishing herself as a national leader, by winning the confidence and trust of the poor, emaciated, illiterate class.

DO YOU STILL NOT GET IT????

IT WAS ALL A PRE-MEDITATED PLAN, OF ERR... DIDI! A POPULIST STUNT.

She always knew that this would happen. And how do i say this? Well, hear this out.
In the words of Mr. Dinesh Trivedi, an astute senior journalist working with Times Now, who is known to have political affiliations, confidently claimed that "DINESH TRIVEDI WOULD NOT BE THE RAILWAY MINISTER AFTER THE BUDGET." MR. Trivedi who heard this himself said that it came as a surprise to him when it did actually come true especially since the journalist was no astrologer. The bureaucrat that I mentioned, Gautam Sanyal, had been informed of the fare hike personally by the minister. So how is it that Mamata Banerjee was kept in the dark?

She appeared to be all beleaguered by the hike, going from channel to channel claiming to not have known anything about this. I'm sorry but everything does indeed connect.

The chances of a new promising leader are quite bright in today's scenario when the
voter has no confidence int the present government or its allies or even the opposition for that matter. And didi sure knows how to make use of a situation like this.
Mr. Trivedi not wanting the already handicapped government to encounter another
crisis, stepped down without giving any clarification. In an attempt to improve the
conditions of the railways, enhance the dignity of the masses while traveling, and
offering 2 lakh new jobs, Mr. Trivedi was shown the door in the presence of ALL who'd initially expressed no objection with respect to the railway budget.

IS THIS THE ACTUAL PLIGHT OF THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT?

SATYAMEV JAYATE. The truth does indeed prevail. If not today, then tomorrow it will.

But what do we do till then? Just sit and watch and ponder? Take no concrete steps?
Why do innocent people face the brunt at the hands of shrewd, cunning people who just feign interest in the lives of the AAM JANTA? In the lives of YOU and ME.

I feel helpless out here. Right now there is no way that i can raise my voice to do
something regarding this issue, except posting it out here.
Till then i hope you ponder over it.

After all, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.,

" We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope."

CHECK OUT THIS LINK:
http://www.timesnow.tv/Direct-Dinesh-Trivedi-1/videoshow/4398447.cms

FDI IN RETAIL: IMPLICATIONS

Hey! With the FDI in retail creating a huge controversy, I'd like all opposing the government's decision to consider this. PLEASE.

SOURCE: HINDUSTAN TIMES.

An amazingly well-written article lays bare all the facets of this decision and the counter effects of implementing it. go ahead and give it a reading.

ONLY THE UNPATRIOTIC WILL OPPOSE FDI IN RETAIL!

Short sighted! Self-seeking! Cynical! Even unpatriotic!

That’s the only way to describe the opposition of the BJP, the Left and sections of the UPA to the imminent entry of large global retailers into the country.

Consider this: almost everyone and his uncle opposed computers when they were introduced in a big way in the 1980s. And most politicians resisted economic liberalisation half a decade later.

Imagine what would have happened if they had had their way.

* We would not have been an IT superpower;

* Infosys Technologies, TCS and Wipro wouldn’t have been the blue-chip generators of millions of jobs they are today;

* Our economy would not have been the toast of the world; and

* We would have remained the Third World basket case we were in the first four-and-a-half decades of Independence.

Those of you who are 40-plus will remember what the (then strong) Left, the (still minuscule) Right and parts of the (Left-leaning) centre had said computers would do to the Indian job market when, in the mid-1980s, Rajiv Gandhi spoke of taking India into the 21st century.

I still remember one speech by Jyoti Basu, the chief minister of my native state, sometime in 1985 or 1986.

“The Left Front would never allow computers to be introduced in India,” he thundered at yet another half-a-million-strong rally that brought Kolkata to yet another grinding halt on a working day, “because one computer can do the job of four people. Computers will throw Indian workers out of jobs and fill the coffers of imperialism (IBM was then almost synonymous in India with the clunky monochrome desktops that were making waves around the world).”

Cut to 2006: Basu’s handpicked successor Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee won a landslide in the assembly elections promising to usher in, among other things, a computer revolution in the state.

“We made a mistake earlier by opposing computers,” the CPI(M) admitted.

Result: Millions of young boys and girls, as well as dozens of entrepreneurs, in Bengal who could have been at the cutting edge of India’s tech revolution, are today leading mediocre lives as lower division clerks, sales reps of companies based elsewhere or as part of a vast army of frustrated educated unemployed.

When Dr Manmohan Singh ushered in economic liberalisation in 1991, the same prophets of doom predicted that Indian industry would be swamped by MNCs.

What does the report card say after 20 years?

* The Tatas, Birlas, Reliance and other Indian business groups have become world-beating MNCs in their own right;

* The MNCs, which were supposed to take over India, are nowhere in sight;

* India is now the second-fastest growing big economy in the world and a toast of the world;

* 300 million Indians have pulled themselves out of socialist drudgery into the burgeoning middle class;

* The 2.5-3.5% (so-called) Hindu rate of growth that the socialist intellectual elite had condemned the country to is now a distant memory;

* Even worst-case scenarios predict a 7%+ rate of GDP growth.

The Left’s opposition to FDI in retail is understandable – albeit cynical. They will oppose anything that their dog-eared, and completely outdated, Holy Book disapproves of.

Then, the politics of aspiration – as opposed to the politics of grievance of earlier decades – as a result of rising income levels and greater exposure to the world, have driven away two key Left constituencies – the youth and the middle class.

The CPI(M), groping desperately for relevance and a constituency in 21st century India, realises that the raison d’etre for its existence will disappear if this new circle of prosperity expands to encompass the semi-urban middle-class and the rural poor.

Many old-school Congressmen and some UPA allies like Mamata Banerjee, too, have not been able to shed their instinctive ideological opposition to free markets – as well their fondness for the politics of patronage.

Hence, their strident opposition to the move!

But why on earth is the BJP, which has a stellar track record of pushing reforms when in power, opposing FDI in retail? Could it be because several leaders are jockeying for pole position in the “party with a difference” and all of them feel competitive populism over this emotive issue can take them over the finish line? Hopefully, better sense will prevail after the initial cacophony has subsided.

After a long time, the UPA government seems to have overcome the paralysis that had set in and come out with a bold step to take the country forward.

INTERPRETATION OF FREEDOM.

Well folks, my blog "Freedom of Speech" mentions a very strong, yet important word of the English language. "Freedom"! And as we approach the day our country achieved freedom against the British raj, i had to write a post about it. Different people across the world interpret this word in different forms. I read this story a really long time back but it is somehow etched in my memory since it taught me a profound meaning of the word!
An English gentleman decided to take a walk in a park, one fine day. As he was in good spirits, he started twirling his umbrella around as he strolled down the path in the park. Unfortunately, the umbrella ended up smacking another pedestrian on the nose, and the second gentleman was understandably very upset about this. When the injured man took up the issue with the first man, the first man said "I have the freedom to walk around in a public place in any manner i choose fit.” The second man replied, "Sir, your freedom ends where my nose begins."
This particular story redefines the word freedom for me. My rights should not hamper the way in which another person is accommodating his. Freedom has been a rallying call for reformers and revolutionaries throughout human history. The passion and sacrifice poured into that cause has however, not been based on any general consensus about the definition of the term. Almost the first thing to strike any student of the subject is the bewildering variety of concepts, social constructs and meanings that have become attached to this single emotive word. This is an issue in human history far too important to be ignored. An attempt must therefore be made to build the idea anew on the base of an acceptance of the axioms and choice of the dogma, and on the principles and aim of the society that arise from those decisions. The principle establishes that our survival both as individuals and as a species depends on our willingness to co-operate with one another, and to accept and maintain the degree of social order that makes a mutually supportive communal life possible. If it is to be consistent in its teachings therefore, the society should hold that freedom can only be enjoyed under conditions of social order compatible with that principle. The society will always teach that without stable social order no-one can hope to live long enough, or have sufficient liberty from the struggle to ensure the infinite survival of our species, to be fully free. This defines the word “freedom” for me!