|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << September25, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net] Pak situation ,nuke news ,Durga Puja greetings etc |
September27, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Public toilets ,Ladakhi Buddhism,Pak surrender etc >> |
|
[1] Right to convert With Malice towards one and All : By Khushwant Singh I am a rationalist, an agnostic, not an atheist. There is a world of difference between agnosticism and atheism. One confesses to doubt about the existence of an Almighty, just and merciful God; the other rejects his existence. I do not believe that anyone has the right to dictate what religion a person should follow. That is why I believe that State governments which have passed laws forbidding conversions are in the wrong. It is not the business of governments to interfere in such matters except when people are coerced to change from one religion to another. Such laws are obnoxious and should be abrogated by the Central government or struck down by the Supreme Court. Personally I subscribe to Freud?s belief: ?When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life.? I don?t miss having any religion ? in India largely kitchen-based about what you may or may not eat or drink. I lead a reasonably healthy, wholesome life. I enjoy listening to religious music like bhajans, qawwalis and keertans because they are parts of my emotional legacy. I am moved by seeing devotees visiting places of worship because they get solace by paying homage to the deities. But I don?t need to do so myself. I also know that most of the people who go to pray at temples, churches, mosques or gurdwaras are hypocrites. They cram these places but there seem to be always room for more of their kind. Having made my own position clear, I confess I find people who willingly convert from one faith to another somewhat off-putting. I have known a few of them. A few convert for the sake of convenience, mostly those who wish to marry Muslims who are very particular that the party converting must recite the Kalima? before the marriage ceremony. I regard this mockery of Islam. Roman Catholics do much the same: They extract the promise that the children of such unions must be brought up as Catholics. I regard this as mockery of the Christian faith. There are others who go through nominal conversions to get the best of the two worlds, the Muslim and the non-Muslim. They are like politicians who switch from one party to another which they think will get them brighter future. There is a handsome rascal who married a Muslim divorcee with pretension of aristocracy. He had two first names, one Hindu in India and the other Muslim in Pakistan, Dubai and the Emirates. And two passports, one with a Hindu, the other under a Muslim name. That got him into trouble more than once. He was fired from jobs. Now he lives in religiously neutral Canada. The more celebrated is the case of the Malayali poet and novelist Kamla Das. She converted to Islam and took a Muslim name Sourayya and started wearing a burkha. Indian Muslims were overjoyed and flocked to her home to have her darshan (or deedar). However, when the Muslim she hoped to marry ditched her, she began to doubt her decision. In my eyes she became a lesser person. I prefer to laud the Bangladeshi novelist Taslima Nasreen who renounced Islam, has a fatwa? pronounced against her and lives in exile in Kolkata. I do not regard her as much of a writer but admire her courage to speak her mind. She rose in my estimation. According to her Kamla Das (Sourayya) has regrets for her decision to convert to Islam. If she decides to re-convert to Hinduism, I hope she does not make it another media event. Otherwise it will further make conversions into a mockery of both religions. My disenchantment with religions is along the lines of Voltaire?s who held ?religion is the source of all imaginable faiths and disturbances; it is the parent of fanaticism and? civil discord, and it is the enemy of mankind.? I regard religion as a paakhand (hypocrisy). -------------------- [2] From: "Dalits; The Seeds of India .." <india4dalits@gmail.com> Date: Mon Sep 25, 2006 Subject: Navaratri; Enjoy & Let Enjoy - Free CONDOMS available! Navaratri Drive, Be Safe..! *Mumbai: *The 'Family Planning Association of India (FPAI)' has suggested that during the forthcoming Navaratri festival, condoms should be made freely available for sale. The demand has been made to create awareness amongst the youth about safe sexual relations. Dr. Suchitra Dalvi, the director of FPAI expressed her views in a recent meeting. Every year, it has been observed that after Navaratri, there is increase in the number of cases of abortion. During the festival, young boys and girls are together till late in the night. It is not necessary that the parents are always aware of what their children are doing. Physical attraction develops among them and they want to have sexual relations, then why should they not be given training on family planning. She further said that we have to accept this fact. As the Navaratri festival is approaching, we must discuss such issues with the youth. She thought that in fact, it was a good opportunity to spread the importance of contraceptives in society. Dr. Dalvi said that it was only a tip of the iceberg and they were planning to make the contraceptives available even at beauty parlors, college canteens and other public places like with 'paan-wallas'. ------------------------ [3] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Mon Sep 25, 2006 Subject: On the Tenth Anniversary of the CTBT Arms Control Association Urges Action on Test Ban Treaty; Congressional Members, International Community Speak Out For Immediate Release: September 22, 2006 Press Contact: Daryl G. Kimball, (202) 463-8270 x107 Ten years ago this week, United Nations member-states overwhelmingly endorsed and later opened for signature the longest-sought, hardest-fought nuclear arms control treaty: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Today, despite widespread support for the CTBT and a de facto global nuclear-test moratorium, the treaty still has not entered into force. The conclusion of the treaty in 1996 stands as one of the greatest accomplishments of the nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation movement. To date, a total of 176 states have signed the CTBT and 135 have ratified the accord. The CTBT prohibits "any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion." The treaty would simultaneously help constrain the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, curb proliferation, advance disarmament, and de-legitimize nuclear weapons. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration and governments of nine other test ban rogue states refuse or have failed to approve the treaty, thus preventing the accord from becoming legally binding," noted Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a long-time proponent of the CTBT. The CTBT requires ratification by a select group of 44 states before it can formally enter into force; 34 of the 44 have done so. At the United Nations in New York this week, a group of 59 Foreign Ministers, led by those from Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, and the Netherlands, marked the 10 anniversary of the CTBT with a joint statement calling on other states to sign and ratify the treaty to allow its entry into force. (See a PDF version of the statement.) UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan also called on member-states to show greater urgency as he highlighted the consequences of further delays. "Although there is an international norm against nuclear testing and continuing moratoria on testing, I am concerned that the treaty has yet to enter into force. Indeed, no one can guarantee that nuclear testing might one day resume, particularly when the modernization of weapons continues," Annan said in a message to a ministerial meeting on the treaty. In Washington, there remains a large reservoir of support for the CTBT. Next week, Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Jim Leach (R-Iowa) will introduce a resolution calling on the Senate to reconsider and give its advice and consent to the ratification of the CTBT. Republican presidential hopefuls Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) noted back in 1999 that the Senate can and should reconsider the CTBT. "A clear majority of the Senate have not given up hope of finding common ground in our quest for a sound and secure ban on nuclear testing," Hagel wrote in The New York Times. The CTBT remains on the executive calendar of the Senate despite the highly partisan Senate debate and vote against the treaty in October 1999. President Bill Clinton's September 24, 1996 signature on the CTBT also means that the United States is legally-bound not to violate the "object or purpose" of the treaty (i.e. conduct a test blast). "The United States holds the key to changing the dynamics on the CTBT. The Bush administration's opposition to the CTBT makes little sense for the United States. There is no requirement for new warheads that would necessitate renewed U.S. testing and there is no other technical reason to resume nuclear testing," noted Kimball. "Absent U.S. ratification and CTBT entry into force, Washington risks that other states may test and denies itself and the world the monitoring and verification benefits of the CTBT's on-site inspection authority," Kimball argued. In June, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission chaired by Hans Blix urged immediate action on the CTBT. The international panel, which included former Secretary of Defense William Perry, called on the United States "to reconsider its position and proceed to ratify the treaty, recognizing that its ratification would trigger other required ratifications." Other signatory states that must also ratify the treaty before it can enter into force are China, Columbia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, and Israel. India, North Korea, and Pakistan must also sign and ratify the accord for it to take effect. "Ratification of the CTBT will not by itself stop nuclear proliferation. But stopping nuclear proliferation is not possible without the CTBT. The United States should return to its traditional role as a test ban advocate and renew action toward a permanent and verifiable global nuclear test ban," Kimball said. The Arms Control Association (ACA) is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to promoting effective arms control policies. ACA publishes the monthly journal Arms Control Today. ----------------------- [4] All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations B - 113, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi - 110017 (INDIA) Ph : 91-11-2696 0022 Telefax : 91-11-2653 4559 Mobile : 91-9312401477 , 91-9899382211 Email: scstconfederation@gmail.com PRESS RELEASE DEMONSTRATION IN FRONT OF AIIMS, NEW DELHI ON 25.9.2006 AT 11 AM IN PROTEST AGAINST BURNING OF AMMBEDKAR LITERATURE BY ANTI-RESERVATION AIIMS DOCTORS. New Delhi, September 25,2006.` A big demonstration was held in front of AIIMS, New Delhi , at 11AM on 25.9.06 by thousands of workers of the Indian Justice Party and All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations led by Dr. Udit Raj, the President of the Party and Chairman of the Confederation against anti-reservation doctors of All India Institue of Medical Sciences who have burnt books and writings of Dr. Ambedkar which is the most sacrilegious act, to say the lest. Dr. Udit Raj said that the anti-reservation stir was started by a handful of AIIMS doctors under the overall guidance of the AIIMS Director. The Progressive Medicos and Scientists Forum has said that Dalit medical students are being discriminated and ill-treated. Neither the AIIMS Administration nor the Central Government has taken any steps to stop the onslaught of discrimination and ill-treatment against Dalit medical students. A spokesman of the Progressive Medicos and Scientists Forum further stated that the upper caste hostel room partners are not allowing their Dalit first-year MBBS room-mates to sit close to them. If any Dalit student protests against this ill-treatment and discrimination, he is doubly punished by upper caste medical students in some other form. Nearly 35 Dalit first-year hostellers have complained to AIIMS Director, Dr. Venugopal against ill-treatment and discrimination by upper caste room-mates, but no action has been taken against the delinquent medical students belonging to upper caste so far. Dr. Udit Raj declared that the AIIMS Director, Dr. Venugopal, despite clear evidence of his involvement in the anti-reservation demonstrations, Central Government has not taken any steps to remove him. Sd/- Mr. M. Chandra National Secretary Mob 9868184939 ---------------------- [5] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Mon Sep 25, 2006 Subject: India-US: In Strategic Alignment? [India and Pakistan deciding, on the sideline of the NAM summit, to work out together a joint mechanism to fight terrorism is an important development. Even if it appears plausible that the Bush administration pulled the strings from behind to make the two heads of these two countries to come to such an understanding does not ipso facto detract from its immense significance and potential outcomes. It is also rumoured that India has forwarded a non-paper on solving the seemingly intractable Kashmir issue to Pakistan. Given India's long history of obstinate refusal to even acknowledge the problem, this is also a cause for new hope. It is not for nothing that the extremist elements in both the countries whose very survival depends on their ability to fish in (deliberately) troubled water have pressed the panic button. The success of this move is evidently far from guaranteed. That is all the more reason why the peace-loving people of the subcontinent must make the fullest use of this new opportunity and prod and pressurise their respective rulers, as much as they can, not to renege and honour their commitments to building peace and eliminating conflicts.] http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092406C.shtml Singh as Bush's Man in Havana By J. Sri Raman t r u t h o u t Perspective Sunday 24 September 2006 Can one pursue a "non-aligned" policy as well as a "strategic partnership" with a super-power? India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has just proved such a paradoxical feat an eminently feasible exercise. Singh has done this so successfully that he appears to be aligned with both sections of the domestic opposition - the left and the right - on India's role in the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). He has attended and returned from a summit of the movement that media spokespersons of the right have described as "a Cold War relic" and posed for the camera with Fidel Castro, whom they regard as a fossil. He, however, has also played at the summit a role that the right can only rejoice over. Before Singh left New Delhi for Havana to attend the NAM summit on September 15-16, both these political camps had made their positions clear. The right voiced fears about what India's participation in the event could mean for the special ties forged with the George Bush administration and their future. The left wondered and worried about the role the high-priests of India's external affairs establishment would play in Havana - whether they would continue its collaboration with Washington or, as a left leader put it, use this "opportunity to correct its foreign policy course." No doubt was entertained, however, in a notable external quarter. On the summit's eve, on September 14, US State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack told the media in Washington that the Bush administration had "friends" in the NAM who would "support its vision of greater democracy and freedom." McCormack went on to specify India and Indonesia as the leading examples of such NAM members. He proved more right than the domestic doubters. Singh and his mandarins went out of their way to vindicate McCormack, well in advance of the summit. The elite media, with its entrenched pro-West and anti-NAM bias, cheered on the prime minister and party as they testified to their determination to depart from India's and the movement's "anti-imperialist" traditions. Sample: "Even as Venezuela's tin-pot dictator Hugo Chavez and his host plan to use the NAM's Havana pulpit to sharpen their anti-US rhetoric, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has indicated that India was not enthusiastic about this project.... The Prime Minister, in his interaction with reporters accompanying him to the summit, suggested that he did not wish to see NAM as an anti-US grouping. "I don't buy this argument that most members of the NAM do not want relations with the US." Another report, based on official briefing, said that the "Indian effort" at the summit was "to steer clear of two new tendencies that would have taken the movement away from its moorings." The first was "Malaysia's promotion of the Islamic agenda in its role as both the Chairman of NAM and of the Organisation of Islamic Countries that would have resulted in an almost exclusive focus on the issues relating to West Asia." The second was "the radical tendency of Cuba with unnecessarily strong language and rhetoric that would have made engagement with the rest of the world difficult." Especially the engagement of New Delhi with Washington, as the Singh government awaited the finalization and formalization of the US-India nuclear deal, which has a few more legislative hurdles to cross. The Christian Science Monitor needed no briefing from New Delhi to see the connection. As the summit got under way, it reported that NAM member-states were preparing a draft declaration supporting Iran "in its game of nuclear chicken with the West." They were also trying to "enlarge the definition of terrorism to include both the US occupation of Iraq and recent Israeli actions in Lebanon." "In the past," the paper said, "India might have joined the cavalcade of anti-US decrees" - and subscribed to a definition of terrorism that did not spare occupiers and aggressors. "Today, it clearly will not. India's strategic goals are increasingly consistent with those of Washington, from economics to security.... And with the US Senate considering a deal that would accept India's status as a nuclear power, India has no interest in provoking its new friend with bombastic statements about neo-imperialism." "It's about how we move from being a protester of the world order to one who takes responsibility for the management of it," said C. Raja Mohan, a leading defender of the nuclear deal, who is no stranger to readers of these columns. The statement reflects a conviction that, from a membership in the nuclear club, it is but a step or maybe a series of steps to a seat in the United Nations Security Council. India's role in the NAM summit was but a rehearsal for a bigger one in the world body. Domestic critics of India's involvement in the NAM have often decried the movement's hostility to the country's nuclear ambitions. Writing on the eve of the summit, former diplomat G. Partharsarathy said: "India has also gained little by its past support for the Arab cause and for the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. South Africa and Egypt are today members of the 'New Agenda Coalition,' which regularly demands that India should sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state and accept IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear installations. And at the Johannesburg NAM summit in 1998, President Nelson Mandela heaped a double insult on us by criticising our nuclear tests and becoming the first NAM Chairman to refer to the Kashmir issue in his address to the summit." The Havana summit heaped no such humiliations on official India. It conducted itself here as a state awaiting a leap to legitimacy as a nuclear power, and got away with it. It did so on both the nuclear issues to be brought up at the summit. The first, of course, was the Iran issue. India, certainly, could not vote against Iran here as in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But it played the role of a nuclear power to perfection when Singh reminded Iran of its "obligations" in additions to its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India has refused to sign resolutely all along. At the 13th NAM summit in Kuala Lumpur in February 2003, former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee dealt with the then-topical Iraq issue. He declared: "The world's attention ... is riveted on Iraq. Like every other non-aligned country, India fervently wishes for a peaceful resolution. We also support the multilateral route of the United Nations to address this issue. But objectivity - and not rhetoric - should govern our actions. Weapons of mass destruction do need to be eliminated. It is essential that Iraq complies fully with the obligations it has accepted, including disarmament ... As a fellow-member of NAM, this is our sincere advice to Iraq." India's stand on Iran at this summit was almost identical. On the second nuclear issue of disarmament, India's role was to work for the removal from the summit's final declaration of all references to such ideas as weapons-of-mass-destruction-free (WMD-free) zones in such regions as West Asia. A deal behind the US-India deal, perhaps, was to avert such a danger for Israel's nuclear arsenal. Almost identical, too, were the stances of Vajpayee and Singh on terrorism. The former Prime Minister told his Kuala Lumpur audience: "The threat of global terrorism presents our movement with an immediate test of its commitment to its core principles. It is imperative that we take a clear and unequivocal stand on this scourge. There can be no double standards, no confusion between terrorism and freedom struggles, and no implicit condoning of terrorism through an investigation of its 'root causes.'" Singh, for his part, proclaimed: "If NAM is to be relevant in today's circumstances, it cannot afford to equivocate on the subject of terrorism." Reports based on official briefing make it clear, again, that the Indian delegation was concerned that "the determination to fight terrorism would be diluted with qualifications over the right of oppressed people under occupation and the right to self-determination." The final wording, adopted under India's pressure, committed the movement to counter terrorism committed "wherever, by whomsoever and on whatever pretext." Bush could not have agreed more with both the prime ministers on the definition of terrorism that recognized neither "root causes" nor resistance to "disproportionate use of force," as state terror is diplomatically described. A freelance journalist and a peace activist of India, J. Sri Raman is the author of Flashpoint (Common Courage Press, USA). He is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. ------------------------------------------------------------ DONATE BLOOD ....SAVE LIVES india thinkers net |
|
| << September25, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net] Pak situation ,nuke news ,Durga Puja greetings etc |
September27, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Public toilets ,Ladakhi Buddhism,Pak surrender etc >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |