Desicritics Category: Politics: United Kingdom

Northern Ireland : Peace Will Prevail

Vijay Sappani — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:42:10 EDT

The recent attack on soldiers in Northern Ireland is a shameful act of terror that is motivated by sheer hatred to divide and create a rift between the Protestants and Catholics, who have learnt to put their past behind them and live in peace.

The immediate reaction of the public is an example of how societies should learn to adapt and develop learning from the past. Thousands of them have taken to the streets against the criminals and people on both sides of the fence are united in their fight against the detractors whose only goal is to break the civic harmony that now exists in N.Ireland and create havoc.

The "defiance and determination" of people to "stand up to the evil of criminal violence" is the begging of the end of those who pursue violence as a means to communicate their grievance. The resilience seen among the people of Northern Ireland to oppose the hatred feelings of a select few to return to their violent past should be an example to civilian population in Middle East, war torn Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Kashmir and many other regions affected by violent conflict.

Nothing can be achieved through violence and nothing can not be achieved through peaceful negotiations. You just need to try enough and be patient. Let us not forget that the biggest hero's of the world are Gandhiji, Mandela, Martin L.King, Dalai Lama, Aung suu Kyi and not the self proclaimed leaders of groups that use violence including state leaders of Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma, N.Korea.

We can not predict the future, but if we can learn from history, then we know what has worked. Peace will prevail in N.Ireland because the people are smarter than the terrorists and they will not fall to their trap - again. Never.

Disabled Children Wait up to Two Years for Wheelchairs

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:22:04 EST

You know I keep on moaning about the fact that the ways of meeting children’s needs here in this country are strange? We are doing something for our long term sick children’s education by providing them by computers but i suppose you can say that that’s sort of optional.

But how about children who are unable to walk and need a wheelchair? If we have a fully funded NHS, surely they should be getting a wheelchair immediately? Well, no, unfortunately no. Read this and weep. I quote:

The NHS was told today to stop relying on charities to fill funding gaps after figures revealed many trusts would not pay the full cost of electric wheelchairs for disabled children.

Why on earth is this situation allowed to happen? Why aren't they given a wheelchair immediately? This is mental child abuse. And then not only people have to pay their taxes, but also give charity? Talk about being inefficient.

Statistics from 54% of NHS trusts in England and Scotland revealed that disabled children in England are forced to wait five months on average for a wheelchair.

5 months. Can you imagine? If you aren't disabled, think about this, you are forced to wait for 5 months for shoes. You dont have shoes. You cannot just go and buy them but are waiting to get them. Not for 1 day, not 2 days nor wait till the weekend so that you can purchase it, but for 5 months, 20 weeks, 140 days. 140 days without any shoes. Can you imagine what that will do to your feet? Now think about the poor disabled child. 5 months without a wheelchair.

The worst performing primary care trust (PCT), East Lancashire, in the north-west of England, had an average wait of two years for an electric wheelchair.

5 months was average across the country, but this area had an average wait of TWO years. And if you think that manual wheelchairs are possible, remember we are talking about children who are unable to control their muscles, so they cannot literally move about without assistance. Electric wheelchairs allow them to do so. And this is average 2 years, means 50% of the children in that area would have spent much more than 2 years waiting for an electric wheelchair.

The survey showed 58% of children in England had to wait at least three months for an electric wheelchair and 14% waited more than six months.

It gets worse. We are indeed a 3rd world country if this is how we treat our children in need. And then apparently we have sunk tons of money into the NHS.

Overall, 50% of the PCTs that responded said they did not fund the full cost of a powered wheelchair for a disabled child. Westminster PCT made an average contribution of only £700 towards the cost of a child's powered wheelchair, it said. Almost all PCTs contacted by the charity said the cost of a wheelchair was around £2,000 but in fact the true cost of a basic electric wheelchair would be around £3,000.

Holy crap. And rest of the money comes from charity, eh? typical.

A separate patient survey of 237 children found one in three did not receive any funding at all for their wheelchair.

And 1/3rd of the children dont receive any help whatsoever. Wonderful, you silly twits in the government. Do something!, get off your fat backsides and give this money to the kids. Or else, we will take the money for your shoes and give it to the kids. I bet that then the money will be found very quickly, no? And then when you read something like this, you feel so sad. I quote:

Family doctors are failing to provide improved services for patients, despite being paid tens of millions of pounds to do so, a report claims.

Technorati Tags: Children, Charity, United Kingdom

Protests Against the British Day of Science - UK War Crimes?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:35:05 EST

Two Museums in France decide to rent out space to an exhibition called as "British Day of Science". It is supposed to showcase the achievements of seven British universities. Each and every one of these Universities are funded in some shape or form by the the British Department of Defence. Several of these universities actually hired former members of the British Defence Forces as staff members. I quote:

British Day of Science is aimed particularly at sixth-form students, who can be expected to come in parties from schools across the country. What reaction can be expected from the many young people, already disaffected from science, who will associate the science museums with this British public relations exercise? The event is being billed as a celebration of science. In fact it is an attempted celebration of the United Kingdom.

In the immediate aftermath of the indiscriminate slaughter and attempted annihilation of all the infrastructure of organised society in Basra in Iraq, how can this "celebration" be allowed to borrow some respectability from the use of these distinguished institutions? The museums should cancel these unseemly events.

We are the great and good who are complaining against this.

(A selection is given below, see the link for more of these worthies)

Mairead Maguire Nobel Peace Laureate Dr Ian Gibson MP Mermber of Parliament Prof R.S.MacKay FRS Director of Mathematical Interdisciplinary Research, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick Dr Jenny Tonge House of Lords Prof Steven Rose Life Sciences, Open University John Rose College lecturer/ Middle East author Prof Jonathan Rosenhead Operational Research, London School of Economics Dr Monica Wusteman Research Scientist (retired) Prof Jules Townshend Politics and Philosophy, Manchester Metropolitan University Mike Cushman Management, London School of Economics Dr. Sue Blackwell Linguistics, University of Birmingham Professor Mohamed El - Gomati Department of Electronics University of York Prof. Yosefa Loshitzky Film and Media Studies, University of East London Prof. Daphne Hampson Theology, University of St Andrews Prof Peter Hallward Modern European Philosophy, Middlesex University Prof Janet Watson Arabic Linguistics, University of Salford Prof Patrick Williams Nottingham Trent University Prof Hilary Rose Emeritus Professor of Social Policy, University of Bradford Prof David Seddon University of East Anglia Prof. Adah Kay City University, London Prof David Wield Open University Prof Mona Baker Translation Studies, University of Manchester Prof Myriam Salama-Carr University of Salford Prof Gabriel Alexander Khoury Imperial College London and Padua University Italy Prof. David Mond Mathematics Institute, Warwick University Prof David E Pegg Biology Department University of York Professor Tariq Modood, MBE, AcSS Professor of Sociology, Politics and Public Policy, Director, University of Bristol Prof Frank Land Information Systems and Innovations, LSE Prof Ailsa Land Operational Research, London School of Economics Prof Hans Haenlein, RIBA, MBE Architecture, University of Reading Prof Wolfgang Deckers University of Richmond Prof Malcolm Povey Food Physics, University of Leeds Prof Sol Picciotto Law, Lancaster University Prof James Dickens Arabic, School of Languages, University of Salford Prof David Elworthy Mathematics, University of Warwick Prof Roger Iredale International education, University of Manchester Prof Jim Al-Khalili Professor of Physics, and of Public Engagement in Science, University of Surrey Prof Colin Green Northwick Park Institute for Medical Research Prof Haim Bresheeth Cultural Studies, University of East London Prof Uri Davis Al Quds University, Jerusalem Prof Martha Mundy Anthropology, London School of Economics Prof Paulette Pierson Mathy hon. Prof. ULB, Brussels Prof Randa Farah Anthropology, University of Western Ontario Prof. Anthony C. Alessandrini Kingsborough Community Coll-City University of New York Dr Derek Wall Visiting tutor, Goldsmiths College ……

===========

Replace the italicised UK at the top with Israel and you will understand why each and every one of these people have immediately identified themselves as eligible to go back to their schools now and request for a refund of their educational fees on grounds of idiocy. Here is a list of science based exhibitions and events that an arm of British Government, the British Council organised. Presumably this list of people will do the same, because the UK has been accused of War Crimes in Basra? See here, here, here. Interestingly enough, the 'Stop the War Coalition' has signed this petition. The 'Stop the War Coalition' works with the Campaign for for Nuclear Disarmament which has accused the UK government of war crimes. Confusing or what?

Reminds me of what Anatole France said: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." As an Alumni and visiting professor of the University of Manchester, I would say, do it and be damned to these purveyors of foolish behaviour. I am thinking about Bill Buckley’s famous comments that he would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. I am so surprised that so many professors and educators would be so inclined to think of science in this way that it is related to nationalities, political ideologies or what have you. Truly the inconsistencies of people who demand boycotts is incomprehensible. It is silly! Just imagine these worthies protesting against the UK and how they will be treated? Just about the same way that they will be treated if they say that science and knowledge is country national specific. Grow up, you guys.

Technorati Tags: Israel, United Kingdom, Discrimination, Anti-Semitism

Fake Charities and Real Charities

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:51:51 EST

We are working on the technology for a long term sick and disabled children charity on a shoe-string. There is a bunch of about 50 odd people, part and full time, who are working on a shoe string salary and mostly free. We have to force our CEO to take a minuscule salary. But we manage to keep on going and have managed to get more than 5000 pieces of technology to individual children over the past so many years.

What does that mean? It means that we are actually improving disused pieces of equipment, saving companies money which would have gone to recycling the equipment. This improvement is done by long term unemployed kids who have been in trouble with the law or long term unemployed or what have you and they get training on PC repair and maintenance. The equipment goes to the hospital schools, or special needs teachers or kids who are at home on long term illness cover. We are struggling every year to get pc’s and laptops. Laptops specially are important as the kids cannot use big pc’s when they are bed-ridden.

While government departments offer us with equipment which we actually take away, refurbish and recycle on our costs (we actually save taxpayer money), we do not get any assistance from the government in terms of equipment or funding. And in these days/times of recession, it has further dried up. So it was a a joy to love and behold when I read that there are fake charities out there which are hitting the existing charities hard.

What do they do? take a look at these charities and their background:

Alcohol Concern—an anti-drinking lobby group that receives less than 1% of its income from public donations
Campaign for Better Transport Charitable Trust—strong opponents of road building. Funded by the Department of Transport
Christian Aid—anti-free marketeers, campaigning for "justice on climate change and tax" on your pennies.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)—the original fake charity, formed by the government in 1971. It receives just 2% of its funding from public donations.

And then there are many more. What really gets me going are two things. (1) why on earth are taxpayers monies being paid to these charities? (2) what’s the point of the government giving charities money to lobby the government? Can somebody explain this?

Well, seems like this blogsite tried to explain this. Just read the article, you will find the amount of hypocrisy and stonewalling gobsmacking. One wonders what these people are doing? How can they do it? By taking monies away from legitimate charities and misallocating public monies, the government is actually stealing twice.

I agree, any charity which accepts government funding is fake. Period. The situation is much more horrible, take a look at this proposal. The proposal is good, but Barnardo’s (78% state funded); NCH (88%); and Leonard Cheshire (88%) are pokes in your eyes. One weeps, on seriously weeps at the tremendous waste of resources done by this government and the fake charities, the scabby leeches on the body of the state.

Sri Lanka-LTTE War: The Shifting Semantics of a Political Solution

Kalugu — Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:15:49 EST

On Sunday, 31st January, the Red Cross said in a statement that the Puthukkudiyiruppu hospital in Vanni region received two direct hits from Sri Lankan Army shelling. "We're shocked that the hospital was hit, and this for the second time in recent weeks," said Paul Castella, head of the Colombo delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). "Wounded and sick people, medical personnel and medical facilities are all protected by international humanitarian law. Under no circumstance may they be directly attacked." The hospital, which has some 500 inpatients, is one of the few still operating in the region.

A "handful" of United Nations staff are working around the clock to save a growing number of children caught in the crossfire, a U.N. spokesman said Saturday. Children as young as 4 months old were being treated in local hospitals for shrapnel injuries and other "wounds of war," spokesman James Elder told CNN.

The 48 hour respite announced by the government has ended as an act of eye-wash while 80 innocent Tamil civilians have been killed and 230 have been injured in the said 48 hours and that too within the government declared ‘safety zone’ in Vanni. During this 48 hour safe passage assured for the civilians which ended on Sunday, about 70 civilians crossed over to the government held areas. The LTTE announced that it will neither encourage or stop the civilians from moving to any area they feel as safe but will protect the civilians that stay in their territory. Most of the 250,000 civilians appear to be staunch supporters of the rebel movement that they have decided to stay in the rebel held areas.

Meanwhile Sri Lankan Government officials accused aid organizations and foreign media of sensationalizing civilian casualties. In an interview to local media as reported by The Guardian, the defence secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, highlighted the role of ambassadors of Switzerland and Germany, and television networks CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera in his criticism of foreigners, accusing them of being biased towards the LTTE rebels. "They will be chased away" he said. In the newspaper article, he singled out the BBC correspondent reporting from Colombo, Chris Morris, saying that "if he does not act responsibly and attempts to create panic, I will have to chase him out of the country"

The Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora in a show of solidarity held large scale protests last week in Toronto, Canada and London, UK that gained live coverage in the local media. The protests were reported as something that these cities have never witnessed.

About 80,000 individuals took part in the Human Chain protest in Toronto, Canada and shouted slogans supporting the independence of Tamil Eelam and immediate ceasefire.

In London, UK about 130,000 individuals, mostly Tamils took to the streets also calling for Independence for Tamil Eelam. Few British parliamentarians who were present during the protests, spoke to the crowd. British Parliamentarian Mr Keith Vaz said "Over there across the road is the Indian Embassy. We urge the Indian government in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi to call for peace, to call for democracy".

It is ironic to see a Britisher asking India to honor Mahatma Gandhi.

In Chennai, India, more than 10,000 activists of political parties and social outfits, including a large number of students and youth, on Saturday bade an emotional farewell to Muthukumar, who had set himself ablaze for the Sri Lankan Tamil cause. They chanted slogans seeking recognition for an independent Tamil Eelam, hailing LTTE supremo V Prabhakaran and condemned India for its alleged support to Sri Lanka in the ongoing war.

Meanwhile, the newly-formed Sri Lankan Tamils' Protection Movement, comprising several political parties, announced a state-wide general strike on February 4 and black flag processions on February 7 demanding a ceasefire in the island nation. The strike will coincide with Sri Lanka's Independence Day.

Apprehending student unrest across Tamil Nadu over the prevailing situation in Sri Lanka, the state government on Saturday night closed all government and private colleges and hostels for an indefinite period. Elsewhere in Tamil Nadu, protesters torched a state-owned bus near Vellore, while 225 people were arrested in Thanjavur when they tried to lay siege on the Air Force station. They were protesting against the alleged use of the Air Force station for sending arms to Lanka.

As the international pressure from governments and Tamil diaspora mount on the Sri Lankan government, more analysts are making note that an Independent Tamil Eelam is now a political solution where as a united Sri Lanka has become a military one. The shift in the semantics does indicate that a military victory over LTTE as speculated by the Sri Lankan government may probably not end the crisis.

Book Review: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

Vinod Joseph — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:45:11 EST

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative columnist and an editor at National Review. In his book Liberal Facism, Goldberg makes a very interesting case for the proposition that liberals are a lot more fascist than conservatives, though they constantly use the F word to besmirch conservatives and right-wingers.

The Italian word ‘fascismo’ is derived from the Italian word ‘fascio’ and the Latin word ‘fasces’. Fascio means ‘bundle’ or ‘union.’ In ancient Rome, ‘fasces’ was a bundle of rods tied together and was a symbolic of a magistrate’s authority. It denoted strength through unity since a bundle of rods can’t be broken up as easily as a single rod. Giovanni Gentile, the Italian philosopher who described as the Philosopher of Fascism wrote an essay called ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ which was signed by Benito Mussolini and attributed to Mussolini. Fascism, as propounded by Gentile and Mussolini, propagated a nationalist ideology, that gave the ruler total authority to solve the nation’s economic, political and social problems. The main difference between fascism in its initial stages in Italy and communism is that communism preaches global brotherhood of workers and is not nationalist. Both idelogoies relegate the individual to the background and give importance to collective rights. It is worth noting that in its initial stages, Italian fascism was not inherently racist. It was only in the late 1930s that Mussolini adopted Hitler’s antipathy to the Jews and expelled many Italian Jews from his party. After World War II started, fascism began to be associated with Nazism, totalitarianism and racism.

Goldberg examines the ‘fascist’ streaks in US presidents ranging from Wilson to Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson to Kennedy and says that liberal fascism in the United States predates Italian fascism. Hillary Clinton is also labelled ‘fascist.’ In simple terms, Goldberg labels any form of authoritarianism and suppression of a dissenting view as fascism and he says that liberals are much more guilty of such ‘fascism’ than so called conservatives and right wingers. Goldberg gives various examples of how so called left-wing liberals have used ‘fascist’ methods to promote their ideologies, be it abortion rights or higher taxes or greater welfare measures. Goldberg’s grievance is that liberals have been so successful in linking fascism with right-wing ideology and conservatism that most Americans tend to make that association.

I do agree with Goldberg that liberals may be as much guilty of using authoritarian measures to promote their goals as anybody else. To give a recent example, animal rights activists in the UK carried out a protracted campaign of intimidating employees and suppliers of Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company which carries out testing of medicines and other pharmaceutical products. Some of those activists were sentenced to long prison terms very recently.

Goldberg’s arguments are not necessarily water-tight. For example, he says that the Klu-Klux-Klan disliked Mussolini and hence are not fascist. Further, Goldberg does not even mention or try to explain the existence of right-wing fanatics such as Aryan Nations or the British National Party. The Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by a right-wing fanatic. None of these find a mention in Goldberg’s book.
Further, I don’t agree with Goldberg when he traces the ‘common’ roots of fascism and liberalism and tries to show them to be the same. It is true that Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. Liberals in the USA and elsewhere did like Mussolini and supported him till he became a German ally. It is also true that Communism as practised in the Soviet Union and the China of the 1950s and 1960s had a few things in common with fascism. However, trying to say that welfare socialism promoted by the some US Democrats and the Labour Party in the UK is fascism is downright silly.

At the end of the day, you may not agree with Goldberg. Nevertheless I would recommend that you read this book, if only to understand how a conservative American’s mind works.

Iraq - Shoe-ing Away The Question

Suresh Naig — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:28:18 EST

Asking a question is very important for development. A society which is discouraged from asking questions, is a society deprived of development. A person is not expected to ask a question in an autocratic state and it may even cost the life of a person, if the question happened to be uncomfortable to the ruler. Even in a democratic country, many people have lost their lives, asking uncomfortable questions. They are known as “whistle blowers”, and in the recent past an engineer from Karnataka, Manjunath had paid with his life in Bihar, for asking uncomfortable questions to road contractors and Highways department Babus.

However we might have been deprived of many useful things for the society, if Issac Newton had not asked that question, ‘why an apple falls down?’ Had Alexander Fleming not asked that vital question, ‘why one mould is interfering with the growth of another mould’, we might have been deprived of anti-biotics – the powerful arsenal in medicine to fight infections.

Had Gandhi not asked that question, ‘why I am not allowed to travel in first class compartment, even after paying for it?’ we would not have experienced a non-violent philosophy “ahimsa”. The whole Bhagavat Geeta is a treatise in the form of questions and answers, and the central theme of Zen philosophy is only questions.

However, certain questions could be embarrassing in diplomatic parlance, even if it happened to be true. Our earlier Prime Minister Morarjee Desai was known for his diplomatic lapses, by his pointed and uncomfortable questions. He reportedly walked straight to one of the aides, who accompanied the Soviet Premier to India and asked, ‘are you from KGB?’ to the embarrassment of MEA personnel. However they were happy, that their Prime Minister, who was a proponent of “auto urine therapy”, did not offer his “favourite drink” to the Russian delegation.

Though we have been benefited by the answers for certain freak questions, we are better off, by not asking one question, which does not have an answer. This question is an expression of our wishful thinking and the question is “what if it’s true?”

Two persons had asked the above question in Bangalore and they were poorer by few lakhs of rupees. One had asked the question on receiving a mail in his mail box, declaring him as the winner of an international lottery. The other asked the question in response to a mail asking him to be a conduit, in retrieving huge funds stashed away in a foreign country. I am sure most of us would have received these mails and we ignored it, because we are not gullible.

At times even many top leaders showed traits of gullibility, by not only asking that question themselves, but also instigating others to ask the same question ‘what if it’s true?, for certain information which is worth shoeing away.

By not shoeing away the information pertaining to WMD (weapons of mass destruction), Bush had asked the question ‘what if it’s true?’ and he got shoe-d away in Iraq.

Conversions, Sham Marriages and Organ Donations

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:00:53 EDT

I'm not sure which of the three is more distasteful. Is selling a kidney or other organ for money more disgusting (or sad) than contracting a sham marriage for financial gain? Is switching one's faith for money sadder than receiving money to marry someone whose only aim is to migrate to the UK or the USA?

Personally speaking, I would put organ donations for money on top of this list. It must be really painful to be in a position where one is forced to donate an organ, maybe a kidney, to earn some money. Mind you, in India the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 makes it illegal to donate an organ for money. This law is observed more in breach. Desperate men and women continue to donate their organs for money. As long as there are willing buyers and eager buyers, this trade will go on. Rather than try and prevent it, it would make sense for the authorities to merely make sure donors are not cheated when they donate an organ.

People get married for reasons that vary from love to a need to please one's parents to getting money or property. Some get married because it is the done thing. In most cases, it is a combination of some of these reasons. I assume more than a few marriages are entered into solely for monetary reasons. Therefore, it should be no surprise to know that there are many people, nationals of countries like the UK and USA which are high up on the migrants wish list, willing to enter into contracts of marriage with wannabe migrants solely for money. Detecting sham marriages is taken seriously in these countries. Last year, the UK even tried to make a law which required foreigners living in the UK (other than permanent residents) to seek special permission to marry, irrespective of the status of their partner. The House of Lords struck down this law, but migration authorities continue to have the right to delve into a marriage to see if it is a 'sham.'

In my opinion, as long as a person is legally entitled to marry, no one should have the right to question his or her reasons for getting married. Why is it acceptable to get married for a fat dowry in India or a farmhouse in Surrey, and unacceptable to marry with a view to facilitating a migrant's entry into one's home country? As long as both parties are legally entitled to marry, that is, they are of sound mind and not already married, it should be none of anyone's business.

People change their religion for various reasons. In my opinion, the most common reason in modern times is – love. I've known so many instances of people switching faith in order to get married. This usually happens when one party in a marriage comes from a very religious background and his or her family will be terribly unhappy if he or she marries someone from a different religion or sect. And so, the other party, when faced with the prospect of losing the love of one's life, agrees to switch faith. Despite so much controversy in India over conversions, no one has seriously challenged the right to convert for love.

Then there are conversions for social advancement. By social advancement, I don't just mean escaping the caste system. Unlike the British, the Portuguese and the Spanish considered conversion to be one of the goals of colonisation. Therefore, during the Portuguese rule in Goa, many conversions were achieved by force. But not all conversions were forced. There were many who wanted to be be on the side of the ruling class, with the expectation of various benefits. Something very similar must have happened during Arab/Mughal rule in India. Some of those who converted may have been forced. Many others must have converted for social advancement and other benefits.

In recent times, practically every religious community in India has indulged in conversions. Various Hindu sants have converted tribals and dalits to mainstream Hinduism and reconverted those Hindus who had converted to Christianity. Christian priests have continued their noble task of spreading the Word and Muslim preachers have not been far behind. Interestingly, the growing economic clout of the overseas Indian/Hindu community has meant that Hindu missionary activities outside India have gained momentum. One only has to walk past Oxford Circus in London to see a number of 'white' Hare Krishna devotees singing and dancing and preaching. The Hare Krishnas and various Hindu temples in the UK such as the Sri Mahalakshmi temple in East London, serve free food to the hungry and run schools. I believe this practice is followed in the USA, Canada, Australia etc. In the West, no one questions the right of the Hare Krishnas or other Hindu organisations to conduct these activities which are not much different from the activities of Christian missionary and Muslim organisations in India. Like Christian missionaries in India, Hare Krishnas face flak in some intolerant parts of the world such as Kazakhstan. When a local authority in Kazakhstan destroyed part of the Hare Krishna settlement outside Almaty, there was a global outcry, including from the West.

Usually the ones who are willing to convert for benefits are not particularly religious. Having converted to a new faith, they do display the outward signs of that religion and bring up their children in the new faith. Usually the new faith sticks, though it may take a generation or two to do so.

I don't think religious conversions can be or should be banned. The Indian Constitution gives every Indian the freedom to practice any faith of his or her choice. This obviously includes the freedom to convert to any religion for any reason whatsoever. It could be for the purpose of getting married to someone, it may be to gain nirvana or salvation, it may be to get a job or to escape the caste system. But it should be none of anybody else's business.

The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:31:42 EDT

Two young Conservative politicians in the UK, Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan have come up with a plan (the “Plan”) for what they call – “renewing Britain”. Daniel Douglas Carswell has been the Conservative MP for Harwich and Clacton since 2005. Hannan, a writer and journalist, is the Conservative Minister for European Parliament (MEP) for South East England since 1999. The plan put forth by Carswell and Hannan is set out in a 195 page document titled “The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain” that can be either bought (for £10) or downloaded (for £5) online.

Bad Shape – In the eye of the beholder

The Plan is based on the assumption that the UK is in a bad shape. Like beauty, bad shape is also something that lies in the eye of the beholder. I remember when I started my first job in the UK, I was told (apologetically) by so many colleagues that the building which housed our offices was in a terrible shape. ‘Ghastly’ and ‘horrible’ were the adjectives most often used. Before coming to London a year before to do a one-year masters course at the London School of Economics, I had a four year stint in Mumbai during which time I had seen a lot of wobbly buildings with even more wobbly staircases and antique lifts. To my eye, I could find nothing wrong with my new office building. On the contrary, it looked unbelievably solid and sturdy. No, the problem I soon learnt, was not in the stability of the building, but in its aesthetics. Grey in colour, with no glass or other frills one sees in most modern buildings these days, it was clearly not intended to have people exclaim in admiration as they walked past. The same is the case with the UK, a very prosperous country by any standard, with nothing much seriously wrong with it.

What exactly is wrong in the UK?

Carswell and Hannan manage to find a lot wrong with the current state of affairs in the UK. But they are not just cribbers, they have a magic bullet solution for UK’s ailments.

“The British state is failing. It can’t deliver even the most basic services competently. We have the highest prisoner population in Europe, and one of the highest crime rates. Our schoolchildren compare dismally with similarly aged pupils in other countries and in previous generations. Our healthcare system is more likely to kill its charges than any other in the developed world. Our roads are choked, our railways crumbling, our airports unbearable. Our borders are, to all intents and purposes, wide open.”

Each of the statements made above by Carswell and Hannan is debatable. For example, the International Centre for Prison Studies says that Russia has the highest rate of prison population (635 per 100,000) in Europe. Scotland and England and Wales have the 17th and 18th highest rates in Europe. I guess that when Carswell and Hannan say “Europe”, they mean “Western Europe”. Even then, Spain has a higher rate than Scotland or England and Wales. Northern Ireland is 39th in Europe, lower than France or Germany with a prison population of 87 per 100,000. The United States of America, a source of inspiration to Carswell and Hannan in many respects, has the highest prisoner population in the world. If you look at the percentage of female prisoners within the prison population, England and Wales is at the 19th place, way below Norway, Austria, Switzerland and Germany. The British health care is admittedly not as good as say, healthcare in various other European states, but then, as Carswell and Hannan admit in the Plan, such other states spend a lot more on healthcare than the UK. British road and rail infrastructure is indeed not as good as what you find in say, Germany, but then Germany has always had better roads even during the days of Winston Churchill.

The Plan

The Plan revolves around a series of legislative measures (which will not take more than 12 months) to reform Britain. Carswell and Hannan feel that MPs are too powerless and have too many perks. They want to clean up Westminster by pruning the amount of perks MPs get. The House of Commons will be reduced in size. The House of Lords is not really compatible with democracy, Carswell and Hannan opine, but do not want to tackle it as part of the Plan since it will require a lot more time than one year. Policing and prosecution decisions must be made by elected officials. Judges should not be allowed to make law as they have been doing of late. Parliament must reign supreme, in its pruned form. The UK must withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. English counties and cities should have all the powers that have been devolved to Scotland. Parents who send their children to private schools must be able to claim the per capita average being spent on them. Similarly, patients must be able to opt out of the NHS. There should be greater devolution of powers. Local governments must be given all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland and the right to collect sufficient revenue to do many things on their own.

Small government

“To the size of a state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for they can none of them retain their facility when they are too large.” This quote from Aristotle finds place at the beginning of the Plan document. The main grouse espoused by Carswell and Hannan, which runs throughout the Plan, is that the UK was traditionally a small state with the bulk of its laws derived from customs and practices, but is no longer so. In the last few decades, especially as a result of the accession to the EU, the UK has come to become a state run by bureaucrats and quangos (Quasi Non-Governmental Organizations) not elected by the people. Britain has moved towards continental European values which prefer a neutral and supposedly impartial administrator to an elected politician who may have biases and prejudices. Carswell and Hannan don’t like bureaucrats or quangos who only help themselves and create more paper work for themselves. On top of it all, even bureaucrats or quangos will have their own prejudices, we are told. Carswell and Hannan don’t use the words ‘welfare state’, though it becomes clear that they do want the British welfare state to be rolled back.

After the recent turmoil in the financial markets, not many people will find the idea of a small government appealing. The question being asked now is why the independent regulators weren’t more vigilant. There isn’t much of a demand to do away with regulators despite their many lapses. However, Daniel Hannan has not changed his mind if this blog post of his is any indication.

To be fair to Carswell and Hannan, their idea of a small government is a lot more than financial deregulation. As explained in detail below, the Plan envisages a small government everywhere, especially at the local level.

Elected Sheriffs

Carswell and Hannan want the UK to emulate the US in various respects, one of which is the subservience of police chiefs and prosecution services to elected Sheriffs. Sir Ian Blair, the London Metropolitan Police Chief, is used as an example of how undemocratic and unaccountable a police chief can be. At the time of the Plan’s publication, Sir Ian Blair was clinging to power despite facing an enormous amount of criticism. His role during the 7 July bombing and the death of Jean Charles de Menezes left a lot to be desired. The London Assembly passed a resolution of no-confidence in Sir Ian Blair. The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said that he would like Sir Blair to leave. Despite all this, Sir Blair stayed in power since he could only be fired by the Home Secretary (which happened recently after the Plan was published). Elected Sheriffs should also have the power to set local sentencing guidelines. This might mean that different towns or counties might have different approaches to the same offence. Shoplifting might attract a higher penalty in London than in Manchester. But that would be quite democratic. If the residents of London want to follow a particular approach to an offence, they should be free to do so, irrespective of what Manchester thinks.

I have some sympathy for this approach. You might argue that a nation as small as the UK should not try to emulate the US and end up with different laws in different parts of the country. If Carswell and Hannan have their way, illegal immigrants might, if caught in Barking, be flogged and deportated, whilst Argyllshire in Scotland might merely deport them. In the US, Texas enthusiastically enforces the death penalty whilst 13 states have abolished it. However, it cannot be denied that a much higher percentage of Texans support the death penalty than citizens of states where the death penalty has been abolished. If you believe that democracy should be subservient to the goal of moving the entire nation to a higher plane of values, you might not like this approach. However, what constitutes a ‘higher plane of values’ will always be debatable.

Human Rights Act

The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human rights and all UK laws are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 framed under this convention. Laws made by the British Parliament can be overruled if they are found to violate the Human Rights Act. It is not unheard of in the UK to challenge laws and regulations on the ground that they breach human rights. Carswell and Hannan do not like the idea of judges using the Human Rights Act to override the will of the Parliament. They want the Human Rights Act to be scrapped. If the Plan were to be implemented, the UK will withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Illegal immigrants, minorities and to a lesser extent prisoners, rely on this law more than others since they have very few other rights. Carswell and Hannan cite the example of an illegal immigrant who in 1997 was able to overturn his deportation order on the grounds that he would not receive the same medical treatment in his home country as was available in the UK. The illegal immigrant relied on Article 3 of this convention which says that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ I find this example a bit outdated since the UK now deports illegal immigrants who are ill and need urgent medical care. In the beginning of this year, media reported the case of a cancer-ridden Ghanaian woman who was deported from the UK and died soon after.

All the examples cited by Carswell and Hannan as examples of how courts have used the Human Rights Act to overturn the will of the Parliament involve illegal immigrants or prisoners or citizenship applications. I do have sympathy for the view that Judges should only interpret and should never make the law. However, if the Human Rights Act were to be scrapped, the most vulnerable section within British society will suffer the most.

Parliament must be supreme

Carswell and Hannan want a Reserve Powers Act to be enacted in order to guarantee the supremacy of the legislature against judicial activism. Carswell and Hannan find it intolerable that a national legislature might be subservient to an international body. For this reason, they oppose the International Criminal Court which can prosecute national leaders, a process which they rightly say may be misused. At least in theory, any political leader anywhere in the world, including from the UK, may be tried by the ICC. Carswell and Hannan go to the extent of saying that “the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals have now become a law unto themselves, prosecuting some men for no better reason than that it was thought politically expedient to have inductees from all sides in a war.” The job of prosecuting national leaders must be left to national courts, they say.

Thankfully not many people in the world share this point of view. If they did, war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic would never have been brought to book.

Carswell and Hannan want the UK’s defence and foreign policy to be determined entirely by the Parliament with a lot more parliamentary oversight over diplomats. According to Carswell and Hannan, “British foreign policy is cocooned from the democratic process. It is conducted by highly qualified officials who, although often technically brilliant, have drifted away from the values of the rest of the country. Left to their own devices, diplomatists have evolved an approach to international relations that is elitist, managerialist, supra-nationalist, technocratic and contemptuous of ‘populism’.” Reading this, I was reminded of Republicans accusing Obama of elitism!

And look at what these elitist diplomats have got the UK into? They got the UK into the EU! What could be worse than that? Carswell and Hannan seem to hate the European Union more than anything else in the world.

Each and every real and perceived foreign policy mistake is blamed on elistist diplomats who follow their own ideology rather than the people’s dictates. Unlike the diplomats of yore, modern diplomats do not project British interests. Though experts, diplomats have as many prejudices and biases as anybody else. Currently, diplomatic appointments, the contracting of treaties and national defence, are all controlled by Downing Street under Crown Prerogative powers. This has allowed the Foreign Secretary to sign up to treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty without Parliamentary approval. Carswell and Hannan want all these powers to be transferred to the Parliament. Each time the Parliament is reconstituted, all treaties and diplomatic appointments must be reviewed and approved, else they will lapse. Even if this sounds like a good idea in theory, I doubt if this can be implemented in practice unless the MPs work all year around in the Parliament, something which doesn’t fit in with the Plan for a reduced House of Commons.

Gentlemen (or Lady) Members of Parliament

Carswell and Hannan want to prune the pay and perks which MPs get. MPs will meet only for a limited number of days in a year and will be ‘amateur’ politicians. In the sense that they will need to carry on a trade or profession of their own which will pay their bills. The only compensation they get will be for the days they need to spend in Parliament.

On paper this sounds good. But in practice this would generally prevent people without a great deal of inherited wealth from entering politics. In my opinion, it is not possible to be a part-time politician. Even if an MP does not have to spend all his/her time in Parliament, I doubt if it will be possible for the MP to hold a regular job. There will be exceptions for sure, but this proposal would take politicians to a situation similar to that of sportsmen in the days when sport was played (mainly by the wealthy) for glory rather than money.

Right to Opt-Out from State Schools and the NHS

Carswell and Hannan feel that schools in the UK are ‘failing due to too much government.’ They want the Danish system to be followed in the UK which would give parents who send their children to private schools the right to claim the per capita average being spent within the state system. In other words, the cost of sending children to private schools will come down. The net impact of such a move, in my opinion, would be to widen the rich-poor divide in the education system. The poorest children would continue to languish in state schools, whose quality would deteriorate even further.

Something similar is to be done with the NHS. Carswell and Hannan rightly say that the NHS is bloated and inefficient. Patients should have the freedom to seek services from a private health care provider and opt out of the NHS. Carswell and Hannan specifically recommend the health care system in Singapore where patients deposit money in a health care savings account (till the money reaches a critical limit) and pay their private health care providers from that account. Catastrophic insurance (of around £400 per annum) is also bought by everyone. The Plan rightly claims that the Singaporean system is even better than the system (of privately insured healthcare) in the United States.

Personally speaking, I would benefit if these suggestion were to be implemented. So would most middle-class residents in the UK. But these bits of the Plan have the potential to make British society a lot less egalitarian.

Devolution of power

Carswell and Hannan want local governments to be autonomous with all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland. At present ninety per cent of all revenue collected in Britain goes to the Chancellor in Whitehall. This money is distributed by the Chancellor to various authorities and bodies. The net result is that local councils are quite powerless and good candidates are not interested in standing for elections at the council level.

The Plan proposes the scrapping of VAT and replacing it with a local sales tax (“LST”). Different regions will have different rates of LST. This will lead to tax competition between various regions. Local councils should also have the freedom to scrap council tax.

I can see a lot of merit in these suggestions. However, the consequences may involve a drastic fall in the amount of money being available with local councils in deprived areas. The Plan does mention a top-up for such areas, but I feel it is unlikely to be equal to the actual loss in revenue.

Social security is to be distributed at the local level. Carswell and Hannan rightly point out that local authorities are in a much better position to detect welfare fraud and determine parameters for entitlement. This is something I fully endorse as long as deprived areas as given a proportionately higher allotment to meet their welfare costs.

Cut down on red-tape

Carswell and Hannan want to repeal various Acts that provide the legal base for burdensome and costly regulation. The Plan lists 26 Acts which are to be repealed. These include laws framed under the EU Directives on Part-Time Work giving part-time workers equal access to pay, pensions, annual leave and training as full-time staff, Anti-Money Laundering Rules and the Hunting Act 2004 which outlaws hunting with dogs. As would be evident to anyone who reads the entire Plan, most of the laws which Carswell and Hannan want to repeal are social welfare legislation which conservatives have always hated. You might agree or disagree with Carswell and Hannan depending on which shade of the political spectrum you belong to.

The Plan proposes that all new pieces of legislation are to have a sunset clause that will ensure that enactments do not survive in perpetuity. I don’t agree. Some laws contain sunset clauses and these are usually the draconian anti-terrorism laws which curtail civil liberties. Otherwise laws are meant to make things better and ought to survive for perpetuity.

Alternatives to the EU

As mentioned earlier, Carswell and Hannan don’t like the European Union and they propose that the UK ought to withdraw from the EU and instead be a part of the European Free Trade Area (“EFTA”) just like Switzerland. Being in the EFTA would give the UK trade access to the European Market without having to tag along with the EU in matters such as labour policy or welfare measure or immigration. Carswell and Hannan point to countries such as Iceland and Switzerland which are not part of the EU and manage to remain prosperous. I guess Iceland was a prosperous country when the Plan was published. It is no longer so very prosperous at the moment.

I do agree that if ideologically most people in the UK differ from continental Europe, it makes little sense to be a part of the EU.

People’s Bills and Blocking Referendums

Carswell and Hannan recommend that citizens ought to be able to table bills in the Parliament if they collect sufficient signatures. The top 6 popular bills should be voted on by MPs. Similarly, if 20,000 people sign a petition to block a bill which has received its third reading, but before it receives Royal Assent, the bill should be blocked. If within a prescribed period a specified percentage of the electorate sign up to the petition, the bill should not become law.

These are good proposals and I would support them. Please read the Plan in full if you want to understand these proposals since the explanation I have given above is sketchy and may not give you an accurate picture of the proposals as contained in the Plan.

What’s the Position on Immigration?

One very important issue which has not been addressed in the Plan is that of migration. Thought not always discussed openly, migration has been one of the hottest issues in the Western world in this decade. Surprisingly, Carswell and Hannan don’t have much to say on this. There are a few mentions of reversing the flow of illegal migration, cracking down on illegal immigrants and the failures of the Migration Service. When discussing the drawbacks of being in the EU, it is said that the EU has prevented the UK from having an annual quota on immigrants. But a specific policy to tackle the perceived problem of immigration is missing. This is a glaring omission indeed.

Since the Plan is silent on this vital issue, I am tempted to infer what Carswell and Hannan might have in mind based on what they have said on other matters.

Switzerland has the most successful policy on migration in the whole of Europe. When I say “successful”, I mean success in controlling migration since controlling and reducing migrant inflows is the cornerstone of most migration policies, including that of the UK. How does Switzerland do this? To apply for Swiss citizenship, the applicant must have legally lived in Switzerland for at least 12 years. The final decision on a citizenship application is made by the local community where the applicant lives. The local community will interview the applicant and put his application to vote before citizenship is granted. Do Carswell and Hannan wish to implement the Swiss approach I wonder? It would fit in with the Plan which wants to devolve power to local communities. Currently, a person who has worked in the UK for five years will almost automatically obtain permanent residency. Permanent residents obtain citizenship (almost automatically) a year after becoming permanent residents. If the Swiss system were to be implemented in the UK, I would assume that the number of people who obtain British citizenship will be reduced to a trickle. Would members of one community or race find it more difficult to get citizenship than others? Possibly.

No foreigner has the right to migrate to another country. The visa stamped on a foreign passport is always a favour bestowed on the passport holder rather than an entitlement. Every country has the right to implement the most appropriate immigration policy. That being said, immigration is an emotional topic, especially during a recession when jobs are being lost and the economy feels pinched. It is very easy to cause scare mongering and get voters excited on this topic. Sometimes the scaremongering works, sometimes it doesn’t. I do wish Carswell and Hannan had not remained silent on this issue.

The Voice of America & Other Voices

Shantanu Dutta — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:57 EDT

It was another day and age when the cold war was still raging and the world was still multipolar. Sitting in my Air Force base, I would twiddle my radio knobs in search of some entertainment. Sooner or later, the radio would settle into one of four stations, the BBC, the Voice of America, Radio Moscow and Radio Beijing. Leading the pack would be the venerable BBC with an eclectic mix of music, news, book readings, and even live concerts like the BBC’s Proms in the Park. Radio Moscow was strong on classical music and Radio Beijing on orchestral music and the Voice of America for talk shows.

Each of those stations had their niche and loyal fans and although except for the BBC, even though the other stations were unabashedly propagandistic, listening to two or more stations helped to form a some what more well rounded view of the world. Where else would you hear coverage of Cuba’s health care system? Or the land reforms in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Laos? Not surely on CNN.

Over the years the world change the radio stations have changed and of course technology has changed. All these stations broadcast on short wave frequencies and listeners had to battle static, fluctuating signals depending on local weather conditions( political or meteorological weather, both ! and stations with more powerful signals broadcasting on a near by frequency.

Over the years, all the stations have changed their character and focus as the cold war ended and other broadcasting platforms became available. The BBC has adapted to the era of the cable television and the satellite radio but the others have not – not in their original avatars and one of them… the Voice of America died a silent death for India as VOA’s Hindi service comes to an end at the end of this month.

The Voice of America, more the Voice of the US Government than its people of course has in a review of its priories in the post 9/11 era decided to wind up the fairly popular Hindi service. I suppose that it has in ways outlived its strategic utility. In the cold war time, with the Indian government firmly tilted towards the Soviet Union, the VOA was a helpful tool for the American media to connect with the Indian public. I suppose that with no Soviet Union left today and both the major political formations in India today – the NDA or the UPA firmly looking to the USA for anchor, the VOA is no longer needed to whisper Uncle Sam’s sweet nothings to Indian ears.

While that may be so, the radio programs always have had loyal listeners’ clubs in the country and these will be devastated. Many of these clubs have been nurtured through the generations and indeed “VOA listeners clubs" have existed in small towns and villages across India, where radio is still a part of daily life. People there have no internet, cable television or even reliable electricity. But they have radio and the defining point for many is to on air for a brief while in the “Call In” programs. VOA pampers its listeners with pens, caps, diaries, T-shirts and key chains. Probably the most popular freebie is the colorful VOA calendar that adorns the mud walls of many homes.

Meanwhile the big daddy of broadcasting in India, the venerable BBC is extending its footfall by engaging further with radio in the FM Mode. BBC has a stake in one of the local stations Radio One and although the Indian government still does not allow the broadcast of news by private channels, the BBC is positioning itself to do just that hoping for the policy to change some day soon. Of course the BBC has always been a commercially run business house and is making its business decisions based on long term business goals and not political agendas. The Voice of America and many of the other voices have been muted because their political objectives have been met. And yet for all the propaganda and the blatantly one sided coverage of news – these voices will be missed; if only they taught you to recognize propaganda well when you heard it over the air waves.