Stand Up For Geert Wilders!

Geert Wilders, an outspoken critic of Islam, is facing criminal charges by the Dutch government for expressing his opinion. We must come to the aid of this great patriot. We owe it to Geert, to Holland, and to ourselves.

Holland was once the home to liberty’s founders and defenders. In the 17th century Hugo Grotius advocated religious tolerance and natural law. Holland gave haven to Spinoza’s family, after Holland gained its freedom from Spain and established a tolerant regime. In 1683, John Locke, fled to Holland where he found freedom and fellowship only to return to England in 1689 during the Glorious Revolution. Locke’s defense of England’s new liberal order would inspire the Americans in 1776.

Holland had played a key role in the world’s struggle for liberty. Sadly she is leading Europe’s decay into darkness. It started with the death of Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. It continued with its betrayal of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The pace of Holland’s suicide has accelerated with the outrageous attempt to silence one of Europe’s brave patriots.

It must not be allowed to succeed. Speak out! Donate! Boycott Holland until it secures Geert Wilder’s freedom and safety.

I join with other freedom-loving writers on the ‘net: Jihad Watch, AOW, Caroline Glick, Pamela Geller, New English Review, Grant Jones, Gates of Vienna, Mark Alexander, Bosch Fawstin, Gandalf, John Ray, Robert Spencer, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller … more to come.

Update: The UK refuses Wilders’ entry because of his views are deemed unacceptable. Reports: Charles N. Steele, Robert Spencer, IFPS, Mary Jackson, Jerry Gordon, Gates of Vienna, Lawrence Auster, Pastorius, Mark Alexander, Opinionator, John Derbyshire, Glenn Reynolds, Andrew McCarthy, Stephen Brown, Bat Ye’or, Theodore Dalrymple, Mary Jackson, Andrew Ian Dodge, Mike McNally, and the MSM: UK Telegraph, Associate Press via the New York Times, BBC, National Post, Brussels Journal, the Spectator.

Update2: Esmerelda Weatherwax reports from London: Fitna is shown while filmaker is banned.

Update3: This is the speech that was banned in Britain.

Update4: WSJ – Britain’s Surrender to Islamists: “What makes this surrender of free speech and fairness — the most noble of British traditions — particularly depressing is its totality. All main British parties support the Labour government’s ban against Mr. Wilders — the so-called Liberal Democrats just as eagerly as the Tories.”

Liberalism flowed from Holland to England to America. It appears that liberalism’s end will follow that same path if we do not act.

Update5: Mr. Wilders goes to Washington: Pam Geller, Robert Tracinski, Robert Spencer.

What Makes America American

Von Steuben has some thoughts on the matter.

“Americans may belong more to the West than to Asia, but they are not Europeans, they are different. Nobody expressed this better than the great Prussian officer sent by the French to instill some discipline in Washington’s ragtag troops at Valley Forge in 1775. He was Baron von Steuben: ‘The genius of this nation is not in the least to be compared with that of the Prussians, Austrians, or French. You say to your [European] soldier, “Do this,” and he doeth it, but I am obliged to say, “This is the reason why you ought to do that,” and he does it.’”

I found this passage in Seymour Morris, Jr’s book “American History: Revised.” It is not blind duty but right reason that motivates the American, according to Morris. Here is another author’s take on the same passage:

‘Washington appointed him [Steuben] inspector general of the Continental Army in the hope that Steuben would shape his ragtag mass into a fighting force, and so he did, but not at all in the way that Washington had expected. In the manual Steuben wrote for this American army, the most remarkable theme was love: love of the soldier for his fellow soldier, love of the officer for his men, love of country and love of his nation’s ideals. Steuben obviously intuited that a people’s army, a force of citizen-soldiers fighting for freedom from oppression, would be motivated most powerfully not by fear but, as he put it, by “love and confidence”—love of their cause, confidence in their officers and in themselves. “The genius of this nation,” Steuben explained in a letter to a Prussian officer, “is not in the least to be compared with that of the Prussians, Austrians, or French. You say to your soldier, ‘Do this,’ and he does it; but I am obliged to say, ‘This is the reason why you ought to do that,’ and then he does it.”‘

This is from James R. Gaines’ “Washington and Lafayette” in the Smithonian Magazine. Here it is not duty imposed by the threats of an autocratic ruler but the shared passionate values that motivate the American to join his fellow citizens in their common cause: individual liberty.
While Steuben was being inspired by the American ethos, back home in Prussia, Immanuel Kant was arguing for the duty-bound ethics that Steuben found so typically European. Practical reason (ethics) was not to be instrumental; it was a categorial imperative, a duty.
Comments?

War Before Civilization

Rousseau famous thesis, that “peaceful primitive man” is corrupted by civilization, continues to permeate our culture and undermine our moral confidence. Anthropologist Lawrence H. Keeley demolishes this thesis in his book War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. He shows that “prehistoric warfare was in fact more deadly, more frequent, and more ruthless than modern war.”

To come to this conclusion he had to fight his own prejudice—one shared by his profession. “Like most archaeologists trained in the postwar period, I emerged from the first stage of my education so inculcated with the assumption that warfare and prehistory did not mix that I was willing to dismiss unambiguous physical evidence to the contrary.” [p ix] “Weapons and armor” were dismissed as “status symbols and had only a symbolic function rather than a practical military one.” [p19] Social anthropologists, who encountered savage societies, declared that contact with civilization induced the transformation from a peaceful disposition to a warrior-like ethos. However, the overwhelming evidence was too great to allow this prevailing dogma to go unchallenged.

Keeley thoroughly reviews the statistics. Depending on region and means of classification he finds that 5%-13% of primitive tribes or bands are peaceful (meaning not engaging in raids or wars more than once a year). “Most peaceful groups [are] living in areas with extremely low population densities, isolated by distance and hard country from other groups…” [p 28] But “many small-band societies that are regarded by ethnologists as not engaging in warfare instead evidence very high homicide rates.” [p29]

“Truly peaceful agriculturalists appear to be somewhat less common than pacifistic hunter-gatherers… Low-density, nomadic hunter-gatherers, with their few (and portable) possessions, large territories, and few fixed resources or constructed facilities, had the option of fleeing … Farmers and sedentary hunter-gatherers had little alternative but to meet force with force or, after injury, to discourage further depredations by taking revenge.” [p31]

War is common to civilized states and primitive non-state societies but given the evidence of Keeley’s book “the only reasonable conclusion is that wars are actually more frequent in nonstate societies than they are in state societies—especially modern nations.” [p33] “From North America at least, archaeological evidence reveals precisely the same pattern recorded ethnographically for tribal peoples the world over of frequent deadly raids and occasional horrific massacres. This was an indigenous and ‘native’ pattern long before contact with Europeans complicated the situation.’ [p69]

What happens when primitive and civilized people clash? He has some startling conclusions. When numbers are equal, either side is likely to win. Civilized fighting, geared to wining battles against other nation-states, is a liability when fighting savages. “In most cases, civilized soldiers have defeated primitive warriors only when they adopted the latter’s tactics. In the history of European expansion, soldiers repeatedly had to abandon their civilized techniques and weapons to win against even the most primitive opponents. The unorthodox techniques adopted were smaller, more mobile units; abandonment of artillery and use of lighter small arms; open formations and skirmishing tactics; increased reliance on ambushes, raids, and surprise attacks on settlements; destruction of the enemy’s economic infrastructure (habitations, foodstores, livestock, and means of transport); a strategy of attrition against the enemy’s manpower; relentless pursuit to take advantage of civilization’s superior logistics; and extensive use of natives as scouts or auxiliaries. In other words, not only were civilized military techniques incapable of defeating their primitive counter parts, but in many cases the collaboration of primitive warriors was necessary because civilized soldiers alone were inadequate for the task.” [p74]

“Primitive (and guerilla) warfare consists of war stripped to its essentials: the murder of enemies; the theft or destruction of their sustenance, wealth, and essential resources; and the inducement in them of insecurity and terror. It conducts the basic business of war without recourse to ponderous formations or equipment, complicated maneuvers, strict chains of command, calculated strategies, time tables, or other civilized embellishments. When civilized soldiers meet adversaries so unencumbered, they too must shed a considerable weight of intellectual baggage and physical armor just to even the odds.” [p75]

Often civilized nation-states were helped by other factors. “These silent partners included viruses, bacteria, seed plants, and mammals that disseminated death and triggered ecological transformations that decimated native manpower and disrupted traditional economies. These insidious conquistadors spread far more rapidly and were many times more deadly than the human conquerors …” [p78] He concludes: “In the face of these facts, the claim that the superior tactics and military discipline of Europeans gained them dominion over primitives in the Americas, Oceania, and Siberia is so inflated that it would be comic were not the facts that contradict it so tragic.” [p79]

Keeley, also notes facts contrary to his thesis. “… it was common the world over for the warrior who had just killed an enemy to be regarded by his own people as spiritually polluted or contaminated… Often he had to live for a time in seclusion, eat special food or fast …” [p144] War is repulsive even to primitive man. “Yet if this worldwide revulsion had any real impact on social behavior, wars should be rare and peace common; instead the opposite is true.” [p147]. His explanation of this paradox isn’t convincing. Neither is his explanation for the rise of the neo-Rousseauian “noble savage” dogmatism that dominated anthropology for so long.

Lawrence Keeley is a man who has respects for the facts. To the extent that he is not an exception in his profession—he says he’s not—there is a silent revolution taking place within the academy. Even if one isn’t convinced of every generality, one has to appreciate the seismic shift in worldview that is taking place.

Cultural Genocide

As expected the European establishment is using the attack by Breivik to further suppress debate and criticism of the growing Islamic problem within Europe. They already deploy legal punishments for criticizing Islam (witness the trial of Geert Wilders) as well as other forms of intimidation. It is times like these that we should remember Kipling’s words:

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools …

Many of my online friends and colleagues have seen their words used as excuses for a vile act they would never have imagined let alone condoned. There was no ambiguity in their words that lent them to such usage. The problems in Norway are real. The solution devised by Breivik was diabolical. It has no grounds in the works of the authors he cites. Indeed, many of the authors, in their comments section, have continually told the “let’s nuke ‘em” crowd to get lost. They were never welcomed in the halls of reasonable debate.

There are some ideas in Breivik’s 1500 page compendium that are unique to his thought. They shed some light on his desperation and delusions. This can be seen in his charges against the Norwegian establishment (section 3.2 and 3.5):

Aiding and abetting to cultural genocide against the indigenous peoples of Europe. Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons[1]. According to the ”United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”[2] the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe (all category A, B and C traitors) are committing cultural genocide against the Indigenous Peoples of Europe.

The most basic human right is to defend oneself against deliberate cultural attacks or even an institutionalized cultural genocide of unprecedented historical proportions. It’s not just a right but a duty for all Europeans to defend oneself against such atrocities through armed struggle.

The term cultural genocide is key. This insidious concept is fully operative in Breivik’s mind in the way it was intended by the left–as morally equivalent to physical genocide. Let’s examine their usage before we see why Breivik makes it a driving factor.

David Nersessian writes in the journal of the Carnegie Council:

Collective identity is not self-evident but derives from the numerous, inter-dependent aspects of a group’s existence. Lemkin’s original conception of genocide expressly recognized that a group could be destroyed by attacking any of these unique aspects. By limiting genocide to its physical and biological manifestations, a group can be kept physically and biologically intact even as its collective identity suffers in a fundamental and irremediable manner. Put another way, the present understanding of genocide preserves the body of the group but allows its very soul to be destroyed.

It is very popular in Arab literature with regard to Palestinian Arab culture. Hanan writes:

In many ways, cultural genocide (which is also referred to as “ethnocide”, “sociocide” and “deculturation”) sets out to achieve the same goals as a physical genocide. As Professor Stuart Stein from the University of the West of England has pointed out, “the same objective, the eradication of a group of people differentiated by some distinct traits, such as ethnicity, race, religion, language, nationality, or culture, can be achieved just as effectively in the mid-to-long-term, by gradual processes, as it might be by their immediate physical liquidation.”

Also see this article for another example.

Cultural genocide is a double anti-concept. It is meant to pre-empt valid terminology and distort the debate. The concept of genocide is an insidious replacement for mass slaughter. The notion implies that the slaughter of large number of individuals is worse if the group is demographically homogeneous. By implication the slaughter of a heterogenous group is less severe. Americans, for example, can’t be victims of genocide. When have we seen the jihadi attacks of 9/11 refered to as genocide? The notion of genocide makes the collective ontologically primary. Individuals matter less.

Cultural genocide compounds the error. The mere passing away of a culture, by choice or by time, is raised to the significance of mass slaughter! Thus, when Breivik sees his country changing, it is genocide pure and simple. This kind of talk is poisonous. It’s no longer a nostalgic loss of old folksy customs that many feel when their children adopt new ways. It’s not the threat to fundamental philosophical values, which in a liberal order requires debate and refutation. It’s genocide: extinguishing a collective being. Breivik is striking out against a collective enemy regardless of individual complicity in this imagined crime. Reading between his lines you can hear: we must kill them before they kill all of us!

Closely aliened with cultural genocide is his notion of indigenous cultures. In section 2.78 he writes:

Rhetoric related to “indigenous rights” is an untapped goldmine which has currently been deluded and sidetracked due to “rhetorical contamination” from the US. If you use “white nationalist” rhetoric you are instantly placed in the same category as Hitler. This is not the case with rhetoric related to indigenous rights as this rhetoric is usually related to the Aboriginal or Native American struggles. Some of the reason why many nationalists reject the “indigenous” argument is because it is generally used by a group who has been defeated.

He sees his struggle as an indigenous rights movement for the collective survival of his group. He admits this tribal model is distinctly European and won’t apply to America. In the “Euro-US divide” he says:

However tempting to discuss US nationalism/conservatism, I’m not going to. The reason is that the fundamental factors vary too much. The European Americans aren’t the indigenous peoples of the US, the Native Americans are. In addition; there are more than 60 million Muslims in Western (25-30) + Eastern Europe (35) while only 9 million in the US.

His politics is what the left commonly calls “Identity Politics”. It has little grounding in the [classical] liberal thought which is common in the anti-jihadi writers that he cites. They are first and foremost alarmed by the illiberal nature of Islam. Breivik agrees with the problem but has adapted a collectivist solution that is obviously his own. He has stepped off into an imagined war of all against all. He is alone in this war as he deserves to be.

Let us not for a moment accept the guilt by association that is directed against the thoughtful critics of one of today’s greatest problem: the threat of Islam. This problem has to be discussed. If this becomes an excuse to suppress the debate even further, illiberalism will have won once again.


Update: Caroline Glick defines and defends the essentials of a liberal order. She ends with:

If the Left is ever successful in its bid to criminalize ideological opponents and justify acts of terrorism against their opponents, their victory will destroy the liberal democratic foundations of Western civilization.

I’d add that this would play right into Breivik’s hands. So would Daniel Pipes, as he explains here in his last six paragraphs.

Update: Wikipedia notes Breivik’s use of the concept of cultural genocide: “In the pre-trial hearing, February 2012, Breivik read a prepared statement demanding to be released and treated as a hero for his ‘pre-emptive attack against traitors’ accused of planning cultural genocide. He said, ‘They are committing, or planning to commit, cultural destruction, of which deconstruction of the Norwegian ethnic group and deconstruction of Norwegian culture. This is the same as ethnic cleansing.'”

An Amoral Nation

“Who are you voting for and why?” asked one TV reporter seeking the pulse of prospective voters in a pivotal state. Not a single person responded by citing political or ethical principles. The Romney voters didn’t point to the prospects of protecting individual rights, free markets, or the virtues of self-reliance. The Obama supporters were silent on redistribution, socialism, and the evils of capitalism. The average voter shows a complete lack of cognizance of principles–any principles. They expressed one overriding concern: who will give me “more stuff?”

It wasn’t always overt. Many talked about “sincerity” while others fretted that the candidates are “hard to believe.” A whole host of other character traits were bandied about in assessing which candidate can be trusted. But trusted to do what? In each case our fellow citizens weren’t concerned about the health of the republic–which only principles can insure. They merely wanted to know who will give them “more stuff” now.

There was a completely amoral tone that the permeated the conversations. And it reflects the campaign of both candidates. Obama is clear: he lists all the “free stuff” he’ll give you while making it clear you won’t have to pay for it. He’d fund it from the top 1-2 percent of high earners. You don’t have to work and earn it–as virtue would require. You’ll get someone else’s hard earned wealth–as expediency allows. Mere expediency is the antithesis of principle. If we can get away with expropriating others wealth for now, let’s do it. If they “go Galt” tomorrow … well, tomorrow will be another day.

What does Mr. Romney offer in return? In the second debate he assures us that the “top 5 percent will continue to pay 60 percent, as they do today. I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle-income people.” You’ll still get the government goods and services but you won’t have to pay for it. We’ll still get the rich to foot the bill. No principle is cited and none can be detected. Why, then, would we expect to see the voter apply principles to make an informed choice? When it comes to the expedient of getting “free stuff” paid by the rich, who is more believable?

The choice of principle versus mere expediency is exemplified by the President’s addition of $5 trillion to the debt. If our nation was founded on the virtues of industry and frugality (as Ben Franklin would express it), then what could be more profligate than uncontrolled spending funded by overwhelming debt? Mere expediency allows one to weigh the pleasures of today–which are concrete–while downplaying the costs of tomorrow–which are not in sight. To quote our President, “We don’t have to worry about it short term.”

Prudence is another virtue prized by our founding fathers. Living beyond one’s means is recklessness. Excessive borrowing allows one the expedient of funding government services in the short run while deferring payments to the future. The President admits it: “Right now interest rates are low because people still consider the United States the safest and greatest country on earth, rightfully so, but it is a problem long term and even medium-term.” Actually, it’s the Fed that is artificially lowering rates but regardless of the cause we have what is known as a “teaser rate” that will someday reset higher similar to the reckless subprime lending that allowed borrowers to get low monthly payments with “teaser rates.” Let’s remember what profligate borrowing did to the private sector as we ponder what’s in store for the federal government. But “we don’t have to worry about it short term.”

Romney gets credit for making this a moral issue in the first debate. “I’m glad you raised that, and it’s a — it’s a critical issue. I think it’s not just an economic issue, I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives. And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral.”

Bravo! Principles are long-term in nature. And Romney returned to enduring principles towards the end of his first debate when he said: “The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents.” He discussed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but these principles weren’t deployed through out his first debate as arbiters of policy; and they were totally absent from the second debate.  It was Obama, in the second debate, who said “I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded.” Yet every policy he advocates takes us down the road to socialism. Principles are not slogans. They aren’t boilerplate rhetoric inserted to pay homage to our past. They must be deployed in the present. Each policy must be brought forth and judged in light of the principles. They must be the arbiter of one’s policy decision as one asks is this consistent with our fundamental principles or does this contradict our principles? Neither candidate employed principles in their analysis during the second debate.

If we are talking about the principle of self-reliance we must continually ask “who earn this?” and “who does this rightfully belong?” Instead the candidates only discuss “who gets more?” at the expense of the rich or future taxpayers. A virtuous person cares how they get their wealth. An honorable person aspires to earn it. Even those temporarily down on their luck can and usually maintain their aspirations to be productive members of society. 

A candidate can prove they respect the principle of “self-reliance” if they defend the property rights of every individual who rightfully produced and earned his wealth. Obama contradicts this principle and Romney shies way from it. A candidate can prove they respect the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, when they insure that every individual can freely act to further his life, run his business, spend his earnings, and live according to his deepest spiritual values. Obama believes in paternalistic government as he has increased “regulations” to the point of strangling the economy. It’s not clear what Romney believes anymore in this regard.

The questioners in the Hofstra debate, as those asked by the man in the street, show that people want “more stuff” whether they’ve earned it or not. If Obama was smiling during the second debate, it was because he knows he was in his element. Unless Romney explicitly names and challenges the crass amoral expediency implicit in “give me more free stuff now,” he doesn’t deserve to win. It is only the dying embers of the torch of liberty in the hearts of our fellow citizens that can save us next month. If we win that reprieve, we must revitalize our culture and re-establish the moral foundation on which our nation was built. No matter who wins, the fight doesn’t end on November 6th. It just begins. 

Remembering as others forget

After reading articles on a dozen conservative websites, it appears that only one had something to say about the movement and religion that was the root cause of the attacks on 9/11. Here is the article by Brigitte Gabriel. Back in 2004 I doubted that conservatives could face the nature of a religious enemy. With a few exceptions that has become true.

The left suspended its usual criticism of religion because of the foreign nature of Islam and the multicultural imperative to praise foreign cultures while denigrating our own. For awhile there were exceptions. Four months after the attack, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, in their book, The Age of Sacred Terror, argued that 9/11 terrorist attacks were purely religious:

But neither President’s necessary and useful political speech should obscure the realities of September 11: the motivation for the attack was neither political calculation, strategic advantage, nor wanton bloodlust. It was to humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God; it was to please Him by reasserting His primacy. It was an act of cosmic war. … Only by understanding the religious nature of the attacks of September 11 can we make any sense of their unprecedented scale and their intended effects. 

They clearly repudiated the central thesis of their book when they criticized Sebastian Gorka for the exact same idea saying that “religious doctrine is not their sole or even primary driver.” They were hoping to remain influential in academia and Washington.

The Islamic revivalist movement reached a climax in the creation of the Islamic State. This vivid example of pure Islam in practice was an embarrassment to Islamic apologists everywhere. Even the New York Times couldn’t help but report that ISIS was a salafi creation built on Saudi inspired Wahhabi Islam. Reporters are often the first writers of history. Sadly that history is now lost. History forgotten will be history relived.

Piss off US Government

Disclosure : This blogger is hopping mad and this post is written in a state of fury . Readers beware !
Why is it so difficult for the United States to understand a simple principle – the laws of the United States apply to the geographical boundaries of the country. It does not apply globally. It certainly does not apply to me.
The trigger for this rant is the case between the US government and Microsoft that is now up before the US Supreme Court. The case involves the US government demanding that Microsoft give up emails of foreign citizens stored in its server in Ireland. Microsoft refused. Hence the case. As the case wound up through the layers of the US justice system, two lower courts ruled for the US government. However the Appeals Court in New York ruled with Microsoft. Now its in the Supreme Court.
The US government\’s position is that Microsoft is a US company and therefore its laws apply worldwide – a notion that is seductive, but flawed. We\’ve been there many times before. What is a \”US Company\” ? Is it because it is headquartered in the US ?  If that is the logic, then its easy to beat it. My contract when I use Microsoft services can easily be modified to be with Microsoft India, an Indian company. That will make it outside the US jurisdiction.
Wait a minute, will say the US worthies. Microsoft India is a subsidiary of Microsoft US. So ultimately it is a US company. So, is beneficial ownership the norm ? That\’s easy to refute too. Who are the shareholders of Microsoft US ? Bill Gates holds most of the shares but there are foreign entities as well. Take Citibank. The largest shareholder is the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The second largest holder is Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia. So , Citibank is an Arabian company subject to GCC laws ?
Complicating the matter is the obsolete US constitution. The constitution , which  Americans swear by, is written in prehistoric times. They have a system where the constitution can never be amended. And they have packed the Supreme Court with \”originalists\” (RIP Antonin Scalia), who interpret the words literally. Nobody ever thought of globalisation and the Internet when the US constitution was written. The protection is only under the Fourth Amendment which relates to unreasonable searches and seizures.
The country actually most pissed off by all this is Germany which has strict privacy laws. The German Government has declared that if the US chooses to read every email and access every data, it will simply stop using \”American\” companies altogether.
Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that its a good thing to do. Here is a poser to Americans. Consider a situation where E Bay is acquired by Jack Ma (an entirely plausible scenario). Alibaba is a Chinese company. So if the Chinese government decides to monitor every transaction on E Bay and required Alibaba to hand over all details to it. Would Americans take to that meekly ? 
The right thing for America to do would be to execute treaties with other governments on data sharing and then operate under the framework. Sure, that\’s difficult. But that is the right thing to do.
The US won\’t do that of course. It has never done that. Principles of natural justice apply only when convenient. They poke their ugly noses into every aspect of my life – I am still signing the damned FATCA forms . I can only rant and rave. Hence the title of the post.
This post is being stored on a Google server in the US. Presumably this will be handed over to John F Smith II from Topeka, Kansas (the American equivalent of Ramamritham). I hope he can see my middle finger !
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Fear of Flying

In the normal world of business, companies are supposed to treat their customers with kids gloves. And customers are supposed to be very partial to the brands that they buy. It\’s all supposed to be a love love relationship .

Not so in the airline industry. Customers absolutely loath airlines. The act of flying is considered by most flyers, especially the regular ones, as next only to root canal surgery.  And airlines (mostly) hate their customers. They are little more than cattle, in their eyes. And everybody associated with the act of flying hates everybody else. The security folk are hated by all. Most airports in the world are glorified cattle pens. And yet the industry is booming. The rash of incidents being reported from the US will simply pass over. The hate hate relationship is alive and kicking and will simply continue thriving.

Why is this so ?  Two reasons primarily, in my view

– One, there is no option but to fly.
– Two,  customers care for nothing else but price. All the talk of wanting service is humbug.

We all moan about how seats have become cramped, food has disappeared altogether, everything costs extra , security lines are impossible, etc etc. And yet , if there was a flight that costed $1, but required you to stand on one leg throughout the flight, we\’ll cheerfully take it. And therein lies the problem.

Take India and the case of New Delhi . I had the misfortune of flying from there a couple of days ago and hence this post.

There are two domestic terminals in Delhi. One is swank, large, with lots of space, small security lines and can compare favourably with the best in the world. The three airlines that use this as the base are very good, serve complimentary food, are generally on time and don\’t charge ridiculous extras. The other terminal is a disgrace – crowded worse than a train station, no place to even sit, and  a close approximation of a pig pen. The airlines that are based here charge extra for everything, offer no complimentary food and bus you to the plane worse than a Mumbai local. But this lot are generally cheaper than the other lot by say Rs 500; maybe Rs 1000. Absolutely no prizes for guessing which one the passengers prefer.

We really should stop complaining about how airlines treat us. Until we are prepared to open our wallets a little more.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

The REAL Reasons Why Change Is So Difficult In Education

If you\’re not in the government but are working to bring about change in education in India, you\’re likely to be using one or a mix of the following strategies:
1. Protest against whatever is going wrong
2. Provide data and evidence that things are not working (and occasionally, for what is working)
3. Intervene in policy and decision-making to the extent possible
4. Develop working models and ask the government or others to take them up
5. Actually take over or supplement the delivery function on behalf of the government
(As of now I can\’t locate any other strategy in use – but if you are using another one, do let me know so it can be part of this list.)
Here\’s a quick look at what each of these strategies involve and the kind of impact they seem to be having. (This is only a broad overview and not a nuanced analysis.)

Strategy 1: Protest against whatever is going wrong
From small village committees carrying their demands to block/districts officials, to state-wide forums of NGOs as well as the national RTE forum/s (there seem to be a few of these), various pressure groups have exerted themselves to protest against much that is not being done by the government.


The general notion seems to be that if you criticize the system or are able to make a serious protest – the system will somehow listen and start improving. As of now, there is no evidence that it really does. (It\’s very good in showing that it does, though! Look at all the advertisements issued by state governments where they list their achievements, including in education.) 
Results: Unsure impact. Getting a decent hearing is not easy, and even where there is a hearing, there is no guarantee that there will be an impact.

Strategy 2: Provide data and evidence that things are not working (and occasionally, for what is working)
The assumption is that if the system and decision-makers realize how wrong things are, or evidence is provided on what works and what doesn\’t, there will be appropriate changes and things will improve. Or that investment will be made on what is known to work. Partly based on this, a large number of think tanks have emerged (mainly comprising of western educated professionals) and produce a number of evidence-based documents every year. INGOs, donors and now VCs/similar funding agencies also take this view and back such efforts. The expansion of CSR and corporate supported initiatives all bring in this emphasis on \’in data we trust\’.
Unfortunately, there is not enough data to show that our education system ever pays serious attention to data on student learning, or classroom processes – and makes a difference accordingly. (That it should is another matter – the fact is that it doesn\’t.) Though a huge amount of data is collected, and the system itself does a great deal of the collecting, its impact on actual functioning is extremely limited. (For instance, which curricula or textbooks in any state have been influenced by such evidence-based approaches? Or by the NCERT\’s own data from country-wide surveys of learning levels, or even by ASER?) Where the data is used to some extent – as in the case of DISE – its actual reliability is in question. Attendance data, for example, is routinely manipulated to ensure that others can also get to \’eat\’.  
The system has a way of being blind to facts right before its nose. For instance, with a PTR norm of 30:1, in the foreseeable future (i.e. next 30 years), the \’typical\’ school in India will be the small school multi-grade (with 90-100 children in 5 classes, with 2-3 teachers) – implying that a majority of teachers will be teaching in multi-grade situations. Yet all curricula and training presently assume a mono-grade situation and believe that multi-grade will only be an exception. 
Result: Data flows off the system, usually like water off a duck\’s back. \”That\’s not how decisions are made\” – is a commonly heard statement in government offices, which indicates that there are other reasons why things are done the way they are done!


For those NGOs, donors, VCs and others hoping that \’evidence-based\’ and \’data-driven\’ strategies can actually persuade the system to bring about changes, especially those that make a real difference to the lives of the marginalized and the disempowered, there is a serious need to re-examine this strategy.
Strategy 3: Intervene in policy and decision-making to the extent possible
If you\’ve worked hard to reach a position where you can impact policy or decision-making, this is the strategy you would use. The late Vinod Raina is a good example of this, being part of CABE and involved in drafting of the RTE. Not everyone can achieve the status of being an \’eminent\’ invitee to important bodies and hence this is an option only a very few can access. (And even if invited, having an actual say is very difficult – in typical \’high-power\’ meetings, participants speak turn by turn, and the Chairman then winds up the meeting!) Most people/organizations trying this route reach only the point where they are part of certain committees or perhaps even the various groups related to the Planning Commission, such as the Steering Committee, etc.
Results: As the fate of some of the crucial RTE provisions shows, the more things change, the more they remain the same! I know this is not exactly true – sometimes, some of the things improve. And sometimes they worsen, as the total mis-communication on CCE indicates. Policies, decisions, projects and programmes all run the risk of being hijacked by mediocre implementation, corruption and deliberate diversion to benefit certain groups. Overall, this strategy definitely gives less than optimal results in today\’s context (everybody cannot be a Vinod Raina!). The primary reason is that it is governance itself which is the key issue, which often fails to get addressed here.

Strategy 4: Develop working models and ask the government or others to take them up
Eklavya, Digantar, Bodh, Srujanika and hundreds of other organizations and projects have implemented pilot projects, started schools, even initiated small interventions within the government system — with a view to generate models that will hopefully be \’replicated\’ or scaled up within the government set up. In fact, government programmes such as DPEP and SSA also incorporate an \’innovation\’ budget head that enables the setting up of such models that might eventually be expanded to the larger system.
Results: The history of upscaling shows that powerful models often lead to 
•   conflict (as was the case with the Hoshangabad Science Teacher Programme in MP, or the DPEP pedagogy upscaling in Kerala), or to 
•   a major reduction in quality of the original (as in ABL in TN, where only 22% children reached age-appropriate learning levels, as shown in a state-wide study facilitated by me when the programme was at its peak; or in the case of KGBV models that initially started well when run by NGOs)
The rest of the efforts don\’t really reach scalability, or if they do, they somehow fizzle out without leaving much impact. (Take Digantar\’s schools in Jaipur, Srujanika\’s effort in Odisha or the \’Active Schools\’ of Latur, Maharashtra, or the \’Kunjapuri\’ model in HP or indeed the various \’Model Schools\’ set up by the government itself in many states. This is really an endless list.)

Strategy 5: Actually take over the delivery function on behalf of the government

Several organizations are actually working on the ground with the government to improve the service delivery. They could be corporate houses who are taking over the management of schools (as is the case with the Bharti foundation running hundreds of schools for the Government of Haryana) to Azim Premji Foundation, which is creating its own channels (district schools up to the Education University). [As of now, I\’m keeping vendors – such as those IT companies implementing Computer Aided Learning on a Build-Own-Transfer model – out of this discussion, as they see themselves more as \’solution-providers\’ rather than change facilitators.]
Results: The jury is still out on the kind of strategy being implemented by the two organizations mentioned above. However, large-scale efforts of the kind where a group/programme actually took over the government\’s functions — such as Lok Jumbish (funded by SIDA initially) or Shiksha Karmi, or APPEP in AP (funded by the then ODA of UK), or Janshala (run by five UN agencies) in some 20+ districts in the country, or the Child-Friendly Schools project of Unicef in many parts of the country — all generated a great deal of energy in their time and people talk of them with much fondness even now, but those areas still struggle with quality of learning in government schools. 
Even in the NGO sector, many programmes / projects that appeared to have achieved a great deal, now do not show the expected dramatic improvement still surviving on the ground. Take the case of all the areas where Pratham ran its Read India project. If Pratham has stopped working in an area over three years ago, the levels of reading in that area are now likely to be of concern (even if they had improved earlier), and are a part of the \’declining levels of learning\’ being documented in ASER.
In the early days of DPEP, when it was seen as \’different\’ from government, states such as Haryana, Assam, Karnataka, UP made radically different textbooks and training (taking over the functions of the SCERTs and DIETs), actually implementing high-energy, high-quality training over 2-3 years across the state. Yet today many of these states are at the forefront of the quality crisis.
Bottom-line: you can bring about change as long as you are there, but things go back to what they used to be once you\’re not there!
So what is it that makes change in education so difficult? 
Perhaps we need to face up to what really lies behind things being bad in the first place. We tend to assume that there\’s an inability to make things better. But what if it has more to do with the ability to keep things as they are? This might a little more deliberate than the systemic \’inertia\’ we\’re used to talking about (though not necessarily as a conscious conspiracy). To begin \’appreciating\’ this, take a look who loses what if education, especially in the government system, actually improves.  
•   TEACHERS will find their income from private coaching reduced/lost altogether (this is starkly clear in secondary education, which is one reason why improving classroom processes in secondary schools is very difficult). 
•   PRINCIPALS and OFFICIALS will not have control over teachers/SMCs who teach well and have community support. (Wherever quality improvement efforts have succeeded, conflicts of this kind have increased. Eventually, the more powerful section \’wins\’. Several state governments – or rather the education ministers – have had VECs or SMCs reconstituted since they didn\’t find them \’convenient\’; another example: look at how the provision for SMCs to select books for their school libraries is being subverted through various means.)
•   OFFICIALS will also find academically strong teachers/HMs/SMCs and even students do not easily \’comply\’ – corruption will be difficult to practice. (When more teachers start teaching well, school inspectors always end up making less money. When anyone \’lower\’ in the hierarchy is empowered, those \’above\’ have a problem. And as everyone knows, whenever students ask questions, they\’re told: \’shut up and don\’t act over-smart!\’)
•   POLICY-MAKERS will have to create a whole lot of new jobs for the large numbers of the newly educated. (This is clearly not an easy thing to do – and one way to deal with this is to keep people in education for longer, as appears to be the case behind the recent shift to a FOUR YEAR graduation programme in Delhi University, despite various other claims being made for it.)
•   The POLITY will have to face voters who can think and ask questions of them. (In 2000, one political leader actually stopped a state curriculum from being implemented on the grounds that \’if this is what children learn, who will ever vote for us?\’)
•   Since the majority of people are in some way of the other \’under\’ someone, the questioning of authority will mean that all kinds of HIERARCHIES will be under threat if education really improves – age, seniority, caste, class, gender, ethnicity, religion! (When young girls refuse to get married, or children ask for reasons behind what they\’re being told to do, or groups raise voice against discrimination – you can be sure that someone powerful has a problem, and usually manages to find a \’solution\’. From rising wages for domestic labour to resenting the \’lower\’ classes accessing \’higher\’ levels of goods – such as mobile phones – the middle class too is not comfortable with the spread of education.)
All of which is sufficient to ensure the quality of education will not improve, isn\’t it? Sure, buildings will be built, as will handpumps and toilets, books will be printed and teachers appointed – since these are opportunities for \’side\’ income and asserting control over resources and people, or appearing to hand out largesse and thus earning \’gratitude\’. However, the actual change in the nature of teaching learning processes, a shift in the kind of relationships practiced, and the levels of learning outcomes attained, especially for the marginalized – does not take place at the same pace at which the provisioning grows. In fact, it is much, much slower, if not actually negative at times.
The \”system\’s\” strategies
And how is this ensured? Why does increased provisioning not lead to desired change? As anyone familiar with implementation at the field level will know, a number of powerful strategies are used to to ensure that the \’others\’ don\’t get what \’we\’ have today.  
•   neglect (take the case of DIETs, which continue to be ignored even after the new Teacher Education Scheme; or the case of hard to reach groups such as street children, working children, migrant groups, or those with disability; or how the north-east itself is missing from our history books; or how the knowledge of women is not reflected in the curriculum)
•   selective poor performance (the same government machinery that can do a fairly good job in conducting elections somehow fails at ordinary execution in education; an analysis of which files take the longest to move as against their expected time, will provide a good insight into this)
•   siphoning off inputs meant for the needy (from mid-day meals that kill children, buildings that need to be abandoned within ten years due to poor construction, textbooks on poor paper – name an input and you\’ll find that what reaches children is well below what should; this includes the teacher\’s time, which is the minimum the state should be able to guarantee, but is not able to due to the absenteeism that is allowed)
•   wasting time in doing things that appear to be important but are not (such as organizing \’functions\’ or \’attending\’ to a visiting officer or collecting data on a whole range of issues, which in turn is not used much either), 
•   rewarding the mediocre (as is common, officers \’attach\’ certain teachers for their administrative chores, thus relieving them from teaching; and of course everyone knows that the way \’up\’ the system hierarchy is not mainly through good work…)
•   demonizing and harassing the committed (anyone who works sincerely is usually called \’mad\’ by others; those who stand up for children and community are often hounded, as can be seen by the number of allegations that they face)
•   creating designs that ensure perpetuation of marginalization (e.g. expecting children to attend school every single day no matter how poor, deprived or ill they are; or using only \’state\’ language instead of mother-tongue) – and many other such \’devices\’. 

Supplementing all this is, of course, the common strategy of deliberate discrimination in the actual teaching learning process, something far too well-known for it to be elaborated upon…

In many ways, such strategies are used in the larger community and society as well, to ensure that that those who have been put in their place, remain in that place. As I was recently reminded by a Facebook comment, ‘If everyone gets educated who will till the fields and who will pick up your trash?’ As anyone above the age of 20 will recall, when mobile phones became cheap, many of the then chatterati were dismayed that ‘even plumbers, vegetable sellers and maids now have mobile phones’. And as can be seen in the middle class response to the admission of children from economically weaker sections in private schools under the RTE (‘they will spoil our children’s education’) – the word ‘system’ should perhaps include the larger society and its network of exploitative relationships in which everyone is complicit.

Thinking ahead
You already know all this very well, of course, and in repeating it here the intention is not to imply that nothing can be done or to mount a raving critique of how bad things are. Instead, in the interest of children, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, this is an appeal to recognize that the \’system\’ has far more powerful strategies than those seeking to do \’good\’ are able to put into practice – and the results are visible everywhere.
Should we stop using the five strategies mentioned earlier? No, but it would be better to take a longer, deeper view than we tend to take at present. Perhaps we need to stop underestimating the difficulty of the task and take into account that it is not the system\’s incompetence at making things better but its competence in keeping things the way they are that needs to be addressed.
What this calls for is a better understanding of the situation, of our own unwitting involvement in perpetuating it – and far, far smarter strategies.  

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Passing out parade to be held at Indian naval academy on 30 November 2019

  1.  Indian Naval Academy (INA), Ezhimala will hold its Passing out Parade (POP) for Autumn Term 2019 on Saturday, 30 November 2019.  Trainees comprising Midshipmen and Cadets of 97th Indian Naval Academy Course (B.Tech), 97th  Indian Naval Academy Course (M.Sc), 28th  Naval Orientation Course (Extended), 29th  Naval Orientation Course (Regular) and 29th  Naval Orientation Course (Coast Guard), will pass out as Officers on successful completion of their training. Six trainees of various friendly foreign nations will also pass out this term.

 

2.      Admiral Karambir Singh, PVSM, AVSM, ADC, Chief of the Naval Staff will be the Reviewing Officer for the event. The parade will be witnessed by parents and guardians of the passing out trainees as well as a large number of outstation dignitaries.

 

3.      Trainees of Indian Naval Academy’s four years B.Tech degree course will be awarded their degrees during the convocation ceremony by Dr. TG Sitharam, Director IIT Guwahati, on 29 November 2019. The passing out courses will be administered the Oath of Allegiance by             Rear Admiral Tarun Sobti,  Deputy Commandant and Chief Instructor,  INA. To commemorate the sacrifices of the brave soldiers of the country, a Wreath Laying Ceremony is also planned at the War Memorial “Prerna Sthal” of INA. A spectacular outdoor training demonstration by the trainees and INA band shall also add to the grandeur of the events conducted during this period.

 

4.      The President’s Colour awarded to INA on 20 November 2019 will be paraded for the first time during the Passing Out Parade for Autumn 2019.

******

CCI approves acquisition by Amazon.com in Future Coupons

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves the acquisition by Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC (“Acquirer”) in Future Coupons (Private) Limited (“FCL/Target”), under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, today.

The proposed combination pertains to the acquisition by the Acquirer of approximately 49% of the voting and non-voting equity shares of the Target (“Proposed Combination”). The Proposed Combination consists of certain other constituent steps involving FCL, Future Corporate Resources Private Limited (“FCRPL”), and Future Retail Limited (“FRL”).

 

The Acquirer is globally engaged in the business of making investments in other companies. It is a direct subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. (“ACI”) and belongs to the Amazon group. ACI is the ultimate parent entity of the Amazon group.

 

FCRPL is engaged in business of management consultancy services and trading in goods and services and also has investments in various Future Group of companies. FCL is principally engaged in marketing and distribution of corporate gift cards, loyalty cards and reward cards to corporate customers. FRL (and its subsidiaries) are active in the Indian retail market and currently operate multiple retail formats in hypermarkets, supermarkets and convenience stores under various brand names.

 

A detailed order of the CCI will follow.

 

****

CCI approves acquisition by Mitsubishi-Hitachi Metals Machinery, Inc. in Primetals Technologies

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves the acquisition by Mitsubishi-Hitachi Metals Machinery, Inc. (“MHMM/Acquirer”) in Primetals Technologies (“PT/Target”), under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, today.

The proposed transaction entails the acquisition of remaining 49% of the total shareholding in PT by MHI (through MHMM) from Siemens AG (“Proposed Combination”). Accordingly, MHI will own 100% of the registered share capital of PT and PT would be solely owned and controlled by MHI (as opposed to the existing joint control exercised by both MHI and Siemens AG).

 

MHMM is a holding company within the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Limited (“MHI”) and is not engaged in any business activity. PT is a joint venture currently controlled by MHI (through MHMM) and Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (“Siemens AG”). MHI holds 51% of the total shareholding in PT through its solely controlled subsidiary MHMM, and Siemens AG holds the remaining 49% of the total shareholding in PT.

 

MHI is engaged in the business of shipbuilding and ocean development, power systems, nuclear energy systems, compressors and compressor trains, turbines, industrial machinery, automotive, engineering, infrastructure and others. In India, MHI provides various products and services, including sales and services of thermal power generation products, logistics handling equipment and technologies; project management services; industrial machinery; manufacturing, sales, and servicing of diesel engines; environmental machinery; air-conditioning systems; and after sales services for its products.

 

PT designs and constructs plants for its customers in the metallurgical industry, while offering significant project management expertise to determine the technologies packages best suited for each customer.

 

A detailed order of the CCI will follow.

 

****

Proposal of ISRO to transfer space-grade Li-Ion cell technology to BHEL

ISRO has transferred its indigenous technology to produce space-grade Li-Ion cells to BHEL.

In March 2018, BHEL signed the Technology Transfer Agreement with ISRO for acquiring the Li-Ion Cell production technology.  This production facility is primarily targeting to meet Li-Ion Cell requirements for ISRO and other strategic sectors.  However, BHEL can also produce and sell Li-Ion cells for meeting other national/commercial applications by suitably modifying the space-grade cell which can lead to cost reduction.

BHEL is in the process of establishing the Li-Ion production facility near Bangalore in Karnataka.  Various equipments (both indigenous and imported) for establishing this facility are procured and being commissioned.  ISRO has already provided all technical documentation for establishing the production plant as well as hands-on training in various production activities for BHEL staff at ISRO’s facilities.

As per the Technology Transfer Agreement, space-grade Li-Ion cells manufactured by BHEL are meant for meeting the national requirements only.  However, BHEL can also sell the space-grade Li-Ion cells to parties outside India after obtaining prior written consent from ISRO.

This information was provided by the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) Development of North-Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, Dr Jitendra Singh in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha today.

 

****

 

Urgent need to end gender discrimination’ – Vice President

The Vice President of India, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu today called for ending the gender discrimination and ensuring safety security, and dignity of the women.

Speaking at the Silver Jubilee Celebrations of Indian Women Press Corps,  he said that it was the collective responsibility of the governments, media and civil society to ensure that women were made equal partners in the developmental process of the nation.

Referring to various reports on the Gender and pay gaps in the media sector, the Vice President called for collective efforts of news organizations, associations such as Press Council of India, IWPC and the National Broadcasters Association to work together and find out a way to address disparities based on gender within the journalistic profession.

Stating that the menace of fake or doctored stories that find a way to masses via news, internet, and messaging services have often led to chaos, confusion, and panic, Shri Naidu stressed that media has the onerous responsibility to not only provide accurate information but also educate the people on their rights and responsibilities as well.

The Vice President urged the media not color news with views and stressed the need to maintain objectivity, fairness, and accuracy in decimating information to the reader and viewer without assuming the role of the gatekeepers.

He called for collective efforts of the Press Council of India, NBA to establish a mechanism to curb the menace of fake news, propaganda and paid news.

Describing journalists as catalysts for change and media as an instrument to bring in a positive change in society, the Vice President asserted that Media professionals must strengthen democracy through their observations, suggestions, and writings.

The Vice President asked the regional and vernacular Media organizations to promote Indian languages, culture, and traditions of different states and regions through special programs along with the news. He stressed that media must lay special emphasis on matters relating to farmers, women, youth, entrepreneurs and rural India.

On the occasion, Shri Naidu also released Indian Women’s Press Corps Souvenir.

Smt. Jyoti Malhotra, President Indian Women’s Press Corps, Ms. Vinita Pandey, General Secretary Indian Women’s Press Corps and eminent journalists from several organizations were present at the event.

Following is the full text of the speech –

“Namaskar,

Let me first begin by congratulating the Indian Women’s Press

Corps (IWPC), a reputed association of women journalists on completing 25 successful years. It was set up in 1994 to support women journalists in their professional work, in enhancing their knowledge and skills and to provide a forum for networking.

I am glad that the organization has been playing a key role in creating a conducive working environment for women journalists and also working towards safeguarding their rights. This non-profit, nonpartisan, progressive, professional organization has been focusing on creating a positive change for women journalists.

With reporters, editors, producers, anchors, and cameraperson from across the print, TV and new media as its members, the organization has become an important institution and has been organizing press meets and interactions with eminent personalities from various fields.

It is commendable that women have come forward in such large numbers to join this noble profession to play their rightful role as the fourth pillar of the state.

I was informed that IWPC has been providing essential infrastructure support to women journalists by supporting them in performing their duties both on the field and at the desk.

The press and the media played a pioneering and stellar role in inspiring the masses to fight against the British during the freedom struggle and in strengthening the democratic foundations in the country since Independence.

Journalism provides citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.

The purpose of journalism is to give people the information they need to make better decisions. In other words, journalism is supposed to empower.

The media has the onerous responsibility to not only provide accurate information but also educate the people on their rights and responsibilities as well.

As we all are aware, the media landscape has transformed dramatically over the years and so have the values and ethics of journalism.

Professions such as Politics, Medicine, and journalism were considered as a mission and those who were in the job used to commit to ethics. Unfortunately, there is a decline in such commitment due to various factors including business and politics. Unfortunately, stories or reports are being mixed with views according to the management’s line of thinking.

Adding to this is the menace of fake or doctored stories that find a way to masses via news, internet, and messaging services. Such instances have often led to chaos, confusion, and panic.

I have been urging the media not color news with views and have been stressing the need to maintain objectivity, fairness, and accuracy.

The cardinal principle of journalism is to present fair, objective, accurate and balanced information to the reader and viewer without journalists assuming the role of the gatekeepers.

I am glad that many journalists follow these principles ensuring that Indian media is by and large credible.

Journalists are catalysts for change and media acts as an instrument to bring in a positive change in society. Media professionals are the watchdogs of society and strengthen democracy through their observations, suggestions, and writings.

It is unfortunate that we still come across instances of harassment of women, gender discrimination and domestic violence.  The glass ceiling limited women’s opportunities for growth is, unfortunately, still a reality in contemporary society.

According to the Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP), as per the latest data of 2015, globally, women as news reporters were most present on radio at 41% and least in print news at 35%. (TV and Internet constituted the remaining 24%).

The report said that the global share of women reporters dropped on radio and television by four percentage points in both mediums between 2010 and 2015.

The report pointed out that between 1995 and 2015, the percentage of women media professionals rose from 17% in (Newspaper, Television, Radio) to 24%, which is a 7% rise. Men still dominate the industry with 76%.

Findings of another study, “Inside the News: Challenges and Aspirations of Women Journalists in Asia and the Pacific”, launched by UNESCO, and the UN Women and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) suggested that the presence of women in media has more than doubled in two decades but they constitute only 28.6 percent of the media workforce in Asia and the Pacific and men outnumber women in 4:1 ratio in India.

It pointed out that “on average across Asia and the Pacific, women make up 28.6 percent of the media workforce. The proportions are lower in decision-making roles in media organizations where women make up 17.9 percent of executive roles, 19.5 percent of senior editorial and 22.6 percent of mid-level editorial positions.”

Another recent report released by UN Women, female journalists in India “continue to be denied their fair share” at major media organizations in India. The report, “Gender Inequality in Indian Media”, pointed out that women were better represented online than in newspapers and TV.

Keeping these things in mind, collective efforts must be made by the managers of News organizations, Associations such as yours and the Press Council of India and the NBA must work together and find out a way to address disparities based on gender within the profession.

A systematic, structured approach must be put in place by the media and the government to address all the crucial matters relating to women’s safety, security, and dignity. There is an urgent need to end gender discrimination and neglect of women.

I am happy to know that the organization has been organizing regular workshops, and training sessions for its members to achieve its important goal of advancing the impact of women in the media by being a resource to members and the industry.

As you all are aware, women’s participation is extremely crucial to ensure the overall development of the nation. It is the responsibility of the governments, institutions, media and civil society to see that women are made equal partners in the developmental process of the nation.

The media must highlight the success stories of women achievers to inspire others.

As we celebrate the 25 years journey of IWPC, we must strive to set higher benchmarks and achieve excellence in the field of media.

I would like all of you to inform and educate people with well documented, research-based reports based on facts. Fearless adherence to truth should be your creed.

The rise of social media has increased competition among entities, organizations. It is important our newsrooms and professionals are trained and sensitized on flashing news and updates by exercising greater caution.

Collective efforts need to arrest sensationalism, end biased coverage and paid news. Entire Media, as a responsible institution, must contribute to strengthening democratic foundations of the country.

Here, the Press Council and Media Organizations including yours should take lead in training professionals to be more responsible in disseminating information.

You must empower the audience or readers to make informed choices.

I urge the media, especially regional and vernacular Media organizations to promote Indian languages, culture, and traditions of different states and regions through special programs along with the news.

In the end, I urge the media to focus on rural India. We must lay special emphasis on matters relating to farmers, women, youth, entrepreneurs.

I am happy to learn that IWPC has been providing important professional resources to women journalists like library, computers and enabling its members to meet newsmakers from all walks of life on a regular basis.

I am sure such support helps all the journalists, especially the young journalists to learn from their seniors during their interactions and upgrade their professional skills.

I once again convey my wishes to the Indian Women’s Press Corps (IWPC) and all its members on their contribution to the profession and the nation.

Jai Hind!”

*****

President of India Inaugurates the New Hospital Block of Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama Charitable Hospital in Vrindavan

The President of India, Shri Ram Nath Kovind, inaugurated the new hospital block of Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama Charitable Hospital in Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh today (November 28, 2019).

Speaking on the occasion, the President noted that during the past one year around 5.5 lakh patients have received treatment in the Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama Charitable Hospital, Vrindavan. Many new facilities have been started in this hospital including cancer ward and cancer operation theatre, women’s surgical ward and neonatal intensive care unit. He expressed confidence that patients will get better care through these services.

***