Saturday, October 24, 2009
Reconstructive surgery for LAPs
Due to intensive leprosy elimination programme, rate of leprosy is now less than one per thousand people. India still has a long way to go in rehabilitating those already affected. The Government of India introduced reconstructive surgery in 2008.
By Mohd. Reyaz and Karishma Karki for AJK MCRC
Thursday, October 1, 2009
India Social Media Study 2009
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
India Social Media Study 2009
View more documents from Preeti Anand.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
EID Mubarak
The moon has been sighted. As far as my memory goes, this year the announcement for EID on 29th day was very smoothly, and very early. For the first time, it seems all places and all communities will celebrate Eid on same day in India on 21 September.
Happy EID to alllll!!!!!
Happy EID to alllll!!!!!
On encounter anniversary: doubts and gloom
September 19 brought back gloom in the minds of residents of the Batla House locality in Delhi. One year has passed since the infamous Delhi encounter that was conducted days after serial blasts in the capital.
Jamia Teachers Solidarity Group, a lose association of teachers of the University formed in the backdrop of the last year encounter, brought a mashal march (torchlight rally) on the eve of the encounter anniversary along with other students organizations. Academicians, students and several civil right activists participated in the march. Newly elected MLA of the Okhla Assembly Aisf Mohammad Khan, who was also present, said that he has been raising the issue of independent enquiry and will continue to do so on all platforms.
The demand for independent judicial enquiry again reverberated and many compared it to the Ishrat Jahan case of Gujarat, where judicial probe has now questioned the role of the police involved in the 2004 encounter.
Other than the march organized by Jamia teachers, the locality at large seemed to have put the issue aside and move ahead though suspicion against police still looms high The market in the Batla House is gushing with crowd and locals are busy shopping for Eid. In the last Assembly elections the issue of encounter was high on the agenda. But in the last week concluded by election, it was not as prominent.
Meanwhile, several other groups, including main Opposition BJP, has put up posters of “Martyr” Mohan Chand Sharma, the Police officer who lost his life in the operation, at several places in the city glorifying the ‘fight against terrorism’ and his ‘sacrifice’.
There is no real progress in the case yet. Those who have been arrested in connection are still languishing in several jails. A report by National Human Right Commission (NHRC) has already given a clean chit to the operation and remarked that ‘there is no need of further enquiry’. The Delhi High Court has accordingly denied any further enquiry in the matter. Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD), a NGO led Shabnam Hashmi, has filed a petition in the Apex Court against HC order requesting for judicial enquiry.
“People raise questions because they have doubts. If the government and the police has nothing to hide, why are they shying away from enquiry”, asks Afroz Alam Sahil who sought information’s under Right to Information (RTI) Act from several bodies including Delhi Police, NHRC and the hospital where postmortem of the deceased were conducted. He has been “denied” information in a “clear mockery of the RTI”, he adds.
Protest march was also organized in Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh, the alleged ‘hub’ of terrorism. Atif and Sajid, killed in the conspirators killed in the operation, were also from the same place. Magsay award winner Sandeep Pandey, who too reiterated the demand for an enquiry, led the protest.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Social and political and choices based on religion and ethnicity?
The idealist in me says that the race and religion one is born in is not in his control. Moreover, faith is personal and one must not judge a person based on his faith and ideology. But the bitter truth of life is that a child, in most cases, is born with many identities and no matter what he thinks or does, it becomes very difficult for him to come out of that closet. You are born as Bihari/Mallu/Bong, and as Hindu/Muslim/Jew, and as Chinki/ Parsee/Pashtun/Baluch/Kashmiri (apologies for some unparliamentary terms). You may stop speaking a language, settle in an alien country, but your identities remain with you.
The situation in most cases is not very simple as more often than seldom one has several loyalties. Thus a Kashmiri can be Muslim or Pandit. Muslims in Pakistan (and many other countries) can be Shia or Sunni. They can again be Punjabi, the dominating class in that country, or Baluch minority. Thus not one but many characteristics define us. Which one loyalty is dominant, taking over others again depend on a variety of factors- situations on the ground, causes and aims. ‘Religion was effectively manipulated as a cultural marker and mobilized as a standard for ethnic exclusion of other groups with little regard to the fragile multi-ethnic tapestry’. (Alexander Mirescu of New York University).
Even in India’s struggle for freedom, scholars played on religious sentiments urging them towards extreme nationalism. Thus while Bankim Chandra Chatterjee hailed his countrymen to stand up against ‘demons’ to save Mother India, many Muslim scholars went to the extent of declaring Jihad for the cause. The ethnic cleansing by Nazis that led to Holocaust was also an extreme for of ethnic nationalism.
Ethnicity, religion, ideologies bind one into a ‘social group’ and inculcates ‘we’ feeling. It’s what Durkheim would call “collective conscience” or Marx’s “class consciousness”.
So rooted, the notion addresses the “we ness” of a group, stressing the similarities or shared attributes around which group members coalesce. People on street may deny all such studies and believe in what Mary Waters (American sociologist) calls individual’s willingness to remain closed in an identity or move out of it.
Our politicians understand the meaning of “we” factor and they exploit it to the best of their greed. Thus for years politics in north India has been dominated by Mandal and Kamandal.
I won’t pass value judgment and declare one as ‘backward thinking’ (that I am sure many in hush hush do) whose political and social identity is moulded by his ethnic, religious or cultural identity. This is something that I might not like to be, but sadly that’s how it is. And that’s how I am.
The situation in most cases is not very simple as more often than seldom one has several loyalties. Thus a Kashmiri can be Muslim or Pandit. Muslims in Pakistan (and many other countries) can be Shia or Sunni. They can again be Punjabi, the dominating class in that country, or Baluch minority. Thus not one but many characteristics define us. Which one loyalty is dominant, taking over others again depend on a variety of factors- situations on the ground, causes and aims. ‘Religion was effectively manipulated as a cultural marker and mobilized as a standard for ethnic exclusion of other groups with little regard to the fragile multi-ethnic tapestry’. (Alexander Mirescu of New York University).
Even in India’s struggle for freedom, scholars played on religious sentiments urging them towards extreme nationalism. Thus while Bankim Chandra Chatterjee hailed his countrymen to stand up against ‘demons’ to save Mother India, many Muslim scholars went to the extent of declaring Jihad for the cause. The ethnic cleansing by Nazis that led to Holocaust was also an extreme for of ethnic nationalism.
Ethnicity, religion, ideologies bind one into a ‘social group’ and inculcates ‘we’ feeling. It’s what Durkheim would call “collective conscience” or Marx’s “class consciousness”.
So rooted, the notion addresses the “we ness” of a group, stressing the similarities or shared attributes around which group members coalesce. People on street may deny all such studies and believe in what Mary Waters (American sociologist) calls individual’s willingness to remain closed in an identity or move out of it.
Our politicians understand the meaning of “we” factor and they exploit it to the best of their greed. Thus for years politics in north India has been dominated by Mandal and Kamandal.
I won’t pass value judgment and declare one as ‘backward thinking’ (that I am sure many in hush hush do) whose political and social identity is moulded by his ethnic, religious or cultural identity. This is something that I might not like to be, but sadly that’s how it is. And that’s how I am.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Think before thou speak you holy masters
Do you know who this couple is??? Well they are, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and his wife Princess Amira al-Tawee on their recent visit to Bulgaria. (Picture courtesy: Reuters)
Nothing wrong with the picture! But if mullahs or Islamic scholars (pardon me for the disrespect) did not know that are from teh royal family, they are sure to issue fatwas. Prince, without beared but moustache and no veil for the beautiful princess.
I am not against veil or keeping beared. But I only beleive that these are personal choices and one may be groomed into it, but should never be forced into it.
My problem is only with those religious leaders, who would give fatwa when it suits them.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Obama to Netanyahu – Only rhetoric
Much was being talked and written about the 'historic' speeches of the two leaders. Both failed to live up to their expectations
Mohammad Reyaz Hardnews Delhi
The world and Muslims in particular, were expecting to hear of some policy change on American relations to the Muslim world when US President Barack Hussein Obama delivered his 'historic' speech at Cairo. His intentions appear to be good, clearly much ahead of his predecessors. But, he doesn't seem to have pleased even 'liberals' very much, except maybe close US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Keeping his audience in mind, Obama quoted from the Quran on more than three occasions and gave references to the 'good times' when Muslims and Christians lived together peacefully. He recognised the mistrust that exists in both camps and seemed resolved to draw up a sustaining armistice between the West and the Muslim world.
He did not directly condemn the US attack on Iraq, but spoke of the indifference, unlike the attack on Afghanistan where his country and the world were united against State-sponsored terrorism. He believed though that the world and "Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein". But, he smartly seemed to gloss over the fact that there have been thousands of civilian casualties and deaths of innocents still continue in Iraq. He, however, remembered that those expeditions were at the cost of able US "soldiers".
His condemnation of western 'liberal' governments, who prohibit Muslim men and women from wearing clothes of their choice and practise religion freely, in the name of equality and freedom, is commendable. He promised to make necessary amendments in the US law to allow American Muslims to donate in charity (zakat) freely.
The high point of the speech was Obama's resolve to solve the Middle East crisis by making Israel and Palestine coexist amicably. He declared, "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements... And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society."
After Obama's June 4 speech and continuous pressure on the Israeli government, peace brokers in the region were expecting some change in Israel's policy against Palestine. Israel seemed to have softened its stance as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu began his foreign policy address at Bar Ilan University on June 14, 2009. "Peace has always been our objective," he said. He declared that he was willing to talk to Arab leaders and was ready to go to "Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut - to meet anytime and anywhere".
But he put forth three preconditions - "recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a demilitarised Palestinian State" and an undivided Jerusalem to remain with Israel.
Although Israel seems to have flinched a bit, no one actually seemed very pleased with the much-anticipated speech. Netanyahu is being chided from both sides of the political spectrum. Almost entire Europe has said that it is just one small step forward and a lot more needs to be done. Not only are Israeli opposition parties criticising him, his ally, Habayit Hayehudi Party, told the media that it would "reconsider its future" in the coalition. The Palestinian Authority (PA), on the other hand, is aghast at the "prerequisites".
A spokesperson of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas told the media: "Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions." Although all praise for the American efforts, PA is accusing Netanyahu of "sabotaging" the peace process.
Much is being talked and written about the two 'historic' speeches, both of which were given at universities. But they have failed to live up to expectations, at least as of now. Efforts by Obama's government is appreciable though. It's almost like a Shakespearean 'much ado about nothing', or just a few things.
Mohammad Reyaz Hardnews Delhi
The world and Muslims in particular, were expecting to hear of some policy change on American relations to the Muslim world when US President Barack Hussein Obama delivered his 'historic' speech at Cairo. His intentions appear to be good, clearly much ahead of his predecessors. But, he doesn't seem to have pleased even 'liberals' very much, except maybe close US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Keeping his audience in mind, Obama quoted from the Quran on more than three occasions and gave references to the 'good times' when Muslims and Christians lived together peacefully. He recognised the mistrust that exists in both camps and seemed resolved to draw up a sustaining armistice between the West and the Muslim world.
He did not directly condemn the US attack on Iraq, but spoke of the indifference, unlike the attack on Afghanistan where his country and the world were united against State-sponsored terrorism. He believed though that the world and "Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein". But, he smartly seemed to gloss over the fact that there have been thousands of civilian casualties and deaths of innocents still continue in Iraq. He, however, remembered that those expeditions were at the cost of able US "soldiers".
His condemnation of western 'liberal' governments, who prohibit Muslim men and women from wearing clothes of their choice and practise religion freely, in the name of equality and freedom, is commendable. He promised to make necessary amendments in the US law to allow American Muslims to donate in charity (zakat) freely.
The high point of the speech was Obama's resolve to solve the Middle East crisis by making Israel and Palestine coexist amicably. He declared, "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements... And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society."
After Obama's June 4 speech and continuous pressure on the Israeli government, peace brokers in the region were expecting some change in Israel's policy against Palestine. Israel seemed to have softened its stance as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu began his foreign policy address at Bar Ilan University on June 14, 2009. "Peace has always been our objective," he said. He declared that he was willing to talk to Arab leaders and was ready to go to "Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut - to meet anytime and anywhere".
But he put forth three preconditions - "recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a demilitarised Palestinian State" and an undivided Jerusalem to remain with Israel.
Although Israel seems to have flinched a bit, no one actually seemed very pleased with the much-anticipated speech. Netanyahu is being chided from both sides of the political spectrum. Almost entire Europe has said that it is just one small step forward and a lot more needs to be done. Not only are Israeli opposition parties criticising him, his ally, Habayit Hayehudi Party, told the media that it would "reconsider its future" in the coalition. The Palestinian Authority (PA), on the other hand, is aghast at the "prerequisites".
A spokesperson of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas told the media: "Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions." Although all praise for the American efforts, PA is accusing Netanyahu of "sabotaging" the peace process.
Much is being talked and written about the two 'historic' speeches, both of which were given at universities. But they have failed to live up to expectations, at least as of now. Efforts by Obama's government is appreciable though. It's almost like a Shakespearean 'much ado about nothing', or just a few things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)