Is it good to quit nuclear reactors in India like germany

Chancellor Angela Merkel said the decision, hammered out by her centre-right coalition overnight, marked the start of a "fundamental" rethink of energy policy in the world's number four economy. "We want the electricity of the future to be safer and at the same time reliable and affordable," Merkel told reporters as she accepted the findings of an expert commission on nuclear power she appointed in March in response to the crisis at Japan's Fukushima plant. "That means we must have a new approach to the supply network, energy efficiency, renewable energy and also long-term monitoring of the process," she said. The commission found that it would be viable within a decade for Germany to mothball all 17 of its nuclear reactors, eight of which are currently off the electricity grid. Environment Minister Norbert Rttgen announced the decision by the government in the early hours of Monday morning, describing it as "irreversible." "This decision is consistent, decisive and clear," he said. Most of Germany's 17 will be shut down by 2021, though if the transition to other forms of power proves difficult, three of the newest reactors can be kept online until 2022. Germany s seven oldest reactors, plus Krmmel reactor all of which are currently offline after Japan's Fukushima disaster will be closed down permanently. However, one of these, yet to be named, will remain on stand-by from 2013 to be switched on only in the event of electricity shortages until the full phase out in 2021 or 2022. Philippsburg 1 and Biblis B reactors have been mentioned as candidates. Keeping a reactor on standby could cost up to 50 million per year, news magazine Der Spiegel reported. Monday's decision made Germany the first major industrial power to announce plans to give up atomic energy entirely. But it also means that the country will have to find the 22 percent of its electricity needs currently covered by nuclear reactors from another source. Rttgen insisted there was no danger of blackouts. "We assure that the electricity supply will be ensured at all times and for all users," he pledged, but did not provide details. The decision is effectively a return to the timetable set by the previous Social Democrat-Green

coalition government a decade ago. And it is a humbling U-turn for Merkel, who at the end of 2010 decided to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 reactors by an average of 12 years, which would have kept them open until the mid-2030s. That decision was unpopular in Germany even before the earthquake and tsunami in March that severely damaged the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan, prompting Merkel's review of nuclear policy. Her zig-zagging on what has been a highly emotive issue in the country since the 1970s has cost her since at the ballot box. Merkel herself has blamed the Fukushima nuclear disaster for recent defeats in state elections. In the latest, on May 23, the anti-nuclear Greens pushed her conservative party into third place in a vote in the northern state of Bremen, the first time they had scored more votes than the conservatives in a regional or federal election. The late-night wrangling in Merkel's fractious team saw the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) arguing against a fixed end date for nuclear power, and to maintain two reserve reactors in case of energy shortages. FDP parliamentary leader Rainer Brderle defended the plan for a reserve plant from 2013, saying it was needed to guarantee a reliable supply of electricity. It was not about keeping a backdoor open but simply about avoiding blackouts. He told broadcaster ZDF on Monday morning that the hole in the electricity supply leading from the nuclear shutdown would have to be filled by building more natural gas power plants. The share of renewable energy would need to rise from the current 17 percent to 35 percent by 2020. He ruled out imports of atomic energy from other countries. Environmental group Greenpeace slammed the plan as absolutely unacceptable and accused Merkel of breaking her word. The agreement did not constitute an exit from nuclear power as quickly as possible, as Merkel had previously promised, Greenpeace nuclear expert Tobias Mnchmeyer said on Monday. Merkel has broken her word and learned nothing from Fukushima, he said. During the late-night negotiations, the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of Merkel's Christian Democrats, fought for an exit within 10 years. Some coalition members had called for a built-in review clause which could have seen the decision revisited, but this was thrown out in the final round of negotiations.

Rttgen said the government had largely followed the recommendations of an "ethics panel" appointed by Merkel after the Fukushima disaster, which called for an end to nuclear power in Germany within a decade. Greens parliamentary leader Jrgen Trittin told broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk that the plan contained a back door for atomic power. It included in a so-far unverifiable measure the possibility to transfer power from one atomic power station to another, and in this way to include an extension in the plan, he said. However the general plan to phase out nuclear power by 2022 was a step in the right direction, he said.

The impact of the nuclear crisis in Japan is being felt in India, with a major debate now taking place over the wisdom of relying on nuclear energy when there are such potential safety risks in the event of a natural disaster. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has ordered all nuclear reactors in India be tested in light of the reported radiation leaks in Japan, to establish their ability to withstand major natural disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes. In an effort to reassure the nation, the prime minister said that Indias nuclear plants have in the past withstood geological disturbances, such as in Gujarat when a major earthquake struck in January, 2002, and in Tamil Nadu in December 2004, when a massive tsunami hit the coast. Former Atomic Energy Commission of India Chief Anil Kakodkar has also tried to allay some of the growing fears by asserting that Indian reactors are safe. Addressing the Maharashtra Assembly, Kakodkar stressed the importance of nuclear technology in generating the significant amounts of electricity needed to fulfill the demands of a new India. These assurances have come in the wake of controversy over the current development of some major nuclear plants across India. High-profile nuclear power projects have been slated for construction in collaboration with French firm Areva in areas like Jaitapur in the western state of Maharashtra, but the projects are already running into trouble, with protesters arguing such structures will harm the local environment and put locals at risk. If things deteriorate any further in Japan, it would become extremely difficult to convince people in Jaitapur and other locations of the safety of nuclear power plants. Some have argued that India should tap the vast potential for solar energy, but the government has raised the issue of the high costs that would be involved in generating electricity through solar power plants. While developed countries like Germany are now using solar energy to supplement their electricity requirements, emerging economies like India are still falling back on nuclear reactors.

But as expensive as solar energy may be, isnt the extra cost worth it for safety reasons? In the wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan, Germany has suspended, pending a review, a plan to extend the lives of its ageing nuclear power stations. The Swiss government has also suspended its nuclear plans, putting safety first. The European Union, meanwhile, called an emergency meeting to review all safety measures for nuclear reactors. Nuclear power is currently the fourth biggest source of electricity in India (after thermal, hydro and renewable resources). As of 2010, there were 20 nuclear power reactors across six power plants in India, generating a total of 4,780 megawatts of energy. Five more plants are under construction, and the country aims to up its nuclear power output to 64,000 megawatts by 2032. Yet no matter how foolproof a nuclear power plant is said to be, we should never take official assurances as a guarantee of safety. Japan is seeing the consequences of doing so now. Image credit: International Atomic Energy Agency

33% reservation of women

women reservation -- a curse or a blessingFor ages, no matter to which nation they belong, women in general have been suffering from agony, distress, discrimination, apathy. The tormentor turns out to no one but their own family, friends and fellow humans. Every nation has a sordid story of women discrimination behind it. No doubt, the position and status of the women of today has imporved quite significantly, however, women continue to suffer in general even now. One example is my own INDIA. Being a woman and that too an Indian woman, I have been brought up in an evironment where women are treated second-class. However, I am lucky that I was an exception to this maltreatment. My parents raised me with dignity, love, affection and I enjoy all the fruits of my parents hardwork, love and care as much as my brother. Still, everyone or every woman in INDIA is not as lucky. There are women in this country who have not seen light at the other side of the corner. There are unfortunate women who have not stepped out of the confines of their homes, or have not been allowed to step out of their homes, their life is a life of agony, mistrust, depravity, and only loyalty to their family. The outside world is a stranger to them, as much as a foreign land. Yes, this is very true, if you go deep into my INDIA, you will find such glaring examples of discrimination against women. Where women are meant to be an item of decoration, child-bearing machine.There are a few temples in S outh India where women are denied entry. Can you imagine? Woman is that creation of GOD who is a mother, a sister, a daughter, a wife, and a companion you can easily bank upon. There is so much dicrimination prevalent that few women are forced to die young, few are killed in their mother's womb, few confined to their

homes, and few are forced to sell their skin to earn bread for their family. Female infanticide cases are highest in India-- a place that once worshipped its women as Goddesses. A woman when comes to her utmost strength can break away all barriers and become a DURGA to break the shackles of agony, pain and misery. A woman can be a savior. So, lets come to the real topic now. Do women need reservation? I mean do we need to say that we need a place equal to men. What can we gain by reservation? A few seats here and there, but what about the rule of equality. Males and female are born to be equal. Lets shun this fact that males are born to dominate. Males need to understand that without women their train of life would come to a halt. In fact, the entire life on earth would stop. God never sent us for this. Did He? No, not at all. Then why are we distinguishing between men and women. I think there should be no reservation, however, it should become a rule of law that equality prevails, with males and females on equal parameters. The fairer sex does not need reservation for marking its presence. Females, when got opportunities have shown that they are no less than males. Then, why such discrimination? Lets give our women equal opportunities as males. Lets not say that so and so seat is reserved for women, beyond which women cannot make entry. We have to break the shackles bounding us and not bound ourselves further in chains. If we are today fighting for mere 33% reservation,, and trust me Indian women are fighting very hard for this, then we will close all doors for us thereafter, for further enhancement in our power. We do not need merely 33% reservation. We need to be on a par with males, no matter what. However, seeing the state of affairs in India, I think reservation is a step toward women emanicipation, as it will become mandataory for the fairer sex to represent the country in parliament. It will also mean that at least 33% women representatives will be required to be part of parliament, facilitating the reivival of women impowerment. Manmohan Singh-led UPA government had decided to make International Women Day historic by reinitiating the debate on the women reservation bill, thinking to make 33% reservation for women in parliament. However, the events that occurred in parliament on International Women Day remind us that we still have to go a long way before our leaders or so-called representatives learn to behave properly, lest apart taking decisions in favor of the country. Even though BJP, CPI-M have openly offered their support to the government on the women reseration bill, Samajwadi party and Lalu Yadav's RJD still need time to reach a consensus on the same. They are citing this bill discriminates against women from backward classes and OBCs, Muslim women and women from other minority classes. Even as the Congress-led government tried to get the women reservation bill passed in parliament, unruly scenes were witnessed in the Upper House, with a few members threatening the Rajya Sabha chairperson, snatching papers from him and tearing them apart. Women reservation bill will still have to wait until our very own representatives learn some atticates and manners to let the rule of law prevail and parliamentary decorum be maintained. Please let the bill be passed. It is just the beginning of women emancipation. It will ensure at least 33% women representation in parliament, which has so far felt dearth of women members. Once women get 33% representation, they will take a next step forward toward getting on a par

representation with their male counterparts. However, in this scenario, it appears a daydream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally, the bill has been passed in the Rajya Sabha. It's a very good news for the women folk not only in India, but also in the world, with it, India has joined the elite club of countries where such a step has been initiated. However, it is still to be seen how this affects us in the long run and what impact it will have. One thing is for sure that INDIA can now dream of women empowerment. A country boasting women/female emancipation is the only one that can succeed and compete in this world! On the contrary, a country that shuns equal rights for women lags behind others in development. It's a fact. Because only educated or literate mothers understand the importance of educating their kids, who will be the cheerleaders of tomorrow, with the rein of the country in their hands!!!

Problems of working womenIt is an open truth that working women have to face problems just by virtue of their being women. Working women here are referred to those who are in paid employment. Social attitude to the role of women lags much behind the law. This attitude which considers women fit for certain jobs and not others colors those who recruit employees. Thus women find employment easily as nurses, doctors, teachers the caring and nurturing sectors, secretaries or in assembling jobs-the routine submissive sectors. But even if well qualified women engineers or managers or geologists are available, preference will be given to a male of equal qualification. A gender bias creates an obstacle at the recruitment stage itself. When it comes to remuneration the law proclaims equality but it is seldom put into practice. The inbuilt conviction that women are capable of less work than men or less efficient than men governs this injustice of unequal salaries and wages for the same job. The age old belief of male superiority over women creates several hurdles for women at their place of work. Women on the way up the corporate ladder discover that they must be much better than their male colleagues to reach the top. Once at the top male colleagues and subordinates often expect much greater expertise and efficiency from a woman boss than from a male boss. Conditioned by social and psychological tradition women colleagues too dont lend support to their own sex.Working in such conditions inevitably put much greater strain on women than what men experience. These problems tend to make women less eager to progress in their careers. Indeed many of them choose less demanding jobs for which they may even be over-qualified. A womans work is not merely confined to paid employment. She has to almost always shoulder the burden of household chores as well. A woman could still bear up with these problems if she had control over the money she earns. But in most families even now her salary is handed over to father, husband or in-laws. So the basic motive for seeking employment of getting independence is nullified in many womens case. Problems of gender bias beset women in the industrial sector. Technological advancement results in retrenchment of women employees. No one thinks of upgrading their skills. Maternity leave is seldom given. It is much easier to terminate the womans employment and hire someone else. Trade Unions do little to ameliorate the lot of

women workers. Womens issues do not occur on the priority list of most of the trade unions. Women going to work are often subject to sexual harassment. Public transport system is over crowded and men take advantage of the circumstances to physically harass women. Colleagues offer unwanted attention which can still be shaken off but a woman is placed in a difficult situation if the higher officer demands sexual favours.If refused the boss can easily take it out on the woman in other ways to make life miserable for her. There have been several cases of sexual harassment recently involving even the senior women officials. On the other hand if a woman is praised for her work or promoted on merit, her colleagues do not hesitate to attribute it to sexual favours.The psychological pressure of all this can easily lead to a woman quitting her job. Most of the problems that beset working women are in reality rooted in the social perspective of the position of women. Traditionally men are seen as the bread winner and women as the house-keepers, child bearers and rearers.This typecast role model continues to put obstacles before the working women. A fundamental change is required in the attitudes of the employers, policy makers, family members and other relatives and the public at large.

Child Labour in IndiaMillions of children in today's world undergo the worst forms of child labor which includes Child Slavery, Child prostitution, Child Trafficking, Child Soldiers. In modern era of material and technological advancement, children in almost every country are being callously exploited. The official figure of child laborers world wide is 13 million. But the actual number is much higher. Of the estimated 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 who are economically active, some 50 million to 60 million between the ages of 5 and 11 are engaged in intolerable forms of labor. Among the 10 to 14year-old children the working rate is 41.3 percent in Kenya, 31.4 percent in Senegal, 30.1 percent in Bangladesh, 25.8 percent in Nigeria, 24 percent in Turkey, 17.7 percent in Pakistan, 16.1 percent in Brazil, 14.4 percent in India, 11.6 percent in China. ILO estimated that 250 million children between 5 and 14 work for a living, and over 50 million children under age twelve work in hazardous circumstances. United Nations estimate that there were 20 million bonded child laborers worldwide. Based on reliable estimates, at least 700,000 persons to 2 million, especially girls and children, are trafficked each year across international borders. Research suggests that the age of the children involved is decreasing. Most are poor children between the ages of 13 and 18, although there is evidence that very young children even babies, are also caught up in this horrific trade. They come from all parts of the world. Some one million children enter the sex trade, exploited by people or circumstances. At any one time, more than 300,000 children under 18 - girls and boys - are fighting as soldiers with government armed forces and armed opposition groups in more than 30 countries worldwide. ILO estimates that domestic work is the largest employment category of girls under age 16 in the world. India has the dubious distinction of being the nation with the largest number of child laborers in the world. The child labors endure miserable and difficult lives. They earn little and struggle to make enough to feed themselves and their families. They do not go to school; more than half of them are unable to learn the barest skills of literacy. Poverty is one of the main reasons behind this phenomenon. The unrelenting poverty forces the parents to push

their young children in all forms of hazardous occupations. Child labor is a source of income for poor families. They provide help in household enterprises or of household chores in order to free adult household members for economic activity elsewhere. In some cases, the study found that a child's income accounted for between 34 and 37 percent of the total household income. In India the emergence of child labor is also because of unsustainable systems of landholding in agricultural areas and caste system in the rural areas. Bonded labour refers to the phenomenon of children working in conditions of servitude in order to pay their debts. The debt that binds them to their employer is incurred not by the children themselves but by their parent. The creditors cum employers offer these loans to destitute parents in an effort to secure the labor of these children. The arrangements between the parents and contracting agents are usually informal and unwritten. The number of years required to pay off such a loan is indeterminate. The lower castes such as dalits and tribal make them vulnerable groups for exploitation. The environmental degradation and lack of employment avenues in the rural areas also cause people to migrate to big cities. On arrival in overcrowded cities the disintegration of family units takes place through alcoholism, unemployment or disillusionment of better life etc. This in turn leads to emergence of street children and child workers who are forced by their circumstances to work from the early age. The girls are forced to work as sex -workers or beggars. A large number of girls end up working as domestic workers on low wages and unhealthy living conditions. Some times children are abandoned by their parents or sold to factory owners. The last two decades have seen tremendous growth of export based industries and mass production factories utilizing low technologies. They try to maintain competitive positions through low wages and low labor standards. The child laborers exactly suit their requirements. They use all means to lure the parents into giving their children on pretext of providing education and good life. In India majority of children work in industries, such as cracker making, diamond polishing, glass, brass-ware, carpet weaving, bangle making, lock making and mica cutting to name a few. 15% of the 100,000 children work in the carpet industry of Uttar Pradesh. 7080% of the 8,000 to 50,000 children work in the glass industry in Ferozabad. In the unorganized sector child labor is paid by piece-by-piece rates that result in even longer hours for very low pay. Inadequate schools, a lack of schools, or even the expense of schooling leaves some children with little else to do but work. The attitudes of parents also contribute to child labor; some parents feel that children should work in order to develop skills useful in the job market, instead of taking advantage of a formal education. From the time of its independence, India has committed itself to be against child labor. Article 24 of the Indian constitution clearly states that "No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or employed in any hazardous employment" The Bonded Labour System Act of 1976 fulfills the Indian Constitution's directive of ending forced labour A Plethora of additional protective legislation has been put in place. There are distinct laws governing child labour in factories in commercial establishments, on plantations and in apprenticeships. There are laws governing the use of migrant labour and contract labour. A recent law The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation law) of 1986 designates a child as a person who has not completed their 14th year of age. It purports to regulate the hours and the conditions of child workers and to prohibit child workers in certain enumerated hazardous industries. However there is neither blanket prohibition on the use of child labour, nor any universal minimum age set for child workers. All of the policies that the Indian government has in place are in

accordance with the Constitution of India, and all support the eradication of Child Labor. The problem of child labor still remains even though all of these policies are existent. Enforcement is the key aspect that is lacking in the government's efforts. Child labor is a global problem. If child labour is to be eradicated, the governments and agencies and those responsible for enforcement need to start doing their jobs. The most important thing is to increase awareness and keep discussing ways and means to check this problem. We have to decide whether we are going to take up the problem head-on and fight it any way we can or leave it to the adults who might not be there when things go out of hand.

Role of press in india

Media plays a mediator role between the people of the nation and the government; it is highlighting the people s problem in front of the government and taking feedback from the government upon social and safety issues of the nation in terms of national welfare. In a democratic India, media is a fourth pillar of the democracy due to its social responsibilities, but at the age of 60 years of independence and the economical growth towards no.1 power of the world by 2020, the role of the media is very uncertain and putting question mark on Indian journalism. Before going ahead, we have to stop and think: Is Indian media plays a role for that it is been known - fourth pillar of the nation? If not, then what role it should play? And the answer is fair, impartial, reliable reporting and accurate news analyzation. As far as news concern, media should take a very rigid stand to analyze the news, how it happens and how it came into the existence to know the root cause of the problem. But, rather going deep into the problem, journalists are blindly accepting the truth which is formulated by the police or some social evil elements and proliferate the same publicly. In many cases innocent people have been charged and guilty enjoy their sin with the contentment to commit it again. India is a multi-cultural country, thus, we have very sensitive social structure, once someone caught or labeled as guilty, he will never be able to re-start his life again. Instead he will be welcomed by taunts and social grouses, so that he detains himself in a dark life. We are proud to be Indian because of our multi-cultural and value system of India, which gives every Indian an equal opportunity to live and grow in a national stream-line upon his capabilities and skills to be a part of modern develop India. Thus, this is the responsibility of every Indian to play a part of his role to facilitate others in terms of fair living, equal opportunity, communal harmony and social welfare ness. As it is an established fact that everyone is responsible for his own deeds or sins, therefore, it is not wise to target a community or a religion for a sin of one person or few people. Similarly, entire community of journalists should not be fall under suspicious category for the misdeeds or inappropriate reporting of few journalists. Everybody knows police plays a partial role during riots or investigation on terrorism; we have several examples like Sri Krishna Commission Report, Godhra and Gujrat Riot Reports, etc. Recently Banglore and Ahmed are witness of terrorist attacks, here, the question is: are terrorist more organized and smart than our security agencies. Center had the information and they have

also informed state government to be ready to tackle such situation. Amazing! Terrorist are attacking one after another, but we are unable to trace them. If we had the information of attacks then why attacks are not averted? Why terrorists are not caught before the attacks? We all know that some organizations are distributing weapons among their community; what happens to this issue? Nothing; neither reported nor propagated so precisely. We can consider the double standard of police and politicians, but how could we expect the same standard from the journalism! Which is the fourth pillar of the Indian democracy? We know better, when one pillar collapse, whole building tumble on the ground. Many sensational, burning, social and national issues need the concentration of journalism to break the ice and bring them back in the news to explore, discuss and analyze to make the truth distinct from ambiguous or falsehood, only then social evil die and people of the state and the nation will live in peace and harmony in this charismatic and multi cultural nation. When this will happen, indeed, this would be the first step towards the healthy society and a step to fulfill our dream towards number one power of the world. Now, this is the responsibility of the Indian journalism, how they are going to shape and direct the new generation of the nation towards prosperity, communal harmony, equality, tolerance, and national-integrity or towards communal hatred and inequality.

Removing alcoholism in india is a big revenue lossAlcohol sales are state subjects in India and everyone looks at it as a golden goose which must be exploited to the hilt. So how will the economic side of liquor trade be affected with the Union Health Minister proposing a national policy on alcohol? Article 47 of the Constitution states: "Government shall endeavour to bring about the prohibition of the consumption (of alcohol) except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks." But the ground reality though is quite different. The average Indian today takes his or her first sip of alcohol at the age of 19 compared to 28 in the 1990s. And this is likely to dip further in a few more years. Despite these disturbing facts, there are still no strict restrictions imposed on alcohol consumption. And well, the enormous contribution of liquor to state revenue seems to be the answer. During the year 2006-2007, the combined earnings of states from alcohol were estimated at nearly Rs 30, 000 crore accounting for over 11.5 per cent of the tax revenues.

Moreover, liquor was the second largest contributor to the states' aggregate revenue kitty after sales tax (Rs 1,20,709.15 crore). The reliance on alcohol for revenue generation is a nation-wide phenomenon. Karnataka is the leader with excise collections of Rs 4060 crore while Uttar Pradesh brings in Rs 3650 crore. Andhra Pradesh is a close third, earning up to Rs 3250 crore and Gujarat, because of its prohibition policy, grosses just Rs 58 crore. With these figures and nearly 62.5 million alcohol consumers of alcohol, it seems liquor will be a vice that even the government will find hard to kick.With more than half of all alcohol drinkers in India falling into the criteria for hazardous drinking, alcohol abuse is emerging as a major public-health problem in the country. Raekha Prasad reports. India's reputation as a country with a culture of abstinence especially in matters regarding alcohol is underserved, say experts. The country, which has seen a rapid proliferation of city bars and nightclubs in recent years, is fast shedding its inhibitions about alcohol as a lifestyle choice. This situation has led to fears of an undocumented rise in alcohol abuse not only among poorer classes but also in sections of society that were previously considered dry. The health minister has recognised the scale of the problem and has called for a policy that will regulate sales and the pricing of drink. Many experts say that although this move is welcome it may not be enough to curb the harmful effects of the rise in alcohol consumption in society. The increasing production, distribution, and promotion of alcohol has already seen drink-related problems emerging as a major public-health concern in India. Sales of alcohol have seen a growth rate of 8% in the past 3 years. Officially, Indians are still among the world's lowest consumers of alcohol government statistics show only 21% of adult men and around 2% of women drink. But up to a fifth of this group about 14 million people are dependent drinkers requiring help . The concern, say experts, is that there has been a rapid change in patterns and trends of alcohol use in India. Chief among them is people are beginning to drink at ever-younger ages. The percentage of the drinking population aged under 21 years has increased from 2% to more than 14% in the past 15 years, according to studies in the southern state of Kerala by Alcohol and Drugs Information Centre India, a non-governmental organisation (NGO). Alarmingly, the study found that the average age of initiation had dropped from 19 years to 13 years in the past two decades. The centre points out that a powerful international and domestic alcohol lobby is purposely targeting young Indians. The local industry has introduced flavoured alcohol drinks to attract previously non-drinking women and young men. Multinational companies have identified India with its vast unexploited markets as one of the world's most sought after places for investment. Many alcohol adverts now feature spirited groups of young people having a good time. Although alcohol advertising is banned in the electronic and print media, surrogate advertising is rife, argues Monika Arora, director of the NGO, Health Related Information Dissemination Amongst Youth

Student Health Action Network. Drinking water and apple juice is packaged by alcohol companies. It's all about getting young people to start early and be life-long consumers. Bollywood films now glorify alcohol where the good guys drink.

Full-size image (62K) Getty Images The shifting composition of Indian drinkers has seen a rise in the number of Indian women drinking regularly and heavily. One recent study in the southern state of Karnataka found young women consumed similar amounts of alcohol to young men on any typical drinking occasion. What is of particular concern and an important indicator of health risks is that the signature pattern of alcohol consumption in India is frequent and heavy drinking. More than half of all drinkers fall into the criteria for hazardous drinking, which is characterised by bingeing and solitary consumption to the point of intoxication. Moreover, spirits account for 95% of the beverages drunk in India. Another problem for policy makers is the fact that two thirds of the alcohol drunk in India is unrecorded because it is either illicit local home brew or has been smuggled into the country. Employers in poor, marginalised communities sometimes pay wages in alcohol rather than cash, according to WHO. The hazards of spurious liquor can be fatal, with frequent reports of death, disability, and hospitalisation resulting from its consumption across the country. One barrier to developing a national alcohol policy for India, experts say, is the woeful lack of data and research on its national health, social, and economic effect. What is known is that alcoholrelated problems account for more than a fifth of hospital admissions; 18% of psychiatric emergencies; more than 20% of all brain injuries and 60% of all injuries reporting to India's emergency rooms. The role of alcohol in domestic violence is substantial: a third of violent husbands drink, according to a WHO study in 2004. Most of the violence took place during intoxication. There is evidence even to suggest that the poor are beginning to drink more than they earn a deadly spiral of alcohol and debt. One recent study by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS) in households of rural, urban, town, and slum populations of 28 500 people in and around the city of Bangalore, Karnataka, found that the average monthly expenditure on alcohol of patients with alcohol addiction is more than the average monthly salary. Although the Indian constitution includes the prohibition of alcohol among its directive principles, alcohol policy is devolved to individual states as is the levying of taxes on it. Since most states derive around a fifth of their revenue from alcohol taxation the second largest source after sales tax they are generally ambivalent towards stemming its flow. Moreover, there is a long history in India of a powerful alcohol lobby with industry figures influencing the political process, both in the

form of party donations and as representatives. But experts argue that Indian society is losing considerably more than it gains. Because of the political expediency surrounding prohibition, what is not being looked at is demand reduction strategies , says Vivek Benegal, one of the authors of the report and assistant professor of psychiatry at NIMHANS. Using their findings in the Bangalore study, researchers from NIMHANS have calculated that the direct and indirect costs attributable to alcohol addiction is more than triple the profits of alcohol taxation and several times more than the annual health budget of Karnataka. Extrapolating their findings to the whole of India they estimate the total alcohol revenue for 2003 04 of 216 billion rupees falls 28 billion rupees short of the total cost of managing the effects of alcohol addiction. These included the tangible costs of health care, occupational, financial, social, and legal factors. The official response to India's problem remains focused on those in acute need rather than on prevention. This situation means that official policy concentrates on just the 4% of the alcoholdependent adult male population and ignores the 20% of the population who are at risk of serious alcohol abuse. Experts argue that government thinking on how best to mitigate the risks for alcohol are 20 years behind that of tobacco. Under its National Drug De-addiction Programme, the Government of India has funded 483 detoxification and 90 counselling centres. Almost half of attendees are being treated for alcohol dependency. But the success of the programmes is low and states fail to adequately fund them, health professionals say. Doctors working with addicts in government hospitals report a complete lack of non-pharmacological care and training. Once we've treated them there's no social worker or clinical psychologist to refer them to so we just send them to AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) , says Smita Deshpande, a senior psychiatrist working in a Delhi state hospital. The problem is that the treatment of alcoholism is a low priority in Indian's health sector, says Rajat Ray, professor and chief of the National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. (AIIMS). Just 600 doctors have been trained to treat alcohol abuse in the past decade. It's seen as deviant behaviour among most doctors: a hopeless situation that is unrewarding to treat and so there's no motivation or financial incentive on doctors to work in this field , Ray says. To address this, the Indian Government has set a target to train, via AIIMS, 1000 doctors, as many paramedics, and 500 nurses to specialise in alcohol-abuse treatment in the next 4 years. Once trained, the plan is to deploy them across India's 560 district hospitals to increase access to treatment. Ray and his team are currently piloting three district training projects in Madhya Pradesh, Assam, and Uttar Pradesh. There is, however, a growing lobby urging the health ministry to act. Indian Alcohol Policy Alliance, an NGO aiming to prevent alcohol-related harm through evidence-based policy intervention, says that the key is to break the stranglehold of state revenue departments who see increasing consumption of alcohol as a boon to treasury coffers. It is pressing the ministry of health, headed by a minister who has advocated prohibition in certain states, to take a lead in passing a law that privileges public health over tax receipts. The lack of a

national alcohol policy creates a very difficult situation for health professionals working to tackle alcoholism, Ray says. Discussions are taking place, but an actual policy, he says, is still in a formative state .

Life Imprisonment is a good alternative to Capital PunishmentCan life imprisonment be a good alternative to death penalty? The issue remains unresolved. Eventhe US Supreme Court that had abolished Death Penalty reversed its decision when new and less cruel methods of execution were introduced.

Why does a society punish its members for certain acts that are offensive and unacceptable to its laws and codes? This can be a starting point of exploring our dilemma about death penalty vs. life imprisonment.

It is argued that fear of death deters people from committing crimes, and the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence.

The American death penalty laws have invited ire and ridicule of human rights activists everywhere, including in the USA, and Courts in most democratic countries, including India, have been very sparing in pronouncing death sentences in the rarest of rare cases. Yet, crimes of murder and rape and the cruel manner in which they were carried out, at times, make ordinary citizens support and commend death penalty and believe that fear and intimidation of capital punishment shall keep other citizens from violating the social and normative codes of their State and society.

But there are contrary views and arguments, according to which capital punishment does not deter crime and death penalty is not necessary. Countries that no longer have death penalty have not experienced an increase in the number of murders. Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland and Belgium have not carried out executions since the early part of the century, yet these countries have not experienced a rise in crime rates. But the retributive value of capital punishment dismisses the question of deterrence. Deterrence works only if forbidden acts are illegal as well as immoral. So the easily frightened will not break the law, but the fearless will break the law, the irrational will break the law, and all others will break the law, it has been argued.

Capital punishment is retributive justice, and murder rates bear no logical correlation to the death penaltys deterrent value. There are no actual statistics about the deterrent value of capital

punishment as it is impossible to know who may have been deterred or not deterred from committing a crime.

If some one is thinking of committing murder and is aware that he will be released because of early parole, then it will not deter any future crime from happening.

Most criminals would ponder before committing murder if they knew their own lives was at stake and, it is argued that because very few people are executed so death penalty does not work satisfactorily as a deterrent. During highly publicised death penalty cases the homicide rate is found to go down but it goes back up when the case is over (Bailey).

According to some researchers executions maximize public safety through a form of incapacitation and deterrence. Incapacitating a person is depriving him/her of the physical or intellectual power. Executing a person takes away the capacity of, and forcibly prevents recurrence of violence. Deterrence is the act or process of discouraging and preventing an action from occurring. The possibility of execution, thus, gives a potential pause in the thought process of the murderer, using fear as an incentive for preventing recurrence or quite possibly the first occurrence of murder.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that although it is said to exist as a crime deterrent, in reality it has no effect on crime at all. Modern supporters of capital punishment no longer view the death penalty as a deterrent, but as a just punishment for the crime. Previously, the deterrence argument put the burden of proof on death penalty advocates, but recently this argument has become less effective as in recent years the appeal of deterrence has been supplanted by a frank desire for what large majorities see as just vengeance.

The opponents to death penalty argue that criminals who are in the business of killing make sure that they do not get caught; they skilfully concoct plans to make sure they are not suspected of criminal activity. A person who gets caught for killing another individual is usually someone who did not plan to murder in the first place. These individuals fall into the crimes of passion category. Crimes of passion are defined as unlawful acts of an individual which are unplanned and erupt as a result of a fit or rage or anger. These illegal actions usually stem from drunkenness or a short term loss of logical thinking, which can be attributed to anger. The death penalty would logically deter crime, but the problem is that most murderers are unplanned and are not a result of logic.

During the 1930s the federal government, under the direction of Jack Gibbs, investigated the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring serious crime. The results of Gibbs investigation is that capital punishment did not deter. However, during the 1970s, Prof. Isaac Ehrlich found out through his research that capital punishment did deter but no one else besides Ehrlich has come up with the same results. The conclusion that researches have drawn up during the past decade is that the death penalty does not significantly have an effect on serious crime, one way or the other.

Another reason that many people are against death penalty is that they feel that many a times

innocent people are wrongfully executed, all in the name of justice, even though there are many safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing death penalty.

Abolitionists of death penalty want the procedures of punishment more humane and victim-oriented. They argue that the offender be required to compensate the victims family with his/her own income from employment or community service. To that end, the offender has to be kept alive. By working, the criminal also pays back the society. For the imprisoned criminal there is no need of monetary compensation for his work. Money is of no value in jail. An example cited in this behalf is the case of Leopold and Loeb, both nineteen years old when they committed The Crime of the Century in 1924kidnapping and murder of a fourteen year old boy just to see what it was like. They were not awarded death penalty but sentenced to life imprisonment. They worked at hospitals, taught illiterates to read, created a correspondence school, made important contribution in the World War II Malaria Project, and wrote a grammar book. An inestimable amount of people were directly helped by Leopold and Loeb; both of them making a conscious commitment to atone by serving others.

Abolitionists also oppose capital punishment as it is cruel and extraordinary. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution condemns cruel and unusual punishment and the abolitionists find it handy to quote in support of their view. However, the US Constitution was drafted when capital punishment was widely practiced and it was not specified as wrong or cruel or unusual. The framers of the Constitution mostly endorsed capital punishment, as also the philosophers of the time.

Opponents of death penalty point out that expert after expert and study after study have emphasized the lack of correlation between the threat of the death penalty and the occurrence of violent crime. Also, the belief that execution costs less than imprisonment is false. The cost of the apparatus and maintenance of the procedures attending the death penalty, including death row and the endless appeals and legal machinery, far outweighs the expense of maintaining in prison the tiny fraction of criminals who would otherwise be slain.

Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of an uncivilized society, immoral in principle, unfair and discriminatory in practice. It can deprive completely innocent persons of life because legal procedures involved are not foolproof. It has no purpose and no effect. (American Civil Liberties Union National Office 2-16-95).

Opponents of capital punishment contend that the death penalty demeans the moral order because it is cold, premeditated homicide. It lowers the state and raises the criminal to moral equality with the social order.

In view of the above arguments and counter-arguments, and dispassionately considered, life imprisonment with some added social purpose appears to be a better alternative to death penalty.

DOES TV REFLECT REALITY?Medium of television continues to be under scanner. Questions that still have not got clear-cut answers are: whether television as a media reflects reality or create it? Should media portray an ideal world? What is the overall impact of the media upon reality? What should the role of the media be? Can TV actually change reality? The best answer seems to be that the relationship is reciprocal; the media, especially TV, sometimes changes culture, while cultural changes are reflected (and legitimated) in the media. Meida that purports to reflect reality TV news channels has two functions. The first is to reflect reality in roughly the same proportion as is present in the real world. And the second is to develop a consensus on how that reality can be improved. But the responsibility is more serious upon those that are, ostensibly, mainstream reality media. And in India, they fail completely. For one, they focus on only one slice of reality celebrity, for instance with such an overwhelming passion, that they neglect to realise that the impact of this slice of reality is negligible in the larger perspective of the real world. Such media does reflect slices of unavoidable reality sometimes earthquakes, famines, droughts but this coverage is so sanitised, so devoid of context, that far from becoming a stimulus for thought and action, it becomes a convenient salve to numb our sense of responsibility. Today, television news also displays too much reality which, as T.S. Eliot said, humankind cannot stand. In addition, instead of shocking people into action, a daily procession and constant repetition of blood, gore and body bags has the opposite effect of familiarity reducing intensity, breeding apathy and insensitivity. Whenever tragedy hits our country and our TV crewmen get there in time, there is a tendency to capture dead and mutilated bodies on camera and then beam them across the world. This was never truer than in the case of the television coverage of the 26/11 terror strikes in Mumbai. What is unfortunate is when, by sinister commercial design or apathy, one kind of information is foisted upon an audience such that they slowly forget that there is an alternative. News nowadays on TV tilts toward entertainment and entertainers. Media houses, through this brand of celebrity journalism, appear to be effectively serving a group of people whose concerns revolve around fashion, glamour and celebrity. So who is responsible for the triumph of infotainment over information? It is us, the consumers of the news. We allow television to be our main source of news, and this leads to critical distortions in our lives. Different perspectives, analysis and comment in features in the print media, and discussions and

analyses on TV are very necessary today for the average watcher/reader to make sense of what is happening around him/her. Too much information is overwhelming and is passively received (or missed entirely) without absorption or involvement. Family s distorted reality Media that is clearly for entertainment does not need to necessarily reflect reality at all times. However, these ought to enrich us, make us feel more, think harder, challenge our assumptions, hold us in thrall by the sheer quality. One cannot find any serial which does that or the one which mirrors reality. Although most serials do not represent reality, they seem like reality, and they produce real emotions, and tangible emotional responses, such as laughing and crying, in the audience. This creates a powerful illusion of reality, which becomes part of the emotional experience of each audience member. This emotional legacy becomes, in a sense, indistinguishable from the legacy of real life experiences. In other words, serials do not merely reflect reality, they change reality by interacting with the minds of the viewers. In private channels, undeveloped, rural India has disappeared and in its place we often have a transformed ethnicised countryside where the only structures are havelis set against a desert backdrop as seen in advertisements. The office is a far less popular setting, as are schools and colleges in serials. The concurrent professional and livelihood struggles are not given due display on the tube. Marriage remains the anchor for the assertion of the family, so much so that individual rights are subsumed to the collective welfare of the family. What is surprising, however, is that even the fairly huge channel-watching middle class is not represented in the serials currently dominating the media; it is as if this class does not relate to its own social experience, so ubiquitous is the world of the rich. Earlier, the serials dealt with social issues and the assertion of women like Rajni or serials like Buniyaad and Hum Log far more realistic depictions of lower and middle class values and on subjects revolving around the underprivileged in Nukkad (which was set on a street corner in Mumbai). But, with the entry of private channels in the early 1990s, television programmes began to demonstrate more commitment to attracting advertisers than to social issues. Very occasionally a serial breaks the norm, but here also the other woman is portrayed as unbalanced, slightly on the edge, and completely without morals. When these soap operas do mirror society, it is through its ugly face, though sex determination test being carried out on a foetus, by showing a blind, helpless woman being raped by a family member and a woman committing sati. It can be said that it is wrong to blame television for all the wrongdoings in society. These things did exist in the society before. But then, what about the social responsibility of serial makers? Fiction wipes out non-fiction.

Certain formats have become a rarity on the Indian screen children s serials or entertainment cum instructive ones like The Discovery of India. Period pieces, like Mirza Ghalib, too, are seldom seen. Chat shows invariably deal with persona who are rich and famous and obviously cater to a vicarious pleasure derived from getting an inside view at the personal lives of the beautiful people featured on it Shows like KBC, which promise big money, big sets and big stars can and do enforce among lads norms of getting easy money without any hard work. There is no place for the documentaries that attempted to conscientise the middle classes on various themes. The sleaze game Ideally TV should present a dimension that films cannot. Instead they mimic. This is borne out by the plethora of film-based programming, screening of films both old and new, as also like film awards live shows on TV. Explicit sex of the most crude and vulgar kind, in the guise of song and dance sequences, with horrible pelvic thrusts, heaves of the bosom and bottom wiggling of the most vulgar sort, unabashed bedroom scenes, mindless story lines and gory violent scenes are the hallmark of film-based programming. They make one wonder what effect this kind of porn in Indian contexts can have on impressionable young Indian minds. Also, most of the American serials are so steeped in local American contexts and values that surely they are more a form of escape for Yuppie viewers, who feel perhaps modern and international when watching them. Moreover, showing successful characters with superficial problems, such as those on Seinfeld or Friends, may give youth unrealistic expectations. Lastly, while it is necessary for Indian TV to be exposed to culture of all lands, including America, the trick is not to be blown off feet by any of them . Is Reality TV real Finally, we discuss the new fad, reality programmes on TV. Reality television has the power to attract attention by alluding the viewers to think that they are seeing real people and real events. However, reality television is not what its name suggests. Besides unlashing an element of voyeurism in the audience, the characters that are portrayed by reality television are not real people. They are, in fact, the creation of producers, editors and camera crews. The social context that is presented and the story line that accompanies it are constructed for the viewer, based on what may have once been reality. Audiences negotiate meaning in media. Even though media carries messages, they aren t received by everybody the same way. How we respond to a film, a song, or TV series is coloured by our own personal package of attitudes, values and experience. But some meanings end up being more widely accepted than others, a fact that reflects the relative clout, or social power, of the filters which affect our different readings. Media productions are not windows on reality , whatever their producers might like us to believe.

They re deliberate constructions, the result of a series of choices. Thus, if television is holding a mirror up to real life, it is a fun-house mirror.

Subject: Why India Should be a permanent member in UN security council?One out of every six humans is an Indian. India is the world?s biggest, most vibrant, liberal, secular democracy. India is the world?s 4th largest economy (larger than that of UK and France combined, and larger than that of Russia) and one of the fastest growing. India is an acknowledged technology superpower. India is a responsible and peace-loving nation with a powerful armed forces firmly under civilian control. India is a responsible nuclear power with a strong record of non-proliferation. India has contributed significantly to UN peacekeeping operations. India is one of the oldest living civilizations and a perennial and prolific fountainhead of influential culture and spirituality. Yet, India does not find a place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council alongside US, Britain, China, France and Russia. The time has come for this to change. Several influential opinion leaders in leading newspapers have also advocated permanent membership for India in the UN Security Council: International Herald Tribune: "Clearly, a seat for India would make the body more representative and democratic. With India as a member, the Council would be a more legitimate and thus a more effective body..." -- Robert Wilcox The Washington Post: "First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent members" -- Charles Krauthammer The New York Times: "Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council could be chosen...with a vote by the fans... Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That's more like it. India is the world's biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation" -- Thomas Friedman While Britain, France, Russia and many other countries fully support India?s admission to the Council as a permanent member, the U.S. has not yet endorsed India?s request . There is no question that the support of the U.S. would be necessary for India?s admission as a permanent member. Since India has a very strong case for admission as a permanent member, the lack of support from the U.S. thus far is puzzling at best. In the National Security Strategy of the United States of America released in September 2002, President Bush has said: "The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia." Representative Frank Pallone (founder, India Caucus in the US Congress) introduced House Resolution 108 in the United States House of Representatives , supporting a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council on February 26, 2003. Rep. Pallone stated, "I believe it is morally wrong to ignore the voice of over one billion Indian people in security decision-making that affects them, and the rest of the world. India's location, its large population, its history of participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations, and its leadership in the non-alignment movement all justify its bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. All five members of the UN Security Council must realize that having India as a

permanent security council member will give the South Asia region a stabilizing force, helping peace efforts in Central Asia and all parts of our increasingly connected world. The United States should follow the lead of one of its most important allies and endorse a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council." What do u guys say?

It would have been nice if UN SECURITY council was a democratic body with NO VETO power but each country with a voting power propotional to it's population, economy size, economic and peace keeping contributions to UN, track record of human rights, war history etc. As far as India is concerned, it has violated the UN RESOLUTIONS on KASHMIR, where UN acknowledged the right of self determination of KASHMIRI people and it has never given this right to KASHMIRI people but continues to hold 46 per cent of the territory by using its armed forces where more than half of the Indian army is deployed in KASHMIR, messacre of KASHMIRI people, rape of women, burning of houses, harrasment of KASHMIRI people continues and KASHMIRIS are facing it for last 60 years. Should India be made a judge on other countries in the same instituation where India itself does not abide by its resolutions. Strange??? India has almost hundered seperatist movements under it's watch each dealt with force and brutality. India has a very poor track record of human rights. It's Muslim minority is constantly living under opression. Indian Muslims are denied of equal oppertunity in every walk of life. They are denied of good paying jobs and important government positions. Even you may be surprised the water taps are seperate for Indian Hindu and Indian Muslims on Indian railway stations. It is not just the Muslim minority which is suffering on the hands of majority Hindus they have burnt down the Holiest Place of Sikh Faith, I mean Golden Temple. The have burnt down Churches not a long time ago and forced Christians to flee their homes. In this country women is forced to die with her husband when husband dies and the tradition is called SATI TRADITION. I don't have time to write down everything here. Finally India has fought three wars with its western neighbour Pakistan excluding the CARGIL battle. India has fought war with China in 1963. India has supplied armed to Srilankan govt and continues to support opression of Tamil minority of Srilanka. It has created troubles in all of it's neighbouring countries. Should India be rewarded a permanent seat in UN SECURITY council for all the above???

I am glad to hear things from above.Yet, I would like to draw world's attention to a bigger picture about India.

1. Regarding the Kashmir issue, it?s the policy of terrorism adopted by Pakistan which is hindering the peace process. Pakistani Militant are spreading a spree of violence in Kashmir. Now the bitter truth is, Pakistan has fallen into the trap which was created for India. See the number of militant attacks in Pakistan these days. The militancy which was created for India is on the peak of swallowing Pakistanis themselves. It?s an historical fact. Terrorist are no one's friend. They can even kill their creator because they don?t have any rational behind their motives. They are just crazy extremist. They are too aggressive to be instructed by anyone. See what is happening in Pakistan now a days. So lesson learnt by Pakistan. So India is ready to discuss any issue regarding Kashmir, only if Pakistan is willing to stop the terrorism camps. There is no other possible option. Whatever Pakistan wants to try is futile unless it's motive are non-corrupt. Pakistan can fight as many wars as it can survive but India will not deter. 2.Yes I do agree that India has suffered some riots and harassment in the past. But these things were a creation of some extremist people of India. I would like to draw the fact that majority of India is peace and development loving community. They don?t care for anything but their development and peaceful life, which is quite opposite of Pakistanis. I recently saw the interview of one of the responsible speaker of Pakistani elite. He talks like a child and on non-pragmatic basis. You can watch it for yourself link Its the official news channel which is broadcasting it. Now you all can imagine by yourself what I mean. It was like a comedy scene for me. 3. Inspite of the incidents of past, India enjoys the strong support of Indian Muslims because they all know the majority mindset of educated Indian people. We have three big superstars in bollywood:a.) Shahrukh Khan b). Amir Khan c). Salman Khan They all are loved by Indian people fanatically. Our last president Sir APJ Abdul Kalam, who is also a Muslim, is a source of inspiration to all Indian youth. Our Prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is a Sikh. And we all are proud to have such a learned person as our PM.We feel completely safe in his leadership. The chairperson of Ruling Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi is a Christian. She left the post of prime minister for Dr. Manmohan Singh. Can Pakistani give any such example? What they have given to their minority is hatred and partiality in the name of Islam.

Indian constitution allows equal opportunity to all Indian irrespective of their cast and religions. Anyone in India can aspire to be PrimeMinister, President and Military chief. Is this the case with Pakistan? One last thing, Pakistan is a place where Army massacred its own people (20,000 mujahirs ) in 1992.No such atrocity is at least shown by Indian army. Last but not the least, Sati pratha is a matter of history. It has been stopped 200 years ago. No such thing exists in Indian society now. I think India is a responsible nation. Its government acts impartially in its work for all Indians in all the possible ways. India in world 4th largest economy. It?s the fastest growing economy of the world. India Strongly deserves a seat in UN.

T20 vs Test CricketMy take on this is that Test Cricket is very very tactical game, there are lot of things involved when doing Test Cricket. However things are changing, people just do not have the time to watch cricket for 5 days and wait for results or no results for that matter. Although test cricket still has its place in the world, it is quickly going to disappear. As with any spectator based sport, it thrives on interest. If you can not keep spectator interest in the game then the market for game dies. One day cricket and T20 cricket has changed the scene, they give you excitement and thrill of cricket in a very short period of time as compared to test cricket. Games such as Football, Basketball (NBA), Baseball etc have been popular because they are able to attract the crowds for an evening and put on a good show in relatively short period of time. Just imagine test match football, or test match NBA where you play for entire day to get some result, who will watch that, it is boring. Cricket has entered the time when it is about to change, and rightfully so in my opinion, because the real thing that matters is that, can the sport attract a crowd or not. No disrespect to Test Cricket, it is great, and true test of players, but sadly the audience for it is on the decline. Agreed, and I like test cricket, but my point is that Cricket is as good as the audience it can attract. Now a days busy life styles and fast moving society, people do not have enough time to spend on watching test cricket. It is lovely game but sadly things around it have changed. One day cricket or T20 is just attempt from cricket to stay alive, otherwise cricket will be wiped of the map in near future. Also note that with T20 now it is possible to pitch for it as Olympic event since it takes reasonable amount of time, with one day cricket or Test it is just not possible.

Domination of cricket over hockey.Hockey was famous but when the grounds were changed to Synthetic fields, India became a really bad team at hockey!! India along with Pakistan was unbeatable in hockey during the grass times!! When they changed to Synthetic fields, the Indian team couldn't affort one and so were still playing on Grass fields!! Eventually, Indian hockey lost its skills and is still years behind any developed hockey side!! This is why Indians lost thier interest in Hockey!! Instead Indians resorted to cricket in which they were winning matches and due to the 1983 world cup glory, cricket became the nation's favourite sport!! This is why cricket is more famous than Hockey in India!! The craze for cricket got its roots from the period when India win the world cup in 1983. Till then, Cricket was not a much loved sport. The historic wins by Indian cricket team made the s ports lovers to grab their attention towards Cricket. Whereas, in the same period, the performance of Indian hockey team got no worth-talking. Further, playing hockey needs good grounds. Whereas, for cricket, a 22 yard good pitch is necesary. Dont mind there are bushes, rocks around that 22-yard. Guys still play cricket in that conditions. The outstanding performances though not consistent, kept the glamour of cricket ever increasing than hockey. But let me say, people still love indian national game Hockey. But they prefer watching where indian team has a chance of winning in any sport. The percentage of wins in cirkect is far better than hockey. so...its ur answer..from Hidayath

Role of press in india

A newspaper is any printed periodical or work containing public news or comments on public news. Each newspaper tries to win the heart and loyalty of its readers through news and views, articles, pictures, poems, cartoons, editorials, presentation techniques and exclusive stories and news items. It censures the corrupt and the erring. It airs public grievances sad reflects public opinion through letters to the press. Napoleon feared four hostile newspapers more than a thousand bayonets. According to him "a newspaper is a grumbler, & censurer, a giver of advice, a regent of sovereigns, a tutor of nations.'' Gopal Krishna Gokhale considered the newspapers to be the rousers and the sentinels of the voice of people. In India newspapers have a vital role to play and an important duty to perform, both as 'vox populi' (voice of the people) and as builder of public opinion. In this sense, it is the 'people's university'book, pulpit, platform, forum, theatre and counselor, all in one. There is no interestliterary, social, political, religious, commercial, economic, scientific, technological, agricultural, mechanical, cultural, histrionic and so on and so forthwhich is not covered "by the newspaper. There, a vast majority of the people in this country are still illiterate or at least unenlightened, even among the literate persons, about two-thirds do not read newspaper regularly. The Indian masses lack intellectual capacity and comprehension required in

reading a newspaper. Approximately 17 percent of people read newspapers and out these dot even half of the people read editorials, comments or serious initial articles. The rest content themselves by reading the headlines or the topical news. Young men read sports news and film reviews, the businessmen confine themselves to market reports about shares, stocks and the prices of gold, silver and essential commodities. Only old, retired people pour over the newspaper from end to end, and that too because they have no other pastime to pass time. This shows that the number of those who have genuine interest in newspapers is very low. But it is these peoplenational and state leaders, teachers, lawyers, philosophers, academicians, technocrats and bureaucratswho form the intellectual and intelligent section of the Indian society. They speak for the common people and voice their grievances against mismanagement of public affairs. They serve as a link between the rulers and the rated, the government and the people and complete the chain of action and reaction. The newspapers in India perform their pole as guardians of the public interest, watch-dogs and a source of all kinds of information. They are not State-controlled, as in U.S.S.R. and Pakistan, they enjoy freedom of expression. Of course, they must function within the bounds of law. They must not infringe the law regarding libel and deformation, otherwise they would be liable to penal action. Even the restricted freedom of the Indian newspapers it the envy of the journalists in other countries of Asia where there has been a prolonged spell of military dictatorship, autocratic rule or emergency. In India, the newspapers keep a powerful check on the misdeeds, the tyranny and this, corrupt practices of the government. Thomas Jefferson paid rich tributes to this function of the newspaper when he said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." However, all newspapers do not play a positive end constructive role expected of them. There is a section of newspapers in India, which indulges in blackmail, extortion of money and distortion of facts and news. This yellow journalism is despicable. Such newspapers violate all ethical standards and adopt a purely mercenary and anti-national attitude. This is substandard and base Journalism. They should be treated like smugglers, black-marketers and drug-pedlars and antisocial elements and should be dealt with an iron-hand. What Jefferson said about newspapers in America applies to newspapers in India also. ''I Chapter, truth; II Chapter, probabilities; third, possibilities; fourth, lies; fifth, blatant lies; and the first chapter is the shortest," Most of the country's leading newspapers are owned or dominated by big industrial houses and capitalistsBirja, Dalmia, Express group, As a result, the interests of the general public are often sacrificed at the altar of capitalism and business interests. Moreover, the lion's share of the total circulation of newspapers, a little above 5crore, belongs to the bigger dailies published from Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, the metropolitan towns. The national dailies enjoy a great deal of influence and command huge resources. But the smaller newspapers, that are published in the regional languages and that have a smaller circulation, have to face perpetual financial crisis and are often forced to close down. This belies the Government policy of patronizing smaller newspapers and imposing restraints in bigger newspapers.

In several countries abroad, especially in the West, newspapers have power to make and break governments; but in India newspapers do not carry much weight and do not cut much ice. The Government does not pay much heed to their views and does not respond to their criticism for the simple reason that it commands a colossal majority in the Parliament. Gloating over absolute majority, the Government even tries to shifle free press (as has several times been done in the case of the Indian Express group of papers). One common method of pressurising newspapers that the Central or State Governments in India adopt is to stop giving advertisements and notifications released by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (D.A.V.P.), Government departments and public sector enterprises; to such newspapers as do not cringe and adopt a fawning attitude and thus made them suffer financially. Advertisements are sometimes used as a weapon to corapell compliance, for it would be impossible for a newspaper to survive without advertisements, the prop and the life-blood of all journalism. A number of such cases have been taken up in the Press Council of India and have been commented upon. Another method is that of stopping or substantially cutting down the supply of newsprint paper quota to such 'dare-devil' newspapers. Newspapers in this renaissance country should regard their profession as a noble mission of educating and enlightening people. They should impose certain moral and national restraints and discipline upon themselves. They should refrain from indulging Its rumors and turning out biased information and distorted truths from ulterior motives. As purveyors of news and views, they should play the rote of 'people's university' and serve the motherland as guardians and custodians of people's liberty.