Home Blog Page 440

Wreckage of World War II US aircraft found in Arunachal Pradesh

News Intervention Bureau
-
0
Wreckage of World War II US aircraft found in Arunachal Pradesh

In an interesting finding, a 12 member Indian Army patrol along with a police representative recovered wreckage of a World War II vintage US Air Force aircraft in Roing district of Arunachal Pradesh on 30 Mar 2019. The patrol located the aircraft debris covered by thick undergrowth and buried under five feet of snow. Based on the information received from local trekkers of Lower Dibang district through the police, a special patrol of Army was sent to locate the wreckage in a remote location, 30 kms from Roing. The patrol moved cross country for 30 kilometers in thick jungles and snow covered areas for eight days to trace out the wreckage. 

The region had seldom been ventured by anyone in the past and is even obscured from air due to thick foliage. The discovery of the vintage aircraft and other warlike stores will definitely lead to revelation of some historical inputs.

Is there a link between Islam and Terrorism?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
-
0
Is there a link between Islam and Terrorism?

By Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor University of Lethbridge, and Visiting Professor University of British Columbia – Okanagan. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you look at global terrorism?

Professor Mir Faizal: I think before answering any problem, we need to fix our definitions. If we do not do that, we can create a more complicated situation than necessary, when one person talks of something and then the interlocutor understands something else. Let us start from the simplest definition of terrorism, a terrorist organization as an organization that deliberately kills civilians to achieve an ideological purpose. To be more precise, let us add that, an origination can be called a terrorist organization only if at least two democratic countries (on two different continents, e.g., North America, Africa, and so on, or in two different recognized regions, e.g., Middle East-North Africa, and so on) recognize it as such. This other restriction limits the abuse of this word, as, otherwise, this word has been thoroughly abused (for example, Saudi Arabia defines atheism as terrorism). This definition of terrorism is also important, as it helps us identify the real practical problem when dealing with real issues rather than, possibly, invented legalisms. This is the terrorism that governments have to be careful about when they are considering a visa application, or when they are checking someone for security reasons.

Jacobsen: Is terrorism related to Islam?

Faizal: Anyone who knows some statistics can see that there seems to be a positive correlation between some sects of Islam and terrorism. To say all Muslims are terrorists is clearly unreasonable and incorrect, and to say all terrorists are Muslims is also wrong (as there are many non-Muslim terrorists too); on the other hand, to say that Muslims are like any other religious group is also not correct, the number of violent events from Muslims seems to be far more than non-Muslims (if we again neglect the wars between nation states for the moment, as that is beyond the present definition of terrorism). I tried to search the number of terrorist attacks in December of 2018, as an example. I found there were approximately one hundred seventy terrorist attacks around the world. Out of these the terrorist attacks, only around twenty terrorist attacks were done by groups without an explicit Islamic ideology. Therefore, there seems to be a positive correlation between being a Muslim and being a terrorist. We need to first accept this problem, scientifically analyze its causes, and finally come to a proper, rational solution. It could be interesting to carry out this analysis further and observe the variation of this probability with different sects of Islam.

Jacobsen: What is the first observation that can be made on the relation between Islam and global terrorism?

Faizal: The first observation is that some sects of Islam are more violent than others. In fact, there are sects of Islam, which have almost zero histories of violence. This means the if someone belongs to those sects of Islam, then there is almost a certainty he/she will not commit any act of terrorism. For example, Ahmadi Muslims (both Qadiani and Lahori Ahmadis) or Quranist Muslims (Muslims who follow only Quran) have a zero history of violence. In fact, they have been the targets of violent attacks and have never responded violently. On the other hand, most of the global terrorist moments come from Sunni Islam. Some sects of Shia Islam have been involved with many forms of violence at the state level, but using our definition consistently, we cannot classify it as terrorism. As an example, I could not find any act of terror done by Shia Muslims in December of 2018. The Shias are also focused on Israel and the Middle East, and do not commit violent acts against other countries. On the other hand, it is Sunni Islam, which seems to have a monopoly on global terrorism. 

Jacobsen: Are some sects of Sunni Islam more prone to terrorism?

Faizal: I think there are only three sects in Sunni Islam, which are associated with terrorism. They are the Salafi, Deobandi, and Barelvi. The Barelvi and Deobandi are Sufis, and so, it incorrect to say all Sufis are non-violent. Barelvis are only obsessed with blasphemy and tend to limit the violence to those, who they think have insulted Muhammad. The person who killed the Salman Taseer (governor in Pakistan) was a Barelvi. The Taliban are Deobandi. However, both Barelvi and Deobandi have almost no influence beyond the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan), and are only concerned with local issues. So, the only group which has international global influence are the Salafis. It may be noted Salafis are called Wahhabis (named after their founder, who is closely related to the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). I could not again find any act of terrorism done by Barelvis in December 2018, and around forty terrorist attacks done by Deobandis. However, most of these attacks done by Deobandis were limited to the Indian subcontinent. This leaves more than one hundred international terrorist attacks, which were done by Salafis. However, Salafis make up less than one percent of the total Muslim population, and even in Saudi Arabia, they are a minority, and only form twenty-three percentage population. Furthermore, not all Salafis are violent. In fact, the official sect of Saudi Arabia is a Salafi sect, and it even bans peaceful protests against the government. These kinds of Salafi, who believe in blindly  following  the government, are called Madkhalis. There are other non-violent non-Madkhali Salafis. So, it is a specific kind of Salafis that are related to terrorism. As they form a small population of the total Muslim population, this correction becomes a more direct one. It may be noted that like the Shias, the violence promoted by Barelvi and Deobandi is circumstantial, and not intrinsic. However, the violence by certain Salafi sects (such as the ISIS) is intrinsic, and not circumstantial. Even with this difference, it may be noted that there are some deep common features between Salafi, Deobandi, and Barelvi. In fact, as the main concern of different governments is that they want to reduce the probability of someone blowing himself/herself up. Now there is no way to make this probability go to zero, but it would be possible to reduce to such a small amount, that we may just neglect it. This can be done by first understanding the source of the problem. For example, if a country is in global news about remakes on blasphemy they need to be careful of Salafis and Barelvi, and if a country is involved in Afghanistan, they need to be careful about Salafis and Deobandi. However, as both Barelvi and Deobandi are not concerned with international news, they need to only warn their citizens visiting Indian subcontinent. So, internationally, they only need to worry about the Salafis. As Salafis form a very small portion of the Muslim population, and Salafis can also be from peaceful  sects (like Madkhalis), it is only a specific kind of Salafis that any government has to be worried about when it comes to terrorism. 

Jacobsen: Do Islamic scriptures support terrorism? 

Faizal: We can deal with this question theologically. That can be a separate issue, and will require a separate discussion. However, that would also not be important from a real practical point of view. So, let us deal with it mathematically and statistically. We first observe that there are fundamentally two distinct groups of people in Muslims. One group is totally peaceful (such as the Ahmadis and Quranists), and others are totally violent (such as Salafis, Deobandis, and Barelvis). Most Muslims are somewhere in between these two extremes. So, instead of getting involved in an academic theologically discussion, we can analyze this problem mathematically, by simply identifying the common features of peaceful Muslims and violent Muslims. This way we can get a better more accurate practical understanding of the problem. It may be noted here that even thought not all Salafis, Deobandis, and Barelvis are violent, but all acts of violence, with an Sunni Islamic justification, comes from these groups. On the other hand, no act of violence with an Islamic justification has ever been conducted by the people in the first group, such as Ahmadis and Quranists.

Jacobsen: What are the features of peaceful Muslims and violent Muslims?

Faizal: There is an interesting correlation between what peaceful and violent Muslims sects believe, and this holds for most sects in the two groups. To understand that we need to first understand that apart from Quran and Mutawatir practices (collective practices which most Muslims perform, like prayers), theirs is a huge body of ahad Hadith literature, which describes what Muhammad did, and it was written some two hundred years after Muhammad. The idea of Muhammad marries a six-year-old girl comes from this literature, the idea that apostates should be killed also come from them, the idea that homosexuals (as well as people who commit adultery) should be killed also come from them. In fact, these ahad Hadith are filled with both extremely peaceful and extremely violent narrations (as they were written some two hundred years after Muhammad). A common belief in almost all terrorist organizations is that some verses of Quran have been abrogated based on these ahad narrations, and so they base their practices more on ahad Hadith narrations than on the Quran. In their theory, all the peaceful verses of the Quran were abrogated by verses, which may seem violent. On the other hand, all those sects of Islam who do not hold to this theory of abrogation of Quran are totally non-violent (for example, Ahmadi Muslims and Quranist Muslims do not hold to this theory of abrogation). Even Sunni Muslim scholars, such as Adnan Ibrahim and Javed Ghamidi, who actively preach against violence, do not hold to this theory of abrogation, and base their belief on the Quran rather than ahad Hadith. In their theory, the violence in any verse is contextual (and those verses only refer to war), and has to be read in the light of general more peaceful verses of the Quran. So, we can again establish a mathematical relation between Muslims who not hold to a textual discontinuity in Quran (the discontinuity between a Meccan and Medinan verses), and peacefulness. In fact, there is a direct statistical correction between those Muslims who base their belief on the Quran (rejecting the theory of abrogation) and peacefulness. Furthermore, there is also a direct statistical correction between those Muslims who base their beliefs on ahad Hadith (accepting the theory of abrogation) and violence. It is important to realize that not all Muslims, who hold to textual discontinuity in Quran are violent, but all Islamic terrorists, believe in the existence of a textual discontinuity in the Quran. In fact, there has never been a terrorist, who holds to the textual continuity in Quran. So, the probability of anyone who believes in textual continuity of Quran, and basis his beliefs on it, to commit acts of terrorism is zero. In other words, it is almost certain that any Muslim who bases his beliefs on the Quran, rejecting the theory of abrogation cannot be a terrorist. 

Jacobsen: How can this information be used by the government to stop acts of terrorism? 

Faizal: The government needs to act scientifically in identifying the problems of terrorism, and dealing with it. It is a real problem, and should not be influenced by either right or left winged politics, but it should rather be dealt with scientifically. For example, they can identify the right kind of questions that are being asked during a visa application, or other application. If you ask a person about his sect, and come to know he is an Ahmadi or a Quranist, then you can be certain he will not commit any act of violence. Furthermore, any person who is a potential terrorist will never identify himself/herself as such. In fact, for a Sunni Muslim, a good test could be a question (hidden in lots of other questions), where he/she is asked if they think that Ahmadis should be allowed to pray like other Muslims, and consider themselves as Muslim. If he/she answers in affirmation, then again we can be certain that he/she is not a potential terrorist. The government can, first of all, prepare a database of all the terrorist attacks that have occurred, and mathematically identify few common features of all the people (which might be education, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sect, etc). They can weight each aspect of a person, give them a statistical weight, and then subject them to different levels of security checks.As this will be done scientifically, no one will feel discriminated by scientific data (discrimination is a human attribute, and mathematics cannot discriminate). It is also important to realize that whether Islam is a peaceful or violent religion, is an academic question, and it is not important for dealing with terrorism. The only thing that is important is the perception that Islam preaches violence, and this can lead to real acts of violence by people who follow Islam. Interestingly, this belief is only present in those Muslims (and even non-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali), who hold to the textual discontinuity in the Quran, and base their beliefs on ahad Hadith. In fact, we can easily state one statistical fact, that it is this belief in textual discontinuity in Quran that is directly proportional to the intrinsic (not circumstantial) acts of violence by violent terrorists (like the ISIS), and everything that can be done to counter it (with the constraint that it does not violate the freedom of speech), should be done, to minimize the probability of terrorist attacks. 

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Mir Faizal.

Photo by Jaanus Jagomägi on Unsplash

On the European Commission’s High Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance Report

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
-
0
On the European Commission’s High Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance Report

*This interview was conducted in 2018.*

Scott Douglas Jacobson: So in the past, you have been a member of the European Commission’s High Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, with the recent report published in February 2018. How did you come to earn that position?

What are the main propositions within the final report?

Professor Paul Fisher: So, there was a request for nominations at end 2016. I should note that serving on the committee was unpaid, so this is a volunteer committee. I was nominated by Cambridge University as a Senior Associate there.  With my background at the Bank of England and working on climate change there, that was probably the basis for it.

The recommendations are comprehensive. We’re expecting them to pretty much endorse everything, to set out their plan for what happens at least over the next year and a half before the next round of European elections.

They’ll be doing groundwork, to be taken forward to the next European Parliament. But we don’t know for sure what will be in the actual plan (editiorial note: subsequently published in March 2018). The recommendations are summarized under ten summary headings, although, there is probably about 100. It is quite difficult to be precise! Let’s say 100 recommendations.

Jacobsen: What are those areas?

Fisher: The first one is to introduce a common taxonomy. Because you cannot start to talk about classifying financial assets without precise definitions. So if you want to know what a green asset is, everyone has to agree on what the definition of green is.

It isn’t about rules at this point. This is about getting the dictionary correct. They’re already working on this, trying to specify this new taxonomy. And once you’ve done that, you can start making policy decisions based on the classifications.

The second area is around clarifying the duties of investors, to look at longer time horizons and bring greater focus on ESG factors  (that is environment, social, and governance). This is in particular for investors who invest on behalf of other people.

So in particular, if you have a pension fund, you are investing on behalf of the pensioners, you should have a really long-term focus, which should bring sustainable issues to the forefront. Now, the incentives for asset managers are often shorter term.  We’re looking at that.

Also, the duty of other investors managing their own money, companies at least, to think about those sort of issues. Because your duty to your company is not about short term profit making.

To make sure you include future shareholders as well as current shareholders, you need to  think about how sustainable profits are.

Third are disclosure rules. We had a report last year from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. Basically, we want a framework that moves as close as we can get to the recommendations from that task force, and get it as close to mandatory as we can. There may not be any new legislation. It is meant to be voluntary rules, for disclosure on a ‘comply or explain’ basis. That disclosure is supposed to be around material exposures. It is proposed to cover things like governance, strategy, risk management and targets and metrics.

The fourth one is around empowering the citizens to connect with politicians. This includes things like improving information on sustainability performance, and financial literacy. It starts getting into having simple labels for retail funds, about sustainability.

Financial advisors should ask their client about their preferences. So, we can make sure that they are recommending what is suitable. That is supposed to happen under current laws. But they do not ask about sustainability.

Fifth is getting into sustainable finance standards, starting with green bonds. These are bonds, which are issued by borrowers with the proceeds promised to go to some specific green purpose. The market has been growing quite rapidly.  We have recommended a European green bond standard. So bonds, that meet that standard can have the label.

Sixth, to improve the supply of projects that need investment, we want to start something called Sustainable Infrastructure Europe.  Because a lot of the work we’ve been doing is looking at the supply of finance. But it is the demand for finance which is struggling to keep up.  There are not enough green projects to go around. We need technical assistance, especially for the public sector. That should help raise money for infrastructure.

Seventh, there is a general point about reforming governance and leadership of companies, sustainable finance competency, particularly within the financial system. The director’s duties and stewardship principles in that regard need to be clarified.   So, we think boards somehow should have some competency on these issues.  That they should consider things like carbon emissions and other factors. That blends closely with the investor duties, of course. But this recommendation applies to all companies.

Then finally, we want to enlarge the role of the European Supervisory Agencies. There are three of those, in particular, which are the Euopean Banking Association, the European Insurance and Occupational Pension Association and the European Securities and Markets Association. But what those three agencies do is coordinate with national regulators in their areas.

So, basically, first is prudential supervision of  banks; the second does insurers and the other one does market conduct and consumer protection. That recommendation has, to a certain extent, been implemented already. Because we already had the clarification last year. They should encompass sustainability, as a result of our recommendations.

So, those are the areas – eight in all, which are the summary of the recommendations. Then there are detailed sections within the Report, which cover all that.

Scott: You are also deeply involved with the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership and Climate Alliance Australia.  How do those particular organizations orient themselves in a similar direction, e.g. sustainability?

Paul: The CISL group, having been going about ten years. What they’re doing is work with companies, various work streams, mainly with the sustainable finance people, in banks, insurance, and asset managers. They look for common problems in the industry, to solve them.

They provide executive education for these companies:  bringing big companies up to speed with what the issues are and what they should be doing about it. Policy work, which is where I come in, it is to try and convince the policy setting agenda.

In Australia, its a much smaller group, but similarly, they work largely towards trying to get boards to take climate risks seriously. That has been going for a while in Australia. All of these groups work quite closely together.

They’re very similar outlooks. But in Australia, the problems are somewhat different, in that the politics is toxic because of the importance of the coal industry. There is a lot of superannuation funds who are big investors similar to life insurance companies. They’ve got funds at risk.

Scott: I want to ask about a personal approach question as well. Because you do have several years of experience in these areas. Where others do not have the ability to do it or the skill set built up to know what to do?

So when it comes to working with them, in a policy and sustainable economic framework, how do you go about working to influence decisions, either on your own where you are volunteering or contributing to a larger initiative to make that positive impact?

Also, how does that approach differ from some of the approaches that might be taken in different contexts that are not taking into account a longer-term sustainable perspective?

Paul: Most of the people have a lot more experience than me on the sustainability agenda. I’ve only been working on this for a few years. Some have 20 or 30 years’ experience. But most specialists in sustainability or they were from financial companies – specializing in particular aspects of finance.

My background: I was a macroeconomist and policymaker. I was the only one in the group who was a regulator and doing macro. So what do I bring to the party?  It is that experience of how to do policy, how to join things up as a macroeconomist, and what the regulatory issues can be in these scenarios. I am not a campaigner in the way, a lot of green campaigners are, or the sustainability people are.

I am interested in public policy, in good private policy for that matter. So, there is a sense of detachment which being an economist, a policy person, should bring you. I go out to talk to companies in the financial sector, I try to do that when I can.  I say: forget the politics and campaigning.  Even though this is a social, moral, ethical issue, you have to leave that aside and work with the mainstream business risk issue. If you do that, then you will start making the right decisions.

You will realize what the risks are, what the opportunities are, where the economy is going. Trying to bring that clear-headed view of what the issues are.  It is giving people permission to get on and do the right thing, forgetting about the politics – that isn’t important.

Most of the banks have these issues under their head of corporate social responsibility. So, it is seen as something needing doing, because the community wants it. But this should be under a business head, which is a CSR issue.

But you are not going to start transforming your business, taking opportunities and  avoiding risks, unless, your heads of business units are on side.  So get away from the many years of campaigning, get down to hard economics and the business environment and say, “This is the right thing to do if you want to make money.”

Scott: That is funny.

Paul: Invest in renewable energy if you want to make money!

Scott: That is very funny. I live in Canada. It is on a similar context. I could see an argument. In the short term, people are okay with tar sands, but in the long term may want to reconsider that as their main energy resource.

Paul: Tar sands are a stranded asset already. You should not be investing any more money in tar sands because it would get lost. It is a big black pit to pour money into. They should be investing in wind, solar, wave power, and hydroelectric. All sorts of things, but not fossil fuels.

The cost of renewable energy is now going through, falling below the costs of fossil fuel energy. The costs (of renewables) are still falling at 20 to 40 percent per year. So, this is a very rapid growth. UK energy production is at about 25 percent renewables. Germany over a third.

This is where the world is going. It is where the money is going to be made. Not in tar sands. Or other oil and gas. Gas may have a longer life than oil. But basically, the demand for it is going to see a very sharp drop.  For example, we’ll basically have electric vehicles powered by renewable energy, we won’t have petrol/diesel vehicles.

Scott: You do not have an obligation to make a statement here. What might this imply for either provinces or nations as a whole, pushing for things like pipelines in the immediate future?

Paul: They’re wasting their time and their money, basically. They need to be looking at renewable energy sources, not fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be phased out, in a relatively short time period, I would say.

Renewable energy is getting so much cheaper, in many parts of the globe. It is cheaper to produce certain energy at home than the transmission cost across the grid. So however it is made – electricity – in the first place, there is a cost of transmitting it that is greater than it would cost to produce it at home.  That’s becoming increasingly true, everywhere could have solar energy. Other places will have wind energy, whatever the local conditions will supply.  We won’t need oil or other fossil fuels at all.

Scott: What was done before the geopolitical situation with countries heavily being exporters and heavily reliant internally?

Paul: Saudi Arabia is frantically trying to come up with a new economic policy. So, they can see the writing on the wall. Countries like India, China, need to jump through and go straight to clean energy. The problem is, they rely heavily on coal.

It is creating terrible pollution. So, they know they have to change, from the smoke and pollution. That was what drives those countries, what will drive all of this overall is the economics of it as well.  But the cost of the pollution effects will help drive it.

So, this isn’t any sort of cost, going green. This is a choice for cheap, renewable green energy. This is another example: Tesla are working on roof tiles which are solar panels. So, you replace your regular roof tiles with Tesla tiles.  You can have solar energy built into your house. Now, whether Tesla has succeeded making a business out of it, I do not know, but that is the way forward. Solar energy and wind energy, possibly, built into the buildings

We already see commercial buildings doing this, make them much more energy efficient. So, these changes are really happening. The difference will be when they go mainstream, as products.

Scott: What is the predicted time for them to become mainstream?

Paul: I think, usually happens, quickly. 2-5 years, we’ve already got the technology for driverless, electric cars. I’ve been in one. I sat in the middle of a three-lane highway without my hands on the wheel. Electric cars, they’re so quick!

Scott: I was in one in California. You do not hear much because they’re so well-built. At the same time, you feel as though you are going through, or at least I felt as though I was going through, the downswing of the roller coaster – by what I was seeing, rather than feeling.

Paul: It is not quite there yet, too expensive or too heavy. They are supposed to be bringing out the car this year, Tesla, which is half the price. Tesla isn’t a mainstream product yet. Somebody said that Toyota produces more cars in a day than Tesla has ever produced.

So, there is some way to go before it goes mainstream. But we are starting to see a big pickup in hybrid cars, which have some electric capacity. There will be no petrol, diesel cars allowed in cities, in 2030, 2040. People are starting to see the writing on the wall.

This is all going to happen. It’ll happen because of the economics. It’ll be cheaper to be driverless.

Scott: What do you consider the boldest proposal for the next 10 years in terms of renewable energy, sustainable energy?

Paul: I do not think it will take much more than common sense. People are supportive. What we’re going to see will be quite striking, it is not just about policy. The economy will change quite dramatically. It will change because of the economics. That will drive it.

That is going to be the boldest thing to happen. Petrol/diesel cars to electric cars don’t need a policy shift. It will be consumers that drive it.

And we’re now seeing, in the UK and Europe, the big push back against plastics. Or making sure that plastic is recyclable plastic at least. That happened, for me, in the past a month or two, after a television program. So when I think of the boldest thing, I think this is just going to happen by consumer action. It will happen because the economics will drive it.

We’re well on the way to see very big changes in the economy and the way in which people think about those issues. The policy is already mainstream. Since 2015, the Financial Stability Board has changed its policy agenda.  The setting up of a G20 Study Group for green finance, which in turn led to the EC Experts Group on Sustainable Finance. So, all these things have come since September 2015. Now, it is an unstoppable policy.

Trump may disrupt, nonetheless. But what you are seeing in the US is cities,  states, individual businesses, taking up the reins where the government has stepped back. So, I expect to see big changes. Some will be predictable, but some of them will be unpredictable.

We know big changes are going to happen. We do not know precisely what they’re going to look like. We’ve seen what will happen to the car industry, what will happen to the energy industry. There are many other industries out there.

Scott: Thank you for the opportunity of your time, Mr. Fisher.


Photo by Angela Compagnone on Unsplash

Deepa Malik: The making of a National Icon and Leader

Jaibans Singh
-
0
Deepa Malik: The making of a National Icon and Leader

Deepa Malik, India’s first and only woman para-athlete to ever win a Paralympic medal across any sport, took the political plunge on 25th March 2019. She joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a simple ceremony and was duly welcomed by BJP President Amit Shah in the presence of party’s Haryana unit chief, Subhash Barala, and general secretary Anil Jain.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said in his Mann ki Baat, and during the inauguration of TransStadia at Ahmedabad that every Indian youth should meet Deepa Malik and hear her motivational talks to get a correct outlook towards life, and also to understand how the youth could contribute towards nation building.

Amit Shah, President of Bharatiya Janata Party, welcoming Para-athlete Deepa Malik into BJP.

Deepa Malik attributed her decision to join BJP to the assistance provided by the NDA government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi to para-athletes that resulted in a vast improvement in their performance at the international level. “Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji and his government has been very supportive towards differently abled people, Modi ji’s attention is commendable. Policies for Divyangs, which has also impacted sports policies have been put in place. I prepared for Rio 2016 Games without any discrimination and I have not seen such empowerment of Divyangs before. Even the Disability Bill has been upgraded. Earlier this bill had 7 disabilities, but it now includes 21 disabilities, which effectively means that more disabled persons have been brought under its ambit. This is a commendable move indeed,” said Malik. She also expressed her desire to work for the nation in concert with the ideological base being provided by the BJP.

That Malik was gravitating towards the BJP was noticed in October last year when she credited Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) and Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) –both initiatives of the NDA government— for her achievements in the third edition of Para-Asian Games, in which she won two Bronze Medals for Discus and Javelin Throws respectively. “I would like to thanks TOPS Scheme and Paralympics Committee of India who trained us for such a big platform,” she said.

Deepa Malik’s life is a saga of grit and determination against all odds. She has an Army background. Her husband, Colonel (retd.) Bikram Singh Malik, served the Armoured Corps in one of the oldest regiments of the corps, The Scinde Horse. Her father-in-law, Major General (retd.) Balbir Singh Malik commanded the same regiment as her husband. Her husband’s grandfather Late Major Asaram Malik was a gallantry war hero from the Poona Horse in World War II. Her father, Late Colonel BK Nagpal, served with the Grenadiers, a reputed Infantry Regiment. Her brother Brigadier Vikram Nagpal is presently in service.

Deepa was born as a normal healthy child in 1970, but in 1977, she suffered from tumours along the spine and recovered after surgery and extensive physiotherapy. She got married in 1989 but her condition worsened once again at the age of 29. She underwent two surgeries in the Army Research and Referral Hospital, rated amongst the best in the country, but could not recover and was paralysed from the chest and below. Deepa was brave in the face of adversity, showing the true qualities of an Army family member while she underwent life threatening surgeries for chest below paralysis. During these times Deepa Malik’s husband was posted in the Kargil war sectors and she looked after their very young daughters while recuperating from her surgeries. Deepa braved these tough times alone for the first three years of her paralysis as her husband could not be with her due to exigencies of Operation Vijay and Operation Parakram of the Indian Army.

Deepa has a very severe international disability category termed as F-53, which results in chest below paralysis. Her condition translates into complete paralysis below the chest with zero sensation in the afflicted areas, no bladder and bowel control, half the lungs inflated, poor body temperature control and blood circulation with no torso balance. Only her arms and shoulders are functional. The three spinal surgeries, about 180 stitches between her shoulder blades in upper spinal region makes long sitting, training and driving with arms extremely challenging.

However, right from the word go Deepa was not ready to allow her disability to come in her way of leading a normal life. Her favourite quote from her own motivational talks is, “…the only disease I suffer from is happiness.” You always see her with a smiling face and she is often caught saying that her body may be paralysed but her soul is not. Deepa says that she has learnt that life is the only festival that can be celebrated every day. She doesn’t lives a mundane life, rather she feels alive! And her actions in such severe disability is testimony to her spirits, which speak louder than her words.

She also created a successful catering business at Ahmednagar in Maharashtra, where her husband was posted. Her effort to establish the business meant that she was financially self-reliant and not a liability.

At the age of 36, Deepa felt that she had to do something more with her body to prove her mission — ‘Ability beyond Disability’ and change the stereotypical mindset of the society towards the limitations of a woman in disability. And true to her grit and determination, in less than six years, she became an international sportsperson. So, her journey towards sports began at the age of 36, as a swimmer creating world records in river swimming. At the age of 39, she became an athlete and learnt Javelin Throw creating new Asian records, and for the past seven years Deepa has held the Asian record for Javelin Throw in the F-53 category. However, she was faced with a new challenge when at the age of 45 she took to Shot Put to represent India at the Rio Games 2016.

Para-athlete Deepa Malik in action for Javelin Throw.

Deepa is India’s first female Para-athlete to win a medal at the Paralympics. She made her country proud by winning a Silver Medal at the 2016 Summer Paralympics in the Shot Put category. She has more than 50 National Gold Medals in Swimming, Shot Put, Javelin and Discuss Throw and 23 International Medals to her credit having the unique feat of winning three consecutive Asian Games medals with three consecutive Asian records thereby bettering her own previous ones. But what makes Deepa smile more about her sports journey is that she was able to contribute to the policies for the differently abled sportsmen as a working group member.

Deepa is also an adventure sports enthusiast and she has created world record by becoming the first paraplegic biker and a car rallyist. In March 2010, she successfully completed the very difficult Desert Storm Motor Vehicle Rally; a journey of almost 3000 km through breath taking desert landscapes and the toughest terrain, an unprecedented feat of endurance and courage. She is a Limca Book Record holder for her remarkable feats in swimming, biking and driving.

Her feats have been acknowledged with many awards at the national, state and social level. Prominent among these are the Arjuna Award in 2012, Padma Shri in 2017 and Haryana Karambhoomi Award in 2008. The Government of Maharashtra has also awarded her with the Chatrapati Award (Sports) in 2009. The list of her awards is very long and meritorious.

Who can be better than Deepa as a role model and inspiration for incentive, drive, enthusiasm and celebration of life to the hilt? She shares her experiences through motivational workshops across the globe in various educational institutes and women empowerment and diversity platforms. For this contribution she was chosen by the All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice for Globe’s Most Exceptional Speaker Award in 2015. Also, for completing over 300 lectures she has been conferred with two honorary doctorate degrees.

Deepa Malik is a national icon and a role model for the young as well as the differently-abled to pursue life with determination. It is this message that she gives in all her addresses where the audience listens to her in rapt attention. “There was a time when people and the society were confused as to how and what I will be able to give to my daughters due to the social stigma, taboos and stereotypes attached around my physical condition. I am happy that my motherhood and womanhood became my strength to recover and reclaim my life as an abled person with a lot of passion to impact the society in the right direction. And today I stand tall as a proud mother of two educated and accomplished daughters, where my elder daughter Devika has already won international and national accolades for her social work in the disability sector and younger daughter Ambika is an MBA graduate working in the corporate world,” she says in her motivation talks.

Deepa Malik is the kind of leader that India requires, a person who will stimulate and encourage the people more by her actions than her words. She associates with the ideology of BJP and will be in a position to give her best to the country as a part of the party. Her decision to play a leadership role will benefit the party of her choice as well as the country in a great measure. She has not only become a role model for divyangs and women but also for the youth. Deepa’s resilience and her never say die attitude is an inspiration for all Indians across any age or gender.

By Golly Ms. Molly, Gone, Mrs. Lawrence

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
-
0
By Golly Ms. Molly, Gone, Mrs. Lawrence

Famed actress, Jennifer Lawrence, famously stated when she was 25 that she simply could see herself getting married at that point in her life. Although, she could see herself as someone who could become a mother.

This was in a prominent interview with none other than Diane Sawyer. Given the context of Ms. Lawrence’s relational life at that time, in intimate life, she had split with the British actor Nicholas Hoult, which was after a 5-year relationship. A significant period of time for someone in this age bracket.

Lawrence, at the time, opined, “I was also in a relationship with somebody for five years and that was my life… Being 24 was this whole year of…‘who am I without this man?’”

At that time, at 25, she never saw herself as someone who would ever need to walk down as the aisle, saying, “I don’t know if I ever will get married and I’m OK with that… I don’t feel that I need anything to complete me. I love meeting people, men, women, whatever, I love people coming into your life and bringing something.”

It was a time in her life when she, probably, felt a need to rediscover herself and assert her identity, which, for someone with a life in the public eye, is all the more difficult, of course. To state, that she does not need a relationship to feel complete.

It is in this sense that public statements like those can provide emotional support for women who feel questioning themselves and where the larger culture may, in fact, be pushing a false image and so message; one that women need to speak out about, and, in the case of Lawrence, even in the midst of the pain provides a supportive statement of not needing a partner while still wanting to be a mother.

But, of course, this can also leave room for change. Now, Lawrence is engaged after dating for 6 months, or more, and will be working towards a marriage with her new fiance named Cooke Maroney.

Photo by John Fowler on Unsplash

UPSC uploads scores of non-recommended candidates for employment in other departments

News Intervention Bureau
-
0
UPSC uploads scores of non-recommended candidates for employment in other departments

 The Union Public Service Commission has issued a Disclosure Scheme for disclosing the scores and other details of the non-recommended candidates. This Scheme covers only willing candidates who appeared at the Interview Stage of Commission’s Examination. Such details include Name of the candidate, Father’s/ Husband’s name, Date of Birth, Category, Gender, Educational Qualifications, Total marks etc. These details are arranged in Roll Number order. The objective of the Scheme is to provide a useful database to other employers to enable them to identify good employable candidates.

These details are uploaded on the Website of the Commission, which is linked to the National Career Service (NCS) Portal of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. This information of an Examination remains available for one year from the date of disclosure.

The Scheme has come into force with the Combined Medical Services Examination, 2017. Other Examinations so far covered are Combined Defence Services Examination (Il), 2017; Indian Economic Service Examination, 2018; Indian Statistical Service Examination, 2018; Indian Forest Service Examination, 2018 and Combined Geo-Scientist & Geologist Examination, 2018 and Combined Defence Services Examination (I), 2018.

Details of 4,338 candidates including professionals in the field of medicine, economics, statistics, geophysics, hydrogeology etc. are available for employment to different employers. These details may  be seen   at https://upsc.gov.in/examination/public-disclosure-of-scoresthrough-portal.

WhatsApp comes with new feature to control adding in random groups

News Intervention Bureau
-
0
WhatsApp comes with new feature to control adding in random groups

WhatsApp, the cross-platform messaging and Voice over IP service owned by Facebook, has announced a new privacy feature that lets you control who can add you to a group. This feature is rolling out to the users on the latest version of WhatsApp, and it will reach everyone around the globe in the coming weeks.

Users need to go to the Settings to manage this feature Settings > Account > Privacy > Groups menu. The app has provided three more options there- ‘Everyone’, ‘My contacts’, and ‘Nobody’. Selecting ‘Everyone’ will let everyone with your WhatsApp number add you to a group. The ‘My contacts’ option will limit the option to people whose numbers are already saved in your contacts. And, choosing the ‘Nobody’ option will prevent everyone from adding you to a group.

While unknown people cannot add you in any group, but they will be able to send the user a private invitation to join a group. User will then have 72 hours to accept the invitation after which the invite will expire.

Banning Religious Modesty Dress is Liberal

Terri Murray
-
0
Banning Religious Modesty Dress is Liberal

Many liberals today believe that a ban on Muslim veiling would be inconsistent with liberalism. However, the chief architect of liberal political philosophy, John Stuart Mill, who was also one of the nineteenth century’s greatest feminists, probably would have accepted a ban in principle. Mill’s 19th century England presented a different set of religious issues to those of multicultural Britain today, but Mill considered three cases contemporaneous to his writing that offer a prism through which we can discern how liberalism’s founding father might have responded to the question of a state ban on Muslim veiling.

First, he considers whether a ban on eating pork would be acceptable in a Muslim minority country like his own. He concludes that the ban on pork-eating would be unacceptable since many would want to resist the ban because they do not accept Muslim disgust as legitimate grounds for preventing other people from eating pork.

Next, Mill looked at the Christian Puritans’ ban on various forms of recreation, such as music and dance. Mill remarked that the moral and religious sentiments of Puritans were inadequate grounds to restrict other peoples’ leisure activities.

Finally, he considered the Mormon minority in the United States, who practiced (male only) polygamy and were persecuted for it. Mill’s response was that interference in the Mormon way of life would be unjustified on the condition that the practice is undertaken with the full consent of all participants. He also stipulated that it should be permitted only if people living in Mormon communities were free to leave.

The Mormon example can be extended to any case in which a host society seeks to change the practices of a minority when those practices are not enforced on people against their will. If we accept – as most people do – that religious dress codes are sometimes forced on people against their will, then, to that extent, according to Mill’s reasoning, the state would bejustified in interfering with the practice, just as it would be in cases where the practice of male polygamy did not have the full consent of those impacted by it.  This conclusion is consistent with the rationale of Mill’s conditional ban on male polygamy, since the only condition that he thought would make state interference in the practice acceptable was if women had not fully consented to the practice and were not fully free to leave the practicing community. If these conditions are met in the case of the veil, for instance, then it is consistent with liberal political philosophy to ban it.

No one should be made, by legal or political force, to conform to ideological values that are not his or her own. So, while well-meaning British or American citizens may argue that it is not OK to tell people what to wear (or not to wear), the same goes for Salafi-Wahhabists and fundamentalists as well as for the state and government officials.

A legal restriction on veiling, because it would ensure that we are consistent when we say that “nobody should tell women what they can wear (or not wear)” is more principled and starts with the existing situation, which is that a subset of women are currently being told what to wear. Many women wear the veil because someone has told them that they cannot wear Western dress, or that not to veil themselves would be in contravention of religious values. If these women dissent, some of them would face violence, abuse and homelessness. If we really want women to be free to “wear whatever they want,” then we must (a) argue against religious authoritarians who tell women exactly what they must wear (b) stop allowing the state to prosecute as “hate speech” every attempt to do so, and (c) possibly erect a legal ban on religious modesty dress to protect those who are currently coerced to wear it.

Mill’s various responses to the cases above illustrate that mere offence is not a good reason for society to constrain what people do. Liberals have never favoured state interference with self-regarding behaviours that others merely find distasteful. Liberals have only accepted state interference when the behaviour in question is ‘other-regarding’ (i.e. when it impacts others in a significant way) and is also harmful.

While it is debatable as to what is or is not harmful, liberals have interpreted harm in a narrow sense, such that merely insulting the feelings or offending other people’s tastes or beliefs is not ‘harmful’ in any significant way, since it does not harm anyone’s permanent interests as a progressive being. On the other hand, denying people access to education or information, limiting their freedom of movement or their liberty to assemble with people, or to pursue their own goals, are acts that do harm other people’s permanent interests as progressive beings.  It limits the individual’s ability to have genuine options and a variety of sources of information. This prevents informed decision, constrains ‘education’ within very narrow limits, and ultimately stunts intellectual and personal growth and development – all of which is seriously harmful. 

Offence, far from injuring my development and growth, may actually stimulate my thought, provoke new ideas, or challenge me to question my own assumptions or to defend existing ones with better reasons. On the other hand, customs, when they are coerced or enforced through family and community pressure (sometimes violent pressure) do harm peoples’ permanent interests as progressive and free human agents, capable of exploring their own physical, emotional and intellectual growth. 

For this reason, liberalism has been the best form of government for allowing individuals to pursue their own good in their own way. The state does not presume to enforce any moral or ideological code, but rather is treated as a neutral referee. The state’s sole purpose is to enforce a set of principled and fair rules so that all ideologies can compete on the same level playing field and follow the same rules of engagement. When governments act paternalistically by granting special protections to a particular subculture in society, they are not protecting individuals within those cultures but lifting the protections that would otherwise grant them the same rights as other (more powerful) individuals within their culture.  Liberalism protects all members of a minority subculture, whereas the kind of faith-based multiculturalism that liberal states have pursued in the past decade allows only dominant community leaders to pursue their own values and goals, while protecting their “right” to impose these values on everyone else in the community.   This is not liberal.  It is conservative communitarianism that can quickly become religious fascism. 

Rajkummar Rao wins rule-breaker of the year award

News Intervention Bureau
-
0
Rajkummar Rao wins rule-breaker of the year award

GQ recently hosted GQ style and culture Awards in Mumbai. During the event actor Rajkummar Rao won the GQ rule breaker of the year award. He was seen in head-to-toe all-white Dior outfit during the award function.

Rao also shared the news on social media. He took to Twitter to show his excitement. He tweeted, “Rule breaker of the year, thank you for this honor.”

A host of Bollywood celebrities were also spotted at the GQ Style and Culture Award including Ranveer Singh, Taapsee Pannu, Jacqueline Fernandez, and Anushka Sharma, who marked their presence in their quirky ensemble.

Rajkummar Rao will be next seen in films like Mental Hai Kya, starring opposite Kangana and Made in China.

Yesteryear Bond girl Tania Mallet passes away

News Intervention Bureau
-
0
Yesteryear Bond girl Tania Mallet passes away

Tania Mallet, best known for her role in the 1964 James Bond film “Goldfinger”, has died at the age of 77.

The official James Bond Twitter account shared the news of Mallet’s demise. “We are very sorry to hear that Tania Mallet who played Tilly Masterson in ‘Goldfinger’ has passed away. Our thoughts are with her family and friends at this sad time,” the post read.

Model-actor Mallet was born in Blackpool on May 19, 1941. She is the cousin of Academy Award-winning actress Helen Mirren. Mallet made her foray into films with an audition for the Bond girl Tatiana Romanova in “From Russia with Love”. She did not get the role of Tatiana, but later appeared as Tilly Masterson opposite Sean Connery in the third James Bond film “Goldfinger.” In 1976, she also appeared in TV’s “The New Avengers”.

1...439440441...480Page 440 of 480

News Intervention is the new age digital media platform that has news analysis, opinion pieces, news briefs, news videos and documentaries.
News Intervention raises all those issues that may have been overlooked by big media houses or have been deliberately buried to serve vested interests. We firmly believe that each life matters and every individual regardless of religion, nationality, race, caste or creed must have the right to live life with dignity.

Contact us: editor@newsintervention.com

© Copyright - NewsIntervention