Sheer stupidity - Where will it lead to?

The CSF newsletter contained this a few days ago:

Black beaded mangalsutra with cross.

UK denies Christians right to wear crucifix

United Kingdom, March 11, 2012: The British government asserts that Christians have no right to wear a cross or crucifix at work and is eager to prove it in court.

The case was initiated by two British women Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, after they were punished for refusing to take off their religious symbols.

Nadia Ewedia is a British Airways employee, who was asked to cover her cross while at work, and was placed on unpaid leave when she refused to do so. Shirley Chaplin is a nurse moved to a desk position after she refused to remove a crucifix.

The women claim they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing a cross and crucifix respectively.

The government position is that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore employers can ban the wearing of the cross at work.

The case has been taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which is to decide on whether the right to wear a cross is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 9 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

Eweida and Chaplin claim banning the cross and crucifix at work violates their human right to manifest their religion.

But the authorities insist that since wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” it does not fall under the remit of Article 9.

Lawyers for the two women say “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.

The case has stirred up British society. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, accused authorities of “dictating” to Christians, saying it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined.

Many say the government’s position in this case is largely shaped by the British Roman Catholic Church’s attacks on the government’s plan to legalize same-sex marriage.

The plans were announced by conservatives during the parliamentary elections of 2010.

The country’s PM David Cameron himself spoke in favor of ending the ban on same-sex marriage at the Conservative Party Conference in October 2011. People should embrace same-sex marriage because of their conservatism and their commitment to family values and not in spite of it, Cameron said.

This is sheer stupidity.

The Mangalasutra (Thaali, Minnu) is a symbol of marriage among Hindus and Christians in India.

A Mangalsutra (Mangala sutra, Mangalasutra or Thaali) is a symbol of Hindu marriage union in South Asia. It is a sacred thread of love and goodwill worn by women as a symbol of their marriage. Traditionally the mangalsutra is considered the most revered token of love and respect offered to the bride during the marriage ceremony.

The following is also from Wikipedia:

It is called தாலி (thaali) in Tamil, ತಾಳಿ (thaali) or ಮಾಂಗಲ್ಯ (mangalyasutra) in Kannada and thaali (తాళి), maangalyam (మాంగళ్యము), mangalsutramu (మంగళసూత్రము) or pustelu (పుస్తెలు) in Telugu. Konkanis wear three necklaces around their neck referred to as Dhaaremani or Muhurtmani (big golden bead), Mangalasutra with one or two gold discs and Kasithaali with gold and coral beads. In Malayalam it is simply referred to as Thaali in general and Minnu by Syrian Christians.

A Thali (Minnu) is also worn by the brides of Kerala's Syrian Christian community. An engraving of the holy spirit is a distinguishing feature of the Syrian Christian Minnu. According to tradition, the families of the bride and the bridegroom contribute a piece of gold and melt it with the help of the family goldsmith. This is then used to make the rest of the necklace. The process of tying is assisted by a sister of the groom, as it is with other Hindu communities. During the wedding ceremony, the Minnu is held on and tied using a braided thread made with several threads taken from the Manthrakodi (wedding saree) and twisted together,.

Christians attach a cross in the thread and it is a symbol of love and marriage union.

The case registered by these  British Government  against these two ladies has far reaching consequences and is not only against Christianity but all major world religions.

It is an attack by the British Government on love and marriage. No one would be permitted to wear a thread around their neck! I think this extremist views against all religions should end forthwith.

What do you think?

Madman of Norway

Gunnar Toresen, Head of the Child Welfare Services of the city of Stavenger in Norway is nothing short of being a Megolmaniac Madman urgently requiring physcological care.

His kidnapping of two Indian children in Norway and his recent letter to the Indian Government requiring them to respond to him on the laws applicable in India to Indian citizens is truly bizzarre.

His sense of grandoism shows that he cares little about the children but wants to show his Nazi-like power craze as he tries everything in his assumed power to stop the Indian children to be returned to their motherland.

Norway is not the colonial master of India and he is not the King of the World to dictate to India about Constitutional Rights of Indian Citizens within India!

Not only does Gunnar Toresen require to be institutionalised immediately but the case of the children kidnapped by him, besides these two Indian children, needs to be investigated to see who are his advisors and the financial implications of each case.

The jurisdiction of Norwegian Courts and Norwegian Judges also needs to be put under scrutiny by the European Human Rights Commission, as such violation of the Human Rights of innocent children and their parents can be infectious in these Northern Countries.

It is obvious that certain individuals were benefiting financially from this kidnapping.

Were they fellow social workers and psychiatrists and friends of social workers? How were these people vetted to be given a place in this multi-million Norwegian Kroner money rolling scheme?

The case of the Norwegian foster parent who has been convicted of child molestation should be investigated and his relationship to Gunnar Toresen established.

Is Gunnar Toresen the conduit to provide his friends with innocent children to be used as sex toys?

In our 27 years in Finland we have seen many excesses of the bureaucracy and legal authorities in interfering in the lives of the weaker sections of society.

Gunnar Toresen is one example of the madness of this policy.

It takes a perverted madman to carry out such crazy behaviour and destroy the lives of innocent children and their parents.

Please act by writing to the Norwegian Prime Minister to stop this Norwegian Madman NOW!

Budget Battleground

This post is made in three of my blogs as it of interest to all my readers of Jacob's Blog, and more specifically the readers of my Mumbai Cathedral and John Connon School Blog, Seventh Heaven, and readers of the Stephanian Blog, Kooler Talk (Web Version).

I apologize for this multi-blog posting, as many of you are readers of all the three blogs!

Budget Battleground was  event that took place against the backdrop of my alma mater, St. Stephen's College, beautifully lit in the background, had a selected audience of young economists from Delhi School of Economics, Shri Ram College and St. Stephen's College, three of the many premier colleges in Delhi.

The anchorman was NDTV Managing Director, Dr. Prannoy Roy, who was connected with another good friend, great economist with tremendous wit, the person who turned around Doordarshan in the late eighties and early nineties and then went on to head Rupert Murdoch's Star TV and then his own channel, Broadcast Worldwide Ltd.,  and also a Stephanian, 61er/63er Rathikant Basu.

This is from the Wikipedia entry for NDTV Managing Director, Prannoy Roy:

Controversy

On 20 January 1998 Central Bureau of Investigation filed cases against New Delhi Television (NDTV) managing director Prannoy Roy, former Director General of Doordarshan R Basu and five other top officials of Doordarshan under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal conspiracy and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the CBI charge-sheet, Doordarshan suffered a loss of over Rs 3.52 crore due to the “undue favours” shown to NDTV as its programme The World This Week (TWTW) was put in `A’ category instead of `special A’ category

The two in the hot seats were 63er Montek Singh Alhuwalia, who was very much present in St. Stephen's College during my three years there, and Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen (difficult to say whether he is an Indian or Bangladeshi as both countries have laid claim to him).

One can never forget 63er Montek, not for his knowledge, but for the unique way he wore his turban and certain mannerisms (the nervous laugh when he knows what he is saying is not what he believes), which have not changed, even as of today. The way he argued a point was always from a point that he could not be wrong, although many times, he was and is!

I give below three extract from the autobiography of Amartya Sen (Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1998). In these extracts you will see the mention of a name - Mumbai Cathedral School 59er Sudhir Anand, my classmate who is Professor of Economics at both Oxford and Harvard, a brilliant economist and undoubtedly a brain who influenced Amartya Sen considerably more than a three time  mention in his autobiography.

59er Sudhir was from our Mumbai Cathedral and John Connon School. Although unable to make it top our 50th year reunion in 2009, he was very much there in spirit.

"I was also fortunate to have colleagues who were working on serious social choice problems, including Peter Hammond, Charles Blackorby, Kotaro Suzumura, Geoffrey Heal, Gracieda Chichilnisky, Ken Binmore, Wulf Gaertner, Eric Maskin, John Muellbauer, Kevin Roberts, Susan Hurley, at LSE or Oxford, or neighbouring British universities. (I also learned greatly from conversations with economists who were in other fields, but whose works were of great interest to me, including Sudhir Anand, Tony Atkinson, Christopher Bliss, Meghnad Desai, Terence Gorman, Frank Hahn, David Hendry, Richard Layard, James Mirrlees, John Muellbauer, Steve Nickel, among others.) I also had the opportunity of collaboration with social choice theorists elsewhere, such as Claude d'Aspremont and Louis Gevers in Belgium, Koichi Hamada and Ken-ichi Inada in Japan (joined later by Suzumura when he returned there), and many others in America, Canada, Israel, Australia, Russia, and elsewhere). There were many new formal results and informal understandings that emerged in these works, and the gloom of "impossibility results" ceased to be the only prominent theme in the field. The 1970s were probably the golden years of social choice theory across the world. Personally, I had the sense of having a ball.

From social choice to inequality and poverty

The constructive possibilities that the new literature on social choice produced directed us immediately to making use of available statistics for a variety of economic and social appraisals: measuring economic inequality, judging poverty, evaluating projects, analyzing unemployment, investigating the principles and implications of liberty and rights, assessing gender inequality, and so on. My work on inequality was much inspired and stimulated by that of Tony Atkinson. I also worked for a while with Partha Dasgupta and David Starrett on measuring inequality (after having worked with Dasgupta and Stephen Marglin on project evaluation), and later, more extensively, with Sudhir Anand and James Foster."

 

Later he says in his autobiography:

"During my Harvard years up to about 1991, I was much involved in analyzing the overall implications of this perspective on welfare economics and political philosophy (this is reported in my book, Inequality Reexamined, published in 1992). But it was also very nice to get involved in some new problems, including the characterization of rationality, the demands of objectivity, and the relation between facts and values. I used the old technique of offering courses on them (sometimes jointly with Robert Nozick) and through that learning as much as I taught. I started taking an interest also in health equity (and in public health in particular, in close collaboration with Sudhir Anand), a challenging field of application for concepts of equity and justice. Harvard's ample strength in an immense variety of subjects gives one scope for much freedom in the choice of work and of colleagues to talk to, and the high quality of the students was a total delight as well. My work on inequality in terms of variables other than incomes was also helped by the collaboration of Angus Deaton and James Foster.

Readers of Seventh Heaven will remember how I have written about Sudhir and the Nobel Prize awarded to Amartya Sen!

The discussion was lack lustre. Montek took the view that he could not discuss the Budget (the whole point of the programme) and gave no real answer for the blazing question how the poor of India had not improved their lot during the time he has been at the head of the Planning Commission. (At one point he says "We have said, the Government has said,…." )

Montek minced  words as only a political chamcha can do!

Roy was not hard-hitting in his position as Anchorman. He was being pleasant to his guests!!

Amartya Sen was his own self and wanted to be nice to everyone.

Not a receipe for a successful  discussion, but for me, being in the setting of our beautiful college was good enough to sit through the 45 minute discussion!

Anyway, it was good to be away from the depressing media coverage of our hallowed institution which has been plaguing us for almost half a decade!

First time (also published my KOOLER TALK blog)

Stephanian S. Y. Qurashi

In my almost 70 years and over 48 years as an adult with deep interest in politics, this was the first time I actually spent a few hours, in Finland, watching an election process in India.

In the 70s I was close with many politicians of all parties and knew exactly how corrupt all of them were. So I kept my distance.

Votes appear to have been cast this time in 5 States over a period of time and today was the counting and declaration of the results. Results were announced from Goa (1.5 million), Manipur (2.7 million), Punjab (28 million), Uttar Pradesh (200 million) and Uttarakhand (10 million).

Over 240 million people were choosing their local politicians to serve them for the next few years. It was a mixed bag of results with the National Parties less successful than the regional parties.

Watching on an Indian internet TV Channel, NDTV 24x7, I was quite intrigued by the mixture of languages being used by the participants. Since I know English, Hindi, Punjabi (a bit), I wondered whether this channel was watched by the majority of Indians who are only familiar with their regional language.

Obviously not.

Quite a few of my juniors from my alma mater, St. Stephen's College in Delhi, were on the box, either as politicians in different parties, as tv anchor men or women, or as "experts". It was quite easy to recognise them as they had a different air about the way they handled the subjects.

I thought to myself whether I was the same! I hope not, as I consider myself as individualistic rather than moulded by my alma mater characteristics, especially with regard to politics!

On the whole, following the election was an interesting experience, especially as I could view it from a distance and not be involved with it in any other way.

The main thing that struck me was that several corrupt politicians fell by the wayside.

The independent Chief Election Commissioner, Dr. S. Y. Qurashi, is also a product of my alma mater, about 10 years my junior. His interview on NDTV was very interesting as he has to keep his head above the murky waters of Indian Politics.

This experience was also followed by an interesting news item I noted in an Indian internet newspaper which said that the top two jobs in the Indian Administrative Service and in the Indian Police Service were also filled by Stephanians.

These are IAS officers Pulok Chatterjee, the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary, and Ajit Seth, the Cabinet Secretary, and IPS officers, Nehchal Sandhu, Intelligence Bureau Chief and A. B. Singh, Central Bureau of Investigation Chief.

Many of my classmates and those who were in College during my years there, have served in very senior Government positions (62ers Mani Shankar Aiyar, Rathikant Basu, Ashok (Tony) Jaitly) and also as Ambassadors (62er Niranjan Desai, 63ers Siddarth Singh and Aftab Seth, etc.) in different parts of the world.

They have also served in the United Nations, 74er Sashi Tharoor, the Commonwealth Secretariat, 62er Kamlesh Sharma, the World Bank, 63er Montek Singh Alhuwalia and 62er Sarwar Lateef,  the Asian Development Bank, 63er Karthik Sandilya, and many many more such world bodies.

It would be interesting to compile a Who's Who of Stephanians!