Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog » Politics

My FIRM opposition to the idea of “gay” marriage

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Sat, 12 May 2012 01:51:10 +0000

I believe that ALL institutions that have evolved over thousands of years serve an important purpose in society.

Caste system

I have shown how the caste system was PIVOTAL to the success of India during the agricultural epoch. It ensured that basic necessary skills (e.g. blacksmithy) were ALWAYS available in each remote, decentralised village. That gave India a competitive edge over the entire world, making it unequivocally the RICHEST society (including in per capita terms) in the world for 12 out of the past 20 centuries.

The fact that India evolved the caste system is therefore, in my view, better attributable to the imperatives of economics than religion (although religion has a role in its continued persistence). Religious explanations merely couched the optimal economic equilibrium in language more suited to the lay man.

Even today, as Gurcharan Das rightly points out, the major industrialisation drive in India is coming from the bania or capitalist "class", which is shifting gears from trade to industrial production. Caste is giving India an advantage even in the capitalist world.

But this should be its last hurrah, its last contribution to India.

Capitalism CANNOT tolerate inequality of status. In this new epoch of industrial and information production, the caste system is NOT optimal any more. The economic logic of capitalism will, in my view, inevitably lead to the death of the caste system – If only India's governance is radically modernised.

Marriage

But the institution of marriage is not defunct and will NEVER become defunct. It serves and continues to serve a most basic purpose in society. It is the place where CHILDREN – the most important beings from the perspective of humanity and Nature – get to experience the dynamics of REAL life, thus being nurtured till they are able to stand tall and compete in this dynamic, challenging world.

The idea of having two "dads" or two "moms" for any child (who is not naturally produced from BOTH parents) is TOTALLY perverse and harmful at ALL levels. Children in such "families" will NEVER appreciate or imbibe the basic organic structure of society. Such children are put at a disadvantage from day one.

I do NOT support any idea that damages CHILDREN and confuses them from the moment they first come into this world.

How will a child suckle two dads? What UTTER nonsense is this!!!!

Why are we depriving CHILDREN of natural upbringing?

It is not my business nor am I interested in what two adults do with themselves. I don't really care whether they are gay or morose.

But I am FIRMLY against the idea of a "family" unit that destroys the foundational institutions of society – and SERIOUSLY damages children.

I oppose the caste system on many grounds, so clearly I'm not a conservative. I'm a (classical) liberal. But I oppose any attempt to destroy or dilute the MOST foundational institution of society: the family.

I firmly oppose the idea of two males/females being allowed to "marry" and thus "bear" children.

Obama THE FOOL is (once again) WRONG. I hope he is booted out by the Americans.

Proportional representation exposed as the DANGEROUS form of government it is

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:07:32 +0000

I've sided with first past the post (FPTP) electoral system (of the type that prevails in India, or a modified version that prevails in Australia) for a long time, despite its apparent weaknesses.

The alleged weaknesses of FPTP are easily overcome by one overwhelming advantage: that it allows decisions to be made. By making more likely the possibility of majority governments, FPTP prevents paralysis in decision making, a problem that is usually worse than making bad decisions.

Bad decisions can lead to a change in government. Paralysis leads to confusion. Or worse.

Here are a few extracts from Greg Sheridan's article today on a separate subject (EU) in which he expresses views similar to mine:

The collapse of European democracy points up the overwhelming superiority of the Westminister electoral and political system. This is because the Westminster system is designed to deliver legislative authority to the executive government. Westminster system nations have been notably reluctant to give up national sovereignty and national currencies. Few choose their main house of parliament through proportional representation.

Most European nations use proportional representation, which almost guarantees minority governments. It is an irony of the present situation that the two greatest exemplars of Westminster democracy, Britain and Australia, have minority governments. But this is an anomaly for both countries, and both are more poorly governed because of their minority governments.

The best-run nation in the West today is Canada. Its government moved from minority to majority status by campaigning against a carbon tax.

After clarification from Mumbai Lok Satta, I’m pleased to support Surendra Srivastava

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Mon, 07 May 2012 11:23:53 +0000

After a clarification from a senior leader of the Maharashtra branch of LS, I'm pleased to support Surendra Srivastava's candidacy to the Legislative Council. (Basically, the Maharashtra branch "will not entertain or support any coalition with communist parties").

Please follow the instructions below, and share this blog post/FB links widely around.

Surendra Srivastava is standing as the Lok Satta MLC candidate for Mumbai Graduate constituency. Please add him on Facebook and ask your family, friends & colleagues to do so, too.

Facebook :     http://www.facebook.com/SurendraLSP

Youtube :       http://www.youtube.com/surendralsp

URL :   www.surendrasrivastava.com

About Surendra Srivastava

See Wikipedia entry here. More details from here:

“You cannot love democracy and hate politics. Democracy demands an aware citizenry willing to act when required.” – Surendra Srivastava.

Surendra Srivastava is National General Secretary and Maharashtra State President for Lok Satta Party. He can be reached via email,Facebook, or phone (91-22-23772279).

Early life and education:

Born in 1958 in Delhi, Surendra Srivastava is the son of an army soldier. Brought up in a culture of patriotism, his first participation in political affairs was at the age of 16 when he participated in the anti-emergency movement of Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan.

Like many hard working Indians, Surendra too started early (at the age of 17) from humble backgrounds as an office boy. He worked his way through the ranks to become the President in 1999 of the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited; India’s largest private sector publically listed shipping company.

He graduated in Commerce (1979, University of Mumbai) and in Law (1984, University of Mumbai). He resigned as a President of the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited in 2005 to dedicate himself to the mission and objectives of Lok Satta and to bring the best and the brightest back into politics.

He founded the Maharashtra Chapter of Lok Satta Aandolan in 2004 and launched the Lok Satta Party in Maharashtra in 2009. He is currently the National General Secretary as well as President (Maharashtra) of Lok Satta Party.

Personal life:

Surendra is married to Ruchira Srivastava in 1987. The couple has a daughter who is currently studying at University of Purdue. Ruchira, a double post graduate, currently manages the Membership/Volunteer Management of Mumbai Unit of Lok Satta

Association with Lok Satta

Lok Satta Aandolan (or Lok Satta Movement)

• Joined Lok Satta Aandolan as a volunteer in 2001
• Founded Maharashtra Chapter of Lok Satta Aandolan in 2004

Lok Satta Party

• In charge of all State Chapters except Andhra Pradesh – Since 2006
• Launched Lok Satta Party in Maharashtra – 2009
• President of Lok Satta Party, Maharashtra 2009 – current
• Was appointed as the National General Secretary of Lok Satta Party on October 9th 2011 at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh during the 5th Anniversary Celebrations of Lok Satta.

Sanjiv Bhatt’s letter to the President raises important issues for Indians to consider

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Sat, 05 May 2012 23:16:55 +0000

A few months ago the suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt requested to be "friend" on FB. From my FB newsfeed today I found out that Sanjiv Bhatt has written a letter to the President and posted it on scribd.

I've annotated the letter, below, in colour, for he raises important questions.

Sanjiv has done well to represent the truth. While I would generally be reluctant to support such publication of policy correspondence, he has been suspended by Modi for reporting the truth, and is entitled to fight back.

Whether the system supports him (and the truth) adequately is a moot question.

Regardless of whether the President acts on his request, Sanjiv Bhatt should be provided full protection by the government of India, for he holds the key to the truth of Modi's involvement in the ghastly murders of hundreds of Indians.

No. SRB/HEP/120406/01

Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt IPS

Camp: Ahmedabad

Date: April 06, 2012

Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil,

Her Excellency the President of India,

Rashtrapati Bhavan,

New Delhi.

Sub: Appointment of Commission of Inquiry to Inquire into the Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organizations with respect to the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and deal with disturbances in Godhra on 27/02/2002 and the subsequent disturbances in the State of Gujarat etc.

Respected Madam,

1.     I am a serving officer of the Indian Police Service (1988-RR) allotted to the Gujarat Cadre, currently under suspension. I am conversant with the proceedings before the Honourable Justice Nanavati and Justice Mehta Commission of Inquiry as I was summoned by them vide their Summons No.COI-Guj.(Ahd.)-14-2011 dated 27/04/2011 and have been extensively examined thereafter as a witness.

2.     I was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence with the State Intelligence Bureau, Gandhinagar, from 1999 to 2002. I was handling the important and sensitive portfolio of Internal Security for the State of Gujarat and was also designated as the Nodal Officer for sharing of Intelligence with various agencies of the State and the Union of India.

3.     By virtue of the crucial position held by me in the State Intelligence Bureau, during the Gujarat Riots of 2002; I am privy to a plethora of information regarding the facts and circumstances that led to and facilitated the Gujarat Riots of 2002. I have been trying, albeit with very little success, to assist the Honourable Commission of Inquiry in uncovering the truth behind the incident of violence at Godhra Railway Station on 27^th February 2002; the facts and circumstances, including the administrative complicity and official orchestration that led to and facilitated the Gujarat Riots of 2002; as well as the on-going cover-up operations aimed at concealing or destroying crucial evidence and obstructing the delivery of justice to the victims of Gujarat Riots of 2002. It is in the above stated conspectus and background of circumstances that I wish to bring the following facts to the notice of Your Excellency.

4. Pursuant to the public outcry at the national as well as international level, against the reprehensible events of the Gujarat Carnage of 2002, the State Government of Gujarat by notification dated 6th March 2002, set up a fact finding Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short). The terms of reference were stated as follows:

The following shall be the terms of reference of the said commission namely:-

(1) To inquire into-

(a) the facts, circumstances and the course of events of the incidents that led to setting on fire some coaches of the Sabarmati Express train on 27.02.2002 near Godhra Railway Station;

(b) the facts, circumstances and the course of events of the subsequent incidents of violence in the State in the aftermath of the Godhra incident; and

(c)  the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and deal with disturbances in Godhra and subsequent disturbances in the State.

(2) To ascertain as to whether the incident at Godhra was pre-planned and whether information was available with the agencies, which could have been used to prevent the incident;

(3) To recommend suitable measures to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future.

5. By subsequent notification dated 20th July 2004, the terms of reference of the said Commission were expanded. This was ostensibly done on the basis that the Government had received representations for inquiring into the role and conduct of the Chief Minister, Ministers, Officers of the Government, other individuals and organizations. Additions made in the previous notification dated 6th March 2002 were as follows:-

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 (60 of 1952) the Government of Gujarat hereby amend the above referred the Government Notification, Legal Department No.: GK/07/2004-COI/102002/797-D dated 6th March 2002, for the aforesaid purpose as follows namely:-

In the said notification -

I. After clause (c) in sub-Para (1) of Para-2, following clauses (d) and (e) be added, namely:-

(d)   Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organizations in both the events referred to in clauses (a) and (b).

(e)   Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers

(i)    in dealing with any political or non-political organization which may be founded to have been involved in any other events referred to hereinabove,

(ii)   in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots

(iii) in the matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commissions from time to time.

II. In para 2: in sub-para (1) in clause (b), after the words, 'incidence of violence', for the words and figures, 'that took place on and from 27th February 2002 to 30th March 2002, the words and figures 'that took place on and from 27th February,2002 to 31st May 2002' be substituted.

6.     It is very pertinent to note that Reference (c) was not included while expanding the scope of the Terms of Reference of the Commission to include the "Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organizations” while adding clauses (d) and (e) sub-Para (1) of Para-2of the original Terms of Reference.

7.     The deliberate exclusion of Reference (c) has ensured that the Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organizations is not examined with respect to the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and deal with disturbances in Godhra and subsequent disturbances in the State.

8.     Even as per the deficient Terms of Reference, the role of the State Government of Gujarat, inter alia, should have been one of discharging its constitutional obligation of diligently and honestly assisting the Honourable Commission in unearthing the truth regarding the facts and circumstances that resulted in and facilitated the incidents of violence, as also the adequacy or otherwise, of the measures taken by the then administration in dealing with the same.

9.     It is indeed ironic that the State Government of Gujarat instead of conducting itself as a neutral and dispassionate Constitutional Entity has chosen to act in a partisan manner by identifying with and espousing the cause of the Functionaries of the State Administration, including the Chief Minister, whose very role and conduct is squarely covered by the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry. It is a matter of record that the State Government of Gujarat, through its officials like Mr. Dinesh Kapadia and Mr. Girish Chandra Murmu IAS, tried to tutor and influence witnesses with the sole purpose of ensuring that the truth regarding the role and conduct of the administration headed by the Chief Minister was not exposed before the Honourable Commission. It is even more unfortunate that the Counsel for the Honourable Nanavati Commission, Advocate Mr. Arvind Pandya was also involved in tutoring and dissuading witnesses from deposing the truth before the Honourable Commission. Even today, the Counsels appearing before the Commission on behalf of the state continue to enjoy the indulgence of the Honourable Commission in effectively and successfully stonewalling any inquiry into the role and conduct of the Chief Minister. In fact, the State Government of Gujarat continues to frustrate all attempts at even summoning and questioning certain high functionaries of the administration, including the Chief Minister.

10.That the National Human Rights Commission in its final report (May 2002) which has been recently tabled by the State Government of Gujarat, in the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat, has stated :

“There is no doubt, in the opinion of this Commission, that there is a comprehensive failure on the part of the State Government to control the persistent violation of the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the people of the State That is why it remains of fundamental importance that measures that require to be taken to bring the violators of human rights to book are indeed taken”. (para 64, report of NHRC)

11.The role and conduct of the State Government of Gujarat came in for scathing criticism in the Judgement and Order of JJ. Bhattacharya and Pardiwala in Special Civil Application No. 3023 of 2003 decided on 8/02/2012. The learned judges inter alia observed that

“However, the facts remain that the anarchy continued unabated for days. When according to the State, the riot broke out as a general reaction from the unfortunate incident of Sabarmati Express at Godhra as disclosed in its affidavit, such fact should have been known to the police intelligence and they should have taken appropriate preventive action well in advance. Failure on the part of the police intelligence to gather such general reaction in time and to take appropriate timely action definitely come within the expression “negligence of the State” even if we for the sake of argument accept the defence of the State that the cause of riot was the “general reaction from the incident of Sabarmati Express”. Similarly, the fact that the riot continued for several days itself suggests lack of appropriate action or adequate action, if not inaction, on the part of the State in handling the situation.”

“…we hold that there was inadequate endeavour on the part of the State Government in effectively handling the situation resulting in destruction of more than 500 places of religious worship throughout the State belonging only to the one religious community “

“…the policy decision taken in tackling an incident of earthquake, which is an act of God, cannot be applied in handling a situation arising out of the culpable inaction, inadequate action or negligence on the part of the State Government in protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by our Constitution. In our opinion, the above policy of the State Government taken in defence is one of evading the constitutional responsibility and will bring anarchy in the society, and thus, is detrimental to the establishment of the principles and the tenets of our Constitution.”

“…the State Government has, however, a constitutional obligation to take all possible steps to stop such illegal activities lest for its inaction or inadequate action, the life and the liberty of innocent citizens of this country are jeopardized in any way only because they belong to one of the communities of the persons involved in the riot. A conjoined reading of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India leaves no doubt that a citizen has, subject to the restrictions contained therein, a right to lead a meaningful life based on his faith on any religion and also the right to practise, profess and propagate any religion. He has also the freedom to manage religious affairs and maintain places of worship of his choice. Those Articles have found place in Chapter III of the Constitution enumerating the fundamental rights of a citizen. Thus, the State has a duty to protect those fundamental rights of the citizens conferred by the abovementioned Articles…”

12. It is well established that the rationale for a Commission of Inquiry flows from the right of the People of India, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, to be informed as to the what, why and how regarding the events of definite public importance.

13. It is therefore most humbly prayed that: in view of (a) the lacuna in the Terms of Reference as pointed out in Para 7 above (b) the role and conduct of the State Government of Gujarat as pointed out in Para 8 and Para 9 above (c) the observations and findings of the National Human Rights Commission, referred at Para 10 above, and (d) the observations and findings of the Honourable Gujarat High Court, referred at Para 11 above; the Central Government of India may expeditiously appoint a two member Commission, under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to inquire into:

a. the Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organizations with respect to the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and deal with disturbances in Godhra and subsequent disturbances in the State; and

b. the adequacy of the steps and measures taken by the Administration, from 1^st June 2002 till date; to facilitate relief, rehabilitation and the delivery of Justice to the victims of the Godhra incident of 27^th February 2002 and the subsequent Communal Riots of 2002, in the State of Gujarat.

With profound regards.

Yours sincerely,
(Sanjiv Bhatt)

Will Lok Satta please explain why it is engaging with the Communists?

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Thu, 03 May 2012 21:30:39 +0000

I'm very surprised (and distressed) by this news item on Lok Satta website:

Mr. Varma said that the Lok Satta Party has decided to support CPI(M) candidates in Tirupati and Anantapur as the CPI(M) has decided to back the Lok Satta Party in Ongole by dropping plans to contest from it in the by-elections to the State Assembly on June 12.

The decision was taken by the Lok Satta Party's State Working Committee here today, said Mr. Varma.

As a result of the electoral adjustments, the CPI (M) will support the Lok Satta Party in Ongole, Pattipadu, Rayadurgam and Yemmiganur Assembly constituencies.

The Lok Satta Party in turn will support CPM candidates in Tirupati, Anantapur, Payakaraopet, Udayagiri and Polavaram Assembly constituencies and Nellore Lok Satta constituency.

What's going on? Why?

What is all this if not politics? What about principles?

Could someone please explain.

This may well mark the end of Lok Satta as a party that stands for SOMETHING, unless some explanation is offered immediately.

If LS is not going to stand unambiguously for LIBERTY, then I'll need to have a re-think about this whole issue.

The characteristics of a leader: An example from Obama of what NOT to do

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Thu, 03 May 2012 10:13:52 +0000

Obama is increasingly falling in my esteem.

I don't watch TV but did see a short part of his inauguration speech a few years ago, in which he seemed to be a genuinely nice man.

But apart from his policy mishaps – just just too many of them; and his deep hatred for freedom, I've now also realised that he represents what a leader should NOT do.

Here's what leaders say:

Dwight Eisenhower

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: "One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: "I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, 'I am proud of you.'"

George Bush

George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq." He attributed it to "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks."

He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."

More details (including Lincoln's style, here).

Here's what Obama says (much of it falsely)

"I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . ."

Clearly, a man suffering from a deep inferiority complex.

His job is to BUILD A FREE WORLD, to LEAD THE FREE WORLD, to ENCOURAGE THE FREE WORLD.

Instead, he seems to think this is about HIM.

BJP’s corruption re-confirmed (for the fools who thought it was not)

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:47:49 +0000

Despite the RIDICULOUS claims by BJP that Bangaru Laxman was acting on his own accord, not BJP's, the BLATANT TRUTH, THAT IS KNOWN TO ALL, is that BJP is a thoroughly corrupt party.

Any attempt by BJP to deny this can fool the dunces among the "intelligentsia" (of which there are plenty) who do not know how India's governance actually works, but can't fool the common man (like me).

There is just too much evidence – starting from the expenditure of CRORES OF BLACK MONEY during elections – for BJP to pretend that it is not a deeply corrupt outfit.

Even a wolf in sheep's clothing can fool us. Not BJP.

US government must let Modi enter USA, or disclose its full reasons

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:41:37 +0000

I'm a staunch enemy of BJP – a hugely corrupt, often violent political group. And I have a big question mark about Modi, a major BJP member, on whom I maintain a public dossier.

But I disagree with the idea that anyone should be denied entry to USA just because some petty bureaucrat in the US government has formed a view that a person is "responsible for serious violation of religious freedom" [Source]. This is not a transparent process. It raises more questions than it answers.

An ELECTED Chief Minister from the WORLD'S LARGEST DEMOCRACY – India – should NOT be denied entry into USA WITHOUT FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF REASONS.

I call upon the US to fully disclose its findings re: Modi, OR let him enter USA.

The USA SHOULD NOT ostracise someone officially without public proof. This is a very bad way to "promote" liberty and democracy – to refuse an ELECTED official entry into USA while allowing dictators (Chinese and others) full access.

Unless Modi is convicted, he MUST be deemed to be innocent – for ALL official purposes. In my mind he is almost certainly guilty, but I'm searching for evidence.

A government can't afford the luxury of blacklisting someone without PUBLIC PROOF.

This black mark on USA (not on Modi!) can only be removed by letting Modi enter USA.

Keep up the good work, Liberty Institute

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:09:37 +0000

I'm sharing below the excellent news just received from Liberty Institute:

Empowering India receives UN based award on e-governance

Empowering India from New Delhi, India honoured with prize for world’s best e-governance and institution website at Cairo ICT.

New Delhi/Cairo/Salzburg, April 25, 2012

Empowering India (Empowering India) from India is among the world’s top 40 in outstanding e-Content. Together with the world’s best e-content producers Empowering India will receive UN-based World Summit Award (WSA) on April, 27 at Cairo ICT trade fair in the e-governance and institution. Empowering India was selected from 460 projects and 105 countries by a Jury of ICT Experts in Hong Kong in June 2011.

Empowering India is a database of elections at state and national level, with unique analytical tools. It has digitised all elections data since 1952. It seeks to “make democracy meaningful” by informing citizens, encouraging participation in the electoral process, and promoting transparency and accountability in the political process.

Empowering India was recognised in 2009, when it was selected for the Manthan Award for South Asia, for digital content in the e-governance category. This initiative on democracy is being supported by the Friedrich Naumann – Stiftung fur die Freiheit

Last year, in an email Dr Y S. Quraishi, Chief Election Commissioner of India, wrote “"I am happy to see this initiative. Voter awareness is key to a successful democracy." Barun Mitra, the director of Liberty Institute, said, “the World Summit Award is a recognition of the fact that e-governance is not just about how governments use ICT to inform and interact with citizens, but also how citizens could contribute by harnessing ICT to make democratic governance more effective.” Liberty Institute, an independent, non-profit, public policy think tank, is the producer of Empowering India

Besides Empowering India, that will receive a World Summit Award in the e-governance and institution,39 other projects from 26 countries will be honoured in front of UN representatives, ICT ministries and the private sector. The WSA Winners’ Events will be hosted in the Middle East for the first time ever.

“With the winners from World Summit Award in e-Content, Cairo will host the best digital producers, interaction designers and content developers from all around the world. They will demonstrate the richness and diversity of the content industries. Cairo will be a special stage to highlight what can be done with modern ICT to develop local communities, national social strategies and meaningful jobs”, says WSA Chairman Peter A. Bruck.

The Winners were decided on by a Jury of ICT experts coming from all continents. Each UN Member State only nominates one product per category for the World Summit Award. Hence nominations resulted from national pre-selection awards prior to the international WSA Jury in Hong Kong in June 2011.

Hosted by the Information Technology Industry Development Agency (ITIDA) and Cairo ICT under the patronage of H.E. Mohamed Salem, Egypt Minister of Communications and Information Technology, the WSA winners will showcase the best digital e-Content projects worldwide. Between April 26 and April 29 Cairo will see “a global panopticum

of knowledge and spirit in e-content”, Peter Bruck says.

The Programme contains workshops, conferences with UN attendance and above all the Winners’ Ceremony on April 27^th at 9 p.m at the Cairo ICT. The Winners’ Events will be life streamed on www.wsis-award.org and tv.wupy.org.

About the WSA

The World Summit Award (WSA) is the global follow-up initiative of the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) organised by the International Center for New Media (ICNM), Salzburg, Austria. It partners with the key UN organisations and agencies in the framework of the UN Geneva Agenda and the Tunis Action Plan and selects and promotes the world's best e-Content and innovative ICT applications; to date more than 160 countries are actively involved. Through national pre-selections and contests together with a global jury process, WSA demonstrates the local diversity and rich creativity of ICT use. WSA is a global hub for everyone who values the crucial importance of local content to make today’s information society more inclusive.

I hereby anoint all Dalits as Brahmins. And I challenge anyone to oppose me.

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:44:23 +0000

Chandra Bhan Prasad, a dalit researcher and activist says: "Dalits can't become Brahmins".

Who says that Chandra!

You are very wrong.

All humans are Brahmins. You need to RESPECT YOURSELF as a human.

Every human is unique. Every human is a magical creation never to be repeated.

You are Brahmin. All Dalits are Brahmins. All humans are Brahmins.

Rise. I declare you Brahmin. NEVER SAY SUCH A STUPID THING AGAIN THAT 'DALITS CAN'T BECOME BRAHMINS'. I FORBID YOU TO DEMEAN YOURSELF EVER AGAIN.

Hold your head high.

DEMAND TO BE RESPECTED.