Monday, December 26, 2011
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
20 December 2011
Build a grand Victory Arch- Bharat Vijay Dwar- to commemorate 1971 victory-Tarun Vijay in Rajya Sabha
16th December is a day of great glory and victory for Indian Arm forces when nine month long Bangladesh liberation war was won in 1971 and General A.A. K. Niazi, the Commanding Officer of the Pakistan Armed Forces surrendered his forces to Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora the Allied Forces Commander with 90,000 troops. This victory led to the formation of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. This was also India's finest hour under the Prime Ministership of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and the wonderful military leadership provided by Field Marshal S.H.F.J.Manekshaw, Lt. General Jacob, Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, Vice Admiral Krishnan and scores of other patriotic officers and jawans. The whole nation stood as one people solidly supporting the political and military leadership and the parliament had reverberated with great emotions of solidarity so eloquently represented by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Ironically, the nation has failed to erect a single memorial to the victorious Indian Forces in the National Capital. The sacrifices and incredible saga of valour, courage, grit and supreme dedication to the motherland remain unsung and gradually - Bharat Vijay Diwas, is relegated to small observances. I demand the Govt. of India should erect a Bharat Vijay Dwar in New Delhi, more impressive in its grandeur and splendour than any existing memorials built by the British, Govt. must also declare 16th December as an official victory day to be observed in all schools, colleges, and govt. offices, with an armed forces parade in the National Capital.
Div. No. 243
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
during zero hour session
20/ 12/ 2011
RE DEMAND TO LIFT BAN IMPOSED ON
SHRIMAD BHAGAVAD GITA BY RUSSIA
श्री तरुण विजय (उत्तराखंड): महोदय, ‘कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन’ का संदेश देने वाली अमर गीता पर रूस में प्रतिबंध लगाने की साजिश की जा रही है। क्या आप सूरज पर प्रतिबंध लगा सकते हैं, क्या आप हिमालय को प्रतिबंधित कर सकते हैं और क्या आप पृथ्वी की गति को प्रतिबंधित कर सकते हैं? ऐसे मूर्खर्तापूर्ण कार्य की पूरे सदन द्वारा सवर्सम्मति से निन्दा और भत्सर्ना की जानी चाहिए। यह खुशी की बात है कि गीता पर प्रतिबंध के विरोध ने पूरे हिन्दुस्तान को तथा पूरे हिन्दुस्तान की राजनीतिक पार्टियां और विचारधाराओं से ऊपर उठते हुए सभी राजनीतिक नेताओं को एकजुट कर दिया है। गीता ने भारत को एकजुट कर दिया है। लोक सभा में लालू जी, मुलायम जी, शरद यादव जी, जोशी जी, आदि सब लोगों ने पार्टियों से परे उठते हुए इसका विरोध किया है। ..
श्री उपसभापित: आप उनके नाम मत लीजिए।
श्री तरुण विजय : महोदय, जिस गीता ने ‘धर्म की जय’ का संदेश दिया और सुप्रीम कोर्ट का उदघोष है- ‘यतो धर्म: ततो जय’; उस गीता पर प्रतिबंध का पूरे देश को विरोध करना चाहिए। इस बारे में भारत सरकार को रूस सरकार से बात करनी चाहिए।
श्री तरुण विजय (कर्मागत) : महात्मा गाँधी ने कहा कि, “गीता हमारी माता है”, वे प्रतिदिन गीता का पाठ करते थे। विनोबा भावे ने गीता पर एक विश्वविख्यात टीका लिखी, जिसे उन्होंने गीताई कहा, जो घर-घर में पढ़ी जाती है। अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन ने कहा, “When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe, everything else seems so superfluous”. गीता के बारे में पूरे हिन्दुस्तान के लोग मजहब, जाति, प्रांत, भाषा, पंत से ऊपर उठते हुए एक हैं और उन्होंने मांग की है कि जिस गीता ने संदेश दिया, “परित्रानायसाधुनाम विनाशायचदुश्कृताम, धर्म संस्थापनायथाय सम्भवामि युगे-युगे”, ऐसी गीता के बारे में प्रतिबंध की कोई बात सहन नहीं की जानी चाहिए। महोदय, अभी हाल ही में हमारे प्रधानमंत्री रूस के दौरे पर गए थे। उसी समय यह मुद्दा भी उठा था। हम जानना चाहते हैं कि क्या प्रधानमंत्री जी ने रूस के साथ इस महत्वपूर्ण मुद्दे का प्रश्न उठाया है और अगर उठाया है तो उनको क्या उत्तर मिला? महोदय, यह गीता वह ग्रंथ है, जिसको पढ़कर हमारे क्रांतिकारी अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ़ संघर्ष लड़ते हुए फांसी के फंदे पर झूल गए थे।
जेल में, भगत सिंह की कोठरी में गीता का ग्रंथ मिला था। गीता ने देश को प्राण दिए, गीता देश की पहचान है, गीता देश की पिरभाषा है, गीता देश की एक अटूट संगिठत शक्ति है। महोदय, “गीता नहीं सिखाती आपस में बैर रखना, हिन्दी हैं हम वतन हैं हिन्दोस्तां हमारा”। गीता के बारे में सबको एकजुट होना चाहिए।
Can sun be banned? Tarun Vijay in Rajya Sabha on Gita ban in Russia-House supports the cause unanimously-
NEW DELHI: The Rajya Sabha Tuesday condemned the move in a Russian court to ban the Bhagavad Gita as an extremist text, and the government assured the members that it was taking up the issue with Russia and appropriate action will be taken soon.
Raising the issue of likely ban on the Bhagavad Gita, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Tarun Vijay said during the zero hour that seeking ban on the Hindu sacred text was like seeking a ban on the sun.
"Can sun be banned, Himalayas be banned...," he asked.
He said the entire country should protest the move and the government should take up the issue with Russia.
Vijay said eminent men, including Mahatma Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave and Albert Einstein, had drawn inspiration from the Gita.
"If anybody talks of banning the Gita, it is not acceptable. The matter came up during the prime minister's visit to Russia. Did the prime minister raise the issue? What reply was given?" Vijay said.
Several members cutting across party lines conveyed their support on the issue raised by Vijay.
Congress member P.J. Kurein said the move to ban Bhagavad Gita was a "very serious matter".
Rajya Sabha Deputy chairman K. Rahman Khan said "the entire house agrees with this and joins in condemning this".
Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajiv Shukla said the government agreed with the feelings of the members.
"We are apprising the Russian government...appropriate steps will be taken," he said.
The case in a Siberian court, which has been going on since June, seeks a ban on the "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" written by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Iskcon).
Monday, December 19, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Issue of Hindu plight in Pakistan raised in Parliament. Talk to Pakistan, grant work permits to Pakistani Hindus
In Parliament--Tarun Vijay raised issue of Hindu killings in Pakistan . Government must talk to Pakistan about safety of Hindus.
Difficult to cremate their dead and educate kids , Hindus leave Pakistan in large number.
New Delhi, 14th December - Raising the issue of Hindus being tortured and killed in Pakistan in the wake of another killing of a Hindu trader near Multan, yesterday, Shri Tarun Vijay, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha and National Spokesperson of BJP demanded in Rajya Sabha today that Government of India must talk to Pakistan Govt. immediately showing concern on the killings of Hindus and provide adequate security to Hindus.
He also asked the Govt. to give immediately work permits to the Pakistani Hindus who have taken refuge in Delhi and other cities to protect their lives and honour.
In a Special Mention in Rajya Sabha today Shri Tarun Vijay said that 4 Hindu Doctors were slaughtered on Eid Day this year in Shikarpur City of Pakistan. After that 28 Hindu families comprising of 151 men, women and children somehow escaped from Pakistan and have taken refuge in Delhi. Before that Member of Sindh Assembly Shri Ram Singh Sodha had left Pakistan with his family. Shri Tarun Vijay said that Hindus who have come from Pakistan informed him that they are often not allowed to cremate their dead and the local Muslims put hurdles at the time of last rites complaining that 'burning a dead body spreads stink that is unbearable to them'. The Leader of the Hindu group Shri Arjun Das said that most of their temples can not have stone images and they have to perform puja inside the temple with paper calendars of Hindu Gods and Goddess hung on a wall. He also said that no Hindu organisation is allowed to open minority schools for Hindus to facilitate education as per their values but instead Hindu children are forced to learn and study Islamiyat.
The Hindus from Pakistan told Shri Tarun Vijay that their children are often made targets of mocking at their religion and gods in the schools. Shri Tarun Vijay demanded that Pakistan Govt. should be immediately conveyed about India's concern on the serious human rights violations of Hindus and other minorities including Christians.
Friday, December 9, 2011
FRIDAY, 09 DECEMBER 2011
Participating in the debate on the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Amendment Bill, BJP leader Tarun Vijay demanded that appointment of CEO should be on lines of Election Commissioner to ensure autonomy of the public broadcaster. He also accused the Prasar Bharati of having wide spread corruption, ideological untouchability and ignoring the development stories and instead focusing on “irrelevant” programmes. He said that IAS lobby was dictating the programme content instead of the talented artists working with Doordarshan.
A CPI(M) member criticised the withdrawal of recognition of unions and demanded that it should be immediately restored.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Can India Overtake China? How FDI is not exactly helping China in the long run and how an FDI resistant India has helped its companies grow
Publication: Foreign Policy
Date: July-August 2003
Walk into any Wal-Mart and you won't be surprised to see the shelves sagging with Chinese-made goods-everything from shoes and garments to toys and electronics. But the ubiquitous "Made in China" label obscures an important point: Few of these products are made by indigenous Chinese companies. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a single homegrown Chinese firm that operates on a global scale and markets its own products abroad.
That is because China's export-led manufacturing boom is largely a creation of foreign direct investment (FDI), which effectively serves as a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. During the last 20 years, the Chinese economy has taken off, but few local firms have followed, leaving the country's private sector with no world-class companies to rival the big multinationals.
India has not attracted anywhere near the amount of FDI that China has. In part, this disparity reflects the confidence international investors have in China's prospects and their skepticism about India's commitment to free-market reforms. But the FDI gap is also a tale of two diasporas. China has a large and wealthy diaspora that has long been eager to help the motherland, and its money has been warmly received. By contrast, the Indian diaspora was, at least until recently, resented for its success and much less willing to invest back home. New Delhi took a dim view of Indians who had gone abroad, and of foreign investment generally, and instead provided a more nurturing environment for domestic entrepreneurs.
In the process, India has managed to spawn a number of companies that now compete internationally with the best that Europe and the United States have to offer. Moreover, many of these firms are in the most cutting-edge, knowledge-based industries-software giants Infosys and Wipro and pharmaceutical and biotechnology powerhouses Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy's Labs, to name just a few. Last year, the Forbes 200, an annual ranking of the world's best small companies, included 13 Indian firms but just four from mainland China.
India has also developed much stronger infrastructure to support private enterprise. Its capital markets operate with greater efficiency and transparency than do China's. Its legal system, while not without substantial flaws, is considerably more advanced.
China and India are the world's next major powers. They also offer competing models of development. It has long been an article of faith that China is on the faster track, and the economic data bear this out. The "Hindu rate of growth"-a pejorative phrase referring to India's inability to match its economic growth with its population growth-may be a thing of the past, but when it comes to gross domestic product (GDP) figures and other headline numbers, India is still no match for China.
However, the statistics tell only part of the story-the macroeconomic story. At the micro level, things look quite different. There, India displays every bit as much dynamism as China. Indeed, by relying primarily on organic growth, India is making fuller use of its resources and has chosen a path that may well deliver more sustainable progress than China's FDI-driven approach. "Can India surpass China?" is no longer a silly question, and, if it turns out that India has indeed made the wiser bet, the implications-for China's future growth and for how policy experts think about economic development generally-could be enormous.
THE STIFLING STATE
The fact that India is increasingly building from the ground up while China is still pursuing a top-down approach reflects their contrasting political systems: India is a democracy, and China is not. But the different strategies are also a function of history. China's Communist Party came to power in 1949 intent on eradicating private ownership, which it quickly did. Although the country is now in its third decade of free-market reforms, it continues to struggle with the legacy of that period-witness the controversy surrounding the recent decision to officially allow capitalists to join the Communist Party.
India, on the other hand, developed a softer brand of socialism, Fabian socialism, which aimed not to destroy capitalism but merely to mitigate the social ills it caused. It was considered essential that the public sector occupy the economy's "commanding heights," to use a phrase coined by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin but popularized by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. However, that did not prevent entrepreneurship from flourishing where the long arm of the state could not reach.
Population (2002): China 1.28 billion; India 1.05 billion
Population Growth Rate percent (2002): China 0.87; India 1.51
Infant Mortality per 1,000 live births (2002): China 27; India 61
Average Annual Real GDP Growth Rate percent (1990-2000): China 9.6 : India 5.5
Foreign Direct Investment (2001): China $44.2 billion; India $3.4 billion
Population in Poverty (2002): China 10 percent; India 25 percent
Labor Force (1999): China 706 million; India 406 million
Fixed Lines and Mobile Phones per 1,000 people (2001): China 247.7; India 43.8
Size of Diaspora: China 55 million; India 20 million
Sources: CIA World Factbook 2002; The Economist Pocket World in Figures; World Development Indicators CD-ROM; Financial Times
Developments at the microeconomic level in China reflect these historical and ideological differences. China has been far bolder with external reforms but has imposed substantial legal and regulatory constraints on indigenous, private firms. In fact, only four years ago, domestic companies were finally granted the same constitutional protections that foreign businesses have enjoyed since the early 1980s. As of the late 1990s, according to the International Finance Corporation, more than two dozen industries, including some of the most important and lucrative sectors of the economy-banking, telecommunications, highways, and railroads-were still off-limits to private local companies.
These restrictions were designed not to keep Chinese entrepreneurs from competing with foreigners but to prevent private domestic businesses from challenging China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Some progress has been made in reforming the bloated, inefficient SOEs during the last 20 years, but Beijing is still not willing to relinquish its control over the largest ones, such as China Telecom.
Instead, the government has ferociously protected them from competition. In the 1990s, numerous Chinese entrepreneurs tried, and failed, to circumvent the restrictions placed on their activities. Some registered their firms as nominal SOEs (all the capital came from private sources, and the companies were privately managed), only to find themselves ensnared in title disputes when financially strapped government agencies sought to seize their assets. More than a few promising businesses have been destroyed this way.
This bias against homegrown firms is widely acknowledged. A report issued in 2000 by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences concluded that, "Because of long-standing prejudices and mistaken beliefs, private and individual enterprises have a lower political status and are discriminated against in numerous policies and regulations. The legal, policy, and market environment is unfair and inconsistent."
Foreign investors have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the constraints placed on local private businesses. One indication of the large payoff they have reaped on the back of China's phenomenal growth: In 1992, the income accruing to foreign investors with equity stakes in Chinese firms was only $5.3 billion; today it totals more than $22 billion. (This money does not necessarily leave the country; it is often reinvested in China.)
THE MOGUL IS HERO
For democratic, postcolonial India, allowing foreign investors huge profits at the expense of indigenous firms is simply unfeasible. Recall, for instance, the controversy that erupted a decade ago when the Enron Corporation made a deal with the state of Maharashtra to build a $2.9 billion power plant there. The project proceeded, but only after several years of acrimonious debate over foreign investment and its role in India's development.
While China has created obstacles for its entrepreneurs, India has been making life easier for local businesses. During the last decade, New Delhi has backed away from micromanaging the economy. True, privatization is proceeding at a glacial pace, but the government has ceded its monopoly over long-distance phone service; some tariffs have been cut; bureaucracy has been trimmed a bit; and a number of industries have been opened to private investment, including investment from abroad.
As a consequence, entrepreneurship and free enterprise are flourishing. A measure of the progress: In a recent survey of leading Asian companies by the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), India registered a higher average score than any other country in the region, including China (the survey polled over 2,500 executives and professionals in a dozen countries; respondents were asked to rate companies on a scale of one to seven for overall leadership performance). Indeed, only two Chinese firms had scores high enough to qualify for India's top 10 list. Tellingly, all of the Indian firms were wholly private initiatives, while most of the Chinese companies had significant state involvement.
Some of the leading Indian firms are true start-ups, notably Infosys, which topped FEER's survey. Others are offshoots of old-line companies. Sundaram Motors, for instance, a leading manufacturer of automotive components and a principal supplier to General Motors, is part of the T.V. Sundaram group, a century-old south Indian business group.
Not only is entrepreneurship thriving in India; entrepreneurs there have become folk heroes. Nehru would surely be appalled at the adulation the Indian public now showers on captains of industry. For instance, Narayana Murthy, the 56-year-old founder of Infosys, is often compared to Microsoft's Bill Gates and has become a revered figure.
These success stories never would have happened if India lacked the infrastructure needed to support Murthy and other would-be moguls. But democracy, a tradition of entrepreneurship, and a decent legal system have given India the underpinnings necessary for free enterprise to flourish. Although India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary. Property rights are not fully secure, but the protection of private ownership is certainly far stronger than in China. The rule of law, a legacy of British rule, generally prevails.
These traditions and institutions have proved an excellent springboard for the emergence and evolution of India's capital markets. Distortions are still commonplace, but the stock and bond markets generally allow firms with solid prospects and reputations to obtain the capital they need to grow. In a World Bank study published last year, only 52 percent of the Indian firms surveyed reported problems obtaining capital, versus 80 percent of the Chinese companies polled. As a result, the Indian firms relied much less on internally generated finances: Only 27 percent of their funding came through operating profits, versus 57 percent for the Chinese firms.
Corporate governance has improved dramatically, thanks in no small part to Murthy, who has made Infosys a paragon of honest accounting and an example for other firms. In a survey of 25 emerging market economies conducted in 2000 by Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia, India ranked sixth in corporate governance, China 19th. The advent of an investor class, coupled with the fact that capital providers, such as development banks, are themselves increasingly subject to market forces, has only bolstered the efficiency and credibility of India's markets. Apart from providing the regulatory framework, the Indian government has taken a back seat to the private sector.
In China, by contrast, bureaucrats remain the gatekeepers, tightly controlling capital allocation and severely restricting the ability of private companies to obtain stock market listings and access the money they need to grow. Indeed, Beijing has used the financial markets mainly as a way of keeping the soes afloat. These policies have produced enormous distortions while preventing China's markets from gaining depth and maturity. (It is widely claimed that China's stock markets have a total capitalization in excess of $400 billion, but factoring out non-tradeable shares owned by the government or by government-owned companies reduces the valuation to just around $150 billion.) Compounding the problem are poor corporate governance and the absence of an independent judiciary.
DOLLARS AND DIASPORAS
If India has so clearly surpassed China at the grass-roots level, why isn't India's superiority reflected in the numbers? Why is the gap in GDP and other benchmarks still so wide? It is worth recalling that India's economic reforms only began in earnest in 1991, more than a decade after China began liberalizing. In addition to the late start, India has had to make do with a national savings rate half that of China's and 90 percent less FDI. Moreover, India is a sprawling, messy democracy riven by ethnic and religious tensions, and it has also had a longstanding, volatile dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. China, on the other hand, has enjoyed two decades of relative tranquility; apart from Tiananmen Square, it has been able to focus almost exclusively on economic development.
That India's annual growth rate is only around 20 percent lower than China's is, then, a remarkable achievement. And, of course, whether the data for China are accurate is an open question. The speed with which India is catching up is due to its own efficient deployment of capital and China's inefficiency, symbolized by all the money that has been frittered away on SOEs. And China's misallocation of resources is likely to become a big drag on the economy in the years ahead.
In the early 1990s, when China was registering double-digit growth rates, Beijing invested massively in the state sector. Most of the investments were not commercially viable, leaving the banking sector with a huge number of nonperforming loans-possibly totaling as much as 50 percent of bank assets. At some point, the capitalization costs of these loans will have to be absorbed, either through write-downs (which means depositors bear the cost) or recapitalization of the banks by the government, which diverts money from other, more productive uses. This could well limit China's future growth trajectory.
India's banks may not be models of financial probity, but they have not made mistakes on nearly the same scale. According to a recent study by the management consulting firm Ernst & Young, about 15 percent of banking assets in India were nonperforming as of 2001. India's economy is thus anchored on more solid footing.
The real issue, of course, isn't where China and India are today but where they will be tomorrow. The answer will be determined in large measure by how well both countries utilize their resources, and on this score, India is doing a superior job. Is it pursuing a better road to development than China? We won't know the answer for many years. However, some evidence indicates that India's ground-up approach may indeed be wiser-and the evidence, ironically, comes from within China itself.
Consider the contrasting strategies of Jiangsu and Zhejiang, two coastal provinces that were at similar levels of economic development when China's reforms began. Jiangsu has relied largely on FDI to fuel its growth. Zhejiang, by contrast, has placed heavier emphasis on indigenous entrepreneurs and organic development. During the last two decades, Zhejiang's economy has grown at an annual rate of about 1 percent faster than Jiangsu's. Twenty years ago, Zhejiang was the poorer of the two provinces; now it is unquestionably more prosperous. India may soon have the best of both worlds: It looks poised to reap significantly more FDI in the coming years than it has attracted to date. After decades of keeping the Indian diaspora at arm's length, New Delhi is now embracing it. In some circles, it used to be jokingly said that nri, an acronym applied to members of the diaspora, stood for "not required Indians." Now, the term is back to meaning just "nonresident Indian." The change in attitude was officially signaled earlier this year when the government held a conference on the diaspora that a number of prominent nris attended.
China's success in attracting FDI is partly a historical accident-it has a wealthy diaspora. During the 1990s, more than half of China's FDI came from overseas Chinese sources. The money appears to have had at least one unintended consequence: The billions of dollars that came from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan may have inadvertently helped Beijing postpone politically difficult internal reforms. For instance, because foreign investors were acquiring assets from loss-making soes, the government was able to drag its feet on privatization.
Until now, the Indian diaspora has accounted for less than 10 percent of the foreign money flowing to India. With the welcome mat now laid out, direct investment from nonresident Indians is likely to increase. And while the Indian diaspora may not be able to match the Chinese diaspora as "hard" capital goes, Indians abroad have substantially more intellectual capital to contribute, which could prove even more valuable.
The Indian diaspora has famously distinguished itself in knowledge-based industries, nowhere more so than in Silicon Valley. Now, India's brightening prospects, as well as the changing attitude vis-à-vis those who have gone abroad, are luring many nonresident Indian engineers and scientists home and are enticing many expatriate business people to open their wallets. With the help of its diaspora, China has won the race to be the world's factory. With the help of its diaspora, India could become the world's technology lab.
China and India have pursued radically different development strategies. India is not outperforming China overall, but it is doing better in certain key areas. That success may enable it to catch up with and perhaps even overtake China. Should that prove to be the case, it will not only demonstrate the importance of homegrown entrepreneurship to long-term economic development; it will also show the limits of the FDI-dependent approach China is pursuing.
Yasheng Huang is an associate professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tarun Khanna is a professor at Harvard Business School.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
December 05, 2011
Dev Anand kept the flame of hope alive.
Tarun Vijay salutes the Hero for All Times and a great Indian who united people across faith and boundaries.
Please post Your Tributes to Devsaab here.
'Where is the boundary?' he asked. 'Where is the animosity?' And the crowd went mad with 'We love you Devsaab' chants.
He always spoke to his young fans with utmost respect and elevated them with his profound love. In Lahore, he said to me, 'Tarunsaab, we are just one people and one land, but we are one heart that throbs across the lines. The Jhelum, the Indus unites us all. It's the bloody army that doesn't want the Pakistani people to be friendly with us. Beware of those men in uniform in 'Pindi.'
History proved that he was right.
He was a Braveheart. He didn't care for the government's revengeful attitude and fought the Emergency, formed filmmakers and actors fronts against the draconian regime and the gagging of the press. He was warned about the negative consequence on his profession for actively participating in a 'political movement' to which he retorted, 'What politics? This is to save India.'
His autobiography, Romancing with Life, released by Dr Manmohan Singh shows him as a person who was romancing life. He lived a full, satisfying and bindaas life. He didn't complain, never used strong words against his worst adversaries or critics.
As a great Indian, he showed the Indian heart that unites all, binds all, and warms up humane chords with limitless love across boundaries.
He was essentially a Star, in every sense of the term, who rose so high and dazzled the people of Indus that he became a Sun of the celluloid world.
Please post Your Tributes to Devsaab here.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Press invitation- a unique Pedal Yatri event of the cyclists to promote cycling at Vice Presidents' House, 5th December, 11 am.
>>Any information/clarification, pl feel free to contact Mr Tarun Vijay at 9711254888<<
Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Member, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs
National Spokesperson, BJP
Hon. Director, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation
(A centre for civilisational values and policy research)
11, Ashok Road,New Delhi
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
November 29, 2011
Pakistan doesn't send just terrorists like Ajmal Kasab. They send Hindus too -- forcing them to flee if they want to save their honour and their lives.
The common Hindu is a mute spectator to the changing times and the Abbotabad, Haqqani and ISI phenomenon.
He cannot comment on the political situation of his country. He cannot vote as freely as a common Muslim Pakistani. He is constitutionally directed to vote only for the Hindu candidates in their designated constituencies.
A country that might have taken birth in 1947, but the land belonged to his ancestors for centuries. He is as much the owner of the land of the 'pure' as any other religionist. But while the 'other' religionist is free to vote and shout for his rights and participate in the mainstream activities, he for just being a Hindu is asked to live in a cocoon.
Hindu women do not display the bindi or mangalsutra out of fear. Most of the Hindu temples (except a few I saw in Karachi) have posters and calendars in place of stone images of gods and goddesses. Their kids have to learn, compulsorily Islamiyat in schools.
Even in areas like Sindh and Hyderabad, where Hindu concentration is comparatively larger, no school is allowed for minorities to teach their children their religious books and cultural values. They have to do it silently in their homes.
Hindu priests too wear half skullcaps to look like everybody else around. Identity shouldn't be disclosed, is the first step to survive.
One evening my friend and renowned human rights activist Rajesh Gogna took me to meet some of the Pakistanis who had to leave the land of their ancestors in search of dignity and freedom.
They were in tents and their kids were playing in the dirt. But their faces looked glowing with confidence and assured safety. They were smiling.
Freedom makes even the refugee souls happy.
They are all from Sindh Hyderabad, Pakistan -- 28 families, 151 persons, including women, kids and the old men.
Arjun Das, their more vocal leader says, "We tried for seven years to get visas from the Indian embassy. Every year we returned with denials. It had become an annual ritual for us to travel to Islamabad, as India has no consulate in Karachi. We would wait for hours and days outside the Indian High Commission for our turn to come. And then they would say -- visa nahin milega (you won't get a visa)."
"This year, fortunately we got the visa and silently came out of Sindh, Hyderabad. We too the train to Lahore and then to the Attari border by bus. We had visa permission to visit Delhi and Hardwar, so reached here in the ashram of our Guru Baba Ghunni Das Maharaj."
Lacchmi is in her early seventies. She was playing with her grandson and said, when I asked why she chose to come to India, she said: "We have had a life full of misery and ghulami. I didn't want that for my grandchildren. They must get a chance to live as Hindus and study. It's nothing but Islamiyat teachings in schools and the entire atmosphere pushed our kids either to convert to Islam or live a rotten life worse than animals."
I met Jeevan, a 14-year-old boy. He says, "I was stopped from wearing a hanuman locket by my teachers in school. They taught Islamiyat and teased me for having a tuft. They would always use sarcastic words to belittle me before my friends, for no reason."
Abusing and cracking jokes on Hindus is a common practice. Even in their movies and plays, often Hindus are shown as lecherous, ready to do any dirty thing for money, and as spineless banias.
Sobha Ram, 65, says, "If you have money, you may survive by giving donations to Islamic organisations. But what do we have? Our honour is always at stake. We can't go to the higher authorities. We don't have any resources. We work in the farms of Muslim landlords and make a small living. But our daughters and sisters are always victims of the lust of landlords. They are forcibly converted, nikahs are solemnised without our consent and then there is nothing but darkness for us."
"Even in death they humiliate us," says Sobha Ram, "often they don't allow us to cremate our dead. Our cremation grounds are encroached upon and they tell us to bury our dead as the cremations leave a 'bad odour' that they dislike."
So far Gogna's Human Rights Defence India organisation has helped these hapless refugees from Pakistan.
Some other organisations are also chipping in.
They too are trying to make a living by selling mobile phone covers and small toys in the Old Delhi area.
They want citizenship, a place to live and start a new life.
Do we have time and a political will to hear their woes and help? Certainly there are well meaning Pakistanis, columnists and human rights activists in Islamabad and Karachi, who feel for them, write for their rights and take up their cause in Islamabad, braving the Talibnanised atmosphere.
Hats off to their efforts.
But they can just write and have such incidents mentioned. The help at ground level demands state government's intervention and a political will in Islamabad.
Tarun Vijay is a Rajya Sabha MP and national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Monday, November 28, 2011
IANS | Nov 28, 2011, 10.03PM IST
Picture shows (above) Shri Shri Shrigopal Vyas, Hon'ble MP, Rajya Sabha and Shri Tarun Vijay welcoming the distinguished MPS from Malaysia Hon'ble M Manogaran and S Ramakrishnan.
NEW DELHI: MPs from Malaysia's opposition Democratic Action Party Monday urged the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leadership to raise issues of "discrimination" against Malayasian Hindus in their bilateral meetings with the authorities of their country.
MPs M Manogaran and S Ramakrishnan said they had a cultural and civilisational bond with India and want it to provide "leadership on issues concerning human rights".
Talking to reporters at the residence of BJP MP Tarun Vijay, the two MPs said there had been incidents of attacks on Hindu groups but their complaints had not been addressed.
The MPs, who have met BJP leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, are also intending to meet senior party leader L.K. Advani.
They said they did not want India to interfere in their country's domestic affairs and were not seeking any physical help.
Vijay said the MPs wanted to make people in India "aware about the discriminatory policies against the Malaysian Hindus".
He said BJP hoped the government will take up their concerns as India is a signatory to universal declaration on human rights.
Friday, November 25, 2011
BY: CHARLES FISHMAN
The giant retailer's low prices often come with a high cost. Wal-Mart's relentless pressure can crush the companies it does business with and force them to send jobs overseas. Are we shopping our way straight to the unemployment line?
A gallon-sized jar of whole pickles is something to behold. The jar is the size of a small aquarium. The fat green pickles, floating in swampy juice, look reptilian, their shapes exaggerated by the glass. It weighs 12 pounds, too big to carry with one hand. The gallon jar of pickles is a display of abundance and excess; it is entrancing, and also vaguely unsettling. This is the product that Wal-Mart fell in love with: Vlasic's gallon jar of pickles.
Wal-Mart priced it at $2.97--a year's supply of pickles for less than $3! "They were using it as a 'statement' item," says Pat Hunn, who calls himself the "mad scientist" of Vlasic's gallon jar. "Wal-Mart was putting it before consumers, saying, This represents what Wal-Mart's about. You can buy a stinkin' gallon of pickles for $2.97. And it's the nation's number-one brand."
Therein lies the basic conundrum of doing business with the world's largest retailer. By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand. Now Wal-Mart was practically giving them away. And the fevered buying spree that resulted distorted every aspect of Vlasic's operations, from farm field to factory to financial statement.
Indeed, as Vlasic discovered, the real story of Wal-Mart, the story that never gets told, is the story of the pressure the biggest retailer relentlessly applies to its suppliers in the name of bringing us "every day low prices." It's the story of what that pressure does to the companies Wal-Mart does business with, to U.S. manufacturing, and to the economy as a whole. That story can be found floating in a gallon jar of pickles at Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is not just the world's largest retailer. It's the world's largest company--bigger than ExxonMobil, General Motors, and General Electric. The scale can be hard to absorb. Wal-Mart sold $244.5 billion worth of goods last year. It sells in three months what
number-two retailer Home Depot sells in a year. And in its own category of general merchandise and groceries, Wal-Mart no longer has any real rivals. It does more business than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, Safeway, and Kroger combined. "Clearly," says Edward Fox, head of Southern Methodist University's J.C. Penney Center for Retailing Excellence, "Wal-Mart is more powerful than any retailer has ever been." It is, in fact, so big and so furtively powerful as to have become an entirely different order of corporate being.
Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. At Wal-Mart, that goal is never reached. The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas.
Of course, U.S. companies have been moving jobs offshore for decades, long before Wal-Mart was a retailing power. But there is no question that the chain is helping accelerate the loss of American jobs to low-wage countries such as China. Wal-Mart, which in the late 1980s and early 1990s trumpeted its claim to "Buy American," has doubled its imports from China in the past five years alone, buying some $12 billion in merchandise in 2002. That's nearly 10% of all Chinese exports to the United States.
One way to think of Wal-Mart is as a vast pipeline that gives non-U.S. companies direct access to the American market. "One of the things that limits or slows the growth of imports is the cost of establishing connections and networks," says Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist. "Wal-Mart is so big and so centralized that it can all at once hook Chinese and other suppliers into its digital system. So--wham!--you have a large switch to overseas sourcing in a period quicker than under the old rules of retailing."
Steve Dobbins has been bearing the brunt of that switch. He's president and CEO of Carolina Mills, a 75-year-old North Carolina company that supplies thread, yarn, and textile finishing to apparel makers--half of which supply Wal-Mart. Carolina Mills grew steadily until 2000. But in the past three years, as its customers have gone either overseas or out of business, it has shrunk from 17 factories to 7, and from 2,600 employees to 1,200. Dobbins's customers have begun to face imported clothing sold so cheaply to Wal-Mart that they could not compete even if they paid their workers nothing.
"People ask, 'How can it be bad for things to come into the U.S. cheaply? How can it be bad to have a bargain at Wal-Mart?' Sure, it's held inflation down, and it's great to have bargains," says Dobbins. "But you can't buy anything if you're not employed. We are shopping ourselves out of jobs."
The much-awaited go-ahead for FDI in multi-brand retail has raised fears not only of unemployment -- as Union Minister Dinesh Trivedi observed -- but of creation of monopolies in the food sector.
The government has sought to sweeten the deal by restricting the entry of Walmart, Carrefour et al to 37 urban centres with a population of one million or more -- but this is no hardship for the multinationals, as it is unlikely that smaller centres figure in their initial rollout plan in any case.
The rationale for the decision is ostensibly to control food prices, as suggested by the Inter-Ministerial Group, IMG, on inflation. Permitting farm-to-fork retail is seen as a means of containing food inflation. India being apparently too resource-poor to achieve this, the retail sector had to be opened to FDI.
FDI enthusiasts say the entry of Wal-Mart and its ilk will ensure that the producer gets a better price, the consumer gets cheaper products (as the company purchases directly from the farmgate, there is no middleman) and jobs and infrastructure are created.
This rosy picture must be taken with a pinch of salt. To begin with, the FDI proposal was initiated long before food inflation became an issue, so clearly it has been pushed through because of considerations other than rising prices.
Essentially, a vertical integration of the food supply chain is proposed on the assumption that it will have a positive impact on all the stakeholders. The caveat that 50 per cent of investment must be in the rural sector is meaningless; building a supply chain from farmgate to shelf would naturally entail investment in storage and transportation infrastructure in rural areas wherever the supply bases are located.
The primary producers are expected to get better prices. But nowhere in the world have the farmers who supply goods to big retail chains benefitted. It is difficult to understand how they would benefit, when players like Wal-Mart look for the cheapest possible suppliers. To sell cheap, they buy even cheaper. To begin with, they might offer better remuneration, but that would be only until traditional channels like ahratiyas are eliminated and the farmers have no choice but to sell to Big Retail -- at any price. In his book Stuffed & Starved,.
The contention that FDI will create jobs is also open to question, as it is more likely to create large-scale unemployment. The unorganised retail trade in India accounts for over 40 million jobs and 98 per cent of the total trade. This includes pansaaris, kirana shops, hardware stores, convenience stores, weekly haats, paan and tobacco shops, as well as a whole range of teh-bazaari (pavement vendors). It is informal, with credit traditionally extended on trust and based on an intricate web of relationships.
The majority of consumers, who buy essentials from their neighbourhood stores on credit and pay bills on a monthly basis, will also suffer with the disruption of the traditional system.
Hundreds of thousands of people who earn their livelihood from the 12 million existing retail outlets may be put out of business by Big Retail. Some may find employment with Big Retail although this is doubtful given their lack of language skills or education -- the minimum requirement for staff at any sizeable store is a command of English. Even if they did, there would not be enough jobs to go around.
Global retail giants are highly capital intensive and create fewer jobs. A single Wal-Mart store could put tens of thousands of mom and pop stores out of business -- as it did in the US -- while generating perhaps 3,000 jobs.
Traditional retail will struggle with the likes of Wal-Mart and lose, because Big Retail with its deep pockets, would resort to predatory pricing. Nor should we expect ethical practices from multinational players.
In a highly publicised case, the Punjab excise and taxation department raided 'Best Price,' a joint venture between Bharti and Wal-Mart. The company was only licensed for wholesale cash-and-carry trading, in which 100 per cent FDI is allowed. According to press reports, it was found to be carrying out retail trade through the issue of membership cards to those who did not have a valid VAT number.
Drawbacks to allowing FDI in retail were pointed out by the Standing Committee of Parliament in June 2009. In the absence of a level playing field between Indian retail and the MNCs, it suggested comprehensive steps to strengthen the former before opening the gates to FDI. Otherwise, it said, the economy would suffer and widespread unemployment would lead to social unrest.
The third great myth about FDI in retail is that it will improve infrastructure by attracting investment in storage and transportation. Why Indian companies in the retail sector have not invested in the back-end along with the front-end is yet to be explained.
Indian economy was dominated by the services sector, accounting for 58 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and it was not ready for FDI in the retail sector.
1. There will be monopoly of big retails houses and small shops will be squeezed.
2. Farmer will have to supply at the price these retails so demand as a small farmers will have no bargaining power.
3. Threat to food security of the nation.
4. Will kill more than 40 crore jobs.
5. Craving of luxury and unnecessary items will increase causing less inclination for savings.
6. Lower of savings will lead to problems such as faced by west.
7. Chinese model is not best suited to india because they are manufacturing economy while we are a service base economy.
8. No guarantee that best practices will be followed by large retail houses.
9. Lots of dotcoms will have to close shop since Amazon and others will kill such marginal players.
10. Small states will suffer the most in the long run(states such as Uttrakhand).
11. Lead to greater corruption and other unethical practices. as larger players know how to bend the rules in their favor.
12. Well increase social disparity and the middle class which has been the motor of our growth will be substantially hit.