Sunday, December 31, 2006

Hang till Death!

"Rapist's should be publicly executed. Their bodies should be chared, mutilated. Their bodies should be grinded and each part should be destoryed and people at large must be made aware of the consequences of Rape. "

A usual reaction to a crime like Rape. To me the crime sends shivers down my spine. But would love to know what on earth could blind one's judgement and his/her response to the crime as an adequate measure to reform society and influence crime and its existence.

Yeah right!!! For a person who is heavily intoxicated, the image of a person's heart hanging from the branches of tree and his chared body is something that would strike whilst forceful sexual intercourse. It baffles me why individuals like you and me react and find that justice would be served through such barbaric means.

Am I undermining the crime and its impact. No. Period. But for christ's sake dont equate rape as a crime, no matter what the events, commensurate to capital punishment.

Oh yes! Rape is brutal, far more brutal than murder where an Individual is forced to live with the scars till eternity. It's a crime where mind you the death of the victim would do no justice in assuaging the pain that an unfortunate person has gone through.

Oh c'mon, u tellin me that the victim would feel much better if the perpetrators will be hung. Are you sure that the scars are not so deep and the pain and anguish that a victim undergoes would be assuaged by the hanging of a person?? What Crap!

Irrespective of rape, capital punishment needs to be awarded to crimes in terms of how heinous,odious, attrocious, abhorrent,flagrant a crime is. That means look into the nature of crime and please do not classify every act of rape as a crime commensurate to Capital punishment and comments like " His body should be grinded into pieces and be displayed to he public" is compeletly unwarranted.

Take this instance. A couple, who through mutual concent have a period of sexual intercourse. One fine day, a woman objects, but unfortunately she is forced into sexual intercourse. Should the person, the man be executed? Shouldn't one look into the gravity of the offense. Oh yes the person needs to be punished. But wouldn't we distingusih it from a person who would otherwise beat, intoxicate a woman and force her into sexual intercourse. Should be blindly award capital punishment to a forced sexual intercourse, irrespective of the nature of crime and therefore classify every act of rape as henious as intoxicating a woman and beating her up?

The main and only reason why capital punishment doesnt work is cause one's ability or his belief that he would get away from the law. Period. The quantity of punishment has nothing to do with restricting crime. It's the effectiveness and efficiency through convictions are what which eventually act as a deterent and not the punishment.

Politician's son being involved, Children of powerful businessmen, if are at any point involved in such heinous crime's like rape, its not capital punishment that would act as a deterent. Their arrogance is bred on the fact that they would escape conviction. Period. U may have capital punishment, public mutilation, its not gonna impact the rich and powerful when it comes to restricting crime cause eventually its doesnt matter when one subverts the system. Which is the main issue at stake.

So in a nutshell reserve Capital punishment to the rarest of rare crime and the nature of crime. And not just cause it's rape. If conviction remains poor no capital punishment would serve its purpose.

Cause in the end the objective of any Judiciary is not only to deliver justice to the victims but for it to deter crime. That's why we govern states. That's why we employ our faith in the Judiciary. There's no point punishing an individual if it doesn't serve the purpose of detering a crime.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Kabul Express***

Kabul Express ***

I am tempted to give 4 stars.
If ur one of those for whom beauty and cinematic brillance is confined to chiffon clad sarees at the snow capped mountain ranges and dance/romnance sequences along serene lakes which is usual to A Yash Chopra Production chances are u might not like this one.

On the other hand if u love rocky deserts and find barren landscapes with war torn buildings, dilapidated structures and eerie locations something to relish, then this movie offers plenty of it.

Probably the best Yash Raj film after Dhoom. And thanks to a discerning audience and the multiplexes brillant directors like Kabir Khan get some space to tell a story and spectaculary shot. Oh!! just brillant!! in the way the movie is shot. Photography,cinematography,sound, amazing background score et al are amazing.

Why not 4 stars? Cause at points I thought the story was forced on you and it needed more of the political element in it, instead, the movie at most points is trying to tell the story thru the people's expriences. Things such as Opium trade and the Soviets I thought should have been highlighted.....

Neverthless a brillant film! Kudos to Yash raj and yeah if ur among those u dont enjoy international politics and war torn stories and need the masala element then let this one pass. It's not ur usual blockbuster but a brillantly shot and narrated film.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

FDI or FII??

Last year, foreign institutional investors pumped to India a record $8.5 billion, a figure that made India the third largest recipient of FII money in the world in 2004.In contrast, FDI flows have remained stuck in the $3-4 billion groove for the past many years. India attracts about one-fourth of the world’s portfolio flows and barely 3 per cent of the world’s FDI. It’s just the reverse in China. FDI is in the range of $50 billion, while portfolio flows are much lower, in the range of $4-5 billion. The question arises: why the foreigner looking at India’s stock markets is far more excited than the company looking at building factories in the country? There are, of course, differences, between FDI and the other flows. FDI is problematic for foreign investors because it means bringing into a country managerial capacity and organisation. In contrast, FII is easy. Only money needs to be invested for earning returns. No effort is required to build organisational capacity for operating in that market. But if a country does not have a well-developed stock market, foreign investment has limited choices. In the well-developed markets of Europe, for instance, the share of FII in total capital flows is high. In contrast, in the countries of Africa, FDI is the dominant form of foreign investment flows. However, too many investors do not want to venture into poor countries so the total foreign private inflows are small.
Today, it is relatively effortless for a foreign institutional investor (FII) to enter the capital market. A Sebi registration, preceded by a fairly perfunctory due diligence, is all it takes before an FII can enter the Indian stock market and commence trading. Exit is equally simple. For FDI, however, both entry and exit are far more difficult. Even in sectors opened to FDI on paper, problems remain at the grassroots. There are innumerable clearances that need to be obtained at the state and district levels. There are also a number of practical hurdles, such as infrastructure bottlenecks, all of which make entry difficult. Exit is more complicated. Archaic labour laws, such as the Industrial Disputes Act, prohibit the closure of any company employing more than 100 workers without obtaining prior state government permission. Bankruptcy laws are convoluted and legal processes costly and long-winded. The Common Minimum Programme of the central government stresses Foreign Direct Investment over Foreign Institutional Investment. Its position is that "FDI will continue to be encouraged and actively sought, particularly in areas of infrastructure, high technology and exports and where local assets are created on a significant scale. The country needs and can easily absorb at least two to three times the present level of FDI inflows," after which the document hurries to add that "Indian industry will be given every support to become productive and competitive" and that all efforts will be made to provide a level playing field. The position of the Common Minimum Programme on FII inflows is spelt out. The FIIs, too, the CMP says, "will continue to be encouraged," but immediately thereafter goes on to state, in the very same sentence that "the vulnerability of the financial system to the flow of speculative capital will be reduced."
Very often arguments are made that this is not good. Instead of having so much portfolio investment, India should have been attracting more FDI. It’s argued that FDI boosts the investment rate directly whereas remittances and FII inflows would be transfers, only a portion of which translates into savings and investment. However, in terms of the impact on balance of payments or the interest rate, it is the totality of inflows a country is able to attract that matters, not its composition. Research suggests that attracting FII may be a sign of good health and attracting FDI, a sign of bad health for the economy. In contrast to the commonly held unfavourable view of FII flows, evidence suggests that countries with good institutions and markets attract more FII, while countries with poor laws and institutions attract more FDI. In the poor countries of Africa, often the share that goes into the primary and extraction sector — such as mining and oil — is high. In rich OECD countries the share of FDI in total capital flows is low at barely 12 per cent. As countries develop, the total capital flowing to them goes up with the increase in per capita income. However, the share of FDI in it goes down. Foreigners learn to trust their markets and institutions and do not feel the need to go there physically to earn returns. That is why economists in Latin America have been getting concerned about the rise in the share of FDI in total flows. The share of portfolio investment has collapsed and this is seen to be a loss of confidence in their markets and institutions.
India should not be embarrassed about attracting portfolio flows. This in fact reflects its success in building sound companies and a well-designed equity market. It is a sign of good health. There two basic reasons why FDI is preferred to portfolio investment. First, it is believed that FDI will stay in India in the event of a currency crisis and, second, it is believed that FDI has a greater impact on growth. FDI is considered “bolted down” as it involves investment in physical plants and equipment and these are very hard to get rid of. Studies of currency crisis usually compare the stability of FDI with that of debt, particularly short-term debt, and in comparison, FDI has been found to be more stable. But that does not mean that FDI cannot move. Latin American economist, Ricardo Hausmann, has argued that there are important mistakes that flow from problems of measurement. In a country’s balance of payments, FDI flows are defined as the increase in the equity position of a non-resident owner who holds more than 10 per cent of the shares of a firm. It also includes the loans received by a local company from the parent owner. About 20 per cent of FDI takes the form of loans from the parent company. Moreover, since the firm is merely a set of assets that are “owned” — in other words, financed — by creditors and shareholders, we must not think of FDI as the firm and its assets. Instead, it is just one of the sources of financing for the firm. FDI is not bolted down, machines are. At the time of a crisis, the foreign company can either sell its equity or take a loan against physical assets and take money out of the country.
Economists Graham Bird and Ramkishen Rajen have shown that despite the fact Malaysia attracts huge FDI, there was a currency crisis. The argument that FDI raises the growth rate of a country is also not watertight. FDI is not found to raise growth when it goes into the primary sector. The impact is ambiguous in the case of services. When it comes to manufacturing, FDI raises growth. But, here again, growth can remain limited to the specific industry in which the FDI went. Worse, it may even remain limited to the firms with FDI. The spill-over effects of technology, management and corporate governance that is often expected to accompany FDI is not automatic. The growth impact of FDI is thus not automatic. It is only countries that have good institutions, skilled labour, openness to trade and well-developed financial markets that gain from FDI. In the absence of these, even if a country attracts FDI, its usefulness is limited. So, instead of trying to be bullish on FDI flows, and restrict FII flows artificially, India must focus on improving markets, institutions and the regulatory framework to encourage foreign investment. Policies should focus on creating a clutter-free market and world-class infrastructure.
This is Article sourced

Monday, December 25, 2006

To hang or not to Hang..........

Afzal... The name arouses extreme reactions. One of hatred for facilitating a crime against the Indian State. One that draws compassion for he is'nt the crux of the issue. One that draws all of us into a new debate where we question whether his death penalty should be commuted to a life sentence.

My take: It's a simple issue made complex by those who disagree with the punishment meted out. There's is no denying that Afzal has been convicted/guilty of a crime he commited. Indulging in arguments in order to prove his innocence amounts to blasphemy. The supreme Court has found him guilty. And questioning the credibility of the judgement by those seeking clemency on the grounds that he is innocence is foolish. As it's the same court that let off SAR Geelani.

So please dont stick to a position that the Supreme court got it wrong in the case of Afzal as aquiting him should draw the same arguments. Dont stick to positions where u reason's his innocence on the grounds that the Court's could have got it wrong, just cause it's convenient to your argument that Capital punishment is'nt appropriate.

So lets keep the two issues seperate. One is whether his guilt/crime Commensurates with capital punishment and the second one of clemency i.e. whether he should be executed.......

Those seeking his clemency argue that he should not be hanged on the grounds that he was only a facilitator. What Crap!!! Osama didn't fly the plane to 9/11 so he is'nt guilty. Just cause I sell a product that illegal(drugs et al) and dont consume it, I should be pardoned as the choice is with the person who consumes it. Afzal is guilty and a crime that grave and in no small measure, of a crime against India's biggest symbol of Democracy, Its parliament.

So dont find reasons just cause you do not agree if death/capital punishment isn't appropriate.

Now the question of clemency. Arguments are that Kashmir will go up in flames. Wouldn't Gujrat go in flames??? Wouldn't the North East go up in Flames??? Oh C'mon! Let's be honest. The issue would have wider implications than Kashmir.

If the Court has sentenced Afzal, its cause its the law of the Land. And please stick with it! Dont Complicate issues and mix it with the pros and cons of Capital Punishment.

Clemency should be granted on grounds of age, family..... compassionate grounds and please kep the gravity of the crime always whilst arriving at any decision. Soli Sorabjee has consistently remarked that granting him Clemency would set a bad precedent. A bias towards a certain section. I am sure that if Kasmir wouldn't go up in flames other states would. And what's the assurance that ist wouldn't happen otherwise. Should we hold the courts to ransom cause a certain state would go up in flames. It's not about Kasmir but other states as well that would go up in flames or very well would use it as a excuse.

I do not support Capital Punishment. But that's a different argument. And has Afzal been punished or sentenced appropriately for a crime he has committed?? Yes, so please go by what the law of the land say's and please do not set a bad precedent. Period.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Spare the GODS!

M.F. Hussain, a revered artist, adored by auctioneers, worshipped by peers, exalted by the rich and now condemned courtesy intolerance and now forced into exile.

A debate that brings forth the thin line between artistic freedom and religious/nationalistic tolerance.

His paintings have captured hindu goddesses in the nude. The one on the left invited more trouble from the Home ministry. A ministry that claims to be part of the govt. or rather brands itself as secular and tolerant govt. and wears its shades of religious tolerance with fervour.

I wondered whats all the fuss about his paintings and the one above which depicts the map of India in the form a nude woman is something, if u ask me hardly offensive by any figment of my imgination. Now heres a certain section of the media and other right wing activists that have labelled him to have committed a crime that amounts to rs 11 lakhs for his hands being chopped off and rs 51 cr. for beheading the Danish Cartoonist.

The painting on this link is guess what??? Sita nude on the tail of Hanuman. Oh c'com, If I hadn't told u this, one would never interpret what's the painting all about(assuming its the first time u've seen it. There is nothing offensive, erotic in the paintings and find no reason for one to cry foul. Is ur religion/faith belief so fragile so as to be so intolerant by some crap painting!!!

Oh yes I dont understand art. Neither Do I Intend to. I cant understand what does a stupid solitary black dot on a huge what canvas signify.... To me it's just sheer waste of paper and time, Given the fact the some freaks spend time interpreting the crap and forcing some sense out of it.

Having said all of this and having always been alergic to be associate to any religion or faith as my guiding light I support the arguments against the painting. Not being specific to the one uploaded but mere intention of one to present what otherwise would be considered sacred.

I, in noways support the response by a section of intolerant goons, but oh c'mon what artistic freedom has one denied u if ur paintings are in danger of objecting popular sensibilities. I have no problems with the painting neither the intentions but for christ's sake please respect one sensibilities. Even though I dont approve of one's belief that the deities should be spared, if its against popular belief and the very nature of how contenious a debate of religion is, please respect it.

Some may retort that u could boycott his painting by stating his objection. Oh yes convenient reason for why I cant dont buy M.F. Hussain. I dont buy it cause I object to his paintings..... not of the fact that his painiting cost rs 1 crore. Small change for me and what a wise way to object....

U paint me nude, and yeah I object by not buying it. I am sure that's not gonna happen cause then no one would but it, spare the connoisseors of fine art. So everybody objects...

My parents have a problem. They do not appreciate and object to people whom they consider sacred to be painted nude. People/deities/gods who they have revered over time to be painted nude under the garb of artistic freedom. They are not gonna change through educating one on how curbing freedom would affect us as a Democracy. They have a problem and felt offended. I do not endorse their(my parents) view. But I respect the reasons for which the are offended. And please respect it. Period.!!! They aren't resorting to violence and neither do they buy your paintings, so will somebody please stand up and tell me, how do they register a protest???

I do not endorse the reaction towards the painting but why try and ignite and thread territories that for many is sacred. The absence of a protest or those who do not voice their opinion does not amount to one not being offended. But for christ's sake spare the Gods!