Relationship Violence

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Rape a dirty secret?

 Rape is not a dirty secret, it is a violent crime.

It is troubling enough that such a small proportion of reported rapes make it to court, worse still that so few victims come forward in the first place. But most disturbing of all is the reason why so many people keep their suffering to themselves: because they do not think they will be believed. That rape is still a dirty secret, hedged about with so much blame and shame that victims feel they cannot come forward, is testament to how far we still have to go.

There are, of course, great legal difficulties in rape trials.

Sexual assault is one of the few crimes where proof lies not in the physical facts of the matter, but in the subjective intentions of those involved. One person's word against another's, with no corroborating witnesses, is highly problematic for a legal system predicated on the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This is no call for the wholesale abandonment of basic tenets of justice. But simply to shrug our collective shoulders, blame intractable issues of principle, and thereby leave a swathe of victims of violent assault with insufficient legal protection cannot be acceptable in what purports to be a civilised society.

The latest statistics make gruelling reading. More than a third of British women have been subjected to some kind of sexual assault, and one in 10 has been raped, according to the Mumsnet social networking site. Barely a third of victims go to the police, and another third tell no one at all, not even close friends.

In fairness, there has been significant progress in terms of institutional procedures. In many areas of the country, for example, there are now specially trained police officers and court prosecutors for cases of sexual assault. But uneven regional conviction rates only underline the extent to which such practices remain an optional extra rather than standard.

Equally, although victims no longer face the prospect of being cross-questioned by their attacker in court, pursuing a case to trial remains a horrifying ordeal. As a witness for the prosecution, the victim has no legal support, and faces intensely personal questioning from defence lawyers, often while face-to-face with their rapist for the first time since the assault. Even within the framework of innocent until proven guilty, there is more that can be done to ease the burden on victims, not least allowing them legal representation in court.

But the shortcomings of our institutions are merely part and parcel of a wider cultural understanding of rape that still militates against justice. It is that culture that must change if victims are to be encouraged to speak up. Comments from the Justice Secretary last year that appeared to imply that some rapes are more "serious" than others have hardly helped, adding to the persistent fallacy – often stoked by the media – that a person being either drunk or dressed in a certain way must take some responsibility for the actions of their attacker.

Part of the problem is the myth that rape is primarily a threat on the streets at night. Far from it. In fact, rape rarely occurs in the proverbial dark alley. The truth is both more banal, and more appalling: two-thirds of victims know their attacker, and assaults commonly take place in the home of either the victim or the rapist. Perpetrators rely on shame to keep their crime secret. Too often they are proved right. And if the conspiracy of silence is a problem for women who are raped, it is even worse for men.

Mumsnet is, therefore, to be applauded for its efforts to create a climate where victims feel they can come forward. The current Survivors UK ad campaign encouraging male victims to seek help is also welcome. But each is just one small step. Rape is one of the more appalling things that one human being can do to another, and yet there is no other crime about which our society is so ambivalent. That must change.

Let's make it change happen. .We can we will.

Honoured & blessed born as a Female. 

Thankiew

Attitude

Thoughts 

I don’t insult people. I just describe them.

Life’s challenges are not supposed to paralyze you, they are supposed to help you discover who you really are.

Through Women's Eyes :

Through Women's Eyes: Defining Danger in the Wake of Sexual Assault😷


Most women who have been sexually assaulted see at least some situations in the world as being more dangerous following their assault experiences. Based on in-depth interviews with 94 women who were either raped or avoided being raped during an attack, this study examines the effect of the events that occurred during the attack and the circumstances surrounding the attack as factors that determine later perceptions of danger. Women who have been raped are more likely to change their perceptions of the safety of the world in radical ways than women who have avoided being raped, although women who avoid being raped often make substantial reassessments as well. For both raped women and avoiders, one's likelihood of making a radical change in one's perceptions of dangerousness depended to a large degree on the sort of situation in which the attack took place. Women were less likely to change their perceptions of dangerousness if the attack took place in a situation where they believed they were in some danger before the attack. If the attack took place in circumstances which the women defined as safe, however, a much more extreme reaction was likely to occur.

Indian Army’s Role in Nation Building

The Indian Army’s Role in Nation Building
•   8 October 2016.

India's army has seen its role as the nation’s “ultimate weapon” diminish.

The Indian nation should have been able to look back at the country’s journey from 1947 and justifiably feel proud of the progress it has made so far. Unfortunately, the overwhelming mood in India today is that of gloom, despondency, and low self-confidence.

Institutions have been systematically emasculated, some even destroyed. The country’s economy is in the doldrums. The rupee is in a free fall. Experts say that the economy will improve and the rupee will also recover.

Since I have no expertise in those matters, I am willing to go with the optimism of the sarkari experts. But as a student of India’s armed forces, my worry is more long term and I am going to try and highlight the dangers inherent in this development.

The Soldier

It essential to understand why the soldier (in the broader sense) is pivotal for the wellbeing of a nation-state. Military scholars may quote Sun Tzu often when it comes to military strategy, but my favorite is the worldly-wise Chanakya.  Centuries ago he toldthe king of Magadh:

"The Mauryan soldier does not himself the Royal treasuries enrich nor does he the Royal granaries fill… The soldier only and merely ensures that… He is thus the very basis and silent, barely visible cornerstone of our fame, culture, physical well-being and prosperity; in short, of the entire nation building activity.

The Indian nation state has, however, forgotten Chanakya’s advice. The Indian soldier today stands at the crossroads, confused about his status in the society and unsure about his own role in a nation led by “faux peaceniks” who will compromise national security for short-term gains like a Nobel Peace Prize. The havoc wrought by an indifferent polity and insensitive bureaucracy to India’s armed forces and changing societal norms, has hit the ordinary soldier hard.

The society no longer respects the soldier and his work in protecting the nation. They may pay lip service in times of crisis but that’s it. Bihar politician Bhim Singh’s utterly tasteless remark that “people join armed forces to die,” in the wake of the killing of five Indian soldiers on the line of control, is symptomatic of the bitter reality. Although forced to withdraw his remark, the Bihar politician symbolizes how a large section of Indian society view soldiering.

An Ultimate Weapon

A local politician, a thanedar, seems to command more clout in society today. This has often led to a loss of self-esteem among ordinary soldiers. A recent movie called Paan Singh Tomar depicted, in some measure, the humiliation that a soldier faces in the civilian environment, both while serving and after retirement from the armed forces.

And yet, from disaster relief in floods, tsunamis and earthquakes, to rescuing an infant prince from a deep tube well, and from quelling rioters in communal strife to being the last resort in internal counter-insurgency operations, the Indian Army is omnipresent. It is, what I have said time and again, India’s Brahmaastra — an ultimate weapon.

The versatility, adaptability, selfless attitude and resourcefulness of the Indian Army have allowed it to be what it is today: nation builders. Viewed in the context of India’s immediate and extended neighborhood, the Indian Army’s stellar role stands out in stark contrast to its counterparts in other countries.

Remember, Indian and Pakistani armies originated from the same source: the British Army. And yet, six decades since they parted ways, there couldn’t be a bigger dissimilarity in the way the two have evolved. As they say, India has an army while the Pakistani Army has a nation.

Despite India’s increasing dependence on the army to pull its chestnuts out of the fire time and again, the Indian Army has scrupulously remained apolitical. It has put down fissiparous and secessionist forces within India with great cost to itself over these 66 years. It has protected India from within and without.

The Indian army also has a unique distinction of helping create a nation (Bangladesh) in the neighborhood and then quietly walking away to let the people take charge. By contrast, the Pakistani Army has never really allowed democracy to flourish in its country. Instead, it has created a military-industrial complex that has spread its tentacles in every aspect of governance. Even today, the Pakistani Army does not let go of any opportunity to undercut democracy; it nurtures and treats jihadi elements as its strategic asset against India and the United States.

Even in other smaller nations around India — Nepal, Myanmar and Bangladesh, for instance — the armed forces have had to intervene and run the affairs of those countries at some point.

So who or what makes the Indian Army so distinct? Simply put, its leaders and its men and their ethos of “service before self.” From the early days of independence, Indian military leaders — stalwarts like KM Cariappa, Rajendra Singhji, KS Thimayya and later Sam Maneckshaw — led the forces from the front and provided a strong moral center that has remained more or less in tact; some very regrettable instances of moral and monetary corruption notwithstanding.

Since independence, one institution that has remained absolutely free of communalism and divisive tendencies is the Indian Army. When caste and religious differences have beset the country’s politics and society at large, the army has stood firm against these divisive forces. It has thus stood the test of time and has consistently upheld and protected the nation’s constitution with unflinching loyalty, making a major contribution in nation building in the first six decades of India’s existence as an independent, sovereign nation.

Civilian Control

However, as India marks its 66th anniversary, I am not so sure if this great institution can withstand the buffeting it receives both from within the Ministry of Defense and beyond.

Why has this happened? Mainly because inIndia, civilian control of the military has become synonymous with bureaucratic control. The political executive, barring a handful, neither has the knowledge nor any interest in military matters, and therefore, it depends completely on inputs from the bureaucrats who continue to mold the political leadership’s thought process according to their own perceptions on governance and administration.

Admiral Arun Prakash, former chief of naval staff and a prolific commentator on national security affairs, has this to say about the equation between the Ministry of Defense and Service Headquarters:

"Two major factors have contributed to the systemic dysfunctionality that we see in the management of national security affairs. First is politician’s detachment and indifference towards matters relating to national security, because this is not an issue that can win or lose votes. "Since politicians have not considered it worthwhile establishing close and cordial relations with the leadership of the armed forces, it is not surprising that when faced with a crisis or problem, politicians finds themselves at a complete loss. A related factor is the total reliance that the politician places, for advice, decision-making and problem resolution on transient, generalist MoD civil servants, drawn from diverse backgrounds. This, despite the chiefs and the highly specialized Service HQ (SHQ) staffs being at his disposal for tendering advice in the management of national security."

The effort to cut defense services down to size had begun immediately after independence. Before 1947, the status of the commander in chief (C-in-C) in India was second only to that of the Viceroy. As a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council, he was also the de facto defense minister. He was served by his uniformed principal staff officers (PSOs) and the defense secretary who, incidentally, was below the PSOs in the order of precedence. The role of the Defense Department was not to examine proposals, or to sit in judgment over the Army Headquarters, but was restricted to issuing orders in the name of the Government of India.

Sixty-six years after independence, it is no secret that the political-military interface is all but absent in India’s institutional set up. The armed forces are completely under the day-to-day as well as policy control of the MoD. The desirable politico-military interface is now reduced to weekly, sometimes fortnightly meetings chaired by the defense minister. According to several former chiefs I have spoken to, these meetings are informal, without any agendas or note taking and have no official status — although in theory, the defense minister is deemed to have given policy directions in these meetings.

Former Army Chief Gen. Padmanabhan, who led the army in the crucial period when India mobilized its entire military under Operation Parakram in 2002, has rarely written or spoken about matters of national security since his retirement in 2003.

However, in his book, published in 2005, Padmanabhan had this to say about meeting of service chiefs with the defense minister:

“Even at the level of the defence minister and Service Chiefs, exchanges on major matters of defence policy were few and far between, the Defence Minister’s weekly meetings with the Service Chiefs being used to update the minister and equip him to negotiate questions in Parliament. Often, these meetings were deferred, as ‘more important’ activities claimed the time of the minister… The result was… the greater role and authority assumed by the Defence bureaucracy. The Defence Secretary, with his nearness to the Defence Minister, often began to exercise power on the minister’s behalf and was, quite often, regarded as de facto defence minister. The ‘supremacy of the civil over the military’ was thus effectively changed from supremacy of the political authority to that of the civilian bureaucracy.”

Over these six decades, the bureaucracy continued to acquire disproportionate powers vis-à-vis the service chiefs and now it’s a given that the defense secretary and not the service chiefs, is the single-point adviser to the cabinet on military matters. The defense and cabinet secretaries have a consistent interface with the political leadership, as the service chiefs attend the meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) only if invited.

So the defense secretary, a generalist IAS officer and not the military brass, is responsible for national defense as well as conduct of war. Under the current rules, the service chiefs have neither been accorded a status, nor granted any powers in the government edifice. In the process, it is the service chiefs who were marginalized from the decision-making bodies.

Resentment

While very few have been able to explain the real reason behind the antipathy against the military displayed by the civil bureaucracy and the political executive, my experience suggests that non-military personnel resent the armed forces because of their evidently orderly and efficient ethos, the tightly bound camaraderie, and their distinct standing in the society. And this is not unique to India. Renowned sociologist Morris Janowitz had famously said: “The intimate social solidarity of the military profession is both envied and resented by civilians.”

So is there a way out of this logjam? Can the status quo ever be broken?

Historically, it is to the credit of the Indian Armed Forces that they have fulfilled their assigned role as an organ of the state, that they have functioned effectively in every role, despite a general lack of a supportive government environment by way of adequate finances, resources, equipment, personnel policies, or higher political direction.

Yet though the average Indian soldier remains as hardy as before, he is certainly confused with the pace of change occurring all around him. It is here that the leaders — the officers — will have to adapt themselves to the new reality. The age-old system of regimental traditions and values is robust and serves to develop camaraderie and loyalty between the led and the leader even now. The new fashion to dismiss these ideas as outdated must be arrested. Military ethos is not developed overnight and is certainly not imbibed by pandering blindly to the changes in society. The overwhelming trend to be a “careerist” must be eliminated.

The desire to advance one’s career at any cost, to strive for promotion, even by cutting corners along with the crave for awards as a means to boost chances of attaining the next rank, has become a rampant practice among the officer class. Self-preservation has exaggerated that protection and advancement of career at all levels seems to have become a sine qua non for most officers. That must change. And that change must come from the top.

As the wise sage had said to the king: “While the Magadha citizenry endeavours to make the State prosper and flourish, the Mauryan soldier guarantees that the State continues to exist!”

Can we, people in uniform, civil services, politics, media and society at large, imbue this spirit and make the soldier — our bulwark against any potential threat — stronger?

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Regards 

Your own,

Ratri ray sen 

Blogger by heart.

Social activist 

Head -Corporate communications and business Training 

Goenka group of Companies, Asia (Business Professional)

Do we know👥

Things We Think We Know
First impressions are usually wrong. Unfortunately, they usually turn into stereotypes, which then turn into the truth.


We all hate stereotypes. Stereotypes are killing us, and they are killing our children, and they are putting LSD into the water supply. Stereotypes are like rogue elephants with AIDS that have been set on fire by terrorists, except worse. We all hate stereotypes. Seriously. Dude, we fucking hate them.

Except that we don't. We adore stereotypes, and we desperately need them to fabricate who we are (or who we are not). People need to be able to say things like, "All stereotypes are based on ignorance," because expressing such a sentiment makes them enlightened, open-minded, and incredibly unpleasant. Meanwhile, their adversaries need the ability to say things such as, "Like it or not, all stereotypes are ultimately based in some sort of reality," because that kind of semilogic can justify their feelings about virtually anything. Nobody really cares what specific stereotype they happen to be debating; what matters more is how that label was spawned, because that defines its consequence. It raises a fundamental query about the nature of existence: Is our anecdotal understanding of the world founded on naivete, or is it built on dark, unpopular truths? That is the question. And here (I suspect) is the answer: neither. Stereotypes are not really based on fact, and they are not really based on fiction. They are based on arbitrary human qualities no one cares about at all. Whenever a given stereotype seems right (or wrong), it's inevitably a coincidence; the world is a prejudiced place, but it's prejudiced for the weirdest, least-meaningful reasons imaginable.

Universal Language

English as a Universal Language

English is without a doubt the actual universal language. It is the world's second largest native language, the official language in 70 countries, and English-speaking countries are responsible for about 40% of world's total GNP.

English can be at least understood almost everywhere among scholars and educated people, as it is the world media language, and the language of cinema, TV, pop music and the computer world. All over the planet people know many English words, their pronunciation and meaning.

The causes for this universality are very well known and understandable. English first began to spread during the 16th century with British Empire and was strongly reinforced in 20th by USA world domination in economic, political and military aspects and by the huge influence of American movies.

The concept of a Universal Language is more significant only now, in the era of world mass communication. Before this era Greek, Latin, French were to some extent universal languages, though mainly in Europe.

By a lucky coincidence due to factors above, English, the Universal language, is one of the simplest and easiest natural languages in the world. The only other simple and easy languages are constructed ones.

Of course the concept of easiness is relative, and it depends on which language you know already. However the concept of simplicity is undeniable: English in an easy language to learn, understand and speak. A complex language such as Hungarian would be a very unlikely candidate for a universal language.

First of all, English Language uses Latin alphabet, the most universal, simple and short one (only the Greek alphabet is shorter and simpler). In addition, in English, the Latin Alphabet presents its most "clean" form as a true alphabet with only 26 basic letters and no diacritics;

Verb conjugation is very simple and easy. Even for irregular verbs, there is almost no variation in person (except 3rd singular in present tense).

Regular verbs have only four forms: Infinitive + Present, Past Tense + Past Participle, 3rd person singular Present Indicative, Present Participle.

There are almost no Inflections. No number or gender inflection for adjectives, articles, adverbs. For adjectives there is only comparative and superlative, almost only number for nouns. In pronouns there are gender and number inflections and only three declension cases (Acc/Dat, Nom, Gen).

English is one of the most analytical languages, with no significant synthetic, fusional or agglutinative characteristics.


Could be there any other alternative for Universal Language, instead of English?
There are other languages that are quite simple and synthetic, with almost no verb conjugation, no declension, such as Asian languages like Thai and Chinese, but they are written with complicated scripts and are tonal languages. However if Chinese were to be written with the Latin alphabet, it could potentially become a univeral language.

There are other strong languages that, due to population and economic power, could be univeral languages, but they have a number of disadvantages when compared with English.

Some examples:

Japanese: has very regular verbs but also a very complicated script.
Chinese: no conjugations or declension, but a very complicated script and tones.
German has many more inflections than English.
The major Romance languages, such as French, Spanish and Portuguese, have fewer inflections than most of languages, but their verb conjugation is very complicated.
Russian has both complex verb conjugations and numerous noun declensions.
In conclusion, it is lucky for us that our universal language is the simplest and easiest, even though that simplicity and easiness weren't the reasons that lead English to that condition.

Child slavery

https://ratriraysen.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/child-slavery/?preview=true

Child slavery

4
Although we have, in theory, abolished human slavery, recognized women's rights, and stopped child labor, we continue to enslave other species who, if we simply pay attention, show quite clearly that they experience parental love, pain, and the desire for freedom, just as we do.

We must ensure that while eliminating child labor in the export industry, we are also eliminating their labour from the informal sector, which is more invisible to public scrutiny - and thus leaves the children more open to abuse and exploitation.

Humanity itself is at stake here. A lot of work still remains, but I will see the end of child labor in my lifetime.

Child slavery

Abstract🙌
In the latter part of the 20th century, child labour remains a serious problem in many parts of the world. Many of these children live in underdeveloped countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Their living conditions are crude and their chances for education minimal. The income they bring in is, however, necessary for the survival of their families. In other cases, children are bonded, working to pay off an initial cash advance from the employer with escalating interest which leaves them effectively slaves. In this project , information has been shared on some of the legal and programmatic initiatives undertaken in India over the last decade or so to address the problem of child labor. These programs remain committed to the full eradication of all forms of child labor wherever it might exist in India, beginning with the most exploitative and hazardous forms and have adopted this goal as part of national policy. Both the Indian courts and the National Human Rights Commission have been paying increasing attention to the issue. India has also been participating in the International Program on Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) of the ILO. But the problem remains vast, and finding resources for rehabilitation schemes, given the magnitude of the problem, is a continuing challenge.

Caste system and Indian politics.

What is the Relationship between Caste System and Politics in India?


Though casteism in traditional sense in weakening in India, though the leader of our country have proclaimed time and again the caste is menace to our national life, caste plays an important role in Indian Politics. Adult franchise and Panchayati raj have given new opportunities to castes. Numerically large castes have become important pressure groups in local as well as state politics.

Dr. Leach writes, “Everywhere, in India and Ceylon today whole caste groups are tending to emerges as political faction.” In the opinion of Ghurgy, unfortunately, in this country elections are fought and won on the basis of caste. Candidates contesting elections seek support from their castes. These leaders, thus elected maintain casteism even after election by showing special treatment to their caste members.

Even political parties are not free from ‘Caste Politics. Political Parties in India sponsor candidates having social base, which is nothing but the numerical strength of a caste of candidate in the constituency. He says, in fact caste has found a new field of an activity.

Leaders at the village level cultivate ministers for privileges and for a variety of favor. The ministers in turn need the help of village leaders during elections. It seems tot be accepted principle that, in the state cabinet at nay rate, each major caste should have a minister. This principle is in the village Panchayat as well. Voting very often son caste basis. The local politics in village is dominated by caste. Each caste wants to get maximum power in the village set up. The groupism in rural politics is centered around mostly on castes and to some extent on class and other factors.

Rajani Kothari in “Caste in Indian Politics” studied how far caste is influencing the rural policy. He finds that caste is becoming more and more strengthened because these castes are forming caste association. In the political sphere, the caste associations ask their members to vote the persons belonging to their own caste and he may of any political party. Caste members become more and more powerful in politics. They try to get reservations in government jobs for their caste members. Thus castes are trying to strengthen their position and to get as much political power as possible.

In Karnataka state politics there is rivalry between Okkaligas and Lingayats, the two leading present castes. In Andhra Pradesh the chief contesting castes are Reddies and Kamas, in Bihar, Bhumidars, Kayasth and Rajput.

Dravida Munnetra Kazngam (D.M.K) had arises as a non-Brahmin party of break the Brahmin cal dominance in Tamilnadu state politics. At present D.M.K and A.D.M.K are two non-Brahmin political parties in Tamilnadu and both the parties are in politically advantageous position in comparison with other political parties such as Congress and Communist in that state.

The highest expression of caste based politics is found in Bihar and U.P. is even today. The traditional caste rivalry between the Rajput, Kayastha and Bhumindar is found today among the political parties in Bihar.

The mobilisation of “Kurmis”on Faizabad district in Uttar Pradesh by Jai Ram Varma, who was Agricultural Minister in SBP Government, illustrates the way in which caste can be used by a skilful organiser to transform his own caste into a viable political force. The same may be said of Kansi Ram who as the leader of the scheduled and lower castes had been able to create a political force in U.P. the politics of Haryana has also become caste and faction ridden.

Finally, in defiance of constitutional provisions of equal opportunity the Medalists have come forward to claim reservation for the backward caste in the name of backward. Thus the claim for reservation in the Central Government services is purely politically motivated and this also clearly indicates strong bond between caste and politics. Further constitution only speaks of backward classes. As a result any move by the state government to develop criteria on the basis of caste is stuck down by the courts as they violate constitution.

The only way by which some State Government tries of overcome the situation is by drawing up a list of castes which are backward. Caste cannot be criterion to help the backward classes to come up because it is astrictive and because it helps powerful members of the castes to exploit the concessions for their benefits. Any attempt to exclude the advanced backward caste from backward castes appears impossible, because the advanced backward castes will desire to be in the list; as they are politically powerful their claim cannot be laid aside by any democratic government.

Although the politics in India cannot be explained entirely in terms of caste, caste is an important element in the politics. The caste influences political activity from Panchayat right up to Parliament. While the Caste System is breaking down in social and cultural fields; conflicts between castes are intensified by party.

Hence time for us to think beyond this system and bring back heritage in every possible way.. 

All the best..
Thankiew!