It is not a spam..,

   Sharing thoughts and ideas of one particular person does not become a spam. Blogging is an interesting area where we share our thoughts and ideas to our dear and near friends and ofcourse people who are interested in the same subjects tend to read the blog. So depending on the mentality of people blogging defers.., because one particular person did not like the postings that does'n mean that, that particular blog is a spam . One of my close friend had this problem. He had been posting his likes and dislikes in his blog as well he also posted his favorite articles with mentioning all the details of the author and the book published as well. This was not liked by his friends who ultimately ended up in complaining as spam and now his blog is locked.. i don think wat happening is fair enough.., since there should be proper diagonise of the problem and the solution before locking. Though the website sent an offcial warning due to his travelling he was not able to check his mail and untimately ended up trouble. Now we can also argur that this is jus a blog and we have nothing more than jus writing.., but my point it its been years since he ever started his blogging.., so my humble request to the ones who always play around with the cyber birds is before reporting spam make sure you send a caution to the writer of the blog so that he may know wat he is doing is right or wrong rather than thinking about what went wrong.., by the way this is not a spam..,  

Interesting view by gnani

This one was shared by one of my very good friend .., i found it interesting and thought to share with you all.

dear friends i send u  a good piece i found recently. the article highlights  matters very close  to my heart. Aristotle used to say the people will get the government they deserve.same can be said about our media. I thank Gnani shankaran, a Tamil thinker  who wrote it . Hope you will take time to read it. . if you already got it and read it ,excuse me. On whose side is the media?  HOTEL TAJ: ICON OF WHOSE INDIA? By Gnani Sankaran Watching at least four English news channels surfing from one another during the last 60 hours of terror strike made me feel a terror of another kind. The terror of assaulting one's mind and sensitivity with cameras, sound bites and non-stop blabbers. All these channels have been trying to manufacture my consent for a big lie called — Hotel Taj the icon of India. Whose India, Whose Icon ? It is a matter of great shame that these channels simply did not bother about the other icon that faced the first attack from terrorists - the Chatrapathi Shivaji Terminus (CST) railway station. CST is the true icon of Mumbai. It is through this railway station hundreds of Indians from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Tamilnadu have poured into Mumbai over the years, transforming themselves into Mumbaikars and built the Mumbai of today along with the Marathis and Kolis But the channels would not recognise this. Nor would they recognise the thirty odd dead bodies strewn all over the platform of CST. No Barkha Dutt went there to tell us who they were. But she was at Taj to show us the damaged furniture and reception lobby braving the guards. And the TV cameras did not go to the government-run JJ hospital to find out who those 26 unidentified bodies were. Instead they were again invading the battered Taj to try in vain for a scoop shot of the dead bodies of the Page 3 celebrities. In all probability, the unidentified bodies could be those of workers from  Bihar and Uttar Pradesh migrating to Mumbai, arriving by train at CST without cell phones and PAN cards to identify them. Even after 60 hours after the CST massacre, no channel has bothered to cover in detail what transpired there. The channels conveniently failed to acknowledge that the Aam Aadmis of India surviving in Mumbai were not affected by Taj, Oberoi and Trident closing down for a couple of weeks or months. What mattered to them was the stoppage of BEST buses and suburban trains even for one hour. But the channels were not covering that aspect of the terror attack. Such information at best merited a scroll line, while the cameras have to be dedicated for real time thriller unfolding at Taj or Nariman Bhavan. The so-called justification for the hype the channels built around heritage site Taj falling down (CST is also a heritage site), is that Hotel Taj is where the rich and the powerful of India and the globe congregate. It is a symbol or icon of power of money and politics, not India. It is the icon of the financiers and swindlers of India. The Mumbai and India were built by the Aam Aadmis who passed through CST and Taj was the oasis of peace and privacy for those who wielded power over these mass of labouring classes.. Leopold club and Taj were the haunts of rich spoilt kids who would drive their vehicles over sleeping Aam Aadmis on the pavement, the mafiosi of Mumbai forever financing the glitterati of Bollywood (and also the terrorists), political brokers and industrialists. It is precisely because Taj is the icon of power and not people, that the terrorists chose to strike. The terrorists have understood after several efforts that the Aam Aadmi will never break down even if you bomb her markets and trains. He/she was resilient because that is the only way he/she can even survive. Resilience was another word that annoyed the pundits of news channels and their patrons this time. What resilience, enough is enough, said Pranoy Roy's channel on the left side of the channel spectrum. Same sentiments were echoed by Arnab Goswami representing the right wing of the broadcast media whose time is now. Can Rajdeep be far behind in this game of one upmanship over TRPs ? They all attacked resilience this time. They wanted firm action from the government in tackling terror. The same channels celebrated resilience when bombs went off in trains and markets killing and maiming the Aam Aadmis. The resilience of the ordinary worker suited the rich business class of Mumbai since work or manufacture or film shooting did not stop. When it came to them, the rich shamelessly exhibited their lack of nerves and refused to be resilient themselves. They cry for government intervention now to protect their private spas and swimming pools and bars and restaurants, similar to the way in which Citibank, General Motors and the ilk cry for government money when their coffers are emptied by their own ideologies. The terrorists have learnt that the ordinary Indian is unperturbed by terror. For one whose daily existence itself is a terror of government-sponsored inflation and market-sponsored exclusion, pain is something he has learnt to live with. The rich of Mumbai and India Inc are facing the pain for the first time and learning about it just as the middle classes of India learnt about violation of human rights only during emergency, a cool 28 years after independence. And human rights were another favourite issue for the channels to whip at times of terrorism. Arnab Goswami in an animated voice wondered where were those champions of human rights now, not to be seen applauding the brave and selfless police officers who gave up their life in fighting terorism. Well, the counter-question would be where were you when such officers were violating the human rights of Aam Aadmis? Has there ever been any 24-hour non-stop coverage of violence against dalits and adivasis of this country?  This definitely was not the time to manufacture consent for the extra-legal and third degree methods of interrogation of police and army but Arnabs don't miss a single opportunity to serve their class masters, this time the jingoistic patriotism came in handy to whitewash the entire uniformed services. The sacrifice of the commandos or the police officers who went down dying at the hands of ruthless terrorists is no doubt heart-rending but in vain in a situation which needed not just bran but also brain. Israel has a point when it says the operations were misplanned resulting in the death of its nationals here. Khakares and Salaskars would not be dead if they did not commit the mistake of traveling by the same vehicle. It is a basic lesson in management that the top brass should never travel together in crisis. The terrorists, if only they had watched the channels, would have laughed their hearts out when the Chief of the Marine commandos, an elite force, masking his face so unprofessionally in a see-through cloth, told the media that the commandoshad no idea about the structure of the Hotel Taj which they were trying to liberate. But the terrorists knew the place thoroughly, he acknowledged. Is it so difficult to obtain a ground plan of Hotel Taj and discuss operation strategy thoroughly for at least one hour before entering? This is something even an event manager would first ask for, if he had to fix 25 audio systems and 50 CCtvs for a cultural event in a hotel. Would not Ratan Tata have provided a plan of his ancestral hotel to the commandos within one hour considering the mighty apparatus at his and government's disposal? Are satellite pictures only available for terrorists and not the government agencies? In an operation known to consume time, one more hour for preparation would have only improved the efficiency of execution. Sacrifices become doubly tragic in unprofessional circumstances. But the Aam Aadmis always believe that terror-shooters do better planning than  terrorists. And the gullible media in a jingoistic mood would not raise any question about any of these issues. They after all have their favourite whipping boy — the politician the eternal entertainer for the non-voting rich classes of India. Arnabs and Rajdeeps would wax eloquent on Manmohan Singh and Advani visiting Mumbai separately and not together showing solidarity even at this hour ofnational crisis. What a farce? Why can't these channels pool together all their camera crew and reporters at this time of national calamity and share the sound and visual bites which could mean a wider and deeper coverage ofevents with such a huge human resource to command? Why should Arnab and Rajdeep and Barkha keep harping every five minutes that this piece of information was exclusive to their channel, at the time of such a national crisis? Is this the time to promote the channel? If that is valid, the politician promoting his own political constituency is equally valid. And the duty of the politician is to do politics, his politics. It is for the people to evaluate that politics. And terrorism is not above politics. It is politics by other means. To come to grips with it and to eventually eliminate it, the practice of politics by proper means needs constant fine tuning and improvement. Decrying all politics and politicians, only helps terrorists and dictators who are the two sides of the same coin. And the rich and powerful always prefer terrorists and dictators to do business with. Those caught in this crossfire are always the Aam Aadmis whose deaths arenot even mourned - the taxi driver who lost the entire family at CST firing, the numerous waiters and stewards who lost their lives working in Taj for a monthly salary that would be one time bill for their masters. Postscript: In a fit of anger and depression, I sent a message to all the channels, 30 hours through the coverage. After all they have been constantly asking the viewers to message them for anything and everything. My message read: I send this with lots of pain. All channels, including yours, must apologise for not covering the victims of CST massacre, the real Mumbaikars and Aam Aadmis of India. Your obsession with five-star elite is disgusting. Learn from the print media please. No channel bothered. Only Srinivasan Jain replied: you are right. We are trying to redress balance today. Well, nothing happened till the time of writing this 66 hours after the terror attack. --- Gnani Sankaran is a Tamil writer from Chennai

Our Real Heros

Commentary
Heroes At The Taj
Michael Pollack 12.01.08, 7:40 PM ET



My story begins innocuously, with a dinner reservation in a world-class hotel. It ends 12 hours later after the Indian army freed us.

My point is not to sensationalize events. It is to express my gratitude and pay tribute to the staff of the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai, who sacrificed their lives so that we could survive. They, along with the Indian army, are the true heroes that emerged from this tragedy.

My wife, Anjali, and I were married in the Taj's Crystal Ballroom. Her parents were married there, too, and so were Shiv and Reshma, the couple with whom we had dinner plans. In fact, my wife and Reshma, both Bombay girls, grew up hanging out and partying the night away there and at the Oberoi Hotel, another terrorist target.

The four of us arrived at the Taj around 9:30 p.m. for dinner at the Golden Dragon, one of the better Chinese restaurants in Mumbai. We were a little early, and our table wasn't ready. So we walked next door to the Harbor Bar and had barely begun to enjoy our beers when the host told us our table was ready. We decided to stay and finish our drinks.

Thirty seconds later, we heard what sounded like a heavy tray smashing to the ground. This was followed by 20 or 30 similar sounds and then absolute silence. We crouched behind a table just feet away from what we now knew were gunmen. Terrorists had stormed the lobby and were firing indiscriminately.

We tried to break the glass window in front of us with a chair, but it wouldn't budge. The Harbour Bar's hostess, who had remained at her post, motioned to us that it was safe to make a run for the stairwell. She mentioned, in passing, that there was a dead body right outside in the corridor. We believe this courageous woman was murdered after we ran away.

(We later learned that minutes after we climbed the stairs, terrorists came into the Harbour Bar, shot everyone who was there and executed those next door at the Golden Dragon. The staff there was equally brave, locking their patrons into a basement wine cellar to protect them. But the terrorists managed to break through and lob in grenades that killed everyone in the basement.)

We took refuge in the small office of the kitchen of another restaurant, Wasabi, on the second floor. Its chef and staff served the four of us food and drink and even apologized for the inconvenience we were suffering.

Through text messaging, e-mail on BlackBerrys and a small TV in the office, we realized the full extent of the terrorist attack on Mumbai. We figured we were in a secure place for the moment. There was also no way out.

At around 11:30 p.m., the kitchen went silent. We took a massive wooden table and pushed it up against the door, turned off all the lights and hid. All of the kitchen workers remained outside; not one staff member had run.

The terrorists repeatedly slammed against our door. We heard them ask the chef in Hindi if anyone was inside the office. He responded calmly: "No one is in there. It's empty." That is the second time the Taj staff saved our lives.

After about 20 minutes, other staff members escorted us down a corridor to an area called The Chambers, a members-only area of the hotel. There were about 250 people in six rooms. Inside, the staff was serving sandwiches and alcohol. People were nervous, but cautiously optimistic. We were told The Chambers was the safest place we could be because the army was now guarding its two entrances and the streets were still dangerous. There had been attacks at a major railway station and a hospital.

But then, a member of parliament phoned into a live newscast and let the world know that hundreds of people--including CEOs, foreigners and members of parliament--were "secure and safe in The Chambers together." Adding to the escalating tension and chaos was the fact that, via text and cellphone, we knew that the dome of the Taj was on fire and that it could move downward.

At around 2 a.m., the staff attempted an evacuation. We all lined up to head down a dark fire escape exit. But after five minutes, grenade blasts and automatic weapon fire pierced the air. A mad stampede ensued to get out of the stairwell and take cover back inside The Chambers.

After that near-miss, my wife and I decided we should hide in different rooms. While we hoped to be together at the end, our primary obligation was to our children. We wanted to keep one parent alive. Because I am American and my wife is Indian, and news reports said the terrorists were targeting U.S. and U.K. nationals, I believed I would further endanger her life if we were together in a hostage situation.

So when we ran back to The Chambers I hid in a toilet stall with a floor-to-ceiling door and my wife stayed with our friends, who fled to a large room across the hall.

For the next seven hours, I lay in the fetal position, keeping in touch with Anjali via BlackBerry. I was joined in the stall by Joe, a Nigerian national with a U.S. green card. I managed to get in touch with the FBI, and several agents gave me status updates throughout the night.

I cannot even begin to explain the level of adrenaline running through my system at this point. It was this hyper-aware state where every sound, every smell, every piece of information was ultra-acute, analyzed and processed so that we could make the best decisions and maximize the odds of survival.

Was the fire above us life-threatening? What floor was it on? Were the commandos near us, or were they terrorists? Why is it so quiet? Did the commandos survive? If the terrorists come into the bathroom and to the door, when they fire in, how can I make my body as small as possible? If Joe gets killed before me in this situation, how can I throw his body on mine to barricade the door? If the Indian commandos liberate the rest in the other room, how will they know where I am? Do the terrorists have suicide vests? Will the roof stand? How can I make sure the FBI knows where Anjali and I are? When is it safe to stand up and attempt to urinate?

Meanwhile, Anjali and the others were across the corridor in a mass of people lying on the floor and clinging to each other. People barely moved for seven hours, and for the last three hours they felt it was too unsafe to even text. While I was tucked behind a couple walls of marble and granite in my toilet stall, she was feet from bullets flying back and forth. After our failed evacuation, most of the people in the fire escape stairwell and many staff members who attempted to protect the guests were shot and killed.

The 10 minutes around 2:30 a.m. were the most frightening. Rather than the back-and-forth of gunfire, we just heard single, punctuated shots. We later learned that the terrorists went along a different corridor of The Chambers, room by room, and systematically executed everyone: women, elderly, Muslims, Hindus, foreigners. A group huddled next to Anjali was devout Bori Muslims who would have been slaughtered just like everyone else, had the terrorists gone into their room. Everyone was in deep prayer and most, Anjali included, had accepted that their lives were likely over. It was terrorism in its purest form. No one was spared.

The next five hours were filled with the sounds of an intense grenade/gun battle between the Indian commandos and the terrorists. It was fought in darkness; each side was trying to outflank the other.

By the time dawn broke, the commandos had successfully secured our corridor. A young commando led out the people packed into Anjali's room. When one woman asked whether it was safe to leave, the commando replied: "Don't worry, you have nothing to fear. The first bullets have to go through me."

The corridor was laced with broken glass and bullet casings. Every table was turned over or destroyed. The ceilings and walls were littered with hundreds of bullet holes. Blood stains were everywhere, though, fortunately, there were no dead bodies to be seen.

A few minutes after Anjali had vacated, Joe and I peeked out of our stall. We saw multiple commandos and smiled widely. I had lost my right shoe while sprinting to the toilet so I grabbed a sheet from the floor, wrapped it around my foot and proceeded to walk over the debris to the hotel lobby.

Anjali and I embraced for the first time in seven hours in the Taj's ground floor entrance. I didn't know whether she was dead or injured because we hadn't been able to text for the past three hours.

I wanted to take a picture of us on my BlackBerry, but Anjali wanted us to get out of there before doing anything.

She was right--our ordeal wasn't completely over. A large bus pulled up in front of the Taj to collect us and, just about as it was fully loaded, gunfire erupted again. The terrorists were still alive and firing automatic weapons at the bus. Anjali was the last to get on the bus, and she eventually escaped in our friend's car. I ducked under some concrete barriers for cover and wound up the subject of photos that were later splashed across the media. Shortly thereafter, an ambulance came and drove a few of us to safety. An hour later, Anjali and I were again reunited at her parents' home. Our Thanksgiving had just gained a lot more meaning.

Some may say our survival was due to random luck, others might credit divine intervention. But 72 hours removed from these events, I can assure you only one thing: Far fewer people would have survived if it weren't for the extreme selflessness shown by the Taj staff, who organized us, catered to us and then, in the end, literally died for us.

They complemented the extreme bravery and courage of the Indian commandos, who, in a pitch-black setting and unfamiliar, tightly packed terrain, valiantly held the terrorists at bay.

It is also amazing that, out of our entire group, not one person screamed or panicked. There was an eerie but quiet calm that pervaded--one more thing that got us all out alive. Even people in adjacent rooms, who were being executed, kept silent.

It is much easier to destroy than to build, yet somehow humanity has managed to build far more than it has ever destroyed. Likewise, in a period of crisis, it is much easier to find faults and failings rather than to celebrate the good deeds. It is now time to commemorate our heroes.

Michael Pollack is a general partner of Glenhill Capital, a firm he co-founded in 2001.

Very touching ..,

A time for Father Terry

Karan Thapar, Hindustan Times 11 Sep 2008.

It's as clear in my memory as if it happened yesterday. But, in fact, I first met Father Terry Gilfedder twenty five years ago. It was the late summer of 1982 and Nisha and I were preparing for our marriage. As a Catholic, she wanted a proper church wedding and while I agreed, I was irritated by the need to meet the local parish priest for a set of three 'tuitions'. But there was no way out. The nearest church, St Mary Magdalene's in Northumberland Avenue, would only marry Nisha to a non-Christian if this requirement was complied with.

So, one Saturday in September, around 6 in the evening, Nisha and I knocked on Father Terry's door. He was sitting at his desk, his spectacles perched at the end of his nose. We settled into an old, well-worn leather sofa on the opposite side of the small room. Outside it was unusually warm, inside the atmosphere felt frosty. I was itching for a fight.

"Sherry?" The offer took me by surprise. "I don't know about you two, but I'm rather partial to the stuff."

It was Tio Pepe, my favourite, but in those days a rarity in London. Father Terry was a man of discerning taste. I found myself discussing the US Open Tennis, the Notting Hill Carnival, Rushdie's Midnight's Children ― in fact, anything but our forthcoming marriage or what religion our unborn children would follow.

Father Terry would top up our glasses and steer the conversation. He enjoyed an argument and held his own comfortably. The hour passed swiftly and enjoyably. Having agreed to meet the next week, we got up to leave. We were at the door when Father Terry stopped us.

"There's a question I'd like you to think about." A hint of a smile played on his large round face. His eyes were looking straight at us. "Why aren't the two of you living together?"

I'm not sure if the blood drained from our faces but we were speechless and stunned. The truth is Nisha and I were living together but had deliberately given Father Terry different addresses to hide the fact. He had guessed and this was his way of saying it didn't matter.

Father Terry became a close friend. At a rehearsal, two nights before our wedding, he suggested one of the readings should be from the Gita and asked me to choose. On the day when I revealed I had failed to pick a passage he slapped me on the back and laughed: "I knew that would happen so I've chosen something myself." It was from Khalil Gibran's Prophet.

Nisha had hoped for a full communion mass and Father Terry agreed overlooking the fact the groom was not a Christian. But it was his sermon that captured attention. He didn't pontificate about hell and damnation or God and his goodness. He spoke, as he put it, of "three little words": I love you.

"Karan and Nisha", he said, "remember love joins 'I' and 'you' but it can also separate. The day you forget you're two different individuals that bond can become a divide."

It was a warm, simple, heart-felt message. More a fireside-chat than a formal sermon. But it's stayed seared in my memory for a quarter century.

Six years later, as Nisha lay dying with moments to go before the life support was switched off, Father Terry was at her bedside.. He gave her the last sacrament but also encouraged Mummy to whisper Hindu prayers in her ear. Then he stood beside me as the machines slowly, painfully, flickered to a close and Nisha's life ebbed away.

Terry Gilfedder is the only Christian priest I've known. He was an unusual man but a great person. I think of him each time I read of attacks on Christians in Orissa and Karnataka. I'm confident he would have found the words to heal bruised hearts. And, no doubt, his sherry would have helped!

I'm sure there are Father Terrys in all faiths. Men of God but also caring, understanding human beings. Today, when we most need them, why are they silent?????

funny.. huh

FLORIDA COURT SET'S 'ATHEIST' HOLY DAY

In Florida, an Atheist created a case against the Easter and Passover Holy Days.

He hired an Attorney to bring a discrimmination case against Christians, Jews, and obsevances of their Holy Days. The argument was that it was unfair to Atheists they had no recognized Day(s).

The case was brought before a Judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the Lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel declaring: "Case Dismissed".

The Lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling, saying; "Your Honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter, etc. etc. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur, Roshashanah, and Hanukkah. Yet my client and all Atheists have no such Holidays."

The Judge leaned forward in his chair saying, ' But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.' The Lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any Special Observance or Holiday for Atheists."

The Judge said, ' The Calendar shows April 1sr. is ' April Fools Day' Psalms 14:1 states: ' The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his Day. This court is adjourned.

"Amen"

Egg yolk / Egg white..,

I was on a weekend trip with some friends recently and one of my friends was cooking breakfast for the whole group. I went over to see what he was cooking and saw he was getting ready to make a big batch of eggs.

Well, to my shock and horror, I noticed that he was cracking the eggs open and screening the egg whites into a bowl and throwing out the egg yolks. I asked him why the heck he was throwing out the egg yolks, and he replied...

"because I thought the egg yolks were terrible for you...that's where all the nasty fat and cholesterol is".

And I replied, "you mean that's where all the nutrition is!"

This is a perfect example of how confused most people are about nutrition. In a world full of misinformation, somehow most people now mistakenly think that the egg yolk is the worst part of the egg, when in fact, the YOLK IS THE HEALTHIEST PART OF THE EGG!

By throwing out the yolk and only eating egg whites, you're essentially throwing out the most nutrient dense, antioxidant-rich, vitamin and mineral loaded portion of the egg. The yolks contain so many B-vitamins, trace minerals, vitamin A, folate, choline, lutein, and other powerful nutrients... it's not even worth trying to list them all.

In fact, the egg whites are almost devoid of nutrition compared to the yolk.

Even the protein in egg whites isn't as powerful without the yolks to balance out the amino acid profile and make the protein more bio-available. Not to even mention that the egg yolks from free range chickens are loaded with omega-3 fatty acids.

Yolks contain more than 90% of the calcium, iron, phosphorus, zinc, thiamin, B6, folate, and B12, and panthothenic acid of the egg. In addition, the yolks contain all of the fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K in the egg, as well as all of the essential fatty acids.

And now the common objection I get all the time when I say that the yolks are the most nutritious part of the egg...

"But I heard that whole eggs will skyrocket my cholesterol through the roof"

No, this is FALSE!

First of all, when you eat a food that contains a high amount of dietary cholesterol such as eggs, your body down-regulates it's internal production of cholesterol to balance things out.

On the other hand, if you don't eat enough cholesterol, your body simply produces more since cholesterol has tons of important functions in the body.

And here's where it gets even more interesting...

There are indications that eating whole eggs actually raises your good HDL cholesterol to a higher degree than LDL cholesterol, thereby improving your overall cholesterol ratio and blood chemistry.

And 3rd... high cholesterol is NOT a disease! Heart disease is a disease...but high cholesterol is NOT. You can read the following article about why trying to attack cholesterol is a mistake, and what the REAL deadly risk factors actually are...

http://www.truthaboutabs.com/cholesterol-myths.html

So I hope we've established that whole eggs are not some evil food that will wreck your body... instead whole eggs are FAR superior to egg whites.

Also, your normal supermarket eggs coming from mass factory farming just don't compare nutritionally with organic free range eggs from healthy chickens that are allowed to roam freely and eat a more natural diet.

I recently compared eggs I bought at the grocery store with a batch of eggs I got at a farm stand where the chickens were free roaming and healthy.

Most people don't realize that there's a major difference because they've never bought real eggs from healthy chickens... The eggs from the grocery store had pale yellow yolks. On the other hand, the healthier free range eggs had deep orange colored yolks indicating much higher nutrition levels and carotenoids.

So next time a health or fitness professional tells you that egg whites are superior, you can quietly ignore their advice knowing that you understand the REAL deal about egg yolks.

One more thing about eggs...

I read a study recently that compared groups of people that ate egg breakfasts vs groups of people that ate cereal or bagel based breakfasts. The results of the study showed that the egg eaters lost or maintained a healthier bodyweight, while the cereal/bagel eaters gained weight.

It was hypothesized that the egg eaters actually ate less calories during the remainder of the day because their appetite was more satisfied compared to the cereal/bagel eaters who would have been more prone to wild blood sugar swings and food cravings

My international experience

A master degree with international Law scholors all over the world which also includes judges and professors as well.., on top of that offer was together with scholarship.., from this top ranked university SMU.., i never had a second thought.., i decided immediately and signed up..,

Now im in Dallas with all my international classmates.., the way they teach law is amazing and entirely different from the way they teach in India. They apply the facts,law, caselaws in practical problems.., so we never read and byheart the sections inspite we understand and apply to real time problems which help us to think a lot and act as a lawyer.

In India.., i think one of the greatest advandange in law education is we are stimulated to go to court and practise for real time by doing internship with various lawyers. But in USA they do appreciate that but not likely for the master students since they are more into researches and legal publishings.

I never had a feel to write about something that too legally with the provisions to publish in a Law journal, but not so anymore.., i wanted to write.., write something interesting and informative and i also wanted to make my readers feel good and informative.., i donno how far im gonna be perfect but i can always work hard and make things better.., and today i started it.., this legal bytes will have a different faces here after ... :)

An outline of US copyright patent and trademark law

An outline of US copyright patent and trademark law - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: An outline of US copyright patent and trademark law

Philip Morris USA v. Williams, Mayola

Philip Morris USA v. Williams, Mayola
This is one of the most famous case which created a new landmark over the punitive damages and Compensation. Philip Morris case gave us an answer for Whether due process permits a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties??..., as well in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages,is it possible an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible and analagous to crime can override the constitutional requirement that punitive damages must be reasonably related to the harm to the plaintiff.

Term: 06-07

Appealed From: Oregon Supreme Court (Feb. 2, 2006)

Oral Argument: 10-31-06

Opinion Issued: 5-4 for Philip Morris USA (Breyer-Feb. 20, 2007)

Subjects: Tobacco, punitive damages, due process

Questions presented: (1) Whether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible and analagous to crime can override the constitutional requirement that punitive damages must be reasonably related to the harm to the plaintiff? (2) Whether due process permits a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties?


BY STEVEN ROSS JOHNSON, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Jesse Williams was a devoted husband and father who worked as a school custodian in Portland, Ore. He began smoking Marlboro cigarettes in his early twenties. Over the next 47 years, he developed a three pack-a-day habit, ignoring the large amounts of evidence compiled in that time that documented tobacco's hazardous health effects.

The undeniable proof for Williams, unfortunately, came in the form of an inoperable lung cancer diagnosis. Six months later, he was dead. He was 67.

In May of 1997, Williams' widow, Mayola, filed a lawsuit in an Oregon trial court against Philip Morris Inc., the parent company of Marlboro brand cigarettes, claiming the company knew for 50 years of the potential health risks its product posed, but failed to inform the public of those risks.

The trial began in February of 1999. Attorneys representing Williams argued that the efforts by Philip Morris to hide the dangers of smoking went well beyond simply ignoring the evidence. Rather a deliberate, clandestine campaign to dispel public concerns by instilling false impressions of serious debate going on within the scientific community over smoking's hazardous effects.

On March 31, a jury found Philip Morris had engaged in negligent and fraudulent practices, which made the company, along with Jesse Williams, equally at fault for his death and awarded $821,485 in compensatory damages.

What happened next would stand as the basis for a legal fight over the role monetary awards should, or should not play in punishing corporate misconduct.

In addition to compensatory damages, the jury found the fraud Philip Morris had perpetrated to be systemic, affecting a large group of individuals over a 50-year period, and awarded $79.5 million in punitive damages.

The trial judge in the case found that though the large punitive award "...was within the range a rational juror could assess based on the record as a whole," it was "...excessive under federal standards," and reduced the amount to $32 million.

The ruling was appealed by both Williams and Philip Morris to the Oregon Court of Appeals, where on June 5, 2002, the court reversed the trial judge's decision to reduce the award and reinstated the $79.5 million, rejecting Philip Morris's appeal. An appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court produced the same result for the tobacco giant.

Philip Morris sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court where the judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated and sent back to that court to reconsider the punitive amount, in light of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in State Farm v. Campbell.

In that case, the Court ruled awards for punitive damages could be restricted if it greatly exceeded the amount of the compensatory award. It also took the additional step of applying a mathematical test in determining a punitive damage award limit. Awards could not be more than nine times the amount of the compensatory amount, and in cases where the compensatory damages award was sizeable, the award amount for punitive damages was not to go beyond the compensatory amount.

The standard the Court applied in making its decision came from its 1996 ruling in BMW of North America v. Gore, in which it first established the three factors courts were to consider in determining a punitive damage award:

"(1)The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2)the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases."

The Oregon Supreme Court re-reviewed Philip Morris' appeal under these new qualifications, and again upheld the jury's punitive damage award of $79.5 million, stating in a written opinion by Justice W. Michael Gillette:

"Philip Morris showed indifference to and reckless disregard for the safety not just Williams, but of countless other Oregonians, when it knowingly spread false or misleading information to keep smokers smoking. Philip Morris's actions were no isolated incident, but a carefully calculated program spanning decades."

For those reasons, the court decided the jury had not violated the factors established in BMW v. Gore in assessing punitive damages. The amount of the award, though it appeared to violate the spirit of State Farm v. Campbell, could be reinstated based on the high degree of culpability it found for Philip Morris's acts of fraud on the people of Oregon at large.

Philip Morris returned to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on May 30, 2006, accepted review in the case, limiting consideration to the first and second questions in Philip Morris' petition for certiorari.

What came before the Court when it decided to hear the case, goes well beyond an issue of personal injury, individual versus corporation or even public perceptions of the tobacco industry.

The questions the Court is being asked to review are whether: a court can find a company's misconduct so egregious that it can go past the 9:1 ratio set out by the Court in Campbell, and whether juries can award punitive damages based on actions affecting those beyond the suing parties.

What the Court will attempt to answer is the functionality of the punitive damage award, as it pertains to its intended purpose.

The Court took this case because the tobacco industry is involved in litigation that's left some serious questions in the wake of its prior rulings," said Anthony J. Sebok, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School, who specializes in tort law.

Sebok said that allowing juries to award large monetary awards to punish companies that do harm to thousands, could begin a slippery slope if a company is hit with multiple judgments based on the outcome of a case such as Philip Morris v. Williams.

"How many plaintiffs can play this card until Philip Morris has been punished enough?" Sebok said. "A lot of times, juries are left to their own devices when deciding punitive monetary awards. It's possible juries may decide differently if they were instructed that they could not punish for what companies did to other people, but only for what they may have done to the person who filed the suit."

Robert Peck, one of the trial lawyers who represents Mayola Williams, said regulating the amount of punitive damage awards only benefits corporations such as Philip Morris and takes away the power to hold those who engage in misconduct truly accountable for their actions.

"I think holding courts to limits takes it away from jurors and judges," Peck said. "If the amounts are too small, large corporations begin to think it's just an acceptable part of the cost of doing business."

Both men agreed that the impact of the Supreme Court's decision could have long-lasting effects on lower courts, as well as provide a glimpse into the Court's future direction.

"This is the first time [since the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito] that the Supreme Court is considering a personal injury, wrongful death claim," Peck said. "We will see what extent states' interests are supposed to be reflected."

On Feb. 20, 2007, by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court threw out the $78.5 milliion punitive damages award finding that the Oregon jury could not punish the tobacco company for injuring people, whom the Court called "strangers to the litigation." The majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

In so holding, the majority said it was not deciding whether the punitive award was unconstitutionally excessive, as Philip Morris had asked it to do. Instead, it ordered the state Supreme Court to reconsider, applying the new constitutional standard outlined in the decision.

Attorneys in this case:
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Andrew L. Frey
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
(212) 506-2500
1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Party name: Philip Morris USA

Attorneys for Respondent:
Robert S. Peck
Center for Const. Litigation
(202) 944-2803
10530 31st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Party name: Mayola Williams

Other:
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
(202) 955-8500
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Party name: Product Liability Advisory Council

Jonathan D. Hacker
O'Melveney & Meyers LLP
(202) 383-5300
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Party name: Chamber of Commerce of the United States

Related Links:
Supreme Court opinion (Feb. 20, 2007)

Feature - How deep can juries dig into a deep pockets?

Oregon Supreme Court opinion (Feb. 2, 2006)

Petition for certiorari - Philip Morris USA

Reply brief - Philip Morris USA

News coverage of another Oregon tobacco case (Portland Oregonian)

Courtesy: findlaw.com, Caselaw.com and Supremecourtus.gov

Stamp of a scam

Stamp of a scam

Saurabh Shukla
February 22, 2008

It was dubbed a dream project for easing the passport woes of millions across the country. The aim was to end the long queues for securing a passport and introduce some biometric features to enhance security, but on the contrary the Passport Seva project, as it is called, runs the risk of compromising individual security and endangers national security as well.

It raises fears of your personal details getting leaked or a terrorist getting hold of your identity from an old passport. With a private vendor developing a highsecurity passport software, this is the big question as the Government moves forward on the mega project which will outsource passport operations to a private vendor.

“The whole project seems untenable. While we should look for ways to streamline the passport issuance system, the security of the process should not be compromised,” says an MEA official.

Even though several leading IT firms have submitted bids for the project, their opening has been postponed. While officials attribute the postponement to “technical issues”, speculation is rife that the move is intended to benefit a particular bidder.

The Cabinet had okayed the project last year but it’s the fineprint which has raised doubts. According to the Cabinet note and the request for proposal, the project will lead to “outsourcing of front-end activities, not involving the sovereign functions of the Government.

Under the new system, applications will be collected at 68 private passport centres. While the existing passport offices will facilitate back-end operations, all front-end operations that include capturing biometric features, verifying the authenticity of the application, and granting the passport will be handled by the private vendor, according to the request for proposals (RFP) circulated by the MEA.

Sources say this would give the vendor enough scope to influence the passport issuing process. Once these proposals are implemented, passport applicants would need to shell out Rs 300-400 extra besides the usual fees for getting their passport applications processed.

With around 40 million Indian passport holders in the country, the earning for the bidder from various services— including renewal, additional booklets, renting out space at passport offices etc—is expected to be to the tune of several thousand crores.

Questions are also being raised, as under the proposal certain government officials will be posted for carrying out the index and blacklist checks at the passport centres which can compromise the process.

Besides the key to the secret database of passport holders will have to be shared with the private vendor. Insiders say objections have also been raised by the Ministry of Information Technology whose affiliated body National Informatics Centre (NIC) currently manages the passport issuance system and manages PISON (passport information service system on the net).

Sources in security agencies say checking indexes and blacklists is a secret exercise performed by government officials which requires certain expertise and subjective decisions in case of security alerts. Moreover, it is performed in a secured location and if left at the facilitation centre, it can be compromised due to its proximity to the applicants.

What is equally intriguing is that there is a great deal of secrecy around the project which is being directly monitored by a key aide of External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

“We have just been told that the project needs to be pushed at all costs, although there are doubts about its workability,” remarked a passport official. Insiders say that both the junior ministers, Anand Sharma and E. Ahamed, who also happen to overlook the passport division, have been kept out of the loop. The silence maintained by the ministry was also intriguing.

However, Sharad Sabharwal, additional secretary in the MEA, allays fears of misuse of data and says, “All sensitive aspects of passport issuance, including verification of documents, check-lists and final grant order will remain with the government officials. The aim is to issue a passport within three days”.

Diplomatic sources say globally such exercise is not conducted in the manner proposed in the consultant’s report that was commissioned by the foreign office, and in most of the western nations passport issuance system stays with government agencies.

The fact that the passport database will be shared with private vendors has also been objected to by security agencies who had voiced concern at an inter-ministerial meeting held in Hyderabad last year to discuss the new passport project.

Another big loophole in the proposal seems to be development of a new software which would mean that the private software developer, that includes some foreign companies as well will have access to the entire database and the key to the new Indian passport system, which may be subjected to a breach.

Also under the Passports Act, passed by Parliament, accountability is fixed with MEA officials who normally handle passport work.

But under the fresh proposal, it is not clear as to who will take the blame, in case the private vendor makes a mistake.

“There has to be a system of checks and balances, and accountability needs to be fixed. While public convenience is important, it should not be at the cost of national security,” feels former foreign secretary Shashank, who has also served as a chief passport officer.

Interestingly, in 1985, when a proposal was made to switch the passport issuance system from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was promptly shot down by the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, and now it seems the UPA Government wants to move away from it.

Passport to disaster

With a private company developing the new passport software, personal details of passport holders and applicants could get leaked.
There are already teething troubles as opening of technical bids has been postponed twice without any reasons being assigned.
Objections were raised on the project by security agencies and passport officers at an inter-ministerial meet held in Hyderabad last year.
The project is being pushed in a haste and MEA’s two junior ministers, E. Ahamed and Anand Sharma, are out of the loop.
The new system doesn’t fix accountability for any mistake by the private vendor. Under the Passport Act, it is the government officials who are held responsible.

When the Government already has a secure system designed by its agency, the easiest thing would have been to upgrade the software than do it afresh.
And if the real objective was to ensure convenience of passport seekers, more application centres could have been opened to reduce the delay. Currently, there are 33 regional passport offices, besides 15 collection centres that are manned by the police and the district administrations.

Officials say NIC has built a lot of services both at the regional passport offices and at the central locations, and the big challenge will also be their compatibility with the proposed new software. Also, it is not clear as to who will be responsible for generation of objection letters, granting of passports, printing and lamination besides the dispatch of the passport document.

While the Government is planning to pay productivity-linked incentives not exceeding 1.46 per cent of the revenue generated to the Central Passport Organisation employees as a sop, this may open a Pandora’s box, with other government departments also pitching for such an incentive.

While the jury may be out on why the Government is keen on pushing forward a major project in the last year of its term, without assessing its impact on the passport issuance system, for now it is a big mess

Courtesy - India Today

Express ur Grievance through this site

Can you imagine this happening in INDIA?

Government of India has an online Grievance forum at
http://darpg-grievance.nic.in/
The government wants people to use this tool to highlight the problems
they faced while dealing with Government officials or departments like
Passport Office, Electricity board, BSNL/MTNL, Railways etc etc.

I know many people will say that these things don't work in India, but
this actually works as one of our colleague in CSC found. The guy I'm
talking about lives in Faridabad. Couple of months back, the Faridabad
Municipal Corporation laid new roads in his area and the residents were
very happy about it. But 2 weeks later, BSNL dugged up the newly laid
roads to install new cables which annoyed all the residents including this
guy. But it was only this guy! Who used the above listed grievance forum
to highlight his concern. And to his surprise, BSNL and Municipal
Corporation of faridabad was served a show cause notice and the guy
received a copy of the notice in one week. Government has asked the MC and
BSNL about the goof up as it's clear that both the government departments
were not in sync at all.

So use this grievance forum and educate others who don't know about this
facility. You can go to website.
This way we can at least raise our concerns instead of just talking about
the ' System' in India. Invite your friends to contribute for many such
happenings.

Information Technology

Information Technology
United States: Perspective: Can Social Networking Co-Exist With The Workplace?

With Facebook and MySpace.com participation growing by leaps and bounds, social-networking sites are making their way into the workplace too.

Is that a good thing? Not necessarily if you ask the employers who regularly block employee access to such sites.

Indeed, a recent analysis of data submitted by thousands of Barracuda Networks’ Web Filter customers finds that about half the businesses using these filters are setting up blocks to MySpace, Facebook, and other such sites. Barracuda also reported that 21 percent of the businesses it surveyed actively monitor their employees’ Internet activities.

At first blush that may sound like a corporate version of Big Brother, but employers do have legitimate reasons to worry.

Their chief concern is the potential damage from viruses or spyware, according to Barracuda. They cited the potential drain on employee productivity as a close second. What’s more, employers will tell you that bandwidth issues and potential liability exposure are also convincing reasons to restrict certain Internet access by employees.

Nevertheless, businesses may learn eventually that the types of powerful communication tools now available for personal purposes on social-networking sites can be leveraged for perfectly appropriate and advantageous business uses. In fact, a number of business professionals already are communicating with one another on LinkedIn.com, a business-oriented social-networking site.

The challenge for employers is to find a way to defend against intrusions while fostering employee productivity. They want to limit potential liability even while offering the use of the most robust communication tools possible.

Hence the dilemma.

But this dilemma, over time, likely will be resolved. Once upon a time, businesses to some extent were very worried about any sort of Web access for employees. They feared that the hired help would spend the day surfing inappropriate sites, shopping online, and otherwise wasting company time–not to mention potentially leaking proprietary company information.

However, it is a fact of business life that companies that deploy the best and most effective means of communication will succeed. Thus, over time, companies have developed business equipment and computer policies. These policies specifically delineate for employees how they should–and should not–use the company’s computers, networks, and e-mail. Employees are also asked to sign documents agreeing to follow such policies.

There have been problems, of course. Not every employee who has signed such an agreement has acted in concert with the company’s Internet policies. Still, there is no question that companies that have embraced the Internet have benefited over those that have ignored the changes overtaking the business world.

Social-networking sites truly do provide robust features that provide a richer means of online communications. Rather than ban employees from using the medium, managers should think ahead how to turn it to their advantage. Careful thought should be given when considering the use of any networking features that could be detrimental to an enterprise. From there, policies can be crafted on a company-by-company basis to guide employees and gain their buy-in.

Yes, legal counsel likely should be consulted along the way too. While this imposes some costs on the front end, the profitable proof will be in the pudding. Any company built to last will recognize this is an investment in its future.

Eric J. Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris. His focus includes information technology and intellectual-property disputes. To receive his weekly columns, send an e-mail to ejsinrod@duanemorris.com with “Subscribe” in the subject line. This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only, and it should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.

This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.

SUPREME COURT DISMISSES PETITION CHALLENGING INCLUSION OF BROADCASTING & CABLE SERVICES IN TELECOM SERVICES

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, frowning upon judicial activism, said the judiciary should maintain restraint for the proper functioning of the state. A bench comprising Justice H K Sema and Justice Markandey Katju said, "We have to respect Parliament. The judiciary should desist from interfering in parliamentary decisions."

Justice Katju, speaking on behalf of the bench, said, "We have delivered a judgement on judicial restraint. Again we are reiterating it. It is absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the state."

The bench refused to interfere in the parliamentary decision which had brought broadcasting and cable services within the definition of telecommunication services. It dismissed a petition which had challenged it.

"If Parliament had decided to bring it (broadcasting and cable services) within the definition of telecom services, how can we interfere in it?" said Justice Katju.

Senior counsel Fali Nariman appearing for petitioner Star India said originally broadcasting services were not included in the definition of telecom services. But through a proviso which was inserted by an amendment to the Trai Act, it was done so which was illegal, submitted Mr. Nariman.

At this the bench said, "Parliament can do it. We cannot do it. Proviso has different connotation. If the decision was taken by Parliament, we can not interfere in it."

The ministry of communications and information technology on January 9, 2004, had issued a notification by which broadcasting and cable services were brought within the ambit of telecommunication services pursuant to section 2 (1)(k) of the Trai Act.

Earlier in a controversial judicial restrain order passed on December 6, a two-judge bench comprising Justice A K Mathur and Justice Markandey Katju had said the judiciary must refrain from encroaching on legislative and executive domain, otherwise it will boomerang in the form of political class stepping in to clip their wings.

"If the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limit, there is bound to be reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers or even independence of the judiciary. The judiciary should, therefore, confine itself to its proper sphere, realising that in a democracy many matters and controversies are best resolved in a non-judicial settings," the bench had said.

The court had said justification often given for judicial encroachment into the domain of the executive or legislature was that the other two organs were not doing their jobs properly. Even assuming this was so, the same allegation could then be made against the judiciary too, because there were cases pending in courts for half a century, it had said.

If they were not discharging their assigned duties, the remedy was not judicial interference as it would violate the delicate balance of power enshrined in the Constitution, court had observed.

"We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across (instances) where judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion, this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of state," the bench had said in its December 6 order.

The court had cited many examples where judiciary had encroached upon the turf which was unwarranted. The Jagdambika Pal's case of 1998 involving UP legislative assembly and the Jharkhand assembly case of 2005 were the two glaring examples of deviations from the clearly provided constitutional scheme of separation of powers, the bench had said.

It further said the Delhi High Court order banning interviews of children for admissions into nursery class was illegal as there was no statute or rule which prohibited such interviews. Following it, a co-ordinate bench of the apex court had refused to hear a PIL relating to rehabilitation of the sex workers and referred it to the larger bench.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan while hearing the petition had said it would lay down the guidelines on the PILs.

Child abuse

For the first time, data on child abuse and neglect in India

A new report by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in India, (supported by Save the Children and UNICEF) released today, reveals the extent and magnitude of child abuse and neglect in India. This is one of the world's largest empirical, in-country studies covering nearly 12,500 children and 4800 young adults in 13 States.



The Study looks at three different forms of child abuse - physical abuse, sexual abuse and emotional abuse and girl child neglect in families, schools, work places, on the street and institutions. The Study complements the UN Secretary General's Study on Violence against Children, 2006.

The Study aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of child abuse, which will help formulate appropriate policies and programmes meant to effectively end child abuse in India.

Major findings of the Study:



Boys, as compared to girls, are equally at risk of abuse.
Persons in trust and authority are major abusers.
5-12 year old children are in the high risk category: across the forms of abuse, the percentage of abuse among them is the highest.
70% of the children have not reported abuse to anyone.
Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar and Delhi almost consistently report high rates of abuse in all forms as compared to other States.
2 out of every 3 children have been physically abused.
Two out of every three school going children are victims of corporal punishment. Half of these incidents are in government run schools.
More than half of the child respondents reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse.
Every second child reported facing emotional abuse. In more than 80% of the cases parents were the abusers.

At the inauguration of the Study, Renuka Choudhary, Minister of State, Ministry of Women and Child Development, said "This is a landmark study that paves the way for new initiatives for protection of children in India." The Ministry on its part has taken measures such as enabling legislation to establish the National and State Commissions for Protection of Rights of the Child, the Integrated Child Protection Scheme and the draft Offences against Children Bill.



Shireen Miller, Head of Policy, Save the Children UK, India highlights "Family is the place where children should be the safest and yet this is the context in which much of the abuse takes place. The Study reveals an urgent need for both stronger legislation to protect children and parenting education in India."

Save the Children UK calls for stronger legislation to deal with Child Abuse and for the establishment of a separate and coherent National Child Protection Policy.

- ENDS -

Young Global Leaders’

Young Global Leaders’ “Table for Two” initiative launches first Chapter in India at the Indian Economic Summit




New Delhi, India, 3 December 2007 – The Indian chapter of TABLE FOR TWO is launched today at the Indian Economic Summit of the World Economic Forum by a group of Young Global Leaders who have committed to simultaneously target hunger in the developing world and obesity in developed countries.

This initiative offers a simple scheme to address both global challenges at the same time. "Every time someone eats a healthy meal at participating company cafeterias, restaurants and events, 20 cents is donated to fund a healthy school meal in developing countries," said James Kondo, President of Health Policy Institute Japan, a Young Global Leader, and a Co-Founder of the TABLE FOR TWO initiative.

Today, two Indian based-companies, Dabur India Ltd and Godrej Industries have announced their commitment to join the initiative and start the Indian Chapter which will benefit children to increase attendance to school and thus education. "It is imperative that corporates adopt a humane approach towards social development and environment protection in a fast developing country like India. Corporate social responsibility should be supplemented with individual involvement at all levels to achieve any realistic integration of economic and social progress. Corporate citizenship should now strive towards a participative 'movement' that would ensure sustained social development in the long run", said Tanya Dubash, Executive Director and President, Marketing, Godrej Industries and a Young Global Leader. "Dabur India Ltd is not only committed to making good products that make the world a better place to live in, but is also dedicated to meet or exceed societal needs.The 'Table For Two' programme takes our commitment towards the health & well- being of every household to the next level by reaching out to the needy children and providing them with a nutritional diet. This will give us an unique opportunity to truly make a difference in India and build a foundation for economic development and social advancement", said Amit Burman, Vice-Chairman, Darbur India Ltd and a Young Global Leader.


To help this Indian Chapter launch, healthy lunches are being offered at the Indian Economic Summit of the World Economic Forum. Twenty cents will be donated for every participant's lunch, paid by the World Economic Forum and Taj Palace Hotel, to fund a school meal in a developing country. "The World Economic Forum supports this Young Global Leaders' initiative, and congratulates the launch of the Indian Chapter," said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum. "We encourage businesses in India, of all sizes, to implement healthy TABLE FOR TWO meals in their cafeterias, and to contribute to better nutrition for employees at the same time providing a daily meal for poor children around the world."

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Eighty percent of proceeds from the Indian chapter will go towards providing school meals in India. The remaining 20% will be pooled globally to help provide meals in the most desperate regions of the world, including Africa, and those areas affected by war and famine.

The initiative was launched globally in September 2007 at the Inaugural Annual Meeting of the New Champions of the World Economic Forum in Dalian, People's Republic of China. Over 40 companies from around the world - including Lehman Brothers, British Sky Broadcasting, IBM Japan, Japan Airways, and ITOCHU - have joined the initiative and offered healthy meals to their employees and customers, and in the process, donated 20 cents per healthy meal to school meal programmes in developing countries. The Indian Chapter is the second chapter to be launched after Japan. The US chapter is planned to be launched in April 2008.

Village women leaders fight back

Indira Kushwaha has fled her village after she was threatened (Pics: Prakash Hatvalne)
Shyama Tomar is an elected woman leader of a village council in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh


But her status in India's male-dominated heartland did not stop a male colleague from allegedly slapping and tearing off her clothes in full view of people in a busy public square in June.


Shyama, 45, says her only "crime" was to discontinue the free supply of water carried by tanker trucks in her water-scarce village to a hotel owned by her colleague, a 60-year-old vice president of the same village council.

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

After taking over the village council, the feisty teacher-turned village council leader found that proceeds from the sale of water supplied by the council to villagers by tanker trucks over five years had been an abysmal 506 rupees ($11).

During her first year in the job proceeds from selling water climbed over 20 times, a clear indication that money from earlier sales was being siphoned off.

"It was not my personal insult. It was insulting the position I occupy," says Shyama.

She is the not the only woman village council leader in Madhya Pradesh who is facing the ire of her male colleagues for asking too many questions.

Indira Kushwaha, the head of Mahoikala village in Chhattarpur district, was allegedly dragged out of her house, nearly stripped naked and paraded around the village by a group of men in June. Her son was also beaten up.

Indian women who made news

Maneka Gandhi is the most well known animal activist in India. Widow of Sanjay Gandhi, the younger son of former PM Indira Gandhi.She served as the Indian Minister of Social Justice and Welfare , Environment and Forests (1989-1991). In 1993, she started an animal welfare organization called People for Animal (PFA), with the help of M.F. Hussain and Anupam Kher. Today it has over 200,000 workers working for it in over 146 branches around India and is the country`s largest NGO (Non Government Organization). It has various projects: Mobile Clinics, no-kill shelter, Save our Wild Life (SoWL) etc. PFA networks with the Forest Department, the Police, lawyers and the press to implement their objectives: to create shelters for sick and injured animals; to find loving homes for abandoned and stray animals and stop their killing; preserve and protect wildlife in its natural habitat and to ban the trade in wild animal products. Chemical free farming, organically grown foods, improvement of zoos; to stop animal sacrifice and wild game hunting; to rescue and rehabilitate performing animals and to stop the misuse of animals in movies; to campaign for and enforce proper animal rights laws and to control the testing of drugs and cosmetics on animals. Recipient of the prestigious Lord Erskine Award from the RSPCA,'Prani Mitra Award', 1996; and "Maharana Mewar, Foundation Award" 1996 for Environmental work; Environmentalist and Vegetarian of the year 1994 etc.




Rekha Rodwittiya , a feminist painter, belongs to the Baroda school that adheres to the tradition of narrative painting. At the same time, she emphasises the importance of ancient arts and crafts that are still practised by various artisans in India. Her early years at the Faculty of Fine Arts, Baroda, laid the foundation for a politically alert feminist practice of painting.Rodwittiya represents large clothed Gauginesque women as the archetypal figure in their daily work rituals, dwarfing their tools and objects that surround them, in a celebration of the female protagonist.



Vandana Shiva is a physicist, philosopher, ecofeminist, environmental activist and writer.She participated in the Chipko movement during the 1970s. The movement, whose main participants were women, adopted the tactic of hugging trees to prevent their felling. In 1982, she founded the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology. Initiatives of this foundation are the organic farming programme Navdanya, the Bija Vidyapeeth (or Seed University, International College for Sustainable Living), and Diverse Women for Diversity. Another of the Vandana Shiva's initiatives is the Living Democracy Movement.She received the Right Livelihood Award (also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize) in 1993 for placing women and ecology at the heart of modern development discourse. Other awards she has received include the Global 500 Award of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1993, and the Earth Day International Award of the United Nations (UN).Vandana Shiva is one of the leaders of the International Forum on Globalization, (along with Jerry Mander, Edward Goldsmith, Ralph Nader, Jeremy Rifkin), and a figure of the global solidarity movement known as anti-globalization movement.



Arundhati Roy - high profile writer, actress and social activist won the 1997 Booker Prize for her first novel The God of Small Things. Also a trained architect, she has worked as a production designer and has written the screenplays for two films. Originally from Kerala in South India, she lives in New Delhi, India. Booker Prize winner and environment activist Arundhati Roy has turned down the 2006 Sahitya Akademi award for her book The Algebra of Infinite Justice.Ms. Roy had declined the award, saying she could not accept the honour from an institution linked to a government whose policies she opposed




Sonia Gandhi, President of the Indian National Congress (INC)party and the widow of Rajiv Gandhi. Of Italian origin , Sonia married into the Gandhi family and became a full-fledged Indian citizen in 1984. Though her foreign origin has always given her oppopents something to debate on. Sonia Gandhi became the President of the Indian National Congress in 1998.




Phoolan Devi well known as the bandit queen of India. The Bandi Queen turned politician. Phoolan Devi evaded capture for two years and after negotiating terms, surrendered on Feb. 12, 1983, in a dramatic ceremony witnessed by thousands of her admirers. While imprisoned for 11 years in Gwalior Central Jail in Madhya Pradesh, she was befriended by Mala Sen, who wrote her story in India`s Bandit Queen (1991), the basis of a controversial film directed by Shekhar Kapur in 1995. After her release, she married, and converted to a form of Buddhism. In June 1995 she launched a new political party for the lower castes, Eklavya Manch, and opened the prospect of a new career in politics. She was shot dead by masked assailants on 25th July 2001.



Vandana Mataji born a Parsi (Zorastrian) in Mumbai, changed her faith to a christian, believes in many religions. She is an exponent of the new culture called Indian Christains. At her ashram in Rishikesh where she lives and practices her unique faith.Vandana Mataji, a Parsi-turned-nun who heads Jiva Dhara, an ashram in Rishikesh, at the foothills of the Himalayas in northern India. According to Vandana Mataji "Jesus was an Asian. We have no right to live, think and pray like western Christians."



Iconoclast and Odissi dancer, Protima Gauri Bedi . Formerly a model she became a Odissi dancer which was her passion. Protima Bedi set up a dance gurukul called Nrityagram, 35 kms from Bangalore. A dream of hers to make it a meeting point for the world dance communities. A dance music festival called Vasanthabba is held every February coinciding with the arrival of Spring, featuring the best dance and music artistes of the world. She died at the age of 56 in a landslide returning from a pilgrimage to the Mansovar in the Himalayas in 1998, leaving behind her most lasting achievement ? a flourishing dance village, Nrityagram, where students continue to learn the classical dance styles of India.



Internationally renowned for Ayurvedic Care & Cure, Shanaz Husain is the the pioneer and the undisputed Queen of herbal care. A royal descendent from Samarkhand, Shanaz trained for 10 years in cosmetology and cosmetic chemistry and adopted the principle of Natural Care and Cure and to apply the Ayurvedic system and formulate custom-made products for skin and hair problems.The legendary Shahnaz Herbal range of therapeutic products was thus born. Recipient of many awards like the World`s Greatest Woman Entrepreneur, Woman of the Year 1999,The 2000 Millennium Medal of Honour and Outstanding Woman of the 20th Century by the American Biographical Institute (ABI), U.S.A.,and many others.




Highly acclaimed Indian filmaker Mira Nair at the Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. She leapt into the world`s spotlight with her film Salaam, Bombay in 1988. Born in Bhubaneshwar,Orissa in 1957 she studied Sociology and Theater in the University of Delhi and went to continue her Sociology studies at Harvard. Sociology influence can be felt in her films like Mississippi Masala(1991), The Perez Family (1993) and the latest one MOnsoon Wedding (2001) which won her the Golden Lion at the Berlin Film Festival. She also is the director of the controversial film Kama Sutra,a remaking of the 15th century love manual.



Medha Patkar has been a central organizer and strategist of Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a people's movement organized to stop the construction of a series of dams planned for India`s largest wetsward flowing river.The World Bank-financed Sardar Sarovar Dam is the keystone of the Narmada Valley Development Project, one of the world`s largest river development projects. Upon completion, Sardar Sarovar would submerge more than 37,000 hectares of forest and agricultural land. The dam and its associated canal system would also displace some 320,000 villagers, mostly from tribal communities, whose livelihoods depend on these natural resources.



Sushmita Sen and Aishwarya Rai became the first Indian women to win the Miss Universe and the Miss World titles in 1995.



Indira Gandhi (1917-1984), the only child of Jawarharlal Nehru, India`s first Prime Minister. Married to Feroze Gandhi in 1942, she was elected to the Indian Parliament for the first time after her father`s death in 1964. She was Prime Minister of India between 1966-77 and 1980-1984. Her tenure is best remembered for the 1975 Emergency. She was assasinated by her bodyguards in 1984.



Aruna Roy, social activist and winner of the 2000 Ramon Magsaysay award for community service and co-founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan( MKSS), Organization for the Empowerment of Workers and Peasants, in Rajasthan. Aruna Roy is being cited for empowering Indian villagers to claim what is rightfully theirs by upholding and exercising the people`s right to information.



Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur, daughter of the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and the widow of Maharaja of Jaipur. With her flawless beauty, grace and style the Maharani has appeared on the list of the World`s Most Beautiful Women and remains a favourite of columnists and an ideal subject for portraiture. Besides dabbling in politics she has also written a book called A Princess Remembers



Madhavi Mudgil is a renowned Odissi dance exponent. Through teaching, performing and conducting workshops, Madhavi Mudgilhas been actively involved in propagating the art of Odissi in New Delhi and other parts of India as well as the world. For her contribution to the art, Madhavi Mudgal received the Sanskriti Award and the President of India's award, the Padmashri besides the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award for her contribution to the world of Indian Dance.



Shabana Azmi , internationally acclaimed actress, Member of the Indian Parliament and UN Goodwill Ambassador, She is the winner of five National Awards for best Actress in India and the Padma Shree Award in 1988. Wife of poet, lyricist and screenwriter Javed Akhter and daughter of renowned Urdu poet, Kaifi Azmi.




Kiran Bedi is the the first woman to join the Indian Police Service (IPS) in 1972. One of the most popular Police officers who ever served the Indian Police Force.Kiran Bedi was honored with the UN medal for outstanding service. In May 2005, she was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Law by City University of New York, in recognition of her humanitarian approach to prison reforms and policing. She also recieved the 1994 Ramon Magsaysay Award for her effort to humananise and reform Tihar jail- Asia's largest prison located in New Delhi.



Indian born Kalpana Chawla was an astronaut and space shuttle mission specialist. She died aboard STS-107 (Space Shuttle Columbia) when it disintegrated during reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, on February 1, 2003.Chawla was the first Indian-born woman and the second person of Indian origin to fly in space, following cosmonaut Rakesh Sharma who flew in 1984 in a Soviet spacecraft.




Bhanwari Devi of Batteri, Jaipur in Rajasthan. Gang raped by 5 upper-caste men, in September 1992, for her social efforts to curb child marriages, she was soon deemed a social outcast by her neighbours, villagers and family members. Belonging to a potter class, no one offered assistance or bought their pots or milk. On 24 January 1994, all 5 men gave themselves up to the police after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) issued warrants and threatened to confiscate their property. Later, the alleged rapists were set free on accounts of being middle-aged, respectable citizens

To be charming, be with happy women

LONDON: If you are a male and lack the ability to attract females, then simply get a happy-looking woman to accompany you, for a new study has found that men in the company of smiling women are likely to catch the fancy of other females.

However, the study also suggests that other men may view them as a threat.

According to psychologists, the copycat behaviour among women is because they do not have confidence in their own judgment.

"If a female has difficulty choosing the best male, she can help herself by seeing how rivals behave," the Mirror quoted Dr Benedict Jones, of Aberdeen University, as saying.

In the study, female volunteers aged about 24 rated pictures of young men's faces.

When they were shown a man next to a smiling woman, they upped their score by at least 15 per cent.

According to the paper, though such a phenomenon has already been seen among fish and birds, this research is the first evidence of such behaviour in humans.

The study has been published in the Biological Sciences journal.

Wat ya say ? :)