In the ancient days to convey their viewpoint across to their listeners orators used metaphors, similes, and analogies. Now, to explain complex ideas we use simple and humorous images and share them using the internet.
The various anecdotes that start with the saying “You have two cows …” refer to a form of political satire. They involve variations of a scenario, where eponymous cows are used to demonstrate the functioning of some political systems.
A column titled “The Class in Political Isms” in The Chicago Daily Tribune of December 3, 1938, attributes a version involving socialism, communism, fascism and New Dealism to an address by Silas Strawn to the Economic Club of Chicago on November 29, 1935.
A Canadian writer and journalist Bill Sherk mentions that such satirical snippets circulated throughout the United States since around 1936 under the title “Parable of the Isms”.
In the collection of humour in “Vox Lycei 1939-1940” compiled by the Lisgar Alumni Association the following snippet appears on page 71 :
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
Socialism: You have two cows. You give one to your neighbour.
Communism: You have two cows. You give both cows to the Government which lets you buy part of it back.
American New Deal: You have two cows. The Government shoots one cow, buys the milk from the other cow and pours it down the sewer.
Nazism: You have two cows. The Government shoots you and takes the cows and sells the milk.
Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Social Credit: You ‘shoot the bull’.
As early as 1944, the humour of this type attracted the attention of scholars in the United States. An article in The Modern Language Journal lists the following classical ones some of which are similar to those in “Vox Lycei 1939-1940” :
Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbour.
Communism: You have two cows. You give them to the government, and the government then gives you some milk.
Fascism: You have two cows. You give them to the government, and the government then sells you some milk.
Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
In the late 1960s, comedian Pat Paulsen on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour appended this comment to capitalism: “…Then put both of them in your wife’s name and declare bankruptcy.” Later on, he used this material as an element of his satirical US presidential campaign in 1968 and was included it on his 1968 comedy album “Pat Paulsen for President“.
Nazism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
India is a country where most Chief Ministers of states and politicians amass wealth and assets during their tenure of office. Would you believe that there is one among them who has no house or a car in his name, or a bank balance worth the mention? Surprising isn’t it? Yes, we are proud to have such a person since March 1998 as the Chief Minister of one of the States in India.
Manik Sarkar, the tall, gentle person, wearing white kurta, is currently the Chief Minister of Tripura. In the assembly elections held in 2013, he was sworn in as the chief minister of Tripura for the fourth consecutive period.
In 2008, Manik Sarkar’s cash in hand and bank deposits totalled Rs.16,120. According to his affidavit for the 2013 Tripura Assembly election this amount has come down to Rs.10,800. It shows that Manik Sarkar was the only Chief Minister in India to have the lowest personal monetary resources.
Born on January 22, 1949, Manik Sarkar is a Politburo Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). In March 2008, he was sworn in as leader of Left Front of the coalition government in Tripura.
The official sources list Manik Sarkar’s monthly salary as the lowest received by any Chief Minister in India. Even then, he donates to his party his entire salary of ₹12,500, and the allowances, paid to him as the Chief Minister. The party in turn pays him ₹5000 (US$81) as subsistence allowances. When reporters asked him how he runs his household on the paltry sum, he said:
“My wife’s pension can sustain us both. My expenses are small enough for a packet of snuff and a Charminar cigarette a day. About a home, we’ll see.”
Manik Sarkar is married to Panchali Bhattacharya, a former employee of the Central Social Welfare Board. She retired in 2011. The couple lives a very simple life. They do not own a car, and the wife never uses any official vehicle which are out of bounds for her even though she is the Chief Minister’s wife. She travels by rickshaw in Agartala with no personal security guards accompanying her.
In 2009, after the death of his mother, Manik Sarkar, inherited a small house in Agartala which he donated to a relative.
Manik Sarkar is an honest person keen on developing his home state of Tripura. He aims for better connectivity and development of IT sector in his state. But he has his own detractors.
His chief antagonist is 48-year-old Sudip Roy Barman. He was the President of Tripura Congress Committee. Sudip said that Manik Sarkar’s honesty is a carefully cultivated legend. Once he asked:
“Where does he get money to buy the hundreds of white kurta-pyjama sets he owns? Ora spectacle frame that is worth Rs.60,000? How can he afford sandals worth Rs.6,000? Why doesn’t he act against the corrupt ministers? It’s all a ploy. First, he encourages them to indulge in corruption, then blackmails them with the threat of legal action, thus pre-empting any challenge to his leadership.”
A professor of Tripura University who did not want to be named said:
“He [Manik Sarkar] may be an honest person, but Sarkar is a ruthless politician. If he feels threatened by anyone, their wings are clipped. Yet, the Congress has little chance to dethrone him, thanks to its internal rivalries.”
Manik Sarkar defended himself: “Where is the power? It’s with the Centre. Small states like Tripura suffer. We have to fight for everything that is rightfully ours.” He added, “My spectacles cost Rs.1,800. My sandals are also cheap. I love to look neat, but that doesn’t mean I buy expensive stuff.”
When compared with other chief ministers in India, this simple gentleman is often cited as the “cleanest and the poorest Chief Minister in India”.
Yes. Manik Sarkar is poor, but a flawless diamond!
I do not subscribe to any political party. But, when I perceive talent in any form, I will be the first person to endorse it.
Smriti Zubin Irani, a former model, television actress and producer represents the Bharatiya Janata Party and is the incumbent Minister of Human Resource Development of Government of India since May 27, 2014. She is a first time Lok Sabha polls contestant and a first-time minister and the youngest in the Narendra Modi cabinet.
Born on March 23, 1976, in Delhi to a family of Punjabi–Bengali background, Smriti Malhotra is the eldest amongst three sisters. She studied up to class 12 at Holy Child Auxilium School (HCA) in New Delhi and discontinued further education.
Smriti worked as a waitress at McDonald’s before finding stardom in modelling. In 1998, Smriti was one of the finalists of the Miss India beauty pageant.
In 2000, she made her debut with TV series Aatish and Hum Hain Kal Aaj Kal Aur Kal, both aired on Star Plus. In mid-2000, Irani bagged the lead role of Tulsi Virani in Ekta Kapoor’s production Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi on Star Plus. She holds the record of winning five consecutive Indian Television Academy Awards for the Best Actress (Popular), four Indian Telly Awards, eight Star Parivaar Awards.
In 2001, Smriti married Zubin Irani, a Parsi.
Smriti Irani is a Rajya Sabha MP from Gujarat and is now widely acknowledged in the BJP as a key member of Narendra Modi’s inner circle.
In her message to the Subject Toppers of Senior School Certificate (Class XII) Examination, 2014 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, posted on the website of the Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development she said:
I congratulate all the students of CBSE who have excelled in their schools, districts and States in different subjects.
I applaud those who have worked hard and have got good results which make them and their families proud.
Examinations, marks, and above all values and Character in life, are the means to move forward and achieve progress
I wish all the students success in achieving their dreams in whatever walk of life they find joy and fulfilment and thereby contribute to a healthy, harmonious society and a strong nation.
But, there is something to be said about Smriti Irani’s own education.
Congress leader Ajay Maken questioned Smriti Irani’s credentials to lead the HRD ministry which oversees the country’s education system including the prestigious IITs and IIMs. Hitherto, the portfolio had always been held by a person with high academic qualifications. Maken tweeted: “Smriti Irani is not even a graduate,” triggering a political row, which until then had been fuelled online solely by her main detractor Madhu Purnima Kishwar, an Indian academic, and writer, who has been going hammer and tongs at Smriti Irani since the swearing-in.
In the past, Madhu Kishwar vociferously defended Narendra Modi both on Twitter and on television channels. Now, after the swearing-in, Kishwar seems to have taken on a new role of being his critic-in-chief.
Smriti Irani seemed unfazed by the drama. However, there is more to this controversy.
“Educated at Holy Child Auxilium, Delhi and School of Correspondence and Continuing Education, University of Delhi, Delhi.“
Smriti Irani has herself provided conflicting affidavits of her educational qualifications.
In 2004, in the affidavit filed with the Election Commission of India she submitted that she had received a bachelor’s degree in Arts (B.A.) in 1996 from Delhi University (School of Correspondence).
In the affidavit filed with the Election Commission of India for the recent 2014 elections Smriti Irani claimed that she only completed Part I (first year) of her bachelor’s degree in commerce (Part I B.Com.) in the year 1994 from Delhi University’s School of Open Learning (correspondence)..
To add venom, a leak from the School of Correspondence, as reported by a newspaper, claims that Smriti Irani had enrolled in 2013, but had not written the examination.
This incidence of doubts raised about Smriti Irani’s education leads to the perennial question “What is education?“
When knowledge, skills, and habits convey from one person to another through teaching, training, or research we call it education. So, we can say that education is any experience that has a developmental effect that leads to the way one thinks, feels, or acts.
By the way, do you think that all recipients of diplomas and college degrees are really educated?
At present, most people look at education as commonly divided into stages: preschool, primary school, secondary school and then college, university or apprenticeship under the guidance of others. But many do not freely acknowledge that education may also be autodidactic.
Autodidacticism or autodidactism or self-education is self-directed learning.
An autodidact is a self-teacher. Autodidactism is a contemplative and absorptive process. One may become an autodidact at any point in one’s life. While one may have studied a particular field in the conventional method they may choose to inform themselves in other, often unrelated areas by self-study.
Many autodidacts have complemented their formal learning with self-study. Though I have a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry, I am an autodidact in computer science. Forty-two years ago, I was not able to find any teacher who could teach computer science. So, I spent a great deal of time reviewing the resources found in physical libraries and buying whatever books on computer science that I came across in search of knowledge. I always say: “To learn, teach!” I gained most of my knowledge in computers by following this dictum — teaching others who sought knowledge in basic computer science.
Though autodidactism is only one facet of learning, many autodidacts have made notable contributions to the human race. Renaissance polymath Leonardo da Vinci is one of history’s best-known autodidacts.
Since most autodidacts do not advertise themselves, why not we consider Smriti Irani as one such person.
On May 19, 2014, Smriti Irani hit back at Congress leader Ajay Maken’s comments on her educational qualifications. She said,
“Judge me by my work, I would only say this… Attempts have been made to deviate my attention from my work. The party has always entrusted me with assignments as they have confidence in me.“
The late Kamaraj Nadar, former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, India, was a 3rd grader. He was a visionary and he opened hundreds of primary schools accessible to rural kids to improve the literacy rate in Tamilnadu.
The current Chief Minister of Tamilnadu J. Jayalalitha is a 10th grader (Matriculation). She is fluent in several languages, including English, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Hindi.
So, before you write off Smriti Irani as an ‘uneducated’ person, just listen to the speech she gave before an International audience at the International Women’s Conference in February 2014, at The Art of Living International Center, Bangalore, India, a few months before she was sworn-in as the Honourable Union Minister of Human Resource Development, and then form your opinion about her.
In numerology, the numbers 8, 17 and 26 mean “money, power,” and are also the numbers of destruction. Numerologists consider the number 8, 17 and 26 emphasize the areas of career, business, finances and authority. These three numbers are the great Karmic equalizers that balance the material and immaterial worlds – forces that just as easily creates as it destroys. So, when 8, 17, and 26 come to the fore, we can be assured that we will reap what we have sown.
On the material plane, the 8s focus on results, often in the form of money, which it sees as a tool, not the end of the rainbow. People with strong 8s in their charts may lose fortunes in their life, but they will never consider bankruptcy a reason to slow down or feel sorry, but rather would surge once again, stronger and more success-oriented than before.
The recognizable traits of the 8s are drive, ambition, discipline, efficiency, organization, management, control, focused and goal-oriented, good judgment, practical, realistic and possess the authority.
According to Cheiro, the number 8 stands for the planet Saturn. This number influences all people born on the 8th, 17th or 26th in any month.
Narendra Damodardas Modi was born on September 17, 1950.
May 26, 2014 – Narendra Modi sworn in as the 15th Prime Minister of India
On May 26, 2014, ten minutes after 6 pm, 63-years-old Narendra Damodardas Modi of Bharatiya Janata Party, armed with a decisive mandate was sworn in as the 15th Prime Minister of India by President Pranab Mukherjee at the forecourt of the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
The glittering event, replete with symbolism and grandeur, was attended by the heads of SAARC countries like Nawaz Sharif, the 18th and current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the 6th president of Sri Lanka, Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, and a galaxy of other dignitaries.
Modi opted for a small team of 45 ministers: 23 Cabinet Ministers, 10 Ministers of State with Independent Charge and 12 Ministers of State. This is the smallest government to take the oath in the last 15 years.
Here is the message from Prime Minister Narendra Modi published in the official website of the Prime Minister of India:
My dear fellow Indians and citizens of the world, Namaste!
A very warm welcome to the official website of the Prime Minister of India.
On 16th May 2014 the people of India gave their verdict. They delivered a mandate for development, good governance and stability. As we devote ourselves to take India’s development journey to newer heights, we seek your support, blessings and active participation. Together we will script a glorious future for India. Let us together dream of a strong, developed and inclusive India that actively engages with the global community to strengthen the cause of world peace and development.
I envision this website as a very important medium of direct communication between us. I am a firm believer in the power of technology and social media to communicate with people across the world. I hope this platform creates opportunities to listen, learn and share one’s views.
Through this website you will also get all the latest information about my speeches, schedules, foreign visits and lot more. I will also keep informing you about innovative initiatives undertaken by the Government of India.
Yours, Narendra Modi
Let us hope and pray that Narendra Modi and his cabinet with their mantra of “minimum government, maximum governance” will usher in a golden era in India.
There seems to be some sort of affinity between India and day 26.
On the occult side, Manmohan Singh, the 14th Prime Minister of India, from 2004 to 2014, was born on September 26, 1932. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi the new Indian Union Cabinet Minister for Women & Child Development in the Government of Narendra Damodardas Modi, was born on August 26, 1956.
Many incidents such as India’s Independence Day, Republic Day, major earthquakes, tsunamis, internecine communal riots, bloody terrorist attacks have taken place on day 26.
January 26, 1930 – India’s Independence Day
India gained freedom from the British rule on August 15, 1947, but patriotic Indians had celebrated their first “Independence Day” 17 years earlier, on January 26, 1930. The choice of the day was unforeseen.
In 1928, Motilal Nehru chaired a prestigious committee that drafted a “Constitution” for an Indian Dominion that would have been a secular democratic reflection of Britain’s parliamentary system.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his All-India Muslim League insisted on more “safeguards” for Muslims as their price for endorsing the Motilal Nehru Committee’s proposal.
Jawaharlal Nehru and other young radical leaders of Congress like Subhas Chandra Bose of Bengal viewed Motilal Nehru’s recommendations as too conservative.
Mahatma Gandhi remained aloof from such matters, preferring to spin his cotton, waiting to be called upon to lead the next Satyagraha.
Motilal Nehru was unable to rally the broad spectrum of Indian political parties to his constitution’s support and it was doomed to an early demise.
The Indian National Congress held its annual session in Lahore in December 1929. During the debates, the All India Home Rule League and the All-India Muslim League favoured for a Dominion status for India within the British Empire as enjoyed by Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland at the time. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and many others argued for a complete separation from British rule. In the end, the latter group’s view prevailed.
The Congress then promulgated the “Purna Swaraj” or “complete self-rule” declaration resolving the Congress and Indian nationalists to fight for complete independence from the British rule as opposed to a dominion status for India.
.Jawaharlal Nehru was chosen as the president of the Congress. On the midnight of December 31, 1929, he raised the first “Swaraj” flag on the banks of the Ravi river in Lahore. This flag was adopted and it was first hoisted on October 31, 1931. This flag was used by the Provisional Government of Free India during the subsequent years of Second World War.
The Congress passed a resolution fixing the last Sunday of January 1930 as India’s “Independence Day”. Coincidentally, it was January 26. It resolved to hold countrywide demonstrations in support of the goal. The day was to begin with the hoisting of the flag and reciting the “pledge of independence”. Gandhi envisaged that besides the meetings, the day would be spent,
“… in doing some constructive work, whether it is spinning, or service of ‘untouchables,’ or reunion of Hindus and Mussalmans, or prohibition work, or even all these together.”
An official draft by Gandhi said:
“The British government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually… Therefore, India must sever the British connection and attain ‘purna swaraj’ or ‘complete independence’.”
The Congress called on the people to pledge themselves to civil disobedience and “to carry out the instructions issued from time to time” by the Congress, till India attained complete independence. The celebration of such an Independence Day was envisioned to stoke nationalistic fervour among Indian citizens, and to force the British government to consider granting independence.
“An Autobiography” also known as “Toward Freedom” published in 1936 by The Bodley Head, is an autobiographical book written by Jawaharlal Nehru while he was in prison. It ran nine editions in the first year alone. In this book, Jawaharlal Nehru described the observances of “Independence Day” on January 26 as peaceful, solemn, and “without any speeches or exhortation”:
“From then on, the Congress members and supporters celebrated January 26 as the Independence Day till 1947, regardless of whether the actual transfer of power had taken place.“
August 15, 1947 – India gains Independence
Following the peaceful, civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance, led by the Indian National Congress for independence, the British government agreed to accord freedom to India on August 15, 1947.
Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammad Ali Jinnah prepared for the transfer of power from the British Crown. (Source: indyas.hpage.co.in)
Eleven days before August 15, 1947, Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru representing the Indian National Congress and Mohammad Ali Jinnah representing the Muslim League, which demanded a separate sovereign state for Muslims, prepared for the transfer of power from the British Crown.
During these deliberations, an abstract picture of a divided nation comprising India and Pakistan came into being as distinct from the agglomeration of princely states and provinces administered by the British Raj.
On August 14, 1947, the dominion of Pakistan which then included East Pakistan, declared independence from the British Crown.
On the eve of India’s Independence, towards midnight on August 14, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, in his inaugural address to the Indian Parliament heralded India’s tryst with destiny.
“Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.
It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity. …“
November 26, 1949 – Adoption of the Indian Constitution
After gaining independence, India, still owing formal allegiance to the British Crown, did not have its own Constitution and so it depended entirely on the amended colonial Government of India Act, 1935.
As a first step to evolve a sovereign republic, a constituent assembly of elected members of the provincial assemblies was set up to frame a new Constitution for the Republic of India. It included Jawaharlal Nehru, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Shyama Prasad Mookherjee and Nalini Ranjan Ghosh. There were jurists like Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer and K.M. Munshi.
Dr Ambedkar was asked to lead the drafting committee of the Constitution. The committee met for 166 days over two years, 11 months and 18 days.
On November 26, 1949, the final document of the Constitution that enshrined 345 Articles and eight Schedules was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, replacing the Government of India Act (1935) as the governing document of India.
January 26, 1950 – India’s Republic Day
The Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, and India officially became a Sovereign Democratic Republic.
January 26 was selected as the Republic Day because the Declaration of Indian Independence (Purna Swaraj) was proclaimed by the Indian National Congress on this day in 1930.
The people of India honour this day as their Republic Day.
On January 26, 1950, the Republic Day ceremonies began in Delhi.
On January 26, 1950, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, the 34th and last Governor-General of India, read out a proclamation announcing the birth of the Republic of India. The Constitution of India came into effect, declaring India as a sovereign, democratic and secular state.
Dr Rajendra Prasad took the oath of office as India’s first president, replacing the King as the head of the state, at the Durbar Hall of the Rashtrapati Bhavan (residence of the president of India). He addressed the crowd, first in Hindi and then in English. After the swearing-in ceremony, the new president of India drove through the streets in his state coach to the Irwin Stadium (now renamed as the Dhyan Chand Stadium) and hoisted the national flag.
The government declared a two-day national holiday to a jubilant nation.
Currently, the Republic Day celebrations begin in India on January 26 with a grand parade held in the capital, New Delhi, from the Raisina Hill near the Rashtrapati Bhavan, along the Rajpath, past India Gate.
The Republic Day festivities end officially with the Beating Retreat ceremony conducted on the evening of January 29, the third day after the Republic Day.
These women dressed in pink and with laathi (bamboo stick) in their hands are fearless!
Their leader Sampat Pal Devi is a mother of five children and a former government health worker. She has a long list of criminal charges against her: unlawful assembly, rioting, attacking government employees, obstructing officers in the discharge of duty, beating a policeman for abusing her, and so on. Once she even went underground to hide from the law. However, her actions have secured notable victories for the community.
Sampat Pal Devi (born 1960) is a tough woman with a commanding personality. She hails from the Bundelkhand area in the state of Uttar Pradesh – one of the poorest region in India and notorious for its rebels-turned-armed bandits. Sampat is a vigilante and activist fighting for the rights of women in the villages.
She was given in marriage to an ice-cream vendor at the tender age of 12. She bore her first child, a girl, at 15.
In 2006, responding to widespread domestic abuse and other violence against women, Sampat Pal Devi formed the Gulabi Gang (Hindi गुलाबी gulabī, “pink”), a group of Indian women vigilantes. Most Gulabi members dress in pink and carry laathis in their hand.
Despite being born into a traditional family and married off early, Sampat evolved into a charismatic leader who acts as judge and jury for girls and women who are being abused by outlawed patriarchal traditions and the caste system.
Sampat and her gang are constantly on the move fighting causes for the betterment of the community. They crusade against child marriages, dowry, and female illiteracy.
To demand their rights, the rebellious women gang submits petitions and verbally attacks corrupt officials, sneering policemen and complaisant bureaucrats. They visit abusive husbands and beat them up with laathis and warn them to stop abusing their wives in the future.
They usually travel by cart and tractor. At times, they undertake long journeys by bus and train, to fight for justice for women and dalits and other untouchable people.
In 2008, when her village was deprived of electricity because the officials of the department expected to extract bribes and sexual favours from the women, she and her stick-wielding Gulabi Gang stormed the premises of the electricity department, locked the concerned officials in a room until they cried for mercy. An hour after they left the premises, the power was on in their village.
In 2008, the group was reported to have 20,000 members as well as a chapter in Paris, France. Now, the Gulabi Gang has taken root in Banda, Mahoba, Chitrakot, Fatehpur, Farrukhabad, Kanpur, Allahabad, Etawah and Bijnore and has about 300,000 women members.
The Gulabi gang is the subject of the 2010 movie Pink Saris by Kim Longinotto as is the 2012 documentary Gulabi Gang by Nishtha Jain.
Initially, it was reported that the Bollywood film, Gulaab Gang, starring Madhuri Dixit and Juhi Chawla as leads, is based on Sampat Pal’s life, but the director denied this, saying that he recognizes the work done by Sampat, but his movie is not based on her life.
Now, the all-women Gulabi Gang is heading for a split as there is a tussle in leadership. On Sunday, March 2, 2014, six years after its inception, the group’s founder commander Sampat Pal Devi was dethroned by the Maharashtra based national convener of Gulabi gang Jayprakash Shivhare at a meeting in Banda following allegations of financial irregularities – “taking money for resolving the problems of poor and suffering women,” and “involvement in self promotion” at the cost of the organization’s mission.
The national convener of Gulabi Gang, Jayprakash Shivhare said:
“There is huge resentment in the organization against Pal. She had been playing in the hands of the Congress party… She had stopped holding meetings of the group and used to take decisions autocratically. She contested Assembly elections on
Congress ticket without taking any suggestion from other members of the group… Later, she decided to visit Rae Bareli along with other members and campaign in support of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and against Aam Aadmi Party.”
“She also went to TV reality show Bigg Boss without consulting the working committee of the group. She had gradually become extremely selfish and minting money at the cost of the organization… Removing her from all posts was the only option left with us. Since she has been defying decisions of the group, it was decided that she would no longer be its primary member.”
Suman Singh Chauhan, commander of Mahoba unit has been appointed as interim commander of the group and a seven-member committee has been constituted to run the organization as of now. A meeting of the group has been convened on March 23 to elect a full-time commander.
However, Sampat Pal Devi, asserted her authority saying she was still the leader of the Gulabi Gang.
Recently, Indian born Satya Nadella was promoted to the post of CEO of Microsoft. While both traditional and social media are abuzz ith debates, consequences,factors, pride and puns, we join the bandwagon with a slightly hypothetical route:
What if, instead of Satya Nadella, ‘aam aadmi’ Arvind Kejriwal was made the CEO of Microsoft?
These 15 disasters will strike Windows users worldwide.
If the man gaping at a woman’s cleavage is handsome, she will coyly say: “He is audacious!,” if not she would retort: “He is a pervert!”
If the woman with an eyeful cleavage pays attention to a man, he will chuckle and say: “She is sexy!,” if not he would riposte: “She is a whore!”
Cleavage, anatomically known as the intermammary cleft or the intermammary sulcus, is the space between a woman’s breasts lying over the sternum.
From time immemorial, women’s breasts are synonymous with feminineness. Invariably, well-endowed women often use cleavage to physically attract and sexually lure others (mainly men). They accentuate their cleavage by wearing garments with low necklines, alluring evening attire, flimsy lingerie and revealing swimwear. Thus, they find sadistic pleasure in kindling jealousy in other less-endowed women.
Most men derive erotic pleasure when their female companions display their cleavage with aesthetic effect. However, a few envious men, mainly companions of slim flat-chested women, resort to branding the copious women as flirts and seductresses.
In western societies, opinions differ about how much cleavage exposure is acceptable in public. In many cases, though displaying cleavage is permissible, it may be prohibited by dress codes set by churches, schools, and workplaces, where flagrant exposure of any part of the female breast might be considered inappropriate, and a woman who dares to show her nipples or areolae is almost always considered immodest, lewd, and indecent.
When it comes to cleavages, former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, former US Senator Hillary Clinton, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Vera Lengsfeld, the Conservative Christian Democratic Union candidate for Berlin’s Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg district gained attention on the international political front for wearing low-cut blouses revealing just the slightest hint of cleavage.
Former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
Jacqui Smith, a member of the British Labour Party was appointed Home Secretary in Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet reshuffle of June 28, 2007. Just one day into her new job bombs were found in London and a terrorist attack took place in Glasgow the following day.
Jacqui Smith drew attention for wearing a revealing black top under her tightly fitting white jacket. It caused a stir as other MPs struggled to concentrate on the security threat under discussion.
Her attire prompted the House of Commons wags to wisecrack as “Weapons of mass distraction.”
Former US Senator Hillary Clinton
On July 20, 2007, Washington Post published an article written by Pulitzer Prize winner Robin Givhan in its Fashion section titled “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory.” Givhan wrote:
There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.
The Washington Post’s editorial writer, Ruth Marcus, criticized Robin Givhan’s article. She wrote that Robin Givhan “dissected” Hillary Clinton “for showing cleavage.” Marcus added, “Might I suggest that sometimes a V-neck top is only a V-neck top? As a person of cleavage, I’d guess that Clinton’s low-cut shirt simply reflected a few centimeters of sartorial miscalculation, not a deliberate Fashion statement.”
Another Washington Post columnist, Dana Milbank, also seemed to distance himself from the Givhan article during a July 26 appearance on MSNBC News Live.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel
German Chancellor Angela Merkel wore a glamorous and impressive blue décolletage with a blue bolero shawl designed by Anna von Griesham while chatting with Jens Stoltenberg, prime minister of Norway, at the opening of the Olso Opera House on April 12, 2008. Mr Stoltenberg maintained crucial, and diplomatic, eye contact with his guest at the inauguration of the cultural landmark.
On April 14, 2008, Gawker, a media gossip website published a page titled “German Chancellor Angela Merkel not Afraid to Show Her Breastesses” written by Shea. The writer wrote:
“For my upcoming vacation in Germany, I decided to study up on some of its elected leaders. What was discovered about Chancellor Angela Merkel? She’s not afraid to show a little cleavage during a night out at the Opera! Click for it… if you dare.
Gawker welcomed commentators to make light of the German leader’s outfit with quips ranging from the flippant: “Deutschland booberalles” to the politically slanted: “Imagine. A female head of state okay with being a woman.“
This photo of Chancellor Angela Merkel provided enough fodder for the media around the world. The media focused on the German leader’s appearance. Unflattering photos of the chancellor wearing a peach-colored dress with sweat stains under her arms at the 2005 Bayreuth festival were widely circulated. In 2006, the British tabloid
The Sun published photos of Merkel changing into a bathing suit while on vacation in Italy, giving its article the headline “I’M BIG IN THE BUMDESTAG,” in a reference to the Bundestag, home of the German federal parliament. The article and photos solicited an indignant response from a number of German publications, which felt the country’s leader deserved more respect.
During a tough political campaign for the 2009 general election, Vera Lengsfeld (61), the Conservative Christian Democratic Union candidate for Berlin’s Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg district, used pictures of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and herself in low-cut dresses. To draw attention to serious election issues she put up 750 provocative campaign posters accompanied by the slogan “Wir haben mehr zu bieten” (“We Have More to Offer”). Lengsfield bought the rights to use the picture of Merkel but did not seek the Chancellor’s permission. However, the posters had a positive impact.
To her critics Lengsfield said: “It is ridiculous to suggest that I am being sexist or antifeminist. I am a woman and I am proud of that.”
It is said that a child’s fascination with breasts starts from the moment it is breastfed as a baby. The odor of milk emanating from a mother’s breast draws her infant towards her. The basic instinct in any living being is to seek safety from the surrounding environment. Hence, the child too finds comfort by nestling on its mother’s breasts. It finds not only nourishment while suckling the mother’s breast, but also the mother’s unconditional love.
If this assumption is true, then what about the children who were not breastfed?
Many bottle-fed children, especially those whose mothers were buxom are just as fascinated with breasts as those who were breast-fed.
When children, whether breastfed or bottle-fed grow up the embedded image on their brain of their mother’s breast surfaces sporadically as sexual fantasies. They eye women with large breasts and quite often become obsessed with them.
Women, whether breastfed or bottle-fed, do not react the same way as men because breasts naturally grow on their own in women. However, studies show that breastfed women have a healthier opinion of their own breasts in their adulthood.
Sigmund Freud, a firm supporter of the nature argument, believed that sexual drives are instinctive. He viewed sexuality as the central source of human personality. He said that a child’s first erotic object is the mother’s breast.
If you regularly visit your social media pages, you would have certainly come across this photo of the little Syrian boy covered by a blanket purportedly sleeping between the graves of his parents.
This heartrending image is a fake and is not related to the current happenings in Syria. However, the image went viral on the net because many people appropriated it on social networks to reflect the tragic situation in Syria without knowing it was a fake that originated not from Syria, but from Saudi Arabia.
One source claims it has been viewed over a million times on Imgur. It evoked lots of sympathy. Here are some comments I came across on Reddit:
I think the part that got me right in the heart is the fact that he looks peaceful and happy. Like nothings wrong. God damn it, I just made it worse.
He must have already seen some horrible things, and it seems he is now in peace, sleeping next to his mommy and daddy. Even if they aren’t alive anymore, they are still his source of comfort. This is sad on so many levels.
The more you think about it the deeper it goes until you’re looking down at the planet saying, wtf!
****. Why’d you have to call them “mommy” and “daddy” that just makes it too real.
It’ll be a whole different world when he wakes.
This is actually the saddest picture I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen a lot of fucking morbid, disgusting, blood-soaked pictures and I’ve never batted an eye since I’m so desensitized to it, but I can barely hold in tears as I look at this one. What that kid has experienced is the epitome of non-physical human suffering. His parents aren’t coming back, man.
In the Middle East death is not something we’re not used to, unfortunately. Most simply embrace it due to how difficult life is.
I didn’t see peaceful and happy, I see a kid who doesn’t know what to do. His world is gone. I’m 40 and can’t stand the thought of losing my parents, and when they go I’ll be crushed. 8-ish years old? Jesus.
Blogger Harald Doornbos claims he unearthed the truth behind the photograph by interviewing the photographer Abdul Aziz Al-Otaibi, a 25-year-old Saudi national and published it on his blog.
According to Harald Doornbos, Abdul Aziz lives in Yanbu al Bahr, a major Red Sea port in the Al Madinah province of western Saudi Arabia, about 250 kilometers northwest of Jeddah.
Abdul Aziz is a student at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD), Savannah, Georgia in USA. His major is Photography. As a keen photographer brimming with ideas, Abdul Aziz as a project wanted to depict the irreplaceable love of a child for his parents, even if they are dead. So, three weeks ago, he drove to the outskirts of Yanbu with his nephew. There after piling stones to resemble two graves, he bade his nephew lie between two ‘graves’ and covered him with a blanket.
Abdul Aziz Al-Otaibi has the following social media accounts:
He posted the photograph on Facebook. He made it very clear on Facebook that the graves were not real. He even published pictures of his smiling nephew seated next to the graves. Abdul Aziz told Harald Doornbos: “I also published the backstage story. I just wanted to be sure that people drew no wrong conclusions.”
Though Abdul Aziz published this creation as an art work, an American Muslim convert posted the picture on his twitter account @americanbadu, that has over 187,000 followers. He claimed the picture was from Syria and suggested that the Assad-regime killed the parents of the sleeping boy.
The image spreads like wildfire. Hundreds of accounts, especially in jihad circles re-tweeted the picture from @americanbadu. An Islamic NGO from Kuwait, @Yathalema, with 175,000 followers tweeted the image.
Even the Syrian opposition leader Ahmed Jarba failed to verify the authenticity of the image and tweeted it on Friday, January 17, 2014. He too did not fail to accuse Assad on wretched fate of the boy in the picture. Here is the image of Jarba’s tweet:
Jarba deleted the photo of the boy beside the graves about 30 minutes after posting it.
Harald Doornbos says: “By now the picture goes viral. Nobody checks if the image was indeed from Syria. I was the first reporter who called Al-Otaibi to ask.“
In the meantime, photographer Abdul Aziz Al-Otaibi complained via Direct Message (DM) to @americanbadu: “Why did you take my picture and claim it as an image from Syria? Please correct it.”
@americanbadu replied via DM: “Why don’t you just let go and claim it is a picture from Syria and gain a reward from God. You are exaggerating.”
Shortly after, @americanbadu removed his tweet. Nevertheless, the irreversible damage was already done.
Many victims of the Solar scam did not dare to lodge complaints against the duo because most of them were laundering black money. Also, the victims were aware that the duo was being protected by some wielding power.
Though their business flourished, Saritha Nair’s relationship with Biju Radhkarishnan soured. Both suspected each other of having other affairs. In 2012, the couple decided to end their relationship and part ways.
In early June 2013, K.M. Sajjad, an industrialist from Kollam, filed a case against Team Solar. He had been cheated after having paid an advance of र40 lakh for setting up a solar and windmill farm.
On June 5, 2013, Perumbavoor police traced absconding Sarita Nair to a house at Edappazhanji, Thiruvananthapuram and arrested her for cheating.
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch (CID), C.G. Suresh Kumar investigated the Reshmi murder case. On June 17, 2013, police arrested Biju from Coimbatore for the murder of Reshmi. It is indeed a mystery how Biju contrived to escape from the police for more than seven years.
According to the charge sheet, the alleged murder was committed on the night of February 3, 2006. Biju after forcing Reshmi to drink liquor laced with poison dragged her to the toilet. His elder son born to Reshmi was an eyewitness to this act.
Case has been registered against Biju for murder, harassment of women, destroying of evidence and man handling of his elder son.
Biju’s mother Rajammal was also arrested and charged for harassment of women and helping her son to destroy evidence. She was let out on bail.
On the same day of Biju’s arrest, (June 17, 2013), the media reported that Yogi Nirmalanandagiri of Charamoodu in Alappuzha, made allegations against Sarita Nair and Biju Radhakishnan saying that they had extorted about र25 lakh from several people offering a gamut of promises.
In 2007, Biju had introduced himself to the yogi as a consultant and had told him that they could have obtained government welfare funds for the ashram if it had been registered as a trust. Biju had added that he would need र1.5 lakh to meet ministers in the capital for the release of funds to the ashram.
Next, the duo set up a centre named ‘Saffron Consultants and Event Management’ and distributed leaflets detailing their services.
On February 15, 2007, the ashram was registered as a trust.
The couple then took yogi Nirmalanandagiri to Thiruvananthapuram to invite Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, the Home minister, to attend the inaugural function of the trust. But they did not succeed in meeting the minister.
Biju stayed a day at the ashram. Later he and Saritha checked into a hotel at Kayamkulam. Biju conducted All India Trade Fairs in various places between Kayamkulam and Adoor. He would invariably disappear from the venue before the fair concluded. He would not even pay the hotel bill, the yogi said.
Yogi Nirmalanandagiri said he registered a complaint with the Kayamkulam and Chengannur DySPs. But, the police just ignored his plaint and did not investigate. Meanwhile, both the DySPs said there had been no complaints against Biju in 2007. “We would have taken up the case had there been any complaints in this regard”, they said.
Who is lying?
Scammers and Politicians
The sordid sex angle to the scandal was confirmed on November 22, 2013. The media reported that Jacob Mathew, the advocate of Biju Radhakrishnan had said that he has videos of 12 VIPs – politicians, ministers, IAS and IPS officers – sexually abusing Saritha Nair. The advocate asserted that he had many copies of the videos that Saritha herself had recorded using a pen camera, and the footage taken over from her by Biju Radhakrishnan. The advocate threatened to give the visuals of sexual abuse of Saritha Nair to the investigating officer in front of media as soon as he received a written permission from Biju Radhakrishnan, locked up in jail.
This irked many prominent leaders in Kerala. Jacob Mathew named union minister K.C. Venugopal, Kerala tourism minister A.P. Anilkumar, former minister K.B. Ganesh Kumar and Crime branch IG M.R. Ajithkumar.
Union minister of state for Civil Aviation and Energy K.C. Venugopal challenged the advocate’s statement and termed it as a conspiracy against him. He asked the advocate to release the tapes at the earliest. Though he claims he never helped Saritha Nair, records of late calls from Saritha to him have surfaced.
A.P. Anil Kumar has clarified that last year Saritha Nair had called him to invite him to inaugurate two of her offices at Kozhikhode and Malappuram.
Earlier, on April 1, 2013, the media reported that K.B. Ganesh Kumar, Kerala Minister for Forest, Sports and Cinema filed a divorce petition at the family court in Thiruvananthapuram. He alleged that his wife, accusing him of having illicit affairs with other women, physically assaulted him. Later, Biju claimed he had met the Chief Minister Oommen Chandy once for an hour-long discussion on Ganesh Kumar’s affair with Saritha Nair. However, the CM is still to reveal the details of the discussion that took place, but had said that Biju was referred to him by M.I. Shanavas, the Congress MP.
Crime branch IG M.R. Ajith Kumar told media that he will file a defamation suit against Jacob Mathew.
Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan issued a challenge to those having the videos to release them and not issue unfounded threats.
Names of UDF ministers such as: Revenue Minister Adoor Prakash, Aryadan Mohammed, KC Joseph, Shibhu Baby John, Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan, his private secretary V.K. Raveendran, and MLA Mons Joseph are some of the other names that have surfaced in Saritha’s call records. Some of the ministers have admitted that they have been in touch with her.
In Kerala, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) is also feeling the heat of the Solar Scam. Out of the many cases registered against Saritha Nair and Biju Radhakrishnan, 14 cases for cheating, involving र1.72 crore were registered from May 30, 2009 to April 16, 2011 when CPI(M)’s V.S. Achuthanandan was Chief Minister. Allegedly, Saritha’s clout in power circles was such that she even addressed one of the LDF ministers as ‘Uncle’ – who the ruling party alleges is none other than the then Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan.
N.V. Raju, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) had given a statement to High court vigilance registrar S. Mohan Das that Saritha Nair told him when interrogated on July 20, 2013 that she was sexually abused by many people.
On November 12, 2013, Vigilance Registrar S. Mohan Das, in his report submitted to the Kerala high court, flayed ACJM for having failed to record Saritha’s statement on July 20th itself and has recommended action against the ACJM.
Reshmi Murder Case
Saritha Nair, the prime accused in the solar scam, when produced in the court during the Reshmi murder case, identified Biju Radhakrishnan.
On November 25, 2013, when produced before the Principal Sessions and District Court, Kollam, Saritha Nair wept and told that Biju blackmailed her with nude photos of her, and he also had nude photos of the murderred Reshmi.
Saritha said that while she and Biju were living together in Thiruvananthapuram, Biju had said that he had given “quotation” to kill Resmi.
When she asked Biju to register their marriage, he threatened her saying that it would take only “two minutes” to kill her. Biju had crushed her hands between doors, and landed blows on the back of her head. She wondered whether Reshmi might have been murdered in a similar way. She added that Biju had planned to kill her in a contrived car accident after he became intimate with the TV actress Shalu Menon.
Biju’s advocate while cross-examining Saritha asked her whether the stories she told were “mere speculation”. Saritha replied that they were what she personally experienced in her life.