Language policy of Singapore

As a matter of fact, Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, who passed away recently, made 4 languages as Official Languages of Singapore-English, Tamil, Malay, Mandarin. This means every single document published by the government would be in all the 4 languages.

Singapore has a bilingual education policy where medium of instruction is English and the other language being the student's mother tongue.

This policy also has its own minor flaws. But it was the best available one to accommodate the interests of the Diverse groups.

The majority linguistic group was intelligent enough to understand that English could not be done away and they also didn't impose their own language on the minority linguistic groups. The majority linguistic group also didnt claim that identity of singapore is their language only.

Singapore was ruled by the British and got later separated from Malaysia. But they never insisted that English and Malay languages must be thrown away from their country.

Singapore is an example of how a nation can progress, (only) if diversity is accepted and accomodated

P.S.This post is just a fact which has been posted because Mr. Lee Kuan Yew passed away. It has nothing to do with any other language policy followed by any other country in the Solar System.

Churchill's prophecy

"If Indians won dominion status, A triumphant brahmin oligarchy would drive out the moslem minority and grind the untouchables into the dust. Gandhi's wealthy backers would extract their fortunes from the sweat of the poor; graft and corruption would become the rule of the day......"

These are the words of Winston Churchill in 1931 when Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed and Irwin had accepted dominion status in principle.


Looking at events like Hashimpura massacre, Bathani Tola massacre, Laxmanpur Bathe massacre and the way judicial system failed to punish the perpetrators, I feel that churchill was right to a certain extent. The triumphant brahmin oligarchy is not there. Instead we have casteism and religious intolerance. We also have the triumphant dominant caste hindus in every region, in every arm of bueraucracy and politics who will keep proving that Churchill was indeed right.

India's Daughter

I remember one politician whose name starts with 'M' and ends with 'Singh' remarking that "Boys make mistakes and so rapists should not be hanged".

An Interesting coincidence is that a rape convict whose name is 'Mukesh Singh' justifies his crime in a similar tone.

The existence of people with mentality of 'Mr.Singh' in politics itself shows that they merely reflect the mentality of our society.

In the continuum of 'patriarchy' on one extreme and 'Equality' on the other extreme, some of us are placed close to patriarchy while some are close to equality. We are in fact part of, and also responsible for every crime which happen against women.

Dowry would have ended long back if we had stopped demanding it atleast after a prohibition law was enacted. Female foetuses would not have been aborted without the connivance of doctors and parents. Secret cam videos would not have gone viral without we sharing them in Whatsapp. Serials and movies glorifying violence against women and commodifying women would not be telecast unless we enjoy watching it. Dark-skinned women would not be ridiculed in fairness cream ads if our families don't prefer for fair-skinned bride. Khap panchayats would not have been dictating the time at which women should venture out and their dress code without our approval. Religious leaders would not have been distinguishing between rural and urban rapes without our support they enjoy.

We are completely okay when a religious leader or a politician echoes our patriarchal views. But we become hysterical when a rape convict echoes the similar views!!!

The documentary 'India's Daughter' clearly shows that crime against women is a social problem, and it is the mindset of the society which is the reason for such crimes. Stringent laws alone cannot stop such crimes, a change in the mindset among us(men as well as women) is what is needed.

Instant Justice and Anarchy

The behaviour of AAP MLAs in Burari police station shows the mindset of instant justice has not changed among these people.

A member of legislative assembly is not a part of the 'Executive' and has no right to give directions to police. Then what was the reason for these MLAs to go to a police station at first place for a kidnapping case?

It reminds me of the incident last year involving the law minister Somnath Bharti where he was on the spot directing the police without understanding the role demarcation between a Political Executive and Permanent Executive(the bueraucracy)

There is a procedure('Rule of Law') by which the police or for that matter anyone in Bureaucracy has to act. 

The mentality of this crowd to deliver instant justice has not changed at all. During the Anti-corruption movement Mr. Anna hazare , touting himself as a Gandhian asked for death penalty for the corrupt, and poked his nose into the legislature by demanding his nominees be present in the committee drafting lokpal bill. That was the first instance in Indian political history where persons not elected by the voters got involved in legislating business, thereby disrespecting the established procedures.
There is no doubt that the descendants of such a movement too have this same mentality.

It is high time that we realise subverting democratic institutions and established procedures will bring more harm than good to the society. Agreed, that the existing institutions and procedures have drawbacks. The way ahead is to reform them and not to subvert them. 

Two auctions

Two auctions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is for the coal blocks. The allocation done by the then UPA government was cancelled last year and SC ordered to auction them. The auction is going on and the bidding amounts proves that the coal blocks were indeed allocated at under rates. So the revenue loss for the exchequer is about to get compensated after the auctions are over.

The next auction is for designer coat suit with name printed worth 10 lakhs. The fund collected through auction is going to be invested to clean ganga. 
Does the ends justify the means?? With 75% of countrymen barely sustaining themselves with $2 per day, was it necessary for the executive head of such a country to wear such an expensive suit at first place. 

If auctioning the suit and investing the amount to clean ganga will purify the sins, then auctioning the coal blocks and compensating the exchequer too must absolve one of the crime committed. Can a theft or corruption be undone just by recovering the assets without any other punishment?? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Apollo mission and Interstellar movie

The Apollo mission(landing on the moon) was one of the glorious one in the scientific history of USA.

In the movie Interstellar, a school teacher says that "it was a brilliant piece of propaganda which made soviets pour money into useless rockets and machines". A high-profile movie taken in USA  comes with such a scene ridiculing one the historical achievements of USA, based on the conspiracy theories surrounding Apollo mission. Yet there were no  protests or fatwa against the movie,

Besides theory of relativity, gravitational time dilation and other scientific aspects, one thing which the Indians must learn from this movie is how the American society respects freedom of speech.

In India every popular personality, every event, every society and way of living that existed in the past is converted as 'sacred' that any criticism of these is attacked and suppressed. Instead of bragging about our ability to reproduce at faster rates by terming India as 'biggest' democracy, let us realise soon that democracy is not only about 'free and fair' conduct of elections but also about freedom of speech.

Dropping 'secularism' from preamble and Civil Service conduct rules

"Nothing wrong in Sena's demand for deletion of 'secular' from Preamble of Constitution. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and B R Ambedkar were "more intelligent" than the present day Congress leaders and did not include 'secular' and 'socialist' words in the original preamble of the Constitution":-Ravishankar Prasad

The constitution makers were no-doubt intelligent than the present political leaders.They were more faithful and trusted the future politicians that they will lead India in a proper path.

It was this blind faithfulness which they had on the future generations that led to them not finding the necessity to include the word "secular" in the Preamble for Indian Constitution.

And regarding the intelligence of constitution-makers, they were very well aware that constitution must not be so rigid, so that it can be amended suitably to adopt change and not so very flexible that some ideology-driven party securing majority in lok sabha can amend it to suit their needs.

Don't confuse "intelligence" with "blind-trust".

There is something terribly wrong with Shiv sena's demand to delete the word "secular" from the preamble and the Law minister's support to it.

1. Secularism is the basic structure of the constitution which the Judiciary has upheld in its various judgements.

2. The reason that secularism was not in the original preamble and so it can be removed is akin to demanding that the subsequent amendments(99 in total till dec 2014) also can be nullified as they amended the original constitution.

3. As already mentioned above, sorry for the trust the constitution-makers had over the future political leaders and voters.
Just like Article 356("President rule") which was introduced hoping that it would remain a dead letter but turned soon to be a deadly weapon by future leaders, likewise it seems the 'spirit' of "secularism" too will be wiped out soon from the constitution before the word "secularism" gets dropped from the preamble.

4. I can understand the ruling party's zeal to implement the original constitution. Please begin with the "Directive Principles of State Policy"(Part IV) instead of the preamble. Because preamble was enacted after the rest of the constitution was enacted and it is non-justiciable and of ornamental significance.

--One civil servant wants to post this as his FB status. Is it wrong as per civil service conduct rules?? Civil servants please enlighten me