www.thebuntline.com / email--buntline123@gmail.com

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Outsourcing Engineers of UPPCL staged Dharna for job continuity

By on Sunday, December 30, 2018
Kshitiz Kant; Lucknow
Since last 13 days Dharna by the UPPCL Outsourcing Engineers Association continues on its 14th day at Eco-garden Lucknow Saturday this week.
They are carrying this agitation for the continuity of their employment by the employer organisation UPPCL.
Mr Kundan, president of association, told the correspondent, " We were employed by the UPPCL for the PM's scheme 'Saubhagya' on the posts of mission manager and mission associate, but this scheme carved mere on the papers in the past 7 months, then it was closed in the files. Now the department is going to say us goodbye from our services."
Mr. Kundan added, ' We all were working in the different companies, and seeing the advertisement of UPPCL we all appeared in the interview and were appointed for. The interview was organised by the high officials of UPPCL. We were assured that we would be deployed for the work of assistant engineer and the junior engineer, but our fate is on the verge of collapse."
"The prospect avenues of our careers are on dead end. The outsourcing workmen engineers shall continue their Dharna till January3, 2019", they told.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

A battle of right continues by Shiksha Mitra from summer to winter

By on Saturday, December 29, 2018

Kshitiz Kant;Lucknow
A woman about 41, whenever I visit eco-garden Lucknow for my field news collection purpose, sits with her supporters to stage Dharna.  I have visited the place 4 to 6 times since May this year and have found her presence there.
Eco-garden was built up during the tenure of BSP government and is fully stoned built. The seasons make acute effect here on people. This week on Saturday afternoon when I asked Uma Devi who were teaching in government primary school as Shiksha Mitra in Kanpur Nagar, why she is there?
She told me, "We are leading the Shiksha Mitra in whole the state, our honorarium which was fixed Rs 40000 per month in the regime of previous government now has been slashed to Rs 10000 per month. Our demand is the honorarium to be maintained as earlier it was.  For this demand we had begun my Dharna in the month of May this year. It began after a mass protest against the Government's decision to slash ours perks. We have gone to demonstrate before the State Assembly. We have had our heads tonsured. We have faced all the tyrants since the May 18th in the scorching heat blow; now we are facing the winter gale too in the month of December."
We all are the followers of Mahatma Gandhi and shall face every difficulties whatever the government's action be.
It is noticeable that the High Court Allahabad had cancelled 1lakh 72 thousand Shiksha Mitra’s appointments. The apex court contended in its verdict that these candidates did not qualify the required eligibility.
The learned counsel for the aggrieved had said that “their recruitment were illegal.” The bench had heard sides of the respondent and the plaintiff’s argument to maintain the placement of Shiksha Mitra in government’s primary schools.
The High Court had said in its verdict that these candidates had not passed the TET, so their appointments could not be done on posts of Assitant Teachers; while the counsels for the Shiksha Mitr told to the court that these candidates were adjusted after the ruling of the government. The appointments had been done after a big shortage of teachers in primary schools.
The case was filed in the Supreme Court and the Apex court upheld the decision of high court Allahabad.
It is noticeable that the Shiksha Mitr’s intense agitation has been carried out next day of the Supreme Court’s verdict came.
Thousands of Shiksha Mitr had demonstrated in front of  the office of Sarvshiksha Abhiyan in Allahabad and protested and shouted slogans against the Modi government in the centre and Yogi’s government in UP. The demonstrators were demanding SLP in Supreme Court for their adjustment.
The demonstration took statewide intense protest and they were demanding from the government to bring an ordinance for adjustment so that their services in different primary school could be saved.
The condition of resolving this problem is in the government’s hand; no affirmative response or message has been so far sent from the government; the place where all Dharnas are performed by the people of state is also the witness of this lady. She is optimistic and waiting that her Satyagrah for the Shiksha Mitr of the state shall forced the state highness to a call from the government someday.

Eventually BJP ables to know farmers' woes before Parliamentary Election

By on Saturday, December 29, 2018

Kshitiz Kant;Lucknow
The Union Government is going to gift the farmers after the defeat of its ruling government in 5 states in the recent Assembly Election. According to the source, the Union Government may waive the earned interest of farmers who have taken loans and paying its instalments uniformly on time to the banks.
The burden of this outlay of government treasure shall bear about 15 thousand crore additional fund. Moreover there is a plan, or say recommendation, to waive the insurance premium completely and also is in mood to slash the rate of insurance premium.
Actually the BJP has lost its ruling government in Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and Rajasthan assembly election after the announcement of results in November 18. The concluded defeat was the consequence of the stress among farmers’ resentment in the rural. The high level meetings in last few days over these issues were held to resolve the agricultural sector where the government is in mood to provide the farmers immediate relief like 4 percent interests rebate over the loans taken by the farmers and had been returned its instalment by them on time. The plan to remove the problem of MSP and high production of crops was thoroughly discussed.
The farmers are lending the loans on 7% interest rates up to 3 lakhs. the farmers who are paying the interest on time are being given additional 3% rebate since beginning; and in general, 2% interest rebate to the farmers and 5% assistance on loan interest to have been paid on time is to burdened over the government plan of Rs 15 thousand crore per annum.
if the subsidy on interest to the farmers who have been paying the loans instalments on time are given, it shall bear the burden Rs 3 thousand crore.
The intention of union government is clear here to lure the farmers before the parliamentary election 2019; where the Uttar Pradesh shall play an important role to form next government in the centre, in the wake of all these aspects Uttar Pradesh government has issued an order on December 14; and the fund of 13 billion 44 crore for the marginal and the small farmers’ loan waiving and 1 billion 50 crore for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes have been released for the FY 2018-19.
The Union Government is intending to provide the relief in the PMFBY. Under this scheme, there has been made the provisions to give up the premiums on the food crops, and to rebate relief on horticulture crop. Under the scheme of PMFBY, the farmers are to pay the premium of 2% on Khareef crops; 1.5% on Rabi crops; 5% on horticulture and occupational crops. The outstanding premiums are paid by the Union and states government equally in two-half. The farmers are paying premiums of 5 thousand crore Rupees on Khareef and Rabi. If the premiums are given up, the burden over the farmers shall be offloaded.
Let us see how these huge relief funds is to make its way up to the peasants in last 3 months of this financial year and is to benefit in extracting their votes for the BJP is the affirmative subject of analysis on field?

Friday, December 28, 2018

Woman's throat slit in Unnao; police is yet to trap murderer

By on Friday, December 28, 2018

A woman, 21, was murdered in Monday morning this week when she was out from home to relieve herself.
According to police, when Goldie Yadav did not return to her home in Sevakkheda village in Maurawa village under district Unnao 50 kilometer away and an adjoining area of state capital Uttar Pradesh, the family members began to search for her. The autopsy report stated the throat slit and the profuse bleeding from the body caused the death. The FIR by the next kin of deceased lodged against unidentified persons. The family ruled out the possibility of any enmity, according to the police. Police suspected the murder could be related t a love affair.
According to the kin, they came to know on information that their daughter was lying unconscious a few yards away near Smadhi Sthal in Sitaram garden. The father Shiv Kumar and her mother rushed to the spot and found that the daughter was lying in pool of blood.
She was assaulted with the sharp edge weapon on neck and on the hand. They tried to cease blood; but it had no chance.
The motive behind this murder is yet to be ascertained; it is clear that the woman had to appear before the medical board Lucknow for the appointment on December 27.
The deceased and her brother both had been studying in a coaching centre at Gurubux ganj for the past two years.
A few people disclosed that the high scream of voice was overheard, but the murder attempt could not be guessed so severe. The murderer,Satish, had called by cellphone , her uncle disclosed

Thursday, December 27, 2018


By on Thursday, December 27, 2018

We can question the judgements of the high court and the Supreme Court. Yes, there is no bar to this.
The Supreme Court, from time to time, even reviews its own judgements which are deemed it to be incorrect now. Some of the examples are: the State entry tax matter, and Bangalore water supply case, and many more.  In this way the Supreme Court, when satisfied about the flaw in the judgement, adjudicates under its power of review.
The Supreme Court delivered a judgement this month on Rafale fighter jet procurement giving a clean chit to the government. Let us understand what the apex court of a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India has said in its judgement-
(1)    There is no occasion to doubt the process of decision making in the award of contract for the purchase of 36 Rafale jets. It is not the Court’s job to get into comparative pricing details.
(2)  The apex court said, “We don’t find any material to show that it’s commercial favoritism.” “We are satisfied that there is no occasion to doubt the process. A country cannot afford to be underprepared. It is not correct for the court to sit as an appellant authority and scrutinize all aspects”.
(3)  There is no reason for interference in the choice of offset partner and perception of individuals can’t be the basis for roving inquiry in sensitive issue of defense procurement. We can’t compel the government to purchase 126 aircrafts and it’s not proper for the court to examine each aspect of this case. It isn’t a job of the court to compare pricing details.
(4)  The top court also said, “There has been the necessity of fighter aircraft and the country cannot remain without fighter jets.” Nobody questioned procurement of Rafale jets when the deal was finalized in September 2016, it said. The court also noted there is a need for induction of fourth and fifth generation of fighter aircrafts like Rafale in Indian Air Force.


This has been said by many legal brains in the country that Article 136 and Article 32 of the Indian Constitution limits the Supreme Court to decide the issues like pricing, the purchase process, the sovereign guarantee and the corruption in the Rafale contract and possibly having looked at it they (the judges) have again said in Para 15 that we are constricted by our power of judicial review.
They have again said in Para 34 that our judgment is purely from the standpoint of our power under Article 32. They have further added that “It was made clear that issue of pricing or matters relating to technical suitability of the equipment would not be gone into by the Court. They have again said in Para 15 that we are constricted by our power of judicial review. Therefore, the only two options seem to be possible and they are either JPC or CBI to find out and decide who are the persons who are accused and then the process of law must be set in motion. The central government presented “one-sided half-baked” information to the SC on “an unsigned affidavit” which was not available for scrutiny.
The final judgment shows that there are a number of details, and arguments, that the court has either ignored, side-stepped or merely accepted at face-value without further questioning. I shall like to bring them up point wise-
 The manner in which the benchmark price for the 36-Rafale-deal was changed in the last moment has been the central issue of difference. In particular, debate has centered on how a senior defense ministry official’s objections were overruled.
 And that the final decision to opt for a formula that delivered a higher benchmark price was taken not by the defense ministry or Minister Manohar Parrikar; but by the Cabinet Committee for Security.
The question also raises eyebrow about why Defense Acquisition Council, the top most institution to decide the pricing in any defense purchase and headed by Defense Minister is bypassed? A former senior defense ministry official Sudanshu Mohanty is reported to have expressed his surprise in which the change was approved as “strange, even queer”.
Further, as per the information available in public domain, the Defense Acquisition Council headed by the defense minister and consisting of all top MoD brasses didn’t recommend the case, instead left it to the Cabinet Committee on Security to take a call. Why? This needs to be looked into. Why this level jumping was structured? While this issue could technically fall under the ‘pricing’ aspect of the Rafale deal, which the Supreme Court has chosen not to examine, it clearly highlights that there were not-insignificant deviations in the procurement process.
 “We cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of deciding to go in for purchase of 36 aircrafts (sic) in place of 126”, the Supreme Court said, sidestepping the real issue at hand: the speed and manner in which the UPA-era, 126-aircraft deal was shelved and a new 36-aircraft contract was agreed upon without the procedures prescribed for this actually being followed. This has been a very strong point and SC should have considered it but it did not.
The apex court acknowledges that a “process of withdrawal” of request for purchase (RFP) for the 126-jets was initiated in March 2015 and a new Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) was signed for 36 aircraft a few weeks later in April 2015. The apex court doesn’t see that following important issues have been raised by the petitioners which still remain unanswered till to this day by the Supreme Court. 
(a)   The government has not been able to present the requisite papers for this “process of withdrawal” in the court till today.
(b)  Why were defence minister Manohar Parrikar and foreign secretary S Jaishankar not kept in the loop about this process? 
(c)  Why did Dassault CEO Eric Trappier say that the 126-aircraft deal was “95% complete” on March 28, 2015, if the process for withdrawal of RFP had already been initiated by then? What was the process undertaken before the IGA was signed? Who was consulted?  By not even trying to take a look at these questions, or trying to obtain an answer during the court hearings, there appears to be a significant hole in the apex court’s assessment that there is no reason to doubt the procurement process.
A sovereign guarantee is a reassurance that is commonly found in defense contracts that are signed between governments. The lack of such a guarantee was discussed during the court hearings and finds a brief acknowledgement in the judgment, as part of a summary of the petitioner’s arguments.
However, the verdict stops short of examining its significance or implication and does not discuss what it might mean for the manner in which the Rafale deal was negotiated by the Modi government.
The Supreme Court also ignored concerns raised about the government of India dropping India as a seat of arbitration in the event of any dispute arises with France.
 When the Supreme Court took up the petitions, it made it clear that it would not go into the “issue of pricing” or “matters relating to technical suitability of the equipment”. Nevertheless, in the course of the hearings, it directed the Modi government to submit details “with regard to pricing and the advantages thereof” in a sealed cover. Here’s where things get confusing. The court notes that it has examined all the price details and item-wise costing carefully, but then merely states that the government has claimed “there is a commercial advantage in the purchase of 36 aircraft” and that there are “certain better terms” with regard to the weapons package. The SC further adds that “It is certainly not the job of this Court to carry out a comparison of the pricing details in matters like the present.  We say no more as the material has to be kept in a confidential domain”.
The Supreme Court appears to place a great deal of emphasis on former French president Francois Hollande’s controversial remarks that Anil Ambani was foisted on the French side by India as an offset partner. However, the significance of Hollande’s remarks lie not in their content, but because of the controversy they triggered. Indeed, the judgement implies – wrongly – that suspicion over the Rafale deal began only after “certain newspapers reported a statement claimed to have been made by Hollande.
With regard to India pushing Anil Ambani’s Reliance forward as an offset partner, the verdict says: “There has been a categorical denial, from every side, of the interview given by the former French president seeking to suggest that it is the Indian government which had given no option to the French government in the matter.” 
There are two problems with this line of reasoning. 

Firstly, questions over potential irregularities in the Rafale deal happened as soon as the deal was announced and then started to build up a year later. The Hollande remark, which suggested potential cronyism, only exacerbated existing concerns and certainly did not spark them.
Secondly, there has not been a “categorical denial, from every side” with regard to Hollande’s remark. Essentially, the Supreme Court has accepted a number of weak denials, and believes these comprehensively remove the doubts Hollande’s sensational claim raised. 

As was advertised by different NDA ministers over the past few months that it was UPA tenure when the offset was finalized and the implication will be that an impression will go across the masses that Dassault CEO Eric Trappier have tried to say that by choosing Anil Ambani’s Reliance Infrastructure as an offset partner for the 36-Rafale-deal, they are merely continuing a partnership that Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries had with Dassault back in 2012. This also implies that this partnership was forged during the UPA era and has been carried over, thus providing a buffer to the NDA-II administration. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. The partnership that Mukesh Ambani had with Dassault in 2012 has nothing to do with the partnership between Anil Ambani and the same company in 2015.The Supreme Court also appears to be similarly confused or misled because on page  25 of the verdict, it gets it right by acknowledging that after Dassault became the lowest bidder for the 126-aircraft-deal in 2012, it partnered with Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries, a company it differentiates from Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence by calling the former “another business group”. On the very next page though, it quotes a Dassault press release that suggests that while Anil Ambani’s Reliance Aerostructure came into being in the “recent past”, there was “possibly an arrangement between the parent Reliance company and Dassault starting from the year 2012”.
These points are absolutely wrong and the Supreme Court’s verdict ignores, confuses and dangerously mixes up basic facts is a worrying sign.
It is by relying in part on an untruthful defense deployed by Dassault and the BJP party leaders that the apex court concludes there is no “substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party”. 
One narrative put forth by the Modi government for the need to quickly shift to a smaller 36-aircraft-deal through an intergovernmental agreement is that the public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd proved to be an obstacle in clearing the larger 126-jet-contract.
The Supreme Court verdict summarises the problems that HAL allegedly posed – higher man-hours, contractual obligations and delays – and notes that it was because of this stalemate that the process of RFP withdrawal began in March 2015. The problem with this is two-fold. First, public statements made by Dassault indicated that the problems with HAL had been largely resolved. Secondly, in September 2018, former HAL boss T. Suvarna Raju indicated that a work-share-agreement between the defense PSU and Dassault had actually been signed. This brings us to a larger point. If the Supreme Court summoned senior Indian Air force officials to verify the Modi government’s claim that the Rafale was urgently needed, why was Raju or other former HAL officials not asked to provide testimony on whether the 126-aircraft tender was essentially dead and over by March 2015? The evidence that Raju or others could have provided would have shed some light on the Modi government’s Rafale timeline.
The court notes the contention of the petitioners that under the Defence Procurement Guidelines for 2013, the government is allowed to purchase weapons and weapons systems through the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) route under three conditions: 
(a) Proven technology and capabilities belonging to a friendly foreign country is identified by our Armed Forces while participating in joint international exercises;
(b) Large value weapon system/platform in service in a friendly foreign country is available for transfer or sale normally at a much lesser cost; or
(c) Requirement of procuring a specific state¬ of¬ the ¬art equipment/platform where the Government of the OEM’s country might have imposed restriction on its sale and thus the equipment cannot be evaluated on ‘No Cost No Commitment’ basis. (emphasis added)
The petitioners had contended that none of these conditions were met and the court appears to concede as much by noting that “minor deviations” in process may have occurred:“We have studied the material carefully. We have also had the benefit of interacting with senior Air Force officers who answered court queries in respect of different aspects, including that of the acquisition process and pricing. We are satisfied that there is no occasion to really doubt the process, and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the court.” Having said this, the court then weakens its own argument – the entire logic of which is built around the imperative of military necessity – by adding gratuitously: “We have been informed that joint exercises have taken place and that there is a financial advantage to our nation”. (emphasis added).After suggesting that the absence of the precondition for an IGA may be a minor deviation, the fact that the court felt compelled to clutch at the fig leaf of ‘joint exercises’ to justify the deal for an aircraft that had been in the IAF’s radar for more than a decade suggests the judges are not fully convinced by their own logic.
Hours after the full-text of the Supreme Court verdict became available publicly; one paragraph on the CAG audit of the Rafale deal drew more attention than the rest. At one point, which addresses the pricing aspect of the 36-aircraft-contract, the judgement notes: The pricing details have, however, been shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General (hereinafter referred to as“CAG”), and the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee (hereafter referred to as “PAC”). Only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament, and is in public domain. (Page 25)There has been no report on CAG published as yet and this is the problem area.
WE SOLICIT YOUR COMMENTS: www.buntline123@gmail.com

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

House in RBI autonomy

By on Tuesday, December 25, 2018

The dispute between the RBI and the Government during the month of November this year was at its top. The experts were aware of that RBI Governor Urjit Patel would resign any time, but then Urjit Patel’s meet with the PM Modi and there were signs of reconciliation between the RBI and the government.
The expert watchmen of economic issues assumed it a ceasefire and it began to appear that everything between the RBI and the government has been going well since then. The Market comes to regain its confidence.
But suddenly news of RBI governor’s resignation, abiding one month period, spreads. Even Urjit Patel resignation on own reasons was like others who had left their posts during this tenure.
The time of leaving his post on December 10 when there was going on a preparation for the meeting to be held on December 14 was amazing.
Actually, what had happened that Urjit Patel, kept on facing the war of government, stand for; and when the ceasefire declared between the both organizations, he resigned. The experts are admitting that the compromise was the part of a strategy of the both sides: Tu Dal-Dal, Mai Pat-Pat.
The experts watchmen over the activities of RBI say that when the dispute began that the government had intended to extract the fund of Rs 3.5 lakh crore in the reserve treasure of RBI, the government initially took an attacking stand for the issue. Even the government had resolved to use the RBI Act 7-- through it the government can issue directives to RBI; but in the 83 years of RBI’s history none government dared to use this Act.
The consequence of the government’s triggering over was that the matter become centred on the autonomy of RBI. According to the experts, Urjit Patel had tacit determination that if the section 7 of RBI act had been used, he would have resigned from his post. That Modi government implicated in the CBI matter did not intend to open two fronts simultaneously, so it resorted clement way over the issue; but the internal spat was continued.
The RBI and the government had concluded on what in the past meeting of board held in November was understood to have been the 'deed of solution' between the RBI and the government: one of these was that the RBI had restricted the 11 banks' lending of loans under the prompt corrective action, they were to be loosen to do so. The board meeting had concluded that an internal committee of RBI would sit and provide relax on the restriction of loan lending. even it had been agreed upon in the November meeting on this matter that the conditions to grant the loans upto 25 crore under the MSME would be easy.
The experts admit that a little clemency of Modi government had the thinking that the problem of funds of small industries and the markets in the electoral year should be reformed first, the matter of reserve treasure would be solved later, but it didn't happen because perhaps Urjit Patel was thinking like an expert economic professional.
That reason behind Urjit and his team were agreed upon to slack in the PCA framework was so because they were also first intending to ease government stress over them. It confirmed that the RBI had not relieved. The internal committee of RBI sat together to consider about the concession; but there were no decision taken finally to give concession to the banks in loan lending. Moreover there were no sign of much affirmative steps on the ease conditions to lend the loans in connection with the MSME which badly affected with the GST and the demonetistion.
The government had understood that it can garner a vantage immediately on the both issue, but that the way RBI was adopting to consider toughly on the issue could not reach it to a conclusion after 20 days of this meeting.
The government’s tenure is to end and the FY is in the electoral year, so the Modi government puzzled on the matter of economic front was disquiet over the Urjit Patel's attitude.
The finance ministry had felt that Urjit Patel was taking so tough step over the relax to the banks in the loan lending issues, and then he would never agreed upon the reserve treasure of RBI.
The government by obtaining the fund in reserve of RBI before the election has been intending to lure with the public interesting projects. That the effect of pressure on this issue was that an agreement concluded in the last RBI board meeting how much fund should reserve RBI and how much it should share with the government—both of them would form a committee to consider.
The officers of finance ministry after the board meeting began to release its statement that the RBI early would constitute an experts committee to decide the capital frame work, which would report it within one month. The experts were seeing it like government's maintaining pressure over the RBI; but there had not been availed any progress. there were differences between the RBI and the government that under whose leadership the committee should be formed.
The sincerity that was inkling in the RBI after board meeting of 19 November by all these reasons began to broken. The experts says that the known delegates of protecting the government’s favour, Mr Gurumurti and his team had got signal of posing the issue in the next meeting of board, which straight linked to the  RBI’s autonomy property.
Gurumurti and his team had already said, “The RBI governor is not the chief of Reserve Bank but its board is”.
While in traditional concept, the RBI’s autonomy can be meant that the board might opine mere over general management and economic matter where the governor and his team take the policy decision.
The experts say that the Modi governmet which was sofar avoiding it was then agreed by the statement of Gurumurti that the board governing RBI would be better in government’s relationship. The experts see it in this way that the decision would be kept on according to the government opinion and the governor’s role would be least. The significance of economy in the world so far has been letting that the Indian central bank is free from government.
It was clear that Urjit Patel had already understood that the rift between the RBI and the government had been much for the control rather any conceptual disagreement.
But he felt that he might be targeted personally; consequently he resigned before the board meeting of December 14. That his concept was wrong cannot be denied because it was in limelight that the government desired to sit an IAS officer instead an economist. Mr Shashikant Das has replaced now Urjit Patel.
The relation can be assessed between the RBI and Urjit Patel that even he did not thank formally in his resignation letter to the finance minister and the prime minister.
The writer is Editor; your comments are solicited
visit us on: www. Kshitizkant11@gmail.com 

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Ruling BJP loses in 3 States; long waiting Congress ends its exile

By on Wednesday, December 12, 2018

The congress party in Madhya Pradesh is to near the majority point. According to the votes counting trends till evening, the congress is running ahead on 115 assembly seats; while the numbers of general majority of the 230 assembly seats are 116.
The ruling BJP has won 3 seats so far as shown on trends of election commission websites; while it is running ahead on 103 seats – resulting assembly seats are added to the ruling party, which is 106, short of majority seats 9!
Gondwana Gantantra Party (GGP) and Samajwadi party both has declared their supports to the Indian National Congress, according to the report.

One of GGP and two of SP candidates are running ahead in the state. So the majority statistics of assembly seats in these conditions reach to the 118 which seem that the congress is to form government with majority.
Just so far 3 results have been declared, and these go to the ruling BJP where the BSP on 2, and independent including others are on 4 running ahead.

Former Prime Minister; HD Devegowda
The intentions of making India 'Congress-free','opposition-free' shows the arrogance of BJP. The people have made this nation 'arrogance-free' by voting out BJP. Atleast now, the BJP should put some efforts to make this nation 'problem-free' and stop the unwanted 'travel-spree'.

Monday, December 10, 2018


By on Monday, December 10, 2018

Surgical strike carried out on September 29th, 2016 was meant to be Prime Minister’s moment of glory. Now it looks like a sham. The Indian Army also called it a great success. This operation was shrouded with controversy right from the day one when its video was leaked to the public.
First, there was an intense debate on whether the government should publish videos or photographic evidence of the strike after Pakistan claimed that no such strike had taken place. Similar demands, made by politicians such as Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, were dubbed “anti-national.” They were projected by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and some news channels, as questioning the Indian Army itself. This was not as if this kind of operation never happened before, but they were not to be made public.
As part of the government’s policy of “strategic restraint,” the government allowed the army to deal with cross-border actions against Pakistan at an “operational, tactical level.”One of the important national news paper “The Hindu” published a detailed account   of “Operation Ginger,” carried out in 2011. This “strike” was executed to avenge the killing and beheading of Indian soldiers.
During Operation Ginger, Indian soldiers meted out the same treatment to Pakistani personnel across the LoC. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s national security adviser, Shiv Shankar Menon, added his weight to these claims. Covert operations were not announced to the country because the primary goal was to pacify the LoC and cut down infiltration and ceasefire violations, not to manage public opinion at home.
 By keeping operations covert rather than overt, it was made possible for the Pakistan Army to climb down and for a temporary peace to be re-established.
Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar, had reportedly decided to launch a surgical strike across the border while watching a television live debate and it sounds so ridiculous that it is incomprehensible to any sound bodied person.
 BJP did not lose any time to take its political mileage as some of its leaders in UP started reminding all of us that prime minister’s Modi’s chest is “56 inches wide” and posters also appeared in UP celebrating the surgical strike, juxta positioning the prime minister’s photo with the image of the silent soldier and some handy text threatening Pakistan.
In some of these, Prime Minister was also portrayed as Lord Ram and his Pakistani counterpart as the demon king Ravana.
Party president, Amit Shah, said, “We will go to the people with this issue—because every responsible party should motivate the army.”
 The then Defense Minister, Manohar Parikar, had compared the Indian Army to Hanuman (the powerful monkey god). In the epic Ramayana, Hanuman, who could move mountains, had to be made aware of his capabilities by Jambawan (the bear king) and he also planned a “victory rally” in his home state Goa; but following criticism, he postponed it.


Yesterday (7th December 2018), Lt General (retired) D S Hooda, who was the Northern Army Commander in September 2016 when Indian troops carried out surgical strikes on terror launch pads along the Line of Control in the wake of the Uri attack, said the “overhype” of the strikes did not help and “it is not good” when “military operations get politicized”.
 He was speaking in a seminar on the ‘Role of Cross-Border Operations and Surgical Strikes’ at the ongoing Military Literature Festival and he further added that, following the surgical strikes, there were accusations that the issue had been politicized, that there was an “attempt to keep a purely military operation in the political domain by selective leaks of videos, photographs etc”.
He did not stop here and said, “Did the overhype help? I say, completely no. If you start having political resonance in military operations, it is not good. There was too much political banter, on both sides, and when military operations get politicized, that is not good.”
On the possibility of the strikes impacting the thought process of decision-makers in future operations, the former Army Commander said “if you hype a successful operation, then even success has its burden”. He further added that Indian army will think twice next time (what) if there are casualties because it has been so overhyped, and politicized. 
Have we ever thought that what happens if it does not have the same level of success? It may impose some caution in future. If the country had done it quietly, it would have been much better. The strikes were purely tactical in nature with short-term goals and of no strategic value to deter the Pakistan Army from backing future terror attacks. 
The retired general summed it up at the end that when his team was planning it, there was no thought in their mind that Pakistan would stop doing Uri-like incidents.
The conclusion of his talk is very clear and a very straight message has been sent about this government’s Pakistan policy, “As we all know that the aim of the strikes could have been fulfilled through artillery fire. We had had massive artillery duels, but it was not helping.

Monday, December 03, 2018

'Kala Ke Rang Kumbh Ke Sangh' workshop organised at DSMNRU Lucknow

By on Monday, December 03, 2018

Artists from different part of India are  in 3 days workshop at DSMNRU fine art faculty
Professor Rajendra Singh and Professor Avdhesh Mishra
Kshitiz Kant and Shubhra Singh;Lucknow
Kumbh Mela is a mass Hindu Pilgrimage of faith in which Hindus gather to bathe in a sacred or holy river traditionally. 4 fairs  are widely recognised as the Kumbh Melas; namely, the Haridwar Kumbh Mela, the Prayag Kumbh Mela, the Nasik, and the Ujjain. These 4 fairs are held periodically at one of the following places by rotation: Haridwar, Prayag, Nasik and Ujjain. The main festival site is located on the banks of a river- the Ganges(Ganga at Haridwar; The confluence(Sangam) of the Gangees and Yamuna and the invisible saraswati at Prayag; The Godawri at Nasik; and the Shipra at Ujjain. The holy dip in these rivers is thought to cleanse a person of all their sins The Kumbh is held once in 12 years.
The origin of this festival is found in the ancient legend of Samudra Manthan. The story is very intresting and tells the battle between the Devas and Asuras for the drink of immortality.
One of the major event of the Kumbh Mela is the Peshwai procession (Nanga Sadhus)who take holy dips, which makes the arrival of the numbers of an Akhada or sect of Sadhus at the Kumbh Mela. The major event of the festival is the ritual bathing at the banks of the river in which town Kumbh Mela being held.
Kumbh mela is to be held next month in District Praayag Raj (Old Name Allahabad); in this connection the whole story of Kumbh is being displayed by paintings on the wall of central Jail Naini. This project is named "Paint My City". The Government of Uttar Pradesh will have to art painting made on the area of 20,000 sq meter outside the wall of main gate of this jail, for this can be recorded in Genis book of world record.  "The Bunt Line" team visited Sakuntala Misra Rehabilitation Univirsity Lucknow on Sunday afternoon where an all India camp for the painting held in the faculty of fine art at University Campus.
 An assignment with the central idea or theme that based on 'Kala Ke Rang Kumbh Ke Sangh' in this camp workshop was given to the participants, which is going on . 47 of the 50 invitees were present here. Many of them are from Assam, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi and different part of UP in this camp, who were apprised to the team for their artworks by Shubhra Singh at university hall Block A1.
Ms. Shubra Singh introduces and makes many participants talked of their works to the team.