Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has attacked the Tony Blair government for encouraging a society in which ethnic minorities were defined almost exclusively by their religion and for allegedly endorsing establishment of faith schools. He also said that faith schools, barring those run by Christians, should be scrapped.
Christian schools "are perfectly acceptable" but other faith schools "are a big mistake and should be scrapped if the Government wants to encourage a unifying British identity," Sen said in an interview to Daily Telegraph.
Claiming that the faith schools have been set up since the Government wanted to give them parity with Christian institutions, he said, "I am actually absolutely appalled."
Sen, who has come from Harvard, is on a Britain tour delivering lectures on how religion is being used to pull this country apart and to encourage inter-communal violence.
Speaking at the Nehru Centre last night, Sen praised Britain's multi-cultural society but criticised the Blair government for what he called two serious policy blunders - increasingly encouraging a society in which ethnic minorities were defined almost exclusively by their religion and endorsing the establishment of faith schools.
In the interview, Sen said, "Christian schools have evolved and often provide a much more tolerant atmosphere than a purely religious school would. A lot of people in the Middle East or India or elsewhere have been educated in Christian schools. A lot of my friends came from St Xavier's in Kolkata- I don't think they were indoctrinated particularly in Christianity." But the new generation of faith schools "are not going to be like that," he added.
Although he wanted mainstream British schools to broaden their curriculum to include more on the contribution of, say, Muslim mathematicians to science, Sen said faith schools "are a pretty bad thing. Educationally, it's not good for the child.
"From the point of view of national unity, it's dreadful because, even before a child begins to think, it's being defined by its 'community', which is primarily religion. That also drowns out all other cultural things like language and literature. I am a believer in the importance of British identity."
But he wanted the definition to be framed in such a way that allowed the evolution of a "plural multi-cultural society", rather than a "mono-cultural" one in which different groups lived side by side with little interaction.
"We have many different identities because we belong to many differe nt groups. We are connected with our profession, occupation, class, gender, political views and language, literature, taste in music, involvement in social issues - and also religion. But just to separate out religion as one singularly important identity that has over-arching importance is a mistake.
"One of the problems of what is happening in Britain today is that one identity, the religious identity, has been taken to represent almost everything." "Of course, this policy immediately has the effect of making some people extremely privileged - those who speak in the name of religion. There may be some moderate people but mostly they are extremists," he added.
"Religion has been inadvertently politicised by the UK government in a way that is counter-productive. It makes the battle against terrorism so hamfisted and clumsy," he said.
All i can say is WOW....Christian schools "are perfectly acceptable" but other faith schools "are a big mistake and should be scrapped if the Government wants to encourage a unifying British identity," Sen said in an interview to Daily Telegraph.
Claiming that the faith schools have been set up since the Government wanted to give them parity with Christian institutions, he said, "I am actually absolutely appalled."
Sen, who has come from Harvard, is on a Britain tour delivering lectures on how religion is being used to pull this country apart and to encourage inter-communal violence.
Speaking at the Nehru Centre last night, Sen praised Britain's multi-cultural society but criticised the Blair government for what he called two serious policy blunders - increasingly encouraging a society in which ethnic minorities were defined almost exclusively by their religion and endorsing the establishment of faith schools.
In the interview, Sen said, "Christian schools have evolved and often provide a much more tolerant atmosphere than a purely religious school would. A lot of people in the Middle East or India or elsewhere have been educated in Christian schools. A lot of my friends came from St Xavier's in Kolkata- I don't think they were indoctrinated particularly in Christianity." But the new generation of faith schools "are not going to be like that," he added
Funny part is he is a hindu and that too a nobel prize winner who frequently gives advise to our gobermintnawabs wrote:Only Christian faith schools are acceptable: Amartya Sen
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... s-religionNobel Laureate Amartya Sen has attacked the Tony Blair government for encouraging a society in which ethnic minorities were defined almost exclusively by their religion and for allegedly endorsing establishment of faith schools. He also said that faith schools, barring those run by Christians, should be scrapped.
Christian schools "are perfectly acceptable" but other faith schools "are a big mistake and should be scrapped if the Government wants to encourage a unifying British identity," Sen said in an interview to Daily Telegraph.
Claiming that the faith schools have been set up since the Government wanted to give them parity with Christian institutions, he said, "I am actually absolutely appalled."
Sen, who has come from Harvard, is on a Britain tour delivering lectures on how religion is being used to pull this country apart and to encourage inter-communal violence.
Speaking at the Nehru Centre last night, Sen praised Britain's multi-cultural society but criticised the Blair government for what he called two serious policy blunders - increasingly encouraging a society in which ethnic minorities were defined almost exclusively by their religion and endorsing the establishment of faith schools.
In the interview, Sen said, "Christian schools have evolved and often provide a much more tolerant atmosphere than a purely religious school would. A lot of people in the Middle East or India or elsewhere have been educated in Christian schools. A lot of my friends came from St Xavier's in Kolkata- I don't think they were indoctrinated particularly in Christianity." But the new generation of faith schools "are not going to be like that," he added.
Although he wanted mainstream British schools to broaden their curriculum to include more on the contribution of, say, Muslim mathematicians to science, Sen said faith schools "are a pretty bad thing. Educationally, it's not good for the child.
"From the point of view of national unity, it's dreadful because, even before a child begins to think, it's being defined by its 'community', which is primarily religion. That also drowns out all other cultural things like language and literature. I am a believer in the importance of British identity."
But he wanted the definition to be framed in such a way that allowed the evolution of a "plural multi-cultural society", rather than a "mono-cultural" one in which different groups lived side by side with little interaction.
"We have many different identities because we belong to many differe nt groups. We are connected with our profession, occupation, class, gender, political views and language, literature, taste in music, involvement in social issues - and also religion. But just to separate out religion as one singularly important identity that has over-arching importance is a mistake.
"One of the problems of what is happening in Britain today is that one identity, the religious identity, has been taken to represent almost everything." "Of course, this policy immediately has the effect of making some people extremely privileged - those who speak in the name of religion. There may be some moderate people but mostly they are extremists," he added.
"Religion has been inadvertently politicised by the UK government in a way that is counter-productive. It makes the battle against terrorism so hamfisted and clumsy," he said.
I have observed a lot of missionary style propoganda is used to take kids away from their native culture to xtianism, atleastit's partly true in convent school in India.. what is your take on that??Lalmohan wrote:partly true - what he is actually saying is that muslim schools are highly damaging to britain. but since you can't ban only one religion's schools, ban them all
personally i think jewish schools aint great either. and most of my sikh friends are not very keen on sikh schools. whilst none of these schools in themselves discriminate against other religions on entry, the xtian schools are more representative of the society as a whole and teach overall more inclusive values than certainly the muslim and jewish schools
But he's not saying "Ban them all". I would have agreed with that. He is saying "Ban all except Christian ones". So instead of only the Muslims crying "discrimination", you are going to have several religions crying "discrimination".Lalmohan wrote:partly true - what he is actually saying is that muslim schools are highly damaging to britain. but since you can't ban only one religion's schools, ban them all
I have personally met them and talked to them.. plus the "donations" nowadays is upwards of 2 lakhs-7 lakhs. Hindus more or less are funding their own destruction. Also, there were other hopless countries too.. I have rarely seen them act like Indians of that era.He didn't say "ban them all", he said non Xtian schools should be banned.Lalmohan wrote:partly true - what he is actually saying is that muslim schools are highly damaging to britain. but since you can't ban only one religion's schools, ban them all
personally i think jewish schools aint great either. and most of my sikh friends are not very keen on sikh schools. whilst none of these schools in themselves discriminate against other religions on entry, the xtian schools are more representative of the society as a whole and teach overall more inclusive values than certainly the muslim and jewish schools
Could that be explained please?Lalmohan wrote:you cannot compare a missionary school in india with a normal school in the uk - completely different
and those of you who dont live in the uk will not appreciate the whole diversity thing going on in the uk
Lalmohan wrote:you cannot compare a missionary school in india with a normal school in the uk - completely different
and those of you who dont live in the uk will not appreciate the whole diversity thing going on in the uk
My brother who is in UK also mentioned to me about the diversity thing going on in UK. What I told him was that that is fake, and they will undo that at right time. If other countries copy this diversity thingy from brits, then they will turn out to be the real fools.Lalmohan wrote:you cannot compare a missionary school in india with a normal school in the uk - completely different
and those of you who dont live in the uk will not appreciate the whole diversity thing going on in the uk
Nice one, really funnyLalmohan wrote:you cannot compare a missionary school in india with a normal school in the uk - completely different
and those of you who dont live in the uk will not appreciate the whole diversity thing going on in the uk
Indian missionary schools should be banned - outright. They are extension of colonial rule along with IAS system, Police and intelligence system.Acharya wrote:Lalmohan wrote:you cannot compare a missionary school in india with a normal school in the uk - completely different
and those of you who dont live in the uk will not appreciate the whole diversity thing going on in the uk
Missionary schools inside India has a colonial context and hence has a problem. We need to make them Indian based.
The point is simple.Lalmohan wrote:you cannot compare a missionary school in india with a normal school in the uk - completely different
and those of you who dont live in the uk will not appreciate the whole diversity thing going on in the uk
So the Nobel prof does not point out that the country is communal and not secular, but does say that all except majority Xian schools are not as good as majority Xian schools?Lisa wrote:Most of the above discussion is flawed in that it is assuming that the UK is
secular. It is not. It is constitutionally a Christian nation. Christian schools
are a right, Hindu and Muslim schools are to all purposes permissible at
discretion and NOT a constitutional right unlike in India.
Nevertheless I do not agree with the Professor at all. As for his Nobel prize
it stinks. Given by an agency that has failed to adequately explain, to this
date why Gandhi is not a recipient despite his obvious incomparable
achievements. They are a political agency.
why is it disturbing??Haresh wrote:The far-Right leader in a Sikh headscarf and a very disturbing anti-Muslim alliance: EDL joins protesters angry at 'grooming of girls'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1zOL1mNYu
This is going to get a lot of pants of "liberal" Islam-appeasing leftist activists in a real twist. Good move by EDL. The social liberals are trying their best to paint all Anti-Islamic European groups as racist and Nazi groups, and they have had some success in that too. EDL, Sikh cooperation would go a long way in clarifying to the people that that is not the case, and help in mobilizing public opinion in UK and Europe against the Islamists, and in particular the Pakistanis.Haresh wrote:The far-Right leader in a Sikh headscarf and a very disturbing anti-Muslim alliance: EDL joins protesters angry at 'grooming of girls'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1zOL1mNYu
Actually that is precisely the problem with the other religious schools in the UK. No one who isn't Muslim would have any desire to go to a Muslim school, or most of the faith schools. These schools primary value proposition isn't offering a competitive education - its providing a grounding in some community's religious and cultural identity.Lalmohan wrote:you cannot compare a missionary school in india with a normal school in the uk - completely different
and those of you who dont live in the uk will not appreciate the whole diversity thing going on in the uk
Obviously the father due to his political correctness failed to appraise his daughter about the finer points of Islam early enough.Haresh wrote:I know of Indian girls Sikh and Hindu who have been converted. One Hindu girl, her father dropped dead with a stroke/heart attack when he found out she converted.
Was it in Midland ? It happended to one of my cousin brother's childhood friend. He had the stroke whne he came to know that his daughter was going to marry a Paki. Sad part was that his wife knew this and kept the secret from him.RajeshA wrote:Obviously the father due to his political correctness failed to appraise his daughter about the finer points of Islam early enough.Haresh wrote:I know of Indian girls Sikh and Hindu who have been converted. One Hindu girl, her father dropped dead with a stroke/heart attack when he found out she converted.
LONDON: Four months after the new Indian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Jaimini Bagwati, arrived in London, Britain's head of state, Queen Elizabeth, hasn't found time to accept his credentials. Apparently, such preoccupation on her part is the latest in a series of inadvertent or intended tit-for-tats between the two countries.
After previous Indian high commissioner Nalin Surie completed his term, he wasn't replaced for seven months.
A spokesman for Elizabeth said presentation of credentials is "slotted in at the first available opportunity". He did not see the delay as unusual. The British foreign office indicated "India is moving up the list" for an appointment, but wasn't hopeful this would happen until after the Olympics.
Indeed, while the British monarch was busy in recent weeks celebrating the diamond jubilee of her reign, for her not to be able to spare a single moment prior to this has raised eyebrows. It's learnt that there was a window in the second half of April, but it wasn't utilised.
An informed insider told TOI that while British Prime Minister David Cameron visited India within weeks of entering office in May 2010 in pursuit of a "special relationship" - and Manmohan Singh responded warmly - the upward trajectory in the ties was jolted by Elizabeth not attending the inauguration of the Commonwealth games in New Delhi in October the same year.
"It seems South Block did not take kindly to the cancellation," said the source, adding, "This has had an impact."
Whitehall expected, as agreed during Cameron's 2010 trip, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to visit the UK last year. Not only did this not take place, but there are no indications of this being scheduled this year.
Over and above, the multi-billion IAF order for combat aircraft was awarded to France and not to a consortium in which BAE of Britain had a major stake.
Besides, it has annoyed India that the increasingly candid comments about Pakistan from US President Barack Obama have not been matched by the British leadership.
It's, of course, commonly trotted out that a high commissioner, as opposed to an ambassador, is fully functional from the second he sets foot in the UK. But such are the workings of diplomacy that he is not wholly recognised as such until the ceremony of presenting the credentials has occurred.
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/ ... Skin=ETNEWIt’s a bad week to be a banker in the City of London, again. First it was the Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest that went into total IT paralysis, leaving thousands of customers unable to do their routine transactions for almost a week, and then there was the massive Libor scandal that swamped Barclays, and an investigation is lurking like a massive underwater shark to chomp at 20 other banks. Barclays’ shoot from the hip, former investment banker chief Bob Diamond is now the focus of a huge political and public backlash. Most famously remembered for telling a parliamentary committee last year that the time for remorse and bankers to apologise was over, there’s widespread glee at him having to eat his own words, after paying up a record $450 million in fines for manipulating Libor. Reminiscent of the Jamie Dimon debacle.
For those of us who don’t speak the language, what is all the fuss about? It’s not simple, else, people wouldn’t have got away with it for years, and it would not have taken regulators so long to find and fix blame. Libor is the London interbank rate, which is set daily as a base price at which banks can borrow money from each other for their daily transactions. Now, since banks are the main suppliers of money for everyone else, Libor becomes the base interest rate on which almost every other kind of financial borrowing contract is based for companies, individuals, et al. So, what’s it got to do with all of us, you may say. The thing is, Libor is pretty much used universally — in all countries — as a global benchmark rate of interest. Even in India. And here’s where things become terribly quirky. Libor, because it is not a regulated rate but more like a price, cannot really be dictated from a high.
Traditionally, a number of banks would submit daily quotes in various currencies to the British Bankers Association, estimated the rate they thought they could borrow the next day, like a kind of survey, and the Libor rate would be fixed based on quotes submitted by a number of banks.
The whole system only worked assuming that the club would play cricket and, of course, nobody would dream of cheating. It’s a system that harks back to a kinder, gentler era of gentleman banking, and like so many things, in England, the tradition carried on. It’s the “that’s how we’ve always done it since 1462” syndrome, the one where everyone assumes that just because a system always worked, it always will.
Well, it now turns out that everyone did cheat. They submitted lower quotes to make it look like they were better off than they were, they submitted numbers to help their traders with whatever deals they were doing, and more, on a systematic basis for years. Now, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, has said that the system of fixing Libor needs to be changed. A little late in the day, one would have thought.
In 2008, after the crash, when the news about Libor-fixing starting doing the rounds, and I first discovered how Libor was set, I found it inconceivable that in the frenetic, hysterical, dog-eat-maneat-dog world of banking in that era, they wouldn’t try and rig the rates.
In India, Libor is something that arrives every morning as a given — and then you work from there. We’ve never really bothered much about where it comes from. And that brings me to the point I want to make this time. Something like a Libor isn’t just about British banks. It’s something everyone the world over uses. I’m not a big fan of Bob Diamond, given his rather abrasive style, or any of the big bankers. I just think the world needs yet another banking confidence crisis, as former chancellor Alistair Darling put it succinctly, like a hole in the head.
But in London, the hunt is up. The horns have been sounded, the hounds are baying and entire hosts of regulators, media, parliament and the public are galloping out to get bankers’ bonuses, more preferably their heads.
Lots of erudite commentators are complaining about the ‘systemic culture’ in banks that needs to be changed, not just handing out penalties. You can yearn for the more benign rhythms of the long, leisurely test cricket days, but 20:20 is here. You can’t suddenly turn traders trained to ferociously competing for profits into benign high-street branch managers, any more than you can turn Greeks into Germans. It’s the systemic loopholes — like how Libor is set — that should be the focus of the discussion; the fear of a massive penalty that will hit their balance sheets and prices, is about the only deterrent that will stop bankers, traders, dealers and even bank CEOs from exploiting every loophole they can find. Yet another banker bashing outing, while it may be deeply satisfying for a recession-hit public and politicians, might just end up being counter-productive. So, RBS had an IT crash. It happens. They’ll pay huge amounts in compensation. So, Barclays helped rig Libor. So, they’re paying a massive fine, and maybe Bob Diamond will lose his job.
It may not, like Mr Diamond says, be time for bankers to stop being remorseful, but it’s high time for bankers to get on with what they need to do, which is lend money to businesses.