April 12, 2017

Why BJP-RSS need Yogi, opposition needs Arvind Kejriwal and Congress needs Varun Feroze Gandhi!

Yogi Adityanath as the CM of UP might have come as a rude shock to many. But it was always on the cards. Narendra Modi has been growing too big for RSS. And after becoming PM, he hadn’t once supported openly a single of the innumerable nonsense pelted out by RSS or its fringe groups. And make any analysis. Call the Congress anything, the Rahul-Akhilesh combine didn’t lose because Akhilesh was very bad and definitely not because of Rahul Gandhi. Akhilesh has been quite decent and speaks very well and keeping the memes aside Rahul Gandhi today speaks better than most of the BJP leaders who were campaigning in UP. He has worked hard on his communication.
 In fact, the Congress won three of the five states irrespective of who formed the government. So, ‘Rahul Gandhi means no seats in states’, is a bogus theory and argument. What is happening the world over and in India right now is high voltage personality contests. Modi being the world-beating leader in that. And in UP, poor Akhilesh and Rahul were just swept aside – not by polarisation, not by Hindu consolidation, not by Rahul’s memes – but simply by Modi’s far far higher voltage personality. He was just too much for them.

But the elections also proved BJP is not unbeatable. Wherever the opposition has a slightly good leader to answer back, they have 60 percent to 75 percent votes to consolidate. And the BJP can be defeated. Like it happened in Punjab.
However, the key word is a decent leader opposite Modi. While it seems no one can match him right now, but give a decent, determined and mature opposition and the BJP can be defeated. Good or bad, some states have those leaders. Bihar, WB, Punjab etc.
But while states have those, the nation has absolutely none. So, as long as Rahul is the perceived choice for PM against Modi, irrespective of how much he has improved, he comes absolutely nowhere near Modi. And Modi will win elections, one after the other, on a platter. Even Priyanka’s soft-spoken classy demeanour won’t be of any use. And Sonia is getting old and keeping a bit unwell to really run around amassing support. It’s absolute Modi-Modi one-sided and lopsided all the way. Nationally and in any place without mature politicians in the opposition. ......


Share/Bookmark

April 7, 2017

Why We Must Increase The Minimum Legal Age For Drinking Alcohol To 27, Globally!

October 21, 1994. A phone call changed everybody’s life in our family forever. The call was to inform us that my brother – Aurobindo, then all of 19 years – had died in a road accident on the Gurgaon highway. A speeding bus hit the motorbike on which he was the pillion rider. Post his death, we set up the Aurobindo Chaudhuri Great Indian Dream Foundation, and have always had road safety concerns amongst our goals. So, I am most concerned about road safety especially on highways. No one, I am sure, can question that.
Yet, I am against the recent ban on liquor shops on highways in India. I am actually against most moral bans. Bihar and Gujarat have put a ban on alcohol consumption. Controversies continue around it in Goa and Kerala and now the big blow has been the order to shut down liquor shops on all highways across India from April 1.
Yet, just like we have a minimum age for getting married all over the world, minimum age for a driver’s licence and minimum age for voting, I believe we must have a minimum age for allowing people to consume harmfully addictive stuff that is the reason behind a plethora of deaths, daily fights, wife-beating, drain of hard-earned money for the poor families and unhappiness across the globe.
With the effective control of alcohol consumption in mind, the government of Delhi, and then Maharashtra, Haryana and Chandigarh increased the minimum age for drinking from 21 years to 25 years. But this move evoked widespread criticism from young people and certain sections of the media too. Even Bollywood actor Imran Khan apparently was contemplating a PIL, and opined that if one can vote at 18, it is absurd that one can’t have a good time with a glass of drink before 25!
At the IIPM Think Tank we have vehemently disagreed with such thinkers, and recommended that not only drinking, but even cigarette smoking should be allowed only for individuals aged 27 and above.
Global studies have proven that the longer one delays consumption of alcohol, the less the chances of alcohol addiction (Grant, Stinson, Harford, Boston University Study). This is due to the fact that alcohol ensures that the brain develops mechanisms that “change neural function induced by chronic ethanol consumption leading to the development of [alcohol] dependence” (Weiss and Porrino; Neuroscience Journal).
AT THE IIPM THINK TANK WE RECOMMEND THAT NOT ONLY DRINKING, BUT EVEN CIGARETTE SMOKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS AGED 27 AND ABOVE
Additionally, the brain stabilizes in growth only between the age limits of 22 and 30 (University of Washington data, Eric Chudler). And once the brain has grown, the chances of getting addicted to anything are far lesser. So logically, one should have the right of choosing an addictive and proven harmful product only after the brain has fully grown. National Bureau of Economic Research (Working Paper No. 5200) confirms that “the prevalence of alcohol dependence and abuse is highest in the age range” of 17 to 27.
Logically therefore, rather than appearing unlettered and demanding that the state governments reduce drinking age, we should be recommending that the same be increased to 27. “As many as 80% of alcoholics smoke,” confirm Miller and Gold, University of Illinois, in their study in the Journal of Addictive Diseases. That, in fact, strengthens the concept that even cigarette smoking should be made illegal for people aged below 27.
As for road accidents, the prime reason for such an order by the Supreme Court of India, I don’t believe that anyone who wants to drink would mind a 500 metre detour to get his drink. So this ban won’t work.
To control road accidents, we must have extremely strict driving tests for driving licence and stricter punishments for each violation of traffic rules with the impounding of the licence forever after say 5 to 7 traffic rule violations. Immediately you will see how everyone starts being extremely cautious and well-behaved on roads. For those caught with alcohol in their breath/blood beyond the prescribed limit, even once, let their licence be cancelled forever. Such rules will immediately change the safety not just on highways but also on normal roads. Doing this of course requires commitment, sincerity, honesty and a lot of hard work. Announcing a populist sounding ban makes more news despite its zero effect.
Rest I leave the case open for the valued opinion of my readers.

(SMS your views with your name and topic to 9818101234)


Share/Bookmark
" This blog is managed by The Sunday Indian. We heartily welcome comments on the articles.. However TSI will delete all those comments which are personal in nature and have the usage of unparliamentary language. "