01 August 2015

In India, capital punishments are in absence of standards of absolute and universal application.


Earlier death penalty was brutal, painful and public, later moved to less painful, humane, and now, like the major countries, need to change the penalty in alternative manner for the necessary refinement in the statute.

Article 21 in the Constitution of India provides protection of life and personal liberty and it states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law".

However, said exception in the Article, though fundamental in nature, provides great reliance and power in the hands of the States. Therefore, Fundamental Rights of a citizen apparently ceases due to said reliance and power in the hands of the (so called political) States, while the Court is likely to restraint itself to interfere into such an administrative order, even erroneous, since one's inability to challenge it on the grounds of contravention of Fundamental Rights due to said exception.

Furthermore, Article 72 in the Constitution of India provides power to the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence, however, said power, of the President, not appears to be absolute. The President’s decision, about a mercy plea, likely to influenced politically. As in the recent case, Union Home Ministry advised the President to reject it; accordingly, the President rejected a mercy plea. To grant mercy, the President needs to apply an absolute power.

The architect and framers of the Constitution of India freely borrowed the good features of other constitutions. However, on 20 December 2012, meetings of the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a fourth resolution (A/RES/67/176) on moratorium on the death penalty, where 111 countries voted in favour, 41 countries, including India, voted against, 34 countries abstained from and 7 countries were absent.

However, India voted against moratorium on the death penalty instead a majority of 111 countries voted in favour, only 41 against. Since, the framers of the Constitution freely borrowed the good features of other countries why not India, for good, voted in favour for moratorium on the death penalty.

Therefore, in India, the capital punishment needs to change in civil manner and the necessary refinement in the Statute.


31 July 2015

A change for death penalty is necessary, for refinement.

Earlier death penalty was brutal, painful and public, later moved to less painful, more humane, and now they need to be abolished, for refinement. 

The architect and framers of the Constitution of India freely borrowed the good features of other constitutions. However, on 20 December 2012, meetings of the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a fourth resolution (A/RES/67/176) on moratorium on the death penalty, where 111 countries voted in favour, 41 countries, including India, voted against, 34 countries abstained from and 7 countries were absent. 

But India voted against moratorium on the death penalty instead of 111 countries voted in favour, only 41 against. Since, the architect and framers of the Constitution of India freely borrowed the good features of other countries. Why not India, for good, voted in favour for moratorium on the death penalty? 

A change for death penalty is necessary, for refinement, in more civil manner, Abolish death penalty.

 Considering framing of Indian Constitution-

• The parliamentary system of government, law-making procedure besides others borrowed from the British Constitution.
• Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review etc adopted from the US Constitution.
• The federal system adopted from Canada.
• Directive Principles of State Policy borrowed from the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland


Nothing is above the Constitution, is it above the relative “truth” also?

The keepers of the Constitution of India interpret, “nothing is above the Constitution” However, I fail to understand, whether said consideration means the Constitution is above the relative “truth” also?

12 April 2015

Pre-marital Health Check.

বিয়ে দেওয়ার আগে মানসিক ও শারীরিক স্বাস্থ্য পরীক্ষা করে নেওয়া আবশ্যক।

বিয়ে দেওয়ার ক্ষেত্রে আমরা অনেকে, সম্ভাব্য দম্পতি হওয়ার উপযুক্ততা নির্ধারণ করার জন্য, হরোস্কোপ অথবা কুণ্ডলী বিচার করিয়ে থাকি। বাস্তবিক ক্ষেত্রে সম্ভাব্য দম্পতির নক্ষত্রের উপযুক্ততা বিচার করার থেকেও যা বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ তা হল তাঁদের শারীরিক ও মানসিক স্বাস্থ্যের পরীক্ষা করে নেওয়া । আমরা অনেকেই বৈবাহিক স্বাস্থ্যের দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিকে উপেক্ষা করে ফেলি, ভুলে যাই যে বৈবাহিক স্বাস্থ্যই সুখী সম্পর্কের এক অবিচ্ছেদ্য অংশ। তাই গাঁটছড়া বাঁধানোর আগে সম্ভাব্য দম্পতির মানসিক ও শারীরিক স্বাস্থ্য পরীক্ষা করিয়ে নেওয়াই আমরা সম্ভবত বিজ্ঞতম কাজ করব।

উল্ল্যেখ্যঃ পশ্চিমবঙ্গের সামাজিক ও সাংস্কৃতিক রীতি অনুযায়ী সবার জন্য, নিম্নক্ত নং (২) বাহিত যৌন রোগের পরীক্ষা, প্রয়োজন নাও হতে পারে। নির্দিষ্ট ডাক্তার বাবু, আলোচনা সাপেক্ষে, তা ঠিক করবেন। 
 
১। প্রেরিত জেনেটিক অবস্থার জন্য পরীক্ষা
(উভয়ের শুধুমাত্র একটি ছোট রক্তের নমুনা প্রয়োজন)

  • থ্যালাসেমিয়া
  • ক্যানসার
  • অল্পবয়সের ডায়াবেটিস
  • মানসিক রোগ
২। বাহিত যৌন রোগের পরীক্ষা
(উভয়ের শুধুমাত্র একটি ছোট রক্তের নমুনা প্রয়োজন)

  • এইচআইভি
  • এসটিডি (হেপাটাইটিস সি, হারপিস, গনোরিয়া ইত্যাদি)
৩। রক্তের গ্রুপ পরীক্ষা.
(উভয়ের শুধুমাত্র রক্তের ছোট নমুনা প্রয়োজন)

  • রক্তের গ্রুপ ও Rh ফ্যাক্টর (রীস্যাস ফ্যাক্টর)
৪। বন্ধ্যাত্ব স্ক্রীনিং.
  • পুরুষদের জন্য বীর্য প্রয়োজন
  • মহিলাদের জন্য রক্ত পরীক্ষা এবং আল্ট্রাসাউন্ড প্রয়োজন
পুরুষদের জন্য
  • শুক্রাণু গণনা, গতিশীলতা ইত্যাদি
মহিলাদের জন্য
  • FSH (Follicular Stimulating Hormones)
  • LH (Leutenising Hormone)
  • Prolactin
  • TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone)
  • AMH levels (Anti-Müllerian Hormone)
  • PCOD (Polycystic Ovarian Disease)
৫। ক্রনিক রোগ.
(পুরুষ এবং মহিলা উভয়ের জন্য)
(উভয়ের শুধুমাত্র একটি ছোট রক্তের নমুনা প্রয়োজন)

  • ডায়াবেটিস পরীক্ষা
  • উচ্চ রক্তচাপ পরীক্ষা
  • হার্ট পরীক্ষা
  • কিডনি পরীক্ষা
  • লিভার পরীক্ষা
৬। মনস্তাত্ত্বিক পরীক্ষা.
(উভয় পুরুষদের এবং মহিলাদের জন্য প্রয়োজন)

(একটি সহজ সাইকোমেট্রিক পরীক্ষা) 
  •  Schizophrenia
  • Depression,
  • Mood disorders
  • Mania
  • Behavioural & Personality disorders
Tests for Male
  • Complete Haemogram,
  • Blood Group & Rh Typing,
  • RBS,
  • HbA1C,
  • VDRL,
  • HIV,
  • HbsAg,
  • Urine routine,
  • Semen Analysis,
  • Consultation with Urologist.
Tests for Female
  • Complete Haemogram,
  • Blood Group & Rh Typing,
  • RBS,
  • HbA1C,
  • VDRL,
  • HIV,
  • HbsAg,
  • Urine routine,
  • Pelvic Ultra Sound screening,
  • Consultation with Gynaecologist.
 

১২ই এপ্রিল, ২০১৫ - সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর, মধ্যমগ্রাম, কলকাতা, পশ্চিমবঙ্গ।

06 December 2014

A Historical Memory, - the Great Bengal Famine of 1943.

At least 3 million people died from starvation and malnutrition during a famine in the Indian province of Bengal in 1943.

When British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed regret this week for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 in Amritsar (in which at least 400 unarmed Indian men, women and children were massacred by British soldiers), he omitted any reference to Britain’s role in a far greater tragedy of colonial India: the Bengal famine of 1943. Seventy years ago, at least 3 million people died from starvation and malnutrition during a famine in the Indian province of Bengal - a partly man made disaster that has been largely forgotten by the world beyond northeastern India.

A complex confluence of malign factors led to the catastrophe, which occurred with the world at war, including, as Indian parliamentary member and leading agricultural scientist M. S. Swaminathan cited in the Hindu newspaper, the Japanese occupation of neighboring Burma and damage to the local rice crop due to tidal waves and a fungal disease epidemic. Swaminathan also blamed “panic purchase and hoarding by the rich, failure of governance, particularly in relation to the equitable distribution of the available food grains, disruption of communication due to World War II and the indifference of the then UK government to the plight of the starving people of undivided Bengal.”

But while famines were not uncommon in India throughout history, largely because of periodic droughts or monsoons, the tragedy in Bengal had the unmistakable hand of man in it, making it an even greater calamity of recent global history. In the prior year, 1942, when Japan seized Burma, an important rice exporter, the British bought up massive amounts of rice but hoarded it. The famine only ended because Bengal thankfully delivered a strong rice harvest by 1944.

Dr. Gideon Polya, an Australian biochemist, has called the Bengal famine a man made “holocaust.” “The British brought an unsympathetic and ruthless economic agenda to India,” he wrote. Polya further noted that the “loss of rice from Burma and ineffective government controls on hoarding and profiteering led inevitably to enormous price rises. Thus, it can be estimated that the price of rice in Dacca (East Bengal) increased about four-fold in the period from March to October 1943. Bengalis having to purchase food (e.g landless laborers) suffered immensely. Thus, it is estimated that about 30 percent of one particular laborer class died in the famine.” Many observers in both modern India and Great Britain blame Winston Churchill, Britain's inspiring wartime leader at the time, for the devastation wrought by the famine.


In 2010, Bengali author Madhusree Mukherjee wrote a book about the famine called “Churchill's Secret War,” in which she explicitly blamed Churchill for worsening the starvation in Bengal by ordering the diversion of food away from Indians and toward British troops around the world. Mukherjee’s book described how wheat from Australia (which could have been delivered to starving Indians) was instead transported to British troops in the Mediterranean and the Balkans. Even worse, British colonial authorities (again under Churchill’s leadership) actually turned down offers of food from Canada and the U.S. “If it was someone else other than Churchill, I believe relief would have been sent, and, if it wasn’t for the war, the famine wouldn’t have occurred at all,” Mukherjee told Inter Press Service.“Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be held for very long. One cannot escape the really powerful, racist things that he was saying. It certainly was possible to send relief but for Churchill and the War Cabinet that were hoarding grain for use after the war.”  Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. Reportedly, when he first received a telegram from the British colonial authorities in New Delhi about the rising toll of famine deaths in Bengal, his reaction was simply that he regretted that nationalist leader Mahatma Gandhi was not one of the victims. Later at a War Cabinet meeting, Churchill blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying that they “breed like rabbits.” His attitude toward Indians was made crystal clear when he told Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. “According to the BBC, Mukherjee said that Cameron should have apologized for the Bengal famine on behalf of his predecessor in Downing Street from decades ago - indeed, even former Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for Britain's culpability in the Irish potato famine of the 1840s. 

Outside of India, the Bengal famine of 1943 might only be known through the efforts of Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray, who directed a movie in 1973 called "Ashani Sanket" (“Distant Thunder”), based on a novel by the same name by Bengali author Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay.