Gambling/Betting should be legalized in India!

BETTING IN CRICKET - SHOULD IT BE MADE LEGAL?

Points below added by Studyfreak team

Favor (Betting Should be Legalized)

As we can see many big personalities are involved in cricket betting and unofficially it is a

big business so it would be right to legalize it so government can earn some taxes which can
be utilized for growth of our country.

In terms of output and employment, in United Kingdom (Britain) gambling industry

contributes in a big way to economy. For 2008, 3 billion pounds ($4.65 billion) gross valueadded transactions occurred in gambling activities and it helped create 40,700 jobs.

The total financial impact of betting industry in UK, is to equlvalent of 6 billion pounds ($9.3

billion dollars) and it also supports over 100,000 jobs in UK economy.

Gambling is not bad .It depends on individuals and how gamblers 'gambles. It is another

game with linked economic benefits. It depends on person to person A person can gamble
for everything he have and loose everything .A sensible person always know his limits.

Share markets are another gamble especially Indian share market. There is no certainty when

share prices will go down. In India Share market is worst gamble as people get cheated
everyday there. Why it is legalized?

Criminalizing betting does not stop it happening, In this year's IPL, for instance, as the TOI

reported , an estimated Rs 5,000 crore has already been bet in India and 2 million (about Rs
13.5 crore) through bookmakers in the United kingdom. As in India Betting is banned
criminals are involved in it.

 Do they not have a free will to decide what is good and what is bad. We should not assume

that the weaker section does not know what to do with their money; in fact they are more
prudent with their money than the rich. In fact the illegal betting market is putting them
more at risk as they are being exposed to the criminals in the society.

against

There are numbers of examples already present in India where people have lost their mind
and gambled their all savings and did sulcide.
Considering such examples Government should not legalize the gambling in any way. In our
country even lottery is banned in many states as people lost their lives while playing lottery
then how we can allow gambling?

Cricket is most popular game in India. If betting will be legalized then even kids will start

betting. There is a chance that whole nation will become gambler. People are crazy for
cricket in our country. So that is another fact needs to keep in mind before legalize
gambling.

In Indian society, there is deep-rooted belief that 'gambling' is 'bad' and 'a social evil'.It is

certainly true, to some extent, that uncontrolled gambling or 'addiction' of gambling is a

really bad habit.

But what about the social consequences of gambling? Have we not all heard of stories of

people men, in most cases gambling away a family's savings?

Middle class is right now not involved in gambling and if it is legalized those will be

impacted badly.

Legalization of sports betting can never eliminate match fixing/spot fixing because human

greed can never be controlled. However it can certainly deter such people i.e players,
coaches and punters as chances of detection would be much higher.

No. Let cricket be a gentlemen game. Betting will kill the spirit of sports and sportsmanship.

More strict laws should be enacted to regulate cricket which is definitely under a cloud of
honky dory dealings.(Point added by user.)

Conclusion:

Gambling is legal all over world and regulated. In India Regulation fails everywhere. So if we

think of legalizing/regulating betting then we should think that it wont work in our corrupt
system. Right now betting is banned and at least medium class is not involved in it so not
losing their hard earned money in gambling.

If government wants to make revenue from gambling then they can make a few centers for

gambling in tourist places. But these places should be far from reach of common man so
common man can go there once in a year and enjoy this evil game of gambling.

GD Topic

Capital punishment for rapists

Background

Six drunken men were joyriding in a bus last Sunday when they picked up the physiotherapy student and her
28-year-old male companion. They took turns raping her before throwing the pair off the speeding vehicle.
During her ordeal, the victim was attacked with an iron rod, causing serious intestinal injuries. Six men
have since been arrested.

A combination of abusive sexual behavior, a scant fear of the law and India's creaky judicial system
encourage such attacks.

The number of rape cases in New Delhi has risen by nearly one-fifth to 661 this year from a year ago,
according to government figures, the highest among India's big cities.

Favor of Strict laws:

Fear of law: There is no fear of law left in criminals so there is need to make stricter laws in India which will
again establish the respect for law in heart and mind of citizens.

We need even more fearful laws then capital punishment so criminals think twice before such heinous
crimes.
Only decent people have any reason to be afraid of the law any more. If there is, in fact, no protection for
the law-abiding, then why should we pay taxes for something we do not get?

All rich people and politicians long ago began to hire private security men who do the job the police once
did, but only for them. Because there is no fear left in criminals for the law. How we can let live such
criminals in our society unpunished?

Imprisonment in India is not so tough punishment. Length of the imprisonment should be increased for all
such crimes. Just keeping criminals on 2 years or so in jail doesnt change much in them. Most of them with
political connections come out on bail or again join crime full time after coming out of jail. We need drastic
change in our law and order system to establish fear of law can be established between criminals. Starting
point of this can be capital punishment for these rapists. They deserve it government should do whatever
required to give them such punishment.

Against of Strict laws:

In past 10 years we have executed only 2 people under capital punishment. Even we make such stringent
law it wouldnt change much.

Rather than death penalty, swift arrest and fast-tracked trial leading to conviction alone can instill fear of
law in people and deter commission of crimes, be it against women or in general.

Decision to give them capital punishment because it is not the right way to deal a crime with another crime.
Capital punishment itself is a judicially assisted murder.

Death penalty cannot be a deterrent unless swift and sure delivery of justice can be ensured." In 2011, no
investigation was done in 36.6% of recorded instances of rape.

Police should get active now and administrators should empower police to act against criminals.
There are many cities in our country where politicians first helped criminals to grow. And later they have to
empower police to curb those criminals. And police successfully curbed crimes in many cities with political
support, so real question of political willingness to curb crimes. If you use criminals, to win elections then
you will never wanted to wipe them out.

Fast track special courts to deal with sexual crimes, improved justice delivery system and stringent sexual
harassment laws.

The conviction rate of rape cases has dropped from 46% in 1971 to 26% in 2012.So even death penalty is
there no one can confidently say that conviction will really take place.

Conclusion:

Making only stricter laws would not establish the law and order in our country. But in such special cases
government should take strict action against guilty and set an example for criminals. We cannot just let go

every time by just depending on the existing system. We have to improve our system and empower
administration to become a better society.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail

sector.
Background
The recent cabinet decision on FDI in retail has triggered protests by opposition and key allies of the ruling United
Progressive Alliance (UPA), who are demanding a roll back of the policy. The hour-long meeting held in Parliament
House failed to resolve the logjam in the two Houses as opposition parties, led by BJP and the Left, stuck to their
stand and demanded rollback of the Cabinet decision to allow 51 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail. Though at
present only 53 cities with population not less than 10 lakh in the country have been identified for FDI As the
fourth-largest economy in the world in PPP terms, India is a preferred destination for FDI. During 2000-10, the
country attracted $178 billion as FDI.
Favor

This will bring modern technology to the country.

Improve rural infrastructure. It would help build infrastructure and create a competitive market.

Reduce wastage of agricultural produce.

Enable our farmers to get better prices for their crops.

Consumers will get commodities of daily use at reduced prices.

Biggest beneficiary of this would be small farmers, who would be able to improve productivity and realize
higher remuneration by selling directly to large organized players and shorten the chain from farm to
consumers.

Government too stands to gain by this move through more transparent and accountable monitoring of goods
and supply chain management systems. It can expect to receive an additional US$ 25-30 billion by way of
taxes

Opening of retail can be seen as a solution for food inflation, which has been confounding policy-makers. FDI
in retail would help in building much needed back end infrastructure. Additionally, he said, investments in
cold storage chain infrastructure would reduce loss of agricultural produce and provide more options to
farmers.

Against

Our interest rates today are as high as 14 per cent to 16 per cent how do we compete with the economies
which have a 4 per cent interest rate. Our infrastructure our trade facilitations our labor laws, all these
factors collectively don't make India low cost. So do you want India to become a center where we allow
foreign companies to come in and set up these large chains which eventually instead of selling domestic
products out sourcing internationally the cheapest sources and selling those products. Please remember
domestic retail normally sources domestically, international retail sources internationally because they
source from the cheapest sources.

Even if big retail companies help the farmers in resurrecting their economy, what plan does the government
has for millions of middlemen who are part of the business process chain that ensures manufactured
products reach end users.

We engage millions of uneducated and semi-educated people at various stages of retail business spread
across towns and cities but we are afraid that Tesco and Wal-Mart will only engage smart and educated
workforce in small strength, comparatively. Conclusion

Government is taking this decision in good faith. Few persons and lobbies controlling the rates of food
commodities in India. And bringing more competition in market will bring better prices for buyers as well as
sellers of commodities. Parties protesting against FDIs in retail have choice to not allow FDIs in the states

they are ruling. Government should make a regulatory body for the commodity trade as we have for
cellular services.

Lokpal Bill
Background

The Jan Lokpal Bill also referred as citizen's ombudsman bill.

The Jan Lokpal Bill aims to effectively deter corruption, readdress grievances of citizens, and protect whistleblowers. If made into law, the bill would create an independent ombudsman body called Lokpal (Sanskrit:
protector of the people).It would be empowered to register and investigate complaints of corruption against
politicians and bureaucrats without prior government approval.

In April 2011, civil activist Anna Hazare started a Satyagraha movement by commencing an indefinite fast in
New Delhi to demand the passing of bill. Movement attracted attention of media, and hundreds of
thousands of supporters, in part due to the organizational skills of Arvind Kejriwal. Following Hazare's four
day hunger strike, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that the bill would be re-introduced in
2011 monsoon session of the Parliament.

Features of proposed bill

To establish a central government anti-corruption institution called Lokpal, supported by Lokayukta at the
state level. As in the case of the Supreme Court and Cabinet Secretariat, Lokpal will be supervised by the
Cabinet Secretary and the Election Commission. As a result, it will be completely independent of the
government and free from ministerial influence in its investigations.

Members will be appointed by judges, Indian Administrative Service officers with a clean record, private
citizens and constitutional authorities through a transparent and participator process.

A selection committee will invite short-listed candidates for interviews, video recordings of which will
thereafter be made public.

Every month on its website, the Lokayukta will publish a list of cases dealt with , brief details of each, their
outcome and any action taken or proposed. It will also publish lists of all cases received by the Lokayukta
during the previous month, cases dealt with and those which are pending.

Investigations of each case must be completed in one year. Any resulting trials should be concluded in the
following year, giving a total maximum process time of two years.

Losses to the government by a corrupt individual will be recovered at the time of conviction.

Government office work required by a citizen that is not completed within a prescribed time period will result
in Lokpal imposing financial penalties on those responsible, which will then be given as compensation to the
complainant.

Complaints against any officer of Lokpal will be investigated and completed within month and, if found to be
substantive, will result in the officer being dismissed within two months.

The existing anti-corruption agencies [CVC], departmental vigilance and the anti-corruption branch of the
[CBI] will be merged into Lokpal which will have complete power authority to independently investigate and
prosecute any officer, judge or politician.

Whistleblowers who alert the agency to potential corruption cases will also be provided with protection by it.

Content on internet should be censored!

Or

Government's action on social networking

sites is justified

Background
Internet censorship is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet. It
may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their
own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship on their own or due to intimidation
and fear.
Internet censorship in India is selectively practiced by both federal and state governments. While there is no
sustained government policy or strategy to block access to Internet content on a large scale, measures for
removing content that is obscene or otherwise objectionable, or that endangers public order or national security
have become more common in recent years.
Favor

The words and images users post on the Internet may be available for years, and your profile may be viewed
by future employers and school admissions officials, as well as identity thieves, spammers, and stalkers.
This information can be used for the different purpose without any acknowledgement to user.

Many individuals and groups are using the social networking sites to provoke the users against the
government. Its all politically motivated. They are using the tactics which are not acceptable in real world.

Apart from political motives many terrorist and racist organizations are using the social media for hurting the
emotions of people and spewing hate against the castes, religions and races.

Internet is in a completely in chaos due to less censorship. There is need to censor the content and usage or
the internet. People are abusing each other anonymously there is no one out on internet who can take care
on these Problems. We need internet police.

Internet censorship is not at all about the hindering the freedom it is about the mapping the virtual world
with the real world ethics.

Against

Internet is an open and free medium. It can be accessed by anyone by anywhere. That is the power of
internet. If government start censoring voices of the people then internet will lose its charm.

I agree that on internet and on social media websites lot of content available which could be against few
groups or government. But content available is a view of another group. We cannot stop people of keeping
a different perception. We cant hinder the freedom.

The content available on different forums or social networking sites should always have a report feature. If a
person or group find it offensive they can report it. And the site could take action on the content. Need is to
make generic standards for all sites to filter the content based on the hate. This mechanism is already
there so what is need to censor further.

Why government needs to control the content. Political parties can be use the content for their personal
profit. Parties would censor only content what is against them not against the opposition. So if required to
regulate there must be a third party censorship firm or agency or regulatory body. Which can take action
without partiality.

Conclusion

There is no need to censor the internet. What is required is require is to setup a mechanism or regulatory
body which can take care of websites to manage their content.

Internet is free medium and no one should have right to censor things on it.

Under Indian parliamentary democracy, it

is impossible to ensure balanced regional
development. (IIMC)
Favour

Governments tend to be biased towards vote banks while making and implementing policies.

The minorities are usually left out in power game and agitation by various minorities is an example of the
lopsided development.

Most of politicians and policy makers in our country stay in metros or frequently visit metros so; they
themselves take such decisions which promote development of only metros; whereas rest of India being
untouched with growth.

Politicians in power, only take interest in development of their home town or home state; which further
increase gap of development between different states.

Against

Fundamental principles of democracy preach to ensure balanced regional development.

Uniform representation in the Lower House by MPs from all over the country is to bring out regional problems
and demands of people across country.

Constitution is completely unbiased for any kind of regional growth.

Conclusion

Democracy and constitution dont support any kind of regional bias but politician themselves are biased.

Corruption is main outcome of democracy

in India. (IIML)
Favour

Democracy provides equality to everyone, from whatsoever background and competency; it makes easier to
play around loopholes in India.

Democracy does not play a direct role to promote corruption but it gives power to people who are incapable
and have their own aims and selfishness.

In democracy a person is chosen by population. This procedure could be faulty because human being can be
motivated trough means of greed or fear.

Democracy leads to vote politics and vote politics leads to the decisions, which are favorable to some groups
of society. Such decisions and policies are not good for nations growth.

Against

The risk of Democracy is a systemic risk; corruption is a personal equation and holds good or bad depending
on an individual's and organizations personal value systems. The two should therefore not be construed/
read as a cause- effect relationship.

Democracy gives choice to people to select leaders. If people choose wrong leaders than democracy cannot
be blamed.

Democracy is a beautiful system, where people choose their leader. So responsibility is on shoulders of
citizens to choose a right capable leader who can take right and rational decision. More good people should
join politics and people should vote right people.

Conclusion

Democracy doesnt support corruption at all. But people themselves are greedy and selfish who are
motivated for corruption.

For poorer sections of society, a state

controlled economy is better than a
liberalized economy
Favour

China is biggest example of success of state controlled economy.

In liberal economies richer become richer and poorer are getting poorer.

A state controlled economy will result in proper flow of benefits towards rural masses.

State has control over the production and the markets helping poorer sections to avail benefits which they
otherwise would have been deprived of.

Against

State controlled economies are big problem in path of growing business in country which will surely affect
country's growth; eventually affects poor population.

Russia is biggest example of failure of state controlled economy.

The communist countries are bright example of state controlled economies do not result in uplifting poor.

As history stands a proof that, state controlled economies have higher rates of corruption and
mismanagement.

A liberal economy with sound regulatory framework will ensure employment and a healthy economy.

Conclusion

State controlled economy has benefits but evidences from history tell us that state controlled economy is big
failure.

Women's empowerment will lead to social

development.
Favor

Woman is base of family. When you empower a woman, you empower a family.

Women have major influence on children and thus society.

Empowerment of women will give new workforce for society.

This question may be invalid in few countries where women are treated equally but in few other countries
women empowerment is must.

Against

No direct connection.

Empowerment of women may lead to nuclear families and split homes.

Women are already in good position in society so this question is invalid.

Conclusion

Woman is important part of society and her empowerment is must of development. In developed countries
every member of society is in equal position. But in developing nations we need to empower people who
are not receiving equal treatment.

Men resent women power at work place

Favour

Males want to dominate women in every part of society and work because of their traditional male ego.

Its common doubt in society; whether woman can become good mangers?

Men do resent women power at work place. In offices people do fall in conflicts and at that moment they
pass judgments on each other. At that time male employees pass judgment that she is woman so she is
taking this decision.

As compared to past when all lead roles in society were played by males; now women are playing lead roles;
So it is definitely going to take some time to change this mentality.

Against

Its women who avoid power and responsibility in the work area.

Its woman mentally who feels that.

Women resent men power at work because men are leading in all areas of society.

Conclusion

In past surely man and woman were not equal in different areas of life; but now situation is changing very
fast.

India should be reorganized into smaller

states.
Favor

By dividing India in small parts and concentrating on problems region vise; there are more chances of better
growth.

We need governance at small level so that we can manage and regulate life more appropriately

Against

Dividing India is not solution of problem. Because it would create hatred and divergence between people of 2
states.

More over dividing on basis of caste and religion is creating more issues like minor ,major population with in
newly created state

The resources of the India become property of that state so other states become insecure and only people of
a particular reason become richer.

Conclusion

Recognizing India into smaller states is not a good idea

Dividing India into smaller states on basis of castes and religions is not a good idea.

Managerial skills learnt from classroom can

never match those learnt from experience.
Favour

In class rooms a student can only read books and read case studies which are not the experience of him so it
not imprints in his mind and lost soon.

It is a fact that text books can cover only few situations where as real life is combination of many other
complex situations

Reading just gives students glimpse how they should react in a particular situation but when that particular
situation comes in real life it depends on his personality that how he reacts.

In real life a situation and its memory is combination of reaction, result and feelings like sadness,
happiness ,winning, loss which becomes part of human mind forever which not happens in classroom

Against

Books cover all basic situation to describe all complex situations so basically a manager face one of the
situation almost all time

Institutes are providing experience to students by using techniques of drama and role play in classroom
which is a great way of learning real life problems in real time scenarios

Conclusion

Real time experience is always more important than the classroom studies.

In classroom studies one can learn more using modern techniques of learning.

Who is responsible for eve TEASING: Boys

or Girls?
Favor of (Boys)

Girls motivate boys with their body language and sometimes their clothes do play role to motivate boys

Most of the times girls dont react on this kind of activities that might be due to their shy nature but boys get
motivated due to such response.

Girls should reply back or report back to police so if anyone doing this kind of activity should be punished.

Against of Boys

Boys are completely responsible of such kind of acts.

But not all boys are the same. Few boys who are illiterate and low class are mostly doing this kind of
activities.

Conclusion

Not always boys are responsible but few times girls are responsible.

Government should take strict action against eve teasers.

Girls must also raise their voice if someone teases them.

Criticism...is good
Favor ("Criticism...is good")

The good form of criticism is known as constructive criticism; it offers valid feedback both positive and
negative.

A constructive criticism can lend much needed assistance to an individual by giving them feedback on things
that can be improved and issues that can be avoided.

A constructive criticism can also help establish your credibility and expertise by ensuring that you know what
youre talking about, and the people who benefit from your constructive criticism will be more likely to
credit you in some way or form for playing a part in their success.

Constructive criticism can also keep feelings from being hurt by focusing on things that can be improved
while avoiding personal attacks or insults.

Against ("Criticism...is bad")

Criticism can demotivate person from moving forward

Few people use criticism to humiliate the people and influence their image in bad way.

Sometimes a criticism can lower confidence of a person so criticizer should be fair

Deliberate criticism is very popular in modern society to achieve the selfish motives.

Conclusion

Every form of criticism constructive or destructive affects a person one way or another, it will either motivate
him to try harder or deflate his enthusiasm, so it depends upon the person to whom that criticism is
directed how he takes it. But it calls for introspection on his part to do that with justice. If you have
someone who's trying to take you away from your path to success and intentionally trying to just ruin your
chances for success you can label it constructive and if someone is criticizing you for your betterment and
asking you to quit your bad habits them you can label it otherwise.

Lord Gautam Buddha was in deep meditation. At that time, a person came near him and starts abusing him.
He starts criticizing and abusing Buddha badly. But he was surprised to see that there was not even an iota
of change in Buddha's expressions. He was as calm and smiling as before. That person gave up and started
apologizing for his mistake. He then asked Buddha, "Lord, how is it that you were not offended by my
abuses and criticism?" On this, Buddha said, "Dear, I never accepted what you said. So that way your
abuses and bad criticism was back to you. Then why should I feel offended?" So true, isn't it? Anyway,
we're nowhere close to Lord Buddha. But we can definitely follow what he said. Often we get offended by
others' bad remarks and destructive criticism and feel bad for no reason. If we don't accept their words,
see how insulted the other one will feel!

MNS-cultural bullying / Localization

Favour

Local groups are helping local people to have their rights so they can grow and achieve same status as other
people

Local groups are only trying to stop migration of people from villages to city which should be controlled by
government but government is not taking any action because they are getting votes from the migrated
people.

Local groups want to take firm action against the different antinationalist elements, that are growing due to
lethargic action of government.

Against

Actions taken by this group hurting sentiments of peoples of other parts of country.

India is free country where anyone can move anywhere and decide its own destiny.

Government spends billions of rupees to develop infrastructure in metro cities that has been taken as TAX
from all over India so everyone should have equal opportunity.

It is another try of breaking our country on the basis of caste and religion.

Violence is not at all the solution for anything.

Its all for vote politics .

Conclusion

It is true the load on metro cities is way too high and government should take action to control migration
from villages to these cities. MNS or any other local force should take positive step rather going by way of
violence to achieve growth and benefits for the local people. India is a free country everyone have right to
move and make their own destiny.

Mobile phone a ban or a boon.

Favor

Everyone is available to others for 24x7.

People say mobiles made life miserable by providing unlimited connectivity but they don't understand the
fact it also provide limited connectivity options like you can switch of the mobiles.

Mobile proved life saver for human beings in many areas related with human health.

Mobile proved boon for businesses as well where crucial information is at reach for corporate decisions.

Mobile phones made life easy for people who are going to distant areas for expeditions to be in touch with
rest of world.

Against

Mobile phone is hazard for human life as due to electromagnetic waves many people are suffering health
problems of cancer etc.

Mobile phones give unlimited connectivity for human life which made the life miserable for people who have
been over using the mobile phones.

Few people claim that user can control mobile usage but in many cases switching of mobile phones
considered as unprofessional so people not able to cope up with this requirement and over utilizing the
mobiles.

Over utilizing of mobile is ruining social life of people by communicating on phones rather be in touch
personally with friends and relatives.

Mobile phones also deterring the traditions because people are more busy on talking on phones on various
ceremonies and rituals.

Mobile phones also deterring the office atmosphere as many employees spending more time on mobiles
rather on work.

Mobile phones causing accidents because people are using them while driving.

Conclusion

Mobile phone is a great invention but usage of it should be controlled.

A ship Docked in Harbor cannot face the

storms.
It means that a ship cannot reach its destination when it is docked at harbor. Docked ship means that it is safe
from storms but eventually it is not moving. Philosophically a person cannot fight and win wars of life without
moving in life. If a person thinks that he should not take risk and keep himself safe always, he cannot progress in
life. Its not necessary that moving ahead always is risk. So Human beings should understand, change is natural
process and if you are not moving with time and not taking risks then you could be safe from storms but it means
you are docked at the harbor not moving in life.
The topic says that without any effort we cannot achieve anything in our life. If ship failed to sail in sea it can't
get into it destination likewise if a man doesnt make an effort in his life he can't succeed. When person face a
challenge or problem then only his strength comes up. If we are afraid about failure, we can't get success. Failure
or success should be considered same. Let it be as our experience.
A ship docked in harbor cannot face storms...there is risk involved but no success. Of course to get success ship
must face storm and reach its destination to find success.

Sachin Tendulkar should not retire!

Background
Sachin Tendulkar is an Indian cricketer widely considered by many to be one of the greatest batsmen of all time. He is the
leading run-scorer and century maker in Test and one-day international cricket. Wisden ranked him the second greatest Test
batsman of all time, behind Donald Bradman. And the second greatest one-day-international (ODI) batsman of all time, behind
Viv Richards. Tendulkar is the only cricketer to accomplish the feat of scoring a hundred centuries in international cricket which
includes 49 ODI and 51 Test centuries. On 17 October 2008, when he surpassed Brian Lara's record for the most runs scored in
Test cricket.

Favor

Sachin is the greatest player in the world and he has every right to decide when he should retire.

Sachin given so much hope and charm to Indian cricket that no one can push him for anything.

Sachin is completely fit right now and his performance is better than most of the youngsters in team

Sachin is exceptional player and he has full right of deciding when he can say good bye to the game

Sachin proved himself in all aspects of game as well as life. He is true gentleman and we can trust his
decision more than any other selector of Indian team so we should let him take this decision.

Against

There are lot of youngsters waiting for their chance; so its right time to give them chance.

Sachin performed for himself and many times Sachin performed but we lost game.

Every profession having retiring age and I think for cricket we need more young blood which can do better
for future of Indian cricket.

Conclusion

Its true there is need of young blood but we cant achieve that by kicking out our senior players which are fit
and performing well.

If youngsters can prove themselves then they will definitely get chance over senior players.

Sachin is fit and in better form then other members of team. We should wait for his own decision for
retirement. Everyone wants to see him play more and more for India.

Does India need to reduce defense

expenses?
Background
India is number 9th in his spending on weapons. India spend 41.3 billion dollar each year on weapons. Which 2.7
percent of its total GDP.
India increased its military spending by 17 per cent to $41 billion in the Union Budget 2012-13. Of this
expenditure, $17.5 billion will be reserved for procuring new equipment.
The hike comes a year after India had increased its budget expenses by 11 per cent. A cumulative outlook over
the past two years shows that India has increased military spending by a third.
The move is also seen as a way to counter China's 11 per cent defense spending increase just a few days ago.
The capital expenditure of the armed forces that which goes towards purchase of equipment was set at around $
17 billion, a 15.7 per cent hike from last year's capital allocation. 70 per cent of this amount will go towards
servicing contracts already signed. The rest will be reserved for the procurement of new equipment, including
procuring new aircraft from French company Rafale.
The revenue component of the defense budget amounted to $21.67 billion. This part of the budget that goes
towards paying salaries, was $18.15 billion in the budget estimate, but was $ 19.9 billion in the Revised
Estimates, suggesting the services had overspent under this head.
Favor

We are a developing country we should stop spending on buying weapons and start spending money on the
sectors like education.

India has the world's 9th largest defense budget. In 2012, India's official military budget stood at INR
193,407 crore (US$38.58 billion). In 2004, the GlobalSecurity.org estimated India's budget to be around
US$100 billion in terms of purchasing power parity.

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), India has the
lowest public expenditure on higher education per student in the world.

During the Financial Year 2011-12, the Central Government of India has allocated Rs 38,957 crores for the
Department of School Education and Literacy which is the main department dealing with primary education
in India. Within this allocation, major share of rs. 21,000 crores, is for the flagship program 'Sarva Siksha
Abhiyan'. However, budgetary allocation of Rs 21,000 crores is considered very low in view of the officially
appointed Anil Bordia Committee recommendation of Rs 35,659 for the year 2011-12.

So expense on defense system in 2012 would be 193,407 corore rupees whereas education expense is only
21,000 corore rupees it means defense expense is 10 times the education budget.

The country like India where 25% of its population is still illiterate; only 15% of Indian students reach high
school, and just 7%, of the 15% who make it to high school, graduate. According to the Census of 2011,
"every person above the age of 7 years who can read and write in any language is said to be literate".
According to this criterion, the 2011 survey holds the National Literacy Rate to be around 74.07%.

We are not seeing any war in near future whole world is stable. Humans are smart enough to understand the
bad effects of the war.

If Indian government can focus on curbing down poverty, illiteracy, population explosion and corruption.
India can be best nation of the world. Spending money on defense is not solution any of these problems.

Government should start spend money on research and development of in-house weapon development so
India can become power itself rather depending on the other countries.

Against

India's aspiration for a regional power status and a key player in global affairs dictate the imperatives of
independent, self-reliant indigenous defense capabilities.

India is surrounded by many old and new enemies. So for the safety of its population we have to buy the
weapons and this require big defense budget.

It's easy to say spend all money on the education or to control poverty but the minute our security becomes
bit weak so many security related problems will raise like terrorist attacks, kidnapping by local naxalites
etc.

For the safety of the big population we have to take security measures and for this defense expenses are
must. There were so many attacks on common man of India in past that we cannot deny the security needs
of India.

Conclusion

It's easy to say that India is spending more on defense but it is requirement of current time. There is just
need of reducing corruption and controlling the flow of money to right direction so we can utilize the hard
earned tax payer money in best way.

Terrorism in India
I would like discuss about on terrorism.
Terrorism is like a cancer. Terrorism is a big problem for not only India. Terrorism is not only killing men it may crash
down the economic conditions of any nation. But Blaming of government is not the solution of it. We also have to be a
responsible citizen and help government in controlling such problem. Firstly we have to improve our vision and
thoughts regarding other religion. We must give equal respect to all people whether the respective person is either
Hindu or Muslim or Christian or any other religion. When equality will be there in all parts then no one will feel down
and not turn towards such inhuman activities.
Different modes are,
-

Economic crisis.
Economic challenges between developed countries.
Religion.
Corruption.
Lake of education.
Government policies.
Reservation.

How to control terrorism,

- Awareness.
- Education.
- Social responsibility.
- Support to financially backward classes.
errorism is the main problem which we are facing. Terrorist commit crimes mainly in order to take revenge. At present
the government is spending large amount of money to provide security to the terrorists after arresting them. But the
government is not taking any immediate steps to punish them. So it does not create any sense of fear.
Ajmal Amir kasab was the terrorist whom we got alive in 2008 Mumbai attack. He was kept in prison and hanged in 21
november 2012. But the government didn't get any useful information from him. The actual amount spent for kasab's
security could be around Rs 50 crore and above. In this the money spent is waste, each time when he is taken to court
high security is provided. For a single man the government is putting lot of police forces, which is the waste of time for
them. And also the large amount of money spend to him can be used for other needs of the country.
To avoid terrorism not only the government should take step but all people should work unitedly. One of the main
reason for a youth to become a terrorist is poverty, illiterate. Most of them are not getting education because of
poverty. So they have less capacity to understand anything. Just for the sake of money, without analyzing they are
doing these crimes. Hence the government should concentrate in this and provide education to all.
There are many reason for a youth to become a terrorist. Some are due to religious problem, some are due to poverty.
Some of them are not able to look after the family and to give them a good life, they are becoming terrorist. And some
are doing this for earning lot of money. The reason may be different. But they are not thinking of others pain and they
are killing lot of people without courtesy. And so the government also should not show mercy to terrorist. There is
nothing wrong in punishing them.
It is the duty of the government to take certain initiatives to teach a lesson to the terrorism to prevent it before it
happens and if happened then they should be hanged as soon as possible. Terrorism has been national threat ever
since independence. According to me terrorism per se has no identity such as colour, religion, ethnicity etc. But
unfortunately people especially from our political class indulge in divisive politics by giving some identity to terrorism
rather going to the genesis of the problem. In the first place an act of terror howsoever it might be is a deplorable act
and one should never justify or condone this whatsoever, having said that one also needs to assess closely the
scenario immediately after an attack especially in our country.
There is an immediate politicization of the attack by our politicians and also by human rights organization who lobby
for the clemency & human rights for those convicted terrorists who didn't care for the hundreds of innocent lives.
Recently in a state during pre-election time a bomb blast occurred outside a party's office, politicians from opposition
left no chance to politicize this attack by issuing statements that it was intended to gain political advantage before the
election.
There was another instance when an imminent politician termed a form of terrorism to be more dangerous than the
other, I fail to understand the basis of comparison, how can we judge a form of terrorism to another. Thus terrorism of

any form is disgrace to humanity & also an event like such post-terrorist attacks exacerbates and also acts as an
impediment in peace building and justice delivery process.
In the end I would like to conclude that terrorism in India according to my analysis has two facets primarily. First is the
act of terror itself and other the post-terrorism scenario. This problem can be resolved through adequate political
machinery that goes to genesis of terrorism and gradually helps to eradicate it.
As matured and meticulous citizens of India one mustn't view conviction of terrorist as an attack on some community
rather unanimously as Indians we should try and isolate them from our society because not only they are disgrace to
the community but also to our country and moreover to the humanity.
I would like to offer some solutions to check terrorism.
1. Find the root cause of the phenomenon. Take steps to handle the genuine grievances. For ex- there are allegations
of human rights violations by Police and Army in Jammu and Kashmir. We must come up with a mechanism to make
them more accountable.
If the genesis of terrorism is in some stupid cause For ex- imposition of Sharia law across the globe, govt can't really
help. We must have a long term strategy of providing value based education which emphasizes on religious tolerance
so that such ideas don't get support.
2. We must cut their source of funding. Terrorists finance their activities from illegal drug trade, smuggling, counterfeit
currency etc. A globally coordinated action must be taken to control it and our border and customs point should be
modernized.
3. We should also cut their source of recruitment. Majority of them are unemployed youth though there are
exceptions. So the best strategy would be by ensuring their skill development and providing them jobs.
4. In India almost all major terrorist attacks had their origin in Pakistan. We must present strong evidences of
Pakistan's involvement to the world community and seek their help in pressurizing Pak to take actions against terror
camps on its soil.
5. Finally we must modernize our own security apparatus, provide them the best training available globally, and
upgrade their equipments. All this would require money which would come when our governance system is efficient
and free from corruption.
I would like discuss about on terrorism.
Terrorism is like a cancer. Terrorism is a big problem for not only India. Terrorism is not only killing men it may crash
down the economic conditions of any nation. But Blaming of government is not the solution of it. We also have to be a
responsible citizen and help government in controlling such problem. Firstly we have to improve our vision and
thoughts regarding other religion. We must give equal respect to all people whether the respective person is either
Hindu or Muslim or Christian or any other religion. When equality will be there in all parts then no one will feel down
and not turn towards such inhuman activities.
Different modes are,
-

Economic crisis.
Economic challenges between developed countries.
Religion.
Corruption.
Lake of education.
Government policies.
Reservation.

How to control terrorism,

-

Awareness.
Education.
Social responsibility.
Support to financially backward classes.

Thanking you.

Love Marriages Vs Arranged Marriages

I will vote for love marriage on certain condition and issues.

1. If you really love someone and she also loves you then try your best to convince your parents. Wait till they are not
getting agree. Try how much you can because it is only you afterwards who is going to benefit. And at last even if the
parents not getting agree, gentleman go for love marriage.
2. If you marry someone with the desire of your parents or by unlucky after some times you find they you are not
understanding each other feelings then whole life you will suffer. Sometime you will blame your parents and sometime
yourself. But in love marriage there is no doubt that you will not understand each other if you really loves.
3. In the whole world 90% people are not happy with their wife. They all have fulfil their parents desire. I m not
against parents desire, if you want to marry with your parents desire, my dear wait till the the girl to whom you are
going to marry, is not feeling love with you.
Marriage is a bonding of two pure souls where the couples swear to spend their entire life with each other, doesn't
matter whether it is love or arrange marriage. The feeling of trust that your mate is only best for you could lead to a
successful marriage. It a human tendency to err (two pots together always make noise) it just needs to compromise.
One simple thing society has not made people in fact people has made society.
So society has no rights to impose any rule that arrange marriage is good. If every one is happy then no matters
whether it is love or arrange. Our India is developing where our parents have started understanding and respecting
their children's view. So we should also not forget our culture we should respect our parents. Love marriages can be
converted into arrange by convincing our parents because no marriage can be successful with our parents blessings.
Thanks.
There is a great conflict between love and arrange marriage. A person him/herself is not able to decide for which kind
of marriage he/she should go for. But in a relationship trust and understanding is of keen importance and the
relationship in which the person feel's that I know all about my partner feeling, needs, and communication between us
is good then the person can go for that relation.
Well friend's marriage is not life but it is a vital part of life. But it is not only within the boundary of two person, it is
related with two family, tradition, culture, society and all these things. Starting with arrange marriage, our parents
choose our life partner for us and they choose the best because they know us best. But we need to understand their
feeling and accept their gift. The only thing that remained is developing your trust on your life partner and helping
each other to be comfortable.
Arrange marriage's is widely accepted in our culture and the fact it is not contradicting our culture. For example in our
great hindu epic baghwadh gita shree krishna and radha were lovers but shree krishna married to rukmani on wish of
there parents because they want to pass the culture of arrange marriage to there followers.
By the way arrange marriages are most succesfull because if there exist any kind of misunderstang between the
partners then our parents and family members sort out the conflict and come with solution. Talking about love
marriage, what happen is we choose our life partner, spend time with them, share our feeling and emotions with each
other and eliminate the communication gap which makes the perfect. But love marriage don't prevail in our country
except some city.
It is totally a western culture. And friends I want to share my feeling that I believe in love in my parents, siblings,
culture, life, nature, country etc. But not in a person who I met 2-3 days ago, in my opinion love is nothing but sexual
attraction for example - in every teenager dream there is a imaginary girl and she is non other than a actress. And the
teenager think that if I get that girl I will marry her and in this flow they commit mistakes and don't even get time to
remorse later.
In my opinion friends both the marriage style is okay but the factor trust and understanding is important.
Relationships should not be measured by the time they last. It depends on how much love is given & taken. As per
divorce statistics it may be that who loved & married are the majority to divorce, but no one knows about their
feelings after getting divorced or live separately. The most you love larger the disappointment. They might be having
several reasons for a divorce. But still might be loving that person & live without remarrying. Nobody can figure out
someone else's inner feelings & realize the pain of it.
But that doesn't mean I go for love marriages.
Family matters to everyone the most. Even though it is an arranged marriage, children are given a chance to express
their opinions. In my society, they set blind dates. I guess even arranged marriage will also have satisfaction same as
love marriages. According to me there is no marriage without love.
Moreover, people can't say arranged marriages are long lasting & love marriages are long lasting. Love may not be

there or love might change since life is unpredictable. But still married life continues because of childrens' future,
society & family pressures. In some extreme cases, suppression of feelings have led to murders & suicides. This
happens in both arranged & love marriages.
Also culture has no impact on marriages. It depends on which type of marriage you & your parents' minds are set.
Having a relationship is not a harm. But conveying parents that you gonna date this certain person once you agree to
one's proposal is important. You've to love your parents & be friendly with them by telling them freely every
happenings in your life. According to me Marriage is a vital part of life. Marriage isn't life. So Marry only after 20s as
everyone has to give a chance & time to herself/himself to realize his/her true feelings. After 20s only one will come to
know what is life, hardships & will be prepared to fight everyday to live & understand how to create a shield. One must
try to live on their own without anyone's support to make a perfect decision.
So if above things are met, I hope both love & arranged married life will be better.

Censorship in Movies & Our Culture

I've read all of these and the two common things I see are these: 1- There are a lot of bad movies and they
can/will/are affecting our youth! 2- The censorship board is not doing anything about it.
Yes, there are A LOT of movies out there that are vulgar, profane and just inappropriate for children. But you know
what? You're "small children" are NOT BEING FORCED TO WATCH THESE! How about we stop blaming our problems on
other people? Hitler's idea didn't end well for anyone.
If you want my opinion into the "final solution to 'cleaning up our youth'" then here it is:.
It's a simple thing called PARENTING!.
Maybe you have 2 to 10 or more jobs and have no time, well who's fault is that? Maybe it's time to stop watching your
children from the side lines and take a more active role in their lives. But then again, we are all lazy one way or
another, so do what you want. You can keep barking at other people to fix your problems, or you can do something
that matters and actually care for your child/children.
Just so you know, I'm a seventeen year old guy who goes to high school. When I was about 6, my mother was a
terrible alcoholic and my father died before I could even remember anything. She would let my brother and I watch
are rated movies all the time. All through my life I have been exposed to violence, profanity and vulgarity and believe
it or not, I'm not some rotten evil teenager who just loves to bully other kids and take advantage of women. I work
hard daily to keep up with band, choir, an honors senior English class, a government class, National History Day,
Adventures in Supercomputing, a college music class, Harding University Admission applications to the university as
well as into an online Bible class with Harding. So you can either continue to be as ignorant as you are and blame
everyone else, or you can take some advice from somebody who knows and either make time for your children or take
a break from commenting on discussions about how everyone else is the reason your youth is going bad and get
involved in your child's life.
P. S. I happened across this discussion while searching for examples of censorship for a satirical speech that I am to
do this Monday in my English class and let me just take the time to say thank you very much, this was just what I
needed.

Women are not fit for Defense Services

Very good evening to all of friends,
As India a secular country, all men and women has given an equal position. I think that women are totally fit on not
only in the defence services but in the all of the posts of a country also.
We can go through to some example of our brave women like:-.
(i) P T Usha, Sania Mirza, Saina Nehwal who has qualified in the field of sports and brought medals for our country.
(ii) The great freedom fighters like Rani Laxmi Bai, Matangini Hazra fought a lot for our country and led our freedom
fighters and brought independence.
(iii) Mother Teresa got Noble prize for the activity of social work.
(iv) Women reached in pic point of Mount Everest and arrived in the surface of moon.
(v) Women are now a days struggling in the field of politics as well as social work and many more aspects in the field

of national growth and improvement.

As we seen and a experienced that women are in all of the good and reputed posts like Doctor, Engineer, IAS, IPS and
many more, so how can we think that they unfit in the defence services?
They have social value and always have the right to fight for their country (mother) as soldier and to punish the
enemies and terrorists of their nation
Hi friends first time I m giving my opinion on net, so if any thing hurt you then I am sorry for that. Now days you see
what happened on our border, our neighbor country attack on us in night and killed our two soldiers (brothers) , and
cut the head brutally. If this thing happens with our sister then how can we react? can it tolerate? and what they will
do if our sister capture by them? you can imagine that disgusting moment. If we have boys and males here to fight
then why girls or women come in it?
Women and girls are our last weapon which we must keep in safe and use when it need.
Because dishonor of women will not be tolerate by India. Remember japan is stand now because their women are
strong and alive to built country, so remember women is for creation not for dis-troy. I m not saying that women can't
fight, she can fight but why time will come that our ladies stand for fight?
I m repeating again battle field is not as in movie shows, battle can be continue till months. And our soldiers can fight
as long as our support of artillery our food support, our injured soldiers need imminently treatment, and this thing can
manage by women because there management is top class. I am totally against to sent women on battle field as
soldiers.
I am giving you one example, if you are going to fight and your sister giving you company, that time your opponent
attack on you and your sister. What you will do? first you will save your sister then think about yourself, but battlefield
never gives you second chance and it can kill you also.
Again the point is come that girls or women is fit for arm force or not and answer is yes our women and girls are so
strong so they can join arm force. Actually they can run our arm force successfully but they must not lead in battle
field. Its my opinion. If anything hurt you inform me and I m sorry if I hurt any one feeling.
Friends in my opinion women should introduce inside the Defense due to certain reason.
1: we can see the woman working in the Agriculture field through out the day, without taking care of odd weather, hot
sun, heavy rain. She is also seen in many working places where the work is totally depends upon the mental and
physical stamina.
2: If the women of our country can bring the GOLD, BRONZE & SILVER medals for our country in Olympics.
If they can perform very well inside the police department then why don't inside the military ?
3: It is most favorable for them to take the command over the core branches i.e. Engg. , Medical, army educational
dept. , transportation, food etc. Rather than to put their effort at the war front. Because unfortunately if the woman
would get captured or kidnapped by the enemy that will be the worst n worst case scenario, And definitely direct or
indirect way it'll create an stigma over the Army as well our county's forehead.
So its very essential to give them robust training before sending them to war front, in order to make them powerful
(physically and mentally) and full of skills.
By which they can protect themselves first after that can tackle the war situation.
4: One of the most imp. Point is that in the present scenario probably 90% women have many other option regarding
to their future prospect but they join defense due to their courage, spirit of adventure, dedication towards d country,
and to prove their talent in this field, on the contrary a few of men have the true spirit of patriotism, rest of them
joining the defense because of future security, for the greed of military facilities and it might say they don't have
another option but to join defense.
Keeping these points in mind my firm opinion goes towards introducing the women inside the defense. :) thanks.
Here I see that a no.of people go on talking about the physical weakness, mental weakness and all of women. May I
ask one thing? who said women are born weak? It is the society that makes them weak. The society that is on a
mission to prove that women are capable of nothing but doing the house hold work and that too especially in a male
dominated society like India. The same stuff is done in foreign countries and if they can do it. In what way are Indian
women different from them?, ok I know that now you all will go on talking on and on. The cultural differences. But
such a culture would only help a girl be more self sufficient and would make her realize her true power. I do agree that

women are a physically a bit weaker than men but with proper training even that can be fixed.
Now let us take the case of NDA. A prestigious institution from were every Indian citizen dream about graduating.
'EVERY', not just men. Even after so many years why does nda keep it's door shut when it comes to the case of
women. Aren't they Indian citizens? don't they deserve equal rights?. And I heard one of you mention that women
have been granted permanent commission. But I am really sorry. Women have been granted pc in a few posts only.
Women pilots in iaf are still given short service commission only. And that's another thing I don't understand. Why just
pc for a few posts?
Now another most discussed topic is about inducting women in the combat section. It has still not been decided
because most feel that women are not physically fit enough to come in contact with an enemy. Though that's a
solvable issue let it be in the case of army. But what about navy and iaf. In such cases what the pilot and navigators
need is just simple brains and courage.
Guys the real fact is that men fear whether they would loose their power, position and domination if they let the
women handle such areas which were only meant for 'MEN'. So they are still busy giving lectures on how weak and
dumb women are.
And last but not the least a big. Sorry if I have hurt anyone of you. I just wanted to express my opinion.
Evolution had made it so. So far only feminists have the gut to go against mother nature.
Even if you deliberately find a man much smaller you, I severely doubt that you can be stronger than him. Sorry,
testosterone built up so much muscles, bone strength, enlarge lung capacity and enrich blood haemoglobin.
The average man have about twice muscle power and haemoglobin than the average woman. He therefore can endure
much more oxygen lacking activity than average women. In submarine and tank operators, ie, in many combat
situations, lack of oxygen, toxic fume from gun powder fire, battery discharge acid (sub) and heavy physical
manoeuvring, is enough to make 95% of women faint!
An average artillery shell weighing 80 pounds, any of the 4 men crews in the tank must ramp it into the breach of the
gun in a bedeviled speed to fire back in a thick, acrid smoke of fired gun powder. How do feminists, who have NEVER
experienced a combat training situation keep on demand women equality in military? This is STUPIDITY at it best. Just
the collision with the iron & steel parts in the tank may make women bone fracture.
The average fighter pilot suffer frequent 5G* force in every turn of the jet, wearing an oxygen mask and a blood vein
choking flight suit**. Under such conditions, most women would be blacked out in mid air.
And women in infantry? This is a joke, right? most women would stand little chance against even the smallest infantry
man. Men have been evolved as a hunter and fighter for at least 200 000 years. In all species of primate, non has
such a large a sexual dimorphism GAP as human being. If any of your foolish feminist friends tell you otherwise, tell
them to enlist in the army for awhile to cure their ideological stupidity.
99% of Jewish female infantries NEVER involved in front line combat. Please watch TV, if you ever see one of them in
Gaza or WestBank fighting, I'll loose my neck. And this is the ONLY army in the world that enrolled women in large
numbers.

* what is 5G? if you weight 130 pounds, 5G= 130x5= 650 pounds of pressure weighing ACROSS your body.
** to prevent blood rushing either up or down the brain creating black out conditions. The flight suit would chock your
neck, check, arm, legs in every one of such turn.