New Posts :)

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Wide contrasts

WIDE CONTRASTS

On 1st of January 2010 morning, I was riftling through the pages of Times of india when I saw a notice issued in public interests by the ministry of home affairs, Government of india.
What they published, was :-
Infrastructures destroyed by naxals in 2009 :-
Railway properties – 38
Telephone towers - 53
Panchayat bhavan - 20
School building- 47
Forest buildings /roads/ culverts - 121
Who is against developments ??
I just want to know from the ministry of home affairs why are they still emphasising on the very word “developments” . My Lord ! The Government of india ! , you and your policies on developments have left thousands of Adivasis and tribals without homes. You have, in the name of developments, caused the deliberate attempt to deforest the jungles and oust the indigenous people of their own lands. Naxalism is nothing but an aftermath of your unsustainable policies of developments and consistent nexus of yours with big corporates of the world. What actually you want to prove would still be unclear to most of us.
Instead of making a big mockery of your failed attempt to implement land ceilings from the corporate honchos and the zamindaars of today by coming out with such illogical advertisements, you need to look the problem at the grassroot level.
Some days back, on 27th of December 2009, with my brother mother and Aditi, I watched this movie – “ Avatar ”, This “class” animation movie has something to say other than just enjoying a 3 D show. It more or less talks about how Naxalism has come into being. In the movie, the actual inhabitants of the planet “Pandora” wins because when every effort from them were ruined, the Natural Force came to their rescue. But that was a planet Pandora and we are at Earth.
Why tribals whose only source of livelihood are their lands are joining Naxalism movement. There is something drastically going wrong with the policies implemented by our government.
Please don’t pay any attention to such advertisements which, conspicuously throws light to only one side of the argument.
Thanks to go through.

No comments: