Jammu, May 1 (GNS): Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha inaugurated the Special Governance Camp for West Pakistani Refugee families, today at Chakroi, RS Pura.
Addressing a large gathering, the Lt Governor said the special Governance Camp aims to resolve grievances, verification of pending cases, awareness about various welfare & self employment schemes and placement drive with focus on eligible candidates from displaced families.
“Article 370 & 35A had denied political rights & other benefits to West Pakistani Refugee families & prevented their scope of progression and upward mobility. Prime Minister Narendra Modi provided them the rights enjoyed by other citizens of the country and they are no longer treated as refugees,” the Lt Governor said.
The Lt Governor shared the UT Administration’s resolve to extend the benefits of government schemes to their families.
“The Government is working with dedication & commitment to realise the dreams of the community. It is a fresh dawn, which offers the people limitless possibilities and a new hope to the youth. We will ensure they become architects of J&K’s strong and prosperous tomorrow,” added the Lt Governor.
The Lt Governor also reiterated the government commitment to work for the larger interest of the displaced families
“Governance camp will act as an institutional structure to effectively resolve all the pending cases within a time frame and mitigate the problems of farmers. Our thrust will be on measures for economic & social development, social justice & equality,” observed the Lt Governor.
Ownership rights of lands to West Pakistani Refugees will be ensured by the UT administration on the directions of the Central Government, the Lt Governor added.
The Lt Governor further assured every possible support and assistance from the government to the youth of West Pakistani refugee families in their entrepreneurial & business ventures. He also said all the opportunities for skill development and sports will be provided to the youth.
Youth must come forward and avail the benefits of all schemes and programmes of Mission Youth, he added.
The Lt Governor distributed sanction letters to the beneficiaries of different Government Schemes. He also interacted with the representative of West Pakistan Refugees and assured appropriate redressal of their issues and demands.
The Camps for employment generation & grievance redressal will be organized at different districts till 10th May 2023. Earlier, the UT Administration has organized Special Governance Camps for Kashmiri Migrants and Displaced Persons of PoJK to ensure saturation of social security schemes, self-employment and skilling.
Bharat Bhushan, Chairperson DDC Jammu; Ramesh Kumar, Divisional Commissioner Jammu; Labba Ram Gandhi, President WPR Association; members of West Pakistani Refugee families, Senior Officers of administration were present on the occasion. (GNS)
SRINAGAR: Jammu and Kashmir’s Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha Monday said that West Pakistan Refugees (WPRs)were tied with the “chains of slavery and treated as the second class citizens for a long time but after reading down of article 370, refugees got all the rights that are enjoyed by the dignified citizens of country.
The LG said the administration led by him will ensure “ownership rights to WPRs very soon.”
“There is no denying the fact that WPRs were treated as second class citizens in J&K. You were kept in the chains of slavery for long and it took a long time to set you free from those chains,” the LG said after inaugurating the Special Governance Camp for WP refugee families at Chakroi, R S Pura, in Jammu.
Sinha said that first, the government started to resolve the issues of migrant Kashmiri Pandits, then Pakistan occupied JK displaced families and now WPRs.
“The camp aims to resolve the grievances of WP refugees and address the issues related to verification of pending cases and create awareness about various welfare and self-employment schemes besides placement drive with focus on eligible candidates,” the LG said, adding that “there is no fun of digging the past and focus has to be on future now.”
He said after Prime Minister Modi’s historic decision on August 5, 2019, disparity of decades ended and “You (WPRs) were entitled to participate in Assembly, Parliamentary, Panchayat and other elections. You have now proper rights and identity.”
The LG said that the administration is aware of the fact that land has been given to WP refugees but not the “ownership rights.” “We are working on the proposal to ensure that you get ownership rights as well within the shortest possible time,” he said, adding that “there is also a large chunk of people (WP refugees) who haven’t received proper compensation. That issue will also be addressed soon.”
Sinha said that WP refugees will get all the benefits of governance. “Your services to serve the nation are of great importance for us. Your children can get admission in any college, school or university,” he said. “Under the PM Modi’s vision, WPRs are no less than any other citizen of the country.”
Jammu, May 01: Jammu and Kashmir’s Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha Monday said that West Pakistan Refugees (WPRs) were tied with the “chains of slavery and treated as the second class citizens for a long time” but after August 5, 2019 historic decision of Prime Minister Narendera Modi, refugees were given all rights of a “dignified citizen of a country.” The LG said the administration led by him will ensure “ownership rights to WPRs very soon.”
“There is no denying the fact that WPRs were treated as second class citizens in J&K. You were kept in the chains of slavery for long and it took a long time to set you free from those chains,” the LG said after inaugurating the Special Governance Camp for WP refugee families at Chakroi, R S Pura, in Jammu, as per news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO).
He said that first, the government started to resolve the issues of migrant Kashmiri Pandits, then Pakistan occupied J&K displaced families and now WPRs. “The camp aims to resolve the grievances of WP refugees, address the issues related to verification of pending cases and create awareness about various welfare and self-employment schemes besides placement drive with focus on eligible candidates,” the LG said, adding that “there is no fun of digging the past and focus has to be on future now.”
He said after Prime Minister Narendera Modi’s historic decision on August 5, 2019, disparity of decades ended and “You (WPRs) were entitled to participate in Assembly, Parliamentary, Panchayat and other elections. You have now proper rights and identity.”
The LG said that the administration is aware of the fact that land has been given to WP refugees but not the “ownership rights.” “We are working on the proposal to ensure that you get ownership rights as well within the shortest possible time,” he said, adding that “there is also a large chunk of people (WP refugees) who haven’t received proper compensation. That issue will also be addressed soon.”
Sinha said that WP refugees will get all the benefits of governance. “Your services to serve the nation are of great importance for us. Your children can get admission in any college, school or university,” he said. “Under the PM Modi’s vision, WPRs are no less than any other citizen of the country.”—(KNO)
Laws must be judged on the basis of results. The consequences of existing lax gun laws in the US are there for all to see. According to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey (2018), with less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States has 46% of the world’s civilian ownership of guns.
It works out to 120.5 guns per hundred people for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 34.7, UK 4.6 and Japan 0.3. As for the gun-related homicides per 100,000 persons, it is 4.12 for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 0.5, UK 0.04, and Japan 0.02.
The total number of deaths from guns in the US, both homicide and suicide, in 2021 was about 48,000 which is 25% more than the deaths from car accidents.
The correlation between the scale of ownership of guns and gun deaths is glaringly obvious.
Moreover, because of the ease with which one can get any kind of gun, including rapid-firing automatic rifles, mass shootings are uniquely endemic in the US. Already there have been more than 100 mass shootings this year or more than one per day. Nearly 160 people have died in mass shootings, including 11 in Monterey Park California. Particularly tragic is the frequent mass shooting of schoolchildren and teachers. Only a few days ago three 9-year-old children and three adults were killed in a school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee.
To understand constitutional issues, one must start by studying and analyzing the text of the relevant articles. Here is how the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment was not something new in the U.S. Constitution. More than 20 years before the U.S. Constitution was ratified and the Union formed, at least three states – North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia – had similar provisions in their constitutions.
The relevant clause in Pennsylvania’s Constitution (1776) reads as follows: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to the liberty, they ought not to be kept up….”
North Carolina and Virginia had almost identical provisions in their constitutions.
A careful analytical reading of the Second Amendment clearly shows that the right to gun ownership was in the context of the need of the state to have “a well-regulated militia,” for their security. No other purpose or basis for owning guns, such as sports, clay pigeon shooting, hunting, or recreation has been mentioned.
Calamity Jane, notable pioneer frontierswoman and scout, at age 43. Photo by H.R. Locke.
An important point must be made here. For individuals in a democracy, a specific constitutional provision for ownership of guns is not necessary. For example, Canada does not have any article in its Constitution for individual ownership of a gun, and yet private ownership of guns in that country is the second highest after the United States. Indeed, it is interesting that there is hardly any democratic country in Western Europe that has a constitutional provision for the right of gun ownership, and yet people have guns. On the other hand, countries that like the US constitutionally guarantee the right to keep and bear arms include the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Ukraine, Mexico, and the Philippines, not the best examples of democracy and freedom.
In a democracy, specific sanction for each right in the Constitution is not necessary. As the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes clear: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Obviously, people have all rights flowing from their unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness,” as so eloquently put in the 1976 Declaration of Independence. For example, an individual has the right to own cars, planes, drones, and motorboats even though there is no specific provision in the Constitution for their possession. Indeed, like so many other things they simply did not then exist. The Constitution provides general guidance, but not all the specific details. The latter is achieved by tens of thousands of laws enacted and many more rules framed in pursuit of the goals laid down in the Constitution.
An individual can own and do anything in pursuit of his right to “life liberty and pursuit of happiness” so long as he does not adversely impact the similar rights of others.
How to interpret and implement the Second Amendment in today’s circumstances?
ATF inspector at a federally licensed gun dealer
At the time when the Second Amendment was adopted, there was no organized, standing professional army in the US for external defense. In fact, because of their oppressive experience of the British colonial soldiers, there was a deep distrust of the regular Army as the clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution shows. The war of American independence was fought and won by an assortment of hastily assembled state militias’ not a regular and professional standing army. Today for its defense the United States has the world’s most powerful army with an annual budget of $750 billion. The US Army is under full civilian control and there is no question of its oppressing the people.
So, from the point of view of external defense, the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
A Remington 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a Colt .45 semi-auto handgun, a Walther PK380 semi-auto handgun and ammunition set against an American flag.
Similarly, at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, there was no organized and elaborate National Guard, police force, FBI, or intelligence agencies for the internal security of the state, society, and the individual. Hence the emphasis on private ownership of guns for personal defense as well as the defense of the state as and when necessary.
Over the years many legal protections have been provided to the citizens against state high-handedness. Besides the right of habeas corpus, a citizen is protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the duty on the part of the arresting authority to inform the accused of his ‘right to remain silent’ and the ‘right to an attorney’, (popularly known as the Miranda rights), the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, strict laws about the admissibility of evidence, etc. These protections are quite effective in safeguarding the individual’s rights.
Today, for internal security as well as personal safety and protection against state oppression, private ownership of guns is not only unnecessary but a problem. All around security will be enhanced by strengthening institutions, better training of state security personnel, improving accountability, not their distrust, and unchecked and unregulated proliferation of private ownership of guns. Though much is left to be desired, security is far better today than in the past. Attempts at constant improvements going on. In today’s urban life with large assemblies of people everywhere, offering easy targets for mass shootings, guns in everybody’s hands will make problems unmanageable.
The argument that personal safety is enhanced by the ownership of guns and carrying it everywhere is not consistent with logic or supported by facts. When people know that the others are carrying a gun the temptation is to pull out the gun and shoot the other person before he shoots you somewhat like what happens in a Wild West movie. With widespread gun ownership, instead of fistfights and injury, there is shooting and death.
This is borne out by the example of the British police. They do not carry weapons when on duty. Consequently, the criminal also does not carry a gun and shoot the policeman to avoid arrest and thus becomes guilty of homicide. He tries to run away often unsuccessfully but there is no exchange of gunfire and deaths.
So, from the point of view of internal security and personal safety also the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
It is common sense that to be effective laws must take into account the prevailing circumstances. These are quite different today from what they were more than 230 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.
At that time the total number of guns in the US could probably be counted in thousands not millions. The assembly-line mass production techniques for anything had not yet been developed. Today in US the total number of guns in private hands is over 350 million.
Even more significant is the change in the lethality and firepower of the guns. At the time of Second Amendment, the guns were muzzle-loading. It would take some minutes to load a gun and fire it. So, to fire 10 shots in quick succession you would have to first load and keep ready 10 guns which would take perhaps 20 minutes or more. This completely ruled out mass shootings by an individual.
The first breach in loading guns using cartridges was invented around 1850. The first automatic pistol was invented in 1892 by Joseph Laumann. And then came the automatic pistol with a separate magazine in the grip and today we have an R – 15 which can file dozens of shots in a minute and mow down dozens of people in seconds.
There is simply no comparison between the muzzle-loading guns of 1791 firing one shot per two minutes or so and automatic rifles like AR-15 or AK-47 firing dozens of rounds per minute. One wonders what those who made the Constitution in the time of muzzle-loading guns would have to say about the freedom to own AR-15.
Laws about gun ownership and carrying it on the person must take into account this change in the firepower of weapons. No law, not even the Constitution is a law unto itself, unchanging and unchangeable. Constitution and laws have as their purpose the welfare of the people, and their right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” They can be amended or even abrogated if, required for the good of the people. Considering the number of gun deaths especially mass shootings and deaths of innocent school children it is time to amend or reinterpret the implementation of the Second Amendment.
Regulating a right is not “infringing” it. Almost all rights of an individual including those under the First Amendment and can be regulated. No right is or can be absolute. The basic principle governing the exercise of rights is that an individual cannot pursue a right to the point where it infringes the similar right of another person. The way the right to gun ownership is being pursued is harming the Right to Life of many people as the frequent random deaths especially of innocent children testify.
An individual has the right to own and drive a car, but this right is regulated to ensure that the right of others to life and the pursuit of happiness is not endangered. The car must be registered and have an identification number plate. There must be third-party insurance coverage. The driver must achieve driving proficiency, pass a test, and have at all times a valid driving license. The car must have minimum safety standards. It must have seatbelts, and a collapsible steering column. It must meet emission standards, have good brakes and tires, and annual roadworthiness certificate. One cannot drive a car under the influence of liquor. The prescribed speed limit must be observed. One can be fined, have his license suspended, or even be imprisoned for not complying with rules.
Similarly, there are elaborate regulations about the ownership of planes, powerboats, etc.
An individual has the right to own a home; but again, there are codes and safety standards that must be followed.
One has a right to drink at the party but not drive back home under the influence of alcohol.
Such regulations are mainly for the protection of the rights of others. We live in a society with others and must respect other people’s rights.
Sick of daily mass shootings, a vast majority of Americans want to regulate gun ownership to check gun deaths. They must translate their vague sentiments into concrete action. Vote out those who oppose common sense gun possession regulations. It is time to discuss and develop a consensus on step-by-step measures to check gun violence. Second Amendment or no Second Amendment, people have a right to own guns but only with regulations to ensure everybody’s safety. It has been achieved by other free and democratic societies. There is no basis for gun exceptionalism in the US. We should stop making gun ownership a fetish. The gun culture in the US is a creation of Hollywood Westerns rather than a need or reality. There is nothing glamorous or macho about gun ownership. Nobody’s safety least of all that of the individual himself is enhanced. Rationally considered everybody’s safety including that of the gun owner is diminished. An arms race in gun ownership endangers everyone’s life in society the same way that the global arms race threatens the security of every nation.
The power to change in a democracy rests with the people. Gun freedom lobbies may have money but the people who believe in common sense gun regulations have the vote. They should go to the polling station at the next election and exercise it.
Mumbai: With the Election Commission (EC) recognising Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s faction as the real Shiv Sena, it remains to be seen whether his group also stakes claim to the party headquarters ‘Shiv Sena Bhavan’ and party mouthpiece ‘Saamana’, both currently controlled by the Uddhav Thackeray camp.
While the Shiv Sena Bhavan is located at Dadar in central Mumbai, the ‘Saamana’ head office is situated in the nearby Prabhadevi area. Both these establishments are currently run by different trusts.
CM Shinde has maintained that he would not stake claim to the Shiv Sena Bhavan even though he has got the party name and symbol. However, the rival camp is wary and on guard. Recently, Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) leader and Thane MP Rajan Vichare submitted a letter to Thane Police Commissioner Jai Jeet Singh, urging him to thwart any attempts by the Shinde group to usurp the Shiv Sena ‘shakhas’ (local party offices) in the city.
The EC last week recognised the Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allotted it the party’s ‘bow and arrow’ symbol, giving a jolt to the Thackeray camp. Earlier, the Shinde group was officially referred to as ‘Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena’ and the Thackeray group as Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray). The Supreme Court is hearing various petitions related to the tussle between the Shinde and Thackeray factions.
Due to the EC verdict, the Thackeray family lost control of the party that was founded in 1966 by Bal Thackeray. The party, founded on the principles of justice for the sons of the soil, had adopted Hindutva as its key ideology and partnered with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1984, an alliance that continued till 2019 when Uddhav Thackeray joined hands with arch-rivals Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress to become the chief minister.
The Shiv Sena Bhavan is controlled by ‘Shivai Seva Trust’. Its founding trustees include late Bal Thackeray and his wife late Meena Thackeray. Many of the founding trustees are not alive now.
Its present trustees include senior leaders Subhash Desai, Diwakar Raote, Leeladhar Dake, former Mumbai mayor Vishaka Raut and Uddhav Thackeray himself.
While ‘Saamana’, the Shiv Sena mouthpiece founded by late Bal Thackeray, is managed by Prabhodhan Prakashan, whose printer-publisher is Thackeray loyalist Subhash Desai.
Uddhav Thackeray had resigned as the editor of ‘Saamana’ after assuming the chief minister’s charge in November 2019. He had handed over the editor’s post to his wife Rashmi Thackeray in March 2020. However, after the Shiv Sena split, Uddhav again took over as the editor in August 2022. Sanjay Raut is the executive editor of the party mouthpiece.
Senior journalist Prakash Akolkar, who has written ‘Jai Maharashtra’ – a book on Shiv Sena’s history, said, “CM Shinde has taken a mature decision of not staking claim to the Shiv Sena Bhavan and Saamana as both these institutions are operated by private trusts. Staking claim to these establishments would lead to further legal complications. It is also his indirect message to supporters to exercise restraint.”
Harshal Pradhan, a close aide of Uddhav Thackeray, said there are 350 Shiv Sena ‘shakhas’ in Mumbai, while outside Mumbai there is one such unit in each municipal ward.
Shakhas are the premises where the Shiv Sainiks (party workers) gather for political meetings, resolving local issues of citizens.
Vaibhav Purandare, the author of ‘Bal Thackeray and the Rise of the Shiv Sena’ said, “As a political party, the Shiv Sena directly owns very few properties. Shiv Sena Bhavan and Saamana are owned by trusts. While most of the Shiv Sena shakhas are either owned by the ‘shakha pramukhs’ or by private individuals who have given their property to set up these offices. It is up to these individuals to decide which way to go.”
Bengaluru: A high-level committee on Thursday decided to approach the Centre afresh with a plea to denotify about 9,600 acres of forest land in favour of 11,000 to 12,000 families displaced due to the Sharavathi river project in Shivamogga district of Karnataka and rehabilitated there decades ago.
The panel is headed by State Home Minister Araga Jnanendra and former Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, both of whom hail from the district.
After a meeting here, Yediyurappa told reporters that a fresh proposal would be sent to the Centre with a request to denotify the forest land in favour of those displaced families who have not yet got rights over the land.
“We had called on the Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav and apprised him of the predicament of nearly 11,000 to 12,000 displaced people (families). He has asked us to survey the land and send a proposal,” Yeddyurappa said.
He said those dwelling on the land have not got ownership rights and it is akin to being landless.
“The district administration has completed the survey and prepared a proposal to give ownership on 9,600 acres of land. We will send the proposal today itself,” Yeddyurappa said.
Shivamogga MP and Yediyurappa’s son B Y Raghavendra, legislators, and senior officials attended the meeting.
