[parul.s]

Law Commission recommedation for Marriage Age Criterion to change from 21 to 18 for boys.

my few cents:

1. Sense of responsibilty doesnt come only with age.If girls can be married off at 18 why not boys?

2. Our social system has been designed in such a way that we expect the male to be older than the
female. I guess that is why correct marrigeable for males is 21 and 18 for females. This social norm needs to be challenged and changed.

3. With the current scenario of the world changing rapidly, and people taking up marriage only after they achieve their career goals, should not the correct marriageable age for both males and females be 24/25?

4. I agree, that some may say that due to biological and harmonal changes, 25 would be late for a female but still, the point cant just be ignored.

5. To start a family, one should be ready to afford and meet the daily needs..financially and mentally both.

[roopag]

Hi.. This is a little late, but I've put down some of the pros and cons of the nuclear deal. Please add on as Im sure there are many more points.


PROS

*The deal will help spur India’s economic growth by helping to meet India’s increasing energy demand, most importantly, by contributing to electricity generation; a must for India's development
*It will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas
*Non-compliance would undermine India’s credibility in the international arena
*The U.S. will help India negotiate with the IAEA for a specific agreement for India’s fuel supply and provide support to India in developing strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to ensure continuous supply of nuclear fuel
*The deal does not interfere with India’s security concerns- nuclear development for military purposes will not come under the purview of the deal


CONS

*Input cost for nuclear energy is much higher than any other conventional and non-conventional source of energy
*India has rich natural resources- hydro power, wind energy, thermal energy, solar, wave, hydrogen etc. are more environmentally friendly and cost effective- more focus on R&D is required which would also make India more self-sufficient for their energy needs
*India would become dependent on other countries for nuclear fuel and the US also has the right to recall the nuclear technology and fuel provided to India with only a year’s notice
*Regular supply from other nations is not not always guaranteed due to frequent policy changes
*Nuclear waste management is expensive and poses a high risk of health hazards due to radio active ray emissions
*The Respect Developmental Economic advising firm of Dalberg has concluded that for the next 20 years the nuclear investments considered are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase and economize electricity production in India.
*Former Nuclear Scientist Sandeep Pande has stated that even with the optimum use of its entire nuclear potential, India will be able to generate only about 9 per cent of its domestic electricity needs

[arulprakash]

Originally Posted by parul.s

Law Commission recommedation for Marriage Age Criterion to change from 21 to 18 for boys.

my few cents:

1. Sense of responsibilty doesnt come only with age.If girls can be married off at 18 why not boys?

2. Our social system has been designed in such a way that we expect the male to be older than the
female. I guess that is why correct marrigeable for males is 21 and 18 for females. This social norm needs to be challenged and changed.

3. With the current scenario of the world changing rapidly, and people taking up marriage only after they achieve their career goals, should not the correct marriageable age for both males and females be 24/25?

4. I agree, that some may say that due to biological and harmonal changes, 25 would be late for a female but still, the point cant just be ignored.

5. To start a family, one should be ready to afford and meet the daily needs..financially and mentally both.

I agree that responsibility doesn't necessarily be associated with the age, youth of this generation is getting more mature because of exposure. But responsibility alone is not enough to tie the knot, you should be able support the family financially.

If we take biological considerations into account then girls reach puberty by 15 years then they would lobby to bring the legal age to marriage for girls down, but it is not down because there wont be clarity of thought ,they wouldn't have faced the world enough to make decisions for the future,

Population control for a country like India is very important, we don't want to stipulate a one child policy like China as we now know what are the drawbacks of such a policy.So it is important for our people to be mature and responsible while taking decisions on the same. So we give them that extra bit of time

If the age of men is more than the women while marriage, there is a good reason for it, Women according research tend to be more caring and mature at an younger age than men, physical appearance and ability also comes into play, Womens body changes after pregnancy and aging process sets in at an early stage in a women than men due to this. The social and faith related beliefs in India cant be changed and no need for them to be changed,If a system has been working for several thousands of years why change it now?? isn't human society constantly evolving so the system has survived previous cultural changes so let it be there.

[arulprakash]

Originally Posted by roopag

Hi.. This is a little late, but I've put down some of the pros and cons of the nuclear deal. Please add on as Im sure there are many more points.

PROS

*The deal will help spur India’s economic growth by helping to meet India’s increasing energy demand, most importantly, by contributing to electricity generation; a must for India's development
*It will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas
*Non-compliance would undermine India’s credibility in the international arena
*The U.S. will help India negotiate with the IAEA for a specific agreement for India’s fuel supply and provide support to India in developing strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to ensure continuous supply of nuclear fuel
*The deal does not interfere with India’s security concerns- nuclear development for military purposes will not come under the purview of the deal

CONS

*Input cost for nuclear energy is much higher than any other conventional and non-conventional source of energy
*India has rich natural resources- hydro power, wind energy, thermal energy, solar, wave, hydrogen etc. are more environmentally friendly and cost effective- more focus on R&D is required which would also make India more self-sufficient for their energy needs
*India would become dependent on other countries for nuclear fuel and the US also has the right to recall the nuclear technology and fuel provided to India with only a year’s notice
*Regular supply from other nations is not not always guaranteed due to frequent policy changes
*Nuclear waste management is expensive and poses a high risk of health hazards due to radio active ray emissions
*The Respect Developmental Economic advising firm of Dalberg has concluded that for the next 20 years the nuclear investments considered are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase and economize electricity production in India.
*Former Nuclear Scientist Sandeep Pande has stated that even with the optimum use of its entire nuclear potential, India will be able to generate only about 9 per cent of its domestic electricity needs

hey nice post buddy, but can you edit the post and change the font size as it was really difficult to read...thanks in advance

[Subrat.etc]

What went wrong with the 123 agreement:

India being a strong democratic country with a robust parliamentary process in place, the UPA government has in the first place unintentionally undermined our strong parliamentary process. While delegates of US and India government were busy drafting the contents of the 123 agreement, the indian govt. didnt feel the necessity of convening a parliamentary session to discuss what was going on in this front. It was only after the agreement was finalised in front of US and India public, then the government thoght of holding joint session of the political parties.

I feel this has really downgraded the image of Indian politics and the credibility of our country as a whole. Had the UPA kept the parties, atleast the coalition parties updated with the development on the nuclear deal before giving a nod to US, the current scenario would have been avoided. Now India is in a false position in front of the world and US in particluar because of its internal political fightings. Involving the coalition parties in the formative days of the deal would have surely prevented the UPA from the turmoil it is now in.

Stand of the Left:

Mr. Karat, general secretary of the Left, very correctly points that the deal would make Indai dependent on other countries and US in particular for its nuclear needs. But one things Mr Karat forgets here is in todays globalisation era, what is the harm in inter-dependency.Is India not dependent on other countires for many other things like oil,health facilities etc. Then whats the problem if its for nuclear power. India does have its own technology for nuclear survival, but if there is addition of more efficient technology to it, it would surely help india reduce its energy demand-consumtion burden to a large extent.

Regards

[roopag]

I feel that lowering the legal marriageable age for men would result in very few changes, especially in the rural context. If this recommendation is in the name of gender equality, it needs to be looked at in context. Equality does not result from a simple change in the law, it should be built in to the social structure of any society. If anything, this recommendation could be looked at as regressive. Typically, in India, a man marries a woman who is younger to him hence lowering the legal age for a man to get married to 18 would mean men would get married to women who are even younger. In rural India today, there will be child marriages irrespective of what the legal age for marriage (for men or women) is. The focus needs to be on enforcing certain laws (compulsory registration of marriages, declaration of child marriages as void) by involving panchayats, other local bodies, NGO’s etc in preventing child marriages by educating those in rural areas and penalizing those who engage in/ promote child marriage. The government should implement a multi fold program which gradually leads to eradicating child mariages by offering other options by way of employment or education.

[ultikrunal]

Originally Posted by roopag

Hi.. This is a little late, but I've put down some of the pros and cons of the nuclear deal. Please add on as Im sure there are many more points.


PROS

*The deal will help spur India’s economic growth by helping to meet India’s increasing energy demand, most importantly, by contributing to electricity generation; a must for India's development
*It will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas
*Non-compliance would undermine India’s credibility in the international arena
*The U.S. will help India negotiate with the IAEA for a specific agreement for India’s fuel supply and provide support to India in developing strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to ensure continuous supply of nuclear fuel
*The deal does not interfere with India’s security concerns- nuclear development for military purposes will not come under the purview of the deal


CONS

*Input cost for nuclear energy is much higher than any other conventional and non-conventional source of energy
*India has rich natural resources- hydro power, wind energy, thermal energy, solar, wave, hydrogen etc. are more environmentally friendly and cost effective- more focus on R&D is required which would also make India more self-sufficient for their energy needs
*India would become dependent on other countries for nuclear fuel and the US also has the right to recall the nuclear technology and fuel provided to India with only a year’s notice
*Regular supply from other nations is not not always guaranteed due to frequent policy changes
*Nuclear waste management is expensive and poses a high risk of health hazards due to radio active ray emissions
*The Respect Developmental Economic advising firm of Dalberg has concluded that for the next 20 years the nuclear investments considered are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase and economize electricity production in India.
*Former Nuclear Scientist Sandeep Pande has stated that even with the optimum use of its entire nuclear potential, India will be able to generate only about 9 per cent of its domestic electricity needs

very nice analysis dude..keep it up..i m sure it will help to all PGits..cheers

[mockingabird]

There was absolutely no need to lower the marriageable age of boys from 21 to 18. It does not address the issues that need immediate attention. Till date there is rampant child marriages in the rural areas. 21 or 18 these people believe in no rules... Govt should spen time analysing these situations rather than toying around with the marriageable age of boys.

The government cites population as a major reason for not implementing various projects - be it in the education sector, heath and sanitation, or housing sector...
lowering the age with only be a further impetus for encouraging increase in population.

In most rural areas boys are still considered major bread winners in the family. Lowering the marriageable age will only mean they'll tie the knot earlier than before... discouraging them to continue their education and trade it for a job to sustain his family.


Health of girls and women particularly in the rural areas is a major issue. There are deaths during child birth, deaths due to malnutrition and so on. Decreasing the marriageable age of boys will mean partners who aren't that well settled and who are still trying to find their feet. The boy may not be able to provide for his partner's health needs compromising on their welfare. Plus women need to be cared for. Boys at the age of 18 may not be sensitive enough to recognise these needs.

Getting married at a young age would be a great responsibilty on both their young shoulders. It will take a lot more maturity on both their parts to sustain and develop a relationship. It might lead to a lot of divorces if they aren't ready to let go of their prejudices and hold on to their end of the bargain....! I do think that one of them has to be older so that he/she can take responsible actions without putting the relationship in jeopardy for foolish reasons.

[roopag]

We dont seem to have a topic for the day as yet, so lets look at:

"Judicial Activism in India"

The Need for/ Benefits of Judicial Activism
Problems caused by the use of Judicial Activism
PIL's (Public Interest Litigation)
The role of Judicial Activism in India today

Definition:

Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.

[harshaoz]

hey guys,
Maybe i am a bit late...but here goes....

There are two views...as in any case: Pros and cons

Pros,

Hmmm

1) Ppl talk of equality:In a society where a women wants to be considered an equal to men...shouldnt men have the same advantage in this case...

My view on this:The qestion of equality does not even arise
a) women mature faster
b) For a large no. of women getting married before 30 is almost sacrosanct
(The previous point need not be necassrily true for a lot of women now...but as a percantage that no. is still small)
c) If anything if we want to go with the current trend...the marriage age for women must be slightly increased..

2) cant think of any other

Cons,

1) Why Marriage: lets face it...if u are 18 n a guy...u have like what apprx been going out with some1 for like @ max 3 years..is this enough time for you to decide that this person you are with is the one for you...lets face it...most of us are like what 23-25...how many of us still think he way we do now when we were 18...

2) Carreer: In a country like india, i strongly believe that the youth still has not direction...see thid MBA boom itself...we want culture and take pride in being indian ...but Fair n Lovely still sells like hell...the complications dat could arise with something as serios as marriage...i dont think india is mature enough to handle @ this stage

3) we are in a phase were a marriage b/w ppl from other castes is frowned upon and dat 2 love marriage has its own complications in the present scenario...whihc guys parents would really want their son to get married like this when we are so confused as it is.

4) we are already cribbing that western culture is eroding our heritage...this will only worsen matters

Harsha