Singh: stop smear campaign, start clean up

Singh: stop smear campaign, start clean up

(http://www.avaaz.org/en/singh_stop_the_slander/?cl=1026971397&v=8924)

Last week, millions of us were shocked to read that our anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare was backing down on key demands of the Jan Lokpal Bill. But the reports were false. Who spread them? A Minister on the bill drafting committee.

Now the press is full of new allegations against other civil society representatives on the Committee. We knew those in power would do anything to stall and derail the Jan Lokpal Bill. Now they have put their media-spin machine into full-swing to smear our leaders and divide the movement.

Our only hope for a strong Jan Lokpal is to stand up to every dirty tactic the politicians use to kill it. Let's raise a massive call for PM Singh to rein in the smear campaign, identify those Ministers responsible and kick them off the committee by the next meeting on May 2nd. When the petition reaches 100,000, we’ll cover Delhi with mobile billboards and follow PM Singh around until the Lokpal process is cleaned up. Click on the link below and sign now.

To Prime Minister Manmohan Singh:

We call on you to reign in the smear campaigns being spread across the media, identify those Ministers that are spreading false information, and set an example by removing anyone who is up to dirty tricks from the drafting committee before the next meeting on May 2nd. We want the new era of corruption-free politics in our country to start now.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/singh_stop_the_slander/?copy

Fight against corruption

Dear everybody

My busy schedule kept me away from contributing to this blog for quite some time. I keep receiving many queries from friends and followers of this blog on why I don't post blogs regularly.

I keep contributing my column 'English Blues' to Education Express, a weekly supplement with The New Indian Express. I want to express my views on social issues but somehow I don't find time to write. Now I'm forced to post this blog.

Right now I'm watching TV (Times Now). In the wake of Anna Hazare's hunger fast citizens interested in fighting against corruption are being interviewed. I'm glad to know that more and more youngsters want to 'demolish corruption'. It is a positive sign. Everyone interested in eradicating corruption in India should express their solidarity with Anna Hazare and take an oath not to indulge in any sort of corrupt practices.

If there is any clean politician, they should join Anna Hazare. "You are either with us or you are against us."

Here I reproduce Anna Hazare's letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Please read it and send in your comments:

Anna Hazare's 5-point letter to PM,

New Delhi: In a five-point letter to the Prime Minister, veteran activist and Gandhian Anna Hazare has explained why he is continuing with the hunger fast that the government has asked him to re-consider. Mr Hazare is clear that his agenda is not just to push for the bill, but to ensure that it is not drafted by the government alone - this, he says, would be undemocratic and would allow politicians to provide far too many loopholes to let themselves off the hook.

Here's the letter:

Dear Dr. Singh,

I have started my indefinite fast at Jantar mantar. I had invited you also to fast and pray for a corruption free India on 5th April. Though I did not receive any reply from you, I am hopeful that you must have done that.

I am pained to read and hear about government's reaction to my fast. I consider it my duty to clarify the points raised on behalf of Congress party and the government by their spokespersons, as they appear in media:

1. It is being alleged that I am being instigated by some people to sit on this fast. Dear Manmohan Singh ji, this is an insult to my sense of wisdom and intelligence. I am not a kid that I could be "instigated" into going on an indefinite fast. I am a fiercely independent person. I take advice from many friends and critics, but do what my conscience directs me to do. It is my experience that when cornered, governments resort to such malicious slandering. I am pained that the government, rather than addressing the issue of corruption, is trying to allege conspiracies, when there are none.

2. It is being said that I have shown impatience. Dear Prime Minister, so far, every government has shown complete insensitivity and lack of political commitment to tackling corruption. 62 years after independence, we still do not have independent and effective anti‐corruption systems. Very weak versions of Lokpal Bill were presented in Parliament eight times in last 42 years. Even these weak versions were not passed by Parliament. This means, left to themselves, the politicians and bureaucrats will never pass any law which subjects them to any kind of objective scrutiny. At a time, when the country has witnessed scams of unprecedented scale, the impatience of the entire country is justified. And we call upon you, not to look for precedents, but show courage to take unprecedented steps.

3. It is being said that I have shown impatience when the government has "initiated" the process. I would urge you to tell me - exactly what processes are underway?

a. You say that your Group of Ministers are drafting the anti‐corruption law. Many of the members of this Group of Ministers have such a shady past that if effective anticorruption systems had been in place, some of them would have been behind bars. Do you want us to have faith in a process in which some of the most corrupt people of this country should draft the anti‐corruption law?

b. NAC sub‐committee has discussed Jan Lokpal Bill. But what does that actually mean? Will the government accept the recommendations of NAC sub‐committee? So far, UPA II has shown complete contempt for even the most innocuous issues raised by NAC.

c. I and many other friends from India Against Corruption movement wrote several letters to you after 1st December. I also sent you a copy of Jan Lokpal Bill on 1st December. We did not get any response. It is only when I wrote to you that I will sit on an indefinite fast, we were promptly invited for discussions on 7th March. I wonder whether the government responds only to threats of indefinite fast. Before that, representatives of India Against Corruption had been meeting various Ministers seeking their support for the Jan Lokpal Bill. They met Mr Moily also and personally handed over copy of Jan Lokpal to him. A few hours before our meeting with you, we received a phone call from Mr Moily's office that the copy of Jan Lokpal Bill had been misplaced by his office and they wanted another copy. This is the seriousness with which the government has dealt with Jan Lokpal Bill.

d. Dear Dr Manmohan Singh ji, if you were in my place, would you have any faith in the aforesaid processes? Kindly let me know if there are any other processes underway. If you still feel that I am impatient, I am happy that I am because the whole nation is feeling impatient at the lack of credible efforts from your government against corruption.

4. What are we asking for? We are not saying that you should accept the Bill drafted by us. But kindly create a credible platform for discussions - a joint committee with at least half members from civil society suggested by us. Your spokespersons are misleading the nation when they say that there is no precedent for setting up a joint committee. At least seven laws in Maharashtra were drafted by similar joint committees and presented in Maharashtra Assembly. Maharashtra RTI Act, one of the best laws of those times, was drafted by a joint committee. Even at the centre, when 25,000 tribals came to Delhi two years ago, your government set up a joint committee on land issues within 48 hours. You yourself are the Chairperson of that committee.

This means that the government is willing to set up joint committees on all other issues, but not on corruption. Why?

5. It is being said that the government wants to talk to us and we are not talking to them. This is utterly false. Tell me a single meeting when you called us and we did not come. We strongly believe in dialogue and engagement. Kindly do not mislead the country by saying that we are shunning dialogue.

We request you to take some credible steps at stemming corruption. Kindly stop finding faults and suspecting conspiracies in our movement. There are none. Even if there were, it does not absolve you of your responsibilities to stop corruption.

With warm regards,
K B Hazare

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/anna-hazares-5-point-letter-to-pm-96844?cp

Please send in your comments.

There is an urgent need to start a movement against corruption.

Difference between ‘that’ and ‘which’

There is a subtle difference between the use of ‘that’ and ‘which’ in a sentence. A relative clause provides additional information about the noun it describes, but it may be considered relevant or irrelevant to the overall point of the sentence.

A restrictive relative clause which begins with ‘that’ is usually considered essential or restrictive. Here is an example:

• I enjoyed reading the novel that I borrowed from my professor.

In the above sentence the word ‘that’ is relative to ‘novel’. There are many novels but here the reference is to a particular novel. The relative clause beginning with ‘that’ is considered restrictive, since it is an essential piece of information that identifies the novel.

Relative clauses beginning with ‘which’ may contain non-essential information and would be considered non-restrictive. Here is an example:

• KCG College of Technology, which is on the Old Mahabalipuram Road, offers aeronautical engineering programme at the undergraduate level.

In the above sentence the clause ‘which is on the Old Mahabalipuram Road’ is separated by commas and the information where the college is not essential to the main idea of the sentence. Even if it is removed the sentence will make sense. In the above sentence, it is not possible to replace ‘which’ with ‘that’.

In short, whenever the information is essential to identifying the subject, the proper pronoun to use is that. If the information is not essential, or can be set apart with commas, then the pronoun which is more likely to be correct. If the meaning of the sentence would be lost without the information, then it is most likely restrictive and that would be the proper pronoun to use.

Difference between ‘what’ and ‘which’?

Difference between ‘what’ and ‘which’

Learners of English often are confused between the use of ‘what’ and ‘which’ in a sentence. Look at these two sentences:

1. What is your name?
2. Which is your name?

Though both the sentences are grammatically correct, we always use the first sentence that starts with ‘what’. The reason is ‘what’ refers to an open set and ‘which’ refers to a closed set. In the first sentence (What is …), the speaker has no chance of guessing any name. In the second sentence (Which is…), the speaker may have a few names in mind or on the list. "Which" generally suggests there are two or more possibilities and the person asking "which" probably knows what they are. Here are a few more examples:

‘What’ refers to an open set: What is your mother tongue? It could be any language and the person asking the question does not know what it is.

• What is the name of the examiner?
• What are the different options?

‘Which’ refers to a closed set: In which city were you born?’ It could be any of the cities which the person who asks the question knows.

• Which (of these) stories have you read?
• Which (of the) countries have you visited?

In the above sentences, it is not possible to replace ‘which’ with ‘what’. If the choice is clearly restricted, then 'which' is the better choice.

Both “what” and “which” are interrogative as well as relative pronouns.
As an interrogative pronoun, ‘what’ in a question suggests unlimited possibilities. Here are a few examples:

• What are you going to do this weekend?
The answer could be almost anything.
• What is your favorite picnic spot.
The answer could be any picnic spot.

“Which” in a question suggests a definite, limited list of alternatives. Look at these examples:
• Which game do you like the most?
Both the speaker and the listener have a few games in mind.

As a relative pronoun, ‘what’ means unlimited possibilities. Examples:
• The examiner asked the student what his name was.
• We don’t know what we are going to do this weekend.

“Which’ as a relative pronoun is specific. Examples:
• I went to Goa which is a beautiful place.
• I want to present a laptop to my boyfriend, but I don’t know which one to buy.

‘What’ is used in a range of expressions, all giving the idea of ‘no limits’. Examples:

• What about …
• What if …

Difference between ‘thanks’ and ‘thank you’

Very recently, a student borrowed a book from me and while leaving my office she said, “Thanks, sir”. I wasn’t happy with her response. Was the student not polite? Was she not sincere in expressing her gratitude? Didn’t she appreciate the nice deed that I did for her?

Though she was very sincere in expressing her gratitude, I felt that the term ‘thanks’ was not a proper term to be used in the situation. ‘Thanks’ is a very casual term whereas ‘thank you’ is a formal term and moreover ‘thank you’ is a more polite term than ‘thanks’.

The phrase ‘thank you’ is more appropriate in the situation. We can use the term ‘thanks’ to our friends of the same age group but not to those who hold higher positions and thos who are elder to us.

In writings, both ‘thanks’ and ‘thank you’ can be used interjectionally. Thanks! Thank you! In a formal letter, we need to use the term ‘thank you’ to come off as professional.

Read the following scenarios to determine if someone actually appreciates your good deeds and has an interest in you.

Scenario # 1:

Ramesh: Reena, I returned from London last week. Sometime back, you told me that you like Tony Blair’s speech very much. This DVD has a collection of Tony Blair’s best speeches. Hope, you will like it.
Reena: Thanks, Ramesh.

Scenario # 2:

Ramesh: Meena, I returned from the UK last week. Here is a gift for you. It is a music album which I bought in Westminster Abbey.
Meena: Great! Thank you, Ramesh.

In scenario # 1, Reena expresses her gratitude politely but not enthusiastically. She didn’t express her affection for Ramesh or appreciate the gift. Ramesh did a nice deed for Reena by remembering what she liked and spent his money to buy the gift, but Reena’s response was not proper.

But, in scenario # 2, Meena expresses her gratitude politely and at the same time enthusiastically. Meena’s response shows that she likes the gift very much and also has affection for Ramesh.

If the word ‘thanks’ can be considered a verbal pat on the back, the term ‘thank you’ is a verbal hug. ‘Thank you’ takes more effort to say than does ‘thanks’. ‘Thank you’ is more personal than ‘thanks’. We say ‘thanks’ to anybody but ‘thank you’ to some people who have really touched our lives.

--

Introducing oneself in English

“Hi, welcome! My name is Jane, the organizer of the conference.”

“Hello, my name is Dr Jayaram. Glad to meet you”

“Is Doctor your first name?”

“No, it is my title.”

“Are you Dr Jane or Ms Jane?

“I’m Jane”

This is a piece of conversation between a gentleman who attended a conference and the organizer of the conference.

The organizer, a Briton, was surprised to hear the gentleman use the title with his name while introducing himself because in the United Kingdom it is not common for academicians to use the title with their names when they introduce themselves.

Recently, I visited a university in Chennai to attend a seminar. Almost 90 per cent of the academicians I met on the occasion introduced themselves using the title ‘Dr’ with their names.

How to introduce oneself in English? Here is a sample conversation:

James: Hi my name is James. What is your name?
Rathi: Hi James. Pleased to meet you. My name is Rathi.
James: Pleased to meet you too. How are you?
Rathi: Great, thanks. How are you?
James: Very well, thanks.
Rathi: James, where are you from?
James: I’m from Goa.

--


Send in your feedback to the article and grammar related queries to Dr Albert P’Rayan at rayanal@yahoo.co.uk

English Next

English Next was commissioned by the British Council and written by researcher David Graddol – a British applied linguist, well known as a writer, broadcaster, researcher and consultant on issues relating to global English.

The new report argues that we are already in a very new kind of environment and a new phase in the global development of English. What are the new rules and who will be the winners and who will be the losers? In this new study David Graddol suggests some of the answers by analysing demographic and economic trends in the Twenty First-Century which affect Global English and language policies worldwide and will influence its future.

David Graddol

Download English Next 1.8mb


http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/english_next.pdf