Corruption is the main outcome of democracy in India.

(IIML)

Favour

The fact that the system provides equality to everyone ,from whatsoever background and competency makes it easier to play around loopholes in the Indian Statute Democracy not play a direct role to prmote the corruption but it give power to the people who could be non capable and have there own aims and shelfishness. Democracy not play a direct role to prmote the corruption but it give power to the people who could be non capable and have there own aims and shelfishness. In damocratic system a person is chosen by other people.This procedure could be faulty because human being can be motivated trough the means of greed,or fear.

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 organization's personal value systems. The two should therefore not be construed/ read as a cause- effect relationship. Democracy give choice to people to select the leaders on the basis of there capabilty and goodness.If people choose the wrong leaders then that is not the problem with democracy that is the problem with people.

Conclusion The democracy dont support the curruption at all.But the people them selves are greedy and selfish who are motivatd for corruption.

who is responsible for eve TEASING: Boys or Girl

Favour of (Boys)

Girl motivate the boys with there body language and sometimes there colothes do play the role to motivate boys Most of the times girl dont react on this kind of activities that might be due to there shy nature but boys got motivation due to this. Girls should reply back or report back to police so if any one is doing this kind of activities should stop this.

Against of Boys

Boys are completly reponsible of uch kind of acts. But not all boys are the same.Few boys who are illitrate and low class are mostly doing this kind of activities.

Conclusion

All the time not boys are reponible but few times girls are also responible. Goverment should take strict action against. this kind of people. Girls should alo raise therevoice if someone tease them.

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.

Social network Boon or Ban or Social networking privacy issues Favor (Boon)

Social networks are new meaning of staying in touch with whole world. The internet a tool that an increasing number of people are choosing to use with great frequency. Too many of these people forget that the internet is a unrestricted, unregulated, and uncontrollable grouping of millions of people, their data, their opinions, and there interests. Public sharing of private lives has not led to a rethinking of anything. It's just reminded people to use extreme caution when publicly sharing their private lives. If you wouldn't do something in front of everyone you know, don't do it on the internet. Laws should --never-- be extended to allow privacy protection for things that people say and do in the public domain. Perhaps the

greatest part of the internet is the lack of control, the utter and complete freedom of speech. What is needed is a basic warning from parents or friends to those who are new to the internet, warning of the possible pitfalls that can come with such freedom. Humans are social animals by our nature and social networks are just one other outlet for humans to interact. We should not look at social networks are threats but as opportunities for us to interact with people globally. I myself am an active user of social networks and have made many friends and business contacts online that I would otherwise not have had the same level of opportunity or interaction.

Against (Ban)

Social-networking sites allow seemingly trivial gossip to be distributed to a worldwide audience, sometimes making people the butt of rumors shared by millions of users across the Internet. Public sharing of private lives has led to a rethinking of our current conceptions of privacy. Existing law should be extended to allow some privacy protection for things that people say and do in what would have previously been considered the public domain. A guy who posted a video on Youtube weightlifting,skiing, and performing karate exhibitions. He was fired from his job for showing to much Bravado. like other human social interactions which are transient, e.g. talking to friends over lunch, the Internet keeps a permanent record of what we say to each other. If you are having an online conversation with your friend(s) then you should be aware that conversation can be seen by countless others and that a record of that conversation will be kept somewhere on the Internet. Indeed, now with some social networks introducing geolocation services a record of where we go and how long we spend there will also be maintained. There was one incident where robbers using user's geolocation on facebook to find out when target is at home or not. People need to be aware of the environment within which they are communicating to others. If you are discussing things in a public forum then all that information is available to everyone else in that forum. Therefore hey should take a common sense approach to what they should and should not discuss. In the real world we only talk about sensitive issues when we are in private and with people we

trust. I think though that when people are online they can fall into a false sense of security because there are physically in a secure place using their computer either in their office or their home which results in them divulging information they should not. Conclusion

Social network is indeed boon for human race as it is bringing people closer and letting them communicate with each other without any fear and barriar.But still one nee to cautious of what level of personal information they are revealing on the social networks.

Valentine day is harming our culture.

Favour

Valentine day is western festival if our youth really want to celebrate we can choose any other Indian day for this. On Valentine's Day People do a show off of their love in public? Which is not acceptable to our society and traditions? Couples should celebrate it gracefully. Valentine day is propaganda of western capitalist society which want to celebrate all those days where people can come out to the malls and spend their money.

Against

Valentine day is great day for lovers to celebrate their love. According to history it's a western festival but now it is celebrating in India also. It's a day when lovers express their feeling to each other. It is a love day when lovers give gifts, red roses, flowers, red stuff toy, greeting cards to each other. But our great Indian police have developed some notoriety for suppressing in Valentine's Day. They inspect hotels, restaurants, coffeehouses, and gift shop on 14th Feb. to prevent couples from giving each other valentines or other present. The police ban the sale of red roses, red stuffed animals, red greeting cards and other red items, report store owner. One more thing do you know guys Valentine's Day is also called by Saint. Valentine's Day. I feel V's day has nothing 2 do with d western influences on Indian culture. India has successfully survived cultural

clashes via Hollywood or 4 that matter the various channels coming u like d M TV, V TV etc. We have been influenced by d west for sure, but at d same time we have retained our values. This itself testifies d fact that sumthin like celebration of V' day can cause least of harm to our enriched heritage. The political parties which issue a ban on d V'DAY every yr.,with due respect to them, should take this aspect into consideration. They should unnerstand tht a day which calls for celebration of a beautiful thing like love can cause no harm 2 d society. The concept of V'day shud not be restrained to sumthing celebrated by lovers. Its way beyond tht...its bout d celebration of d relationship we share with our family , frenz, or for tht matter with d society.I dun see ne reason tht such a thing shud be undesirable Conclusion Valentines day is a day like other festivals of year where one can show his/her love to dear ones.People should celebrate it gracefully.It is not affecting our traditions and culture. Lokpal Bill BackGround

The Jan Lokpal Bill also referred to as the citizens' ombudsman bill. The Jan Lokpal Bill aims to effectively deter corruption, redress grievances of citizens, and protect whistle-blowers. If made into law, the bill would create an independent ombudsman body called the 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 the bill. The movement attracted attention in the 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 the 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, the 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, videorecordings 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.

Euthanasia: To Do Or Not To Do. Favour

Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering. According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering. "In terminally ill patients and in cancer patients who r undergoing tremendous pain.it should be done, coz the pain is really unbearable. And also in people who are terminally ill and who can't afford to pay the high hospital charges, is it not better that euthanasia is done so as to save the misery of the relatives who can't pay high medical bills. And terminally ill cancer patients undergo very severe pain. And we all know how painful the death is .The pain which he undergoes worth living for a few more days, when he'll be dying on his/her bed every moment. Isn't it better to free him from that prison of pain and sufferings if I think about this I feel, it should be allowed.

Against

It can be misused.There must be strict laws pertaining on whom it can be done. And the decision should not be given to only one individualhe can misuse. There must be at least 2 other doctors who should also certify it, other than the treating doctor. People in favor of Euthanasia argue about the vegetable state of a person who needs the liberation. But the fact is, if Euthanasia is legalized there would not be any check on the circumstances under which a patient was killed/relieved. As we all know too well, how easy it is to buy professionals and their opinion. The intentions of legalizing Euthanasia may be Good but legalizing it would be to legalize killings. History is witness that legalizing killing (remember the Soviet gulag, the Nazi concentration camps, the killing fields of Cambodia) has dreadful consequences. If euthanasia is legalized then suicide must also be. The only difference is the former is assisted and the later is self inflicted. ON dec 21, 2006.Marico Ricco an Italian doctor disconnected a respirator that was keeping Piergiorgio Welby alive. After Ricco gave him the sedative and switched off the respirator, Webly smilingly said goodbye to his wife and kids and in 45 min he was dead. Webly's right to die was widely publicized in Italy. Here two questions arise: whether a person has the right to sustain life supporting medical treatment The other is whether voluntary euthanasia. is ethically

defensible. But before such a law is implemented the must be strong legal framework on this; without any loopholes. Science is progressing at a massive rate. At any point of time a drug could come into the market which could save a person from a terminal illness. Every person desires to live, but in pain he loses the power to understand and decide about his life and nobody has the right to define someone else's destiny. So euthanasia should definitely find a way out of our dictionaries.

Conclusion It could be disastrous law for human race so what is required here is to completely understand the process and only after that Euthanasia. Decision should be taken not by the local doctors. Government should deploy a centralized committee consisting of doctors and law makers and committee should make decision based on circumstances.
Or

Content on internet should be censored! 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 a open and free medium.It can be accessed by anyone by any where.That is the power of internet.If government start censoring voices of the people then internet will loose 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 can not stop people of keeping a different perception.We cant hinder the freedom. The content available on different forums or social networking sites are always publish with 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 need 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 to setup the 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.