Essay : Domestic-Violence

Statistics you can use while writing Essay:

- One in five adolescent girls will experience a form of sexual or physical violence in her lifetime, according to the journal or American Medical Association. 

- In the US, a woman is abused every nine seconds.

- The AMA and the FBI estimate that 4 million women are abused every year.

- Family violence kills as many women every five years as the total number of Americans killed in the Vietnam War – 54000 men and women.

- Approximately 50% of all homeless women and children in the US are fleeing from domestic violence.

- Child witnesses of domestic violence are victims of child abuse at a rate 1500% higher than the national average.

- Ina 36 month study of 147 children, ages 11 to 17, from homes where wife beating was a major problem, all sons over the age of 14 attempted to protect their mothers and 62% were injured in the process.

- 63% of young men between the ages of 11 and 20 who are serving time for homicide have killed their mother’s abuser
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domestic violence is about control. Abusers use the power they have, social and or physical, to establish control within an intimate relationship, They use a pattern of behaviours to intimidate, manipulate, and physically violate their partners. Abusing is a choice and solely the responsibility of the abuser. Most people have a difficult time thinking of abusing as a choice, and describe abusers as ‘losing it’. But try to remember how we all make decisions to meet our own needs. We identify what we want and all the possible ways we can accomplish our goal. We decide how to reach our goals based on what we believe is OK or what we are willing to do. Abusing is no different. Women continually describe how their partners go from one tactic to another when they want something. Some abusers will go as far as emotional abuse, isolation, or intimidation. Some will choose to control economic resources or threaten physical harm to the victim, her children or loved ones. Some ultimately choose violence to get what they want, and the underlying threat of physical violence affects the every aspect of a relationship. Whatever the tactics if you are forced to make decisions on how your partner may hurt you physically or emotionally, your partner has behaved inappropriately; and when violence is used, they have acted criminally. Using violence and/or other controlling behaviours is not acceptable. No one deserves to be abused

Man does not work for bread alone

Man does not work for bread alone

Those in favour say attainment of knowledge should be the major goal of the human race which differentiates it from other creatures while those against say food is the most basic requirement. Let’s hear both sides and form our own opinions.

FOR It is only because man is superior to all other animals in this world that his mental and spiritual qualities occupy a pride of place as against mere physical qualities that he has with other creatures. It is the satisfaction of his intellectual, emotional and spiritual needs that imparts any meaning to a man’s life. His ambitions and a will to be famous drive him to adventure and discoveries. This ultimately kindles a passion for power in him—a primordial instinct that has led to the establishment of great kingdoms and empires. The beautiful art pieces, architectural marvels, soul stirring melodies, awe-inspiring scientific discoveries and all the joys and comforts of modern living were made possible because of the basic urge in man to follow intellectual pursuits. Devoid of this urge, man would become a mere animal—without any charm in life, leading a monotonous life. Were mere physical strength the sole criterion for a man’s status, he would not be constantly striving for further improving his quality of life in all aspects. It is his intellectual contribution to society that is evaluated and respected by others. Therefore, he has brought about an incentive-oriented society where he is suitably awarded for his performances in diverse fields of human knowledge and endeavour was such as literature, science, economics, culture, sports, films entertainment, etc. Thus, we find that bread alone is not motivating factor for a man’s multifarious undertakings. Man can forgo even his bread for higher purposes of life. He is known to have resorted to hunger strikes as a form of agitation and protest. He would willingly embrace death through starvation but not give up his ideology or freedom of action. Scientists, philosophers and saints do not much bother about food when set upon their goals. All food and no love or entertainment will turn a child into a negative personality—without mental or athletic development. Society is not run or maintained by such lifeless souls. It instead comprises people bubbling with enthusiasm, culture and creativity.

AGAINST The very survival of man on Earth depends upon food. Unless and until this basic necessity is fulfilled, a man cannot think of any thing else. It has been scientifically proved now that it is the type of food one eats that determines one’s quality or temperament. We can get better food only if we have better capability and resources. Therefore, the primary aim of our work is to earn food—of better quality—not for mere subsistence but for upliftment. Food is so basic to us that it is used as a weapon in war against enemies or hostile regions. If their food supplies are cut off, they are left with no option but to surrender. All art, music, games, sports, etc. have any meaning for the well-off only whose bellies are full, and, therefore, they can indulge in such pursuits. But a vast majority, particularly in a poor country like ours, which does not get even two square meals a day, cannot dream of such indulgences. If we accept that man does not work for bread alone, we must admit that he can neither survive by working for intellectual or spiritual satisfaction alone. Even without facilities for intellectual pursuits, an intellectual can survive. Inspite of his physical comforts being reduced to zero, he can still somehow be alive. But withdraw his food and first his mental faculties will cease to function and ultimately he will lose his life. Thus, we find that it is bread alone that sustains us physically, mentally and spiritually, and must, therefore, he given priority over other things. Food is the sole purpose of work in a poor country like ours. Unlike developed countries where people don’t have to worry about basic necessities of life, we have not reached a stage of human development where we can devote time to intellectual pursuits. Time spent in such activities is unproductive. Neglect of food has a negative impact on human health. An ill-fed person is unlikely to have the mental ability to give expression to his creative instincts. On the other hand a well-fed population will have the physical strength to produce more food to make our country self-sufficient in foodgrain production.

UPA’s poverty reduction claim rings hollow

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b5uidb24qtjq0z0/UdKizeo9tM

UPA’s poverty reduction claim rings hollow

FOR

Congress-led UPA 2 is suffering from a severe dearth of achievements. The National Food Security Bill is an attempt to cover up the failure of close to a decade. It has furthered this gimmick with the propaganda on poverty reduction.

The Food Security Bill is to provide — on paper — food to 67 per cent of India’s population. Rahul Gandhi says the measure is “historic”, considering it is aimed to bring votes to his party.

Questions have been raised about the purpose of the Bill, identification of the beneficiaries, the infrastructure to deliver and the subsidy burden on the rising fiscal deficit.

The masterstroke came from Narendra Modi, who pointed out, “People were not getting two square meals a day. So they have brought a law, irrespective of whether it is possible to give food to the poor… to give people a piece of paper containing a law that they will get food as a matter of right.”

The Congress first successfully carried out this gimmick in the early 1970s when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi coined the catchy slogan of “Garibi Hatao” and won the Lok Sabha elections. It wants to fool the electorate once more on the same plank. The very fact that 67 per cent of India needs food security is a betrayal of their earlier promise.

To overcome the probing questions over the performance of its numerous anti-poverty programmes since independence, the UPA has now sought to use the Planning Commission and has used a rejected formula to measure poverty. The Planning Commission’s poverty figures of 21.9 per cent set off a furious debate in the country where malnutrition affects 46 per cent of the population. If only 21.9 per cent people are poor, what is the rationale for the Food Security Bill? The new criteria adopted by the Plan panel — of Rs. 27 per day for rural and Rs. 33 per day for urban areas — has been challenged and called a fraud on the poor by the government. The panic-driven UPA is still trying to justify the data, insisting that the figures are quite rational.

The lead defence came from actor-turned politician Raj Babbar who said, “Even today in Mumbai I can have a full meal for Rs. 12.” Another Congress leader came up with a more bizarre statement: “You can eat well for Rs. 5.” Faced with national outrage, the Congress tried to distance itself from such enthusiastic observations.

Questions are now being raised about the Planning Commission’s propaganda on poverty reduction. The methodology is questionable. The government needs to answer few straight questions — if the poverty levels have come down, why subsidise foodgrains for 67 per cent of the population? If the government’s poverty figures are correct, why burden the taxpayer by increasing the fiscal deficit by bringing in the Food Security Bill?

Let us not forget that in 1977 the poverty levels were pegged at Rs. 49 per day for rural areas and Rs. 56 per day for urban. After 36 years, and with high inflation, the poverty line norms have come down instead of moving up. The Plan panel poverty data is nothing but an attempt to rescue the government.

AGAINST

It is unfair to doubt the objectivity of the Planning Commission data on poverty reduction or the methodology used in computing it.

Being a BPL person is not a qualification. The poverty line is drawn to ascertain how many of our people continue to languish in the last row as far as the capacity to buy basic food is concerned, food that will give them a basic minimum calories a day, as per the World Bank’s calculation that is applicable throughout the world.

The opposition is fudging data to further their propaganda against UPA’s achievements in this regard. What was the BPL criterion in 2000, when the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was in power at the Centre, and in 2004, when they left? What was the number of poor people in the country then? What was the poverty line? It was Rs. 368 per person per month in 2004.This comes to Rs. 12 per person per day. The total BPL population (even under that lower earning data) was 37.2 per cent in 2004-2005. This figure has dropped to 20.9 per cent in 2011-2012. Thus, we can say for sure that poverty is gradually coming down, and that the BPL criterion fixed by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, in money terms, is three times more than it was under BJP-led NDA.

The Planning Commission does this exercise on a regular basis in order to ascertain the trend of poverty reduction and its credibility has never been disputed.

The UPA has not been stuck with old methodology for computing poverty reduction figures and has set up the C. Rangarajan Committee to come up with a formula that reflects the consumption patterns of today. It will replace the currently used Tendulkar committee formula.

The criterion of Rs. 816 per person per month for rural areas and Rs. 1,000 per person per month for urban areas does not mean that a person spending Rs. 1,100 is not poor. It is also not a question of whether Rs. 1,000 is sufficient to fill the stomach. The important question is how much resources the country has to support the most needy citizens, and what is it ready to spend on, on behalf of the poor who are standing in the last row.

They surely have the first right over our resources. It also needs to be clarified that 67 per cent coverage under the Food Security Bill indicates that the coverage is for the poor who are above the basic BPL line also.

The number of poor people in India has come down, whatever the claims made by the doubters to the contrary. In the nine years of UPA’s rule, the percentage of decrease is considerable on account of anti-poverty schemes such as the MGNREGA, and other pro-poor programmes. This is not to the liking of UPA’s detractors.