Corporal punishment in schools?? Advocates of school corporal punishment argue that it provides an immediate response to indiscipline and that the student is quickly back in the classroom learning, rather than being suspended from school. Opponents believe that other disciplinary methods are equally or more effective. Some regard it as tantamount to violence or abuse. In the United States and the United Kingdom, and generally in the English-speaking world, the use by schools of corporal punishment has historically been covered by the common law doctrine of in loco parentis, whereby a school has the same rights over a minor as its parent.
In most places nowadays where it is allowed, corporal punishment inpublic schools is governed by official regulations laid down by governments or local education authorities,[3] defining such things as the implement to be used, the number of strokes that may be administered, which members of staff may carry it out, and whether parents must be informed or consulted. Depending on how narrowly the regulations are drawn and how rigorously enforced, this has the effect of making the punishment a structured ceremony that is legally defensible in a given jurisdiction and of inhibiting staff from lashing out on the spur of the moment.
The first country in the world to prohibit corporal punishment was Poland in 1783 [4]. Individual US states have the power to ban corporal punishment in their schools. Currently, it is banned in public schools in 31 U. S. states and the District of Columbia. [95] In two of these states, New Jersey[96] andIowa,[97] it is illegal in private schools as well. One argument made against corporal punishments is that some research has shown it to be not as effective as positive means for managing student behaviour.
These studies have linked corporal punishment to adverse physical, psychological and educational outcomes including, “ increased aggressive and destructive behaviour, increased disruptive classroom behaviour, vandalism, poor school achievement, poor attention span, increased drop-out rate, school avoidance and school phobia, low self-esteem, anxiety, somatic complaints, depression, suicide and retaliation against teacher. Is Democracy hampering our growth? The democratic governance of India was definitely formed with a view of overall socio-economic-political growth of its people.
But like all other concepts, it brought with it several loopholes too which were selfishly utilized for vested interests by certain groups of people from time to time. The various scams often coming up by the nexus of political and bureaucratic people points at a major dark side of democratic powers being put to ill use. The recent 2G scam and the Adarsh Society scandal have been glaring examples of the Indian democracy being used for vested interests. Democracy provides the capitalists with ways for biasing the government and the regulations to suite their needs.
The various policies and subsidies are often found to be favouring certain lobbies of people rather than being in public interest. The policy of the Telecom Ministry to sell 2G spectrum licenses at archaic rates were clearly in favour of certain influential organizations. All these have a major negative effect on the GDP of the country, in spite of an apparent rosy picture being given to the people. The Solar Energy production subsidy, although projected to be in social welfare interest, was found to be having glaring deficiencies.
Democracy also restricts from the concept of a free market economy in the attempt to control economy, thereby restricting better competition and the scope of quality improvement. Nevertheless, it is the democratic Government of India which is being seen as having better stability than autocratic regimes. This increases the faith and confidence of foreign investors thereby maintaining a healthy FDI. Democracy also gives a sense of representation of the common people which paves the way for growth and development of the common mass.
The drastic development of Bihar under Nitish Kumar portrays the positive effect of people’s representation in democracy. It is not democracy which enhances or hinders our growth. Rather it is the approach that we take for our growth with proper utilization of the democratic machinery which is the real propellant to our overall socio-economic growth. Democracy in good hands would definitely induce growth but in wrong hands may lead to restrictive growth. DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN INDIA – NEW CHALLENGES Jogamaya Sandhibigraha Part- II Roll No. 01
India’s status as a shining jewel of democracy in the poor man’s world, and the sheer size of its electorate which alone entitles it to the designation of the world’s largest democracy, have earned the country an easy ride among skeptics in the past, despite misgivings about its blemishes. But critical voices have raised their heads in recent times which in turn gave an open challenge to the democratic governance in the country. Especially after the advent of new technologies the insignificant issues are much able to challenge the continual process of governance.
Among these issues poverty , unemployment, corruption , different kinds of bandhs, dharanas, terrorism, web activism , degradation of the environment can be cited as the major challenges that are enough to shatter the very structure of democratic governance in India. Corruption – a social malady- hold its strong grip over the every human activities ranging from cradle to grave. A recent survey gave the fourth position to India in the list of most corrupted nations- shows the attachment of Indian people towards corruption. However corruption does not simply mean accepting bribes, rather it also includes the dishonesty or wickedness.
Also, avoidance of one’s own duty is a sign of corruptedness. In fact the endless desires, sometimes forced a man to become corrupt. In broad terms, corruption is the abuse of the public office for private gain. It encompasses unilateral abuses by government officials such as embezzlement and nepotism , as well as abuses linking public and private actors such as bribery, extortion, influence peddling and fraud. Corruption arises in both political and bureaucratic offices and can be petty or grand, organized or unorganized. Though corruption often facilitates criminal activities such as drug trafficking, money laundering and prostitution, it s not restricted to those activities. It poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance, by subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and representation in policy making; Corruption in the judiciary suspends the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unequal provision of services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and officials are hired or promoted without regard to performance.
At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance. It also undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, an emerging consensus holds that the availability of bribes induces officials to contrive new rules and delays.
Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and there by sustaining inefficient firms. It also generates economic distortions in the public sector by diverting public investment away from education and into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal such dealing , thus further distorting investment.
Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations; reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure; and increases budgetary pressures on government. These distortions deter investment and reduce economic growth. In quantitative terms , Mauro’s analysis of 94 countries suggests that a reduction in corruption of 2. 38 points on his 10- point scale and would increase a country’s annual investment by 4% of GDP , and would increase annual growth of GDP Per capita by 0. 5%(Mauro 1997).
The World Bank’s ‘ The State in a Changing World World Development Report 1997’ further refines this relationship between corruption an investment by distinguishing between the level of corruption and the predictability of payments and outcomes. It suggests that investment drops of most in countries where corruption levels are high but the predictability of payments and outcomes is nonetheless low. In short, criminalization of politics, red tapism, no fixation of responsibility perpetuation of terrorism un even growth of society reduction in economic growth and economic development etc. re takes place because of corruption and these – altogether – pose a stumbling block in the democratic governance in India. Among a people generally corrupt, liberty can’t long exist -it should be the guiding principle in every human’s life because liberty is the condition for the success of democratic governance. so if we have to overcome from this unhygienic situation, prevailing in the present era, then we have to fight together against corruption and to bring it to a minimal level, as much as possible, so that country’s governance will be done more effectively and efficiently; and people will lead to an healthy life.
