A reader from Ghana responded angrily to a critical article about microcredits in his country on Radio Netherlands Worldwide’s website. He described it as “Imperialistic!” There were a number of emotional reactions to our series of reports entitled: ‘Microfinance - who profits?’ Here are some examples:
- “Incomprehensible clauses and sky-high interest rates”
- “Microfinancing is good in theory, but it is not enough”
- “Imperialistic and neo-colonial”
Ghanaian visitors to our websites were particularly angry about Eric Beauchemin’s article ‘Cold comfort for Ghanaian businesswoman’. The reporter was highly critical of the role of the local microcredit organisation Sinapi Aba Trust.
One reader wrote that the critical article was ‘imperialistic and neo-colonial’. Tony from Ghana says the reporter insulted Sinapi Aba Trust in describing its alleged lack of hospitality. There is little sympathy for the comments on the “fleet of expensive vehicles…in a country with poorly paved roads.” However, Eric Beauchemin was just describing what he saw. Should he have ignored such aspects?
Tortilla baker
The video about the Nicaraguan woman Linda Flores, who rises at dawn to bake and sell tortillas, led to a different type of discussion. Hyperlink to video Tortilla Baker… Linda Flores’ family helps out, but thanks to microcredit it is now much better off. Radio Netherlands Worldwide’s Spanish-language website deals with the future of women like Linda Flores in a broader perspective.
Rolazaid from the United States writes: “Without a good education and thriftiness microfinancing will not lead to durable development.” The writer has doubts about the honesty of banks which make up contracts “with incomprehensible clauses and sky-high interest rates that people are stuck with for the rest of their lives.” Rolazaid’s conclusion is that poverty forms an insurmountable barrier: “If a family barely has enough money to survive, then it is difficult to find financing for any project whatsoever.”
Peace Palace
Nicaragua’s second-largest newspaper El Nuevo Diario provides extensive coverage of Linda Flores’ participation in January’s meeting on microfinancing organised by Radio Netherlands Worldwide in the Peace Palace in The Hague. She was interviewed before and after her trip to the Netherlands. She says women should have more confidence in themselves.
The organisation which grants Linda Flores her microcredits, Pro Mujer, wants to make women more self-sufficient. Besides money, they also receive courses on health care and dealing with household violence. The article in El Nuevo Diario about Radio Netherlands Worldwide’s tortilla-baking video sparked a heated discussion on microcredit, economics and responsibility.
Honest prize
Raj (country unknown) sparked a lively debate with his comments on the article about the Surinamese rice farmer Tjikoeri. He says that even if Tjikoeri has a good harvest, he cannot get a reasonable price because a cartel of large companies and wholesalers keeps the price down.
He says the international community must take action to ensure that Tjikoeri and farmers in similar situations get fair prices for their products. That way they will be independent and not need loans to pay for water pumps, seeds and other essential investments. Raj says that although the idea of microfinancing is good in theory, it is not enough. “Offer a fair price for the rice.”
Ancient traditions
The article on the plight of Bidi, an Indian woman who is hopelessly in debt, led to comments about some of the country’s ancient traditions: the differences in the roles between men and women and the dowry for brides. Jessie Greene from the Netherlands wrote that Bidi not only took out a loan to buy a cow (which died), but also borrowed from a village money-lender so that she could pay for her daughter’s dowry. Jessie Greene points out that most financial institutions do not provide loans for dowries. On the other hand, microcredit organisations would be a blessing if they could provide an alternative for money-lenders who demand enormous interest rates.
Jasmin from India says Bidi’s case is hardly an exception. She writes that poverty is often due to the size of the many unplanned large families and the use of these families’ savings for dowries. Jasmin says it is time for India to ban the payment of dowries. And time for her husband to roll up his sleeves.
What do you think. Have your say on Twitter Or Facebook
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
It’s in the interest of both President Yushchenko and his challenger, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, that the public sees their concern. According to Mr Spijkers there’s no other explanation as to why the government should be making such a show of the problems. Prescription drugs buy online. Online pharmacy. International Online drugstoreLED Light
Whenever I comment about our country's problems with medical care and education, I always cite the Netherlands as a good example of what the USA should seek as a good example. I am constantly amazed at how understated the Dutch people are, especially since they have so much in the Netherlands which is a good example to us Americans.LED Light
Kind Attention
To,
The Incharge of the Department.
Please help me. If required please send this mail to appropriate authorities. Mr. Shankar Kumar Samanta S.B.I. Officer purchased local Police, Please help me.
Respected Sir,
100% now I believe that if you have money then you can get anything, every thing is possible by you. If you are a poor then you can’t get anything, every thing is far and beyond possible to you, also you get poor judgment and poor comportment in all aspects of life, in our country INDIA. For example 1. I. I went to Police Station more than 100 times, made 5times entries (complaints) into G.D. but Not even a microscopic actions took place against the alleged bodies. On the contrary Sandip Samanta, S/O. Shankar Kumar Samanta (S.B.I. OFFICER Ph. No. 9830366434, Branch: 24B, Nimtala Ghat Street, Jorabagan, Kolkata- 700006, West Bengal, India, Bank Ph. No. 033 25308337) he has much more and enough money so they purchase all police personnel's and some political leaders, some Dada. Etc. Only I used to get many letters and many phone calls which all seem to me needs to be thrown in the trash, as it all are valueless, toothless and only simply a solace to the poor. What an undone boy I am! Woe is to me! My wife and her family, Shankar Kumar Samanta and his family harassed me and my family, they are torcher me physically and mentally, and all time told that they kill me and my family. Dt. 06.08.2010 Case no.336 U/S: 147,148,448,325,379/34 Sandip Samanta, doing the case me and my family, and his evidence only his father, mother and his uncle, not a single man in my village for their evidence, it’s a 100% fabricated case.
We got married 05/03/2002, and have a daughter who took birth on 09/07/2005. My wife and her family lodged a case 498A/34 IPC, FIR NO.276, date 31/08/2009, P.S.: BAGUIATI, against me and some of my family members it’s a fabricated, baseless, legless, toothless and doesn’t have any commensurate to the fact. My wife is engaged and having an illicit affair with a boy (Sandip Samanta, S/O. Shankar Kumar Samanta S.B.I. Officer Ph. No. 9830366434, Branch: 24B, Nimtala Ghat Street, Jorabagan, Kolkata- 700006, West Bengal, India, Bank Ph. No. 033 25308337) just opposite to my house, all the matters are known to every person in my village, and also they have certified me written about my fresh character and nature. When my wife left form my house with Sandip Samanta taking many vory gold and cash 1.20 lack Indian rupees. What a demon she is! She didn’t take our only daughter (only four years old) who is now in my house having severe asthma supported by inhaler. My wife filed the 498A case dated 31/08/2009 and I was arrested on 06/09/2009, how much money Taken Baguiati police form my father and others for 498A/34 I.P.C., fabricated Charge Sheeted, I don’t know, because then I’m in Jail. The Learn" ed court granted me on bail on 19/09/2009. Barasat court. I have lots of irrefutable evidences, (20 pcs. Adult S.M.S., Adult picture with the boy and a c.d.) with me where it is cleanly reveals which translates my wife and the boy that they are in illicit relations. Believe me I and my family would love very much (which is very rare seen in our society) to my wife and never any kind of love lost didn’t happen. They (My wife family) are very very poor and live in a bosti Address: 70/H/8 Manicktolla Main Road, Kolkata – 700054, Beside 5 Star Club, my mother saw 1st time and she arranged my marriage. Before marriage my family did not see the pedigree of my wife’s family, now we understood also realized that they hailed from a worst status. My wife, her family and (Sandip Samanta, S/O. Shankar Kumar Samanta) all they are misusing this law. Now my wife’s family knows all the affair-related matter. My wife left our only solitary daughter to me who is 4 years old having severe "Asthma Disease, depends on INHALER, here political Hide and seek, ducks and drakes and lots of unfair means are going on and the father of the parents (THE FATHER OF THE BOY WHO HAS ILLICIT RELATIONS WITH MY WIFE) are rich, so they are spending money to everywhere with a view to be escaped. Now I decided that in no way I can’t accept that demon wife. I hired a lawyer his name Mr. Kamelash Nandi. I don’t know what will be happened next? It’s an utterly a huge and a palpable offence subsequent to which the boy deserves severe and examplanary punishment so that no one can dare to abuse this law. My mother is a sugar present shies sugar is now 400. If possible please help me. Please investigate the matter thread barely and save me and my family. I leave here one question to every one that in this die-straits situation whom do I take care to myself (TRAGEDY), my daughter, or my mother (severe Diabetic)?. My wife filed another case me U/s. 125 Cr. P. C. Case NO.167/2009, (Smt. Nita Sarkar J.M. 1st Court Sealdah South 24 Parganas. Date 16/12/2009.) They take 4(four) Advocate at Sealdah Court. I am millions miles away from the genuine and authentic investigation and inquiry. No inquiry, investigation were executed against the F.I.R lodged by my wife. It is very painful, lamentable as well as heart rendering, breath taking affair to me and my family. My heart bursts into guffaw when I see the nature of the inquiry and investigation. One thing is as clear as crystal to me that the law and the task of the law enforcing agencies vary from man to man. A new proverb is going to take birth very soon that "Justice for the rich and Injustice is for the poor" A rich reserves the right to indulge in any kind of heinous business but the poor is restricted to involve in any type of excellent deeds" To see all these my heart is about to come in the mouth and the ground under my feet gets shook. In a word all types of Law are for the poorest and the richest will enjoy the richest judgments from all quarters.
After coming form the DumDum Central Jail, I mat with the BAGUIATI POLICE O.C. Mr. Goutam Mitra, and asked him politely: “ SIR I FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT I MADE SO MANY ENTIRIES INTO YOUR G.D.E. BUT YET NO ACTION SO FAR HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN FORM YOURSELF” then BAGUIATI POLICE O.C. Mr. Goutam Mitra, went through all my papers (20 pcs. Adult S.M.S., Adult picture with the boy, G.D.E, MANY MANY OTHER PAPERS RELATED TO MY CASE and TWO c.d.). After seeing all my papers he told me that I cannot take any action until and unless you lodge a case against all of them.
Then I Prayed to the Ld. C.J.M at Barasat court to lodge the case, against the alleged person. (The payer to the Ld. C.J.M. is enclosed which is self-explanatory) after filing the case (The case is starting At Baguiati Police Station Case No-168 Date: 24.04.2010. CHARGE 323, 379, 406, 497, 498, 500, 504, 506 READ WITH 34/120B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE) the BAGUIATI POLICE O.C. Mr. Goutam Mitra, and I.O. Mr. Prasenta Kumar Das, Mr. Ajay Kumar Ghosh, in stead of taking not any take proper investigation/ not take any action/ not take any type of query to recover my Cash and Gold form the house of Shankar Kumar Samanta, The BAGUIATI POLICE O.C. Mr. Goutam Mitra, and I.O. Mr. Prasenta Kumar Das, Mr. Ajay Kumar Ghosh, took my case as a Golden Goose, and how much money BAGUIATI POLICE O.C. Mr. Goutam Mitra, and I.O. Mr. Prasenta Kumar Das, Mr. Ajay Kumar Ghosh, has taken is well known to them. Neither he took any take proper investigation/ not take any action/not take any type of query nor he did roundup them against my case.
When I saw that already near by 90-100 days went by “ I went to the BAGUIATI P.S. to know the status of the case then BAGUIATI POLICE I.O. Mr. Prasenta Kumar Das, Mr. Ajay Kumar Ghosh, became outraged me and my mother that if you ask about Shankar Kumar Samanta and his family I will sentence you and your family in the Jail, all their languages is so much filthy dirty which I cannot express front of you.
As I’m 100 percent innocent so I screw up my courage to place my grievances to every body in order to get redress. So I want to let my matter informed all the Indian and others. I wrote my matter to our local P.S., Local Councilor, all M.P., M.L.A., Minister in W.B. and Other States, C.M. in W.B., CBI Department, CID Department, S.P. and Dy.S.P.(N.) 24 Parganas, DGP Bhupindar Singh, All the I.P.S. AND I.A.S. OFFICERS. Governor in W.B, and President in India. P.M. in India, National/International Human rights department, AAP KI KACHEHRI – KIRAN KE SAATH, Kolkata Police, and all police officers in W.B. informed Kolkata Commissioner of Police, Manager S.B.I.-Branch: 24B, Nimtala Ghat Street, Jorabagan, Kolkata- 700006, West Bengal, India, Bank Ph. No. 033 25308337. My nation, all of the news channels, and all press, Talking with some NGO’s: 1. Universal Right and Duty for Human to Abide URDHA, 2. Human Right Commission’s Mr. Ujjal Paul and Mr. Shibaji Dasgupta. 3. Bharat Bachao Sangathan BBS. 4. Forum for Social Justice and Development FSJD. 5. Ajjtak News Channel’s Miss Menogya. and many more, (anybody can’t help me/ fight for truth /don’t take proper investigation/do not take any action/don’t take any type of query/ Still Now, many department told does not comes under the purview of our department. Then my question is where I go now? I can’t get Judgment still now. I see they all are in sound asleep. The reason is best known to them.
I hope you would care to me, your prompt action shall be highly appreciated and deserves to be lauded.
With kindest regards,
Dipak Kumar Adhikari
Tegharia(Dhali Para),NandanKanan. P.S.: Baguiati.
P.O.: Hatiara. Dist.: North24Parganas.
Kolkata-700059 Email: dipakadhikari_59@yahoo.com
W.B. India. PH. 9874389190
"time to roll up your sleeves", I mean it as with time change , you have more and more works to do, just as the farmera, they have to roll up their sleeves in the feild.prom dresses uk
Dowry is banned under law of India, still the practice goes on. I am citing this article from wikipedia about Dowry laws-its use and misuse.The 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act Introduced and taken up by then Indian law minister Ashoke Kumar Sen , this historical act [1] prohibits the request, payment or acceptance of a dowry, "as consideration for the marriage". where "dowry" is defined as a gift demanded or given as a precondition for a marriage. Gifts given without a precondition are not considered dowry, and are legal. Asking or giving of dowry can be punished by an imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs. 15000 or the amount of dowry whichever is higher and imprisonment up to 5 years. It replaced several pieces of anti-dowry legislation that had been enacted by various Indian states. IPC Section 304B This Section of the Indian Penal Code was inserted by a 1986 amendment. The Dowry deaths law[2] defines a 'dowry death' as the death of a woman caused by any burns or bodily injury or which does not occur under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. For a woman's death to be a dowry death, it must also be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. If this is proved, the woman's husband or relative is required to be deemed to have caused her death. Whoever commits dowry death is required to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life IPC Section 498A Section 498A was inserted into the penal code in 1983 it reads: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. In practice, cruelty is taken to include the demanding of a dowry. This section is non-bailable, non-compoundable (i.e. it cannot be privately resolved between the parties concerned) and cognizable (i.e. the police can arrest the accused without investigation or warrants) on a report from a woman or close relative. Another examples of a cognizable law in India was the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act. Police often file charges against the husband, his parents and other relatives (whoever being named on the complaint by the wife or her close relatives) and put them in jail. There is no penalty (even a fine) for filing a false case. Many individuals have claimed this is being abused by the wife or her close relatives. In urban India, the majority of families have inadequate knowledge regarding section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Malimath committee in 2003 proposed making amendments to this section although such amendments have been opposed by women's groups and radical feminists. The Centre for Social Research India has released a research report[3] opposing amendments to section 498A. According to this report, in the studied cases there were no convictions based solely on section 498A. Although the report states that 60.5 percent of the studied cases were falsified. They also state that many people believe the law has been abused by "educated and independent minded women." A police official asserted that in his district one-third of dowry murder cases were found totally false by the police. [4]. However, on December 17, 2003, the then Minister of State for Home Affairs, I.D. Swami said: “There is no information available with the Government to come to the conclusion that many families in India are suffering due to exaggerated allegations of harassment and dowry cases made by women against their husbands and other family members involving them in criminal misappropriation and cruelty.” [5] On 20 July 2005, Justices Arijit Pasayat and H.K. Seema of the Indian Supreme Court declared Section 498A to be constitutional."The object is to strike at the root of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If [the] cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual wolf appears," the Bench saidخلطات تفتيح المنطقه
"Roll up his sleeves"? He can't because he is half naked. There are no sleeves. MFI stimulates actions to promote activities which are forbidden by the Federal Law of India [see jasmin]. There is a unique chance now to put some people [in this case also some very poor people] behind bars/jail (as a example of course). It will have some effect when this case can be published in the national and international media/newspapers/radio's/tv in India and RNW.
After this episode I'm considering to donate a cow to the poor family as a compensation of the first one (already past away).
Dowry is banned under law of India, still the practice goes on. I am citing this article from wikipedia about Dowry laws-its use and misuse.The 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act
Introduced and taken up by then Indian law minister Ashoke Kumar Sen , this historical act [1] prohibits the request, payment or acceptance of a dowry, "as consideration for the marriage". where "dowry" is defined as a gift demanded or given as a precondition for a marriage. Gifts given without a precondition are not considered dowry, and are legal. Asking or giving of dowry can be punished by an imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs. 15000 or the amount of dowry whichever is higher and imprisonment up to 5 years. It replaced several pieces of anti-dowry legislation that had been enacted by various Indian states.
IPC Section 304B
This Section of the Indian Penal Code was inserted by a 1986 amendment. The Dowry deaths law[2] defines a 'dowry death' as the death of a woman caused by any burns or bodily injury or which does not occur under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. For a woman's death to be a dowry death, it must also be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. If this is proved, the woman's husband or relative is required to be deemed to have caused her death. Whoever commits dowry death is required to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life
IPC Section 498A
Section 498A was inserted into the penal code in 1983 it reads:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
In practice, cruelty is taken to include the demanding of a dowry. This section is non-bailable, non-compoundable (i.e. it cannot be privately resolved between the parties concerned) and cognizable (i.e. the police can arrest the accused without investigation or warrants) on a report from a woman or close relative. Another examples of a cognizable law in India was the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act.
Police often file charges against the husband, his parents and other relatives (whoever being named on the complaint by the wife or her close relatives) and put them in jail. There is no penalty (even a fine) for filing a false case. Many individuals have claimed this is being abused by the wife or her close relatives.
In urban India, the majority of families have inadequate knowledge regarding section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Malimath committee in 2003 proposed making amendments to this section although such amendments have been opposed by women's groups and radical feminists.
The Centre for Social Research India has released a research report[3] opposing amendments to section 498A. According to this report, in the studied cases there were no convictions based solely on section 498A. Although the report states that 60.5 percent of the studied cases were falsified. They also state that many people believe the law has been abused by "educated and independent minded women." A police official asserted that in his district one-third of dowry murder cases were found totally false by the police. [4].
However, on December 17, 2003, the then Minister of State for Home Affairs, I.D. Swami said: “There is no information available with the Government to come to the conclusion that many families in India are suffering due to exaggerated allegations of harassment and dowry cases made by women against their husbands and other family members involving them in criminal misappropriation and cruelty.” [5]
On 20 July 2005, Justices Arijit Pasayat and H.K. Seema of the Indian Supreme Court declared Section 498A to be constitutional."The object is to strike at the root of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If [the] cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual wolf appears," the Bench said
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.