Short skirts cause women harassment: TMC MLA

July 29, 2012

shortskirt

Kolkata, July 29: Bengali actor and Trinamool Congress legislator Chiranjeet aka Dipak Chakraborty on Saturday contended that short dresses worn by women were one of the main reasons behind the increase in incidents of harassment of women in his constituency in the North 24 Parganas district.

"Eve-teasing is a very old thing. It has been going on for ages. One of the reasons behind the increase in incidents of eve-teasing is short dresses and short skirts worn by women. This in turn instigates young men," said Chakraborty, who represents Barasat.

His comments come a day after a girl was harassed in the area.

"The incident of eve-teasing is not good. We condemn it but we need to see one thing that there can be no Ramayana without a Ravan," said Chakraborty.


Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 25,2020

New Delhi, Mar 25: The Congress said on Wednesday that it stood with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his appeal for 21-day lockdown but was "deeply disappointed by the lack of coherent strategy" and demanded that Rs 7,500 should be transferred to every Jan Dhan, PM Kisan and pension account to tide over the nutrition needs for 21-days.
It also demanded that the Public Distribution System (PDS) ration should be given free.
In a series of tweets, Congress Communications in-charge Randeep Singh Surejwala said that the need of the hour was to implement 'Minimum Income Guarantee Scheme' (Nyay) mooted by the Congress and party leader Rahul Gandhi.
"Please transfer Rs 7,500 to every Jan Dhan, PM Kisan, and every pension account to tide over nutrition needs of 21 days and give free PDS ration. We will rise together as a nation and defeat COVID-19. We stand with lockdown but are deeply disappointed by the lack of coherent strategy or a clear 'way ahead' on your part," he said.
Surjewala asked what steps the government took despite an early warning about COVID-19 and sought details about isolation beds and ventilators available to people.
"Dear PM, India will adhere to the lockdown but what steps did the govt take to tackle the corona pandemic despite early warnings in Feb? When will doctors, nurses and health workers have adequate protection? How many 'isolation beds' and ventilators are available and where?" he said.
He asked how daily wagers and labourers will sustain during the 21-day lockdown.
"What's your plan to address the huge issue of bread and butter and livelihood for millions? How will daily wagers, labourers, MGNREGA workers, factory workers, unorganised workers, fishermen, farmers and farm labour sustain for 21 days?" he asked.
Surjewala said the crying need is to arm doctors, nurses and health workers with personal protection equipment and asked: "why are N-95 masks, Hazmat suits not available?"
"In March itself, India needs 7.25 lakh bodysuits, 60 lakh N-95 masks, 1 crore 3 ply masks? When will they be available?" he asked.
Surjewala said that the government banned the export of ventilators, respiratory devices and sanitisers only yesterday on March 24, "84 days after the spread of COVID-19."
"Is this your government's 'Modus operandi' to fight coronavirus? Too little, Too late!," he said.
Noting that two-thirds of the country's population is engaged in agriculture, he said that Prime Minister Modi did not refer to farmers during his address to the nation and demanded a moratorium on farmers' loans.
"Crop is ready for harvest in March itself. How will it be harvested and sold and who will buy at fair price? Indebtedness relief to farmers is the only way forward in these testing times. Please put a moratorium on farmers' loans and recoveries. Please ensure the procurement of crops at MSP. Let's not forget that farmers are the backbone of India's economy," he said.
Surjewala said the Prime Minister gave only four hours to prepare for 21-day lockdown.
"Did you think of over 5 lakh truck drivers, who are now stranded on roads? Did you think of millions of workers, who are stranded in cities away from home without food or money? What should they do," he asked.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 18,2020

New Delhi, Jun 18: India on Wednesday took strong exception to China claiming sovereignty over the Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh, saying its "exaggerated and untenable claims" are contrary to the understanding reached on the issue between the two sides.

Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Anurag Srivastava's response came after China claimed that the Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh is a part of its territory.

"As we have conveyed earlier today, External Affairs Minister and the State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China had a phone conversation on recent developments in Ladakh," Srivastava said late Wednesday night.

"Both sides have agreed that the overall situation should be handled in a responsible manner and that the understandings reached between Senior Commanders on 6th June should be implemented sincerely. Making exaggerated and untenable claims is contrary to this understanding," he said.

Earlier on Wednesday, India delivered a strong message to China that the "unprecedented" incident in the Galwan Valley will have a "serious impact" on the bilateral relationship and held the "pre-meditated" action by Chinese army directly responsible for the violence that left 20 Indian Army personnel dead.

In a telephonic conversation, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar conveyed to his Chinese counterpart Wang Wi India's protest in the "strongest terms" and said the Chinese side should reassess its actions and take corrective steps, the Ministry of External Affairs said.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry, in a statement, said the two sides agreed to "cool down the situation on the ground as soon as possible", and maintain peace and tranquillity in the border area in accordance with the agreement reached so far between the two countries.

The clash in Galwan Valley on Monday night is the biggest confrontation between the two militaries after their 1967 clashes in Nathu La in 1967 when India lost around 80 soldiers while over 300 Chinese army personnel were killed.

The India-China border dispute covers the 3,488-km-long LAC. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as part of southern Tibet, while India contests it.

Prior to the clashes, both sides have been asserting that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, it is necessary to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 11,2020

Those owning a single house in joint names would continue to file their income tax returns (ITRs) in much simpler ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4 forms (Sugam) for assessment year 2020-21 with the government issuing a clarification in this regard.

The clarification has come days after the government modified the eligibility for filing the returns in ITR-1 and ITR-4, stating that those owning a property jointly, spending Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel and paying electricity bill of Rs 1 lakh in a year would not be able to file returns in the simpler forms.

They would have to file their returns with much more detailed information in other specified forms.

Following the changes in the eligibility for filing returns in the two forms, concerns were raised over it with taxpayers claiming that it will cause huge hardship for them.

"The matter has been examined and it has been decided to allow a person, who jointly owns a single house property, to file his/her return of income in ITR-1 or ITR-4 Form, as may be applicable, if he/she meets the other conditions," a Finance Ministry statement said.

"It has also been decided to allow a person, who is required to file return due to fulfilment of one or more conditions specified in the seventh proviso to section 139(1) of the Act, to file his/her return in ITR-1 Form," it added.

Tax practitioners welcomed the government’s move of going back to the previous position.

"This is a welcome clarification allowing middle class taxpayers owning a single house property to file simpler ITR forms, 1 and 4, and not the detailed ITR forms even if they own house property in joint names," said Shailesh Kumar, Director, Nangia Andersen Consulting.

It may be noted that taxpayers holding multiple house properties would have to file more detailed return forms.

In the major changes notified earlier this month by the Income-Tax department, individual taxpayers were disallowed to file return either in ITR-1 or ITR 4 if he or she was a joint-owner in house property.

In another change, those who deposited more than Rs 1 crore in bank account or spent Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel or paid Rs 1 lakh on electricity bill in a financial year were also barred from using the easy-to-fill return forms.

"By today's clarification, the government has maintained status quo. Now, the taxpayers can continue filing their returns in the same fashion in which they did last year," said Naveen Wadhwa, Deputy General Manager (DGM), Taxmann.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.