POP से देवी-देवताओं की मूर्तियां बनाने पर भड़का बॉम्बे हाइकोर्ट, दिशानिर्देशों का पालन सुनिश्चित करने के दिए आदेश
Bombay High Court: बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने गुरुवार को केंद्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड (CPCB) के उन दिशानिर्देशों का सख्ती से पालन करने का निर्देश दिया, जिसमें प्लास्टर ऑफ पेरिस (POP) से बनी मूर्तियों के जलाशयों में विसर्जन पर प्रतिबंध लगाया गया है।
मुख्य न्यायाधीश आलोक अराधे और न्यायमूर्ति भारती डांगरे की खंडपीठ ने एक जनहित याचिका पर सुनवाई की। उसने बृह्नमुंबई महानगर पालिका (बीएमसी) और महाराष्ट्र के अन्य सभी नगर निगमों को निर्देश दिया कि वे 1 और 2 फरवरी को मनाए जाने वाले ‘माघी गणेश’ उत्सव से पहले दिशानिर्देशों का पालन सुनिश्चित करें।
उच्च न्यायालय ने मूर्ति निर्माताओं से यह भी पूछा कि अदालत के बार-बार दिए गए आदेश के बावजूद उन्होंने देवी-देवताओं की मूर्तियां बनाने के लिए पीओपी का उपयोग क्यों जारी रखा है। सीपीसीबी ने 12 मई, 2020 को संशोधित दिशानिर्देश जारी किए थे, जिसमें पीओपी से बनी मूर्तियों के निर्माण, बिक्री और विसर्जन पर प्रतिबंध लगा दिया गया था। पीओपी एक सफेद पाउडर है जो पानी में मिलाने पर सख्त हो जाता है। बोर्ड ने मूर्तियां बनाने के लिए पर्यावरण के अनुकूल कच्चे माल के उपयोग को प्रोत्साहित किया है।
दिशानिर्देशों का सख्ती से पालन करने की मांग
अदालत ठाणे निवासी रोहित जोशी और मिट्टी से मूर्तियां बनाने वाले 9 कारीगरों सहित अन्य की ओर से दायर एक जनहित याचिका पर सुनवाई कर रही थी, जिसमें सीपीसीबी के 2020 के दिशानिर्देशों के सख्त पालन का अनुरोध किया गया है। दूसरी ओर, पंजाब में जालंधर के डिप्टी कमिश्नर-कम-डिस्ट्रिक्ट मजिस्ट्रेट डॉ. हिमांशु अग्रवाल ने जिला पुलिस को जालंधर जिले में स्थापित बाबा साहेब डॉ. भीमराव आंबेडकर की मूर्तियों की सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित करने के निर्देश दिए हैं। अमृतसर में आंबेडकर की मूर्ति को नुकसान पहुंचाने की हालिया घटना को देखते हुए जिला मजिस्ट्रेट ने पुलिस को एहतियात के तौर पर जालंधर जिले में सतर्कता बढ़ाने के निर्देश दिए, ताकि शरारती तत्वों की ऐसी किसी भी हरकत को रोका जा सके।
गांव में रह रहे एकमात्र मर्द की हुई मौत, महिलाओं ने शव को दिया कंधा; बेटियों ने निभाया दफन संस्कार
Jharkhand News: विस्थापन एक ऐसा दर्द है, जिसका सामना दुनिया के हर इंसान को कभी ना कभी, किसी ना किसी रूप में करना ही पड़ता है। लेकिन भारत में यह समस्या और बड़ी है। जब बात भारत के पूर्वी राज्यों की हो तो विस्थापन का दर्द और तीखा हो जाता है। विस्थापन के दर्द की कहानी बयां करता झारखंड का एक गांव है। यहां के घाटशिला की कालचिती पंचायत के रामचंद्रपुर गांव में 28 सबर परिवार रहते हैं।
आबादी महज 80 लोगों की है। जंगल के बीच बसे इस गांव के सभी पुरुष तमिलनाडु और केरल में किसी कंपनी में मजदूरी करते हैं। गांव में रह रहे एकमात्र पुरुष जुंआ सबर (40 वर्ष) की भी बुधवार की रात मौत हो गई। अब यह शायद जिले का ऐसा पहला गांव होगा, जहां अभी एक भी पुरुष नहीं है। मजबूरी में ही सही, सबर की मौत के बाद महिलाओं ने जो उदाहरण पेश किया, वह चर्चा का विषय बना हुआ है। अर्थी बनाने से शव को दफनाने तक की जिम्मेदारी महिलाओं ने निभाई।
जुंआ की पहली पत्नी की मौत पहले ही हो चुकी है। उसका एक बेटा श्यामल सबर (17) तमिलनाडु गया हुआ है। दूसरी पत्नी गुलापी सबर को एक पुत्र 10 वर्ष का है, जो रिश्तेदार के यहां गया है। ऐसे में गुरुवार को जुंआ की बेटी और गांव की अन्य महिलाओं ने अपने हाथों ने अर्थी तैयार की। इसके बाद अंतिम यात्रा निकाली। इस यात्रा के दौरान राह की अन्य महिलाएं भी साथ होती गईं। सभी ने मिलकर शव को कंधा देकर श्मशान तक पहुंचाया। अंतिम यात्रा में पत्नी भी शामिल थीं। 14 साल की बेटी ने संतान होने का फर्ज निभाया और जुंआ सबर को गड्ढा खोदकर दफन संस्कार पूरा किया।
रामचंद्रपुर के सभी पुरुष दूसरे राज्य में करते हैं काम
विलुप्त हो रही सबर जनजाति के गांव रामचंद्रपुर में रोजी-रोजगार के लिए सभी पुरुष तमिलनाडु और केरल जैसे सुदूरवर्ती राज्यों में हैं। जहां से तत्काल पहुंच पाना संभव नहीं है। गांव में 28 सबर परिवार रहते हैं, यहां लगभग 80 से 85 लोग रहते हैं। यहां के 20 युवक और अधेड़ तमिलनाडु गये हैं। बाकी यहां महिला हैं या फिर छोटी बच्चियां।
मानवता शर्मसार; शख्स ने फ्लाईओवर पर आवारा कुत्ते के साथ किया रेप, सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हुआ वीडियो
Maharashtra News: मुंबई से मानवता को शर्मसार करने का एक मामला सामने आ रहा है। बोरीवली रेलवे स्टेशन के स्काईवॉक पर देर रात एक शख्स आवारा कुत्ते के साथ बलात्कार करता हुआ कैमरे में कैद हो गया। इस घटना का वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हो रहा है। लोग तरह-तरह की प्रतिक्रिया दे रहे हैं। वीडियो में साफ तौर पर देखा जा सकता है कि युवक सुनसान फ्लाईओवर पर मासूम जानवर के साथ क्रूरता कर रहा है।
रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, यह घटना बुधवार देर रात बोरीवली स्टेशन फ्लाईओवर पर हुई। वीडियो में दिख रहा है कि शख्स वीडियो बनाते हुए ब्रिज पर चल रहा है, अचानक उसकी नजर एक शख्स पर पड़ती है जो खुले में आवारा कुत्ते के साथ यौन उत्पीड़न कर रहा है। वीडियो रिकॉर्ड करने वाला शख्स कुत्ते के साथ बलात्कार करते हुए आरोपी से लड़ता है। टोकने पर आरोपी खड़ा हुआ और वहां से जाने लगा।
वीडियो को इंस्टाग्राम पर एक एनिमल एक्टिविस्ट अकाउंट “स्ट्रीटडॉग्सऑफबॉम्बे” द्वारा शेयर किया गया था। वीडियो शेयर करते हुए इस घटना की जानकारी लिखी गई है। कैप्शन के मुताबिक, 29 जनवरी, 2025 को सुबह 3 बजे के आसपास मुंबई के बोरीवली स्टेशन फ्लाईओवर के पास जानवरों के साथ क्रूरता का एक दिल दहला देने वाला मामला सामने आया। एक असहाय कुत्ते के साथ अकल्पनीय दुर्व्यवहार किया गया। हमारे समाज में ऐसी क्रूरता के लिए कोई जगह नहीं है और हमें यह सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए कि अपराधी को जवाबदेह ठहराया जाए।
पोस्ट में आगे लिखा था, “हमें आपकी मदद चाहिए! अगर आपके पास इस घटना के बारे में कोई जानकारी है, तो कृपया आगे आएं। साथ मिलकर हम जानवरों के साथ दुर्व्यवहार के खिलाफ खड़े हो सकते हैं और सभी प्राणियों के लिए एक सुरक्षित दुनिया की दिशा में काम कर सकते हैं। जागरूकता फैलाएं और न्याय सुनिश्चित करने में हमारी मदद करें! अगर आपके पास कोई सुराग है, तो कृपया हमसे संपर्क करें।”
मासूम जानवर के लिए न्याय की मांग करते हुए वीडियो को सोशल मीडिया पर शेयर किया गया। पशु प्रेमी और कार्यकर्ता मासूम जानवर के साथ अभद्र कृत्य में शामिल व्यक्ति के खिलाफ सख्त कार्रवाई की मांग कर रहे हैं।
4,384 likes, 708 comments - streetdogsofbombay on January 30, 2025: "On January 29, 2025, around 3 AM , a heartbreaking case of animal cruelty took place near Borivali Station flyover, Mumbai , where a helpless dog was subjected to unimaginable abuse…
Stimpunks Guide to the NeurodiVerse Issue #3: Mental Health and Epistemic Justice
May is Mental Health Awareness Month. We dedicate this issue to epistemic justice, something sorely missing in the treatment of neurodivergent and disabled people’s mental health. Negative stereotypes stifle voices and useful tools. Lack of epistemic justice proliferates harm.
Epistemic justice is an essential component of good psychiatric care.
Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life
Epistemic injustice refers to harms that relate specifically to our status as epistemic agents, whereby our status as knowers, interpreters, and providers of information, is unduly diminished or stifled in a way that undermines the agent’s agency and dignity. The concept was defined by Miranda Fricker (2007), who identifies two key forms of epistemic injustice. The first is testimonial injustice, which refers to cases where testimony is unduly dismissed because of prejudiced beliefs regarding minority groups. Hermeneutical injustice refers to cases where a community’s shared vocabularies have been structured in a way that unfairly distorts or stifles understanding for, and of, a minority group. In each case, there is an instance of people being harmed specifically in their capacity as knowers: individuals capable of knowing or providing knowledge.
Much work on epistemic injustice has identified the operation of negative stereotypes relating to gender and race; for instance, when someone’s testimony is dismissed, doubted, or accorded low credibility due to racist or sexist prejudices on the part of the listener (Dotson, 2011; Fricker, 2007; Kidd et al., 2017; Medina, 2013). But in recent years research has drawn attention to epistemic injustice in healthcare generally, and more specifically within psychiatry, pediatrics, and among people with disabilities (Blease et al., 2016; Carel & Kidd, 2014; Crichton et al., 2016; Kidd & Carel, 2016, 2019; Potter, 2015). What has been revealed is the systematic stifling of the voices and interpretive tools available to both ill and disabled persons: in particular, their information providing, testimonies, and interpretations. These types of epistemic injustice have been associated with the medical deficit model that dominates much of medical and psychiatric discourse (Kidd & Carel, 2018, 2019). Moreover, physically disabled persons’ claims that they are happy and living good lives have also been dismissed due to prejudices about the possibility of living well whilst disabled (Blease et al., 2016; Carel, 2016, ch. 6).
We’ve suggested that autistic individuals encounter testimonial injustice, when they claim to be happy or living good lives, and hermeneutical injustice, seen in the exclusion of neurodivergent modes of flourishing. But it is also vital to consider how these forms of injustice combine and interlock in practice. In day-to-day life, prejudiced stereotypes regarding autistic flourishing and wellbeing culminate in autistic individuals encountering a “catch-22”-like framing, whereby the possibility of being both autistic and living a good life is, to varying extents, unthinkable for many.
Epistemic justice is an essential component of good psychiatric care
The central message I wish to convey is that the epistemic justice is an essential component of good psychiatric practice and there is no reason for the attitude of psychiatrists toward this framework to be one of antagonism. Medicine and psychiatry, practiced virtuously, are on the side of epistemic justice.
Epistemic justice is not something that is outside of good clinical care. Good clinical care is inclusive of our best ethical practices; just as good clinical care cannot be racist or sexist, good clinical care cannot be epistemically unjust. We cannot appeal to good clinical care to justify ignoring epistemic justice because epistemic justice clarifies a vital aspect of what good clinical care ought to be.
Academic, Activist, or Advocate? Angry, Entangled, and Emerging: A Critical Reflection on Autism Knowledge Production
The minority stress model posits that social disadvantage and marginalization results in an increased burden, which in turn can result in mental and physical health disparities (Meyer et al., 2002; Frost et al., 2015). Predominantly, it has been used to investigate the health disparities seen in the queer community. The focus in the minority stress model shifts away from there being something inherent about LGBTQ+ communities and focuses instead on the experiences that sexual and gender minorities have within society. It sounds cliché, but it was a light-bulb moment—it was a lens through which I could reflect on an entire lifetime of experiences and make them coherent for once. Yet, as an idea, minority stress ran counter to the literature which associated the traits of autism itself with suicidality (Mikami et al., 2009), centered suffering as inherent to autism (Baron-Cohen and Bolton, 1993), or focused on the specific thinking styles of autistic people as causative of poor mental health—as if autistic people exist in a societal blackhole, and would still suffer in the absence of our entire social structure.
It is not hard to see the potential utility for the minority stress model when you pause and take stock of how autistic people are treated in society. The minority stress model captures the some of the complexity of existing while autistic. Autistic people are stereotyped—and the vast majority of stereotypes are negative (Wood and Freeth, 2016). Autistic people face employment discrimination, higher unemployment, and underemployment, as well as experiencing bullying in the workplace (Shattuck et al., 2012; Baldwin et al., 2014). Autistic children are more likely to be excluded from schools (Timpson and Great Britain, 2019). In the United Kingdom (UK), one-third of autistic people have access to neither employment or welfare payments (Redman, 2009), while 12% of Welsh autistic adults report experiencing homelessness (Evans, 2011). Statistics show disproportionate use of force against autistic people and those with learning disability in the UK (Home Office, 2018), while a third to half of all incidents involving the use of excessive force by police involves a disabled person (Perry and Carter-Long, 2016)—experiences which will obviously be further compounded by institutional racism (Holroyd, 2015). Autistic individuals are more likely to experience (poly)victimization, including being four times more likely to experience physical and psychological abuse from adults as children, 27 times more likely to experience teasing, and seven times more likely to experience sexual victimization (Weiss and Fardella, 2018). At the extreme end of the victimization—autistic children are more likely to die to filicide (Lucardie, 2005). Autistic lives are marked by an often-astounding excess stress burden across the life span.
Considering the study by Hirvikoski et al. (2016), I chose to study mental health and minority stress because people like me were (and still are) dying to suicide in their droves. To be clear, wanting a better future for my community is a value, and my work embodied it from the very beginning. I was propelled by values. How can you belong to a community who is actively suffering, and not want to make it better anyway that you can?
Epistemic injustice pervades autism research in a way that only ever marginalizes autistic people in knowledge creation while providing an almost all-encompassing blanket of protection for non-autistic researchers—non-autistic people have an assumed objectivity that means they do not have to defend their involvement in the creation of knowledge.
I lean into my emotions because they inform my values, keep me tied to the autistic community, generate my sense of epistemic responsibility to the community I come from. I am open because when autistic students (whether undergraduate or postgraduate) approach me to ask how I handle the experience of feeling and living these accounts, they express a loneliness that silence only serves. I now have a policy of honesty and I tell them: I feel angry.
Autism has never been free from the people who created it, or who continue to create it. The people who delineated us from any other constitution, or patterns of behaviors by grouping us together based on our behavior and communication, have a routine history of perpetuating the stereotypes that limit us, degrade us, and form the basis of some degree of our oppression. This includes denying us any epistemic authority to give meaning to what it means to be autistic (Frith and Happe, 1999; Frith, 2004) so as to remove access to challenging the constant barrage of deficit and disease framings. Another autistic academic said it best: “autism discourse and I are co-constituted” (de Hooge, 2019). As an autistic I feel the reverberations of the scientific discourse into my personal life—it radiates into social media, informs stereotypes, creates discourses, and ideas of autism that comes to grow amongst our families, friends, colleagues, community, and the strangers we encounter.
Challenging Behaviour: The weaponisation of Autistic existence
Challenging behaviour. It’s a term we have likely all heard. It projects images of violent children, unruly and disruptive to the children who behave in the way expected of them. However, this particular term has been used to frame Autistic experience as an abberation of human expression and justified the use of abusive interventions and use of restrictive practice.
When we consider scales that measure challenging behaviour, you might be surprised to learn that many of the behaviours they target are normal Autistic behaviours. It seems as though merely existing in a way natural to ourselves has been positioned as challenging in its own right. They’re not entirely wrong, of course; Autistic culture is a counterculture, one that stands in opposition to the multi-million dollar behaviour industry that exploits the fear of vulnerable parents.
Intergenerational trauma and the perpetuation of harm
There is a greater complexity to this matter than simply the way our parents and other family members treat us. Services and professionals who are meant to support us often compound the pain we are experiencing. When one is more concerned with the law than with ethics, you are almost definitely contributing to pain.
So, now we have a world where harm comes from all directions. This harm is so consistent and resilient to change that we do not realise its lack of acceptability. We are constructed into adults who believe that things should remain the same because “we turned out fine”.
We didn’t.
It’s not okay.
We deserve a world where our fundamental human rights are not trampled daily, and more so, our children deserve the opportunity to construct themselves in love and not the crucible of pain.
Abled arrogance is intentionally taught. It is intentionally taught to new interpreters and teachers of the deaf who are taught that academic expertise outweighs lived experience and knowledges, that a college degree or credentials should erase the deaf person’s own expressed needs or knowledge about language and access. That degree gives you abled authority- on top of already existing abled authority inherent in society’s perceptions of the capacity of abled people versus the disabled people in the room. You exit with the idea that your language is inherently better (because it’s academic), your language is better because you learned it via a textbook and a classroom. That’s arrogance. You’re taught to intentionally assess a deaf person’s language, their capacities, that you know the best in that room about access and accommodations, including where people should sit, if you should do open or closed processes, etc. So that is not fragility. It is not about you living in a society where you’ve been sheltered from conversations about race (AKA whiteness in American society). This is about you being put on a pedestal for being “nice” or “good” to disabled people whose belonging is questionable and then being uncomfortable when told you shouldn’t be on said pedestal. This is arrogance, pure and simple.
For me involvement in Autism research is a form of activism. It can be a hazardous enterprise, given how many toxic studies are being done on (not by, with, or for) Autistic people. Whenever I research a new topic, I have to review the literature, which takes me into some murky territory. What some non-autistic researchers say about us can be incredibly damaging. Perhaps they assume we’re not part of their audience, or maybe they don’t care what impact their words have. When I was seven years old, I read a book about a child who was granted a wish. She wanted to know what other people thought of her. As soon as she found out she tried to reverse her wish, but she couldn’t. It is difficult to unknow the damaging things we read about ourselves as Autistic people, without feeling diminished by them. We have to expose ourselves to some toxic research in order to appraise it, and it’s difficult not to be overwhelmed and upset by misinformation.
A substantial proportion of Autism research is quite shoddy. Instead of properly investigating the ways in which autistic people experience the world, some non-autistic researchers simply impose their own frameworks and interpretations. All too often poorly produced research findings go unchallenged and get cemented into the mythology surrounding Autism and Autistic people. Our intolerance of inaccuracy, dishonesty, and dissembling can make this particularly painful. The misattribution of negative characteristics stigmatises us and undermines our identity by portraying us as flawed and ‘other’. Co-production should be standard if Autistic-led research isn’t possible and Autistic people should always be involved in setting the research agenda, and contributing to everything that follows.
Pursuing choice, not truth: debates around diagnosis in mental health by Akiko Hart
Once we opt for a single story around mental health, whether that’s the story of illness, or the story of trauma, then we by definition exclude others. Arguing that all distress stems from trauma and adversity might not speak to those who experience their distress as spiritual renewal; those who see it as neurodiversity, as part of who they are and how they are in the world; those who understand it as a psychosocial disability; and of course those who see madness as an illness, a sickness of the brain. Many of us will probably see themselves in some or all of these stories, a patchwork of identities. Some of us won’t make sense of our distress. That’s OK too. There are in fact as many stories as there are people. The single story, whether that of illness or that of trauma, doesn’t honour this multiplicity and this complexity.
However, my main concern is how we’re framing the debate around diagnosis in scientific terms. I deeply respect all of those who have put forward cogent and compelling arguments as to the scientific invalidity of diagnosis. But I’m worried that the logical consequence of this might be that we find ourselves only advancing alternative models to understanding distress and madness which are evidence based. But if we argue that we can only understand distress through a scientific model, albeit a more rigorous one than diagnosis, what does this mean for those who don’t make sense of their experiences in this way? What happens to those who find spiritual meaning in madness? How can we hear and hold the stories of those who have radically different beliefs to ours, which defy current scientific thinking? I worry that stories about aliens, conspiracies and persecution might get re-worded and reframed, just like they have been by psychiatry.
The issue for me is not which story is true – because in a way they can all be true for us individually, and none of them are true for everyone. It feels urgent and important for me to rethink how we argue about diagnosis, to be aware of the consequences of framing the conversation in scientific terms, to explore what we mean by truth and to reflect on how epistemic injustice can be perpetuated.
Choice, not truth
But these arguments do not (just) take place in lecture theatres. They are about people’s lives. What really matters to me is practice.
In line with Hart’s worries regarding contemporary critical psychiatry, I am similarly concerned to construct the neurodiversity paradigm in a way that avoids the imposition of a single story. Thus for me, once we recognise that the boundaries of health are intimately intertwined with and reflect oppressive power structures, as Meadows rightly notes, we should still not jump to rejecting the very possibility of mental pathology, or of a “wrong” brain, as they conclude. Rather, we must work on allowing more space for individuals and groups to self-define as healthy or ill, different or disordered, perfect or broken, in need of either medical or political intervention, or whatever combination of these.
For me, escaping the trap of the single story requires centering the voices of neurodivergent and Mad people in the continued critique, construction, and reconstruction of the boundaries of health. It requires recognising that these boundaries never are or could be finished; they are always in flux and may differ from person to person. It also requires recognising that they can only be negotiated by deliberative, messy, and complex democratic processes. And it equally requires attempting to boobytrap our deliberative processes so that they neither reflect existing inequalities in our power structures, nor challenge them only to impose a new single story.
Thoughts on the root of the double empathy problem
So now we live in a world that not only controls our behaviour and thoughts, but also places conditions on the ways we communicate. The power is removed from the Autistic person through the weapons of normativity that position themselves on a sort of essentialism that implies communication exist as “correct” or “incorrect”.
This is the root of the double empathy in our capitalist society.
Allowing Autistic people to freely communicate gives them the power to potentially undermine those in power. So instead we are positioned as lacking in trustworthy communication. What better way exists of silencing dissenters than to remove the proverbial tongues?
So, the double empathy problem pervades deeper than a lack of cultural competency. It represents the disempowerment of entire groups of people on the basis of normative standards of language. Through the double empathy problem we are able to clearly witness the removal of free communication and the diversity of forms in which it takes.
Towards Reproducible and Respectful Autism Research: Combining Open and Participatory Autism Research Practices
How do we do better? How do we recognize minority stress and power inequalities, reframe challenging behavior, shed our arrogance, cross the double empathy gap, and reach epistemic justice? By combining open and participatory research practices.
Concerns have also been raised about the quality and rigour of autism research. For example, researchers have highlighted key omissions in the reporting of research, such as failures to declare conflicts of interest (Bottema-Beutel & Crowley, 2021) or the presence of adverse events (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). Concerns have also extended to the low standards underlying evidence-based practice (Bottema-Beutel, 2023) as well as replication failures (Gernsbacher & Yergeau, 2019). As Dawson and Fletcher-Watson (2021, p.1) note, the standards of research quality and ethics have not been applied to autism research to the extent that they should, which has “profoundly impacted how autistics are regarded and treated”.
Two potential solutions have been proposed in relation to these aforementioned issues. The first solution regards greater involvement of the autistic and broader autism communities in research: in identifying research priorities, in deciding the design and conduct of research, in analysing and interpreting research findings, and in disseminating research more broadly (e.g., Pellicano et al., 2014). In essence, this solution involves shifting the traditional power balance in research from autism researchers to the autistic and broader autism communities. Participatory approaches such as these are thought to lead to better quality research that is more easily translated into practice (Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013; Forsythe et al., 2019).
The second solution regards greater openness and transparency in the reporting of research (Hobson, Poole, Pearson & Fletcher-Watson, 2022). Open research is an umbrella term for several practices, underpinned by a desire for the products and processes of research to be accessible to those outside of the original research team (Munafo et al., 2017). Open scientific practices are closely aligned with efforts to improve research reproducibility, and reduce the risk of grey research practices, such as hypothesising after results are known (HARKing; Kerr, 1998), and over-analysing data (“p-hacking”; Simmons et al., 2011).
In this paper, we discuss how combining participatory and open research practices may go some way toward addressing key issues inherent within autism research. First, we define both open research and participatory research. Then, we outline three key principles for autism researchers striving to make their work more open and participatory: (1) the need for adequate expertise and infrastructure to facilitate high quality research, (2) the need for a greater degree of accessibility at all stages of the research process, and (3) the need to foster trusting relationships between the autistic and research communities. Throughout this paper, we draw on examples from literature both within and outside the autism research field, and we conclude with reflections on how this may foster an autism research culture that better serves the autistic and broader autism communities.
UPI आईडी में तुरंत करें यह बदलाव, नहीं तो 1 फरवरी से नहीं कर पाएंगे पेमेंट; NPCI ने किया बड़ा बदलाव
UPI Payments News: नेशनल पेमेंट्स कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया (NPCI) की ओर से बीते दिनों नियमों में बदलाव किया गया है और साफ किया गया है कि अब UPI ID में कोई स्पेशल कैरेक्टर्स नहीं शामिल किए जा सकते हैं। प्लेटफॉर्म ने साफ किया है कि 1 फरवरी, 2025 के बाद UPI IDs या ट्रांजैक्शन ID में स्पेशल कैरेक्टर्स होने पर पेमेंट फेल हो जाएगा। अगर आपकी UPI ID में स्पेशल कैरेक्टर है तो आपको फौरन बदलाव करना होगा।
बीते 9 जनवरी को NPCI की ओर से एक सर्कुलर जारी किया गया था, इसमें नए नियमों का जिक्र किया गया है। इनमें साफ कहा गया है कि अब UPI ट्रांजैक्शन ID केवल अल्टान्यूमेरिक हो सकती है। यानी उसमें केवल नंबर और लेटर्स हो सकते हैं और कोई स्पेशल कैरेक्टर उसका हिस्सा नहीं होने चाहिए। अगर किसी भी ट्रांजैक्शन ID में स्पेशल कैरेक्टर हुए तो उसे सिस्टम अपने आप रिजेक्ट कर देगा।
आपको करना होगा यह बदलाव
वैसे तो लोकप्रिय पेमेंट ऐप्स अपने आप UPI ID जेनरेट कर देती हैं लेकिन यूजर्स को अपनी कस्टम UPI ID बनाने या फिर मौजूदा ID में बदलाव करने का विकल्प मिलता है। अगर आपकी मौजूदा UPI ID में कोई स्पेशल कैरेक्टर है और उसे एडिट करने का विकल्प मिल रहा है, तो स्पेशल कैरेक्टर्स हटा दें। इसके अलावा चुनिंदा पेमेंट ऐप्स अपने आप मौजूदा ID में बदलाव कर देंगे।
नए नियम 1 फरवरी से लागू होने का मतलब है कि अगर आपने समय रहते बदलाव नहीं किए तो आप UPI पेमेंट नहीं कर पाएंगे। अगर बार-बार UPI पेमेंट्स फेल होते हैं तो इसकी वजह भी आपकी UPI ID या ट्रांजैक्शन ID में स्पेशल कैरेक्टर्स होना हो सकती है।
उदाहरण से समझना होगा आसान
आसानी से समझना चाहते हैं तो अगर आपका फोन नंबर 994455778866 है और आपका बैंक HDFC बैंक है तो पेमेंट ऐप्स आपकी UPI IDs खुद बना देते हैं। जैसे कि 994455778866@okhdfcbank आपकी ID हो सकती है। हालांकि, अब इसके जरिए पेमेंट नहीं किया जा सकेगा और केवल 994455778866okhdfcbank जैसी IDs ही वैलिड होगी। इसके अलावा अगर आपने कस्टम UPI ID बनाई है तो उसमें भी बदलाव करना होगा।
मसलन अगर आपने rohit@sharma@upi जैसी ID बनाई है तो अब इसमें से स्पेशल कैरेक्टर्स हटाने होंगे। ऐसे में आपकी ID को rohitsharmaupi जैसा कुछ करना होगा।
भारत में भ्रष्टाचार संगठित षडयंत्र, भ्रष्ट अधिकारी और नेता मिलकर करते हैं लूट; शिकायतकर्ता को किया जाता हैं मैनेज
Corruption in India: भारत में भ्रष्टाचार एक ऐसी समस्या बन चुकी है, जिसे खत्म करना असंभव-सा प्रतीत होता है। इसके कई गहरे कारण हैं, लेकिन सबसे बड़ी समस्या यह है कि आम जनता को यह तक नहीं पता कि उन पर वास्तव में शासन कौन करता है। सरकार किसकी है, सरकार क्या है, और वह हम पर राज क्यों करती है— ये बुनियादी सवाल ही अनुत्तरित रहते हैं। लोग यह समझ ही नहीं पाते कि सरकारी अधिकारी और राजनेता असल में उनके सेवक हैं, न कि उनके शासक। इस अज्ञानता का फायदा उठाकर भ्रष्ट अधिकारी और नेता मिलकर जनता को लूटते रहते हैं।
राजनीति और भ्रष्टाचार का गठजोड़
भ्रष्टाचार की जड़ें केवल सरकारी तंत्र तक सीमित नहीं हैं, बल्कि यह सत्ता पक्ष और विपक्ष दोनों के लिए कमाई का जरिया बन चुका है। विपक्ष कभी भी भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ खुलकर आवाज नहीं उठाता क्योंकि वह खुद भी इस खेल का हिस्सा है। सरकार के किसी भी विभाग में बिना कमीशन के कोई काम नहीं होता—चाहे वह ठेके का भुगतान हो, किसी फाइल को आगे बढ़ाना हो, या किसी योजना का लाभ देना हो। यह भ्रष्टाचार का एक सुव्यवस्थित मॉडल बन चुका है, जिसमें नेता, अधिकारी और दलाल एक-दूसरे से जुड़े होते हैं।
शिकायत करने वाले को मैनेज किया जाता है
यदि कोई व्यक्ति भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ शिकायत करता है, तो उसे धन, बाहुबल या षड्यंत्र के जरिए चुप करा दिया जाता है। कोई अगर कानून का सहारा लेकर शिकायत करे, तो उसे ही उलझा दिया जाता है। कई बार फर्जी केस में फंसाकर, धमकाकर या लालच देकर शिकायतकर्ता को मैनेज कर लिया जाता है।
मुख्य समस्याएं जिन पर कोई नहीं बोलता
भ्रष्टाचार से जुड़ी कई समस्याएं हैं जिन पर राजनीतिक दल कभी आवाज नहीं उठाते:
गिरती हुई सड़कों की गुणवत्ता – सड़कें जल्द ही खराब हो जाती हैं क्योंकि निर्माण में घटिया सामग्री इस्तेमाल होती है और ठेकेदारों व अधिकारियों के बीच कमीशन का खेल चलता है।
नशे और शराब का बढ़ता कारोबार – हर दूसरी-तीसरी जगह शराब की दुकानें खुल रही हैं, लेकिन इस पर कोई नेता आवाज नहीं उठाता क्योंकि इसमें मोटा पैसा जुड़ा होता है।
सरकारी योजनाओं और कामों की खराब गुणवत्ता – सरकारी निर्माण कार्यों में भ्रष्टाचार के कारण गुणवत्ता बेहद खराब होती है, जिससे जनता को नुकसान उठाना पड़ता है।
आवारा पशु और कुप्रबंधन – गौशालाओं और पशुपालन योजनाओं के नाम पर पैसा खाया जाता है, लेकिन सड़कों पर आवारा पशु घूमते रहते हैं।
अंग्रेजों के जमाने के कानून का बहाना – हर बार भ्रष्टाचार पर चर्चा होने पर यही कहा जाता है कि कानून पुराना है, जबकि असल समस्या इसे लागू करने की इच्छाशक्ति की कमी है।
भ्रष्टाचार को रोकने का तरीका
भ्रष्टाचार को खत्म करने के लिए जनता को जागरूक होना होगा। जब तक लोग यह नहीं समझेंगे कि वे खुद सरकार से सवाल कर सकते हैं, तब तक स्थिति नहीं बदलेगी। शिकायतकर्ता को संरक्षण मिलना चाहिए, पारदर्शी तंत्र बनना चाहिए, और सबसे जरूरी है कि आम आदमी को अपने अधिकारों की पूरी जानकारी हो। अगर जनता संगठित होकर भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ खड़ी हो जाए, तो यह खत्म हो सकता है, वरना यह व्यवस्था ऐसे ही चलती रहेगी।
HRTC के घाटे वाले 40 रूटों पर चलेगी प्राइवेट बसें, सुक्खू सरकार ने मांगे आवेदन; जानें शर्तें
Himachal Pradesh News: हिमाचल प्रदेश में अब 40 रूटों पर प्राइवेट बसें चलाई जाएंगी। हिमाचल प्रदेश पथ परिवहन निगम (एचआरटीसी) के घाटे के 40 रूटों पर अब निजी बसें चलेगी।
इस बात की मंजूरी दी जा चुकी है। एचआरटीसी ने इन रूटों को छोड़ने (सरेंडर) करने का निर्णय लिया है। ऐसे में सरकार इन रूटों को निजी को ऑपरेटरों को देगी ताकि लोगों को यातायात से संबंधित परेशानी न झेलनी पड़े।
परिवहन विभाग ने वीरवार को इन रूटों को निजी क्षेत्रों को देने के लिए प्रक्रिया शुरू कर दी है। इसके लिए इच्छुक लोगों से आवेदन मांगे है। आवेदनकर्ता 1 फरवरी से 3 मार्च तक परिवहन विभाग की वेबसाइट पर लागइन कर ऑनलाइन आवेदन कर सकते हैं।
आवेदन की प्रक्रिया पूरी होने के बाद क्षेत्रीय परिवहन प्राधिकरण की बैठक में इसका आबंटन किया जाएगा। परिवहन निदेशक डीसी नेगी ने बताया कि यह रूट केवल बोनोफाइड हिमाचली को ही दिए जाएंगे। यानी बाहरी राज्य का कोई अन्य व्यक्ति इन रूटों को नहीं ले सकता।
प्रदेश के युवाओं को स्वरोजगार मिले इसके लिए यह शर्त रखी गई है। परिवहन निदेशक ने कहा कि आवेदन करने से पहले आवेदनकर्ता रूट का अच्छे से निरीक्षण कर लें। यदि उनकी कोई शंका है तो वह इसके स्पष्टीकरण के लिए संबंधित क्षेत्रीय परिवहन अधिकारी के कार्यालय में जाकर पूछताछ कर सकते हैं।
ये होंगी शर्ते
रूटों का आबंटन आरटीए यानी क्षेत्रीय परिवहन प्राधिकरण की बैठक में होगा।
एक से अधिक आवेदन आने पर रूटो का आबंटन लॉटरी (ड्रा आफ लॉटस) से होगा।
हिमाचली बोनोफाइड को रूट दिए जाएंगे।
आवेदनकर्ता का आरटीए की बैठक में स्वयं या अधिकृत व्यक्ति का उपस्थित होना अनिवार्य है।
यदि कोई बैठक में नहीं आता तो लॉटरी में उसका नाम शामिल नहीं होगा।
सभी रूटों को क्षेत्रीय परिवहन प्राधिकरण की स्वीकृति के उपरांत ही जारी किया जाएगा।
हिमाचल प्रदेश बिजली बोर्ड के 600 पद होंगे समाप्त, संयुक्त मोर्चा ने शुरू किया विरोध; जानें पूरा मामला
Himachal News: राज्य बिजली बोर्ड में इंजीनियरों और कर्मचारियों के 600 पद समाप्त होंगे। वीरवार को बिजली बोर्ड मुख्यालय कुमार हाउस शिमला में हुई निदेशक मंडल की बैठक में युक्तिकरण का फैसला लिया गया।
अंतिम मंजूरी के लिए यह प्रस्ताव सरकार को भेजा जाएगा। अतिरिक्त स्टाफ को अन्य विभागों में समायोजित किया जाएगा। उधर, निदेशक मंडल के इस फैसले के खिलाफ संयुक्त मोर्चा मुखर हो गया है। मोर्चा के पदाधिकारियों ने कहा कि इस मामले को लेकर जल्द ही मुख्यमंत्री से मुलाकात की जाएगी।
वित्तीय संकट से जूझ रहे बिजली बोर्ड को मजबूत करने के लिए गठित कैबिनेट सब कमेटी ने सरकार को सौंपी अपनी रिपोर्ट में स्टाफ के युक्तिकरण की सिफारिश की है। इसी कड़ी में वीरवार को बिजली बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष संजय गुप्ता की अध्यक्षता में हुई निदेशक मंडल की बैठक में युक्तिकरण को मंजूरी दी गई। इस फैसले से बिजली बोर्ड में इंजीनियरों और कर्मचारियों के 600 पद समाप्त हो जाएंगे। बैठक में बताया गया कि वर्तमान में बोर्ड में 25,435 पद स्वीकृत हैं। 11,989 पद रिक्त चल रहे हैं।
बिजली बोर्ड में 13,446 कर्मचारी कार्यरत हैं। बोर्ड के अधिकारियों ने बताया कि बिजली बोर्ड में 7376 पदों को समाप्त किया जाना है। पहले चरण में जनरेशन विंग में विभिन्न श्रेणियों के 600 पदों को समाप्त किया जा रहा है। राज्य बिजली बोर्ड में मंजूर पदों में से 29 फीसदी पदों को समाप्त करने का प्रस्ताव है। उधर, राज्य बिजली बोर्ड की कर्मचारी यूनियन के महासचिव और संयुक्त मोर्चा के सह संयोजक हीरा लाल वर्मा ने बोर्ड प्रबंधन के फैसले का विरोध किया है। उन्होंने कहा कि मुख्यमंत्री के समक्ष मामला उठाया जाएगा। अगर मुख्यमंत्री से भी राहत नहीं मिली तो आगामी रणनीति तय कर आंदोलन किया जाएगा।
कांगड़ा केंद्रीय सहकारी बैंक ने नियमों को ताक पर रखकर दे दिए करोड़ों के लोन, विजिलेंस जांच में हुआ खुलासा
Himachal News: हिमाचल प्रदेश के कांगड़ा केंद्रीय सहकारी बैंक में हुए कथित ऋण घोटाले में जैसे-जैसे विजिलेंस जांच आगे बढ़ रही है, वैसे-वैसे बैंक के अधिकारियों और कर्मचारी की मिलीभगत की परतें खुलती जा रही हैं। विजिलेंस जांच में खुलासा हुआ है कि बैंक के अधिकारियों और कर्मचारियों ने सभी नियमों को ताक पर रखकर दो फर्मों को कर्ज दे दिया।
विजिलेंस सूत्रों के अनुसार करोड़ों का कर्ज देने के लिए नियमों की खुलेआम अवहेलना हुई। सूत्रों के अनुसार फर्जीवाड़े को लेकर दर्ज एफआईआर में नामजद मेसर्स हिमालय स्नो विलेज और मेसर्स होटल लेक पैलेस के मालिक युद्ध चंद बैंस पहले से ही बैंक के एक ऋण मामले में डिफॉल्टर हैं।
इस मामले में जो लोग गारंटर बनाए गए थे, उन्हीं में से कुछ को दूसरे ऋण मामले में भी गांरटर बना दिया गया। जबकि आरबीआई के नियमों के अनुसार उनसे पहले के ऋण मामले में वसूली की जानी थी।
ऐसे में तत्कालीन बैंक के अधिकारियों व कर्मचारियों की भूमिका संदेह के घेरे में है। विजिलेंस द्वारा ऋण कमेटी की प्रोसीडिंज्स और दस्तावेजों की जांच पड़ताल में कई अनियमिताएं पाई गई हैं। सूत्रों के अनुसार ऋण नीतियों को दरकिनार कर एक मुश्त ऋण दिया गया जबकि 4 करोड़ से अधिक का ऋण नहीं दिया जा सकता है।
विजिलेंस इस मामले में ऋण लेने वाले व्यक्ति बैंस से लंबी पूछताछ कर चुकी है। इस मामले में शनिवार को अदालत में सुनवाई होनी है। इस ऋण घोटाले में विजिलेंस ने आरोपियों के खिलाफ ऊना विजिलेंस थाने में एफआईआर दर्ज की है।
सांसद चंद्रशेखर आजाद ने मांगा योगी आदित्यनाथ का इस्तीफा, बागेश्वर बाबा के खिलाफ की केस की मांग; जानें क्यों
Mahakumbh Stampede: महाकुंभ में मची भगदड़ की घटना को लेकर विपक्ष लगातार योगी सरकार पर हमलावर है. इस बीच भीम आर्मी प्रमुख और नगीना सांसद चंद्रशेखर आजाद ने भी जमकर निशाना साधा है. उन्होंने सरकार की नाकामी बताते हुए मुख्यमंत्री योगी आदित्यनाथ से इस्तीफा मांगा है.
चंद्रशेखर आजाद ने कहा,”मैंने सोचा था कि मुख्यमंत्री योगी आदित्यनाथ, जो लंबे समय से धार्मिक कार्यों से जुड़े रहे हैं, कम से कम धार्मिक आयोजनों को सुव्यवस्थित रूप से संपन्न करवा पाएंगे, लेकिन यहां भी निराशा ही हाथ लगी.” उन्होंने आरोप लगाया कि योगी सरकार ने तीर्थयात्रियों की सुरक्षा और सुविधा को पूरी तरह नजरअंदाज किया, जिसके चलते यह भयावह घटना हुई.
बाबा बागेश्वर के बयान पर कड़ी प्रतिक्रिया
चंद्रशेखर आजाद ने बाबा बागेश्वर (धीरेंद्र कृष्ण शास्त्री) के एक बयान का हवाला देते हुए उन पर मुकदमा दर्ज करने और जेल भेजने की मांग की. “बागेश्वर ने लोगों से अपील की थी कि मौनी अमावस्या पर जो नहीं आएगा, वह पछताएगा और देशद्रोही कहलाएगा. उनकी अपील के कारण भारी संख्या में श्रद्धालु पहुंचे, जिससे भगदड़ की स्थिति बनी. वे इस घटना के दोषी हैं.”
फ्लाइट टिकट के दामों पर भी उठाए सवाल
चंद्रशेखर आजाद ने महाकुंभ के दौरान हवाई यात्रा के महंगे टिकटों पर भी सवाल खड़े किए. उन्होंने कहा कि सरकार को श्रद्धालुओं की यात्रा को सुविधाजनक बनाना चाहिए था, लेकिन इसके बजाय महंगे टिकटों से उन्हें परेशान किया गया.
बता दें कि प्रयागराज महाकुंभ में भगदड़ के कारण बुधवार (29 जनवरी) को 30 श्रद्धालुओं की मौत हो गई, जबकि 90 लोग घायल हैं. डीआईजी महाकुंभ वैभव कृष्ण ने कहा कि भगदड़ में तीस लोगों की मौत हुई है. 25 मृतकों की पहचान हुई है. 90 लोग अस्पताल में भर्ती हैं.
कैसे हुई भगदड़?
दरअसल, मंगलवार रात 10 बजे से संगम क्षेत्र में श्रद्धालुओं की भीड़ जुटने लगी थी. प्रशासन ने श्रद्धालुओं को स्नान के बाद आगे जाने को कहा था, लेकिन ब्रह्म मुहूर्त में स्नान करने के लिए श्रद्धालुओं भीड़ रुकी रही. बैरिकेडिंग के किनारे कई श्रद्धालु सो रहे थे, अचानक भीड़ बढ़ने लगी, जिसके कारण बुधवार सुबह 1:45 बजे से 2 बजे के बीच भीड़ और बेकाबू हो गई और लोग बैरिकेडिंग तोड़कर संगम के तरफ भागने लगे और बैरिकेडिंग से कूदते हुए लोग नीचे सो रहे श्रद्धालुओं पर गिर पड़े, जिससे भगदड़ मच गई.
कबाड़ की दुकान में चोरी करने वाले तीन चोरों को अदालत ने दिया तीन दिन के रिमांड, जानें पूरा मामला
Solan News: पुलिस चौकी सोलन के तहत कबाड़ की दुकान से सामान चुराने वाले तीन आरोपियों को तीन दिन का पुलिस रिंमाड मिला है। जानकारी अनुसार 13 जनवरी को कृष्ण लाल निवासी जिला सोलन ने पुलिस चौकी शहर सोलन में रिपोर्ट दर्ज करवाई थी कि उसकी बसाल रोड़ चंबाघाट में कबाड़ की दूकान है। छह जनवरी को उसकी और साथ लगती राजेंद्र कुमार की कबाड़ की दूकान में चोरी हुई थी।
चैक करने पर पता चला कि इनकी दूकानों से चोर, पुरानी सोलर बैटरियां, पखे, फ्रिज इत्यादि कुल 1,90,000 रूपए का सामान कोई चोरी कर ले गया है। सीसीटीवी फुटेज और संदिग्ध मोबाइल नंबरों की जांच के आधार पर पुलिस थाना सदर सोलन की टीम ने मामले में संलिप्त तीन आरोपी मंगल सिंह (22) निवासी गांव भियुली, जिला मंडी, रिंकू उर्फ काला (24) निवासी गाव मलथेर बल्ह जिला मंडी और सोनू (19) निवासी ब्युली, जिला मंडी को गिरफ्तार किया है।
जांच के दौरान पाया कि तीनों आरोपी पहले भी अपराधिक वारदतों में शामिल रहे है जिसमें आरोपी मंगल सिह के खिलाफ इस मामले के अतिरिक्त चोरी के कुल तीन मामले जिनमें दो मामले थाना बल्ह, एक मामला थाना जोगिंद्रनगर जिला मंडी, आरोपी रिंकु के खिलाफ कुल पांच मामले जिनमें दो मामले थाना पालमपुर और एक-एक मामला थाना कुल्लू, भवारना व जोगिंद्रनगर जबकि आरोपी सोनू के विरूद्ध थाना जोगिंद्रनगर में एक मामला चोरी का दर्ज है। इसकी पुष्टि एसपी गौरव सिंह ने की है।
We perceive through habit, expectation, bias, and assumption. The heuristics that guide us through our days are full of predictable biases (systematic errors). These unconscious, predictable biases are rooted in the machinery of our cognition.
When making judgments or decisions, people often rely on simplified information processing strategies called heuristics, which may result in systematic, predictable errors called cognitive biases (hereafter CB). For instance, people tend to overestimate the accuracy of their judgments (overconfidence bias), to perceive events as being more predictable once they have occurred (hindsight bias), or to seek and interpret evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs and expectations (confirmation bias).
Jiggle the machinery of your cognition by adopting new framing. We can more easily change our framing by adopting new heuristics (rules of thumb). By changing our framing, we correct for the systematic error of predictable biases installed in us by structural and systemic forces.
Reason uses the logics of image-schemas, frames, conceptual metaphors, prototypes, and narratives.
Words activate frames, and frames are ways in which you structure the world. You cannot think without frames. You cannot speak without frames being there, and those frames are physical, they are circuitry in your brain that carries out all those inferences and imposes that structure. And that circuitry, once you learn a frame, is there mostly for life.
Change your heuristics, and change your framing, so that you can perceive those of us on the margins and at the edges.
Our designs, our societies, and the boundaries of our compassion are tested at the edges, where the truths told are of bias, inequality, injustice, and thoughtlessness.
Suddenly, even the most powerful people in society are forced to be fluent in the concerns of those with little power, if they want to hold on to the cultural relevance that thrust them into power in the first place. Being a comedian means having to say things that an audience finds funny; if an audience doesn’t find old, hackneyed, abusive jokes funny anymore, then that comedian has to do more work. And what we find is, the comedians with the most privilege resent having to keep working for a living. Wasn’t it good enough that they wrote that joke that some people found somewhat funny, some years ago? Why should they have to learn about current culture just to get paid to do comedy?
We lament the lack of folks willing to bridge the Double Empathy Extreme Problem by adopting anthropological and sociological lenses to “make the strange familiar”, instead siding with a familiar default that is much about the neuronormative domination of people we don’t bother to understand.
Physics has a “strange” particle. A stranger is someone from outside whose practices may be different. Strange can also indicate the uncanny, the peculiar, the “off.” Anthropology courses often begin by talking about our mandate to “make the strange familiar, and the familiar strange.” Making-strange, Verfremdung, a focal aspiration of the theater of the absurd, ostranenie, defamiliarization—all these allow us to see what we ordinarily take for granted, by causing a sense of wonder. That’s one reason anthropologists often begin our training by going to an unfamiliar—a strange—setting, because when things are unfamiliar, we notice much more. The challenge for my readers is to make schoolishness strange, to question the familiar.
We all gotta learn to set with our discomfort when listening to marginalized people speak about their lives. We must allow our framing to be challenged. We must question the familiar.
“making the strange familiar and making the familiar strange”
The Autistic, Authentic, Autonomous Collaboration community grows organically, at human scale, at a human pace, one trusted relationship at a time, in the form of self-organising small groups that …
स्कूलों के बाद अब कम छात्रों वाले कॉलेजों को बंद करेगी सुक्खू सरकार, उच्च निदेशालय से मांगा ब्यौरा
Himachal News: हिमाचल में अब 100 से कम विद्यार्थियों वाले कॉलेज बंद होंगे। प्रदेश के करीब 15 कॉलेजों में कुछ साल से विद्यार्थियों की संख्या नहीं बढ़ रही है। कई कॉलेजों से विद्यार्थी अन्य जगहों के लिए माइग्रेट हुए हैं।
बंद होने वाले कॉलेजों में पढ़ने वाले विद्यार्थी नजदीकी संस्थानों में शिफ्ट किए जाएंगे। जबकि प्रवक्ताओं और गैर शिक्षकों को आवश्यकता वाले कॉलेजों में स्थानांतरित किया जाएगा। शिक्षा मंत्री रोहित ठाकुर ने बताया कि उच्च शिक्षा निदेशालय से कम विद्यार्थियों वाले कॉलेजों का ब्योरा मांगा गया है। रिपोर्ट आने के बाद मंत्रिमंडल की बैठक में इसको लेकर अंतिम फैसला लिया जाएगा।
हिमाचल में कम बच्चों वाले स्कूलों को मर्ज या उनका दर्जा घटाने की तैयारी के बीच अब कम विद्यार्थियों की संख्या वाले कॉलेजों को बंद करने का फैसला लिया है। उच्च शिक्षा निदेशालय से ऐसे कॉलेजों का ब्योरा तलब किया है, जहां छात्रों की संख्या 100 या इससे कम हैं। मुख्यालयों और शहरों के मुकाबले दूरदराज क्षेत्रों के कॉलेजों में विद्यार्थियों की संख्या बेहतर है। ऐसे में सरकार गुणात्मक शिक्षा देने के लिए ऐसे कॉलेजों को बंद करने जा रही है जहां बीते कुछ वर्षों से विद्यार्थियों के दाखिले नहीं बढ़ रहे हैं और जहां विद्यार्थियों की संख्या 100 से कम है।
बता दें कि मार्च 2023 में सरकार ने भाजपा सरकार के समय एक अप्रैल 2022 के बाद खुले 17 डिग्री और दो संस्कृत कॉलेजों को भी बंद कर दिया था। 2022 में खोले गए 24 में से 19 कॉलेजों को डिनोटिफाई किया गया था। पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री जयराम ठाकुर के आग्रह पर सराज विधानसभा का छत्तरी कॉलेज बंद होने से बच गया था। भाजपा सरकार के समय खुले 24 डिग्री कॉलेजों में से जिन 19 कॉलेजों को बंद किया गया है वहां विद्यार्थियों की संख्या शून्य से 61 के बीच ही थी। सरकार ने बनीखेत, छत्तरी, कुपवी, नौराधार और सुबाथू कॉलेज को जारी रखने का फैसला लिया था। बनीखेत कॉलेज में 188, छत्तरी में 60, कुपवी में 86, नौराधार में 77 और सुबाथू कॉलेज में 118 विद्यार्थियों ने दाखिले लिए थे।
बंद किए जाने वाले कॉलेजों में स्वारघाट में 20, बल्हसीना में 20, मशरूंड में 28, गलोड़ में 10, लंबलू में शून्य, बरांडा में छह, कोटला में एक, चढ़ियार में 12, पांगणा में शून्य, पंडोह में 21, बागा चनौगी में तीन, जलोग में शून्य, सतौन में 11, ममलीग में पांच, चंडी में शून्य, बरूणा में 35 और संस्कृत कॉलेज सिंगला में शून्य व जगत सुख में सिर्फ चार विद्यार्थियों ने शैक्षणिक वर्ष 2022 के दौरान दाखिले लिए थे। इन कॉलेजों को तत्कालीन भाजपा सरकार ने एक अप्रैल से 14 अक्तूबर 2022 के बीच खोला था।
हिमाचल में पर्यटक बस से बाहर फेंक रहे थे कचरा, व्यक्ति ने दे डाली यह नसीहत; वीडियो हुआ वायरल
Himachal News: हिमाचल प्रदेश में एक व्यक्ति ने एक पर्यटक बस का पीछा करते हुए खुद को रिकॉर्ड किया, जब वाहन से कचरा बाहर फेंका गया। Reddit पर साझा किए गए वीडियो के कैप्शन में लिखा है, “हिमाचल में आने वाले लोगों को कचरा फेंकते हुए देखना शर्मनाक है! ऐसे लोगों पर शर्म आती है!”
वीडियो में, व्यक्ति बताता है कि वह कुछ समय के लिए एक मिनी बस के पीछे सवार था और उसने देखा कि खाद्य पैकेजिंग और प्लास्टिक की थैलियाँ खिड़कियों से बाहर फेंकी जा रही थीं। “मैं उन्हें सड़क पर कचरा फेंकते हुए देख रहा था और मैंने उन्हें रोकने और उन्हें शिक्षित करने के लिए बातचीत करने का फैसला किया,” वह वीडियो में कहता है। थोड़ी देर बाद, वह मिनी बस को पकड़ता है और उसके चालक से दरवाजा खोलने के लिए कहता है और अंदर चला जाता है। वह व्यक्ति जल्दी से अंदर बैठे परिवारों से उनके लगातार कचरा फेंकने के बारे में पूछता है।
वे जवाब देते हुए कहते हैं कि वे केवल बीमार लोगों के बैग खिड़की से बाहर फेंक रहे थे। “प्लास्टिक का उपयोग यहाँ प्रतिबंधित है। मैं आप सभी से अनुरोध करता हूँ कि यहाँ प्लास्टिक न फेंकें। अपना कचरा फेंकने के लिए अंदर एक कचरा बैग रखें,” उसने सलाह दी।
भाभी ने मुंह में लेकर दांतों से चबा डाला देवर का प्राइवेट पार्ट, फिर खुद को चाकू से किया घायल; जानें पूरा मामला
Uttar Pradesh News: कानपुर में एक सनसनीखेज मामला प्रकाश में आया है। महिला ने दांतों से देवर का प्राइवेट पार्ट काट दिया। इसके बाद चाकू से खुद के हाथों की नसें काट ली। शोरगुल सुनकर परिजन कमरे में पहुंचे तो देवर-भाभी लहूलुहान हालत में पड़े मिले।
घटना की सूचना पर पहुंची पुलिस ने दोनों को सीएचसी ले गई। जहां डॉक्टरों ने प्राथमिक उपचार के बाद हैलट अस्पताल के लिए रेफर कर दिया है। युवक की हालत गंभीर बनी हुई है।
बिल्हौर थाना क्षेत्र स्थित एक गांव में रहने वाले युवक की शादी चार साल पहले हुई थी। शादी के बाद से युवक की दिमागी हालत बिगड़ गई थी। पति की दिमागी हालत ठीक नहीं होने की वजह से नवविवाहिता आए दिन घर में झगड़ा करती थी। विवाहिता की सास ने बताया कि बड़े बेटे की दिमागी हालत ठीक नहीं है, जिसकी वजह से बहू पूरे परिवार को झूठे मुकदमे में फंसाने और सुसाइड करने की धमकी देती थी।
बेटे की जिंदगी बर्बाद कर दी विवाहिता की सास के मुताबिक, शुक्रवार को सुबह अविवाहित छोटा बेटा कमरे में सो रहा था, तभी बहू ने उसके प्राइवेट पार्ट को काट लिया। इसके बाद खुद पर भी चाकू से हमला कर लिया। दोनों का इलाज हैलट अस्पताल में चल रहा है। बहू ने छोटे बेटे की जिंदगी बर्बाद की है। वहीं, बड़े बेटे की दिमागी हालत पहले से ही खराब थी।
देवर से थे संबंध ग्रामीणों के मुताबिक पति की दिमागी हालत ठीक नहीं है। महिला के उसके ही देवर से अवैध संबंध हो गए थे। देवर-भाभी के बीच किसी बात को लेकर कहासुनी हो गई, जिससे नाराज विवाहिता ने दांतों से देवर का प्राइवेट पार्ट काट दिया। फिर खुद को भी चाकू से घायल कर लिया। एसआई विमल प्रकाश का कहना है कि तहरीर मिलने के बाद मुकदमा दर्ज किया जाएगा। फिलहाल दोनों का उपचार के लिए अस्पताल में भर्ती कराया गया है।
Scientism begets epistemic injustice. Syncretic traversal of semiotic domains begets epistemic justice and created serendipity.
This experimental piece leads with a very dense passage that uses specialist language from multiple semiotic domains. Terms are linked to our glossary.
We fed the passage with links to AI several times and blended the output, resulting in an “unpacked” plain language version.
Scientism refers to the belief that the scientific method is the only valid approach to acquiring knowledge and understanding the world. Scientism can lead to a reductionist and narrow understanding of reality, overlooking the complexities and nuances of human experience and the limitations of scientific inquiry.
Scientism often arises from a reductionist view of the world, where everything can be reduced to its fundamental components and explained solely through scientific principles. It dismisses other forms of knowledge, such as philosophical, sociological, or experiential knowledge, as inferior or irrelevant.
This narrow perspective can lead to epistemic injustice, which is the unfair distribution of knowledge and credibility based on social, cultural, or institutional biases.
Epistemic injustice occurs when the knowledge of marginalized people is dismissed due to social biases and inequalities.
Scientism contributes to epistemic injustice by encouraging disregard for the complexities of human experience, emotions, values, and subjective aspects of reality that cannot be fully captured by scientific methods alone.
To counteract this, a syncretic traversal of semiotic domains can be employed.
Syncretism refers to the merging or blending of different beliefs or practices. By exploring and integrating multiple domains of knowledge, we can promote epistemic justice and create serendipitous discoveries.
Semiotic domains are different realms of meaning-making, such as art, literature, and personal experiences. By acknowledging and valuing diverse ways of knowing and understanding, epistemic justice can be achieved.
Epistemic justice recognizes that different cultures, perspectives, and ways of understanding the world contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of truth.
Epistemic justice brings about created serendipity, which refers to the intentional creation of opportunities for unexpected discoveries and insights. This approach encourages openness to different perspectives and allows for the emergence of new knowledge and understandings.
Through the practice of epistemic justice, we can avoid falling into common cognitive traps such as the fundamental attribution error. This error involves attributing someone’s behavior solely to their internal characteristics, while ignoring situational factors. By considering the broader context and acknowledging the influence of social and environmental factors, we can avoid making unfair judgments.
Another trap that can be avoided through epistemic justice is the triple empathy problem. This problem arises when individuals fail to empathize with others who have different cultural backgrounds or experiences. Epistemic justice promotes the recognition and understanding of diverse perspectives, fostering empathy and reducing this problem.
Furthermore, epistemic justice challenges the notion of the “conquering gaze from nowhere.” This concept refers to the belief in an objective and detached perspective that is free from biases and situatedness. Epistemic justice challenges this notion by recognizing that all knowledge is situated and influenced by the social, cultural, and historical contexts of the observer and the observed.
Epistemic justice encourages us to critically examine our own perspectives and biases, promoting humility and self-reflection in our pursuit of knowledge. While objectivity is important in scientific research, it can also lead to a disregard for subjective experiences and alternative ways of knowing. Epistemic justice reminds us to value and include diverse perspectives.
Epistemic justice encourages us to consider the social, cultural, and contextual influences that shape individuals’ actions and beliefs, preventing us from making hasty and biased judgments.
Epistemic justice recognizes that all knowledge is situated and influenced by various factors, such as power dynamics and social identities. By acknowledging these influences, we can dismantle the myth of meritocracy and challenge the marginalization of certain groups.
In summary, by embracing a syncretic traversal of semiotic domains, we can overcome the limitations of scientism and avoid epistemic injustice. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the world, fostering serendipitous discoveries and promoting a more equitable distribution of knowledge.
Conquering Gaze from Nowhere: Meritocracy Myths, Marked Bodies, and Spoiled Identities
The interpretation of objectivity as neutral does not allow for participation or stances. This uninvolved, uninvested approach implies “a conquering gaze from nowhere” (Haraway 1988). In many ways, claims of objectivity allow one to “represent while escaping representation” (Haraway 1988) and mimics the construction of Whiteness2 in the racialization of marginalized peoples (Battey and Leyva 2016; Guess 2006). Indeed, there is extensive evidence suggesting that STEM cultural norms are traditionally White, masculine, heteronormative and able-bodied (Atchison and Libarkin 2016; Chambers 2017; Eisenhart and Finkel 1998; Johnson 2001; Nespor 1994; Seymour and Hewitt 1997; Traweek 1988). Thus, while purporting to be a neutral application of a generic protocol, science-and STEM more broadly-has a distinct set of cultures that governs legitimate membership and acceptable behaviors. The concept of a meritocracy is often used to justify who succeeds in STEM cultures. However, far from “leveling the playing field”, meritocracies exist in cultural systems that prioritize people who have, or to a lesser extent closely emulate, these traits. Success in science, then, tends to privilege cultural traits associated with the above identities and often marginalizes scientists who can not or will not perform these identities. This introduces structural inequities in the pursuit of science that align with social manifestations of racism, colonialism, sexism, homophobia and ableism (Cech and Pham 2017; Wilder 2014).
I would insist on the embodied nature of all vision and so reclaim the sensory system that has been used to signify a leap out of the marked body and into a conquering gaze from nowhere. This is the gaze that mythically inscribes all the marked bodies, that makes the un-marked category claim the power to see and not be seen, to represent while escaping representation.
That requires some unpacking, but really gets to the heart of it. The “power to see and not be seen” comes up in journalism regarding any reporter reporting on their own community. It comes up in autism research regarding autistic autism researchers and in conversations between autistic parents and parents of autistics.
Haraway’s “marked bodies” reminds me of “spoiled identities” and the masking required to fit into “cultural systems that prioritize people who have, or to a lesser extent closely emulate, these traits.”
With a pathologized status comes the experience of stigma, dehumanization, and marginalization. Stigma refers to the possession of an attribute that marks persons as disgraced or ‘‘discreditable,’’ marking their identity as ‘‘spoiled.’’ Stigmatized persons may attempt to conceal these spoiled aspects of their identity from others, attempting to ‘‘pass’’ as normal. Investigation of ‘‘passing’’ and ‘‘concealment’’ has been explored in depth in other stigmatized populations; however, the application of stigma in autism research is a relatively new endeavor. Stigma impacts both on how an individual is viewed and treated by others and how that treatment is internalized and interacts with one’s identity.
Those “who can not or will not perform these identities” are marginalized, and those who can are exhausted. Those who attempt to advocate for themselves are discredited by the conquering gaze.
Meritocracy is a myth.
Masking for a false meritocracy is exhausting.
The “objectivity as neutral” conceit of the “conquering gaze from nowhere” leads to discrediting marginalized people and, in turn, to some “bloody regressive politics”, as we saw with New Atheism.
From my perspective, though, the deepest of the rifts was the emerging anti-feminist wing and the active neglect of social justice issues.
I realized it’s destination was where it is now: a shambles of alt-right memes and dishonest hucksters mangling science to promote racism, sexism, and bloody regressive politics.
#VanguardSTEM is an online community and platform that centers the experiences of women, girls, and non-binary people of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.
Our “Stimpunks Guide to the NeurodiVerse” series surveys recent neurodiversity and disability related research. In this issue, we highlight how the vast majority of autism research is divorced from the lived realities of autistic people. We discuss how to move from “an ivory tower built on sand” to open + participatory + emancipatory + activist research.
Participants, including researchers, described the field of autism research as being largely out-of-touch with the realities of autistic people’s lives. They spoke of autism research as failing to address the autistic community’s priorities, instead being “more focused on things like genetics, or parent stress, that are quite stigmatising or… not vital to their day-to-day functioning” (06-RSp), or “addressing stuff that just does not matter. It’s just irrelevant. It just does not matter” (04-R). Participants felt that autism research often failed to improve the lives of autistic participants, who were “just… contributing their information, contributing their experiences to studies that… would never help them, in the end” (05-StF).
Autism research is a systemic source of ableism. Researchers habitually dehumanize the people they claim to want to help.
In 2012, I entered the education program at Sonoma State University in order to search through the literature in education and the social sciences, and I hoped to bring together research on the enforcement of normality that would describe and illuminate the everyday dehumanization autistic people face. This dehumanization is not restricted to the exclusion and bullying that is a reliable feature of the social lives of autistic people; it is also a regular feature in clinical settings, in academic research, in seemingly authoritative books about autistic people, in media reports, in education, in social services, in fundraising narratives, and in social skills training for autistic youths and adults. This dehumanization is so widespread that it seems to be an intrinsic aspect of normality – an accepted and acceptable way to view the bodies, minds, and lives of autistic people, or of any people who consistently breach the unwritten rules of normality.
The mainstream of autism studies is stuck in the eugenics and ableism of the 1940s and has aged as well as race science, which is to say, very badly. Many autism studies coming out today are ignorant and vile in their ableism like the race studies of old were in their racism. They are sickening to read. They read like bigotry, because they are bigotry. They steal the credibility of science to rationalize and exploit prior bigotries.
Autism research is incredibly flawed in an enormous number of ways. One example of how, is the fact that the sum total of all knowledge of Autism in academia is based on the work of two incredibly flawed men, both with incredibly flawed ideas and practice from the 1940s. Everything we know professionally and societally about Autism is underpinned by their work. As I’ve said so many times in talks and trainings the whole of Autism research is built on a foundation of sand.
Autism research is an ivory tower built on sand. We desperately need a shift to an inclusive paradigm that promotes epistemic justice.
The findings presented here paint a picture of a field in flux, facing a shift from the “normal science” (Pellicano and den Houting, 2022) of the ivory tower to a more inclusive, real-world paradigm with community members valued as key agents in knowledge production.
That inclusive, real-world paradigm is open + participatory + emancipatory + activist research. Below, we excerpt from a number of our favorite studies by way of introduction.
“The best way to get it right is to listen to us.”
From Theorizing in the Ivory Tower to Creating Change with the People: Activist Research as a Framework for Collaborative Action
The most salient characteristic of activist research is the belief that it must go farther than knowledge production; it must create transformative action.
It turns out that there is an emerging research framework—activist research—that is inclusive of multiple disciplines including educational research (Cushman, 1999; DeMeulenaere & Cann, 2013; Fine & Vanderslice, 1992; Knight, 2000; Malone, 2006; Nygreen, 2006), anthropology (Hale, 2006; Speed, 2006; Urla, & Helepololei, 2014) social movements and other social science research fields (Chatterton, Fuller, & Routledge, 2007; Choudry, 2014). A review of the theoretical frameworks, methodologies, findings, ethical issues, and challenges has allowed me to identify three characteristics that delineate activist researcher from other types of research: (1) combination of knowledge production and transformative action; (2) systematic multi-level collaboration; and (3) challenges to power.
The most salient characteristic of activist research is the belief that it must go farther than knowledge production; it must create transformative action. Knowledge production is the epitome of all research, even for studies that seek to expose inequities and call out oppressive systems and structures, but activist research goes further by committing to bringing about change with and for the participants (DeMulenaere & Cann, 2013; Hale, 2001, Fine & Vanderslice, 1992; Nygreen, 2006). Who is changed and how they are changed is a key aspect of activist research. DeMulenaere and Cann note that critical research is not necessarily activist research if it fails to include social transformative change, “at the spaces and sites of research…” (p. 557, 2013). They stress that if the only change that takes place is through reading of the published findings, then the study would not be considered activist research.
Hale contends that researchers who engage in cultural critique are committed to the research institution while activist researchers have dual commitments to the people and their political struggle and the academy (2006, p. 100). And it is this dual commitment that transforms the methodology beginning with the research topic and ending with the production of knowledge that is not only useful but transformative (Hale, 2001). Thus, activist research is an emerging research framework that shifts the focus from traditional knowledge production to commitment to working with others to produce transformative change. Traditional research methods such as ethnography, action research, and feminist research are situated within an activist research framework, leaving the means intact, but striving to change the ends.
Activist research in education does not seek to transform the participant but to work with the participants to bring about transformative change in education policy, practices, structures, and institutions.
Like cultural critique, research in education often fails to bring about social change (DeMeulenaere & Cann, 2013) and can reproduce myths of cultural and cognitive deficiency (Nygreen, 2006). Activist research uses transformative action to change educational practices, structures, and institutions. Nygreen notes that, “activist research is politically engaged: it assumes education is inherently political—rooted in and shaped by political process and relations of power—and that education change is a political struggle” (2006, p. 2). When education research is decontextualized from its political roots, the problem is often seen as the individual child, teacher, or urban community, and the goal becomes to fix them with the right intervention. Nygreen makes clear, however, “many of the contextual factors that shape teaching and learning in under-resourced urban schools are rooted in political-economic structures and practices that extend far beyond the impoverished neighborhoods of these schools” (p. 5). Activist research in education does not seek to transform the participant but to work with the participants to bring about transformative change in education policy, practices, structures, and institutions.
An activist research framework dismisses the idea that education research can or should be neutral but instead assumes that it is inherently political.
Some might question if it is ethical to engage in research that seeks transformation as a result, implying that neutrality in research should remain the goal. An activist research framework dismisses the idea that education research can or should be neutral but instead assumes that it is inherently political. The third aspect of this framework includes challenges to power; thus, neutrality or objectivity is not possible if one engages in activist research. As mentioned earlier, transformative change is not about forcing or demanding that the participants themselves change. Educational research situated within an activist framework acknowledges that political structures create systems of oppression for low-income children and students of color, and seeks to change those through policy and practice. As with any lofty goal, there are limitations in desiring transformative change but that does not mean the pursuit is any less worthy than those that guide traditional research.
Activist research embraces collaboration at every step of the research process. Hale (2001) notes beginning with the research question and objectives, activist research is organized collectively with the people who are subject to the conditions under study. He suggests that prior to the selection of a research design, the researcher must undergo “a process of dialogue and collective work with the subjects of study…” (p. 14). The goal is to ascertain what knowledge or problem the people want to gain or work toward solving. Instead of the researcher identifying the goals and the selecting participants who share the same goals, the objectives “coincide at least in part with what actors in the process under study think it is important to know and to understand” (p. 14).
In traditional research, the researcher collects and analyzes the data. Even in qualitative participatory research that uses naturalistic forms of data collection, the researcher is often the sole interpreter of the data. Although we may ask our participants to review our analysis as a form of member checking, rarely do we have them collect, interpret, and analyze the data. In activist research the participants actively engage in data collection, interpretation and analysis.
Fine and Vanderslice state that the strategy of turning the participants into researcher created a major turning point for the staff, “by becoming researchers they changed their thinking about students, the community, and one another” (p. 210).
The use of systematic multi-level collaboration was instrumental in creating the conditions needed to make restructuring the school a valid possibility.
The final salient feature of activist research is the nexus between transformative action, systematic, multi-level collaboration, and challenges to power structures. As the researcher works with the participants to design a research project that leads to transformative action the power structure that limits and or oppresses those participants is challenged during the research process or with the research findings. Malone (2006) argues that her identity as an environmental education researcher and an environmental activist creates a “professional commitment and responsibility to support and empower community members to be active in social and environmental change” (p. 378). However, she notes that the traditional notion of empowerment, where the researcher makes the participant aware of their lack of power, is problematic. “Empowerment requires the appropriation of power for participants beyond knowledge of the source of their disempowerment” (p. 378).
In addition to challenging power, Fine and Vanderslice (1992) highlight how activist research works across multiple levels and sites of power and practice. They stress the importance of constructing theory at the school level (practice) and the district level (power):
Activist research involves the dialectical gathering and sharing of information across sites of power and practice, so that no one side of the institution is even engaged in an image of possibility without the rest of the system at least on deck to listen, and be part of the transformative process. To initiate activist research at the school-level alone could be irresponsible, in so far as we could easily “take” the schools toward images of possibility that the district, union, or state would never tolerate. Similarly, to initiate activist research at the district (state/union) level alone could yield unduly narrow images. Districts, as the seat of policy setting, monitoring and power, do not know, intimately, where they need to change, give up monitoring, and share power until they hear from schools—the site of practice. (Fine & Vanderslice, 1992, p. 205)
As the participant researchers negotiated ideas for school restructuring, they were sent to the district and as the district proposed ideas they were sent back to the school, thus the levels of power and practice worked together as new questions and new ideas surfaced. Challenges to power must be explicit and encompass multiple sites if they are to support the participants desire for transformative action.
In addition to exposing and challenging the political battles waged through education policy and reform efforts, activist research can provide youth with the experience needed to develop their critical consciousness and critical civic practice. Critical civic praxis is defined as “a process that develops critical consciousness and builds the capacity for young people to respond and change oppressive conditions in their environment” (Ginwright & Cammarota. 2007, p. 699). Based on the work of Freire, critical consciousness is achieved when the person realizes how oppression has limits their agency and ability to engage in resistance. Through critical consciousness, “the individual’s subjectivity transforms to foster new possibilities and capacities to see and act differently, proactively in the world—perceptions and actions geared toward promoting justice” (p. 699). Activist research can serve as a foundation for developing critical conscious in youth or an outlet for engaging in critical civic practice, or both.
To summarize, I have reviewed three salient characteristics of activist research: transformative action, systematic multi-level collaboration, and challenges to power.
Perhaps it is best to think of activist research as a framework for conducting collaborative research that makes explicit challenges to power through transformative action. Activist research can employ many different research methods including ethnography, participatory action research, and community based research. Activist research can involve an academic researcher but does not require one, and the work happens in the community and is initiated by those working for their own liberation. Research that is critical, participatory, and social justice oriented is not automatically classified as activist research if it fails to create transformative action.
If the goal of research is to change the world, then the framework for conducting research must change. Research that produces knowledge and awareness about oppression will not change the lived reality of the oppressed. Those who traditionally have research done to or for them, will not be changed by research articles that are only accessible in academic journals. Research that maintains the status quo will not be sufficient to improve the future of marginalized youth and adults. If change is the goal, the way we conceptualize research must be restructured to work for change. This does not mean that activist research is a cure to all that ails society and will fix every problem facing today’s youth. Those who engage in activist research face challenges to reliability, validity, and acceptance from the larger research community (Hale, 2006) and although they strive for transformative action there is no guarantee that their work will bring about the outcomes they desire. Nonetheless, activist research provides a framework of possibilities for taking research out of halls of academia and into the hands and hopes of the people.
A recent editorial in the major international journal Autism called for researchers to ‘acknowledge the need to address the everyday realities of autism’ by engaging with autistic people at all steps of the research process, including – but not limited to – establishing directions for research (Pellicano et al. 2018, 82). This ‘partnering’ of researchers with autistic people, together with a recognition of potentially unequal power dynamics between researchers and research participants, is characterised as participatory research (Waltz 2009; Fletcher-Watson et al. 2018)
However, meaningful inclusion of autistic voices in research tends to be the exception rather than the rule (Chown et al. 2017). This is methodologically and epistemologically problematic (Milton and Bracher 2013). Thus, drawing on an emancipatory as well as a participatory framework for autism research can increase the inclusion of autistic voices and contribute to a revision of the non-autistic voices. For example, Waltz (2009) claims that the accuracy of the findings is likely to improve when increasing the involve- ment of the participants in the process, because their insight will provide important information about their needs, priorities, and challenges, amongst other parameters. Research produced in this way is therefore of ‘higher qual- ity … (and more) relevant and applicable’ (Jivraj et al. 2014, 782). This statement applies to autistic people, researchers, and participants. For example, autistic researchers suggest that well-being for an autistic person would mean adapting the lifestyle to an individual’s own personal needs and desires, rather than being forced to mimic behaviours that can be confusing to them (Milton and Bracher 2013), a finding that may come less easily to a non-autistic researcher. The insight of autistic people is of importance if the research community is to have access into autistic ways of thinking (MacLeod, Lewis, and Robertson 2014), which we, and others, argue produces better research. As a result, an emancipatory framework can provide crucial contributions to the current understanding of autism.
an emancipatory approach refers to the inclusion of the participants within the research process in such a way that they benefit from it and it expresses their opinions and experiences.
According to Stone and Priestley (1996) in one of the first descriptions of emancipatory approaches within disability research, an emancipatory approach refers to the inclusion of the participants within the research process in such a way that they benefit from it and it expresses their opinions and experiences. An emancipatory framework aims to challenge power structures within the research process (Stone and Priestley 1996) and aims for the equal representation of all ideas and beliefs. It is important to make space in our work for competing discourses as far as is possible.
In emancipatory research the participants are not passive objects, but actively form the final product (Waltz 2009). Emancipatory research, therefore, in contrast to participatory research, aims not only to record and present the issues of a particular group by involving them in the process, but also to initiate changes that will work for the benefit of the people of the community involved in it (Waltz 2009). Therefore, in order for a research process to be emancipatory, a number of criteria have to be met. The agreement upon this framework from the participants is the first important aspect, and engagement with the process for the whole research team from initial conceptualisation to the final product is considered crucial as a shared goal.
Emancipatory research has its roots in investigating marginalised social groups such as ethnic minorities and has been extensively used in feminist research (Stone and Priestly 1996). It also entered the field of disability and mental health research when people with disabilities started to request their rights in the decision-making processes that were related to them (Danieli and Woodhams 2005). Its presence in the field of autism research is, however, relatively new and sporadic (Milton and Bracher 2013; Woods et al. 2018). The nature of the social and communication difficulties of autistic people make researchers sceptical in terms of the ways they might be able to include autistic people in the current research process (Waltz 2009).
The innovative emancipatory design proved effective in giving voice to a group who have had little presence within the academic and medical large and internationally based participant sample. This article highlights both the importance of approaching autism from an intersectional perspective that takes greater account of context, and the unique contributions that autistic individuals can make to current understandings within autism research.
This project endeavored to follow the main principles of emancipatory research, an approach akin to participatory research, whereby participants are active stakeholders within all aspects of the research process.19 Throughout this study, participants were encouraged to be coresearchers, directing the research agenda, setting their own questions and commenting upon the analysis and findings. In this way, it was hoped that they would derive personal benefit from the research. We aimed not only to record and represent their experiences, but also through dissemination to initiate broader change for the benefit of the whole community.20 Emancipatory research has only recently and very sporadically been used in the field of autism research. The social and communication difficulties associated with autistic individuals have caused researchers to be cautious, perhaps overly so, about consulting them, despite evidence from autistic and nonautistic researchers that this can be done effectively.23,24 This relative absence of representation of autistic individuals deprives the research community of the insights of autistic people, and as Ne’eman has observed, have put autism behind other areas of disability self-advocacy.
We believe that participatory research should always be the baseline of any autism research project, whoever it is led by. We agree that it is important to value the voice of the ‘other’ as a primary source of knowledge production rather than a secondary source within the context of power structures around epistemology.
There are important benefits for research communities and participants alike in adopting an emancipatory research approach. Waltz has claimed that the accuracy of results is likely to improve by directly involving participants, because their insights can provide important information about their needs, priorities, and challenges, which may be overlooked by non-disabled researchers. Likewise, autistic researcher Milton has reflected on the production of knowledge in autism studies and the fact that it is largely based on interpretations from non-autistic researchers, neglecting the autistic perspective. Yet the insights of autistic participants are of the utmost importance, if research communities are to have access to their unique ways of thinking and reflect their priorities. An emancipatory approach was also deemed appropriate since this research was inspired by the personal experiences of the first author, who is autistic. The first author met most of the participants online, through her journey to awareness of her own challenges.
However, in keeping with its emancipatory philosophy, the negotiation of consent was treated as an ongoing consensual process rather than one event. Through the dialogues both during and after the data collection and analysis, participants had multiple opportunities to raise questions or concerns.
For research to be considered emancipatory, it is not sufficient that the research process and production are emancipatory, but dissemination of the research findings should also fulfil this function. Considering the dissemination of research findings, and that the findings themselves are produced in an ‘accessible’ format, should be a concern of any researcher who is doing emancipatory research.
More autistic-led, participatory, and emancipatory research is needed to increase our understanding of how best to break down the barriers that constrain opportunities for autistic individuals and to understand autism not as a biological deficit, but as a form of ‘‘neurological queerness.’’
The data for this study were collected by the first author, endeavoring to comply with the principles of emancipatory research throughout. The initial conception of the project was influenced by the community from which the participants were recruited, and the first author was a part of the autism community before the beginning of the process. This was an important factor behind their motivation to participate and share sensitive areas of their lives, as many of them confirmed at various times.
Perhaps the most important message arising from the emancipatory approach is the freedom of expression it offered to its participants. Through this, notwithstanding the mentioned points, participants not only reflected upon these aspects of their identities, but also highlighted the need to go beyond them and see the ‘‘dancer’’ and the ‘‘artist.’’ Just as autism research risks neglecting the experiences of autistic women, research such as this study, with its focus on ‘‘identities of disadvantage,’’ potentially risks neglecting the individual experience. Our participants ensured that this did not happen, and instead offered empowering accounts of the development and expression of their different identities, negative and positive.
…it is important that we avoid essentialising autistic communities, voices, and views. It is important to recognise that people have different perspectives and approaches, which may all be equally valued and important. This suggests the importance of intersectional approaches for emancipatory autism research
So, how do we go about building the community of practice we need to deliver these participatory methods? Some basics are already well known – for example, the importance of using respectful language to talk about autism and the need to create an enabling environment in which autistic people can contribute. Our series went beyond these basics, and identified five topics which are essential parts of developing a more participatory and collaborative research model in which autistic academics and autistic people in the community lead and / or partner in research projects.
Participatory research methods connect researchers with relevant communities to achieve shared goals.
Participatory research enables meaningful input from autistic people in autism research. It is one important way to overcome barriers to effective translation and to ensure that research yields rel- evant benefits (Long et al., 2017).
By participatory research, we mean incorporating the views of autistic people and their allies about what research gets done, how it is done and how it is implemented (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). A key principle of participatory research is the recognition, and undermining, of the traditional power imbalance between researcher and participant (Nelson and Wright, 1995).
Another key feature of participatory research is inclusiveness including adapting the research environment, methodology and dissemination routes to permit the widest and most accessible engagement, or engagement from specific groups (e.g. non-speaking autistic people and people with additional intellectual disabili- ties – see Long and Clarkson, 2017). Participatory research is ethically informed by the values of the community, for example, in the selection of research questions and study objectives. Moreover, input from this community can improve the quality of research methods, contextualise findings within real-world settings and thereby enhance the translation of findings into practice (Carrington et al., 2016; Grinker et al., 2012; Parr, 2016; Parsons and Cobb, 2013). However, there is evidence that this engagement is not yet prevalent in the field.
The participatory approach is a crucial element in all future autism research. A body of literature exists on its principles, practices, and significance.26–33 Anything that will truly help needs to be co-designed, developed, and evaluated with the involvement of autistic people. It has positive implications for the wider research agenda, in particular when established non-autistic autism researchers collaborate meaningfully with autistic scholars. We need approaches that value and center autistic voices, experiences, and expertise.
As participants, autistic people can correct misperceptions regarding concepts developed by autistic communities, researchers, and scholars, including neurodiversity and the neurodiversity paradigm,34–36 the double empathy problem,37 autistic inertia,38 monotropism,39 hyperfocus,40 and autistic space.41 We can offer insights on the therapeutic and empowerment value of self-help activities and the positive aspects of engaging in intense interests, as well as introducing emerging ideas such as sensory trauma,42 the co-creation of extended autistic families, and community-based mentor- ing.43 These concepts have implications for clinical research, including early intervention,44 and can lead research to new, more effective directions.
Navigating Open Scholarship for Neurodivergent Researchers
The power structure that dominates psychology and social sciences is from white, male and able-bodied people who treat neurodivergent people as an object of the conversation, not the subject. As argued by Jackson (1998, p.8), “Each person is at once a subject for himself or herself – a _who _- and an object for others – a what. And though individuals speak, act, and work toward belonging to a world of others, they simultaneously strive to experience themselves as world makers”. Once we consider that scientists are human, and neurodivergent people can be included in this research, then we can co-create projects that allow us to discover the truth about diversity from different perspectives. This is more commonly discussed in qualitative research but rarely even considered in quantitative research. In addition, with different perspectives, there is an emphasis on moving away from the typical White, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) samples that account for 80% of study samples but only 12% of the world population, despite the fact that this movement does not acknowledge the neurodiversity movement or neurominorities (e.g. autistic, ADHD, dyslexic). In addition, there is a lack of patient involvement in how to make the research more likely to improve the quality of life of neurodivergent people. The need to address this issue and to ensure disabled and marginalised individuals are directly included in research and policy-making decisions that affect them can be expressed by the commonly used slogan “Nothing about us without us”. Emancipatory and/or participatory approaches such as participatory action research (e.g. Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist et al., 2019; Fletcher-Watson et al., 2018; Grant & Kara, 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Strang et al., 2019; Strang et al., 2021) have considerable potential for facilitating this type of collective knowledge creation and driving social change that benefits neurodivergent people in areas that may contrast with many mainstream research approaches.
A recent movement has become important in education: open scholarship. This reflects the idea that knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared, transparent, rigorous, reproducible, replicable, accumulative, and inclusive (allowing for all knowledge systems). Open scholarship includes all activities that are not solely limited to research such as teaching and pedagogy. One key foundation of open scholarship is accessibility, a key facet that also belongs to the neurodiverse movement (e.g. Brown & Leigh, 2018; Brown et al., 2018). Accessibility and inclusion is where your content, activities and all their components are accessible to all people with disabilities, learning differences, mental health conditions or other health conditions that may affect their learning or engagement with the materials and activities, research activities, clinical training, and teaching (Victor et al., 2021a). It highlights the importance of embracing diversity and making everyone feel welcome and valued (see information sheet). Discussions have been, however, scarce regarding not only how open scholarship can advance the neurodiverse movement, but also how it can benefit from it. It is thus a priority to build community to discuss how the neurodiversity movement can be included in open scholarship, as the lived experience of neurodivergent individuals (including encountered barriers) may help to enhance accessibility, allowing open scholarship to be truly open (Whitaker & Guest, 2020). This in turn may help to dismantle the harmful stereotypes about disabled individuals (Devendorf et al., 2021), providing more specific provisions for neurodivergent and/or disabled researchers (e.g. virtual conferences; see Levitis et al., 2021). Furthermore, including this population in academia will help promote work-life balance, by denormalising overwork and practices that lead to burnout.
There has been a recent shift towards the use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (i.e., an approach to teaching highlighting that academics/tutors should be proactively, not reactively, inclusive by making adjustments to their teaching without students having to disclose their disability to student disability services) in higher education (Burgstahler & Cory, 2010). UDL has several benefits: by offering a more flexible and inclusive practice, there is no need to disclose one’s disability, irrespective of student status (Clouder et al., 2020). In addition, making the assumption about the student’s intention based on your interpretation of their behaviour can be damaging for neurodivergent students’ self-esteem. University staff should recognise the different manners in which students may communicate and contribute, whilst being open to collaborating with students to find suitable approaches. Put simply, it can be described as neurodiversity involvement for pedagogy.
Towards Reproducible and Respectful Autism Research: Combining Open and Participatory Autism Research Practices
Concerns have also been raised about the quality and rigour of autism research. For example, researchers have highlighted key omissions in the reporting of research, such as failures to declare conflicts of interest (Bottema-Beutel & Crowley, 2021) or the presence of adverse events (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). Concerns have also extended to the low standards underlying evidence-based practice (Bottema-Beutel, 2023) as well as replication failures (Gernsbacher & Yergeau, 2019). As Dawson and Fletcher-Watson (2021, p.1) note, the standards of research quality and ethics have not been applied to autism research to the extent that they should, which has “profoundly impacted how autistics are regarded and treated”.
Two potential solutions have been proposed in relation to these aforementioned issues. The first solution regards greater involvement of the autistic and broader autism communities in research: in identifying research priorities, in deciding the design and conduct of research, in analysing and interpreting research findings, and in disseminating research more broadly (e.g., Pellicano et al., 2014). In essence, this solution involves shifting the traditional power balance in research from autism researchers to the autistic and broader autism communities. Participatory approaches such as these are thought to lead to better quality research that is more easily translated into practice (Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013; Forsythe et al., 2019).
The second solution regards greater openness and transparency in the reporting of research (Hobson, Poole, Pearson & Fletcher-Watson, 2022). Open research is an umbrella term for several practices, underpinned by a desire for the products and processes of research to be accessible to those outside of the original research team (Munafo et al., 2017). Open scientific practices are closely aligned with efforts to improve research reproducibility, and reduce the risk of grey research practices, such as hypothesising after results are known (HARKing; Kerr, 1998), and over-analysing data (“p-hacking”; Simmons et al., 2011).
In this paper, we discuss how combining participatory and open research practices may go some way toward addressing key issues inherent within autism research. First, we define both open research and participatory research. Then, we outline three key principles for autism researchers striving to make their work more open and participatory: (1) the need for adequate expertise and infrastructure to facilitate high quality research, (2) the need for a greater degree of accessibility at all stages of the research process, and (3) the need to foster trusting relationships between the autistic and research communities. Throughout this paper, we draw on examples from literature both within and outside the autism research field, and we conclude with reflections on how this may foster an autism research culture that better serves the autistic and broader autism communities.
TRAI की समीक्षा के बाद Jio, Airtel और VI ने सस्ते किए रिचार्ज प्लान, यहां पढ़ें पूरी डिटेल
Mobile Recharge News: टेलीकॉम रेगुलेटरी अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया (TRAI) के आदेश के बाद भारत की प्रमुख टेलीकॉम कंपनियों Jio, Airtel और Vi ने अपने वॉइस और SMS रिचार्ज प्लान्स की कीमतों में महत्वपूर्ण कटौती की है।
TRAI द्वारा इन कंपनियों को निर्देश दिए गए थे कि वे अपने प्लान्स की कीमतों की समीक्षा करें और ग्राहकों के लिए बेहतर और किफायती विकल्प उपलब्ध कराएं। इस कदम से ग्राहकों को सस्ते दामों में बेहतरीन सेवाएं मिल रही हैं।
Jio ने अपने रिचार्ज प्लान्स में 200 रुपये से ज्यादा की कटौती की
Jio ने पहले अपने दो प्रमुख वॉइस और SMS प्लान्स लॉन्च किए थे। इन प्लान्स में अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग, SMS और लंबी वैलिडिटी दी जा रही थी।
1. 458 रुपये वाला प्लान: इस प्लान में ग्राहकों को अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग, 1,000 SMS और 84 दिनों की वैलिडिटी मिल रही थी।
2. 1,958 रुपये वाला प्लान: इसमें ग्राहकों को 365 दिनों की वैलिडिटी के साथ अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग और 3,600 SMS मिल रहे थे।
TRAI द्वारा इस प्लान की समीक्षा के बाद, Jio ने अपनी कीमतों में भारी कटौती की है:
458 रुपये वाला प्लान अब 448 रुपये में मिलेगा, यानी इसमें 10 रुपये की कमी की गई है। – 1,958 रुपये वाला प्लान अब 1,748 रुपये में उपलब्ध है, जिससे 210 रुपये की भारी कटौती हुई है। इसका मतलब है कि Jio ने अपने 1,958 रुपये वाले प्लान की कीमत में 200 रुपये से ज्यादा की कमी की है, जिससे ग्राहक अब सस्ते दामों पर अधिक सेवाएं प्राप्त कर सकते हैं।
Airtel ने भी की अपनी कीमतों में कमी
Airtel ने भी अपने वॉइस और SMS रिचार्ज प्लान्स की कीमतों में कटौती की है। पहले कंपनी ने दो प्रमुख प्लान्स लॉन्च किए थे:
1. 499 रुपये वाला प्लान: इसमें ग्राहकों को 84 दिनों के लिए अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग और 900 SMS मिलते थे। अब इस प्लान की कीमत 469 रुपये हो गई है, यानी इसमें 30 रुपये की कमी की गई है।
2. 1,959 रुपये वाला प्लान: इस प्लान में 365 दिनों की वैलिडिटी के साथ अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग और 3,600 SMS मिलते थे।
अब इसकी कीमत 1,849 रुपये हो गई है, यानी 110 रुपये की कमी की गई है। इस प्रकार, Airtel ने भी अपने दोनों प्रमुख प्लान्स की कीमतों में कटौती करके ग्राहकों के लिए अधिक किफायती विकल्प उपलब्ध कराए हैं।
Vi ने भी पेश किए नए और सस्ते प्लान्स
Vi (Vodafone Idea) ने भी अपने ग्राहकों के लिए दो नए और किफायती प्लान्स पेश किए हैं। पहले कंपनी के पास एक ही प्लान था जिसमें 1,849 रुपये में 365 दिनों की वैलिडिटी के साथ अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग और 3,600 SMS मिलते थे।
अब Vi ने इसे दो नए प्लान्स में बदल दिया है:
1. 1,849 रुपये वाला प्लान: यह प्लान पहले की तरह ही 365 दिनों की वैलिडिटी, अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग और 3,600 SMS प्रदान करता है।
2. 470 रुपये वाला प्लान: इसमें 84 दिनों की वैलिडिटी के साथ अनलिमिटेड कॉलिंग और 900 SMS मिलते हैं। Vi ने नए प्लान्स के साथ अपने ग्राहकों को अधिक विकल्प दिए हैं, जिनमें से वे अपनी जरूरत और बजट के अनुसार चुनाव कर सकते हैं।
टेलीकॉम सेवाओं को और सस्ता और किफायती बना दिया
TRAI के आदेश ने ग्राहकों के लिए टेलीकॉम सेवाओं को और सस्ता और किफायती बना दिया है। पहले जहां कंपनियां अपने डेटा प्लान्स को वॉइस और SMS प्लान्स में बदलकर अतिरिक्त लाभ देने का दावा कर रही थीं, वहीं अब TRAI के हस्तक्षेप से ग्राहकों को उसी कीमत पर अधिक सेवाएं मिल रही हैं। इसके अलावा, यह भी साबित होता है कि TRAI का यह कदम टेलीकॉम कंपनियों के बीच प्रतिस्पर्धा को बढ़ाएगा, जिससे ग्राहकों को सस्ते रिचार्ज और बेहतर सेवाएं मिलेंगी।
इन बदलावों से यह भी दिखता है कि कंपनियां अब अपने ग्राहकों की आवश्यकताओं को प्राथमिकता दे रही हैं, और उन्हें किफायती और संतोषजनक टेलीकॉम सेवाएं देने के लिए प्रतिबद्ध हैं। TRAI के आदेश के बाद Jio, Airtel और Vi ने अपने वॉइस और SMS प्लान्स की कीमतों में महत्वपूर्ण कटौती की है, जिससे ग्राहकों को सस्ते रिचार्ज विकल्प मिलेंगे। Jio ने 1,958 रुपये वाले प्लान को 210 रुपये सस्ता किया है, Airtel ने भी अपने दोनों प्रमुख प्लान्स की कीमतों में कटौती की है, और Vi ने नए सस्ते प्लान्स पेश किए हैं। इससे ग्राहकों को अब बेहतर सेवाएं और अधिक विकल्प मिलेंगे, और वे पहले से अधिक किफायती दरों पर इन सेवाओं का लाभ उठा सकेंगे।
मिनी सचिवालय के समीप ट्रक की चपेट में आता मोटरसाइकिल, बाल-बाल बची दंपति की जान; जानें पूरा मामला
Una News: ऊना मुख्यालय पर मिनी सचिवालय के समीप पुराना बस अड्डा चौक पर मोटरसाईकिल सवार दपंत्ति ट्रक की चपेट में आ गया। इस दौरान मोटरसाईकिल बुरी तरह से क्षतिग्रस्त हो गया। लेकिन हादसे में पति व पत्नी दोनों बाल बाल बच गए। जानकारी के अनुसार एक ट्रक संतोषगढ़ की तरफ से ऊना की तरफ आया। इस दौरान मोटरसाईकिल सवार दपंत्ति जैसे ही वहां से निकलने लगा तो ट्रक चालक ने ट्रक को चला दिया। इस दौरान ट्रक के नीचे आ गया।
महिला पर जबरन जमीन कब्जाने का आरोप
ऊना। हरोली पुलिस थाना क्षेत्र के तहत पंडोगा में एक महिला पर जबरन जमीन पर कब्जा करने व जान से मारने की धमकियां देने का आरोप लगा है। पुलिस ने एक महिला की शिकायत पर उक्त कार्रवाई की है। पुलिस को दी शिकायत में एक महिला ने बताया कि एक महिला एक मजदूर के साथ कुल्हाड़ी लेकर उनकी पुश्तैनी जमीन में घुस गई। एसपी राकेश सिंह ने बताया कि पुलिस ने मामला दर्ज कर जांच शुरू कर दी है।
सट्टा पर्चियों सहित एक दबोचा
ऊना। टाहलीवाल पुलिस टीम ने बाथड़ी में एक व्यक्ति को सट्टा पर्चियों सहित पकड़ा है। पुलिस ने आरोपित चरणजीत सिंह निवासी लुधियाणा के पास से 1140 रुपए की नकदी व सट्टा पर्चियां बरामद कर जुआ अधिनियम के तहत केस दर्ज कर लिया है। एसपी राकेश सिंह ने मामले की पुष्टि की है।
वर्तमान समय भाजपा का स्वर्ण युग, शांता कुमार बोले, हिमाचल में पार्टी की स्थिति चिंताजनक; जानें पूरा मामला
Himachal News: पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री और पूर्व केंद्रीय मंत्री शान्ता कुमार ने कहा कि वर्तमान समय भारतीय जनता पार्टी के स्वर्ण युग के रूप में इतिहास में दर्ज होगा। शान्ता कुमार ने गुरूवार काे एक बयान में कहा कि प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी का लगातार तीसरी बार प्रधानमंत्री बनना, पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के बाद केवल दूसरा उदाहरण है। उन्होंने कहा कि राम मंदिर का निर्माण, कश्मीर की धारा 370 को समाप्त करना और भारत के विकास की दिशा में उठाए गए कदम ऐतिहासिक हैं।
शान्ता कुमार ने आगे कहा कि भाजपा आज पूरे देश में एक महाशक्ति के रूप में खड़ी है, लेकिन हिमाचल प्रदेश में पार्टी की स्थिति चिन्ताजनक नजर आ रही है। उन्होंने पार्टी के नेताओं से अपील की कि वे मिल बैठकर इस स्थिति को सुधारने के प्रयास करें। उन्होंने जोर देते हुए कहा कि पार्टी में नये नेताओं का स्वागत तो किया जाए, लेकिन पुराने नेताओं के मान-सम्मान में कोई कमी नहीं आनी चाहिए।
उन्हाेंने विशेष रूप से उन नेताओं का उल्लेख किया जो संकट के समय में पार्टी के सम्मान की रक्षा के लिए न केवल संघर्ष करते थे बल्कि उन्होंने करोड़ों रुपये की थैलियों को ठोकर मारकर पार्टी के हित में काम किया। उन्होंने हिमाचल प्रदेश के नेताओं से आग्रह किया कि वे इस स्थिति को सुधारें ताकि पार्टी का सम्मान बरकरार रहे और संगठन मजबूत हो।
शान्ता कुमार ने इसे पार्टी के लिए एक गंभीर चुनौती बताया और उम्मीद जताई कि हिमाचल प्रदेश में भाजपा के सभी नेता मिलकर इस कठिनाई का समाधान निकालेंगे। उनका कुमार का यह बयान रमेश धवाला द्वारा अपने समर्थकों के साथ बैठक के बाद आया है। धवाला, जो दो बार पूर्व भाजपा सरकार में मंत्री रह चुके हैं। वे हाल ही में देहरा उपचुनाव में टिकट न मिलने के बाद पार्टी से नाराज चल रहे हैं। धवाला ने सार्वजनिक रूप से इस मुद्दे पर अपनी नाराजगी भी व्यक्त की थी। शान्ता कुमार भी कांग्रेस के विधायकाें के भाजपा में आने से खुश नहीं हैं।
