Latest news with #Soviets
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Can classroom seating break the frontbench-backbench divide?
A photograph by Yuri Zhitlukhin I came across while searching for images of Soviet classrooms of the post-Bolshevik Revolution period shows a teacher playing the flute to her students in a kindergarten class. The children in it are sitting in a single U-shaped type of seating arrangement, however, was not typical in schools in the Soviet Union. Other classroom photos show that the communist Soviets didn't abolish the backbench even in kindergartens and nurseries, which Lenin viewed as 'the sprouts of communism.' A revolution seems to be occurring in Indian classrooms, inspired by a 2024 Malayalam movie, Sthanarthi Sreekuttan (Candidate Sreekuttan), recently released on a streaming platform. The film, set in a school in UP, questions the divide between front and backbenchers. The plot centres around Sreekuttan, a backbencher, running against a frontbencher in school elections. He suggests a semicircular seating arrangement to bridge the gap between students. His idea is eventually adopted by the school. Schools in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and West Bengal have adopted a U-shaped seating arrangement, which is regarded as a progressive change. While backbenchers may be looked down upon in classrooms, in other settings, the situation may be different. Take parliament. Historically, backbenchers there have been crucial in formulating policy. Even in society at large, backbenchers are often perceived as more self-reliant, self-driven, capable of handling failure and setbacks, and able to collaborate though these traits might not be universally true, being on the backbench is a significant aspect of being a student. Frontbenchers miss a 180-degree view of the class. Recently, Harsh Goenka shared his backbencher life in the classroom on social media, which he described as ideal for 'sneaking in a nap, doodling, or secretly enjoying a samosa.' For many students, eliminating the backbench would undoubtedly snatch away some essential charms of school life. It would also deprive many proud frontbenchers of their 'badge of honour', as the idea of front benches in schools would simultaneously be are we so eager to eliminate back and front benches in classrooms? Have we truly built a classless society? If not, why rush to give children the illusion that such a utopia exists? Better to let them confront reality from their first day in were first introduced in classrooms around 5th c. BCE in ancient Greece. It became more common in the 19th century, mainly as means to efficiently and affordably accommodate more students. Additionally, they gave teachers room to go around and engage with every student. It's difficult to predict how teaching will evolve in this AI era. Advocates of U-shaped classroom seating think it fosters a more inclusive learning environment and enhances student-teacher interaction. With each student taking centre stage, it may promote equitable engagement and level the playing field. However, those with a soft spot for backbenchers feel that it may compromise quiet observation and creative flexibility often found in the back understandably, a larger class cannot be accommodated by such a U-shaped setup. There's apprehension that it could cause eye strain and other problems for pupils who must swivel their heads to look at the blackboard. In society, there's a wide disparity in basic infrastructure - food, healthcare, transportation, and educational environments - among pupils. In an ideal society, we would strive to reduce that gap. But that's a daunting task, indeed. Nevertheless, there's a simpler solution: reorient classroom how about a 'recurring' seating arrangement that's kept fluid? My daughter treasured such a creative setup in her school days in Kolkata, where certain teachers would switch students their seating rows every day. The third row moved up to the second position the next day, then to the first, then to the last, and so on. This - or a variation of it - could be a better way to experience life, society, and its inevitable class structure. While also having an equal amount of fun at school. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Paid less than plumbers? The real story of freshers' salaries at Infy, TCS. Can medicines inject the vitamins Amazon is missing? Can victims of Jane Street scam be compensated by investor protection funds? We prefer to have idle pilots than grounded planes: Akasa CFO on losses, funding hiccups, Boeing What if Tata Motors buys Iveco's truck unit? Will it propel or drag like JLR? How private ARCs are losing out to a govt-backed firm dealing in bad loans Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and return potential of 13 to 45% in 1 year Short-term valuation headwinds? Yes. Long-term growth potential intact? Yes. Which 'Yes' is more relevant? F&O Radar| Deploy Bull Call Spread in Nifty to gain from a 'buy-on-dips' stance
Daily Mirror
5 days ago
- General
- Daily Mirror
Missing Russian plane UPDATES: Aircraft carrying 50 people including children vanishes
An aircraft carrying nearly 50 people including children has vanished without trace over Russia. Five children were among the 49 passengers on board when the AN-24 aircraft dropped off radar signalling in the south east of the country. The plane had departed from Blagoveshchensk after a two-hour delay, after a stopover during its flight from Khabarovsk to Tynda. This is a live blog. Please follow below for updates... 07:46Ryan Fahey Aircraft still in operation despite being developed by Soviets during the 1950s The An-24 is a twin turboprop transport aircraft developed in the Soviet Union during the late 1950s. It is still widely used in Russia, which has a poor record on air safety in remote regions. The plane was designed by the Antonov Design Bureau in Kyiv, Ukraine (then part of the USSR). 07:45Ryan Fahey Criminal probe launched over plane's disappearance. The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Transport said it has launched a criminal investigation into the plane's disappearance. 07:44Ryan Fahey Emergency services lose all contact with plane Russian emergency services have revealed details of the plane's final moments. As it reached its destination, the pilot failed to check in and air traffic control lost all contact with the aircraft. 'The An-24 plane was flying the Khabarovsk-Blagoveshchensk-Tynda route. Near the final point, it failed to check in. There is no contact with it,' the emergency services told Interfax news agency. 07:43Ryan Fahey Desperate search launched for 50-year-old plane A desperate search was on for the Angara Airlines aircraft, which is said to have been used for almost 50 years. It disappeared from radar during poor weather near Tynda in southeastern Russia. Weather reports from the area show low cloud and rain.
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
LA Times Today: How a pair of Palos Verdes altar boys grew up to be Soviet spies
The 1985 film 'The Falcon and the Snowman' chronicled the real-life story of two Palos Verdes men who sold United States secrets to the Soviets during the Cold War. From drug deals to espionage to bank robberies, the saga of Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee captured the imagination of the nation. L.A. Times staff writer Christopher Goffard wrote about the case for his series 'Crimes of the Times.'
AllAfrica
6 days ago
- Politics
- AllAfrica
To change or not to change in Xi's China
In 2012, the year Xi Jinping took power, it was the 63rd anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) rule in China. It was a time of deep crisis within both the party and the country, marked by concerning precedents in the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (PCUS). In 1980, the 63rd anniversary of the CPSU's rule, the largest and deepest protest in the Soviet Empire broke out in Poland. In 1956, 24 years earlier, Soviet power was first shaken by the Budapest uprising. In 1968, 12 years later, it was Prague's turn. Both protests were bloodily suppressed. That seemed to be the destiny for Warsaw as well, but then things were more complicated. A Polish pope sat in Rome, speaking with striking workers in the Polish shipyards, but also in Washington, where a devout Catholic led the CIA. The protests weren't confined to a single city, but spread across the whole country. Poland was larger than Hungary or Czechoslovakia. The Polish government was aware of the ongoing risks and sought a way out that would strike a balance between stability and reform. In Moscow, there was also weariness with the hardline stance against the protesters who, in essence, weren't outright anti-communists but sought a more humane, free socialism. The USSR had responded to liberal pressures mainly through repression since its takeover in 1917. The approach seemed no longer practical. It hadn't stopped the cyclical political emergency upending the system. A different, more tolerant response was needed. The chaotic and disordered combination of all these factors led, a few years later, to an attempt at reform under Gorbachev. These reforms ultimately failed, evidenced by a coup attempt by hardliners, and 12 years later, the USSR came to an end. In 2012, China faced a similar predicament. For 30 years, China had experimented with a different formula from the Soviet model, gradually granting economic and personal freedoms while suppressing political liberties. The Soviets had cracked down on economic and political freedom. Practically, around the same time as Deng Xiaoping's reforms in 1980, a protest erupted in Beijing, on the wall of the central Xidan district, demanding the 'fourth modernization'—democracy. The protest was stifled but not forgotten. In 1989, it erupted again in Tiananmen Square. In 1999, ten years later, the Falun Gong crisis emerged. And in 2012, nearly a decade afterward, the country was again in trouble. The police chief of the vital city of Chongqing, a close associate of Politburo member Bo Xilai, fled to the American consulate in Chengdu with a stack of secret documents. The brother of Ling Jihua, a Politburo member and head of the office of the outgoing President Hu Jintao, also fled to the United States with a mountain of secret files. It was chaos, but more importantly, proof that the deal struck at the 2002 Congress—when President Jiang Zemin stepped down but only partially transferred power to his successor Hu Jintao—was failing. The confusion of power between the old and new leaders was reminiscent of the clash between the old guard and the sitting Politburo that led to the Tiananmen protests. The end of the USSR in 1992 had cast a heavy shadow over China. Democratic political reforms could spiral out of control, leading to the disintegration of the state, party leaders argued. In 2012, the party essentially saw only one way to restore order: concentrating power in the hands of its designated successor, Xi Jinping. Today, 13 years after that decisive turn, the country shows all the cracks of concentrated power. But politics is like that—nothing lasts forever. Chinese philosophy believes that the right policy is like rain at the right time: it shouldn't come too early or too late, and it shouldn't be too much or too little. Yes, Chinese exports are booming, and its technology is advancing rapidly. But the domestic economy is in poor health. There is deflation; the real estate market, which has been the main economic driver for over two decades, has collapsed. Bankers are considering zero interest rates to stimulate sluggish growth. This is crucial as the world battles inflation and high interest rates. The deficit in Chinese local governments and State-Owned Enterprises is ballooning, as is the debt-to-GDP ratio. But these people, who have lost so much money, don't vote and have no voice. Mid-level officials also resent pressure from above and have no room to make side money (as they could before). Young graduates cannot find jobs, and so on. All this manifests as people 'lying flat,' or tanping —letting things rot, fanglan ; it means that people do not spend or save as much out of fear of the future. Many entrepreneurs have stopped investing, and growth is driven mainly by infrastructure projects that expand internal debt, leading to increased inefficiencies and wasted resources. And so on. But does this translate into active opposition within the Central Committee—the body that could potentially remove Xi? No. Because these officials believe that to fix the problem, they'd need to remove the 'big man.' But this is a highly hazardous operation, attempted a few times with no success, and often leading to the demise of the rebels. Moreover, there's a broader calculation at play. The system is built around the emperor—if you bring him down, will the system survive? If it doesn't, the officials risk losing their posts along with the leader. As an act of self-preservation, they defend the emperor, no matter what. The middle class is in a similar situation: their homes have lost half of their value, and their savings have diminished dramatically. But half is better than nothing—especially in the event of a revolution. They still have a lot to lose, and revolutions are fought by people who have nothing to lose but their chains. During Tiananmen, people came to the square with bicycles left unlocked in the corner, and they grabbed the first one they saw on their way out—they didn't even own a bike. It was almost the same in 1999 during the anti-American protests following the Belgrade embassy bombing. They had nothing to lose, but everything to gain from a revolution. Now, many (most) have something to lose, and the gains are uncertain. Plus, there is a different international climate. For decades, the ideals of freedom and equality went hand in hand. In Budapest. Prague, Warsaw, Moscow, or people in Xidan and Tiananmen Square wanted democracy. Because all thought democracy was good. Now democracy doesn't carry much water. The US tried to export it like it was a technology, a mobile phone, to Islamic countries and got rejected. That might have instilled the virus of doubt in the West. Indeed, there is also the new neo-traditional right coming from Russia and the new anti-democratic and neo-conservative sentiments growing across the Atlantic. US President Donald Trump is not so hot on democracy, and so are many radical right leaders in Europe. The West lost the ideal of an egalitarian society with the failure of the Soviet Empire, and soon after, the light of liberalism apparently also dimmed. Western societies sought social democracy in the 1960s and 1970s, when they were affluent, had many children, and significant disparities marked the global distribution of wealth between nations. Developed countries were safely rich; developing countries were 'third world'. Now, rich countries don't have children; people have wealth expectancies lower than those of their parents. There is a sense that present affluence will be taken away, and the flow of migrants with different cultures, habits and ambitions knocking on their door and begging for money at every street corner is a practical sign that it is happening. The ideal is not democracy, or greater egalitarianism. It is merely a matter of survival, holding on to their present state. International and national environments converge. As a result, there's no active opposition in China. Therefore, Xi holds more power than ever before. Can this situation last? For how long? What could be the tipping point? These are questions for the future. But North Korea also serves as a warning: coercive governments can last longer than anticipated. Even without considering North Korea, socialist Vietnam and Cuba are still standing. China is bigger, and it has more and larger fissures, but there's no certainty about what the future holds. Still, some insistent rumors have been surfacing about Xi's fall from power. There is no indication that it is the case; quite the opposite. His name is on the news every day, a stark reminder of his clout. The party may be about to set up new government bodies. There is no indication that these bodies, of which we know little in detail, would constrain Xi in any meaningful way. Quite the opposite. They could help Xi to have a more efficient rule. These organizations could help systematize and organize procedures to make administration more efficient. They will have new leaders appointed by Xi himself, who will report directly to him. He may have thus added a new layer of loyal officials handling other party and state functions. Such bureaucratic reshuffles are always a double-edged sword: on one hand, they clarify procedures; on the other, they introduce new rigidity into an already stiff system. It's not clear how they will work out. But overall, it proves that Xi is continually refining the system—evidence of his extensive power. The reforms also demonstrate that the system requires some adjustments. Despite the official rejection of democratic reforms, some reforms are indeed necessary, and the administration doesn't work too effectively. In China, it might be time to think something bolder, but the world doesn't seem ready for it. This article originally appeared on Appia Institute and is republished with permission. Read the original here.
New York Post
6 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Woke ‘Banter Bill' will destroy Britain's last bastion of free speech: the local pub
It's official: Nowhere in Britain is safe from the woke speech police. First they stomped their jackboot on universities, where it's now a risky business to express conservative opinions or even to state biological facts, including such sinful utterances as: 'Men are not women.' Then they came for the workplace. Advertisement Crack an off-color joke or voice a dissenting view and you might be made to take an 'awareness-raising course' — or what the Soviets called re-education. Now the Woke Inquisition is feverishly eyeing yet another zone of British society for one of its joyless crackdowns, this time laying down its ruthless writ in arguably the most sacred space in all of the United Kingdom. Where is that? The pub. Advertisement It pains me just to write these sentences, as a British-Irish hybrid who enjoys nothing more than a cold pint and a cheeky chat inside Britain's greatest invention — the public house. But it's true: Now the offense-taking freaks want to clamp down on banter in bars. The repression comes courtesy of Keir Starmer's Labour government, which is crazily allergic to freedom of speech, via an Employment Rights Bill currently up for a vote in Parliament. Advertisement Most of the bill is standard workplace stuff, revising the rules on sick pay, unfair dismissal, bereavement leave and other mundane matters. But the bill's Clause 20 will compel businesses to protect 'vulnerable' staff members from the objectionable utterances of their clientele. It demands that employers take 'all reasonable steps' to defend their staff from 'non-specific' 'harassment' by 'third parties.' Strip away all the legalese, and it means businesses will be liable for the hurt feelings of employees who feel 'harassed' by something a customer says. Advertisement That could include everything from offhand remarks to saucy jokes and 'contentious political views,' says the UK's Free Speech Union. The clause is labeled the 'banter ban,' and no wonder: It threatens to suffocate the chatter and wisecracks that make Britain's pubs world-famous. If this bill becomes law in its current form, its impact will be instant, dire and Orwellian. Imagine you're the manager of a feisty public house where pint-quaffing patrons love to engage in free and raucous conversation. You will be in a constant state of panic, forever fretting that a twentysomething bar staffer might overhear a blue joke or an unwoke opinion, then sue you for failing to guard them from such 'harassment.' Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters We might be headed for truly Kafkaesque territory, with pubs forced to employ 'banter bouncers' to reprimand the patter of those who've had a few too many. These literal speech police might 'eavesdrop on customer conversations,' the FSU warns, and 'eject them if they say something 'problematic.'' Advertisement After all, if a merry drinker says to his pal that 'trans women are men' or 'immigration levels are too high,' some purple-haired pint-puller who overhears them might feel offended. Better to boot out such customers than risk being sued, many pub-owners will reason. And it won't only be pubs: Will football fans have to temper their chants lest some PC steward take offense? Will parks put up signs saying, 'No cycling, no ball games and NO BANTER' to guard staff from the apparently crushing experience of hearing an idea they disagree with? Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! This 'banter bill' would empower the easily offended, giving them jurisdiction over every arena of life, even the good ol' boozer. Their fragile self-esteem would take precedence over everything else, including the God-given right of every free-born Brit to get drunk and say whatever the hell he wants. Britain would be ruled by a wimps' veto, having to temper our tongues to avoid upsetting those woke fainthearts who think words are violence. Advertisement We are witnessing something quite terrifying — the spread of cancel culture from the campus to society as a whole. Having trained an entire new hyper-fragile generation to value their own feelings more than other people's freedoms, we should not be surprised that they're now bringing this censorious narcissism into the world with them. And while the United States has far better free-speech protections than Britain, you Americans are not immune to this creep of speech-policing. Too many of us turned a blind eye as the young fell under the spell of that creepy cult of censorship that insists 'words are wounding,' and now the British government is building a legal force field to shield these wallflowers from their fellow citizens' chatter. Advertisement The pub is truly Britain's hallowed ground. It's there that we cut loose, get tipsy and say what we cannot say in the more buttoned-up zones of society. For centuries Britons have been heading to their local to drink heartily and speak freely. So it's no exaggeration to say that Britain will no longer be Britain if we lose our pubs to wokeness. We don't need protection from 'offensive' words — but from the rampant authoritarianism of the mad elites. Brendan O'Neill is chief political writer for the British online magazine spiked.
