War helps no one on this planet – specially not the people, plants and all living beings who inhabit it. One Vorld One Universe One Mankind is the guiding principle, which will help resolve all issues. One would like to promote world peace, but with dignity for all and without compromise to extremism. There are hardly any who talk about peace in the present scenario in Europe. However two leaders who stand out and are proactive about peace are undoubtedly Modi and Macron. PM Modi’s role came into limelight during SCO summit, but ever since war began he has been talking about peace privately to Putin and also Zelensky. On the other hand President Macron met President Putin in Moscow, way back in February 2022 aiming for a de-escalation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advice to Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine war during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit at Samarkand in Uzbekistan has created hopes that perhaps it might be a catalyst to the end of Russia-Ukraine war. While his intervention has received approval from the world leaders, it has also grabbed the attention of leading international press and media

Japanese publication, NHK headlined “Indian PM Modi tells Putin to pursue peace”, Even Chinese media approved of it as the Hong Kong-based l South China Morning Post reported: Now is ‘not a time for war’, India’s Modi tells Russia’s Putin who agrees to ‘end this as soon as possible.’

Politico from US reported; “India’s Modi tells Putin: This is ‘not the era for war” and US News headlines was “Indian PM Modi Tells Russia’s Putin Now ‘Is Not an Era of War”.

On Internationally telecast media, while expressing his concerns about the impact of the war on food and energy security, PM Modi told Putin, “Today’s era is not of war and I have spoken to you about it on the call. Today we will get the opportunity to talk about how we can progress on the path of peace. India and Russia have stayed together with each other for several decades,”

“We spoke several times on the phone about India-Russia bilateral relations and various issues. We should find ways to address the problems of food, fuel security and fertilizers. I want to thank Russia and Ukraine for helping us to evacuate our students from Ukraine,” the Prime Minister added.

International media appreciated PM Modi’s diplomatic tact, who in a friendly manner pushed the concerns of the world at large to its long-standing friend Russia.

CNN appreciated PM Modi’s understanding of the situation and reported ” Indian leader Narendra Modi tells Putin: Now is not the time for war”

Washington Post, headlined “Modi rebukes Putin over war in Ukraine”.

“India’s Leader Tells Putin That Now Is Not an Era for War,” The New York Times said in its headline

Following the SCO summit, India’s role as a peace maker was applauded at the 77th UN General Assembly by world leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron proclaimed that Indian PM Modi was right when he said that time is not for war, not for revenge against the west or for opposing the west against east. It is time for our sovereign equal states to cope together with challenges we face: . German envoy quipped “very well put” to PM Modis remark on the Russia Ukraine conflict. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan cited Modi’s remark urging Putin to end the war.  Other world leaders like Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov,also cited Modi’s advice in their speeches. Indian External Affairs Minister summarized; “I am concluding this week with the sense that India really matters more in this polarised world and much of that is also due to the Prime Minister’s leadership, his image, what he has done on the global stage,”

PM Modi also had a telephonic conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wherein as per official sources, he conveyed India’s readiness to contribute to any peace efforts in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. he stated that there can be no military solution to the conflict and reiterated his call for early cessation of hostilities and the need to pursue the path of dialogue and diplomacy..

Unlike India, France did not take a neutral stand at UN and voted against Russia in the security council. Yet even before PM Modi’s advice to President Putin Macron has been advocating a reconciliatory approach. As reported by world media, including EuroNews

As far back as May 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron has warned against humiliating Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, if and when any peace settlement is agreed.

He told reporters in Strasbourg that once the war ends, Moscow and Kyiv will eventually have to sit down and negotiate with each other, so any further tensions will only serve to the detriment of the situation.

“We will have a peace to build tomorrow, let us never forget that,” Macron said on Monday. “I mentioned this earlier. We will have to do this with Ukraine and Russia around the table. The end of the discussion and the negotiation will be set by Ukraine and Russia. But it will not be done in denial, nor in exclusion of each other, nor even in humiliation.”

Macron also laid out his vision of a broader community of European democracies that would allow for deeper cooperation between non-EU countries. (EuroNews 9th May)

Even earlier on February 7, 2022 NY Times headline news was “Macron meets Putin in Moscow, aiming for a de-escalation”. It went on to add “President Emmanuel Macron of France, who has positioned himself at the center of Europe’s furious diplomatic maneuvering over Ukraine, said on Monday that the continent was at a “critical crossroads” as he met in Moscow with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia”..However there were murmurs of disapproval by some other countries watch the vido below to get both sided of the story.

Our Columnist Sunil Sarpal recalls the recent background to this war.

The war between USSR and Ukrain broke out approx. 6 months ago.  The cause of disenchantment was that USSR did not want Ukrain joining NATO.  USSR feared that if Ukrain, whose border separates the two nations, join NATO, other NATO affiliated nations’ forces could line up Ukrain border and intimidate USSR.   As of now, the situation has unfolded that 20% Ukrain territory is under USSR control and the war goes on unabated.  The devastation took place because of the war is unprecedented. 

Is Zelenskey responsible for the war or Putin ?

Putin’s invasion of Ukrain proved a total miscalculation.  As days progressed, it seems that the war will go on and on.   Because Ukrain forces retaliated in such a manner that USSR  forces ran away from the warring zone, leaving behind tanks, arma and others weapons in order to save their lives. 

On both sides, the loss of lives and infrastructure took place as never before. 

When war broke out an assurance came from none other than USA to Ukrain that they are whole-heartedly behind them, but USA never sent his forces to Ukrain.  Of course, sanctions and war-related weapons etc have been supplied by them as well as by Germany.  The fear factor on the part of USA could be that if their forces join hands with Ukrain, it would turn out to be a world war.  

If Ukrain President Zelenskey is so very stubborn to prolong the war and asking for help from USA and other nations, then Ukrain inviting more trouble.  The complete devastation of Ukrain could be averted if Zelenskey relents to Putin’s stand.  On the face  of USSR might, Ukrain’s defeat is on the cards whatever or how much coming their way. 

In this war, both Putin and Zelenskey are held responsible because of their respective stands.  Attempts have been made to kill both Putin and Zelenskey separately thru bombs but both escaped unscathed.

But will the momentum for peace, proposed by pacifists like Modi and Macron, gather pace or will temporary victories or setbacks of either side stall the move towards détente, remains to be seen – Manohar Khushalani.

  Penned down By his Elder Brother, Capt. Arun Karkare of Merchant Marine

IC21909 -35LT REGT,
Vir Chakra CAPT ASHOK KRISHNARAO KARKARE

This brave heart was born on 30^th June 1942 in Wardha, Maharashtra. Ashok was the third child blessed to the parents Krishnarao & Sumati Karkare. As the luck could have it, exactly a year later father Krishnarao joined the then Royal Indian Air Force (RIAF) in search of a better life for himself and the family. Ashok brought new job for his father and a better life for his siblings Sheela and Arun too. Things were on the move for all concerned. The family moved to Delhi as Flight lieutenant Karkare was posted at Air Head Quarters there.

Unfortunately, as child of 2 yrs age Ashok was struck by a rare bone disease then known as “RICKETS”. This bone- softening disease in children is due to failure of the body to maintain adequate level of calcium and phosphorus and this resulted in the hampering of the normal growth of baby Ashok to a point that it was evident that Ashok would not make it to a normal expected height as a youth. There was neither timely quality medical help nor remedy available to Ashok. As the days flew past, Ashok overcame this disadvantage. But the destiny had a different plan in place to use this physical adversity. Ashok excelled in field games such as football, hockey and relay race during his school days in Delhi and London and later in his college in Gurgoan.

Ashok attended School in London as his father was now posted as Assistant Air Attaché at the Indian Embassy in Paris –France. This experience was God sent as he blossomed into a smart young boy. On return to India at the age of 15yrs he continued his education but now a strong attraction to serve in any of the three armed services took charge of his mind. Men in uniform simply fascinated his tender mind with desire to join Army. But his father alerted him about his height disadvantage as it was below the Army standards! Ashok was sad and disappointed indeed.

Now destiny unfolded its plan for him. In 1962 Indo-China war took place. Indian Army needed urgent recruitment of officers. It opened up Officer’s Training School (OTS) at Chennai to train emergency commissioned offices. Ashok applied for it. He was in 2^nd year BA-degree course then. He kept it as a well guarded secret. No one got the wind of it at home! He cleared all the prerequisite tests except the final interview followed by medical fitness test. He had to disclose now about his application to join Army to his parents as he prepared to leave for the final rendezvous with his destiny so to say.

At the interview the miracle happened. A Major General heading the interview team said “Mr Ashok Karkare, Are you not aware of the height requirement for joining Army?”

Ashok was ready with his make or break answer and said

“ I am well aware of it but please note that being short I will be perhaps last one to die in bullet fire from enemy thus holding the ground till the end for my beloved nation !” His words stunned the entire interview board. They clapped and said “we need people like you. You are selected “.

Rest is history. Ashok fought like a lion in 1971 war and proved every word he said in the board room. He brought glory to his nation, family and to himself. JAI HIND.

e-mail ; [email protected] contact no. 9820129389.

Also See:
The Citation:
http://twdi.in/node/4019

Online Memorial:
https://www.honourpoint.in/profile/capt-ashok-kumar-karkare-vrc-2/

Foot Note:

Metro city channel held a special function to honour Capt .Ashok Karkare, VirChakra winner, at Taj Santacruz hotel, Mumbai, with union minister Ramdas Athavle as chief guest. A documentary film has been made on Capt Ashok that was shown on the occassion. Special momentous were given to us too . Ashok and CDS Rawat were in the same frame on the Stage. God is kind indeed. Arun Karkare

It may be a common sense assumption that when someone enters the world of treatment for their emotional or mental health issues their intention is to be relieved of their suffering, emerge healed and whole from the treatment. But does it really happen? Is there any way to know how many people actually exit the (mental health) system? Is anything going on in the treatment process that can actually lead to someone’s recovery?

By and large experiences of vast numbers of people are that once they enter into the system they are told by psy-professionals (and other medical professionals) of all hues that they would now have to rely on psychiatric medication for the rest of their lives. This insistence on medication, which is borne out of the agreed upon knowledge which all psy-professions draw from, invalidates the day-to-day suffering of people into a predetermined ‘illness’ category, complete with a diagnosis and prognosis. In 2019, I wrote this article which can be downloaded or read here or here which problematizes this aspect of treatment and questions what the goals of such treatment are.

It may be common sense assumption that when someone enters the world of treatment for their emotional or mental health issues their intention is to be relieved of their suffering, and emerge healed and whole. But does it really happen? Is there any way to know how many people actually exit the (mental health) system? Is there anything going on in the treatment process that can actually lead to someone’s recovery?

Research suggests that recovery is mostly not a goal psy-professionals target when they start treating people for their mental health issues. For most people the starting of treatment itself is ‘recovery’ because according to professionals the fact that people’s suffering has been recognized is itself a great victory over their ignorance: of being a mere suffering, while it is actually a real ‘illness’. However the truth from a ‘patient’s’ perspective is that until people take pharmacological treatments they believe themselves to be ‘ill’ or ‘sick’ and therefore not quite recovered. From the ‘patients’ ‘ position it is the ending of the treatment process and exiting psychiatry that counts as real recovery, not interminable treatments. Whether or not mental illness is a real illness is itself a topic of big discussion and debate, which I postpone for another location as of now.

Knowledge about recovery missing

When there is a gap in the social knowledge about a situation it has consequences; both for individuals, families and society as a whole. For example until penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flemming, a number of people would die for reasons as simple as flu or pneumonia. Antibiotics gave a new lease of life to people around the world and heralded a new era which cumulatively brought newer efforts that prolonged human life expectancy.

In the context of mental health when people are not aware that they can recover and they choose instead of continue taking medication, their lack of information is a knowledge or information gap. Instead of recovery their bodies become sites for testing newer drugs, yet no advancement produces the desired ‘cure’. When drug treatments continue for decades people not only become chronic patients, they also slowly develop  co-morbid conditions such as thyroid malfunctions, liver damage, akathisia (I have written about it here), seizures, lupus and scores of other conditions, not to mention the ‘regular’ issues of hypertension, diabetes etc.

A lack of information about the possibility of recovery, which leads to never ending treatments is the issue  addressed here. This knowledge or the lack of it, also called epistemic ignorance in research, becomes an issue of justice first of all. When people have unequal access to information in society, even though we  live in the information age: the internet having created unprecedented possibilities for diffusion of ideas, only the idea of rising incidence of mental health issues are widely publicized, especially by the media and myriad psy-professionals. Treatments that do not end and progressively disable people, making them socially outcast and confined to their domestic spheres become an issue of justice- for what then are these treatments intended for?    

Why human rights issue

When a patient or their caregiver is told by a psy-professional that their treatment is for life more often than not they do not question it, but accept the ‘diagnosis’ as a truth or fact. Treating people and the inability to produce a healing or cure, or letting them exit psychiatry by supporting drug withdrawal is not common or heard of. Long periods of remaining on these drugs makes people more and more disabled and socially marooned   for they lose the confidence to deal with life, situations and other people.

The information of recovery is a right to knowledge about the idea of recovery. It is a   right of every person who is on drug treatments to know how long their treatments would be and what alternatives exist. Until people do not realize that their interests and rights are being compromised if they continue taking drugs passively it will not help them, while pharma corporations will keep making steady incomes and rising profits. This is a gap of knowledge which can only be filled by people who have taken the path of recovery or who understand the injustice of denying people the knowledge about their mind and body. In one of my future pieces I will write about how the new Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 also does NOT support recovery and ensures people remain ‘patients’ ad infinitum, once they enter into the mental health system (that being the work I did for my doctorate)

Thank you for reading. If there is something more you would like to know about recovery from mental health challenges, or have a personal concern, you are welcome to post a query or comment in the comment box below. Prateeksha would be happy to respond to it, if necessary, even with a new blog post.

Of all the things one gets to hear about mental health, we often do not hear the word ‘recovery’. This implies that though society encourages people to examine distress-causing issues through the lens of suffering or accessing mental health treatments, the acceptance of people once they enter treatment regimens is markedly changed. Do treatments have to continue for life and if yes, then what is the goal of such treatments? Do we need to talk about recovery at all, for is not the start of treatment the start of recovery itself? The answer to this question is both yes and NO, for it depends upon whose perspective is considered. In other words, depending upon stakeholders the perspective changes!

Introducing the series

This weekly series, much like the writer behind it, is dedicated to the idea of ‘recovery’ . It brings together an experience of engagement with the field for nearly three decades, of which the last decade (2010-2020) is spent exclusively on the idea of researching about ‘recovery’ or whether it is viable for a vast majority of people. This recovery series will principally be a response to the queries the writer, in her role as therapist, receives from diverse platforms, including emails which reflect people’s struggles to reclaim their mental wellness and lives, instead of necessarily looking at them through diagnostic categories.

Why should recovery matter?

When someone accepts the medical diagnosis of a mental health issue, they enter into the stage of becoming a patient. In that role they keep on getting treatment for years and years, and there seems to be no exit; especially when the diagnosis is schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Not only psychoses, increasingly people are coming under the remit of mental health diagnoses and unable to exit the ‘system’ for a lack of alternatives to reclaim their mental health and a reinforcement received from different ‘professionals’, the social milieu saturated with claims of rising incidence of mental health issues and efforts which are purportedly directed at stigma reduction. In such an environment anyone who gets a diagnosis, and their families, are so overwhelmed by the one sided representation of mental health as an illness claim that to think about recovery is certainly not on anyone’s mind; but only to get themselves/loved one treated and manage the ‘illness’.

A vast majority of people are unaware that mental health issues are not measurable ‘illnesses’ which can be established by any scientific evidence, pathological tests or measurements via any scales etc. What can be called ‘illness’ is dependent largely on the capacity of the person who is observing the disturbed person to pronounce a behaviour as ‘illness’ or an ab-normalcy; which in research is called epistemic privilege (someone’s knowledge given more credibility than another’s). This is NOT to say that a person who is experiencing suffering is faking their suffering or masquerading. This is to acknowledge their suffering as a reality which needs a different handling than a simple classification into a predetermined diagnostic category. This is simply to say that mental health issues are not biological illnesses which are treatable via biochemical means, the way they are made out to be- they are deep emotional disturbances which can also be resolved by talking, discussion and other ways, which we will examine in future articles here.

Recovery matters because the alternative, of lifelong patient-hood, is a painful, debilitating, disabling option for people/families and thereafter for society. It not only makes people dependent and insecure it leads scores of families into a downward spiral of infirmity and poverty. The usual option someone has is to either remain a patient, or having become a patient for a short while, when overwhelmed by suffering, take the path to recovery by slowly building their capacities to deal with life and its vicissitudes- a journey familiar to this writer. From thereon springs this urge to share these ideas/research and findings with fellow human beings and let others comprehend that if one person can recover, so can another- for this is how one lamp kindles another’s wick.

In the forthcoming posts you will read (when the posts are not direct responses to queries)

• Why the idea of recovery is tied to human rights,
• What are the three ways in which people can understand recovery
• Why a majority of people do not believe they can recover
• Stigma in mental health
• Psychosis and recovery

This ESSAYS on the Concept of a “RIGHT TO LIVE” by Marion Harroff–Tavel

In memory of Yougindra Khushalani

Just as peace is not simply the absence of war, but rather a dynamic process of co-operation among peoples, life is not simply the antithesis of death, but rather a period of time during which every human being should be able to develop fully in dignity and in enjoyment of the respect of others. This was the profound conviction, imbued with humanity and solidarity with the most vulnerable among us, that inspired Yougindra Khushalani, an eminent Indian lawyer and Vice President of the Association of International Consultants on Human Rights (CID), to conceive the idea of a “right to live“. It is to this intelligent, highly motivated and courageous woman, whose own life ended so tragically early, that the authors of this collection of essays^​*​ pay tribute by developing the ideas that were so dear to her, each in his own special sphere of interest. All the contributors are eminent figures in the world of human rights and international humanitarian law, which she studied in depth during a period spent at the International Committee of the Red Cross.

How does the “right to live” differ from the more familiar “right to life“?

The right to life, guaranteed by numerous provisions of human rights instruments and international humanitarian law, is specifically asserted in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which permits no derogation from this right, even when an exceptional public emergency is threatening the life of a nation. As stated in Article 6 of the Covenant, it is an “inherent right” of every human being. The article goes on to say: “That right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. Several paragraphs of the same article deal with the death penalty, which is also the subject of an essay in the book, based on the preparatory work in drafting the Covenant.

The “right to live” is an extension of the “right to life“. To live is more than simple existence; it implies the enjoyment of living conditions conducive to the full development of the human person. To have enough food, a home, adequate education and medical care, to be able to work under proper conditions, to move about and express oneself freely, to grow up in a healthy and peaceful environment where all traditions and cultures are respected; these are some aspects of the “right to live”. Furthermore, during the time given him, from birth to death, every individual should be free from fear, fear of insecurity, fear of ill-treatment, torture, “disappearance”, summary execution or the menace represented by the arms race. Even in wartime, indeed, particularly in such circumstances, a “margin of humanity” must be preserved thanks to international humanitarian law. It is difficult to sum up in a few lines the rich content of this work, which covers a score of subjects such as the right to a decent environment, to development and to communications, and the issues of peace, disarmament and scientific and technological progress. Several of the problems involved in giving effect to the “right to live” are also taken up: the role that could be played by the many existing voluntary organizations in improving the quality of life, the protection of migrant workers, the impact of the “brain drain” on developing countries, the “right to live” in the African context, the right of children to be protected from death, disease and exploitation. Finally, the right to be different—from the point of view of a woman from the Third World, Yougindra Khushalani, who attached the greatest importance to the need to respect the cultural identity of peoples. The book concludes with several essays on State responsibility for the protection of the “right to live”.

This publication is far from being a heterogeneous collection of mismatched opinions; it is a harmonious work which illuminates the central theme of the right to live from various angles. In this respect the task undertaken by the general editor, Daniel Premont, has proved a success.

Is now the right time to put forward a new human right on the basis of the concept of a “right to live“? Isn’t this idea in effect a synthesis of all human rights? These questions remain open, and it is up to each reader to form his own opinion. The value of this “comprehensive and evolutive” concept of human rights, to borrow the title of one section of the book, seems to us to be essentially an educational matter. As one of the authors says, work to raise young people’s awareness of human rights issues must not be limited to providing them with information, but must help prepare them to live together in harmony in tomorrow’s society, a society which the adults of today find it difficult to imagine. This is a major and difficult educational undertaking. An approach to the problems of the human community based on the concept of the “right to live” would help stir the awareness of children to values such as respect for life and tolerance, would open their eyes to the realities and diversity of the world and, most important, would give them a sense of their own responsibility by making them realize that solidarity among human beings is the source of collective and individual fulfilment.

Marion Harroff–Tavel

Other Links to Dr. Yougindra Khushalani
https://onevorld.org/2020/02/23/dr-miss-yougindra-khushalani-endowmentlecture-in-mumbai-university/