VETERAN RESOLUTION

VETERAN RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Veteran Population of India regarding the ongoing need to provide every veteran with equal access to opportunity in education, business, and employment and the indispensability of Affirmative action programs in securing such equal access.

Whereas despite the progress which has been made in the past 62 years ensuring equal opportunity for veterans of all ranks: ORs, JCOS and Officers, equal opportunity in education, business, and employment remains elusive for the great mass of members of these groups;

Whereas as a result of the lack of equal opportunity many, perhaps a majority of veterans are denied their fair share of business opportunity, never recieve employment after early seperation forn the services, find their career paths capped, and are excluded or underrepresented in many fields of training or education;

Whereas veterans are denied full access to educational and economic opportunity, all India suffers from the loss of these discarded and suppressed talents, contributions, leadership, and insights;

Whereas the notion of equal opportunity flows directly from the fundamental rights of equal opportunity in employment enshrined in the Constitution of India and ought to be part of our most deeply embedded values, and affirmative action programs arise from, and are consistent with, the need to proactively extend equal opportunity through our public and private institutions and especially in strictly private institutions created with welfare funds generated by the veterans for the Welfare of the Veterans.

Welfare of the veteran does NOT mean welfare of the children of veteran (and specially when the veteran can benefit and are willing to take advantage from education) for the basic and professional education (which he himself missed becausde he joined the military service at a very young age before completing his civilian education) and yet not only affirmative action NOT provided for not so well educated ordinary veteran, but by construction of ridiculous rules, we deliberately excluded the under dog veteran from getting any of the basic and professional education in strictly private Veteran Welfare educational institutions (managed by AWES).

Fundamental principle is denying or restricting an educational opportunity should be if and only if these large population of veterans (who needs these educational opportunities most as they left their unfinished education to join our forces at an early age and are forcibly discharged at a very early age almost in their prime of youth to fend for themselves) can not take advantage of these educational opportuinties due to 100% disability.

We should be fighting day in and day out with every institution in the whole country, government, public and private institutions for providing afirmative action to give these most deserving veterans to avail all educational opportunities at zero cost to themselves. Instead, we create huge educational infrastructure with veteran wefare funds under the Army Welfare Educational Society and deny them the educational opportunity they badly need!

All because the policy makers did not have the vision to get out of the outmoded mindset view that educational opportunities can be taken advantage of only in your teens or in your early 20's. This is age discrimination against the veteran at its worst perpetrated by our own policy makers.What face do we have to fight against lack of affirmative action in the larger society when we are the biggest culprits in age discrimination. If it was USA, Canada, UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, these policy makers would have been breaking Age Discrimination laws and sent to jail and imposed heavy monetary penalties.

Whereas the advanced countries' experience has taught us that no group will, or should, accept anything less than full and equal access to educational, business, and employment opportunity and that the denial of such opportunity on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, or disability undermines our national unity, rends the political and social fabric of our Nation, and distorts and mutates democracy and government;

Whereas Affirmative action is a tool, or set of tools, for overcoming the remnants of prejudice and bias and for achieving fairness and equal opportunity, which provide qualified members of our community equal opportunity, without quotas, without denying fairness and equal opportunity to any groups or individuals; and

Whereas Affirmative action rejects simplistic notions of ranking on merit, recognizes that there is no single test or measure of merit, and seeks to capitalize on the strengths of our diversity of being, and our diversity of experience: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved,

SECTION 1. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IS, AND OUGHT TO BE, THE LAW OF THE LAND.

It is the sense we, the veterans should undertake to protect and expand equality of opportunity for our veterans at every opportunity.

SEC. 2. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND NECESSARY FOR, ACHIEVING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

It is the sense of the wisdom that--

(1)We still faces significant challenges with achieving equal opportunity for our veterans and disabled persons;

(2) Affirmative action is a powerful, effective, and at this stage of our development as a nation, necessary, tool for achieving such equal opportunity and should be utilized in the public and private sectors to correct patterns of past and current discrimination; and

(3) the laws of country shall be construed to recognize our constitution's intent to incorporate Affirmative action so as to maximize equal opportunity for veteras and disabled persons.

SEC. 3. THE MILITARY AS A INSTITUTION SHALL PROMOTE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ALL EXECUTIVE ACTIONS AND PROGRAMS.

It is the sense of our constitution that we shall incorporate Affirmative action into the education, employment, contracting, granting and all program activities.

It is recognised that the denial of equal opportunity took root because of the old mind set of the policy makers (and not due to anymaleovolence) and the earlier we correct it, the better it is.

The stark statistics might give us a jolt:

............................................................................Veteran ......... V. Progeney

Funds used for Educational infrastructure: .........100% ...................0%

AWES Educational Opportunity
(Click and see statistics here)

Total Public School Opportunities(24338 ) ................0 ......................24338 ( a large %age cornered by officer's children)
Total school edu opportunities (128500)................... 0 .......................128500
Total professional edu opportunities(1710) ...............0 ............................1710 (A large %age , almost 90+ %age cornered by Officers children who have rejected army as a career)

Is it in fitness of things to privide educational opportunities to those who are rejecting the military career over those who have dedicated themselves to it with funds provided exclusovely for veteran welfare?

All because we have (in our stupidity) written off the veteran and hopes that the children of the veteran if given an education will look after the veteran in their old age, but what is the guarentee?

In advanced west, the veteran benefits can only be availed by the immediate relative of the veteran if and only the veteran is totally disabled and unable to avail of the benefits and the veteran has to depend on the relative for life sustenance and support for the rest of his life. That is clear thinking at its best.

Age discrimination is a crime against veteran and AWES practises it openly with immunity.

See the Australian age discrimination act 2004
which states:
26 Education
(1) It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's age:
(a) by refusing or failing to accept the person's application for admission as a student; or

(b) in the terms or conditions on which it is prepared to admit the person as a student.
(2) It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a student on the ground of the student's age:
(a) by denying the student access, or limiting the student's access, to any benefit provided by the educational authority; or
(b) by expelling the student; or
(c) by subjecting the student to any other detriment.