15 Things Banned in Indian You Need to Know it's not Only Beef Ban...

Hum Traveller "Where life mean travel"

Welcome to Hum Traveller

The India “Land of Bans”

The Ban's that Indian is facing regardless of religion are not few the recent Governments had banned so-many things right from Porn-till-few Movies. other things still I haven’t heard any new about someone got killed over possession  of any things there are some Ban's that has been imposed by State Government and some by Central Government like the way taxes are imposed. The day is not far away when it will be tagged the “Land of Bans” as well. The government is hung up on its latest trend of bans. While some bans are famous, like the Beef ban in Maharashtra, the controversial porn ban, the unnecessary ban on AIB roast video, we bring to you a list of some bizarre things that are banned in India!

1. Movies

Indian government has banded a number of films over the years. The land of Kama Sutra banned the movie Kama Sutra: A tale of love in 1996, due to its sexual content. The girl with dragon tattoo, was banned due to adult scenes, a television documentary- India’s Daughter was banned in 2015 50 shades of grey was banned from screening in India even after numerous cuts! However, these bans have not curbed the audiences who have watched them here in India via torrents and other means, and the videos that went even more viral post ban.

 2. Homosexuality

Homosexual intercourse was made a criminal offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Even 150 years after it was made there have not been serious amendments in this act. Homosexuality is considered a taboo in India and politicians focus on casts and religion in order to accumulate votes rather than talk about this budding topic and make changes in this act. This ban was uplifted in 2009 but the Supreme Court reinstalled it again in 2013, which came as a major blow to the LGBT community. We have somehow managed to not recognise homosexuality as a sexual orientation of many and have treated them as unpleasant minorities, while even our own Indian history has instances of it. What more? Even films exhibiting homosexual content have been banned in India, such as- The Pink Mirror (2004).

 3. Advertising Alcohol

Advertising alcoholic beverages has been banned in India as per the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Amendment Bill, which came into effect on 8 September 2000. In fact, some states have taken step ahead and banned alcohol consumption entirely. However, where there is a ban, there is a loophole. Liquor companies have resorted to other means for advertising the products, one of which is Surrogate advertising wherein they advertise banned products in disguise of another product such as soda, mineral water, CD’s and even playing cards. Alcohol companies are now also using social media to target the young, urban population.

 4. Ban on mannequins wearing bras

 Mumbai, the home of Bollywood movies and film stars recently shook us with its strange plan of banning mannequins wearing bras! It supposedly provokes “impure thoughts” in the minds of men, corrupts and pollutes them and is immortal. Mannequins in lingerie, showing too much skin (irrespective of the fact that it is fake) provoke polluted minds to commit rape. Also, it embarrasses women to see a mannequin dressed up so offensively. However, are mannequins as suggestive as erotic sculptures and carvings at celebrated temples like Khajuraho? And, what is vulgar in a mannequin wearing lingerie? It is what a woman needs to wear and do wear.

5. Ban on foreign nationalists as guests in parties

 Yes, you heard that right! All the foreigners visiting Karnataka to party will be under close watch of the police, so much so that they will be videotaped. In addition, if this wasn’t enough party-spoiler, there is more. The government has put a curfew of 10’o clock on such parties and have asked the organizers to adhere to “Indian traditions and culture”, which have not been clearly defined. The organizers of the party are also supposed to seek permission for such parties and present their costing, funding, advertisers as well as schedule for such parties. This seems like less of a safety precaution and more of an invasion of privacy of foreign tourists.

6. Porn Ban

India’s telecoms ministry ordered internet service providers to block access to 857 websites hoisting pornographic content. These bans on porn was an outcome of a petition filed in the Supreme Court by a lawyer who argued that porn is socially destructive and promote violence against women. He said that it provokes men to commit sex crimes and commented on the inability of the government to curb child pornography. The government reacted with a porn ban. However, this immediately prompted a nationwide debate on censorship and freedom, and people fumed and raged. The porn ban thus backfired and the ban was partially lifted. Indians are considered to be among the largest consumers of internet pornography, and in the land of Kama Sutra, was the porn ban viable?

7. Beef Ban.

Controversy sparked up when Maharashtra government banned slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks in 2015. It could land you in jail for 5 years of jail term or a fine of Rs. 10,000 or both. The ban came as a shock for all the meat lovers and the beef vendors and it led to a widespread protest on social media. India has indeed been a land where Cow is considered a sacred animal, and it is worshipped and treated motherly, however, the society has progressed now and it is not uncommon to find many Hindus eating beef as well. Curbing the rights of people and banning them from consuming something is not the true essence of a democracy.

 8. Ban on cuss words in Bollywood movies

Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has issued guidelines on objectionable/abusive words that will be banned from usage in Bollywood films. The list consists of 13 English words and about 15 Hindi words and phrases, which are offensive. Even the word Bombay is not allowed to be used in films, following the notice from Government of Maharashtra in 1996 that Mumbai should be used in place of Bombay. There have been multiple debates on this decision. While it may have its own advantages, it does also come with a some shortcomings such as curbing the freedom of our film industry and curbing the freedom of speech and expression.

 9. Books

Yes, the government has also banned certain books for various different reasons. “The Hindus: An Alternative History” although a book very well researched, was banned in India because its content is offensive for Hindus. The “Ramayana” as told by Aubrey Menen was banned for satirizing the Ramayana and Hindus are not exactly known for their sense of humour, “The Heart of India” is a book revolving around politics in India and cannot be imported here for being too repulsive. Close minded, are we?

 10. ‘Fanaa’, ‘Firaaq’ and ‘Parzania’ are all films banned in Gujarat

Fanaa: An unofficial ban because of Aamir Khan’s statements against the Narmada river dam, which today provides large amounts of water and hydroelectricity to Gujarat.

Firaaq: The award winning Nandita Das film looked closely at the families affected by the aftermath of the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.

11. Maggi

Based on the finding of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), state governments across the country have banned Maggi instant noodles, a Nestle India product, after finding that lead and MSG were beyond the permissible limit. Nestle recalled its product from the markets and destroyed all its stock. The company had recently reported its first loss in 17 years.

12 Ban on public smoking

In 2008 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare notified the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 by which smoking in public places was prohibited form 2 October 2008, the day of Gandhi Jayanti. As per Section 3(l) of the COTPA, ‘public place’ means any place to which the public have access, but does not include any open space. Smoking is prohibited in open spaces visited by the public — like open auditoriums, stadiums, railway stations and bus stops.

However, public places do not include parking spaces, roads, open market places, parks and private homes. A person caught smoking in public must pay a fine of Rs 200.

13.Plastic Ban.

This Ban was imposed over the plastic bag which is the main cause of Landfills and Pollution if Plastic would have not been the scenario over waste management would be much easier perhaps this ban was challenged by the manufacture of plastic and ban was taken over as it involves over 5-million employment so for 5-million employment rest of the population should suffer the pollution spread by plastic still no lynching or mob killing the one who possession  in fact we ask for more "Bhaiya Double Bag Kardo na"

14.Old notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000

this definitely came as a shock. The government banned the high value denominated notes, which caused a cash crunch in the country. Ever since the note ban, the entire country has been standing in serpentine queues outside banks and ATMs. The Finance Ministry and the Reserve Bank of India's frequent changes in demonetisation-related rules has added to the confusion. 

15.Selfies 

Yes, this is true. The Tourism Ministry banned visitors from clicking selfies in front of national monuments during Independence Day week. The ministry issued an advisory to all states restricting tourists from taking selfies in front of important monuments and memorials from August 12-18. The police and other security establishments asked Tourism and Archaeological Survey of India to impose certain restrictions on the movement of visitor’s at all important monuments and memorials. And then there are some zone where it is no "Selfie Zone" we get the song Le-Le-Le Lele-re Selfie Le Lere......

Source(PTI)

Stay safe and keep yourself healthy spread love around and keep travelling 

Hum Traveller "Where life mean travel"

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

Hum Traveller "Where life mean travel"

To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn't the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence. At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Indian as irrefutable. We're better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?

For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It's a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it's nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.

From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought up, to ask "Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt agriculture?" is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild animals, suddenly grazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?

The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherers never had. Thus it was agriculture that enabled us to build the Parthenon and compose the B-minor Mass.

While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it's hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"

While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.

So the lives of at least the surviving hunter-gatherers aren't nasty and brutish, even though farmes have pushed them into some of the world's worst real estate. But modern hunter-gatherer societies that have rubbed shoulders with farming societies for thousands of years don't tell us about conditions before the agricultural revolution. The progressivist view is really making a claim about the distant past: that the lives of primitive people improved when they switched from gathering to farming. Archaeologists can date that switch by distinguishing remains of wild plants and animals from those of domesticated ones in prehistoric garbage dumps.

How can one deduce the health of the prehistoric garbage makers, and thereby directly test the progressivist view? That question has become answerable only in recent years, in part through the newly emerging techniques of paleopathology, the study of signs of disease in the remains of ancient peoples.

In some lucky situations, the paleopathologist has almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. For example, archaeologists in the Chilean deserts found well preserved mummies whose medical conditions at time of death could be determined by autopsy (Discover, October). And feces of long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain sufficiently well preserved to be examined for hookworm and other parasites.

Usually the only human remains available for study are skeletons, but they permit a surprising number of deductions. To begin with, a skeleton reveals its owner's sex, weight, and approximate age. In the few cases where there are many skeletons, one can construct mortality tables like the ones life insurance companies use to calculate expected life span and risk of death at any given age. Paleopathologists can also calculate growth rates by measuring bones of people of different ages, examine teeth for enamel defects (signs of childhood malnutrition), and recognize scars left on bones by anemia, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases.

One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5' 9'' for men, 5' 5'' for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5' 3'' for men, 5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a theefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

The evidence suggests that the Indians at Dickson Mounds, like many other primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. "I don't think most hunger-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity," says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. "When I first started making that argument ten years ago, not many people agreed with me. Now it's become a respectable, albeit controversial, side of the debate."

There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early fanners obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition, (today just three high-carbohydrate plants -- wheat, rice, and corn -- provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn't take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearnce of large cities.

Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c. 1500 B. C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A. D. 1000, the elite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.

Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U. S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an elite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice

Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well. Freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts -- with consequent drains on their health. Among the Chilean mummies for example, more women than men had bone lesions from infectious disease.

Women in agricultural societies were sometimes made beasts of burden. In New Guinea farming communities today one often see women staggering under loads of vegetables and firewood while the men walk empty-handed. Once while on a field trip there studying birds, I offered to pay some villagers to carry supplies from an airstrip to my mountain camp. The heaviest item was a 110-pound bag of rice, which one lashed to a pole and assigned to a team of four men to shoulder together. When one eventually caught up with the villagers, the men were carrying light loads, while one small woman weighing less than the bag of rice was bent under it, supporting its weight by a cord across her temples.

As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.

Thus with the advent of agriculture and elite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.

One answer boils down to the adage "Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over on person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it's because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it's old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don't have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.

As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It's not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn't want.

At this point it's instructive to recall the common complaint that archaeology is a luxury, concerned with the remote past, and offering no lessons for the present. Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.

Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?

(source:discover max-zine 1987-Issue)

Stay safe and keep yourself healthy spread love around and keep travelling 

Hum Traveller "Where life mean travel"

Picture Gallery For the Month Of May

Hum Traveller "Where life mean travel"

Welcome to Hum Traveller

This is Free Download able art work feel free to share and download Thank you for visiting

Stay safe and keep yourself healthy spread love around and keep travelling 

Hum Traveller "Where life mean travel"