The Right Law Enforcement Duty Gear For Crime Prevention And Rescue

Community policing has been proven to be quite effective at reducing crime rates at residential areas in certain countries. Community law enforcement has grown from merely providing safer neighborhoods to live in to fostering closer relationships among neighbors.

When I was a kid, the neighborhood lookout, as it was known as back then, used to roam the neighborhood with baseball bats and torch lights. Things have changed so much since then. Baseball bats are a no no. Unlike in the movies, neighborhood volunteer watch personnel are only allowed to apprehend a perpetrator and not take maters into their own hand and dispense justice however they wish.

Basic Gear
But that is not the only change. Neighborhood watch groups now come well equipped with proper law enforcement duty gear. Standard law enforcement gear would include lightweight weather resistant LED torch lights, plastic handcuffs, tactical vests, reflective vests, weather resistant walkie-talkies, multi-tool and first aid kits.

The right gear would not only allow the neighborhood community police to apprehend perpetrators but also attend to persons who have been injured because of and attack or an accident.

Certain tactical gear such as tactical vests can actually protect the wearer against knife attacks. The vest alone does not provide protection. Rather, it is when the pockets are filled with other gear or tools, that a protective barrier is created. Obviously, pockets or pouches which are filled with snacks would not provide much protection. That said, you need not fill the storage area with metal plates. Just place your spare batteries, torch light or first aid kit there.

Naturally, you do not need to get a full spec law enforcement tactical equipment for community policing. The important thing is to get one that fits your team’s needs adequately. It should be durable, light, and it should be easy and comfortable for any member of the team to use.

Before Purchasing
Before you spend on law enforcement duty gear, there are a few factors you need to consider. The main thing is cost. Unfortunately, quality law enforcement gear costs a bit more than average but they last much longer. Make sure the gear you buy comes with a warranty. In fact the best brands come with a lifetime warranty.

You could also save money in the long run by purchasing rechargeable batteries for your torches. Use LED torch lights as they are super bright, use less power and lasts much longer than conventional bulbs.

“The Soul That Sinneth Shall Die,” Should Not Be Taken in the Physical Sense

An adulterer was brought to Jesus by a group of people. They were led by some teachers and executors of the law. For her sin, she was to be stoned to death according to their law. But before then, they wanted to test Jesus.

Would Christ because of his preaching about love ask that she be set free, and thus go against the law? Or would he ask that she be put to death and thus make nonsense of his stance on love and forgiveness?

He did neither! Instead He asked that whoever was without sin should cast the first stone. One by one they began to leave. Eventually none was left.


Why then did they think they had the right to take the life of a FELLOW SINNER on account of her sin?

With His action, Jesus wanted not to change the law but to clarify it.

The carrying out of justice on the Laws of God is done by God not man. When it is said that “a soul that sinneth shall die,” the death referred to is not physical death. Both those that live good lives according to God’s will as well as and those that do not, would experience physical death. It therefore cannot be punishment for going against the Laws of God.

Taking the life of a man for sinning against the laws of God can only shorten his life on earth, and not punish him according to the law. The grace of God which permits the sinner to learn of the ways of God and make a change on his life is taken away from him by people who themselves are sinners and yet by still being alive, enjoy this grace which comes from God alone. Do they have more right to life?

The Justice of God is PERFECT and FINAL. No one can escape it. It does not depend on being caught first by his fellow man to be guilty of offending the Law. Whether done in hiding or in the open; whether seen by his fellow man or not; the one who engages in sin is GUILTY. If he has not adapted to a new life as willed by his Creator by the time he dies and leaves this world, then he shall surely DIE.

He would then not be permitted to have Eternal LIFE in Paradise. By his own choice he would have chosen DEATH. He would have chosen Damnation for Eternity.

That is why the gift of being allowed to live and learn is given to man. He is permitted to make mistakes but to learn from the mistakes; to fall but to stand up again. The grace of God is lavished on him that he may eventually become that man that is willed by The Almighty. The Grace is given to all equally.

We are permitted to make our own earthly laws which help to ensure a happy co-existence. It is important to draw these laws from the laws of God. But we must be careful how we interpret these laws, lest in trying to serve God, we might just be serving another who already has the stamp of death upon him.

The American Criminal Justice System

The process of American criminal justice is a system with three major components: police, courts, and corrections. However, such a viewpoint is useful primarily for the reduction in complexity it provides. A more realistic approach to criminal justice may be the nonsystem approach. As a nonsystem, criminal justice is depicted as a fragmented activity in which individuals and agencies within the process have interests and goals that at times coincide but often conflict.

Defendants processed by the justice system come into contact with numerous workers whose duty it is to enforce the law but who also have a stake in the agencies employing them and who hold their own personal interests and values. As defendants wend their way through the system, they may be held accountable to the law, but in the process, they will also be buffeted by the personal whims of “officials” as well as by the practical needs of the system itself. A complete view of American criminal justice must recognize that the final outcome of any encounter with the criminal justice system will be a consequence of decisions made not just at the legislative level but in the day-to-day activities undertaken by everyone involved in the system. Hence the quality of justice is determined just as much by pressures on the system as by idealistic notions of right and wrong.

Multiculturalism complicates the practice of American criminal justice still further because there is rarely universal agreement in our society about what is right or wrong or about what constitutes “justice.”

An alternative way of viewing the practice of criminal justice is in terms of its two goals: crime control and due process. The crime-control perspective urges rapid and effective enforcement of the law and calls for the stiff punishment of lawbreakers. Due process, on the other hand, requires a recognition of the defendant’s rights and holds the agents of justice accountable for any actions that might contravene those rights. The goals of crime control and due process are often in conflict. Popular opinion may even see them as mutually exclusive, which contrasts the need to balance the rights of individuals against other valid social interests, especially the need for public order.

The central theme is represented by two opposing groups: individual-rights advocates and public-order advocates. The fundamental challenge facing the practice of American criminal justice is achieving efficient enforcement of the laws while recognizing and supporting the legal rights of suspects and the legitimate personal differences and prerogatives of individuals. This goal is made all the more difficult by changing social values and by rapid advances in the kinds of technology available to criminals. Nonetheless, the American mandate of crime control through due process ensures that criminal justice will remain an exciting and ever-evolving undertaking well into the twenty-first century and beyond.

Insurance Law – An Indian Perspective


“Insurance should be bought to protect you against a calamity that would otherwise be financially devastating.”

In simple terms, insurance allows someone who suffers a loss or accident to be compensated for the effects of their misfortune. It lets you protect yourself against everyday risks to your health, home and financial situation.

Insurance in India started without any regulation in the Nineteenth Century. It was a typical story of a colonial epoch: few British insurance companies dominating the market serving mostly large urban centers. After the independence, it took a theatrical turn. Insurance was nationalized. First, the life insurance companies were nationalized in 1956, and then the general insurance business was nationalized in 1972. It was only in 1999 that the private insurance companies have been allowed back into the business of insurance with a maximum of 26% of foreign holding.

“The insurance industry is enormous and can be quite intimidating. Insurance is being sold for almost anything and everything you can imagine. Determining what’s right for you can be a very daunting task.”

Concepts of insurance have been extended beyond the coverage of tangible asset. Now the risk of losses due to sudden changes in currency exchange rates, political disturbance, negligence and liability for the damages can also be covered.

But if a person thoughtfully invests in insurance for his property prior to any unexpected contingency then he will be suitably compensated for his loss as soon as the extent of damage is ascertained.

The entry of the State Bank of India with its proposal of bank assurance brings a new dynamics in the game. The collective experience of the other countries in Asia has already deregulated their markets and has allowed foreign companies to participate. If the experience of the other countries is any guide, the dominance of the Life Insurance Corporation and the General Insurance Corporation is not going to disappear any time soon.
The aim of all insurance is to compensate the owner against loss arising from a variety of risks, which he anticipates, to his life, property and business. Insurance is mainly of two types: life insurance and general insurance. General insurance means Fire, Marine and Miscellaneous insurance which includes insurance against burglary or theft, fidelity guarantee, insurance for employer’s liability, and insurance of motor vehicles, livestock and crops.


“Life insurance is the heartfelt love letter ever written.

It calms down the crying of a hungry baby at night. It relieves the heart of a bereaved widow.

It is the comforting whisper in the dark silent hours of the night.”

Life insurance made its debut in India well over 100 years ago. Its salient features are not as widely understood in our country as they ought to be. There is no statutory definition of life insurance, but it has been defined as a contract of insurance whereby the insured agrees to pay certain sums called premiums, at specified time, and in consideration thereof the insurer agreed to pay certain sums of money on certain condition sand in specified way upon happening of a particular event contingent upon the duration of human life.

Life insurance is superior to other forms of savings!

“There is no death. Life Insurance exalts life and defeats death.

It is the premium we pay for the freedom of living after death.”

Savings through life insurance guarantee full protection against risk of death of the saver. In life insurance, on death, the full sum assured is payable (with bonuses wherever applicable) whereas in other savings schemes, only the amount saved (with interest) is payable.

The essential features of life insurance are a) it is a contract relating to human life, which b) provides for payment of lump-sum amount, and c) the amount is paid after the expiry of certain period or on the death of the assured. The very purpose and object of the assured in taking policies from life insurance companies is to safeguard the interest of his dependents viz., wife and children as the case may be, in the even of premature death of the assured as a result of the happening in any contingency. A life insurance policy is also generally accepted as security for even a commercial loan.


“Every asset has a value and the business of general insurance is related to the protection of economic value of assets.”

Non-life insurance means insurance other than life insurance such as fire, marine, accident, medical, motor vehicle and household insurance. Assets would have been created through the efforts of owner, which can be in the form of building, vehicles, machinery and other tangible properties. Since tangible property has a physical shape and consistency, it is subject to many risks ranging from fire, allied perils to theft and robbery.
Few of the General Insurance policies are:

Property Insurance: The home is most valued possession. The policy is designed to cover the various risks under a single policy. It provides protection for property and interest of the insured and family.

Health Insurance: It provides cover, which takes care of medical expenses following hospitalization from sudden illness or accident.
Personal Accident Insurance: This insurance policy provides compensation for loss of life or injury (partial or permanent) caused by an accident. This includes reimbursement of cost of treatment and the use of hospital facilities for the treatment.

Travel Insurance: The policy covers the insured against various eventualities while traveling abroad. It covers the insured against personal accident, medical expenses and repatriation, loss of checked baggage, passport etc.

Liability Insurance: This policy indemnifies the Directors or Officers or other professionals against loss arising from claims made against them by reason of any wrongful Act in their Official capacity.

Motor Insurance: Motor Vehicles Act states that every motor vehicle plying on the road has to be insured, with at least Liability only policy. There are two types of policy one covering the act of liability, while other covers insurers all liability and damage caused to one’s vehicles.


Historical Perspective

The history of life insurance in India dates back to 1818 when it was conceived as a means to provide for English Widows. Interestingly in those days a higher premium was charged for Indian lives than the non-Indian lives as Indian lives were considered more risky for coverage.

The Bombay Mutual Life Insurance Society started its business in 1870. It was the first company to charge same premium for both Indian and non-Indian lives. The Oriental Assurance Company was established in 1880. The General insurance business in India, on the other hand, can trace its roots to the Triton (Tital) Insurance Company Limited, the first general insurance company established in the year 1850 in Calcutta by the British. Till the end of nineteenth century insurance business was almost entirely in the hands of overseas companies.

Insurance regulation formally began in India with the passing of the Life Insurance Companies Act of 1912 and the Provident Fund Act of 1912. Several frauds during 20’s and 30’s desecrated insurance business in India. By 1938 there were 176 insurance companies. The first comprehensive legislation was introduced with the Insurance Act of 1938 that provided strict State Control over insurance business. The insurance business grew at a faster pace after independence. Indian companies strengthened their hold on this business but despite the growth that was witnessed, insurance remained an urban phenomenon.

The Government of India in 1956, brought together over 240 private life insurers and provident societies under one nationalized monopoly corporation and Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) was born. Nationalization was justified on the grounds that it would create much needed funds for rapid industrialization. This was in conformity with the Government’s chosen path of State lead planning and development.

The (non-life) insurance business continued to prosper with the private sector till 1972. Their operations were restricted to organized trade and industry in large cities. The general insurance industry was nationalized in 1972. With this, nearly 107 insurers were amalgamated and grouped into four companies – National Insurance Company, New India Assurance Company, Oriental Insurance Company and United India Insurance Company. These were subsidiaries of the General Insurance Company (GIC).

The life insurance industry was nationalized under the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Act of India. In some ways, the LIC has become very flourishing. Regardless of being a monopoly, it has some 60-70 million policyholders. Given that the Indian middle-class is around 250-300 million, the LIC has managed to capture some 30 odd percent of it. Around 48% of the customers of the LIC are from rural and semi-urban areas. This probably would not have happened had the charter of the LIC not specifically set out the goal of serving the rural areas. A high saving rate in India is one of the exogenous factors that have helped the LIC to grow rapidly in recent years. Despite the saving rate being high in India (compared with other countries with a similar level of development), Indians display high degree of risk aversion. Thus, nearly half of the investments are in physical assets (like property and gold). Around twenty three percent are in (low yielding but safe) bank deposits. In addition, some 1.3 percent of the GDP are in life insurance related savings vehicles. This figure has doubled between 1985 and 1995.

A World viewpoint – Life Insurance in India

In many countries, insurance has been a form of savings. In many developed countries, a significant fraction of domestic saving is in the form of donation insurance plans. This is not surprising. The prominence of some developing countries is more surprising. For example, South Africa features at the number two spot. India is nestled between Chile and Italy. This is even more surprising given the levels of economic development in Chile and Italy. Thus, we can conclude that there is an insurance culture in India despite a low per capita income. This promises well for future growth. Specifically, when the income level improves, insurance (especially life) is likely to grow rapidly.


Committee Reports: One Known, One Anonymous!

Although Indian markets were privatized and opened up to foreign companies in a number of sectors in 1991, insurance remained out of bounds on both counts. The government wanted to proceed with caution. With pressure from the opposition, the government (at the time, dominated by the Congress Party) decided to set up a committee headed by Mr. R. N. Malhotra (the then Governor of the Reserve Bank of India).

Malhotra Committee

Liberalization of the Indian insurance market was suggested in a report released in 1994 by the Malhotra Committee, indicating that the market should be opened to private-sector competition, and eventually, foreign private-sector competition. It also investigated the level of satisfaction of the customers of the LIC. Inquisitively, the level of customer satisfaction seemed to be high.

In 1993, Malhotra Committee – headed by former Finance Secretary and RBI Governor Mr. R. N. Malhotra – was formed to evaluate the Indian insurance industry and recommend its future course. The Malhotra committee was set up with the aim of complementing the reforms initiated in the financial sector. The reforms were aimed at creating a more efficient and competitive financial system suitable for the needs of the economy keeping in mind the structural changes presently happening and recognizing that insurance is an important part of the overall financial system where it was necessary to address the need for similar reforms. In 1994, the committee submitted the report and some of the key recommendations included:

o Structure

Government bet in the insurance Companies to be brought down to 50%. Government should take over the holdings of GIC and its subsidiaries so that these subsidiaries can act as independent corporations. All the insurance companies should be given greater freedom to operate.

Private Companies with a minimum paid up capital of Rs.1 billion should be allowed to enter the sector. No Company should deal in both Life and General Insurance through a single entity. Foreign companies may be allowed to enter the industry in collaboration with the domestic companies. Postal Life Insurance should be allowed to operate in the rural market. Only one State Level Life Insurance Company should be allowed to operate in each state.

o Regulatory Body

The Insurance Act should be changed. An Insurance Regulatory body should be set up. Controller of Insurance – a part of the Finance Ministry- should be made Independent.

o Investments

Compulsory Investments of LIC Life Fund in government securities to be reduced from 75% to 50%. GIC and its subsidiaries are not to hold more than 5% in any company (there current holdings to be brought down to this level over a period of time).

o Customer Service

LIC should pay interest on delays in payments beyond 30 days. Insurance companies must be encouraged to set up unit linked pension plans. Computerization of operations and updating of technology to be carried out in the insurance industry. The committee accentuated that in order to improve the customer services and increase the coverage of insurance policies, industry should be opened up to competition. But at the same time, the committee felt the need to exercise caution as any failure on the part of new competitors could ruin the public confidence in the industry. Hence, it was decided to allow competition in a limited way by stipulating the minimum capital requirement of Rs.100 crores.

The committee felt the need to provide greater autonomy to insurance companies in order to improve their performance and enable them to act as independent companies with economic motives. For this purpose, it had proposed setting up an independent regulatory body – The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.

Reforms in the Insurance sector were initiated with the passage of the IRDA Bill in Parliament in December 1999. The IRDA since its incorporation as a statutory body in April 2000 has meticulously stuck to its schedule of framing regulations and registering the private sector insurance companies.

Since being set up as an independent statutory body the IRDA has put in a framework of globally compatible regulations. The other decision taken at the same time to provide the supporting systems to the insurance sector and in particular the life insurance companies was the launch of the IRDA online service for issue and renewal of licenses to agents. The approval of institutions for imparting training to agents has also ensured that the insurance companies would have a trained workforce of insurance agents in place to sell their products.

The Government of India liberalized the insurance sector in March 2000 with the passage of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Bill, lifting all entry restrictions for private players and allowing foreign players to enter the market with some limits on direct foreign ownership. Under the current guidelines, there is a 26 percent equity lid for foreign partners in an insurance company. There is a proposal to increase this limit to 49 percent.

The opening up of the sector is likely to lead to greater spread and deepening of insurance in India and this may also include restructuring and revitalizing of the public sector companies. In the private sector 12 life insurance and 8 general insurance companies have been registered. A host of private Insurance companies operating in both life and non-life segments have started selling their insurance policies since 2001

Mukherjee Committee

Immediately after the publication of the Malhotra Committee Report, a new committee, Mukherjee Committee was set up to make concrete plans for the requirements of the newly formed insurance companies. Recommendations of the Mukherjee Committee were never disclosed to the public. But, from the information that filtered out it became clear that the committee recommended the inclusion of certain ratios in insurance company balance sheets to ensure transparency in accounting. But the Finance Minister objected to it and it was argued by him, probably on the advice of some of the potential competitors, that it could affect the prospects of a developing insurance company.


The Law Commission on 16th June 2003 released a Consultation Paper on the Revision of the Insurance Act, 1938. The previous exercise to amend the Insurance Act, 1938 was undertaken in 1999 at the time of enactment of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999 (IRDA Act).

The Commission undertook the present exercise in the context of the changed policy that has permitted private insurance companies both in the life and non-life sectors. A need has been felt to toughen the regulatory mechanism even while streamlining the existing legislation with a view to removing portions that have become superfluous as a consequence of the recent changes.

Among the major areas of changes, the Consultation paper suggested the following:

a. merging of the provisions of the IRDA Act with the Insurance Act to avoid multiplicity of legislations;

b. deletion of redundant and transitory provisions in the Insurance Act, 1938;

c. Amendments reflect the changed policy of permitting private insurance companies and strengthening the regulatory mechanism;

d. Providing for stringent norms regarding maintenance of ‘solvency margin’ and investments by both public sector and private sector insurance companies;

e. Providing for a full-fledged grievance redressal mechanism that includes:

o The constitution of Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRAs) comprising one judicial and two technical members to deal with complaints/claims of policyholders against insurers (the GRAs are expected to replace the present system of insurer appointed Ombudsman);

o Appointment of adjudicating officers by the IRDA to determine and levy penalties on defaulting insurers, insurance intermediaries and insurance agents;

o Providing for an appeal against the decisions of the IRDA, GRAs and adjudicating officers to an Insurance Appellate Tribunal (IAT) comprising a judge (sitting or retired) of the Supreme Court/Chief Justice of a High Court as presiding officer and two other members having sufficient experience in insurance matters;

o Providing for a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the IAT.

LIFE & NON-LIFE INSURANCE – Development and Growth!

The year 2006 turned out to be a momentous year for the insurance sector as regulator the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, laid the foundation for free pricing general insurance from 2007, while many companies announced plans to attack into the sector.

Both domestic and foreign players robustly pursued their long-pending demand for increasing the FDI limit from 26 per cent to 49 per cent and toward the fag end of the year, the Government sent the Comprehensive Insurance Bill to Group of Ministers for consideration amid strong reservation from Left parties. The Bill is likely to be taken up in the Budget session of Parliament.

The infiltration rates of health and other non-life insurances in India are well below the international level. These facts indicate immense growth potential of the insurance sector. The hike in FDI limit to 49 per cent was proposed by the Government last year. This has not been operationalized as legislative changes are required for such hike. Since opening up of the insurance sector in 1999, foreign investments of Rs. 8.7 billion have tipped into the Indian market and 21 private companies have been granted licenses.

The involvement of the private insurers in various industry segments has increased on account of both their capturing a part of the business which was earlier underwritten by the public sector insurers and also creating additional business boulevards. To this effect, the public sector insurers have been unable to draw upon their inherent strengths to capture additional premium. Of the growth in premium in 2004-05, 66.27 per cent has been captured by the private insurers despite having 20 per cent market share.

The life insurance industry recorded a premium income of Rs.82854.80 crore during the financial year 2004-05 as against Rs.66653.75 crore in the previous financial year, recording a growth of 24.31 per cent. The contribution of first year premium, single premium and renewal premium to the total premium was Rs.15881.33 crore (19.16 per cent); Rs.10336.30 crore (12.47 per cent); and Rs.56637.16 crore (68.36 per cent), respectively. In the year 2000-01, when the industry was opened up to the private players, the life insurance premium was Rs.34,898.48 crore which constituted of Rs. 6996.95 crore of first year premium, Rs. 25191.07 crore of renewal premium and Rs. 2740.45 crore of single premium. Post opening up, single premium had declined from Rs.9, 194.07 crore in the year 2001-02 to Rs.5674.14 crore in 2002-03 with the withdrawal of the guaranteed return policies. Though it went up marginally in 2003-04 to Rs.5936.50 crore (4.62 per cent growth) 2004-05, however, witnessed a significant shift with the single premium income rising to Rs. 10336.30 crore showing 74.11 per cent growth over 2003-04.

The size of life insurance market increased on the strength of growth in the economy and concomitant increase in per capita income. This resulted in a favourable growth in total premium both for LIC (18.25 per cent) and to the new insurers (147.65 per cent) in 2004-05. The higher growth for the new insurers is to be viewed in the context of a low base in 2003- 04. However, the new insurers have improved their market share from 4.68 in 2003-04 to 9.33 in 2004-05.

The segment wise break up of fire, marine and miscellaneous segments in case of the public sector insurers was Rs.2411.38 crore, Rs.982.99 crore and Rs.10578.59 crore, i.e., a growth of (-)1.43 per cent, 1.81 per cent and 6.58 per cent. The public sector insurers reported growth in Motor and Health segments (9 and 24 per cent). These segments accounted for 45 and 10 per cent of the business underwritten by the public sector insurers. Fire and “Others” accounted for 17.26 and 11 per cent of the premium underwritten. Aviation, Liability, “Others” and Fire recorded negative growth of 29, 21, 3.58 and 1.43 per cent. In no other country that opened at the same time as India have foreign companies been able to grab a 22 per cent market share in the life segment and about 20 per cent in the general insurance segment. The share of foreign insurers in other competing Asian markets is not more than 5 to 10 per cent.

The life insurance sector grew new premium at a rate not seen before while the general insurance sector grew at a faster rate. Two new players entered into life insurance – Shriram Life and Bharti Axa Life – taking the total number of life players to 16. There was one new entrant to the non-life sector in the form of a standalone health insurance company – Star Health and Allied Insurance, taking the non-life players to 14.

A large number of companies, mostly nationalized banks (about 14) such as Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, have announced plans to enter the insurance sector and some of them have also formed joint ventures.

The proposed change in FDI cap is part of the comprehensive amendments to insurance laws – The Insurance Act of 1999, LIC Act, 1956 and IRDA Act, 1999. After the proposed amendments in the insurance laws LIC would be able to maintain reserves while insurance companies would be able to raise resources other than equity.

About 14 banks are in queue to enter insurance sector and the year 2006 saw several joint venture announcements while others scout partners. Bank of India has teamed up with Union Bank and Japanese insurance major Dai-ichi Mutual Life while PNB tied up with Vijaya Bank and Principal for foraying into life insurance. Allahabad Bank, Karnataka Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Dabur Investment Corporation and Sompo Japan Insurance Inc have tied up for forming a non-life insurance company while Bank of Maharashtra has tied up with Shriram Group and South Africa’s Sanlam group for non-life insurance venture.


It seems cynical that the LIC and the GIC will wither and die within the next decade or two. The IRDA has taken “at a snail’s pace” approach. It has been very cautious in granting licenses. It has set up fairly strict standards for all aspects of the insurance business (with the probable exception of the disclosure requirements). The regulators always walk a fine line. Too many regulations kill the motivation of the newcomers; too relaxed regulations may induce failure and fraud that led to nationalization in the first place. India is not unique among the developing countries where the insurance business has been opened up to foreign competitors.

The insurance business is at a critical stage in India. Over the next couple of decades we are likely to witness high growth in the insurance sector for two reasons namely; financial deregulation always speeds up the development of the insurance sector and growth in per capita GDP also helps the insurance business to grow.

Groups and Individuals

What is the big deal about groups? What are the characteristics of groups? Entiativity is how coherent a group appears (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2005). Groups are characterized by roles, status, norms and cohesiveness. Roles can make people behave differently than they normally would. For instance, a woman manager behaves differently, probably in a more masculine manner, at work, than she would behave at home, in a family like group. Physical features (such as beauty and height) and behaviors help people gain status in a group. An example of this statement is the film or Hollywood industry, where beautiful actors and actresses may get a shot, even if they are not talented at acting. Another example of this statement is the corporate world. Super-tall perspective CEOs are perceived as more powerful than shorter prospects, and, often, people are more afraid of tall people. Being aware of group dynamics can guarantee a successful social life.

In addition, if members like one another, then the group is cohesive and tends to remain a group. Oddly enough, a way to gain status is to express anger. Overall, the benefits of participating into a group are: self-knowledge, enhanced status, social change and progress towards significant goals. Some costs or disadvantages of groups are: heavy demands on energy, time, and resources, and loss of personal freedom.

Groups, like friendships and other relations, need to be nurtured and cultivated. The nurturing requires money, time, and energy. Individuals leave groups when the group stops reflecting their beliefs and values. When the desire to enter a group is very strong, perspective members are willing to put themselves through painful initiations, such as for Ivy Leagues fraternities, as portrayed in several movies, such as the movie “The Social Network”, which was released last year, in 2010.

Furthermore, having an audience or co-actors can influence an individual’s or group’s performance. For instance, artists, such as dancers, or Cirque du Soleil performers, or Olympians, strenuously practice for years, to perform in front of as many people as possible. If a person knows she or he will be in front of an audience, versus alone, she or he will dress up and will have a more proper posture. Some exhibitionists may thrive from an audience. An example is the famous and touristy Hyde Park Speaker’s Corner in London, UK, where anyone can stand up in front of an audience or crowd and say whatever pleases them, whether it may be good or bad! This effect is called social facilitation-inhibition.

The drive theory says that an audience can either increase or decrease the level of performance, depending on whether dominant responses, for a certain circumstance, are correct or not. The distraction-conflict theory says that the audience induces conflicting urges to focus on the performance task and on the audience. Increased arousal could then be accompanied by short attention focus of the performers. This social facilitation occurs among animals, as well. Dogs and rabbits especially are known for having a short attention span and known for easily forgetting and easily getting distracted, which usually makes them even more endearing, though.

It is important to also point out that when several people work on the same task, social loafing can occur and the people perform worse. People tend to perform worse on simple task and better or complex tasks, in front of an audience. For instance, if a person is at a small karaoke lounge down in his or her neighborhood, then the person is likely to feel less pressure than if she or he was performing a series of songs at a stadium concert and, therefore, the person would allow room for mistakes. To eliminate social loafing, it is best to assign specific and unique individual tasks, that are important to the individual and that the individual is committed to. To maximize individual performance and to fight social loafing, it is recommended to: study alone and take tests in public, work on simple tasks in front of an audience, ensure that individual contribution can be assesses individually, work only with committed people and ensure contributions are unique, versus superfluous or redundant.

Another group characteristic is that when people are part of large crowds, their self-awareness and social identity reduce. In addition, they adopt the current norms that often allow impulsive and unrestrained behaviors. Some examples are a musical concert, and sports game at stadiums, during which there is extra police enforcement, given the likely rallying up of the crowds. In these scenarios, the offenders may think they are less likely to be caught or punished and thrive from being watched.

As far as group dynamics, cooperation is a common aspect in society. Cooperation does not always happen, even when it should, due to social dilemmas, in which some people can increase their own gains by defection. An example of social dilemma is the prisoner’s dilemma. If the two parties involved choose to cooperate or confess, versus to compete or not confess, then they receive more favorable outcomes. Cooperation is facilitated by strong reciprocity, communication and personal attitude towards cooperation.

Extroverted, versus introverted, individuals, are more likely to seek and enjoy cooperation. Some people are very competitive and live a very competitive lifestyle in all aspect of their lives. Most humans naturally tend to reciprocate, according to human evolutionary history. Creatures that cooperate have a higher chance of survival and reproduction, than creatures that do not. In summary, not always everyone pitches in to share the work. Most people have experienced responsible and hard worker people, within their groups, versus slackers or lazy ones.

On the other hand, conflict happens when an individual perceives a discrepancy or incompatibility between his or her own interest and the group’s interest. Faulty attributions, personal traits, poor communication and considering own views as objective, all can generate conflict. The most effective ways to reduce conflicts are the induction of super-ordinate goals and bargaining or negotiating. Super-ordinate goals are achieved by the cooperation of people, with individual goals that are in opposition to each other. Some examples happen in religious groups, workplace groups, and friends groups. Members could grow apart and emotionally, develop new and different needs, and/or socially mature at different rates.

What is group fairness? Group members want fairness. Fairness is evaluated as outcomes and called distributive justice. Fairness can also be evaluated as procedures and called procedural justice. Last, fairness can be evaluated as kind treatment and called transactional (interpersonal) justice. When someone feels that he or she has been mistreated, then they take actions towards re-establishing justice. Being spiritual can help to let go and trust that people do not always have to bring others to justice or become “policemen”. Life, circumstance, or the “universe”, or energy, or karma, as some people call it, can do a better job than people at restoring justice, and that way the individuals do not have to take risks in taking care of it.

Often, on the news, people hear that someone commits and crime and does not come clean in front of the authorities and gets away with the law. Years later, people hear that those same criminals got sick and died. That is an example that not everything has to be ‘eye for eye”. Sometimes, an individual has to learn that it is time to de-commit from certain individuals, groups, and/or activities. In the event that some people decides it is necessary to bring someone to justice, then some common overt actions have been protests, and some covert actions have been employee theft (employees steal from the company, to deal with perceived unfairness) or sabotage or suggestions that others deserve a more fair treatment.

It is helpful to know that some strategies to reach integrative agreement or a better outcome than simple compromise are: broadening the pie (available resources are increased), non-specific compensation (one side gets what it wants and the other party is compensated on an unrelated issue), logrolling (both parties make concessions on low-priority issues, in exchange for high priority concessions), bridging (neither side get what they originally wanted, but a third option, in both of their interests, is introduced), and, last, cost cutting (one party is satisfied and the cost to the other party is reduced). Super-ordinate goals tie, versus separate, the interests of two different parties.

What is a possible big myth about groups and individuals? It actually can be a myth that groups make better decisions than individuals, because groups can experience that group polarization effect and make more extreme decisions than individuals. Some horrible examples of this effect can be the Holocaust, and other similar, including current, war like events. Groups could also be affected by groupthink or assuming they are right and reject all other information. Groups are likely to accept criticism from in groups and reject the same criticism from out groups.

According to distributive justice or fairness, groups tend to be part of biased processing of information, to adhere to general values or reach what they want. Politics may unconsciously use distributive justice. The devil’s advocate and creating authentic dissent into groups are examples of how to improve decision making (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2005). In the devil’s advocate strategy, one person is in charge of disagreeing with the majority. This strategy forces others to re-evaluate, re-discuss and think more carefully, because people have to create a new argument, to respond to the devil’s advocate criticism.

The authentic dissent is like the devil’s advocate, except that no one in particular is assigned the role of disagreeing, but one or more people simply start disagreeing with the majority. In conclusion, groups are necessary for a healthy socio-emotional human development. Being aware of the group dynamics explained above, can guarantee a successful social life.


Baron, R. A., Byrne, D. R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005) Social Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.