Sign Presentation for Procurement Online

Aadhaar does not distribute a "card" in the classical definition of a card. It is rather a 12 digit number that is provided against your biometric data "after" the same has been reduplicated. This means that the number is unique and associated with you and you alone. The Aadhaar number on its own does NOT provide any rights, citizenship or guarantees. It only assures that this is unique and belongs to you and you alone.The NPR  - or National Population Register is a database of Indian Nationals - that uses the biometric reduplicated number of Aadhaar and provides one with a place in the National Population Register i.e. Indian National status.The Multipurpose National Identity card - will be a smart card that will be issued to all people who are in the National Population Register i.e. Indian Nationals.

On the morning of May 21, 2014, an Indian system admin working at HCL logged on to one of the servers of Norwegian petroleum company Statoil.By accident, he had logged on to a production server that was giving him some warning messages. Not completely understanding the messages, he decided to reboot the server. Despite additional warnings that a reboot was inadvisable, he went along with it.On the other side of the globe, at the Mongstad facility, the largest oil refinery in Norway, a tanker was being loaded with 50 million liters of gasoline. Enough to fill up the fuel tanks of about a million cars.Suddenly, the operation came to a halt. Gasoline started pouring violently into the ocean. Boatloads of it.The night shift crew monitoring the facility looked on in horror as millions of dollars worth of liquid was disappearing by the minute.The situation could quickly turn into an environmental disaster that would wreak havoc on the local sea life.The Mongstad refinery by nightFortunately, the crew at the facility reacted quickly and was able to avert a major disaster by overriding the operation manually.A few years earlier, Statoil had outsourced all maintenance of server infrastructure to India. The incident at Mongstad, as dramatic as it was, wasn’t a one-off occurence.Several times, Statoil’s various facilities had to be evacuated because of compromised IT security and server shutdowns. The company executives now feared they could face incidents that would lead to loss of life.It turned out that about 100 consultants in India had admin access to all of Statoil’s production servers. Yes, all of them. None of the consultants had been background-checked.Statoil (now Equinor) is the company that forms the backbone of the Norwegian economy, one of the strongest economies in the world. The amount of damage these guys could do to the Norwegian economy and society as a whole if they wanted to was cataclysmic.In 2017, Statoil was in the midst of a global oil crisis, with plummeting oil prices. Yet, despite the red numbers in the balance sheets and strong focus on cost-savings, the company decided to homesource IT infrastructure to Norway again, even if this came at a massive cost.It wasn’t so much that the Indian consultants lacked the technical knowledge to manage the servers. The main problem was that they didn’t have the domain knowledge to understand what the servers were actually doing. They often didn’t appreciate the gravity of the situation. Communicating this across the globe through timezones and language barriers proved difficult.The entire outsourcing experiment ended up being a massive failure, even though it was supposed to save the company billions of dollars on paper.

The question fills me with a grim sense of amusement because it gives me a chance to elaborate on one of the lessons I learned regarding military procurement during my service.You know the old saying “Amateurs talks strategy, professionals talk logistics?”.Well I have but one more phrase to add to it:“Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. Bitter employees in the organization only talk bureaucratic politics.”Just one more thing to keep in mind when discussing what potential hardware a military could buy next.Take the 1980s for example, during the height of the cold war when the Indian Military was overhauling large amounts of equipment bought during the 50s and 60s and beginning a major military up gradation program that started somewhere in the late 70s and continued till the early 90s.This was matched by a Pakistani military up gradation that began with the US Aid package of $ 4 Billion of which $0.8 bill went to the nuclear program, $1.6 went to the economy and $1.6 b went to the military.Combined with the Siachen, Khalistan and Brasstacks tensions with an Afghan war in the background. all of this was a recipe for militarization.There was a flurry in the press back then and every military analyst went nuts trying to analyze who would purchase what and how that purchase would impact the South Asian military theater.There were two purchases of note that require examination: The Bofors artillery purchase by the Indian military and the potential purchase of M1 Abrams by the Pakistan army.When the Bofors artillery purchase was conducted by the Indian military from Swedish defense manufacturers, there was a flurry of interest in Pakistan that examined what could have motivated the Indian purchase of such an expensive and potentially game changing artillery piece. Officers would discuss the possibility of the Indian army completely overhauling their artillery set up and standardizing around this new piece of hardware, completely ditching their Soviet hardware. Others wrote fearful pieces about how the Pakistan army would face highly accurate western artillery all along the Western front and the Indians wouldn’t even need much of an air force if they had Bofors raining down accurate strikes on positions across the border. Lahore and the GHQ in Pindi being shelled were images that were considered.And what was the reality on the other side?The Swedish firm had bribed their way through the Indian defense ministry, providing major kickbacks to key players in order to secure the deal. Several Indian development projects had their funds diverted by key government officials to pay for this overly priced artillery piece.I remember several Indian officials being aghast at the purchase. The Indian army back then had been trying to phase out the different calibers in their army and standardize around the 155mm. The plan was to get rid of older calibers like 130 mm and have just one 155 mm caliber standardized as it would greatly simplify maintenance, training and operations.Instead, a completely new type of gun, the Bofors, was being forced on them with a massive part of the defense procurement budget gone and no resolution of the standardization issue.The Bofors would actually perform fairly well in the Kargil conflict, but the point here is how the bureaucratic politics behind the scene determined the procurement of defense equipment.The Pakistani side of the story revolves around the potential purchase of the M1 Abrams in the 1980s.This is again the good old times of the Afghan war with Pakistan being flushed with US military aid money and going on high tech shopping sprees.The sale of F-16s to Pakistan rattled Indian military analysts the same way Pakistan was somewhat rattled by the Bofors artillery purchase (just one of the many arms purchases made by the Indian military during the 80s arms overhaul campaign).The F-16 had been used in the Osirak reactor strike by Israel only a few years ago and its sale to Pakistan sent alarm bells in New Delhi over the potential capability of the Pakistani Airforce to carry out similar air strikes on Indian nuclear facilities.The US tried to downplay such fears by downgrading the radar of the F-16 and refusing to sell us the 1000 pound bombs needed to penetrate a nuclear reactors outer shell.The Pakistani Airchief refused to compromise on the radar and told the government that the F-16 was useless without its USAF radar and there was no point in buying it if the radar wasn’t the one the USAF used themselves.The US relented and kept the radar as it was (the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia had the downgraded radar though). We never got the 1000 pound bombs though which was acceptable as Air Defence against Indian bombers and Soviet aircraft was the priority back then (especially over sensitive installations like Kahuta and Chashma which we feared would become the targets of a Osirak like strike).With the sale of the F-16s, suddenly the entire arsenal of the US military was potentially open to the Paks. So one can imagine how New Delhi was rattled when reports leaked that the Pakistan army was considering the purchase of M1Abrams tanks for its army as well.The same way Pakistan had freaked out over Bofors, the idea of M1 Abrams in the hands of the Pakistan army suddenly caused a flurry of scare mongering in Indian media. Scenarios of a second Operation Grand Slam and armored thrust towards Akhnur were drawn up. Other more fanciful ideas stemmed around the idea of a Sikh uprising in Punjab supported by Pakistani armored offensives, pushing first in a thrust outwards of the Sialkot sector and then swinging down for a pincer movement to trap Indian troops in the Punjab and avenging the 71 war etc.Yea I know. I think the Pakistanis were more surprised to hear about these plans to be honest.What was the end result of the entire episode?Literally nothing. The Pakistan Army muddled along, adding the occasional M48 Patton regiment or Chinese armor whenever they could afford it and focusing more on TOW anti tank weapons than anything.Turns out the Pakistanis had tried out the M1 Abrams but found it unsuitable for Pakistan. The Tank guzzled humongous amounts of fuel and would have drained the entire fuel supply for the Pakistani armored corp within a short while. The Pakistanis were hard pressed to stockpile enough fuel for 2–3 weeks of fighting, let alone armored thrusts into the Indian Punjab.Also, none of our bridges in the 80s could accommodate the weight and width of the M1 Abrams.A last story before we finish?I was lucky enough in my life to have met one of the Air Chiefs of the Pakistan Airforce at an event. This was back when Russia and Pakistan were undergoing a diplomatic thaw and Pakistan had begun its first forays into purchasing Russian hardware.A lot of our online forums had been speculating that Pakistan might purchase the Su-35 or something to replace the F-16 as the top of the line fighter jet for the PAF. Others speculated that it would be a European fighter like the Swedish Gripen instead.So here I was, lucky enough to meet the Chief of Air Staff back then. I asked him point blank whether there was any truth to the rumors of the PAF buying a Su-35 or Gripen or J-10 or ANYTHING really.He blinked in surprise.Apparently, all of the online theory crafting everyone had been doing about our next fighter aircraft was so far removed from the realities facing the Air Headquarters that my question surprised the ACM more than anything.He replied that the Airforce had no plans beyond upgrading and inducting incrementally improved blocks of the JF-17s and that the Airforce was quite happy with its performance and their needs were being met adequately.It was the M1 Abrams story all over again.People were speculating that some new technology advanced system would be inducted that would change the military balance and all that was happening was the Airforce was continuing to induct a standard workhorse (the JF-17) and slightly tweaking and improving the newer version Blocks.The F-16 wouldn’t be that easy to ditch. Decades had been spent building up its supporting eco system of training environments, maintenance and logistics supports, accompanying tactics and strategies. Armed forces don’t just throw out old systems like discarded tissue papers, there is an entire supporting network that needs to be overhauled using precious finite resources. Re-training all the ground crews to newer maintenance procedures alone would be hell.Also, the PAF has always supported a standardized force structure that’s built around a core of Top of the Line fighters performing advanced missions and with the best equipment supported by an outer shell of more mid-tier aircraft.This has been the standard model since the first armament campaigns of the 50s. A core of Top tier F-104s surrounded by an outer shell of F-86s.Sanctions and crippling resource shortages forced us to make do with whatever we had which is why we had 5–6 different fighter types by the 90s. But even in the 90s when the first Sabre 2 and Super Sabre plans were drawn up (predecessors of the Jf-17 program), the PAF’s long term vision was for a core of 100 F-16s surrounded by 200–400 JF-17s.It’s why the PAF ordered 12 F-16 B trainer aircraft in the first batch of 40 F-16s. 12 is a LOT of trainer aircraft for such a small batch, normally you’d get 4 F-16 B trainers for 36 F-16 A fighters. 12 only makes sense if your long-term plan is for 100 F-16s. Again, sanctions played havoc with that long-term plan.Currently, the PAF seems to have been locked into the F-16 by force of momentum, having invested too much into its infrastructure and maintenance to switch out that easily. We even imported special communication links and technology to allow our Western F-16s to collaborate with our Chinese AWACs.The only 2 contender aircraft that could have been inducted were the J-10s and the Swedish Grippens. The J-10’s induction would present an immense challenge to maintenance and logistical network of the PAF and to invest in such a maintenance channel for only 2 squadrons is not worth it for now. It only seems feasible if the supply lines for F-16 parts are threatened in a permanent manner.Despite our turn down in relations with US and their refusal to subsidize further F-16 sales, our logistical channels with the US are still open and spares/upgradation coming through. Alternative sources like Turkey are also opening up for our F-16 program in terms of upgradation and mid life upgrades.The Gripen purchase was heavily pursued at the time of the SAAB Eyerie purchase as the Gripen had the incredible ability to switch their radars off during Air Defense and rely on the Eyerie AEW platforms alone for interception and i think even missile guidance, making the Gripen aircraft very difficult to detect on radar in the meantime. The USAF F-15s and their AWACS have a similar capability. But again, that sale never went through due to logistical and maintenance costs.The F-16 and JF-17 alone are currently meeting the entire spectrum of the PAF’s requirements and doing so in a very optimized and cost-efficient maintenance and logistical framework. Why would anyone buy J-10s or Gripens, both mid weight TFL fighters when their capabilities already exist within the PAF is anyone’s guess. I would honestly look more closely at the combat drone program of Pakistan. Those Burraq UCAVs sure look like they could carry a few air to air missiles…The only online resource I’ve found that closely matches what my short talk with the Air Chief covered is this surprisingly excellent piece by Quwa:Analysis: Pakistan’s Fighter Modernization Roadmap (Part-1)QUWA’s reports on the Eyerie’s repair after the Kamra airbase attacks are also almost word for word what I’ve heard from top Airforce officials and I’m surprised at the excellent quality of their reporting. They are the only news source I would trust (I wonder who their sources are?). I have a good story about how the last Eyerie was repaired after the Kamra Airbase attack and will post it if I can find a matching question for it.For other references, Fizaya: Psyche of the Pakistan Airforce by Ravi Rikhe is a must read.My own time in service.The final nail in the coffin.It’s a mix between big-think questions and the politics of the organization.Big thinks:Who is willing to supply us?Is it sanction proof?Do we get tech transfers and training and maintenance support for a couple of years?Which country should we buy from and why is it China?Did we import a previous version before we have some familiarity with?Is it part of an integrated, pre-existing system?What’s our history of usage?Whats the current doctrine stemming from GHQ regarding procurement?Whose in control of the country at the moment?Whats the state of foreign relations?Who got bribed and by how much?And then of course, the politics.What’s the state of the civil-military tussle in the organization? Who’s at the top? Are they of good repute with their bosses in the GHQ and will they be staying on or are they getting booted soon? Who’s heading the procurement office right now? Whose heading central right now? Who’s heading the land-based segment recommendations?The weight of past decisions long decided before any of us even signed up and the flutter of miniscule but plenty decisions being made at the bottom drove organizational procurement. Several of our top brass inherited files and projects that had been dreamed up in the 1980s and were still in play. We’ve seen projects with life times stretching into the 2040s.One insider look into the bureaucratic, dull nature of paper-pushing military procurement is enough to dampen the heart and soul of every young lad banging on his keyboard about the PAF buying the J-20 stealth aircraft or Su-35 or whatever.References:Richard Rinaldi, Ravi Rikhye: Amazon.in: BooksFiza'ya

Hi...The Sales Funnel is a customer-focused marketing model which illustrates the theoretical customer journey towards the purchase of a product or service. An example of sales or customer funnelThis staged process is summarized below:Awareness – the customer is aware of the existence of a product or serviceInterest – actively expressing an interest in a product groupDesire – aspiring to a particular brand or productAction – taking the next step towards purchasing the chosen productThe Sales Funnel is also often referred to as the “customer funnel”, “marketing funnel”, “purchase funnel” or ...

Why do Indian women avoid responding to messages from Indian men? I was going through the answers and very sadly I agreed with a lot of points which are mentioned. I do have an experience I would like to share. About 6 months back, I had an idea for an app, which I and a friend, with whom I discussed it, thought was pretty cool. After a few days of day-dreaming, we decided to get serious about it. Having no clue whatsoever of where to start, I got to the Google Play store, to search whether similar apps exist or not. Luckily there were none. I was excited. To further streamline the idea for my app, I decided to do some market research. The plan was ...

The simplest place to start is that Voter ID laws have an impact on the outcome of an election. People who are engaged in society almost all have a legal form of ID, and they skew Republican compared to people who are living off the grid for any of several reasons, who generally skew Democratic. Though there have been exceptions, with 2008 being the best and most recent example, Republicans tend to be more likely to vote than Democrats. Even in states where there is no voter id law, this is an undisputed fact on the ground. It's an old not-joke that Republicans love to see bad weather on Election Day, because it makes a Republican win slightly more likely. Polls of all registered voters usually show Democrats two or even more percentage points ahead of where they appear if the poll is of likely voters.Republicans like democracy. The question is whether it is defined as rule by a majority of all citizens, or by a majority of those who cast a vote. Obviously what a Republican would like to see is that every eligible voter in the country would register, educate themselves, and come out and cast a Republican vote. Even if they could get away with it, which they plainly could not, Republicans do not want to win elections by manipulating the outcome. They have a partisan motive to suppress turnout, and when they've been found guilty of doing that, they often end up literally behind bars. Republicans obviously do not have a partisan motive to increase general turnout.It would seem that both parties could agree on any system that allows every voter an equal opportunity to cast a legal vote. But there is no such system. The Republican will say that we have a system that is easy enough, and makes it possible for anybody who wants to do so to cast a vote. The Democrat will say that low turnout is proof that it wasn't easy enough. When it comes to balancing expense versus achieving universal voting, Republicans have a political motive to remove obvious obstacles and then let the people who want to vote cast their votes. It is equally partisan to suggest an extreme on the other end; we could conduct elections much more like the way we do a census; we could hire millions of people to go to their houses and collect their opinion, whether they had any interest in providing it or not. It would come closer to the ideal of democracy.We spend money running elections. We could install more voting machines in more voting locations, and boost turnout slightly. The cost would be high. At some point surely even someone who is dedicated to the notion that every citizen should vote will perceive a crossover point at which collecting more votes is not worth the cost. But it seems inevitable that a small government party will come into conflict on this issue when debating with a party that will directly benefit from more spending.With no voter id law whatsoever, it's harder to vote if you're poor. It is also harder to eat well and harder to get a good education and harder to get to work. All are rights that we want to work very hard to guarantee to every American. But we can't make it equally easy for poor people to do much of anything - your life isn't equal to prosperous citizens when you don't have any money. As of today, almost all Americans can request an absentee ballot by telephone, fill it out, mail it in, and have their vote counted. I am unaware of laws that require forms of ID that are expensive to obtain. I would like to learn more. It is my understanding that voter id laws include provisions to make the process of obtaining an ID no more difficult than voting itself.And a word about racism follows.A hundred years ago in many areas of this country you could legally discriminate on the basis of color. (Obviously you could do that much more recently, as well: I myself went to a legally all-white school as a first grader. I am that old.) Later, you could charge a poll tax. As a shameful but interesting bit of ephemera from the elections of years past, I have a poll tax receipt signed by my grandfather in 1932. The poll tax was $1.00, and that was a sufficiently high fee to prevent most African Americans from voting. The question now is whether the cost of an ID card is high enough that it prevents many minorities from casting a vote. Because of a legacy of centuries of racial discrimination, anything that impacts the poor impacts a higher percentage of minorities than whites. However, in any given income bracket, whites make up the majority. A policy that adversely affects the poor affects more white people than black people. This math isn't difficult, but it means that disproportionate impacts on African Americans are also primarily visited upon whites. If I had a political strategy that called for reducing black votes and getting white votes, a poll tax (or any poverty-driven mechanism) would be illogical in the extreme. Those who try to make a case that Republicans are in favor of laws that do not maximize the turnout of poor voters have an argument, because more government money could pay for more mechanisms to gather votes. Those who try to make an argument that Republicans are in favor of laws that are aimed at hurting minorities are at best mistaken, completely and utterly. If they have signNowed this conclusion without thinking through the math, they are expressing a valid concern that has to be discussed and addressed. If they are saying that the voter id laws are racially motivated even though they understand the math, and are merely asserting this accusation because it is damaging to the Republican Party, they are engaging in a common form of partisan politicking. In this case, it strikes me as being far out of bounds, both because it ascribes completely unacceptable moral qualities to Republicans with no evidence, and because it serves to shed heat on the discussion instead of light. It is demagoguery, and I condemn it in the strongest terms I know how to express politely.

Im disappointed by the left-leaning partisan answers here and perhaps my own answer will be more right-leaning partisan answer but I at least am not passing judgement on Obama’s first 14 days vs Trump’s first 14 days and I hope I am contributing to the conversation in a more meaningful way than just picking at what he has done and commenting on the “damage” it may or may not have caused.Jim Mowreader is perhaps the closest opinion to which I agree with and he is absolutely right both about Trump’s attempt to govern by Executive Order and the fact that Obama did sign a law into effect in his first 14 days but its more nuanced than that and I think its very hard to determine who has, on balance, actually done more or less as it is all very subjective.While Trump has not signed any legislation like Obama there is an inherent problem with comparing legislation: laws are written and approved by Congress and then sent to the President to be enacted. Congress must first pass a law for the President to have something to sign.There does seem to be an attempt by the Trump administration to issue a lot of executive orders and other less official demands, many of which have signNow impact on the processes of the country from immigration to the freeze on issuing new environmental funding/grant money to the scientific community. I dont know how Trump compares to Obama in this case but again I warn not to look at it merely from a numbers perspective as most Executive Orders are mundane.You have Executive Orders such as the one that Obama signed Authorizing the Peace Corp to change their logo or the one both Obama and Trump have signed appointing personnel to the National Security Council.Historically, Executive orders are hardly the power grab they are portrayed to be today and whether the practice of using Executive Orders to “rule” started with Obama or Bush or some earlier President can be debated ad nasueam e.g. Washington issued the first executive order which ordered the federal officers to prosecute citizens interfering in the war between England and France, Lincoln used an executive order to assume power and suspend Habeas Corpus, a process reserved for congress, due to emergent circumstances while Congress was out of session, an assumption of power that was later codified in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued January 1, 1863 and FDR issued executive orders essentially banning citizens from owning gold bullion or coin and ordering the internment of Citizens of Japanese descent and so on.Make no mistake however that Obama is one of the first Presidents to make executive orders a political/election issue and his own executive orders on immigration, et al further opened that door (President Obama famously claimed in a State of the Union Address not to have the Constitutional authority to issue an order such as the one he later issued granting immunity to illegal immigrants).So back to the question at hand… Has Trump been busier in his first 14 days than Obama? I think the issue is one of media portrayal. To say Trump is an unpopular candidate, particularly on the left and with the media, is an understatement. They absolutely despise him… and because of that hatred there (which admittedly Trump has made no effort fix and has even stoked) every single one of Trump’s actions is under the microscope and being examined. Trump is in the position where there is practically no move he can make that will not make the press and more importantly, not in a critical way…Perhaps the most notable example of the differences, which also happens to be one in which Trump is at least portrayed in a neutral manner, is the issue with the bust of Winston Churchill. It was months before anyone noticed the removal of the bust of Winston Churchill from Obama’s Oval Office to be replaced with Martin Luther King and it still took some time even after it was noticed for the administration to “fess up” yet it’s presence back in the Oval Office was a big deal and discussion piece with the media.So contrary to the media’s opinion, Im going to go ahead and suggest that Trump has done no more or less than any other President acclimating to the job of President and further that he has done nothing quite as controversial or damaging as the media would like everyone to believe (note: Im not comparing Trump’s first 14 days to the first 14 days of any 2+ term President, including Grover Cleveland’s non-successive terms) we’re just hyper aware to what he has done and hyper sensitive to the effects.To me, there is some question whether he was busier between the election and his inauguration than previous Presidents. While past President’s have done victory tours and spoken with foreign dignitaries, most have entered office with little mention and/or visibility of what they’ve done since the election (probably because most have spent that time making arrangements for the rearranging of their lives) but again that could just be due to the media’s hyper-obsession with President Trump.I also wonder if Trump’s efforts to “erase” the Obama legacy is stronger/more prevalent than with previous Presidents. Every President has evaluated the policies of their predecessor and made varying degrees of changes particularly where foreign policy is concerned (LBJ-Nixon-Vietnam, Carter-Reagan-Iran, Bush-Obama-Iraq, etc) and most of these were Campaign promises. In this regard Trump has been no different really however, Trump’s campaign is one of the first one’s in recent years to win with a focus almost solely on domestic policy and more importantly, to have a rather specific hitlist of then-current-administration policies that he’s stated he’d repeal. Whether his election and the rollback is a reflection of how unpopular the policies are or something else is of some debate as is the question of whether this is an attempt to “erase” the Obama legacy or just a function of how sweeping, controversial and vulnerable the changes Obama instituted are (notably, the Republican’s primary platform since Obamacare passed has been the repeal of Obamacare… Yet no effort has been made on the left to make Obamacare more palatable to the right despite repeated delays and even a government shutdown which the media blames solely on the right whereas I view it more a bi-partisan shutdown. As they say it takes 2 to tango or in this case signNow a compromise that could have prevented the shutdown in the first place).In conclusion, I am reminded of JFK’s remarks to Robert McNamara when McNamara suggested he was ill-suited for the job Secretary of Defense… “There’s no school for President’s either. We’ll learn together” I think its a valuable point to consider, especially when you add a lack of political experience to the equation. There are only 2 people in the world “qualified” to be President and they are George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter; George W Bush, Bill Clinton & Barack Obama are disqualified by the 22nd Amendment. Anyone else is just faking it till they make it.

KFC - KFC people will not miss any opportunity to scam people. I had faced many instances previously and another one happened yesterday.Charged me extra without notifying me and refused to reverse the charges.I went to KFC in HSR layout. Wanted to eat a simple potato crisper. Ordered that and was TOLD that it is ₹45. Gave a 500 ₹ note. Cashier took 5–10 mins and delayed my order and then returned me ₹ 452 (not 455) saying that he has ₹10 note and not ₹5. I let it go because it was a small amount. Went to the table. While eating my food I noticed on screen display that same burger was ₹40 and not ₹45. I also noticed that these people had not given me the bill. Went back to the counter and asked for the bill. Response -”Sir, we threw away the bill. We cannot give it because it is in dustbin somewhere.” I thought something is fishy and still insisted. If not original give me duplicate bill. Lo and behold - 5 mins later the original crumpled bill was present on the counter. And what I noticed is that I have been charged ₹5 extra. Here is the picture.I asked why the 5 extra and they said it is for some hope foundation.Me: That's ok but why is it charged without asking me.KFC:Sir, this is for hope foundation.Me: but WHY is it charged without asking me??KFC: ?????????Me: please reverse the charges. I want my money back. (I was angry because they had done it without my permission)KFC: Sir we cannot do that since bill has already been generated. You should have told us at time of billing that you should not be charged for hope foundation.Me: but you did not inform me that you are charging me extra for this. You did not even give me the bill.By then manager came.Manager: sir it is your fault, you should have raised issue at time bill was generated.After a lot of arguments they said sorry but then I looked at other bills crumpled and lying nearby. All had the same included. I tried to take a picture of them also but manager said since those are not my bills hence I cannot photograph them. At least here he was correct.I returned unsatisfied.Another instance - KFC charged me ₹ 60 for an ice-cream with MRP (maximum retail price) of ₹40. Photos were uploaded on Twitter and again the same sorry response from KFC.Beware people.Another point-one customer was not happy with his chicken since it was not hot at the bottom of his tub. He had eaten the top pieces. KFC person took the chicken piece from his half eaten tub and kept it BACK WITH THE OTHERS and gave him fresh ones. If this guy was diseased I am pretty sure some other people would be sick after eating the KFC soiled food.