tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264959482024-03-08T04:36:39.784+05:30Shetty's Take: Merciless musings of a libertarianPutting the mercy back into merciless! <br><br>A 20-something's take on all the ingredients that are usually thrown into the pot, resulting in a concoction called life.Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-30089342441542587352011-07-28T11:28:00.004+05:302011-07-29T13:56:50.668+05:30Old wine in a new bottle<div style="text-align: justify;">That's what Pakistan's new Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, is. Hailed as the new face of Pakistani democracy, she is, well, a new face, but a new face that's reciting the same lines of her predecessors. In no way is there any shift, visible or otherwise, in their stance over any of the contentious issues that dog our countries.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkyoL-IPtVDHKvOksyOq_Iy4HSDFe8VLJvToIsYuYs1-hoiaRrwDEZd7oztKNQ_5qOjttt5DQxIHZ9OCOSh8wJ6kcPqhLvF0pjQevGgyaB44tOjy6nkZ4VdbYJ7gexfsL-hot3/s1600/Hina_Rabbani_Khar.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 265px; height: 318px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkyoL-IPtVDHKvOksyOq_Iy4HSDFe8VLJvToIsYuYs1-hoiaRrwDEZd7oztKNQ_5qOjttt5DQxIHZ9OCOSh8wJ6kcPqhLvF0pjQevGgyaB44tOjy6nkZ4VdbYJ7gexfsL-hot3/s320/Hina_Rabbani_Khar.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5634669560154788930" /></a><center>Image source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hina_Rabbani_Khar">Wikipedia</a></center><br />Her first interview with one of the news channels brought out the old tirade. Calling our media reports on terrorist strikes and Pakistan's inability to reign in the terror groups as 'dated', she displayed a classic Pakistani tactic, an age old one, one that folks like I have grown up hearing countless times, of dismissing them as fairy tales. And as is with the current crop of Pakistani ministers, she stated that they (Pakistanis) are the ones who have to deal with the scourge of terrorism "every single day, every single hour". Well, ma'am, our sympathies, but wasn't it your country's policy to breed these maggots in the rotting core of your country, to use against our country? Now when the maggots decide to feast on the meat close by, you may be justified in crying, but all we can say is "we told you so." And please forgive us for not showing too much of sympathy - perhaps the tit for tat response isn't the best, but it certainly can be viewed as apt.<br /><br />She chided the media for focusing only on the ISI's links with terror groups and not the problem Pakistan faces from these terror groups. Well hello, excuse us for not wanting to stick our fingers into your dirty little pot, but isn't it obvious that the only issues we would raise with you are issues that arise due to <span style="font-weight:bold;">your</span> direct actions? The terrorism that affects us as as a direct result of <span style="font-weight:bold;">your</span> patronage is what concerns us, because it's something you've done to us. If you have a dog and it's let lose on my children, I would take the matter up with you; however, if your dog bites you or your kids, why would I 'take the matter' up with you? Sure, I'd offer condolences and offer help, but I won't make it a point to question you about it.<br /><br />Dear lady, it was your country's design of bringing India to its knees by 'making it bleed by a 1000 cuts' - the ISI's strategy of using small scale conflicts by using 'non-state actors' (the rest of the civilised world called them terrorists), to cause trouble in India. Now these very terrorists, who may hate India, have also envisaged grandiose plans of taking control of power in Pakistan and so have started to target your your government - the establishment. So you see, it really isn't our fault if the chickens have come home to roost, because when you had the opportunity to cook their goose, you didn't, hoping they'd lay golden eggs, but all they did was shit around the courtyard.<br /><br />You and your countrymen still haven't been able to come to terms with the fact that although we were both created at about the same time, we have moved ahead leaps and bounds and you've been left behind. You've been fed stories about the two-nation theory ad nauseum, and yet India happens to have the second largest Muslim population in the world (behind Indonesia).<br /><br />Your little minds aren't able to get around to the fact that the King of Kashmir (granted, a Hindu) decided to side with India and not Pakistan even though the majority of the people were Muslim. That, however, didn't mean they wanted to join Pakistan, you assumed they would, but they wanted to be independent. As part of your foreign policy, you aimed at 'freeing' Kashmir, but in reality, you wanted it to merge and become a part of Pakistan. By talking to only the Hurriyat and not the elected Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, you showed that you don't really care about democratic institutions and processes, much like leaders from your country have done in the past.<br /><br />Dear lady, the media may have loved commenting on your handbag and your sense of fashion, not to mention your beauty, but when it comes down to business, I'm sorry, you can chant in front of the cameras that you'd like to have a new beginning, but by not doing or saying anything new, who are you trying to fool?<br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-18667950996199095382010-11-30T00:19:00.008+05:302010-11-30T09:21:01.982+05:30Pride Parade 2010<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSoOTi8TbeGy9A5GKsVoGBrrNCdRlzoyp7iLhj06tuH85haxkW2RxKpprwk0SDTVf1T9rej13QWpm8Rv6iGbOBAUccv4j1TIrSpP0lo9ErW4MjsGmBBMnZAMcfjIROMGZb-fWk/s1600/DSC_0941-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 330px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSoOTi8TbeGy9A5GKsVoGBrrNCdRlzoyp7iLhj06tuH85haxkW2RxKpprwk0SDTVf1T9rej13QWpm8Rv6iGbOBAUccv4j1TIrSpP0lo9ErW4MjsGmBBMnZAMcfjIROMGZb-fWk/s400/DSC_0941-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545050806329968754" /></a><br />"Let's get one fact straight. We're not" proclaimed a banner. The message was loud and clear - LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders) are here to stay, and the rest of the folk had better accept them soon. It was quite a sight (as it should have been) with folks from various walks of life, and even different nationalities getting together to raise awareness, and just have a fun day out in the city. A lot of curious onlookers gathered around the final destination of the march at Banappa Park, next to Hudson Circle (usually most marches for social issues culminate here). The park (actually a ground) is located just at the start of KG Road at the Hudson Circle signal (road that goes to Majestic bus stand).(<a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=248878&id=615216863&l=cbc6190132">Click here</a> for more snaps taken by a friend of mine who was able to make it for the march)<br /><br />For most of the 'curious' onlookers that I spoke about, this seemed to be the first time they'd encountered people of a different sexual orientation (apart from eunuchs, I'm guessing). So for some of the older folk, whose lives usually involve getting up, going to work, coming back and asking their kids how their day was, have dinner with the family and going to bed, this must've been quite a sight.<br /><br />As usual, the politicos couldn't be left out, and there was someone from the JD(S) 'extending' support by saying the since Article 377 of the Constitution had been scrapped by the Delhi High Court, this should apply to all of India, etc etc, but it was quite clearly a scripted speech, and though he made the right noises, it was just that: noise. I don't think he meant it whole-heartedly; at least his demeanour didn't portray his willingness to embrace this as a reality. I'm not saying he should broken into song and dance, but the vibes weren't right here. It's just a gut feeling, I could be wrong.<br /><br />Another aspect that I must comment about was the security. Normally, whenever there's a parade or a march, police permission is required to be sought, and this was no different. However, whatever marches I've seen in the past (for social causes) didn't have a police contingent as strong as the one present outside Banappa Park. Perhaps the strength of the police is determined by the strength of the crowd, so I can't be too critical of them, and what's more, they were doing their jobs. A large number of Police women were also deployed (for obvious reasons), and the way many of them were looking on, it was quite clearly their first 'encounter' of this kind :)<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3nyAGqBwZZeC3JqbUizJmL0bHLtn9KGayvMp4A8WgR-adU8Jj_Zt4vzVnmwiNiVZWnExkes9wA4EhvVYwTChyphenhyphenZp-QOeZSh3NCWnynFZ2FioTWixxI385jWUKfSRY1naYKUSuX/s1600/DSC_0913-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3nyAGqBwZZeC3JqbUizJmL0bHLtn9KGayvMp4A8WgR-adU8Jj_Zt4vzVnmwiNiVZWnExkes9wA4EhvVYwTChyphenhyphenZp-QOeZSh3NCWnynFZ2FioTWixxI385jWUKfSRY1naYKUSuX/s400/DSC_0913-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545046982328556866" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIC-tfjATQSA03ZXQ04TTDSlQakOpbO9Iua9XHHoeLaKjjivjbW9ZmhbsI8qEw32KAkOE-HvrcVBS2R9HIA1it2gDNy9fz6czfgQub7Xy1Xcg_caFUKQ0y8SJ4zaquDtfIP99d/s1600/DSC_0918-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIC-tfjATQSA03ZXQ04TTDSlQakOpbO9Iua9XHHoeLaKjjivjbW9ZmhbsI8qEw32KAkOE-HvrcVBS2R9HIA1it2gDNy9fz6czfgQub7Xy1Xcg_caFUKQ0y8SJ4zaquDtfIP99d/s400/DSC_0918-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545046991756587010" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Colourful head gears</span></div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiFSDG2VCiSH06NZQFfFRmUDJ4CAIhSS4ZUJQyeia7tC2btUvrxR5Zw0SjtW2HFWj_66AWZAzcNzZ8wLN1iQucbu0Ns6hxM9ifAPjdEwS-AB3XRGQK5sPojyHtHkCpEr9Vhudv/s1600/DSC_0920-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiFSDG2VCiSH06NZQFfFRmUDJ4CAIhSS4ZUJQyeia7tC2btUvrxR5Zw0SjtW2HFWj_66AWZAzcNzZ8wLN1iQucbu0Ns6hxM9ifAPjdEwS-AB3XRGQK5sPojyHtHkCpEr9Vhudv/s400/DSC_0920-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545047015980918370" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9xNJ4M2lxsLIBLzWL5AF7Cmm8FfeKRfYBhMBVgghsojpdwKIUUDWVLi8uYPudozqgzqenAOYYQaFhA_cj4r4EgpZYiof2da1mCXQfxPKExboioNoXR2S5c0Bau9i8KNZf4mcB/s1600/DSC_0923-1.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9xNJ4M2lxsLIBLzWL5AF7Cmm8FfeKRfYBhMBVgghsojpdwKIUUDWVLi8uYPudozqgzqenAOYYQaFhA_cj4r4EgpZYiof2da1mCXQfxPKExboioNoXR2S5c0Bau9i8KNZf4mcB/s400/DSC_0923-1.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545047024961434594" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><i>Bonjour</i> from Morocco :)</span></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZNQcx2HfB9Rqr8hYGCpbdJCU1zXulDIKEcU2NSNahp0tcS8y2D6B5Kqpw5K8UyVkgtYa_9b5t6nb4SuVOFu60DfND4U8Od_W-MqBJxzRddXcfXnHZa2116nsZyewt7xSZ6GFS/s1600/DSC_0926-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZNQcx2HfB9Rqr8hYGCpbdJCU1zXulDIKEcU2NSNahp0tcS8y2D6B5Kqpw5K8UyVkgtYa_9b5t6nb4SuVOFu60DfND4U8Od_W-MqBJxzRddXcfXnHZa2116nsZyewt7xSZ6GFS/s400/DSC_0926-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545047034440114002" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">First prize...unanimously</span></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigdzS1miIH_idiS4xhu760yWkc20pM9mUdnKSAxy8A7GSt-sNzw6cCjirSS-LSEDsd-uHnCmwkmddl7mpmDWNkFU6ziYgPL1LAcI59KhA2CJbnD5wotcnJefvd5tZ_nRgU0uxF/s1600/DSC_0927-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 332px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigdzS1miIH_idiS4xhu760yWkc20pM9mUdnKSAxy8A7GSt-sNzw6cCjirSS-LSEDsd-uHnCmwkmddl7mpmDWNkFU6ziYgPL1LAcI59KhA2CJbnD5wotcnJefvd5tZ_nRgU0uxF/s400/DSC_0927-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545049010588135634" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7xF95tji-CXCboLrZzAupfN2ne3FfzqEGQoMwvqFHhz8SXOy_zIxfBLwmGJUiSkt1M_ItHbLwYddFm7SfjxXNMmz_Tieum5td1oeEW6t9Mnyy5XeW2qi_wLE6RSiqZ2ks14lW/s1600/DSC_0928-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 268px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7xF95tji-CXCboLrZzAupfN2ne3FfzqEGQoMwvqFHhz8SXOy_zIxfBLwmGJUiSkt1M_ItHbLwYddFm7SfjxXNMmz_Tieum5td1oeEW6t9Mnyy5XeW2qi_wLE6RSiqZ2ks14lW/s400/DSC_0928-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545049026792902242" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Reminded me of the WWE pimp wrestler The Godfather :D</span></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCfKHbMMvOWjwihJl8Trd_qWpuDsOOvB24O5qY92rHQYAhGGffEUvAwHRnrW7O1ugvazz3g8QhcXzvgauJiiGQC_8-uaxEVHoNHZz5-qWDoIIlGdMprE_HRPndQu6p3BB9jtTi/s1600/DSC_0930-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 268px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCfKHbMMvOWjwihJl8Trd_qWpuDsOOvB24O5qY92rHQYAhGGffEUvAwHRnrW7O1ugvazz3g8QhcXzvgauJiiGQC_8-uaxEVHoNHZz5-qWDoIIlGdMprE_HRPndQu6p3BB9jtTi/s400/DSC_0930-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545049031525850530" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The sign on her back was the 'emblem' of sorts for the parade</span></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixH_Hjsz3tetYAp3MXqiwmNnIVF7DvhYxrVdrJxY_H3qmapKwMGu9ArDHPpbL_Dd8sKYk_-wA0silHc84eTBkY_grEQF2lhG0ewUDKfV_nPxGWwyU3wdYSEeDsP5cFTM3IZ0x9/s1600/DSC_0932-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixH_Hjsz3tetYAp3MXqiwmNnIVF7DvhYxrVdrJxY_H3qmapKwMGu9ArDHPpbL_Dd8sKYk_-wA0silHc84eTBkY_grEQF2lhG0ewUDKfV_nPxGWwyU3wdYSEeDsP5cFTM3IZ0x9/s400/DSC_0932-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545049056525861698" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">A JD(S) member, trying to gain some mileage</span></div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl6GoCbQK4rTs_P-eS9MLQO2sc3YA7q-bjeVgXzPFcPSlcU0ER4FFh1u8PBR33dzLRN31IgE3xxxfgu-h9ZGuS510ipXjn0AL-UVCQZLiLfc_f1bdgaAALQePaLe8aYOdN56z7/s1600/DSC_0933-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 326px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl6GoCbQK4rTs_P-eS9MLQO2sc3YA7q-bjeVgXzPFcPSlcU0ER4FFh1u8PBR33dzLRN31IgE3xxxfgu-h9ZGuS510ipXjn0AL-UVCQZLiLfc_f1bdgaAALQePaLe8aYOdN56z7/s400/DSC_0933-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545049085642793874" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsmnbKFox5vePAnNen8xiI7ZEXvCJBTTc2b5EGs8g_pBPrGBG417fYHA8-RnXtKltdDW10eR52iD2Q71ns8732Qd71CW8xIz9mEFDwE-om_wFRa0Yad4SJ9BDAtiwaneaQwt3Q/s1600/DSC_0934-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsmnbKFox5vePAnNen8xiI7ZEXvCJBTTc2b5EGs8g_pBPrGBG417fYHA8-RnXtKltdDW10eR52iD2Q71ns8732Qd71CW8xIz9mEFDwE-om_wFRa0Yad4SJ9BDAtiwaneaQwt3Q/s400/DSC_0934-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545050775188488530" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguQYRb7jqJBQplu0Yni9QhgYFgXvwppZnItyMlWzxsZWbXo9QmTW55ZklRJ74wPPIcYp2onPEAUELDZpmOX_uPhYVjUj_3NH6B_BOh7DaH64sZAPaDa4UtshgFYAKyn2_46dCo/s1600/DSC_0936-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguQYRb7jqJBQplu0Yni9QhgYFgXvwppZnItyMlWzxsZWbXo9QmTW55ZklRJ74wPPIcYp2onPEAUELDZpmOX_uPhYVjUj_3NH6B_BOh7DaH64sZAPaDa4UtshgFYAKyn2_46dCo/s400/DSC_0936-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545050784576265522" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Fancy hair dos</span></div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFMV__QwdJolg6VDcae4wotD9ZrJGWPpxfdPt7-s-U-3darr6ebm_zSzvdSKVALANNnewPky7RfrH0DurZ232NDYG0ZsrZSfOiAnqH0z9217HNS7hVdfzzV4Eo0UqhGbUpOeGf/s1600/DSC_0937-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFMV__QwdJolg6VDcae4wotD9ZrJGWPpxfdPt7-s-U-3darr6ebm_zSzvdSKVALANNnewPky7RfrH0DurZ232NDYG0ZsrZSfOiAnqH0z9217HNS7hVdfzzV4Eo0UqhGbUpOeGf/s400/DSC_0937-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545050800150665202" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7BBM4Yy8EQUtCItIxjlO0ViBOvFVtSruP89ufqG985Sa5K8sFDvlEeROOeoSj22RtzkXhzqDde8NteuROZY-QOvVvxopJ7huzZgyR7OgPrq9PSOtklRt3ictpJimAX953QGjD/s1600/DSC_0951-11.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7BBM4Yy8EQUtCItIxjlO0ViBOvFVtSruP89ufqG985Sa5K8sFDvlEeROOeoSj22RtzkXhzqDde8NteuROZY-QOvVvxopJ7huzZgyR7OgPrq9PSOtklRt3ictpJimAX953QGjD/s400/DSC_0951-11.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545050816074677266" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">What's a gay event without a little song and dance, eh? :)</span></div><br />Next time, hopefully I'll be able to witness the march as well.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-43579444120287737962010-11-29T09:52:00.003+05:302010-11-29T09:55:41.448+05:30Trip to Lucknow-Agra-Delhi<div style="text-align: justify;">Since I didn't have to time to update this blog, a temporary blog with the snaps and musings during my visit to Lucknow, Agra and Delhi is here.<br /><br /><a href="http://chroniclingthenorth.blogspot.com/">Chronicling the north</a><br /><br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-10128808815144471842010-10-21T08:49:00.005+05:302010-10-21T09:04:34.941+05:30An educated Archbishop<div style="text-align: justify;">Yesterday, the Archbishop of Cantebury visited Bangalore and took par tin an inter-religious convention meant to spread harmony among the various religious groups in Bangalore (and India). After the meet, a reporter asked him what was his position on gay rights (remember, the Archbishop was a strong supporters of gay Bishops), and pat came the reply "I support gay rights in the civil domain". Now there's an educated clergyman, I thought to myself. And educated indeed he his. Dr. Rowan Williams, aka the Archbishop of Cantebury, is a professor of Theology, but unlike most theologians, isn't someone whose nose is lost between the pages of the books he reads and he seems to have his finger on the pulse of society, and on general science. Most importantly (in my view), he is <b>AGAINST</b> creationism. Wow! This is one cool Christian clergyman. I'm sure it would be a pleasure talking to such people. I only wish there are more of his kind to come.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">True, there have been some shocking statements as well (he said England should embrace Sharia law, but since I'm not aware of the facts fully on that issue, I'll refrain from passing comment). However, the position of the top clergyman from the Church of England seems to put him in a direct confrontation with the former Nazi in the Vatican.</div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-46516567272716442722010-10-03T11:06:00.003+05:302010-10-05T17:55:07.632+05:30The verdict a nation waited for<div style="text-align: justify;">For more than 60 years now, a quiet (but of late, very vocal) court battle was being waged between, essentially, Muslims and the Sunni Waqf board on one side, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmohi_Akhara">Nirmohi Akhara</a>, a Hindu denomination of devotees of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman">Hanuman</a>, and various Hindu groups under the umbrella of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). This tripartite battle for a few acres of land in the quiet town of Ayodhya began in 1949, but could very well trace its origins to well before the 16<sup>th</sup> century.<br /><br />The issue before the court: who owns the land on which the Babri Masjid stands (in spite of an attempt to demolish it by Hindu fanatics in a wanton act of terrorism). The 3 judge panel of the Allahabad high court gave the verdict, which when viewed through the lenses of religiosity, can be said 'favours' the Hindu position. Over the past few days, we've seen and heard a plethora of opinions (that's one thing we'll never be short of in India), some pouring scorn over it, while some hailing it as statesmanly. So here's my take on the judgement, and being a non-believer, I guess I'm in a (slightly) better position to make an objective assessment on such a matter.<br /><br /><b>Demolishing arguments of the Hindu groups</b><br /><br />Just because there existed a temple on the spot where the Babri Masjid stands, irrespective of whether or not the temple was demolished to construct a mosque, is no grounds to have a temple today. The temple, if it existed, did so in an era when the land it was in was not the India as we know it as today. It was not the republic it is today - it was a Mughal (Muslim) empire that was ruling back then and hence the discriminations against the Hindus. The India we live in today is different, and so trying to have a oneupmanship in terms of religion doesn't serve any useful purpose.<br /><br /><b>Demolishing arguments made by critics of this judgement, one by one</b><br /><br />The first and foremost argument any rational person would make in a dispute like this is: is the court a suitable authority to pass judgement on religion and matters of pure faith? And the rational answer has to be an emphatic no. It's quite obvious that religious beliefs fall outside the purview of a court because if a court has to decide, it would need to do so based on evidence, irrefutable evidence, and so any such claim about an almighty would not stand legal scrutiny. So to begin with, both (all) parties should have appreciated that taking religious matters to a court could open a Pandora's box, and seems like that's precisely what seems to have happened.<br /><br />Critics of the judgement (notably Muslims, and those trying to gain political mileage) argue that the judgement was based on faith and not evidence. Well, on the face of it, no one can find fault with that statement. However, think about it, if the court hadn't considered faith and based it's judgement on grounds of faith and practice and tradition, then what's to stop anyone from filing suits in courts across the country, basically dismissing all religious practices by people of any religion because there isn't any proof of existence of such an ALmighty? What's to stop someone from filing a suit saying tax payers money shouldn't be used to subsidise the Haj for Indian Muslims, because their faith and practices based on their religion has no proof that a God called Allah, their God, actually exists. In fact Mohammad himself never saw Allah, so what proof can be submitted to stand legal scrutiny? Non-believers like me and other civil citizens have for far too long cried ourselves hoarse that public money shouldn't be used for religious purposes in a secular democracy, so by questioning this judgement, aren't Muslims (or other religious groups) endangering the practice of Islam (or their respective religions) itself in India?<br /><br />So now that I've quite easily dismissed the arguments against the 'faith-based' judgement, let's focus on the other issue most Muslims and pseudo-secularists have raised, namely, what's to stop Hindus from petitioning courts for other sites that they may claim to be disputed and having more mosques razed because "according to our beliefs, there used to be a temple here". Well, it's very easy to dismiss that argument and allay their fears. In 1991, an Act of Parliament called the Places of Worship Act was passed to specifically prevent any such thing from happening. Since the Babri Mosque land dispute was already in court, it was excluded. The act (which became law) states that "It is hereby declared that the character of a place of worship existing on the 15<sup>th</sup> day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it on that day.". So if a place was a Mosque (or any place of worship) at the time of independence, it will continue to do so and no one can change that today, or any day in the future. So hopefully this will allay the fears of all Muslims and those finding fault with the judgement.<br /><br />The last of the more vociferous arguments made by the clerics is that the Islamic law doesn't allow them 'donate' or 'gift' the land or property (includes Mosques) that is under the control of the Waqf board. Well, if that be the case, and if the character of Islam is universal, can someone from the Muslim side explain the fact that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia">Hagia Sophia</a> in Turkey, which was once a Church, and then later a Mosque, was finally converted into a museum by the Turkish ruler Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? The use of the premises for prayer (by any religion) is strictly prohibited (although a small portion inside the museum is now used by museum staff to pray, but both Christians and Muslims pray here). Since there are no remonstrations by Muslims anywhere, we can safely assume that in special circumstances, special measures can be taken. So the argument that Muslim Waqf board cannot enter into discussions for a settlement or compromise is also scuttled.<br /><br />It seemed as though most eminent Muslims from civil society who chose to brand the judgement as 'one-sided' seem have done so in haste and not based on the evidence placed before the court. Farah Naqvi, one of the more vocal critics of the judgement, came across as someone who seemed to want the 'minority' tag to be worn proudly by Muslims and other religious minorities, much like how a large section of Hindu society seem to revel in being called 'backward' and belonging to a 'lower caste', so that they can reap benefits of social programmes of the government and other such benefits. Vitriolic barbs by such personalities conveys the wrong impression to regular folk who watch TV, who'd naturally think that since personalities as Ms. Naqvi have slammed the verdict, it couldn't be for any other reason other than the fact that the courts have been partial.<br /><br />Some people have criticised the judgement for being "one that should have been taken by the politicians". I was aghast when I heard that this was being used as an argument against the verdict. Since the political class did not exhibit the required testicular fortitude to chalk out a solution, the court, given the fact that the sentiments of a large religious section (largest in India) were to be considered as it was part of the case, and that neither side could conclusively prove ownership (some claims were dismissed as being time barred), delivered a verdict that was rightly called 'statesmanly' by former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, one would have expected a more hearty acceptance. I see no reason for Muslims to feel aggrieved as being truly secular would have enabled anyone to see the enormity of the issue before the courts. If Muslims (or any religion) want their religious beliefs taken seriously and be given the freedom to practice them without any objection, then how can they oppose the beliefs of a different community?<br /><br />To me, the entire feeling of betrayal and subsequently blaming the court for passing a verdict based on faith and not evidence arose because it was taken to court in the first place. Matters of religion and faith need to be discussed in a domain where hard, empirical evidence isn't needed, but compassion and understanding and a mutual feeling of brotherhood and magnanimity is exhibited and reciprocated. That is the India Gandhi and Nehru dreamt of, that is the India the great book, our Constitution, envisions for India, that is what we as Indians need to work towards.<br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-51126672024160641782010-09-25T16:10:00.003+05:302010-09-26T01:11:53.875+05:30Jumbo feline problems<div style="text-align: justify;">Since enough has been mentioned all over about the sorry state of affairs about the CWG, I just didn't think I was up to it, but a report in today's paper actually made me feel happy. Amidst all the muck and crap (literal here, not metaphorical), one story actually made me happy. Maybe it was a knee-jerk reaction, but nonetheless. The British ambassador drove towards the games village to see how things were going, and meet up with M/S Kalmadi & Co. to get a first hand report on the progress. However, since his driver didn't have the adequate clearances to go beyond the gate, the ambassador's spanking new Porsche was stopped and the ambassador was made to walk all the way in, while his driver had to wait out.<br /><br />Now see, the lesson to be learnt here is that no matter who you are and what position you hold, if you don't have what is needed to go past a security check, then you can't go on with the "<span style="font-style: italic;">Tuh nahin jaanta mein kown hoon</span>?" (don't you know who I am?). I"m just glad the security guys seem to be getting their act right (high time they do). But the other bigger concern is do I want the games to go off well, or do I hope that the games (organisation, infrastructure, etc.) fail? Actually, I think this is a far more difficult one to answer than what cam first, the chicken or the egg. I know that if the games go off well, all the corruption and all the fraud and all the dereliction that took place will be swept under the carpet and probably a few small fish may fry, but the sharks would escape the net. So given that, I hope that things don't go off smoothly. But then, there's a problem with this school of thought. What if during the course of the games, something terrible happens, like something collapses and hurts, or worse, kills an athelete of a foreign country and it's proven that the reason was poor construction or something along those lines? What if those countries sue us and the government as it's the government's responsobility to ensure the smooth functioning of the games? What then? Wouldn't that be a worse scenario?<br /><br />Moving on, the rail accident that killed 7 jumbos in Bengal is a true reflection of how Mamta Bannerjee's attitude towards one of the most important modes of transport is, where she doesn't even bother to reprimand the officials involved in and responsible for this tragedy.<br /><br />And lastly, the tigers that are dropping like flies in the Bannerghatta Biological Park due to an outbreak of Salmonella and E. Coli. Supposedly, the reason why the tigers ended up this weak is because they are being fed chicken meat. But beat this, the chicken meat, since it's a lot more tender and prone to disease, are injected with antibiotics. These antibiotics, while keeping the meat intact, have reduced the immune system of the tigers, which in turn has led to this situation. Now here's my beef with the clowns from the animal groups who've joined hands with the BJP right wing asking for a ban on beef in Karnataka. They very happily joined hands with right wing scumbags on the issue of banning beef, and even though animal experts have said that without beef, getting sufficient proteins would be a source of concern, the diet of our national animals were of no concern to the so-called animal lovers. If these hypocrites have even an iota of shame, they'll do a rethink, and the sooner they do it, the better for the tiger.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-78058393329445534922010-04-19T09:12:00.005+05:302010-04-22T08:45:38.219+05:30Jawohl, mein Pope!<div style="text-align: justify;">Oh sorry, the original line goes "<span style="font-style: italic;">Jawohl, mein Fuhrer</span>", which, of course was a salutation given to the one and only Adolf Hitler, during the heights of Nazism. I just learnt that Prof. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are consulting lawyers in England whether the Pope can be arrested during his visit to the country later this year. The charge? Crimes against humanity, of course. To be more specific, the Catholic Church's covering up of the sex scandals involving priests and the rampant sexual abuses of young children that has scarred their lives forever, so in essence, allowing sex offenders to be guarded against the course of law.<br /><br />So can the Pope be arrested? For one, the Vatican put out a lousy and feeble defense by saying that he's (Pope) a head of state (The Vatican) and so cannot be arrested during a state visit. Well, Prof. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens are contesting that claim as well, and don't believe that he is an actual head of state, and given a chance, would have him branded as a tin-pot dictator of a fiefdom filled with men dressed in fancy costumes.<br /><br />So what's Papa Ratzi's fault in the whole sex scandal and the raping of the young children you may ask, especially since he certainly didn't commit any of those crimes (at least, none that we know of). True, but then, as the boss, you're responsible for your subordinates, the buck stops with him, so there's the question of moral responsibility involved here. But hang, trash moral responsibility, there's direct complicity in the cover-up of these sordid affairs, and in helping with the cover up (specific letters bearing his signature and seal asking for the priests to be let off), the old man is guilty of helping criminals who raped children to go scot free. Now that, dear reader, is a crime. Old man Adolf (yes, Hitler) never really pushed into a gas chamber or shot any Jew himself (again, none that we know of), although I'm sure he'd have loved to, but he gave the orders and was the boss and didn't prosecute any of the foot soldiers who committed the crimes, ergo, guilty as hell. I know the analogy isn't 100% accurate because in the Pope's case, he didn't order the priest to rape children, or have sex with women and father their children (in some cases, the foetuses were aborted - something the Church is actually vehemently opposed to - or the women were payed hush money to keep quiet in case they had the child). But since he was directly involved in the cover-up and in helping the accused get away without any punishment, he can be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal in avoiding criminal prosecution.<br /><br />So for all the fans of the Pope reading this as well as those of you who may not be a fan but don't mind if the Pope continues in his merry ways, here's some food for thought: do we send out a signal to the world that if you have a title like priest or cardinal or Pope (in this case, I've mentioned only titles associated with the Church, but you get the point), then you can get away with raping children? I wonder if, as a species, we can show some collective testicular fortitude and say 'No' to the question asked above and go ahead and prosecute the man. I guess that's what happens when you have a former Nazi running your affairs! And on a side note, I wonder if the Pope or any of those priests who are guilty would like taking it up their ass when in prison. If the answer is 'no', they should have thought about it before sticking their penises into the rectums of young children.<br /><br />Another post detailing the 'crimes' of the Vatican and the former Nazi Ratzinger can be <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/sexcrimesvatican/">read here, from the CBC News Network.</a>. It's got a nice title: <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/sexcrimesvatican/">Sex, Crimes, and the Vatican</a>. ROTFLMAO!!!<br /><br />Below is a YouTube video of Hitchens explaining the deal.<br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/baySf8WYVI8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/baySf8WYVI8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-73828305249292176802010-04-01T08:35:00.007+05:302010-04-07T08:32:12.421+05:30The die is caste<div style="text-align: justify;">Last week, a court in Haryana gave the death penalty to 5 members of a family and sentenced the <span style="font-style: italic;">panchayat</span> to life in prison. This indeed was a landmark judgment of sorts as it was the first (if I remember rightly) where honour killing was condemned where the local <span style="font-style: italic;">panchayat</span> and the family members were involved. I'd have been happier if the <span style="font-style: italic;">panchayat</span> were also given the death penalty as in every other walk of life, we also hold the head who gave the orders equally guilty of the crime - be it a Dawood or a Hafiz Saeed or a Raj Thackeray.<br /><br />The larger point in question here is the role caste still plays in 21<sup>st</sup> century India. Critics of this blog and closeted supporters of the caste system will point out that this case happened in a rural, backward village in Haryana (OK, when we say rural village in Haryana it's a given that it's going to be backward) and we can't equate the mindset of the people living there who continue to live in a feudalistic society, with the mindsets of those living in urban India. Well, if you're willing to buy that crap, I've got a dog that lays eggs that you might be interested in buying.<br /><br />Caste is prevalent in almost every section of society and isn't exclusive only to the rural societies. Ask most of your friends and colleagues around you about marriages that happen to their relatives, and if it's arranged, then caste and horoscopes are matched and only if a 'perfect match' is found, will the parents on both sides agree to get down into discussing the nitty gritties of the marriage. I know of people here at work who actually shudder (you can see them shake) when asked if they would marry someone of a different caste, so when that kind of a mindset is prevalent even amongst the urban, English educated in our society, why is it that we only assume that the problem lies with the uneducated or the undereducated folks in the countryside? Is this an inherent hypocrisy that we've accepted as 'natural' for those living in the cities and driving cars and watching English news channels and claiming to be part of the great Indian middle class?<br /><br />Now I'm not saying that just because you would want to get married to someone from the same caste makes you like the <span style="font-style: italic;">panchayat</span> who ordered the death of the couple, but ask yourself whether the initial point of origin of the problem is the same or not in both cases. The way people choose to deal with the issue of couples marrying out of caste may vary - in some cases (very rare, but I'll go on to call them the model citizens) parents and family have absolutely no problem and the couple are allowed to be live their lives happily, but even in most urban households (usually orthodox ones), either the boy or the girl or both are threatened (physically, emotionally, or both) and/or there is outright opposition because the other person is from a different caste, and finally the orthodox rural folks who believe in the system of family honour trumping all individual rights and opt for 'taking out' the vermin from their midst. I also know of people who sugar coat the 'caste-based marriages should be the norm' argument saying that it's the only way they can ensure that there would be no conflicts after the marriage because of different traditions and practices owing to their different backgrounds. What a silly excuse that is - almost like saying that I have a bad habit and you have a bad habit, and I can't let you continue with your bad habit because, well, it's bad!<br /><br />Why am I calling these 'bad habits' is probably the most obvious thing going around in your head. Simple - if whatever conflict arises from traditions because of a difference in caste (or religion), conflicts that are bad enough for people to change/choose different persons to make their spouse, means there's a problem in the thinking of one (or both) of the parties involved. So my point is, do you really want to marry someone who is of such a mentality, where he/she cannot accept someone else because that person was born to parents who belong to a different caste, a birth where they really had no say in? And if you do agree that the weird superstitions, beliefs, and practices that religion and caste bring along (I'm not talking about cultural traditions here, only the unproven beliefs and practices), then why is caste such a big deal to you? Think hard and objectively, and you may realise that deep down, it probably is ingrained into you just by the way you were brought up. And if that is true, why do you send your kids to schools where it is taught that religion and caste shouldn't matter and shouldn't be used to differentiate between folks? You might as well send your kid(s) to a <span style="font-style: italic;">madrassa</span> or some such religious/caste-based seminary and at least save yourself from being called a hypocrite.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-48836475601651198792010-03-10T11:36:00.008+05:302010-03-11T08:33:50.028+05:30Woman's reservation bill<div style="text-align: justify;">Hmm, finally, the Woman's Reservation Bill gets passed in the Upper House (Rajya Sabha), although the day before it got passed (Woman's Day) saw some extremely unruly scenes (which we've gotten used to now actually). I was discussing with my mom about the merits and demerits of this bill, and I suddenly realised I didn't actually have a stand on this issue. - Shetty actually didn't have a take on this! I immediately remembered that when I was in school, or in college, this issue had first cropped up, and back then, the only thing that I kept saying was that "Do women actually need a reservation to get elected? Aren't they good enough to win anyway?". The underlying point was that since we (liberals and progressive citizens) consider women equal to men, should we have a provision that treats them as a 'lesser' being.<br /><br />So last evening I brought this up with my mother, and we got into a discussion. My younger brother chipped in with one point: "they're trying to eliminate one form of discrimination, by bringing in a legislation that actually <span style="font-weight: bold;">IS</span> a form of discrimination!" Good point. And then my mind went back to a little over a year, when the reservation topic was in the air. Reservations in IITs and IIMs and other institutes of higher education. How different was this bill from what was being proposed there? Are the women (and people in general) who were opposed to reservations in education also against the reservation in parliament? Aren't the two the same in principle? Isn't this a fair comparison?<br /><br />The principle in both cases are the same: give a section of society a foothold because there was a lot of injustice meted out to them in the past - maybe we should ask the British to pay us compensation now because when they were our colonial masters, they meted out a lot of injustice to us!<br /><br />The discussion between my mother and me went like this:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mom</span>: It isn't quite the same, as in Parliament, the reservations are only for who can contest for some particular seats, but eventually the candidates <span style="font-weight: bold;">have</span> to face the elections, and if they lose, they're out.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me</span>: True, but so is the case with the education thingy. The candidates <span style="font-weight: bold;">have</span> to write the exams, there's no getting around that, and certain seats are earmarked for the 'weaker' sections.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mom</span>: True, but to take the exams, there is an eligibility criteria - you need to have certain minimum marks, you need to have studied in some recognised university, etc. What criteria do we have to contest elections? You can't say "if you're corrupt, don't stand for elections... we can see how well that's going on currently!"<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me</span>: Yes, but it's not fair to say there's no criteria. They have to be Indian citizens, they have to be above 18, and they shouldn't have any criminal case pending in the courts (allegations and FIRs aren't considered; only open cases). So there is a minimum criteria. So what if the criteria isn't more specific - in fact if it were more specific, it would be unfair for elections in a democracy.<br /><br />By then, dinner was over and mom had to prepare stuff for the next day and so she left, but it got me thinking. Wouldn't blocking a seat in a constituency, from where, let's say a very good candidate was contesting (who happened to be a man), for women only now, cause a problem? And is this legislation only to give 'women' a foothold in politics, or is this to give 'poor, oppressed women' a foothold in politics? What's to say that a Laloo-Rabri situation won't arise? What's to prevent the men from exercising remote-control politics? I don't buy the arguments the other opponents of the bill had - giving a quota for minorities within this bill itself, so let's get that out of the way. My brother asked me why Laloo Yadav and Mulayam singh Yadav were against the bill, and I said " (1) They're Yadavs, (2) they come from a part of the country where men think women belong in the kitchen, (3) and they're stupid".<br /><br />Just because we have more women in power, would that directly translate to more women's issues being raised and discussed? Contrary to popular opinion, research has shown that this isn't the case. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that women MPs would dive into the plethora of women's issues that plagues out country today with the intention of solving them. Once they get elected, they serve their party and the agenda of the party. In fact, an analogy to the "if more women, then more women related issue can be solved" would be that since all our MPs our Indian nationals, they'd work for the betterment of the country and put country above party. We've seen in what direction this idea has gone!<br /><br />The fears exhibited by many men in politics is because they'd have to vacate the large bungalows they get once they're elected as MPs, since if their seats are converted into a woman's special seat. To lose that would indeed be tragic, I can see that (somehow the sarcasm just didn't come through on this one). By a twist of fate, I wish the process to demarcate the first 33% of seats happen to be those seats regularly contested by Laloo, Mulayam, Deve Gowda et al. Wouldn't that be a sight then, to watch these clowns wailing in desperation and frustration.<br /><br />So is it a good thing to empower women in politics and make sure that we have more women in politics so that other women feel they actually have representation? Yes, absolutely. Is the method we're using to achieve this noble goal the right one? I wouldn't say yes straight away. And I'm sure those who can objectively decide would also agree. I'm not willing to buy the argument that just because we can't come up with a better and completely fair solution, we adopt one that is blatantly discriminatory.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-91003047306234024302010-02-25T08:53:00.002+05:302010-02-25T09:15:42.474+05:30My take on the railways budget and Sachin...<div style="text-align: justify;">...and in fact I'll start in the reverse order<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sachin:</span><br />He's done it again! Once again, Mr. Tendulkar has silenced his critics who say age is catching up to him and it's time to hang them boots (and I include myself in that list). A lot has been said already about this, so all I'll say is it's great that an Indian holds the record, and who better than the poster boy of Indian cricket to be one to hold it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Railways budget:</span><br />I can do a really good impersonation of Cuba Gooding Jr from the movie Jerry McGuire, where he shouts and asks Tom Cruise's character to say "Show me the money". Which is exactly what I'd like to ask Mamta Bannerjee, show me the money, you short, loud-mouthed, obnoxious little bimbo! Where the heck is the money going to come from for all the new trains and the water bottling plants you've proposed while keeping the fares at the same rate and in fact reducing freight rates for certain commodities? And I don't even know much about economics!<br /><br />Is this a precursor to the finance budget, where we, the middle class, the real <span style="font-style: italic;">aam aadmi</span>, will have to bear the brunt? FYI to to the blue turbaned chap at 7 Race Course Road, in case you forgot, you just screwed us out of Rs. 65,000,00,00,000 last year - that's Rs. 65,000 crores., for those who'd go dizzy looking at the number of zeroes. And after the major screw up with the 3G spectrum, where prices were set at an extremely low price, you screwed us out of another Rs. 29,000,00,00,000 - that's Rs. 29,000 crores. That's a total of Rs. 94,000 crores that we're never going to see again. So I ask you, oh great PM, will I have to tighten my belt a little more so that you guys can continue to give sops to those who don't deserve them? Don't I deserve a break as well? Why is it that for want of remaining in power, you go around increasing the fiscal deficit, especially since you and your generation may not last beyond the next 10 years, but I and my clan of youngsters will have to reap the problems from the seeds you've sown today? You're supposed to be a good man with a clean image Mr. PM, start acting like one. Please.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-13659118158911241372010-02-24T08:49:00.003+05:302010-02-24T09:41:50.591+05:30My take on the fire and the Maoists<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bangalore Fire:</span><br />We'd had a fire in Bangalore, in the building that houses TGIF, Indi Joe, Corner house, and Bombay Post. Carlton Towers. Faulty wiring seems to be the cause. I was at the Bangalore Mirror office last evening when I was told about the news. And while watching it on TV, we also saw the first, unedited clips from viewers' cell phones of a woman falling, presumably, to her death. I mean we saw falls 4 stories or more down to the pavement, and splat. No movement after that. I know one thing for sure - when people are scared, they behave just like animals do. So much for the bunch who say we're better than animals. All that the folks had to do was break the glass around them and the smoke would have escaped.<br /><br />I'm sure there will be fingers pointed at the builder for not constructing the building according to the regulations for fire safety. But I have a more basic point here: why wasn't anyone from the offices present there trained on how to use a fire extinguisher? Didn't the offices have a fire drill? I know my office does. We don't practice it ever, but we've been trained (every floor has 3 people trained to use the fire extinguishers and what to do in case of a fire; I'm one of the 3 from my floor). We keep harping about self sufficiency, why not do whatever little is possible from our side? In no way am I blaming those trapped inside and those who died as being responsible for their own deaths, but these are pertinent questions that need to be asked. If we don't remember the lessons of history, we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Maoist Menace and double standards of the UPA:</span><br />So now they attacked a camp in West Bengal, and the IG of the Eastern Frontier Rifles who said that the state administration hasn't done enough was suspended by the communist government (I'm sure they'd have wanted to kill him, being the communists that they are, but there'd been enough killing already). The Congress at the center was quick to seize the opportunity to rub it in, with Manish Tiwari making a statement that the WB govt. would be better off listening to the man and learning what to do, rather than muzzling him. That's rich coming from the Congress govt., especially since during UPA-1, a Major General V K Singh in RAW exposed a whole lot of corruption, and one that compromised the security of the PM himself, and Maj. Gen Singh was subsequently <span style="font-weight: bold;">arrested</span>! So let's not be so quick Mr. Tiwari, first put your house in order before you start making statements that can come back to bite you.<br /><br />As far as talks go, it's pretty obvious we can talk with only the idealogues, and not the gun-totting maoists, who have to be taken out by force alone as we've exhausted all other alternatives.<br /><br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-13545335100449375132010-02-24T08:44:00.002+05:302010-02-24T08:46:39.722+05:30Changes to the blog<div style="text-align: justify;">From now on, Shetty's Take shall take a new path. Since there are way too many incidents about which I have strong opinions and precious little time to write ALL of them down, I've decided to write a couple of lines about some of the major events from the previous day.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-44726843752576513222010-02-22T11:36:00.002+05:302010-02-22T11:58:26.085+05:30The security state<div style="text-align: justify;">Another attack in our country, and almost a week after the blast, still no headway in the investigation. I'll openly admit that I've got inured to people getting blown to bits, or people being shot by Maoists because they are 'police informers', or for whatever flimsy reason people cough up to justify their actions. My only point is, what is it that we need to do, and the answer is pretty damn simple. However, implementing it will be difficult even for Hercules, so to suggest that it would be Herculean itself would be downplaying it.<br /><br />After the 26/11 attacks, the UPA setup the NIA (National Investigative Agency) and it was supposed to be headed by a top police official and this agency would take the lead into all terror related acts and help with the investigations. I may be wrong, but didn't the CBI already have the best minds in the police department doing the same thing? Why make another agency and add more red tape when we already have one agency? Why not strengthen the existing agency? In any case, that's the secondary point in this unholy mess. Why are we focusing on an investigative agency to help build a case <span style="font-weight: bold;">AFTER</span> the attacks? Why not shore up and strengthen the intelligence agencies to <span style="font-weight: bold;">PREVENT</span> such attacks? Why doesn't Mr. Chidambaram do something about intelligence gathering, and clean up shop there rather than focus on what to do after an attack?<br /><br />I fail to see the logic in this, and what really astounds me is the fact that no one in the government is thinking on these lines. I mean if someone like me can find this so obvious, I'm sure there would be at least one smart soul in the corridors of power who could have thought of this. Is it that the intelligence agencies are so messed up with politics that no one wants to touch them? I mean is this the sign of a super power? Or a wannabe super power? Screw it!<br /><br />So when's the next attack Johnny? Oh, I'm sorry, you'd never know that, would you, so I'll rephrase - just tell me how many die in the next attack when it happens.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-75675869726143513482010-01-13T09:38:00.002+05:302010-01-13T11:02:58.547+05:30Playing hide and seek, celestially<div style="text-align: justify;">There have been a lot of incidents over the last few weeks that I'd like to blog about, but I just had to, had to put in a mention about the solar eclipse that is going to happen on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2010. There are so many superstitions here that it makes my head spin. With all the advances we've made in science, our people still fall prey to age old guesswork, quite clearly the result of not knowing what an eclipse is. Pregnant women aren't allowed outside, people aren't supposed to be seen outside eating, you shouldn't have sex, you shouldn't do this, you shouldn't go there, the list goes on and on. This 15<sup>th</sup>, I'm going to step outside my office, go to the terrace, and enjoy the eclipse (even though it'll be only about 40% here in Bangalore), hopefully with the help of some of those 'eclipse' goggles that are being sold.<br /><br />So people, for those of you who actually believe that there will actually be something adverse because of a solar eclipse, let me try to put it to you in English as simple as can be: No. Anything bad that happens would have just as likely have happened if there was no eclipse as well. If you trip and fall, the cause for that could just as likely be attributed to Paris Hilton giving someone a blowjob, or Lindsay Lohan going wild at some party, or (more locally) Mayawathi announcing that she's going to build another statue, or Deve Gowda calling the chief minister a bast***.<br /><br />There is no 'extra' radiation given out during an eclipse, there are no 'evil spirits' roaming about that enter your body during an eclipse, etc etc etc. Another caution given is "Don't look at the eclipse (sun), as the 'extra' radiation is bad for the eyes". If anyone says something like this to you, do not hesitate to sock them real hard (if they are educated). The only reason it's going to be bad for the eyes is because YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE SUN, DAMN IT!!! I'd pretty much expect it to be bad for your eyes if you stared at it! Just because the sun is covered by the moon, and there isn't enough 'light', that doesn't mean the radiation (Ultra Violet - yes, the same chap fearing whom you apply sunscreen lotion with UV protection) vanishes. On a normal day, the light is so bright that the pupils in your eyes don't open up at all, and so the radiation doesn't enter the eyes. During an eclipse, because of the lack of light, your pupils get dilated (meaning they open a little more to allow more light to enter), and since UV rays are not visible to us, they enter as well if you keep staring at the sun (eclipse) and will go in and burn your retina (that's something that is deep within your eye). That's it, nothing else. No more nonsense about children being born with cleft lips and horns, and forked tongues, and what not.<br /><br />So please, please please pretty please, don't waste a day staying indoors and/or away from work.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-27403103119470839552009-12-11T09:50:00.002+05:302009-12-11T09:53:07.235+05:30Quiz On The Beach<div style="text-align: justify;">I believe this would enthuse many of you. I got this email from the TAPMI org. comm. about this quiz, so feel free to participate.<br /><br /><blockquote>Is the possibility of a recession giving you sleepless nights? Do you feel like taking some time off and chilling out? How does a visit to a beach sound? Or would you like to involve yourself in some serious quizzing? What if you were offered the chance of doing both at the same time? Sounds interesting???<br />T. A. Pai Management Institute’s annual B-School fest, Atharva invites you to participate in the Quiz on the Beach (QOTB) to be held at Kaup Beach, Udupi, Karnataka. QOTB is held on the shores of the magical Arabian Sea with an old British built lighthouse serving as a backdrop. So pack your bags and come down to Kaup Beach for some serious fun!!!<br /><br />Quiz Flavour: Business Quiz<br />Host: T. A. Pai Management Institute, Manipal<br />Quiz Master: Mr. Avinash Mudaliar<br />Date: Saturday, 9th January 2010<br />Prize Money: Rs 40,000-First Prize<br /> Rs 20,000-Second Prize<br />Registration charges: Rs 1500/- per team<br />2 Members make a team<br />Open to Corporates (Team members can also belong to different companies).<br /><br />Please check out the links below for further details:<br />http://www.tapmi.org/atharva/<br /><br />For further Clarifications contact:<br />S. Gopinath : 09742353966<br />Nikitha Shetty : 09686007000<br />E- Mail: atharva.tapmi@gmail.com</blockquote></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-55085839127222812152009-11-27T10:16:00.005+05:302009-11-30T09:07:36.474+05:30Three to tango - 4<div style="text-align: justify;">Actually there were 4 things, and I had forgotten about the fourth things that irked me. Ram Jethmalani (RJ), one of the most eminent lawyers in the country, made a statement that led to the Saudi envoy walking out of a conference. RJ said that an 18th century Saudi national (back then there wasn't a country called Saudi Arabia) called Mohammad Al Wahabi, went on to create the Wahabi brand of Islam followed in Saudi today, was one of the main reasons for Islamic terrorism today, as all Islamic terrorists follow the same brand of Islam. Factually, this statement was correct. Al-Wahabi didn't like the direction Islam was going in the 18th century, and so decided it was time to tighten the screws, and so decided on going tough when it came to following the religion. The result - the archaic way the religion is practiced in modern day Suadi Arabia, where women have to walk around in 'bee-keeper suits' (quoting Bill Maher), and punishments are straight out of the Sharia - so thieves have their hands chopped off, rapists have their penis chopped off, murderers can be stoned to death, women suspected of cheating on their spouses can be stoned, or publicly lashed, etc.<br /><br />Now RJ's statement was a factual one, and for the Saudi envoy to walk away in a huff seemed a little childish (for lack of a better expression), since RJ didn't go on to say "there fore all Saudi nationals are terrorists", and neither did he say anything bad about Islam. Sadly, this irked the Saudi envoy, but what's worse (in my opinion) was that our law minister had to get up and go and say that this isn't the government's view. Wait a minute. Our government is pro-Wahabi Islam? We're pro all the medieval punishments and medieval mindset espoused by the late Al-Wahabi? I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where we had a change in foreign policy, but who made this change exactly?<br /><br />I wonder why the media doesn't pick up issues like these and grill the so-called secular Congress party that is leading the government. Somehow, our country's media seems to have gotten into the mindset that beating the BJP and siding with the Congress is secular. They ago all out at any given opportunity against right wing Hindu extremism (which I too am against), but go soft on other issues that could showcase the Congress in poor light. Wake up people, do a little more research into the stories, and what's more, put a little more thought into what stories you want to run with. They don't always have to be about how bad the religious extremists from the majority party are (a phenomenon that started after religious extremism from a minority community) - we already know that, and hate it (their extremism), so could you show something new now? Please?<br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-90807339019784994412009-11-27T08:35:00.004+05:302009-11-27T10:16:22.031+05:30Three to tango - 3<div style="text-align: justify;">Part three - Was the Liberhan commission's report a load of crap?<br /><br />Without even batting an eyelid - yes! And if you think even slightly otherwise, I feel sorry that a perfectly good brain seems to have been wasted. Before getting into details, let me clarify that I'm not against him having found someone guilty or not guilty. The fact that the structure was razed with kar sevaks having come to the site with primitive hand-held instruments suggests that there was indeed a plan to bring the structure down. Of this there can be no doubt. My issue with Justice Liberhan are the following:<br /><br />1. 17 is the number of years it took (actually 12 - the report was ready in 2004, but the Congress chose to come out with it now)! 8 is the number in crores, which is the amount of the tax payers money spent to come out with a report that's supposed to give us a clear picture (but doesn't in any way). And finally, there's no action-to-be-taken suggested! Are you freaking kidding me? And then the polity wonder why today's youth are disinterested in politics.<br /><br />Now let's analyse this a little more closely. The fact that Justice Liberhan (who from now on shall be called 'the old man' in this post, and I shall not dignify him with his title of Justice because by this one act, he's brought disgrace upon his fraternity) has said that the 'razing of the structure' was preplanned is probably the only thing that can be called a face saver in the entire report, although most smart people would go "Duh!!! You thought otherwise?". It was obvious that a section the workers came there with this very intention. But then starts the drama. Maybe the old man wanted to be a playwright, and when he was given the chance to pen down something, boy, he went overboard. The old man goes on the say that the senior leaders present there could have stopped the workers once they started breaking the structure. If the matter under consideration weren't so serious, this would actually sound funny. Maybe the old man doesn't know what a 'mob' means, and hasn't heard of the phrase 'mob mentality'.<br /><br />Next, he goes on to indict people who he's never even called and spoken to during the course of his extended second innings. Former PM Vajpayee and the late Pramod Mahajan weren't even called to dispose before the commission, and yet the old man has gone on the say that these gentlemen were culpable in the crime. Hey you know what, I want to charge the old man with wasting my tax money, and I don't want him to get a chance to defend and give his version about why he spent so much money. How'd he like that?<br /><br />And lastly, no mention of PVNR... that's P V Narasimha Rao, the Prime Minister at the time. The argument in his favour by the Congress workers is that in a federal structure, the PM can only act on the report sent by the governor of the state, and if a state willfully passes on wrong info to the central government, then there's nothing the PM can do. Point taken, but what they fail to mention is that the central government can always be proactive, and take preemptive measures in matters where they feel the state government is allowing law and order to deteriorate. The Congress government when Nehru was PM dismissed the first democratically elected Communist government of Kerala in 1956 because they claimed "it had allowed law and order to deteriorate". Having set the precedence already, they were in the clear to do it again. Yet, the old man doesn't think they deserve even a rap on the knuckles.<br /><br />I rest my case.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-69244978909047464922009-11-27T08:26:00.002+05:302009-11-27T08:34:45.708+05:30Three to tango - 2<div style="text-align: justify;">Part deux - Should Thiery Henry have admitted to the referee that he had indeed handled the ball during their match against the Irish?<br /><br />This is a tricky one. If one goes purely by the spirit of sportsmanship, then he most certainly should have. But then there are those who have the attitude the Aussies have on the cricket field (and possibly all other sports as well), namely "I'm playing my game, and that's my job. It's the job of the ref to spot the mistakes and call them out". A far cry from the days of Bradman when it was the British, under Douglas Jardine, who went all out with the now infamous 'bodyline' tactics. Jardine was quite ruthless, yet did everything in accordance to the laws of the game. But is implementing or following only in letter good enough, or should it be followed in spirit as well? If this can be conclusively answered, I think we'd have also answered another timeless question, which came first: the chicken or the egg?<br /><br /><br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-84151098507848380942009-11-24T23:02:00.006+05:302009-11-26T08:59:36.537+05:30Three to tango - 1<div style="text-align: justify;">There have been three things in the last 10 days or so that have made me more cynical than I already am (if that's possible), but it's also got me worked up (unnecessarily too, I might add). The three topics in question are:<br /><br />1. Should women be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces?<br />2. Should Thiery Henry have admitted to 'handling' the ball?<br />3. Is the Lieberhan commission's report on the Babri Masjid demolition a load of crap?<br /><br />No. I don't know. Yes. In that order. And yes, I'm still the liberal, food loving creature I've always been.<br /><br />Let's take them one at a time, and this post will deal with question 1.<br /><br />1. Should women be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces?<br /><br />The short answer: No. Now by combat roles if you mean hand-to-hand combat roles, then no. If you include roles like missile/artillery officers, radar officers, signals officers, etc, then yes, they not only can, but should. The next logical part of my argument should detail the 'why', and that's precisely what it'll do. Our country (as with most other countries) has over eons been shaped to respect women and almost treat them with kid gloves at certain times when it comes to certain issues. So the obvious question when it comes to war is "What will happen to a woman soldier if captured by the enemy?". Without going into graphic details, one can imagine that a captured woman would any day be preferred by soldiers of the opposite side than a captured male soldier. With a male, the only possibilities are torture, and eventually death (or jailing them for eternity). With a female soldier, the sexual factor is almost a given - almost like a breath of fresh air to soldiers who've captured her. She wouldn't just be used, but abused to the point where a third party observer would want to kill her just to put her out of her misery.<br /><br />Our lady newscasters on CNN-IBN and NDTV who've been championing the cause for inducting women into these close quarter combat roles fail to see the obvious that the public would most certainly be outraged to a far greater extent if a woman soldier is abused and tortured than if the same treatment is meted out to a male. It's in our psyche. Isn't that why we have harsher punishments in our criminal laws to people who abuse women, whereas those who do the same to men aren't meted out the same treatment? Isn't it why, the world over, the directive on a ship when it is sinking is "Women and children first" while boarding the rescue boats? Isn't it why, the world over, when a terrorist strikes, we say "why did they kill innocent women and children" and we fail to mention, and almost intentionally leave out the 'innocent men'? I'm pretty sure a lot of innocents killed in mindless acts of terror are men, and yet they don't find mention in the sympathies thrown forward. Most of the abuses that people use are aimed towards a person's mother or sister because this is far more likely to insult them the most, whereas insults to the male relatives isn't taken that personally (almost 99% of the times). So women like Sagarika Ghosh, Barkha Dutt, and Nidhi Razdan (who I thought, until now, is one of the more objective journalists amongst the lot), when having their talk shows on this topic, would do well to think through all the details before giving their opinions on the matter and deciding before what their stand is on the matter.<br /><br />When it comes to the Indian Air Force, I'm not quite sure which former Air Chief it was (Air Chief Marshal Krishnaswamy I think) who said it, but the reasons he gave were quite compelling. He said that the fleet of fighters the IAF has primarily consist of the Russian MiGs, with French Mirages and British Jaguars making the rest. Flying the MiGs requires constant practice as it's not as easy as flying one of the American fighter jets, and if a woman goes off on a maternity break, when she comes back she won't be 'in touch' with the flying - this isn't like driving or swimming where once you learn it, it's with you life long. The MiGs our air force operate are very unforgiving and even small mistakes due to concentration lapses or because of being out of touch can cause a fatal crash.<br /><br />Recently, Air Marshall Barbora, the new Vice Chief of Staff commented that it wasn't prudent to have women fly fighter jets, and his remarks set off a chain reaction with people calling his remarks as sexist. I so wish people who said such things about the vice chief would go learn some English first. The language used by the vice chief was absolutely professional, and he was only stating facts and operational issues, nothing else. I don't see how one could question the validity of his statements. He said "...after investing 'x' crores on a pilot, the IAF would recover the cost if the pilot serves for 12 to 14 years. But with women, they'll have to go off for family responsibilities, and so it's not <span style="font-weight: bold;">prudent</span> to have them as fighter pilots." I don't see anything wrong with this. Also, more importantly, isn't he right? If a woman goes off for maternity leave, that would leave the squadron short of a pilot, compromising it's effectiveness. What if the country faces a situation that requires the IAF to take action, and they are missing a few pilots because of 'labour' issues? Who'll fly their planes then? Sagarika? Nidhi? Who?<br /><br />I'm not going to get into discussing the red herrings that are usually thrown around - namely, women can handle pressure situations better than men (I haven't come across any study that conclusively says that), and that women are physically as strong as men (again, pure bullshit), etc. because even <span style="font-weight: bold;">IF</span> these were true (big if), the arguments I've given above would quite easily take precedence over these.<br /><br />Given all of the above, any logical person can come to only one conclusion: <span style="font-weight: bold;">at present</span>, women can't be allowed into close quarter combat roles in the Indian army, and can't be allowed to fly fighter jets in the Indian air force. I'm not being sexist, I'm just being rational, and coming to my conclusion based on hard facts and ground realities. As always. I'm always been a liberal, and have advocated equal rights for women (as is quite visible in some of my previous posts), but when faced with facts, the only right thing to be done is to doff your hat, sit back, and relax.<br /><br />Reactions are welcome (I know it's been a while since I last posted...apologies for the same), but please keep the comments sane.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-40147288126206436382009-11-09T10:53:00.004+05:302009-11-09T11:08:33.954+05:30School reunion<div style="text-align: justify;">Reunions are always fun. You get to meet people you haven't met in a long time, you get to see your teachers again, and surprisingly, they remember the names of most of the students. That one aspect of teachers has always amazed me. They'd have taught for years together, and would have had hundreds of students, and yet they seem to remember most of the names, or at least are able to recollect the names once you tell them your names.<br /><br />This time the reunion was a slightly damp affair (literally). The north-east monsoon and the depression over Madras (Chennai) meant that the turnout was a lot lower than last year's reunion, but this time around, there were a few faces that were missing from last year.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinnxFUMjytGszgk2t9eABG0F7djG6fMb_4jyILxpNKjJjZg65XCo-eadnziWmLhwk8WSbefbNeVAoT0FQAcmdI38IQZh-txP3_XYzsG-ZXFF0LaUs-vL7ajWn7JES_VwYxd4Jf/s1600-h/DSC_1017-1.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinnxFUMjytGszgk2t9eABG0F7djG6fMb_4jyILxpNKjJjZg65XCo-eadnziWmLhwk8WSbefbNeVAoT0FQAcmdI38IQZh-txP3_XYzsG-ZXFF0LaUs-vL7ajWn7JES_VwYxd4Jf/s320/DSC_1017-1.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401971602105958002" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(L-R): Padmini, Prashanth (behind the board), Varun & his wife Poonam</span><br /></div><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhAs4OvaGs0-g_tJzhFPAGAo98ZExvZO1AYeeafKy4QCqRsvfZbiZkF5fcdfxaVZ8Ae1V5Z6Og7IvwgMh0G8EgvQFyqfQemzMglUEc1deTsgBDkew3F7SLkzb2Bcaz9OmtRYpf/s1600-h/DSC_1019-1.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhAs4OvaGs0-g_tJzhFPAGAo98ZExvZO1AYeeafKy4QCqRsvfZbiZkF5fcdfxaVZ8Ae1V5Z6Og7IvwgMh0G8EgvQFyqfQemzMglUEc1deTsgBDkew3F7SLkzb2Bcaz9OmtRYpf/s320/DSC_1019-1.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401971612008222178" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Monkeying around (L-R): Me, Vinay, Prashanth, Padmini, Varun (behind), Poonam, Anjana</span><br /></div><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKPjhIv71c6_jXKzzNP_NKiBfzrc2M-FqQa8bzWSiUVYN_LKCBwbREzBgd-Kd6jeTRGz3N9_LDZD3cRmWN-dQACHQb-W8gbTQjlS9bj9CxfG99mxwH87fwTFiMSu1sPczwB-YZ/s1600-h/DSC_1020-1.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKPjhIv71c6_jXKzzNP_NKiBfzrc2M-FqQa8bzWSiUVYN_LKCBwbREzBgd-Kd6jeTRGz3N9_LDZD3cRmWN-dQACHQb-W8gbTQjlS9bj9CxfG99mxwH87fwTFiMSu1sPczwB-YZ/s320/DSC_1020-1.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401971614728146370" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Obedient?</span><br /></div><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEMh3SK1zJaMPUqsfvh441ko5GW424L-LYwBpZYCGqFWXs_V5w32f1vqp7xFZ6ixf0bJL7Rf6cYt5FmUO5K_TpGhgs4qCDsZqX6F1_48R7KydIc4d1wvdBtYf4su97UeYdBmjX/s1600-h/DSC_1031-1.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEMh3SK1zJaMPUqsfvh441ko5GW424L-LYwBpZYCGqFWXs_V5w32f1vqp7xFZ6ixf0bJL7Rf6cYt5FmUO5K_TpGhgs4qCDsZqX6F1_48R7KydIc4d1wvdBtYf4su97UeYdBmjX/s320/DSC_1031-1.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401971627314296018" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlqrDxA72wroGDvgkhQv_4YJjusxzMvHVjUPx_9UQvgPWXNEcfXHkv6mhScqb5Y8YshQbDulPahr8o4kmDCpVGrFc3N1gGafTEANXBmlaDvA91u815SmHyh1kpK_I7gmzfNRDy/s1600-h/DSC_1036-1.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlqrDxA72wroGDvgkhQv_4YJjusxzMvHVjUPx_9UQvgPWXNEcfXHkv6mhScqb5Y8YshQbDulPahr8o4kmDCpVGrFc3N1gGafTEANXBmlaDvA91u815SmHyh1kpK_I7gmzfNRDy/s320/DSC_1036-1.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401971636219913794" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBpiE1cf37UDBySdWQc86SrgKHkjENqC_Tptr5otvcbbifscf0pmzkHh3c7sNpmZkdtpI8CZoKkURYsSjMxKImY5arlC1LAvYSh55V3rgjhiieWUW0LnSNofmPAH1HeBohOJ2R/s1600-h/DSC_1040-1.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBpiE1cf37UDBySdWQc86SrgKHkjENqC_Tptr5otvcbbifscf0pmzkHh3c7sNpmZkdtpI8CZoKkURYsSjMxKImY5arlC1LAvYSh55V3rgjhiieWUW0LnSNofmPAH1HeBohOJ2R/s320/DSC_1040-1.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401972108754850178" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Blue between the greens? (L-R): Vinay, Roy, Dhanya, me</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Dhanya - Blue house, the rest of us - Green house</span><br /></div><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-74463419954165735282009-10-21T11:13:00.008+05:302009-10-25T23:21:39.971+05:30Flaws with the 3 language formula<div style="text-align: justify;">Mr Sibal, looks like this isn't your cuppa. First the faux pas with the 3 language formula, and now the problems with the 80% cut off for the IIT-JEE. Let me very categorically state that I don't mind the cut-off formula since it's a sure shot way of getting students to study for their boards, and then concentrate for the IIT entrance exams, which would automatically help in limiting the IIT tuition cartels, which seem to be running riots, especially in parts of Bihar, Jharkhand, and UP. The cut-off could be lowered a little for starters, and then maybe it can be moved up. In any case, my grouse at the moment isn't with that, but with your 3 language formula.<br /><br />Mr Sibal recently proposed a 3-language formula to bridge the language divide in India. So according to this plan, a child growing up will have to learn English, Hindi, and one south Indian language. When I heard that the first time I couldn't stop laughing through my backside. I mean, come on! English, Hindi, and one south Indian language of my choice! "What's the logic?" you may ask, as did I. Well, according to the minister, they seem to be doing this so that all Indians can have a 'link' language - meaning some language that all of us can understand, which can 'link' the divide that presently exists between north and south when it comes to language. OK, good, but why three? Fine, I understand that making everyone learn only one language will kill off all other languages, and as a firm believer that the variety of languages in our country is one of the most endearing aspects of our culture, speaking volumes about the culture and heritage of this land, we need to preserve the languages. But why the hell three?<br /><br />It's quite obvious that English + the language of the state you're residing in should suffice. English can serve as the 'link' language, while the knowledge of the state language (usually, in most cases, this would be the mother tongue of the person as well) would help in preserving the language. So why does Hindi need to be fitted into this when everything seems to be fine? Throwing Hindi into this perfect formula is only a ploy to get everyone to learn Hindi for some unknown reason, and according to Mr Sibal, "... should be done in Hindi which is the national language thus Hindi can be also be used to achieve national integrity". Well, firstly, Hindi is not <span style="font-weight:bold;">the</span> national language, it's <span style="font-weight:bold;">a</span> national language, and don't we have national integrity today irrespective of whether or not all of us know Hindi? Also, this stupid thing about "and one South Indian language"...what's that for? Because we'll (south Indians) feel bad that we are being made to learn Hindi, but they don't know our language? Utter stupidity! If a north Indian learns Malayalam, and comes to Karnataka, AP, or TN, what good is Malayalam going to do? It's a waste of his time having learnt that language. Instead, if he/she knows English and Hindi, and a south Indian knows English and whichever state language he/she is from, English could bridge the language divide, and the additional language they know can be used wherever applicable.<br /><br />I personally believe that pushing in Hindi is to deal with a fragile sense of nationalism that many Indians have. It's the old bogey of 'foreign versus indigenous' - learning English, which is a foreign language, over Hindi, is seen by many not-too-bright Hindi speakers as 'anti-Indian' (actually it's unfair to call out only the Hindi speakers because the same logic is used by countless others as well to suit their needs). Sadly, a lot of people from the Hindi belt seem to equate learning and being able to speak and understand Hindi to being Indian, and so by default, a lot of South Indians aren't 'Indians' according to Hindi speakers. This fragile sense of patriotism and nationalism is to me the sole reason why people fail to see the elephant in the room - English is the link language, damn it! Why does everyone need Hindi???<br /><br />Also consider the fact that if the 3 language formula is implemented, that would mean extra teachers - one for English, one for Hindi, one for third language. As it is, there are lakhs of govt. teachers who haven't been paid their salaries for months if not years, and yet these poor souls continue to toil and try to impart a decent education to children in rural areas. The govt. would be better off paying them their salaries first, rather than allocate money from an already stretched economy due to drought and the recent floods to create new positions and hunt for teachers who can teach the new languages. The 2 language formula is a far more economical option and can bear fruition faster, and also has a much higher % of success.<br /><br />I'm still pretty sure that there would be a lot of people who still wouldn't have seen the logic in the above analysis, so let me give a few facts, picked straight from the great book itself (The Constitution), but before that, let's also get a couple of definitions clear:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><u>Official language</u></span>: Language used for official communications and directives given by the government to its various arms and agencies. Also, an official language needs to be approved by law in order to become a national language (by the way, the Supreme Court works only in English).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><u>National language</u></span>: A language that defines a people in a territory and is indicative of the culture and history of the region. A national language can become an official language by default. This, however, doesn't mean that an official language can automatically become the <span style="font-style: italic;">ek matr rashtra bhasha</span>. Also, the 8th schedule of the great book (Constitution) also declares that there are <span style="font-weight: bold;">22 national languages</span> - not 1, not 2, but 22, in the country. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_languages_of_India">Source.</a><br /><br />According to the great book, in article 343:<br /><br />343. Official language of the Union.<br /><br /><ol><li>The <span style="font-weight: bold;">official</span> language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.</li><li>Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement: Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.</li><li>Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of-</li><li> 1. the English language, or 2. the Devanagari form of numerals, for such purposes as may be specified in the law.</li></ol>Please note, after 15 years from 1950, Lal Bahadur Shastri tried to impose Hindi on all Indians - there were protests all over south India, especially the Madras Presidency (Tamil Nadu). Finally, Shastri saw logic in keeping the country united rather than divide it on the issue of language and went ahead and allowed English to be used in other areas - courts, and more importantly, the civil services (especially the exams).<br /><br />Note the highlighted portion - no where does it say Hindi is the <span style="font-style: italic;">ek matr rashtra bhasha</span>, only official, and going by the definition above, you'd be wise to think that that would settle the issue. But no, the Hindi <span style="font-style: italic;">premis</span> will have nothing of it. According to them, since most Indians speak and understand Hindi, it should be made the <span style="font-style: italic;">rashtra bhasha</span>. Here's my reply to that: Using the same logic, most Indians are Hindus, let's make everyone a Hindu, that way we won't have communal clashes. And also, again, going by the same 'numbers' logic, the crow should be the national bird, and the street dog our national animal.<br /><br />I'm not going to go into the benefits of knowing English over Hindi in today's competitive, globalised world, where international business is almost always carried out in English. So there, I hope that settles the issue. I know this is wishful thinking, but hey, at least I did my part to try to explain the foolishness of trying to make everyone learn Hindi instead of English. I just hope someone who's very stubborn sees the logic in this argument, goes ahead and implements the change (if need be) as a 2 language formula, and settles the issue once and for all.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-74086149711371687252009-08-07T12:39:00.006+05:302009-08-12T14:18:22.575+05:30Much ado about Hafeez Saeed<div style="text-align: justify;">After the fiasco at Sharm-al-shaik (or however you spell that place in Egypt), our government continues to make blunder after blunder, embarrassing not just itself, but also the people who voted them in. The Sardar in charge firstly agreed to sign a joint statement with the Pakis in which although the Kashmir word was for the first time omitted from an Indo-Pak statement, it had a mind-boggling sentence stating that the dialogue process would not be stalled even if Pakistan doesn't act on the terrorists who are 'bred' there. To this, the govt put forward a hasty explanation saying that "what it actually meant it is that the dialogue process will not go forward unless the Pakis act on terror first". Simple question: then why not frame the statement that way in the first place?<br /><br />So leaving that bureaucratic-governmental bullshit aside, we had the Gujarat govt again send their new anti-terror bill to the central govt, and then to the 'lady-who-speaks-to-the-dead' President. Again, the bill was returned saying that some of the provisions in it were Draconian (this guy Draco wasn't very popular in his time where he lived, but is real popular in India, I must say!). One of the main objections is that the confessions made by a suspect to a senior officer is not admissible in court. Fair enough, but why do they seem to forget about that when it comes to Hafeez Saeed. So far whatever evidence that we have is what Kasab has said, and apart from that, there doesn't seem to be much else (if there is, then it isn't being made public for 'security reasons'). So if the govt doesn't want the clause of admission before an officer admissible in court, on what grounds are they asking the Pakis to prosecute Saeed? Like I said, if there are radio intercepts, or indisputable human evidence of some form which hasn't been made public because the security agencies feel it may compromise the source of the info, then won't it be compromised by letting the Pakis know about it? So if the Pakis can be shown the evidence, why not the public of India?<br /><br />Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that if Hafeez Saeed's role came out of the confessions of Kasab, how can Mr Chidambaram rattle out his usual lines that "...there is enough evidence in the dossier we have given to prosecute Hafeez Saeed."? I don't know about you, but I'm confused. This govt can't seem to talk straight, can't act straight, and yet they seem to be the ones in cahoots with the religious loonies who oppose people who aren't straight! Ladies and gentlemen, I give to you, the UPA part <span style="font-style: italic;">deux</span>.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-69838569760375193882009-07-27T08:37:00.005+05:302009-07-27T09:36:35.793+05:30From hell, with love<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Vijay Divas</span>, or victory day was celebrated yesterday, the 26th of July, and it was also the tenth anniversary of our victory in the Kargil war. Sadly, the party ruling the roost at the moment, the Congress, wasn't the party in power during the war, and so, just for that one measly fact, the Prime Minister, the President, the defense minister, and most surprisingly (and shockingly) the army chief, were missing from the celebrations held at the very peaks that were recaptured from Pakistani intruders. Now, unless there was a security threat (there always is, but I'm talking specifics here), unless there were real inputs of targetting the fuction because big wigs would be present, I don't see why the top brass in the government weren't present.<br /><br />The counter from the lame ducks would be that the PM went to India Gate and paid homeage there, and the protocol doesn't dictate that the PM be there at the function, and that his turban wasn't on, and he had a stomach upset, and the President was busy talking to dead people, etc etc etc. Protocol? Isn't honouring the men who laid down their lives the duty of the man who gives the go ahead to the army to launch attacks? How can 'protocol' dictate the PM's agenda so completely that he can skip a function as important as this? Another feather in his 'blunder'ful cap (or turban). George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld made secret trips to Iraq, a battlezone, during the war several times. The visit was kept secret and was announced only after the President reached Iraq. Couldn't the same or similar procedures be followed here?<br /><br />In the west, we have American Presidents going all the way to Normandy, France on the 6th of June to celebrate the D-Day landing of world war 2. Now remember, world war 2 wasn't just the Americans war, and the Americans were trying the liberate Europe (not even their land), and yet, because their troops were involved in the act, they pay tribute to those who lost their lives. It's been 65 years and counting, and still, even if they don't make it to France, they pay homeage in a grand and gala function. In our case, even paying tribute to the families who lost near and dear ones defending <span style="font-weight: bold;">our</span> land isn't enough to get the commander-in-chief out of her voodoo den, or our PM from behind his Roman dominatrix.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-42972732373302369682009-07-24T10:57:00.005+05:302009-07-24T12:06:41.547+05:30Activists - get a job please!<div style="text-align: justify;">I just heard recently that the NHRC, the human rights watchdog in the country absolved the Delhi police of any violations and wrong doings in the Batla house terrorist encounter on September 19, 2008. I was happy, because all along, right from the start, it was obvious that there was nothing fishy in the whole episode, which sadly resulted in the death of Inspector M C Sharma, who was awarded the gallantry medal posthumously on Republic Day.<br /><br />However, human rights activists, who are always up in arms whenever the cops' guns go off (and strangely silent when the cops get gunned down) <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/nhrc-clean-chit-to-cops-makes-activists-cry-foul/97775-3.html">haven't accepted the verdict</a> and are continuing their nonsensical charade for attention, because there seems to be no better reason for them to parade out in front of the cameras than to cause further grief to the family of the slain police officer. That, or they all collectively suffer from attention deficit disorder and I urgently request the government to get them treated at psychiatric facilities at the tax payers cost. Yes, I'm willing to pay more tax if the money will be used to treat people who can't use common sense and are forever willing to come up with conspiracy theories where the country's security forces are concerned.<br /><br />Now I'm not the first person to say that we shouldn't look into every act of 'self-defense' where force has been used. But it's quite evident that there's nothing suspicious in this incident. The fact that these 'activists' are even disregarding the NHRC's report goes to show that they will accept only one version of the event (or any event), and that is <span style="font-weight: bold;">their</span> version.<br /><br />Several months ago, when young girls were attacked in Mangalore in the infamous Mangalore Pub incident, a lot of people made a good observation that apart from the fact that some people are fanatics, if the henchmen of the fanatics - the foot soldiers who actually carried out the attacks - had proper jobs, then the number of such incidents will automatically drop. On the flip side, I know of some people, who again, choose to ignore common sense, will say that such a statement is made only to tacitly justify the attack. But think about it - who are the people who carry out the attacks? Poor, uneducated or those who've dropped out, those doing petty jobs, unskilled labourers, etc. It's a classic case of haves versus have nots. They see young people indulging in activities they would want to indulge in, but can't for want of money. They feel bad, then angry, and the first chance they get to vent out their anger, tehy do, so groups like the VHP, Shri Ram Sene, Jamaat-e-Islami, and all other ultra-religious groups will forever have cannon fodder for their perverse causes.<br /><br />The reason why I gave the above example is to draw an analogy. If the activists who still want to see conspiracy theories where there are none are given proper jobs, where they can earn a decent living and go to the cinemas and eat at good restaurants and buy a nice couch for their living room and have their kids educated in good schools, then the acts of stupidity that we see emanating from them will cease.<br /><br />I don't want to even get into what the so called Muslim 'intellectuals' have to say about the encounter. You can read some of the gems <a href="http://www.twocircles.net/2008nov25/batla_house_encounter_what_do_azamgarh_muslim_intellectuals_say.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">here</span></a>, and then roll on the floor laughing, or slam the browser shut (age of the internet, people so rarely read books!) in utter disgust - your wish.<br /><br />There's a great analysis of the encounter done by Praveen Swami, a fantastic journalist, in the Hindu. You can read it <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/10/stories/2008101053621100.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;">here</span></a>. Hats off to you Mr Swami, we need more like you in the media fraternity.<br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26495948.post-52689434414368725592009-07-06T09:02:00.003+05:302009-07-06T12:10:54.127+05:30A riposte to Barkha Dutt: Why Sarkozy is right<div style="text-align: justify;">When Sarko came out with his statement that burqas are not allowed in France, there was a lot of hue and cry from Muslims all over the world, and not to be left behind, Muslims in India as well went riling against his comments. Now, let's take a closer look and analyse what he said and why there was nothing wrong with it.<br /><br />In his speech at the Palace of Versailles, Sarkozy said "The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience," and continued to say "it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic." Now let's take the statement apart, and consider the first part "The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience". Can any self-respecting woman, irrespective of religion and putting aside religious considerations, tell me that the burqa is a 'good' thing? Or that the burqa isn't descrimatory? Remember, forget what religion says, I'm saying purely on common sense and from the principle of equality, isn't the burqa a sign of subservience?<br /><br />So now that we've got that out of the way, let's take the second part of his statement, "it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic". Last I checked, he was the President of France, and going by that title and the job description, he's the chap who gets to make the rules (ok, let's not get technical here, he signs the bill, etc etc etc), and since France is a sovereign country, it gets to make it's own rules, without the inputs from Muslims or anyone else from anywhere.<br /><br />Now let's look at why Muslims and a lot of 'sympathysers' were up in arms. Their main bone of contention was that this was not curtailing religious freedom, and that Sarkozy had not right to comment about Islam. On both counts, they're partially right. Partially. How so would be the natural next question. For starters, wearing a burqa is not 'mandatory' for a Muslim woman to be wearing (it's never mentioned in the Quran, so please don't tell me that it is), it's an article of choice. If it were mandatory, then we'd be seeing all Muslim women all over the world donning one, and we don't, ergo, it's not mandatory. Since it isn't mandatory, making sure that no one wears one because of the country's stance (France is secular - dictionary secular, not the corrupted, contorted, distorted secular we have in India) is perfectly OK. Please note the words carefully - I said because of the country's stance, secular in this case, . I don't see how can people from one country ask another country to change their laws because these people don't want it. Even the top Muslim cleric at the biggest mosque in Paris himself has said that the burqa isn't mandatory for women, so I don't see why Muslims and mullahs elsewhere have to get so worked up.<br /><br />Next, on whether Sarkozy had the right to make a comment about what is Islam and what isn't, those opposing his statement were right. He has no business telling Muslims what is Islamic and what isn't. All he needed to do was modify his statement to "the burqa is a sign of subservience" and leave out the part where he commented that it isn't a sign of religion. <br /><br />Now why have I titled the post as A riposte to Barkha Dutt? It's because of an article I came across in the Hindu dated June 28th 2009 by Barkha. The first thing that shocked was her comment that she found the statement "the burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience" of Sarkozy, 'offensive', especially since she had prefixed that statement claiming to be a liberal. She said the debate on the veil is too complex to be reduced to sweeping generalisations. I agree generalisations are always bad, but how is this a generalisation? Saying something is bad, because of having an opposing stance (treating men and women equally with dignity) is not a generalisation. What Barkha refuses to admit (in her write ups and on her show) is that in India, we have got the idea of secularism wrong. It's because of a slightly twisted definition we follow here (the Indian version of secularism seems more romantic) that . Knowing the correct definition of the word secular would automatically make for a change in stance.<br /><br />Where the hypocrisy of many Muslims shines through is when they cry foul over what Sarko says, but stay mum on issues like the treatment of minorities in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world. For instance, religious minorities aren't allowed to worship their deities in these countries publicly, they can't have places of worship here, during the month of Ramazan, they can't be seen eating in public to name a few examples. Why don't Muslims leaders and clerics in India raise their voices against these issues? India sends a large work force to the Gulf countries, shouldn't their rights be protected as well? Here, the Muslims will tell you that "oh, but it's their country... their laws apply there... we shouldn't interfere". Need I say more about the hypocrisy?<br /><br />One very important point to take note of is that a lot of Islamic countries enforce non-Muslim women to cover their heads while in public. Isn't this tantamount to interfering with a person's personal beliefs and choice? <span style="font-style:italic;">Au contrare</span>, I'll let you know that it's more of a cultural phenomenon, something endemic to that particular land, and so if the law of the land demands that, then so be it. I can understand if the demands made are unreasonable, but certainly this isn't unreasonable. Some time ago, In the UK, Muslim women refused to have their photos taken for licenses without the burqa - if this isn't shocking to anyone then something's wrong with them. How can we, in this day and age of terrorism, accept it if people want to hide their faces for photographs?<br /><br />By getting rid of the veil isn't homogenising society - Muslim women can still go to a Mosque and pray (or wherever they pray, since they pray separately from men), they can still fast during the month of Ramazan, and still continue to be dominated by men of their religion - none of that will change. It's about time someone in our country has the balls to, if not ask for an outright ban, at least get a debate started over whether this is required or not. Like they say, "it would be a cold day in hell when that happens".<br /><br /></div>Karthik Shettyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215763312804913735noreply@blogger.com2