Shetty's Take: Merciless musings of a libertarian

Old wine in a new bottle

2011-07-28T11:28:00.004+05:30

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.

Image source: Wikipedia
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.

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 your direct actions? The terrorism that affects us as as a direct result of your 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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

Pride Parade 2010

2010-11-30T00:19:00.008+05:30

"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).(Click here for more snaps taken by a friend of mine who was able to make it for the march)

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.

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.

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 :)

Colourful head gears

Bonjour from Morocco :)

First prize...unanimously

Reminded me of the WWE pimp wrestler The Godfather :D

The sign on her back was the 'emblem' of sorts for the parade

A JD(S) member, trying to gain some mileage

Fancy hair dos

What's a gay event without a little song and dance, eh? :)

Next time, hopefully I'll be able to witness the march as well.

Trip to Lucknow-Agra-Delhi

2010-11-29T09:52:00.003+05:30

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.

Chronicling the north

An educated Archbishop

2010-10-21T08:49:00.005+05:30

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 AGAINST 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.

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.

The verdict a nation waited for

2010-10-03T11:06:00.003+05:30

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 Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu denomination of devotees of Hanuman, 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^th century.

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.

Demolishing arguments of the Hindu groups

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.

Demolishing arguments made by critics of this judgement, one by one

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.

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?

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^th 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.

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 Hagia Sophia 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.

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.

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?

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.

Jumbo feline problems

2010-09-25T16:10:00.003+05:30

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.

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 "Tuh nahin jaanta mein kown hoon?" (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?

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.

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.

Jawohl, mein Pope!

2010-04-19T09:12:00.005+05:30

Oh sorry, the original line goes "Jawohl, mein Fuhrer", 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.

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.

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.

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.

Another post detailing the 'crimes' of the Vatican and the former Nazi Ratzinger can be read here, from the CBC News Network.. It's got a nice title: Sex, Crimes, and the Vatican. ROTFLMAO!!!

Below is a YouTube video of Hitchens explaining the deal.

The die is caste

2010-04-01T08:35:00.007+05:30

Last week, a court in Haryana gave the death penalty to 5 members of a family and sentenced the panchayat 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 panchayat and the family members were involved. I'd have been happier if the panchayat 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.

The larger point in question here is the role caste still plays in 21^st 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.

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?

Now I'm not saying that just because you would want to get married to someone from the same caste makes you like the panchayat 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!

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 madrassa or some such religious/caste-based seminary and at least save yourself from being called a hypocrite.

Woman's reservation bill

2010-03-10T11:36:00.008+05:30

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.

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 IS 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?

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!

The discussion between my mother and me went like this:
Mom: 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 have to face the elections, and if they lose, they're out.
Me: True, but so is the case with the education thingy. The candidates have to write the exams, there's no getting around that, and certain seats are earmarked for the 'weaker' sections.
Mom: 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!"
Me: 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.

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".

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!

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.

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.

My take on the railways budget and Sachin...

2010-02-25T08:53:00.002+05:30

...and in fact I'll start in the reverse order

Sachin:
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.

Railways budget:
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!

Is this a precursor to the finance budget, where we, the middle class, the real aam aadmi, 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.

My take on the fire and the Maoists

2010-02-24T08:49:00.003+05:30

Bangalore Fire:
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.

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.

The Maoist Menace and double standards of the UPA:
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 arrested! 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.

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.

Changes to the blog

2010-02-24T08:44:00.002+05:30

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.

The security state

2010-02-22T11:36:00.002+05:30

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.

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 AFTER the attacks? Why not shore up and strengthen the intelligence agencies to PREVENT 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?

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!

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.

Playing hide and seek, celestially

2010-01-13T09:38:00.002+05:30

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^th 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^th, 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.

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***.

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.

So please, please please pretty please, don't waste a day staying indoors and/or away from work.

Quiz On The Beach

2009-12-11T09:50:00.002+05:30

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.

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???
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!!!

Quiz Flavour: Business Quiz
Host: T. A. Pai Management Institute, Manipal
Quiz Master: Mr. Avinash Mudaliar
Date: Saturday, 9th January 2010
Prize Money: Rs 40,000-First Prize
Rs 20,000-Second Prize
Registration charges: Rs 1500/- per team
2 Members make a team
Open to Corporates (Team members can also belong to different companies).

Please check out the links below for further details:
http://www.tapmi.org/atharva/

For further Clarifications contact:
S. Gopinath : 09742353966
Nikitha Shetty : 09686007000
E- Mail: atharva.tapmi@gmail.com

Three to tango - 4

2009-11-27T10:16:00.005+05:30

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.

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?

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?

Three to tango - 3

2009-11-27T08:35:00.004+05:30

Part three - Was the Liberhan commission's report a load of crap?

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:

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.

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'.

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?

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.

I rest my case.

Three to tango - 2

2009-11-27T08:26:00.002+05:30

Part deux - Should Thiery Henry have admitted to the referee that he had indeed handled the ball during their match against the Irish?

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?

Three to tango - 1

2009-11-24T23:02:00.006+05:30

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:

1. Should women be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces?
2. Should Thiery Henry have admitted to 'handling' the ball?
3. Is the Lieberhan commission's report on the Babri Masjid demolition a load of crap?

No. I don't know. Yes. In that order. And yes, I'm still the liberal, food loving creature I've always been.

Let's take them one at a time, and this post will deal with question 1.

1. Should women be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces?

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.

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.

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.

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 prudent 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?

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 IF these were true (big if), the arguments I've given above would quite easily take precedence over these.

Given all of the above, any logical person can come to only one conclusion: at present, 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.

Reactions are welcome (I know it's been a while since I last posted...apologies for the same), but please keep the comments sane.

School reunion

2009-11-09T10:53:00.004+05:30

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.

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.

(L-R): Padmini, Prashanth (behind the board), Varun & his wife Poonam

Monkeying around (L-R): Me, Vinay, Prashanth, Padmini, Varun (behind), Poonam, Anjana

Obedient?

Blue between the greens? (L-R): Vinay, Roy, Dhanya, me
Dhanya - Blue house, the rest of us - Green house

Flaws with the 3 language formula

2009-10-21T11:13:00.008+05:30

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.

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?

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 the national language, it's a 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.

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???

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.

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:

Official language: 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).

National language: 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 ek matr rashtra bhasha. Also, the 8th schedule of the great book (Constitution) also declares that there are 22 national languages - not 1, not 2, but 22, in the country. Source.

According to the great book, in article 343:

343. Official language of the Union.

The official 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.
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.
Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of-
1. the English language, or 2. the Devanagari form of numerals, for such purposes as may be specified in the law.

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).

Note the highlighted portion - no where does it say Hindi is the ek matr rashtra bhasha, only official, and going by the definition above, you'd be wise to think that that would settle the issue. But no, the Hindi premis will have nothing of it. According to them, since most Indians speak and understand Hindi, it should be made the rashtra bhasha. 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.

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.

Much ado about Hafeez Saeed

2009-08-07T12:39:00.006+05:30

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?

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?

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 deux.

From hell, with love

2009-07-27T08:37:00.005+05:30

Vijay Divas, 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.

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?

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 our land isn't enough to get the commander-in-chief out of her voodoo den, or our PM from behind his Roman dominatrix.

Activists - get a job please!

2009-07-24T10:57:00.005+05:30

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.

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) haven't accepted the verdict 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.

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 their version.

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.

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.

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 here, 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.

There's a great analysis of the encounter done by Praveen Swami, a fantastic journalist, in the Hindu. You can read it here. Hats off to you Mr Swami, we need more like you in the media fraternity.

A riposte to Barkha Dutt: Why Sarkozy is right

2009-07-06T09:02:00.003+05:30

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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? Au contrare, 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?

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".

Carla, you beauty

2009-05-21T09:07:00.004+05:30

Isn't she a peach? No wonder that guy Sarkozy (yes, the same, the French President) went out of his way to get rid of his first wife and married her. Now I'm sure while there are other steamy pictures of Carla Bruni (which won't be making their way into this blog - at least for this post), I just became a big fan of the lady for her recent comments about a certain Joseph Ratzinger aka the Pope.

While it's well known that almost every person who's donned the (funny) hat of the Pope has been against the use of contraception (condoms) because it's against the Christian religion, some of them have gone out of their way with certain comments like saying that condoms ARE the cause of AIDS in Africa, and that "condoms don't work", and such tripe. Secularists and health officials have forever lamented at the Church's position on contraception, and it certainly comes as a breath of fresh air that the first lady of a western nuclear power has come out in the open and said that although she's a Catholic, she still thinks of herself as secular (the actual meaning of secular and not the twisted meaning that is taught here in India). Bless you babe, I mean, ma'am, show that ex-Nazi that we won't take everything he throws this way lying down. And don't worry Sarko, she hasn't caused anger among your conservative vote base, and if they actually did get angry at her comments, it's now for you to decide if you're going to back your wife who said the right thing, or play to the base.

I can remain an Indian for 5 more years

2009-05-18T14:04:00.003+05:30

Yippee!!! My citizenship is intact for another 5 years. I don't have to give it up yet! Phew. That comes as a big relief to me coz at the moment I'm in the middle of a really important deal to buy a house, and trust me, with a change in nationality - nay, loss of my nationality, things would have become tricky to say the least. "What the hell is this guy yaking about?" is probably what's going through your mind. Well, a while back, I had put up a post about the most dangerous forces in the country, and I had mentioned that if Mayawati became the PM, I would give up my citizenship. Not because she's a lady, or because she's a dalit, but because she represents everything that is wrong with India and her rule is a classic example of a Stalinist regime.

A lot has been said during the run up to the elections about how she could make history and about how teaming up with the third front would actually benefit her and the communists. And I had mentioned a lot about why that combo would lead to a disaster, and not necessarily only politically.

A lot was said (and still continues to be said) about how the middle class dreads Mayawathi because she's a dalit. First off, let's get one thing clear: no one in the 'middle class' is against her being the PM because she's a dalit. That's inconsequential (her being a dalit). I have a theory that I'm going to put forward, and let's see how it stands. I think the upper class owners of major news conglomerates, are probably the ones who despise her because of her caste, and they conveniently pass the buck onto this entity called the 'middle class', thereby getting it off their chest and getting the message out that 'someone' doesn't like a dalit running the country.

Again, let me say, I (representing the middle class here) don't want Mayawathi as PM, not because she's a dalit, but because of the way she runs the show. Dictatorial in nature, she runs her party like it were the mob and everyone is answerable only to the mob boss. There's no inner party democracy, and to slightly modify what Chris Tucker says in Rush Hour, "(s)he's (Mayawathi) the king, (s)he's the President, (s)he's Michael Jackson", meaning the buck stops with her. So what, you may say, that's how it is with the Congress as well, with Sonia running the show behind poor old Manmohan. Yes, but at least things aren't done in a high handed manner, the party top shots aren't openly corrupt, don't openly waste public money for building parks in their names, don't have statues built of them, don't spend millions on birthday parties (especially when you claim to represent some of the poorest in India) - need I say more? I think it's the very Stalinist approach that Mayawathi employs is what puts off all Indians, i.e. Indians who actually cherish democratic rights and values (as a people, we've taken to democracy like a duck takes to water, so it's hard to find a section who would want something else). For me, personally, apart from the brazen corruption, it's the statues of herself that she goes around erecting all over the state that makes my blood boil. I mean, statues of the living! And of her! What has she done for the public, for the poorest of the poor whom she represents, that would put her up on a pedestal?

Another aspect that is so loathed about that female Stalin is that she tries to use the backward caste tag and runs amock with it. Not a single issue that she tackles would be devoid from caste. But one thing is for sure, she's got guts to be so brazenly corrupt, but then again, maybe it's just that she's smart enough to have realised that our justice system is so rotten that she can actually get away with it. Whatever, I have another 5 years, and I'm going to make the most of them. Hopefully, at around this time in 2014, I won't be desperately trying to leave and seek asylum in Sweden or some safe place. Coward, did I hear you say? Nah, it's just hopelessness.

Don't our cricketers have to vote?

2009-04-16T10:21:00.005+05:30

The IPL and BCCI bosses may have made a big deal about accusing the government for moving the IPL out of the country, and denying the fans a chance to watch their 'heroes' live and cheer them at the stadium, but the question that doesn't seem to be asked is "don't the cricketers, being citizens of the country, have to vote?". Although voting is a fundamental right, I don't think there is a fundamental duty attached to this. However, that still doesn't excuse the BCCI from denying the cricketers their right to vote.

As cricketers, the players are role models to a lot of youngsters, and they need to set the right example by exercising their vote and egging the youth to do the same. By sending the cricketers on a tour (on national duty) or to play for their clubs, the BCCI is sending out very wrong signals to the youth. First off, the audacity to be steadfast in their initial itenary to hold the IPL in April-May when everyone knew right from 2004 that is the govt was going to go the distance, the next elections would be in the summer of 2009. And secondly, since IPL 1 was such a success, why couldn't plans be drawn soon after the conclusion for IPl 2 and make the tour in March, thus giving the other cricket boards enough time(well ok, may not be enough, but certainly better than the current scenario) to tweak the schedules and tours of their respective teams.

Mr Pawar, you can't have everything your way, be it in cricket or in politics. As agriculture minister, you went ahead to import the largest quantity of wheat, for a country that ushered in the green revolution, at astronomical rates to further burden the exchequer. And now you want to be the prime minister, without realising that running the country isn't as easy as running a cricket board. The ICC may bow to your demands because our board generates the maximum revenue for the game, but all the people won't dance to your tunes all the time because you can exhibit your money power in front of them.

Vote for change - Really?

2009-04-08T09:08:00.009+05:30

And so the great Indian elections are upon us once again (thankfully after the complete 5 year period), and once again it's time for the universal traits of politicians to shine through the despair and hopelessness, and once again I am reminded of Ogden Nash's lines,

Man is a victim of dope,

In the incurable form of hope.

We hope that things will get better with the passage of time, and every election, the youth make the right noises during the run up to the grand finale, only to have their hopes shattered by the motley, rag-tag crew that eventually end up getting elected to Parliament.

But this time, the run up itself seems a lot more inclusive and different from the previous elections. The youth, buoyed by the victory of Barack Obama, seem to have incorporated his slogan of 'change' into their stride, which is interesting because the current UPA govt and the previous NDA govt have a pretty similar track record when it comes to all major issues. Now if we are hoping for a change from a fairly stable and decent governance provided to us in the last 10 years, what are we hoping for? The smorgasboard of gutless politicos who've come up with a coalition called the 'third front', or the dalit dominatrix called Mayawati? Both these options will take the country back to the stone age, you can be assured of that. So the question still stands: change what?

Let me make my thoughts a bit clearer. I understand the intended usage of the word change. It's an indication that the people are fed up with the current crop who've parked their backsides comfortably in Delhi and in Parliament and enjoy privileges paid for with the tax payers money. But the problem is no matter what the youth (and by youth I mean all those below 30) want to see changed, they still don't have the numbers to effect this change. Now one other thing needs to be made clear: when I said youth, I was referring to the youth educated and living in the urban areas of our countries. And as I said before, they just don't have the numbers to effect the changes they want to see. Rural India outnumbers urban India almost 4 to 1 (some say almost 5 to 1 and more if you don't consider towns as urban and bracket them with the rural areas). Although we the middle class are seemingly connected with the rest of middle class India via the media, print and electronic, the disconnect with the rural areas (and for that matter the slums in our big cities) is evident - we simply don't have the numbers at present even though we see people across the cities unequivocally stating that they want change.

Which brings me to my main grouse against a Parliamentary form of democracy. The idea here is to elect a representative from your constituency based on the party he or she belongs to and whether you like what the party stands for. But there in lies the problem. What's to guarantee that the representative from my area is actually going to work for the development of my constituency? Take an example of some well known politicians irrespective of the constituencies they actually represent. Let's compare Arun Jaitley of the BJP and Jagdish Tytler of the Congress from constituency A and Varun Gandhi (BJP) and Rahul Gandhi (Congress) from constituency B. Take const. 'A' first - for the section that believes the BJP's only agenda is to divide India along communal lines, voting the BJP to power would be unthinkable, but when a decent person like Mr Jaitley is contesting against a Jagdish Tytler (accused of leading mobs to massacre Sikhs in '84), it would be a no brainer in favour of Mr Jaitley. Now the Congress may have a 'cleaner' image, but the BJP candidate is the one who gets voted in. So it's the individual and not the party that's taken precedence. Similarly, in the Varun Gandhi vs Rahul Gandhi case, sane and rational people know that if Rahul gets voted in, there's a section of the Congress that thinks he's already fit to be the PM, so people may be a little averse towards electing him, but when propped up against his cousin, Rahul is way ahead when it comes to working at the 'grass root levels', and is seemingly more calm than his cousin with his alleged new found 'fire'. So even if the people are impressed by the BJP's manifesto with all their tax breaks (failing to mention where the deficit will come from), voting for their (BJP) candidate would be a strict no-no when it comes to Varun, and Rahul would get voted in. Again, the individual triumphs over the party. Which is why in the last 15 years or so we've seen quite a few hung parliaments, and coalition politics has become the name of the game, with smaller parties with hardly 3-4% of the vote becoming king makers resulting in horse-trading and a host of ugly deals.

So does that mean the Presidential system is better? On the face of it, yes, it is better as it doesn't face the problems posed by the Parliamentary system. A chief executive is chosen by the people, an individual who is put forward as their (party) choice for the people, and he or she then selects his/her team and appoints individuals in charge of specific departments. These ministers/secretaries then go about doing their jobs only in that area, and don't have to distract themselves with the concerns of their constituents, for whom separate members are voted into the lower houses of the assembly/parliament. Take the case of the USA. Congressmen and Congresswomen are the people's representatives from their constituencies, and they work towards improving their constituency, without having to worry about foreign policy or any such thing, unlike a politician from a Parliamentary system, where not only must the MP manage his/her ministry (if they are ministers), but they also need to address the needs and grievances of their constituents.

For the voters this would mean more number of elections, but at least the system is in place to ensure that they get the best out of their representatives. I am obviously making the sweeping assumption here that the representatives want to work for the welfare of society, and aren't the power hungry wolves we usually find. It's obvious that those who are inefficient will fail to deliver in whichever form of democracy there is for there is no way an inefficient person can become efficient without an effort from within.

So at the end of the day, what change can we really expect when we are expected by our system to vote a person just because he or she may belong to a party that believes in a set of principles, and not because of the credentials of the candidate in question. Is it time to question whether we need to change our current system, or is it sufficient to just get the parties to change their mindset and put up candidates not based on their muscle and winnability, but because of their clean image, commitment and dedication to work for civil society.

IPL, hate speeches, slumdog credits, and what not

2009-03-23T11:51:00.003+05:30

So it's official now - no IPL in India this year. After dilly-dallying for two weeks, the governments hypocrisy/defensive stance has meant that the IPL, a domestic 20-20 tournament of India, will be heading out of India. Paradox? Yes, but then this is India, the land of paradoxes, the land of the Mahatma and the brahmastra (nuclear bomb), the land of the Buddha and the buddhu, the land of capitalism and socialism. Today's Times of India had an apt title - NRIPL. Opinions are following into various categories, with some angry, some resigned to this kind of a thing, while still others are glad it's not on during elections.

Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to have the IPL on during the election season for the simple reason that you cannot take the security men and women for granted. They are human beings too who are liable to commit mistakes when overworked, and mistakes made while providing protection during an election or a cricket match can be catastrophic. What saddened me was the fact that the Congress ruled states decided to play politics with Lalit Modi. Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh first granted permission, and then at the last minute pulled the rug from under the organisers feet. And then the opposition couldn't be far behind, asking what signals will this send out to the rest of the world about the security situation in our country. There was a point to be noted, although it wasn't echoed loudly enough. The IPL is a domestic tournament, so shifting it out to another country is a serious issue, irrespective of what the circumstances. On the other hand, the issue of whether the country's image takes a beating or not is completely different. The first issue, why shifting a domestic touney outside is an issue is quite clear - it's a domestic tournament, damnit, domestic. But moving onto the second issue, does the country's image take a beating, personally, I don't think so, and the reasons are pretty simple.

If there are people who equated the security scenario in India with that of Pakistan, then such people can be conveniently ignored. I don't mean any disrespect, for the fear for their lives must be respected, but the fact that they chose to disregard certain poignant facts means that there possibly would be no chance to reason it out with them. Elections in India are a massive task given the geographical diversity of our country, and for 62 years the Election Commision of India has been doing a fantastic job. Just the sheer magnitude of the excercise is enough to make this a logistical nightmare for even the best of event managers.

Now the security forces do a great job, but don't forget that they are human too, and if you overwork them, they're liable to commit mistakes due to fatigue, and a mistake during an election or a cricket match can be catastrophic to say the least. So why didn't the government make it clear from the very beginning that holding the IPL during election time is a near impossiblity, rather than dangle a carrot in front of the organisers and fans and then finally pull it back? The less said about this the better. But let me say this with full conviction - we may not have lost face by stating that elections are the foremost priority over cricket, but had we managed to pull both events of smoothly, we certainly could have enhanced our image in the eyes of the world, and that certainly is undeniable that we let a chance slip through.

Varun Gandhi: Varun Gandhi, like his late father Sanjay Gandhi, is turning out to be a maverick (at least, he's trying to). Since I strongly believe that the onus is always on the accuser to prove that the accused is guilty, I will give Varun the benefit of the doubt for the time being that the CD was doctored, because in all fairness to him, even when the video was played out, there is a word beeped out, and it's presumptious to say that the beeped out word was 'Muslim'. Why the mainstream media chose to ignore this baffles me even now. Are they in possession of the actual video where there is no beep? If so, what prevents them from playing that to the public? How can someone automatically assume that he was saying what he said against Muslims, and not against terrorists? If terrorist replaced Muslim in that speech, it would still make sense. Having said that, the remainder of Varun's speech was disgusting to say the least, for I'm sure I can pull out a hundred Hindu names that sound pretty funny and can be mocked. And I for certain wouldn't go about cutting people's arms off because they're anti social or whatever grouse Varun has against them.

Slumdog credits: How the Congress party chose to make a statement attributing the success of the movie Slumdog Millionaire to their rule at the center stills mystifies me. If a Hollywood movie, directed by a Brit, written by Brits, based on a novel written by an Indian who had nothing to do with the government (some might argue he wrote it in spite of the government!) can be said to have reaped the benfits of a 'prosperous' and successful 5 year tenure of the UPA (which hasn't the foggiest idea about movies and stories), then as the American's say, "I'm a monkey's uncle!". Even Dr Abhishek Singhvi's (Cong spokesperson) expression while making this statement showed he was embarassed, but was doing it purely for love of his party. I'm now pissed that the government didn't claim credit for Abhinav Bindra winning the gold in the Olympics, especially since they did not provide him with any practice facilities (he practices in his private practice facility created in his backyard). At least then we could give the government the benefit of the doubt and say that they were at least being consistent in trying to claim credit for something thet absolutely do not deserve.

Media bytes and media bites

2008-12-02T16:03:00.027+05:30

Predictably, a lot of people are angry and upset and disillusioned and disgruntled at the Indian political class over the attacks in Mumbai. I'm one such in a sea of several millions. However, I'm also part of a smaller section, one that wasn't too pleased at with certain parts of the Indian electronic media's coverage and reporting of the attacks. I'm sure those who've already been outraged by it will understand fully what I'm alluding to, and those whose reactions now are "Eh, what's he talking about?" were quite obviously thrilled by the spectacle brought to them live on their tele.

The three channels that I happened to swap between were CNN-IBN, NDTV and a little bit of Times NOW, probably the three most popular English news channels, not necessarily in the order given, but you get the picture. And from the three channels, 2 journalists who chose to , how do I put this, let go of the journalistic traits ever so slightly every once in a while and became 'just another curious onlooker': Rajdeep Sardesai (CNN-IBN) and Barkha Dutt (NDTV), both former colleagues at NDTV, both held in high esteem by and large by large sections of the general English speaking public.
Note: At the time of writing this, I was told that Arnab Goswami of Times NOW had even cried on air, or had tears in his eyes and it was quite visible, but since I didn't watch too much of the coverage on his channel, I wouldn't want to comment on his reporting.

So what exactly did they do that is worth chastising them about, and was it really that bad, because if it were, wouldn't there probably have actually been a lot of hue and cry about it? These are undoubtedly some of the thoughts that would be crisscrossing the neural highways inside your head. Well, take a step back and try to recollect what exactly was done - whether it was just reporting the facts of the crisis while it was unfolding, or did they go beyond, and were theatrics and hysterics part of the reporting, along with personal emotions that were coming out to the fore? Let me clarify that I am not part of any group that is constantly against the media and out to string them up every time I feel like. I am an ordinary guy who wants fair and balanced reporting, and just calls a spade, a spade.

So let's start with Barkha Dutt, who at most times asks the right questions and I've never noticed her being partisan to any one political party. The Mumbai attacks saw her day and night, shuttling between locations of different attacks, in the quest to "break" news to the viewers. Fair enough so far. Then when survivours pour out, she's on the button with the microphone, asking "How do you feel?" [Freakin' relieved, I'd say] "Can you tell us what happened to you in there?"[ Well what do you think happened?] Maybe it's the most obvious and natural question that you'd ask, I know, and I don't have a problem with journalists if they want to talk to survivours, because most of them can directly 'inform' their loved ones that they are safe, but it's the questions asked that are, well, not the most articulate, if I have to put it mildly. There are times when she puts her comforting arm around victims, which is nice, but clearly not something that could have been even imagined if she didn't have a microphone in her hand with the camera running (which isn't in any way to imply she doesn't care). So my point is, why dramatise an already emotionally and physically draining situation? Why try to make the audience connect with the victims, when in fact we already are able to?

On the NDTV site, she has clarified certain things, but has conveniently shrugged off responsibility with her statement "...I am sure we inadvertently made a few (mistakes)- as did every department of government...". Barkha, that kind of a statement is something we associate with our politicians to be saying, not from seasoned and well respected journalists like you. You would have been better off following in the footsteps of your colleague Srinivasan Jain, who never once floundered into an emotional dramatisation of the events unfolding behind him at the Taj Mahal hotel. Even when he was interviewing guests, including Milind Deora, the south-Mumbai MP, he never once lost his cool, and always maintained the same voice control throughout the telecast, and indeed throughout the rescue operation that he was reporting on, and most importantly, stuck to the facts.

Moving over to their former colleague, and editor-in-chief of what he claims to be India's most popular English news channel, Rajdeep Sardesai is an excellent journalist when it comes to asking the tough questions. But sadly, the tough questions come out in flashes, and invariably are directed towards an increasingly (and alarmingly) popular BJP and the right wing. Where does the tough-talking journalist go when it comes to asking the Congress the tough questions is anyones guess. Visibly distraught over the attacks in Mumbai, especially over the death of DIG Hemant Karkare, Rajdeep launched into a tirade against the right wingers who until his (Karkare's) death were branding Karkare a traitor and vilifying him over the investigations into the Malegaon blasts. What was sad was that he (Rajdeep) chose to twist certain facts and cast aspersion on certain politicians (read Narendra Modi). His channel broke the news that Mr Modi had announced a Rs. 1 crore package to be given to the Maharashtra govt. to be distributed to the families of the victims of the attacks (which included the families of the security personnel killed). He, however, chose to state it as Modi announces 1 crore to the family of Hemant Karkare, and attacked Mr Modi for doing something he quite clearly didn't do.
Note: If Modi did indeed announce it to the families of the slain policemen, that wasn't the way it was reported by the media at the time, and since then to the time of writing this, there has been no clarification by the channel, although the BJP spokesperson did say the package was given to the state govt. to distribute.

Also, what we kept hearing was Rajdeep harping on the fact that the BJP was politicising terror. In my previous post, I already pointed out the fact as to why there is nothing wrong with the BJP going around asking why there was an intelligence failure, or making an election issue out of it (to summarise, it's the job of the opposition party to do, just as the Congress did during the Kargil war). What's more, there were several states that were to go in for polls in the coming week (underway currently as I write this), and given the fact that the BJP was always harping on the fact that the UPA was soft on terror, they would have even otherwise said that the govt. cannot ensure safety of the citizens, etc etc. The Mumbai attacks just came as a shot in the arm for the BJP (in terms of raising issues during elections) at the right time. So Mr. Sardesai's vitriol wasn't very professional. Also, as a journalist, why wasn't he asking the center and the state the tough questions? Why wasn't he asking about why there was such a glaring intelligence failure? Why was the focus being shifted to the opposition, rather than towards the ruling parties? What I kept hearing is that this isn't the time to ask such questions, but the time to unite and face the problem. Sounds good, but then when is a good time to ask the tough questions? 5 days after, 10 days after, 2 weeks after? Maybe we ought to come up with a time table for such things: upto x days after an attack, no asking tough questions; from x days to x + 10 days, ask tough questions; beyond x + 10 days, no more talking of topic because media has to cover other interesting topics (where x belongs to I, integers, and x > 0).

Please, for goodness sake, journos, we in the public want the facts reported to us, we do not want a dramatisation of events, for which we already have Ektaa Kapoor and her clutch of serials. We as a progressive society seek facts, not opinions; we seek information, not disinformation; we seek rational discussions, not emotional hysterics; we seek answers from our leaders and so expect you to ask them questions, not just question the role of the opposition. Where I will give you credit is the fact that we did see some restraint on your part, but it would have been better had there been unanimity and uniformity in the coverage across channels. So what if there were no "guidelines" given to you about what could be telecast and what couldn't during this crisis? Wasn't it the media itself who were up in arms against the government when they proposed guidelines to restrict telecasts? (which I too thought was bogus, because I felt the media was responsible enough to decide what should be shown and what shouldn't).

Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State under the Clinton administration, said that Pakistan has everything that gives you an international migraine. Well, to paraphrase Kaveree Bamzai of India Today, 24-hour news channels give us our greatest domestic migraine. I hope they are game enough to admit it, if not publicly, then at least privately, and strive to keep things the way they ought to be.

We survived, in spite of the politicians

2008-11-29T00:22:00.024+05:30

I'm writing this post well past midnight, when the terrorist attack in Mumbai enters its third day - more than 48 hours later, more than 160 dead bodies and more than 250 injured. Where have we gone wrong? Well, in fact, that in itself is a wrong question, because the real question is where haven't we gone wrong? The attack actually shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to us because there are so many holes in the existing apparatus (and mind you, I say holes, and not just loopholes). The Taj Mahal hotel still burns, but the scars that this latest attack will leave on the families will be permanent. I say only families because the rest of the hoi polloi will forget about all of this by the end of next week and we're all going to go back and forget about the necessities lacking by our men in uniform.

The media:
So, again, what did we see going wrong? Let's start from the coverage. We saw shots of the electronic media try to brush past hotel security and police of the Taj and/or Oberoi to find out who was firing inside. While the action on it's own can be seen as commendable, the fact that the security personnel were pleading, I say again, pleading, with them not to go closer was unheeded. Since when did the cops have to plead with someone to allow them to do their duty? We often blame our security personnel as being insensitive because of their lack, or the level of education they have received, but when educated TV journalists so nonchalantly try to brush past these men and women of the security, like it's some right they possess because they come with a microphone and a camera, it is absolutely disgusting.

Staying with the media, I was struck by the hypocrisy of certain eminent figures from the electronic media, who talked about the politicising of terror. What exactly is this 'politicising of terror'? As far as I know, and from what I've learnt in school, the role of an opposition party in a democracy is to raise uncomfortable questions of the government when it is found wanting. I understand that at the very moment of a crisis may not be appropriate, because the government would have it's hands full with dealing the situation at hand, but otherwise what's wrong? Tomorrow if the state of garbage disposal is in a bad shape, and the opposition raises a stink about it, will it be called politicising sanitation?

Rajdeep Sardesai, the editor-in-chief of CNN-IBN, was understandably distraught with the events in his hometown of Mumbai., and more so with the death of ATS chief Hemant Karkare. However, every time a member of the public expressed anger on his show at the government's apathy towards a better plan to improve the security of the country, he termed it as understandable anger and empathised with them, but when politicians of the opposition, whose job it is to point flaws in the governments' actions, asked the same questions at the government, he termed it as politicising terror. Why the double-standards Mr. Sardesai? If you cannot maintain the levels of levelheadedness required to remain neutral (at least pretend to remain neutral) while doing your journalistic duties, then maybe you should have allowed your colleagues to take over, and you could have taken a break at one of the smaller cafés and chilled out a little. The last thing the gullible public needed at such a time, especially in an era where most of them (the public) have outsourced their thinking to the media, were the ramblings of an obviously emotional journalist.

Let's not leave out their old adversaries, NDTV, that constantly kept giving close up face shots of the NSG commandos. Now this may not seem inappropriate to most, but ask any security expert worth his/her money, and they'd tell you that it's not desirable, especially when the face shots are taken along with the names of the commandos printed on their tunics on the right side of their chest.

Society:
Even as the NSG were engaged with the terrorists at Nariman house, where a Jewish Rabbi and his family were the targets (and sadly, they were killed even before the commandos had a chance to save them), the public outside were cluttered around like items in an untidy apartment. Just why did the public deem it necessary to be this close to the action, where a stray bullet, or shrapnel from exploding ordinances could quite easily have killed or seriously injured. What's more, the milling crowds proved to be a hindrance to the security forces, as even ambulances couldn't get through in time, and the police had to resort to a lathi-charge! Imagine that, a terrorist crisis, and the police had to resort to use the lathi against it's own people because they were a little too curious for their own good. Such things can happen only in India - and I say this with a lot of shame.

The politicos:
Blaming the political class is something we do all the time (justifiably on almost all occasions), and at this time, it would almost sound rhetorical, so I'll keep away from it (which in no way means they are innocent and don't deserve their fair-share of blame). The amount of anger and rage against the ruling political class is near boiling point, and in some cases could well have shot past the threshold limit. I am now continuing after the attacks have ended and more the 190 people are dead, and over 300 injured.

It took me a lot longer to continue after I started because at most of the times, tears had filled my eyes and I just couldn't concentrate on what to write - my mind was numb! My thoughts kept returning to the television images and I kept gravitating towards the TV set in the hope that this time when I switch it on, I would hear the news I'd been wanting to hear- all over. But it took a lot longer. I vividly remember a placard held by a citizen after the ordeal. It read:
"Mr. Politician, I'm alive in spite of you". I couldn't have said it better. Hats off to you my lad, may you live for as long as you wish.

What's more, I know everyone will ask for the resignation of the Home Minister, but I have a slightly different angle to this: the Home Minister Mr. Shivraj Patil didn't even deserve to be at that post in the first place. No, this isn't the usual rhetoric that we usually hear, the usual cynical remarks from cynics like me and others. In the assembly elections that took place in 2004, Shivraj Patil lost! That's right, Patil lost the election from his constituency of Latur, but was still made the home minister because of his seniority and closeness to Sonia Gandhi. He was later elected via the Rajya Sabha, the back-channel route often used by parties across the spectrum, if they know they've got to satisfy incompetent, slobbering, egotistical , diseased-looking bastards like Mr. Shivraj Patil who exist among their ranks. So no one in the ruling UPA can claim that it's the people who voted them in, because although their alliance may have received a majority by the people, that incompetant slob Shivraj Patil did not enjoy the peoples confidence, and hence had no place in the cabinet in the first place.

The heartburn:
My sadness was for the lives lost, my sadness was for the economic impact this would have on the city and the country indeed, but most of all, it was because the Taj Mahal hotel was targeted. This hotel is the symbol of Indian defiance against the British, an engineering structure that told the occupying British that we Indians are not just as good as you, but can be better.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the history of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, let me explain a thing or two to you.
>> Firstly, this isn't part of the Taj group of hotels, this is owned by the Tata group - yes, the same Tata group that will roll out the $2500 car called the Nano, the same Tata group that bought over Land Rover and Jaguar, headed by Mr Ratan Tata.
>> Secondly, and more importantly, the reason I said this was a symbol of defiance against the British, was because this hotel, which was built under the leadership of the late Mr. Jamshedji Tata, was built because of the racist behaviour faced by the late Mr. Tata. When he had visited the Apollo Hotel in Bombay (then run by the ruling British) to meet investors, he wasn't allowed inside because he wasn't white. So he had a bigger and grander hotel built, not just for Indians to visit, but also to cock a snook at the Poms to show them that we can build better structures than them.

And it was this very heritage structure of India that took a hit, and it was this very structures' devastation that burned many a heart, including mine. The only saving grace is that the plan to blow it up and bring it crashing like the world trade centers in New York failed, and so it can be looked like a silver lining in an otherwise very dark cloud.

The real heroes:
Our cops and the commandos. The defence forces are only remembered when we want them to sacrifice their lives to save ours, and at all other times we are too busy shopping or watching movies, never once giving a thought to the fact that we are able to indulge in these very activities because of these men in uniform. Hats off to the police, the Army commandos, the NSG, and the Naval Marine Commandos (Marcos), for their selfless actions.

The rogue elephant in the room:
It's about time we stop dilly-dallying about the reasons why such young youth would indulge in such dastardly acts of violence and destruction. Its quite obvious that the amount of brain-washing that would have gone into them can only be the results of one thing - what many sane and rational thinkers would refer to as the elephant in the room, and what I refer to as the rogue elephant in the room - religion. It's about time we, not just the government, but as a people who are secular in our thoughts, beliefs and actions, take initiatives and urge those involved in proselytising, fanaticism, religious indoctrination, monotheism, etc. to put an immediate end to it, or soon, vigilante justice would be meted out to those who are even remotely connected to this, and predictably, there would be innocents who suffer as well. It's time we woke up and took stock of the situation, and we'd better do it fast. That elephant seems to be running amok and no one seems to be noticing it.

Trump cards of - religions

2008-11-24T15:40:00.015+05:30

I came across this post on the New Humanist's website, written by Christina Martin. It deals with trump cards for some of the popular religions around the world. An extremely crafty and wonderfully conceived idea, executed to perfection. May there be many more born like you Christina. Muah!

Reposted from New Humanist:

I'd marry this Christina Martin if she were available, and was willing to marry me. Why can't we have more creative people like her?

Women, vegetarianism and diamonds

2008-11-11T11:03:00.003+05:30

I’ve had an interesting time during the past three weeks. I’ve had conversations with two very beautiful and smart ladies about vegetarianism. Well, one’s a tomboy actually, so I don’t know if it counts, but both are intelligent, beautiful and opinionated (a dying breed). Both were born into families that were vegetarian, and as it usually happens, they towed the line and as with most ‘born vegetarians’, they started looking for reasons to back their decision to walk down the path they’d chosen. And trust me, this isn’t a veg vs non-veg issue.

The arguments always start off with “being against the perceived cruelty towards animals”. And when I point out that “I” am not the one being cruel to the animal (trust me, it’s well past dead when it reaches my plate), then the argument jumps to pointing out that if we didn’t want to eat them, they (animals) wouldn’t have to be culled in the first place. Sounds good, but then I point out that “…people require proteins…”, and before I can complete the entire explanation, they were at my throat (thankfully I had the conversations separately, on different days) with suggestions of tofu and pulses and other fancy things which are sources of protein that don’t involve the killing of animals. OK, fair enough, but if only they’d allowed me to complete my statement, they’d have heard me say “…and not everyone can have access to processed food stuff like tofu, and pulses aren’t available everywhere… so economics comes into play… so some people would do what’s easier and cheaper, like a person on the coast will catch fish, etc”. Well, it never got to that when I first discussed it, because women (almost) never allow men to complete what they want to say (now you know the reasons for ‘communication failures’). When I managed to say this to one of them, I got a reply “…but economics can’t be an excuse to kill animals”. Intelligent, beautiful, opinionated and cut-throat! Sweet. Easier said than done though, because then by the same logic, we shouldn’t kill plants either, because they too have life, and then we’re back to square one.

A few other points were raised about how could someone allow this to take place and that a compassionate person’s conscience would be pricked to know what’s done to the animals. We went back and forth over how plants too are living things and just because they don’t bleat or yelp while being cut, you can’t say that it’s OK to end its life. And to take forward the ‘pricking of the conscience’ concept, I have something that would (and should) prick the conscience of every starry eyed woman out there. Would you give up diamonds, your best friend(s)? Not because I or the millions of men out there cannot afford them or wouldn’t want to make an effort to get one for you ladies while we’re popping the question, but because of the baggage that comes attached with the diamonds. Everyone has watched the movie Blood Diamond (and if not, then go watch it), and there isn’t a lot of exaggeration in it when it comes to what is done to procure the diamonds from the mines in Africa.

The movie shows the cruelty behind the clarity, the cuts behind the cut, the carnal instincts behind the carat, and the crude and cruel use of children that brings out the colour, covering the four C’s of a diamond, not to mention all the gore behind the glitter and the sweat behind the sparkle. I told another female friend about this (another vegetarian), about how the mine owners (rebel warlords) would cut off the hand of a person who wouldn’t work for them to mine diamonds, and waited for her reaction. I could see the pupils of her eyes do crazy things, and I thought to myself “Looks like you’ve got her there!” But what followed was one of the craziest things I’ve ever heard, and I kid you not. She looks at me, all sad and with Bamby eyes and asks, “They cut off both hands is it?” @#!%?&^*. What?!?!? Does it freakin’ matter??? It’s not like having only one hand to eat, shake, and wipe your back side with are considered cool.

Which brings me to another point, namely, as part of being politically correct, a lot of people subscribe to the fable of ‘women are smarter than men’. Now in the 21^st century, why do we go around comparing the sexes? Ask a guy if he thinks men and women are equal, and you’ll most likely get a sound that’s a combo of a laugh, a grunt and a guffaw. Stupid? Yes, extremely. Ask this to a woman, and you’ll most likely get to hear “Of course men and women are not equal… we (women) are better!” Stupid? Hell, yes! In this day and age, in the 21^st century, does it really matter who is smarter? Because if there’s a prize that was announced, I certainly missed the announcement. And also, isn’t it the norm to compare apples with apples? And if women are really smarter than men, then why is it that they still seem fascinated by small, shiny objects, just like a mynah or a magpie?

So let me ask the question that is the obvious implication from all the banter here: would women who claim they are vegetarians because they are against cruelty towards animals stop using diamond jewellery because of the cruelty towards humans? Or for the ‘clever’ ones who are going to say “Well, I don’t use diamond jewellery”, would they put forward the same conscience-pricking argument to their mothers, relatives and friends (and this is open even for the vegetarian men)? And since we just concluded festivities for Deepavali, the festival of lights here in India, let me throw in an addendum (again, open even to the veggie men): would you stop bursting crackers because of the use of child labour and the inhuman conditions that the children are kept in to get the crackers ready each year, let alone the pollution aspect? And if economics can’t be an excuse to kill animals to feed yourself and your family, the need to look pretty doesn’t warrant the execution and torture of thousands of fellow human beings (and this isn’t even taking into account the cruelty towards animals that are used to test several cosmetics), and I don’t even know why we started bursting fire crackers during the festival of Deepavali, because it’s supposed to be the festival of lights and nowhere is it mandated that fire crackers need to be a part of this.

A nice way to evade answering the questions (for women) would be to shoot a question back at me and lecture me about why I’m not asking this question to vegetarian men, and why the topic specifically targets women. Good point, I will, but I need to find an Achilles heel of sorts for men like diamonds are to women, so until then it’s going to be only the fire crackers part and therefore only some indirect heat on them.

After talking to my two lady friends I mentioned at the start, both of who by the way, said they’d drop diamonds for something else, like amethyst or emeralds or just platinum (I don’t know if there’s any ugly baggage that comes with any of these), I was also told that it would eventually boil down to an individuals’ choice. So one may be an animal lover and not buy leather products of alligator skin boots, but if he or she likes food, then they could possibly decide to give the whole ‘cruelty to animals’ thing a skip, and the same would hold good for women who adore diamonds: they could still go gaga over the shiny stones and not think twice about all the blood left in its wake. Ditto with bursting fire crackers. So then the obvious conclusion one can draw is that it’s nothing short of hypocrisy. If morality were truly in the fray, then it would be based on principle, and principles don’t (shouldn’t) change from food to jewellery to bursting fire crackers. Does that mean morality is dead? I should hope not, but we’re certainly witnessing a steady but certain change in how we choose to manifest our morals into actions. Cherry-picking where we would want to exhibit our morality and where we choose to ignore it isn’t indicative of a moral person, and at the risk of offending even some of my friends, I’ll go ahead and say it is indicative of hypocrisy and nothing else. I won’t buy the argument that a little nuance is called for here because otherwise we will not be able to do anything without doing something ‘wrong’. Sorry, no can do, because I’m not the one peddling the moral/ethical issue here. So the next time someone you know tells you that he or she is a vegetarian because of morals and what not, and you know that they are exhibiting the same cherry-picking attitude I’ve spoken about, you can either smile at their idiocy, or just give them the finger.

*Note*: Before you start commenting, know this: I am NOT saying that vegetarianism is good or bad, and this is NOT a “veg vs non-veg” or a “which is better” thingy. No, it isn’t. If you thought it was, please read the article again. It’s obvious a veg vs non-veg article would have taken a different path. All I’m doing is comparing an action done under the banner of morality or ethics with certain other acts where the moral/ethical standards seem to have been disregarded, and have arrived at the conclusion that more often than not it is sheer hypocrisy and nothing else. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, comment away.

On second thoughts...

2008-11-09T22:21:00.002+05:30

... why don't I continue to blog here as well? That's it, I'm continuing here as well, although, it may be a week old after posting it at Politically Don't Care. So I hope I haven't chased the few people who visit this place .

Politically Don't Care

2008-10-31T09:02:00.004+05:30

To all ye faithful - no, not the religious faithful, I meant all those who visit this blog of mine (faithfully or otherwise), I shall now be posting at a new venue. My friends and I have started a new site called Politically Don't Care. The main aim of the site is to say things as they are and not try to sound politically correct so that a few idiots won't feel bad. Also, it's in keeping with my principle of calling a spade a spade, and so there won't be any toning down on my part or on the part of the other writers. I write under the name fiddlesticks, but do read the articles posted there by everyone and rate them, which would egg us on (as opposed to have egg on our faces).

Hope to see ya'll there, where we'll certainly be putting the mercy back into merciless!

Jet, set, and you're fired

2008-10-16T09:38:00.009+05:30

After Jet Airways had announced that nearly 1,900 employees would be laid off due to operations affected by mounting aviation fuel prices, downturn in air traffic and the global financial crisis, it was understandable that the fired employees would be upset. But what we witnessed after they were made aware of the termination of their services is something that we've sadly gotten used to, and something that is completely uncalled for and totally hypocritical.

Working in the private sector has its fair share of advantages, but also disadvantages. The young 'professionals' (who acted anything but professional), like all young graduates in India, are fully aware of the mantra about the Indian job scene: private sector pays you very well, but your job security is at the mercy of the vagaries of the economic scene, while in the government sector, you may not get paid as well as in the private sector, but you certainly have job security. Why the youngsters chose to take leave of their senses at the time they need it the most is most baffling. Don't get me wrong, I fully sympathise with them, and also know that my sympathy won't bring them any succour. But the fact of the matter remains that these people cannot blame their employers because firstly, they were the ones who applied for a job with Jet and no one forced them to join, and second, had there been no economic crisis, would these people have quit Jet airways and other private airlines because they have a hire-and-fire policy, which surprisingly seems to have come to light inside their otherwise poorly lit heads only now? If there was anything illegal in the procedure followed, then yes, there is a legitimate case to be made, but in this case, it's just a way to reduce costs at a bad time.

Another rather odd observation during their protest was many of the employees were seen and heard shouting "Mallya, go back!". What's the deal with that? Do these people think they're being fired because there is a proposed alliance between the two (alliance, and not a merger)? The alliance is in response to the crisis, and aims to cut the use of fuel by flying aircraft from two different airlines to the same destination, which not only makes good business sense, it's also a good way to stop a national waste of fuel, on the same lines as a car pool being very effectively used in many cities. What needs to be questioned here are the motives of the employees who've gone around shouting and ranting.

Now at the risk of earning the ire of those reading this, I'll go ahead and say this: one can be certain that if there was an alliance or partnership proposed during a healthier time for the economy, one that would undoubtedly have brought in extra largess to the employees, they would have even flossed Vijay Mallya's backside with their tongues, and happily. Such hypocritical behaviour is what the employers will need to take into account if they plan to rehire those fired if the situation improves. I hope for the sake of our economy that the crisis soon ends and the employment rate picks up, which would only result in an improved GDP. But after realising that many of the fired employees approached MNS chief Raj Thakeray, I only realised one sad truth, which is that most people are willing to stoop to the very levels they loathe and condemn at most other times. Sigh! The truth really stinks.

The Palin (d)effect

2008-10-15T15:53:00.006+05:30

The battle for the American precidency may be on between Obama and McCain, but the one who seems to be generating all the heat (and not necessarily the good kind) is Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, brought into the race for the sole purpose of drawing in the female vote which the Republicans seem to be keen to latch onto, especially since Hillary wasn't the nominee from the Democrats camp. Startegically, this may turn out to be a smart move, but the logic could also be a double-edged sword, one that could easily cut the Republicans as much as they intend it to hurt the Democrats.

The very idea that women would automatically vote for Palin because she's a woman, should be, quite frankly, an insult to all American women. Firstly, not all of them believe in what she believes. Next, women who supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries obviously supported her not just because she was a woman (but I'm not so naive to know that the fact that she was a woman did have a major effect), but because of the plans and policies laid out by the Senator from the Big Apple.

Sarah Palin doesn't believe in the right for a woman to choose in case of a pregnancy. Now, being against abortion itself cannot be held against anyone, but the problem with the current Alaskan governor is that she is against abortion even if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest (or both). This is truly shocking and extremely disturbing, even for a someone (me, a guy) sitting in Bangalore, so I wonder why Americans (men and women) would support her, unless one considers the obvious implication.

Palin is a creationist and like several creationists, is hell bent on having intelligent design (a euphemism for teaching creation science i.e. origin of humans as per the Bible) taught in school. Now whether the version presented in the Bible (or any 'holy' book) is true or not can be debated later (and my views are pretty clear about this one, as most of you already know), but the fact that religion now could enter the portals of a school is not only disturbing, but it's also unconstitutional, going against the very meaning of "separation of church and state", which is an integral part and the underlying principle of the secular foundation of the American nation (and constitution).

Sarah Barracuda, as she's called because of her intensity, is also someone who hasn't supported the equal pay bill, which basically calls for women to be paid the same as men for equal amount of work done (this bill, I'm given to understand was, however, passed in July of this year). This might come as an absolute shocker to most readers that the United States, the lone superpower in the world today, has a women at the doorstep of the vice presidents office, who is discriminatory towards women! The concept of equal pay for equal work may seem to be something that we attribute to common sense without any opposition, but then again, this is America we're talking about, where common sense seems to be as rare as a four leaved clover!

When it comes to foreign policy, this is where I was tickled pink by Palin's reply (when asked what foreign affairs experience does she have). The reply was to the effect that she was the governor of Alaska, and that the north-eastern part of Russia is very close to Alaska! If you're wondering "is that it?", you're right, that's it, according to Palin. This kind of logic isn't used even by our lame Indian politicians. And also, I'm guessing she calls herself a hockey mom (ice hockey) because she can see Canada from her backyard!

An article from the Associated Press (AP) dated September 13 of this year has excerpts of comments made by a few women from diverse backgrounds who support her. "We liked her based on her freshness" was one comment. Fair enough, but is that enough of a qualification to want to vote for a VP? Adolf Hitler was an excellent orator, and mesmerised Germans with his speeches about the 'German pride' and the 'German volk' during the 30s, and got to power without any real opposition from the German volk, but look where he led them!

Another comment was, "I really think she represents the true American woman." Really? American women are against abortion even in the case of rape/incest? Does that mean the rape and incest are now unofficially (or worse, officially) accepted? They're opposed to equal pay for equal work? Do American women readily (or really) buy into the bullshit that being the governor of a state that is close to Russia automatically makes her an expert in foreign affairs? Or for that matter do they agree with Palin on any of the other issues I've listed above? This looks more and more like a campaign by a female member of the Ku Klux Klan and not a member of the Republican party (I know many of you who follow American politics would ask "what's the difference again?").

For someone who famously asked "what is it that a vice president actually does?", she sure has come a long way since she had a 15 minute conversation with a 72 year old, brain dead man, after which it was announced to the world that she would be his nominee for the VP. Sarah Palin may now be positioning herself for the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 (assuming this election doesn't go their way), but one thing is for sure: the Palin effect shows a large defect in the American thought process.

When the Aussies come calling

2008-10-14T17:23:00.006+05:30

The first test is over, the match ended in a draw, which is good for us because we were able to claw our way back from a position that should have resulted in victory for the Aussies. Zaheer Khan is the hero, and with good reason. The burly man put up a great show with the bat and ball to bring us back into the game, and we finally got to see a bit of the Aussie brashness.

Haddin ticked Zaheer off, enough for him to put up a great show. But more importantly, it's a sign of things to come. We all know the Aussies can't keep their mouth shut when they're in a spot of bother, and we know that most Indians tend to react, and at times over-react to a situation, and when it comes to insults, no one can beat the Aussies. Which is why I chose to create a list of loose British and Aussie slang that our boys in blue ought to learn to dish it out to them Aussies! And oh, before I forget, this has to be said with the typical Aussie twang or a laboured Yorkshire drawl.

Oye ya bloody wanka (wanker)! You look pretty bladdered after last night; didja have a bender?
Oye Matty, did ya bonk Ricky last night? Ee looks pretty 'urt mate!
Hey Pup (Michael Clarke), why're ye camping it up here mate?
Haddin, you wanna 'ave a chin wag eh? Sorry mate, don't do tha' sorta thing with a stinkin' dingo.
Full o' beans today, aren't we fellows?
Oye, wanna take a hard one in the goolies?
Oye Ricky, 'ave we got a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock today?
Hey Shane, doin' a lil aerial ping pong are we?
Oh boy, your bowling figures are a dogs breakfast, aren't they mate?
What a bitzer ye turned out ta be!

It's ok if a lot of it didn't make sense to you, but it's worth an attempt. And mind you, no awful stuff, just the sort of merry banter that the Aussies are used to.

Secularism was lost in 1947 itself

2008-10-14T09:13:00.006+05:30

Secular

sec·u·lar [sek-yuh-ler]
–adjective

of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
not pertaining to or connected with religion.

Secular state: A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions.

Note that the definitions clearly state that secular means no connection to religion, as opposed to the popular belief that it means all inclusive.

***

Oh how the Congress party has screwed up the meaning of the word secular, almost to a point where it seems to have been distorted on purpose. Being brought up in India, and having attended a prestigious school in Bangalore, I, like millions and millions of Indians of my generation and generations past (post independence) and present learnt and continue to learn about the Indian freedom struggle. The greatness about independent India, which elevated its status above that of the Muslim breakaway real estate called Pakistan, was its secular principles and foundations. And by secular, we were taught it meant a principle where all religions are treated equally. Maybe it's semantics, but this actually is quite misleading. For the 25 years I have existed I did not check the dictionary to see what the word secular means. Now when I did, I got a rude shock. For many, what follows may not seem important as the difference between what we were taught and what the reality is may be too subtle to fathom, but then again, I'm not writing this blog for that majority alone, but even for those for whom it may matter.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister, was the one who proposed the secular model for the Indian nation, and being an atheist, he knew the true meaning of secularism, which is, that the state shall not be influenced by any religion, and that there will be a separation of church and state (in this case, separation of church, temple, mosque, gurudwara, monastry, synangogue, etc from the state). However, the rest of the congressmen did not see the merit in this, and instead of separating the state from religion, it was agreed to include all religions. That's where the seeds were sowed and we are reaping the problematic harvest now.

If the state were detached from religion, there wouldn't have been a problem when religious nutters oppose abortion because of their religion, there wouldn't have been the problem of muslim women not being given a fair share in inherited property because in Islam, women are looked down upon and don't get a fair deal. This was amply exemplified when an immature, playboy Prime Minister, Rajeev Gandhi, did not follow the Supreme Court's direction in the Shah Bano case, for fear of upsetting the Muslims, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling in her favour and putting the doctrine of fairness and equality of the sexes above the doctrine of the religion. A truly secular verdict, followed by a purely political and insensitive action by the Congress party.

Another instance where religion continues to get the beter of secularism is when it comes to the use of contraception. The Church is into overdrive with its take on the use of contraception, in spite of the large population and the rampant spread of HIV and AIDS and other STDs. The rights of homosexuals would certainly have been protected had the country been truly secular, instead of a disgusting, awful tasting mixture of all the religions and dirty Indian politics. Instead, homosexuals are treated as diseased members of society, where the exremists demand lynching and the moderates offer 'treatment'. Education won't cure an extremist, but I strongly doubt if it can even cure the moderates. Thank goodness the religious fools who raise their ugly heads every now and then haven't excelled too far ahead in science, or they would soon be opposing stem cell research as well.

Our country is more than 60 years old, and in terms of the democracies around the world, we are very young. But what is sad is that like most youngsters, we are headed down the wrong path, and seem to be developing some very bad habits. Old habits die hard they say. You bet, as can be seen in our continued acceptance and blind following of the twisted version of a beautiful concept called secularism.

When life throws a curve ball...

2008-10-14T00:33:00.004+05:30

What does one do when faced with a predicament one doesn't want to ever be in? What does one do when everything you've wanted to do has to be either put off or scrapped because of unforeseen circumstances that demand nothing short of an overhaul of all your plans? What does one do if one realises at the last moment that "this isn't what I want to do"?

There are those who are never shot at, and manage to waltz through this giant cauldron called life unscathed, without collecting any of the grime on the way, pristine in appearance even at the very end, while at the other end you have those who seem to have been shot at even before they enter this world, and more often than not may sway and stumble like a prize fighter who's just received the final punch and who's torso swivels and jiggles like a marionette on feet that seem stuck to the ground, ultimately crashing down. And finally there are those who feel like they've been lucky not to have been shot at the very beginning and feel they can make to the final base, only to cruelly realise midway that they aren't so lucky after all. This more often than not leads to a situation where they begin to wonder where they could have possibly taken a wrong turn, and wonder about the turns that lay up ahead. But every once in a while, not always, but once in a while, there comes a moment where every thing that has happened so far seems to have been for a reason, and a purpose of sorts starts to get associated with all the events that have occurred. These are the junctions where the roads usually fork, and choosing the right one could ultimately result in a catharsis of sorts for the individual.

When life throws you a curve ball, hit it out of the park and run like mad.

(This post was written during the hours of darkness, well before the morning rays of the sun hit Bangalore, probably when I was low on sleep and low on adrenalin, but high on sugar, which explains the lack of direction in the post. However, in keeping with my policy of publishing whatever I start typing, I have gone ahead and published this post. Not to worry, I'll be a more careful in the future.)

Religulous: A must watch for all those who consider themselves rational human beings

2008-10-06T16:55:00.006+05:30

Religulous:

-noun
A word made up by Larry Charles and Bill Maher, which is a combination of religion and ridiculous, and an unscripted, uproarious comedy directed by Larry Charles and produced and starring Bill Maher.

When the movie The da Vinci Code was released world wide, there was a big hue and cry from the Jesus camp protesting against the movie, and in India, they went a step further (just to prove their lunacy) and asked for the film to be banned, even though the author of the book had stated categorically that it was a work of fiction.

Living in the world's largest democracy, I have little or no hope of watching the movie Religulous in a cinema theatre (I say this with a lot of pain) because the religious hoodlums of the monotheistic faiths will hijack the democratic process and snatch away my right to watch a perfectly legal documentary/comedy film. This isn't to say that the nutters in the Hindu religion would have allowed the screening of any film that could result in the public developing a negative perception about the religion. That's how bad the rot has set in here, that people will not be allowed to read or watch something that can get them to think a little bit, because even if the film or book is not directly offensive, what if it leads people to question some of the long held beliefs?

Religulous is one such movie, where in spite of there being no hostility or propaganda against any religion, and it just being a film where Bill Maher goes about asking people, just asking them, why they believe some of the things they believe in. He asks them if they actually think it's real, (all the fairy tales they believe in) with the intention to only show how sometimes even educated people can behave irrationally when it comes to religion, the religious right of the monotheistic religions (I say only monotheistic because Hinduism, Sikhism, etc haven't been featured in the film) will have the common man believe that this film is out to target only their religion and it's a direct attack on their faith and so needs to be banned. In the movie, Maher makes it quite clear that he isn't saying that he's certain that there is no God, he's saying "I don't know", the three most difficult words it would seem to hear from the mouth of a believer. The aim is quite clearly to let people know that there are some things that are still not understood and making up fairy tales just won't do. And yet I won't be surprised if ministers will put bounties on the heads of Bill Maher and director Larry Charles, including the revered Hyderabad MP from the right wing Islamofascist party, the MIM, Asauddin Owaisi and his cowardly relative (nephew I think) Akbaruddin, who was last seen trying to scare Taslima Nasreen and threaten her with decapitation.

It's sad that our country has to be the country where those belonging to the middle-eastern monotheistic religions have to prove themselves to their counterparts in the rest of the world that they can more religious (meaning, more insane) when it comes to showing their faith towards their religion. After all, the Muslims had very successfully managed to convince an immature prime minister Rajiv Gandhi to ban The Satanic Verses even before the Ayatollah of Iran issued a ban and a fatwa on Salman Rushdie. It's extremely unfair that people like me who are true secularists (and usually have a good laugh at the expense of these religious nutters) have to have our rights of freedom to watch what we want taken away because the crazy people in the country would be offended. I'd agree if something wrong or a bunch of lies were being propagated against a religion, but that isn't the case here, and it's quite evident that they don't want to have any discussion on religion. It's as if the topic is off limits for discussion, let alone intellectual debate. Like hell it is, and I for one will surely get hold of a copy of the movie and try to make as many people watch it. Try to stop me!

Listen up, all ye faithful

2008-09-19T08:28:00.017+05:30

This is being written primarily in response to a statement made by a former member of the Nazi youth, who goes around nowadays using an alias called Benedict XVI and a title called Pope. That's right, Sri Joseph Ratzinger aka The Pope, recently reiterated his stand on life, and emphasized the sanctity of life "from conceptualisation to its natural end" while speaking against abortion and euthanasia. The usual stuff against abortion and how we ought to respect life was present and the Pope then warned the faithful against legitimising euthanasia "by masking it with the veil of human compassion".

Right Papa Ratzi (or paparazzi), I catch your drift there, but I have trouble understanding one thing: if you're so interested in things reaching their 'natural end', would you be interested to know that there are millions of Christians (among millions of others of other faiths) who visit hospitals to get cured of various ailments and treated for various injuries? After all, using modern medicine to treat diseases and injuries too should constitute being 'unnatural', wouldn't it? I mean when's the last time you heard of or saw a wildebeest going to the hospital to treat a torn leg which was a result of a close encounter with a jaws of a crocodile? Now that certainly would have been unnatural, but humans going in to get treated for anything and everything is fine, ignoring the fact that hospitals are man made and hence not natural. Sorry pappy, haven't understood that one yet.

I'm sure when his predecessor Pope John Paul II was shot at by a young Palestinian, and doctors were operating on him, Ratzinger was cursing under his breath, hoping the Pope was left to reach his 'natural end' so he could then assume the title of Pope and get to wear the funny hats we see him in. What say pappy, did that bring in an extra few lines on your forehead, knowing that your shot at the top post in Christianity was scuttled because of some doctors doing something unnatural? Tch tch, that's too bad. What's more, the Pope has also given us his two cents on why certain food should be banned. I'm talking about the ban on foie gras, which came into effect in 2006 in Chicago because animal rights groups thought it was supposedly "cruel". Yes, I agree force feeding an animal is indeed cruel, but listen to what old Ratz had to say as to why it needs to be banned: "If it weren’t cruel or painful, you wouldn’t have so many countries that banned it". Jawohl, mein Fuhrer! Just in case your senility made you forget, we also have countries where women are stoned to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights, and others are stoned to death for adultery, children are beaten with paddles, all because it says so in the Old Testament and in the sharia of the koran, and yet we see no ban on this. And I'm not even counting the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's well known that in countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, laws are framed in strict accordance to the sharia, and so, unless the Pope thinks that these punishments aren't cruel and brutal, I'd like him to comment on it when he can find the time in the midst of preaching that using condoms leads to AIDS! You didn't know that? The Vatican has for ages been against contraception because when Moses and Jesus and Mohammad lived, they didn't have any condoms, and back then if someone got a little frisky with a woman, voila! along came a baby. This probably explains the hatred Christians have towards Mary Magdalene.

Now, whatever I questioned above doesn't hold good only for Christians, but also for Muslims, Jews, and of late, even Hindus. Gone are the days when we could look at Hinduism as one of those cool, hip, and liberal philosophies, which didn't say a word against abortion or euthanasia or same sex marriages. Sadly, it too has been overrun by a bunch of zealots influenced by the kinds we are all too familiar with from the other monotheistic religions. How can the god these people pray to, be against giving a person a decent death? What sort of a god would it be that feels angered at the prospect of mortals giving their fellow mortals a decent end, one that even this great(?) god couldn't give? And doesn't it put an obligation on those worshipping such a god to question the motives of this so called divine and holy being?

Coming to another serious question, what gives only theologians the right to comment on life and how it ought to be lived and all the 'rules' of how to live? I don't remember there being a vote on this, so how it all come about? Did everyone else just accept it and move on? Although I'm not too keen on give this exclusive right to any one group, I think there ought to at least be a more diverse group involved in deciding what is the 'right' thing to do. We need to have those romantics of life, better known as philosophers, ans we most certainly need to have those well versed with the advances of modern science.

Why should there be a law against something based on the religious teachings of one (or a few) religion(s) that prohibits those of other religions from doing? Unlike murder, rape, or robbery, where the person getting affected is someone else, in case of euthanasia, it's only the person who wants to get eauthanised who gets affected directly. How about just having a rule that allows those who want to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise) can go ahead and do so, and those who don't want to, don't worry, there's no pressure on you. I don't know about you, but I think that sometimes, the simplest solution is the best solution. So whichever mullah or imam or priest or pandit or rabbi or granthi is out there, maybe, just maybe, you guys would want to have a rethink on this one.

India's most destructive forces

2008-08-30T09:31:00.024+05:30

Why am I writing this, when almost every self respecting Indian knows that the state of affairs in our political arena has almost got to the point of no return? Well, for one, the same reason why I started my blog, a window to release some steam. But more importantly, because most urban educated Indians are so used to market force economics in their daily lives, they expect almost everything to be offered as a service, and sadly, it's come to the point where even thinking seems to be going in that direction. The thorough assimilation of facts and arriving at a conclusion seems to have been 'outsourced' in some ways to the electronic and print media and people usually blindly parrot the opinions put forward by the media think tanks and other opinion makers showcased in the media (print and electronic).

Now for the destructive forces I was talking about. I had initially planned to mention only 5, but then had a good laugh at myself and realised that 5 is just way too small a number for dear India. The opinions presented here are mine, and no party or organisation is behind this, although I'm dead certain that the sentiments expressed here are the same; it's just that someone had to say it, and I did. And without further adieu, here goes:

1. Mayawathi Naina Kumari: Better known as Mayawathi, the current Chief Minister of our largest state Uttar Pradesh and the self styled dictator of the Bahujan Samaj Party is quite easily the most destructive force in the country, even beating Islamic fundamentalism because she is viewed as a means to an end for the Islamic fundamentalists, while the people she claims to represent, the dalits, view her as superwoman. Although she represents (or at least claims to) the most downtrodden people of the erstwhile Hindu society, she seems to have no problems with the fact that she is a multi-millionaire while the people who she represents never get to eat 3 square meals a day. In 2007, she declared her net assets worth Rs. 3 crore, and in 2008 it was Rs. 52 crore. And the explanation for this: the dalits she represents all contribute 5 and 10 bucks at every party meeting! And what's worse, there are people naive enough to believe that story. For a middle class Indian like me, figures in crores are all the same because I'm sure I can't even count that far in a lifetime, let alone hope to earn that much legally. She represents all the every modern, progressive Indian loathes. She has brought corruption to new heights, she spends crores on her birthday parties, yet when people die of hunger and starvation in her state, she blames it on either the center or on incompetent officials. She doesn't follow any democratic process in her party and rules with an iron fist, spying on every single party person using various party cadre, a la Soviet Union with the KGB. She demolished pubic property like stadiums and parks to build statues of her in the state. She is truly the epitome of evil and anti-progress.

And now she has her eyes set on the post of Prime Minister. If she succeeds in becoming Prime Minister, don't be fooled into believing what most timid commentators would say, which is "a downtrodden dalit rose to become Prime Minister... it's a matter of pride". No, it isn't. It will be a matter of shame for our democracy that we voted in the devil incarnate. One thing is for sure, if she becomes PM, I'm giving up my citizenship.

2. Prakash Karat, A B Bardhan and the Communists:

These guys are the primary support staff and scavengers, or like the Remora fish that stick to a shark and feed on bits of scrap after the shark finishes a meal, the shark being Mayawathi in this case. It is their assured support to her and her breed that has made her dream of the post of Prime Minister. Sure, a girl is allowed to dream, but if your dreams are the stuff of what nightmares are made of to the rest of the public, maybe, just maybe, it isn't such a nice thing after all.

The Commies have continually held the country to ransom and have been the primary cause for the lack of development and progress because of their outdated, Quixotic ideology, an ideology they stubbornly refuse to let go of, an ideology they fail to realise is alive outside of India only in some of the most brutal and repressive regimes, an ideology that opposes anything and everything related to the west. It would do our country good if these comrades are packed off to North Korea, where they can enjoy the hospitality of the Utopian communist dream.

3. Naxalism: Born out of the Sino-Soviet split in the Indian communist movement in the tiny town of Naxalbari in Bengal (hence the term Naxalwadi), the Naxalites are the greatest internal security threat the country faces after the crisis in the Punjab during the 80s. Naxalites have a de facto, parallel government running the show in states like Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and parts of Andhra Pradesh. With moral support from the CPI(M), and other political parties using them as a means to achieve their selfish goals, Naxalism has spread like a virus among the poor in rural and tribal areas. It was a tough call to put this ahead of Islamic terrorism, but since Naxalism is tackled at a state level and not the national level, and knowing full well that the states are not prepared in any way to tackle this threat, it's at number 3.

4. SIMI, Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism: Enough has been said and enough is know about Pakistani sponsored elements in India, injected into India to bleed it from within. Add to that an organisation that was founded with the intention to bring India under an Islamic rule, and extend it as part of a world wide Islamic Caliphate (of course, I'm talking about SIMI), throw in a few politicos from the Muslim community who not only support them morally, but financially also, and you've got yourself the perfect recipe for disaster. I thought long and hard about why this ought to come after Naxalism and the reasoning behind it was that the center having more resources at its disposal would be at a better position to tackle the crisis brought out by SIMI and its ilk. However, it's a close call between the Naxals and the loony mullahs.

Another point of contention would be 'Why Mayawathi above terrorism, Naxalism, etc?'. Again, means to an end. If Mayawathi comes to power, these forces will be strengthened, and they'd hitchhike on Mayawathi's success and her pandering to the 'minorities' (read Muslims), and eventually take her out as well. It all hinges on her coming to power for them to get strengthened beyond the point of no return. Hence the despotic dalit leader is perched high and above all at no. 1.

As far as SIMI goes, sure, the usual police rhetoric about them doesn't help, but the fact is that SIMI started out in 1977 as an organisation to 'liberate India' from western materialistic influences and convert it into an Islamic society. This alone should be cause enough to have them banned for good. I'm quite sure that 'changing' a secular society into an Islamic one is totally unconstitutional, and what's more, I quite like the scene now where I don't have to see women clad in black bee-keeper suits from head to toe. If the Muslim leaders want it that way, and want to head back to medieval times where they can live in caves and ride something that has actual horse power (that's right, I'm talking about a horse), then someone please tell them that the Taliban have been replaced by an elected government, or ask them to apply for a visa at the Saudi Arabian embassy. This country isn't going to become a sanctuary for Islamic nutters, and should never, ever yield to any religion, and has to remain secular for sanity to prevail.

And now finally, to the Muslim politicos in the country. Several of them, in front of the cameras would preach universal brotherhood and showcase their 'secular' credentials, but the truth of the matter is most of them are anything but secular, but Islam doesn't preach secularism (and this a fact, so don't write to me saying anything to the contrary), and most of the Muslim leaders are true Muslims, which means they are anything but secular. These men suffer from an inferiority complex where they try to attack women authors who express themselves in books, put bounties on cartoonists, have no issues with people getting forcefully converted to their religion but cry foul when the reverse is in progress, etc.

5. Pseudo secularism of the Congress: The attitude of the Congress party and some of its allies is very disturbing indeed, as they seem to be the support system that elements from the communities which usually indulge in anti-national activities bank on when in dire straits. For long, the congress has pussyfooted around when it came to acting tough on Muslims for fear of losing out on a lucrative vote bank. A simple case is that of the illegal Bangladeshi Muslims who have infiltrated into the state of Assam and have now settled in have have procured documents like ration cards and voter IDs. However ,in spite of being in power in the state, the Congress chooses to do nothing because they know that that group of illegal aliens are their most dependable vote bank during any election. What's more, it is usually this group that provides shelter and help to the anti-national elements who hop across the border and come here to blow innocents.

Even with the issue of hanging Afsal Guru in the Parliament attack case, they are dragging their feet. With no proper explanation given, they are making a mockery of the justice system., and eroding our faith in the entire system of governance. As it is our government machinery is crumbling all around us, and when the judicial system is overruled by a bunch of septuagenarians and octogenarians who won't last too much longer, citizens with young children have to take a more mature look at the policies that could potentially make our country unsafe for the children in the years to come.

6. Hindutva and the Sangh parivaar: Very many Indians, who are fed up with the slack that Muslims are cut in our country because of the value of their vote, often think that this sort of attitude needs to be balanced out by an equivalent force, and quite naturally turn towards the BJP and the Sangh. However, what they don't realise is that this is a vicious cycle, one that when viewed from the Muslims side says that they are being targeted for being a minority, and when viewed from the Hindu side says that no one religion can be given so much importance over another, especially over the majoirity community. Well, both sides are right, and both are wrong. Where the BJP and the sangh go wrong is when their leaders like Praveen Togadia make speeches where they say that secularism is bad and that secularism is not in our tradition, blah, blah, blah. Firstly, secularism is something which is at the very core of Hinduism, which sadly even the so called defenders of the Hindu faith don't seem to be aware of. Next, instead of using secularism as the tool to get more of the masses to throng toward them, they are doing the exact opposite which not surprisingly seems to have the exact opposite effect with the masses.

The activities of the Bajrang Dal in Gujarat, and more recently in Orissa, only highlights my point. Instead of taking the moral highground and showing restraint and earning public sympathy, the BJP and the Sangh have gone about it the exact same way George Bush did after 9/11, becasue after 9/11 there was tremendous sympathy toward the USA, but in going all guns blazing and attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq), the United States started to feel the wrath of those who until then chose to stay away from the conflict. Ditto with the sangh. Had they shown restraint after the killing of their leader in Orissa instead of attacking missionaries and destroying churches, it would have earned a lot more followers. Instead, by launching into brutal attacks against Christians, it has only had a detrimental effect and the usual 'stereotyping' of the BJP as anti-Christian and anti-Muslim and all that.

One can argue that it's about time someone stood up for the rights of the majority community, and you'll get no argument out of me against that. But the means that they choose to use to achieve this goal of standing up for the Hindus is what needs to question. Not every problem needs an eye-for-an-eye type solution. Change is the need of the hour, and these guys are in serious need for an image makeover. By going all out against the minorities, they are only playing into the trap that the fundamentalists have laid out to justify their attacks on India.

7. Regionalism: Actually, 'language'ism derived from regionalism. Not the usual north-south divide, but the divide over who gets to live where, and who gets first preference because of the language they speak. I'm talking about the violence resorted to by a certain Bal Thackeray (BT) and his supporters during the late 60s and 70s against the immigrants from Mangalore and other parts of south Canara who came to Mumbai (then Bombay) and made it big in the hotel industry, butt-kicking the local Marathis out of business, purely because of the quality of food and the efficienct with which the hotels were run. The sort of violence Bal Tahckeray's nephew Raj Thackeray (RT) and his goons have resorted to in the recent past against north Indians in Mumbai. Enough has been said about the folly of the argument made by RT, about how it would actually have a negative impact on the economy of the state, and how the 'outsiders' are not illegally profiting at the expense of locals (unless they actually are living in illegal settlements and making a profit by means of illegal activities). In Karnataka, we have Vatal Nagaraj with his dirty fishing hat and dark glasses branding himself as the champion of Kannadigas and the Kannada language. It's idiots like him who always give a bad name to a people, and this is especially true in the case of Kannadigas, who were otherwise thought to be very accomodating and hospitable.

How do we tackle the problem? Good question, and a simple answer to it would be to ensure that first and foremost, people coming in from other states don't get special treatment, which would only serve to strengthen the case of the locals demanding their ouster. Next, schools should make it a point to teach the students that discremenating on language is as bad as discremenatingon religion, race, caste, creed, skin colour or sex. And in case you want to blame someone, then I guess we'll have to go a long way back and blame Nehru, because it was his grand idea to divide on the basis of language. What would have been a better option? Well, instead of language, the country could have been divided into zones, like how the railways does it. North, south, east, west and central. Each zone could then be further divided into sub-zones depending on whatever compelling factors were prevalent. That way, 'micro-managing' the issues existing in every area would have also succeeded. However, since by-gones are by-gones, there's no point in crying over spilt milk now. In case I come up with more material on this topic, I'll add it later.

Parody on the miracle birth

2008-08-27T09:26:00.013+05:30

This could be read as a prologue of sorts to the upcoming Larry Charles movie 'Religulous'. Not to offend anyone, and I say it with all sincerity, but this was a little too good to pass up.

Reposted from an article on disbelief.net.

Jesus Christ and His Magic Kingdom

Christianity began in the year 0001; coincidentally, the same year a carpenter’s wife named Mary had gotten mysteriously knocked up. Figuring that he could be worse off than taking sloppy seconds to the Creator, Joseph hung around until the birth of her baby, whom she named Jesus.

Joseph seemingly raised Jesus as his own son, mostly for the baby shower gifts that were bestowed upon the family (you should never look gift frankincense in the mouth), and tried to teach him the family trade. While Jesus never showed much of an aptitude for nailing pieces of wood together, he eventually found that he was quite good other things, like healing the sick, walking on water, and changing water into wine – all of which made for good back-up careers, and entertaining party tricks.

After hanging around at his house until he was 30 years old, Jesus struck out on his own, and his act soon gained a strong following. As his entourage grew larger, and more dependent on him to make them look cool, he decided to mix in a few lessons he picked up from his real dad. He taught them some doctrines of faith, like charity, compassion, non-violence, tolerance and love – values that the church established in his name would selectively forget about centuries later.

Jesus's big break came when he got an impressive gig baptizing John (a well-known theologian who was also up for the office of next messiah). After a big palm parade into Jerusalem featuring Jesus riding a donkey (not like in Tijuana) some jealous glory-hounds hatched a plan to gain fame by taking him down. They recruited Jesus’ right-hand man, Judas, and with a few shiny coins, convinced him to give up Jesus’ secret garden.

Once discovered, Jesus was taken and, in a cruel twist of fate, made into one of his failed carpentry projects from childhood. But Jesus had one final party trick up his sleeves – raising himself from the dead, living for 40 days and then ascending to the heavens in full view of a studio audience. It was this grand finale that cemented his place in religion’s Hall of Fame and inspired a lucrative church business, as well as a never-ending line of books, statues, velvet artwork, clothing lines, jewelry, and other gaudy souvenirs.

***
In keeping with the spirit of the movie Religulous, this article best describes what the new movie is all about. Directed by Larry Charles of Borat fame, the movie talks about the nutty things people do in the name of religion, along with the destructive as well. Watch the trailers on YouTube, or watch it below, and be sure to catch the movie when it comes out in October.

What a loser

2008-08-26T16:46:00.006+05:30

I think this has got to be the worst moment in the 2008 Olympics, even surpassing the atrocities (if any) committed by the Chinese security agencies against any Tibetans (didn't hear anything, but doesn't mean nothing happened). I mean, how could you have the audacity to kick the ref? This isn't even football. As a student of karate, I know for a fact that students of any martial art are also taught the aspects of discipline that are so tightly coupled with the martial arts. I guess communist Cuba, or at least Angel Matos and his trainer didn't have time for that. I just wish he was arrested by the Chinese police for some charge, and thrown into prison for life - I'm hoping the governments of the two communist regimes could come to an understanding and have him drowned in the yellow sea, or worse, he could be made to eat whatever the Chinese eat, and only raw at that. I'd like to see him kick his way outta that one.

We won a couple more

2008-08-21T08:29:00.006+05:30

We won, we won,
we got 'em on the run,
with a yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum,
Olympic glory, here we come!

2 more medals,a bronze and the other one will at least be a bronze. Sushil Kumar won a bronze for the country in wrestling after 56 years. The first person to win it, K D Jadhav, achieved the feat in the '52 Helsinki games.

At the end of the day, Vijender Kumar, the third of our pugilists who made it to the quarter-finals in their respective weight categories, made it past the quarters in to the semis, and so has assured us of at least another medal. With his Grecian looks, this guy ought to be walking the ramps, and not getting punched, although punching others in the face is quite OK :)

India's best sporting achievement

2008-08-12T09:22:00.008+05:30

Finally, we win a medal at the Olympics, and what a medal it was! It can't get better than gold, unless it's a clutch of gold medals, but nonetheless, an individual gold medal, the first in our history...wow! This sure as hell beats the sporting glory our country achieved when we won the 1983 Prudential world cup at Lords and the inaugural T20 world cup that we won last year in South Africa. And I'm not even taking into account the hockey teams' feat of 6 consecutive Olympic golds. Also, this isn't to say that an individual triumph is better than a team victory (for one thing, they shouldn't even be compared), but it's the occasion, the magnitude and the ramifications of the victory that decide which was better. When Leander Paes was asked which was the finest victory in his career, he didn't mention any of his grand slam victories, or even his victory over Pete Sampras, but the bronze medal he won at the 96 Atlanta Olympics. And the reason was simple, according to him: at Wimbledon and elsewhere, it would read, 'Leander Paes & Mahesh Bhupathi - Winners', but at the Olympics it said 'India - 1 medal'.

The cricket team of the past (1983) and the current crop that won the T20 world cup deserved every bit of the plaudits that they received, and you can't blame them that cricket isn't a sport in the Olympics where they could perform and try to win a medal for the country on a world stage of this size, but then again, our athletes who make it to this theater of athletic and sporting pinnacle don't get paid the way our cricketers do, and so it's only fair that they be given a slightly larger share of the plauditary pie; even our cricketers wouldn't mind it for sure.

Abort! Abort! Abort!

2008-08-05T08:26:00.009+05:30

Once again the debate about who should have the final say about the continuation of a pregnancy has shown it's ugly face. The question faced by the Mehta couple is that if their child is indeed born with a heart defect that could eventually lead to, at best, being on a ventilator, or at worst the child losing it's life due to heart failure (maybe dying would be the better option and being on the ventilator the worse option... I don't know), then would it be worth it. If the parents know that they cannot afford the costs to keep their child on a ventilator, what's wrong in them opting for an abortion of the pregnancy and try for another child, hopefully which wouldn't have any threatening defects?

The law here is based purely on medical science, which is that a pregnancy can be terminated only before 20 weeks and not after, for two important reasons: 1) A termination after 20 weeks increases the chances of risk to the mother's life. 2) After 20 weeks, technically, the foetus starts to show signs of life i.e. if it were to be delivered before the 20th week, it would be born as a still born (meaning without life), but if it were to be be born after the 20th week, it could technically survive because it would be born 'alive', and so in the most technical sense, you would be killing something (someone) that (who) has signs of 'life'.

Agreed, in the case of the Mehta's, the pregnancy is in it's 26th week, and so there could be risk to Mrs. Mehta's life. But if that is the sole reason to deny an abortion (because the mother is at risk), then why don't we have laws that check for risks involved in other day-to-day actions: like we've been taught in school to look right and then left while crossing the roads or we could end up in an accident, but we don't have laws that mandate we do this. Why not? After all, it could lead to death if not followed carefully. Hospitals are supposed to use disposable syringes, but a person reusing a syringe is not punished for putting his or her life in danger. There are several examples that can be cited to counter the argument that the mother's life may be at risk and hence the abortion shouldn't be performed.

For the Mehta's sake, I hope their child is born without any defects and can lead a normal life. What the heck am I saying: normal? How the hell can the child live a normal life even if he or she is born without any defects? The child's entire life will be enveloped in the fact that it's parents never wanted it to be born for fear of losing it, and all this because in the 21st century, we like to watch everything in technicolour. This story has been in all the news channels and papers and I'm certain that even if the child is insulated from this fact, he or she will eventually get to know about it. What then? Who should bear the responsibility for the child's trauma? The parents? No, not at all. Since it is primarily societal pressure that is preventing the couple from doing what they feel is best for their child, the blame has to be put squarely on our society. I certainly hope to live to see the day when we stop making decisions based on societal pressures (the first one that comes to mind apart from abortion is marriage of the girl child, where everyone's opinion but the girl's is taken).

Pro-life, pro-choice, the debate isn't new, not in India, not anywhere else in the world. It's been a cause for the religious loonies to lose their marbles every now and then, and it's also been the catalyst for a lot of political strife. I for one know that I am very consistent with my views on death. I'm pro death penalty, I'm pro choice (pro abortion), I'm pro suicide, I'm pro assisted suicide (euthanasia)... in short, I'm pro death if a person wishes it for himself or herself, and in the case of abortion, if they wish it for a foetus (because it isn't born yet, and only the parents get to decide if it's a 'person' or not, and if it should be 'born' or not). At least I'm not a hypocrite, which can't be said about most of those who are on the other side.

Why no secret ballot?

2008-07-25T11:17:00.005+05:30

After the showdown at Parliament a couple of days back ,the brickbats have been flying against those who cross-voted, while the man in the 'hot-seat', the speak Mr. Chatterjee, is busy deciding if he should quit or not. Money was shown in Parliament, and thanks to a strange verdict by the Supreme Court in the early 90s, MPs indulging in unlawful activities would be immune.

In our democracy, we practice the concept of 'secret ballot', where each person casts his/her vote in secret and hence is shielded from scrutiny by others. Why can't the same practice be followed in Parliament during a trust vote? I mean, unless there is a law that forbids this, wouldn't this be better, and spare those who may have cross-voted (due to their conscience or inducements) from the wrath of angry party cadre who usually go on a rampage, targeting the MPs in question.

I am obviously sympathetic towards Mr H T Sangliana, the BJP MP from Bangalore who has been facing the brunt of the party's ire in Bangalore as he chose to vote with the UPA because he felt the nuclear deal was in the best interest of the country. While the attitude of the BJP's spokesperson Rajeev Pratap Rudy was disgusting (he said the MPs who cross voted should now seek protection from the UPA, meaning his party had issued orders to vandalise the properties of people like Mr Sangliana), an important question arises: in a democratic, free society, should there be a line drawn for a person to stay within when his/her conscience clashes with the party line? Should party interest trump national interest? Can't a person be a part of a political party for only a few principles that they may share in common and decide on the others based on their conscience? After all, all political parties claim they do not endorse murderers and criminals (in politics or otherwise), yet their presence is never found wanting.

Mine is crazier than yours

2008-07-11T11:42:00.006+05:30

I'm beginning to wonder if there is a limit to the stupidity and absurdity of religious people. Read this story.

Reposted from P Z Myers' Pharyngula.

To put it in a nutshell (in case you're in a hurry and can't/don't wanna read the whole thing): a Florida University student is being threatened by Christians (even death threats) because he did not eat the wafer given to him in church, but instead kept it in his mouth and took it outside the church. This act, according to Christians, is akin to holding Jesus Christ hostage as the wafer is supposed to represent a part of Christ. And what's more, they want the wafer back! But hang on, that's not the real shocker. No siree, the shocker was that it was compared to the kidnapping of a real person!!! Aarg, my head's gonna explode soon.

***

There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.

Here's a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity.

Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn't eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.

This isn't the stupid part yet. He walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker!

Catholics worldwide became furious.

Would you believe this isn't hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this — Webster Cook has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say, but here is the considered, measured response of the local diocese:

"We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."

We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated."

Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?

Well, you could have a priest compare this event to a kidnapping.

"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."

Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.

I like the idea of sending a scary nun to guard the ceremony at the next mass. But even better…let's send Webster Cook to hell!

Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.

"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."

Get some perspective, man. IT'S A CRACKER.

And of course, Bill Donohue is outraged (I know, Donohue is going to die of apoplexy someday when a gnat violates his oatmeal, so this isn't saying much).

For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage--regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance--is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.

Oh, beyond hate speech. Where does this fit on the Shoah scale, Bill? It shouldn't even register, but here is Wild-Eyed Bill the Offended calling for the expulsion of a student…for not swallowing a cracker.

Would you believe that the mealy-mouthed president of the university, John Hitt, is avoiding defending his student is instead playing up the importance of the Catholic church to the university? Of course you would. That's what university presidents do. Bugger the students, keep the donors and the state reps happy.

Unfortunately, Webster Cook has now returned the cracker. Why?

Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger.

That's right. Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented fuckwits. And Cook is not out of the fire yet — that Fox News story ends with an open incitement to cause him further misery.

University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can. If that happens, Webster will go through a hearing either in front of an administrative panel or a panel of his peers.

Got that? If you don't like what Webster Cook did, all you have to do is complain to the university, and they will do the dirty work for you of making his college experience miserable. And don't assume the university would support Cook; the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass.

I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.

Just wait. Now there'll be a team of Jesuits assigned to rifle through my mail every day.

***

I wonder why people go about bullying Muslims alone in this regard (when it comes to following a loony religion). Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism (technically, it's not a religion, it's a philosophy, but what the hell, it's my blog) too have a lot of absurdity that's hard-wired into a lot of it's principles.

But hey, people have the right to follow any religion, right? Even the funny ones; like all of them!

Bannerghatta Butterfly Park & Zoo

2008-07-07T09:50:00.025+05:30

Butterfly butterfly, flutter by, flutter by. That was the first thing that came to mind when I went to the country's first and only (so far) butterfly park in Bannerghatta (about 18 km from home). The butterfly park was a beauty, but I was disappointed I didn't get to see too many of the colourful chaps up close (yes, I know, they won't come up to me unless I'm a flower). But Indians will be Indians, and damned Indians at that. I was just too ashamed ans saddened to click snaps of the chips packets ans toffee wrappers strewn about by our people, so instead picked some up with my brother following suit and threw them in the dustbin, which are there everywhere, begging the question: is this problem genetic?

The projector wasn't working so we couldn't watch the movie, but the park and the museum were very nice indeed. The plants, flowers and trees grown there are lovely and maintained very well indeed, while charging only Rs.20 as an entry fee, with an additional Rs.20 for a still camera and Rs.110 for a video camera. Spread over 7.5 acres, this is one place that everyone in Bangalore must visit once, but be sure not to allow children (if you're bring any) to catch and torture the butterflies once inside the park. I found one little brat doing that, and if it wasn't for the fact that he was a Muslim (everything told to them usually ends up as them being targeted for being a minority! Bullsh*t), he and his parents would have received a far severe verbal lashing from me than what they eventually got: a glare, a finger wagging and a polite 'don't let him do that'.

Some of the butterflies that I did manage to get in front of the lens are shown here (thanks to KD for the names of the butterflies):

This poor chap (Blue Tiger) had a partially damaged wing.

And so did this guy :(

(Common Castor)

Some of them were very stubborn and didn't open their wings at all! I had a good mind to open them up a bit, just in case they were having some trouble (kidding, of course).

Blue Tiger

Lime

A spider feasting on a pupa...
didn't want to disturb the spider
and so clicked without trying
to get it to show it's head.

After the butterfly park it was off to the lion and tiger safari and the zoo. Well, it looks like the lion is the same I saw about 12 years ago (if that's possible). Didn't look very healthy (well, it's not in the savanna hunting), but hey, in a 'stage-managed' safari, you can't expect more.

The tigers looked a lot better (no wonder it's our national animal), and the white tiger that was roaming around, scratching the trees was a really nice sight (oh how I wish theses cats are released into the wild). I overheard someone talking about how these national symbols are overrated and that we shouldn't associate too much emotion to them. Well, I wanted turn and bitch slap him in front of his wife an kid, and then ask him if he'd like me to do the same to his kid and tell him not too attach too much emotion to something he can 'make' again!

I'm going to adopt one of the tigers in the park (by adopt, I don't mean I'll bring it home, but I'll provide the funds to feed it and cover it's treatment); I'm not sure how much it costs, but that's my contribution. And the king cobra (kept in the zoo). I don't care even if I don't get tax relief for this, but this is gonna be my contribution towards improving the facilities that the government seems to have forgotten.

Persepolis: the best way to criticise religion?

2008-06-27T11:19:00.014+05:30

Persepolis. The ceremonial capital of the Persian empire, Pārsa in Persian which means "city of Persians". And Persepolis, the animated movie about the life of Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian lady who lived through the Islamic revolution in the late 70s in Iran which deposed the Shah, and threw Iran into a Shi'ite theocracy. I went to watch this movie with a couple of the guys (well, they're the only two left here from the school gang) last evening.

Mostly in black and white (in an era where animated colour pixels come alive in all forms), this is a simple, yet beautifully crafted film, which sends out the message of the oppression brought about by the mullahs of the Islamic religion (the Shia sect in this case). The movie goes on to show Marjane's life being brought up in a liberal, educated, cosmopolitan Iranian family during the regime of the Shah and the atrocities committed against communists by the Shah's secret police (with the aid of the American CIA) and later, the further persecution of innocents by the mullah brigade under the dictatorial, theocratic rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

The movie shows the recent past history of Iran, and hopefully people go to watch it realising that this is not a fictional story created for laughs, but about what actually happened in Iran and it's descent into the dangerous theocracy it is now under Mahmud Ahmedinejad. It also shows how much we seem to have taken our democracy and freedom for granted, because the restrictions that crop up in the name of religion is mind boggling and numbing, tempered only by the satire that Marjane throws in to keep the smile on the faces of the audience.

A few subtle pointers were made about communism and Marxism, with one scene showing god and Karl Marx giving different pieces of advice to young Marjane. For those wondering why Marx entered the picture, that's because a lot of the Iranian youth who were opposed to the Shah took to Communism via Marxism. In fact, Marjane's uncle too had done the same, and since Communists are avowedly atheists, they (the communists) weren't in favour with the religious nuts who came into power, and many were summarily executed after the Shah's ouster.

Restrictions from religion should not be mandatory, but optional. The religious doctrines should not be viewed as rules, but as guidelines. What's the difference, some peasant minded person may ask. For one, a rule is not something that you are allowed to break, and if you do, there's a punishment attached to it. Guidelines, on the other hand, need not be strictly adhered to as it's optional to choose to follow it or not. Because at the end of the day, whoever thought up of the religious rules for how a person should lead his or her life, would have done so based on his opinion of what is good for a person and what isn't. Marjane effectively shows the hypocrisy in Islam during class: when a senior religious figure addresses the university students, he chides the women about the western trousers they wear and how it tempts men into doing bad things, and how their head scarfs need to be tied lower to cover more of their head, Marjane starts by telling him that as an art student, she has to move about in class and a long head scarf and gown wouldn't allow for free movement, and the western trousers allow them to walk about freely with tripping over. While their clothes may seem to 'tempt' men, what about the other way around: why are men allowed to wear nut-huggers when that could clearly turn a girl on? But the clincher was her question about what god really cares about: is it the fashion sense of the woman? The movie shows how the youth were conscripted into the army to fight Iraq when Saddam decided to invade Iran (with American blessings, of course), but promising them a wonderful afterlife in paradise in the company of 72 virgins (which, by the way, is a very suspicious number-why 72?). That, to me, is the lowest any religion can get: promising sex with virgins is the just downright cheap and low. And this also begs the question: what about women martyrs? Do they get to spend time in paradise in the company of 72 virgin men?

Oh, and did I forget to mention that this isn't an animated movie for children? No siree, kids wouldn't follow a thing unless they're aware of a little bit of history. But on the other hand, when I went to watch the movie, a large number of adults too, sadly, did not know even a little bit of the history of Iran and so (again, sadly), watched the movie as if it was a purely fictional work and not an autobiographical piece. Nonetheless, it's a great movie, and a fantastic way to show how religious zealots can get away with even murder in the name of religion. However, the taste of the pudding is in the eating and so whether this method of how criticism works, without going hammer and tongs at the opposition, remains to be seen.

And after the movie, we caught dinner at Transit (only place open at Forum) and first had some 99% vegetarian ice cream (which we thought was a rip off: 80 bucks for a cup smaller than the palm of my hand). We then went to the Rajdhani counter and ordered a plate of dahi vada (3 in a plate, so it was perfect) and shared a thali with, well, a lot of things in it. Good movie, good food, good conversation; awesome combo to have before you hit the sack.

A Pinxx Saturday afternoon

2008-06-23T09:01:00.010+05:30

This post is also available on my food blog.

XX and XY. That's how the rest rooms at Pinxx are marked, and if you weren't too good at bio in school and don't know which chromosome combination is for a guy and which is for a girl, then please ask the bearers or waiters.

Going out for lunch with buddies from the famed 'last bench gang' from college is always fun, and this time was no different, in spite of it being just 3 of us. The buffet at Pinxx is indeed a pretty sight: extremely well laid out multi-cuisine food, with a variety of choices between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food (and if you're not fussy about eating non-veg, awesome!!!). We started with the soups: Chicken Manchow and Cream of Mushroom. I'm on a quest to find the perfect cream of mushroom soup, and took a bowl of it. It was good, but not the best. Moreover, I'm not sure if you're supposed to get as many bits of mushroom and what-not as I did. But don't get me wrong, it tasted very good, I just didn't think the texture was very consistent.

The salads (which I guess double up as appetizers) were ok; the two of us who ate non-veg agreed that the chicken sausage salad was the best, while the mushroom salad was probably the pick of the lot from the 'other side' (I mixed both and they are at the top of my plate). The dahi vada was good (right corner of my plate) and it wasn't soggy and stale (that can be very unpleasant). I also ventured into the main course section and added some vegetarian manchurian balls (left) which tasted good (sometimes this dish can be killed by adding too much soy sauce).

After two rounds of the above items (yes, we're a bit of the gluttonous types, so sue us), time for the main course. Let me start from the 9 o'clock position in the photograph: paneer butter masala (cottage cheese), some spicy dish (I can't recall the name), some more chicken sausage salad, fish something, mutton, chicken, Hakka noodles and vegetarian manchurian. The noodles were the usual, nothing special (it wasn't a special dish, so it was as expected), the fish was nice but the inside felt a little dry (I like the inside of cutlets to be moist or to have soaked in a little bit of the marinade). The mutton was the best among the three non-veg dishes; it was tender, juicy and not too spicy - a holy trinity if you ask me when it comes to any kind of meat. The chicken wasn't something special. It was a typical Mangalorean dish, my parents being Mangalorean, have eaten my heart's content of Mangalorean dishes. Maybe that disqualifies me from passing such a comment, but what the hell, I'm writing this, so it qualifies!

And in round two of the main course, starting from the 12 o'clock position, we have barbequed paneer, paneer butter masala, mutton biryani, and American chilly corn. The chilly corn was very good, the biryani was full of flavour and wasn't dry and the mutton in it was soft and cooked well.
Sadly, the best part of lunch at Pinxx, the desserts, will not be visually showcased here as my camera decided to go on a temporary strike and for some reason, it just didn't click and pictures of the dessert. And believe me, if anything, I would have loved to show the desserts here: strawberry cake, fig tart with mascarpone cheese (the mascarpone tasted heavenly), mango jelly, fresh fruits (mango, papaya and the sweetest watermelon I've ever had), a couple of Indian sweets, a sugar-free tart, and another pastry which I just can't seem to remember now. Phew! The desserts were truly the best part of the meal we had (as it usually is with the last bench gang). Ice creams are served upon request, although now the bearers come and ask you during dessert if you would like to have ice cream, and the credit for that goes almost entirely to me. Let me explain why. The last two times I visited Pinxx, I had filled out the comment card suggesting that ice cream ought to be part of every dessert table, and both times a lady walked up to me and told me that ice cream is served upon request, to which I replied something to the effect of not knowing that ice cream was part of the buffet and it's not fair to expect the customers to ask for what's there and what's not. I mean I would have also asked for some nice lasagna if that were the case. In any case, I guess they don't keep the ice cream out on the table with the other desserts because it could melt and become runny. In fact, when she told me the same thing the second time I visited Pinxx, I remembered that it was the same lady who told me the same thing the last time. Well, from now on, in case you visit Pinxx and at dessert time if you're asked for ice cream, the credit for that goes to moi.

Discussing about old classmates, Vishwa jokes (something only we know about) and the whereabouts of other classmates is always a wonderful feeling, and coupled with great food, it makes such meetings truly memorable.

A rainy weekend, a nice chicken sandwich

2008-06-16T09:29:00.006+05:30

This post is also available at my food blog.

Saturday was a particularly overcast day and we don't quite expect the weather to be this gloomy here in Bangalore this early in June (this global warming is really screwing up the weather patterns). Indoors, I can think of only 2 interesting things to do: read, or eat, or the best combo, both. I was in the mood for a nice sandwich/sub/burger and didn't want to spend Rs.60 or Rs.70 for it, especially when I could make them for half the cost tasting 5 times better.

Off to the supermarket and I returned with some chicken, cheese and bread. I cut the chicken into long strips (1 inch wide and about 3-4 inches long) and seasoned them with salt and pepper. I then squeezed in the juice from half a lemon and followed it up with 1/4 teaspoon of turmeric (just to give it a golden colour) and kept that aside.

I hate it when restaurants add a raw slice of onion in my burger or sandwich, and so I decided to cut off a few onion rings and caramalize them (for folks who don't know what that is, it's heating the onion on a pan until it's soft and starts browning - i.e the sugar in it caramelizes). This makes the onion soft and doesn't burn your mouth when you bite into it. A few slices of tomato, and a little chopped garlic mixed with butter to apply on the bread and I was almost good to go. I sautéd the chicken on a pan with a little oil and butter until it was just cooked (didn't want to overdo it and lose the lemony flavour) and still tender and juicy. Plop it onto the bread, some cheese (I like it) and sprinkle some oregano, pick up your favourite book...bliss.

You'll have to excuse the picture quality, the camera on my phone isn't very great when the lighting is poor.

Let them be gay and happy...and married

2008-06-09T18:13:00.027+05:30

What is the problem with allowing homosexuals get married? Is it because some religious dictionary defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman? Is that it? Some pathetic piece of scribbling made a few thousand years ago should be the guiding rule for us in the 21st century? Would Jesus really have objected to two men (or women) getting it on for each other? Really? From the guy who spent the best part of his life in the company of 12 other men (this is just to make my point, and I explicitly state that it is not to offend anyone)? And for those who say it's not 'natural' and hence an abomination or a sin, click here and read on.

OK, so far everything I've written has turned out to be a question, but I'd surely like to get an answer to them by those who oppose the 'marriage' of individuals of the same sex. Oh, another question, and this is a biggie: is it because they fear that the next step would be that the 'queers' would then want to adopt children (or in the case of lesbians, have children by visiting the nearest sperm bank)? To which I would ask, 'so what?'.

One possible worrying factor could be that the kids growing up would be ridiculed (possibly by immature children of immature parents) because instead of having a mummy and a daddy, they would probably have a daddy and a daddy or a mummy and a mummy. So what? We're already into an era of single parenthood, where there are times when either there isn't a mummy or a daddy, and no reasons are given to the child in case of separation of the parents during infancy or early childhood. How is the case of growing up with only a mummy or only a daddy different from growing up with two mummies or two daddies? Both are cases that are different from the ordinary, yet both are cases that need to be treated with care and nuanced explanations need to be given to the inquisitive children who ask the 'uncomfortable' questions.

If 'marriage' is something that conservatives want to 'conserve' at all costs, then how about settling for something called a civil union. Not all the 'baggage' that comes with a marriage, but certainly those that allow for parenthood. The finer points can be sorted out later.

Now let's dwell a little on the most important aspect of homosexuality: is it a disease as most religious and homophobic people make it out to be? The answer is quite simply no, it is not. At least, medically, it hasn't been established to be a disease, and certainly not something that can be 'cured', either by reading verses from holy books or by 'smoking' the devil out of your body, or with western or eastern medicine. And contrary to popular (or not so popular) opinion, homosexuality isn't something that cropped up in the early 20^th century; it's been around for ages, and was initially ignored or tolerated by the church. However, from around the 12^th century, hostility towards this 'unnatural' behaviour began taking root, and soon legislature was passed banning it (at the behest of the church).

It's important to know that a person doesn't 'decide' to 'become' a homosexual; it's not like they wake up one Saturday morning and after realising that they didn't get a date the previous Friday night, they decide to try their luck with the opposite sex. A person is born with that sexuality and will have to live with it for the rest of his or her life. The odds of 'converting' a homosexual into a heterosexual person are about the same as converting a left handed person into a right handed person: just not possible (and James Bond doing it to a lesbian in Octopussy doesn't count!) . So if religious fanatics want homos to be killed or jailed because they aren't the same as the majority and are termed 'unnatural', so are left handers; I don't hear any noise about asking them to be thrown into prison or sent to treatment for doing things differently from the mainstream.

J K Rowling unleashed upon the world the 'true' sexuality of Dumbledore; didn't that warrant an explanation to children by their parents what it meant? And if a series of books, several hundred pages thick that deals with magic and heresy and mystical serpents (thanks to Her Majesty GS for the correction: 'talking' to 'mystical' serpents) and a whole lot of unbelievable stuff, has a character who is the head of a large organisation (almost an institution) and wears a funny hat and colourful robes and a carries a big wand, who ultimately turns out to be gay, then what about this guy?

All with love of course (and a pinch of salt), so please, don't take offense. And just in case there are those who are worried about my orientation, I'm straight!

A disaster called Manmohan Singh

2008-05-28T15:54:00.011+05:30

Maybe disappointment is a better word than disaster, but then again, maybe it isn't. An honest and efficient (someone who can get the work done) politician is the best any citizen can hope for. A corrupt yet efficient politician is not what people desire, but he/she would be chosen any day over an honest yet inefficient politician. Sadly, PM Dr. Manmohan Singh falls into the third category. Some people say that with Dr. Singh taking charge, personal integrity was restored in the PMO. Now that's something that is a little tough to digest because in my opinion, Atal Behari Vajpayee didn't indulge in any activities that could make one say that he tarnished the integrity of the post of the PM. Dr. Singh may be an honest man who took up the reigns at the PMO with honest intentions, but boy, did the horse run amok or what! My compendium may not encompass all the failures of Dr. Singh, but would certainly make my case. And the fact that I choose not to talk about his achievements must be seen as a reflection of the failures outweighing the positives.

As an academician, one would have hoped and even expected Dr. Singh to have backed Dr. Venugopal when he was being targeted by the health minister Ramadoss to settle a personal score. Yet the PM chose to stay mum on the issue, and interestingly, so did our president, who blindly signed the bill to have him removed, thus reaffirming her status as the Congress party's rubber stamp in Rashtrapathi Bhavan.

Again, as an academician and someone who is highly educated, one would not have expected Dr. Singh to back to reservation policy of Arjun Singh, but Dr. Singh chose to back his party rather than his principles and convictions.

On the nuclear deal, I don't think the general public fully understands the fact that we may virtually have ostracized ourselves in the world's view. It would be very difficult to see any country now think of signing a deal with our country on any issue that may require taking a brave new posture. If we are not able to ink deals with developed countries in the near future on matters pertaining to energy, technology and defense, we can expect to remain stuck in the muck for eternity. By timidly following the diktats of the communists (with whom they have no similarities) and allowing themselves to be held hostage by the reds, Manmohan Singh will always be remembered as the architect of India's worst foreign policy disaster.

Talk of terrorism, and first and foremost is the fact that Md. Afzal, who has been sentenced to death by the Supreme Court, may be pardoned because the Congress, which is always on tenterhooks and slips on it's kid gloves when it comes to dealing with Muslims and Christians, is worried it may lose out on Muslim votes in the general elections to be held next year. Add to this the faux pas of the home minister who equated Afzal's death sentence to the clemency plea of Sarabjit Singh in Pakistan, and yet, not a word from the 'turbanator' PM. In other terror related incidents, the government is yet to come out with a comprehensive policy on tackling terror, and when asked about it, they have only shown us the act of repealing POTA (all law enforcement officials will tell you that a law like POTA is a must). What is most striking is the fact that it seems as though the government repealed POTA without discussing it with the top law enforcement officials of the country. One cannot understand what the government intends to do about the security of it's citizens, although they seem to be very prompt in upgrading the security levels of politicians from Y to Z category.

India is the country of the green revolution, where from shortage of wheat we reached a stage where we could export it in bulk. Yet, this same country had to import several tonnes of wheat towards the end of last year and what was worse was the price the government paid for it (several times more than the prevailing rates). No talk about this with the Agriculture Minister by the PM.

Soon after becoming the PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh took it upon himself and chaired the group looking into the protection of our national animal, the tiger. And under his tenure as PM, we have had probably the maximum number of tigers poached and killed. The total numbers have alarmingly halved in the last 5 years, and even though the methods used to track and count the cats wasn't the best, it can be safely assumed that the numbers aren't off my much.

The PM is quick to pull the BJP up for the post-Godhra riots, but doesn't seem to even bat an eyelid when it comes to the violence carried out by the Communist cadre in Nandigram. Since the Communists are anyway pro-China, I guess playing Chinese whispers with the commies was all Manmohan Singh could think of.

The Chinese seem to have taken for granted that certain areas surrounding Sikkim (near Tibet) are virtually theirs, what with their repeated transgressions and bombardment of Indian forward observation posts. And to be honest, Mr. Prime Minister, even though I live in Bangalore, I'm scared of the Chinese and what they intend to do; and remember, just in case you tied your turban a little too tightly and it's hampering your thought process, China is a lot closer to New Delhi than it is to Bangalore (although I'm certain even their worst missile can reach us here... oh goodness gracious).

Through all these (and much more), the one good thing to have happened (for the Congress party) is the transformation of Manmohan Singh the honest bureaucrat into Manmohan Singh the politician. He has time and again shown us what a classy transformation it has been as he has time and again chosen to put his party ahead of his country. Kudos to you Dr. Singh, you've made into the big league. So unless you're actually happy with the report card presented to you (I apologise for not gift wrapping it in the best expletives I could muster), I think it's time to swap the blue turban for a real thinking cap.

Myth of the sportive Chennai crowd and other IPL stories

2008-05-26T11:22:00.012+05:30

I am writing this entry after watching Bangalore beat Hyderabad by 5 wickets, in another thriller that finished in a flurry of sixes (B Akhil carting poor Chamara Silva over the ropes 3 times in an over to seal victory). Apart from a victory, which is always welcome considering the way Bangalore started off their campaign, what came as a pleasant surprise was the applause Bangalore received from the Hyderabad fans, and a small posse dressed in Royal Challengers colours (I'm guessing Bangalore ex-pats). Quite a contrast to the sounds that emanated from the MA Chidambaram stadium when Bangalore beat Chennai in the reverse encounter. There were no applauses (or if there were, the microphones which are pretty sensitive didn't pick them up) when Dravid was called forward during the presentations, which was probably the only time the crowd could have actually clapped because otherwise for the most part of the evening, the game was pretty drab. But like I said, the absence of applauses was almost deafening, especially considering the fact that the Chennai team received their fair share of plaudits when they beat Bangalore at the Chinnaswamy stadium, including whistles and applauses from your's truly, who was thrilled to have witnessed a game as thrilling as that in the early stages of the IPL. I must state here that although I would have liked to watch Bangalore win, all I hoped for was a GOOD game, which I got to see.

So I come back to my question, does the crowd's sportive image take a back seat when it comes to issues where blood is thicker than water (in the Bangalore-Chennai case, quite literally I might say)? Almost everyone would remember the magnanimous gesture of the Chennai crowd when Pakistan beat India in a nail-biting test match after Sachin TendulKar almost single handedly took us to victory. I wasn't expecting a similar gesture, but a round of applause when the victorious captain took the stage during the presentations was certainly called for. What surprised me equally, if not more, was an article I read by Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, an assistant editor with cricketnext.com. Now if you read the article, I won't blame you if it left you a bit perplexed. The vitriol against the Bangalore side was unmistakable, but more importantly, Siddhartha puts the blame squarely on Bangalore for Chennai's loss. He lambasted them for the pathetic batting display (which I too agree was very poor... I mean losing 4 wickets for 40 runs inside the first 10 overs... come on!!!) and makes it sound like the Chennai team lost interest in the game because of Bangalore's shoddy display with the bat. There were more kudos showered on the Chennai players than the Bangalore players, except for Kumble, so I have to assume Siddhartha is a fan of Jumbo. Although there was a mention of the fiery pace of Dale Steyn, again, he attributed the wickets of Morkel and Vidyut to their own ambitions. Somehow, I'm certain that if Morkel's hook had gone for six over backward square leg instead of into the hands of the fielder posted there, Sid would have been showering praises on the Springbok all-rounder for carting his compatriot over the top. If the game was as lackluster as he says it was (and trust me, he got that right, it was), then I don't think the reporter should have praised the Chennai bowlers, because by his own admission, the Bangalore team had batted poorly. Come on Sid, be a little more neutral at least when you strut your trade. Aren't media editors supposed to be neutral (at least pretend to be neutral)?

Cricket crowds in India can be very fickle. Yuvraj made a lame comment to the Mumbai crowd about not support his team because some of them played for India too. Yuvraj, looks like you still have a long way to go before you can be crowned Maharaj, so until then remember that in that game, Mohali played Mumbai and the fact that a player represents India is immaterial in this context. Actually, for the Kolkatta crowd, even that doesn't matter, for the communist citizens put state above country, as was very apparent when India took on South Africa in a one day game soon after Rahul Dravid was made captain, displacing Ganguly. The crowd booed Dravid, and booed the Indian team because an out-of-form Dada, who at that time was a liability to the team, was dropped. In their defence, they're communists, they'er a little kooky, so such things are part and parcel of the delusional life they lead.

One last thing Siddhartha got right was that the pitch wasn't the cause for the poor batting display. Righto, it did not hide any demons, and the crowds did not hide their emotions. They were stunned into a zombie-like trance because they lost to, of all the teams, Bangalore. Come on Chennai, Indian cricket needs your sportiveness, since the Kolkattans have lost theirs (actually they never had any, it was just the charm of the Eden Gardens all along), so don't go bonkers over a T20 game. A lot of water will pass from the Cauvery, get your act straight.

Among other positives that have emerged from the IPL is Rahul Dravid's batting. He has shown time and again why he is considered to be India's most reliable batsman. He has adjusted to the new format quite nicely, and so I hope the selectors at least consider his name for the 50 over version of the game. Of course, that would be a pipe dream, given the fact that Dhoni himself was the one responsible for Dravid's ouster from the team because he didn't want 'older players' (but why he didn't ask for Sachin to be dropped as well will remain a mystery, although I think we all know the answer to that one) and the tension between the two was visible even during the toss at the Chidambaram stadium, and Vengsarkar's dislike for Dravid. However, it's also nice to see the likes of Abhishek Nayar, Dhawal Kulkarni, Shreevats Goswami, Ashoke Dinda and Manpreet Gony shine in the limelight. But is it right to drop (or not select) a player who is playing as well as, if not better than the younger lot, just because he happens to be on the wrong side of 30? According to the thoughts that flow between the ears of our Ranchi dada, the answer seems to be, sadly, yes.

And finally, although there were a lot of shining stars and stellar performances by the younger generation, I hope against hope that they are not selected directly into the Indian senior or A teams merely based on their performances in the IPL. The IPL is should be seen more in terms of a launch pad, rather than a back door short-cut entry into the national side. Bowling 4 overs at an economy rate or 7 or 8 with a wicket or two may be fine in a 20-20, but that certainly doesn't merit a cap in the national side (or the A team for that matter). These performances ought to be considered by the state selectors and the players need to be drafted into the state Ranji teams, which is the correct route that needs to be followed. One can only hope that the selectors have their thinking caps on (wishful, I know).

Chicken & mushrooms

2008-05-21T08:45:00.016+05:30

This post is also available on my food blog.

After a long time, I set about cooking again (when I say cooking, I mean a proper full fledged dish and not an omelet or Maggie 2 minute noodles). Chicken and mushrooms, the delight of every cook. You ought to never go wrong with these, and I didn't. I don't know what I call this dish, but I think I can safely call it chicken in mushroom sauce.

Mushroom sauce:

1 packet mushrooms
1 large onion
1 tomato
1 celery stem (optional)
Parsley or mint (for fragrance)
1 tbsp butter
2-3 tbsp flour
Milk & water
Salt & pepper to season

Wash a packet full of mushrooms thoroughly and chop them into two or three pieces each. Chop the onion and tomato into 8 pieces. Chop the parsley (needn't be fine) and the celery. Add the butter into a deep container and heat till butter melts. Add all the ingredients and add the mushroom in the end. Sweat them in the heat for a while until the onions and mushrooms are soft. Add some milk (about 300 ml) and continue stirring. After a few minutes, add the flour and continue to stir until the flour completely mixes with the mixture. Add some water (100 ml, depending on how thick you want the sauce, usually milk : water = 3 : 1) . Continue to stir and cook until a nice creamy texture appears. Remove from the heat and allow the mixture to cool. Once cooled, pour this into a mixie/blender and blend until the mixture has a nice consistency, and there are no solid bits of the mushroom or any other solid ingredient. You could also add a little cream into the mixture before blending it.

Chicken:

4 chicken breasts (boneless)
1 cup curd
1 bunch coriander leaves
1 bunch parsley/mint
1 garlic flake
1-2 green chillies
salt & pepper to season

Chop and mix the coriander, garlic, green chillies and parsley/mint. Season with salt. Add into a grinder/blender and make a fine paste of the mixture. Cut the chicken into cubes and add a little salt. Mix the paste made from the leaves with the chicken, and then add the curd and mix the chicken thoroughly. Allow to marinate for about 2.5-3 hours.

After 3 hours, add the chicken into a deep pan and start to cook. Once the chicken has cooked (after about 6 to 8 minutes, add the mushroom sauce and turn the heat to high for a few minutes. Toss in a hand full of cashew nuts after a couple of minutes, along with a few more chopped and cooked mushrooms (optional). Season with salt if required. Serve it with whatever you like to eat dishes with gravy (usually breads).

This is the mushroom sauce with chicken in it

A vegetarian version has the chicken replaced with cottage cheese and chopped mushrooms in it (pic below). If making the vegetarian version, make sure the mushrooms and cottage cheese cubes being added are already sautéed and cooked previously before adding it to the sauce.

Optionally, instead of adding the chicken into the deep pan and mixing the chicken with the mushroom sauce, you can coat the chicken in the mushroom sauce after mixing it in the curd and coriander paste and after marinating it for 3 hours, you can skewer it on a barbecue and use the mushroom sauce as a dip for the skewered chicken. Bon appetit.

An irrepairable loss

2008-04-11T08:14:00.005+05:30

Late in the evening on March 17th, 2008, Dr. K Taranath Shetty received a call informing him that his name had been cleared by the Prime Minister's Office for the post of Director of NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council). He was in Goa with his friends from his Ph.D days to meet Prof Gaitonde, their teacher and guide who had guided them during their Ph.D. That night, after having spent the whole day with his teacher and later having received the information of his appointment over the phone that he would be the next Director of NAAC, he had told one of his friend, "Suresh, today is the happiest day of my life". The next morning, Dr. Shetty had a massive heart attack and passed away. He was 59 (but looked 45 and never dyed his hair).

What's shocking to me was the fact that he had no risk factors at all. He was a vegetarian for the past 18 years, he didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't have cholesterol, no BP, no hypertension, triglycerides were perfect, used to wake up at 4:30 AM each day and exercise for an hour, used to run up the stairs to his second floor office two steps at a time and wouldn't be breathless when he reached the top, his family has no history of heart ailments, his father lived till 90 and mother till 103, 5 out of his 6 siblings are still alive (he was the youngest of 7, and his eldest brother died at 74 almost ten years ago). He used to say "Longevity is in my genes, so I'll live to see my children grow".

It's going to take a long time to get used to the fact that India lost arguably it's best clinical biochemist and I lost my father so suddenly. The wound is so severe that it's scab is going to be peeled off several times, over and over again as I am beginning to experience it first hand. I'll miss you papa, we all will.

Awards overdue

2008-02-14T08:52:00.009+05:30

It was a shame that the UPA government did not confer a Bharat Ratna this year (again), making it the seventh year in running that the award hasn't been given. In my opinion, and the opinion of several like-minded, smart individuals, the award HAS to be given to Sri R K Laxman. Nothing more needs to be said about it.

As far as knighthood and the Nobel go, I can't think of anyone other than Prof Richard Dawkins of Oxford University (who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University) for his work in evolutionary biology and his endeavour to make science, and evolution and Darwinian natural selection in particular, easy to understand, and he has now become the face of the atheist movement.

Even if the establishment takes forever to confer at least the knighthood on you, in my eyes, and the eyes of many, you already are a knight, Sir Richard, and we the humble, the rational and the humane, salute thee.

To stand or not to stand

2008-02-01T08:47:00.002+05:30

Another Republic Day, and again, as always, I was glued to the TV set watching the parade with awe and a little lump in my throat (I always wanted to join the Army, but an injury to my leg prevented me from doing so). What was different this time around was the a woman commander-in-chief took the salute at the parade (and she saluted pretty well, I must say, compared to some of the lame ducks we had before, like Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma). As always, as soon as the Prez unfurled the national flag, the national anthem played and as always, I stood, in spite of being in the comfort of my living room. No big deal I thought, the constitution requires me to do it, and just as it gives me a lot of freedom, this little deed it asks of me was such a trivial matter I didn't even think of it as a deed.

The following week I was watching 'We the people' on NDTV, where the topic for discussion revolved around what actually constituted insult and/or disrespect to the country's symbols. It arose from the controversy generated by Sania Mirza (she's making this a habit now), who happened to keep her feet on a table next to the national flag which was on the table. Inevitably, some extremely jobless petitioner happened to notice this and filed a suit in a local court against her. The discussion on the show later moved away from this and questioned the need to stand during the hoisting of the national flag and singing of the national anthem. I had never really thought about this, as to whether we actually show disrespect to the country by sitting down during the hoisting of the national flag or singing of the national anthem. To me, it seemed (and still does) that a rule in the constitution was there for a purpose and wasn't meant to be broken, plain and simple. Well, I guess not, at least not anymore.

There happens to be a large section of our urban, semi urban and political population, who seem very comfortable using the phrase 'my right', extremely chummy with the idea of bandying about their 'rights', without really understanding that the rights a citizen enjoys in a country is but in fact something that the country has provided them with, a tribute to the country and hence demands that the person shows respect and gratitude to the country and it's symbols (in this case the flag and the anthem). Sure, the national flag and anthem would not make a sad face if you didn't stand up, and they wouldn't even let you know about it in private, but isn't that besides the point.

A prime argument the 'opposition to standing' crowd cite is that just because some bureaucrat mentioned it while framing the constitution doesn't mean we actually need to do it to show respect. Huh? Well, then after you finish reading this article, when you hit the road, starting driving on the right side of the road (like in the USA) because why should you drive on the left side just because the British introduced the system in India. Seriously, at times, arguments are made for the sake of putting up an argument (and invariably this ends up in showing the person as a complete fool).

Ask any of our soldiers who guard our borders in the extreme heat of Rajasthan or the frigid heights of Siachen and they'll tell you that the flag and the anthem mean a lot to them, and not standing up during a flag hoisting or rendition of the national anthem is an insult to the sacrifice made by them to protect these symbols. Ask them if they would want every Indian to stand during the national anthem and you will get a unanimous reply in the affirmative. If as a nation we cannot heed to this simple, selfless request from the men and women who guard our country's frontiers with their lives, a request that doesn't take more than a minute from us (no money, no taxes, no blood), what kind of a society are we? Do it, if not for the sake of the nation, for the sake of those who guard us and make it possible for you to go about clamoring that you have the right not to stand. Let's not bring in politics or religion or any other mundane excuse we can find which is quite clearly just for the sake of opposing the system (which seems to have become a fashionable way to get noticed). For once, put a leash on your tongue when it comes to jabbering about about your rights, and stand up the next time the national anthem is played, even if it's on TV.

The return of macaca

2008-01-09T23:18:00.001+05:30

In case you're wondering what macaca means, it is the genus name of the macaque monkey (the common monkey) and comes from the Bantu word makako, meaning monkey. If you're wondering what's this leading towards, then let's take a trip back to Aug 11, 2006, in Virginia, where Republican senator George Felix Allen was hoping to get re-elected over the democrat candidate Jim Webb. During one of his speeches, Allen looked at a student of Indian origin and called out to him as "macaca, or whatever his name is", in spite of knowing the student's name (S R Sidharth). The word macaca is considered as a racial slur and not surprisingly, Allen lost the upcoming election to Webb. So along with the two 'N' words that are used to racially insult people of African ancestry, macaca too is considered a racial abuse on par with the 'N' words and hence is banned from being used.

I'm guessing that by now you know what I'm going to be talking about here but before that, there are a few new definitions that I'd like to introduce you to, so that you get a sense of what to expect later.

Bucknor: n. adj. 1. A condition that affects your hearing where you don't seem to be able to perceive the obvious.
2. Alternately, when the eye-ear coordination fails to detect the differences between sounds and movements made by moving objects.
3. Informal: A euphemism for foot-in-mouth syndrome

Benson: n. adj. 1. A condition characterised by the complete meltdown of the core of the human cerebral cortex, resulting in dependence on others, especially those with no credibility whatsoever, for your decision making.
2. Informal: An evolved form of bucknor.

Note: Benson and Bucknor needn't always occur together, but when they do, the resulting condition is usually extremely painful to bear to those in the surroundings who have to deal with those symptomatic of Benson and Bucknor.

Ponting: n. 1. Any of the unique bipeds found on the Tasmanian island that are extremely short-tempered and claim to be of impeccable integrity but cannot substantiate the same with actions or deeds.

Oxenford: n. 1. A unique biped from the Australian mainland that seems to enjoy good batting displays and hates to see a good cricketing batting innings come to an end.

Clarke: n. 1. A lesser evolved species of the lark, that seems to have mutated before it got its feathers and ended up with the characteristics of a young canine (hence the nickname pup). The unique aspect of this species is that it claims to be of unquestionable integrity while displaying a complete lack of understanding of the word integrity when it comes to its own actions or deeds (also see Ponting). Symptoms of Bucknor are almost always displayed.

Symonds: n. 1. A lesser evolved but larger cousin of the monkey that doesn't have a tail, which has led some anthropologists to conclude that this could be an hitherto unknown ape and could well be the missing link that we've been looking for. These creatures are found in the Australian mainland and are extremely sensitive to words that emanate from sub-continental tourists, while not having any qualms about using those words on others. These creatures seem to enjoy a certain kind of protection provided by Pontings and Clarkes, which includes claiming to hear words that were not said by tourists.

Now that that's out of the way, let's see what can be made of the malarkey of a certain Australian called Andrew Symonds.

As mentioned above, the only words that are considered as racial slurs that either term people as slaves or question their parents are the two 'N' words and macaca, neither of which seem to be used by Harbhajan Singh on Andrew Symonds. If Harbhajan did use the word 'monkey' (and there doesn't seem to be any proof that he did), is he to be charged under the racism clause just because Andrew Symonds doesn't like that word? Agreed, if at all the word were to used, especially on a person of African or Caribbean ancestry (as is Symonds), it could only be to tease the target person's appearance, and so the person can draw an inference that his race is being made fun of, unless, like in India, it's used to describe the peculiar behaviour of certain people if it involves antics or theatrics of any kind. On a parallel, since when did Symmo become the authority on what words constitute racial slurs and what don't? If the reason is that the word monkey questions the origins of a person, then are the Aussies forgetting (or do they not know) that the words they happily use on touring sides that suggest that the person has come out from the genitalia of a female dog, or the rectal region of an donkey, or the origins of their fathers is unknown, also question the origins of the person they're targeting and hence the entire team can be charged with racism? I guess not, because after the Sydney test match, it's become evident that logic is something that the Australians are a little slow to come to terms with (ask third umpire Oxenford).

Initially, I was a bit surprised to see the amount of air time this issue was give by all the news channels in India, but whatever their reasons were for it, it certainly deserved it. Maybe what the media lacked in their coverage was the fact that calling someone a racist is not something that should be limited to the punishment meted out by the ICC, but if someone is found guilty of racism, he or she must be thrown into jail, which raises the question: would the Aussies charge Harbhajan outside of the game? Clearly the answer is no, because they don't have the evidence to support it and hearsay and one mans word against another's is not legally admissible. So how did Mike Proctor, a cricketer par excellence, who unfortunately had his career curtailed due to the 22 year apartheid ban on South Africa, find Harbhajan guilty? No one questions the fact that Mr. Proctor wouldn't know what racism is, but did he go by the evidence (or the lack of it) or his gut feeling?

From the Sydney episode, it's clear that the Aussies can't take what they dish out to the opposition, but what really came to the fore was the subtle but tell tale difference: the difference between not wanting to lose and being a sore loser. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which category the Aussies come under.

And on a lighter note, spot 6 differences between the two photographs below.

Muzzled media?...Democracy...surely you're joking!

2007-08-07T10:31:00.001+05:30

Well, well, well, Das Munshi is at it again. First he shoots his mouth off by saying that every sports channel covering an event that involves India must share the feed to DD, then he comes out to express his 'shock' (oh, so sad) on the verdict against the son of a late, former Congress party man, and now the self-proclaimed soccer daddy of India plans to throw the final ace up his sleeve (or up some other dark recess) in which he's drawn up a plan that will effectively knock down one of the pillars of Indian democracy - the media.

The proposed bill, which has provisions such as programmes that will be rated with a 'U', 'A', or a 'U/A' and appropriate time slots will be provided for them to be aired based on the ratings, sting operations can be carried out only if it's in the best interest of the public and cannot be done on ongoing cases and investigations and if it has to be carried out, permission must be sought from the person(s) they wish to carry out the sting against. Was Das Munshi high when he came up with this?What's the point of the sting if the 'point' is being blunted? It's like asking the teacher for the questions of the exam saying "we'll study for the exam, but you please give us the questions".

The bill also has provisions to enable an officer of the govt to review the content of what will be telecast, and if he/she feels that the criticism is harsh, it can be edited. Whatever happened to free and fair media? This would effectively eliminate the free part of it, as the media wouldn't be free to operate on it's own without interference, and it wouldn't be fair because the content put out would be in accordance to what the govt wishes for us to hear, a la North Korea or the former Soviet Union.

I guess someone forgot to refresh the memory of the govt about the early part of the 20th century in Germany and Italy where rulers like Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin had done the same thing and it was termed as fascism. But then again, since Sonia Gandhi's father was an ardent fascist & a supporter of Mussolini, it shouldn't surprise us that his daughter's party is behaving in this manner (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree). If this is step one of the grand fascist revival plan, then the steps to follow are to suspend elections and bring in one party rule and switch back to communism (or give it a fancy name called socialism) and rename our country from the Democratic Republic of India to the Union of Indian Socialist Republics. The iron curtain will come up again, this time in a new geographical location with newer comrades.

Munna turns out to be a bhai after all

2007-08-01T08:21:00.000+05:30

At last, the trial for the worst terrorist act in this country has come to an end with Sanjay Dutt's sentencing sealing the proceedings. Many are arguing that the verdict was too harsh, but hey, since when did justice and sympathy for the convict go hand in hand? It's not as if the case against Sanjay Dutt was circumstantial; it was proven beyond doubt and Mr. Dutt himself pleaded guilty to the charges, so isn't this now much ado about nothing?

To state that he has already suffered all these years and hence should be let off is a crime in itself. What about those who were victims of the 93 blasts, aren't they still suffering the after effects of it, don't they still have to go through all the red tape our bureaucracy throws up in front of them for their compensation, etc? In what way exactly has Sanjay Duttt suffered apart from having to attend the trial whenever it was scheduled? He's been in the thick of things in Bollywood, rolling out some memorable hits during the past 14 years, which somehow doesn't come across as 'suffering'.

Is plain repentance enough to atone for the sin? Would the hue and cry raised over the verdict been the same if the accused wasn't a celebrity? The answer to both is an emphatic no and we all know that when you have powerful and/or well known friends, this sort of backlash from the rich and famous is but obvious. Even the I&B minister, Mr. Priya Ranjan Das Munshi came out against the verdict in milder words, but again, it begs to be asked, would the Congress led government have done this if Sanjay's father, the late Sunil Dutt, wasn't an ardent Congressman and his sister Priya, a sitting Congress MP? My guess is if his family members had affiliations with other political parties, the government would have parroted the line of 'law taking it's own course and nothing must come in the way of justice'.

So at the end of the day (actually, the end of 14 years), dear Munna turned out to be a bhai after all, and congratulations to judge Kode for not getting swayed by public sentiments and altering his judgement. Hats off to you, my good sir, may we have many more like you.

7 wonders...mmmuaah

2007-07-12T17:18:00.000+05:30

What is prompting me to write this is not the fact that I'm angry or sad (I couldn't care less), but the fact that I recently read a blog of a friends friend, which had an article by Gloria Steinem titled 'If men could menstruate', and basically went about the usual ranting and raving about how men try to claim to be superior to women no matter what (even if it was the men who menstruated). It was a nice read, made me smile but also drove home the point that even women are diseased by the 'generalising' factor; generalising all men to be alike and painting all of us with the same brush.

Now I'm not a sexist pig, and I don't give a rat's ass who goes around with whom and does whatever he or she wants to, but what on Earth was Bipasha Basu doing with Christiano Ronaldo, and vice versa? Had it been John Abraham snuggling up with some hot chick, women everywhere would have gone berserk, painting all men with that dirty brush they so often use on men by calling us 'cheaters' who cannot control the penile urges that so often seem to 'control' all our actions. Now that actually leaves one question pending...what was Ronaldo doing with Bipasha? Isn't he supposedly paired up with some hot British chick? Oh that's right, she's British, how stupid of me. They couldn't get any more boring than listening to the leaders of the Congress party hail Pratibha Patil.

Anyway, what interested me the most was that Bips stated something like that it's been taken out of context. Honey, what context has it been taken out of? Oh let me guess, you were kissing Ronaldo out of joy that the Taj Mahal had made it to the final 7, right? Or were you kissing him because you were in that stage in your relationship with John where you're actually allowed to kiss other men? I'm actually not very good at guessing, so I'll leave it at 2 guesses. I just hope there aren't any arrest warrants out for Christiano.

And now Bangalore is sullied

2007-07-06T10:02:00.000+05:30

I just hope, for the sake of my dear city Bangalore and it's lovely citizens, that the 3 Muslims held on charges of the UK terror plot, turn out to be innocent. Although the connection between the person held in Australia and his cousins held in UK is still under a cloud, for the 2 in the UK things don't look too good. I mean, how does one explain what he was doing in a car full of explosives that rammed into the airport entrance of Glasgow airport and suffered 90% burns, I don't know, but I do know this: he seems pretty guilty at the moment, and this should once and for all shatter the illusion that people get involved in terror acts due to poverty and poor socio-economic status.

Groups like the Al-Qaeda are full of affluent, well-to-do, prominent, upper-middle class working people and so the hitherto stereotype of a bearded cleric with blazing eyes will have to be trashes into the dustbin. I'm not presupposing that the accused are members of any terror group, but I'm also not absolving them of the charges because of the reason in the first paragraph and also, a lot of today's religious fundamentalists tend to act on their own without any actual instructions from any higher-ups. Oh how I wish they turn out to be innocent, and this turns out to be a big misunderstanding, because Bangalore is still India's knowledge center, and will forever be, but what people do with the knowledge they acquire here, cannot be held against this wonderful city and it's citizens, some of whom still wish for it to return to the yesteryears as being a Pensioners Paradise. Come on Bangaloreans, let's butt-kick any more of these whackos from our city, lest our city moves from the global IT map to the global terror map.

What's it gonna be lady?

2007-06-27T09:33:00.000+05:30

Just what doesn't Pratibha Patil get? Why is she reminding me of George W. Bush? From one blooper to another, this lady just cannot get things right. First the purdah controversy, then the accusations from a bank of defaulting on loans to the tune of 7+ crores, opening banks that have gone into the red and taken off with peoples savings, followed by accusations of shielding her brother accused of murder, and now she can speak with the dead!!! Speak with the dead! Imagine what the Congress and the Left would have done if someone from the Right wing had come up with some such revelation. They'd have come out all guns blazing against the 'medieval beliefs of the Draconian right wingers (read BJP)' and how they're trying to marginalise the minorities, etc etc etc.

Mrs Patil, if you really want to be President, please keep your mouth shut until the elections are over, because we are already aghast that a rank outsider like you has been chosen because of your loyalty to the Gandhi family over other competent politicians (although personally I'm against politicians becoming President). Even if you do get elected as President, I will never accord you with the respect you deserve, and I will not refer to you as President Pratibha Patil, but only Mrs Patil, not because I'm against women and against a woman becoming President, but because I'm against anyone who wags their tail in front of their masters to get a better and/or bigger biscuit.

I hope, for the sake of the post, the Presidency, she can come clean on the accusations of the loans and shielding her brother in a murder case, or else, as the cliché goes, 'this happens in India only' will be on the uprise once again.

Purdah, Presidents and what not

2007-06-19T08:10:00.000+05:30

So, the presidential race hots up and once again with the Congress party, we see loyalty taking precedence over competence. A Gandhi family loyalist gets her name picked from the fracas of the process of nomination, and the reason the pricks in government and their commie cronies give us is because she's a woman and this would be an historic moment in Indian history, and whats more she's a 'simple' woman, covers her head and so epitomises what is best in Indian women.

Who the hell are they kidding? We all know the post of President, the highest office in the land, although a political appointment, must be executed without bias, but by selecting a virtually unknown person, a known loyalist to the family and overwhelming her with joy, they just ensured that they have a stooge at Raisina who will sign their bills without causing an embarrassment and without telling them what is moral and what is not.

So ladies, if you think that this is an historic moment, please think again, in an unbiased way, because in the name of feminism, this government is using this lady as a pawn, yes, a pawn, to achieve their sadistic ends, which is to fuck the middle class even more and consolidate their Muslim vote-bank by allowing illegals from Bangladesh to enter and settle down, changing the demography of the north-east of the country, not to mention increase the security risks.

Now on to the other controversy, the wannabe-to-be President, Mrs. Patil, made a remark about the origin of the purdah and attributed it to the Mughal invasion. OK, so the future Indian president doesn't know about Indian history, or she thought she knew, but was obviously wrong. But what was shocking if not amusing was the statement made by Amar Singh; he said "it's wrong to call the Mughals as aggressors". Er, excuse me, but weren't the Mughals the ones who came to erstwhile Hindustan, raided, looted and plundered the wealth, raped women and killed innocents and desecrate places of worship? Isn't that a sign of aggression? Usually when a blow job is given, it's done in private, not in public, so I'm pretty amazed that Amar Singh would resort to administer a blow job on his Muslim chums in the hope of garnering some more nuts in his jockeys, but then again, to say what he said clearly shows the lack of nuts in his jocks, so I guess I can say that I understand.

To wind up, this presidential election is not about empowering women, this is about showing that loyalty scores over competence, the President is nothing more than a puppet and the government is its puppeteer and at the end of the day, purdah or no purdah, let's hope we have a person at Rashtrapathi Bhavan who has the good wishes of the people of this country, and not it's politicians.

Everything that i missed thus far

2007-05-11T17:20:00.000+05:30

Holy crap, it's been a long, long time since my thoughts hit the blog world, and a lot of water seems to have passed under the bridge. The American soldiers are still getting blown to bits in Iraq, Bush is continually under fire at home and abroad while his stooges in the churches of America and the Fox News network have increased their support to him. And I thought only George Bush was stupid!

Closer home, Rahul Gandhi shot his mouth off while campaigning in UP about the independence struggle and the 1971 war. I actually don't blame him for getting the facts completely wrong. For those who aren't aware of what he said, he basically said, or made it sound like his family members were solely responsible for India's independence and also for thwarting Pakistan during the 1971 war. Like I said, I don't blame him because it must be hard for someone to learn his history from family members and not textbooks and, as many of us later do, through authenticated works by various historians. I mean, I guess he had sessions with his grandmother, Indira Gandhi (who had her sessions with her father, Nehru). That must have been a really boring history class!

Amar Singh and Mulayam Singh would have to leave their fiefdom and hand it over to the sorceress, Mayawati, who will soon make it a dalit haven and unleash her scourge against the tyrannical upper castes. Soon, we're going to see a ot more statues of Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram, and probably have multi-crore birthday bashes for Mayawati, sposored by a party that claims to represent the poorest and most down-trodden community in independent India. Makes me wanna cry. Sniff, sniff, sob.

Cricket, and we finally managed to win a match, against Bangladesh, when it looked like we were about to lose (like it matters now!).

Cops in India seem to have had a nice long session of target practice on innocents (while, not exactly, Sohrabuddin was a criminal after all). Seems like now criminals better start praying that there IS evidence of whatever crime they are charged of because that way, they have a better chance of beating the courts and getting free, but if there's no evidence, like the saying goes, pop goes the weasel. Ask Alister Pereira. He ran over 7 people on a footpath in Mumbai in a drunken state, and was sentenced, for 6 months!!! These criminals just aren't smart enough these days.

Until some other bloopers come up, my next article will be the most damning of all. It's going to target, that's right, target religion and the concept of God.

Please burn Sachin's effigy

2007-03-26T08:24:00.000+05:30

Another cricketing defeat and another violent and raged reaction by our cricket crazy junta, the only difference this time around was the loss was at cricket’s showpiece event, the world cup, and the loss was at the hands of one of the minnows, Bangladesh. In the past too, pathetic performances were greeted with brick-bats and the defeats were attributed to the endorsements and TV commercials that the cricketers were part of. But seriously, what has endorsements and commercials got to do with on-field performances? Sure, they get plenty of money from them so one may be incline to think that that would result in complacency on the field and a ‘don’t care’ attitude, but given the nature of our public, I seriously doubt that would be the case, and only a fool would try to reason out with our enraged public, especially with the lack of proactive response from the police.

Sachin

What amazes me after every such defeat is that not once is Sachin Tendulkar, the so called ‘little master’, or ‘maestro’, or ‘God’ ever talked about. The fall guys always happen to be Dravid, Sehwag, and more recently Dhoni. Never once have I seen the public burning effigies of Sachin, or maybe the media (which claims to be neutral) just doesn’t show those images because they don’t like show images of Sachin being blamed for any debacle. Let’s consider the aftermath of the recent past. Dhoni’s house under construction was vandalized, Kaif’s house was stoned after his failure at South Africa, Dravid and Chappell’s effigies were burnt by the black sheep spectators of Indian cricket (Bengalis), etc. But never once was Sachin a target or recipient of such treatment, or, as I said, never was it shown. I have a simple one worded question: why? Sachin hasn’t had a single match winning performance for more than a year, and even his 50+ scores haven’t been special, but a supplement to the team score. The sooner we end this romanticism with Sachin, the better it would be. At present, he is nothing but dead weight in the team, blocking the entry of younger blood into the team and needs to be dropped from the team and asked to play Ranji cricket to get a few knocks under his belt (a la Ganguly). Yes, you heard me tight, HE NEEDS TO BE DROPPED! It ain’t taboo to say so, and I’m not afraid to say it. Ajay Jadeja said the stupidest thing on NDTV when he said that “world over the best players are pushed up the order, but we (Indian team) bring in the best players when the situation is difficult”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t your best players supposed to help get you out of difficult situations? Isn’t that why they are called ‘best’? To cap all the crap about Sachin, there's talk about him replacing Dravid as the captain. I don't think there could any move that would be more disastrous for Indian cricket than this. Sachin is not, and I repeat, NOT a good captain. He is an extraordianry player, but not a good captain, and the sooner the selectors recognise this, the better. All great players needn't be good captains, as is the case with Sachin. I hope common sense prevails and Sachin rejects the captaincy and suggests that Dravid be retained as captain.

Dravid and Chappell

So yeah, the captain and the coach are usually the fall guys, but should they really be chastised for this debacle? Dravid has accepted full responsibility for the debacle, which I’d like to point out that no previous captain has admitted to, but should he and Chappell be made the scapegoats? There are a number of people who are against Chappell because he is a foreigner and because he was the reason Ganguly was dropped for a while and stripped of his captaincy, but seriously, the way the team played, I don’t think even an Indian coach would have been of any help. What surprises me the most was when Kris Srikkanth made this comment on CNN-IBN (sacking Chappell coz he’s a foreigner), or when Jadeja made his comment, what the hell were the perpetually brain-dead TV anchors doing? Couldn’t they have questioned the wisdom of such statements? Navjot Sidhu wants Dravid out because he feels Dravid wasn’t and isn’t a motivating captain! I don’t know Sidhu personally, nor do I know Dravid or any of the current team members, but I think it’s easy to say that Dravid is the best captain we have right now, and his calmness is often mistaken for a sign of passiveness, one that lacks aggression, which, Mr. Sidhu, I’m afraid you are guilty of. I don’t think stripping your shirt on the Lords’ balcony should be viewed as being aggressive and motivating – it was, as we say, ‘losing it’. The Bongs (the black sheep – Bengalis) want Dravid and Chappell out because they think he (Dravid) was handed something that ought not to have left Ganguly ‘fiefdom’ (the captaincy) and Chappell was the cause for it. Speaking of Greg, I think the way he handled the media after the loss to Sri Lanka was extremely good and professional, and I think it’s his professionalism that we Indians have a problem with. I mean what’s wrong is saying that a question is inflammatory when it is – calling a spade a spade? Asking him if heads ought to roll at the top is nothing but inflammatory – that question ought to be asked to Vengsarkar, not Chappell.

Endorsements

One of the prime reasons being attributed to the failure at the world cup is the number of advertisements the cricketers are part of. Common sense ought to prevail over here while making such comments because I fail to see how something done at the time when they are not in the nets practicing could affect their performance so dramatically on the field. All the commercials are shot during the free time that the cricketers have, and come on, if you're telling me they aren't entitled to have a social life, then you go get a life. If that were the case, Azharuddin should have been removed long before he was because his messy divorce with his first wife and subsequent affair with Sangeetha Bijlani leading up to his marriage was sure to affect his game, Sachin ought to have been dropped after his father passed away since his father was such an inspiration to him, etc. One theory is that with the amount of money the cricketers make through endorsements, they really wouldn't care about the money they get for playing, and hence, neglect their game. Going by the reactions of the public in the subcontinent, I don't think any sane cricketer would think of taking such a chance, much less implement it.

The end?

Sacking the coach and replacing the captain would be nothing but a reactionary measure, and as medical practitioners would say “it’s a case of treating the symptom, not the cause”. Although viewing things objectively has never been a virtue the Indian cricket fan had or for that matter most Indians, if we do, then I think it would be fairly ominous that the defeats were a result of a collective batting failure on 2 days, that’s all. No nonsense about a foreign coach, or a de-motivating captain or any of that mumbo-jumbo.

Now you see me, now you don't

2007-01-23T09:30:00.000+05:30

Another cricket match, and again we have the telecast controversy over whether the feed should be shared with DD or not. What the hell is the matter with our cricket board (well, technically, there was nothing right for a long time, but I just had to make that comment) ? Don't they realise that by screwing around with the telecast rights, they're screwing around with the viewership for the game? I don't think this a ploy to get more people to come to the stadiums to watch the game, because at present in India, the stadiums are packed with people for any international match, what with people sleeping outside the stadiums to get tickets.

What's most shocking about this entire episode is the reaction and comments made by the politicians, especially the information & broadcasting minister Priya Ranjan Das Munshi. The nut case goes on the say that the BCCI has no rights to not let DD telecast the match because watching cricket is his right. So? How can the state machinery bully the private players into sharing their feed, for which they shell out hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars? What kind of a democratic institution do we have in place? Zee Sports, Neo Sports, et al, I pity thee. Then again, I don't. I might be found guilty of taking sides with those who violate the rights of the cricket loving junta, who inspite of paying the highest to telecast matches, end up on the losing side.

Going gaga over NRIs

2006-12-08T12:38:00.000+05:30

Every year on January 12th, the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas is celebrated with great fan-fare and the Prime Minister kicks of the celebrations to mark the day Gandhiji returned to India from South Africa with a speech full of praise for the NRI and PIO community and for all that has been done by them for the country, directly and indirectly. And then unfailingly, there is always a mention of "more needs to be done" and "don't forget your responsibility towards your country". It really baffles me to see such shameless acts of begging, especially since we are a nation of a billion plus people and need to look first within before we reach out for help from a few who for reasons personal to them, or their ancestors, left the shores of our country in search of greener pastures or were forcefully taken away to distant lands.

To me, it seems just plain wrong to go about asking those who have made it big abroad to contribute to the nation-building process just becasue they are rich. I mean what right do we have to ask anyone for that matter to quite literally 'pay-up' by playing the patriotic card? If they want to, they'll do it out of their own free will, and they are doing so, so this cheap attempt of using the patriotic card is an example of how we have degraded ourselves to the levels of beggers, resorting to emotional tricks rather than give the NRIs a proper reason to invest in and help in the development of our country.

When Gandhiji returned to India from South Africa on the 12th of January, 1915, for all practical purposes, he could have been mistaken for an 'NRI' despite having left for South Africa to defend a client there. Having returned to India, he plunged into the freedom struggle and soon had the masses thronging to catch a glimpse of him during his several protest rallies and speeches. The Indians had found the answer to one of the greatest problems in someone who came from abroad. This mentality still seems to persist, in spite of the fact that we are no longer the slaves we were till 1947. Having said that, now I do believe that our minds and actions have become slaves to years of bad goverance and dependence on others to solve our problems. It really wouldn't matter even if the entire NRI community pumped in all their money, we seem to be headed in only one direction, and the currents are just too strong to turn back. God forbid I should be right.

What ails Indian media today?

2006-12-06T12:21:00.001+05:30

I haven't blogged in a long time, owing to a sudden increase in work and poor health in the recent past. But I couldn't have chosen a more appropriate time to make a comeback with a topic that I have wanted to write about in a long, long time.

Let's be honest, spreading news now seems to have become a game, a gimmick of sorts to see whose news would linger longer in the minds of the public, like the taste of a good meal. 'News' isn't want drives today's media, TRP ratings do; the truth isn't what is being pursued, sensationalism is; matters of national concern aren't given enough space & time, matters of personal interest are. I'm not a journalist and so don't know what are the dos and don'ts taught to journalists today (if something like that is taught at all), but what I just mentioned come from pure common sense.

Last year, in 2005, (or early 2006, I can't quite recollect), I thought NDTV reached a new low when Swathi Maheshwari visited the home of an Indian truck driver who was kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq and thrust a microphone in front of his wailing mother asking her 'how she feels?'. How the hell was she expected to feel when the sole bread winner of her family was taken captive with a good chance of him being paraded in front of a camera and have his head lopped off? Personal opinion, and I'm sure there are many who agree with me on this, but that was one of the most despicable things to do by anyone, let alone a journalist. The appreciable part was that it was the news channel that was relaying information about the captives to the family rather than the Ministry of External Affairs. This, however, didn't give them the right to take a camera into their houses in their hour of grief. And their explanation of "sharing the family's grief with the rest of the country" was as lousy an excuse as any.

Our security forces (armed forces and police) and the nation's security gets the least coverage by the media, although national security should be of interest to everyone national. Terrorism in Kashmir is given it's fair share in the news, and I'm not complaining about that. But how much of news time or print space is given to such stories? The only time these make the headlines are when the number of killed exceeds 10 or so, else it takes at most a little over a minute on the 9 o'clock news or a narrow coulmn in the papers. Why is it that only when the number of those killed exceeds a certain 'magic figure' does the media decide to give more importance to the story? Is the loss of life of one jawan or officer of our security forces not as important as the loss of several of his or her comrades? And even when these incidents are reported, they are not followed up until the next major incident.

More recently, Sanjay Dutt's verdict in the 1993 Bombay blasts came out and for the entire week, the only thing that was running was Sanju bhaiyya's friends, well wishers and sister thanking God, and saying things like 'he's a nice guy', 'no one should have to go through what he has undergone', etc. Was the entire country that desperate to know what his family and friends thought at him not being branded a terrorist by the courts at the cost of what was happening to soldiers like Major Pitambare of the 3 Paras, who gave up his life while eliminating the HuMs topmost leader in the valley? This story was given a few dying seconds at the end of the 9 o'clock news and the papers next day had a narrow column mentioning it. A few seconds on TV and a piece in the paper on 1 day. Is that how much we value the freedom and democracy that our men in uniform unselfishly lay their lives for? Is this the message the media wishes to portray?

The other thing I've noticed is the media has turned from presenting the facts to presenting their opinion. In a nation like ours, where majority live by the news they hear, without bothering to form an opinion of their own based on facts, the media, knowingly or unknowingly, have started started encroaching into a territory that ought not to be transgressed. Everyone has the right to form their own opinion based on the facts presented, but the media seems to have taken it a step further and taken upon itself the role of 'opinion former', so now our democratic minds have that much less to do. This is one (dis)service we could gladly do without.

The media (electronic) in this case went out of their way in a never seen before show of solidarity for the retrial of Manu Sharma, accused in the Jessica Lall murder case. I'm still wondering where that solidarity went when it came to fighting alongside the families of the security personnel who lost their lives during the attack on Parliament, who are opposing the clemency plea of Mohammad Afzal, the person convicted of providing logistical support and accepting money, thereby endangering the security of the country and waging war against the state. I'm guessing it's partly due to our mentality towards our security forces. We think that they are there to die for the country and so when they do, no big deal. however, models like Jessica Lall are people we relate better to since she came from an upper middle class family, like most of us. So at the end of the day, the media has give this story a quiet burial. And surprisingly, there was no 'opinion' presented by the media on this.

The media has for long has claimed that they are targeted most of the times and are made to look like the bad guys. With all that they do, did they expect any better? By no means am I painting all journalists with the same brush, but it's not too hard to see what kind of journalists and what brand of journalism is under fire here. Our country operates with 3 arms- the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature; I just hope the media doesn't become an extension of one of these arms, or a fourth arm itself.

more as they come.

A flight less ordinary

2006-09-13T08:25:00.000+05:30

I recently read in the papers that a certain gentleman named B N Shukla had filed a petition in 1995 in the High Court against the subsidy provided to Indian Muslims for the Haj. I was shocked to hear that this petition came up for hearing after 11 years, but was extremely pleased to hear the Allahabad HC rule that the subsidies should be stopped.

Ours being a secular country, one would have thought that all religions should be given equal respect and importance, opportunities and benefits. I find it hard to believe that only Muslims are beneficieries of such subsidies for pilgrimages, while Sikhs going to the Nankana Sahib in Lahore or Hindus on pilgrimage to Kailash and Mansarovar are not extended such privileges (of course, now I know it's nothing more than vote bank politics). What's even more astounding is the fact that India is the only country that offers such subsidies; no other nation, not even Islamic nations offer such subsidies. The primary, and probably the only, reason why Islamic nations do not offer such subsidies is because according to Islam, that would be unislamic, for no Muslim should be indebted to anyone to undertake the Haj (I'm not quite sure about the wordings of the religious decree, but it means that no one should take help of any kind for the Haj-they ought to manage on their own). Why then do we have a Haj committee run by Muslims, who believe in living life as per the holy Quran, who believe in the shariat and the triple-talaq, warmly embracing this gimmick by the government?

This brings to mind an old saying: when it comes to money, everyone is of the same religion!

Reverse swing: The white side of cricket

2006-09-01T08:14:00.000+05:30

Well, well, well, Darrell Hair is at it again; and again it's the 'brown bastards' (also known as Asians from the sub-continent in the civilised world) who are at the receiving end. What happened during the final test at the Oval was nothing short of a disgrace to this great game that most members of the commonwealth love. Let's be honest, both parties involved were wrong - one for taking matters too far too soon (Pak team) and the other for being too stubborn and acting out of pride (Hair).

Darrell Hair seems to be a magnet for controversy - be it because of his literal interpretation of the law and lack of common sense or the fact that he's an Aussie and we all know that Aussies are a bunch of stubborn bastards (no offence meant). The Pakistani team was guilty of not coming out to the field when they were expected to. Staying in the dressing rooms to register their protest - they could have gone to field and not started bowling, which would have been a far more effective option! Hair on the other hand, suspecting the ball to have been tampered with, should have produced proof. No proof, no charge, it's that simple, be it cricket or in society. In the end, the affair boiled down to who was involved, and unfortunately, both parties involved weren't the ones who could think rationally at the given moment.

During the 1979-80 tour of New Zealand, the West Indies team under Clive Lloyd were recipients of terrible umpiring decisions, and in the second test, they chose to register their protest by staying in the dressing room. When asked by the NZ cricket board chairman, Llloyd is said to have replied "We came here to play cricket; what's happeneing out there is not cricket!". The matter was resolved and the game continued inspite of the delay caused by the Windies team. Different people, different actions, different outcome.

Remember Mike Denness handing over suspended sentences to half the Indian team during the tour of South Africa? When Shaun Pollock appealed and kicked the turf out of anger, that didn't matter to him. When Kallis was seen running his fingers to remove the mud stuck on the seam, he wasn't pulled up. However, the Denness' and Hairs of the cricketing world are on the decline and hopefully their breed would soon be part of folklore, but a folklore that would be best forgotten.

The ICC, in a statement following the Oval fiasco and the Pakistani team's statement that they don't want Hair officiating in any test matches they play in, said that no team has the right to decide who they want or don't want to be standing as umpires in their games. Fair enough, they think that would be placing a team above the game. In that case, I'd like the ICC to explain to me why the yallow Darrell Hair to exempt himself from going and officiating in games played in Zimbabwe. Surely, if a team cannot be above the game, can an individual? White world hegemony or 'brown bastard' paranoia?

When humans fly

2006-06-08T12:26:00.001+05:30

I am awed by the nature of human spirit. I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't seen it. THIS IS CRAZY. HUMANS DON'T FLY!!!

This video can also be accessed at:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=515642196227308929

I believe the video has been removed. It can now be viewed here.

Why mainstream Hindi movies survive

2006-06-06T13:43:00.000+05:30

Bollywood movies are a craze in India; well not just in India, in every part of the world where there are people who can understand Hindi, be it in our own backyard with Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, or in the wild, wild west with our second home England (would love to see them Brits' faces now), USA, New Zealand, Canada (Punjab away from India), Kenya (Gujarat away from India) or where ever. The primary reason why Hindi movies (musicals), have been so endearing to the Indian junta is because of their depiction of tales of fantasy, tales that never seemed possible for the hoi polloi, and this in turn always gave the common people hope, that something better was in store for them.

Let's get into the anatomy of a Hindi movie right away, and lets start with the head. The title. If you go through most of the movies that were released in the last 5 years, you'll find one thing in common. Most of the names had a few key words, and the blanks were filled with the appropriate words to form something tangible. Some of those key words are dil, pyaar, mohabbat, ishq, hum, tum. Concoct a combination with a couple from the list above and throw in a couple more and you've got yourself the title of a Yash Chopra/Karan Johar comical depiction of India (Punjab), it's people (Punjabis) and the Indian (Punjabi) way of getting married in the typical arranged marriage style with a baraat, an entire hosehold singing the same song at the same time and mysteriously having all the right accessories at the given time.

Now that we've dissected the head, let's move over to the body. The story. A typical one would involve a guy and a girl falling in love, and the guy would be one of the following if not all:

a social outcaste
a poor boy
rival faction

And yet, the high society girl flips for him (after a brief resistance) and is ready to die for him (wow), while her father would be the main villain, or as the Russians would say, the glavni provotnik (principal adversary). Now this was the predictable sequence until the year 2000.

Movies after the year 2000 seem to be a bit better with the girls' dad being left out of the action, or at least the interesting action, and the villains becoming international, but the bottomline is the story would still revolve around the relationship of the boy and the girl and nothing else. Over and over and over again, the public are subjected to the same storyline (with new faces) and yet the public continue to throng towards the theatres like iron filings to a magnet. Ever wondered why? I'll give you my theory a little later.

Before I move on to the few movies/directors/actors who actually put an effort to make good movies, I need to mention about the increasing number of copycat movies in Bollywood. In the mid 90s, a slew of copycat movies were coming out, usually copied from a Mani Ratnam blockbuster. Later, Bollywood one-upped itself and started copying Hollywood films. And the worst part about it was, people like Mahesh Manjrekar for example, after making Kaante, had the audacity to go live and say he didn't copy any movie but the story appeared to him in a dream, when it was obvious to even a child sucking his pacifier that it was a total rip off of Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs.

Now let's consider the few movies that I don't consider as part of mainstream Indian cinema: movies by Ram Gopal Verma, Amir Khan's new movies (post 2000), movies by Rahul Bose, etc. Also, before I start writing this part, I'd like to categorically state that there are exceptions to everything and I am not generalising things. Ram Verma's movies generally revolve around a fixed group of actors (a la Quentin Tarantino) and his movies center around the gangsters/underworld life. This is a welcome break from the usual lovey-dovey stuff churned out otherwise, but one gets a feeling that he tries to overdo it at times. Now why don't his movies run to a packed houses like Yash Chopra's? Simple, his stories depict reality, and what's more, it's a part of reality that doesn't seem to affect the majority of the population directly. I mean how many of us come in contact with the underworld in our daily life? If you're tucked away in Trivandrum or Bangalore, or in and around cities like Kolkatta, or for that matter rural India, chances are never.

Amir Khan's movies have been a success because of his new mantra to do only one movie a year, which surrounds his movies in a shawl of suspense that the public are eager to know more about. Be it with Lagaan, Dil chahta hai, 1857, or more recently rang de basanti or fanaa, Amir seems to have found a soft spot in the otherwise rigid filmi public. And like Amir, Rahul Bose's (who in my opinion is India's finest actor at present) movies too aren't as rampant as Yash Chopra or Karan Johars and so are extremely refreshing to the eyes. But unfortunately for Rahul, his movies focus on issues pertaining to urban India and so the majority of the people watching and relating to his movies are the urban population, who don't constitute the bulk of our filmi junta. Having said that, I must add that Mr. and Mrs. Iyer was an absolute beaut of a movie in terms of acting and portrayal, depicting what happens in India, urban and rural alike.

About not generalising, well, I'm always in a quagmire about this term and what it means. I mean when can we generalise, only when there is a 100% success rate, or can it be done even if our theory holds good for 95% and we bracket the remaining 5% along with the 95%? Let's forget about it for now.

So now let me finally come down to my theory about why Indians tend to watch movies that usually revolve around the same storyline. I mean, one would think you'd get bored with the same crap being shown with new faces, but no, not in India my friend. We Indians are a bunch of hypocrites, and when confronted with reality, we choose to turn a blind eye to it and appear ready to accept fantasy tales that would seem possible only in reel life. This is the primary reason why a Yash Chopra or a Karan Johar is more successful than a Rahul Bose or a Ram Gopal Verma, even though they (Bose and Verma) happen to portray reality, which usually would mean the good guys getting screwed. The fact is, we don't seem to be able to face reality when it appears and slaps us on the face. A movie that portrays the victory of good over evil (boy getting his girl) is acceptable anyday (howmany ever times it's repeated) over one in which the audience would have to introspect. Solace it seems, in India, can be obtained only in the arms of a broad named fantasy. That, dear reader, is reality, so suck up to it and quit complaining.

Hindi is NOT the rashtrabhasha

2006-05-30T12:09:00.000+05:30

OK, let's settle this once and for all. I'm not in the mood to write too much about this now coz there's plenty of material on it. I'll just direct you towards a couple of links.

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2005/01/16/stories/2005011600260300.htm

And if you're wondering what was it that you learnt in school about Hindi being 'national language', like the tiger being the 'national animal', then please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_languages_of_India

Hindi is 'A' national language (along with 22 other languages mentioned under the 8^th schedule of the Indian constitution), as opposed to the common perception that Hindi is 'THE' national language.

I rest my case.