Why no secret ballot?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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?

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

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.