From hell, with love

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!

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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...

... 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

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

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

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

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.

1. Oye ya bloody wanka (wanker)! You look pretty bladdered after last night; didja have a bender?
2. Oye Matty, did ya bonk Ricky last night? Ee looks pretty 'urt mate!
3. Hey Pup (Michael Clarke), why're ye camping it up here mate?
4. Haddin, you wanna 'ave a chin wag eh? Sorry mate, don't do tha' sorta thing with a stinkin' dingo.
5. Full o' beans today, aren't we fellows?
6. Oye, wanna take a hard one in the goolies?
7. Oye Ricky, 'ave we got a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock today?
8. Hey Shane, doin' a lil aerial ping pong are we?
9. Oh boy, your bowling figures are a dogs breakfast, aren't they mate?
10. 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

Secular

sec·u·lar [sek-yuh-ler]
–adjective

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. 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...

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

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!