Listen up, all ye faithful

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

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

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

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

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

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

India's most destructive forces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parody on the miracle birth

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

Reposted from an article on disbelief.net.

---

---

Jesus Christ and His Magic Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

What a loser

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

We won a couple more

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

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







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

India's best sporting achievement

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

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

Abort! Abort! Abort!

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

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

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

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

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

Why no secret ballot?

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).