Had it in hand, didn't get in mouth

Asian age asks the million dollar question which should have been asked by others also, but for some reason has not yet been asked,

Confusion in Congress: Can quota attract votes?

The answer is simply no, for one appeasing vote bank through quota (or for that matter any populist measure) is mostly self defeating for a political party for the simple reason that competing parties are always there to up the stake. Since money for all this is paid by a minority and because almost everyone (including that minority) believes that others owe them their life, it can only end in disaster (i.e. the current state)

Voting patterns considering that reservations are political non starters (in long term) are determined by group identitification.

For example in my home state UP Mulayam Yadav for most part is supported by Yadavs and Muslims.

Whatever Congress may or may not do, Yadavs will back one of their caste. This holds true for all the castes to various extent whether forward or backward.
In last Bihar assembly elections although Laloo Yadav lost his Yadav base remained intact inspite of a competing yadav in JD(U). Infact considering his inept administration (inept is an understatment) his ability to retain his base is nothing short of impressive.

At present Congress doesn't have any leadership with whom backwards can identify. Further there is not chance of that soon, for the simple reason any popular leader in Congress
will be a direct threat to dynasty.

Congress could learn from V.P. Singh, who despite being the original "Messiah" was not able to reap what he sowed.

Seen in this light, Arun Singh's decision of playing to gallery is puzzling.

PS. The title is translation of one of famous dialogues of Andaaz Apna Apna, the unparalleled repository of wisdom

Regrets for hole

For some reason blogging has been banned from my workplace.
This is from my mail account.
Ban may be lifted in few hours or few days.
Meanwhile blogging will be erratic.

Update: The ban has been lifted.

Categories : Misc

One story then.....

This was told by one of wiseguys who have nothning better to do than spin yarns

Once upon a time king Vipreetbudhhi ruled over kingdom of Matibhram.
He had a servant who was faithful and a monkey Arjun Singh

Now it so happened that one day king was enjoying afternoon siesta, arjun singh his faithful servant fanning to keep king comfortable.
To the monkey's horror a wasp entered the bedroom from outside the garden, wishing to keep his master from harm, monkey tried to make wasp fly away but failed and wasp settled on the king's nose, seeing this arjun singh took prompt action and swung king's sword at the wasp.

Hearing this Tyaaag ki Murti said, let us have "Affirmative action".

God & Rubber

Via Slimes

Pope Benedict XVI has asked a team of experts to prepare a statement on the use of condoms by married persons who harbour infectious viruses such as HIV.

It is beyond my comprehension to grasp the selective interpretations by Church (Both Catholic and Protestant) and stubborn adherence to dogma.

Hinduism despite all its flaws fare better, when logic and rationality is concerned.

You will not find any Guru insisting on adherence to literal meaning or dogma.

This atleast should give Hindu baiters a pause.

I spy...

This is an irrelevant post written just to make some non sensical prediction

Phir Hera Pheri seqeul to blockbuster and laugh riot Hera Pheri is under production.

The story revolves around the three protagonists plus Rajpal Yadav (who presumably are conned by a shyster) and Bipasha Basu

Four suckers and a babe, now where have I heard that ? Why , it is here !

And this is my prediction. Is anyone going to bet ?

Update: Frog, in comments explains that it is actually a remake of malayalam fim "mAnnAr mattAyi speaking", which was sequel of "rAmjirAvu speaking"(on which Hera Pheri was based), I am glad he did not bet.

Categories : Aside, Media

Not my king!

Since I am on Sangh Parivar, I can not but feel surprise and anger over RSS and VHP support to King Gyanendra.

Let me make it clear, it doesn't matter whether Gyanendra is Hindu or Muslim or Christian, he is incompetent and corrupt. Since he usurped the power, he has subverted democratic process, oppressed citizens of Nepal and by his sheer opportunism let Maoist gain political acceptance.
He and his son have commited a crime against Nepal and do not deserve any support from any one with iota of decency.

There is second point, Singhal and company might have been ignorant about history, but to claim support for a king because he is hindu requires an absolute disregard for intellect.
Hindus do not need king because royalty is so 18th century !

As a Hindu I am perfectly happy with democracy. What is more to appeal to Hinduism for palace intrigues and power politics and thus communalising foreing policy is as bad as support of certain Muslim clerics for Iran.

Even worse by attempting to provide importance to institution of monarchy in Hinudism, these ignoramus not only undo progress that Hindus have made, but also creates unneccessary dogma in Hinduism.
 

Categories : Religion, Hinduism, Foreign_Affairs, Security, Politics

Prophet Krishna - II

Previous Post,

My second problem goes beyond my personal notion of religion.
It is about freedom of worship, I believe that everyone should have freedom to worship the way he prefers, irrespective of his choices he has as much right to India as anyone else. I do believe that basis of India is Hinduism, however I do oppose any move which seeks to define India in terms of worship of specific forms or rituals.

As I said earlier it matters least to me and should not matter to anyone else what form someone worships.

Hinduism is not against the freedom, however for me freedom to practise religion takes precedence over religious matters.

And it is here that what Mr Sudarshan is advocating is pernicious to fabric of India.

Update:

Let me add what I expect from Indians. Two things

First: Respect and Love for India. This doesn't mean my country right or wrong. This means being responsible towards nation and fellow citizens.

Second: God gave us brains, so for his sake use it.

Don't claim that because it is written in Gita/Quran/Bible it is the supreme truth. It isn't.

Categories : Religion, India, Civilization, Hinduism, Culture

My kind of fiction

While I am on Nitin,

Recently he had a post on how Hinduism can make world a better place (Under foreign affairs category!)

I am uncomfortable with the premise of writer Jean - Pierre Lehmann.
In brief his position is religion is meaningless. What is worse it is a impediment to growth of civilization, therefore in theory it would be a good thing to get rid of it. However since it is not practically possible to do so, we should replace monotheistic religions with polytheistic religion i.e. Hinduism.

The logic that I can see is, since all religions are equally fictitious, therefore replace fiction which is bothersome, with fiction which gives a wide latitude.

Why I object to this, for two reasons

First is obvious, since I am a Hindu (so far at least) I disagree with the premise that religion is fiction. Ofcourse it is, in a way left handed compliment to Hinduism.

Second is while the author argues based on pragmatism, I think it is in a way intellectual dishonesty to promote Hinduism over Islam and Christian.

If the author is convinced that atheism is the right way, it is incumbent upon him and other atheists to stress this and debunk religion using as persuasive arguments as possible.

Failure to do so and promoting a particular religion for sake of expediency breeds the sort of unhealthy cynicism which is never good for progress thus defeating the whole purpose of charade.
 

Categories : Secularism, Religion, Hinduism, Civilization

Prophet Krishna - 1

It is time to take a look at RSS and antics of its leader i.e. Mr. K. S. Sudarshan,

Not so recently he made a comment that Muslims in India should Indianize, he also said that a step in the direction will be when Muslims accept Bhagwan Krishna as their prophet.

Needless to say I am not amused with this, in fact I feel distinctly uncomfortable with this.

There are two problems with this. This post is about the first issue.

Attempt to reinterpret Bhagwan Krishna in terms of Islam is an attempt to make dogma of Hinduism.

Hinduism posits presence of one supreme power beyond human perception and even human logic (Read previous post)

Hinduism also admits that contemplation by man,of the infinite and formless is possible through a form. Therefore Hindus worship Murthis (idols). In the same fashion avatars are a proxy, a placeholder of the supreme, devotion to avatars is a way to contemplate Sat-Chit-Ananda.

It is therefore not important what is the superficial nature of the form, what is important is by worship Hindus seeks to affirm and reinforce certain attributes of the life.

It may be love, kindness, compassion, devotion, creation, or destruction.
There is another thing Hindus worship all kinds of forms, Hinduism has diverse philosophies, since the dawn of civilizations so many sages have reflected and argued, many times agreeing and many times disagreeing, the only common thread was quest for mysteries.

Hinduism doesn't have prophets, it has sages and gurus . It is intentional.
Hinduism is not about angels and afterlife. It is also not about ether unconnencted to reality.
Lastly it is not the end to all the human ingenuity.

Hinduism is about life, it is about this world, it is about seeking.

There is no guaranteed path, sure there are gurus and Rishis to guide but in the end it is the individual himself who has to find the path and if it doesn't exist carve it out of barren land. His only tools are intellect and knowledge and his only companion is inquisitiveness.
Our avatars are not to make sheeps of men, they are not their to harvest souls. They symbolize what Hinduism signifies, in glory and in bleakness.

As a Hindu, it is least of my problem or concern that a Muslim revers Prophet Muhammed or a Christian Jesus Christ, I do not judge by symbols, I judge by meanings behind the symbolism.

However what concerns me is that by trying to make Bhagwaan Krishna as a Prophet the whole essence and beauty of Hinduism is lost.
 

Categories : Religion, Hinduism, India, Civilization, Culture

Rumour has it ........

That purveyor of all thing related to security Nitin Pai is coming to Mumbai.

Normally I would have been the first to welcome his arrival, but I am not.

For you see, this is not normal, he is going to den of evil cartellians who stand accused in whole blogdom of such heresy and barbarity as logic, fact and statistics (not to mention violent tastes in footwears). Infact, the visit is being hosted by a cartel member (who is rumored to be root cause behind poverty, Iraq war and disgrace of Carol Gracias).

Keeping in mind value of Nitin to bloggers (and if highly unreliable and thus widely circulated rumours are to be believed, to those in Main stream media), such a venture is fraught with risk.

So I can only appeal to good judgment of Nitin and hope that he will realize the danger of such dangerous liaisons.

However in case he is not able to apply his judgment (no doubt due to Vada Paav of Chowpati, cartellians can stoop to conquer), I consider a rescue operation must be launched by bloggers opposed to wicked ways of cartel.

Blogger of Mumbai (including Thane and Navi Mumbai) and Pune should combine their resources to ensure that under no circumstances Nitin is captured and made to cross over to dark side.

Ladies and gentlemen, failure is not an option

My belief - II (Avatar)

I am a Hindu. So do I believe in Rama or Krishna ? Answer may be yes or no, depending on what one means by belief.

Do I believe in the historical autheticity of avatars? Again the same answer.

Let me explain this, I do believe that a long time ago there must have existed a noble and just King called Rama, he must have been a notable warrior and a honourable gentleman. I am also sure that his Kingdom must have been a prosperous one and his subject must have loved him. I also believe he might have slain Ravana.

In other words I do believe that Ramayana does portray more or less a real picture of past.

However I hesitate to pronounce Ramayana or any Hindu scriptures as documents which are objectively accurate. As is clear from many incidents described in epics, they can not be taken as the gospel truth (I am being sarcastic) .

As I have speculated earlier, Hindu epics were written more as documents for philosophical and spiritual discourse and less as accurate depiction of history (or itihaas).

What is the point of writing all this? This is an attempt to articulate my understanding of avatar.

I rever Rama not because he is the literal avatar of Bhagwan Vishnu, but because he (or to be more precise his portrayal) embodies the human ideals that is kindness, honesty, integrity, justice and valour.
In the same manner Krishna (or as before his portrayal) is revered for his compassion and wisdom.

And this, in my view is a sensible approach. We should worship avatar because they embody the human ideals and not because of dogmas and semantic hair splitting arising out of beliefs in literal veracity.

Ofcourse the reason I worship the specific forms is entirely a matter of random chance, it is a matter of chance that I was born Hindu, therefore I think it is to quibble over the specific form.
What is more important to realize is true nature of divinity that is Brahman (ofcourse this is truth according to Hinduism, and I agree with it)

PS Ofcourse I believe that everything is a manifestation of the cosmic force, this makes everyone, (in a sense) avatar.

The Dark Age

I wish this referred to Age Of Empires, however it doesn't.

(Via Slimes)

Raped by bro-in-law, murdered by hubby,

"A 30-year-old woman in Punjab was allegedly murdered by her husband after she accused her brother-in-law of raping her and insisted that the matter be reported to police....."

I understand we do not live in utopia. I also understand that despite the best efforts of people criminals (and this includes murders and rapists) exists and will continue to exist.

But this is not a case of simple murder or rape.

The woman was killed by husband to protect the honour of the family!

What kind of perversion is this when superficial and prejucied opinions of others holds more sanctity than resepct and even life of women?

Where a victim has to bear the cross, where she gets scorn and contempt instead of sympathy and justice.

But we all know.It is a diseased society of de-humanized people which condones or rationalizes such acts.

I do not tolerate such vileness, nor do I accept anyone else, either in India or anywhere in world.

Make no mistake, society so depraved has no right to exist! If there is no hope for reform, even destruction is preferable to existence of such ignoble people.

Delimiting the constinuencies

When Indian constitution was adopted, there was a provision for increasing the number of constituencies based on increased population.
This, however could not be done, the general idea being that it will reward states which have failed in family planning. I, ofcourse do not agree with such reasons, however I will prefer to address this in a seperate post at some later date.

However there is a related issue which can be addressed, that of change in rural-urban population.

At present there are only approximately 50 constituencies which can considered as urban, even if constiuencies with a mix of urban and rural constituencies is considered the number of constituencies can not exceed more than 100 (I could not find a very good reference except this)

Now this may reflect the composition of population in 1931 (Urban 34 million, rural 246 million)
however this surely doesn't represent the present composition of population.
As of now the rural population is 742 millions and urban 286 millions.

(Source here)

Now although the seats of the parliament can not be increased, the seats within a state can be delimited so that while the total no. of the seats of the state remains constant, the number of urban and rural constituencies changes.

This will mean that from present 50 the urban constituencies will increase to 130.
As a result urban population will have a greater influence in decision making.
Now although the populism in India is targeted towards both the cities and the villages, it is overwhelmingly skewed towards villages.

Further a major percentage of the income which supports such largesse comes from cities.
And therefore the urban population, in general will be more circumspect with respect to blatant populism.

What this implies is that an increased influence by cities will check the tendency by political parties to pander to rural sector by promising freebies. With a disincentive, I am optimistic that Indian political system will turn away from present day policy of entitlement and free lunch.
 

Categories : India, Society, Politics, Economics

Enlightened Moderation

Via Indian Express

Malaysia demolishes century-old Hindu temple in Kuala Lampur ,

The report says that temple was supposed to on government land, considering that it was 100 years old, I am a bit puzzled.

Even if "greatest good for greater number" is admitted, the least Malaysian authorities could do was to relocate the structure.

If the report is correct, to me it is a serious indictment of supposedly moderate state of Malaysia.
 

Categories : Secularism, International, Religion

Kali Vs. Jesus

I love evangelists,

(Via sepia mutiny)

Ofcourse according to secularists such things are fiction and product of RSS imagination.

The fightback

(Via Indian Express)

SC warns: India is secular, behave,

".... The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Orissa government to provide police protection to a Muslim couple who were forced to separate after local clerics issued a fatwa that they were divorced even though they wanted to live together..... "

It is heartening to note , that while state has consistently failed to safeguard rights of citizens, Judiciary has stepped up to fill the role. Having said that, the fact that Judiciary has to intervene in what should be a routine case hardly a testimony either to state or society.

Later in the article,

"....The clerics had said that if Nazma wanted to live with her husband, she must perform 'halala' (she must marry another man and the marriage must be consummated, after which she can get a divorce and then re-marry her first husband).
However, Nazma refused to do so, and instead knocked at the doors of the court....."


I am perfectly aware of the potential cost that an average Indian has to pay for defying the strongmen, seen in this light the couple,and especially the wife deserve accolades for fighting the entrenched mullahcracy.
Ultimately, it is by the concerted action of the individuals that society and state is to be lifted from morass.

Update: Surprise, surprise ! Counter move has already started (via CN), ofcourse the easiest way to suppress rights of individual citizen is to claim offense to religion. It worked with Shah Bano and Satanic Verses, is it going to work this time ? I doubt, UPA government has already more on plate than it can digest.

My belief in Rama

I am a Hindu. So do I believe in Rama or Krishna ? Answer may be yes or no, depending on what one means by belief.

Do I believe in the historical autheticity of avatars? Again the same answer.

Let me explain this, I do believe that a long time ago there must have existed a noble and just King called Rama, he must have been a notable warrior and a honourable gentleman. I am also sure that his Kingdom must have been a prosperous one and his subject must have loved him. I also believe he might have slain Ravana.

In other words I do believe that Ramayana does portray more or less a real picture of past.

However I hesitate to pronounce Ramayana or any Hindu scriptures as documents which are objectively accurate. As is clear from many incidents described in epics, they can not be taken as the gospel truth (I am being sarcastic) .

As I have speculated earlier, Hindu epics were written more as documents for philosophical and spiritual discourse and less as accurate depiction of history (or itihaas).

What is the point of writing all this? This is an attempt to articulate my understanding of avatar.

I rever Rama not because he is the literal avatar of Bhagwan Vishnu, but because he (or to be more precise his portrayal) embodies the human ideals that is kindness, honesty, integrity, justice and valour.
In the same manner Krishna (or as before his portrayal) is revered for his compassion and wisdom.

And this, in my view is a sensible approach. We should worship avatar because they embody the human ideals and not because of dogmas and semantic hair splitting arising out of beliefs in literal veracity.

Ofcourse the reason I worship the specific forms is entirely a matter of random chance, it is a matter of chance that I was born Hindu, therefore I think it is to quibble over the specific form.
What is more important to realize is true nature of divinity that is Brahman (ofcourse this is truth according to Hinduism, and I agree with it)

My foreign policy objectives

Nitin has written a post about the objectives of Indian foreign policy.

My humble contribution

1) Persuade the americans to adopt metric system of measurement, if they fail to do so, make UN impose sanctions on US.

2) While on America, make sure that a Presidential candidate is familiar with the basic rules of grammar, has average comprehension skills and doesn't think that "Intelligent Design" is science. I do not want a Monty Python sketch.

3) Also, pass a resolution declaring any Pakistani victory over Indian team (in cricket or hockey), a violation of international laws.

4) Make people (oops, I mean celebrities) understand that rock concerts are not a good way to eliminate world hunger.

5) Make Michael Moore shave his beard.

6) While on Moore, make him loose some weight. (He makes me want to throw up even without watching his polemics)

7) Prohibit Britney Spears (Or Madonna) from entering any Hindu Temple.

8) Forbid George Lucas from producing any further Star Wars franchise (what is great about it anyway, tacky doesn't even begin to describe the whole thing).

9) Outlaw any sequel to Basic Instinct. Make Sharon Stone wear a Burqa.

10) Make uttering metrosexual a capital punishment.

The points that I made may seem silly, but I believe that if properly done will go on to make the world a much better place for living. And it is the belief which is important not facts, not logic.

Sock it to Manmohan!

(Via Slimes)

Azim Premji rebuffs Gentle Doctor!

Azim Premji can always be counted to play with a straight bat.

Now that he after Ratan Tata and many other leading industrialists have spoken, the pressure on UPA government to eschew naked populism is more than ever. Will Queen Sonia be able to curtail ambitions of venerable fossil i.e Arjun Singh is the question.

Between Jobs

As is obviouse from title, I am a tad tied up.
So, do manage with archives, or better yet read a different blog.

And yes, while you are here, why don't you identify yourself (at right hand side panel)

Regulation - II (Compliance)

Previous Post

Let me explain my background. I have worked as under two years as a Ship surveyor. (Read Lloyd's and Classification Society too).
In shipping sector almost all the inspection, survey and the certification is done by Classification societies. There are private players (specifically, The big three) as well as government appointed ( IRS).

In general shipping is a field not known for honesty. By the very nature it has been through out history a magnet for unscrupulous element who are ready to bend (or break) few rules here and there to make an extra profit.
Enforcing the rules faces resistance from ship owners, ship builders and good old bureaucracy. And yet the classification societies have done a fine job of enforcing the safety standards.

The reason for this is insurance company. As there are huge costs(owner's damage and/or penalty) for any accident, the insurance company/underwriters can not accept certificate from a society which doesn't have impeccable standards of honesty and integrity (All of big three are around 150 years old, Lloyd's is more than 200 )

Also, despite bureaucracy, port authorities are wary of any accidents in ports, so even if there is government appointed agency, port authorities will prefer certificates issued by established and well reputed societies.

This system can be effectively used to enforce fire and safety regulations.Any approval by authority should be dependent on insurance coverage.The insurance company will only issue certificate based on assessment by an independent assessor. Because insurance companies have to pay in case of any mishap, they will rely only on the honest assessor and hence this will ensure a better compliance.
 

Categories : India , Economics , Society , Politics

In Transit

This post is written from Changi airport.

Blogging may be light for somedays.

Kindly cooperate

Regulation - I (Violation)

Via rediff,

50 killed in Meerut fire

This will not be big news. People dying in fire accidents is very common in India. Yet as I always maintain, it is the small things which are more important as a pointer to problem India faces. As they say devil is in details.

There are safety regulations and they are flouted, one has to just pay some lowly clerk some bribe to get the clearance, contrariwise even if you have religiously followed and implemented all safety regulations and recommendation, unless the money has changed hand, there is no hope in the heaven that you will get clearance.

Culprit is the bureaucracy (as usual). Can this be changed by free market? In a way, I think yes.
 

Categories : India , Economics , Politics , Society

What a man giveth – IV (About altruism)

The point of previous posts was to establish that although human is a social animal; he has a strong individualistic streak.

It is important to realize that for any system of governance to work, it has to go along with basic human instincts. And this is the reason altruism will not work.

People mistake that altruism is only about giving and sharing without expecting a return. The important condition to altruism is that not only all participants should be willing to share their produce; they should be willing to produce according to their capability.

As the nature of humanity is, this can not be ensured, it is perfectly well for ants, in fact the very idea of individualism will be beyond the comprehension of ants (assuming that they had the capacity for abstract thought).

This is not to say that altruism doesn't exist, but wherever it exists it is a matter of culture and is followed voluntarily. Since human culture is variant, altruism as bedrock of governance principle is simply not reliable enough.

It can be enforced by the power of state, this is what communism does, but since it is not voluntarily it fails, indeed it can not be otherwise, because while force can prevent man from doing something, it can not coerce or compel him to produce.
Anything of creative nature, any scientific advancement, any artistic breakthrough is only possible through own volition.

Therefore a welfare state, which seeks to enforce altruism, can not succeed in long term because there will be a propensity of citizens not to try their damnest and put their best efforts.
It need not be conscious, more likely it will be subconscious, a dependency on the big brother to solve each and every problem no matter how personal or how trivia,l of the citizen.

Absent the initiative, the welfare state is a long road to decrepitude and decay
 

Categories : Economics , Society , Culture , Politics

What a man giveth – III (About freedom)

Previously here and here

Let’s establish the ground. There is no natural and axiomatic basis for inalienable right to freedom. There is nothing anti-democratic about it.

Nowhere in animal kingdom (except for our species), right to freedom is practiced. Carnivores and herbivores (those who are social) alike practice either matriarchy or patriarchy, and the power of leader is absolute. No dissent is tolerated; there is no discussion, no talk shows, and no attempt to build a consensus. Pack (or herd) follows the leader without question (even if the outcome is most miserable and undesirable death). The only way of difference in opinion is by directly challenging the leader, the challenger is either the new leader or he is dead (sometimes he is just exiled from the group).

Does it mean freedom is bogus? No.

Humans are different. They are social; however of all the animals they have greatest capability of abstract thought, this combined with unparalleled levels of self – awareness gives them highly individual streak.

None of the above is philosophy. It is a matter of simple biology and evolution.

Therefore even though there is nothing divine about concept of freedom, considering the way (human) mental make-up has evolved, the most prudent course is that which promotes liberty and freedom.

The delusional Indian

Related to previous post, one of the most popular refrain is “but, Indian civilization survived for five thousand years, sure it will survive even now”.

Point this sentiment misses is that mere survival is not enough; there should be progress, which is not possible without the participation of one and all.

Our participation is superficial at best; our education system gives out degrees, not education. There is no aspiration for expansion of knowledge.

The reason Indian civilization survived for so long was, Indians of the earlier times (or atleast of the better times) were not so inward looking or indifferent. They sought and they found.

We do not do this. We have mistaken talk shows for intellectual discourse, sheer indolence detains us from serious contemplation, we follow out of habit, but the conviction is missing and that is our failing.

The phlegmatic Indian

One of my other grouse is the complacence of Indian middle class. We do not really care. We make noises of course, when there is a terrorist attack, or when some son of businessman or politician kills some hapless innocent, or when there is a rape in local train.
Whenever our honest and truthful media peddles latest outrage, there is predictable deluge of self-righteous indignation, the superficial shock and pretension, the hamlet like hand –wringing. This continues for one or two weeks. After that a fresh outrage, fresh bleeding and in this the previous issue consigned to dustbin.
How many remember the case of Gudiya, does anyone remember , Bhagalpur or Shah Bano case.
Problem with all this bleeding is for all the activism, neither is it humanely possible for media to cover all the incidents with equal import or for public to remember for anything.
And there is no reason for this either, we have judiciary, we have a government to take care of this.
If such things happens it means that there is something rotten in state of government, polity, society, everything. All this display of human kindness and sensitivity is good if someone wants to prove a point, but it doesn’t prevent future outrage.
To accomplish that, we have to stop placing faith in media and discover issues by ourselves.

Secular - Wrong !

This is a very offensive post, it involves name calling and personal abuse. This is most improper for me to do this, but it has to be done.

Well, well Godhra incident was just a fire, and Iraqis are better than Indians,
(with out doubt because of American influence).

What next?

That those who were traveling had it coming?

That if you demand reconstruction of Ram Mandir, it is justifiable to burn you, don't complain and take it on cheek, you stupid Hindoo !

And yes, India suffers because BJP killed Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajeev Gandhi

I am bleeping elite (that is why I use plural for myself) and don't you dare question my integrity and honesty and general blingness.

Most despicable and most dishonest.

Yes, it has to be said.

Categories : Society , Politics , India , Secularism

Elites in India

I have a rather self serving definition of elite.
By all account what my parents earned would place me in the top 30% of Indian population (In fact middle class is anything but average or even median of income range).
But for me anyone who got English education is an elite. When I say English education I mean education in a convent school.
I think moe than anything it is this that sets the political compass

Culture without preservatives

I do not support preserving culture. Not in the least. There are thing which can be preserved, fruits and vegetables (as pickles or jams), ancient documents (as historical archives), even human corpses for purpose of nether world. However culture is not one of them. If there is to have any relevance to culture, it must mean an unceasing transformation.

Culture is just likewater, it is sweet and nourishing as long as it is flowing, it begins to stink and becomes fetid, if it is stagnant. Culture is something like air, if it settles at one place for too long, it becomes stifling. Culture is not a static picture to be framed and hung from the wall; it has a motion and vitality. Any attempt to force it into a straight jacket can only make it oppressive and stifling.

Isn’t the above paragraph a contradiction to what I have written earlier? Don’t I crib about how Indians (or elite Indians at any rate) are losing it? Not exactly, for when I said change, I didn’t mean any change. For there are good changes and there are bad changes. Problem with Indians have always been that they accept (or reject) almost any western attribute without judgment and because of either inferiority complex or resentment.

West is without doubt, leading civilization. It has been so for many centuries. But that still doesn’t mean west is perfect or that every aspect of western culture in universal. Therefore what we accomplish is in effect importing with many desirable features, quite a few which either are worthless or can’t be adapted to India.

For example, while there is a rich folk tradition of literature which mock Gods (remember all those stories where Indra is painted in most ridiculous light), I doubt that there can be an appreciative audience for Indian South Park.

Sure there will be few modern types who will cheer, but it will leave people cold.
Even me, who has mixed feelings with Christianity, can only cringe at the way Christianity is ridiculed in west.

In short, do change but keep the good things.

One is respect to elders, another is courtesy, yet another is politeness. We need not throw it away.

What the man giveth - II (The Ant and The Man)

Previous Post,

Man is a social animal, so is ant. Ants society is characterized by display of altruism. This is not a good enough argument for altruism.

While man is only a social animal, ants display eusociality.

The Ass and The Lass

Via reuters,

A textbook used at schools in the Indian state of Rajasthan compares housewives to donkeys, and suggests the animals make better companions as they complain less and are more loyal to their “masters,” The Times of India reported Tuesday.

“A donkey is like a housewife ... In fact, the donkey is a shade better, for while the housewife may sometimes complain and walk off to her parents’ home, you’ll never catch the donkey being disloyal to his master,” the newspaper reported, quoting a Hindi-language primer meant for 14-year-olds.

This is totally lame-ass. The state education officials tried to dismiss this as a “joke”. Considering the state of women related violence and abuse, especially in North, and considering they are peddling this to children with impressionable mind, I am not amused by this idea of humor; even asses have more sense than these morons.

What the Man giveth - I (Or tale with a moral)

This has something to do with Economics as well as state.In part this is an extension of this post.

Once upon a time there was a country called Dharampur, which was ruled by DharamSingh, a most pious King and devotee of Lord Shiva, but whose citizen were all yatharthvaadis.

The King had only one sorrow, he was without a rightful heir to the throne.
As his old age loomed near, he grew more desperate. To seek a solution the pious King consulted the priests. He was advised that to propitiate Lord Shiva, the people must donate milk, which would be offered to the Lord, and hence it was announced throughout the Kingdom that all the citizens have to donate milk on a certain day at the temple.

On the appointed day, each and every citizen turned up to donate the milk.
King was delighted by the obedience of his subjects. However, when the storage vessel was opened, it had only water in it.

Apparently the citizens decided that their individual contribution will not be missed, which might have been correct if not for the fact that they were overwhelmingly pragmatic.

Good Bloggers - I

This is why Atanu is one of the better blogger.
Compare it to this.
I am so humbled !

Let the word flow

I have a proposal, which at one stroke will enrich Indian literature, improve national integration and at same time leverage market.

The proposal is this almost all the Indian languages boast of rich tradition in literature both classic and modern. Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu. Punjabi and Kannada all have scores of work which are appreciated by large number of people speaking the language. However, since all the languages have a limited influence, it limits both the market as well as the
reach of literary work.

Therefore to introduce the literature to a larger market, the works should be translated in a common language.

I rule out English, first because her reach is limited, second I think idioms and quirks of Indian languages are lost in English. Therefore the works should be translated into Hindi to popularize it all over India.

The one assumption that I make is that people will be sufficiently interested in reading literature, not very easy, but doable.

House Of Tax Payers - II

In previous post my thrust was, since House of States is superfluous in character there is no need for that.

I should clarify that in part these posts were prompted by this.

It is clear that it is foolish to expect states to correct misdemeanor of central government.
A better model will be to evolve something on the lines of House of elders.
I propose that the members to new house of elders be elected only by those entities that pay the taxes. Here entity may be individual citizen or professional guild or corporate (as long as it is under Indian control). Further this house of elder can overrule any legislation by House of people by two-third majority.

Citizenship shouldn’t only mean entitlement; it also means willingness to shoulder responsibility. Therefore a tax payer has proven his credential as a citizen and hence he only has right to vote for House of Elders.

House Of Tax Payers - I

Rajya Sabha (House of States) at present is worse than useless. First it doesn’t have any real power to even check misuse of authority by Lok Sabha (House of the People). It is more or less a wrestling ground for fossilized politicians, ambitious businessmen and faded film stars who consider Rajya Sabha as either a sanctuary from hustle bustle of electoral politics or to stoke their petty egos (Ofcourse one can ask whether Lok Sabha fulfills its function, but that for another time).

Anyway, What was the original motivation behind Rajya Sabha ? As the name suggests, it is supposed to maintain federal character of India. It has failed to carry out its original function.

The powers for most of the part was centralized and state government for most of time were loyal servants to dictates of New Delhi. Central government repeatedly misused Article 356 to dismiss state governments and appropriated more and more power for sake of political expediency and there was nothing Rajya Sabha could do. Ofcourse since 1996 things have changed for the better, and due to compulsion of coalition politics, it is difficult to dismiss state governments (not that this stops Sonia Gandhi from trying).

But even if the peccadilloes of New Delhi are looked over, I don’t see the rationale behind a separate house of state, in India not a single state is powerful enough to ensure majority on its own, further since members to Rajya Sabha are elected by state assembly which itself is elected by popular vote, Rajya Sabha will more or less reflect the same composition as Lok Sabha. Further there is no constitutional reason why Lok Sabha members can not raise matters pertaining to respective states and this is what happens in practice.

I think that constitution assembly was trying to evolve a structure similar to USA to reflect federal nature. Considering Presidential system in USA, it does make sense. However I don’t think that in a parliamentary system there is any need for two-tiered house to represent federal character of the state.

Therefore I think House of States should be done away with.

I oppose, therefore I am....

The other absurdity of modern times is the contrarian.
Again, there is no problem with skepticism, however it should be healthy.
One may ask, how one decides when skepticism is healthy and when it is not.
The clue to this is, skepticism does not exist in isolation.
A skeptic is also a seeker, one who doubts should also be ready to explore.
One should not just question and expect answers from almighty God; he has better things to do. One should look for answers himself. A contrary position demands same rigor as any intellectual
position requires.

In past a skeptic meant pursuer of knowledge.Holding a contrary position could mean a very painful death.It could also mean lifelong ridicule and denouncement.

However nowadays when people express contrariness; it is just for the heck of it.
Since it is cool (how I hate this word) to "show truth to the power" and "stand up to the man", no demand for reason. People seek adventure and thrill where none exists. Comprehension is not a requirement, ignorance is not a disgrace.

It is a fashion which has extended its utility.
This is Age of poseur, not age of reason.
 

Categories : Society , Culture , Civilization , Politics

When moderation is not a virtue

I am very pessimistic about present day moderates. Understand this, I have nothing against moderation. Most of the times, moderation is a virtue, intellectual discourse however, is not one of those cases.

The requirement for intellectual discourse is rigor, inquisitiveness, diligence, Honesty and courage. If these conditions are fulfilled then the debate and conclusion have credibility, even if I think that the conclusion is wrong I can appreciate the effort.

However, what I do not appreciate is the moderation because of inertia and indolence. If someone takes a moderate position, I expect him (her) to make a plausible argument; lasse fair, though alluring is not convincing enough for me.

And this is the problem with so called moderates, they are moderates not because they have given a thought about it, they are because it is a path of least resistance for them. In other words, it is just a euphemism for appeasement or pandering.

One can be reasonably sure that when someone says "but, why can't every get along", it is likely that (s)he is speaking not from any compassion for humanity, but just to avoid confrontation.

Avoiding confrontation is not necessarily a bad thing; it helps people get along in real life. But it is one thing to avoid arguments for sake of day to day business, quite another to make moderation as default intellectual position out of sheer sloth.

In normal times (whatever that may mean), this can be overlooked and shrugged away. But when there are challenges from fanaticism, this propensity to scurry for moderation is dangerous. The reason is such tendency doesn't address the problem. It is like ostrich burying head in sand. Inaction borne out of wish to avoid unpleasantness is nothing but capitulation in front of brutes and can only result in much more grief and tragedy at a later stage.

Going along with flow is not always a noble trait.
History is testimony to this. Hitler came to power because of indulgence from President Paul von Hindenburg .
He went to war because he was sure Chamberlain would not interfere.
Mahatma Gandhi and Congress underestimated Muslim League and sought to placate Jinnah by appeasing.
 

Categories : Politics , Society , Culture , Civilization

Why Indians are not aware of History...

I have not yet read any reference about ancient Indian text which passes as history. I may be wrong, if I am wrong, please don't hate me for my ignorance.

One of the oft repeated charges against Indians culture is that as a civilization India is not aware of History. When I say History, I mean both an "objective" analysis of the past and an effort to record events accurately for posterity.I am in qualified agreement with this.

Intellectual output of ancient India is remarkable for confluence of spirituality, narrative, mythology and philosophy.
MahaBharata and Ramayana are works of sublime grace, before them Odyssey and Iliad pale in comparison.

However, while Greeks did have works which fulfill modern criteria for History, Indians did not write anything which will satisfy the modern definition of History. So yes, the charge stands, then why is it qualified?

I think that this view suffers from lack of understanding on two counts.

First count is technology. Information transfer is dependent on the available technology and involves three opposing parameters, persistence, cost and accuracy*.
Now in the age of internet, this poses no problem.
However 2 millennium ago it was different.
The knowledge transfer was very difficult, first because writing was a tedious and thankless job, second writing medium ( i.e. papyrus or stone tablets) were either too fragile or almost impossible to work on, third even if everything was passed from generation to generation, it was impossible to instruct a large percentage of population in letters. Lastly, even if material was written and a certain percentage of population was instructed there was a real possibility that your friendly Goth (Ostro and Visi both), Franks, Huns could push you back to stone ages.

That is what happened with Greeks and Romans, while they did produce "historical" work, it was lost after their decline. In the intervening centuries church did its best to erase Greek civilization. That Europe was able to rediscover Greeks was ironically due to Arabic civilization. In short what Greek did is analogous to narrowcasting*.

However Indians used a different approach. They let go of accuracy. They used historical events as inspiration for intellectual and creative effort. Instead of prose they used verses, because verse can be easily passed orally which can not be done with prose.
Hence the emphasis on "Shruti" (What is heard).
The narrative was enmeshed with philosophy, spirituality, literature and rituals. Indian history became Indian folklore, it was passed by tales of grandmothers, it was now part of everyday song and daily grind of life.
In short, Indian way was broadcasting*.

If I have to contrast Greek and Indian civilization, I will say that Greek was elitist civilization, while India was not.

The other lack of understanding is the motivation behind history. I have bemoaned in past that Indians do not take history seriously. Let me add that even modern historians do not know the utility of history. Otherwise why a 12 year old kid should be subjected to such superfluous data as pottery in Harappa? **

Let me state the purpose, we study past in addition to natural curiosity, for a better future. This is a intellectual exercise.
Intellectual exercise in general depends on the surplus labor of the civilization .
Therefore while it is ok if we learn about Aztecs or Mongols, it did not make any sense for population at large in older times. Therefore history was transformed so as to be part of day to day life.


* I am not a student of communication science; the words are not to be taken in technical sense.

** NCERT syllabus.
 

Categories : Civilization , History , Culture , India

Dumb dumbeth

*Groan*,
This kind of stupidity will just give anti-moral brigade a stick to beat people who advocate morality. Ofcourse it makes sense for NCP which is trying to cover space formerly occupied by Bal ‘Tiger’ Thackeray, but nevertheless it is a self goal.

The creep creepth

Via Indian Express,

Citing caste, Cong govt in HP stalls judges’ postings

".... For the first time in 30 years, the strength of the Himachal Pradesh High Court is set to go down from nine to three judges. And for the first time, the state government (of Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh of the Congress) has sat on the judges’ appointments claiming that the names recommended by the High Court don’t reflect the “caste composition” of the state. And that a fresh list of names be proposed............"

In name of social justice these idiots are just furthering social divide.

When constituent assembly proposed reservation, not in thousand years it could have dreamt that the provision will be used to enforce the political constituency and in process further fragmenting India.

An argument for decentralization

I firmly believe that one of the reasons India continues to under perform is the undesirable concentration of power.

First, this socialist practice of letting few wise men decide what is good for each individual is most pernicious.

Few mandarins however clever can not decide the optimum path by planning, ultimately economics is a dynamic territory and optimum path can only be decided by actions of all the participants.
More often than not however, such decisions distort the market creating artificial demand and supply which is not sustainable at all.

The other aspect is that it is impossible for a person sitting in air conditioned office in Delhi to micro manage decisions of a villager in Amethi, much less a farmer in TamilNadu or North East.

Therefore the power should be gradually transferred from Delhi to States.

At present States are nothing more than puppets of Central government, this has to change. States should have a larger share of political power.

However India remains a union of states, not a federation of states. This means states have no independent existence; their existence is subject to existence of India. This also means that first someone is Indian and then Bengali, Tamil, Marathi, or Bihari.

This also means that any Indian is free to travel and live anywhere in India (and that includes J&K).*

But this argument can be expanded further. Even Indian states are big entity.

UP by population constitutes fifth largest nation. To resolve this power should be devalued further. For me ideal situation will be maximum power to individual, then local community and so forth. Central government should be dealing with few subjects (Defense, Monetary Policy throw something more).

The precondition to this is that Indian citizen should be responsible to use the power. But if Indians can not be responsible for themselves and their country, we may as well call British back.

*This is meant for those Mumbai dwellers, who keep cribbing.

Thurman in Trouble

Via Slimes

Uma's troubles

"...Actress Uma Thurman says her European looks affected her career options because Hollywood has been eager to cast her as a hardened tough woman.... "

I on the other hand, have no problem with Blonde, blue eyed Nordic beauties, even though Uma Thurman is too skinny and sharp angled for my taste.

Ride this !

Via rediff,

US should ask India to cut-off fissile production: Expert

I have not written a single post on nuclear deal between India and USA. Nitin and Cynical Nerd covered the subject more thoroughly than I could do.
However this is a really alarming development. As President Bush tries to push the deal through the Congress, it is bound to face many hurdles; this is just the start. If Bush administration makes any attempt to add any riders to the deal, Indian government should unequivocally reject such conditions.

As I said before Martians pose a real threat to sovereignty and unity of India.
We, Indians should hold as much power as required to thwart those green monsters (Yes I am paranoid and crazy).

I was a satti.....

MC (Menacing Senior): Chal be! Intro de!
TF (Terrified Faccha): No sir, can’t do
MC: You SN ke *&@$@, are you some bleeping stud. Give the damn intro…
TF: Please sir, I swear I can’t give you.
MC: &**#$ you and your *$@$@ family. I am getting despo.
TF (on verge of tears): Sir, this is the last one left with me. If I give it to you now what will I give to my frustu Room Baap.

To understand, refer to this.

Yes this is humour, don't you judge me

Judge, we must....

Related to modern vice of moderation, one other common fallacy of modern age is “Since X is free to act in any way, we can not judge” or alternatively “What X does is his business, therefore we have no right to question”.

This is pure drivel. You are free to say anything as long as it is not against law of land, but it doesn’t excuse you from fair analysis.

Freedom of Speech is not immunity from criticism.

In fact as I said in a previous post that if freedom has to have any meaning, it must be accompanied by social values.

This is because freedom by itself does nothing; it just provides a medium for transaction of ideas. Just because one is free to say something and says it, doesn’t automatically translate into validity of that idea, in other words there is no merit at that time. In order to validate the idea it should be subjected to investigation.

The merit of the idea is the social acceptance (if the idea is valid) or censure (if the idea is invalid). The idea is, bad ideas will go away. This in effect is the only criteria to filter out bad ideas from good ideas.

So am I saying that what society says is always true?
No, society judges according to established norms, if the norms themselves are flawed, it essentially means that judgment more likely than not will be flawed.

Ultimately there are no perfect solutions. If the social norms are flawed, it will mean trial and tribulation for the dissident, but we can not wish away society (Ofcourse historical evidence shows that on average good ideas win).

Therefore for sake of progress, we must judge.

So? Go forth and pass verdict on the world!

Worse than that....

Q. What is worse than a presentation.

A. Presentation in Japanese

Citizens of the world

First Arundhati Roy, now Amit Varma.

The only reason that I can surmise behind them not leaving hellhole like India and migrating to utopian states of Saudi Arab or Uganda must be their immeasurable compassion for ignoramuses i.e. Indians. Ofcourse one would have thought that common courtesy demanded a certain respect for country they live in, however since both communism and libertarianism claim higher truth, they are not bounded by common courtesies. So it is immaterial that countless freedom fighters died to gain independence which these wise ladies and gentlemen use to spit on the country. It is also immaterial that even today our soldiers risk their life to guard this freedom.

"Since I am a libertarian/communist therefore I have a halo, soldiers are paid to do what they are doing, and I don’t think India is any different from Islamic Republic of Pakistan or People Republic of China, and since I have a fetish for rationalism and do not give a hoot for irrational things like gratitude, therefore for me nation is at best a worthless concept, at worst a conspiracy to invade my personal space."

Such ingrates!

Justice For Jessica - II

In previous post I recounted the problems faced by justice delivery system, I also said a solution may be possible.

First I am not an expert on jurisprudence.

Now as I understand, the fundamental flaw with our system of law and order is that it was not meant for delivering justice. The British were interested only to the extent of maintaining order and suppressing any dissent. They did it by applying brute force. All the existing social institutions were discarded and an alien system forced upon. This achieved British purposes. However instead of establishing fair rule of law as a basic social value, it just legitimized the use of force in excess. Judiciary and Police were and remain symbol of authority and not of hope.
To a common Indian court means trouble, police means injustice. To change this situation both structure of judiciary as well as police has to be changed.

Let me state the basis for law and order enforcement in a democracy. When individuals decide to abide by rule of law, it is to ensure that all the rights (as established by the social norms) are protected. It is for this that social institutions (i.e. state, judiciary) wield authority and power, the power in effect restricts the freedom of individual. To prevent the abuse of the power, the power delegated to institutions should be limited. Also the redressal mechanism should be accessible to the humblest, and impervious to the manipulation or intimidation by the strong.


Therefore to reform police, its power and extent should be limited and well defined.
Also the corrective measure to any violation by police should be accessible as well as impervious to manipulation by force.

Judiciary should be accessible. All the causes which delay the delivery of the justice have to be identified and corrected. This means that Byzantine laws should be removed or simplified. The court procedures (for example summoning) should be reframed to reduce delays.

However there is a conundrum here, to uphold law we depend on police and judiciary, to ensure that they are effective they should be easily accessible. To ensure that power vested in authority is checked and doesn’t devolve into tyranny they should be at grass root level, however in that case they can be influenced and manipulated by vested interests (refer to this post by Atanu).

Even considering the shortcoming of the latter way, I prefer it. Ultimately it is responsibility of society to protect its members, a society which can not ensure this has no business to exist.
India has failed in this account. I am optimistic about India, but unless we restructure our institutions I will check my euphoria.

Meanwhile while V. S. Naipaul called India a million mutinies in happening, a million tyrannies will be appropriate as well.

Justice for Jessica - I

When the lower court acquitted accused in the Jessica Lal murder case a concerted campaign started in media to ensure that justice is delivered.

Recently Meher Bhargava was killed in Lucknow, allegedly by people having connections with the ruling party and there is an intensive campaign in this case too, to ensure that guilty is punished.

I support such efforts, I hate it the very thought that there are people who go scot free after committing such heinous crimes.However I am afraid that such activism misses the point by a large margin and the reason I think the public is missing the point is this, the above cases are not the exception, but the rule.

What happened to Jessica and to Meher Bhargava, happens everyday in India to many Indians, it is a symptom of dysfunctional law and order machinery on one hand, and this is also symptom of dysfunctional society on the other hand.

Cases both criminal and civil remain in waiting list in the courts for years, sometimes even decades. Even if the cases come up for hearing, it is only after years that any verdict is passed. The reasons for this sorry state are both institutional as well as social. Our judicial system is structured in such a way to benefit the offender and harass the victim. First it is impossible to get the dates for hearing, if a date is fixed it turns out that judge is on leave or lawyers are on strike. If both are working then the defendant is absent because he has not received the summons (or in many refused to receive the summons, if you are mighty then there are lots of ways to duck the laws) or he is sick (on death bed) or he has some excuse. If he manages to appear then in the allotted half an hour or one hour, there is useless legal sparring and then case is adjourned for a date next month. That is what happened in case of Jessica Lal case, the verdict took more than six years.

And delay is the least part of it. There is a perception in middle class that judiciary is corruption free, nothing can be far from the truth. Lawyers are easily bought; public prosecution has been known to sabotage many cases, then the judges themselves can be influenced by various means available.

This is only half of the story; equally serious (if not more) is the issue of intimidation. Defendants are threatened with dire consequences, witnesses are harassed. This happens with the complicity of law enforcement, more often then not it is the law enforcement which is the perpetrator of the crime.
In short Indian Judiciary is rigged in such a way to delay and deny Justice to the weak, far from protecting the victim, it more often than not aggravates the hurt.

Then there is the social side. All said and done, India remains mired deep in feudalism (this is one of the few point where communists are correct). The only principle that applies is “might is right”, and this not only in some godforsaken village in UP or Bihar, this is also the reality of Delhi and Mumbai. Connections and influences are license to break laws and shred the social norms. Murder and rape, anything is forgiven if your daddy or uncle is a high flying politician/businessmen/bureaucrat. Heroes have a very short life and they remain unsung. There is only one way to survive in this society, to put on the blinkers, bear the tyranny of strong and filter out anything which is inconvenient.
Cowardice has become the better part of discretion. We have turned into cowards, and the worst part is that we know this too well. We realize our weakness and bet on chance that we or our family will not be a victim of predators. For actual victims, we only have indifference, to mask our deepest fear.

Can it be cured? I think yes. But even if it is possible, the first and absolutely necessary step is to admit the problem, to recognize that Indian judiciary needs restructuring, more than that, respect and fervor for equity and justice has to be established as a social value. That human dignity is not negotiable, has to become a cornerstone of modern India.

And it is in this respect that present activism is misguided. We are just treating the symptom and not curing the malaise. Even if Jessica Lal and Meher Bhargava get the justice, the sorry fact remains that countless victims will continue to be denied justice by our almost defunct Judiciary. Even if one were naïve enough to try, it would be impossible to focus on each and every denial of justice.

Case in point while Jessica Lal became a rallying point for middle class, case of Bant Singh was by and large ignored. His daughter was raped and he was assaulted by strongman of upper caste for filing a complaint. As a result, his arms had to be amputated, a fate worse than death for a common Indian.

This was rightly pointed out by the blessed half (one of the rare moments when I could agree with them), ofcourse that they missed the point is to be expected.

Price of Liberty

Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry.
Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called ‘natural human rights’ that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
"The third ‘right’? — the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives — but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers)


The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots...
Thomas Jefferson, 1787


What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly... it would be
Strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be Highly rated.

Thomas Paine

My comment policy

1) I may delete any comment for no reason. I have yet to delete any comment though.
2) Please do not abuse. I may keep the comment or I may delete it.
3) If you feel that it is impossible to make your point without abusing, please make an effort to be innovative and entertaining. Slurs like moron, stupid, idiot, Hitler, Nazi etc. have kind of lost their effect.
4) Yes “doubtinggaurav” does sound stupid. Please do not rub it in. My only defense is that this is not the most stupid thing I have done in my short life.
5) You are free to comment as Anonymous, but I will prefer if you leave a name.
6) If you are a blogger, then I expect reciprocity as common courtesy. This means that please comment only if you allow comments on your blog. If not, or if you have banned me from commenting kindly refrain from commenting.
7) If I find the comment interesting, or if I have linked to your post in a non rant post, I may choose not to delete it, in spite of 6)
8) By commenting, you declare submission to my overlordship and agree that henceforth you will be known as MBD (minion of benevolent dictator)

Amchi Mumbai

There was one thing that Shiv Sena did which I approve.No it is not beating up hapless bhayyas. I support their decision to rename Bombay, in spite of how some people grumble.

“Bombay” pronounced in the “propah” way sounds like some burra sahib suffering from chronic colitis (for that matter much of English sounds like this, may be English do suffer from chronic colitis, that could explain their morals).
“Bambai”, the Hindi way sounded like watered down scotch (I haven’t had scotch, watered or neat, but I have been assured by the authorities that, diluted scotch is a blasphemy to noble name of Bacchus), or some metro sexual tweezing his eyebrows or worse reading Bacchi Karkaria article.

However Mumbai has a pleasant sound. It is an unpretentious, down to earth, wholesome and honest Indian name. It reminds you of Boomla (who is a Parsi), it reminds you of Hitesh, and it reminds you of all the sweet sweat and dirt of the city that never sleeps or weeps.

Mumbai to me, for some reason seems appropriate name for a city in which though I lived only for less than two years but fell in with (bitter sweet) love. I can’t love the city the way I love Lucknow, because Mumbai doesn’t admit of mushy romance, her love is kind of tough love. It has no place for weak kneed. To even live in Mumbai, one has to exchange most of the dreams for some cynicism. Degrees may differ but everyone from a laborer to a modest clerk to filthy rich has to learn his lesson. Mumbai cuts no slack for those who are not up to it. The city is a testimony of countless disillusioned poets and bitter poems. Yet the cynicism of city is not morbid, it has vigor. It comes not from decadence of some corpulent cesspool of greed, but from wariness of the man aware of the everyday traps, some innocuous other dangerous. The average resident tempered by his mistress faces the life day by day, getting his way, losing his way, in celebration, in shame and ends up loving the city, like couple married for a lifetime do.

People measure Mumbai by GDP or such statistical jugglery, I say this is bollocks.
Mumbai for long has been the last refuge of dispossessed and starving, the beacon of hope for those who have not conceded anything. This dwelling of cynics is an invitation to those who insist on having their way. Mumbai has always been the city of enterprise and resilience and will remain so.

I may end up living in Delhi, in time I may learn to appreciate it. But I think that I will always be scared of Delhi, because it is a city intoxicated on power and intrigue. Delhi is full time devoted to discussions of “who knows who”.
Mumbai notwithstanding the page three types remains a city of hardworking and stubborn people.

In coming decades any of the growing cities, Bangalore, Hyderabad or Chennai may well be known as pride of India, but let us not forget Mumbai. For Mumbai was the place where the India took last stand against creeping socialism. She refused to give any quarters to sappy altruism and remained selfish in a way totally unbecoming to ladies.

I don’t want her to be Shanghai, I don’t want her to be Singapore. I like the way she is. She may be a bitch at times, but she is my kind of bitch.

(Not to mention that in Mumbai I met Aishwarya Rai’s father, my only brush with celebrities.)

Random Quotes

(Stranger in a strange land) Robert Heinlein

(I have finished all his major works, hope to post about him. He is different from Isaac Asimov)

Obscurity is usually the refuge of incompetence.

"The code says, 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife'-and the result? Reluctant chastity, adultery, jealousy, bitter family fights, blows and sometimes murder, broken homes and twisted children . . . and furtive, dirty little passes at country club dances and the like, degrading to both man and woman whether consummated or not, Is this injunction ever obeyed? The Commandment not to 'covet' I mean; I'm not referring to any physical act. I wonder. If a man swore to me on a stack of his own Bibles that he had refrained from coveting another man's wife because the code forbade it, I would suspect either self-deception or subnormal sexuality. Any male virile enough to sire a child is almost certainly so virile that he has coveted many, many women-whether he takes action in the matter or not.


"All the names are still in the hat, Ben. Self-aware man is so built that he cannot believe in his own extinction and this automatically leads to endless invention of religions. While this involuntary conviction of immortality by no means proves immortality to be a fact, the questions generated by this conviction are overwhelmingly important . . . whether we can answer them or not, or prove what answers we suspect. The nature of life, how the ego hooks into the physical body, the problem of the ego itself and why each ego seems to be the center of the universe, the purpose of life, the purpose of the universe-these are paramount questions Ben; they can never be trivial. Science can't, or hasn't, coped with any of them-and who am I to sneer at religions for trying to answer them, no matter how unconvincingly to me? Old Mumbo Jumbo may eat me yet; I can't rule Him out because He owns no fancy cathedrals. Nor can I rule out one god struck boy leading a sex cult in an upholstered attic; he might be the Messiah. The only religious opinion that I feel sure of is this: self-awareness is not just a bunch of amino acids bumping together!"

Sonia Gandhi and Art of renouncing

When Sonia Gandhi resigned from her LS seat, she made a statement that the only reason she was in politics was not because of self interest but a commitment towards secular values and nation. I do not know what I find scarier, that Sonia Gandhi is in politics for herself and her family or because she genuinely believes she is serving nation.