In the recent days, I've had a lot of discussion with my friends about what they call a "resurgent Indian cricket". My would-be-brother-in-law even called it "a resurgence because of removal of negative influence that was Ganguly".
Of course my opinion is different.
I don't think there's any resurgence in Indian Cricket. Anyone who has been watching these matches (instead of just listening to the commentary, or following it on cricinfo) would concur on a few observations here (because seeing the quality of Indian batting and bowling is different from just knowing the statistics and that they won). Sri Lanka came in this tournament in a bad form and injuries to key players like Jayasuriya. You could see them literally throwing their wickets away. I can not imagine anyone giving a lollypop return catch on the first ball to Sehwag, who is by no means a big turner of the ball. And what can explain Ajit Agarkar, who has always been clobbered around the ground by every major team in the world ending up with 5 wicket hauls in this series? Even some mediocre bowling by the Indians has been rewarded in this series. Clearly, the Sri Lankans were completely outclassed, but not because Indians were playing outstanding, but because they all happened to be out of form.
Some people ask me. How can an entire team go out of form at the same time? I ask them. How can an entire team find form at the same time? (Yes, I remember the thing about "the negative influence that was India").
In addition, I don't think Indians have been stretched to the limits in this tour. So the point about Dravid proving his captaincy skills and Chappel proving his coaching skills doesn't arise. In the India tour of Sri Lanka, Dravid was the Captain, and Chappel was the Coach, yet we beat SL and lost to NZ. What's it different now that we are going ga-ga over? We then beat SL in their own backyard, and we still beat SL in our own backyard. So what's the big deal?
Now the acid test. I think South Africa is a team in fair form at the moment. They have had a run of successes in recent past. Of course playing on Indian pitches would be difficult for them, but I think in the past they've had a decent run on Indian pitches. Lets see how Indian team deals with them. Also remember that NZ got the better of India in the India tour of SL, and SA got the better of NZ in the recent times. So though cricket is no mathematics, India would do well to note that now they're going to face a real enemy. Not a team that's struggling to stand on its feet at the moment.
I am writing this a couple of hours before the first match between India and South Africa. Of course if India wins the series, I must eat crow. But if my thoughts and precedents are anything to go by, I'd remain a vegetarian :)
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Monday, November 14, 2005
The drama that is India
I thought this happened only in the movies. But Bihar proved me wrong. The very movie-like incidents in which a whole city was beseiged by Maoists who entered a jail, shot dead the jail warden, rescued their comerades and shot dead their opponents were a case in the point.
It also speaks volumes about the authority's complicity in the entire matter. I refuse to believe that such a large operation, involving hundreds of men, was carried out in utter secrecy and the intelligence did not know about it. Also, it is utter callousness on the part of the government to leave a city so woefully unmanned and vulnerable. The Election Commission has to own up part of the blame, if it "forces" administration to deploy a rather large chunk of its forces on election duty, Maybe getting a greater chunk of forces on election duty from outside the state is the solution. But whatever it is, it is a management failure, rather than anything else.
As has happened so many times in the past, this incident would soon be forgotten, the records remaining only in the memories of the people who've lost their near and dear ones, and some old dusty files in some government offices.
Solutions? Although I can come up with a zillion solutions, by this time I've become so hopeless and pessimistic towards India, that I don't think any of it would ever be implemented.
India, and Bihar in particular is on its way to the same fate as Tom Cruise's sungasses in Mission Impossible - "This device will self destruct in 5 seconds".
It also speaks volumes about the authority's complicity in the entire matter. I refuse to believe that such a large operation, involving hundreds of men, was carried out in utter secrecy and the intelligence did not know about it. Also, it is utter callousness on the part of the government to leave a city so woefully unmanned and vulnerable. The Election Commission has to own up part of the blame, if it "forces" administration to deploy a rather large chunk of its forces on election duty, Maybe getting a greater chunk of forces on election duty from outside the state is the solution. But whatever it is, it is a management failure, rather than anything else.
As has happened so many times in the past, this incident would soon be forgotten, the records remaining only in the memories of the people who've lost their near and dear ones, and some old dusty files in some government offices.
Solutions? Although I can come up with a zillion solutions, by this time I've become so hopeless and pessimistic towards India, that I don't think any of it would ever be implemented.
India, and Bihar in particular is on its way to the same fate as Tom Cruise's sungasses in Mission Impossible - "This device will self destruct in 5 seconds".
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
New Orleans Vs Mumbai
I recently received a forwarded email from a fellow Indian friend. I must admit that at the first glance it made a pretty interesting reading. but a little critical analysis showed that it was one of those mails that was supposed to tell everyone that Indians are the best in the world ...
Inches of rain in New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina....18.
Inches of rain in Mumbai ........................................................37.1
>> Rain wrecked havoc in Mumbai, but in New Orleans it was high winds, reaching 184 mph (281kmph), more than the rain. We also ignore the fact that even with low rains, a low lying New Orleans which is actually ~6 ft under sea level would naturally be worse-hit compared to Mumbai, which for most part is 30 to 50 ft above sea level. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina to know more about the hurricane.
Population of New Orleans ................................... 484, 674
Population of Mumbai ........................................... 12, 622, 500
>> I don't see any correlation between population of the city and the magnitude of the tragedy.
Deaths in New Orleans within 48 hours of Katrina ............... 100
Deaths in Mumbai within 48 hours of rain .............................. 37
>> This is shooting in the dark. Even now no one really knows how many people died in Katrina, but the latest figures are ~900. How could someone figure out 100 died within 48 hours of Katrina is a mystery to me. And in India, we know the official toll is always grossly under-reported. However look at this - the toll in Mumbai was 1000+.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/03rain3.htm
However, if you want to look at gross figures, compared to ~900 dead in New Orleans, within about 15 days, about 140 people had died in Mumbai and Thane because of rain-related ailments. (There goes the argument about good management by government).
Number of people to be evacuated in New Orleans ......... Entire City
Number of people evacuated in Mumbai ............................ 10,000
>> Well, an entire city needs to be evacuated if it lies under sea level, and if the water would not go for the next 3 months and when most of the city's structures have been destroyed. This just proves the gross magnitude of the tragedy. Would Mumbai have survived a flooding for 3 months? Besides, even if 10,000 were evacuated in Mumbai, 90,000 were evacuated in
Cases of shooting in New Orleans ........................... Countless
Cases of shooting in Mumbai ................................... None
>> I dont know much to comment on this. Mumbai DOES stand out on this point. Americans aren't used to despair as Indians are. Isolation, hunger, desperation and fear of death can drive them to insanity faster than Indians.
Status 48 hours later ....... New Orleans is still waiting for relief, army and electricity.
Status 48 hours later ........ Mumbai is back on its feet and is business as usual.
>> Those who think Mumbai is Business as usual would do well to read these links
http://in.rediff.com/news/mumrain05.htm. A tragedy of 1000+ lives and 5000 crores worth of loss can never mean business as usual in 2 days.
I am surprised how people can make comparisons at human tragedies and engage in a game of one-upmanship. They are so hungry for heroes that they would not stop at anything.
At least dont forward such mails - they make Indians look like a bunch of mean, selfish and heartless guys.
Yes, one thing that pinched me is that the US contributed only $100,000 towards relief in Mumbai. But then Indians contributed nothing towards Katrina (not that I know of). I would like to read some citation if India contributed something.
Inches of rain in New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina....18.
Inches of rain in Mumbai ........................................................37.1
>> Rain wrecked havoc in Mumbai, but in New Orleans it was high winds, reaching 184 mph (281kmph), more than the rain. We also ignore the fact that even with low rains, a low lying New Orleans which is actually ~6 ft under sea level would naturally be worse-hit compared to Mumbai, which for most part is 30 to 50 ft above sea level. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina to know more about the hurricane.
Population of New Orleans ................................... 484, 674
Population of Mumbai ........................................... 12, 622, 500
>> I don't see any correlation between population of the city and the magnitude of the tragedy.
Deaths in New Orleans within 48 hours of Katrina ............... 100
Deaths in Mumbai within 48 hours of rain .............................. 37
>> This is shooting in the dark. Even now no one really knows how many people died in Katrina, but the latest figures are ~900. How could someone figure out 100 died within 48 hours of Katrina is a mystery to me. And in India, we know the official toll is always grossly under-reported. However look at this - the toll in Mumbai was 1000+.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/03rain3.htm
However, if you want to look at gross figures, compared to ~900 dead in New Orleans, within about 15 days, about 140 people had died in Mumbai and Thane because of rain-related ailments. (There goes the argument about good management by government).
Number of people to be evacuated in New Orleans ......... Entire City
Number of people evacuated in Mumbai ............................ 10,000
>> Well, an entire city needs to be evacuated if it lies under sea level, and if the water would not go for the next 3 months and when most of the city's structures have been destroyed. This just proves the gross magnitude of the tragedy. Would Mumbai have survived a flooding for 3 months? Besides, even if 10,000 were evacuated in Mumbai, 90,000 were evacuated in
Cases of shooting in New Orleans ........................... Countless
Cases of shooting in Mumbai ................................... None
>> I dont know much to comment on this. Mumbai DOES stand out on this point. Americans aren't used to despair as Indians are. Isolation, hunger, desperation and fear of death can drive them to insanity faster than Indians.
Status 48 hours later ....... New Orleans is still waiting for relief, army and electricity.
Status 48 hours later ........ Mumbai is back on its feet and is business as usual.
>> Those who think Mumbai is Business as usual would do well to read these links
http://in.rediff.com/news/mumrain05.htm. A tragedy of 1000+ lives and 5000 crores worth of loss can never mean business as usual in 2 days.
I am surprised how people can make comparisons at human tragedies and engage in a game of one-upmanship. They are so hungry for heroes that they would not stop at anything.
At least dont forward such mails - they make Indians look like a bunch of mean, selfish and heartless guys.
Yes, one thing that pinched me is that the US contributed only $100,000 towards relief in Mumbai. But then Indians contributed nothing towards Katrina (not that I know of). I would like to read some citation if India contributed something.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
The Art of Cooking for Bachelors - I
Over the last few years, I've discovered many ways of cooking food that is nutritious, healthy and fast (or easy) to cook.
But please remember "faster, easier, better, choose any two". You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The First Principle of cooking:
"Cook in a pressure cooker wherever possible."
Here's why.
1. It cooks faster.
2. Retains aroma.
3. The food is more nutritious (usually) than its counterpart cooked in open utensils.
The Tao of Pressure Cooking:
1. When trying to cook food, let it heat up till the boiling point without the whistle on the vent. Put the whistle on the vent when the steam just starts to escape. (This creates an environment inside of water vapor, instead of air, and it cooks faster coz water vapor has a greater specific heat)
2. Most food items don't require 3-4 whistles. Heat only upto the point that the whistle might blow up. Switch it off, and let it cool down on its own. The steam trapped inside would cook the food over the next 10-12 minutes.
The Zen of seasoning:
1. Do not prepare seasoning after boiling lentils, and add to it. Do it at the time of boiling. Fry ingredients like jeera, chopped onions and diced tomatoes in the pressure cooker, then add the bulk of lentils, water and bring to boil. Add the spices, stir well, and close the lid.
In the "conventional" cooking, they boil lentils separately, and then add seasoning to it later. They create the seasoning by heating together ingredients like oil, jeera (cumin seeds), chopped onion, some spices and then add this to the boiled lentils later. They love the aroma this generates. However, the aroma in spices comes from "essential oils", which vaporize at relatively lower temperatures. When you expose them to an open environment and heat them, you have effectively vaporized the oils before adding the seasoning to the lentils. The place for the aroma is the food, not the kitchen.
This is a Control-A Control-C Control-V of what I posted for my friend Somik at http colon slash slash www dot stanford dot edu slash tilde somik slash bachelorCooking dot html.
But please remember "faster, easier, better, choose any two". You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The First Principle of cooking:
"Cook in a pressure cooker wherever possible."
Here's why.
1. It cooks faster.
2. Retains aroma.
3. The food is more nutritious (usually) than its counterpart cooked in open utensils.
The Tao of Pressure Cooking:
1. When trying to cook food, let it heat up till the boiling point without the whistle on the vent. Put the whistle on the vent when the steam just starts to escape. (This creates an environment inside of water vapor, instead of air, and it cooks faster coz water vapor has a greater specific heat)
2. Most food items don't require 3-4 whistles. Heat only upto the point that the whistle might blow up. Switch it off, and let it cool down on its own. The steam trapped inside would cook the food over the next 10-12 minutes.
The Zen of seasoning:
1. Do not prepare seasoning after boiling lentils, and add to it. Do it at the time of boiling. Fry ingredients like jeera, chopped onions and diced tomatoes in the pressure cooker, then add the bulk of lentils, water and bring to boil. Add the spices, stir well, and close the lid.
In the "conventional" cooking, they boil lentils separately, and then add seasoning to it later. They create the seasoning by heating together ingredients like oil, jeera (cumin seeds), chopped onion, some spices and then add this to the boiled lentils later. They love the aroma this generates. However, the aroma in spices comes from "essential oils", which vaporize at relatively lower temperatures. When you expose them to an open environment and heat them, you have effectively vaporized the oils before adding the seasoning to the lentils. The place for the aroma is the food, not the kitchen.
This is a Control-A Control-C Control-V of what I posted for my friend Somik at http colon slash slash www dot stanford dot edu slash tilde somik slash bachelorCooking dot html.
Friday, July 15, 2005
The Tapes !!
With all this brouhaha over the Salman-Ash tapes, there are some things that hit me in between the eyes:
1. Ash knew that their conversation was tapped, and warned Salman against "spilling beans" . Does this means she knew about Salman's undeworld links? If she did, and she did not disclose this to the police, is this not betrayal of the country? In all cases, she did come to know of this after Salman told her. Should she not have reported it then? I am not sure about India, but in US, its the duty of anyone to report a crime, failing which is a culpable crime.
2. Even now Ash is maintaining a "dignified" silence. Is this not aiding and abetting the "crime"?
3. If Ash could listen to the words used in the conversation, it just goes on to show that the freedom of the women in India is a sham and Indian women still listen to horrible abuses from men without complaining. If someone who represents the next generation of India women is like this, just go on to think about the common populace.
4. With the veracity of the tapes still in question, the Mumbai film industry is trooping in to support Salman. What the heck? If the tapes are true, and if Salman is indeed guilty, then these people who earn millions from the Indian junta are supporting a criminal and a traiter. This makes them traiters themselves. Why should we watch their movies? Why should we support them?
Of course Salman is a brat, a criminal, but to be fair to him, he should not be tried in a people's court. Let the facts come out in public. Let there be a proper investigation. Let him be tried in a court of law. Do not proclaim him guilty untill proved innocent.
1. Ash knew that their conversation was tapped, and warned Salman against "spilling beans" . Does this means she knew about Salman's undeworld links? If she did, and she did not disclose this to the police, is this not betrayal of the country? In all cases, she did come to know of this after Salman told her. Should she not have reported it then? I am not sure about India, but in US, its the duty of anyone to report a crime, failing which is a culpable crime.
2. Even now Ash is maintaining a "dignified" silence. Is this not aiding and abetting the "crime"?
3. If Ash could listen to the words used in the conversation, it just goes on to show that the freedom of the women in India is a sham and Indian women still listen to horrible abuses from men without complaining. If someone who represents the next generation of India women is like this, just go on to think about the common populace.
4. With the veracity of the tapes still in question, the Mumbai film industry is trooping in to support Salman. What the heck? If the tapes are true, and if Salman is indeed guilty, then these people who earn millions from the Indian junta are supporting a criminal and a traiter. This makes them traiters themselves. Why should we watch their movies? Why should we support them?
Of course Salman is a brat, a criminal, but to be fair to him, he should not be tried in a people's court. Let the facts come out in public. Let there be a proper investigation. Let him be tried in a court of law. Do not proclaim him guilty untill proved innocent.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
The London Blasts
Heard about the London blasts today. It was the terrorists' way of saying "it ain't over yet", in response to the Coalition's "you asked for it". Indeed a pretty tragic incident by Western standards. In India, we go through incidents like these pretty routinely.
Just surfing the internet today about the blasts, and saw some posts in indiatimes blog, where people say if this is religion, I think there should be no religion.
I just wanted to say, I couldn't disagree more.
Just because some Physicist made an atomic bomb doesn't mean there should be no Physics !! I see the generation-X making more comments like these. Partly because they don't know what religion teaches; and partly because they couldn't care less.
I find the basic idea that "absence of religion would mean people would not have reasons to kill each" other fairly ridiculous. This also assumes that only people of different religions kill each other. Well, I don't have statistics (but the statistically inclined can go ahead and do the number crunching) but just see the proportion of people of one religion killed by people of another religion (and that too because of religious hatred), in the total number of people killed.
In a world without religion, a human being is just another animal. What then, prevents someone from killing another human being for revenge, robbing, hatred, or even just pleasure as long as the culprit doesn't get caught?
My religion on the other hand tells me that God watches everything. That every human embodies God. That the good you do gets you Good Karma and the bad you do gets you Bad Karma. That no one can escape from the judgement handed out when they die. That even if someone has wronged you, you don't have to seek revenge, because God is the saviour of the poor and the week, and the wrongdoer would be punished by the God.
Are these not extremely beautiful thoughts? Even if there was no God, they are extremely effective religious chain of thoughts that keep people's beastly inclinations in check, and contribute to a non violent society?
How can someone then make such utterly irresponsible statements that they wish there were no religion? Most possibly they don't know what religion means.
Contrary to popular beliefs, the terrorism that exists today is not all religious terrorism. Kashmir is religious, but ULFA is not. Veerappan was not. MCC is not. Naxalite terrorism is not. Even the LTTE's brand of terror wasn't religious.
Any form or brand of terrorism or extremism requires some fundamentals, and the most important of them all is an idea of a group - something that its members can identify with. Religion is but only one of these identities. Region (like Jharkhand, Nagaland, Gorkhaland, Khalistan), Language (Tamil for LTTE), economic strata (Ranbir Sena, MCC, Naxalites) or even a political alignment (the MCC) can give an identity to a terrorist or extremist group.
If you ask me, whats the point I am trying to make here. My answer is I am not trying to make a point here. I am trying to tell that the point you are trying to make isnt exactly true. Because there's more to it than meets the eye.
Of course, coming to the issue of Islamic terrorism, it IS very much real. It just cannot be wished away. I speak from experience, as happened in India, with Sikhs - when people started to equate every sikh with terrorism, and Punjabis and Sikhs were seen with suspiscion. Unless the so-called moderate Muslims actively come forward and denounce the Islamic terrorists' activities, and distance themselves actively and publicly from the extremists, they are likely to be clubbed together with the extremists, and suffer the same fate as their other not-so-tolerant religionmen. It is time for the muslim world to realize that by allowing a bunch of idiots to hijack their religion, they're going to commit a blunder.
And then they'd be only themselves to blame.
Just surfing the internet today about the blasts, and saw some posts in indiatimes blog, where people say if this is religion, I think there should be no religion.
I just wanted to say, I couldn't disagree more.
Just because some Physicist made an atomic bomb doesn't mean there should be no Physics !! I see the generation-X making more comments like these. Partly because they don't know what religion teaches; and partly because they couldn't care less.
I find the basic idea that "absence of religion would mean people would not have reasons to kill each" other fairly ridiculous. This also assumes that only people of different religions kill each other. Well, I don't have statistics (but the statistically inclined can go ahead and do the number crunching) but just see the proportion of people of one religion killed by people of another religion (and that too because of religious hatred), in the total number of people killed.
In a world without religion, a human being is just another animal. What then, prevents someone from killing another human being for revenge, robbing, hatred, or even just pleasure as long as the culprit doesn't get caught?
My religion on the other hand tells me that God watches everything. That every human embodies God. That the good you do gets you Good Karma and the bad you do gets you Bad Karma. That no one can escape from the judgement handed out when they die. That even if someone has wronged you, you don't have to seek revenge, because God is the saviour of the poor and the week, and the wrongdoer would be punished by the God.
Are these not extremely beautiful thoughts? Even if there was no God, they are extremely effective religious chain of thoughts that keep people's beastly inclinations in check, and contribute to a non violent society?
How can someone then make such utterly irresponsible statements that they wish there were no religion? Most possibly they don't know what religion means.
Contrary to popular beliefs, the terrorism that exists today is not all religious terrorism. Kashmir is religious, but ULFA is not. Veerappan was not. MCC is not. Naxalite terrorism is not. Even the LTTE's brand of terror wasn't religious.
Any form or brand of terrorism or extremism requires some fundamentals, and the most important of them all is an idea of a group - something that its members can identify with. Religion is but only one of these identities. Region (like Jharkhand, Nagaland, Gorkhaland, Khalistan), Language (Tamil for LTTE), economic strata (Ranbir Sena, MCC, Naxalites) or even a political alignment (the MCC) can give an identity to a terrorist or extremist group.
If you ask me, whats the point I am trying to make here. My answer is I am not trying to make a point here. I am trying to tell that the point you are trying to make isnt exactly true. Because there's more to it than meets the eye.
Of course, coming to the issue of Islamic terrorism, it IS very much real. It just cannot be wished away. I speak from experience, as happened in India, with Sikhs - when people started to equate every sikh with terrorism, and Punjabis and Sikhs were seen with suspiscion. Unless the so-called moderate Muslims actively come forward and denounce the Islamic terrorists' activities, and distance themselves actively and publicly from the extremists, they are likely to be clubbed together with the extremists, and suffer the same fate as their other not-so-tolerant religionmen. It is time for the muslim world to realize that by allowing a bunch of idiots to hijack their religion, they're going to commit a blunder.
And then they'd be only themselves to blame.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Political stuntsmanship over destruction
It was reported recently that Ms Gandhi undertook a 1-day tour of Gujarat and slammed the government over flood relief.
Ms Gandhi, in all her political stuntmanship, does a great disservice to the people of Gujarat by demoralizing the state government machinery, and distracting the relief and aid being provided to the people in this hour of need.
Ms Gandhi realizes well that in a nation of poor people she would get votes by pretending to espouse the cause of the poor, as the Left have done for decades. And of course the result is for all to see.
It is impossible for Ms Gandhi not to know the state of the state. As such, she didnt need to do an arial survey just to be able to make trivial complaints about doles not being paid promptly at some places, and 3/4th of the state being under water.
Had she not wasted the resources on the airplane and the press conference, they could have been used for some more food packets dropping sorties.
It should also be investigated if only as an MP and a non-constitutional post of leader of the opposition was she entitled to use air force airplane.
Ms Gandhi, in all her political stuntmanship, does a great disservice to the people of Gujarat by demoralizing the state government machinery, and distracting the relief and aid being provided to the people in this hour of need.
Ms Gandhi realizes well that in a nation of poor people she would get votes by pretending to espouse the cause of the poor, as the Left have done for decades. And of course the result is for all to see.
It is impossible for Ms Gandhi not to know the state of the state. As such, she didnt need to do an arial survey just to be able to make trivial complaints about doles not being paid promptly at some places, and 3/4th of the state being under water.
Had she not wasted the resources on the airplane and the press conference, they could have been used for some more food packets dropping sorties.
It should also be investigated if only as an MP and a non-constitutional post of leader of the opposition was she entitled to use air force airplane.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Oil Prices
There you go again !!!
The facade of a caring government came crashing down when the government was literally forced by pure economic considerations to raise the prices of petrol and diesel by Rs 2.5 and 2.0 respectively.
I have never understood the economics of subsidies. Oil products' prices affect everybody, and it would be foolish to assume that they don't. But why would you want to provide a cross subsidy, by putting one man's burdon on another, is beyond me.
To be fair, if it were an essential drug, the lack of access to which could result in numerous deaths, by all means, subsidise it. But oil?
Even in the case of the subsidised essential drugs, there can be arguments against it, but I would come back to it later.
Firstly oil.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, why should I bear someone else's burdon?
Of course there's a very compelling humanitarian argument against it.
But also consider that if you consider per capita oil usage, the rich use much more oil than the poor. So if the rich use 2 litres of oil a day, and the poor use 0.5 litres of oil a day, a subsidy of Rs 2/litre of oil makes it s subsidy of Rs 4/day for the rich and Rs 1/day for the poor. Thus a big chunk of government's subsidy money goes into subsidizing the rich. What an utterly untargetted help to the poor !!!
Finally, when one product in the market is subsidized, you stifle the innovation that could lead to development of alternative products. For example, as long as LPG cylinders are available for Rs 250, after a Rs 130/cylinder subsidy, no one would want to switch to bio-gas, or solar cookers. One of the reasons why innovation failed in the welfare states (including India) was the absence of the incentive to innovate - you got it - because of subsidies.
A friend recounted a very interesting story. In the USSR, the state subsidized the bread so that the poor could eat. They subsidized the bread to that extent that it was cheaper than cattle feed, and the people fed bread to their animals !!!
Wherever the state has tried to be a (pseudo) welfare state, it has
1. forced one (rich) man to take up another (poor man's) burdon,
2. spend more money on the rich than poor,
3. stifled innovation that could get cheaper, better, faster product in the market.
If you look at points 1 and 2, you'd realize that they cancle each other out. The rich pay more tax, and take the bigger chunk of the subsidies, because they consume more. The poor pay less tax and get a smaller share of the subsidies. Sounds good? Then why do we need subsidies anyway? If I am rich, but don't use much oil, then I end up cross subsidizing other rich !!! (This even does not have any humanitarian aspect to it).
When we have examples of welfare states failing (including the USSR and China giving up on its welfare commitments and taking the path of Capitalism) why would you want to try all of them out yourself?
Because only in dictionary economics comes before politics.
The facade of a caring government came crashing down when the government was literally forced by pure economic considerations to raise the prices of petrol and diesel by Rs 2.5 and 2.0 respectively.
I have never understood the economics of subsidies. Oil products' prices affect everybody, and it would be foolish to assume that they don't. But why would you want to provide a cross subsidy, by putting one man's burdon on another, is beyond me.
To be fair, if it were an essential drug, the lack of access to which could result in numerous deaths, by all means, subsidise it. But oil?
Even in the case of the subsidised essential drugs, there can be arguments against it, but I would come back to it later.
Firstly oil.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, why should I bear someone else's burdon?
Of course there's a very compelling humanitarian argument against it.
But also consider that if you consider per capita oil usage, the rich use much more oil than the poor. So if the rich use 2 litres of oil a day, and the poor use 0.5 litres of oil a day, a subsidy of Rs 2/litre of oil makes it s subsidy of Rs 4/day for the rich and Rs 1/day for the poor. Thus a big chunk of government's subsidy money goes into subsidizing the rich. What an utterly untargetted help to the poor !!!
Finally, when one product in the market is subsidized, you stifle the innovation that could lead to development of alternative products. For example, as long as LPG cylinders are available for Rs 250, after a Rs 130/cylinder subsidy, no one would want to switch to bio-gas, or solar cookers. One of the reasons why innovation failed in the welfare states (including India) was the absence of the incentive to innovate - you got it - because of subsidies.
A friend recounted a very interesting story. In the USSR, the state subsidized the bread so that the poor could eat. They subsidized the bread to that extent that it was cheaper than cattle feed, and the people fed bread to their animals !!!
Wherever the state has tried to be a (pseudo) welfare state, it has
1. forced one (rich) man to take up another (poor man's) burdon,
2. spend more money on the rich than poor,
3. stifled innovation that could get cheaper, better, faster product in the market.
If you look at points 1 and 2, you'd realize that they cancle each other out. The rich pay more tax, and take the bigger chunk of the subsidies, because they consume more. The poor pay less tax and get a smaller share of the subsidies. Sounds good? Then why do we need subsidies anyway? If I am rich, but don't use much oil, then I end up cross subsidizing other rich !!! (This even does not have any humanitarian aspect to it).
When we have examples of welfare states failing (including the USSR and China giving up on its welfare commitments and taking the path of Capitalism) why would you want to try all of them out yourself?
Because only in dictionary economics comes before politics.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Quota for Muslims
I am not a Muslim, so you know who's writing this.
Recently AP Cabinet announced a "sweeping", "across the board" 5% quota for Muslims. Now I know that the cries of "appeasement" would not be far behind (and so would be bandhs, dharnas and demonstrations). But I would ask you to count 10, and take a deep breath, and read what I have to say. And then you can do whatever you think is right.
Firstly, when SC/ST in India enjoy the benefits of reservations in jobs, why should Muslims be denied this pleasure. Its a no-brainer that Muslims are really a backward lot in India. They have really low literacy rate, a really high crime rate, and as my brother says who is a doctor, a really high disease rate. Why should a State discriminate with about 12% of population on the basis of religion?
I believe by this time, some of you might be nodding, and some might be thinking "but its their 'backward' religion that is responsible". Yes. But is it not the same for SCs/STs (their religion segregated them, leading them to remain backward)? Or for that matter, what about OBCs? They get a quota, despite the fact that the religion never oppressed them. If they "deserve" reservations, Muslims do present a stronger case. Definitely.
And its definitely time that being the majority community, the Hindus recognise this and gladly and willingly gave their share to their minority brethren.
For those of you (Hindus) who believe in WIIFM (what's-in-it-for-me), let me say that a literate, financially independent Muslim is less likely to listen to the venom that's spewed weekly from the altars of Jama Masjid (I'd apologise for this statement if it hurts you, but trust me, this is the view-from-the-outside), and less likely to be a fundamentalist. He's more likely to be friendly and less likely to be a "danger" to the majority. Now how's that for the reward?
Oh of course some of you would dispute that, citing the examples of the urdu-professor-cum-plotter-of-parliament-attacks and the likes. Yes, education and financial independence are not a panacea for all ills, but they sure make a difference.
Now, I'd go a level further. If SC/STs get a quota commensurate with their population, why not extend this quote to 12%, which is what Muslims are, in India? Should the State not not discriminate on the basis of population? This is where the whole issue smacks of politics. This is not an attempt to better the fate of 12% of Indian population. This is an attempt to garner votes, to consolidate the vote bank. To ensure the backing of the community for a long time to come. Congress is desperate, because it known it has lost the backing of this community and has no real support base anywhere in the country.
Its also time Muslims saw through these vote bank politics of these parties. Its also time that Muslims realize that these petty appeasement for which they've supported one party or the other (like Congress, or SP, or RJD) has led to a steady disillusionment of their majority brethren, and led them to believe that Muslims are "pampered" and "appeased", often at the cost of the Hindus. Otherwise its only a matter of time before the majority consolidates a vote bank. And the rise of BJP, is an example. One way to "comfort" Hindus is to reach to the mainstream, support the Hindu parties like BJP (not as in blind support like they've done for Congress and SP in the past, but to do away with the mental block of BJP being a pro-hindutva party, and vote for or against it on its own merits), and be open. That would lead to greater friendliness with the majority.
After all, if we're going to be neighbors, why not live in peace?
And now that I am done speaking, I would gladly listen to your views.
Recently AP Cabinet announced a "sweeping", "across the board" 5% quota for Muslims. Now I know that the cries of "appeasement" would not be far behind (and so would be bandhs, dharnas and demonstrations). But I would ask you to count 10, and take a deep breath, and read what I have to say. And then you can do whatever you think is right.
Firstly, when SC/ST in India enjoy the benefits of reservations in jobs, why should Muslims be denied this pleasure. Its a no-brainer that Muslims are really a backward lot in India. They have really low literacy rate, a really high crime rate, and as my brother says who is a doctor, a really high disease rate. Why should a State discriminate with about 12% of population on the basis of religion?
I believe by this time, some of you might be nodding, and some might be thinking "but its their 'backward' religion that is responsible". Yes. But is it not the same for SCs/STs (their religion segregated them, leading them to remain backward)? Or for that matter, what about OBCs? They get a quota, despite the fact that the religion never oppressed them. If they "deserve" reservations, Muslims do present a stronger case. Definitely.
And its definitely time that being the majority community, the Hindus recognise this and gladly and willingly gave their share to their minority brethren.
For those of you (Hindus) who believe in WIIFM (what's-in-it-for-me), let me say that a literate, financially independent Muslim is less likely to listen to the venom that's spewed weekly from the altars of Jama Masjid (I'd apologise for this statement if it hurts you, but trust me, this is the view-from-the-outside), and less likely to be a fundamentalist. He's more likely to be friendly and less likely to be a "danger" to the majority. Now how's that for the reward?
Oh of course some of you would dispute that, citing the examples of the urdu-professor-cum-plotter-of-parliament-attacks and the likes. Yes, education and financial independence are not a panacea for all ills, but they sure make a difference.
Now, I'd go a level further. If SC/STs get a quota commensurate with their population, why not extend this quote to 12%, which is what Muslims are, in India? Should the State not not discriminate on the basis of population? This is where the whole issue smacks of politics. This is not an attempt to better the fate of 12% of Indian population. This is an attempt to garner votes, to consolidate the vote bank. To ensure the backing of the community for a long time to come. Congress is desperate, because it known it has lost the backing of this community and has no real support base anywhere in the country.
Its also time Muslims saw through these vote bank politics of these parties. Its also time that Muslims realize that these petty appeasement for which they've supported one party or the other (like Congress, or SP, or RJD) has led to a steady disillusionment of their majority brethren, and led them to believe that Muslims are "pampered" and "appeased", often at the cost of the Hindus. Otherwise its only a matter of time before the majority consolidates a vote bank. And the rise of BJP, is an example. One way to "comfort" Hindus is to reach to the mainstream, support the Hindu parties like BJP (not as in blind support like they've done for Congress and SP in the past, but to do away with the mental block of BJP being a pro-hindutva party, and vote for or against it on its own merits), and be open. That would lead to greater friendliness with the majority.
After all, if we're going to be neighbors, why not live in peace?
And now that I am done speaking, I would gladly listen to your views.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Hungry for heroes - 2
Its not the happiest thing to write, but write I must. I was ready to eat crow. But whatever I predicted turned to be true.
Sania Mirza crashed out of the French Open singles in the first round, and in the second round in the doubles. And if you noticed, the media didn't report it at all. In fact I had to go to French Open website to figure that out.
This reminds me, that whenever there was a cricket match involving India that I wasn't watching, I could know the results this way - if in the next day's paper, there's the big pic of Indians celebrating or some Indian player in action on his way to a great performance, or a really big headline touting Indian win, India won. If not, India lost, and I'd find that article in the sports section.
On the other side. Narayan Karthikeyan is also struggling with Jordan. To be fair to him, the guy has his feet on the ground.
I wanted them to win, but I know how it works in India.
Don't be surprised if you see more Sania Mirzas and Karthikeyans in the making, and these ones dumped for good. For the country hungry for heroes, this is a way of life.
Sania Mirza crashed out of the French Open singles in the first round, and in the second round in the doubles. And if you noticed, the media didn't report it at all. In fact I had to go to French Open website to figure that out.
This reminds me, that whenever there was a cricket match involving India that I wasn't watching, I could know the results this way - if in the next day's paper, there's the big pic of Indians celebrating or some Indian player in action on his way to a great performance, or a really big headline touting Indian win, India won. If not, India lost, and I'd find that article in the sports section.
On the other side. Narayan Karthikeyan is also struggling with Jordan. To be fair to him, the guy has his feet on the ground.
I wanted them to win, but I know how it works in India.
Don't be surprised if you see more Sania Mirzas and Karthikeyans in the making, and these ones dumped for good. For the country hungry for heroes, this is a way of life.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Hungry for heroes
If you're an Indian like me, chances are that you would rever one or more of the following
1. Amitabh Bachchan
2. Shahrukh Khan
3. Sachin Tendulkar
In addition to this "big guys club" we always have people whom we take to the top and then bring them to the ground. But lets not waste our time in trivia. Lets talk facts.
Why do you think this nation of 1.2 billion, we don't produce any world beaters, world champions, or even world class players? Or actors?
The answer lies in the psyche of the Indian populace. And our upbringing. We, as a people are so hungry for heroes that we go gaga over anyone who does even fairly anywhere. We rever them. We adore them. We pray for them. And we end up giving them much more than their fair share, much before its due.
A sportsman, like anyone else is fuelled by a desire to get the accolades. A desire to be the cynosure of all eyes. A desire to be applauded, to be talked about. And when you get that, what's left to take you ahead? Precious nothing.
I am reminded of tons of people who got accolades before it was due. And faded into the oblivion before one could say the word "fade". Some might recall a guy called Limba Ram. He was supposedly a world record breaking archer. He ended not even clearing the heats. PT Usha who burst into the national scene with her golds at Asian Games, was out in the heats in the Olympics. In cricket, how many times did we hear that Yuvraj Singh was the guy India had been looking for after his performance in the Natwest Series. And how many times he's been in and out of the team after that, and performed?
The latest is Sania Mirza who's already "achieved a celebrity status", is an "advertiser's dream" and what not. Rubbing shoulders with politicians and speaking on women's meet isn't what you should be doing at 18, when you're a sportsperson. Basking in the glory comes with its fair price. Unfortunately, nither the Indians realize this, not the sportspersons themselves.
Narain KArthikeyan generated the same brouhaha last year when he made it to F1. A string of 17th ranks later, no one talks about him anymore. To be fair to him, he does come across someone who's his head over his shoulders.
Not the same for Sania.
I'd be glad if she does as well at French Open as she did at Australian Open and breaks into top 50 and does even better next year. But I admit, I am more optimistic than hopeful.
Call me the doubting thomas, but I'd say just wait and watch.
1. Amitabh Bachchan
2. Shahrukh Khan
3. Sachin Tendulkar
In addition to this "big guys club" we always have people whom we take to the top and then bring them to the ground. But lets not waste our time in trivia. Lets talk facts.
Why do you think this nation of 1.2 billion, we don't produce any world beaters, world champions, or even world class players? Or actors?
The answer lies in the psyche of the Indian populace. And our upbringing. We, as a people are so hungry for heroes that we go gaga over anyone who does even fairly anywhere. We rever them. We adore them. We pray for them. And we end up giving them much more than their fair share, much before its due.
A sportsman, like anyone else is fuelled by a desire to get the accolades. A desire to be the cynosure of all eyes. A desire to be applauded, to be talked about. And when you get that, what's left to take you ahead? Precious nothing.
I am reminded of tons of people who got accolades before it was due. And faded into the oblivion before one could say the word "fade". Some might recall a guy called Limba Ram. He was supposedly a world record breaking archer. He ended not even clearing the heats. PT Usha who burst into the national scene with her golds at Asian Games, was out in the heats in the Olympics. In cricket, how many times did we hear that Yuvraj Singh was the guy India had been looking for after his performance in the Natwest Series. And how many times he's been in and out of the team after that, and performed?
The latest is Sania Mirza who's already "achieved a celebrity status", is an "advertiser's dream" and what not. Rubbing shoulders with politicians and speaking on women's meet isn't what you should be doing at 18, when you're a sportsperson. Basking in the glory comes with its fair price. Unfortunately, nither the Indians realize this, not the sportspersons themselves.
Narain KArthikeyan generated the same brouhaha last year when he made it to F1. A string of 17th ranks later, no one talks about him anymore. To be fair to him, he does come across someone who's his head over his shoulders.
Not the same for Sania.
I'd be glad if she does as well at French Open as she did at Australian Open and breaks into top 50 and does even better next year. But I admit, I am more optimistic than hopeful.
Call me the doubting thomas, but I'd say just wait and watch.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The humble telephone
Some days ago I read that after the discovery of the telephone by AG Bell, the then US President Rutherford Hayes commented "It's a great invention but who would want to use it anyway?".
Imagine if you didn't have a phone.
1. You could not call up home every weekend to ask how your parents were doing.
2. You could not hear your little niece in years.
3. You could not tell your friend that you were sick and would not be able to come and play.
4. You could not ask your friend for directions if you got lost.
5. You could not dial 911 for emergency.
6. You would be wondering what it means in the forms where they mention "Home telephone number"
7. You could not set up a wake up alarm call.
8. You could not talk about Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and the likes.
More than 1 century later, I am trying to imagine life without the humble telephone.
But I can't. Can you?
Imagine if you didn't have a phone.
1. You could not call up home every weekend to ask how your parents were doing.
2. You could not hear your little niece in years.
3. You could not tell your friend that you were sick and would not be able to come and play.
4. You could not ask your friend for directions if you got lost.
5. You could not dial 911 for emergency.
6. You would be wondering what it means in the forms where they mention "Home telephone number"
7. You could not set up a wake up alarm call.
8. You could not talk about Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and the likes.
More than 1 century later, I am trying to imagine life without the humble telephone.
But I can't. Can you?
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Water
"Water water everywhere, and not a drop to drink".
Today is the world water day. and lest we forget, Google has a way of letting us know that :)
Every drop of water we waste is precious and there're countless people in Asia and Africa fighting over every drop of water.
Do you know it takes much more water to produce a pound of meat as compared to a pound of vegetables? (you can read more into it you know :))
There have been saying that the future wars would not be fought over power or land, but water. Even a paper presented by President Musharraf at Oxford in about 1990 recognised that Pakistan's interest in Kashmir is not because of its hilly terrain but its water catchment areas.
So next time you water your garden or wash your car, remember - you're using up a resource that, like Helen of Troy would launch a thousand ships in future !!
Today is the world water day. and lest we forget, Google has a way of letting us know that :)
Every drop of water we waste is precious and there're countless people in Asia and Africa fighting over every drop of water.
Do you know it takes much more water to produce a pound of meat as compared to a pound of vegetables? (you can read more into it you know :))
There have been saying that the future wars would not be fought over power or land, but water. Even a paper presented by President Musharraf at Oxford in about 1990 recognised that Pakistan's interest in Kashmir is not because of its hilly terrain but its water catchment areas.
So next time you water your garden or wash your car, remember - you're using up a resource that, like Helen of Troy would launch a thousand ships in future !!
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Who says elephants can't dance?
Recently, I happened to read a very interesting book by the same name. It was exciting for me because it concerned the company that also happened to be the first company I worked for - IBM.
IBM had been the powerhouse inventor for decades, and its not wrong to say that it had invented the computer industry around it. But by 1992, IBM was losing cash, making losses, and was fast on its way to extinction. Its flagship product, the mainframe S/390 was not selling much, and was rapidly giving way to smaller, PC-Centric products. In the midst of this mayhem, the CEO was given the marching orders.
And Louis Gerstner took over.
"Who says elephants can't dance?" is a wonderfully candid story of the guy who came from RJR Nabisco (often derided in IBM as the Cookie guy) and turned the "Big Blue" from Deep Red to Deep Black. Lou describes his reasons for taking up the job (he accepted the job because he felt his job in his then current company, RJR Nabisco was not safe anymore), his experiences when he moved in as the CEO of IBM (how, on his first day at work, he was stranded outside a building with a card reader at the door, and could not go in, because he had not been issued a badge by IBM Security by then) and his attitude of taking inputs from everyone who mattered, including the management, engineers and customers, and maintaining notes in each meeting.
An awesome read for everyone.
IBM had been the powerhouse inventor for decades, and its not wrong to say that it had invented the computer industry around it. But by 1992, IBM was losing cash, making losses, and was fast on its way to extinction. Its flagship product, the mainframe S/390 was not selling much, and was rapidly giving way to smaller, PC-Centric products. In the midst of this mayhem, the CEO was given the marching orders.
And Louis Gerstner took over.
"Who says elephants can't dance?" is a wonderfully candid story of the guy who came from RJR Nabisco (often derided in IBM as the Cookie guy) and turned the "Big Blue" from Deep Red to Deep Black. Lou describes his reasons for taking up the job (he accepted the job because he felt his job in his then current company, RJR Nabisco was not safe anymore), his experiences when he moved in as the CEO of IBM (how, on his first day at work, he was stranded outside a building with a card reader at the door, and could not go in, because he had not been issued a badge by IBM Security by then) and his attitude of taking inputs from everyone who mattered, including the management, engineers and customers, and maintaining notes in each meeting.
An awesome read for everyone.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
India and Pakistan
I am an Indian. He's a Pakistani. Should we hate each other?
Maybe yes.
But why?
Because India and Pakistan are at loggerheads.
But he's not at loggerheads with you. His country is at loggerheads with you.
So what?
So why hate him, an innocent man?
Because he's a Pakistani. And since Pakistanis hate Indians too.
Maybe because Pakistanis hate Indians coz they've been told that Indians hate Pakistanis too.
Whatever.
Don't you think that since we consider ourselves more reasonable, we should break out of this chicken and egg situation?
Err .. why should we do it? Why can't they take initiative.
Should we not be more reasonable and responsible?
We are. They are the aggressors all the time.
Alright. But here we know of a situation - should we as responsible people not correct this?
Why?
Because its in our own benefit.
How?
If we are at peace with Pakistan, we can use those money and resources for our well being and growth. Children would not have to go hungry. People would have enough to clothe themselves. They can think of a future beyond mere survival.
Yes but Pakistan's situation is worse.
Why do we need to see ourselves better than Pakistan only? Do we owe this to Pakistan or our own people? Is it not in our own interest?
Alright, but I don't think Pakistan would ever be alright. We've been cheated by them so many times before.
But we still can "Believe in God but lock our car". Can't we? We can be cautious and guarded, and yet try to come to peace with Pakistan. Can't we? Maybe we'd succeed. We owe this to our own people, our future, our prosperity.
Yeah maybe you're right. But you know Pakistan would never mend its ways.
But war never solved any problem. Did it? Look at Iraq. The Iraqis hate Americans still and would go to any length for revenge. Look at Germany after WWI. They were crushed, but the public sentiment was so strong that Nazis, advocating a strong millitary came to power. Look at India and Pakistan. We've had 4 wars. Did we achieve anything?
Well. India Vs Pakistan is about Islam Vs Hinduism.
Yes, we're different religion, and I might go to the extent of admitting that Pakistan is more radical Islam than many other countries. But Islam in itself isn't agressor. Look at Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia. All these countries are at peace with its neighbors. Its the radical islam that's the trouble. So its not really Islam Vs Hinduism but between Radical Islam Vs Hinduism.
Yes that's right. But we don't control whatever religion develops on the other side of the border.
We do. If we adopt hardline posture towards Pakistan, we send the general population the message that they need to wage Jihad because their lives are not safe from a "Hindu" India. If we're a little more tactful, we let the softer voice in Pakistan be heard, and dominate, and change the aggression of Pakistan towards India.
Do you really belive in this crap?
I do. Don't you think terrorism (or "freedom fighters") arise(s) where there's either real or perceived oppression? Like it did in Kashmir (where ppl thought they were not free) or in the case of Naxalites and Maoists (where economic oppression is a reason), or Iraq (a threat to the existance of people and their freedom). If we don't threaten people, and don't give them a chance to feel oppressed or threatened, they no longer need to take the terrorism route, or radical islam's way to save themselves.
You do have a point. But why're you telling me all this.
Because every one can make a difference.
Maybe yes.
But why?
Because India and Pakistan are at loggerheads.
But he's not at loggerheads with you. His country is at loggerheads with you.
So what?
So why hate him, an innocent man?
Because he's a Pakistani. And since Pakistanis hate Indians too.
Maybe because Pakistanis hate Indians coz they've been told that Indians hate Pakistanis too.
Whatever.
Don't you think that since we consider ourselves more reasonable, we should break out of this chicken and egg situation?
Err .. why should we do it? Why can't they take initiative.
Should we not be more reasonable and responsible?
We are. They are the aggressors all the time.
Alright. But here we know of a situation - should we as responsible people not correct this?
Why?
Because its in our own benefit.
How?
If we are at peace with Pakistan, we can use those money and resources for our well being and growth. Children would not have to go hungry. People would have enough to clothe themselves. They can think of a future beyond mere survival.
Yes but Pakistan's situation is worse.
Why do we need to see ourselves better than Pakistan only? Do we owe this to Pakistan or our own people? Is it not in our own interest?
Alright, but I don't think Pakistan would ever be alright. We've been cheated by them so many times before.
But we still can "Believe in God but lock our car". Can't we? We can be cautious and guarded, and yet try to come to peace with Pakistan. Can't we? Maybe we'd succeed. We owe this to our own people, our future, our prosperity.
Yeah maybe you're right. But you know Pakistan would never mend its ways.
But war never solved any problem. Did it? Look at Iraq. The Iraqis hate Americans still and would go to any length for revenge. Look at Germany after WWI. They were crushed, but the public sentiment was so strong that Nazis, advocating a strong millitary came to power. Look at India and Pakistan. We've had 4 wars. Did we achieve anything?
Well. India Vs Pakistan is about Islam Vs Hinduism.
Yes, we're different religion, and I might go to the extent of admitting that Pakistan is more radical Islam than many other countries. But Islam in itself isn't agressor. Look at Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia. All these countries are at peace with its neighbors. Its the radical islam that's the trouble. So its not really Islam Vs Hinduism but between Radical Islam Vs Hinduism.
Yes that's right. But we don't control whatever religion develops on the other side of the border.
We do. If we adopt hardline posture towards Pakistan, we send the general population the message that they need to wage Jihad because their lives are not safe from a "Hindu" India. If we're a little more tactful, we let the softer voice in Pakistan be heard, and dominate, and change the aggression of Pakistan towards India.
Do you really belive in this crap?
I do. Don't you think terrorism (or "freedom fighters") arise(s) where there's either real or perceived oppression? Like it did in Kashmir (where ppl thought they were not free) or in the case of Naxalites and Maoists (where economic oppression is a reason), or Iraq (a threat to the existance of people and their freedom). If we don't threaten people, and don't give them a chance to feel oppressed or threatened, they no longer need to take the terrorism route, or radical islam's way to save themselves.
You do have a point. But why're you telling me all this.
Because every one can make a difference.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Loss and Grief
One of my good friends lost his mother very recently. His mom was back home in Pune, and he is in Phoenix. Words just can't console enough. I am sad I could not really ask him to just sit with me and cry and let his grief out. I was sitting with him all this while looking he was doing his preparation to go back home to be with his father and brother. I wish I could have been of more help than just being there.
As I write this, he's almost ready to fly back home - to be with his mom's memories and to console his father and brother, who, in turn would console him.
I share his grief and pray for the departed soul.
As I write this, he's almost ready to fly back home - to be with his mom's memories and to console his father and brother, who, in turn would console him.
I share his grief and pray for the departed soul.
On Freedom
For long I thought we were free. Or at least I was - and I used to pity the people in parts of Africa. I used to think they were the only people in the world in the need for freedom.
I was wrong.
As a kid I used to think I'd be free from the burdon of un-necessary subjects like Social Studies and Hindi when I move to grades XI and XII. On reaching XI and XII, I realized that though I was studying science and mathematics, I was bound by a very uninteresting syllabus. I thought I'd be free when I go to college - no books to carry and no school dresses to wear. When I reached engineering college, I realized I there were too many expectations and a lot of competition, and so I could not afford to be lax. I willingly allowed my freedom to be taken over in pursuit of that extra marks, those better grades, those extra programming knowledge that would look good on my resume. All in the hope that I'd be truly free when I start to work.I would probably not go to explain what shackled me when I started to work. But yes, first time in my life I was unshackled from economic bonds - I was free.
Recently Kofi Annan mentioned precisely this. The world currently is under shackles, stronger than slavery, and more humiliating than discrimination. Its the economic slavery. The poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer. And unless this is checked, the world runs the risk of a backlash by the have-nots.
Something needs to be done - not for them, but for ourselves.
And before its too late.
I was wrong.
As a kid I used to think I'd be free from the burdon of un-necessary subjects like Social Studies and Hindi when I move to grades XI and XII. On reaching XI and XII, I realized that though I was studying science and mathematics, I was bound by a very uninteresting syllabus. I thought I'd be free when I go to college - no books to carry and no school dresses to wear. When I reached engineering college, I realized I there were too many expectations and a lot of competition, and so I could not afford to be lax. I willingly allowed my freedom to be taken over in pursuit of that extra marks, those better grades, those extra programming knowledge that would look good on my resume. All in the hope that I'd be truly free when I start to work.I would probably not go to explain what shackled me when I started to work. But yes, first time in my life I was unshackled from economic bonds - I was free.
Recently Kofi Annan mentioned precisely this. The world currently is under shackles, stronger than slavery, and more humiliating than discrimination. Its the economic slavery. The poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer. And unless this is checked, the world runs the risk of a backlash by the have-nots.
Something needs to be done - not for them, but for ourselves.
And before its too late.
Monday, January 31, 2005
On Iraqi elections and more
Finally, the 30th Jan passed away, relatively peacefully.
The prophesies of doom had abounded, each predicting bloodbath and low voter turnout. But that was not to be. I must admit, I trusted those doomsday prophesies more than the assurances of the Iraqi interim government and the US Dept of Defense' statements.
Credit must go to where it is due, including the intelligent tactics adopted by the US forces - curfew and vehicular restrictions close to the polling stations. Also, the fact that the locations of polling booths and the information about the candidates was not disclosed till very close to the polling day also helped.
But this raises some very important questions
1. If the elections were that free and fair, why were networks like Al-Jazeera (traditionally critics of the US led invasion and the US supported interim government) banned by the Iraqi interim government from covering the Iraqi elections?
2. When even the candidates' names were not known to the voters till very close to the elections, what kind of "choice" did these elections signify? Was this real democracy? Or were the voters out there to choose whichever names sounded "good"? This zero choice or blind choice is akin to the elections under Saddam Hussain, where only the Baathists won.
3. When only 66% Iraqi expatriates, who were safe from insurgency, are more likely to be better educated and aware, and had a three day window for voting, voted, is it even sane to assume that millions of illiterate, scared voters turned out to vote, knowing it is akin to suicide, to make it 72% voting? Doesn't this mean that the US propaganda machinery was working overtime?
Unfortunately, I don't have answers right now. But I suspect that just like the British did in India-Pakistan and Palestine-Israel, US is going to do the same - going to leave Iraq in ethnic strife, burning, so that it could have more handles to meddle in the Middle East for the years to come.
For oil.
Only time would tell.
The prophesies of doom had abounded, each predicting bloodbath and low voter turnout. But that was not to be. I must admit, I trusted those doomsday prophesies more than the assurances of the Iraqi interim government and the US Dept of Defense' statements.
Credit must go to where it is due, including the intelligent tactics adopted by the US forces - curfew and vehicular restrictions close to the polling stations. Also, the fact that the locations of polling booths and the information about the candidates was not disclosed till very close to the polling day also helped.
But this raises some very important questions
1. If the elections were that free and fair, why were networks like Al-Jazeera (traditionally critics of the US led invasion and the US supported interim government) banned by the Iraqi interim government from covering the Iraqi elections?
2. When even the candidates' names were not known to the voters till very close to the elections, what kind of "choice" did these elections signify? Was this real democracy? Or were the voters out there to choose whichever names sounded "good"? This zero choice or blind choice is akin to the elections under Saddam Hussain, where only the Baathists won.
3. When only 66% Iraqi expatriates, who were safe from insurgency, are more likely to be better educated and aware, and had a three day window for voting, voted, is it even sane to assume that millions of illiterate, scared voters turned out to vote, knowing it is akin to suicide, to make it 72% voting? Doesn't this mean that the US propaganda machinery was working overtime?
Unfortunately, I don't have answers right now. But I suspect that just like the British did in India-Pakistan and Palestine-Israel, US is going to do the same - going to leave Iraq in ethnic strife, burning, so that it could have more handles to meddle in the Middle East for the years to come.
For oil.
Only time would tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)