Clowns

Why do people find clowns funny? Why do they not find them scary? I used to ask these questions when I was 5 years old. In fact, come to think of it, I still ask that question! I used to be so scared of a clown soft toy some supposedly 'well-meaning' relative had gifted me that I used to keep it out of my room. Now, 22 years later, I am not scared of them but the site of a clown makes me feel very uncomfortable.

The intent of a professional humour artist should be to present the joke and let his audience judge what's funny and laugh or giggle accordingly. It should not be to dress up awkwardly, fall down for no reason and force the humour onto the audience. Also, it is being very demeaning to yourself to make the audience laugh at you rather than with you.

You may argue that the clown acts are primarily for children and not a supposedly 'intellectual audience'. That is something I find very disturbing. You are asking your child to point at someone's misery and ugliness and laugh. That sows the seeds for bullying and ragging in the future. It may sound far-fetched but think about it!

Worse still, pathetic movies like 'Mera Naam Joker' are made which portrays a clown crying from inside and yet entertaining people. So basically, you are supposed to laugh at a clown but also feel guilty about the same!

Speaking of clowns, let me come to Johnny Lever - one of the worst comedians I have seen. His humour is very loud and his way of delivering punches makes me cringe. Another bugger who forces the humour onto the audience through loud dialogues and facial expressions.

But then, there is another bugger worse than Lever and even worse than most clowns I have seen. It's Charlie Chaplin. I don't understand what the stupid communist was upto when he made those silent short-films. I always get confused when I see him, whether I am supposed to feel sorry for him for the miserable situations he gets himself into in his movies or laugh at his sorry antics.

The worst of the lot has to be Rajpal Yadav. The less said about him, the better.

I yearn for a time when people outgrow such clowns and learn to appreciate humour which is neither loud nor comes bundled with someone's supposedly 'funny' misery.

How to look busy when there is no work!

Have you ever sat in your office cubicle wondering what to do next? You've done the work you were supposed to do for the day and it is stil 3:00 pm, 3 hours before you can head home. Of course, you can go out for a smoke, or a bite or even make up a fake client call and head home. But how many fake client calls can you make and for how much time can you extend your snack break? Ultimately, there will be a time when you have to sit at your desk and if your seniors are around, appear like you are doing work! It doesn't matter if the senior also has no work, he will still expect you to be busy with something.

I have some suggestions on how to look busy. Mind you, this is not a humourous piece where I make up these suggestions by imagining them. This is what people in real life do. I have worked in 5 different organizations and the following tips are things that I have actually seen people do.

Tip 1: Refresh. (This is one of my favourites. I've actually seen one of my ex-bosses do this)
Procedure:
-Sit in front of your PC.
-Right click on your desktop.
-Select the 'Refresh' option.
-Repeat.
Comment: It requires great tenacity to perform this monotonous task over and over again. To a casual observer, it may seem as if your PC is not working properly and you are trying your best to 'refresh' it to normalcy. My ex-boss even used to go the extra mile and shout "Mere PC mein kya problem hai yaar?" when he performed this task.

Tip 2: Stare at your PC. (My lethargic colleague who believed in working 9:00 to 2:00 used to do this).
Procedure:
-Sit in front of your PC.
-Get your head really close to the screen.
-Look angry and stare.
Caution: Remember to blink from time to time.
Comment: This is one of the simplest procedures that even I have practiced from time to time. In order to master it, you have to look really angry or involved so that your boss thinks twice before disturbing you or even standing behind you to see what is on your screen. Do come home and put eye-drops to moisten your eyes again as staring makes them dry.

Tip 3: Click randomly. (Applicable only to laptop users).
Procedure:
- Rotate your laptop to an angle where nobody can see what is on your screen.
- Click your mouse button by moving your mouse around randomly.
Comment: This is better than just staring as clicking goes the extra mile to convince people that you are doing something important. Also, since your screen is out of sight, you don't need to get your head really close to block out what is on it.

Tip 4: Surround yourself with documents.
Procedure:
- Stack your desk with files and folders of various sizes.
- Keep some of them open.
- Look flustered.
Comment: I guess people used this tactic before PCs started being regularly used in offices. I've seen this being implemented by one of our service managers who was in charge of documentation. He used to keep documents spread around on his desk and at the same time play games on his PC.

Tip 5: Rearrange your drawers.
Procedure:
- Empty your top drawer.
- Empty your middle drawer.
- Empty your bottom drawer.
- Put the contents of your top drawer in your bottom drawer.
- Put the contents of your middle drawer in your top drawer.
- Put the contents of your bottom drawer in your middle drawer.
Comment: This one I haven't seen anyone do but still listed it since I do it myself! Yes, I have patented this procedure, it is an original Salil. The added advantage is, while rearranging, you find documents that were missing since a long time.

Tip 6: Fake a headache.
Procedure:
- Look listless.
- Look more listless as time passes.
- Ask your colleagues for a Panjon tablet. Do it loudly to seek attention.
- Ask the pantry guy (loudly) for a glass of water.
- Keep your head down and sleep on your desk.
Comment: 2 of my colleagues used to do this. One of them even used to go to the extent of telling her boss how she is still in office in spite of the discomfort she feels.

Tip 7: Read research reports. (More applicable if you are in the financial services industry).
Procedure:
- Open a 153 page long pdf file explaining stuff like "The trend of forex reserves in India and its current impact on fiscal policy making".
- Do not read it if you do not want to, just make sure you keep scrolling down from time to time. 3 minutes per page is the ideal standard.
Comment: Another procedure patented by me. No boss will object to his subordinate supposedly trying to 'enhance his knowledge'.

Tip 8: Pick a fight with the back office guy.
Procedure:
- Try to remember the last thing you asked someone in the operations department to do and hasn't been done.
- Make a big issue out of it, mark a mail to him and his seniors.
- Wait for him to call you, if he doesn't, then call him up and scream at him at the top of your lungs.
Comment: Don't feel guilty about it as those lethargic, apathetic idiots in the back office do need a doze of abuse from time to time. It will make you look concerned in front of your boss. However, on the downside, even the back office guy might not have much work at a point of time and in order to look busy, might take your case.

Type 9: Play computer games that can be played with one hand.
Procedure:
Case 1: Games that are played with a mouse, eg. Minesweeper, Solitaire.
- Since your right hand will be occupied, use your left hand and place it one finger on the 'Alt' key and the other on the F4 key.
- When your senior appears in the vicinity, use both the keys together to close the game window.
Case 2: Games that are played with a keyboard, eg. stick cricket.
- Use your left hand on the keyboard and the right hand holding the mouse pointer to the 'x' button on the top right corner of the window.
- When your senior appears in the vicinity, click on that button to close the window.
Caution: Do not minimize since well-trained seniors can look at the bottom of your screen and understand what you are upto. Also, in extreme cases, switch off your monitor and make it look like there is a loose connection somewhere.
Comment: This can be frustrating as unsaved games will be lost. However, it is better than blankly staring at your screen, clicking randomly or reading a research report as you actually will not have to 'act' occupied since you will be occupied anyway and appear that way.

Type 10: Doodle.
Procedure:
- Buy a fancy diary.
- Scribble on it, doodle on it, do anything you want on it, just make it look like you are writing your appointments for the week on it.
Comment: Another tactic that may have been used during times when there was no PC. This is my personal favourite.

I guess these tips are more oriented towards sales/marketing people, but I'm sure others can also use them.

Beeps and Surrogates

Unusually comic situations arise when a compromise is reached to keep everyone happy. Taking the middle ground without having the guts to take a stand either way is very typical for democracies across the world. In the end, only egos of two opposing parties are satisfied and the problem still remains.

Take those beeps for example that you hear in reality shows today which mask what a contestant is saying when they are abusive. Even a 10 year old can read the lip movements of a contestant and make out whether they said f*** or sh** or chu****. In fact he can read the previous sentence and understand what I meant. in spite of the *'s.

However, if those words are not beeped out, then there will be self-righteous idiots who have fragile tolerance levels being up in arms against the GECs (General Entertainment Channels). Their version of Indian culture will be violated and they will argue that their kids are getting badly influenced. I wonder why their kids are being allowed to watch wannabe shows like MTV Roadies in the first place! They'll get adversely influenced anyway but let's not digress.

Also, if the lip movements are also blocked out, the shows' TRPs will suffer which these GECs will not be able to tolerate. So a compromise formula is reached which achieves nothing. It all ends up as a farce. Everybody knows what Akash 'Beep' Saigal kept saying when he used to get angry in that jungle reality show*. However, the authorities make us believe that they are stupid enough not to realize that we know what is being said because of the beeping.

A similar situation arises in surrogate advertisements. The authorities again tell us that they themselves are naive enough to believe that when we see a Bagpiper advertisement, we instantly believe that it is for Bagpiper soda and not whiskey. Kingfisher sells mineral water and Bacardi sells compilation albums of dance tracks.

Due to constant lobbying by major brewers, the alcohol advertisements, surrogate or otherwise cannot be completely banned and in order to appear responsible, the government cannot show liquor being consumed on television. Again, the compromise formula achieves nothing. I don't think Kingfisher is actually interested in selling its mineral water and it know that consumers understand that too.

I can provide examples various other compromise formulae which have achieved nothing in principle but a lot in safeguarding monetary interests on one side and massaged egos on the other side.

*-yes, yes I used to watch that show. Even I am human and fall prey to such idiocy from time to time.

44 Magnum

I may sound like an 8 year old but I like to see "good guys beat bad guys". Also, one more childish remark: in case bad guys get really bad, I like to see "good guys kill bad guys". I may also be sounding like some US Republican but it is always that simple when it comes to crime. It is always good vs bad.

However, it is not that simple nowadays. "Good vs Bad" has taken a backseat. Now it is "constitutional vs unconstitutional", "human vs inhuman", "civil vs barbaric", and because of this, there is a lot of red tape when it comes to law enforcement. The police always have their hands tied as they are accountable for their actions and have to file lengthy reports of what, how and why to describe their activities. I'm not even talking about political involvement or bribery here, that comes later. The first problem is the shoddy bureaucratic processes. It is true for almost all democracies in the world, first world or third world!

In fact, the rot seems to have started in the 1960s which prompted the successful run of the Dirty Harry movie series in the US. 'Dirty Harry' is the title given to a character called Harry Callahan who is a homicide detective in the San Francisco police department. He is shown not only to fight criminals but also put up with being accountable for his actions all the time. He is one cop who does not mind testing the limits of his jurisdiction as long as he gets the bad guy. His favourite gun is the 44 Magnum which he uses quite freely and to good effect.

As far as India is concerned, we have become too tolerant of the horrible events that keep happening. Maybe tolerant is not the right word, meek is the right word. The freshest example is that of the Naxal violence which is a major nuisance in the Eastern part of the country.

They have also continuously shown us how brutally violent they are. Still, here we are thinking about the root cause of their violence, negotiating with them for a peaceful resolution and also sympathizing with their cause. To me, people who behead a policeman in front of his family are bad guys who need to be dealt strongly with.

However, the ultra-liberals in society as well as the government step in and urge the policemen and the army to be civil with them. The politicians choose to be politically correct about their barbaric activities. Even hardline right-wingers like BJP spokepeople choose words carefully while describing these terrorists. This has led to the Naxal rot to spread far and wide. In fact, even parts of Eastern Maharashtra now can boast of a strong violent communist presence.

If we had taken a Dirty Harry approach against these psychos earlier, the rot would not have spread so far ahead from West Bengal. If the law enforcement agencies were allowed to freely use their versions of 44 Magnums, the tribal belts of Orissa, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh would have seen much less brutality.

Of course, the Naxalite's supposed cause is removal of class distinctions, ending exploitation of poor people, etc. However, their methods overshadow their cause and make them look like frustrated psychos rather than intellectual idealists that they claim to be. They are bad people, period.

It is never too late. If Home Minister PC Chidambaram acts on the strong words he used against them recently, it might just exterminate these pests. It's a dirty job but it's got to be done before it spreads further! Let the 44 Magnums speak for a change.

Heroes

No, this blog post is not about the horribly half-baked TV drama series ‘Heroes’ that is doing the rounds nowadays damaging brains of otherwise decent human beings. And if it is not about that wretched show, I wonder why I am still writing about it!

This post is about the concept of a hero. What defining characteristics he should have. Different people have different ideas for a hero. I will discuss a few types of heroes below. Kindly excuse the fact that I am using the word ‘hero’ or ‘he’ here; the concepts of a hero that I provide here are gender neutral and equally applicable to female heroes.

One type is that of a superhero. Superman, Spiderman, Batman and nowadays those stupid warrior ‘men’ that dumb kids play with are all examples of people with superpowers. Since they use their superpowers for good, they become heroes. I find it way too convenient. I believe writers who create such superheroes make the job less challenging for themselves. It is not difficult for Superman to single-handedly fight the most villainous creatures because he is after all, Superman and hence it is not a challenge for the writer to think how he will do it – just make him fly, get him to lift buildings and people and whoa – problem solved! This is the reason I am never fond of superheroes and don’t bother to watch their movies/cartoons!

The other type is that of a struggling hero. The hero who struggles all his life to do good and only after a lot of self-sacrifice and pain does he attain his goal. He even dies in the end at times. A lot of people like such heroes – especially fans of Hindi movies from the 1940s to 1960s. No wonder Raj Kapoor, Rajendra Kumar, Dilip Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Rajesh Khanna were so popular during that time. They are also shown to be too emotional and idealistic. I personally do not even consider the characters they play as heroes. You can call them decent human beings and applaud them for getting through life and doing a greater good but it takes much more to be a hero.

An ideal hero according to me would be one devoid of any superpowers and yet someone who is on top of his game. A person who can make do with his regular human powers and yet do good for people without struggling, sacrificing or emoting a lot. Now this is a challenge for writers as to how to make a person who eliminates bad and does good without any superpowers and without a long, painful struggle. Such a hero inspires confidence and it is a treat when he attempts to flawlessly eliminate the bad. The best example here would be of James Bond – the ruthless killer, the master strategist, the stylish spy and the compulsive lover! Other examples would be Clint Eastwood from the Dirty Harry series, Amitabh Bachchan in Mr. Natwarlal, Arnold Swarchzernegger in Commando, etc. Of course, these characters too are presented with struggles but the difference here is they are shown to rip across them and not tide along with them like Rajendra Kumar would.

There are other types like anti-heroes, comical heroes and so on but I’ve listed the three main 3 types above and made it quite obvious which one is ideal according to me.

BJP - Befuddled Janata Party

Writing about BJP after 4 consecutive blogposts where I haven't even remotely mentioned them is like breaking a fast. It is apt as today is the Jain religion's conclusion of Pajushan where people break their fasts anyway. I had promised myself 5 consecutive blogposts but I guess I have passed 80% (4/5).

I don't have a habit of beating people who are down and out so I'll try to be very objective in what I am saying. It is very obvious that the BJP is extremely confused about ideology, history and political strategy. For the vocabularily challenged, 'befuddled' is the synonym for 'confused' and hence the title.

What befuddles ME is how a 'liberal democrat' like Jaswant Singh spent 30 years in a conservative fascist setup? Worst of all, he seems so intellectually gifted. How could the bigots in the Bigoted Janata Party (BJP) tolerate the rise of such an intellectual is even more befuddling. What is not befuddling is that like true fascists, they expelled him without any warning! His revelations about Vajpayee have been alarming to say the least. His total rejection of the hardcore rightist philosophy is also very significant. But the beans have been spilled after he was expelled and I'm glad he was expelled as if he were to still remain in the party, the revelations would not have come out.

They also seem to be in a catch-22 situation. If they become a moderate centre-right party, it will demotivate their bigoted cadres and anger RSS, VHP, etc. If they continue on the bigoted far-rightist path, they will appear regressive and alienate the educated middle class even further.

The first step would be to change themselves from an MBJP to a WBJP (MisBehaved Janata Party to WellBehaved Janata Party). Their parliament disruption antics don't impress people anymore. Their direct or indirect barbs at Muslims and Christians look very unsavoury even if they still impress a large amount of brainwashed voters. They also need to tone down their rhetoric and stop digging graves from the Congress graveyard as they are highly irrelevant now. Finally, they need to learn from European governments how to become a constructive, civilized opposition.

Being a Benign Janata Party (BJP) will help it regain its 1990s votebank of the educated middle class.

Bad Commercials

The following paragraph is a boring set of calculations. You can choose to skip it and read only the last line of the paragraph.

A 10 second advertising slot during prime time sells for anywhere between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. Let's assume an average price of Rs. 1,00,000 per 10 seconds. It means that for every 30 second commercial aired on TV, the cost is Rs. 3,00,000. Considering that in 4 hours of prime time (7p.m. to 11p.m.), the commercial is aired 20 times, the cost goes up to 60,00,000. If the primetime shows air 4 times a week, the price per week is Rs. 2,40,00,000. The price per month per prime time slot per channel assuming a 4-week month is Rs. 9,60,00,000. Now let's consider just 4 channels where the commercial airs. Now the cost per month increases to Rs. 38,40,00,000. Assuming the ad agency fees, production costs and cost of airing commercials during non prime time to be a measly 11,60,00,000: the total cost per commercial comes to be Rs. 50,00,00,000. In simpler terms: Rs. 50 crores per month for every 30 second commercial.*

You may be thinking that the money is not going from Khetu's pocket, so why is he so freaking bothered? I am bothered because some of these commercials are so stupid that they make me cringe. If the company is spending so much (even in these times, 50 crores is a lot) to advertise its products, then they better make sure that it is well spent and the advertisement is not ridiculed! It will invariably create a sub-conscious mindset which will ridicule the product itself.

A few examples of bad commercials:
1. Visa Debit Card:
The Plot: An auto-rickshaw driver refuses to ride a passenger to the ATM. Why? Because he believes that withdrawing cash is a waste of time. Why? Because all payments should be done through the visa debit card.
Response: Somebody needs to remind the auto-driver that he needs to install a visa-card machine in his auto, otherwise people who are not allowed to withdraw cash from the ATM will not be able to pay him.
2. Sprite:
The Plot: Few students who are living on rent want to trick aunties in their building to cook food for them. They invite the aunty for dinner, buy Sprite to please her, purposely botch up the cooking so that the aunty feels sorry for them and makes the dinner herself!
Response: This not only bothers me as a consumer, but also as a marketing student. There is a concept called positioning in marketing. Positioning means creating a particular image about the product in the customer's mind. After spending years to position Sprite as a "Seedhi Baat, No Bakwaas" product which describes Sprite's brand personality as a frank, straighforward drink, they come up with this stupid commercial where what the paying guests do is anything but straightforward. This is not only an advertising mishap but a major marketing blunder.
3. Airtel DTH: (added 28/09/2009)
The Plot: Saif Ali Khan compares the telecast of our 'regular' cable TV with that of Airtel DTH. The TV screen is split into 2 halves, the half showing Airtel's picture quality obviously more clearer.
Response: A classic example of insulting the consumer's intelligence. Do I even need to explain how our intelligence is insulted, humiliated and left to the dogs? If you haven't still got the glaring error, then let me explain and before I explain let me suggest that you need to go buy a bigger brain! Here goes: If my picture quality is as bad as shown on the TV since I supposedly do not use Airtel DTH, then HOW will I be able to tell the difference between the blurred and the clear picture quality? Even the doggone Airtel version on the second half of the screen will look the same to me. And if it DOESN'T look the same and DOES look clearer, then I DO NOT need to buy Airtel DTH.

I would blame the marketing managers of companies more for these mishaps than the advertisers themselves. This is because they are the ones approving such balderash which not only costs their company money but also costs their brand dearly.

*-To the best of my knowledge, the cost would be much higher.

Cockiness in the name of Security

Conservatives argue that security is paramount, even if it comes at the cost of liberty, convenience and privacy. Liberals argue the opposite. I argue that there need not be any tradeoff between the two sides as both can coexist if the security agencies get out of their comfort zone.

It is very easy to be clerical about security and bother anyone with questions even if he is 0.1% suspect. It is also very easy to justify it to the public because it is all for the sake of their security. It is also very easy to torture someone on an outside 5% chance that he may be a terrorist. All these things have been done but terrorism still persists in the same magnitude as it was during 9/11.

What is not easy is catching terrorists before they act or immediately after they act. What is not easy is to condemn and blacklist a nuclear powered country which harbours terrorists. What is not easy is to take pains to come out with a better screening process so that ordinary people are not harassed. All these things, if done with a political will can go a long way in eliminating terror.

The recent frisking of Shah Rukh Khan at the Newark airport was unnecessary. It reeked of prejudice, high-handedness, misplaced nationalism as well as stupidity. We've got to get out of the colonial mindset and believe that the US is doing us a favour by letting us in their country and we have to respect their extreme security measures.

Criticizing Shah Rukh Khan is a clear case of shooting the messenger*. Those pseudo-wannabes who believe that it is fashionable to criticize Shah Rukh Khan ought to be frisked in the same way with some cocky security official asking them a barrage of uncomfortable questions with no access to water, telephone or the loo.

If Barack Obama considers himself to be a true liberal, he should make efforts to remove the nationalistic as well as insular mindset of the American people. He should also make efforts to remove fear and prejudice that has become so well-entrenched among Americans since 9/11.

* - ref Shooting the Messenger

Channel [V]

I sorely miss Channel [V] of the 1990s. It is a part of the Star India Network. It was earlier MTV but later MTV opted out of the Star group and created its own MTV India channel in the latter half of the 90s. In fact, MTV too was fun to watch during that time but it could not match up with Channel [V].

In that decade, music channels had a nonsensical, humourous and a light-hearted attitude. The VJs were intelligent as well as very funny. There was no glamour aspect to the shows, only a fun and lively aspect in addition to great music. Who can forget Javed Jaffery's hosting of Videocon Flashback and Timex Timepass? Also, the pairing of Ranvir Shorey and Vinay Pathak in Channel [V] House Arrest. The Haryanvi Jat Udham Singh was Channel [V]'s mascot, I still remember him pronouncing "Channal V".

Javed Jaffery is the best VJ by far that I have seen. He can even leave the Cyrus Broachas and the Sajid Khans behind. His mimicry was upto the mark, his knowledge of old Hindi music was unmatched and there is no VJ till date who can match his wit. He in fact, taught the world how to mimic Dharmendra and Pran. Vinay and Ranvir was the best VJ pairing, they kept on hurling witty wisecracks at each other. Channel [V] music awards too were bereft of unnecessary glamour but high on the nonsensical fun content.

Most importantly the music: Channel [V] collected the best music from the entire world and played it. That was a period which played English and Hindi music in equal measure. The best thing that Channel [V] could have ever done to me is that they showed snippets of the world's biggest Rock Concert: Woodstock '99. It was 1999 and I was just learning to appreciate rock music and seeing bands like Metallica, Korn, Sheryl Crow, etc perform on stage just boosted my inclination towards Rock after which there was no looking back. In fact, their pick of the top 100 songs in the 20th century too was fantastic.

Unfortunately in the present decade, MTV India turned into a Chitrahaar by continuously doling out Hindi music night and day or trailers of new Hindi movies. I still had hopes from Channel [V] but they too followed suit unfortunately. The VJs became more macho and pretentious. The audience changed from the ones who appreciate good music and wit to the half-baked wannabes. The whole attitude changed towards unnecessary nauseating glamour and machismo.

On the bright side, Channel [V] does seem to be returning to its old nonsensical yet witty self through mascots like the 'Bai' and through shows like Nachle where the cartoon Santa Claus is also a Sardarji. I also find Professor Simpoo Singh to be quite funny. Lola and Tony B are also quite talented with their improv. Now what it needs to do is play better music. One just hopes Channel [V] continues on that path because I've lost all hope from MTV.

Capital Punishment

Guilty as charged
But damn it ain't right,
There is someone else controlling me

Death in the air
Strapped in the electric chair
This can't be happening to me

Who made you God to say
"I'll take your life from you!"

Flash before my eyes
Now it's time to die
Burning in my brain
I can feel the flames

Wait for the sign
To flick the switch of death
It's the beginning of the end

The above lyrics are from the song 'Ride the Lightning' by the Lords of Metal - Metallica. They have written this song in order to protest against the execution of criminals by electrocuting them through the electric chair. Even though it is a well-written song and even though it comes from the pen of none other than the great James Hetfield, I am sorry to say, I disagree. Ironically, I still love that song.

As I have written in this blog before under "Conservative Credentials" I am all for the death penalty. In India it is exercised by judges in the 'rarest of rare' cases. I am writing this in light of the recent judgement passed against 3 terrorists who were involved in the 2003 bomb blasts in South Bombay which killed 53-odd people. This was to avenge the 2002 Gujarat massacres . Killing masses of innocent people who had nothing to do with the 2002 Gujarat massacres falls under the 'rarest of rare' case category for me and hence I cheer the judgement.

I do call myself a liberal but frankly I am more of a centrist with a liberal bias. Also, unlike other pure conservatives, I do respect the liberal arguments against death penalty and I understand where they are coming from but I still disagree. This is what they say:

Argument 1 :-
Liberal's argument: State-sponsored execution reeks of a savage state. It is inhuman and states should set an example of its civility by not exercising this punishment.
My response : I agree that it is an extreme as well as an uncivil step but that is the beauty of the punishment. It announces to the world that: "We may be a soft state but we will readily get our hands dirty if someone threatens the peace and security of civilians. " I guess this sufficiently answers Papa Het's argument too.

Argument 2 :-
Liberal's argument: Death penalty does not act as a 100% deterrent. Crimes still continue to happen.
My response: That is one of the lamest and unfortunately the most popular arguments against death penalty. Firstly, crimes will continue to happen even without it. Secondly, no supporter of death penalty claims that such a punishment will wipe out crime totally. All we are saying that it is a higher level of deterrence. Case in point: the prime accused in the 2003 blasts told the judge that he does not want to be hanged but does not mind spending his entire life in prison; this simply lends credence to my argument that it is a higher level of deterrent and terrorists will now think twice before planting bombs.

I sincerely wish human rights activists focus their energies on issues where innocent humans suffer and not on the human rights of mass murderers.

Also, keeping things in perspective, I will cheer even more when the 3 terrorists are actually hanged. They are all Indians and what they did amounts to treason.

Shooting the Messenger

This blog post is about the actor Emraan Hashmi. But before that, let me explain the term "Shooting the Messenger".

The tyranny of kings in the medieval period is well-known. In many parts of the world they were assumed to be representatives of Gods. The subjects had no option but to genuflect to His Majesty. The kings had a whole battery of wives. These kings were treated like... um... what's the word I'm looking for?... er... ah, yes... 'kings'. In these times communication happened through messengers of the king. These messengers were fleet-footed and used to travel hundreds of miles carrying scrolls of immense importance. If the message they carried had good news, they were overwhelmingly rewarded: "lucky punks" you must be thinking. However, there was a downside, if their messages carried bad news and spoilt the mood of the king, they were impaled with swords and after the gun was invented, they were shot. This was how the term "Shoot the messenger" came into prominence.

Now that you know the background of the term, let me talk about Emraan Hashmi. Wait, let me talk about another problem first and then we'll talk about Mr. Hashmi.

There are various societies in Bombay, some people call them 'posh' societies, which cannot 'tolerate' a Muslim person living among them. The prejudice is highly entrenched. I've been reading about instances where Muslims have been denied a flat in the past too. Also, I belong to a community whose prejudice against Muslims is very rampant, so I am not surprised that such instances happen, especially since most of these so-called 'posh' societies have a large number of Gujaratis residing in them.

Let's come to Emraan Hashmi now. Or let's wait, it would be unfair if I do not put forth the prejudiced people's argument first.

They feel that even an innocent Muslim gentleman cannot be trusted. My argument, no one can be trusted, that is why there is a procedure to check people's backgrounds before allowing them. They say Muslims cook non-veg which cannot be tolerated. My argument, mind your own business!

Now this actor, what's his name, aah yes: Emraan Hashmi has taken the effort to come out with a protest that he has been discriminated against because of his religion while buying a flat. A pretty strong allegation which needs to be checked by the authorities. However, some bigots are accusing the actor of creating a religious bias and thrusting the onus on him to prove the charges. They have even gone to the extent of filing an FIR against him. Just when I make up my mind to write 5 consecutive blogs without BJP bashing, these buggers come out with some new appalling shenanigan which compels me to write about them. By the way, if you haven't got it, the bugger who filed the FIR is a BJP man!

Also, in case you haven't realized it yet, Emraan Hashmi here is the messenger. He has brought the injustice to light. The BJP people are like kings who did not like the message as it pointed a finger towards their prejudiced votebank. This my friends, is a classic case of shooting the messenger.

Note: If Messenger Hashmi's message is found to be false, then punish him but do not punish him for making people aware of the problem.

Ragging

Different people have different opinions on ragging. I not only have an opinion, I also have a question - Why?? Why would any educated person indulge in such sadistic activities? (I assume that the person is educated since he has cleared first year of college). What motivates him/her to go to such lengths? How can a person feel pleasure while torturing another, especially someone junior, belonging to the same college and who has not harmed the person in any way!

I guess it all boils down to insecurity and frustration. Insecurity leads people to stamp their authority over others to get a false feeling of power. Frustration combined with insecurity leads to sadism. Such insecure nutcases deserve nothing less than being arrested by the police. I prefer not to describe the extremes these raggers can go to, especially in hostels. However, they are such extremes that only a supreme sadist can carry them out and that person has gone so far ahead in sadism that rehabilitating him/her is out of question. Heavy punishment will not only act as a deterrent but it will also make other raggers come out of their complacent beliefs that what they do can be called socially acceptable. They need to be made to realize that what they do is abnormal, very abnormal behaviour.

I studied pharmacy in the famous chemical engineering institute UDCT in September 2000. I left it after a month to pursue engineering. I was ragged there and it was pretty harmless, non-physical ragging: not the types you hear in the news. Some people are of the opinion that such ragging is fun. But I do not agree, simply because I could see the madness in my seniors' eyes. I could tell that they were frustrated souls looking for an outlet. Now that I think about it, even such an activity was wrong, since that too reeks of sadism.

Very often the news focuses on victims of ragging or the college authorities. However, the perpetrators are treated as faceless entities. In my opinion, there should me more focus on those culprits and more examples of arrests need to be presented: similar to the recent news of the arrest of students from a Delhi college. If there is regulatory and political will, hostels will become much safer for juniors to live in.

What unnerves me is that such people do exist in civil society. Most of the raggers go scot free when they pass out of college and I shudder to think how they live their lives. I'm sure they make horrible husbands, bosses, fathers, etc. What should society do with such twisted losers?

Foghorn Leghorn

This blog post is about a rooster called Foghorn Leghorn, I say this blog post is about a rooster called Foghorn Leghorn; Foghorn Leghorn that is...

The above paragraph is a good example of how Mr. Foghorn Leghorn speaks. He is a cartoon character who belongs to an era which gave us Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, Mickey Mouse, etc. However, my favourite character and cartoon series has to be that of this egotistical rooster. You may not have heard much of him but trust me, this rooster is as competent at making us laugh as Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry.

He is a part of the Warner Bros.' Looney Tunes gang which include Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, etc. The same guys have also made this rooster.

The plot of this cartoon series is very simple. This rooster has a chhattis ka aakda with a dog in his area. The dog is simply called Mr. Dog. They just do not get along and find ways to outsmart each other all the time. Normally, the rooster is the aggressor, he starts the fight off by waking up Mr. Dog by beating his butt 8 times with a wooden club. Then the dog responds and the fight goes on until the end when the dog generally wins.

Those fights only provide a slapstick comic relief. However, a bigger comic relief is provided by the personality of this rooster. He is egotistical, overconfident and acts as a Mr. know-it-all. He also just can't stop talking and often repeats what he says in the manner I have written the first paragraph.

There is also a twist to the tale: a baby hawk called Henery Hawk. He is this fiesty bird whose hawk breed generally eats chicken. Even though Foghorn Leghorn is 10 times his size, Henery Hawk is often shown trying to catch him and eat him. His cuteness is his bravado! He normally teams up with Mr. Dog to bring Foghorn Leghorn down.

I'm sure you must have seen a lot of Cat vs. Mouse games through Tom and Jerry. Maybe it is time you give a Rooster vs. Dog game a try.

Here is one if his videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94OnHsHTQ8E

Let me know if you want to see more of these...

Mahatma Gandhi's 'Sach ka Saamna'

I'm addressing this to the "Bigoted Indians"(BI) who are uptight enough to call for a ban of the reality TV show - 'Sach ka Saamna'. I have a valid point against your rhetorical argument. Those who don't have a problem with the show, can skip reading this as you are already quite ahead in the evolutionary scale. I would call you the "Intellectual Indian"(II). Kindly excuse the angry language and tone used in this post as I normally reserve the tone for my other, more informal blog site; it just shows how agitated I am at the hypocrisy of self-appointed moral guardians.

I am reading Gandhiji's autobiography. Since you "Bigoted Indians"(BIs) lack basic general knowledge because of your penchant for ignorance, let me elaborate: 'auto - biography' is a story about a person's life written by the person himself. In his book, Gandhiji has elaborately and truthfully described his sex life with his wife Kasturba Gandhi. He has even admitted to the fact that while even while tending to his dying father, all that his mind could think about was sex with his wife. He has described how he used to force her to have sex with him by waking her up when she was fast asleep. And yes, he has also mentioned how he went to a sex-worker's den once.

Does the above paragraph make you squirm? If it doesn't then you should not have a problem with the show also. If it does, then you should have protested against Gandhiji first. This is because the questions asked in the show appear quite harmless in comparison with what is described in the book. I know why you will not protest if I have properly sized up the typical "Bigoted Indian"(BI).

• The typical BI does not take a lot of risks. He is cowardly. He is also nationalistic. Speaking against the Father of the Nation will make him unpopular against fellow prudes. It is one thing speaking out against liberals as all they can do in retaliation is put up banners. But speaking against Gandhiji requires courage which I'm sure their scrotal sacs don't have.
  
• The reason Gandhiji wrote all this was to point out the fallacies of the regressive Indian Culture: child marriage, male domination, treating women as inferior, etc. The evils of this culture are well-known. However, the Bigoted Indian is comfortable with it. It is the other side which he is not comfortable about - the sexual cravings of a married person for someone other than the spouse: cravings of a woman in particular. He does not want to hear such truths and hence asks for a ban.

I know the show is voyeuristic and will go to any lengths to achieve high TRPs. But if we can tolerate Gandhiji's truths, why can't we do the same for the common man?

Congress Bashing!

Aha! You must be thinking that this bugger has finally come out of his penchant for BJP bashing. You couldn't be more wrong! However, in an effort to give my unbiased evaluation about the party I support and also in an effort to dispel notions that I may be a Congress spokesperson, allow me to point out a few flaws in India's Grand Old Party. Also, in the effort to rap the Congress, if I do some BJP-bashing on the side, kindly excuse me as it is an addiction I can't and don't want to get rid off!

Firstly, Congress is a horribly meek party. Its genuflection to Russia earlier and now to US and Pakistan is shameful. It has also given ample proofs that it has no idea how to handle external as well as internal terrorism. It is not only clueless about how to act on intelligence inputs before a terror strike, it is also clueless about how to handle the situation after the strike. I have great respect for Dr. Manmohan Singh but his reactions to terrorism do not cut ice with me: "I strongly condemn the cowardly attacks." - So?? Also, I believe it must be sending the 500th dossier of evidence to Pakistan for 26/11 strikes in the hope that Pakistan will actually do something about it.

Secondly, the deification of Sonia Gandhi. The unbridled fawning towards Sonia Gandhi by the party workers does not look very pleasant. She may have great political acumen and may have worked very hard for the rise of the party but the pretense in the idolizing can be seen by everyone. Also it would be a pity if she allows only those workers to rise who worship her the most.

Thirdly, votebank politics. Allowing Bangladeshi migrants, overlooking or maybe even supporting their indigenisation and getting them to vote for Congress is a very disturbing act. Reservations are even more disturbing - the policy of getting communities to vote for you by simply creating reservations for them does not really gell well with their claims of being a "Progressive" party.

Fourthly, lack of good orators. The PM has confessed in public that he lacks oratory skills. Apart from Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, there is no one in Congress who can counter the rabid and haughty orators of the BJP. Jayanti Natarajan takes hours to make a point while Manish Tiwari only talks what he wants to without any regard to the question asked. In comparison, almost every BJP politician/spokesperson in public view is an overwhelmingly good public speaker.

Fifthly, its inaction and lack of political will. It does nothing to eradicate India's social evils like dowry, sati, etc. It overlooks horrible Congress-led state governments like Maharashtra where farmer suicides are rampant. Its silence over the Panchayat sponsored killing of young elopers in Haryana reeks of the meekness I talked about. I can give many more such examples where it could have acted but didn't due to absolute lethargy and lack of political will.

Sixthly, not seizing the initiative from the opposition. Congress is unable to consolidate on its evergrowing vote base of young voters. It is not vociferous enough to pull the BJP down in the Prof Sabharwal murder case/sham. It foregoes its chance to appear liberal by giving into opposition's demand of banning anything that goes against the regressive version of Indian culture. The youth Congress is bristling with well-deserving candidates who need to get voted in order to get a ticket; it is devoid of people with a criminal record; this is a great alternative to the cadre-based formation of parties like BJP where mostly loud-mouthed bigots have a better chance to move up the ladder; however, it does not market that fact enough.

Unfortunately, this lame, corrupt, foot-in the mouth party still inspires hope to millions who want to see India progress economically as well as socially.

Bharatiya Naari Kismat ki Maari

It sickens me how many Indian men glorify the concept of a cultured, sanskari, Indian woman. They go on with their nauseating concepts of their modesty, family values, simplicity, innocence, propriety and so on. It is ironic how the prudes who speak about these virtues are themselves bereft of any!

They force their wives, sisters, daughters to be meek, clamp down on their freedom, treat them as inferior to themselves, mentally or physically torture them if they do not comply and once these poor women are forced to 'behave' themselves - they start praising their virtues and romanticize on the concept of the graceful, coy, Bharatiya Naari.

Only insecure men will clamp down on the sexuality of women. Unfortunately, most of these men vote which makes MPs and MLAs of India dance to their conservative tunes. Two recent events exemplify my point. First, the banning of Savita Bhabhi's website. I have already written about her in the following blogpost - http://salilkhetani.blogspot.com/2009/07/savita-bhabhi.html . Secondly, now the MPs in parliament have nothing better to do than ask for the ban of the reality television show 'Sach ka Saamna'.

Why do they want this show banned? Because a lady contestant had to admit to the fact that she thought about cheating on her husband! Now this would not be such an issue in other countries, but in India it causes outrage as a woman is not supposed to have such thoughts, only men are allowed such privileges.

I'm not even going to get into the concept of freedom of choice and moral policing! Let me focus on the mindset of the Bharatiya Purush. The typical chauvinistic Bharatiya Purush criticizes 'Western culture' and glorifies the Indian culture because it is very convenient for him. He may extoll the concepts of the bharatiya naari in the sweetest language but the bharatiya naari to me will always remain the suppressed, tortured, soul confined by a hostile society.

Perils of conservative politics

I just saw the movie New York, a very well-made movie. It was about the illegal detainment and brutal torture of innocent Muslim immigrants by the FBI post 9/11. Any liberal ie. a person with a bit of humanity would be disturbed at what they saw. The same person would also question why there are so many supporters in civil society for these methods. The answer is simple - politics of fear and victimhood. The mantra that conservative politicians all over the world live by - instill fear, make ordinary citizens feel like victims of some evil conspiracy and finally instill hope in those people by assuring security so that they vote for you. It goes much further than that, once you have instilled fear in people, they will not question your methods, however brutal they are!

It also seems the FBI consists of frustrated officers who are just waiting for the government to sanction them the rights to sadistic torture. A right wing President and the draconian Patriot Act is all they need to do whatever they may please. For the uninitiated, the Patriot Act was passed just after 9/11 and it gives FBI the right to detain and question any terror suspect and not grant them a lawyer.

Conservative or right wing politics has many more evils than creating an orthodox, bigoted society. One of those evils is extreme nationalism and chauvinism which takes an ugly "us vs them" turn. The other evil is going to any extent to preserve your security. Conservative politicians prefer not to think, at least not in a human way, they just react to a crisis and their reaction causes the suffering and death of plenty of innocents who would have no relation to the crime in question. The people who vote for such politicians justify that by thinking - "At least I am safe!" Also, if you question their methods, your patriotism is questioned in return!

I see hope in USA now that the right wing Republicans are out and the left-liberal Democrats are in. I am annoyed though as Republicans favoured India more but I will reserve my annoyance for another blog.

Let us take the Indian context. I see so many freaking parallels between the conservative parties of the world's most powerful democracy (USA) and the world's largest democracy (India). No prizes for guessing the corresponding party in India. I know, I know, people who regularly read the blog must be thinking, "Oh no, not one more BJP bashing blog." I understand. Even I had promised myself that I won't indulge in BJP bashing for some blogs to come but then it is too tempting now that I've seen the movie.

Consider the Act BJP passed - POTA. Another draconian act which allows it the right to detain any terrorist suspect without any substantial evidence. No prizes also for guessing the community which the BJP intended to target! Let me clarify that I am not against punishment to terrorists, I believe they should be hanged in public view. I am only against harassment to innocents. Had the BJP been in power longer, it could have misused the POTA to target innocent Muslims, brand a large number of them as terrorists and show to us their progress based on the 'amount' of terrorists they have caught. This could have resulted in complete alienation of the community.

The BJP can even shame the Republicans on the amount of fear and victimhood it can inculcate in people. They hope to win elections mainly on that platform.

To conclude, all I'm against is the brutality against innocent people. Case in point - the shameful Godhra incident where a bogey containing kar sevaks was set ablaze by hoodlums who allegedly belong to a minority community. The BJP ruled state machinery then turned a blind eye to the repercussions as a lot of innocent Muslims were killed who had nothing to do with the tragedy. Narendra Modi, the chief minister at that time, is still hailed by many educated, sophisticated and civilized people I know to be India's next Prime Minister. The brainwashing victimization effect of such conservative politics is such that such 'civilized' people turn a blind eye to the fact that innocent people were burnt alive!

I am happy better sense has prevailed in the general elections of 2009 but unhappy that most people in my own Gujarati community still give the thumbs up to such an inhuman brand of politics.

Saffron Hoodlums

94 witnesses, all of them turned hostile. 6 accused caught on camera intimidating Professor Sabharwal. The motives were there, the evidence was there and yet there was no conviction.

Why?

• Because if saffron hoodlums are involved in any crime, witnesses are bullied and threatened until they turn hostile. Case in point, Naru Modi's Gujarat.
• Because Madhya Pradesh is a BJP ruled state, even the police are bullied and threatened until they botch up the evidence.
• Because the forensic evidence material was sent to Naru's Gujarat where it was conveniently messed up.

This is not all, the 6 accused also get VIP treatment in jail.

What should make any civilized person's blood boil is that the lone crusader for justice, Professor Sabharwal's son is asked by ABVP to apologize to the six accused and also is accused of having political ambitions of joining the Congress.

More than the horrendous incident, more than the acquittal, what makes me angry is the self-righteousness maintained by ABVP and the clean chit given to them by the BJP.

The saffron cadres are a threat to peace, liberty and civility of this country. They are never going to be ashamed of their acts because they act first and then justify their acts later.

I only see CNN-IBN taking up the cause of Justice for Professor Sabharwal just like they did in the Jessica Lal case. Why can't other channels do the same?

"Where is the Avidence?"

My friend once recalled a very funny cartoon he saw in a newspaper. It showed Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari with an outstretched hand which was tainted with someone's blood. The caption below read - "Prove that this is my hand". A very funny yet effective way to showcase Pakistan's mentality.

They are always in need of more evidence or 'avidence' as they put it in their accent. "We would like to co-operate with the Indian government but where is the avidence? We need avidence. Justice is being delayed because we don't have the avidence."

I'm beginning to think that it is not the fault of Pakistani accent and "avidence" maybe has a different meaning from "evidence". No wonder then we are frustrating the Pakistanis by sending them truckloads of evidence when what they actually require is avidence. Chidambaram needs to look up some Urdu dictionary to find the actual meaning of the word.

But seriously, we are also idiots. We keep sending them dossiers of this doggone avidence. I'm sure we are preparing the next batch. There is a metaphor in Gujarati "koniye gur lagaade chhe". It means offering a sweet to someone by sticking it on their elbow asking them lick it away. In case you don't know, it is impossible to lick your own elbow. It is like offering something to a person with the knowledge that he won't be able to get it.

Now stop trying to lick your elbow and read on...

Not only do we live in the hopes of licking our own elbows, but also the minute our minister or diplomat sees a Pakistani counterpart in some foreign summit, he rushes to shake his hand like there is no tomorrow. I'm sure the world laughs at our meekness, behind closed doors.

I am one of the people who voted the UPA government back to power inspite of its security goof-ups. Manmohan Singh needs to do more than just condemn terror attacks. We cannot afford another attack to give us a wake up call.

We now need to give Pakistan some tough evidence of our seriousness. I know I sound naive in expecting that but I'd rather be naive than cynical.

Self-deprecating humour

I got this definition from Wikipedia - "Self-deprecating humor is humor which relies on the observation of something negative about the person delivering it." Simply put, it is joking about your own shortcomings.

I believe it is a great quality to have. The minute you start cracking jokes about yourself, the atmosphere around you eases up a bit. I use it quite often to lighten up a conversation. Also, if you are uptight or have ego issues, it is very difficult to inculcate this quality in yourself. You have to be very secure within yourself to be able to use it effectively.

It can be used to break the ice. When you are trying to get friendly with someone you barely know, humour is a good ice-breaker. It invariably shifts the tone from formal to informal. However, humour is tricky, you wouldn't know what jokes the other person would like or if he/she could get offended. A good solution would be to use self-deprecating humour. This will put the other person also at ease and open up.

Also, if you are talking to someone and feel that he/she is insecure in your presence, crack one or two jokes about your own shortcomings and see how that person opens up to you. It barely happens to me though as people are hardly insecure in my presence. Although I did see a gorilla at a zoo who felt I was slightly better off than him but I think thats about it.

It is also a great tool to disarm somebody. There are always people who look to put others down to make themselves look good. They have various ways of doing so - pointing at you and laughing, patronizing you, etc. Try to laugh at yourself in front of them and they will have no ammunition left. Think about it - How can you point at a person and laugh when he is laughing at himself? I possess a lot of quirks that would tempt these people to point at me and laugh and self-deprecating humour has been my first and successful line of defence.

I am a great admirer of Amitabh Bachchan. Although, one thing about him that annoys me is he is too modest in his interviews. Such political correctness makes me cringe. I believe he is intelligent enough to joke about himself which will achieve 2 objectives - firstly, he will still sound modest and secondly, his repetitive political correctness will disappear.

I repeat, if you have difficulty in joking about yourself, you have ego or security issues.

Voltaire and Homosexuality

Those who know about the French philosopher Voltaire would wonder what does he have to do with homosexuality. My answer is - nothing. It is me who has combined the two to make a point. If you are a right-wing conservative person, you may not understand the point I am making but do give it a shot.

Firstly Voltaire - his famous words that liberal people all over the world live by - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Conservatives must be scratching their heads after reading this so let me elaborate - This is about the basic human rights of freedom of speech and expression as long as they are not harmful to anyone. It is about being mature enough to disagree with someone and yet allow them their right to opinion and expression. It is about defending that right to the extent that even if someone forcibly clamps down on your opponent's right to expression, you having the fortitude to defend your opponent's right by fighting with someone who may be even agreeing with you on the topic in question. I can't explain any better!

Now coming to homosexuality. The Indian government has recently been mulling about decriminalizing it. Then the High Court has passed a ruling that anything happens within a person's bedroom, if it is consensual, then it is not within the judiciary's or the government's jurisdiction to stop it.

Now I will link the two. Firstly, I hail the authorities for being liberal minded about it. They have safeguarded Freedom of Expression. Secondly, let me clarify my stand on homosexuality - I believe it is a mental disorder, an unnatural thing and gives me the creeps!

And yet I hail the court ruling because my or anybody's else judgement should not intrude with a person's choice of life. Voltaire would have been so proud of me!

Andaz Apna Apna

Andaz Apna Apna (1994) is an iconic movie. It is a pity that it does not rank among the classics. However, if you take a survey of people born between 1975 - 1985 and ask them to rate their top 10 movies, AAA will feature in 90% of the lists. If the lists are consolidated, I will not be surprised if it ranks among the top 3. Unfortunately, the movie released at a wrong time and did not do as well as expected. The 1990s were not known for movies with 3 hours of comedy. Loud and slapstick Johnny Lever antics were used as small comic fillers in most movies. Thank God, he was not a part of the cast of AAA.

I personally have seen movies that are much funnier and better. However, I have to admit that AAA had a quality that made it stand out - the dialogues. If I take a conservative estimate, people in my generation have seen the movie millions of times and remember each and every dialogue by heart. Dialogues like "Teja mai hoon, mark idhar hai", "Galti se mistake ho gaya", etc still live on. It seemed like every verbal exchange was well thought out and written. Credit to Rajkumar Santoshi (screenplay) and Dilip Shukla (dialogue).

Another quality was its characterization complemented by a cast of superb actors. Salman Khan's character Prem was my favourite and my favourite scene was his fight with Crime Master Gogo played by Shakti Kapoor. They don't touch each other and yet act as if they are coming to blows.

The reason I'm writing this is because my friends keep using AAA applications, quizzes or pages in facebook and remember quite a bit of the movie. Purists may disagree but it is a kind of a classic.

Religion - a handy tool to oppress people

People's sentiments are too fragile. Any sane argument against medieval religious practices hurts sentiments, infuriates the bigots and suppresses a section of society, mostly women further.

President Sarkozy of France is a gutsy chap. His open criticism of the burqa is within his democratic rights. We need more politicians like him who create a debate for the greater good of people without being concerned about political correctness.

I completely agree with him. Those who clamor about freedom of religion also should have a right to voice their opinion. However, I strongly feel that the concept of 'freedom from suppression' should get much more priority than the concept of 'freedom of religion'. This is because religion has historically been used as a tool to clamp down on women's rights. 'Freedom of religion' is a concept that forbids questioning of any kind and this forbiddance paves way to suppression.

The Burqa is a horribly oppressive attire. People who romanticize it by saying it protects a woman's modesty are gravely mistaken. A person's modesty mirrors from his/her actions and not from a self-induced cloth jail. Women who say they are wearing it willingly are very few in number. Banning the burqa will result in the happiness of most women who are NOT wearing it willingly. It will also be a terse response to men who identify their superiority through making separate rules for women.

Also, if sati can be outlawed, dowry can be outlawed, why can't the burqa be outlawed?

Now the BJP wants to redefine Hindutva

When will the BJP stop pulling off lame stunts? I do not follow world politics as closely as Indian and to an extent US politics but I can safely say that very few parties across the world suffer delusions about themselves as much as the BJP does. It still cannot come out of its bad habits of doublespeak and opportunism. It has now changed the definition of Hindutva as per the mood of the nation.

In the post-poll analysis, BJP says that Hindutva stands for tolerance, it stands for inclusive growth, it stands for equality amongst men and women, it stands for humane treatment of animals, in fact, RSS ideologue Govindacharya adds that Hindutva also stands for protection of environment and working without hoping for material benefits.

Let us leave Indian politics aside from the time being and analyse Hindutva based on the above paragraph. The first thing that strikes us that it is quite liberal. Second thing that strikes us that it is moderately oriented towards the left. So basically, Hindutva, according to the new definition is a liberal, centre-left brand of politics and of life.

Now wait a minute, just wait a minute - "Liberal and Centre-Left", isn't there already a political party in India that occupies that space. Oh yes, I remember, It is the INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS! Now that is a major revelation. The Congress was practicing Hindutva all these years without our knowledge.

So if a major political party is already practicing it, why shadow it? Why not come up with a different political ideology, eh?

Anyway, we all know what the reality is! Before the elections Hindutva was an idea of a Hindu rashtra where people belonging to other religions better follow the Hindu way of life. It was an ideology where women need to be subdued, they dare not wear sleeveless and dare not visit pubs. It was an ideology which supported and trained armed violence against the non conformers. It abhorred conversions and changed the facts of history so that Hindus are glorified and Muslims are demonized.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, the haughty, self-righteous spokesperson of the BJP mentioned after tne National Executive meeting of the BJP that the BJP will remain a right-wing party. Obviously BJP does not want to learn from its past mistakes and is indulging in doublespeak. It still wants to sound attractive to the middle class by liberalizing Hindutva and yet it does not want to lose support of its bigoted cadres.

BJP may have taken a liberal tone but it still does explain why it has ties with the Bajrang Dal. The following url explains just how seeds of violent hatred are sown into the minds of young Hindus against Muslims and Christians by Bajrang Dal - http://tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=Ne270609national_defence.asp

I rest my case.

Self-righteous media

I'm all for Free Press. That is a basic accessory to a functioning democracy. India, I am proud to say has traditionally had minimal interference by government on news agencies. The only exception being the Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in the mid 70's. That too was not well received by the electorate and the Congress was voted out of power subsequently.

However, there has to be a certain decorum about how the media functions. It cannot just create controversies out of thin air. I am being very idealistic here because covering news is big business and the best sound bites are the controversial ones. However, over a period of time people will see through it and their faith will reduce in the media. That would indeed be sad.

I am writing this in the light of the recent controversy in the Indian T20 cricket team. The T20 World Cup is going on and all the media can focus on is "Dhoni vs. Sehwag" - the rift that may or may not be there. They ask stupid questions to Dhoni in the press conference and when he gets annoyed, they treat it as a personal affront. The whole media industry jumps in to castigate Dhoni as if he committed sacrilege. This self-righteougness is wrong on their part and they have to show some maturity. However, when anchors like Barkha Dutt are made chief editors of the most popular English News channel, 'maturity' is the last word that comes to mind.

In conclusion, one can only hope that the Indian Cricket Team does not get distracted by the media and retains the trophy. The media should not be allowed to hijack India's moment of glory.