The only thing good about KBC 3

There are so many things not to like about the gameshow KBC in its third stint. In fact, the first thing to dislike about it is it isn't a 'gameshow' anymore but a reality show which peeks into contestant's personal lives and also has some quiz game going by the side. However, such peeking has its advantages, I'll come to it later.

The other thing to dislike is Amitabh Bachchan, good at times but boring at most other times. Such diplomatic game show hosts put me to sleep. At least it was fun to watch the dynamic Shah Rukh Khan in the second edition.

The worst aspect is the manipulation of the show where people from small towns are given preference to participate as they are the target audience. In fact, in the last episode, there was a clear manipulation of questions too as a South Indian woman was asked a bundle of questions on South India and a Muslim contestant was asked questions on Urdu.

However, there is a bright side to such manipulations. Women who are working are selected in huge measure. Their supportive husbands too are shown. This is a great way to spread the message of equality among genders. Also, if a large section of the Indian masses who throng to watch the show see a husband from a small town openly supporting his wife's career ambitions, it makes a huge difference in the overall psyche of the country.

As I've said before in earlier blogposts, in a metro like Bombay itself, there are rich, well-to-do, educated families who still don't believe in equal opportunities for men and women. Such shows are a slap to their faces. Even women who are undecided to choose between a career and being a housewife can be inspired by the life stories of the female contestants.

Since prime time television is a mass medium watched by millions of people, I hope Siddharth Basu continues doing such manipulations if it helps improve the overall psyche of the country! 

The 'C' word

I've written so many blogposts on politics and yet, I have hardly (once or twice) used the word 'corruption'. I consider it to be a bit of an achievement because the two words have become synonymous to the point of extreme hackneyedness*. 

Every Tarunesh, Dinesh and Haresh** oversimplifies the problems of this country by saying, "There is so much corruption yaar!". "We need to root out corruption". "Corruption is a social evil." Stupid cliche' mongers!

According to me, corruption is not the cause of the problems of this country, it is simply a by-product! The main cause is us - the voters. We do not take full advantage of democracy bestowed upon us after independence. No matter what skeptics say, we are a good example of a fully functioning democracy in the world. And yet, we botch up our right to vote by taking factors other than governance into consideration. 

We are all so obsessed with the religion we follow or the caste we belong to or the language we speak, that we end up voting for the idiot who panders to our community. Once elected, the idiot knows that his 'corruption' will be overlooked by his votebank since those stupid voters would rather vote for someone who belongs to or favours their community rather than someone who will govern them well and make their lives better.

Now Tarunesh, Dinesh and Haresh will throw one more cliche' at me - " But TINA." TINA = There is No Alternative. I agree, sometimes, while voting, it is between choosing the devil and the deep blue sea. (Damn! this cliche' business is contagious). But keep in mind, the politicians are the most sensitive of public sentiment and if the people are in no mood to listen to empty community pandering, they won't do so! It may take 2-3 elections (10-15 years) for a collective public mood desiring good governance, but it can happen. Take the example of Bihar and Orissa. Bihar, after its infamous days under Lalu Prasad Yadav who was at the helm for 15 years, is now the second fastest growing state in the country under Nitish Kumar. Navin Patnaik is another leader who doesn't pander to any specific community and Orissa, until now a neglected state, too is developing. The right-wingers may also want me to mention one more chief minister*** but I won't since good governance is no excuse for having a basic disregard for the loss of innocent lives.

Also, let us accept the fact the corruption cannot be fully eliminated. However, it can be reduced drastically through informed voters, good governance and an active media.

* - I know, hackneyedness is not actually a word. 

** - Tarunesh, Dinesh and Haresh - Indian version of Tom, Dick and Harry.

*** - Narendra Modi

The broad-minded taxi driver

Two weeks back I had hired a taxi to take me from Ghatkopar to Sion. At the Suman Nagar signal I saw a well-built, well-fed man going from car to car asking for money. He was quite aggressive and literally resorted to 'strong-arm' tactics by tugging at a man's arm and exhorting him to give money. My taxi driver explained that he was collecting donations for a big Navratri Puja. When the man in the car didn't relent and refused to give him any money, the collector self-righteously whined as though some grave injustice had been carried out against him!

I wondered which God would be happy to be decorated and venerated through such forced 'donations'. I also thought that instead of spending on huge pandals, the money can be also used to feed the hungry. I felt like saying that but kept quiet not knowing what the taxi driver's view may be. I wondered whether the taxi driver may take offence if I say those things. 

However, the taxi driver himself voiced my thoughts. He told me that it is a huge waste of money venerating the Gods in a grand manner. He also criticized the competition between different groups on building the biggest pandal. In fact, he went on to say that people are blinded by faith and do not understand that the only way to worship the God is by being good people ourselves. He said his conscience was clear and that was all that mattered to him.

He in fact, indulged me in a bit of history. He said that doing a puja/aarti was an unknown concept in many parts of India about 200 years ago. The only reason every village had a temple was to resolve disputes between villagers in the presence of God - ie. arbitration of disputes was done by Panchayats in the ground outside the temple. 

He may not have been educated, but he was well-learnt. He used the tool many of us in India forget that we possess - the tool of independent thinking. He also mentioned that he does not express such views everywhere with the fear of being severely reprimanded or being treated as an outcast.

This led me to believe that liberalism, broad-mindedness or enlightened thinking isn't the sole ownership of the educated or the elite. It resides in everyone who is willing to think clearly enough. Anyone who is willing to shed the well entrenched notion that indentity = religion can be included in the category of broad-minded thinkers. And anyone who believes that a clear conscience and not grand venerations is the best way to get closer to God is an intellectual according to me. That dud who was collecting donations at the signal is simply an insecure person wanting to establish his identity through his religion, a victim of fake pride and worst of all, afflicted by a bandwagon effect which makes him believe whatever the mob does is right.

I'd like to conclude by saying that liberalism or modernism has no relation to a person's education or income level. Come to think of it, I know many orthodox well-to-do families who believe in grand religious celebrations and I know many well educated people whose social and cultural beliefs are unpleasantly orthodox. I've heard of a PhD. guide who tells his students to convert to Christianity or they'll go to hell. I also have a post-graduate friend who thinks a woman should stop working once she gets married and take care of her husband's parents. I can give you many more such examples of educated bigots.

In fact, on similar lines, I intend to write one more blog post to say that conservatism vs. liberalism is not necessarily a fight between the old vs. the new.

IPL: Strong likes and dislikes

There are some aspects of the Indian Premier League (IPL) which are very good for the game of cricket in India and the world. However, there are many other aspects which make me detest the annual tournament.

Why don't I start with what I like about it?

1. Platform for domestic players: How many of us follow the Ranji trophy or any other domestic competition? How many of us would know about players like Pragyan Ojha, Saurabh Tiwari, Vinay Kumar, Yusuf Pathan or Cheteshwar Pujara had it not been for the IPL. All these players came into the limelight even before they played a single international game. How terrific is that for young, upcoming talent?

2. The international mix: I'm sorry for bombarding you with rhetorical questions but here are some more: How many of us would get to see Tendulkar and Jayasuriya opening an innings or Dale Steyn and Pravin Kumar bowling in tandem? There are so many different combos of players in front of us that it adds variety and gets exciting. Even the domestic players get a taste of international thinking and strategy.

Here is Shane Warns blogpost on the IPL expressing similar views: IPL and the Rajasthan Royals.

Now here's what I don't like about it:

1. Glamour: Sometimes I wonder what I'm more allergic to: glamour or religion? Of course, crony capitalism dictates that wherever money can be made, it should be made. So in the pre and post match shows, cricket takes a backseat and movie promotions, celebrity interviews and all sorts of other 'packaging' takes place. Even during the match, the high-profile team owners are repeatedly interviewed, sometimes at the cost of missing a few deliveries. The worst part is, there are parties after each game where loser-type, celebrity hungry people can hang out with cricketers by paying Rs. 40,000/- odd! No wait, the worst part is such parties getting more news coverage than the match itself!

2. Advertisements: IPL 3 - 2010, the first time advertisements between deliveries were introduced. And God forbid, immediately after an over is bowled or after a batsman gets out, if an advertisement is not shown within 2 milliseconds, heavens will fall! 

3. Trading players: I've somehow always considered cricket to be a sacrosanct sport so I'm not too happy with the idea of franchises 'dealing' with the buying, selling and auctioning of players. Although there is a strong counter-argument that if it is not done, IPL wouldn't be what it is, so fair enough!

4. BCCI: The board that has more power and money than the ICC. Quite naturally its rank and file is full of extremely corrupt people who settle scores at the expense of 2 franchisees. I give a rat's ass to the owners of Kings XI Punjab and Rajasthan Royals who were kicked out but I feel for their players as they did nothing wrong. If there were irregularities, was the BCCI dumb enough not to see them while the franchises were formed in 2008? This shadiness in conducting the IPL is the most disturbing.

Here's my satirical mockery on IPL - More Sleaze in IPL 4.

I still hope that the tournament continues but the glamour and shadiness fades away!

The problem with liberals

As much as I'd like to believe so, I'm not a liberal. This is because when I see the liberals around me, I get a feeling that - "Hey, wait a minute, I'm not like them!" 

Concepts like "Aman ki Asha"(AKA) enrage me. Why stick out a friendly hand to a neighbour who is so intent on chopping it off? I once had a heated discussion with a pro-AKA enthusiast and the bugger made me feel like a right-winger. Considering my abhorrence for right-wingers, it was a funny feeling! The problem with him was that he was unwilling to accept the reality of the situation. Reality 1: the export of terror from the neighbour, Reality 2: the commercial interests involved in the AKA initiative. 

I've written enough about the death penalty so I won't go much into that. But the liberals are unwilling to shake the prime principal that "the government has no right to take a person's life". That is another problem with them, they do not want to shift from certain basic ideals irrespective of their practicality. They too can get fanatical about their beliefs and ideals just like right wingers.

The third problem with liberals is that they can get quite anti-establishmentarian. They tend to oversimplify complex situations like the Maoist problem and the Kashmir problem. According to them, only the government is at fault while the ordinary people suffer. They choose to ignore the atrocities of the maoists or the forced exodus of the Kashmiri pundits from the valley. They are willing to give Kashmir away if the "ordinary Kashmiri wants it". They do not even want to take into account the fact that an independent Kashmir may not be able to sustain itself for very long. I guess raving and ranting against the government gives them the romantic feeling of free-spirited rebels.

So to summarize, following are my problems with liberals:

1. Idealists unwilling to accept reality.

2. Fanatics about certain 'cherished' beliefs. (Makes me wonder if liberals and right wingers are two sides of the same coin).

3. Pretentious romantics who feel good about themselves as 'crusaders for the common man' and 'rebels with a cause'.

I'm quite convinced now that I am a centrist. 

Fasting

I've never understood the concept of fasting. Why would anyone be so masochistic so as to subject herself* to hunger when she can very well choose not to! Unless she is training to be a commando where one has to get used to long spells of hunger if such need arises, I don't see why it needs to be done!

I have listed a few arguments that pro-fasters would put forth and I'll try to answer them.

Argument 1: It is to please the God!

Counter-argument: Why would God be pleased if you go hungry? He has to be a sadist if he desires so. Why worship a sadist then?

Argument 2: It is a form of penance. It is to inculcate self-discipline.

Counter-argument: Hogwash! 

Argument 3: You haven't sufficiently countered argument 2.

Counter-argument: All right, all right - if you really want to try a hand at self-discipline, make it a daily habit and don't restrict it to particular religious days. And if you really want to do penance, devote your time to productive humanitarian causes and don't proudly sit at home feeling giddy, doing nothing and having others take care of you because quite obviously, you don't have energy to do it yourself.

Argument 4: It builds character and prepares us for periods when we don't have enough food.

Counter-argument: Read my introductory paragraph.

Argument 5: It makes me look cultured and elevates my status in society.

Counter-argument: Sorry, I don't argue with pretentious people.

*-I have used 'herself' here as writing 'himself/herself' everywhere is cumbersome and writing 'himself' everywhere makes me seem like a sexist which I'm not.

I'm patriotic but not nationalistic

For those who don't know - nationalism means excessive patriotism bordering on chauvinism. A belief that one's country and its ways are sacrosanct and criticizing them is unpatriotic. Of course, I have provided you the liberal's definition. For a politically conservative person, the lines between patriotism and nationalism are blurred as it is one and the same thing for them!

I love my country, but there are lots of things that I feel ashamed about and that does not make me unpatriotic. It just shows that I care enough to be ashamed! Let me list a few of them and it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Female foeticide.
Approximately 50 million female foetuses are destroyed through abortion every year. That is 5 crore! I am not against abortion but definitely against sex selection. Add a million female infants being killed after they are born to that! What worries me is that mothers are very much a part of their decision, either because they have no choice or because they actually believe it is the right thing to do. Not only I am ashamed as an Indian but also as a person belonging to the other sex.

Dowry and the related deaths.
Pardon me as I don't have the stomach to research on the net as to how many such deaths get registered per year as it will leave me upset for a long time. Forget the deaths, the concept of dowry itself is nauseating - the woman is an added burden to the family so she should bring the appropriate compensation with her! This is not only restricted to villages as I see people in the city proudly carrying it out as a part of 'tradition'.

Honour killings.
Killing your own children to preserve your honour because they have dared to love someone against your wishes. Isn't murdering your children the most dishonourable thing to do? What's so precious about one's stupid honour anyway?

Caste based politics.
Voters being stupid enough to vote for someone belonging to the same caste as theirs even though they have been kept hungry and poor for 5 years by that same person! Let's face it there is NO "Unity in Diversity" in India. We are a prejudiced people*.The spinoff to such politics is reservations for the 'oppressed' community thereby killing merit!

Attitudes towards women.
We all know how backward are villages are and heinous crimes are committed against women. Personally, I have not been to any villages so I can tell you what I see in cities and it still is not a good picture. I know families in cities who are prejudiced against a working woman because it is against the 'culture'. I know of my female friends who seem modern but end up calling their husbands as 'aap' or 'tammey' (Gujarati) after marriage and/or give up their shining, promising careers! According to me, the undertone of 80-90% of families in cities too is that women are the weaker sex and should be treated that way.** It goes to show how insecure we Indian men can be not to let the women in our lives be treated the same way as us, lest they outshine us!

Aukaat
The obsession with status! The compulsion to talk rudely to people belonging to a supposedly 'lower' status than you or the compulsion to genuflect to someone with a 'higher' status. It makes my blood boil seeing people self-righteously talking rudely to waiters, drivers, etc. It saddens me to see bus conductors, watchmen and peons looking surprised when I talk nicely to them!

The list is endless!

I haven't added corruption to the list as that happens everywhere and is not unique to India.

Let us not get nationalistic and be proud of our country by only looking at its GDP growth, the number of billionaires, the film industry or the fact that we invented the zero and the decimal system. Let us also be aware of the darker side of our worn out customs, traditions and attitudes! And let us do our bit to eradicate these flaws.

*-see Racist Indians
**-see Bharatiya Naari Kismat ki Maari

Why "Commonwealth"?

I'm pretty sure we are all going to make a fool of ourselves in the upcoming commonwealth games that we are hosting. We should stop fooling ourselves to believe that we can actually pull it off! What bothers me more is the Rs. 80,000/- odd crore* we are spending on it. We've got to accept that we still are a poor country and money spent on some sporting event which is hardly going to be watched could rather be spent on development of naxal affected districts!

Anyway, that is not what I want to primarily talk about. My main objection is with the word "Commonwealth". Inspite of the British Empire which ruled half the world being reduced to a tiny island, we still want to bow down to their Queen and be called her majesty's "Commonwealth".

Apart from 2 countries, all other countries which were once part of the British commonwealth take part in this event. I ask why give such significance to the British Empire which has been dismantled decades ago? Why still continue with these games when there is literally no "Commonwealth" left. Why should we let a handful of uppity British folk who live in the past feel good about themselves that the countries they once ruled upon still want to be called a part of the "Commonwealth".

I know I am ranting and being repetitive but I strongly believe that these games should be discontinued and the money should be spent somewhere else!

* - Rs. 80K crore may not be the exact figure as I have taken it from another blog.

Two types of classics

This post is about movies that have been immortalized as 'classics'. Movies that people have a positive association with and can be watched over and over again. My insightful brain has done some analysis regarding such movies and has classified such classics into two mutually exclusive categories.

Also, before I present my analysis, let me inform you that restricted myself to Amitabh Bachchan movies so that I can keep it in context and hence it becomes easier to understand.

Category 1: Plot-heavy classics.
This includes movies whose storyline is very strong. The unravelling of the plot scene after scene creates excitement and generates interest. These are generally mentally stimulating movies which tell a good story. I would include movies like Don, Amar Akbar Anthony, Kala Patthar, Mr. Natwarlal, etc. All these movies had a thick plot and superb characterizations. I would go to the extent to say that such movies need to be kept on being remade in order to adapt to contemporary times - only superficial changes need to be made while the plot should remain intact. That is why I applaud the effort to remake Don - it showed the plot in a fresh light.

Category 2: Screenplay-heavy classics.
This includes movies whose scenes are immortalized. The dialogue delivery, the sequence of events and the dramatic timing are spruced up to perfection! Unlike the previous category, which is mentally stimulating, this category includes movies that are emotionally stimulating. I would include movies like Sholay, Deewar, Trishul, Zanjeer, etc. Dialogues like "Kitne aadmi the?" and "Mere paas maa hai!" tingle our senses even now! The plots in all these movies are pretty simple - it is just the handling of the plot from scene to scene that makes such movies stand out. Kindly note that the screenplay writers in all these movies was the duo - Salim-Javed who specialized in such classics. One non Amitabh Bachchan movie that simply needs to be mentioned here is the 1994 classic - Andaz Apna Apna. Thin plot but the scenes stand out. Such movies should never be remade - people will keep comparing them scene by scene with the original one and that can't be good. You cannot recreate a "Teja mai hoon, Mark idhar hai" or a "Tumhara naam kya hai Basanti?".

Now let me take my analysis further and explain why a particular classic cannot fit into both categories. If the plot is heavy and the director wants the audience to follow the story - a highly dramatic scene might derail the viewer's thought process. Do notice how Zeenat Aman's character is shown to quickly get over her brother's death and start training to fight in the movie Don - things need to happen quickly in such movies to keep the viewer engaged.

On the other hand, if the plot too simplistic, the only thing that can save the movie are impact producing dialogues, comic timing and a high confrontational drama content.

Formalities

I've never been a big fan of social formalities. I'm also not a big fan of legal and official formalities as I have paperwork phobia but more on that some other time.

Where was I? Ah, yes - social formalities. Let me attempt to define them.
Social formalities - A set of fake behavioural patterns or mannerisms ordained by society in a social or business gathering, in order to appear respectable and also in order to mask one's true self and one's true intentions.

Welcoming people with open arms, exaggerated handshakes, complimenting someone's hideous attire, giving expensive gifts with the hope that they will not be accepted, not accepting gifts (at first), offering to pay the bill in restaurants, force feeding someone who has come to your house for a meal, etc. Where is the genuineness I ask? The irony is that in order to appear more mannered and civil, we lose out on the most important aspects of a human personality - honesty of thought and action!

I'm all for being well-mannered and civil. But let's not get carried away into the territory of the pretentious! We owe that much to our true selves.

Mocking the helpless and the less fortunate

I was watching the latest LMN advertisement with a friend who found it really funny while I found it absolutely repulsive. LMN is a packaged lemon drink which is positioned as a drink to beat the heat. The commercial shows an extremely thirsty African man in a desert who twists a moist piece of cloth over his forehead so that he can at least have one drop of water. However, as the drop is about to fall in his mouth another man calls him, which makes the thirsty man turn his head. As he turns his head, the drop falls on the ground and evaporates. This enrages the thirsty man who takes the piece of cloth in order to beat his friend. Then the logo of LMN appears, apparently as a substitute for water. Making fun of a person's thirst didn't sit too well with me.

I've never been a big fan of making fun of needy, weak or helpless people. It does not take much ingenuity to poke fun at those less fortunate than yourself. I also don't like waiter/driver jokes - for eg. If someone isn't dressed properly, people don't think twice before saying that he looks like a waiter! Any profession which is a means of livelihood should be respected!

I pointed out to my friend that good quality humour lies in mocking the rich and powerful and not the needy. It requires courage, intelligence and insight. I think he agreed with me.

I also therefore do not like jokes on how geeks/nerds are such losers. That again is convenient comedy. People imitating beggars on the street is another act which repulses me. There are other examples too - like making fun of overweight people, old people, illiterate etc which is convenient to portray and easy to please a section of the masses. Unfortunately, a lot of comedy material in this decade is full of this form of convenient comedy! I do hope people grow out of it.

I'd like to conclude by saying that only the insecure make fun of the helplessness of other people, in order to feel good about themselves. I have high regard for those who mock social evils, outdated traditions or the rich and the powerful!

The Minimum Possible

Time for some Congress bashing! People often ask me why I am such an avid supporter of the Indian National Congress. My answer is simple, their ideology appeals to me. A centre-left, secular party with a centrist outlook on social issues is theoretically an ideal party for me. Heck, if I were to form a political party, the ideology would match exactly with that of the Congress.

Yet, Congress is far from what it claims to be. It is an extremely feudal party which believes in doing the minimum possible. It lacks political will to develop this country from the human development perspective. It seems Congress, as well as other pro-poor parties like BSP, SP, RJD, CPI, CPI(M), Trinamool Congress silently want the people to remain poor. This is because it is easier to please a poor man and get his vote. The middle-class voter demands much more and that is a major headache. That is why let us not promote the poor to the level of the middle class.

If I am a poor man who is getting temporary employment from the NREGA, that is good enough for me to vote for the Congress. If I'm getting food security (Food security bill), again a good reason to vote for the Congress. Finally, if my children are being guaranteed education(Right to education bill), what is stopping me from voting for the grand old party?

The above initiatives of the Congress need to be applauded. They wouldn't have been voted to power a second time if such schemes had not worked. However, the Congress effort stops there. They've done the minimum they could do and are now resting on their laurels. A lot more needs to be done for rural development, but if they are getting votes anyway, who cares about bringing in another round of the Green Revolution? Who cares about development of villages and smaller towns so that the youth there get employment locally? Why waste so much effort in rehabilitating farmers and minimizing their suicides when we can impress them by simply writing off their loans?

The worst and the easiest way to get votes is through reservations. Another easy way to impress their votebank. Who would bother to work at the grassroots level to create awareness among people about an equal society where everyone should have equal opportunities? Rather than creating a homogenous society, let us create more divisions by introducing more reservations. Passing a bill through parliament does not take much effort, does it?

I'm sure that the kind of self-destruct mode BJP is in, the Congress might have to work even lesser to get back to power in 2014. With an easily pleasable votebank, who wants to work harder?

Voyeuristic 'civil' society

We are all voyeurs. The society is overflowing with people who seem decent but have cheesiness ingrained all over themselves. These are the buggers on whom film magazines, tabloid newspapers and news channels thrive on. These are the idiots who have nothing better to do than pry on other people's lives and more importantly, get pleasure out of someone else's problems.

However, they are not the only stakeholders in this setup, there are publicity hungry quasi-celebrities whose claim to fame happens through feeding the voyeuristic minds with their outrageous tales.

It is a whole new industry and it has now welcomed new entrants - Sania Mirza, Shoaib Malik and some Ayesha person from Hyderabad. News channels like Headlines Today and Times Now should thank these three people for giving them a much needed boost in news coverage. In spite of the heinous Dantewada massacre in Chhattissgarh where 75 CRPF commandoes were killed, these channels marshalled on with the love triangle story.

Out of the three stakeholders in the industry (celebrities, media and consumers), I would blame the consumers or the low IQ, wannabe public the most for this farce. If it weren't for them, mediocre sportpersons wouldn't have had to wash their dirty linen in public, nor the media would be bothered in reporting such news.

The most dangerous aspect of our society is that such shameless voyeurs live amongst us. There is very little outward differentiation between a person who prefers to get along with his/her own life to a person who wants to poke his/her nose everywhere. These are the gossip-mongers of society who will spare no effort in making public an issue of even their closest relatives and neighbours if some juicy bit of their lives leaks off.

One more dangerous aspect - such people are large in number - large enough to drive the TRPs of news channels and readership of newspapers. How do we deal with such wannabe Page 3 types?

Glorified weaknesses

Most of the time, most of the people try to hide most of their weaknesses. It is understandable as one wouldn't want their weakness put on public display. Some more mature human beings with a self-deprecating humour may joke about their shortcomings but their intent is to make people laugh.

However, there are certain people who glorify some of their own shortcomings. Their intent is not to highlight their weakness but it is to slyly highlight their strengths if the listener can read between the lines.

I will give some examples below:

Dialogue: "I am not a morning person yaar."
Interpretation: I'm too happening to sleep early. I have a roaring nightlife. Obviously, I will be a bit dazed in the morning. Waking up early is so uncool anyway for a carefree person like me! I'm also too cool to follow routine.

Dialogue: "You talk to him. My temper is too bad to deal with such people. Once I lose it, I cannot control myself."
Interpretation: Watch out! Don't mess with me!

Dialogue: "Nowadays, I simply can't travel by public transport."
Interpretation: I have made a lot of money and need to get it across to people somehow.

Dialogue: "I find it hard to stay committed to one person."
Interpretation: I've been with more people than you can count on your fingers.

I personally tend to either ignore or mock such people. However, they are so full of themselves that they don't realize that they are being mocked. I'm especially annoyed by those who say they are not morning people - in fact I know people who hate to admit that they tend to wake up early sometimes - insecure jerks!

Devaluing runs

A very significant aspect of cricket is that the playing conditions are not standardized - the grounds come in various shapes and sizes. The pitches vary from ground to ground, at times 2 pitches on the same ground differ significantly from one another. It is an outdoor sport, so the weather too plays a crucial role. The combination of the nature of the pitch and the weather conditions are crucial factors to decide whether to bat or bowl first if one wins the toss. This variance of conditions is one of the beauties of cricket.

Unfortunately, since the mid 2000s, the line between cricket as a sport and cricket as an entertainment has blurred. The variance of playing conditions has minimized, especially in India. Day after day, flat batting pitches with an easy bounce are doled out. In order to make it an entertainment sport, the board, the broadcasters, the stadium authority as well as the sponsors want maximum runs to be scored on a given day. Batsmen have never had it so easy. In fact, before the 3rd India vs South Africa ODI, the groundsman at Ahmedabad openly admitted to have prepared an 'entertaining' wicket.

Even till the late 1990s, a 300+ score was very rare. Now teams regularly cross 400. A bowler with an economy rate of 5 is considered brilliant. I remember Waqar Younis being criticized 10 years back for having an economy rate as "high" as 4.6.

So what has happened? Have the batsmen suddenly improved or the bowlers suddenly become inferior? No - the runs have become devalued. In economic terms, there has been an inflation as far as runs are concerned. The value of a 250 runs in 50 overs in 1995 is the same as the value of 325 in 2010. This is indeed sad for cricket as a sport if its main currency - the runs, have lost their value a bit.

The money-minded jerks who rule cricket ought to know that this strategy will only provide short-term gains. Over time the 4s and even the 6s will lose their significance! Cricket will fall into a decadence which will be difficult to get out of!

I suggest we introduce more variance in pitches in favour of the bowlers. I've seen low-scoring matches to be nail-biters in the past, I see no reason why they still can't generate as much interest. Even low-scoring T20s will be a thrill to watch. Seeing a batsman surviving and making runs by facing a hostile spell of bowling on a pitch with demons has its own charm.

Let us not create an overkill by having flat batting wickets on small Indian grounds which have an electric fast outfield! Let us give due respect to the cricketing currency of runs.

Tiger Woods vs A Patronizing Society

Hypocritic prudes - that is what we all are across the globe. We all either squirm or keep ourselves entertained with the latest gossip when it comes to the raunchy sex lives of celebrities. I'm not against reporting such news and bringing it to the public domain. What I'm against is our pretentious moral reaction to those events.

So what if Tiger Woods like threesomes? So what if he cheats on his wife? Are we as a society so purely bathed in holy milk that we can sit and pass judgements? He hasn't committed crime against the society by straying from his married life. I simply do not understand why his fans should castigate him. He still remains one of the greatest golfers of all time!

Unfortunately, in our country and even the so-called 'liberal' west, people love to take a moral high ground and any sexual activity outside the marriage is considered sacrilegious. If people didn't give a damn, Woods wouldn't have lost the Gillette, AT&T and numerous other contracts. His actions created a negative brand association.

Seeing him apologizing on TV made me squirm. He need not have done that. If he really felt sorry, he should just have apologized to his wife. Why is he apologizing to his fans? Maybe he wants to win back those lucrative sponsorship contracts!

Perils of Debating in Schools

Debate:
–noun

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.*

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.*

It is amply clear that a debate, unlike a discussion is always about 2 opposing viewpoints. It is generally conducted in front of a third party who takes a final call as to which viewpoint is more convincing. The parties participating in the debate usually never agree or take a middle path on any issue as their agenda is to keep driving home their point of view in front of the third party.

Training for debates is good if you intend to join politics or want to become a PR executive representing a company's financial as well as legal interests. In politics, you debate in front of voting citizens and in PR, you normally debate in front of policy makers or consumers or a legal panel. The debate participants cannot afford to take an opposite stand from the party or the company they represent in this case.

My issue with debates is that its training is given from a school level. Students are asked to take a stand first and formulate opinions based on that stand later. Their personal beliefs or viewpoints do not matter. I know of a debate in my school where a non-vegetarian student was asked to support vegetarianism in a debate contest. He also did a good job of it. This must have definitely sharpened his convincing skills but at the same time, the 15 year old must have thought that it does not matter what you actually believe in, what matters is how persuasive you can sound to get ahead in life!

I therefore would encourage group discussions at the school level where a group of students can sit and discuss the topic in question with full freedom to accept and modify opposing viewpoints and at the same time, arrive at a conclusion if possible. At their impressionable age, it will inculcate the values of camaraderie, solution-finding, as well as tolerance.

Debating contests can be held during placements for jobs, especially marketing profiles where a more biased approach is needed while expressing your views in public. Also, by the time these interviews come, the students also reach a level of maturity and understand that sticking to just one particular viewpoint cannot solve all the problems in life.

Ironically, where I come from, debate contests are held in schools and group discussions are held during MBA placements!

Let me go to the extent to say that if opposing political parties are willing to agree on certain issues without rigidly taking an opposite stand, it'll only help the country further and raise the politics to a more civilized level. I don't have much hope from PR guys though!

*-source: www.dictionary.com

Politics of violence

Why are people so stuck in criticizing Shiv Sena and MNS on the basis of 'Politics of parochialism'? Why do they shout repetitive slogans like "Mumbai is for everyone" and "Mumbai belongs to India". Why can't they criticize the 2 parties on the basis of a bigger, more disgusting feature that they have, that is 'Politics of violence'!

When they threaten to disrupt movie screenings, break shops that display Valentine Day's cards, assault mediapersons, beat up people who have come for making a living in Bombay, their message should takes a backseat and their actions should become more noticeable.

This post is with reference to Shah Rukh Khan saying that Pakistani cricketers should have been allowed to play IPL and the Shiv Sena, desperate to get attention, threatening to halt screenings of his movie My name is Khan. I for one am against inclusion of Pakistani players in the IPL too. However, that isn't what I'm talking about now. The bigger issue is threatening a violent reaction when the movie is screened. Even I am against what Shah Rukh Khan said but I will never support the Shiv Sena's methods to protest.

I am willing to go the extent of saying that every political party has a right to have a view which may be provocative and unreasonable to some. MNS has a right to be concerned about local people not getting jobs. Shiv Sena has a right to protest the inclusion of Pakistani cricketers. However their methods are NOT acceptable. The politics of vandalism, hooliganism and mob mentality needs to stop.