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.

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.

Good teams bound to exit in World Cups with multiple groups

Not a lot of countries play cricket. Even in World Cups a maximum of 16 teams have played. This was in the 2007 50-50 world cup in the Windies.

I therefore question the logic of having 4 different groups in the league stage instead of the traditional 2 groups. This means that per group there are only 3-4 teams. This also means that one upset can ensure that a good team has no chance of coming back and the freaky team which caused the upset has a good chance of qualifying for the next stage.

If it were 2 groups and 6-8 teams, then teams have more matches to play and hence the chance to make a comeback increases after one bad day in the field. West Indies lost to Kenya in the 1996 50-50 World Cup and yet qualified for the semis because there were only 2 league groups then.

India and Pakistan in the 2007 50-50 World Cup, and Australia and Bangladesh in the 2009 20-20 World Cup paid the price for a bad day on the field. I'm glad in a way as I have never been a fan of the Aussie brand of cricket but the perils of multiple groups need to be pointed out.

Racist Indians

Modi-worshippers of Gujarat calling Muslims "paper dishes" (because of the cap they wear). North Indians calling all South Indians "madrasis". Political party MNS beating the hell out of poor North Indian migrants. Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir. Dalits not being allowed to use the same water source as Brahmins or other upper castes. Community clashes between the Jat Sikhs and Dalit Sikhs in Punjab.

I will forgive you if you do not cringe in shame for the above examples. It is very commonplace in India and we do not like to look in the mirror and criticize ourselves.

However, your blood starts to boil when the white race calls us names, beats us up and even murders us all in the name of racial superiority. Unfortunately, only incidents like these makes us stand up as one to condemn such crimes. Pakistan bashing is another passion which makes us stand up as 'one' nation. However, when it comes to collective, inclusive growth, we want to promote only our community members' interests. When it comes to marriage, the traditional, orthodox households only want people from their community's sub-community to be their in-laws.

While the recent racial attacks on Indians in Australia are condemnable, we need to introspect. There are a lot of ethnicity-based crimes on Indians in India compared to outside it.

Leave the smokers alone

I believe I have done enough conservative right-wing bashing for the time-being.

Let me focus on the annoying ultra-liberals. Why can't they leave the smokers alone? They've already succeeded in treating them as outcasts by designating them very little space to puff away. They've banned them from restaurants, bus stops, pubs, etc. Now they are cheering the fact that cigarette boxes will have hideous cancerous pics on them to discourage them.

Let me put my disclaimer first - I am a non-smoker. I never intend to smoke at any point in the future. I believe nicotine addiction is one of the worst. I do not want to lose my voice, my breathing and my independence. But that is MY choice. I do not impose it on anyone.

Instead of rattling away angrily, let me compose myself put down my thoughts into bullets points :-

• Reverse Psychology - Telling someone not to do something so that they go ahead and do it. That is the effect of these non-smoking campaigns and these ugly pictures on boxes. In fact a recent study was conducted on chain smokers and it was found that such pictures increase their craving for cigarettes. It is all in the subconscious - "Why the hell are they trying so hard, why can't they mind their own business, I'll show those idiots that these gimmicks do not work on me". A smoker may not admit it but that IS his thought process.
• Even a teen smoker knows it is bad for him. Every smoker knows what he is getting into. These annoying campaigns keep stating the obvious - lung cancer, etc.
  
• Finally, a person already addicted with full knowledge of the poisonous attack of nicotine in his body does not need a patronizing reprimand. He is miserable already. He got himself into it, let him figure out how to get out, that is if he wants to get out!

It is absolute hypocrisy by the government. On the one hand, it wants to rake in revenues through smoking but on the other hand wants to discourage it. Why does it not ban it if it so bothersome?

If 1000 trilliion people are dying of smoking every year, let them die - they got themselves into it! We cannot blame ourselves for not discouraging them enough!!

OLPS - my school

Personally, I feel I would have been better off in Fatima High school or even if I had continued in MD Bhatia school. Parents (read mom) thought OLPS Chembur was the best option then!

OLPS had its strong points though. The best one being its cosmopolitan nature. There were very few linguistic sub-groups. A Tamil, a Sikh, a Catholic and a Maharashtrian could easily form a seamless group of friends who hang out. I'm glad I studied in that environment without prejudice of any kind against any community. Right now also, as our get-togethers keep happening, that feeling of 'one' community still remains.

Second advantage was the yearly reshuffling of classes. Student were not divided into divisions A,B, C and D based on their merit. It was rather a random process wherein every year threw a different combination of students in a class. At the end of the year, I knew everybody - all 60x4=240 odd students, so I ended up making more friends!

Coffee

I am not an addict and I can, at times, go without coffee or tea for days. But then sometimes I just get those pangs in my oversized head that only coffee can solve. The craving is enormous and I've got to have it!!

Some idiots who call themselves nutritionists say that caffeine helps reduce weight and some other idiots (nutritionists again) say that it increases weight. Now I'm on a half-hearted weight reducing mission and I'm following the moderate argument - "Coffee, if not had early in the morning, does not increase weight".

So now, I'm going to have coffee. My mind says no but my brain says yes, go ahead. If you've understood what I've written in the previous sentence, explain it to me - I may understand it after I have that darn mug of coffee.

2009 - the youth has spoken

April-May 2009 had an overdose of entertainment. The IPL is good but the elections were better. Watching the likes of eccentric politicians like Sudheendra Kulkarni, Navin Patnaik, Jayanti Natarajan, etc can also be loads of fun. But on a serious note I'm glad that UPA has emerged with a thumping majority and BJP has been outclassed and outplayed.

First and foremost, my vote counted. Sanjay Dina Patil of the NCP who I barely know had the privilege of my vote simply because NCP was a part of UPA. I'm glad the uptight Modi-worshippers of Ghatkopar and Mulund couldn't have their way. Their candidate Kirit Somaiya was defeated by a small margin but was defeated nevertheless. I could see the glum faces on Ghatkopar's streets on Saturday evening. They just could not stomach Patil's victory.

BJP - the party I love to hate. Why would any sane intellectual vote for such pig-heads? They are bigoted, opportunistic, noisy, raise petty issues, hail moral policing, openly support hooliganism and worst of all continue to spread false propaganda from questionable sources. They are smug and overconfident too. Their overconfidence cost them 2 elections now.

Worst of all people get brainwashed by unfortunately good orators like Narendra Modi. I despise him but must admit that he can make the most liberal educated person feel like a victim and brainwash him. This time he did not succeed and credit goes to the young voter who saw through the nonsense.

Advani is no better. His crass politics of humiliating Dr. Manmohan Singh hit back at him hard. His only claim to fame is the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation which the youth in India simply do not care about. He is not statesman and he deserves to retire on a losing note.

Varun Gandhi is another 'young' politician who has ironically put off the youth in this country. We want peace in this country which I do not think goons like him can provide.

Worst of all, BJP raised issues which were way past their sell-by date. Bofors-gate 1989, 1984 riots, 1976 Emergency are thing the youth cannot connect with because they have not felt it.

What the youth sees is here and now. It sees Rahul Gandhi doing grassroots work (paid of handsomely). It sees the youth wing of Congress devoid of goons. It sees India growing at 8-9% before recession. It sees rural empowerment. It sees India's measured but effective response to Pakistan post 26/11. The best part is, both the rural as well as the urban electorate has voted for the Congress. It also sees BJP bigots rave and rant about religion, it also sees how BJP wanted to come to power by opposing the nuclear deal - the seeds of which the party itself had sown.

I know I don't have the proof of demographics as to which age group voted for whom. However, I do have an idea of how my generation thinks. They refuse to be thought of as victims of Congress which BJP makes them out to be.

Indian National Congress however is far from a perfect party. It is on the right track however and I hope it remains on that. It should stay away from introducing more unnecessary reservations, show more accountability and stop fielding candidates like Antulay. It should also dump its coalition with corrupt, divisive parties like SP and RJD.

BJP on the other hand should now at least come out of its mode of denial, act as a responsible opposition and give more preference to moderate politicians like Arun Jaitley instead of smug, overconfident jerks like Rajnath Singh. It should also realize that people will remember Modi more for human rights violations than the development of Gujarat.

Honking!

There is a reason people have horns in their cars! And no matter how much the ultra-liberals would want you to believe, they are not for making unnecessary noise!

I have an issue with "No-Honking" enthusiasts. The lame reason of 'noise pollution' does not appeal to me. I'd rather be the cause of noise pollution than be the cause of running over some cheeky 'living on the edge' type pedestrain or biker. Besides, what do you do when those small snail-paced tempos are riding in front of you on a highway in the right-most lane? These anti-noise buggers also would frown at overtaking from the wrong side.

Then there are moderates who say we are only against 'unnecessary honking'. Well, if a person is honking unnecessarily then we have bigger problems than noise pollution. Obviously, his head is not at the right place and he is behind the wheel - 'noise' should be one of the last considerations.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to honk when necessary and show the finger to those who frown!

Football

There is a ball, 22 pairs of feet and 2 goals - thats almost all there is to it in a game of football! One of the simplest sports the world has seen. And yet, it remains the most popular sport. I for one, am not fond of it and I have my reasons!

I find it boring! People may say it is the most enthralling game and its the exact opposite of boring but I am not particularly 'enthralled'. The only type of event that happens in the 90-odd minutes of play is the 'goal'. Otherwise you just see the ball going from one end to the other. Give me tennis any day where points keep getting scored or cricket where runs and wickets keep being taken. Scoring points in tennis or taking runs in cricket are more frequent events than scoring goals. I don't want to see hot-headed players banging on to each other, tripping, feigning injury, arguing with the referee and getting all sorts of cards. To be fair to them, it IS a very competitive sport and such things are bound to happen but I don't like to see it!

Playing football is fun although I'm a lousy player. But watching it is exasperating!!

"That was supposed to be funny"

Some people just do not have a sense of humour. I don't mind if people don't laugh at my jokes or don't laugh at jokes I find funny as long as they get the joke. I'm talking about people who just don't get it! They either take themselves too seriously or are too pretentious to recognize odd human traits! Either way, I cannot have a simple conversation with them. They always seem to be on a different plane of thought than me and that is unnerving.

Of course, such people do laugh but then slapstick is just one form of humour. Wit is another form of humour that they seem to get, I have observed. But give them the absurd humour of Gary Larson or the ironical humour of Jerry Seinfeld and they are all at sea! "What was so funny?" they ask! Sarcasm is always taken literally and black comedies are only for 'sick people' according to them!

I'm all for letting people be as they are but I have an issue with such personalities. I have a habit of adding a touch of my own absurd humour in almost everything I say which makes them look at me with pity - "Salil, you need to grow up!". I should respond by telling them that they need to add one more dimension to their thinking! Uptight little buggers!!