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.

How to look busy when there is no work!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beeps and Surrogates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44 Magnum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irritants who mean well and Egotistical well-wishers

I'm going to discuss two types of people in this post. I'm sure most of the readers have come across such types of people, some of you may even realize that you fall into one of the two categories. Sometimes, it is hard to deal with such people even though their intentions are noble. Their problem is that they simply do not realize why people do not like them!

Type 1: Irritants who mean well

Almost wherever I have studied or worked, there has always been one over-enthusiastic but kind-hearted person who I have made friends with and regretted later. Such types do not think twice before helping you out, going out of their way to make sure you are doing well, lending you stuff without you asking them, etc. They are people lovers who are pretty genuine in their social interactions. They also do not ask much in return. However, there is a catch. They are extreme bores without a trace of personality or even a sense of humour. Hanging out with them becomes a pain after some time and their habit of always 'being there' starts to nag. Their constant concerns: "how're you doing?", "how's work coming along?", etc. starts bugging you. The more you try to avoid them, the more concerned they become.

I still have no idea how to deal with them. Such types are very sensitive, so I can't be direct with them. There is also no polite way of saying "Mind your own business". Worst of all, they have been so nice to me, that I can't just delete them in my social interactions.

After reading this, I'm sure you must have realized that you too have been acquainted with such people in your lifetime. Advices on how to deal with such people are welcome!

Type 2: Egotistical well-wishers

Have you ever met a relative or a family friend who continuously doles out advice on how things should be done and expects you to nod without saying a word. Let me go a step further, doesn't such a type get offended when you don't heed his/her advice even though the issue does not concern him/her at all? Worst of all, doesn't such a relative speak on your behalf to other people without seeking permission from you?

For such people, acknowledging their advice and thanking them for it is not enough. They follow up until you do exactly what they say and if you refuse, they take it as a personal offence. Asking your permission before they speak on your behalf does not cross their mind. It is their superiority complex or ego that encourages them to do things in the way they seem fit without concern for other people's personal boundaries.

The common mistake that people make when they have such family members is that they brush it off by saying "but he/she means well!".

Now I have some advice on this issue and I won't get offended if you do not heed it: Do not fall into the "but he/she means well!" trap! Confront them if they do things for you without asking or Ignore them if they browbeat their suggestions on you. This is the only way they can be trained to respect personal boundaries even though they may keep thinking "But I meant well!".

Heroes

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

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

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

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

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

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

BJP - Befuddled Janata Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Commercials

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cockiness in the name of Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

* - ref Shooting the Messenger

Channel [V]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Punishment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shooting the Messenger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ragging

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

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

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

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

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

Foghorn Leghorn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahatma Gandhi's 'Sach ka Saamna'

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

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

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

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

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