Is anyone surprised about the goings-on in the BJP? This is a party based solely on mistrust, suspicion and erecting bogey-men; therefore, this a party with nothing to offer.
That's what we're seeing.
There's been recent talk about "not compromising" on the "core ideology" of the party -- this said when Jaswant Singh appeared to praise MA Jinnah and criticize Vallabhbhai Patel. Not having read his book, I'm uninterested in getting into that debate. But is this "core ideology" really based only on certain men being heroes and certain others being villains? Is that all?
Me, I first began wondering about this "core ideology" several years ago, in the lead up to Assembly elections in Maharashtra. Some members of the BJP and its family told us that in that election campaign, the main issue for them would not be roti, kapda aur makaan, but Hindutva.
(By roti, kapda aur makaan, they did not mean the hit '70s film.)
That is, Hindutva itself is not concerned with food, clothing and shelter, the basics of human existence. Which makes you wonder: what is it concerned with, really? What is Hindutva? What is this ideology?
Searching for answers, I've asked in this space and others too: what is Hindutva? The lack of any substantial answers tells me all I need to know. But the sneering and abuse tell me more.
I suspect Jaswant Singh is finding some of this out. The question is, why did it take him 30 years?
August 28, 2009
Nano their business
The Tata group of companies recently filed a case against the travel site Oktatabyebye for "infringement" of their name.
Why? Because "tata" is in the travel site's name.
I would have thought any reasonable person deciding on this case would dismiss it. But no, the decision handed down awards ownership of the site to the Tatas.
So I think the Tatas should now claim ownership of bodacioustatas.com (warning: be prepared for a warning of adult content. Don't say I didn't warn you). And patata.com (also batata.com and patatas.com and so forth, all potato domain names). And matata.com (no, no clue what it's about). I mean, they should go after Bangladesh's Satata Construction Company and Italy's La Tata (no clue again). Pronto.
Hey, there's more. Plenty more.
P2P streaming happens at Vatata.
There's Natata for e-publishing.
You can find out about studying Ukraine via yatata.com.
Somebody in Cameroon, I think, runs mantata.com, though not very well so far.
Somebody in Wisconsin, I think, runs ratatat.com, with a blog too.
There are some lovely patterns on RATATA.
Besides, maybe you want to buy a Rotatable TV phone V866?
Enough for now, but if you have more suggestions for Tata, please leave a comment.
***
If you think this is nuts, please go here.
Also, please inform me if I'm liable for action based on the nondescript pun in my title.
Tata. Bye bye.
Why? Because "tata" is in the travel site's name.
I would have thought any reasonable person deciding on this case would dismiss it. But no, the decision handed down awards ownership of the site to the Tatas.
So I think the Tatas should now claim ownership of bodacioustatas.com (warning: be prepared for a warning of adult content. Don't say I didn't warn you). And patata.com (also batata.com and patatas.com and so forth, all potato domain names). And matata.com (no, no clue what it's about). I mean, they should go after Bangladesh's Satata Construction Company and Italy's La Tata (no clue again). Pronto.
Hey, there's more. Plenty more.
P2P streaming happens at Vatata.
There's Natata for e-publishing.
You can find out about studying Ukraine via yatata.com.
Somebody in Cameroon, I think, runs mantata.com, though not very well so far.
Somebody in Wisconsin, I think, runs ratatat.com, with a blog too.
There are some lovely patterns on RATATA.
Besides, maybe you want to buy a Rotatable TV phone V866?
Enough for now, but if you have more suggestions for Tata, please leave a comment.
If you think this is nuts, please go here.
Also, please inform me if I'm liable for action based on the nondescript pun in my title.
Tata. Bye bye.
August 24, 2009
A lout
Just got done reading a fascinating book that has been on my shelf for a while, and I wish I had read it earlier: Alan Cromer's Uncommon Sense.
He quotes this short verse:
If you will love me dear, my lord,
I'll pick up my skirts and cross the ford,
But if from your heart you turn me out --
Well, you' re not the only man about,
You silly, silly silliest lout!
Question: what is this, where is it from? (No Web-digging until you've made at least a guess).
What does it mean?
***
Postscript: Nope, no Dorothy Parker here (see comments). Instead, this is, as Cromer writes, "an example of one of the 305 Odes that every Confucian scholar had to memorize" in medieval China. Especially important because such knowledge was a help in getting into the bureaucracy.
Worth reading the book to find out why he quotes the verse, but in the meantime here's an attempt at the gist of the argument.
This is part of a chapter in which Cromer makes the case that China's mandarinate, its government through its medieval history, came in the way of the country's abilities in science -- despite its great technological innovations. In particular, there was an emphasis on studying works dating to before Confucius that had lost all meaning anyway.
Thus, says Cromer, "Much of what passed for history was legend, and what passed for deep literature was country doggerel." Damning, but case in point, this verse.
He also says these Odes were "interpreted past recognition". This one "was thought to express the wish of the people of a certain small state that some great state would intervene and end an existing feud in the ruling family. Thus did a rational and democratic system for the selection of government officials degenerate into mind-numbing pedantry."
He quotes this short verse:
I'll pick up my skirts and cross the ford,
But if from your heart you turn me out --
Well, you' re not the only man about,
You silly, silly silliest lout!
Question: what is this, where is it from? (No Web-digging until you've made at least a guess).
What does it mean?
Postscript: Nope, no Dorothy Parker here (see comments). Instead, this is, as Cromer writes, "an example of one of the 305 Odes that every Confucian scholar had to memorize" in medieval China. Especially important because such knowledge was a help in getting into the bureaucracy.
Worth reading the book to find out why he quotes the verse, but in the meantime here's an attempt at the gist of the argument.
This is part of a chapter in which Cromer makes the case that China's mandarinate, its government through its medieval history, came in the way of the country's abilities in science -- despite its great technological innovations. In particular, there was an emphasis on studying works dating to before Confucius that had lost all meaning anyway.
Thus, says Cromer, "Much of what passed for history was legend, and what passed for deep literature was country doggerel." Damning, but case in point, this verse.
He also says these Odes were "interpreted past recognition". This one "was thought to express the wish of the people of a certain small state that some great state would intervene and end an existing feud in the ruling family. Thus did a rational and democratic system for the selection of government officials degenerate into mind-numbing pedantry."
August 19, 2009
Man, expelled
They expel Jaswant Singh for a less-than-jandiced look back at a man dead for over half-a-century?
When will this party -- and so many of us -- get over this obsession with the past? When will we learn to look at history for what it was, instead of what we want it to be?
When will this party -- and so many of us -- get over this obsession with the past? When will we learn to look at history for what it was, instead of what we want it to be?
Think 315,217 will do it
Shah Rukh Khan is "detained" at Newark airport (where oddly enough someone I know well is getting ready to land as I type this), and it's suddenly a huge issue. He's a huge film icon, he's got the Muslim name, couldn't they have simply googled him and found the 3.5 jillion bazillion pages that reference him?
The Indian government, I read in my Hindustan Times, has "strongly take[n] up the matter with the US authorities." Not just that. A member of the Indian government, I&B minister Ambika Soni, "suggests equal and opposite reaction against Americans visiting India." Meaning, take them aside and detain them too, even their huge film icons.
But what's the complaint here?
* That the US immigration authorities detains some people? Well, if it happens repeatedly to the same person -- and I know two friends like that -- it seems wasteful and counterproductive. But apart from that, what's essentially wrong with such a procedure? After all, the Indian Customs, to take one example, is empowered to pick out incoming passengers at random and check their belongings. Do we protest that?
* That it was an icon like SRK that they detained? But so what? Is it the number of google hits that determine who gets detained? One of the two friends I mentioned has 7500 hits (I just checked). Does that exempt him? Or will he need to up that, and if so to where? 10K? 50K? 315,216?
* That we should put in place this "equal and opposite" action against Americans visiting India, and we haven't yet? Yet consider: what should be the priority of our immigration authorities? To thumb collective noses against Yanks? Or to protect our borders, and by implication Indians in general?
We live in uncertain times. Misplaced ideas about national pride -- if that's what all this was, I'm not even sure -- don't make them more certain.
The Indian government, I read in my Hindustan Times, has "strongly take[n] up the matter with the US authorities." Not just that. A member of the Indian government, I&B minister Ambika Soni, "suggests equal and opposite reaction against Americans visiting India." Meaning, take them aside and detain them too, even their huge film icons.
But what's the complaint here?
* That the US immigration authorities detains some people? Well, if it happens repeatedly to the same person -- and I know two friends like that -- it seems wasteful and counterproductive. But apart from that, what's essentially wrong with such a procedure? After all, the Indian Customs, to take one example, is empowered to pick out incoming passengers at random and check their belongings. Do we protest that?
* That it was an icon like SRK that they detained? But so what? Is it the number of google hits that determine who gets detained? One of the two friends I mentioned has 7500 hits (I just checked). Does that exempt him? Or will he need to up that, and if so to where? 10K? 50K? 315,216?
* That we should put in place this "equal and opposite" action against Americans visiting India, and we haven't yet? Yet consider: what should be the priority of our immigration authorities? To thumb collective noses against Yanks? Or to protect our borders, and by implication Indians in general?
We live in uncertain times. Misplaced ideas about national pride -- if that's what all this was, I'm not even sure -- don't make them more certain.
August 18, 2009
Masco the drama
You Marathi-philes (Marathi-phones?) will probably enjoy this page. I particularly liked the first, third and sixth.
August 17, 2009
Dave, Dev and the flu
The on-again, off-again slowdown in this space continues till further notice. Meantime, two nuggets I ran across yesterday.
* From Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort of History of the United States by (surprise) Dave Barry, these lines in a section titled "Highlights of the Ford Administration".
Another major Ford highlight was when he alerted the nation that there was going to be an epidemic of "swine flu" and that everybody should get a shot. As it turned out, there was less of a risk from the disease than from the shots, but fortunately only a few high-level administration officials were dumb enough to get them.
Dave's tongue-in-cheek apart, does anyone know how true this is, i.e. was there a swine flue scare in the mid-1970s?
* Yesterday's Hindustan Times Cafe (August 16) had a cover story on Dev Anand, described on the cover as "India's most liberal 85-year-old". Note the word "liberal".
On page 12 is the interview with Dev Anand, and here's his first answer, on the subject "Article 377 and gay marriages":
You can do anything in private but you don't flaunt it in public. Homosexuality is unacceptable to any country or community. It doesn't have the approval of any school or college. And I don't think any parent would happily give his or her consent to a same sex marriage for their child. So, why encourage it?
* From Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort of History of the United States by (surprise) Dave Barry, these lines in a section titled "Highlights of the Ford Administration".
Another major Ford highlight was when he alerted the nation that there was going to be an epidemic of "swine flu" and that everybody should get a shot. As it turned out, there was less of a risk from the disease than from the shots, but fortunately only a few high-level administration officials were dumb enough to get them.
Dave's tongue-in-cheek apart, does anyone know how true this is, i.e. was there a swine flue scare in the mid-1970s?
* Yesterday's Hindustan Times Cafe (August 16) had a cover story on Dev Anand, described on the cover as "India's most liberal 85-year-old". Note the word "liberal".
On page 12 is the interview with Dev Anand, and here's his first answer, on the subject "Article 377 and gay marriages":
You can do anything in private but you don't flaunt it in public. Homosexuality is unacceptable to any country or community. It doesn't have the approval of any school or college. And I don't think any parent would happily give his or her consent to a same sex marriage for their child. So, why encourage it?
August 13, 2009
Reading material
Two blogs that you will want to read.
A good pal has a new blog on what he refers to as an "inane enough topic" -- shoes. Move Over Imelda. His "Granola Stompers" post from yesterday is spot on with some folks I know rather well.
These guys combine some superb photographs with some alluring writing.
A good pal has a new blog on what he refers to as an "inane enough topic" -- shoes. Move Over Imelda. His "Granola Stompers" post from yesterday is spot on with some folks I know rather well.
These guys combine some superb photographs with some alluring writing.
August 08, 2009
Phones, and squeezing
From a quick trip last week that took me through two airports, some observations.
* I know this is normal, but it still baffles me. Two men sitting near me in the plane kept up conversations on their phones well past the time the aircraft pulled away from the gate and the staff had asked us all to switch them off. Well past the time the staff came down the aisle and asked them specifically to switch off. Nearly till the time we left the ground.
* I know this is normal too, but it still baffles me too. Both men's phones began ringing -- ringing! -- the instant we touched the ground again, 2 hours later. I mean, the very instant. Conversations started up, uninterrupted by numerous pleas from the staff.
* At the check-in queue, a man tried to squeeze past and go to the front. At the security check queue, two men tried to squeeze past and go to the front. At the gate, a man tried to go to the front of the queue. Getting on to the bus, a man tried to squeeze past to go to the front. Getting off the bus and walking to the stairs to board the plane, two men tried to go to the front.
All of which, in every depressing detail, was repeated at the other airport.
* Also at the other airport, I was hungry and had a couple hours to kill. Joined a queue at a sandwich-and-coffee joint. In about five minutes, I got to second in line, young man with a guitar on his shoulder in front of me, ordering and paying.
Suddenly, the middle-aged man behind me, creased trousers and starched white shirt, squeezes behind me and then between guitar-man and me, so he is now second in line.
I ask him what he's up to. He shrugs elaborately and exaggeratedly and says, as if doing me an enormous favour, "Oh sure, please go ahead!" and returns to his original place behind me.
(I shall end here, and wait for someone to point out to silly me that all such behaviour happens because there is nobody to enforce the rules.)
* I know this is normal, but it still baffles me. Two men sitting near me in the plane kept up conversations on their phones well past the time the aircraft pulled away from the gate and the staff had asked us all to switch them off. Well past the time the staff came down the aisle and asked them specifically to switch off. Nearly till the time we left the ground.
* I know this is normal too, but it still baffles me too. Both men's phones began ringing -- ringing! -- the instant we touched the ground again, 2 hours later. I mean, the very instant. Conversations started up, uninterrupted by numerous pleas from the staff.
* At the check-in queue, a man tried to squeeze past and go to the front. At the security check queue, two men tried to squeeze past and go to the front. At the gate, a man tried to go to the front of the queue. Getting on to the bus, a man tried to squeeze past to go to the front. Getting off the bus and walking to the stairs to board the plane, two men tried to go to the front.
All of which, in every depressing detail, was repeated at the other airport.
* Also at the other airport, I was hungry and had a couple hours to kill. Joined a queue at a sandwich-and-coffee joint. In about five minutes, I got to second in line, young man with a guitar on his shoulder in front of me, ordering and paying.
Suddenly, the middle-aged man behind me, creased trousers and starched white shirt, squeezes behind me and then between guitar-man and me, so he is now second in line.
I ask him what he's up to. He shrugs elaborately and exaggeratedly and says, as if doing me an enormous favour, "Oh sure, please go ahead!" and returns to his original place behind me.
(I shall end here, and wait for someone to point out to silly me that all such behaviour happens because there is nobody to enforce the rules.)
Rare
Six years after bombs killed 56 people in Bombay, the trial of three people responsible for that atrocity concludes. The judge pronounces punishment, describing the case as "rarest of rare".
True: Slaughtering 56 innocent citizens is nothing less than the "rarest of rare".
Allow me to take this opportunity (too) to remind you of a few other atrocities that each killed many multiples of 56 innocent people, and of how long it has been since those respective massacres happened.
* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Delhi in 1984. That's 25 years ago.
* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Bombay in 1992-93. That's 16 years ago.
* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Gujarat in 2002. That's seven years ago.
Nobody responsible for any of these slaughters has been brought to trial, let alone punished.
Why do you think this is? Could it be because these don't really qualify as "rarest of rare"? That is, could it be that slaughtering people by the several dozen is a rare occurence that needs punishment, but slaughtering people by the several hundred is just the usual that needs no attention from any of us?
***
On another note, there's justified outrage that Pakistan is refusing to take action against a man called Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, whom India believes planned and orchestrated last November's attacks in Bombay.
Why is there no similar outrage that India is refusing to take action against the men who planned and orchestrated the three attacks listed above (from 1984, 1992-93 and 2002)?
Also because of some perceived lack of rarity?
True: Slaughtering 56 innocent citizens is nothing less than the "rarest of rare".
Allow me to take this opportunity (too) to remind you of a few other atrocities that each killed many multiples of 56 innocent people, and of how long it has been since those respective massacres happened.
* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Delhi in 1984. That's 25 years ago.
* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Bombay in 1992-93. That's 16 years ago.
* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Gujarat in 2002. That's seven years ago.
Nobody responsible for any of these slaughters has been brought to trial, let alone punished.
Why do you think this is? Could it be because these don't really qualify as "rarest of rare"? That is, could it be that slaughtering people by the several dozen is a rare occurence that needs punishment, but slaughtering people by the several hundred is just the usual that needs no attention from any of us?
On another note, there's justified outrage that Pakistan is refusing to take action against a man called Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, whom India believes planned and orchestrated last November's attacks in Bombay.
Why is there no similar outrage that India is refusing to take action against the men who planned and orchestrated the three attacks listed above (from 1984, 1992-93 and 2002)?
Also because of some perceived lack of rarity?
August 04, 2009
The list lengthens
Look at the photos here.
What's left to say?
Manipur is in an uproar over this. No surprise there. As long as all of us wink at "encounters", pretend they are somehow justified, celebrate the men who carry them out -- we're going to see more of them. Eventually inevitably, it will touch you. You prepared for that?
Remember Kausar Bi. Khwaja Yunis. Budhan Sabar. Ishrat Jahan. Pradeep Goyal and Jagjit Singh. Jawed Fawda. Pinya Hari Kale.
And now Chongkham Sanjit.
What's left to say?
Manipur is in an uproar over this. No surprise there. As long as all of us wink at "encounters", pretend they are somehow justified, celebrate the men who carry them out -- we're going to see more of them. Eventually inevitably, it will touch you. You prepared for that?
Remember Kausar Bi. Khwaja Yunis. Budhan Sabar. Ishrat Jahan. Pradeep Goyal and Jagjit Singh. Jawed Fawda. Pinya Hari Kale.
And now Chongkham Sanjit.
Fighting
About fighting while travelling Bombay's trains, some thoughts. Your judgement free just like mine.
August 03, 2009
Before Gitanjali, or maybe after
In a full page ad (Indian Express, August 1) for Chate Coaching Classes and Chate International Academy ("... we GUIDE you to make your own IDENTITY!!!"), I ran across this inspiring message, reproduced verbatim, from Prof. MH Chate (Managing Director, Chate International Academy).
Where do you want to go?
In Ravindranath Tagore's poem, 'Alice in Wonderland': Alice soaks beauty of the nature while merrily wandering. She abruptly stops at some distance, since there are two pathways in two different direc-tions. She is confused to choose the correct path. Suddenly a cat arrives. She asks the cat the query she has. "Which way you want to lead?" the cat asks. Alice says, "I haven't yet decided." The cat reply's "Then follow any way, it doesn't make any difference."
Same is the case with many students. They endeavour to find the way and blame themselves after commuting a long distance. So friends, if you desire to avoid "the Alice situation", seriously think about your career. Which way you want to lead? Be unemployed due to lack of opportunities or accurately grab the job opportunities from India and abroad; this is to be decided by you.
What did you learn from this message? Here's what I took away:
* When there are two paths in different directions, an animal often arrives.
* The animal is a cat.
* If I want to soak the beauty of nature, I should wander merrily. Otherwise I will commute long distances.
* Chate is an excellent place to learn about our Indian heritage of great literature, like "Alice in Wonderland".
* Besides, it's time we all learned more about Ravindranath Tagore, inventor of the concept of zero.
***
A previous post about Chate: What about 1895?
Where do you want to go?
In Ravindranath Tagore's poem, 'Alice in Wonderland': Alice soaks beauty of the nature while merrily wandering. She abruptly stops at some distance, since there are two pathways in two different direc-tions. She is confused to choose the correct path. Suddenly a cat arrives. She asks the cat the query she has. "Which way you want to lead?" the cat asks. Alice says, "I haven't yet decided." The cat reply's "Then follow any way, it doesn't make any difference."
Same is the case with many students. They endeavour to find the way and blame themselves after commuting a long distance. So friends, if you desire to avoid "the Alice situation", seriously think about your career. Which way you want to lead? Be unemployed due to lack of opportunities or accurately grab the job opportunities from India and abroad; this is to be decided by you.
What did you learn from this message? Here's what I took away:
* When there are two paths in different directions, an animal often arrives.
* The animal is a cat.
* If I want to soak the beauty of nature, I should wander merrily. Otherwise I will commute long distances.
* Chate is an excellent place to learn about our Indian heritage of great literature, like "Alice in Wonderland".
* Besides, it's time we all learned more about Ravindranath Tagore, inventor of the concept of zero.
A previous post about Chate: What about 1895?
August 01, 2009
Voluble on Judgement
I hope to get slowly back to some regularity in blogging now.
To help aim for that road, yet one more plug: On Our Judgement Free, a story I remember with fondness and a shiver, each time: Voluble tonight. (Which has nothing to do with Eric Clapton).
To help aim for that road, yet one more plug: On Our Judgement Free, a story I remember with fondness and a shiver, each time: Voluble tonight. (Which has nothing to do with Eric Clapton).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)