Knowledge is power

The ongoing (or rather, just over) nuclear debate in India left me, like most of us, exasperated and furious. While I won’t comment on the issue itself in this blog, the point which I really want to make is this. Ours seems to be a polity which simply does not believe in informed decisions, and more importantly, informed debates. The public is taken to be too dumb or disinterested to understand finer details about important issues. Everything is fought and decided on the basis of mere rhetoric and drama.

I always used to wonder why is it that while the US always has a live presidential debate between the candidates before the elections, we never have any such thing. Why is Sonia Gandhi or Vajpayee or Manmohan Singh never there on any panel discussion pre-election, when it is them who are going to decide the fate of this country and not the Kapil Sibals (Min of Ocean Technology after all the footage he takes) and Arun Jaitleys. And the nuclear issue only makes the point more blatant.
Here is (was) a pact which could catapult India to the nuclear league. Fine, there was a lot of misgivings on the deal from the Left and the BJP. But then, was the issue discussed at all in the Parliament? I saw the debate..the poor PM was trying to speak amidst a drone of ‘nahi chalega nahi chalega..’ from the opposition; they allowed absolutely nothing to be spoken, let alone debated

Fine, so the Govt is not allowed to discuss I Parliament. But does it try to force a debate. Does it ask for a live televised discussion? Does the PM come on TV and state all the facts about the deal in fine detail, explaining all the pros and cons to the nation? No.

What about the Left. Mr Prakash Karat actually states that the Left opposition is based on aspects of the deal which the public will not be able to understand! Besides using terms like the Hydes Act, does he explain anything? Does anyone still know what is the stated basis of the Lefts opposition to the deal? Nope. Sitaram Yechury writes a weekly column in HT. During that month, he wrote on the US and its hypocrisy, on poverty and common man, on communalism, on everything except the deal. These few handful of Karats and Bardhans and Yechurys and their 1970s stuck comrades who have never even fought an election are holding the country and its govt ransom for reasons which they decide not to explain!!

Think of it. Whatever we know of the deal and its ramifications is only through well-researched articles by various journalists. No official has written or spoken in black and white about the deal. Isn’t it sad? And what is worse is that all channels and we citizens seem to have accepted this without much of a fight. Really, these RTI campaigns suddenly seem so useless. What right to information are we talking of when the govt can be brought down without anyone knowing the reason.
I believe that its time that we force the government to involve the public much more in the decision making process. And it is the media that needs to take a lead on this issue. We don’t need needless histrionics and high-decibeled debates on TV. We need more concrete facts and hard data about various issues. And we need them to be drilled into the common man’s mind by the media till he is forced to think about them and come to informed conclusions and decisions. That’s what responsible citizenship is about. That’s what responsible reporting is about. And that’s what responsible governance is about.

Bond.. James Bond

I have been dying to write on Bond since the time news came of it being released soon. I am a big Bond fan, having lapped up most of his films (yes, even Octopussy and Man with the Golden Gun). So you can imagine my frustration on not finding the time to write for all this time thanks to exams, what with all the papers running reels and reels on him. The problem with writing a blog so late obviously is that there’s very little left unsaid (specially with Vir Sanghvi writing 3 pages on him in Brunch). Ian Fleming, Bonds history and origin, Bond girls, Bond villains, Bond drinks, Bond scenes, almost everythings been covered in detail. So I’ll write instead on what I like most in Bond films. So, here goes…

My first Bond movie was The world is not enough. Saw it after 10th exams. Was completely bowled over. Pierce Brosnan was just what I imagined Bond to be like, suave, sophisticated and a great womaniser. Elektra King was definitely the hottest Bond girl I have seen till date. And the action was outstanding and yet so believable with Bond doing it. Followed it up soon with Tomorrow never dies with that brilliant car sequence and a fantastic villain in Jonathan Pryce, who plays a media magnate. And I knew I was hooked up forever.

Have watched quite a few films since then, and although many have been rather mediocre (read Roger Moore), I have remained a loyal fan. The current film Casino Royale of course reinforces the faith firmly, and more than that, promises a lot more in the future (more on that later).

I won’t write much on Bond himself per se ‘cos too much has been already written; instead I’ll write on what I await the most in Bond films. Now, once you have seen your first Bond film, the next cannot have the same impact ever again. Because now you are no longer overwhelmed by Bond himself. Neither are Bond girls as hot or hyped as they used to be. Its usually the villain who I look forward to the most. Two aspects of the villain more specifically.

Now the villain in a Bond film is mostly a rich powerful suited-booted fellow. Not the type who is a match against Bond one-on-one. But the boss usually has a henchman, specially in the older films. This henchman is a superman of sorts; built like a bull, devoted to his boss like a robot, and usually having a special weapon or style of killing others. This guy seems invulnerable and impossible to beat, with Bond too usually sidewinking him or giving him the slip in most of the film, but never really besting him till the end. This henchman is a Hiranyakashipu of sorts, who can be beaten only in those special circumstances at that special time in that special way. Throughout the film, you keep waiting for that and wondering how the hell will Bond do it. And for me, that is the climax of the film, when Bond meets and beats the henchman in his indomitable manner.

I must of course mention Goldfinger now, for nothing exemplifies what I said more than that film. Its henchman is a Japanese wrestler who uses his steel-rimmed razor sharp hat like a boomerang to kill others. The way Sean Connery kills him in the end is one of the best action sequences ever, and keeps you guessing throughout (I wont reveal it though). Another one is The spy who loved me, who has this giant of a guy with steel teeth, with which he breaks locks as well as necks and bones. Nothing exemplifies the ‘brain over brawns’ funda better than these two fighting (although he doesn’t die in the end; I am praying he stages a comeback soon). Unfortunately, the Roger Moore films usually had really sad henchmen (including a joker cum dwarf who Bond flicks away in the end in a box and locks him in). Brosnan’s were better, specially that Aryan in Tomorrow never dies, who actually makes you start believing what Hitler said about Germans being the superior race. But no where near the old ones.

The second aspect, of course, is the villain himself. Which is where again most of the recent Bonds disappoint. The older villains were pure villains, ie, they were actually evil and cruel. They didn’t kill for money, but because they enjoyed to. They wanted to destroy the world, or to just prove themselves and their superiority as the bad guy, or even to best Bond (man with golden gun). The newer one’s, however, are more of the selfish money-loving types; they don’t kill for the kicks, but for the booty. That takes some sheen away. Jonathan Pryce as the media magnate was a welcome exception though; a megalomaniac who wants to manipulate and control the world through the media.

Who’s the best Bond? Almost everyone votes for Sean Connery. Me too. He was undoubtedly the most suave and stylish Bond. And not entirely humorless either. But I think Brosnan’s as good too. The ease with which he handles all that technology is awesome. He’s just unfortunate that Connery had the better films. An actor can only be as good as the role, after all. You cannot have sequences like Connery vs the Jap wrestler if you have an invisible car and laser beams and all to fight. Which is where the new Bonds lag behind again; there is too much technology and too little of Bond’s improvisation.

The best film? Tough one. I’ll vote for two- Goldfinger and The spy who loved me (for which you can forgive Moore for all the remaining crap he has rendered). Tomorrow never dies is fantastic too, though.

And Casino Royale?! Daniel Craig’s brilliant. A tough, rugged and arrogant Bond, and we love him for that. The opening sequence and the casino mindgames (for those who didn’t play poker inspite of my repeated attempts to induct you, hahaha…) are damn good. Unfortunately, the rest is disappointing. The villain’s really sad, nothing more than a card player. He is not even the boss, killed in the end not by Bond but by another criminal. There is no henchman. Vesper is good; an intelligent Bond girl with some great dialogues with Bond in the first scene. But the development of their romance is not too well edited and seems very patchy. The Bond soundtrack is hardly played (blasphemy). The title track is sad (why do most of them suck is something I can never understand, except for Madonnas Die another day and GNR’s Live and let die, have you heard any other good OST from Bond?). But it’s the action (or the lack of it) which disappoints most. If Die another day had too much of techno, this one has too little (I am hoping the next one will strike the propah balance). There is not even the cursory introduction of any gadgets by that very very English instructor. The fights are all bam-bam, with fists and punches and kicks all around. And Craig lacks the sophistication of Brosnan. But then, considering this is Craigs first film, and that he depicts a Bond who is in the process of becoming James Bond 007, you walk out of the theatre with the words ‘Bond, James Bond’ resounding in your ears and mind and praying for Bond 22 to release soon!

PS: Someone send Dhoom2 to the producers of Bond. They’ll atleast know how Bond girls are supposed to look.

Afzal and the media

This is not my take on Afzal. Too many people have said too many things about the entire issue. This is more of a take on the media’s take on Afzal, and on media in general.

Like most of us, I was glad on reading the SC judgement on the Parliament attacking. Came rather quickly, and was suitably tough (I am one of those who support the death penalty). But then the entire Kashmir rose up to support Afzal. The politicians played their usual roles; BJP supporting the hanging, the Kashmir Congress opposing it, and the Centre and Madam maintaining silence.

There was an eye-opening debate on the issue last Sunday on NDTV. Barkha Dutt conducted it, and the participants included Gheelani, Soli Sorabjee, Farookh Abdullah, a social activist, a member of separatist groups, and a former DGP Police Delhi. Just about everyone needed.

Unfortunately, as is now the rule with most of these discussions, the issue was never examined in depth. So there was Farookh Abdullah who kept on speaking with a somber face of how the hanging would burst the valley into flames but never spoke on why exactly the Kashmiris were so upset (and more unfortunately was never probed much on the same).

There was the separatist guy, who gave this weird argument of the Kashmiris. He said that the guys primarily involved (Masood Azhar and the Jaish chief) were in Pakistan and could not be hanged, so how can Afzal be given a death penalty when he was a tertiary, involved only with all the logistics and arms supply. By that logic, even those who had actually attacked Parliament should be left unhanged. Didn’t make much sense to me.

The DGP spoke exactly how most of us feel. How India must no longer remain a soft state, how providing logistics in a big way is as bad as performing the crime itself, blah blah blah, and that he has to be hanged.

The social activist spoke on how hanging itself is inhuman, and all the usual arguments, with Soli endorsing her in between.

It was Gheelani who stirred me to think. He told about how he was lucky to have got Jethmalani to defend himself, and how Afzal never got a good defence. He had actually objected to the lawyers he had been provided. The court proceedings being more of who is the better lawyer than which is the right side, Afzal has been seriously short-changed and deserves a relook. That was a fair point, but then, that’s something that should have been raised before or during the proceedings, and not now. Anyway, half point to him.

He continued, telling how the HC had actually reprimanded the police for forging evidence and forcing confessions during the case. Now that was news to me. And crucial news. Now, Afzals entire case is based only on circumstantial evidence. It is a little dangerous to rely on this for hanging a guy, especially if the police has been known to forge atleast a part of it. I thought that now the discussion would pick up and veer towards the important point – the case itself, and Afzal.
But no. Barkha cuts him short, and now Soli is asked to speak. Soli speaks well (of pardoning putting a dangerous precedent – what if the Gujarat accused also would demand the same). But the big point – He had not read the proceedings per se, and spoke only on the grounds that the judgement was water-tight. Now this is not fair. You bloody come to a national debate. You are the only lawyer on the panel; and you do not read up the case!!

Gheelani gets one last chance o speak. He informs us about how the US didn’t give death penalty to one of the 9/11 accused as he had a history of being beaten up by his mother and basically a troubled past. He tells about Afzals troubled past, how he was once some informer for BSF, then some incident happened and he was tortures like hell, and… he is cut up again. Barkha wants to get back to Soli.

Soli again said that he knew hadn’t read up the case, and again that provided the SC was right, he should be hanged. By now even I was shouting, how can you use that ‘provided’ so easily. A guy’s life depends on this.
So, that’s how the debate ended, with them discussing the Kashmir issue, terrorism in India, India being a soft state, Indians being emotive, and lots of oft-recycled arguments on hanging, with about 5 minutes of Gheelani speaking of Afzal and the case per se, with no follow-up by Barkha.

And I was left with a frustrated feeling of dejavu. You see, this is not the first time that an hour-long debate ended up with the issue being discussed for less than 5 minutes. And I am not singling out Barkha or NDTV. The sad truth is, most debates just go round and round the topic and sensationalise the issue, rather than probing into it in deep. That journalism is no longer investigative (save for probably Express) (nor is it impartial nowadays), but only reportive or tabloid. That it takes an entire state to raise its voice before journalists start actually examining the issue (both Sanghvi and Thapar wrote on Afzal today).

So please Barkha, next time you put up such a debate, get Gheelani and 2 lawyers who know all about the case (one for and one against), and discuss the issue itself. If Afzal needs to be pardoned, its not because of hanging itself being wrong or because of the ‘wider ramificatons’ of the issue (a very oft-used term), but because of the merits of the case itself.

Anyway, my take on Afzal in short. His sentence should be commuted to lifelong imprisonment. With the investigations not looking entirely unbiased, the evidence being only circumstantial, and the possibility him becoming a martyr in Kashmir, its both more just and safer that way. The sad part is, with all the hullabulla by the Kashmris and the BJP, I don’t think it ll actually be safer either way. The sadder part is, with all the hue and cry by the Kashmiris, there is going to be enormous pressure on Kalam, and thwe final decision is not probably going to be based on the merits of the case as such, but on its wider implications. And the saddest part is, if the Kashmiris wouldn’t have done all this, I would never have reached this conclusion at all.

PS: If any journalist is out there, please put some comprehensive and complete article on the case and Afzal out there.

The greatest sportsman ever?

Imagine Shoaib bowling so fast that the authorities decide to make it a 30 yard pitch for him. Or Sachin being so dominant that its decided to give one-tap-one-hand out when he is batting to create a level-playing field. Or imagine making Tiger Woods play 20 holes instead of 18 to get some excitement and competition into golf. Sounds stupid na. (Note: I am not writing on reservations).

Now imagine a sportsman who dominated his sport so much that the authorities were actually forced to change the rules and create handicaps for him and his team so as to remove the inevitability associated with the results of every competition. Won’t you call him the greatest sportsman ever? And specially so if he does all this inspite of a life-threatening accident during the peak of his career. Indeed, for me, Michael Schumacher is the greatest sportsmen ever, for his sheer dominance of Formula one racing. The maximum Grand Prix wins ever (90), the maximum Driver’s trophies ever (7), the maximum pole positions ever, the maximum wins in a single season ever,… it really doesn’t take much research to know the various records of Formula1 racing; they are all in his name. He dominated the 2003 season so much that the F1 organisers were actually driven to change rules to decrease his dominance!
Whats so special about his career is not just the dominance, but also the humility of this guy. Never ever has anyone heard any tantrums, any off-the-track scandal, any misbehaviour, any airs; not a single blotch on his record, which is quite rare in todays sports era (Carl Lewis and Lance Armstrong have their doping charges, Zidane has his famous headbutt, most sportspersons have had divorces or affairs; Tiger Woods is probably the only other guy who comes as clean as Schumi). He has always been the perfect ambassador for his sport, creating a worldwide following for it.

Another great quality is of course his resilience; F1 is a very tough sport indeed. To succeed in it at the age of 38 speaks volumes of his fitness and resilience. Most good sportsmen either call it a day during their prime (end on a winning note) or fade away slowly with age. This guy had a bad outing last season and the first half of this season, but still has the attitude not to throw in the towel and rest on his laurels but to fight back. He won the Italian Grand Prix today and is right ahead in the race to the trophy. He has announced his plans for retiring at the end of this season. Indeed, a final 8th Driver’s trophy would be a befitting end to the greatest of all sports careers

Auf wieder sehen, Schumi. We will miss you indeed.

PS: It is really difficult to chose one best sportsperson ever. Whom wud u vote for?

Adios Agassi

For me, Andre Agassi is the best tennis personality ever. Please note my words. Sampras and Federer may be better players, but this guy is really the one to learn from.

Andre began his career as the ‘hippie’ of tennis. With his long hair, rockstar ways, brash attitude and coloured clothes, he radicalised the sport, bringing in much colour and attitude in this dry gentleman’s game. He glamourised tennis much before Sharapova and Pirce came, and in a much bigger way. And it wasn’t only a show off. He had the guts to speak and act what he thought. He actually skipped Wimbledon to protest its rules of wearing only white! And to complete the fairy tale Wimbledon was the first Grand lam he won later on!!
As a player, he undoubtedly was the best returner of serve. And had one of the best ground strokes ever. Indeed, what was special about his game was the fact that he could play well on any surface (this is where Sampras and Becker lose out). Ee it grass or hard court (his favourite) or clay, he was always a threat. It’s a well known fact that he is one of the only 5 players in the history of the Open era to have won all four Grand Slams. But what is not publicized is that he is the only player to have won on all four surfaces (during the time the remaining 4 played, there were only 2 surfaces, not 3). Which is what makes him so great. He was good in the sport, while the rest were good on the surface.

He was a tennis player with the biggest of all handicaps – a height only 5’11’’ and a consequently weak serve and less reach to play a serve-n-volley game. And yet he defied all odds to emerge a winner. He is only aberration to Arthur Ashe’s prediction that no man below 6 feet can win Wimbledon. I often imagine what would have been the case had he been 6’2’’ or something! He would have probably defeated Sampras left-handed then.

But what is most admirable about Andre is how he reinvented himself. In between, his form and fitness had slumped to an all time low, with a ranking of 141. But then he matured; he realized that he was letting his talent go down the drain. And he stopped all his trash habits and stuck to a fitness schedule that saw him play at the age of 36 and still win against a 21-year old cramping tired Baghdatis (while his compatriots queued up to retire). From the young freak, he became the grand old man of tennis with effortless ease, with a soberly dressed shaven-headed appearance, responsible behaviour off-field, and a settled family life with who else but Steffi Graf (can’t wait for Jaden Gill to start playing; like people are born with silver spoons in their mouth, he’s born with 2 rackets in his hand!). Always the crowd favourite, his customary flying kisses at the end of each match to acknowledge his supporters shows how much he respects and cares for them.
Another aspect is his off-field charity. His charity trusts in Vegas make him the Bill Gates of sports as such.

Most sportsmen entertain you, some enthrall you with their play, few do it with consistency, and even fewer earn your respect for things beyond their performance on field. Andre managed to do all more and a few more. Indeed, in his youth, he taught us how to live. And now he has taught us how to age.

Adios Andre.

Bande main tha dam

I was going to write this blog much before watching Munnabhai; but never came about to doing it, thanks to the grueling final year studies. But after watching it (plus a comment from Shaun), I knew I had to write this.

I, like most of the youth, have a pretty anti-convention anti-establishment personality. So, when throughout school and college, Gandhiji’s ‘mahatma’ness was hammered down our heads, I obviously started viewing him and all his policies with jaundiced eyes. Not that I held him in contempt or anything; I respected him a lot. But whenever any debate used to occur amongst us friends, you can guess which side I argued for. And armed with a lot of facts taught by one of my history teachers Sir Neville (who was pretty blatantly anti-Gandhi) and having read excerpts from Godse’s book on 101 reasons for killing Gandhi, I did argue pretty well too.

But now I have realized that whenever you look at a person with prejudice, you always unconsciously tend to magnify his flaws and downplay his great deeds. You see, over a period of time, his ideals and practices become so much a part of daily life and affairs that you tend to take them for granted and do not realize the epoch-making achievement they represent. And that’s what happened to me vis-à-vis Gandhi.
Its all thanks to YFE that I have finally realized this (and many other fundas). Indeed, we call YFE the second struggle for freedom, this time from casteism and divisiveness. And it owes as much to Gandhian principles and ideology as the first one did. Only after all the lathi-charges and rasta rokos and candle protests and human chains did it strike me how this man revolutionized the very concept of protest. Just look at history. Each and every struggle has been so bloody and violent. Only a mahaan atma could have thought of such a novel and conscientious way of protesting injustice. Indeed, one of the chief reasons of the success and respect our struggle got was due to our adherence to non-violence. You just have to look at the extremely violent and derogatory Mandal I protests to realize why we have been much more successful.

Gandhiji was no doubt a mahatma. Only an extremely noble soul could have conceptualized satyagraha and stuck to it throughout while leading the entire nation to freedom using this most potent weapon, without ever falling prey to the very enticing path of a violent revolt (he could have later on easily thrown out the Britishers using violence; he had the entire nation at your beck and call).
And his ideals still hold good. In fact with all the media around, they are a much stronger force than ever before (no reference to the lathi-charge!). And Munnabhai puts it across in a very sweet subtle way. Look at the way the pensioner tackled the bribing issue. I just hope something like this will happen soon in actuality (women will have to find other means though). Unfortunately, the one flaw with the film is that it ultimately remains mainly a feel-good film with a subtle message (which might incite people like me who have just experienced the power of satyagraha themselves), and not the RDB style of hammering the message in, which stirs the public to introspect and act. But hopefully, the generation is awakening and a revolution is about to begin!!

We Indians are basically a very decent, sober and non-violent lot. We don’t expect too much, we don’t demand too much, and we are quite adjusting in nature. We will bear the local train crowd, we will bear the dirty toilets and pot-holed roads, we will bear corrupt officials and incompetent governance, we are actually a dream public for any politician.

Whenever any injustice is done, we all feel very strongly against it. We will sit in our drawing rooms and discuss it threadbare with anyone and everyone. Nowadays, with the advent of sms es, its become even more convenient for us. We can message our protest and silence all scruples, feel that we have done our bit. But if someone is protesting against it in front of us, we wont join in; we are after all a non-violent and decent lot. Some of us become cynical over the years, blame everything on the system and just live insulated lives; or just go abroad.

The injustice now becomes a law; it now slowly becomes a part of our lives. We get adjusted to it and learn to live with it. But the power-hungry politicians can never stop. So they decide to test our decency again. So they increase the injustice for their selfish political gains. Most of us go through the same routine again, more drawing-room discussions, more sms es and emails, more frustration, more blaming the system; and then will again get used to it. And the same cycle will repeat again and again. Till of course all limits are crossed, our limit of tolerance and decency is reached. When we realize that just how terrorists cannot be dealt with humane behaviour and tolerance, so also the politicians. That its time to shed off the garb of decency and non-violence (used to hide our basic laziness, indifference and cowardice) and take some action.

The Youth For Equality has decided. That the time is RIGHT NOW. That we cannot let the politicians make us scapegoats for their incompetence in improving the lot of the reserved category for the past 59 years. That its time to stop them from ruining our beautiful country anymore.

It time for you to make your decision. Whether the time is now, or whether it is when 50% reservations will be implemented in jobs, or whether when they make reservations in education 70% (its there in Tamil Nadu already), or when they make it 100%. Or whether its time for you to shift abroad.

I faced the brutality of the police in front of the Governor’s residence today as the whole nation watched. How the police mercilessly ran even after girls to beat them up. How one policeman beat us to the extent that he broke his lathi. I saw how the DCP lied without batting an eyelid that we peacefully protesting students were trying to get inside the Governor’s house. If even this doesn’t make your blood boil, then I don’t know what will. If you still don’t come out to support us, it is we and not the politicians who will lead this country to its ruin. Remember – Democracy is the best way of ensuring that the public gets exactly what it deserves.

We often blame caste based voting for the election of incompetent politicians. And we always blame the ‘lower class’ and ‘illiterate’ masses for the same. The middle class is always the sufferer, paying the price of this.
Well, this myth is shattered for me at least. The educated middle class is at least as much, if not more, responsible for the caste based politics ruining this country. And this became clear to me after, guess what, the results of the various game shows held throughout the year.
Here is a concept based on sms voting, which is done mainly by the middle class people. If we were so merit based, the deserving candidates should have won here at least. But look at the results. Debojit beats the other guy (forgot his name) in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa. If he were actually the better candidate, he would have obviously got more votes from all over the country. But no, it’s the East zone which outvotes the rest of the country combined for him! Qazi, of course, is another example. But the shocking loss of Karunya to Sandeep is the final nail in the coffin. Here is a guy who is undoubtedly ten times better than opponent, acclaimed in every episode and by every music guru. And he still loses! Because he is from from the South, where people don’t follow Hindi music excessively. While Sandeep is from Rajasthan, and the entire North votes for him.
So next time another inept MLA gets elected, I know whom to blame.
PS: I too had voted for Karunya. So don’t point fingers at me.

‘If the strategy doesn’t work, rethink your premises’

I don’t remember where I have read this line (think it was a Ludlum). But I just wish that Arjun Singh has heard of this. Before you groan, I promise this is my last blog on this topic. Its basically a refinement and remixing of the previous blogs, based on the feedback I received.

What I basically still want to say is that 33%, 50%, 70%, even 90% reservation will never change the current scenario. Because the premise on which it is based itself is flawed. I won’t waste space stating the same points again. But the fact that reservations haven’t worked as they should have indicates the same.

Besides the long term objective of improving primary education, I had said that there should be a cut-off for the RC too. Here’s presenting how.

The effect of reservations is like a bell-shaped curve. There is an optimum level, beyond which it defeats its very purpose, by causing the selection of a candidate who cannot cope up with the seat and its requirements. Hence the cut-off.
The problem is, how to decide the cut-off. Simple stats. Determine the peak of the curve. Get the data about the performances of the RCs of the past say 10 years, and check upto what rank or marks have the students proved successful (passing without grace in Med, getting a minimum 5 pointer score in IIT). Keep that as the cut-off. This way you can optimize reservations. Not that tough na.

Remember, reservations are supposed to be a temporary measure to restore social equality and opportunity, to achieve what Marx had said – From each according to his capacity to each according to his need. If we ignore the capacity part, they obviously can’t work.

PS: I love the title phrase. In fact, the main purpose of the blog is to introduce that phrase. Because I sincerely believe that this is one of the many areas where our politicians go wrong. They don’t go back and check their premises. If things don’t work they simply implement the flawed plan to an even greater extent. Reservations is a classical example. The flyover controversy is another, so that they never realize that flyovers will only Increase traffic and not Improve it, and try to solve the problem by building more and more of them.

Munich

I saw Munich last Monday. And I m writing this blog 6 days after that - on Sunday. And thank God for that. For if I had written it immediately after watching the film, the feedback would have been quite different. Why? Let me explain.

Thanks to final year, I have missed quite a few good movies (the last movie before it was RDB). Plus, it was a Spielberg film, and on a subject which I (like most of us) am quite interested. So, I was obviously looking forward to it. But the movie didn’t quite turn out as expected. Firstly, let me tell you that Munich is no ‘Jewish’ film. So don’t expect another Schindler’s list. Secondly, its not a spy-thriller either. In fact, this is where Spielberg botches it up a bit. He tries to give the viewer a bit of Ludlum and Puzo along with Leon Uris.

So then, what is Munich all about? And why do I still want everyone to watch it? Munich is basically a story on terrorism, of what goes through the minds of the terrorists, and more importantly, how there is no black and white in such situations; its all grey. Its about how a man sets about to avenge the Munich massacre, how this normal family man becomes an assassin, how he starts killing people on the list provided to him by Mossad, and their replacements, and their acquaintances, and how he slowly realizes that he himself has become one like them; that this entire business is a vicious circle which has no end or purpose; that for every one killed by him, there will be one killed by them and one replacement sent by them.

There are some movies which are impact films; you come out of the theater all heated up (RDB) or all dehydrated with your tears (Black). There are others which are meant to enjoy and forget (most movies). But there are a few films which have a subtle message hidden in them which somehow penetrates your subconscious without you knowing it; you will think more and more about them in the days to follow even though you may not enjoy the 3 hours in the theatre itself. Swades was one such film for me. Munich is another. Which is why it is so slow. Because the message has to seep into the viewer’s mind, and not get hammered in.

The best dialogue of the movie undoubtedly is that of a PLO terrorist arguing with Eric Bana. When Bana tells him that the Palestinians will never succeed in getting Palestine and they should quit the fight, the PLO guy says that the Jews, of all people, should understand the need of having a land they can call their own. And that when the Jews didn’t quit their fight for their homeland for so many centuries, how can they expect the Palestinians to quit. A really touching scene which says all that the movie is about.

The worst thing about the film?! That’s easy. Daniel Craig (although the ‘climax’ in the end gives him a good fight)!

PS: As far as quality goes, the movie is not first rate. Acting’s strictly OK, the Munich episode itself very shoddily shown, and the thriller part of it is non-existent. As I said, you will like it only later, once you forget all these and start remembering the feel and the message of the movie.

Save Mumbai

The Peddar road flyover is in the news again nowadays. Unfortunately, instead of using this opportunity to catch the government and make it finally sit up and take notice of our city and its needs, most Mumbaikers seem to have taken a pretty narrow view of the whole issue.

According to me, the Peddar road issue is symptomatic of what ails our city. The government, without much planning and foresight, went ahead with the Worli sea-link. Result - 26/7. In between comes the belated realization that the link alone will only worsen the congestion at its end at Worli. So what does it do? It hurriedly conjures up another grandiose plan, the Peddar road flyover, to decongest the area. And as usual, leaves the civic planners and the local residents out of the discussion. Result - the current scenario. To now convince everyone, it conjures one more plan – the Worli Nariman Point sealink!! Again without anyone hearing or discussing it.

Lets take it up one-by-one. The Worli link, I ll admit, was sanctioned after a lot of deliberation and discussion. So we might give it the benefit of doubt. Peddar Road. Well, one, it’s a hastily put up stopgap arrangement for a few years (till the next sealink is ready). Its utility goes after that. Two, the alternative proposed by the residents seems much more reasonable, keep the 6 lane road oneway instead of making a 3 lane oneway flyover (a better stopgap arrangement and a few thousand crores of taxpayers money saved) Three, and most important, it destroys the beauty of one of city’s biggest landmarks.

But what makes my blood boil is the Worli Nariman Point sealink proposal itself. Who the hell proposed it?! Marine Drive is THE identification of Mumbai. Imagine sitting out there and watching cars zoom by on a monstrous bridge instead of our beloved sunset on the horizon! The Queens’ necklace will look more like a faasi ka fanda. If More raped a girl at Marine Drive, this sealink will be equivalent to raping Marine Drive itself.

And the question is, where will we draw the line, that this is enough, that we cant deface our city anymore, if NOT FOR MARINE DRIVE? And we must realize that the traffic congestion can only be stopped by one way, good public transport. Only better roads are never the solution, as they ll just shift the equilibrium to a new higher level of congestion three years ahead. And that the more the congestion, the lesser the people who opt for individual cars (as Nutz and most Andheriites will vouch for).

Mumbai is much more than just about smoothly flowing traffic. Its about its people, its culture, its landmarks and its feel. The government, through its corruption, ineptness and just plain lack of sensitivity, has already harmed our beloved city enough. Be it 26/7, the removal of book-sellers from Flora, the losing out on the biggest opportunity to improve Mumbai through the mill land or the current Crawford market scenario (what do they plan next - converting Chor Bazaar into a mall?), the same thing is repeated, namely, no planning, no involvement of the people, and greed for money. When is this going to stop?

There is only one way. Its us. We the People. And the Media. We never protested when the Flora books were strewn all over the place. We kept mum when the the government couldn’t even produce enough electricity for us (again lack of foresight). But when we raised our voice, things changed. A simple example. 12 more Virar trains were started once the rail roko happened. Which means that there always was enough time in the schedule to introduce them. But only when the authorities were forced did they sit down and scheduled them in. Similarly, if forced, the authorities will get back to the drawing board and create a simpler plan to decongest Peddar Road without defacing it.

Which is what has to be done now. We have to FORCE the government to give us a better deal. Stop making people scapegoats for its ineptness and asking them to ‘sacrifice’ for the ‘interest’ of others. Get a Minister for Mumbai. Make a master plan. Get a Bangalore type Task Force to implement everything. It definitely not that simple. But once the wheel is set rolling it isn’t that tough either.

Ramblings on the Indian elections

The 2004 elections presented a rather fascinating study of the Indian public, press and polity. I, as a diligent student of the Indian psyche, kept an eagle’s eye view on the entire affairs, and have indeed done so ever since.
The results left the diligent followers of news channels and newspapers rather surprised. The NDA had done a pretty credible job and I was among the many who believed that 5 more years of its rule would have set the proverbial Indian elephant on the roll. I was, indeed, quite taken aback when the Congress turned the tables on the BJP combine. I mean, what about all those polls and analyses?! Dashed wrong of the news channels to mislead us like this. Made me feel like a fat-headed oaf. Took quite an effort, you know, to talk as if I had expected this all along and had just been humming the NDA tune to mislead everyone and make them feel good! But I suppose that having counted the chickens before they were hatched, they really couldn’t dwell too much on the eggs now.

Personally, I was kind of fond of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. A rather nice old chap; dignified, experienced, a sagely exterior, a bloody good orator, a good grasp of foreign affairs, pretty good economic policies, basically the kind of qualities you would want a bloke who is going to be a Prime Minister to have. And I used to be mighty pleased when all the political analysts and Prannoy Roys (where is he nowadays by the way?) seemed to have a sort of similar view pre-elections. It feels kind of good when the experts agree with you, what! Rather sad the way he has disappeared from the scene since then. Not a dignified retreat, I mean to say. Anyway, coming back to the point, just as in the case of the experts, I too starting having second thoughts about the Congress. The Indian public’s view is not one to be ignored, I mean. If it can elect Laloo and Mulayam and even the Left, then why not the Congress too?! Not civil, I mean, not to give it a chance too.

Which brought me to take a closer look at Sonia Gandhi; her qualities, that is. I was suitably impressed. A woman who has won the hearts of millions of Indians by her deeds inspite of being a foreign national definitely deserved the Noble peace prize. Oh sorry. Sonia Gandhi now. Well, she certainly was able to turn the tables on the NDA, wasn’t she! She has her own set of positives. A true nationalist. I mean, she didn’t surrender her Italian passport for 20 years. Takes some character, that. A great communicator too; she was able to turn the crowds on in spite of not knowing Hindi. Quite commendable. And that practice of hers to read in English text. Extraordinary, isn’t it! The capacity to read an English text in Hindi does seem to argue intelligence of a high order. It could have come rather handy in the future too. I mean, imagine the Indian PM addressing the Russians in Russian, French in French, Italians in Italy (that wouldn’t be difficult at all). Quite an impact no? And add to that her being a lady. Desh ki bahu and all that. Dashed indecent not to vote for such a person.

But well, politics is such a stage that the characters keep changing all too soon for the mind to fathom. I was rather taken aback the next day as her inner voice asked her to quit the post. Quite improper for this Inner voice of hers to make her do this. Not cricket, I mean, to make her bat and bowl and field and then be absent for the awards ceremony. Why didn’t the Inner voice make her to stop from contesting in that case? Would have made things much easier for all the analysts and people like me who would now have to rethink their opinions and views a third time. Thankfully, politicians as a breed show a remarkable resistance to such Inner voices (and the public’s voice as well). Not their fault entirely. Must be dashed difficult to listen to Inner voices in the din of Parliament and what not.

Anyway, her decision created quite a furore. I mean, rather taxing for everyone to comprehend such rapid developments, eh. One man actually threatened to commit suicide! Not too much to ask to stick to one stand, is it. Fortunately, he didn’t undertake the execution of the threat. Instead, I heard that one bloke took his life thinking that Sonia Gandhi was still going to become the PM (he obviously wasn’t a rapid thinker like me and still couldn’t come to terms with reality). The news about her Inner voice didn’t reach him in time for him to stop his listening to his own Inner voice.

Coming back to the latest developments, it had now been decided that Manmohan Singh would be the new PM. I mean, if there is one person with enough qualifications to replace Sonia Gandhi, wife of Rajiv Gandhi, bahu of Indira Gandhi (and the entire desh, as she ceaselessly keeps reminding us), loving sister-in-law of Maneka Gandhi, and a score old Indian citizen, it is Manmohan Singh, PhD Economics, gold medalist, father of the dream budget, pioneer of Indian reforms. Now, there are many people for whom it takes time for such decisions to get assembled under their concrete skulls, but as you would have realized by now, Akshay D Baheti is not one of them. I smartly saw the wiseness of the decision immediately and wasted no time in supporting it whole-heartedly. Only thing, the poor old chap would have a tough time listening to his own Inner voice, that of Sonia Gandhi, and the Left of course. A rather difficult and dicey balancing act.

But he has proved to perform it quite successfully till now, hasn’t he? And improving all the time, I’d think. Three cheers for good old MMS. And a toast to his success! For he’s a jolly good fellow!!

Sonia resigns

I wrote a long article in Gosumag the last time Sonia resigned. Obviously, I couldn’t resist the temptation of writing another one this time (in a serious vein though).

A lot has been written and said about this peculiar habit of hers. I won’t comment on whether it was a virtuous act, a political gimmick, converting a necessity into an opportunity, or, most probably, a mix of all of these. All people hold different and yet equally valid opinions on this.

But there is a fundamental difference between the previous resignation and this one, which no one seems to be pointing out. When she declined the post of the PM, there was a pretty strong sentiment in a large section of the populace against India having an inexperienced and an Italian PM. So, if she had taken the post, each and every action of hers was going to be dissected under an electron microscope, and looked at with a tinge of suspicion. Just imagine, if the Quattarochi account defreezing had happened with her being the PM, what hell would have broken loose!! Basically, what I am trying to say is that the last time she resigned, there was a strong and justifiable reason behind it,namely, saving a large section of the nation from a great emotional trauma, and protecting the post of the PM from needless bias and suspicion.

Now take a look at the current case. The law on the office of profit funda is an archaic one. It allows Vijay Mallya to be on the Parliamentary committee on Aviation affairs, but considers heading some state film institute an office of profit. Did Jaya Bacchan just resign quietly when she was asked to? No, she fought, as she had done nothing wrong. She had not used her post in the UP Film Institute for any unfair means. The case was not that of her being at fault, but the law being at fault. Then why should she resign?
Similarly, when Sonia Gandhi was targeted, no one even alleged that she had profited from her office in NAC. The entire case was based on a silly law, which if applied, would reduce the legislature to a scene similar to our Gynac lectures. She should have stood up and said that she has done nothing wrong. Either everyone resigns or they all discuss the issue seriously and amend the law. And probably bring Jaya back as well. And she might have apologized for the brazen way the Congress had tried to subvert the parliament and bring an ordinance. That’s what an honest politician and a statesman would do. Accept ones mistake and rectify it.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. Instead, we were re fed the old resignation drama. And surprisingly, everyone seems to have missed this. No Big Fight or We the People asks this simple question - Should she have actually resigned on such an issue?

Anyway, just one final observation. The only similarity between the 2 resignations is that in both, she was specifically targeted. She resigned in each case to uphold herself, not the party or the country. Her resignation would have made a much bigger impact and sound more ‘inner voicely’ if she had done so to protest something else, say to protest the Gujarat riots.

Mittals metal … n mettle

I had gone out for a family function last week. Met two bhaiyas of mine there, both big-shot industrialists. As we chatted about studies, family, jokes etc etc, conversation somehow led me to ask them a simple question; who was the best Indian businessman according to them. Didn’t get a unanimous answer though. They basically listed out the positives n negatives of each industrialist. (But one thing was definite n undebated – the Ambanis are chors). Mittal somehow never entered the discussion.

Now, after following all the news about the Arcelor developments, I don’t think there is anything left to debate. Laxmi Mittal is probably the definition of a self-made man. No inherited fortunes, no government backing, a late start in a traditional industry, and all the racism to deal with. N the man comes out trumps, creating the biggest steel group in the world in such a short time!! Bravo. Undoubtedly a brilliant man.

N whats more, he strikes the perfect balance about how to spend his money. He spent 30 million for his daughters wedding, probably has many other expensive tastes, but still does not have a playboy image. That’s because he keeps all this low-key. He is rich, he enjoys it, but he doesn’t flaunt it in front of the media. Media-friendly businessman, but not a media-savvy image.

Which made me watch his entire interview today on NDTV. I was expecting a suave smooth-talking typical English businessman. But no. Mittal is a person who holds his Indianness up his sleeve. He speaks totally non-accented English, with quite a few typical Indian errors creeping in (slightly Kapil Devish). Holds on to his Indian passport. When asked about the bid, he just gives a confident nonchalant shrug. No big words, no big self-righteous statements about all the injustice, no harps on racism. Just that shrug which says it all. Leave it to the share holders, he says. I will acquire it soon, u hear. He tells how he talked about the deal with the not-very-keen Arcelor CEO n gave him time to think. N how he was stalled by him for further discussions n that when he finally phoned him, the CEO hung up on him. ‘Line is bad’ was the excuse, he says with that typical smile of his. N what did he do. He put the entire proposal of the deal on the CEOs answering machine!!! Talk about brazen confidence n attitude. Boy, this guy deserves all our applause n support n more. Three cheers to Mittal metal. N Mittals mettle. N his Indianness.

N ya. He is a maru!

Be a rebel….But please don’t lose control

First let me set this clear. I liked Rang De Basanti. It’s a good film, with a seriously awesome soundtrack n a very good theme. I especially enjoyed the first half (which is wat probably made me expect too much,I guess). N I m inspired to a certain extent by it. But then why m I writing this? Because I m kind of pakaoed hearing from everyone how come u just ‘liked’ the film, its just mind-blowing n all that.(N probably ‘cos I hav nothing much 2 do 2day). So heres why I ll give it only 3 stars n not 5.

Slightly slow definitely, specially with the flashbacks looking like having been taken out from Legend of Bhagat Singh. But that’s an acceptable oft-committed blunder, I suppose. A little overdose of Punju for me, which, I believe, doesn’t suit sentimental scenes nor those showing bhari debates. But again that’s just a personal opinion.

The basic flaw however was the logic (or the lack of it) behind it all. When u make a film which in order to inspire the youth, its important that whatever u show should have some elementary sense in it. What the film is basically telling us is that if a railway accident occurs, u ought to go n kill the railway minister (which might not be a bad idea actually). But see, it was important to show that they KNEW that the defence minister was involved in it all. That he was corrupt n wantonly buying substandard equipment which might endanger the lives of the pilots. N that they tried to prove this to the public n were suppressed. Because then everything they did would have been justified. Unfortunately this was not shown in the movie but left to us to imagine. They just went out n killed him. Again, the simple way they went n killed him, the lathi-charge on a peaceful protest in front of live TV coverage, the climax in which they were brutally killed inspite of them announcing to the entire country that they were not terrorists (come on, that would be political suicide), all this seemed a bit too farfetched. And hence didn’t strike a chord to the extent it could have in me. As I said, be a rebel, but with a logical cause.

Maybe I m too technical. But u know, the point is that it wouldn’t have been too tough to incorporate all this into the movie. Every story has a potential. I enjoy a Kal ho na ho ‘cos it has been made as good as it can be within the limits of its potential. RDB, has however, fallen a bit short of it.

Nevertheless I enjoyed the film. It is a good attempt n a fresh original one. What ultimately matters is the message n the feel, which it definitely has. I ll soon 4get all these small details, but wat I will remember is the feel it gave me in the end. Films like Swades, Yuva, RDB have had a definite impact on the youth of 2day, n hopefully, will lead to a generation that awakens.

PS: How come the horseride was such a big issue, but the Heath minister had no problems with the smoking n drinking in the movie?!!

PPS: Would this movie have been released if the BJP n George Fernandes were still in power?!
PPPS: My favourite dialogue was obviously the one about v standing with one leg on the past n one on the future n peeing on our present. Actually, currently what suits most of us more is that v r standing with both feet on the present, back turned totally on the past, n peeing on our future!!
PPPPS: Do not miss the film if u haven’t yet watched it. It is still a must-watch. (N then read this again.)

Floyd

Well, here I am, trying out my 1st blog. Was never one to write any diary or poems or pen any thoughts (apart from certain faltu shayrees and a few thought provoking eye-openers on Sonia Gandhi). But well, with PSM and Ophthal over, I decided that I should do at least something constructive in III/II MBBS. And so I sat down 2 write. The topic wasn’t difficult to think at all. It had to be Floyd.

If u hear Pink Floyd 4 the 1st time, u ll wonder what makes them so famous. It ll sound like a cacophonyx of sorts, with them going too slow sometimes, too fast at other times, music drowning their voices in between, helicopters n laughter intermingling with the songs, specially if it’s The Wall. But u hear it 3-4 times n everything ll seem in perfect order. U ll start feelin the rhythm hidden in this seeming chaos, the beat which ll then sound in ur head n indeed ur mind the entire day, the amazing way in which the songs r all linked in the albums, n of course the lyrics.

When I listen to Elton John or Bon Jovi or most rock artists for that matter, I end up getting this vague feeling that all the songs sound more or less the same. But for Floyd, each n every song has an essence of its own; entirely different in both concept n sound from the others. And yet, when u hear an album, u know that each song belongs to it. That’s wat special about Floyd, they don’t just create individual songs, they create proper albums. How many times has it happened that u buy the album of an artist 4 one song n end up liking nothing else. Its exactly the opposite for Floyd. Take The Wall for example. While Brick in the Wall remains an anthem, believe me when I say that Comfortably Numb is no less a cult song. Nor for that matter half a dozen other songs in that album.

And now the crux of the point I want to make. Rock in the 21st century has been reduced to a few long-haired freaks, some wham-bam-booms n high pitched shouts. There is no spirit, no rebellion, no point as such in the songs. The closest v have to making a point is Eminem, which is not exactly the type of revolution v need, n Bono, whose rebellion is in his speeches rather than his songs. Come on U2, u r a music band; express urselves through that medium! Imagine that the Iraq war has happened n there’s not a single song protesting against it!! Hello, is there anybody listening! V want something new 2 be chanted in anti-war rallies!

Which is wat is so special about Floyd. Each song has a message n a spirit; it is cry against whatever is wrong with this world. Be it Brick in the Wall, Comfortably Numb, Us and Them, High Hopes, Goodbye Blue Sky …., every song is a protest, and it hits the nail on the head, n very hard indeed.

Anyway, for those now interested in sampling Floyd, I recommend to start with the anthem – The Wall. Dark Side of the Moon is my favourite album, especially its 2nd half, with Us and Them being just outstanding (u ll luv the sax in it). Division Bell is another good album, particularly the last three songs. Haven’t listened to the others as yet.

Enjoy.