yuck fou Ram Vilas Paswan

Who is this fucking Ram vilas paswan? How can he hold whole state machinery at ransom? What is more important, a Bihar without Laloo or Muslim Chief Minister? How can he make such a ridiculous demand and get away with it? This is not a good example of functioning democracy. This man does not have majority in the assembly election. He is not even runner up. He have trifle 30 seats or so. If he is thinks that he is only savior of Muslims in Bihar then why didn’t he made that clear before the results? Why didn’t he said, before election that, only a Muslim can rule Bihar? What is the logic behind this demand, because Muslims ruled and raped this land before? Or they are minority and that is the ticket to chief ministership. This is outrageous and sick. This is rape of democracy.

Or is it that the Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh is so large that it is lucrative vote bank now?

Objectifying Subject or Subjectifying Object

There are numerous differences between Indian and Western cultures. But one difference, which I believe is very important and which is missed in most of the literature, is the marked difference in perception of subject and object. In simple terms, a particular incidence which is subjective to western world is objective to Indian mind and vice versa.

The dictionary meaning of the word subjective is proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. Since renaissance in medieval ages the western nations constantly strived to break the shekels of structured and hierarchical society. The regulations of the society, the conventions, which every individual was supposed to follow, were repeatedly questioned. Everything became relative and subjective and open for different interpretations. At the same time the western world was rapidly capturing old eastern world and conquering new world. Add industrial revolution to this and world or at least Europe entered in the new order of market economy. The imperceptive papal power and its rigid Christianity became an obstacle for scientific development. Metaphysical and spiritual development became taboo and subject to backwardness. Materialism became mantra and human thirst to attain the highest physical comfort at all cost attained Himalayan height. Materialism is epitome of objectivism. If you do not attain certain goals or do not own certain things then you have achieved nothing. Driving BMW, having yacht and beach house etc are measures of happiness. But if a person kills another person for no reason then the killer does not necessarily to be bad, there will arguments in killers support. The killer become a subject not an object.

The basic philosophical thought of Indian religion is that the materialistic life is all Maya i.e. unreal. The spiritual and metaphysical development is ultimate way to attain the moksha. (Salvation) Obviously, this was in contrast with the new world order set by conquering Europe. For them, lack of faith in materialism is direct threat to their business and markets. Since then, these capitalistic nations are trying every way to discredit the Indian philosophy, branding it as old, archaic, rigid, discriminatory or simply obsolete. There is no religious head like Pope in any of Indian religion. (I am mainly considering Hinduism and Buddhism). So, no one within the religion tried to break the old way of thinking, which according to majority, if followed correctly is still relevant. The social structure changed over the period of time but society never deviated from basic tenet of religious philosophy that emphasizes more on spiritual development than material development. Indian people are used to see world in black and white. There are certain things that are bad and therefore should be shunned at all cost. People who do those things were treated as culprit and abhorred. There is no subjectiveness in those things. There are different ways to reach god but basically the spiritual ways were objective. There are certain ways set to attain salvation. In contrast, subjective thinking is paramount in materialism. Happiness of a person has nothing to do with his materialistic wealth. Good health and good family is desirable.

There was an interesting opinion poll published in TIME magazine. The question was would you accept pay-raise that would cost your family time? In US around 80% answered positively while in India around 80% or so people answered negatively.

A passages from Indian Philosophy

By Dr. S. Radhakrishnan

1) The political changes brought about by the establishment of the Mohammadan supremacy turned men’s minds into conservative moulds. In an age when individual self-assertion and private judgment threatened at every point to dissolve into anarchy the old social order and all stable conviction, the need for authoritative control was urgently felt. The mohammadan conquest, with its propagandist work and later the Christian missionary movement, attempted to shake the stability of Hindu society and in an age deeply conscious of instability, authority naturally became the rock on which alone it seemed that social safety and ethical order could be reared. The Hindu, in the face of the clash of cultures, fortified himself with conventions and barred all entry to invading ideas. His society, mistrusting reason and weary of argument, flung itself passionately into the arms of an authority which stamped all free questioning as sin. Since then it has failed in loyalty to its mission there were no longer any thinkers, but only scholars who refused to strike new notes, and were content to raise echoes of the old wall.

2) If the leaders of recent generations have been content to be mere echoes of the past and not independent voices, if they have been intellectual middlemen and not original thinkers, this sterility is to no small extent due to the shock of western spirit and the shame of subjection.

My Writing!

It’s not hard to notice that most of my blog is about current affairs. My purpose of maintaining blog is to express my opinions about current issues. I do read lot of current affairs so one may say that it must be easy for me to write all this stuff. But it is not that simple. Increasingly, it is getting difficult for me to write about contemporary topics. I would like to call it as my writer’s block! Not that I am a writer but who said that writers block happens only to writers! Strangely, the problem is not lack of ideas or thoughts but in fact, it is too many of them. Whenever I start writing about certain issue I start to see many new dimensions of it and I fell miserably whenever I try to cover all these dimensions.

For example I was trying to write a short column about whether India will be super power in the year 2020 or not. The issue was simple; in the sense the thesis statement was either yes or no. And the column should proceed with few arguments and facts to support the main thesis. At least that was my initial plan until I got lost in my own thoughts. I started well, but as I progressed I tried to incorporate so many factors like caste politics, regional politics, lack of assertiveness etc that I couldn’t find way to finish it. Though my column had lot of material, it was completely incoherent, confused and befuddled piece of writing.

I think I should stratify my thoughts. (I just learned stratification method in my Survey Sampling class.) Like, this is about Religion; this one is about nation-state and so on and so forth. This will help me in using only relevant data and points, while writing about certain issue.

Hmm! Now I am kind of confused on how to end this column. I guess I will just say see ya!

Aamir Khan and Secularism

I think I grew as a human being, as I grew from being a child to an adult. I realised that there is a lot of poison that can be spread in peoples’ minds. For example, what happened in Gujarat is really appalling. According to me, somebody like Modi is there, I mean there were Indians killed over there, innocent Indians killed over there. It is completely irrelevant whether they were Hindus or Muslims or Christians or Parsis or Sikhs. They were Indians being killed by a leader who was supposedly a leader, and he is responsible. He and his party, he and his people are responsible for the killings and trauma of thousands of Indians. And, in my opinion the person and the people who do this, indulge in this kind of things, are most unpatriotic. It’s a completely anti-Indian thing that has been done.

- Aamir Khan in his recent interview in Indian Express

Mr. Khan, there is nothing new about riots. There were plenty of riots before Gujrat riots. So you had plenty of chances to grow. Do you want list of it? How about 1992 riots of Mumbai, unlike Gujrat riots you were actually present in Mumbai during the riots. How about Bhiwandi riots of 1984? How about Hindu genocide in Kashmir in 1988? How about first Kar-Seva in 1989 when thousands of Hindus were killed for no reason by Mulayam Singh government? The Bhiwandi riots of 1970, Moradabad riots of 1984, Malegaon Jalgaon and Karhad riots the list goes on and on. I am not mentioning any riots before 1970 because Mr. Aamir Khan was born in 1965. Mr. Modi or his BJP were not in power in any of the above mentioned riots.

My point here is that people like Mr. Khan actually lays foundation for next riots. I am not supporting riots but when general populace sees that media, politicians and other major personalities always behave biased then the ‘healing’ never takes place. Mr. Khan has full freedom to express his opinion. But then it would be appreciative, only if he knows the history and express himself without any bias.

Gandhi and Savarkar

If you flip a coin then there equal probability of getting heads or tails. So, if there are two sides even to trivial matter like coin flipping then, why can’t there be two ways of attaining independence? Pretty long shot to compare coin flipping to independence struggle but as the Mr. Savarkar controversy continue to rage I realized that Savarkar hating is much more than just dirty politics. I am not concerned about Mani Shankar Aiyar because he is one of the pathetic creatures who always grow on the side wall of sewage pipe. But even Mr. Nehru was a Savarkar hater and we can certainly say that Mr. M. K. Gandhi wasn’t in much favor of Mr. Savarkar. I do not understand the reason behind it.

Let’s put it this way. Mr. Savarkar was staunch nationalist, indeed a Hindu nationalist. He loved his country more than his life and worked relentlessly to achieve independence. He been to jail numerous jail and one thing is sure that his jail terms were not like pleasure trips, as in case of Gandhi’s jail terms. A normal human being would break down if he were in Savarkar shoes. But only because of strong will power and fierce nationalism, Savarkar survived. I am not going in Mr. Savarkars life here. And I am not comparing Gandhi or Savarkar here. But my point is that only difference between them is there thinking line regarding to Independence struggle.

Gandhi was fanatically non violent, while for Savarkar, violence is necessary if situation demands. If Savarkar was proponent of Hindutva ideology then same can be said about Gandhi. Gandhi used to call himself Sanatan Hindu. Both of them were against Hindu untouchabilty and both of them wanted to revive Hinduism. Again, Gandhi wanted to do that peacefully and Savarkars approach was more masculine. Masculine in the sense, he wanted young men to be physically strong.

Given all these things what is reason behind all these generations of Savarkar hating? Gandhi didn’t like Savarkars way of struggle but he accepted it because according to him it a ‘different’ way to achieve independence. So why can’t all these Savarkar hating people understand this?

One argument is that he plotted to kill Gandhi, which is completely false. It was proven even in Indian court. Another argument is that he collaborated with British government. But all he did is to ask youth to join Army, so that they will gain access to arms and ammunition. And if situation arises then they will be able to fight with British army. What is wrong in that? It was a pragmatic move. And didn’t Gandhi stop Asahakaar movement of 1921 only because mob killed British soldiers. One can say that Gandhi was more concerned about British soldiers than Indian people. He wanted to British people to leave India in such a way that Indian people will continue to love British Empire! Isn’t this a criminal statement liable to treason? I mean India was raped by British people and millions people were dying due to hunger and poverty and here is Mr. Gandhi, who wanted Indian people to love British Empire.

I think for people like Nehru, it was just impossible to understand a person like Mr. Savarkars. He was too bright, too intelligent and too pragmatic for them. Continuing Savarkar bashing proves that the short sightedness, dumbness, selfishness of Mr. Nehru continues to this date.

Mani "Dog" Aiyar !

There was a huge controversy in India, when our petroleum minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar worked hard to remove a plaque in Andaman jails. The plaque lauded the efforts of V. D. Savarkar towards freedom movement. I am not sure what petroleum ministry has to do with the state affairs of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but the argument of Mr. Aiyar is that Mr. Savarkar was not a freedom fighter and he in fact collaborated with British government. So strange to hear from a man, who besides being a staunch communist, is an anti-national, a traitor himself.
During his student days in England, he actively participated in collecting money for Communist Party of China. The glitch is that, he was collecting money during Indo-China war! According to him, India attacked china and therefore china is a victim.
Later on when he was trying to get in Indian Foreign Service (IFS), his ‘nationalist’ efforts became big issue. Even Mr. Nehru, a staunch anti-Savarkar himself, couldn’t digest what Mr. Aiyar did in England. Finally, Mr. Aiyar had to give an assurance letter, negating his earlier acts.
Bravo! Mr. Aiyar! How unfortunate is India that we have ministers like him.

Turkey and Head-Scarf

In Turkey, women who are attending college or in government service are not supposed to wear purdah or head scarf. Even a senator is not supposed to do so. There was this documentary about a Senator in Turkish parliament who wore head scarf and landed herself in the controversy. Surprisingly, the document was anti-establishment and pro-head scarf.

Confused !

"Responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom"

This is the reason behind denying visa to Mr. Narendra Modi. Ok, granted that Mr. Modi did what he, as a public servant, should not have done. But US does not gain any higher moral ground. The attempt to appease Muslim minority in US and in other countries can be described at best as pathetic and at worst as a classic act of double standard.

How come Saudi price travel to US, when the religious rights of minorities are heavily slashed in Saudi? No one is allowed to follow any religion except Marxist ideology in China. Hey, I have strong intuition that there is some tampering going on related to religious freedom in china. There is Sharia law in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and bunch of other Arab countries that grossly mistreat minorities in those countries. How about that? And host of Taliban officials traveled to US in 1999. I do not believe that Taliban were democratic, secular and compassionate people who respected rights of minorities.

Help me out here, I am kind of confused.

All is well, who have oil well !

The recent act of rejecting US VISA to Mr. Narendra Modi is latest act of appeasing Muslim community. Ostensibly, it came from a country which is at war with terrorism, an Islamic terrorism to be precise and it captured one of the biggest Islamic country in the world. But I am not concerned with this. What hits me like a bullet is that throughout the world, if you see a little deep, then you would notice that almost all the problems has some relation with Islam. And at the same time almost all the countries are trying to woo Islamic community. How strange! I will furbish few evidences to support my argument.

Let us begin with India. It has almost 11% of its population Muslim. Though India had been battling with many problems like poverty, litracy etc, this one problem, the problem of “minority” is best publicized. And though India had been quite successful with host of its problem, the supposedly ill treatment towards minorities, particularly towards Muslims is considered as a black mark to Indian progress report. Wait a minute! What does it mean by ill treatment? Muslims have separate civil laws under Indian constitution, the same constitution which supposed to proclaim that all citizens are equal. So, for example Muslims can marry multiple times, while for people of other religion it is a crime. According to Outlook magazine, almost 90% of the riots are initiated by Muslims. I mean reason behind Gujrat riots was train burning, wasn’t it? There is a government subsidiary for Haj pilgrimage, nothing like that exists for Man-Sarovar yatra! They have special status in Kashmir and plus they get protection from Media even though they carried Hindu genocide in Kashmir in 1989. All the Islamic atrocities are erased from government textbook and guess what Mughal period is considered as golden period of Indian history even though “great” Akbar killed 200,000 Rajput at Chittor.

The list of such things is unlimited.

Let’s think about United Kingdome. I am not that conversant with its internal policies towards Muslim, but the picture that emerges from newspapers is quite bleak. Majority of the Muslim population is from Pakistan (Mirpuris) and Bangladesh. It is reported that most of the terrorist funding goes through London now. (Even Gaddafi stated this after 9/11)The finesbury mosque is infamous because of the inflammatory speech of its Imam’s and visits paid by number of known terrorist. Yeh! I know Mosque is open for everyone and it is place to worship but it is surely more than conincidence that many of the notorious and known terrorists have visited that mosque. Even Mohammad Atta had visited that mosque. Three years ago Britain encountered its first riots between Muslims and Whites in Bradford. Still, Britain is lenient about the VISA procedure towards Muslims.

US is battling with same problem. The Islamic population is increasing in alarming rate. Newark, Washington and Chicago area have more than 70 Islamic centers. It is believed that Mosque in Bronx had collected money that ultimately ended in Mohammad Atta’s bank balance. Similar things can been witnessed in Denmark, France and Germany and host of other European countries. But all of these countries persist with their appeasement policies towards Muslims.

Muslims are still labeled as persecuted. Though they are cause of problems in most of the cases, they still project themselves as victimized mainly by Israel, US, and by India, Britain etc and etc. Someone may think that, there is a concrete effort by Islamic community and Media throughout the world to project such image, but it is absurd as fighting between Islamic countries are legendry. Then there is only one explanation left that is that rest of the world is playing fool.

These Arab countries have made absolutely no contribution to the development of the world in any sense. No science, no math, no Arts, no trade strategies, absolutely nothing, All they have is oil, which is nature given. They can’t even drill their own oil; they need Americans and Britishers to do that.

Well! Didn’t I just answer my main questions? They have oil and they are playing their oil card well. Everybody needs oil so everybody has to appease Muslims everywhere. Mr. Modi, you worked really hard to make you state 2nd most industrialized state in India and one of the richest and literate too but too bad, you do not have oil beneath your soil.

'Superpower' India Inc !

Whether India will be super power or not is not a new question. It has been in public mindset since Mr. Nehru gave tryst with dynasty speech on Independence Day. But it is hard to define the word superpower. Do we mean that we want to militarily strong like USA? Or do we mean, given ‘peaceful’ nature of Indians, that roti, kapada aur makaan as the ultimate goal of our nation. And what is the probability of achieving this goal considering current situation of Indian state and its political class?

In any case, I sincerely believe that we need at least another 100 years to achieve these goals. It is just impossible to see India as a superpower nation by 2050, forget about 2020. It is a very slow process and we have to connect lot of dots to form exact picture of developed and strong India. The process is definitely underway but there are few issues we have deal with before proclaiming that India is on its way to ‘superpowerdom’. In this column I am trying to pin point three points which is making the task of making India a superpower almost impossible at this moment.

The most important thing needed for any nation to advance on development chart is best human resource. And at the same time it is necessary to manage that human capital. USA become superpower and continues to hold that position only because they attract best talent from every possible corner of the world and then manage them to perfection. India is blessed with one of the top most human capital in the world but unfortunately it is squandering this wealth by pure mismanagement. The success of Non Resident Indians in US and in other countries prove this point and shows us that if we could garner our home grown brain for development of India then the result would be stupendous. But our uneducated, short sighted and extremely corrupt political class on both national and state government level thinks other way.
I am not concerned about lack Research and Development in India. We do not have huge reservoir of money for continuous R&D as in US. But mismanagement here means, not giving talented people a fair chance. The extremely aggressive reservation policies are not only making our top notch brain fly from India but it is actually hampering development of Indian society in education sector. A society can make progress only on merit basis. Nepotism and favoritism are curses to the development. But vote bank policies are making the task of giving fair treatment to suitable people impossible.

The other important thing that is necessary for any country to become superpower is that its political class should be aware of potential energy of a country and deep in conscious the political and administrative class should think that India can be superpower. And then they should be able to install this faith and confidence in their country in general populace. Basically, citizens and ruling class both should have attitude that they have ability to become great and their superpower status will benefit world. British people used to think that they are actually “helping” Indian people rather than ruling them and same is with US citizen in case of Iraq. But the political class is so busy in playing dirty politics to keep themselves in power they do not have time to think about future of India. The burgeoning corruption in all possible spheres of administration is making the task of overall development like infrastructure of country impossible.

India is a lot different than any of the western country. We have very long history and highly developed culture. The way Indians work and think is different than western countries. So, developmental plans should be tailored according to the necessities and conditions of this country. Blindly aping the economic policies of western countries will not be good in long run. Sadly, that is what we are doing at this moment. Right from the film making (barring few efforts!) to the economic policies all we do is to copy what US does. Sure, capitalism is a better way of development but capitalism by US way is sure shot way of suicide. With deteriorating public health and complete crash of family structure, even US policy makers are grappling to find out way to deal with these problems in their current capitalistic model. Do we need to go through all this before we realize that, it is not what we wanted? Worsening public health post 1990 economic boom gives us glimpse of what is stored ahead if we continue to go down the US capitalistic way.

Though becoming superpower is a highly desirable growth, actually achieving it is a very hard task. I do not mean to sound pessimistic here. The achievements of India in last 50 years or so are worth applause. The literacy drive had stupendous success. Within fifty years we produced one of the top class universities of the world. The success of students passing from this university speaks volumes of its education institutional success. But we are talking about being a superpower here. It will give us power to impose our will on other nation and our decision will have decisive effects in world politics. Again, it is extremely ardent task. And I believe we need 100 years to overcome all the problems.

Peace through cricket !

Every time there is India-Pakistan match, almost all newspapers start talking about mushrooming peace between two countries. I just fail to understand how sports, especially cricket will bring peace between two countries that are at the two ends of a spectrum virtually on each and every issue. Granted that India and Pakistan were same country before 1947 and share same history. I believe that it’s the same blood that runs through Indians and Pakistanis. But in last 50 years or so one country progressed or at least striving hard to progress on every possible front while its counterpart has whirled down to the path of self-destruction. Let me give two examples.

Out of last 60 years Pakistan had been under dictatorship for more than 30 years. Pakistani army has prevailing say in all the decision related to Pakistani foreign policy. Kargil war was essentially waged by Pakistani army without knowledge or consent of its political class. And when they were battered by Indian army the army overthrew civilian government and established itself as a ruler again. None of such thing ever happened in India. Except, during the brief period of emergency India had unblemished record of flourishing democracy. Even during democracy Army kept itself out of politics.

Pakistan is founded on basis of Islam, which for theoretically and practically does not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions. Pakistan managed to wipe out almost entire Hindu minority population from Pakistan. The percentage of Pakistani Hindus fell drastically from around 10% to 12% in 1947 to meager 1% in 2000. The report published in The Week magazine about the treatment given to Pakistani Hindus by Muslim zamindars is more than disturbing. Take the example of cricket teams. In last 60 years Pakistani cricket team had only two Hindu players, Danish Kaneria and Anil Dalpat, While Indian cricket team had host of luminaries from minority community.

Such kind of comparisons can go on and on and on. But each comparison will reach same conclusion that Pakistan is diametrically opposite to what India is or what India stands for. Pakistan had been striving hard to dislodge India in every possible way. First was Punjab then was Kashmir and now North-east. They attacked India four times but were dusted down every time. Instead of wasting their energy money and time on India, if Pakistani government or for matter of fact Pakistani populace had used that energy in building their own country then Pakistan would have been in much better position.

The prospect of peace with Pakistan is nothing but mirage. Thinking of cricket as a possible way to achieve peace is sheer foolishness. Last time the visit of Pakistani team was followed by unnecessary but audacious invasion of Kargil by Pakistanis. And the cost was 1000 young Indian lives. I hope Indians still remember the bravery and deaths of those soldiers.

Health Economics

I read an interesting point today. Surprisingly it is from one of my study book. (How often can someone find something ‘interesting’ in a study book?) I am taking Health economics this semester. The basic concept of the course is to consider health as a capital. I was astounded to consider health as a capital. I mean all this time I used to consider capital as either money or infrastructure that give direct profit. But then even health gives you pleasure and good health. Thus, health is the capital which you spend in order to get happiness. Sounds so crazy!

When one person eats healthy food and exercises every day then that person is investing in health capital. The more you invest, more are the returns in terms of good health, and there by better productivity and happy life. Drinking alcohol, smoking and eating McDonald food reduces your health capital as you are more prone to diseases and you loose productivity. By this concept, now, even human health can be converted in dollars. One example – productivity loss due to cold is worth $6 billion in US per year.

Another fascinating fact I read in the book is that, when economy of a particular country booms the overall health of the society of that particular spirals down. As unemployment is high, lot of people have spare time to look after themselves. In general people eat on time and sleep regularly. And most importantly the stress level is low. So people are healthier. The situation is exactly opposite when economy is booming. People eat unhealthy food as they do not have time. The sleep less and are more anxious and under stress.

No wonder that the overall health of Indian health post 1990 boom is drastically deteriorating. Gobble few facts for taste.

1) While city-dwellers account for only 5 percent of India's billion-plus population, they consume 40 percent of the country's fat intake, according to The Times of India.

2) Nationwide, 31 percent of urban Indians are either overweight or obese, according to professor Anoop Misra, a specialist in metabolic diseases at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the country's leading medical school.

3) Recent studies using the criterion of 140/90 mmHg as the cut-off point for hypertension have shown a prevalence of 10%– 30.9% in urban areas, while earlier reports since 1950 showed a prevalence of 1%–3%.

Aniket Kamde

I don’t know why I suddenly remembered this incident. It happened long time ago. Lot of things happened after that. I experienced so many other events, some good and some bad that, I scarcely had time to keep this event in mind. But today, while coming from gym I remembered that event and realized that it’s worth writing because I learned a lot from it.

Aniket Kamade was my classmate in 6^th grade. I am not sure if I can still call him my friend because after certain incidences I stopped considering him as my friend. It was immaturity and silliness of me but I guess for him I continued to be his friend because he always used to talk nice to me.

Usually students complete their education up to 10^th grade in ten years. Few students complete this journey in 11 and rarely some requires 12 years. Aniket was one of those few but the way he was going he was sure to require lot more than twelve years to cross 10^th grade. He was already in school for at least eight years. But he was still in 6^th grade. And when I entered 7^th grade he remained loyal to our 6^th grade teachers.

Academic success was never an integral in my definition of a good person. So Aniket was my good friend. Though I used to stand in top five ranks in class, I was a back bencher like him. Another point that made us friend was that we used to live in same direction so sometimes we used ride together.

Once I had a fever for almost a week. Not to say I missed whole week of school but when I joined school I was very weak. My father or brother used to drop me to school and while coming back I used to come with one of my friends on their bicycle. One day there was heavy rain. I forgot my raincoat at home. I didn’t want to get wet as I just had lengthy fever. Then Kamade came and said let’s go home, I will give you ride. I told him that I can’t come as its raining pretty heavy. So, he offered me his raincoat so that I won’t get wet. I asked him what he is going to do. He gave me very funny answer. He said “I live near medical college so if I get fever I will have few injections and I will be just fine.” it was funny because even I could get few injections but I didn’t think that way and I took his raincoat. I was riding with him on his bicycle wearing his raincoat and he was paddling fast so that we can reach home (my home) early. By the time we reached my home he was soaked but he looked so happy and content because I was completely dry. And I was happy too because I was dry. I was so engrossed in myself that I didn’t look at him.

May be this incidence isn’t that great. But living in U.S. gave me plenty of different or weird experiences. It is hard for me understand someone in US. Granted, I am from totally foreign culture. But still things did not go as smooth as I expected. Selfishness is paramount behavior trait here. I am not saying that people in U.S.are worse or better, but it’s just different. And in such environment I certainly miss people like Aniket and I wish I could make more friends like him in US.

Iran War

Nothing special happened over last two weeks. There was one event, something called Iraq election but apart from that nothing in particular. Bush is busy in selling his Medicare and Social Security plans to people. Prince Charles is finally marrying his long time mistress and Condi. Rice said that US and Europe should go hand in hand now. Let the bygones be bygones in short. Wonderful! I am always amused at the US and Europe goes on destructing the world by either capitalism or by military power and after that they always come together. Anyways, a lot had been said about that and I don’t want to go into it.

In my last AIR (Association of International Relation – Rutgers current affairs discussion group) meeting we were discussing Bush Foreign policy part II. Everybody was giving their own opinions whether Bush will attack Iran or not.
In my opinion, at this moment it’s impossible for Bush to attack anyone else. Not because U.S. is stuck in quagmire in Iraq but simply stating U.S. do not have enough people to fight with Iranians. Also, Iran is much more united country than Iraq. Even though they are fundamentalist their rulers are not brutal and most importantly, their rulers are ‘their own’ rulers – that is they are Iranian and Shias. So there won’t be any ‘red carpet’ welcome for U.S. troops in Iran (there was none in Iraq what so ever!) and Iran’s army is well trained and in good spirit to fight with anyone. On the top of that I guess Iran has some weapon that has some relation with the word ‘nuclear’. So basically they have insured themselves with nuclear policy.

Well! That is it for now. I will get back if anything unexpected or expected event happens.

P.S. – Oh yes! If Bush could somehow sell war through NATO then it is possible that Iran will come under war cloud

Coming out of closet.

Why don’t US come out of closet? If James McGreevy can come out of closet and save his (ass) political life and his corrupt money then why doesn’t US government learn something from him? The reasons that US give to invade Iraq are as absurd as it can get. But such reasons makes its task of capturing oil (if indeed, they will be able to capture oil!) more difficult.

Inadvertently, the mask of humanity, freedom and democracy that US constantly wear is harming US more than ever. Consider this option. Instead of saying that we want free democracy in Iraq, what if US says that we are superpower and we practically depend on oil, and Iraq is second largest reservoir of oil. So, in our quest of new oil deposits we want Iraq. I mean, this wouldn’t be any strange or unheard argument. Since the beginning of Stone Age when humans used to fight with stones, the powerful rules the world.

I really doubt if Alexander the Great gave any reasons to invade other countries. His ultimate quest to win India did not spawn from the ideology of spreading freedom. In fact India was more advanced and rich civilization, but he wanted to win the entire known world so that he will be infinitively richer and powerful. There are scores of such example spread throughout the human history. In every era there is a superpower and it gave no reasons to any of its acts.

Is it practical to ask Genghis Khan that why did he killed millions of people? Or to Hitler? What is the reason behind Britain’s quest of dominating half of the world in 18^th century? Simply stated they needed more money and power so that they countryman will be able to live more luxurious life.

I sincerely believe if George Bush gave similar argument then world will be better off. First, all the moral arguments that are against war in Iraq will cease to exist as morality does not apply to powerful. (Michael Moore will loose his job!) Secondly the insurgents in Iraq will understand that they are fighting with Americans who are now ready to fight till death. That means till death of all insurgents.

The ruse of spreading democracy is not working properly nor will it work in future. On the other hand it is tarnishing the image of US in the areas where US actually does good work, for example in United Nations AIDS prevention efforts.

It’s high time that US people (US government already know this!) that their country is superpower. And whatever way they go, rest of the world will always keep bickering about their acts. So they better come out of closet and state that it’s their way or highway.

my "awesome" stay in Kuwait

good. i wrote 15 lines long blog on my stay in Kuwait. And now its not allowing me to copy and paste on my blog. This is height of ...hmm...i don't know. i am short of words and short of expressions. frustrated, annyoed, angry, jet-lagged and with little cough and cold. dang! i can't be worst than this.

I need to go home.......ASAP.......

Making of a Great Leader.

I am not sure when the media age started, because I was born and brought up in media age. But for this column’s sake I am considering that real media age started with the ascent of Hitler to the power. The years leading to WWII were growing years for Media. And though Nazi’s were defeated in 1945, the age of media was here to stay.

The important work of media is to influence people’s mind. I mean, theoretically they (Media) is supposed to put the truth in front of people and allowing people to decide what is correct and what is wrong. But that rarely happens.

One of the ways to influence people is to portray certain people’s life prominently. One such effort can be witnessed with the life of George W. Bush.

The recent front article of Time, where George W. Bush was awarded as a Man of the Year and eulogized by essays and photo essays is classic example of making dumb people great. There are scores of examples of such efforts. JFK, Ronald Regan in American politics. Rajiv Gandhi and I. K.Gujral in Indian politics. And even Mahatma Gandhi up to certain extent.

Look at the making of ‘Great’ George W. Busch. The procedure seems to be standard. Classic black and white photographs that supposedly depicts his life ‘behind’ the stage. And glossy diagrams of his family tree makes everyone great in his lineage and kind of shows us that he born great in great family. Good quotes which are usually written by speechwriters. Great world visions of him which are as stark to real policies of as Israel is to the Palestine. But all these things create a thick aura around the personal and it becomes increasingly hard to see that person through it. Such eulogy not only conceal leaders draw backs but at the same time gives him cover to carry out his own agenda, which, more often than not is centered around personal greed.

Such efforts hurt society to a great deal. That “Great” person may die, but his image remains solid in peoples mind and continues to hurt the nation in one way or another.

John Stewart once asked that why can not we have a media that portrays the reality and discerns truth from sham. And at the end allow the viewers to decide. I can’t agree more.

Chinmay's World

Chinmay's World

I ain't writing no soon. My exams are underway, actually i should say over me. so i don't have time to enlighten this world with my thoughts and knowledge. but I will be back!

UN

Whenever I talk with my friends about recent Iraq War, the issue of UN’s role in recent conflict inadvertently creeps in our discussion. We don’t discuss UN’s role per se, but we discuss UN’s viability in today’s world.

Personally, I think UN was established with too optimistic views. There is no way UN would have succeeded in its goal given 1950’s bi-polar world. Each nation had to take side of either of super-power. All though there was Non Aligned Moment, but even nations who drafted NAM end up taking sides. For example, India was notably pro-Russian.

The goal of UN to work peace and prosperity of whole globe was at best an illusion. I mean, each super-power were trying to gain as much power as possible, and were fighting in almost every corner of the world. At the same time these same super-powers were supporting UN for peace and prosperity of world community. Isn’t that ironic? A classic case of conflict of interest.

Fast forward the scenario in 1990’s. Russia was disintegrated and was no longer a superpower. US was the sole super-power and its economic, military and political power increased tremendously, particularly in 90’s. They became colossus in every sense. Their economy’s worth 11 trillion dollars. The next biggest economy is Japan, about half of US

‘s economy. The globalization made all the growing economies of the world depend on the US. Because in the world of supply and demand, US is biggest consumer in the world. So low wage nations like India and China are increasingly depending on US. There by handing more power to US.

Their military technology is beyond most of the world’s reach. (That technology is futile while dealing with Mr. Laden though) Their defense budget is $500 billion. India’s economy which is 11^th largest economy in the world is still $480 billions. Even if you add 10 biggest defense spending nations of the world (less US) their spending is still less than $500 billions. Plus, their military reach on the globe is unparallel in human history. They are present in almost all parts of the world, and they weaponry has ability to strike any part of the world at will.

In such situation, if they decide to attack Iraq what can UN do? There’s nothing in world that UN would able to stop US. Come on! US is the biggest donor to UN. Basically US sustain UN. Of course from humanitarian aid point of view UN definitely do great job. Their efforts in providing food and other supplies in Africa are stupendous. But again US is the single largest donor of money in all the categories. I mean, from forest protection to AIDS drug development, US is the chief because they give money.

So, at least from US point of view, UN is a redundant body. US do not have to listen to UN, if there’s anything, then it should be other way round.