2S
Techie. Writer. Photographer.
Archive for debates
August 8, 2007 at 11:15 am · Filed under debates
Three words immortalized Gandhi’s call for passive resistance against the colonization.
Three words that formed a mantra which beckoned the people of a nation to wake up to a new reality, and the possibility of freedom.
Three words that are still superfreaking relevant in today’s day and age.
While on a project in Bombay, I was put-up a stone’s throw away from the August Kranti Maidan, or the Gowalia Tank, where Mahatma Gandhi delivered the Quit India speech on this day over six decades ago, the 8th of August 1942. There are no signs of Gandhi there anymore, and it is saddening. It’s a pity to see that the ‘do or die’ approach is today reduced to run-chases by a country’s national cricket team, because that fervour for national service is either invisible, or worse - missing.
Personally, I salute Gandhi’s heart for India, and his vision. However, I do not believe that Ahimsa was the best approach to deal with invaders. To me, Gandhi wasn’t simply rooted in non-violence - he was blinded by it - and a nation’s quest for freedom cannot rest entirely on blind faith. That, for me, was a major flaw in Gandhi’s approach. Besides, I find it difficult to forgive Gandhi for not exploiting his power over the will of people to unite the nation physically. Gandhi vowed that he would never see the country partitioned, yet he quietly accepted it as a harsh reality.
I also hold freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad in the highest regard, mutineers who practiced another form of do or die, to the extent that he is identified as a terrorist in British history. His Atheistic approach shunned the leash of religions, ironically, uniting Hindus and Muslims as well. In spite of their ideals and their flaws, and in spite of all our flaws as a secular democracy today, I and a million others are indebted to them, for the simple reason that we were born in free India.
What is interesting to note is that Gandhi and Bhagat Singh both had the same objective. They both did, and did things differently. They both died, under different circumstances. Gandhi’s loyalty to deontological ethics and his obsession with non-violence curbed the hostility towards those who deserved it, translating his aggression into a defensive model that should not be confused with a ‘wait and watch’ approach. Bhagat Singh, however, was more of a consequentialist, ready to take a ‘wrong’ path to achieve the ‘right’ cause. A balance between these approaches seems to be the impossible solution, even today.
Read the rest of this entry »
August 6, 2007 at 10:56 pm · Filed under debates, terrorism
Tell you what, Al Qaeda is dumb, and what’s more - they’re a fake, because the outfit is seriously un-Islamic. They have us all fooled, but really, they don’t know crap about their faith.
The blind jackasses ought to pay more attention to their Islamiyat lessons. Jihad, FYI, is about struggle to preserve your faith, and not about gunning down innocent people on the streets.
Now, they threaten India. Shiver me timbers, they’re at it again.
So New Delhi is a target because we killed 100,000 muslims in Kashmir? With the blessings of Uncle Sam? We took help from the US to clean our backyard? Hello?
They’re not just terrorists, they’re absurdly dumb as well. Is this an Al-Qaeda statement or a Hollywood script? Don’t they get it? The US is absolutely uninterested in Kashmir, because hey - there’s no oil there. Elementary, dear Laden, they don’t bless anything.
And India promptly downplays the threat - though the news comes at a rather disturbing time, when our forces are a bit ‘occupied’ fetching people out from the wrath of the floods. Why downplay it? Because there’s no ‘confirmed’ threat, silly! What did they expect anyway, Bin Laden coming on air and going “InshAllah, with the blessings of the Almighty, we will be bombing your asses at 3pm on Wednesday?”
Get real, all of you.
I think Al Qaeda got their priorities wrong, anyway. The real threat to them is Pakistan, not India. Pak have played dirty once already with the Taleban when they figured that Bushy would be at their doorstep soon after 9/11. The greatest enemy lies within, and in AQ’s case, all around them. Ironically, Pak knows that it needs to act fast to flush the militants from within their nation, and that’s a crazy task given the sympathy AQ gets from Muslim fundamentalists.
And the fools, the idiots, the blind afterbirths of half-pregnant camels - AQ forgot to read the portions of the very religion they claim to be the ‘custodians’ of. Do they honestly think that they can bomb Indian targets without killing Muslims? What does their death amount to, Holy Sacrifice? Is AQ really that foolish and that ignorant of the religion they’re trying to ‘protect’? What are they reading, a Holy Book edited and tweaked to meet their military requirement? I don’t know who’s looking after this outfit, but that 6′6 chap who apparently masterminded 9/11 might’ve forgotten his brains back in Tora Bora.
Et moi? I hate these statements by ‘the base’ because it creates panic amongst Indians (who are getting as paranoid as the US, which itself is scary) and it fuels hatred for Muslims, and for Islam - a religion of peace, a religion that Al Qaeda doesn’t really represent. It makes extremist radical outfits like the Shit Shiv Sena look like smart-alecks when they come up with their baseless nonsensical anti-Muslim propaganda.
It creates unnecessary turmoil. The reaction? Although the Centre nearly rubbished the threat, Bangalore and Hyderabad look like they’ve stepped up security. In fact, Bangalore has a counter-terrorism unit. Great, good prompt action, but tell you what folks - this is reactive action. Not proactive.
As I learnt from my childhood days of playing the DOS version of Command and Conquer Red Alert, building a strong base is a great thing, but eventually, to win the war, you have to attack and exterminate every single enemy out there.
And how far up are we on that front? Ground-zero. We sat and watched, mere spectators, as the US launched one legitimate war (read: Kabul) and one fake one (read: Baghdad) in pursuit of the terrorists. I wonder why.
August 6, 2007 at 10:55 pm · Filed under cricket, debates
Revenge is sweet, much sweeter than jellybeans.
Apparently, Mike Atherton isn’t too pleased with the counter-aggression that India showed, in particular, Sreesanth. Maybe it’s understandable - the bowler in question bowls beamers, crashes into batsmen head-on and puts Prabhu Deva to shame on the pitch with his celebration that Harsha Bhogle famously named ‘rurally refreshing’.
Atherton writes that Sreesanth needs to be banned from the Oval test for bowling a beamer. Personally, I think Mikey needs to be banned from all forms of writing. Where was he anyway when there were jellybeans on the pitch?
By fining Sreesanth 50 per cent of his match fee for a shoulder nudge that could have inflicted no physical damage and ignoring the beamer which could have maimed a less alert batsman, the International Cricket Council once again showed a liking for the irrelevancies over the issues that matter.
Maim? Did he miss a hostile bouncer taking Sachin Tendulkar on, crashing into the helmet? Did he miss the force and impact? Does he really think that a Sreesath beamer is capable of permanent disfiguration of a certain Pietersen?
Besides, bowlers have every right to be aggressive. Someone’s taken cricket by the balls, literally, because bowlers are being mutilated out there. Twenty20, the field restrictions, South Africa chasing 434? So really, go ahead and send down a few. But, hello, maybe not beamers. Unless, of course, you do a Sreesanth and apologize immediately. Or feign it.
Right, so he *may*have sent that one accidentally, but that’s not the point. While Kevin and Mikey think that the aforementioned delivery had fatally destructive capabilities, I think it’s a whole load of horseshit. If you ask me, Pietersen deserves it for his histrionics on the field. He’s a bloody awesome batsman (I don’t mind paying good money to watch his demolition of an attack) but he needs to keep his tongue to himself, more often than not, just as Andre Nel.
As for Atherton, he can focus his verbage on sorting out disciplinary issues within the stubborn English camp before turning to us. Seriously, forget Gandhi for a bit on the field. It’s an eye for an eye, and a lethal Indian beamer for English profanity.
August 3, 2007 at 1:26 am · Filed under bangalore, debates
The Indian rickshaw is a deadly combination of a two-wheeler and a four-wheeler. Because the three-wheeled monster gives the impression to riders that - hey - I got a wheel more than you, so be careful. And the very monster turns into a sneaky little mouse, as most rickshaw drivers manage to fit one wheel through a miniscule gap in traffic, under the absurd and dangerous assumption that the two wheels behind will follow suit. The end result? Scratches galore, and enough road-fights.
Of course, that is if His-Highness rickshawaala agrees to transport us.
I had a word with a rick-driver who stays close to home, Suresh Gangadharan. The ‘charioteer’ is one of the rare honest ones out there who relies on the meter, allowing that mounted piece of metal to decide his fate and future. I had heard from another ‘rickie’ that were nearly 150,000 rickshaws in Bangalore, and it surprised me, so I talked to Suresh to find out more. Some figures he revealed include:
Over 95% of the rickshaws run on LPG (credit goes to the authorities for enforcing this) although not all have taken steps to reduce pollution. Suresh says that previously, with petrol, many drivers mixed it with kerosene and that was the root cause of increased pollution from the ricks. With gas (and authorities having enforced a good, quality distribution of LPG around the city) fewer ricks can forcibly pollute
Over a 170,000 rickshaws travel in Bangalore alone, each generating an average income of 1,000 rupees per day. Suresh points out, that atleast 80,000 rickshaws spend a full day in the city. Do the math: The city of Bangalore spends Rs. 80 million on rickshaw fares, every day
On an average, each driver works a 12-hour shift, and nearly every rickshaw has two drivers nominated against it. That leaves us with atleast 300,000 rickshaw drivers in the city. Considering the stereotype drivers, that’s a lot of alcohol consumption as well
The ARDU is the single-largest union representing the drivers. This makes them quite powerful: at any given point, they have potentially 300,000 people and the single most popular means of transportation in Bangalore under their control
Each owner makes anything between 170 to 300 rupees per day, per rickshaw. Each driver makes about 150 rupees per day, and an average of 200 on the weekends. Suresh claims that many generous foreigners have left 50 rupees, and sometimes even 100 rupees as tips when they were in a hurry during tennis matches and rock concerts
The living conditions for the rickshaw drivers are bad but a margin above the poverty line. Most of the average income goes into liquor, leaving the families distraught, the children uneducated and the wives often have to work as maids to feed the family
The bottom line? Much as we might hate them for their stubborness, incompatibility and their pride, these guys run the streets of Bangalore. So the next time you drive, and you find this rickshaw crossing your way like a metallic piece of manhood in your serene life, try and refrain from picking a fight, because it’s an army out there. It really is. If you don’t believe me, have a look at a video I made.
MG Road and around, this. They’ve taken over. Truly, if there was ever a vehicle engineered for the roads of India, here it is.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k430CeVbxug]
But that’s only until namma metro arrives in this garden-city-turned-chaosville. Which is, of course, a long wait.
Update: Uncle Jay pointed out that the word Rickshaw has Japanese origins, from the word jinirikisha which means ‘human powered vehicle’. Interesting, considering that it’s us who took it to a new level. More here.
August 1, 2007 at 12:34 pm · Filed under debates, movies
In particular, the views on Dutt.
Saw a post on the NDTV movies website - duck - here it comes.
« Previous entries ·
Next entries »
