All right. Just when I had given up hope. To be honest I wasn't pinning my hopes on Table Tennis and went to sleep. Of course I was surprised to see a new entry in the wikipedia page of India at 2008 Olympics.
It was Sushil Kumar, in the 66 kg freestyle wrestling. Congrats Sushil. Your achievement is as important as that of Abhinav. I think there are at least a few who are genuinely proud of you.
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
CA 01: Bomb Blasts - So What?
DISCLAIMER: This article is purely out of frustration. I expect this blog to deviate a lot, and so is the size of the blog. If you really have time in your hands, go ahead :)
I go to work and open news.google.com to see that Bangalore (Now, don't get me started by saying it is Bengaluru) was rocked by serial blasts. My reaction was "Again?", keeping in mind the events that unfolded at IISC. The next day, same Google News, the same blasts story, but now in Ahmedabad. This time I went... "What the ..."
There have been many ways in which terrorism has been potrayed in the Indian mainstream media. Just for the sake of comparison, they say that India has lost more lives in terrorism in the last two decades than to what the US lost in its entire history. These all sounds good, evoking enough sympathy, but does it have any impact on the outside world? No. We can do some soul-searching by asking a few questions to ourselves.
Let us start from the point where the Indian media compares the figures of lives lost to terrorism with say a superior country, for this argument sake, let us say the US. People read the news world over and does it create an impact? No. Any one else, I bet not. Now, let us start the pondering. Why?
That is because no one in the outside world cares. India is not an important country to care about. Why do we have to think that way?
Marketing is important. When terrorism happens either you play the big brother and respond decisively or play a victim. India doesn't do either. How do you come to this conclusion?
Even though India is the power in South Asia, it is extremely soft on extremism. It promptly condemns acts of terrorism in all forms, irrespective of where it happens on the earth, the issue is that it is the same even if it is on its own soil!
They say that a consulate or an embassy is actually the territory of the respective country. Movies like Bourne Identity tell you that very clearly. The laws of the local country will work only if the mission chooses to. So an attack on the embassy is an attack on the country it represents itself.
So what happened when they bombed the Indian embassy in Afghanistan? They strongly condemned it. Wait a minute. Of course they did treat it like a bombing in India - by verbally telling the terrorists that we will not tolerate. What a joke!
In the game of poker, there is this term called bleeding. In the sense, the player will be losing money in small amounts every round, but does not like getting out of the game. The same is the case with India too. We want to be treated like a super power and we like to be a part of the big game, but we won't act like one and as a result bleed. We care about our dignity more than the issues at hand.
Indians have this mentality of being proud if someone in the world does something great and has an Indian connection. Prove me wrong! Take Kalpana Chawla, Sunita Williams and Bobby Jindal as examples. We take pride because we are not bred in the culture of achieving something. So we look for people who has Indian roots, proudly proclaim that an Indian did it, create a powerpoint presentation and send it to all your friends in your email contact list. Seriously, I have not seen any other country doing it. please don't tell me that it is called "being-patriotic", it is being foolish. You should achieving something on your own rather than basking in the glory of someone else. Anyway, this is a seperate discussion on its own. Let me not deviate from the topic at hand here. When we take pride by trying to tie a person's root to India, shouldn't we react in a similar manner when our country is attacked?
No we don't. We use "peace loving country" very frequently in order to cover the fact that we are incapable of doing anything about it. This is the exact reason why we are not taken seriously by anybody in the world.
We go and tell other countries not to interfere in our affairs and yet, at the same time wait for the international community to "pressurise" our neighbouring countries to stop their sponsoring of terrorism. The worst part is that we have facts and evidence. Mind you folks, these countries want active terrorsim in India. My question is, are you trying to use the methods of ZGandhi like Ahimsa, Fasting, Non-violence, etc.?
I was watching a Tamil movie the other day by the name "Ayudham Seivom" where the hero gets the baddies to repent their mistakes by going on a fast. I couldn't resist laughing, seriously. Violence doesn't help, but if you ask me, so does non-violence. My theory of why Non-violence worked against the British is that they wanted peace to prevail too. They would not have been able to run their administration without peace. Their methods of violence was just a tactics but their ultimate aim was to control the behaviour. In the end, they "chose" to hold talks. Terrorists are not running an organization which needs your cooperation. They don't want to talk. Their ultimate aim is to get rid of you. In simple terms, they want you dead. You are making life easier for them by showing your other cheek after they slapped you on the other. They do not feel any remorse whatsoever.
There has to be some logical reasoning. Did the world care about us up until we tested at Pokhran? Did the world take note of the genocide until we decided to invade East Pakistan? Seriously, we lost credibility when we failed to do anything about the Mumbai serial blasts or when the Parliament was attacked. We pardon terrorists to let them come and bomb us back. We lost all our credibility there that when the Kabul mission was attacked recently, it was just another news. Everyone knew we don't do anything about it rather than increase security in other countries. Does anyone even remember that the Indian soil was attacked by a foriegn force and still we only did promptly condemned the act of terrorism in all forms?
The only thing that I can think of is that some Indian scientists are working on a super-secret project for destroying terrorists when you just need to condemn the attacks and say that you will defeat them.
I salute those who guard our borders against infiltration as they are our only hope of reducing such acts of terrorsim. We will continue to be a peace-loving country where it is our "dream" to have peace when none exists as of now. I read on the internet that folks are scared to leave their homes in Ahmedabad. Way to go peace lovers.
These rulers of the country are a worthless bunch. Let them usher into the modern era with the strategies of stone age hunting. Even the stone age hunters had better brains I would say. Shame on you folks and may the God shower with all the luck in the universe for those who are trying to "destroy" terrorism by just "strongly condemning" the attacks.
I go to work and open news.google.com to see that Bangalore (Now, don't get me started by saying it is Bengaluru) was rocked by serial blasts. My reaction was "Again?", keeping in mind the events that unfolded at IISC. The next day, same Google News, the same blasts story, but now in Ahmedabad. This time I went... "What the ..."
There have been many ways in which terrorism has been potrayed in the Indian mainstream media. Just for the sake of comparison, they say that India has lost more lives in terrorism in the last two decades than to what the US lost in its entire history. These all sounds good, evoking enough sympathy, but does it have any impact on the outside world? No. We can do some soul-searching by asking a few questions to ourselves.
Let us start from the point where the Indian media compares the figures of lives lost to terrorism with say a superior country, for this argument sake, let us say the US. People read the news world over and does it create an impact? No. Any one else, I bet not. Now, let us start the pondering. Why?
That is because no one in the outside world cares. India is not an important country to care about. Why do we have to think that way?
Marketing is important. When terrorism happens either you play the big brother and respond decisively or play a victim. India doesn't do either. How do you come to this conclusion?
Even though India is the power in South Asia, it is extremely soft on extremism. It promptly condemns acts of terrorism in all forms, irrespective of where it happens on the earth, the issue is that it is the same even if it is on its own soil!
They say that a consulate or an embassy is actually the territory of the respective country. Movies like Bourne Identity tell you that very clearly. The laws of the local country will work only if the mission chooses to. So an attack on the embassy is an attack on the country it represents itself.
So what happened when they bombed the Indian embassy in Afghanistan? They strongly condemned it. Wait a minute. Of course they did treat it like a bombing in India - by verbally telling the terrorists that we will not tolerate. What a joke!
In the game of poker, there is this term called bleeding. In the sense, the player will be losing money in small amounts every round, but does not like getting out of the game. The same is the case with India too. We want to be treated like a super power and we like to be a part of the big game, but we won't act like one and as a result bleed. We care about our dignity more than the issues at hand.
Indians have this mentality of being proud if someone in the world does something great and has an Indian connection. Prove me wrong! Take Kalpana Chawla, Sunita Williams and Bobby Jindal as examples. We take pride because we are not bred in the culture of achieving something. So we look for people who has Indian roots, proudly proclaim that an Indian did it, create a powerpoint presentation and send it to all your friends in your email contact list. Seriously, I have not seen any other country doing it. please don't tell me that it is called "being-patriotic", it is being foolish. You should achieving something on your own rather than basking in the glory of someone else. Anyway, this is a seperate discussion on its own. Let me not deviate from the topic at hand here. When we take pride by trying to tie a person's root to India, shouldn't we react in a similar manner when our country is attacked?
No we don't. We use "peace loving country" very frequently in order to cover the fact that we are incapable of doing anything about it. This is the exact reason why we are not taken seriously by anybody in the world.
We go and tell other countries not to interfere in our affairs and yet, at the same time wait for the international community to "pressurise" our neighbouring countries to stop their sponsoring of terrorism. The worst part is that we have facts and evidence. Mind you folks, these countries want active terrorsim in India. My question is, are you trying to use the methods of ZGandhi like Ahimsa, Fasting, Non-violence, etc.?
I was watching a Tamil movie the other day by the name "Ayudham Seivom" where the hero gets the baddies to repent their mistakes by going on a fast. I couldn't resist laughing, seriously. Violence doesn't help, but if you ask me, so does non-violence. My theory of why Non-violence worked against the British is that they wanted peace to prevail too. They would not have been able to run their administration without peace. Their methods of violence was just a tactics but their ultimate aim was to control the behaviour. In the end, they "chose" to hold talks. Terrorists are not running an organization which needs your cooperation. They don't want to talk. Their ultimate aim is to get rid of you. In simple terms, they want you dead. You are making life easier for them by showing your other cheek after they slapped you on the other. They do not feel any remorse whatsoever.
There has to be some logical reasoning. Did the world care about us up until we tested at Pokhran? Did the world take note of the genocide until we decided to invade East Pakistan? Seriously, we lost credibility when we failed to do anything about the Mumbai serial blasts or when the Parliament was attacked. We pardon terrorists to let them come and bomb us back. We lost all our credibility there that when the Kabul mission was attacked recently, it was just another news. Everyone knew we don't do anything about it rather than increase security in other countries. Does anyone even remember that the Indian soil was attacked by a foriegn force and still we only did promptly condemned the act of terrorism in all forms?
The only thing that I can think of is that some Indian scientists are working on a super-secret project for destroying terrorists when you just need to condemn the attacks and say that you will defeat them.
I salute those who guard our borders against infiltration as they are our only hope of reducing such acts of terrorsim. We will continue to be a peace-loving country where it is our "dream" to have peace when none exists as of now. I read on the internet that folks are scared to leave their homes in Ahmedabad. Way to go peace lovers.
These rulers of the country are a worthless bunch. Let them usher into the modern era with the strategies of stone age hunting. Even the stone age hunters had better brains I would say. Shame on you folks and may the God shower with all the luck in the universe for those who are trying to "destroy" terrorism by just "strongly condemning" the attacks.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
All's Mine: My recent purchases
Hmmm.... This is one of those off-topic posts, more about my personal possessions which I am always privy about. Discussing anything personal always puts me in one of those positions called "Uncomfortable". I hate them. Yet, I have managed to share some for the interest just because I am bored right now.
So, this post is about what I have bought of late. Online shopping has been the most favourite thing. When I moved to Charlotte from Chicago, I set up everything electronically. Hail the Internet. At the same time, I have made some stupid decisions in spite of all the information available, proving once again my decisions in haste always sucks!
Coming back to the topic, here are the list of e-stuff that I bought recently (In the year 2007).
1. 1998 Honda Civic LX (The only non e-stuff but worth mentioning :))
2. Blackberry Pearl
3. Plantronics Bluetooth Headset
4. Python Keyless entry & Alarm
5. Skyscan Atomic Clock
6. Mio C220 Digiwalker Portable GPS
7. Kensington Ci65m Wireless Mouse
8. HP DVD 940 Lightscribe External DVD Writer
9. iPod Nano 4 GB
10. A 1 GB RAM for the PC at Chennai
11. ADS Digital Photo Frame (The worst buy of 2007)
With my planned trip to India during the Holidays, bought a few stuff for my immediate relatives. Honestly, I have been running out of ideas. Whatever I feel like buying, seems to scare the shit out of me. What if they don't like it? What if they already have it? What if you can get the same thing there (and that too at a lesser price)? Everything points only to one thing. Embarrassment. I have put in more than 16 hours worth of effort in searching for stuff. Invariably I end up getting stuff for my "Grumpy" sis. She does get on to my nerves at times, but she is sweet. So I end up getting stuff for her.
Still haven't finished my shopping, but have to do that within the next couple of weeks before I take-off for a sweet ride back home. Its been 2 years now.
So, this post is about what I have bought of late. Online shopping has been the most favourite thing. When I moved to Charlotte from Chicago, I set up everything electronically. Hail the Internet. At the same time, I have made some stupid decisions in spite of all the information available, proving once again my decisions in haste always sucks!
Coming back to the topic, here are the list of e-stuff that I bought recently (In the year 2007).
1. 1998 Honda Civic LX (The only non e-stuff but worth mentioning :))
2. Blackberry Pearl
3. Plantronics Bluetooth Headset
4. Python Keyless entry & Alarm
5. Skyscan Atomic Clock
6. Mio C220 Digiwalker Portable GPS
7. Kensington Ci65m Wireless Mouse
8. HP DVD 940 Lightscribe External DVD Writer
9. iPod Nano 4 GB
10. A 1 GB RAM for the PC at Chennai
11. ADS Digital Photo Frame (The worst buy of 2007)
With my planned trip to India during the Holidays, bought a few stuff for my immediate relatives. Honestly, I have been running out of ideas. Whatever I feel like buying, seems to scare the shit out of me. What if they don't like it? What if they already have it? What if you can get the same thing there (and that too at a lesser price)? Everything points only to one thing. Embarrassment. I have put in more than 16 hours worth of effort in searching for stuff. Invariably I end up getting stuff for my "Grumpy" sis. She does get on to my nerves at times, but she is sweet. So I end up getting stuff for her.
Still haven't finished my shopping, but have to do that within the next couple of weeks before I take-off for a sweet ride back home. Its been 2 years now.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Nuclear Deal: Letters to Editors
I was going through one of the "Letters to Editors" in The Hindu. The title "The Nuclear Deal" attracted me. I was very curious to find out what the bigger Indian public is thinking.
I don't want to be rude here, but these were some of the thoughts that came to my mind as they seemed obvious to me.
The Know-It-Alls sure don't do their research properly. They don't know what the deal is about. They don't know what has taken place. They don't know how long it has taken place. They don't know why this is being done.
It has to be noted that the entire negotiations was kept under wraps till the UPA government came into picture. Nuclear stuff being highly sensitive needs to be under the veil of secrecy. If you think you are the sole citizen of the country who cares about the Nation more than anyone other patriot, you are wrong.
Certain matters do not fall under the category of "Right of Information". Certain negotiations have to be conducted without the interference of the general public. When we have a very very less percentage of people's representatives who are politically educated, read "knows-what-they-are-supposed-to-do". Half of the crowd in the Parliament do not know what the hell is being talked about.
Given this situation, it does not make any sense to involve any of the non-strategic parties in the deal.
Everyone, it is a deal, means it is give and take. Can anyone of these people tell what is the give and what is the take? They don't know. I have read Strobe Talbot's book on the negotiations that took place between him and Jaswant Singh. I would suggest everyone to read the book before writing anything about the Nuclear deal.
You shouldn't just act smart by writing something that you don't know about, but should be smart enough too to actually know what you are writing. It still beats me. What were they thinking?
I don't want to be rude here, but these were some of the thoughts that came to my mind as they seemed obvious to me.
- People write letters to be with the editor's column irrespective of what they write (Some columns don't make sense how much ever or however you try to interpret them, but that by itself is a separate story) so that they can see their names in the newspaper.
- People who have a good command over the language of English (unlike me) try their luck at things that they know little or don't know.
The Know-It-Alls sure don't do their research properly. They don't know what the deal is about. They don't know what has taken place. They don't know how long it has taken place. They don't know why this is being done.
It has to be noted that the entire negotiations was kept under wraps till the UPA government came into picture. Nuclear stuff being highly sensitive needs to be under the veil of secrecy. If you think you are the sole citizen of the country who cares about the Nation more than anyone other patriot, you are wrong.
Certain matters do not fall under the category of "Right of Information". Certain negotiations have to be conducted without the interference of the general public. When we have a very very less percentage of people's representatives who are politically educated, read "knows-what-they-are-supposed-to-do". Half of the crowd in the Parliament do not know what the hell is being talked about.
Given this situation, it does not make any sense to involve any of the non-strategic parties in the deal.
Everyone, it is a deal, means it is give and take. Can anyone of these people tell what is the give and what is the take? They don't know. I have read Strobe Talbot's book on the negotiations that took place between him and Jaswant Singh. I would suggest everyone to read the book before writing anything about the Nuclear deal.
You shouldn't just act smart by writing something that you don't know about, but should be smart enough too to actually know what you are writing. It still beats me. What were they thinking?
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Lunar Objectives: Another Star Wars?
NASA makes it a point that it announces something or the other every month. So what's the latest? Setting up a permanent base on the moon by the third decade of this century.
If you go through the "Lunar Objectives" in that page, it is immediately evident that it is highly ambitious. Lot of them sounds like science fiction to me, but yesterday's fiction is today's fact. It is just how fast we overcome the limitations and risks.
The document which is based on Lockheed Martin's list (Copy-pasted), has objectives in the following areas.
If you go through the "Lunar Objectives" in that page, it is immediately evident that it is highly ambitious. Lot of them sounds like science fiction to me, but yesterday's fiction is today's fact. It is just how fast we overcome the limitations and risks.
The document which is based on Lockheed Martin's list (Copy-pasted), has objectives in the following areas.
- Astronomy & Astrophysics
- Heliophysics
- Earth Observation
- Geology
- Materials Science
- Human Health
- Environmental Characterization
- Environmental Hazard Mitigation
- Operational Environment Monitoring
- Life Support & Habitat
- General Infrastructure
- Operations, Test & Verification
- Power
- Communication
- Position, Navigation & Timing
- Transportation
- Surface Mobility
- Crew Activity Support
- Lunar Resource Utilization
- Historic Preservation
- Development of Lunar Commerce
- Commercial Opportunities
- Global Partnership
- Public Engagement & Inspiration
Some of them are interesting and makes sense as well but some do not, for a simple reason that it is the best case scenario. Let me put it this way. Some of them are so future looking, even our great grand children might feel the same way as we do now. I hear arguments that the recent technological advancements have been tremendous and at this same rate, this is definitely possible, but even today we see Star Wars as a fiction.
I see the immediate requirement is fuel. The natural resources are draining pretty fast. So next nearest place is the Moon. So attack there. Like setting up the ISS, set up an off-planet drilling/mining/excavation/extraction plant taking a few decades to complete. Then use your space vehicles to transport them back to Earth. Voila! Now this sounds like achievable.
Particularly interesting for a lot of countries, nuclear-powered countries, is the million tons of Helium-3 waiting to be exploited. Everyone wants to be self-reliant, independent of the Middle-East for fuel and this is a nice achievable option.
Why is it possible? Because this is one of the few things that have happened, but at a miniscule level. Another perspective: India says that it is interested in contributing. We normally don't waste our time or money unless it is useful. Media reports and even scientists of ISRO have been commenting about the use of Helium 3 and using that to cater to India's future energy needs.
China and Japan have their own Lunar probes for 2007 while India is eyeing for 2008, provided we don't run into some major issues. UK is likely to opt out of the US plans because of its participation in the ESA. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and the race did not begin now, it began a few years back.
Even though the US and Russia have a very big headstart, the actual competition is between the other countries which are almost on the same footing. Now as citizens of this planet, we will have to wait and watch as to which country takes this seriously and tries to get a lead in this global competition. Bear in mind - As time goes by, we will not be the only ones in this race for fuel. Who knows future STAR WARS might be because of this even though "Global Partnership" is an objective.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Dhoom 2: PG13
I was 13 when I went to the movie called Speed starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. I went with my dad to watch the movie and it ends with a kissing scene. I happened to see this movie in Sathyam theatres in Chennai with my sister who was 11 years of age then!
The movie was rated 'R' by MPAA for violence and language and not obscenity. Now lets fast forward by a decade. Dhoom 2 releases, creates a big controversy for a kissing scene. Dhoom 2 vs. Speed - Not even close. A public litigation is filed accusing the actors for "Obscenity" and the scene being "Deragatory to women". Two words - "Grow Up".
First, the kiss does not last for more than a few seconds. Second, please define the word "obscene". Third, the movie is provided the appropriate rating by the Censor board. You don't like it, don't watch it.
I see lots of "Only in India" and this is one such instance. The previous instance was "Da Vinci Code". Even the Pope himself asked Christians to just boycott the movie. In India, they wanted a ban, protesters take violence as their aide and damage theatres. The book carries much more details than the movie. They were happily sleeping at that time and made an issue when the movie released.
Not deviating from the original topic, what does he want? Publicity? He has got that now. The Indian Judicial System has hell a lot of pending cases to clear. Give them a friggin' break. Don't waste their time.
Makes me wonder "What if I sue him for causing mental agony after reading such news?"
The movie was rated 'R' by MPAA for violence and language and not obscenity. Now lets fast forward by a decade. Dhoom 2 releases, creates a big controversy for a kissing scene. Dhoom 2 vs. Speed - Not even close. A public litigation is filed accusing the actors for "Obscenity" and the scene being "Deragatory to women". Two words - "Grow Up".
First, the kiss does not last for more than a few seconds. Second, please define the word "obscene". Third, the movie is provided the appropriate rating by the Censor board. You don't like it, don't watch it.
I see lots of "Only in India" and this is one such instance. The previous instance was "Da Vinci Code". Even the Pope himself asked Christians to just boycott the movie. In India, they wanted a ban, protesters take violence as their aide and damage theatres. The book carries much more details than the movie. They were happily sleeping at that time and made an issue when the movie released.
Not deviating from the original topic, what does he want? Publicity? He has got that now. The Indian Judicial System has hell a lot of pending cases to clear. Give them a friggin' break. Don't waste their time.
Makes me wonder "What if I sue him for causing mental agony after reading such news?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
