The world cup just got over. And in spite of Australia's continued dominance and India's pathetic performance, some cricket scenes with a nice song in the background on tv set me in a romantic cricket mood and I thought I wanna write something on how this beautiful game trumps all other games.
So I type www.blogger.com
First thing, the blogger page is in Dutch! Fuck fuck fuck. Just coz I am located in Amsterdam does not mean I know to read (even if I could speak, which I also cannot) the local language; please at least give me an option to change my language setting but no I cannot find any such thing. Wow. Who project managed this whole smart language thing? Which stupid smart-ass too-good fucking engineer/project manager/team forgot about the people who live in places where they do not know the local language? How can Google - which does have the smartest guys and makes the smartest softwares - fuck up on this?
Second, Google's taken over Blogger. And I have to create a google account now (or use my old account and link it to my Blogger one). But why? I want to blog. Thats all I fucking want to do. Why is Blogger/Google troubling me with things like linking up accounts/creating gmail accounts etc? When I signed up on Blogger, I probably checked on some Blogger "Terms and Conditions". But shouldn't there also be terms and conditions that these sites - which offer you free acounts and good services and hence very nicely make sure you use them a lot and get used to them - that these sites would not without sufficient warning suddenly change themselves so much? I signed up for a particular thing; that thing itself can evolve fine - they could give me better blogging tools etc - but linking up to email? thats something I DID NOT SIGN UP ON BLOGGER FOR.
So Google, FUCK THE HELL OFF. And thanks for spoiling my mood. I loved Google. Now, I am starting to be wary of it. It is going where Microsoft went. And is fucking us all.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
300 and hypocrisy
just saw 300. very entertaining movie. pure thrill. came out feelin i hadnt wasted my money n my time.
but it irritates me too. when xerxes invades greece, he's portrayed as a tyrant and a debauch and a crazed maniac who thinks of himself as god. (n oh yes he's also so foolish as to send soldiers with just swords and no shields. come on!) well ok. invaders r tyrants. but when alexander set out to invade everybody else, he is "alexander the great". baah. such hypocrisy.
or maybe xerxes is a tyrant because he lost. so we have the classical syndrome of history eulogizing the winners and villifying the losers. hence we have the "great" roman and later the english empires. or rather, the roman and english tyrants and plunderers.
but it irritates me too. when xerxes invades greece, he's portrayed as a tyrant and a debauch and a crazed maniac who thinks of himself as god. (n oh yes he's also so foolish as to send soldiers with just swords and no shields. come on!) well ok. invaders r tyrants. but when alexander set out to invade everybody else, he is "alexander the great". baah. such hypocrisy.
or maybe xerxes is a tyrant because he lost. so we have the classical syndrome of history eulogizing the winners and villifying the losers. hence we have the "great" roman and later the english empires. or rather, the roman and english tyrants and plunderers.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
On "happiness" and hypertension (in response to RISK)
RISK: http://blog.risk.net/2007/03/towards_a_theory_of_cardiovasc_1.html
FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f035d56e-c92b-11db-9f7b-000b5df10621.html
Research paper: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/hypertensionfeb07.pdf
ALEA: http://www.aleablog.com/2007/03/03/happiness-economics/
First, I must confess I have not read the research paper itself.
Second, I must point out. Risk says "blood pressure... is linked fairly closely to national happiness". Alea says "nations that regarded themselves as happy reported lower levels of hypertension. " The phrase "regarded themselves" is very important - in fact, it is the crux.
Happiness is not well-defined and it is probably not very wide off the mark to say that the perception of happiness is linked to a particular culture. The research is fine - it just should not extrapolate the findings to other cultures; and it does seem to do that since it time and again uses phrases like "national happiness", "mental health" etc.
FT says "It is now well established that people in richer countries tend to be happier than those in poorer ones." My personal experience however does not support that at all - in fact it is quite the contrary. My question to FT is - "Please, who established it and how?". I have a deep suspicion the establishment is based on research papers such as this again.
Also, I think it strange there is no mention of smiles (the real ones not the volatility ones!). Isn't it obvious that happpiness would be linked to the number of smiles in a day?
FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f035d56e-c92b-11db-9f7b-000b5df10621.html
Research paper: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/hypertensionfeb07.pdf
ALEA: http://www.aleablog.com/2007/03/03/happiness-economics/
First, I must confess I have not read the research paper itself.
Second, I must point out. Risk says "blood pressure... is linked fairly closely to national happiness". Alea says "nations that regarded themselves as happy reported lower levels of hypertension. " The phrase "regarded themselves" is very important - in fact, it is the crux.
Happiness is not well-defined and it is probably not very wide off the mark to say that the perception of happiness is linked to a particular culture. The research is fine - it just should not extrapolate the findings to other cultures; and it does seem to do that since it time and again uses phrases like "national happiness", "mental health" etc.
FT says "It is now well established that people in richer countries tend to be happier than those in poorer ones." My personal experience however does not support that at all - in fact it is quite the contrary. My question to FT is - "Please, who established it and how?". I have a deep suspicion the establishment is based on research papers such as this again.
Also, I think it strange there is no mention of smiles (the real ones not the volatility ones!). Isn't it obvious that happpiness would be linked to the number of smiles in a day?
Sunday, March 04, 2007
ARGH @ Google (Beware of Google)
Google google. We all love them - most of us at least. I did too. Now I am not so sure - the feeling (love -> indignation + betrayal -> hatred) started just now, when I logged onto my blogspot account.
Why? Wtf is going on. I have a blogspot account and all I want to do is fukken blog (I cannot avoid the expletives I am pissed off). But no. I cannot. I have to read some crap now about some new blogspot features. Well I say - OK, lets see what they got. But then I see the trick - I have to have a gmail account.
You see it right?
(For those who don't, I'm arghing at my loss of privacy; I'm arghing at having to link my email with my blog; I'm arghing at nosy Google; I'm arghing at Sergei and Larry becoming too greedy - for their own good. And I am arghing at their oh-so-obvious ploy to show me advertisements on my gmail based on my blogs - ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)
(I hate repetitiveness but I m just too angry now)
Why? Wtf is going on. I have a blogspot account and all I want to do is fukken blog (I cannot avoid the expletives I am pissed off). But no. I cannot. I have to read some crap now about some new blogspot features. Well I say - OK, lets see what they got. But then I see the trick - I have to have a gmail account.
You see it right?
(For those who don't, I'm arghing at my loss of privacy; I'm arghing at having to link my email with my blog; I'm arghing at nosy Google; I'm arghing at Sergei and Larry becoming too greedy - for their own good. And I am arghing at their oh-so-obvious ploy to show me advertisements on my gmail based on my blogs - ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)
(I hate repetitiveness but I m just too angry now)
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Continuing.. (why Kalam is wrong and how India rocks)
Kalam's speech has set me thinking - a whole damn lot - those last few words - about making India like the western nations. I cannot digest it and I cannot for the life of me understand why he wants India to be like the western nations. I have but two possible explanations -
1. Maybe he worded it wrong - he probably wants India to emulate the specific things like cleanliness, order, structure, gender equality; but he did make the mistake of generalising it with those words.
2. He's never lived abroad for a long duration of time and doesn't realise India's much better off as a life.
He started off on the right note but somehow digressed into this western comparison thing. But the comparison is not valid. These are different ways of lives lived in very different geographies and climates.
He can take a personal view of things which is perfectly OK; even discussing it might be OK; but giving a speech on the topic in his capacity as president is very wrong.
For me (as for most thinking people :)), Indians and the Indian way of life rocks. And I absolutely HATE the idea of India being transformed into some western like nation. We would lose our soul. We shall no longer be India. We shall no longer be the chaos (that lovely chaos of emotions, uncertainties, inequalities, freedom, flexibility, acceptance and non-interference ) that is life as nothing else is.
p.s. Kalam also cannot be forgiven for using a modified version of JFK's speech; now JFK was probably a great guy ("probably" cause I have never bothered to go into the details of his life so I do not have a personal opinion and I really do not care) but why did he have to borrow a quote of the president of another country - that too a country whose history dates back to just a few hundred years) - when he was speaking to the people of a country with an immemorial history?
1. Maybe he worded it wrong - he probably wants India to emulate the specific things like cleanliness, order, structure, gender equality; but he did make the mistake of generalising it with those words.
2. He's never lived abroad for a long duration of time and doesn't realise India's much better off as a life.
He started off on the right note but somehow digressed into this western comparison thing. But the comparison is not valid. These are different ways of lives lived in very different geographies and climates.
He can take a personal view of things which is perfectly OK; even discussing it might be OK; but giving a speech on the topic in his capacity as president is very wrong.
For me (as for most thinking people :)), Indians and the Indian way of life rocks. And I absolutely HATE the idea of India being transformed into some western like nation. We would lose our soul. We shall no longer be India. We shall no longer be the chaos (that lovely chaos of emotions, uncertainties, inequalities, freedom, flexibility, acceptance and non-interference ) that is life as nothing else is.
p.s. Kalam also cannot be forgiven for using a modified version of JFK's speech; now JFK was probably a great guy ("probably" cause I have never bothered to go into the details of his life so I do not have a personal opinion and I really do not care) but why did he have to borrow a quote of the president of another country - that too a country whose history dates back to just a few hundred years) - when he was speaking to the people of a country with an immemorial history?
Saturday, January 27, 2007
President Kalam's Speech in Hyderabad
i agree with everything except the last part with which i strongly disagree. i dont see the need to make india what america is today. actually i feel a strong need to stay away from that path of world domination (n bullying)
The President of India DR. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam's Speech in Hyderabad
Why is the media here so negative?
Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements?
We are such a great nation.
We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why?
We are the first in milk production.
We are number one in Remote sensing satellites.
We are the second largest producer of wheat.
We are the second largest producer of rice.
Look at Dr. Sudarshan, he has transferred the tribal village into a self-sustaining, self-driving unit. There are millions of such achievements but our media is only obsessed in the bad news and failures and disasters.
I was in Tel Aviv once and I was reading the Israeli newspaper. It was the day after a lot of attacks and bombardments and deaths had taken place. The Hamas had struck. But the front page of the newspaper had the picture of a Jewish gentleman who in five years had transformed his desert into an orchid and a granary.
It was this inspiring picture that everyone woke up to. The gory details of killings, bombardments, deaths, were inside in the newspaper, buried among other news.
In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime. Why are we so NEGATIVE? Another question: Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with foreign things? We want foreign T. Vs, we want foreign shirts. We want foreign technology.
Why this obsession with everything imported. Do we not realize that self-respect comes with self-reliance? I was in Hyderabad giving this lecture, when a 14 year old girl asked me for my autograph. I asked her what her goal in life is. She replied: I want to live in a developed India. For her, you and I will have to build this developed India. You must proclaim. India is not an under-developed nation; it is a highly developed nation.
Do you have 10 minutes? Allow me to come back with a vengeance.
Got 10 minutes for your country? If yes, then read; otherwise, choice is yours.
YOU say that our government is inefficient.
YOU say that our laws are too old.
YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage.
YOU say that the phones don't work, the railways are a joke,
The airline is the worst in the world, mails never reach their destination.
YOU say that our country has been fed to the dogs and is the absolute pits.
YOU say, say and say. What do YOU do about it?
Take a person on his way to Singapore. Give him a name - YOURS. Give him a face - YOURS. YOU walk out of the airport and you are at your International best. In Singapore you don't throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores. YOU are as proud of their Underground links as they are. You pay $5 (approx. Rs. 60) to drive through Orchard Road (equivalent of Mahim Causeway or Pedder Road) between 5 PM and 8 PM. YOU come back to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mall irrespective of your status identity... In Singapore you don't say anything, DO YOU? YOU wouldn't dare to eat in public during Ramadan, in Dubai. YOU would not dare to go out without your head covered in Jeddah. YOU would not dare to buy an employee of the telephone exchange in London at 10 pounds( Rs.650) a month to, 'see to it that my STD and ISD calls are billed to someone else.'YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 km/h) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop, 'Jaanta hai main kaun hoon (Do you know who I am?). I am so and so's son. Take your two bucks and get lost.' YOU wouldn't chuck an empty coconut
shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand.
Why don't YOU spit Paan on the streets of Tokyo? Why don't YOU use examination jockeys or buy fake certificates in Boston??? We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. You who will throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country, why cannot you be the same here in India?
Once in an interview, the famous Ex-municipal commissioner of Bombay, Mr.Tinaikar, had a point to make. 'Rich people's dogs are walked on the streets to leave their affluent droppings all over the place,' he said. 'And then the same people turn around to criticize and blame the authorities for inefficiency and dirty pavements. What do they expect the officers to do? Go down with a broom every time their dog feels the pressure in his bowels?
In America every dog owner has to clean up after his pet has done the job. Same in Japan. Wil l the Indian citizen do that here?' He's right. We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility.
We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. We expect the government to clean up but we are not going to stop chucking garbage all over the place nor are we going to stop to pick a up a stray piece of paper and throw it in the bin. We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms.
We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity.
This applies even to the staff who is known not to pass on the service to the public. When it comes to burning social issues like those related to women, dowry, girl child! and others, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? 'It's the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my sons' rights to a dowry.' So who's going to change the system?
What does a system consist of ? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbours, other households, other cities, other communities and the government. But definitely not me and YOU. When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we lock ourselves along with our families into a safe cocoon and look into the distance at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand or we leave the country and run away. Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their
glory and praise their system. Whe n New York becomes insecure we run to England. When England experiences unemployment, we take the next flight out to the Gulf. When the Gulf is war struck, we demand to be rescued and brought home by the Indian government. Everybody is out to abuse and rape the country.
Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money.
Dear Indians, The article is highly thought inductive, calls for a great deal of introspection and pricks one's conscience too.... I am echoing J. F. Kennedy's words to his fellow Americans to relate to Indians.....
'ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR INDIA
AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE INDIA
WHAT AMERICA AND OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE TODAY'
Lets do what India needs from us.
Forward this mail to each Indian FOR A CHANGE instead of sending Jokes or junk mails.
Thank you,
Dr. Abdul Kalaam
(PRESIDENT OF INDIA)
The President of India DR. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam's Speech in Hyderabad
Why is the media here so negative?
Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements?
We are such a great nation.
We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why?
We are the first in milk production.
We are number one in Remote sensing satellites.
We are the second largest producer of wheat.
We are the second largest producer of rice.
Look at Dr. Sudarshan, he has transferred the tribal village into a self-sustaining, self-driving unit. There are millions of such achievements but our media is only obsessed in the bad news and failures and disasters.
I was in Tel Aviv once and I was reading the Israeli newspaper. It was the day after a lot of attacks and bombardments and deaths had taken place. The Hamas had struck. But the front page of the newspaper had the picture of a Jewish gentleman who in five years had transformed his desert into an orchid and a granary.
It was this inspiring picture that everyone woke up to. The gory details of killings, bombardments, deaths, were inside in the newspaper, buried among other news.
In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime. Why are we so NEGATIVE? Another question: Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with foreign things? We want foreign T. Vs, we want foreign shirts. We want foreign technology.
Why this obsession with everything imported. Do we not realize that self-respect comes with self-reliance? I was in Hyderabad giving this lecture, when a 14 year old girl asked me for my autograph. I asked her what her goal in life is. She replied: I want to live in a developed India. For her, you and I will have to build this developed India. You must proclaim. India is not an under-developed nation; it is a highly developed nation.
Do you have 10 minutes? Allow me to come back with a vengeance.
Got 10 minutes for your country? If yes, then read; otherwise, choice is yours.
YOU say that our government is inefficient.
YOU say that our laws are too old.
YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage.
YOU say that the phones don't work, the railways are a joke,
The airline is the worst in the world, mails never reach their destination.
YOU say that our country has been fed to the dogs and is the absolute pits.
YOU say, say and say. What do YOU do about it?
Take a person on his way to Singapore. Give him a name - YOURS. Give him a face - YOURS. YOU walk out of the airport and you are at your International best. In Singapore you don't throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores. YOU are as proud of their Underground links as they are. You pay $5 (approx. Rs. 60) to drive through Orchard Road (equivalent of Mahim Causeway or Pedder Road) between 5 PM and 8 PM. YOU come back to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mall irrespective of your status identity... In Singapore you don't say anything, DO YOU? YOU wouldn't dare to eat in public during Ramadan, in Dubai. YOU would not dare to go out without your head covered in Jeddah. YOU would not dare to buy an employee of the telephone exchange in London at 10 pounds( Rs.650) a month to, 'see to it that my STD and ISD calls are billed to someone else.'YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 km/h) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop, 'Jaanta hai main kaun hoon (Do you know who I am?). I am so and so's son. Take your two bucks and get lost.' YOU wouldn't chuck an empty coconut
shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand.
Why don't YOU spit Paan on the streets of Tokyo? Why don't YOU use examination jockeys or buy fake certificates in Boston??? We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. You who will throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country, why cannot you be the same here in India?
Once in an interview, the famous Ex-municipal commissioner of Bombay, Mr.Tinaikar, had a point to make. 'Rich people's dogs are walked on the streets to leave their affluent droppings all over the place,' he said. 'And then the same people turn around to criticize and blame the authorities for inefficiency and dirty pavements. What do they expect the officers to do? Go down with a broom every time their dog feels the pressure in his bowels?
In America every dog owner has to clean up after his pet has done the job. Same in Japan. Wil l the Indian citizen do that here?' He's right. We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility.
We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. We expect the government to clean up but we are not going to stop chucking garbage all over the place nor are we going to stop to pick a up a stray piece of paper and throw it in the bin. We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms.
We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity.
This applies even to the staff who is known not to pass on the service to the public. When it comes to burning social issues like those related to women, dowry, girl child! and others, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? 'It's the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my sons' rights to a dowry.' So who's going to change the system?
What does a system consist of ? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbours, other households, other cities, other communities and the government. But definitely not me and YOU. When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we lock ourselves along with our families into a safe cocoon and look into the distance at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand or we leave the country and run away. Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their
glory and praise their system. Whe n New York becomes insecure we run to England. When England experiences unemployment, we take the next flight out to the Gulf. When the Gulf is war struck, we demand to be rescued and brought home by the Indian government. Everybody is out to abuse and rape the country.
Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money.
Dear Indians, The article is highly thought inductive, calls for a great deal of introspection and pricks one's conscience too.... I am echoing J. F. Kennedy's words to his fellow Americans to relate to Indians.....
'ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR INDIA
AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE INDIA
WHAT AMERICA AND OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE TODAY'
Lets do what India needs from us.
Forward this mail to each Indian FOR A CHANGE instead of sending Jokes or junk mails.
Thank you,
Dr. Abdul Kalaam
(PRESIDENT OF INDIA)
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
US and insecure?!!!
Quote:
But spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday that "this president believes deeply in the importance of trying to innovate our way out of a situation where we've been dependent on an oil source that can render us insecure."
Ironical that the world's biggest bully worries about being insecure - the rest of the world is insecure against the US - the US is not insecure in any way - it can kill maim bully destroy with impunity and nobody can say a thing to them.
But spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday that "this president believes deeply in the importance of trying to innovate our way out of a situation where we've been dependent on an oil source that can render us insecure."
Ironical that the world's biggest bully worries about being insecure - the rest of the world is insecure against the US - the US is not insecure in any way - it can kill maim bully destroy with impunity and nobody can say a thing to them.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Bush wins, everybody else loses
The Saddam execution certainly seems to be the heights of stupidity (in addition of course to being illegal but we know that already). Wont this send waves of anti-US flames across the middle east? And why only the middle east - there were protests in even India over it. This day has certainly provided a big fillip to the anti-US brigade. It is a very foolish and selfish (in addition to criminal) for the president of a country to initiate events which incite hatred against his own country. My sympathies with the people of the US.
Former Supreme Court judge, V.R. Krishna Iyer
"I respect the great American people but detest President Bush the bully. Iraq is a sovereign country. No other country can invade a sovereign nation under International Law except when international sanctions approved by the United Nations are permitted. President Bush violated international law when he militarily attacked Iraq for no reason except for freebooting and plundering its oil resources. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed by the American Military. This is atrocious. Saddam Hussein was the President of Iraq. He has perhaps committed crimes as President. It is for the people of Iraq to overthrow him, or remove his rule and not for America or its terrible President. A court trial was gone through. I regard it a farce. The death sentence was foregone since Bush wished it. The sentence by a counterfeit court cannot carry conviction especially because President Bush managed it all. Saddam Hussein's hanging is a brutal murder for which history will hold Bush guilty."
Former Supreme Court judge, V.R. Krishna Iyer
"I respect the great American people but detest President Bush the bully. Iraq is a sovereign country. No other country can invade a sovereign nation under International Law except when international sanctions approved by the United Nations are permitted. President Bush violated international law when he militarily attacked Iraq for no reason except for freebooting and plundering its oil resources. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed by the American Military. This is atrocious. Saddam Hussein was the President of Iraq. He has perhaps committed crimes as President. It is for the people of Iraq to overthrow him, or remove his rule and not for America or its terrible President. A court trial was gone through. I regard it a farce. The death sentence was foregone since Bush wished it. The sentence by a counterfeit court cannot carry conviction especially because President Bush managed it all. Saddam Hussein's hanging is a brutal murder for which history will hold Bush guilty."
Friday, December 15, 2006
The hidden terrorist
Facts.
1. "Since January 2002, when the first Muslim men were flown from Afghanistan to Guantanamo, an estimated 14,000 men have been held. They have been hidden in prisons, army barracks, holes in the ground, private houses, hotels, and schools. Those responsible for them have been in overlapping chains of command, including the U.S. Department of Defence, the CIA, and the national intelligence services of many countries, such as Britain."
Links: http://www.cageprisoners.com/
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=17965
1. "Since January 2002, when the first Muslim men were flown from Afghanistan to Guantanamo, an estimated 14,000 men have been held. They have been hidden in prisons, army barracks, holes in the ground, private houses, hotels, and schools. Those responsible for them have been in overlapping chains of command, including the U.S. Department of Defence, the CIA, and the national intelligence services of many countries, such as Britain."
Links: http://www.cageprisoners.com/
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=17965
India's mistakes (lesson: dont trust the US)
Mistakes:
1. trusted the US.
2. gave up her self-respect and sucked up to the US. 1 was a necessary (but definitely NEVER sufficient) condition for 2.
Consequences:
US, as expected by anyone who would have the slightest hint of the role US is looking to play in most other nations' futures, lands India in a hole.
Facts:
(From an article in The Hindu by Dr. M.R. Srinivasan - a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.)
1. India and US agree on a 'nuclear deal' - July 2005 and March 2006. People are gaga about it without realising the fine points and the probable consequences.
2. "Henry J. Hyde, United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006" deviates, very seriously and with dire consequences for India, from the agreements.
2a. The act contains a provision for the suspension of all cooperation were India to conduct a nuclear test in future. This comes from a country which is stockpiling nuclear weapons and developing new such weapons (e.g. the US is working on the design of a "Reliable Replacement Weapon" (RRW) to modernise its nuclear arsenal. Also, the US has signed but not ratified the CTBT - huh? just another instance of its many hypocrisies.). So, if India starts using imported reactors and imported fuel channeled through this deal, it shall be in no position to ever conduct a nuclear test again - when all and sundry may be doing it.
2b. In the previous agreements, the US insisted on India placing some of its reactors under voluntary "safeguards in perpetuity" in return for nuclear fuel supplies being maintained. It also agreed to work with other nuclear suppliers to enable India to secure nuclear fuel so that its nuclear power stations could continue to operate. The Hyde Act has reneged on this. The Act even calls upon the U.S. administration to work with the Nuclear Suppliers Group to ensure that India cannot get supplies of nuclear fuel if, for reasons contained in the Act, the U.S. is required to suspend supplies to India.
2c. "full civilian nuclear energy cooperation" was promised to India in July 2005 and India assumed that this term encompassed the fuel cycle, namely enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel. Now, U.S. legislators have argued that the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 specifically forbids export of these technologies, as also heavy water production technology to other countries. (Thankfully, India has developed its own technologies in these three vital areas.) Apparently the US president is ignorant of his country's laws or the Americans have a very different (and twisted) definition of "full".
2d. With regard to the sequencing of actions, the understanding between India and the U.S. was that the approval of the U.S. Congress and removal of restrictions on nuclear trade with India would take place simultaneously with NSG clearance to make exemptions in favour of India and with India placing facilities designated as civilian by India under IAEA safeguards. The present Act requires India to have concluded "all legal steps prior to signature by the parties of an agreement requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity... "; and also that "India and IAEA are making substantial progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol," among other conditions....In "Definitions," it is clearly stated that the "Additional Protocol" is to be based on the Model Additional protocol of the IAEA applicable to non-nuclear weapon states, which is highly intrusive... and many more conditions.
Another link:http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/16/stories/2006121616171500.htm
1. trusted the US.
2. gave up her self-respect and sucked up to the US. 1 was a necessary (but definitely NEVER sufficient) condition for 2.
Consequences:
US, as expected by anyone who would have the slightest hint of the role US is looking to play in most other nations' futures, lands India in a hole.
Facts:
(From an article in The Hindu by Dr. M.R. Srinivasan - a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.)
1. India and US agree on a 'nuclear deal' - July 2005 and March 2006. People are gaga about it without realising the fine points and the probable consequences.
2. "Henry J. Hyde, United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006" deviates, very seriously and with dire consequences for India, from the agreements.
2a. The act contains a provision for the suspension of all cooperation were India to conduct a nuclear test in future. This comes from a country which is stockpiling nuclear weapons and developing new such weapons (e.g. the US is working on the design of a "Reliable Replacement Weapon" (RRW) to modernise its nuclear arsenal. Also, the US has signed but not ratified the CTBT - huh? just another instance of its many hypocrisies.). So, if India starts using imported reactors and imported fuel channeled through this deal, it shall be in no position to ever conduct a nuclear test again - when all and sundry may be doing it.
2b. In the previous agreements, the US insisted on India placing some of its reactors under voluntary "safeguards in perpetuity" in return for nuclear fuel supplies being maintained. It also agreed to work with other nuclear suppliers to enable India to secure nuclear fuel so that its nuclear power stations could continue to operate. The Hyde Act has reneged on this. The Act even calls upon the U.S. administration to work with the Nuclear Suppliers Group to ensure that India cannot get supplies of nuclear fuel if, for reasons contained in the Act, the U.S. is required to suspend supplies to India.
2c. "full civilian nuclear energy cooperation" was promised to India in July 2005 and India assumed that this term encompassed the fuel cycle, namely enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel. Now, U.S. legislators have argued that the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 specifically forbids export of these technologies, as also heavy water production technology to other countries. (Thankfully, India has developed its own technologies in these three vital areas.) Apparently the US president is ignorant of his country's laws or the Americans have a very different (and twisted) definition of "full".
2d. With regard to the sequencing of actions, the understanding between India and the U.S. was that the approval of the U.S. Congress and removal of restrictions on nuclear trade with India would take place simultaneously with NSG clearance to make exemptions in favour of India and with India placing facilities designated as civilian by India under IAEA safeguards. The present Act requires India to have concluded "all legal steps prior to signature by the parties of an agreement requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity... "; and also that "India and IAEA are making substantial progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol," among other conditions....In "Definitions," it is clearly stated that the "Additional Protocol" is to be based on the Model Additional protocol of the IAEA applicable to non-nuclear weapon states, which is highly intrusive... and many more conditions.
Another link:http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/16/stories/2006121616171500.htm
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
How the US is driving Indian farmers (and many more) to suicide
ref: http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/13/stories/2006121303801000.htm
quoting:
The State (of Maharashtra) also admits that giant U.S. subsidies to that country's 20,000 cotton growers is hitting the millions of farmers in this region(maharashtra). Yet the Centre has not seen it fit to raise import duties. Which now stand at just ten per cent. And so India's cotton imports in seven years leading to 2005 were three times what they were in the preceding 25 years.
.....
The U.S. cotton crop last year was worth around $3.9 billion. But that nation's handouts to its growers the same year totalled $4.7 billion. Such subsidies have sunk global prices.
.....
"the numbers of suicides in the six districts continues to be in the range of 100 a month." The Maharashtra Government's own count for this year is more than 1,250 suicides. In just the six worst-hit districts.
quoting:
The State (of Maharashtra) also admits that giant U.S. subsidies to that country's 20,000 cotton growers is hitting the millions of farmers in this region(maharashtra). Yet the Centre has not seen it fit to raise import duties. Which now stand at just ten per cent. And so India's cotton imports in seven years leading to 2005 were three times what they were in the preceding 25 years.
.....
The U.S. cotton crop last year was worth around $3.9 billion. But that nation's handouts to its growers the same year totalled $4.7 billion. Such subsidies have sunk global prices.
.....
"the numbers of suicides in the six districts continues to be in the range of 100 a month." The Maharashtra Government's own count for this year is more than 1,250 suicides. In just the six worst-hit districts.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Interference rewards
too obvious to write. just consider the western nation (western europe mostly) interference with all other cultures from the americas to the africas to asia to the pacific.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
For thinking people - Lessons of the Raj
I fail to understand those who desist from an outright condemnation of the British rule in India citing stuff like the Railways, Civil Services etc. Most (probably all) of these so called gifts to India were created by the British not out any altruistic inclination towards the suffering Indians but were rather created as instruments of furthering British interests in India. For all our Gandhian heritage of love and non-violence, I am unable to banish the feelings of acute resentment against the British. At the least, India (and all other ex-colonies) deserve a public apology from Britain for the numerous historical wrongs.
Some facts for public consumption
1)In the Bengal famine of 1770-72, close to ten million people died, as Rajni Palme-Dutt pointed out in his remarkable book, India Today. The East India Company's own report put it simply. The famine in that province "exceeds all description."
Yet, Warren Hastings wrote to the directors of the East India Company in 1772: "Notwithstanding the loss of at least one-third of the inhabitants of this province, and the consequent decrease in cultivation, the net collections of the year 1771 exceeded even those of [pre-famine] 1768." Hastings was clear on why and how this was achieved. It was "owing to [tax collection] being violently kept up to its former standard."
Calling it cruel would be understating it.
2) Over 6 million humans perished in just 1876 — when Madras was a hell. This, it may be noted, was after the honourable British government had taken over the administration from the Company.
3)Between 24 million and 29 million Indians, maybe more, died in famines in the era of British good governance. Many of these famines were policy-driven.
4)Before the Great Bengal Famine, the report of that province's Director for Health for 1927-28 made grisly reading. It noted that "the present peasantry of Bengal are in a very large proportion taking to a dietary on which even rats could not live for more than five weeks."
5)By 1931, life expectancy in India was sharply down. It was now 23.2 and 22.8 years for men and women. Less than half that of those living in England and Wales. (Palme-Dutt.)
6)4 million people died in the Great Bengal Famine of 1942-43. As Amartya Sen points out, this appalling event was never officially declared as a famine. It was only in October 1943, when much of the damage had been done, that the famine was "acknowledged officially in Parliament by the Secretary of State for India... "
7)Countless numbers of Indians died in wars waged for, by, and against the British. Over 8,000 died in the single battle around Kut in Iraq in 1916. London used them as canon fodder in its desperate search for a success against the Turks after the rout at Gallipoli. When there were no Indians around, the British sacrificed other captive peoples. "Waste the Irish" was the term used by an English officer when sending out troops on a suicidal mission.
......
Some facts for public consumption
1)In the Bengal famine of 1770-72, close to ten million people died, as Rajni Palme-Dutt pointed out in his remarkable book, India Today. The East India Company's own report put it simply. The famine in that province "exceeds all description."
Yet, Warren Hastings wrote to the directors of the East India Company in 1772: "Notwithstanding the loss of at least one-third of the inhabitants of this province, and the consequent decrease in cultivation, the net collections of the year 1771 exceeded even those of [pre-famine] 1768." Hastings was clear on why and how this was achieved. It was "owing to [tax collection] being violently kept up to its former standard."
Calling it cruel would be understating it.
2) Over 6 million humans perished in just 1876 — when Madras was a hell. This, it may be noted, was after the honourable British government had taken over the administration from the Company.
3)Between 24 million and 29 million Indians, maybe more, died in famines in the era of British good governance. Many of these famines were policy-driven.
4)Before the Great Bengal Famine, the report of that province's Director for Health for 1927-28 made grisly reading. It noted that "the present peasantry of Bengal are in a very large proportion taking to a dietary on which even rats could not live for more than five weeks."
5)By 1931, life expectancy in India was sharply down. It was now 23.2 and 22.8 years for men and women. Less than half that of those living in England and Wales. (Palme-Dutt.)
6)4 million people died in the Great Bengal Famine of 1942-43. As Amartya Sen points out, this appalling event was never officially declared as a famine. It was only in October 1943, when much of the damage had been done, that the famine was "acknowledged officially in Parliament by the Secretary of State for India... "
7)Countless numbers of Indians died in wars waged for, by, and against the British. Over 8,000 died in the single battle around Kut in Iraq in 1916. London used them as canon fodder in its desperate search for a success against the Turks after the rout at Gallipoli. When there were no Indians around, the British sacrificed other captive peoples. "Waste the Irish" was the term used by an English officer when sending out troops on a suicidal mission.
......
The Pugwash Conferences
Einstein's advice to fellow scientists, "concern for Man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours in order that the creation of our minds shall be a blessing and not a curse,"...
Chain of events-
1)On August 6, 1945, the most dreadful of the weapons of mass destruction — the atom bomb — was dropped in the civilian area of Hiroshima. Three days later, another atom bomb was dropped in Nagasaki.
2)Early in 1954, Nehru called "for the setting up of a Committee of scientists to explain to the world the effect a nuclear war would have on humanity." (Nehru by the way was also the first foreign Prime Minister to visit Hiroshima).
3)In 1955, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued their famous manifesto seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons and appealing to all inhabitants of Planet Earth: "Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way is open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."
4)In 1957, Nehru's idea and and the Russell-Einstein Manifesto inspired Joseph Rotblat, who along with Pugwash was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, and Eugene Rabinowitch, to organize the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an organisation devoted to ending the nuclear peril and reminding scientists of their ethical responsibility for the consequences of their discoveries, particularly in the area of nuclear threat to human survival.
The name of the organisation comes from Pugwash Village in Nova Scotia, Canada, where the first conference was held in 1957.
Chain of events-
1)On August 6, 1945, the most dreadful of the weapons of mass destruction — the atom bomb — was dropped in the civilian area of Hiroshima. Three days later, another atom bomb was dropped in Nagasaki.
2)Early in 1954, Nehru called "for the setting up of a Committee of scientists to explain to the world the effect a nuclear war would have on humanity." (Nehru by the way was also the first foreign Prime Minister to visit Hiroshima).
3)In 1955, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued their famous manifesto seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons and appealing to all inhabitants of Planet Earth: "Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way is open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."
4)In 1957, Nehru's idea and and the Russell-Einstein Manifesto inspired Joseph Rotblat, who along with Pugwash was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, and Eugene Rabinowitch, to organize the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an organisation devoted to ending the nuclear peril and reminding scientists of their ethical responsibility for the consequences of their discoveries, particularly in the area of nuclear threat to human survival.
The name of the organisation comes from Pugwash Village in Nova Scotia, Canada, where the first conference was held in 1957.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
For thinking people - US hypocrisy on nuclear weapons and disarmament .. 2
Lost opportunites
The Pugwash Conference held in 1995 in Hiroshima on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the advent of atomic weapons concluded, "the end of the cold war, and the beginning of deep reduction in the huge nuclear arsenals that the war spawned, have provided an unprecedented opportunity for the abolition of nuclear weapons as well as the abolition of war." Meeting again in Hiroshima in July 2005, the Pugwash Council observed, "The decade since 1995, when Pugwash last met in Hiroshima, has been one of missed opportunities and a marked deterioration in global security, not least regarding the nuclear threat. In that time, additional States have acquired nuclear weapons, there has been little tangible progress in nuclear disarmament, new nuclear weapons are being proposed, and military doctrines are being revised that place a greater reliance on the potential use of such weapons."
Failure of NPT
The Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), held in the spring of 2005 in New York, ended in a deadlock. The five original nuclear weapon states (the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China) showed themselves unwilling to take decisive action to implement their obligations under Article VI of the NPT to move decisively toward the irreversible elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
Failure of CTBT
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has not entered into force, the U.S. and Russia need to accelerate and enlarge the reductions called for by the Moscow Treaty, and negotiations have yet to begin on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) to eliminate production of weapons-grade Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and plutonium.
The Pugwash Conference held in 1995 in Hiroshima on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the advent of atomic weapons concluded, "the end of the cold war, and the beginning of deep reduction in the huge nuclear arsenals that the war spawned, have provided an unprecedented opportunity for the abolition of nuclear weapons as well as the abolition of war." Meeting again in Hiroshima in July 2005, the Pugwash Council observed, "The decade since 1995, when Pugwash last met in Hiroshima, has been one of missed opportunities and a marked deterioration in global security, not least regarding the nuclear threat. In that time, additional States have acquired nuclear weapons, there has been little tangible progress in nuclear disarmament, new nuclear weapons are being proposed, and military doctrines are being revised that place a greater reliance on the potential use of such weapons."
Failure of NPT
The Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), held in the spring of 2005 in New York, ended in a deadlock. The five original nuclear weapon states (the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China) showed themselves unwilling to take decisive action to implement their obligations under Article VI of the NPT to move decisively toward the irreversible elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
Failure of CTBT
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has not entered into force, the U.S. and Russia need to accelerate and enlarge the reductions called for by the Moscow Treaty, and negotiations have yet to begin on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) to eliminate production of weapons-grade Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and plutonium.
For thinking people - World War II:Civilian killings by US and Britain
Nuclear weapons were described as "the greatest achievement of organised science in history" by US President Harry Truman. Many would comment that it is correct to a certain non-negligible proportion to think that it says something of the mentality of a people when their leader eulogises the most monstrous creation of science in such terms.
Anyway, we just quote the facts. For thinking people, correct information and not opinion should be enough.
1)In 1939 the British Government had entered the war with high protestations of virtue. The then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told Parliament: "Whatever be the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children, and on other civilians for the purposes of mere terrorism." By the end of the war, the British had resorted to enough "mere terrorism" to destroy most of the cities of Germany and many of their inhabitants, 100,000 of them children.
2)300,000 British uniformed servicemen died in 1939-45 compared to the 600,000 German civilians killed.
3)Before August 1945, very many Japanese had already been killed by "conventional" bombing. On one night in Tokyo in March, American bombers killed 85,000 civilians — more than would die at Nagasaki — and at least 300,000 were incinerated in great fire raids over the following months.
4)It was argued then, and still sometimes is, that the bombing of Hiroshima 60 years ago on August 6, and of Nagasaki three days later, was justified by the Japanese surrender, obviating the need for an invasion of Japan which would have meant huge casualties.
By the summer of 1945, Japan was already prostrate. Not only were Japanese armies being driven out of the Pacific islands and Burma, American bombers were wrecking the cities of Japan and, in one of the most successful campaigns of the whole war, submarines of the United States navy had done to Japan what German U-boats had never managed to do to England, by completely destroying its shipping. Some American admirals believed then and ever after that surrender was a matter of time, and not much of it, and a strong suspicion persists of an ulterior motive by Washington, wanting to end the war with Japan quickly before Soviet Russia joined in.
Monsignor Ronald Knox, a conservative English Catholic (author of God and the Atom, an astonishing book, neglected at the time and since) : Hiroshima was an assault on faith, ... because — this answers those who still defend the bombing of Hiroshima — "men fighting for a good case have taken, at one particular moment of decision, the easier, not the nobler path."
The facts are taken from the editorial of the Hindu on 06-08-2005.
Anyway, we just quote the facts. For thinking people, correct information and not opinion should be enough.
1)In 1939 the British Government had entered the war with high protestations of virtue. The then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told Parliament: "Whatever be the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children, and on other civilians for the purposes of mere terrorism." By the end of the war, the British had resorted to enough "mere terrorism" to destroy most of the cities of Germany and many of their inhabitants, 100,000 of them children.
2)300,000 British uniformed servicemen died in 1939-45 compared to the 600,000 German civilians killed.
3)Before August 1945, very many Japanese had already been killed by "conventional" bombing. On one night in Tokyo in March, American bombers killed 85,000 civilians — more than would die at Nagasaki — and at least 300,000 were incinerated in great fire raids over the following months.
4)It was argued then, and still sometimes is, that the bombing of Hiroshima 60 years ago on August 6, and of Nagasaki three days later, was justified by the Japanese surrender, obviating the need for an invasion of Japan which would have meant huge casualties.
By the summer of 1945, Japan was already prostrate. Not only were Japanese armies being driven out of the Pacific islands and Burma, American bombers were wrecking the cities of Japan and, in one of the most successful campaigns of the whole war, submarines of the United States navy had done to Japan what German U-boats had never managed to do to England, by completely destroying its shipping. Some American admirals believed then and ever after that surrender was a matter of time, and not much of it, and a strong suspicion persists of an ulterior motive by Washington, wanting to end the war with Japan quickly before Soviet Russia joined in.
Monsignor Ronald Knox, a conservative English Catholic (author of God and the Atom, an astonishing book, neglected at the time and since) : Hiroshima was an assault on faith, ... because — this answers those who still defend the bombing of Hiroshima — "men fighting for a good case have taken, at one particular moment of decision, the easier, not the nobler path."
The facts are taken from the editorial of the Hindu on 06-08-2005.
For thinking people - US hypocrisy on nuclear weapons and disarmament
Extracted from the editorial of the Hindu (06-08-2005)
The deadlocked negotiations at the seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) bring into sharp focus the lack of progress in global nuclear disarmament, in the context of an increased threat of nuclear proliferation. In the May 2005 conference, the Bush administration pursued stridently the far-Right rhetoric on proliferation by `rogue states' — an obvious reference to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea — to camouflage its own obduracy in ignoring its disarmament obligations. Since the 2000 NPT review, the United States, one of the two largest stockpilers of nuclear weapons, has rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and refused to agree to a moratorium on further weapons tests and explosions. Even the minimal assurance to non-nuclear-weapons states of immunity from nuclear threats, as provided in the 1995 United Nations resolution, stands jettisoned; the U.S. and the United Kingdom regard this as incompatible with the doctrine of deterrence. The other commitment was to ensure a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in a country's defence programmes. But only last year the two allies renewed the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement to enable the production of a new generation of nuclear warheads. The U.S. and Russia have, no doubt, agreed under the Moscow Treaty of 2002 to cut back two-thirds of their warheads from deployment by 2012, but they have not bound themselves to destroying them. Washington's initiation of the National Missile Defence programme, ostensibly to counter threats to its national security, is in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that seeks to prevent a qualitatively different arms race.
Global disarmament commitments thus stand dishonoured. The only country that has so far used nuclear weapons in war, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, and other nuclear weapon states have done little to reduce their arsenals more than a decade after the end of the `Cold War'. The double standards and inequities built into the unequal global nuclear bargain that is the NPT, and the one-sided anti-proliferation drive of the nuclear haves, are paving the way for a risky nuclear nationalism in some threshold nuclear states. The question of genuine movement towards global nuclear disarmament assumes greater urgency given the real possibility of extremist movements and terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, which is technically no big deal. As the world observes the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is obvious that nuclear weapon states have turned their back on the lessons of history. The U.S. has extracted from Japan an apology for the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour but has itself refused to express regret for its anti-human nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. India will be betraying both its people and its international affairs heritage if it follows the nuclear weapons club in sidelining the disarmament agenda.
Friday, April 15, 2005
For the greater good?
I reached the IIT gate in the morning the other day only to discover that cars were not being allowed inside by the Delhi police. The police being the police in India, they did not see fit to divulge the reason to me and all the other people who were being turned away from work or even suggest another way of getting into the campus. So I drove on straight to the hostel gate and mercifully was allowed in. I had to park my car quite some way away from office inside the campus. Everybody who works/lives in IIT were discomfited that day as they had to take pretty circuitous routes to their places of work as most of the roads had been blocked by the police.
Of course it was an easy guess that the Chinese premier who was on an India visit would probably visit IIT sometime that day; which he probably did since all the security vanished in the afternoon and normal life resumed.
I cannot still however form on opinion on the fact that one man's visit should put so many people to trouble. There must be at least two thousand students in IIT and a few hundred staff in addition to the families of the staff members who have their residences inside the campus. A significant proportion of this number, quite probably the whole part of those who ventured out that morning on some work, would have been inconvenienced by the elaborate security arrangements. I would have thought that the police's job is to provide security with as little problems as possible to the ordinary public. However, time and again, it is the ordinary people who have to suffer every time some important person plans to go somewhere. And I refuse to believe that a risk-weighted importance of the VIP should outweight the troubles of so many ordinary men every time.
Of course it was an easy guess that the Chinese premier who was on an India visit would probably visit IIT sometime that day; which he probably did since all the security vanished in the afternoon and normal life resumed.
I cannot still however form on opinion on the fact that one man's visit should put so many people to trouble. There must be at least two thousand students in IIT and a few hundred staff in addition to the families of the staff members who have their residences inside the campus. A significant proportion of this number, quite probably the whole part of those who ventured out that morning on some work, would have been inconvenienced by the elaborate security arrangements. I would have thought that the police's job is to provide security with as little problems as possible to the ordinary public. However, time and again, it is the ordinary people who have to suffer every time some important person plans to go somewhere. And I refuse to believe that a risk-weighted importance of the VIP should outweight the troubles of so many ordinary men every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)