है हमें जाना कहाँ, चले हैं कहाँ को हम

गणतंत्र होने का अर्थ सिर्फ़ एक संविधान का लेखा पन्नों में लिख लेना नहीं है | मेरी नज़रों में इसका अर्थ है "बिना किसी के अधिकार की अवेहलना किए राष्ट्र निर्माण के लिए लोगों का स्व: शक्ति संपन्न होना"| लोगों की सशक्ति ही इस शब्द को सार्थक करती है|
अगर स्वतंत्रता अधिकार है तो गणतंत्रता उत्तरदायित्व है और इस से बड़ा और महान उत्तरदायित्व शायद ही कोई ओर हो |

पर इस गणतंत्र दिवस पे जब आपके संविधान का दरबान "राष्ट्रपति" ही राजनीतिक तौर पे पक्षपाती हो और भारत वर्ष के लोगों को अपने वार्षिक सम्भोधन में अपने ही देश के एक राजनीतिक दल पर कीचड़ उछाले तो मेरे मन में सिर्फ़ एक सवाल उठता है:
"है हमें जाना कहाँ, चले हैं कहाँ को हम"

पर मेरा गणतंत्रता में विश्वास अभी भी है क्यों के भारत के लोग अभी भी "ज़िंदा" हैं !
इस गणतंत्र दिवस पे मुझसे शुभ कामनाएं नहीं, थोड़ा विश्वास ले लीजिए !

Smear on Democracy

One of the mistakes of my life has been participating in anti reservation protests. Not that there was any violence involved in it, but by the fundamental truth that in a running and functioning democracy (however imperfect) even the very peaceful protest against government is nothing but a blackmail leave alone the hunger strike. The only correct way to raise your voice is through PIL or any other court of law. Yes one could demonstrate his support for such PIL with candle marches etc. but straightforwardly protesting or having hunger strikes against any bill is nothing but blackmail.

The Gandhian way of protest is a tight rope to say the least. And in India it has been abused over and again equally for wrong purposes as much is for right purposes. It is in this context that I see the latest chaos around Anna Hazaare’s hunger strike.

Two fundamental questions need greater introspection than currently are being given:

1. Could Jan Lokpal Bill really help eradicate corruption or it would lead to more concentration of power and thus more corruption?
2. Is Hazare’s way, the right way to protest and making his voice heard or it’s blackmailing in context of a functioning democracy like India?

The answer to both questions has been discussed pretty immaculately by Bhanu Pratap Mehta in his article - Of the few, by the few

Power, divided in a democracy, can often be alibi for evading responsibility. But it is also a guarantee that the system is not at the mercy of a few good men. Having concentrated immense power, it then displays extraordinary faith in the virtue of those who will wield this power. Why do we think this institution will be incorruptible?

There is something deeply coercive about fasting unto death. When it is tied to an unparalleled moral eminence, as it is in the case of Anna Hazare, it amounts to blackmail.

On top of that, what perturbed me most was the response of government. I am not very appreciative of Indian government and Indian people as such, but one thing I have been proud my whole life and have been cherishing is the “democracy of India” (they call it pseudo-democracy, but I believe that’s the true nature of democracy and American way of democracy is pseudo in nature). The Indian democracy is the only ray of hope in the gross darkness of plethora of issues and problems.

“This is a victory for democracy”, said Anna Hazare. Quite oppositely, both, the hunger strike of Hazare and government’s response, in my view, have been a blatant ridiculing of the Indian democracy. I don’t think I need to remind that our government is a representative of 1 billion people if nothing else. It’s world’s largest democracy and having been invulnerable to number of recessions, neighbour countries’ rivalry and the resilience (like coming out of BoP crisis) it shows time and again, only shows the robustness of our democracy. I can’t help but compare this latest gross derision of government’s succumbing to Hazare’s demands to Indo-Pak division on Jinnah’s demands. Though people are putting Hazare in parallel to M. Gandhi but to me his hunger strike is more in parallel to Jinnah’s Direct Action. An important thing to note is that intention behind both has been noble: for one to give equal representation to Muslims while for other it has been eradication of corruption. Except that it’s anti-corruption bill, I doubt if half of people supporting Hazare even knew what Jan Lokpal Bill contains specifically.

In the quest of ‘Founding Pakistan’ and ‘Implementing Jan Lokpal Bill’ (note that I said implementing a bill and not eradicating corruption) the only difference has been violence. Rest all – blackmailing government, blind faith of people in leaders, government’s subsequent response, and inclusion of individuals in governance; has been same. But most of us still would like to believe that Hazare’s victory is democracy’s victory but Jinnah’s victory is the biggest smear on this institution called democracy. The irony lies in ‘our’ thinking.

There are people like me who would say, it’s all system’s fault; our system itself is all screwed up. No, it’s not. It’s not system’s fault, it’s our fault. Fundamentally it’s “we” and “our mentality” that are screwed up. Just take some time to think about how many times have we seen elections and out of those how many times have we voted; take time to think about why the percentage of voters (especially youth and middle class) keeps on coming down with every election.

I know sitting idle and doing armchair discussions and ranting around will not solve the problem. But I still believe one should be pretty clear about the direction a step would lead to, before taking that step.

IPL's shame

P Sainath has raised an important issue about subsidies being showered to billionaires in the veil of promoting business and cricket. While IPL is already under scrutiny for its dilution of cricket as sports and political nexus that hounds the big money involved in IPL. But there is bigger issue of public money being at stake in IPL's promotion that has been raised in article.
Subsidy is given to businesses in purview of the risk they are taking for improving opportunity in employment in the given region. In context of IPL’s match hosting the subsidies are contradictory to any sane logic.
The foremost reason of subsidy would be the promotion of cricket as sports in India. IPL is seen as launch pad of talent and emerging players. But in India it is other sports which have danger from the already gained position of cricket.
When tax subsidies are given, generally they are because of the impact of corresponding business on employment. As most of game is revolved around already set-up business of entertainment in form of media and TV and not product or service is being manufactured which could provide employment to common man, this factor nulls itself.
With a big schedule that spans more than a month the individual matches cater to entertainment to particular city apart from media. The argument that it could promote tourism and exposure of the city globally has little validity.

While holding of international events like Commonwealth games can be key factor in bringing good money to a city and improving infrastructure and exposure of the city, the same is far irrelevant to domestic IPL games besides the fact that international players are roped in for IPL teams.
The recent row has brought the lack of transparency in Indian Cricket and BCCI's dealings to the fore. Lest the great showcase event of IPL becomes a national shame, it's time that cricket's financial dealings are made transparent and regulatory authorities be made independent from politics and businesses.

Disrespect

According the most earliest reports the tax slabs look for year 2009-10 and 2010-11 looks something like this:

2009-10
0 to 1,60,000	No tax
1,60,001 to 3,00,000	10%
3,00,001 to 5,00,000	20%
Above 5,00,000	30%

2010-11
0 to 1,60,000	No tax
1,60,001 to 5,00,000	10%
5,00,001 to 8,00,000	20%
Above 8,00,000	30%

To sum up a middle class family of income 5,00,000 per year will be paying 34,000 instaed of 54,000. Thats huge load shedding from tax payers's shoulders in itself.

And then if, for fiscal consolidation there are steps to increase oil prices, that's not very big deal. Oil prices already are grossly manipulated(lowered, would be correct word) that this step actually is a right step. And as far as first look tells, there is going to be less burden on common man seeing other public expenditures.

But, oh the ironic fate of Indian politics, for the first time in Indian history there is collective walkout from parliament by joint opposition during a budget speech. Here is the point: this walkout is done by politicians who have least understanding of economics, are chosen by Indian public for highest Indian service who managed to disrespect one of the highest Indian institution (parliament), and thus in a way disrespecting themselves, in utterly distasteful media propaganda. How can someone be so dumb as to walkout without first fully understanding the budget to showcase a knee jerk response on just one clause!!

Naxalism

Sometime back prime minister himself had described the naxalism to be greatest internal threat. But as global markets and share markets once bounced back from recession, even Afghan-Pakistan issue also lost its charm in the euphoria from mainstream media leave alone naxalism. Just before Pune blasts, most recently the blantant showcase of commercialised politics was on display in the from of security to MNIK.

But two recent happenings(Abduction and Killings) have shown that four decade old problem of naxalism is not so easy to be forgotten. In my view, graver is the problem of romanticism with naxalism than the actual problem of naxalism. A lot of folks(intellectuals) I have come across defines it as ideological battle between supressed men and government. The same intellectuals tend to ignore the human rights of common man while shouting loud for the rights of naxalites. But the realities come out quite opppsite way. Take for instance recent abduction, abduction of an innocent officer to free their own people doesn't feel like very humanaly. Killing 10 innocent villagers just because someone didn't adhere to their ideology again doesn't seem to be ways of suppressed men.
I think this is the worst kind of terrorism because when some remote group of people attack on us in the name of jihad, we know it is not our people, it becomes easy to point out someone; but when extremism rises from our own backyards, it is difficult to root out the bad weed without touching the good crop.

कहाँ हैं?

अगर आपने यह गीत पहेले नहीं सुना हुआ तो ज़रूर सुनिए| रोज़ रोज़ ऐसे गीत नहीं बनते जो देश की नीह को हिला के रख दे| अगर आपको गीत के बोल समझ नहीं आ रहे या अर्थ नहीं समझ आ रहा तो यहाँ पे आपको तथ्य मिल सकते हैं|

Award shward

I was reading about the Iron Man of India when I noticed that he was given Bharat Ratna in 1991, 41 years after he died. Isn't it ironical that man, who is the reason India stands today as united India, was given this award 41 years while Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi got Bharat Ratna in their lifetime.
And apparently Sardar Patel is not the only one.

War and Terror

In India I hear 'Hang kasab' from people, I don't hear 'Bring kasab to justice'.
What is so differetn over there at Uncle Sam's?

Wretched State

First this(Kargil) and now this(Lal Bahadur Sashtry) , and I thought my jokes were bad...
Could any rant justify the wretched state of Indian diplomacy?

Strategy of an Economist

Perhaps ypu remember when the chocolate hero of INC saga gave the proof of his intellectual shrewdness when he called the Kandhar Hijack drama - buckling in front of terrorists. Perhaps lives of 178 people on the board didn't seem very crucial for India's future.

But then who cared that foreign strategy is not very much a game of an economist. Putting the whole nation's reputation and strategy at stake could be termed as strength of decision making, isn't it?

Or maybe sometimes it becomes difficult to understand simple things.
"A country does not become great by engaging other countries on their terms, particularly when those countries are waging war against it."

Six BIG drivers of my vote

1. Indian Democracy:
The Gandhian(rather Nehru, or actually Khan, ok, I don't know) dynasty that runs in the congress is blatant, in-the-face mockery to whole concept of democracy. All the later generations of Nehru(Indira, Rajiv, Sanjay, Sonia, Rahul) have reaped the benefit of family name without having any actual potential of their own. They didn't rise from party heirarchy but they were/are gifted with highest of ranks in party just because they have their family name. On top of that, Gandhi name is sold like a brand in India, making educational institutions, government policies, government schemes on Gandhis' names. The choice will be ours to decide if we want a rule of democratic party in democratic India or a rule of royalty in democratic India. At least I won't encourage any dominance of autocracy over democracy.
Case of Gandhi Nomenclature


2. Political Interference in Indian state:
Election Commission and President are two unbiased institutions of Indian state. If these are politicized, I wonder, in what manner Indian state could be called a free democracy or why cant Indian republic is not a failed one.
The case of Chawla/EC and election of president, politicized by UPA, points nothing but an institutionalized interference of congress in Indian state.
Even though BJP continuously campaigned against Pratibha Patil, UPA went ahead with making Pratibha Patil, the president of India, more so when her credentials were in a fair doubt.
Even after Shah Commission declared Chawla “unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others”, the UPA let him continue the most unbiased(should be), critical-for-democracy office.
On the other hand, there is NDA(so called pro-Hindu) nominated a scientist, think-tank, muslim Abdul Kalam as president.
Credentials of Pratibha Patil
Chawla Must Go


3. Economic Front:
Not diluting the phenomenal change in Indian economics brought by Manmohan Singh during Narsimha's government, I have no hesitance to say that it was only congress's pro-communism (allying with socialism in Nehruvian regime) that delayed this much-needed revolution. Lets not awake the dead from grave, but current UPA has done no better job in economic front. Sometimes I wonder if P Chidambram and Manmohan Singh are really worthy of being called competitve economist or is that just an myth created by media. UPA always has been high on its pro-poor governance but when there was chance of fiscal consolidation the UPA missed the mark. And let me tell you that fiscal consolidation is not a small issue. It is the basic reason why India could not fight with current recession effectively and the basic reason of inflation at these times even when crude oil has dropped in to the well from a high ceiling. P Chidambram has his own view of economic policies, and he himself agrees that fiscal deficit actually reduced in NDA's regime. In 2004 elections NDA has fiscal consolidation as its major economic agenda which UPA completely overlooked for sake of minority appeasement.
On top of that again minority appeasement has always been bugging the UPA economic policies in form of expensive useless schemes like 'farm loan waiver'.
Another point to consider here is that BJP has always been pro-development and there are people like Arun Shourie in BJP who have a concrete economic policy for India.
Tough times ahead UPA
India's Need for Fiscal Consolidation
An analysis on PC's deliriums

4. Communalism/Minority Appeasement:
BJP is often looked as a communal party. The reson for that in my view is our minority-biased media. I dont deny BJP is communal but other parties including congress are no less communal than BJP is. Congress is communal in favor of minorities. Take for example, to appease Muslims UPA removed POTA but then again was compelled to bring back POTA(in form of NSA) after Mumbai-attacks. In my view, as much BJP has been communal in favor of Hindus, congress has come communal agianst Hindus. In both of these fights, minorities dont get any benefit except for a false belief of appeasement. If Babri Masjid or Godhra can be counted as BJP communism then 1984-Sikh-riots and Nandigram are congress/left given communism. There is another point to consider here that in India almost every party has a coomunity base. Whether its Akali Dal(Sikh community), BSP(Dalit community), Shiv Sena(Mahrashtra community), BJP(Hindu community), congress(every kind of minority), the political base that these parties have made has been because of appeasement each give to their targetted group. There is absolutely no party who considers India as whole.
In this case I dont conisder any party better than the other.

5. Security and Foreign Policy:
If NDA had been succesful in Kargil War anf Pokhran tests, then UPA also has success of Nuclear Deal and handling of Mumbai Attacks in its pocket. UPA handled Pakistan (post Mumbai) very well through dipomatic pressure and was not provoked into direct confrontation on border. I believe I will have to go with equal points to both NDA and UPA in this criteria.

6. Coalition Corruption:
As I had explained the dilemma of diversity and corruption, UPA has been a fortress of corruption cases in its last tenure. For the forthcoming elections UPA has already seen disappointment from its allies only because allies like Lalu and Mulayam see a better opportunity of negotiating in post-poll-alliance than pre-poll-alliance. In this regard they even dream of becoming prime-minsters. And with UP being the the fort of Indian politics, (to me) there seems to be no chance of UPA coming to majority in its present form, which will only ensure that it will have to succumb to post-poll alliances. If conditions in coalition itself are so aggravated, one can imagine the corruption that will erupt during the tenure. And there will be great deal of chances of disagreement in these parties (kind of congress-left divergence on nuclear deal) the price of which will have to paid by Indian people only.
NDA is not entirely devoid of corruption, but the gap is wide between UPA and NDA.

In nutshell: I view all the political parties in current state are noncompetitive to run a government in India. But we have to accept the fact that for the sake of India we have to make a choice out of these given parties. In my view NDA is relatively better option than others and I would have voted for NDA(if I could have). You should, too, make your choice without bias, on basis what is good for India (not what is good for my community).

Note: I have not considered possibility of third front. The reason being, in my view practically third front as an electoral victory is not viable. Even if third front comes into existence and wins, even then I reject it as an option on the basis that a fragmented(ideological point of view) coalition can not deliver at national level on any(economic, plitical, social) issue. Secondly, any involvement of left is not acceptable to me. I consider left(or any communist ideology) a threat to any kind of progress(I am using word 'progress' not 'development'. Left is anti-development is easily understandble, though.)

Nano and Environment

This link - Why CSE says ‘NO’ to has been forwarded to me a friend on google reader. I came to know there exists something called Centre for Science and Environment and from this article it seems they are completely dorks living in a whimsical world, how can they associate themselves with science - an institution of logic and reasoning.

A king walking on the road slips on banana-peel, next day he bans eating banana by anyone in his kingdom. Try subverting the irony between symptom and cause.

"Cars may drive growth and aspirations, but they can never meet the commuting needs of urban India. Cars choke cities, harm public health and guzzle more oil."
If Indian regulation for car-pollution are low or the road infrastructure in India is bad it doesn't mean cars can never meet the commuting needs. Cars are the major means of commuting in developed countries whether it's USA, Europe or Japan. If in India cars are not able to meet that requirement then its not cars which are to blame. The blame lies with infrastructure that exists in India. Rather than chalking out need of infrastructure, blame the cars, because that is more like environment-friendly, isn't it?

"as all cars -- small or big -- are heavily subsidised in Indian cities. But the hidden costs of using cars are enormous."
Does car-manufacture put state-governments on the edge of knife, when they negotiate for subsidies? No, state-governments happily shower their subsidies to lure these manufacturers so that state can have another mean of employment, jobs and gross production. If some widget/product price is reduced according to principles of trade then there is nothing wrong with it.

"Thus, we are certainly not paying the full cost of manufacture of our cars, let alone the cost of running or parking them."
Do they even know the concept called business or trade. First of all how are they measuring the full cost? On what parameters do they decide full cost? Just because there is lenience in taxes to manufacturers, reasoning is that it's not full price? To tell you the truth of economics, there shouldn't be unreasonable obstacles and taxes in the first place that businesses in India have to face.

"Public transport, on the other hand, gets a step-motherly treatment: our government penalises buses by taxing them higher than the much-pampered cars."
Public transports pay more because they are in business. How difficult was it to understand? They are making money from usage of buses. Individual cars do not make income from the usage. They forgot to mention the taxes imposed in taxis or cabs.

"Cars of today are truly akin to dinosaurs. They are not part of the solution to the pollution and climate mayhem."
Of course, cars are not solution to pollution problem, they are solution to transportation problem. What kind of statement is that?

"the major car companies are lining up for bailouts worth billions that are forcing Western governments to inject more money into the business – this, in turn, is fanning more greed and greater car dependency."
I was of the view that we were talking about India, how and when did USA enter into picture, is strange. The bailouts are result of bad business choices and dependency of employment on those industries. It has nothing to do with 'fanning greater car dependency'. In fact, the present conditions of bankruptcy to these industries will be a lesson to car-makers to make pollution-efficient cars.

Cities need mobility, not cars. Says Roychowdhury: “We need to re-design public policies to promote mobility for all -- scale up efficient public transport and implement effective tax policies to restrain car use.”
I agree with what they have concluded, but there is a way to reach at some conclusion. The way in which CSE has opted to reach this conclusion is fatally flawed. Cars of course, result in more pollution and more so in India(given the infrastructure). Most of people don't use cars(and stuck in traffic jams) just for funsies, they do it because there is no choice. The present infrastructure of transportation in India is not appropriate enough for a good-earning man who has option for car. The blame lies with infrastructure and improve, it should be.
Just for example, recently Delhi metro system has been a success in transportation. Why is it a success? - Is it because metro system was efficient as transportation or did they banned car-usage for people who lived near metro-stations?

Birth of third front

Third front is born with Left(CPI) at its helms. Below is how I see Left as a hypocrite anti-development bunch of politicians with no ideology except power hunger.


"He said the non-BJP, non-Congress coalition would stand for the interests of the vast majority of Indians, defend secular values and fight for social justice."
Need I remind of Nandigram

"Perceptions will change. In states where our coalition is running governments much development has taken place and industry has grown. I don’t see why industry or corporates should feel that this coalition will be less favourable or hostile to them,"
"Karat, whose party withdrew support to the Congress-led government in July last year over the India-US nuclear deal, said successive governments had failed to resolve grave economic problems confronting the country."
Resolution of Tata Plant issue is a mockery to above statement

"What does 9 percent growth mean for common man? We still have farmers committing suicide. We have shortage of food items, which makes life miserable for common man"
Talk about suicides(suicide by a farmer or a common man)


"I don't think there is any leader or party in the Third Front who would not want to be PM. When the time comes to select the PM candidate, the Third Front will split," said Ghulam Nabi Azad, Congress leader in charge of the party in Karnataka."
I hope the situation of third front choosing a PM never arises.

News delayed by one year

This is Mar 11, 2009 news from CNN-IBN:
24 indians make it to forbes worlds richest list [link now removed]
This was the content of the news, anyway.

This is news from BBC on same day:
Rich list hit by economic crisis

These are the actual lists:
Forbes 2009 list
Forbes 2008 list

IBNlive is an Indian news channel. There isn't any mention whether list is 2008 or 2009, but 'now'(as on Mar 11,2009) is mentioned.

India's President

I read recent address of president Pratibha Patil to parliament. I drew some wrong conclusions that president is being sycophant. On more inspection I found out, it is actually a formal speech outlining intentions of government, which is identical in nature to a Speech from the Throne.

Though I still wonder why president (the commander of armed forces, above all a neutral body) has to read sycophantic rants of government.

On a more significant note came across this link about history of Pratibha Patil's history(alleged).

Alcohol, Hooligans and India

They had to what they had to do, after all they are hooligans. But it's difficult to digest the fact even the politicians will call it a day in view of political benefits.[Curbing Pub Culture] But ironically the same politicians might realize the dangers of it[Alleged Kidnapping](It is not proved yet, but is it too hard to realize that this is an easy possibility).

Even an idiot can argue that drinking alcohol is strictly one's own prerogative. Yes, if it harms someone else, then there should be strict laws about that. But the story doesn't end here. Apart from gender abuse, religious intolerance and human right violation, it raises more issues to think about.

Myth of Sanskriti/traditional values -
Rather than irritating, it is more of amazing to comprehend the kind of Sanskriti that these hooligans are trying to protect. Is it the Sanskriti that was innate to Hinduism where Gods like Shiva or Indra used to drink liquor of brand Somaras or is it the Sanskriti of Mughals whose religion prohibited them to touch alcohol and so they banned the consumption of alcohol[source]. Literally every person in India has a different definition of the Sanskriti(tradition). What definition will you choose: definition of a slum-dweller, definition of riches like Ambanis, definition of entrepreneurs, definition of middle-class, definition of IT employees, definition of pesants, definition of Shiv-sena, definition of BJP...it can never end. But to see that, there can be a definition of Sanskriti which instigates folks to use the ways of violence, is amazing.

Come to think of it, Islam ourightly bans alcohol consumption for any Muslim. But in Hindu mythology even Gods like Shiva and Indra consume liquor. Will these moral-protectors of Indian values, adhere that Islam is a better religion in this context?

The consumption of alcohol isn't restricted to Gods in Hindu mythology. Hinduism has been very open about consuming alcohol as a merry-making necessity of life for poor and king equally. And Hinduism is also liberal on precautions in moderation of consumption; punishing the occasional wrong-doers in effect of alcohol with benevolent curses of Gods. But in modern India we have forgotten the righteous attached to alcohol, but have adopted the extremes: either drink of Gods or a drink of uncultured society. Its a shame that we like to call ourselves liberal because it is favored by America and have forgotten our very own culture of tolerance.
On a slightly low note, I read this quote somewhere:

The dipsomaniac and the abstainer are not only both mistaken, but they both make the same mistake. They both regard wine as a drug and not as a drink.[unknown source]

The excuse -
Now for argument sake, lets say that pub culture is ruining the values of teenage girls as well as boys. Lets say there are incidents of rapes, road accidents etc. because of this culture. Now the glitch is to find who is to be blamed about this.
The reaction of moral-parties is to blame the youth, beat them up and lock them in households so that they can come to senses.

It is naive to think that any teenage(or even adult) will go in right direction with alcohol if he/she is not in proper environment. In cities like Bangalore it is difficult to remain unattached to it with loners of IT industry occupying the most part of city. Rather than teaching the moderate way of alcohol, we take the easy way: blame them.
On top of that if there are restrictions/reservation about alcohol in religions of some families, then also, it lies with parents to guide their children about proper way, not with some third party with sticks in hands.

Problem of terrorism -
The gravest problem of all this hooliganism is that this line of thinking becomes the insinuating base of terrorism. First there is intolerance, then there is hatred, then it comes to moral-war and then it becomes Jihad(taking the misinterpreted meaning). Result is bloodshed. This idea cannot be made clearer than by this blogger - Indiacut: The systematic Use of Terror
I wonder what M.Gandhi will have to say about this now - "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Problem is in all this 'they' and 'you' are same people - we, the Indians.

It's the wine that leads me on, the wild wine that sets the wisest man to sing at the top of his lungs, laugh like a fool – it drives the man to dancing…it even tempts him to blurt out stories better never told.[The Odyssey]

Vanity of Pakistan

However impotent he may be as a chief of a country(unofficially/but not really), there is one thing about Zardari to be appreciated: his art of rhetoric. Some quotes from his latest editorial
"...we need no lectures on our commitment. This is our war. It is our children and wives who are dying."
"...The situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India is indeed critical, but its severity actually presents an opportunity for aggressive and innovative action."
"...Assistance to Pakistan is not charity; rather, the creation of a politically stable and economically viable Pakistan is in the long-term, strategic interest of the United States."
In a single editorial he tries to convey a threat of militancy, ask for a charity(politically assistance), justify actions of government and army.

On the other hand, there is USA point of view from Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and columnist David Ignatius:
"All countries have armies, but here, an army has a country."
"...the Pakistani army, with its stockpile of nuclear weapons, may include officers linked to a terrorist attack on the country's neighbor."
"...it's much more opaque than it is transparent... ...it can sometimes be difficult to figure out who did what to whom..."

Apart from what has been said in above quotes, there is a lot that can be inferred from these two essays
1. Civilian society in Pakistan is just there to die either in hands of terrorist or in hands of its own army or in hands of USA.
2. Zardari needs to know the distinction between a corporate house and a state. He cannot make difference between opportunity to show talent or need of security to people.
3. Stable Pakistan is in interests of India not that of USA unless USA needs Pakistan for war with terrorism.
4. USA is unable to comprehend the inter-relation between ISI, army and terrorism in Pakistan.
5. USA is happy just to see just a deployment of some troops for USA's fight(not Pakistan's) on the face. It's unable to learn from sixty years of experience of India with Pakistan.
6. USA is still unable to detach Kashmir problem with that of contemporary form of terrorism.
7. I wonder if Pakistan is rogue state or a state at all...
8. India has another worry to add in its list now, US intervention in Kashmir issue.

Satyam

When you are riding a tiger there will always be a risk of being clawed upon by tiger.
Maybe it was conscience or maybe all doors were closed for Ramalinga Raju that he had to resign. Long stories are being written on how a treacherous animal he is and all that. Few days ago the person who was one of biggest stories of Indian corporate success is now a sham on the face of India.
I just want to explain one thing:
Have you ever wondered that was it Satyam trying to rescue Maytas or was it Maytas trying to rescue Satyam?[link] And it turns out later is true. Satyam would have bought Maytas giving a worthless value to Raju's son thus filling up Satyam's blank balance books. His son would have been happy to sacrifice all his hard work but saving his father's ass. And if that is true, it transpires that Raju was actually doing a favor to Satyam with the sacrifice of his son's property.
Imagine if his plan would have succeeded then Satyam would have finally got clean books and diversified assets. Raju would have cleansed his sins and all would have been well with his corporate governance. He would have been success story for many more years to come.
But no, that was not to be. The same investors who reaped benefits for years from Raju's decisions, now interrupted him for the single most right thing he set to do. And now guess what who is regretting most after Satyam has come crashing down - Raju or those investors?

If I am any judge I will give clean chit to Raju for at least showing courage to face the tiger.

Note: In no way I am implying that he did a great job following those malpractices. Following malpractices or not, is not the point.

26/11 Mumbai Attacks: War with Pakistan

While reading this post from Vinod, I really got confused. I am in dilemma between the question of 'war with Pakistan'.

War with Pak: Yes
There is no way Pakistan govt will help finding perpetrators of any terrorist attacks that have happened in India over the past, forget about current Mumbai attacks. This is shown in their blatant act of ignorance that any terrorist activity even does exist in Pakistan at all. Similarity can defined for Pakistan govt with Taliban which did not take any action against Al Qaeda, and now Pak is reluctant to recognise LeT (and group). Pakistan's behavior in this respect is also criminal, giving refuse to other criminals. It is Pakistan's compulsion or urge, we cannot tell. How to pressurize Pakistan is question which is answered by only taking unilateral military action.
We are left with only military action because over the past, any bilateral or multilateral talks involving India and Pakistan, have been failed utterly in achieving the objective. Though one should not be cynical that if talk has been failed in the past, it is bound to fail again. But going with conditions in Pakistan and attitude of its govt, it is safe to assume.
The other way would have been multilateral pressure on Pakistan with the support of USA(may be Israel also). But here again the glitch is at this point of time, favoring India over Pakistan is not in strategic interests of USA. USA would not want to jeopardize its fight with Taliban on Eastern front of Pakistan, which is its high priority and in which it has already invested.
All India is left with, is unilateral action(not talk) on Pakistan which transforms to war.

War with Pak: No
The solution is not so easy. Lets say we go to war with Pakistan.
First of all that is really not direct solution to India's problem. 'War' means war with Pakistan govt which is in fact supporter of terrorists, not the actual culprit which happens to be LeT and Company Inc.
Secondly there is the mess of Taliban. If there is war between Pakistan and India then Pakistan finds itself in pieces. It will be highly unstable because of war from two fronts - Eastern(India) and Western(Taliban). Now again, unstable Pakistan is highly undesirable for India. India may win one war, but will have to face another war.
There maybe a arguments that Taliban will support Pakistan. Really? The given war will be only platform for Taliban to gain solid stand in Pakistan. After Pakistan goes bust, Taliban will rule the left-overs. Taliban is no mere terrorist group, it has a monumental army gathered(80,000 read somewhere).
On top of that, If India goes to war with Pakistan then it will jeopardize its strategic relations with USA because for USA Pakistan is a crucial ally in fight with terrorism. And in this situation when India is vulnerable from three fronts - Pakistan(west), China(Northern border) and internal threats(like naxalism), it will be a blunder to not have USA as an ally. Because at this point of time, on international front only USA is strong ally for India.

The Question
What should be India's response, as foreign strategy, to Mumbai Terror attacks?
still remain unanswered.

26/11 Mumbai Attacks: In response to NYT

Dear Gosh,
With all due respect, You are so wrong!! Perhaps you need to analyze the Mumbai attacks with more care. These attacks were even more significant than 9/11 not for world or America but for India. Think carefully if the same perpetrators could have kept the whole nation at ransom for three days if the same incident would have happened in USA. No, we are not talking about America, we are talking about India. We are talking about something which is more than number of casualties. It is about national security, it is about corruption of politics, corruption in security forces, it is about ripping of whole nation. 9/11 is significant to world because it was not about world trade center of America but about the price whole Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan had to pay.
And what else do you expect from a city other than returning to normal life, where life is more tough than anywhere else in India.

But yes, I agree with you on:
"Defeat or victory is not determined by the success of the strike itself; it is determined by the response."

Dear Friedman,
Even with more respect, I ask you to read Zardari's response. USA can invade a sovereign nation(Pakistan that is) to find her criminals but India cannot even make a descent request to hand over perpetrators.

And Pakistan's sincerity towards countering terrorism is shown in their ignorance (act of ignorance):
"if any evidence points towards any individual or group in my part of the country..."