Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for October, 2009

RECKLESSNESS!


God appeared to David and asked , ” Why should I grant your wish. Give me one reason?”

David said, ” God! I tried keeping your commandments. And if ever i had deviated, that was not out of WILLFULNESS, but out of WEAKNESS -with a generous dose of RECKLESSNESS.”

God said, ” In fact for your sense of humour I grant it to you, more than the reasons for which you claim you deviated.”

David was so pleased with himself that he told God, ” So God have i finally said what You have not heard before?

God said, “Sure David, I have heard it from someone for the first time. But what amused me was that My creation had thought of what he was not supposed to consider. You have eaten from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE! Go earn your own bread, and toil!”

Advertisements

STANDARDIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOUR!


A week or so back Mr.Abhishek Singhvi in the op-ed page of the TIMES OF INDIA, Bangalore edition had in an article more or less titled “IQ-EQ”, made the point that the Nobel Laureate Mr.Venkatraman, by not being indulgent to the fans from his home town of Chidambaram, from the state of Tamil Nadu had betrayed that he lacked the EMOTIONAL QUOTIENT to empathize with the fans in Tamil Nadu. Almost as a response to that in today’s TIMES OF INDIA (27/10/2009- Bangalore Edition), one Mr.Ashok (said to be a bureaucrat) had defended the response of Mr.Venkatraman as a respose from a seeker of TRUTH and contrasted it with, the politician’s objective of a “just social order”. Very well written article- i should say.

The problem with Indians (including me) is that we do not want to accord SPACE to our fellow human beings. Every human being has rights but no LIBERTY. His LIBERTY, if exercised is immediately interpreted as a LICENSE granted by the society. Mr.Venkatraman had out of his own efforts made it to wherever he has made it. Even a week before the declaring of the Nobel Prize no Indian outside the scientific community had heard of the work done by Venkatraman. Suddenly after the receipt of RECOGNITION thru the ultimate prize, the politicians swing into action and lecture us as to how the recipient should have the Emotional Quotient, and be humble to the native Indians, etc. etc. Have the politicians named any main road in the capital city of New Delhi in the name of Sir C.V.Raman or Ramanujam or J.C.Bose in all these years? I know of only COPERNICUS MARG (the monk who discovered that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and left the proof for posthumous publishing, so as to avoid the Papal BULL!!), and none besides that radiates from INDIA GATE.

The roads that radiate are AKBAR road, Rajpath, Ashoka road, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Copernicus Marg, Tilak Marg, Purana Qila road, the High court Road ( do not remember), Shah Jahan marg and one more. Of these roads there is only one SCIENTIST and that also a Polish. So where do we RECOGNIZE the discoveries of our own SCIENTISTS?

We are a nation led by some humbug palliatives. Mahatma Gandhi had contributed to this nation’s independence, had brought out the soul of India by organizing the nation against the British through NON-VIOLENCE. But who is Kasturba Gandhi and besides the fact that she had been the wife to the Mahatma, is there any other achievement that is worth remembering through the generations to pass in this country? I guess not. Yet we have named a road after her. Maybe we have used her name as a replacement to Lord Curzon, so it is okay. But why not name significant roads after C.V.Raman, Ramanujam, Hargobind Khurana (Medicine Nobelist), J.C.Bose, Chandrashekar? After all we haveerrectedstatues for the LIVING POLITICIANS too in India (Dr. M.Karunanidhi, Ms.Mayawati etc). Why do we not recognize their INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS?

Secondly, except for a few lectures delivered by Mr.Venkatraman in the IISc, Anna University has the COUNTRY FELICITATED him in any way by giving him FREE AIR TICKETS TO INDIA in our MAHARAJA AIRCRAFTS? OR the unpunctual TRAINS of India? or VIP protocol during his visits to India? No. That is preserved for the POLITICAL MARKETEERS!! The political marketeers who bring about a “JUST” social order thru PROCRUSTEAN methods. CUT THE BIG ONES TO FIT WITH THE COT OF UNIFORMITY!!!

Now that he had won the Nobel Prize, certain self- appointed high priests of social etiquette are prescribing SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR to our own NOBEL LAUREATE. If only such persons could influence the government and make policies relating to RECOGNITION OF INDIAN SCIENTISTS ABROAD, they would have done some service, instead of curbing the LIBERTY of a great mind.

Finally, Mr.Venkatraman is a scientist who is not into politics or marketing that he has to appease people with his charming behaviour. All great minds have their idiosyncrasies and it squarely falls within the LIBERTY of an Individual. If some fellow in Chidambaram is going to claim that he taught Mr.Venkatraman, when that is not the case, why should NOT Mr.Venkatraman deny it on record? Mr.Venkatraman still cycles and goes for work ( or so the reports say!), so why not leave a MAN alone who is busy with his own vocation and draw him into ACCEPTABLE SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR and make him feel guilty both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his fellow country men?

Mr. Abhishek Singhvi might even question the wisdom of Mr.Venkatraman wanting to buy a Stradivarius cello for his son paying $200,000/- when there are many Indians living below the opaque statistical poverty line!! Leave the man alone. The poor will always be there.

Let me reiterate what Jesus said: SABBATH WAS MADE FOR MAN, AND NOT MAN FOR THE SABBATH.

LET US HINDER NOBODY’S LIBERTIES, WHEN IT AFFECTS ONLY OUR SOCIAL SENSIBILITIES!!

ABRAHAM & HAMAN!


Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jewish faith and the spiritual forefather of Christians, as per chapter 18 of the Book of Genesis, in The BIBLE, when in conversation with the angels who had come in the guise of wayfarers to announce the birth of a son to Abraham and Sarah broached on the topic of Sodom and Gomorrah,  asks the angels in disguise, if there were 50 righteous people would they spare the city of Sodom from destruction. Thus Abraham in multiples of 10 reaches the last ten, asks the angels if they would desist from destroying the city, if there were only 10 righteous persons? The angels agree and depart. We know from the latter part of the book of Genesis that there were only 4 who would find grace and also out of that 4, one became a PILLAR OF SALT (Lot’s Wife).

Let us look into the BOOK OF ESTHER in The Bible, where the minister HAMAN has a running feud with Mordecai, the Cousin of Esther the Queen to Xerxes. Haman to spite Mordecai gets a decree passed by Xerxes that  anyone could plunder the Jews and pillage and kill them and that the Jews would not have the protection of the state. The state was by no means small. 127 provinces stretching from Ethiopia to India. So here we have a character HAMAN who wants all the Jews to be slaughtered so that the people of Mordecai could be wiped out.

Contrast this with the first part of the blog. ABRAHAM wanted to save the city for the sake of 10 good men and HAMAN wanted to destroy an ethnic group just to settle his personal scores with a single INDIVIDUAL. This attitude of Abraham was LIFE ORIENTED and the attitude of HAMAN was ANTI-LIFE. It is that which brings about the downfall of the man Haman.

PRO LIFE attitude breeds and sustains LIFE, whereas ANTI-LIFE attitude brings about death , destruction and chaos.

What Haman missed out was a crucial piece of information. HAMAN did not find out the ethnic background of ESTHER- in that she was a Jewess. Mordecai had instructed her that she should not divulge that she was a Jewess. Hegai did not probably know, or did and concealed it well. Why did Mordecai want Esther to conceal that she was a Jewess? Could be a zillion reasons. One is that Jews were as greedy then as now and there was a general ill-feeling and therefore to avoid further heartburn had instructed Esther to conceal, or that the Jews having survived the onslaught of the Assyrians, Babylonians and being in exile did not think it wise to advertise their occupation of crucial positions within the political hierarchy. In any case that was a good strategy!! Otherwise Haman would have had a whiff of the ethnic lot of Esther and would not have ventured to get the decree passed. And Jews would not have instituted PURIM to disguise the moral fall of a Jewess, who went to get married to a non-jew Xerxes!!

IN ALL, LIFE BREEDS LIFE AND ANTI-LIFE ALWAYS BOOMERANGS!! ABRAHAM LIVED AT LEAST 80 YEARS AFTER THE EPISODE, BUT HAMAN DIED ON THE SECOND DAY OF THE BANQUET!!

RAJNIKANTH- A PHENOMENON. BUT WHY?


The Thamizh cinema had produced one of the most unexplained phenomena in Rajnikanth, the SUPER STAR of Thamizh cinema. To give a brief history of Rajnikanth i should rely on wikipedia:-

Shivaji Rao Gaekwad (born on 12 December 1950),[1] professionally known by his stage name Rajinikanth (Tamil: ரஜினிகாந்த்; Kannada: ರಜನೀಕಾಂತ್; Marathi: रजनीकांत), is an Indian film actor. He received India’s third highest honour, the Padma Bhushan, for his contribution to Indian cinema.[2] He is best known for his mass popularity and appeal, largely drawn from his mannerisms and stylized delivery of dialogue in films. Other than acting, Rajinikanth worked as a screenwriter, film producer, and also a playback singer. Apart from his film career, he is a philanthropist and also serves as an influence in the politics of Tamil Nadu.

Rajinikanth debuted as an actor in 1975 under the direction of K. Balachander in supporting roles. He was later favoured in portraying antagonistic characters and gradually rose to acting in lead roles. After the release of his 1978 film Bhairavi, he became known as the “super star” of Tamil cinema, which was the title given to him by film producer S. Thanu and till this date used by many people to refer to him.[3][4] He also appeared in the cinemas of other nations, including American cinema. He was paid Rs. 26 crores for Sivaji: The Boss, making him the highest paid actor in Asia after Jackie Chan.

CINEMA is an audio-visual entertainment. Therefore there are 2 aspects that are essential for captivating the audience. One is the VOICE and the other is the SIGHT. So to be successful in cinema one has to excel in either of these essentials. The VOICE is absolutely essential for a MALE ACTOR. I have not seen a successful MALE ACTOR’S voice dubbed and his screen presence  alone  used by the Director. For a male actor the VOICE is the distinguishing factor. For example, Katarina Kaif cannot talk in Hindi, but she is a successful actress without her voice ever being a part of the film. Such is the case with a whole host of heroines who land up in Madras from the other side of the hills!! But one cannot separate  the man’s VOICE from his presence.  Rajnikanth had to create a space for himself and he did. He accentuated the pace of his dialogue delivery. But the VOICE alone would not carry the day in an AUDIO-VISUAL entertainment.  So his pace in movement and his mannerisms were kept in tune with the TIMING of his dialogue delivery speed. In fact he speeded up the Thamizh language.

It was this SPEEDING UP of the THAMIZH language which created his space. Maybe, had he arrived in the 50’s this would not have cut much ice with the public, the TIMING changes in the MID 70’s. And there u have the phenomenon. The original and NATURALLY ORIGINAL RAJNIKANTH. Whether he filled up an evolving void or created the void to fill himself up, is a conundrum. (Kaatru vandha dhaal kodi asaindha dhaa? illai kodi asaindhadhaal kaatru vandhadha?)

IN ANY CASE, AFTER THE HAPPENING OF A PHENOMENON, IT IS EASIER TO ASCRIBE REASONS FOR THE PHENOMENON. BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THE INGREDIENTS OF A PHENOMENON AND PUT THEM TOGETHER TO REPEAT THE PHENOMENON.

IT JUST HAPPENS. IN THE CASE OF RAJNIKANTH IT HAPPENED. I AM MERELY RATIONALIZING!!

BERLUSCONI, BESSON & CHURCHILL.


The latest one which has been the cause of Berlusconi, the Italian Premier, hitting the headlines for offensive reason is his statement, “YOU ARE MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN INTELLIGENT!”, addressed to Rosy Bindi a matronly, bespectacled Leftist.  Naturally the feminist organizations have taken the cudgels for Ms. Bindi. Ms. Bindi herself had retorted, “I AM NOT A WOMAN AT YOUR DISPOSAL.” TO THE DISCERNING, THE RETORT IS REALLY STINGING, AS BINDI HAS MADE IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT IT WAS NONE OF BERLUSCONI’S BUSINESS TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT IF BINDI WAS BEAUTIFUL OR NOT AND THAT SHE WAS NOT LIKE ONE OF THOSE CHEAP WOMEN WHO PLAY BALL WITH HIM FOR ENJOYING HIS HOSPITALITY AND PELF.

The European culture has been less uptight than their UK counter part. Winston Churchill is supposed to have retorted in a similar vein as the following would show:-

Wife of a prominent politician to Winston Churchill (with disdain in her voice): Mr. Churchill, you are drunk!
Mr. Churchill: Yes, madam, and you are ugly. But in the morning, I will be sober, and you will still be ugly.

Winston Churchill got away with it for 2 reasons. One is that he did not provoke, secondly it was a social gathering in which the line was uttered. In the Berlusconi line, there are 2 things which are linked relating to the same lady Bindi, of which the BEAUTY part (if any) is apparent and visible. If the seen body is UGLY, you can imagine when it is said that she is MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN INTELLIGENT! Bindi is twice damned. Rightly the FEMINIST groups have taken up cudgels for the hapless Bindi.

Unlike in India and the USA, where imagined slights to women become burning issues, in Italy there seems to be sound reason based on which the Feminist organizations join issue. Berlusconi’s attitude towards women have been well publicized, yet they have been interpreted to mean that they are his “private affairs”, but when it came to a public figure, and a mean remark to boot, the issue has been taken up. Let us cut back and see the reputation of Winston Churchill. Winston had a clean reputation when it came to women, except for those smart one liners that he came up with, to momentarily stun them (When Lady Astor said that if she were to be married to him, she would put poison in his coffee- he retorted, “if you were my wife i’d drink it!!”). But by and large he was seen as a person who was loyal to Clementine. So many of his jibes were not interpreted to mean that he was a misogynist, whereas Berlusconi’s handling of the beauties have already built up enough steam in the minds of the FEMINISTS that they got a nice opportunity to blow steam.

Let us also look into the statement made by the Ex-Wife of ERIC BESSON, the Emigration Minister of France. His wife of 25(or thereabouts) years has said that even 25 years back Mr.Eric Besson, had had the good sense not to repeat the vow of “FIDELITY”, at their marriage ceremony. Besson was one person who had placed his word much above the LOVE of the woman who would bear his kids. And true to his propensity, neither was FAITHFUL (sexually) nor made any bones of his infidelities!! Now the divorced wife writes a biography and washes all the dirty linen in the public. But politically that seems to have no impact. France had learnt its lessons. When a woman could get married to a man who would not  utter his vow of faithfulness even on the day of his marriage, what kind of hope could she have on his FAITHFULNESS? If Sylvie(Besson’s ex-wife) did not mind it- why should the public mind it? Good logic.

Further, if Besson had the BALLS not to utter that vow and took his words seriously even at the prime of his youth, he could be TRUSTED ON HIS WORD, in political affairs. Even better logic.

At least, the French and the Italians have not made holy cows out of their women’s sentiments. They have distinguished between PRIVATE ISSUES and PUBLIC ISSUES. Hope Indians and the Americans of the USA would learn to discern like the Italians and the French!!

DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TRANSFORMED TO DUTY!


There are many desirable options in life, yet in our curiosity or in our eagerness to be different, we may choose the NOT SO DESIRABLE. That is the LIBERTY that the individual has. This LIBERTY is so precious, that if we do not guard this zealously, this LIBERTY gets chipped away in the guise of a prescription that is stated to be desirable, then slowly as a DUTY and then one is deprived of an option to ignore that and it is IMPOSED AS A COMPULSORY DUTY.

Jug Suraiya, the Columnist, in the TIMES OF INDIA dated 14th October, 2009, has stated that in Maharashtra all the business establishments, educational institutions and retail outlets were forced shut by the various Authorities in Mumbai on the election day, as a measure to enhance the percentage of voting for the state assembly. I am sure that the authorities have intended a DESIRABLE end. They wanted to merely “facilitate”, the common man to vote without being bogged down by his daily duties. What concern in the process of democracy! I get goose bumps. I am very much of the opinion that some psephologist must have told the powers that be that A LOW TURN-OUT WOULD BE FATAL TO YOU, AND A HIGH TURN-OUT WOULD FETCH YOU THE VICTORY. So what to do? Too late to change the law, so use force on one side and purvey an OSTENSIBLY NOBLE REASON for the action.

In effect, i have lost my right to conduct business on the day of polling, lost my right to study on the day of polling, lost my right to LIVELIHOOD, in short. All in the name of DEMOCRACY.

LET US GET THIS ONE STRAIGHT, I AS AN INDIAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, BUT WHETHER I AM GOING FOR VOTING OR GOING FOR MY WORK IS MY LIBERTY. AND NONE SHOULD FORCE ME TO MAKE A CHOICE ON THIS. THE TACIT SUPPORT OF THE RULING GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN MAHARASHTRA.

If the Government is so particular about forcing its electorate to vote, it should have taken uop the issue in the assembly and made amendments to the Shop and Establishments Act applicable to that state. It cannot use coercive methods, all in the guise of what is DESIRABLE. It is time we watched the actions of our GOVERNeRS, failing which subterfuges would be used to chip away our LIBERTIES and we find ourselves in th quagmire of slavery!!

THE NUDE SERENA WILLIAMS!


“Equal pay for equal work”, is one of the fundamental rules based on which discrimination between the sexes in workplaces has been abolished. But all these rules disappear like the Newtonian Physics  at the Quantum level, at the CELEBRITY levels. In women’s tennis, besides the low standards of tennis played by women – that is , compared to the men’s tennis- the number of sets played by women is always best of three and not five like in men’s tennis. So the EQUALITY OF PAY principle breaks down. So why do the women players demand and succeed in getting equal PRIZE MONEY despite playing fewer sets?

The REASON IS OUT. Serena Williams has done a nude photo shoot for ESPN magazine. There one could see Serena Williams sitting as if she were in a yoga asana, legs crossed and the arms crossed too. She ain’t showing anything that she has not shown on the courts. This NUDE of Serena is all hype. The International Tennis Federation doesn’t want to give her a berth in the 2010 Australian Open because of this nude photo. If one hasn’t seen the photo, one could have a peek at it from the following link:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Serena-Williams-bares-all-for-ESPN/H1-Article1-463286.aspx

Serena is first of all not NAKED. it is merely stated to be a NUDE photo. Any student of art would know that to be called a NUDE there has to be something visible either on the painting or photo or sculpture that shows the HUMAN BODY parts that are normally kept concealed. Further it should be artistic otherwise it degenerates into NAKEDNESS. In any case, most of the woman’s tennis players with the exception of Chris Evert, Steffi Graff, Justin Henin and their ilk,  have been  girls who  played more glamorously on courts than efficiently. Anna Kournikova is a good case on this point. She got more publicity for her glamour than her tennis. Anna Kournikova had not won a single grand slam event, yet she had created a keen interest in the minds of the tennis fans.  The viewership built over the years for Woman’s tennis is more for the glamour than any tennis skills. The media, which keeps a tab on the viewership and a keen eye on the advertisement revenues, were  charging the same cost per second on the advert placed, just as Men’s tennis. There have been MMS clips and YOUTUBE snippets which have been in circulation that showed woman tennis players in scanty dresses in  very poor light. The skirts were getting higher and higher and their skills and endurance shorter and shorter. The older generation was watching these women players with avuncular indulgence while the younger generation made role models out of them.

In effect, the PRIZE MONEY for both men’s tennis and women’s tennis had reached parity. But the reasons were concealed in the high sounding DECLARATIONS of  parity in pay regardless of gender and EQUALITY AMONG THE SEXES. This was all bunkum. It was viable simply because the viewership of women’s tennis ( at the grand slam level) almost remained the same as that of Men’s tennis. But the ITF never acknowledged that it was the REVENUE that was the reason for such parity. And the viewership was more because of  the predominant glamour element that pervaded women’s tennis.

NOW THAT THE ITA IS GETTING A LITTLE UPPITY ABOUT SERENA GOING NUDE ON THE ESPN MAGAZINE IS NOTHING BUT UNADULTERATED HYPOCRISY. IT STARTED IN THE TENNIS COURTS AND HAS JUST SPILLED OVER.

IF ANYONE HAS SEEN ANY NUDITY IN THE ESPN ISSUE.  please CONFIRM THAT SHE WAS INDEED IN THE NUDE, SO THAT I COULD USE MY IMAGINATION TO FIGURE OUT SERENA’S NUDITY! She has crossed her legs and thereby had  done the job of a panty and has crossed her arms over her breasts which has done the function of a bra!! Where is the nudity? The whole nudity is akin to some of the paintings of Eve, where her long hair conceals her breasts and her pubic zone!! If at all anyone could legitimately claim to have seen Serena in that nude shot, it could be the photographer himself/herself!

BORED CELEBRITIES FIND THEIR OWN WAYS AND REASONS FOR DOING  SILLY THINGS IN LIFE.

MARIA SHARAPOVA WHERE ARE YOU, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE THE BRIGHTER SIDE OF TENNIS IF ONLY SHE DARES TO DOFF THE BIKINI!!

BUT GOOD SHOW, WOMEN’S TENNIS!! KEEP SHOWING.

Tag Cloud