Lata

I am one of those people that used to like Lata of yesteryears but can't stand her anymore. Not just her voice, the person called Lata irritates me to no end. By now everyone knows about the fly-over drama that involves her. Read uptown-girl's article on that. Its very interesting.
Some people think its a rule in India to like, adore and worship Lata Mangeshkar and such souls have also berated this girl in her comments section. Read that too to have more fun.

Gift Registry

Years ago, when I went to a big shop in the nearby mall, I saw a couple standing next to a computer and doing something in that, selecting an item in the shop and doing something again in the computer. When I asked my friend what it was she said they were probably creating a wedding registry. She told me how people go to a popular shop, select items that they need, add them in a registry and in their wedding invite tell the invitees that their registry is open in so and so shop and people could get gifts for them from the registry. I found it very strange and funny. I also thought it was silly of someone to tell people what they should gift. Its like saying "Your gift might probably be useless, so why don't you get me something that I need and you'll get it in this shop." Was I naive (or parochial)?

In my recent trip to India, we had a big family function. I was helping my relatives unpack the gifts. And quite expectedly there were many wall-clocks. People still think some families don't have any clock on their walls and help them by getting wall-clocks. And some people are scared that the gift-receivers might re-gift that precious wall-clock, so they print their name and the dial says "With Best Compliments from XYZ to ABC". To save space on the dial, they could've said "Sponsored by XYZ". Suddenly there is this omnipresent "gopuram" that seems to be at the No.1 position in the gift items list these days. Its a black gopuram on top of a wooden base and there is something embossed in silver on the black piece and a glass kind of acts as a shield to the silver piece. Its amazing how many people think this is a cool gift. When my enemy accidentally invites me for his/her family function, I am going for this gopuram. If you receive 5 of them or even 7, you can somehow arrange them in your living room and explain to guests that you are not selling them but what do you do when you get about 15 to 20 of them? I know its the thought that matters and any gift should be accepted with grace blah blah blah... but these wallclocks and gopurams really test the patience of the hosts. If my host wasn't aggravated, I was.:-) And I was thinking of gift registries. I guess I was naive AND parochial. Being the one that takes a middle ground on every issue, I know what I'd do. I am going for "No gifts please" henceforth. And I sympathise and empathise with Ammani's girl.

Break

I am going on a vacation for 2 weeks. I'll update this blog after I come back. ta ta.

Not there yet

A year ago, this American woman I know, Jane Doe, told me she was a bad cook and ever since she and her husband, started living together, he had been the one doing the cooking at home. I was taken aback. I thought no matter how bad a cook a woman is, she always tries tries and someday hits a point where the food she cooks becomes eidble. I've never heard of any man taking charge of the cooking. A woman and cooking come as a package I thought. That night, I slept late. I was wondering....not wondering about what she said but about the fact that I was actually thinking about what she said for so long. Inspite of my self-proclaimed "modern-ness", I guess I still couldn't accept what she said - letting a man cook "all-the-time". Then I reasoned thus. If a woman can work like a man, take up jobs that a man does, it is normal for a man to cook and take charge of the kitchen. As I inwardly applauded Mr. Doe, I realized THAT was a classic example of man and woman being equal. As much as I reconcile to this fact, I am still surprised/amazed. Guess I am not there yet. And I am supposed to be a part of the GeneratioNext.:-)

Scar

I saw Ammani's post on blog-a-thon a little late. Nevertheless, I've been inspired to write this one.

Her uncle was hit by a lorry and she had been restless ever since she heard the news. The line to her parents' place had been busy. She had tried so many times. Finally, it was ringing.
- Its me.
- Heard about the accident.
- Nothing serious right? A minor bruise on his legs? Thank God.
And she genuinely heaved a sigh of relief. She was praying that her uncle didn't die in that accident.
- OK, just wanted to make sure nothing happened to him. Talk to you tomorrow. Bye.
She hung up and thought to herself - I'd be damned if that b^&*^*& had an easy death. For all that he did to me when I was a kid, God had better make sure he suffers a lot and dies a slow and painful death.

Over to Pakistan

I had to go to dawn's website to see what they think of Bush's visit. And I came across Ayaz Amir's article and as usual I liked reading it.


THE United States does something silly to Pakistan. In dealing with it, all our latent insecurities come to the surface, making us behave in a manner at once foolish and needlessly obsequious.

In more senses than one, George Bush is an embattled president, his invasion of Iraq, which was supposed to change the colour of the Middle East, gone irretrievably sour. There are not many places in the world where a visit by him would be sought out or particularly welcomed. Yet Pakistan’s military government, embattled in its own way, is rolling out the red carpet for him.

What Pakistan’s generals will get for their pains — and you don’t have to be a genius to figure this out — will be words of praise in public for the sentry duty they have been performing in aid of the US since September 11 but sharp words in private about not doing enough to seal the Pakistan-Afghan border and catch the top guns of Al Qaeda. As a sop to our feelings, we can also expect to hear double-edged words, meaning nothing, about Kashmir.

The US will do, can do, nothing about Kashmir. Why can’t we get this into our simple heads?

And why are we finding it so difficult to understand that Pakistan-American and Indo-American ties are on different levels altogether? The Cold War long over and the struggle against world communism having disappeared down some historical black hole, the terms of South Asian engagement have changed. It no longer makes sense for the US to view both countries through the same spectacles.

It looks at Pakistan through the mirror of ‘terrorism’ and what Pakistan can do to address American concerns regarding this single issue and India through the prism of a ‘strategic relationship’.

We can pout at this disparity or try to understand it. India is on the march economically and its democracy is an established fact. We are behind on both counts — our economy beholden to American largesse and our democracy under lock and key in a military guardroom.

Blow its trumpet as loudly as our military government may, facts are stubborn things and will not go away. We settled for sentry wages post-September 11 — about 700 million dollars a year, as part of a five-year package — and having done that, it is doubtful if the Americans think they owe us anything further by way of gratitude.



For those of you, who want the entire article, check it out here.

Hate and Appreciate

Can someone like and hate a person at the same time? Apparently I can. When I got introduced to SS through my cousin, my question to him after just one interaction with SS was "How can you be friends with this guy? How can this guy ever have a friend?" Over time, I started interacting more with this guy. Not that I liked him majorly after that but I could stand him. If he didnt know I hated him, well, he knows now because I am sure he would read this.

His beliefs, views are, most of the times, the exact opposite of mine and no wonder we always argue. But the things I like about him are he is trustworthy, has no pretensions and I have developed a certain comfort level with him because of which I can criticise him on his face and surprisingly, he would take it in his stride. But everything else about him, I don't like or approve.

His anger brings his comical best to the fore and I always enjoy it. His recent mail about a guy had me in splits. And, with his permission, I reproduce it here.


He and I were in the same class for about three years. In our neighborhood and school, no one could manage to not hear about him. He symbolized the typicalized PSBBian in so many ways. He was brilliant at academics, he could sing well, he was good-looking and he was good at sports. He taught me very early that life is f-ing unfair.

He was a consistent overachiever who was brave enough to let success get to his head, at the same time, timid enough to let failure get to his heart. He did not make a pretense at modesty and we kinda felt uncomfortable sometimes about his angle of depression. Once, he missed the top dog mark in math by a whisker but his tears of disappointment and dogged persistence coerced the math teacher to grant that extra 2 marks that put him on top.

He felt bad he was not the national topper in Class X, went to IIT coaching classes under Balu, walked through IIT-JEE with a very high rank and loved Tendulkar very early on. In our senior year at school, he cried after he stood for School Pupil Leader and lost to his arch-competitor. He played cricket with a vengeance and never gracefully accepted that he was 'out'. He cried when he lost in an intra-school music competition to his arch-competitor. But beat the same guy neck and crop in everything at IIT. He finished his MS in style and rolled on with his Phd, in premium US schools.

He is already in or likely to be in JP Morgan Stanley @ New York City. And he probably hates George Bush and America with the incredible energy, so charecteristic of him. He would be opposed to the Iraq War, roots for Tendulkar over every run and loves AR Rehman.

Such a sissy. No wonder I hate him so much.

Continued....Bush Swagatham

Since some of you had asked for T.P.Sreenivasan's entire article in Asian Wall Street Journal, I thought I'd post it here.

Welcome to India, Mr. President
By T.P. SREENIVASAN
Mr. Sreenivasan served as deputy Indian ambassador in Washington from 1997
to 2000. See http://www.TPSreenivasan.com

Dear Mr. President,

One capital in the world where you are sure to be welcomed with garlands is
New Delhi. Your predecessors, former U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill
Clinton were extremely well-received here, even though they never offered
nearly as much promise for India-U.S. relations. Our parliamentarians
jostled each other to shake hands with Mr. Clinton, even after he chastised
us for our nuclear tests on the floor of our own Parliament in 2000.

As a democracy that has survived unscathed for nearly 60 years, we have a
romantic ideal of the American Democratic Party. But we also know that it is
the Republican presidents who have discovered our potential and acted
accordingly. Since former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower gave us the Atoms
for Peace initiative, where a number of Indian scientists were invited to
the U.S. for training in peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the only U.S.
president who has recognized our crying need for nuclear energy and shown
readiness to end our nuclear isolation is you, George W. Bush.

Our strenuous efforts, for nearly 50 years, to secure nuclear technology
without signing the nonproliferation treaty bore fruit on July 18, 2005,
when you agreed with our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that India should
have the same rights and obligations as other nuclear-weapon states, such as
the United States. By that single gesture, you earned a permanent place in
our hearts. When we were told that you would deliver on those promises
during your visit this week, our excitement reached a crescendo.

Now, it looks as if when you arrive in India today, you will come
empty-handed. The high priests of nonproliferation in your country perceived
a grave danger in providing uranium fuel to our starving nuclear-power
stations. After the July agreement was signed, your State Department shifted
the goalposts to address those concerns, by asking New Delhi to submit a
plan for separation of civilian and military facilities to be approved by
the U.S. No other nuclear-weapon state has such an obligation. The
subsequent inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency of Indian
civilian facilities are sought by the State Department to be perpetual. In
other words, the balance of rights and obligations of the July 2005
agreement has fallen victim to past prejudices. U.S. lawmakers have not
shown any signs of a change of heart.

A change of heart is slow in coming in India as well. Many here, including
scientists, believe that your motivation is to drag India into the
nonproliferation tent and to stop the development of a uranium alternative
for fuelling our power plants. They see a conspiracy behind the U.S. offer
to break the nuclear impasse. They would rather keep reinventing the wheel
in splendid isolation rather than accept the challenges of international
cooperation. Sixty years of suspicion can not be wiped out in a day.

The success of your visit to India is not contingent upon the implementation
of a nuclear deal. More important is a demonstration of a new mindset in
both Washington and New Delhi. If the United States is committed to the
emergence of India as a great power, there is no better way to show it than
by supporting New Delhi's aspiration for permanent membership of the United
Nations Security Council. No one expects an immediate consensus on an
expansion of the Security Council, but an indication of U.S. support is long
overdue. Equally important is the need to rectify the anachronism of India's
absence from Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

The way forward is to pursue the path that you and our prime minister
embarked upon in July of last year. Any attempt to modify it is dangerous.
Both sides must realize that cooperation is possible even after years of
estrangement, and that it will benefit both sides.

No other visit by a head of state to India has generated as much interest
and controversy as your own. You will see the vibrancy of our democracy and
the enormity of our challenges. You will also witness a universal regard for
America's accomplishments. Welcome to India.

Bush Swagatam

No hush hush, Bush is here. Some are protesting, some don't care and some like me are watching the communist party's reaction and having fun laughing at their hypocrisy. Most Indian jouranlists, columnists compare and contrast Bush's visit with Clinton's. But finally, found this piece by TPSreenivasan (courtest one of my friends) in Asian Wall Street Journal. It makes sense to me. Excerpts....


One capital in the world where you are sure to be welcomed with garlands is
New Delhi. Your predecessors, former U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill
Clinton were extremely well-received here, even though they never offered
nearly as much promise for India-U.S. relations. Our parliamentarians
jostled each other to shake hands with Mr. Clinton, even after he chastised
us for our nuclear tests on the floor of our own Parliament in 2000.

As a democracy that has survived unscathed for nearly 60 years, we have a
romantic ideal of the American Democratic Party. But we also know that it is
the Republican presidents who have discovered our potential and acted
accordingly. Since former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower gave us the Atoms
for Peace initiative, where a number of Indian scientists were invited to
the U.S. for training in peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the only U.S.
president who has recognized our crying need for nuclear energy and shown
readiness to end our nuclear isolation is you, George W. Bush.