What is it about travel? Objectively, I've done a fair amount of it, to some truly interesting spots, via some fascinating means of transport. (Once: Me and our bus on a flimsy raft, and we pulled ourselves across a river using a wire strung from bank to bank. Next river, no wire, so we poled).
Yet nearly every day, I wake up feeling I haven't traveled enough, haven't seen enough of the world; feeling envious of guys who are trotting off to other truly interesting spots.
And the most recent set of guys I've felt that about are a gang of six, two fellow-graduates from my college though about 700 years junior to me. They are about a week away from getting into what looks like a seriously rickety Toyota Corolla and driving a route that -- as far as I can tell -- Changez Khan made famous a few centuries ago when he roared west out of Central Asia.
And I'm reading about them and doing my best to stop going green with envy. London to Mongolia in six weeks. I mean, I'd give plenty to be able to do that.
The two fellow BITSians are Arun Maharajan and Rajesh Thatha, and their team is the Rustics. Read more at their site; give a thought to donations as well.
And for sure, look at that Corolla and ask yourself: is that what Changez used?
July 10, 2009
The phalanx
Nothing unites quite like ... homosexuality.
"Clerics from the Muslim, Christian, Jain and Sikh communities held a joint press conference to denounce the judgement, insisting that homosexuality was opposed to the laws of nature and the will of God ."
"With some Hindu leaders having already condemned the judgement and well-known yoga guru Swami Ramdev announcing his intention to contest it in court, the phalanx of religious opinion opposed to the verdict is complete."
("Clerics flay order, SC seeks govt opinion", Hindustan Times, July 10 2009)
A previous version of the report quotes the Jain cleric saying "Our views should be kept in mind when the government takes any stand on the judgement", and the Muslim cleric backing that with "The government should take our views seriously." (Apart from the claims of knowledge of the will of god).
Actually, why? Why should the government be interested in the views of these folks, let alone take them seriously?
All said and done, I like that word "phalanx". It sums up perfectly what we see here: a united effort to perpetuate prejudice.
"Clerics from the Muslim, Christian, Jain and Sikh communities held a joint press conference to denounce the judgement, insisting that homosexuality was opposed to the laws of nature and the will of God ."
"With some Hindu leaders having already condemned the judgement and well-known yoga guru Swami Ramdev announcing his intention to contest it in court, the phalanx of religious opinion opposed to the verdict is complete."
("Clerics flay order, SC seeks govt opinion", Hindustan Times, July 10 2009)
A previous version of the report quotes the Jain cleric saying "Our views should be kept in mind when the government takes any stand on the judgement", and the Muslim cleric backing that with "The government should take our views seriously." (Apart from the claims of knowledge of the will of god).
Actually, why? Why should the government be interested in the views of these folks, let alone take them seriously?
All said and done, I like that word "phalanx". It sums up perfectly what we see here: a united effort to perpetuate prejudice.
July 09, 2009
Best interest
Some time last week, I learned that the government had finally taken action over something that was deemed to be "not in the best interest of the nation".
This was good news.
I mean, just for one example that worries me, there's bunches of Indian terrorists who have never been punished for their killing. Seems to me leaving them unpunished is "not in the best interest of the nation."
Or for another example, there's the pitiful state of so many primary schools across the country, which has condemned generations of Indian kids to a pitiful education. Seems to me that vast human waste is "not in the best interest of the nation."
Or, for a third example, there's the way a stream of scams involving enormous amounts of money have come and gone with nobody held to account for them. I mean, try this list: Bofors, havala, stock scam, cash in bedsheets, coffin scam, fodder scam, urea scam, St Kitt's forgery case, housing scam, LPG allotment scam, Bombay open space rental scam. (Bet you don't even remember some of those). Seems to me that simply forgetting that public servants have cheated people they serve of great sums is "not in the best interest of the nation."
So yes, I was encouraged to learn that the government had taken this action. No doubt it concerned one of the issues listed above?
Better: the action concerned a cartoon character and her sexual escapades.
Yes, the government banned Savita Bhabhi, for "anything that is not in the best interest of the nation can be banned."
I feel safer, less cheated and possibly more educated already. Not to mention freer, because doesn't banning stuff make us freer? (My government at work, all over again). Of course I should not bother with the effort to Save Savita. Neither should you, so you can safely ignore this Save Savita link.
After all, don't you feel safer, less cheated and possibly more educated as well? Freer too?
***
I also wanted to point out that there's no irony at all in the fact that this ban on the sex life of a cartoon character happened at about the same time as the Delhi Court ruled that sex between consenting adults, in pretty much most forms, cannot be termed illegal.
No irony. And ignore this Save Savita link too.
This was good news.
I mean, just for one example that worries me, there's bunches of Indian terrorists who have never been punished for their killing. Seems to me leaving them unpunished is "not in the best interest of the nation."
Or for another example, there's the pitiful state of so many primary schools across the country, which has condemned generations of Indian kids to a pitiful education. Seems to me that vast human waste is "not in the best interest of the nation."
Or, for a third example, there's the way a stream of scams involving enormous amounts of money have come and gone with nobody held to account for them. I mean, try this list: Bofors, havala, stock scam, cash in bedsheets, coffin scam, fodder scam, urea scam, St Kitt's forgery case, housing scam, LPG allotment scam, Bombay open space rental scam. (Bet you don't even remember some of those). Seems to me that simply forgetting that public servants have cheated people they serve of great sums is "not in the best interest of the nation."
So yes, I was encouraged to learn that the government had taken this action. No doubt it concerned one of the issues listed above?
Better: the action concerned a cartoon character and her sexual escapades.
Yes, the government banned Savita Bhabhi, for "anything that is not in the best interest of the nation can be banned."
I feel safer, less cheated and possibly more educated already. Not to mention freer, because doesn't banning stuff make us freer? (My government at work, all over again). Of course I should not bother with the effort to Save Savita. Neither should you, so you can safely ignore this Save Savita link.
After all, don't you feel safer, less cheated and possibly more educated as well? Freer too?
I also wanted to point out that there's no irony at all in the fact that this ban on the sex life of a cartoon character happened at about the same time as the Delhi Court ruled that sex between consenting adults, in pretty much most forms, cannot be termed illegal.
No irony. And ignore this Save Savita link too.
She belongs to
"She belongs to a lower caste, which is aggressive by nature, and she wouldn't have submitted herself so easily. They are known for being aggressive."
Such was the argument made in court by one Shrikant Shivde, lawyer for Shiney Ahuja, Bollywood actor arrested on charges of rape. "She", of course, refers to the victim. (Thanks to Jai for the pointer, in a comment here).
The nauseating nature of this remark reminded me of this other one that came my way, from three years ago:
"its not our fault if the backwards (well most of them) dont value education."
(made here).
What I was prompted to reply then applies equally to Shivde's observation: remarks like these, the attitudes they speak of, make the case for reservations better than most of its proponents would.
***
Apart from that, I've had it up to here with the argument -- often made in such cases, or mentioned by the police while arresting a thief -- that the accused is from a "good family" (for example).
(Alternate formulations: "respectable family", "decent middle-class family", "good respectable excellent wonderful army background decent god-fearing middle-class family" -- mix and match as you please).
Just what is this supposed to mean? "Good families" don't produce criminals? "Middle-class families" don't produce criminals? "Army background" or "god-fearing" automatically implies innocence?
I can easily think of examples that undermine all those claims, and so can you. I hope someday there will be a judge in a court who will cut through such phrases and say, politely, "The defendant is on trial, not his family. So I don't want to hear any more about them."
Such was the argument made in court by one Shrikant Shivde, lawyer for Shiney Ahuja, Bollywood actor arrested on charges of rape. "She", of course, refers to the victim. (Thanks to Jai for the pointer, in a comment here).
The nauseating nature of this remark reminded me of this other one that came my way, from three years ago:
"its not our fault if the backwards (well most of them) dont value education."
(made here).
What I was prompted to reply then applies equally to Shivde's observation: remarks like these, the attitudes they speak of, make the case for reservations better than most of its proponents would.
Apart from that, I've had it up to here with the argument -- often made in such cases, or mentioned by the police while arresting a thief -- that the accused is from a "good family" (for example).
(Alternate formulations: "respectable family", "decent middle-class family", "good respectable excellent wonderful army background decent god-fearing middle-class family" -- mix and match as you please).
Just what is this supposed to mean? "Good families" don't produce criminals? "Middle-class families" don't produce criminals? "Army background" or "god-fearing" automatically implies innocence?
I can easily think of examples that undermine all those claims, and so can you. I hope someday there will be a judge in a court who will cut through such phrases and say, politely, "The defendant is on trial, not his family. So I don't want to hear any more about them."
July 08, 2009
On the road, maybe
All right folks.
If you like what you see here -- and for now, it is a work in progress -- please vote and/or file some nice things about us. Much gratitude will flow your way.
If, on the other hand, you don't like what you see there, please vote and/or file some nice things about us. Much gratitude will still flow your way.
If you like what you see here -- and for now, it is a work in progress -- please vote and/or file some nice things about us. Much gratitude will flow your way.
If, on the other hand, you don't like what you see there, please vote and/or file some nice things about us. Much gratitude will still flow your way.
July 06, 2009
For whom the toll isn't
Bombay's municipal corporators are demanding an exemption from paying the toll on the new Bandra-Worli Sealink.
Therefore, in addition to the "No Bullock Carts" sign at one end of the bridge, I fully expect we will soon see near the toll plaza a large sign like the large sign in this photograph, familiar to anyone who has travelled India's highways. With the important additional specification, of course, that municipal corporators are exempt from paying the toll.
To save you from squinting, here's the full text from the sign:
A) LIST OF TOLL FEE EXEMPTED VECHICLES
I) DEFENCE VEHICLES
II) POLICE VEHICLES
III) VEHICLE WITH VIP SYMBOLS
IV) FIRE FIGHTING VEHICLES
V) AMBULANCES
VI) FUNERAL VANS
VII) POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT'S VEHICLES
VIII) CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT VEHICLES ON DUTY
THE FOLLOWING VEHICLES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE HAVING "VIP" SYMBOLS OR OFFICIALLY EXEMPTED VEHICLES.
A) HAVING "VIP" SYMBOLS, OR OFFICIALLY BELONGING TO:
a) PRESIDENT OF INDIA
b) VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIA
c) GOVERNOR OF A STATE OR LT. GOVERNOR OF A UNION TERRITORY
d) A FOREIGN DIGNITARY ON STATE VISIT TO INDIA
e) A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT STATIONED IN INDIA USING CARS WITH "CD" / "CC" NUMBER PLATES
f) CHAIRMAN OF RAJYA SABHA OR SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA OR CHAIRMAN OF A STATE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OR SPEAKER OF A STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OR A MINISTER FOR THE UNION OR STATE, OR LEADERS OF OPPOSITION IN LOK SABHA OR RAJYA SABHA OR STATE LEGISLATURES HAVING THE STATUS OF CABINET MINISTER, IF HE IS SITTING IN THE VEHICLE; OR
g) A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, OR A MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF A STATE OR A MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF A STATE, IN THE RESPECTIVE STATE, IF HE PRODUCES HIS IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE PARLIAMENT OR CONCERNED LEGISLATURE OF A STATE, AS THE CASE MAY BE
B) BELONGING TO WINNER OF GALLANTRY AWARDS SUCH AS PARAM VIR CHAKRA, ASHOK CHAKRA, MAHA VIR CHAKRA, KIRTI CHAKRA, VIR CHAKRA AND SHAURYA CHAKRA, IF SUCH AWARDEE PRODUCES HIS PHOTO IDENTITY CARD DULY AUTHENTICATED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR SUCH AWARD.
As you can see, among other things such boards lead you into some nice little conundrums.
For example: Your vehicle is exempt from the toll if it has "VIP Symbols" (First Clause A, Section III, at the top). Well, then we need to define what a vehicle having VIP symbols means. Right? OK! So the second Clause A, middle of the board, spells that out succinctly indeed -- it's one "having VIP symbols."
Got that? A vehicle that has VIP symbols is defined as a vehicle that has VIP symbols.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why some smart entrepreneur hasn't started a business making and selling VIP symbols. Whatever those are.
Perhaps we can get our corporators to figure that out.
Therefore, in addition to the "No Bullock Carts" sign at one end of the bridge, I fully expect we will soon see near the toll plaza a large sign like the large sign in this photograph, familiar to anyone who has travelled India's highways. With the important additional specification, of course, that municipal corporators are exempt from paying the toll.To save you from squinting, here's the full text from the sign:
A) LIST OF TOLL FEE EXEMPTED VECHICLES
I) DEFENCE VEHICLES
II) POLICE VEHICLES
III) VEHICLE WITH VIP SYMBOLS
IV) FIRE FIGHTING VEHICLES
V) AMBULANCES
VI) FUNERAL VANS
VII) POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT'S VEHICLES
VIII) CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT VEHICLES ON DUTY
THE FOLLOWING VEHICLES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE HAVING "VIP" SYMBOLS OR OFFICIALLY EXEMPTED VEHICLES.
A) HAVING "VIP" SYMBOLS, OR OFFICIALLY BELONGING TO:
a) PRESIDENT OF INDIA
b) VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIA
c) GOVERNOR OF A STATE OR LT. GOVERNOR OF A UNION TERRITORY
d) A FOREIGN DIGNITARY ON STATE VISIT TO INDIA
e) A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT STATIONED IN INDIA USING CARS WITH "CD" / "CC" NUMBER PLATES
f) CHAIRMAN OF RAJYA SABHA OR SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA OR CHAIRMAN OF A STATE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OR SPEAKER OF A STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OR A MINISTER FOR THE UNION OR STATE, OR LEADERS OF OPPOSITION IN LOK SABHA OR RAJYA SABHA OR STATE LEGISLATURES HAVING THE STATUS OF CABINET MINISTER, IF HE IS SITTING IN THE VEHICLE; OR
g) A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, OR A MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF A STATE OR A MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF A STATE, IN THE RESPECTIVE STATE, IF HE PRODUCES HIS IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE PARLIAMENT OR CONCERNED LEGISLATURE OF A STATE, AS THE CASE MAY BE
B) BELONGING TO WINNER OF GALLANTRY AWARDS SUCH AS PARAM VIR CHAKRA, ASHOK CHAKRA, MAHA VIR CHAKRA, KIRTI CHAKRA, VIR CHAKRA AND SHAURYA CHAKRA, IF SUCH AWARDEE PRODUCES HIS PHOTO IDENTITY CARD DULY AUTHENTICATED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR SUCH AWARD.
As you can see, among other things such boards lead you into some nice little conundrums.
For example: Your vehicle is exempt from the toll if it has "VIP Symbols" (First Clause A, Section III, at the top). Well, then we need to define what a vehicle having VIP symbols means. Right? OK! So the second Clause A, middle of the board, spells that out succinctly indeed -- it's one "having VIP symbols."
Got that? A vehicle that has VIP symbols is defined as a vehicle that has VIP symbols.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why some smart entrepreneur hasn't started a business making and selling VIP symbols. Whatever those are.
Perhaps we can get our corporators to figure that out.
Twins?
Take a look at, for example, this photograph, then this one.
Or this one, and then the sunset picture that will show up as part of the sequence on the right of this page (don't know how to extract the individual shots).
Twins, lost at birth?
Or this one, and then the sunset picture that will show up as part of the sequence on the right of this page (don't know how to extract the individual shots).
Twins, lost at birth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)