Wonderful creation of nature...
This is a very common flower in India...But this color is not so common!!!
I couldn't just resist myself naming this "Fire that bloomed"
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Fire that bloomed
Wonderful creation of nature...
This is a very common flower in India...But this color is not so common!!!
I couldn't just resist myself naming this "Fire that bloomed"
Friday, May 4, 2007
Is this is what our life is all about ?
To make Money we loose our health and then to restore our health we loose money.
We live as if we are never going to die and we die as if we have never lived.
First I was dying to finish my High School and start College.
Then I was dying to finish my College and start working.
Then I was dying to marry and have children.
Then I was dying for my children to grow old enough so that I could start working again.
By the time my children grew up, I was dying to retire.
And now when I'm dying, I've have realized that in all the days between
"I've Forgot to Live"
We live as if we are never going to die and we die as if we have never lived.
First I was dying to finish my High School and start College.
Then I was dying to finish my College and start working.
Then I was dying to marry and have children.
Then I was dying for my children to grow old enough so that I could start working again.
By the time my children grew up, I was dying to retire.
And now when I'm dying, I've have realized that in all the days between
"I've Forgot to Live"
Without quota, every caste would be a forward caste
by Mr. M R Venkatesh
To rule India -- with her huge size and population -- the British hit upon a simple yet brilliant idea: divide and rule, with the State playing the crucial role of an arbitrator between various warring groups.
The government of Independent India is largely a remnant of the British Raj with one crucial addition: the ruling elite, comprising Marxists and pseudo-Marxists, largely understands the collective psyche of Indians far better than our colonial oppressors. After all, poverty of ideas invariably leads to politics of poverty.
Accordingly, subsequent governments in India have first ensured shortages, and then played Santa by rationing the insufficient. Quotas fall in this genre.
OBCs: No discussion, please
Having adopted this paradigm of governance, it was necessary for the Government of India to turn the majority against the minority, Muslims and Christians were to be pitched against Hindus, the 'higher' castes against 'lower' castes, the OBCs against the MBCs (Most Backward Classes), the BCs against the Dalits, the Hindi-speaking against the non-Hindi speaking and so on and so forth.
Else, a system that was predominantly modelled on the lines of the British style of governance -- highly centralised, with little accountability -- would be unworkable in India. And given this broad idea of dividing Indians, the caste system in India was an obvious candidate.
It may be noted that by the early twentieth century the British had already begun dividing the nation on these lines -- forwards and backwards. The governments in independent India merely carried the British agenda forward.
One of the popular assumptions built by the British and nurtured subsequently by Marxists about castes is that it is hierarchical and creates a rigid and vertical social structure. And that justified reservations, first for the Dalits (who are not the subject matter of this discussion) and subsequently extended to the backward castes -- OBCs.
The nature of competitive populism in contemporary politics makes it extremely difficult even for a cursory discussion on backward castes, their composition and genesis of their backwardness. On the contrary, every government aided and abetted by a pliable media, biased intellectuals and an indifferent public have repeatedly suppressed, distorted or de-legitimised scholarly studies about OBCs.
The truth needs to be told, facts debated and our assumptions re-calibrated.
Backward castes: What's that?
Whether caste is associated with vertical hierarchy or not has been the subject of great study by many historians, analysts and sociologists. 'Interrogating Castes,' a study of Dipankar Gupta, an eminent scholar and historian of great repute, shows that no caste considers itself to be lower in status, when compared with other castes.
In his essay, Gupta recalls an encounter with 'low caste' women who claimed that her caste was really Rajput -- a higher caste -- and was turned into a lower caste after a defeat in war.
Gupta further adds, "This encounter nearly twenty years ago led me to wonder how many low castes have elevated opinions about their caste origins. A new world was revealed to me as I read account after account of those who are customarily called low castes denying their lowly pedigree. Sometimes they said that were Brahmins of a certain kind, on many occasions they claimed Kshatriya status."
Stumped? Read on.
Arun Shourie, in his latest book -- Falling Over Backwards -- reveals something sensational. He quotes two Census Superintendents of the 1931 census who state, 'The feature of interest is that the claim is always for a more dignified title, for admission to a higher caste or exclusion from a caste which is considered low in the social scale.' Shourie further goes on enumerate repeatedly all through this book as to how Sainis and Malis wanted to be classified as Saini Rajputs, Gabits as Marathas, Bedas as Naiks, Blacksmiths as Panch Brahmans, Barias as Kshatriyas, Talpadas as Padhiar Rajputs, Devalis and Bhavins as Naik Marathas. . . the list seems endless, and Shourie's scholarly attempt is replete with such examples of the so-called lower castes seeking a higher caste appellation.
Surprised? Read on.
Lower castes or elite of the ruling class?
The late Gandhian, Dharampalji through a painstaking study spread over several decades in India, England and Germany established that before the British rule in India, over two-thirds -- yes, two-thirds! -- of the Indian rulers belonged to what is today known as the OBCs and conclusively proved that it was the British and not the upper castes who robbed the OBCs of their power, wealth and status.
Dharampalji also exploded the popularly held belief that most of those attending schools must have belonged to the upper castes and again with reference to the British records, proved that the truth was other way round. For instance, during 1822-25 the share of the Brahmin students in indigenous schools in Tamil-speaking areas accounted for 13 per cent in South Arcot to some 23 per cent in Madras, while the OBCs accounted for 70 per cent in Salem and Tirunelveli and 84 per cent in South Arcot.
Shocked? Another study by Christophe Jaffrelot, a French scholar -- India's silent revolution: the Rise of the Low Castes in North Indian Politics -- corroborates the findings of late Dharampalji.
While the subject of the book may be out of context to the discussion on hand, the matter of interest to the extant debate is the historical perspective provided on the status of OBCs in nineteenth and early twentieth century. Some of the important factors highlighted in the book with respect to OBCs are:
All available historical evidence shows that almost none of the OBCs considered themselves to be backward, in any sense of the term, at least till the beginning of the 20th century.
Most of the rulers, both at the local as well as larger regional levels in different regions of India during 16-18th centuries, seem to have come from these OBCs.
Further, most of the professions that sustained the vibrant economy of India, which was considered a great agricultural and industrial nation till early 19th century, were peopled and managed mostly by these communities.
The de-industrialisation of India by the British and the subsequent suspension of all local support systems led to widespread deprivation among all sections of Indian society, notably the OBCs.
Four scholars, perhaps with differing ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions. Yet, look at the specious arguments that have fashioned our debate on this issue.
Look what have we done to ourselves.
The net impact of the above is that we have turned OBCs -- the supplicants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries -- into applicants for posts of clerks in government offices, thanks to the reservation policy.
This would be perhaps true of earlier historical periods also. And most of them -- from Lord Rama to Krishna, from Maharana Ranjit Singh to Chhatrapati Shivaji to Veerapandia Kattabomman -- would in the scheme of our government invariably fall in one of the two categories: OBCs or MBCs!
Due to a conspiracy of coincidences, OBCs seem to have forgotten their glorious past. What else would explain their behaviour of being on all fours before successive governments -- and to curry favours? Today they are so used to the standard arguments of being exploited by forward castes (FCs), leave alone OBCs, even the FCs are loathe to buy contrary arguments.
The net result is that OBCs on the one hand are overwhelmed with an inferiority complex and thus find psychological comfort only in reservations. On the other hand, the upper castes, tutored through tortured history, live constantly in a guilt complex of having wronged their OBC brethren.
In short, our population comprises people who live either on guilt or on an inferiority complex -- what a wonderful combination to challenge the world!
Significantly, this is a perfect setting for our politicians, especially the Marxists, to exploit.
If there were 1,000 IIMs, IITs and AIIMS. . .
All these are pointers to a crucial issue -- the manner in which we are governed and the sinister idea of dividing Indians to rule Indians continue in the same manner as the British did to us till Independence.
The Indian politician perfectly understands the system and the Indian psyche. Leveraging the power of the government, our politicians prefer rationing a few thousand seats by constricting demand rather than considering the grand idea of increasing its supply.
For sixty years since Independence, we have one AIIMS, seven IITs and six IIMs for a billion-plus population. Even that tiny speck in the Indian Ocean called Singapore would have more educational institutions for its 4 million population.
Obviously, the idea is to constrict supply and play on the pent up demand. And in the process if history has to be distorted, so be it.
It may be noted that the Marxists would be at hand to lend credibility to any such distortions of history -- our silence would be their next ally. Needless to emphasise, it is these distortions of history that rationalise reservations, not the 'historical backwardness' of any castes. But if supply were increased as suggested here, what would our politicians -- Marxists and pseudo Marxists -- do? They would simply be jobless, as it would mean end of their brand of politics!
And precisely for these reasons, the current policy of reservations and with it dividing people through castes would continue.
Moral of the story: Without the powerful incentive of reservation every caste in India would be a forward caste.
The author is a Chennai-based Chartered Accountant. He can be contacted at mrv1000@rediffmail.com
To rule India -- with her huge size and population -- the British hit upon a simple yet brilliant idea: divide and rule, with the State playing the crucial role of an arbitrator between various warring groups.
The government of Independent India is largely a remnant of the British Raj with one crucial addition: the ruling elite, comprising Marxists and pseudo-Marxists, largely understands the collective psyche of Indians far better than our colonial oppressors. After all, poverty of ideas invariably leads to politics of poverty.
Accordingly, subsequent governments in India have first ensured shortages, and then played Santa by rationing the insufficient. Quotas fall in this genre.
OBCs: No discussion, please
Having adopted this paradigm of governance, it was necessary for the Government of India to turn the majority against the minority, Muslims and Christians were to be pitched against Hindus, the 'higher' castes against 'lower' castes, the OBCs against the MBCs (Most Backward Classes), the BCs against the Dalits, the Hindi-speaking against the non-Hindi speaking and so on and so forth.
Else, a system that was predominantly modelled on the lines of the British style of governance -- highly centralised, with little accountability -- would be unworkable in India. And given this broad idea of dividing Indians, the caste system in India was an obvious candidate.
It may be noted that by the early twentieth century the British had already begun dividing the nation on these lines -- forwards and backwards. The governments in independent India merely carried the British agenda forward.
One of the popular assumptions built by the British and nurtured subsequently by Marxists about castes is that it is hierarchical and creates a rigid and vertical social structure. And that justified reservations, first for the Dalits (who are not the subject matter of this discussion) and subsequently extended to the backward castes -- OBCs.
The nature of competitive populism in contemporary politics makes it extremely difficult even for a cursory discussion on backward castes, their composition and genesis of their backwardness. On the contrary, every government aided and abetted by a pliable media, biased intellectuals and an indifferent public have repeatedly suppressed, distorted or de-legitimised scholarly studies about OBCs.
The truth needs to be told, facts debated and our assumptions re-calibrated.
Backward castes: What's that?
Whether caste is associated with vertical hierarchy or not has been the subject of great study by many historians, analysts and sociologists. 'Interrogating Castes,' a study of Dipankar Gupta, an eminent scholar and historian of great repute, shows that no caste considers itself to be lower in status, when compared with other castes.
In his essay, Gupta recalls an encounter with 'low caste' women who claimed that her caste was really Rajput -- a higher caste -- and was turned into a lower caste after a defeat in war.
Gupta further adds, "This encounter nearly twenty years ago led me to wonder how many low castes have elevated opinions about their caste origins. A new world was revealed to me as I read account after account of those who are customarily called low castes denying their lowly pedigree. Sometimes they said that were Brahmins of a certain kind, on many occasions they claimed Kshatriya status."
Stumped? Read on.
Arun Shourie, in his latest book -- Falling Over Backwards -- reveals something sensational. He quotes two Census Superintendents of the 1931 census who state, 'The feature of interest is that the claim is always for a more dignified title, for admission to a higher caste or exclusion from a caste which is considered low in the social scale.' Shourie further goes on enumerate repeatedly all through this book as to how Sainis and Malis wanted to be classified as Saini Rajputs, Gabits as Marathas, Bedas as Naiks, Blacksmiths as Panch Brahmans, Barias as Kshatriyas, Talpadas as Padhiar Rajputs, Devalis and Bhavins as Naik Marathas. . . the list seems endless, and Shourie's scholarly attempt is replete with such examples of the so-called lower castes seeking a higher caste appellation.
Surprised? Read on.
Lower castes or elite of the ruling class?
The late Gandhian, Dharampalji through a painstaking study spread over several decades in India, England and Germany established that before the British rule in India, over two-thirds -- yes, two-thirds! -- of the Indian rulers belonged to what is today known as the OBCs and conclusively proved that it was the British and not the upper castes who robbed the OBCs of their power, wealth and status.
Dharampalji also exploded the popularly held belief that most of those attending schools must have belonged to the upper castes and again with reference to the British records, proved that the truth was other way round. For instance, during 1822-25 the share of the Brahmin students in indigenous schools in Tamil-speaking areas accounted for 13 per cent in South Arcot to some 23 per cent in Madras, while the OBCs accounted for 70 per cent in Salem and Tirunelveli and 84 per cent in South Arcot.
Shocked? Another study by Christophe Jaffrelot, a French scholar -- India's silent revolution: the Rise of the Low Castes in North Indian Politics -- corroborates the findings of late Dharampalji.
While the subject of the book may be out of context to the discussion on hand, the matter of interest to the extant debate is the historical perspective provided on the status of OBCs in nineteenth and early twentieth century. Some of the important factors highlighted in the book with respect to OBCs are:
All available historical evidence shows that almost none of the OBCs considered themselves to be backward, in any sense of the term, at least till the beginning of the 20th century.
Most of the rulers, both at the local as well as larger regional levels in different regions of India during 16-18th centuries, seem to have come from these OBCs.
Further, most of the professions that sustained the vibrant economy of India, which was considered a great agricultural and industrial nation till early 19th century, were peopled and managed mostly by these communities.
The de-industrialisation of India by the British and the subsequent suspension of all local support systems led to widespread deprivation among all sections of Indian society, notably the OBCs.
Four scholars, perhaps with differing ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions. Yet, look at the specious arguments that have fashioned our debate on this issue.
Look what have we done to ourselves.
The net impact of the above is that we have turned OBCs -- the supplicants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries -- into applicants for posts of clerks in government offices, thanks to the reservation policy.
This would be perhaps true of earlier historical periods also. And most of them -- from Lord Rama to Krishna, from Maharana Ranjit Singh to Chhatrapati Shivaji to Veerapandia Kattabomman -- would in the scheme of our government invariably fall in one of the two categories: OBCs or MBCs!
Due to a conspiracy of coincidences, OBCs seem to have forgotten their glorious past. What else would explain their behaviour of being on all fours before successive governments -- and to curry favours? Today they are so used to the standard arguments of being exploited by forward castes (FCs), leave alone OBCs, even the FCs are loathe to buy contrary arguments.
The net result is that OBCs on the one hand are overwhelmed with an inferiority complex and thus find psychological comfort only in reservations. On the other hand, the upper castes, tutored through tortured history, live constantly in a guilt complex of having wronged their OBC brethren.
In short, our population comprises people who live either on guilt or on an inferiority complex -- what a wonderful combination to challenge the world!
Significantly, this is a perfect setting for our politicians, especially the Marxists, to exploit.
If there were 1,000 IIMs, IITs and AIIMS. . .
All these are pointers to a crucial issue -- the manner in which we are governed and the sinister idea of dividing Indians to rule Indians continue in the same manner as the British did to us till Independence.
The Indian politician perfectly understands the system and the Indian psyche. Leveraging the power of the government, our politicians prefer rationing a few thousand seats by constricting demand rather than considering the grand idea of increasing its supply.
For sixty years since Independence, we have one AIIMS, seven IITs and six IIMs for a billion-plus population. Even that tiny speck in the Indian Ocean called Singapore would have more educational institutions for its 4 million population.
Obviously, the idea is to constrict supply and play on the pent up demand. And in the process if history has to be distorted, so be it.
It may be noted that the Marxists would be at hand to lend credibility to any such distortions of history -- our silence would be their next ally. Needless to emphasise, it is these distortions of history that rationalise reservations, not the 'historical backwardness' of any castes. But if supply were increased as suggested here, what would our politicians -- Marxists and pseudo Marxists -- do? They would simply be jobless, as it would mean end of their brand of politics!
And precisely for these reasons, the current policy of reservations and with it dividing people through castes would continue.
Moral of the story: Without the powerful incentive of reservation every caste in India would be a forward caste.
The author is a Chennai-based Chartered Accountant. He can be contacted at mrv1000@rediffmail.com
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Colors of Spring!!!
One of the best of seasons...Spring is just passing by...with each and every day gradually becoming hotter...and the scorching Summer knocking the doors.
It's time when I see the colors of Spring gradually fading. The red and yellow of the Gulmohars...the pink, the purple and the white of many trees whose name is not in my knowledge''... is gradually turning to brown.
Remembering the colors of Spring...this my tribute to the glory of Nature!!!!
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
A wonderful article on Bengalees and Kolkata
I got this mavelous piece of witing in one of the forwared mails that flood my inbox. It says that it is written by Vir Sanghvi, who is the editor of The Hindustan Times.
Here it goes...
Most modern Indian cities strive to rise above ethnicity. Tell anybody who lives in Bombay that he lives in a Maharashtrian city and (unless of course, you are speaking to Bal Thackeray) he will take immediate offence. We are cosmopolitan, he will say indigenously.
Here it goes...
Most modern Indian cities strive to rise above ethnicity. Tell anybody who lives in Bombay that he lives in a Maharashtrian city and (unless of course, you are speaking to Bal Thackeray) he will take immediate offence. We are cosmopolitan, he will say indigenously.
Tell a Delhiwalla that his is a Punjabi city (which, in many ways, it is) and he will respond with much self-righteous nonsense about being the nation's capital, about the international composition of the city's elite etc. And tell a Bangalorean that he lives in a Kannadiga city and you'll get lots of techno-gaff about the internet revolution and about how Bangalore is even more cosmopolitan than Bombay .
But, the only way to understand what Calcutta is all about is to recognize that the city is essentially Bengali. What's more! no Bengali minds you saying that. Rather, he is proud of the fact. Calcutta's strengths and weaknesses mirror those of the Bengali character.
But, the only way to understand what Calcutta is all about is to recognize that the city is essentially Bengali. What's more! no Bengali minds you saying that. Rather, he is proud of the fact. Calcutta's strengths and weaknesses mirror those of the Bengali character.
It has the drawbacks: the sudden passions, the cheerful chaos, the utter contempt for mere commerce, the fiery response to the smallest provocation. And it has the strengths (actually, I think of the drawbacks as strengths in their own way). Calcutta embodies the Bengali love of culture; the triumph of intellectualism over greed; the complete transparency of all emotions, the disdain with which hypocrisy and insincerity are treated; the warmth of genuine humanity; and the supremacy of emotion over all other aspects of human existence.
That's why Calcutta is not for everyone. You want your cities clean and green; stick to Delhi . You want your cities, rich and impersonal; go to Bombay. You want them high-tech and full of draught beer; Bangalore 's your place. But if you want a city with a soul: come to Calcutta .
When I look back on the years I've spent in Calcutta - and I come back so many times each year that I often feel I've never been away - I don't remember the things that people remember about cities. When I think of London, I think of the vast open spaces of Hyde Park . When I think of New York, I think of the frenzy of Times Square . When I think of Tokyo, I think of the bright lights of Shinjiku. And when I think of Paris, I think of the Champs Elysee. But when I think of Calcutta , I never think of any one place. I don't focus on the greenery of the maidan, the beauty of the Victoria Memorial, the bustle of Burra Bazar or the splendour of the new Howrah 'Bridge'. I think of people. Because, finally, a city is more than bricks and mortars, street lights and tarred roads. A city is the sum of its people. And who can ever forget - or replicate - the people of Calcutta ?
When I first came to live here, I was told that the city would grow on me. What nobody told me was that the city would change my life. It was in Calcutta that I learnt about true warmth; about simple human decency; about love and friendship; about emotions and caring; about truth and honesty. I learnt other things too. Coming from Bombay as I did, it was a revelation to live in a city where people judged each other on the things that really mattered; where they recognized that being rich did not make you a better person - in fact, it might have the opposite effect. I learnt also that if life is about more than just money, it is about the things that other cities ignore; about culture, about ideas, about art, and about passion.
That's why Calcutta is not for everyone. You want your cities clean and green; stick to Delhi . You want your cities, rich and impersonal; go to Bombay. You want them high-tech and full of draught beer; Bangalore 's your place. But if you want a city with a soul: come to Calcutta .
When I look back on the years I've spent in Calcutta - and I come back so many times each year that I often feel I've never been away - I don't remember the things that people remember about cities. When I think of London, I think of the vast open spaces of Hyde Park . When I think of New York, I think of the frenzy of Times Square . When I think of Tokyo, I think of the bright lights of Shinjiku. And when I think of Paris, I think of the Champs Elysee. But when I think of Calcutta , I never think of any one place. I don't focus on the greenery of the maidan, the beauty of the Victoria Memorial, the bustle of Burra Bazar or the splendour of the new Howrah 'Bridge'. I think of people. Because, finally, a city is more than bricks and mortars, street lights and tarred roads. A city is the sum of its people. And who can ever forget - or replicate - the people of Calcutta ?
When I first came to live here, I was told that the city would grow on me. What nobody told me was that the city would change my life. It was in Calcutta that I learnt about true warmth; about simple human decency; about love and friendship; about emotions and caring; about truth and honesty. I learnt other things too. Coming from Bombay as I did, it was a revelation to live in a city where people judged each other on the things that really mattered; where they recognized that being rich did not make you a better person - in fact, it might have the opposite effect. I learnt also that if life is about more than just money, it is about the things that other cities ignore; about culture, about ideas, about art, and about passion.
In Bombay , a man with a relatively low income will salt some of it away for the day when he gets a stock market tip. In Calcutta, a man with exactly the same income will not know the difference between a debenture and a dividend. But he will spend his money on the things that matter. Each morning, he will read at least two newspapers and develop sharply etched views on the state of the world. Each evening, there will be fresh (ideally, fresh-water or river) fish on his table. His children will be encouraged to learn to dance or sing. His family will appreciate the power of poetry. And for him, religion and culture will be in inextricably bound together.
Ah religion! Tell outsiders about the importance of Puja in Calcutta and they'll scoff. Don't be silly, they'll say. Puja is a religious festival. And Bengal has voted for the CPM since 1977. How can godless Bengal be so hung up on a religions festival? I never know how to explain them that to a Bengali, religion consists of much more than shouting Jai Shri Ram or pulling down somebody's mosque. It has little to do with meaningless ritual or sinister political activity.
Ah religion! Tell outsiders about the importance of Puja in Calcutta and they'll scoff. Don't be silly, they'll say. Puja is a religious festival. And Bengal has voted for the CPM since 1977. How can godless Bengal be so hung up on a religions festival? I never know how to explain them that to a Bengali, religion consists of much more than shouting Jai Shri Ram or pulling down somebody's mosque. It has little to do with meaningless ritual or sinister political activity.
The essence of Puja is that all the passions of Bengal converge: emotion, culture, the love of life, the warmth of being together, the joy of celebration, the pride in artistic ex-pression and yes, the cult of the goddess.
It may be about religion. But is about much more than just worship. In which other part of India would small, not particularly well-off localities, vie with each other to produce the best pandals? Where else could puja pandals go beyond religion to draw inspiration from everything else? In the years I lived in Calcutta , the pandals featured Amitabh Bachchan, Princes Diana and even Saddam Hussain! Where else would children cry with the sheer emotional power of Dashimi, upset that the Goddess had left their homes? Where else would the whole city gooseflesh when the dhakis first begin to beat their drums? Which other Indian festival - in any part of the country - is so much about food, about going from one roadside stall to another, following your nose as it trails the smells of cooking?
To understand Puja, you must understand Calcutta . And to understand Calcutta, you must understand the Bengali. It's not easy.
Certainly, you can't do it till you come and live here, till you letCalcutta suffuse your being, invade your bloodstream and steal your soul. But once you have, you'll love Calcutta forever. Wherever you go, a bit of Calcutta will go with you. I know, because it's happened to me.
And every Puja, I am overcome by the magic of Bengal . It's a feeling that’ll never go away.
It may be about religion. But is about much more than just worship. In which other part of India would small, not particularly well-off localities, vie with each other to produce the best pandals? Where else could puja pandals go beyond religion to draw inspiration from everything else? In the years I lived in Calcutta , the pandals featured Amitabh Bachchan, Princes Diana and even Saddam Hussain! Where else would children cry with the sheer emotional power of Dashimi, upset that the Goddess had left their homes? Where else would the whole city gooseflesh when the dhakis first begin to beat their drums? Which other Indian festival - in any part of the country - is so much about food, about going from one roadside stall to another, following your nose as it trails the smells of cooking?
To understand Puja, you must understand Calcutta . And to understand Calcutta, you must understand the Bengali. It's not easy.
Certainly, you can't do it till you come and live here, till you letCalcutta suffuse your being, invade your bloodstream and steal your soul. But once you have, you'll love Calcutta forever. Wherever you go, a bit of Calcutta will go with you. I know, because it's happened to me.
And every Puja, I am overcome by the magic of Bengal . It's a feeling that’ll never go away.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Is this how Indian parampara treats women?
I read the following article in Rediff...thought of adding it to my blog...One old saying is coming to my mind..."Whenver you see smoke, there must have been a fire"...Why is the media so mum on this issue?
How should one treat Jhanvi Kapoor or Hayna Rizvi (whatever her name is)?
The poor girl tried to commit suicide, claiming Abhishek had already married her.
She was called a 'drug addict', 'mentally unstable', etcetera etcetera.
She also lost her apartment after the housing society threw her out -- apparently for creating a ruckus at the wedding! (as if it was any of their business, for heaven's sake!) and, as some reports claim, for not paying rent for four months.
The least someone in the apartment complex -- or for that matter some women's organisation (where were they? watching the wedding on telly?) -- could have done is get the lady admitted to hospital or contact her family.
"She deserved it," declared one colleague.
I wonder where our world is heading to.
How should one treat Jhanvi Kapoor or Hayna Rizvi (whatever her name is)?
The poor girl tried to commit suicide, claiming Abhishek had already married her.
She was called a 'drug addict', 'mentally unstable', etcetera etcetera.
She also lost her apartment after the housing society threw her out -- apparently for creating a ruckus at the wedding! (as if it was any of their business, for heaven's sake!) and, as some reports claim, for not paying rent for four months.
The least someone in the apartment complex -- or for that matter some women's organisation (where were they? watching the wedding on telly?) -- could have done is get the lady admitted to hospital or contact her family.
"She deserved it," declared one colleague.
I wonder where our world is heading to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
