Just listen to this.
RIP, Ustad!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Shocking...
I am so angry that I really can't say anything at this point of time. I urge you to read this. The hospital has responded in the comments section., but to me it seems more like a cover up rather than a desire to do some kind of analysis on what went wrong.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The real India, anyone?
Friday, January 30, 2009
A humdinger
It shouldn't have ended so incongruously, not with a double fault after the glorious tennis one witnessed.
After 5 hours and 14 minutes there shouldn't have been a loser; especially not the one with 95 winning shots. But then, the one with only 25 unforced errors couldn't be the loser either.
Just as you thought the ball couldn't be stuck any harder, the ground strokes couldn't get any better or the forehand shots any more glorious, both these men came out with something that made you sit up on your seats. Both played unbelievably, both were as relentless as the harsh Australian summer; sad that there can be only one winner. As Nadal lay down on the ground out of sheer exhaustion and relief, more than joy probably, your heart went out to the person on the other side of the net, the one beaten by the serve that didn't fail him for over five hours.
You can't actually call Nadal the winner; he just about survived Verdasco's grand assault. Isn't it a surprise that at the end of it all the world no 1 had won just one point more (193 to Verdasco's 192) than his compatriot - the single point that gave him the match?
This one, for me, is there right at the top as one of the best matches I have ever watched, along with the 2008 epic Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer. Watch these highlights to see for yourselves.
After 5 hours and 14 minutes there shouldn't have been a loser; especially not the one with 95 winning shots. But then, the one with only 25 unforced errors couldn't be the loser either.
Just as you thought the ball couldn't be stuck any harder, the ground strokes couldn't get any better or the forehand shots any more glorious, both these men came out with something that made you sit up on your seats. Both played unbelievably, both were as relentless as the harsh Australian summer; sad that there can be only one winner. As Nadal lay down on the ground out of sheer exhaustion and relief, more than joy probably, your heart went out to the person on the other side of the net, the one beaten by the serve that didn't fail him for over five hours.
You can't actually call Nadal the winner; he just about survived Verdasco's grand assault. Isn't it a surprise that at the end of it all the world no 1 had won just one point more (193 to Verdasco's 192) than his compatriot - the single point that gave him the match?
This one, for me, is there right at the top as one of the best matches I have ever watched, along with the 2008 epic Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer. Watch these highlights to see for yourselves.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Bloodthirsty Indian media
What else can one say, especially with a headline such as this in one of the national newspapers this Sunday. Just take a look:
And the blurb actually is even more shocking: "Tel Aviv's decisive action comes after recent terror attacks; New Delhi still hems and haws over its response to 26/11".
This disturbs me; especially when one considers the connotations that the article carries, it is quite distressing. This report is about the latest attack carried out by Israel against Palestine, but the editors of this paper obviously see this as the most appropriate response; in fact, this newspaper seems actually proud of this massacre - "200 dead, 700 injured", it screams out. And the headline unflinchingly dares India to do an Israel and bomb Pakistan.
Has it come to this, that we view India and Israel in the same light, that we do not see how detrimental it is to even us to compare the situation in this country with what is happening in the Middle East? The electronic media in this country, led by pseudo patriotic fervour of Arnab Goswami (of Times Now), has already started a war with our neighbour and now, it is the turn of the print media to jump into the fray - baying for blood, advocating violence. Don't the likes of the Indian Express editor or Arnab Goswami stop and think for a minute - Do they really believe we will not be affected in any way by this so-called war? Do they really think war will solve all problems?
And when someone wakes up, looks at this headline and thinks it is totally apt, it troubles me even more. After all, there could be more than one person out there who thinks in the same manner.
And the blurb actually is even more shocking: "Tel Aviv's decisive action comes after recent terror attacks; New Delhi still hems and haws over its response to 26/11".
This disturbs me; especially when one considers the connotations that the article carries, it is quite distressing. This report is about the latest attack carried out by Israel against Palestine, but the editors of this paper obviously see this as the most appropriate response; in fact, this newspaper seems actually proud of this massacre - "200 dead, 700 injured", it screams out. And the headline unflinchingly dares India to do an Israel and bomb Pakistan.
Has it come to this, that we view India and Israel in the same light, that we do not see how detrimental it is to even us to compare the situation in this country with what is happening in the Middle East? The electronic media in this country, led by pseudo patriotic fervour of Arnab Goswami (of Times Now), has already started a war with our neighbour and now, it is the turn of the print media to jump into the fray - baying for blood, advocating violence. Don't the likes of the Indian Express editor or Arnab Goswami stop and think for a minute - Do they really believe we will not be affected in any way by this so-called war? Do they really think war will solve all problems?
And when someone wakes up, looks at this headline and thinks it is totally apt, it troubles me even more. After all, there could be more than one person out there who thinks in the same manner.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Where are we going?
Yet another coffee break at work turned into a heated argument last Friday - tempers flared, and at the end of it all I was left slightly unnerved. It all started with a very casual discussion about last month's terror attacks, one of the colleagues saying we should stop patronising Pakistani music. Yeah right, I told myself, that definitely will stop all kinds of terrorism. I brought up this news and talked about how I thought it was totally ridiculous. Voices of dissent immediately - and I was told I was in the wrong. The lawyers were doing the right thing by refusing to defend him; and Shiv Sena did the right thing by attacking one who just wanted to do his duty. One of the colleagues was pretty vociferous actually - that Kasab should be publicly killed without even a trial. And, he felt, there was nothing wrong in anyone attacking the lawyer; in his own words, this colleague said: "Think like an Indian first and do what is good for the nation." So attacking a lawyer just wanting to perform his duty and uphold the constitutional right was being extremely patriotic! Can someone please help me here? And there was more - since Kasab had simply mowed down unarmed, innocent people, who couldn't defend themselves in any manner, it was simply okay to lynch him.
I know these terrorists killed people in cold-blood, and were caught on cameras doing so. Does that mean it was okay to do the same to him? Why don't we just start right at the beginning? We have ample television evidence of what happened at Babri Masjid; why don't we do the same with all those people as well? We have one of the major leaders of 2002 Gujarat genocide going on record and saying: "...we didn't spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on fire, we set them on fire and killed them." And how did all this make him feel? "I can't tell you what a good time it was... Maza aata hai na, saheb (I enjoy it)... I came back after I killed them, called up the home minister and went to sleep... I felt like Rana Pratap." The policemen who openly assisted the rampaging Hindu mobs were not punished; they were not even sent to a trial. In fact, we shamelessly voted back the person behind Gujarat carnage to power and are okay with he being positioned as a future Prime Minister of this country. More recently in Orissa we have had thousands of people driven out of their homes and threatened openly. Why don't we get "patriotic" about all this and shout from rooftops that perpetrators of all these crimes should be brought to court as well? No, wait, did I say courts and trial? Why bother? With such overwhelming evidence and confessions on record, why don't we just publicly kill/lynch all these people as well?
As I mentioned here before, I don't understand something like this - to me this is simple and straightforward - we have evidence against Kasab, recorded evidence; we have a strong case against him and from what I can see immense international support; why are we scared to send him to trial? And if there are loopholes in the system that allows one such as Kasab to get away despite all the evidence, then what we need is a clean up of the judicial system. Not some kind of jungle law.
What disturbs me is this - that people seemed to think this was a good idea, that somehow this was totally acceptable. Is that really a solution?
I know these terrorists killed people in cold-blood, and were caught on cameras doing so. Does that mean it was okay to do the same to him? Why don't we just start right at the beginning? We have ample television evidence of what happened at Babri Masjid; why don't we do the same with all those people as well? We have one of the major leaders of 2002 Gujarat genocide going on record and saying: "...we didn't spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on fire, we set them on fire and killed them." And how did all this make him feel? "I can't tell you what a good time it was... Maza aata hai na, saheb (I enjoy it)... I came back after I killed them, called up the home minister and went to sleep... I felt like Rana Pratap." The policemen who openly assisted the rampaging Hindu mobs were not punished; they were not even sent to a trial. In fact, we shamelessly voted back the person behind Gujarat carnage to power and are okay with he being positioned as a future Prime Minister of this country. More recently in Orissa we have had thousands of people driven out of their homes and threatened openly. Why don't we get "patriotic" about all this and shout from rooftops that perpetrators of all these crimes should be brought to court as well? No, wait, did I say courts and trial? Why bother? With such overwhelming evidence and confessions on record, why don't we just publicly kill/lynch all these people as well?
As I mentioned here before, I don't understand something like this - to me this is simple and straightforward - we have evidence against Kasab, recorded evidence; we have a strong case against him and from what I can see immense international support; why are we scared to send him to trial? And if there are loopholes in the system that allows one such as Kasab to get away despite all the evidence, then what we need is a clean up of the judicial system. Not some kind of jungle law.
What disturbs me is this - that people seemed to think this was a good idea, that somehow this was totally acceptable. Is that really a solution?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Acid test
I can understand anger; the public outcry is totally justifiable as well. And my heart, in fact, goes out to the two girls - Swapnika and Praneeta - and their families. I feel sad and angry too - furious at the three men who believed they had the right to disfigure a girl because she had rejected one of them. When they were caught and paraded in front of the media, I felt good and hoped that they would pay for the crime they had committed. But this isn't what I had asked for. And when the minister of irrigation goes on record and says, "The encounter took place in tune with people's wishes", I am worried; absolutely worried for a country that celebrates police excesses, for the people who view this as "justice done", for a society that encourages this and refuses to see that this brutality is just a cover up for police inepititude. This, in fact, scares me more.
This is jungle law; concerned with the outcry over the heinous attack, the police decided to take the law into their own hands. We are given to understand that the youth tried to attack the police and the "encounter" was an act of self-defense. Attack the police? Three misguided youth, who didn't have a criminal record against them, had weapons hidden with them when in police custody? Doesn't that again speak volumes for the inefficient police force? Following the incident, I agree, the police had acted fast: arrested the accused, recovered the bike and the acid bottles - all evidence required. What else was left to do? Deliver justice. And that is what they did. Or so we tell ourselves.
We the people are not supposed to celebrate this. In reality, the police have committed a crime - this, to me, is no different from custodial death. Don't we live in a civilized society? What happened to law, courts? Shouldn't these men have been tried in the courts of the land as well? I agree justice in India doesn't come easy; the judicial system is in urgent need of reforms. What was then required was a call to cleanse the system, an agitation to spruce up the police force; we shouldn't be celebrating this.
Will now someone speak up against the officers involved, ask that they be brought to justice as well?
This is jungle law; concerned with the outcry over the heinous attack, the police decided to take the law into their own hands. We are given to understand that the youth tried to attack the police and the "encounter" was an act of self-defense. Attack the police? Three misguided youth, who didn't have a criminal record against them, had weapons hidden with them when in police custody? Doesn't that again speak volumes for the inefficient police force? Following the incident, I agree, the police had acted fast: arrested the accused, recovered the bike and the acid bottles - all evidence required. What else was left to do? Deliver justice. And that is what they did. Or so we tell ourselves.
We the people are not supposed to celebrate this. In reality, the police have committed a crime - this, to me, is no different from custodial death. Don't we live in a civilized society? What happened to law, courts? Shouldn't these men have been tried in the courts of the land as well? I agree justice in India doesn't come easy; the judicial system is in urgent need of reforms. What was then required was a call to cleanse the system, an agitation to spruce up the police force; we shouldn't be celebrating this.
Will now someone speak up against the officers involved, ask that they be brought to justice as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
