Desicritics Author: Vulturo

Bookstores and Indian Fiction

Vulturo — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:45 EST

I've been buying books since quite a while now and had never really given this matter serious thought, until now. My question is, why is Indian writing in English specially categorized in every major bookstore as "Indian Fiction" or "Indian Authors" or some such thing. Why can't they simply be clubbed together with rest of the lot?

Do bookstores in Vietnam have sections like "Vietnamese Fiction" or "Vietnamese Authors". That is, if we disregard the question whether Vietnam has bookstores in the first place. This really confuses me at times.

But then again, whoever made these classifications definitely has a point. In my opinion, the quality of the "Indian Fiction" in most cases, isn't half as good as the rest of the lot. I mean, a fair bit of "Indian fiction" basically seems to be the same stuff told in different ways. The only reason I pass through the Indian fiction section in a bookstore is to get a good look at some sexy chick who happens to be deeply involved with browsing a book, of a markedly inferior quality, of course.

Of course, there are quite a few authors of Indian origin whom I think are brilliant, and I read them because I happen to think that they are brilliant and not because they are Indian. But I'm not quite sure of the rest of the lot. One hates to generalize, but a great deal of Indian fiction, to me, comes across as a bit artificial. Overhyped. And in some cases, more exotic than strictly necessary.

The titles tell a story too. Most of them are way too pseudo and way too wannabe for my liking. They play their part in discouraging you from buying the book, not that the accompanying blurbs are really arresting. Whats with the House Of The Blue Mangoes?, or Hullabuloo in some motherfucking orchard, or, for example, this woman called Kaveri Nambi-whatever who has flooded the bookshelves with monstrosities such as The Scent Of Pepper, Mango Colored Fish or On Wings Of Butterflies. I seriously feel like walking up to these people and saying a hearfelt "Fuck you". Since when did India start being so exotic? So different?

It is almost as if they are trying to sell not their own selves as good writers, but packaging India in a manner that foreign audiences like it - an exotic country full of all sorts of peculiar things - and maybe win accolades for it. More power to them.

In the end, it is all fairly rotten. Give me the good old Edwardian literature anytime. I prefer it to these bloody new-age pretenders.

Calling All Desicritics: Mumbai Bloggers' Meet, Gautam Ghosh Special

Vulturo — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:57:49 EDT

Gautam Ghosh, the leading Indian Human Resources and Business Blogger and Thought Leader, is slated to visit Mumbai towards the end of this month, and a Blogger Meet is being hereby declared in his honor.

26th of August, it will be, and the venue will be the Cafe Coffee Day outlet at Carter Road in Bandra. 5:00 p.m. is the appointed hour and I hope that apart from having a lot of fun, we'll all have an opportunity to imbibe some business gyaan from Gautam.

If you happen to be in Mumbai on the appointed date and have a blog (or just an overpowering desire to seek an audience with Gautam), we would love to have you over. It would be great if you could spread the word as well.

If you have any questions, or would like to confirm your attendance, comment on this post or bung in an email message to vsaket [at] gmail [dot] com. Another way of confirming participation would be to add your name to the list of attendees on Share-a-plan's page for this event.

The Moral Default: Reservation Debate Fading?

Vulturo — Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:42:24 EDT

To the best of my knowledge and inference, the war against reservations has pretty much petered out. The medical strike has been called off and embers which continue to dimly smoulder will die down soon in all probability.

A lot of people on the blogosphere have invested a massive amount of time and effort either arguing for reservations, or against them. Now that the dust has begun to settle, I'd like to make a few observations about the whole deal.

When it comes to speaking against reservations, there are three types of writings found on the blogosphere:

Arguments from a purely utilitarian perspective, which explore ways of moving towards the goal of upliftment of the Dalits, SCs/STs, OBCs (and other such life forms) and agree in principle that it is the state's job to accomplish that goal, but point out that reservations probably aren't the correct method for going about it and pointing towards the correct method (grassroots level efforts, improvement of primary education, etc)

Writings which stress on the fact that reservations are morally wrong, and that they involve coercion and victimisation of the hapless 'general category' students

Vague ramblings driven by frustration which contain some inherent anger (or hate-speech) against either the state or the reservationists.

Of these three categories of writing, only the first one is acknowledged to be an above-board method by a wide majority of people (at least, on a politically correct front). I have so far been guilty of only the remaining two types of argument(s) and have discovered that they are pretty much meaningless.

Quite understandably, the reservationists only appreciate arguments of the first type and are known to either laugh at the other two methods of discourse, or take offense and demand 'respect'. It is a funny thing, how, in the given scenario only a utitlitarian approach seems to work (somewhat).

Despite its effectiveness, the utilitarian approach hasn't really appealed to me even though I generally agree with the arguments put forth because I've always thought that collectively, we seem to be missing the whole point.

On the issue in question, the first argument I can offer (from the bottom of my heart) is that reservations are morally wrong: plain and simple. To me, that seems to be the only basic case against reservations, leaving aside everything else. I'm surprised, as to how the general public is shy of admitting this fact in spite of it being so totally obvious.

The moral point is generally regarded to be a useless detail to be swept under the carpet and that, I guess, is not without a reason. I remember the Mumbai Bloggers' Meet which took place some time ago: There was a raucous debate on the reservations issue in progress (despite the fact that everyone admitted to being against reservations) and a few people were expressing indignation while the rest of them were dwelling on the utilitarian perspective (as to how reservations are not the correct method of going about solving the problem).

[I hope Amit doesn't mind me quoting him here] I remarked that my only grouse and argument against the reservations was that they were morally wrong (or words to that effect uttered quite emphatically). Amit said that there wasn't a point in stressing it because nobody is willing to accept that as a valid argument in the current scenario: there are a lot many things which are also wrong, in any case. For that matter even taxes are morally wrong (in the technical sense, as they involve coercion)! This served as a mini-epiphanic moment for me, and then the discussion turned into a libertarian debate between a few of those present, as to how taxes were morally wrong.

Looking at both sides of the equation, I reflect upon Ayn Rand's observations on three rules governing the mechanics of compromise:

In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

[Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal]

It is easy to tell that the first and the third principles have always been working in the favor of anything which leans towards statism, and the reservations issue isn't any different.

Once there is an agreement in public opinion, that it is the state's job to redistribute income and wealth you seem to lose the whole battle. This is further aggravated by the fact that it is understood that arbitararily sacrificing the interests of some people in the favor of others, based on the fancies of the government is okay, as long as it can be shown to happen for a 'public good' or 'good of the major sections of society'. The acceptance of this "well intentioned" sacrificial doctrine isn't explicit. But it has been embedded in the collective psyche, since quite some time.

Let me take some time to elaborate further on the issue: Every argument in favor of reservations starts with the premise that India is a "welfare state". Both parties involved in the debate (a debate on a purely utilitarian basis) generally agree on this point. This is taken as status quo, irrespective of the fact that whether being a welfare state is a good thing or otherwise. The great constitution says that India is to be a welfare state. It has been preordained: It is supposed to be a "good thing" - whether you like it or not.

Once the irrationality of welfare-statism is accepted as the only politically correct moral philosophy, it is very obvious that the side which is more irrational and more welfare statist will win in the end.

If redistribution of wealth is okay in principle, it doesn't matter really how the wealth is distributed. The government can rob Peter in any way it desires and use the proceeds to either pay Paul or line its own pockets, whichever way its pleases. Taxation is redistribution of wealth in terms of income. Reservations are a way of redistributing wealth in terms of opportunity. To be clearer, it is about using the same wealth to create opportunities, and then further redistributing those opportunities.

Of course it can be argued that taxes don't hit the people as hard as reservations do: taxes are more or less evenly distributed (i.e. everyone pays taxes), but reservations amount to compound redistribution with the added ugliness that the number of people who lose out are lesser but the amount of loss is much more (one IIM seat lost is a lot more money lost over a whole lifetime in potential earnings). Funnily enough, it wouldn't have been so bad if the educations sector itself hadn't been screwed up so royally. The so called scarcity of quality education has made the IIMs, the ultimate jackpot for one and all. But that is digressing too much, and in any case it doesn't matter anyway. Once sacrifice and cannibalism is agreed upon as a default moral doctrine, there isn't much of a point haggling over the quantum of sacrifice.

Too much government never did anyone any good, except probably the government itself. I'm nauseated by reservationists elaborating about percentages of people belonging to specific classes which exist in India, vis-a-vis their representation in either the private sector or educational institutions, and then sometimes explaining how the real goal is increasing the representation and manipulating the social structure for the better (economic upliftment is supposed to be a mere corollary, by the way). I'm left speechless when such statements are made. The first thought which comes to my mind is: "Who the fuck does the government think it is?, Trying to play God and engaging in social enginerring. Is such social engineering the proper function of an ideal government anyway?"

A few days ago, Falstaff wrote a brilliant post on why democracy is neccessary, which also dwelt on the reservations issue. Falstaff mentioned:

Not because it's the super-optimal system of government, but because it's the only system of government that will safeguard us from the misuse of power, that will ensure that we can keep the incentives of our leaders aligned with the our own interests, that will limit the harm that the government can do

I would like to make an addition to the statement: It isn't democracy alone which will suffice. While Democracy is a "good thing" and probably the best (or least bad) system of governance available, by itself it is woefully inadequate. A democracy could well be used to elect a totalitarian or fascist government. A democracy could be used to elect a government which institutes reservations. It isn't democracy which limits the government - It is the underlying legal framework, or the constitution which protects individual rights and clearly defines what the government ought to be allowed to do. Without an objective legal framework, democracy is meaningless.

To end this long meandering discourse, I'd like to state that the basic problem is that of the moral default. The problem is the fascism which is euphimistically paraded as welfare statism and spoken about in glowing terms. The reservations are a mere symptom of a much larger disease.

If there has to be any effort made towards keeping this country habitable, it is the underlying philosophy of welfare-statism which has to go. It isn't that the government isn't giving up its powers. It has in fact done so, in bits and pieces if you compare today to the socialist era. Dismantling unneeded governmental machinery is the cure. There has always been a solid lack of intention on that front, and progress is bound to be very very slow. There ought to be a method of speedy minimisation of the government.

A lean-mean non-interventionist state is the way towards a freer, more progressive society.

Islam Doesn't Condone Killing Innocent People

Vulturo — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:07:59 EST

... said a friend to me over email.

She is absolutely right. Islam definitely does not condone the killing of innocent people. The only problem is with the way Islam 'defines' innocent people. The bottom line is: Anyone who does not believe in the greatness of Allah or does not profess belief in Him is an infidel. How can he/she simply be innocent? Kya yaar tu bhi...

I'm sick and tired of moderate moslems desperately defending their religion. They have a point to prove. The contention is that their religion is all right, and that the terrorists are just misguided people. I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

The stupid frenzy with which they explain that the 'true message of Islam' is different, and that Islam is a peace loving religion, is apalling, to say the least. I simply do not understand why one must defend one's religion to the last word, as if it is some great moral responsibility. It isn't clear as yet, as to who is being deceived by whom.

The cold hard fact happens to be that each and every religion on the face of the planet is irrational. A religion becomes irrational the very moment it declares that there is one true god, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent who created the universe and is operating it. That this proposition is logically impossible, is only a small part of the problem. People can still be rational otherwise, even if they deceive themselves into believing this one stupid lie. But one bloody lie has several other lies attached to it.

Apart from the one-true-god contention, every religion has a host of other issues. And you never know how many people they affect and transform into hate-spewing, rabid killing machines.

If people were to follow Hinduism, true to every word written in the scriptures, India would be a pathetic regressive society. If people were to follow Christianity to the last word, the West simply wouldn't have progressed. Women would have had no rights whatsoever, either in India, the Middle East or several other parts of the world.

The issue here is that, as a society, we implicitly accept that our religions carry a lot of bullshit in them, and it is simply stupid to take them very seriously. 'Moderateness' is all about not being so serious about religion, yet 'respecting' every religion and declaring that 'all religions are equal', fooling yourself and hoping that you've fooled everyone else. Moderateness is about "preaching tolerance" while accepting that *every religion is right* and hoping that "secularism" (not secularism in its true-meaning) will take care of everything else. How all religions could be right at the same time, it is tough for me to comprehend.

I've read enough interpretations of Islamic texts to be convinced that Islam is NOT a peace-loving or fair religion BY DEFINITION (fair, in terms of tolerance towards non-believers). Even moderate moslems (If they aren't off their rockers, that is) must definitely be aware of the fact that there is a lot of stupidity in their religion, and there would be a bloodbath around the world if all of them were to start taking their religion seriously, one fine day. How hard is it to accept that there is something *fundamentally wrong* with Islam?

The only practical purpose, which religion could arguably serve is being a source of morality for those dimwits who can't figure it out on their own. But, if you are a rational being, it should not be hard for you to comprehend that *morality is independent of religion* and that faith in God (your God, somebody else's God, or that 'one-true-god') isn't necessary at all, to live a happy *non-evil* life. How seriously you wish to take your own religion is a choice you make, thereafter.

Coming back to the original point, I fully agree that Islam is a religion which supports world peace, in principle. The caveat which is applicable though, is that every resident of the world has to be a moslem, for that to hold.

If the killings are to stop, the fact that morality is independent of religion must be wholeheartedly accepted in an explicit manner by the world's population, Islamic or otherwise.

As and when more people acquire the balls to accept and openly state that there are major issues with taking religion seriously, and explicitly identify the bullshit contained within their religions, we can look forward to better times.

The Other Side Of Blank Noise

Vulturo — Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:31:41 EST

Coincidences can certainly be quirky. The other day, a gentleman by the name of Raghu, affiliated to the quite noisy Blank Noise project, wrote to me requesting participation in the sexual harassment blog-a-thon being organized on March 7. 2006, to coincide with Women's Day celebrations. I responded stating that as a man, I haven't personally experienced sexual harassment and for that matter, haven't really *witnessed* sexual harassment first-hand, except for the suspected human trafficking incident, which I blogged about last year.

I also added that being a fierce individualist, I stand up for individual rights in general and that I have pure unadulterated hatred for both, aggressive feminism and male chauvinism alike, and therefore I was not quite sure I agreed with positions taken by the Blank Noise project, in general. So what about the coincidence? Well, by a twist of fate I underwent some 'sexual harassment' on the very same day, and what's more, I had to endure sexual harassment myself to avoid 'sexually harassing' others in turn. Vulturo, The Chivalrous Martyr

Well, we'll come to that later but let us talk about Blank Noise first. I'm not sure whether Raghu appreciated my response to his email, but he did encourage me to explore the sexual harassment realm from an individualist angle (with respect to personal spaces, the right to dignity, bodily sanctity, etc). Well, I have done so on several occasions, and I did it once again. Needless to say, while I fully stand for these concepts, they become quite hazy and extremely subjective when it comes to crowded 'public places', and open to debate. The interpretation of concepts like dignity, and personal space differ from person to person, based on culture and social upbringing. While I fully support valiant initiatives such as the Stop Ragging Project, which is, in a way, a clear cut campaign for individual rights, I'm not quite sure I would find myself concurring with members of the Blank Noise project on several issues.

I remember reading a post on the Blank Noise blog last year: The author sounded like a fire breathing feminist, righteously declaring that all men are evil (something along the same lines), and some of them look at women and having dirty thoughts about them, while they have no right to do so (I think she used the expression 'lecherously ogle'). If my memory does not fail me, Greatbong left a really amusing comment explaining that anyone had a right to look at any one else, and of course, a right to think whatever he/she wanted to about whoever they were looking at. Boy, that sure was funny. [Full disclosure: I consider observing female specimens of the human species from a respectable distance, and appreciating their beauty, a completely above-board, and a rather agreeable activity]

My problem with the Blank Noise project is that some of the members seem to imply that private space and a right to dignity is the sole property of members of the female gender, or at least that women are more 'equal' than men, when it comes to talking offense at being physically touched (either deliberately, or inadvertently). I find some views held by Blank Noise members to be extremely ridiculous, to say the least. For one, I don't understand why woman have right to be offended at the general scheme of things, when traveling in a crowded local, when men generally don't. I mean seriously, who really loves crowds? Well, but you do have the right to eschew local train travel altogether.

Secondly, I hate the being squeezed like cattle, amongst a horde of slimy, grimy, grizzly men with foul breath, whose bodies ooze pungent sweat (Hey, that rhymes!), as much as any other person would hate it, irrespective of gender. Why the fuss, when it comes to women, then? And I'm not sure whether I really have a right to dictate to other members of the crowded local, that they maintain at least five inches of distance between their bodies and mine, when there simply isn't enough space for everyone, and of course, the fact that everybody is paying equal rail fare.

Being tall, I somehow always manage to stand on my own two feet when inside a sickeningly crowded local, whereas there are always other less fortunate souls who are forced to be sort of 'suspended in mid air', supported only by the force of other people's bodies pressing into theirs, from all sides.

Leave the Blank Noise project aside; I have problems with anyone and everyone who fancies that he or his group (or any 'other' group, for that matter) is more 'equal' than rest of the crowd, for any weird reason. Be it the feminists aggressively 'demanding' reservation in the parliament because they happen to have one extra bodily orifice, some mediocrity-worshipping welfare-statist savage 'demanding' (again) reservations for dalits (or any other mob for that matter) in the private or public sector, a political leader of the shit-eating variety demanding 'special packages' for moslems, farmers or pretty much anybody else.

Annie Zaidi has an interesting post on various types of sexual harassment, she has experienced throughout her life, and a few things she mentioned filled me with righteous anger against the molesters. I could, however, find a passage at the beginning, which I could relate to, a lot more. And which, by the way, managed to draw a smile from me.

How optimistic you're feeling about man-kind, on any given day, determines whether you take a bus home, or just hop into an auto, or a cab, knowing you cannot really afford it. If you really cannot afford an auto some day, you will not take the bus at rush-hour.

You'll let bus after bus after bus go past. Waiting is tiresome. But waiting is easier than bristling.

How, I can relate to that! While I have no particular optimism about mankind in general, I definitely do not like it when mankind insists that it will forcefully rub shoulders (and other parts of the anatomy) with me.

I'll tell you a little story. Once upon a time, I used to be rather fond of local trains in Mumbai and simply loved to travel by them, hanging out at the door. I treated being squeezed in a rather smallish space, with half the population of Mumbai, for a period of twenty minutes everyday while going home, like a necessary evil. I simply couldn't help traveling by a local train, if I intended to avoid going bankrupt.

Then one fine day, I went to live in Delhi and I was absolutely delighted with the general absence of 'mankind' from my daily commute, in comparison to the ordeal that I had to endure in Mumbai. It was fun experiencing the metro for the first time, with a friend, standing in the company of six to eight other souls, in the rather spacious (and posh) gangway of an air-conditioned train (the seats along the inner walls were all taken). My companion apologized, for having brought me in at the wrong time, as it was the 'rush hour'. I couldn't help howling with laughter then. For, to understand the full magnitude of the 'rush hour', one has to travel in Mumbai's locals. If rush hour means having ten to twelve other standees inside your air-conditioned train compartment, then I'm game for it anytime.

I don't remember, as to how many people I've related this anecdote too. I've covered pretty much everyone.

And now, after having come back, I can't tell you how much I hate crowds and humanity in general. Oh Delhi, I miss thee. I've abandoned Mumbai's local trains altogether.

I wait in a line at the first stop of the bus route, both while coming to work and going back. If the queue gets too large, and the possibility of finding a seat diminishes, I wait for the next bus. And, at times, I let go of two buses in a row. If I'm in a hurry I simply take an Auto. I know how Annie must feel. It is not only women; even men hate unnecessary bodily contact with other men (and women even), as much as women do. It is just that nobody thinks of starting projects in their support.

Or, for that matter, it is that men themselves haven't been brought up to believe that they have a 'right' to bodily sanctity, especially in an overcrowded bus, and that they aren't insane enough to demand that no other human being should have skin contact with them. It is simple: either endure the crowd, or take an auto.

Apart from general distaste for crowds, traveling (more so while standing) in crowded buses has especially jarring for me, for reasons quite opposite to what Annie outlines. When you are in a jam-packed bus, traveling on a bumpy Mumbai Highway, there are times when simply you cannot avoid skin contact with females around you, for reasons beyond your control, despite genuinely wishing to maintain a respectable distance.

There have been instances when I have inadvertently bumped into a girl, or have had my body slightly brush the shoulders of a female traveler, inside a crowded BEST bus. And I'm sure most of them must have been Blank Noise members, for the contemptuous looks that they gave me have literally had me wince, and made me feel like I was some deranged anti-social element. They managed to say "Tumhare ghar me maa behen nahi hai", without actually saying it. And trust me, it feels like shit.

As a rule I avoid proximity to females inside any crowded place (especially buses) like the plague, for the fear of bumping into them or even lightly brushing against them (there is not much you can do inside a train though, but most women who travel the rush hour in the general compartment lug their boyfriends along who manage to 'protect them' from skin contact with other males, apart from themselves). For, I do not like to be looked at in that sick contemptuous manner, as if I'm just back after raping a few twelve year olds.

Now, we come to the anecdote bit. The same day that Raghu mailed me, I happened to board a crowded bus at Andheri Railway Station, in order to reach home (on Link Road - Malad). I would have waited for another bus under normal circumstances, but I was particularly tired on that day and wanted to get home without delay, so I said what the heck.

I was standing near the seat facing the rear door (actually one seat, further up), when a rather attractive girl got in at the second or the third stop. Since the Bus was too goddamned crowded, she simply couldn't avoid a more than brief moment of bodily contact with me, when I made way for her to move up ahead the gangway. She gave me that look again, but to be fair, rather than a contemptuous look it was actually a wary/scared look.

There was a rather precarious physical distance between the two of us (must have been three to four centimeters, at the most), after she moved up the gangway, and I was managing to maintain that distance by leaning back as far as possible, while the bus moved through traffic snarls, and got stuck in nasty jams.

After a while, when a gentleman occupying the seat beside me vacated it, I remained standing and gestured the girl to take it. Now, I don't generally do this, for girls have a tendency to look upon you suspiciously if you offer them a seat (I mean, young pretty girls, not married women with kids or middle aged women: they are safer and they actually smile at you and thank you), but this time it was essential if I wanted to avoid the risk of bumping into the girl, at the next pothole in the road. She took it, and the bus moved on, with the crowd more or less remaining static.

After another twenty minutes, the gentleman seated near the window beside the girl moved out, and the girl moved inside, leaving the aisle seat vacant. This time, I did not seek out other woman in the Bus to offer the seat, but took it myself. I took care to ensure that I left at least two inches of distance between myself and her (Well, I'm kind of bulky and I don't think I really can leave more than two inches of space, If I intend to ensure that both my buttocks are supported by seat), but I guess she was still wary: she immediately moved further inside and practically pressed herself against the inner wall of the bus, with her cheek pressed against the glass window, just to further increase the distance.

God, I seriously felt like some kind of a criminal for a while, before being overtaken by a bout of resentment. I mean, I admit I'm not really good looking: I used to be passable a couple of years ago, but after consistently gaining weight for quite some time, I just stop short of ugly now.

But still, even If I'm not particularly smart looking, I felt the girl should have at least acknowledged that I was human too. Why the uber-paranoia? I hated it as much as she did.

I felt like telling her "Listen, I'm a decent guy, why can't you be normal" and all that, but voted against it for there was always a possibility that the girl belonged to the Blank Noise project, and would be outraged, inviting the wrath of all the other people in the bus. Men have a tendency to instantly turn into "brothers" of any girl who gives the slightest indication that she is in the need of brothers, especially in a crowd.

To complicate matters further, a jeans clad guy who had got on to the bus a few moments ago moved further up, and proceeded to press his crotch onto my shoulder. The bus was too crowded, so I couldn't do anything about it immediately but I tried to catch his eye in order to indicate my displeasure. I was quite unsuccessful in my endeavor, for he simply wouldn't meet my gaze, and to make it worse, from pressing his crotch, he advanced to rubbing his crotch onto my shoulder.

I could confirm that the actions were deliberate, for the guy didn't move back when the crowd eased: he was either a faggot, or maybe trying to sexually harass the girl seated next to me by proxy. For, If I shifted a bit towards the right to prevent this gentleman's crotch from touching my shoulder, the girl seated next to me would have confirmed her unwarranted doubts that I was an anti-social element, quite enthusiastic about raping, maiming and murdering helpless women whenever the opportunity presented itself, and would have attempted to jump out of the window.

I, therefore endured the discomfiture for a while, before finally managing to catch the offending gentleman's gaze and telling him to back off a bit.

Come to think of it, I would have gladly switched places with the girl seated next to me: here I was, with a paranoid girl who thought that the whole world was out to rape her, actually enduring sexual harassment myself to avoid moving closer to her and further scaring her off. The irony of the situation!

To conclude this rather tedious post, I'd like to state that while I can fully appreciate the concern about sexual harassment, and believe that every individual should ideally have right to private space irrespective of gender, and more so an absolute right to private property, the right to private space gets more or less invalidated the moment you step into a crowded bus or a train.

It is you who voluntarily decides to travel on the crowded bus or train, fully aware of the fact that there is not enough space for everybody, in the first place. The choice of traveling using more expensive means, or buying a car is always open to you.

To make myself more clear, I'm fully with those women, who demand a right not to be groped, or not to have their breasts fondled (I mean deliberate sexual harassment here), but to expect people to give you enough private space when you are in an extremely crowded place by choice, is to expect too much.

While the objectives of the Blank Noise project are, to an extent, laudable, I'm not quite sure I appreciate the excessive and rather generic "men are naturally evil" propaganda, or the very obvious the attempt to create mass paranoia. I've been Blank Noise since quite some time, and I'm sure they could have had a better approach, if they intended to achieve more productive results.

Another thing, which I cannot help comment on, is that leave aside paranoia, Blank Noise (or at least, its blogospheric avatar) seems to have guilt creation as its secondary objective (that, among other things is something which strongly makes me feel sick). I mean, whether guilt creation is right or wrong could be debatable, but the secondary audience in this case (serious male blogsurfers) would hardly be the kind of people who would really need guilt, or be prone to engaging in sexual harassment.

I may be way off the mark here, but I think it would be fairly accurate if I said that serious blogsurfers would be likelier to be more educated and cultured, than the rest of the crowd (no offense meant here to cultured non-blogsurfers), that is talking about the Indian Male population as a whole. I'm sure, targeting sections of society likelier to engage in sexual harassment (damn political correctness!) would definitely help much better than a wave of blogospheric paranoia and guilt-creation.

Feminism is generally regarded to be a politically correct concept, because some of those 'moderate' wimps, who lack a spine and regard it to be a 'good thing'. But to hell with political correctness, I think female chauvinism is as bad as male chauvinism. An attempt to give it a 'humanitarian' spin, in most cases, is complete sham

If you happen to be an aggressive feminist (or don't think that you are one, but still disagree with me), please feel free to flame me. Conversely, if you are a member of some male chauvinist group, please refrain from further elaborating upon the 'evils of feminism' concept.

[Cross posted from Psychotic Ramblings Of A Mad Man...]

blog-a-thon 2006

Book Review: Running Linux (5th Edition)

Vulturo — Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:44:38 EST

With its tremendous growth, Linux has seen over the years, there have been a lot of books published on the subject. O'Reilly's Running Linux was first published in 1995 and it has grown both in popularity and size ever since. The 5th Edition (December 2005) spans 972 pages and I must say that it comes across as an excellent reading material for Linux enthusiasts, and wannabe Linux Gurus.

The book starts out with an introduction to the Linux philosophy, and describes its origins, even managing to briefly cover the SCO controversy. From there, the book assumes a business-like manner and instructs you on different aspects of the operating system, including installation procedures, troubleshooting, and popular applications on different desktop environments. There really is no easy to difficult progression, as far as different chapters are concerned; and the first part of the book could be read in any order. The portion I especially loved was about basic Unix concepts, shells, virtual consoles, and a rather superficial tour through shell scripts, which manages to interest the reader enough to go out and explore shell programming.

That said, I must state that Part 1 is interesting only in parts (pardon the pun). Going through Part 1 will definitely help a newbie to get a good overview on the way Linux works, but may not be of much use to a Pro. Part 1 is meant for users, and generally covers using different applications on Linux: Web Browsers, Mail Clients, Instant Messaging Software, Gaming Office Software, etc. Like every reference book, there are, of course certain chapters exclusively reserved for the uber-newbies. I found the chapters, which dealt with How to use gaim, or How to use an email client, quite tame. The chapter on gaming, I firmly believe, was not within the scope of the book. I'm sure people who are seriously interested in the topic of Linux, would be more interested in learning about resolving graphics issues and troubleshooting (they are, of course, handled later in the book), rather than read detailed descriptions of weapons available in Quake III Arena or RTCW.

The chapter on OpenOffice.org, however, proved to be very informative. Most Windows users take Office software for granted, but I'm sure, after reading RL5E's take on OOo, anyone could gain a good insight into the nifty features of Office Software available for Linux. Part 1 ends with a walkthrough on multimedia programs available on Linux, and then the book takes you straight to the good stuff: Linux System Administration.

In case frivolity doesn't interest you, I'd suggest you start with Part 2 itself, and that, arguably, should be the clincher, which would make RL5E good value for money. For, a host of issues are covered Part 2 onwards, including a more detailed look at shell programming, file permissions, compiling and installing programs, user and group administration, network configuration, building the kernel, installing drivers, configuring X, running Linux as a server for a host of applications, etc There is a large, detailed chapter dedicated to each and every concept. There is even a section devoted to administering LAMP configurations (installing and running Apache, configuring MySQL and PHP to work with your Linux web server); and scripting with Perl (I'm not sure whether I've missed something here). An excellent read, overall.

From what I feel after reading the book in its entirety (all 972 Pages, yes), RL5E has been written in a very friendly, engaging and a dedicated manner. The software described is up-to-date and concepts are explained in a distribution neutral manner, as a result of which the book should not be outdated for a very long time to come. In most cases, the descriptions are very lucid and easy-to-grasp. The degree of detail should be more than enough, unless your appetite is insatiable. On the flip side, owing to the fact that there are several contributors to the book, a few chapters are slightly out of sync, but not so much that it would actually matter. I must disclose that I discovered some typos in the course of reading, exactly two instances of inadvertent grammar error, to be precise. If you aren't a Language Nazi, there is nothing to worry. I can wager half my kingdom, that 98% of the readers simply won't notice them.

To its credit, the book clearly states that it is not meant for uber-newbies. It definitely isn't. I wouldn't recommend this book to you if you have absolutely no Linux experience whatsoever, but wake up one morning and decide that you want to 'learn Linux'. Or, for that matter, I would also not recommend this book to you if you were an uber-geek, who dreams about shell scripts. For you, there are definitely better resources on Advanced Linux, some of them published by O'Reilly itself.

This book is very clearly meant for people who have acquired some basic end-user hands-on experience on Linux. I'm talking about serious computing enthusiasts, who are generally power-users for any Windows Application, and have actually dared to install Linux on their boxes, to see what it feels like (and I must say that I started the same way). Or, for that matter, people who are at an intermediate stage with respect to Linux, but not quite "there" yet. If you are somewhere close to this stage, this book should benefit you the most - Go ahead and purchase it, by all means. It would definitely enrich your knowledge

My Rating: 4/5

Mumbai Bloggers' Meet, February 26th

Vulturo — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:20:40 EST

Continuing in the spirit of the Mumbai meetup organized by Akshay last month, it is my pleasure to declare the details for the Mumbai Bloggers' Meet this month.

Those who have blogs, or are interested in blogging or meeting bloggers are invited to this meet. If you happen to be in Mumbai this following Sunday, please join the party:

The details are:

When: Sunday, February 26, 2006
4:00 p.m.

Where: The Food Court, Inorbit Malls
Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064

For those who intend to use the Bus Service/Trains, the Mall is roughly halfway between Industrial Estate Colony-Goregaon and Chincholi Bunder Road (on Link Road). Check the Mumbai Navigator for more details.

To conclude things, if you blog or are interested in blogging and happen to be in Mumbai at the appointed date and time, we would love to meet you. We would also appreciate it if you could spread the word on your own blog about the meet. Knowledge is power!

Those who intend to attend can confirm their attendance by commenting on this thread or by firing away an email to vsaket [at] gmail [dot] com. Also, feel free to get in touch with yours truly at 9821446670, if you have any questions or encounter any problems reaching the venue.

Here's hoping we have a great time. See you there.

Movie Review: Zinda - A Pair Of Panties, And Many Dead People

Vulturo — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:25:21 EST

If the Indian government had a law in place, which outlawed the sale of panties or other items of women's lingerie to young boys under the age of eighteen, disasters such as the movie Zinda could have been averted.

I endeavored to watch a movie after a very long time, after going through the raves the movie was generating in the review sections of several mainstream newspapers. Alas, I was disappointed.

In short, Sanjay Dutt's character undergoes fourteen years worth of imprisonment at the hands of unknown, mysterious captivators; several people are killed including the character's wife, played by Celina Jaitley, the character's friend, played by Mahesh Manjrekar, and an indefinite number of hired Thai extras, with Bruce Lee-like aspirations. It turns out in the end that all the mayhem was caused by an offending pair of panties presented by him to a female schoolmate

Before I proceed to trash the movie, let me acknowledge the good bits. Firstly, Sanjay Dutt has put in a decent effort playing a man who is imprisoned in a dark-cell for fourteen years, for a reason not known to him. Sanjay's violent crazy guy bit, post his release from captivity is also done okay. The movie has great music, which is already quite popular across the country and the movie's producers have done well by releasing two versions of the soundtrack: Club Mix, and Lounge Mix. The mindless violence is also interesting to watch, for a while, especially a scene where Sanjay Dutt single-handedly fights a large gang of Thai goons, and emerges victorious, despite being stabbed with a knife.

Also, for those who like the blood and gore (and I do), there's plenty of it: Sanjay Dutt stabbing people with an impressive looking hand-drill (with the motor running), Sanjay Dutt chopping peoples' arms with swords, Sanjay Dutt attacking people with a small claw hammer, and even forcibly taking out a villainous character's teeth with it, etc.

An important lesson, which can be learnt from the movie (if you want to take it seriously, that is) is that the law and order situation in Thailand is really hopeless, and that the police system is virtually non-existent. You can go about killing as many people as you want, have their bodies lying around all over the place and nobody will care. Perhaps, it could be true, or else the Thai Authorities would have sued the producers and director by now.

And of course, one more thing can be said about the movie. That it is different: At least, the general storyline or plot (or the lack of it). The Kafkaesque beginning of the movie is captivating. For one, it immediately reminded me about his brilliant surreal novel, The Trial. Sadly, It goes downhill from there.

The movie is worth a watch if you are not exactly the discerning type, or if you have nothing to do. It runs for two hours, and it is bearable. But do not watch it if you really intend to appreciate good cinema.

And yes, do buy the music.

That's all you need to know, for now. But if you are interested in having more details about the storyline, you will have to continue reading.

Spoiler Warning: If you read further ahead, from this point, you will not be required to watch the movie at all (And I don't think that you should). For basically, we've given away the whole plot (or the lack thereof)

Balajit Roy is a software engineer living in Bangkok, with a wife who is unbelievably hot and a nice friend who cracks jarring jokes. Balajit leads a happy life, what with a huge house on the seashore and a sexy wife for company. One day, Balajit's wife learns that she is pregnant, and is overjoyed. She seeks to inform Balajit immediately about it, and looks for him all over the house. Sadly, he is nowhere to be found, all of which is strange since only a few moments ago, he was last seen painting wooden the platform outside the house which extended all the way into the see.

Cut to next scene: Balajit Roy in a dark-cell after three months of captivity. He can't even see who's holding him for he is held in an enclosed cell, with just a small opening at the bottom for passing the food tray with fried momos in it, from time to time. Once in a few days, valium is released into the cell which renders him unconscious, while masked captivators enter to clean up the cell, cut his hair, shave him, bathe him, change his clothes, etc. In this fashion, Balajit Roy goes through the routine for fourteen years, with just a TV set for company. Meanwhile, his wife is murdered, with the murder being attributed to him. While he is held, he undergoes a drastic transformation: from a happy-go-lucky Software Engineer to a half-dead psychopath. He also becomes an expert practitioner of martial arts: something which he learns from TV.

One fine day, Balajit finds himself released again, as mysteriously as he was captivated. He has been given a change of clothes, a cellphone, some cash and a four-day ultimatum for a final showdown from the person who who imprisoned him, a person who hated him way too much to kill him, a person who wanted him to live and suffer.

From here, the movie basically deteriorates into a meaningless connodrum, with Balajit trying to find out the identity of his enemy, and the reason why he was captivated. Balajit enlists the services of a female taxi driver (played by Lara Dutta), in order to follow the trail left by the enemy, starting with a quest to locate the restaurant which supplied the fried momos which were served to him for fourteen years. He finds the place where he was held, and discovers that it is a professional agency specialized in kidnapping and keeping people in captivity for indefinite periods of time, at the behest of their enemies, all for a price.

After a few dramatic and gruesome fight and torture sequences, and a rather hasty falling-in-love (with instant sex on offer) situation with taxi driver Lara Dutta, Balajit finally meets his enemy and uncovers his identity, but not the reason why he hates him so much. The enemy is a business tycoon called Rohit Chopra, played by John Abraham who yet again demonstrates his thorough lack of acting skills. The sexy Lara Dutta is one of the saving graces, which actually makes this part of the movie bearable. Many people die in this period, including Balajit's friend, with the police nowhere in the picture, till the truth is finally revealed by Rohit Chopra in final showdown with Balajit Roy

Flashback

When Balajit was a kid, he had offered a fifteen rupee bet to his friends on his last day in school, stating that he would lay Reema Chopra, the hottest chick around. He won the bet by means of deceit: He lied that he had slept with her, and produced a pair of counterfeit panties as proof. But later his friends took to ragging the fourteen year old Reema Chopra, and her kid brother who was about eight years old then. She was labelled a whore, and the same pair of panties was dangled in her face when she was walking on the school grounds, at every available opportunity. A poster which said "Meri Behen Pandrah Rupaye Me Deti Hai" (My sister sleeps with people for fifteen bucks) was playfully stuck onto the kid Rohit's back, unbeknownst to him, and people even offered him 15-bucks-a piece for booking a session with his sister. All this was too much for the girl, and she commited suicide by engaging in self-immolation, her kid brother being unable to save her.

End Flashback

Balajit Roy wasn't aware of this tale, as he had left the city after passing out from school. After learning the story from his enemy, he apologizes to Rohit and requests forgiveness, since there has been too much mayhem already.

But Rohit has other plans: He has secretly raised Balajit's daughter (his wife was pregnant once, remember?) on his own and she's fourteen already. He has now put her virginity up for auction, and a group of horny middle aged men are already outbidding each other in order to get the chance to deflower her. All this is shown on private television (CCTV) screens to Balajit Roy, which angers him very much. He proceeds fight Rohit Chopra, unable to know where she is held, and the fight prematurely ends with Rohit Chopra falling off a skyscraper (Balajit tries to save him, but Rohit deliberately lets go of his hand)

Balajit then attempts to locate his daughter, and in conjunction with his taxi-chick, fights off a lot of goons in the same private imprisonment agency, but is (momentarily) unsuccessful in saving his daughter

If the movie had ended at this point, with the information that Balajit's daughter was successfully deflowered, I would have still liked it. I would at least have got my money's worth.

There is nothing like the evil triumphing in the end, or even good-and-evil drawing the match. Or even a mystery about what really happened to Balajit's daughter would have been good. The ambiguity is what makes movies slick and classy. This is precisely the reason I liked the movie Seher so much: For the hero and the villain both die in the end.

But no, after all this, the director suddenly decided that the movie should have a happy ending: Everything is hunky dory in the end. Is the daughter miraculously spared? No prizes for guessing. Even evil people have hearts, perhaps?

The only thing which can be said, is that Zinda is one utterly incomprehensible movie with a crappy ending. But then, such is Bollywood, and such is life.