Gold meddle

The other day i met someone who told me that he'd had to postpone his daughter's wedding. Janampatris didn't match? i asked. Like India and Pakistan, janampatris have a way of not matching, not even cricket matching, which at least India and Pakistan do. The janampatris are fine; it's the damn price that's the problem, was the reply. I saw his point. The price of food being what it is, feeding a hungry baraat is no joke, not even a sick one. Veggie prices are very high, never mind those of chicken and meat, i agreed. Chicken-shicken, i'm talking about the price of gold, said the guy. Who can afford to buy the bloody thing now? And what sort of shaadi can you have without gold for the stree-dhan, the bridal sho-sha?
Not having any progeny of our own, Bunny and i aren't in the gold-buying market. But apparently the price of the metal has gone through the roof of Mukesh Ambani's Antilla. The reason for this is that the global economy is in what economic geeks describe in their techno-jargon as deep shit. And every time, the economy, any economy, not excluding the Albanian economy if Albania has an economy, is in deep shit, people, particularly Indian people, buy gold. And the more gold people buy, the more the price of gold goes up, which means people buy even more gold, which means...Anyway, you know what it means.

In times of economic deep shit, gold is seen as the only safe investment. I asked an economist why this was so. The economist told me it was because of gold's rarity value. The world's stocks of gold are limited; the demand is unlimited. Which makes gold rare to come by, which makes its price high, and ensures that it remains an instrument of universal negotiation.

How about the three-horned toad of the Arizona desert? i asked the economist. The three-horned toad of the Arizona desert is so rare it's practically extinct. So how come the three-horned toad hasn't replaced gold as an instrument of universal whatever? But the economist had gone away to see a bullion dealer about a cut-price ingot that had fallen off the back of a truck.

Whatever the reason for the high value placed on it, gold is considered auspicious and no Indian wedding is deemed complete without it. Not just the wedding taking place in your next-door crorepati's household, but in anyIndian household. Including households which technically aren't households because they don't actually have a house to hold, the members comprising it being each able to spend only 32 a day, which according to the Planning Commission puts the houseless household above the sarkari poverty line. Thirty-two bucks won't buy much by way of roti, kapda and certainly not makaan. But it better be able to buy you some sona for your family shaadi. Because no sona, no shaadi. Like the man who had to postpone his daughter's wedding told me.

That's when a thought struck. Ever since family planning became discredited thanks to the forced vasectomies performed during the Emergency, India's population has exploded unchecked. At this rate it is estimated to overtake the population of China - the world's most populous country as well as its fastest-growing economy - in the next few years. What if there were a conspiracy to jack up the price of gold so as to curb India's population boom, its so-called demographic dividend which has already made it the world's second fastest-growing economy, which could become the fastest?

Hum doh, hamare doh, was the old family planning slogan. With shaadis put on hold because there's no gold, the new slogan could be: No more matches; zero hatches. Talk about population control through a stick-and-carat policy.

Samsung Exhibit II 4G is a $30 Android steal for T-Mobile

Samsung is a company with a penchant for sequels, and just a few months after releasing Exhibit A, here comes Exhibit B: the Samsung Exhibit II 4G.
The specs are modest to be sure, and very similar to the original. It starts withAndroid 2.3 Gingerbread running behind a 3.7-inch WVGA touch screen and powered by a 1 GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. There's a 3-megapixel rear-facing camera and a front-facing VGA camera. In addition to the usual Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth support there's also T-Mobile TV and the Samsung Media Hub.
Of course, there's also the speed. The Exhibit II 4G will run on T-Mobile's 4G HSPA+ network. A $29.99 price tag (after a $50 mail-in rebate) would already be a bargain price for a phone like the Exhibit II, but the 4G access is what really makes it such a steal. On other networks, a 4G-capable phone usually costs a premium.
That $30 price point is with the two-year service agreement, mind you, but the phone will also be available off-contract. In fact, T-Mobile is branding it the "first no annual contract 4G smartphone to be sold at most Walmart stores." That starts Thursday, October 27, for $199.99.
T-Mobile stores start putting the Exhibit II on display a few days later on November 2. Unlike the original, which came in black and violet, the Exhibit II is painted "marine blue."
Although it seems a little soon to see the Exhibit's sequel hit store shelves, the original was a likable phone that offered great value for the modest price, and I expect to see more reliability here as well.

Originally posted at Android Atlas

25 die in Himachal bus accident

At least 25 passengers, including five women, were killed and more than 30 people injured when an overloaded Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) bus rolled down a gorge near here on Monday evening.
Police said the toll was likely to go up. The accident occurred at 5.30 pm when a bus that was headed for  Bandla village developed a snag 4 km from Bilaspur town. In a hurry to reach home, stranded passengers, most of them Diwali shoppers, stopped another bus going to Bandla village and began boarding it.


Since the bus was already overloaded, some people climbed atop. The bus, which was parked on the roadside, began rolling backwards and fell into the gorge. The fortunate few who were still standing on the roadside said they could hear nothing except screams.

Most victims were from Bandla Gamna and Sera villages.

Bilaspur deputy commissioner Ritesh Chauhan and SP Santosh Patial rushed to the spot to supervise the rescue work that was hampered as darkness descended.

Ambulances from Bilaspur and nearby places rushed the injured to the civil hospital. Seven victims were referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) in Shimla in a serious condition.

Chauhan said the toll could go up as the rescue operation was still on.

The HRTC authorities said that 40 passengers were travelling in the bus but eyewitnesses said the bus was already overloaded when more people tried climbing it.

Anna's critics, and their absurd arguments

Have you come across someone who has twitched his eyebrows at the sight of Anna Hazare's visuals, as if to suggest he has had enough of the man and his movement? You should have. Have you heard professional marketers of cynicism insist that the Gandhian activist is 'blessed' by a foreign hand? If you watch the television, you surely have. Have you spoken to someone who believes, or pretends to believe, that the movement is theatrical, perhaps farcical? Absurd expenditure of words being a passion with so many professional critics, you possibly have.

When I watch Anna's movement on the small screen and read about it in the newspapers, it makes me think about my experience of India, the country where I was born and where I have grown up. As I hear Anna's critics hurl their criticisms, the inanity of their indulgence amuses, nah, shocks me.

Why do I react the way I do? Simple. Here is a septuagenarian with no political ambitions who has stirred the collective conscience of the nation with his crusade against corruption. What does he stand to gain from his stand? How the hell can he have the support of some mysterious 'foreign hand'? Is a real people's movement possible - and Anna has proved it is - or must each such exercise have an inevitable connect with a malignant vested interest? Questions, and more questions, assault my sensibility as I see how Anna's critics are spinning nonsensical arguments in a Rubbish Anna campaign motivated by guilt and crisis in confidence.

There is very little doubt that the government has mismanaged the situation in a manner few would have imagined. There is equally less doubt that this movement will grow, although which direction it shall take, only time can tell. What's more important, however, is this. As we see the little man with a kind smile spearhead a movement against the 'c' word, we are made to think just how much we have allowed it to infect our lives. Such has been its overwhelming presence that we believe it is impossible to exist without it. One could say that we are convinced that corruption is necessary to 'simplify' our lives.

It is during an era of compromise that Anna has walked in. He is not an illusionist, but his very image is a reminder that we have allowed evils to rule us for way too long. Nobody has the potency to change a hell-like situation into an abode of divinity overnight. So, while we know that India won't become a morally wonderful place to live in anytime soon, the very fact that we are reacting to corruption is a huge step forward.

Later, after this movement ends, with some results and more promises, we can face a situation in which we go to a government office some day. We need to get something done. The officer asks for a bribe. We give him a stern look, making him think: what if this guy 'takes my case' because he has the moral strength to forgo what is rightfully his? That will be the victory of Anna Hazare. That will be a victory you never achieved, dear critics, because you never wanted to try.

Anna's critics, and their absurd arguments

Have you come across someone who has twitched his eyebrows at the sight of Anna Hazare's visuals, as if to suggest he has had enough of the man and his movement? You should have. Have you heard professional marketers of cynicism insist that the Gandhian activist is 'blessed' by a foreign hand? If you watch the television, you surely have. Have you spoken to someone who believes, or pretends to believe, that the movement is theatrical, perhaps farcical? Absurd expenditure of words being a passion with so many professional critics, you possibly have.

When I watch Anna's movement on the small screen and read about it in the newspapers, it makes me think about my experience of India, the country where I was born and where I have grown up. As I hear Anna's critics hurl their criticisms, the inanity of their indulgence amuses, nah, shocks me.

Why do I react the way I do? Simple. Here is a septuagenarian with no political ambitions who has stirred the collective conscience of the nation with his crusade against corruption. What does he stand to gain from his stand? How the hell can he have the support of some mysterious 'foreign hand'? Is a real people's movement possible - and Anna has proved it is - or must each such exercise have an inevitable connect with a malignant vested interest? Questions, and more questions, assault my sensibility as I see how Anna's critics are spinning nonsensical arguments in a Rubbish Anna campaign motivated by guilt and crisis in confidence.

There is very little doubt that the government has mismanaged the situation in a manner few would have imagined. There is equally less doubt that this movement will grow, although which direction it shall take, only time can tell. What's more important, however, is this. As we see the little man with a kind smile spearhead a movement against the 'c' word, we are made to think just how much we have allowed it to infect our lives. Such has been its overwhelming presence that we believe it is impossible to exist without it. One could say that we are convinced that corruption is necessary to 'simplify' our lives.

It is during an era of compromise that Anna has walked in. He is not an illusionist, but his very image is a reminder that we have allowed evils to rule us for way too long. Nobody has the potency to change a hell-like situation into an abode of divinity overnight. So, while we know that India won't become a morally wonderful place to live in anytime soon, the very fact that we are reacting to corruption is a huge step forward.

Later, after this movement ends, with some results and more promises, we can face a situation in which we go to a government office some day. We need to get something done. The officer asks for a bribe. We give him a stern look, making him think: what if this guy 'takes my case' because he has the moral strength to forgo what is rightfully his? That will be the victory of Anna Hazare. That will be a victory you never achieved, dear critics, because you never wanted to try.

Mayawati and Aarakshan: Realistic movies, filmy governments

I am not necessarily a fan of Prakash Jha, and I do not write this to argue a case for him, though I find his brand of cinema compelling, realistic, and a reflection of what goes on around us, with Gangaajal being a personal favourite.

I write this since I am bewildered at the manner in which the Indian State has joined the league of pressure groups in this country which operate on muscle power to tell us what we can or cannot see. The UP government has banned the release of Aarakshan; the Punjab government has followed suit till such time the state’s Screening Committee – whatever that is – previews the movie and submits its report. And Maharashtra wants specific scenes to be cut before the movie is allowed to be screened there. What model is this? Will releasing a movie after Censor clearance require it to be screened before 30 state government committees? A Bharat Darshan for the filmmaker?

I thought of writing what came to my mind when the UP government first disallowed the Aarakshan team to even step into Lucknow for a routine promotional trip, but then desisted, since it is very easy for views on such issues to be misinterpreted as prejudices emerging from one’s surname, and which side of the reservation debate one is therefore presumed to stand on.

But right now, I think I’ll risk that. Because what we are seeing right now, with the Maya regime leading the way, is the setting of a precedence that must be fought, must be checked.

For the past few years, the trend of bodies and individuals demanding to see movies before they are released has been an increasing one, and because ten people throwing stones at a movie hall is good enough reason for screenings to be shut, most producers agree to this completely illegal and unjustifiable demand. If at all we need certification about whether a movie is fit to be screened or not, that job is the Censor Board’s. But if a Balasaheb has a problem with a movie, the movie may not release, or, at the very least, he will have to be shown Sarkar at a private screening to ensure Sainiks don’t smash theatres. The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee ostensibly asked for twelve changes in Singh is Kinng, post which it gave a ‘clean chit’ for it to be released. A Jodhaa Akbar faces protests and subsequent ban if it cannot placate Rajput leaders. As to Aarakshan, even as I write this, a news report has come in that says that Jha has agreed to cuts “suggested” and has “reached a settlement with the RPI” which is “now supporting the movie”. So, the Republican Party of India, whose activists stoned Jha’s home and office recently, has become a body whose support has to be earned by ‘reaching a settlement’. What is this, political negotiation or dons enforcing compliance?

The self-appointed leaders of various sections apart, politicians and governments step in to complete the job. They have more power to twist a filmmaker’s arm, almost always on the ground that some section in that state will be ‘upset’. UP has been fairly active; an innocuous film like Welcome To Sajjanpur was banned in UP because it could supposedly ‘incite communal passions’, and could only be released with cuts that kept the government happy. The Madhuri Dixit starrer Aaja Nachle was also banned in UP on the ground that it humiliated dalits as the lyrics of a song had references to the mochi community. Gujarat has also been proactive in displaying the state’s power: while Fanaa faced trouble after Aamir made unfriendly remarks on the Narmada dam, the state predictably refused to allow the screening of Parzania as the movie was based on the 2002 riots and could ‘lead to communal disharmony’. As if the Gujarat riots were triggered by filmmakers! Rajasthan came down on Jodhaa Akbar since some Rajputs were upset, Himachal stopped Traffic Signal since the use of the word ‘kinnar’ was deemed offensive to people of Kinnaur district. Bihar banned Black Friday. A film you may not have heard of – Tango Charlie, an Ajay Devgn starrer released in 2005 – was banned in Assam since it supposedly insulted the Bodo community. The Centre steps in sometimes too; if you remember, the Defence Ministry wanted to see Rang De Basanti before it was released to ensure that MiGs weren’t trashed.

One could dig out more instances of pressure groups, community ‘leaders’, outright bullies and politicians temporarily in power deciding what we can, or cannot see. But the point is not a compilation. The point is that we are going on a reverse track – instead of a more open and accommodating society, we are quietly legitimizing this nonsense of vetting by anyone who has a fragile ego. Today, anything you write, anything you make, can hurt SOMEONE’s ego or sentiments. And that someone has to be mollified. Or else..!

Jha made an interesting point in the course of a conversation a couple of days back. “What you see is a movie” he said, “but for me, it’s a book. From Daamul in 1985, to Gangaajal, Mrityudand, and now Aarakshan, all I am doing is observing social change, writing it, and then putting that on celluloid. I am a chronicler of history in my own small way”. The problem is that our leaders – the elected, the unelected, or to quote Mr Manish Tewary, the unelectable – want us to consume our current history the way they want to. Divergence is repeatedly and conveniently attacked on the grounds of ‘hurting sentiments’.

This whole point about our otherwise callous, brutal and indifferent governments being so touchy about law and order and people’s sentiments is a little far out. Case in point is UP. The fiery leader rose to power with walls plastered with the BSP’s original election slogan, ‘Tilak, Tarazu aur Talwar, Inko Maaro Joote Chaar’. For her to today take the moral high ground that dialogues in a movie will ‘incite violence and disharmony’, is far more filmy than any of Jha’s films have ever been.

UP’s Entertainment Tax Commissioner told our Lucknow reporter, “After viewing the film, we have enough reasons to believe that it could incite public sentiment, and therefore the department has taken the decision to suspend its release. Besides the objectionable dialogues, we felt that the film is raking up the debate over reservation, which, frankly, has been dead for a few years.”

Since when did ‘raking up a social debate which has been dead’ become a legal offence? It’s a good thing the gentlemen adjudicating this were not there when Attenborough’s Gandhi released, else they would probably have taken affront to the film raking up the debate over Chauri Chaura, non-violence, and India’s partition.

Exaggerated budgets don't guarantee success

Every subject has its own requirement of money. A budget doesn't decide the fate of a film at the Box office. Exaggerated budgets don't guarantee success. I know these days there is a trend to say -`This is a 100 cr budget film.' and so on. People try to make the budget seem like a virtue. It isn't. For a film to succeed you have to a strong story at the core. Everything else is secondary.

When I said Chandni Bar created Jalwa at the box office despite the fact that it was made in 1.5 cr; that is sometimes the costume budget of a big film; I was not being condescending. My films like Page 3, Corporate, Traffic Signal and even Jail were made on smaller budgets. However they are feted and felicitated films and fetched terrific return on investment and won accolades.

But when I did Dil Toh Baccha Hai Ji it needed more money because big stars like Ajay Devgn and Emraan Hashmi were in it. However I'm glad that even DTBHJ proved a safe bet for the investors. So there is no virtue in money as far as film budgets go. But when money is readily available it helps enhance a film. Heroine will need a certain jump in finances because it has a lot of glamour involved. The budget will be more than that of Fashion that also required some grandeur because of the nature of the subject.

Lagaan and Jodhaa Akbar kind of movies need mammoth budgets. The canvas is so big. At the back of my mind I know some day I too will dabble in cinema like that. However a subject has to naturally lend itself

to opulence. You choose a subject, then find a budget. You don't find moneybags and then go hunting for a subject to spend those crores on. If you are genuine filmmaker, you will not cheat. Having said that, there is a difference between producers and proposal filmmakers. For me cinema is my passion, my love. It's not about splurging money just for the sake of it

Meet Up

Hi, Pls. check this out - Akbar Ali

Click here If you don't want to receive these emails     Meet Interesting People Indyarocks is all about making new friends. Join us and meet interesting people from around the world.           Disclaimer: This email is a direct message from a friend who wants to share an item of interest with you. This email was sent by Indyarocks.com. Please click here to view the profile of the user who has invited you to indyarocks. Click here If you don't want to receive these emails. Indyarocks Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Sai Swarnalata Estates, Hyderabad, A.P, India

The beauty lie

So was it all it took to change, even if temporarily, the Indian outlook towards Pakistan? An attractive young female foreign minister comes visiting and everyone falls over all a-gush? It is easy to understand the attention she generated and the interest she evoked, but the reaction didn't stop there. Most editorial comments suggested that she represented a shift in the Pakistani attitude and that she was a 'breath of fresh air' that helped change the climate surrounding the dialogue. In other words, her contribution was seen to be substantive, even if what created the most impact was her appearance. Now, it is entirely possible that Hina Rabbani Khar is a gifted leader and the Indian reaction was based on a realistic assessment of the progress made in talks between the two countries, but given the presumptive nature of judgement on what has been a stubbornly intractable subject, it seems much more likely that the media in India was seduced by her looks, and extrapolated her influence. Interestingly, glamour has translated into presumed effectiveness, instead of being consumed on its own.


The extent of coverage her looks and fashion sensibility garnered tell us a thing or two about the current media and societal discourse. At one level, it just reinforces what we know about news today- that it is increasingly a consumer product catering to the reader as a paying consumer, without an overriding sense of responsibility towards the objective coverage of important news. The difference between big news and small, the important and the trivial is dissolving; it is not just a question of making news more entertaining, but the growing belief that the trivial and superficial is in fact significant. Celebrities are no longer covered with a knowing we-are-doing-this-for-the-ratings attitude, but with the belief that what they have to say will significantly impact our world.

The other interesting part of the reaction to Khar is the attention given to the brands that she surrounded herself with. No description of Khar was deemed complete without mention her Birkin bag and Jimmy Choo shoes. The brands were seen to be an intrinsic part of who she was, an accessible elaboration of her persona that we needed to acknowledge. The consumerist thrall surrounding this description seems to point towards the idea that brands radiate an aura that multiplies the effect that any person has on others. By wearing these brands, it is as if she communicated a willingness to play in an arena far removed from the world of politics and diplomacy. By most accounts, all that the fact that someone bought a handbag worth several lakhs of rupees says about the person is that they are rich or daft or both; there is no special skill or personality trait required to go to a shop and buy a bag so why should it make any difference to how we see her? In some ways, by articulating our reaction in the language of brands and consumption, we are acknowledging the extent to which a culture of consumption has taken root in India.

But by far the most important aspect of the media frenzy surrounding Khar is the fact it reveals a lie which we routinely tell ourselves. That beauty does not matter, that outward appearances can be deceptive, that the surface is less important than what lies within, that depth is valued more than gloss. We know from our everyday lives that this is simply not true; we believe that it should be true but know in our hearts that it isn't. In every walk of life, from the most trivial to the most important, from beauty pageants to Presidential election, youth and appearance make a difference. Our yearning for youthful leaders, for instance is as much about regarding youth as harbingers of hope as it is about seeing more telegenic faces on our screens. The current disgust with the sleaze in politics has as much to do with how our politicians look as it is with the actual level of corruption that we see around us. The desire for 'clean' politics describes not just a character trait, but also points to what kind of physical appearance we would ideally like our leaders to sport.

And yet, guilt about pursuing physical beauty has historically been ingrained in us. We think nothing about lavishing our minds with all kinds of attention and investment; we do everything possible to cultivate our mind and realize its potential by ceaselessly enhancing its capability. But when it comes to our physical appearance, we think of any attempts to enhance it as being irredeemably shallow. Advertising has understood this lie, among others that we tell ourselves. The difference between politics and advertising is the former lies in the name of the truth while the latter tells us deep truths in the guise of a lie. Hina Rabbani Khar's triumphant tour to India was an exercise in advertising masquerading as politics. That we are so susceptible to it tells us about our readiness to embrace the culture of consumption. It also tells us that we have begun to stop lying about who we are and what really drives us. Of course, whether that is good news or not is open to debate.

Work it out

Of late there has been a lot of talk of 'governance deficit'. Translated into plain language that means that the people who are meant to run the public affairs of this country - the politicians and the bureaucrats - don't know how to do their jobs. The bureaucrats - who in order to become bureaucrats generally would have had to pass often extremely competitive exams - might say that they know exactly what their job is, and how to do it. However, they are often prevented from doing so because of political interference. Maybe that's just buck-passing on the part of babudom, for there are many who believe that the ills of misgovernance that routinely plague the country are caused more by a generally inefficient, corrupt and unaccountable bureaucracy than by politicians. According to this argument, while politicians have to at least pretend to perform before the electorate or risk being voted out of office when their tenure is over, babus are secure in their jobs for the full length of their careers, and are under no compulsion to do their jobs or even to pretend to do so.

However, there seems to be a more crucial point of difference between politicians and babus when it comes to getting on with the job. While the babus at least know what their job is - whether they do it or not being a completely different matter - Indian politicians by and large appear to be totally clueless as to exactly what it is that is required of them by way of work. A TOI report on the responses given to an RTI application seeking to find out exactly what are the duties and responsibilities of our MPs and MLAs has shown that almost none of the respondents - including the Lok Sabha secretariat and the Election Commission - could give an adequate answer to these questions.

While the Election Commission brushed aside the queries saying that it was "not concerned with information sought", the Lok Sabha secretariat replied that there was "no provision either in the Constitution or the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business... defining duties and responsibilities of members of Parliament or through which the accountability can be fixed on non-performing MPs".

Spokespersons for both the Bihar and the West Bengal assemblies agreed that "there is no provision/rule through which the duties, responsibilities and accountabilities of MLAs are fixed". The sole exception to this denial of responsibility of our elected representatives was the Sikkim assembly which has rules "specifying the duties of MLAs", their "prime duty (being) to maintain communal harmony and peace among the people".

Ignorance is bliss. And being blissfully ignorant of just what their job entails - what they are actually meant to do once they've been elected into office - our political leaders can't be blamed for 'governance deficit', for not getting on with what they are meant to be doing. Because, as they've all too readily admitted, they don't know what it is that they are meant to do. So how can they be held responsible for not doing what they don't know they were supposed to be doing in the first place? And the answer to that, of course, is that they can't be held responsible. So the voters can go fly a kite. Or the governance deficit, whichever they prefer.

How are our politicians to be taught what their job is - apart from doing everything they can to hang on to power as long as they can and extract much as they can from the exchequer to enrich themselves? One suggestion might be to set up IIPs - Indian Institutes of Politics - along the lines of our IIMs and IITs, which are internationally acclaimed as centres of excellence. However, as well-meaning as it might sound, such a proposal is not merely hopelessly naive but also outdated. For the truth of the matter is that the Indian political class, across the board, has long ago already set up its own institute of political training, the alumni of which are living testimonials to the world's first functioning IIP: the Indian Institute of Plunder

The real relevance of Rani Lakshmi Bai

She lost her mother at the age of four. She lost her son when he was four months old. She lost her husband two years after she lost her son. She lost her kingdom soon after. Eventually, the nascent, birthing nation whose very entity she ignited - lost her.

And yet, she is remembered only for everything she gained; for herself, her child, her kingdom, her society and for a burgeoning revolution that anchored the imminent Indian struggle for independence.

The relevance of everything she represents; as an exponent of strong, patient, perseverant, unwavering, undeterred, unflappable womanhood gained an obtuse recognition when the revered Rani of Jhansi was listed by the Time magazine among ‘wives who were resolute even in troubled times: a daredevil wife’.

The very premise of this distinction seems flawed. Of the many roles that she played in a precious lifetime spanning a very few years - the role of a wife - was perhaps the most irrelevant. Not insignificant – irrelevant.

For, in the eleven years that she was married to the Raja Gangadhar Rao, she remained just a queen, albeit a uniquely talented queen. It was the tragic aftermath of his death and the unwarranted denial of her child’s claim to the throne that hurled her into the beginning of her own odyssey as a leader, a modernist visionary, a soldier, a nurturer, a diplomat and a mother.

In a contemporary mores that was struggling with regressive concepts of gender injustice, the Rani was unconventionally trained as a woman who could read the scriptures and wield the sword with equal dexterity. In challenging the British Doctrine of Lapse, at first tentatively and eventually unbendingly, she was doing more than just fighting for Jhansi.

She was fighting for the Right of an adopted child, the Right of a woman to rule a kingdom while her chosen heir apparent was a minor, the Right of women to don the uniform in battle, the Right to live and rule rather than become sati, the Right of each and every ‘citizen’ of her kingdom, man or woman, Hindu or Muslim, Brahmin or otherwise, to enlist in the battle for sovereignty.

Rani Lakshmi Bai is beyond lists- but she should be on everyone’s list. Especially, on the list of contemporary Indian women politicians who claim to be leaders just because they were voted in by an amorphous mass of people that they have bred on gender inequality, greed, caste division, religious divide.

Subhadra Kumari Chauhan eulogized the intrepid ruler in a poem that almost every Indian has heard. She called her a wave of invigorating youth, an example of pristine leadership, a gust of fiery terror for the enemy and gave her the title ‘mardani’: more of a man, than a man…

That poem rings true even today. Rani Lakshmi Bai deserves unstinted honor for her love for an adopted child whose claim she would not give up at any cost, or for any reason; for commitment to a national agenda that was only just coming together and was seeded outside of her dominion; for leading her army of men and women by exemplary valor; for giving birth to a truly victorious feminist doctrine; for galvanizing her army as a united front despite mixed composition of caste and creed; and for fighting unto death for a country that was no more than an idea!

She will remain, forever, in a league of her own for hers is the passion that makes reasons, Causes.

Proud parents of a soldier

July 26 is the day when we observe the Kargil Vijay Divas and pay homage to the 527 martyrs who laid down their lives for the motherland in the 1999 Kargil war.

I propose this year we start a campaign to honour also their parents, who gave their life's best flowers to serve the nation.

A small gesture. A sticker proudly proclaiming - Proud Parents of a soldier - be distributed to all parents of soldiers in our respective cities by civil organisations like Rotary, Lions, Bharat Vikas Parishad, etc, creating an atmosphere that it's great to have a son or a daughter serving as India's soldier.

On every vehicle, whether it's a scooter or a car, let the finely worded and designed stickers become a matter of self-pride and city's glory. Let the respective state governments declare small, but significant facilities, like no parking place will charge anything from vehicles displaying such a sticker. They give such facilities to journalists, politicians, MLAs and MPs and of course to all their local civic body officers. Why not extend this little gesture to the men and women who sent their children to the forces?

There is an official protocol on how a district authority would receive a member of Parliament and other representatives of the legislature. They have to stand from their seats and receive them with honour and also to see them off at the doors at the end of the meeting. Let this gesture be extended to the parents of the soldiers too.

In the Republic Day and Independence Day celebrations and high tea parties thrown by the governors of the states and the President in New Delhi, let a new category - Parents of the Soldiers - be added. We have added freedom fighters, decorated soldiers, and Padma awardees and recipients of other civil and military honours . There can be some categorisation on the basis of decorations and levels of service. But the category itself could do a lot to honour the simple, proud and so far ignored citizens whose contribution to the national security and glory was never recognised appropriately.

The railways has some categories of special passengers - sports persons, journalists, freedom fighters, golden pass holders and politicians. Why can't we have a category for the parents of the soldiers who would be given some preference in getting their berths confirmed and a constitutionally binding respectful behaviour by the railway staff and a 25% discount on the fare?

On special days, like Republic Day, Independence Day, and victory day celebrations, like Kargil Vijay Divas and Bharat Vijay Divas, let there be a separately marked row for the parents of our soldiers.

At the time of laying their lives for the nation in any action, soldiers always remember their parents and families. The last images. We do respect the wife and the kids of the soldier. But what about the parents for whom the soldier would have the highest respect?

Just see the images of the jubilant freshly graduated soldiers at the end of the Indian Military Academy's passing-out parade. The way their parents, with tears in their eyes and pride on their faces, hug their children and bless them invoking all the gods and goddesses. No politician will ever be able to do that while seeing his child joining politics or filing his/her nomination for the first time to contest an election.

But, ironically, while a politician's children always and almost everywhere get a preferential treatment and their parents too are regarded as neo-gods and goddesses by the local administration and state powers, the parents of soldiers are hardly even recognised as ones who part with their life's best support to support the people of the nation.

Shouldn't the state power be also recognising them equally respectfully?

I have humbly announced Uttrakhand's first grand war memorial on the completion of my first year in the Parliament this July 5 making all the soldiers community, the biggest in the country, too happy. I request everyone to give me ideas and support to select the best design for the project, for which I have already announced Rs 2 crore from my MPLAD funds. More will come. I feel embarrassed when none of our states can boast to have even a modestly built and well-maintained war memorial, to say the least about the states who give maximum number of soldiers to the forces, like Himachal and Uttarakhand. And even when such moves are initiated, it's sad to see that they are marred in local politics of petty oneupmanship.

But this July 26, let's all make a move. Let the stickers, some of them can be designed with a soldier's proud face on the left and a two line proclamation in the middle - Proud Parents of a Soldier - be propagated as widely as is possible through local initiatives. Make it a national campaign to honour those who honour our nation with their best contributions.

Hi

Hi,

I thought you'd like this:
Click here

akbar ali

---

This email is a direct message from a friend who wants to share an item of interest with you. This email was sent by Indyarocks.com. To unsubscribe please click here.
Indyarocks Media Services Pvt. Ltd. 8-3-319/10/1, Sai Swarnalata Estates, Hyderabad, A.P, India