What you suggest is indeed pragmatic, but look at the basis of most 'romantic' relationships around. It is based on one or the other kind of pretense. One needs to prove oneself as 'better' than other 'contenders'. So, in what respects to prove oneself as better?

Also, unfortunately the dating scene is highly sexist with guy supposed to be wooing and the girl playing it hard to get wooed. I'm afraid to say, at least some (and of course, not all) girls would actually enjoy the guy taking the pains ("burning hole in the pocket") to woo them. Perhaps, it convinces them that they are special and that the guy is serious? On the other hand, perhaps great proportion of guys just want to get laid or show off the girl in their peer group as their trophy. They look at all the money spent as 'investment'.

Of course, there is a bit of an issue of insecurity and aspirational value. Those who cannot afford just automatically presume that what they've not had hitherto is worthy of aspiring for.

I hope I don't come across as too cynical for your taste! :D

Your best article in its analysis, by far, of the ones that I've read.

Initially I was wondering, why pay so much attention to these journos who're a quite clearly sold out (not necessarily to any ideology, but the highest bidder), but then you've established how they're clearly just the tip of the iceberg, and what the underlying facts could be, very well.

Your analysis is quite impeccable (of course, discounting the 'perfunctory skepticism' that could be used 'against' it) and the manner in which you put it, impressive.

I'd just like to add two points here, of which first one is more directly related to the topic at hand, which being why would ISI, to subvert the Indian interest in Kashmir, try to cultivate support in seemingly nondescript US institutions? What does this say about India's sovereignty over the Kashmir issue vis-a-vis American interference? Was ISI really so foolish to spend so much money on the Americans if the Americans *actually* did not have any power to interfere with Indian policies? I guess, you must have got the drift of what I'm meaning to say. Now try to juxtapose this (inferred) ability of the Americans to fiddle with Indian policies (most likely, using money or its equivalent) and the manner in which Nuclear civilian deal was signed just before Indian elections and George W. Bush's moving out of his office [if you might remember, we've had a sort of small argument over this in the past. :) ]. No doubt, the Congress ended up bettering its poll tally from 2004. The second thing I want to draw attention to is a 'trend' of sorts in the American politics. OBL was killed, which I believe the Americans could have done long back, had they really wanted to. Then, there was this announcement of cutting off financial aid to Pakistan (am not aware of the details as to what kind of aid would be withheld, but the gesture appeared distinctly anti-Pakistan when looked at in context of US' past generosity) and now this Nabi Fai episode, wherein I again believe the US intelligence must have been aware of the ISI's interests and their manner of operation. The OBL killing is something I had attributed to Obama wanting to deflect attention from his administrative failures and whip up some popular sentiment in his support. But the latter two definitely seem to indicate some kind of policy-shift in American way of looking at global issues. I'm one of the subscribers of the (conspiracy) theory of 'Military-industrial complex' (MIC) playing a huge role in the world economics, which to summarize briefly, if you're unaware of, is the leading manufacturers of arms and security-related equipments functioning as a cartel and actually promoting terrorism and in collusion with politicians of almost all countries spreading paranoia and making them devote humongous portions of national treasury to purchase of defense and security related products and services. I'm not saying that the foot soldiers who actually kill others and occasionally themselves, are not sincere in their 'causes'. They indeed are sincere, otherwise it is not easy to destroy one's own life in order to destroy that of others. But the resources that are needed to make the actions of these foot soldiers really scary come from the MIC. Atanu Dey, in one of his blog posts, had pointed out that the source of terrorism that plays out at global level (and convinces the electorate in various countries to buy loads and heaps of weapons) is eventually Pakistan, and not Afghanistan or Iraq. And yet, the US had been financially supportive of Pakistan (fully knowing where the 'aid' money or part of it would actually go). And that is actually the MIC's way of giving arms to the small-time terrorists. It is in this regard that I see the recent US government actions as falling out of pattern of arming the terrorists. So, have some kind of power equations changed? Has something fundamentally changed in the US administration - e.g., corporations whose business flourishes in times of peace winning over corporations whose business flourishes on paranoia, conflict and bloodshed?

Hehe! That's too long a comment from me and full of speculations, but I'd be interested in what you think of my speculations. For surely, you're far more informed and knowledgeable than myself and hopefully would be able to analyze my speculations properly.

I would say that peaceful relations of the US with China are not just good for the two countries, but also for the entire world. Because if these two countries clash for supremacy over resources, especially that required for energy production, then a situations similar to that of a Cold War might emerge, which would be a bad thing for the entire world, as again the countries would tend to get divided into blocs.

However, there is one thing I would like to point out, which is more of a conjecture. The US' policies are dictated lot more by corporates. If say, they are able to make inroads into China and make their profits being based outside of the US, they would have no incentive in keeping the US as a 'superpower'. And hence, these corporations would not push the US administration to prepare for an armed conflict. Whereas, China's policies at least up till now have seemed to be driven by 'nationalistic passion'. They would invariably directed at establishing (economic and military) supremacy.

However, one of the complicating factors is what a few people refer to as the 'military industrial complex' (MIC) in the US. If this entity exists, it would make the US administration posture as if it is interested in retaining the US 'supremacy', which would again end up making the US look like desperate for 'power'.

Lastly, it is clear that opinions in the US of the common people with regard to various issues, like, how much do they support violence against other countries or an arms race are pretty heterogeneous. And it is also clear that it is not too easy for American politicians to go against popular wishes. However, on the other hand, we have no idea what the common people of China think about their country? Are they proud of it? Or are majority fed up with forced upon unification and lack of freedoms? And of course, to what extent popular opinion in China affects policies is unknown.

My first comment on your blog. :)

Umesh,

You had an alternate word for "bastard", i.e., "illegitimate child". What should've been the term used instead of "keep"? The reason a wife is eligible for alimony is because it is usually believed that in the process of bringing up a child, she gets pregnant and nurses the child, which her husband cannot do. And in the process, the wife gives up the opportunity to earn for herself, whereas the satisfaction/gratification of becoming parents is shared by both husband and the wife. Also, if by mutual consent, the wife decides to take care of the household, and she remains in no position to maintain herself, the husband is obliged to pay her later on. And if I'm not wrong, if a husband is a stay-at-home one taking care of the household, then he too would be seen as eligible for alimony.

One more difference between 'live in' and marriage is that the latter gets registered one way or the other. So, just like how one must get a bill and warranty for buying a product to be eligible for any kind of money back or replacement, there must be some mechanism in case of relationships for them to be legally recognized. And that mechanism is 'getting married'. Thus marriage is seen as a contract. And the mechanism to break out of this particular contract called marriage is called a 'divorce'. And as the contract ends, both the partners are liable to pay outstanding dues (e.g., alimony or parting from the child). Contrast this with 'living in', where no such contract is being made. If no contract is made, how do liabilities arise? The idea of maintenance in case of live-in is an insane one. If one were intending it to take it that long, why not just secure the bill, the warranty card and get married instead!

It is for these reason that the wife becomes eligible for an alimony on parting. Whereas, if a person is not married, and is staying with someone else for a long period, it is totally out of their choice. At no point in such a relationship is any one of them obliged to 'sacrifice' anything for the other. So, why should one of the two partners pay any kind of 'alimony'. If someone asks for 'maintenance' after such a mutually consensual relationship, which had not involved any obligatory sacrifice, then what is the pretext for such demand? What is implicit in this demand is the fact that that money is being sought for 'living together'. And if money is being demanded for just living together, I don't find anything objectionable with terming such a person a 'keep'. The expectation was monetary compensation to begin with, and that is how it would be seen as ending if such a demand is made. So, why one of the partners must be made to pay (irrespective of which sex is that partner) if no such clause/caveat of monetary liability was declared at the beginning of the marriage?

That the word 'keep' is seen as derogatory by the society is society's problem. I felt the judges had used the perfectly right terminology. I don't see an angle of moral judgment on part of these judges. They were making a purely technical point. Moreover, how I see it, the judgment was also gender-neutral. So, again no real misogyny is to be seen. The whole debate starts when we translate the word in Hindi. So, who's asking us to translate it thus?

Vinod,

Sir,

I liked your analysis very much. Had not known much about this 'controversy'. I would have ideally liked to see the judges' statement.

SJA,

I use '(click)' as an indicator that the typed text is a link, because I have noticed that at few places, links do not appear as separate color/decoration and that makes the reader miss them, especially when reading from a cell phone. Hope, this helps!

Hahaha!

I guess, you were referring to global warming and the related economic considerations? Yes, it is interesting, and though I am quite given to air my opinion with little knowledge, this is one area where I feel totally lost! ;) E.g., I would be confused, what do we owe to the future generations, if at all we do, who are not yet born? Likewise, I feel that given the same resources, had India's population density been much lesser (say, 10% of the current), Indians would have been much more prosperous, less frustrated, with lesser incentive to be unethical and perhaps that would have led to better work culture. This connection between prosperity and ethics might seem remote, but I will try to explain it in one of my blog posts someday. But Dilip D'Souza cites examples of countries like Singapore as exception and Atanu Dey (who is PhD in Economics) feels that even with current population density, with right economic policies India can improve a lot (and he cites reasons also). So, I do feel quite at loss.

Sorry for the off-topic comment. Do let me know if you are particularly against off-topic comments.

Bhagwad,

Sorry to break my promise that I return to respond. :)

I had read your post and quite a few arguments and counter-arguments (especially with someone involved with an NGO and helping farmers and with amateur blog on climate). I of course feel quite unqualified to debate on that. But I also felt that such debates on global warming miss the point. Whether human-caused global warming is occurring is one thing, but for the debate to be more meaningful, we might need to answer several more questions - will it cause exactly the same effects as predicted by the scientists, what is the level of consensus on such predictions, what solutions are suggested to ameliorate such damage, and with what pace can we afford to implement the proposed solutions given the high demand for energy, food (more agricultural land --> more deforestation), living space, etc. Because answering all these would lead us to a few answers as to what we are supposed to do! [E.g., one significance that our debate on media holds is that whether we can base our decisions on what media conveys, which would depend on how reliable we consider it. For instance, one of my friends tells me that his cousin's personality has changed since he started watching on several Hindi news channels that the World would come to an end in 2012. He has lost all ambition and is perhaps now depressed also.] So, just like relying on media has at least some consequences in our life, relying on global warming warnings would also have significant consequences - shall we build a new thermal power plant which would help supply electricity to a hospital, where frequent power interruptions cause vaccines to go waste (this example is not even completely made up!) or would it be wiser to build wind mills at the cost of some vital space where building could have come up so as to ease overcrowding in existent cities and to let few people out of villages so as to reduce the disguised unemployment that agriculture in India represents?

It is for above kind of considerations that though I would be quite okay with accepting the hypotheses of scientists as to what causes global warming, it is with great trepidation I would want to stall construction of thermal power station or erect wind mills instead of urban colony [assuming, overall efficiency of wind mills in power generation is quite low].

But if you see, predictions of global warming require some real scientific training and sophisticated simulation systems including super computers. These scientists themselves are saying that they are making reasoned guesses, and that they could be wrong. Essentially because, they are trying to predict the future (something that has not occurred, except for the recorded trend of rise in global temperature). Whereas, the above organizations are claiming to report the truth on Gujarat in that they are reporting events that already and actually occurred! If they are proved wrong, what they would lose would not be impression of being competent, but the impression of their being honest! Because witnessing certain events and reporting them as they would have occurred does not require much intelligence or training (IMO), though it might require courage and certain kind of personality to enter areas with ongoing riots and people killing each other with swords, guns and petrol bombs.

Bhagwad,

I get your point. :) I think we have covered almost all arguments that could have been made between us, and that is why we are returning to essentially the same points (e.g., 'how could all the people who I consider to be of high integrity and who I get to hear, all be wrong at the same time?')

Perhaps, one of the last comments on this issue from my side, and in which I ask a hypothetical question.

Suppose, the court judgment on Gujarat riots issue says that there was no systematic attempt on the part of Narendra Modi to harm Muslims and that he had tried sufficiently/his level best to bring the law and order situation under control. Then, let us further suppose that the same organizations above state that the court could not find evidence as all of that was destroyed by the perpetrators of the genocide. And here I posit that just like a crime leaves typical evidence, attempts of destruction of evidence leave an evidence of their own. What would be your take on the competence and integrity of judiciary, legal and forensic experts, and what would you make of the above organizations?

Of course, this is a hypothetical consideration, so you might skip it. But I am curious of what you would feel.

I have asked myself quite the opposite question. If the courts declare that Modi and the government were guilty of deliberate inaction/partial action and that what started within hours of train burning was a well-orchestrated conspiracy (involving the state machinery - added after first publishing), I would be quite taken aback. I would have to revise my theories on how I view the world. Not that I am not open to revisions now, but that would have to be a more radical revision. I hope, when I am proved wrong I would have the honesty and the courage to concede the flaws in my understanding of the world and the people. :)

To be candid and a bit personal here, media for me plays a very small role in my life. I am one of the persons who thinks there is no extrinsic (meaning, defined/given to me by someone other than myself) purpose to life. I like to observe, think, understand, hypothesize, and if I overcome my laziness sufficiently, to try to apply my hypothesis to test them in the real world, e.g., by trying to develop some technology (because that is what I enjoy the best). Some of the important decisions I take in life are dependent on how I view the world. E.g., had it not been for the generalized cynicism (which you must have quite easily observed) I harbor, I might have tried different things with my life, e.g., devoting it (entirely or partly) to the service of poor patients or entering the civil services to try to improve things. If my cynicism is proved wrong in a big way, I would regret my career-decisions to which I would have got committed by then, but I also hope that life will allow me sufficient margin to reverse them at least partially. And it is for this reason I mention courage and honesty in context of conceding my being wrong, because as it is, it is not very difficult to come up with few other conspiracy theories (like, selection of judges was influenced by Pratibha Patil, against whose immediate family members exist allegations of few grave crimes! ;) ). No, I am not making a background for further excuses, I sincerely hope I would be able to keep my objectivity.

Thanks, again!

PS: I will not respond on this post, unless and until you ask me some specific question or if I feel inclined to respond to someone else's comment.

Bhagwad,

Again, in your entire analysis, you have repeated your assumption, which I feel is unfounded, and made another analogous assumption. First assumption is obviously: that all Hindus killed were aggressors. And second assumption is that all Muslims killed were victims, and none of them were aggressors. You, in my opinion, have made classical mistake the media wanted us to make that: "all Muslims who died were innocent victims, and all unmentioned Hindus who died must have been aggressors, and that the Gujarat police did nothing and just looked on (to support which the statistic on what all Gujarat police did was not revealed just as a footnote, and at many places not even that)". How did you arrive at these conclusions about how many were aggressors and how many were victims. At best, one can say whether they were Hindu, Muslim, children, adults (and of which gender), and perhaps, if they were killed by police or not.

"As a newspaper if I want to tell my readers that systematic carnage occurred"

IMO, as a newspaper, my duty in telling news would be tell what all happened, instead of "I want to tell", which would be part of editorials/opinion.

Jai,

Responding to each of your points sequentially:

1. I find in many articles, analyses and even news piece that over 2000 Muslims had died. But official stats is something else (800), which has hardly been reported. So, I see many instances of invention of facts or exaggeration.

2. I would agree with you. But even before the final count of dead was over, there were 'news' screaming something like "over 2000 Muslims butchered". This does not seem sensitive, nor liberal (by the aspect of liberalism you elucidated upon). There is only one major article (in my knowledge) by the ToI, that had mentioned the breakup of total number of deaths, their community wise breakup, the number of people (of either religion) arrested and killed in police action. It was published in 2005 (three years after the riot), but in 2010 I find that the text of that article is missing. No reason has been given for doing that. I might be wrong, but perhaps, whatever registered news media present as news is to be preserved, as many times they are used as verifiable source in case of legal disputes. Maybe, this might not apply to online content, but deleting/modifying something (that too on a significant issue) is less than ethical in my eye, and invites my suspicion as to what could be the motive. In fact, I find many articles disappeared, but it is difficult to prove that. It's just that I could prove it in one case.

3. IMO, what you state has very little to do with whether 25% of deaths ought to be reported or not. Moreover, that sentiment does not preclude the media houses from reporting what action the government of Gujarat is claiming to have taken to try to control the riots.

4. I agree, in a major breakout of riots, at least some innocent people from the majority community would get killed. And nor all from the minority community who get killed need be innocent. They might also have been aggressors.

5. What you point out is certainly true. That is why I have mentioned that there were more Hindus trying to kill Muslims than Muslims trying to kill Hindus. But of course, this not always hold true. In Godhra train burning, the number of Hindus killed was unimaginably more than number of Muslims killed. However, one of the most important of the points of debate (for me) is, then why is it also insinuated that more radicalized Hindus, with greater numerical strength needed state government support to kill Muslims? And as a corollary, why the actions taken by the Gujarat police were not prominently mentioned?

Lastly, why would you say that this is your last comment? What if some new point of argument emerges? :)

Thanks!