Villain of the Piece

Villain: Nehru
The Piece: India's post-independence downfall.

Rajeev Srinivasan's article on rediff asking India to quit the UN is food-for-thought. Though I can't agree more with the points outlined by Rajeev what caught my eye was the bungling of the Greatest Bungler of All, Yup! nemma Nehru. Quoting from the article:


It is true that India made a colossal blunder in turning down a Security Council seat when it was offered to it on a platter in the 1950s. The original P-5 were the US, the UK, France, the Soviet Union, and Taiwan. Given that Taiwan didn't control much of China, and 'Red China' was out of favour with everybody, there was a proposal to give an 'Asian' seat to India. Here is what transpired then, according to official records.

The word that stood out for me from the para was platter. The term on-a-platter has almost ceased to exist for most in today's chaotic world. So, the bungler had let go off one more opportunity for India to have become a super power. Behold, our bungler had a reason to do so. If you haven't guessed it by now, its China, my fellow countrymen. To quote again from the article:

" From the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Series II, Volume 29, Minutes of meeting with Soviet Leaders, Moscow, 22 June 1955, page 231, here are the minutes of the conversation between Jawaharlal Nehru and Soviet Premier Marshal Bulganin, as quoted in Claude Arpi's Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement (Mittal Publications, Delhi, 2004, ISBN 81-7099-974-X):

'Bulganin: While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council.

Nehru: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in the USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject of controversy. If India is to be admitted to the Security Council it raises the question of the revision of the Charter of the UN. We feel that this should not be done till the question of China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted.' "

No wonder China showed its gratitude for getting itself admitted into the security council, with veto power at the expense of India, with the war of 1962.

Nehru is the epitome of an example as to how one man's short sightedness can plummet a country to depths from which it will take centuries to recover.

MissTaken Identity

Telemarketers are a irksome lot but in this incident they provided the fodder for an interesting blog.

My colleague happened to have her husband's cellphone with her for a day. It was just about getting to the middle of the day with my colleague busy finishing up a technical document when she heard the one sound, that makes all scamper for it - yup, the indispensable Mr. Mobile. When she answered the call; at the other end was a insurance telemarketer. For the sake of brevity, I am just putting the first two lines of the conversation because the rest doesn't matter:

Colleague: 'Hello'
Agent : 'Madam. Good Morning. Am I speaking to Mr. Ramani?'

Of Deckchairs, red kites... and Lord Getty

This article by the famed ex-english bowler (or rather toiler) Angus Fraser talks about the ground built by the oil baron and philanthropist Sir Paul Getty. Worth a read.

The story of the Virgins

Sorry, mate, if you have come here with thoughts of reading a erotic article but this article is as erotic as the one you have in mind :-).

Read this article by the Telegraph's Scyld Berry on the impending English tour of Bangladesh. Two points standout, though we can't agree more with Berry on the other points,

"Under the presidency of India's Jagmohan Dalmiya, the ICC next sent an inspection team to Bangladesh in January 2000. They recommended that Bangladesh be granted Test status from January 1, 2001, but the evidence on which they based their decision was flimsy. The main Bangladesh players were on strike when they arrived, and the only match the inspection team saw was a three-day game against MCC: not an international team but MCC, whose star bowler was Gary Yates, Lancashire's irregular off-spinner."

What more can you expect from ICC, which runs itself as a corporate body with a CEO and host of other executives but believes in maximizing the returns only for its investors, ie., telivision companies and sponsors, leaving the poor consumer, who else but idiots like us, in the cold. More so, this happened during the term of Apna Jaggu Dada the man widely credited with unleashing the commericial potential of cricket. I fear he's unleashed a greater demon that the game could have done without.

The other point made by the author, which I wish to contest, comes as the conclusion:

"One Test batsman, two Test bowlers. All you can say is good luck, mate, and it's not your fault, because the administrators dumped you in this. Bangladesh's premature promotion was a travesty, even a conspiracy."

Isn't this true for other teams?
India: Rahul Dravid (B), Anil Kumble & L Balaji(BO)
Pakis: Inzamam(B), Danish Kaneria & Naved-ul-Hasan( BO)
(I haven't include Naved just for his India tour exploits but he's been consistent throughout the season for pakistan)
SA : Kallis (B), Pollock & Ntini (BO)
SL : Attapattu (B), Murali & Vaas (BO)
Eng : Strauss (B), Flintoff & Giles (BO)
(Yup! Giles. If you read through the team's performance over the last 1 year he has served as the silent killer)
NZ : Hamish Marshall (B), Daniel Vettori (BO)
(Poor Vettori. He doesn't even have the luxury that Bangladesh can boast of at this moment.)
WI : Lara (BO)
(Now the kiwis looks much better than the windies)
Zim : Let them first put a team together.

So, if you see all these teams are almost on the same level as bangladesh (probably on second thoughts England is now emerging as a much more allround team like Australia). So, why blame the virgins.

'Ask before you abort!!!'

Yup, going by this case it seems like in the future if an women wants to terminate a pregnancy she better get a affidavit from her husband giving the go ahead. In a ideal world, I think its fair enough to give the man some rights as to whether the baby needs to be aborted or not but knowing our men I am sure this would become one more tool to repress our poor womenfolk.

For all the merits that the man may have in this case, I feel the judge should side with the women's right for the greater good of the society. What say you, noble soul?