It is okay to not vote!

The Bangalore municipal corporation elections got over yesterday. I happened to overhear this heated debate going on in Suvarna -- Should you vote or not? It's okay to not vote. Let me tell you why.

In a democracy functioning within a capitalist economy, the members of legislative bodies are chosen by parties which are heavily financed or influenced by private capitalists who, to quote Albert Einstein, "for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature." Consequently, representatives of the people (the guys for whom you vote) do not adequately represent your interest (unless you are Ratan Tata, Narayana Murthy, Mittal or Ambani).

Private capitalists directly or indirectly control the press, radio, education, and other mass media. It is thus, to quote Einstein again, extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Earth Hour -Vote Earth !!!

Earth Hour here in Bangalore has been and gone, but the crew in Earth Hour HQ have a long night ahead of us as Earth Hour slowly works it's way across the globe…

Though a saturday, people at work moved out to the streets. While the energy savings achieved during Earth Hour is fantastic, Their primary focus has always been about generating awareness and demonstrating a desire for change and action; and, on another level, coordinating a truly global campaign involving more than a billion people means a lot of work.
Of course, while encouraging participants to turn off other non-essential electronics as well as their lights, this has always been an 'optional extra' part of the Earth Hour experience.

For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming. WWF are urging the world to VOTE EARTH and reach the target of 1 billion votes, which will be presented to world leaders at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009.

This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is the chance for the people of the world to make their voice heard.Earth Hour began in Sydney in 2007, when millions of homes and businesses switched off their lights for one hour. In 2008 the message had grown into a global sustainability movement, with 50 million people switching off their lights. Global landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, Rome’s Colosseum, the Sydney Opera House and the Coca Cola billboard in Times Square all stood in darkness.

In 2010, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their lights as part of a global vote. Unlike any election in history, it is not about what country you are from, but instead, what planet you are from. VOTE EARTH is a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community. A call to stand up and take control over the future of our planet. Over 74 countries and territories have pledged their support to VOTE EARTH during Earth Hour 2009, and this number is growing everyday.We all have a vote, and every single vote counts. Together we can take control of the future of our planet, for future generations.

VOTE EARTH by simply switching off your lights for one hour, and join the world for Earth Hour.

Live-in Relationships: Supreme Court Verdict

March 24, 2010 witnessed a landmark verdict by the Supreme Court, legalizing live-in relationships in India. The Apex court justified that if two sound-minded adults of the opposite sex seek to live together without getting married the question of a “criminal offence” does not arise at all. It also cited the example of Lord Krishna and Radha’s relationship to substantiate its judgment.

Indian Supreme Court, Verdict, Live-in Relationships, Marriage Laws, Pre-Marital Sex,

This verdict was arrived at in response to multiple petitions filed against South Indian actress Khusboo. An astounding 22 FIRs were filed against the actress, in 2005, in response to her statement to an entertainment magazine about the rampancy of live-in relationships and pre-marital sex in India. Alarmingly, the actress’s effigies were burnt and life was threatened, for what reason? Exercising her fundamental right to speech?

The verdict is being widely criticized by certain political and social groups on the ground that it would encourage the practice of live-in relationships in India. Also, while Khusboo continues to receive widespread flak for her comments, the fact remains that live-in relationships have become a common (and practical) norm in most Indian Metros. If two adults choose to have physical relations, without a marriage certificate to reinforce the legality of their actions, it is nobody’s business but their own.

Legalizing of Live-in Relationships: A Final Word

The verdict of the Supreme Court is a welcome surprise, offering legal protection to individuals in a live-in relationship from the moral police and pseudo patrons of “Indian” culture in the nation. The SC bench, comprising of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices BS Chauhan and Deepak Verma, has also retorted to opponents of the verdict that the couples in live-in relationships are as liable to be sued as the Apex court itself for passing the verdict.

Record labels,Piracy,Online music

As internet service providers battle legislation that would force them to cut off persistent file sharers, new data suggests that rather than worrying about whether tougher laws can defeat music piracy, a better question might be whether we actually need to head down this path.

In the UK, we are already inching towards a happy compromise, having cracked down on the most outlandish piracy sites while the music business developed an economic model in which digital became a viable sales channel.

In India, Unfortunately, the government is not aware of these things.Hundreds of file sharing sites still exist. We,members of IMI, has decided to submit a proposal to the ministry. Support from FICCI's senior vice-president Harsh C. Mariwala is an added advantage. But then,to be frank, there are labels/ artists who support piracy. Since we are heading for an amendment in Copyright Laws, It's high time that labels think serious on these issues.

Market research has, in the past, suggested that most people would be willing to pay for downloads that are affordably priced, and that seems now to be what is happening. PRS for Music, the non-profit-making body that ensures recording artists get paid when their work is used, said that royalties from online sales rose 73 per cent last year. For the first time, that was more than enough to compensate for the decline in royalties from CDs and DVDs

Determined music pirates will always find a way to cheat the music industry. But if a large number of law-abiding fans are now paying for digital music legitimately, maybe it's time to move on to more winnable battles.

Starting a company is like landing on the shore of a deserted island

You have a certain amount of provisions, which you have to make last until you find a way to make the island sustain life—or convince someone to send you more.

You don't know how big the island is at first or what predators lie in wait.

There's always a chance someone else will raid your island if it looks fruitful, so you need to shore up your defenses.

Eventually, if you're successful, you'll be king of your own prosperous world. If not, you'll die—or, at least, have to go home.

Either way, it's a fun adventure (until you get eaten by a tiger).

:P :P :P

P.S. Thanks to a Lady & a music director.

An update !!!

OLD IS GOLD???
My last crush is the best i ever had i guess..;-)

One moment pls- dont judge ppl--- we hear this every now and then but we still keep judging ppl.if u judge ppl... at the end of the day they wil be wat u want them to be for u.its u not them who needs to change.if u judge me i don care cos i am wat i am.

I think am improving day by day.
like most i keep saying i tried version 1.1 new version on the way and all.Never happened though.

I haven't changed much from wat I was 10 years back attitude wise.Friends call me wierdo.i keep disappearing in the middle of a conversation is one reason they say and other reason...wait..cant tell all that here.

I wont say that i will die for my friends.But u can trust me,more than ur shadow.Once somebody gets into my good books they will find diff to take me off.little sticky.well there is one more thing i improved over the years.The art of keeping secrets.

But wen it comes to emotions.I like to express my emotions.Some call me emotional others immature. I beleive that if u hav hatred for someone express that, same with love also.One more thing there is no place for ego in love.

People are different.if u don let them to be wat they are, then u wont make frnds with real ppl but u wil make frnd with ppl who wil fake to be soembody whom u wud luv to be ur frnd..confused??? am also..most of the times...

I am very sweet n flirty but arrogant and can be sarcatic at times.I eat ppls heads off in five mins.I have very gud memory.sometimes its a blessing but at times it hurts.well life has to go on.

Mirror cant be trusted according to me.Everything is oppsosite in a mirror.So am always cautious wen i find myself in the mirror cos my rite is my reflections left.

Learning from mistakes and moving on.....

What makes beautiful women beautiful?

It was a typically American marketing trick when Vogue magazine described Leela Naidu as one of the world’s ten most beautiful women. As if there is an endoscope that will measure the specific gravity of beauty. It’s like Time magazine, another gimmickry specialist, publishing lists of “tomorrow’s Asian leaders”. Some of them end up in prison , but Time gets its mileage from the thousands of Indians who lap up the lists with colonial loyalty.

Leela Naidu was of course an extraordinarily beautiful woman. It was not the Aishwarya Rai kind of beauty. Its brilliance was not wholly, or even mainly, physical. It emanated from, and was embellished by the beauty of an active, comprehending mind. That was what made Maharani Gayatri Devi beautiful even at 90. That’s what makes Nandita Das, or Arundati Roy, or Mallika Sarabhai stand out in a crowd. That – and not Mallika Sharawat – is the reason for the poetic proclamation that “beauty is truth, and truth beauty”. The best of them know that what they are born with must make them grateful, not boastful.

How ironic that Gayatri Devi was also in that fateful Vogue list. She passed away within 24 hours of Leela’s passing. Gayatri Devi’s grace and class put her in the classic realm, perhaps with Cleopatra and Anarkali. The strength of her character laminated the nobility of her bearing, leading to massive electoral majorities. Which was unacceptable to Indira Gandhi. She sought not only the imprisonment but also the humiliation of the woman who dared to challenge her. The Maharani was lodged in a Tihar cell along with street women and leprosy patients. Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

Like Gayatri Devi, Leela Naidu was aware, but not vain, about her beauty. Her intellectual sensibilities were well enough honed for her to distinguish between the ephemeral and the abiding. She was very much a thinking beauty. She imbibed the nuances of European aesthetics from her mother and, from her father, the resolve to stand up for her values.

Her personal life was a continuous tragedy – two failed marriages, twin daughters gone astray, grievous illnesses, loneliness. She longed for love and didn’t get it. She developed angularities, shifting moods. There was no family to turn to. Her only solace was the memory of her father whom she revered.

It’s a pity that India knows little about Ramaiya Naidu, a pioneering scientist and a staunch nationalist. He opposed colonialism so strongly that he refused to study in the premier colleges of the day because they were all British-founded. He preferred Shantiniketan and Banares Hindu University, and actively supported Krishnamurthy’s Rishi Valley school. He declined scholarships offered by famous British universities and went instead to Paris for his PhDs. Specialising in ionization under Madame Curie, he became a founding father of the Tata cancer hospital in Bombay. At one point, radiation incapacitated him and he was forced to give up cancer-related work.

It was routine for Leela to go teary-eyed whenever a reference to her father came up. Leela was enormously talented, but her creativity was never funnelled into works of her own. It was utilised in movies others made or books others wrote; as Dom Moraes’ travel partner, she used to conduct research and even interviews for his books. Leela spread a lot of light around, though her own life was mostly spent in darkness. Suffering sometimes cleanses life, but why should people who do no harm to others suffer at all?

Why Pakistan gains, and India doesn’t ?

The terrorist wins when he does not lose. Security forces lose when they do not win. This universal law gives small bands of insurgents an edge over large Government formations. In a country as vast and diverse as India, it is impossible to keep track of every man with a backpack in Aurangabad and Puri, Anantapur and Mandya. Rather often, our security men seize caches of explosives or detain people with strange interests, like recording, from the privacy of their hotel rooms, airline pilots’ conversations with the control tower. Each such capture is another terror strike averted. Yet some slip through the net and we pay a bloody prize.


That’s not the only cost of being an open society. In diplomatic and strategic matters too we seem to be not as effective as we ought to be. Not even in comparison with Pakistan. In fact the India-Pakistan scene presents a supreme irony – a “failed state” holding its own and, in some critical areas, doing better than an “emerging super power.”


The political leadership of Pakistan is a disabled leadership with no authority over key segments of the establishment. The military does not have control over significant regions of the country. The ISI intelligence organization is for all practical purposes a sovereign agency answerable only to its ring leaders. And various jihadi groups practise self-propulsion. Yet, when it comes to handling Indian affairs, from terrorism to diplomacy, Pakistan manages to function as a coherent power knowing what it wants and how to get it.


By comparison India is a fully functional state with a defined political centre that has control over its armed forces, its diplomatic establishment and its security agencies. Despite this intrinsic strength, however, India handles crucial regional matters like a fragile, unfocussed and ineffective power. In recent months this weakness led to India getting isolated in the “great game” of Afghanistan even as Pakistan gained significant international support.


The game-changer in Afghanistan was America’s decision to win over the “good Taliban.” That was Pakistan’s favourite line. Pakistan had nurtured the Taliban and protected it even when it pretended, under American pressure, to be fighting it. In Istanbul and then in London international conferences endorsed the Pakistan line, proclaiming that no peace would be possible in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s active collaboration. India was relegated to an insignificant position, despite its massive investments in Afghanistan and the rapport it is said to enjoy with important segments of the Afghan population.


The main reason for India’s setback is its wrong reading of American intentions. Under Man Mohan Singh’s initiative, India has followed the single-point diplomacy of courting America. A case in point is the resolution America sponsored against Iran in the IAEA meeting last November. Pakistan voted against the resolution despite its dependence on America. But India stood on the side of America ignoring its shared geographical interests with Iran. America does not have the same fidelity towards India. Accepting the so-called moderate elements in Taliban will help consolidate the hardliners in Pakistan, give them virtual control over Afghanistan and prepare the ground for renewed jihadi campaigns against India and in Muslim areas of Western China and Southern Russia. That doesn’t bother America which is only concerned about putting a stop to American casualties in Afghanistan.


India’s big diplomatic failure is that it has put all its eggs in the American basket. This is a one-way street. America’s secret service could come to India at their pleasure and question Kasab in jail. India’s investigators who went to the US to question Hedley were denied permission. America does what is good for it. India also does what is good for America. Who is going to do what is good for India?

Question: Did M.F. Husain get a raw deal?

The legendary Indian painter and (sometime film director) has by default given up his Indian citizenship at the age of 94.

The decision comes after Husain’s “voluntary exile” since 2006 over court cases lodged against him for painting Hindu deities in the nude.

Many people have spoken out in his support all these years but the support was apparently not enough to keep him from in effect renouncing his citizenship.

So who is responsible for things turning out this way?

Is it the government?

For not doing enough to make him feel secure and alleviating what some saw as needless harassment of a senior artist.

After all, even small time politicians in provincial towns are able to get personal security and guards.

Is it society?

For being intolerant of alternative views or ignorant of its own ancient traditions of iconography.

And for letting chauvinists get the upper hand.

Is it Husain himself for what some say is lack of trust in the law of the land and unwillingness to fight it out in the courts.

And for apologising for “having hurt sentiments”, thus surrendering to the mob.

To which his supporters say this is a 94-year-old man one is talking about.

Is it fair to expect one man to fight a society’s battles?

Or is it us?

For being intolerant of alternative views and narrow interpretation of textual traditions.

And for letting chauvinists get the upper hand.

Or is it the people described as elites who in every society through history have been the main patrons and consumers of art?

Have they exerted themselves enough in this case and numerous others?

Be it the “My Name is Khan” controversy, that over Taslima Nasrin or historian James Laine’s work on Shivaji or the cause celebre Salman Rushdie whose book “The Satanic Verses” continues to be banned in India.

Alex

Alex, is a rock band that plays progressive/alternative music in trance and house styles.

A 4 member band, not that experienced when it comes to live shows. They played for me when i was in Chennai last time.Immediately, I decided to work with them.

Alex is at present working on an album for Tune4 Music and its called 'Mercenary'

We hope to complete the album in another 4-5 weeks. Banner,poster,band page and other merchandise's are getting ready.We are working on some concepts, at present we dont have an USP. Sorry,we have,Good Music.

P.S. proud to say that the lead vocalist/guitartist Rintu of 'Alex' is my cousin.

Wonder who went on this Diet!!!

Shutting Tharoor Up?

The constant efforts of some (and of late many) journalists trying to whip up a quick controversy by simply copying Tharoor's tweets (and of late bytes) on to their new story (perhaps on a lean day?) does not make sense.

Firstly, tweets are limited by how much is being said and how much is being understood. Secondly, the stories often with headlines like "Tharoor whips up another controversy," etc, don't do not carry any weight.

Such a story usually made up of three or four of Tharoor's 140 character tweets and much is left the the scribe's limited imagination. The fact is --Tharoor tweeted (which may or may not be in line with what the govt is doing, its usually a casual statement or two). The assertion a journo makes is "it has created a controversy".

Now the question is-- Where is the controversy? When Tharoor tweeted, did any one else say anything against it? Did anyone-- small time party spokespersons incapable of scoring real political victories or TRP clowns-- even react to it before it was called a controversy? Who's trying to create a controversy here? What is a controversy? Is there a contention? Dispute? Debate? Agitation of contrary opinion? Or is it that the journalist feels that it is a controversy?

Perhaps we should interpret tweets as a good source of casual information, work on them to create better stories. All this nonsense will only serve the purpose of shutting up a politician who's disseminating information. Its a goose laying golden eggs. Don't kill it.

Sidharth Varadarajan, Deputy Editor of The Hindu presents a very sane view of the latest Tharoor controversy over Saudi's role in Indo Pak talks. I couldn't agree more when he argued that Tharoor is being pilloried for using a word many hacks didn't understand.

For only someone with a very modest collection of words at his disposal, or a very large hatchet, or both, could possibly interpret the junior minister’s reference to Saudi Arabia being a “valuable interlocutor for [India]” as assigning Riyadh a mediatory role between New Delhi and Islamabad.

In response to a question about Saudi Arabia’s close relations with Pakistan, this is what the Minister actually said: “We feel that Saudi Arabia, of course, has a long and close relationship with Pakistan, but that makes Saudi Arabia all the more valuable an interlocutor for us. When we tell them about our experience, Saudi Arabia listens as somebody who is not in anyway an enemy of Pakistan but a friend of Pakistan and, therefore, I am sure will listen with sympathy and concern to a matter of this nature.”

There is no way these words can be taken as suggesting mediation. If, nevertheless, Mr. Tharoor felt compelled to issue a clarification, this was not for lack of clarity in what he said but for the media’s inability to understand.

Some TV channels also ran breaking news on Monday citing the supposed failure of the Congress party to defend the Minister as proof that the “high command” was indeed very angry with his “interlocutor” reference.

Of course, no actual evidence of such anger was produced.

Read more here

Men Rules

The Men Rules (Source: Somewhere on Facebook)

We always hear "THE RULES"
From the female side.

Now here are the rules from the male side.

These are our rules!
Please note.. these are all numbered "1 "
ON PURPOSE!

1. Men are NOT mind readers.

1. Learn to work the toilet seat.
You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down.
We need it up, you need it down.
You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

1. Sunday sports It's like the full moon
or the changing of the tides.
Let it be.

1. Crying is blackmail.

1. Ask for what you want.
Let us be clear on this one:
Subtle hints do not work!
Strong hints do not work!
Obvious hints do not work!
Just say it!

1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question..

1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do.
Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.


1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument.
In fact, all comments become Null and void after 7 Days.


1. If you think you're fat, you probably are.
Don't ask us.

1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one

1. You can either ask us to do something
Or tell us how you want it done.
Not both.
If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

1. Whenever possible, Please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.

1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings.
Peach, for example, is a fruit, not A color. Pumpkin is also a fruit.
We have no idea what mauve is.

1. If it itches, it will be scratched.
We do that.

1. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," We will act like nothing's wrong.
We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to,
Expect an answer you don't want to hear.

1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine... Really .

1. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball or golf .

1. You have enough clothes.

1. You have too many shoes.

1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!

1. Thank you for reading this.

Pass this to as many men as you can -
to give them a laugh.

Pass this to as many women as you can -

to give them a bigger laugh.