why?? why is the only question that i can think of. why us. what did we do wrong.why do we have to endure attacks on our land.
why?? why is having a quiet simple evening with loved ones in a place of one's own choice so difficult.
why?? why did commoners on the street have to endure this trauma. why does my land have to endure this again and again.
why?? why do bravehearts of the land have to pay for inept politicians with their lives. why does lack of political will translate down to my kith and kin making sacrifices.
why?? why cant i do anything about the situation to help it in anyways. why does a feeling of helplessness engulf me that it numbs me thruout.
why?? why is mumbai still bleeding inspite of repeated assaults. why was nothing done to prevent.
i am sick. i am sick and tired. i am sick tired and angry. i am sick tired angry and despondent.
i am surrounded with why's that i have no answers to.
who is responsible for this. where did the failure occur. who is accountable for this. who do i ask for all these answers to my questions.
are we governed by wimps who get Z+ security by the crack commando units while the lives on the roads are so bloody cheap that we lose them dime a dozen.
add our genius of home minister, who gave away NSG plans on national television. will he ever own up that he simply failed.miserably

whom do i ask my questions..what am i supposed to do

is this a turning point in our history. this better be. i cannot take one more attack. enough. no more. i am numb with with a multitude of emotions.

peace be to those who lost their lives. their family members. the security people who made the sacrifices. my heart goes out to the families who lost their loved ones

plz gimme some answers somebody. plz assure me that this wont happen again. plz tell me i wont have to go thru this again. plz..


Nathuram Godse

Continuing from where i left off about the recent terror attacks, the fact that he people who indulged in it were truly convinced about the method they used is intriguing. Similarly in the 'jihad' against infidels, to give up one's life for a cause, imagine the degree of motivation these people must have.

I post excerpts of a speech made by Nathuram Godse in his defence of his act of murdering Mahatma Gandhi. The rights and wrongs of the act are for debate. Even the points he makes in the following speech can be argued upon. What amazes me tho is his conviction to what he did knowing what fate awaited him..

"Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status …

…All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen…... This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.

Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity…... But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends ….

…The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. …. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it.…. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.
Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. ... In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster..…

…..From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus….Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.

The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. … When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death….

….Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.

I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future. "

I dont agree with what he did though neither do I agree to M.K. Gandhi's policies. Murder is heinous no doubt, but what if the cause was just. I personally dont know if it was. Atleast Nathuram Godse was convinced of the justness of his cause...


Rahul Gandhi - 'bachcha'

Rahul gandhi is 38. Rajnath Singh has been in politics for 35 years. matter-speak Rahul Gandhi is indeed a 'bachcha' to Rajnath Singh politically and otherwise.

"Compared to the likes of Rajnath Singh and other senior leaders, I am a 'bachcha'. It is a fact. I am a much younger person," said Rahul in response to media persons. Then took a step forward and made a sarcastic dig at the BJP president,"fortunately or unfortunately, 70 per cent of this country is 'bachcha'. "I think in a completely different way."

"He (Rajnath) would not have the desired impact as the country looks at things in a different manner. It is the way of looking things differently," Rahul said.

Maybe does mark rahul increasing his repertoire of words and ability to respond to his critics.

I happened to see the Rajnath Singh interview where the 'bachcha' comment was made. responding to shekar gupta's question, about the impact of rahul gandhi Rajnath responded,

" I would not like to comment on Rahul. I consider him a child and would not like to say anything about him" when probed further he said , " ... but as far as I am concerned he is like my child."

I aint no big fan of Rajnath Sing but to be fair to him he made the comment in a different context and the response maybe was in another.
Maybe there was no veiled attack leveled this time that Rahul responded.Wish he defended himself with the same fervour against Mayawati.

Hindu terror

Oft in the frenzy of attracting viewers to their channels media goes overboard painting a news item in a certain hue. They decided to paint the blasts in Malegaon saffron and thus evolved Hindu terror. The painful fact today is that the media conducts its own trial pronounces the guilty and goes as far as to punish the accused. The Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) does its bit by systematic leaks occurring from its coterie to fuel these reports further.

Personally I find it absurd on their part to use the terminology. As also do I find the term Islamic terror equally absurd. A terrorist is a terrorist. The buck stops there. Giving terror religious hues makes it seem as if it is condoned by the particular relegion. If anything that hardly is the case.

The involvement of army in this particular case is another point that has been raised. I mean there were a select few involved, pointing fingers at the armed forces is hardly the way to go. These were a few misguided people who in the name for fighting their religion took a wrong recourse. Fuelling passions at this stage will further the divide already present with disastrous consequences. The way to go would be to educate the youth, not let them be blinded by rhetoric.

Sweeping statements like a Hindu can never be a terrorist are ridiculous. These people have killed ( subject to being proven), for Gods sakes just open your eyes and see it. A Hindu can never be a terrorist maybe in a utopian world. The BJP is back to its far right self by statements as such. It is akin to saying a Hindu might never steal, never commit a crime, the mere fact that he is a Hindu gives him impunity to every act he commits that might go against the prevailing land.

Every Hindu religious leaders finds refuge in the words of Gita and twist them to his own interpretation. To quote a small bit of it.

“svadharmam api cāvekṣya na vikampitum arhasi
dharmyād dhi yuddhāc chreyonyat kṣatriyasya na

(Considering also your duty as a warrior you should not waver like this. Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a righteous war.)

Notice the Lord says the righteous war. What leaves the door open is the definition of righteousness. To each I guess it means his own and hence most people do get away with what they say.
However the Lord also mentions ‘svadharmam’. Swadharma is One’s own dharma.
“Swadharma is one’s own prescribed duty in life according to the eternal law”
–Acharya Vinoba Bhave.
To quote Lord’s words further “Sreyaan svadharmo vigunah” One’s own dharma regardless of what it is the best for one.

Hence giving examples of Lord Krishna asking Arjuna to take up arms to justify reprehensible acts is lame. Then again I interpret the Gita in my own way, and I could be wrong.

The far right should maybe give things a ‘dekko’ and maybe come up with statements that don’t blind us to the wrong being committed. As for what I feel about Hindu terror. The term is wrong for me because in my eyes anybody who maims innocents for the Hindu cause ain’t a Hindu at all.

As and afterthought i'd hate to be in the ATS, pick up Muslims and they get whipped, pick Hindus up and dont get spared either. Poor guys.


U2- window in the sky

just love the video


The Painless Dentist

This is one picture that has remained with me from my books that i studied in my course. Anyone who has read Ingle has hopefully come across this picture before the acknowledgement part of it.

I find it difficult to talk about my work because looking at it objectively is difficult. Today was one of those days where sometimes i wonder if things could have been done differently. Where probably extractions could have been done painlessly. It is not the best feelings in the whole world when one knows beforehand that some amount of pain is involved.

It is quite a bummer when the first patient in the day turns out that ways. The day eventually did end on a brighter note considering the rest of the things happened very well.

Most journeys to dentists generally are marred with painful episodes along the way and the general majority do have horror stories to relate.What i realize now being on the other side is that more often it is unavoidable.The doctors might seem non-plussed about the events.. maybe seem a bit too cold about it. The patients never forget the episode but if at all neither do the doctors...they too never forget the episode. We may go on as if nothing out of normal has occurred ..the episode however remains forever.. Thats what i did learn from my short journey yet.

"Experience is never limited, and it is never complete; it is an immense sensibility, a kind of huge spider web of the finest silken threads suspended in the chamber of consciousness, and catching every airborne particle in its tissue." - Henry James


Happy B'day Shreya

Somehow i have always missed the kiddo on her b'day parties..three years in a row now. Shreya btw is Rajish's niece and he does not miss a chance to remind me how i never have been around during her b'day.
She has come a long way from the smallie in the incubator the first i saw her. Wishing you a very happy birthday dear.

tho i did miss her party i am sure her 'uncle' will take care of it..



There are recent reports suggesting the fact that madam Mayawati could be the new Indian Obama. Something that maybe her PR guys are pursuing aggressively to fulfill her dreams of being the Indian prime minister.

Mayawati and Obama do share similar origins. Both of them do come from minorities which have a history of being significantly oppressed. They made it to the top inspite of various obstacles along the way is indeed commendable.

However the similarities if anything end there. For starters both of them have a completely different persona. I find it really difficult to see Mayawati in any way close to the style espoused by Obama. They r just too different in the way they carry themselves. Her autocratic functioning in a democratic setup bugs me. She runs her party as her own personal fiefdom.

The question of integrity too looms large. Barack Obama yet has a clean image about himself and to my knowledge has nothing against him which questions his integrity. Mayawati on the other hand has a string of corruption cases leveled against her for every term she has been in the office.

Another significant difference is the style of the campaigns pursued by both camps. The Obama campaign for the entirety of it was brilliantly managed. Where personal issues and smear campaign were kept out. The Uttar Pradesh campaigns are fraught with the politics of vendetta. With Mayawati indulging in the worst of it. The recent episode of her coming in the ways of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi trying to ruin their rallies was in utter bad taste. So have been her run-ins with Mulayam Singh Yadav, so intent at cutting each other’s stock that the state suffers at every step one decides to act against another.

The most important difference in my eyes however is the fact that Obama on his course to presidency has talked all the while about transcending race. He has never shied away from being a black, but it has always been going beyond it and presenting a united front. Mayawati however never has come down her high “dalit ki beti” horse ever. Till the day she wisens up to know that only that singular quality wont be enough to prop her up for the top dog’s job she will remain constricted to U.P. fortunately.

Yes circumstances did catapult her to national fame sometime back, yes she maybe a maverick of sorts in her own state coming for behind to lead her party to a huge win recently, but when it comes to the national stage she is at best a wannabe who I hope will always remain so.

Maybe I am looking through my narrow prism at the occurrence of events, but I don’t see India being led my Mayawati and I might go a step further and say I don’t want to see Mayawati lead India with her style of leading which divides people on the basis of caste to serve her ends.