Kabhi Khushi Bahut Gham

Sanjaya Baru the journalist who was also PM Man Mohan Singh’s Man Friday has published his tell-all book and it is damning in the extreme. His claims (if true) can be best illustrated by a (fictional) UPA-II theme song:


To summarize the claims: MMS was expected to just smile softly and shake a leg to the tune set by the Queen Bee while ignoring the thugs running away with the ATM in the background.

BTW this really was no surprise. The first family considers India to be a fully family owned and operated business (and so do an overwhelming number of Indian intellectuals as well as the entire foreign press and the Western diplomatic establishment). 
….
Entitled
“The Accidental Prime Minister — The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan
Singh,” the book is by academic and journalist Sanjaya Baru, a former
media advisor to the current prime minister, who left his post in 2008.


Traditionally,
the president of India’s ruling party is also premier. But Gandhi, who
led Congress to power in 2004 and 2009, turned down the job, fearing her
Italian birth would become an explosive political issue as Hindu
nationalists said her foreign origin made her unfit to rule India.

She
handpicked Singh for the job but Baru said Gandhi’s much hailed
“renunciation of power” was more a “political tactic than a response to a
higher calling”.

Baru said Singh decided early on to “surrender”
to Gandhi and quotes the premier as saying he had “to accept the party
president (Gandhi) is the centre of power”.

Critics have long
charged Gandhi held the reins of power in the Singh administration but
Baru’s book is the first by a close advisor to the prime minister to
make that claim.

In a strong criticism of the soft-spoken premier,
he said Singh “averted his eyes from corruption” to ensure his
scandal-tainted government’s “longevity”.

While Singh, 81, who
retires after this election, maintained the “highest standards of
probity in public life”, he “turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of his
ministers”.

Singh thought he could choose cabinet ministers but “he was defanged” as “Sonia nipped that hope in the bud”.

Baru
said Singh had little authority over his cabinet and a senior
bureaucrat would seek Gandhi’s “instructions on the important files to
be cleared by the PM”.

….

regards

A rose by any other name…

Bollywood (re)naming ritual has a long history. Hemanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay (Hemant Kumar), Abhash Kumar Gangopadhyay (Kishore Kumar), Mahjabeen Bano (Meena Kumari), Mumtaz Jehan Begum Dehlavi (Madhubala), Fatima Rashid (Nargis Dutt)….. in most cases a simple sounding Hindi (Hindu) name will have done the trick.

Then came the next generation, pre-loaded with suitable (mononymous) names: Kajol (Mukherjee), Sonam (Kapoor), Rani (Mukherji) etc. For the rare outsider like Vidya (Balan) – our favorite lady – who has succeeded in gate crashing the (nepotism) fortress, the yukt-akshar (joined letters) does not roll easily off the tongue.

So far so good. But what is needed for an (very fair) English girl to turn into an Indian girl next door? Ayesha Shroff (Mrs Jackie Shroff) explains the transformation of a Turquotte into a (Ek Tha) Tiger:


Jackie Shroff’s wife Ayesha Shroff,
who produced Katrina’s debut film Boom, in a shocking interview to
Mumbai Mirror in 2011 was quoted saying, 

“Her passport says Turquotte.
We created an identity for her. She was this pretty young English girl,
and we gave her the Kashmiri father and thought of calling her Katrina
Kazi.
We thought we’d give her some kind of Indian ancestry, to connect
with the audience. Those times were different, now people are more
accepting. 

But then we thought that Kazi sounded too… religious? We were
to introduce her to the press and at that time, Mohammad Kaif was at
the top, and so we said, Katrina Kaif sounds really great. In fact, the
brochures for the press say Katrina Kazi. We passed that off saying, ‘Oh
that’s a printing mistake.”

regards

52/444/1979

Iran (1979). It was the best of times for dreamy eyed revolutionaries (and the worst of times for others). There were 52 american hostages who were terrorized for 444 days by the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line (see below), the spiritual grandfather of the Taliban so to speak.

As the Friends of Iran would like to tell us, all the above misunderstanding is just so much water down the bridge. It should be possible to rise above past bitterness and do business with Iran. And who better to extend the hand of friendship than the Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama?  

Except that in the Middle East (as Obama is about to discover) the past is not really a different country.

The Iranians have selected a student revolutionary as their UN envoy. The USA has been forced to retaliate by denying him a VISA. Despite the good intentions from both sides it appears that the green shoots of an US-Iran entente will shortly shrivel and dry up (Israel and Saudis will be most pleased).
 ….
The United States, in a rare diplomatic rebuke, will not
grant a visa to Tehran’s pick for envoy to the United Nations, the Obama
administration said on Friday.

The move could complicate
efforts to thaw the decades-long diplomatic freeze between the US and
Iran, as the two countries negotiate a deal to curb Tehran’s disputed
nuclear programme.

President Barack Obama’s administration had
previously said only that it opposed the nomination of Hamid Aboutalebi,
who was a member of the group responsible for the 1979 takeover of the
US Embassy in Tehran as a revolution erupted in Iran.

US officials had hoped the issue could be resolved by Tehran simply withdrawing the nomination.
That did not happen, so the US made the unusual, if not unprecedented, move to not grant a visa to a UN ambassadorial nominee.

Aboutalebi
is alleged to have participated in a Muslim student group that held 52
Americans hostage for 444 days during the takeover. His nomination has
outraged members of Congress, who passed a bill barring entry to the US
to an individual found to be engaged in espionage, terrorism or a threat
to national security. Carney would not say whether Obama would sign the bill but said the president shares its sentiments.

United Nations officials had no immediate comment on the US decision.

Iran
has called US rejection of Aboutalebi “not acceptable,” with Iranian
state television quoting Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham as
saying Aboutalebi is one of the country’s best diplomats and arguing
that he previously received a US visa.

Aboutalebi has insisted
his involvement in the group involved in the embassy takeover, Muslim
Students Following the Imam’s Line, was limited to translation and
negotiation.

Here is some details of the hostage crisis [excerpts from Wiki]

….
Around 6:30 a.m. on November 4, 1979, the ringleaders gathered between 300 and 500 selected students, thereafter known as Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line,
and briefed them on the battle plan. A female student was given a pair
of metal cutters to break the chains locking the embassy’s gates, and
she hid them beneath her chador.





The occupiers bound and blindfolded the embassy Marines and staff and
paraded them in front of photographers. In the first couple of days,
many of the embassy staff who had sneaked out of the compound or not
been there at the time of the takeover were rounded up by Islamists and
returned as hostages. 

Iranian propaganda stated that the hostages were “guests” treated with respect. Ibrahim Asgharzadeh
described the original hostage taking plan as a “nonviolent” and
symbolic action where the “gentle and respectful treatment” of the
hostages would dramatize to the whole world the offended sovereignty and
dignity of Iran.…..

The actual treatment of the hostages was far different from that
purported in Iranian propaganda: the hostages described beatings, theft,
the fear of bodily harm while being paraded blindfold before a large,
angry chanting crowd outside the embassy, having their hands bound “day and night” for days or even weeks, long periods of solitary confinement and months of being forbidden to speak to one another or stand, walk, and leave their space unless they were going to the bathroom. In particular they felt the threat of trial and execution, as all of the hostages “were threatened repeatedly with execution, and took it seriously”. The hostage takers played Russian roulette with their victims.

The most terrifying night for the hostages came on February 5, 1980,
when guards in black ski masks roused the 52 hostages from their sleep
and led them blindfolded to other rooms. They were searched after being
ordered to strip themselves until they were bare, and to keep their
hands up. They were then told to kneel down. “This was the greatest
moment” as one hostage said. They were still wearing the blindfolds, so
naturally, they were terrified even further. One of the hostages later
recalled ‘It was an embarrassing moment. However, we were too scared to
realize it.’ The mock execution
ended after the guards cocked their weapons and readied them to fire
but finally ejected their rounds and told the prisoners to wear their
clothes again. The hostages were later told the exercise was “just a
joke” and something the guards “had wanted to do”. However, this
affected a lot of the hostages long after.

regards

Not yet ready for (online) purple fingers

The Supremes have decided: no online voting for NRIs 

Still, the issue merits careful attention. We depend on NRIs to keep our economy afloat, politicians are raising huge amount of money in the West, it is only fair that these poor rich people get a way to vote without incurring too much hardship.

And if NRIs are able to vote online what is the big deal in permitting residents to vote online too?


Hopes
of NRIs of casting votes in the ongoing elections through the internet
were dashed on Friday with the Supreme Court saying any interim relief
at this stage may open a Pandora’s box.


 The court took into
consideration the Election Commission’s submission that grant of interim
relief at this stage would be beyond the scope and relief claimed by
the petitioners when voting has already taken place for 104 LS seats.
“Will it not open a Pandora’s box? If some consideration is given,
practical difficulty will arise,” the apex court said. 


Here is the backstory
……
The Election Commission (EC) informed the Supreme Court Monday that
it was exploring the means of enabling Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) to
vote online but expressed its inability to facilitate voting in foreign
locations or provide any other alternative for the upcoming general
elections.




The Bench, however, asked the EC to try its best to do something in
this election. “You still have some time left” said the Bench, asking
the EC whether around 12,000 NRIs, who are registered NRI voters, could
be allowed to use their franchise through postal ballot in this
election.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by NRI, Shamsheer VP, who contended
that the existing provision which mandates NRI voter to be physically
present in the constituency to exercise his vote was discriminatory and
violative of fundamental rights.

…..

While the Court did not address the matter there is also the tricky question of migrants voting. It seems reasonable that they would be incentivized to vote, especially in such a crucial election. Our (controversial) suggestion is to give these folks citizenship and bring them out of the shadows (of the shadow economy).  

If the BJP feels aggrieved that there are too many muslims from Bangladesh, they should arrange for re-balancing (on the backs of Tibetans, Pak-Hindus, and Bangla-Hindus). Just like the USA first amendment debates (speech must be countered by more speech), votes should be countered by more votes!!!

regards

Brown Pundits