Viswanathan K's Thoughts

Reporters Sans Frontiers just came up with their rankings of how much journalistic freedom is allowed in different countries around the world. As with any such system that tries to rank 180 odd countries around the world, a colour coded pictorial representation is what one cares about: One thing I noticed was that the US and much of western Europe (apart from Germany) are graded as “Satisfactory”, not “Good”. Wonder if that downgrade has something to do with the inevitable price of countries facing terrorism? The other thing to note is that India is rated as having “Noticeable problems”. But put that in context of what the rest of Asia looks like: either “Difficult” or “Very serious”, and we don’t look too bad. The road ahead though looks terrible. India’s role model, as per our government, is China. And no, not in terms of economic growth (which we just can’t seem to achieve) or in making Mumbai into a Shanghai. Rather, China is our government’s role model in censorship (remember

One always hears and reads about how the Brit constitution is the only one that was never written, and yet has survived for ages. We also hear about how smart the founding fathers of the US were to come up with a constitution that was radically different from the British one and yet proved resilient enough to last to this day. With that backdrop, it was interesting to read the history of the Indian constitution: of how far before independence (almost 30-40 years prior to 1947), several Indians had already started thinking of how our constitution should be. Of how they had already evaluated whether it was better to frame a constitution via elected representatives who spoke on behalf of the majority (which inevitably meant leaving out the experts in the field) or via the experts (who usually would not be representative of the people’s preferences). Turns out we decided to do it with a bit of both types! If you wonder whether that made any difference, consider Sri Lanka’s constitution

I have always wondered why some random authority gets to decide which new word gets to become a part of the language. After all, if enough people use the word, it is a part of the language for all practical purposes. Even if it’s only used in some parts of the world, it’s still a word in that part of the world, isn’t it? And isn’t that the purpose of language: to get the message across? So why should only some Brit or American agency get to certify that a word is now a part of the English language? Many tell me I shouldn't care about this since people already use (and will continue to use) words that fulfill their needs, regardless of what the dictionary says. The problem with that approach is figuring out the meaning of a new word you hear (or more often, read on the Net) but that is not part of any dictionary because it has not yet been accepted by the Keepers of the Language? Are you supposed to wait until it becomes part of the dictionary? Who knows when (or even if) that mig

So Salman Rushdie won't enter the country to attend the Jaipur Literature Festival. And this is a “victory for democracy”, as per the Islamic seminary, Darul Uloom Deoband. Wow! This wasn’t decided by a vote, at the general population level or in Parliament (you know Parliament, right? It’s that entity that our politicians say overrides Anna Hazare, er, decides the laws of the land) or even in some state assembly. But hey, this is Islamic style democracy: send assassins from Mumbai and get your way. I guess the kafir West, India and Japan never really understood the true meaning of democracy! The Congress, the paragon of secularism and democracy (no, the 1984 riots and the Emergency never happened) started off sensibly at the Center by saying they couldn’t prevent Rushdie from entering the country since he was a PIO (Person of Indian Origin) and thus didn’t need a visa. Then, they did what all politicians do: backtracked through other channels. The Congress state government in R

Turns out the US too has a bunch of moronic legislators (like Kapil Sibal) who came up with their own version of bills to censor the Internet. As a sign of protest, several popular websites decided to take down their sites at different times. The latest on that list is Wikipedia that announced all English language pages will go dark tomorrow (Wednesday). To ensure people know why the site is down, founder Jimmy Wales, has decided the Wikipedia page will ask people to call their politicians and state their opposition to those bills. As Wales puts it, the aim is to “melt the phone lines”. What if Google, Facebook and Twitter did something similar? And remember, no Google means no search, no YouTube, no Gmail, no Google Maps…It would pretty much be the day that the Internet went down! As Wales said, “Student warning! Do your homework early. Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday!” Imagine what would happen without Google. As one of my friends said, it would take a hundred years to w

Taking on the husband's last name: is it only a sexist practice? No matter what the feminist brigade may say, it’s not that simple (Nothing ever is). And no, it is not just an issue in India or other developing (aka non-western) countries either. Part of the problem is the attention and questions that not changing the woman’s last name draws. Most of your (and ever her) relatives will ask why she didn’t change her name. Some of the more orthodox neighbours will ask too. Some of your friends may ask too. Things are a bit easier for south Indians on this front since many of us don’t have a last name (just an initial). In spite of the questions that it raises, many urban couples do have the wife retaining her last name. But that's often because of the practical hassle of changing all the documents and certificates. But if you dismiss it as an Indian male attitude, think again: even the Queen of England had the same problem with her hubby wanting her to take his last name! A

Lord Palmerston famously said that there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies; there are only permanent interests. A bit cynical, but that’s pretty much how nations act. And by the same principle, nations would be allies with others who share similar interests. But what if an ally can’t pull their weight? Or is too poor or weak to act on those (common) interests? In that case, the stronger/richer ally could invest in the other partner. But only if the “What’s in it for me?” question has a worthwhile answer. Like the US did with western Europe during the Cold War: apart from ideological reasons, the (missile) flight time from Europe to Moscow is a lot lesser. Similarly, the Soviets backed the eastern Europe because (again, apart from ideological reasons) those nations served as a buffer zone between NATO and Soviet areas. Or it could be “the alternative is even worse” reasons like why the US backs Pakistan or other Islamic regimes. China, however, I don’t get in their

Funny thing happened over lunch today. One of my friends who opened his lunch dabba exclaimed, “Looks like I got the wrong dabba today!” He went on to explain that his sister-in-law was visiting and he must have brought her dabba by mistake. And how did he know that? Because it had eggs with the yolk. And his wife would never allow him to have the yolk. Cholesterol and all that. And so our man happily gulped down the entire egg, yolk and all. Which set me thinking. About women. As grandmothers, they spoil you crazy with every conceivable goody, that needless to say is terrible for your health when you grow up. As mothers, they try and juggle what’s tasty with what’s good for you. Not always successful, but at least they try. Then comes the wife. She’s all business: “Eat this. Avoid that. Otherwise I’m the one who’ll have to take care of you when you are old and have all weird problems.” Yeah, yeah, I know they mean well, but hey, the heart wants what it wants. I wonder how

Recently I saw this Discovery documentary on how the Hummer, a vehicle built for the US army, went on to become a commercial vehicle. They even made a stretch version of it. And even tried selling it to the ladies by making a more feminine version! Yeah, that’s the same vehicle that MS Dhoni bought for Rs 1 crore. That episode made me remember how many US military inventions and discoveries have gone to have extensive civilian use. For peaceful purposes. And not just fuel guzzlers like the Hummer. I mean stuff like the Internet and satellite based navigation. Physics and cosmology were beneficiaries too (the US discovered gamma ray bursts while monitoring Soviet areas for signs of nuclear tests). Another area was cryptography, which is used in so many Internet based transactions. And so no wonder now, when the US military spending is being cut (mostly due to the recession and America’s declining clout), many wonder whether it would also mean a decline in (unintended) innovations t

I remember this CSI - New York episode which started with a guy (adult) dressed as Superman running in from nowhere and preventing a robbery. Next scene, this Superman is found dead in an alley. That scene stuck with me: aren’t superheroes supposed to be invincible? A couple of weeks back, another guy (this time in real life) dressed as Superman came to the rescue of a bleeding, unconscious pedestrian who had been hit by a car in Melbourne. No, he didn’t turn back time and prevent the accident from happening. Rather, this Superman was a doctor in real life and he did the necessary medical steps! But the good doctor was almost prevented from doing his rescue act because bystanders felt that, well, anyone in a superhero costume must be a nutjob! So why was the doctor in a Superman costume in the first place? Because he was coming back from a costume party, where, get this, he even charmed Wonder Woman! Even the comic book version can’t beat that story, can it?