Airports facelift cost doubles, users may pay read newspaper headlines. For a minute I said fine, if we need good facilities we need to pay. But haven’t airports in major metros like Mumbai and Delhi been privatized? Precisely!
Expecting passengers to pay as long as the government was solely responsible for the upkeep and upgrade of airports is understandable and justified. But why should the traveler pay even after privatization?
My simple question is will these private players keep records of all those who travel by air and once they start making profits, send dividend checks to us for having contributed to the building and upkeep of their airports? If yes, then please go ahead and charge us. If no, then why and for what are we subsidizing private enterprises?
Aren’t these private players supposed to invest their monies, or borrow monies to grow their businesses? Aren’t their shareholders the ones who should be helping these companies with their finances? The why are ordinary passengers like you and me being asked to pay today for the future profits of these companies and their shareholders with no return for us, the humble passengers?
Aren’t we already paying for the upkeep and development of airports when we purchase tickets that include a host of taxes that are allegedly used for the very purposes that we are now expected to shell out money over and above the ticket price?
I hope that we the passengers rise in protest against this injustice and this post works as the initial call for a passenger war against this illegal practice of airlines and governments. Isn’t it the rule of business that greater the risk, greater the returns. Then why do these companies and the government expect us to fund the future profits of these corporate entities?
We, the passengers, need justice. Is the government listening? Or is it acting out its usual blind, dumb, deaf routine? Dear Prime Minister, we need some answers now.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Illiteracy Trumps The Literate
Shashi Tharoor has been asked by his party president to stop tweeting, and a senior minister wants professors at IITs to think knowledge, not wealth. What an irony, I say!
The highly educated Tharoor almost became the UN secretary general. Can we say the same of his lord and master, in academic as well as political terms? As for the senior minister, the less said the better. For someone who has already made his money by the ton, to now lecture on knowledge to some of the best minds in the country is the funniest joke that I have ever heard in my life.
We want our teachers to be the best in the world, but then if they talk money, we think it’s a crime. And our politcal parties want our best criminals in politics, and if we think that is a crime, we are dismissed as inconsequential. My India greatest, I say!
I guess now we know why India is like this only and in all likelihood will remain like this only! And to my friends with an excessively positive bent of mind, I say, it’s not that I wish India to be like this only, but if wishes were horses, then cows would fly, won’t they?
The highly educated Tharoor almost became the UN secretary general. Can we say the same of his lord and master, in academic as well as political terms? As for the senior minister, the less said the better. For someone who has already made his money by the ton, to now lecture on knowledge to some of the best minds in the country is the funniest joke that I have ever heard in my life.
We want our teachers to be the best in the world, but then if they talk money, we think it’s a crime. And our politcal parties want our best criminals in politics, and if we think that is a crime, we are dismissed as inconsequential. My India greatest, I say!
I guess now we know why India is like this only and in all likelihood will remain like this only! And to my friends with an excessively positive bent of mind, I say, it’s not that I wish India to be like this only, but if wishes were horses, then cows would fly, won’t they?
Monday, August 24, 2009
A sucker punch called Kaminey
Sunday evening I broke with tradition and ventured out of home to watch a movie. Usually, I relax at home Sundays evenings recharging my batteries for another week of labor. I made an exception and the movie was the much acclaimed director Vishal Bharadwaj’s supposedly best until now comic-action caper Kaminey.
I landed at the theater expecting to be blown away by a first of its kind Hindi movie as claimed by all critics. Blown away I was, but not by the sheer magnificence but by acute boredom. Before you guys jump to rip my throat apart accusing me of lack of understanding of cinema and ability to appreciate something good, please read me out. I am not going to retell the already oft told story; I am just going to talk of why the movie failed to win my vote.
For starters there was nothing hugely dark about the movie other than its lighting for most part. Please tell me what’s so new in a story of twin brothers, one good and the other evil on surface and decent beneath the scratch? I have lost count of such movies made by Bollywood.
From when did lisping and stammering qualify as good acting? From when did having sex, getting pregnant and marriage become a novel theme? And the sex wasn’t even good enough resembling a 30-second MMS clip shot in some shady hotel off Madh Island in Mumbai. The only difference, here both parties were willing to be captured on camera.
The lyrics were the only saving grace, thanks to Gulzar, but wasted in a movie that was flagged off from an unknown destination and ended at an equally nondescript one. I can go on and on just like the movie did in a near empty auditorium, but I will cut the chase short and come directly to the end.
With bullets flying all around, all players getting a chance to show off their gun wielding skills, the rains and the dark compounding an already confusing passage of play…the end reminded one the Antoine Fuqua-directed Replacement Killers. Originality is relative, I guess. And the last scene had to be typical Bollywood, right? The lovebirds delivering twins, and the free and footloose living life King Size!
I don't know what the critics were thinking when they fell over each other to give the movie all the stars that they did. I would be happy if Vishal Bhardwaj refunded my Rs290 because for me, Kaminey was just an inferior rip-off of any or all of the John Woo and Quentin Tarantino movies, besides Fuqua.
I landed at the theater expecting to be blown away by a first of its kind Hindi movie as claimed by all critics. Blown away I was, but not by the sheer magnificence but by acute boredom. Before you guys jump to rip my throat apart accusing me of lack of understanding of cinema and ability to appreciate something good, please read me out. I am not going to retell the already oft told story; I am just going to talk of why the movie failed to win my vote.
For starters there was nothing hugely dark about the movie other than its lighting for most part. Please tell me what’s so new in a story of twin brothers, one good and the other evil on surface and decent beneath the scratch? I have lost count of such movies made by Bollywood.
From when did lisping and stammering qualify as good acting? From when did having sex, getting pregnant and marriage become a novel theme? And the sex wasn’t even good enough resembling a 30-second MMS clip shot in some shady hotel off Madh Island in Mumbai. The only difference, here both parties were willing to be captured on camera.
The lyrics were the only saving grace, thanks to Gulzar, but wasted in a movie that was flagged off from an unknown destination and ended at an equally nondescript one. I can go on and on just like the movie did in a near empty auditorium, but I will cut the chase short and come directly to the end.
With bullets flying all around, all players getting a chance to show off their gun wielding skills, the rains and the dark compounding an already confusing passage of play…the end reminded one the Antoine Fuqua-directed Replacement Killers. Originality is relative, I guess. And the last scene had to be typical Bollywood, right? The lovebirds delivering twins, and the free and footloose living life King Size!
I don't know what the critics were thinking when they fell over each other to give the movie all the stars that they did. I would be happy if Vishal Bhardwaj refunded my Rs290 because for me, Kaminey was just an inferior rip-off of any or all of the John Woo and Quentin Tarantino movies, besides Fuqua.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Is Inclusive Growth All About Passing The Buck?
Since the Congress-led UPA began its second term in office Inclusive Growth seems to be the most preferred two words in every minister’s vocabulary. Ask any question and the answer begins and ends with Inclusive Growth. Sounds nice, but is there much substance to it? I doubt.
I doubt it because of the sentence that immediately follows Inclusive Growth. It was first Kapil Sibal, who after talking of unshackling education in the country said, “I will do my best but can’t guarantee results for all participants in the process have to deliver.” It sounded odd to me then but I gave him the benefit of doubt, knowing how things work in India.
Then came the Budget and Pranab Mukherjee’s noises after presenting it. In reply to almost every question related to development and growth, our dear Finance Minister’s reply either began or ended with, “I will do my best but can’t guarantee results for all participants in the process have to deliver.”
That’s when it stuck me. This was the Congress-led UPA government’s latest game plan when they say Inclusive Growth. Promise a lot and deliver nothing, and if questioned at the end of the five years on their failure to deliver on promises, twist the Inclusive Growth theory and say, “We tried out best but all participants in the process did not cooperate and failed to deliver.”
To me the term Inclusive Growth in itself is spurious coming from political constituents who have been ruling the country for the past 60-odd years. So now when they talk of Inclusive Growth, am I to assume that they are admitting until now all their efforts and policies lacked the spirit of inclusiveness?
No point in writing thousands of words but simply put: This government led by the Congress looks all set to take forward its Dole Politics, i.e., buying votes through apparent acts of charity. And why won’t they, for didn’t this government towards the end of its first term spend more than Rs.100,000 crore of taxpayer money to win another term in office?
So friends, be prepared for more Indians turning into beggars, for that’s what this government is trying to do, in the name of Inclusive Growth create a country of beggars whose votes can be bought for a few rupees every five years to return to power and rip this country of its last penny. Jai Ho!
I doubt it because of the sentence that immediately follows Inclusive Growth. It was first Kapil Sibal, who after talking of unshackling education in the country said, “I will do my best but can’t guarantee results for all participants in the process have to deliver.” It sounded odd to me then but I gave him the benefit of doubt, knowing how things work in India.
Then came the Budget and Pranab Mukherjee’s noises after presenting it. In reply to almost every question related to development and growth, our dear Finance Minister’s reply either began or ended with, “I will do my best but can’t guarantee results for all participants in the process have to deliver.”
That’s when it stuck me. This was the Congress-led UPA government’s latest game plan when they say Inclusive Growth. Promise a lot and deliver nothing, and if questioned at the end of the five years on their failure to deliver on promises, twist the Inclusive Growth theory and say, “We tried out best but all participants in the process did not cooperate and failed to deliver.”
To me the term Inclusive Growth in itself is spurious coming from political constituents who have been ruling the country for the past 60-odd years. So now when they talk of Inclusive Growth, am I to assume that they are admitting until now all their efforts and policies lacked the spirit of inclusiveness?
No point in writing thousands of words but simply put: This government led by the Congress looks all set to take forward its Dole Politics, i.e., buying votes through apparent acts of charity. And why won’t they, for didn’t this government towards the end of its first term spend more than Rs.100,000 crore of taxpayer money to win another term in office?
So friends, be prepared for more Indians turning into beggars, for that’s what this government is trying to do, in the name of Inclusive Growth create a country of beggars whose votes can be bought for a few rupees every five years to return to power and rip this country of its last penny. Jai Ho!
Monday, July 6, 2009
Why?
Why is it that when one says love
People think sex
Why is it that when one says doing good
People think charity
Why is it that when one says peace
People think cowardice
Why is it that when one says silence
People think dumb
Why is it that when one says rules
People think bend
Why is it that when one says respect
People refuse to think
And why is it that when one says enough
People think failure
People think sex
Why is it that when one says doing good
People think charity
Why is it that when one says peace
People think cowardice
Why is it that when one says silence
People think dumb
Why is it that when one says rules
People think bend
Why is it that when one says respect
People refuse to think
And why is it that when one says enough
People think failure
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Roger wins Wimbledon, Andy Hearts
Roger Federer beat Andy Roddick in five grueling but absorbing sets on Wimbledon center court Sunday. That is the synopsis. The actual more than four-hour marathon tells a different tale of grit, determination, desire to win, willingness to fight until the other man drops dead, and above all the triumph of human spirit. And that cannot be captured in any synopsis.
Before and when the match began most of the world would have been rooting for Federer who was chasing a record 15th Grand slam title. That was though contrary to backing the underdog theory which generally prevails when a multi-time champion meets a two-time loser in the finals to the same opponent and a testimony of Federer’s ability to capture the imagination of a whole generation of tennis fans. Not even the great Pete Sampras had been able to capture the collective fancy of tennis fans as Federer has since Bjorn Borg retired in 1981.
And when Andy Roddick against the run of play captured the first set, the Federer millions, including me, groaned. The second set went on game until the tie-break where Roddick again was on the verge of consolidating 2-zip, leading 6-2 in the tie-break. But then the plot went awry for the former world number 1 and 2003 US Open champion and he lost 6 straight points to lose the tie-break and the set. Fedex had equalized.
The third set again went to a tie-break with Federer emerging winner, now leading the match 2-1. However, what was visible even at the third set was Roddick’s impressive play, with Federer failing to break the Roddick serve even once. And Roddick was playing some of the best tennis of his life.
In the fourth set, Roddick mounted a gamely challenge, breaking the Federer serve for the second time in the match to take the set. Federer’s inability to break the Roddick serve after four tough sets meant that Roddick was now favorite to win the match, given the fifth set had no tie-break
By the beginning of the fifth set, I in my heart had secretly started praying for a Roddick win and so must have many other Federer fans. And that was not because I suddenly stated disliking Roger. It was more because Andy was playing better tennis than Roger, and it’s always fair that the better player on the day wins.
The fifth set began with me now firmly rooting for Andy and what a set it was. A total of 30 riveting games played over more than 90 minutes with both players dipping into their years of experience to conjure one game win after another. And here Federer did show his class, whipping up aces at will. Both had their chances until the 30th game of the set, but failed to convert.
As the last game of the set got underway with Andy showing signs of cracking up, I guess the collective cries of viewers across continents of “Go Andy, you are almost there” would have increased. But alas, that was not to be. Fedex broke Andy’s serve for the first time in five sets that too in the last game of the match, to lift the cup, with a disconsolate but sportsman to the core Roddick watching.
The sight of Roddick watching Fedex lift the cup with moist eyes must have brought tears to the eyes of most viewers for Andy played like a true champion and deserved to win the title as much as Roger, if not more. But then sport is cruel and life always is not fair. And what better example can there be than Andy winning 39 games to Roger’s 38 in the match and yet ending up the loser.
To me Andy may have lost the match, but was as much a winner as Roger. And I hope that he retains his form until the US open, and maybe beat Roger in the finals, i.e., if Rafa is not yet back by then.
Before and when the match began most of the world would have been rooting for Federer who was chasing a record 15th Grand slam title. That was though contrary to backing the underdog theory which generally prevails when a multi-time champion meets a two-time loser in the finals to the same opponent and a testimony of Federer’s ability to capture the imagination of a whole generation of tennis fans. Not even the great Pete Sampras had been able to capture the collective fancy of tennis fans as Federer has since Bjorn Borg retired in 1981.
And when Andy Roddick against the run of play captured the first set, the Federer millions, including me, groaned. The second set went on game until the tie-break where Roddick again was on the verge of consolidating 2-zip, leading 6-2 in the tie-break. But then the plot went awry for the former world number 1 and 2003 US Open champion and he lost 6 straight points to lose the tie-break and the set. Fedex had equalized.
The third set again went to a tie-break with Federer emerging winner, now leading the match 2-1. However, what was visible even at the third set was Roddick’s impressive play, with Federer failing to break the Roddick serve even once. And Roddick was playing some of the best tennis of his life.
In the fourth set, Roddick mounted a gamely challenge, breaking the Federer serve for the second time in the match to take the set. Federer’s inability to break the Roddick serve after four tough sets meant that Roddick was now favorite to win the match, given the fifth set had no tie-break
By the beginning of the fifth set, I in my heart had secretly started praying for a Roddick win and so must have many other Federer fans. And that was not because I suddenly stated disliking Roger. It was more because Andy was playing better tennis than Roger, and it’s always fair that the better player on the day wins.
The fifth set began with me now firmly rooting for Andy and what a set it was. A total of 30 riveting games played over more than 90 minutes with both players dipping into their years of experience to conjure one game win after another. And here Federer did show his class, whipping up aces at will. Both had their chances until the 30th game of the set, but failed to convert.
As the last game of the set got underway with Andy showing signs of cracking up, I guess the collective cries of viewers across continents of “Go Andy, you are almost there” would have increased. But alas, that was not to be. Fedex broke Andy’s serve for the first time in five sets that too in the last game of the match, to lift the cup, with a disconsolate but sportsman to the core Roddick watching.
The sight of Roddick watching Fedex lift the cup with moist eyes must have brought tears to the eyes of most viewers for Andy played like a true champion and deserved to win the title as much as Roger, if not more. But then sport is cruel and life always is not fair. And what better example can there be than Andy winning 39 games to Roger’s 38 in the match and yet ending up the loser.
To me Andy may have lost the match, but was as much a winner as Roger. And I hope that he retains his form until the US open, and maybe beat Roger in the finals, i.e., if Rafa is not yet back by then.
Monday, June 15, 2009
India lost, so what?
The unthinkable has happened. Captain Marvel has lost his crown and mad Indians have started baying for his throne. But then what more can one expect of a nation that values success at any cost, but individually has failure written all over?
India lost to England and the media and its millions of news lapping rabid followers have started to bark. The media had already behaved like a responsible one by warming up with stories of rifts within the team even before India’s campaign got underway. And as the days go by, the bark is only going to get louder. Dhoni’s effigy has been burnt at Ranchi under 24 hours of defeat. And I won't be surprised if the effigies of other players are burnt too, stones pelted at their homes, and their near and dear ones humiliated.
And the single logic will be if you make the money you do, then you bloody well win. To me it’s more of anger at not being able to make the kind of money that some cricketers make than ire at the team having lost. Also, gamblers who foolishly betted on Team India thinking the other teams were just around to make Dhoni and his boys look good will vent out their frustration on having lost neat sums of money.
Advertisers and marketing professionals who backed Team India to win will also be spewing venom. And politicians will in all likelihood jump into to the fray to extract their pound of flesh.
Amid all this mess the real culprits responsible for India’s loss—the BCCI and the IPL—will walk free of much criticism for having milked these cricketers dry over 45 days of energy-sapping cricket in an alien land just 20 days before this World Cup.
Grow up India for every match cannot be won and Dhoni isn’t God. So be graceful, look above you selfish motives for grief, and allow the team its losses for if we look at the team’s performance since they won the T20 cup in 2007, they have won more often than lost. And all of us are allowed a few losses, some more than the others.
India lost to England and the media and its millions of news lapping rabid followers have started to bark. The media had already behaved like a responsible one by warming up with stories of rifts within the team even before India’s campaign got underway. And as the days go by, the bark is only going to get louder. Dhoni’s effigy has been burnt at Ranchi under 24 hours of defeat. And I won't be surprised if the effigies of other players are burnt too, stones pelted at their homes, and their near and dear ones humiliated.
And the single logic will be if you make the money you do, then you bloody well win. To me it’s more of anger at not being able to make the kind of money that some cricketers make than ire at the team having lost. Also, gamblers who foolishly betted on Team India thinking the other teams were just around to make Dhoni and his boys look good will vent out their frustration on having lost neat sums of money.
Advertisers and marketing professionals who backed Team India to win will also be spewing venom. And politicians will in all likelihood jump into to the fray to extract their pound of flesh.
Amid all this mess the real culprits responsible for India’s loss—the BCCI and the IPL—will walk free of much criticism for having milked these cricketers dry over 45 days of energy-sapping cricket in an alien land just 20 days before this World Cup.
Grow up India for every match cannot be won and Dhoni isn’t God. So be graceful, look above you selfish motives for grief, and allow the team its losses for if we look at the team’s performance since they won the T20 cup in 2007, they have won more often than lost. And all of us are allowed a few losses, some more than the others.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)