I was walking on the beach, the sand tickling my feet, oblivious to the world around me, in a happy world of my own. The world was a vast expanse of nothingness, walking along the sea, water colliding with my feet and then retreating.
The sky was bereft of clouds. The land was vacant as far as the eye could gaze. Time immaterial, deeds did not matter. The world inside me was swaying to the tune of the sea. I was one with the universe, no care in the world, free and footloose.
I did not think who I was; I did not bother about what I was; life had a completely different meaning. There were no planes to catch, no money to be made, no people to tend…life was one huge state of bliss.
The world hadn’t decided that we are here to create, achieve, and possess. The world hadn’t created God and so nothing was forced in the name of God. The mind was always meditative, one with the universe.
The tongue hadn’t tasted salt, the stomach knew no hunger. The mind was pure, the thoughts clear. There was no untruth, love meant not procreating. Home was where night fell; each individual in isolated splendor.
Sleep was sans dreams. No demons to be fought within or without. It’s a life of peace, the state of nirvana that I lived. And death was not feared for I know not what it means. For I lived without passion for life that afterlife was not of concern.
There are no devils. For when the mind is tranquil devils have no place to drop anchor. Keeping your mind occupied to keep Satan away is living life in fear of losing life. Why fear of losing something that I do not own. All fears arise from the fear of losing, then why strive to own.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Analyze This
Research is a hot space today. Everyone from companies to the common man is basing decisions on research; decisions ranging from which toothpaste to use to when to buy or sell property. And companies operating in the research space are raking it in big time. And it’s an ever evolving process as the beauty of research findings is it can always be disputed or proved wrong at a later date by another research study.
The Americans have been good at this for decades and the Indians in their new found liking for everything American are clued on to the idea. And I am not saying this in a negative sense; even I love all good things American.
So much so that even kids base their demands for all things from pencils to computer games on research. A friend’s son recently wanted a particular brand of shoes citing research which said that if worn they facilitate height gain. Wow I said to myself, the guy can barely get his foot into a shoe on his own, but knows what brand to buy. That’s the power of research.
And what’s funny is a large quantum of research generally tends to flow in one direction. The stock markets are the biggest example of this trend. When the market is doing well every research house worth its salt will recommend a BUY even on loss-making companies with the logic that it is likely to make a turnaround in the near term. And this logic will be backed by a string of hypothetical assumptions which read far-fetched but are difficult to dispute. It’s just one of those things.
However, what amazes me is the regularity with which research houses want us to buy shares of companies that are quoting at $25 as they have a target price of $40 a share. My question to analysts is where were they when this share was trading at $5? The company is the same, its business is the same, and it would have talked of its growth plans back then. So what prevented them from discovering value then? Or is it that they bought at $5 and now recommend it at $25 so that they can make that extra $20 at our cost?
And these same research houses will recommend a SELL on the same stocks the moment the market tanks. So are we to believe that the fundamentals of a sound company are hostage to the fickle sentiments of the market? Or is it that by imploring us to SELL they are creating a buying opportunity for themselves and their friends? I leave it to you, the readers, to analyze this.
Talking of research reminds me of a study that I read a few years ago that advocated the use of tissue paper in the crap room over water for better hygiene reasons. I subscribed to that and in less than two days ended up with a sore butt. The reason: it takes some getting used to. And by the time I got used to it came another study which said that water was a better option. Moral of the story, research poured water over my sore butt.
In short, the point I am trying to make here is research is important but at the end of the day commonsense should prevail. And that is something we are all gifted with. It’s a different matter that most of us seldom choose to heed its call.
The Americans have been good at this for decades and the Indians in their new found liking for everything American are clued on to the idea. And I am not saying this in a negative sense; even I love all good things American.
So much so that even kids base their demands for all things from pencils to computer games on research. A friend’s son recently wanted a particular brand of shoes citing research which said that if worn they facilitate height gain. Wow I said to myself, the guy can barely get his foot into a shoe on his own, but knows what brand to buy. That’s the power of research.
And what’s funny is a large quantum of research generally tends to flow in one direction. The stock markets are the biggest example of this trend. When the market is doing well every research house worth its salt will recommend a BUY even on loss-making companies with the logic that it is likely to make a turnaround in the near term. And this logic will be backed by a string of hypothetical assumptions which read far-fetched but are difficult to dispute. It’s just one of those things.
However, what amazes me is the regularity with which research houses want us to buy shares of companies that are quoting at $25 as they have a target price of $40 a share. My question to analysts is where were they when this share was trading at $5? The company is the same, its business is the same, and it would have talked of its growth plans back then. So what prevented them from discovering value then? Or is it that they bought at $5 and now recommend it at $25 so that they can make that extra $20 at our cost?
And these same research houses will recommend a SELL on the same stocks the moment the market tanks. So are we to believe that the fundamentals of a sound company are hostage to the fickle sentiments of the market? Or is it that by imploring us to SELL they are creating a buying opportunity for themselves and their friends? I leave it to you, the readers, to analyze this.
Talking of research reminds me of a study that I read a few years ago that advocated the use of tissue paper in the crap room over water for better hygiene reasons. I subscribed to that and in less than two days ended up with a sore butt. The reason: it takes some getting used to. And by the time I got used to it came another study which said that water was a better option. Moral of the story, research poured water over my sore butt.
In short, the point I am trying to make here is research is important but at the end of the day commonsense should prevail. And that is something we are all gifted with. It’s a different matter that most of us seldom choose to heed its call.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Rape Of Mumbai
Mumbaikar or not, that seems to be the question on everyone’s lips these days not only in the city of dreams but across the country. I am no Raj Thackeray fan nor do I align myself with any political party. But I do believe that the question of should the uncontrolled migration be allowed to continue needs to be addressed as in yesterday.
I can see politicians and people from other parts of the country jumping to wring my throat at my wish to get the question addressed. I can hear voices of freedom of movement, and the constitution being thrown at me.
But that does not answer my question of whether migration should continue unabated?
My answer to that question is an emphatic NO. The reason: every city--its infrastructure, legal system, ability to provide effective governance--is capable of supporting a certain number of people. And when the limit is breached, we are increasingly looking at chaos, anarchy, corruption and all the other ills that go with lawlessness.
I understand that people will flock to where they can earn a livelihood. And of late politicians are increasingly flaunting this argument to support mass exodus from villages to cities such as Mumbai. And believe me these politicians do not give a damn of the Constitution or of peoples’ rights.
They, dear friends, are just saving their own skins. Otherwise why is it that people of the ilk of Amar Singh, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh, Abu Azmi, Kripashankar Singh—the list is endless—not touching upon the core reason of why are people from states across the country flocking into Mumbai.
The reason why people are rushing to cities such as Mumbai is lack of employment opportunities, governance, water, electricity, law and order and such issues in their villages and towns. And who is responsible for providing these facilities in the towns and villages across the country? It is that of the very politicians who now are fighting for the right of people to migrate.
To me it is shameful on their part that they are unable to take care of people in their own constituencies and are now forcing them on a city that is already overburdened and where people are reduced to live like sardines in a can.
Today these politicians are advocating the right of people to migrate. And a time will come in the near future when Mumbai will run out of place where slums can be built. At that time I have no doubt that these very politicians will advocate the rights of migrants to forcibly enter and occupy homes of Mumbaikars claiming right to a roof over the head.
Can Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mr. Amar Singh answer a few questions? Lalu ruled Bihar for 15 years and if he is the champion of the oppressed as he claims to be, then why is it that he did not create employment opportunities for residents of Bihar? Mulayam was in power in UP. And Amar Singh was his advisor. Then why didn’t he see to it that the government created enough jobs for the people of the state?
I am sure that these leaders will have no answers to my query. But I am sure that they will find a way to term me anti-national for raising valid but sticky queries.
For the problem of migration to stop, the country needs political will. The will to create opportunities that will allow businesses to flourish across the country. That will create jobs and opportunities. When that happens, migration will automatically stop.
I do not think that people coming from anywhere in India to cities like Mumbai love the thought of living in abject poverty and squalor. They do so because they have no option back home. But that does not mean that people should be allowed to just climb into trains and buses and swamp cities.
So the option is clear and the onus lies with the Political Class. Instead of trying to divide people for narrow, near-term political gains, these men in Khadi, or should I say synthetic Khadi, should work towards national progress. That will automatically stop this problem of migration.
But the question is do politicians have the will, and ever important, the decency to put personal gains aside and work for the betterment of India. As of now, the answer is NO. And that is a sad testament of a country--rich in culture and heritage—that is increasingly looking to the world like a bride decked up but nowhere to go.
I can see politicians and people from other parts of the country jumping to wring my throat at my wish to get the question addressed. I can hear voices of freedom of movement, and the constitution being thrown at me.
But that does not answer my question of whether migration should continue unabated?
My answer to that question is an emphatic NO. The reason: every city--its infrastructure, legal system, ability to provide effective governance--is capable of supporting a certain number of people. And when the limit is breached, we are increasingly looking at chaos, anarchy, corruption and all the other ills that go with lawlessness.
I understand that people will flock to where they can earn a livelihood. And of late politicians are increasingly flaunting this argument to support mass exodus from villages to cities such as Mumbai. And believe me these politicians do not give a damn of the Constitution or of peoples’ rights.
They, dear friends, are just saving their own skins. Otherwise why is it that people of the ilk of Amar Singh, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh, Abu Azmi, Kripashankar Singh—the list is endless—not touching upon the core reason of why are people from states across the country flocking into Mumbai.
The reason why people are rushing to cities such as Mumbai is lack of employment opportunities, governance, water, electricity, law and order and such issues in their villages and towns. And who is responsible for providing these facilities in the towns and villages across the country? It is that of the very politicians who now are fighting for the right of people to migrate.
To me it is shameful on their part that they are unable to take care of people in their own constituencies and are now forcing them on a city that is already overburdened and where people are reduced to live like sardines in a can.
Today these politicians are advocating the right of people to migrate. And a time will come in the near future when Mumbai will run out of place where slums can be built. At that time I have no doubt that these very politicians will advocate the rights of migrants to forcibly enter and occupy homes of Mumbaikars claiming right to a roof over the head.
Can Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mr. Amar Singh answer a few questions? Lalu ruled Bihar for 15 years and if he is the champion of the oppressed as he claims to be, then why is it that he did not create employment opportunities for residents of Bihar? Mulayam was in power in UP. And Amar Singh was his advisor. Then why didn’t he see to it that the government created enough jobs for the people of the state?
I am sure that these leaders will have no answers to my query. But I am sure that they will find a way to term me anti-national for raising valid but sticky queries.
For the problem of migration to stop, the country needs political will. The will to create opportunities that will allow businesses to flourish across the country. That will create jobs and opportunities. When that happens, migration will automatically stop.
I do not think that people coming from anywhere in India to cities like Mumbai love the thought of living in abject poverty and squalor. They do so because they have no option back home. But that does not mean that people should be allowed to just climb into trains and buses and swamp cities.
So the option is clear and the onus lies with the Political Class. Instead of trying to divide people for narrow, near-term political gains, these men in Khadi, or should I say synthetic Khadi, should work towards national progress. That will automatically stop this problem of migration.
But the question is do politicians have the will, and ever important, the decency to put personal gains aside and work for the betterment of India. As of now, the answer is NO. And that is a sad testament of a country--rich in culture and heritage—that is increasingly looking to the world like a bride decked up but nowhere to go.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Waiting to Exhale
Life feels like it's stuck in a bottle. What happened to freedom...freedom to do what one wants, freedom to think and behave the way one wants?
Freedom sounds good but where is it to be found? Freedom of speech, thought... seems like a mirage. Administered in doses at the whims and fancies of others, I am let out of the bottle once in a while just to be bottled again.
Life seemed so different when in college... the world was there to conquer and life was raring to break free. Then life took another turn... I made choices and chugged along those chosen paths. Twenty years on, life looks, feels different. Things that made sense back then don't anymore.
Twenty years have zipped past and I have a lot to show for the time gone by. A house, a family, money in the bank. Yet why do I feel bankrupt emotionally? I have everything yet seem to have nothing. There is a vacuum. And there is nothing else.
If given a chance and the time gone by would I do things differently? I don't know. I may , I may not.
There should be more to life than the routine. One has to feel the excitement of walking on new roads, taking unknown turns... free from dependence while taking decisions, freedom to take those decisions minus the variables attached.
I know all will say that's ridiculous. Maybe so, but is walking on chartered waters the meaning of life? We claim to reward genius, innovation, the ability to do the same things differently. But do we really do so? Can I turn my life 360 degrees without being called selfish? I don't think so.
You will say that's life. I ask is this how life is supposed to be? Who decided that we are part of a larger gameplan? I may have taken a path in life back then, but why am I forced to walk those same paths day after day? Don't I have the liberty to change things around without being accused of treachery, selfishness, cruelty?
We formed laws to create order. But did we want laws to rule out lives? You can do this as it is legal. You can't do this because it is illegal. And I am not talking about wanting to blow up people or steal or maim. Is life one never-ending treadmill on which once you climb, you can't get down?
Nothing makes sense anymore. Living in the moment is fiction. In life we end up living other peoples' lives, dreams... and in the process lose our sleep and the dreams turn into nightmares. Is this life? My thoughts may sound bizzare to most of you, but can most deny having such thoughts. Yes, most may feel comfortable locking the genie back in the bottle..I don't.
I am just Waiting to Exhale.
Freedom sounds good but where is it to be found? Freedom of speech, thought... seems like a mirage. Administered in doses at the whims and fancies of others, I am let out of the bottle once in a while just to be bottled again.
Life seemed so different when in college... the world was there to conquer and life was raring to break free. Then life took another turn... I made choices and chugged along those chosen paths. Twenty years on, life looks, feels different. Things that made sense back then don't anymore.
Twenty years have zipped past and I have a lot to show for the time gone by. A house, a family, money in the bank. Yet why do I feel bankrupt emotionally? I have everything yet seem to have nothing. There is a vacuum. And there is nothing else.
If given a chance and the time gone by would I do things differently? I don't know. I may , I may not.
There should be more to life than the routine. One has to feel the excitement of walking on new roads, taking unknown turns... free from dependence while taking decisions, freedom to take those decisions minus the variables attached.
I know all will say that's ridiculous. Maybe so, but is walking on chartered waters the meaning of life? We claim to reward genius, innovation, the ability to do the same things differently. But do we really do so? Can I turn my life 360 degrees without being called selfish? I don't think so.
You will say that's life. I ask is this how life is supposed to be? Who decided that we are part of a larger gameplan? I may have taken a path in life back then, but why am I forced to walk those same paths day after day? Don't I have the liberty to change things around without being accused of treachery, selfishness, cruelty?
We formed laws to create order. But did we want laws to rule out lives? You can do this as it is legal. You can't do this because it is illegal. And I am not talking about wanting to blow up people or steal or maim. Is life one never-ending treadmill on which once you climb, you can't get down?
Nothing makes sense anymore. Living in the moment is fiction. In life we end up living other peoples' lives, dreams... and in the process lose our sleep and the dreams turn into nightmares. Is this life? My thoughts may sound bizzare to most of you, but can most deny having such thoughts. Yes, most may feel comfortable locking the genie back in the bottle..I don't.
I am just Waiting to Exhale.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Secularism Interrupted
I was watching the debates between politicians, news anchors and analysts on television during the Gujarat election coverage and what caught my attention was the regular use of the word Secular/Secularism by all political parties.
The Congress kept talking about secularism and how the party has fought for the rights of minorities (read Muslims). Some secularism that, huh! I guess the Sikh riots of 1984, the Mumbai Riots of 1993, appeasement politics are all classic signs of Secularism, and if that is the yardstick to measure a secular party, then you can’t find a more Secular one than the Congress. The British divided the country in 1947; the Congress saw merit in the Divide and Rule policy and continues in its secular ways of dividing the country.
The Left claims to be the guardian of secularism and democracy in India. I guess Taslima Nasreen would beg to differ. I am plain curious; Do Communism and Democracy have the same meaning? And India must be the only country where Communists celebrate the existence of God; Durga Puja in West Bengal, the Kerala government administers temple affairs. Or are we to believe that the politicians are Communists while the citizens who vote them to power are democrats?
As for the BJP, it never claimed to be secular. I have no political or religious leanings, but I feel that the BJP is an honest devil than the Congress and/or the Left because it wears its spots proudly, unlike the other two who behave like wolves in sheep clothing.
On the likes of Mulayam Singh and Mayawati, silence is golden. What can you write of those for whom ignorance is bliss? For them secularism means anarchy.
As for the people of India, after 60-odd years of being taught secularism by politicians, we understand the term differently, depending upon our political leanings.
In short, we may be the largest Democracy in the world; however, we are anything but secular. Teesta Setalvad may beg to differ with me. To her I say being pro-any religion is not being secular. It’s being prejudiced. And terming anyone who does not align with your views as communal ain’t being secular either.
So dear friends, we as a country must be the single-largest bunch of hypocrites on planet Earth. And for those who are interested in understanding the meaning of the word secular as given in the dictionary, please continue reading.
sec·u·lar /ˈsɛkyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sek-yuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
Adjective
1. Of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests
2. Not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music
3. (Of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects
4. (Of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular)
5. Occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome
6. Going on from age to age; continuing through long ages
Noun
7. A layperson
8. One of the secular clergy
sec·u·lar·ism /ˈsɛkyələˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
1. Secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship
2. The view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element
n.
Religious skepticism or indifference
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education
sec'u·lar·ist n., sec'u·lar·is'tic adj.
Noun
A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
The Congress kept talking about secularism and how the party has fought for the rights of minorities (read Muslims). Some secularism that, huh! I guess the Sikh riots of 1984, the Mumbai Riots of 1993, appeasement politics are all classic signs of Secularism, and if that is the yardstick to measure a secular party, then you can’t find a more Secular one than the Congress. The British divided the country in 1947; the Congress saw merit in the Divide and Rule policy and continues in its secular ways of dividing the country.
The Left claims to be the guardian of secularism and democracy in India. I guess Taslima Nasreen would beg to differ. I am plain curious; Do Communism and Democracy have the same meaning? And India must be the only country where Communists celebrate the existence of God; Durga Puja in West Bengal, the Kerala government administers temple affairs. Or are we to believe that the politicians are Communists while the citizens who vote them to power are democrats?
As for the BJP, it never claimed to be secular. I have no political or religious leanings, but I feel that the BJP is an honest devil than the Congress and/or the Left because it wears its spots proudly, unlike the other two who behave like wolves in sheep clothing.
On the likes of Mulayam Singh and Mayawati, silence is golden. What can you write of those for whom ignorance is bliss? For them secularism means anarchy.
As for the people of India, after 60-odd years of being taught secularism by politicians, we understand the term differently, depending upon our political leanings.
In short, we may be the largest Democracy in the world; however, we are anything but secular. Teesta Setalvad may beg to differ with me. To her I say being pro-any religion is not being secular. It’s being prejudiced. And terming anyone who does not align with your views as communal ain’t being secular either.
So dear friends, we as a country must be the single-largest bunch of hypocrites on planet Earth. And for those who are interested in understanding the meaning of the word secular as given in the dictionary, please continue reading.
sec·u·lar /ˈsɛkyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sek-yuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
Adjective
1. Of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests
2. Not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music
3. (Of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects
4. (Of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular)
5. Occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome
6. Going on from age to age; continuing through long ages
Noun
7. A layperson
8. One of the secular clergy
sec·u·lar·ism /ˈsɛkyələˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
1. Secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship
2. The view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element
n.
Religious skepticism or indifference
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education
sec'u·lar·ist n., sec'u·lar·is'tic adj.
Noun
A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
Monday, December 24, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth
A lot is being said about Global Warming and Climate Change lately and how if we do not act, the world would become an increasingly inhospitable place. In the midst of all the debates in newspapers, magazines, news and enovironment channels, a friend suggested that I watch a documentary An Inconvenient Truth hosted by former US Vice President Al Gore.
I for one have never been a great fan of US politicians, though I must sadly admit that they are far better than their Indian counterparts, at least when it comes to patriotism and protecting their country. You may ask why do I write that; the answer is no matter the internal differences, when it comes to facing the rest of the world, they put up an joint show. Now can we say that of our politicians? I say NO; you have a right to your own opinion.
Coming back to climate change, I decided to watch An Inconvenient Truth. And am I glad I did that. The doumentary talked about how years of industrialization, mechanization, deforestation, and a general apathy toward protecting our environment have taken their toll on our atmosphere. It shows how the ice-capped Antartica is melting and how rising sea waters would in the not-so-distant future submerge cities by the sea.
The documentary with facts and figures tells us how political apathy coupled with economic greed has repeatedly pushed environmental concerns in the background. And it tells us that we have about eight years to try and reverse the damage caused or else pay the price, a heavy one at that.
One can agree with what Al Gore has to say or dismiss it as being similar to the Y2K threat that fizzed off. But if we were to map temperatures in our lifetime we will realize that there is truth in what proponents of Climate Change have to say. In the summers, Mumbai now touches 40 degrees celcius; while I was a kid the temperature used to be around 32-33 degrees celcius. That is a 7 degree increase in a span of 25 years. And if one were to map the change in the last five years, then 4 of that 7 degrees have happened since 2002.
You can dismiss this as the rantings of a believer in the Climate Change message. But you would be doing so at your own peril. As we prosper economically, we as a world are going to buy more cars, air-conditioners, refrigerators, computers and other gadgets that directly or indirectly contribute to Global Warming.
I am not saying that we should learn to do without these things. What we must do is demand eco-friendly products, opt for brands that comply with environment regulations and force businessmen, politicians to listen to us.
How do we do that? By not subscribing to products that are not environment friendly and by not voting for politicians and parties that fail to go beyond lip service; in short, reject those who refuse to walk the talk. When we do that, companies and politicians will realize that they have just one option. That is to spend on research and development of ecofriendly products.
Here dear bloggers I would request all those who share my views on climate change with people they know and are uniformed. And I say 90% of our people are uniformed; when Mumbai observed Batti Bandh on December 15, 2007, between 7.30 pm and 8.30 pm, only 10% of Mumbai switched off power supply.
That dear friends is a sad testament of the apathy and ignorance that most people show to the subject of Global Warming and Climate Change. It's for you to decide whether you want to, even if in a small way, contribute to preserve out atmosphere and protect life from the ill-effects of Global Warming. Whether you want to fight for Right to life or Die in silence is a choice I will let you decide.
I for one have never been a great fan of US politicians, though I must sadly admit that they are far better than their Indian counterparts, at least when it comes to patriotism and protecting their country. You may ask why do I write that; the answer is no matter the internal differences, when it comes to facing the rest of the world, they put up an joint show. Now can we say that of our politicians? I say NO; you have a right to your own opinion.
Coming back to climate change, I decided to watch An Inconvenient Truth. And am I glad I did that. The doumentary talked about how years of industrialization, mechanization, deforestation, and a general apathy toward protecting our environment have taken their toll on our atmosphere. It shows how the ice-capped Antartica is melting and how rising sea waters would in the not-so-distant future submerge cities by the sea.
The documentary with facts and figures tells us how political apathy coupled with economic greed has repeatedly pushed environmental concerns in the background. And it tells us that we have about eight years to try and reverse the damage caused or else pay the price, a heavy one at that.
One can agree with what Al Gore has to say or dismiss it as being similar to the Y2K threat that fizzed off. But if we were to map temperatures in our lifetime we will realize that there is truth in what proponents of Climate Change have to say. In the summers, Mumbai now touches 40 degrees celcius; while I was a kid the temperature used to be around 32-33 degrees celcius. That is a 7 degree increase in a span of 25 years. And if one were to map the change in the last five years, then 4 of that 7 degrees have happened since 2002.
You can dismiss this as the rantings of a believer in the Climate Change message. But you would be doing so at your own peril. As we prosper economically, we as a world are going to buy more cars, air-conditioners, refrigerators, computers and other gadgets that directly or indirectly contribute to Global Warming.
I am not saying that we should learn to do without these things. What we must do is demand eco-friendly products, opt for brands that comply with environment regulations and force businessmen, politicians to listen to us.
How do we do that? By not subscribing to products that are not environment friendly and by not voting for politicians and parties that fail to go beyond lip service; in short, reject those who refuse to walk the talk. When we do that, companies and politicians will realize that they have just one option. That is to spend on research and development of ecofriendly products.
Here dear bloggers I would request all those who share my views on climate change with people they know and are uniformed. And I say 90% of our people are uniformed; when Mumbai observed Batti Bandh on December 15, 2007, between 7.30 pm and 8.30 pm, only 10% of Mumbai switched off power supply.
That dear friends is a sad testament of the apathy and ignorance that most people show to the subject of Global Warming and Climate Change. It's for you to decide whether you want to, even if in a small way, contribute to preserve out atmosphere and protect life from the ill-effects of Global Warming. Whether you want to fight for Right to life or Die in silence is a choice I will let you decide.
Remembering Dad
On a December day five years ago my Dad signed off. He was there the night, gone the next morning, just the way he always said he would. You will, he always said, wake up one morning and won't find me, but do not mourn my passing for in life where change is a reality, moving beyond the body is the only constant. His words still ring in my ears as loud as when said, and I fondly remember him.
For seventy years he lived his life to the full; simple in thought, uncomplicated in his interactions, every time I think of him and the happy times spent together, these memories liven my day. So what's new, you may ask; everyone shares a similar relationship with their father. True, but to that I say this ain't an exercise in proving my father was better than other fathers. This is just me remembering my creator.
When I think of him, I am reminded of his innate ability to procrasinate, and incidents bring a smile to my lips. I was seven and demanding a new pair of shoes. When I said I needed shoes, he would smile and say tomorrow. And when I asked him the next day, he would with a smile on his face ask me, what did I tell you yesterday? I would say tomorrow, and he would laugh and say, there you have your answer.
Before you say what a cruel dad, let me say that the pair of shoes that I had was perfectly fine and my dmeand was more because my friend had bought a new pair of shoe. Coming back to the incident, he would keep saying that until my shoe was in bad shape and then we would on a Saturday evening set out ot by me a pair of shoes.
He was a Bata loyalist, and that's why to this day I can never feel comfortable in a shoe that is not a Bata. Once we reached the shop, he would pick up a shoe with strings and I, a slip-on. Slip ons were a craze in the seventies, thanks to Amitabh Bachchan. I would fight with him, but eventually his choice would prevail with the promise of revisiting a slip-on the next year.
Another trait in my father that I simply loved was his ability to always speak the truth. Many a times he got into trouble, lost friends, and had to once quit his job. But he never wavered and taught me to do the same. I, however, cannot claim to be as correct as him. But then Dad was Dad and it would be foolish of me to try and become him. Having said that, I always try and walk the path he taught me, though at times what prevails is better sense as is called in today's world. I would say it is more self preservation than better sense, but in these times, better sense, self preservation is thy second name.
My Dad allowed me the freedom to decide what I wanted to study, the profession I wished to take up, marry the woman I loved. He did not do so because he was scared of losing me as a son if he didn't agree, but because he believed that if one has to be successul in life, then one needs to follow his calling. In short he did what most parents fail to do. He did not want me to live his life and fulfil his unfulfilled desires; he wanted me to walk my path and realize my dreams. That was my father for everyone; for me that is my father, as I am a part of him and in me he continues to live.
I love you Dad, forever.
For seventy years he lived his life to the full; simple in thought, uncomplicated in his interactions, every time I think of him and the happy times spent together, these memories liven my day. So what's new, you may ask; everyone shares a similar relationship with their father. True, but to that I say this ain't an exercise in proving my father was better than other fathers. This is just me remembering my creator.
When I think of him, I am reminded of his innate ability to procrasinate, and incidents bring a smile to my lips. I was seven and demanding a new pair of shoes. When I said I needed shoes, he would smile and say tomorrow. And when I asked him the next day, he would with a smile on his face ask me, what did I tell you yesterday? I would say tomorrow, and he would laugh and say, there you have your answer.
Before you say what a cruel dad, let me say that the pair of shoes that I had was perfectly fine and my dmeand was more because my friend had bought a new pair of shoe. Coming back to the incident, he would keep saying that until my shoe was in bad shape and then we would on a Saturday evening set out ot by me a pair of shoes.
He was a Bata loyalist, and that's why to this day I can never feel comfortable in a shoe that is not a Bata. Once we reached the shop, he would pick up a shoe with strings and I, a slip-on. Slip ons were a craze in the seventies, thanks to Amitabh Bachchan. I would fight with him, but eventually his choice would prevail with the promise of revisiting a slip-on the next year.
Another trait in my father that I simply loved was his ability to always speak the truth. Many a times he got into trouble, lost friends, and had to once quit his job. But he never wavered and taught me to do the same. I, however, cannot claim to be as correct as him. But then Dad was Dad and it would be foolish of me to try and become him. Having said that, I always try and walk the path he taught me, though at times what prevails is better sense as is called in today's world. I would say it is more self preservation than better sense, but in these times, better sense, self preservation is thy second name.
My Dad allowed me the freedom to decide what I wanted to study, the profession I wished to take up, marry the woman I loved. He did not do so because he was scared of losing me as a son if he didn't agree, but because he believed that if one has to be successul in life, then one needs to follow his calling. In short he did what most parents fail to do. He did not want me to live his life and fulfil his unfulfilled desires; he wanted me to walk my path and realize my dreams. That was my father for everyone; for me that is my father, as I am a part of him and in me he continues to live.
I love you Dad, forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)