Like a novel where it is obvious from the outset that the two protagonists are meant for each other, but take hundreds of pages to get together…

That’s how the The Economist starts its article about the recent defence deal between India and the US. Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, don’t you agree that this sentence conveys that sentiment perfectly?

This scenario played out during World War II. Country A was under the colonial rule of Country B. Country B was at war with Country C. Faced with attack from C, B had to withdraw from A. Now, in A, there was a freedom struggle going on to free the country from B. The leader of this struggle was Person D. So when C drove B out of A, D welcomed C as its deliverer and joined his forces with C’s armies. But C treated A so badly that within a couple of years, D switched sides and allied himself with B once again. The country got its freedom a few years after WWII.

Identify A, B, C and D. I have put a “hint” after this line. Though I call it a hint, I think that “giveaway” would be more accurate. So my request to readers is, if you guess this after reading the hint, don’t put in your guess in the comments. Otherwise, please do. Also, I think that this question is difficult to google. So googling is allowed. If you do google, please mention that in the comments.

Continue reading →

Most newspapers have reported that Imrana has been asked to marry her Father-in-law. I don’t think that is correct. Or, to be precise, I would be very surprised if it was correct. In Islamic law, they have a concept of Mahram. A father-in-law is “Mahram” to a woman (i.e. cannot ever get married to her because of her relationship with her husband. ) The problem seems to be that because of the rape, the husband too has become Mahram to her. This last point is, admittedly a leap of logic.But as I understand, once a Mahram, you are always a Mahram. So, I think that all they’ve done is pronounced her marriage void. This doesn’t make much difference to the cruelty that she is being subject to, but it does tell you how much effort reporters put into getting their facts right.

Imrana’s travails have given yet another opportunity for the pseudo-secularists to display their dishonesty and for the “real” secularists to point it out. Seriously, which word would better describe Mulayam’s and Salman Khurshid’s position than “shameful”? Perhaps “disgusting” would do as well.
Continue reading →

Readers are invited to suggest a suitable caption for this


Originally uploaded by ravikiranr.

I need to answer Swami who says

I find your statement about economists and their theories of rational behaviour so odd, that I don’t believe it.

If economists are so mathematical in their analysis of society, of what good could their theories be?

I also need to answer Shrikanth who says

Why don’t conservatives use a similar logic vis-a vis political issue?. Right Wingers keep asserting ad-nauseum that terrorism is indefensible. But they are almost always unwilling to investigate the psychology of the
terrorist or seriously reexamine foreign policies that might be sowing the seeds of terror.
Am I seeing a contradiction of views here?What’s your take?

(Read the post for the original context in both cases.)

I will do so sometime. But readers’ thoughts are welcome.

I confess that I am utterly puzzled by the results of the Pew global attitudes survey (via Acorn) which says that Indians have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the United States. Apparently 71% of us like them.

Is that plausible? Yes, the survey is skewed. India is one of the few countries where they have asked only urbanites. But this means that it is skewed in a way that makes it easy for us to subject it to a smell test. I am afraid it doesn’t pass, which is why I am utterly puzzled.
Continue reading →

Amit Varma points to a great article by Shekhar Gupta

In the article his guide and driver in Prague tells him “You Indians are very fortunate you always had democracy, even when you had socialism.”
Continue reading →

Sandy wants me to blog about the Ambani settlement. Actually, I found their fight more interesting than their settlement. Apparently, in his lifetime père Ambani had set up things his estate in such a way that Mukesh had controlling stake in all companies. So legally speaking, he could have chucked out Anil from all boards of all companies and Anil couldn’t have done jack about it. (i.e. he would still be a shareholder and get dividends, but he wouldn’t get any say in running the companies.) If my understanding is correct (I am not sure) then Anil’s behaviour makes a lot of sense. In fact it reminds me of this puzzle I had posted sometime back – the one about pirates. I find it interesting that most people understand Anil Ambani’s actions pretty well, but couldn’t really appreciate the problem of the pirates.
Continue reading →

… and it reminds me that the toughest thing about learning English to me wasn’t understanding the grammar. It was figuring out that words like “sunny” and “warm” are supposed to have good connotations and that “rainy” and “cold” are supposed to be bad. We Mumbaikars like it when it rains. I understand Britons hating rains. But for us, it gives respite from the summer and leaves just as we start getting bored of it. Plus, we get a holiday from school.

While I was away, I missed commenting on the Advani-Jinnah secularism kerfuffle. If you are like me and you enjoy seeing others in pain, you should try to talk to a BJP supporter about the whole thing.
Continue reading →

Yes I know that it’s been some while. I won’t bore you with explanations. I’ll just continue as if nothing happened.