Anil Ambani is now in trouble because Reliance Communications sent Sardarji jokes by SMS:
Mr Rajendra Singh Bagga said in his complaint that the joke was being circulated by text on Mr Ambani’s mobile telephone network, Reliance Communications.
“We are a martial race. We fought for defending Hinduism and this joke is very insulting,” Mr Bagga said.
I hope Mr. Bagga gets into trouble for implying that Sikhism is a sub-sect of Hinduism and a chain reaction starts.
It has come to our notice that a certain imposter has been taking advantage of the certain phonetic similarities in names to usurp for himself the title of Jagadguru. Be it known to all that the One True Jagadguru is Jagadguru Krishacharya and not Jagadguru ChrisButler.
As TASK has found some success in wrangling divine endorsement for its cause, I have one more job for it in the same line.
It so happens that Friday is casual day in most companies, which means that young women like to wear jeans, T-shirts and other non-Salwar Kameez pieces of apparel they look most fetching in.
It also so happens that Friday is the day devoted to the worship of Goddess Lakshmi. On this day, traditional women perform the Pooja and wear the saree as a symbol of their piety.
It is obvious that this tension between tradition and modernity – rather the clash between new tradition and old tradition – is an inefficient outcome for all concerned. It causes clashes at home between young women and their parents and deprives some women of the opportunity to wear either sarees or western wear. Most importantly it represents an enormous lost opportunity for an advance in the battle against the salwar kameez, for if Lakshmi’s day and casual day were on different days of the week, the number of salwar kameez days would be down to three.
Now, one might claim that new tradition must give way to old tradition, because by definition the older one was there first, but in this case, I believe that Lakshmi should yield and occupy another day, preferably Monday. After all, it makes much more sense to propitate Her at the start of the week before we start chasing Her.
Therefore, I request TASK to kindly do the needful
How is punishment of the guilty ‘prevention’? The owner of some small XYZ theatre may take a risk with safety standards, assuming that due to the low probability of a fire hazard, the chances that a mishap ever happens with his theatre are minimal (even though they are much greater than the chances that a fire may be set off at some other theatre that willingly follows saftey norms). If a mishap now happens, what exactly have we prevented? [second paragraph redacted as it is already answered.]
Please ignore this advice. Careful use of language involves making careful distinctions while using words. That requires a presumption in favour of adding more words to the language.
Yes, the verb form of terror is terrify. The verb form of terrorist is terrorise. The two actions are different and so we need two different words for them. The first is what a victim feels while the second refers to what the perpetrators do. The population of a city is not just terrified by terrorist strikes. Terrorist strikes make the population fearful, increase uncertainty, make people suspicious of one another, cause increased security measures, among other things. We do need a verb form to convey those actions.
Similarly, operationalise may be an ugly word, but it is certainly needed. We need a verb to refer to the act of transforming a strategic decision into operational rules to be followed by the rank and file.
A history of (Western) Hand Washing. (via)
Wired magazine informs me that on this day in 1660, the Royal Society was founded. Coincidentally, just yesterday, I finished reading Quicksilver
I have made a couple of overdue upgrades to the site:
When I announced my Tirupati and Pondicherry itinerary on Wikitravel, I received this enticing piece of advice:
The best Malai Kofta ever
Since you’re heading there… is in Pondicherry, on a side street roughly across the street from Sri Aurobindo’s Paper Factory off of SV Patel Salai. I can’t remember the name of the restaurant, but I think maybe it had “green” in the name, or the building was green. Anyhoo… I dream about it still.
The person who left me this message was Cacahuate, an American who had spent two years traipsing all over the world (of which more than a year was in India) and to whom I shall remain forever indebted for helping me plan my honeymoon at Havelock Island. So I made it part of my mission in Pondicherry to track down and try the Malai Kofta.
O Chief Heretic,
If I were to substitute “road safety” in place of “fire safety” in post of yores, would I be making a mistake ? If yes, then what is the mistake ? If no, does it mean that there is no requirement of road safety regulations[?].
Why, yes. The logic will apply there too. The owner of the road will be criminally liable for badly maintained roads and unclear signs. If an accident occurs, the victim can sue the owner and the court will impose strict liability on the owner.
One of the advantages of being a Cybercoolie is that you get to enjoy a lot of American holidays. The total number remains the same, but Americans tend to locate their holidays strategically to ensure long weekends… So I am off for the Thanksgiving weekend. See you on Monday. Till then, you may peruse the latest outpourings from the Fount of the Jagadguru’s wisdom – Krish on Love, Sex and Home Appliances through the conduit of Aadisht.
Yesterday night, I lay awake thinking about this post. I decided that I had to rush to clarify whether I was talking about civil or criminal liability becauase someone would jump up and down* and point out the difference. Too late! I see that Ritwik is already jumping up and down in the comments.
I am not a lawyer**, so I’ll probably make many mistakes in this post, but here is a quick note about terminology:
If you set fire to a person intending to kill him, it is murder. It is a criminal offence. The police will prosecute you, and you will hang or go to jail.
If you set fire to a shop and someone who is inside dies, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is still a criminal act. The police will still prosecute you, but you will get a smaller sentence than in the first case.
If you run a theatre and do something extremely stupid – like run an explosives factory in the premises, then you are negligient. This is also a criminal act. The police will prosecute you, and you will get a smaller sentence than in the first two cases. This is what the Ansals were found guilty of, and the court’s finding seems right to me. The real problem is that under the penal code, the maximum penalty is only two years, and I think that under Indian laws, sentences run concurrently – i.e. you can’t sentence them to 59*2 = 118 years of imprisonment. (Of course, the real real scandal is that it takes ten years for even this.)
All three that we have seen so far are criminal offences – i.e. the government prosecutes you, you are innocent till proven guilty, you have to be proven guilty with proof beyond all reasonable doubt, and you can be sent to jail.
There is another class of crimes called civil trials. In civil trials, aggrieved parties prosecute you, the standard of proof required is preponderence of evidence, (a lower standard) and generally you won’t be sent to jail, but you have to pay damages.
Strict Liability, as far as I know,*** makes sense only as a civil offence. Now, before you jump up and down again thinking that I am proposing to let off the Ansals with just a fine, no I am not. The Ansals are already guilty of criminal behaviour. Civil prosecution will apply to only those whose culpability is not as great as that of the Ansals. And punitive damages are a very good way to spread the pain, raise insurance costs and make sure that shareholders sit up and take notice.
Update: Oops – I realise that in my hurry, I missed the conclusion. Ritwik says that under Strict Liability, people will get prosecuted even for accidental fires. Of course, that is the point of Strict Liability – you are considered to have a fiduciary duty to ensure that there is no fire. The responsibility is on you. But at the same time, we shouldn’t prosecute them, but impose a civil liability.
* Just as the Jagadguru’s critics always jump up and down when making a point.
**Which means that I should really consult the Cartel’s legal counsel.
***Once again, I am not a lawyer, so I do not claim to know too much. It might make sense for Strict Liability to be imposed in criminal cases in some situations.
Bad Behavior has blocked 94 access attempts in the last 7 days.