On Mar 3, 2006, President George Bush of America made a speech on the grounds of Purana Qila in Delhi (built by Sher Sha Suri and used by Humayun) – a day after signing a historic accord for civilian nuclear cooperation with India. Here, I quote parts of the speech which I thought were very well worded (source: The White House)

"Over the past two days we’ve been grateful for your kind reception, touched by your warm hospitality, and dazzled by this vibrant and exciting land. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Indian people. I’m honored to bring the good wishes and the respect of the world’s oldest democracy to the world’s largest democracy. Tonight we stand on the ruins of an ancient city that was the capital of an Indian kingdom thousands of years ago. Today it is part of a modern Asian city that is the capital of one of the world’s great nations. At the heart of a civilization that helped give the world mathematics, cutting-edge businesses now give us the technology of tomorrow. In the birthplace of great religions, a billion souls of varied faiths now live side-by-side in freedom and peace. When you come to India in the 21st century, you’re inspired by the past, and you can see the future. India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the United States because we are brothers in the cause of human liberty. Yesterday, I visited a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi, and read the peaceful words of a fearless man. His words are familiar in my country because they helped move a generation of Americans to overcome the injustice of racial segregation. When Martin Luther King arrived in Delhi in 1959, he said, ‘To other countries, I may go as a tourist, but to India, I come as a pilgrim.’ I come to India as a friend." "The partnership between the United States and India has deep and sturdy roots in the values we share. Both our nations were founded on the conviction that all people are created equal and are endowed with certain fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Those freedoms are enshrined in law through our written constitutions, and they are upheld daily by institutions common to both our democracies — an elected legislature, an independent judiciary, a loyal political opposition, and, as I know well here in India, a lively free press. " "your economy has more than doubled in size since you opened up your markets in 1991. You’ve dramatically raised the living standards of your citizens. India’s middle class now numbers 300 million people, more than the entire population of the United States." "When your Prime Minister addressed the United States Congress, he said this: ‘We must fight terrorism wherever it exists, because terrorism anywhere threatens democracy everywhere.’ He is right. And so America and India are allies in the war against terror." "India has a Hindu majority, and one of the world’s largest Muslim populations. India is also home to millions of Sikhs and Christians and other religious groups. All worship freely in temples and mosques and churches all across this great land. Indians of diverse backgrounds attend school together and work together and govern your nation together. As a multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy, India is showing the world that the best way to ensure fairness and tolerance is to establish the rule of law. The best way to counter resentment is to allow peaceful expression. The best way to honor human dignity is to protect human rights. For every nation divided by race, religion or culture, India offers a hopeful path: If justice is the goal, then democracy is the way." "The world has benefitted from the example of India’s democracy, and now the world needs India’s leadership in freedom’s cause. As a global power, India has an historic duty to support democracy around the world." "In a few days, I’ll return to America, and I will never forget my time here in India. America is proud to call your democracy a friend. We’re optimistic about your future. The great Indian poet Tagore once wrote, ‘There’s only one history — the history of man.’ The United States and India go forward with faith in those words. There’s only one history of man — and it leads to freedom. May God bless India. "

Thought I’ll let the picture speak for today. A morning view of the Kanchenjunga range, captured on 27 Dec ’05 when Sanjog drove Archana and me to Ganesh Tok, Tashi View Point and the site of the school he is working on.

After hearing and reading great reviews about it, Archana and I decided to steal time to watch ‘Rang De Basanti’ yesterday. The movie is unlike any other movie I’ve seen so far – I’m sure it will be counted among the landmark movies. The performances, one-liners, characters, the artistic feel were all excellent. The lines were real and funny: "yaar mera haath dekh kar bata na..love line kaisi hai"…"teri love line hai hi nahin…lagta hai bachpan mein chooran ke saath chat ke khaa gaya" "Ik pair future mein te ik pair past mein rakh ke aaj par moot rahe" (With one leg in the past and the other in the future we are peeing on the present) Reminded me of the funny lines in the 1997 Jack Nicholson movie, "As Good as it Gets". But above all, its the message of the movie which has perhaps made the most impact in the minds of those who have watched it. Felt my eyes swell up with tears as Atul Kulkarni recited Ram Prasad Bismil’s lines:

Sar faroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai, Dekhna hai zor kitna baazoo-e-qaatil main hai! Rahrav-e-raah-e-mohabbat reh na jaana raah mein, Lazzat-e-sahraa nawardi doori-e-manzil mein hai. Yoon khada maqtal mein qaatil keh raha hai baar baar, Kya tamanna-e-shahaadat bhi kisi ke dil mein hai Waqt aane par bataa dengey tujhe ai aasmaan, Hum abhi se kya bataayein kya hamaarey dil mein hai. Ae shaheed-e-mulk-o-millat terey jazbon par nissar, Teri qurbaani ka charcha ghair ki mehfil mein hai. Kheench kar laai hai sabko qatla hone ki ummeed, Aashiqon ka aaj jamghat kooncha-e-qaatil mein hai. Ek se karta nahin koi doosra koi bhi baat, Dekhta hoon main jise woh chup teri mehfil mein hai. [We are now raring to die for our country’s sake Let’s see how much of strength the assassin can display! O traveller on the path of love, do not drop mid-way, It is the distance of the goal that glorifies the chase. Standing by the gallows the hangman makes a call, Come, if there be any, by the martyr’s zeal enthralled. We’ll tell you all, O sky, wait till the time arrives, How can we at this stage, our secret plans unveil? O martyrs in the nation’s cause, kudos to your sacrifice. Even in the enemy camp they talk of you with praise. Fired by patriotic fervour, many a maddened youth Has gathered at the crossing, itching for the cross. Why are they mute and silent? no whisper, no talk, Everyone that I see has got his lips locked.]

I loved the movie throughout – there wasn’t a moment of time to think while watching the movie…but the after effect left me with a strange feeling. While ‘Dil Chahta hai’ and ‘Swades’ wowed me and filled me with joy, the feeling after ‘Rang de Basanti’ was strange. Yet it was as great a movie, if not greater. I was reminded of the line in Rajkumar Santoshi’s ‘The Legend of Bhagat Singh’ when there was an attempt at mocking Gandhi for not doing enough to save Bhagat Singh, when Naseeruddin Shah (portrayed as Gandhi) says, "Par mein hinsa ka saath nahin de sakta" (I can’t support violence). I felt myself repeating the same words at the end of the movie. The movie certainly got me thinking. And as you think, it sinks deeper into you. At the end of it, I concluded that the message of Swades (Gandhi) and Rang De Basanti (Bhagat Singh) was one and the most important to take home: "You must be the change you want to see in the world" (as said by Mahatma Gandhi). Rang De Basanti, in reality, does not advocate the method, but rather the courage to take on the responsibility for bringing about change. Read these lines by Michael Angier in Top Ten Things to Think About If You Want to Change the World: "The following is inscribed on the tomb of an Anglican Bishop in Westminster Abby (1100 A.D.):

When I was young and free and my imagination had no limits, I dreamed of changing the world. As I grew older and wiser, I discovered the world would not change, so I shortened my sights somewhat and decided to change only my country. But it, too, seemed immovable. As I grew into my twilight years, in one last desperate attempt, I settled for changing only my family, those closest to me, but alas, they would have none of it. And now, as I lie on my deathbed, I suddenly realize: If I had only changed myself first, then by example I would have changed my family. From their inspiration and encouragement, I would then have been able to better my country, and who knows, I may have even changed the world."

I’ve written about the one spark needed to light your inner fire. Go watch ‘Rang de Basanti’. Who knows, it might just be the spark for you!

Sometime last month, came across the picture of the child Hanuman in the then, to-be released animated movie Hanuman. Both Archana and I thought that was the cutest depiction of Hanuman ever. Today, just thought we’ll see some clips from the movie. Saw the trailers Were mesmerized by the video clip featuring the energetic song Mahabali Maharudra sung by Shaan, Sonu Nigam, Palash Sen (Euphoria, Myari), Kailash Kher (Allah Ke Bande Hans de), Madhushree, Sneha Pant and Sapna Mukherjee (Trailer 3 at India FM). Not since I first heard Kabhi to Nazar Milao, Dil Se Re, Tadap Tadap Ke or Allah Ke Bande Hans De have I loved a song so much. Archana and I watched the clip almost 15-20 times back to back. It appeared like an India coming of age..the new mixing with old to create a lasting reverberation of harmony. If religion is to be taught to the new generation, this is the way….not by forcing it down people’s throats…like the reaction of a child coming out after watching the movie in the theatre, "No superman, batman for me…only Hanuman" Like saying, "I love you..I love you too…I love you three..I love you to the power infinity…I love you to the power Hanuman" The music overall is excellent, including the Hanuman chalisa, akdam bakdam, Jay Hanuman, Jay Bajrangbali… Okay..akdam bakdam..back to padhakam..exam in 1 weekam..

On 21 Oct, TimeOfIndia brought out an article Google’s googly: PoK is shown as part of Pakistan! by Samiran Chakrawertti [ Friday, October 21, 2005 12:06:59 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK ] showing how on Google Earth, the part of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan in 1947/48 has been shown as part of Pakistan (which legally, as per the instrument of accession and as per the Indian constitution) is a part of India. There were a large number of comments on this article – many expressed concern, many said others like BBC, CNN and all are doing this as well and many others said, "So what! Indians should realise the reality and stop crying hoarse about something that we lost more than 50 years ago". My concern is with this last group – and other Indians who might be thinking this way. The reality today is that most Indians want peace and see the only solution to the Kashmir imbroglio as accepting LoC to be the de-facto international border. The problem is that whenever India and Pakistan want to discuss Kashmir and the possible solutions to it, a number of solutions are cited. Pakistan wants to discuss the part of Kashmir which is under us while India wants LoC to be made into a border. Fine, we want LoC to be the border (and live happily ever after), but there are certain things important in negotiations and bargaining – you can’t begin with your last price. If we are ready to settle for LoC as the border (and for an Indian map with the left ear cut off), we must begin our negotiations higher. Instead of letting Pakistan set the agenda at all international fora, we must be the one setting the agenda. Pakistan discusses what it calls "Indian-occupied Kashmir" or "Indian-held Kashmir" or "held Kashmir" (never mind that hardly any development took place in the so-called Azad Kashmir – alas, no one will find that out now – oh! there was a lot of development…all got destroyed in the quake) while India discusses LoC and soft borders. If Indians want to see the LoC as the border, they must be passionate about discussing PoK (and the word "occupied" here is important). Discuss PoK, only then can we have LoC as the solution, otherwise we might stand to lose more! Note: I’m happy that we were always taught the complete map of India in Geography lessons (including PoK and Aksai Chin). We realise today what has been lost and stands to be lost. A few years of exposure to the Internet and international media (with PoK being shown under Pakistan and Aksai Chin under China or as a separate disputed land), and many Indians are saying, "so what…this is always the case in maps shown outside India"

>Sat Oct 8 2005 Major quake rocks North India, 23 killed >The earthquake has been measured at 7.6 in the Richter scale, epicentre is said to be >Muzzaffrabad in Pakistan and is described as "major". >[ 03:07 pm Sat, Oct 8, 2005, REUTERS ] Times of India seems to have accepted Muzzaffrabad (capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir or PoK) as part of Pakistan. A national newspaper should be careful in wording, especially in matters as sensitive as the territorial integrity of the country. Somewhere within the article, it writes: >The US Geological Survey (USGS) highlighted a large earthquake on its Website between >Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir with a magnitude of 7.6. When I’d read the news-piece first during the day, the article mentioned ‘Pakistani-Kashmir’ and ‘Indian-Kashmir’. While it is understandable for International media to use these terminologies, Indian newspapers must be careful in using the terminology in line with the Constitution of India. Pakistani online papers, such as Dawn, continue to use terms like Srinagar in Indian-held Kashmir or Indian-occupied Kashmir. P.S. It might be a newspiece from Reuters that TimesofIndia is using "as is". Not sure how this works, but in my view, sensitive bits can be put under quotes to show that "we don’t agree with this, but are reporting ‘as is’." In another TimesOfIndia piece, Quake not a surprise: experts IANS[ SATURDAY, OCTOBER 08, 2005 08:58:37 PM ] Referring to a scientist, Purnachandar Rao, from the Natiaonal Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), it said, ‘He said the exact magnitude of Saturday’s earthquake would be known after they gathered all the relevant details. "At this point of time we can say that the magnitude was in the range of 7 to 7.5 on Richter scale and its epicenter was near Muzaffarabad (in Pakistan)."’ Note: However, in other pieces, TimesOfIndia has used terms like "Muzzafarabad district in PoK" as well. Comments of other Indian nationals on this are solicited.

This is going to be my first proper post in this blog. Just came back from a class on Case Research (2:00pm – 4:00pm). The professor, Dr Pan Shan Ling is on a trip to IIT Kanpur. His Ph.D. student, Ravi Shankar M.N., took the class to describe his experiences in India (Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad) and Singapore while collecting data from InfoSys, Wipro and Satyam for case studies on their Knowledge Management initiatives (and perhaps also IT outsourcing). Incidently, right after the class, I saw a missed call on my cellphone. When I called back, the person said he was calling from Satyam (some coincidence there) and wanted to explore if I would be interested in a job opportunity (something to do with Taxonomy) with them. It was pretty simple – told him I’m doing my Ph.D. and so not available for employment. Well, this is not why I decided to write this post. I wrote this to discuss 5 types of people. Ravi, during his talk, said something to the effect of, "At the end of every interview (case research generally involves a large number of interviews), it’s a good idea to slot the informant in one of 5 categories – suspicious informant, patronizing informant, friendly informant, diplomatic informant and scheming informant". That will help you analyse the quality of data you’ve collected better. 1) Suspicious informant: Always worried! Why do you want to know? What do you want? How are you going to use it? 2) Patronizing informant: Ah, you don’t know. Let me tell you…speaks for 3 minutes non-stop. Has ready answer for every question (even before he’s listened to the question). You just give a trigger in the form of a question and he’s ready to start speaking, with the look in the eyes that (I know all..you don’t know anything) 3) Friendly informant: The ideal case, the name says it all 4) Diplomatic informant: Usually very smart; tells you everything in exactly official lines. Even after a 1 hour interview, he hasn’t told you anything that is not already known or public 5) Scheming informant: Has a hidden agenda e.g. carry a box of sweets to Singapore. So how well your interview goes depends on whether you answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to that request. So while Ravi was talking about purely an interview/conversation context, I thought perhaps all people could be classified under these broad categories (based on how they talk to most people or their general style of talking deduced over a number of conversations). Here’s my take on this (assumed that the ‘friendly talker’ is ideal): 1) The Suspicious or insecure talker: always wary about what he is saying. Sometimes tries to be more authoritative.
Reason: insecurity. Such a person is deeply insecure inside Questions: a) How to deal with an insecure person? b) How to help him change from suspicious to friendly? 2) The ‘Know-all’ talker: hardly ever gives the other person an opportunity to talk. Has a theory or explanation for everything. Brushes off your arguments habitually.
Reason: inferiority complex. Such a person needs to keep telling himself that he knows. Questions: a) How to deal with a ‘know-all’ person? b) How to help him change from ‘know-all’ to friendly? 3) The friendly talker: Generally straight-forward and honest. In peace with himself and the world. Knows his own strengths and weaknesses well. Gives the other person his due. Generally a happy person.
Reason: introspection, intelligence, secure inside 4) The diplomatic talker: Your typical marketing guy image (though stereotyping can be dangerous). Knows how to say the ‘right’ things. Knows what is the stand to be taken, what is considered ‘cool’ or ‘should be the case’. You never know what is actually in this person’s mind.
Reason: intelligence+greed/ambition Questions: a) How to deal with a diplomatic person? b) How to help him change from diplomatic to friendly? 5) The scheming talker: Such a person might say just the opposite things than what he actually means. Might be overly nice and polite to you and typically has a hidden agenda.
Reason: evil temperament, or conflict of good and evil (don’t know if this is totally black and white) Questions: a) How to deal with a scheming person? b) How to help him change from scheming to friendly? Of course, people you encounter and talk to might lie in between these categories or have traits of more than one. Also, the degree/level of fit within a particular category may vary. Or there could be more categories outside this list. Of course, on a deeper, spiritual level, and as what Vedanta says, everything is one. So differences or classifications are only apparent then! What do you think?