What's up, EC?

Is the Election Commission (EC) getting biased? Consider the following points.

1. Remember all the controversy over veiling of elephant statues in UP? One could probably say the EC was getting over zealous in this regard. This was with respect to the BSP.

2. Salman Khurshid took on the EC, issued a regret remark (I don't think he even apologized) and he got off

3. Beni Prasad Verma did the same, the EC has issued a showcause notice. Even before this Verma said this was a slip of tongue.

4. Robert Vadra is making not-so-subtle if not blatantly in-your-face remarks which indicate he is itching to get into politics. His "coming out" occasion was a motorcycle rally he held in UP. An IAS officer stopped the rally as the number of motorcycles was above the permitted number (maybe we see over zealousness again). This officer was transferred out and his transfer was only stopped after a hue and cry was raised.

So do we see the EC going soft on the Congress? Is it not enough that we already have a government and party in power which seem intent on suppressing free speech in this country? Do they seriously need more ammunition? Apparently some remarks critical of the government, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are being quietly removed by service providers like Twitter. Verma has to reply by tomorrow to the EC's notice. For once I wish the EC would show some spine and actually take some action. As all leaders should be aware, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation of law. It is probably time to remember the days of Seshan who put the fear of God into our "representatives".

Further the President's son was caught with one crore in cash during the course of the recently concluded civic polls in Mumbai. His excuse - the money was to be distributed among poor candidates - seems as ridiculous and poor as the one given by a BJP minister in Karnataka when he was caught watching porn in the state assembly. He was issued a notice by the EC. What is the status of this case?

Moving on, there was a piece of news that got me thinking. The centre will file a review petition against the Supreme Court's recent order in the Vodafone tax case. This will apparently be heard by the same bench which delivered the verdict. Remember the Army Chief vs the govt showdown that happened recently? The Supreme Court had initially pulled up the govt over "vitiated procedure" as the Attorney General was involved at two different hearings of the General's plea. Now do different rules apply to the executive and judicial wings? Would the Vodafone verdict encourage more companies to opt for tax havens to conclude deals for assets based in India? I wonder...

Et tu, Sri Sri?

Apparently ndtv convergence has tied up exclusively with the Art of Living Foundation for rights to all mobile-based content. Initially the service will be available to Airtel users and then will later on be available on other operators also. Somehow I found it hard to think about the concept of business exclusivity in relation to spirituality, especially (or am I being naive?) in India where traditionally such knowledge has followed the Biblical saying, "ask and ye shall receive".

I believe the foundation is rich enough to put the content online and pay someone like ndtv to maintain it. The website can always carry ads or ask for donations.

Moving on, we know that sensationalism triumphs over the mundane any day, at least initially. Now as per news available in the public domain two chief ministers from the BJP, one incumbent and one former would make for some interesting if horrifying reading.

A former judge who investigated the Gujarat riots said there was audio proof of Haren Pandya, the deceased former home minister of the state talking about Modi asking the police to let the Hindu rioters vent their feelings. Pandya was shot dead some time after he was removed from his post, having had a falling out with Modi.

The former Karnataka CM, Yeddyurappa is considered to be "close" to Shobha Karandlaje another BJP member. His wife died under unnatural circumstances. One allegation is that he murdered his wife because of a relationship with Ms Karandlaje! Don't we have interesting politicians?

The nonsense that is Valentine's Day

Okay, now that I have your attention (I hope) I shall proceed. This headline reminds me of the ad (allegedly) created for Subway. A hoarding screams "SEX" and then talks about Subway.

There must be a lot of single people out there in the world today who are sad that they have to "spend Valentine's Day (VD), (pun unintended but delighted at it all the same) alone". Greeting card and chocolate companies and florists must be waiting with bated breath to see if this year's sales will cross last year's. So now what is all the hullabaloo about? I turned to our ever-helpful guide, Wikipedia.

Apparently the legend that St. Valentine was a priest who used to get couples married secretly is hogwash. There is no historical basis to this legend. There would be people, so deeply affected by medieval and modern-day marketing that they would ask me if there was historical basis for God. To them I can only say, as the Telugu saying goes, evadi verri vaadiki aanandam (and no, I do not know if this verri is related to kolaveri, I will hunt down and kill the next person who talks to me about that song). The closest English equivalent would be "to each, his own". The Wikipedia article says that 1.3 billion pounds are spent in England in a year. There was an article in today's ToI which talked about Britons being angry at England still providing aid targeting poverty in India. I think the amount that the British Government spends is much less than what the Britons themselves blow. 

So today the main beneficiaries of VD are greeting card companies, jewelry companies, florists and chocolate companies. Apparently till some time back emeralds and diamonds used to cost the same. Soon heavy marketing campaigns started driving up the prices of diamonds (does the phrase "diamonds are forever" ring a bell?), and this has persisted to this day. Today we see platinum being marketed similarly ("when is your platinum day of love?"). Also today everyone wants overt displays of well, love, whether it is PDA (public display of affection), greeting cards, jewelry or the likes. I would like to know the number of girls today who would willingly buy their boyfriends' argument that VD is hogwash and be content with the knowledge that they are loved rather than ask for (expensive) gifts to be bought for them.

When I was in BIT there was this practice of auctioning roses. The price of the last rose invariably used to be more than that of the previous ones. The club which was auctioning would be happy with the proceeds. The girlfriend of the guy who bought the rose would be "oh he loves me so much". The boyfriend would go, "see how much I care about my girlfriend". I would like to know how many of these couples are actually still together today.

So girls, please let your boyfriend/husbands be in peace. The famous ad-man David Ogilvy said, "The consumer isn't a moron; she is your wife. You insult her intelligence if you assume that a mere slogan and a few vapid adjectives will persuade her to buy anything.". Please try to prove him right. If you say you are persuaded after intense marketing campaigns only, I can only say to your BFs/husbands, guys, good luck!

Why I support Leno but not America - part 2

In my previous post I had expressed my support for Jay Leno. In this post I want to write about America and Iran today.This has been in the news quite some of late. Granted, the current administration in Iran is not the ideal one a democracy would want in another. However what must be kept in mind (and which the US is wont to ignore) is that Iran is a sovereign state with its own democratically (even if the elections were questionable) elected government. How the US has supported autocratic regimes in the middle east while claiming to support democracy elsewhere must have been discussed ad nauseam. Hence I will not venture into that territory in this post.

Let us consider a few points. There seem to be multiple reasons why the US seem to be so antagonistic to Iran. For one, I believe the government before Iran was turned into an Islamic Republic was favourably disposed towards the US. The current regime is Islamic and this is something the US has a problem with (unless the regime is pro-US as in the case of other middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia). Then Iran is a neighbour of Israel. The US has consistently been pro-Israel to my knowledge probably because of the large number of Jews in influential positions in the US. Thus when such a country as Iran aspires or shows aspirations to become a nuclear weapons state it must give sleepless nights to Israel and the US. Further Israel is sufficiently close to US strategic interests (read oil) in the middle east to affect them adversely in the event of a conflict. 

1. The US is an existing nuclear weapons state. Israel is rumoured to have nuclear weapons. It has always maintained an ambiguous position with respect to its nuclear capability. Iran, in all probability has no nuclear weapons currently. 
2. The US has in the recent past deposed regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not even taking into account conflicts like the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Iran does not seem to have done so. The last war Iran fought was with Iraq after being invaded by it.
3. The US has the world's largest military budget which is 4.7% of its GDP. Among all developed countries Israel  has the highest defence spending as a percentage of GDP at 6.3%. Iran's spending as a percentage of its GDP stood at 1.8% in 2008. Refer to this and this. 
4. Though Iran  is an Islamic country it is predominantly Shia. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are predominantly Sunni. The Sunnis have no love lost for the Shias and some Sunnis even cosider the Shias to be heretics (one only needs to remember the sectarian violence that keeps popping up in Pakistan). Thus Iran can be said to be surrounded by hostile Muslim countries also.

There is talk of the US invading Iran if it continues its nuclear program. A few nuclear scientists have been killed in what seem to be targeted assassinations in the past few years. The EU is joining hands with the US to put pressure on Iran to drop its weapons program. Among the articles I read was an interesting point. A very important reason, if not the most important reason why countries go the nuclear way is deterrence. The US is today very worried about stability in Pakistan and North Korea precisely because they possess nuclear weapons. This in a way deters the aggressor from invading. Thus the current pressure on Iran can in fact drive to hasten its program so that it reaches a stronger bargaining position. Israel seems to have an intention of undertaking pre-emptive strikes to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons. Even taking into consideration the instinct of self preservation this can only be described as arrogant disregard for another country's sovereign status (similar to its ally, the US).

Countries like India are being pressurised not to purchase energy from Iran. Due to this, India is also facing problems in paying Iran for the oil it imports. Thus I believe it is high time for countries like us to stand up to US and European pressure while persuading Iran to get to the negotiating table. It is unfair to ask Iran to give up its defence programs when it perceives most if not all of its neighbouring or nearby countries to be hostile.