are you kidding me Team Anna ?

today early in the morning we had a massive power cut across the northern India which affected various states, many trains and even flights.

It was a grid failure because of overconsumption by some states (as stated by the Power Minister) and this has happened after 10 years. Also the power was mostly restored in about 10-12 hours. And as a technical man myself i can understand that such things can happen and i appreciate the appropriate steps taken in a timely manner by the Power Minister and the concerned authorities.

However this post is about the mockery the Team Anna has made of themselves by calling this is a "Government Conspiracy"  to stop people from coming to their agitation. Are you kidding me ? I understand that Team Anna is doing a noble thing and we very much appreciate and support their efforts but Not Everything is about them. The Government actually has a Country to run as well and they are definitely not going to Cut off power to multiple states, delay innumerable trains and flights just so a thousand or so people can't go for a protest. Such kind of acts literally "ridicules" the whole movement.

All said and done we support you Team Anna and the movement but why mock yourselves and reduce your credibility by such cheap media theatrics ?

are you kidding me ?

this post refers to the media coverage of the current movement again corruption by Mr. Anna Hazare & his team. I personally am a supporter of such a movement which has raised some very serious concerns & moreover made us the citizens of this country much more aware.

However this post refers to the media coverage of the current movement (from 25th july) where three of the Team Anna members have sat on fast to mark their protest. The insensitivity & irrationality of our media reflects at the fact that our media (especially the TV News Channels) are MUCH MUCH MORE concerned about the number of people at the movement rather than the cause for which this movement is going on. Instead of creating more awareness amongst the citizens (which is by definition the job of the media) about this cause taken up by the social activists they are instead totally undermining their efforts by just looking at the mere number of people physically present at the location.

In the past I've seen some pretty good debates/discussions on these topics on the very same TV News Channels but the current coverage just baffles me !

Isn't explaining that why the hell is this movement is going on ? much more important that number of people at the location ? 

Is this Politics ? Should this be the way we should vote ?

I for one generally don't go around bashing our politicians and our politics but this time i can't stop myself. This refers to the current happenings about the Presidential Nominees and before i start let me clarify that i don't hold any personal grudge against anyone or any party for that matter and this is just my own personal opinion.

Let's get to the heart of the matter, we have the presidential elections coming up in the month of July and this is not a public election but a one where our MLAs and MPs vote. And what generally has been the case over the years is that the ruling party/coalition and the opposition both nominate their candidates and an election taken place, the result of which is always anticipated (rather known) well in advance. This time around there have news going around that the Congress and most of the UPA is going to nominate Mr. Pranab Mukherjee as their nominee but they hadn't made any official announcements. However there have been talks going around amongst the politicians to garner support.

Now comes a meeting between Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Ms. Mamata Banerjee and after this meeting Mamata Banejee comes out and declares to the media that Congress's first choice is Mr. Pranab Mukherjee and 2nd choice the current Vice President Mr. Hamid Ansari even before the Congress or the UPA has said anything about it. What happened next is Mamata Banerjee told the media that she will discuss it within their own party and with Mr Mulayam Singh (SP) and then decide. And next comes an joint announcement by them (TMC & SP) that they don't want to support any of the 2 choices of Congress and they went to propose 3 names (our Ex-President Dr. Abdul Kalam, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh & Ex-Loksabha Speaker Mr. Somnath Chatterjee) of their own. Of which it seemed as though they haven't even taken the consensus from anybody. I can be sure that at least they didn't talk to Prime Minister before proposing his name.

And then what came next is the official announcement by the UPA and within hours of which we saw Mr. Mulayam Singh talking to the media and pledging his and his party's support for Mr. Pranab Mukherjee. He took a complete U-turn completely embarrassing Ms. Mamata Banerjee.

But what happened in the midst ? What caused the U-turn ? Some reports say there was a meeting between Mr. Mulayam Singh and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, but who knows.

Anyhow all this showed how Mr.  Mulayam Singh made a complete mockery of the democratic system and the Presidential Election where he seemed to put his vote behind anybody for his own vested interests. Irrespective of any thinking on the lines of Merit.

Also maybe we can learn something here, why shouldn't we vote for the person by whom we can gain something of irrespective of going along party lines? Vote for somebody who can give us not short-term but long term benefits. Maybe all our personal benefits or personal vested interest will add up and make it for the society's interest.

Why Not Collaborate ?

this post is regarding people at top executive positions who take decisions on a whim or without proper consultations with the key stakeholders or about those stakeholders who don't try to understand the changes suggested and blatantly oppose it. I'll take up one case of each type.

The first can be specifically concerned with the MHRD's (Ministry of Human Resource Development) decision to introduce a common engineering entrance exam from the very next year. This has been on the ministry's agenda from quite a while and the first model was proposed quite a while back which faced huge criticism from all around be it IIT faculty, alumni or students. The issue regarding consideration of the board exam marks, their scaling or normalization (as there are in-numerous boards in the country) being the center of criticism. Also the stakeholders never quite felt being adequately consulted. This criticism and some new round of discussions brought in a new model which had two different levels of exams for IITs but still not much clear about the board exam issue. And yet again it is seeing huge criticism from not only IITs but NITs & IIITs as well. Where faculty are opposing (some news even went around about IITK professors not going to their Convocation to mark a sign of protest), some alumni are talking about going to Court, etc.

So my question is why can't we have proper round of discussions between all the stakeholders, try to take everyone's point of view into considerations, try to tackle all mutually agreeable problems in mutually agreeable ways and then go on to bring in this new system of so much importance (with a minimum of 1.5 million students expected to go through it every year). Why are we in such hurry to bring it in this year ? Can't we just go through the system that we follow every year once again in 2013 and in the meanwhile consult with all the stakeholders to bring it in mutually and in a proper shape ?

I understand that reaching agreements with such huge stakeholders base can be extremely difficult but the best of attempt should be made to cater to all reservations and suggestions.

The 2nd case can of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, this was taken as an executive decision by the government but had to be taken back within 10 days because of heavy opposition. But their seemed to be clear lack of discussion as to why it was introduced and what were its merits in the current economic times (where we have a Eurozone crisis slowing the whole world economy down and even the foreign investment in India seems to be going down). This particular agenda now seems to be in a limbo where their is no clearly defined way forward whether the opposition parties who were opposing are being made to understand its importance or the government realizing their reservations ?

There has also been talks about a "Policy Paralysis" around these days, where the government has not been able to push necessary reforms and take crucial decisions because of heavy opposition by opposition parties and coalition partners. But it is important to understand that those very opposing parties that are claiming that this government is in a state of policy paralysis are themselves the one who are causing it .

Again my question is simple why not collaborate, discuss various pros and cons, take everybody's suggestions and bring out the Best as everyone is supposed to have only 1 final motive i.e. betterment of the system. So with the same final goal let's work, collaborate and rise together rather than fighting like cats and dogs.

"BREAKING NEWS" : Is It ?

Before i write this post let me clarify that I'm a big supporter and fan of Media and i think it has played a huge role in creating awareness about a whole lot of issues among us - the common people of our country.

Now getting to the agenda, this post related to the in-numerous 24*7 News Channels that we have today, i want to comment on the seriousness, merit & impact of the news shown on them.

The word "BREAKING NEWS" when it was started to be shown by the news channels maybe 7-8 years back only used to refer to those news which were really breaking i.e. something that was really important, had some urgency to it etc. I will agree that it is a matter of perception for an individual for what he might call a breaking news and what he might not but nowadays for our news channels every news is a breaking news and they have lost the true meaning of breaking news. So how does one differentiate one news which might be of national importance with one which says which film actor links up with which actress as both are 'Breaking News'.

Isn't journalism (which tv news channels are a part of) about using wisdom, looking at facts, proofs, history and then reporting it in a simplified & truthful way so that the common people understand it and get aware ? Why can we call the normal stuff simply "News" and the really important ones as "Breaking News".

This trivial issue apart, let's come down to the content of it ? How often have you seen some comedy show from some other channel playing in news channels ? How often do we see innumerable reruns of stupid linkup stories of actors and actresses ? How often we see people completely misquoted in which, the person in the video might be saying something in some perspective and the title of it or the underlined statement as breaking news saying something else altogether in a fully different context ? How many times have we seen too trivial or miniature issues projected as national calamities, essentially as in the Hindi phrase "राई का पहाड " ?

So the question is are those news channels really want to make this mockery of journalism or are they doing all this just to get the maximum TRP(s) in-essence making the maximum money out of it after all its a business and not a charity or a non-profit organization ?

But in a country like ours where people almost blindly believe those news channels, shouldn't they be more concerned and responsible ?

Even after all these criticisms, there is a lot of good work that our media has done. There are a lot of shows which talks about various happenings in the country, various good interview shows where the people at top are held responsible and asked about their doings, and many other things which creates huge amount of awareness amongst us.

To conclude, all i want to say is our news channels should "Keep up the good work" but do it in a more sensible and journalistic way rather than a commercial or a "breaking news" kind of way.

Why do we have to be Party people ?

this post refers to those of us (common people not the people working for the party) who call themselves party people, for e.g. some people say they are Congress people and they always vote for congress, some say they are BJP people and they always vote for BJP etc.

But my question is why ? Can't we be the "best candidate people" who votes for a candidate only if we think he/she is the best person for the job ?

I agree that one might have an inclination towards the political ideologies of any particular party but not all candidates of that party can be good and not all candidates of the other parties can be bad. If we seek an average citizen of our country, he votes for the people contesting for the posts of parshad, mayor (in some cities), MLA, MP etc. and that citizen might like a candidate of one party for one post and another candidate of another party for another post yet if he chooses all from a same party just because he likes that party might not be the best way forward for our democracy.

However i see this problem (i perceive it to be one) majorly happening with the not so educated yet quite affluent & not at all educated and severely deprived citizens of our country. Their is a large chunk of our population who are too ignorant for all this and the truth is we cannot blame them, we cannot expect someone who's deprived of basic necessities like food, home and lives in "zhopad patties" to be really considerate of all this. It is very simple for them, who gives them food or money or anything that helps them there and then gets their vote. They don't have the means to think of long-term for they have to fill their stomachs short-term.

But on the bright side, i think things are headed in the right direction, i think we the people of India are getting quite aware about our rights and the kind of people we should elect. We are starting to look at candidates on their merit and not on party lines.

Is Criticism the only option ?

This post comes after seeing all out politicians praising themselves and their own parties about how great work they have done and criticize all the others about they haven't done anything or they are just corrupt etc.

What i want to say here is, why can't the opposition political parties access the situation properly and then decide whether the party with the government has done the right thing or not ? or whether they have done something adequately or not ? etc. Why can't they do an honest assessment and then go on to take actions whether it is praising or opposing the government. Why is it so that they always have to criticize the government ? The same goes for the ruling party, why they have to always criticize the opposition parties views on things, they should also assess it properly and then go on to accept it or reject it.

Today we saw one of the biggest rise in Petrol prices (Rs. 7.5 per litre) in the history of India and all hell went loose, every other party other than the ruling one came out and opposed this move like anything. But do they realize that this was inevitable and out of government's hands. If they think that this should have been avoided why don't they give/propose an alternative to the government ?

Also quite a while back government have successfully taken out the subsidy out of the petrol prices and now it is the oil companies that decide the prices not the government. However considering its importance and significance government must be having a huge say in this but the current economic conditions are such. We also understand that this big a rise will have a huge impact and our people will suffer a lot because of it but with the current economical conditions, the fall of rupee against dollar by such a huge margin , the ever rising prices of crude oils this was inevitable.

With the problems such as the rising fiscal deficit, decline in growth rate and the problem of rupee vs dollar at hand this was unavoidable, and those who criticize it (I'm talking here about the Leaders and other intellectuals who are criticizing this not the common people who certainly are suffering a lot because of this) should propose a alternate first keeping in check all those other aims and then go on talking about it.

Just saying time and again  that the government had failed is not justified, if at all you claim that then prove it by justifying what the government did wrong and what should have been done or what shouldn't have been done for the betterment of the country.