Wrong
You need imagination:
You should have the talent to multitask...and feel indispensable:
...and you should believe that things come round full circle:
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
13.7.14
4.6.14
The hate that prompts a Nikhil to turn into a Nihal - Beyond The Pune Murder
A young man is killed by a group of people. They ought to be arrested and questioned for the motive of the crime by the police. The courts would then pronounce a sentence, one hopes keeping justice in mind for there are signs that the man was brutally attacked.
This short paragraph will not make the cut, not as a news story, not for readers, not for TV viewers. So, let us fill in the details.
The man was a 28-year-old IT professional from Solapur, working in Pune. He had gone for his evening prayers and was returning home on Monday night. A group of men armed with hockey sticks started beating him up and continued to do so till he bled and the wounds were visible, and until he died.
Is this para enough? What is the motive?
The man's name is Mohsin Shaikh. The cops have arrested members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena. A senior police official said:
“On Monday evening, there were rumours circulated through the social media that stones were pelted at a Shivaji statue. This led a group of youths from the Hindu Rashtra Sena to take to the streets. They targeted Muslim settlements. Motorcycles that were found at the place where Mohsin was beaten up led to the suspects."
Prior to that, somebody had posted morphed photographs of Shivaji and Bal Thackeray on Facebook. That had led the HRS to vandalise 200 vehicles and create mayhem in Osmanabad District, where it was believed the post originated from.
Why was Mohsin Shaikh, who was in Pune, targeted? Reports say that a 'Nihal Khan' posted those pictures. It turns out that it was a Nikhil Tikone who did so. This is not new. Recall how the Sri Ram Sene members had hoisted a Pakistani flag on the secretariat building in Bangalore to create tension between the two communities.
In such a situation, one group sees the other as an opponent and it does not matter who actually is behind the mischief. Tikone chose to post as Nihal Khan, but why did he do so? Was he alone or was it a group backing him?
And what happens to the man who lost his life for nothing? His friend Riyaz who was with him at the time of the attack said:
"I was saved because I don't have a beard, and wasn't wearing a skullcap. Mohsin was targetted because he looked like a Muslim.”
This will be explained away as a hate crime. The problem is the other layers get ignored. He was educated, had a job and a decent salary. He was also taking up social space with confidence, and not afraid to show an identity he was comfortable with. The hate here is for all of these factors, besides his religion. The resentment is against a person from a minority community who is not browbeaten by people who are seemingly uneducated, unemployed, and easily brainwashed.
[Those who talk about madrassa brainwashing need to look into their own backyard sometimes, if for nothing else then to at least save themselves from being destructive.]
The Nikhils have a vague idea about another faith, but they feel threatened by the fictitious Nihals who manage to lead a life of dignity without compromising on their choice of food, clothes, and faith.
There is a reason, idealistic as it may seem, that I started out by not mentioning any details, especially about religion. Will such hate crime reduce when people realise they are not getting any mileage for puffing their chests to prove they are in a majority or a position of power?
These are fringe outfits, yet they get mainstream space. Ironically, they object to posts but use the social media to promote a rift. That is their target audience, and it is no more about affording a computer, a smartphone and a wireless connection. These are cheap and accessible today. Anonymity can also make people whoever they want to be.
Mohsin lost his life because hate has takers. Already, the fence-sitters are specifying that it is a Congress-ruled state. Does it matter? Uttar Pradesh is a Samajwadi Party-ruled state, Kolkata a Trinamool Congress state.
The point is that the culprits have been burning public property for a few days and are not afraid to flash their motive. It is such pugnacity that not only kills innocents, but might also get away with it. One, two, twelve culprits may get sentenced for a murder that is real. Hate is an abstraction that uses other means, other reasons to hit back. Who will try it?
© Farzana Versey
7.6.11
French kissing Facebook & Twitter?
Forget it. France has banned the use of these two words because they amount to “clandestine advertising”. If you say you are a “tweeter”, then France's Superior Audiovisual Council will ask you to shut up. You also cannot mention “Facebook events”. Apparently, there have been earlier attempts to regulate words like “Coke” and even “e-mail”.
It seems okay, but does France not have a McDonald’s? Don’t they drink Coke?
Most internet activity that has germinated in the United States has made inroads in other countries with their own language versions that cater to the nation. But these are in the area of search engines, maps, locators, and special-interest activities.
Is France becoming a closed society? How does not using a specific word and continuing to use the social network make sense? This is not chauvinism but hypocrisy. If anything, the French do not have to worry about Americanisms because the major elite industries like fashion and art-house cinema are still their preserve, not to speak about gourmet cuisine.
I respect each society’s need to preserve its culture, but this is not culture. This is just expanding the universe and connecting.
Now if only Americans bid adieu to referring to their deep-soul snogging as a French kiss and completely did away with any thoughts of a ménage a trios we’d have a cause celebre.
Oh, la la, that would be a piece de resistance. Non?
PS: To think that the only reason I wrote my first letter to the editor while in school was because I wanted to use the word ‘Apropos’. I won the best letter prize. Touché.
French TV and radio employees must use a generic phrase like “social network” or “reseaux sociaux,” rather than Facebook or Twitter. Exceptions involve citing sources of information, as one might use the newspapers Le Monde or Le Figaro to cite the origin of a news story.
It seems okay, but does France not have a McDonald’s? Don’t they drink Coke?
“This decision is not only stupid and hypocritical, it is also scary because behind the legal alibi, it reeks of anti-Americanism, chauvinism, and a complete misunderstanding of today's world,” says Karim Emile Bitar, a frequent commentator on French affairs at a Paris think tank.
Most internet activity that has germinated in the United States has made inroads in other countries with their own language versions that cater to the nation. But these are in the area of search engines, maps, locators, and special-interest activities.
Is France becoming a closed society? How does not using a specific word and continuing to use the social network make sense? This is not chauvinism but hypocrisy. If anything, the French do not have to worry about Americanisms because the major elite industries like fashion and art-house cinema are still their preserve, not to speak about gourmet cuisine.
I respect each society’s need to preserve its culture, but this is not culture. This is just expanding the universe and connecting.
Now if only Americans bid adieu to referring to their deep-soul snogging as a French kiss and completely did away with any thoughts of a ménage a trios we’d have a cause celebre.
Oh, la la, that would be a piece de resistance. Non?
PS: To think that the only reason I wrote my first letter to the editor while in school was because I wanted to use the word ‘Apropos’. I won the best letter prize. Touché.
24.11.10
The Media as Middle Man
India's "Paid News" Scandal
The Media as Middle Man
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 24
The sudden interest in the involvement of some Indian media persons in what appears to be lobbying has posed the question about ethics, but it has a lot more to do with the cult of icons. Readers and viewers tend to blindly believe in taglines about ‘truth’ prevailing and ‘we were the first to go there’ with high-profile columnists and anchors; the audience now feels let down and covertly awkward for having propped up these news-bearers.
There is also anger that the exposure was not covered by news channels and only by some print publications. The media is a tightly-knit incestuous lot in India. They know that if they allow one head to fall, theirs will be next on the chopping block.
The story appeared relatively simple. A lobbyist, Nira Radia, working for industrialist Mukesh Ambani called up journalists and discussed ministerial portfolios. The media people offered to set up meetings with ministers and even revealed what stories could be run. There was loads of money - $40 billion - involved in the 2G-spectrum deals that would benefit the corporate lobby. The question is: did it benefit the journalists and how? The newspapers/channels get ads, the political party gets election funds and the media can carry convenient stories along the election trail with staged ‘objective’ moments. The media is the new fiefdom of the politician and political power – from the front door or the back entrance – is the journalist’s reward.
There have been conjectures that these conversations were to make the lobbyist give away information, a snoopy journalistic tactic. But has it been taken to its logical conclusion? Has there been an expose of a nature that could compromise the government which is culpable in this case? No. The man A. Raja who was a cheat got the same portfolio to cheat again. Are the journalists to blame? The motives and ‘real’ reasons are a non-sequiter when facts stare us in the face.
No one can call acting as conduits between politicians and corporate lobbies as part of journalism, but in the past the arrangement was tacit. Press conferences by business houses that handed out goodies were major draws. Does anyone even know about news reports that are paid for and often written by the PR departments of business houses? Does anyone care that such PR people carry press passes and are members of the press clubs? When captains of industry write guest columns for publications, this is advertising passing off as editorial content.
Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. While opinions are by nature subjective, reportage ought to be objective. What is reported and how clearly conveys which side the person is on or has been asked to be on. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?
To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? Great media stalwarts like Arun Shourie have played a role in bringing down politicians and governments. Why did they become heroes and why are today’s newsmakers considered unethical? The reason is that they appear to be co-opted, whereas a Shourie fought against the establishment. It is another matter that the fight could have been dictated by the opposition. This is the crux of the argument.
Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.
Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.
The recent revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”
Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.
Prominent anchors and columnists are deified only because their visibility, especially during crises and calamities, immediately imbues them with a halo of legitimacy. This gets further sanctity when a scam uses the name of one individual. This does not, in fact, work as a “lynch mob” but serves to buffer the cult. We live in times of short attention spans and shorter memories. Today’s flawed Twitter hero is tomorrow’s Facebook martyr, for the truth may lie not in what was said in the tapes but what was left unsaid.
- - -
Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times
The Media as Middle Man
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 24
The sudden interest in the involvement of some Indian media persons in what appears to be lobbying has posed the question about ethics, but it has a lot more to do with the cult of icons. Readers and viewers tend to blindly believe in taglines about ‘truth’ prevailing and ‘we were the first to go there’ with high-profile columnists and anchors; the audience now feels let down and covertly awkward for having propped up these news-bearers.
There is also anger that the exposure was not covered by news channels and only by some print publications. The media is a tightly-knit incestuous lot in India. They know that if they allow one head to fall, theirs will be next on the chopping block.
The story appeared relatively simple. A lobbyist, Nira Radia, working for industrialist Mukesh Ambani called up journalists and discussed ministerial portfolios. The media people offered to set up meetings with ministers and even revealed what stories could be run. There was loads of money - $40 billion - involved in the 2G-spectrum deals that would benefit the corporate lobby. The question is: did it benefit the journalists and how? The newspapers/channels get ads, the political party gets election funds and the media can carry convenient stories along the election trail with staged ‘objective’ moments. The media is the new fiefdom of the politician and political power – from the front door or the back entrance – is the journalist’s reward.
There have been conjectures that these conversations were to make the lobbyist give away information, a snoopy journalistic tactic. But has it been taken to its logical conclusion? Has there been an expose of a nature that could compromise the government which is culpable in this case? No. The man A. Raja who was a cheat got the same portfolio to cheat again. Are the journalists to blame? The motives and ‘real’ reasons are a non-sequiter when facts stare us in the face.
No one can call acting as conduits between politicians and corporate lobbies as part of journalism, but in the past the arrangement was tacit. Press conferences by business houses that handed out goodies were major draws. Does anyone even know about news reports that are paid for and often written by the PR departments of business houses? Does anyone care that such PR people carry press passes and are members of the press clubs? When captains of industry write guest columns for publications, this is advertising passing off as editorial content.
Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. While opinions are by nature subjective, reportage ought to be objective. What is reported and how clearly conveys which side the person is on or has been asked to be on. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?
To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? Great media stalwarts like Arun Shourie have played a role in bringing down politicians and governments. Why did they become heroes and why are today’s newsmakers considered unethical? The reason is that they appear to be co-opted, whereas a Shourie fought against the establishment. It is another matter that the fight could have been dictated by the opposition. This is the crux of the argument.
Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.
Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.
The recent revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”
Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.
Prominent anchors and columnists are deified only because their visibility, especially during crises and calamities, immediately imbues them with a halo of legitimacy. This gets further sanctity when a scam uses the name of one individual. This does not, in fact, work as a “lynch mob” but serves to buffer the cult. We live in times of short attention spans and shorter memories. Today’s flawed Twitter hero is tomorrow’s Facebook martyr, for the truth may lie not in what was said in the tapes but what was left unsaid.
- - -
Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times
17.8.10
The Impersonators
I am not on Facebook, but I was there. An impersonator did it. I had no idea until I got a casual call from an acquaintance regarding something else and he asked, “Why don’t you reply to any messages on FB?”
“But I don’t have an account.”
“Rubbish. It is there. Go look it up.”
I did. Sure enough I was there. The profile was hidden but the links linking to ‘me’, who was not me, were all about my sites. I complained. Facebook acted promptly and removed the profile.
It is an interesting phenomenon. Why would a person want to impersonate another? Either there is a vicious motive or the person wants to be in your shoes. I have experienced both in the past when I was impersonated, before networking sites came into the picture. The level of malice is amazing. People who know jackshit about you try to malign you, create discord and, since one’s writings are public, it is easy to pick them up and appear authentic.
The Facebook impersonator would not have been terribly lucky for I often announce that I am not on any social networking sites, so those who know me or of me are aware. The acquaintance who alerted me is not a regular himself nor was he aware of my ‘unavailability’ in the cyber social world.
One can only imagine how visible celebrities become easy targets. It is inexcusable, but it happens quite regularly and can have a damaging effect. I guess that is the reason many have signed up to avoid any confusion.
Just yesterday, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen recounted his experience. “I do not have any Facebook site of my own, and do not intend to open one…the site referred to there, where someone pretending to be me answered questions, had nothing whatsoever to do with me.” Someone was, in fact, responding to queries from readers that contradicted his views. He is understandably upset: “The managers of the Facebook system are not helpful in monitoring the veracity of the sites and communications. I got no help from them...”
I am surprised at this as well as the audacity of the person running the account. It does not seem to be a harmless fan for he was providing skewed ideas. This ought to have alerted the Professor’s fans; they don’t seem to be a smart bunch! The only good thing is that it is in the open. For a less visible person, as in my case, one does not know what happens behind the scenes.
I can only conjecture about the dynamics here. There is some admiration mixed with envy and quite a bit of low self-esteem. The person will publicly praise you, and then there will be private communication that veers from desperate accusations to even more desperate regret. It astounds me to read bits of my life being replicated by a couple of these people. I know about coincidence and serendipity, but please don’t tell me that almost everything I do has been done by another person, when I know the person.
The impersonator personality can, on rare occasion, be truly someone appreciative and wants you to notice her/him. It is a weird way to do so. Then there are ‘plants’ that have been set up to kick up a storm. It is quite pathetic, for they forget that the steaming hot tea cup will scald their own lips.
I have concluded that, given the experiences I have had, being me is not such a bad idea after all.
8.4.10
Heir to Trash
For those who think they are too poor to leave anything behind, just bequeath your Spam. The Digital World is now rife with riches, in terms of email accounts, uploaded photographs, videos, social networking portfolios.If you thought you lived in a cramped rented studio apartment and have the audacity to declare that you are homeless, you are in fact occupying space. Ah, did you know that 'My Space' was moveable property? Get it? You, who played the poverty card, the hobo, the one who had to depend on social security and wait for bonuses, are rich. So wipe that woe-begone look off your face and straighten your shoulders. You are priceless.
The legal fraternity has been busy formulating Wills that leave the heirs with all cyber wealth. Apparently, people believe that after they are gone their children, grandchildren or complete strangers ought to be given all their communication. Passwords won’t be mentioned in the Last Will and Testament because it is an open document. It will be drawn separately and the inheritor may have sole rights to it.
I understand that everyone believes they have precious stuff beyond their cupboards, safes, mutual funds, and property. This is certainly a move to make the Will a great leveler and bridge the gap, at least socially. I mean, someone can leave behind a virtual solitaire. It sounds neat. But what would an heir do with ‘friends’ gathered on Facebook? And how would s/he deal with updated tweets and discover that the parent or family member or friend was really cuckoo?
Think of all those recipients wondering about the nature of correspondence revealed. It is one thing when people do so while they are alive, but after death?
I don’t think it is a particularly good idea, unless one has saved every memory digitally. I am sure if you have pictures with someone at the Eiffel Tower, that someone would have a copy. Heck, your online ‘contacts’ and ‘followers’ might have access to them if you ‘share’. With so much sharing already going on, the heir could well misuse it. How many of the friends do you know personally? So, the person bequeathed with the information could well play the same character, that is you, and no one would know.
I think what we save is of value to us alone and what we delete is not. Imagine being the legatee of an email account and just after the last tear drop has dried on the cheek you go and sign in and the first words that greet you are: “Your email account has won $ 2 million”? Would you want to LOL or ROTFL?
The latter has often made me wonder about the hyperbolic nature of the internet. Does anyone really Roll On The Floor Laughing? Then how do they manage to type?
5.2.10
Am I not sexy enough for you?
I thought these long sessions, foreplay with words, the urgency to do something, shed inhibitions and garbs, the languorous moments with the seen and the unseen, as sentences were caressed and teased worked.
Not anymore. Blogging is passé. Emails are...oh, no...
A new study has found that brief is in. People want quickies.
What is more exciting about tweets? Or leaving messages on walls at Facebook or other social networking sites? Is communication about just leaving behind a toe-print and not a trail? Yet, it is these sites that have ‘followers’. What are they following?
I took a quick look and found that this is just a way to make an asinine comment and then scoot off. Substance is lacking. I can understand celebrities doing that; I can understand if it is used to direct people to something of import elsewhere that they themselves have contributed to. But this is just one more element of fan culture where anyone with an account can claim to have fans. It also ends up as a means to make visible that you have said something about someone, even if it is a one-liner, to seem important.
There could be a few who may be able to convey something, but even they know it is only an appetiser.
Another distressing aspect is that the study focused on the young. It assumes that sexiness is connected in some ways with youth, and that stops at 30. This is only encouraging an attitude that will push the idea and target youngsters who will become commercial puppets. Will they stop and listen? Will they want to explore ideas? Sharing only means files, vids, plans for da party and latest pix. (Incidentally, if all this is getting fast-paced and short, then why the need for larger electronic memories?)
Commercial enterprises are quick to catch on to trends and they will be thrown the bait of cosmetics, clothes, and culture as a quick fix. It will, I am afraid, also result in ‘moving on’ even in careers and relationships.
How does any of this become sexy?
Language as we know it and experiment with cannot become a harridan only because of some punks who don’t even use their fingers well, that is why they trip so often and miss the vowels to save space. It is like missing a moment and talking about the eternal. The eternal flush that skims over and never enters the pores to tickle the flesh of a thought that rises to meet a paragraph created for it.
Not anymore. Blogging is passé. Emails are...oh, no...
A new study has found that brief is in. People want quickies.
Danah Boyd, a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said, “Remember when ‘You’ve got mail!’ used to produce a moment of enthusiasm and not dread? (Now) people focus on using them for what they’re good for and turning to other channels for more exciting things.”
What is more exciting about tweets? Or leaving messages on walls at Facebook or other social networking sites? Is communication about just leaving behind a toe-print and not a trail? Yet, it is these sites that have ‘followers’. What are they following?
I took a quick look and found that this is just a way to make an asinine comment and then scoot off. Substance is lacking. I can understand celebrities doing that; I can understand if it is used to direct people to something of import elsewhere that they themselves have contributed to. But this is just one more element of fan culture where anyone with an account can claim to have fans. It also ends up as a means to make visible that you have said something about someone, even if it is a one-liner, to seem important.
There could be a few who may be able to convey something, but even they know it is only an appetiser.
Another distressing aspect is that the study focused on the young. It assumes that sexiness is connected in some ways with youth, and that stops at 30. This is only encouraging an attitude that will push the idea and target youngsters who will become commercial puppets. Will they stop and listen? Will they want to explore ideas? Sharing only means files, vids, plans for da party and latest pix. (Incidentally, if all this is getting fast-paced and short, then why the need for larger electronic memories?)
Commercial enterprises are quick to catch on to trends and they will be thrown the bait of cosmetics, clothes, and culture as a quick fix. It will, I am afraid, also result in ‘moving on’ even in careers and relationships.
How does any of this become sexy?
Language as we know it and experiment with cannot become a harridan only because of some punks who don’t even use their fingers well, that is why they trip so often and miss the vowels to save space. It is like missing a moment and talking about the eternal. The eternal flush that skims over and never enters the pores to tickle the flesh of a thought that rises to meet a paragraph created for it.
28.11.09
Gatecrashers, hoax calls...and then they wonder about security...
This sure wasn’t about being part of the hottest party at the White House al fresco dinner. You’ve already read about the couple who gate-crashed. It raises questions about security. The US creates this thing about how it must save itself from those monsters, and here two people, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, manage to not only be a part of the party but also pose for pictures with vice president Joe Biden, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, three uniformed 
Marines and CEO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi.I understand it is assumed that those who are there have been invited and it is polite to take pictures. I’d be curious to know how they introduced themselves. If they did not, then it means that big ticket events are just another ruse for schmoozing. These guys had a reason, being celebrity wannabes who put up the photographs on Facebook. That is when the security agencies noticed the goof-up. Does it mean that now government agencies will have to depend on networking sites to get their information? Have we come to this sorry pass when citizens won’t know about the real risk potential until someone gloats about it on their ‘walls’?
Reports have said in a rather cavalier fashion that the couple did not get close to the President and weren’t a threat. They are saying this after it happened. What if they were a threat? Oh, of course, they look clean, they don’t fit a stereotype.
Therefore, the whole bogey is still about getting very, very scared only about certain types.
- - -
Certain types brings us to a question. Why would a year-old story resurface again providing no new information? This is about the hoax call made by the alleged killer of Daniel Pearl who pretended to be leaders of India and Pakistan and “heightened tension between the two countries following the Mumbai attacks”. The calls were made to Indian external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.
“Omar Saeed Sheikh was the hoax caller. It was he who threatened the civilian and military leaderships of Pakistan over telephone. And he did so from inside Hyderabad Jail.”
I know that officials are corrupt and it is no big deal for criminals to procure phones inside prisons. Underworld dons in India continue to conduct business from the confines of their jails and even contest elections!
Shaikh’s wife gave him the information about the Mumbai carnage and when all the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists were killed, he made a call, first to Pranab Mukherjee, posing as Zardari. Anyhow, when he was told they’d get back to him, he called up Zardari and Kayani.
The question is: how did he have the numbers of these high-powered leaders? Anyone who has heard Pranab Mukherjee speak will never forget it for the rest of their life, especially people who have to deal with him. I understand that terrorists are getting smarter, turning into linguists, but mimics too?
Can they just pick up the phone and talk to presidents and army chiefs and threaten them? I mean, how would Pranabda get aggressive? Would he call up to say, “Asheef boy, harm tomar log ka oopaar vaar kaarega” (Asif bhai we will wage war against you)? And “Koyoni shaab, kaun-troll koro apna army ko nahin to homora army tomar aadmi ko phinish kor lega” (Kayani saab, control your army or our army will finish your army)?
This Shaikh guy was released by us in the exchange during the Indian Airlines hostage crisis in 1999. They say he used a British SIM card. Isn’t this a bit unusual that such powerful men would assume that their counterpart in another country is calling them up from a number of a third country? What was the exact content of the threats?
The reports do not mention that. They managed to trace the source of the call and are “baffled by his cheekiness”. Baffled? Where is their security?
Who is being taken for a ride here? The political leaders? The army? Or the people? It is the people. This drama that is costing a precious paises to the Indian exchequer and making a mockery of the judiciary in both countries is going to be a long-lasting soap opera. Kasab will be our new Kashmir issue.
The most amusing part was a report in Rediff that said, “Sheikh was brought up and educated in the UK, and briefly attended the London School of Economics before dropping out to pursue a career in jihad.”
Now jihad has become a career and not a passion or a misguided decision by men of god?
31.8.09
How holy!
I just got a box of modak. I wrote to a friend saying that these days they have fancy ones with cranberry, apricot, figs and chocolate to cater to cosmopolitan tastes, and I so want to be cosmo. They don’t look like the real thing with coconut flakes dripping grease or going squishy with steam. But, not many things look the same anymore.
Like this deity being taken for immersion.
I can imagine Ganesha telling the chauffeur, “Hawaa aane de (let the breeze come in).” Or insisting that the car have a wireless connection so that he can figure out how the poor ones are doing it and send some blessing their way while his ‘owner’ talks to Facebook friends about the awesome puja they had and the planned evening with brie on rye bread and a Chantilly. Laterz, honey, muaah, muaah…
Sonia and Rahul Gandhi dominate. I am sure the minister knows that new and renewable energy does not possibly mean a change in the way the religion is practised?
Like this deity being taken for immersion.
I can imagine Ganesha telling the chauffeur, “Hawaa aane de (let the breeze come in).” Or insisting that the car have a wireless connection so that he can figure out how the poor ones are doing it and send some blessing their way while his ‘owner’ talks to Facebook friends about the awesome puja they had and the planned evening with brie on rye bread and a Chantilly. Laterz, honey, muaah, muaah…
- - -
So, the iftaar tamasha is going on strong. Don’t have to tell you what Ramzan is about, but it has to do with Islam that does not believe in idolatry. Look at this picture:Sonia and Rahul Gandhi dominate. I am sure the minister knows that new and renewable energy does not possibly mean a change in the way the religion is practised?
7.6.09
Twittering on the edge
The yellow rose was waiting for me. I imagined someone had read that the only roses I like are yellow. It wasn't that easy. I had to click a link, register at the site and claim that rose from someone I did not know and who did not know me. Chances of him wanting to know me were remote. I was just an email address he had added to the list of people he was showering with flowers.
I am distressed at the way in which social interactions have been reduced to twittering, facebooking, orkuting, myspacing, necking…okay, cut that out.
Like many of you, I am urged by people to check out their photos. Or to share files with them and write something on their ‘walls’. Again, you have to register and soon everyone is everybody's friend. I do not blame the networkers for the phrasing of such invitations because the sites have these standard ones which go to the extent of saying that if you do not respond, Osama or whoever will commit suicide by drinking your bile. Of course, I am exaggerating. What do you expect me to do?
With the exception of a few people I do know, or get to know, most of these invitations are from strangers who have never interacted with me.
I find it utterly ill-mannered. If they do believe you are worth it, the least they can do is send a message prior to the invite or after. Do they assume you are desperate? One of these blokes sent me some nasty abusive feedback on an article and then had the audacity to add me to some list. I got a reminder saying that if I did not respond, then Mr Hogwash would think I was ignoring him, followed by a sad smiley. Like hell.
In the era prior to all this, people would add you to their messenger lists. Just like that. You have never corresponded, not even a word, and you get added. There is no courtesy of a message. Since I rarely sign in, I see many of these later. Some leave offlines. One said, "We can chat whenever I am here." I went down on my knees to say Grace or whatever it is Islamists say.
On occasion, due to their professions or whatever, there has been access to my cellphone number. Again, it is not always possible/interesting to go on and I am sensible enough to accept that the other individual would feel the same. But how can they keep sending SMSes? They are not filthy, ok? But if god has been kind to them to help them make my acquaintance, then they should thank god, na? But no. I am supposed to send a smiley to say I agree! This is god’s plan, not mine, so ask god to do the needful.
Also, if people have found Allah, Eeshwar, God, I’d say good for them. Is there any need to ask me to join in prayer to thank the concerned omnipotent power for such discoveries? Do we thank Alfred Nobel for every fart that occurs in the world?
Coming back to networking, I have looked at one such site twice, both times to make sure they were from the sources mentioned in the invites – the names were common and I know both of them. One was fine; the other was the right one too, but I was shocked to find he had lied about his location. I don’t know what other lies were there because I am not registered. This was what was visible. Why did he do it? Isn’t it misleading people?
This sort of forum can provide some fun to teenagers or those who seriously believe it will help in their work.
All my exchanges are in my writings and my responses. I value these a lot. Yes, in the course of such exchanges it is possible to get to know people better and outside the realm of such discourse. Here, too, I have made some grievous errors in the past, the times when a friend told me, “After three emails or so, do you have to give your whole bloody Ram kahani?…people will take advantage. I would if that is how I got to know you!”
So, I stick to being 'starchy'.
Will I twitter? Do you think I can manage to recount how my toenail broke, forget the life story of my toenail, in 140 words, or is it characters?
PS: If you don’t read this I will think you are ignoring me :(
I am distressed at the way in which social interactions have been reduced to twittering, facebooking, orkuting, myspacing, necking…okay, cut that out.
Like many of you, I am urged by people to check out their photos. Or to share files with them and write something on their ‘walls’. Again, you have to register and soon everyone is everybody's friend. I do not blame the networkers for the phrasing of such invitations because the sites have these standard ones which go to the extent of saying that if you do not respond, Osama or whoever will commit suicide by drinking your bile. Of course, I am exaggerating. What do you expect me to do?
With the exception of a few people I do know, or get to know, most of these invitations are from strangers who have never interacted with me.
I find it utterly ill-mannered. If they do believe you are worth it, the least they can do is send a message prior to the invite or after. Do they assume you are desperate? One of these blokes sent me some nasty abusive feedback on an article and then had the audacity to add me to some list. I got a reminder saying that if I did not respond, then Mr Hogwash would think I was ignoring him, followed by a sad smiley. Like hell.
In the era prior to all this, people would add you to their messenger lists. Just like that. You have never corresponded, not even a word, and you get added. There is no courtesy of a message. Since I rarely sign in, I see many of these later. Some leave offlines. One said, "We can chat whenever I am here." I went down on my knees to say Grace or whatever it is Islamists say.
On occasion, due to their professions or whatever, there has been access to my cellphone number. Again, it is not always possible/interesting to go on and I am sensible enough to accept that the other individual would feel the same. But how can they keep sending SMSes? They are not filthy, ok? But if god has been kind to them to help them make my acquaintance, then they should thank god, na? But no. I am supposed to send a smiley to say I agree! This is god’s plan, not mine, so ask god to do the needful.
Also, if people have found Allah, Eeshwar, God, I’d say good for them. Is there any need to ask me to join in prayer to thank the concerned omnipotent power for such discoveries? Do we thank Alfred Nobel for every fart that occurs in the world?
Coming back to networking, I have looked at one such site twice, both times to make sure they were from the sources mentioned in the invites – the names were common and I know both of them. One was fine; the other was the right one too, but I was shocked to find he had lied about his location. I don’t know what other lies were there because I am not registered. This was what was visible. Why did he do it? Isn’t it misleading people?
This sort of forum can provide some fun to teenagers or those who seriously believe it will help in their work.
All my exchanges are in my writings and my responses. I value these a lot. Yes, in the course of such exchanges it is possible to get to know people better and outside the realm of such discourse. Here, too, I have made some grievous errors in the past, the times when a friend told me, “After three emails or so, do you have to give your whole bloody Ram kahani?…people will take advantage. I would if that is how I got to know you!”
So, I stick to being 'starchy'.
Will I twitter? Do you think I can manage to recount how my toenail broke, forget the life story of my toenail, in 140 words, or is it characters?
PS: If you don’t read this I will think you are ignoring me :(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)