A Thackeray At Door

Shiv Sena - baiters may delight in defection of Smita Thackeray. She is going to join Congress. I am no Sena sympathiser. But my question to Congress High Command is: what do you gain? Once she possessed some clout due to her closeness to Bal Thackeray. She became a film-producer and got some top stars to act in her projects. Sena happened to be in power then. What else are her credentials?

Four years ago Congress took in Narayan Rane. That was a much more detestable decision, given Rane's brand of politics. But it wounded Sena badly, and perhaps everything was fair in the war against a communal party. Smita is politically a non-entity now. What would she bring to Congress?

And the larger question is: why can't Congress attract and groom good, decent leaders in Maharashtra? The Congress leaders here are just a bunch of powerful satraps. This state deserves (and needs) better men.

Fantasy

This is an old fantasy of mine, revived after reading this article on Hafeez Saeed. I imagine: R&AW morphs into something like Mossad. And it goes after Saeed and other anti-India terrorists in Pakistan, and even in other countries. Eliminating them one by one. (First hit is Dawood.) Like in the film Munich.

Didn't our Prime Minister say couple of days back that "we won't rest till guilty are punished"? And didn't Prince Rahul say, a few days after 26/11, something to the effect that we must show to the world that those who kill Indians have to pay dearly?

Someone make a movie, at least, with this theme.

Stopping Bullet In Mid Air

Apropos Ayodhya movement, Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes in IE:

When it came to the BJP it was politically convenient for all of us to hold on to distinctions without a difference. What did the distinction between saying the movement and the frenzy was planned but the destruction was not amount to? Even Rao acknowledged that the BJP leaders were pleading with the kar sevaks to stop. But that was like trying to stop an already fired bullet in mid air...

बाळासाहेब यांस एक( उत्स्फूर्त) पत्र

प्रिय बाळासाहेब,

मागील आठवड्यात तो नतद्रष्ट शिवसेना-द्वेष्टा निखील वागळे त्याच्या चानेलावरून तुमच्याविषयी काही-बाही बोलला. मग तुमच्या बहाद्दर सैनिकांनी त्याला धोपटले. हे रीतीप्रमाणेच झाले. हे धोपटणे प्लांड नसून उत्स्फूर्त होते याविषयी शंका नाही. (IBN च्या स्टाफने मात्र पूर्वनियोजित वाटावे अशा तर्हेने बहाद्दर सैनिकांवर उलटा हल्ला केला! या विषयी कोणी बोलत नाही! )

हे म्हणून झाल्यावर (having said that), साहेब, अशोक सिंघल यांच्या वक्तव्यावर बहाद्दर, कडवट शिवसैनिकांची थंड प्रतिक्रिया आमच्या सारख्या तुमच्या चाहत्यांना गोंधळात टाकते. ते सिंघल -- जे अजूनही सिंगलच आहेत -- म्हणाले, चानेल्वाल्यांच्या दान्डक्याच्या साक्षीने म्हणाले, कि तुमच्यात हिम्मत असती तर तुम्ही स्वतः अयोध्येत आला असतात बाबरी पाडायला! आमची तळपायाची आग मस्तकात गेली (उत्स्फुर्तपणे) साहेब. पण शिवसैनिंकांची काहीच (उत्स्फूर्त) प्रतिक्रिया नाही! खरोखर, मराठी मने मेली आहेत असे आपण निवडणुकीनंतर लिहिलेत ते योग्यच!

आपला,

I Salute...Congress

Mumbai has a super-resilient spirit. It has survived Shiv Sena (since '67), riots (92-93) , bombing ('93), rain (2005), again bombing (2006), LeT raid (26/11). And who embodies this spirit best? Congressmen! Look at it in this way: Vilasrao Deshmukh had to go after 26/11. It was generally agreed that ten years (mostly under his chief-ministership) of Congress-NCP rule were a disaster. Then comes the LS election, and Vilasrao not only survives, he gets a promotion. And later in the assembly polls, Congress retains Maharashtra!

Congressmen, I salute your spirit.

Perspective

Apropos 26/11, Kiran Nagarkar writes in Outlook:

But the malaise in the police department and its failure is a direct consequence of the rapacious greed and divisions in the political leadership. It’s absurd that 40,000 inadequately trained men and women are expected to look after a population of 20 million. (New York, to put things in perspective, has a population of around 8.27 million and a police strength of 37,038.)

To put things in a better perspective, Mr. Nagarkar, Mumbai happens to be in a third world country. Unlike New York.

Argument

On reading a Reuters report on arrest of two persons in Italy in connection with 26/11, I put this as my gmail and facebook status message:

According to Reuters, 26/11 attackers were GUNMEN.

Obviously I wanted to point out that Reuters desisted from using the word terrorists, which seemed weird. This generated a g-chat argument with a friend who works with Reuters. Below is the transcript.

Friend: kapil

you of all people should not put that up as ur status

dont u recognise the legal issue

me: what is the legal issue?

Friend: even the 9/11 guys were hijackers

not terrorisys

we never label anyone that

kasab hasnt been convicted yet

and no matter how strongly anyone feels, it isnt right to call him that until a court convicts him of that charge

me: that's putting too fine a point on it

Friend: it isnt

reuters has been sued over this internationally before

me: i see

who would sue here?

Let?

F: that isnt the point!!!!

it isnt right to call him that

until proven

can u call shiney a rapist

no, coz he hasnt been convicted yet

me: are, but then how do u call him gunman even?

F: same thumb rule

because he was seen with a gun!!! and he had a gun in his hand

but was it an act of terrorism??? that isnt proven

me: see, i will make distinction between branding kasab before conviction, and describing the attack

agreed, kasab should not be labled anything untill convicted

but when you refer to attack as "by ten gunmen", u doubt if it was act of terrorism

F: why cant you doubt it

just coz one guy storms a army base in us and guns down people

cant that also be an act of terrorism

how do u know what is terrorism and what isnt

how do u know until it is proven so?????

is simple as that

more gunmen means terrorism?? that isnt a valid point

me: there is a point,

but i deem it academic

F: well, no matter how academic, in journalism you cannot afford to be emotional

u hv to go by the thumb rule

me: i am not being emotional, i can even understand kasab's motivations.

all i am saying is if something is blatantly perceptible, lable it

F: i am sorry, "blatantly perceptible" is very subjective

to that 18 year old maid, it is "blatantly obvious" that shiny raped her

is that the sme case with everyone else in the world???

no

so it is wrong to label him that

same thing

Sent at 20:49 on Sunday

me: again i would say: we can spare kasab till the verdict, but the act itself, looking at magnitude, one could call it terrorist attack

now if u permit, i would put this exchange on blog.

F: yeah sure

but if you notice this is consistent reuters policy

me: perhaps

F: not perhaps

it is

me: i dont remember how they covered london metro bombing

F: let me fish out a link for u

but i am confident we didnt lable the people who carried out the attacks as terrorists until proven so

Sent at 20:53 on Sunday

F: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36771820081128?sp=true

pl read the following

me: k

F: it mentions the london bombings, madrid and even 9/11

but no where is the word terrorism mentioned in association with them

me: fine