We often crib about the poor state of affairs of our nation. We are ruthless at attacking our elected representatives on their governance. We have started loving to hate our governments on issues such as decrepit roads, improper sanitation facilities in the country, malnutrition, the fact that 70% of the nation is still below the poverty line and more recently the security issues. I think it is fair for the people of this country to be unhappy and dissatisfied even after 60 years of independence and despite now being well into the 21st century. The China- comparison only makes the resentment grow among us.

I sometimes can’t help but draw an analogy wherein I see India as one huge, mammoth-sized machine with thousands of complicated mechanical parts with grease all around them (obviously to make the parts function smoothly), yet rusted at most ends. A machine that should function 24 hours round the clock, 365 days in a year, a machine which is always under maintenance (which from the face of it looks shoddy), a machine which produces all kinds of noises, it creeks, it groans, it spews oil only to suggest that this is one old dilapidated machine which needs a replacement. Yet, the machine does not stop functioning.

When we got independence from the British Empire, we not only inherited the railway network or the postal service or the English language which were solid foundations for India that was to grow and become self-sufficient, but the codicil to the British will also prescribed for us- a major chunk of the rural population, bureaucracy, hunger, depleted reserves of every kind from food grains to foreign currency… and ofcourse our neighbor Pakistan. Yet, we had a visionary in Nehru who gave us the IIMs, the IITs, the public sector. He launched programmes to harness nuclear energy. He asked for dams to be built, power projects to be erected. No wonder he is called the ‘Architect of Modern India’.

But we faced 2 wars during his term as India’s PM. Today we are continually pestered and needled by China who claims its right over Tawang which is very much a part of our Arunachal Pradesh. The McMahon line is still disputed. Our foreign ministry seems to be always kowtowing China. Then there has been an obvious chronic problem on the west side with Pakistan. They continue to wound us all across with their terrorism nexus. The government, as we know, keeps providing evidences to the Pakistani government against the culprits of the 26/11 attack so as to force Pakistan to bring them to book, but only in vain so far. We spend humungous amounts on our defense and internal security. Our intelligence agencies work round the clock to foil plots, yet the terrorist acts sometimes seem inexorable. To add to our government’s woes, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka too demand a separate foreign policy for each one of them.
As if the external threat was not enough, at home the government faces the rise of the Maoists who have managed to hold the government at ransom time and time again.
Moving from security issues, there are other vagaries the nation faces today. To list a few such as, an irresponsible opposition party in the parliament, being awarded the Commonwealth Games for 2010 but being frequently doubted on our ability to host them, the Satyam scam and the after effects of it, the world financial crisis which forced the government to dole out incentives to save our economy, poor rains, spiraling food inflation, being stocked out of rice and having to import it, the greenhouse gases issue that has recently forced the country to pledge emission cuts in the near future possibly at the cost of development, the ailing government airline company, the ever volatile prices of crude that hit everyone of us, the sectarian politics advocated by the Thackreys or the Mayawatis of this country, rains or lack of them in key agrarian states of India, not to forget a slew of scams viz., the Koda scam, the Babri Masjid report, the submarine scam, army ration pilferage scam, the 2-G spectrum swindle, the illegal monies in Swiss bank accounts and the list can run into pages.

Despite having drawn a grim picture of the ugly machine that India is, we still have managed to record better than expected figures of 2nd quarter growth showing light at the end of these financially woeful days. We continue to be counted as drivers of world economy in the future (along with China ofcourse). We continue to hold elections in a manner so as to attract awe from study groups from around the world. We continue to play an important role in redeveloping Afghanistan. We continue to be heard at world forums. We continue to attract foreign investments. We continue to give the fairest trial to Ajmal Kasab. We have finally been de-hyphenated from Pakistan at the international level. The machine continues to function.
But, all this only makes me more confused and fuddled. Should I as a citizen be happy with the state of affairs of this nation as we continue to progress, however slowly, despite the challenges (listed above) which are more or less inextricable? Obviously, to make our ministers more accountable is an answer. Or should we ask for more and be justified for being a dissatisfied lot? I don’t have the answers to the above. But India’s case doesn’t cease to amaze me and I for one will surely continue tracking it only in quest for answers.

Don't Stand By and Watch

(the essay is written by Milin Deora. The piece has been published in 28th Nov, 2009's TOI edition)

The latest in a series of bash-'em-ups by serial offenders in the Shiv Sena when they attacked a media organisation in Pune not only betrays a contempt for the rule of law but also an astoundingly naive world view and warped political ideology. Demagogic Hitlerian persuasions apart, i am less interested in historical comparisons than an immediate high-level probe that results in bringing to book the ringleaders of this reprehensible criminal act. By resorting to gratuitous violence and crude attacks on those it disagrees with, the Shiv Sena has not only alienated the media at large but also the Marathi community it purports to protect.

Little surprise then that its already dwindling political base is more confused than convinced. The ballot is always stronger than the bullet, however, and i would sincerely hope that better sense prevails when voters determine their own political fate the next time around.

There have been suggestions in recent days to muzzle the party and impose a media boycott on it but neither is this possible nor productive. Sensationalism sells, unfortunately, and imposing embargoes would in any case be in conflict with the very democratic principles we uphold everyday. The political manifestos of both the Shiv Sena and MNS, two sides of the same communal coin, are inherently sectarian, non-inclusive and incite followers to spew hate and vitriolic nonsense. Both deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history but more likely than not, they will implode by virtue of their own proscriptions and without much help from anybody else.

That is not an excuse to remain silent and do nothing, however. We must continue supporting responsible news organisations and citizens' groups that raise difficult issues and ask difficult questions. I stress the word "responsible" though: media houses would acknowledge that they need to self-monitor and run in-house checks to address excessive bouts of frenzied reporting that may unwittingly fan the flames of communal discord. By the same token, civil society and those who claim to speak for it must take an unambiguous and consistent stand on sectarian politics if real change is to come about.

The doublespeak of Mumbai's high society is that even outspoken and otherwise liberal commentators like Shobhaa De went on news television to unfairly attack Karan Johar for apologising to Raj Thackeray and in the same breath defended several of Thackeray's political positions. Equally, those of us in government and on the right side of the law have a responsibility to protect civil society against abuses of power. That is the only collective way our democracy, imperfect as it is, can survive and resist the forces that threaten it.

I must say it is deeply unsettling that an attack of this sort should take place on the cusp of a year since 26/11. I am not suggesting for a minute that comparisons be drawn with last year's terror attacks and last week's mindless thuggery. But here's the rub the lack of similarity isn't strong enough and that is what irks me and ought to concern us all. All too often, the danger we face as a nation lurks within. Divisive forces create and thrive in a climate of social unrest and will go to any extent to pry open social fault lines wherever they exist. The only antidote to this subversion of democracy is a stronger system of checks and balances. That includes an independent news media with the courage and integrity to expose malpractices so that the force of public opinion, shame and law can bring about a correction. Our democratic institutions must show themselves to be accountable, transparent and accessible to the common citizen, and act swiftly in the interest of justice. It is imperative that government, in partnership with civil society, creates strong deterrents against an increasingly pervasive and violent form of political hate-mongering, wherever that may emanate from.

In the final analysis, politicians and people in public life are fair game for the media and we have to accept that reality. Those of us in political life may not always like or agree with what is said and written about us, but surely that doesn't give us the licence to ransack and rampage. There are other civil and legal avenues to resolve grievances; you debate, propose, oppose and sue if you must. That is what civilised societies do. If the media, with all its influence and reach, can be attacked with impunity; if the media is not free to seek accountability from political parties, leaders and the government of the day, how free or safe is the ordinary citizen we serve?

It may be a while before we start subscribing to Voltaire's lofty philosophical conviction of disagreeing with what is said but defending to the death the right of those we disagree with to say it, but this is as good a time and place as any to start making a difference and fight for the freedom and rights our founding fathers sacrificed so we could have ours.

United's Stars against Chelsea's Diamond

The league table puts Chelsea 2 points above United at the moment with the 2 giants ready to face each other at Stamford Bridge tonight. A win for United and they would be a point clear at the top. Sounds simple, doesn't it?? Not quite. What makes it more difficult this year for United to beat Chelsea is not only the fact that they are soarly missing the presence of someone who could create a havoc in Chelsea's rather unusually error-prone defence this year. But they will face their sternest test tonight when they finally line up against a side that plans to pack its midfield with 4 central midfielders!! Yes, that's precisely the core of the much talked about Ancelotti's Diamond Formation.

Diamond formation is only a variant of the conventional 4-4-2 formation. The difference lies in the placement of the 4 midfielders. The 4 midfielders are placed in a diamond-like formation with the player at the top of the diamond playing as a through-ball feeder for the 2 strikers upfornt. Whereas the player on the other end of the diamond guards the defence, while the 2 in the middle make is conjested for the opposition and aim to win maximum possession. This is exactly how Carlo Ancelotti played Chelsea this year. Chelsea lack the pace in their width unlike ManUtd who have the most efficient wingers in Giggs, Evra and Nani. That's how Ancelotti tries to overcome the inherent weakness of his squad by packing his midfield with 4 top- quality central midfield players.

In Michael Essien, Chelsea have one of the best defensive midfielders in the world., who works tirelessly to protect the defence and regain possession whenever lost. In the Ghanian's absence, John Obi Mikel also fits the bill more than adequately.

Then there are 3 world-class midfielders to accomodate in Lampard, Ballack and Deco. Neither Lampard nor Ballack seem comfortable spearheading the diamond but side by side in a slightly deeper role , they are briliiantly creative. And forgotten man Deco has played his best football for Chelsea at the top of the diamond, linking up beautifully with Drogba and Anelka upfront. Add to this the prospect of substitutes viz., Malouda and Zhirkov, it looks lips smacking!

A diamond formation will always dominate possession but will never score goals freely. But that's certainly not the case with Chelsea who've been scoring lavishly. But won't it be a risk to have weak flanks against ManUtd?? It could be a torrid time for the 2 full-backs Cole and Bosingwa against Evra and Giggs (also Obertan if he plays) who love galloping forward skipping past even the best wingers in the league with great ease. But Lampard and Ballack are more than capable of giving their defence a more solid cover when required. Also, if Ancelotti feels the need to negate that threat he can always go back to the old 4-3-3 formation wherein his midfield could be flanked by Malouda or Zhirlkov or Kalou.

Manchester United will feel the heat in the central midfield which has come under pressure this season (esp. against Liverpool) since Scholes and Carrick don't look very settled. Ancelotti knows too well how to keep ManUtd away from getting any possession in the central midfield as his former side- AC Milan had done just the same in a wet Milan night in the semi-finals of UCL where ManU were thumped 3-0. Again, ManU struggled in the central of the midfield against Barcelona.

Citing all the above, it seems best for Chelsea to use the diamond formation against United tonight.

All about having the Bragging Right!

So what does the Old Trafford defeat do to Man City's 'bragging right'...I mean, have they lost the right?? Some would argue if they ever had any this season.

Having been an ardent follower of the game for sometime, I would have to say Man City are reminding me of the Chelsea that caught everyone's attention in their first season under Jose Mourinho (of course it was the second under Roman Abramovic's ownership, but we all know that Chelsea got potent only under Mourinho). Drawing such an analogy so early in the season may draw strong reactions. After all, Chelsea were different...they were a more complete side with a very very deep squad, thanks to the oil money. Whereas, Man City on the other hand have a lop-sided squad with a crazy 7-man strike force and almost no such muscle in the defence (apart from Toure and Lescott). But why I sketched such a comparison is because, they look as hungry and intent on making a mark in the Premier League this season as one would have imagined after spending a whopping 120 mn pounds in the summer. Remember, Stamford Bridge also exuded a belief that they could teach Man Utd and Arsenal a lesson after they spent close to 90 mn pounds in the summer of 2004. Mourinho rubbed Arsene Wenger and Sir Alex the wrong wayafter calling himself 'The Special One'... and surely Man City have done just that this season. Arsene finds them low class and Sir Alex called them 'noisy'.

The last 2 matches City have played have surely caught people's attention. Arsenal is no walk-over. But Manchester City knocked them off so badly that probabaly Arsenal were still feeling a little dizzy against the Belgian side in midweek. Then came the United match which we all know about. If Sir Alex ever said that he wasn't left rattled after the match, he'd be lying. Despite the eventual loss to their rival neighbours, City have responded well beyond poeple's expectations to the money they spent in the summer.

What remains to be seen is if 1) City can continue to do the same week in week out for the next 8 months? 2) if City can remain as potent when they travel to The Emirates, Stamford Bridge and Anfield?

To do so week in week out is quite realistic as the bottom half of the league table looks quite abysmal really. City is definitely too strong for the Stokes, Burnleys and the Boltons of the league. But can they break into the top 4? With a string of breath-taking performances so far, it doesn't need much of an effort to think about City challenging the elite of England. But, lets try to see this objectively. By asking a question as this one, aren't we undermining the capabilities and credentials of the Big 4. Don't forget, these 4 sides have been semi-finalists of the European competition for the last 2-3 seasons. All 4 have been the finalists at some point or the other in the last 4-5 seasons. No one outside the big 4 has won the Premier League ever since Shearer's Balckburn Rovers won it in the early 90s. Do we still believe that City can break all these traditions and fight themselves in into the top 4, let alone becoming champions! Its hard to buy that right now. Probabaly next season or the season after that.

I have no doubts that City will continue to push the Big 4 right till the end to claim a spot in Europe's big league next year. Also, they are bound to upset one of the Big 4 again this season in their own stadium. United will feel lucky that they got the last gasp goal yesterday, but wait until its their turn to travel to The City of Manchester Stadium. The City side will probably be stronger than the one that travelled to OT with the likes of Robinho and Adebayor certainly bound to claim first team place next time. Manchester City have all the ingredients to create tremors this season- an enviable strike force, a solid midfield, a reliable goal-keeper and a really 'noisy' fanfollowing.

It looks bright and sunny for the blue half of Manchester this year after years of playing second fiddle to their illustrious negihbours. City might not yet be lethal enough to get their hands on the Premier League trophy this season, but after what they've exhibited this season so far, they sure have the 'bragging right'!

Tottenham v Man Utd Match Review

Hello everyone,
It couldn't have been a better way for a ManU fan to end his Saturday. Manchester United travelled to White Hart Lane to face probably the most confident side of the Premiership season so far- Tottenham Hotspur who have done fantastically well for themselves ever since Harry Redknapp took over the charge last season.
ManU and Tottenham clashes have always been ones to remember (atleast for ManU supporters). This fixture always takes me back to September of 2002 where Tottenham rattled ManU with 3 goals in the first half and killed United's spirit. But perhaps after receiving some 'hair-dryer' treatment from the Gaffer, ManU fans witnessed a second-half performance of a lifetime. Beckham, Cole, Veron, van Nistelrooy and Sheringham scored to leave Tottenham distraught. 5-3 to ManU in the end. Similar scenes were seen at Old Trafford more recently when Tottenham got 2 in the first half, before ManU scored 5 in the second to rob a win out of Tottenham's destiny. Also, before today's encounter, Tottenham hadn't beaten ManU in the previous 16 encounters in all competitions. So with an ideal start to the current season, 3 points above ManU in the table and with revenge on their minds, Tottenham players must have thought that today could be the day to break the jinx.
And one really started believing this when a bicycle kick from Defoe within 55 seconds of the kick-off gave Tottenham the lead. Perfect start for the London team. But soon, ManU took control of the match and started pounding on the Tottenham goal. ManU earned a freekick just outside the Tottenham penalty-box. Last season Ronaldo would have jumped on the chance and would have probably scored a screamer. But with his departurem set peices have become an area of concern for the Red Devils this season. Old campaigner, Ryan Giggs stepped up and beautifully curled the ball in the top corner. Match on!!
From then on it was all United. Anderson got his first goal for ManU in the Premier League just before half time. Second half saw few and rare chances coming in for Tottenham. With just a 1-goal wafer-thin lead, Tottenham must have really raised their hopes of a comeback when Paul Scholes earned his 2nd booking of the match to be auotmatically red-carded. United were 10 men on the field and were in a real threat to lose their lead. Aaron Lennon looked impressive each time for Tottenham with his pace...but he was matched by Patrice Evra who is nothing but bags of energy. Berbatov showed more hunger today and worked hard to get the ball. But was sadly sacrificed for an ex-Tottenham player Michael Carrick after ManU lost Scholes in the midfield. Berbatov must be happy to have had shy at the goal on 2-3 instances.
Despite 10-men, United never looked shaky...or rather Tottenham never looked menacing. Rooney soon at 78 minutes, got his team a much needed 3 rd goal to cool the nerves after brilliantly controlling the ball from a long cross and then cutting 2 Tottenham defenders to beat the goalkeeper for his 5 th goal of the season. Wayne looks set to be making up for Ronaldo's loss this season already with 5 goals in as many matches. Soon he had 2 more chances which were not converted.
In the end, a 3-1 win for United at White Hart Lane. Tottenham must feel dissapointed for capitulating too easily and not seizing control during certain important periods of the match. ManU on the other hand must feel confident after some solid and clinical performance. They travel to Besiktas in mid-week and then entertain their city rivals, Manchester City next week at Old Trafford. The season has in much ways kicked off for United now! And I can't wait for Owen Hargreaves' return to Manchester after nearly one year. And we haven't had to use the Michael Owen weapon so far. It looks exciting for United.

The Man Rules

The Man Rules
At last a guy has taken the time to write this all down...

Finally , the guys' side of the story. ( I must admit, it's pretty good.)

We always hear 'the rules' from the female side.
Now here are the rules from the male side.
These are our rules!
Please note.. these are all numbered '1' ON PURPOSE!

1. Men are NOT mind readers.
1. Learn to work the toilet seat.
You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down.
We need it up, you need it down.
You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.
1. Sunday sports It's like the full moon
or the changing of the tides.
Let it be.
1. Crying is blackmail.
1. Ask for what you want.
Let us be clear on this one:
Subtle hints do not work!
Strong hints do not work!
Obvious hints do not work!
Just say it!
1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.
1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument.
In fact, all comments become Null and void after 7 Days.
1. If you think you're fat, you probably are.
Don't ask us.
1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one
1. You can either ask us to do something
Or tell us how you want it done.
Not both.
If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.
1. Whenever possible, Please say whatever you have to say during commercials..
1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.
1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not A color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.
1. If it itches, it will be scratched.
We do that.
1. If we ask what is wrong and you say 'nothing,'
We will act like nothing's wrong.
We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.
1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to,
Expect an answer you don't want to hear.
1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is ....Really!
1. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball or motor sports
1. You have enough clothes.
1. You have too many shoes.
1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!
1. Thank you for reading this.
Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight;
But did you know men really don't mind that? It's like camping.

Jinnah-Jaswant contd...

This post is a continuation of the earlier one...which was infact a third party's view on the entire Jinnah-Jaswant episode that kept our think-tank busy for almost a couple of weeks. Why I decided to post it was simple...the article reflects my vision of "Pushing for Pragmatism".

The 1947 partition, the events that led to it and the events that followed it have surely left an indellible impression on our nation's psyche. What we are today is a direct result of what happened in 1947. Despite having "moved forward" in these years, we cannot ignore that part of our history that still influences many of our nation's policies...primary being the foreign policy with Pakistan. Is the principle of Akhand Bharat still not discussed in public forums? Or how we could join hands with Pakistan (expecting them to reciprocate in the same manner) and fight burning issues like terrorism, countering China and not wilting under USA's demands?? Is all of this a mere walk towards finding Neverland? No. Probably an idea of a single nation from Balochistan to West Bengal is quite preposterous. But the idea of co-operation and acting in unison with each other is something we wouldn't mind putting our money on. After all it just takes political will to make it happen. While discussing all of this, reliving the memories of our past and analyzing Jinnah, Nehru and Patel is probably the right thing, for our answers perhaps lie in the analysis of the views of these men. Therefore it would be quite puerile of someone to say, "Why should I care about Jinnah??" Agreed.

But in the context of Bhagat's article, I wouldn't mind if someone actually asked, "Why should we care so much about a man who died some 60 years ago?" The Jaswant Singh-book raised a furore, albeit only within his party. There was an immediate expulsion of the former party stalwart. The book was banned for sale in Gujarat. And the media gave full coverage to it...perhaps more that what it deserved. And then there was an endless debate on the book whther it was right on showering sympathy, probably, on the Architect of the Indian Partition. I ask, was the debate constructive? Have we benefited? I yes, how? Was it at all needed? Why should I hear the same things about Jinnah or Patel that I've heard all my life and is written everywhere around me? Is it not important to read or hear something totally obtuse from the standard...which could infact be true (which is what people claim is written in the book)?

I would have been happier if the topics of discussions on the "Big Fights" would have been whether it was right on the part of the Guj. Govt on banning the book and robbing its citizens of the fundamental rights. Perhaps that would have beenmore meaningful.

Our politicians should do what they were voted for...and generate results. It was quite a futile exercise that ended in benefiting no one...except our new channels who continued to add to their turnover by selling their air-time.

(Would be happy to learn if someone thought otherwise)

Don't fix history, look at the future

This Chetan Bhagat article featured in The Sunday Times on 30th August 2009. Worth reading...

Sometimes, i wonder if television channels pay politicians to enact drama in real life. After all, how else can we have top leaders of a leading

party spending days discussing a historical figure, banning a book and firing the author from his job of 30 years. I have no ill-feelings for the BJP (or the Congress party for that matter). In fact, i’d like to see both parties as strong as possible, so that the Indian voter gets to choose between two good alternatives. However, the post-poll, slow-suicide path the BJP has chosen for itself, is harmful not only for their party, but for the nation. With no credible second alternative, a democracy runs the risk of turning into a one-party monopoly, which may not be good for the country in the long term. The reality is that despite its best intentions, the BJP is out of touch with the current generation. The recent Jinnah book/Jaswant Singh episode confirms this fact like none other. The BJP is screaming that Mr Jinnah was not indeed as secular as claimed by Jaswant Singh. Experts on TV are citing events in 1932 which prove that Jinnah was a good person; countered by an equal number of experts citing historical events which prove that Jinnah did terrible things. To answer the Jinnah question from the point of view of the young generation — Who cares? Really, whether Mr Jinnah did wonderful things or he did horrible things and whatever point of view your party likes to take — who gives a damn? How is this relevant to the India we have to build today? Are we electing leaders for the future or selecting a history teacher? The strange thing is the media buys into this pointless debate — about Mr Jinnah being good or bad and spends hours discussing it. By doing so, it gives legitimacy to the whole exercise. Meanwhile, the young generation fails to understand why do our politicians become so passionate defending these relics of the past? Why don’t they have a fanatical debate about how fast we will make roads, colleges, bridges and power plants? Why don’t people get expelled over current non-performance rather than historical opinions? Why don’t we ban useless government paperwork rather than banning books about dead people? Every Indian student learns about the past leaders. We read their biographies, celebrate their birthdays and see them as inspiration. However, what made these people great was the fact that they brought about change for a better future during their time. Do our politicians realize this before they claim to be fans and devotees of past leaders? Or is it simply easier to debate the past than roll up your sleeves and make change happen. This old Indian mentality of non-stop discussion and no action has cost the nation dearly. The BJP, however, seems to be out of touch with the above. They actually feel what their party thinks about Jinnah drives the voting process of Indians. They feel people will only vote for them if they somehow present a hardline Hindu (which means anti-Muslim) stance. Maybe such was the mood of the nation in the past, after the September 11 attacks and the attack on Parliament closer home. However, today, the young generation does not think so. Any pro or anti-rant against any particular community by a politician is seen as a ploy to win votes without doing real work. In this scenario, the BJP scratches its head on what it could do. Well, it still can do a lot. The BJP is not just a Hindu party. It is also a right-wing party from the point of view of economic policy. And right-wing economic policies typically involve higher privatization, lower subsidies, better financial management, focus on growth in business and employment and attracting private capital for national development. The right-wing economic agenda is so long forgotten that in India, people associate the right-wing with a communal agenda, which frankly is not what the right-wing is about. Right-wing economic policies can greatly benefit the country but the question is how do we make the young generation believe it. Well, if the BJP can do that, it can bridge the gap in votes and it can hope to come back with more seats. A word about the RSS as well, the so-called BJP backbone. Well, maybe the RSS’s ideology has been to defend the Hindu cause. At present, however, they have a massive image problem. Any educated, young, urban Indian — often the opinion leaders — views the RSS sceptically. A lot of people do not, and will not, vote for the BJP because of this issue, even though most will acknowledge the good development work done in Gujarat or MP. The RSS needs to take a tough decision — will they support the BJP even if the BJP no longer hates Muslims? I think the RSS can make this switch and promote a Hinduism of tolerance and acceptance, which is more relevant in the India of today. Meanwhile, let’s let Mr Jinnah rest in peace. Let the book be there, as banning a book in the time of the Internet is silly anyway. And let’s not worry too much about this subject called History; let’s create a new subject called The Future.