My Husband - II

What does it mean when someone thinks you as her husband?

A friend of mine (not remotely my wife) recently referred to me as her husband - when she wasn't very conscious, when she wasn't in control of her senses. I wondered what it meant.

Is it the disgust that women have for their spouses that made my friend unknowingly refer me to as her husband?

Later she was contrite and kinda apologized to me. 

But I still can't help but think. Why this disgust?

1. Additional reading
2. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-husband.html
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parineeta_(2005_film)

FATFat Improvement

https://www.dawn.com/news/1511895/fatfs-concerns

The link above acknowledges the grave concern the newspaper sees.

The same newspaper 2 weeks back had mentioned how Pak was largely compliant in 20 out of 27 points. 

What happened in 2 weeks? Does one believe that Pak was largely compliant solely based on friendship with China, Turkey and Malaysia? 

Only a final decision from Paris makes one see reality? 

What exactly is Pak going to do now? How much brainpower is it going to deploy to address it before the next FATF meet in Feb 2020? What will make Pak realize that its obsession with religion is the cause of terrorism?

I understand India isn't much sensible either. But the state of affairs in Pak seems to be so awful it pains. 

After all Pak is just like us. Why CAN'T they improve?

Why can't India and Pak be like Canada and USA or like Ireland and Northern Ireland?

When will we forget religion? Hum bas ek jaise hi toh the?

An article which echoes similar sentiments: https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/fatf-meet-verdict-pakistan-s-people-deserve-better-11571591868763.html

Sense becoming visible: https://www.dawn.com/news/1512237/sensationalism-draws-attention-away-from-what-pakistan-must-do-in-order-to-come-off-the-fatf-list

The Terminal BB

Why am I potty about the movies Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Tom Hanks' The Terminal?

Both the heroes are extremely sweet. Both want to enter an alien country, but only with permission. When they are given an option to enter through other means, they refuse. Both want to enter the alien country because of a sweet mission. Both are prevented from entering by some people and both make a lot of friends who would do anything to help them. And finally both succeed.

After watching either movie, you feel so good. And alienated, at least momentarily, from all the badness in the world. And you can see it in the expressions of Zeta Jones and Kareena when they realize what the respective heroes are like.

Sweet.

The heroes are not survivors. Principled then?

Additional reading

https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-kind-of-person.html

Principles Of Survival

What is a principled person?

I define it as a person who lives by certain rules no matter how much they affect the chances of his superior survival. And whose actions aren't based primarily with the motive of superior survival.

Both the hero in 3 Idiots (also the hero in DDLJ when he explains to his future mother-in-law about two options in life)  and the mythical King Harischandra eschewed running after survival, instead they chose to follow their own values at least at a point in their life, if not in their life.

All animals focus primarily on survival (eating and procreation and avoiding death). The concept of principle is largely unimportant to them.

Human beings, somewhere along the way, invented the concept of principles, things that would curb incidental individual freedom or chance of survival but what we thought would be good for society as a whole.

One might think that all of us have principles. Not really is my answer. Go back to the definition above. That kind of principles is lacking in most of us. 

Yes, each of us has principles in varying extent. 

The most famous example of a very unprincipled human being, a person who solely lives for superior survival, is the current American president. 

It does seem like principled living does not increase the chance of survival except, of course as depicted in the fictional examples given above. 
Extrapolating the logic, does it mean that every person who doesn't survive will is in a way principled? 
Sounds awful. What's the issue?

Carton Of Zubeidaa

Some make role models out of Carton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Carton). 

Some make role models out of Zubeidaa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubeidaa).

Some people look at things and wonder why one couldn't dedicate and sacrifice as a hero. They try to give up things, no matter what the cost while doing so. Their goal is the bottom.

Someone else looks at things wistfully and regrets those opportunities that one had but didn't take. Life is about being a hero, being happy and making the best of what one has, getting what one wants no matter what the cost.  The goal is the top.

Very different, aren't they? Wonder how stifling it must be for Zubeidaa if packed in the Carton!

Wolf Calling The Kettle Black

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/international/rest-of-asia/china-in-touch-with-india-pak-to-bring-down-tensions

China apparently is trying to bring down tension between Pak and India after Indian army supposedly attacked terrorists in POK. The surprising thing is that China does the same thing repeatedly in Arunachal and the last such incident was only a days back. At least Pak can claim it was all terrorists, Inshallah.. 

What excuse does China have for frequent incursions into India? And now, they are planning to mediate? Ain't that something?

The wolf said "Nee illaatta ongappa": https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/158022-China-gives-Modi-shut-up-call

In Tamil there is a saying, "ooru rendu pattaal koothadikku kondaattam".

And I really wish India didn't use the phrase "surgical precision". Such a phrase implies extraordinary accuracy. Perhaps that phrase was appropriate when US marines went inside Pakistan and nabbed Osama and killed him. In the current instance? Hmm.

It is really interesting that all this time India would accuse Pak of firing across the LOC while Pak would deny. And Pak would in turn accuse India of opening firing which India would deny.  Now for a change India is claiming to have attacked (with surgical precision) across the LOC. And guess what? Pak is saying "No, you didn't". 

What's happening? How does India decide whether to claim that Pak attacked India or to claim that India attacked Pakistan? Pakistan doesn't have a problem in this regard. Pak will just deny whatever India claims. It's India that has to decide - whether to whine or roar. 

I have a larger question. Why does Pak consider India its enemy? Is it because of Kashmir? But then Kashmir was never part of Pakistan. Matter of fact, Pak itself is a child born out of India.

God help Islam... If this is how Allah's progeny have turned out...blind fanatical and filled with hatred for anything that's not Islam...

Having said that there is an absolutely cute article, published by Alizay Jaffer a Pakistani lady, which echoes my own sentiments - except I couldn't have written it as well as her. http://scroll.in/article/818069/dear-india-and-pakistan-cant-we-convert-our-grudges-into-love (or this https://m.facebook.com/alizay.jaffer/posts/884096793617: same content in both links - just in case one of the links is removed in future)

Here is another article by another Pakistani who provides another point of view: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/155974-Pathankot



Additional reading: 

• Added on 26th Jun 2017: http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/chinese-troops-enter-india-in-sikkim-sector-jostle-with-army-jawans-destroy-indian-bunkers/736313/
• http://scroll.in/article/818027/the-strange-case-of-the-indian-soldier-captured-by-pakistan

Published on

9/29/16, 4:21 PM

India Standard Time

On Warranty

This is a nice article on warranty in a Pakistani Newspaper.

I had often thought on similar lines. I remember once dealing with a physiotherapist who was treating an elderly lady who had tremendous back pain. He said he could definitely cure her in a week. After a week, the lady still had pain. He said one more week. And then one more week. Then he said, things are not so easily predictable. Sometimes the body takes longer to heal but he recommended that the treatment continue.

I asked him if he would be willing to take payment only and after she was healed and forego the payment if the pain didn't go away.

The man was stunned. He said what I suggested was unethical. How can a person give a guarantee for a medical treatment. He looked at me as though I was crazy.

I remembered his earnest assurances to the lady when she first met him. Unethical, huh?

Published on

7/20/12, 12:06 PM

India Standard Time

ISI & Terrorist Links

I read this http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/wikileaks-isi-allowed-terrorists-to-attack-india-says-gitmo-detainee-104246 today.

This kinda ties up with what a taxi driver from Kashmir told me. He explained to me about the economy of Kashmir and life there. Youngsters are recruited and given a stipend of approximately Rs 3000 ($65) per month for undergoing military training across the border in Pakistanr. Very similar to what was depicted in the movie Roja, remember Pankaj Kapoor's little brother? Even the movie Sarfarosh was about something similar. Movie Fanaa also.

Another person told me that some Kashmiris prefer that Kashmir be aligned to Pakistan, some prefer alignment with India and some would like both India and Pakistan to let them be independent and leave them in peace. When this question (how do you want Kashmir to be aligned?) is popped to them, their heart, because of the religion, is with Pakistan. While their head says stick to India because of the economic advantage that India provides.

All this is fine and dandy, but I am unable to digest the recruitment and training of Kashmiris by people on the Muzaffarabad side with the sole idea of disturbing peace in India. 

What kind of a mind would find this to be a good thing to do?

Additional reading: 

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-06/pakistans-intellifence-chief-expected-to-resign-ahmad-shuja-pasha/#

Published on

5/8/11, 3:54 PM

India Standard Time

Molesting Isn't A Crime

Continuing from my earlier post on  "reason" / "why", I thought that at times we exonerate someone because a reason was not found for their (wrong) action. Because of an absence of explicit intent, the wrong act isn't punished as in the case of the judge's ruling in the case of Asians against Harvard admissions. Read the link below:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-determines-harvard-s-race-conscious-admissions-policy-is-constitutional-11569958184

In other cases, we exonerate a wrong act because there was a reason. "He came late because there was a traffic jam on the way" or "she couldn't deliver the project because her grandmother was in the hospital". 

The social reason given is basically to remove any trace of any material intent for the wrong doing and hence to give a clean chit to the party that didn't do the right thing.

Either the presence of a reason or it's absence could be used to exonerate someone. The insidious thing is that this is used not consistently across all occasions and all peoples.

Maybe the pedophile who molested your baby was just trying to learn biology. We really don't know why he was molesting, right?

Harvard's Rat Race

Judge Rules Harvard’s Race-Conscious Admissions Constitutional? 

“Even assuming that there is a statistically significant difference between how Asian American and white applicants score on the personal rating, the data does not clearly say what accounts for that difference,” she wrote. “In other words, although the statistics perhaps tell ‘what,’ they do not tell ‘why,’ and here the ‘why’ is critically important.” 

Wow. This is an example of exquisite reasoning. That police officers could pull the trigger more often on an innocent black person than on an innocent white person may not really be an issue because the "what" may be known but not the "why". 

That Hitler committed genocide may have been acceptable if we didn't know of his anti-semitic stance, right? Of course, knowing only the what" "without the why" is exculpatory.

When do we understand that the "why" doesn't change the what". Sooner or later, if you dig long enough" every why will have an innocent enough explanation.

Focusing on the emotional (or social) why" over the rational "why" is a sure way to get rid of any clarity. Read this https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/family-tv-serials.html.

Read also the sequel to this post. (https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/10/molesting-isnt-crime.html).

"Any algorithm that intentionally or not results in discriminatory treatment of women or any other protected class violates New York law,” from the link below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/11/11/iphone-maker-apples-new-credit-card-has-an-awkward-problem/



Additional reading

• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/02/idmi-and-itbc.html
• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/02/idmi-and-itbc.html
• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2019/01/rita-and-sheila.html
• https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/08/affirmative-action.html

Resourceful And Dutiful

When you have two resources, one of which which is resourceful and the other dutiful it's natural and perhaps essential that you delegate the duties to the dutiful and give our resources to the resourceful. That makes the best use of our resources within the constraints of the duties that need to be executed.

The opposite option of delegating our duties to the resourceful and giving our resources to the dutiful will likely result in suboptimal use of our resources. While delegating our duties to the resourceful will likely result in the duties not getting executed as expected. 

I define a resourceful person as a survivor and a dutiful as one who isn't. 

It's extremely interesting to note that the optical allocation of resources and duties come instinctively to most of us. When we have resources to give we tend to choose the resourceful while the duties are instinctively delegated to the dutiful. It's almost like when we have a toy car and a barbie doll, we know which one to present to a little girl and which to a little boy unerringly.

In essence, the dutiful becomes the chocolate, the resourceful becomes the child (read https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/02/understanding-love.html).