The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor Humiliation

The recent participation of USA and Russia in Sino-Pak's corridor being built on land that belongs to India in POK, should open eyes of all Indians - there is no such thing as true friendship between nations in this world. Had Russia or USA been true friends of India, they would have raised objection to the corridor. They didn't because they know India can only talk, it cannot assert it's rights militarily or economically against the mighty China.

EVEN IF INDIA IS UPSET WITH US, WHAT CAN IT DO? This is the thinking of all nations, including so called friendly ones.

This brings home the point once again: when push comes to shove, Only Militarily Powerful Are Respected In This World. To be militarily powerful, you have to be an economic powerhouse first. But can India really become an economic powerhouse that can sustain continuous investment that is needed for becoming and remaining a militarily powerful country? All this and still remain a democracy?

Yes it can, but it is difficult.

If we look at democratic countries who are powerful too, we will notice they have low level of corruption in their day to day life. In these countries they do not have to bribe officials for registering their house. These countries do not indulge in quota system to get votes. Meritocracy rules these countries as per their laws. In India meritocracy comes after quotacracy, which itself is a form of government sponsored corruption. Yes, when deserving people are deprived in favour of less deserving people by law, the system is inherently corrupt.

Unless we become a corruption free government and society, we can forget about becoming an economic superpower and consequently military powerhouse. With current value system in our country, we should be ready to face even more such humiliations.

Is Policeman's Life Less Important Than A Cricketer's?

I do understand that policemen will be needed for crowd control. I also understand that a well organised posse of policemen will go after a gang of dacoits and may even lose some brave men. I do not deny that some policemen will be seriously injured in line of duty while controlling riots.

But why should an unsuspecting policeman be used as a sacrificial pawn to protect another person who has knowingly ventured out to play or watch a game of bat and ball, despite all the warnings?

Are we saying that playing cricket is so important that it is okay to let some policemen die while trying to save the life of some cricketers or watchers?

My point is: if we already know that there is grave danger to life from a faceless enemy who can appear from nowhere and at will, then the police force should be used to weed out the source of that danger in an organised and planned manner; not as fodder to terrorists who can attack as and when they like. Why should we assume that it is the duty of policemen to save the life of reckless people involved in playing and watching the game when the right thing for them was to stay at home?

Seriously, why should you be held responsible to save my life, if inspite of all the warnings, I am foolish enough to go out to play or watch a game where a bat hits a ball? Just because you are a policeman? Frankly, I am not convinced.

Obama's Inauguration

1. Speech:
Bottom Line: Not inspiring enough to meet the high expectations set by his acceptance speech. The “Yes We CAN” flavour was missing.

2. Oath Taking:
Unimpressive because of the fumble - for which the oath giver is to be blamed. He spoke long string of words which were not easy to repeat.

3. Overall Ceremony:
WOW! Americans do have a sense of drama. Good entertainment. Kept us glued to the TV. I wonder if even Pakistanis & Sri Lankans would have watched their 1st daynight ODI of this series!!!

War Does Not Solve Problems?

It's a common saying these days that 'war does not solve any problem'. It's a politically correct thing to say.

However, history is witness to Mahabharat, World War I, World War II and many other battles and wars that did solve problems. If dialog, not war is supposed to solve all problems, then why did UK, US, France not insist on having a dialog with Hitler?

Dialog can succeed only when both sides are reasonable. If one side refuses to listen to reason and wants to change the other side's views by force or terror, then war is the only last option. And there is a good possibility that it may solve the problem.

Dialog is preferred, but one can't make a sweeping statement that war does not solve any problem. Because it does, many a times.