Bal Thackeray is a nutcase.

I find it more funny than disgusting, that the setting and extinguished sun named Bal Thackeray tried to go an extra mile by using Sachin's name and got badly backfired.

People are anyway publicly opposing Raj Thackeray and it is known to all that his end is near (though, this is too late, but better late than never), his uncle tried going the nephew's way, something he has been doing for decades, but seemed to have given the power of attorney to the nephew recently.

I'd actually appreciate Sachin for making the statement about Mumbai belonging to the whole India. It was his statement that provoked Bal Thackeray to cross the limits of stupidity and chauvinism; and to make a fool out of himself. Leave alone the ruling Congress, even BJP is coming in public to criticize Thackeray, accompanied by the likes of Laloo, Bihar CM Nitish Kumar etc., who obviously didn't miss the opportunity of scoring a six on a loose ball outside the off stump.

MNS has already cornered Shiv Sena by making idiotic statements and abusing North Indians (which I strongly condemn), it seems that the uncle and the nephew are running in the race towards winning the title of THE BIGGEST FOOL.

Instead of exhibiting the false and fake Marathi pride, Bal Thackeray should have supported Sachin and opened a front against his nephew, by doing so; he could have earned some respect as well as some satisfaction of paying the tribute to the country off late; and could have managed to salvage the little pride; he had that has almost vanished by now.

But again, he had to maintain his stance of anti India (and less of Marathism), to hog the limelight, he had to carry the false ego, or rather he had to stick to the mistakes done in the past.

I'd say, it's all about the inability to accept your own fault. Bal Thackeray probably does not have guts to do something that Sachin has done, and that's why he's shouting against the person whose opinions do carry weight.

I'm not trying to make the point that Sachin is patriot, he's a nice cricketer, and he has his insight right, unlike the Thackeray duo, who rather than keeping their ugly mouths shut, are shouting and desperately trying to divide the country. Sachin at least felt the other way, and took a tiny step towards unity of the country.

As I've mentioned earlier, Amitabh Bachchan has disappointed people by bowing to the monster (Raj Thackeray); at least Sachin has done the right thing, and probably shown us a face of a true Indian-Marathi, and not an anti Indian-Marathi.

Bravo, Sachin, you're on the right track.

Ayodhya

I am probably going to touch the hottest topic in Indian politics, many friends and relatives may not like my stand, but ultimately I can't prevent myself from using the tempting FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Let me first quote a few facts, or so called myths. I do not possess any reliability or responsibility for the same.

The first Mughal Emperor Babar came to India in 1527AD, attacked the Hindu emperor of Chittodgadh. After winning the land of Ayodhya, Babar sent his general Mir Baqi to Ayodhya and made him the incharge of the region. Mir observed that Ayodhya had a big ancient Hindu temple of a great emperor and a kind human being, considered as God in Hinduism, Shri Ramchandra. To spread terror in the Hindu population, the temple was demolished and a mosque was built at the same location in the honour of the emperor Babar. The mosque was popularly known as Babri Masjid (Mosque), which was previously known as Masjid-e-Janmasthan (Mosque at the birthplace (of Shri Ram)).

The place was used by the Hindus as well as Muslims till 1885 for worshipping together. Where is that communal harmony now? It was a religious matter then, and it is a political matter now.

Till 1990, there was not much of a fuss about the issue.

6th December, 1992, Hindu leaders and volunteers, allegedly led by L.K. Advani, demolished the mosque and demanded the construction of temple arguing that if Muslims have sacred place in Mecca, why should Hindus not have a similar place in Ayodhya.

The argument seems justifiable, but actions don't. When the case was handled by the judiciary system, this action was certainly wrong.

Believing to what the historians say is right, even Babar's actions were not just, but taking revenge of something, happened more than 3 centuries before in an equally barbarian way seems to be the outcome of shortsighted thinking or selfish political motives.

Now, Ayodhya issue has grown much beyond Hinduism or Islam, it's been more about NDA and UPA, about BJP and INC, about minority and majority.

Politicians and bureaucrates have toiled to work out a feasible solution, but have failed. Probably because of the conservative, volatile and brainwashable mindset of Indians, rather Hindus and Muslims (Unfortunately today also people consider them Hindu or Muslim first and Indian later, if at all they do), and sluggish and pale judiciary.

I'll dare to propose a solution, which may seem outrageous, but it is the best if a neutral government really wants to do something.

How about building a government hospital on the disputed land? A hospital that treates poor Indians, and not Hindus or Muslims. If a Temple is made, some psycho Muslim leader may demolish it tomorrow, and if a Mosque is built, his/her Hindu counterpart may do the same.

It is not always about what is right and what is wrong, sometimes it is also about what is good and what is bad.

Wounds caused in 16th and 20th century are not reversible, then why should we try to deepen them instead of letting them heal?

Why don't we understand that no religion teaches to demolish some worship place and make a new one there, and if it teaches, it's not a religion.

If I can convince people of superiority of Humanity and compassion over Hinduism or Islam or any other religion, I'll consider myself the most successful person on earth.

Copenhagen Bandwagon

The title may seem new to few, and for the few I'll brief the topic first and then start shooting the blogpost.

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (UNCCC 2009) is going to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark during 7th Dec to 18th Dec, 2009.

• India is the third biggest CO₂ emitter in the world.
• CO₂ is identified as one of the major pollutants causing greenhouse effect by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change).
• On three days' visit of the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh refused to bind India to any specific numbers in terms of emissions.
• Despite Clinton's assurance that the bond will not hamper India's economic growth, Jairam refused to change his stance.

Above statements may easily make one believe India to be THE cause behind global warming.

Now let's analyse all the statements one by one.

India is the third biggest CO₂ emitter in the world.

My answer to this is India is the SECOND biggest in terms of population.

When India is second biggest in terms of population and third in terms of emissions, it clearly means India is reducing the global average of emissions.

To stress a little more on this, the first is USA, closely followed by China. Population of USA as per 2000 census was 281,421,906, less than 30% of that of India and less than 25% of that of China.

Moreover, India's annual per capita carbon dioxide emission is 1.1 tonnes, compared to 20 tonnes of that of USA.

As per the studies carried out by EIA (Electronic Industries Alliance - an organization based in USA itself), India's CO₂ emissions will be nearly 1000ppm even in 2030, compared to 8000ppm of USA and 11000ppm of China. Thouh, the emissions more than 300 to 400ppm are detrimental to earth's atmosphere, why should there be a necessity for developing countries like India to cap the emissions to the same extent (or even more) compared to developed countries?

India along with many countries from south asia and Africa was ruled and exploited by the west till mid 20th century, and it is now that these countries are getting space to breathe, it is now that they are developing, as I've mentioned in one of my posts earlier, India is yet to enter cousumerism phase. A luxury for India is a necessity for USA and many more countries. Why shouldn't the developed countries cap their emissions first and then help the developing countries do the same? And this is not the first time, when this issue is occurring, Montreal protocol and Kyoto protocol probably shared the same story.

Despite Clinton's assurance that the bond will not hamper India's economic growth, Jairam refused to change his stance.

Again, Uncle Sam assures kids not to worry. I wonder, when Jairam Ramesh is doubtful about effect of bond on INDIA, how can Hillary be sure that it won't affect INDIA?

USA, being extravegant by nature, in whatever paradigm it may be; advises the whole world to abide them. Same was the story about Nuclear Power. Often it seems like a conspiracy of USA and EU to curb the grwth of Asia and Africa.

In no manner, I am opposing climate control. As per my personal experience, I am surrounded by irresponsible people wasting electricity, water and many other resources, but on national level, on industrial level, I fully agree to Mr Jairam Ramesh.

Simultaneously, I'll also advise the readers to save electricity. I am seeing people keeping the lights and fans ON, while going out. When millions of Indians are still depriving of electricity, wastage of electricity is a CRIME. The same holds true for water also.