We have to make the title as a game to be played by the politicians and media and let the people see from grandstands the on-goings. The game can be such that there are no rules expect that the diplomats should keep on visiting on each side so to keep their stance in the game. The discussions and talks must continue and continue aggressively if India and Pakistan wants to improve their relations.
Ideally, it is the responsibility of state on either side to cater to the notion of their public at large. And there are no guesses about what the common people --the illustrious Indians and Pakistanis--think about the coda of relationships as they should be. Peace is an easy word for both and it has to stay so in the taste too. The media rampage since 2000s have help the citizens to better understanding the conduct of their politicians qua the relationship between the two nations. To understand this, it must be grasped that relationship has its essence in the people to people complacence, the idea of similarity in culture and ethics, religiosity, quotidian tasks and also, the reactionary attitudes towards big mot juste like Corruption, Governance, War to name few.
Asif Zardari is visiting India. Media blares in resonance with panelists as to what should be the motive and what can be drawn out of the whole visit. So far there are many unconvincing opinions. The problem with such a scenario--where the media talks big with like minded opinion establishers-- is that common people doesn't gain much out of that as they are unable to grasp many of these terms--4 point solution, 9 point solutions, water treaties, judicial commission visits, 26/11 issue and its seemingly long trail. It is very unfair that they are made to feel like that because eventually everything that is discussed between the visiting and hosting parties has to do with the people of both nations. And what is important is to convey a sense of subtle sureness that the rounds of discussions every few months would at least be helpful in limiting the gap of communication between both the nations. That it is important to let the media talk about that and do that more often, so often that they end up discussing all the possibilities impossibilities that can come out of such talks. That it would leave no space for 'war' in that case. That people like Hafeez Sayeed or Geelani would find their heads muddled and confounded by such open conversation encouraged by often visits. That though the solutions to complex problems may never seem easy and if any has to happen behind close curtains, still there would always be a proponent belief that the solutions may happen any time in such a cordial atmosphere.
Thus, both nations and particularly the citizens have to make this whole give-and-take, visiting hosting as a game. The creative citizenry, I am sure, would find ways to even factor in the music, movies, cricket in the same. The sharing must seem a bliss. The internet and media can be influential proponents in the whole process. So I would like to just conclude that since every person--child, young and old--is a participant by default, there is but wiseness to keep playing the game and getting better at it.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Media can pester the polity to any length it may wish
It is a common argument made against media that it always try to put words into the mouths of those personalities who are interviewed. Most of the time, it must be confessed, that the efforts are deliberate and look inquisitive, especially with the prominent members of the government or for that matter, even the opposition. What is necessary is to note that the media is a recognized body by the Constitution, Government and even the Judiciary to attain such a role if that allows it to draw info in the pursuance of larger truth. All the time media has dealt with half-truths and cajoling, comforting statements; it is the high time --since there are a shine of good journalists available--that the polity be pressed to a larger extent.
First: those who crib at media being iconoclastic, eloquent should be ashamed of such accusation. The ministers must out-smart media as it should be expected on such grounds of speechifying, dissertation or eloquence. The media acts as a votary of the common billions and they are under tremendous pressure themselves in their approach towards the scrabbling of truth out of deep hearts and minds.
Second: even the politicians or ministers have the common sense as to which media is relevant and which is yellow sphere. They always have the option to put off the requests of those who sensationalize or don't have the audience who can be nationally serious and concerning. But the contemporary times allow such media flair to exist and exist brilliantly where if the spokesmen of one party aren't coming to defend themselves, the spokesmen of the opposition would gobble all the time against the government---a fete which media can only but enjoy along with the viewers. So, the onus is always on the existing ministries to come to the channels (or panels) that matter and issue a defensive. This is a good sign and will only help in improving system--making it more accountable and transparent if any--and will do a great service to the commoner on the street by allowing him to participate by mere gesture of listening. (though they can always move to the media grounds and make comments or ask questions.)
Third: Many a faces of the party politics have been surfaced bare by the strength of media. Media may go overboard but it is one such institution that can admissibly do so without much harm. The reason for which would be a lopsided side the media has in the initial phases of any inquiry or investigation. When politicians themselves plunge to use lies of mammoth sizes, they can't blame media to concoct such questions which disrepute them or their party. They can't expect the same style of functioning from media, which doesn't even have such. Instead, they must present themselves, through their spokesmen or otherwise, and their ingenuous response on any matter as is being asked to. They can choose not to answer and dodge if they want. It will only ensure the audience who is the lucky lot after years to see the simultaneous jousting live between the government and the opposition and thus are able to understand many crafty angles to each discourse.
It is therefore important that the every participating side has such spokesmen who speak articulate, have strengths of eloquence and are intelligent. So far, this is in fact the case at least with Congress, BJP, BJD. I hope this continues and such shrewd tactics as to muzzle the media by means unconstitutional on mere ground that it pinches more and more, are not going to serve any purpose. The government may try to opt such means but only if the light is brought out to them that tomorrow they vacate the treasury benches as the voter may wish so and in that case their voice perhaps would be resounded by the same media on similar occasions. The biggest solace for me, personally, is that the commoner enjoys a lot: this flow of info, bickering, intelligent questions and responses-- all validating the tag of 'argumentative Indian' in a glittering way.
First: those who crib at media being iconoclastic, eloquent should be ashamed of such accusation. The ministers must out-smart media as it should be expected on such grounds of speechifying, dissertation or eloquence. The media acts as a votary of the common billions and they are under tremendous pressure themselves in their approach towards the scrabbling of truth out of deep hearts and minds.
Second: even the politicians or ministers have the common sense as to which media is relevant and which is yellow sphere. They always have the option to put off the requests of those who sensationalize or don't have the audience who can be nationally serious and concerning. But the contemporary times allow such media flair to exist and exist brilliantly where if the spokesmen of one party aren't coming to defend themselves, the spokesmen of the opposition would gobble all the time against the government---a fete which media can only but enjoy along with the viewers. So, the onus is always on the existing ministries to come to the channels (or panels) that matter and issue a defensive. This is a good sign and will only help in improving system--making it more accountable and transparent if any--and will do a great service to the commoner on the street by allowing him to participate by mere gesture of listening. (though they can always move to the media grounds and make comments or ask questions.)
Third: Many a faces of the party politics have been surfaced bare by the strength of media. Media may go overboard but it is one such institution that can admissibly do so without much harm. The reason for which would be a lopsided side the media has in the initial phases of any inquiry or investigation. When politicians themselves plunge to use lies of mammoth sizes, they can't blame media to concoct such questions which disrepute them or their party. They can't expect the same style of functioning from media, which doesn't even have such. Instead, they must present themselves, through their spokesmen or otherwise, and their ingenuous response on any matter as is being asked to. They can choose not to answer and dodge if they want. It will only ensure the audience who is the lucky lot after years to see the simultaneous jousting live between the government and the opposition and thus are able to understand many crafty angles to each discourse.
It is therefore important that the every participating side has such spokesmen who speak articulate, have strengths of eloquence and are intelligent. So far, this is in fact the case at least with Congress, BJP, BJD. I hope this continues and such shrewd tactics as to muzzle the media by means unconstitutional on mere ground that it pinches more and more, are not going to serve any purpose. The government may try to opt such means but only if the light is brought out to them that tomorrow they vacate the treasury benches as the voter may wish so and in that case their voice perhaps would be resounded by the same media on similar occasions. The biggest solace for me, personally, is that the commoner enjoys a lot: this flow of info, bickering, intelligent questions and responses-- all validating the tag of 'argumentative Indian' in a glittering way.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
The common chord of corruption.
The recent scandal of alleged attempt to give the Indian army chief an offer of 14 crores to buy a particular set of vehicles for the use of defense would make a burlesque mockery of all the temple of constitution if it were to go down the tunnel of time passage. Different voices are gaining rowdy larynx as the story develops every hour. First there was the man at the receiving end of the treacherous offer-- Army Chief V.K Singh, who chose suddenly, as if by a subtle bout of memory, to divulge the matter that was at hand a good years ago. But that the man has spoken is a plus service to the nation, or at least the sluggish expose would only end up making the 'Indian Defense' more strong.
The first riposte from the prominent media and television voices--merely in attempt to come up with some sloppy statement, or to get clarity out of reiteration-- was to take on V.P Singh's particular claim. The common phrase "Why now" resounded and did the first step in uniting the voices who were asked to comment. (United they felt at the same page, thus relieved and started with constructing understanding in their minds over an overly complex issue of national security). I know with certainty that were they to take time to reflect over the impetuous blare of theirs, they must be feeling pangs of shame now. Because the issue could not have been afforded to stray and thus it should have been handled such that the so called 'questioning voice' or more aptly the 'inquisitive voice' should have had the chance to sound rationally and apolitically.
Since we missed that moment yet again, it would be wise to let it rest now. The issue is about corruption and can't be alleviated to mere attempt of bribe. The honor of army has come under the dark by the plague of corruption. So far it was the say of politicians that were to be sought after to generate an understanding of the bulky issues but the realm of army is well beyond the mere politicos and extends up to the civilians. How often have we heard of voices--regular, proletariat, concerning, naive--who applauded the two institutions in the grand murk of Indian scope: The Supreme Court of India and The Indian Army. These two institutions so far have retained the sanity and respect as far the grand naivete of Indian's billions is concerned. Not only because these pledge to regard the sense of security and justice---the absolute crux of physiological aesthete--but also that these two institutions have shared a deep bonding with the scruffy slate of an average Indian. This concept of slate seems to lurch in the fear of being compromised. And to play the dirty game, it is unavoidably and paradoxically the chief of army who is the button pusher( or slate duster) here.
The weight of corruption has begun to burden the aesthetics now. It is after it has ended up with the tolerance of skin bearing, then emotional vacuity before it could reach out to the innermost aesthetics. The head was confused but the heart was convincing; now the head is dead and the heart is injured and so is the form and content of it. To survive in a mire like India (which one can do but not without human effort and of course, not by an amiss of voluntary effort of love) it is therefore necessary to keep this history of faith to give an assurance (and not the image or phantom of it) of future. The army chief must come out open and take the ordeal to make this investment in faith a plausible option. The nation sees to it--that nation where the politics is at the fringe and for a moment of pleasure the People act deliberately blurry at the edges.
The first riposte from the prominent media and television voices--merely in attempt to come up with some sloppy statement, or to get clarity out of reiteration-- was to take on V.P Singh's particular claim. The common phrase "Why now" resounded and did the first step in uniting the voices who were asked to comment. (United they felt at the same page, thus relieved and started with constructing understanding in their minds over an overly complex issue of national security). I know with certainty that were they to take time to reflect over the impetuous blare of theirs, they must be feeling pangs of shame now. Because the issue could not have been afforded to stray and thus it should have been handled such that the so called 'questioning voice' or more aptly the 'inquisitive voice' should have had the chance to sound rationally and apolitically.
Since we missed that moment yet again, it would be wise to let it rest now. The issue is about corruption and can't be alleviated to mere attempt of bribe. The honor of army has come under the dark by the plague of corruption. So far it was the say of politicians that were to be sought after to generate an understanding of the bulky issues but the realm of army is well beyond the mere politicos and extends up to the civilians. How often have we heard of voices--regular, proletariat, concerning, naive--who applauded the two institutions in the grand murk of Indian scope: The Supreme Court of India and The Indian Army. These two institutions so far have retained the sanity and respect as far the grand naivete of Indian's billions is concerned. Not only because these pledge to regard the sense of security and justice---the absolute crux of physiological aesthete--but also that these two institutions have shared a deep bonding with the scruffy slate of an average Indian. This concept of slate seems to lurch in the fear of being compromised. And to play the dirty game, it is unavoidably and paradoxically the chief of army who is the button pusher( or slate duster) here.
The weight of corruption has begun to burden the aesthetics now. It is after it has ended up with the tolerance of skin bearing, then emotional vacuity before it could reach out to the innermost aesthetics. The head was confused but the heart was convincing; now the head is dead and the heart is injured and so is the form and content of it. To survive in a mire like India (which one can do but not without human effort and of course, not by an amiss of voluntary effort of love) it is therefore necessary to keep this history of faith to give an assurance (and not the image or phantom of it) of future. The army chief must come out open and take the ordeal to make this investment in faith a plausible option. The nation sees to it--that nation where the politics is at the fringe and for a moment of pleasure the People act deliberately blurry at the edges.
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
The arcane slut ' Indian Democracy'
The arcane slut ' Indian Democracy'
Indian democracy has terribly lost its character. It miserably behaved-- or was made to do so-- as a young teen slithering from the socialite hands of Pandit Nehru and then slowly, by and by, there came a serial contemptuous polity that rendered it to the status used (shamelessly) in the masthead. There was something that prompted me to write like that.
In what way do the people of India understand the overly complex 'Democracy'? Many a people would shrug off merely hinting it as a loose sobriquet for the State or Parliament or Political Culture. (The last bit could have come half-way cross to its actual connotation but the user is insightful about it.) And to the elite, educated and counted, it is too meaningful that it would be a misery and vacuity to confine it to the definition originated from one (or a few) heads because every school of thought (because elites have schools of thought). As such, it is still searching for an honorable name but still--as it is seen almost everyday on news channels galore--that politicians, opinion makers, panelists at pseudo-intellectual debates would use it as a petty cave to slide in when asked of questions about the political culture they are seeked to rinse in.
Most of these excuses are made not to overtly take a stance while, to put in contrast, the codes of Democracy not only allows but facilitates one to take a stand. One wonderful definition that my professor recounted to me when I plied with him over the lack of it was: Democracy is the collective ethics of Political Culture of a nation. Thus it is the moral politics that underpins the body of Democracy. So why the likes of politicians would throw the word here and there, as if in discard while at the same time slobbering over it, ducking the question put to them. Congressmen have gone a bit ahead who would pontificate when asked about the right of author (Salman Rushdie) to retreat to his nation of birth, in saying that in a pressing democracy the voices of dissent should also be heeded and respected. Not to mention that in order to appease a mass taking the guise of or giving a burka to Democracy, there themselves with abashing give up their right to choose right. Here is where the degradation starts because as a political party in power in Indian Democracy they ought to have their way direction clear to not only point toward but also to guide others. This lack of thought and merely hiding under the cloak of cliche bickering of appeasement of certain mass of people will not do, should not do.
It is therefore--now, coming to the point--that politicians must own up Democracy. And the best way is to practice it. Not to merely call it along with all its trappings and equipage, like a wealthy hotelier would call for an escort agency to send in the best slut on the board because a client with deep pockets has to be appeased.
In what way do the people of India understand the overly complex 'Democracy'? Many a people would shrug off merely hinting it as a loose sobriquet for the State or Parliament or Political Culture. (The last bit could have come half-way cross to its actual connotation but the user is insightful about it.) And to the elite, educated and counted, it is too meaningful that it would be a misery and vacuity to confine it to the definition originated from one (or a few) heads because every school of thought (because elites have schools of thought). As such, it is still searching for an honorable name but still--as it is seen almost everyday on news channels galore--that politicians, opinion makers, panelists at pseudo-intellectual debates would use it as a petty cave to slide in when asked of questions about the political culture they are seeked to rinse in.
Most of these excuses are made not to overtly take a stance while, to put in contrast, the codes of Democracy not only allows but facilitates one to take a stand. One wonderful definition that my professor recounted to me when I plied with him over the lack of it was: Democracy is the collective ethics of Political Culture of a nation. Thus it is the moral politics that underpins the body of Democracy. So why the likes of politicians would throw the word here and there, as if in discard while at the same time slobbering over it, ducking the question put to them. Congressmen have gone a bit ahead who would pontificate when asked about the right of author (Salman Rushdie) to retreat to his nation of birth, in saying that in a pressing democracy the voices of dissent should also be heeded and respected. Not to mention that in order to appease a mass taking the guise of or giving a burka to Democracy, there themselves with abashing give up their right to choose right. Here is where the degradation starts because as a political party in power in Indian Democracy they ought to have their way direction clear to not only point toward but also to guide others. This lack of thought and merely hiding under the cloak of cliche bickering of appeasement of certain mass of people will not do, should not do.
It is therefore--now, coming to the point--that politicians must own up Democracy. And the best way is to practice it. Not to merely call it along with all its trappings and equipage, like a wealthy hotelier would call for an escort agency to send in the best slut on the board because a client with deep pockets has to be appeased.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
"India is a damning outrageous 'confusion' "
There is a hell lot that is happening to the largest democracy in the world--a major divide that patently threatens to rip the slight, tenuous fabric of Indian Democracy into many divides. You name an issue and you would immediately have different sections favoring, opposing, blabbering, middling over the matter. Almost all sections speak and assert as if with authority and bears a command in their tone to make an impact. Is this the confusion?
Heck No! This is normal in a vibrant democracy. One important aspect is to analyze who are the observers, listeners and the --this is critical!-- subjects of such assertions. The media is playing debates on air where the panelists debate (I am focusing mainly on this one, single and probably dangerous nature of the confusion conglomerate) over every issue that is the hot topic of the day. The whole discussion appears to be hung in the air, not at all propped on the literary stilts of context and connotation which is the beginning of the worry. Often these panelists are urban, upper middle class, opinion swashing fellows; and very often the matter that is discussed relates with poor, lower-middle class sections that unfortunately have no voice on the (esteemed) panel.
Then, the moderator or the anchor is unqualified to actually converge the heavy debate towards a more constructive end. Instead what happens is that a rigmarole of varied opinions self-sticking to the image of the speaker ends up confusing the listeners to whom it should have meant something. Not only an issue is churned to loll at it extreme ends(which is usual) but those who stand at one end fail to support the cause of this end with good arguments. Cashing upon this the zealot at the other end shouts and blabbers only to meet a similar fate. At the end of the issue the listeners feel cracks in their heads while the opinion makers who contested in the debate would feel less assured about their opinions and would cringe, too.
The urban class who take a 'liberal' stance make all efforts to mean it. They would quote xyz from bards and novelists and would flash dissertation heavily laden with verbiage. They press, pontificate and shout/ shriek all the while sounding/ acting as if he/she is the conclusive authority over the matter. Mostly the anchor would go with these opinions. And on rare occasions when someone tries to take the side of under-privileged, sufferers they are mocked by sneers and taunts and laughs. Those who the sufferers (the major lot) feel that their repository could not put their point effectively and thus ended up being ridiculed. This adds to the confusion as not merely the true ground-reality of the case is not even put forward but had been adulterated and saddled with unimportant, farcical less important things.
What is more tragic in the whole frame of such discussions are played day in and day out where panelists with little (or no) knowledge of the issue debate and discuss purely on the base of semantics and their own mental model. Their picture of the worldly issues is largely distorted but it also, at the same time, ends up smudging that of others. The policy makes set to lose despite it being the only caring body (though only with insouciance) and the execution is stalled. The trivia of the media when magnified with the force of their presence actually turns out to be the constructors and contractors of the stalling.
The nation needs clearance--clarity of thought above all. The policy makers will function as they would be bored otherwise. They will blinker at corruption, inefficiency and ineptitude but will do something. They are not the new faces but the old, raddled ones and thus it is important to devise a way to milch them, their experience by letting them do the things. Of course, the leadership-change is inevitable but there is a wide gap that may result in if the transfer is not smoothened. Those who cringe, blabber, sulk, opinionate, vocalize are not the doers and therefore should shut themselves up for the sake of options of speaking for good times.
Heck No! This is normal in a vibrant democracy. One important aspect is to analyze who are the observers, listeners and the --this is critical!-- subjects of such assertions. The media is playing debates on air where the panelists debate (I am focusing mainly on this one, single and probably dangerous nature of the confusion conglomerate) over every issue that is the hot topic of the day. The whole discussion appears to be hung in the air, not at all propped on the literary stilts of context and connotation which is the beginning of the worry. Often these panelists are urban, upper middle class, opinion swashing fellows; and very often the matter that is discussed relates with poor, lower-middle class sections that unfortunately have no voice on the (esteemed) panel.
Then, the moderator or the anchor is unqualified to actually converge the heavy debate towards a more constructive end. Instead what happens is that a rigmarole of varied opinions self-sticking to the image of the speaker ends up confusing the listeners to whom it should have meant something. Not only an issue is churned to loll at it extreme ends(which is usual) but those who stand at one end fail to support the cause of this end with good arguments. Cashing upon this the zealot at the other end shouts and blabbers only to meet a similar fate. At the end of the issue the listeners feel cracks in their heads while the opinion makers who contested in the debate would feel less assured about their opinions and would cringe, too.
The urban class who take a 'liberal' stance make all efforts to mean it. They would quote xyz from bards and novelists and would flash dissertation heavily laden with verbiage. They press, pontificate and shout/ shriek all the while sounding/ acting as if he/she is the conclusive authority over the matter. Mostly the anchor would go with these opinions. And on rare occasions when someone tries to take the side of under-privileged, sufferers they are mocked by sneers and taunts and laughs. Those who the sufferers (the major lot) feel that their repository could not put their point effectively and thus ended up being ridiculed. This adds to the confusion as not merely the true ground-reality of the case is not even put forward but had been adulterated and saddled with unimportant, farcical less important things.
What is more tragic in the whole frame of such discussions are played day in and day out where panelists with little (or no) knowledge of the issue debate and discuss purely on the base of semantics and their own mental model. Their picture of the worldly issues is largely distorted but it also, at the same time, ends up smudging that of others. The policy makes set to lose despite it being the only caring body (though only with insouciance) and the execution is stalled. The trivia of the media when magnified with the force of their presence actually turns out to be the constructors and contractors of the stalling.
The nation needs clearance--clarity of thought above all. The policy makers will function as they would be bored otherwise. They will blinker at corruption, inefficiency and ineptitude but will do something. They are not the new faces but the old, raddled ones and thus it is important to devise a way to milch them, their experience by letting them do the things. Of course, the leadership-change is inevitable but there is a wide gap that may result in if the transfer is not smoothened. Those who cringe, blabber, sulk, opinionate, vocalize are not the doers and therefore should shut themselves up for the sake of options of speaking for good times.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
"Pakistan made fake Facebook profile to send 'Friend Request' to U.S"
If the reports are to be believed, Pakistan Foreign Affairs Ministry has sent a 'friend request' to United States using a fake Facebook Account.
The relationship of Pakistan with United States has been on the downhill since the army of Pakistan issued orders to retaliate any attack from NATO forces in the future. Also, Pakistan is boycotting the meeting with United States in Afghanistan as a mark of protest.
Inside officials blurted to Faking News on the condition of anonymity, that such a carefully thought step would help insure to play 'both ways'. On one side, people would feel that U.S and Pakistan are no more friends on Facebook while at the same time, Pakistan could still like U.S's photos if the friend request is accepted.
Heena Khar said that Pakistan would still need to do some homework first. To make a fake profile isn't easy. It should have already some friends under its Friend list to convince U.S of its genuine status. Afghanistan, Uzbekisthan, Kazakasthan, Morocco and the like, who are famous to accept anybody's friend request would be made friends first and then U.S would be approached.
Pakistan if hopeful that its new tactic could even help in viewing U.S's photos with other nations which was not allowed earlier owing to Pakistan's bad reputation of Unrealistic Eve Teaser. But Ministry says that it would refrain from commenting on U.S's profile as the bad grammar would easily let know that the fudge nation is Pakistan.
President Asif Zardari, still using Orkut, took sometime to know the features of Facebook but once learnt, said "Oh good! Lets stalk India."
Though, with recruitment of Ankur from IIT-Delhi by Facebook, ISI was skeptical of the move. Kayani said,"65 lacs for an undergrad! Don't you see the Indian hand there? He could be a RAW agent."
It is yet to be decided what name would such a fake profile bear. 'Namibia' could be chosen if there is no such username on Facebook. Also, whether 'Pakistan' would be the friend of this fake-nation is yet to be decided.
CAG chooses Kabil Sibbal to travel back in time to convince Mayans they were wrong @2012
New Delhi: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, that had been recently in news because of their intricate calculations to reach at the number of crores Raja had caused a loss to the exchequer, announced a time odyssey that shook the Indian media today.
CAG has chosen Kabil Sibbal to lead a five member team to travel back in time to convince Mayans that they had been wrong in their calculations to predict an end to the world. Kabil Sibbal has been asked to reduce his weight by 65 kgs so as to not only be fit but also to fit-in the time-machine with other four travelers.
It was Sheeta Shrimati, a CAG employee who in her free time worked out the calculations available from the 5000 years olf Mayan calender civilization that she noticed a loophole. She immediately informed her seniors (those who had worked in A.Raja's case) and they realized that Sheetal was right.
In a press meet, Sibbal explained, 'Mayans had exaggerated the number of years. The fools didn't use the proper formulas to calculate the timing of end of the world. The equation they had formed had many complex solutions and since the complex numbers were yet to be developed, it is obvious they had come up with wrong answer to the equation. So according to CAG's calculations, the world should have ended on the day Raja was born. But that didn't happen. So Mayans were wrong.'
John Algorithm, a famous mathematician has refuted Sibbal's claim. According to John, even CAG's calculations are wrong. He says that as per Mayan calender's true reading, the world would end the day when either Lokpal Bill is passed or the other solution would be the day India would rid off from corruption.
When FN raised John's concerns with Sibbal, he had a grin on his face and said, ''John Algorithm's brain size has gone to zero.''
While Kiran Bedi said that John may be right but still Kabil would not be wrong. Because there would be no such day when Lokpal is passed. And to calculate about the day when India is corruption free, well for that even the Kapil Sibbal of Mayan Civilization has to travel back in their time.
Last we heard was that the Time Machine had been ready but Rahul Gandhi has taken it in the near future to see if he would be the next Prime Minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)