The relationship between India and China has in recent months become, as the cliche goes, the cynosure of all eyes. Border roads and dams; military incursions; a row over the Dalai Lama; illegal Chinese workers on Indian soil, Google™ maps, all have become milestones in the steady escalation of tensions.

The media has been at the centre of the dispute, and there is a feeling that “sections of the Indian media” (in other words, “anti-China media”) have been inclined to ratchet up the volume, ostensibly at the nod of their American, capitalist masters.

But could the opposite also be equally true? That “sections of the Indian media” (in other words, “pro-China media”) have been inclined to play down the tensions, ostensibly at the nod of their Chinese, communist masters?

Some proof comes from the manner in which the Lowy Institute for International Policy’s survey of Chinese attitudes about their country and its place in the world is being reported.

# Exhibit A, above, is from the December 2 edition of The Indian Express, New Delhi, whose Delhi-based correspondent avers that 40 per cent of Chinese think India is their country’s biggest threat “after the United States”.

# Exhibit B, below, is from the December 4 edition of The Hindu, Madras, whose Beijing correspondent reports that environmental issues are perceived to be the biggest challenges facing their country. “60 per cent of Chinese did not view India as a threat…, only 34% viewed India as a threat an the rest were non-committal.”

For the record, prime minister Manmohan Singh said during his recent State visit to the United States that he could not understand the reasons for China’s recent “assertiveness”.

Turned on its head, is China India’s greatest threat? Or not?

Newspaper facsimiles: courtesy The Indian Express and The Hindu

Also read: Is India right in barring foreign media?

Censorship in the name of “national interest”?

The relationship between India and China has in recent months become, as the cliche goes, the cynosure of all eyes. Border roads and dams; military incursions; a row over the Dalai Lama; illegal Chinese workers on Indian soil, Google™ maps, all have become milestones in the steady escalation of tensions.

The media has been at the centre of the dispute, and there is a feeling that “sections of the Indian media” (in other words, “anti-China media”) have been inclined to ratchet up the volume, ostensibly at the nod of their American, capitalist masters.

But could the opposite also be equally true? That “sections of the Indian media” (in other words, “pro-China media”) have been inclined to play down the tensions, ostensibly at the nod of their Chinese, communist masters?

Some proof comes from the manner in which the Lowy Institute for International Policy’s survey of Chinese attitudes about their country and its place in the world is being reported.

# Exhibit A, above, is from the December 2 edition of The Indian Express, New Delhi, whose Delhi-based correspondent avers that 40 per cent of Chinese think India is their country’s biggest threat “after the United States”.

# Exhibit B, below, is from the December 4 edition of The Hindu, Madras, whose Beijing correspondent reports that environmental issues are perceived to be the biggest challenges facing their country. “60 per cent of Chinese did not view India as a threat…, only 34% viewed India as a threat an the rest were non-committal.”

For the record, prime minister Manmohan Singh said during his recent State visit to the United States that he could not understand the reasons for China’s recent “assertiveness”.

Newspaper facsimiles: courtesy The Indian Express and The Hindu

Also read: Is India right in barring foreign media?

Censorship in the name of “national interest”?

Virender Sehwag’s dismissal for 293 in the first hour of play on the third day of the third Test match at the Brabourne Stadium erased hopes of his becoming the first batsman ever to score three triple centuries or of becoming the first Indian to reach 400.

Nevertheless, that should not deflect attention from a key truth: the Nawab of Najafgarh in full flow is a breathtaking sight on the cricket field. Cruel, carefree, uncluttered and total paisa vasool. As the chairman of the selection committee, K. Srikkanth, puts it, only Viv Richards was more brutal.

That said, smaller boundaries, terrific bats, ridiculous rules, unimaginative bowlers, not to mention one-day cricket and Twenty20, have resulted in a surfeit of Sehwags around the cricket-playing world. So, the question: who is the most exciting batsman to watch today?

Kancha Ilaiah, professor of political science at Osmania University, Hyderabad, and author of Why I am not a Hindu, in The Times of India:

“Hinduism is in a state of crisis, facing a kind of civil war within. The primary reason for this is the stranglehold of the varnashram system which keeps 750 million Hindus subjugated and humiliated. These are the Dalits, tribals and the backward classes. Hinduism has failed to convince them that they are part of it, despite the fact that they were the carriers of all science and technology for centuries.

“Hinduism is the only religion that has failed to negotiate and engage with reason and science. No social reformer, except [Jyotiba] Phule and [Babasaheb] Ambedkar, challenged the caste system. Other religions are now competing to win over these people hence there is an imminent explosive crisis.”

Read the full interview here: ‘Edit all spiritual texts’

Ankur Chawla, the son of India Today editor Prabhu Chawla*, who was named in a bribery case concerning the Hindi newspaper Amar Ujala 10 days ago, has had a “status update”.

Chawla junior, a Supreme Court advocate, has now been inducted into the CBI team probing the bribery case involving the acting head of the company law board (CLB).

In other words, the accused has turned approver, with a difference—he will now probe the very case he was a part of.

Chawla had been named as a “middleman” in the CBI first information report (FIR) after the CLB chief R. Vasudevan was caught on the night of November 23 while allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 7 lakh from Manoj Banthia, a company secretary of Amar Ujala, to settle a dispute in the family running the regional daily.

Ankur Chawla feigned innocence claiming he was “out of the country” but his house in New Delhi’s Defence Colony was raided and a file relating to the case was recovered “establishing his links with the case“.

Chawla’s name was also missing from the CBI press release.

The Hindu reported that CBI had registered a case against Vasudevan, Banthia and Ankur Chawla under 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 (public servant taking bribe other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), 8 (taking bribe, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant) and other sections of the prevention of corruption Act.

Although The Times of India reports that Banthia “has all along maintained that it was Ankur Chawla who had allegedly handed over the cash to him asking him to further hand it over to Vasudevan,” a Delhi court was told a different story on November 30.

# “It is submitted that accused Ankur Chawla (the lawyer) joined investigation today,” additional sessions judge O.P. Saini noted, while entertaining a petition seeking policy remand of another accused Manoj Banthia for one more day, reports The Times of India.

# Press Trust of India reports that CBI wanted to quiz Ankur Chawla with the statements made by Banthia during his custodial interrogation but the judge allowed CBI to interrogate Banthia for one more day on the ground that Ankur Chawla had “joined the probe“.

* Disclosures apply

Also read: Prabhu Chawla’s son named in bribery case

On World Disabled Day, physically challenged Taazuddin says “I do” to physically challenged Husanabi in Bagalkot on Thursday.

Photograph: Sangamesh Badiger/ Karnataka Photo News

Laxman Choudhury, the Orissa journalist accused of Maoist links because the police recovered a letter addressed him from a bus conductor and jailed for two and a half months ago, has been ordered to be set free by the Orissa High Court.

Justice C.R. Das in his order:

“If he had any nexus with the Maoists, then he would not have opened the envelope before the police. There is no incriminating evidence on record to suggest that he has any nexus with Maoists.”

Also read: Campaign to free Laxman Choudhury

BBC journalists secure abducted cop’s release

There’s a new ism in town, Arnab-ism

In the RSS mouthpiece, Organiser, Jay Dubashi addresses the “outsider” bug that is biting several States and cities against the backdrop of the assault on Samajwadi Party MP Abu Azmi by MLAs of Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Samithi (MNS) because he addressed the Assembly in Hindi instead of Marathi:

“We are actually both insiders and outsiders, particularly in India. In fact, I cannot see how an Indian can be an outsider in India. This whole great country is ours, no matter where we are. I am an Indian. I belong to all and they all belong to me. But there is a problem. If I belong to all, I must show that I belong to all of them and they belong to me. I must not run them down, because they do not speak my language or because they dress differently. We are all Indians, we are all one people, wherever we may live.”

Link via The Indian Express

Anant Nag, the Kannada actor who also blazed his way through Bollywood to critical acclaim, inaugurates an exhibition of cartoons by the Shettegar brothers at Indian Institute of Cartoonists in Bangalore on Wednesday.

Photograph: Karnataka Photo News

Also read: Once upon a time, such a star lit up the screen

And, oh, we forgot that actress from the Punjab

If Chiba San is not a son of the soil, who is?

Several Indian newspapers which have tie-ups with the New York Times have re-run Heather Timmons‘ piece on people of Indian origin returning to the United States because they find it difficult to work in the motherland.

Surprise, surprise—or perhaps no surprise, no surprise—almost all of them have excised former Mint editor, currently Washington Post managing editor, Raju Narisetti’s damning quote on “the troubling nexus of business, politics and publishing“.

No mention of Narisetti or the “troubling nexus” in 624 words of The Economic Times re-run.

No mention of Narisetti or the “troubling nexus” in 306 words of The Indian Express re-run.

No mention of Narisetti or the “troubling nexus” in 821 words of The Telegraph, re-run.

There is a mention of Narisetti and the “troubling nexus” in 1,293 words in the online edition of The Times of India, but not the print edition.

One of the few newspapers that does carry Narisetti on the “troubling nexus” is the Bangalore-based Deccan Herald.

Lawyers from Karnataka have presented the chief justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, a memorandum seeking the transfer of Justice P.D. Dinakaran from the Karnataka high court to some other HC following the allegations against him. Until the transfer is affected, no judicial work should be given to him, they say.

The former Bombay high court judge, Hosbet Suresh, writes*:

“Justice Dinakaran sits in court with no restraint on him. If what has appeared in the press cannot be hidden from the public ear and eye, will the public have confidence in his administration of justice?”

Senior advocate Pramila Nesargi has presented a complaint to the central vigilance commission (CVC) seeking a probe into the allegations of corruption against Justice Dinakaran, a public servant as defined under the prevention of corruption Act.

Now, the former chief justice of India, J.S. Verma, has weighed in, in an edit page piece in the Indian Express:

“I neither know Justice Dinakaran, nor do I comment on the merits of the allegations made against him. I speak only on the basis of the information in the public domain brought out by media reports of the uncontroverted facts, which to my mind are sufficient for his non-appointment to the Supreme Court on the above ground….

“If the available material is sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting further inquiry, the test for non-appointment laid down judicially is satisfied and it is difficult to appreciate the propriety of keeping alive the issue of his appointment to the Supreme Court.

“I for one, with experience of the office of CJI and as the author of the opinion that lays down the existing law, find the persistence with the recommendation embarrassing and contributing to an erosion of the image of the institution. I wish the imbroglio ends soon with withdrawal of the recommendation. “

* Disclosures apply

Read the full article: To judge or not to judge

Full coverage: The strange case of Justice P.D. Dinakaran

CHURUMURI POLL: Is Dalit Dinakaran above the law?

If he is unfit for Supreme Court, how is he fit for Karnataka HC?

If he is unfit for Supreme Court, how is he fit for Karnataka HC—II?

‘Integrity + competence + judicial temperament’

Yella not OK, but Supreme Court silent yaake?

The brazen conduct of Justice Dinakaran

On the miracle that is the Indian road, M.K. VIDYARANYA captures a stainless steel shop on the wheels of a moped made by the old firm of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar in Salem.

Also read: Don’t tell us you didn’t know this one on Rajnikant

The “national” media in India—a loose moniker that alludes to Delhi-based newspapers, magazines and TV stations—are routinely accused of picking up stories from the regional language press and passing them off as “exclusives” when no one is watching.

Fingers are now being pointed at the northern editions of The Indian Express which on November 23 “broke” the contents of the Liberhan Commission report on the demolition of the Babri masjid.

The “leak” resulted in the report, 17 years in the making, being hurriedly tabled in Parliament, and the paper published a mandatory ad on its pages the following day crowing its scoop.

But a group of anonymous journalists say in an email say that the Liberhan report contents were actually revealed by The Tribune, Chandigarh, almost five months earlier in two page-one stories (here and here) on consecutive days by Naveen S. Garewal.

This is the text of a chainmail doing the rounds:

The Indian Express claims  is now claiming that the story on Liberhan commission indicting Advani others has been first reported by the Express.

This is nothing but lies.

The Tribune, a 127-year-old newspaper published from Chandigarh, broke the story on July 1, 2009. The Express only copied (a major portion of that the story) and passed it off as its own.

NDTV please note.

Should so-called ethical journalists not give credit to Tribune, which broke the story?

Be true to your profession.

Newspaper facsimiles: courtesy The Tribune, The Indian Express

MATHIHALLI MADAN MOHAN writes from Hubli: It is now clear as crystal.

Either the chief minister of Karnataka, B.S. Yediyurappa, is mortally afraid of annoying the Reddy brothers, lest it cost him his chair. Or, he and the bigwigs in the BJP have a stake, direct or indirect, in the illegal mining happening on either side of the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border.

This is the only inescapable inference one can draw from Yediyurappa’s dogged refusal to agree for a CBI probe into the illegal mining operations, which the Centre is desirous of having.

Yeddiyurappa, mind you, is not required to initiate the process of a CBI enquiry on his own.

Such a step has already been taken by his AP counterpart, K. Rosaiah.

Acting on the recommendation of a committee constituted by the Supreme Court, which is seized of the matter, Rosiah has called for a CBI proble, notwithstanding the fact (or probably because of the fact) that one of the Reddy brothers, Gali Janaradhana Reddy, was a dear friend of the late AP CM, Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy.

In a virtual indictment of the Reddys, the central empowerment committee said that the illegal mining be stopped in the six mines in Obulapuram and Siddapuram villages of Anantpur district, and that mining activities be resumed only after a demarcation of the boundaries of the mining leases was completed.

It is this reference to the demarcation of the boundaries in the report of the CEC which brings Karnataka into the picture.

The mines are located on the border areas and the allegation is that the company owned by the Reddys has encroached upon the mineral-rich areas outside their mining leases and is carrying out large scale illegal mining in the unclothed reserved forest areas.

The Centre is inclined to accede to AP’s request for a CBI probe and it wants a formal concurrence from Karnataka to start the CBI enquiry.

But Yediyurappa is dillydallying in the matter and has been stonewalling the request.

It is true that the Reddys officially have no mining leases in their name in Karnataka. All their mining operations are conducted in the name of the company—Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC)—located on the other side of the border in Andhra Pradesh.

But the fact remains that the Reddys have emerged as the movers and shakers of Karnataka from the financial clout that they have acquired through mining over the years. Several mine owners of Bellary openly talk of how the Reddys intimidate or overpower the lesser lot and dominate the mining activities.

One such person, Tapal Ganesh, whose family has been in the mining operations for over three generations, has taken the issue up to the Supreme Court.

In his application he has said, inter alia, that the OMC:

“…is owned by influential and politically powerful persons. Its managing director Janardhana Reddy is a cabinet minister in the Karnataka government and who is also involved in business partnership with the son of the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. The OMC has encroached upon mineral-rich areas outside their mining leases and is carrying out large scale illegal mining in unallotted reserved forest areas.”

Yediyurappa’s stand is surprising on three counts.

One, whether Karnataka agrees or not, it cannot preclude CBI from looking into OMC’s activities in the State because of the reference to the illegal mining activities. It would be graceful if Karnataka agrees. Otherwise Karnataka would lose grace as CBI, by the very nature of its mandate, can press ahead with the investigation regardless.

There are already reports that the CBI team has visited Karnataka to collect lot of documents required for the  enquiry.  And the report of the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka, which Karnataka wants to push under the carpet, provides enough grist to the CBI mill.

Secondly, it was the BJP group, which had vociferously demanded a CBI inquiry when Janardhana Reddy, then a first time legislator, had hurled charges of  corruption in the mining activities against the then CM, H.D. Kumaraswamy, during the BJP-JDS coalition in the days preceding the 2008 elections.

Thirdly, as a leader of the opposition, claiming to champion the cause of the people, Yediyurappa was prone to demanding a CBI probe at the drop of hat and used to slamming governments which did not accede.

But the illegal mining issue is more serious than all the issues on which Yediyurappa had demanded a CBI probe in the past. This is such a serious issue that no CM would have said “no” in the first place. As a matter of fact, the onus of demanding the CBI enquiry should have been on Yediyurappa  himself.

But he is weakly trying to stall the matter.

Or is it that Yediyurappa wants the CBI enquiry without officially appearing to be favouring it as a matter of strategy to deal with his bete noire, the Reddys?

Nothing can be ruled out in the mercurial nature of the internal politics of the BJP, where the wounds left by the Reddy sponsored rebellion against Yediyurappa have yet to begin to heal.

Photograph: courtesy Outlook

BHARGAVI S. RAO and LEO SALDANHA write from Bangalore: Employing a highly illegal policy, the government of Karnataka intends to restrict entry to Bangalore’s heritage Cubbon Park and Lalbagh only to visitors carrying an electronic ID card.

Needless to state, this electronic ID comes at a steep price of Rs 200 per person and will be regulated based on a highly restrictive application process.

The intent is to prevent common folks, especially the urban poor and the voiceless, from using such public spaces while showcasing Bangalore as an elite friendly and global investment friendly city, with its public spaces out of bounds for local residents.

This is the beginning of the state’s encroachment of people’s right to freely access public spaces and a stage is being set to privatise public commons. All sorts of devious reasons are being flung at the public, including security concerns, morality and misuse of parks by “unnecessary elements”.

The manner in which the policy is formulated encourages the particular exclusion of access rights of the urban poor (especially from minorities), street and working children, elderly people, transgenders , migrant workers, labourers, street vendors, drivers of autorickshaws and taxis, the differently abled, families with children, etc.

The idea of having to carry an ID merely to access these two parks, fundamentally distances them from their unfettered and constitutionally protected right to use public spaces.

This policy also promotes discriminatory access to public spaces as it privileges ‘regular walkers’ and thus negates the very concept of parks as public commons. Simply stated this draconian policy encroaches our very fundamental right to live a healthy life based on dignified and unfettered access to public spaces.

It may even initiate conversion of our public commons, such as parks, playfields and open spaces, into private havens—a practice already in vogue by the State granting large parts of Cubbon Park to the Karnataka Lawn Tennis Association, Century Club and various other private clubs.

To protest such abhorrent acts of exclusion, we have organised a protest on Monday, 30 November 2009, from 4 pm to 6 pm at Queen’s statue, Cubbon Park, M. G. Road.  We urge you to join us in this very critical struggle against encroachment of the fundamental rights to access public spaces.

We have also mounted an online petition to the Horticulture Minister Umesh Katti, who has initiated this policy, demanding that he immediately stop this illegal move.

***

Bhargavi S. Rao and Leo Saldanha of Environment Support Group, Bangalore, on behalf of Slum Jagatthu, CIEDS, Vimochana, Dalit Sangharsh Samiti (Bangalore district), Sanmathi, Alternative Law Forum, Sangama, Stree Jagruthi Samithi, CIVIC Bangalore, Hasiru Usiru and Open Space.

Sign the online petition here: Keep Lalbagh, Cubbon Park public

So, why did Raju Narisetti suddenly leave Mint, the business Berliner launched by the Hindustan Times group, in December 2008, less than two years after the newspaper’s launch, and return to the United States?

***

# Was it because he was opposed to staff and salary cuts as proposed by the management, as insiders claimed?

# Was it because he had carried out his mandate of launching a credible newspaper and was ready to move on, as the management claimed?

# Was it because he had a tempting offer as one of the managing editors of The Washington Post?

# Was it because his wife was finding living in India more and more difficult?

# Or was it because an pesudonymous open letter to the prime minister by a serving IAS officer published by Mint had not gone down well with the HT management (whose vice-chairman Shobhana Bharatiya is a Rajya Sabha member nominated by the Congress), as the market speculation was (which Narisetti denied)?

There has never been a clear picture, but an indication that Narisetti and HT had parted reasonably amicably came recently when his name resurfaced on the paper’s tombstone as “Founder-Editor”.

Now, Narisetti has revealed a bit more of the circumstances surrounding his exit in a New York Times story by Heather Timmons on people of Indian origin who find it difficult to work in the country of their birth and then return home to the United States:

“Some very simple practices that you often take for granted, such as being ethical in day to day situations, or believing in the rule of law in everyday behavior, are surprisingly absent in many situations,” said Narisetti, who was born in Hyderabad and returned to India in 2006 to found Mint….

“He said he left earlier than he expected because of a “troubling nexus” of business, politics and publishing that he called “draining on body and soul.”

Also read: Pseudonymous author spelt finis to Mint editor?

Shashi Tharoor isn’t the only Tweetiya in town

‘Good journalists, poor journalism, zero standards’

The Liberhan Commission report on the demolition of the Babri masjid throws no new light on the dastardly designs of its its 67 execrable perpetrators. What it does is throw an unlikely pebble at the towering reputation and legacy of what it thinks is the 68th: Atal Behari Vajpayee.

The BJP’s rare “moderate face” has been a carefully constructed and preserved structure, designed to appeal to the soft side of India’s aspiring middle-class millions while providing the smokescreen to the saffron brotherhoodlums; a “mukhauta” in the words of K.N. Govindacharya.

That mask has been, well, unmasked by the lead-laced fingers of Justice Liberhan on the basis of a single videographed speech delivered by Vajpayee on the eve of the demolition, December 5, 1992.

Without calling the former prime minister to the witness box and without giving him a chance to explain, Liberhan calls Vajpayee a “pseudo-moderate” who can be held “culpable” of the crime of being the country to the point of communal discord by his “sins of omission”.

Given that the great voice of Vajpayee is now at the mercy of a voice-box, he cannot even defend himself from the miscarriage of justice at the hands of a judge. However, it speaks for the state of the saffron scrum that no one but no one has mounted a defence of a defenceless man.

Thankfully, Sudheendra Kulkarni steps up to the plate in today’s Indian Express:

“The most egregious part of the Liberhan report is its indictment of former Prime Minister Vajpayee, condemning him, along with Advani, as a “pseudo-moderate”. This will no doubt please communists and Muslim extremists, but, anyone who knows Vajpayee (and also Advani) knows that nothing can be a worse travesty of truth.

“I suspect that this character assassination of Vajpayee by a government-appointed commission has been done deliberately to dishonour him in India’s official history, so that only members of a particular family are recognised by posterity as true nationalist leaders.

“Implicating Vajpayee raises some serious questions. Does the mere fact that he gave a speech supporting the Ayodhya movement make him a “pseudo-moderate? Are we then to believe that only he/she is a moderate Hindu who opposes the BJP, and counters the demand for a Ram Mandir at the disputed site in Ayodhya?

“I too supported the Ram Mandir movement before 1992 (when I was not in the BJP) and I continue to support it even now, when I am no longer in the BJP. There are millions of ordinary, non-communal but proud Hindus like me who feel outraged by Liberhan’s warped belief that the only correct definition of secularism is that which disregards legitimate Hindu sentiments and silently acquiesces in the negation and falsification of the long history of temple-breaking by bigoted Muslim rulers. If Islamic bigotry could blast Bamyan Buddhas in the age of television in the 21st century, are we to believe that religiously inspired temple-destruction didn’t happen in medieval India?”

Cartoon: courtesy Satya Govind/ The Charicaturist

Read the full article: Vajpayee a pseudo-moderate? A canard

Stories of employees of call centres and outsourcing companies in Bangalore working on major Indian holidays just so that their company’s commitments to clients are met, makes news every now and then.

Now, Infosys Technologies, which got into a major jam with the Phaneesh Murthy scandal, has got into yet another nice, little row in the United States, with an Indian-born American citizen suing the company for….

For mocking her observance of American holidays like Thanksgiving and refusing to pay her overtime.

In her lawsuit, Promila Awasthi, a Silicon Valley consultant with Infosys’ Fremont (Califoria) office, paints a picture of a culturally insensitive organisation where she had to work in “intolerable” conditions from February to November 2008.

NBC quotes from the lawsuit:

“Infosys management routinely disparaged Americans, including Mrs Awasthi, as not having “family values,” and stated that layoffs in America are good because the jobs will be outsourced.

“Infosys management ridiculed Mrs. Awasthi for celebrating the American holiday of Thanksgiving, telling her that she should not celebrate Thanksgiving because she is Indian, and that therefore she must work on Thanksgiving Day.

“Infosys management ridiculed Mrs. Awasthi’s children for celebrating Thanksgiving, and called them “ABCD” short for “American-Born Confused Desi,” and “IBCD” short for “Indian-Born Confused Desi,” insulting terms used to criticize people of Indian ancestry who are Americanized.

“Infosys management ridiculed Mrs. Awasthi for celebrating Christmas, saying that “we” do not celebrate Christmas, and that she should not celebrate Christmas. Infosys management repeatedly discussed the quality of Mrs. Awasthi’s work by explicitly commenting on their expectations for “a woman your age.”

Questions: Standard Operating Procedure of transnational companies? Sour grapes of a sacked employee hoping to strike it big?

Is it OK to give a “local” employee a holiday for a “local” festival but deny it to “non-locals”? Should an Indian company in Rome behave like a Roman or like an Indian company, with Indian values and Indian holidays?

Or, in the new age of outsourcing and offshoring and all that, should companies have the luxury of an elastic policy cutting across cultures?

Link via Anamika Krishnan

Also read: Sepia Mutiny: No turkey for you

OK, Rang de Basanti and Munnabhai may help us bullshit a bit, but does anybody have any idea how (and why) “candle lit vigils” have become a part of our culture?

OK, the phenomenon keeps poor candle makers (like Dimple Kapadia, maybe?) in business, and it helps starving (starving of TRPs, that is) TV stations houses get a few good images.

But how exactly does lighting a candle (or a million) help us relate to (or “connect with”) with the victims of terror or whatever victims we are trying to relate to (or “connect with”). And how exactly do these silly rays of light help us scare off terrorists or whatever it is we are trying to scare off?

All of which just gives us a nice pretext to sneak in Dimple’s name and plug our lovely pal Divya Spandana alias Ramya’s touching tribute to victims of 26/11 siege of Bombay at the Cubbon Park in Bangalore on Thursday.

Photograph: Karnataka Photo News

Also read: One more example of commodification of women

Another example of commodification of women

Another example of commodification of examinations

With a speed that would put Manmohan Singh Liberhan to shame, churumuri.com is pleased to announce the winners of the Deepavali greetings contest.

The first prize of Rs 1,001 goes to the screenname “kAlaharaNasuratrAna“.

The second prize of Rs 501 goes to “vinay“.

The third prize goes to “Poli Huduga“. (The second third prize goes unrewarded for obvious reasons.)

Winners may please send their snailmail addresses by email to churumuri.churumuri@gmail.com

Hopefully the cheques will take less time than it took to announce the winners for reasons beyond our (or your) control!

Also read: CHURUMURI predict-the-verdict contest winners

CHURUMURI: Children’s Day caption contest winners

CHURUMURI Contest #2: The winner is Girish Hampali

CHURUMURI Contest #1: The winner is Rohit K.G.

This is a poster I designed in October 2009. It is for an exhibition of staff work at LCC. Staff were asked to revisit the student experience by undertaking workshops in processes that were unfamiliar to them. This gave them a heightened empathy with how students learn.

E.R. RAMACHANDRAN writes: The Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) has signed a contract with Nimbus Corporation for a jaw-dropping $612 million. The BCCI’s present sponsorship and sale earnings are around Rs 3,354 crore, the breakup being: team sponsor Rs 415 crore, kit sponsor Rs 215 crore and media rights Rs 2,724 crore.

With all this money, what is BCCI’s plan for cricket in the country?

Or for that matter, the Indian Premier League’s?

IPL czar Lalit Modi recently announced his plans at a media conference.

Since time is money, and although the Indian and foreign media were invited, only three questions were allowed due to paucity of time. The function was held in the Taj Mahal hotel’s crystal ball room. The television rights of the 2-hour programme itself were auctioned for $ 50 million.

The members of each team flew into Bombay in their own brand-new “Air IPL” plane and helihopped to the Gateway of India.

After the now-mandatory gymnastics show by Chinese girls, songs by rapper Eminem, belly show by Shakira, Modi took the stage. He was accompanied to the stage by cheer girls of Vijay Mallya’s Royal Challengers.

After receiving a standing ovation from the glitterati, the IPL commissioner read out his vision of IPL over the next 5 years:

1. In IPL-3, three paying spectators will be ushered into their seats by their respective club’s cheer girls. A token charge of $25 or equivalent in rupees will be levied. This would generate the IPL revenue of additional $200 million.

2. There will be two breaks of 10 minutes after every 7 ½ overs. This will enable the cheer leaders to change their dress. It will also take care of complaint from spectators that they are tired of seeing the girls in the same dress for the entire duration of the match. The dressmakers will add $ 100 million to the IPL kitty every 7 ½ months.

3. IPL-4 will be held in grounds of all countries that play cricket. The host cricket boards will pay IPL a royalty of 10 million for each match. At least $200 million is expected as some matches will be played twice in a ground in one season.

4. An international cheer girls training school will be started in London before IPL5 Season. Umpire Billy Bowden will be the director. Since this is an honorary post, IPL will incur no expenses in the appointment.

5. The US cricket association wants to have IPL-7 matches in their cities. IPL will directly negotiate the media rights with CNN, ABC and NBC networks and we hope to get revenue of $ 1 billion at least. If President Barack Obama agrees to toss the coin for the inaugural match and the finals, the revenues will be doubled.

6. By the time we reach IPL-10, using stem cell research and human cloning, IPL intends to have look-alike robots for leading players like Sachin Tendulkar and Andrew Flintoff so that they don’t have to field. This also opens the door for superlative Twenty20 players of the past like Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and Sanjay Manjrekar to stage a comeback.

With his proposals now laid out, Modi threw open the floor to the media and invited the three questions.

Question 1: Mr Modi, this is regarding fielding, a term used in cricket wherein the fielders chase the ball and dive to stop the ball making it difficult for the batting side to score runs. Don’t you think that had India fielded well and their batsmen run faster between the wickets they could have easily become the No. 1 ODI team? Wasn’t the sacking of fielding coach Robin Singh inappropriate?

Modi: I don’t know what you are talking about? My guess is, you must be talking about the 2009 one- day series.  We have already moved on. I am in the 2014 IPL planning stage. I also don’t deal with the nitty-gritty of cricket administration any more.

Question 2: Mr Modi, what will happen to Test match cricket, I mean the classic cricket one plays with white pants and white shirts and a red ball for five days. It already looks dead now in 2009. I am afraid you will have to re-enter circa 2009 and answer my question.

Modi: I think the problem is with the dress. Let’s face it. How many of us wear a white pant and white shirt these days? Even while playing maidan or gully cricket? Everything has changed around. Isn’t it? We need to take a hard look at the dress and decide something on this. But again this comes under trivia.

Question 3: After planning IPL-50, Mr Modi what will you do with your time?

Modi: It is not easy organising these events in Moon or Mars. I have to make sure the logistics is just right no matter where we play.

Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has named advocate Ankur Chawla, son of Prabhu Chawla, editor of the leading English newsweekly India Today*, for allegedly acting as a conduit to pay a bribe to a quasi-judicial official for “a favourable verdict in a case concerning a media house”.

The Hindustan Times reports that junior Chawla represented one of the two feuding factions of the Hindi daily newspaper Amar Ujala, and had arranged for Rs 10 lakh to be delivered to the acting chairman of the company law board (CLB), R. Vasudevan, who has been arrested for taking the bribe.

The Times of India, quoting CBI sources, says Ankur Chawla had approached Manoj Banthia, a secretary with the Ujala management, with Rs 10 lakh to get the case settled in favour of the daily’s management. “Banthia kept Rs 3 lakh. Chawla’s name is also in the FIR.”

According to Press Trust of India, Banthia was nabbed while he was emerging from Vasudevan’s house in South Delhi after allegedly paying the bribe. A further sum of Rs 55 lakh was also recovered from the residence of the 58-year-old officer.

The Economic Times quotes a CBI spokesman as saying it was “a double-trap”, in which the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker were arrested.

Atul Maheshwari, managing director of the Amar Ujala group, has clarified he had no connection with the case, but Chawla’s house in upscale Defence Colony was raided and a file relating to the case was recovered “establishing his links with the case“.

Indo Asian News Service reports that Chawla, who was reportedly out of India for two days, has professed ignorance about the bribery but has said he will co-operate with investigators.

However, Financial Chronicle reports that Ankur Chawla was among the three arrested along with Vasudevan and Banthia. But the official CBI press release makes no mention of a third arrest, much less the name or pedigree of Chawla.

The Hindu reports that CBI has registered a case against Vasudevan, Banthia and Ankur Chawla under 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and Section 7 (public servant taking bribe other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), 8 (taking bribe, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant) and other sections of the prevention of corruption Act.

To its credit, Mail Today, the tabloid newspaper owned by the India Today group for which Prabhu Chawla writes a weekly Monday column, gave the most space to the story among all Delhi dailies without, however, revealing the link.

It quoted the CBI spokesman as saying “an advocate acted as the conduit for giving this bribe,” and that “raids at the advocate’s house revealed documents belonging to multiple offices of the media house.”

Read the CBI press release here

* Disclosures apply

The indictment of the entire top management of the BJP, including the party’s moderate mascot, Atal Behari Vajpayee, for the demolition of the Babri masjid by the Justice Liberhan commission will shock few.

What should really shock is the almost complete lack of contrition on the part of those named and shamed for the trail of death and destruction that the communally pumped-up Ram janmabhoomi movement in general and L.K. Advani’s rath yatra in particular left in their wake.

“We fully own up to the movement, we will not apologise” says the RSS spokesman Ram Madhav. “I’ve said before and will say so again and again, it was the happiest day of my life,” says Vinay Katiyar of the VHP. Former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, who has been slammed for masterminding the State’s soporific response, says “no force on earth” can stop the temple from being built.

However, none of the saffron brotherhoodlums responsible for the “irreparable damage to the secular, democratic fabric of the country” stand for elections. The BJP, which is the political face of those organisations, does. Union law minister Veerappa Moily says the BJP is accountable to the nation for bringing it to the brink of communal discord.

“They owe an explanation, they owe an apology to the nation,” Moily says.

Question: Should the BJP apologise to the nation?

Professor Jyotirmaya Sharma of the University of Hyderabad in Mail Today:

“The label of India being the largest democracy is not enough. It is not sufficient for us to go through the motions of conducting elections; sending representatives to Parliament and legislatures is not enough. Along with democracy, we need to build liberal institutions in the country.

“A narrow, official conception of nationalism often comes in the way of suppressing dissent, ignoring minority views, and demanding compliance in the name of an abstract idea of the nation. In turn, these illiberal trends fuel the demand for unity, which often is authoritarian tendencies masquerading in the name of keeping the country united and strong.”

Illustration: courtesy R. Prasad/ Mail Today

Also read: ARUNDHATI ROY: India is not a democracy

ARUNDHATI ROY: Election is not democracy