Achievement

I feel honoured to bring to your notice that one of my papers has finally been published and is now available as a chapter of a book. The book titled “Finance-led Capitalism? Macroeconomic Effects of Changes in the Financial Sector” by Eckhard Hein, Torsten Niechoj, Peter Spahn, Achim Truger (eds.) has finally gone on sale (kindly refer the link http://www.metropolis-verlag.de/Finance-led-Capitalism%3F/705/book.do).

The chapter, titled “Crisis prevention and capital controls in India: perspectives from capital account in the current scenario“ is an extract from my Thesis during my Master’s studies in the University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany which won me the DAAD Prize 2006. This paper was also invited to be presented at the 11th Workshop of Research Network Macroeconomic Policies, “Finance -led capitalism? Macroeconomic Effects of Changes in the Financial Sector” organised by Hans-Boeckler-Stiftung in Berlin on 26th & 27th October, 2007 whereby I got a chance to interact with world renowned Economists in the field of Macroeconomics. The version of the paper presented in the conference is also available online at the link: http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2007_10_26_khurana.pdf

This paper analyses the capital controls in India and the potential risk of a financial crisis and/or a recession hitting the Indian economy. The paper also looks at the exchange rate regime followed by the RBI in India. Finally, in particular, it looks at two scenarios which may trigger a financial crisis and/or a recession. A look at the booming stock markets in India was undertaken to analyse the possibility of a stock market crash. Last, the paper analysed the banking sector and its reforms to study whether it is capable enough to deal with sudden outflows arising out of a stock market crash or would it succumb to its own weaknesses, further worsening the crisis by initiating a banking crisis and/or a currency crisis.

I am sure the paper would make an interesting read especially in the current scenario where the Indian Economy just might face a recession.

The meaning of my name

Just surfing through the net I stumbled upon the description/meaning of my name. I have always known that it means "faith", however, I have time and again faced a difficulty in explaining the real essence to someone who doesn't know Hindi well enough.

As it happened, I stumbled over an article regarding Margaret Woodrow Wilson, who had lived the later years of her life in India in Pondicherry in Sri Aurobindo's Ashram. Apparently, she was given the name "Nishtha" by Aurobindo who explained to her the meaning of "Nishtha" as follows:

It meant a “one-pointed fixed and steady concentration, devotion and faith in the single aim.”

The Legends surrounding the forever famous Taj Hotel, Mumbai

Now, everybody is writing about the terror attacks in Mumbai. I purposely chose not to. The reason being that the anguish and horror has already been put to paper by a multitude of media outbursts, blogs etc. However, one story that caught my attention was the one which chose to tread a different path and discuss not the horror and the lost lives but rather the lost splendor in the futile and dastardly act.

There was this wonderful article about the Taj Hotel in the Brunch, the Sunday supplement of the Hindustan Times, on December 7, 2008 titled “The Once and Forever Taj”. The article is very beautifully written by Vir Sanghvi and reveals many unknown facts about the Hotel. I would like to reproduce some excerpts which discusses the various Legends surrounding the Taj:

Few Hotels spawn legends as easily as the Taj. Here’s one that I think will be repeated in all future histories of this grand hotel. According to British newspapers, one of the tourists trapped at the Taj during the terrorist attack was stunned by the caliber of service. He says he had endured hours of forced detention in one of the restaurants when commandos suggested that there might be an escape route.

The tourist was so relieved that he grabbed a bottle of vintage Cristal champagne that was on display, seized two tumblersand was about to open the bubbly when he was stopped by a waiter.

Annoyed at this apparent attempt at economy in the middle of carnage, he snarled, “I’m bloody well going to open it.” The waiter was surprised by his response. “Oh yes sir,” he said. “It’s just that these are the wrong glasses for champagne.” And so, he pulled out champagne flutes, opened the bottle and poured out a couple of glasses.

Could this story be true?

Knowing the level of service at the Taj, I reckon it could. But even if it is made up, it’s just one of the many myths and legends that surround the Taj.

The most famous of course, concerns the architect. According to legend, the Taj was designed by a Frenchman who sent the Tatas his architectural plans and was pleased to hear that they had been faithfully executed. Some years later, he finally arrived in Bombay to see the grand hotel that had been designed to his specifications.

When he arrived, he was shattered. The idiots had misread the plans and built the hotel back to front. The grand entrance did not face the sea as he had intended. It was the back of the hotel that got the sea view.

He was so depressed that late at night, he threw himself off the fourth floor and died instantly.

It’s a good story but it is completely untrue. The Taj was actually designed by two Indian architects, D N Mirza and Sitaram Vaidya – no Frenchmen were involved. And it was not built back to front. They had always intended to construct an entrance that faced the Colaba back lanes so that horse-drawn carriages could make a grand entry. That the hotel should be designed by Indians is in keeping with the genesis of the project. Which of course, leads us to the other great legend about the Taj.

We know that Jamshedji Tata built the Taj. But why did India's steel king venture into a field about which he knew nothing? Legend has it that the genesis of the Taj lay in Jamshedji's humiliation.

There are many versions of the story but the one I like best involves the Royal Bombay Yacht Club. In those days, the Yacht Club, at Apollo Bunder (there was no Gateway of India then, it was built after the Taj) was the snootiest place in town. And naturally, no Indians were allowed on its premises unless they were waiters, cooks or cleaners.

Jamshedji, who was Sir Jamshedji by then, was invited by an English acquaintance to the Club. He arrived at the appointed time, only to discover that they wouldn't let him in. The no-Indians policy applied to all brown people, even to Parsees who were not very brown and knights of the empire. All white people, even if they were cleaners or clerks, were very welcome.

The story goes that Jamshedji was so angered by the slight that he resolved to build a hotel next to the Yacht Club that was so grand that no- body would ever bother with the Yacht Club and its no-Indians policy again. And sure enough, he succeeded. The Yacht Club survives today, decrepit, slightly seedy and largely ignored by all but a few sailors and drunks.

Other versions of the story have Jamshedji being refused entry to the Majestic Hotel (also a stone's throw from the Taj, it is an MLA's hostel now) or Pyrkes Hotel. Every story ends with his resolve to build a hotel that was greater and grander than any British-owned hotel in his city.

The problem is that there is no verification for this legend. Jamshedji himself never spoke of any such humiliation and the chances are that the story was made up later (There is a similar story about Jawaharlal Nehru being refused entry to the Allahabad Club after he came back from Cambridge so perhaps this is a recurring Indian theme.)

One legend that does appear to be true though is that in the 1950s, the Taj management was so outraged by reports of how Indians were treated by South Africa's apartheid regime that it put up a sign near the gate reading "No dogs or South Africans allowed."

Nice Game - The Scruffs

The Scruffs Uncover Grandpa's secret and help The Scruffs save their family home.

Play this free game now!!

The Difference between Focusing on Problems and Focusing on Solutions

Case 1

When NASA began the launch of astronauts into space, they found out that the pens wouldn't work at zero gravity (ink won't flow down to the writing surface).

To solve this problem, it took them one decade and $12 million. They developed a pen that worked at zero gravity, upside down, underwater, in practically any surface including crystal and in a temperature range from below freezing to over 300 degrees C.

And what did the Russians do...?? They used a Pencil!!!

Case 2

One of the most memorable case studies on Japanese management was the case of the empty soap box, which happened in one of Japan 's biggest cosmetics companies. The company received a complaint that a consumer had bought a soap box that was empty. Immediately the authorities isolated the problem to the assembly line, which transported all the packaged boxes of soap to the delivery department.

For some reason, one soap box went through the assembly line empty. Management asked its engineers to solve the problem. Post-haste, the engineers worked hard to devise an X-ray machine with high-resolution monitors manned by two people to watch all the soap boxes that passed through the line to make sure they were not empty. No doubt, they worked hard and they worked fast but they spent a whoopee amount to do so.

But when a rank-and-file employee in a small company in India was posed with the same problem, he did not get into complications of X-rays, etc., but instead came out with another solution………………He bought a strong industrial electric fan and pointed it at the assembly line. He switched the fan on, and as each soap box passed the fan, it simply blew the empty boxes out of the line.

Moral

Always look for simple solutions. Devise the simplest possible solution that solves the problems.

N.B. This again is not penned by me. but, as always it has humoured, touched and inspired me to make it to this place.

Whether you light a candle
Or a lamp
Or a firecracker
Or bonfire

Let the light you light
bring gladness to your heart,
and bring happiness and joy
to all those whom you love
and those who love you.

You are the light.
You are the bonfire.
You are Diwali.

WISHING EVERYONE A VERY HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS DIWALI.

How Financial Madness Overtook Wall Street

By Andy Serwer and Allan Sloan

If you're having a little trouble coping with what seems to be the complete unraveling of the world's financial system, you needn't feel bad about yourself. It's horribly confusing, not to say terrifying; even people like us, with a combined 65 years of writing about business, have never seen anything like what's going on. Some of the smartest, savviest people we know — like the folks running the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board — find themselves reacting to problems rather than getting ahead of them. It's terra incognita, a place no one expected to visit.

Every day brings another financial horror show, as if Stephen King were channeling Alan Greenspan to produce scary stories full of negative numbers. One weekend, the Federal Government swallows two gigantic mortgage companies and dumps more than $5 trillion — yes, with a t — of the firms' debt onto taxpayers, nearly doubling the amount Uncle Sam owes to his lenders. While we're trying to get our heads around what amounts to the biggest debt transfer since money was created, Lehman Brothers goes broke, and Merrill Lynch feels compelled to shack up with Bank of America to avoid a similar fate. Then, having sworn off bailouts by letting Lehman fail and wiping out its shareholders, the Treasury and the Fed reverse course for an $85 billion rescue of creditors and policyholders of American International Group (AIG), a $1 trillion insurance company. Other once impregnable institutions may disappear or be gobbled up.

The scariest thing to average folk: one of the nation's biggest money-market mutual funds, the Reserve Primary, announced that it's going to give investors less than 100 cent on each dollar invested because it got stuck with Lehman securities it now considers worthless. If you can't trust your money fund, what can you trust? To use a technical term to describe this turmoil: yechhh!

There are two ways to look at this. There's Wall Street's way, which features theories and numbers and equations and gobbledygook and, ultimately, rationalization (as in, "How were we supposed to know that people who lied about their income and assets would walk away from mortgages on houses in which they had no equity? That wasn't in our computer model. It's not our fault"). Then there's the right way, which involves asking the questions that really matter: How did we get here? How do we get out of it? And what does all this mean for the average joe? So take a deep breath and bear with us as we try to explain how financial madness overtook not only Wall Street but also Main Street. And why, in the end, almost all of us, collectively, are going to pay for the consequences.

Going forward, there's one particularly creepy thing to keep in mind. In normal times, problems in the economy cause problems in the financial markets because hard-pressed consumers and businesses have trouble repaying their loans. But this time — for the first time since the Great Depression — problems in the financial markets are slowing the economy rather than the other way around. If the economy continues to spiral down, that could cause a second dip in the financial system — and we're having serious trouble dealing with the first one.

The Roots of the Problem

How did this happen, and why over the past 14 months have we suddenly seen so much to fear? Think of it as payback. Fear is so pervasive today because for years the financial markets — and many borrowers — showed no fear at all. Wall Streeters didn't have to worry about regulation, which was in disrepute, and they didn't worry about risk, which had supposedly been magically whisked away by all sorts of spiffy nouveau products — derivatives like credit-default swaps. (More on those later.) This lack of fear became a hothouse of greed and ignorance on Wall Street — and on Main Street as well. When greed exceeds fear, trouble follows. Wall Street has always been a greedy place and every decade or so it suffers a blow resulting in a bout of hand-wringing and regret, which always seems to be quickly forgotten.

This latest go-round featured hedge-fund operators, leveraged-buyout boys (who took to calling themselves "private-equity firms") and whiz-kid quants who devised and plugged in those new financial instruments, creating a financial Frankenstein the likes of which we had never seen. Great new fortunes were made, and with them came great new hubris. The newly minted masters of the universe even had the nerve to defend their ridiculous income tax break — much of the private-equity managers' piece of their investors' profits is taxed at the 15% capital-gains rate rather than at the normal top federal income tax rate of 35% — as being good for society. ("Hey, we're creating wealth — cut us some slack.")

The Root of the Problems

Warren Buffett, the nation's most successful investor, back in 2003 called these derivatives — which it turned out almost no one understood — "weapons of financial mass destruction." But what did he know? He was a 70-something alarmist fuddy-duddy who had cried wolf for years. No reason to worry about wolves until you hear them howling at your door, right?

Besides a few prescient financial sages, though, who could have seen this coming in the fall of 2006, when things were booming and the world was awash in cheap money? There was little fear of buying a house with nothing down, because housing prices, we were assured, only go up. And there was no fear of making mortgage loans, because what analysts call "house-price appreciation" would increase the value of the collateral if borrowers couldn't or wouldn't pay. The idea that we'd have house-price depreciation — average house prices in the top 20 markets are down 15%, according to the S&P Case-Shiller index — never entered into the equation.

As for businesses, there was money available to buy corporations or real estate or whatever an inspired dealmaker wanted to buy. It was safe too — or so Wall Street claimed — because investors worldwide were buying U.S. financial products, thus spreading risk around the globe.

Now, though, we're seeing the downside of this financial internationalization. Many of the mortgages and mortgage securities owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bought by foreign central banks, which wanted to own dollar-based securities that carried slightly higher interest rates than boring old U.S. Treasury securities. A big reason the Fed and Treasury felt compelled to bail out Fannie and Freddie was the fear that if they didn't, foreigners wouldn't continue funding our trade and federal-budget deficits.

You've heard, of course, that subprime mortgages — subprime is Wall Street's euphemism for junk — are where the problems started. That's true, but the problems have now spread way beyond them. Those predicting that the housing hiccup wouldn't be a big deal — what's a few hundred billion in crummy mortgage loans compared with a $13 trillion U.S. economy or a $54 trillion world economy? — failed to grasp that possibility. It turned out that Wall Street's greed — and by Wall Street, we mean the world of money and investments, not a geographic area in downtown Manhattan — was supplemented by ignorance. Folks in the world of finance created, bought, sold and traded securities that were too complex for them to fully understand. (Try analyzing a CDO-squared sometime. Good luck.)

For an example in our backyard, consider Lehman Brothers. Lehman was so flush, or at least felt so flush, that in May 2007 it sublet 12 prime midtown-Manhattan floors of the Time & Life Building — across the street from Lehman headquarters — from Time Inc., which publishes this magazine. Lehman signed on for $350 million over 10 years. (It's not clear what kind of hit, if any, Time Inc. will now face.)

Lehman's fall shows the downside of using borrowed money. Even though Lehman has a 158-year-old name, it's actually a 14-year-old company that was spun off by American Express in 1994. AmEx had gobbled it up 10 years earlier, and it wasn't in prime shape when AmEx spat it out. To compensate for its relatively small size and skinny capital base, Lehman took risks that proved too large. To keep profits growing, Lehman borrowed huge sums relative to its size. Its debts were about 35 times its capital, far higher than its peer group's ratio. And it plunged heavily into real estate ventures that cratered.

Here's how leverage works in reverse. When things go well, as they did until last year, Lehman is immensely profitable. If you borrow 35 times your capital and those investments rise only 1%, you've made 35% on your money. If, however, things move against you — as they did with Lehman — a 1% or 2% drop in the value of your assets puts your future in doubt. The firm increasingly relied on investments in derivatives to produce profits, in essence creating a financial arms race with competitors like Goldman Sachs. Even though the Fed had set up a special borrowing program for Lehman and other investment banks after the forced sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase in March, the market ultimately lost faith in Lehman. So out it went.

Uncle Sam Steps Back In

The market lost faith in AIG too, but the government was forced to save it. A major reason is that AIG is one of the creators of the aforementioned credit-default swaps. What are those, you ask? They're pixie-dust securities that supposedly offer insurance against a company defaulting on its obligations. If you buy $10 million of GM bonds, for instance, you might hedge your bet by buying a $10 million CDS from AIG. In return for that premium — which changes day to day — AIG agrees to give you $10 million should GM have an "event of default" on its obligations.

But as a way to make sure that swap meisters can make good on their obligations, they have to post collateral. If their credit is downgraded — as was the case with AIG — they have to post more collateral. What put AIG on the brink was that it had to post $14 billion overnight, which of course it didn't have lying around. Next week, the looming downgrades might have forced it to come up with $250 billion. (No, that's not a typographical mistake; it's a real number.) Hence the action. If AIG croaked, all the players who thought they had their bets hedged would suddenly have "unbalanced books." That could lead to firms other than AIG failing, which could lead to still more firms failing, which could lead to what economists call "systemic failure." Or, in plain terms, a financial death spiral in which firms suck one another into the abyss.

AIG, like Lehman, was ultimately done in by credit-rating agencies, of all things. The main credit raters — Moody's and Standard & Poor's — had blithely assigned top-drawer AAA and AA ratings to all sorts of hinky mortgage securities and other financial esoterica without understanding the risks involved. Would you know how to rate a collateralized loan obligation? Or commercial-mortgage-backed securities? Sophisticated investors took Moody's and S&P's word for it, and it turned out that the agencies didn't know what they were doing. Credit raters, who claim to offer only opinions, are party to Wall Street's cycles too. At the beginning, they're far too lenient with borrowers, who are the ones who pay their rating fees. Then, after a couple of embarrassments — remember Enron and WorldCom? — the raters tighten up, maybe too much. Then memory fades, and the cycle repeats.

What doomed AIG was the rating agencies' decision — they had suddenly awakened to AIG's problems — to sharply downgrade the firm's securities. That gave AIG no time to react, no time to raise more capital, no more time to do anything else but beg for help. Because AIG is in a much scarier situation than Lehman — the insurer has assets of $1 trillion, more than 70 million customers and intimate back-and-forth dealings with many of the world's biggest and most important financial firms — Uncle Sam felt that it had no choice but to intervene.

Right before the markets began to unravel last year, Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, presciently quipped that he hadn't "felt this good since 1998," referring to the Wall Street wipeout precipitated that year by Russia's defaulting on its ruble debt. Blankfein argued that confidence in global markets had built up to a dangerously giddy level and that investors weren't being compensated for assuming outsize risk in securities like esoteric bonds and Chinese stocks. Blankfein was right, of course, but even he wasn't paranoid enough. Though Goldman stands, along with Morgan Stanley, as one of the last two giant U.S. investment banks not to collapse (as Lehman and Bear Stearns have) or be sold (à la Merrill Lynch), Goldman too has been pummeled. The firm's quarterly profit plunged 70% — results considered to be relatively good. While analysts generally believe that Goldman and Morgan Stanley will survive the meltdown, that view is not unanimous. Says doomster New York University economics professor Nouriel Roubini: "They will be gone in a matter of months as well. It's better if Goldman or Morgan Stanley find a buyer, because their business model is fundamentally flawed." Both firms would beg to disagree, but their stock prices have been hammered.

All of us are now paying the price for Wall Street's excesses. Some of the cost is being paid by prudent people, like retirees who have saved all their life. They're now getting ridiculously low rates of 2% or so on their savings because the Federal Reserve has cut short-term rates in an attempt to goose the economy and reassure financial markets. Taxpayers are going to get stuck too. By the estimate of William Poole, former head of the St. Louis Fed, bailing out the creditors of the two big mortgage firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could cost taxpayers $300 billion. Think of that as about a year and a half in Iraq.

Didn't the folks on Wall Street, who are nothing if not smart, know that someday the music would end? Sure. But they couldn't help behaving the way they did because of Wall Street's classic business model, which works like a dream for Wall Street employees (during good times) but can be a nightmare for the customers. Here's how it goes. You bet big with someone else's money. If you win, you get a huge bonus, based on the profits. If you lose, you lose someone else's money rather than your own, and you move on to the next job. If you're especially smart — like Lehman chief executive Dick Fuld — you take a lot of money off the table. During his tenure as CEO, Fuld made $490 million (before taxes) cashing in stock options and stock he received as compensation. A lot of employees, whose wealth was tied to the company's stock, were financially eviscerated when Lehman bombed. But Fuld is unlikely to show up applying for food stamps.

Fuld is done with the grueling job of trying to stave off financial crisis. Not so for regulators, of course. It's difficult to imagine the pressure and stress. Key players such as Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and New York Fed chief Tim Geithner have been working around the clock for weeks now, putting out fire after fire. Besides having to comprehend and solve the mind-bending financial woes of some of the world's biggest companies, they are also briefing and seeking counsel from CEOs of the surviving companies, never mind President George W. Bush and the two presidential candidates, plus central bankers from around the globe.

Where Do We Go from Here?

There's no question that the crisis has gone so deep that it cannot be halted by one stroke. Banks and other financial companies around the globe are struggling to pull themselves out of this mess. Rebuilding will take time, vast amounts of money and constant attention. Sooner or later, the hundreds of billions (or trillions) of dollars that the Fed and other central bankers are throwing into the markets will stabilize things. Sooner or later, housing prices will stop falling because no financial trend continues forever.

Given that this is a political year and change is the buzzword, how do Barack Obama and John McCain intend to see us out of this mess? Good question. We don't know, and it's not at all clear that they've thought about it in greater than sound-bite depth.

Obama has called for increased regulation, which seems like a no-brainer, but he hasn't articulated many specifics. Meanwhile, McCain has talked about ending "wild speculation" and railed against Wall Street greed. Well, duh. Know anyone who is in favor of naked greed? Whoever wins will face a massive job of righting the financial ship and restoring confidence that has been badly shaken. The next President will have to cast away partisan predispositions and add the just-right measure of regulation and oversight to the mix. As Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs chief executive) Paulson recently said, "Raw capitalism is dead."

Whatever the politicians do, we as a society are going to be poorer than we were. We've lost credibility with foreigners; they will be less likely than before to lend us endless amounts of cheap money. Will that ultimately lead to higher borrowing costs? It's hard to see how it won't.

Coping in this new world will require adjustments by millions of Americans. We all will have to start living within our means — or preferably below them. If you don't overborrow or overspend, you're far less vulnerable to whatever problems the financial system may have. And remember one other thing: the four most dangerous words in the world for your financial health are "This time, it's different." It's never different. It's always the same, but with bigger numbers.

(Additional photo credits -- Paulson: AP; AIG Ticker: Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / Landov; Lehman: Getty; Federal Reserve Bank of New York: AP; Foreclosure: AP; AIP sign: Getty; Dow Jones: AP)

Find this article at: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1842123,00.html

Terror: The terrible word of modern day living

With everybody writing something or the other about the current situation where we are almost everyday faced with the terrible six-letter word of modern day, TERROR, I feel tempted to write about it myself and let known what I feel about it.

This weekend we dined out. While seated and zeroing on the order, we were confronted with desperate calls from the manager of the fancy restaurant asking the gatherings whether anyone has forgotten a big black ladies bag in the waiting area. Every ear shot up and people stared at each other’s faces. After a few repetitions, it turned out one stupid looking woman, who happened to be just too be busy with her food, had failed to listen and respond the manager’s call. She suddenly rose up exclaiming, “Haan… Haan…” when her kid pointed out, “Mumma, where’s your bag?” Thanks to the kid, as the rest of us in the outlet were by now already prepared to gather our belongings and rush out. So etched in the minds of the common man is the terror of the word TERROR.

Anyway, that was on a lighter note. But seriously, the situation is bleak. People have stopped going to crowded areas, travel in the Metro or even venture out on weekends. Now, with the festive season coming up, the businesses are likely to go down rather than shooting up. This morning news poured in of a stampede at a famous temple when rumours about a bomb erupted. Somewhere around 200 people died, I heard. Even more than the toll of the Mehrauli Bomb Blast in Delhi last Saturday. Should we keep away from religious places too?

That day someone asked me, “Oh! You must be afraid of venturing out nowadays. Aren’t you?” A bit confused, I asked “Why exactly should I be?” and pat came the reply, “Arre, because of the bombings, you know. Everybody nowadays is scared of going out of their houses.” I smiled but didn’t answer. Later, I thought about it. I don’t think I am scared. No, I am definitely not scared of death because when it does strike probably I wouldn’t even have the time to realise the terror of it. But, still I would not risk my life just for adventure sake. For, after a person is gone, although it is for him/her that general people may think about or cry or miss, but in reality, the loss is of the family he/she leaves behind. They have to bear the constant reminder of the person gone every day, every moment. This is made worse when they tackle the knowledge that the death was not natural and that the person did not really deserve to die. It was simply some fanatic trying to prove some point, all in the name of religion, but which no religion propagates. Ask them, did death ask the dying man’s religion before sweeping him along?

The day after the first blasts on September 13, 2008, when life returned to normality, the media and the radio jockeys were all gung-ho about the spirit of Delhi, not to let these acts affect the Delhiites. The second blast, two weeks later, did not dampen the spirit as well. We, for example, were about to go out when news pored in. We did not stay back – went ahead about our plan, only avoided the Metro as a precaution. The Media again applauded the undying spirit of Delhi while pointing out the security services’ failure. I wished I could ask these Cheerleaders, did the Delhiites (or may be any other Metro’s people) have a choice. Life in a Metro is so dependent on people having to move out of their houses, travel in public or self-owned vehicles, how long did you expect them to sit at home and watch the stupid politicians express regret and comment on the increased security measures, or listen to the media covering stories on the dead and their families, confronting them with constant reminders of their loss when all they want is to be left alone with close family and friends in their time of grief.

No, we move on. We move on more so because all our near and dear ones, by God’s grace, have been spared of the horror. We move on because we feel that God is on our side and this cannot happen to us. We move on because we think we are safe – we only carry on with our monotonous life between home and work and we are away from all this chaos. We move on because we forget that those who are dead or injured were probably also God’s children carrying out their usual daily chores. We move on because we forget that we are just as vulnerable as the unlucky people who have lost their lives. We move on because we forget that our vigilance and cooperation with the state security is just as important in tackling this situation as the increased security measures. How many people get their tenants and house-helps verified by the police fearing it will spoil our image or question our trust in them? How many of us see a strange looking person and inform the police wondering how embarrassing would it be if he’s just an innocent passer-by? How many of us look around and under our seats while travelling in public transports, more concerned about grabbing a place to sit rather than being vigilant of our surroundings. How many of us actually go to the police and discuss anything strange we might have observed fearing unnecessary harassment by the police and the media? True, the Police and Media should work and improve their reputations of harassers but even before pointing this out to them, we the citizens, should improve our image as on-lookers and rather be known as knowledgeable, aware and enlightened persons.

The woman in your life...

Just one of those forward e-mails…. But, how true….

--------------------

Tomorrow you may get a working woman, but you should marry her with these facts as well.

Here is a girl, who is as much educated as you are; who is earning or may earn almost as much as you do;

One, who has dreams and aspirations just as you have because she is as human as you are;

One, who has never entered the kitchen in her life just like you or your Sister haven't, as she was busy in studies and competing in a system that gives no special concession to girls for their culinary achievements

One, who has lived and loved her parents & brothers & sisters, almost as much as you do for 20-25 years of her life;

One, who has bravely agreed to leave behind all that, her home, people who love her, to adopt your home, your family, your ways and even your family, name

One, who is somehow expected to be a master-chef from day #1, while you sleep oblivious to her predicament in her new circumstances, environment and that kitchen

One, who is expected to make the tea, first thing in the morning and cook food at the end of the day, even if she is as tired as you are, maybe more, and yet never ever expected to complain; to be a servant, a cook, a mother, a wife, even if she doesn't want to; and is learning just like you are as to what you want from her; and is clumsy and sloppy at times and knows that you won't like it if she is too demanding, or if she learns faster than you;

One, who has her own set of friends, and that includes boys and even men at her workplace too, those, who she knows from school days and yet is willing to put all that on the back-burners to avoid your irrational jealousy, unnecessary competition and your inherent insecurities;

Yes, she can drink and dance just as well as you can, but won't, simply because you won't like it, even though you say otherwise

One, who can be late from work once in a while when deadlines, just like yours, are to be met;

One, who is doing her level best and wants to make this most important, relationship in her entire life a grand success, if you just help her some and trust her;

One, who just wants one thing from you, as you are the only one she knows in your entire house - your unstinted support, your sensitivities and most importantly - your understanding, or love, if you may call it.

But not many guys understand this.....

Why Jason Bourne is more of a Superhero than Spiderman, Superman, Krrish et al?

I am fascinated by Jason Bourne. If that’s the beginning of this article, you may expect what is about to follow. I have read the first two books of Jason Bourne back-to-back and the third one almost half way through. Further, I have seen the three Bourne movies twice over. I love Jason Bourne, even with Amnesia. Now, I have also seen Krrish many times, the three Spiderman movies, bits and pieces of Superman Returns and I liked them too, but only for their special effects and cinematic experience. As a kid, I have read Spiderman and Superman comics but I was never addicted to them. So, I am definitely not a big fan of Spiderman, Krrish or Superman for that matter.

If you ask me why, here’s the answer. In my opinion, Jason Bourne is a real Superhero as compared to the others. All the rest, Spiderman, Superman and Krrish have Super-natural powers. If Spiderman acquired his powers from a deadly spider-bite, and Krrish inherited it from his father, Superman does not even belong to the earth having come all the way from planet Kripto. But, Jason Bourne is as human as you and me. He’s sharp and intelligent, no doubt; but, still very much normal. His ‘skills’ (I would like to use this term instead of ‘powers’) are all acquired through training and practice. He has extensively adapted himself and trained himself to rise above the rest and become extra-ordinary.

It definitely cannot be an easy process of the likes of being bitten by a bug, or being born to a father who was granted special powers by an alien. It involved not just physical training, but changing ones entire mindset, thought-process and lifestyle. It definitely is time and effort consuming. Jason Bourne countered trauma, pressure and depression and still triumphed. To summon ones courage, target ones energies and channelize ones thought-process to constantly be on vigil, to do everything with a motive is impossible. How can one train oneself to perform in an organized manner even in a trance? To alter ones sub-conscious mind to always make you do everything confirming to ones motive. Yes, it’s impossible; but, Jason Bourne made it possible. In the movie “The Bourne Supremacy”, Nicky Parsons (played by Julia Stiles) comments, “That’s not a mistake. They don’t make mistakes. Everything they do has an objective.” This dialogue in itself embodies to what extent, the agent Bourne changed his personality. That’s why they are termed as “assets” and not “agents”. The disguises he assumed in the book then seem lot simpler to assume. To live in the dark alleys of the underworld, assuming the entity of a dreaded criminal Cain for three years with no contact whatsoever with the sane world he actually belongs to; requires some guts, stamina and courage. It’s enough to make any person go into depression, go mad and lose sanity. No doubt it took a toll on Bourne. But, the best part is despite the trauma, he’s at his natural best in dealing with the baddies, both from the CIA and the underworld.

Some may argue that the other Superheroes are more of a Superhero because they are working to save the world. But, heck even Bourne is doing all this to kill the world’s biggest criminal, Carlos the Jackal, and/or for self-defense. It is anyway better than flying down the buildings in New York (Spiderman) or Singapore (Krrish). How does the world savior ensure that the biggest of villains conveniently happen to reside in areas where he lives? At least, Jason Bourne is more realistic – a true Hero.

There will always be sunshine after the rain...

Whatever your cross,
whatever your pain,
there will always be sunshine,
after the rain ....
Perhaps you may stumble,
perhaps even fall,
But God's always ready,
To answer your call ...
He knows every heartache,
sees every tear,
A word from His lips,
can calm every fear ...
Your sorrows may linger,
throughout the night,
But suddenly vanish,
in dawn's early light ...
The Savior is waiting,
somewhere above,
To give you His grace,
and send you His love...
Whatever your cross,
whatever your pain,
"God always sends rainbows ....
after the rain ... "

To get out of difficulty, one must usually go through it!
P.S. I did not write this poem but found it worth putting on my blog for Inspiration. - Nishtha

How does a Job affect a woman?

It’s been a while since I have got back to work and a fascinating feeling has crept into my heart. I think a job is doing wonders to me. May be it does so to many other women like me too. I, for instance, have seen a world of difference in my overall personality off late. It’s only now that I realise that I had changed over the last four years since I quit my last job. My confidence level had dropped and my independence (both emotional and financial) was jeopardized. But, now I feel much like myself again. My self-respect has increased manifolds. Further, my idea of the person I am is very much like what I am now rather than what I was a few months ago.

Talking about Confidence first, I feel myself renewed. Just getting back to my beloved profession as an Auditor seems like a re-incarnation. Being surrounded by people who are intellectually and knowledgeably on the same or similar footing as me is exciting. It instills in me a feeling of being a sensible and intelligent person. This feeling is special because it gives me the courage and confidence to take decisions. Being a typical Libran, Librans being famous for being indecisive, this is something of great importance for me as a person because I am the first one to know my capabilities. Then again, the kind of respect that my profession per se begets elates me. This is a Personality Development chance in itself because it gives me an opportunity to discuss sensitive issues with senior management people in client companies – people who at times are more experienced than my total age and issues that they may not be ready to accept by and large – and convince them without being harsh and rude. My trust in my communication skills is tested time and again. I know it will help in every aspect of my life.

Now, self-respect is the biggest respect a human being can get and value. It comes with a lot of attributes. Being able to fulfill ones dream and chalk out a path for oneself is the basis of self-respect. Not having to look up to others in ones life for every minor issue is the foundation to self-respect. Being able to hold ones head up in thick and thin, owning up to all actions taken by one and priding in them when they bear fruit are equally important. It does loads to my personality too.

Coming to financial independence now, it’s certainly not so that I have started splurging myself or am being extravagant now that I am earning. Nor am I spending all my earnings away. I am not a mindless shopper and would buy something only when I am totally convinced about the thing I am buying. So, why am I talking about financial independence? The answer is that just having the knowledge that a certain amount ‘is being earned by me’; and that ‘it is lying there at my disposal’; and again ‘it has arrived there out of my sweat and toil’; and finally that ‘I have the first and foremost right over it’ is quite fascinating. I am thoroughly enjoying myself.

All in all, I think every woman should take up a job at least once in a lifetime, may be only for a while – just to see the change it brings in her life, to evolve her personality and gain some self-respect.

What all is wrong with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows?

Well, I have read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (HP7) again. And this time, I did spot some flaws. May be its not even right to call them flaws after all, but there are rather quite a few diversions from the earlier books. Some people may agree with me and others may not, but this is my perception and I would love to pour them out. So, this might be a kind of late review from my side.

One of the reasons why I liked HP series was that I had a feeling that J K Rowling (JKR) thinks in many ways like I do. In previous books, she laid a lot of stress on the importance of education, on having a career, on friendships, and on tolerance in friendship. Not only that, she tries to propagate that women (females) are not secondary to anyone, and at times they may prove to be smarter than most men (through Hermione, of course). But in HP7, these are the very issues where JKR changes tracks. Or is it that the birth of a third child (a girl) has changed JKR's mindset.

After the sixth book when Harry, Ron and Hermione decided not to return to Hogwarts, I had apprehensions about the seventh book. And although the book is interesting for the whole of the plot, I feel she should at least have mentioned that after the war is over, all these people went back to complete their education. That they had a proper education and made their careers, etc. After telling us all how much Harry wanted to be an Auror, JKR simply omits telling us what career Harry and the others choose. Ron wanted to be an Auror too and Hermione had all the options open for her.

Then again, in all the earlier books (unlike HP movies), Ron and Hermione had almost equivalent parts to play. Though I admit that the climax usually belonged to Harry, but in HP7 they are almost reduced to sidekicks for the most part of the book. I had a feeling when Dumbledore left them bequests in his will that JKR envisaged a bigger participation for them. But alas it didn’t happen to be so. What a sheer waste of Hermione's intelligence and brilliance, and Ron’s loyalty and faithfulness. Even Ginny in the sixth book had become almost a part of the gang, but she is completely left out in the seventh book. We don’t even know whether she even fought in the war or not, as all of a sudden we are reminded that she is underage. Was she not underage, and all the others including Harry, in the fifth and the sixth book? But, there they all conveniently fought the death eaters.

Last, the biggest flaw in the book – the Epilogue. It was just so sugary sweet as to give us all Diabetes. It was as if all JKR was trying to do was to wrap up things so that she doesn’t have to write another HP book. After all those years we came to love Hermione for her intelligence, brilliance and sharp mind. Her future is highlighted as "Ok, she got married and had kids...." Now come on, she could have gone places. Even Ginny was seemingly intelligent what with Slughorn trying to induct her in his club. But she too was entitled to the same fate. In fact, apart from Neville, who becomes a Professor of Herbology at Hogwarts, JKR didn’t care to show what careers or basically the kind of life anyone chooses. When James comes and tells his parents that Ted Lupin is kissing his cousin Victoire (I assume she is Bill and Fleur’s daughter because of the French name but there’s no mention about it), all Ginny could manage to say was “Oh, it would be wonderful if they get married”. Seems like its Jane Austen writing the epilogue not JKR. Harry talks about his home. What home? Does he go back to live in Grimauld Place or some place else. May be not Grimauld Place because that is huge; and Harry’s home is not huge. If Ted comes over to live with them then both his sons would have to share a room. Then where did Harry go on to live really? It’s all guesswork here.

Further, some answers I expected in the book were left unanswered. What was the potion in the cave that Dumbledore drank in HP6? Why did it not affect Kreacher in the way it affected Dumbledore and Regalus? Before HP7 was released people were doing research telling us it was draught of death which is a very strong sleep inducing potion but doesn’t lead to death. Well, I never believed it and always thought Dumbledore was dead but expected to find out how. Besides, at the end of HP6 when Harry decided to go to Godric's Hollow, I thought finally I'll have answer to the one question that has been there in my mind since the initial chapters of the first book. What kind of work did Harry's parents do to amass such wealth for Harry? I couldn’t find out.

Further, who was the baby whom Dumbledore said that they can’t help in the Kings Cross Station? What was really the significance of having the baby there? Then again, what happened to Colin Creevy? Did he survive? JKR could have talked a bit about how life changed for the people who lost their loved ones, sad for their losses and yet happy about the end of dark days. We don’t even get any reaction from George on Fred's death. Come on, they were inseparable, partners in everything.

So as is evident, the biggest hitch I find in the book is to digest the Epilogue. If only she could have written a better one telling that they completed their education, are doing something worthwhile in life and how life became so normal for them as they achieved all their dreams; it would have been an exemplary book. After all, many kids idolize Harry Potter and love the books. They would have had something to emulate. Overall, I stick to my earlier review but somehow do not find myself connecting to the epilogue.

I still think that HP7 is an exciting book, way beyond my expectations. But a few complaints remain. In short, HP7 is an extraordinary escapist fiction with a few drawbacks. But then, books like humans can never be perfect.

I am not one of those you find in HP communities/groups on social networking sites and fan sites who do analysis on Harry Potter. I sometimes read them for the fun of it. Further, I am not here to criticize HP7. One can see that I am not finding any petty mistakes here like spells backfiring, etc. I am talking about JKR's change in ideology. It’s just that I thought that HP7 is different from other HP books in terms of morals it propagates.

Book Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

N.B. This review was written on 03-Aug-07 and after almost a year since Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (HP7) released, it may not be so relevant after all. However, I am still posting it here so as to supplement my upcoming post.

I have finally just finished HP7, and am so overwhelmed, I think it deserves a proper review; without revealing the plot, that is. So, don’t expect a spoiler here.

At the end of book 6, we came to know that Harry did not plan to go to Hogwarts and finish his education. I wondered then that whether a HP book without Hogwarts as its backdrop would be as exciting as the others. All my doubts are laid to rest as Hogwarts is not entirely ignored. The book is as exciting as it can be. It holds your interest right from the beginning till the end. J K Rowling (JKR) keeps peeling the wrapper off the surprises and all the unanswered questions piled up inside you over the last few years while reading the first 6 books. The book answers all the questions, raises many new ones and answers them all too.

I usually judge a thriller by the climax whether it raises excitement inside you or not; excitement to the level of not wanting to put the book down. Here, there is no "climax" as such because the whole book itself is a climax. You just don’t want to put it down right from the word go. I hated the book to keep me so engrossed so as to not wanting to put it down when I had to tend to my infant daughter and my household chores. Then again, now that I have completed it, it seems to have left an empty space behind, which I doubt any other book will be able to fill, at least for a while.

It actually breaks my heart to think that's it. That's the end. No more Harry Potter books. I wonder what JKR herself is feeling: relieved? empty? free? And no more excitement and hysteria surrounding a book release. My husband, who is not much of a book reader as such, is almost thankful that it’s the last HP book and that I am done with it. Sometimes I think, how often does it happen that half the book lovers in the world are reading the same book at the same time? Very rare, I think.

To sum up, the book is enthralling, enchanting and exhilarating. It’s simply superb and unmissable. As for the rating, I know some people have rated it 5/5. But, I don’t agree with them. I would at least rate it 7/5.