'Aki'lles

He's had a heavy lunch, he's feeling sluggish. A strong coffee and maybe something to read would help him shake off the lethargy. He decides to walk across to the coffee corner to get some coffee and read the newspaper. He doesn't expect to find the newspaper there, its not been there for a month. His instinct was right, he doesn't find the newspaper. He wonders why? Maybe some cost cutting idea. Nah, he rubbishes that thought, ain't make any economical sense to save Rs 10/day. He rakes his sleepy brain to find out a plausible reason. He arrives at one - maybe some HR policy to increase productivity by decreasing such supposedly 'timepass' activities. Sigh...He walks back to his seat, he decides to blog instead......

So what's in a name? Nothing much, but if your name happens to be sullied by a T.V advert then your name could be worth a crore. That's the case with a certain 11 year old from Chandigarh who happens to have the name Hari. Hari is apparently distraught over the fact that his name or rather the name 'HARI' has been thrashed around in a TV advert and since he cannot take the 'harassment' of his classmates anymore he has decided to sue the company being advertised for a sum amounting to one crore.

Amazing case, you can sue someone/anyone for all this in India too !! Man, this is cool, its just as democratic as the U.S,.........My take on this - its utter nonsense. Yes in the U.S you can do all this, but I am not sure if you can walk into a crowded pub, shoot someone and walk away scot-free. The judiciary in our country is overburdened with much more important cases that require to be addressed immediately that such trivial cases should not even be entertained. The media ofcourse has done its bit by giving this case unwanted and unwarranted publicity, like there is no other damn news to report in this world.

If this case really deserves attention, then on the same lines should radiocity be sued for Appu Kuttan uncle series ? or any of the numerous adverts that thrive on sardarji jokes be taken to court? Why not? Its not just one individual in such a case, its an entire community. It could be sued on the lines that it could cause regional/communal tension you know..;-)

And finally my only advice to Hari. Its much better than a kid who had Chetan Sharma has his name in the late 80's or some kid unfortunate enough to a have a name like George Bush or Osama today. Uhmm.. maybe parents when naming their kids ought to spell well known names a little differently, just as an pre-emptive measure :-)

A couple of days ago muslim clerics in Lucknow and Varanasi issued a fatwa denouncing terrorist attacks on religious places. So for once we get to hear about a Fatwa that does not advocate murder of an author or editor and instead conveys an idea of peace and tolerance. I find the idea of issuing this fatwa in particular as a great concept. Most terrorists and religious zealots believe that they have a religious license to go about their business of hate . Atleast, now they know that their divine license is not accepted in every corner of the world.

The clerics who issued this fatwa based their on pronouncement on a specific directive in Quran which states that killing of an innocent person was a murder of the entire humanity. It is about time that saner elements of the now much maligned and universally misinterpreted religion found their voice and expressed their views on various incidents and happenings. I guess, that's the only way to contain 'Islamophobia' that is sweeping across the non-islamic world.

Found a few snippets about the concept of fatwas in general on Wikipedia, have listed them below:

"Contrary to what is believed by many non-Muslims, and even by the majority of Muslims, a fatwa is not binding on all persons professing the Muslim faith. The only ones who are obliged to obey any specific fatwa are the mufti who issued it and his followers."

"Because Islam has no centralized priestly hierarchy, there is no uniform method to determine who can issue a valid fatwa and who cannot, and upon whom such fatwas are binding. Some Islamic scholars complain that too many people feel qualified to issue fatwas."

Tony Blair in an recent TV interview claimed that it was the hand of God that propelled him into attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. Apparently, conscience and God's will convinced him the he had to put an end to the tyranny in Iraq and free the people of the country.

One wonders where his conscience and God's will disappears when it comes to intervening in Sudan or Palestine or stepping in to overthrow other dictators and oppressors worldwide. Or maybe Iraq is God's favorite or maybe God likes trading in Oil too, that's why he gave his special consent to Blair. If it is God's will indeed, then what is the difference between a Jihad and this invasion, after all a Jihad is launched in God's name and supposedly with God's consent too.

This statement of Blair has drawn a lot of flak from all quarters in Britain, especially from the families of soldiers who have been personally affected by the war. The funniest comment in this whole issue came from an atheist who said he was inclined to believe Mr. Blair because no man alone could have created such a big mess as Iraq "without a little divine help!"..:-)