A note to the leg-spinner and his captain

Dear Leg-spinner,
Being good friends with your captain is absolutely paramount. More so than possessing a fantastic loop, a workable googly and a straight-seam top-spinner.  Even if the captain has never bowled a single ball all his life and yet feels competent enough to understand the cobwebs you are attempting to weave around the batsmen, let him do so. If he puts in the square-leg  you so cleverly left vacant to get the batsman to play across when not reading your subtle changes in pace and fight, let him. If he forces the deep-midwicket fielder to stand ten feet inside the rope, let him. If he moves the long-off squarer than you like, let him. If he stands at short-cover having never caught a single ball in the league, let him. If he walks up to you and tells you to bowl quicker through the air, let him. For we leg-spinners are a very smart breed and can account for these foolish actions  by merely changing the line, or the length by a few inches. However, when your captain walks up to you and asks you to go bowl a maiden, run! Run as far away from the man as possible as he has lost faith in your wicket-taking ability. If he does not back you to get  the man a 100% of the time, you are as useless as the next finger-spinner.

Regards
ernaw enahs

In light of recent events. Been reading the works of Charu Mazumdar. The idea was to try to follow what made Naxalism a popular violent movement. Some interesting points of note came up.

Charu Mazumdar was a hardcore dyed in wool Marxist. Against any form of revisionism whatsoever.
Believed that the Chinese model of area-wise seizure of territory was the only way to ensure power to the proletariat.

Driven to fight the ruling class through an armed struggle. Every single article emphasises the importance of the movement to be a mass struggle and an armed one. He encourages blatant and shameless use of violence aimed at individuals who form a part of the state.

The following lines make this amply clear

"This is like that Luddites' agitation against machines. The revolutionaries will have to give conscious leadership; strike against the hated bureaucrats, against police employees, against military officers; the people should be taught — repression is not done by police stations, but by the officers in charge of police stations; attacks are not directed by government buildings or transport, but by the men of the government's repressive machinery, and against these men that our attacks are directed.

The working class and the revolutionary masses should be taught that they should not attack merely for the sake of attacking, but should finish the person whom they attack. For, if they attack only, the reactionary machinery will take revenge. But if they annihilate, everyone of the government's repressive machinery will be panic-stricken. We should remember that the teaching of Comrade Mao. Mao Tsetung's: "The enemy's armoury is our armoury."


These lines, perhaps, explain the cold blooded nature of recent attacks on CRPF personnel in Dantewada.

More quotes inciting violence:

"We are still unable to realize that in the present era we cannot build up peaceful mass movements. For, the ruling class will not give us and is not giving us either, such an opportunity"

"So in the interest of mass movements, the call should be given to the working class, the fighting peasantry and every fighting people: (1) Take to arms; (2) Form armed units for confrontation; (3) Politically educate every armed unit."

A good powerpoint presentation

Heard 20 lectures in the space of three days. Made observations on the way presentations were made rather than their actual content. Feel qualified enough to list down some things to keep in mind while making a presentation.

Things I feel work well:

1) Colour combinations:

Black on white or White on Black goes well on large screens. For well lit rooms, dark backgrounds dont strain eyes.

I heard a thesis defence(in german) on very sunny day. The simplest possible template was used with large fonts and yet I found everyone straining their eyes. Therefore,in general, I feel dark backgrounds are a tad more effective. And the colours (pics, videos, etc.) come off much better with dark backgrounds.

2) THE Question:

Must be able to summarise the main focus of the talk into one question. Introduce it in the beginning. Give the answer (ie basic result). Expand on this answer. As opposed to building up to the answer, in which case the audience loses the context of the work.

For each slide, mention how the data on the slide fits into the scheme of things and why it is relevant as opposed to what it is! It is very irritating to have people read out whats on screen.

3) Energy:

At least be enthusiastic about your own work!!! The audience loses interest in no time if the speaker himself seems like a old hag pissed off at life for putting him on stage. Smile. Acknowledge things you dont know or have not done. Generally, enjoy the attention.

4) The talk must be targeted at the type of audience it is delivered to. Distinguish between experimentalists and theorists as far as possible. One presentation for all conferences isnt going to work the same magic.

5) While concluding, its a good idea to ask the audience for suggestions on some problems you arent able to overcome.

6) The last slide should contain references and publications along with the usual thank yous.

The irritating things:

1)Words like "obviously" or "clearly". I felt like a complete idiot in the audience every time I dont follow the supposed obvious. I feel its a get out of jail trick for topics which the speaker would rather not discuss.

2) Face your audience. Turn to look at the screen. Point your bum to the screen. Not to the audience!

3) Use simple terms as far as possible. Omit as many technical details as you can. The lowest common denominator in the audience (me in this particular case :-) ) will not follow.

4) Labels and units on plots should have a large font. Its hard to follow whats going on with the graphs unless the variables and units are clearly visible.

5) No deliberate rehearsed humour for god sake!! I guess spontaneity works with humour. Only in context, of course.

6) Dont rush off slides.Thumb rule, at least a minute per slide. Give me some time to take notes!

7) No paragraphs please. As precise as possible. Usually, not more than 2 lines are needed.

8) Random inflections! A change of tone is fine if expressing surprise or joy at certain results. But otherwise,its absolutely hilarious.

9) Finally, during Q & A dont answer in yes and nos only. Expand a bit on the answer.

Also, as a suggestion, try using prosper or beamer LaTex based slides. The final effect is far better than Microsoft Powerpoint. Its like the difference between the Word and Latex output. Of course, they are harder to use. Online tutorials should help.

More than anything, this is just for my reference.

Its funny how very small things that happen to people by accident change the whole course of their lives. I have to admit that the first two weeks in Germany were not a lot of fun. More so, because I had been to Stuttgart earlier and lived for a week which meant the whole thrill of being in a totally new city was absent. The lab mates are fun. 3 of us in one room. Little choice do they have. Like it or not, we must spend at least 2 years together. Its been good thus far.

German sucks. I cant follow a word, speak a word, read a word! Its hard to shop. Language is alright. I can mime my way through. I ll get round it. Little interaction with locals anyway.
Plus the added onus to eat vegetarian. Wasted a good 10 euros by now on things I thought were veg but turned out otherwise. Damn! That was my only problem really.FOOD.

Until, of course, I chased absolute strangers, who looked like Indians, hoping to get directions to a supermarket and buy my usual dose (Term used deliberately. Describes food here) on a street I wasn't even supposed to be on. The lord showed mercy. They uttered those divine words. "There's an Indian shop nearby."

There it was! I found it. All the dals, the spices, the vegetables, aloo methi, matar paneer, rajma, chhole, rotis, parathas. This was bliss. And what great bliss. Weirdly enough, a conversation I once had in IISc flashed. When I was too lazy to move when the whole group was heading to the IISc mess I had not registered with. Someone uttered "Ice-cream as dessert" and I went along. What followed was a line that has stuck with me. "Sridhar, Is food the only reason you decide to come along with us?". This was Angika. I remember. I doubt if she does. Also, I never ate anything in that mess. I dont know why but this line has stayed with me and in that shop I was thinking that it might actually be true! But, that was most probably the rush of blood on seeing that I could finally spend three years comfortably digesting food that my genes are supposed to react to. I think I owe Priya, MTR, and the likes a very big thank you for saving my career! I spent like mad. And have been eating loads, sleeping, working far more smoothly ever since. Life-changing? Of course!

The oxford chapter is about to be closed. On a positive note I hope. I fretted and sweated and lost sleep over my viva. Only to find a very sweet god sent external and a sympathetic supervisor asking 30 minutes of (what I thought) elementary work. However, the final question they put to me has stayed with me.

In a very rehearsed and typically British manner, the lady asked rather nonchalantly, "Have you got what you expected out of this course?"

My answer began with a long pause. This was only justified. Throughout my course, I concentrated on doing well on certain papers and keeping people around me generally happy. Never thought of whether I was getting what I came for. Now, with this question thrusted at my face, with two very respectable and smart people waiting eagerly, I had to think about what I never had.

First thought: What was it that I really expected and came all the way for ???????
I began muttering slowly and inaudibly and (I also think) with an accentuated indian accent the following:

" I expected this course to provide me with a SOLID (can't believe I used that word in a formal viva!) backing in solid state and quantum physics and teach me how to apply these fudamental principles to challenging problems in the field of THEORETICAL CHEMISTRY!!!!"

I did have to repeat what I said because every time people put me under pressure and expect a reply, I speak in the way that comes most naturally to me i.e. incoherently in the most indianised form of english with every syllable pronounced the way it ought not to!

Second thought: What a load of crap! Add something to sound smarter. They should think you know what u actually expected and to what extent those expectations were really fulfilled

And, almost in a fit, I went on to state an example of how I successfully applied the fundamental theory and application methods I learnt during the course to this particular project by pointing to figures and graphs in front of us and citing how a certain class with a certain professor got me thinking towards this possibility.

Third thought: okay never mind. Try some makkhan.

"The teachers and lectures were very enlightening and the discussions intellectually stimulating. I think the best thing to come out of this experience is that I have understood and developed a feel for tackling problems in the context of theoretical work. Also my numerical abilities have goneup a great deal. So all in all, I feel extremely satisfied at the end of this course"

The examiners nod and generally seem to acknowledge the answer. It really wasnt relevant in terms of my viva performance but still I did have to show people I could talk a bit!

Fifth thought: Oh yes. I can also bullshit now. That is by far the best skill I have honed at Oxford.

So what was I really expecting from my course when I came to Oxford??

With some time to introspect at hand. Heres what I think it really was.
As far as the course is concerned, I wanted to learn as much as I could and as sincerely as I could from the very knowledgeable faculty. Take cues for approaching problems. Develop an instinct for the same. Get a licence to independent thought and the freedom to put it in the open for naked scrutiny. Yes, I had all of that. Discuss a grave issue with my professor over a cup of tea in the common room, feel a part of the system, have fun interacting with different people, marvel at the different skills different people had and how they all fit into the greater scheme of things.
Develop an informal bond with the faculty and may be even go out for a drink with them. I had
none of it!

Of course. I had tonnes of other pictures in my head before I got here. Some fit, most did not. Then I realised the legend built around this place was exactly that, a legend.

Fanatic or Fierce nationalist?? Gandhiji's assasination-For good or for worse??

Found Godse's statement on the net and the judge's account as well. Thought it was worth sharing!.

Godse's statement in court during trial.

"The background to the event of 30th January 1948 was exclusively political. The fact that Gandhiji used to recite during prayers verses from the Gita, the Quran and the Bible never provoked any ill-will in me towards him. In this vast area live people of various faiths and I hold that these creeds should have full and equal freedom for following their beliefs.

In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that religious and communal considerations should be entirely eschewed in public affairs of the country... I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates.

I am prepared to concede that Gandhiji did undergo sufferings for the sake of the nation� I shall bow in respect to the service done by Gandhiji to the country and to Gandhiji himself for the said service, and before I fired the shots I actually wished him and bowed to him in reverence

Since the year 1920, after the demise of Lokmanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal� and were reinforced by the slogans of truth and non-violence. To imagine that the bulk of mankind is or can ever become capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life� is a mere dream. It was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj that first checked and eventually destroyed Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely correct tactic for Shivaji to kill Afzal Khan as the latter would otherwise have surely killed him. In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit.

During more than thirty years of the undisputed leadership of the Mahatma there were more desecration of temples, more forcible and fraudulent conversions, more outrages on women and finally the loss of one third of the country.

Gandhiji was, paradoxically, a violent pacifist� He had often acted contrary to his professed principles and if it was for appeasing the Muslim, he hardly had any scruple in doing so.

By the Act of 1919 separate electorates were enlarged and communal representation was continued not only in the legislative and local bodies but extended even within the Cabinet� Government patronage to Muslims in the name of Minority protection penetrated throughout the body politic of the Indian State and the Mahatma's slogans were no match against this wholesale corruption of the Muslim mind. The position began to deteriorate and by 1926 it became patent to all that Government had won all along the line but Gandhiji... went on conceding one undemocratic demand after another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle.

The communal principle became deeply embedded in the Reforms of 1935. Mr Jinnah took the fullest advantage of every situation. During the war, 1939-44, Mr Jinnah� promised to support the war as soon as the Muslims' rights were conceded; in April 1940, within six months of the War, Mr Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory.

The 'Quit India' campaign of 1942 had completely failed. Britishers had triumphed and the Congress policy can be quite correctly described as 'Peace at any price'� The Congress compromised with the British who placed it in office and in return the Congress surrendered to the violence of Jinnah, carved out a third of India to him an explicitly racial and theological State, and destroyed two million human beings in the process.

Gandhiji is being referred to as the Father of the Nation -- an epithet of high reverence. But if so, he has failed in his paternal duty� Had Gandhiji really maintained his opposition to the creation of Pakistan, the Muslim League could have had no strength to claim it and the Britishers also could not have created it in spite of all their utmost efforts� The reason was� the people of this country were� vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But Gandhiji played false with the people. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan.

after handing over crores of Hindus to� Pakistan, Gandhiji and his followers have been advising them not to leave Pakistan but continue to stay on. Every day that dawned brought forth news about thousands of Hindus being massacred� Gandhiji did not even by a single word protest and censure the Pakistani Government�

About Kashmir, Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should be entrusted the charge of the State and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no particular reason than that the Muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmiri population. This stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderabad where although the bulk of the population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca.

About this very time he resorted to his fast unto death. Every condition given by him for giving up that fast is in favour of Muslims and against the Hindus. One of the seven conditions was to the effect that all the mosques in Delhi which were occupied by the refugees should be vacated� and be made over to the Muslims. Gandhiji got this condition accepted by the Government� Those were the days of bitter or extreme cold and on the day Gandhiji broke his fast, it was also raining. Families after families of refugees who had come to Delhi for shelter were driven out and while doing so no provision was made for their shelter and stay.

The decision to withhold the payment of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan was taken by our government which claims to be the people's government. But this decision of the people's Government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast.

All his fasts were to coerce Hindus.

Honourable Pandit Nehruji has himself taken a leading part in the acquiescing to the establishment of Pakistan, a theocratic State. But he should have realised that it will never bring prosperity to the Indian Union with a State founded on fantastically blind religious faith and basis."

Justice Khosla, one of the three judges hearing the appeal, wrote after his retirement: 'There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs. I have no doubt that had the audience of the day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' by an overwhelming majority."

Just thought it was worth sharing. The other side of the story. Definitely deserves attention, I think.

india-pak at oxford