Sunday, September 03, 2017

Sonia Gandhi Renunciation of the Prime Minister Post

During our meeting with V.P.Singh, Natwar Singh told V.P. that Soniaji's children were concerned about her security and feared that like their grandmother and father she might also be killed. He told V.P. that the children were firm that she should not accept the post of prime minister. When we came out of the meeting I told Natwar Singh that he should not have disclosed how the family felt to outsiders and that this had cast a shadow on her act of renunciation. Even on the earlier occasion, Soniaji had wanted Dr Manmohan Singh to be the PM. The objection by her children thus appeared to be inconsequential. Soniaji was genuinely disinterested in the PM's post. However, the utterances by Natwar Singh had undermined her sacrifice.

From The Chinar Leaves: A Political Memoir by M.L.Fotedar.

Monday, August 21, 2017

Informing others when we think they don't have correct ticket

Whenever I travel by local train in Chennai in first class, if I feel any person is not having the first class ticket, then I inform him/her that, it is first class. If they know that it is first class ticket, they say so. If they know the difference between the first class and second class, and if they are having second class ticket, they would change the compartment at the next station. If they cannot understand anything, then I tell them that, they are having general ticket, and they should change to the next compartment at the next station.

Of course, the guessing is done by many factors including the dress/shoes/sandals/chappals that they wear, age, sex and many others.

For example, if a person is dressed in village grand mother style (and satisfying other qualities that I see in a person who does not have first class ticket), and gets into first class compartment, then I would definitely tell her that, it is first class compartment. If she starts asking about what is first class compartment and what is general compartment etc, then, I would assume that, she is having a general ticket, and advise her to move to general compartment at the next station.

In case if she turned out to be the wife of the founder of the second largest indian software company, she will write about me in her book, saying, a person in Chennai local train had discriminated her by her dress.

If TTE catches anyone in the first class without first class ticket, the fine would be upto 60 times to the general ticket. My intention is only to tell them that, if they don't have first class ticket, they would be liable for the fine. I felt bad many times, when I did not inform few people and later they were caught by TTE and had to pay huge fine. Just because, one person got offended, I am not going to stop informing the next person.

When that super rich woman was travelling by business class, the women infront of her might have feared that, if she is having economy ticket, then, she had to stand in the queue for few mins more because of the mistake. They might have advised her so that, she can stand few minutes less in the queue. But, that super rich woman got offended.

Another article about the same woman -

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Vote of Conscience

In 1969, when there were elections to the President of India, after then President of India Dr.Zakir Hussain passed away, Congress Party chose Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as its candidate. But, Indira Gandhi chose V.V.Giri as her candidate. Indira Gandhi asked everyone to vote by conscience and finally, V.V.Giri won with the smallest margin in the presidential elections.

In the book, "The Chinar Leaves: A Political Memoir" by M.L.Fotedar, Fotedar says, he suggested then Chief Minister of Kashmir to ask the MLAs to vote openly. The Chief Minister told the MLAs that, after voting they should show the vote to Fotedar. If anyone does not show their vote, they would assume that, they did not vote for V.V.Giri. Only five MLAs did not show their vote to Fotedar.

And for decades after that, followers of Indira Gandhi says, her candidate won the elections by "Vote of Conscience".

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Reservations Should Be Used Once per Person

If abolishing reservations is going to take time, atleast as a first step, reservations should be changed to single use per person. The idea of reservations is, those who are deprived of privileges would get extra boost to be equal with others. If they have used reservation once, it means, they have been "made" equal with others. Then, why do they need reservation again?

Many people start using reservations at school (mostly unknowingly), and then at college for graduation, then post graduation. Later while applying for jobs, they may get a normal job (with reservation), then may apply for state service jobs, and finally may try for civil services. Giving these many chances is very unfair.

The person should be given only once chance to use the reservation and let them decide to use at college or at civil services or wherever they feel it is more appropriate.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Atheists Have More Blind Faith Than Theists

Is an atheist more scientific or a theist?

Is Atheism also a religion?

Anybody who has studied little advanced Science or Mathematics would know that, it is very difficult to prove that something does not exist or something cannot be achieved. Except in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, it is practically not possible to prove that something does not exist in any non-trivial case. Even in Mathematics or its related fields, proving that something cannot be done is very difficult, and typically the proof is very complicated.

Whereas proving of existence of something is relatively easy. You just need to find where it is or show one sample of it. Whereas, proving non-existence of anything is practically not possible.

For example, if somebody has to prove that a particular virus is not present in somebody, practically it is not possible. The tests that we have typically finds virus only if it is in millions. If the body has only handful of viruses, and if the blood sample that one has taken does not have those, then tests cannot find it. To really prove that there is no virus in the body, one has to take out the complete blood and test it. By then, the person would be dead. On the other hand, by luck, if somebody gets the blood sample with virus, then they can prove the existence of virus.

To prove absence of a person in a relatively big apartment is also pretty difficult, if you don't have man power or technology. While you are searching, if that person also moves so as to avoid you, then you can never find him/her, unless you have some support. Even if you have lot of technology and many power, you need to prove that, that apartment does not have any place to hide. The most complex thing is, there are magicians who make people invisible for some time. You need to prove that, there was no magic involved there, which is practically not possible, if you have to convince someone who is not into lot of physics. Also, you need to prove that, there is no unknown technology which can hide that person, which is not possible. Physics rules are not applicable at very small or very big scale. If you want to depend on rules of Physics, you need to prove that, they are not using anything that is at the very small scale. We can safely forget scientifically proving the absence of a person in a city. Let's not talk about state or country.

In software development, most of the testers would have irritated by sporadic bugs which comes very rarely. When they file those bugs, the typical response from developers like me is, "Show me the bug infront of my eyes. Then only, I will take it". Obviously, no tester would be happy with that response. If a customer raises a critical bug, and if the tester says, "I have tested it thoroughly and there cannot exist a bug", then either he/she will lose the job or the customer.

But, for atheists, it is perfectly correct to say that, "God does not exist", irrespective of whether they can prove even trivial things or not.

Scientifically, it is possible that, somebody has seen God and is believing. But, Scientifically, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God. Many people ask Theists, "How can you be a theist, when you believe in Science". I want to ask them back, "How can you be an atheist, when you believe in science."

An atheist is Millinillion (10^3003) times more unscientific than a theist.

If you don't believe in god, be Agnostic, and not an Atheist.