choli ke piche

At a convocation ceremony in Bhopal, Minister Jairam Ramesh threw the dress down. Was it an instantaneous decision or he gave a dress rehearsal at home before giving the gown a dressing down? But he should be given credit for ad'dressing' the issue threadbare.
Dress of course has always been an emotive issue. Jairam is not the first one to throw out the foreign yoke. Much before him in a poltical statement - the Mahatma called for throwing away foreign clothes. and made a bon fire of it too.
And in Europe, the scarf is creating a storm as many governments want to ban it. Many organisations are unleashing "veiled" threats over the ban for many the scarf is not just a religious symbol but a question of identity. Or an assertion against state authority - a revolutionary gesture. A girl who decides to wear scarf in Orhan Pamuk's Snow says: "...what i was doing was worthwhile not as a defence of Islam but as defiance of the state.'
identity yes. in fact some dresses are identified with some people and if u see them u will remember the personality - the Mahatma's loincloth, Sri Radhakrishnan's turban, Zinna's suit.
Dress is not merely cloth. By the way one attires him/herself, you can tell which community they belong to, which region they hail from. While there are those Indians who cover their bodies with a sari - which is often said reveals as much as it hides - the westerns have a bare all approach. But the government could not bear this and banned the ftv. And if u follow someone else's mode, u would have some trouble - like the girls who cannot lift their hand in sleeveless gowns or blouses.
How to dress is a fast-changing dynamic. The joke was in Paris a woman was running home from a tailor shop. When asked the reason, she said by the time i go and wear this dress, it may become outdated. So fickle it could be. Did not Oscar Wilde say, “Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.”
Not only the dress, but the undergarments too undergo change. While men (at least in South India) no longer wear trunks (loose shorts with a safety pocket - very odd when they shuffle the dhoti to remove money or bidis from it), gone were the stifling corsets. A frenzy of speculation ensues before Oscars or Filmfare awards - what the dolls wear - how much or how less. The Presidents' and Premiers' wives are constantly exposed to media glare. It's ok to guess/discuss what they wear, but wondering or speculating what's inside could be controversial - the song cholikepiche kya hai has raised such a storm.
Not all people are very particular of their dress. There is this character in a Hollywood film, where Unrsulla Andress sheds her dress so often- at the least "provocation" - that i wondered if she should be called ursulla undress.
Clothing also tells where people stand. U may strut in duckback, but many people make do with polythene covers to save their heads from rain. While some wear designer dresses, for some life has not altered much - they wear shirts and trousers of their fathers/uncles/brothers altered to their size.
Dress is a fashion statement - but parents know they should skirt the issue of selection when their issues grow up. The younger ones know what is in vogue and decide for themselves. Parents better pay and look the other way.
But principals of many Chennai engineering colleges may not agree with this. They wrapped up the issue long back - no t-shirts or jeans allowed and gals - only chudidhar. Violators may not be defrocked. But they are not only fined but their paretns have to go and stand before the managements with their heads down.

a sure shot

Guardian report: Ever since cowboys first swaggered onto the silver screen, scientists have been struggling to solve a conundrum. Why do the bad guys always get shot in a gunfight when they're the ones who reached for their guns first?

The Nobel laureate and quantum physicist Niels Bohr was so intrigued with the puzzle he came up with a theory: the one who draws second moves faster because he reacts without thinking.
******************
well does it need such a vast amount of research? it can be understood in simpler terms. the one who draws the gun first will have some compunction - for a second at least - because we have been wired to not kill (split infinitive, grammarians pl indulge me) fellow human beings. that moral ambivalence will give that much time for the defendent to hit back. in the case of the latter, it's a question of survival and again we have been wired to save ourselves come what may.
luckily, pathological killers - those with obsessive mental disorder to kill - are so very rare. they may go for the kill. most others are hired ones - ideologically or for money or for both. the others waver for a little time and get eliminated.

instead of this, it's a service to humankind had the research focussed on why anyone indulges in killing at all.

it's the same case with people who shoot their mouths off. the one that does so will be left feeling that he shot himself in his foot when the other man comes up with a repartee. see this from twitterature: i am propagating maoist agenda through my websie, an angry young man flares. oh so u r a dot commie, says the cool recipient.
not all people who have the gun will succeed in having their way. there was sri T. Prakasam Pantulu, first andhra pradesh chief minister, who bared his chest to the British guns and earned the title andhrakesari (tiger from andhra). the Mahatma instilled sobriety by his famous quote, "An eye for eye leaves the whole world blind."
so the culture of gun triggers mayhem (naxals r u hearing?) the best shot, as the Mahatma proved, is dialogue.

the lumpen elements called Naxalites kill policemen. policemen are quite egalitarian in this respect - kill men, women and children. they don't differentiate. shoot first, ask later.
man is many times an anti-social animal. the quest to achieve leads to violence. it's not pacificsm. but the principles of accommodation are forgotten. impatience has better of reason and hence bloodshed. sometimes murders take place over a pot of water.is it worth it? states fight between themselves for river water. india, pakistan fight over baglihar. let's remember live and let live will. peace is the offshoot of this attitude.