The power of a celebrity sharing personal anecdotes, particularly when it comes to something as life-threatening as breast-cancer and as moving and transformative an experience as a preventive double mastectomy (the medical term for the surgical removal of one or both breasts) to reduce risk of breast cancer was brought home when Angelina Jolie wrote her celebrated "brave and heroic" op-ed in the New York Times. what she described as a "desire to encourage other women to get gene-tested and to raise awareness of the options available to those at risk"

Leaving aside predictable adoloscent male responses on the lines of memorial pages on something aptly named as the Superficial, there was genuine admiration and a world-wide media-buzz.  As the Guardian put it:

Pratap Bhanu Mehta doesn't pull any punches:

The idea of a third front may not be a coherent political project. But its shadowy presence is a reminder that there is an underlying yearning to break through the limited choices offered by national parties. The Congress has perfected the art of converting the "there is no alternative" argument to a form of hubris and blackmail. It has induced such a profound myopia and arrogance in the party that even Congress supporters chafe at the thought of having no options. It may not always be irrational to succumb to blackmail, but we will be diminished if we don't punish it for its follies. The BJP does not, at present, offer a reassuring alternative. The party has four structures pulling in different directions: an obdurate RSS that still cannot overcome its past, several competent chief ministers whose ability to work together is yet to be tested, a feckless central leadership that has no grassroots appeal or track record of statesmanship, and Narendra Modi, trying to create a presidential style of legitimacy in a federalised parliamentary system. It is in a race with the Congress over the same things: indecisiveness, corruption, decimation of institutions and a sense of entitlement. The competition in the democratic system is like so many things in India, both intense and illusory at the same time.

Read the full article at the Indian Express: The third way out

Rahul Dravid, a captain who's always taken pride in his integrity and his team, was visibly devastated by the spot-fixing shocker involving three of his team mates.

I am shocked, disappointed and distressed by the events that have resulted in the arrests last night and this morning

Rajasthan Royals is a special team and we have always operated as a family. So this is devastating to us.

Asghar Ali Engineer's son, Irfan explained why his funeral took place at the Sunni Muslim graveyard in Santa Cruz (W) in accordance with the scholar's wish:

"Most of his friends, like Ali Sardar Jafri, Kaifi Azmi, Majrooh Sultanpuri and K A Abbas, are buried there and he, too, wanted to be buried thereS. ecuring a place for him at a Bohra cemetery might have been tough as he was excommunicated in the 1970s for launching the anti-Bohra-priest, reformist movement."

Jyoti Punwani in the Mumbai Mirror: There will never be another Asghar Ali

Engineer was a brave man. Assaulted six times, twice almost fatally, by orthodox Bohras, simply for fighting constitutionally against the absolute hold of the Syedna over the community, it would have been easy for him to give up a fight he began openly in 1973, with an article in The Times of India. The social boycott against him declared by the Bohra clergy cut him off for years from his family, including his mother, and in his words, "almost drove (me) mad".

The political establishment, all the way up to Indira Gandhi and Vajpayee, stood solidly behind the Syedna. Yet, Engineer remained a Reformist throughout, and not just in his personal life. Under his guidance, the Reformists became a force to reckon with, with women at the forefront of the movement. He showed the same courage in openly organising support for the Shahbano judgment, when the Muslim establishment mounted a campaign against it.

Full Post  |  comments

Writing in the New York Times, Angelina Jolie has revealed that she underwent a preventive double mastectomy (the medical term for the surgical removal of one or both breasts) to reduce her risk of breast cancer.

My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman.

Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of getting it, on average.

Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy. I started with the breasts, as my risk of breast cancer is higher than my risk of ovarian cancer, and the surgery is more complex.

On April 27, I finished the three months of medical procedures that the mastectomies involved. During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work.

But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action.

Read the full piece at the NYT: My Medical Choice

Just in case you thought we were joking, or that it was some sort of a hoax, well, here it is:

The Virgin Group founder, British business magnate Richard Branson put on lipstick, had his legs shaved and squeezed into a red skirt to honour a bet he had lost to AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes.

The bet, as reported earlier, was over whose Formula One race team would be ranked higher and Fernandes' Lotus Racing team won over over that of Virgin..

As per the terms of the bet, Branson served as a flight attendant on an AirAsia trip from Perth, Australia, to Malaysia.

But he had his revenge by deliberately dumping a tray of orange juice on Fernandes' lap, earning not only  a reprimand from

Fernandes gleefully declared after Sunday's nearly six-hour flight that Branson's skills as an attendant were "rubbish" and that he was being immediately fired.

These may change a little, but not by much.

Leads in various constituencies:

PMLN: 118 
PPP: 34
PTI: 33
MQM: 11
JUI-F 13
PMLQ: 3
Independents 26
ANP: 1
and so on. 
In a house of 272

My first thoughts: Alhamdolillah, the common people of Punjab (especially rural Punjab) have successfully stopped the PTI tsunami from overrunning the country. I am not a huge PMLN fan, but I do think Mian sahib is a calmer, more pragmatic and more mature person than Imran Khan and his team of over-enthusiastic Paknationalist middle class revolutionaries. And with Choudhry Nisar losing, the PMLN team may even improve a little bit. PPP has been routed all over Punjab. Left revolutionary brothers had no dog in this race, so they will not be upset at this comment (I hope). Right revolutionary brothers should try again next time. With the bourgeoisie, its always better to stay near the center and not try for too much change…it doesn't suit our class.

File Photo

April 27, 2013 | No Question of Law Min Resigning Over Coalgate: PM

"There is no question of the Law Minister resigning. The matter is now in the court and it is sub-judice. It is not proper for me to do anything. But there is no question of the Law Minister resigning"

May 10, 2013 | Finally, Pawan Bansal, Ashwani Kumar Made to Quit

***

Like a stuck record, a few random quotes from a few random blogs from the archives:

Pratap Bhanu Mehta pulls no punches in the Indian Express:

The responsibility for a culture of corruption, evasion, lying and sheer contempt for institutions lies directly at the door of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh...

The republic is now at a delicate crossroads. The government may brazen it out. But in doing so, it is creating a crisis of institutions not seen since the Emergency days, when an executive took on the judiciary on the dubious grounds that it had a mandate. Effectively speaking, there is no Parliament left. What does the claim to democratic mandate mean? Karnataka may have voted for Congress to punish one set of rascals. But in her heart, every voter knows that democracy is being subverted in its very exercise. The lasting damage this government has done to institutions will take a long time to repair. Seldom before have we seen a government that poisoned its own mandate, and so needlessly. The prime minister is honest, we will hear. But never before has someone been so thoroughly compromised through abdication. Sonia Gandhi stands for the poor. Never before have the poor been so brazenly used to cover a multitude of sins; and never before has so much emphasis been on policy that will condemn the poor to poverty. The government's position is untenable. It has a choice: inflict governance torture on the country, or let the people speak as soon as possible. As Karnataka showed, democracy may give them a second chance. But at the moment, the government is not giving the country any chance.

Read the full piece at the Indian Express: Phantom Democracy

The lack of Congress enthusiasm for Prime Minister Mamohan Singh is well captured in the above photo posted on Twitter by @ShivAroor

We are not sure whether or not the Supreme Court's stinging criticism of the Manmohan Singh government had anything to do with this dampening of enthusiasm, but what should the PM do now? Do tell us on by participating in our Facebook poll

For those who came in late: the latest controversy involving Dr Manmohan Singh and his UPA government has its genesis in a March 2012 Draft CAG report on 'allocating coal blocks in an inefficient manner' during the period 2004–2009, when the coal ministry was directly under the charge of prime minister. Team Anna picked up the issue, and the otherwise reticent PM went to the extent of saying: "If it turns out that there is even an element of truth in these charges, I will give up my public career and [the] country can give me any punishment." 

As the controversy spread, after names of the recipients of coal block allocations were revealed, the case was handed over for investigation to the CBI. The CBI draft status report, submitted to the SC on March 8, pointed out that allocations were done without verifying the credentials of companies which allegedly misrepresented facts about themselves. The government vehemently refuted these findings of "arbitrary allotments without scrutiny" and claimed that the "CBI is not the final word on this"

A bench of Justices R M Lodha, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur, in an unprecedented move then asked CBI director Ranjit Sinha to file an affidavit affirming that its report "was vetted by him and nothing contained therein has been shared with the political executive". Attorney General (AG) Goolam Vahanvati, when asked, told the court he had not gone through the report. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Harin Rawal went on to make an unequivocal statement that the status report had not been shared with anybody from the political executive. 

After much speculation and many denials the CBI director in his affidavit to the SC admitted that the draft of the status report had indeed been "shared with Law Minister as desired by him prior to its submission before the Supreme Court. Besides the political executive, it was also shared with one joint secretary level officer each of Prime Minister's Office and Ministry of Coal as desired by them."

As demands rose for the law minister's resignation, the PM stepped in to aggressively defend him: "There is no question of the Law Minister resigning. The matter is now in the court and it is sub-judice. It is not proper for me to do anything. But there is no question of the Law Minister resigning."

Meanwhile, the ASG blamed the AG,  corroborated the CBI claim, and said that he "felt embarrassed and was forced to take a stand in the court consistent" with that of the AG because he had already stated that the "contents of the status report were not known" to him.

And now comes the stinging indictment from the SC, asking the CBI, inter alia, "Can you tell us, is the Law Minister entitled to call for such reports? Joint Secretary Coal, Joint Secretary PMO -- can they also look into the status report? Why were details of changes, and under whose instance these changes were made, not disclosed in CBI chief's affidavit?"

The questions for the PM are piling up. One doesn't have to research too hard to name many such times in the past when the stand taken up by him does not quite square with his reputation for honesty. Here's a quick list from memory: