Looking deep into their eyes,, can be an uncomfortable experience because not all of us are prepared for the truths revealed We have all heard that eyes are the windows to the soul; they indicate the real you. Have you tried looking deep into your own eyes? Most people are scared of doing so, even as self-help gurus encourage us to do so. For, our eyes can sometimes reveal truths that we are not prepared to face. You could fool the whole world and even yourself into believing whatever your mind wants you to believe, but the accusing look, the hurt in your eyes will pull you up sharply. As beautifully put by a poet trying to explain the connection between eyes and the soul, “Eyes mirror our souls… actually they don’t. They have been carved out of our souls.” Just like the body, the eyes have a language of their own. Here are some interesting tips from body language experts, which will help you unravel the language of the eyes. Too much blinking can indicate discomfort, while someone who hardly blinks may be trying to hide something. Looking directly at you? Interested in you and the conversation. Too prolonged a gaze? Threatening and could be obsessive. Looking away frequently? Distracted and hiding something. Looking closely at the eyes of a romantic interest can help you figure out if they are interested in you. Dilated pupils indicate interest
PAS's silence hurt DAP, PKR blamed PAS squarely for the massive Muslim vote base was dented the winner is UMNO Pas the queen who couldn’t be the kingmaker
the victor who lost; the queen without the crown couldn’t get anywhere near power at the Centre when UMNO would be sharing it with some parties that got just a couple of seats,Elections offer takeaways for winner and losers, and here are a couple for MCA Strategic compromise is sometimes better than a Pyrrhic victory. Wishful thinking of a prospective post-poll ally under performing may be as dangerous as underestimating a rival.Some may contest this on the premise that a DAP -PAS would have triggered a reconfiguration of political equations in that PAS might have gone with UMNO; that the Left and the smaller parties would have joined such a coalition sensing anti-right polarisation.To date, it has two Malay MPs – Bukit Bendera's Zairil Khir Johari and Raub's Datuk Ariff Sabri – both of whom lead Chinese-majority seats.said despite fielding Dyana, the party will have a challenging task ahead in changing the perception of the electorate.
“This is something that will take time because perception takes a longer time to build up. DAP has a long-term view of this by trying to recast their image from being a communal to a national party,
The desire to be politically correct has overtaken the imperative to be politically sensible. Method and order, the favourite weapons of Hercule Poirot, might be usefully employed in analysis The life-blood of our democracy is a covenant, a pact between elector and elected that the quid pro quo for the vote is service to the constituency. The quality of that service is an important (but not the only) factor in an MP’s re-election. This is the one big check that keeps a MP on some sort of practical leash.
MPs are elected on the basis of lists prepared by the Pakatan party leaders, enabling them to send their chosen favourites to the House in direct proportion to the percentage of votes they have received.The relationship between MP and voter can, thereby, be officially abandoned. This should make party bosses delirious.The irony is that such flaws can be easily corrected, with some time and thought. Both have been absent from the process. The pro-reservation lobbies have employed hustle topped off by self-congratulation; those opposed think that explosions constitute an argument.he former worked through cheerleaders in the media; the latter played to galleries beyond the media, and did so effectively. Pakatan began to waver when the message from the second horizon began to permeate back to Putra Jaya Pakatan was indifferent to the threat from UMNO, but it could not remain immune to a threat from the voter. Empowerment of Malays is powerful and necessary objective, but the route map should be navigated with care.readmore http://
One cannot exaggerate the number of songs and poetry penned about eyes. Be it romance, grief, happiness, shock, shyness, thrill or passion – the eyes say it best. One look into each other’s eyes, and lovers are lost to the world, such is the effect of the wealth of emotion mirrored in them. And interestingly, when you look deep into another’s eyes, you see not just his or her beauty, but even your own mirrored in them.
As the pool said in Oscar Wilde’s The Disciple: “But was Narcissus beautiful? I loved Narcissus because, as he lay on my banks and looked down at me, in the mirror of his eyes, I saw even my own beauty mirrored.”
In today’s volatile politics, it’s best to state upfront that what I am about to say has no connection with what the inquisitive. This is about the changing nature of sexual politics, the tragic way in which we have destroyed the fragile relationship between the sexes, the fun, frolic and foreplay.
Some political analysts have earlier spoken of a tendency for the Muslim voter to exercise his franchise tactically — voting to prevent a candidate with a poor record in communal amity from winning and also seeking to bolster the chances of victory of the most winnable secular candidate. Such "tactical voting" often involved greater attention to regional or local issues, so the choice of candidate was not made solely on the basis of his party affiliation.
Mars versus Venus was once just another gender joke about the inherent incompatibility between the opposite sexes. Today it sounds astonishingly off colour as the planets spin on their own, lonely orbits. Mars is Mars and Venus is Venus and the way we are going about it, the magic and mystery that once brought them together in mystic confluence may soon disappear, leaving behind a world where all sexual intent will be looked upon with misgiving, doubt or worse.
What’s the real problem? The romance has gone out of our life and with it, the trust that made it so winsome. It’s a bit late, I guess, to join the blame game. History, culture, religion, gender domination, everything has had a role to play in the changing equation of the sexes. The interplay between innocence, delight and dependence that brought two people together for a shared bedroom (and a shared destiny) is no longer what it once was. Popular culture, music and nostalgia still try to sustain it. After all, there are big bucks riding on it. But fear, suspicion, mistrust have taken too large a toll, bringing in its wake an inexplicable violence. Big bucks are riding on that as well.
For every dollar invested in the decadent, old fashioned industries of romance, there are ten invested in the business of fear. Wherever you look, the politics of fear is playing out far more tantalisingly than the playbook of love. Martial art classes for women. Sales of pepper spray cans. Scary laws intended to prevent scarier crimes. On the flip side, you have bestsellers like 50 Shades of Gray that celebrate the deepest sexual fantasies of domination and sexual slavery. The zipless fuck Erica Jong fantasized about in Fear of Flying (brilliantly captured by Bertolucci in Last Tango in Paris) has now been replaced by the crude gang rape.
Solitude is no longer sexy. It’s scary. The stolen kiss is no more a promise of something exciting about to happen. It’s predatory. Pursuing a woman in the hope she will turn around and change the entire course of your life sounds awfully stupid in a world where stalking is now a dodgy crime. And much as our films may still romanticize the sexual hunt, most women don’t see it that way anymore. Not outside the movie theatres. Frolic is at a high risk of extinction. Devdas’ stinging slap, once considered his ultimate gift of love to Paro, could get him 7 years RI today.
The language of love has changed. The grand gesture, the flamboyant flourish, the quick grab, the dangerous flirtation, the violent passion, the desperate love, ablaze with welcoming lights that Nabokov wrote of so eloquently, a mere touch that could ignite an unspoken, unspeakable desire: these have vanished into the dusty archives of history. What we now have are more businesslike, better managed, transactional relationships where people live together in amiable, structured deals, often contractually put together. You read of pre-nups in the West. Here the contract has taken an even more mundane turn. In Mumbai, youngsters contemplate marriage just to get a roof over their heads. Or a Royal Enfield in the parking lot.
Popular culture still tries hard, very hard to keep old fashioned, larger than life romance alive. Rajjo begs Chulbul Pandey to be rough handled when she says (rather endearingly) that she fears his love more than his slap. But for most couples today, a hand raised in love is as bad as a hand raised in mock rage. The matrix of the new age relationship has no space for adventure. The entire lexicon of sex can now be posted on the back of a postage stamp.
Only an ass will risk challenging today’s fragile balance of power. Simple things, very simple things that were once looked upon as charming, the stuff of legend and lore, are now seen as acts of gender hostility. Wooing someone over a glass of bubbly is fraught with risks. Girls are more likely to check for DRDs in their champagne than solitaires. Striking up a conversation with a tall, dark stranger in the bar is perilous. So is hitching a ride. Dirty dancing can earn you your night in a police station. Anything to do with sex, particularly pleasurable sex with an unknown person is risky, very risky today.
The art of flirting is on a ventilator and will not revive till faith returns to resuscitate the magic of our relationships. War games are fine. But the appeal of any extreme sport tires after a while. So do dotty Facebook romances with emoticons thrown in.
So it’s such a refreshing change to see Digvijay Singh at 67 openly flaunt his love for a much younger woman on twitter. Not too many men wear their heart on their sleeve any more. Their sleeves are usually rolled up for work or battle.
Analysts said DAP is trying to shed its Chinese-centric image and make inroads to capture the hearts and minds of the Malays by fielding a young Malay woman.but PAS
The DAP, which makes up one-third of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) pact, had been trying hard to prove its detractors wrong by fielding more Malay candidates in the last general election to broaden its appeal among the country’s electoral majority.
At the national level, the story of votes (not seats) obtained by various parties and alliances is fairly straightforward. DAP and its allies got about 54 percent votes, If you drill down from this big picture to level shares of votes, an intricate mosaic emerges. The vote shares show the great advantage of the right kind of alliances, and the burden of dead wood. The reasons for these bizarre results lie partly in the electoral system and partly in the specific nature of vote distribution. In the 'first past the post' system the candidate getting the largest number of votes in any seat wins. So, in a multi-cornered contest, a candidate with say 20 percent votes may win a seat because each of the others have individually got less than that. One well-known solution to this problem is adopting a proportional representation system in which seats are allocated according to share of votes, a system practiced in many countries. Can Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud woo the Malay electorate in the Teluk Intan parliamentary seat? That’s what her party, DAP, is trying to find out when they nominated her as its candidate for the May 31 by-election.
”
The AIADMK might not have managed such huge margins in many places if Jayalalithaa, who started off a silent friend of Modi, didn’t change tack midway her campaign and attacked the BJP after sensing a Muslim consolidation against her (But, mind you, she never attacked Modi). She would have lost some minority support had she joined hands with the BJP, but the results show that that would have been more than compensated by the BJP. The results also show that the rest of the parties in TN have not garnered enough to open an account under the NDA umbrella, and hence wouldn’t have changed the pathetic fate of the DMK alliancGiven this bonhomie which never got to the level of mutual commitment, Jayalalithaa had two options before the elections: One, to join NDA as its leading partner in Tamil Nadu and give the BJP half-a-dozen winnable seats; two, to go it alone. The trade-off was, if she opted for the first, she would end up with a little over 30 seats, but, as the largest NDA partner, she could demand half-a-dozen ministerial berths for her MPs. The second, as she rightly read the anti-DMK/Congress mood in the state, would reap a richer harvest for her to emerge the king-maker if the NDA tally tottered around 250 seats.
To be fair to the Chennai Super Queen, she was probably right. Just that Modi was more right.
It’s common knowledge that the AIADMK, having shed the vestiges of the Dravidian philosophy long ago, would make a natural ally of the BJP. And Jayalalithaa made no secret of this: She was the first leader of another party to congratulate Narendra Modi when he became the chief minister of Gujarat last two times. The two leaders have been exchanging more than pleasantries over the phone for a while before the elections which both knew would make Modi the Prime Minister.
Theorists will make much of the need for Modi to build or re-build institutions. This is very time consuming and effort intensive. Many of these (cabinet system; inner party democracy; the bureaucracy; federalism; the judiciary) were systematically destroyed during the long period of Indira Gandhi’s rule. Institutions do matter, particularly in a democracy, because they provide permanence in a politically unstable system. But in India we carry everything to extremes. No institution can atrophy and yet remain productive.
The central bureaucracy is one such institution. From the very beginning, it was merit oriented only at the point of entry. Even in that limited way, it did not respond to the socio-economic disabilities specific segments of India faced in getting in. This opaque, small, mostly male club can be transformed by introducing real competition at the top. This is from where the fish rots. All babu posts of Joint Secretary and above must be filled through open competition. It must be the PM (not the concerned Minister or the Department of Personnel) who must select the candidate, out of a short list of two, recommended by the UPSC. Each appointment must have a minimum tenure of three years with no job hopping allowed, even if more attractive lateral options become available.
One new tradition, which must be reversed, is the “in your face” security apparatus. Modi was the highest security risk even before he became the PM. Now his security needs to significantly enhanced. But this challenge should be used as an opportunity to upgrade the security apparatus, rely on technology, intelligence and rapid response, rather than on a glut of gun totting men. It is only when the PM makes his security “invisible” that it will stop being the status symbol, it is today.
It will not be easy to rein in “privilege”, which is the life blood of an elitist, patrimonial State. But much of the rot we face today can be traced to this one, ubiquitous norm. Who better to try, than one who, like Bill Clinton, made it to the very top purely on merit?
Saffron IndiaThe saffron deluge has taken everyone by surprise, like an early monsoon. The Modi storm carried away with it, anyone who rode with him and demolished all others, barring regional stalwarts like Amma, Naveen Patnaik and Didi.
The democratic problem with an overwhelming mandate is that it reduces the opposition to a redundancy. In the extant case, saffron still has to contend with the Rajya Sabha where the NDA does not have a majority. More importantly, the recent Indian experience with huge majority governments has not been conducive for reforms. Of course coalitions are not a panacea for reforms either. The United Front coalitions of 1996 to 1998 were superbly ineffective. But the Janta Party wasted its massive 1977 win and Rajiv Gandhi frittered away the overwhelming sympathy vote in 1984. In comparison, significant economic reform happened only under the Narasimha Rao led coalition government in 1991; the Vajpayee led NDA government of 2000 and the Manmohan Singh led UPA I of 2004. There does seem to be a positive link between coalitions and economic reform. Possibly huge majorities induce comfort. The lack of competition douses the fire in the belly till ones time is up and it is too late.
Modi is not unused to huge mandates. After all he has led Gujarat for over ten years now. But it would be wise to pursue the idea of a “cabinet” of Chief Ministers and to engage proactively with the opposition. The last few years have seen rising inter-party acrimony making Parliament dysfunctional. To keep engaging, when not compelled to do so, is the best route to rebuild a national consensus on development priorities.
Modi is a man in a hurry, with an agenda to complete and too little time to do it in. It is consequently unlikely that he will let the baton slip. He would do well to use the UK-Tony Blair and Malaysia precedent and constitute small, vertically integrated, fully empowered, politico-technocratic teams with specific, measurable and time bound results expected from them. His secretariat is unlikely to be the laid back, free-wheeling entity it had become under Manmohan Singh, which reported to everyone but the PM. The expectation is that Modi will come to office with a pre-formulated agenda and a team to implement it doggedly.
Is the hoary city of Delhi likely to seduce him into somnolence? Again, very unlikely, given the cultural gulf tween the macho man from Mehsana and the pleasures on offer from the glitterati of Lutyens. His “quasi married” status is likely to generate many hours of speculation of who, if anyone, is likely to share 7 RCR with him.
No comments:
Post a Comment