Sometimes you meet someone whose story you feel you have to share, because they run so much against the grain of everyday life.

I first came across Reshma ten years ago, while on a visit to Chennai. She had none of the ‘helplessness’ displayed by some women trying to be more ‘ladylike.’ She had her priorities, her views, and politely--even charmingly--ignored those who got in the way. Her role model for this kind of strong woman was Jayalalithaa, the glamorous film star-turned-politician who had a same-sex partner. Reshma's passion was martial arts, and training girls in them, which she did this across the country.

But even a sensei has her moments of disappointment, even despair, and at such times she would hunt me out and visit for a confidence boost. A little over a month ago, a youth ran over her leg, resulting in her needing multiple surgeries to help repair the many bones that were broken. The doctors had told her to rest for three months. But here she was, five weeks later, doing what she loved--giving women the confidence to believe that they could prevent the unwelcome physical intrusions that women in India who dress in the liberal western way are forced to put up with. Only this time around, she was training not students, not ordinary working women, but sex workers--a group clearly more prey to male exploitation than most others.

I come from a reasonably (if not always sensibly) liberal background--my uncle, Aubrey Menen, wrote the first book that was banned in post-colonial India, a satirical take on the Ramayana that he called ‘Rama Retold’. Meanwhile, my mother, Kamala Das, in the 1960s ignited the era of more sexual openness in India by bringing out an autobiography--‘My Story’--that included a confession of extra-marital sex.

So I’ve been a booster of Reshma's cause. She reminded me of Mary Roy, the mother of novelist Arundhati Roy, who had come to meet me ( with her precocious little daughter in tow) in 1985,when she was taking on the Church in the Supreme Court to try to secure for Christian women in Kerala equal inheritance rights for females. The newspaper ‘Mathrubhumi’ or ‘Motherland’ newspaper, of which I was editor at the time, backed her all the way, the only newspaper in the state to do so in a place where the Church was not an inconsiderable force. I saw Reshma in the feisty tradition of Mary Roy, and backed her crusade to ensure women in India mastered the art of self-defense. It has been a privilige to do so.

Over the weekend, I attended the ‘International Dialogue Between Islam & Oriental Religions’, which was attended by more than 60 participants including from Qatar, Nepal, Pakistan and India. Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, an Islamic scholar, was to attend, but had to be operated on, on February 19, so he sent his deputy, Dr Ali Al-Quradaghi of the World Council of Muslim Scholars.

Participants noted that the core message of each of the great faiths was the same--love and tolerance. Various points of view were listened to with respect and attention, including suggestions that non-Muslims ought to be allowed to go on pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina as the Quran doesn't differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim, only between those who believed in God and those who did not. Among other issues, it was agreed that special attention needed to be paid to women so that they can be given the same status as men, and that local minorities everywhere ought to be given the full protection of the state.

The organisers of the meeting were drawn from all the key Muslim religious organisations in India, including the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind--proof of the moderation of the Muslim community in India, and their near-total absence from the ranks of those that spread terror and take the lives of innocents. India is home to 160 million Muslims, and slowly the world’s largest democracy is once again emerging as a key centre of Islamic thought.

But of course, and sadly, India is still a work in progress and needs to do more to ensure social justice is widespread, as demonstrated by an email I received from Dr J S Bandukwala, part of which I am including below:

‘I have faced severe opposition from the orthodox within the Muslims, including a fatwa on the issue of Salman Rushdie , as I publicly opposed the burning of his books and the death sentence. I
was one of the few who tried to read his book, found it in very poor taste , but yet felt that a writer must only be challenged intellectually. Mass hysteria is not the civilised way to show disapproval. I barely survived that ordeal. Today I enjoy substantial support within my community, both in Gujarat and outside. They respect me for being true to my inner beliefs.

'I have faced equally vehement opposition from the Hindu right wing. This in spite of the fact that my only beloved daughter is most happily married in a Gujarati Hindu family. But the manner in which I was attacked in 2002 can only be called shameful and deceitful…I had to literally hide in a friend's bathroom to save myself from a certain death…If this could happen to me, one can imagine what must　have happened to the large number of Muslims trapped within Hindu　localities in the 「Gujarat」riot affected areas. Yet there was no introspection or remorse at such a ghastly tragedy, even from a liberal figure like Vajpayee. George Fernendes speaking in the Lok Sabha, trivialised as an everyday event in the country, the slashing of a pregnant Muslim　woman's stomach by a VHP fanatic, to kill both the mother and the would be child.'

If the recent controversy between the Hindi film Star Sharukh Khan, and Mumbai-based Hindu fundamentalist group Shiv Sena's catapulted SRK (Shahrukh Khan) into the biggest icon of Bollywood category, one man who seems to be have lost face in the whole spectacle is superstar Amitabh Bachhan. While SRK stood his ground despite repeated threats by the goons and leaders of the rabid group to disrupt his new release, My Name is Khan, in Mumbai and took the fringe fanatic group head-on, Big B (as Amitabh is popularly called) was singing paeans in his blog for the chief of the Shiv Sena, Bal Thackeray, calling him resolute and firm and praising his sense of humour.

This praise for a hardcore fundamentalist leader comes on the heels of his newfound friendship with another such leader and the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, who is accused of leading a genocide against the Muslim minority in his state in 2002 that killed more than 2000 people and displaced thousands, creating a deep wedge between Hindu and Muslim in the state. Big B's acts have not gone down well with the right-thinking people of India. A leading English magazine even came up with the front page caption 'A Man with No Conviction' for the star.

This sums up the popular mood in India against a man who has been one of the biggest icons in India for almost two generations. I've grown up watching his movies, learnt to be rebellious against a system which perpetuates injustice by watching his histrionics and even used to sport his hairstyle despite my father's and teachers' ranting. But now something within me rebels against the very idea of watching his new release and I feel really let down by the man for whom I stole money from my father's pocket to go see, bunked classes in school to catch his latest release and performed rather poorly in my school exams as a result.

It pains me when an icon fails.

At a party I attended last weekend, I realised just how real the temptation of being part of the (highly anticipated) Indian success story has become. At a gathering made up largely of people in their late twenties to mid-thirties, I’d say about 70 percent had over the last few years decided to come home to India after amassing prestigious degrees and impressive job credentials abroad. Most had worked in the US, totting up between them an amazing list of world-class institutions--Wharton Business School, Parsons School of Design, New York, Asian Institute of Management, Manila and Leeds University in the UK among others.

All this got me thinking--is India’s worrying brain drain truly over? From the 1960s to the 1990s, India suffered a huge intellectual brain drain. Some of our brightest minds, especially those in the sciences, medicine and engineering, left the country to pursue excellence elsewhere, especially in countries like the US and the UK. India’s ‘Hindu rate of growth’ and limited opportunities were responsible for this exodus.

But the winds of change are blowing. Apart from the obvious benefits of staying in your own country, close to friends and family, there’s a definite realisation that being home also makes super business sense. In fact, Harvard Law School researcher Vivek Wadhwa recently quantified this phenomenon. In his repeatedly quoted report America's Loss is the World's Gain, Wadhwa estimated about 100,000 skilled Indians will leave the United States to head home to India in the next five years. This is great for us, of course. But, can it be true? Is reversing outlet-inlet channels possible?

It seems constantly to be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing in Manmohan Singh’s second term as prime minister. There have been several instances in recent months where senior officials and ministers have made public statements either about their colleagues in the government or subjects that do not fall under their remit. Thus, Home Minister P Chidambaram has made policy statements about India-Pakistan relations, while External Affairs Minister S M Krishna has played second fiddle. Meanwhile, then National Security Advisor M K Narayanan, presently West Bengal Governor, made sweeping foreign policy-related statements, including openly blaming Chinese hackers for breaking into his and services chiefs computers. In all these instances, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh kept mum.

But what happened earlier this week crossed all boundaries and embarrassed the Indian foreign policy establishment. Defence Research and Development Organisation Chief V K Saraswat made the tall claim that the 3000-kilomtre range nuclear-capable Agni III missile was ready for ‘induction’ by the Indian armed forces. He also said ‘there is no need to produce and store missiles in today’s world.’ Completing a hat trick of prattle, Saraswat said India is developing anti-satellite weapons and spoke about how Agni-III could cover targets in China and Pakistan with a nuclear payload.

This is brazen. First, how can a missile be battle-ready after four tests, one of which one was a failure? Second, Saraswat only has to look around and see how the world in general and the Indian neighbourhood in particular is teeming with ready-to-be-fired missiles and scores of such missiles are being added on an annual basis.

Saraswat, who also happens to be the Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister A K Antony, was in effect rebutting his own minister, talking of anti-satellite weapons at a time when Antony has been speaking against the militarization of space. What an indiscreet brag, especially when one sees it in the context of the Chinese! Beijing first tested an ASAT missile in 2007 and then in 2010 without making a song or dance about it. Saraswat’s diatribe also runs contrary to the Ministry of External Affairs’ campaign against an arms race in outer space at the just-concluded Geneva Conference.

What was the need for this bravado? And perhaps more importantly, who cleared it? Did Prime Minister Singh or Congress President Sonia Gandhi, viewed as the ‘Super PM’, summon Saraswat and ask for an explanation for his tall claims? A lack of clarification from the government on such sensitive issues would suggest that Saraswat had prior political clearance before he made these remarks.

Just following on from what Shreyasi had to say about Indian superstar Shah Rukh Khan--known as SRK--who upset right-wing Hindu fundamentalist group Shiv Sena for his unabashed love for Pakistan. The group issued a ‘fatwa’ over the film, but Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray ended up making a fool of himself in part because of internal divisions and a no-holds-barred turf war with his estranged nephew Raj Thackeray, who is now a potent political foe.

Domestic politics aside, though, SRK’s comments are worth a closer look. It all started when Pakistani cricket players were not selected for the Indian premier League’s third edition. SRK said in a TV news interview: ‘It (Pakistan) is a great neighbour to have. We (India and Pakistan) are great neighbours. They are good neighbours.’

SRK had already stirred up a hornet’s several month’s back by issuing a ‘clarification’ of remarks by the Pakistani cricket team captain, Shoaib Malik, who had publicly apologized to Muslims all over the world for failing to win the final T20 match against India. SRK embarrassed by leaping to explain what he thought Malik had meant: ‘I don’t think he meant to segregate Muslims and Christians and Hindus and say this was a match between Islam and Hinduism. I don’t think that...’ Clearly, SRK ‘The Over-reacher’ had taken it upon himself to respond on somebody else’s behalf.

Such statements prompted an avalanche of protests, with many seeing SRK as speaking as part of a Muslim brotherhood and on behalf of a country seen by many in India as having inflicted three wars.

But this all begs the question: is SRK being politically naïve or trying to don the mantle of peacemaker between India and Pakistan. Or is he simply unnecessarily poking his nose into issues he should have steered clear of? It won’t win him much appreciation when time after time questions are raised following terrorist attacks about the possible role of Pakistan, its terror bases and its terrorist organizations, be it directly or indirectly.

I love to watch big movie releases on opening weekend--it helps insulate me from word-of-mouth reviews and lets me make up my own mind. In India, though, over the last year or so even watching first day first shows doesn't allow you that luxury.

Bollywood (the Hindi film industry) has become a huge beast with an immense appetite for chomping down money. Movies are getting more and more expensive, so to make sure they deliver at the box office, production houses have taken to a frenzied, carpet-bombing marketing strategy. Hundreds of TV news channels desperate for content help further their cause. Even before the film hits the big screen, you've heard the star cast talk about their role, the music, the story, the director, the meaning, the plot, the sub-plot of the movie--again and again. Often, in the darkness of the theatre, I'm either struck with a sense of déjà vu or shocked at the blatant exaggeration of non-existent virtues.

This happened to me yesterday when I went to watch 2010’s most keenly awaited release, superstar director Karan Johar’s 'My Name Is Khan' starring the biggest actor in India, Shah Rukh Khan. But, that’s not the only reason the movie made headlines recently. Whether it would get a peaceful release in India had become a national guessing game after the right-wing Shiv Sena, a regional political party based in Mumbai, launched a campaign against it. The Shiv Sainiks alleged Shah Rukh Khan had been anti-India in his comments while talking about Pakistani cricketers.

Shah Rukh Khan definitely isn’t guilty of that, but I'm afraid he needs to be in the dock for bad acting, and for being part of a movie that's this loosely tied together, simplistically narrated and downright silly. His freedom of speech has been validated by 'bumper' openings. Now, if only we could endorse his choice of movie...

The Indian and Pakistani Foreign Secretaries are expected to resume a dialogue on February 25. India had broken off the talks in the aftermath of the vicious Pakistan-based terrorist attack on Bombay (Mumbai) on November 26, 2008. India’s decision to resume the talks has generated some public glee amongst Pakistan’s ruling establishment and has prompted criticism from the right-wing of India’s political opposition.

Within hours of India’s offer to resume a dialogue, Shah Mahmud Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, publicly stated that India, not Pakistan, had sought a resumption of discussions. He also went on to add the Pakistan had not genuflected before India to bring about their renewal. On the other hand, the hyper-nationalist, Bharatiya Janata Party, roundly criticized the ruling United Progressive Alliance government for its willingness to return to a dialogue in the absence of a firm, public and unequivocal commitment from Pakistan to eschew all ties to terrorist groups.

Quite apart from these differing reactions from Pakistan and India, the two sides have yet to agree on an agenda. Pakistan, quite predictably, wants the vexed question of Kashmir to figure prominently in any discussions. It has now also added the issue of water sharing with India. The Indian side, for its part, has yet to spell out its key concerns. However, it’s reasonable to surmise that it will in all likelihood bring up the issue of Pakistan’s continuing dalliance with a host of jihadi organizations which remain hell-bent on wreaking havoc in the disputed state of Kashmir and elsewhere in India.

Given these disparate interests, not to mention the fractious state of the Pakistani polity, expectations about any success from these talks should be muted. Any progress on whatever agenda is cobbled together prior to the talks will, at best, be glacial and limited.

All over the world, Indians are considered intelligent, studious and hardworking. Our children really have little choice considering how quickly the rat race starts for them here. And the first hoop of fire you need to jump through is when you’re barely three years-old! Ask any parent of a three year-old in Delhi about nursery school admissions, and you’re bound to encounter every human emotion possible--exhilaration, rage, disappointment, envy and ambition.

Delhi has about 2,600 recognised primary schools but only just over about twenty are coveted by the upper crust, educated, professional parent. And strategising for admissions in these schools begins months before application forms are probably even printed!

Delhi schools follow the guidelines of the Ganguly Committee whose recommendations came into effect in 2006. The committee was formed to bring out a standardised admission process for the capital’s schools ostensibly to put an end to the rampant ‘buying’ of seats--even for toddler classes--and for the very Indian of tricks, using ‘bandobast’ to get in. Ganguly mandated that schools use a 100-point system to rank each child. Points are given on proximity to school, on being an alumni’s child, children with special needs, sibling of students already enrolled. Schools can choose from a list of these parameters to rustle up their own winning cocktail. This academic session’s process began December 15 and final results for schools after short listing students on the basis of forms and ‘informal interactions’ with parents came out on February 1.

This was top news for TV news networks, magazines and newspapers in Delhi. There are websites now devoted to helping parents get the school of their choice. A friend spent weeks reading up on current affair issues to sound informed and knowledgeable during her interactions with school authorities. Others I know have given fake addresses to win points for nearness to the schools. Still, others have moved homes (at higher rents) to get their children into the ‘it’ schools of Delhi. Many have debated paying huge sums of money to weasel in.

‘With everyone applying to the same few schools, the chances of getting into a top choice are, to put it mildly, slim. Last year, the Hindustan Times (a top-selling Indian daily) ranked Shri Ram the number one school in South Delhi. With just 72 seats, that leaves each regular candidate a 4.7 percent chance of getting in. Last year’s acceptance rate at Harvard College was 7.1 percent,’ wrote Kate Darnton, a Delhi-based writer-editor, and the mother of two young girls in a recent editorial.

Her findings are a source of great joy for me! My three-and-a-half-year-old son, Agastya, has made it to the coveted Shri Ram school’s new branch in Noida, the Delhi suburb where I live. After, I might add, an absolutely harrowing couple of months applying to several schools in our neighbourhood, and living through the long forms and longer waits for the results to come out. We’ve even foregone a considerable amount of money we had already paid up in a ‘lesser’ school after Agastya made it to Shri Ram Millennium, Noida. Should I now be packing my bags for his convocation in Boston?

India has shot itself in the foot with its surprising unilateral initiative to resume bilateral talks with Pakistan. The Pune terror attack on February 13 came ten days after the Indian government made the first official affirmation of its intent to restart dialogue with Pakistan, suspended since the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November 2008. This possibly explains why there was only one attack in Pune and not multiple simultaneous attacks as has been the wont of terrorists. The easy modus operandi of leaving the bomb in a backpack at the targeted location may indicate that the perpetrator could have been a lone wolf.

The February 13 terror attack on German Bakery, a favourite eatery with foreigners in Pune seems to be the direct fallout from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government’s decision of smoking the peace pipe again with Pakistan. It was on February 3 that the first firm indication came from the Indian government about the reversal of its stand on resuming talks with Pakistan. Before that, the Indian leadership had been reiterating that no talks were possible with Pakistan until Islamabad brings the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. On February 3, India indicated its willingness to resume dialogue with Pakistan, saying even ‘a few steps’ by Islamabad in the Mumbai terror probe will ‘satisfy’ it and will make it easier to carry on business as usual with its neighbour.

What I mean is that after February 3, when India announced its willingness to resume talks with Pakistan, a countdown began for the terrorist groups. Something had to be done to shake off their lethargy of more than 14 months as India hasn’t see any big-ticket terror attack since 26/11. This was in direct contrast to the situation in Pakistan, where bomb blasts have become routine and high-profile terror strikes are no longer few and far between. The ultimate goal of the anti-India terror outfits is to trigger an India-Pakistan war that would, for them, be a welcome diversion from the relentless pounding of al-Qaeda-Taliban positions in Pakistan’s lawless regions of North West Frontier Province and Balochistan by US and Pakistani forces.

Let me now come back to my opening statement that India has shot itself in the foot by going for talks with Pakistan. New Delhi’s decision was arbitrary, illogical and inopportune. The Manmohan Singh government had no diplomatic victory from Pakistan to celebrate on the issue of terror. By its mindless decision to resume talks with Pakistan, without any diplomatic or strategic brownie points having been scored, India has exposed itself to the criticism that it was pushed to the negotiating table by the United States. What happens if more Pune-type terror strikes take place leading up to February 25 when the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan are to meet in New Delhi? Will India go ahead with the talks after more terror attacks?