Samsung's latest Star TV phone, also known as the S5233T, has just been released at South East Asia, with chances that it will arrive in India as well. Telegent Systems will be the ones providing the analog mobile TV receiver while Samsung has done a number on its user interface to offer rich graphical controls. You will now be able to channel surf on your cellphone, flicking the screen to change channels, where other features include one-click screen capture and record, an on-screen keypad channel entry and reception of incoming SMS messages even when you are watching TV. No idea on pricing though.

Permalink: Samsung Star TV phone unveiled from Ubergizmo | RSS Sponsor: Win a Fellowes Microshred Paper Shredder!

If you’re living in India and don’t have a decent portable email device, here’s a bit of good news for you. The email-toting (in fact, email-only) Peek will be offered on Aircel’s network and at a rather affordable price too. Apparently the Device will be going for Rs.2999 ($65), and the monthly service charge will be Rs.299 ($6). An official website has been set up too, so let’s kick back and see if this email-device kicks off in India.

Permalink: Peek Email Device Launches In India from Ubergizmo | RSS Sponsor: Win a Fellowes Microshred Paper Shredder!

If you thought that wearing fur was outdated - what with all those green movements and animal rights activists who put this cruel sense of fashion in its right place with the likes of Cruella de Vil - fashionista's say, think again.

Last month the fashion world went literally “wild” in New York, Paris and Milan during the unveiling of their fall collection. They had models strutting the catwalk in so much fur, it was scary enough to make animal rights activists and environmentalists jump out of their skins.

In this era of global warming and dwindling animal species, one would think that we humans would come to our senses and rethink our actions. Not so, it seems, as there is a whole other world out there - the fashion industry of the west - whose endorsement and use of fur and exotic animal products simply encourages the mass slaughter of many endangered species.

A dealer's bounty at the Quartzite annual show for art and crafts. Image by Flickr user cobalt123. Used under a Creative Commons License

To name a few, the Chiru or Tibetan antelope, whose underbelly fur is used to make “Shatoosh” the world's most expensive shawls, also known as “shawls of death”. It takes 3 dead antelopes, to make one shawl, so fine it can fit through a finger ring, and each one can cost between $5000 to $20,000 in the international market. Even babies, and mother's who have just delivered, are not spared.

According to WWF, the population of this species has declined by over 50 percent in the last 20 years and the Tibetan Plateau Project says that it was the fashion-driven demand for Shatoosh in the U.S that resulted in as many as 20,000 antelopes being slaughtered. It is alarming to know that the animal could become extinct in the next three years at this rate.

In a blog run by Uma and Hurree called Animal Rights India, they argue how farming of Chiru's - like Eider ducks in Iceland for eider (as an alternative), will not make a difference to the dwindling numbers.

But hello: Eider ducks are now a protected species, and farmers in iceland use a technique of collecting the down without harming the bird. And no, it is not possible to obtain the shahtoosh wool without killing the chiru.

They go on to say:

It's impossible to justify killing three beautiful wild animals every time you want to push a length of shawl through a ring, blah blah. And to farm them just to kill them for shawls?

Raja Basu, another blogger said:

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – which controls the trade in endangered species products – has completely banned international trade in Tibetan antelope products (including Shahtoosh). It is illegal to import Shahtoosh into many countries, including the USA (ironically, Shahtoosh products are so popular in the US fashion industry). Unfortunately, despite such laws being in place, the Shahtoosh trade is going on in full swing. This is because it is not enough to have laws. There must also be a strong public protest across the board against every person who is by any means related to the Shahtoosh trade. There should be a widespread public sensitization campaign to educate the common people.

Bloggers in the west, however, were giving this some thought and debated:

Rachel Menashy wrote on her blog:

1. People eat rabbits at restaurants. These rabbits have been killed to provide ‘dinner' for people like us (I would like to point out that I have never eaten rabbit and by ‘us' I mean people who eat in restaurants). Why is it right that rabbits can feature on a menu in a restaurant but wrong to wear a fur coat? These rabbits inevitably are skinned in preparation to be cooked - what else should we do with the fur?

2. Is it more acceptable if the coat is Vintage? Why?

3. Is rabbit fur better/worse than Mink? Some argue that rabbit fur is not as bad because rabbits are not in danger of becoming extinct, unlike mink which is. Then again, people keep rabbits as pets so is it more cruel to wear rabbit than mink?

4. If a fur coat is hanging on a rail at a store and one customer refuses to buy it, somebody else will…

5. Should role models such as Kate Moss be seen wearing fur? Kate's style is copied by millions of girls (and women) - is she giving a bad impression?

To which Denise replied:

1. I would personally be more likely to wear rather than eat rabbit. The eating of it seems less acceptable somehow.
2.Vintage coats have been around for a while and should be recycled - which I'm definitely into.
3. Mink are feral creatures and even though their fur is more desirable, mink are not aiming for extinction, so why not wear it?
4. Agreed.
5. I don't mind fur being worn by anyone, and Kate Moss is just showing that this is acceptable. Too many people are on the “fur is bad” bandwagon. I bet most of these people eat meat and wear leather, so what's the difference?

But there is a difference as Barry Williams responded to a thread: Wearing Fur is not immoral on www.helium.com

If we go around killing cattle for leather, alligators for shoes, deer for chamois and see nothing morally wrong in that , why it is immoral to wear fur. What I see as immoral is the killing of animals simply for the fur alone. It really is such a waste, isn't it? Apart from the leather we obtain from cattle not much of the animal is wasted. Beef cattle supply our meat.

There are a multitude of arguments out there, but in the meantime the Humane Society for the United States, says that Canada will slaughter 388, 200 harp, grey and hooded seals this year, an increase of 50,000 from 2009. This, because of the overall demand for fur. The site of the Fur Council of Canada shows styles and celebrities modelling various furs in what it describes as a fashion trend of 2010.

And unfortunately in the U.S, and much of the west, where Global Fashion trends are set, laws don't seem to be enough to curb their greed. According to the International Fur Trade Federation Blog:

..the shift in the attitude towards fur can be attributed to “changes within the fur trade, such as the introduction of the new Origin Assured initiative, which guarantees that fur bearing the label comes from a country with animal welfare regulations”. This shows that the fur trade efforts and initiatives to challenge the outdated ideas of our industry have been noticed. We are a transparent and well-regulated industry that supports high animal welfare standards and we welcome the confidence and support shown by the fashion designers as well as the European Commission, who recently recognised the importance of the Origin Assured label.

Fashion designers who have been courted by Furriers say they are “confident using fur after examining the chain of production and finding it humane. But could this confidence be based on a lack of investigation or knowledge? According to an endangered species handbook :

The New York luxury department store, Bergdorf Goodman, advertised shahtoosh in 1995 as a “royal and rare” fabric, making incorrect statements about the wool having been obtained from the Mountain Ibex goat of Tibet which “sheds its down undercoat by scratching itself against low trees and bushes” from where it is gathered by local shepherds (Schaller 1998)

And if the clubbing of baby seals and mass slaughtering of Chiras, mothers and babies, is “humane” then its sad to think of what “humane” means anymore, and what we are willing to condone in the name of “Fashion”.

Amit Verma at India Uncut comments on the news that garlands of thousand-rupee notes were presented to a political leader in India: “this kind of behaviour demonstrates, yet again, how our politicians believe that they are our rulers, and not our servants.”

Get ready, India. The email-only Peek device will soon be riding on Aircell’s airwaves within your boarders and available for purchase in 1,000 different retail spots. It’s actually quite affordable too with a retail cost of Rs.2999 for the handheld and Rs.299 for the monthly service charge. That works out to be $65 USD and $6 USD, respectively. Interested? There’s a spiffy new Indian peek website with all the details.

Filed under: Comedy, Drama, Romance, New Releases, Trailers and Clips

Continue reading Trailers for Julia Roberts and Jennifer Aniston's August Box Office Clash

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Ceremony performed by India & PakistanRated 4.0762 / 5 | 120 views | 1 comments

Click here to watch the videoSubmitted By: matt65165Tags: border closing india Pakistan

Noah Elkin / The eMarketer Blog:
Looking Beyond the Staggering Mobile Stats in the BRIC Countries  —  My latest report - on wireless usage and advertising trends in the BRIC countries (Brazil / Russia / India / China) - launches today.  Given their large populations, some of the numbers are understandably eye-popping.

Back home.

As I was walking by the Hugo Boss store in Frankfurt Airport, I saw a tall man with long grey hair holding up a pair of jeans. I immediately said to myself "boy this guy looks like James Cameron!". I wasn't sure and I'm not the type to intrude in other people's private lives, so I moved on.

This morning I checked out recent pictures taken at the Oscars and confirmed that he has indeed been letting his hair grow long. The clincher was a Twitter search which revealed that he arrived in India yesterday. FRA Airport is the primary transfer point for Westerners going to the subcontinent.

Introduction

Offstumped’s post attempts to chart a course for the future of what he calls the “broad political space opposed to Left Liberalism.” As laudable and difficult the endeavour is, the ideas he espouses in the piece leave many gaps in clarity, ignores crucial areas, and casually dismisses many vital points that need to be accounted for.

A few words about some specific items on the recently-concluded online debate before getting into a detailed response of the post. I don’t really have any view on that debate except for what Offstumped says here:

Untamed Internet Activism remains a sore point [.] There is no clear intellectual leadership visible on the horizon for taming this Activism and for taking it beyond the Internet

I’m not sure I agree with the usage of “untamed Internet activism.” He probably means well, but to “tame” generally means “to control, to rein in.” Used in the context of the Internet, this lends itself to the conclusion that we need to come up with ways to control what he calls “Internet activism.” If this taming is what is called for, it’s self-defeating, and it directly contradicts his general principle of upholding the right to free speech. This is not to argue for having the freedom to abuse/insult somebody without provocation but it does smack of censorship. However, in the absence of more information/complete context, I’m not aware what the said activism implies.

I’m all for having clear leadership but everything has its own place. The idea of creating a common platform is good but “taming” something by trying to bring in some sort of standardization doesn’t bode well. It could eventually degenerate into toeing some line—however good or bad the line maybe.

The Future can’t be Separated from the Past

The section titled Its about the future stupid says:

First time voters in 2019 will be a generation born in 2001 around or after 9/11 who are right now studying in 4th grade

The past maybe an inspiration and a guide, the West maybe a case study, but end of the day this exercise has to be about the future. Standing where we are today, if we are not thinking ahead on the challenges, opportunities and the sense of history with which todays 4th grader and the many who probably are not even in school will be making political choices 9 years from now, then we will be irrelevant even before 2002 makes it to History text books [...] We must draw a line to

• #2 make this about the challenges and opportunities of the future and not about righting history’s wrongs

I broadly agree about the challenges etc that the future presents. However, the “past as an inspiration” and “sense of history” present some problems. If you want to look to the past for inspiration, you need to know it thoroughly. Also, a sense of history means that we know our history really well. What percentage of this broad political space know it, and more importantly, can understand its impact on the future? Apart from a vocal fringe, nobody really is interested to avenge (or “right”) historical wrongs. A sense of history therefore, also means understanding the past accurately so we can discard the wrongs and vow to never repeat it. Yet, what’s the kind of history that these 4th graders are being taught?

Also, framing this in terms of votes/voters is shortsighted. The idea is to create an intellectual climate where everybody is unafraid to openly debate everything without attaching labels and trying to figure out “which side somebody is on.” And this has to shorn of concerns such as getting votes. The Nehruvian Congress party—and later, the Left—created precisely this sort of “intellectual” climate with eyes always on the ballot box. I’m unsure if this is the approach Offstumped recommends.

Essentially, this approach—mindshare, 2014 generation, etc—falls in the realm of strategy, not ideology (a term I’m both queasy and careful to use) for want of a better word. This note about generational/age/franchise aspect makes eminent sense if Offstumped was talking about an electoral strategy. Unfortunately, he seems to mix this up with other things I’ve noted above.

Denouncing Hindutva without understanding it

After this, interestingly, Offstumped characterizes “political” Hindutva thus.

#1 at its core was the product of deep insecurity and victimhood

This is quite easy to say offhand but I’d rather Offstumped had given irrefutable evidence in support. Can he deny that the Indian state actively discriminated (and continues to do so) against Hindus for the better part of post-Independence India? Can he deny the fact that Hindu institutions and value systems were systematically derided by the state? Can he deny the fact that the Indian state spawned an education system that showed Hindu history in unflattering light? The said insecurity and victimhood are real. The words are not “insecurity” and “victimhood” but threat and discrimination. But for this kind of state-sponsored discrimination against Hindus, what was the need for a movement like “political” Hindutva, where Hindus felt they needed a political voice?

#2 has been tainted by Adharma committed in its name.

I’d be more careful before using words like “Adharma” without understanding its complete meaning. Adharma is not merely the English equivalent of “injustice” or “crime.” If you look at the history of violence perpetrated by Hindus, it has always been in retaliation to an attack/provocation. Plus, Hindus have taken to the streets because the Indian state has proved beyond doubt that it is incapable of both preventing original offenders from hurting Hindu sentiments, temples, etc as well as proved ineffective in punishing the original offenders. Characterizing this as Adharma shows an ignorance of the meaning of Adharma. This is not to defend violence committed in the name of Hindutva/Hinduism but there is such a thing as spontaneous, natural retaliation. A group of citizens picketing and stoning an MLA’s house for his misdeeds after it has tried all peaceful and legal methods is not Adharma.

#4 was intellectually hollow in its failure to evolve an Intellectual Political Tradition geared for the challenges of this Century drawing on the rich tradition of Kautilya’s Arthashastra and others who followed him

In a post that approvingly talks about drawing from Kautilya’s rich tradition, it is surprising that there’s not a single mention of what that tradition is. Supporting Kautilya is a double-edged sword for I can show a host of material in the Arthashastra that’d qualify Kautilya for the selfsame label of the “political” Hindutva brand that Offstumped asks us to abandon.

In essence, the “political” Hindutva of the 1990s didn’t arise from a vacuum. Hindutva as I suppose he’s aware, has a long history. Ignoring this history and coining a new term “political Hindutva” is not a good approach. However, because he has called upon us to abandon it, the burden of proof lies on Offstumped to show us—by tracing this history—why it makes sense to abandon Hindutva. Instances of demolishing buildings, disrupting lovers on Valentine’s Day, burning posters, etc don’t count. I shall respond to him where I stand on this once I get his response.  

And then in a most interesting (and startling) paragraph, Offstumped lays down this prescription:

Just as Rajadharma as articulated over the Centuries was the Constitution for the State,  the Indian Constitution is the Rajadharma in this day and age. The only “Warrior Spirit” to protect Dharma is that which the has Constitutional sanction. The only Right to bear Arms is that which is sanctioned by the Constitution. Even the Kshatriya of yesteryears had no blanket immunity to use their arms but for the protection of Dharma which in today’s context is the Indian Constitution.

For the record, Rajadharma was not the Constitution for the State. The Indian kingdoms of the time Offstumped speaks about had no Constitution in the sense we understand it today. The definition of a Raja is Ranjanaat iti Rajah (He is the king who entertains/keeps his subjects happy). The closest equivalent to the word “Constitution” is Smriti. Till date, we have 40 Smritis, the earliest dating some thousands of years ago. We can vaguely liken the Indian Constitution to the 41st Smriti but only after it passes some tests as we shall see.

Rajadharma is an entire subject in its own right and very simply, it involved the king to always uphold Dharma and ensure that his subjects were always happy and that his coffers were always full. In the times of the Ramayana, it was to uphold this Rajadharma that Rama had to forsake Sita. The King had sanction to employ any and every means to achieve these twin objectives and relied on the smritis and his council of ministers to guide him. The smritis in turn dealt with every conceivable aspect of Dharma in minute detail including giving us such things as the kind of bodily ailments caused by excessive gambling. Space doesn’t permit me to elaborate further but equating Rajadharma with the Constitution of the State is wholly incorrect.

Equally, the Indian Constitution is not the Rajadharma of today. It is one thing to say that the Constitution is a noble document and one of the pillars of our democracy and other nice things. However, superimposing Rajadharma upon it is misleading to say the least. One of the first tests of whether the Indian Constitution is indeed the Rajadharma of today is to find out whether the Constitution itself upholds Dharma.

A marked feature of a Smriti (I’m using the term very loosely here) is its fluidity, its adaptability to changing times because Dharma varies from age to age. There have been pitched battles to amend whole portions of the Indian Constitution to accommodate the changing needs, and aspirations but such portions have remained in a time warp. However, amendments that injure both the Constitution and Dharma are passed nonchalantly. The other test is how a Smriti treats other/minority groups/religions. The Indian Constitution places minority institutions almost beyond the scrutiny of law. A fourth test is how it treats the cultural icons, symbols, and literature of the nation. The Indian Constitution makes it illegal to kill the peacock and the tiger and also punishes an insult to the national flag. Yet, it doesn’t accord the same status to our epics, which are now reduced to literary lab pieces for anybody to maul at will. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are not merely Hindu epics—they are Indian epics. They define the Indian way of life and continue to influence people of all major religions in the country. Neither can you argue that a secular/democratic nation has nothing to do with religion because as we see, there’s nothing secular about Indian democracy. Additionally, the word “secular” itself was an ugly aberration that Indira Gandhi introduced and hasn’t been erased till date. This is the nature of Adharma. I can cite several other instances but the point remains that the Indian Constitution doesn’t entirely adhere to Dharma. If Offstumped argues that this is the Rajadharma, we all need to follow, I have nothing further to say.

Besides, there’s another aspect to this. A king who fails to perform his Rajadharma properly faces the prospect of his own subjects rebelling against him—in other words, of taking the law into their own hands. Pretty much what’s happening today. Successive Indian governments have failed to carry out their Rajadharma properly, and worse, in many cases, actively encouraged Adharma—votebanks, subverting the Constitution, the Emergency, etc. If they had discharged their Rajadharma properly, we wouldn’t have had the “violence unleashed by the political Hindutva” people.

Offstumped leaves me with no choice except to say that equating Dharma and Rajadharma with the Indian Constitution stems from a deep ignorance of the concept of Dharma. As a friendly note, anybody who wishes to talk about Dharma and make sense needs to invest serious time and effort to understand its basics. Merely being well-intentioned and supportive of Dharma isn’t enough.

...Continued in Part 2...