Additional points

For my last few posts I am creating this post for additional points rather than editing those.
After that I am planning to start a new blog as the present blog has reached 100 posts which according to me is a post too many. It is like it is almost full. Though Google servers may hold a billion posts or more without any issues, I have to draw a line for myself.
Hence, this could be the last post in this "Hi from Anup4002" blog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding yesterday's cricket match. With India's win, it should be more of a joy for Australia and England than India. Because, they have successfully 'trained and imparted the knowledge' to 'Indian natives' who were little more than illiterate, like savages, tribal or semi-tribal, ignorant of the world, backward thinking people.
Thus it is a success for the colonisers that not only are they (the natives) able to play cricket but they are able to play it well. So well, that they can defeat them. It is like a father should be proud when his son beats him. The case is somewhat similar.
Also recently, Australia withdrew its forces from Afghanistan. It is like 'job done' for Australia. That 'job done' means that they have 'properly imparted knowledge and training' to Afghans to 'take care of themselves'. Same case with India though it is a few decades separated that's all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In yesterday i.e. 30th October Bigg Boss episode, there was an ironical situation. And it was that Andy was 'voted out' on Tuesday for discussing Tanisha and Arman nominations by using code words and creating a 'bloc' on Monday. Later on Wednesday he sat near Arman and Tanisha and the very same people defended him.
Thus the people whom you think are your friends may not be your friends and may turn against you anytime and that is a lesson we get in this life. People whom you consider as your enemies may be your friends without you knowing about it. And Andy should also get this lesson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also watched two more movies.
"Phata Poster Nikla Hero" and "Ye Jawani hai Devani".
Both movies are okay. Phata becomes phata actually mainly because I feel he has not used the songs in a proper manner. In Hindi movies, it is very difficult to get big hits without good songs. But ocassionally, come a few movies which though have good songs are unable to make it big. Phata is that kind of a movie.
Jawani is like Karan Johar movie. People are crying but you do not know what they are crying for. The characters have got all they want in this world and still they cry. Both movies can be watched once without any issues. But second time, my request is Think Twice about it.

Yay India Won.

Yes people India won. What did India win?
India won yesterday's one-day cricket match against Australia. But according to me there is nothing to be happy about.
If someone is to get happy, it can only be England and Australia and the so called Christian countries or whose history is predominantly Christian based. Why? Because as earlier I have discussed, the game of cricket is mostly a Christian game. The wickets behind the batsmen are 'like cross'.
Thus India was able to 'defend the cross' to the fullest. Thus 'India now deserves the knighthood'.
India has proved once again that is a 'very smart and talented foot-soldier' of the Commonwealth (led by Britain).
People who invented or devised the game must have initially put cross and then the batsmen would have to 'defend the cross'. It could be either 'defending the cross' or 'defending the grave'. As we know, all Christian graves are marked with cross symbol. In that case either, the batsman is standing on the grave or the wicketkeeper.
And it could be that if the batsman is standing on the grave of someone and he is as though defending it be standing on top of it. It could be that the 'soul of the deceased' can enter the batsman and he is taking charge of the batsman's actions.
It is the same thing like in football whose origins some say was when people used to play 'football' with the 'severed heads' of the enemies in the Middle Ages.
In cricket, due to practical reasons the cross then went on to become the 'wickets that it is'. There would be fights because you do not know if the cross was hit by the ball or not which in cricket is out.
It was simpler to devise three sticks and keep bales so that if the 'bales fall off' you know that the player is 'out'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Pakistan also played a match with South Africa in UAE. And it lost by 1 run.
Hmm. Does this sound like match fixing? It does to me.
Match fixing works by keeping the betters and bookies guessing till the last minute as to who will win the match.
Now since, India has IPL, India has many avenues to 'fix matches' and make money. But Pakistan has been kept out of international play and Pakistani players are banned from IPL which means that they do not get much 'avenue to make money'.
Money that is made illegally through betting and fixing the matches and twisting the outcomes of whatever little matches they get to play and that too in 'foreign lands'.

Bigg Boss 30th October

A very good day in Bigg Boss episodes. It was a continuation of the previous day episode.
In this episode, I liked the way Arman took a stand for Andy. Andy came and sat beside Arman and it was like he came 'under the influence and protection' of Arman.
He said, 'Dekhte hain tujhe haath kaun lagata hai' and then Bigg Boss sent his own Security personnel. Basically they were there to oversee the 'smooth happening in the house' namely the smooth exit of Kushal and Gauhar.
Once Arman took a stand for Andy, everybody stepped back, means Apurva, Pratysha, Kamya, Gauhar and Kushal. The conflict became like a 'world war' so as to speak. It did not remain a 'local war' anymore. It was like in the Cold War days. Like East Germany was Soviets and West Germany under NATO and US. If you attack either the entire block will respond back.
Also, Gauhar's conflict was with Arman. It is like a 'hidden conflict' one which never got solved. Once Arman got involved, it was not about Andy anymore. The conflict went on to another level altogether. Gauhar was bound to leave. She could not have survived in the house anymore.
Anyways, with Kushal exit, things have become smoother for Ijaj Khan the new entrant. But Ijaz has lost the chance to mingle with Gauhar which he had in mind. But then there is Elli in his radar who is dead scared of Ijaj anyways and Tanisha acted as 'her protector' so as to speak.
Andy's exit from the house was also very nice. The way dancers exited him out. At the end of dance show he was gone. Well done Bigg Boss. Always thinking of new things to make the show livelier.
Also, Andy's entry into the Caravan house was also well thought of. Just when Andy entered another entrant Sofia made the entrance. Both were British. Now for Sofia, survival in Bigg Boss house won't be that difficult because Andy a 'very seasoned veteran' and talkative one with himself being of British background is around. I feel the show is progressing well.

Bigg Boss Day 44

This episode I watched. It was aired on 29th October, 2013. And let me tell you that it is one of the best episodes we have seen in this season considering that this is the only season of Bigg Boss I have watched.
In this episode the housemates were given the task to 'not to react' to certain situations which would happen during the course of the day. Also, they were not to react to Andy.
Now everyone knows Andy. He is a highly talkative kind of person. So he was given the task to 'break the other mates' concentration. If you are watching Bigg Boss you will realize that most of the tasks handed down by Bigg Boss recently involve the same kind of task i.e. to 'break the concentration' of the opponent team.
What Bigg Boss gave as a task to housemates was completely justified as the housemates had themselves 'voted Andy out' of the house just the previous day. So, it was but natural for them to receive a task to ignore Andy as if he is not there in the house anymore.
Andy did what he loved. He loves talking. And I feel he never crossed the limit. He was justified to do what he was doing because Bigg Boss gave him a chance to prove himself also. Obviously, he wants to stay on in the show and win. Any other person might have sat down quietly and waited to be evicted.
But later what Kushal did to Andy was not at all justified. He put water on his bed which is actually the Bigg Boss provided bed and 'assaulted him' and abused him. I do not know how much of it was aired.
We got to see a masked man entering Bigg Boss house and bursting crackers to break the concentration of the residents.
We also got to see the man behind the voice of Bigg Boss.

That's what I feel as the voice of Bigg Boss sounds eerily similar to that man's voice.
Thus Andy was also like a person of Bigg Boss who was given the task of making the other people lose their power of 'non-reaction'. And due to that they even lost 200,000 points out of 500,000 allotted to them. Thus I would say that Andy was successful. Well done Andy.

Who do you work for?

In this world we work for either Shias or Sunnis. It is as simple as that. Our entire efforts are directed in that direction.
It is either "who we work for?" or "we are under whose control?". We are either 'under Shias' or 'under Sunnis'. Even if we are not Muslim or do not believe in any religion we are 'under someone' of these two.
Now we can discuss individual disciples. When we discuss this, we will realise that we are not or cannot be 'under Sunnis'. If we ally ourselves with Sunnis, 'we become Sunnis' and 'we are Sunnis'.
But if we ally ourselves with Shias we cannot become Shias but we either 'work under Shias' or 'work for them'. If we work for them it does not mean that we are in their payroll but we are working in their ideals and we are working for a world in which 'Shia viewpoint is adhered to'.
Now if we look at Taliban they are Sunnis. If we look at Pakistan they are 'mostly Sunni'. Now since I have analysed earlier that most of the Indians have Central Asian origins and are Shias by 'action and deeds' we can say that India-Pakistan conflict is actually a Shia-Sunni conflict. India opposes Pakistan and vice versa because of this fundamental difference between Shia and Sunni. It is not difference between Hindu and Muslim. If one ignores this fact then one is missing out on the greatest truth which is there for all to see with respect to the human race.
Now we can say the Communists who were there in Eastern Europe earlier to 1990's were Sunni. Though they did not follow any religion by their 'deeds' they were Sunni. Communism finally met its grave in Afghanistan by mostly Sunnis 'Mujaheeden" aided by US and Pakistan. So we can say that Atheist Sunnis (Communists) were defeated by religious Sunnis (Mujaheddin)
Now Nazis were Sunnis but they did a fatal mistake. They did not open their folds for everyone. Rather they 'emphasised on racial purity of Germans' and did not encourage all to come into them. Thus they wanted to become Sunnis with Shia overtones. Thus they were bound to fail.
Capitalism is Shia by its very structure. People who are rich want to keep the property and business for themselves and their families. Thus in the last century Shias won we can say because Capitalism defeated Communism. Zorastrians called Parsis in India also have Iranian origins and they are for Capitalism since the very beginning. Thus they are against Communism and which means against Sunnis and that is the key conflict between Shias and Sunnis.
Communism want distribution of wealth and tasks and Sunnis also stand for the same.
Hard core followers of Christianity in US called Evangelical Christians can be termed as Sunnis because they want 'all people to come into their fold'. Nothing will bring them more joy than if the entire world becomes 'what they are'.
Now we have the Hindu Nationalists who have not managed to win in elections. A Hindu nationalist like Modi recently has remarked that he is 'against dynastic politics' and wants the 'political situation to be open for all'. Thus my observation is that Modi wants to bring in 'Sunni elements' into Indian politics and that is a key mistake he is making and he is bound for failure. Because India is 'Shia elements following nation' even if the religion is Hinduism.
And let us not forget that fundamentally a person cannot become Hindu by conversion. One is either born Hindu or not. Any person who was born Hindu and converted to another faith can be 'reconverted' but not otherwise.
Religion may be important in many peoples lives but there is a certain background in the religion which cannot be ignored.

Iranians, Arabs, Israel and Indians

We have to understand generally that Iranians are Shia and Arabs are Sunni. And as was discussed in earlier post, most of the Indians have their origins in Central Asian region which also comprises of Iran.
As per history books, Indian subcontinent was invaded by these 'Aryans' who imposed a set of 'caste system' in the Indian society. The caste system was rigid and people could not change from one caste to another as they were bound there from birth. Most of the original Iranians or Aryans then went on to become the 'Brahmins' or the 'Kshatriyas' who were the top class and people who did not share the racial features of these 'invaders' became 'Vysyas' or Shudras'. These Brahmins were the ones who devised and imposed their set of religion on the masses and same structure is also visible even today.
Now if we look at the Middle East what was the situation. Before the First World War, there was the Ottoman Empire and it ruled over vast stretches of land in Middle East and North Africa.
Iran was a country with its own long history and culture and very less Ottoman influence. Then there was discovery of oil in the region and the policy of 'divide and rule' suited the imperialists led by Britain and France and later US. Britain used 'foot soldiers from Indian subcontinent' to a great extent in fighting the wars in the Middle East.
After Second World War, emerged a few countries of 'Arab origin' and then there was Iran with its own 5000 year old history. Also, a new country of Israel came into being with its own 5000 year old history. Now, what I personally feel that Israel and Iran have a connection. Like a secret connection.
Let us not ignore the facts that Iranians/Persians and Arabs are totally against each other. Saddam Hussein of Iraq exploited these Arab sentiments and waged an 8 year old war with its neighbor in which millions perished. Israel and Arabs are also against each other. Arabs have been brutally defeated by a tiny state like Israel and it is the ultimate humiliation for them. Arabs can do little to harm Israel. Now Iran also defeated Iraq which was an Arab state during Saddam Hussein. Though it defeated Iraq at a great price for itself.
Thus Israel and Iran both have a mistrust and antagonism towards Arabs in general. And hence, what is visible in public is 'actually an eyewash'. Israel and Iran are closer than you think. Why? Now we can analyse the situation as to why this is the case.
Shia is someone who is 'born into his life'. Thus one cannot become a Shia; one has to be born a Shia. But Sunnis are those people who can be 'assimilated as Sunnis'. Thus if any person becomes a Sunni by conversion, then he is entitled to all the rewards of Sunnis. Now let us face it, the state of Israel or the Jews are not looking to convert all the people (non-Jews) into Jews. They only want safety and security of the State of Israel and its citizens. They do not want like say 100 million people to convert into Judaism. They want safety for whatever people that are already there as Jews by birth or descent or immigration.
Similarly is the case with Iran. Iran does not want let us say 100 million more Shias in its fold. But Sunni state like Saudi Arabia or predominantly Sunni states like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia etc would want additional 100 million people to come into its fold. That is a general observation of mine.
Thus difference between Shia and Sunni is one of the fundamental difference and the most important difference in this world. We can analyse it for several days together and still more points would come up. I will write in next post a additional points I will recollect.

Shia and Sunni and India

In this post I will try to analyze the origin of the Shia/Sunni divide and the origin and future and growth of India.
Let us first understand what is Shia and what is Sunni?
Basically these are two alternate viewpoints. Let us not think Muslim/Islam and so on for now. Let us think what it means. The very essence and the soul of being a Shia or a Sunni.
A Shia means one who wants religion to be followed by the 'descendants' or the 'family' or the 'family members'. Thus for a Shia person, the 'inheritors' should be the one who are 'related by birth or blood'. The Shias will not discriminate between man and woman in this case. For them the 'blood line' is important. Now let us not think religion. Let us think something different like an idea or a business or the property and so. Thus for a Shia the 'family ties' become important before deciding 'who will be handed the torch' so as to speak. 'Who will carry the legacy' in other words.
A Sunni means someone who does not care for this kind of 'family links' or 'blood links' and so on. For them what matters is those people who 'give loyalty' and 'adhere to the rules'. Those who by their good deeds and 'perfect conduct and character' would 'inherit the legacy'. Ans so it is expected in a perfect system, that only men and people of 'extremely good nature/conduct' will get the 'torch handed down' from above.
That my friends is the key difference. Do not look at religion. There is a bit of 'Shia' and 'Sunni' in every religion be it Christianity of Judaism or Hinduism.
Now where does India come into the picture. We have to look at the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh first to know about this. For a second let us not look at states below these two and above these two. I had even read somewhere probably in Wikipedia several years ago that people from Karnataka have Arab origins or 'Arab outlook' whereas people from Andhra Pradesh have 'Iranian or Persian origins and outlook'.
And in my life after spending more than 9 years in Bengaluru and 36+ years in the Indian subcontinent, I can safely say that most of people in India have the most commonality with Persian and Iranian people including people in Andhra Pradesh. It is like they share the common ancestor. Their language is similar. Names are similar and names of places are also similar.
We have all read in History books in school that India was invaded by 'Aryan people' who came from North West and their place of residence originally was around Caspian Sea which is around or in Iran. We have also read that the 'original inhabitants' of India who made the 'Mohenjodaro and Harappan' civilisations escaped 'deeper into India' and they could be what are called the Dravidans of present times.
Now who are the Dravidans, they are the Tamilians and some extent the Keralites. But since the people from Tamil Nadu and Kerala are so different, we cannot group them together as a race. The Keralites over the hundreds of years have been shaped by Arabs, Syrian Christians, Portugese, Jewish people, Missionaries from various countries all of whom made Kerala their home and adopted its customs. Thus for Kerala we cannot say that 'racial purity' exists whereas the Tamils have been able to 'preserve their race to some extent'.
But in the present time of 21st Century we can find that people from Karnataka are that much similar to Arabs. I will continue this in another post. But let us keep in mind that the difference between Shia and Suni is the most fundamental difference in the world. And it is just not about religion. If one thinks it is only religion one is escaping from the 'most fundamental truth of the human race'.