Just to help you revisit your civics, in a parliamentary system, the legislature (the Parliament) chooses the head of the government and all the ministers have to be a part of the legislature. So, the executive is a subset of the legislature. In a presidential system, the head of government is elected directly by the people. Thereafter he chooses the rest of the executive who, while being accountable to the Congress, need not be part of it.

India's constitution makers chose the British model most likely because all of them were infatuated by the working of the British Parliament. What they forgot was the fact that Britain had a two-party system which led to proper checks and balances as well as to a high level of stability.

Along with the concept of multi-party democracy, the parliamentary system of government has created the political mess we are in. We are a huge democracy, both in size and numbers, and we have huge regional variations. Each region has its unique issues and there cannot be any truly national agenda.

As a result, last few elections have thrown up a fractured mandate which leaves no alternative to a coalition. Now, a coalition may appear to be an innocuous concept but it further dilutes the agendas of all constituent parties. So, what you got promised and what you voted on may not even figure in the (laughable term) Common Minimum Program.

One would be hard put to point out key identifying differences in the policies of specific political parties.

In the US, once they vote in Dubya, even though he is a moron, they know that he is accountable to the people. He has a free hand (alas!) and so he deserves all the kudos as well as all the brickbats. In India, even though the elected reps choose a Vajpayee or a Sonia (God forbid!), he or she will not have any power to effect desired change.

What we need is a Presidential system. We should elect lawmakers whose job it is to legislate and we should elect the Prime Minister whose job it is to govern. We should leave it to the PM to handpick the experts from various fields to run the various departments, with full accountability to the Parliament.

This is the only way India can move on the path of change we so need to tread.

When the guide ushered me into the flat, I was awed. Not just by the construction but by the sheer power an empty space confined within solid walls can exude.

It suddenly came to me: houses are so much like women. I felt the place was beckoning me, just like a young woman who has waiting all her life for her lover.

When you look at a new flat, at first its just the walls, the marble on the floor, the slabs on the kitchen top, the squeaky clean seat on the commode. But when you start walking around with a little love, the place opens up a new world. There is so much she has to offer. You want to caress the smooth finish, whisper sweet nothings in the corners, make wild, wild love to the space that lets you in as much as you want and then some more.

The Delhi-Agra-Jaipur circuit also gets a lot of middle class family tourists. You know them from the cute children in tow. This type is on a shoestring budget and looks for value-for-money. They can be spotted at the McDonald's outlets, Dilli Haat, Janpath and at all the sites. You will find them fiercely negotiating every purchase and will never find them at fancy restaurants. They are the ones with the cameras and go *click* *click* everytime they spot someone with a 5 inches plus moustache. They also are the ones with the Lonely Planet guides.

Then there is the well-heeled at-home tourist. This person is more likely to be a woman and she is either a person of Indian origin or has visited India before in her spiritual quest. This category is the most bindaas. They know exactly what they are looking for, and also where they will find it. They mostly wear cotton salwar-kameez for women and kurtas for men. They will sometimes pause and talk to shopkeepers but they will almost never ask for directions. Because they know.

By some quirk of coincidence, NDTV chose this topic for Barkha Dutt's usually tepid and pseudo-intellectual programme "We the people" and both X and Y happened to be among the invitees! I was constrained to watch the programme over my favourite "The Kumars at No. 42" where they were having Art Malik over.

I was taken aback by what I saw and heard. Apparently the society is biased towards fair people and the dark-skinned are treated as second-class and this ad reinforced the bias and the pre-dominantly female educated audience found it extremely objectionable. They indignantly claimed that the message being sent led to low self-esteem among the dark girls. I thought it was a joke, but it wasn't.

We all are made of various components, some of them being our genes, our family, our upbringing, our education, our attitudes, our outlook, our appearance, our sense of humour and our maturity. On different occasions, different components get precedence and other aspects of our personality take a back seat.

Ask yourself these questions:

1. While looking for a doctor to treat your mother, which parameter will you give precedence to?

2. While looking for a teacher for your little son, what will you evaluate the candidates on?

3. While looking for a gymnast, what would make you choose?

4. While looking for a partner, which qualities will you look for?

Most people will agree on competence in a doctor, care in a teacher, flexibility in a gymnast and understanding in a partner, but they will go ahead and choose the partner primarily on their looks/ appearance/ personality.

I know. Because 'ordinary' guys like me don't stand a chance (in most cases!) over well-built, handsome, good-looking guys, even if we have fancy degrees and solid pedigree. Even the pets we choose, are chosen based on How cuuuute! Maybe for marriage (which is a much complicated relationship) we would go for more than one parameter but for going out we choose the person mainly on looks.

And I see nothing wrong in it.

How often do you hear this phrase? Should I sue them? ;)

vande maataraM 
sujalaaM suphalaaM malayaja shiitalaaM 
sasyashyaamalaaM maataraM ||  
  
shubhrajyotsnaa pulakitayaaminiiM 
pullakusumita drumadala shobhiniiM 
suhaasiniiM sumadhura bhaashhiNiiM 
sukhadaaM varadaaM maataraM || 

It was composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, set to tune by Rabindranath Tagore and translated by Sri Aurobindo as follows:

My day (typically, with some variations) looks something like this:

Wake up at 7.30 when the maid rings the bell, drink a glass of warm water with honey and lemon juice followed by a small pot of leaf tea; read the papers while she finishes work at around 8.15; get ready for office and drive out by 9; reach office, check mail and start on the countless cups of generally syrupy tea; have a series of meetings, some in my office, some outside; eat whatever I can get between 1.30 and 3; chat some with colleagues close to me; have a round of fried stuff (pakoda, chat-papri or some such) at 4.30; finish some more work by 7.30 or so; go out for a drink with colleagues (at least once a week, generally twice) or friends (again, at least once a week, generally twice!); reach home by 10, watch Friends on Zee English, have some MTR packed food if I feel like, sleep by midnight.

Is it any surprise that I feel so screwed up?

Ever since my sister left, I have been living alone and this has taken a toll on my self-discipline. I reckon somewhere inside me I do not feel accountable to anyone, not even to myself. I have become ever more rash than I was before and have changed in many ways like:

1. I am not reading much. In fact I have not begun a book in the last 4 weeks.

2. I am not listening to good music. Barring last saturday, I have not been to a concert in the last 5 weeks.

3. I am not exercising at all.

4. I have become even lazier than I always was... which is saying a lot!

5. I have not kept in touch with my dear friends, except for an occasional drink.

6. I am being so harsh on my body, keeping it starved till lunch and feeding it all junk thereafter.

I need to change.