I have an Airtel number. For the past 15 months or so, I’ve been getting calls from Airtel asking me if they could talk to Rahul Tomar.

My name, as you can see, is not Rahul Tomar. I don’t know anyone called Rahul Tomar. I know plenty of Rahuls. But I’ve never known a Tomar. The only Tomar I know is Paan Singh Tomar.

So each time they’d call, I assured them I knew no such person. And each time, I’d be assured that I won’t be called again. But every few weeks or so, they would call back.

When this started happening frequently, I decided to ask them about this Rahul person. I was told he had used my number as his alternate number. Who he is and why he did it is a mystery to me.

I asked Airtel if they could share Rahul’s number with me. They did. The number was similar to mine. I’m guessing he mentioned a made-up number on his sign-up form. Unluckily, it was mine.

I called his number. It was out of service. I Googled for his name and number. No luck there.

After some point, I got upset at Airtel’s frequent calls. It bordered on harassment. I could recognise their numbers on the caller ID now. So I began ignoring them. If I’d accidentally taken a call, I disconnected the moment the operator uttered “Can I speak to Mr. Rahul…”

Now, the frequency of their calls shot up: from once in a few weeks, to several times a week. It drove me mad. Also, I rarely had the time to step out of my office or home and bark furiously at these operators who’d decided not to believe my side of the story. So I kept ignoring the calls.

One day, I decided to be calm and talk with them. The operator, who might have become familiar with my disconnecting habits, sounded like he couldn’t believe I had taken the call.

Calmly, I explained the whole situation to him. Again. He told me I would not be bothered. Again. It felt like it was the end of the problem. But I had my doubts.

Some days later, I get another call. “Can I speak to Mr Rahul Tomar?” I sighed. And disconnected. They called back immediately. I disconnected again.

Today, I got yet another call. I was in office. It was a Sunday. The office was practically empty. I could bark at the operator without disturbing anyone. So I barked.

Right before both of us turned abusive and I hung up, the operator mentioned an outstanding bill of 16,000 bucks.

So this is what I know of Rahul Tomar: his telephone number was 9810483361, he misused my telephone number, he owes 16,000 rupees to a phone compnay, he’s a thief, and he’s on the run. Also, he’s the son of a thousand fathers. But that is conjecture.

I called Airtel today. I lodged my complaint. Again. I was assured I won’t be bothered again. Again.

Let’s see how long this peace lasts.

Richard Dawkins, that man believers hate, interviews Wendy Wright.

Apparently, Dawkins confronted her after recieving her hate mail, and she agreed to an interview.

I saw all seven parts of this interview on Youtube this evening. As a comment on one of the video says:

“…props to Dawkins, though. I would have punched her in the throat five minutes in.”

Wright argues her case poorly. Worse, she’s smug, poorly articulated, and shows her tribe in poor light.

Her views, which she repeats countless times through the talk, can be summed up as thus:

1. There is a creator.
2. Each individual is unique.
3. Where is the evidence for evolution?
4. All humans should be treated with respect.
5. Roll that back.
6. Teach the controversy at schools.
7. You have an agenda.
8. The Darwin way is disrespectful to humans.

At the start, Dawkins introduces himself and asks her where they can begin the interview. She smugly smiles and refuses to even seat him. They do the whole talk standing.

Dawkins, by the way, is 68. So much for her respect for humans.

After this interview, my respect for Dawkins grows. He remains polite through the talk, speaks in a low tone, and keeps a straight face through Wright’s ridiculous replies.

If you are the sort interested in the debate about god, Charles Darwin, evolution and creationism — and you probably are, if you’ve read this post till this point — don’t miss this video.

[Video link thanks: Anirudh]

My Photoshopping sucks but I hope the idea hits home. The Indian cricket team’s catching these days would embarrass school sides.

Objective: To reach office by 10 am.

Step 1: Set phone alarm for 7:30 am.

Step 2: Wake up at 7:30 am.Yawn.

Step 3: Zo zleepy. Reset alarm for 8:30.

Step 4: It’s only 8:30. Yawn! Let’s wake up at 8:45.

Step 5: Wake up again at 8:45, set snooze to two minutes.

Step 6: Wake up at 8:47. Snooze. Just two more minutes.

Step 7: 8:49. Yawn. Snooze.

Step 8: It’s 8:51. Snooze. Just two more… Zzz.

Step 9: OK, eyes! Open up! Brain! Be alert! We’re getting late for work! No more snoozing! Move, limbs! Rise, body!

Step 10: Zzz…

Step 11: 9:15. Oh crap! We’re late! Spring out of bed!

Step 12: 9:30. Wet your hair! Make it look like you bathed.

Step 14: 9:45. Swallow breakfast. Fast!

Step 15: 10:00. Jump traffic signals.

Step 16: 10:15. Prepare excuse for being late.

(This is a guest post I wrote for Repeal Prohibition: Life, liberty and beer in Gujarat!, an excellent blog on the subject anchored by Anirudh Singh Bhati, a law student in Gandhinagar, and a friend from high school.)

Myth: Pubs, bars and drinking are against Indian culture.

The consumption of alcohol and other intoxicants is as ancient as Indian culture itself. People of the Indus Valley were known to produce liquor by fermenting grains and fruits. The consumption of Soma by Hindu gods is spoken of in glowing terms in the Vedas. Drinking isn’t against Indian culture. It’s one of the elements constituting our highly nuanced way of life.

Myth: Prohibition saves people from alcoholism.

This is akin to saying that every smoker is a chain smoker, or every chocolate eater is chocoholic. The intemperance of a drinker mixed with other psychological traits lead to addiction. You don’t ban cars because some  cause accidents. Most people don’t even own cars. Similarly for drinking, it’s pointless to demonise a harmless activity which some people indulge in.

Myth: Drinking is immoral and leads to crime.

The act of drinking itself is harmless. Millions of people drink billions of glasses of alcohol every day. They do not find the need to murder, steal, rape and arson. A huge majority of Indian states have not banned alcohol, and their citizens carry out the alcohol trade peacefully. So are all these millions of drinkers evil and immoral? Of course not.

Myth: Drinking ruins your health.

So does eating cheeseburgers and pizzas. Or smoking cigarettes. Chips, toast and beans can kill. But only when consumed in all the wrong quantities. Drinking in moderation, it is known, can have health benefits. Moderate drinkers are known to have sturdier cardio-vascular health. They are also known to be better guarded against hypertension, dementia and Alzheimer’s.

Myth: Prohibition in Gujarat works.

It doesn’t. Alcohol is a thriving trade in Gujarat. Rediff.com says the trade was worth Rs 100 million in 2002. Kingshuk Nag, Times of India Ahmedabad’s editor, says the Gujarat government loses Rs 2,500 crores each year in excise duty by sustaining prohibition. Imagine the revenues and employment it can generate by repealing the monstrosity that is the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949.

In Ahmedabad, a phone-call to your local bootlegger would have your fix delivered to your doorstep in 30 minutes flat — only at two or three times the price it sells for in neighbouring states.

None of this money is accounted for. The trade thrives with the complicity of the underworld, police, politicians and bureaucrats, who, no doubt, get their “cut”.

Prohibition requires crores of taxpayer money to be diverted into enforcing a draconian law to keep people from the harmless act of enjoying a harmless drink.

Myth: Drinking ruins poor families.

If true, it’s another case to repeal prohibition. Refer to the hooch tragedy of July 2009, where more than 100 daily wage earners from Ahmedabad’s slums lost their lives. In the absence of watering holes, they’d turned to bootleggers, bought spurious liquor, and paid with their lives.

Myth: This is Gujarati/Gandhian culture, we want it thus.

Prohibition makes decent citizens behave like criminals. Period.  We know alcohol is easily available in Gujarat. But why must you cower like criminals to procure it?

Mahatma Gandhi, a great man no doubt, stood by ideas of personal discipline and non-cooperation and non-violence to end British rule in India. But the British have gone home, and so must this silly law. As long as we let a nanny state tell us what to do with our lives, we can’t consider ourselves truly free.

I leave you a clip from the blog by Sauvik Chakraborty, titled Aspects Of Our “Common Loss”, which best sums up the situation:

Since bars are few and unaffordable in Delhi, most of the drinking goes on surreptitiously, in dark street corners, inside cars, in all kinds of shady places. Indeed, visit any sarkaari booze shop in Delhi and you will find, quite close to it, a private shop selling bottled water, soft drinks and plastic glasses. If you stick around the area for a while you will gather what is happening: ordinary people buy a “quarter” (180ml) bottle of some harsh grog, pick up water and a glass next door – and head for the nearest dark corner.

I joined a group of such happy drinkers in a dark corner some weeks ago. We all poured our drinks and I said “cheers” and took a small sip. All the other guys put their glasses to their mouths and did an incredible “bottoms up” – because they were too scared to hang around too long dithering over their drinks. No one wants to fall foul of the cops.

If anything, drinking in this manner is extremely uncivilized. We are expected to enjoy our drinks, sip them slowly, roll the fluid about the mouth and feel the taste. Enjoy! My companions in the dark corner did not enjoy their drinks at all. Their faces, after knocking back stiff harsh grogs in one shot, reflected great suffering rather than enjoyment. I felt sorry for them – and for their livers. And my hatred for the excisewallahs grew a lot stronger.

Comment away, even if you disagree with me, and we shall attempt to debate this like adults. In case you were wondering where I come from: I’ve had about five vodkas all my life and do not consider myself a drinker at all. But all around me are drinkers who’ve never murdered, stolen, raped or set buildings on fire.

Become a fan of Life, liberty and beer in Gujarat! on Facebook.

Cricket followers would know of one of the sport’s most famous records: Jack Hobbs’ record of 61,760 First Class runs.

Here’s a list of batsmen with 50,000 runs or more in First Class cricket.

Now Hobbs played all his cricket between 1905 and 1934.

First Class was the only form of senior cricket then. One-dayers emerged about three-and-a-half decades later, and T20 another three decades down the line.

So now when One-dayers and T20s are thriving, is it fair to say that Hobbs is the most successful batsman in history? Probably not.

When you aggregate the First Class, List A and T20 records of some of the leading run getters, a new order is formed.

Here’s the revised 50K Club.

It’s amazing the two biggest scorers in cricket history have near-identical names.

Where’s the first Indian on this list?

Way down.

Sachin Tendulkar, at 43,246 runs, is the only Indian with more than 40,000 runs in FC, LA and T20 matches.

Amazingly, 30,065 of those have come in international cricket which says something of the context of his performances.

I’m guessing Tendulkar would probably pass 50,000 if he plays for another three years. That would be something.

Sachin Tendulkar, AKA God, completes 20 years in international cricket today. I’ve tried to sum up his career in a CV.

There’s a case for adding a header here called “Sporadic Acts of Mind-Numbing Awesomeness”.

Download the PDF and read it in your free time.

Sachin Tendulkar

I know this is juvenile and some might even consider this blasphemous. But this goes to everyone from my generation who saw Mahabharat and Ramayana on Doordarshan and had trouble distinguishing between gadha and gada, two phonetically similar Hindi words with meanings that couldn’t be more different.

Darkling Thrush has produced a sequel to my earlier post, What Guys Think of Guys. So here goes. It’s a fairly big image so please click to enlarge.

DT says: “Clamouring for women’s lib — is my version of this post.”

She also adds: “I want omelette.”