I hope that you realize how deeply I appreaciate your feedback and how sorry I am for loosing all the comments.

(Picture courtsey - New York Times)

The Dutch Immigration authorities have come up with a new weapon in their ongoing struggle against intolerant immigrants (read Islamists) - a movie portraying naked woman and smooching gay men. As widely reported this week (in many media outlets including NY Times here ), potential immigrants to the Netherlands will be made to watch a DVD containing snippets from the permissible Dutch life as part of their study guide for the immigration guide.

At first blush, this seems like a great idea. If you are a European country known for its permissiveness you'd certainly want to ensure that your values are not diluted by a rapidly growing and strident immigrant population who seem to be ready to bite the very hand that feeds them.

On second thoughts though, this seems like the opening of Pandora's Box. People from the United States and European Union are exempt from watching this DVD which seems strange to me. After all, there are any number of red state people in the United States who are prone to violent reactions against gays and who honestly could do with a little bit of tolerance as well. Or what about Islamists born and brought up in the European Union countries? These glaring loop holes have prompted allegations of discrimination against the Muslims (which is rich and a whole another story anyways considering what all restrictions you are subject to if you are a non-Muslim in a Muslim majority country).

One also has to ask if this is a new type of litmus test that people will be made to undergo as the cross borders. Are more and more countries, specially in the West going to resort to something similar to counter a rapidly growing immigrant population? Would each country become a zone of sharply defined cultural values and you'd have to confirm to them if you want to be able to live there? What about people who are born in that country and yet do not subscribe to its values? What about gays in the red state American? What about the Dutch or the French who are conservative and do not like the permissible values of their societies? Would they eventually want this DVD to be part of high school curriculum?

On further pondering though, this idea again starts looking appealing. After all, the Dutch are not telling the immigrants that they have to become gays or that their women might start roaming topless in the streets of Amsterdam. They are only telling them that it is permissible to behave this way in their society and that the immigrants have to respect it. If they don't like the way the Dutch society operates, then they can stay wherever they are. I find this to be a fair proposition and I think that this is probably the most reasonable way in which the Dutch could ensure the sanity of their society which seems to have been shaken to its roots by the recent violent outbursts of the Islamists in the Netherlands.

Now what Mr. Bachchan does with his money is his own business – but I am entitled to my opinion because it is an indicator of the rot that has set in the moral and religious values of India. In a country like India, where tens of millions are still below the poverty line, it is an abomination that temples like Tirupati keep getting richer. In fact, I did a quick back of the envelope calculation and came up with this:

Five hundred and fifty people getting food in their stomachs for an entire year? And he chose to get yet another piece of jewelry for a statue that already is decked up to its gills? Look at this picture and tell me if there is any need for any more jewels? I know that the Tirupati Balaji organization runs some charitable organizations. If at all he had to donate money, could he have not donated it to those organizations? Does he think that God will be happier getting a diamond wristband compared to feeding poor people?

India is woefully inadequate when it comes to philanthropy and it is made worse by such donations to temples because it makes people think that donating to temples and donating to charitable organizations is the same.

From my personal experience, temples in India are rarely involved in their communities and rarely take up any kind of social work in their vicinity. There are honorable exceptions to that statement which includes some of the larger temple trusts, though what percentage of the funds that they receive is actually used for social work is anybody's guess.

But by and large, in towns big and small across the country, how many pundits have you seen who go around teaching the lessons of Gita to disadvantaged people in their communities? Most of the times, they are either busy decking up the statues in their temples or busy doing special Pujas for the privileged to petition God on their behalf to write off their bad deeds. So the money given to temples, more often than not, goes to creating bigger statues or bigger temples or bigger bellies of the pundits.

As for Mr. Bachchan, it just reinforces my belief that he is as bad a human being as good as he is an actor. The entire country was praying for him when he was in the hospital and this is how he repays? By having a tete-a-tete with possibly the most corrupt and rich (don’t they always go hand in hand) temple organization in the country?