Motorola will be launching the low-cost model of their Moto G family Moto G4 Play on 6 December in India. Motorola had launched Moto G4 and Moto G4 Plus in the month of May. Both the phones has done quite well. In fact, a report even suggests that Moto G4 Plus is the highest selling phone in the $150-200 range.

Moto G4 Play has a 5-inch 720p screen. In terms of processing prowess, it runs on a Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 processor with a 2 GB of RAM. The phone has a 8 MP camera on the rear and 5 MP camera on the front. Both the cameras have an aperture of f/2.2.

The phone has an internal storage of 16 GB and it can be expanded by the SD card. Moto G4 play sports a 2800 mAh battery with Turbo charging. The phone will be running on Android 6.0.1 Marshmallow.

The phone will be sold exclusively on Amazon from the launch day. The expected price of Moto G4 Play is ₹8999.

The biggest competition the phone will face is from Xiaomi Redmi 3S prime. In almost similar price range the phone offers a lot over its competitors. And riding on the success of the Redmi series Xiaomi sold 90,000 units of Redmi 3S prime in the first sale.

Mumbai, PTI — Ace doubles player Leander Paes and his big-serving partner Rohan Bopanna did not practise or play enough together to give themselves a decent chance to win a medal in the men's doubles event at the Rio Olympic Games, said the former's ex-partner Mahesh Bhupathi on Monday.

"The (men's) doubles team was definitely under-prepared, in fact there no preparation — that's the right word. They did not practise, did not play any matches together. Even when Leander and me were not playing on tour in 2004 and 2008 (Olympic Games in Athens and Beijing), we always came together, played a couple of tournaments together. That's what the Olympics demands," said Bhupathi here at the Khar Gymkhana here.

Paes, who played in his seventh Olympics, and Bopanna crashed out after losing their first round match in straight sets against the Polish pair of Lukasz Kubot and Marcin Matkowski.

"We (he and Paes) won three hundred matches on (ATP) tour, (but) we (still) made an effort to do it. This time they went in cold. Obviously one (doubles) match against a dilapidated Korean Davis Cup team is not the way to prepare for the Olympics," said Bhupathi on the sidelines of the 11Even Sports Inter Schools Maharashtra table tennis tournament where he was the chief guest at the inauguration.

"That (medal) was never going to happen in the doubles. Our best bet was mixed (doubles), but unfortunately we (India) came close, but it did not happen," said the 42-year-old Bhupathi who has won three men's doubles and four mixed doubles titles in Grand Slam tournaments.

He was referring to Bopanna and Sania Mirza's loss in the semi-finals against the scratch US combine of Venus Williams and Rajeev Ram.

They then lost in the bronze medal play-off too to finish outside the medal bracket.

Asked whether he was disappointed at the controversial build-up around India's men's doubles team in the run-up to the Games and just before the duo stepped on court, Mahesh said he was happy things did not escalate.

"Everybody expected it. Everyone was keeping quiet till it actually surfaced. I am happy it did not get out of hand," he said.

Also on HuffPost:

New Delhi, 29 August (PTI) — Ahead of Punjab Assembly polls, the Centre has decided to reopen 28 cases relating to 1984 anti-Sikh riots. All these cases will be probed by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The decision has been taken after examining various aspects of the cases, which were either closed or did not proceed further due to lack of evidence.

The SIT set up by the home ministry to re-investigate appropriately serious criminal cases filed in the National Capital Territory of Delhi relating to the 1984 riots has identified 28 more cases for further investigation, an official order said.

With this, the total number of cases to be re-investigated by the SIT has gone up to 77.

Out of the 650 cases registered in connection with the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, 49 were earlier identified for re-investigation by SIT on 29 July.

A total of 3,325 people were killed in the 1984 riots in which Delhi alone accounted for 2,733 deaths, while the rest occurred in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and other states.

Delhi Police had closed 241 cases citing lack of evidence. The Justice Nanavati Commission had recommended reopening only four of them but the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wanted a re-investigation of all the cases. The CBI had reopened and re-investigated only four cases.

In two of them, the probe agency had filed a chargesheet and in one, five persons, including a former MLA, were convicted.

The SIT was set up on 12 February 2015 following a recommendation by the home ministry-appointed Justice (Retd) G.P. Mathur committee.

The three-member SIT comprises two inspector general-rank IPS officers and a judicial officer.

On 10 December 2014, the Narendra Modi government had announced an additional compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to the kin of each of those killed in the 1984 riots, which were triggered by the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards.

In May, the home ministry had announced that 1,020 families, which had been hit by the riots and migrated to Punjab from different parts of the country, will be given Rs 2 lakhs each as part of a centrally-sponsored rehabilitation scheme.

Assembly elections in Punjab are due early next year and the 1984 anti-Sikh riots often become a political issue in the state.

Also on HuffPost:

BHOPAL -- When Jain monk Tarun Sagar addressed legislators in Haryana Assembly on Friday, it was widely reported, termed as the 'first' such instance and some of his comments were criticised on social media.

But that was not the first such visit. Another Jain monk, Acharya Vidyasagar had delivered a discourse in the Madhya Pradesh assembly barely a month ago.

The widely respected Vidyasagar along with 38 other Digambar monks of his 'muni sangh' had been invited to Assembly by Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and other lawmakers.

Speaker Sitasaran Sharma, CM Chouhan and Congress leaders personally walked to the gate to personally welcome the monks when they arrived on July 28.

The legislators had also sought blessings from the revered monk. Later, Acharya Vidyasagar delivered a discourse, which the lawmakers heard in rapt attention. There was no controversy, then. Digambar Jain monks shun clothes, unlike Shwetambars who wear white clothes.

Acharya Vidyasagar raised several issues during his 40-minute discourse. Especially, he expressed concern about the commercialization of higher education, especially, the medical education, and urged government to take action in this regard.

Vidyasagar urged the ruling party members and opposition to shun their differences towards common good of people. Also, he stressed the need to instruct children in their mother tongue though he supported studying English, too.

After the speech that was held on Assembly premises, he had inspected other parts of the building too. It was said by lawmakers that there was a 'vastu dosh' in the Assembly building earlier and hoped that the monk's visit would now correct it.

The official press note of the Department of Public Relation of MP government on the day read as, "Prajatantra ke aakash mein satta aur vipaksh paraspar sahyog bina uncha nahin ud sakte" (Need proper coordination between ruling party and opposition to fly high on the firmament of democracy).

"We thank the monk for his visit that has blessed us all and purified the place", said chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on the occasion. In fact, whenever Acharya Vidyasagar visits Bhopal, top politicians along with citizens rush to seek his blessings.

Guess who just got smarter? Nope, it’s not that bratty — and pretty — neighbor flashing a Mini Cooper and a degree. It’s your faithful partner in crime, the one that never leaves your side by day or night and makes life beautiful. For those of you who thought smart phones (gotcha!) couldn’t get any smarter – think again. Here’s the latest on the cool new things you can do with your handy buddy:

1. Just gesture:

Love drama in real life? Can’t stop gesturing and posturing? Say hullo to animated self-gesture on your phone — flip to mute, double tap to wake up and customize gestures to auto-call, auto-reject, message, WhatsApp and what not! Different gestures give you diverse ways to express yourself! Not enough? Check out the unique fingerprint settings to directly open various apps! Now truly, your wish is its command.

via GIPHY

2. Just look:

This is very James Bond — one look and your smartphone is ready and waiting to perform! Iris retina unlocks, the latest in mobile security is a one-of-its-kind feature. Forget memorising pin codes and cryptic designs. A simple look can get you going. Add to this smart fingerprint sensors and you can roam free, roam fearlessly.

via GIPHY

3. Find depth in your images:

The latest new-age Dual Rear Camera enables depth in photography. One camera captures regular imagery and the second one gauges the depth of the image, producing ultra-sharp, life-like, flawless pictures. The dual tone LED flash and laser autofocus in the rear camera enhances the image quality to ensure a happy you.

4. Now voice your selfie desires, literally:

Obsessed with clicking yourself? Here’s the perfect accomplice. The new-age front camera comes with Voice Control. Call out to your camera saying “Selfie”, “Smile” and “Capture” and switch between the front and back cameras with ease. The hi-tech front camera can capture that perfect pout so go on, indulge in that much-awaited selfie-spree.

via GIPHY

5. Play safe:

Want to lose that creep who stalks you on Fb? Now encrypt all your stored mobile photos and videos — and even SM apps. Forget picture thieves and virtual stalkers; now use your smartphone safely and freely to store and share never-ending data.

via GIPHY

6. Social or nothing:

Your phone today understands the social you – and your need to stay connected 24x7! So features like 4G, LTE, VoLTE, Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n, Bluetooth v4.0, GPS, and other crazy alphanumerics ensure your virtual social life simply rocks — anytime, from anywhere!

via GIPHY

7. Be mesmerised:

Awaiting a great visual experience? Find it in this super smart 1080x1920 pixels 5-inch HD display. It makes for an amazing, crystal clear viewing experience. You won't be able to take your eyes off!

via GIPHY

Is this for real? You bet. Say hullo to the next gen ‘smarter phone’ that can keep pace with your fast-and-furious life – the LYF Earth 2! A perfect mix of “Smart + Sense + Security”, LYF Earth 2 from the LYF Smartphone+ series is the go to device for a smarter, cooler life, right here right now. To experience the best of LYF, click here.

The former British Prime Minister and a Noble laureate in literature, Winston S. Churchill, of whom I am not a great admirer, had once remarked, "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time, danger may be averted; if it is suppressed, a fatal distemper may develop."

Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), as an institution, has always claimed to be a bastion of free speech and liberty of thought, with its students and professors as noble warriors in the cause. It claims to have a history of standing up and fighting for the right to express dissent. It claims to embrace a plurality of ideas. But how true is this? Do they indeed stand for their passionate ideals? Do they really respect dissent or differences in opinions?

Justice Katju has several times termed JNU as an overrated institution, and the students as having no scientific ideas to solve India's problems...

It doesn't exactly look like it if you analyze the matter in the particular context of Justice (retired) Markandey Katju. Here's the thing: Justice Katju has more than once expressed a wish to address the students of JNU, but an invitation for him to do so has not been forthcoming.

A quick background.

Justice Katju has a reputation for the highest integrity and is just as well known for his outspokenness on a number of issues. I've been following him on social media for a number of years and don't agree with all his views. But even if one doesn't agree with him one can't ignore him. He writes with a refreshing candour that is also underlined with idealism: He wants the Indian people to live a prosperous life. He wants poverty to be eradicated from the country and he firmly believes that it can only be done with scientific ideas and not with meaningless slogan-shouting. Now, Justice Katju has several times termed JNU as an overrated institution, and the students studying there as having no scientific ideas to solve the massive problems of the country such as poverty, unemployment, malnutrition and so on. However, he also severely criticised the arrest of JNU students by the police for allegedly raising anti-India slogans. He had argued that the interrogation of the students could have been done without arresting them. Though I do not agree with his stand on the JNU issue, I honestly believe that he has always been supportive of students' rights.

Is the so-called bastion of free speech afraid of Justice Katju might say?

To me, it is quite saddening that for all its claims to support dissenting voices, JNU seems to be balking at giving a platform to someone who disagrees with some of their ideologies. It is hypocritical of JNU to dig in its heels and not invite Justice Katju to address the students. Is the so-called bastion of free speech afraid of what he might say?

A couple of months ago, Justice Katju revealed that some JNU students had invited him to speak on campus. He made this informal invitation public and also wrote a gist of what he would say if he got the opportunity to speak at JNU.

"A student of JNU telephoned me just now and asked me to address the students of JNU on any day. I said that I can come, but on the condition that the students hear me patiently without interruption for some time, and then they can put any questions. But I will not attend a panel discussion. Also, the JNU students association must pass a resolution inviting me. I do not want any controversy that only one section of students has invited me, while others have not. If invited, I intend to begin my speech by saying that JNU is a highly overrated institution, and I have a poor opinion about it, and students like Kanhaiya etc.

Of course the students of JNU know how to shout 'halla bol', 'azadi', etc. but there is no deep scientific analysis of the country's problems and how to solve them. It reminds me of a line in Shakespeare's Macbeth 'It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Some JNU students are regarded great orators and revolutionaries, but if after hearing them one asks what is the substance of what they have said one finds it was all empty froth. The main problems of the country are socio-economic----massive poverty, massive unemployment, massive malnutrition, massive lack of healthcare and good education, etc. What is the solution offered to solve these massive problems by Kanhaiya and the other 'heroes' of JNU? It is zero. So if invited I will dwell on these issues and present my solutions. Let us see whether invitation comes at all."

This post might have infuriated some students and academicians in JNU, leading them to not follow up on the invitation to Justice Katju. The brilliant judge seems to have sensed this would happen too, ending his post with the sentence, "Let us see whether invitation comes at all."

Initially, the JNU students may have thought that Katju would be a suitable speaker since he has been critical of the present BJP government at the Centre, and could be expected to reliably fulminate against it. However, once the Justice made his intentions clear, the students may have reconsidered inviting him.

If JNU really believes itself to be a fort of free speech, then it must invite Justice Katju without any further delay.

Incidentally, Justice Katju mentioned in a recent Facebook post that he met JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar at an iftar party and asked him why he wasn't being invited to speak. Kanhaiya apparently responded that the reason was a vacation at the university – which sounds like a pretty flimsy excuse.

Ultimately, it seems as if JNU is not as great a champion of free speech and expression as it thinks it is and nor does it give space to dissent.

The American philosopher Elbert Hubbard had once said, "The final proof of greatness lies in being able to endure criticism without resentment." If JNU really believes itself to be a fort of free speech, then it must invite Justice Katju without any further delay.

Let me just say straight off that this is not a review of the HBO series Girls. A lot has already been written about it and plenty of people have outlined why they love it or hate it. Now, I neither hate nor love the show but I feel compelled to watch it - it's difficult to explain why but I'm going to try. I understand why my husband doesn't like it and why he thinks that the characters are obnoxious. I understand when he says that they are a bunch of spoilt, entitled brats. Because, the truth is, they are.

Why then, do I find myself watching it? Well, to start with, it is well written, and the acting is superb. The background score blends in with the storylines. But no, none of this is why I watch Girls.

The real appeal is that it reminds me of my 20s.

Wait, hear me out. We may not have been as selfish, loathsome and self-centred as the girls in the show. But we were a little selfish, we were a little self-absorbed. We sat in cafes, with our new found financial freedom and talked about philosophy and life, about how lame everyone else was, about how our thoughts and opinions were so steeped in wisdom. We rebelled, we ranted and raved, we talked about how we would never compromise. Watching this show made me look back at those times and laugh at our foolishness. Back then, we truly did not have any idea about real life, or what shit it can drag us through, or what true courage and strength mean.

Girls reminds me of the time when life was crazy, scary, painful, exciting and awesome.

Girls also tackles female friendships in a more nuanced way than Friends or Sex and the City. Sure, there were sweet moments, moments when we stood by each other, moments when we just had to look at each other to know what the other was thinking about. But, there were also moments when we were petty, bitchy, moments when we hated each other's guts. Things got weird, things got muddled and things got messy. At times, drama happened. Other times, silent tears were shed. Hearts got broken. Relationships got fractured. Because friendships between girls in the real world is all of that and more.

Ah, now for love and romance. How can you go through your 20s without them? Love, back then, had all the elements -- butterflies in the stomach, giddy foolishness, naïve expectations, starry eyed hopes and some mischievous flirting. Oh it had its share of jealousy and insecurities, crisscrossed feelings, bad timing, douchebaggery and a whole lot of immaturity. Relationships in Girls are like that.

Girls is not just about romance or friendships. It shows the struggles of every 20-something who is seeking to identify what it is that she wants, what it is that she is passionate about. After all, wasn't it in our 20s that we tried more things than in any other phase of our life? Wasn't it the time when we thought that we could take on the world and change it? Wasn't it the time during which we took the most risks? We succeeded at some, failed at plenty and didn't bother with the rest. We partied, we studied, we got drunk, we got promoted, we got high, we got wooed, we got rejected, we moved across to the other side of the world.

And that is why Girls has me coming back to it again and again. It reminds me of the time when life was crazy, scary, painful, exciting and awesome. It was the decade of warm friendships, silly crushes, unplanned road trips, crazy sleepovers, night-long conversations, teary goodbyes and unforgettable memories.

There's been an explosion of mobile applications in the past few years, and constant innovation is driving their growth. The revenue from mobile app development is expected to shoot above $50bn by the end of this year.

Much as smartphones evolved, apps too are entering a new generation.

When it comes to innovation in smartphones, the personal assistant feature has been simplifying our lives for a while now. To begin with, Apple came up with the personal assistant bot for iOS users, Siri. Google has its virtual assistant, Now, for Android users, and Microsoft rolled in Cortana for its Windows users. These OS-based bots, however, are programmed to assist only for system-level queries by smoothening the end-users' daily tasks. However, what these personal assistants lacked was the ability to interact with mobile applications.

Meanwhile, the winds of the chatbot revolution are already knocking down the doors of the mobile app market.

From a business perspective, utilizing bots to answer frequently asked questions can save a lot of human effort and time...

Chatbots are AI-driven computer virtual chat agents that interact with users by mimicking human conversations; they are deployed in messenger apps where they solve textual queries initiated by end-users. Research indicates that people are using messaging apps more than social media, and therefore there is vast scope of success for chatbots. There is even a significant rise in the use of messaging apps to strike up conversations with potential businesses or consumers -- a phenomenon called conversational commerce.

Mobile app development companies across the globe is carving out an amazing future by creating dedicated chatbots that address specific end-users' issues. And mobile app developers are primarily focusing on creating user-friendly Chat User Interfaces (CUI) for smooth adaptation of this new technology. Virtual assistance in the mobile application can certainly increase user allegiance because app users are bound to continue to use the app as long as their query is satisfactory resolved.

Slack is one amazing platform that provides open RTM (Real Time Messaging) APIs to customize chat applications for easy integration with CUI. Bot users are easy to attach with the Slack app for a more tailored approach. Taco Bell created an incredible chatbot-driven app out of Slack to order tacos via a messenger app, Tacobot

One such innovation by Google, the Allo messenger, was recently announced at the Google I/O conference. Allo is equipped with the Google Assistant -- users can avail all the information from Google by simply asking questions on the app. With an integrated Google Knowledge Graph, Allo Messenger provides access to thousands of entities. The difference between the Google search box and Allo is that the app holds a conversation just like any other human being. Also, the app features a suggestion chip, wherein the bot interrupts the conversation to make recommendations whilst the conversation is going on.

The difference between the Google search box and Allo is that the app holds a conversation just like any other human being.

There are dedicated messaging apps as well. For example, MyKAI Bot is a virtual banking assistant that revolves around the idea of solving banking related queries. MyKAI Bot makes it easy to manage money, track expenditures and assists in making payments. It can provide you with banking knowledge, and simplify financial jargon to make it more understandable. It is even possible to command the bot to make transactions, which he will eventually perform on your behalf.

Facebook has opened its Messenger platform to chatbot services and is expected to transform the way users access information, goods, services and even entertainment. Moreover, chatbots are also projected to take over customer service

Chatbots come with a predetermined set of query instances which are then fetched once the user puts forth a question. When the query arises, bots gather the relevant information to respond to the end-user. And because of the dynamic AI deployment, bots can comprehend the customers' questions precisely. From a business perspective, utilizing bots to answer frequently asked questions can save a lot of human effort and time, which in turn could be used for more complex, quality-compelling tasks.

Facebook's Messenger platform is just one of the many impending platforms aimed at addressing the customer service. And because of its significant number of users, Messenger holds an immense potential to transform itself from a mere communication tool to an improved version of AOL portal. The Facebook Messenger's bots section also features online retailers like Spring and 1-800-Flowers.com.

While this is just the beginning, Chatbots are bound to revolutionize the way people interact with their mobile phones. The scope of Chabot is broad enough to cater to e-commerce businesses as well as to deploy IoT with ease. One can expect major shifts in the mobile app industry with the advent of chatbots, although ultimately it all rests on how well users catch on it.

A mass slaughter of trees is happening in Kashmir.

Lakhs of Russian poplars are being chopped in Kashmir on the order of the J&K High Court, based on the wrong perception that these trees are a severe health hazard for the region.

Kashmir has about 16-20 million Russian poplars, and for many years now they have lined the long, scenic roads in urban and rural parts of the Valley. Kashmiri farmers started favouring Russian poplars over local varieties in the last few decades, as these trees grow and mature faster, attaining a height of 20-30ft. They are a cash crop, with the wood being sold for construction, handicrafts and to make fruit boxes (the flourishing fruit industry of Kashmir has a requirement of 8-10 lakh boxes for produce per annum which makes this a lucrative business).

So, why are these trees the target of such ire? Over the last few years, the Kashmiri media has persisted in furthering the theory that pollen from Russian poplars has "invaded" the Valley, triggering allergies, respiratory conditions and hay fever. Steadily, this led to a build-up of negative sentiments against the trees, to the extent that in may 2013, the J&K government banned further plantation of Russian poplars in Kashmir. It didn't end there. In 2014, the J&K High Court banned the sale, purchase and plantation of female Russian poplars.

Forest, environment and medical experts have discovered that the much-abused Russian poplar trees are not responsible in any significant way for allergies...

Then in May 2015, the same court directed the government to implement its order to chop down Russian poplars across the Valley, claiming:

"It is a common knowledge that pollen seed of poplars is adversely affecting health of general public, mostly of elderly people and children. The pollen seed of these trees has given rise to chest diseases in Kashmir, which can become life threatening for them... the menace of Poplar trees of Russian species has caused havoc with health of people."

Following the HC order for the "removal of nuisance", lakhs of Russian poplars were felled in Kashmir -- nearly 2 lakh in Kulgam district alone, for example. Through north and south Kashmir, Russian poplars were sawed and slaughtered.

But here's the twist in the tale: all of this may have been for no purpose whatsoever.

Forest, environment and medical experts in Kashmir have discovered that the much-abused Russian poplar trees are not responsible in any significant way for allergies. Doctors and agricultural experts have now pledged to save Kashmir from this "environmental catastrophe", with some fearing that the mass felling of trees will dangerously reduce the Valley's green cover.

A study at Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) found that Kashmiris were most allergic to dust. Russian Poplars were ranked at number six as a cause of allergy. Finally, Kashmir is beginning to realize how much devastation an unfounded media campaign has caused. Dr. Tariq Masoodi of Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir (SKAUST-K) blamed the Kashmir media for creating a fear psychosis about poplars. "Using terms like 'menace', 'unpopular', 'nuisance' and 'mess' has created a perception that makes people think that the tree is responsible for all their miseries," he said.

Experts say that simple pruning was enough to deal with the pollen shed by these trees.

Experts say that simple pruning was enough to deal with the pollen shed by these trees.

After lakhs of Russian Poplar trees have been felled, Manzoor Ahmed Tak, Conservator of Forests in Kashmir is pleading for a turnaround. A sneeze here and there, he says, is no reason to cause ecological and environmental degradation. The trees are also essential to the local economy and eradicating them would affect livelihoods and also put an additional burden on forests.

There is an urgent need to dispel the myths that have led to the systematic felling of Russian poplars and at least reverse some of the damage wrought by the high court's "misinformed decision."

Following heavy rain this afternoon, Gurgaon and parts of Delhi are faced with severe water-logging and traffic congestion, according to reports.

The Delhi Traffic Police has reported heavy traffic in areas like Greater Kailash-II, Savitri Cinema, C.R. Park, Moti Bagh, Ramakrishna Ashram Marg, Mandi House, Bhairon Marg, Sarai Kale Khan, Mathura Road, Nangloi, Mundka and Anand Parbat, says The Times of India.

Gurgaon has also seen waterlogging at a number of major intersections, including Hero Honda Chowk, Sohna Road, Manesar, Udyog Vihar, old Gurgaon Road and a few areas in New Gurgaon, Hindustan Times said.

Many of these areas were badly affected by heavy showers on 28 July, causing traffic jams that lasted hours. US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is visiting India, also got stuck on the flooded gridlocked roads from the airport to the city.

Media accompanying US Secretary of State John Kerry report that his carcade is stuck in flooded gridlocked roads from airport to city #Delhi

— ANI (@ANI_news) August 29, 2016

Twitter responded with frustration, anxiety and bleak humour at the predicament.

An hour of #DelhiRains and pools all over. Those who crib about lack of sports infrastructure in India should be made to swim in them.

— Stereotypewriter (@babumoshoy) August 29, 2016

Free Water Parks for Everyone in Delhi. We Love AAP Government. #DelhiRains #DelhiJalAdhikar pic.twitter.com/XxBC6yp9QD

— Amul Butter Baby (@AmulButterBaby) August 29, 2016

Delhi: Traffic snarls in several parts of the city following heavy rainfall (Visuals from ITO) pic.twitter.com/VbfJ6fsGoo

— ANI (@ANI_news) August 29, 2016

Also on HuffPost:

The past month has seen a storm of writing on the Mahmood Farooqui rape conviction. For those not in the know, Mahmood Farooqui, famed writer, artist, Dastango and co-director of Oscar-nominated film Peepli Live, was accused of raping an American Fulbright scholar from Columbia University when she was in India for her PhD research. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, the minimum punishment under law.

The pieces in support suggest that they were only written because the authors' friends and acquaintances were urging them to take a stand to prove their feminist credentials. Otherwise, they would have silently and stoically let the law take its course. Mona Das wrote a piece called "Mahmood Farooqui Case: May the Lynch Mob Please Disperse", in which she is at pains to point out that while she has been following Dastangoi long before it became fashionable (of course), Farooqui is not her friend. She bases her entire article "on a cursory reading of the reporting on the case" and proceeds, with a strange and twisted logic, to direct her ire at the complainant's lawyer, Ms. Vrinda Grover. Perhaps she feels hesitant to write against a complainant in such horribly feminist times; after all there is a "lynch mob" to fear. She conflates the prosecution (lawyers for the Delhi Police) with the victim's counsel (Ms. Grover) and attributes arguments reportedly made by the prosecution lawyers to Ms. Grover. She questions why the prosecution made reference to the Nirbhaya case, when the fact is it is referred to only in the context of the victim's own statement that thoughts of that case raced through her mind as she was being raped. Unless Das is suggesting that the victim edit her statement in order to sound politically correct, it is unclear what she expected Grover to do. She then questions Ms. Grover's argument in pressing for life sentence, that inter-alia, the victim's trauma was exacerbated as she was a foreign national fighting a criminal case in an alien country. Leave aside that in a criminal trial, the role of the victim's counsel is only to supplement the State-led prosecution and that it would have been an unusual dereliction of duty for Grover to have asked for less punishment than sought by the Delhi Police, the fact remains that for anyone to be in a foreign country, trying to establish rape charges against an influential and well-connected person would exacerbate the hardship that a victim goes through. How is this remarkable?

Subsequent pieces appeared to have at least read the judgment, though did not make similar efforts to establish their connection or lack thereof with the accused or his family, efforts that would have been appreciated. What they lacked however, was any understanding of the law. Manisha Sethi for instance, in her recent article "Why the Mahmood Farooqui Judgment is Deeply Flawed", tries to argue that for a conviction to be rightful, the judicial standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" must mean "beyond any possible doubt", an interpretation that is neither correct nor desirable. She states that the prosecution's case must the the only one possible. The correct standard is that it must be the only one possible on a logical and reasonable construction of events, not an improbable or fanciful one.

The judgment is remarkably well-reasoned, and displays a degree of progressiveness rarely seen in rape jurisprudence.

Sethi then goes on to analyse the judgment and the evidence. At the outset, let me state that the judgment is remarkably well-reasoned, and displays a degree of progressiveness rarely seen in rape jurisprudence. It steers clear of the kind of assumptions and stereotypes one has come to expect in conversations around such cases, particularly about Western women, alcohol consumption, bipolar difficulties and extra-marital associations. It should serve as precedent in terms of judicial language on rape, making clear as it does that the wrong of rape is not in taking away a woman's honour or her marital prospects, but that it robs a woman of control over her own sexuality, and that the essence of rape is the absence of consent--intelligent, positive concurrence.

This progressive understanding is in stark contrast to that displayed by Farooqui's supporters, including Sethi, who have done their best to paint the victim as someone who was madly in love with Farooqui and was angry about being rejected by him. Whether this was the reason she filed a complaint, or she just enjoys the criminal litigation process, we do not know. Even the email exchange that is crucial to the evidence has been distorted. The emails as reproduced from the judgment state:

"Mahmood,

I tried calling you, but was unable to get through. I want to talk with you about what happened the other night. I like you a lot. You know that. I consider you a good friend and I respect you but what happened the other night wasn't right. I know you were in a very difficult space and you are having some issues right now, but Saturday you really went too far. You kept asking me if you could suck me and I knew you were drunk and sad and things were going awful. I knew that this wasn't going to help things and I told you many times I didn't want to. But you did become forceful. I went along, because I did not want things to escalate but it was not what I wanted. I was just afraid that something bad would happen if I didn't. This is new for me. I completely own my sexuality and I consider you a good friend. I like you. I am attracted to you but it really made me feel bad when this happened. I haven't known what to say to you since then. I wasn't sure if I would say anything. In the end I consented but it was because of pressure and your own force physically on me. I did not want things to go bad. I have only decided to tell you how I feel for your own well-being. I am afraid that if you don't realise that this is unacceptable, you may try this on another woman when you are drunk and she may not be so understanding. I do love you and wish you well. I want the best for you whatever that is. I also need you to know doing what you did the other night was unacceptable. I hope this doesn't affect our friendship, but am willing to deal with the repercussions if it does."

To which Farooqui replied "My deepest apologies..." which is explained away by the defense argument that he didn't bother to read the email before apologising.

You wouldn't know any of this if you read Sethi's piece, which does not reproduce the email but only describes it, as one that "professes "love", "respect", and "attraction" for Farooqui" and that "she "went along" and "in the end consented" to avoid escalation of the situation. She expresses her disbelief that forced oral sex continued for only 3 minutes, and whether the language in the email was "natural" for someone who has been raped. According to Sethi, this email doesn't mention anything resembling rape, and the only mention of rape comes in two weeks later, when the complainant writes "You hurt me. I said no. I said no many times. You didn't listen. You pinned my arms. You pulled my underwear down". Her argument is that as per the first email, the complainant "consented, but not out of free will" and this somehow, is not rape. Further, that the complaint stated that after resisting, she feigned an orgasm to end the ordeal, and going by this, Farooqui had no reason to believe that the consent was not freely given. Not only is there absolutely no basis for such a presumption, it is peculiar that while the defense maintains that the act never happened at all, Sethi is engaging in all kinds of mental contortions to show it did happen, but was consensual.

She speaks with something that actually resembles nostalgia when she says that non-penetrative sexual abuse by a known person is at the opposite end of the spectrum from brutal gang-rape by strangers...

What this displays, beyond a poor argumentative strategy, is an even poorer commitment to the idea of consent, especially by people who are otherwise so particular to espouse feminist causes. There was a recent piece by Farooqui's former colleague Natasha Badhwar, where she "interviewed" lawyer Flavia Agnes with leading, suggestive questions and opinions, such as: "The defence had put forth many arguments that showed how improbable the alleged act of rape was and how there were several inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case. These have not been taken into consideration by the judge. What is your reading of the judgment?". In this, Ms. Agnes informed us that "gender justice cannot be divorced from human rights" implying that too much gender justice is a bad thing, and that forced oral sex by a friend in his drawing room cannot be compared with forced penile penetration by a stranger simply on the principle that a rape is a rape. She speaks with something that actually resembles nostalgia when she says that non-penetrative sexual abuse by a known person is at the opposite end of the spectrum from brutal gang-rape by strangers, and would earlier have come within the scope of molestation where the maximum punishment was two years.

For decades, feminists have fought for the legal definition of rape to be expanded to include oral, anal, digital rape and rape by use of objects, and now we are told it isn't rape enough? That a mouth is more benign than a penis, that sexual assault in a drawing room is much better than on a street, that stranger-rape is more rape than acquaintance-rape, that if you haven't been sufficiently brutalised, then your consent to an explicitly sexual act doesn't really matter?

In a 2013 piece on hillele.org, Ms. Agnes said that the Tarun Tejpal case is most emphatically one of rape, and that it puts "people like us" on trial, testing our commitment to feminist principles and equality before the law, even when the accused may be known to us. In a 1992 piece in EPW, she wrote about the need to change the definition of rape beyond penile-vaginal penetration, and to have a strict minimum punishment. In January 2013 in another EPW article titled "No Shortcuts on Rape" she emphasised the need to recognise that the majority of rapes occur in the home, by people known to the victim. What has changed? There appears to be a complex calculation of whose side to take in which case that could do with some elucidation.

Manisha Sethi is at least more consistent in her views (if only for people like Tejpal and Farooqui) as demonstrated both in in her recent article referred to above, and a previous one "Confronting Certainties" written by her in 2014 in collaboration with Anusha Rizvi, Farooqui's wife. That limited consistency is about the best one can say about the pieces. The 2014 article began by saying that it will examine the new rape law in light of the Tejpal and Khurshid Anwar cases, then concludes with the admonishment that discussion must move beyond one or two high profile cases. It castigated commentators for slamming Tejpal's actions on social media, accusing them of inciting the "lynch mob" that attacked Shoma Chaudhury's house. It argued that Tejpal shoving his fingers up a junior colleague's vagina against her will is much nicer than a policeman doing it with stones to a prisoner in his custody. Most ironically, it raged against media hysteria and selective outrage, seen here only by Farooqui's supporters.

Sethi's recent article was much worse, and not only for its distortion of emails or understanding of consent. In its initial form, the article concluded with a need to examine carceral feminism and its unspoken alliance with a punitive state. Its updated form contains a postscript that says while there is a critique of the new law and of carceral feminism to be made, it calls for another reflection, unburdened by the specifics of this case. At least she is responsive to feedback that laws can't be reviewed just because someone in her social circle got convicted. What is shocking is this misappropriation of serious, complex arguments for individual cases. Yes, there is a need to examine the politics and practices of incarceration, and what it means for a feminist movement to rely so heavily on it. Yes, we need to look at reformation where possible. But there is also a need for the law to recognise and acknowledge certain rights and wrongs, and criminal law is an important way of doing that. The law has enormous capacity to reform human behaviour, that needs to be intelligently and fairly used. The panic that has set in even where only the minimum punishment is awarded, obscures the fact that for reformation to work, many other factors need to be in place, which simply aren't. No one so far has been able to provide a workable alternative to our current criminal justice system beyond improving it to the best extent possible.

But now these attempts have moved beyond "Farooqui is innocent" to "the law is bad" and "feminism is the new sexism" and it is time to speak out.

I have never met either Farooqui or the victim. I have no desire to "lynch" anyone, whether guilty or innocent. I can understand Farooqui's family, friends, lawyers doing their best to protect him both legally and socially, which is why I have stayed silent thus far. But now these attempts have moved beyond "Farooqui is innocent" to "the law is bad" and "feminism is the new sexism" and therefore it is time to speak out. Today we have, astonishingly, reached at a point where staunch liberals, activists and feminists have decided that it's okay to lecture women on what kind of rape is real and what kind is a minor indiscretion, to pass judgment on the different degrees of trauma suffered when there is a penis as opposed to a finger as opposed to a mouth as opposed to an iron rod. It's suddenly okay to argue that a woman can't be attracted to someone and still not want sexual intimacy with them on a given day, to serve up for public debate the amount of sex, the amount of coercion and the amount of consent that was used. This is very dangerous.

The women's movement has fought hard and made some significant gains, be it changes in legal definitions, punishments, recognition of offences, or more sensitive procedures. These changes are still fragile, requiring time and sustained sensitisation to fully take root, and are still only a fraction of what needs to be done. But the regressive, tribalist backlash in support of people like Tejpal and Farooqui threatens to undo all these gains, and set us back decades in terms of even a basic framework of women's rights. We need to step up, call it out, and call a rape a rape, no matter who is involved.

NEW DELHI -- If you've been listening to debates in the Lok Sabha over the past few months, chances are that you've spotted Anurag Thakur, the 41-year-old lawmaker from Himachal Pradesh, who has emerged as the star debater for the Bharatiya Janata Party.

On several major debates, Thakur, the thrice elected Member of Parliament from the constituency of Hamirpur, has led the charge for the BJP, often going head-to-head with Congress Party's Jyotiraditya Scindia. Thakur has spoken passionately about the sacrifices of our soldiers in Kashmir, while pinning the blame for the violence in the Valley on Pakistan, and he has roundly criticised Congress Party Vice President Rahul Gandhi for "standing" with those students of Jawaharlal Nehru University, who participated in an event to mark the third anniversary of Mohammad Afzal's hanging.

When Thakur isn't facing the rough-and-tumble of Lok Sabha sessions, he is busy in his role as the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, which is locked in an argument with the Supreme Court over the autonomy of India's richest sports body.

With the Supreme Court on a mission to ensure transparency in the BCCI, Thakur is walking a tightrope in trying not defy the apex court, while insisting that its directives are unfair.

Not only is Thakur the second youngest president of the BCCI, he was also the youngest ever president of a state cricket association. At the age of 25, he became president of the cricket association in Himachal Pradesh, a state where his father, Prem Kumar Dhumal, has twice served as Chief Minister. His grandfather served in the Indian army, and this year, Thakur joined India's territorial army as a lieutenant.

When HuffPost India caught up with Thakur at his residence in Delhi, earlier this month, he was busy meeting a motley bunch of people, and getting ready to dash off to Parliament. In a wide-ranging chat, he discussed Kashmir, attacks on civil liberties, and "saffronisation" of the school textbooks, and the judiciary.

Edited excerpts:

We often hear you citing figures, referring to what was said in previous sessions, tell us what goes into preparing for a Lok Sabha debate.

For people like me, who get less time for reading and more time for traveling, to prepare for a debate in less than 24 hours becomes an uphill task. You get a lot of information from the Internet and the Parliament library. In a Parliament debate, you can't give a speech. It has to be filled with a lot of fact. That is what I learnt in the last so many years. I think the great learning is to sit in Parliament as much as you can.

How so?

If you sit in parliament, and listen to people from various walks of life, various parts of the country, you get to understand their problems, how do they feel, how do they think. But what I fail to understand is why do the challenges remain the same in the 14th, 15th and 16th Lok Sabha? That means we are unable to address those major issues.

How do you handle the Opposition creating a ruckus when you are speaking? Is it intimidating?

It depends on whether you yield or not. If you are convinced with all your facts then you don't need to. Rather than engaging them, you must continue with your flow because they want to distract and derail you. I think that happens in life as well. I've learned a lot from my cricketing career. When a batsman is doing well, the fielders nearby, they speak a lot, they abuse you, they literally abuse. You have to be mentally tough.

During the Lok Sabha debate on the JNU row, you said, Ham Aam Aadmi, Rajwada Parivar se nahin aayen hain, par ham bhi sadasya hain is sadan ke. Do you feel pitted against the young leaders in Opposition, such as Jyotiraditya Scindia and Rahul Gandhi, and do you try to cast them as privileged?

Not really. Both of them have been very kind to me in parliament, outside as well. It is not that I have anything against them, I learn a lot from them also. They are senior, the way they put things, they speak for their party, I have a lot to learn from them as well. But yes, they are the privileged ones, they have ruled this country from the last so many years, generations and generations have done that. The mindset of the royalty in India is that they know they are here to rule. But we are in the era of democracy, and you and I have an equal right.

The mindset of the royalty in India is that they know they are here to rule. But we are in the era of democracy, and you and I have an equal right.

But you are also from a politically elite family, you are also privileged.

If you look at most of the political families, if you look at their surnames, Rajiv Gandhi ji, Rahul Gandhi ji, Madhavrao Scindia ji, Jyotiraditya Scindia ji, Rajesh Pilot, Sachin Pilot, they have all carried on with their surnames. I'm the only one, when my father writes Prem Kumar Dhumal, from class 9, I have changed my surname to Thakur. My kids write only Jayaditya Singh and Udayveer Singh. Even today, 50 percent of Indian politicians would not know that I'm the son of Prem Kumar Dhumal. My kids should plan their own career and future.

READ: No Contradiction In Being A Kashmiri IAS Officer, Says Proud UPSC Star

While speaking on Kashmir, you defended the Centre, and blamed Pakistan for the violence. There have now been unprecedented days of curfew and 58 deaths. Do you really think that the Centre is blameless?

If there is any shortcoming then it is how one militant becomes a hero. Anyone who is responsible, and who let it happen, should be held responsible for that. Nobody is saying that he (Burhan Wani) wasn't a militant. He was involved in killings, he was motivating the Kashmiri youth to turn militants. So as a country what do you do?

If Burhani Wani's message resonated with many young Kashmiris, must India not reflect on what is wrong, or would you blame than on Pakistan as well.

I think the issue is to sit across the table and speak to them, but you can't sit across when the stone pelting is on. You have to have a peaceful atmosphere. This Article 370 must go to have better integration between the two societies, without that, it is not going to happen. If you stay aloof, you live in a different territory, and say that we are different from the rest of the Indians, then this can't be resolved.

Let me read you something that Shah Faesal, a Kashmiri, who topped the Indian Civil Service exam in 2009, wrote in July: "Ask teenagers in Srinagar and they will tell you how all these years India has been communicating to Kashmiris through rigged elections, dismissal of elected governments, through encounters and corruption. They will tell you how India has become synonymous with a military bunker or a police vehicle or a ranting panellist on prime-time television. Is this the idea of India which can win Kashmiri hearts?" This is not Burhan Wani. This is an IAS officer.

I agree with him to an extent, but that is one side of the story. You have to give the other side of the story as well. The conditions prevailing are not the same as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu or another state. It is a border state where infiltration happens every second day, where armed force personnel lose their lives. There is no support from locals when they fight with terrorists across the border. There might be mistakes from the side of the Indian government, but there is a larger problem because of Article 370.

There might be mistakes from the side of the Indian government, but there is a larger problem because of Article 370.

In view of the attack on Mohammad Akhlaq and the emergence of gau rakshaks, who harass Muslims and Dalits, are you concerned about intolerance under the BJP?

I think you must look into the details. There were incidents in Rajasthan and Haryana, where the Dalit villages were burnt and they were killed, during the Congress time, and not during the BJP time. You know the media is highlighting these issues, and not focussing on the development part under Modiji's time. The Prime Minister doesn't have to say everyday who are the cow vigilantes. Law and order is a state subject, please punish them under Indian laws. What does Modi have to do in that?

READ: Violence Against Dalits Actually Came Down During NDA Rule, Says Rajnath Singh

By speaking against gau rakshaks, even the PM has acknowledged that there is a problem, so why can't you? In Una, in a BJP-run state, cow vigilantes had the audacity of uploading a video of them flogging Dalits.

The same BJP government has suspended police officials, held an inquiry, and they have not take any sides. So what do you do after a crime has happened? You hold an inquiry, you punish the police officials, you take all the steps which are provided under the law. But if you want to create a countrywide situation, I don't think that is fair. The same media has been silent during the Congress times, which had much more incidents.

But that still doesn't answer why gau rakshaks have become so emboldened in the past two years.

When the Supreme Court gives odd decisions, when they take away the power of the executive and the legislature, and try to make laws sitting in the courts, they are not being criticised by the media. Media feels that their hands are tied, and they may call them for contempt of court. There you keep mum, there you don't do your duty. But you do bashing for the politicians. People fear coming into India today because of Indian judiciary. Dalits have been facing flak for the last 70 years, where more than 30 million cases are still pending, and they can't identify what are the important issues to decide and where they have to intervene.

When the Supreme Court gives odd decisions, when they take away the power of the executive and the legislature, and try to make laws sitting in the courts, they are not being criticised by the media.

How do you feel about what happened to Mohammad Akhlaq?

Let the inquiry be completed, let the judiciary give its verdict, then I'll be in position to say something. On distorted facts, on media reports, and on half-truths, I can't give my comments. People should restrain from taking law into their own hands, there is a political system, there is a police system, there is a judicial system, there is an executive system, where you can file complaints instead of taking law into your own hands. You must restrain from acting in such a manner.

READ: Princeton President Says He Would Allow Campus Event To Commemorate Bin Laden

During the debate on the JNU row, you condemned the slogans raised on the campus. But do you think if a student believes that Kashmir should be independent, and that Mohammad Afzal's hanging was a mistake, then she or he can say these things without the fear of being accused of sedition or being chastised as any less Indian.

Tell me something. How many Indians do you want to be killed by militants? 100, 2,000, 5,000? Was Afzal a hero for you or was Captain Vikram Batra a hero for you?

Why did the same guy, who, before his arrest, want to divide India into pieces, who wanted to say that Afzal is a martyr, after a few days in jail, why did he say, "Bharat mata ki jai." Why did that enlightening happen during a few days in jail? Then he should have stuck to what he said earlier, because he knew that he was wrong under Indian law.

Was Afzal a hero for you or was Captain Vikram Batra a hero for you?

The courts still have to decide which slogans were raised and by whom in JNU. My question is whether students, if they so believe, have the freedom to say that Kashmir should be free and hanging Mohammad Afzal was a mistake.

I'm answering you very clearly, Vikram Batra and the soldiers who are defending this country are my heroes. And the people who are dividing this country are not my heroes, and they cannot be given the free speech to go to every nook and corner of this country, and divide. No you can't. Thousands of soldiers have died for this country, a few people, with foreign funding, cannot be allowed to divide this country. It cannot be allowed.

READ: Grave Doubts About Afzal Guru's Involvement In 2001 Parliament Attack, Says P Chidambaram

On education, there is concern that BJP governments in states such as Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat are trying to "saffronize" education. Shankar Katheria, when he was the junior minister for Human Resource Development, said that there would be "saffronisation." What do you make of this?

Bhai, saffron is part of our national flag. Saffron is bhagwa, and sadhu-sants always have bhagwa.

What distorted facts have been put out in history books, which are not even close to the truth, have been given by the leftist mindset over a period of years. There have only been a limited number of people, who have been shown as heroes of our independence struggle, which is not right. Maharana Pratap kahin nazar nahin aayenge, par aise log nazar aayenge jinki koi contribution nahin thi. Sardar Patel nahin nazar aayenge, but woh log nazar aayenge jinka lena dena door door tak nahin tha. Theek hai, woh nahin cheezen jo ab tak history books se door rahi woh uska hissa banen (You don't see Maharana Pratap but those who had no contribution are visible. You don't see Sardar Patel but those people who had no connection are visible. So it is good if those things which are not party of history books should be included).

What distorted facts have been put out in history books, which are not even close to the truth, have been given by the leftist mindset over a period of years.

By why introduce passages from the Gita and Vedas into moral science textbooks, which typically carried stories about values such as kindness and honesty, without religious undertones.

I think everyone should read the Gita. Have you read it? Once you do, you will say, yes, this should be part of the curriculum. When we started doing Yoga, 170 countries started doing Yoga. Now again, there has been an element connected to this, saying, oh, this is not secularism. What does Yoga have to do with secularism?

But then you would also have passages of the Koran and the Bible in the textbooks as well?

See, the Bible is available globally, kept in various hotels, and they have Koran. How many hotels have the Gita available? If they can do that in their country then why can we not do that here.

But in a moral science text book?

I think that morality is very very important in this country, the way that the crime against women is going on, there should be more lessons on morality, and that will come through the Vedas and Gitas. It gives you a real lesson of life. Seriously, you must read it.

Why and who have showcased Bhagat Singh as an extremist? Someone who has sacrificed his life to give us independence, and after independence, he has been shown as an extremist. How do you justify it? Why should you keep listening to half truths, let there be a revision of that, why not? It is a continuous reform, as far as our education system is concerned. You bring in changes to the syllabus over a period of time. If you feel that there should be further changes after ten years then let it happen after ten years.

Why and who have showcased Bhagat Singh as an extremist? Someone who has sacrificed his life to give us independence, and after independence, he has been shown as an extremist.

Vasudev Devnan, the junior education minister in Rajasthan, said that schools books were being changed so that "no one like Kanhaiya Kumar is born in the state." It sounds as if the BJP does not want students to think and speak freely, or register dissent.

Let me be very clear. No country will give you free speech to destroy your country, and I will never be in favour to destroy India or to destroy the idea of India. From day one, the communists never believed in one India, they believed that there are thirty different states, and they worked with the communist mindset which was never accepted by the Indians. And globally, except China, they have been sidelined. But they are very much in the media, and the education-system, and that is why we have to change certain things in the education system.

Also on HuffPost India:

Innovation worries us. At one level, many perceive it as a threat to their jobs and, in fact, to their way of thinking and behaving. It challenges what they are used to. At another and more profound level, there is genuine fear of failure. After all, not all innovations succeed. Indeed, most fail. A combination of the above is often the reason why governments and institutions are usually averse to innovation and thus, change.

Today, disruptive change has become a buzzword that CEOs and politicians have incorporated into their vocabulary and feel compelled to use, as if not doing so would project them as not being futuristic. Indeed, the pressure has become so oppressive that many have started to complain of change-fatigue, which has come, in fact, as a big relief to the naysayers of innovation.

India stands at the crossroads of either transformational upliftment or abysmal downslide. The route she opts will determine her future for generations.

But can we truly afford to shun innovation?

To answer that question, we first need to decode or understand what innovation really is. Innovation is not restricted to searching for a better idea or thinking outside the box. It is, in fact, that next big step often into the unknown that makes all the difference! Innovation is figuring out how something can be done better. It is the leap from idea to execution. Google, for instance, is a great idea because Google exists and Google works. In other words, innovation needs to make the transition from idea to compelling business proposition. Or to put it differently, innovation succeeds if it helps in doing things more efficiently and thus, in being seen as a growth enabler.

It is worth recalling that according to available data, the average life span of most companies is around 18 years. This is because most companies prefer to stick with what they know – "the tried and tested". They refuse to learn how to see through the fog and what pitfalls lie ahead and thus, to anticipate change and prepare for it. At the heart of the entrepreneurial spirit, lies innovation. In corporate culture, competition is the biggest pitfall that companies have to cope with. Companies fail because they are unable to redefine themselves. They lack the entrepreneurial culture.

This is not restricted to business enterprises alone. Indeed, as the Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson demonstrated in their seminal book, even nations fail. They point to Joseph Schumpeter's "creative disruption", as the key to a nation's growth and success.

Today, India stands at the crossroads of either transformational upliftment or abysmal downslide. The route she opts will determine her future for generations to come. It comes as an encouraging sign, therefore, that the Minister of Commerce and Industry Nirmala Sitharaman is constituting a group of experts to examine how innovation inhibitors may be dismantled to trigger a more welcoming innovation landscape in India. How this would be done remains to be seen.

One of India's great drawbacks has been her lack of investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP, which stands at 0.63...

One of India's great drawbacks has been her lack of investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP, which stands at 0.63 compared, for instance, to Israel, which is 2.61. The telling point is that Israel has a population of 8 million people compared to India's one billion plus and further, Israel has produced 12 Nobel laureates. This is a telling statistic because it is reflective of the low priority India has historically given to research and innovation.

Take China by contrast, which is often referred to as a country in a perpetual state of innovation. Shenzhen, for instance, was a massive factory city churning out cheap goods for the world. Today, it has pushed boundaries and rewired itself to become home to global giants. It is expanding further and hopes to soon emerge as the gateway to 5G and the "internet of things". Chengdu is, similarly, another powerful story where the interface of science and technology drives the passion for innovation. Indeed, as many have documented, China's economic story is built around innovation.

For India to take advantage of its current growth trajectory and address her myriad developmental challenges, it is her response to the innovation opportunity that would emerge as the tipping point. This would require unwavering political will and commitment that cuts across party lines.

Governments need to work inconsonance with research institutions and business so that better and more efficient ways of doing things become part of our DNA.

At the same time, it is critical to recognize that ideas need to be monetized. For this, corporate venture capital is a pathway. Incubators or hatcheries need to be set up with corporate sector funding and government support, which funnel and encourage innovation.

It is often argued that India's successful embrace of the IT revolution was made possible because it was done quietly and quickly without government's knowledge and thus, intrusive intervention. The tendency is to argue that governments are the stumbling block. Yet, whether it is China or Germany, the US or Israel, governments play a crucial role by providing the enabling environment. Governments need to work in consonance with research institutions and business so that better and more efficient ways of doing things become part of our DNA.

WASHINGTON -- India and the US on Monday signed an important agreement that will make the two nations logistical allies and enable both the militaries to use each other's assets and bases for repair and replenishment of supplies.

Welcoming the signing of the bilateral 'Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement' (LEMOA), Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said the pact will facilitate opportunities for "practical engagement and exchange".

LEMOA facilitates the provision of logistical support, supplies, and services between the US and Indian militaries on a reimbursable basis, and provides a framework to govern them.

"They agreed on the importance (that) this framework will provide to facilitate innovative and advanced opportunities in defence technology and trade cooperation. To this end, the US has agreed to elevate defence trade and technology sharing with India to a level commensurate with its closest allies and partners," said a joint statement after the pact was signed.

According to the statement, the defence ties between the two countries is based on their "shared values and interests," and their "abiding commitment to global peace and security."

During their meeting, Parrikar and Carter discussed the "wealth of progress" in bilateral cooperation and deepening strategic partnership between the United States and India.

The US has agreed to elevate defence trade and technology sharing with India to a level commensurate with its closest allies and partners.

The visit, their sixth official interaction to date, demonstrates the importance both sides place on strengthening defence ties across many areas: from strategic and regional cooperation to deepened military-to-military exchanges, to expanded collaboration on defence technology and innovation, it said.

Welcoming India's membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Carter reaffirmed US support for India's membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Acknowledging India's positive contributions to regional security and stability, including in matters beyond the maritime space, Carter and Parrikar announced their agreement to further consultations in the area, including through the next Maritime Security Dialogue, scheduled later this year.

During his stay in the US, Parrikar will visit Boeing's manufacturing facility at Philadelphia. He would also interact with American defence industry representatives at an event organised by the US-India Business Council (USIBC).

Earlier yesterday, Parrikar was accorded an enhanced honour cordon by Carter after he arrived at the Pentagon.

The enhanced honour is reserved for valued guests. During normal cordon, visitors are greeted at the Pentagon stairs and welcomed with handshakes, before proceeding inside. During the enhanced honour cordon, national anthems are played.

Parrikar, accompanied by Carter, also laid a wreath at the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial.

Also on HuffPost India.

Three years ago, Nawab, the muggle, joined our household already overflowing with canines. His inclusion to our pack has brought forth interesting reactions, questions and observations. I sort of understand now, how the mudbloods felt. This is how I responded. Mostly in my head. To their face, however, I was mostly polite.

1. What breed is he? Is he a hound?

A. What breed are you? Do people go around asking you that? More importantly, would you answer that? As for whether he is a hound or not: You better start hoping that he doesn't turn into one.

2. Arrey, this looks like a stray! (Complete with a disgusted look masked with confusion.)

A. Stray by definition would, in this context, mean that Nawab is homeless and wanders around on the streets. Err.... he wanders around the house, and sometimes lingers on around the kitchen. So, stray he definitely is not.

3. Oh! You have adopted a stray? How nice of you!

A. Stray by definition... never mind. As for nice -- seriously? I think it was awfully nice of him to meet us when he did, and give us a chance to be his family. He came to us when my younger one was still grieving Jenny's passing.

4. But why did you get a stray?

A. But why are you still breathing?

5. Doesn't he carry infections? You allow him to mingle with the pugs?

A. Dude, that's a new level of being a racist. Ever heard of baths and vaccinations?

6. That's quite brave of you. Strays are quite dumb, no?

A. No. On the contrary, my desi is smarter than all my "purebred" ones, and definitely way smarter than you. Come to think of it, you stand outsmarted by my silliest pug.

7. Did you just pick him off the street? (Complete with incredulous blinking.)

A. No. We hired a chopper, airlifted him and then rolled out the red carpet.

8. Ah! Stray! You'll save up a lot on food and stuff -- they can eat anything.

A. Yeah. That is exactly the plan. We'll save on the garbage collector and the breath that would go in hollering after the chap who goes shouting "kabadiwala" down the street. On second thoughts, I wonder what he thinks of nibbling at people, especially the ones who see him as a recycling machine.

9. Good you didn't spend any money getting an exotic breed. Bloody hurtful when they die. Too expensive!

A. That's too many wrong ideas uttered in the same breath. You ought to be put on a banned list -- no person, in their right senses or otherwise, should let you adopt or purchase a pet. Again, why are you still breathing? Just curious.

10. Does he recognize you? Strays are wild, you know.

A. You obviously were sleeping through the life sciences class back in school. He is a dog, not a fruit fly. He recognizes me, and you better hope he doesn't recognize you.

In every industry today, we can see women rising to the top on their own merit, making a name for themselves and carving the path for others. Fortunately, to some extent, the same can be said about the restaurant industry as well. It is often assumed that women don't want to work in professional kitchens because of the demanding nature of the job, the long hours and the stress of juggling work with family. Well, this clearly isn't always the case. From Anahita Dhondy of SodaBottleOpenerWala to Pooja Dhingra of Le 15, women are soaring to new heights in restaurants — one dish at a time.

We spoke to a few of these fabulous women chefs and restaurateurs and uncovered some of their secret ingredients for success.

Ivy & Bean, Delhi

Propelled by her love of food, Radhika Khandelwal trained to be a chef in Australia and ran her own cafe before moving to Delhi to open the doors to a lovely cafe, Ivy & Bean. Speaking of women in the professional kitchen she muses, "Things are changing, but it still isn't easy for staff to accept a female boss. They will take time to address you as chef' and not 'ma'am."

"In the beginning, they don't take you seriously, but with time they see your work and understand that you mean business."

The Bombaykery, Gurgaon

Having a mother who was a pastry chef and with a childhood spent in her family bakery in Mumbai, Mithali Sahani's The Bombaykery was sure to be a hit. She later trained to be a pastry chef and worked at five-star kitchens as an intern before starting her own endeavour. Mithali thinks times are changing for sure, but there still are a few problems in the industry for women, such as dealing with suppliers, building a team and — no surprises here — the male staff not wanting a woman boss.

"In five star kitchens, women still aren't taken as seriously as their male counterparts. It won't be incorrect to state it's mainly a male-dominated space."

Paris Cafe, Kolkata

Having been trained at Le Cordon Bleu in Paris to become a pastry chef, Sneha Singhi turned her dream of opening her own cafe into a reality in Kolkata. She has had a very positive experience working in Hyatt's kitchen. Her advice to young women who aspire to open their own eatery someday is to work under experienced chefs and learn as much as possible. There is no substitute for hard work, she says.

"In my experience, I haven't had faced any problems in a professional kitchen just because I was a girl. In fact, I was accepted wholeheartedly by the industry."

The Palms, Kolkata

Priyadarshini Dey always dreamed of opening her own restaurant. One which brought a luxury experience and affordable dining under the same roof. Currently in its ninth year, The Palms is still going strong. She says there are preconceived notions about obstacles in the restaurant industry for women. Her advice: Be clear to your family about your career and the working hours that come with it.

"If one is disciplined, willing to work hard and understands that it's not a regular job, anyone can work in a professional kitchen."

Barley & Grapes, Bangalore

Meghna Varkada, who owns and runs Barley & Grapes in Bangalore, has been a part of the restaurant industry for 16 years now. She says women now have the exposure and education to give them the wherewithal to move away from the routine of getting a degree and then a 9-5 job. Her family's support and an understanding partner are the keys to running a restaurant without compromising on personal life, she avers.

"A man is able to go out and work because he has his family back home supporting him. It's the same with women. When your family is your backbone, you can go out and accomplish anything."

Kaficko, Hyderabad

Pure love of food and inspiration from travel are the core of the ethos at Kaficko in Hyderabad. Suma Chereddi opened the place a year and a half ago and has a pan-Asian restaurant in the works. According to Suma, the restaurant industry is like any other, and both men and women need to grapple with obstacles. Her cafe has inspired home cooks and others to start their own food ventures.

"I've build a personal relationship with my staff. We discuss everything together. They're like family to me and that's the kind of faith I have in them."

Me So Happi, Mumbai

Pooja Arambram's family has always been in the restaurant business and it was only natural for her to open one of her own. That's how Me So Happi happened. From bunny chow to dhansak, their menu has "comfort food" written all over it. Pooja believes that a keen eye for detail and a high level of care to the plate is what gives women an edge in the kitchen.

"Customers have evolved and so has food, and that has paved the way for many women to enter the professional kitchen."

Get the Zomato app here.

Women and their clothing have long been a matter of contention in society. Men have always regarded the female body as a symbol of social honour and have sought to control the way women dress and carry themselves.

In the modern era, it is only in the last half century or so that women have really been able to get some measure of control over their own choices, and that too only in some parts of the world. In most societies, the patriarchal order still dominates.

Left wing liberals ought to direct their outrage at the autocratic Gulf kingdoms instead.

It has been a long and hard-fought struggle for women to break free from the patriarchal stranglehold on their individuality and the West has done an excellent job of enfranchising its women.

Across the Western world, women today are on an equal footing with men. Gender inequality and discrimination have steadily ebbed and women are able to be themselves, unhindered by the disapproving male glare.

This western model has also proved to be an inspiration to women in other countries and has laid the foundation for more women getting educated and employed and being able to make their voices heard.

France, with its secular and liberal values, has been at the forefront of propagating women's liberation. The French hold these ideals dear and are determined to continue the progress they've made. There is a certain identity, a certain belief system that is associated with being French. Liberty, equality, and fraternity are enshrined in the French mindset and are the founding values of the Republic.

France also has relatively more cultural unity. Unlike countries like the United States, Canada, or even India, France has a largely homogenous identity. It has traditionally not been a melting pot of cultures and influences. It is unapologetic about being French and wants to ensure that it remains that way.

Though France has opened itself to immigrants, it is also very clear that it expects immigrants to assimilate into the French way of life. It is perfectly fair for France to expect that from newcomers. France may have had its selfish reasons for accepting immigrants, but at least economic immigrants have the opportunity to become citizens and settle there permanently.

Many Middle Eastern countries use expatriate labour for their growth, but throw them out the moment their contracts get over. Isn't it outrageous that people who toil their entire lives in the UAE have absolutely no chance to become Emiratis? The same is the story in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and many other countries. Forget about non-Muslims, but even Muslims from Pakistan or Bangladesh cannot ever dream of becoming nationals of these countries. Why doesn't that raise eyebrows?

From Malaysia to Morocco and beyond, men can enjoy the cool breeze on their skin, while every inch of the Muslim woman's body must be hidden...

You may argue that Dubai permits bikinis, alcohol, and pork, but remember it only accepts you as a visitor. Kissing in public can still land you in prison, as many westerners have found out. It is clearly not willing to compromise on its inherent character.

The fact that the highest administrative court in the country has overturned the burkini ban in a Riviera town also points to the evolved sense of personal liberty and tolerance that France possesses. All the outrage could be channelled through a judicial process that took a humanitarian view of the situation. The Dutch woman who was imprisoned for reporting her rape in Qatar had no recourse to a higher court to seek enlightened justice. The couple arrested for kissing in Dubai had no such luxury either. This clearly demonstrates how far ahead Europe is in matters of personal liberty and why left wing liberals ought to direct their outrage at the autocratic Gulf kingdoms instead.

If globalization and the virtues of pluralism are the reasons why France is being urged to become an inclusive melting pot, then shouldn't the same standards be applied to other countries as well?

Therefore, if the world is not pressing the rich Gulf kingdoms to materially open up their societies out of respect for their way of life, then the French also do not owe it to anybody to embrace unfettered multiculturalism or accept values that are alien to them. The fact that they have opened their country to outsiders and allow them to become French speaks volumes for their humanitarianism.

That's the context through which France's efforts to first curb the hijab, and more recently the burkini, must be viewed. In the French mindset, these garments have absolutely no place in their egalitarian and progressive society and are symbols of the regressive mindset that they fought so hard to overcome.

It is ironic that the burkini wasn't invented in a Muslim country. It was actually created in Australia, by a woman. It is sad that it wasn't a Muslim man, in a Muslim country, who thought about making things a little more comfortable for his female compatriots. They have apparently been content watching their women lug around inconvenient layers of clothes, even while at leisure.

Many liberals who oppose this ban are unwittingly doing a great disservice to Muslim women all over the world.

The burkini is definitely a step up from the burqa and the naqab, but it is still anachronistic. It reduces the physical baggage that a woman is compelled to carry, but it in no way diminishes the ideological baggage that she must lug each time she visits the beach.

An important point to remember is that banning burkinis does not amount to mandating the wearing of bikinis. Women who are uncomfortable wearing bikinis would remain free to wear many other types of less revealing clothing to the beach. T-shirts, shorts, capris, sarongs that will remain perfectly legitimate beachwear.

While Muslim men have complete freedom to walk bare-chested wherever they choose, they impose severe restrictions on their women. From Malaysia to Morocco and beyond, men can enjoy the cool breeze on their skin, while every inch of the Muslim woman's body must be hidden under the oppressive fabric.

If a young woman is brought up to believe that her body is the repository of family and community honour, obviously she will be grow up to be uncomfortable with the idea of not keeping it covered up at all times. As that woman steps out of the house, she may believe that wearing the hijab is her choice. However, that choice is merely an illusion. The reality is that she has been conditioned to believe that and her decision is really not autonomous.

This hypocrisy, discrimination and injustice should be unacceptable in this day and age. We must celebrate the fact that the French have had the courage to speak up against it and do something to change things, at least in their country.

Critics of the burkini ban say that forcing women to shed their burkinis is as bad as forcing them to wear burqas. This is a disingenuous argument. It is important to remember that this ban isn't directed at women. It is actually meant to strike a blow at the patriarchal oppression of women. France wants no part in this systematic inequality and is also wary of the influence that these orthodox attitudes can have in pushing their own society back in time. Thus it is asking Muslims in the country to reform. If they want to continue to be a part of the French society, then they must adopt more progressive and liberal values.

Mere lip service to women's equality is not enough. Stern action must accompany the rhetoric.

Many liberals who oppose this ban are unwittingly doing a great disservice to Muslim women all over the world. They are trotting out culture, heritage, tradition, and even biology as excuses for not trying to fight the status quo. These same arguments have been used to justify slavery, segregation, and many other social ills over the centuries. Mere lip service to women's equality is not enough. Stern action must accompany the rhetoric.

Radical social reform can be painful. There is churn and resentment when a new movement starts and sometimes, hard-line measures are required to push that reform through. However, it is important to keep the long-term objective in mind when viewing the short-term impact. If the French can successfully relegate the burqa and the burkini to the dustbin of history within their country, imagine the precedent it would set for other societies to overcome the systemic and historic oppression of women.

Where ignorance is bliss, /'tis folly to be wise.

- Thomas Gray, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College, 1747

Thomas Gray is commonly quoted today for the above lines. And yet, how often do we only quote "ignorance is bliss", while being ignorant of his actual context? Selective reading of this kind can often give rise to a different interpretation. But poetry thrives on interpretations, and differing theories are often given while interpreting the same piece of literature. Like poetry, law, too, by its nature is subject to frequent interpretation. But unlike poetry, law cannot afford to have multiple interpretations. One of our most vital modern laws is prone to just that, and worse, and it is a big cause of concern. Unless, of course, we have selectively read Gray's lines!

Unlike poetry, law cannot afford to have multiple interpretations. One of our most vital modern laws is prone to just that...

This is a tale of ignorance: that of our lawmakers towards our laws, our data and us. It is also a tale of our own ignorance of the implications of this. The laws in this tale are those relating to our data protection. The underlying theme of this tale is Gray and his (mis)quoted lines, and full poetic liberty has been taken to (mis)use it wherever (in)appropriate.

Ignorance of (drafting of) law

As a legal principle, ignorance of law is no excuse. In other words, the law is that you cannot ignore the law. Data protection laws -- or the laws which protect our data from being misused by others during our day-to-day activities such as filling of forms, sharing photos or simply visiting a website -- mainly comprise the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the sensitive personal data rules, 2011. The resultant problem here is that you can neither follow the law and attain compliance (as the legal principle wants), nor ignore it and attain bliss (as a (mis)quoted Gray wants). The reason, simply, is ignorant drafting.

Unintended Consequences

A literal interpretation of the rules means that if a company or its representative collects, receives or even handles any "information", it needs to provide a privacy policy to the provider of such information. The privacy policy, by the way, is required to provide for practices, policies, etc. for handling "personal" information only. It also needs to inform the provider of information about the purpose of its collection, its intended recipients and the name and address of the agency collecting it. Moreover, prior to its collection, the company or its representative must give an option to the provider to not provide it. Careless use of words has made these provisions absurd and prone to unintended consequences.

For example, imagine a scenario where you visit a restaurant and a waiter asks you your order. Before you answer, and if the restaurant follows these rules literally, the waiter would, first of all, tell you that you still have an option to not place your order! Ignoring this absurdity, you place the order. This results in the restaurant receiving some information from you. Consequently, you must be prepared to know about their privacy policy, that is, how and why they collect certain kinds of information, how they keep it secure, etc. Not just this, to comply with another provision in the rules, the wait staff must also inform you that the information about your order is being collected for preparing your food and billing you for it only; and that only the chef, his support staff and the cashier will receive this information; and that the name of the company owning the restaurant is IFollowTheLaw Pvt Ltd, and their address is 1, Compliance Avenue.

Since Knowledge is but sorrow's Spy, /It is not safe to know.

- Wlliam Davenant, The Just Italian Song, 1630

Interestingly, William Davenant's lines above are believed to be one of the inspirations for Gray's own words. And in spite of the totally different context, a person out to eat in a restaurant might agree with Davenant and choose to not know so much! Fortunately, common sense precludes a restaurant from following the letter of this law. Unfortunately, such examples abound of the absurdity this law creates in daily situations.

Much room for interpretation

Around the world, the requirement to provide privacy policy or information about handling of data is for situations where a company collects your "personal" or "sensitive" information. The reasoning is that a situation involving such kinds of information must be handled with greater care, and principles such as informed consent, prior knowledge, necessity of collection, etc. must be followed. A person eating at a restaurant or shopping in a market place, however, does not need a similar degree of caution in his interactions. They can, on the contrary, be a great source of annoyance.

You can neither follow the law and attain compliance... nor ignore it and attain bliss. The reason, simply, is ignorant drafting.

So what do companies do? They cannot ignore the law, but they would rather not follow this one literally. As seen above, common sense itself precludes a company to follow a literal interpretation of these rules. The only option is to utilize tools such as teleological interpretation, harmonious construction, systematic interpretation and suchlike.

No room for ignorance

So there is a law requiring interpretation and there are tools to interpret it -- isn't that how most legal frameworks are anyway? Perhaps they are, but this one is of immense impact and importance, and one of our most vital modern laws. And while the adequacy and contents of the framework are frequently debated, the least the laws could do is to be clear and unambiguous.

Data is the new oil, and the new currency. And with cyber-crime posing constant threats, and the BigData wave fast approaching, we cannot afford to be interpreting the shockingly absurd legal drafting and second guessing the laws. Companies should know what companies should do.

If our path ahead is blocked with any trouble, all the time before we find it out is always pure gain.

- Publius Terentius Afer, Hycra, 160 BCE

While Gray may have also been inspired by Terence, our gain is in not avoiding the path of trouble, but confronting it.

The BBC recently released a list of the 100 greatest films of the 21^st century i.e. from the year 2000 onwards. The list was selected by a panel of 177 international film critics including a handful from India. To say that I am utterly disappointed with the picks would be an understatement. More than anything, the list reflects the jury's lack of understanding of contemporary world cinema. The choices made by some of the Indian critics, especially, are almost hilarious. So I have endeavoured to write this piece with the hope of examining what actually went wrong.

A cursory skim-through of the list tells us that it is heavily lopsided in Hollywood's favour. The influence of the IMDB Top 250 cannot be denied. Unfortunately, the jury seems to have given greater weightage to popularity rather than cinematic merit. Perhaps, it is because of the jury's lack of exposure to the best of contemporary global cinema. Or maybe it is a case of lack of understanding of the contemporary world cinema on the part of the eminent jury members. After all, one cannot expect all 177 of them to be well versed with the recent developments in cinema. They don't teach that at school, do they? Even in film appreciation classes, world cinema is seldom touched upon. Whatever may be the case, the end result is a disaster.

The moment you see a film like 'The Wolf of Wall Street' on a major "Top 100" list, you begin to sense something fishy.

The moment you see a film like The Wolf of Wall Street on a major "Top 100" list, you begin to sense something fishy. And then you suddenly spot The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, and you can hear your hopes dashing against the ground. Wait, the list also has Carol, Spotlight, Brooklyn and Her! That's what I call adding insult to injury. Another disturbing trend that I noticed in the list is that while the lesser works of some directors found a place, the better ones were omitted. Even a village idiot would put The Departed (even though it is a remake) ahead of The Wolf of Wall Street. While Claire Denis's White Material has found a place on the list, her far superior work, The Intruder, is missing. Similarly, some of the better Lars von Trier films are missing.

We are in the 21^st century and the grammar of cinema is fast changing; special effects have become an integral part of filmmaking. And yet the list overlooks visually groundbreaking films such as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Avatar and Hugo. Clearly, it is more than an oversight.

The list overlooks visually groundbreaking films such as 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy, 'Avatar' and 'Hugo'. Clearly, it is more than an oversight.

The jury also seems to have overlooked some very important filmmakers working today, including Mike Leigh, Naomi Kawase, Carlos Reygadas, Giuseppe Tornatore, and Semih Kaplanoğlu. The greatest shock, as far as I am concerned, is the absence of the late Chilean master filmmaker Raúl Ruiz's Mysteries of Lisbon, which is believed by many to be the first and the only true epic film of the 21^st century.

If one looks closely at the poll results, one observes that while some of the jury members voted very intelligently, a larger section took their mandate rather casually. Take the case of the jury members from India. Of the five voters, two seems to have cast their votes without applying much thought. While their bias towards Indian films is pretty understandable, what is really strange is their tilt towards Hindi cinema. One expects better than that from seasoned film critics. If critics act so cavalierly, we cannot really blame the audience for their deteriorating tastes, can we?

But every cloud has a silver lining. While certain deserving films are expected to have their rightful place on such a list (such as There Will Be Blood, Pan's Labyrinth, The Great Beauty, etc.), it is quite heartening to see, in particular, films such as The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, The Return, Only Lovers Left Alive, A History of Violence, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, The Tree of Life, The Turin Horse, Leviathan, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Certified Copy. Hopefully, next time the BBC will come up with a better compilation. Perhaps, they can take a leaf out of this eclectic list created by film blogger Jugu Abraham.

Here, reproduced for your convenience, is the full list of 100 films:

100. Toni Erdmann (Maren Ade, 2016)

100. Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky, 2000)

100. Carlos (Olivier Assayas, 2010)

99. The Gleaners and I (Agnès Varda, 2000)

98. Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002)

97. White Material (Claire Denis, 2009)

96. Finding Nemo (Andrew Stanton, 2003)

95. Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson, 2012)

94. Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson, 2008)

93. Ratatouille (Brad Bird, 2007)

92. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)

91. The Secret in Their Eyes (Juan José Campanella, 2009)

90. The Pianist (Roman Polanski, 2002)

89. The Headless Woman (Lucrecia Martel, 2008)

88. Spotlight (Tom McCarthy, 2015)

87. Amélie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001)

86. Far From Heaven (Todd Haynes, 2002)

85. A Prophet (Jacques Audiard, 2009)

84. Her (Spike Jonze, 2013)

83. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)

82. A Serious Man (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2009)

81. Shame (Steve McQueen, 2011)

80. The Return (Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2003)

79. Almost Famous (Cameron Crowe, 2000)

78. The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, 2013)

77. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Julian Schnabel, 2007)

76. Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

75. Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2014)

74. Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine, 2012)

73. Before Sunset (Richard Linklater, 2004)

72. Only Lovers Left Alive (Jim Jarmusch, 2013)

71. Tabu (Miguel Gomes, 2012)

70. Stories We Tell (Sarah Polley, 2012)

69. Carol (Todd Haynes, 2015)

68. The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson, 2001)

67. The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)

66. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003)

65. Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold, 2009)

64. The Great Beauty (Paolo Sorrentino, 2013)

63. The Turin Horse (Béla Tarr and Ágnes Hranitzky, 2011)

62. Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

61. Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2013)

60. Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2006)

59. A History of Violence (David Cronenberg, 2005)

58. Moolaadé (Ousmane Sembène, 2004)

57. Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow, 2012)

56. Werckmeister Harmonies (Béla Tarr, director; Ágnes Hranitzky, co-director, 2000)

55. Ida (Paweł Pawlikowski, 2013)

54. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2011)

53. Moulin Rouge! (Baz Luhrmann, 2001)

52. Tropical Malady (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2004)

51. Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

50. The Assassin (Hou Hsiao-hsien, 2015)

49. Goodbye to Language (Jean-Luc Godard, 2014)

48. Brooklyn (John Crowley, 2015)

47. Leviathan (Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2014)

46. Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami, 2010)

45. Blue Is the Warmest Color (Abdellatif Kechiche, 2013)

44. 12 Years a Slave (Steve McQueen, 2013)

43. Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

42. Amour (Michael Haneke, 2012)

41. Inside Out (Pete Docter, 2015)

40. Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)

39. The New World (Terrence Malick, 2005)

38. City of God (Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund, 2002)

37. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2010)

36. Timbuktu (Abderrahmane Sissako, 2014)

35. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000)

34. Son of Saul (László Nemes, 2015)

33. The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)

32. The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006)

31. Margaret (Kenneth Lonergan, 2011)

30. Oldboy (Park Chan-wook, 2003)

29. WALL-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008)

28. Talk to Her (Pedro Almodóvar, 2002)

27. The Social Network (David Fincher, 2010)

26. 25th Hour (Spike Lee, 2002)

25. Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)

24. The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

23. Caché (Michael Haneke, 2005)

22. Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003)

21. The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson, 2014)

20. Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

19. Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015)

18. The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

17. Pan's Labyrinth (Guillermo Del Toro, 2006)

16. Holy Motors (Leos Carax, 2012)

15. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu, 2007)

14. The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer, 2012)

13. Children of Men (Alfonso Cuarón, 2006)

12. Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007)

11. Inside Llewyn Davis (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2013)

10. No Country for Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2007)

9. A Separation (Asghar Farhadi, 2011)

8. Yi Yi: A One and a Two (Edward Yang, 2000)

7. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

6. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)

5. Boyhood (Richard Linklater, 2014)

4. Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001)

3. There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

2. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai, 2000)

1. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)

A version of this article was first published in A Potpourri of Vestiges.

KEYLONG -- A Bailey bridge of Rohtang Tunnel project collapsed yesterday when a truck carrying material was passing through it but no casualty was reported.

"The Bailey bridge providing approach to the tunnel at the north portal near Telling village at Sissu in Lahaul and Spiti suddenly collapsed but there was no loss of life," Chief Engineer of Rohtang Project Brigadier D. N. Bhatt said, adding the truck fell into a ditch.

Shimla,Himachal Pradesh: Part of supply bridge for Rohtang tunnel project washes away due to floods in river Chandra pic.twitter.com/UUnKpzk37t

— ANI (@ANI_news) August 29, 2016

The truck would be salvaged and the bridge would be restored in next four-five days, he said, noting the progress of work would not be hampered.

A bailey bridge is a temporary bridge of lattice steel designed for rapid assembly from prefabricated parts, used especially in military operations.

The tunnel is being constructed at Rohtang Pass, which remains close for six months due to snow, to provide round the year access.

The 8.9-km-long tunnel will connect Manali with Lahaul and Spiti Valley and will reduce the length of Manali-Sarchu- Leh road by 46 km.

The south portal of Rohtang tunnel is located at a distance of 25 km from Manali at an altitude of 3,060 metres, while the north portal is located near Telling village at an altitude of 3,071 metres.

Also on HuffPost India.