You tell me how Anna Hazare is correct

You tell me how Anna Hazare is correct. You tell me how fasting is non-violent.

During the first stage body eats from liver glycogen and muscle protein supplements, second stage takes off fat and body proteins, third stage causes hair fall and renal failure, and fourth stage causes non-recoverable ailments or death. Your body eats itself inside out, albeit slowly, till it has nothing else to eat. Multiple organs start to fail one-by-one, causing liver and kidney failure, eventually leading to coma and ultimately death. Which part of this is non-violent?

Is violence only in blood? Should the brain spurt out or should the stomach gash if you need to deem it violent? Is it acceptable if I put someone in a room without food or water, so he dies a slow death? Will you go to Jantar Mantar and claim loudly "Hey, remember there is no blood, so he cannot be booked"? Are you OK with that and call it a non-violent death?

Is violence only when done to others and not self-inflicted? Would you go humpty-dumpty on a march supporting me if I threaten the government that I am going to put myself on fire in 10 days in full public view in Jantar Mantar in the national capital, if the country's demands are not met? Or would you come in masses to the Tihar jail because the Government arrested me for fear of a backlash or violence? Remember, the only guy talking about non-violence there is Anna Hazare. If the situation goes out of control, you and me are not going to sit down taking the Lathi Charge. Gone are those days of the British, we will fight back and won't hesitate to draw blood, for we are all animals inside and only then human outside. We are not capable of saying a sorry to the guy we accidentally brush on the road with our car. We don't mind spitting on the road. So we won't sit there and protest in a non-violent way if things go wrong.

Let Anna Hazare fast next to me for 10 days. I will eat sitting next to him for the same 10 days, and then set myself on fire because the Jan Lokpal bill is not exectued the only way I want, paying no heed to the constitutional limitations or alternatives. Would that make me any less a martyr? I die a quick death, he dies a slow death, but it's death after all for the same cause. And none else did it, both of us do it to ourselves. Would you all come and support me and pour kerosene on me? If your answer is no, then you have absolutely no hell-of-a-damn right to go on a march supporting someone else's fast. Remember you are taking full responsibility for someone's death when you are doing that.

This is probably the biggest stage we have got so far to talk about corruption. Why is no-one talking about the practice of giving bribes? This should also be talked about in all the marches and candle vigils. Now that we have mobilized so many activists, why not take government offices one by one on a weekly basis, declare them as corruption-free zone, station ourselves there in groups and advise the common man coming there not to pay bribes? If one knows everyone else is not paying a bribe, no-one is going to pay it. No givers means no takers. It cannot be stopped from a personal front whereas a mass-motive is needed. Corruption is a two-edged sword, corrective measures are needed on the giver's side too. If you would go join the movement on a Saturday morning, march all the way, come back home, eat your dinner and pay that bribe in the RTO office on Monday so you could get to office early - Corruption cannot be stopped with a thousand Lokpal bills. Stop the giver, punish the taker.

So, could someone please explain how fasting is democratic and non-violent? Or how is it not blackmail when you are holding the government to ransom? On a personal note, I have no take on the Lokpal bill, because I don't know my country's law or constitution. It's probably correct, but with a few necessary modifications to follow the constitutional laws. Remember no-one is above the constitution. But don't sucker me saying fasting is non-violent. It is extremely violent, utterly non-democratic and a full-sense blackmail! And I have absolute regret for the only fellow dying out there. You guys are eating, right?

Stateful and Stateless Condition Checks

if(cond1 && cond2)

{

object.setState(true);

}

is not the same as:

object.setState(cond1 && cond2);

The second block sets the state of the object to true if both "cond1" and "cond2" are true, else it sets state to false. Either way, the state of the object is altered and the previous state is lost.

The first block sets the state of the object to true if both "cond1" and "cond2" are true, else IT DOES NOTHING. The state of the object is not altered otherwise.

There is a small difference, and it hurts.

PS: Why did I share this? Just so you know. As Senthil says, "Inpormason .. is .. wealth"