tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231190002024-03-08T01:01:48.625+05:30multilateral musingsThus spaketh Smoochy...<br>
<i>Opinions on anything and everything flavored with passion, intelligence and a bit of humor.</i>Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.comBlogger201125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-33131443833344629582019-12-07T05:36:00.001+05:302019-12-07T05:49:11.217+05:30About rape and responsibilityI've been meaning to share my views on the public reaction to the recent Hyderabad rape. While the crime itself was heinous, and we desperately need to do something to curb this rape menace, I didn't agree with the calls for public hanging, lynching etc. that I was hearing from so many, including prominent personalities and political leaders. Today, the 4 rapists were killed in a police encounter, and the wide positive reaction to it is deeply disturbing.<br />
<br />
Let's think about a few other situations. We've heard about such encounters in Gujarat, UP, Kashmir and north-east etc. several times in the past - and I'd like to believe most educated people don't favor this sort of approach to justice. When it comes to mob lynchings in the last couple of years, especially when the victims are religious minorities and the reason given had something to do with beef - most educated people unequivocally condemned the phenomenon and criticized everyone involved, and even those not directly involved, like PM Modi. I don't often agree with the 'liberal, secular intellectual community' in India, but in this instance we're on the same page.<br />
<br />
Why, then, are people supporting mob justice and extra-judicial killings in this case? This is also illegal, and therefore wrong.<br />
<br />
One may argue that what these men did was a terrible crime, but eating beef is not. That is some people's opinion. In the gau-rakshak's opinion, killing and eating 'gau mata' is also a terrible crime, and the perpetrator deserves similar treatment. To say that one person's opinion matters and the gau-rakshak's doesn't is unfair and arrogant.<br />
<br />
This is why we are governed by laws, not personal opinions, and equality before the law is one of the cornerstones of civilized society. People who commit crimes must be caught and punished - even hanged - but within the framework of the law. When people start over-riding the law and principles of justice, it is a slippery slope. You simply can't condone an illegal act in one situation and condemn it in the other. The message this sends is 'it is ok to break the law and do what you feel like' - and someone will soon use it to justify something you never intended to support, and it may well even harm you. The law is what protects you - you can't disregard it as and when you feel like.<br />
<br />
I'm sure the next argument is that the law has failed to protect us. The problem isn't actually the laws - ours are as good as any in the world. The problem lies with their implementation, and the widespread, deeply ingrained corruption of everyone involved - the political class, the administrators, the judiciary, the police force and almost every single one of us.<br />
<br />
Let's start with traffic rules - driving on the wrong side, driving under influence, jumping traffic lights, taking turns where not permitted, driving before attaining legal age or without a license & necessary paperwork. I'm sure almost every reader would have been guilty of at least one of these at some point. Many even refuse to wear helmets or seat-belts - which are mandated by law for your own protection. How do you blame anyone else, then?<br />
<br />
I'm not trying to trivialize rape & murder by comparing it to jumping a red light. The point is simply this - everyone must respect all rules and laws at all times, and this is a culture change we all need to bring about, starting with ourselves. Once we start making concessions, and defending our own illegal acts, it becomes difficult to draw a line, and someone will take it too far.<br />
<br />
We know our public services, including law & order, are in a bad state. The people providing these services aren't from Mars - they're like us, part of the same society and they too need money to pay for their houses and their kids' schools. While the corruption we see is deplorable, it is not hard to understand the lack of motivation and sincerity among the lower tiers when one considers their salaries and working conditions.<br />
<br />
If we want more, better public services, the government needs money to pay for these, and it collects this through taxes. But evading tax is not just acceptable in our society, for most people it is a matter of pride and an art form! Almost everyone I know fakes rent receipts and engages in cash-based transactions that aren't reported to the tax authorities. The honest person is considered a fool. We do this, and then blame the government, the police force and all for having failed us. Yes, they do a lot of wrong, but we all share some of the responsibility for contributing to these problems. Until we realize and accept this, and start doing what we can in our individual capacities, these problems can never be solved.<br />
-----------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
All that said, the fact is that those 4 men are dead. A lot of people are happy that justice is done, and will get on with their lives. But the problem isn't solved AT ALL. I've been paying attention to news of rapes & murders since the Nirbhaya incident several years back. Almost every day, with depressing consistency, there is a terrible incident reported somewhere in the newspaper - infants, old bed-ridden women - all sorts get victimized. The acts are brutal, often followed by murder. <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/rajasthan-shocker-six-year-old-girl-abducted-raped-killed-in-tonk/articleshow/72325331.cms" target="_blank">This</a> was the news, I think a day after the Hyderabad incident.<br />
<br />
I read a stat that ~30,000 incidents of rape were reported in 2017. That's about 100 every day, and this is just the official stat - I'm sure the true count would be a large multiple of this. As bad as I feel for Hyderabad victim, that is but one case. It is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Over-the-top, knee-jerk reactions to the odd case, once every couple of years, are not going to solve the problem. We have to understand this problem, and need sustained, well thought-out action to try and solve it. Mob lynching and police encounters aren't the answer.<br />
<br />
I'm not qualified or capable of coming up with the proper solution, but I'd like to share some thoughts to get the discussion started.<br />
<br />
Why do these things happen? It's certainly not chow mein or jeans, as some idiots believe. There are two general reasons I can think of:<br />
1. The perpetrator does not have a well developed sense of right and wrong<br />
2. They know they will most likely get away it<br />
<br />
The second is a problem with the police & legal system, and for sure there is massive room for improvement. However, this alone will not do. No 'system' is capable of preventing all crime. A few lakh or even crores of cops and judges can't mind the behavior of a billion plus people - it is logistically impossible. Even if it was possible, we wouldn't want to become a police state, with every action being watched and every misdemeanor being strictly punished. We want to live free of fear - not replace one kind of fear with another.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to the sense of right and wrong. I have visited several 'developed', safer countries. In Japan, if you lose something, it will almost always be found and either returned to you or kept in a safe place for you to collect. In most of Europe, you can travel on the local train or bus without a ticket - it's not generally checked, and chances that you get caught in a random inspection are quite low. In these countries, there is a lot you could possibly get away with - but people trust each other to do the right thing. If you ever get caught riding without a ticket, there may be a small fine, but everyone will give you dirty looks, and may even pass a remark about 'poor upbringing' - and I've heard that people are more worried about this embarrassment than the fines. It doesn't take 'strict laws' and 'strong police' if the sense of right and wrong is well-developed among the people at large.<br />
<br />
Closely tied to righteousness is the concept of common good. People in those countries respect queues, give pedestrians the right of way and are generally more trustful of and kind to each other, because everyone understands that society works better this way and knows they will receive the benefits when roles are reversed.<br />
<br />
This is mostly missing in our society. Most people take shortcuts, seek and enjoy VIP treatment, cheat in exams - all with no sense of guilt, because they give zero fucks about the interests of others or the common good. This has to change, and we need to start doing whatever each of us can individually.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-12656492279497447422019-08-25T05:04:00.000+05:302019-08-28T18:09:19.790+05:30Artistes, Politics and OpinionsI recently watched Sacred Games season 2 and thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I'd really been looking forward to it for the past couple of months, and tend to get this excited ahead of almost every Anurag Kashyap release. He's probably my favorite maker of Indian movies and shows since he made Dev D and Gangs of Wasseypur.<br />
<br />
But the admiration stops there. Much as I like his work, I'm no fan of his antics on Twitter and his political opinions and actions. I keep reading about it in the news and it just annoys me. That's what this post is about.<br />
<br />
For a moment, think about some great doctor you know. If you had a medical issue, especially one in their area of expertise, you'd want their opinion and treat it with respect. Would you care about which political party they voted for in the last election, or which movies they like? Probably not. Because you respect their medical expertise, and that's all.<br />
<br />
I feel the same way about celebrities, especially the ones from the film industry. They're good at their craft and I appreciate their skills and opinions <i>in that domain</i>. So, if Anurag talks about actors or film-makers, or Vishal Dadlani judges singers on The Stage, I'd respect their opinions. But why exactly do they think I care about their opinion on politics, or any other domain for that matter? I wouldn't let them try to diagnose or treat a medical condition I had, and they probably wouldn't even try to - medicine is not their area of expertise.<br />
<br />
But then, neither is politics - as demonstrated ably by Vishal Dadlani. He was initially one of the people leading the whole AAP 'movement', <a href="https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/vishal-dadlani-resigns-member-aap-trapped-religious-controversy/" target="_blank">said something very politically incorrect, was admonished by Kejriwal & all, and dissociated himself from the party to avoid causing further damage</a>. This should not have come as a surprise. In fact, this is what you'd expect to happen when someone good at music somehow starts thinking he's an expert on politics.<br />
<br />
It is understandable that celebrities develop a bit of a God complex and start believing that they know better than ordinary people about just about anything. This is not limited to Bollywood - it is a <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/entertainment/meryl-streep-golden-globes/index.html" target="_blank">global</a> phenomenon. Many celebs feel entitled to express whatever nonsense is going on in their head, and to have 'ordinary people' take their opinions seriously. This is a fallacy. Anyone who has studied politics, administration, management, economics, policy-making etc., or has a few years' experience in these areas, is actually <i>better qualified</i> to talk about these subjects than an artiste with no such academic credentials or work experience. If such a person disagrees with something a celebrity has said, they have every right to express themselves on a platform like Twitter, and put the celebrity in their place.<br />
<br />
Of course, everyone should be civil and sensible. Many aren't, and there's no excuse for that. But that is reality, and one must learn to deal with it. No sensible person would walk alone through a shady neighborhood late at night - we know it's not safe. Similarly, if you want to avoid unpleasantness, don't express strong opinions on touchy subjects publicly.<br />
<br />
Some may argue that popular figures have a social responsibility, and must use the platforms they have to 'do good'. I agree, but only to an extent.<br />
<br />
First argument - look at Sachin Tendulkar. He was great, loved by almost all, and has pretty much kept his trap shut about everything other than cricket - <i>for decades</i>. No one is obliged to get involved in matters they're not experts in.<br />
<br />
Second - there are things that are almost universally acknowledged and accepted as 'doing good'. So, if anyone wants to support causes like education, equal opportunity*, better healthcare etc. - by all means, go ahead. But complaining about everything Narendra Modi does because <i>you feel</i> he was responsible for mass murder in 2002 - even though the man was investigated thoroughly and absolved by the Supreme Court, and has been democratically elected with big margins <i>twice </i>now to lead the country - that's not everybody's idea of 'doing good'. Avoid grey areas when you get up on that imaginary platform.<br />
<br />
Third, if you really feel responsible and must speak up, <i>act responsibly</i>. Spend some time and effort researching the subject first-hand. Get hold of facts. Apply logic and rigour. Don't just go by hearsay or RT your peers. Prepare your argument, and effective counters for the opposite view - this is the hardest part. Until you've fully understood the opposing view and critically examined the facts - you can't be certain what's right or wrong. If you only offer a biased or ill-informed opinion, it may be convenient, but will never be enough to win over opponents.<br />
<br />
Finally, if you truly believe in a cause and must express yourself to the world at large, then show courage when the time comes to face the trolls. Don't quit social media or run away with your tail between your legs - that is no way to be a role model.<br />
<br />
When I read about political opinions from the likes of Anurag Kashyap, Swara Bhaskar, Naseeruddin Shah, Vishal Dadlani (most of whom I quite like <i>as artistes</i>), the award wapsi gang and <a href="https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/celebrities/story/aparna-sen-27-others-write-open-letter-to-support-anurag-kashyap-culture-of-violence-spreading-dangerously-1582675-2019-08-20" target="_blank">this band of idiots</a> who seem to think that a few nasty tweets equal real danger in the physical world - I just wish they'd shut the fuck up and focus on their profession. And read <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978" target="_blank">this</a> great piece about 'opinions'.<br />
<br />
------------<br />
*'Equal opportunity' is not the same as 'equality'. For another future post...Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-26579284552094227902016-10-01T21:50:00.001+05:302016-10-01T21:52:50.760+05:30Artistes, terrorists & aam aadmis<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="er71h" data-offset-key="5uthh-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5uthh-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
We've recently seen a lot of noisy debate about Pakistani artistes working in India. I feel t<span style="font-family: inherit;">he quality of debate has been rather low - one set of people saying 'all Pakis are our enemies' and others like Bhai saying 'artistes are not terrorists' - both rather silly ways of looking at things, trying to over-simplify a complex issue and ignoring some basic realities. I offer my two bits here.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5uthh-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Arnab & the patriotic brigade are asking the question 'Why can't people like Fawad Khan make a statement condemning the terror attack on Uri, when they've had so much to say about Peshawar, Paris, Orlando etc.'? I think that's a rhetorical question and the answer is rather obvious. Those attacks were terrorists vs. innocent civilians. Of course, everyone condemns that. In Uri, it was an attack on our soldiers. According to Pakistanis, the attackers are Kashmiri 'freedom fighters', and an attack by them against 'oppressive' Indian forces in Kashmir is perfectly legit. There's just NO WAY any true pakistani is going to condemn it, and it's stupid of us to expect them to. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="er71h" data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The other argument is that we Indians condemned the terrorist attack on a school in Pak, and they should reciprocate. Again, that's comparing apples & oranges. That was terrorists vs. school-kids and teachers. But if, say, some Baloch rebels attacked & killed some Pak soldiers (and I'm sure there would've been such instances recently) - how would we Indians feel about that? Would we express sympathy & solidarity with the Pak soldiers? I'm not so sure.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It's also equally stupid for their supporters (especially some of the entitled & selfish bollywood types) to pretend their silence means nothing or offer arguments like 'they can't speak against their govt cos they're worried about the security of their loved one back in Pakistan'. This latter argument assumes that these pakistani artistes agree with us in the first place, and would speak against their govt if they could. I don't believe that is true, and some bollywood types are being too generous with the benefit of doubt, their judgment probably clouded by selfish and/or commercial interests.</span><span data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="er71h" data-offset-key="3980u-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3980u-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="3980u-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Now, I'm not arguing who or what is right or wrong. Ideally - all violence is wrong and we should all condemn it. But things are complicated in the real world & shit happens. We all take sides. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let's just accept the reality that these artistes are, after all, Pakistani, and they have a certain perspective on Kashmir that we disagree with. We're not on the same side on this matter, and the difference isn't going to be reconciled anytime soon. </span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3980u-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Once we accept that, we have to address the more pertinent question - what kind of relationship we want to have with them? Are we okay having them sing and star in our movies, and achieve success in adulation in India, knowing where they stand vis-a-vis Kashmir & other bilateral disputes? What kind of relationship do we want to have with Pakistanis in general? Let's debate THIS, and please let's do it realistically. </span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I, for one, am not for being friendly with Pakistanis. My father was in the Indian Army, and served in Kargil. I grew up in army cantonments. Some nice people I knew got killed for no reason I could find acceptable, and I refuse to get over it. I'm not blaming Fawad Khan. I'm not saying he's a terrorist. But he's a pakistani, and unless he says otherwise - it's fair to assume what he (and pretty much all pakistanis) feel about Kashmir & bilateral disputes with India. Their support to the other side is costing India lives, and I refuse to be friends with, or a fan of such people, and certainly don't care to offer them economic opportunities at our own cost.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Some intellectuals also try to distinguish between the Pakistani state, military and ordinary people. Some even argue for us to think of pakistani artistes or cricketers differently. I think that's mostly nonsense. Yes, all Pakistanis probably don't have the same level of animosity to India or equally dangerous intentions. But when you start discussing serious issues, there isn't much doubt which side they're on. The government is elected after all, and the military enjoys massive popularity. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">When push comes to shove, nearly all of them would want to hurt us, and most won't hesitate to support action that destroys us. Already, the amount of damage they've caused and continue causing on the border and through terrorist attacks in our cities is at a level a self-respecting country shouldn't tolerate. It isn't going to drop if we keep pretending everything is hunky-dory and going out of our way to be friendly with people who support it at any level.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I accept that this is a rather emotional stand, and can't defend it with purely rational arguments. There are some good liberal arguments against it. But a lot of these rational/liberal arguments would only be valid in an ideal world. We don't live in one.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Many Indians may not agree with me - each of us lies somewhere on the spectrum between idealist/pacifist and extremist/fundamentalist, some leaning one way and some the other - and this too probably varies for different issues and over time. It's ok. In fact, it's a good thing to have forces pulling in opposite directions to ensure we don't ever get carried away too far either way. We shouldn't start believing all pakistanis are bad people and our mortal enemies - that's not true. Fly Emirates often and you're sure to meet some very nice, civilized, helpful ones! We should also avoid war-mongering or any unwarranted/extreme action (especially violence) - we should remember who we are as a nation and why we're proud of it.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="f3v57-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The people on Arnab's debates ARE going too far in one direction or the other. Let's restore some sense, please.</span></div>
</div>
Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-36441710648521753002013-12-14T19:45:00.000+05:302013-12-16T12:09:23.437+05:30About Brand ValueLately, I've been involved in a lot of shopping. That's made me think hard about brands and brand value. In this piece, I write down my thoughts and opinions on the subject, based on my own experiences as a marketer as well as a customer. People have written entire books on the subject, so this may be a long post!<br />
<br />
Like all good consultants, I've come up with my own framework to analyze brand value. And in keeping with marketing tradition, I use 4 P's<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLAKbrkW2Sm9zC9Fu8U5wgUnZ_RFK8CeGdxEa_0LGYuCFyB9Xfa4vzEPND3LMd2yy4gdLP6tYqJSweIB3CB14YLa2edAskxUTxnHCW7AKPeZo6pl1HBR_AuW37VsGtraqUdPxu6g/s1600/Brand+Value+4Ps.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLAKbrkW2Sm9zC9Fu8U5wgUnZ_RFK8CeGdxEa_0LGYuCFyB9Xfa4vzEPND3LMd2yy4gdLP6tYqJSweIB3CB14YLa2edAskxUTxnHCW7AKPeZo6pl1HBR_AuW37VsGtraqUdPxu6g/s1600/Brand+Value+4Ps.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<b><u><i>Product</i></u></b><br />
The word 'brand' derives from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse">Old Norse</a> "brandr" meaning "to burn". Originally, a brand was just a mark used to denote who the product was made by. It translated into an origin, and <i>associations</i> of quality and specific attributes. This remains true even today - a bar of soap branded Dove contains moisturiser, is gentle on the skin and is made by Unilever.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These associations are built over time, and are based on the characteristics of the product and its performance. These, in turn, can usually be attributed to <i>materials used & specifications</i>, and <i>knowledge & skill</i> of the producer. This is <i>always</i> true of both goods <i>and services </i>to various degrees<i>. </i>A good TV uses high quality components to deliver good picture & sound quality, and you need designers with good understanding of user needs and available technology to deliver a product that has popular features, and good manufacturing processes to ensure it works well for many years. I buy certain brands of shirts because I know they use high-quality cotton, don't fade after a few washes and retain the stiffness & shape of the collars, cuffs etc. because they use high grade materials. Restaurants are a service business, but even in this case you need good, fresh meat/produce and skilled chefs, friendly waiters etc. to succeed. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Any compromise or gap in <i>materials/specs</i> and/or <i>producer knowledge/skills</i> directly affects product performance and eventually brand reputation. Marketers sometimes lose sight of this and focus all their energies on building brand image, running campaigns, communication etc. - and don't pay enough attention to the product itself. This is a recipe for failure in the long run.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As an example, I had considered the Asus 'Transformer' line when I was buying my first tablet, and again recently when I was looking to upgrade. On both occasions, their products had great specs - processor, RAM, screen resolution etc. - and offered a few unique features at a very competitive price, which was enough to get into the consideration set. However, both times, I read several buyers complaints about defective units, dead pixels, light 'bleed' at the edges of the screen. Clearly, their manufacturing process isn't as reliable as Apple's or Samsung's, and their quality control is also weak. No matter what the marketer does now, I'm not buying. <i>They need to fix the product quality first</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another example I'll quote is Energy Drinks. <a href="http://mavernik.blogspot.in/2009/07/red-bull.html" target="_blank">I love and admire the brand Red Bull</a>. But when I'm in the UK, Relentless is available to me. With its 50% juice composition, it just tastes far, far better than Red Bull - and is healthier too. No matter how many F1 championships Sebastian Vettel and Adrian Newey win, <i>I will drink Relentless because it tastes much better</i>. The superior product wins.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u><i>Pleasure</i></u></b></div>
<div>
In this day and age, we have greater production capacity than demand for most products. Consumers are spoilt for choice, and they demand - justifiably - a good end-to-end experience all the way from seeking information about a product (websites etc.), to buying it, using it and getting it repaired when something breaks down, and disposing of it when the time comes. Apple's products succeed because the whole experience is a pleasure at every stage.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When you think about resellers like Croma or cleartrip.com, the product you're buying is the same (an appliance or an air ticket) but you prefer buying it through these stores/sites because it is an enjoyable experience. Needless to say, brands that aren't present where you prefer to shop risk losing out on a potential sale. I book my movie tickets through a 3rd party website which offers me discounts. The same with travel. Cinemas or hotels or airlines that aren't listed on my preferred website mostly lose my business, regardless of what else they've done right.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Marketers must realize their job doesn't end with creation of demand and shipping volumes out the door. They must engage with the customer at every stage of the brand's life. They must have web-sites or catalogues where customers can get information about their products when they're evaluating purchase decisions. The product must be available on the shelf (or site). Using the product must be a good experience. I want to be <i>wowed</i> by performance, durability, features I didn't previously know about, and by prompt service whenever I have a problem. Makemytrip.com has almost displaced cleartrip.com as my favorite travel booking service by sending discount coupons for airport transfers when I book a flight through them. And Google are masters of the 'pleasant surprise' with things like Google Now. On the other hand, I am unlikely to buy Sennheiser products again because a set of earphones I had broke <i>a few days </i>after the one-year warranty ran out, and I didn't find their customer service very helpful. I will avoid such experiences in future, and those brands have negative associations in my mind now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We also must recognize the importance of shared experiences these days. People have always talked about products they've owned with a few others, but now social media have taken this to another level. In my earlier example of Asus Transformer, I made a decision based on reviews posted on Amazon.com by people I have no direct link with. For almost every significant purchase decision these days, I check the web for customer reviews first. I see how many people have bought the product, what is the average score, the proportion of unhappy buyers and read the 'most helpful' (based on other readers' votes) reviews - both positive and negative. Buyers can be very well-informed these days, and if you don't keep them happy, they will hurt your brand and your business. Conversely, happy customers will sway others towards you. Brand loyalty (experience) is no longer the holy grail, you want to achieve brand <i>advocacy </i>(pleasure)<i>.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u><i>Pricing</i></u></b></div>
<div>
I believe pricing must be rational and fair to everyone involved - the buyer, the business owner/investor, and all their employees.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You must have heard the adage - quality comes at a price. As I mentioned earlier, a good product requires good ingredients and skills to produce. Good distribution and service networks, committed staff etc. that provide the pleasure also cost the provider money.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A product's price must be such that it covers the costs incurred to produce, distribute and service it, and the employees committed to producing good quality, innovation, customer satisfaction etc. must be able to pay their bills and lead happy lives. In the West, a lot of people don't buy cheap items produced in sweatshops by exploiting poor workers in less developed countries - and I agree with this. Finally, business isn't charity - the investors/shareholders are in it for profit, and they deserve good returns on their investment if they're helping you meet a need. If I'm happy with a product, I should be willing to pay the fair price.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is one of the reasons why I don't generally support duplicates/knock-offs. If P&G spent money on research to come up with the optimal formula for detergents, and a retail chain copies the formula and sells a similar 'private label' product at a 20% discount, I wouldn't buy it. It's not fair, and if P&G stops investing in R&D, we will not get better products in future. The same logic holds for premiums charged by talented designers for clothes etc.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, the producer must try and achieve efficiency for their costs, and not waste any of the money they get from their buyers. I don't generally buy products from Indian PSUs because I know most of their employees don't work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector, and tax-payers money is wasted to subsidize both the employees and the customers. It is not fair to expect the buyer or the government to pay the price for your inefficiency. You must get a grip on your cost structure.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, some brands command premiums that are just plain ridiculous, and they do this to maximize earnings for a few wealthy investors. Sometimes, these decisions are driven by greed, and sometimes by conceit and an over-developed sense of their worth. E.g., I recently saw a leather belt in a Gucci store that carried a price tag of Rs. 29,000 ($450). I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that I carefully counted the zeros again because I wasn't sure I had read it right the first time. Now, I can get a similar belt in the adjacent Louis Phillipe store for about 1/10th the price. Whatever Gucci is doing - maybe they're using higher-quality leather, investing more in design (although this was just a strip of leather with a plain buckle, so I don't really see the value-add, but maybe there was something there a more discerning eye would see), maybe they're providing a better store experience, some prestige (more on this below) - it can be worth some premium, but this is crazy. The fact that some people have the disposable income to pay such an amount for the product, and the amount adds a bit more to the obnoxious wealth of a talented designer - for me just drives home the realization that we live in a world that is far from fair and where a lot of things just don't make any sense.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thankfully, in most cases, pricing needs to make sense. In a south-east Asian country, we've seen a brand of cola drop from near-monopolistic leadership to a distant 3rd position in terms of market share in less than a decade. People still love the brand, but in times when the economy is tight, they drink others that they feel offer much better value for their money.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Pricing can also lose you a lot of business. When I bought my last TV, I had planned to buy Samsung. I expected the price to be a bit lower than a comparable Sony, but was surprised to find it ~25% higher. Sure, Samsung had introduced voice and gesture based controls and a few other gimmicky features - but in my mind, the Sony was better value for money and I bought that. I will keep this in mind when I'm considering a Samsung product in future and not just assume they're reasonably priced.<br />
<br />
In short, the marketer should consider the alternatives available to the buyer and their prices. So should the buyers!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One of the trickiest cases is Pharma. While I agree that they must be compensated for their R&D expenses for inventing break-though drugs and avoid buying generics, the duration for which they try to hold on to patents, the tricks they use to block competition, and the way they try and squeeze dying patients for every penny they're worth and sometimes more - appears to cross the line and smack of greed. I feel this subject needs needs more critical discussion to arrive at a solution that's fair to everyone.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u><i>Prestige</i></u></b></div>
<div>
There is no getting away from the fact that the brands you are seen with reflect on you, and people make judgments based on that. As a Punjabi, I understand this all too well!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A lot of the time such associations can be positive. I have my wedding coming up soon, and I'd like to buy Tanishq products after seeing their two recent ads - one <a href="http://www.campaignindia.in/Video/361933,tanishq-breaks-new-ground-celebrates-remarriage-with-new-age-collection.aspx" target="_blank">where they show a dusky bride re-marrying</a>, and one <a href="https://twitter.com/TanishqJewelry/status/410736694896254977" target="_blank">where they support LGBT rights</a>. In these cases, it's not just about the products - the brand is helping me express something I believe in, and I'm willing to pay a premium for that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is some prestige associated with most premium products that usually stems from a tradition of high quality, good service, innovation or uniqueness - among other things. People are proud to own Apple products these days, because they represent innovation and the very top of the pyramid in terms of elegant design and user-friendly interfaces. Others can't necessarily achieve this by matching their products or pricing, and this enhances Apple's brand value. Creators/managers of brands must keep this in mind.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While low price is a good strategy when you're dealing in a commodity or aiming for volume leadership, keep in mind that it limits your profitability and also your future profit growth potential. Even if Micromax launched a smartphone tomorrow that matched a Samsung Galaxy in every way at a lower price, a lot of people still may not buy it because the brand is considered cheap, associated with lower-grade components, imitation of other's innovative features and its prestige value is <i>negative </i>in this category.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the other hand, I'm sure the buyer of the Gucci belt feels some pride about owning a Gucci product, and I'm sure Gucci is reaping the benefits of the prestige associated with their brand. However, I feel the price premium in this case crosses the line from prestige into obnoxious vanity, which can hurt a brand in the eyes of many potential customers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A case in point would be imported goods with high customs duties, such as cars and perfumes in India. If you want to spend good money of Davidoff perfumes because you just love their unique scent, I think that's fine. However, keep in mind that a bottle typically costs ~Rs 2,000 if purchased overseas or Duty-free at the airport. The appropriate prestige value is already factored in. Now, if you buy it in a mall for Rs 4,000 - the extra money doesn't go to Davidoff, but to the government which will waste most of it on hare-brained and inefficient schemes and line the pockets of some corrupt leaders. Sure, such a purchase allows you to show off your high disposable income - which may be your objective - but I would not include that in my definition of prestige. The world would be a better place without this phenomenon.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In an ideal world, there would be free trade and I'd have the choice to buy a good German car at the same price the Germans can. While the price would be somewhat premium compared to domestic brands, it would be justified by product superiority, pleasure of use and prestige derived from the brand's history. But paying high customs duties today is only a means of displaying wealth in an obnoxious manner.<br />
<br />
Prestige is an important component of brand value, and it must be a priority for the brand manager, but it is co-created by the users/customers. So, in this case, I feel the responsibility for keeping things rational and keeping the producers in line lies with us. We need to be sensible about how much of our disposable income is spent on brand prestige versus perhaps more important things.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b><i><u>An example</u></i></b><br />
When anyone I know asks me for suggestions for electronics/appliances, the budget is finite and no one has the time to do much research, I recommend they buy the best Samsung product available within their budget.<br />
<b>Product:</b> Will be close to best-in-class, or just a notch below. Good enough for most people.<br />
<b>Pricing:</b> They're not too expensive, and you're unlikely to easily get something much better at the same/lower price.<br />
<b>Pleasure: </b>I've NEVER had a problem with a Samsung product, and I've used a few. LG matches them on product/price usually, but I've had problems once or twice with the units I got.<br />
<b>Prestige:</b> While it won't be a source of great pride, it's certainly not an embarrassment. And I feel they have a better reputation than LG or others in the same price bracket.<br />
I would consider this a success for brand Samsung.</div>
<div>
<b><u><i><br /></i></u></b>
<b><u><i>Closure</i></u></b></div>
<div>
One can look at brand value in two ways, and I think they're inter-linked. To the buyer, it is what they'd be willing to pay to meet a need and derive certain benefits. To the producer, it is a measure of what they can charge customers for their products/services and grow a profitable business. For things to work well for both sides in the long run, the two must be in balance. The above framework should help both brand managers and users to think about brand value in a structured manner and achieve such a balance.<br />
<br />
I haven't tried too hard to isolate these dimensions or define everything formally because these 4Ps are inextricably linked with each other. Product quality & performance affect reputation, which in turn affects price, provides prestige and pleasure. Conversely, pleasure, pricing and brand prestige must be kept in mind while designing products. Also, not all brands have the same goals - some aim at economy for the masses, while others try to be premium and differentiated to please the discerning - so there is no 'ideal' position on any P, and every brand could have its own sweet spot within its category. One must think of brand value in a holistic manner. Hopefully, the above discussion and examples help.<br />
<br />
Do feel free to chime in with your thoughts. I'd love to discuss various brands and adapt the framework as necessary.<br />
<br />
<u style="font-weight: bold;">Request:</u> Do not quote/copy any of the above ideas or content without reference to this post.</div>
Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-49481167990458471242013-08-03T19:09:00.003+05:302013-08-05T21:49:21.595+05:30A Life worth living. Part Tr3s.Lately, I've seen a lot of my friends share articles about work-life balance and the 'busy trap'. Everyone seems to agree that we're all too <i>busy</i> these days, and it isn't quite right. Most articles are written by people who devoted most of their younger years to work, and came to regret it later and now extol the importance of work-life balance. They tend to swing to the other extreme, and don't offer too many suggestions on how one should fix the issue. I'll attempt to do that here.<br />
<br />
This post might appear a bit preachy, and I offer two arguments to defend that:<br />
1. Most of this is things I've learnt by reading recognized experts, whose ideas appealed to me and many others too.<br />
2. I have a better work-life balance than most and - more importantly - I'm <i>happy with it</i>. That's not something a lot of people can honestly say these days.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Most of us have heard the story about how Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree and discovered gravity, and how this led to the birth of modern physics. But what was he doing at that moment? Enjoying a leisurely afternoon cuppa of tea in an orchard with a friend.<br />
<br />
Penicillin is regarded as one of the greatest discoveries in the history of medicine. You may have read that it was discovered by accident - Sir Alexander Fleming had left an open petri-dish unattended for a while and a mould had grown on it. Why was it unattended for a while? He'd been away on vacation with family for a couple of weeks.<br />
<br />
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar claims that the Sudarshan Kriya was revealed to him while he was observing 10 days of silent introspection alongside the Bhadra river. He's built the whole Art of Living empire around it.<br />
<br />
NN Taleb, in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000PDZFCK" target="_blank">Black Swan</a>, contends that history moves forward in irregular leaps through serendipitous discoveries made by maverick thinkers, not the endless labours of busy suits and lab coats.<br />
<br />
If you want to come up with the next big idea or great discovery, and leave your mark on history, you're much more likely to do so in times of idle introspection. That's when you find moments of inspiration and have epiphanies. Make time, and give life a chance to positively surprise you!<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Most people will counter that they just have to much to do. Their work and other things they have to do just fill up all their days. Stephen Covey, in '<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WJVK26" target="_blank">The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People</a>' tells us to always <i>begin with an end in mind</i>. Think about who you want to become and where you want to be in 5, 10, 20 years time. Define your main goals and figure out what will make you <i>truly happy</i>. Sort out your priorities. Then evaluate all the things you're doing today. Which ones are taking you in the desired direction, and which ones are simply drains on your time and energy? Identify the latter, start cutting your losses, and making more time for things that will matter in the long run.<br />
<br />
It also helps to apply the 80/20 principle and the law of diminishing returns. Most people can accomplish most of their important targets with a few hours' work. Then there are activities that also deserve a good amount of time. Finally, there's the things that take up a lot of time and energy, but the pay-off simply isn't worth it. Find ways to cut these out.<br />
<br />
The same applies to goal-setting. It's good to have ambitious targets at work that challenge you and provide you a considerable sense of achievement and pride, but one must be realistic and identify the point of diminishing returns. Hitting 50% of your target is usually a walk in the park. Exceeding it by a bit takes considerable time and effort. Trying to exceed it by more than 20% will usually sap the joy out of your life and badly affect all other aspects of it.<br />
<br />
Covey also suggests a grid - with <i>urgency</i> as one axis and <i>importance</i> as the other. Most of us tend to deal with the urgent on a priority basis and it gives us a buzz. We tend to defer the things that are important but not so urgent. He was talking mainly about building professional capabilities in this quadrant, but the concept applies equally well to life in general.<br />
<br />
To me, it is important to read about a variety of subjects and articulate my own thoughts on this blog. It is also important to read/watch something intelligent and witty everyday because it keeps me mentally sharp. These things make me happy and help me become better-informed and more versatile - which also greatly helps my productivity & success at work, and makes me better company. Everyone needs to find things like these to unwind, recharge and grow, and make time for them. We've all heard the saying 'All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy' early in our lives, but seem to have forgotten it along the way.<br />
<br />
I'm going to talk a bit about relationships here - because they are very important and tend to be affected most directly and seriously by our time-allocation choices. We're designed to be social and our joy increases when we have special people in our lives to share them with. We also need support systems when things get tough. But meaningful relationships need time investment and nurture.<br />
<br />
I don't have siblings and have been living on my own for almost 15 years now. I depend on a few close friends as my support system. Right now, one of them is going through a painful divorce, another one is evaluating investments offers for his business, and a third is coping with a new life in the USA. I'm happy to be there for them at these times, and they're there for me when I need them. You can't achieve this by scheduling them into the 3rd Saturday of every month, for a couple of hours in the afternoon. I don't have a family yet, but I'm sure being a good partner or parent works the same way.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Urgency, on the other hand, is often artificial and created by ourselves by either trying to do too much, or having our purpose & priorities messed up. I lived that kind of life for a few years. My day started with paranoia about discovering a bomb in the inbox (an error in recently submitted analysis, or an unhappy client), followed by about 12 hours in the office, and ending with anxiety about the next day. There was always more to be done, fires to be fought and something to be frustrated with. It affected my lifestyle and started taking a toll on my health and general well-being. I took some time off and decided to draw some lines in the sand, and am much happier today.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I see a lot of my peers already having trouble keeping their lives straight. Some have had serious health issues and surgeries, some have had their marriages break down, and some others have just become jaded and cynical pale shadows of their former selves. We're just one decade out of college, and have about 3 more to go, and responsibilities are only going to increase both at work and at home. It's way too early for people to start burning out.<br />
<br />
Being busy is an unhealthy addiction. It gives you a buzz and makes you feel wanted and purposeful, but in most cases that is due to blinkered vision. Just think back 5 years. Most of what kept you busy then probably appeared crucial, but will likely seem almost trivial now. The same will probably be true when you look back 5 years from now.<br />
<br />
Think about the managers you've had. Some must be busy bodies, always on their toes, always buzzing and usually quite successful. People respect them and admire their energy, but most wouldn't want to <i>be them</i>. On the other hand, there are the leaders who always have a calm demeanour, never get ruffled, are equally successful or more, and always leave the office in time to spend quality time with their families or pursuing other interests. These are the guys who really <i>inspire</i> others and get farther in life. Which one would you rather be?<br />
<br />
We are designed to appreciate outcomes and rewards obtained by others, not their efforts. In college and at work, the hard-workers were pejoratively labelled 'fighters' and the lazy versatile geniuses were labelled 'studs'. It's because the latter found ways to achieve good results more efficiently - with lesser time and effort, and had time for a greater variety of activities and all-round development. Most people can do that by using some of the principles outlined earlier.<br />
<br />
I feel American culture is partly to blame for the current state of affairs. Americans make their jobs their lives, and tend to equate what they do with who they are - and seem to be missing the bigger picture. We Asians are worse because we have it upside-down. Our cultures tend to measure and reward effort as much or more than outcomes. It's even a central tenet of Hindu philosophy! I personally admire European and Australian societies because of the emphasis on culture and sport respectively, and I feel that's a more holistic perspective.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Another negative effect of always being busy is people have little time to think. I work in the analytics industry and we bill our clients based on man-hours utilized for each project, so there is a perverse incentive to always try to do more. But our real job is not to present clients with more and more information, but to help them make better decisions. Whenever I'm involved in a project, I urge the team to try and find out what decisions our analyses will inform, and try and streamline the output to help our clients make better decisions. There is no point providing more information than needed, or analysis results that are confusing or inconclusive. We should always try and do less but do it right. And then go home, play video games, chat with friends or enjoy a cold beer. I'm sure the situation and challenges are similar in most professions. People are doing too much, but a lot of it is a waste of time. They need to do less, think more and make time to live happier lives.<br />
<br />
This brings me to the subject of smartphones and instant email. Sure, the IT revolution has made our lives better in many ways, but most of these are outside of work and related to our personal/social lives. I'm not sure businesses in general have become much more successful or better at decision-making with the advent of instant messaging. It has made all of us a lot busier, but not much richer intellectually or epistemologically (Ha, really wanted to use that big word!)<br />
<br />
Personally, I was thrilled when I got my first company-paid Blackberry device. It was a status symbol of sorts, and I felt I had arrived. But I soon realized it was an instrument of corporate slavery. The emails followed me wherever I went all the time, immediate responses were expected, and it wasn't such a good thing at all. I still use such devices, but I don't let them control my life any more. I only check email a few times outside the office, and I ask myself 'Do I have to answer this right now, or can it wait till tomorrow morning?' Usually, the answer is that it can wait, and I put the device down and return to the TV. Life is much better this way.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-582032821738109752013-07-28T11:20:00.000+05:302013-07-28T11:22:12.362+05:30The Chivalry ParadoxA friend recently shared a joke on Facebook about a woman who complained about her boss not treating her with the same respect he shows the guys, and went on to tell him how she'd rejected a matrimonial prospect because he wasn't taller than her. The irony of the double standards was lost on her.<br />
<br />
That post has prompted me to write this. As society is evolving, the gender divide and rules governing behaviour seem to be evolving constantly and it's especially tough on us guys to keep up. I call this the chivalry paradox, and I'll quote a couple of examples here.<br />
<br />
When you're out for a meal with a girl, how should one deal with the bill? Traditionally, the guy's supposed to pay. A lot of women expect this and would label you a total cheap-ass if you suggested anything else! But then, there's the equality brigade who see no reason for you to pick up their tab, and are offended by any such suggestions.<br />
<br />
Then there are handshakes. Some women offer you their hand like you're a nineteenth century knight about to kiss it. If you don't read it right, you'll probably seem like an uncivilized ape crushing a feather. Others, especially those in serious careers, offer a firm handshake. If you go light, they'll think you're a sissy. The impression is made in the first instant and by the time you adjust your grip, it's already too late.<br />
<br />
The bigger problem is that there is no fail-safe approach. You can't decide 'this is what I'll always do - some will like it and others won't mind'. Whichever route you take could land you in trouble and you could find yourself at the receiving end of a diatribe.<br />
<br />
Personally, I've decided to always pay the bill when I meet someone for the first time. If we meet again, the assumption is we're friends and then we ought to go Dutch. Handshakes? I still have no answer. I just try and avoid them altogether!<br />
<br />
So, here's the take-away for women. Please understand that the lines are blurry and all over the place. We're still trying to figure things out. If we make a mistake, it's generally an honest one - so please don't get mad and launch into a tirade. Just call it out, and if you think it's necessary, explain to us what we did wrong. We'll try not to repeat it.<br />
<br />
For guys, I'm going to offer the same advice I always do when my friends - for some unfathomable reason - decide to share their problems with me. 'Just grow a pair and deal with it, da!'Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-56797936820617551262013-07-23T19:08:00.001+05:302013-07-23T19:09:33.542+05:30Yesterday & tomorrow...When I was in school, life seemed tough. Getting up every morning, standing in murderous heat or cold fog for an hour during the assembly, attending hours of classes and preparing for exams for many years in succession. I was promised - just work hard now to get into an IIT and everything will be good. My future would be secure, college is more fun than school etc.<br />
<br />
College was no joyride. The peer group was extremely competitive, courses rigorous and every exam was like writing JEE again. There were still hours of mind-numbing classes and labs - every longer than school, actually - and living conditions in the hostels were spartan. The promise then was - just get into a good PG course, or get a job - and you'll reap the benefits of the IIT tag.<br />
<br />
IIM was crazier. The schedule was hectic as hell and getting good results was no easier. If anything, there was added pressure of placements and expectations. Just get a day one job during placements, and you will rule the world - was the promise.<br />
<br />
The first job sucked. Unlike college, you couldn't bunk at all nor make mistakes. I felt like a small insignificant cog in the wheel whose presence didn't really make much of a difference either way - but I had to be there every day, 9 hours a day, fighting some issue or the other. And life in Bhopal wasn't exciting at all for a young bachelor. I thought let me just switch to a profession I can be passionate about, and make an impact - and I'll get a sense of satisfaction and purpose. Also, moving to a more 'happening' city will make life fun again.<br />
<br />
While I liked the new job, it was cruel. Waking up every day worried about a new bomb in the inbox (a recent mistake being caught), working thanklessly from 10am-10pm and yet not getting everything done perfectly, and returning home every night with a sullen face was hardly what I'd always dreamt of. The weekends presented their own questions - what to do, where to go, who can get us in (most places we wanted to visit only allowed couple on weekends, and we were 3 single guys sharing an apartment). Let me just struggle through these first few years, build my reputation and find good company - and all will be well, I thought.<br />
<br />
A few years down the line, I'm well-settled in my job but the challenges are even bigger now. To successfully achieve the results I want, I have to depend on other people and factors that aren't all in my control and it's a long game that'll span across many years. I had great friends but most of them have moved out of Bangalore now and/or are married, so it feels rather lonely. Let me just find a good life partner and move into my new home (will be built by year-end) and things will get better, is what I'm telling myself now.<br />
<br />
Does it ever really get easier and better? Do we ever feel like we're on top of everything, or does the promise of a happier future remain forever elusive?<br />
<br />
The thing that makes it worse is nostalgia. Now when I think back to school days, all I remember is lots of friends, 2 hours of cricket/tennis/swimming every evening, discussing crushes with friends, and my parents taking care of all the big issues like household finances. When I think of college, I remember the bike rides for fried chicken in the city, watching the Shawshank Redemption in my room, night-outs on the hostel roof discussing the concept of 'God' with my best friends, and my first girlfriend. PG memories are all about enjoying every hour of sleep managed at weird times & locations, creating the success that was Manfest, nailing some presentation/assignment and feeling like a genius, all the kebab-paratha, late night AOE games and being happy with placements. When I think back to my early bachelor days, all I remember is the appreciation received after a big achievement at work, TT at home, the wild weekend parties, the trips to Goa, Singapore etc., witnessing some dear friends' love stories bloom into happy family lives, the lone-wolf British summer holiday and all the fun I had.<br />
<br />
Nearly everyone I know misses the glorious days when they were younger and wish they could re-live those.<br />
<br />
Is that how we're programmed? To romanticize the past memories, and hope for a better future, but remain forever frustrated with the present? Pretty lousy design, innit? The gurus always say 'Live in the present moment'. There are a few moments when one experiences bliss, not missing the past nor worrying about the future - but those are so, so rare. The present moment almost always seems to suck!<br />
<br />
Is it just me, or does everyone relate to this? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below...Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-2509496947572152382013-07-16T20:27:00.000+05:302013-07-16T22:09:02.866+05:30She's always in there...The General's daughter answers every phone call with a polite and formal 'Hello, good evening'. Every time, she wishes it's the boy who takes her on a journey into another world...<br />
<br />
The college rebel often shows people the middle finger. She looks longingly at the slides and swings every time she drives past her old school...<br />
<br />
The advertising intern works 12-hour weekdays and 8-hour Saturdays while preparing for her MBA. She tells her student boyfriend it's a company phone and calls are free, so he doesn't feel guilty about the bills burning through her entire salary...<br />
<br />
The young doctor studies for her MD in the day and works through crazy night shifts at the hospital. One midnight, she makes it a point to call her sister's boyfriend to tell him 'Sing to her! Dance with her! Make her feel special on her birthday'...<br />
<br />
The dentist is the eldest of three siblings and an epitome of obedience and responsibility. She rounds up all her girlfriends at the Bangkok Suvarnabhoomi airport for a picture of all their shoes to start a new college tradition...<br />
<br />
The legal professional stoically takes notes during heated meetings between lawyers and tax evaders. She asks a stranger to scribble her name in the sand in Malayalam so she can pose with it on her beach holiday...<br />
<br />
The customer support associate uses the chat handle 'attitudez las page'. She wants him to hold her close at the concert, and show the grope-prone crowd she 'belongs' to him...<br />
<br />
The software engineer lambastes a bunch of boys teasing her about looking 'chinki'. She secretly flew down from London to spend a special weekend in Goa with him...<br />
<br />
The former software professional is reading for her Master's degree in cold, cold Canada. She misses the day she got lost in a nearby railway yard and all the elders freaked out...<br />
<br />
The senior manager who intimidates most at a software behemoth. She jumps and claps and screams 'I won! I won! I won!' when her favorite young German wins his first Formula One world championship...<br />
<br />
The blogger rips apart hypocritical men who appreciate successful women at work but don't want to marry someone who might challenge them. She later confesses that all she's dreamt of since childhood was a big, memorable wedding with scores of relatives dancing with joy...<br />
<br />
The creative freelancer's spirit cannot be contained within corporate walls. She feels deeply hurt when someone questions the proud institution daddy devoted his life to...<br />
<br />
The superstar banker is known to be a grammar Nazi and was nicknamed Hitler by her juniors on a college fest committee. She listens to romantic Punjabi songs from Yash Raj movies and fantasizes about her own Mirza sweeping her off her feet someday...<br />
<br />
Every woman is special. Beneath even the toughest of exteriors, there's always a love-able little girl hidden in there somewhere, for someone to find.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-1767985437144921552013-07-15T20:26:00.000+05:302013-07-16T01:34:20.281+05:30The Leap of Faith(Credit: Central idea inspired by <a href="http://greatist.com/happiness/how-not-to-procrastinate-reason-procrastination" target="_blank">this article</a>)<br />
<br />
A short while back, I wrote <a href="http://mavernik.blogspot.in/2013/05/about-spark.html" target="_blank">about the spark</a> early in a relationship, and how I thought it was not nearly as important as people usually believe. I did not mean to suggest that its presence is always misleading, or its absence completely immaterial. I just meant that one should give things time to become clearer and only then can they be sure whether or not something is meant to be.<br />
<br />
The reverse problem is people waiting forever to be 'sure' and never quite getting there. In relationships, as in many other things in life, one can never be 100% sure they're making the right decision about the future because it is - and always will be - the great unknown. Getting to know another person is a life-long process and it can't be completed before you make a commitment. That's actually a good thing, because it leaves you a lot to look forward to later. But at some point, you just have to trust you know enough about the other person, and take a leap of faith!<br />
<br />
While in college, I was in a great relationship with an extraordinary girl that lasted many years. When I graduated and had to leave for another city, we had known each other long enough and well enough to be as sure as was possible - that if we decided to be together, things would work out well. Unfortunately, we were both very young and just couldn't take that leap and commit to a future together. Things fizzled out, we moved on and grew up to become very different people. Today, I hope I will have a better future than I could have had, but the odds appear long.<br />
<br />
After finishing B-School, I didn't like the first job I got. The company was great (both reputation and reality), the money was very good and I did fairly well, even achieving some records, but it was a manufacturing operations role which I just didn't enjoy and wanted to do something else. I resigned after ~10 months, without another job offer in hand. I was offered several tempting options by my manager who was desperate to retain me, and I wasn't having much luck with my first few job applications elsewhere. But I stuck to my decision, and took a leap of faith. Nearly 3 painful months later, I landed a job with a start-up in Bangalore and everything worked out brilliantly after that. I loved my new job, new company, new city, new life - everything!<br />
<br />
It doesn't always work out, otherwise it'd be a walk in the park and not a leap. I recently took another one and ended up bruising my knees. That's a story for another time. But even when things don't work out, you just have to pick yourself up and motor on.<br />
<br />
The simple truth is - if you want to achieve something great, you will at some point have to take some risks. Playing safe, having backup plans etc. can provide you security, but will also lull you into mediocrity and irrelevance.<br />
<br />
To land on one's feet and not in the abyss, one must know the difference between irresponsible, mindless punts and well-informed, calculated risks. Faith must never be blind. This is the secret of successful businessmen like Richard Branson. They take many risks and not all of them pay off. What they ensure is that the potential <i>downside</i> of any risky venture is limited. When they fail, you don't really notice it because the loss is small. When they succeed, it makes the headlines. The mistake most unsuccessful gamblers make is getting carried away with the potential size of the bonanza, but not covering their backs for the scenario when things go wrong.<br />
<br />
When you're standing at the edge of the cliff, you must be able to see where you want to land. You must have good reason to believe you can cross the chasm, preferably from your own history. When in doubt, it's often helpful to seek the opinion of a good friend who knows you well because it's easier for them to be objective in their assessment.<br />
<br />
But there will come a point at which no more information will be available. You could be reasonably confident but not certain, and you'll find yourself standing at the edge with a choice. You could stand there forever and let life pass you by. Or you could turn away, and always keep wondering about what might have been. The best thing to do is to just jump and pray...Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-32655682914083349212013-07-09T10:52:00.000+05:302013-07-09T10:56:02.522+05:30Questioning our medical education setupLast year, Satyamev Jayate devoted an episode to the issue of generic drugs and doctors being motivated by commissions and profits to mislead their patients at times. Through acquaintances and Facebook etc., most of us would have heard tales of hospitals trying to rip people off by making patients undergo unnecessary tests and treatments. I've felt, for a while, that the root cause of these problems is something else.<br />
<br />
Think about this. A typical engineer finishes college by the age of 22 and starts earning decently. S/he doesn't usually have a large loan to pay off. Adding on a masters degree is relatively easy and tends to add very significantly to their career prospects and earning potential. By age 30, most engineer-MBAs have a comfortable lifestyle and are able to afford a car and are on the verge of buying a house.<br />
<br />
Doctors, on the other hand, generally don't finish their MBBS course before 23. Add a year of internship and preparation for MD entrance exams. 2 more years of MD, and then typically another year or two of further study or residency. Doctors are a few years older when they start their first jobs which typically pay peanuts. By the time they start earning a good amount, they're generally close to the age of 30. Unlike the engineer-MBAs, they don't already have big savings, instead they have huge loans to pay back.<br />
<br />
Also, the medical education system in India is ridiculously corrupt. There are few 'merit' seats available. The majority of students have to make 'donations' to get in, and the amounts payable for more popular courses (specialties) are extortionate. This is true at every stage - bachelors, masters, fellowship, and sometimes even for getting passing grades, especially for final year courses.<br />
<br />
By their early 30s, most doctors - who started with good intentions and a desire to do good and help others - give in to the temptation of dirty money. If you were earning less than your peers from school, and had already borne an additional cost of ~50 lakhs to reach this point - wouldn't you be tempted to compromise some of your values? Most people's conscience carries a price-tag, and it's usually lower.<br />
<br />
What created this sorry situation in the first place? A simple mismatch between demand and supply. When I attended school in the 90s, the number of engineering and medical aspirants was roughly equal. I doubt if the scale has tilted too far since then. Last year, India produced 1.5 million engineers and 300,000 MBAs - that is more than USA and China combined in each case. Doctors? 33,000. That's about <i>fifty</i> engineers to each doctor. The number of seats available in medical colleges is several orders of magnitude lower than other streams, and with this kind of scarcity, corruption creeping into the system was quite inevitable.<br />
<br />
There are also some other unfortunate consequences of this, which it isn't politically correct to mention, but I will do so here. Many failed MBBS aspirants now end up joining BDS, BHMS, BAMS or other such courses. I guess this helps them meet their own aspirations of becoming 'doctors', but judging by their employment trends, I'm not sure this serves a much bigger purpose for anyone.<br />
<br />
Also, now that nearly half the medical college seats are reserved for 'quota' students, and many of the others are purchased by students with the most resourceful parents and not necessarily the most merit, the quality of the output is dubious. I, for one, avoid doctors with anything less than a solid reputation built over more than a decade. Most people don't have this luxury, and by lowering standards in medical education, their lives are being put at risk.<br />
<br />
What makes this all the more appalling is that we need many more and better doctors, especially for primary care. We have the second (not for much longer) largest population in the world, and many national health indicators are among the worst in the world. The government's budgetary allocation for healthcare is also among the lowest in the world in <i>percentage</i> terms. They just don't seem to care. The situation desperately calls for more medical colleges to be set up and the whole system being cleansed and re-vitalized. I can't imagine voters being unhappy about the government setting up more teaching hospitals and/or medical colleges, so I don't understand why it isn't happening.<br />
<br />
If the government can't handle this, they should encourage the private sector to do so. Why can't the kind of incentives that were offered to IT companies and BPOs be offered to private teaching hospitals now? Why can't PPP models be explored like they are for other kinds of infrastructure? Shouldn't this be a higher priority than messing around with the IIT JEE exam pattern every few years?<br />
<br />
Caveats: This post makes several generalizations and no reader should take it personally. Also, I'm no policy expert and this is my opinion, based on common knowledge and common-sense rather than thorough research - please bear that in mind when you comment. If you agree that some of the issues and questions raised are valid, please share it forward because we need to push for things to change.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-12696180831613707912013-07-01T20:39:00.002+05:302013-07-01T20:39:54.811+05:30Tough. 6.Really? Another test? Now?<br />
<br />
Ok. I've faced many longer, tougher ordeals. Personal, professional, academic, romantic... and I have prevailed every single time.<br />
<br />
Bring it on.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-22696556203439581592013-05-29T18:44:00.000+05:302013-05-30T00:08:59.986+05:30A screwed up safariOur bus reached the destination just after noon. We were greeted by a banner that said 'Welcome CCSAC - 1997', which was short for Central Command Summer Adventure Camp. This 'camp' was an annual affair, spanning two weeks during the summer holidays when all schools were typically closed. It was attended by children of Army officers serving in the Central Command, in the 12-18 age group. It was generally organized in some hilly cantonment in the state of Uttarakhand. This year, the chosen location was <a href="https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Lansdowne&oq=Lansdowne&aqs=chrome.0.57j59&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">Lansdowne</a>. One of the few major tourist attractions near Lansdowne was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Corbett_National_Park" target="_blank">Jim Corbett National Park - Tiger Reserve</a>, where we had all gone for a day trip - about 100 kids in 4 buses.<br />
<br />
Lunch had been served upon our arrival. While it was officially described as 'Veg biryani', it was just some low-grade rice with a bit of spice and yellow dal granules. It didn't taste great, but we were hungry and had no choice. Some kids spread the rumor that the Agra gang had mixed jamalghota (strong laxative) in the biryani while it was being prepared, and everyone who ate it would be sick soon.<br />
<br />
The 100-odd kids in the camp were mainly divided into 4 'gangs' - Delhi, Agra, Bareilly and Lucknow (us) - and the rivalry was intense. Major pranks were commonplace, but generally limited to the hostels. Most kids didn't have the guts to try anything funny around the soldiers. Adulterating the food would have required someone to enter the cook-house and mess with the food while the soldiers were around. Not very likely, but nothing was considered impossible after the Joshi brothers had been caught trying a prank with inflated condoms in the warden's office last year. The warden was a mid-ranking Officer with no sense of humor, and if someone could be stupid enough to try that prank - anything was possible.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, the Agra kids weren't eating, choosing to feed the rumor instead. We asked Mogambo if he knew what was really going on. Mogambo got his nick-name as a result of his tonsured head, resemblance to Amrish Puri, and being part of the small-and-unpopular Agra gang. The only reason he was friendly with us was that he had a massive crush on AD's sister MD, who was also at the camp. He thought being friendly with AD and the Lucknow gang might help him get close to her, and he was eventually proven right. Anyway, the point was - Mogambo was part of the Agra gang, had inside info to share with us, and we could trust him. He assured us the food was fine, and the prank was limited to just a strong rumor.<br />
<br />
All this talk of jamalghota in the food meant that lunch got prolonged to a whole hour. By the time it was done, it started raining. In those parts, the rain was usually heavy and went on for a while - so it was unlikely we'd be able to get around much. We also had to cross 3 rivers/streams on our way back, and there was a good chance of those getting flooded and becoming hard for the buses to cross, so it was decided that we'd head back immediately.<br />
<br />
Obviously, we were disappointed. We were expecting to go on safaris and see tigers etc., but our trip had been reduced to long, painful bus rides on hilly roads, with only a bad lunch in between. We tried to compensate by playing games and generally being loud and riotous in the buses - oblivious of the ordeal that awaited us.<br />
<br />
We crossed the first stream with ease, but at the second crossing, the last bus got stuck in the water. The girls and little kids were helped out, and then some of the older guys tried to push the bus out. Most of us had crushes on some of the girls in the camp, and the atmosphere at the camp had always been competitive - so everyone wanted to make an impression, showing off our strength, smarts or both.<br />
<br />
Each of the four city gangs took turns trying to get the bus out, but none could make it budge. Then we struck up alliances, and finally everyone got together in an effort to push it out. By this time, we also had one of the <a href="http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/commercial-vehicles-india/113357d1237393313-4x4s-indian-army-nissan1ton.jpg" target="_blank">one-tons</a> trying to pull the bus out with a rope attached to the front grille. All our efforts yielded no result and we finally decided to pile everyone into the remaining 3 buses and move on. But we'd wasted more than an hour fooling around, and all this while it had continued raining, with the streams getting deeper and the current stronger.<br />
<br />
When we got to the final river crossing, the first bus waded into the water and got hopelessly stuck. By now the water was waist-high (chest-high for some of the younger kids) and the current was dangerously fast. It was also getting dark. The time for fun and games was over. The soldiers accompanying us gave us instructions in serious tones. The buses had no chance of getting through that stream, and we were going to have to cross it on foot, forming a human chain for safety.<br />
<br />
At the head of the chain would be two soldiers. Behind them, all the kids had to move in formation - holding the forearms of one person in front, and one behind. We had to have 'senior (15+) boys' in every alternate position, with the junior boys and girls in between. We were to move very slowly, one step at a time, and coordinate our movements. The soldiers suggested we move with our own friends, so we were comfortable and communicating effectively. They reminded us that we were in real danger here, and should take the whole process very seriously.<br />
<br />
AD and I being senior boys and friends, decided to move with each other. MD would be between us, and Mogambo behind me. We went in. At first, it wasn't too bad - the water was only knee high. But with every step, the next one became more treacherous. The floor of the stream was smooth and slippery, and it was difficult to get firm footholds. As we approached the middle, the water was nearly chest-high and putting tremendous pressure on us. At one point, we couldn't move for a while. Every time we tried to, we felt like we'd be washed away. But we kept moving steadily, and were only about six feet from the shore with AD having reached the anchor soldiers.<br />
<br />
Then, suddenly, my foot slipped off the slimy base it was on, and I lost balance. As I got dragged by the current, I instinctively let go off MD's arm to ensure she didn't get dragged in with me. Mogambo and I tried to hold on for a bit, but the current was too strong. He fell, but was held by the others behind him. I got washed away.<br />
<br />
My mind went blank. It felt like I was in a free fall of sorts, the strong current dragging me with great force against my will, and there was nothing I could do. The moment felt surreal. I'd started swimming just a year or two after I started walking, and while I wasn't an expert or athlete, I could swim reasonably well. I was sure I could swim to save my life, if it ever came to that, and this was a bad time to realize I'd been wrong.<br />
<br />
I flailed with both arms and legs to just try and get hold of something, or re-orient myself into a swimming posture - and regain control. After all, the water was just about 4 feet deep, and I was only 6 feet from the edge. If only I could regain control, I'd be able to get to safety. But the stream was like the proverbial unstoppable force, and I was just drifting away really really fast. My heart sank. If I kept drifting, I'd end up in deeper water and probably drown. Even if that didn't happen, I'd find myself alone and lost in a tiger reserve at night. There was no way I'd survive. I felt completely helpless and couldn't believe what was happening.<br />
<br />
Then, suddenly, two guys grabbed me from the side and dragged me ashore - Ravi, one of the oldest senior boys who was preparing for the NDA, and a soldier. In a matter of seconds, I'd drifted about 50 meters. I still don't know how they'd managed to catch up with me, because that current seemed faster than anyone could run, but I was thankful to be alive!<br />
<br />
After that little scare, we resumed our journey. There were one or two one-tons carrying supplies that had managed to cross the streams early in the evening, and were now waiting for us. The girls were loaded into these and sent on their way. The boys - drenched and exhausted - were going to have to walk about 10 km to a rest house on the boundary, as staying in the jungle wasn't safe.<br />
<br />
Normally, a 10km walk isn't too big a problem. When you're physically and mentally exhausted, it becomes one. Add total darkness, unfriendly terrain and dangerous wildlife - and it becomes an absolute nightmare. The threats we faced included man-eating tigers, elephants, black bears and pythons, along with sundry other canines and reptiles.<br />
<br />
We were told to walk in triple-file, with the tallest, well-built senior boys on the inner file (jungle side), the youngest ones in the middle, and the rest of us on the outer file. The logic - if any animals attacked us, they'd probably try a hit-and-run, capturing someone from periphery/corner, rather than getting into the middle of the pack. They were also more likely to come from the 'jungle' side, which was basically <i>down</i> the slope that we were walking across. We were also given plates and spoons and told to make plenty of noise. This was supposed to scare the animals away, although some of us feared it might just end up drawing attention to ourselves.<br />
<br />
Every now and then we heard disconcerting noises - mainly howling canines or rustling bushes suggesting animal movement nearby - that kept reminding us of the lurking danger. Ravi was holding a khukri and making jokes about sodomizing any animal that dared to come near him. A few others joined him, and the distraction proved quite effective.<br />
<br />
After walking for what felt like an eternity, we reached a gate. A few hundred meters away was the rest house. We entered and most of us just collapsed on the floor. A few guys found some blankets and just threw them around the others to provide some comfort. I'd never slept on a hard floor like this before, but it felt like a bed of roses that night. The next morning, we were driven back to the camp in army trucks.<br />
<br />
We knew the situation was serious when we saw the CO, who was a Brigadier, along with several other officers in the reception party. Prior to that, we had been managed only by officers up to the Major rank. Having all these seniors was a big deal. We found that word had gotten out the previous evening that a hundred kids had been lost in the forest in bad weather, and naturally our parents freaked out en masse. They had been calling the organizers all night to enquire about us, and many of them had lost their tempers. As a result, our boot camp suddenly turned tourist resort. All the exercises planned for the last two days had been cancelled, and we were told to just chill and party - which we gladly did!<br />
<br />
Most of my peers would remember that day in the forest as one of the toughest they had, but few would remember it in such vivid detail. I do, because I came closest to becoming a casualty when I slipped in the stream and drifted in that current. I have never felt so helpless in my whole life, nor feared for my life the way I did in that minute.<br />
<br />
Nowadays, my friends often ask me to join them in adventure sports and risky activities. While I often participate, I don't get nearly as excited as they do. For all the 'rush', things like rafting and bungee jumping don't instil the same 'real' fear. It is sorta 'simulated' danger - because you are doing it voluntarily, know exactly what you're getting into, and you know the risks, the do's and the dont's. You know that people don't generally get hurt doing this, and you typically have the safety net of an instructor or a lifeguard who will rescue you if you get into real trouble. It's fun, but it's nothing compared to actually getting lost in the wild.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-67405306587459254092013-05-25T11:43:00.004+05:302013-05-30T00:08:39.469+05:30Desi beatIf you grew up in the sort of cities I did, or attended colleges or workplaces like mine - <i>very likely if you're reading this blog</i> - there are good chances you have a lot of friends who love English music of one or more genres.<br />
<br />
Now, if you're like me, you don't really get it and don't really care, but probably had to pretend to enjoy listening to it at some time or the other. You couldn't openly admit to your ignorance of - and indifference to - most English music, because you feared being labelled uncool, or a 'country bugger'. (I'm deliberately using the umbrella term 'English music' as I'm equally indifferent to Rock, Country, R&B, Rap etc. In fact, I don't even care about the differences between them). If you relate to any of this, this post is for you! :)<br />
-----------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Over the past few months, I've tried to understand why I'm so indifferent to English music. The question intrigued me because I like listening to music (the desi kind), and I live on English (mostly American) movies & TV series, so why the combination of English & music didn't work was something I didn't understand. Here are some of the conclusions I've reached after thinking things through:<br />
<br />
1. I don't get the <i>accent</i> most of the time. 'Accent' is the phonetic prominence given to a particular syllable in a word, or to a particular word within a sentence. It takes time and effort to tune one's ear to a particular accent, and only then can one understand what is being said. The accents in song are not the same as those in speech, and need to be learnt separately. But I simply wasn't motivated to learn these, because I just didn't care what any of these people had to say:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.socwall.com/images/wallpapers/34625-2048x1236.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="http://www.socwall.com/images/wallpapers/34625-2048x1236.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>Exhibit A: These are the kind of folks I've generally stayed away from, since I was a kid, for my own safety, and to keep my lunch money.</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID5590/images/510px-Willie_UK2K7_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID5590/images/510px-Willie_UK2K7_2.jpg" width="272" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>Exhibit B: He probably still believes that women and black people shouldn't have the right to vote, among other things.</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/15471699/Snoop+Dogg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/15471699/Snoop+Dogg.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>Exhibit C: He calls himself 'Snoop Dogg'. While he could possibly have a 3-digit IQ, I'm sure he doesn't know what the differential of a sine function is.</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1736963.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/%C2%A3%C2%A3%C2%A3Justin%20Bieber-1736963.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1736963.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/%C2%A3%C2%A3%C2%A3Justin%20Bieber-1736963.jpg" width="224" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>Exhibit D: This useless bloody 'entitled' generation. They DESERVE to lose all their jobs to us in Asia.</i></div>
<br />
2. In some cases, I was motivated enough to try and understand someone's accent.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img1.browsebiography.com/images/gal/257_nicole_scherzinger_stage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://img1.browsebiography.com/images/gal/257_nicole_scherzinger_stage.jpg" width="228" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>Exhibit E: She's close to my favourite F1 driver and seems to be making some important points ;)</i></div>
<i style="text-align: center;"><br /></i>
<span style="text-align: center;">However, when I did unravel what they were on about, it broke my heart. Most of the songs were about hot women in sucky relationships with douche-bags who didn't value them. It felt all wrong, but I couldn't do anything about it, so decided to turn my attention away.</span><br />
<br />
Then I came across this lot:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/50cb48ebecad04e84800001b-960/adele-grammys.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/50cb48ebecad04e84800001b-960/adele-grammys.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I figured she was whining about her relationships. While she sounded sensible and all, I just couldn't relate. In our country, young men and women don't date a lot. They DO expect to hear the words 'I love you' fairly early, and it's not a big deal. They don't start living together before, and generally even after exchanging those words. Relationships <i>are</i> <i>expected</i> to culminate in marriage most of the time, especially if you ever stay together or spend a lot of time alone with each other indoors. As a result, we don't generally get into deep-yet-non-committal relationships & get our hearts broken too often. I'm not saying the western culture is better or worse - it's just very different. The culture divide means I'm unable to appreciate most of the things they sing about.<br />
<br />
This 'culture divide' isn't limited to songs about relationships. Pink Floyd may have been great, but the notion "<i>We don't need no education</i>" has absolutely no place in India today.<br />
<br />
When it comes to movies & TV, the culture divide isn't as much of a problem. For one, they generally tend to pick up simpler, more universal themes. Secondly, many series are set in workplaces, which are starting to look and feel similar across the world now. Finally, humor, mystery and action are easy to appreciate in any context. That's usually not the case with drama.<br />
<br />
3. Sometimes people tell me 'never mind the words, just appreciate the music'. That just doesn't work. In the real world, it is all about 'the story'. That's what people emotionally connect to, and you need the connection for something to succeed. To appreciate music, I NEED to know what a song is about and what the singer's saying. Otherwise, it's just guitar/drums/synth work without any context, and that's not going to strike any chords!<br />
<br />
So, to summarize:<br />
1. I don't understand the singers' accents most of the time, and I absolutely do not care to learn them because I don't think it's going to enrich my life<br />
2. When I do understand lyrics, I usually can't relate, probably as a consequence of the culture divide<br />
3. Without an emotional connect with the lyrics, it's just meaningless sounds<br />
<br />
All that said, we definitely need music in our lives. I think we've got enough good stuff at home. Sure, the 80s and 90s were a dark age, with only stale formulaic filmi music produced in India, but things have changed so much in the last decade or so. Now we have guys like AR Rahman, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy and Vishal-Shekhar producing some really good, contemporary music for the movies. Then we have people like Amit Trivedi and Sneha Khanwalkar who - through movie scores as well as independent channels like MTV Coke Studio - are innovating with blends of indigenous folk songs and western instruments and technique, with brilliant results!<br />
<br />
I do occasionally listen to and like Western music as well, but I feel no desire to make it a bigger part of my life. If someone thinks that's 'uncool', that's their problem.<br />
-----------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
I have two other peeves that I want to mention here.<br />
<br />
1. A lot of people - especially those from South India - seem to snobbishly avoid desi music. When asked about it, they say they it's because they don't fully understand the language. How come the language barrier doesn't stop you from going nuts over 'Gangnam style', then?<br />
<br />
2. In December, many people had a problem with the kind of songs Yo Yo Honey Singh sings, and called for him to be banned. They claimed these songs were corrupting people's minds and turning them into rapists.<br />
<br />
Well, please pull your heads out of your asses and see daylight. Honey Singh is a rap artist. Talking trash is his job description and no one takes his words seriously. I mean, if people were really taking life lessons and learning their philosophy from someone like Yo Yo Honey Singh, the problem would be way more fundamental and banning the singer wouldn't help. And I'd be looking for a way out of the country. In truth, Yo Yo is no more responsible for our social problems than Eminem is for the economic crisis in the west.<br />
<br />
And how come the same people don't have a problem with Eminem or Akon? Just a few years back, everyone was grooving to 'Smack That' and 'I wanna fuck you'. People even attended his concerts in India. Now the same people want to ban Honey Singh?! Why the double standards? Why does the westerner have 'artistic license' but not the desi? Think about it.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-17257209074434175282013-05-17T23:57:00.001+05:302013-05-17T23:57:56.367+05:30About the 'Spark'She held up a pack of Wai Wai chicken noodles with her left hand, and glanced at him. "<i>Is this what you want?</i>" She didn't need to actually say the words. He was waiting outside the shop. He blinked and nodded to indicate 'yes'. She made a V-sign with her right. "<i>Two packs?</i>" Blink and nod again. She turned to the cashier and paid for the noodles.<br />
<br />
He was unwell and she'd taken the day off work to come and take care of him. It was a very ordinary, everyday kind of moment, but as he stood there watching her - he suddenly felt overwhelmed. "<i>This is true love</i>." When two people understand each other, genuinely care and are grateful to have each other every moment of every ordinary day - then any one of them can become memorable!<br />
<br />
It hadn't happened overnight. It had taken them three full years to get here. When they first met, the silences were awkward. Now they'd become comfortable and knowing. Along the way, they'd had many special moments. The first time they held hands, their first kiss, their first trip to a romantic destination. When he gave her roses and chocolates for Valentine's day. When she gave him a nice new cellphone on his birthday...<br />
<br />
But it isn't really all about the gifts and the gimmicks, the songs and the speeches. Even in the greatest relationships, the special moments are few and far between, and life happens in the long gaps between them. That's when you can have the misunderstandings, the differences of opinions, incompatible choices, the power plays, the bickering, the indifference to other person's needs, wants or desires - that's when most relationships fizzle out, and that's why most people feel unhappy or unfulfilled.<br />
<br />
A happy, successful couple cares and communicates. They understand each other well - but getting there takes plenty of time and toil, which they invest. They could take each other for granted, but they don't. They cherish what they have, and they nurture it.<br />
<br />
Sadly, most people expect their dream partner to drop from the heavens into their laps, and for everything to be magical from the first instant. The world would have you believe it's all about finding a special moment or feeling when you first meet. "<i>When you meet the right person, you just know",</i> "<i>Something stirred deep inside", "We just clicked"... </i>and so on. Most romantic tales are about love at first sight.<br />
<br />
Well, in truth, that's a load of bullshit. That '<b><i>spark</i></b>' people talk about is a mostly a myth, and highly over-rated. Sample these:<br />
<br />
<i>"I used to wonder why he's on my bus. I knew he worked in a different shift (hours). I thought he was weird. He asked me out to a movie, but I refused. This happened a couple of times before I finally agreed."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"This guy used to sit outside my college gate with a bunch of rascals who used to tease all the girls going by. One day I lost it, and went and blasted all of them. Next day, he came to apologize."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"There was simply no chemistry!! We sat there, three feet apart, looking out to the sea - with nothing to say. In my diary, I wrote this will take months to get anywhere, if it ever does."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"There was nothing particularly special that stood out. We just couldn't think of any good reason not to get married."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
That's what four different women I know had to say about how their very-happy-and-successful long-term relationships began (guys generally don't discuss such stuff). Conversely, I've known a few couples that started with big flashy sparks, but the happiness in their relationships was as ephemeral as those sparks.<br />
<br />
So, here's the moral of the story: the only place where you really need a spark in life is inside an internal combustion engine. If you seriously want a great relationship, get serious about the relationship itself and work for it.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-2857997010209226302013-03-04T22:06:00.001+05:302013-03-04T22:32:16.748+05:30Fretting over the FinMin's brain-fartsI recently bought a house, and as is usual in such situations, the loan has seriously cut my disposable income. So I was hoping for some help from PC when he presented the Union Budget last week, and was even encouraged when I heard something was being offered for new home loan borrowers. When I heard the details of what he was offering, though, I was very disappointed. Let's dig into why.<br />
<br />
The FM has announced an additional exemption of Rs 1 lakh for home loans under Rs 25L, if it is the first time the borrower is availing such a loan, and if the property value does not exceed 40L. Now, if you live in Bangalore, NCR, Chandigarh or any major city - you'd know that's not enough to buy a decent 1,000-ft 2bhk flat in areas that are commercially developed AT ALL (or even safe). So, middle & upper income families in big cities cannot benefit from this.<br />
<br />
Some argue in defense of this - they say the govt is only helping those who really need it. But I don't agree because this is a classic example of govt. attempting <i>wealth re-distribution</i>, which is a fundamentally flawed idea that has never worked well anywhere in the world. It doesn't work because it is unfair and unnatural - it demotivates those who produce wealth, and those who receive the benefits neither appreciate their worth, nor have any incentive to work harder.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm all in favor of higher tax rates for the rich and govt. support for the poor, but that support should be provided in terms of infrastructure, employment, education, healthcare etc. Those are basic needs. Home ownership is not. That becomes wealth redistribution.<br />
<br />
Closer examination of the proposal reveals its true nature - it's an election freebie thrown at a vote-bank, and made to sound bigger than it really is. Let me explain.<br />
<br />
1. Most people stretch their budgets when buying a home. It's the sensible thing to do. So we can assume that anyone taking a 25L loan can't really <i>afford</i> a bigger loan (in other words, a better house).<br />
<br />
2. Banks typically give loans based on household income. Some rules of thumb - EMI in thousands is numerically almost equal to loan amount in lakhs. Banks assume that you can set aside 50-60% of your monthly gross salary for EMIs. So, a 25L loan means the borrower has an income <i>up to 6lpa</i> (with assumption 1).<br />
<br />
3. If only one member of the family is earning, they can still avail deductions of <i>at least</i> 4.5L on their income (2L basic + 1L 80c + 1.5L for int. on home loans already available to all). If they avail exemptions for any allowances (HRA, LTA, food, conveyance etc.) or other exemptions like medical insurance premium, donations to charity etc., this figure (deductions) goes up. If two members are earning, this figure goes up much further. The point is, <i>if your household income is less than 5L, you already pay no tax and will gain nothing</i>. Even if it is higher, but you've planned your taxes well, you'll still gain nothing.<br />
<br />
This means the new tax proposal really <i>only benefits some households with incomes in the 5-6 lpa range</i>. At 5 lpa, you can just save a few rupees. Beyond 6lpa, you'll probably take a bigger loan and not qualify. Within this narrow range, you can save up to Rs 9,700 per year, or ~808 per month, if you take a loan for 25L on April 1. Note that this is an <i>upper limit</i>. The majority of beneficiaries would save less than this.<br />
<br />
I don't think the benefit is very size-able for the target income group, but I could be wrong about that. Even if it is, why is the govt. being so selective in offering it, and with so many strings attached? I feel the govt. simply doesn't have the funds to be magnanimous, which I can understand. But this looks like a charade aimed at an electoral constituency that is becoming increasingly alienated from the current govt. These people protest about corruption, about scams, about women's safety and many of them admire regional leaders like Modi. So the govt. throws a little carrot at them. Typical Congress politics, and I hate it.<br />
<br />
While on the subject of home loans and taxes, I have a few more bones to pick.<br />
<br />
Tax exemption on interest paid on home loans is capped at Rs 1.5L. This means if you are paying a rent exceeding Rs 15k a month and using up all your 80C exemptions, your tax liability will almost certainly go <i>up</i> if you buy a similar house and start living in it. This is because you will no longer be able to claim tax exemption for HRA. Nearly all governments globally claim their policy is to encourage home ownership, but our current income tax regime acts as a barrier.<br />
<br />
You can legitimately work around this by registering the property in your parents' name(s) and paying them rent, as long as they aren't living in the same house. This will allow you to claim HRA and also your part of the interest paid on the home loan. Moreover, if your parents are also repaying a part of the loan on the house, the interest they repay is fully tax exempt with no limit (I think) and the rental income is also tax exempt if it is lower than their EMI. So between both parties, you can save a lot.<br />
<br />
The above arrangement is perfectly legal, although in my opinion it is unnecessarily convoluted. Worse is that it encourages bogus transactions. People pay inflated rents to their parents to evade tax, and then take the money back in cash form. It becomes black money. A lot of people may not want to do this, but the cost of being completely honest is unreasonably high.<br />
<br />
Things would be so much simpler if the limits on home loan repayment were relaxed or abolished. Not only would this obviate the need for complex or bogus contracts, under-valuation of sales, over-statement of rents etc., the tax benefits will significantly accelerate demand for properly-accounted home loans among the upper-middle class, which is way better than having the market operate with a lot of black money. The govt is also nearly certain to gain with higher tax collections.<br />
<br />
Now, while I'm no expert on policy or the country's financials, I'm fairly sure the scenario I've described above would be a win-win for all. Why doesn't the govt. just do this, then? I suspect the real reason is that our political establishment and decision-makers are themselves the biggest stakeholders in the property black market!Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-76234576152765947922013-01-31T12:16:00.002+05:302013-01-31T12:24:57.181+05:30Mam-Ban ki $#%#Gimme some credit. I could go to jail for writing this. But since I live in Bangalore and not in Bengal, I'll take my chances!<br />
<br />
Disclaimers: I am NOT a Maoist. I am NOT CPM cadre. I'm just an ordinary individual, NOT aligned to any political body of any sort. I'm NOT being paid to malign anyone. I'm just pissed.<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
It's 13th May, 2011. Friday night. I'm chilling in my flat, vodka in hand. Around 8pm, my bong friend walks in - all happy and enthu - and wants to celebrate Mam-Ban's victory in the West Bengal assembly polls. I greet her enthusiasm with dull skepticism, and ask her why she considers that good news. She says something about change, the end of a dark era of Left misrule, and generally communicates optimism. I retort with cliches about 'jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire' and how every change isn't necessarily good, no matter how terrible the past has been.<br />
<br />
I quote the Joker (from The Dark Knight) to her: "<i>You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... *do* things.</i>" I share with her my apprehensions about Mam-Ban's mindless methods & motives in the past, and fears about her not doing well, now that she was no longer the 'hunter'. A couple of years later, I feel all my fears have not just been realized, but surpassed.<br />
<br />
To be fair to my bong friends, it was an easy mistake to make. They were seriously frustrated with CPM rule, and surely change was needed. If I didn't know better, even I would've punted on Mam-Ban. Though I never really liked her, I didn't consider her any worse than most other politicians in India. Sure, she could be a bit of a nuisance - loud, unpredictable and inconsistent in her decision-making, switching back-and-forth between various alliances - but most of that is par for the course in Indian politics. One could have given her the benefit of any doubt.<br />
<br />
But for me, the doubt vanished in 2008. At the time, Parliament was voting on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. It was a serious issue, and the numbers were quite even on both sides, creating great uncertainty. Mam-Ban was the only member of Lok Sabha from her party, and decided to abstain.<br />
<br />
Now, here is how democracy is supposed to work. People elect representatives. Those elected are, in turn, supposed to represent the opinions and best interests of the electorate in parliament. That's their job. In this case, Mam-Ban simply decided not to do it.<br />
<br />
The nuclear deal was either good for the people of Bengal, or it wasn't. The survival of the central govt was either in people's interest, or it wasn't. Either way, the MP is supposed to take a stand and vote! Not voting implies that your constituency has no stake, no interest and no opinion on the issue - but that wasn't the case here. In fact, if there is one thing a Bengali always has, it is an opinion!<br />
<br />
So what was Mam-Ban's explanation for not doing her job? "The party did not want to be seen as supporting either the UPA govt, or the BJP-Left opposition."<br />
<br />
Let's take a moment and think about this. The 'party' offered NO OPINION on the issue at hand - the nuclear deal. If that wasn't serious enough, the 'party' didn't care whether the central govt survived or fell. To them - it wasn't about the issues or the country or its interests. All they cared about was their own petty political rivalries. And yes, from the Left (CPM) to the Center (UPA) to the Right (NDA) - EVERYONE was a rival. This, to me, represented everything that was wrong with Indian politics. It's not about issues and ideologies at all, but about a few 'leaders' and their own ambitions.<br />
<br />
If you look at Mam-Ban's history, it's always been about personal rivalries and opposing something. She started with the INC, against the ruling Left. Then she went against the INC to form her own party. Then she joined the govt at the center for some time, but her attention and actions were always focused on winning Bengal. And while at the center, she resigned from alliances and cabinet positions with both the NDA and the UPA on various occasions.<br />
<br />
Basically, her politics has never been <i>for</i> any good. It's always been <i>against</i> whoever was in her path. Her actions and policies have been ill-conceived, destructive, reckless and self-centered. Railway finances and safety. Singur. Nandigram. NONE of these suggested that putting her in power would be a good idea.<br />
<br />
While I didn't share any of my friend's optimism, I did hope the change in her situation might produce in change in her disposition. I mean, she could no longer raise hell every time she saw a real or potential problem - it was now her responsibility to solve it. She could not blame her opponents for all ills - they were no longer in power, she was. While her record as rail minister wasn't encouraging, one hoped for a better turn.<br />
<br />
Alas, no miracles happened here. She's gone on to make a complete fool of herself and failed to make the transition from hunter to leader. Just watch this incredible display of ignorance, incompetence and idiocity.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ohTCFuFLj6g?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
The thought that someone like this is affecting major decisions about national policy, and is in charge of the administration of a state, should scare the crap out of any intelligent citizen. Her abilities in governance or administration are practically non-existent, and since she has a fairly long record with no major achievements in those areas, I don't think anyone would seriously debate that. Her policies, agenda and rhetoric are so full of SHITE, any good college student could debunk them with a few hours' effort. So let's get back to her politics.<br />
<br />
Blaming the then govt. for economic problems might have worked when farmers were worried about losing their land. But now, every time any bad news emerges from Bengal - and it's happening increasingly often - she accuses the media of mendacity and exaggeration, and claims it's all a conspiracy to malign her govt. As usual, the issues are ignored - and the discussion becomes one about Mam-Ban vs. all her opponents, real or imaginary . The narrative is wearing really thin.<br />
<br />
What's even worse - instead of feeling secure in the position she's achieved, she's becoming paranoid, delusional and more dangerous with dictatorial tendencies. The video of her walking out of an interview with CNN-IBN is already legendary. Most of you would know about the arrest of a cartoonist last year. But the worrying thing is - incidents like <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-28/india/36595488_1_chargesheet-shiladitya-chowdhury-mamata-banerjee" target="_blank">this</a> are becoming so routine that they barely even make it to the news these days. After all, if Dinesh Trivedi could get swatted like a mosquito, what hope does an ordinary person even have? Death of democracy, anyone?<br />
<br />
Unlike most of my posts, I'm not offering any ideas about the right way forward or any possible solutions. This was always meant to be a rant against someone who I consider to be the worst and most dangerous political leader in India. I just hope people don't vote for her, or anyone like here, ever again. Whatever produces leaders like this - it needs to change. Fast.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-19097143996282839462013-01-28T21:23:00.000+05:302013-01-28T21:29:02.590+05:30The ugly, the good and the bad ...Felt like writing this on Republic day.<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>First, the ugly.</i></b><br />
<br />
The gang-rape, mutilation and murder of the girl in Delhi last month. It was a barbaric act, and its perverse nature is impossible to rationalize. It's good that the guilty have been brought to book. But I don't want the death penalty for them. That'd be the easy way out. Since I don't believe in the afterlife, heaven/hell etc., I'd like to see them suffer long and hard in this life and serve as an example to others. Hopefully - someday - they may realize their folly and feel genuine remorse for it.<br />
<br />
But, with all due respect, this post isn't really about this specific incident or the people involved. A lot has already been written about that, and I have nothing new to add. I'm going to focus on the public reaction that followed, and what I think of it.<br />
<br />
The chauvinistic, misogynistic and regressive statements made by the likes of Asaram Bapu, Abhijeet Mukherjee etc. was more of the ugly, as are the shocking stories of rapes of women of all ages from 2 to 90, by all kinds of beasts - including family at times - that continue to appear in the papers everyday. It's all too depressing for me to elaborate here, but a quick google search can bring you up to speed.<br />
<br />
It wasn't all bad news, tho.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The good.</i></b><br />
<br />
When I was a kid, India was very different. Society was characterized by ignorance (an incident like this would not have got nearly as much publicity), apathy (the infamous 'chalta hai' attitude, 'mujhe kya farak padhta hai'), cynicism ('nothing is ever going to change here') and helplessness ('aam aadmi kya kar sakta hai', 'sab mile hue hain', 'mere ek vote se kya farak padhega'). When you heard about incidents like this, you just accepted them as part of life, and the only hope for a better life was emigration.<br />
<br />
Things have changed for the better. One girl gets raped in Delhi, and thousands of people react all over the country. They weep for her and pray for her. They protest at India gate all day, bearing the cold weather, lathi-charge and water cannons - but they don't stand down. They demand action from the government and expect things to change. And they get results. This was unimaginable two decades back, and portends well for our future!<br />
<br />
I still hear a few cynical voices saying this is a very limited phenomenon and has little significance. 'The affluent, educated few living in metros can all agree about what's right and wrong, but the masses neither hear nor care for all their arguments - so what is even the point'? It sounds like a valid question, but it presumes that we have no influence over the masses - which is untrue. Now, a large number of rural households in this country have TV, and access to these discussions. They listen to the panelists on the prime-time news program, they have some respect for the views of those who are better educated and better informed than themselves - and they do get influenced.<br />
<br />
Last year, I had a resident caretaker-cum-cook in my house. He used to watch every single episode of Satyamev Jayate. One Sunday morning, as I ate my breakfast watching some random cricket, he politely suggested that I change the channel, and I had to tell him that SJ's first season was over. This was a poor, 50-yr-old man from a small village in Odisha - and he cared about social issues like female foeticide, child molestation, honor killings et al - and he listened to every word spoken on the program with even greater interest than myself. So don't tell me 'those people' don't care or can't be influenced.<br />
<br />
Of course, this doesn't mean everything is going to change overnight - but we certainly are moving in the right direction. Slowly, but steadily.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The bad</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
I did have mixed feelings about many of the protests, though. People were marching, yelling 'We want... death penalty'! While I respect their intentions, it's another case of mixed-up priorities. Whether the penalty should be death or prison isn't the real point - there are much more basic issues at play here. Let's take a few steps back:<br />
<br />
1. Many rapists don't even get convicted by courts, using money and/or power to subvert the whole legal process. We need to weed out corruption here.<br />
2. Even if the prosecution was sincere, it is often weak. The police simply lacks investigative and forensic skills, and cases drag on farcically for years. The whole system needs to be strengthened.<br />
3. The majority of rapes are not even reported. Victims don't come forward, fearing social stigma, facing staggering apathy and often even the blame! This requires a change in attitude.<br />
<br />
While these are more basic and important issues than what the penalty should be, that's still not the real point. This discussion should not be about justice for victims, but about preventing the crime in the first place.<br />
<br />
I believe there are two <i>root causes</i> for so much rape in our country: <b>lack of respect for women</b>, and <b>disregard for law and order</b>. Though it is important, I'm not going to talk about the first, because I don't really understand the phenomenon, and it disgusts me. I will talk about the second, tho.<br />
<br />
While the government is responsible for enforcing law & order, being a civilized, law-abiding citizen is a personal choice. Such a person would - by definition - never commit rape (or any other crime). On the other hand, no govt. can effectively control 1.2 billion people if they don't choose to behave themselves. While most people would nod in agreement, they don't seem to realize that they're also part of the problem. I will give two examples.<br />
<br />
First, the issue of black money. I've heard many middle class people complain a lot about the amount of black money that corrupt politicians etc. have parked overseas, and how they've robbed this country of development. But somehow it's ok for the same people to make inflated HRA claims and submit false medical/travel/phone expense reports to reduce their own tax liability. We feel it's ok to buy things using cash, without proper bills/docs, if that brings down the total transaction cost. We either don't realize that we are a part of the 'black' economy, or we don't care. We complain about the problem, and criticize the govt for not solving it, while simultaneously contributing to the problem. Sheer hypocrisy.<br />
<br />
The second example is our behavior on roads. Of course, we complain about how bad the traffic is, and how reckless other people are - but it's ok for us to skip red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, the wrong way up a one-way, drive after a couple of drinks, not wear helmets/seat-belts and talk on our phones while driving whenever we want to. <b>We seem to feel we don't need to obey the laws/rules, but we want everyone else to.</b> Does that even sound like it would work?<br />
<br />
This general disregard for law & order culminates in heinous crimes like the Delhi gang-rape. I'm not trying to equate your forged rent receipt to that crime, but one of the major underlying issues is the same in both cases. Being a civilized, law-abiding citizen is not a matter of convenience - you must be one everywhere and at all times. The moment this becomes a matter of personal discretion, all hell breaks loose. You think it's ok to save a few thousand rupees by forging rent receipts. The minister thinks the same way about receiving a few hundred crores under the table to grant a contract. You think it's ok to drive after a couple of beers. Ram Singh & his group were driving that bus drunk, originally looking just to steal money for more alcohol. Once you start negotiating right vs. wrong and individuals start deciding for themselves, who decides where to draw the line and on what basis?<br />
<br />
This is where the social contract and the law of the land come in. It defines the lines between right and wrong, and one must never cross those lines. This is a matter of principle and not magnitude. Today, all of us make concessions for ourselves, blame others for all problems and expect the govt to find all the solutions. That is the 'bad'.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-20770471259001020682012-02-16T03:11:00.000+05:302012-02-16T11:52:29.218+05:30A Tale of Two Papers...Recently, we've witnessed an interesting battle between the two 'big' newspapers of India - on TV and in social media like Facebook. In fact, as I write this - the battle is still ongoing and seems likely to heat up further. I will not recap the events here - you can look it up on Google or FB (although if you don't know what I'm talking about, you're most likely not someone who reads Indian newspapers and probably better off closing this tab right now). I will talk about my own experiences over the years, and opinions on the two newspapers here.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
I grew up reading TOI. In Lucknow, where I spent the better part of my high school years - and later returned for my MBA - it was really the only English newspaper worth reading, miles ahead of the competition in terms of both content and style. My first tryst with the Hindu was when I went to Chennai for my B.Tech. I just hated it.<br />
<br />
TOI used to be in color, with nice graphics and all, and had a reasonable balance of information and entertainment at the time. The Hindu, by contrast, was all black-and-white - literally and figuratively. It had no supplements like 'Lucknow Times'. I think I had more fun reading Simon Haykin's '<i>Signals and Systems, 3e</i>' - a textbook for a course I struggled to pass.<br />
<br />
But it all started to change in the early 2000s. The Hindu went color, and started caring about their readers' usage experience. TOI, on the other hand, divorced itself from all serious journalism and quality reporting. In one year, the day after the Union Budget, they chose to use a cricket theme for the entire front page. The Budget session, the FM's speech, policy decisions and implications - were all described using cricket metaphors which varied from mildly inappropriate in some places, to offensively ridiculous in others. The fact that they'd managed to so trivialize the Union Budget was a rude shock to me.<br />
<br />
After I moved to Bangalore in 2006, I started sharing a flat with other guys, and this continued till 2009. During this whole period, we subscribed to 2-3 newspapers - TOI, The Hindu (which had gradually grown on me), and occasionally the Economic Times. In 2009, I moved into a flat solo and decided that I didn't have the time to read two newspapers, and didn't want to waste money. I had to choose between the two...<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
The Hindu was definitely my preferred newspaper in terms of reporting quality. The language was appropriate, the analysis intelligent and insightful, and the focus squarely on news rather than ads or entertainment. Anyone who says The Hindu is 'too serious' or 'boring' or 'academic' probably hasn't read the newspaper in the last couple of years. I would describe it as 'engaging' and even 'rewarding' to read, at times. For example, their coverage of cricket was in an altogether different class, compared to all the other papers. Even if you'd watched a match from the first ball to the last, you'd still enjoy reading their report the next day, the way you enjoy a nuanced, intelligent & passionate discussion of a mutual interest with a fellow aficionado. My memory's a bit hazy, but I think they had a reporter named Ram Mahesh whom I especially looked forward to reading from.<br />
<br />
Yet, The Hindu is successful only if you evaluate it as a conventional newspaper. I think this is where the origin of The Hindu's frustration and the recent ad campaign lies. They've done their job well, as they understand it, but they've not been nearly as successful as TOI and some others who have crossed many lines The Hindu wouldn't.<br />
<br />
While TOI retains the newspaper format, a lot of its subject matter resembles tabloids or even film/lifestyle magazines. Their argument is that they are simply satisfying the readers' demand - but this is no longer acceptable in this day and age. The notion of corporate social responsibility is becoming increasingly popular the world over. Cigarette companies are being sued, fast food companies are being sued, beverage companies are being criticized - all by former customers who <i>voluntarily</i> consumed their products. They are also being restricted in terms of what they advertise, who they target etc. <i>No one can wash their hands off the responsibility for what they make.</i><br />
<br />
Similarly, media houses can't just provide simple/entertaining reading material to the masses, they are also supposed to <i>adequately inform the public about everything important. </i>Their editorial choices <i>end up influencing people's levels of awareness, and their priorities and opinions,</i> and some of TOI's choices are doing this nation a disservice. This argument is the basis of the Hindu's campaign against TOI, and I certainly support it.<br />
<br />
More significantly, to me anyway - the quality of TOI's reporting is low - the reporters seem to be working mechanically towards inch-column targets, with little analysis of the subject matter or insight. There are often spelling and/or grammatical errors in the final published version, and general lack of mastery over the English language - such as the misuse of the word 'itself' to convey emphasis. I don't mind their use of slang or colloquialisms, but I cannot forgive plain bad English from someone who's supposed to be qualified as an English-language journalist, and writing to earn a living.<br />
<br />
The third - and probably most worrying - problem with TOI is the excessive commercialization. I don't mind ads - I understand they help keep my monthly bills low. However, TOI's half-width, full-length pages - a recent 'innovation' used exclusively for advertising - are annoying beyond belief. They make the newspaper unwieldy and physically difficult to hold and read. I'm sure they realize this, but they obviously don't care. Secondly, I feel the front page of a newspaper has a certain sanctity and I don't appreciate when it is partially or fully covered by ads. When I'm in a real hurry and don't have the time to unfold the newspaper, I'd like to steal a glance at the big headlines for the day, NOT an ad for a car. Third, the phenomenon of paid content or what they call advertorials. This is plain cheating. The reader believes that everything published in a newspaper as 'news' is 'fact' and the publishers are responsible for validating it, and reporting without any biases. Advertising is fine, but needs to be clearly identifiable as such and not masked as content - that is betraying the readers' trust and misleading them. TOI does it a lot, and isn't at all apologetic about it.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
But in spite of all this, I ended up subscribing to TOI over The Hindu, a choice that continues to haunt me as TOI makes me cringe every other day - like today, when an article spoke about 'undeserved' sections of society (I think they meant 'under-served'). Let me explain why I made this choice, though.<br />
<br />
Fact is, I can get my dose of news from many other sources. However, the 'Bangalore Times' supplement for is uniquely convenient for looking up movie listings, keeping in touch with hotel/restaurant/pub events, local discount sales, and generally keeping in touch with trivial subjects of popular social interest. However, if I was managing TOI, I'd be worried that <i>this</i> was one of my few USPs.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the Sunday editorials in TOI are unmatched and something I never miss. This includes Swaminomics, and regularly features articles by the likes of Gurcharan Das, Shashi Tharoor, Swapan Dasgupta, MJ Akbar and others (the dark spot is Shobhaa De, whom I actively hate).<br />
<br />
Finally, despite the poor quality or most reporting and excessive commercial/frivolous stuff, TOI does manage fairly complete national and international coverage. The Hindu, unfortunately, focuses too much on South India, particularly the regional politics - which I have little interest in. When we had both papers, I always read the Hindu first - and there were several times I had to then also read TOI because The Hindu hadn't adequately covered a North Indian or international story I was interested in. This was <i>the single most important factor</i> that tipped the scales against The Hindu for me.<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
To use one TOI's favored cricket analogies, The Hindu is like a good, classical English Test batsman. He's talented, has followed the textbook and worked hard to develop his skills to a great degree, has had a good deal of success but remains grounded, and has received a decent education as well. But he's all at sea against sub-continental spin.<br />
<br />
TOI is like Suresh Raina. Technically limited and flawed, yet immensely successful in India and popular with our T20 generation (ironically, in Chennai!)<br />
<br />
The purists will always prefer the English chap, and the pragmatists Suresh Raina. Unless, of course, The Hindu does a Rahul Dravid and adapts to succeed in every arena, while maintaining classical purity. All the recent signs... choice of a new professional editor... the intelligent and very aggressive (the latter being completely out of character) ad campaign... surely look promising...Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-69396002780147762942012-01-20T19:41:00.001+05:302012-01-21T10:10:04.990+05:30In Defence of the Army ChiefAs someone who comes from an Army family and grew up with the Army all around, it is surely natural that I am following the Gen VK Singh age row with keen interest, and have decided to write about it today.<br />
<br />
At the outset, let me say that I did not start with a bias in favor of Gen Singh. On the contrary, I was dismayed when I first heard about this controversy and its escalation. The Indian Army has a great record on the battlefield, and has never meddled in politics or government. Unlike many developing countries including our neighbors, we've never had rogue Generals acting on their own authority. We've never had any coups. Members of our armed forces have consistently been the most respected of all civil servants - smart & eloquent, dedicated & disciplined, deeply committed to national interest and performing their duty honestly, relatively free from corruption.<br />
<br />
Given this extremely dignified history, the current situation is certainly not one we wished to see. If I had seen any evidence that indicated that Gen Singh was being dishonest, or trying to benefit personally using any unfair means - doing <i>anything</i> dishonorable - I would've been the first to condemn him. But that is not the case.<br />
<br />
Let me lay down the facts, to the best of my knowledge.<br />
<br />
Gen VK Singh was born in 1951. His birth certificate (authentic, issued by an Army Hospital) says so. His matriculation certificate - the de-facto 'final word' when it comes to settling issues of age - also says so. His passport, driving license... all documents <i>including</i> his Army ID card say so. So this issue is beyond doubt.<br />
<br />
In one place, he made a mistake - his UPSC form. (In fact - it's not entirely clear if he made the mistake himself, or it was someone else.) Now, if there was any indication that this was deliberate, or done with the intention of gaining any unfair advantage, you could hold it against him - but that's not the case. He was eligible for admission to the NDA even with his actual DOB (candidates aged 15 were admitted to the NDA at the time). Claiming to be older put him at a disadvantage, if anything - because it would have advanced his retirement age (the current scenario). Some people who are saying he gained 'seniority' and his promotions were based on a 1950 birth - are simply talking thru their backsides. Seniority in the Army is measured as '<i>number of years in service</i>' and NOT age.<br />
<br />
Others are saying he should have got it corrected earlier. Well, he did all he could - he submitted the documents necessary in his <i>first few months</i> in service, got the record corrected in the AG's office - which is the primary record-keeper of the Army, and his ID card and all Army docs said 1951. Now, 36 years later - if the MS branch suddenly informed him that they never made the correction, how is that Gen Singh's fault? Anyway, this happened about 4 years back, and Gen Singh has been seeking a correction ever since.<br />
<br />
A very important question is - how did the MS branch accept ever accept the 1950 DOB? Even if there was an error on the UPSC form, the supporting docs (birth, matric cert etc.) said 1951 and they're supposed to verify these things, aren't they? Clearly, whoever did (or did not do) this was careless. It was a tiny little 'typo' error someone made 40 years back. Correcting it now shouldn't be a big deal, right? I don't understand why the MoD refuses to do so. It shouldn't even be embarrassing - because the mistake was made by some underling 40 years back, and does not reflect on the current staff in charge of serious issues.<br />
<br />
Another set is claiming that he'd submitted a 'written undertaking'. In this document, he had NOT explicitly accepted 1950 as some people seem to think - he'd just said he would abide by whatever decision was taken by the relevant authority, and he had done so under unfair pressure, and with a verbal assurance that the decision would go in his favor - which is the only <i>right </i>decision that could have been taken here. If he later found that the decision had been mala fide, and people had reneged on their verbal commitments, he surely has a right to protest.<br />
<br />
On TV, I heard a bureaucrat - I think his name was KC Singh - say that Gen Singh was facing a 'heads I win, tails you lose' scenario. If the SC decides against him, he ends up looking like a complete idiot. If they find in his favor, "the Defence Ministry will sulk and not cooperate with him."<br />
<br />
This last statement is alarming. The Defence Ministry are neither gods nor kings. They're <i>civil servants</i> in a democratic system. They are supposed to act professionally, not arbitrarily or based on their feelings. The law is supreme, and the SC's word is final. If MoD people are found to have made a mistake - they have to accept it, do the right thing and move on. If they stubbornly refuse to do so, simply because it is embarrassing - it goes against all principles of fairness, equality and accountability. I am not at all comfortable with the idea of entrusting such people with matters of national security.<br />
<br />
Sure, Gen VK Singh does not emerge as a saint from all this. But I prefer an Army Chief who fights for what's right, rather than one who meekly surrenders to arrogant, incompetent, stubborn and/or malicious bureaucrats or politicians. According to the Bhagvad Gita - a soldier is <i>bound by duty</i> to fight for what's right, and one who shirks this responsibility is unworthy of his life.<br />
<br />
If the grapevine is to be believed, a lot of people in the establishment want to get rid of Gen Singh because he is an honest man who likes to confront the corrupt. He has been responsible for unearthing some scams in the military, and the subsequent court martial of some very senior officers. The establishment want him out of the way, and they want someone more malleable to replace him. That's why they've gone out of their way to find a flimsy pretext, and stuck stubbornly to their stand. It will be a sad day for this country if they get away with it.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-14257395546124580262012-01-04T14:49:00.000+05:302012-01-04T21:27:47.865+05:30Free country?While the issue is not new, this particular post was motivated by <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/BU-panel-head-wants-dress-code/articleshow/11346325.cms" target="_blank">this article and the following discussion</a> in TOI, and an earlier <a href="http://praja.in/poll/tarlesubba/2008/08/14/booze-banjo-and-bangalore#comment-7424" target="_blank">argument I had on a web forum about restrictions on nightlife</a> in Bangalore.<br />
<br />
The TOI article reported the views of the woman who was the HoD for women studies (whatever that encompasses), and who currently is the head of the committee against sexual harassment in the Bangalore University. Now, sexual harassment is touchy subject and anybody who is responsible for supporting the victims must be extraordinarily empathetic and trustworthy to be at all effective in their roles. This woman is pretty much the opposite. She feels that even a saree worn with a sleeveless blouse is an invitation to rape! She favors early curfews in women's hostels and a dress code for women students and even lecturers. <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Women-should-know-how-much-skin-they-should-cover-Karnataka-minister/articleshow/11332190.cms" target="_blank">Similar views were aired recently</a> by the state minister for women and child welfare. <br />
<br />
I will not comment about how women should dress because it is a free country and it is none of my business. Here I am more interested in exploring why the majority of people in this country oppose women dressing in western clothes. Why do they oppose Valentine's day celebration, and any romantic or sexual relationships outside of marriage. Why, in Bangalore, they oppose the very existence of a nightlife.<br />
<br />
Initially, I thought it was a class divide issue. The educated, urban elite have a different value system and make different lifestyle choices compared to the less well-off, and that causes social tensions. But when you hear senior university professors and ministers support this moral policing and blame victims, the class divide hypothesis fails. My own experience in discussions on praja.in - a forum of well-meaning, educated, affluent citizens who want to help solve problems such as traffic congestion - affirmed that the majority of people, even in the upper class, <i>support</i> moral policing. <br />
<br />
This points to a much deeper root cause, independent of class or education. I suspect that in our country, we do not care much for individual liberty and freedom, nor do we believe that every individual deserves some respect.<br />
<br />
Think about it. We've historically had a rigid caste system, which people have failed to get out of even after converting to other religions. Even in our modern, urban society, individuals are not free. Parents take all major decisions till children reach college, and continue to dominate the decision-making process through their children's education, early career and even marriage - till the children become parents themselves. They discourage any unconventional ideas, and 'protect' the child. Then we wonder why we - as a nation - don't produce our fair share of innovations and original thinking.<br />
<br />
At work, even in private companies, senior positions are not seen as the ones with more 'responsibility', but the ones with more 'power'. Asking questions or arguing with anything is considered 'disrespectful'. In politics, we worship dynasties and film stars. We don't vote for the local candidate, we vote for a party and a 'leader' (a CM or PM candidate). This is also why most of us support a draconian Lokpal. We treat sacrifice and selflessness as greater virtues than personal ambition or material success. As a result, we are a hierarchical society with a herd mentality and little tolerance for individuals who question societal norms or dare to act unconventionally. In all of this, we seriously undermine the <i>individual</i>.<br />
<br />
This is something very fundamental, and it will have to change if we want socio-economic development, equality, prosperity and a global superpower status in the future. Let each individual have genuine freedom to make life choices - within the constraints of the law, but <i>no other</i>. Let them live with the consequences - good or bad. Let us treat each individual with due respect for what he/she thinks and what he/she is. If one billion minds actually start working individually and freely, only then can we achieve our potential as a nation and maybe regain our pre-eminent position in the world.<br />
<br />
Anna Hazare was right when he said that we need a second freedom struggle. But it has nothing to do with the Lokpal. It has to be fought in our minds.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-87443408807244418382011-12-15T19:37:00.002+05:302011-12-15T20:54:41.449+05:30Re-thinking dietary choices<br />
It is estimated that nearly 100 million people died due to hunger & malnutrition across the world in the last decade. Approx 24,000 people people still die everyday for the same reasons. These are huge numbers. To put them in perspective, think about this - about 23 people will die by the time you finish reading this post (~90 sec). The vast majority of the victims of this problem are children under age 10. And that's just the death count. It is estimated that more than 800 million people suffer from hunger & malnutrition in the world today.<br />
<br />
In this post, I will present a point of view on some of how YOUR food choices may be contributing to this problem. Not common-sense things like wasting food, not finishing your meals etc., but how choices like buying organic foods and turning vegetarian/vegan - which most people believe are 'green' and help 'save the planet', and are thus becoming increasingly popular - might actually be doing more damage than good.<br />
<b><u><br /></u></b><br />
<b><u>1. Organic Foods</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b><br />
It is becoming quite fashionable these days to buy organic foods at the supermarkets. Just pause and think - If 'organic' food is 'better', why is most food we get not organic? Most of the food grown and consumed across the world today cannot be classified as 'organic' because it uses one or more of the following:<br />
<ul>
<li>Hybrid or genetically modified variety of the crop</li>
<li>Chemical fertilizers, pesticides etc</li>
<li>Modern agricultural or food-processing methods such as irradiation etc.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The reasons the above materials/methods are used are several but the end objective can be summed up in one phrase - to increase the yield. GM or hybrid plant varieties generally produce more end-product per unit area (kg/sq.m.). Fertilizers help this further. Pesticides etc. ensure the health of the plant and avoid crop losses due to disease - think of it as equivalent to inoculation among humans. The other methods mentioned also ensure that a greater proportion of the food produces is safely consumed by people.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Higher yields have allowed us to properly feed an ever-growing human population, and also freed up a larger percentage of people for other vocations. The human population has <i>more than quadrupled</i> since 1900, and the amount of land available to us for agriculture hasn't increased. In fact, with increasing urbanization, it will actually <i>decrease</i> over the next century, while the world population is not likely to stabilize below the 10 Billion mark. In such a situation, increasing agricultural yield and minimizing wastage is an absolute imperative, not a matter of choice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Every time you buy organic food, keep in mind that you are indulging yourself in a luxury at somebody else's cost. That 'organic' tomato may taste better and be slightly better for your own health, but it means <i>at least 20% </i>of the available production capacity (perhaps much more) was lost where it was produced. Simply put, 5 organic tomatoes were produced where 6 or more bigger tomatoes could have been produced using non-organic methods. Another child died in the time it took for you to read about these hypothetical tomatoes. What is your priority - saving these children, or buying products for nebulous, unproven reasons like 'conserving the environment'? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>2. Vegetarianism</u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
The likes of PETA often implore you to adopt a vegetarian diet. Hell, their ads are so hot even I am tempted at times. Look at exhibits <a href="http://www.unswbmedia.org/mdia1001/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pamela-anderson-peta-thumb-400x5671.jpg" target="_blank">1</a>, <a href="https://secure.peta.org/images/content/pagebuilder/21617.jpg" target="_blank">2</a> (both Pamela Anderson) and <a href="http://www.bollywoodworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/lara-dutta-peta.jpg" target="_blank">3</a> (our own Lara Dutta). They say we should do this to prevent cruelty to animals. Hmmm. Let's dig a little deeper.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why do we eat meat anyway? I mean - we evolved from apes who are mostly herbivorous. Foragers. Homo Sapiens as a species has never had the physical strength or speed to physically dominate other animals. We do not even have the typical phyical features (claws, jaws or teeth) that all carnivores share, so it would be fair to say that nature never designed us to be effective hunters. So how did we even start eating animals?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's easy to guess - the human population is always growing. Initially, we foraged and hunted a bit, but this wasn't enough to feed us consistently, so we started farming. That couldn't completely solve the problem either. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Since most of my friends and readers of this blog are Indians, I will digress a bit here and explain this point. In our country, we are extremely fortunate have plenty of fertile land and a climate that allows agriculture pretty much round-the-year. There are parts of the country where 3 crops are grown each year. So, historically, we've had enough vegetarian food for everyone and had the luxury of saying no to meat for religious reasons.<br />
<br />
The rest of the world has never had this luxury. Deserts, grasslands, freezing winters with snow etc. have severely limited their ability to produce enough to feed themselves through just farming - and they had to consume animal products. In England, for example, they can't really grow anything other than potatoes - which is why their diet has traditionally included meat, cheese and mashed potatoes! Everything else is 'imported'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This also explains why the Buddhist populations of regions in East Asia and Sri Lanka eat things that most of us in India would balk at the very thought of, even though Buddhism (the Indian version, at least) strictly forbids killing animals. Unlike Indian Buddhists (Hindus), people in other regions never had any other choice. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In any case, we only eat a part of the crop. Of a cereal crop, we only eat the grain. Of most other plants, we only eat the fruit, the seed (rarely, the flower) or the roots. The rest of the plant - stem, branches, leaves etc. - are largely useless because our species can't digest complex carbohydrates like cellulose. Our ancestors were smart enough to realize that some animals - like cattle, goats, sheep etc. - could be fed things we grow but can't consume directly and then we could eat the animal products - milk or eggs, and meat. It was necessary for survival, and actually made our diet more wholesome. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A good example here is Yaks in the Himalayan region. The yaks eat grass, don't eat grain, and humans depend on yak - as beasts of burden and sources of dairy during their lives, and for fur/wool and meat upon their death. Otherwise, a lot of people in these regions couldn't survive at all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So - returning to the original premise - since there is already a shortage of food in the world and people are dying of hunger and malnutrition, we have to make the most of all resources available. This includes eating dairy products and non-vegetarian food. It is the only sensible thing to do.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for the cruelty to animals argument, I feel it is largely exaggerated. Real examples of cruelty include cases like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile_bear" target="_blank">Bile bears in China</a>, and here I agree we should stop cruel practices and look for alternatives. However, animal farming does not generally involve cruelty. Farm animals are properly fed and taken care of their whole lives. Most of them don't even have to work for their food like animals in the wild - they are provided their feed. In fact, it is well-known that meat with more fat is tastier, and it usually commands a higher price, so it is in the animal farmers' interest to ensure the animals are the equivalents of pot-bellied men living sedentary lives! In the Kobe region of Japan, you'd rather be a cow than a human. You'd be pampered with a massage and 6 bottles of beer per day! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Keep in mind - most farm animals wouldn't even be alive if they weren't going to be used as food. In many cases, farm animals are inoculated and their health is taken care of by the farmers. They just eat/graze, fool around, live comfortable, happy, disease-free lives, grow fat and eventually die. A lot of them also have names and receive some amount of affection from their owners. The slaughter is usually a quick and clean process, typically after the animal has already lived through it's prime years. Much better than, say, a young deer being hunted by a tiger or swallowed by a python. As a %age, more people probably die painful deaths due to stress, disease or accidents than animals bred for food. Where's the cruelty?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, scientifically speaking, plants are also living things. They breathe, they grow, they absorb nutrients from the soil, they reproduce and eventually die. The main difference is that animals can express their emotions and die in a manner that we can relate to, and thus feel bad about. Who is to say with certainty that plants do not feel pain? Maybe it's just in a manner we don't understand and so do not feel guilty about. In any case, plants are as 'living' as are animals - and to choose to eat one and not the other is just a combination of ignorance and hypocrisy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>3. About conservationists</u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
At the end of it all, the world can be divided into two sets of people. One set feel that we take too much from mother earth, spoil the natural balance etc. and we should make a greater effort at conserving the earth, and generally regress. These are the people who want you to turn vegan, buy organic, and not use fuel. While these people are inebriated with their own false sense of righteousness, there are millions of human beings dying of hunger and malnutrition in the world. I feel it is criminal to worry about animal rights ahead of starving Africans, and it goes against a most basic natural principle - survival of the fittest. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If they really believe the human race has grown too big and is taking too heavy a toll from the planet, I think the best thing they can do is, well, knock themselves off. That way, they will stop breathing up all of our oxygen, consuming valuable energy and all sorts of other products drawn from nature. In the process, they can also rid themselves of their guilt and rid us of the nuisance - so everybody wins, including mother earth!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If they choose not to do so, they should just shut up and stop trying to tell others how to, or how not to, live our lives. Try doing something useful - like finding a cure for cancer.<br />
<br />
(I have focused on dietary choices here, but similar arguments can be made against most 'green', or 'pro-earth' phenomena. I believe the human race still has a lot to achieve and too many real problems to solve, to get bogged down by perceived, hypothetical or potential threats to the environment or other species. If or when it is proven that we need to change our ways to avert a disaster, I'm sure we will. I have great faith in human ingenuity and ability to solve problems and survive, when needed.)<br />
<br />
(Another aspect to this whole discussion could be spiritual but I have absolutely no interest in going there, as I am a very materialistic and objective person. I would direct spiritual people to the questions posed by Javali in the Ramayana. Till you come up with some satisfactory answers and evidence for your beliefs, don't bother me.)</div>Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-76149868800904178482011-12-09T18:01:00.001+05:302011-12-10T03:08:04.025+05:30The Wonder named Virender - A Tribute<b><u>Prologue</u></b><br />
<br />
Earlier this year, my friend Gokul and I were watching the Final match of the 2011 Cricket World Cup together at my place. During the innings break, we rushed to the ATM in our apartment complex, as neither of us had enough cash to pay for the dinner that we were going to order in. Unfortunately, a lot of people had the same idea and there was a long queue at the ATM. When we were running back to the house, we heard the collective groan of 1,000+ flats, which was followed by an eerie silence. We knew India had lost an early wicket. "<i>Please god</i>", we said, "<i>if India have lost a wicket, please let it be Sachin and NOT Sehwag!</i>"<br />
<br />
Before I get accused of blasphemy by the majority of my fellow countrymen, let me clarify that the above statement is NOT meant to undermine Sachin - any sane cricket fan knows Sachin is one of the greatest to have ever played the game, and I grew up worshiping him myself. The statement is only meant to underscore the value of Virender Sehwag today.<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b><u>Early Days</u></b><br />
<br />
I remember the first time I noticed Viru. It was the summer break (from college) in 2001, and I was at my grandparents' house in Delhi watching <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/66327.html" target="_blank">an India-NZ ODI</a> on the TV, and talking to Gokul (ya, same fella as earlier) on the phone. We were both amused by this 'clone-of-Sachin' - as Sehwag was known in his early days - playing an innings that Sachin would have been proud of. Not only was he of similar stature, he had a stance, style and strokes very similar to Sachin's, and he went on to score a dominant 70-ball 100, opening the batting with Ganguly. The resemblance was uncanny.<br />
<br />
With a simplicity and refreshing candor that were to become his hallmarks over the next decade, he admitted that Sachin was his idol and he'd tried to model his game on Sachin's. The fact that he could score a remarkable 70-ball 100 <i>while performing mimicry</i> on the pitch, should have been enough to signal to the world just how special he was, though it actually took a few more years for the potential to be realized.<br />
<br />
It wasn't long before we saw the master and the clone bat together in Sehwag's <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63951.html" target="_blank">debut Test</a> in South Africa, collaring an attack that included Pollock and Ntini on a lively Bloemfontein pitch. They got together with India tottering at 68/4 in the very first session, and put together an inspiring partnership of 220 runs in just 47 overs! India still lost the match, but we knew that Sachin was no longer going to be a lone warrior for India.<br />
<br />
A Test middle-order crowded with big names (something that rings true even today) meant that Sehwag could not quickly cement his place in the Indian Test side, in spite of the heroic debut. Trying to make the best of a difficult situation, the team management pushed him into an opening role in England. While fans like me were happy to see Sehwag in the side, we were worried that putting him into an unfamiliar opening role in testing English conditions - especially considering the perceived weaknesses in his batting technique, limited footwork etc. - was a recipe for disaster. Sehwag, as is his wont, made a mockery of such concerns by scoring 84 off 96 balls in the first innings of the <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63997.html" target="_blank">first Test at Lord's</a>, and went one better and scored a century in the <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63998.html" target="_blank">next Test at Trent Bridge</a>.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b><u>Pwning 'em</u></b><br />
<br />
Sehwag deserves a large part of the credit for tilting the scales in India's favor in the famed rivalry with Pakistan. Since Miandad's famous <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/65816.html" target="_blank">last ball six</a> in the '86, Pakistan had pwned India in general, with the curious exception of World Cup matches. At the turn of the millennium - with Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, and Saqlain forming a formidable bowling attack - Pakistan's dominance seemed set to continue, and maybe become even stronger - despite several absolutely heroic efforts from Sachin. However, the tables turned decisively in 2003-4. First, there was the <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/65268.html" target="_blank">World Cup win</a> - which Sachin dominated with his 98, with the upper cut for 6 off Shoaib being <i>the</i> lasting memory from that game. But Sehwag also played a small role in that win - scoring 21 off 14, helping India get to 50 in 5-odd overs, and putting Pakistan on the back-foot immediately. Since then, his dominance of this opposition has been thorough. He became the first Indian to score a triple hundred, and he did it against Pak in Pak - something that would have been unimaginable a few years earlier. His Test average against Pak is an astonishing 91.1 at a strike rate of 80 with 4 centuries from 9 test matches.<br />
<br />
Another opposition Sehwag has pwned is Sri Lanka. In the same decade that Murali went on to create all sorts of records, Sehwag averaged 72.9 at a strike rate of 99.3 against SL in test matches, including 5 centuries (two doubles)! In the 2008 series, where Ajantha Mendis completely bamboozled all of India's famed middle-order batsmen, with able support from Murali, Sehwag managed to <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/343730.html" target="_blank">win a test match</a> almost single-handedly, scoring a double hundred in the first innings and a quick 50 in the second.<br />
<br />
Readers might be surprised to know that Sehwag also has an average of 59.5 <i>in Australia</i>, with 2 centuries. These include a <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64061.html" target="_blank">195, when he got out trying to reach 200 with a six</a> (2003), and a match-saving <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/291354.html" target="_blank">151 in the second innings of a test</a> (2008) where the next highest score by an Indian batsman in the second innings was 20.<br />
<br />
With nearly 8,000 runs, 22 centuries, an average of 52 overall (and a respectable 46.6 away from home) at an incredible strike rate of 82 in Tests, I don't think anyone can argue against Sehwag being one of the great Test batsmen of all time. Keep in mind - most of this has been achieved as an opener - not his natural role, and one which exposes his technical weaknesses against the fast, swinging ball to a greater extent.<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b><u>Short-term Impact</u></b><br />
<br />
When it comes to ODIs, critics often complain about Sehwag's rather-ordinary batting average of 35, and his fans counter with arguments about the '<i>impact</i>' he creates with his high strike rate at the top of the innings. This was best illustrated in the <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/engine/match/433605.html" target="_blank">semi-final against Pak</a> in the recently concluded World Cup. Sehwag only managed 38 runs. But he did so off 25 balls, and in doing so, took India to 48 in 6 overs on a pitch where all other batsmen from both sides - Sachin included - struggled to score at a run rate of even 5 an over. The momentum Sehwag provided allowed the batsmen who followed him to take their time getting in and not feel any 'scoreboard pressure', as the innings run rate did not drop below 6 till the middle of the Indian innings, in spite of all batsmen going rather slow.<br />
<br />
Also, Umar Gul - with his reverse swing and yorkers - had being Pakistan's main weapon with the ball, especially in the batting powerplay and towards the end of the innings. Sehwag took him for 21 runs including 5 boundaries in his very first over. Gul never recovered psychologically from that assault, and finished the day with 8-0-69-0 in what was not really a high-scoring game. This is the 'impact' we talk about. It may not seem like a lot statistically, but is often the crucial difference between winning and losing matches. (India won this game by about 30 runs)<br />
<br />
Another example of impact was the <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/indveng/engine/match/361050.html" target="_blank">1st test against Eng in Chennai, 2008</a>. India were set a target of 387 in the 4th innings, with just under 4 sessions to play. The first three innings had seen Eng score 316/10, India reply with 241/10, and Eng declare at 311/9. When India came out to bat, people thought only two results were possible - an Eng win, or a draw. India won that game by 6 wickets and nearly a whole session to spare. Strauss had scored 100's in both innings, and Sachin had scored 103* in India's second innings, taking them home. Yet, the man-of-the-match award was given to Sehwag for his 83 off 68 balls in the fourth innings - because it was his innings that had made the final result even possible.<br />
<br />
If you want to understand <i>impact</i> even better, try playing fantasy cricket when there's a major tournament on, like any ICC event or the IPL. In fantasy cricket, points are awarded not only for runs scored, but also milestones achieved, strike rate, man-of-the-match awards etc. This will help you appreciate Sehwag's impact better!<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sure, we all wish he would be more consistent - but therein lies the paradox. If what he did was easy and happened often, it wouldn't be so special! </div>
<div>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Numbers Game</u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u><br />
</u></b></div>
<div>
Most people may not realize that Sehwag <i>has been</i> more consistent since his return to the ODI side in 2008 (he was briefly dropped in 2007, and the break clearly did him a world of good and helped him sort things out in his head).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's play with the numbers a bit - they tell an interesting story. Since his return to the ODI side in 2008, Sehwag has <a href="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmin1=01+Jan+2008;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting" target="_blank">averaged 47.35 at a strike rate of 123</a>. He has scored 7 of his 15 ODI 100's in this period, and all 7 have resulted in India winning. In fact, of the 15 occasions Sehwag has ever crossed 100 in ODIs, India has won 14 times (<b><i>93%</i></b>). The only game where a Sehwag century <i>didn't</i> win it for India was back <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64814.html" target="_blank">in 2002 in New Zealand</a>, where he scored 108 (off 119) chasing NZ's 254, but received no support from the other batsmen (the next highest was a lousy 24 by Kaif).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Since 2008, Sehwag has played 62 ODIs for India. Of these, India have won 38 and lost 19 (win ratio <b>2:1</b>). However, when Sehwag has scored at least 30 (<a href="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=default;runsmin1=30;runsval1=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+2008;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting" target="_blank">34 occasions</a>), this ratio goes up to nearly <b>3:1</b>. When he crosses 50 (19 occasions), this ratio jumps dramatically to <b>8:1</b>. And a Sehwag century (7 occasions) has always ensured a win. That is <i>impact</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For perspective, in the same period, Sachin has played <a href="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmin1=01+Jan+2008;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting" target="_blank">46 matches</a> for India, averaging a slightly better 52.4 at a considerably lower strike rate of nearly 93. India have won 29 and lost 12 (~<b>2.5:1</b> win ratio) of all these matches. With a Sachin 50+ score (14 occasions), this win ratio jumps up to 11:3, or <b>just</b> <b>under 4:1</b>. When Sachin completes a 100 (7 occasions), India's win ratio actually <i>drops</i> to <b>2:1</b>. I will say no more (though I have in an <a href="http://mavernik.blogspot.com/2011/08/of-god-and-man.html" target="_blank">older post</a>).</div>
<div>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Not just a dasher...</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some people also say Sehwag is a one-dimensional player, or a flat track bully. For the latter argument, I will just point out to his record - nearly 8,000 runs each in both Test matches and ODI's, with big hundreds against all major oppositions and in all major countries. The only country where his record leaves something to be desired is England, but while I concede that his technique and approach probably aren't good enough to achieve great success as an opening batsmen in English conditions, I don't think that one chink in the armor is nearly enough to deny his claim to greatness.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I will address the 'one-dimensional' argument in a bit more detail, citing his performance in IPL 2011. He came up with 3 amazing innings, each in a very different context.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Against a Kings XI Punjab side that included Valthaty, Gilchrist and Shaun Marsh, on a friendly wicket, Sehwag knew Delhi needed a big score. He managed <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2011/engine/match/501223.html" target="_blank">77 off 35 balls</a>, powering DD to a mind-boggling 231 in 20 overs. David Warner, one of the most destructive batsmen in the game, also managed 77, but off 48 balls. Sehwag is the only batsmen capable of making the likes of Warner and Tendulkar appear like they're playing anchor roles. Despite a sublime 95 by Marsh, Punjab learnt that you can't win when Sehwag has a good day.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, that was a home game, DD were batting first, and Sehwag had good support from Warner. In a later <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2011/engine/match/501243.html" target="_blank">away game vs DC</a>, Delhi found themselves chasing a formidable target of 175. Delhi were 25/3 in the 6th over. The rest of DD scored 60 runs of 60 balls and lost 5 wickets, with the highest individual score being 17. Sehwag scored 119 off 56 and won the game single-handedly. Mind you - the DC attack included an in-form Dale Steyn, Ishant Sharma and Amit Mishra. If the earlier example was about carefree destruction, this one was all about mental strength and performance under pressure.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In between these games, Delhi traveled to Kochi and were greeted by a terrible pitch with extremely variable bounce. So much that a few balls almost <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2011/engine/match/501233.html?innings=1;type=wickets;view=commentary" target="_blank">rolled along the ground</a> after pitching on a good length. The rest of DD scored 77 off 74 balls for the loss of 6 wickets. Kochi - whose top 6 batsmen had all represented their respective countries in T20Is, some with great success, were bowled out for 119 in 18.5 overs. Sehwag, earlier, had scored 80 off 47 balls. This innings was all about batting skill, dealing with a difficult pitch and a good bowling attack.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Three different situations - different grounds, different opponents, different challenges. One end result.</div>
<div>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Final Word</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sachin's discipline and serious demeanor contribute a lot to his god-like status. When Sachin is discussed, you feel like you are in a temple or a university - there's a generally serious air to it all, you're supposed to be respectful - even reverent, listen to those with more knowledge than yourself eulogize him, and not ask too many questions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sehwag's simple character, candid speech, and generally casual and carefree attitude make it difficult to take him too seriously, and while people recognize how destructive he can be, I don't think he gets enough credit for all that he has contributed to his team's wins. I hope to see that change over the next few years, and for him to take his rightful place in history as one of the most special talents - a great entertainer and a regular match-winner - to have ever wielded the willow on a cricket field!<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I will continue to watch every innings of his. When Sehwag is batting, everything else can wait. It's good - in a twisted way - that he doesn't often bat for very long periods, so you can usually return to wherever and whatever you were planning or supposed to be doing, without too much delay (and just follow the score online). But when he does produce one of his specials, like <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-west-indies-2011/engine/match/536932.html" target="_blank">he did yesterday</a>, it is well worth screwing up your schedule to witness it!<br />
<br />
(PS: Thanks to <a href="http://espncricinfo.com/">ESPNCricinfo.com</a> and their Statsguru tool - for all the links!)</div>Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-78591845291033937652011-11-29T17:10:00.001+05:302011-11-29T18:50:37.437+05:30Random Brangelina RantI often get quite irritated by things and people that don't make sense, but am usually too lazy to pen down a blog post about them. As regular readers would know, my posts are usually long, and I put a lot of effort into them. Most of the times, the <i>irritants</i> simply don't seem worth the time and effort.<br />
<br />
A great case in point is Sonu Nigam (don't know how many u's, i's, g's, a's, m's etc. he uses to spell his name these days, so I'm going to go with the original, simple spelling. In any case, his career has only been heading downhill for many years now, despite all the numerological interventions - so why bother). I had almost been motivated enough to tear into him after his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czE0r5a56v0" target="_blank">very gay, pony-tailed, white-clothed performance of 'My heart will go on' at the 2011 Filmfare awards</a>, which I had unfortunately been subjected to (on TV) while awaiting my turn at the barber shop.<br />
<br />
But I even let <i>that</i> go. However, Angelina's big pouty mouth - that I found oh-so-hot when I first watched Girl, Interrupted and Gone in 60 Seconds during my days at IITM - has become such a prodigious and relentless crap-fountain that I feel compelled to let off some steam here.<br />
<br />
Why now, you might validly ask. I read in this morning's newspaper that <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Brangelina-to-adopt-kid-no-7/articleshow/10880375.cms" target="_blank">Brangelina are planning to adopt another kid from Ethiopia</a> (<i>"control, Smoochy, control..."</i>). The article went on to explain this was because they wanted their earlier-adopted daughter Zahara to have a sibling from her native region that she could relate to, and because it would be their 7th kid - and would bring them more luck and happiness (<i>Snap!! "That does it!"</i>)<br />
<br />
For starters, Zahara was six months old when adopted. Since then, she has been brought up in magnificent mansions worth millions of dollars, received a lot of attention from the paparazzi and her only conscious memories would be of an obscenely opulent lifestyle. Her ability to relate to a poor orphan from Ethiopia cannot be any greater than a goat's.<br />
<br />
As for Brangelina wanting 'more luck and happiness' - yeah, right they need and deserve that more than anyone else in the world right now.<br />
<br />
If this was a one-off, it wouldn't have bothered me or anyone else, but let's look at the history here.<br />
<br />
Brangelina already have six kids - 3 adopted, and 3 of their own.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Of their adopted kids, one is Cambodian, one Ethiopian and one Vietnamese. In fact, one of their own biological kids was born in Namibia has a Namibian passport! </li>
<li>If that doesn't sound messed up enough, Angelina once said she resented her own biological daughter because she wasn't 'born into hardship'. Like it's the kids fault. I'm sure the kid would also rather have been born in a normal household where her mom actually loved her. </li>
<li>Angelina went on to say she loved the adopted kids more because they were 'fighters' - as if they'd become wise, black-belt Ninjas in the first few months of their lives before they were adopted and imported into aforesaid magnificent mansions. </li>
<li>The boys' names (formal, not nicknames) are Maddox, Pax and Knox. <i>Maddox, Pax and Knox</i>. Normal people put more thought into naming their pets. Or even their cars.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not against adoption - especially of the kind where people from the Western world adopt unwanted children from the third world - but it should not be based on whims. Parenting is a huge, serious responsibility, and I'm sick of repeatedly reading the various ways in which Brangelina are making a mockery of the whole thing. I almost feel bad for the kids - there is NO WAY IN HELL they are going to grow up to become mature, responsible, successful adults.<br />
<br />
And I feel bad for myself - because I know I'll continue coming across shit like this in the papers for many years to come...Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-11037945188583918992011-11-01T12:23:00.001+05:302011-11-01T14:19:12.033+05:30Indian GP, Hamilton n Massa...First up, I'm really happy that India now hosts our own F1 race, and that the event went off quite smoothly - one canine intervention aside. F1 is still pretty much a first-world sport involving big money and cutting-edge technology, and hosting a race weekend is a sign that India is arriving on the big stage. I'm happy and proud of this, but I'm sure enough and more has been said about this in many places, so I will not go on.<br />
<br />
Though finally watching one in HD was nice, the race itself was mediocre and followed the usual patterns. Vettel - as usual - ran away at the front. Button - as is becoming usual - followed him in a strong second. Webber - as usual - found himself competing with cars he should really have been ahead of, and provided some entertainment. As usual, Alonso drove well to get a podium place his car didn't necessarily deserve. Also as usual, there weren't too many spectacular performances or exciting moments on track. And Massa and Hamilton crashed - and it is disturbing that this can also be classified as 'usual' now.<br />
<br />
Now, it is no secret that I'm a huge Hamilton fan. I will try and be objective in my analysis of this situation - though I don't expect to succeed :)<br />
<br />
<b><u>Part 1: Lewis Hamilton</u></b><br />
<br />
There is no denying that Hamilton is one of the more aggressive drivers on track, and some of his overtaking attempts are quite optimistic. When he pulls them off, they look spectacular, but when something goes wrong, he also looks quite idiotic. In both scenarios, he's generally had to deal with consequences - either finishing races higher than other most drivers would have in his situation, or having accidents, penalties and losing places. Increasingly, he has been accepting the blame and apologizing to everyone when something goes wrong.<br />
<br />
I would think this is quite acceptable, and very entertaining, if also a bit frustrating. But a lot of people have been criticizing him very harshly and consistently. They don't seem to think he is human and can make mistakes, nor are they satisfied with the consequences he's suffered as a result of those mistakes. They seem to think that the way he races is <i style="font-weight: bold;">fundamentally wrong</i> and he needs to change. This I don't understand.<br />
<br />
As I see it, he drives on the limit, tries to finish in front of everyone else, and is ready to take some risks in the process. Isn't that the way 'racing' is supposed to be? What exactly do people want to see him do differently? Drive slower? Simply follow other cars that may be ahead of him, even if they are slower? Not do anything that involves risk? Effectively become another 'shrewd' driver like Button or Alonso, rather than the 'spectacular' one he currently is? I guess this may help him finish more races, maybe score points more consistently (even if it's fewer points than he potentially could) - but it will rob him of character, the sport of excitement, and the fans of entertainment.<br />
<br />
I think the real reasons he receives so much criticism are <br />
(a) He is a McLaren driver. Followers of F1 are predominantly Ferrari fans, and McLaren is the one team that has consistently been the arch-rival they hate.<br />
(b) Schadenfreude. He is the opposite of conservative, defensive, humble, modest or insecure. He lives a glamorous life. People like to see such individuals fall. Not nice, but it's human nature.<br />
<br />
That being said, he does need to get his act together. While he doesn't necessarily need to change his driving style too much, he should try and learn from his mistakes and exercise better judgment particularly when it comes to where & when he makes his overtaking attempts.<br />
<br />
In some other forms of racing, people race in lanes so you can't block others - that's considered unfair. In most other forms of racing, even when there aren't separate lanes, someone's who's quicker can go around the outside of someone they want to pass. There is an 'ideal' racing line, but going off it typically means only doing a few yards extra - which shouldn't be a problem if you're quicker and the race distance is long. In F1, however, overtaking is notoriously difficult because of the both the racing conditions and rules. Not only does this hurt the sport's popularity, it treads a thin line between 'challenging' and 'unfair'.<br />
<br />
But the men in charge, particularly race stewards, care much more for discipline than fairness or competition or entertainment. So the fact is - overtaking in F1 is, and will continue to be, very difficult. Drivers in front will not always yield when they should. Lewis needs to accept this, and find ways to work around these restrictions, be a little more careful and avoid confrontations. F1 is a complicated sport, and it isn't always just about being the quickest out on track. People like Montoya and Raikkonen were also talented, but couldn't quite come to terms with all the demands of the sport. Hamilton has to avoid going the same way, if he wants to achieve much more than just one WDC title in his career.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Part 2: Felipe Massa</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b><br />
Frankly, I hope we don't see Massa next season. At Ferrari, he is a waste of a racing seat and they should replace him with a young talent who could get better results and potentially win titles once Alonso retires. Even if they don't want someone to seriously challenge Alonso, they can find a better #2.<br />
<br />
Some of my friends are Felipe Massa fans and a lot of people think he's a pretty good driver. But he isn't, really. Massa is in his 6th season at Ferrari and he has finished with fewer points than his team-mate in all but one season - and that was the season where Raikkonen had a melt-down, losing his mojo, Ferrari contract and eventually his place in F1. People say the best yardstick for an F1 driver's performance is his team-mate's, and Massa has been outperformed by <i>three different team-mates</i> in his five years at Ferrari, and in recent times, Alonso has been totally mopping the floor with him.<br />
<br />
Sure, he has won a few races in the past and got some good results for Ferrari but all that's happened in seasons where Ferrari had the quickest (or nearly-there) car. Of his 11 wins, 8 have come off pole, and the other 3 also off the front row. In these 3 races - in one, he beat Kubica into turn one off the line, in another he passed Kimi who had a mechanical problem midway through the race, and the third wasn't even a real win - Hamilton finished 1st but was given a 25-sec penalty later. The point is - he hasn't <i>ever</i> won a race starting behind the front row or doing anything special on track, something which the really good drivers like Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel and even Jenson Button have all done. With so many young talented drivers around, and so few seats available, it's time Ferrari gave someone else an opportunity. They don't stand to lose much.<br />
<br />
Of course, Massa could drive for one of the lesser teams next season - and this is most likely what would happen, but I wish it doesn't. I feel Massa in a slower car will become an even bigger problem. In a quick car, especially starting from the front row, he can do well - but he simply doesn't know how to race in the mid-field and is a risk to his own safety as well as others'. When under pressure, he tends to make a lot of mistakes - spinning when it's wet, hitting walls or kerbs trying to go faster in the dry. These are not 'racing' errors like Hamilton's - those typically involve wrongly guessing what the <i>other</i> guy will do - Massa's mistakes are generally basic driving errors of his own.<br />
<br />
In the mid-field, I don't expect Massa to punch above the weight of his car and overtake lots of people because he's never really shown that ability in all these years. The biggest problem will occur when other people come up to overtake him.<br />
<br />
There is a 'proper' way to defend a position on a race track. A good driver in a slower car can compensate for some lack of car performance with his own driving skills. He pushes his car as fast as it can go - braking late, using KERS etc. smartly, and taking lines that make it difficult for the guy behind to catch up and pass. Hamilton delivered a master-class in defensive driving in Korea. Even though Webber had a quicker car, he simply couldn't get past. Even when he drew alongside Hamilton - actually passing him once - Hamilton managed to get back in front by <i>going quicker</i>. That was skill. Vettel has shown the same defensive skill on several occasions, especially races like Monaco earlier this year, and Alonso is an absolute master when it comes to this.<br />
<br />
But even with great driver skill, the car in front needs to be reasonably competitive - if it is slower by half a second or more, and the car behind has the DRS option as well, it is only a matter of time before he gets past. A sensible driver realizes this, and yields when he has to. <i>Tough, but fair</i> - that's the key.<br />
<br />
Felipe Massa lacks the skill, the sense or the spirit to fairly defend his position against a quicker car. His 'defence' typically relies on physically impeding the other car, stubbornly sticking to the racing line, and not yielding space for the other guy to race. As it stands, Massa's defensive strategy works on the assumption that the other guy will always back off to avoid contact, and Massa himself owns no responsibility for the same. This is reflected in his statement after the Indian GP: "<i>I simply stayed on the ideal line, braking on the limit and staying on the part of the track that was rubbered in. What else could I do?</i>" This explanation simply ignores the fact that there was another car already on the same part of the track! Massa clearly doesn't know how to handle that situation, and in a mid-field car, he'll find himself in this situation often. I suspect he'll end up in a pile many times, taking down other quicker-but-unfortunate drivers with him, unless the rules change.<br />
<br />
Mentally, as well - Massa doesn't seem to have recovered from his injury in 2009. He has simply not performed well, and does not appear to be confident or secure in his own position. He has had six incidents with Hamilton this year and one or two brushes with Webber as well. Even though he was in the slower car in every single one of these instances, he doesn't seem to think he was at fault in any way. In most of the incidents with Hamilton, Hamilton suffered damage, got penalized and fell further behind Massa, but finished the race well ahead of Massa each time. In two races - Monaco and India - Massa later made mistakes, damaged his car and had to retire, but even for that he blamed Lewis rather than himself.<br />
<br />
After the last few races, Massa has whined about being denied potential podium positions. The fact is - Alonso has been performing at a much higher level to reach the podium, and Massa hasn't looked like getting there even if there weren't any incidents. His words just sounds delusional, and I suspect they are masking insecurity and frustration. I doubt if he can come to terms with the position where he finds himself now, or where he might find himself in the near future. I think he will become increasingly bitter like Barrichello has, and have lots of midfield accidents like Coulthard did, after they passed their peaks in top teams. So, I think it'll be best for everyone if his F1 career ended here.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23119000.post-9023762630082199912011-10-29T02:24:00.002+05:302011-10-29T02:34:02.319+05:30For those whining about the F1 Indian GPIt seems to be the season of idiotic statements. There's been a steady stream from the likes of Digvijay Singh and Kiran Bedi, but as someone who only writes occasionally, I can't even try to keep up with them. I did offer <a href="http://mavernik.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-nrns-comments-about-iitians.html">my two bits about NRN's statements about IIT-ians</a>, and am now writing again about something that I care a lot about, and which hopefully will NOT become an endless debate.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.firstpost.com/sports/pt-usha-says-hosting-f1-racing-in-india-is-a-waste-of-money-116922.html">PT Usha made some stupid statements about F1</a> which received a lot of attention from the media, probably because they were consistent with the sentiment or ignorant perception held by a lot of people. In a poll run by Times of India yesterday, 61% idiotic/ignorant/communist people 'agreed with PT Usha that hosting F1 in India is a waste of money'.<br />
<br />
The first counter-point I'd like to make is that<i> no tax-payers' money is being spent here</i>. In fact, the govt is<i> earning</i> a lot as they've not recognized this as a sporting event and offered no tax relief whatsoever. People have a right to approve/disapprove, and judge whether money is wisely spent or wasted, when tax-payers' money is involved as it was with the CWG, but F1 is private enterprise (and generally profitable). Why should private investors be denied a business opportunity if they consider it worthwhile? I haven't heard anyone complain about SRK spending Rs 175 Cr making Ra.One. So why the double standards?<br />
<br />
The next argument is that we're an under-developed country and we don't need high-profile/hi-tech events like this. This reflects sheer ignorance of economics and the capitalist system. High-profile events like this generally involve construction of infrastructure, investment of capital, creation of jobs, a significant boost to tourism, and generally enhance the 'image' of the hosts if executed well. That is why other developing countries like China and South Africa want to host events like the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. And in this case, the ordinary citizen is getting the benefits - whatever little they may be - at zero cost!<br />
<br />
Another argument being offered is that F1 lacks mass appeal. So? Do people watch every game of hockey played by our national team? PT Usha says 99% Indians don't care about F1. I am sure there are more F1 fans in India than there are fans of athletics or archery or pretty much any sport other than cricket, tennis or football. Does that mean we should shut down all the other sports federations and cancel all other events?<br />
<br />
The point is - any sporting event, or movie or TV channel or author or any product for that matter - does not need to be relevant or interesting for everyone. It just has to have enough 'consumers' to justify its existence and hopefully turn in a profit, without breaking any laws. F1 does that, and does it better than most other sports.<br />
<br />
Another version of this argument is that F1 is an 'elitist' sport or a rich people's sport. Closer to the truth is that it is an intelligent, educated & patient people's sport. To really appreciate it, you need to understand the nuances and complexities of things such as pit-stop strategy, tire performance and 'balance' optimization for 1-flying-lap versus race-pace, and you need a lot of patience. If you 'get' it, it's very rewarding. It is not for everyone, but then you don't shut down your IITs or IIMs because 99% people can't get into them.<br />
<br />
As for the 'rich people's sport' argument - yes, that's true if you want to own a team and host parties on your own yachts like Vijay Mallya. Otherwise, you just need to be able to afford a subscription to the 'Star Sports' TV channel. FYI - Vijay Mallya spent as much or more money buying RCB than he did on buying Force India. Also, monthly subscriptions to most cricket channels cost more than Star Sports. Yet I don't hear anyone calling cricket a rich man's sport.<br />
<br />
PT Usha also cribbed about how corporates don't spend much on other sports. Why would they, unless there was something in it for them? Corporates don't spend on sports out of the goodness of their hearts - nor should they or will they. They do it because they expect returns on their investments (ROI). They can actually expect a positive ROI on their spends in F1 - in terms of brand image and prestige, if not actual profits. In most other sports in India, the money would sink without a trace. In fact, much of it would probably end up in the pockets of some corrupt officials.<br />
<br />
Some people - including PT Usha - don't consider F1 a sport at all. They obviously don't understand either what sport is, or what F1 is, or both. You can look at any definition of sport - the common elements in <i>narrow</i> definitions are physical activity, fitness, competition and entertainment - and F1 meets all of these criteria. (In wider definitions, some aspects such as physical activity can be left out to include things such as board games, but you don't even need that for motorsport)<br />
<br />
I think such statements typically come from people who think F1 is just like driving your car and not a physical activity requiring fitness. In actual fact, F1 - any motorsport for that matter- requires the drivers to be extremely fit, have great stamina, really quick reflexes and a great degree of skill & concentration. Physically & mentally, an F1 race is <i>more demanding than almost any other form of sport</i>. <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/racing/tech-tonic/Fitness-Formula-for-F1-drivers/articleshow/10448892.cms">Read this for details</a>.<br />
<br />
Finally, it is all about entertainment. If someone can run a hundred meters or a mile faster than anyone else - it has no practical value to anyone. Professional sports exist because of the patrons - the ordinary people who enjoy watching sportsmen achieve records and win contests - are willing to pay for the experience. F1 delivers that. People like Usha should <i>sportingly</i> acknowledge that and try to improve their offerings rather than whining about corporate funds going to T20 and F1. And if they don't <i>get it</i> at all, they should just shut up, or be ignored if they don't.Smoochyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15493520112643765542noreply@blogger.com