I'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.
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.
Why, then, are people supporting mob justice and extra-judicial killings in this case? This is also illegal, and therefore wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
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. This was the news, I think a day after the Hyderabad incident.
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.
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.
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:
1. The perpetrator does not have a well developed sense of right and wrong
2. They know they will most likely get away it
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.
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.
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.
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.
Showing posts with label Frust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frust. Show all posts
Dec 7, 2019
Aug 25, 2019
Artistes, Politics and Opinions
I 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.
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.
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.
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 in that domain. 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.
But then, neither is politics - as demonstrated ably by Vishal Dadlani. He was initially one of the people leading the whole AAP 'movement', said something very politically incorrect, was admonished by Kejriwal & all, and dissociated himself from the party to avoid causing further damage. 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.
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 global 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 better qualified 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.
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.
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.
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 - for decades. No one is obliged to get involved in matters they're not experts in.
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 you feel 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 twice 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.
Third, if you really feel responsible and must speak up, act responsibly. 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.
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.
When I read about political opinions from the likes of Anurag Kashyap, Swara Bhaskar, Naseeruddin Shah, Vishal Dadlani (most of whom I quite like as artistes), the award wapsi gang and this band of idiots 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 this great piece about 'opinions'.
------------
*'Equal opportunity' is not the same as 'equality'. For another future post...
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.
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.
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 in that domain. 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.
But then, neither is politics - as demonstrated ably by Vishal Dadlani. He was initially one of the people leading the whole AAP 'movement', said something very politically incorrect, was admonished by Kejriwal & all, and dissociated himself from the party to avoid causing further damage. 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.
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 global 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 better qualified 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.
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.
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.
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 - for decades. No one is obliged to get involved in matters they're not experts in.
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 you feel 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 twice 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.
Third, if you really feel responsible and must speak up, act responsibly. 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.
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.
When I read about political opinions from the likes of Anurag Kashyap, Swara Bhaskar, Naseeruddin Shah, Vishal Dadlani (most of whom I quite like as artistes), the award wapsi gang and this band of idiots 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 this great piece about 'opinions'.
------------
*'Equal opportunity' is not the same as 'equality'. For another future post...
Jul 28, 2013
The Chivalry Paradox
A 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!'
Jul 23, 2013
Yesterday & 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Nearly everyone I know misses the glorious days when they were younger and wish they could re-live those.
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!
Is it just me, or does everyone relate to this? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Nearly everyone I know misses the glorious days when they were younger and wish they could re-live those.
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!
Is it just me, or does everyone relate to this? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below...
May 25, 2013
Desi beat
If you grew up in the sort of cities I did, or attended colleges or workplaces like mine - very likely if you're reading this blog - there are good chances you have a lot of friends who love English music of one or more genres.
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! :)
-----------------------------------------------------
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:
1. I don't get the accent 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:
2. In some cases, I was motivated enough to try and understand someone's accent.
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.
Then I came across this lot:
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 are expected 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.
This 'culture divide' isn't limited to songs about relationships. Pink Floyd may have been great, but the notion "We don't need no education" has absolutely no place in India today.
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.
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!
So, to summarize:
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
2. When I do understand lyrics, I usually can't relate, probably as a consequence of the culture divide
3. Without an emotional connect with the lyrics, it's just meaningless sounds
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!
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
I have two other peeves that I want to mention here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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! :)
-----------------------------------------------------
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:
1. I don't get the accent 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:
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.
Exhibit B: He probably still believes that women and black people shouldn't have the right to vote, among other things.
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.
Exhibit D: This useless bloody 'entitled' generation. They DESERVE to lose all their jobs to us in Asia.
2. In some cases, I was motivated enough to try and understand someone's accent.
Exhibit E: She's close to my favourite F1 driver and seems to be making some important points ;)
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.
Then I came across this lot:
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 are expected 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.
This 'culture divide' isn't limited to songs about relationships. Pink Floyd may have been great, but the notion "We don't need no education" has absolutely no place in India today.
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.
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!
So, to summarize:
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
2. When I do understand lyrics, I usually can't relate, probably as a consequence of the culture divide
3. Without an emotional connect with the lyrics, it's just meaningless sounds
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!
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
I have two other peeves that I want to mention here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Mar 4, 2013
Fretting over the FinMin's brain-farts
I 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.
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.
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 wealth re-distribution, 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.
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.
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.
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 afford a bigger loan (in other words, a better house).
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 up to 6lpa (with assumption 1).
3. If only one member of the family is earning, they can still avail deductions of at least 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, if your household income is less than 5L, you already pay no tax and will gain nothing. Even if it is higher, but you've planned your taxes well, you'll still gain nothing.
This means the new tax proposal really only benefits some households with incomes in the 5-6 lpa range. 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 upper limit. The majority of beneficiaries would save less than this.
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.
While on the subject of home loans and taxes, I have a few more bones to pick.
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 up 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 wealth re-distribution, 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.
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.
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.
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 afford a bigger loan (in other words, a better house).
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 up to 6lpa (with assumption 1).
3. If only one member of the family is earning, they can still avail deductions of at least 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, if your household income is less than 5L, you already pay no tax and will gain nothing. Even if it is higher, but you've planned your taxes well, you'll still gain nothing.
This means the new tax proposal really only benefits some households with incomes in the 5-6 lpa range. 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 upper limit. The majority of beneficiaries would save less than this.
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.
While on the subject of home loans and taxes, I have a few more bones to pick.
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 up 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Jan 31, 2013
Mam-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!
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
I quote the Joker (from The Dark Knight) to her: "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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
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.
Basically, her politics has never been for any good. It's always been against 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 this 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?
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.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
I quote the Joker (from The Dark Knight) to her: "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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
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.
Basically, her politics has never been for any good. It's always been against 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 this 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?
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.
Dec 15, 2011
Re-thinking dietary choices
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.
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.
1. Organic Foods
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:
- Hybrid or genetically modified variety of the crop
- Chemical fertilizers, pesticides etc
- Modern agricultural or food-processing methods such as irradiation etc.
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.
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 more than quadrupled since 1900, and the amount of land available to us for agriculture hasn't increased. In fact, with increasing urbanization, it will actually decrease 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.
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 at least 20% 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'?
2. Vegetarianism
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 1, 2 (both Pamela Anderson) and 3 (our own Lara Dutta). They say we should do this to prevent cruelty to animals. Hmmm. Let's dig a little deeper.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for the cruelty to animals argument, I feel it is largely exaggerated. Real examples of cruelty include cases like the Bile bears in China, 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!
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?
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.
3. About conservationists
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.
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!
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.
(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.)
(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.)
(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.)
(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.)
Nov 29, 2011
Random Brangelina Rant
I 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 irritants simply don't seem worth the time and effort.
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 very gay, pony-tailed, white-clothed performance of 'My heart will go on' at the 2011 Filmfare awards, which I had unfortunately been subjected to (on TV) while awaiting my turn at the barber shop.
But I even let that 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.
Why now, you might validly ask. I read in this morning's newspaper that Brangelina are planning to adopt another kid from Ethiopia ("control, Smoochy, control..."). 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 (Snap!! "That does it!")
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.
As for Brangelina wanting 'more luck and happiness' - yeah, right they need and deserve that more than anyone else in the world right now.
If this was a one-off, it wouldn't have bothered me or anyone else, but let's look at the history here.
Brangelina already have six kids - 3 adopted, and 3 of their own.
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.
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...
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 very gay, pony-tailed, white-clothed performance of 'My heart will go on' at the 2011 Filmfare awards, which I had unfortunately been subjected to (on TV) while awaiting my turn at the barber shop.
But I even let that 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.
Why now, you might validly ask. I read in this morning's newspaper that Brangelina are planning to adopt another kid from Ethiopia ("control, Smoochy, control..."). 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 (Snap!! "That does it!")
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.
As for Brangelina wanting 'more luck and happiness' - yeah, right they need and deserve that more than anyone else in the world right now.
If this was a one-off, it wouldn't have bothered me or anyone else, but let's look at the history here.
Brangelina already have six kids - 3 adopted, and 3 of their own.
- 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!
- 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.
- 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.
- The boys' names (formal, not nicknames) are Maddox, Pax and Knox. Maddox, Pax and Knox. Normal people put more thought into naming their pets. Or even their cars.
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.
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...
Oct 29, 2011
For those whining about the F1 Indian GP
It 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 my two bits about NRN's statements about IIT-ians, and am now writing again about something that I care a lot about, and which hopefully will NOT become an endless debate.
PT Usha made some stupid statements about F1 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'.
The first counter-point I'd like to make is that no tax-payers' money is being spent here. In fact, the govt is earning 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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 narrow 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)
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 more demanding than almost any other form of sport. Read this for details.
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 sportingly acknowledge that and try to improve their offerings rather than whining about corporate funds going to T20 and F1. And if they don't get it at all, they should just shut up, or be ignored if they don't.
PT Usha made some stupid statements about F1 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'.
The first counter-point I'd like to make is that no tax-payers' money is being spent here. In fact, the govt is earning 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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 narrow 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)
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 more demanding than almost any other form of sport. Read this for details.
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 sportingly acknowledge that and try to improve their offerings rather than whining about corporate funds going to T20 and F1. And if they don't get it at all, they should just shut up, or be ignored if they don't.
Oct 21, 2011
Dumba Metro
For the past few days, there's been a lot of hype in the media about Bangalore's new 'Namma Metro'. It's been covered on national TV, and the local newspapers have gone ballitsic. TOI carried a 32-page special supplement yesterday, and had another 10 pages of reports and related ads in the main newspaper and Bangalore Times. These included interviews with people who had used the NY Subway and London Tube systems while they lived in those cities, and they talked about how they didn't need to own cars to move around in those cities, and seemed to believe that Namma Metro will do the same here. In fact, there was also a lot of ink devoted to the hi-tech features of the Metro, including Wi-fi connectivity etc., some of which are going to be first-ever-in-the-world, and make Namma Metro 'the best'.
The people behind all this PR - in the govt, media and the metro management - desperately need a primer in something that most of us learn within the first couple of months on any job - expectation management. I don't believe the Namma Metro is going to make too much of a difference (and I'll explain why) in the near future, and I think people are being misled into believing otherwise. They are going to feel let down very soon.
The reason people don't need to own vehicles in cities like London and New York is that there are massive public transport systems that include rail, bus and taxi services. No matter where you are in those cities, you just need to walk a short distance to access some public transport. If you're 'downtown' or in any area with a lot of commercial activity, you're usually within walking distance (under 10 min) of a train station - and trains are significantly faster than all other modes of public transport. This is made possible by a very large network with lots of stations and lines that cross at multiple points.
Now let us look at some numbers
'Journeys' above is the total number of unique combinations of any two stations on the network. So, each combination represents two places in the city you can travel between, using the metro (in either direction). It's not an exact measure, but a good approximation for the 'extensive-ness' of the network in question.
Clearly, this is roughly proportional to the square of the number of stations, which in turn is proportional to the total km track length. Namma Metro - even after the completion of Phase 2 (for which no deadline is set yet, but it wont be before 2015, given that Phase 1 itself doesn't get completed till 2013) - will only be about one-fourth as 'extensive' as the Delhi Metro is today, and nowhere near as extensive as the London Tube or NY Subway are today, OR what the Delhi Metro and Singapore's MRT will be by 2020.
In terms of population and area, while Bangalore is not as large as Delhi or NY, it is not a tiny fraction either, and it is comparable with Singapore and London. For the city's size, the size of the Namma Metro network is a joke. It will be at least a decade before it causes a significant reduction in traffic across the city, probably longer.
Another important aspect is the actual route map. Below I present my simplified version.
The black lines and blue points represent the actual route map, as planned.
The parts in gray are proposed and are not going to happen for a while.
The places marked in red are where most of the IT-industry employees reside, work, and basically live their whole lives. All these places lie in the south-east quadrant of the city, and most of the new, huge residential apartment complexes being constructed are also concentrated here (or around the Hebbal-BIAL stretch). For all these people (this probably includes you if you live in Bangalore and are reading this blog), Namma Metro might as well not exist, because it offers no connectivity within the south-eastern quadrant of the city and only runs along its periphery.
The reasons for this are obvious. The population that lives in the south-east quadrant is transient - many of them belong to other parts of the country and are in Bangalore only for a few years - to work. A lot of these people also tend to move overseas for long periods. They are notoriously poor voters - many not registered, and even among those registered - the turnout in elections is low and voting patterns unpredictable. Also, many of them would prefer private or company vehicles over 'public transport'. Hence, the powers that be simply ignore them when making plans. That's what's happened here.
So cut all the hype and hoopla, and prepare for more arguments with annoying auto-wallas for the next 10 years at least.
PS: New 'comments/reactions' section below! Please use :)
The people behind all this PR - in the govt, media and the metro management - desperately need a primer in something that most of us learn within the first couple of months on any job - expectation management. I don't believe the Namma Metro is going to make too much of a difference (and I'll explain why) in the near future, and I think people are being misled into believing otherwise. They are going to feel let down very soon.
The reason people don't need to own vehicles in cities like London and New York is that there are massive public transport systems that include rail, bus and taxi services. No matter where you are in those cities, you just need to walk a short distance to access some public transport. If you're 'downtown' or in any area with a lot of commercial activity, you're usually within walking distance (under 10 min) of a train station - and trains are significantly faster than all other modes of public transport. This is made possible by a very large network with lots of stations and lines that cross at multiple points.
Now let us look at some numbers
Clearly, this is roughly proportional to the square of the number of stations, which in turn is proportional to the total km track length. Namma Metro - even after the completion of Phase 2 (for which no deadline is set yet, but it wont be before 2015, given that Phase 1 itself doesn't get completed till 2013) - will only be about one-fourth as 'extensive' as the Delhi Metro is today, and nowhere near as extensive as the London Tube or NY Subway are today, OR what the Delhi Metro and Singapore's MRT will be by 2020.
In terms of population and area, while Bangalore is not as large as Delhi or NY, it is not a tiny fraction either, and it is comparable with Singapore and London. For the city's size, the size of the Namma Metro network is a joke. It will be at least a decade before it causes a significant reduction in traffic across the city, probably longer.
Another important aspect is the actual route map. Below I present my simplified version.
The black lines and blue points represent the actual route map, as planned.
The parts in gray are proposed and are not going to happen for a while.
The places marked in red are where most of the IT-industry employees reside, work, and basically live their whole lives. All these places lie in the south-east quadrant of the city, and most of the new, huge residential apartment complexes being constructed are also concentrated here (or around the Hebbal-BIAL stretch). For all these people (this probably includes you if you live in Bangalore and are reading this blog), Namma Metro might as well not exist, because it offers no connectivity within the south-eastern quadrant of the city and only runs along its periphery.
The reasons for this are obvious. The population that lives in the south-east quadrant is transient - many of them belong to other parts of the country and are in Bangalore only for a few years - to work. A lot of these people also tend to move overseas for long periods. They are notoriously poor voters - many not registered, and even among those registered - the turnout in elections is low and voting patterns unpredictable. Also, many of them would prefer private or company vehicles over 'public transport'. Hence, the powers that be simply ignore them when making plans. That's what's happened here.
So cut all the hype and hoopla, and prepare for more arguments with annoying auto-wallas for the next 10 years at least.
PS: New 'comments/reactions' section below! Please use :)
Sep 26, 2009
More on Ferrari vs. Hamilton
Friend of mine said a few things on facebook, which I feel obliged to react to, but since facebook limits the length and format of comments, I'm continuing the discussion here.
"The deal is there is NO big deal about Hamilton. He benefits and loses just like the rest of them... He does not in any shape, form or spirit embody any kind of genius, excellence, or commitment. He is NOT in the league of a Schumacher or a Senna.
Which is why we don't make a big deal about Kimi or Massa. The TEAM is core and has always been since F1 started... We totally biased FERRARI fans take exception to the deification of a driver who is not exceptional unlike previous Ferrari alumni."
Which is why we don't make a big deal about Kimi or Massa. The TEAM is core and has always been since F1 started... We totally biased FERRARI fans take exception to the deification of a driver who is not exceptional unlike previous Ferrari alumni."
Let's take these points one at a time.
Ferrari have won 210 of 789 races - 27%. McLaren 163 of 662 - 25%.
Is that 2% difference really 'a gulf between the great and the ordinary'? Certainly not in my book. In terms of prestige and glamor, one name is definitely bigger than the other. That matters - I respect the Ferrari heritage, and if I could afford a sports car, I'd definitely prefer a Ferrari to most others.
But if that was all that mattered, Williams would have many more supporters today. When I watch sport, I'm interested in the skills, the commitment and - most of all - the achievements of the competitors. Winning matters - the MOST.
On these counts there isn't much separating the two - the facts speak for themselves. So, I don't much care for the 'team', or rather the 'brand' in this case, and I definitely do not agree with the notion that the team is the core in F1. Some others do. Good for them. No point arguing, since the interests are totally different, and one will never see, let alone accept, the other's point of view.
I would like to throw one question at them, though - if Schumacher and Montoya had traded places in the early-2000's, where would their loyalties lie? With Ferrari? Or with Schumacher? Think about it, honestly.
Now, I do experience a deep sense of anguish when credit is denied where it is due. One man holds the records for most wins, most podiums and most poles in his debut season. He outperformed a 2-time-world-champion (who, incidentally, had beaten the 'great' Michael Schumacher the previous year) in his debut season. He became the youngest ever F1 champion the next season. He has won races on street, and racing circuits. He has won - even dominated, sometimes - wet races, which are considered to be the greatest test of driver skill. He has consistently outperformed his team-mate in an identical car. He has pulled out some blinders in qualifying sessions. And he has beaten people on track - not just with a runaway quick machine, not just with pit strategy - but in genuine racing situations. All this within his first 3 seasons, at a young age, and not always the best car on the circuit.
Yet, he is described as completely ordinary. I fail to understand how or why. If the benchmark is 'exceptional Ferrari alumni' - they didn't win a single drivers title in 21 years between 1979 and 2000. The last among them - Michael Schumacher - couldn't get the better of Mika Hakkinen or Fernando Alonso a lot of the time. So just what was the big deal? What else does Lewis have to do? Get in a red car? Is that all that matters? In that case, wasn't Senna a great?
I hope someone has answers that make sense.
Oct 5, 2008
Brain Drain
Till I was 25, I didn't understand this phenomenon. Having grown up among men who were willing to lay their lives down to defend their country (some even did), I mildly despised those who fled the country for personal comforts and gains. I formed the argument more clearly in my head, when I was at IIT/IIM - the government subsidises the higher education of a few, using tax-payers' money, so that some of them help build a brighter future for India. They reap the benefits and then escape their responsibilities.
A lot of my batch-mates left for the US etc. as soon as we finished our courses. I was determined to stay back and do something, in my own small way, for my country. And with the development we'd seen in the past decade or so - 'India Shining' and all - I felt confident I could lead a good, comfortable life right here!
A little over 3 years later - having lived in Bangalore and travelled to London and a lot of S-E Asia, I've changed my mind and I want OUT of this place. Lemme explain why...
Aspect 1 - Public goods and services
In all cities I visted, one could:
- drink tap water
- not have to worry about power cuts
- reach anywhere quickly, and very conveniently, using public transport
- drive without losing their temper a dozen times an hour
- start working young. You have to work hard and PAY for higher education. And if you did, it would mean something
Aspect 2 - Discipline and behaviour
People formed and respected queues everywhere. Traffic signals were followed. Rules were respected. In general, people were courteous and cordial, and showed a basic minimum level of respect for each other even if they were strangers.
Aspect 3 - Leisure and luxury
There were 24-hours-open 7-11 stores and McDonalds everywhere. The number of convenience products available, large stores/malls, brands of apparel/automobiles etc. - was absolutely mind-boggling for an Indian.
After a hard day's work, or on a weekend, you had leisure establishments you could go to, have a good time, and meet new people. Contrast this with Bangalore - where everything MUST shut down at 1130. Single guys are not allowed in. And dancing is illegal.
Aspect 4 - Safety
If you live in a major Indian city, you could get bombed out of existence any time. Consider this - there were bomb blasts in M-block (Delhi) on a Saturday evening last month. Couple of years back, there were bomb blasts in Mumbai Locals at 630 pm. I could have been there. And ceased being the next moment. We have shockingly inadequate police coverage, high levels of corruption and low levels of motivation within the force. And we have popular politicians who defend the terrorists! Anywhere else - I don't think I'd have to worry about this. Such incidents would be exceptions rather than the bloody norm. And they are becoming bolder and more frequent. People laud our resilience. That's bullshit. It's actually apathy.
Aspect 5 - Govt. and policy
Kashmir. Godhra. Singur. Mandal commission and Reservation. Farmer suicides. Communal riots. Fodder scam. Bofors case. MP's involved in '86 anti-Sikh riots. CM's convicted of murder (and then acquitted to be re-instated as Dy-CM to keep the Congress in power). Mayawati. Jayalalithaa and Karuna throwing each other in jail. Laloo Yadav and fodder scam. A Prime Minister who slept during meetings. A president who couldn't maintain a dignified posture. Naxalsim. A colossal failure called PDS. Another, paradoxically named Public Sector Enterprise. Loan waivers. Currency scams. Exam paper leakages.
An electorate that fails to learn. Educated and affluent sections that refuse to stand up, roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty.
Need I say more?
Aspect 5 - Social standards
I've often heard that Indians living overseas often confront the ugly face of racism. Maybe they do. What happens here? Lemme narrate a few recent incidents:
- I expressed my views against the restrictions on leisure establishments at an online forum, where, supposedly, one'd encounter only educated and civilized citizens of Bangalore. I was told that people who partied and consumed alcohol (like me) became like 'horses without reins' and were a public hazard, and didn't deserve more freedom.
- I was sitting on the steps outside Gokul Arcade (about 50 yards from Forum - very open, well-lit and public) with a female friend after an evening movie show. My bike was parked there, and we were just waiting for me to finish my cigarette before driving. We were harassed by cops and ordered to get the hell out of there and go home.
- A friend of mine is a graduate of IIT Madras and IIM Calcutta, employed with HSBC as a Marketing manager. He was, for a while, unable to get a flat in Mumbai 'coz he's a Muslim.
- Even in my own country, there are places where people have been hostile because I was from a different region and did not speak their language.
So, are things any better here?
End-note
For most of my life, I lived in Army Cantonments or reputed campuses, and did not have to face any of the problems mentioned above. I believed in India, and Indians. 3 years of living on my own, in Bangalore, has made me aware of a very different, and quite harsh, reality. Most Indians do not have a 'sense' of nationalism, or 'greater/public good'. Even a lot of those who are supposedly educated and should know better. Of the few who do, most either don't bother doing anything about it, or end up frustrated after failed attempts (like I have).
Having seen the alternative (US/EU/HK/Singapore), and evaluated all factors, I understand why some of our best brains escape. It's not just deplorable selfishness, it's also a natural instinct - self-preservation.
I love my job and the place I work at. But I hate the life I have outside the office. Given an opportunity (hopefully by my current employers), I'd get out! And maybe someday, when the love of the land becomes irresistible (akhir dil hai hindustani), and our nation has taken several steps forward, I'll come back. For now, I just want out!
Oct 4, 2008
The perennial problem
Scene 1
Year: 2000.
Age: 18.
Location: IIT Madras.
Life-stage: vela, 'fighter' college freshman.
There are only 2 'status symbols' at IIT Madras - a 9-point-plus CGPA, or a girlfriend. Since relative grading ensures no more than 10% can have the former, everyone wants the latter.
The month is Jan. Saarang is on. The air is thick with rumors of hotties from the local Stella Maris College and the 'pseud' Mount Carmel (Bangalore) being on campus, and 'available'. There is a flood of testosterone at the IIT boys hostels.
Silo and Moma Singh are sitting out on the balcony at Mandakini Hostel, 3rd floor, surrounded by hajaar other freshie junta. Moma, wearing a tight, plain white t-shirt, and imported bright, yellow shorts with a large black smiley (:)) printed on it, gets up and proclaims 'Yaar, bandi chahiye'. He says it very earnestly, with a huge smile and a million dreams visible in his eyes...
Scene 2
Year: 2006.
Age: 24.
Location: Happening bachelor pad in NGV, Bangalore.
Life-stage: young, single, stressed-out professional.
DaKatalyst (DK) is lying on the 'Diwan-i-khaas' and Silo on 'Le Lounge' in their living/party hall. It's late on a Saturday afternoon. Both are stressed, having survived yet another tough week on their jobs.
Silo: Kya plan hai?
DK: Athena chalte hain
Silo: Fight hai
DK: Kya, couple entry?
Silo: Yep. 1k per couple. Can enter as group with more guys. Will hafta pay 1k per couple or guy. Stags not allowed otherwise.
DK: Yaar, kya ch****p hai. Phone lagao...
(30 min later)
Silo: Spoke to Redskin. She's meeting some old friend. Dante has gone to Dharwad. Sirf Kilkari hai. Hum 4 hain. Bakiyon ko kata bhi dein - 2 of us and 1 girl will be weird.
DK: Abbe yaaaaar! Aur bandiyaan dhoondo...
Scene 3
Year: 2008.
Age: 26.
Location: Large, empty bachelor pad in low-rents, no-life nook of Bangalore.
Life-stage: Professionally stable, dead bored single guys facing an early mid-life crisis.
Most friends have got married or moved on from Bangalore. Silo and Donnie-boy have moved into a flat where no pizza chain delivers! Now they're facing something they've come to dread recently - a 3-day weekend! Fack! So much time. Absolutely nothing to do. After 2 sessions of ping-pong (all equipment is set up at home), hours of aimless browsing, watching the latest episode of Splitsvilla, and cracking many many lewd jokes, the following converastion (inevitably) ensues:
Silo: I'm BORED. Let's go out
Donnie: Main aur tum?
(still more lewd/gay jokes follow)
Silo: Pak gaya hoon main. I need to get a life
Donnie: You need to get a WIFE. Shaadi kar leni chahiye ab
Silo: I'd like to. Koi mile to
Donnie: Single bandiyaan hain hi nahi...
Conclusion
Location, life-stage, time sab badalta hai... saali ek haqeeqat nahi badalti...
Footnotes
1. Officially, the gender ratio in India is ~900 females per 1000 male (in cities). Logically, only around 10% of all guys should be single. The real number is statistically significantly higher.
2. Silo did find partners shortly after scenes 1 and 2. Both were great. But, both didn't work out after all.
3. Scene 3 is very recent. I hope Silo manages to hook up 'soon after' again. Though it's gonna be tougher this time as opportunities are few and far between. However, this time, it will probably be the 'happily ever after' kind.
4. Actually, Silo believes he has found the Ritegal. Ritegal, however does not seem interested at all, and has masterfully been playing the 'worm effect' on him, pushing him close to his wits' end. Though it doesn't appear likely, I hope they manage to work things out
Sep 9, 2008
The Worm Effect
As a kid, I was told one's aim in life should be to gain skills and knowledge. To develop an all-round personality with depth, objectivity, compassion, ambition etc. etc. Great treasures were promised at the end of the toil - high-flying career, comfortable life, general respect from people...
There was, of course, fine print which we missed. That effort would be required all the time to maintain high standards. That line beyond which all the treasures lay (which would theoretically allow one could chill in life thereon), kept moving away everytime u thought you were there. '10th boards', 'JEE', 'CAT', 'Placements', 'Sales stint'... everytime u crossed one, there was the next...
I felt cheated the first couple of times. At IIT, I was all 'WTF?! This was supposed to be Aladdin's lamp, not a 4-yeat long series of JEE's that'd be tough to pass'. But then I matured a bit, and accepted that the struggle would never end. At least I had got most of whatever I'd dreamt of, so what if I had to continue working hard.
There is one area, however, where I feel completely cheated. I was also made to believe that the desirable women eventually settle with the good, successful guys. And I had hoped that, one day, I shall also land one on merits. This was one misleading promise I'll never forgive the world for.
The truth is this - with women, I've discovered, all rationality fails. Results are not correlated with 'knowledge', 'skill', 'character', 'success' - history, present or forecast - or anything you can work at achieveing. Independent of 'who you are' and 'what you've done in life', there is an extremely high probability that an attractive woman will completely ignore you, as if you don't exist. The way you treat a worm. You see it, you know it's there, but you pretend you aren't aware of it's existence and continue doing whatever you were doing with absolute nonchalance. This, my friends, is the 'worm effect'.
If you're a guy, God has played a nasty joke on you.
1. He's given you testosterone. Don't underestimate the implications of this. This is why you don't cry. This is why you enjoy cars going round and round at high speed. This is why you like beer. And this is why sex is always somewhere on your mind.
2. The 'worm effect'. As a result of (1), you WILL be attracted to women. And whatever you've done when you were running on stuff other than testosterone - all your achievements and things that define you - will come to NOUGHT - and you will be made to feel like a powerless, virtually non-existant little worm. You'll go 'Bye bye self-respect'. And He and she will quitely point at you (when you're not looking - bowed head, drooping shoulders 'n all). And they'll go 'Ha-Ha! (sucker!)'
I've given up trying to understand the 'worm effect' and the reasons that drive it. Either there are none, or God just didn't wish for me to know them (as I might find a solution).
I pray that, one day, when He's had enough, He'll put up a complaint box. Where we can drop in names of the women who played the 'worm effect' on us. And then justice shall prevail!
Sep 5, 2008
The problem...
... isn't very simple. Because it spans not one isolated aspect of life, but nearly all.
I grew up in an 'army' environment. My dad got transferred after every couple of years, and I, obviously, had to shift too. New cities. New schools. New people. New challenges. And new possibilities. Life was never stagnant at any one place for a long time. It was an exciting journey.
Cut to mid-2008. I'm in Bangalore. A city where everyone I could possibly care about, works beyond 7 pm. And everything shuts down at 1130 pm. People argue that the city isn't equipped to handle people who've had a few drinks - to become 'horses without reins' - and in the interest of 'public safety', everyone should stay at home after 2330. Also, a city which claims to represent 'India in the 21st century' - where it's against the law to dance in a 'public' place, even if the 'public' place only allows couple in, for an entry fee of Rs. 1,000 or higher. And a city that, for all the hype and hoopla, is regressing towards being a village with Taliban-esque social standards.
Screw 'nightlife'. During the day, one has to spend nearly half an hour to traverse a 5km distance. If you are driving, it's like playing a video game - nothing and no one is bound to behave in a rational manner on the road. You are responsible for youself, your vehicle, and also the idiot who doesn't understand queue or lane discipline. If you opt for public transport - you either discover it doesn't exist, or find that the fare you have to pay obeys Heisenberg's principle. It's not as simple as 4km X Rs. 7 per km = Rs 28. It could be anything between Rs 26 and Rs 40, and is skewed towards the higher end of the range.
Reach office and the chaos continues. For starters, you work with a bunch of people as diverse as possible, who aren't necessarily willing to adapt. Who are overpaid to the extent that they start believing they are so good - they don't have to fall in line with any rules or standards, that they deserve all the priviledges they have, and they can get anything and everything they want. I'm not against rapid economic growth, or evolution of social standards, or personal liberties. But I do believe that all this should be tempered with some basic discipline and sense of responsibility.
Next, you work with seniors who got sucked up into senior positions because they were the only ones available during the explosive growth phase, and not because they have the knowledge, experience and skills to handle great responsibility. I have to admit that, to an extent, this applies to me also, and it is inevitable when the economy grows at the rate it is growing. And it's not something I'm terribly pleased with.
Then, there is the 'core' work. For one, people in Bangalore work with clients across the world - who show them different degrees of respect. There are some who genuinely respect you and treat you like partners, if not experts. But there are also some who treat you like their personal secretaries, and seem very aware of the fact that you cost even less in US$ terms.
For another, the work is routinized to the extent of mindlessness. What companies proudly describe as 'processes' - are essentially efforts to de-humanize everything thats being done. Efforts to strip away our creativity, freedom of thought or action, and make everything so standardized that anyone who knows english and can read/listen and then type/talk - would achieve more-or-less the same results.
Finally, lets talk about social life. For all my life thus far, I've had friends at the same lifestage as I am. People I can relate to, who can relate with me, and we could hang out and get through days, weeks, months...
Right now, I'm stuck in an awkward place. Most of my friends are married, and not at the same lifestage. The others, who are also my age and single, usually can not relate to my professional and social life and vice-versa. And in most cases, I simply dont like/respect/trust the people I come across. Work is so hectic, there's no time to meet new people. Even if there was time, Bangalore rules/traffic/population - and Indian social standards in general - don't allow for much.
There is a sheer, and deeply disturbing, emptiness to life. Something's gotta give...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)