A space of one's own

Please resubscribe

2009-01-04T12:55:00.001+05:30

Here's wishing you a very happy new year. I have moved to WordPress. While the blog URL remains the same, the feeds are not working properly. So, those of you who are reading this on your reader, please take the time to come to the site and resubscribe. Sorry for the inconvenience. Will be back with more. Keep reading!

A call centre saga...no...make that two...

2008-12-26T21:38:00.001+05:30

Over the last week, I have been wondering if I should refuse to call any customer care centre as a mark of protest. The first of my two experiences was exasperating. But, the second, was infuriating. But, let me start from the beginning.

It was Monday morning. Our fax in office was not functioning. I had to call HP customer care and complain. More importantly, the printer was not picking up paper properly and I had to get an engineer to visit. The process took me 45 minutes. Here is how the conversation went. I call, identify myself and my company and politely ask explain my problem. My first call goes waste as the Customer care executive has no clue what to do. She promises to call back. Which she does. Here is how the conversation went.

Me: I have an all-in-one. The printer and scanner are working fine, but the fax is simply not going through.

Customer Care Exec.: Ma'am, you will have to follow our instructions so that we try to resolve your problem over phone.

Me: Uh, ok. What should I do?

Customer Care Exec.: Ma'am, there are three cables behind your printer; a fat one, a very fat one, and a thin one.

Me: (already exasperated) Which one are you talking about, the power cable, the RJ45 or the RJ11 telephone cable?

Customer Care Exec.: Pardon me ma'am, but I don't think you understood. There is a fat cable...

Me: (interrupting) Yes I know. But which one do you want me to check? The phone cable, the data cable or the power cable.

Customer Care Exec.: (Finally catching on to the fact that I am not completely illiterate.) The power cable ma'am. Please follow it to the other end and check if it is plugged into the mains.

Me: Are you mad? I am telling you my scanner and printer are working fine. How would that happen if the printer is not turned on? Will you please send an engineer to set my fax right and to check on my paper pick-up mechanism?

Customer Care Exec.: Sorry ma'am, we are only authorised to send our service engineers for hardware problems. Is your fax having a hardware problem or a software problem?

Me: How the hell am I supposed to know? You must tell me.

Customer Care Exec.: But, we can't send an engineer unless we know ma'am.

This conversation continues for a good half an hour before she has a brainwave and decides to log the complaint for referral to her supervisor. Soon enough, she returns.

Customer Care Exec.: I am sorry ma'am. The paper pick-up seems to be a hardware problem. We will send an engineer and he can fix the fax also while he is there.

Me: Thank you.

Customer Care Exec.: And ma'am, we have a special offer. Would you like to go in for a low-cost inkjet at just Rs.7999 for pesonal use?

And and that point, I give up trying to reason with her. I am calling from an office that will soon have close to 200 employees. And she proposes a personal inkjet?? I do wish these call centre executives would use their God-given brains once in a while!

Now, the second incident. The call centre in question is Airtel. I was getting unsolicited calls from a particular Airtel number. The calls were sometimes exasperating, but mostly irritating. The subscriber has obviously got my number from somewhere and the calls I got were bordering on sexual harassment. I decide to report abuse to the Airtel customer care, despite the fact that I have a Vodafone prepaid connection. The conversation goes like this. The emphasis, needless to say, is mine.

Me: I am calling to report abuse by an Airtel subscriber.

Customer Care Exec.: I am sorry ma'am. We cannot reveal details of one subscriber to another.

Me: I don't want the details. I don't care who he is. I want to register an abuse complaint against him. That's all.

Customer Care Exec.: Ok ma'am, I will register your complaint. I will send an acknowledgement number. Please save it. Thank you for calling Airtel, have a great evening.

Please note, that at this point, he neither asked for my name, nor my number, nor even the number of the person I was complaining against.

Me: (almost shouting now) Will you please listen? I have not finished. I want to file a complaint. A complaint of abuse. This is sexual harassment.

Customer Care Exec.: I understand ma'am. But, we cannot do anything. You must go to the police.

Me: Are you telling me you will not register a complaint against the subscriber?

Customer Care Exec.: How a subscriber uses his number is not Airtel's responsibility.

Me: Are you willing to go on record on that?

Customer Care Exec.: Yes ma'am.

Me: Well, all right then. I will register a police complaint. I will include Airtel as accomplice, as you are refusing to register my complaint.

Customer Care Exec.: Ma'am, understand your problem. You must go to the police. Handling cases of sexual harassment is not our business.

Me: Do you have an email id where I can put this down in writing?

Customer Care Exec.: www...

Me: I was an EMAIL ID, not a web URL.

Customer Care Exec.: oh. ok then, 121@airtel.com

Me: Ok.

Customer Care Exec.: Thank you for calling Airtel.

The phone line is cut. The executive has still not taken my name, number or the number of the person. The name of the executive is with me. He revealed that after asking three times, while they are in fact trained to identify themselves personally before proceeding with the call. Is there something I can do? The call centre executive I spoke to treated me as if I was the criminal, not the victim. He hasn't bothered to get the basic minimum details from me. He has in fact, on record, absolved himself and Airtel of all responsibility for how a subscriber uses his number. If the problem was a terror threat and not sexual harassment? Will Airtel behave the same way?

Spread the cheer...it's Christmas time!!

2008-12-21T19:57:00.001+05:30

Yay! I have been awarded again. And since it's Christmas time, I am spreading the cheer by awarding my fellow bloggers. Here we go...

The proximity award and the Cup

Nita awards me the Cup and the Proximity award. I love the proximity award. And I am certainly glad my readers love me. Thanks people. :-) I pass these on to Imp's Mom, Chandni, Mad Momma Silverine, Alankrita, Krishna and IHM.

Butterfly award

Trailblazer and Nita give me the butterfly award too for being the coolest blog they know. :-) Thanks. Me feeling shy now. Here, I pass them on once again to Alankrita, Krishna and IHM. I seem to be giving them a lot of awards. And to Nita of course, whose blog is super duper cool.

Certified Honest Blogger award

And, saving the best for the last, Trailblazer gives me the certified honest blogger award. What do I say? I am absolutely thrilled. Thank you so much Trailblazer. It is greatly satisfying. This is perhaps the most satisfying award I have ever got. Thanks again. And I pass it on to the Minking Than, and Idea Smith. Good work dude! It's quite obvious you think. I award Alankrita, Krishna and IHM, again! But anyway.

There! I am finally done!

Mob justice is not justice

2008-12-15T20:27:00.001+05:30

I recently came across a news item, where a lawyer was forced to give a written statement that he would not represent Kasab, the lone arrested terrorist of the Mumbai attacks, by activists of the Shiv Sena. A blogger asks why we must not skin him alive, because the public is baying for blood. He is outraged that we are actually talking legal action against someone who was seen massacring people on camera. Now, there are two things to consider in this issue. The first is firmness in dealing with terror. The second is respect for the rule of law.

Rohit, in his blog on Nationalinterest clearly argues that this is not the way to fight terror. I agree.
The first of the concepts is firmness in handling terror. India can show the world it is firm by bringing the culprits to justice. And bringing them to justice through the due process of law. Lynching, skinning him alive, killing him in a fake encounter or throwing him to hungry lions will not do the job. After all, there must be something distinguishing India from the terrorists. That something is its justice system. I am not saying that India's criminal justice system is infallible. I am just saying saying, let's save what we have. It is easy to get carried away and demand an eye for an eye when we are angry. But an eye for an eye is not bring back our lost eye. Of course Kasab must be brought to justice. But, this time the evidence is watertight. The judgement will surely be favourable to the victims. He will be punished. But, to argue that we must not contemplate legal action but hand him to wild dogs is unacceptable in any democracy. If there is one thing we must pride ourselves on, it is our democratic system. To behave in such a barbaric fashion would amount to compromising the basic principles that India represents. On that note, read this excellent article by Salil Tripathi.

If philosophy and justice do not appeal to the likes of Roshan (the blogger who calls for blood), I think one simple technical detail will. Our criminal justice system is founded on the British Common Law principle. If an accused is not represented in a trial, and if he refuses to defend himself, he can be released and walk scot-free. Indian jurisprudence speaks of such a situation. The course before us is now clear. We allow our best lawyers to defend Kasab, but still mete out the sternest punishment to the man who massacred before our very eyes. After all, that is only fair. Kasab will be punished, but not by throwing him to hungry lions. The courts will still be the supreme deciding authorities. The rule of law will still prevail. After all, that is what we fought long and hard for. And that, to me, is what distinguishes us from Pakistan.

Edit: Dr. Roshan, whose blog I linked to in the first paragraph, has changed his mind. He accepts he was frustrated and that his was a knee-jerk reaction. I will only say this. Thanks for understanding Dr. Roshan. :-)

On the media in terror attacks

2008-12-10T12:47:00.000+05:30

This is a continuation of sorts of my previous post on the Media and Government in Mumbai. I came across this post by Anjali Deshpande and S K Pande in the Hoot that effectively chronicles all that is wrong with media coverage of the Mumbai attacks. Also, Mukul Kesavan makes a couple of compelling points in his article in the Telegraph. At least someone is thinking right! This is reassuring. And both articles make a compelling read.

But today, my point is somewhat different. While there is no debate on the fact that the media behaved irresponsibly, the Times of India came up with something worth reflecting on. In a short write-up on Page2 of the Chennai edition, it spoke of the psychological effect of constant media coverage on kids. This is especially true in Chennai, because kids were home all day, thanks to incessant rains and flooding, and sat glued to TV all day long. They may not understand the gravity of the situation, but they certainly understand that something is wrong. They can’t figure out why people are killing one another. This trauma is especially high when one of the parents is always travelling.

This is exactly why the television media needs to show some restraint in airing unedited images of the carnage. News channels are aired 24/7. There is no censorship possible, nor is it desirable, with respect to news channels. But, is the media not responsible for what it airs on prime-time television. As an adult, I remember being both shocked and traumatised with the gory images and bloodshed on television. The image of two guests lying face-down, shot dead by terrorists at the Taj were too horrible to forget. Of course, with the level of maturity I possess as an adult, I was able to overcome that shock. But, imagine the state of mind of a 10-year-old who watches this on TV. The child, being a child, is scarred for life. Does the media have any answer to all this? Or will they continue to be guided by the cardinal principle of TRPs and viewership? We may never know.

On media and government in Mumbai

2008-12-05T10:07:00.002+05:30

A lot has been said about the role of the media in covering the Mumbai terror attacks. And the government has often been criticised for colossal failure. But, we need to take a step back from the blame game and think. Who is responsible for the current state of affairs?

First, the government. Over the past few days, I have heard many people tell me, time and again, that we need a strong government that will impose emergency. We need someone like Indira Gandhi. Do we really? Think about it? Many of us were not even born at the time of the Emergency in 1977. But, ask your parents and grandparents. Would they like to go back to a time when banks were nationalised, IBM and Coca-Cola were thrown out, and unmarried young men were forcibly sterilised to meet some quota? Are we, as a people, willing to give up our liberty and right to free speech in exchange for security? Let me tell you. I am not. I would rather die free than live a long and bonded life. Yes, everything is not right in India. Yes, the government is weak. Yes, we have a lame-duck Prime Minister who listen to high command at 10, Janpath. But, at least he is an elected representative. Let us not forget that his faults are not his alone. Who is responsible? We. We elected him right? We elected the government. We are responsible for the government we have. In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. And we are a democracy. I would rather India remain that way.

Next, the media. The way the media behaved was unpardonable. This article by Barkha Dutt hits the nail on the head. In trying to justify the media's actions, she actually exposes the real motives behind their actions. The viewer is king, she says. So, what the public wants they will give. This is pure and simple commerce. With no sense of responsibility, they cater to the whims of the market. For all they want are TRPs. The coverage of the attacks were simply irresponsible and reprehensible. There are no two ways about it. Whether the likes of rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt accept it or not, the media has lost its credibility and given in to sensationalism of the worst kind.

That said, I still stand by the right to free speech. However much we may want to censor and control, it is not the way to go. We need to give space to differing opinions. We need to encourage free thinking. And most of all, we need to stand by our democracy in the worst of times. Only then, will we survive the threat.

An open letter to Vikram Chandra

2008-12-02T15:10:00.001+05:30

This is a guest post by my friend Sriram. He is sending it to NDTV. I was not sure they would actually publish it though. So, I got permission to publish it on my blog. Mail him (and me too if you want to), with comments and feedback.

Thanks to the storms that ravaged in Tamil Nadu, I was marooned in my house through the latter part of the past week. This in fact gave me enough time to become a couch potato. I had been sitting glued in front of the proverbial idiot box as things unfolded at the three places as also the programs in the after math of the incidents.

In a sense I was taken in by the moving comments of Prannoy Roy and that of Vikram Chandra. I also concur that some thing needs to be done. But what?

Where do we start was a question that kept coming back to me. I guess, we were posing all the right questions at the right time but who was asking, mattered the most.

Will the Home minister take the responsibility?

Now at least will we have reforms in the Police?

Will we have reforms in the home land security?

All these were on air, for the most part of the week end. Let us stop here for a moment to think over these questions. Are we on the right side to question the Central ministry? I guess not. Here I am putting myself on the frying pan and try giving an answer this simple question.

I guess I am not. The mere fact that I exercise my franchise does not give me the right to question the top most authority. I have also exercised the same franchise to elect the local governance. Do I stand up for my rights, when I am affected? Here I mean, Power cuts, water logging, etc. which affect my life on a daily basis. Sincerely, I don’t.

Then when such a ghastly act of such magnitude happens how can I pose questions like these? The truth is we are all caught up in our own rat races in life? And as Shekhar Gupta put it in your channel - Let us see if we carry on in this same vigour two weeks from now. It is not only for your media channels, it is the same for any common man. The simple truth is – Life must go on.

Having said this I am not meaning we should take this lying down. Yes we need to do some thing. Most of the times we expect the government to do everything that we desire. Let us face it, it is impossible for any elected government to always fulfil every dream of every citizen.

What we can do is, start taking over a few things that we expect the government to do on ourselves. For example, have mock drills similar to the fire drills in all places of employment. Highlight the importance of saving a injured soul, an invalid, aged persons who might be caught unawares. In cases of such hotels please invite the guests to go through the drills by highlighting the importance of such drills. Have experts come on television and talk of the importance of staying focused on what has to be done in such situations. These should be made mandatory in all offices, Places where there can be a mass movement of people.

On normal days, How many of us stop and help people who have met with an accident. All we need to do is call a toll free number and state that a person needs help. But do we do that.

We should look at organizations similar to that of St.John’s ambulance Association in India and get those organizations to train common people in First Aid and help in Trauma care. These kinds of measures will mitigate or in the least try to mitigate knee-jerk reactions by the people affected. We can at least save a few souls, rather than mourn for the colossal loss of human life.

This would at least help the agencies of the government who take over the control during such situations carry on with their work and not get overloaded.

I guess this is an important lesson that we have learnt by being a citizen of this glorious country. This is only the beginning, everyone who has been affected by this incident will learn a lesson and the question is how we put that lesson into practice in the most objective manner is what matters.

A bad night...and a worse day ahead

2008-11-27T11:39:00.001+05:30

I was planning to move to WordPress today. But, there seems to be a problem with the move. I still haven't figured out how to move without damaging the blog. But, all these troubles suddenly seem trivial. I sat glued to television for almost 2 hours this morning. I couldn't react. I was shocked beyond measure. A bomb blast is one thing. It has happened before, and will continue to happen for many years to come. But, the audacity with which terrorists stormed the Taj and Trident, is too horrifying to analyse. It has taken me nearly six hours to come to terms with the tragedy, and gather my thoughts to actually write about it. I am still not being very coherent. I am sitting in far-off Chennai, but you never know. I could be next on their radar. Or the people I love and cherish. Suddenly, the world seems a lot more unsafe than it was yesterday.

But, taking a step back from the human tragedy that is playing out all around us, we must ask the all-important question, "Is the Indian State soft on terror?" I am not an expert. I have no idea what kind of intelligence the government had. But, I do wonder how 20 terrorists managed to sneak into Mumbai, armed with AK-47 assault rifles and grenades, by sea, without being detected. Are our coastlines that porous? I understand that the coast can never be hermetically sealed. Fishing trawlers, merchant vehicles and catamarans will continue to ply, and for entirely innocent purposes. But, the terrorists used rubberised boats to get into Mumbai. It's too scary to contemplate what this means to other, not-so-safe locations along the coast.

Amidst all this drama, the Prime Minister has not uttered a single word. We hear he has called for an emergency meeting. Good. But, is it not his responsibility, as the Head of the Government to reassure his people that his government will act? I don't know about protocol, but the PMO claims it will be inappropriate for the PM to address the nation while military operations are still on. I just do not get it. Why? Why is it not appropriate for the elected representative of the nation to talk to those who elected him? We are not asking him for information on the operations. We are simply asking for a reassurance that the state will not hesitate to act. Is it too much to ask?

I have refrained from criticising the government so far. I have tried my best, despite my dislike for the Gandhi family, to give the government the benefit of doubt. But now, I am not so sure. They are keeping a convicted terrorist alive and politicking. Politicians are busy playing the blame game. They are delaying Afzal Guru's execution for fear of hurting minority sentiments. Do we really think our country's Muslims are pro-Guru? I seriously doubt it. What are they waiting for? For another attack on Parliament? Or one on 10, Janpath maybe? It is time for the government to act. Before it is too late.

Comment policy revisited

2008-11-19T21:25:00.001+05:30

Ok. This is getting annoying. I really need to reiterate some things. I have a comment policy. So, please read it before commenting. Also, I need to add a couple of things to it. Insulting me (or women in general) via e-mail and claiming it is personal just does not cut it. I am open to discussion, but that means my readers must be open to criticism too. If you can't take it, stay away. Here is an updated version of my existing comment policy.

All opinions expressed in the blog posts are mine and mine alone. If I have used someone else's comments or opinions, I either cite them verbatim, or link to their blog (assuming they have one) or at least credit them in some way. So, if you have a problem with it, you are free to say so. But, that DOES NOT MEAN you insult or degrade or threaten.
Opinions published on the blogs do not reflect those of my past, current or future employers. Here again, I am solely responsible for all that I say.
Comments on my blogs are not moderated. That is because I believe in the right to free speech. But, let me make it clear that the site, and blogs associated with it, belong to me. If I find inappropriate or insulting comments, I reserve the right to delete them. I refrain from moderation because I believe my readers are informed and educated people who can differentiate between a disagreement and hate speech.
Comments that spread racial, ethnic or caste hatred, and those that are discriminatory will be summarily deleted.
I neither endorse nor necessarily agree with opinions expressed in the comments.
If you want to send me an email, you are most welcome. I entertain mails on my site, things that I have said, or professional inquiries. I DO NOT, however, entertain any provocative comments. If you want to be provocative, you are free to be so on my comment forum. My email is not a tool to fight.
I made the mistake of bothering to take someone seriously once. All provocative emails will henceforth be summarily deleted and NOT ACKNOWLEDGED.
Finally, please leave a name when you comment. Anonymous comments are not disabled, but you will make a better impact if you leave a name, any name, even if it is a pseudonym. I don't take opinions of those who refuse to name themselves seriously. Nor to I deign to reply. That should speak for itself.

Got it?

On Feminism - II

2008-11-15T21:29:00.001+05:30

Cris commented on my previous post saying my post was more subtle than she expected it to be. I explained that the stimulus was intellectual and not emotional and so I was able to take an objective stand. But, it seems that the heavens think otherwise. Why else would I get a mail, with a comment to the post, that provokes and insinuates and almost dares me to respond? Sigh! Divine providence! :-P

Mahesh Anand, who commented on the previous post, (I removed the link because the author deleted the post) also sent me an email with comments. I will try and rebut the major points. He says he does not want to start an argument. Doesn't matter. Some things must be discussed. For the better or for the worse. So, here we go.

First, the question of smoking and drinking. He says smoking and drinking are a vice anyway. I agree. But, my opinion is slightly different. I have no problems with smoking being condemned and criticised. It ruins one's health and can cause a wide range of ailments, from impotence to cancer. But, I feel the need to clarify that alcohol in itself is not bad. It is the excessive consumption and abuse of alcohol that make it dangerous to well-being. But, my idea was not to eulogise smoking and drinking. People are free to decide what the limits of socially acceptable behaviour are. But, whatever they may be, they should be the same for men and women. That is all. Whether that freedom is exercised by the woman is another question. The keyword here is equality. As for women smoking in Mumbai, I do not see the connection. Men smoke in Mumbai too. Why are women singled out to become symbols of decadence? I don't get it.

Next, to my comment on beauty treatments and threading, he says, "To your comments about beauty, waxing, facials, eyebrows.... i feel that you are being noticed for all these that you are doing this." I am sure many of you will agree, but what women do is their business. And the men may please stop deluding themselves. We do not do our eyebrows and fingernails, wax or get facials for you to notice us. You are not the be all and end all of our existence. As a woman, I do all this because it makes me feel great. Just like getting a nice oil massage makes anyone, man or woman, relax. And there is a more important person in the whole waxing, threading, facials deal. Me. Men just happen to occupy the same part of the world. That's all. Thank God, all men are not the same.

Finally, a comment on women wearing sleeveless. "I have always wondered why its the ladies who always prefer tops without sleeves.I have never seen gents preferring the same to show their biceps." Same answer as above. We wear sleeveless because we feel nice in them. Men just happen to be there when we wear them. We do not wear them so that men can ogle at our skin. Ok? If men do not wear sleeveless, it is their choice. Don't expect us not to wear it simply because men do not.

On Feminism

2008-11-12T20:58:00.002+05:30

I have been tagged (by Cris) to write on what feminism is to me. Well, ok. Here we go. First of all, I do not like the term feminism. It has too many negative connotations, too much baggage and too much snobbery associated with it. Many people seem to think that feminism means man-hating. Or man-bashing. Sorry, but I do not agree. So, to avoid all that historic and cultural baggage associated with the term, I will try and not use the term.

To put it simply, feminism to me, is the notion that women must be as free as men to do what they want to. Note that I have deliberately used the phrase "as free as men". I do recognise that as human beings, we are all bound by society, by rules and by traditions. But, if something is morally and ethically wrong for a woman, it must necessarily be so for a man too. Take for example, drinking and smoking. If it is socially unacceptable for a woman to smoke, it must necessarily be so for men too. What I cannot tolerate, is mothers defending their drunk, and totally brainless sons by saying they are men. Trust me, it happens. My friend's husband comes home drunk every night. His mother defends him thus, "He is a man. He must be having a million problems in office. So, he drinks to relax. You have no business asking him to stop." This violates my innate sense of justice. If the mother's justification must be accepted, then the daughter-in-law must be permitted to come home drunk after a long day's work too. Ok? Got it?

Also, being a feminist does not mean doing things like a man. I am not a man. I cannot behave like one. I will not keep my nails dirty, my underarms unshaven and my eyebrows looking like a forest simply because men do have to wax, pedicure or thread. This is ridiculous. I have heard many self-proclaimed feminist protest against the feminine stereotype of beautiful, smooth legs and shaped eyebrows. Excuse me, but I love to do all that and more. It makes me feel feminine. I refuse to change for some deluded notion of feminism. I am a woman, and I would like to feel like one. This includes having regular periods (and no, periods can never be happy), waxing, getting facials, going shopping and buying footwear. I love all of those and I am not planning to stop any time soon.

Another difference of opinion I have had often with feminists, is on the question of parenting. I admit that men have an equal responsibility towards their children. But, I still believe that a mother's caress and care is irreplaceable. I believe that nobody can do a better job than mom in caring for the babies. If it means that my career takes a back seat, so be it. It is for my children. My career can wait. I simply do not agree with some feminists equating stay-at-home moms with prisoners. Many do it because they care. I would.

Feminism means not being forced to do, or not do, certain things simply because we were born women. It means having the right to take decisions that will affect us without external interference. It means that as a girl, I must be treated exactly the same as my male siblings or cousins. It means being respected as an individual, cherished as a daughter, pampered as a sister and loved as a wife/girlfriend or mother. Is that too much to ask for?

I tag:

Nita - Expecting a balanced opinion on things. :-)

Christina and Deepan - Very occasional bloggers. But have a blog dedicated to feminism. Would like to hear both.

Roop - Runs a blog against female foeticide. Feminism is her pet subject.

Indian Homemaker - Would love to hear her reaction on the stay-at-home mom bit. :-P

Feedback please!!

2008-11-09T22:03:00.001+05:30

I just switched to a simple Wordpress theme adapted to blogger. Please do tell me how it looks. And tell me if my header image looks appropriate. Will look for something else otherwise. :-)

Legalising live-in relationships

2008-11-09T12:16:00.001+05:30

No, I am not doing that mandatory post on Obama. Many others have done it. You can read those. I personally do not care what happens to Obama. I am going to wait and watch how this reflects on US-India relations. In the meantime, read this article on the Times of India, on legalising live-in relationships. It contributes very little to the debate, being as it is, a report. But what gets my goat is the refusal of either the media or the people involved (husbands, wives, lawyers or the general public) to recognise that the live-in girlfriend need not necessarily be the "other woman." She may as well be the only woman in the man's life.

One comment by an aggrieved wife goes thus.

“If those who are living together want the same rights as married couples, there’s an easy answer: Let them get married. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. And has anyone spared a thought for the wife,’’ says Riddhima, a 36-year-old whose husband left her two years ago and has since moved in with a colleague.

Right! Of course. I agree that she has been wronged and have every right to feel that way. But, how is it fair that she blame the girlfriend? Also, what difference does it make to her status as wife? She is still the legally wedded wife. She still has a right over her husband's property, and alimony in case of divorce. Why is she so against the girlfriend having the same rights? To say, "let them get married" is ridiculous. Any number of people stay out of wedlock for many reasons. It is the unwillingness to commit for some, the fear of responsibility for some, and maybe an ideological problem for others. Marriage is essentially a social contract. Personally, I think marriage is the way to go if the people are serious in the relationship. But, I do know some who consider marriage a waste of time, money and energy, especially the way it is done today. Are we going to penalise them for wanting to live their lives the way they deem fit? I think not. While social sanction cannot be forced, at least the law must take steps to ensure that cohabitation is treated on par with marriage. The Maharashtra government proposal is a step in the right direction.

Next, the question of children arises. There should be no legal difference between children born to married partners and those born to unmarried partners. The concept of an illegitimate child, in itself, is too archaic to be retained in the 21st century. After all , it is not the child's fault that the parents chose not to get married. How is fair to label a child as "illegitimate"? Adultery or not, the children must be given equal rights as children born within a marriage. The protests of the "wronged woman" are, more often than not, a case of misplaced anger. They find themselves incapable of doing anything their cheating husbands and thus turn their anger on the "other woman." I find that grossly unfair. For all we know, the other woman is a victim too.

Finally, one argument against the proposal was made by a noted lawyer, Mahesh Jethmalani. He asks,

But the amendment has its critics, as noted lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani says, “It is like allowing bigamy for married men. Is the government trying to recommend polygamy?”(...)“Only a small number of couples live in, so what is the urgency for such a proposal?’’ asks Jethmalani.

Wait a second. Only a small number are live-in couples. So, there is no need for a law. By that logic, only a small number of people commit murder. So, there is no need for a law there either right? Since when is law governed by the will or need of the majority? Do minorities of all hues and shades not have a right to a decent law? Even if only 1% of India's total population lives in, they still must have a law to ensure that their rights are protected. The law of the majority is simply regressive in this case. That such an argument is coming from a noted lawyer is shocking. I can only hope that the debate is conducted the right way, taking into account the fact that an increasing number of young, never-married, couples are choosing to live-in without marriage. We need comprehensive guidelines for them. Even if they are minuscule portion of India's population.

The spirit of debate

2008-11-03T22:22:00.001+05:30

There was an excellent article in the Times of India today, on how children are actively discouraged from asking questions by educational institutions. First, check it out here. We pride ourselves on our intelligence; we wax eloquent about how good we are in the sciences, how we excel in everything we do, and on how India is the destination for tomorrow's world. But, we cannot answer one single unexpected question. Most Indians cannot think outside the box. What else can explain the appalling lack of innovation in Indian industry?

Take for example the question of patents. Statistics show that India is approximately ten years behind India as far as patent-filing and innovation go. The WIPO Patent Statistics Report 2008 (PDF) presents an even more depressing picture. Consider this, The United States is the world's largest seeker of international patents. India does not even figure prominently. It is relegated to the dungeons of statistical tools under the catch-all phrase "other". Given below is the graph illustrating this statistic.

What this statistic illustrates is more important than the statistic itself. India is the world's second most-populous country. We have a population that equals one-sixth of humanity. We have the world's largest number of English-speaking people. We pat ourselves on the back for being a fully-functional and vibrant democracy. But, we cannot manage to obtain even a minuscule fraction of the world's intellectual property. To me, this is a damning evidence of the gross failure of the country's educational system. I have written about this before. But, nothing seems to change. In the mad race for marks and grades, we seem to be losing focus of the very objective of education: to educate. We are so obsessed with being the best that we forget that all this to actually learn something.

A student in India's schools and universities are banned from asking questions. We fear that questioning will lead to indiscipline. We look upon contradiction as a lack of respect. Personally, I have never felt any respect or sympathy towards teachers who stop students from asking questions. Only a teacher who lacks confidence and self-esteem will fear a student's questions. As the TOI article so aptly points out, it is Indian tradition to question, critique and argue. Why then, are we suppressing this basic instinct in the name of discipline and respect?

I am a debater. I do not participate in debates any more, but I deliberately use the present tense because I still debate in everyday life. I debate the crashing economy with my father, the reasons behind the fall of the stock market with Anand, the necessity to translate every word from French to English with my students, the price of a kilo of tomatoes with the local vendor. It is in my nature. Why then should I, or anyone else for that matter, not be allowed to question a rule, demand an explanation, argue a point or even prove a teacher wrong in our schools and colleges? I fail to see the logic. Dissent is healthy. In fact, it is life. Tell me if I am wrong.

Bringing up daughters

2008-10-26T20:57:00.001+05:30

One post caught my attention recently. Reema talks about parenting and bringing up daughters. Combining anecdotes with personal experience, she paints a rather accurate picture of what exactly happens today. Thanks Reema, for being objective and analytical. I am not going to comment on parenting methods, because I am not one. I have no idea on how to bring up a child. But, I would definitely like to contribute to the discussion as a daughter.

She cites three incidents, all of them illustrating how excessive control can actually backfire. I guess I have a lot to learn from them. Reema says all there is to say about what she calls misguided discipline. I agree. But, what I have never been able to understand is why parents feel the need to do what they do. Yes, they have given birth to the children. But, the children are individuals too. They are not cattle or property that can be subjected to stupid rules that make no sense. First, and the most obvious problem is the dress code. My cousin, all of 9 years of age is not permitted to wear short skirts or tight-fitting clothes because "everything is seen." I mean, what the hell? She is all of 9 years old for heaven's sake. She is refused capris or shorts because she is a girl and cannot expose too much of her legs. She is refused plunging (or even relatively high) necklines because her slip is visible. She is made to wear clothes that look like they have been stitched in the 60s because they are the only "conservative" ones around. Imagine her plight at 18. Thankfully, I have never had to follow such ridiculous restrictions. My mother's taste in clothes have always been more modern and even bolder than mine. I am thankful to have a mother like that.

Second, the problem of guys. Not all women fall in love and get married. Even among those who do, not all run away from home. Forbidding contact with guys or threatening to lock them up hardly serves the purpose. If someone had treated me like that, I would have eloped a long time ago. Liberty brings responsibility. And children are smart enough to realise that. Unfortunately, parents seem to be too dumb to realise that their kids are smart.

And finally, one comment on the above post pointed out that parents get their daughters married off when they are still studying to avoid problems caused by a possible love affair. Someone I know is getting her daughter married. The girl is 20. She is her third year. She is getting married to a man who is 30, going on 31. The justification?

"We want to get rid of our liabilities. Plus we have a son. We need to save for his education right? What do we do for his engineering seat if we spend all our money on educating our daughter? Plus, her cousin had a love marriage. What if my daughter gets such idiotic ideas too?"

I find this attitude shocking. For me, it was a rude awakening. I had assumed that only uneducated, economically backward families behaved like this. And here we have a chartered accountant drawing a hefty salary of 8 lakhs per annum telling me that his daughter is a liability he must get rid of in order to educate his son better. What about the girl's education? He says it is not important. Because she is going to make babies and stay in the kitchen anyway. So, what's the point in sponsoring her MBA? Then is the question of love marriages. Her cousin fell in love. So? Is that a crime? I am in love too. How does that make me a bad girl? The problem is that they don't want any social criticism. Society and "people" are more important to them than their daughter. What can I say? All this makes me wonder if India has really progressed as much as we claim it has. I think not.

Help!

2008-10-23T16:23:00.002+05:30

My comment form is not displaying. Is blogger trying to change something? Please mail me with your suggestions at contact@amruthaupendran.com. Please please!

Edit: Managed to fix it. Thanks to IHM who mailed in. :-) Apparently, something is wrong with the embed function. I disabled it.

Arranging marriages - part II

2008-10-23T16:03:00.001+05:30

I just came across this post by Nita. As always, she analyses the issue objectively and dispassionately, something I can never do. Maybe I will as I get older. This post is also a reply to Sidhusaaheb's comment on the previous post on arranged marriages. He links to a Times of India article stating that arranged marriages are catching up in the west. Interesting piece of news that. But, in the western context, arranged marriages would simply mean going on a blind date and eventually deciding to get married to that person.

First things first, as I clarified in the previous post on the issue, arranged marriages per se are not bad. Indeed, I know many people who have had arranged marriages and are living happily. The problem arises when these arranged marriages are forced on the people getting married. Take for example, the custom of getting married to one's first cousin or maternal uncle. A girl is forced to get married to her first cousin because the wealth should not go out of the family. This is often the case with men too. Even when the age difference is very high, such arrangements are made for reasons varying from finances to keeping the family together.

Also, the fact that the west is adopting this system does not automatically justify its existence in the 21st century. I continue to believe that people should be free to choose their partners. Whether it is for love, or for other considerations, is immaterial. What is important is that the choice be with those getting married. Much as we claim that India has evolved, this evolution remains confined to urbanised, educated India. Even in this category, there continue to be forced marriages, even if this reality is too difficult for us to accept.

Indian Feminism

2008-10-10T13:57:00.001+05:30

Read this article in the International Herald Tribune. It speaks of Indian feminism. And lo and behold, it is written by a man. Who seems to understand exactly what women want and need. Before moving on to my post, do check out this excellent rebuttal by sociologist Shilpa Phadke. It's definitely worth reading.

Anand Giridharidas' article starts innocently enough, talking as it does about a fictitious character in a "chick-lit" novel. But very quickly, it degenerates into woman-bashing. No, scratch that. "Modern-woman"-bashing. This paragraph for example.

"Arshi and her female friends smoke, drink and fornicate their way through life. But if liberation is defined more sweepingly, as the freedom to do whatever men do, and to define oneself other than by one's relationships to men, then Reddy Madhavan's heroines are less liberated than they think."

Excuse me, but all women need not smoke, drink and "fornicate their way through life" to be considered modern women. Indeed, women who have never done any of the above can well be considered modern. If the author of the novel reviewed really intended to show the shallowness of the women who pay "lip service to women's lib", she might have said things differently. Then again, all we have in the article is a skewed and prejudiced viewpoint as projected by Giridharidas. Too many generalisations, too much prejudice and an assumption that he knows all about Indian feminism results in a badly-written review that is insulting to the book, and to the intelligence of the readers. The author allegedly said in a telephonic interview that the book reflects the "real dualities" that Indian women straddle. According to the author, Meenakshi Reddy Madhavan, her heroine sees men as "emotional and financial feeding tubes." It cannot get any worse. The author is free to create any heroine she wants. But claiming that it represents a large majority of Indian women is ridiculous.

I just don't get the point. So, urban women, however educated they may be, smoke, drink, get laid with multiple lovers and get married for money, simply because they want to show the world they are feminists? I am insulted. I belong to that category of urban, educated and independent Indian women. I do not do any of the above simply to prove I am liberated. I made certain choices. They were entirely mine. Smoking, drinking or getting laid are not symbols of modernism. Nor are they symbols of feminism. I am tired of explaining this over and over. Feminism does not mean behaving like a man. If men sleep around, it does not mean we must do the same to be feminist. Feminism simply means having the right to choose how to live, within the framework of a society. Having as much freedom as any other individual.

Anand Giridharidas makes yet another unpardonable generalisation when he says,

"Indian feminism is the feminism of compromise. It is the feminism of daughters who press their parents for late curfews, but would never hurt them by dating a man of another religion. It is the feminism of women who collect big paychecks by day, but do not question husbands who treat them like maids by night. It is the feminism of women who cope privately with workplace harassment, but never see it as a systemic phenomenon to be fought."

All this is simply untrue. Yes, daughter hesitate to hurt their parents by falling in love with someone from another religion. But, that is not because they are scared of them. It is because they, or should I say we, love our parents too much to see them hurt. But, if it does happen, we are not scared to stick to our decisions. Sexual harassment at the workplace is hard to fight because people in decision-making areas are men. And those men do not want to see change. It is also because when a woman is sexually harassed, she somehow brought it upon herself and invited trouble. It is because our society does not want to see harassment or even rape as a crime. It is a way to prove to the world that you are a man.

On that note, I saw a movie the other day. Titled "Varalaaru a.k.a Godfather", it symbolises the worst of Indian society's attitude towards its women. The heroine stops her wedding to an effeminate man, a classical dancer. The man, wanting to prove that he is indeed a man, rapes her. This act is condoned by the mother of the victim, because her daughter is arrogant and adamant, apparently enough reason to rape her. What the hell? The victim, not even called a victim in the film, ends up in the psychiatric ward, mentally deranged by the injustice meted out to her. But the story is not hers. It is the story of a noble classical dancer spurned at the altar by an arrogant bitch, whom he taught to a lesson. You seriously expect women to report sexual harassment in the workplace, given that the movie was a stupendous success? She will be blamed of course. Labelled characterless, she will lose her job and be rejected by family and friends to die lonely years later. What do you expect?

Finally, Giridharidas assumes he knows all that women want. And he is not even one. What gives him the right to generalise and assume the way he does? The fact that IHT has given him a regular column? Oh come on! Give me a break!

Tagged! :-)

2008-10-08T12:13:00.001+05:30

So, I have finally been tagged. Was thanking my stars nobody thought of me so far. But Cris broke the jinx. Thanks Cris! :-) Here we go. The rules, as I found them on Cris' blog.

RULE #1 People who have been tagged must write their answers on their blogs and replace any question that they dislike with a new question formulated by themselves.

RULE #2 Tag 6 people to do this quiz and those who are tagged cannot refuse. These people must state who they were tagged by and cannot tag the person whom they were tagged by continue this game by sending it to other people.

1. If your lover betrayed you what would your reaction be?

Hmm. Tough one already. Probably walk out. And certainly never forgive.

2. What’s it that you see in an ideal partner?

A stable head on his shoulders, and a mind of his own. Even if it means we fight.

3. What, according to you, is the perfect date?

Cappuccino, and more cappuccino...and more cappuccino! :P

4. Would you like to have children soon enough? Or would you wait till your mid-thirties for the first child?

Replacing question: Do you like children?

I prefer to answer Cris' question. I like kids as long as they don't cry.

5. Will you fall in love with your best friend?

No. We were never friends. Cannot think of a friend as a lover.

6. Which is more blessed: loving someone or being loved by someone?

I am greedy. I want both. But, if I have to choose. Being loved is much better.

7. How long do you intend to wait for someone you love?

As long as necessary. Forever.

8. If the person you secretly like is attached, what will you do?

Walk away. It's not worth it. As I said, being loved is better than loving.

9. If you could root for one social cause, what would it be?

Free education for children. For as long as they want to study.

10. Do you lie?

Yes. I would be in major trouble if I did not. :P

11. Where do you see yourself 10 years from now?

Happily married, two kids, enough money to live, happy with work. Don't ask what work I will be doing. I have no clue.

12. What’s your fear?

Losing people I love. It's always been my greatest fear.

13. What kind of person do you think the person who tagged you is?

A good writer who I hope will be famous some day. Then, I can proudly say I knew her all those years ago. :P

14. Would you rather be single and rich or married and poor?

Married and poor. Can't think of life without him.

15. If you fall in love with two people simultaneously who will you pick?

Lol. Sweet dreams. Falling in love once is bad enough. Twice?? No thanks.

16. Would you give all in a relationship?

Yes. Without compromising some basic principles.

17. Would you forgive and forget someone no matter how horrible a thing he has done?

Same as Cris. Might forgive, but will definitely not forget.

18. Do you prefer being single or in a relationship?

In a relationship of course.

19. Your all time favourite song. Only ONE. And why?

Hmm... Tough one again. Will settle for New York Nagaram from Sillunu Oru Kaadal.

Tagging.

Can't think of anyone in particular. I leave this tag free for anyone to take up. :-)

On the US financial crisis

2008-10-03T19:59:00.001+05:30

Check out this great post by Greatbong. If you have no idea what the hell is happening in the US, this is a good place to go. :-)

Sexism among IITians

2008-09-27T22:03:00.002+05:30

There! It's official. You have no business being in the IITs if you are not a man. What else do you assume while reading this webpage (the page has since been modified) on the site of the latest IIT global summit? The IIT alumni global summit will take place in December, at IIT Madras. While the IITian "chooses to inspire, innovate and transform", the organisers have thought of "an exclusive track designed to keep Spouses and Families completely informed and entertained". And presumably, spouse in their vocabulary means wife. Because presumably again, all IIT graduates must necessarily be men. Women have nothing to do the institutions unless they are married to its male graduates, right? And the programmes are meant for the "complete woman", who must balance personal and professional life. The men have better things to do. Like inspire, innovate and transform. Seriously, what the fuck?

They have a fantastic guest list of "complete women." Hema Malini, because she is the very epitome of womanly grace. Shilpa Shetty, because she shot to fame with Big Brother and because of Richard Gere kissing her. Then the women will be taken shopping for jewels and saris. Because, that's all they care about anyway. Emma hits the nail right on the head. It sucks! This reeks of a very chauvinistic attitude. IITians may be brilliant, but they certainly do not seem to hold much store by women's intelligence. Abi compiles a list of all those who are disgusted. Ludwig calls its "unfuckingbelievable."

Well, it is. I am rapidly losing respect for that bunch of morons who are organising this event and irritating the life out of the rest of the educated crowd. But to me, this is simply a manifestation of a deeper malaise in Indian society. Some men, however educated they may be, cannot really accept that a woman can be equally intelligent. They don't seem to see, their IIT education notwithstanding, that there can be women IIT graduates who choose to bring their husbands around. Oh of course not. A woman IITian would only be married to another IITian right? After all, which man would want to marry a woman more intelligent than him? It would hurt his, already fragile ego, right? Ugh! These men!! They are disgusting. Someone tell them they are being complete asses!!

Also, here is an image from the 1950s. Speaks volumes about the sexism that existed at the time. All of it is crap, but this one takes the cake.

"Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours."

Of course. Like this...

Husband: I had a terrible day at the club this evening. I was interrupted three times while drinking whisky by some moron.

Wife: Listen, I have something to tell you. The gas connection expired, the TV conked out and you have forgotten to pay the electricity bill.

H: But listen, the whisky was anyway very watery. God knows what they did.

W: The home loan chap came home today. We have to vacate by tomorrow because you have defaulted.

H: The whisky...

Of course. His topics of conversation are more important than yours. But of course!

Globalisation and higher education

2008-09-26T19:32:00.001+05:30

I attended a CSA conference on Globalisation and its Impact on higher education this morning. I came away feeling that the speakers were tilting a little too much towards the left for my taste. I also found that one particular speaker was stuck somewhere in the 19th century for his attitude towards globalisation in the education sector. The speaker in question, Dr. Loganathan, is from the Department of Economics at Sir Thyagaraya College in Chennai. So far so good. The problem starts when he opened his mouth to talk economics. Let me explain. He has a problem with the private sector in education. He also has a problem with foreign participation in education. That is fine, as long as you can substantiate the belief, especially in a panel discussion, with decent arguments. That is where the core problem lies. I wanted to rebut him point by point right there, but not wanting to hijack the discussion, I am limiting myself to this blog. His arguments are given in bold. They are summarised from my notes and are not quoted verbatim. My rebuttals in normal font. So, here we go!

Private participation in education has resulted in too many private engineering and arts and science colleges. Since these colleges charge very high fees, the weaker sections of the population are denied access to education.

Right! I agree. But, these private colleges exist to supplement supply of education on the government's side, and not to replace it.These "weaker sections" have access to public institutions (colleges, universities, schools etc.), which provide highly subsidised, even free education. Now, what about those who are economically backward but cannot access public institutions because of our reservation policy? I admit, that is a problem. But, one that is completely irrelevant to the discussion on globalisation and its impact on education in India. Another theme for another day.

Private institutions will deny the right of the teachers to form unions, and therefore, the right to go on a strike if they so wish. With education being completely public, there is no such danger.

Of course, there is no danger of anyone ever making teachers accountable. Because, every time someone asks questions, they will go on strike, colleges will shut down indefinitely and students will be affected. Let's get one thing straight here. Going on a strike in not a right. It is a criminal waste of time, and the taxpayers' money. Will our communists ever get this right? Kerala is stagnating because of this.

With the entry of the private sector, education is increasingly commercialised. This results in the degradation of Indian culture and the disappearance of the Guru-shishya Parampara.

Eh? Of fine. If you insist. But frankly, I don't see the point at all. I dismissed this one as the rants of an old man.

The entry of the private sector creates competition. This results in private institutions offering sub-standard education.

I beg to differ. Competition inspires improvement in quality. Also, all public institutions are not great. Our very own Madras University is a case in point. It is not equipped with the most basic facilities such as a photocopy machine or a fax. It possesses hardly any computers for a university of that size, and a wi-fi zone is perhaps too much to hope for. In brief, lack of quality is a generic problem in education in India. At least in the public sector, they can procure these things from a part of the profits they make (we hope).

IIT graduates quit the country to serve a foreign state. This is a waste of the taxpayers' money. In effect, we are subsidising education for those studying abroad.

Hmm. What to say to such a dumb argument? Don't give things away free. Follow the IIM route. Make credit available for students who get admission into premier institutions. That way, you provide access and don't waste taxpayers' money. What say?

Foreign universities want to accredit and evaluate Indian universities. This is a loss in national pride and dignity.

It is not. We really need a global yardstick for measuring quality of education. If that must be done by foreign universities, so be it. Why are we unnecessarily making this an issue of national pride? We could insist on the same in other countries. If our universities are willing to go abroad that is.

On the whole, it was impossible to digest the fact that a senior professor from one of Chennai's oldest colleges was talking as if he belonged to the 19th century. We need this mindset to change. Maybe it will be difficult to change the mindset of that generation. It is after all, the generation that has seen the worst of economic crises in their youth. But, let's hope that at least the younger generations will see globalisation and liberalisation of trade, not as a threat but as an opportunity. Let's hope.

On violence and CEO deaths

2008-09-25T12:25:00.001+05:30

The lynching of the CEO of an Italian auto parts manufacturer is bad enough. What's worse is the Labour Minister Oscar Fernandes' justification of the violence proportioning the blame on the management that "pushed the employees to the limit." I am no longer shocked at the politician's lack of tact, and complete callousness. My few years of observing Indian politics has taught me that we cannot expect any better from them. But, what got my goat were a few comments on Nita's post on the same issue. Especially a comment by Odzer where he pretty much justified the killing because he was a big shot. I agree that we do not hear about the death of the "common man" every day. I also agree that there is so much publicity because he was the CEO of a company. But tell me something. Does the fact that Mr. Chaudhry made a lot of money as the CEO of an Italian firm justify his killing? Does his family not mourn his death as much as the family of a sweeper who dies? Especially when the person was killed?

The problem is not just with this case. The problem lies in the basic distrust of those who make lots of money. This was a trend I noticed during the recent financial meltdown. Most people I spoke to were far from sympathetic to the fact that thousands of investment bankers lost their jobs. In fact, most of them simply said, "They made so much money for so long. It won't hurt them to be without a job now." What we do not understand is that someone is not making money at someone else's expense. Life is not a zero-sum game. For CEOs and investment bankers to be successful, a factory worker or an investor does not necessarily have to suffer. Why are we so apathetic towards the plight of a top official? We kept quiet when an engineer from IIT was murdered in Bihar. But, the Singur issue is burning. We all sympathise and empathise with those poor farmers who are being exploited by the tyrannical Tatas. But, we fail to look at the other side of the issue or take into account the loss incurred by Tata Motors. And this is simply because the Tatas are the rich capitalists exploiters. I may sound extremely pissed off. The fact is that I really am. As long as we cling on to feudal and outdated notions of industry, ownership and investment, we will never progress. That's what the Communists really want right? So that they can blame the big, bad capitalist world for the stagnation? We are a democracy> If we do not progress, if we stagnate and suffer in chronic poverty, it is because we elect people like Oscar Fernandes who will do anything to preserve his vote bank. After all, we only get the governance we deserve.

I have a dream...

2008-09-18T19:53:00.001+05:30

I have a dream. Of stepping out one day to find that people only use the horn when they really need to. But, I have no hope that the dream will actually come true. We Indians have a highly contagious disease. That of honking. My Scooty Pep's horn stopped functioning about 10 days ago. was too lazy to get it repaired. So, I tried managing without. Trust me, it's not that difficult. Yesterday, I finally managed to get it repaired. And I found that I honked when just the previous day, I got by perfectly well without it. I realised I honked impatiently, and absolutely unnecessarily, at least 4 time in the day.

I am no exception. In fact, I belong to the minuscule section of the Indian population who hates to honk. If I misused the horn so much, imagine what a honking addict would do. My grandmother's house is in a residential area off Nelson Manickam Road that's relatively quiet. I was sitting there yesterday when a great big Tata Sumo starts honking incessantly and insistently just before the house. It gave me a headache. Wonder why he found the need to honk so loudly in a perfectly calm residential area.

While I am on this topic, I also have a few suggestions for those of you who drive.

If you are at a traffic signal, WAIT!!!! Neither you, nor the guy in front of you can move until the light turns green. If you so desperately want to jump the signal, you are free to do so, but you have no business abusing the poor, law-abiding motorist in front of you.
When you come on the wrong side of the road, you are breaking a law. Your incessant honking or flashing headlights makes NO difference whatsoever to the motorist coming on the right side, nor does it exonerate you from the offence you commit.
While on the question of headlights, DO NOT flash those lights in high-beam on a dark road in the middle of the road. It makes it impossible for the other motorists to drive.
If you are a female driver, and are scared of going beyond 20 kilometres an hour on an empty road, please drive on the extreme left. Do NOT force other motorists to follow you car/bike at that miserable speed. This also applies to senior citizens who insist on driving despite the fact that they can neither see properly nor hear properly.
If you are driving a share auto (one of those monstrosities that you see on Chennai roads), please stop at the SIDE of the road to pick up a passenger. Do NOT stop in the fast lane and then curse loudly when the poor motorcyclist behind you hits your bumper. Also applies for normal autos.
Finally, if you want to take a left turn, please DO NOT overtake a vehicle going straight, on the right and then swerve left. Not only is it dangerous, but also inspires the motorist you just overtook to stop you and practise his/her karate on you.

So there! I can't think of any more right away. But, your contributions are most welcome.

Arranging marriages

2008-09-12T12:51:00.001+05:30

There are two posts by Roop and one by Thought Room that have spurred me on to writing this post. The first post by Roop made me sit back and think. It made me want to write a more balanced perspective. It was in this state of mind that I read Thought Room's take the issue. This post, tried on the other hand, to explain the arranged marriage custom to foreigners and sounded apologetic to me. It is easy to rationalise and explain why the custom evolved, in the absence of a social security system. It has existed all over the world at some point. In Europe, the upper classes, especially the aristocracy, have married its daughters off to another aristocratic family to further political or economic interests. The difference between India and Europe is that Europe dropped the concept with the fall of monarchy and the rise of democracy. We in India have not changed for 2000 years. The fact that arranged marriages acted as a social network at some point does not justify its continued existence today. As Roop says in her second post, I do not see why I should sacrifice individual liberties in the name of marriage. This holds true for both men and women. It is no less difficult for a man to live life with a complete stranger than it is for a woman to do so.

Also, the whole concept of arranged marriages is driven by considerations of caste, class, status and money. Take for example the issue of dowry. In some communities in South India, the girl's horoscope is given to the marriage broker with the total amount in cash, and of gold that the parents are willing to give the girl as dowry. So, if a family is looking for a bride, they will first look, not at the bride herself, nor her qualification or character, nor even her family, but the amount of money she will bring in as dowry. To me, that's not marriage. That's socially accepted selling of the bride as a marketable commodity. You still think it's acceptable? I also agree with Roop when she says that we must not be forced to listen to parents on the issue of marriage when trivial things like buying a dress or a pen are entirely up to us. Of course parents have a say in our life. But, that does not include treating one's own child like a marketable commodity, as is happening in several million families today.

It is scary to contemplate the scenario that Roop talk about. What if, after 5 years of an arranged marriage you realise this is not what you wanted for yourself? You may argue that such a situation can arise even if you chose your own partner. But, think about it. In the latter case, you would made a conscious decision. It would have been your choice. If you regret that decision, so be it. I would rather live with the regret for a bad decision that with the feeling that I could have been given a chance.

I would also like to respond to one comment on the second post by Roop. Sidhusaheb wants to know if we advocate replication of the United States' "failed society" model. No, we do not. But the climbing divorce rates in the US and elsewhere are not because they are "love marriages" but because more and more people feel the need to assert their individual identity. The fact that divorce rates in India are relatively low does not mean more marriages are happy marriages. It simply means that less number of people are choosing to opt out of an unhappy marriage. Couples stay together for various reasons: social ostracism, kids' welfare, lack of parental or family support, lack of finances for one of the couple etc. If divorce rates in India increase, that's not necessarily failure. It could well be an awakening.

Nuclear power is not a bad thing!

2008-09-09T18:43:00.001+05:30

I am fed up. Of self-proclaimed experts and the general public ranting about loss of sovereignty and against the nuclear deal. Of bloggers asking stupid, rhetorical questions without really understanding the meaning or import of the deal to modern India. I am trying, yet again on this blog to clarify certain doubts and uncertainties regarding the deal and its repercussions on India's future.

Two posts, on different blogs, hit a nerve. Both ask some good questions, but also some extremely stupid ones. I am going to try and answer these questions as best as I can. Before I move on, let me say that I am not an expert. But, I am not an ignorant fool either. In fact, I am one of the millions of thinking, educated Indians who think the nuclear deal is a good thing. So, let's go on.

Let's look at what Barbarindians says.

We need nuclear power. We need electric power.

Yes, we need electricity. I agree we must reform the energy sector well enough to be able to generate enough electricity to power India. I also agree that we must produce enough to be able to exchange these with electricity. But, for this to happen, we need to look at alternative sources of energy. Nuclear fuel is one of the alternatives.

India's Nuclear isolation (apartheid) will end:

In case you did not read the newspaper today, it has already ended. The NSG has approved the waiver. Australia self-righteously declared it would not trade with a non-signatory to the NPT, but the rest of the world will. So there! Much as we try and convince ourselves that it has nothing to do with energy, the fact remains that we will only get the uranium required for our nuclear power stations if we import them.

The other things are not really worth discussing. He is being sarcastic in some, reasonable in others and absolutely right in the rest. So, I am quite happy he is thinking straight.

On to Reality Check India. The arguments here are stupider. One, What is wrong with coal based thermal plants?

Huh? Must I really repeat? Coal is a non-renewable source of energy. As is uranium. But we require a few thousand tonnes of coal while we require only a few kilos of uranium for the same output. So, uranium will last longer. Got it? Coal is also highly polluting. Mining safety is a huge problem. People are dying everyday the the Neyveli Lignite mines and elsewhere. And maintenance is high-cost.

I pay Rs 3.50 per KwH (unit) for thermal and hydro power today. The estimate for nuclear power is Rs 16 per unit. Farmers will expect free nuclear power too (esp the big ones). They need to power their A/Cs and 5 KW pumpsets. Who is going to foot the bill ?

Power is heavily subsidised. You pay only Rs. 3.50 because the government, and in turn the taxpayers, foot the rest of the bill. In other words, you foot the rest of the bill too. Free power (thermal, nuclear, hydel or natural gas) is wrong. It must stop at some point. We can stop free power to the farmers even without the nuclear power. It requires political will and not a nuclear deal.

I dearly hope they have war-gamed the scenario where Pakistan decides to test. In the Lok Sabha debates, I heard Pranab Mukherjee thunder “We dont need nuclear weapons to win a war”. Childlike innocence wins wars, perhaps?

What the hell? Haven't you figured it out yet? Nuclear weapons win no wars. They only destroy. We need a credible nuclear deterrent, not enough arms to destroy the planet several times over.

Finally, I do not think we have reached the dead end for thermal power (coal and gas plants). For comparison, coal makes up 70% of Chinas power. These are not old plants either, they upped their thermal capacity by 20%+ just in 2007-08.

We have not. And yes, China's power is largely coal-based. But, why does that matter to us? China is facing a shortage too. And they have no problems getting uranium ever. They are a signatory to the NPT. India is different. And for comparison, every year about a thousand people are executed (shot dead by armed police). India should follow suit right? Frankly, such comparisons are neither appropriate nor relevant. Each country is different. India must increase the share of nuclear power in total electricity generation. For a better tomorrow.

As with Barbarindians, here too are some relevant arguments. Whatever be the reasons for my not agreeing with them, the post themselves are eminently readable. At least, they present a non-political view of the issue.

On Ram and Ravan

2008-09-06T22:23:00.001+05:30

I just saw this post by Mumbaigirl. She says that the Shiva Tandava Stotram composed by Ravana sounds fantastic. I have not heard it and hence cannot comment. But, she also says that she somehow admires Ravan more because he was a better person than Ram who abandoned his wife after doubting her chastity. I have a lot to say. But before that, you must look at the comments section. One of the commentators says that Ram is God and therefore we must refrain from commenting about him. Another, further down the page advises people to ignore our comments because we are "girls" and "girls nature to gossip. This whole site is a gossip site." Wow! Talk about male chauvinism!

I have linked to Mumbaigirl before. Her posts are excellent. They are concise, and very persuasive. I might not always agree with her, but I certainly think she makes a lot of sense. It is the case with a lot of other women bloggers I read. But, back to the Ram-Ravan issue. Mumbaigirl was abused and insulted for saying what she believed was right. That's not fair. I repeat what she said. In fact, I state categorically that Lord Ram was very far from being a complete man. I will not insult or ridicule those who believe, but I think we must read the epics as interesting stories set in a certain time and place rather than as rules by which we must abide and live. Like Mumbaigirl, I too have problems with Ram's treatment of his wife. He made her undergo a trial by fire because she spent years away from him. But, he too spent the same number of years away from her, didn't he? So technically, he should have undergone a trial by fire to show that he remained chaste too. Right? But no. He is a man. He does need to prove anything. His chastity is a sacrifice by his wife Sita's chastity is a sacred duty. What the hell? I am sorry. I don't agree. I am Hindu too. I believe in God too. But, I refuse to endorse or accept such regressive ideas simply because some king, believed to be God himself, said so.

Then comes the issue of the washerman. He cast aspersions on the character of the Queen of the land. And what does the King do? Send the queen away to the forest. Because the word of a subject is greater than the feelings and sentiments of a wife. You call this godly behaviour? I don't even call this human. Ram is a controversial character. I don't care if people choose to believe he is God. I am indifferent to what he means to the right-wing Hindus. To me, he was a man. That's all. A very famous, and even interesting man. But an imperfect, normal, albeit confused man.

Awarded!! Yes, me...

2008-09-02T12:40:00.001+05:30

Thank you so very much, Imp's Mom for giving me the Brillante Weblog Premio 2008 Award. It's a fantastic feeling.

Ok. Now, when I Googled this award, I came across this link saying it was a hoax. But personally, I don't care if it is a real award. That someone thought of me as good enough to merit a mention is good enough. So, here are the rules of the award:

Brilliant Weblog is a prize given to sites and blogs that are smart and brilliant both in their content and their design. The purpose of the prize is to promote as many blogs as possible in the blogosphere.
Here are the rules for this award:

When you receive the prize you must write a post showing it, together with the name of who has given it to you, and link them back
Choose a minimum of 7 blogs (or even more) that you find brilliant in their content or design.
Show their names and links and leave them a comment informing they were prized with ‘Brilliant Weblog’
Show a picture of those who awarded you and those you give the prize (optional).
And then we pass it on!

Now, on to the bloggers I would like to award this prize to:

Sidin Vadukut on Domain Maximus: This guy is an occasional (less and less occasional) blogger who has me clutching my stomach trying not to laugh every time he posts. I am kind of surprised nobody has awarded him so far. At least, not that I know of. Good work Sidin. Keep going! And more often please.... :-)
Lekhni on The Imagined Universe: I like the name of the blog. I also like her brave attempts at what she calls cooking. I don't know how she does it, but she somehow manages to make the dishes look good.
Confused on Life is a Street Car named Desire: Hits the nail right on the head. And runs an extremely informative and interesting blog.
Vikram Nandwani on .pOINT_bLANK: Fantastic cartoons. He does not update very often, but when he does, it's worth the wait.
Ideasmith on The Idea-smithy: Everything on this blog is worth reading.

I only have five on the list because others have already awarded my other favourite bloggers. But, I will mention them because some of them truly deserve to be awarded more than once.

First, I would like to mention Krish Ashok for his absolutely brilliant sense of humour. Then comes Nita for the painstaking research she does before every post. Each post if wonderfully informative and interesting. Roop Rai for the passionate champion she is for the cause against female foeticide. Also for the blog on female foeticide that enlightens and informs. And finally, Planemad for inspiring me to love the city I live in. His photos of the city are fabulous.

Joint families and daughters-in-law

2008-09-01T12:08:00.001+05:30

I came across this post by Indian Homemaker just a short while ago. It's interesting to read. But, wanting to read the original post to which the current one refers, I clicked back to this. Let me take deep breath. I have so much to say, but I don't know where to start. In the post on joint families, IHM says that joint families are extremely convenient for the boy's parents/grandparents. I agree. She also says that when a bride steps into her marital home, every action is scrutinised and she ends up being loaded with plenty of responsibility without the authority needed to carry them out. I agree with that too. I also agree when she says that the boy's parents tend to take the new daughter-in-law for granted. One such case is that of the anonymous daughter-in-law who commented.

However, I think it is important to nuance the arguments a bit. While it is unfair to expect the bride to take on all that responsibility without the authority required, we must also realise that sometimes, the Indian joint family can be a huge safety net. It starts with mundane things like housework. Two daughters-in-law in the same house means that the work is shared. Sometimes the mother-in-law is also nice enough to help. Granted, most of them behave exactly as IHM points out. But, there are exceptions who deserve to be acknowledged. This safety net extends to caring for the children when the mother goes to work. I know many women who feel that their mother-in-law takes better care of the kids than a paid nanny or servant. The kid is their grandchild after all. Also, in cases where the couple goes through a though time financially, the joint family can step in to provide the much-needed solace and support. I understand that this is declining but in case of a problem, the parents' (of both spouses) step in to help. I would give anything for a safety net like that.

That said, I fully sympathise with the anonymous daughter-in-law. She is unfortunate enough to have in-laws who neither care nor empathise with her as a human being. Such parents deserve no respect. In this context, I would not spare the husband either. A man who is capable of censoring the blog of his wife, one he is supposed to trust and support, deserves a talking to. The bride/wife/daughter-in-law, is a human being and an individual first. She reserves the right to say anything she pleases on any forum. Nobody, especially not the husband, has any power to stop her in that. If he treated his wife well, and made sure his parents did the same, she would find no reason to complain. I read so many blogs that talk about husband and family, that make one envy the family they have. If you are happy, it shows, on your blog and elsewhere. But, if are being abused, dominated or suppressed, that will show too. In the lack of ease with which a suffering blogger writes, and in the melancholy surrounding the blog. As IHM puts it, an adult requires no permission to go shopping, meet friends and family or watch a movie. She is an adult and an individual. It's time parents-in-law realise that. On that note, check out this post. It contains advice to the in-laws. Good job!

Socially relevant soap operas?

2008-08-28T21:09:00.001+05:30

Let me state, at the very outset, that I hate soap operas with a passion. I rarely watch any and the few that I have come across make me want to scream. On that note, I quite agree with Rashmi Bansal when she says that soap operas need to be responsible to society. The soap in question is titled "Balika Vadhu" and is aired on Colors. It deals with an 8 year-old bride who is put to sleep by "Sasuma" with stories about Rajkumars and is forced to eat after her husband and the other elders of the house and on the plate used by her husband.

The reactions to this are surprising. I am rather shocked to see viewers defend the serial on the grounds that child marriage still happen in India despite the fact that they are banned. Of course it happens in India. But to say that it is acceptable on television because it is a fact is stupid. Let me extend that logic a bit. Bride burning happens in India. Would you accept it if the protagonist in a serial planned to kill the bride? I would not. The fact that something happens does not make it right. What I find even more galling is the fact that the serial is sponsored by the Women and Child Development Ministry, as Rashmi points out in her subsequent post on the issue. The Ministry allegedly wants to create "awareness" about the plight of child brides in India. I doubt portraying a child as a normal bride with normal adjustment problems amounts to spreading awareness. In addition, the protagonist is a child. Ever heard of the rights of children? How can you even think of portraying a child as a normal bride? A child is supposed to enjoy her childhood under the care of a parent and a loving family. What exactly was the Ministry thinking when it decided to extend its support to a serial like this? Sigh!

My grouse is not just against this serial. I hate all serials, as I stressed a while ago. All of them uniformly treat women as some sort of Sati Savitri. Those who are not are the villains of the piece and spend all their time planning to take revenge on other women for some assumed wrong. And if the likes of Ekta Kapoor are to be believed, all good women take all that bullshit lying down and emerge victorious. During my many brief encounters with the K-serials, I came to one, albeit rather comical, conclusion. That all good women wear unpretentious round and red bindis. They wear sindoor in their maang and worship even philandering, corrupt and abusive husbands as God himself. the vamps on the other hand, wear highly elaborate, Sudha Chandran style bindis, in designs ranging from the sun to snakes. They may wear sindoor in their maang too but their husbands are normally hen-pecked and do everything their wives tell them to. Trust me, I have done my research. All K-serials are like that. Now, you must be wondering if I spend all my time watching these serials. The answer is no. You don't need to. Just pick any random soap opera and watch it for 30 seconds. You will find proof for my thesis. To summarise, I think that the goodness of the television character is inversely proportional to the level of complication of the bindi. I call it Amrutha's inverse proportionality law. Howzzat??

Of bride (bridegroom) hunting...

2008-08-27T21:40:00.001+05:30

Just saw a series of absolutely hilarious posts on bride hunting. The Fool recounts how he "saw" prospective brides, 7 in all, and came out unscathed, still a bachelor (I think.) Read them here, here, here and here. I envy this guy. How can anyone write so well?? Sigh! Thankfully, I have never been at any end of this ridiculous concept. I have a boyfriend. So, no bridegroom hunting for me. Yippee!!!!

The dreaded C-word

2008-08-17T21:41:00.001+05:30

Wondering what that is? Caste of course! We Indians are obsessed with it. By either denying it exists or insisting it plays an important role in everything we do, or by simply refusing to discuss the issue openly, we somehow convey that it is an uncomfortable idea. I just came across this post by Preethi. It is not a rant. She somehow seems more tolerant of it that I am. But, what I find rather intriguing is that people go all the way to England and Scotland and France and make friends based on the caste of the individual. She says an acquaintance of Indian origin asked her for her caste. In her place, I would probably have taken offence. I can't really explain why, but I find it insulting when people ask me what caste I belong to. If I choose to reveal it in the course of a conversation, that's my choice. But, I don't see what difference it makes for those who talk to me.

She goes on to state that,

"During an expert interview I was warned that the caste system is very prominent amongst the South Asian diasporas in the UK but I never imagined it would be such a guiding force for young, second generationer’s."

I can't get over that. I am probably just very naive, but I somehow imagined that people become more open to other cultures when they travel. I was apparently wrong. I have relatives in the US and in Canada who take pride is forming Tamil Associations and Brahmin Societies and discouraging all contact with those who don't conform. What are we doing? Why the hell can we not treat a person as a human being rather than as a Brahmin, Hindu, or other? I probably come across as cold when I say this, but during my 2-year stay in Paris, I never found the need to bond with other Indians through social gatherings aimed exclusively at Indians. Of course, I have many Indian friends there, but the presence of a non-Indian never made a difference to the gathering. It was a meeting of friends, not one of Indians away from home. I somehow preferred it that way. My brief visits to the Maison de l'Inde were far from welcoming. I found people far too nosy and noisy. I faced questions regarding my origins, caste, parentage, language et. al. It did not matter that I was Indian. I had to be Tamil, Kannada, Hindu, Brahmin or something else. I had to "belong". To one of the numerous groups. I wonder why. No, I am not from JNU. And no, I am not from Delhi either. I did not study at Stephen's or LSR. And yes, I come from the apparently conservative city of Madras. And yes, I still use the two names interchangeably. I refused to be typecast as a Tamil, Kannadiga, or Hindu. I am just me. Is that so difficult to digest? I don't get it at all.

It is disheartening to see the caste system being not just preserved, but also reinforced every day of my life. People want to know what my caste is. My students want to know what I am. Is it not enough if I am their teacher? How does my caste matter? With the overzealous government wanting to bring in reservations in the private sector and in schools, I am being surrounded. Everywhere I go, my caste matters. I don't care any more whether X, Y or Z gets a seat in a college because of reservations. But, I would like to see my children grow up without that all-important question put to them. When I do have kids, they will not have any answers to give. Will they have to explain each day that their parents got married out of caste? Will they have to justify our choices each day of their lives and feel apologetic about not having a clear answer to that question? I certainly hope not. But, to be truthful, I see no improvement. I am losing hope.

On marriages, love or otherwise

2008-08-07T20:25:00.001+05:30

Ok. I know the whole world and his dog are debating the abortion issue. So, must I too? No thanks. I am not qualified to comment on either abortion or pregnancy see as I have had neither. So, let me not venture into that dangerous territory. This post by Nita, on the other hand, is something I can talk about. She wonders if love marriages are any different from arranged marriages because short-listing according to one's preferences is going to happen anyway.

Well, I agree. And I don't. Confused? Actually, I have pretty ambiguous views on the issue. Personal experience dictates that I defend love marriages passionately. No, I am not married. But I am in love. So, I can talk. Oh yes! I can. First, Nita asks if someone looking for a potential partner would not hang out at a place he/she like so that chances of meeting someone with similar tastes is greater. Well, I really don't know. Not many people are actively looking for a mate. Ok. Let me modify that statement. Not many people I know who eventually fell in love, actively looked out for a mate. It happened. To me too. You can't exactly blame me for going to work can you? That's where I met Anand. So, I am really not sure people mentally shortlist people before falling in love. If I may say so, Anand is not the kind of person I would have considered perfect 5 years ago. But once I met him, everything changed. Including the idea of perfection. So, are we filtering unsuitable candidates? I somehow doubt it.

And as far as physical attributes are concerned, I suppose it is true to a large extent. Of course everyone wants a husband who looks like ~~George Clooney~~, ~~Tom Cruise~~, ~~Abhishek Bachchan~~, hell...I don't know. Whoever you think is good looking. I have no clue what I liked when I was in my teens. But I certainly know that that dream is nothing close to the reality I so adore today. About that teenage bit. Everyone wants the latest heartthrob as husband when they are 13. Whether they would actually marry the person, given the chance, when they are 25 is anyone's guess. And mine is, no.

Having disagreed with Nita for so long, let me say that I found that example rather amusing. She knows someone who wants a guy with a head full of hair!! Excuse me? How do you actually think so much? As far as I am concerned, if I gel well with the guy (as I certainly do with Anand), that will do. Wavelength. That's what I call it. And I have an extremely cheeky question. What would you do if the guy lost all his hair after marrying you? And developed that forbidden paunch and put on lots of weight? Ditch him? A question to ponder. :-P

Elitist education?

2008-07-30T22:29:00.001+05:30

I saw this link via Nanopolitan. And, I must say the author's arguments hit home rather well. As Abi says, some of them are broad-brush generalisations, but on the whole, he makes a lot of sense. For instance, when he says that people tend to look down upon others simply because they did not go a certain university, he successfully drives home an important point: that, unconsciously, graduates of elite institutions (I like to believe that Sciences Po is elite) look down upon those who do not "belong" there. I am guilty of that myself. I am proud I got into Sciences Po. But sometimes, I too have displayed that annoying arrogance of someone who is among, as Deresiewicz says, is among the "best and brightest." I am probably not. I am probably just very lucky. Or not even. I also agree that graduates of elite schools tend to judge themselves, and others, by numbers: SAT, GRE, GMAT scores.

In the Indian context, the equivalent is probably IIT and IIM. In this regard, I would like to point you to a brilliant post by Nita. (as always). It is a brilliant analysis of what IIM graduates are doing, how much they are getting paid, and what kinds of jobs they prefer. Beyond all this hype about the IITs and the IIMs, I would like to ask one question. What does an IIT graduate have that any good engineer from a decent engineering college does not? This is an honest question. I do not know. Any answers are welcome.

On a related note, I was rather surprised, even shocked to hear that many of my students have no idea how to write a CV. In fact, even those who are working have never written a CV because they were recruited on campus, and they simply had to fill up a form and take some technical tests. I do agree that BITS Pilani, the IITs and other institutions send out brilliant engineers. But, is brilliance a result of the college in which you studied? I know many people who come from nondescript and even unrecognised institutions who are capable of giving an IIT-grad a run for his money. I simply believe that excellence can exist anywhere, even in the slums. We are, as a society, too caught up in the rut of exams, degrees and marks to see that intelligence is unrelated to most or even all of these factors. What's more? We are refusing to allow our children to exercise their fundamental right to dissent. Any difference of opinion with school, college or teachers is quickly suppressed. "Just write what is in the text book. Otherwise you will not get marks." These are the words I hear from parents of all ages, day in and day out.

This reluctance to question is so ingrained in the Indian psyche that my grandfather tells me I must not question the analysis that appears in newspapers because those writing for the media are obviously better qualified than me to talk. Pray, why must I shut up when I see a journalist talking nonsense? Because the writer is a professor at JNU? No. I will not shut up. As long as I can substantiate my arguments, I have a right to say what I please. What people like my grandfather conveniently forget, is that we, as Indians, have a right to disagree. Even if we are engineers and not social scientists or strategic analysts. In short, we Indians give more respect to a piece of paper than to real intelligence. We must get out of this. If we want to innovate rather than replicate, we must encourage dissent. There is nothing like a good argument to foster new ideas. We must learn this fundamental truth for our own good.

On cinema

2008-07-29T22:19:00.001+05:30

I rarely blog about cinema. I only write if it is worth the effort. The last movie I blogged about was Taare Zameen Par. But today, I wanted to talk about something entirely different. Let's start with home. The release of the much-hyped Rajnikanth guest-starrer Kuselan is around the corner. I have watched the trailers and teasers on TV. What I find amazing is that Rajnikanth has become such a hyped commodity. For me, what is important is the story. According to reports, Rajnikanth has barely 15 minutes of screen time. But, practically all the teasers feature him to the exclusion of everyone else. This, I find unacceptable. The other actors in the movie are equally accomplished, if not actually better. Take Pasupathy for example. I would rather watch Pasupathy perform as villain than watch Rajnikanth dancing around trees with an 18 year-old heroine. It is galling that actors of the calibre of Pasupathy and Prabhu are being sidelined in favour of the "superstar". I would not watch this movie for Rajnikanth, but I probably will because it veterans like Balachander and Vasu. I am probably going to get brickbats from fans of the superstar. But frankly, I am sick of geriatric heroes running around the trees with heroines less than their daughters' age. Vijaykanth is probably the worst of the lot. But, Rajnikanth or even Kamal Hassan(I happen to like Kamal's acting) are no better. Can they please give way to younger, and better-looking heroes?

Now, on to the next. Check out this post. A bit excessive don't you think? Even worse, the stupid "rule" the author has cited. I got to this link via Confused. And, I quite agree with him. It's a movie!! I go to a movie to have fun. Yes, once in a while, a movie succeeds in touching my heart or making me think. Like Taare... did. But, that is it. Some people love looking at the world through the prism of feminism. And the result is disastrous at times and ridiculous at others. I am not a feminist. I believe in equality, yes. But I do NOT watch every single movie with feminism on my mind. And if you so dislike pointless characters, you shouldn't be watching movies anyway. Most movie characters make no sense, male or female.

Are all-women's colleges really that bad?

2008-07-24T23:36:00.001+05:30

Well, I really do not know. When I was in college, I was pretty irritated by the fact that WCC did not admit men. It cannot. Simply because it is the Women's Christian College. But today, when I read a few posts on same-sex education, it got me thinking again. Like Chandni and Sunita, I too was a vigorous advocate of co-educational schools for much of my life. But now, I am not so sure. What sporadic blogger said in her post is quite true.

"We are who we are, largely because we studied in an all-girls institution. And by that, I mean, we grew into people who are confident of their, our, ability. In several co-ed colleges, one sees that very few girls ever occupy union positions. If they do at all, they are elected into positions that are traditionally seen as a female domain-cultural representatives, literary representatives."

This, to a certain extent is true. I studied 14 years in a co-ed school. Three years in a women's college instilled the confidence that 14 years of co-ed failed to do. I was always rather talkative, but college channeled that urge to talk into something constructive and made me a debater. Now, let me say that any college could have done that. But the fact that I was accepted for what I was in WCC made a huge difference. Let me give you a rather personal example here. When I was in school, I was constantly judged on how I looked, how tall, how fat, how thin, how beautiful I was. I was judged on what boys (immature and even superficial young men) thought of me. If the class "cool guy" thought I was not worth talking to, nobody would. Not even the equally "un-hep" reject of the class. I stepped into college with a lot of apprehension. I constantly looked over my shoulder to see who was scrutinising my actions and judging my appearance. To my utter surprise, nobody cared about what I wore or how fair or how dark I was. To them, to the hundreds of girls I was surrounded by every day, I was normal. For the first time in life, I felt at home.

This was a personal experience. I will not say that co-ed is bad. But I would like to disagree with one point that Chandni makes. She says,

"In college we found girls who were 18 plus, behaving with the opposite sex, in a fashion that we did when we were 13. You know, the whole excitement and hype regarding “boys” when the hormones are in full swing and you suddenly see the “pests” with new eyes!"

Uhm...I do not agree. At 18, girls are not all that mature. Maybe growing up in a co-ed environment makes girls more confident. But, crushes do happen. At 18 or even at 23. Judging a girl as immature because she crushes on a cute guy is not fair. I blushed like hell when I first went out with my boyfriend. And I was at the ripe old age of 23. Hell! I still do sometimes. So?

I admit, at WCC, we definitely were excited at the prospect of culturals because they meant that guys would come. But we were barely out of our teens for goodness' sake! And we were women. Of course we wanted them to come to college. As someone points out in the comments section, not all women from all-girls' institutions behave like blubbering idiots in front of men. Some co-ed girls do so too. I think it's hardly fair to blame a type of education system for that.

I just think that each has its advantages. I for one loved my time at WCC. I could do what I pleased (as long as Mrs. Phillips didn't hear of it). I did not care a damn what I wore most of the time because we were all women. I have friends who used to turn up to classes in their nightsuits and pajamas because they woke up at 8:25 for an 8:30 class. It's all fun. The shopping, the gossip, the late-night secret chats over cell-phone (because my hostelite friends had sneaked it in without the warden's knowledge), everything was fun.

The delusions in being leftist

2008-07-12T22:30:00.001+05:30

Ok. Here we go! I am probably going to get a lot of criticism on this, but I have to say it. The Left Front, its leaders, its politics, its ideology; they all anger, disgust and even infuriate me rather regularly. Its attitude towards the Nuclear Deal is a case in point. The Left Front, led by Bardhan, Karat, et.al have successfully held a nation to ransom, time and again. They opposed the oil price hike, when the only way to save the public-sector oil companies from sinking was to increase the price. They opposed disinvestment, opening up of sectors such as insurance, aviation, and retail marketing to foreign investment. In fact, they have opposed almost all essential second-generation reforms that will become indispensable, sooner rather than later, for India to sustain the current growth rate. They have single-handedly succeeded in halting, or at least slowing down India's economic growth by this opposition.

And no, they have not done all this by sitting in the opposition. They have simply blackmailed an invertebrate government, dependent on its support, to get what they want: economic stagnation so that they can conveniently blame "capitalism" for everything from rising food prices to global warming. And frankly, I have had enough. I wish to see the Left go back to where it belongs: the opposition. I would, of course like to see it being confined to the "dustbin of history," as Acorn puts it so beautifully at NationalInterest. But, I suppose that is a bit too much to hope for given that our Indian voters never actually think before voting.

But, do the politicians of the Left actually believe the crap they say? Sadly enough, they do. Nobody can doubt their personal integrity, (well...most of them...) but their ideology gets in the way of clear thinking too often. They are fully aware that globalisation is here to stay and there is no way we can become protectionist again, but they do not want to believe it. Time and again, they lean towards a Russia that is incapable of giving anything more than moral support, and a China that is getting increasingly menacing. One key point is their insistence on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline as an alternative to the deal. They criticised the Indian Government that voted against Iran on the nuclear issue, but opposed both Pokhran I and II, on the grounds that India was attracting sanctions unnecessarily. So Iran can make a bomb, but India should not? As if that is not enough, Prakash Karat actually said that he and his party wanted India to snap strategic ties with the US because such a union would mean that it would "counter-balance and encircle" China. Thanks to Nita for the link. I mean, can this get any worse? So, this actually means a "national" political party would rather ensure China's welfare than India's? Why are we still voting for such people? Is it not time to unceremoniously throw out such a party? I disagree with Nita there. They don't belong in the opposition either. They belong to a "dustbin of History" as I said earlier.

I have said it once, and I say it again: it is in India's interest to foster a reciprocal strategic relationship with the US. There is a very important reason for that. China, by pursuing an active "String of Pearls" strategy is gradually, but surely encircling India. Don't understand what that means? Let me explain. China is establishing its bases, military or commercial, in the seas surrounding India. The first of them is the Pakistani port of Gwadar, which is strategically located between three important regions: oil-rich Middle East, highly-populated South Asia and the newly-developing Central Asia. Any gas pipeline from Iran via Pakistan can and will be accessible to the Chinese. The second pearl is the port of Chittagong in Bangladesh, which they are actively funding. The third is the Coco Islands that our esteemed first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru generously gave away to Myanmar, situated about 80 nautical miles east of the Myanmarese Coast. China now has a naval base on the Coco Islands. And, these Communists are worried about China being encircled??? I am sorry, but I do not approve of this ideology. I fail to understand how your political ideology can be directly in conflict with your country's national security.

There is no way the Communists deserve any sympathy or understanding for their handling of the Nuclear Deal issue. They only deserve to be unilaterally criticised for what they have done.

Nuclear energy: facts clarified

2008-07-04T23:45:00.001+05:30

I was both surprised, and rather disappointed to see Brahma Chellaney, eminent Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, an independent, privately funded think-tank, and member of the Policy Advisory Group headed by the Foreign Minister of India, write against the nuclear deal. In his recent article titled, "Too much hot air in nuke deal," published in the Economic Times (link to his blog), he argues that "a major myth propagated is that greater nuclear-generated electricity will help reduce India’s oil-import dependency." I find it impossible to accept most of the reasons Chellaney puts forward against the deal.

Let me start with the first argument. He argues that,

"The link between nuclear power and oil is specious. In the years ahead, the world could move toward electric vehicles and even use grid power to make hydrogen for the fuel-cell vehicles of the future... But today, greater nuclear-generated electricity is not going to really reduce any country’s oil needs, certainly not India’s. In fact, with little overlap in the oil and nuclear global-market structures, nuclear power now competes principally against coal, natural gas and renewables."

I beg to differ. Nuclear fuel does not compete with renewables. Indeed, it competes with coal and natural gas. But coal and natural gas, like oil, are non-renewable sources of energy. According to a report on the CSLF site, about 30% of India's energy needs are met by oil, and more than 60% of that oil is imported. Also, India is the sixth largest consumer of petroleum in the world, accounting for about 2.9% of the total world consumption of oil. This may not seem like a lot, given that per capita consumption is far lower than that of developed countries. It is indeed distressing that nearly 30% of total energy required is supplied by oil. What will happen when the world runs out of oil? Too scary to imagine, right? The same report states that about 70% of electricity generated is by use of coal. What happens when there is no coal left? Chellaney's argument that the world's uranium reserves will last just another 85 years is difficult to believe. He cites an IAEA report, which he claims forecasts the amount of uranium available. A detailed reading of the report reveals that Chellaney, in fact, has not revealed all the details of the report. A press communiqué by the IAEA states that,

"Based on the 2006 nuclear electricity generation rate and current technology, the identified resource base will remain sufficient for 100 years. However, total world uranium resources are dynamic and related to commodity prices. The uranium industry has reacted to recent increases in the price of uranium by launching major new investments in exploration, which can be expected to lead to further additions to the uranium resource base. Worldwide exploration expenditures in 2006 totalled over USD 774 million, an increase of over 250% compared to 2004. Expenditures in 2007, for which data are not yet final, are expected to match those in 2006."

The overall tone of the communiqué is rather optimistic and is conveyed succinctly by the title,

"Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future."

A second fact that must be considered is the quantity of uranium required in reactors. We are talking about a few kilograms of uranium, whereas in the case of coal, it is closer to a few million metric tonnes. That should give us some idea about the feasibility of using uranium as primary fuel for nuclear reactors. Also, Chellaney keeps talking about why nuclear fuel will not reduce India's oil imports. It will not. I agree. But if we, as citizens and thinking individuals, bother to look beyond the next few general elections and into the future, we will see that nuclear energy is the way to go. Of course, nuclear fuel will not make our cars run on hydrogen. But, at least we will not be paying through our nose for thermal energy, especially since coal reserves are fast declining. In a century or two, there will be no coal left to exploit.

For more information on the situation of nuclear fuel in India, see this report. One fact cannot be ignored. India has not signed the NPT, and for good reason. If it wishes to gain access to uranium reserves elsewhere, it must sign the deal. India has vast reserves of thorium. Even if we do develop indigenous technology, we need uranium to kick-start the reaction. To cut a long story short, we need uranium. And to get that uranium, we need the deal. Can it get any clearer? It is frustrating to see "experts" being so short-sighted.

Demystifying the Nuclear deal

2008-07-02T23:37:00.001+05:30

The major political news of the week, or even the fortnight, is the tug-of-war between the UPA government and the Left parties on the issue of the US-India Nuclear Agreement. Now, several issues must be addressed before analysing the attitude of the Left towards the deal.

The most important question would be: What does the deal really mean? The idea of a civilian nuclear agreement was first mooted by US President George W Bush on July 15, 2005. He announced that he would "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India." Before any kind of cooperation of atomic energy issues, it was essential that India sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This was essentially because India had refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and had virtually no safeguards on nuclear material in the use of raw materials for peaceful purposes. India's testing of the Nuclear Bomb, first in 1974, and then in 1998, convinced the US to further restrict supply of nuclear raw materials to India. It was after the first Pokhran tests in 1974, that the Nuclear Suppliers Group was created, which further restricted supply of Uranium (an essential nuclear raw material) to India. Changing balance of power and a gradual change in India's attitude towards cooperation with the United States, actively aided by the rise of India's economic power, provided the impetus to the nuclear deal. The legal framework of the bilateral nuclear pact between India and the United States is provided by the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also called the Hyde Act, which is the principal bone of contention between the Left parties and the UPA government. This act provides the legal basis for the signing of the 123 Agreement (PDF link) with India, and requires the approval of the US Congress and the Indian Cabinet and will define the exact terms of the cooperation.

So, for the Deal to bee signed, the Indian Government must take certain steps. First, it must negotiate and conclude a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Deal ran into its first set of hurdles here itself. The Left refused to allow the government to go ahead with the IAEA negotiations, and threatened to withdraw support to the government. Without the Left's support, the government would be reduced to a minority and would be forced to resign. After last-ditch negotiations, the Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee went ahead anyway, and held talks with the IAEA. Now, the Left is "discussing the timing of withdrawal of support." The next step is the G8 Summit to be held in Japan this year. Again, the Left is blackmailing.

But, what wrong with the Deal anyway? I have said it before, and I will say it again. There is nothing wrong with the deal. The rationale behind the deal is quite clear. This paper (PDF link) by David G Victor, Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Stanford University clearly states the potential benefits of the agreement. He argues, in his brilliantly written paper, that the fuller commercial exploitation of nuclear energy, if done to the exacting standards of non-proliferation, can help cut carbon dioxide emissions. This is largely because nuclear energy emits virtually no carbon-dioxide, a gas that contributes to global warming. With India's energy requirements on the rise, we need to urgently reduce our dependence on oil and petroleum, simply because these sources are rapidly dwindling. If the US is helping us do that, then why not? The fact remains that for India to successfully and quickly exploit its nuclear reactors, the US offer of transfer of technology would be invaluable. Of course, it is not the only option. But, it is the best possible option given the circumstances.

The second reason the deal must go through is political. Washington and New Delhi share concerns about the rather dramatic, and sometimes threatening growth of China, both militarily and in the economic sphere. Washington is seeking a strategic partnership with India is an apparent attempt to counter China's growing influence in the region. But, let's be clear on one thing. India is not going to act as a US representative in formulating its foreign policy with regards to China. This remains the principal fear of the Left: that India will be forced to review its foreign policy priorities due to pressure from the US. Personally, I do not see that happening. India is the biggest military power in the Indian Ocean littoral after the US, which has several bases in the region, including the one at Diego Garcia. A strategic partnership with the US would only be beneficial to India, because a strategic partnership basically means intelligence sharing, among other things. Intelligence sharing with the US, with its advanced spy satellites can be beneficial to India in the long run. A more comprehensive analysis on the deal can be found here (PDF link). This paper by Sumit Ganguly and Dinshaw Mistry makes a rather convincing case for the deal.

Finally, the Hyde Act, which has been much-maligned by the Left requires, as I said in an earlier post, that US foreign policy be directed to securing India's cooperation to actions against Iran and in securing its participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative. However, a detailed examination of the said law reveals that the Hyde Act merely requires that the US Government "encourage" India to take the above steps and cannot, in any way, force India's hand in the matter. India has already made it clear that it does not share the US hurry in action against Iran. There is no way the US can force the Indian government to do something that would harm the political, military or economic interests of the country. The Left parties in India seem to be stuck in the Cold War-era of America-bashing. What they don't seem to understand is the fact that the world is increasingly unipolar, and that India cannot afford to miss the nuclear bus when it still has the chance. The nuclear deal must go through. With or without the Left's approval.

Yes, I love to cook...so?

2008-06-28T22:46:00.003+05:30

I intended to link to this post a long time ago. I kept putting it off until I decided it was too late to link to. But, something happened this afternoon that made me blog it (rant?) with a vengeance. I was at Alliance francaise. That's not unusual. But, someone I knew a long time ago came up to me and said hi. I was not exactly thrilled to see this person, but I said hello nevertheless. I was trying to fight tiredness and sleep, and get home soon, when she started talking.

"So, what did you do in France?", she asked.

I explained that I did my Masters in International Affairs. She rants for some time about being away for long, touring the world with her sailor-husband, and then asks me how I managed being a vegetarian.

"I cooked", I said.

She looked at me with stunned disbelief.

"You cooked?"

"Well, yes...I did."

"You still do?"

"Of course I do."

Then she launches into this tirade about how women are forced to cook for their gluttunous husbands and how they normally hate the job. She then looks at me, and in a rather patronising voice states,

"I think you should refuse to do such nonsense. You are a post-graduate after all."

Eh? Pardon me if I am being ignorant, but just what does being a post-graduate have to do with cooking. What irked me even more was that she cloaked her general inability/unwillingness to cook in the garb of feminism and free will. I have said it before and will say it again. I am not a feminist if this is what feminism means. I believe in equality of the sexes but that's it. And yes, surprising as it may seem, I actually like cooking. Just as I like teaching, listening to music or reading. It's a hobby, a passionate interst and an essential survival tool.

Nita talks about the devaluation of cooking, and I see it happening everywhere. Today's incident reminded me that cooking is not just devalued but actively scorned and criticised as useless and as a waste of time. I disagree. Cooking can be therapeutic for someone who likes to do it. There is nothing more satisfying that a well-cooked meal. To me, it is a labour of love. I don't cook for every passer-by. I only cook for those I love. And if I have cooked for any of you at any point in life, it probably means we share a lasting friendship, at the least. Lastly, I cook. But that does not mean I am incapable of doing other things. Conversely, the fact that I am capable of doing other things does not render my ability to cook meaningless. I love to cook. Period.

Of etiquette and stupid advice

2008-06-26T23:24:00.002+05:30

I came across, not one, but three posts, all ranting about a Mumbai Mirror article by a professional counsellor and psychologist, Uttam Dave. All three are perfectly justified in their ranting. I am equally outraged by all the stupid, sexist and absolutely one-sided advice that Dave is spouting, in a newspaper no less. But, when I first read Chandni's post, I was dismissive of the article as the rants of an old man who was yet to get out of the 13th Century. I am assuming he is old, but if he is younger, then I am even more scandalised at the attitude. I have nothing to add to what Chandni, Nita and SC have to say.

But then, what outraged me more than the article was this site, that Nita pointed me to. This "finishing school" trains women in "etiquette" and "home management". Now, wait a sec. I do understand that getting married means taking on a lot of responsibility, most of the time, of the kind we are not used to as we live with parents who do the job. But, does that not apply to men too? A lot of men have no idea about home management, budgeting, entertaining guests or organising parties either. And, just why is this kind of work considered the exclusive domain of the wife? If marriage is a partnership, both partners must learn how to manage a home. If there is a finishing school that teaches women how to cook, clean, change sheets and go grocery shopping, men must learn them all too. After all, men must contribute, at least partially, to housework right?

As Nita says, the woman (more often than not a girl in her early 20s) leaves familiar surroundings, parents, friends, her home city and even her country to go and settle down with a family that is so reluctant to accept her. What she needs, is not stupid advice telling her to "adjust", but a reassurance from husband and in-laws that all will be well. The article, while sounding sexist and one-sided, also portrays all in-laws as cruel and insensitive. To their credit, many modern families go the extra mile to make the transition easier. It's time we stop giving such sexist advice and understand that it takes two to tango.

You are not Brahmin? Stay away!

2008-06-19T23:13:00.001+05:30

That's the message a Hyderabad-based company is sending out to the millions of normal people out there in the world. I came across this post by MumbaiGirl on Blogbharti. This company, called Dhanwantri Foundation, proposes to develop a gated community exclusively for Brahmins. I am just so outraged and disgusted that I don't know how to go about this post any more. DNA published a report on the gated community, as did the Deccan Herald. I could not find the original article on the Herald's site and so I am linking to the Sulekha forums. I am shocked and surprised that no news channel picked it up and reported it as the illegal act it is. They had better things to talk about, didn't they? Like Shah Rukh Khan's six-pack abs and the millions our cricketers made?

The "Agraharam" as it is called, derives from the traditional meaning of the word, which was a Brahmins-only area, prevalent until the mid twentieth-century. The abolition of untouchability, Indian independence and social revolution meant that these Agraharams started disappearing in the late 1950s. Now, this Foundation is acting as if they are the saviours of Brahmins all over the world, by recreating a concept that has no place in a modern, egalitarian world. What the hell? And they wonder why nobody likes them? The site claims that,

"Since the traceable history known, Brahmin Community has led a Serene & Sacrificial life wishing welfare of entire Society irrespective of Caste, Religion and Region etc. Leading mostly spiritual life they have not given much importance to materialistic gains. Bestowed with intellect & working for Spiritual elevation of entire society, they were respected & nurtured by rest of Society in reciprocation. However, Western Culture, vote bank based democracy of India leading to Caste-based selfish motivated politicians have cornered the Brahmin community, leaving majority Brahmins in pathetic condition irrespective of their position. Added to above external threats & adverse situation, the feeling of ego and so-called intellect has not allowed the community to function as a systematic organization leaving individuals to suffer."

Serene and sacrificial life? Who are they kidding? And what the f*** do they mean, "bestowed with intellect"? It is precisely this attitude, a disgusting and unpardonable superiority complex that led to the anti-Brahmin revolutions of the 1930s, and the Dravidian movement with a total negation of caste-identity. Let's make one thing clear. Intellect and intelligence is not the exclusive domain of the Brahmins, as they (or should I say we?) like to believe. The motives of the Foundation are certainly not as noble as they may seem. It claims to promote "mutual understanding". Tell me, just how do you promote mutual understanding when you exclude about 98% of the Indian population?

What nobody seems to get, on the Sulekha forums or elsewhere, is that the very act of building a gated community that excludes people on the basis of caste is illegal. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that,

The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-

access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

What the Dhanwantri Foundation is doing is precisely this: discriminating on the grounds of caste and creed. While a private enterprise has every right to do business the way it deems fit, it cannot deny the right to buy a plot there on the grounds of caste alone. The registration form alone is enough to make me see red. Gotram indeed! Well, I refuse to acknowledge that I have one. Unless we start protesting against this kind of casteist and discriminatory bullshit, we will never really progress. Let's face it. The society we live is definitely caste-based. But that does not mean we deliberately exclude people on the basis of something as unacceptable as caste. This attitude of the Brahmins simply sucks.

Devaluing education

2008-06-17T23:24:00.000+05:30

The past week has been both exciting and hectic. Sometimes, exhausting too. But, in four days, I learnt more than I have over the past year. It's been absolutely wonderful in some ways, and annoying in others. One particular incident made me see red. P is someone I met over the last week. She is a teacher. Just like me. She has a daughter, who studied at Sciences Po. Just like me. She learnt that I too belonged to her daughter's alma mater and that somehow pricked her over three days before she finally broached the topic with me.

"You studied at Sciences Po, right?" she asked, in a rather patronising tone.

I looked up startled, wondering what I did wrong by studying there.

"Yes, I did," I replied.

"So, what the hell are you doing here at the Alliance?" she volleyed.

Eh? What did my working at the Alliance française have to do with my studying at Sciences Po? I asked her that and she came up with the weirdest explanation I have ever heard. As I said before, her daughter studied there and came back home, having changed her mind about the direction her life was going to take. She did finance, came back, and decided she did not want to work for any company any more. She was going to work for an NGO and do some social work.

So, what is the problem? Precisely that. Her parents could not digest the fact that she chose to come back with a Master's degree in finance and choose not to work in a company and make loads of money. Why? Two reasons:

They spent 12 lakhs on her education and expected to get some of it back
She was a girl, and the fact that they spent so much on sending her to Sciences Po meant they could not get her married with as hefty a dowry as they could have.

So, why did P have a problem with me? Because she sees me working as a teacher at the Alliance and decides I have lost focus by virtue of having spent two years at Sciences Po. Just like her daughter did.

"But," I protested violently, "I have not lost focus.I have just decided to diversify."

"Ha! Diversify indeed. That's just a bloody euphemism for losing focus," she retorted.

By this time, I had lost my patience and simply walked away. I don't need to justify my life's choices to some random stranger who thinks I am ruining my life. But, this incident set me thinking. Why exactly did P think her daughter was wasting her life? Was it really money? Or dowry? I doubt it. I think this reflects a deep-seated attitude in the Indian psyche that only education that results in monetary gain is worthwhile. It was never supposed to be this way. Education is supposed to enlighten. My heart bleeds to see well-educated people equate the value of education to the quantity of money you make. I may not make millions. I may not even make a few lakhs. But, the fact remains that I love my job. I chose to do what I am doing today. I was not forced into it. Also, I believe that no education is useless. I have learnt something every year of my life, irrespective of the effect those years have on my financial status. Why do we forget that every little piece of information adds value to our lives? Why do we forget that no education, however "useless" it might seem is really so? Education has a value that is far beyond simply monetary. I only hope parents realise this truth when there is still time. It makes me grateful to have parents who think like me. Life would have miserable otherwise.

Plagiarism, cyber-stalking and crime

2008-06-10T22:30:00.004+05:30

I was pointed to this post via Neha's blog. To say I was appalled would be the understatement of the century. To steal content is one thing. That, in itself, is condemnable because it amounts to, as Inji Pennu puts it, daylight robbery. But, to threaten bodily harm and heap abuse on a blogger because she dared to complain about it, is quite another. While the first is a violation of intellectual property, the second is criminal intimidation. How exactly can we, as bloggers, netizens, or even common people take such abuse lying down?

There are several initiatives out there on the Web to counter this kind of cyber-theft. The least we can do is to support the cause, write about it, and make as much noise as possible. Bloggers like Inji Pennu deserve all the support they can get. It is not easy to handle intimidation and it is our duty, as fellow bloggers to give support, albeit moral. These two sites are dedicated to fighting copyright violations. Check them out for further information.

Hindustan Times doesn't seem to understand Intellectual Property

2008-05-30T22:26:00.001+05:30

Hindustan Times, a national newspaper no less, seems to be completely ignorant of the concept of Intellectual Property Rights. Or maybe they don't care. In today's edition (or maybe yesterday, I have no idea), it published a photograph that is stolen from Nita's blog. It was first published on a post titled, "Impact of coaching classes on a nation’s psyche", on her blog. I say stolen, because they have not bothered to acknowledge the source, nor have they paid her for the use of the photograph. Let me say this, the little regard I had for our "national" media is now gone. They have no business being in the field if they cannot respect other people's intellectual rights. This stealing is in clear violation of the Creative Commons license under which most bloggers publish their work. We blog because we like to. We receive little or no money for the work we do, and yet we do it because we love to do it. That a reputed newspaper can behave in such a petty manner disgusts me to no end. If you are reading this, do what you can to register your protest against this violation of rights by Hindustan Times.

Valmiki is Russian?

2008-05-29T12:24:00.001+05:30

First, check out this phenomenally stupid article from Mint. The author, a former investment and commercial banker argues that the Pandavas and the Kauravas were actually invaders who pushed the original Indus Valley people a.k.a the Dravidians down south. He also states, with the certainty of an eye-witness, that the Dravidian people drank "Jhalam" (water) from a river of the same name. I assume he is talking about Jhelum. But he seems to forget that "jal" in Sanskrit means water too. In fact, the original Tamil word for water is "neer". Not just that, the letter/sound "j" does not exist in Tamil. Ask any Tamil scholar and they will tell you. The "Jhalam" the author refers too is a brahminical usage, used almost exclusively by the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu.

Also, see this excellent, not-to-mention hilarious retort by Eroteme, who rebuts, point by point, and with great humour all the contentions that Mr. Ramaswami puts forward in his article. Mr. Ramaswami also claims, with the self-assurance of a fool, that historians have brushed this fact under the carpet because it would be tantamount to admitting that our mythical heroes were invaders who displaced an entire civilisation. What the !@#$?? What the hell were you smoking my dear Mr. Ramaswami? As Eroteme points out, there were figurines of horses and camels discovered during excavations in the Indus Valley. But it probably makes sense, as Mr. Ramaswami intelligently contends that these "barbarians" with no culture of their own adopted Vedic culture and civilisation and gave the Indus Valley Civilisation a second innings. So, they must have made those figurines right? Because they had horses!

During the course of my reading, I never understood one thing. The Aryan invasion theory contends that the Aryans came from Central Asia and pushed the indigenous populations out. The Dravidian point of view is that these indigenous peoples were pushed down south to parts of South India and eventually adopted a language that evolved gradually into Tamil. But, Mr. Ramaswami contends that the Kauravas and the Pandavas pushed out the indigenous people and adopted the Vedic culture that already existed as they had no culture of their own. Does that mean that the Dravidians were the original Vedic people? If so, the Dravidian argument takes a beating. Of the two related arguments, one of them must be false.

Among all these stupid arguments, one takes the cake.

"If we don’t accept the invasion theory, then the only other explanation is that both Mahabharat and Ramayan took place outside India, on the Russian steppes, and their stories have come down to us as oral histories through the horse-people, which were then refined to suit cultural and later ethnic, social and political agendas."

Really, this kind of stupidity only reminds me of the old saying. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

It's that time of the year!

2008-05-22T23:02:00.003+05:30

There! It's that time of the year again. The annual obsession with marks and ranks has begun. So has the rat race to the state's top colleges. All this hype and hoopla regarding the marks set me thinking. What exactly do parents want out of their children? Just marks and grades? Are they honestly not bothered about how well they are learning their stuff? In the frenzy of getting marks, are students not forgetting the reason they are going to school? In case nobody remembers, it is to acquire a well-rounded personality. What is the use in getting an unholy 99% if you can't make yourself a cup of coffee or talk intelligently of the IPL? I honestly believe that the gender of the child notwithstanding, they must be taught some basic survival skills. Making some coffee, going out to a supermarket to pick up provisions, buying their own books and CDs...these are just some of them. Nobody is going to do all this for them all their lives. Versatility is a quality that only gets rarer by the day. It is indeed a sad state of affairs.

That said, on to my next rant. I can't understand why engineering is considered the only thing "worth" studying. A cousin actually cried three hours after she got her Class XII results because she had not got "good" marks. A Times of India article reported the state second rank holder cried all day because she missed the first rank by a mark instead of rejoicing that she came second. I mean...what the hell? What are we teaching our kids? The afore-mentioned cousin still insists she will only do IT or ECE engineering because they are the only professions that "pay". Whatever happened to good old-fashioned passion for something? When did education become a low-risk, high-return investment option? It makes me scream when I see sane, healthy 17-year olds behave as if there was no tomorrow on the day of their exam results. Get one mark less than expected and they act as if the sky is going to come tumbling down. My cousin insists her parents must pay a whopping capitation fee to get her into the IT course she wants. If I were a parent, I would tell her to go to hell. I only hope I manage to retain this sanity when I am the mother of a 17-year old.

On religion and superstition

2008-05-18T11:59:00.002+05:30

I just came across a two posts talking about religion and superstition. More specifically, they talked about the rituals a woman is forced to go through when she has her period. A third, radically different post, caught my attention for the boldness with which it put forward a not-so-fashionable-any-more point of view. The first two argue that since periods are a natural part of a woman's life, there must be no difference in her behaviour or treatment during those dreaded days. The third says she actually enjoys being treated like a queen and getting the men to do all the work. These represent diametrically opposed viewpoints. I would prefer to take a middle ground.

First things first, I agree that a woman must be treated with the same dignity whether she has her period or not. I also agree that seclusion or segregation is ridiculous and must not be practised anywhere. Where I beg to differ is on the religion issue. Each of us has a certain belief, or lack of it, in God. If I believe that God's abode will be defiled by my going there, who the hell are you to force me to go? We are talking about something very basic: the right to freedom of expression. I believe in something. And nobody has any business questioning it. My mother would not let me anywhere near her Puja Room during those three days. So be it. Why should I enter it just to make a point? If you really believe in God, you would worship him, even in toilet if need be. How does your entering a puja room change anything? Your mother, or anyone else for that matter, has a right to believe what they want. Just who are these so-called "educated" and "enlightened" women to call my belief bullshit?

Let's get one thing straight. Education means accepting another's beliefs with an open mind. It means being willing to accept that they are entitled to their opinion without having to justify it to you. Why is my belief that I am too impure to enter a temple during those three days being judged on? Imp's Mom is being extremely uncharitable, not to mention judgemental when she says,

"Just when I had thought that every woman hated these stupid traditions and will not allow it to continue with her daughter, this lady made me sit up. Here is the proof that an educated modern woman enjoys and find no wrong with the isolation."

I am sorry Imp's Mom, but you have no business telling me I am behaving in a manner unbecoming of an "educated" woman. What I believe is my business. As long I don't force my beliefs down your throat, you shouldn't be complaining. Also, a note to those who complain about their mothers. As long as you live with your parents, in their house, it is their wish that matters. If it is so important to enter the puja room on those days, you are free to do so in your own house, where nobody has any right to stop you. You may dislike the restrictions people, and society place on you. But, remember you are as bad as them the minute you start being judgemental about things as sensitive and personal as religion. Venting one's feelings is one thing. Launching personal attacks against X, Y or Z for the views they hold is quite another. It's time "educated" and "modern " women learnt the real meaning of the word "modern".

On children and marriage

2008-05-13T15:04:00.002+05:30

Here is an excellent post by Nita on the impact children have on a marriage and if they can actually contribute to happiness in a marriage. It is an excellently researched and well-written article and explores different facets of the husband-wife relationship. Personally, I think children play and important role in marriages. As Nita says, much depends on the personal preference of the couple.

But in India, couples face a different kind of problem altogether. First, they really do not have a choice in having children. They are expected to have one, at least within a couple of years of the wedding. Those who don't have kids, either by choice or otherwise are often stigmatised and humiliated by family, friends and by society at large. It is true that things are changing. But, not to the extent that society quietly accepts and embraces those who choose not to procreate. Even in urban centres, the pressure on a married couple to have children is quite high.

If a couple does have children to shut society up, they end up being resentful of the situation they are in. Such an attitude helps nobody: not the children, who end up feeling unwanted and neglected, not the couple who suffocate within the confines that society has imposed on them, and not the family, which, by extension suffers too. As Nita points out, several surveys have argued that children lead to a decline in marital happiness, but "happiness" is an emotion that cannot be measured on a scale of one to ten.

Children undoubtedly influence marital happiness. But what is more important for a successful marriage, or indeed, any relationship, is the willingness to listen. I find that the better I communicate with people around me, the better my relationship with them becomes. If that is true of friendship or of professional relationships, it should be equally true of marriages. As long as the couple is willing to sit down and sort out any issues they might have, a happy marriage is impossible. Other, equally important factors such as fidelity, compatibility and understanding are essential ingredients for a happy marriage.

To sum up, a happy marriage can only happen if both partners are willing to make it work. Resentment and frustration are the main enemies of a happy marriage. Children will only make an already happy marriage even happier, just as they will worsen the quality of life in an already-bad marriage.

Cheerleaders and the moral police...and Barkha Dutt too

2008-05-04T21:45:00.002+05:30

Check out this piece by Barkha Dutt in the Hindustan Times. Frankly, I have never liked Dutt, nor do I find her writing logical and coherent. But, this piece exceeds all expectations. dutt makes a complete fool of herself unlike anytime in the past. Confused is quite justified in asking what exactly the point is. Seriously, what was she thinking. I don't understand why we need bikini-clad cheerleaders to make cricket viewing more fun, but that's their job. They have been hired by the team bosses (read Vijay Mallya and Co) to do that job. What is the point in venting our ire on them. If Dutt had the guts, she must have directed her irritation against Mallya. Her comment that white cheerleaders are trashy.

"But even if I think that the cheerleaders are (there’s no polite way to say this) essentially white trash, I find the attempt by sundry politicians to ban them — or dress them up in clothes that cover their knees — farcical and indefensible."

I find that disgusting, especially since it comes from Dutt, who fancies herself to be a champion of liberal causes. White trash? What the @$%?? These girls show a lot of skin. True. They are all white. True. But, does that justify Dutt casting aspersions on their character or taking the moral high ground? I think not. She likes to call herself liberal. But, her most recent article seems to demonstrate otherwise. To me, she is simply taking refuge under the "liberal" tag to say exactly the same things as the moral police, spineless politicians and religious fundamentalists.

Legal System and criticism

2008-05-03T09:31:00.004+05:30

Read this excellent op-ed in The Hindu by V R Krishna Iyer. I am glad someone is questioning what the Supreme Court says. In a recent pronouncement, the Chief Justice of India said that judges were "constitutional authorities" and not public servants, and therefore not covered by the Right to Information Act. In an excellent retort, Iyer explains that the difference between "constitutional authority" and public servant is merely semantic. He argues that constitutional authorities are, in fact, a higher category of pubic servant and are therefore more accountable for their actions. If what Iyer says is true, then why is criticism of the courts or legal procedure considered contempt of court? Must the Supreme Court not be subject to the very laws they seek to uphold? As Iyer puts it,

"The Indian judiciary must accept Frankfurter, that frank and superlative U.S. Judge who wrote: “Judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions."

In a recent order on the defamation cases against Tamil actress Khushboo, the Madras High Court refused to dismiss the 29 cases against her on the grounds that she had expressed not-so-flattering opinions against the judiciary, and that she had no reason to be aggrieved. Excuse me, but I thought I lived in a democracy? A person does not enjoy her fundamental right to constitutional remedy because she dared to say something against the courts, which are responsible for providing that remedy? In a democracy, I have an inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression. Nobody can take that away from me. The courts were, until now, the only neutral and non-partisan forum for justice. If the courts put themselves above the law, how can we trust them to protect the rights of normal people like you and me?

To its credit, India's legal system has managed to remain free from external influences for over 60 years. We cannot afford to let that change. Judges will only be more respected if they agree to subject themselves to the laws they are appointed to uphold. Judges are subject to law, not above it.

IIT and the obsession with exclusivity

2008-04-25T23:09:00.003+05:30

I came across this article, and this one too, by Prof. P V Indiresan, in the Business Line. One talks about how exclusivity is the USP of the IITs and the other argues that India does not really need any more IITs. I might have been convinced if the esteemed professor had not made such a mess of his arguments. Initially, I wanted to simply rant. Now, I prefer countering each of his arguments with my own counter-arguments. In the meantime, check out this excellent retort by Abi. Ok, on to the real arguments the professor puts forward.

His first argument is that India does not need engineers of the quality the IIT produces simply because the economy expects them to sell soap or analyse stock market trends rather than apply the complex theories of thermodynamics they learn at IIT. He claims that

"Many youngsters struggle to get into an IIT not because they love the knowledge they can obtain there but because IIT education offers entry to lucrative careers. (...) Suppose, we have a similar business school which offers an MBA programme directly the way National Law Schools do. In that case, will not our brightest opt for a direct MBA and discard IIT?"

What the hell? So, the only kind of knowledge that recruiters value are those that an MBA degree can offer? I am sorry, but I don't agree. Companies and organisations need good mechanical, electrical and electronic engineers just as much as they need good managers. IIT graduates may not pursue engineering in India. They may choose to do an MBA after their B. Tech from IIT. But, that's their personal choice. What I do with the degree I obtain is my problem. That doesn't mean that the government should stop offering those degrees. I have a degree in History, another in International Affairs. I am not using either at the moment. Does that mean that I forget what I studied? Or that what I studied is "thrown into the dustbin" as Prof. Indiresan claims? I think not.

His second argument is equally flawed.

"If high incomes can be earned without a university degree, people will mostly bypass college education. I know of the proprietor of a famous chain store in the old days of Madras who refused to let his sons join college for the fear college education will make them too arrogant to be humble before customers."

Frankly, that's ridiculous. In addition, his claim that most students play truant and miss classes at the slightest excuse because all they want from college is a degree that will help them be short-listed to superior jobs, is simply unacceptable. He is a teacher. One with several years' experience. Must he necessarily be so insulting and demeaning of students? Does he imply that students will only join the IITs for their brand value, and nothing else? Those of you who have studied in one of the IITs, please tell me. Can you actually get an IIT degree without putting in some serious effort into your studies? Isn't that the real difference between IIT and XYZ College? Any new IITs will necessarily have those qualities right?

"Thus, the stark fact is people are not interested in higher education but in good income, better security. If these could be ensured immediately after high school education, few will bother to attend college. Further, most jobs need skill training rather than academic scholarship. If we were to look at history, great economic empires were built not by university scholars but by skilled apprentices. Few of the richest — Gates, Buffet, Mittal, Agarwal — people in the world today will attribute their success to university education."

I am sorry professor, but I think you have got the whole issue wrong. There can be no such thing as over-expansion of university education. While it is true that primary education must be strengthened to bring it on par with university education in India, to say that university enrolment must not be expanded is stupid and short-sighted. We need qualified engineers, just like we need qualified doctors, lawyers or accountants. To say that engineering education need not be expanded or reformed simply because the market wants good managers is like saying we must not grow wheat because the market demands rice. Stupid. Period.

The second article dazzles the poor reader with lots of scientific theorems, but behind all of it lies a single flawed logic. Because the USP of the IITs is exclusivity, there must necessarily be a shortage. If the shortage is filled, there will not be any difference between an IIT and a street-corner polytechnic. There again Prof. Indiresan seems to have thrown logic out of the window. The presence of half a dozen good B-schools in the US do not diminish the brand value of Harvard. Similarly, as Abi points out, the presence of multiple campuses of the University of California does not make UCLA any less sought-after. So professor, the lay person might be impressed with all the jargon you insist on using in your articles, but beyond the glitz, it seems to me to be a truckload of bad arguments, flawed logic and downright short-sightedness.

The IPL, cheerleaders and cricketing sense

2008-04-22T22:55:00.003+05:30

I was pointed to an exemplary article on Washington Post, by a post by Amit Varma. Before you think I am beginning to go crazy, let me explain. The article is exemplary in showcasing American ignorance to the world. What else can I say? Sample this.

"In many corners of the world, cricket is seen as slow-moving and stodgy, a vestige of British colonialism that is a cross between baseball and napping."

Excuse me, but cricket is truly an international game. We don't conduct an inter-club tournament and call it the World Series. A cross between baseball and napping? WTF? Also, we don't create some vague game and insist on calling it football when, to the rest of the world, football is what the Americans choose to call soccer. Ok, forget the language issue, we happen to be a billion in number. And India obsessively follows the fortunes of their national cricket team through the year. One loss, and the nation is depressed. One victory, and it's euphoric. We don't really need a bunch on American cheerleaders to bring people back to the game as Wax claims. They never went anywhere in the first place. And yes, Wax also says this of cricket.

"The league is also trying to win fans over to a shortened format of the game that is formally called "Twenty20," known colloquially as "cricket on crack." It condenses nearly a week of match play into three hours, with shorter "overs," which are similar to innings in baseball."

We shortened overs? When did that happen exactly? And cricket on crack? Are you sure she was not smoking pot when she wrote this? Unless I turned into a frog overnight, cricket's shorter version was originally the limited overs one-day internationals introduced in the mid-1970s. What the heck is all this shit about condensing a week of play into three hours? It's not a sudden development is it? The Boxing Day test at the MCG in Melbourne did not have any cheerleaders. It lasted five whole days. And yet, it was filled to capacity every single day, and no thanks to skin-showing American cheerleaders. It was cricket at its pure and simple best.

Wax's ignorance is not limited to cricket alone. It seems as though she was stoned throughout her trip to India. Consider this.

"The American women's presence has caused a stir across India, a conservative, Hindu-dominated country where even at the beach, women often shun swimwear in favor of saris, which are made of at least six yards of billowing fabric that covers everything from the neckline to the ankles, sometimes leaving the belly exposed. It's a country where the top female tennis star, Sania Mirza, who is Muslim, is often criticized for wearing short skirts on the court. Some TV pundits pointed out that the Redskins cheerleaders are showing more skin on the cricket pitch than most Indian men will see before marriage."

The sari is six yards of billowing fabric that covers everything from neck to ankle? Ask any Indian man. He will tell you that the sari can reveal more than it hides, if the lady in question chooses to reveal it. It is one of the sexiest garments a woman can wear, albeit difficult for the inexperienced. Also, criticism of Sania Mirza is done by a bunch of mostly jobless, religious fundamentalists who deserve no mention or respect. That's not the opinion of the general public, educated or not.

And these cheerleaders are showing more skin that most men will see before marriage? Are you sure she visited India in 2008? Indian men, and women, are not as prudish as they are made out to be. I have said this before, and I say it again. India is probably the most hypocritical country in the world. Everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality exists, but away from the public eye. This excellent write-up by Nita sums up the issue quite well.

Frankly, I expected a certain quality from the Washington Post. Next time they get someone to write about India, cricket or anything else for that matter, they must at least try to verify facts. I find the article both judgemental and patronising, apart from being belittling of a game many countries in the world passionately follow. I love cricket. So does my boyfriend. And most other Indian men I know. Cheerleaders or no, they will continue to monopolise the TV remote to watch a vague test match between New Zealand and Kenya on a warm Sunday afternoon. The presence, or lack thereof, of some American women showing skin isn't going to make much of a difference.

Education, reservations and reform

2008-04-20T22:49:00.002+05:30

Here is a brilliant economic analysis of the reservation policy by Atanu Dey on his blog on development. It is, at first glance, very impressive. He uses economic theory, common sense and impeccable argumentation to prove that reservations are untenable. But, all is not right with his reasoning. I can still spot a few weak links in the arguments, though I am no economist.

First, he states, rather unambiguously, that

"Let’s pause here for a moment to reflect on this: there is no shortage of jobs for qualified candidates. In fact, there is a shortage of qualified people. The shortage arises from the limited supply of seats in educational institutions. That shortage of seats is mandated by the government. The government mandates the shortage and then assigns itself the power to dictate how the rationing of seats will be done. That rationing is motivated primarily by vote-bank politics."

First things first, as someone points out in the comments section, there is no real shortage of seats as mandated by the government. In fact, thousands of seats are left vacant at the end of counselling for engineering admissions every year in the state of Tamil Nadu. According to Wikipedia, Tamil Nadu has 40 universities. This page should provide more information on the state of education in Tamil Nadu. According to the statistics given above, the state has over 1000 colleges providing professional education, in addition to 255 engineering colleges, and 13 medical colleges. Admittedly, Tamil Nadu is one of India's more progressive states, but with good governance and political will, there is no reason why even the BIMARU states must not do as well. Secondly, the question of supply of education is a tricky one. Must all education necessarily lead to a degree? What about companies that recruit graduates of arts and science courses and train them to perform the work expected of them efficiently? One good example would be the TAS, which trains and qualifies young recruits. So, actually speaking, the claim that there is an artificially created shortage of education is a myth.

Dey suggests that higher education must be opened up to private enterprise. I agree. But the point here is, it already is. Sure, there are regulations and processes such as accreditation, but that must remain in order to maintain the quality of education. Then is the emphasis on separating education and testing. I agree again. But, that's what board exams and university exams are all about right? An autonomous arts and science college under the Madras University is free to decide on its syllabus. It's free to do what it pleases during the academic year. At the end of the semester, the students are tested on what they were taught during the semester. The exam process is overseen and endorsed by the University which then delivers the degree. What more can be done? I don't really get the point.

Third, the pricing issue. Privatisation of education and a total absence of control will lead to anarchy. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating the nationalisation of colleges, or complete government control. Far from it. Education is already quite private, to a very large extent. Prices are sky-high. What the government can do is to provide scholarships, grants and stipends to those who deserve it. To contend that private colleges will charge less than government ones because they run their companies better is both ridiculously short-sighted and foolishly optimistic. I am no fan of government control, but this logic simply does not appeal to my brain. Private companies want profit. So will private colleges. In such a situation, how exactly will they agree to offer education at a lower cost than the government?

I can foresee one negative fallout if Dey's idea were implemented. India will go the way of the United States. While colleges in the US are some of the best in the world, it a fact that many who finish grad school spend half their lives trying to repay their educational loans, pay off home mortgages and rid themselves of debt. And in a country like India, which is trying desperately to improve its enrolment in institutes of higher education, this is a really bad idea. A situation like this will lead to a decline in overall education levels and India's already abysmal human development indicators will only fall further.

This said, I do agree when Dey says reservations are a terrible idea. Only, my reasons are entirely different from his. I read in the Times of India yesterday that the cutoff marks at the IIT-JEE had been reduced. While I did not exactly understand the logic behind the marking scheme, I also read that there was to be a 10% relaxation for OBC candidates. Suppose I am an OBC candidate. The normal cutoff mark in an entrance exam is 70%. But, I am given a 10% relaxation because I belong to the OBC category. That means I just need 63% to qualify. So, essentially, the government is telling me this, "Since you are underprivileged, and have been oppressed for centuries, we consider you to be less intelligent than your upper-caste counterparts, and hence incapable of scoring the mandatory 70%. We are being generous and giving you a chance despite your questionable intellect." I am sorry if I am being hyper-sensitive, but I find the attitude both patronising and demeaning. And that's the reason I am so against this practice of norm-relaxation.

Cheap garments and irresponsible reporting

2008-04-18T10:27:00.004+05:30

I have an idea. Let's take six well-to-do Indian teenagers to London and make them work at street-corner bakeries for a month. Guess what? It's horrible, they will say. "They make us wake up at 4 in the morning to knead the dough, make the loaf and bake the bread, ready to open shop at 7. As if that's not enough, they expect us to knead dough and make bread all day. This is how we imagined a sweatshop to be: dirty, smelly - it's absolutely horrible. It's my idea of hell." Think it ridiculous? Then sample this. The Daily Mail UK takes it upon itself to report conditions in garment factories across India. It might have been a hard-hitting revelation on the condition of India's workers slogging away at garment factories for less than $5 a day. If, and only if they had bothered to check their facts and not make some grossly unacceptable errors in the process.

Many things are wrong with the way the story has been reported by the Mail. For example, they take six, virtually unskilled, teenagers to India from Britain. They make them work in a garment factory and stitch, lo and behold, collars. My mother and aunts have been in the industry for as long as I can remember. I grew up in garment factories run by my aunt and others for nearly 15 years of my life. As far as I know, and my mother corroborates the fact, collars are the most difficult to stitch in shirts or tops. Collar-stitching, or cuff-stitching is never given to an amateur. The articles claims that the tailors are made to stitch a collar a minute. But elsewhere, it claims that a 4000-strong workforce turns out barely 10,000 garments a day. From what I know, two and a half pieces per worker per day is pathetic. No garment factory worth its salt would allow productivity to slip so low. Least of all, the illustrious Shahi Enterprises mentioned. The means one of two things. Either the first statistic is false, or the second.

Next, it claims that the teens were demoted from the position of tailor to a lowlier-paid position of shirt-ironer. First things first, ironing is not an easy ask. It comes under the category of garment-finishing, and is one of the most important things in the garment-making process. Second, finding a competent ironer is no mean task and they are often paid much more than the tailor who makes the garment in the first place.

Finally, the salary levels. They are blatantly made up. In the early 1990s, the average salary of a competent tailor used to be between 250 and 300 rupees a day. In pound terms it amounts to somewhere between three pounds and five pounds at the current exchange rate. Wages have undoubtedly gone up since then. So, the Mail's claim that workers survive at less than 2 pounds a day is false. If I am the one who is mistaken, then I would like them to substantiate the values with actual figures.

What exactly is the Mail trying to accomplish? Telling the world that the clothes they buy from H&M and Marks&Spencer's supports human rights abuses in India by forcing workers to work 18-hour days? I am sorry, but no garment factory can sustain 18-hour workdays. It's practically impossible to force workers to work such long hours six days a week, especially in an industry that is so labour-intensive. In India, labour laws and worker-friendly, sometimes even called draconian by entrepreneurs. Will the workers shut up and agree to being treated like slaves in such a context?

To me, the attitude of the Mail reflects one of two things. 1) Irresponsible reporting without verifying facts and looking at the other side of the picture. 2) An obvious and disgusting attempt to portray Indian workers and factories in a bad light. For the sake of my peace of mind, I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt and assume it's simply irresponsible reporting.

On moral policing

2008-04-15T13:19:00.003+05:30

I came across this link (pdf) on the India Uncut blog a few days ago. Actually, it was more like a few weeks ago. I have been so busy with training, classes and what not that blogging has unfortunately taken a back seat in the past weeks. To cut a long story short, the newspaper projects an innocent murder victim as a "characterless" woman who deserved to be raped, murdered et.al. On a similar note, the Times of India reports that cops dismissed a rape complaint by a woman on the grounds that she was of "loose" character and that numbers of the accused were found on her mobile phone. I am sorry, but I don't get it. If I have someone's number on my mobile phone, and if I meet the said person a few times, or get a gift from him, he assumes I consent to have sex with him? What the f***??

Did you know that most of the time, the rapist is a close acquaintance of the victim? It could be a family friend, a relative, or even the husband. Does that mean that women must stay away from all contact with male members of society? This is simply ridiculous. If, as a woman, I fear rape, I must be protected. I must not be victimised and isolated because not being raped is my responsibility. Secondly, the cops in question have no business judging the case. Their job is to file an FIR and arrest the accused. Next, they must produce the accused before a court of law. It's the court's job to decide if the accused is guilty or not. The police has no business taking the moral high ground and preaching to a woman how she must behave in her personal life.

This brings me to the question of moral policing. Sunday's edition of the Anna Nagar Times carried a lead story on a police raid at the Anna Nagar Tower park. The said park is a public park maintained by the Chennai Corporation. The police acted apparently on a complaint by a few "senior citizens" about couples indulging in "inappropriate" behaviour at the park. The police, thrilled to get a complaint like this, promptly swung into action and picked up anyone sitting with a member of the opposite sex and looked under 30 years of age. After "questioning" they released the couples, many of whom turned out to be married, to each other that is. And pray, what is so inappropriate about holding the hand of the man you love in a public place? Why do these esteemed "senior citizens" find it so galling? I am sorry to sound harsh and disrespectful, but if they are so upset by seeing a couple hold hands in public, perhaps they should just stay at home. They have no business harassing people who want spend a few minutes in a public park with their loved ones. Even if the couple are not married, I see no harm in allowing them to spend time together in public. Times are changing. The sooner these people learn to accept it the better. I do accept that they must be treated with deference, but when they begin to assume the role of moral police, I am only tempted to tell them to go to hell.

A blogger's lame attempt at humour

2008-03-31T22:16:00.002+05:30

Came across this while surfing randomly. Truemors is a Silicon Valley blog. And the writer claims that, "Jaguar is expected to become affectionately known as the “left Tata”, while the slightly larger Land Rover will take the role of “right Tata”." Tata in old English slang means breast... I don't find this funny. Do you? To me, the whole post reeks of an imperialist hangover. Tata Motors is here to stay. Deal with it!

On science and humanities...

2008-03-31T15:27:00.002+05:30

There is an ad on television for Kissan's new health drink. The drink is called "Amaze Brain Food." The ad features a bunch of kids in a school. A voice-over asks who is going to be tomorrow's Einstein/Abdul Kalam/Sunita Williams/Narayanamurthy et. al. A point to be noted here is that the product is called "Brain Food" and the role models mentioned are all technical and scientific greats. The ad made me wonder why people like Sachin Tendulkar, Padma Subrahmaniam, Amartya Sen and M S Subbalakshmi had been left out. Their work requires no "brain power" perhaps? Wait a sec. I am not saying that dance or music require less intelligence than science. But, that's the only explanation I can think of when I try to justify the choice of role models. Can the bias against non-science disciplines be any more obvious? It irritates and even depresses me to see such an obvious bias against anyone who does not conform. In what way is Sunita Williams or Abdul Kalam better than Amartya Sen? Does his work not require intelligence and application of mind? Then why are we, as a society reinforcing and perpetrating the myth that science is somehow better than humanities?

My sixteen-year-old cousin firmly believes that the only way to do well in life is to do engineering. And too, only computer science engineering. All through my teenage years, I was told incessantly by my extended family and sometimes even my close relatives that the only way I could hope to live a good life was by getting into a good engineering college. Even medicine was discouraged because it takes longer to "get settled" in the profession. When I chose not to take the engineering entrance exams, my decision was met with a stoic but disapproving silence from all parts of the family. The only saving grace were my parents who simply let me do what I loved doing. Even later, after I graduated with a Bachelor's degree in History, I was actively encouraged to do a management course in the fond hope that I would get back into the mainstream and see the world "practically". Today, with a bachelor's degree in History, a Master's in French and a second Master's in International Relations, I still get free advice from anyone and everyone around me on how best I can get into the IT industry. I mean, give me a break! I don't want to get into the IT industry. Why does it not strike anyone that I might just enjoy being a teacher? I don't want a big fat pay packet and no time for myself or my friends and family. I want to live my life the way I deem it fit.

This general idea that science is somehow better than humanities is perpetrated in this discussion I found on Nita's blog. In the discussion, discussants have implied that being a science student is somehow better than being a non-science student. I hear all kinds of justifications for the statement. They process quantities better, they understand the industry better, they are more at ease with management roles...etc..etc... What I cannot understand is this. Is the worth of a human being measured only in terms of the quantity of money you make on your job? I earn, on an average, one-tenth that of an IT professional. So, I am in some way, inferior? What the hell? Even by that definition, I am probably paid more than the average IT professional if you looked at the per-hour fee I am paid. As a teacher of French I am paid nearly 200 rupees for every hour I work. If I were to work 10 hours a day, like anyone in the IT industry would, I would be making 2000 rupees every day. In a month, I would be making nearly 60,000 rupees, more than most IT professionals do in a month. Still think I am worth less?

Having said that, I think it's unfair to compare professions solely on the basis of the money people make. There are other things to life. Like love, like enjoyment, like interest, like hobbies and like the desire to do something different. Not all children need to become tomorrow's Abdul Kalam or Einstein to be successful. If they do, it's great. But, if they don't manage it. If they prefer to take the less-trodden path, are we not, as a society responsible for giving them the support and encouragement they deserve? I think we need to change. For the better.

On female foeticide

2008-03-28T09:05:00.003+05:30

I came across this very interesting, and moving blog recently, thanks to a comment its author left on my blog. It contains many things, personal experiences, horror stories, and plain and simple logic. In short, it raises awareness on an issue that must be spoken about and discussed if we really want to make a difference. One post that left me particularly angry was about an upper middle class family from Eastern UP that forced its daughter-in-law to abort because she was carrying a girl. I find it extremely hard to digest that fact that a mother is forced to destroy her child because it happens to be a girl.

There are two issues involved in this story. The first, and in my opinion, the most important is this obsession with having a son. I grew up in a female-dominated household. My mother has four sisters. One is not married, and the other lived with us for many years, in blocs of a few years, thanks to the transferable Air Force job her husband had. In short, I grew up with two aunts, a grandmum, occasionally a great grandmother and my mother. All women. My dad and grandfather were present, and so was my grandfather's younger brother. But the women outnumbered the men two to one. Add to this the fact that I was an only grandchild for ten long years, at least until Vidyesh was born in 1992. My grandfather has no sons. Nor do my parents. Not one day have I felt bad about it. Or regretted being born a girl. In fact, being an only grandchild for ten years spoilt me to the extent that I am still given preferential treatment over my cousins sometimes. I am the first, and so I am treated as special by everyone. Including my two aunts who have a son each. Given the background and family in which I grew up, I will never understand why women want sons. In fact, the situation was sort of reversed in my family. My aunt's first child was a boy. She prayed practically every day during her second pregnancy for a girl. Girls are precious in our family. And will always be.

But, when I step back from this situation and examine the issue objectively, it all adds up. It still does not make sense though. Some time back, I had written about dowry. That's the issue. Dowry. Girls are considered a financial liability. Not because they must be educated or fed. But because they must be married away. To put it crudely, they are often treated like a piece of unwanted furniture to be sold to the lowest bidder. In this case, lowest bidder because its the girl's parents who pay the bidder to take her away. So, whoever agrees to take her away at the lowest cost gets her. Have we no shame? How can any self-respecting man ask his wife's parents to pay him? A car, a house, a couple of lakhs in cash, a few hundred sovereigns of gold, a diamond jewel or two... the list is endless. I am disheartened to see that this trend shows no signs of ending. In fact, it gets more and more fashionable to demand dowry. Even in previously matrilineal systems like the Nairs and Menons of Kerala, dowry is becoming an accepted practice. When will we change, if we ever will...?

The second issue is that of abortion in general. I have come across three cases of abortion in the past two years. All three women belong to the upper middle class. All are well-educated and well-settled. They have the proverbial house, car and dog. They have a decent income. All three are housewives. I refuse to call these people home-makers because the term housewife seems more appropriate. All three have ambitions, not for themselves, but for their husbands. They want to go abroad, settle down there, build a house, buy a car and be generally successful. But none of them want kids. Well, that's fine by me. If you don't want kids use contraception. But no, all three got pregnant within six months of marriage. And all three aborted the foetus. To me, that's cold-blooded murder. There is nothing wrong in not wanting a kid right away. There are a dozen different ways to prevent conception. These women are educated right? Should they not take responsibility for their lapses? I find it impossible to accept that abortion can be used to get rid of a child you don't want. A child is precious. There are millions of infertile couples trying desperately to have a baby. And these women throw away what they get because they claim children are too expensive to take care of. One husband actually told me that the cost of a child diapers would be too expensive for him to sustain. The said husband is in a good job earning more than 40,000 rupees a month. He does not think twice about taking his wife out to the Taj for dinner but calculates the cost of a child's diaper? Its simply selfish. On second thoughts, I would rather such people not have kids. At least, the kid won't suffer.

India and Poverty

2008-03-25T16:38:00.002+05:30

Came across this page when I tried to sphere content related to my most recent post. No, I don't dispute any of the statistics. I am sure all of them are true. There certainly are 22 million cases pending in Indian courts. And all the other stats about rapes, discrimination, poverty, farmer suicides and the like are true. But, what I find amusing is that all this is being disclosed by a Pakistani, who calls himself a social scientist. I wouldn't have had a problem if he had been equally critical of his own country on the rest of his blog. But, he seems to be trying rather hard to prove that India is not as great as the media would like everyone to believe.

Just one thing on the courts issue: Mr. Ansari forgot to mention that Indian courts function and that Chief Justices are not thrown into prison or sacked because the President fought with his wife (or husband, as the case is with Ms. Patil).

South vs. North - a reprise

2008-03-25T12:23:00.004+05:30

I got a comment the other day, on my earlier post titled, "Bihari is not a bad word, but Madrasi?" I wondered briefly if I should delete it because it is so... meaningless. Example: "The central govt in Delhi has plans to wantonly ignore other languages and pave the way for their decline by sole use of Hindi and by the portrial of India to the outside world as Hindia." Eh? Does this guy (girl?) really believe what he/she says? I mean, who actually thinks and believes such total crap? It does not add to the credibility of the person that he/she was too cowardly to leave a name, any name. Maybe I should enforce moderation. But somehow, the idea of moderation does not really appeal to me. I will probably include a comment policy instead. But, to make my point clear. I do not share or endorse such points of view expressed in comments."

Speaking of languages and cultures, the kind of keywords used to search Google for my blog always throw up some surprises. This post on Biharis seems to be among the most popular ones. One oft-searched term is "Hate Hindi" and surfaces on the first page of Google Search. But why? I never claimed to hate Hindi. Ever. In fact, I speak the language rather well. In addition to some 5 others.

Ok, on to the topic of the day. I stumbled across this wonderful blog yesterday. And my, I was hooked almost instantly. Of all the interesting post on it, one caught my attention because of the sheer number of comments on it. It's amazing to see so many people wanting to express an opinion on something. But then, it is sometimes disheartening to see many of them rooting for the imposition of one language as a "National Language." I mean, why do we need a national language. We are managing perfectly well with about 22 official ones. Each person has the right to speak in a language they are most fluent in. Why should we complicate things by wanting to name one language as "national." One comment to the post claimed that Hindi is spoken by the maximum number and so must be national. Let me extend that logic a bit. Christianity is the world's most widely practised religion. So, let's all convert to Christianity. And oh yes, Mandarin is the language with the most speakers. Let's all go learn Chinese then. Some day, it will be the "global" language. In India itself, almost 85% of the population is Hindu. So Hinduism can be the "national" religion? Ok? Can't accept it, can you? So why do you expect people to accept Hindi because its speakers are numerically superior? Why should language be any different?

As I said in my post on Biharis, the anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu happened at a certain time and place. It was inevitable then. That doesn't mean the violence associated with it was justified. There is no stopping mob violence once it starts. The best thing to do is to find a middle path and avoid making language such a divisive issue. Let's get one thing straight. It is to have a national language because of the sheer number of languages that exist in India. India has never been, and will never be, a monolingual state. There is no point in rooting for one language as opposed to another. The current system works wonderfully because no Indian language is more important than the other. And please don't tell me that English is unnecessary. But for English, I wouldn't understand any official correspondence. My knowledge of most Indian languages is pathetic, despite the fact that I speak at least three of them fluently. And yes, people like me have a right to exist and live in India. English is as much my mother tongue, or perhaps even more, than Kannada can ever be. I am not ashamed of that because I don't find a reason to be apologetic about my preference for English.

Free speech or irresponsible politicking?

2008-03-21T22:42:00.005+05:30

India should adopt the chicken, and not the peacock as its national bird, says Jug Suraiya. Why? Because the government has allegedly been chicken hearted on issues ranging from Taslima to Tibet. Ok. Our esteemed Ms. Nasreen first. She recently left India to an undisclosed European destination, claiming that her physical security would be compromised if she told us where she was going. And why did she do so? Because the Indian government kept her under "house arrest" and caused much emotional distress. She doesn't stop there. She claims that the treatment meted out to her by the Indian government was no less than "cold-blooded state terrorism to drive her out of the country."

Oh yes, it's terrorism when you try to protect a person from angry mobs throwing stones at her house and request that she maintain a low profile until things calm down a bit. Maybe we should have left her at her house in Calcutta, or waited until she was grievously injured and then filed a case of attempted murder on the angry mobs. Would Ms. Nasreen have been happy then? How can a person, whose only connection to India is a temporary visitor's visa, be so ungrateful and accuse the government of state terrorism? I mean, just because she is a woman? Just why is India obliged to host her and provide shelter? She is not an Indian. M F Hussain would have deserved it. But Taslima? Why should we stick our neck out for someone who doesn't care a damn for us? For someone who equates India with countries like Afghanistan under the Taliban and calls the Indian state a terrorist? I am sorry to say that my regard for Ms. Nasreen went down several notches after reading this report.

I certainly support her right to free speech. But one must understand that with freedom, comes responsibility. You can't say what you please and expect your audience not to react. Mob violence is unacceptable in any context and deserves to be condemned and punished. But does a writer not owe something to the society too? She may have had a difficult childhood and adolescence, but that does not give her the right to heap such abuse on a state that tried its best to help her out. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs extended her visa despite much opposition, and on the condition that she tone down her criticism and try to respect the sentiments of the people whose hospitality is enjoying. Is that too much to ask?

Her claims that she was denied access to healthcare and that the Indian government tried to "poison" her through drugs is simply too far-fetched to believe. I do not hold the current Congress government in very high esteem and have in the past questioned its attitude on various issues. But, even I find it impossible to believe that it is capable of plotting someone's slow death. I mean...come on! To me, this seems like the result of a hyper-active imagination. As far as all that crap about Indians treating a guest nobly is concerned, I don't care any more. As far as I am concerned, Ms. Nasreen has proven herself unworthy of the old Indian adage, "Athithi Devo Bhava" (May the guest be treated as God.) by heaping abuse on the very country that has hosted her and kept her safe for almost four years now.

And then, comes Tibet. All I say is this. India has enough problems without taking on those of Tibet right now. Let's set our house in order and concentrate on the more important issues of education, economic development, military and energy security and poverty reduction before we set out to "liberate" anyone else from oppressors. Was one Bangladesh experience not enough? Let's please mind our own business. Let's leave the world's problems to George W Bush.

Of apples and oranges

2008-03-20T23:13:00.003+05:30

Here is a gem from Sitaram Yechury. I mean, who publishes such crap? Oh, a well-known newspaper like Hindustan Times of course. I actually checked if it was published under a satire or humour column or something. But no. I had overestimated their intelligence I suppose. And did you know that our dear Mr. Yechury got his BA (Hons.) in Economics from St. Stephen's? I find that rather hard to believe after reading the following words.

"...globalisation has given rise to the phenomenon of ‘jobless growth’. The growth of employment has always been lower than the GDP growth rate globally. Both these features put together mean that the purchasing power of the vast majority of the world’s population has been declining."

Eh? What's the relation? It's like putting apples and oranges together and claiming that there is a fall in mango production this year. Ok. Ok. I think it's time I stop taking any communist seriously. As Amit Varma so succintly puts it,

"Let’s all just stay poor then, so there’s no danger of losing the money we haven’t had a chance to earn anyway."

Someone teach these guys basic economics please!!

God, astrology and religion

2008-03-14T22:16:00.002+05:30

I have been meaning to write this for some time now. But, this is one of those posts that requires serious reflection, analysis and questioning and so I have been postponing this for a few days. But today, I decided it could not wait any longer. Does God exist? If yes, what is he/she? Someone sitting up there in the skies and commanding our every action? If no, why does humankind need the concept? Personally, I believe in God. Call it what you may, God, the Almighty, a creature of the nth dimension, an extra-terrestrial with superior intelligence...whatever it is, I believe. Not because I am stupid or naive, but because I need something to believe in. I am human too. I need to believe that there is a power above mine that makes things happen the way they happen. Existential philosophers believed that there is no such thing as God. That is a scary proposition. Because if there was no God, we would have to take responsibility for every little thing in our lives. An accident, a power failure, an illness...we would be responsible for everything. And that kind of responsibility is too heavy for any individual to bear. There is no doubt in my mind that there is God. That He takes care of everything and makes things happen in my life. I don't mean that I can sit back and relax while He does all the hard work. It means that success is 99% hard work and 1% divine providence.

That brings me to the next question. Must I believe in religion because I believe in God? Can I not worship Him the way I deem fit? Will He not listen to me and solve my problems if I ask Him to? Why is there a single acceptable way of worshipping? I spent two years away from India. I lit a lamp something like 5 times in those two years. I did not visit a single temple in that time. But, He took care of me and ensured my physical and emotional well-being. Will all that change because I am now in India and refuse to go to a temple? Yes, I believe in God, but not in religion. I believe that there is a supreme power that makes things happen, but I refuse to get carried away by ritualism and devote my time to pointless worship. Does that make me an atheist? I will worship when I feel like it. I will go to a temple because I want to. I refuse to be forced into performing such rituals to satisfy others. So, is God going to punish me for that attitude? I doubt it. Because, if God really is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, he will understand and appreciate my faith in Him. Why should I pretend for the sake of other mere humans?

The humans in question masquerade as astrologers. They claim they can read God's mind. They claim you have hurt His sentiments or defiled Him by behaving in a certain manner. They also claim He can only be pacified by begging for forgiveness through some elaborate ritual costing a couple of thousand rupees. Excuse me if I sound like an atheist, but I find the whole thing ridiculous. The Vedas prescribe something called the Kshama Prarthana. It involves asking for forgiveness for mistakes committed, knowingly or unknowingly. And it about two lines long and takes exactly 25 seconds to say. Will God not accept that? Will He not forgive? Why do we need these astrologers and fake pujaaris to act as intermediaries in our business with God? I know my questions are pertinent. But my asking them makes me a heretic. It hurts to see that a religion that was once so inclusive and tolerant is becoming increasingly intolerant and ritualistic. But, who is to say? Who is to fight these self-proclaimed guardians of faith?

International Women's Day

2008-03-10T22:18:00.004+05:30

March 8 was International Women's Day. That's a great thing isn't it? One day in the year, people can remember the silent half of humanity, sing her praises, talk about her emancipation and then forget about it for the next 364 days. What a day! And did I mention that Women's Day does not mean the husband cooks for the day, or takes her out, or even offers to help in her chores. But still! It's Women's Day! Let's all celebrate. Oh come on! Stop the lip service. I have had enough. Of men who claim they understand women, and of women who claim that they don't need to feel special. I won't even get started on the men who are patronising, condescending or falsely encouraging. They are not worth the effort. But the women?

This post really got on my nerves. I felt like I was listening to the sound of nails scratching a blackboard. That's right! It's that annoying. What the hell? Why do women feel offended if a man offers his seat on a bus, or holds the door open for them? Because he feels the woman is incapable of such things? For God's sake, stop being so hyper-sensitive woman! The watchman of my building opens doors for people. Does he honestly think it's because people are incapable of opening their own doors? I don't know where to start, but this post rankles from the word go. The blogger in question says,

"Do-gooders act and behave like they are God’s gift to women. They open doors and let women pass through first (don’t we know how to open a door for god’s sake?). They offer to drop women if they get delayed at work for an extra five minutes. They nab at bills in restaurants before the woman even offers to pay for her food. They talk feminism and woman’s rights. And all this stems out of a feeling that women are lesser creatures and need to be taken care of. Like a porcelain doll. Or a pet Pomeranian. And the worst part is that, such men are considered ‘oh-so-sweet’, ‘he’s so considerate’, etc."

I mean, give the poor man a break! He probably thinks he is being charming. One of the stereotypes that is undoubtedly true about men is that they are less complicated than women. They don't think so much. They just do what they think is right. While such behaviour is not always indefensible, they at least justify their actions in some way. At the end of the post, the blogger asks if there is some such thing as a Men's Day. Of course not. Men are not killed off in infancy, aborted inside the womb, told they are worthless or discouraged from doing what they want because of their sex. They don't need a Men's Day, because we are living in a man's world. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that our society remains essentially patriarchal.

I will never finish this post at this rate. So, my message to all you women out there is just this. You are lucky to be born a woman. Be proud of the fact. I have no shame in admitting, as I have before, that I am happy to be pampered by the man in my life. I feel good when a man holds a door open for me, or vacates a seat on a crowded bus. I actually like it when someone offers to do me a favour, or drop me off somewhere because I am running late. You would not question it if a woman offered you a lift. Then why are you so distrusting of men. Even if they are brothers, close friends, colleagues or boyfriend? Give the poor guys a chance. Don't be so judgemental of them. It is the very same thing you fault in men right? Then what gives you the right to be judgemental of them? Are they not human too?

Knowledge? Or simply marks?

2008-02-28T18:53:00.006+05:30

In keeping with my recent tradition of venting my spleen on the state of the educational system in India, this post is on the excessive emphasis on marks in the Indian educational system. This article by Rashmi Bansal, where she explores life in a top IIT coaching institute. And man, what a life! If you happen to belong to the rather large 99% of the Indian population that is not from IIT, heaven help you! Seriously, what do we want from our kids? To be the best? Or to actually learn
something useful? The emphasis seems to be increasingly on just getting the highest possible marks in everything. Of what use are those marks if you cant actually use any of the knowledge?

But, more than anything else, it is what Bansal says in the beginning of her post that is of utmost importance.

"I would only like to add that teaching is an art. The best teachers need not be highly regarded academics, or from IITs. The best teachers are those who know their subject AND communicate it interestingly and effectively. And a teacher who changes lives is one who exudes passion, and a sense of empathy."

Well said Rashmi! Teaching is definitely an art. A art that is both inherent and that requires a lot of patience, commitment and passion to master. The best teachers I have had have been mediocre students at best. But what sets them apart from the rest is that they love their job. They genuinely want to impart the little knowledge they possess. And most importantly, they have the guts to admit that they can sometimes be wrong. Trust me, as a teacher it is extremely difficult to admit that you are wrong. But sometimes you are. And you must admit it. It is an act of exemplary courage. And only a person who has that courage can be a good teachers. Teachers also encourage the students to question, analyse and interpret. I will never understand teachers who insist that the student reproduce the text book verbatim. What are they scared of? Of finding themselves incapable of answering a student's questions? If so, they have no business being teachers in the first place. I am sorry to have to be so harsh, but my heart bleeds when I see the state of education in India today. I wish I could change things. Some day, I hope to start my own school. Perhaps then, I could make a contribution, however minor, to changing the system.

On dyslexia and Bollywood

2008-02-26T22:40:00.002+05:30

I watched the movie Taare Zameen Par today. And man, was I surprised! Surprised to find that Bollywood actually bothered to make a film that's both relevant and realistic. And managed to restrain itself from introducing any contrived love story into the film. It reminded me of an earlier post where I reviewed Chak De India. Each of these movies signals that Indian cinema has indeed matured. If Chak De dealt with the place of women in a man's world, Taare talked about parental pressure, and a child's response to it.

To be honest, I cried, through practically every frame of the movie. Not that I bawled my eyes out, but that I felt genuinely touched by the pain the kid went through. I laughed at his antics and cried at his loneliness. And for the first time, I felt as if someone had actually understood what I felt like when I was a kid. I was never dyslexic, nor did I have a serious learning problem. But, I lived through loneliness and desperation at times. I was never among the top ten, or even twenty in class. And it hurt. Not because I got the 2's and 3's that 9-year-old Ishaan Awasthi did, but because despite a decent 10 on 20, my teachers would still insist that I was incapable of learning. In a way, the film brought back my childhood to me. It only got worse as time went on. Classmates, toppers all of them, would advise me to study as hard as I could. Some would insist that going to X Sir or Y Ma'am would change everything. And being the stubborn ass I was, and still am, simply refused to seek help. Not until I got to college did I feel genuinely happy about myself. If I am a confident student/teacher/worker/blogger today, it's because college taught me to love myself, irrespective of what others think.

On an intellectual level, the film also made me think. Think about why engineering or medicine are considered the only things "worth" studying. How can you judge a branch of study by the amount of money a person makes in life? I studied political science. I am now teaching French. I have not got a job that is related to my studies. Does that mean that political science or security studies is worthless? Why can't I study, just for the heck of it? I loved what I did in France for two years. I don't regret it. Then why should people look at me with pity, when I say I am teaching French at the Alliance? Oh! So, you mean you have nothing better to do? They ask. Why is it so wrong for me to consider teaching a good enough option? Am I worthless because I am not a "professional" as others would see it?

All around me, I see parents stuffing their children with knowledge. I see 7-year-old kids studying feverishly for the "pre-annual model exam". I see mothers fretting over the loss of a single mark in maths, or the relinquishing of the first rank to a neighbour. Is this all you want from your kids? Is it more important to get marks (and money later in life) then to think for yourself? What are we doing to our kids? Why can't we just let them be kids? Why do we refuse to let them enjoy their already short-lived childhood? In the unlikely event that any parents are reading this, I have one request. Be proud of your kids for what they are. Don't expect them to be what you could not be. If you wanted to be a doctor and failed to make the grade, don't expect to make up by living that life through your child. You may be the parent, but the child is his own individual. Remember, everything in life is not what it appears to be. And sometimes, the ability to think out of the box can be a person's greatest asset. We must take care not to damage that ability irreparably.

Marriage, dowry, divorce...

2008-02-21T21:50:00.006+05:30

Yes, I am going to talk about marriage, dowry and divorce, not necessarily in that order. First about marriage and divorce. This article in the International Herald Tribune set me thinking. Is divorce necessarily a bad thing? Before you think I am anti-marriage, let me set the record straight. I argued passionately against those who said marriage was a waste, sometime back in June last year. I said that marriage was a way of telling someone we love them enough to give them our life. I still stand by it. That said, I think it applies only if the person you are married to loves you as much as you love them. Assuming of course, that you love them. In the absence of love, or worse, in an abusive or violent marriage, the best thing to do is to separate. These divorce statistics are perhaps an indicator of changing times. With financial independence comes confidence. Confidence that you can survive despite the odds. That gives battered and abused women (and sometimes men too...) the guts to get out. Provided we do not trivialise the institution of marriage and start suing for divorce because the spouse snores loudly, divorce can actually be a liberating experience for some.

One particularly controversial statement of the article stated,

"Traditional Indian marriages had little to do with romance. Often but not always arranged, they were mergers between families of similar backgrounds and beliefs, and their principal purpose was baby-spawning. Love was strong but subliminal, expressed not in hand-holding and utterances of "I love you," but in a sense of mutual sacrifice and tolerance.But in an India drenched in foreign influences - Hollywood in the theaters, teenagers named Sunita who call themselves "Sarah" and answer calls for Citibank's American customers - an imported idea of love is spreading."

Well, I object to the allusion to an imported idea of love. Love has always existed. And not just in a sense of mutual sacrifice and tolerance. While today's lovers, and spouses are more demonstrative, it certainly does not mean that Generation Yesterday did not love the way we do. Love is not imported from the west. It is here, as part of our social ethos. The little adjustments we make for the ones we love are indications of how much we are capable of loving. Love for the souse, for the child, for parents, for siblings...all of these are so much a part of the Indian family that it is impossible to refute its existence. These different kinds of love only enter into a conflict when an individual is asked to choose between them.

Ok, now, on to the other issue. Dowry. Yes, it is a bad word. But, there is no point in pretending it does not exist. India may be shining. It may be the next superpower. But, there is no denying that millions of Indian women suffer dowry harassment at some point in their lives. The recent Supreme Court verdict that "customary gifts" do not come under the purview of the anti-dowry law, deserves mention in this context. I agree that many laws meant to protect women are misused by the women themselves. But, that is true with any law. Does it mean that a woman who deserves protection is denied it because some other women exploit the loopholes in the law? It would be worthwhile to ask ourselves what exactly the court means by customary gifts. Does it include jewellery, utensils, or other "gifts" given for the birth of a child, house-warming, marriage of the husband's sibling, or other such occasions? According to the Supreme Court,

"Similarly “other customary payments, e.g. given at the time of the birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by the expression ‘dowry’,” the Bench said."

So, a husband who demands that his wife's parents buy a diamond necklace or an apartment in celebration of the birth of a child will not be punished because it is not dowry, but a "customary gift"? What the #$*%??? Are you kidding me? The illustrious Chettiar community is a case in point. I do not say this to undermine their customs or belittle them in any way. But in that community, it is customary to display a certain number of utensils, pooja items, gold jewellery, silverware and sarees during the birth of a child, or the first Deepavali. So, if the groom demands more that what the bride's family can afford, he threatens the family that he will send the bride back to her parents' home. And no, that's not dowry harassment because these gifts are customary. Come on! Get real!

The only way to solve this problem is by refusing to give or take dowry. Someone must take the first step. If even 5% of parents refused to give dowry for the wedding of their daughters, it would make a huge difference. Women are stepping out and earning their own living. They are intelligent and independent. Why do they need to pay a man to marry them? Why can't they throw all these outdated traditions, and pointless rituals out and live their own lives. Somewhere along the way, they are sure to meet someone who loves them and not the dowry they bring along. Will things ever change? Will women ever be treated like human beings with a mind of their own and not as an exhibition piece to be sold off to the highest bidder? No, I got that comparison wrong. Because, in an exhibition, it is the bidder who pays for the exhibit. Here, the exhibit pays for the buyer to take her along. Are we destined to live like this forever? When will we see things change?

Of politics and truth

2008-02-20T18:57:00.004+05:30

On Sunday, I watched a talk show on Star Vijay titled "Neeya Naana". The topic under discussion was truth vs. lies. One section accepted that they lied and justified white lies on the grounds that they were necessary for survival. The other self-righteously proclaimed that lying under any circumstance was bad and compromised basic values. At the end of the show, I was left with the feeling that those who admitted to lying and justified it were, in fact, speaking the truth, and that those who denounced it were being the ultimate hypocrites.

Those who denounced lying were quite justified in their anger; if, they had admitted to lying about minor things every now and then on the process. But, pretending that they are descendants of Raja Harishchandra left nobody in doubt about their honesty. Tell me frankly, can you honestly say you don't ever lie. I admit I do. From claiming I never heard mum telling to bring milk when I was busy doing other things, to going to Cafe Coffee Day after seeking permission to go for culturals when I was in college, I have lied. I still do. But those lies are about things that will not, in any way, harm anyone else. And you know what's worse? On the side of truth, were two distinguished politicians of the Congress Party, both of whom hold important positions within the party. Tell me, can a politician honestly claim never to have lied? Would you expect me, as a common citizen to take any politician at his/her word? Well, no. I refuse to believe a politician who says he has never lied. After all, an honest politician is an oxymoron. And so, I could not simply not buy the argument.

Education, and the ability to think

2008-02-13T21:33:00.003+05:30

Monday's edition of The Hindu carried a news item titled, "CBSE questions to test thinking skills." Which, in itself suggests that the current model does not. In case anyone is wondering what the hell the CBSE is, it is the Central Board of Secondary Education, that handles course material for schools across the country, and conducts the All India Secondary School Examination. So, back to the news item in question. The headline suggests that the current question paper model does not, in fact, test thinking skills. So, what else does it test? The answer is evident to anyone who has been through the grind. It tests rote memory, like all other state education boards and a majority of universities in India. You see, out here, thinking is a bad thing. Anyone who bothers to use their brains is deemed to be arrogant and disrespectful towards elders.

I have ranted quite a bit earlier on the state of education in India. This post is, in a way, an extension of the earlier ones. Our system lays much emphasis on learning by heart and repeating what one learnt. Given such a situation, how can a child suddenly be expected to be capable of answering questions that require application of knowledge and not learning? Is the capacity to think not cultivated from kindergarten? There is simply no point in blaming the educational system alone. We, as parents and family are equally responsible for this situation. How many of us take time to explain things to a child. A child is expected to listen and blindly accept all the parent says. Any attempt to question is immediately discouraged and the poor kid is labelled arrogant. In this situation, how do we expect children to think and apply their mind to anything? They are so used to accepting what adults (teachers, parents or others) say, that they become incapable of thinking.

Having said that, I think the CBSE's attempt is a step in the right direction. Change has to start somewhere. And a public exam at the age of 17, which tests application of knowledge, is bound to force teachers and schools to cultivate the ability to think. I just hope that the CBSE does not give in to pressure from parents and students and change its mind any time soon.

In pursuit of happiness

2008-02-08T22:10:00.000+05:30

This is a follow-up to yesterday's post. I realised that I was perhaps too harsh, or maybe too frank in my criticism of "people who chase money", to put it in my own words. I don't know how many people took offence to the criticism, but I feel obliged to explain. When I said I did not understand why people would want to work weekends, I certainly did not mean to demean or belittle their effort in any way. I realise that employees of call centres, IT companies, doctors, and many others are obliged to work weekends due to the nature of their job, or personal commitment to it, or other reasons. My point is this: For every 10 hours I put in at work, I need at least one to put my feet up and relax. And, that is just my personal opinion. People are free to disagree. This statement is not meant to be a criticism of the way others function, but merely an observation on the world I see around me.

That said, I still believe that happiness lies in enjoying the little things in life. Let me give you an example. I may be a millionaire, travelling around the world in a private jet. But, what's the point if I cannot lie on the terrace on a starry night, and try to identify constellations the way I used to when I was 10? Happiness, for me, is simply that. The sound of the flower-seller on the street, the hum of the car engine next door, that begins to resemble a roar every now and then. It is also the pleasure of watching a movie with my someone special. Or even writing on my blog. I love the small things life has to offer. I would hate to give it all up for success. After all, I only have one life...

Happiness...

2008-02-07T22:37:00.000+05:30

I came across this blog post today, when I was browsing recommended feeds on my Google Reader homepage. If you ever happen to read this Abhi (writer of the post), please know that I agree. Although it's difficult to be quite so content with oneself, happiness is not in chasing money or hurrying through life, planning for tomorrow. After all, didn't someone say, "Life is what happens to you when you are busy making other plans?" Happiness is doing what you feel like, when you feel like it. As Abhi says, it doesn't mean you are not ambitious. It doesn't mean you stay idle. It simply means you don't forget to live your life today while planning for tomorrow.

Happiness is a state of mind. I am no philosopher, and hence incapable of elaborating any meaningful theory on it. But, for me, happiness is remembering the little things that make life worth living. I may be a millionaire in 30 years, but what purpose would it serve if I alienated all those close to me in the process of making those millions? Happiness is curling up in bed with a bowl of popcorn and a good book. Happiness is talking to Anand over phone for hours, until one of us falls asleep. Happiness is watching the rain with a cup of hot chocolate, in the safe haven of your house. Happiness is also playing with the twins next door, knowing fully well that one of them will start bawling the moment I try to pick them up.

I will never understand why people give up their weekends and working days for the sake of money. I work weekends too, but then, I work only weekends. I am free the rest of the time. And take time off to do what pleases me. My cousin has a huge house, a fat pay packet, all the latest gadgets and more money than she could possibly spend. But, one thing that's conspicuously missing is the time to enjoy what she has. If I manage to be so successful some day, I would probably take time off to go do a Ph.D, or teach kids at kindergarten. But, whatever I do, I just hope I never get carried away by the race for money and compromise by basic values or tastes. God, help me never become a robot...

Randomness...

2008-02-06T22:21:00.000+05:30

That's it! The verdict is out. The National Highways department of India is filled with nut cases. Not the crispy crunchy variety you can eat, but the ones that have escaped mental asylums from God knows where. What else do I call engineers of the Public Works Department who choose to block half a kilometre of highway for road-laying just about half an hour before peak hour? Did they ever stop to consider how people will get from Point A to Point B, given that there are absolutely no alternate routes available? The highway is question is the section of Poonamalee High Road beyond the Koyambedu Circle, which was blocked today, between 4 and 5:30 PM, ostensibly for road repairs. Result: Hundreds of vehicles piled up, honking trucks, intolerable dust, and absolutely no way out of the mess. Sigh! If only I were Urban Development Minister...

And then, there is this article by Peter Roebuck in the Sydney Morning Herald. Setting aside the cricket part, please focus on the second paragraph.

"Yes, India has its castes and colours. It is imperfect. But it has also had in recent years a Sikh prime minister, a Muslim president and a white, female, Catholic widow leading its main political party."

Nothing wrong with this one, yes? But, a short while ago, the sentence read thus.

"Yes, India has its castes and colours. It is imperfect. But it has also had in recent years a Sikh president, a Muslim prime minister and a white, female, Catholic divorcee leading its main political party."

And, left me, and another blogger wondering when Mrs. Gandhi divorced Rajiv. Did he not die before they got to divorce? And, wasn't Abdul Kalam the President and Manmohan Singh the Prime Minister? Or am I getting my facts wrong? This is symptomatic of what's ailing the media today. A well-read newspaper does not bother to verify facts, or edit the article before publishing it. And, that should also give us a vague idea about what to expect from the Aussies when we go there. I will be greatly reassured if they don't mistake me for a Red Indian.

Finally, I recently read this blogpost by Christina. I have disagreed with her on many counts before. But on this one... I really wish lynching was not punishable by law. Different by design? What the hell? I, for one, am convinced you can learn pretty much anything irrespective of your sex. Some people are wired to make cars start by rubbing two wires together; others are not. I am not, but neither are many of my male friends. And, I seriously doubt Anand can fix his motorbike if it refuses to start one day. He will probably wheel it to the nearest garage to see what's wrong. As if this Mrs. Paine's self-deprecating lament is not enough, she claims that God meant men and women to do things specifically suited to them. What the hell? Cooking is supposed to be a woman's job. I personally know men (both within the family and outside) who cook better than most women I know. I also know women who can fix a broken pipe or jump start a car as well as any man. Sure, each one has different competencies. But, that is hardly gender-specific. So, Mrs. Paine, if you ever get to read this, remember one thing. You are free to tell the world you a bloody idiot who can't tell a light bulb from a switch board, but don't drag God into the affair. He (or She) created us all equals. It is up to us to make use of what He/She gave us.

PS: Yes. The feminine for God was intentional. After all, the Mother Goddess is supposed to be omnipotent in Hindu mythology...

Security vs. Privacy...among other things...

2008-01-29T21:35:00.000+05:30

I just came across this excellent article on the security-privacy relationship in an increasingly insecure world. Bruce Schneier sums up all the post-September 11 drama in two words: security and privacy. Which would you choose? About 90% of my readers would probably say security. After all, what exactly do you do with privacy if you are not alive to enjoy it. This issue has been consistently and constantly debated and analysed by experts around the world in the years after the September 11 attacks. But, what Schneier says is interesting. He says that the dichotomy is, in itself false. He argues, rather effectively, that the question is one of freedom and control rather than of security and privacy. I agree. After all, my identity and freedom are at stake. I should be the one who decides what to reveal and what to hide. That freedom is increasingly being taken away from individuals in the name of security.

There is increasing awareness of security threats, and attempts to plug the holes in an extremely ineffective security system. Take the airports for instance. No Indian airport allows passengers to carry on more that one piece of cabin baggage, including laptop computer. That forces the poor passenger to make the difficult choice of checking in either the precious computer, or valuable documents in the carry-on bag. In short, the unsuspecting passenger has no choice. While such ridiculous rules may be justified by lack of cabin space, they make no sense when they are intended to make travel more secure. What exactly can I do with an extra file of college certificates? Blow up the aircraft? Give me a break. Equally dumb is the no-liquids rule. Even a bottle of water, or baby food is subjected to thorough checks. If I were a terrorist, I would not carry an obvious explosive on board. I would find better, and more ingenuous ways of making my plan work.

And then, there are biometric identifiers. While I would not object to giving my fingerprint to the passport office so they can issue biometric passports, I would have a serious problem with other identification methods like DNA analysis. With a tissue from the inside of my cheek, the government can get information that is entirely personal, like the state of my health and my susceptibility to heart attacks. Even if there is no danger of my DNA sample being exploited without my consent, biometric identifiers are, by no means, foolproof. I am reminded, rather forcefully, of the opening pages of the Dan Brown novel, "Angels and Demons", where a man is discovered lying dead on the ground, with his eye ripped off to be used in an iris scanner. Scary thought, that. In short, I cannot help but agree with Schneier's contention that a false dichotomy is created intentionally, to override any major concerns of privacy invasion. After all, most people would choose security over privacy.

On an unrelated note, I recently read on the India Uncut blog that a certain Mr. Prakash Kumar Thakur from Bhopal specialises in prosecuting people for showing disrespect to the national flag. On reading the related Indian Express article, I was convinced that the man is simply desperate for some media attention. I think Amit Varma is being too generous by calling such people Mera Bhaarat Mahaan patriots. I am quite convinced that such actions have nothing to do with patriotism. They are simply a rather desperate attempt to stand up and be counted. Our revered Mr. Thakur has done nothing worth commending. Nor does he seem capable of doing much. No wonder he specialises in prosecuting people (ever wondered why the victims are always celebrities?) for "disrespecting" the national flag/anthem/song/bird/dog poop...

And finally, Harbhajan Singh has finally been let off the hook for racial abuse. While the verdict is welcome, the BCCI has behaved rather like a petulant child in the issue. I did say earlier that the Indian team must come back home if the Aussies cannot stop being so arrogant. To their credit, they have behaved themselves, losing touch with their cricketing talent in the process. While the BCCI was right to threaten cancellation of the tour if Harbhajan was not given a second hearing, they had no business demanding a favourable verdict. As I said in my earlier post, the Proctor decision was miscarriage of justice. After all, Proctor had no evidence whatsoever against Harbhajan Singh and relied entirely on the testimonies of three Australian players. That said, the demand of the BCCI to drop all charges against Harbhajan is unfair too. If Proctor was wrong to indict without evidence, the Appeals Commissioner would be wrong to let him off the hook despite (possible, new) evidence. When the judge wanted to hear the stump mikes, the BCCI reacted childishly, by refusing to accept any new evidence that might exist. There are limits to the BCCI's blackmail. I vigorously defended India's right to throw its weight around and get things done. But that should not result in the BCCI deciding the outcome of a misbehaviour hearing. That would put the entire game in jeopardy, and any country with money would then be able to decide the outcome of a hearing through blackmail. And that is injurious, both to India's reputation as a cricketing nation, and to the governance of the game.

Of stock market crashes and cricket matches...

2008-01-22T22:50:00.000+05:30

Hey! That rhymed. I swear I wasn't trying to make it rhyme. Anyway, on to today's rants. Yes, they are rants. First, the cricket match. Of course I am talking of the one we won. It was absolutely fantastic to see the famed Aussie batting line-up collapse like a pack of cards. And I, for one, was absolutely delighted to see Mr. Ponting and his men finally taste defeat. Notwithstanding their arrogance, I am tired of seeing the Aussies win all the time. For a sport to be interesting, there must be an element of uncertainty. If the result of the match is known before it ever happens, there is no point in watching the match. What better weekend could I have asked for after the Australian media called India cry babies for whining about the umpiring at Sydney because they could not take a defeat? Take it guys! We can play cricket too.

But while we are on the topic, I came across this article on the Sydney Morning Herald, albeit a few weeks too late. It is extremely irritating to see an Australian whine about having been stripped of the right to veto a decision at the ICC. Don't you get it guys? Veto power of any kind, in any forum, is fundamentally unequal and unjust. And yes, by any forum, I mean the UN Security Council too. After all, why should the fate of the world be determined by the whim of a select few? So, stop cribbing about how an Indian deprived you guys of your birth right to a veto. The attitude sucks. Here is an excellent blog post on the issue. Greatbong has analysed and argued much better than I could ever hope to.

That said, on the the stock market now. It crashed yesterday. And today. And, it will probably continue to fall tomorrow. I still haven't understood the cause of the original crash. Dad said it was a technical snag. Whatever the reason, it triggered off a massive fall in the prices of shares and the markets fell by about five percent today. What I don't understand is this. Why do people choose to sell as soon as there is a problem, and without analysing the underlying cause. As far as I can see, the Indian economy is doing reasonably well. There is nothing seriously wrong with it. The stock markets have been bullish for almost 3 months now. Why then, do people feel the need to dump as many shares as possible on a bad day? After all, India's is not an export-driven market. It has a huge domestic market to fall back on. If I had shares, I would probably adopt a wait-and-watch policy. The market are sure to rally. They are sure to recover on a few days, weeks, or months. I will probably still be able to cut my losses then. By selling when the markets crash, people only tend to maximise their losses. Correct me if I am wrong here, but my common sense tells me watch the markets closely before selling anything.

And finally, something unrelated to either the markets or cricket. Here is a recipe for Bisibelebath. I have never eaten bisibelebath with ginger-garlic paste in it. Every dish does not have to contain garlic, ginger and fennel seeds. It's possible to cook without any of it, you know? For a better, and more authentic recipe of the dish, check out my food blog (link in side bar). And for goodness' sake, check atleast 3 sites before deciding to make anything learnt from the net. Not all internet recipes are authentic, and even fewer taste original.

The Udupi fiasco

2008-01-18T22:36:00.000+05:30

If you took a look at the sports section of Google News India today, you would see that the change of guard at the Sri Krishna Temple at Udupi figured prominently. You are probably wondering what the Krishna temple has to do with sports. Nothing. Google classified the news wrongly. But, they have unintentionally demonstrated that the ongoing drama has nothing to do with either religion or dharma. Ok. Let me explain. The Sri Krishna Temple at Udupi, near Mangalore in Karnataka is run by 8 maths or religious institutions, each headed by a seer. Every two years, the control of the Temple shifts from one math to another. This year, controversy erupted over the transfer of control to the Puttige Math, whose seer, Sugunendra Teertha has allegedly violated the Dharmashastra by travelling abroad.

The seer of the Pejavar Math threatened to undertake a three-day fast against the ascension of Sugunendra Teertha because diluting the laws laid down by the sacred texts will result in an apocalypse. One news item in The Mangalorean states that "scholars" are against the ascension of Sugunendran Teertha as the Dharmashastras were "against" foreign travel. This hullabaloo reminds me of the times when a person was excommunicated because of foreign travel.

We pride ourselves on our ability to adjust and adapt to new cultures. We wax eloquent about how a major portion of NASA's top scientists are of Indian origin. We spare no effort to get our children into the best colleges in the US of A. But, when it comes to religion, we proclaim that foreign travel is against the gospel and oppose the ascension of a seer to a religious position. This attitude reeks of hypocrisy and political gimmickry. Nobody objects when the Pejavar Math Seer undertakes travel all over India. Nobody questions his eligibility to be called a seer when he revels in creature comfort at the houses of political leaders all over the country. Has anyone ever asked why a religious leader finds it necessary to speak out against the Sethusamudram Project by saying that anyone who questions the existence of Rama is an ignorant idiot? Nor has anyone found it unfitting that a seer associate with the worst of religious fanatics (read the Vishwa Hindu Parishad) whose primary occupation is to incite communal hatred and distrust. All because the man is a religious leader? I am sorry to be so harsh. But that man has neither the religious nor the moral right to criticise someone for going abroad. I doubt his criticism has anything to do with religion. Either he is infinitely jealous of the seer due to his own inability to travel abroad, or he is simply after the power and prosperity traditionally associated with running the Sri Krishna Temple at Udupi. Either way, I am personally losing the little respect had for these fake seers and priests.

The ones we love...

2008-01-16T12:58:00.000+05:30

Many of you must have seen the new ad campaign launched by Canara Bank. "We change for the ones we love", goes the tag line. It touches a cord, and gives meaning to the image makeover that the bank is hoping to publicise. But, I read a rather interesting, but slightly misguided commentary on the Youth Curry blog by Rashmi Bansal. She admits that the campaign is far more successful and meaningful than the recent SBI campaign (which I don't really remember). But, goes on to claim that making to many adjustments and changes leads to a loss of one's identity.

"We change little by little but it all adds up. You make a million small changes or 'adjustments' as they say and poof! Your own identity gets completely lost."

Now, that is making a mountain out of a molehill. As one commentator points out, "I love XYZ, but I will not change for him/her" is too hard-line a stance and such a attitude will hardly make for a harmonious relationship. At the same time, one cannot sacrifice everything for the ones we love. But, honestly, I don't see what's wrong in making the effort to understand golf, or cricket or football so that you can enter your loved one's world for at least some time. That does not mean you go golfing ever day. But, it surely would not hurt to try. There is a reason people fall in love. They see something in the other that draws them in and binds them in a relationship. It may be his obsessive love for sport, his ability to make you feel great or quite simply his honesty in relationships. Whatever it is, it is worth preserving.

Ms. Bansal is quite objective for the major portion of her post. But, she begins to falter when she
says that it's mostly the women who make more compromises. Here I am, championing the underdog's case, once again, simply because nobody seems to see the other side. Many men make compromises, adjustments or whatever else you choose to call it for the women they love. A mother learning Punjabi to welcome her new daughter-in-law, or a father trying to share his daughter's love for music is hardly exaggerated. We are all human, and we try to make the people in our lives as happy as we can. If that means making some changes, trying to understand and appreciate the other, or do things we would not normally do, so be it.

That said, Ms. Bansal hits the nail on the head with her concluding words,

"You gotta spend time together but also give each other some space! And this applies to all you boyfriend-girlfriend types as well."

Trust me, it's much simpler to go book-shopping or clothes-shopping alone, that with a reluctant and grumpy boyfriend in tow. If he doesn't like it, leave him alone. He would rather spend the afternoon lazing around on the couch watching cricket that following you around in Health&Glow or Landmark, doing something he absolutely detests. It is up to us, as individuals, to draw the line between making compromises and changing voluntarily. Problems arise only when those lines get blurred.

Cricket...or not? - Part II

2008-01-09T22:28:00.000+05:30

The Harbhajan-racism-poor umpiring-cricket tour affair is getting curiouser and curiouser. The latest are accusations by columnists and former cricketers that the BCCI is holding world cricket to ransom by threatening to pull out of the tour. From Glenn McGrath to Clive Lloyd to illustrious presspersons at the Australian newspaper, everyone is condemning the ICC's decision to sack Steve Bucknor as umpire for the third test at Perth beginning on the 16th of January. To add insult to the injury, the Australian claims that Symonds tried to work out his differences with Harbhajan Singh after the match but that Harbhajan was unresponsive. In short, everything that has happened since then, including poor umpiring, calling Dhoni and Kumble bastards and the judgement against Harbhajan are the making of the Indian team. They alone are responsible for the current state of affairs. The Australians play hard and "fair" after all.

What irks me is the allegation that the ICC has bowed to pressure from the BCCI and acted is a rather invertebrate manner. I have only one question to ask of all these people. Why should the Indian board be apologetic about throwing its weight around and getting its work done? Is that not what Australia and England had been doing for decades? From politics to trade and commerce to sport, the rich and the powerful have always dictated policies. So, why should cricket be any different? If it is acceptable that the EU and the US throw their weight around and manage to retain subsidies on agriculture at the WTO, much against the wishes of at least 120 other countries, why should the BCCI not do the same in the world of cricket? After all, everyone plays for money. Would any of these cricketers, be they Indian, Australian or Kenyan play for honour alone? Would cricket be the same without Indian money or multinational sponsors? Why then, are we pretending to care about the supposed neutrality of the ICC and its alleged capitulation to pressure from India? You are free to think what you want. I call it hypocrisy.

Now, back to the racism issue. India has complained against Brad Hogg for allegedly calling Kumble and Dhoni bastards. Which brings us to a rather interesting question, as posed by Robert Craddock. Would you be more offended if someone called you a monkey, than if they called you a bastard? Hmm... Interesting question that... Even more interesting are the responses the question has evoked. One reader takes the pains to explain that calling a person a bastard is a serious insult because Indians attach great importance to parentage and being illegitimate is a stigma. To this, another reader (presumably Australian) says,

"Well this suggests there is a serious problem in Indian society where people born without married parents are some how considered less of a person than someone born with married parents. This probably breaches the universal declaration of human rights, and parts of the Geneva convention (which incidentally was in part written by an Australian)."

According to this explanation, I should be free to call any Australian (or Brit/Frenchman/Canadian et. al.) a bastard because many people in the west have children outside of wedlock. So, our cricketers are free to call Ricky Ponting as Mr. Bastard Ponting. Bastard is not offensive after all. And as another person comments,

"I’ve had a quick look at the code & I’m struggling to see how “bastard” qualifies as a contravention."

So, here's my message to the Men in Blue. According to our friends in Australia, bastard is not an insult. Guys, you are free to call anyone, including Mike Proctor and Steve Bucknor a bastard. They, after all, do not share the same value system as us and what is insulting to us is normal to them. But, you may not, under any circumstances, call any of them, of any colour or hue, a monkey, donkey, dog or cat. That would be construed as a racist remark and the team will be banned from playing. On second thoughts, maybe you should call them donkeys or something. At least then, you won't have to tolerate a bunch of arrogant toerags for the whole of next month.

This is not cricket at all...

2008-01-07T12:28:00.000+05:30

The altercation between Andrew Symonds and Harbhajan Singh and the subsequent three-match ban handed out to Harbhajan by the ICC has left a bad taste. What's worse? That the Australian cricket team, as alleged by many bloggers, journalists and cricket enthusiasts, played with not 11 but 13 players, including the two umpires. Let's get this straight. Andrew Symonds is not the only black player in the world. In fact, the entire West Indian team, most of the Kenyan team and some members of the South African team are dark-skinned. Why is it that nobody has ever lodged complaints against any player for racial abuse ever before? This could imply one of two things: 1) Symonds is so ashamed of his skin colour that he makes it a point to talk about it at every available opportunity, or 2) that he is hyper-sensitive and any remark made to him or about him is taken as a racist remark. Either way, what has been done to Harbhajan is grossly unjust. If Harbhajan must be pulled up for un-gentlemanly behaviour on the field, so must Symonds, and the rest of the Australian team. After all, dishing out bad language and name-calling is a standard practice with them. So, how is it fair that while Harbhajan faces a three-match ban, Symonds gets away scot-free inspite of insulting, not just Harbhajan but also his mother and sister?

Practically every newspaper has published what Harbhajan said to Symonds (allegedly called him a monkey), while no paper has published what Symonds said to provoke this kind of (certainly unacceptable) behaviour by Harbhajan. Apparently, Symonds remarks to Harbhajan were unprintable and entirely objectionable. Coming to the racism part, while calling someone a monkey is definitely not acceptable on a cricket field, it does not amount to racism. Are the Australian cricketers descendants of dinosaurs, unlike the rest of humanity? What of Ponting and Symonds, and the rest of the Australian team whose full-time occupation is to mount psychological pressure on the opponents by taunting and name-calling? Is that acceptable behaviour on a cricket ground? If what Bhajji did was wrong, what Symonds and Ponting did was wrong too. On the field, the umpires practically took Ponting at his word while judging Ganguly and Dravid out. Clarke clearly grounded the ball but Ganguly was given out anyway. Dravid's bat was behind his body and well out of the way, but he was adjudged caught behind anyway. Is this cricket? To me, it most certainly is not. What is happening in Australia, both on the field and off it, is just plain dirty. There are no two ways of putting it.

As if all this is not enough, the Sydney Morning Herald published a column on 5th January, claiming that the Indian Cricket Team is a personal fiefdom of Brahmins and that other castes are deliberately kept out because they are not "upper-caste." I have just one question to ask of Andrew Stevenson. Who the f*** are you to be judgemental of India and its society? Thankfully, Salil Tripathi is around to set the record right, giving information and arguments I would never have been capable of giving. I shall, however, try my best. Stevenson calls India a caste-conscious and heirarchy-ridden society. He claims that within the Indian cricket team, players form groups based on what caste they come from. Tell me something. Does anyone bother to ask for the caste of the person who works with us. Does anyone know to what caste our drivers, maids, vegetable vendors, colleagues, or even neighbours and friends belong? Left to ourselves, we would forget caste and just do our work. As I have said before, the only domain in which caste still plays a major role is marriage. So, as long as Sachin Tendulkar is not planning to marry off his daughter to his teammate's son, how does caste matter?

What irks me most is that Stevenson occupies the moral high ground while analysing the impact of caste on Indian cricket. Judging from the way the Aussies behaved, both on field and off it, over the paste 3 days, they have no business being judgemental about India and its society. We, as Indians, have not forgotten how Dr. Mohammed Haneef was thrown into jail on a mere suspicion and kept inside for ages. When he finally managed to get bail, the then Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, revoked his visa, labelled him an illegal immigrant and sent him back to prison. Only a change of government has permitted Dr. Haneef to get his visa reinstated. Should we slam Australia for being racist then? During my many conversations with Nita, I have heard horror stories of racial and ethnic discrimination in Australia. Should I then write an article in an Indian newspaper saying that Australia is the most racist country in the world after apartheid-era South Africa? So, Mr. Stevenson, listen to this. Get off your moral high ground and set your own house in order before criticising us. And judge our cricket team by its results and not by its caste composition. And while you are at it, let the team play cricket. Your gamesmanship and slander have no place in what was once a gentleman's game.

Musings...

2007-12-27T11:06:00.000+05:30

Yes, I know it's been ages since I blogged on anything meaningful. A death in the family creates circumstances that are not exactly conducive to serious blogging. But this article caught my attention on Christmas day. Coupled with another article stating that a man had been mauled to death trying to photograph a tiger in the Guwahati Zoo, it brought home the role of fate and destiny in a man's life. One came to the zoo to see tigers and other assorted animals. By a bizarre twist of fate, and by deliberately ignoring the guards' warnings, he lost his life. I wonder if he knew, when he left home that he would never return. The other came with the intention of dying, not for the first time, but the third. His equally bizarre fate ensured that he did not die. Instead he survived, albeit with a heavily-scarred face.

Much as we vigorously debate that Man is the maker of his own destiny, the fact remains that there are things that are beyond our control. Like life. And death. It is a humbling thought, when we realise that life is transient...as transient as a bubble...

Some philosophy, some questions...but no answers...

2007-12-17T21:43:00.000+05:30

I am back, after a rather long hiatus. The problem is that my grandfather was sick for a week, and passed away on Thursday last. A death in the family normally means a lot of guests, a lot of confusion and a lot of work. So, that was it. It was the first time in 25 years that I visited a crematorium. And quite frankly, the place is not as scary as I was led to believe. It is clean, with paved roads and a cemented place to sit. That brings me to all the philosophical musings of the past week. A visit to a graveyard is quite humbling. For one, you realise how lucky you are to still be alive. And then, you wonder why we chase money when all we are left with ultimately is a pot of ash (or six feet of land as the case may be.) Dad says it's normal for first-time visitors to get philosophical. This week was my turn.

Once the funeral was over, there began a series of negotiations over the post-death ceremonies (or whatever you call it). First, the shaastrigal claimed that the soul of the deceased had to travel a billion miles, during the course of a year to attain Vaikuntham. In order to facilitate the travel, we, as relatives of the deceased, are expected to provide the soul with slippers, bed, food, clothing, gold (I wonder why!), silver, a piece of land, a cow and some other assorted worldly items. How can the poor soul carry so much? Since we are not millionaires, but simple middle class people, the shaastrigal allowed us to pay a mere 15,000 rupees, instead of a portion of land, and a couple of kilogrammes of gold for the above-mentioned daanam. Very generous, I must admit!

Then comes this business about the soul suffering from sun-burns, hunger, thirst, calloused feet, tired legs and the like as justification for all the donations we are supposed to make. How the soul can suffer so much is beyond me. After all, the Bhagavad Gita, the most widely accepted Hindu religious text describes the soul thus:

"Nainam chhindanti shastraani, nainam dahati paavakaha, na chainam kledha yantyapo, ne shoshayathi maaruthaha." (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 23)

Translated, it means,

"Weapons cannot harm the soul, fire cannot burn the soul, water cannot wet and air cannot dry the soul."

If that is true, then how can the soul suffer hunger, thirst, sunburns or injury. The learned men have no response. Is this then, just a way of guilting people into paying for wholly unnecessary rituals. I only have questions for the moment. Nobody is forthcoming with answers. And asking too many questions makes me a heretic. What has the world come to?

The other drama is one that is related more to social practice than religion and philosophy. Mum tells me that the Brahmins won't eat food prepared by Tamil Iyer women. Whether it is because the women are Iyer or because they are simply women is beyond me. Apparently, we, as Kannada Maadhwa Brahmins practise a philosophy incompatible with Iyer philosophy and any meeting of the two will have potentially disastrous consequences. So, the choice of caterers is rather limited. To men, who belong to the appropriate Kannada Brahmin subsect. I then asked if we can get someone we know to cook that day. There, we face yet another problem. Apparently widowhood is highly contagious and the said Brahmins will not touch food prepared by a widowed woman.

Makes me wonder if women should not boycott food prepared by, served by, or eaten by any widowed man, just to give them a taste of their own medicine. Refusing to cook for widowed men would do the job equally well. After all, men who believe that seeing a widow is inauspicious belong to a generation that did not know how to cook. That way the problem would be solved. In the absence of anyone to cook for them, they all would die an early death and the world would be relieved of a great burden. But seriously, will this attitude ever change? The one person who is most affected by a death is the spouse of the deceased. How is it fair to treat widowed women as a scourge? How is it fair to blame them for something they have no control over? Why are we still living in the Middle Ages? Can we ever drag ourselves into the 21st Century?

In defence of IT

2007-12-10T13:22:00.000+05:30

Before anyone wonders, yes, this title is inspired by the book, "In Defence of Globalisation" by Jagdish Bhagwati. And no, this is not a book review. I remembered the book because it defends a phenomenon that has widely been criticised and maligned for all the ills that plague the world today. From International Organisations to NGOs to individuals, everyone blames globalisation for global warming, income disparities, conflict, human rights abuse and the like. The December 17 issue of Outlook Magazine carries much the same tirade against the IT industry and blames it for polluting Bangalore (known as India's answer to Silicon Valley). Not just that, IT is also held responsible for the escalating land prices, changing moral values, and entry of "western decadence" into a city that was once a pensioner's paradise. Of the many articles, two deserve comment, not so much because they represent two ends of the spectrum, but because they manifest an almost irrational resentment towards the IT industry.

The first article is by Dr. C.N.R. Rao, currently Scientific Advisor to the Government of India. Dr. Rao is a respected and learned man. But, that does not give him the right to pass a moral judgement on what people in the IT industry do. And that, is precisely what he does in this article when he laments that,

"Bright people at a very young age, before they are even 20, think of IT as an option because they can make quick money. Lots of intelligent people are doing jobs that are much below their intellectual capabilities. They are like coolies who are working for wages and not producing great intellectual material."

Does this mean that all IT professionals are idiots? Or is he trying to say they don't use the brains they have? Both claims are false and imply that the work Dr. Rao is doing is intellectually superior to that of the IT professionals. Most importantly, can we do without IT? Secondly, in the introductory lines of this article, he calls himself a real Bangalorean. And goes on to say he was born in Basavangudi. Does that mean that all others are outsiders who have invaded what is rightfully his? If that is truly what he thinks, then he is being extremely intolerant and territorial. As Confused says on her blog, Indians have a problem against outsiders in general. And this problem seems to be particularly pronounced in Bangalore. Dr. Rao also seems to be upset that IT professionals are making a lot of money. What else could prompt him to say that "people have lost respect for scholarship. Money and commerce has taken over?" That claim is far from true. If he, or anyone else thinks that IT is a field where one does not need to use brains, they are gravely mistaken.

Moving on, the second articl e by Subroto Bagchi, COO of MindTree Consulting, is equally critical of the IT industry. This, despite the fact that Mr. Bagchi is very much a part of the industry he criticises. Before I start about why I disagree with Mr. Bagchi, I must observe that he uses many words to convey absolutely nothing. His sentences seem grammatically correct, but make no sense to the reader. There are many things wrong with his article. First, he claims that the IT industry was built by a few anonymous people. I assume he means, unknown or lesser known individuals. He then goes on to examine the antecedents of our IT czars, like Narayanamurthy of Infosys and Azim Premji of Wipro. He comes to the conclusion that "all of them went on to build global organisations for India, without having to work the system. A few forward-looking bureaucrats and politicians helped from behind the curtains." I wonder how much truth there is to that claim. My dad says they all had to go through the same hassles that all other budding industrialists do when they start a company. And he has been in the IT industry for over 30 years now. We must not forget that the first tax sops given to the IT industry are less than 10 years old. In fact, the government started taking IT seriously only in the late 90s. And the industry existed for at least 10 years before that.

Why is IT suddenly the bad boy of Indian industry? Is it because, as Bagchi says, "the IT industry started choking cities, upsetting local culture, creating wage disparities. And in the process of wowing the world, it was creating social isolation?" Is it even fair to blame IT and IT alone for all that is wrong with the world today? Is the IT professional's job not fundamentally different from that of the car mechanic, the doctor, the actor, the politician or the civil engineer? When that is the case, how can we compare salaries in IT with salaries in other industries? Is it not like comparing apples and oranges? Secondly, does a higher salary level for the IT professional mean that his job is qualitatively different from mine, or yours? Can we please stop this IT-bashing and respect them for what they are? Like every other industry, IT has its share of positives and negatives. It is time we stopped treating the industry like an outsider who has taken away jobs from the locals. If anything, IT has contributed to employment generation in a way that not many other industries have. We must remember that IT is here to stay, whether we like it or not.

The United States, women and the right to choose

2007-12-03T22:51:00.000+05:30

I have been meaning to blog for the past three days at least. Somehow, the end of the month seems to be a bad time for blogging. So, all I did was to bookmark several links for further reference. All the three things I was planning to address have something to do with the United States. One, is simply political; the second is social; and the third, a mix of the social, the personal and the political.

To begin with the political. I just came across this article in the Times, stating that the United States has the legal right to kidnap foreign citizens if they are wanted for a crime in the United States. That's right. The legal right to kidnap someone. When I first read the headline on the India Uncut blog, I thought it was a spoof of some kind. Even when I read the whole article on the Times site, I had trouble believing it was actually true. What if another country claimed the same right? What if Afghanistan were to kidnap Mr. Bush Jr. for war crimes? (Hmm...not a bad idea!) Would the US not be screaming bloody murder? Anyway, food for thought, that.

Now, the social. Ms. Clinton, as we all know, is running for President. But, the way her opponents are criticising her role as First Lady, some implying she was too nosy, others insisting that bedtime talk with husband Bill was hardly a qualification, makes me wonder if the US will ever get out of the 17th Century and into the 21st. I don't claim to be the most liberated of women. I do have my restrictions. I come from a country where the sex ratio is a pathetic 927 for 1000 men, where women must struggle to be properly fed and fight to be educated. But, I also come from a country that elected a woman to the highest office of the land a couple of months ago, and to the post of Prime Minister almost four decades ago. Last year's local body elections in Tamil Nadu witnessed an unprecedented number of women filing nomination papers. Three Indian states are ruled by women and a number of women hold or have held prominent positions at the centre. Whatever is the US doing? Why is it still acceptable to slander Ms. Clinton because she was First Lady, and belittle her achievements because she is a woman? I do not contend that Ms. Clinton is the best possible candidate for president, but all this criticism about husband Bill telling her about White House business annoys me to no end. Does anyone ever criticise a man and tell him that all that he knows is thanks to his wife's bedtime discussions with him? This just proves that, economic progress notwithstanding, we are still living in a man's world.

Finally, the long-standing US debate on abortion got my attention, once again thanks to this India Uncut blogpost. Those who campaign passionately for foetal rights are forgetting something very basic. The foetus cannot survive outside of the mother's body. And as Amit Varma points out, a woman's body is her own. She has the right to decide whether she wants the baby or not. Anti-abortion campaigners make it sound as though the woman gets rid of the baby for her convenience with no qualms. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Abortion is an extremely sensitive issue. A woman is confronted with a hard choice when she discovers an unwanted, and unexpected pregnancy. She does not enjoy abortion. Nobody does. But we must remember that she is an individual in her own right. Carrying the baby (or aborting) is her choice. The state has no business interfering. By refusing to legalise abortion, the government (both American and others) puts the woman's life in immeasurable danger. If the option was accessible to all, there would be no reason to go to fake doctors, undergo dangerous procedures for termination of pregnancy and suffer irreversible harm. Human rights (of full-grown individuals) is, in this case more important than foetal rights. At least, that is what I think.

The obsession with "fair and lovely"

2007-11-27T22:21:00.000+05:30

Of late, I have come across at least half a dozen fairness cream ads that have offended my sensibilities in some way. Not to mention that "fair and lovely" men suddenly seems to be all the rage in India. What's this with fair men anyway? I would rather marry an intelligent, loving and dark man than an arrogant, fair one. Uhm...actually, the man I love is...well, not fair. The fairness cream ads of the recent past have been more offensive than encouraging. One ad for the Unilever product "Fair and Lovely" portrays a young danseuse using fair and lovely every day and going on to win the dance finals. What the %#&$@??? Does that mean she was not a good dancer when she had darker skin? It implies that only fair people are talented and successful. Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with fairness? One cursory look at matrimonial sites like shaadi.com reveal the national preference for fair skin. The famous air hostess ad for the same Unilever product was withdrawn from air after widespread protests about its content. The ad features a father lamenting the fact that he has no son: just a dark-skinned daughter who cannot get a job because of her complexion. "Kaash mera ek beta hota," (I wish I had a son) he says in a fit of depression. Such ads only reinforce the stereotype that fair equals beautiful. I know plenty of dark-skinned women who can easily be qualified as stunningly beautiful.

This stereotype apart, these ads generally suggest that women should be fair for one of two reasons. One, to be able to find a high-profile job as an air hostess or a TV anchor; and two, to find the perfect, handsome knight-in-shining-armour who will sweep her off her feet. Never mind that the said knight-in-shining-armour ignored her just a couple of weeks ago when she was a few shades darker and treated her as if she were transparent. Whatever happened to self-esteem? An ad portrays a woman as winning her man over with some magic potion that makes her skin lighter, and the woman's only ambition in life is to be fairer than the girl-next-door. Such ads not only perpetrate the popular myth that fair is beautiful, but are also seriously damaging to the self-esteem of those women (and now men too) who happen to have dark skin.

While we are on the subject of fair skin, I must talk about a rather interesting talk show on the Star Vijay channel that featured a debate on Tamilians as compared to people of other states. The anchor, presumably hoping to create some controversy, asked the discussants who they considered more beautiful: people of Tamil Nadu or those from other states. And voilà, the answer was on predictable lines. A large majority of people contended that North Indians were the more beautiful species. When asked why they thought so, most of them said it was because the North Indians had fairer skin. How long are we going to stick to the colonial mindset of fair=beautiful? When are we, as a nation, going to realise that skin colour does not matter as much as character and talent? When are we going to stop obsessing with Fair&Lovely, Fairever, Fair and Ageless, Fair and Handsome etc. and start accepting people for what they are, warts and all? My guess is: not for another millenium. We protest when we are accused of racism (I am guilty of that act myself), but we remain fairness obsessed in our personal lives. Will this ever change?

Saudi Arabia and the Rule of Law

2007-11-23T19:07:00.000+05:30

The recent decision of a Saudi Arabian court to award a rape victim a sentence of 200 lashes and six months is prison is indeed condemnable. The court not only punished the victim, called the "Qatif Girl" for allegedly violating Islamic law by being present in a car with an unrelated man, but also banned her lawyer from practising and stripped him of his license. This cannot be justified on the grounds of religion and tradition by any stretch of imagination. This is not the first time that a rape victim is treated as a criminal. Nor is Saudi Arabia the only country to criminalise a rape victim. It is easy for us, as Indians, to blame the entire episode on a faulty interpretation of the Sharia, but what happens in India is no better. While the courts in Saudi Arabia have sentenced the girl on the grounds of violation of some ridiculous law, courts, prosecution lawyers and law-enforcement officials in India shame the victim into withdrawing her case and disappearing from public view.

If in Saudi Arabia, the problem lies with the absence of proper laws, in India the problem lies with interpretation of existing laws. The social stigma surrounding a rape victim is such that many incidents go unreported. If ever a woman finds the courage to report what has happened to her, she finds herself under the scanner and is made to answer humiliating and insulting questions about her behaviour. "The Qatif Girl" is just one among millions of women around the world to be suffering persecution because they dared to speak out. Remember the case of Mukhtaran Mai of Pakistan who was raped because her brother was caught talking to a girl from another community? Every culture, every country and every religion has treated women like objects. This sentence by Saudi Arabian courts is just an extension of the attitude. While the rest of the world obsesses with the US elections, bomb blasts, political gimmicks and global warming, millions of such women across the world will continue to suffer in silence.

What are the democratic and liberal countries of the world doing? Where is the self-righteous indignation of the US and the UK? Does Saudi Arabia's loyal and blind support of the US "War on Terror" push such blatant human rights violations under the carpet? If the same thing were to happen in Iran, would Bush and Co. not have called for boycott, protest or sanction? What is it that makes Saudi Arabia immune to such international pressure? Or is it stupid on my part to expect that the violation of the rights of women be taken up with as much seriousness as the development of a nuclear programme by Iran? I suppose human rights do not really apply to the allies of the US. Noises about human rights records are made at appropriate intervals, while negotiating deals with China and other undemocratic countries. But, Saudi Arabia is obviously not on the human rights radar of the US. The less said about India's reaction (or lack of it) to the Saudi rape case the better. After all, it is politically incorrect to criticise Islam (or Islamic countries) in this country. I had better shut up now, lest I be accused of hurting minority sentiments (which seems to be increasingly fragile nowadays).

Education, business, Kolkata burning and Ms. Nasreen again!

2007-11-21T22:59:00.000+05:30

Yesterday, I read a satirical take on the state of education in today's world. Humorous though it was, it deserves serious thought and discussion. This Rediff satire on the recent decision of the principal of a well-known Mumbai college to enforce a dress code in the middle of examinations is something worth talking about. Moral policing apart, the satire exposes one simple fact: that some colleges exist solely to make money. As the principal in Vadukut's story puts it so succinctly,

"Must I tell you every day? What do you think we are? A shady outfit merely run to siphon off funds? A platform for political manipulation? Some sort of ragtag institute run by the principal like his personal property?"

"Sir. Why do you even ask such questions and insult me? Of course we are."

Well...can one make it any more obvious why such private colleges exist? The truth is that very few colleges today fulfil their duties as educational institutions. They are simply run to siphon off funds, or to whiten the black money made by their owners and patrons in other, equally shady business deals. Some of the private colleges assume the role of the moral police, when those who run the institutions are themselves totally immoral. Will this ever change? Will private colleges and deemed universities and the like actually be held responsible for their actions before a competent tribunal? It's up to the UGC to take the responsibility. Whether they will actually do it is anyone's guess.

Moving on, CNN-IBN tells me, on television, that Kolkata is burning. When I first heard the news this afternoon, I assumed that the Nandigram issue had finally reached boiling point. But no, I was apparently mistaken. A rather shady outfit by name of the All India Minority Forum (AIMF) called for a roadblock this morning. Soon, the protest turned violent and the army was called in to maintain law and order. Now, in India, when the army is called in to restore peace, it means something is seriously wrong. Otherwise, the army just stays out of internal affairs. The policy will normally suffice. Only later in the afternoon did I realise that the protests were not just against the Nandigram issue. Apparently, the AIMF, which called for the protests, want eminent Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen to be shipped out of India at the earliest possible instance. Her sin? That she said something, allegedly blasphemous, in her most recent book Shodh.

This kind of behaviour goes against pretty much everything I was taught as a kid. Or am I being naive in wanting to actually practise what I was taught in school? I grew up in a liberal, rest-not-until-you-get-answers background. I was taught that it is Man's (and woman's) fundamental right to speak their mind. I was taught that, in a democracy, freedom of expression is paramount. I was also taught that even if you did not have anything to eat, you must have the freedom to say you are starving. What has happened to the India I know? What has happened to that sacrosanct freedom of expression? This censorship of personal opinion began with the banning of Satanic Verses way back in 1988, barely 10 days after its release. It has not stopped until today. The right to free speech is shamelessly curtailed and the press censored in the name of protecting minority sentiments. I do acknowledge that religious minorities in India must be given adequate protection. But, is this not going too far? If the AIMF can bring an entire city to a standstill today, forcing the army to step in to maintain law and order, is there not something seriously wrong with the way things are going?

What irks me even more that the protests, is the fact that nobody seems to be talking about Ms. Nasreen's right to say what she thinks is right. Nobody is arguing she is right. But even dissent must be within the acceptable framework of democracy. Burning public vehicles and causing infinite inconvenience to common people in the name of a protest march is simply unacceptable. Will someone please talk about it? Will the state government, and the Centre forget their pseudo-secularism for a moment and defend Ms. Nasreen's right to live where she wants to and say what she wants to?

Disappearing languages

2007-11-20T16:47:00.000+05:30

The November 19 edition of Outlook Magazine carries this article on disappearing languages, which I found extremely interesting. The opening statement that a language dies somewhere in the world every 14 days, is indeed incredible. That is why the endangered language list of the world comprises languages spoken in practically every country in the world. A good example would be Siletz Dee-ni spoken somewhere in the United States, that had just one speaker in 2007. There are many other such languages that are spoken by not more than a handful of people.

Statistics apart, this piece of information set me thinking. Why exactly do languages die? How can someone, whose mother tongue is language X, totally forget the language and neglect to teach it to the next generation? What motivates a person to abandon his/her mother tongue completely in favour of another, alien tongue? Of course, the mother tongue is not compatible with the economic activity of the individual. My mother tongue, Kannada, is certainly not compatible with either security studies or French language teaching. But, that does not mean I forget the language, or not bother to teach my kids the language. My cousins speak both Tamil, the language of their father, and Kannada, the language of their mother. I do acknowledge the problem of expatriates and others, far away from their families. But, why do families as a whole decide to adopt another language, as is the case with Siletz Dee-ni or any other language?

It's a pity that, along with languages, whole cultures are disappearing. A language brings along with it a host of practices, values and a whole new outlook to life, that is irretrievably lost when the language becomes extinct. What is even more shocking is that even India, which is lauded for its astounding linguistic diversity is home to several endangered languages, of them, Greater Andamanese, which has a mere 7 fluent speakers. I can only hope that the initiative of the the Central Institute for Indian Languages to revive them is successful.

My brand new food blog

2007-11-17T18:36:00.000+05:30

It's finally up! After vigorously debating the pros and cons of Paal Paayasam and Baadam Halwa, I finally posted my first recipe. Unfortunately for you sweet-lovers, it something rather spicy. Maybe I will get around to posting the recipe for Baadam Halwa some time soon. Anyway, check out the new blog here. And let me know how you like it, I mean both the blog and the recipes.

Nalanda, Asian universities and the former Yale dean

2007-11-16T22:54:00.000+05:30

This opinion column by Jeffrey Garten (former Yale dean) in the New York Times is worth both reading and commenting. First, he acknowledges and appreciates the importance of Asia to the world in general. Second, he realises, unlike most other western policy-makers that countries like India, China, South Korea and Japan joining forces to create a state-of-the-art university could have a significant impact on Asia's future role in world affairs. As an external observer, he asks the many questions we tend to overlook in our euphoria about a potential superpower status in the near future. One important question is whether these countries, especially India and China can effectively cooperate and pool their individual strengths, given their obsession with national sovereignty. Not to mention that Nalanda is in Bihar, as Amit Varma puts it so effectively, and explains in the update to his post of November 14. In a state where there is no guarantee of safety of limb and life, can we honestly expect a world-class university. Ok, ok. I am not saying that Bihar is a horrible place. I am simply observing the apparent and total absence of any kind of government activity in the state. I know many of my readers will blame the state of affairs on the "neglect" of Bihar by the Central Government and lament that there are no national highways in that immensely large state. But still...

That does not solve our problem of founding a world-class institution in India. India has many universities, both private and public. I could not find the actual number of universities in the country, but this Wikipedia article gives you a rather exhaustive list of recognised universities in India. Given the ungodly number of universities that already exist in the country, what exactly is the need to found yet another "world-class" university? As if that is not enough, our beloved policy-makers want to revive the Nalanda University, which is one of the world's oldest universities. It is a Buddhist university. Need I say more? This is ample chance for the Hindutva brigade to appropriate credit for the existence of a university that disappeared in 1197. And also a chance for the wonderful "secular" forces to cry wolf yet again. I would seriously like to know why we cannot just improve the facilities in existing Indian universities, given that there are so many of them? Do countries like China, Japan and South Korea have any objection to contributing to the improvement of our IITs, IIMs and other universities? Maybe the name must change. After all, why would China want to contribute to the Indian Institute of Technology? But, what about others? What is stopping these guys from renaming the Jawaharlal Nehru University as the Pan-Asian University or something like that? Or improving upon existing infrastructure in any of the countries contributing to the task? This obsession with something that has been dead for more than 800 years is beyond my comprehension. As Garten says, we are simply not thinking big enough. We need to move ahead into the 21st century because great ideas are as important as tonnes of money.

Blog surfing, casteism etc...

2007-11-14T18:06:00.000+05:30

I have been blog surfing for the last few days. I must say I came across quite a few interesting ones. The most attractive blog title was Anna Mosaranna. Being the eternal mosaranna (curd rice) lover, I realised that I shared this passion with at least one other person: the mystery writer of Anna Mosaranna from Boston. Anyway, another potential Thayir Saadam blog was that of Asal Tamizh Penn. It's humorous, and makes for good bedtime-reading. But, these blogs, coupled with a repeat telecast of the Big Fight on NDTV yesterday on racism, set me thinking about things that one is not supposed to take seriously anyway.

To start with Anna Mosaranna, à la Anna Karenina, it says very little about mosaranna of any kind. It devotes itself, rather disappointingly, to the principles of Economics, both real and imagined. :-( Moving on, Asal Tamizh Penn is, well, very Tamizh. While I recognise and appreciate the humour with which most of her posts are written, a tiny bit of me can't help but wonder why we Indians are so...clannish. It's not as if I am the most inclusive and tolerant person in the universe. But, I try. I try very hard to sound as cosmopolitan as I possibly can. Despite my best efforts I do sound very Tamizh sometimes, notwithstanding the fact that I am not Tamil, at least, not genetically. I mean, are we not better off without out caste-based, language-based, region-based, or whatever-else-based identities? Why must I be expected to behave in a certain way simply because I was born into a certain caste/religion/region etc.? Every post by Asal Tamizh Penn (henceforth known as ATP because the name is too long to type) reinforces a stereotype. Want to know what?

All Tamilians are obsessed with Engineering and Mathematics
Tamil = Brahmin = Vadama Iyer (or Vaathima or Brahacharanam or Iyengar depending on who the writer is)
All Tamilians watch Metti Oli (or whatever else is on now) on Sun TV as against Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Girlfriend Thi (oops! Bahu Thi...) on Star TV
All Tamilians can't speak (or refuse to speak) Hindi because it is injurious to their rather fragile Tamizh pride
The only place worth living in (if you are Tamil and Brahmin) is the overly crowded and increasingly intolerable T Nagar.
All Tamilian parents have this general obsession of getting their sons married to a nice, well-educated, homely, fair, intelligent, and cooks-like-Madisaar Maami Tamizh girl. Actually, that is true of most Indian parents irrespective of language or region. Just replace Madisaar Maami with Sanjeev Kapoor and you get the general idea.

This, and many more stereotypes are reinforced by Ms. ATP. Well, you know, there are people in Chennai. People who are not Brahmin, Tamil or engineers. As unlikely as it may seem, the rest of the world is not as...uhm...stuck up...as our conformists are. What's this about conformism anyway? Why is it so hep to be conformist? Guys, cmon! Lighten up. It's fun to break rules. It's fun not to be traditional. Ever tried sneaking into the kitchen when mum is not around to steal a sweet or a toffee? You must try it some day. It's thrilling beyond measure. I assure you it's just as thrilling not to be Asal Tamizh Penn. Try being not-so-asal. It's fun.

Ok...now, moving on to the Big Fight. It was pretty ridiculous to see intelligent individuals talk about how racist India is. Casteist, well...that's true. But racists? How the hell can Indians be racist when there are so many different skin colours within India itself. Of course, being fair is considered paramount for women. But not too many people really care about the complexion of men. And, the last time I checked, Andrew Symonds was a man. It's simply stupid to argue that Indians taunted Symonds because he was black. Other Australian, English, Pakistani and Sri Lankan players have been taunted by spectators. Of course, such behaviour cannot be condoned, but to call it racist abuse is simply going overboard. All I can say is, let's stop exaggerating issues and tackle those issues that really need to be addressed. Can't decide what is important? How about female foeticide, education for all, economic development and empowerment of lower castes? Symonds is a sportsman. He must learn to deal with crowd behaviour. Nothing can be done to 70,000 spectators. The mindset must change. And that change will take time. In the meantime, the Australians would do well to learn a lesson or two about not racially abusing people too.

Sounding an idea out...

2007-11-10T22:22:00.000+05:30

I have an idea. Why not begin a food blog? And display my not-negligible cooking talent, helping the many who don't cook in the bargain, by publishing recipes on a new blog called Nalabaagam? (The name is just an idea. It may change.) Does that interest any of you out there? Please do leave comments so that I know what you are thinking. If it does seem interesting, you can expect the first post of the new blog in a couple of days. What say?

Outsourcing revisited

2007-11-09T12:52:00.000+05:30

Yesterday, I watched, for the second time, a Discovery Feature by Thomas L Friedman that deals with the phenomenon of outsourcing in India. When I first watched it a year ago, I was impressed by the depth and range behind the feature. I stopped there. I did not bother to go through the comments to the video on YouTube. But yesterday, I found the comments more interesting. The video explores the changing relationship between the service provider and the customer. Call any service centre in the US and chances are, you will hear an Indian voice on the other end. You could have problems with your computer, your bank account, your investments, your food processor or your hair dryer and more often than not, it will be an Indian fixing it for you. This state of affairs would have been unimaginable twenty years ago. The internet, falling cost of communication and technological development have made this kind of outsourcing, not just possible, but very common. Think about it, you have decided to mortgage your house. The bank approves the mortgage. The next day, the formalities are complete and you have your money. Would this be possible in the pre-BPO world? I doubt it. For, when you are enjoying a good night's sleep in the US, India is awake and working to complete the paperwork you will need in 12 hours.

All this sounds fantastic, but some of the comments to the said video on YouTube are shocking. One person says,

"i can hardly begin to tell you how disgusting this phenomenon is. You people that are so impressed by this "great" video do NOT seem to understand that 99.9999999% of Americans HATE getting an Indian voice when they call and need something. Please take a moment and let it sink in. AMERICANS CAN'T STAND INDIA CALL CENTERS!!!"

Need I even comment? This person, who so hates getting an Indian voice on a call can't spell the word Indian properly. And yes, he seems to think that people are objects. No wonder people that are impressed don't understand something. I mean, what the &^@!?? Being American does not give someone the right to be derisive of those who are not. The last time I checked, Indians spoke English as well as anyone else. In fact, we stick to conventional English grammar more closely that the Americans. And, I thought English was English and not American. Honestly, I don't care what the Americans like and what they hate. If I were a call centre employee in India, I would do my job because I am paid for it. Whoever said I needed to speak with an American twang to be considered competent? Try telling the Quebecois that their French is not French. Or the Australians that their English is not English. You wouldn't dare, would you? So why do people assume they can say what they want about Indian English just because we have other, well-developed languages? (Or is this guy/girl simply racist?) Are we any less fluent than the Americans because we don't have an American accent?

I have nothing against Americans in general. But, this comment by one American effectively ensures that other, moderate voices are never heard. This guy (or girl) goes on to claim that the American Customer Service people clean up the mess Indians create. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Don't believe me? Visit a call centre and find out for yourself. Or, believe people like Friedman who are, at least, objective in their evaluation of outsourcing.

No matter what the Americans, or anyone else for that matter, think, the fact remains that outsourcing is here to stay. Live with it! If people don't like hearing Indian voices when they call, they should learn to live with their million gadgets that don't work. I have lived in France for two years. It is a fact that people cannot survive in the west if their gadgets were to stop working. Try living with broken computers, banks that take 8 days to clear your cheque and investments that go haywire because the financial consultant is on vacation. Then, you will understand how much easier your life has become thanks to outsourcing. The reason is simple. Indians do the same job, as well as any American (or Brit/Frenchman/Australian) for half the cost. And companies exist to make money. Indian call centres are not disappearing any time soon. The sooner the world learns to cope, the better.

Firecrackers...

2007-11-08T22:21:00.000+05:30

Today was Diwali (Ref. earlier post of the day for explanation). Every year, I fall sick on this day. No, it's not some strange and unknown curse like that of the Pharaohs that gets me, but a simple allergy. Every year, I get allergic to the smoke caused by firecrackers and fall sick. Last year, it was a throat infection. The year before last I was, thankfully, in Paris. And in the preceding years, I was variously sick with cold, sneezing, throat infection and even fever. This year, I suspect it will be wheezing. I can hardly breathe. The air is full of smoke. I wish I could do something about it. Before any of you begin to accuse me of double standards, I have never burst crackers, even as a kid, nor do I intend to in the near future. I refused to burst them, not because I was making a statement against pollution, but because I was terrified of the noise it made.

Anyway, my rants apart, the point is, is this really necessary? The last I heard, Diwali was also known as Deepavali: the festival of lights. I don't see too much light here in Chennai. Instead, I hear the kind of noise one would expect if he/she were stuck on Mount Road with everyone around them honking. One look at the price list of the local supermarket reveals rather a lot. One would have to spend nearly Rs. 2000 ($50) on firecrackers for a child. This, assuming the said kid likes to burst them and have a good time. And in India, Rs. 2000 is a lot of money. Is this really needed? Can't we teach our kids to spend that money better? Even a trip to a restaurant or new clothes would be worth it. It appears a criminal waste to buy firecrackers for $50 only to burn them up (literally) the next day. Be honest, would you burn a $50 bill for fun? I wouldn't.

Oh well, I am ranting again. My cousin tells me my questions attest the fact that I am old. She is 12. Maybe she is right. At the ripe old age of 25, I fail to appreciate the intricacies of cracker-bursting and look at it as a waste of money rather than necessary expenditure. Yes, she is right. I am growing old!

Diwali, religion etc...

2007-11-08T08:08:00.000+05:30

First of all, wish you a very Happy Diwali. For those of you wondering what hell that is, it is an Indian festival celebrated for the same reason that all other Indian festivals are: to eat, watch the zillion special programmes on television and enjoy a holiday. Given that Diwali is a Hindu festival, now would be a good time to talk of religion. A religion that claims to be one of the most tolerant in the world. Don't get me wrong. Hinduism is very tolerant if the devotee is just left alone. But, our guardians of religion (read priests and temple officials) just decide to make things as difficult as possible for the average Hindu. This priest claims that the God housed in the Sri Krishna temple at Guruvayoor does not like salwar-kameez! The salwar-kameez is a North Indian attire that millions of Indian women, including me, feel comfortable wearing. It is so popular that it can probably be called India's national dress. Now, apparently, God decided that he did not like the women entering his temple to be clad in salwar-kameez. Pray, how does a priest know what God likes and does not like? Does God have a mobile phone on which the priest can contact him? Or perhaps, as Amit Varma suggests, He must simply provide an RSS feed of his wishes.

But seriously, what was Mr. Padmanabhan Sharma (the astrologer/priest/whatever else he is) thinking? That rational, thinking individuals would actually take him seriously? And just who is he to decide what women devotees should wear? This is not the first time the Guruvayoor temple is in the news for the wrong reasons. Some time back, the head priest of the temple denied entry to a devotee because he was married to a Christian. As I had said in my earlier post, if Hinduism is as inclusive as it claims to be, it must accept that dresses are part of a culture. Denying entry into women who wear salwar-kameez is tantamount to denying entry to women because they are Punjabi or Haryanvi. Whatever happened to equality? Can't we try and set an example? Or am I being a heretic?

PS: In case any of you are wondering why the look and feel of my blog keeps changing, I am experimenting with templates. I am hardly an expert in XML. So please bear with me until I get a template that satisfies me.

It's a fictional character...for Heaven's sake!

2007-11-01T19:37:00.001+05:30

Yes, I mean Albus Dumbledore, the lovable Headmaster in the Harry Potter books. The hype and hoopla surrounding the recent revelation that Dumbledore is gay is unbelievable. I have read analyses, letters, book reviews and even a feature in a magazine on how it affects the series. Well...the simple truth is, it doesn't. Dumbledore's sexuality has absolutely no bearing on the story itself. Neither is it obvious to readers that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay. Then, what's the big deal? Whatever our reaction may be to homosexuality in general, I don't see how that interferes with our enjoyment of the books.

My greatest confusion comes from people saying homosexuality is anti-Christian and so it ruins the books for the reader. Tell me, do we think about religion while reading a story book? At least, I don't. To me, Dumbledore's sexual preferences hold no consequence whatsoever. To me, Dumbledore is a brilliantly etched fictional character, with his own flaws and drawbacks. That is what makes him human. If he is gay, and that is a problem, then it would be just another one of his flaws. Why should long-time readers of the Potter books suddenly detest both the author and the series? Do we stop reading the works of Oscar Wilde because he happened to be gay? If not, then why are we so obsessed with Dumbledore?

Maybe we, as readers, should learn to separate fact from fiction. Maybe we should be more rational in our outlook towards things that exist, even if we don't agree with what's happening. Does that make me a bad person? I hardly think so.

The Karnataka quagmire

2007-10-30T18:37:00.000+05:30

The drama surrounding the refusal of Karnataka Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy to hand over power to the BJP is old news. That, in itself , was betrayal of an agreement in my opinion. But what has happened since the state came under President's Rule on October 9, goes beyond all expectations. Not that I believed that our politicians had any morals in the first place, but the actions of the Janata Dal (S) and the BJP in the state really take the cake. First, a state Chief Minister back down from a very public agreement to transfer power to his coalition partners. Then, the father of the said CM, who also happens to be the chief of the Party and a former Prime Minister of the country says it was a sin to have ever entered into a power-sharing agreement with a "communal" party. You see, he did not know, at that time, that the BJP was communal. He vows his support to the minority communities and promises not to let a power-hungry "fascist" party take power in the state. In the meantime, he tries to broker a deal with other parties to try and get his son back on the Chief Minister's chair. All attempts fail and the state comes under Central rule.

Barely two weeks later, we learn that the said "communal" and "fascist" party and the "secular" one are bedfellows again. The leaders are seen shaking hands and hugging one another in public. They all troop to the Governor of the state to try and convince him to invite them to form a government. The Governor, being answerable to the Central Government, asks for a couple of days to decide. Impatient with the delay, the "fascists" threaten to take to the streets, in an attempt to force the Governor's hand. As if this is not enough, the president of the "secular" party's state unit calls it "a murder of democracy."

Of course, it's a murder of democracy. It is not murder when two parties that contested one another in the election join hands in an unholy alliance, simply because they want power. And, it is not murder when one of the two parties backtracks on a public commitment and calls it's ally a fascist. It is definitely not murder when suddenly, driven by a desire to seize power, the two adversaries reach a compromise and go back to the Governor to get their power back. Neither is it murder when the two parties, terrified of facing a mid-term election shower praises on the ally they slandered barely 2 weeks ago. But, of course, the refusal of a state Governor to take a decision without first consulting the Centre on it is a murder of democracy. But of course!

Is this what we wanted when we elected our government? What does the average Indian voter do when he/she votes to throw a government out simply to realise that the government will be back in power anyway with the help of the same people they slandered not 2 weeks ago? Are we really living in a democracy? Do we, as voters, actually have a choice? Or are we being asked to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea? I only have questions. And no answers.

Women, marriage and compromise

2007-10-29T17:49:00.000+05:30

Yesterday, I was going through Ms. Bansal's blog, and I came across this post on Chak De India. I know it's a bit late to write on this movie, especially as I have already written on it once. But, the temptation was irresistible. What caught my attention was not so much the post itself but a comment to the post. This comment, made by someone called Madan, presumably a man, sums up the overall attitude towards women. He says,

"In addition most men are pretty balanced in their outlook towards life,career and family and seem to have no problem juggling them irrespective of their maritial status. But all we hear from the female is constant crib about how society is somehow denying them their rightful place? Strange considering the fact most women marry UP and not DOWN. Men unfortunately don't have the luxury of moving up the social ladder thru marriage." (click here for full post)

He goes on to claim that men and women are given equal opportunities but the equality of result cannot be guaranteed. Equal opportunities? Really? What about the woman who is forced to drop out of school because the education of her brother is more important and the family cannot afford to educate them both? What about the woman who is married off at 18 and has 3 children by the time she is 23? And what about the millions of Indian women who work as house-maids because they face harassment and humiliation if they choose to do anything else? Does Madan and others like him have answer to why women are paid only half as much as men in the construction industry when they work just as hard? India may be on the path to economic development, but the hard truth is that women have to be twice as good as men in their careers to be considered as equals. A woman taking a few months off as maternity leave is seen as a liability to a company rather than as an investment.

Secondly, Madan claims that most women marry up in an attempt to move up the social ladder. Ever stopped to think why women prefer a man who earns better than she does? The reason is simple. Very few men can take it if their wives are more successful in their careers than they are. A woman chooses a man who earns better than her to avoid the ego clashes that will inevitably occur. There are other, more practical reasons for this. It is inevitably the woman who quits her job, or downsizes her career as Bansal puts it, to take care of the kids. In this scenario, it would only make more sense if the husband earned better so that the family remains financially stable even after the loss of the woman's income. Of course, if men are willing to be stay-at-home dads, there would be no reason for women to marry up.

As for the claim that men don't have the luxury of moving up the social ladder through marriage, nothing could be farther from the truth. Why do men ask for dowry? Because they think it's culturally correct? No. It is because they know they are simply incapable of acquiring the money through their own hard work. It it obviously easier to ask your father-in-law for a car or a flat than to work towards buying one yourself. If this is not moving up the social ladder through marriage, then what is? As if this is not enough, another reader says,

"In fact , the woman survives on the money brought by the husband if she is not working. Everything comes for a price. If the woman is not working , she has to repay by serving her husband in lieu of the food and material comforts he provides her."

What the hell? A woman repays her husband by serving him food and cleaning up after him? If it is business, then what about the free sex the husband gets on demand? Is that business too? A price to pay for staying at home and eating out of the husband's earnings? If all this is true, then I don't think we are talking about a family at all. We are talking about a profit-making corporation where there is no free lunch. And the job of a wife is simply that: a job. And, like all jobs, the employer can be changed. This is an extremely cynical world view and has no place in our lives. I do not say this citing Indian culture or society. I say this because as human beings, we all need a place to call home. A place where every action, or lack of it, will not be measured in monetary terms. I can only hope that this viewpoint is the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise, we will have to rethink our existence as human beings.

Love affairs, society and violence

2007-10-27T11:48:00.000+05:30

Recently, there have been reports in the media about couples eloping to get married and the drama that follows the event. The latest news story is about Telugu film star Chiranjeevi's daughter's wedding to her lover of 4 years against her parents wishes. The national media followed the story almost obsessively, even talking to Chiranjeevi himself and to his daughter. In the meantime, the Rizwanur Rahman murder case increasingly resembles the infamous honour killings of Punjab and Haryana. And parts of Pakistan too. But, all this drama behind the elopement and marriage of a star-kid raises one important question. How much attention should the media give to such happenings? Does the mere fact that Srija is Chiranjeevi's daughter nullify her right to a private life. Everything was discussed in the Press. From the cost of her wedding dress to the honeymoon destination, everything was talked about. Experts condemned Chiranjeevi, wondered if Srija was really in love given that she was only 18 and raised a hue and cry about security to the newly-married couple. These experts appropriate the right to talk about her private life simply because she has a star father. Once the hype and hoopla dies down, what is to become of the couple? Does anyone care? Or is it simply a way of increasing circulation and improving TRP ratings?

The Rizwanur murder is another case in point. The media is more obsessed about the love affair between Rizwanur and Priyanka Todi than in the murder itself. Of course, who want to see the gory details of police investigation, post-mortem examinations and forensic evidence? The elopement and marriage of the couple is more interesting right? Is this what the media should do? What about more serious issues like the Global Hunger Report published by the International Food Policy Research Institute was barely mentioned by the media. Where are we going? What is the media, which is supposed to be the fourth estate, doing to create awareness on important issues?

That said, a second issue regarding these elopements and marriages must be addressed. Couples don't elope for the thrill of it. They elope because of parental opposition, pressure and other problems. Nobody likes to run away from home. They are forced to. By this, I am not justifying the decision of the couple to run away. I am simply trying to understand the reasons behind such a decision. This blogpost by Rashmi Bansal hits the nail on the head. The problem is the unwillingness to compromise. Parents always think their kids are too young, too immature or too naive to be able to choose a life partner. That said, kids refuse to acknowledge that their parents' advice and knowledge can sometimes be heeded. Where is the solution? Is there a meeting point? Will things ever change?

Education, reservations and reform

2007-10-24T16:43:00.000+05:30

A few days ago, The Hindu reported that the TN Assembly had passed a bill approving 3.5% reservations for minorities (Christians and Muslims) within the 30% quota already existing for backward classes. This 3.5% for minorities is yet another attempt at affirmative action, although whether it really serves to uplift the downtrodden is questionable. The trend towards affirmative action through special quotas seems to be never-ending. Think about it; Tamil Nadu has the highest percentage of reserved seats totalling to a massive 69%, leading even the Apex Court to say that reservations must not exceed 50% if they are to retain their relevance. But no, our politicians have found a way out of the quagmire. They simply create extra seats in engineering and medical colleges to accommodate the reservations-less students and circumvent the Supreme Court ruling. Anyway, the point here is this: what does the rest of the world do if this reservation trend continues? How do good students belonging to unreserved categories get admission into good colleges or get government jobs if this quota goes on increasing?

More importantly, does this quota system really help those who need the help? I think the Times of India got it right this time. We need to start thinking beyond quotas. Far from working towards the abolition of the caste system, the quota system actually reinforces caste identities and helps in entrenching the caste system more firmly in Indian society. The creation of several caste-based political parties is clearly a pointer to this trend. Why can't we rise above petty considerations of caste, religion and community and look at the capacity of the person in question. How does the caste of the applicant to a college or a job matter if the person concerned is capable of carrying on his duties to perfection? Perhaps it is time to look at another way of providing affirmative action. Or perhaps we must now move on from our caste-conscious behaviour and learn to think beyond it.

PS: On an unrelated note, anyone noticed that all those people who left comments on my previous post (saying I was the one who was bullshitting) are men?

The importance of making sense...

2007-10-20T19:38:00.000+05:30

I try my best to be as concise as possible when I post. Even then, I sometimes worry about whether I am making my point clearly to my readers. But, here is a blog that worries about nothing: not good writing, not logic, not sensible opinions, nothing. I came across this site when I was reading old posts on Boiling Blood. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I came across the link to the author's profile.

Before I began this post, I wondered if it was worth commenting upon, and prompting my readers to read total crap like this. But then, I decided that I had a lot to say on it and I could not hold back for fear of popularising the blog. When I read the first post ranting about lazy women and echal and pathu, I thought this guy was being sarcastic. But no, I had over-estimated his intelligence. A brief reading of other posts proved to me that he was, indeed, the chauvinist I thought he was. What else do you call a man who says America's low savings rate is because women don't go dhooram during their periods and dare to eat before the esteemed men of the family have had their fill? Anyway, there it is, male chauvinism at its worst. Or best as you may call it. Do the world's feminists have advice to render about handling such men? Honestly, if I knew the guy, I would probably advise all my female friends to stay the hell away from him. Whoever would want to marry him and be treated like an unpaid maid?

That said, I have a serious grudge against people who write in SMS-talk on their blogs. Why the hell can't people take the time to dot their i's and cross their t's? And yes, capitalise their I's?? Ok ok...I am ranting...but please...follow the basics of English grammar...for the sake of your poor readers.