Most civilized countries will tell you they do not discriminate (in any capacity) between people on the basis of their race, ethnicity or national origin, in addition to a whole slew of other factors. I applaud that. In fact that is exactly what I hope for every society on earth, someday. A perfect, non-discriminatory world, where our language, the colour of our skin and our socio-economic class does not determine the treatment we receive from anybody.
But waking up in one of those perfect societies today, I read about India's former President, APJ Abdul Kalam being frisked by security twice at one of New York City's airports. According to the Indian Express, he was made to give up his jacket and shoes after he had boarded the aircraft. The reason? Security had not checked them thoroughly enough the first time.
Dr. Abdul Kalam, in addition to being an ex-Indian President, is also a renowned scientist, a prominent face in India's indigenous nuclear program. Extremely popular with children across the country, he takes every opportunity to encourage kids to explore science (and knowledge in general) and to strive to do their best. And unlike most people who have made it big, he doesn't just talk. Someone who was born in a poor family, Kalam understands perfectly the trials associated with overcoming poverty to realize one's wildest dreams.
In short, this is someone who inspires most Indians. Logically, this is probably someone who can inspire most people across the world. This is also someone who is encased in brown skin and practices Islam. Probably not the best attributes to have when you are walking through security at an airport in a country that discriminates between people of different races and religions.
But the country where Dr. Abdul Kalam was frisked does not discriminate on the basis of race. Or most other factors. Maybe this was after all, just annoying ole' human error.
Or maybe it's just time to rewrite official policy.
Sunday 13 November 2011
Academia and capitalism
Many (sometimes too many) academic campuses even in the most fervently capitalistic societies proudly fly the flag of the Left. They seem to take it almost as a matter of pride a need to rip the capitalistic enterprise that seeks to dominate the world, apart. After all (they tend to say), someone has to stand up for the people and collaboration and all the other good things that capitalism seeks to obliterate with its mass-produced goods. And who qualifies better than enlightened academic souls.
But academia, if nothing else, is also about sheer individualism. Publishing like crazy, and establishing oneself as a force in the microscopic field that one seeks to make a name in, is one of the accepted paths toward academic success. Of course, collaboration is encouraged, but everyone knows that on a paper with multiple authors there is always a lead scholar, the individual.
And isn't that what capitalism is about? Each individual forging her/his path and contributing to economy and society. So common sensically, that's exactly how capitalistic enterprises should be. Each individual trying to establish and fortify her/his own position. But my experience in corporations says otherwise.
Without arguing that companies operate as altruistic beings where everyone works to achieve the larger goal, I have seen much more team work in companies than in academia. I have always been dependent on others to achieve my work goals and have been responsible for deliveries that impact others' goals. So, in an odd way, there is a certain kind of symbiosis that modern enterprises seem to exude (though I guess factory lines did exactly that, too). And maybe the C-suite does walk away with much of the reward in the end.
But so do the star tenured academics that each budding academic aspires to be.
But academia, if nothing else, is also about sheer individualism. Publishing like crazy, and establishing oneself as a force in the microscopic field that one seeks to make a name in, is one of the accepted paths toward academic success. Of course, collaboration is encouraged, but everyone knows that on a paper with multiple authors there is always a lead scholar, the individual.
And isn't that what capitalism is about? Each individual forging her/his path and contributing to economy and society. So common sensically, that's exactly how capitalistic enterprises should be. Each individual trying to establish and fortify her/his own position. But my experience in corporations says otherwise.
Without arguing that companies operate as altruistic beings where everyone works to achieve the larger goal, I have seen much more team work in companies than in academia. I have always been dependent on others to achieve my work goals and have been responsible for deliveries that impact others' goals. So, in an odd way, there is a certain kind of symbiosis that modern enterprises seem to exude (though I guess factory lines did exactly that, too). And maybe the C-suite does walk away with much of the reward in the end.
But so do the star tenured academics that each budding academic aspires to be.
Capitalism and communism, synonyms?
Antonyms clearly, right? I mean the Cold War was fought precisely because capitalism stood right across the battlefield from communism. How on earth could they be the same or even similar? Wars, even fools would agree, are not fought by folks who stand on the same side of the fence.
But recent events, including my sister's stint in Nordic land have confused me a little. We have had conversations about Finland, a prime example of the resounding success of capitalism, which is also an extremely egalitarian society. On one hand, private enterprise is the norm in this tiny country and on the other, state welfare is each citizen's birthright. State welfare includes everything from free education through subsidized transport and meals to an allowance for just being alive (the last is not a joke).
And this makes me think of communism, the red dream of a society where each person gives according to her/his capacity and receives according to her/his need. Where one is not penalized for being old or infirm but instead receives care. And where the strong are expected to work and effectively cover the gap. Finland, where efficient private industry coexists with state sponsored old-age care, seems to be a perfect example of the red dream. But Finland is unabashedly capitalist and nothing else.
Or is it that the end goal of the ideal forms of capitalism and communism are exactly the same? A society that holds social justice as its guiding light but expects honest hard work from its people? Is it that only the steps to achieve this goal are different? And could it have been that the economists and world leaders got it all wrong?
That the ultimate result of capitalism is what Marx always dreamed of. Maybe the Cold War was avoidable, after all.
But recent events, including my sister's stint in Nordic land have confused me a little. We have had conversations about Finland, a prime example of the resounding success of capitalism, which is also an extremely egalitarian society. On one hand, private enterprise is the norm in this tiny country and on the other, state welfare is each citizen's birthright. State welfare includes everything from free education through subsidized transport and meals to an allowance for just being alive (the last is not a joke).
And this makes me think of communism, the red dream of a society where each person gives according to her/his capacity and receives according to her/his need. Where one is not penalized for being old or infirm but instead receives care. And where the strong are expected to work and effectively cover the gap. Finland, where efficient private industry coexists with state sponsored old-age care, seems to be a perfect example of the red dream. But Finland is unabashedly capitalist and nothing else.
Or is it that the end goal of the ideal forms of capitalism and communism are exactly the same? A society that holds social justice as its guiding light but expects honest hard work from its people? Is it that only the steps to achieve this goal are different? And could it have been that the economists and world leaders got it all wrong?
That the ultimate result of capitalism is what Marx always dreamed of. Maybe the Cold War was avoidable, after all.
Sunday 6 November 2011
Because guns don't pollute, they protect
The Durban Conference on Climate Change 2011 is drawing close. An event that heralds more discussion about polluting industries and the need to control the exhaust they spit out. More talk about the long way that developing countries have to go to rectify the pollutants that they create. Issues that are important and that we, the developing world should absolutely take notice of. Because pollution kills.
But so do guns. And nobody's stopping the gun makers. The defense contractors that wear white collar suits and hobnob with the powers that be, the ones that produce beauties that kill.
But no one stops them. Nuclear power is discouraged. Especially if it is a developing country that is trying to 'stockpile' them. But guns, never. There are much-flaunted arms deals where some members of the rich countries' club agree to sell weapons to certain countries that need to defend themselves from aggressive neighbours. There are under-the-table deals where arms dealers sell to warlords and 'leaders' in some of the most war torn regions of the world. Regions where money would be much better spent on food and basic survival needs of the people that reside there. But however it happens, the guns are sold, unabashedly all across the world. Because guns equal protection, especially if a powerful country says so to a weaker one.
Which brings to mind the good ole' British, those clever traders that spread the law of the East India Company across India. All the while telling each paranoid Indian king that the company could offer protection against the neighbouring state in exchange for land or revenue. And doing this to each neighbouring state. Sounds very nefarious, even on the face of it. But this practice did not just become acceptable, it became the rule of law.
Because protection by the British with their superior gun power could only be a good idea. The same way that guns are today.
But so do guns. And nobody's stopping the gun makers. The defense contractors that wear white collar suits and hobnob with the powers that be, the ones that produce beauties that kill.
But no one stops them. Nuclear power is discouraged. Especially if it is a developing country that is trying to 'stockpile' them. But guns, never. There are much-flaunted arms deals where some members of the rich countries' club agree to sell weapons to certain countries that need to defend themselves from aggressive neighbours. There are under-the-table deals where arms dealers sell to warlords and 'leaders' in some of the most war torn regions of the world. Regions where money would be much better spent on food and basic survival needs of the people that reside there. But however it happens, the guns are sold, unabashedly all across the world. Because guns equal protection, especially if a powerful country says so to a weaker one.
Which brings to mind the good ole' British, those clever traders that spread the law of the East India Company across India. All the while telling each paranoid Indian king that the company could offer protection against the neighbouring state in exchange for land or revenue. And doing this to each neighbouring state. Sounds very nefarious, even on the face of it. But this practice did not just become acceptable, it became the rule of law.
Because protection by the British with their superior gun power could only be a good idea. The same way that guns are today.
Saturday 5 November 2011
Load Shedding and human beings
When I read the news stories about the power outages affecting millions of people in the northeastern U.S. this week, I remember Overload. A book by Arthur Hailey that talked about the upheaval within a power company when there was a possibility that they would have to shut off power to certain pockets of a city for a short duration. There was intrigue and nail-biting fear because a power cut would mean lawsuits and the potential collapse of the firm.
I also remember laughing at how afraid these fictional power company executives were. Because I lived in a country where power cuts were a part of everyday life. We used to call them load shedding and would hope that our area's turn would come in the evening and not during the hottest periods in the day. Nobody could ever think of suing the power company for load shedding. Like I said, it was just a part of life.
Back to the northeastern U.S. in November 2011. There is mass concern about the power outages cutting off access to heat even as an extreme winter approaches. Last year's blizzards and relentless snow make that a very real fear. Especially for people who have always had the warm indoors to come back to, even in the dead of winter.
As I think about this, I see the picture on my calendar -- a group of Himachali people who grow a popular variety of garlic -- with smiles on their weathered faces. Himachal Pradesh, in the mid-ranges of the Himalayas, is one of India's coldest states, and it sees snow through winter. And like most other cold places in India and other not-rich countries across the world, the only heat that these people have access to through their cold winters, is a bonfire shared by multiple families outside their cold and frail homes. But there is no mass concern here. Maybe because they have never known a warm indoors in the dead of winter. All they have had to rely on are thin blankets and I guess, the human ability to adapt.
An ability that seems to ebb the more well-off one (or one's country) becomes.
I hope the northeastern U.S. gets its power back because it's not fair that they suffer. But I do wish that people outside the rich country club also get to have slightly better conditions of life. Although they may have mastered the human ability to adapt, they are human too.
I also remember laughing at how afraid these fictional power company executives were. Because I lived in a country where power cuts were a part of everyday life. We used to call them load shedding and would hope that our area's turn would come in the evening and not during the hottest periods in the day. Nobody could ever think of suing the power company for load shedding. Like I said, it was just a part of life.
Back to the northeastern U.S. in November 2011. There is mass concern about the power outages cutting off access to heat even as an extreme winter approaches. Last year's blizzards and relentless snow make that a very real fear. Especially for people who have always had the warm indoors to come back to, even in the dead of winter.
As I think about this, I see the picture on my calendar -- a group of Himachali people who grow a popular variety of garlic -- with smiles on their weathered faces. Himachal Pradesh, in the mid-ranges of the Himalayas, is one of India's coldest states, and it sees snow through winter. And like most other cold places in India and other not-rich countries across the world, the only heat that these people have access to through their cold winters, is a bonfire shared by multiple families outside their cold and frail homes. But there is no mass concern here. Maybe because they have never known a warm indoors in the dead of winter. All they have had to rely on are thin blankets and I guess, the human ability to adapt.
An ability that seems to ebb the more well-off one (or one's country) becomes.
I hope the northeastern U.S. gets its power back because it's not fair that they suffer. But I do wish that people outside the rich country club also get to have slightly better conditions of life. Although they may have mastered the human ability to adapt, they are human too.
Thursday 27 October 2011
All lives are not equal
Time and again that point comes home to me. Today it was a story about 100 workers who fainted at a Cambodian factory that manufactured garments for H&M. The suspected cause? An insect repellent that was sprayed to protect the clothes from cockroaches.
The factory had been shut for two days prior to this incident when over 200 workers had fallen sick while at work. For some reason, they had been allowed to reopen, only to inflict injuries upon another set of workers. Also known as human beings, a fact that gets swept under the carpet too often.
H&M is not considered a high-end retailer in any of the developed countries it sells its clothes in. It's the go-to place for people who want to look well-dressed without spending too much. Yet to protect it's clothes from harm, there are human lives that are put at stake.
The company is headquartered in one of the Nordic countries, a part of the world where each life is worth more than it's weight in gold. Where you get an allowance from the state just for existing. Whether you contribute anything economically to the state or not, you are rewarded for just being a citizen of that part of the world. However, a part of the world that zealously protects its borders from those that may try to crawl in.
Interesting, these attitudes. As my sister says, the French while touting Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, made it clear that that was applicable only to humans, not the beings that lived in their colonies across the world.
Yet another thing that riles me. But then along comes a cardiologist from the University of Texas who figures out how to recycle pacemakers. He works with funeral homes in the U.S. to donate pacemakers from the bodies of the deceased, which he then sterilizes and prepares for a fresh implant. He works with a hospital in Mumbai to donate these pacemakers to heart patients that would not have been able to afford this expensive medical device. At a 98% success rate, and only a 2% chance of infection, this project has run over 7 years. And has successfully saved human lives. Lives that are too poor to count as human for many others.
So, whenever I see the inherent inequality in this world of ours, I just have to remind myself. That there are people in this same world that have a human heart.
The factory had been shut for two days prior to this incident when over 200 workers had fallen sick while at work. For some reason, they had been allowed to reopen, only to inflict injuries upon another set of workers. Also known as human beings, a fact that gets swept under the carpet too often.
H&M is not considered a high-end retailer in any of the developed countries it sells its clothes in. It's the go-to place for people who want to look well-dressed without spending too much. Yet to protect it's clothes from harm, there are human lives that are put at stake.
The company is headquartered in one of the Nordic countries, a part of the world where each life is worth more than it's weight in gold. Where you get an allowance from the state just for existing. Whether you contribute anything economically to the state or not, you are rewarded for just being a citizen of that part of the world. However, a part of the world that zealously protects its borders from those that may try to crawl in.
Interesting, these attitudes. As my sister says, the French while touting Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, made it clear that that was applicable only to humans, not the beings that lived in their colonies across the world.
Yet another thing that riles me. But then along comes a cardiologist from the University of Texas who figures out how to recycle pacemakers. He works with funeral homes in the U.S. to donate pacemakers from the bodies of the deceased, which he then sterilizes and prepares for a fresh implant. He works with a hospital in Mumbai to donate these pacemakers to heart patients that would not have been able to afford this expensive medical device. At a 98% success rate, and only a 2% chance of infection, this project has run over 7 years. And has successfully saved human lives. Lives that are too poor to count as human for many others.
So, whenever I see the inherent inequality in this world of ours, I just have to remind myself. That there are people in this same world that have a human heart.
Tuesday 25 October 2011
Money off the smarts
I try not to seem very old-fashioned but it's hard sometimes. I grew up thinking that if you studied well and had good fortune on your side, you would get a good job. You would then proceed to work hard at that job (or jobs) to earn your living. And would ultimately be able to make a good life.
Old fashioned wisdom, like much else, has been turned on it's head in this world I live in. One doesn't have to be a seasoned veteran of the trenches to earn a good life. The live rich quick have their credit cards and then there are those who live off their smarts.
These 'smart' players are ace investors. They invest in everything and anything, from equities to commodities, in other words, from shares in Walmart to water. They seem to know which way the market will turn at most times. So ask a smart and s/he will tell you whether Walmart will have a stronger market presence and if buying water on the stock exchange will be a good investment. Of course there are times when these seers do not see very well, but then they reveal their human side. More on that some other time.
Sadly, the smarts don't just make money for themselves. They make a lot of difference to a lot of lives. Today, a giant pharmaceutical company said that it would lay off 2,000 people in a bid to save $200 million every year. This step was important for the company to show profits and stay in good financial health to keep investors happy.
And that confused me. I do understand to a certain extent how companies work. And I am all about efficiency. But there's some discord here. How can the investors that gain from a company's profits be content with such a one-dimensional return? How does the social inequality created by job losses and other people becoming poorer make the world a more comfortable place to live in?
End of the day, isn't it important for everyone to live in a world that is clean, has easily accessible resources and doesn't house hungry hordes that are waiting to gnaw at the first fat cat that ambles along? How can it be better for a few to hoard the resources of the world? Isn't it just safer for everybody if everyone can earn a living wage and has enough to eat?
I might as well admit it. I am just plain old-fashioned.
Old fashioned wisdom, like much else, has been turned on it's head in this world I live in. One doesn't have to be a seasoned veteran of the trenches to earn a good life. The live rich quick have their credit cards and then there are those who live off their smarts.
These 'smart' players are ace investors. They invest in everything and anything, from equities to commodities, in other words, from shares in Walmart to water. They seem to know which way the market will turn at most times. So ask a smart and s/he will tell you whether Walmart will have a stronger market presence and if buying water on the stock exchange will be a good investment. Of course there are times when these seers do not see very well, but then they reveal their human side. More on that some other time.
Sadly, the smarts don't just make money for themselves. They make a lot of difference to a lot of lives. Today, a giant pharmaceutical company said that it would lay off 2,000 people in a bid to save $200 million every year. This step was important for the company to show profits and stay in good financial health to keep investors happy.
And that confused me. I do understand to a certain extent how companies work. And I am all about efficiency. But there's some discord here. How can the investors that gain from a company's profits be content with such a one-dimensional return? How does the social inequality created by job losses and other people becoming poorer make the world a more comfortable place to live in?
End of the day, isn't it important for everyone to live in a world that is clean, has easily accessible resources and doesn't house hungry hordes that are waiting to gnaw at the first fat cat that ambles along? How can it be better for a few to hoard the resources of the world? Isn't it just safer for everybody if everyone can earn a living wage and has enough to eat?
I might as well admit it. I am just plain old-fashioned.
Monday 24 October 2011
Armed and defenceless
I have been racking my brains about what it was that I was going to blog about today. Something to do with defence forces and their modes of training. Something that was inspired by the opening clip from Full Metal Jacket that somebody showed me.
I think it had to do with the fact that training that was deemed appropriate for defence personnel in the mid-1990s is still in vogue, albeit with some modifications. About how such training was targeted both then and now to break a (wo)man down and rebuild (her) him from scratch. To create a persona that wanted to kill and hunt down the 'enemy'. That obeyed commands without a question.
I think that was it. And I think what bothered me was that despite the many advances that the civilized world has supposedly made, the blood lust of the wild beast is still such a glorified trait. That the one aim of defending your country can drive so many to arms.
I wonder if it differs by culture and to some extent, by motive. If the army of a country that is primarily aggressive as opposed to defensive would train differently. If a country that has compulsory conscription would train its defence forces differently compared to one that does not. A potential area that could be explored.
But this is a wishy-washy post. I know this is what I was thinking about but I can't pinpoint exactly what it was that had bothered me. Maybe, I'll remember later.
I think it had to do with the fact that training that was deemed appropriate for defence personnel in the mid-1990s is still in vogue, albeit with some modifications. About how such training was targeted both then and now to break a (wo)man down and rebuild (her) him from scratch. To create a persona that wanted to kill and hunt down the 'enemy'. That obeyed commands without a question.
I think that was it. And I think what bothered me was that despite the many advances that the civilized world has supposedly made, the blood lust of the wild beast is still such a glorified trait. That the one aim of defending your country can drive so many to arms.
I wonder if it differs by culture and to some extent, by motive. If the army of a country that is primarily aggressive as opposed to defensive would train differently. If a country that has compulsory conscription would train its defence forces differently compared to one that does not. A potential area that could be explored.
But this is a wishy-washy post. I know this is what I was thinking about but I can't pinpoint exactly what it was that had bothered me. Maybe, I'll remember later.
Sunday 23 October 2011
India is Hindu
I was talking to somebody just the other day about the various mini-conflicts that the world is experiencing, particularly the ones where one country is pitted against one or more other countries. And how there might be a connection between a country's practices and the religion the majority of its population practices.
Some of the biggest players in the war zone at present are Israel, Palestine, U.S. and the Western European nations. These are countries that practice Judaism, Christianity or Islam, all monotheistic religions. These religions of course care deeply for the believers, their own flock. While at the same time, spreading the word of the true God amongst the heathen, the savages that do not believe. And this missionary work hasn't always been at the hands of pacifist priests.
Very often, the word of God has needed a stronger voice. Be it in the form of Christianity's crusades or Islam's 'holy war', monotheistic religions have taken up arms to spread their word.
On the other hand are polytheistic religions. Of all those that existed, to my knowledge, only Hinduism has survived. And though Nepal is officially a Hindu nation, India--a country which is constitutionally secular, may be more Hindu than it will ever profess to being. Because like Hinduism, the most pain that India inflicts, is upon itself.
Let me explain. Hinduism housed as well as stood upon the once-functional but increasingly despotic caste system. It stratified all Hindus into four major castes--Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. It also completely ignored the 'untouchables', the believers who were so low that they weren't even worth ranking. A system that crippled the lives of the masses that believed in it. Unique, right?
The caste system is hopefully on its last leg in most parts of Hindu society. But Indian politicians have proudly donned that mantle. Our leaders ensure that the 'aam aadmi' (common man) subsists in inhuman conditions, which they claim are above the infallible poverty line demarcated by their economic experts. Every election cycle, these thugs ensure that the 'aam admi' is brought to the polling booth with promises of a living wage in lieu of back breaking labour. And every time they get voted in, they retract the promise. Every time.
I don't know if I am right. I hope not but the coincidences seem too strong.
Some of the biggest players in the war zone at present are Israel, Palestine, U.S. and the Western European nations. These are countries that practice Judaism, Christianity or Islam, all monotheistic religions. These religions of course care deeply for the believers, their own flock. While at the same time, spreading the word of the true God amongst the heathen, the savages that do not believe. And this missionary work hasn't always been at the hands of pacifist priests.
Very often, the word of God has needed a stronger voice. Be it in the form of Christianity's crusades or Islam's 'holy war', monotheistic religions have taken up arms to spread their word.
On the other hand are polytheistic religions. Of all those that existed, to my knowledge, only Hinduism has survived. And though Nepal is officially a Hindu nation, India--a country which is constitutionally secular, may be more Hindu than it will ever profess to being. Because like Hinduism, the most pain that India inflicts, is upon itself.
Let me explain. Hinduism housed as well as stood upon the once-functional but increasingly despotic caste system. It stratified all Hindus into four major castes--Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. It also completely ignored the 'untouchables', the believers who were so low that they weren't even worth ranking. A system that crippled the lives of the masses that believed in it. Unique, right?
The caste system is hopefully on its last leg in most parts of Hindu society. But Indian politicians have proudly donned that mantle. Our leaders ensure that the 'aam aadmi' (common man) subsists in inhuman conditions, which they claim are above the infallible poverty line demarcated by their economic experts. Every election cycle, these thugs ensure that the 'aam admi' is brought to the polling booth with promises of a living wage in lieu of back breaking labour. And every time they get voted in, they retract the promise. Every time.
I don't know if I am right. I hope not but the coincidences seem too strong.
Thursday 20 October 2011
Of Libyan guns and kids
As I read the morning news while staring at a dark grey skyline, the top story jumped out at me. Some or the other words to the effect "Gadhafi dead", interwoven with joyous notes of celebration and the hope for a good ole' 'future' for Libya. With a celebratory picture of men waving guns into the air while little children stood in the background.
Somehow, the picture was what stayed in my mind. And was followed in rapid succession by picture after picture of more blood and gore and the trophies of war brandished by the victors. Details overwhelmed every news outlet, be it the electronic word or the videos of a mutilated man and the pathetic hiding spots he sought refuge in. It is strange. That when the evil dictator falls, it is hard for one who has not lived under his reign to see the justice in the act of killing. Because one mutilated body looks much like another, only pathetic.
But the media is right about one fact, Libya now has a chance at a future. I am however, afraid to even think of what that future is. Someone whimsically mentioned to me today that don't we all scream for a dictator to fall, having forgotten that at one point he had been the rebel that had felled the earlier bad guy. And then of course we go back to living our own lives.
But the picture with the children keeps coming back to me. What will Libya's future be? Sadly, the country has oil reserves, and therefore will stay on the radar of all those who seek this precious resource. And therefore, Libya will not be left alone to nurse it's wounds and heal. Instead it will be prodded and poked.
And those children? I dread to think what will become of those children in the victory picture. They looked like they could just reach out and touch those shiny guns.
That picture scared me.
Photo by REUTERS/Suhaib Salem
Somehow, the picture was what stayed in my mind. And was followed in rapid succession by picture after picture of more blood and gore and the trophies of war brandished by the victors. Details overwhelmed every news outlet, be it the electronic word or the videos of a mutilated man and the pathetic hiding spots he sought refuge in. It is strange. That when the evil dictator falls, it is hard for one who has not lived under his reign to see the justice in the act of killing. Because one mutilated body looks much like another, only pathetic.
But the media is right about one fact, Libya now has a chance at a future. I am however, afraid to even think of what that future is. Someone whimsically mentioned to me today that don't we all scream for a dictator to fall, having forgotten that at one point he had been the rebel that had felled the earlier bad guy. And then of course we go back to living our own lives.
But the picture with the children keeps coming back to me. What will Libya's future be? Sadly, the country has oil reserves, and therefore will stay on the radar of all those who seek this precious resource. And therefore, Libya will not be left alone to nurse it's wounds and heal. Instead it will be prodded and poked.
And those children? I dread to think what will become of those children in the victory picture. They looked like they could just reach out and touch those shiny guns.
That picture scared me.
Photo by REUTERS/Suhaib Salem
Monday 17 October 2011
Protest the Bapu way
Over half a century ago, as protests were gathering steam across India to make the British colonialists leave, the latter had put in place laws to deny Indians the right to make indigenous salt. Instead, they had decreed that only British-made salt would be sold across the country.
Salt is a basic ingredient in Indian food and this decree was yet another violation of the country's basic rights. Besides of course offering further proof of the British need to make money by clawing the skin off the poor.
However, Indians did not resort to standing outside British outposts and chanting slogans. Instead, 80,000 Indians led by Bapu (Mahatma Gandhi) decided to walk for 23 days from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad to Dandi, a little sea-side town to harness salt from the sea.
Flash forward to the streets of Chicago, where protestors shout slogans about corporate greed. Some say that very soon the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich while others call for the suits to grow a heart. But the protestors continue to drink soda sold by the two giant corporations that compete across the world. They continue to consume chips and other snacks sold by other mega-corporations.
I am not one who will advocate that 20% of society's population owning 80% of society's wealth is a good thing. In fact, I am all for a more equitable distribution of resources, globally. But I think protestors who continue to fuel the growth of the corporate empires that they protest would do well to reflect upon their course of action. Because when Indians broke British colonial law and harvested salt at Dandi, they sent out a clear message to the British. We are against you and we will show our displeasure in a way that will hurt you the most. By not buying from you.
So, while you are beating your drum against Wall Street, try saying no to that can of soda. Because to Wall Street, nothing speaks louder and more clearly than when their products don't sell.
Salt is a basic ingredient in Indian food and this decree was yet another violation of the country's basic rights. Besides of course offering further proof of the British need to make money by clawing the skin off the poor.
However, Indians did not resort to standing outside British outposts and chanting slogans. Instead, 80,000 Indians led by Bapu (Mahatma Gandhi) decided to walk for 23 days from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad to Dandi, a little sea-side town to harness salt from the sea.
Flash forward to the streets of Chicago, where protestors shout slogans about corporate greed. Some say that very soon the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich while others call for the suits to grow a heart. But the protestors continue to drink soda sold by the two giant corporations that compete across the world. They continue to consume chips and other snacks sold by other mega-corporations.
I am not one who will advocate that 20% of society's population owning 80% of society's wealth is a good thing. In fact, I am all for a more equitable distribution of resources, globally. But I think protestors who continue to fuel the growth of the corporate empires that they protest would do well to reflect upon their course of action. Because when Indians broke British colonial law and harvested salt at Dandi, they sent out a clear message to the British. We are against you and we will show our displeasure in a way that will hurt you the most. By not buying from you.
So, while you are beating your drum against Wall Street, try saying no to that can of soda. Because to Wall Street, nothing speaks louder and more clearly than when their products don't sell.
Sunday 16 October 2011
Growing pains
An ex-boss who shared a crazy car ride through the cramped streets of Hyderabad, India with me, told me that Indians had catapulted from a state of working with low technology to one of being conversant with the latest forms of technology that were available. And that that was something that surprised the developed world.
I don't think that she was either daft or purposely trying to be mean. She was just making the assumtions natural to the superiority complex that afflicts most of the global North. A position that completely ignores the fact that ancient India possessed extremely high levels of scientific and technical expertise that escaped the cave dwellers who resided in the West of those times. A position that only looks at India post-British colonialism, an India, robbed among much else, of its wealth and dignity.
Anyway, this India is seen by many in the West as having made that giant leap into the world of hi-technology naturally inhabited by the developed world. Especially since those very countries have taken much longer to develop those technologies, passing through what they view as the natural evolutionary cycle of technology. While countries like India and maybe the others in the BRIC circle have pretty much jumped from zero know-how of technology to wanting to be at par with those who developed those technologies.
But that may just be the nature of the beast that is India. Maybe we do things really fast. Whether it is a giant leap forward or backward. While the world sees the progress we have made, very few acknowledge that there is a dark side where we have spiralled downhill in very little time.
From independence from England in 1947 through the late 1960s, politicians and civic leaders were incorruptible civil servants who worked for development. When funds and resources meant to build infrastructure did just that instead of being used to build mansions for the officials in-charge of those projects. But that changed, too. Fast forward into the late 1970s and one saw bribes become a way of life. Corruption seeped into the roots of Indian society within a span of about 10 years. Quick, right?
But not so for the west. Without being aware of exact dates, I know that development in the U.S. was largely implemented in the 1950s, when roads where built connecting the entire country and thus changing the face of this vast land. Things have changed since then but much slower than in India. Cracks have begun to show up in the highways in the U.S. and repairs take much longer than they used to. But the pace of change is much slower.
So, developed world, do not grudge us the giant leap into high technology. Because it can only try to stem the blood we lose from the downward spiral. Maybe, for a change, just let us be.
I don't think that she was either daft or purposely trying to be mean. She was just making the assumtions natural to the superiority complex that afflicts most of the global North. A position that completely ignores the fact that ancient India possessed extremely high levels of scientific and technical expertise that escaped the cave dwellers who resided in the West of those times. A position that only looks at India post-British colonialism, an India, robbed among much else, of its wealth and dignity.
Anyway, this India is seen by many in the West as having made that giant leap into the world of hi-technology naturally inhabited by the developed world. Especially since those very countries have taken much longer to develop those technologies, passing through what they view as the natural evolutionary cycle of technology. While countries like India and maybe the others in the BRIC circle have pretty much jumped from zero know-how of technology to wanting to be at par with those who developed those technologies.
But that may just be the nature of the beast that is India. Maybe we do things really fast. Whether it is a giant leap forward or backward. While the world sees the progress we have made, very few acknowledge that there is a dark side where we have spiralled downhill in very little time.
From independence from England in 1947 through the late 1960s, politicians and civic leaders were incorruptible civil servants who worked for development. When funds and resources meant to build infrastructure did just that instead of being used to build mansions for the officials in-charge of those projects. But that changed, too. Fast forward into the late 1970s and one saw bribes become a way of life. Corruption seeped into the roots of Indian society within a span of about 10 years. Quick, right?
But not so for the west. Without being aware of exact dates, I know that development in the U.S. was largely implemented in the 1950s, when roads where built connecting the entire country and thus changing the face of this vast land. Things have changed since then but much slower than in India. Cracks have begun to show up in the highways in the U.S. and repairs take much longer than they used to. But the pace of change is much slower.
So, developed world, do not grudge us the giant leap into high technology. Because it can only try to stem the blood we lose from the downward spiral. Maybe, for a change, just let us be.
Wednesday 12 October 2011
Irony?
I work for a large corporation. Always have and I hope, always will.
People say that corporations are soulless organizations, especially if said people live in the USofA. People in India will give you a completely different view, especially the middle class. Their lives have been changed a lot by these corporations.
Anyway, that's not what this post is about. It's about corporations and academia. Academia, the hot seat of intellectual stimulation and collaborative growth, versus the soulless corporation. Or at least that's what people say.
Surprisingly, my experiences have been quite different. Barring a couple of corporate slime balls that I have had the misfortune to encounter, most people have been very helpful. They have encouraged me to challenge myself, meet with others of similar interest and grow in my career.
And then there's academia.
I just finished a graduate degree from an institution of moderate repute. The final thesis submission was more like an escape. From bad advising, unwarranted malice and a complete absence of any sort of intellectual stimulation. My best time during the program was the communication role I had at a different organization on campus. Till date, I am trying to figure out why.
Where popular wisdom claims there is bitchiness, I have found collaboration. While the 'natural' home of collaboration houses a degree of bitchiness that I find very unnerving.
People say that corporations are soulless organizations, especially if said people live in the USofA. People in India will give you a completely different view, especially the middle class. Their lives have been changed a lot by these corporations.
Anyway, that's not what this post is about. It's about corporations and academia. Academia, the hot seat of intellectual stimulation and collaborative growth, versus the soulless corporation. Or at least that's what people say.
Surprisingly, my experiences have been quite different. Barring a couple of corporate slime balls that I have had the misfortune to encounter, most people have been very helpful. They have encouraged me to challenge myself, meet with others of similar interest and grow in my career.
And then there's academia.
I just finished a graduate degree from an institution of moderate repute. The final thesis submission was more like an escape. From bad advising, unwarranted malice and a complete absence of any sort of intellectual stimulation. My best time during the program was the communication role I had at a different organization on campus. Till date, I am trying to figure out why.
Where popular wisdom claims there is bitchiness, I have found collaboration. While the 'natural' home of collaboration houses a degree of bitchiness that I find very unnerving.
Tuesday 11 October 2011
Celebrating consumerism
I am a no-gift type of person. Well, except for birthdays and when someone I love needs something. To me, 'need' is the crucial aspect. Flowers are nice and so are chocolates, but if there's a book I need for a class, I would rather that someone give me the book for a gift.
And since I am a firm believer in 'do unto others as you do unto yourself', I brought this way of life into my unsuspecting new husband's world of consumerism. Having grown up in a world where Christmas, their culture's biggest festival, is marked more by big gift-exchanges over pure and simple family get-togethers, he was convinced that I was trying to lay down my cultural norms over his (Occasionally, I do admit that I am guilty of that particular attribute. Ref: earlier post about Indians and our views of other cultures).
However, festivals across the world have been fast turning into yet another platform for gift-exchange over togetherness. If one is in India on Diwali, it is quite unnerving to see people show off their wealth and status by bursting large quantities of expensive firecrackers. Of course, in addition to the extravagant gifts and clothes. If one is in the U.S. for Christmas, the display of wealth is in the hordes of frantic shoppers that are cramming their bags full at the Christmas sales.
And the quaint old idea of togetherness. The idea of spending a couple of days with families either draws a weary sigh and expressions of the need for alcohol in the West. And complaints and high levels of competitiveness in the East.
My assessment: traditions, you lose but corporations, you win.
And since I am a firm believer in 'do unto others as you do unto yourself', I brought this way of life into my unsuspecting new husband's world of consumerism. Having grown up in a world where Christmas, their culture's biggest festival, is marked more by big gift-exchanges over pure and simple family get-togethers, he was convinced that I was trying to lay down my cultural norms over his (Occasionally, I do admit that I am guilty of that particular attribute. Ref: earlier post about Indians and our views of other cultures).
However, festivals across the world have been fast turning into yet another platform for gift-exchange over togetherness. If one is in India on Diwali, it is quite unnerving to see people show off their wealth and status by bursting large quantities of expensive firecrackers. Of course, in addition to the extravagant gifts and clothes. If one is in the U.S. for Christmas, the display of wealth is in the hordes of frantic shoppers that are cramming their bags full at the Christmas sales.
And the quaint old idea of togetherness. The idea of spending a couple of days with families either draws a weary sigh and expressions of the need for alcohol in the West. And complaints and high levels of competitiveness in the East.
My assessment: traditions, you lose but corporations, you win.
Monday 10 October 2011
Corruption and the idea of the self
A country's politicians are more likely to be corrupt if their concept of the self is narrower, namely limited to their own individual self and maybe their family. Therefore, they are less likely to be corrupt if they conceive of the self as including the electorate that has brought them to power.
Assumption, theory or verifiable fact? I have a hunch this is much more of an assumption or theory and much less of a verifiable fact. However, it's a thought that's been pricking my mind and merits some explanation.
First things first though. Basis a very intelligent friend's argument, I have to point out that politicians should be separated from the rest of society. Therefore a society that is viewed as individualistic can (and does) have politicians for whom the concept of the self includes their vote bank. And a society which is viewed as collectivist can (and does) have politicians who view the self as their own individual self and their family. The vote bank, or the taxpayer doesn't count.
A little too abstract, maybe. Here's an India-U.S. example.
India is a family-and kinship-based society. However, our politicians, when they accept bribes, only do so for the benefit of their own family. For example, hypothetically, if the head of one of our states hoards black money, he makes sure he buys his children homes in affluent neighbourhoods in western countries and also where possible, citizenships in those countries. Just so when the state falls apart under the weight of corruption, his immediate family is safe and warm.
However, when an American politician is pressured by corporate lobbyists, he seems more inclined to make the lobbyist's companies award projects to his state (where his electorate base is). Projects such as establishing headquarters that generate potential employment for that populace.
I see a link to the concept of the self in these actions. I wonder if I am right.
Assumption, theory or verifiable fact? I have a hunch this is much more of an assumption or theory and much less of a verifiable fact. However, it's a thought that's been pricking my mind and merits some explanation.
First things first though. Basis a very intelligent friend's argument, I have to point out that politicians should be separated from the rest of society. Therefore a society that is viewed as individualistic can (and does) have politicians for whom the concept of the self includes their vote bank. And a society which is viewed as collectivist can (and does) have politicians who view the self as their own individual self and their family. The vote bank, or the taxpayer doesn't count.
A little too abstract, maybe. Here's an India-U.S. example.
India is a family-and kinship-based society. However, our politicians, when they accept bribes, only do so for the benefit of their own family. For example, hypothetically, if the head of one of our states hoards black money, he makes sure he buys his children homes in affluent neighbourhoods in western countries and also where possible, citizenships in those countries. Just so when the state falls apart under the weight of corruption, his immediate family is safe and warm.
However, when an American politician is pressured by corporate lobbyists, he seems more inclined to make the lobbyist's companies award projects to his state (where his electorate base is). Projects such as establishing headquarters that generate potential employment for that populace.
I see a link to the concept of the self in these actions. I wonder if I am right.
Sunday 9 October 2011
The Indian need to save
There's always a rainy day in the future. That could be the maxim by which we Indians live. And our solution? To save. Money.
A trait that goes relatively unnoticed when we live amongst our compatriots. But becomes glaringly apparent as soon as we inhabit more foreign environments. Be it a short or long-term job posting or a fellowship outside India, it is almost certain that we will save some of the money we receive. And stash it away for that rainy day.
An Erasmus award holder from Europe once told my sister that it was quite impossible to even subsist in the Nordic countries on the Euro 1500 a month that he received. Surprising then that an Indian who was on the same scholarship in the same country, brought money back home to buy land!
And background or age has nothing to do with this tendency. Recently, I ran into someone who was moving into a two-bedroom flat (apartment in the U.S.) which already had three other occupants. This practice is quite common when young students move to the U.S. to start graduate school and are trying to get by on the teaching assistantship stipend that they receive. In this particular case, the husband of one of the occupants lived with her from time to time and my acquaintance was also planning to host her husband in the same flat for over a month. The maximum number of people would end up being six adults in this two-bedroom place. My acquaintance, however, wasn't a young graduate student. She was a 50-year old academic from a reputed Indian university. And she was receiving an above-average stipend for her six month stint in the U.S. as well as her Indian salary.
Strange indeed. But then I am no stranger to the practice of frugality either. On my first trip to Europe, courtesy my employer, I made every effort to stash away some of my daily allowance. The local supermarket was the go-to eating place instead of the quaint cafes that lined the cobbled streets. Sadly, a cuckoo clock and a little too much sightseeing ensured that I actually owed my employer some cash!
A trait that goes relatively unnoticed when we live amongst our compatriots. But becomes glaringly apparent as soon as we inhabit more foreign environments. Be it a short or long-term job posting or a fellowship outside India, it is almost certain that we will save some of the money we receive. And stash it away for that rainy day.
An Erasmus award holder from Europe once told my sister that it was quite impossible to even subsist in the Nordic countries on the Euro 1500 a month that he received. Surprising then that an Indian who was on the same scholarship in the same country, brought money back home to buy land!
And background or age has nothing to do with this tendency. Recently, I ran into someone who was moving into a two-bedroom flat (apartment in the U.S.) which already had three other occupants. This practice is quite common when young students move to the U.S. to start graduate school and are trying to get by on the teaching assistantship stipend that they receive. In this particular case, the husband of one of the occupants lived with her from time to time and my acquaintance was also planning to host her husband in the same flat for over a month. The maximum number of people would end up being six adults in this two-bedroom place. My acquaintance, however, wasn't a young graduate student. She was a 50-year old academic from a reputed Indian university. And she was receiving an above-average stipend for her six month stint in the U.S. as well as her Indian salary.
Strange indeed. But then I am no stranger to the practice of frugality either. On my first trip to Europe, courtesy my employer, I made every effort to stash away some of my daily allowance. The local supermarket was the go-to eating place instead of the quaint cafes that lined the cobbled streets. Sadly, a cuckoo clock and a little too much sightseeing ensured that I actually owed my employer some cash!
Saturday 8 October 2011
Problems of plenty
That's just silly. My first reaction to anyone who suggests that I pay $30 (approximately Rs. 1500) to go visit a haunted house. A place where fake ghosts and other scary spectres will pop out at one in varying ways and supposedly (in my case, quite likely) chill one to the bone. Why would anyone want to pay good money to scare oneself?
And surprisingly, as happens many a time, the answer might lie in part in one of my mother's observations. That people and cultures that do not have to fear or be anxious about day to day problems, create and embody abstract notions that they can be afraid of.
Something that fits very well into my list of the problems of plenty, the problems that besiege cultures that largely have a lack of 'want'. Cultures that do not need to worry about whether the electricity is going to go off or that they have to wake up at 4am every day to switch on the water pump or else no water that day. Cultures that can walk down aisle after aisle selling them a wide selection of breakfast cereal. Cultures of plenty.
To those cultures, paying good money to go see creepy fake spectres that scare them makes perfect sense. Incongruous at first glance. But perfectly real. When one does not have to worry about putting food on the table, one decides that the 'insert brand name here' bag that one saw on their last trip to the mall is a must-have. Irrespective of whether they own more bags than they will ever need or have an increasingly alarming figure on their credit card bill. An amount that the government should really step in to help them pay. I mean how can the banks be allowed to be such blood suckers.
Aah the problems of plenty. Somehow, I would any day opt for the water pump at 4am. At least that's real.
And surprisingly, as happens many a time, the answer might lie in part in one of my mother's observations. That people and cultures that do not have to fear or be anxious about day to day problems, create and embody abstract notions that they can be afraid of.
Something that fits very well into my list of the problems of plenty, the problems that besiege cultures that largely have a lack of 'want'. Cultures that do not need to worry about whether the electricity is going to go off or that they have to wake up at 4am every day to switch on the water pump or else no water that day. Cultures that can walk down aisle after aisle selling them a wide selection of breakfast cereal. Cultures of plenty.
To those cultures, paying good money to go see creepy fake spectres that scare them makes perfect sense. Incongruous at first glance. But perfectly real. When one does not have to worry about putting food on the table, one decides that the 'insert brand name here' bag that one saw on their last trip to the mall is a must-have. Irrespective of whether they own more bags than they will ever need or have an increasingly alarming figure on their credit card bill. An amount that the government should really step in to help them pay. I mean how can the banks be allowed to be such blood suckers.
Aah the problems of plenty. Somehow, I would any day opt for the water pump at 4am. At least that's real.
Monotheism and a cultural sense
When people live in or subscribe to a monotheistic religion, do they also subscribe to a particular view of culture? I wonder.
Let me explain. What happens when Americans or people from the western world or for that matter, the followers of Islam who reside in the Islamic nations visit another culture? One that largely subscribes to a polytheistic religion? Do they recognize that the culture they have stepped into, differs from their own?
Taking a step back. Do they even subscribe to a particular kind of culture themselves? For example, most Americans I know tend to support diversity--of the colour of your skin, language, and yes, most importantly, sexual orientation. The typical stance (again amongst people I know) is to say that it doesn't matter to them that non-Caucasians are fast surpassing the Caucasian population in their country. That it is important to acknowledge that not everyone must speak English; Spanish and of course, Chinese are much more commonly spoken global languages. That a person's sexual orientation is their own--no one else has the right to comment on it.
But what happens when they visit another culture? Be it India, where every part of the country has vastly different norms and practices or most Arab lands where it is a sin for most women to even reveal their ankle to any male other than a husband or close relative (kind of ambiguous, that).
I remember a trip to Hampi, the seat of the ancient kingdom of Vijaynagar, a World Heritage Site and still home to some of Hinduism's oldest functioning temples. A town that is frequented by tourists and pilgrims alike. A town where the norm would be to dress modestly (do I sound medieval enough?). A town where American tourists decide that short shorts and noodle strap tops are perfectly acceptable attire. And I wonder why?
Why do Americans think that while different skin colours indicate diversity and bring with it the need to respect the associated cultural mores, their own dress code would be perfectly appropriate for a completely different country?
Not to say that Indians will ever win the award for respecting cultural diversity and the fact that people are different. No, for most communities in India (except maybe for the folks who sang mile sur mera tumhara), culture is all about proving that mine is better than yours. But dig deeper and in that sense of competitiveness (yet another quality that shines like a beacon on our foreheads), is an acknowledgement of the fact that people are different and that different cultures exist.
I am sure there are flaws in this half-baked observation. And I am pretty sure that I can come up with some myself. But it's definitely food for thought. And heck, maybe some kind of ethnographic research :)
Let me explain. What happens when Americans or people from the western world or for that matter, the followers of Islam who reside in the Islamic nations visit another culture? One that largely subscribes to a polytheistic religion? Do they recognize that the culture they have stepped into, differs from their own?
Taking a step back. Do they even subscribe to a particular kind of culture themselves? For example, most Americans I know tend to support diversity--of the colour of your skin, language, and yes, most importantly, sexual orientation. The typical stance (again amongst people I know) is to say that it doesn't matter to them that non-Caucasians are fast surpassing the Caucasian population in their country. That it is important to acknowledge that not everyone must speak English; Spanish and of course, Chinese are much more commonly spoken global languages. That a person's sexual orientation is their own--no one else has the right to comment on it.
But what happens when they visit another culture? Be it India, where every part of the country has vastly different norms and practices or most Arab lands where it is a sin for most women to even reveal their ankle to any male other than a husband or close relative (kind of ambiguous, that).
I remember a trip to Hampi, the seat of the ancient kingdom of Vijaynagar, a World Heritage Site and still home to some of Hinduism's oldest functioning temples. A town that is frequented by tourists and pilgrims alike. A town where the norm would be to dress modestly (do I sound medieval enough?). A town where American tourists decide that short shorts and noodle strap tops are perfectly acceptable attire. And I wonder why?
Why do Americans think that while different skin colours indicate diversity and bring with it the need to respect the associated cultural mores, their own dress code would be perfectly appropriate for a completely different country?
Not to say that Indians will ever win the award for respecting cultural diversity and the fact that people are different. No, for most communities in India (except maybe for the folks who sang mile sur mera tumhara), culture is all about proving that mine is better than yours. But dig deeper and in that sense of competitiveness (yet another quality that shines like a beacon on our foreheads), is an acknowledgement of the fact that people are different and that different cultures exist.
I am sure there are flaws in this half-baked observation. And I am pretty sure that I can come up with some myself. But it's definitely food for thought. And heck, maybe some kind of ethnographic research :)
Thursday 6 October 2011
Steve Jobs and multiple realities
Steve Jobs died yesterday. And surprisingly, even though I am very anti-Apple and have never ever met the guy, it made me stop and be sad for a while. That sounds strange doesn't it, being sad.
But I was sad--the man, or at least the picture that Apple had posted on every Mac (and their various other product) screen(s), looked frail and very human. Something I didn't really connect with this messiah of the tech community. A design guru who to me, seemed more like a marketing genius who had tapped into the hearts of his audience.
But enough to say, that yes Steve Jobs, I am sad that you, like all other mortals, just disappeared. It's always surprising when mortality hits you in the face, kind of forces you to stumble back.
And then someone mentioned that Jobs' death was definitely the most important news item of the day. Yes, that man was a tech guru. Yes, he had managed to make some crazy number of people i-Crazy. But the most important news item in the world?
Harping on my favourite bone of contention yet again. But a starving child in India or Somalia or any of the other houses of most of the world's population does not give a damn. Because to her/him, Jobs and the magical world of Apple doesn't mean a thing. I am always surprised at how insulated people can be. A lot of us, irrespective of wherever in the world we are from, get sucked into this almost make-believe world where only the digital world either reigns or will soon reign supreme. Forgetting that there is a completely different reality. Or maybe multiple realities that the digital world doesn't even touch.
Realities that should be the 'important' items of news that jar people. Realities that are people, people who will die while you and I keep buying the next i-Item.
A rant but an expression nonetheless. Maybe it is time to rant about wealth distribution and inequality. And while I am at it, the Anna Hazare movement, Stop the Machine or Occupy Wall Street protests. Multiple Arab Springs that need to be analyzed and understood. And connected. Because, whatever it may not be, globalization is a reality. A very harsh non-i-Reality at that.
But I was sad--the man, or at least the picture that Apple had posted on every Mac (and their various other product) screen(s), looked frail and very human. Something I didn't really connect with this messiah of the tech community. A design guru who to me, seemed more like a marketing genius who had tapped into the hearts of his audience.
But enough to say, that yes Steve Jobs, I am sad that you, like all other mortals, just disappeared. It's always surprising when mortality hits you in the face, kind of forces you to stumble back.
And then someone mentioned that Jobs' death was definitely the most important news item of the day. Yes, that man was a tech guru. Yes, he had managed to make some crazy number of people i-Crazy. But the most important news item in the world?
Harping on my favourite bone of contention yet again. But a starving child in India or Somalia or any of the other houses of most of the world's population does not give a damn. Because to her/him, Jobs and the magical world of Apple doesn't mean a thing. I am always surprised at how insulated people can be. A lot of us, irrespective of wherever in the world we are from, get sucked into this almost make-believe world where only the digital world either reigns or will soon reign supreme. Forgetting that there is a completely different reality. Or maybe multiple realities that the digital world doesn't even touch.
Realities that should be the 'important' items of news that jar people. Realities that are people, people who will die while you and I keep buying the next i-Item.
A rant but an expression nonetheless. Maybe it is time to rant about wealth distribution and inequality. And while I am at it, the Anna Hazare movement, Stop the Machine or Occupy Wall Street protests. Multiple Arab Springs that need to be analyzed and understood. And connected. Because, whatever it may not be, globalization is a reality. A very harsh non-i-Reality at that.
Saturday 30 April 2011
Bihu, elections, Easter and being far away
It's been a long long time since I wrote. But it's good to stare at the whiteboard again. And to write. Though it's tougher too. Another Bihu come and gone. Another year that the festival is spent with some form of the Assamese diaspora. Far away from Assam and most of my family. But this second year in a row, it will also be with the newest part of my Indo-American family--Will. The part that anchors me to the US even as the chapter that led me here, ends. But more about that in another post.
Bihus and maybe all festivals have some common traits wherever you are in the world. You wear dazzling clothes, typically eat everything on display and talk loudly even while the speaker or performer desperately tries to get your attention. The women, for the most part end up looking great. I am still trying to figure out why Indian women look so much better than Indian men. Another thought for another post. And as much as I love cultural colours, the one thing that is boring is the 'cultural function' prelim to each Indian gathering anywhere in the world! And two hours of that--is always fun. And the weirdness of Assamese one-upness. You sit at the same table but wait for the other person to start the conversation. Odd, odd, odd!
Am not going to be disjoint, so just signing off from this post. More in the next one.
Bihus and maybe all festivals have some common traits wherever you are in the world. You wear dazzling clothes, typically eat everything on display and talk loudly even while the speaker or performer desperately tries to get your attention. The women, for the most part end up looking great. I am still trying to figure out why Indian women look so much better than Indian men. Another thought for another post. And as much as I love cultural colours, the one thing that is boring is the 'cultural function' prelim to each Indian gathering anywhere in the world! And two hours of that--is always fun. And the weirdness of Assamese one-upness. You sit at the same table but wait for the other person to start the conversation. Odd, odd, odd!
Am not going to be disjoint, so just signing off from this post. More in the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)