Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
How do you know you are friends?
Really how do you decide whether someone is an acquintance or a friend? How do you differentiate?
And how do you know which relationship is a matter of convenience and which of choice?
In my case, I know some people for years but I also know they are not my friends (or rather I am not their friend) even though I meet them regularly and enjoy their company.
So this definitely is not a perfect measure.
And there are people I do not meet very often or know them not for very long but consider them friends.
And when (and how) do you know someone is your friend?
I wonder and seek answers.
And how do you know which relationship is a matter of convenience and which of choice?
In my case, I know some people for years but I also know they are not my friends (or rather I am not their friend) even though I meet them regularly and enjoy their company.
So this definitely is not a perfect measure.
And there are people I do not meet very often or know them not for very long but consider them friends.
Time is also not a prerequisite.
I have had 'friends' with whom I have had lots of arguments and fights (and ego was part of sometimes and in some cases I have not spoken to them since but still remember/consider them as friends) but still survived.
So the concept of "no ego" also doesn't work.
It is so easy to introduce someone as a friend but when do you honestly mean it?And when (and how) do you know someone is your friend?
I wonder and seek answers.
Monday, December 24, 2007
You talkin to me
Disclaimer: This is just a rough draft and initial thoughts.
When was the last time you had a conversation? When the last time you met someone interesting?
Chances are some of you might say, today, yesterday, or maybe some time in the near past.
But did you really have a conversation or there were two or more people talking about themselves - all talking and no one listening.
It has become so difficult to find someone you can talk to, have a discussion, say or listen to meaningful words.
I believe there are many reasons why we cannot have a conversation.
The primary culprit is our inward focus. ‘I’ has become the center of the universe. We are so concerned about our needs and concerns that we do not pay any attention to things around us. And this need is largely materialistic. I for example - and this is also true for lots of people I know and meet - find it so difficult to think of things which are not management. Success is measured in INR or USD or GBP. My role models are people who are richer than me. People no longer listen to others and are not interested in their thoughts. Only words which offer personal gratification are of our interest everything else nothing but white noise.
We have become a society of cynics.
Third and the biggest killer of conversation are our limited range and interests. Money, money, money. Management books today probably outsell the more relevant books. We find so difficult to pick up a book that will make us think. Frivolous books, talk shows, reality shows have a wider audience than radical thoughts and ideas.
When was the last time you read about a real issue and if you did, you found someone to share and discuss it?
We indulge in many personal monologues but have no conversation.
Remember words change the world even before action does.
Conversation is about listening,
Conversation is about understanding,
Conversation is about sharing.
Last words –
"You want people walking away from the conversation with some kernel of wisdom or some kind of impact." Harry Dean Stanton
When was the last time you had a conversation? When the last time you met someone interesting?
Chances are some of you might say, today, yesterday, or maybe some time in the near past.
But did you really have a conversation or there were two or more people talking about themselves - all talking and no one listening.
It has become so difficult to find someone you can talk to, have a discussion, say or listen to meaningful words.
I believe there are many reasons why we cannot have a conversation.
The primary culprit is our inward focus. ‘I’ has become the center of the universe. We are so concerned about our needs and concerns that we do not pay any attention to things around us. And this need is largely materialistic. I for example - and this is also true for lots of people I know and meet - find it so difficult to think of things which are not management. Success is measured in INR or USD or GBP. My role models are people who are richer than me. People no longer listen to others and are not interested in their thoughts. Only words which offer personal gratification are of our interest everything else nothing but white noise.
"Years ago, I tried to top everybody, but I don't anymore, I realized it was killing conversation. When you're always trying for a topper you aren't really listening. It kills communication." - Groucho Marx
We have become a society of cynics.
Third and the biggest killer of conversation are our limited range and interests. Money, money, money. Management books today probably outsell the more relevant books. We find so difficult to pick up a book that will make us think. Frivolous books, talk shows, reality shows have a wider audience than radical thoughts and ideas.
When was the last time you read about a real issue and if you did, you found someone to share and discuss it?
We indulge in many personal monologues but have no conversation.
Remember words change the world even before action does.
Conversation is about listening,
Conversation is about understanding,
Conversation is about sharing.
To listen well, is as powerful a means ofinfluence as to talk well, and is as essential to all true conversation.
Conversation is about being alive to the world around you.Last words –
"You want people walking away from the conversation with some kernel of wisdom or some kind of impact." Harry Dean Stanton
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Progress needs men - Contd.
Nobel Laureates
Women - 34
Men - 743
Total No.of women who won Nobel Prize for Science: 12
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Chemistry: 1964 (Total 2)
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Physics: 1963 (Total 3)
No. of women to win a prize in Economics: 0
Women - 34
Men - 743
Total No.of women who won Nobel Prize for Science: 12
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Chemistry: 1964 (Total 2)
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Physics: 1963 (Total 3)
No. of women to win a prize in Economics: 0
Parting thoughts - A couplet from Baba Bulle Shah
Rati jage kare ibadat
rati jagan kute
tethon ute
Phokan band te mool na hunde
Jah rori te sute
Tethon ute
Kasam apne da darr na chhad de
Bhave bajan jute
Tethon ute
Bulleh Shah koi rakh vihaj leh
nahi te baazi leh gai kute
tethon ute
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Evolution depends on men
Now that I have made a habit of making sweeping statements why break the pattern.
So here comes another hare-brained theory.
I believe the reason why men have been at the forefront of most of the inventions and discoveries cannot be attributed just to the simplistic explanation of opportunity.
Most would argue that lack of contribution by women can be attributed to the fact men repressed women and they were always at a disadvantage due to the constraints that the society imposed on them.
There is no denying these facts but the fact also remains these shackles have been more or less negated in the last 50 years and despite this the contribution of women especially in the field of science (or any other field for that matter) is at best miniscule if not negligible.
“Exceptio probat regulam.”
When I say inventions I have in mind products or thoughts which changed the course of a field or changed the paradigms of thinking and living.
Time for the explanation – personal and without any scientific basis.
The way men think is random and without any order. If you have ever watched two men or a group of men having a conversation, it can be quite an irksome experience for any outside observer. The conversation will travel from the inane to the profound. In the same sentence you can find a man quoting Socrates while discussing about the finer points of Angelina Jolie’s legs. The conversation never sticks to a single topic and can range from movies to religion to terrorism to philosophy of Nietzsche to latest office gossip to any other idiotic or ridiculous or reflective theme. And this change of topic is fluid. No man finds anything out of the ordinary when the change happens. It’s normal. It’s natural.
Against this the conversation between women or with a woman is more linear in structure. Discussion is focused and exchange measured. I am not disparaging the quality of the theme; it can be as thoughtful and weighty as it comes. But the conversation never wavers; it does not traverse any heights or depths like a male banter.
So how does this simple comparison prove that men help societies evolve? Is just the conversation?
My dear Watson, conversation is just an analogy for the male mind.
Think of male conversation/mind like dots - what seems random, when connected can sometimes create a masterpiece. The beauty of the male conversation/mind lies in juxtaposing disparate thoughts and subjects next to each other and that opens a realm of possibilities.
Only in chaos you can find order.
So here comes another hare-brained theory.
I believe the reason why men have been at the forefront of most of the inventions and discoveries cannot be attributed just to the simplistic explanation of opportunity.
Most would argue that lack of contribution by women can be attributed to the fact men repressed women and they were always at a disadvantage due to the constraints that the society imposed on them.
There is no denying these facts but the fact also remains these shackles have been more or less negated in the last 50 years and despite this the contribution of women especially in the field of science (or any other field for that matter) is at best miniscule if not negligible.
“Exceptio probat regulam.”
When I say inventions I have in mind products or thoughts which changed the course of a field or changed the paradigms of thinking and living.
Time for the explanation – personal and without any scientific basis.
The way men think is random and without any order. If you have ever watched two men or a group of men having a conversation, it can be quite an irksome experience for any outside observer. The conversation will travel from the inane to the profound. In the same sentence you can find a man quoting Socrates while discussing about the finer points of Angelina Jolie’s legs. The conversation never sticks to a single topic and can range from movies to religion to terrorism to philosophy of Nietzsche to latest office gossip to any other idiotic or ridiculous or reflective theme. And this change of topic is fluid. No man finds anything out of the ordinary when the change happens. It’s normal. It’s natural.
Against this the conversation between women or with a woman is more linear in structure. Discussion is focused and exchange measured. I am not disparaging the quality of the theme; it can be as thoughtful and weighty as it comes. But the conversation never wavers; it does not traverse any heights or depths like a male banter.
So how does this simple comparison prove that men help societies evolve? Is just the conversation?
My dear Watson, conversation is just an analogy for the male mind.
Think of male conversation/mind like dots - what seems random, when connected can sometimes create a masterpiece. The beauty of the male conversation/mind lies in juxtaposing disparate thoughts and subjects next to each other and that opens a realm of possibilities.
Only in chaos you can find order.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Bitch
There is a concerted effort in the media today debunking the artificial beauty.
And who are these synthetic beauties - the wafer thin models parading down their wares on the ramps, adorning the billboards and generally peering down on us from every shop window.
The rationale for branding this class as non-natural -not unnatural or ethereal but non-natural -
is the fact that they make the everyday woman feel inadequate. They bring psychological and physiological disorders and are proponents of general misery in the majority.
Today every writer worth his ink is championing the cause of the everyday woman – “the real beauty”.
Hmmm… interesting.
Logical.
Maybe yes, maybe not.
But is it possible we decode the above mentioned sentiment in some other manner and stretch the argument in another “irrelevant” direction.
Tiger Woods is not a golfer.
Somerset Maugham is not a writer.
Brendo is not an actor.
Why?
Because the years of dedication, hard work and commitment they put in to perfect their craft, change what is acceptable, set new standards, is nothing but a devious ploy to deride us.
Those bitches and bastards punish their bodies and minds just to humiliate us.
It is not a commitment to their art and craft but a conspiracy against us – “the real people”.
That pain is not real.
It is just a sham.
That reminds me of a conversation that a “real beauty” had with a “synthetic beauty”.
Real Beauty: “You are not real, I am”
Synthetic Beauty: “True. I am a thing of dreams and you an ugly reality.”
Accept the fact you lack the commitment to exercise.
Accept that you cannot resist those delicacies.
Accept the fact you don’t have the resolve to get up every day and burn that fat.
And accept you are fat ugly blob.
Or Celebrate mediocrity.
And this post makes me a writer par excellence, Hemingway is a just a figment of our collective imagination.
P.S: And don’t you write back about eating disorders, bulimia or any such thing. I am not condoning any such acts. It is our hatred towards anything that tries to rise above the average that disgusts me.
And who are these synthetic beauties - the wafer thin models parading down their wares on the ramps, adorning the billboards and generally peering down on us from every shop window.
The rationale for branding this class as non-natural -not unnatural or ethereal but non-natural -
is the fact that they make the everyday woman feel inadequate. They bring psychological and physiological disorders and are proponents of general misery in the majority.
Today every writer worth his ink is championing the cause of the everyday woman – “the real beauty”.
Hmmm… interesting.
Logical.
Maybe yes, maybe not.
But is it possible we decode the above mentioned sentiment in some other manner and stretch the argument in another “irrelevant” direction.
Tiger Woods is not a golfer.
Somerset Maugham is not a writer.
Brendo is not an actor.
Why?
Because the years of dedication, hard work and commitment they put in to perfect their craft, change what is acceptable, set new standards, is nothing but a devious ploy to deride us.
Those bitches and bastards punish their bodies and minds just to humiliate us.
It is not a commitment to their art and craft but a conspiracy against us – “the real people”.
That pain is not real.
It is just a sham.
That reminds me of a conversation that a “real beauty” had with a “synthetic beauty”.
Real Beauty: “You are not real, I am”
Synthetic Beauty: “True. I am a thing of dreams and you an ugly reality.”
Accept the fact you lack the commitment to exercise.
Accept that you cannot resist those delicacies.
Accept the fact you don’t have the resolve to get up every day and burn that fat.
And accept you are fat ugly blob.
Or Celebrate mediocrity.
And this post makes me a writer par excellence, Hemingway is a just a figment of our collective imagination.
P.S: And don’t you write back about eating disorders, bulimia or any such thing. I am not condoning any such acts. It is our hatred towards anything that tries to rise above the average that disgusts me.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Don't cry for me Delhi
I left Delhi some three years back. And I have some fond memories of the place.
Once in a while I think about shifting back to the place but these bouts of insanity are cured thanks to some timely meeting with a Delhite (when I say Delhite, pls read archtype North Indian).
Lets count the habits which would ensure that I stay away from the place as far as possible. And do I pray for the day when habitation on other planets would be a possibility.
1. The overbearing habit of over-familarity. The first meeting will start from"I have shared your underwear" relationship. Hey, I am meeting you for the first time, we are not lost buddies and lets keep it that way. And i do not share my underwear with anyone in any case.
2. And if best buddy syndrome was not bad enough, god forbid, if the gentleman you are meeting belongs to the same state, or has just transited through the city you belong, that would make him your bonafide relative. Dude, even by the highest ratio of the improbable probability if i had met you earlier, chances are i would have ignored you there also, if not kicked your butt out of the stratosphere.
3. "I am the undisputed lord of the universe". Me lord, you job is at the lowest end of the corporate food chain. My best wishes are with you, but till you become what you are not, I would prefer you behave and stay like a minion that you truly are.
4. They would end professional meetings not with a handshake but with a hug, and if you are not quick in your reflexes, you might get treated witha slobbering kiss also. Stay away from me you sex depraved pervert.
I can probably continue but I really need to go and take a bath.
Om Shanti Om.
Once in a while I think about shifting back to the place but these bouts of insanity are cured thanks to some timely meeting with a Delhite (when I say Delhite, pls read archtype North Indian).
Lets count the habits which would ensure that I stay away from the place as far as possible. And do I pray for the day when habitation on other planets would be a possibility.
1. The overbearing habit of over-familarity. The first meeting will start from"I have shared your underwear" relationship. Hey, I am meeting you for the first time, we are not lost buddies and lets keep it that way. And i do not share my underwear with anyone in any case.
2. And if best buddy syndrome was not bad enough, god forbid, if the gentleman you are meeting belongs to the same state, or has just transited through the city you belong, that would make him your bonafide relative. Dude, even by the highest ratio of the improbable probability if i had met you earlier, chances are i would have ignored you there also, if not kicked your butt out of the stratosphere.
3. "I am the undisputed lord of the universe". Me lord, you job is at the lowest end of the corporate food chain. My best wishes are with you, but till you become what you are not, I would prefer you behave and stay like a minion that you truly are.
4. They would end professional meetings not with a handshake but with a hug, and if you are not quick in your reflexes, you might get treated witha slobbering kiss also. Stay away from me you sex depraved pervert.
I can probably continue but I really need to go and take a bath.
Om Shanti Om.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
3:10 to Yuma
Fantastic dialogue in the movie...
"A man has to be big enough to realise how small he is"
"A man has to be big enough to realise how small he is"
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A thought
I face two perennial problems.
One I find myself unable to put my thoughts across to others in a cohesive manner, that means most of words that come out of my mouth are jumbled and without structure. Second problem is my failure in retaining some knowledge that I try to garner from books which I have enjoyed.
I really enjoy reading. And I read all kinds of stuff - pulp fiction, business books, comics, graphic novels, non-fiction, anything and everything that catches my fancy.
Ideally I would like to make some of these ideas part of me -words crafted so beautifully, thoughts expressed, connected, organized, weaved as l would never – my thoughts, my ideas, just said so much better.
As someone said once, the knowledge becomes part of you if you say it. Now, if you would remember the first sentence that is a problem – incoherent speech.
One day, I have no idea how; I found the solution to both my tribulations. A single action that would help address both the issues.
Read slowly.
The manner you read, is the manner you think and is the manner you speak.
Read fast, you tend to think fast and that means ideas and words flow in your mind in a supersonic pace, without structure and must come out at the same pace – without logic, without structure – confused audience.
Imagine it like a long chain of unconnected bogies of a train, each following the other and moving at the same pace. Each bogie is a thought which you want to convey to a passenger.
The way this will work is only when the passenger is able to board each bogie and if he misses one, the subsequent bogie cannot be boarded leading to an incomplete journey.
Now since the bogies are unconnected so the one in the front cannot control the next one, if you slow your pace, all the bogies would crash into each other, leading to a carnage of conversation and thoughts.
Ideal solution is to slowdown the pace.
Pace your thoughts and that would automatically pace your speech.
Read slow.
P.S: Can someone corroborate the theory?
One I find myself unable to put my thoughts across to others in a cohesive manner, that means most of words that come out of my mouth are jumbled and without structure. Second problem is my failure in retaining some knowledge that I try to garner from books which I have enjoyed.
I really enjoy reading. And I read all kinds of stuff - pulp fiction, business books, comics, graphic novels, non-fiction, anything and everything that catches my fancy.
Ideally I would like to make some of these ideas part of me -words crafted so beautifully, thoughts expressed, connected, organized, weaved as l would never – my thoughts, my ideas, just said so much better.
As someone said once, the knowledge becomes part of you if you say it. Now, if you would remember the first sentence that is a problem – incoherent speech.
One day, I have no idea how; I found the solution to both my tribulations. A single action that would help address both the issues.
Read slowly.
The manner you read, is the manner you think and is the manner you speak.
Read fast, you tend to think fast and that means ideas and words flow in your mind in a supersonic pace, without structure and must come out at the same pace – without logic, without structure – confused audience.
Imagine it like a long chain of unconnected bogies of a train, each following the other and moving at the same pace. Each bogie is a thought which you want to convey to a passenger.
The way this will work is only when the passenger is able to board each bogie and if he misses one, the subsequent bogie cannot be boarded leading to an incomplete journey.
Now since the bogies are unconnected so the one in the front cannot control the next one, if you slow your pace, all the bogies would crash into each other, leading to a carnage of conversation and thoughts.
Ideal solution is to slowdown the pace.
Pace your thoughts and that would automatically pace your speech.
Read slow.
P.S: Can someone corroborate the theory?
Friday, December 07, 2007
Whose life is it anyway?
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimcry, their passions a quotation." Oscar Wilde
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what?
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Baby Talk
Last month I was travelling to Delhi with my daughter.
As we were being transferred via the transit bus to our aircraft, the bus came to stop in front of a plane.
Avni is all happy and excited to see the plane.
She looks at the plane, turns to me and says "Dada, look plane nose"
She then again points to the plane and says "Dada, look plane eyes"
After which she gazes at the plane with quizzical expression for some time, turns towards me and asks "Dada, where plane teeth?"
Is the human brain wired to see everything from a single lens or we train it to find a reflection of ourselves in all objects?
I wonder, is this the reason we are so disdainful & inhuman towards anything - animate or inanimate - which is not US?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Parent Trap
A conversation between me and my little less than 2 year old daughter.
Me (with one finger raised): "Avni, what is this?"
Avni: "One"
Me (two fingers raised): "This?"
Avni: "Two"
Me (three fingers raised): "This?"
Avni: "Three"
Me (four fingers raised): "This?"
Avni: "Four"
Me (open palm): "This?"
Avni: "Hand"
Me (with one finger raised): "Avni, what is this?"
Avni: "One"
Me (two fingers raised): "This?"
Avni: "Two"
Me (three fingers raised): "This?"
Avni: "Three"
Me (four fingers raised): "This?"
Avni: "Four"
Me (open palm): "This?"
Avni: "Hand"
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Love Story
He sat still with a knife on his wrist.
He remembered the dream life, the joyful mornings and the tempestuous nights, the sunny silences and the stormy fights, the loving kiss and the passionate bite. He remembered every moment.
And he remembered the fateful night.
A single tear dropped from his eye.
“If not together in life, we will still meet”
At the first drop of blood I slowly moved towards him.
Sad they will never meet again.
He remembered the dream life, the joyful mornings and the tempestuous nights, the sunny silences and the stormy fights, the loving kiss and the passionate bite. He remembered every moment.
And he remembered the fateful night.
A single tear dropped from his eye.
“If not together in life, we will still meet”
At the first drop of blood I slowly moved towards him.
Sad they will never meet again.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Writer
“The role of a writer is not to say what we all can say but what we are unable to say”.. Anais Nin
Mr. Death
He was death.
Mr. Death.
Or that’s how he imagined himself to be.
The snatcher.
The cruel.
The unexpected surprise.
That unwanted guest.
I heard him once.
“Life.
When I was born I was not a beginning of a dream.
I was condemned to a nightmare, waiting to wake up.
What is life?
Nothing but a delusion.
A trick, a cheap trick conjured by an amateur magician.
An illusion.
They say find a reason to live.
They say find purpose.
Hypnotized hoodwinked fools.
I will find them and I will wake them up.
I will find them all.
One by one.
Life does not begin.
It ends.
.”
He stalked the day.
Babies.
Blooming love.
Carefree youth.
Joyous families.
Indulging rich.
Besieged poor .
Life.
He would never know.
He would never understand.
One day I plucked him as gently as everyone else before him.
And everyone after him.
Mr. Death.
Or that’s how he imagined himself to be.
The snatcher.
The cruel.
The unexpected surprise.
That unwanted guest.
I heard him once.
“Life.
When I was born I was not a beginning of a dream.
I was condemned to a nightmare, waiting to wake up.
What is life?
Nothing but a delusion.
A trick, a cheap trick conjured by an amateur magician.
An illusion.
They say find a reason to live.
They say find purpose.
Hypnotized hoodwinked fools.
I will find them and I will wake them up.
I will find them all.
One by one.
Life does not begin.
It ends.
.”
He stalked the day.
Babies.
Blooming love.
Carefree youth.
Joyous families.
Indulging rich.
Besieged poor .
Life.
He would never know.
He would never understand.
One day I plucked him as gently as everyone else before him.
And everyone after him.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Voice
Scratch. Scratch.
You can feel something gnawing from inside.
Feeling of restlessness.
You want to say something.
But no words come out.
Mind seeks meaning.
Body seeks redemption.
Empty world.
Shallow soul.
Meaningless life.
I was not meant to be this way.
This is not me.
I see a stranger everyday in the mirror with a familiar face.
Sell soap.
Pander beauty.
Where are the lost causes?
Unheard screams?
I must.
I would.
I will find my voice once again.
You can feel something gnawing from inside.
Feeling of restlessness.
You want to say something.
But no words come out.
Mind seeks meaning.
Body seeks redemption.
Empty world.
Shallow soul.
Meaningless life.
I was not meant to be this way.
This is not me.
I see a stranger everyday in the mirror with a familiar face.
Sell soap.
Pander beauty.
Where are the lost causes?
Unheard screams?
I must.
I would.
I will find my voice once again.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Octoberfest 2007
Ah, the pleasures and the perils of drinking.
I finally know how much beer this alcohol worn body can still take.
It is 330 ml x 20 glasses.
I plan to break this record next year without falling on my face (unlike this year).
P.S: Make it part of your calendar next year. Any reason is fine...beer, music, women
I finally know how much beer this alcohol worn body can still take.
It is 330 ml x 20 glasses.
I plan to break this record next year without falling on my face (unlike this year).
P.S: Make it part of your calendar next year. Any reason is fine...beer, music, women
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
I Know
Nature exits.
So do artists.
Nature.
God.
No reason asked, no reason given.
Sourabh, Sudip and Venkat - Thank you.
So do artists.
Nature.
God.
No reason asked, no reason given.
Sourabh, Sudip and Venkat - Thank you.
I was there
I was maybe a blink on the TRP of Zee Saragama but I was there.
I heard Anik, Raja, Poonam and Amanat perform on the same stage.
I will never say anything better on my blog.
I heard Anik, Raja, Poonam and Amanat perform on the same stage.
I will never say anything better on my blog.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Intelligence
Never mistake intelligence and juxtaposing your opinion of what is intelligent as same things.
One is a fact, other just an assumption.
One is a fact, other just an assumption.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Mr. Richards
I don't know how many of you have seen this ad and i don't remember the product except that it is for some bike model from Hero Honda.
The ad shows this guy rejecting the job offer from some Mr. Richards.
While watching this ad I wished he had accepted the offer.
You need to watch the disdain and the non-chalance with which he tears the letter and just throws the litter on the street and zooms away and you can still see the little pieces of paper getting scattered around (probably screaming it's not our fault, please throw us in the dustbin)
It would be good to get rid of junk like that from the country.
The ad shows this guy rejecting the job offer from some Mr. Richards.
While watching this ad I wished he had accepted the offer.
You need to watch the disdain and the non-chalance with which he tears the letter and just throws the litter on the street and zooms away and you can still see the little pieces of paper getting scattered around (probably screaming it's not our fault, please throw us in the dustbin)
It would be good to get rid of junk like that from the country.
Black & White
Just wondering, black and white is supposedly a classic combination.
In sartorial sense, when you see a white guy dresssed in black he looks pretty neat but how come the reverse is not true.
Nothing is more hideous to see a dark indian dressed in surf washed white clothes.
I wonder.
In sartorial sense, when you see a white guy dresssed in black he looks pretty neat but how come the reverse is not true.
Nothing is more hideous to see a dark indian dressed in surf washed white clothes.
I wonder.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Young men and Old boys
Men in their 30, 40 today behave, dress, think like teenagers. And feel proud of the fact.
It is an interesting phenomenon and requires some introspection.
I am going to suggest one theory, see if you find it interesting.
For any behaviour to become permanent it requires time. Only when your mind is in a steady state it becomes stable and is longer transient.
Till a decade back, couple of years here and there, men never had this stable state. Babies, then it was school time, then the pressure of college, immediately after college the struggle for a job, as soon as job was secured, it was marriage time, and within a year one had babies, then the babies turned young, struggle for their school, education, then career, marriage and before they realised they were grandfathers and a couple of years (again ignoring some years here and there) they were dead.
See the cycle again, no phase lasted longer than 3-4 years.
Against that today, there is a long gap after job before men move to the next challenge of life, and mind you I'm not talking about marriage.
They for a long time stay in the young,independent,financially stable, no responsibilty, hedonistic state of mind - The boy mindset.
The changed social mores have ensured that society will spiral down to more juvenile and frivolous mindset. This also means society would lose serious and mature thinkers, people who can help the world improve and evolve.
Naughtier minds, dangerous toys.
So yea old boy, drop that playstation, now don't pick up that bazooka either, it's time to grow up.
It is an interesting phenomenon and requires some introspection.
I am going to suggest one theory, see if you find it interesting.
For any behaviour to become permanent it requires time. Only when your mind is in a steady state it becomes stable and is longer transient.
Till a decade back, couple of years here and there, men never had this stable state. Babies, then it was school time, then the pressure of college, immediately after college the struggle for a job, as soon as job was secured, it was marriage time, and within a year one had babies, then the babies turned young, struggle for their school, education, then career, marriage and before they realised they were grandfathers and a couple of years (again ignoring some years here and there) they were dead.
See the cycle again, no phase lasted longer than 3-4 years.
Against that today, there is a long gap after job before men move to the next challenge of life, and mind you I'm not talking about marriage.
They for a long time stay in the young,independent,financially stable, no responsibilty, hedonistic state of mind - The boy mindset.
The changed social mores have ensured that society will spiral down to more juvenile and frivolous mindset. This also means society would lose serious and mature thinkers, people who can help the world improve and evolve.
Naughtier minds, dangerous toys.
So yea old boy, drop that playstation, now don't pick up that bazooka either, it's time to grow up.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Gangaram
It happened such a long time back.
Like yesterday.
Gangaram wanted to die. He had lived once.
When Gangaram was young he had only one dream, to be a soldier.
He was born poor and was an orphan.
Rejected by his parents at birth.
It would have been so easy for him to embrace me. When nobody wanted him, I was there for him.
But he fought me from the beginning.
He hurt my ego.
Maybe to be a soldier was his destiny.
Gangaram, the foot soldier.
First in the line.
Challenging me, mocking me.
So close, still so far.
Always just beyond my reach.
It was not the time. I knew I will have him one day but never on that day.
He was never afraid of me.
Then a strange thing happened. We became friends.
We started riding together.
Other soldiers wanted to stand next to him on the battleground, he always came back.
He had new friends.
He was popular.
He was somebody.
He thought he was living.
But now he was scared of me.
I who was so close to him, his first enemy, his first friend.
This time he did not fight me.
He rejected me.
He had hurt me again.
Then one day fate dealt a cruel blow.
His lost his fighting arm.
His reason, his identity, his life.
If I was there I would have made it easier for him.
Soldiers want to die as soldiers.
He called me, he begged me.
Today he wanted me.
I refused to oblige the old friend.
Everyone doesn’t hope to live.
Some hope to die.
Gangaram. The proud Gangaram.
The soldier, now an object of pity.
I am cruel.
I am proud.
I wanted my revenge.
My revenge was to let him live.
We were again there from where we started.
We fought again and this time I won.
I waited till there was no life left in him.
I didn’t kill him, I killed his spirit.
He was born unwanted and he died unwanted.
Like yesterday.
Gangaram wanted to die. He had lived once.
When Gangaram was young he had only one dream, to be a soldier.
He was born poor and was an orphan.
Rejected by his parents at birth.
It would have been so easy for him to embrace me. When nobody wanted him, I was there for him.
But he fought me from the beginning.
He hurt my ego.
Maybe to be a soldier was his destiny.
Gangaram, the foot soldier.
First in the line.
Challenging me, mocking me.
So close, still so far.
Always just beyond my reach.
It was not the time. I knew I will have him one day but never on that day.
He was never afraid of me.
Then a strange thing happened. We became friends.
We started riding together.
Other soldiers wanted to stand next to him on the battleground, he always came back.
He had new friends.
He was popular.
He was somebody.
He thought he was living.
But now he was scared of me.
I who was so close to him, his first enemy, his first friend.
This time he did not fight me.
He rejected me.
He had hurt me again.
Then one day fate dealt a cruel blow.
His lost his fighting arm.
His reason, his identity, his life.
If I was there I would have made it easier for him.
Soldiers want to die as soldiers.
He called me, he begged me.
Today he wanted me.
I refused to oblige the old friend.
Everyone doesn’t hope to live.
Some hope to die.
Gangaram. The proud Gangaram.
The soldier, now an object of pity.
I am cruel.
I am proud.
I wanted my revenge.
My revenge was to let him live.
We were again there from where we started.
We fought again and this time I won.
I waited till there was no life left in him.
I didn’t kill him, I killed his spirit.
He was born unwanted and he died unwanted.
The lonely flower
Flowers are not an entity but a concept.
An idea that transcends reality.
Flowers are a manifestation of what is normally hidden from us by nature.
They are the touch of lovers, they are lost memories, they are the joy of a child, they are the ecstasy of meeting & the sadness of leaving, and they are hope, desire, success, faith, love.
They give meaning to life and they are the meaning of life.
No one knows how he came into being in middle of nowhere.
But he was there resplendent in his colors.
Full of life, sure of his destiny.
But he was lonely.
He still wasn’t a flower.
He desired to be a flower and its meaning.
Desire is life’s biggest folly and strongest ally.
Days passed, weeks passed.
He knew he didn’t have much time.
He could sense me, feel me waiting patiently.
He would push himself a little higher, blush a little stronger.
Not yet, he would say.
One day he could see them.
The little brother and sister, jumping all over, playing while their father stood in a corner looking at them with indulgent eyes.
But he was too far away. They could not see him.
He tried to push himself from behind the stones.
Then they saw him and together ran towards him.
And together gleefully they blew away his drying petals.
He smiled and came in my arms.
Sometimes you live your life in a moment.
An idea that transcends reality.
Flowers are a manifestation of what is normally hidden from us by nature.
They are the touch of lovers, they are lost memories, they are the joy of a child, they are the ecstasy of meeting & the sadness of leaving, and they are hope, desire, success, faith, love.
They give meaning to life and they are the meaning of life.
No one knows how he came into being in middle of nowhere.
But he was there resplendent in his colors.
Full of life, sure of his destiny.
But he was lonely.
He still wasn’t a flower.
He desired to be a flower and its meaning.
Desire is life’s biggest folly and strongest ally.
Days passed, weeks passed.
He knew he didn’t have much time.
He could sense me, feel me waiting patiently.
He would push himself a little higher, blush a little stronger.
Not yet, he would say.
One day he could see them.
The little brother and sister, jumping all over, playing while their father stood in a corner looking at them with indulgent eyes.
But he was too far away. They could not see him.
He tried to push himself from behind the stones.
Then they saw him and together ran towards him.
And together gleefully they blew away his drying petals.
He smiled and came in my arms.
Sometimes you live your life in a moment.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Spent
I read a book yesterday, and I am still trying to understand why does that book exist.
The book in question is Spent by Joe Matt, technically it falls under the category of a Graphic novel or sequential art or illustrated novel or a comic (whichever term you are comfortable with).
But for me it is none of above, true it has panels, there are characters, dialogues everything but the question that still begs to be answered is why?
It is not a unsatisfying book either, it was fun to read, it had its poignancy, witty conversations, character definitions, everything that a conventional book should have but the question still remains why?
So many whys?
Let me explain the plot in brief so that you can understand my confusion better and hopefully as I write it I would be able to fathom its rationale and its raison-d-etre (i hope I spelled it right).
The book is about the author's obsessive-compulsive behaviour and the twelve years he spent in Canada as an illegal resident there.
These are just some facts, the book does not delve on all of these facts.
It is primarily about the author and his personality. It starts from no where (actually in a book store where author is with one of his friends and he discovers one of the comic books that his friend is fond of and he buys the only copy available to infuriate him) and is focused on the author's addiction to pornographic movies and masturbation.
Joe Matt has projected himself as a loner due to his unnatural addiction,unable to find a steady girlfriend (he made his last one leave to pursue his self-afflicted carnal pleasures). He spends most of the time editing porn movies to have the purest collection of the best scenes and the best basest women. He is the miser to the extent of not eating food,staying in a sub-human dingy accomodation, he is a socio-path to the extent that he keeps jars to pee in his room, so that he doesn't have to meet his landlady or other inhabitants in the paid accomodation (they share a common loo). He does this despite being decently off. He refuses to spend any money, tries to fleece his friends and has only two pre-occupations, thinking about sex and money.He is so very addicted to these that he even compromises his career (as a graphic novelist) and has not done anything for years (he apparently spent lots of years on this book, which could have been possible in months).
Nothing wrong, these all can be and are interesting premises to create an interesting story (which he has).
So why I am perplexed or disturbed by this book?
What I am unable to fathom is the extent to which the author willing to depreciate himself in the public eye. He is not ashamed to embarass himself and lay bare his darkest thoughts. He is willing to show (it's a graphic novel) his sexual organs, the way he masturbates, his selfish focus on himself and his needs.
All laid bare for public ridicule.
This humilation is so dark, so stark, that the fact suddenly seems fictional.
Is it real or an alternate fiction diguised as a biography?
I wonder and I reel.
I will clean the puke from my carpet in the evening.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Passion
Passion.
Such a commonly used word.
Passion for life.
Passion in life.
Do things passionately.
He is such a passionate worker.
Passionate lover.
Passionate spectator.
Fact is, despite its liberal usage, passion probably is the hardest to define, forget practice.
Passion is a commitment.
It gives meaning to life and is the meaning of life.
It's not about doing something or anything well. It is also not even about enjoying something.
It is loving it, loving it more than anything else in life.
People generally say the word passion, while actually mean desire.
Desire is a thought, empty, meaningless, an end without beginning.
People seek life and look outwards for it. At friends, icons, symbols, they project others life, their world, their reality their passion unto themselves.
Another fallacy which is associated with passion is success. Success defines passion.
Success is external.
Passion is I, within & without.
It can be enjoyed with many but shared with none.
Seek passion, revel in passion, wallow in passion, burn yourself.
So what is passion?
It is nothing or everything. Because it is you.
And the day you find yourself, (to paraphrase a friend) you will leave your footprints on the sands of time.
Such a commonly used word.
Passion for life.
Passion in life.
Do things passionately.
He is such a passionate worker.
Passionate lover.
Passionate spectator.
Fact is, despite its liberal usage, passion probably is the hardest to define, forget practice.
Passion is a commitment.
It gives meaning to life and is the meaning of life.
It's not about doing something or anything well. It is also not even about enjoying something.
It is loving it, loving it more than anything else in life.
People generally say the word passion, while actually mean desire.
Desire is a thought, empty, meaningless, an end without beginning.
People seek life and look outwards for it. At friends, icons, symbols, they project others life, their world, their reality their passion unto themselves.
Another fallacy which is associated with passion is success. Success defines passion.
Success is external.
Passion is I, within & without.
It can be enjoyed with many but shared with none.
Seek passion, revel in passion, wallow in passion, burn yourself.
So what is passion?
It is nothing or everything. Because it is you.
And the day you find yourself, (to paraphrase a friend) you will leave your footprints on the sands of time.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
FAHRENHEIT 451
If you want a commentary on modern life, there might be no superior book than FAHRENHEIT 451.
Extract from the book-
"We know how to nip most of them in the bud, early. You can't build a house without nails and wood. If you don't want a house built, hide the nails and wood. If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the Government is inefficient, top heavy, and tax mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non? combustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely. I know, I've tried it; to hell with it. So bring on your clubs and parties, your acrobats and magicians, your dare-devils, jet cars, motor cycle helicopters, your sex and heroin, more of everything to do with automatic reflex. If the drama is bad, if the film says nothing, if the play is hollow, sting me with the theremin, loudly. I'll think I'm responding to the play, when it's only a tactile reaction to vibration. But I don't care. I just like solid entertainment."
Tragic but true. In our hearts we always suspected that we lead a shallow life but the book makes us aware of the abysmal depths we have plunged to.
Extract from the book-
"We know how to nip most of them in the bud, early. You can't build a house without nails and wood. If you don't want a house built, hide the nails and wood. If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the Government is inefficient, top heavy, and tax mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non? combustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely. I know, I've tried it; to hell with it. So bring on your clubs and parties, your acrobats and magicians, your dare-devils, jet cars, motor cycle helicopters, your sex and heroin, more of everything to do with automatic reflex. If the drama is bad, if the film says nothing, if the play is hollow, sting me with the theremin, loudly. I'll think I'm responding to the play, when it's only a tactile reaction to vibration. But I don't care. I just like solid entertainment."
Tragic but true. In our hearts we always suspected that we lead a shallow life but the book makes us aware of the abysmal depths we have plunged to.
Friday, August 17, 2007
I am less Indian
Indians in company of foreigners try to emphasize only on one point that they are more like them than the uncouth,uncultured Indians.
Yes I am an Indian but I am less Indian.
Can we stoop any lower?
Yes I am an Indian but I am less Indian.
Can we stoop any lower?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Sanjay Dutt
For the last two days there is debate on every news channel whether the court verdict on Sanjay Dutt is fair.
Let me say in the beginning that I belong to the group that belives he should have been freed and my opinion is biased since I have been his fan for the last 20 years.
I have two rationale for believing this-
Rationale 1: The purpose of law is not to punish the individual but the act. This means either there should be an action of malice or an intent of malice.
Now it is easy to say that how can one prove whether an action would or would not lead to the wrongdoing (in this case Sanjay Dutt possessing the gun).
In normal circumstances (with common citizens) it might be difficult to differentiate but with a celebrity, whose every action has been in public eye for the last 48 years, it is easier to establish the intent.
Also unlike Salman "Black Buck" Khan where the illegal activity actually caused harm, there is no reason to believe that it would have led to any action.
The history of entertainment from Sinatara to Sanjay is full of such stupid follies.
I firmly believe that the very foundation of justice has been ignored through this judgement.
Rationale 2: There should be different laws for such entertainers. As simple as that.
I apologise if I have offended anyone.
Let me say in the beginning that I belong to the group that belives he should have been freed and my opinion is biased since I have been his fan for the last 20 years.
I have two rationale for believing this-
Rationale 1: The purpose of law is not to punish the individual but the act. This means either there should be an action of malice or an intent of malice.
Now it is easy to say that how can one prove whether an action would or would not lead to the wrongdoing (in this case Sanjay Dutt possessing the gun).
In normal circumstances (with common citizens) it might be difficult to differentiate but with a celebrity, whose every action has been in public eye for the last 48 years, it is easier to establish the intent.
Also unlike Salman "Black Buck" Khan where the illegal activity actually caused harm, there is no reason to believe that it would have led to any action.
The history of entertainment from Sinatara to Sanjay is full of such stupid follies.
I firmly believe that the very foundation of justice has been ignored through this judgement.
Rationale 2: There should be different laws for such entertainers. As simple as that.
I apologise if I have offended anyone.
Friday, July 06, 2007
The civil civil-servant
I was talking to a Gentleman who was a government employee sometime back and now works for the same organization where I am employed.
This esteemed ex-civil-servant was ruing the day he decided to quit the govt. job to join a private entity and how humiliating it has been for him to work since then.
He continued in the same breath, that when he was with the govt. how he could make people wait or not meet them at all for no rhyme or reason. Also either those guys followed (rather obeyed) what he said else they were just thrown.
The first thought that came to my mind was “Good For You”.
But not really, he has only changed the job, not the attitude.
Some people the more they change, the more they remain the same.
This esteemed ex-civil-servant was ruing the day he decided to quit the govt. job to join a private entity and how humiliating it has been for him to work since then.
He continued in the same breath, that when he was with the govt. how he could make people wait or not meet them at all for no rhyme or reason. Also either those guys followed (rather obeyed) what he said else they were just thrown.
The first thought that came to my mind was “Good For You”.
But not really, he has only changed the job, not the attitude.
Some people the more they change, the more they remain the same.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Affluent Effluence
Have you ever thought about the economic boom and its implications?
To a majority of people who would read this, robust economy would only have a personal meaning - fatter pay packets, more job opportunities, dream about bigger car, next house, next vacation and spending couple of thousands over drinks every week without guilt.
But this individual relation and personalization of the unprecedented growth has a darker side to it, a much darker side.
We all are familiar with the 80/20 rule, which means that the economy grows due to the contribution of 20% of the people as these 20% people consume 80% of the goods. This can be translated in another manner growing economy makes only 20% people richer and leaves the balance 80% people on the fringes and with time poorer.
Why? When the income levels go up the sensitivity towards prices come down and the companies are able to increase prices without losing sales, these include basic necessities.
So child born in the lower middle class will never know the taste of apple, never lick an ice-cream and maybe with time also learn to eat a little less.
No growth in that sense can be exclusive or should be so damn insensitive & one sided. Growth has to be defined by the society, emanate from the needs of the society and not dictated by greed and self preservation.
The growth paeans that we are singing today are nothing but tomfoolery. This growth is meaningless and unsustainable in the larger picture. When I am asking for twenty or thirty or forty lakh salary for selling something which is as superfluous as a soap or a cola or aero-grip high traction aerospace soled shoes, I am also telling someone please go hungry.
Is this the meaning of growth?
You tell me and you tell yourself when that 6 year old little girl gets your scotch glass.
To a majority of people who would read this, robust economy would only have a personal meaning - fatter pay packets, more job opportunities, dream about bigger car, next house, next vacation and spending couple of thousands over drinks every week without guilt.
But this individual relation and personalization of the unprecedented growth has a darker side to it, a much darker side.
We all are familiar with the 80/20 rule, which means that the economy grows due to the contribution of 20% of the people as these 20% people consume 80% of the goods. This can be translated in another manner growing economy makes only 20% people richer and leaves the balance 80% people on the fringes and with time poorer.
Why? When the income levels go up the sensitivity towards prices come down and the companies are able to increase prices without losing sales, these include basic necessities.
So child born in the lower middle class will never know the taste of apple, never lick an ice-cream and maybe with time also learn to eat a little less.
No growth in that sense can be exclusive or should be so damn insensitive & one sided. Growth has to be defined by the society, emanate from the needs of the society and not dictated by greed and self preservation.
The growth paeans that we are singing today are nothing but tomfoolery. This growth is meaningless and unsustainable in the larger picture. When I am asking for twenty or thirty or forty lakh salary for selling something which is as superfluous as a soap or a cola or aero-grip high traction aerospace soled shoes, I am also telling someone please go hungry.
Is this the meaning of growth?
You tell me and you tell yourself when that 6 year old little girl gets your scotch glass.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Someone
Someone knocked.
Someone knocked down.
Someone was waiting.
Someone came calling.
Someone was ready.
Someone was dressed.
Someone was nothing.
Someone was everything.
Someone said everything.
Someone heard nothing.
Someone was living.
Someone was alive.
Someone hoped.
Someone was hope.
Someone wanted nothing.
Someone gave nothing.
Someone was I.
Someone was you.
Someone knocked down.
Someone was waiting.
Someone came calling.
Someone was ready.
Someone was dressed.
Someone was nothing.
Someone was everything.
Someone said everything.
Someone heard nothing.
Someone was living.
Someone was alive.
Someone hoped.
Someone was hope.
Someone wanted nothing.
Someone gave nothing.
Someone was I.
Someone was you.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
5 things I wish I can write
1. Duality of human nature
The construct for this idea I have for the last couple of years but have never been able to expand it beyond the idea.
It primarily is a murder mystery where the protagonist needs to solve the mystery in the classic whodunit format.
The only difference is that instead of one there are two parallel stories from the point of view of the central character.
Both (or the same) of them meet different people during the course of the story, these characters would say the same lines but the difference would come from the lens from which the central character would view them.
For one people would be honest & well meaning and for the other (same) nothing but blatant liars. And each in his own way would be lead to the same truth.
I have also thought of the format of the book, one starts from page one and the other from the last page with the ending in the middle.
One story is would be on white pages and with black text and the other inthe reverse.
Conclusion of the same would be on a grey page.
2. Explain “Truth is a matter of imagination”.
3. Write a murder mystery about the murder of death
4. Write about nothing
5. Write a letter
The construct for this idea I have for the last couple of years but have never been able to expand it beyond the idea.
It primarily is a murder mystery where the protagonist needs to solve the mystery in the classic whodunit format.
The only difference is that instead of one there are two parallel stories from the point of view of the central character.
Both (or the same) of them meet different people during the course of the story, these characters would say the same lines but the difference would come from the lens from which the central character would view them.
For one people would be honest & well meaning and for the other (same) nothing but blatant liars. And each in his own way would be lead to the same truth.
I have also thought of the format of the book, one starts from page one and the other from the last page with the ending in the middle.
One story is would be on white pages and with black text and the other inthe reverse.
Conclusion of the same would be on a grey page.
2. Explain “Truth is a matter of imagination”.
3. Write a murder mystery about the murder of death
4. Write about nothing
5. Write a letter
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Indian Advertising – My historical perspective
Steven Levitt in his book Freakonomics mentions that there are certain rules to follow whenever you are looking at any problem-
1. Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life
2.Conventional wisdom is often wrong
3. And dramatic effects often have distant, sometimes subtle causes.
Lets see if we can apply these to understand one common underlying reason for the downfall of Indian advertising.
If one looks at advertising objectively ( despite subjective being the more popular refrain in the industry I am using the term objective) and delve deeper beyond consumer research, brand values, soul of the brand, the cornerstone of any great work in this industry has been trust.
I can hear someone say - Motherhood statement.
And I would agree without the context it is.
But the concept of trust runs deeper in the history of Indian advertising and has shaped the industry more than any other economic, social or moral reasons. And our industry has never been based on this foundation and has always been more of an indulgence than a necessity.
Post independence most of the big businesses that shaped our economy were in the shadows of towering personalities (Tatas, Birlas, Modis, Goenkas) and these businesses were more their fiefdoms. And these individuals were extremely secure due to the socio-economic approach the country had decided as its path to destiny (red-tapism, favouritism, non-competitive are some other modern & recent coinages for the same).
This pre-globalization business set up can be seen more in context if it is put in the framework of a kingdom rather than a professional set up, with the owner as a king of this terrain.
The king obviously has his vazirs, military advisors, generals and so & so forth. Among all this elaborate paraphernalia there is also the court jest, whose role is to amuse the king.
And in the Indian business the court jest was none other than the advertising fraternity.
Court jest technically does not impact the future of the kingdom in any way (there would be some dissenting voices, which would say in the historical standpoint jest’s role was to tell the truth to the king. Humor them, but largely I would choose to ignore them), which is decided by the advisors, they are not involved in either expansion of the kingdom or protecting the kingdom, which is handled by the generals. Their sole survival was based on their ability to keep the king in a good time and if this was done well, they were in turn indulged.
The that era of Indian advertising, the golden era, advertising was most unnecessary. I want to buy a scooter, I have only one choice (and I want it so badly that I am willing to wait fro 18 months for my turn) do you really think someone needs to tell me “Hamara Bajaj” (or whatever slogan was playing then).
Advertising was just nothing but a drum-man singing the paeans for the benevolent king.
Than came 1990’s “the independence era” and suddenly these hosanna singers were a nuisance to the erstwhile kings.
The era of nawabs and kings was over.
But like an old whore who still puts her make-up and stands on the street hoping for a customer advertising industry was literally left high & dry.
The survival required action and sound advice, which was coming from the vazirs and
generals – The professional managers.
It was fun(ny) till it lasted and as any actor would tell you, the second act is always the toughest and sequels have never done well.
Until or unless the industry does not come back as in a new avatar and adapts itself to the new reality they would always be like an actor whose time has run out.
Do let me know if you think that the joke has fallen flat.
P.S: When I had started writing the article I had planned to build on the theme of trust. The logic would have gone something like this: large businesses run by individuals needed to base their future on others they could trust. And the earlier work generated by the industry was more a result of trust that was bestowed upon them by so called kings rather than based on sound logic.
The fact this trust was not betrayed (though there can be some stray examples) exemplifies the honesty & commitment of the people who shaped our industry. This commitment is missing from the present generation and the trust needs to be earned by them rather than expected as a perk…. So & so forth.
But somewhere along the analogy of the jest ran amok like a wayward child and despite my best efforts could not be reined.
If suggested I am willing to give this thought another shot.
1. Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life
2.Conventional wisdom is often wrong
3. And dramatic effects often have distant, sometimes subtle causes.
Lets see if we can apply these to understand one common underlying reason for the downfall of Indian advertising.
If one looks at advertising objectively ( despite subjective being the more popular refrain in the industry I am using the term objective) and delve deeper beyond consumer research, brand values, soul of the brand, the cornerstone of any great work in this industry has been trust.
I can hear someone say - Motherhood statement.
And I would agree without the context it is.
But the concept of trust runs deeper in the history of Indian advertising and has shaped the industry more than any other economic, social or moral reasons. And our industry has never been based on this foundation and has always been more of an indulgence than a necessity.
Post independence most of the big businesses that shaped our economy were in the shadows of towering personalities (Tatas, Birlas, Modis, Goenkas) and these businesses were more their fiefdoms. And these individuals were extremely secure due to the socio-economic approach the country had decided as its path to destiny (red-tapism, favouritism, non-competitive are some other modern & recent coinages for the same).
This pre-globalization business set up can be seen more in context if it is put in the framework of a kingdom rather than a professional set up, with the owner as a king of this terrain.
The king obviously has his vazirs, military advisors, generals and so & so forth. Among all this elaborate paraphernalia there is also the court jest, whose role is to amuse the king.
And in the Indian business the court jest was none other than the advertising fraternity.
Court jest technically does not impact the future of the kingdom in any way (there would be some dissenting voices, which would say in the historical standpoint jest’s role was to tell the truth to the king. Humor them, but largely I would choose to ignore them), which is decided by the advisors, they are not involved in either expansion of the kingdom or protecting the kingdom, which is handled by the generals. Their sole survival was based on their ability to keep the king in a good time and if this was done well, they were in turn indulged.
The that era of Indian advertising, the golden era, advertising was most unnecessary. I want to buy a scooter, I have only one choice (and I want it so badly that I am willing to wait fro 18 months for my turn) do you really think someone needs to tell me “Hamara Bajaj” (or whatever slogan was playing then).
Advertising was just nothing but a drum-man singing the paeans for the benevolent king.
Than came 1990’s “the independence era” and suddenly these hosanna singers were a nuisance to the erstwhile kings.
The era of nawabs and kings was over.
But like an old whore who still puts her make-up and stands on the street hoping for a customer advertising industry was literally left high & dry.
The survival required action and sound advice, which was coming from the vazirs and
generals – The professional managers.
It was fun(ny) till it lasted and as any actor would tell you, the second act is always the toughest and sequels have never done well.
Until or unless the industry does not come back as in a new avatar and adapts itself to the new reality they would always be like an actor whose time has run out.
Do let me know if you think that the joke has fallen flat.
P.S: When I had started writing the article I had planned to build on the theme of trust. The logic would have gone something like this: large businesses run by individuals needed to base their future on others they could trust. And the earlier work generated by the industry was more a result of trust that was bestowed upon them by so called kings rather than based on sound logic.
The fact this trust was not betrayed (though there can be some stray examples) exemplifies the honesty & commitment of the people who shaped our industry. This commitment is missing from the present generation and the trust needs to be earned by them rather than expected as a perk…. So & so forth.
But somewhere along the analogy of the jest ran amok like a wayward child and despite my best efforts could not be reined.
If suggested I am willing to give this thought another shot.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Bache Do he ache…. Spiral to Doom
Indian government for years has been propagating the need for family planning in the country. The primary logic for the same is that the population boom that the country has seen will adversely impact not only the living conditions, dissemination of the basic necessities but also the growth of the economy.
On the face of it, the foundation of the logic seems sound and irrefutable. And world over one can find ample examples where this policy has provided rich dividends for the country and the citizens.
But unfortunately for India what is true for one need not be beneficial for all. And to attribute growth only to one factor without considering other equally important factors can lead to an uncontrollable spiral.
To understand this better lets consider how our reality is diverse from the countries where this policy has worked.
1. Education: Our education levels are abysmally lower than the west
On the face of it, the foundation of the logic seems sound and irrefutable. And world over one can find ample examples where this policy has provided rich dividends for the country and the citizens.
But unfortunately for India what is true for one need not be beneficial for all. And to attribute growth only to one factor without considering other equally important factors can lead to an uncontrollable spiral.
To understand this better lets consider how our reality is diverse from the countries where this policy has worked.
1. Education: Our education levels are abysmally lower than the west
2. Disparity: The disparity in the over-all well being of the society is too vast in the country. We have three distinct classes in the country – Super Rich, middle class and the destitute. And the behavior and needs of each are as disparate as chalk from cheese.
3. Agrarian society – Despite the much hyped technology boom in the country a large portion of our economy and employment is dependent on the agriculture sector.
All these factors lead to circumstances rebut the propagation of the family planning idea in this country.
All these factors lead to circumstances rebut the propagation of the family planning idea in this country.
Let me explain how, the growth of the country depends on the investments that the government makes in various areas from infrastructure to education to health to industries to any other sphere that are basic necessities like water, electricity etc.
And the funds for these investments largely come from the tax-payers. And in this country who are the tax-payers, only the middle class. Rich never feel the need to abide by the law of the land, poor obviously have nothing to contribute and the farmers have been exempted by our benevolent government in addition to providing free electricity and water to them.
And out of these three who do you think will feel the need of family planning. Again the middle class. If you take all there money would they have any other option but to have less kids.
Rich see family planning a function of wants and means. Means they have in excess (remember their abhorrence to pay taxes) and can want (&have) more kids. Poor feels that he would not be able to feed even one child (one or ten counts the same), so why should he compromise on his carnal needs? Man needs some compensation somewhere.
All this cumulatively lead where, more rich people (who still won’t be paying their taxes), more poor people and declining middle numbers. Now do your mathematics, dwindling earners for the government, more mouths to feed and even less money for growth.
I call it the spiral of doom.
So lets us all open our loins be called true patriots.
Your country needs your libido.
All this cumulatively lead where, more rich people (who still won’t be paying their taxes), more poor people and declining middle numbers. Now do your mathematics, dwindling earners for the government, more mouths to feed and even less money for growth.
I call it the spiral of doom.
So lets us all open our loins be called true patriots.
Your country needs your libido.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Must watch movies- Part 1
Fun Movies
1. Angoor - Smart and the subtle. Crafted to perfection
2. Padosan - Innocence and jest for life of the characters makes the movie an unforgettable experience
3. Andaaz Apna Apna - India’s Dumb & Dumber. And this movie is the original.
4. Peecha Karo - Meaningless, pointless. Great joy ride.
Thinking Movies
1. Being Schmidt -To know why Jack Nickolson is an actor’s actor
2. 21 Grams - Art of direction
3. Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro - Dark. Humour that will depress because of its reality.
Action/thrillers
1. Usual suspects - I bet no one can guess the end. And while you are at it also watch Hindi adaptation “Chocolate” to see how a good movie can be slaughtered
2. Departed - Matter of fact action, no melodrama, edge of the seat thrills, spellbinding performances
3. 13 Tzemati - Disturbing. The movie makes you a character in the plot and the horror of it hits like a hammer when you least expect it.
Movies that do justice to the Book
1. Godfather - Details unnecessary
2. Black Friday - Actually better than the book
3. Sin City - It is a comic book that reads on its own. Amazingly true to the art form.
4. L.A. Confidential & Black Dahlia - Movies based on the books by the same author
5. 300 - Almost there. Mandatory to read the book before you watch the movie, its not history being shown but a book being filmed.
Monday, June 11, 2007
When will people learn
Shiv Sena, the self appointed moral police, is now up against orkut for hosting “I hate Bal Thackeray” community.
People who started this community must be living in a self-delusionary world where they think they have a right to express their views and voice their opinions.
How could they even imagine that the king of values, the keeper of dharma, caretaker of Indian ethos would even be accountable?
You cannot judge the judge.
The right to express is granted to those with stronger lung power and the muscle to flex.
Let the people understand Shiv Sena is doing this only for their benefit. They have no ulterior motive or self interest to preserve. When people write negative about Mr. Thackeray they undermine the Indian culture and heritage. King is a shadow of God on the earth and above criticism from mere mortals.
So hear yea all, once & for ever, believers of human dignity are infidels, deaf & mute is a virtue and democracy is dead.
Long live the king.
You cannot judge the judge.
The right to express is granted to those with stronger lung power and the muscle to flex.
Let the people understand Shiv Sena is doing this only for their benefit. They have no ulterior motive or self interest to preserve. When people write negative about Mr. Thackeray they undermine the Indian culture and heritage. King is a shadow of God on the earth and above criticism from mere mortals.
So hear yea all, once & for ever, believers of human dignity are infidels, deaf & mute is a virtue and democracy is dead.
Long live the king.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Culture Shock
It is sometimes interesting to observe how the sign language of a society changes with the general affluence levels.
In India if you have to ask anyone for light you normally make the sign of striking a match in the air, while in the west you have to hold an imaginary lighter and click it.
Fashion – Past Perfect or future perfect
Introduction
One term that you come across very often these days is fashion. You have fashion designers, fashion shows, fashionable celebrities, in-fashion statements and the list goes on.
Now I am no expert on fashion but I have my own limited understanding of the term and my own definitions. As far as I know fashion is niche, exclusive and never inclusive, it is a spectacle; it makes a person stand out in a crowd.
Can some one explain me how in the world a crowd that looks the same, dresses the same is the in-crowd and not the out-crowd?
One argument can be that it is based on ones frame of reference, for example rich are fashionable to aspiring class, aspiring to the middle class and so & so forth. Fair enough, so within their own set all these people are the out-crowd and somewhere else the in-crowd. Ahem, I lost myself somewhere there.
Another anomaly that I find very interesting is that fashion is something that might become popular in the future and would no longer be fashion, what I call future perfect. “Might” is a key word, fashion is unpredictable.
Please don’t confuse fashion with fad though both are very close to each other. I will explain “might” later. To continue the story, but what we have is months in advance designers parading anorexic bodies displaying the future and surprise surprise they are right.
Before we take this further let me explain why I say “might” become popular. Fashion is individualistic by nature and hence not popular and never mass.
There is a very popular quote on fashion which goes “people who follow fashion are wearing _______ and those who make fashion are not.”
So an individuals taste can become the norm (& in turn move out of fashion to popular domain) and maybe not.
So what we define fashion is nothing but past-perfect and never future perfect.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
UnSpeak
I recently read a very interesting book "UnSpeak" by Steven Poole.
The whole debate or the premise of the book is based on how the political parties or cause activitist coin words or phrases which make the debate redundant or make the whole opinion one-sided. To take an example which is in the beginning of the book itself, point is illustrated through the debate on the woman's right to abortion. The pro-abortionists coined the word "pro-choice" so if you are not pro-choice you are automatically anti-choice. The other group in turn coined the word "pro-life", which in due course of time was countered with "pro-woman" by the first group.
The question is not about who is right or who is wrong but when you as a neutral person get exposed to any of the choices how would you react to the argument? Lets take "pro-life", you cannot say you are not, everyone is "pro-life". There is no counter to the argument, becuase there is no alternative offered, rather no alternative exists. Conversation over deal sealed. Words are weapons and politicians are using the same to limit or given a choice kill the human curiosity, capcity to think. Turn them into vegetables.
But the reason that I started this topic was not about contentiousness of UnSpeak but to try and give a positive spin to the same by finding a utility of the same in the field of advertising. Advertising end of the day is about creating feathers which will tilt the weight in favor of one brand over the other. And UnSpeak can be an extremely powerful tool to convince that your brand is superior than any other brand.
When creating advertising the whole effort should be to create an argument or a proposition which cannot be debated by the intended audience. Currently when brands say "I am the best or I am the best solution or I am status" , anyone can turn and say you are not and nullify the whole argument.
The whole debate or the premise of the book is based on how the political parties or cause activitist coin words or phrases which make the debate redundant or make the whole opinion one-sided. To take an example which is in the beginning of the book itself, point is illustrated through the debate on the woman's right to abortion. The pro-abortionists coined the word "pro-choice" so if you are not pro-choice you are automatically anti-choice. The other group in turn coined the word "pro-life", which in due course of time was countered with "pro-woman" by the first group.
The question is not about who is right or who is wrong but when you as a neutral person get exposed to any of the choices how would you react to the argument? Lets take "pro-life", you cannot say you are not, everyone is "pro-life". There is no counter to the argument, becuase there is no alternative offered, rather no alternative exists. Conversation over deal sealed. Words are weapons and politicians are using the same to limit or given a choice kill the human curiosity, capcity to think. Turn them into vegetables.
But the reason that I started this topic was not about contentiousness of UnSpeak but to try and give a positive spin to the same by finding a utility of the same in the field of advertising. Advertising end of the day is about creating feathers which will tilt the weight in favor of one brand over the other. And UnSpeak can be an extremely powerful tool to convince that your brand is superior than any other brand.
When creating advertising the whole effort should be to create an argument or a proposition which cannot be debated by the intended audience. Currently when brands say "I am the best or I am the best solution or I am status" , anyone can turn and say you are not and nullify the whole argument.
Only brand which has used this argument mostly effectively is "Apple - Think Different". Is there any argument against - no I will not, I prefer to be a vacuous , staid thinker. Now who will say that, even if I am a dodo brained, I would like to think otherwise or project otherwise (now you know why so many advertising professionals swear by the brand).
I am yet to come across any other brand that has used the approach in their marketing but would be glad to be enlightened.
If you would like to commnet on the fallacy of the thought, I have one last parting shot - "Think before you write" and remember I should not be able to say "You have not".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
