The Dating culture amongst Indians

Since the early nineties when I was growing up in New Delhi, life for a teenager in India appears to have come a long way. My generation and those younger are much more amenable to dating and figuring themselves out through relationships that are not initiated strictly with an intent to get married. Like most things in India the trends across social strata vary so while the upper middle classes may have begun to the embrace some form of casual dating while the bulk of the population does, I think, still tend to favour the tradition “introduction” route, or at least works to maintain that perception.

Amongst the group that has tended towards the independent pursuit of life partners, there still are very many who continue to favour the family driven process. I find it rather interesting but also question how long culture can stand up against economic independence?

The reality of life in India, wealthy or otherwise, is that we like to live in large joint families back home. If not in the same home, we live near enough to lovingly interfere in each other’s lives. Cousins are like siblings, and everyone is an Aunt or an Uncle. Along with this, we then tend to live under someone else’s rules for much longer than in the West. Perhaps only on marriage or maybe much later does a young family or couple get the chance to settle down in their nest and draw up their own rules.  At the same time, younger affluent Indians are becoming economically independent at an earlier age.  They are adults, but they live like children in the sense that they don’t have all the responsibilities of independent living – paying house bills, cleaning up, cooking, etc. Young Indians succumb to the privileges of living with parents and in doing so hand over some autonomy in their own lives. They inevitably develop distinctly different outward personalities – the work/friends personality and the one at home; The latter to fulfill the expectations of the parents, hence the loss of autonomy.

Through our culture, while economic independence was not achieved until much later in life, incomes from individuals within a family were pooled for a common budget and joint decisions were made to enable a happy co-existence, but now that the younguns can afford their own cars and flats below the age of 30yrs, the strain on who they are and who they present to their parents might start to give. There will be a reduced inclination of subservience to the parents under whose roof a young adult lives. While the parents were the driving force behind the decision to get married and whom to marry, it might no longer be so since the married couple will be living in DLF while the parents live in Green Park.

If the bride is no longer going to have to adjust to the groom’s family home with incumbent traditions and dynamics, why would the incumbents continue to have a dominating vote in selecting her? The new bride will move in to her married home with her husband and they will begin life in their own nest. She doesn’t need to wake up at a certain time to be able to help in the family kitchen before the communal breakfast. She doesn’t need to learn how to make tea in 4 different ways to please all tastes and she certainly doesn’t have to dress to seek her in-laws’ approval either.

The dynamic of a newlywed life is changing. Economic independence is bringing about this cultural change. Sure I still know many of my generation who still look to their parents for advise, but if we can get up and go to work every day, make up our own mind about what job we want to apply for, pick out our own flat and choose our own car …why can’t we select our partner in life too? It’s not about marginalising parents from this process, but more about understanding why smart, aware, financial independent individuals are not confident enough in the social arena to know what they are looking for in a life partner and then, how to go about finding them. Perhaps, they simply prefer to follow their parent’s choice in the matter. Is that becuase in these matters, we are in fact quite a shy nation? The personal confrontation of approaching another person to reveal our true feelings for the fear of rejection or even simply to have to reveal our emotions, is a fairly frightening thought. The alternative of managing a relationship through parental intervention is a somewhat easier concept to accept. Perhaps with economic independence being achieved earlier in our lives, where we are forced to take most decisions for ourselves rather than revert to the household norm, we will overcome any such hesitation on the relationship front ; that certainly was my own experience.

My bet is that very soon, within my lifetime, we will see a marked shift whereby young Indians will learn to go through the heartbreaks and joys of romance, live and learn by the process of trial and error which eventually leads to understanding themselves better. And the only way to figure out what you are looking for in someone else, is to figure out what you yourself are all about first and not be afraid to have your heart broken.

______

I’m curious about where the thinking stands currently - if you have literally a few minutes to click a mouse a few times, would be great if you could complete this short poll. Results will be published for public enjoyment. All hail Google docs...


Quick Poll - please click!

Why Indians dig fairness...

Is it the result of a century of white rule or is it just that we crave what we can't have? Whichever one you think it is, have a read of this explanation by Alyque Padamsee ...

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/business/she-is-not-a-moron-she-is-young

He may have been a great judge of indian aspirations to have crafted those memorable ads back in the day, but Mr Padamsee sure is trippin' if he really thinks Indians chase white skin because of it's reflective qualities!

By a look at the comments on this article, he really has misjudged his fellow countrymen by miles on this one. 

My Letter to the Editor of the FT re. Education

Below is my letter to the editor of the FT in response to a few articles published in today's edition on education and the failings of the current system. Let's see if it's good enough to be selected for being published!

I’ll follow up with another post outlining my views on the causes of the observed failing.

__________________
Dear Sir,

In his article Brian Groom (Education system ‘failing business and workforce’, Feb 21) discusses the skills and training that are lacking in young people ranging from poor levels of literacy, numeracy to interpersonal skills. Certainly professionalism at work means adopting a certain presentation and style of interaction. This has to either be learnt through observation or instilled through education. We are back at the starting point of tackling a social issue, where young people do not have a role model to absorb these life skills from and education is not filling the void.

As a 28 year old, I am perhaps of the generation immediately preceding the one being described as “lost” which is facing record high unemployment and rightfully causing much concern.

I fear that the approach being taken to address the issue, today as well as in the past, is inherently ineffective. There may be much wisdom amongst the experienced politicians and educationists but they are severely lacking in empathy towards a young generation which even I at my age feel disconnected from. We have to create solutions that tackle the true cause which is social in nature and deliver it through the education system in a design that is appealing to the recipients, the young people themselves. Imposition will only face a reluctant audience.

A doctor should prescribe the medication but it is the patient’s prerogative to select the honey flavoured syrup over the orange flavoured one.

I am not an educationist but I have spent some limited time thinking about this subject while working on a documentary and helping to kick-start a campaign by young people to tackle these issues of young people. A solution needs to be found through a dialogue between young people (NEETs, current students, recent students, etc) and policy makers; this is currently missing but is desperately needed when determining what shape policy should take so it will be adopted rather than be resisted.

Yours Faithfully,

Miss Riddhi Bhalla
Volunteer for Change the Future

The tragedy of Hester's pay at RBS

These are sad times when ill informed mass hysteria overrules reason and rationale.

 Crony capitalism has become the latest buzz word in a list that includes WMDs and moral hazard. And so let’s behead all bankers for they are the epitome of evil.

RBS is a basket case. It failed under the previous leadership of Sir Fred Goodwin and now it is state owned. For the state and UK tax payers to benefit from this situation, the bank has to recover. Stephen Hester was brought in to do this job. He is not the cause of this wreck. He is hopefully its saviour.

Tax payers own 82% of RBS market cap. If RBS stock price recovers, the state stands to benefit. Steven Hester’s job hence, is to increase the bank’s share price from its current depressed value.

 What better way to incentivise him than to pay him in the same stock that the taxpayer owns so his interests are perfectly aligned with ours. Isn’t this the precise proposal that has been touted as the solution to end short term profit seeking behaviour from bankers?

Well then why the media driven outcry over his bonus compensation? Yes, he got a bonus in a year that RBS lost money. But he hasn’t been paid out in cash from a depleting source. He’s been paid in the same currency that the government owns. If he wants to increase his private wealth he will work to maximise the stock price and in doing so, will benefit the tax payer.

 Over the public outcry he has now turned down this stock compensation. That means he has no upside from driving value for the tax payer any more. He was paid his base salary for the year so now why should he bother working harder? There is no personal upside for him. £1.2mn for a base salary might sound a lot to the common man but for the top bankers, as we hope Hester is, it’s relatively meagre. The reality is that globally finance pays inflated salaries. For one bank, or one country to singularly pressure its financial sector to cut wages, means that that bank or country will no longer be able to attract the best talent. If Hester is as good as we all hope he is, then he is now severely underpaid and not motivated to work in our benefit.

The problem we face today is that the media has received the backing of the public in beating up bankers and in brandishing the government as accepting hand outs from this sector. There is no longer a reasonable discussion about what is fair and what is outrageous. In the Hester case, the government cannot stand up for him because they will be labelled as succumbing to “crony capitalism” and Labour will jump at the chance to push this opinion.

I wish we could see more reasoned judgment from the media and perhaps the private sector itself but unfortunately the audience does not want to listen. There is a cry for blood and that is all that they seek.

I wanna live like Common People...and claim £26k in benefits

The attraction of a music festival is perhaps bewildering. Sure, the atmosphere of watching a live band perform in front of a huge crowd is fantastic. But for this pleasure, we each pay a not insignificant amount of money spending a few days in unhygienic conditions amongst other germ carriers, sleeping in discomfort and having to queue 20mins for the privilege to pee in a contagious plastic box.

This is notwithstanding that I have succumbed to the allure.

Why?

Because there is a certain charm in living like common people. At some level, that image of a carefree and somehow happy existence, where every day brings a new adventure and doesn’t start with an alarm that shrieks at Silly A.M., is irresistible. The festival on a sunny day resembles a happy hippy camp free of routine and restrictions and responsibility. Can you pee standing up? Great. Pick a bush.

The allure of being poor and living a rock bottom existence with nothing to lose is a glass full of optimism. Nowhere but up. High risk, high reward. Nothing to lose so let’s risk it all. After all, only fools and horses work.

Compared to the hooky antics of Del Boy and Rodney, Britain today presents a rather sad story. The brothers lived a hand to mouth existence that survived only on their creativity to identify goods (sometimes faulty and/or illegal) that could be bought cheap and sold less cheap. They were poor but proud. They certainly gave nothing to the government - they evaded VAT and income tax. How much would they have contributed any way? But critically, they expected nothing either. Their self supported lifestyle was a boot strap model of entrepreneurship where failure was acceptable. They had courage and they were not lazy.

Last week, flicking channels mindlessly got me to stop at a Channel 4 documentary interviewing a 30-something girl who lived on benefits. They were helping her find a job to get her off benefits. Surely going to work every morning, contributing and having a purpose in life is good for any one’s self esteem?

No. This one didn’t want to do this, that or the other. Most things were boring so why should she? She wasn’t destitute. Our taxes were paying for her to stay at home. She eventually thought working in a care home might be nice and comfy. But she didn’t like cleaning up after old people and the kitchen was a bit dull. She went home instead.

Welfare is the second highest category of expenditure within the UK’s public spend at 17%. Health and Pensions top the table at 18% each. It’s no surprise that the government is trying to reform each of them. We can argue about the way they are going about it, poor communication, misguided changes, but it is undeniable that changes need to be made.

The minimum wage for an able bodied worker above the age of 21 years is £5.93. An 8 hour, 9-5 job, 5 days a week leads to an annual gross of £12,334.40.

The government today is proposing to limit universal benefits (housing, living, child, etc) to £26,000 p.a. equivalent to an hourly wage of £12.50

While the private sector average annual salary is £21,000.

And the public sector average is just under £26,000 (and notably, higher than the private sector).

Today the Opposition and various sympathisers are raising cry that the proposed Welfare bill with the cap at £26,000 and various other restrictions that limit unemployment benefits, etc, will make many people homeless through not being able to afford their current urban residence.

Reality is that, while there are many who deservedly receive benefits due to disability, age, etc., there is tremendous wastage due to the structural incentive created by the state to not work. Individuals are self selecting the optimal outcome for themselves by choosing to not work. The type of individuals falling into this category are such as described in this BBC report

Minimum wage has to more than double in this situation for individuals to be incentivised to work. Working for less than £12.50, is the sub optimal choice and these individuals are making the smart decision by choosing not to.

Now I don’t expect that the Welfare State is going to reach a stage any time soon, where this inefficiency is entirely corrected, but as the government is trying to do today, we can attempt to make some improvement. In the meantime what the rest of us dumb taxpayers can do is fight the hard fight to encourage common people to make the bad decision and get a job.

Oops...I did it again - a post script

Below is my response to a friend's objection to various points made in my original blog....

ok, so I think we disagree on 2 key points - offenders' right to human rights (which was the key basis of the judgement) and successful demonstration of not reoffending.

I genuinely think that a sex offender does not have grounds to justify their own human rights. It's similar to a murderer (to take an extreme example) or a terrorist. Now, the classic problem here is of identifying guilt accurately - allegation vs. truth. Hence the moral argument for me remains on restricting an offenders right but given the practical and administrative limitations of being able to identify guilt accurately, passing life long sentences is difficult. However, it is a case of who needs protecting more - society or offender and in the event of doubt, we have to err on the side of protecting the community. Hence what I object to is the supreme court passing a judgement based on moral grounds. I think this is invalid. If instead they had addressed the issue of, as you identified, ranges of sexual offences, consent, causation, etc and acknowledged the challenge with discerning between these cases, then the ruling would have carried more weight and would also highlight the need to educate people broadly about these issues. I heard someone on Radio 2 once describing how their life was destroyed following false accusations as the local community ganged up on them and her husband (the accused) ended up committing suicide, following which the girls who accused him admitted he didn't commit any crime and wasn't even aware of who these girls were. That's the scenario we want to avoid through protecting the innocent alleged offenders, but offenders don't deserve protection...

Secondly, the problem of practical administration of justice applies to your comment " If someone has reformed their life and is able to demonstrate it to a high standard..." - issue is how do you know for sure they are reformed or rather is it a case that their offences are not known? I think the police needs to continue to monitor any suspicious individuals all their lives but then they'll be launching an appeal on how it violates their right to life or freedom. Again, if they are a suspect, we have to protect the community rather than their rights. And to say after 15 years it seems fair to give them a second chance is entirely unjustified - for instance, through all of this you haven't tried to even consider the plight of the victim. Are they back to normal after 15 years? "Fairness" does not come into. The only issue is, as you point out, that perhaps amongst 24,000 cases there are a couple who don't deserve to be included in that group so let's not ruin their life. To that I provide the above solution where the police still tracks and monitors all - innocent or guilty, we don't know - and so re offences are prevented and in time guilt will be identified but the monitoring happens in the background so it doesn't interfere with life.

The 11 yr old might be a new person by the age of 40 - or he might not. My point was that it's either nature or nurture and the authorities need to identify which. If its his psychology that is unbalanced he's not likely to be any difference and if it's nurture, then figure out what in his home environment drove him to it. It may not be driven by his own intent, but he is acting due to an external cause that then needs to be eradicated or he won't be any different when he's older.

Re. voting - this is just such a silly debate in my mind. A blanket rule here of not allowing prisoners to vote keeps the looney's out of it. Sure again there are a few unlucky guys who get caught up in it, but really, what difference does it really make if they can't vote? how many of them even bother to? Yes, technically, it takes away their right to vote, but it's such a non issue that doesn't really affect their lives, that the optimal decision without any doubt in my mind is to not allow them to vote. When we talk about sex offenders and impact restrictions or registration has on their lives, I can understand the need for debate given the consequences and impact on their quality of life. But seriously, not able to vote? It's insignificant.

Oops...I did it again - sex offenders and cons

Hello. I am a 17 yr old boy. When I was 11, I raped a 6 yr old boy and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Now, that track record is killing my social life and I can't travel abroad to play for my rugby league so, is there any way we could all forget about this little boo-boo and move on? Ta.

Sex offenders - old and young, repeat offenders all need to pay for their offence and repent. An adult sex offender displays clear intent through planning and committing to a carrying out a violating act that continues for not insignificant length of time. This along with perhaps an unbalanced psyche warrants a permanent trail to protect the community that he or she lives amongst. Why should their human rights be given any consideration after committing such an offence?

Recently debate has emerged on allowing sex offenders the ability to apply to repeal their inclusion on the sex offenders register. What is supporting their case? Their basic human right apparently. At the moment sex offenders have to register with the police before travelling abroad or over 3 days. Scotland allows for a review of individual cases following a length of time over which there is no repeat offence noted. England has the good sense to strengthen the terms by requiring offenders to register before travelling abroad for any length of time.

Why in God's name are we as a nation wasting air, TV and print space to even consider improving their access to a social life?

If sex offenders find their lives restrictive - it's for a darn good reason! If they have a problem with it - too bad! They should have considered the downside before the crime.

Along with the sex offenders, some rather forgiving backbenchers have campaigned for prisoners to be able to vote. Ok. So you have bad judgement and/or are mentally disturbed that's why you are locked up but it's not all bad coz surely you can make the optimal, rational decision for chosing the leader of the nation. Either elections are unimportant these days or the rehabilitation processes just got super effective.

Why, why, why are we wasting time adn thought on trying to provide rights to people who entirely disregarded others?

In some cases, fine, I understand there might be opportunity for a second chance. In few rare situations such as perhaps the 11 yr old, one can argue, acted without fully understanding the consequences and gravity of his actions. Such a situation requires intense scrutiny into his upbringing to identify and eliminate the social cause of his behavior. Should he be allowed to travel with his rugby team? Maybe, may not - can his shrink guarantee he isn't just a more lethal version of his 11 yr old self? Was it nature or nurture that cause his action? If its the former, can he be reformed? If it's the latter, is he reformed?

If it can't be guaranteed, is it worth the risk?

For reoffenders, surely  no one can be idiotic enough to suggest they deserve a third chance?

I find it amusing how the country and the western world held bankers responsible for the crunch and never wish for them to return to the hay-day of big bonus payouts again. Never, ever, ever...even though the big bad banks took a big hit in one year and some are still hurting.

BUT, rapists and criminals - they get a normal life and skip around scott free like it all never happened. Seriously Supreme Court, get some perspective.

Human rights are this all encompassing banner that is being exploited by criminals. the government needs to take a stand and shut them up. Who cares how long ago the crime/rape occurred - it happened and there is a victim or victims suffering. Has any one checked if they have been able to return to a normal life? and what about the victims who we don't know about? Offence free 15 years could simply be offenced we don't know about.

I have a simple rule, you don't have rights if you don't respect those of others.

Surely the age old wisdom of tit for tat ought to apply here. If the supreme court can't see the justice in this, the judgement of the Supreme Court is henceforth severely doubted.

What motivates people? Fear, Passion or Incentive?

What motivates man?

One or more of these:

Passion
Fear
Incentive

Over the last year I produced two short films in the time I was unemployed and living off the grid. This immediately followed my four years at an American investment bank which perhaps epitomises most people's concept of a capitalist institution. Going from that world driven by unashamed monetary incentivisation as blatant as a carrot on a stick, the world of independent film makers working on a no-budget project (note: that does not mean porn!) taught me a few things about human nature. Today as I am working within a small, again independent, self supported team of volunteers trying to make a dent in the debate over education reform, my observations on factors of motivations continue.

The charity sector is significantly reliant on unpaid, volunteered services of people who simply care about a cause. The same people in their bread-and-butter jobs are contrastingly driven by what they get paid. in my two short films I was mesmerised when working with teams of 30 odd people, each of whom were complete strangers, to see that they actually turned up for each of the 3 days of shooting at different locations around the Greater London area; all for the opportunity to meet other like minded people, grow their list of experienced and with the hope to be part of the next big thing. Unfortunately, I didn't produce the next big thing so it was just another notch in their belt and they moved on to the next project to work on, receiving nothing more than food and drink for the days on set which by my own admission is not an incentive by anyone's food quality standards.

In parallel, they go on to their waitressing jobs or computer programming desk and haggle over their pay, holidays, benefits for each and every last penny. It's not also the case that these 30 odd people simply turned up as most do for their daily work routines. They gave a shit. There was passion, creativity and a general unarguable sense that we were working towards the same cause united only by the fact that we all wanted it to be as good as it could possibly be. In other words and in every employer's ideal, each worked to the best of their ability and worked as if they owned the set.

Incentive is the most common tool deployed to motivate and is a reminder for many of us for why we wake up every weekday morning. Even if it is not money itself, it is perhaps what money can acquire for us that motivates and so inevitably acquiring more money is the objective. Often where passion and incentive collide, it can lead to reduced wealth as we trade off incentive for the ability to follow our passion and that ability to follow our own path compensates for the lack of or reduced monetary compensation.

The most successful people conversely are an example of where the pursuit of passion generates wealth. I seriously doubt those who top the Forbes Rich List despise the start of each day for work related reasons.  Undoubtedly many of them reached where they are today purely in the pursuit of profit - the incentive motivation to get rich or die trying.

The benefit of passion over incentive as a motivation is also a point of administration. Lack of meritocracy or inaccurate assessment of skill, effort, etc can destroy the chase for the carrot and leave behind a group of disgruntled employees. The classic case of perception vs. productivity kicks in - a game so many of face timers know well. As long as the boss thinks we are working, all is well.

Fear, I will argue, in fact the most efficient method of motivation and one that undoubtedly leads to the desired result fastest. The eerily perfect running of the Chinese Olympics is a recent example. A simple example we can all empathise with is the one of a student desperately cramming the night before an exam to avoid the consequences of not achieving a certain grade.  Perhaps also why fear is so effective is because, of the three factors, it is the most primaeval feeling driven by our instinct to survive. Understandably, the unpleasantness associated with this and the coercive methods to achieve it clearly undermine its use.

Passion is self administering and a cheaper solution. Most importantly, the results are arguably superior to those delivered by either incentivisation or fear.

Passion has no ceiling in terms of targeting achievement. Fear targets the outlined goal in the prescribed way with no room for creativity or individual contribution. Incentivisation has a glass ceiling to the limit where there can be no more marginal increment in incentive due to greater output. In light of this, it astonishes me why every business, institution or government doesn't operate along the principle of inspiring passion amongst its citizens. The first step towards this would be to acknowledge it.

I think it is quite timely that my recently acquired hero, PM Cameron is championing research to monitor  the happiness of Britons and the quality of life at a time where so many feel despair and are struggling. Unfortunately inspiring passion isn't as easy as writing a cheque so motivation is more often driven by a suboptimal factor that can boost but not sustain our satisfaction or happiness. The good thing however is that Passion is contagious. Your worst subject at school becomes less dreadful when you have a cool teacher who cares about the subject and shows you why its interesting which often enough leads to better results.  The limitation in spreading the passion factor is that most of us are in situations we don't care for, subordinate to seniors who suffer the same. At the other end, this is perhaps why we harbour some envy for entrepreneurs who appear to do what they like and seem to have a lot of fun being successful.

Sure, you may argue that if we each did want we wanted, who would do what nobody wants but everybody needs? And even then I'm pretty certain that there would be takers for driving the city garbage trucks. There will of course also be the flip scenario with over subscribed posts and even if we all would rather like to have Jeremy Clarkson's job and get paid to blow stuff up, there is only so much stuff in the world to blow up! This selection process would however be automatically smoothened out to avoid such excesses as passion is not the sole determinant in selection. Many of us have multiple interests and the selection is realistically subject to living standards and ability.

I commend Cameron for attempting to implement his Big Society talk into action. It won't be easy as we trudge our way through daily strife but hopefully, if he holds on to his passion, it will eventually trickle down and at some point, each of us will feel that domino fall.

Lazy Celebritries

I've recently become a more regular reader of classy publications such as Cosmo and Company.  When I say, regular I mean every time I'm going to be in a car for more than 3 hours and am not behind the driving seat. And by more, is in comparison to previously, never.

The appeal is simple, right? gawk at other people and talk about things you wouldn't generally talk about. Yeah, sure it's entertaining . I'm not one of these people who buys OK! and News of the World, I don't really care if I don't hear about where my favourite celebrity shops for baby clothes. I don't really have a favourite celebrity! And so I suppose I am sympathetic to them being stalked all the time and pleading for privacy even if some of them clearly thrive on it and go out of their way to attract it.

Well, I'm sympathetic to appreciating that it could be annoying but then it's a small price to pay for the "Celebrity" tag bestowed on them. In other words, they owe it to the people who put them there.

And so when I see celebrities who have been part of an industry undergoing revolution, such as music, where before they made money by selling records and appearances on MTV but now have to put up a show and work harder for their celebrity stardowm, the least we can expect and demand, is some effort.

Last year I went to see Madonna live at Wembley Arena, London as part of her hot and sticky tour. Sure, I'm not the greatest Madonna fan in terms of her music but I certainly don't deny her the appreciation as a creative performance who not just stayed ahead of the curve but essentially defined the trend. To say the least, I had decent expectations for what to expect. I went coz its Madonna and well, it's worth witnessing a global phenomenon at least once even if its just for the experience.

But what a disappointment!

First the acoustics and set up were poor for someone of her reputation. Second, she just didn't care. Its not even that she didn't sing live, but even in terms of the antics and jumping around, there was no energy. It was lacklustre. Nothing can explain it other than lazy celebrity syndrome. She can't remember where she came from and takes her fan base for granted.

At the other end of the spectrum I went to see the relatively obscure MGMT at the O2 Brixton. one expects a young, one hit wonder band to make an effort. But not these kids. They made their quick buck and now they are taking it easy. If I criticise 50+ years old Madonna for lacking drive in her performance, MGMT, as snotty-nosed teens, ought to be banished for their pathetic live event. They didn't even sing live and they couldn't even be bothered to pretend to play their instruments. While one kid jumped around the front in an half assed attempt in one song (which was one of the 2 reasons everyone seemed to have gathered there that evening) the rest hung around at the back of the stage, chatting.

For their celebrity type, I absolutely have no sympathy to their cause of illegal downloading piracy. They don't work hard enough to deserve our adoration, attention and £$.

But ah, Dave Matthews. What a performer! I've heard a few things about his difficult tendencies backstage but to his audience, the people who made him, he gives everything. he actually sung live in a live event which seems a novelty these days and wow! he had great banter. Is that too much to ask for a £50 ticket and trek to O2 arena?

It's a new age for celebrities. Technology brings them closer to us and makes them more accessible. For fans to reach them and for them to gain visibility. That should not however reduce their effort in giving back to their fans. Lazy  celebrities are only a short run phenomenon. i for once am glad to have Internet pirates making illegal downloads available to adoring fans if that means celebrities are forced to abandon their mansions and go on tour to earn their keep.

Long live Bit Torrents!

"Escapism"

I get it, the average indian needs an escape form his daily strife and so fueling the "escapist" Bollywood cinema that is now synonymous with India's film industry.

Walking into Kathi Roll on Poland Street this afternoon, I spent 10 mins of waiting time for my take-away, gazing at that iconic poster of Coolie. You know the one - Amitabh towers in the background, looking towards the sky, dressed in the classic red and white uniform, with a crow perched on one arm. Running all the way through the '80's, films such as this one, and others in the "angry one man" series or really any that preceded, going back to Guru Dutt, Shammi Kapoor, etc, typified the Indian approach to filmmaking which involved stretching reality almost to breaking point, but never beyond. Everyday situations, "reality" so to speak, were dramatised but our concept of reality based on everyday life, was the context.

Even as recently as Yash Chopra (arguably the founding father of "Bollywood") productions such as Chandni or those from the Madhuri Dixit era running through to Anjaam, this approach was upheld. Bollywood now however has broken it.

Let me start with defining this genre and then explaining what it is about it that irks me, and why the fact that it doesn't irk others, irks me even more.

As I mentioned above, Yash Chopra is unknowingly the father of the Bollywood genre which defines the bulk of mainstream film making. I say unknowingly because his films themselves I don't think fall into the category of bollywood filmmaking we see today, but he introduced the non violent romantic drama plot which has formed the blueprint that Karan Johar has knowing, or unknowlingly, adopted in his films. The difference is that Karan (and others) have broken that sense of reality that used to ground Indian films. The context within which their films are made are not based in the reality we experience everyday but a make believe world. The irksome point about this is that the film wants us to believe that this made up world is in fact our reality rather that simply being an abstract concept that the story is based in. It is intended to be a true representation of our lives but in being so far from that, to me it ends up being a mockery.

I'm pretty certain a few people disagree reading  this far already but stay with me for a few more sentences...

This attack is not aimed at "escapism" generally; it is bollywood's particular brand of it. Karan Johar, Sanjay Leela Bansali, etc all fall into the same caterogry and in my mind, fall foul of the same criticism. A film can be escapist - by definition of an art form, I think it inherently is, but when it is a misrepresentation of just a sloppy job that overlooks details, I cannot appreciate it. Lord of the Rings is escapist in the most obvious sense where a make believe world is created as the context for the story. But this world is not intended to be a representation of our everyday live. Take E.T. - the context is our everyday lives but the plot is entirely fictitious and pure fantasy. One of my favourtie films, as is for so many other. There is a distinction between what is intended to represent our daily reality and what is purely fictitious. Bollywood to me is the product of thoughtless filmmaking which doesnt clearly define for itself what it wants to be. It's simply sloppy.

I hail Farhan Akhtar as one of those Indian Filmmakers who have corrected this. Through both Rock On! or Oye Lucky Lucky Oye he has made films that once again have a clearly thought out presentation - what is meant to be reality with perhaps an unusual story line. Even the most passionate fan of Karan Johar's brand must acknowledge the difference between a film like Race and Gajni. The latter made by a very thoughtful, detailed oriented Aamir is the perfect, ultimate Bollywood film. Yet, we don't lose our sense of reality even though we manage to "escape". Stupidity, thoughtless and low standards are not necessary conditions of exploring fantasy.

I love Indian cinema but I don't agree with accepting sloppy filmmaking as a unique genre. It's purely an accident and it's frustrating that so many others in the audience accept poor standards of filmmaking.

That's what irks me, not escapist plots, just bad filmmakers.

American Absurdity

Now I remember that fairly recent feeling when the US of Bush came to an end and Obama emerged victorious as a beacon of hope. A non-white President for hypocritically narrow minded Americans! Yipee! And I did feel great about it. I felt hopeful that the world's problems would all come to a miraculously smooth end because finally a smart and sensible man of the people, with a sense of reality was leading the front.

Jeez, I was such an idiot.

While floods ravage Pakistan, the Euro's existence comes under threat, Israel and Palestine continue their conflict, Americans living a comfortable, safe, sane life indulged in an absurdly inane discussion about the "mosque on ground zero". But you know what, silly as that was, it's easy to let go off those absurd analogies and accusations because people are people and we do dumb things all the time. What I really couldn't understand or accept however, is why wise old President Obama jumped right into the middle of this debate? Perhaps if he had said his short, sharp impactful statement to end this dribble I would have applauded his decisive authority. But no. Barack did what Barack does (as we have now realised) - avoid making a decision, President Barack, that is. Hmmmm. So the results led to the worst case scenario -  a stupid debate over a non issue based on ignorant ideas that was lent credibility by the most important guy on the planet.

Part II - "Mr. Obama was expected to visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India, next month, but there were questions about how he would cover his head. Sikh tradition requires that men tie a piece of cloth on their heads before the spiritual centre. The president who is Christian, has fought the perception that he is Muslim. Sikhs are regularly mistaken for Muslim." (NY Times, online, Oct 22 2010)

And so now, he ain't going.

Well, really, on a scale of 1-10 of dumbness where 10 is the sole of my shoe with a hole in it, this has got to be a gzillion. Let's remind ourselves that India is a secular country and Obama was meant to be a non-partisan politician who promised to bind together fractitious society and here is avoiding a Sikh temple which was built on the foundation of uniting disparity in the community led by religious differences (Americans - wiki up "irony" please) and is engraved with writings in 3 different langauges to this purpose - hindi (for hindus), gurumukhi (for sikhs) and urdu (for muslims). President Barack Obama and dumb sidekicks have decided to avoid this monument because he doesn't want a photograph of himself with a handkerchief on his head. Let's also ponder on how it is that amongst all his advisors, there is not one who could point out to him that this "sikh" tradition is in fact one that requires ALL visitors (any gender, age, religion or nationality) to simply cover their head (and one that is adopted all over India generally in any religious or spiritual setting, irrelevant to which religion). Maybe someone should mention to him that a baseball cap would work pretty well since all that is needed is for everyone to cover their heads - the manner in which their head is covered, is not of concern. Unless, he isn't supposed to be seen to endorse baseball over any other widely loved sport in America...

It frustrates me and baffles me that a person of this stature is so poorly guided in such a simple circumstance and perhaps indicates he has lost all touch with reality to not be able to navigate yet another non issue. This poor show of judgement doesn't hold very well when considering this administration's ability to resolve the numerous overwhelmingly mighty issues they are currently battling against. But hey, at least no one will think Obama is a muslim, phew!