A Double-Edged Sword

This short post is a random musing on the two faces of the free-market economy. Not rocket science, it is just an attempt to present/restate a common man's perspective on the system. Nobody is being judged, as it is understood that everyone is working within the system, which seems to be the best we have at this time (the alternatives having been proved much worse).

It is a simple comparison between two of the primary pillars of the free-market economy: the stock markets and the real estate markets, which are said to be complementary to each other. Or rather, it is a comparison of the ultimate effects these two markets have on the lives of the common man/woman.

The point being sought to be made is that while the stock market is a positive influence on the lives of ordinary people, in that it stimulates the growth of industries, thus creating jobs and other opportunities for people to earn livelihoods, the real estate market on the other hand works in the exact opposite way, increasing the burden on people by increasing costs of a basic amenity like shelter. In the end, the common man gets a job, but spends most of his earnings in rent or in loan/mortgage payments for an over-priced own home.

Thus, from the layman's perspective, these two 'markets' are not complementary, but rather opposites of each other, working at cross-purposes. Like in a dog-race, where the dogs have to run harder (and in circles) chasing a moving bone, an ever-costlier home has to be chased by people running the race of daily life...

Read More...

Understanding the Thackeray Legacy

Here's my take on the politics/legacy of Balasaheb Thackeray, prompted by events of the past few weeks in Mumbai.

Let's start at the begining. Balasaheb Thackeray became popular among the Maharashtrian population simply because he articulated problems/questions which nobody else (for the sake of their constituencies elsewhere) was willing to ask. Apart from this, he did not have any vision/long-term solution for Maharashtra.

The problem he gave voice to was very real for Maharashtrians. Groupism and implicit regional preferences in government/private jobs was the major obstacle faced by Maharashtrians in the years leading up to Thackeray's rise. Regional affiliations (southern, to be specific), rather than merit, got people jobs. Voicing this problem, faced by deserving Maharashtrians in their own state, was why the Shiv-Sena was formed.

To be fair, it was a valid problem, and the state government/political parties of the time were not willing to listen to/acknowledge it. Other means were resorted to, and delivered results where previous ones didn't. The Shiv-Sena was the last resort for a populace whose issues were being stonewalled by other parties. And Maharashtrians/Marathis still respect Thackeray due to this one reason: dismantling of the very real obstacle faced by Maharashtrians with merit.

But, there was a flip side to this. The focus of Thackeray (and his followers) was so much on this one issue that there was no vision for larger issues like growth/education. So embroiled and emotional did the issue of Marathi pride become for Marashtrians that everything became secondary to it. The point that being proud of one's language and culture is fine, but ignorance of the outside world, it's ways and it's language would be detrimental to one's own interests, was lost on Maharashtrians. Like the proverbial frog in the well, it was assumed that the outside world didn't count, and was to be ignored.

The highest goal of the Shiv-Sena was getting Marathi people into jobs. No vision for education or entrepreneurship. No plans/cultivation of talent for growth of the state in the industrial, economic or academic fields.

The problem with the Shiv-Sena and MNS is that, even now, they are not looking past this narrow vision. (Why only stop at informing Maharashtrians about government/railway jobs? Why not encourage Marathi youth to get into diverse fields? Why not give them information about top academic courses? Coach them in their shortcomings (eg. English speaking)? Provide monetary scholarships to the deserving?)

Consequently, Maharashtrians themselves had started looking beyond the Shiv-Sena, and the SS base was beginning to dwindle. That is, until Shahrukh Khan gave it one more gasp of life.

Which brings us to the other pillar (Hindutva) on which Balasaheb Thackeray has built his political legacy. Again, it's origins are similar. Thackeray articulated an issue/problem which other political parties didn't want to ask/answer. The question was: Why this pampering/kid-glove treatment of a country which, since our very existence, has, in intent & action, sought to harm us?

Some (or even a majority of) Pakistanis may have goodwill towards us, but then it is THEIR job to convince (or boot out) their goodwill-uncomprehending-rulers. It is not our job to clean up the (self-created) mess of the Pakistanis.

The subtle question (which was not-so-subtly asked over the past week) was: Why should we be apologetic/hanging our heads in shame for something the Pakistanis deserve/have brought upon themselves through decades of violence-mongering? Have any of the Pakistanis apologized/hung their head in shame for the 26/11 terror attacks on the city of Mumbai (which is Shahrukh Khan's home)?

The whole structure of Thackeray's Hindutva is based on actions/statements (such as Shahrukh Khan's) by a few members/sections of society. Plus, when legitimate questions about Pakistan's hostile intent are asked in a peaceful manner, the questions are brushed aside (as hawkish) by the elitist media/government. Then, like in the Marathi issue, violence steps in.

Point is: Thackeray's politics (of violence and force) is actually fed by the wanton ignoring of relevant social and security issues by other political parties. (Elsewhere, such attitude of ignoring the opinions/voices/problems of certain sections of society has led to more violent expression). But again, like in the Marathi-jobs case, Thackeray has no larger vision beyond voicing these issues.

Still, the questions (though expressed in an improper way) are legitimate and important, and that is why they find support. They are the source of Thackeray's politics and legacy.

Read More...

Why isn't anyone offended?

Recently I saw the (then-spanking-new) movie 3 Idiots which is now the talk of the country for it's extolling of the innovative attitude, fresh approach to education and other positives. Plus, of course, the negative controversy about it's authorship. But ignoring these (which, I know, is difficult at this time), I ask you to look at a different issue altogether, which has been and probably will be (even after reading this post) dismissed as a non-issue.

I am referring to the 'balatkar' speech in 3 Idiots, and I am offended by it. Not because I have a holier-than-thou/god-fearing/moral-brigade-ish/old-fashioned attitude (which a majority of you may have already labelled onto me). I am quite the contrary, and the reason for my being offended is a different one.

I am all for liberal society and individual identity and all. I do not mind the skimpy clothes, the suggestive songs and lyrics, etc. I am totally at ease with them (actually, that's an understatement!) and I actually have debates with some of my relatives who are opposed to the liberal culture being depicted on movie and television screens nowadays.

So why all this offence at the use of the word 'balatkar'? Here's my explanation: I feel that two different issues are being confused with each other. On the one hand is the issue of liberal values (which covers overt sexuality, live-ins, one-night stands, kissing in public, homosexual relationships, etc). On the other hand is the issue of non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape). And this second issue is where, I feel, most of us Indians (even the educated ones) are crossing the line when we treat/depict it frivolously (eg. in supposedly "comedy" scenes in movies).

What I want to say is: Jokes/comedy/innuendos about sex, one-night stands, homosexuality and similar (consensual) issues may be ok to get accustomed to the liberal point-of-view, or just for plain fun. But there is a line which is crossed when rape is involved.

Now, I know the liberals will shout things like: "Who decides/draws the line?" The answer to this is quite simple. In sexual matters, the line is drawn by the consensual or non-consensual nature of the intercourse. This line a very important line for any liberal society, because the pro-individual nature of a liberal society is based on safeguarding every individual's rights, and one of those rights is the rape-victim's: to consent (or not) to sexual intercourse. And it should be accorded the same seriousness and respect which we accord to other individual rights and preferences (eg. to choose one's profession - as shown in the same movie!)

But, in many of our films we see this matter being treated frivolously, jokes being cracked, and comic speeches/situations (involving rape) being made in the name of liberal values, fun and "time-pass". I'm sorry, but even the use of the word balatkar/rape in a comic context is in bad taste, and is certainly not a case for liberal values. Do you recall seeing any such scene (of rape being used as a comic element, or even uttered in a joking manner) in cinema of the west (from whom we have imbibed the liberal culture)?

Indirectly, such depiction in our movies feeds the misplaced-pseudo-liberal attitude towards non-consensual sex and, I feel, is also at the root of other issues we are seeing in the news today. In a matter of rape, the Goa MP commented that the Russian victim deserved it (implying skimpy clothes and alcohol consumption makes it ok to be raped). Again, isn't it the erroneous attitude (of even some of the educated among us) of ignoring the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex?

The point, Mr. Minister and fellow Indians, is: I have not heard of anyone getting raped on nudist beaches of the west. But I have read many and frequent accounts of fully clothed girls being abducted from streets, and raped in cars, in our country. And I feel that our indifferent attitude to rape/non-consensual sex is at the core of the brazenness of these crimes.

And, this attitude is reflected in (and feeds upon) the popularity of movies which, while seemingly having their heart in the right place(!), use rape (sometimes the word, and at times even the act) as a context for comedy.

My question to you: Why isn't anyone offended?

Read More...