For all the fashion-conscious out there -you must recently have been confronted by a scare----a scare for sure if you are not one of those who is afflicted by the 'in thing' or the 'go with the crowd, it cries fashion' syndrome.
I am refering to the master of ceremonies (MC) in the "Kurkure Desi Beats Rock On" show on MTV. It is about selecting the best desi rock band of India to represent it in the international rock contest. The kind of attire (thats the word I can use, as atleast I do not understand what to call what she wears on the show ) worn by the MC is neither desi, fashionable, nor at the least 'good to look at'. So what is this whole desipan and fashion about? Is the dress she is wearing on the show any indication of the desi quotient? I would be horrified if one had to represent India wearing that kind of attire. It is neither western nor desi nor anything else I would care to comment upon. Rather , it is an ugly fusion of different customs and styles.
I understand fashion to be the a synonym for glamour, beauty and goodness. Clothing changes based on the season, timing, economic or social change. It may be a custom or style prevalent for a short period of time, but still a part of the longer-enduring culture. But it is the styles such as mentioned above that lead to terms such as 'fads' and 'trends'.
It would be more sensible to design clothes, create fashion, or whatever term is used--to mean actually what they are created for. If a 'desi' fashion is created, let it be desi indeed, not an obnoxious combination of an Indian blouse (again some fusioned version) and a jeans, a maati on the forehead, and then call it a desi fashion. Guess it be right for the organizers of the show to pep-up their fashion-quotient. Lets rock on for the right reasons, not for anything and everything that is new and invites stares and scares!!!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Moral Delusion---Practicality, Flexibility Vs. Commitment, Honesty
Hey, doesnt it seem like just yesterday that someone had lectured you on being practical, as it is the only sensible and the in-thing to do? Sensible, as it will work out for you only that way, and in-thing , as nobody finds any sense in being any other way, and therefore, just be a part of the herd, why should you be different and face hardships (So what if Robert Frost said otherwise about the difference in taking the road less traveled)?
Now, what are we mere mortals supposed to do? Be practical and hence sensible; or be true to oneself , idealistic and therefore be branded a moron? Well well, when did we ever find answering such questions easy? Till very recently, I had been very optimistic about listening to one's heart in a variety of matters, honesty, not cheating people , such kind of filmy stuff (O shoot, I am becoming cynical). Even though I believe in those qualities even now, its not easy being one of the few who believe so, and hence get hurt in the process, in a world, where the majority has no scruples in exploiting others in the garb of practicality and being flexible. Where is the commitment to relationships? Where is the commitment to values? Where is the commitment to their own selves? And most importantly, where is the effort towards any of the above? How much ever people might argue otherwise, a change in position, the flexibility, the change in hearts, the change in relationships, the so-called practicality and strategising is accompanied by a veritable deluge of high moral motives to justify it. All this happens not because a person has become more enlightened about the issue at hand and has decided to act accordingly (read "practically"). This change is in fact the evidence only of that gift of clairvoyance which warns the person and enables him/her to hop into another warm berth.
So, honestly, there cannot be any discussion/debate on Practicality Vs. Honesty as long as this term "practicality" is used by opportunists to escape accountability for their actions. Guess, life comes a full circle and everyone indeed gets an actual taste of their own practicality.
Practicality can only be lauded when optimal decisions are taken by the concerned parties without hurting anyone. In the absence of such a pre-requisite, what results is a moral delusion of the highest order.
Now, what are we mere mortals supposed to do? Be practical and hence sensible; or be true to oneself , idealistic and therefore be branded a moron? Well well, when did we ever find answering such questions easy? Till very recently, I had been very optimistic about listening to one's heart in a variety of matters, honesty, not cheating people , such kind of filmy stuff (O shoot, I am becoming cynical). Even though I believe in those qualities even now, its not easy being one of the few who believe so, and hence get hurt in the process, in a world, where the majority has no scruples in exploiting others in the garb of practicality and being flexible. Where is the commitment to relationships? Where is the commitment to values? Where is the commitment to their own selves? And most importantly, where is the effort towards any of the above? How much ever people might argue otherwise, a change in position, the flexibility, the change in hearts, the change in relationships, the so-called practicality and strategising is accompanied by a veritable deluge of high moral motives to justify it. All this happens not because a person has become more enlightened about the issue at hand and has decided to act accordingly (read "practically"). This change is in fact the evidence only of that gift of clairvoyance which warns the person and enables him/her to hop into another warm berth.
So, honestly, there cannot be any discussion/debate on Practicality Vs. Honesty as long as this term "practicality" is used by opportunists to escape accountability for their actions. Guess, life comes a full circle and everyone indeed gets an actual taste of their own practicality.
Practicality can only be lauded when optimal decisions are taken by the concerned parties without hurting anyone. In the absence of such a pre-requisite, what results is a moral delusion of the highest order.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Madras Cut
Today being a sunday, I was lazing on my couch and trying to get sense out of some of the programmes in certain tv channels. It was then I noticed that a tv channel was broadcasting some telugu movie dubbed into hindi under the name of " Madras Cut". Now this is what pissed me off real bad. This all started when I went to Delhi in 2003 for some academic purpose. To many north Indians, not the people who had never set their sight on a school building, but those who where preparing for the civil services examination and the other literate lot, everything in India to the south of Vindhyas is Madras and all the inhabitants there are " Madrasis". Well, well, I can modestly say that I am not a linguistic fanatic, neither am I one who believes in the narrow sense of regionalistic identitism, nevertheless I would prefer if people identify each other factually for what they are. I am not one of those who use identity for the purposes of violence, fanaticism and means of separation. But, in the global perspective, it is just similar to an Indian getting irritated if he/she is repeatedly identified to as a Bangladeshi, Chinese, Nepalese or a citizen of any other country, he/she does not belong to.
So, I hope that people get their geographies and their polities right, and that too, soon pleaseeeee.........!!!
So, I hope that people get their geographies and their polities right, and that too, soon pleaseeeee.........!!!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Strategic Management of Love-Lesson 2: The Art of Negotiation
If one has to negotiate in a relationship, follow the golden rules :)
1) Always play the reluctant lover
2) Dont open up with all ur thoughts, i.e., dont place all ur cards on the table, keep the other person guessing
3) Be emotionally detatched, rather, dont get emotionally invloved
4) Do not feel the need for the other person---a want can be compromised, not a want/desire
5) Dont act desperate
6) Dont act too interested
Negotiation is an art, it has to be developed. And one can become good at it only with practice. So, all u people out there, practice this with as many :) to master this art.
1) Always play the reluctant lover
2) Dont open up with all ur thoughts, i.e., dont place all ur cards on the table, keep the other person guessing
3) Be emotionally detatched, rather, dont get emotionally invloved
4) Do not feel the need for the other person---a want can be compromised, not a want/desire
5) Dont act desperate
6) Dont act too interested
Negotiation is an art, it has to be developed. And one can become good at it only with practice. So, all u people out there, practice this with as many :) to master this art.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Not So Gay ?
The Delhi High Court ruling legalising or decriminalising homosexual acts amongst consenting adults has stirred a hornest's nest. The section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalises consensual sexual acts between members of the same sex has been declared violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. However, the reactions that have erupted quite vociferously against the Delhi HC ruling are regressive in nature.
An astrologer, Suresh Kaushal who was amonst the first to raise the objection, has said that even animals do not act in such unnatural ways. The SC would be hearing the merit in his stand, along with the voice of Naz, a gay rights activist group. There are also certain religious heads belonging to the Sikh, Muslim and the Christian communities who have been very explicit and overtly expressive in their objection on the same. There have also been a few health experts who have said that this legalisation would perpetuate unsafe sex and consequently the HIV virus.
Now, there are a few not so comfortable questions these objectionists need to answer:
1) Isn't the criminalisation of homosexual activity amongst consenting adults not against the articles 21 , 14 and 15 of our Constitution? Article 21 talks about the Right to life and liberty, which infers the right of an individual to choose one's partner. Article 14 talks about the Right to Equality and the Equal protection of laws, and the Article 15 talks about non-discrimination on the basis of caste, religion ,race, creed, sex, and here sex should not be merely referred to the gender but also to mean sexual orientation. This rests on the same principle of protecting the minorities like women, muslims, sikhs etc.
2) When certain communities/religions have their own personal laws to determine their way of life as against the law of the land, now suddenly why start harping that it is against any sacred book/religion and that India should not legalise such an act? Since when did the law of the Land start affecting them?
3) There are still many unexplained reasons (environmental and genetic) for the behaviour and the sexual oreintations of the gays/homosexuals. Who is anybody to talk about the naturality or the unnaturality of this act till the reasons are well researched and the results known?
4) How can we explain the double standards of people who invite the enuchs to bless a new born baby, while scorning at homosexuals?
5) Instead of fearing an increase in unsafe sex, is it unthinkable that the legalisation of consensual adult homosexual act would result in more of such people asserting their sexual right and coming out into the open? Is it not more feasible to educate them on safe sex and the HIV virus in such a scenario?
Instead of introspecting the above, many are just harping on the decline in moral values that the Delhi HC ruling would encourage. It would do more good to be informed about homosexuals than criticising them. (In fact I have been thinking of the widening in the scope of rape to include homosexuals:))
The term 'Gay' was originally meant to mean ' carefree, happy and uninhibited', also used loosely to comment on the morality of an individual. And during the 20th century, it attained the meaning now widely used for similar kind of reasons. There are arguments as to the environmental and genetic basis or such sexual orientations. There has been no authentic conclusion so far. However, there have been some studies on the fruit flies, where a DNA transplant made the male fruit flies move away from the females and get attracted to the male fruit flies. Also, there have been studies on the physiological and cognitive similarities between straight men and gay women, and similarly between gay men and straight women.
So, the crucification of personal choice of sexual orientation and partners need not be so malicious as has been expressed from various quarters. It is after all a matter of personal choice, and morever, what about heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual acts, or are bisexual? In which ambit would such individuals fall?
Let us all believe in the policy of 'live and let live' There is nothing wrong in disliking or not prescribing to a thought or an action which may be morally debatable in one's eyes. The strength of an individual lies more in the continous strive in learning to cohabitate peacefully with people holding such thoughts or values. Now, if that is not being GAY---GOOD AS YOU, what is?????
An astrologer, Suresh Kaushal who was amonst the first to raise the objection, has said that even animals do not act in such unnatural ways. The SC would be hearing the merit in his stand, along with the voice of Naz, a gay rights activist group. There are also certain religious heads belonging to the Sikh, Muslim and the Christian communities who have been very explicit and overtly expressive in their objection on the same. There have also been a few health experts who have said that this legalisation would perpetuate unsafe sex and consequently the HIV virus.
Now, there are a few not so comfortable questions these objectionists need to answer:
1) Isn't the criminalisation of homosexual activity amongst consenting adults not against the articles 21 , 14 and 15 of our Constitution? Article 21 talks about the Right to life and liberty, which infers the right of an individual to choose one's partner. Article 14 talks about the Right to Equality and the Equal protection of laws, and the Article 15 talks about non-discrimination on the basis of caste, religion ,race, creed, sex, and here sex should not be merely referred to the gender but also to mean sexual orientation. This rests on the same principle of protecting the minorities like women, muslims, sikhs etc.
2) When certain communities/religions have their own personal laws to determine their way of life as against the law of the land, now suddenly why start harping that it is against any sacred book/religion and that India should not legalise such an act? Since when did the law of the Land start affecting them?
3) There are still many unexplained reasons (environmental and genetic) for the behaviour and the sexual oreintations of the gays/homosexuals. Who is anybody to talk about the naturality or the unnaturality of this act till the reasons are well researched and the results known?
4) How can we explain the double standards of people who invite the enuchs to bless a new born baby, while scorning at homosexuals?
5) Instead of fearing an increase in unsafe sex, is it unthinkable that the legalisation of consensual adult homosexual act would result in more of such people asserting their sexual right and coming out into the open? Is it not more feasible to educate them on safe sex and the HIV virus in such a scenario?
Instead of introspecting the above, many are just harping on the decline in moral values that the Delhi HC ruling would encourage. It would do more good to be informed about homosexuals than criticising them. (In fact I have been thinking of the widening in the scope of rape to include homosexuals:))
The term 'Gay' was originally meant to mean ' carefree, happy and uninhibited', also used loosely to comment on the morality of an individual. And during the 20th century, it attained the meaning now widely used for similar kind of reasons. There are arguments as to the environmental and genetic basis or such sexual orientations. There has been no authentic conclusion so far. However, there have been some studies on the fruit flies, where a DNA transplant made the male fruit flies move away from the females and get attracted to the male fruit flies. Also, there have been studies on the physiological and cognitive similarities between straight men and gay women, and similarly between gay men and straight women.
So, the crucification of personal choice of sexual orientation and partners need not be so malicious as has been expressed from various quarters. It is after all a matter of personal choice, and morever, what about heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual acts, or are bisexual? In which ambit would such individuals fall?
Let us all believe in the policy of 'live and let live' There is nothing wrong in disliking or not prescribing to a thought or an action which may be morally debatable in one's eyes. The strength of an individual lies more in the continous strive in learning to cohabitate peacefully with people holding such thoughts or values. Now, if that is not being GAY---GOOD AS YOU, what is?????
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Selective Liberalism
Ever since the French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated that burkhas are not welcome in his country, there has been a lot of debate and heat generated on liberalism and freedom of individual choice. But there are different aspects relating to this controversial statement. One, that so called liberal democracies still suffer from narrow-mindedness, and for this statement on burkha to come from a democracy that gave us the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, this is not a small concern. Second, the countries which are raising a hue and cry as to the French President's statement could as well look into their own backyard.
Liberalism stands on the principle that an individual has the right to decide what he/she wants for himself/herself as long as it does not hinder the liberty of others. When this principle is taken to the higher plane of the State, then a State can impose any laws it wants, but this should not hinder the personal choice or the liberty of the individuals in the concerned State, as long as it does not impede national security. It is in this context that Sarkozy's statement needs to be debated. Sarkozy's statement is definitely regressive. But this cannot hide the fact that the same principle of liberalism should extend to the Muslim -majority States like Saudi Arabia, where even the non-muslim minorities are supposed to be attired in hijab. Well, if one has a right to read Quran, others do have the right to read the Satanic Verses or watch a Da Vinci Code. If someone, muslim or otherwise, wants to wear a burkha, it is their personal choice. There are many who say that a burkha stands for male domination and female oppression, but there are as many women who wear it on their own accord. This altogether is another debate. But the argument remains that one cannot want to let their religious brethren to have all the freedom of personal choice, while the other religious members are not provided the same in the muslim-majority States.
A State in the modern world cannot afford to be religious. This is where the entire argument on the wearing of burkhas and hijab leads to. And all the States need to introspect their own standards and standing on liberalism, if not selective liberalism.
Liberalism stands on the principle that an individual has the right to decide what he/she wants for himself/herself as long as it does not hinder the liberty of others. When this principle is taken to the higher plane of the State, then a State can impose any laws it wants, but this should not hinder the personal choice or the liberty of the individuals in the concerned State, as long as it does not impede national security. It is in this context that Sarkozy's statement needs to be debated. Sarkozy's statement is definitely regressive. But this cannot hide the fact that the same principle of liberalism should extend to the Muslim -majority States like Saudi Arabia, where even the non-muslim minorities are supposed to be attired in hijab. Well, if one has a right to read Quran, others do have the right to read the Satanic Verses or watch a Da Vinci Code. If someone, muslim or otherwise, wants to wear a burkha, it is their personal choice. There are many who say that a burkha stands for male domination and female oppression, but there are as many women who wear it on their own accord. This altogether is another debate. But the argument remains that one cannot want to let their religious brethren to have all the freedom of personal choice, while the other religious members are not provided the same in the muslim-majority States.
A State in the modern world cannot afford to be religious. This is where the entire argument on the wearing of burkhas and hijab leads to. And all the States need to introspect their own standards and standing on liberalism, if not selective liberalism.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Strategic Management of Love--Lesson 1
Note: All these lessons are for those who are genuinely interested in someone, or will be at some point of time in future;) All the best
1.Never Expose your interest : It is in this one field of love that something acquired without hardwork is scorned upon. The harder you are to be attained by the other person, the higher you put up your price, the harder you play to get, the more will the other person's interest be retained in you. Hence, even if you are dying of wanting to look at the other person when you meet him/her for the first time, dying to talk to them, just let be ( I know it is very hard, but trust me it works). U feel like calling him/her up after you return home, DON'T. Wait till the other person calls you. Do not show too much enthusiasm in the conversation while maintaining a courteous interest ( keep it almost formal). Better to keep alive an element of confusion so that the other person does not assume you are totally disinterested. That confusion can make the other person keep thinking about you more;)
This exhibition of so called lack of interest in the other person may work for you in two ways. One, the person will start thinking about you as to what is it that you found disinteresting in him/her. This could be due to ego or otherwise. Second, it will give more impetus to the other person to make you interested in him/her and like him/her.
So, instead of other person thinking that you were an easy conquest and may be lead to the danger of the person losing interest in you easily or soon enough, put up your price darlings!!!. This is not the age of sincerity, rather it is the age of exhibiting what the other person expects of you. It truly helps in the long run, one to know whether he/she had the patience and true liking for you to take time to woo and impress you, and secondly, that time-gap would help you understand him/her better.
1.Never Expose your interest : It is in this one field of love that something acquired without hardwork is scorned upon. The harder you are to be attained by the other person, the higher you put up your price, the harder you play to get, the more will the other person's interest be retained in you. Hence, even if you are dying of wanting to look at the other person when you meet him/her for the first time, dying to talk to them, just let be ( I know it is very hard, but trust me it works). U feel like calling him/her up after you return home, DON'T. Wait till the other person calls you. Do not show too much enthusiasm in the conversation while maintaining a courteous interest ( keep it almost formal). Better to keep alive an element of confusion so that the other person does not assume you are totally disinterested. That confusion can make the other person keep thinking about you more;)
This exhibition of so called lack of interest in the other person may work for you in two ways. One, the person will start thinking about you as to what is it that you found disinteresting in him/her. This could be due to ego or otherwise. Second, it will give more impetus to the other person to make you interested in him/her and like him/her.
So, instead of other person thinking that you were an easy conquest and may be lead to the danger of the person losing interest in you easily or soon enough, put up your price darlings!!!. This is not the age of sincerity, rather it is the age of exhibiting what the other person expects of you. It truly helps in the long run, one to know whether he/she had the patience and true liking for you to take time to woo and impress you, and secondly, that time-gap would help you understand him/her better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
