The Tiger in the Woods.

The image of a phenomenal shot by Tiger Woods, followed by the claim
of consulting firm Accenture - "High Performance, Delivered", won't
leave us for some time. Because it is high performance and Tiger
Woods has almost always delivered it. But now, Accenture is pulling
out of all endorsements of the golfing legend, because he "no longer
represents" the image they want to portray.

Question is - did they hire him for being a phenomenal golfer who can
personify high performance, of did they use him to make Accenture look
like a saintly company? I tend to think his golfing abilities were of
paramount importance and I have no reason to believe he is any less of
a golfer now after these scandals have broken out about his
extramarital affairs. In other words, his "high performance" could
very easily remain unaffected, but for some reason, his image as a
squeaky clean "person" is more important to a company that wanted to
associate with him when the going was good, and has readily dumped him
for reasons having nothing to do with their business with him. That
sounds like pure betrayal to me.

How come we don't care about squeaky clean people who can't perform
like Tiger Woods? There are never any prizes for being morally in the
best league, are there? So, what's the big deal when a high performer
in one area doesn't hold the same standards elsewhere? This is by no
means an endorsement of Tiger Woods' behaviour, but why is it that we
find it hard to accept the disruption of this image of sainthood that
we the world conferred upon him? Why're we so deeply invested in our
own stupidity, in an assumption that worked for such a long time for
everyone? Because we hate being told we are wrong. Much like the
flat earthers must have felt centuries ago.

The media is as much of an infidel when it comes to scandals. Not one
media outlet that has so far ooohed and aahed every Tiger Woods
achievement has thrown out the other perspective - "So what if Tiger
Woods had affairs outside of his marriage? He continues to be a
golfing legend we can continue to celebrate. We hope he comes out of
his problems and his self imposed exile and starts thrilling us on the
golf course again".

I'll tell you why this won't happen. The biggest
consumers of popular American media are white people, and they are all
feeling bad that a white woman, namely Mrs. Woods, has been "wronged".
How can they lose the entire population of white women from their
viewership by taking this perspective? Especially when Tiger Woods is
kind of black. The "See, we told you they're all bad" perspective,
even while unspoken, is the easiest nonsense to sell.

So, instead of being faithful to the phenomenal athlete for his
abilities and the number of times he has helped sell television time,
the media has shamelessly now jumped on the scandal bandwagaon to make
a mockery of him and get more of what they have got from him up until
now - popular viewership! That is what this pimping business is all
about. It doesn't matter who gets fucked as long as we can promise
more mindless sex.

There is nothing worse than an "average" mindset. The people who are
all outraged by Tiger Woods aren't by any means the people who will
ever belong in his high performance bracket. Tiger has simply
demonstrated that yes, one can have it all - a secure marriage, a lot
of money and goodwill, and affairs on the side! A lot of men would
love to have all of this, but would hate the consequences in case it
turned out like this. The big difference is, Tiger went for it. The
rest of us didn't.

None of us ever heard any of those damsels he had affairs with
complain until this scandal "broke out" did we? Now, why are they all
coming out of the woodwork? Because now, they can make money out of
the scandal! The frenzy is on, and the media is here to fuel their
fire. One of those paragons of virtue even said she feels really
sorry for Mrs. Woods. Oh, yes, we totally believe you my dear Mother
Teresa. I bet you never knew who you were being divinely uplifted by.
This nonsense is endless. I wonder how in her poetic conscience it
never occured to her that she could pick up the phone and called Mrs.
Woods to apologize to her quietly. Indiscretions are as common as
discretions. Get that, people.

Tiger Woods never claimed not to be anything he is being found out to
be. All of us slapped that clean image on him, because we wanted him
to be that way for our own limited minds to have something like that
to look up to, because we stupidly believe that being "good" brings us
all the good things in life! Sure, it can make us feel good, but
Tiger Woods wouldn't have a billion dollars if he hit the golf ball
into the ditch and went to church every Sunday.

Other people's fidelity, their sexuality, their choices should all be
strictly in their personal domain. None of us have any moral
authority to judge what other people do in their personal lives. We
have public figures for one reason only - to take the risks we would
like to take, without us having to bear the consequences. We're
willing to make them rich and famous to put up with this incredible
demand from us, but we forget to allow them one thing - flaws.

It is clear what a high performer can achieve. Tiger had it all. He
still has it all, and can have most of it all. That's what the world
cannot stand. That's what the media can never sell to the masses.
Tiger's highest performance is being able to keep a straight face to
his wife after having all these affairs. Kudos, Tiger! Now, the
reason she couldn't find out what kind of a man she was marrying was
because she is clearly not a high performer - she couldn't see beyond
the image. In other words, she is stupid like most of the fools
lapping up all the media sleaze.

Oh yes, she is a victim of marital infidelity, but she has always been
a victim of her own inability to tell what kind of a man Tiger Woods
really was. She still has a life much better than 99% of the women in
the world. How many women in the world would give an arm to be in her
place with the kind of wealth she has enjoyed without having to work
for a cent of it! Oh, tell me now, that she is shattered, and that
wealth doesn't mean much to someone who has to undergo the kind of
pain she is undergoing now, and I'll bet she doesn't ask for anything
less than a hundred million dollars in her divorce settlement.

If Tiger is the predator on the prowl and feels good about that, then
the mistake he has made is not having affairs, it is getting married!
He should divorce this woman he is married to, stop meowing like a stupid felis domestica and completely embrace being the Tiger in the Woods. It would make the world a much more interesting place, and leave a lot of people wondering why they lead such dishonest lives! Now that would be high performance, delivered.

BSK.

The Bollywoodization of India.

It's been a few months since the UPA government was voted to power once again. It's been more than a few months since Home Minister Chidambaram became a recognizable face as the Home Minister of India, if we can forgive him for merely being the Finance Minister in his earlier position. Around five years in national prominence. By now, you'd think our so called top news channels would have got around to pronouncing his name correctly. BBC and CNN have got his name right, but for some reason, to CNN-IBN, Times Now, and NDTV he is still Chi-daah-mbaram.

It was important enough for us hear from Shah Rukh Khan as soon as he showed up on Indian soil, live, about his experience with US Immigration officials, but we still haven't had any Big Fight on why NCERT history text books do not contain any information on entire kingdoms of South India.

Whether covertly ignored, or overtly sidelined, in a backhanded way, it is perhaps a blessing to be untouched by the incompetent. How many more South Indian names can we have mercilessly mauled on TV? It could get embarrassing.

In a world of massive multiple media penetration, access, symbols, and intermingling loyalties, perception plays an exaggeratedly important role, and the perception of India painted by the expanded reach of Mumbai cinema and its convenient and almost exclusive cohesion with a powerful but myopic “national” media, needs to be carefully monitored.

For a moment, let's ignore the organizations trumpeting their intent to promote “Indian Cinema” without any meaningful representation from four South Indian industries! Let's try to deal with the fact that Mumbai cinema, unwittingly or under the dictates of a big conspiracy, has a corrosive influence on the perception of Indian cinema that needs to be questioned and corrected, clarified and articulated, for the well being of both.

Amongst the various film industries in India, Mumbai rightfully has the numbers to buy some bragging rights for say, Shah Rukh Khan to be hailed as India's biggest movie star, but the rest of India really should say “No Thanks”. This isn't an argument against the market value of the sizzling Khan, but indeed against the rest of truly Indian cinema that is slowly being sidelined or getting swept under the big “Bollywood” rug.

Since Mumbai cinema gets exported more than the rest of Indian cinema, it gets more attention, and it doesn't take much for the convenience store consumerist laziness of the West to swallow the most simplistic understanding of Indian cinema as being essentially contained in “Bollywood”. This word works great to market any Mumbai cinema product abroad, but the best of the rest of India, which usually is qualitatively superior pure cinema, and culturally distinct, doesn't have a chance against this perceptional juggernaut.

If and when Indian cinema reaches a place where it genuinely competes against cinema from all over the world, South Indian cinema would have done its prospects serious harm if we allowed Mumbai cinema to continue its ubiquitous and deliriously incompetent representation of Indian cinema.

There was a time when Amitabh Bachchan brooded his way into the hearts of teeming millions – he was larger than life, could carry dialogue like a king, could be flawed and noble at the same time, and heartbreakingly selfless. It was fun watching his movies with people who couldn't understand a word he was saying, but enjoying the show all the same.

Today's Mumbai cinema no longer appeals to this audience. Mumbai cinema has made the shift from a partially culturally rooted cinema to a bizarre, noisy, colourful, culturally amorphous, constantly dancing animal that has so much momentum it doesn't care whether it appears as a damsel or a monster anymore. It has the numbers where it doesn't have to worry about identity.

This is not to hint Mumbai is suddenly producing universally appealing cinema. Far from that, it is producing cinema that currently appeals to the new breed of upwardly mobile mostly young Indians – global in ambition, citizenship and buying power, fluid and malleable in cultural identity. In other words, they are rich and don't give a sh** where they belong. They want a bit of fun, and can hardly be bothered to tax their intellect or demand something of substance – they seem to be satisfied as long as it gives them something to cheer as “Indian”. They will buy silly, they will buy over the top, they will buy rubbish if it looks glamorous but most importantly there are enough of them around. This number has attracted all the Hollywood studios to Mumbai. Without a cultural foothold, however, they are bound to continue on the path of glitz, occasionally managing to stumble into a story that sticks.

The rest of Indian cinema, however, for most part, really has to care about the identity of each film. The majority of Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Marathi, Malayalam and other regional cinema audiences do not live in the fantasy world of stories woven for these global Indians. It isn't uncommon to see the occasional “Nayagan” being remade to “Khalnayak”, but it would be very hard to envisage “Blue” being released as “Neelam” in Tamil.

Mumbai cinema in the world of art, is a strange creature. The vibrant, buzzing city itself is the heartbeat of India's economy and with so much energy and scale, you can almost start believing that the rest of the country is simply Mumbai multiplied. Its film industry is clearly not a stranger to this energy, but it is unfortunately apparent there isn't much else it seems to tap into. The promos sizzle but the films fizzle out. Glitzy mediocrity oozes out of its veins, and it is giddy for more.

Not without choice, but without a clue, a lot of Mumbai cinema has been trying to ape Hollywood cinema for a while, without making any investments in developing true artists. The moment Mumbai cinema allowed itself to be re-christened "Bollywood", it publicly accepted its decay and its defeat, but it had the numbers to run with the branding advantages. By breeding a whole generation of Hollywood wannabes, Mumbai cinema has willingly or unwittingly lost its chance to be true to any cultural anchor, or to be original. (May the exceptions that are few and far between be excused from this generalization – they do not define the rule).

The glee on its actors' faces when they show up at some international film events like Cannes and the Oscars really glosses over how empty they are, even when they don't have a single piece of work worthy of any kind of artistic attention on a global level. But it does highlight how Aishwarya Rai's cleavage has done more for popularising Mumbai cinema abroad than the best of Amitabh Bachchan's work. It should necessarily irk the rest of India if this business of “show” that Mumbai is now notoriously good at, ends up being the umbrella ambassador for a “Kanjeevaram” or a “Dweepa”.

It isn't about whether Indian cinema is being represented – it is whether it is being correctly represented. There is absolutely nothing from a quality standpoint to support Mumbai cinema as an ambassador of Indian cinema. It can't simply be about numbers. Our national bird is the peacock, not the crow.

Notwithstanding the central government's thrust to make India a Hindi country, including BSNL in Erode, Tamilnadu, having a sign encouraging everyone to learn a word in Hindi every day, to the suddenly declared Hindi Diwas that will be celebrated on Sept 14th every year, there are obvious signs everywhere that the Hindi siege is on. What better way to carry out this agenda than by Bollywoodizing India? The devil couldn't have come up with something better than this! Homogeneity would mean a bigger market for Hindi products, less effort needed from Hindi speakers, and indeed, a bigger market for Hindi cinema, more bragging rights for Shah Rukh Khan, (which most of us wouldn't grudge him for), but at what cost?

The number of advertising messages that bombard us with Hindi words written in English letters should get us thinking, but they irritate to say the least. Why would I have to read something in English to understand it in Hindi, if this were not a really slimy way of getting me to learn Hindi sounds? Or are non-South Indian advertising briefs so myopic in their creativity that they think it is cool to mix two languages, one of which a lot of people would never understand? Either situation is below par for intelligence and below the belt in application. It would be a little more bearable if some people actually realized we do not have a culture of saying “Take care” in any language in India and it sounds really awful in Tamil when it comes out sounding like “lock your house” and feels like “protect your belongings”.

Conspiracies apart, and stereotyping forgiven for the moment, what exactly does Mumbai cinema represent? Russel Peters was right when he said Mumbai cinema (he used the B word) is all about looks. Mumbai's leading ladies have a way of presenting themselves very much like their Hollywood counterparts. They can all do their interviews, their glam shows, and their flirting with the public rather well.

But on screen, all of the liberated modern woman is gone. They still have to pout, cavort, be shrill and barbie sexy for the men, but wait a minute! It's no longer OUR men! Heck, they've even lost their curves and most of them don't even look healthy any more! Blindly follow the white man and the crazy notions of beauty that the multinational cosmetic and fashion industries have oversold. God bless them for the money they make, but can we expect an “Arth” shattering performance from any of them? Clearly, they do not represent any cross section of India, but they're influencing the wannabe Fair and Lovely crowd, with misleading messages and marketing muscle. It's not their fault, but without them, this mirage wouldn't exist.

The men? The six pack seems to be in fashion, so everybody seems to be getting one. The Mumbai cinema hero of today is hip and cool, he can run and fly, and dance and flirt and look and walk and talk with style, but for some reason, he can't inspire. The rascal just isn't real enough, and he isn't even rascal enough! Isn't anybody noticing? The metrosexual ant has killed the awesome masculinity of the Hero. Big B didn't need a six pack to be convincing, and his romance was meatier and juicier than anything today's over-managed clowns can pull off.

The story? What story? There isn't one script out of fifty that gets made in Mumbai that has a recognizable head or a tail, leave alone a spine. And people wonder why movies flop? Well, duh! There simply seems to be next to nobody in Mumbai who can take an Indian story and give it the full, evolved, cinematic treatment, which will end up making it a universal story in any case. With more corporate structures coming up, and the inevitable college educated freaks with nothing but rat race life experience taking over story development duties, Mumbai is set to make even more fluffy, cute, chocolate filled rubbish with cosmetic companies in tow. Yet, these are people who won't waste anytime telling the world that “Indian cinema” has its own identity!

Aha! Identity! That is where the rest of Indian cinema, particularly culturally strong cinema like what comes out of Tamilnadu and Kerala, can and must do everything they can to never be seen under the "Bollywood" umbrella. Singeetham Sreenivasa Rao's "Michael Madana Kama Rajan" is brilliant in its own right, in its own space, to its own audiences. The movie is a riot, and no wonder it was a hit. No white man will ever understand head or tail of that movie in the way a South Indian can. And from the same director, we have "Pushpak" which the whole world will always follow and applaud in its own identity.

What identity does Mumbai have in world cinema today that the rest of Indian cinema needs to associate with? Zilch. What cultural identity does Mumbai cinema have in India today that Indian audiences can identify with? Zilch. And that is the bankruptcy that the rest of India does not have to be a part of. The rest of India simply does not have to associate with an animal that has no root or standing, culturally or artistically. They don't even have the same markets!

People who study the market for signs of a new product may argue that being recognized as part of a phenomenon may have some advantages, but this new "phenomenon" is only in whitey's head! The B word may be the buzzword, but again, we have B-wood cleavage to thank for that. (if one may be forgiven for not sufficiently applauding the rare brilliance of a “Lagaan”).

God bless the material wealth, fame, noise, and notoriety that comes with getting international attention, but it is harder to copy the work of a whole team of people making "Monster" than to copy the red carpet swagger of the actress on the awards night and be done with it. After all, we have a whole culture of people who love to watch how good one looks at the finish line. A whole generation of NRIs is still somehow feeling second class, and what better for them than to see one of "their own" on the same stage as the white skinned pixies who are considered so hot? "Look, today we are equal to whitey!".

It isn't as if Mumbai cinema has suddenly found itself mimicking the West. From the black and white era, we have seen umpteen instances in the movie stories where the lead actor plays the piano while men in suits and women in saris and a variety of clothes dance to the tune which thankfully is very much Indian. But the salutations to the white man's culture are there for all to see. It would be a good subject for a research student to get a Ph.D. on - why Mumbai cinema ever needed to ape the west – even when its market was primarily culturally Indian and continues to be! Not that MGR never appeared in a ridiculously western suit in a Tamil film, but regional cinema, particularly South Indian cinema, never sold out on its cultural flavour.

Mumbai isn't making any better cinema today than it was ten years ago, and it doesn't have to, because its market dynamics do not demand that it make anything good in terms of pure cinematic merit. But it knows how to sell itself, and god bless the millions it brings in. But once the romance is over, then what? Isn't it already looking pretty hollow?

Mumbai cinema must take a deep breath and find its own voice – again, and again. It cannot afford to alienate itself from its core audiences in the long term, and it must not try to become the Hollywood of the east. The rest of Indian cinema, however, and particularly South Indian cinema has everything to gain from evolving itself separate from the caricatured and untruthful, very “Bollywood” propagated homogeneity of “Indian cinema” projected by organizations like the IIFA. Indian cinema doesn't need to be Bollywoodized any more than Mumbai cinema needs to be Hollywoodized.

Mumbai cinema can do the rest of India a favour, a big one at that. It can state at every available forum that "Bollywood" is not a representative of any complete image of Indian cinema, it is merely Mumbai cinema. Indian cinema minus Mumbai cinema has several very good identities, and they are all true and real, worth maintaining, no matter how small, as much as any of our languages. If we pride our unity in diversity, we should bloody well make sure we have our diversity intact in order to contribute to that unity.

India, as a culture, as a country, most certainly must resist being Bollywoodized.

* * *

The curse of the uncreative

The argument, needless like most, comes up every now and then - Is
creativity an exalted kingdom very few people can be in? Or can it be
taught? We Indians are often anxious about what we are capable of,
and usually fancy ourselves more than we are really capable of. For
most part, India isn't a very creative country. It isn't known for
producing creative people, and we do everything possible to maintain
that proud tradition. We're not talking about the arts or cinema,
design of public spaces or architectural grandeur. We're talking
about how hard we find it to simply avoid clutter. The lazy amongst
us will call it Kitsch, but this isn't that. It is our u n c r e a t i v i t y.

Our children grow up under an attack of noise, messages, morals,
information, rules, and competition. How can we expect them to get
creative with anything, when they don't have space even to breathe and
perceive anything for themselves? Look at the hoardings vying for
space just outside the Cantonment Railway station in Bangalore. In
the thirty seconds or less that anybody spends there, about twenty
nine are going to be spent looking for an autorickshaw or taxi. Right
there - no less than thirty five hoardings clogging all visual space!
Maybe we think it is better to have noise than have nothing at all.

For some reason, we seem to mistake "cute" for "creative". Little
children dancing, flying kites, and singing - "Always, G for H,
Goldwinner for health!" -to advertise the goodness of gingely oil from
Kaaleeswari? What's the logic here? We like children, so we'll throw
a few kids' faces on the screen. Then we'll have them jump around to
show how healthy they are and how much fun they are having. Then we
will show a packet of Gold Winner Gingely oil, so people will run out
and buy this shit so that their children can be like these kids on TV?
A kid recommending a bar of chocolate, sure, but how retarded do we
have to be to listen to a kid telling us about cooking oil? Sorry,
that's not creative. It gets downright ugly when Pothy's tries to
sell clothes with kids doing weird things, while we're attacked by the
words - Jackson! Attack! Betty! Repeat! - Pothys! What the fuck!

It isn't doing something "different" either that defines creativity.
Here is a "different" approach gone horribly wrong, on this TV program
called "Life's Like That".

Why are there people sitting at those
tables in the background? Is there any motivation for that? And why
do we have this horribly uncreative shot where one of those background
fools, (on a long lens, with the same screen size as the subject), is
looking straight into the camera?

This isn't just distracting, and for heavens sake, this is not style. It is rank unprofessionalism in
a profession that demands some basic understanding of craft if not
outright creativity. This has to be one more manifestation of the
distinctly Indian u n c r e a t i v e.

Creativity finds solutions, often to mediocrity. That's the reason we
hate creativity! It demands that we move away from our rank
mediocrity in everything we do as India. We are a bungling, fumbling,
confused, overrated, underworked and noisy collective that can't get
its shit together in anything we do collectively. That is why we have
a disconnect between ambition and achievement. It wouldn't hurt to
wonder why there isn't much clutter around the greatest cities in the
world - the ones that people flock to see once in their lives. It
wouldn't hurt to humbly submit that we don't have a clue what we are
doing when we are required to use our imagination.

We have been brainwashed to serve well as slaves. From our education
system where students and institutions and employers bow to marks, to
our political system where everyone bows to the Neta or to money, we
have lost it. And we're not going to turn this around, either. It is
torture, to be living amongst millions of uncreative souls, who do
nothing interesting. It is a curse, and some of us will be lucky to
escape from it.

When a Xylo ad. shows up in the middle of an MGR film on KTV, where
his character espouses the greatness of our culture, model Indian
female behaviour and all the pretentious nonsense of our "culture",
how many people would rush out to buy a Xylo after seeing one very gay
looking metrosexual male hanging out with four designer models inside
one, asking us to have "the time of our lives"? All this on a very
Tamil channel called KTV, being watched by traditional Tamil women?
Please. Someone needs to have their head examined for blowing
Mahindra's advertising budget like this.

Creativity is about learning things from various disciplines, using
knowledge from various sources, and knowing how to apply all of this
towards a cohesive solution. We've seen how bad Doordarshan's
coverage of cricket matches was, and how Channel 9 showed us it should
be done. This has nothing to do with budgets and number of cameras
either. DD is still pathetic because it still doesn't have staff
members that know WTF the art of live sports coverage is about!

The very fact that some people believe they can learn to be creative
means they are too late. Truthfully, it doesn't matter. If you
aren't creative, you don't have to find a job that requires
creativity. No need to worry, for the work that gets outsourced to
India is never likely to ask for our creativity. Isn't that what it
all comes down to?

Sadly, and quite clearly, it appears you CAN find a job that requires
creativity while you can still supply none! A lack of athletic
ability can measurably set you back in the world of sports, and in
plain sight it is not hard to see we don't have a Michael Jordan in
India. Lack of creativity also sets you way back as a productive
community. Creativity is not just about beauty. It is about elegance
and efficiency. It is about implementation that works, communication
that is clear, and an experience that is interesting and never
confusing. It is about a mindset that tries a few different ways of
doing things, with clear motivations for each. It is an attitude, and
it demands clarity in the collective.

Growing up, without morals.

Whoever gave us morals? If there is one thing that keeps us from
being absolutely honest, it has got to be our "moral" grooming. India
isn't the only culture that keeps bombarding its people with moral
nonsense either. President Bill Clinton was at the receiving end of a
fifty million dollar campaign that sought to prove he had extra
marital sex in the White House. A lot of senior leaders and
politicians stand against gay rights based on "morality". For heavens
sake, how about respecting what is another person's private affair?

There are a lot of fools who believe we will have a better world if
everybody's behaviour was morally pure. Sure! And there are fools
who believe if we shut every single industry down, stopped all
transportation and power generation, we'd not have any atmospheric
pollution either. It's logical, for sure. Heck, if we stopped
breathing altogether, we'd have a lot more oxygen left. Please let's
stop the Olympics! Look at how hard all the athletes breathe!
Nothing wrong with idealism, except that it cannot be pushed to
ridiculous extremes especially on moral grounds.

If you are able to say, based on nothing practical, but on some
arbitrary principle of righteous behaviour, that someone's actions are
right or wrong, then the real problem we have is this - Morals are
indeed, to each one of us, simply a list of things we agree with.
Your list and my list aren't necessarily going to be identical, not
with six billion of us around. By all means, keep your list, but
don't you dare expect me to live by yours!

Most certainly, the actions of one person can have an impact on
another. It is a given that we are interdependent in many ways. But
morals? If I didn't have extra marital sex, how is that going to make
anybody else's life better? Since morality mostly has to do with
sexuality, I wonder if just plain jealousy has to do with most of the
moral policing that goes on. You can see Chennai police taking
particular pleasure in disturbing couples on the beach and nosy Indian
landlords being particularly inquisitive about people of the opposite
gender visiting unmarried tenants.

The worst argument I have heard the Americans come up with in their
opposition to gay people getting married is that it destroys the
institution of marriage! I wonder how much damage to this esteemed
institution a 50% divorce rate is doing, never mind that all logic
would point to more people wanting to get married might actually
repair the institution much more than causing any damage to it.

Invoking the name of God for any reason should be punishable by death,
if not for sacrilege and deceit, then for stupidity. No human being
really knows anything conclusive about God, and simply concluding
without knowing isn't really a good way to skirt around this
shortcoming. Some countries might claim "In God We Trust", even
though they seem to invest more in the devil anyway. Let's judge
people purely through actions. Actions that hurt others should be
condemned, legislated against, and banned whenever and wherever
possible. Actions that have no direct impact on others should be left
alone to the pure discretion of the people carrying out those actions.
The other very important pointer available to us is intent. Two gay
people wanting to get married to each other are definitely not
intending to challenge the marriage of two heterosexual individuals!
So, if you're opposed to any of this on moral grounds, you ought to be
banished from this discussion and jailed where no human can have
contact with someone so poisonously stupid.

The other institution we haven't paid much attention to is the "social
contract" that we seem to function rather well under. If two people
cross each other on the street, for most part, we are able to assume
they won't try to kill each other. If a visitor stops by, asking
someone who looks local for directions, we can, for most part, expect
the local to give correct directions or at the very least, not
deliberately mislead the visitor. These are social contracts we never
signed but can mostly take for granted. It is our trust in each other
and that is a beautiful thing. It is when we are most human, and most
powerful. We do function well without compulsions, and that is worth
taking note of.

I remember as a child, I was subjected to something called Moral
Science in school. If morals could be some kind of science, then it
automatically follows that it is based on rational enquiry,
experimentation, proof, and verifiability. There is no verifiable
record or proof to conclude that a moral existence brings us a better
life. So, this can never be a Science. I remember we discussed God,
the teachings of various religions and leaders, all disguised, perhaps
for respectability under this "science". It would be hard to shove
something called Moral Faff down our throats, wouldn't it? It was an
easy subject to pass, because it involved no room for thought or
argument. It was all just what it was, and we had to know spew
whatever we could swallow. Easy. This is the only time morals were
formally even presented to me, and I doubt if most people even have
this privilege.

I wonder if there is a stage in life when some of us suddenly become
morally conscious. If this is true, then it certainly means we got
along with our merry, morally ignorant ways till this point, and the
sky didn't fall on our heads. If we didn't go to jail or induce
hatred in other people, we perhaps did quite well by any standards.
So if we were to suddenly subscribe to morals, somewhere in the mix,
there has to be realization brought on by a sense of guilt. If guilt
were to guide us, then we have already made ourselves available to
fear and torment and we don't deserve any peace of mind. Yes, it is
logical - if you have suddenly switched to a moral existence, you
could actually lose your peace of mind! Any surprise that very happy
people rarely preach morals?

The pursuit of truth, however, is a noble one, and requires courage.
Finding the truth is the ultimate release from fear and all its
vicious entrapments. If we are fearless, we automatically become a
target for many people who'd rather kill a fearless person out of
fear, instead of learning from that person's mastery over fear! We
live in a strange world indeed, and we must eradicate these diseases
of fear, anxiety, and guilt from within our souls. Love is strength,
love is pure, love is power, love is light, and love is God. Love
alone stands for everything that is good about us. Trust in others,
empower the love in the other person's heart, and don't worry about
following your own. Remain above needing morals to guide your
actions.

Be a good Australian, beat up an Indian!

Australian Prime Minister, who I believe is a good enough bloke, Kevin
Rudd, has put a call out to Indians in Australia to not break the law,
in retaliation against attacks. Obviously Farrukh Dhondy has caused a
stir by asking Indians to organize and fight back. I agree with
Dhondy totally that in any civilized society, it would be perfectly
legal to use any means available in self defence. Just as the attacks
themselves are not very considerate of what is legal, why should the
retaliation be? I'm not sure why this point has not been brought up
to make Kevin Rudd shut up.

But let's spare a thought for what Australia is really up against.
For many years, Australia had a "white only" immigration policy. In
other words, they made sure whoever immigrated to Australia legally
had to be white. Now if that is not being racist, what is? It is in
their very national psyche to be racist, and never mind the great big
embrace of a progressive culture many Australians genuinely subscribe
to these days.

At some level, if you have made an enormously stupid decision in
national policy, somebody is going to pay for it at some point in
time. If China wasn't importing Australian coal and India wasn't
sending so many students to fuel Australia's economy, that country
would pretty much have nothing going for it. It isn't as if all
Indians would come running back to India and put an abrupt halt to
their four billion US dollars worth of educational income
contribution. Bank balances take a while to react to events like
these.

However, what is likely to be eroded away is the image of Australia as
a modern, diverse, progressive society. Every act of Australia is
going to be viewed through a lens of suspicion. If this gets any
worse, and it is almost certain to - Australia will pay a very heavy
price socially. Even though these attacks have been largely Melbourne
centric, and apparently in economically backward areas, they have a
way of polarising how people view one another, and the contribution
that ethnic Indians make to Australia will be a lot more close minded
from now on.

Why this is guaranteed to get worse is that negative energies always
have to run their course till the worst repurcussions are felt by the
average Australian. Karma runs in big circles where national policies
are concerned. Anger, resentment, hatred, prejudice, and the
inevitable member of this club, stupidity, all feed upon each other
rather well, and grow in size and variety, and really flourish when
unleashed like this. Ah, today we have a report on television that
the neighbours of racial attack victims are feeling scared, of
reactions, and are not coming out after dark! How lovely that people
who had nothing to do with these attacks, except for belonging in the
same nationality of those idiots have to pay a price already!

Today, an Indian cab driver in Australia was kicked and punched by
Michael Hurley, a football player, when he asked for the fare.
Putting it down to the influence of alcohol, from which there is a
"lesson for everybody", Victoria PM, Brumby has called the footballer
a "good kid" after being arrested at the scene of the crime. Sure
there were the usual noises, but certainly drowned in appreciation of
how "good" this "kid" was. Bloody donkeys these Australians I tell
you. What a disgrace to the few decent people that must live there.

Our college students in Australia are not "good kids", most definitely
not when they don't get drunk, don't beat up people and don't get
arrested. Or else for some reason, maybe racism, none of the
Australians ever used this wonderful term to describe a single Indian
as a "good kid". It is time Indians turned out to be good kids, just
like their Australian counterparts, got drunk and started beating
people up. Couldn't they be told when they get their visas what
Australia considers "good" behaviour?

It must be "excellent" behaviour when it takes seventy Australians to
beat up three Indians. Those numbers are simply astounding. Our boys
took a pounding and survived? Hats off, boys! Australia has managed
to arrest six people in connection with this excellent incident. The
local authorities have apparently decided to open up Hindi helplines
and have asked Indians to call when they are being attacked!!

Today, Peter Verghese, the Australian High Commissioner to India, made
the usual reconciliatory statements to insist Australia is with India
on Arunachal Pradesh. Last month, Australia joined China in scuttling
an ADB loan to an irrigation project in Arunachal Pradesh. China had
lobbied for support, arguing that the Bank cannot fund projects in
Arunachal Pradesh as it is a disputed area. When did Arunachal
Pradesh become a disputed territory? At this rate, I might lose my
house to Mozambique!

Verghese actually went on record saying today that their vote at the
ADB was neither pro-China nor anti-India, but really was in line with
a resolution passed by the management of the ADB. Smooth talking
chap, who gives me something else to think about - the alleged
Christian conspiracy to block India's progress. I wouldn't be
surprised if this fool was a member of some think tank that believes
India's progress can be stopped by scuttling some loan for some
irrigation program.

It is clear that Australia is losing it. They need the money China is
throwing at them for their coal, India is throwing at them for their
increasingly dubious educational system and institutions, they're
looking real bad being one of the most polluting countries in the
world, their people are behaving terribly, and now fear is gripping
their society. Fantastic ingredients for progress, mate?

- BSK.

Julia Roberts needs 350 bodyguards????

Julia Roberts is filming in a temple in India on her next film and for
most part has been welcomed, but now for the small reason of showing
up with 350 bodyguards in a bulletproof car and for preventing local
people from worshipping at their own temple, she is being cursed.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/julia-roberts-army-of-350-bodyguards-angers-villagers/520548/

What is at play here? Not even Barack Obama needs 350 bodyguards, and
who the heck is going to shoot Julia Roberts? Someone has gone
insane, and it sure isn't the local villagers who are being prevented
from using their temple in the holiest time of their religious
calendar - Navaratri. Either Julia Roberts is using a local security
agency that guaranteed her security in all situations short of a
nuclear strike, and has paid through her pretty nose, or she's really
paranoid. The former would point to an overdone bit of caution
engineering, but the latter shouldn't surprise us one bit.

For all her Oscar winning abilities as an actress, we mustn't forget
she is American, and she is white, and is perhaps easiest to convince
that any place in the world other than her neighbourhood is dangerous
in one way or the other. Three hundred and fifty bodyguards sounds
like somebody went cuckoo, but that is what white American people look
to the rest of the world anyway. Would it also not be easier to put a
bullet in this woman in the USA, with better weapons available and
better getaway facilities? I bet she doesn't use a bullet proof car
there.

American film crews also have a habit of applying their values to the
places they go abroad to film in. They are not above making demands
that are strange and new to the local culture, even in a heavy movie
making culture like India, even while enjoying the comforts like "spot
boys" that you never see on a Hollywood film set. If Julia Roberts'
hair can be insured against the available of Evian water for its daily
wash to a ridiculous dollar figure, chances are, her schedule is of
insane importance to someone who, somewhere in the value chain,
absolutely needs to finish the film on time with no interruptions
whatsoever, and is willing to pay top dollar or bribe rupee to ensure
her safety and the security of the filming location to the nth degree.

What is insulting to me as an Indian, however, is not so much Julia
Roberts' perception of India or lack of it that may have prompted this
ridiculous security cordon, but the fact that India, which flatly
refused to guarantee the security of the Indian Premier League last
year, is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the needs of a
stupid movie project. The IPL is important to Indians and the
millions of cricket fans following it. It should not have moved to
South Africa for security reasons, the worst of them being that the
government actually went on record saying it was unable to provide
security for the mega event because of elections.

When Ms. Jayalalithaa, the AIADMK supremo, wanted to travel to the USA
with her 30 odd or 40 odd bodyguards, the US government went far
enough to refuse their visas! She is much more of a target than Julia
Roberts can ever be, and that is not a compliment to either woman, but
the incongruence of the values applied stands out in comical
exaggeration. White Americans always believe their lives are more
precious than other people's, and behave accordingly, no matter how
many children of other pedigrees may be adopted by Brad Pitt and
Angelina Jolie.

At a time when Israel has issued warnings of terrorist attacks in
India, and asked its people and Americans to not go to India,
somewhere, some madness has been let loose to enable this film
production. It is downright stupid to ignore these warnings,
especially if you are an American coming to India after what happened
in Mumbai on September 26th last year, but if you are coming to make a
film in some remote village, wouldn't you want to keep it low profile?

Julia, if you are indeed in charge of this stupid decision to hire 350
bodyguards, shame on you, not for being so scared of your fragile
f***ing existence as a human, but for your ignorance. Any and all
bullsh** you may feed the world in any forum about you caring for the
planet and wanting to help others in any way is nothing but a tardy PR
exercise. You are as fake as anybody else, and you could generously
apologize not to us but to people like Erin Brokovich, who failed to
inspire you to a more courageous existence. If you aren't responsible
for this rubbish, move, lady! Fire the fools who are making you look
so stupid.

By the way, is your car really bulletproof? That's what they said
about the vests used by the Mumbai policemen who got killed by
terrorists' bullets. You better pray before you eat or love! Welcome
to India.

- BSK.

A celebration of Kitsch.

Kitsch - from Sakalakala Vallavan to Quick Gun Murugun (why MuruGUN
instead of MuruGAN?), Indian cinema has slowly but snugly covered
itself in this one description - Kitsch, and seems fairly proud of it.

It is as derogatory as Mumbai cinema calling itself Bollywood and
feeling proud of its failure to rise above third rate glitz, spiced
with fizz, sizzle and a burst of shitz. But it is uniquely Indian.
Post independence India (the only India, really) has found its final
sense of belonging! In Kitsch. Our biggest expressions in the world
of art are still very Kitsch.

We're proud of it because we can afford to be lazy under this umbrella
called Kitsch. It is a warm, fuzzy feeling, when a billion of us can
agree to stay mediocre! Well, shitz, we can even go lower! Thank God
the true artists of this country can still stay out of this mess.
They're not in the news, for the news is also mostly ten pages of page
three, and they're not on TV because TV journalism in India is still
very much about decibels and cheap tricks. No wonder there are so
many shrill women thriving in this media culture and not finding
anything of substance to bring to us.

When Kitsch comes about through a work of art skidding on incongruency
and stumbling over paradoxes, finally landing on the inexplicable that
nobody noticed until that moment, it can be very fun, rewarding and a
nice little dose of low brow. It might even start a new subculture if
the subtleties are handled well, and the perspective is fresh. Then
it has the potential to be substantial, even hope to become art at
some level.

With a starting point marinated in the kind of disconnect Mumbai
cinema is famous for, it can take the best aim at creating Kitsch.
German or not, the word has been adopted by India to define itself.
It's a mess. Whether it is cinema, or signboards, or seats in a bus,
elegance please excuse thyself! This is India.

The stench of urine that hits us as soon as our train enters Chennai
Central, the number of times our cinema viewing experience is marred
by idiots letting their cellphones ring in theatres, the confusing
signs that lead to defunct facilities, the phones that don't work, and
people giving advice when not asked - each of this is our celebration
of Kitsch. Why do we take this attack on our senses so quietly?
Because we have been muted by the enormity of Kitsch around us!

A billion people subscribing to nothing but shit will ensure nothing
but shit gets delivered to us, even if a few of us want to be spared
the landslide. People cannot be inflicted with good taste. But if
there is any way the few of us who want to buy insulation from the
"cattle class", we would gladly do so.

Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for External Affairs got into a bit
of trouble for saying he would travel "cattle class to show solidarity
with our holy cows". The humour in it actually highlights the
experience of being in India. We are a bloody herd. To have a human
experience, in dignity and quiet, it takes some doing in public spaces
in India.

The paradoxes that Paul Merton might find fascinating about India, and
the inspiration that Baz Luhrman might have got from "Bollywood" for
his film Moulin Rouge are nothing but slices others can tolerate from
us. Our Kitschy behaviour is hardly bearable beyond the early points.
It is beginning to wear real thin. It isn't what we should be
subjecting ourselves to, and it certainly isn't something to be proud
of.

Let's stop the parade that "This is India". The middle class is right
now turning snooty with new found wealth, the power to buy, and
doesn't care. The upper class has long since bought the insulation
they need. The lower class in India is striving hard to come up to
the middle class. but they still don't have the means to rise above
their squalor. When they reach the middle class, they won't care
either. Because they are OUR people!

It may be too much for any of us to question another Indian's "right"
to contribute to the filth in the neighbourhood, to drive like a
lunatic, to spread rumours, to disrespect the law, and to be loud and
despicable in every way. Not all of us have the energy to stand up
against all the ills that we are putting up with. If that were the
case, we wouldn't be such a Kitsch society. But we definitely must
get this notion out of our heads that we cannot really change. We are
cattle, (no doubt about that Shashi Tharoor), but we certainly can
express our disapproval and we can certainly behave better. Maybe in
the sheer numbers we have contributed to the Kitsch, we can begin to
dismantle some of it. Kschitz!

A "different" movie? Wait a minute!

"A very "different" film". How many clowns have made this claim in the recent past with absolute trash unleashed on the audiences? So, after suffering through a few and not having been redeemed by even one, here is my retort to these uncreative dungheads trying to be "different".

If I am travelling in a new country, in a very explorative mood, and I come across a fruit I have never seen before, now that is something "different" I am willing to try. A new way of life? Sure I am willing to give that a try as something different. But the big difference, pun intended, is that the fruit has been years in the making, has paid its dues to the evolutionary process and I am the one who is new here to the experience. Same with hearing and trying to talk in a new language. The language has been there for a while and has been "effective" before I got there. Compare that to a crap artist trying to make a movie without a clue what the art is about, and you know how indifferent I have become to something "different" coming from these punks who should be lined up and shot without any mercy.

First of all, who the f*^k asked for anything "different"? A really good movie is about how effective and engaging the story is, how well the performances go with the narrative, and how cinematically unobtrusive the visual experience is. Greatness is built upon these basics, not with a mandate to be different. If I got ice cream for breakfast just to be different, I'd be mad as hell. There are certain things a breakfast has to deliver, and it better deliver, no matter what is served. I'd be delighted with my usual breakfast if it "involved" something different if interesting.

Aha! The magic word - "interesting". Only creative people can do the most interesting things. If you are an uncreative slob trying to be different, please, for sanity's sake, give it up. We can see through that lousy attempt of yours. That said, it doesn't take much to start something interesting. A little boy goes missing! You've got my interest. A married woman flirts with a man her husband doesn't know about. Interesting! But you give me gas about "human trafficking" or "global warming" and tell me you have a "different" film based on one of these incredibly "important" issues, and you've lost me totally. What the heck is your film going to do about any of these? Absolutely nothing. I can see you have no story and are trying to be a parasite on an issue that might get some people to pay attention. Trust me, if I am coming to see a movie, I don't want an issue. All I want is a freaking movie.

Now, if you must be "different", you need to become a master first. A master who can weave a story so convincing and so engrossing that I don't even know I am being led up a new path. I can't see what's coming because I have been set up so well. Conventions exist for a reason. Storytelling is a craft that uses conventions a great deal, just like pace bowling. Every batsman knows inswingers and outswingers and so do the bowlers, but they put in a hell of a lot of practice to get it right so that the suddenly unexpected fast inswinging yorker, which also everybody has heard about, can uproot the stump. If a bowler bowled one to the fourth slip, and then a loopy full toss that lands straight in the wicket keepers gloves just to be different, he would be laughing stock, which has its own value, no doubt, but I shouldn't have to buy a ticket to watch this tomfoolery, should I?

It isn't easy to make a film. It is even harder to make a good film. It is much harder to make a great film. There is nothing accidental about any great film. It takes creativity, knowledge, and paying your dues to the world of art. You really should not take cinema so lightly as to imagine that any clown behind the camera can be a cinematographer and every moron who can yell "Action" and "Cut" can be a director. It is a combination of various well developed knowledge streams that need to come together to create cohesive cinema. And yes, it does take time. If you don't have it, don't waste mine.

Please, just be cohesive in your work, and coherent when you talk about your film. We don't want unqualified "genius talk". We just want movies that work. Not intellectual tripe in interviews, clueless actors and actors in female bodies who hate to be called actresses talking through their heads about things that are not true about the movie in the name of promotion. Everybody promotes their film, and we're tired of that nonsense too.

You know what? You can be different from the crap out there. Try being sincere.

Hard work? What for?

"Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work."- Stephen King

An open ended quote like this from somebody as noted as Stephen King is bound to have a few people imagine they can work hard and achieve anything. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hard work is overrated.

The most successful people in the world work very hard only in certain specific ways. In other words, they are very smart about where and how they apply themselves. Behind the choices they make is their inherent talent, judgement, intelligence, and sometimes, pure gut feel for what they are about to embark upon. Even more importantly, they are very good at realizing what is not going to work or what is not going to work very well. They know how to abandon and change directions.

The reason hard work gets so emphasized upon is because it is accessible to everyone. It comes with a baggage of all the good things like diligence, respect, duty, and all the other rubbish that doesn't count for anything if it led to failure or poverty, but it is safe advice, especially when it is getting dished out free of cost. I know many people who led extremely diligent, hard working lives, that never got a fraction of the success they craved.

It is easy to say, “You've got to work hard!”, but very hard to say, “You've got to become more talented!”. There is an assumption here that talent is God given but we mortals should only subject ourselves to hard work. There is another assumption that there isn't enough opportunity around, and hence, out of ten equally talented people, only one will succeed! Rubbish.

The universe is abundant.

With the human population explosion, the number of millionaires and billionaires in the world has been increasing, not decreasing. So, there is absolutely no truth to the scavenging notions that people try to put into our heads should we choose not to strain ourselves out with hard work.

Smart people have always been able to seize opportunities based on their aptitudes and knowledge, skill and experience, not by working at minimum wage towards their first million dollars. Investment in knowledge is much more valuable than investment of hours on tasks. You will never find talented people working on anything except fine tuning their very special skills. They might give the perception that they are hardly working, but that is when they might very well be taking in a lot on observation and learning.

A blind hard work approach limits exposure to new learning, new perspectives, and makes one less adept to handling change and shifting paradigms. The smart ones can see change coming, and the smartest ones are probably causing most of it!

You will rarely hear prodigiously talented people talking about how "hard" it has been for them. You will not hear them giving you any advice about hard work either. Kind of strange, you would think, that nobody has quite said, "Anybody can work hard, but only the truly talented ones will win!". Maybe kindness plays a part here.

Exposure to and curiosity about a variety of things make us better informed. Experimentation and freedom to explore further our trust in unknown things and expand our horizons. Not hard work.

The most beautiful things in the world are created by talented people, who do not fear failure, who do not give extra merit to anything just because it is difficult. They know very well that one cannot do anything special just by being hard on themselves.

So, if you are, stop harping about hard work, please. It's demeaning to a marvelously capable unit like the human being.

Oh, shut up, Leo!

A few days ago, came the damning headlines in THE HINDU - The USCIRF places India on Watch list. We also had a news item that India "regretted" this.

This would be the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, no less. It sounds like an organization that should send shivers down our spines if we flouted any religious freedoms. At the very least, it tickles mine.

>>>>"It is extremely disappointing that India, which has a multitude of religious communities, has done so little to protect and bring justice to its religious minorities under siege," said Leonard Leo, USCIRF chair. "USCIRF's India chapter was released this week to mark the one-year anniversary of the start of the anti-Christian violence in Orissa."<<<<

This definitely sounds as if religious minorities in India are scurrying for cover. "It's a siege!" no less. It sounds like we're refusing admission to Christian children in our schools, refusing to admit Muslim patients in our hospitals, and there's mayhem on the streets with women being raped and communities being pillaged. Sorry, none of that is happening, and we have an Italian catholic woman as the head of the most powerful political party in the country, a Sikh Prime Minister, and a woman President who just followed a Muslim president.

Meanwhile, Shah Rukh Khan, described as an "international icon" by US diplomats earlier today, was harassed and detained at the Newark airport just because his last name was Khan. It took the Indian Consulate to vouch for him, before he was let go so he could be part of the Indian Independence Day celebrations in the USA. I hope this makes SRK think twice before he declares himself the biggest movie star in the world the next time, but he has, as unwittingly as some of his movies have become successes, helped highlight something of importance.

For a diplomatically sophomoric, adolescent country like the USA to be giving advice to a country like India, particularly on the subject of religion and freedom is a bit like an opportunistic hyena telling a tigress how she should bring up her cubs.

The Chairman of the USCIRF is a conservative Christian, appointed by the wisdom of GW Bush. That in itself should suffice to dismiss him from any position of international import. Forgiving that flaw would be easy compared to the 600,000 Iraqis killed in the name of "freedom" by the US military.

The USCIRF describes itself thus - "USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. USCIRF's principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress."

Sounds like without such a lengthy declaration, we'd arrive at the truth – "the USCIRF is an organization headed by a conservative Christian appointed by a born again Christian, to collect data, filter out the reasons for but highlight violence against Christians, and present such information through diplomatic channels so as to cause embarrassment to other nations."

The Catholic Bishops Conference of India has put out this news of India being "watched" on their website like it is some kind of vindication of India's collective stance on their religion, while making no attempt to provide their perspective on the truth of the incidents that have invited this kind of attention.

The Chairman of the USCIRF, Leonard Leo, stands for abolishing abortion. In other words, he believes women should lose their freedom to abort their unwanted pregnancies. If given a chance, he would wreak havoc on India with his conservative Christian beliefs, leading to the abolition of scientific theories about evolution, and eventually conclude to every mind in India that Christianity is the only way. This is his first sneak attack on India, and he deserves being served notice.

India exists as a multicultural, multi ethnic, and multi religious society precisely because of its secular and essentially very Hindu inclusive tradition. This doesn't have anything to do with religion. And yet, Hindus are the reason India is secular. Without the enormously evolved presence of Hindus, Christians and Muslims would have killed each other to take over this abundant land.

India has not occupied another country, not caused war, death and destruction of other peoples, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, like the USA. It is a blatant insult to India to even be mentioned in some arbitrary fashion about religious freedom, especially when it comes from a conservative Christian think tank in the USA, who are all thriving on the history of destroying an entire culture of Native Americans.

The Spanish Inquisition has taken more lives than many wars have – in the name of religion. Where was the USCIRF then? All of a sudden, it is fashionable to use the Obama administration's diplomatic clout to make an attempt, however feeble, at providing some kind of protection to Christian movements in India with dubious credentials when it comes to secular activities.

The people of the USA themselves do not take kindly to proselytizing and by and large, believe in religion being a personal thing. Indians have that sort of outlook too. When Christian groups come to India and try to take advantage of the economically challenged to further a religious agenda of recruitment, it is bound to anger some people. By no means does Hinduism condone acts of violence in the name of religion, but Hindus, who have never been baptized into any religion, by the way, do not take kindly to the whole philosophy behind religious conversion through persuasion.

In this context, it is high time secular India told adolescent USA to keep its inept comments and opinions on religious freedom to itself. We'd run out of names for watch lists if we were to return the compliment to the USA.

WADA PODA!

All Indian cricketers are united on this one - against the regulations
of World Anti Doping Agency, or WADA, that require our cricketers do
just as any other athlete or sportsperson signed on to these norms,
state where they are going to be available every single day for an
hour, so that they can be tested for drug abuse.

Of course this is needless extra work that players have to put in to
make the lives of someone else, namely the WADA workers, easy. It is
irritating to say the least. More than an invasion of privacy, this
is simply not what Indian cricketers are used to or should be
subjected to.

Why not? Our cricketers are not against being tested, but they don't
want to tell some arbitrary third party where they are going to be for
a specific hour every single day! This is a questioning of our
lifestyle, and we hate it. We Indians die for one thing - freedom to
be lazy and random. We hate being organized to this level, and now
some foreign idiot is telling us to adhere to his norms? Of course we
are going to resist.

The players are also supposed to give residence details, competition
and training locations and regular activity locations. Apart from the
locations, the form also demands the precise address of the "one off"
location at which the player will be present for any significant
period of time on any particular day. Sounds like they're really
pushing it. Oh, yes, we definitely love the "precise address" part!

Abhinav Bindra has no problems against this, because he is that kind
of person, in that kind of sport. He knows discipline, order,
meticulousness, planning, rigour - that sort of thing. Our cricketers
know brilliance, bravado, pressure, having to represent a massive
population, being ambassadors in more ways than one, and so they are
pampered in the way we treat them. Simple - our cricketers are
emotionally closer to us than Abhinav Bindra. Who can blame anyone
for this?

Should they be above board? Most certainly not, but can we ignore how
they can afford to feel? Our cricketers almost single handedly have
been responsible for a feeling of self worth of the famous Indian "man
on the street". We were WINNING in cricket way before we won in
anything else! That is why we love our cricketers. It isn't easy to
grow a cricket market like India overnight. There isn't going to be
another IPL, no matter how much anybody tries to copy it. Fact of
life, it is lonely up there at the top and only India is there in the
cricketing pecking order. The Australians seem to have got around to
the fact and have embraced their few places in this success story.
Brett Lee and Matt Hayden seem to totally get it.

So, it wouldn't hurt to give others a lesson in Indian culture either.
We treat our heroes differently. They're not going to stoop, not in
the least to do something as trivial and stupid as "comply" with some
stupid regulation. Come on! Get real.

The first assumption that needs to be struck down is that Indian
cricketers are just like everybody else. They are not. The second
assumption that needs to be struck down is that since other Indian
sportspersons have no problem with it, it has to be easy for Indian
cricketers to follow. Nothing can be further from the truth. Our
cricketers represent the biggest, most colourful, most flamboyant
dreams of success to us Indians. Our cricketers are top flight and we
love them for their successes, individual or collective. So, they
have come to represent a lot more than a game to us. They represent
us.

The most important thing to recognize here is that we Indians have
reached a place in our own minds and hearts where we don't want white
guys telliing us what to do. This is strictly high class vs low
class. Our cricketers are kings, some even emperors. We don't want
some drug testing peon from WADA trying to dictate any terms to any of
our kings. It is that simple. Sure we are class conscious, but now
we have the financial clout of the BCCI to actually tell whitey to
piss off and we're enjoying doing it at every opportunity. We ARE the
high and mighty here. And we will bloody well lead our lives the way
we want to.

There isn't ANYTHING these perhaps well meaning but clueless white
institutions can do against the simple fact that we respect our
emperors and we expect lower fools to shut up and put up. This is a
matter of respect. Our cricketers have so far not behaved
disrespectfully, but fully expect to be respected for their POWER.
Pure unadulterated power is what we have over the cricketing world.
Who is to dare tell us to give in?

If a WADA representative called any of our cricketers or their
managers and asked for one hour the next day, there'd be no problem
anywhere. It would be respectful enough, and wouldn't hurt the
process one bit. But expecting our cricketers to go onto some website
and maintain a schedule like a bloody schoolboy - forget it, clowns!
What're you going to do? Prevent Indian cricketers from participating
in the Olympics? Does it look like Harbhajan could get Sreesanth to
cry over THIS?

This is a question of WADA officials putting thought into an obstacle
they did not foresee but cannot ignore - IF they want some compliance
from Indian cricketers that is. There is a lot more than a bloody
website here at play. My money is on BCCI's financial clout coming to
the fore again, and getting their way, and on the "white" block in
cricket harping forever that India abuses its power in world cricket!

WADA ngotha PODA!

Some new definitions - evolved with the times.

Diplomacy - The art of making the most unjustified actions, the most
unspeakable of crimes, and the most unfair of demands sound extremely
fair and reasonable.

Culture - The presentation of unquestioned collective habits and
rituals as something to be proud of.

Government - The mechanism we can blame everything on after we put
every effort into setting it up to solve all the problems we had in
the first place.

Democracy - The only way we know right now to slow down the fast, dumb
down the intelligent, weaken the strong, and feel good about
mediocrity replacing excellence.

Society - The best way to make an individual who hates the mob become
part of it.

Nationalism - Same as goondaism, but with a flag.

Goondaism - Same as nationalism, but without the hypocrisy.

Patriotism - The umbrella under which all crooks, thieves, murderers,
rapists, hypocrites, shenanigans, and other low life can be forgiven
for their wrongdoings.

Decency - What you need to put on when others are watching, especially
if it is against your nature.

Peace - What ensues when nobody has the balls to stand up and fight.

History - What was written earlier to show us how well our ancestors
hid their mistakes.

Freedom - What is always yours but can still be sold to you. It is
also what you have in plenty when nobody cares about what you do.

Nation - A land mass with borders denoting the extent to which we can
identify with others stuck on the same land mass.

The National Anthem - A filtered, presentable account of how blessed
we are with all the great things about our country that we can fight
over, pollute and trash.

National bird - A bird that actually knows what nation it belongs to.

National game - A game we would love to be good at.

Education - The process by which your intelligence can be subdued,
your originality killed, and you can be made willing to exchange your
greatness for grades.

Higher education - The process by which you can show how much your
intelligence has been subdued, your originality has been killed, and
how much you were willing to exchange your greatness for grades.

Military - The honourable institution that we set up to do our killing
for us. Consumer base of the weapons industry.

Police - The less honourable institution that we set up to threaten
and bully and beat before they do their killing for us. Unrealized
consumer base of the fitness industry.

War - Weapons industry clearance sale.

Doctors - The most qualified and effective salespersons in the
pharmaceutical industry.

Lawyers - People who know the law so well they can show you ways to
get away with breaking it.

Religion - A way to get close to God that God would never approve of.

Faith - Something you can lean on when you have no knowledge.

Politicians - Those we create to exploit us, so that we can use them
as excuses for our lack of development.

Progress - The term used to describe how much better we feel today
about being just as screwed up as we were yesterday.

Conscience - What would make you really angry if you had it.

Justice - What you can get if you are willing to fight, faster if you
are willing to bribe.

Integrity - The hardest thing to maintain, the easiest thing to let go
of, and the biggest impediment to bliss.

The Asset Management Scam

Over the years I have met a few. Quite a few I might add, of these
Asset Management types - people who have absolutely nothing to lose if
you lose, and quite a bit to gain if you gain - IF they are managing
your assets that is. In other words, the smartest business types wear
the garb of asset managers. It is your hard earned money, and their
confidence in managing it, for you of course.

Think about it. You need someone who knows what to do with your
money, and that's fair enough. A lot of factors need to come together
to make your money work as hard for you as you have for it, and
chances are you need some guidance. But WHO are these asset managers
who claim to be able to manage anybody's "portfolio"? How qualified
are they? What is their claim to be able to manage YOUR assets?

Here are some primary reasons for you to worry about who is managing
your assets:

1. They have never owned their own business.

Would you trust a guy who has never driven a car to drive you, in your
car, with your family in it? So why would you trust a clown who
claims he can help you manage your assets when he has neither been
part of your effort to earn it, nor has a track record of taking pains
to build a business? Duh!

2. They have nothing to lose.

More often than not, Asset Managers are notoriously well paid for
being educated "professionals", who don't have to deliver anything
while merely "handling" your assets. If they are going to take
chances with your money, they better not be getting paid if they're
not making you any money. If they tell you that is a risk you have to
take, you can take those same risks without paying these fools,
couldn't you?

3. They want to "diversify your portfolio".

Wait a minute. Sure it makes sense to invest in the stock market with
this philosophy, since it is a lottery beyond a point anyway, and
you're playing with money you can afford to lose. But with your
assets? If you made your big money in agriculture and you would like
to explore opportunities in IT, for instance, you will not be
successful until you understand IT to some extent.

You should always have an understanding of any domain you are going to
do business in. You think your Asset Managers know everything about
every domain out there? Think again. They want you to diversify,
because they know nothing about any domain, and would like to play
safe for their own skin, not yours. If they know how to make massive
profits for you doing one thing, why wouldn't they suggest that one
thing to do?

4. They talk about "domain experts" they have.

Why would an "expert" in some domain want to work for a management
company? Wouldn't he be busy making his own business work better?
What are the chances of finding a genius working for a company that
merely manages somebody else's money? Why would any productive
professional ever want to be part of an Asset Management company?
This is a total scam. If any such professional is working as a
consultant, he is getting paid for merely lending his ear and giving
some oral advice, not for taking an interest in any activity in any
business in that domain. In other words, this AM company has one more
useless appendage you will end up paying for.

5. Their worst case scenario is never a complete loss of all your money.

There are extremely high risk businesses, where your money may quickly
be worth less than when you started your investments and worth nothing
shortly after. Such businesses, like motion picture production for
example, are not for everyone, even though they might bring back very
handsome returns to some. If your Asset Manager is not prepared to
tell you you might lose all your money in a certain direction, he
doesn't know what he is talking about. It doesn't matter how great
your actual domain experts may be who drive such investments, and it
doesn't matter how great a job they may do on your projects - you
might very well lose everything, and this is a business reality, not a
doomsday scenario. Your asset manager is an illiterate fool if he
doesn't know this.

6. They mention big names, and other such "credibility indicators".

Their portfolio is full of famous, big, well established companies
that they "worked with". Yeah, right. If they mentioned as many in
their portfolio that didn't go right, you'd not be very impressed.
So, stop thinking that your asset manager has dealt only with success
and big names and trusted companies. The few deals that they
negotiated that did go right doesn't qualify them to be the best
people to advice you on your next business move, either. It is one
thing for a team of seasoned Chartered Accountants to get together and
estimate the worth of a company's shares, and entirely another to grow
that company to a successful position. If you hear only big names and
big companies and success stories, you're being taken for an idiot.

7. They are never under any sort of pressure.

The most important thing for any investor is to be excited about an
opportunity that he can automatically and quickly sense. If your
AssMan company is dragging along happily, taking you to meetings,
setting you up with presentations, and not putting any pressure upon
themselves to deliver for you quickly and efficiently, they are not
worth being anywhere near you. If some business direction doesn't
make any sense to you, and your asset manager cannot recognize it when
you couldn't care less, you're wasting your time with him. He has to
feel and react to the pressure when you're not jumping into his ideas.
If not, you're being taken for a ride.

If you see any of the above in your asset manager, or your Asset
Mangement Company, you need to step away. Kick them out immediately.

Ultimately, it is your business, and it is your drive that will take
you places in whatever line of business you choose. If you need help,
take pains to find someone who will give you the insider's view on the
business you might think of entering - not some fancy "company" that
gets fat off your hard work.

Not racism, just plain old superiority complex!

Are we barking up the wrong tree with racism? Are people really
capable of hating people of another race, purely based on approval or
disapproval of skin colour? I don't think so.

Beneath the surface of anything racist, or any kind of prejudice is
not hatred, but a feeling of superiority. Maybe we should call it
"superiorism".

The Nazis felt that way towards Jews, white people in South Africa
felt that way towards black people, and the history of humanity is
lavishly painted with examples where one group felt superior to
another and treated the lower group just so. This doesn't have to do
with judging on appearance alone, it has to do with feeling superior
to people of a certain collective, in this case, appearance.

It is very unlikely that a homeless smelly white man would really be
able to offend a suave, well to do black man by being racist towards
him. It would just be absurd. But a rich white man who calls a
homeless black man a "filthy nigger" would come off looking very
racist indeed. Where is the question of race here, when the
predominant perception comes from economic status?

Just like dogs evaluate other dogs, and humans, as either "top dog" or
"bottom dog", humans do to a certain extent, understand who is on top.
When we perceive ourselves to be the bottom dog, we're highly
unlikely to be "racist" towards another group that is clearly on top.

From the times of slavery to the modern day racially sensitive issues,
it isn't that hard to see the element of superiority expressing
itself. To fight against "racism" without confronting the perception
of superiority would be naive and fruitless.

It is no secret that white people in the USA perceive themselves as
being superior to black people in that country. After all, white
people are the dominant race in any social context in the USA. They
own the most wealth, control most political affairs, and are clearly
in the driver's seat.

Black people on the other hand, are disproportionately represented in
jails! If Rodney King had been white, it was very unlikely that the
Los Angeles Police Department would have thought it wise to whack him
like they did. If Barack Obama had been fully white, he would have
breezed through the nomination and election process to become
President.

Some feeling of superiority is bound to be natural. After all, there
are arguably NO wealthy people in the USA who are not white. There
are indeed several rich black and brown people, but all the truly
"wealthy" people who have no worries at all about their material
empires for generations to come are invariably white. Nobody needs to
offer any excuses or apologies for this. It is just the way things
panned out and it is just the way things stand now.

Black people were initiated to life in the USA through slavery -
that's very unlike people from India getting masters degrees in
Harvard and Kellog's business schools and joining Wall Street
companies with six figure salaries. It is socially and culturally
ingrained in white people to see black people as inferior beings. Why
is it so hard for people to understand this?

It isn't as if black people need to feel victimized for history
playing such a cruel part in the way they are perceived. But they
need to be cognizant of the fact that they are not fighting against
anyone hating them, but indeed, perhaps, against others genuinely
thinking of them as inferior beings! What is to stop people from
simply using a yardstick that puts one group over the other?

If we're watching sports, we all know most white people can't do much
against most black competitors in most sports, and this is
particularly obvious in basketball, track and field, and American
football. The only reason white guys are so good at ice hockey is
because black people haven't taken to it yet. Are we being racist
here? Of course not! From race to race we do carry genes in us that
make some us better at some things.

Most Asians are very good at racquet games, with their supple bodies
and fast hands. Watch Leander Paes play incredibly close to the net,
right in front of his body and you will know that is a special ability
when he connects with the ball and is able to place it accurately,
just because his hands are bloody fast. No wonder he dominates in
doubles tennis.

This is not to say that a person of a certain race can never be good
at something traditionally dominated by people of another race, but
statistically evidence clearly shows Kenyans and Ethiopians are far
better than Swedes and Germans when it comes to running marathons!
This has very little to do with India not finding representation in
the Winter Olympics, but on a race vs race level, there isn't much one
can do except admire the traits of a certain race in what they are
really good at.

On the street, the weaker you are, the more are the chances of being
beaten. Young Australian males probably feel very superior to brown
skinned Indian males there, who aren't physically capable of defending
themselves, stick to themselves and look like good candidates to get a
bit of bashing. What fun it must be to intimidate them and get some
money in the bargain! Is this racism? Not quite. If the Australian
government had different laws for Indians, if Indians had no right to
complain, that would be superiorist, racist or discriminatory. But
these attacks are just attacks on brown skinned vulnerable targets,
and beyond the point of identifying the victims, race doesn't have
much of a role. The same Indians would have got robbed by hoodlums in
Jamaica as well, and I'm not sure if Jamaicans care what colour your
skin is.

I love the fact that some Indian students in Australia have turned
vigilantes. They are forcing a correction of perception, nothing
more. If they can change the perception that they are easy targets,
good for them! What kind of morons sitting in air conditioned offices
are busy telling them that is a wrong thing! And how dare they?

There was this rather aggressive street dog that would bare its teeth
at me every now and then. One day it was in the way when I rode past
it on my motorcycle and kicked him square in the face when he showed
his teeth. He tucks his tail between his legs and makes the most
apologetic noises when he sees me these days, and usually gives me
atleast a hundred feet.

Instead of fighting againt superiorism, let's try and acknowledge that
it exists, and just like in the animal world, let's figure out
survival tactics, instead of yelling ourselves hoarse about
eradicating something as natural as our instinctive weighing of who is
boss. (I am!).

- BSK

A major(ity) problem.

I have a problem with democracy. Not the idea of it, which is not terrible, but the power of the majority in any cause.

Looking around the world, the majority in any cross section of humans are underachievers. The majority of athletes running in a race are losers, the majority of workers in a company are not geniuses, and the majority of us do not achieve anything great in our lifetimes. Ergo, if you belong in the majority, you are probably mediocre.

So, why does the majority get to decide things in a democracy, unless this is a blatant attempt to keep out geniuses who are bound to be in the minority? This is the best way for a lot of people to have to listen to a small group of very intelligent people, and this is a great way for dumbasses to feel good about themselves, having won in numbers what they could never win in merit.

But, the leaders we elect are also in the minority! There are very few leaders to a very large group of people and those few leaders are supposed to effectively "represent" their collectives. I must say, at least in politics, they do, to a magnified level of inaction and ineptitude, not to mention abject incompetence in most cases.

It is strange that the majority by an overwhelming margin, once believed the earth was flat. The minority was proved right then, and more often than not, I worry about what the majority believes. Even God doesn't have much of a standing with the minority, since the majority have major investments in their beliefs in such an entity.

Why is it that cold rational thinking eludes the majority, and only the minority musters up the courage to go up that alley? Would it be wrong, fundamentally if there were more people who were agnostic or atheistic, and the minority believed in all kinds of Gods? But the flat earthers and the God believers both being overwhelming majorities, I wonder what would happen if it was conclusively proved that there is no God. The minority would go, "Aha, we told you so", and the rest of society would create mayhem, just because they hate to be wrong.

The majority was the reason slavery was legal in many parts of the world, and the majority is usually guilty of the most stupid courses of action that humanity has taken. It is not a matter of pride to belong to the majority in any collective, and a win by numbers can most of the time, only be a mandate that we love to belong to the group most likely to be the dumber of the two.

So, how did we manage to pull off this con on the minority? Truth is, we haven't. The minority most of the time has enough mental resources to think clearly, manage their way around the stupidity of the (m)asses, and they don't really care about having power of intelligent, rational thought over the majority. The minority watches with pleasure as the majority kills itself with its own stupidity.

The richest people in the world are a minority, the most successful people of the world are a minority, and it runs across the board, the ability to stand out and strike out on their own. It is very rare that people who simply do as others do climb out of the majority mass. It is always those who "do not belong" in the collective that get the opportunity to fly higher and on a different plane.

Now, imagine the competition we would have on our hands if the majority was capable of excellence, and only a few were falling behind. It would be unbearable, and we would quickly up our standards so only a few of us would continue to stand out. So, is that where the buck is - in the standards we set? Of course it is. The communities, the countries, the collectives that have prospered and improved their standards of living are those that took the examples of the minority and quickly applied them to the majority.

There are a few people in India who actually use dust bins, do not spit randomly, do not break rules, and do not cause chaos in everything they do. The majority does not even notice. They're too busy following other fools.

So can we apply that to political choices we make, and declare the BJP the more capable, intelligent party that has been denied the opportunity to excel by the majority? Most definitely not. The BJP succeeded in scaring the majority and created a mass fear of them. Fear of this nature spreads rapidly in the majority, since there are many carriers. Rational or not, fear has momentum, just like stupidity. So if you want to lose traction with the majority, cause them some fear.

The BJP should have kept it benign and comforting to the majority who wants to be in a slumber. Manmohan Singh is the more accommodating of a slumber compared to LK Advani. That guy might stir up something that we may have to really deal with. So, the majority chose the party that would give them the less to be bothered with. What a lovely thing this democracy is! And we have analysts for masturbating over thousands of details as if the majority really uses a fraction of human intelligence to make its choice!

The minority of humans actually produce, while the majority merely reproduces. The minority finds solutions, while the majority simply comes up with resolutions. The minority gets rich, while the majority gets to bitch.

A Good Morning.

A quiet, clear, peaceful morning.

This is a very special morning, for I have been greeted into it
without any thought. My mind is calm, almost meditative, despite all
the challenges that might lie ahead. My body is well rested despite
all its niggles, and the breeze that pushes the curtain and blows over
me is soothing to say the least.

There have been a few mornings like this one, I'm sure, but today I am
in it. The absence of an agenda, the presence of peace - ah, heaven.

A train blows its horn in the great distance, a dog barks, a
motorcycle makes its way uphill, and birds call out in rough chorus.
I just get the feeling birds and dogs have mornings like this one all
the time. For now, the rat race can be ignored.

Any race can be ignored, particularly the human race. Wait a minute!
Did that come out right?

Why do we create things that don't exist, when we haven't quite
figured out how to enjoy the ones that do? Do we really need to pull
out four hundred grams of metal and plastic and share words with
someone half way around the world, just because we can? Do we really
need hybrid cars and anti acidity pills? Does everything material
really need to come with the hidden cost of slavery?

Why am I putting together cohesive thought when I can be thoughtless?
Ah, but I'm already a slave. Addicted to having something to do, I
cannot stop. To stop would be to die, and we're all scared not quite
so much about death itself, but really scared about all the things we
might be stopped from doing.

Will we ever, any of us, get to do all the things we want to do? We
choose in the meantime to somehow accrue the means to do all we want
to do, and add pretty little to the enjoyment of everything we have.
Yes, we're blind, but that is our choice! We love our choices, we
really do. We have to have the choice of being thoughtless or full of
thought, and we'd choose to be full of thought because we have a brain
and we have to make the most of it.

Exhaustion, forcing us to sleep, is the one thing we haven't yet
figured out how to beat, second to cheating death. It is ridiculous
to think about people with pacemakers having road accidents, but that
is our complex punctuation to our own will to change the way things
work. We haven't done badly when we can cross the Pacific ocean in
less than ten hours, and the seat in the sky at thirty five thousand
feet is mighty comfortable, but I wonder if that can compare to lying
on the grass, chewing on freshly cut sugarcane, with miles of green
around, and only birds and bees for company, having nothing to do.

Truth is, we need both. We need the hassles and we need the peace and
we need to constantly figure out some things just because there is
nothing we'd rather do than make sure we have plenty to "do". Once in
a while, out of control, we might fumble our way into a moment of
peace, but it won't last, because we will get up and reach out and
start a chain reaction that wakes the whole world up. This is the
world as we know it, and we don't really care what the truth is. The
truth, too, is what we choose to make of it.

We could have chosen to have a two day week and a five day weekend,
but we're not yet there. We're not yet where we can be so productive
that we can have most of the time for fun, and having to work so
little that our lives can be spent in idle peace. But we're terrified
of idle peace. We don't mind shots of it, but that's only to prepare
us for the next race ahead. So, we'll come up with something to
"work" on, no matter how much we have already accomplished.

We're doing okay, really. We're not the dominant species on the
planet for no reason. We'll learn soon enough about the mistakes
we've made, and when it's a matter of survival, we'll fix most things
that are wrong. If we completely screw up, we'll find another planet.
It won't be this sort of paradise, but by then, we will know how to
make paradise.

I love being a human.

- BSK.