Friday, September 26, 2014

Why Deepika Padukone and her clothes should not be confused with freedom

This is getting on my nerves, so I’ll get straight to the point. Here’s why I think none of what happened, should have:
Like it or not, Deepika Padukone or any other celebrity cannot choose to forego celebrity status at will. They are celebs even when they go for a walk, and are definitely so at any public event they attend. Which means, every time they step out of their homes, they will  be scrutinized  and talked about. Tabloids being tabloids, will do it in their own fashion. If someone finds it distasteful they should stand up to them on principle to say “no more interviews to you.” As readers, those who are angst ridden should cancel their subscription at once. Especially if the tabloid sticks to their guns and says they won’t change their reporting style. I’m still waiting for the Times of India to drop in circulation and not be No 1 anymore.
Padukone then went on to complain about the difference in attitude while writing about male and female celebrities and muddled it up further. Padukone  has no more a “right” to show skin than ShahRukh Khan does and must do so with full responsibility.  Was the headline in extremely bad taste? Yes. Was the picture in bad taste? Yes. But that is about it. A question of taste.
If we show skin, especially of titillating body parts, will people look? Probably. Can Padukone pick and choose what the media uses? No.  Will a section of the media (just like some people) try to go for awkward angles to get cheap thrills? Yes.
I’m ready to cry myself hoarse on the issue of a woman’s right to wear what they like. I firmly believe that in the 21st century, what I can or cannot wear should be least of my problems. But at the same time, every woman who is true to herself will agree that when they wear a particularly plunging neckline or a suggestive cut, they know people will look. These clothes are often worn so people look and appreciate.
By saying that, I don’t mean this justifies rape or molestation. Nothing justifies that. But if I show, you’ll see. It’s not even a women’s issue. When John Abraham, Hrithik Roashan or anyone else bares himself, women and men look. Women just seem to do it more often than men do.  No one in their right mind would take any of it seriously. To quote Sherlock (of Cumberbatch fame), “you cater to the whims of the pathetic and take your clothes off to make an impression. Stop boring me and think. It's the new sexy.”
Look around. The men are still wearing shirts and trousers and T-shirts, most of them non transparent and non body showing.
Why is that? Did you say it’s because women have better bodies to showcase, so they can wear these things? I agree. In which case, I’d also have to accept the fact that it all boils down to the fact that  we want to be noticed when we go to these lengths to make ourselves pretty. So noticed we get!
Once you’re done baying for my blood, maybe you could help me understand this: I perform on what people call “item numbers” and am completely comfortable making my living by showcasing my perfectly toned body. That is not an outrage on womanhood and feminism, but a silly tabloid is?
At the cost of being repetitive, that is not the same as saying “you asked for it.” No one asks to get raped or molested or violated ,  it only takes basic common sense to understand that. But willful behavior should and must come with responsibilities. And this goes beyond Deepika Padukone and her  problem.
In all the noise that this incident generated, Pooja Bedi, to my mind, was the only person who made sense. Wearing an almost amused expression, Bedi contradicted her fellow “outraged” panelists on TV. And in the very same newspaper, she wrote : “When you are a public figure and you go out to a press event, you are bound to be dissected from your chipped nail polish to your repeated shoes. If admiring and focusing on a woman's assets is a crime, all item numbers should be banned. How fair is it to say, I will dress to tantalise publicly, but you have to look the other way?”
That is the price of fame, especially for entertainers who make a living out of being talked about. That no one can control at all times how they will be talked about is a risk that all men and women have to take.
Oh, I’ve heard all the arguments by now. Acting is an art and that’s what actors do and need to be respected for it. I am not challenging that. But like I told my friend , if  someone is banking on his/her acting/dancing/singing/mathematical/analytical/whateveritis skills majorly, they do not need to pose in skimpy clothes on magazine covers or in public dos. This fact is gender agnostic.   There are too many examples to list even from the entertainment industry itself, so let’s give that a rest. Think Asha Bhosle, if nothing else.
Women’s liberation and rights are serious issues and heavy words—words that MUST NOT be causally tossed about.
If Padukone (or any other emancipated woman or man) truly believes it is a woman’s right to go skimpy, they should try implementing this in one of those rural Gujarati villages they recreated in Padukone’s movie, not from the enveloped and sanitized environs of urban cities or university campuses.
Makes me think of all those girls in J school who would champion women’s rights all year long but meekly dress in salwaar kameezes just before they headed back home for the annual vacations.
Everybody trying to make this into a serious issue of women’s rights issue needs to shut up, immediately. Because if the baring of bodies or the intent to do so  by young celebrities was the same as liberation, Poonam Pandey and Kim Kardashian would replace Curie and Joan of Arc in textbooks as heroes. And then we’d truly have outdone ourselves.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Dogs, babies, boredom


Bombay Dyeing, for long associated with everything upholstery in Indian households is currently running a new advertising campaign that reflects changing times. The company is obviously doing it to tell people my generation and younger, who largely think their curtains and bed covers are way too stodgy, expensive and are only meant to be wedding gifts for distant relatives, that they've evolved.
So a young girl wants her divorced dad to redo his house with BD upholstery so he can woo women and a young couple is engaging in what looks like towel-shopping for their “baby”, which turns out to be a dog.
The ads have an easy feel-good vibe about them, but the dog ad caught my attention.
Disclosure: I don’t have a pet. I've come close to buying a dog once, but haven’t.
I hear having pets can be extremely gratifying and I've seen for myself the kind of bonding owners get to enjoy with them, where dogs and cats, especially, demand and get equal rights in the family as legitimate members. It really is heartwarming.
When my friend’s dog died he and his mother grieved for days. However, I’d always thought having a pet was more of a family affair, where mom, dad, kids and dog complete the picture. In my defence, that’s all I had ever seen or read.  Timmy  got access to Aunt Fanny’s food and care quite early on, my friend lived with his family of course, and Snowy’s always with Tintin, so never alone. Plus he can talk, and drinks whiskey. No competition.
But this was before I realized that somewhere down the line having a pet had somehow morphed into a pop movement, where every other upwardly mobile single man or woman (and newly married couple, sometimes) would have one -- whom they’d invariably lock up in their apartments the whole time they’re at work or away for any reason -- for the joy of having someone to come home to at the end of a long and tiring day.
Buying expensive dogs had become status symbols for families that can afford to have other people take care of their pets, so they can ruffle their heads once every day in the evening.
By the way, you've got to stop buying pugs and then make them run around. Their noses are bad, and your little show of exercise and/or love taxes them. Plus those people you hire as dog walkers? They don’t take them to the park but only run along pavements, where they dirty it. I am not a hater, but I refuse to understand why your little hobby should be my problem. The pavement is for me to walk on, not your dog to poop on. Use your own damn bathroom.
Ok, that last bit is an India problem, but worldwide, cute dogs are obviously also great wing-men, though  I’d wager that loneliness is a stronger reason behind the rise of the pet pop culture. When I was settling in the US  I suffered a massive fit of loneliness in the first month. My familiarization guide had checked in on me after I’d shifted into my apartment and I thought I’d ask her broker friend if it would be easy to find a roommate, just so I have some company.
“Why do you want to share your space? If you’re lonely, get a dog,” the ladies said in unison.
That threw me off completely.
They knew I lived by myself, was just starting to feel my way around the city and had to travel quite a bit. They were even lecturing me on how I need to set my kitchen up ASAP, because I'd been eating out every day. How did they think I could take up the responsibility of another living being at that point?
Then, just out of curiosity, I repeated the same question at work. Not so vehement, but more or less the same response. And I slowly recognized the trend.
My next door neighbor had a small puppy, which would claw at the door and bark itself silly every time it’d hear my footsteps or the sound of me turning the keys, expecting me to be its owner and no doubt wanting to be let out.
When that happens all the time, it’s hard not to wonder if it is not outright selfish to get a pet to comfort yourself, but one you’d obviously have to keep chained/shut up for long parts of the day where it’d no doubt be miserable in varying degrees. In effect, subject that pet to loneliness to make sure you don’t have to go through the same.
I've no doubt the owners are extremely fond of all their pets— it would take a monster to not grow attached to another life that is so caring and also dependent on you. But I still can’t agree to the reasoning behind it.
And since we've already made the child-and-pet-are interchangeable-today point, let me say this too: boredom and loneliness also sound like really strange reasons for people to have children.
Oh, I get the logic. I've heard my women friends say “I’m not doing anything right now, so this is a good time to have  baby,” too many times to not understand what they mean.
But since I’m at it anyway, let me get it out. That reasoning sounds right on paper, but feels all wrong.
Surely, your taking charge of another living being has got to have a little more to it than the fact that you are bored and/or jobless? I mean, if you are bored and lonely, you go for a walk. You watch a movie, go get a drink, take up yoga or another hobby.
Surely a pet or a baby is more than that?
More disclosures: apart from not having a pet, I also do not have kids. And unlike in the case of the dog, I've not come close to getting one and then changed my mind. 
All through the past three years I told myself this is a first world affectation— this buying of pets to get company—and then I moved to India. Where I saw the BD ad. And today, I got to know Amazon in the country has started selling pet supplies and related products.
Well, the trend’s certainly catching on.


Friday, June 13, 2014

The Mumbai challenge, part 2


Yesterday, I had to say back at work till about 11 and because I was exhausted, I decided to walk to the train station and take a train back home, instead of getting into a cab. Walking helps me unwind. My job includes a decent amount of moving around, but the bigwigs I see are usually in their offices or at 5-star lounges. I don’t fault them; many of these people are too pressed for time. I once met a man at the airport because he didn’t have time to travel before his next flight! Plus, it’s not always the physical activity that drains, for me it’s the pressure of finding the right people, of staring at the screen till you find the right angle, the mental exhaustion from all of it. There are days when I just decide not to look at my phone any more when I get out of office. *Hint: if I’ve not returned a couple of calls or texts, this is why.  

So I decided to walk. And I noticed how Mumbai changed around me, post 11. The place I work at is what can be called midtown, with a lot of offices and people in suits and high heels and cars. But on Thursday  after office hours, they were all gone.  Mumbai roads are never really all empty, so there were people, but I was able to more or less saunter across the crossing that I usually dare not cross on my own. Old trick: I just wait for another person and follow him/her when they cross.  

Where there are cars parked and makeshift shops, there were now people making their beds.  Some had pulled out rugs to lie on, others found a relatively clean spot on the pavement. Where there is incessant traffic during the day, municipality trucks were: workers cleaning the roads as much as they can. The waste, I noticed, was mostly vegetable and fruit peels and plastic.

The train station had a few stragglers from work like me, but I think I mostly saw daily wage earners going back home. There’s a policeman in the ladies’ compartments around that time. The good thing about this city is, people are helpful on the whole. And when you know there’s no fight to get a seat (the first class ladies compartment is always comparatively less crowded), they become nicer.  An elderly woman had struck up a conversation with the girl selling hair accessories. I was in no mood to talk to anyone, so I took the empty carriage. They are linked and you can see into one from the other through the grilles.  The policeman looked like he wanted to say something, but then decided to let me be. I’m thinking he wanted to ask me to sit in the one where he and the lady were, for safety, maybe.

Mumbai’s borderline schizophrenic , there are at least three of them living in here. There’s the city by the day, where everyone’s hurrying and rushing and doing their own thing to earn their daily bread. There’s the Mumbai of the clubs and pubs and hotels and fancy hangouts, some that change so radically from evening to nightfall you’ll wonder if it’s the same place. There’s the Mumbai of the streets at night, which is peaceful (everything’s relative in this city) and of the people who take over after the ones like us are done using the roads.

 I thought riding a train at night in Mumbai can be a pretty nice experience. You’re not stuck in the city’s ever present traffic snarl  (nights are usually traffic- less, but you never know when you get caught in one), it’s quieter and you can eat samosas at the station shops.  Another thing, the last one out always turns off the fans and the lights. I don’t know if they do it in the men’s compartments, but the ladies almost always do it without fail. Given where I live, I’m barely ever the last one , but yesterday I did.  There was no queue at the auto stand and the friendly woman who reached the one approaching auto at the same time as I let me take it.  “I’ll just go to linking road (local shopping and hanging out spot), you get in.”

Unthinkable in normal hours. 

As I got home, I looked around from my balcony—it had rained earlier and the dust layers on terraces and trees seemed to have been washed away. There was a moon.  I looked at my phone and for sure, it said we were having a “clear” night—a rarity for the perpetually haze-ridden cities of Delhi and Mumbai. I was smiling to myself, thinking about how the city’s growing on me. The people here were right—everyone gets used to it in various degrees, some sooner than others.


Saturday, May 17, 2014

Mr Prime Minister Elect

Mr Prime Minister Elect,
Yesterday was an important day in the life of any Indian, especially for those under thirty. For many like me, it was the first time we saw the possibility of a single party majority translate into reality. A novelty for roughly two generations born and raised in an environment of coalition politics, never knowing what a single majority, stable government in Delhi can really do, or cannot.
No wonder then, tired and frustrated with the farce that politicians have reduced the noble profession of politics to, a bunch of people—the majority, as we see now--  voted you into power. They bought into your promise of development; they believed in your charisma, they backed you in your attempt to destroy nepotism in politics. And now, they are all waiting with glassy eyes for you to deliver.
I hope you do. You said your party is gunning for inclusive development, which is what one would expect from the leader of a billion diverse people. But you cannot ignore those who are not totally convinced.
For the greats say, that in itself is the essence of  a democracy. 
I’m not trying to undermine your achievement. It would be silly and blind of me to do so. I don’t support those few who’ve taken to Facebook and Twitter to deride the country as a whole for voting you into power.  I believe in a democracy the majority opinion holds and needs to be respected.
One may or may not like that mandate, but it does not give anyone the right to call the country and its people names for it. I, in fact, take great pride in being a part of a country that can conduct a largely free and fair election on this massive scale. While dealing with as many logistical and societal issues that we have to deal with. And in this confusion and diversity you emerged the clear winner. It takes for one to be an absolute spoilsport to not acknowledge that.
But the journey, as they say has only begun, Mr Prime Minister Elect, as you must know.  You are the shiny new leader of a country reeling from disillusionment of a vast population upset with thievery, mismanagement and more.That people are expecting deliverance from this massive web of corruption is the reason they bought into your promise of development and decisive governance.
I want that too. But what if I say I still don’t have answers to all the questions I have on my mind, despite the many campaign speeches you and your party members made? You’re now in power. Isn't it time for you and your party to do away with vagueness?
Today, as you made your way to Delhi in what the media is calling your “victory march”, Shaina NC was on a panel discussion on NDTV. On being asked how the BJP will reach out to those who feel apprehensive that you are in power, she came up with the line on how development cannot be targeted towards specific sections of society.  Just as I was thinking “that is extremely wide-eyed for a party spokesperson”,  Shashi Tharoor, also on the panel, pointed out that development can and has been specifically targeted in many parts of the country for years.
So then, I ask you again: what is your message to those, especially to those Muslims, who feel wary that you are now in charge? To those who (maybe sometimes facetiously) say now that you’re in power there’ll be a decided saffronization in government policies ? That apparently  like Juhapura in Gujarat, many Muslim majority localities in the country could be passed over when this much awaited wave of new development sweeps the country?
“The people of India have spoken decisively for the first time since Independence”, said your party president, Mr Rajnath Singh. He’s right. The people of India have given you power and now the people want some clear answers. I’m not nit-picking, I’m riding on the back of your promise that to run a Government, you can’t differentiate between those who voted for you and those who didn't.
I’m not a card carrying member of any political party. But as a citizen I'd like for you to do more than speak. 
I don’t have to spell out the magic of marketing to you. Judging by your campaign, you know it only too well. But now that you've reaped the benefits of what marketing can do, it is time to spell out the "how"s and "why"s.  
I’m not even going towards what they are calling “snoopgate” or about your sudden acknowledgement of your wife. Frankly, India has bigger issues on hand than to delve into these things, though I suspect even your most ardent supporters will agree that in any other part of the world a politician hiding the existence of a wife till the very last moment would have lost all his women voters to say the least. But we are not “other parts of the world”, so let’s leave it at that. Let us just talk development.
India is not just an economy, it is also a society. One that has a constitutional right to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. I’m technically a Hindu and a Brahmin, though I've read that my religion says women have no claim to a caste, it is the men who are to be grouped. But anyhow, like Hartosh Singh Bal said, I want to know from you, in no uncertain terms, that those who do not follow the Hindu way of life won’t have to go an extra mile to prove their allegiance to the nation.  Unless they are engaging in unlawful activities, in which case the law must be decisive, irrespective of what religion or caste they belong to. And that should apply equally to all miscreants, even if they are ministers.
“A rising tide lifts all boats”, I've been told over and over again. Here’s my question: when there’s already a huge disparity between sections of society in this country—and here I don’t mean just on religious grounds—isn’t that a very simplistic answer to our problems? If section A is already behind section B when it comes to, say, education, is it enough to say a blanket tide will do for everyone? As opposed to saying we need to make special efforts to lift section A to average levels for if not, the difference between A and B will never narrow.
On my return to India, to Mumbai, I was amazed to see the blatant show of disparity in this city and in the country on the whole.  I've known about it all along of course, but it hit home harder after I’d had the chance to compare us to another country. No progressive society should have a “financial centre” of a country that has multi-tiered slums right across the road from world class hotels and retail showrooms, Sir. And have the world go one like this divide does not exist.
If this has been the rule for years and years, where a section of the society is continuously bombarded with the temptation of fancy condos, international vacations, world famous brands, hi-tech gadgets that are beyond their reach, where for generations their lot has been to clean those very condos and gadgets and dresses the TV makes them covet with no way to attain, it is naïve to not expect a push-back and cynicism.
 I want to know from you, how you’ll work to remove this offensive divide. It isn't the task of a weakling, but then I hear you’re not one.
And because you aren't one, I want to know that from now on, the likes of Praveen Togadia will not  rally people on divisive lines in my country, asking people to keep Muslims out of Hindu neighbourhoods.  I’m sure you know this has happened many times, in many forms. In your own state. And when people ask you about it, I want to have a clear answer, not the flimsy lines of how these things “deviate your campaign” or are “petty”. These are not just petty things, Sir. Speeches like these, especially made in volatile neighbourhoods, are stuff that lead to communal violence.  I want to know that starting today, my Muslim friends won’t be denied rental housing in cosmopolitan Mumbai because of their religion. This happens, you know.  I personally know two who've been openly denied housing in this city because they are Muslims.
Shaina NC also said that “the young generation” does not care about history, that they want development. I’m afraid that may be right, for I've heard sentiments of “who cares what happened ten years ago” a few too many times to ignore them. Mr Prime Minister Elect, I know you are wise enough to see the fallacy in that. To rightly understand that no society can progress ignoring its history.  You wouldn't have come all this way if you didn't know that.
Astute that you are, I also suspect you know to enjoy the support of the multitude but not to take capriciousness seriously. You've hinted at as much on a TV interview : “kuch kaam mujh par bhi chor do.”
Aapka kaam aapko hi karna hain, but still, as an Indian citizen, I would like to see you put cynical minds to rest. And I'd like to see some immediate action to take forward your promises. To quote another leader, maybe not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.
Convert the cynics, Mr Prime Minister Elect. That is also your challenge. A billion people are watching.

PS: I rarely do this, but look what I found in today's Hindu:: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/an-open-letter-to-narendra-modi/article6022900.ece?homepage=true&theme=true#comments  

Friday, April 25, 2014

He who screams the loudest...


    My cycle of buying televisions seem to be curiously tied to elections. I bought my second-last because I did not want to miss out on the best TV America has to offer-- election campaigns and debates. I bought my last TV just in time to be able to catch up on the Indian election coverage.
    And I'm thinking it might be enough to put me off TV news for forever, because coverage as of now seems to be a blur of people trying to outscream each other, blatant and crude favoritism and poor anchoring rolled in a mind numbing capsule, punctuated by a host who typically tries to outshout them all.
    I have always had a problem with too much noise. Screaming, loud music, hysterics, honking, dancing, dirty neighbourhood fights -- whenever decibels go unnecessarily over acceptable limits I get uncomfortable. I am not very proud of it, but sometimes I just flee.
    That is not to say I don't go to movies or clubs-- I do. But movies are a controlled environment, as are clubs.
   The few times I do go out I still take many breaks to go out and clear my head, much to the annoyance of my friends. Anyway, the point of this long digression is that I am simply not well equipped to handle unnecessarily loud noise, including ma on the phone.
    And then I landed in Bombay. I am extremely happy with the city on many levels, but I doubt I'll ever fully come to terms with the constant noise. That made me begin to wonder, why do we love noise so much?
    Bombay might be an extreme, but we as a people are noisy. Just peep into our classrooms, canteens or even toilets. There's this one junction in Kolkata just near a famous university where ambient noises hit such horrifying levels  no normal person should be exposed to them. Yet, being close to the university, this crossroad is also a popular adda spot -- the young and the old hang out there day after day.
    Sure, habit is a big leveler. It would be dishonest of me to say all the noise bothered me as much three years ago as it does me now, but I've never really been able to figure out this love of it.
    I told you, I've always disliked too much loudness, the reason for many a cold war between ma and me. I had at one point stopped calling her more than once a week because she won't stop yelling into the phone. That might sound too rude to you, but desperate times call for desperate measure. She talks normally on the phone now. Disclaimer: please don't stop talking to family because of this anecdote. Try asking before you do it. ;-)
    So we talk loudly, we watch TV loudly, we drive loudly, we eat loudly, our movies and TV shows are loud and come with too much background music and distractions.
Even our leaders seem to gain popularity on the basis of who can bray the loudest.
When I was in school, they came out with a movie called "Taal". You remember it for the songs, I remember it also for the scene where the hero, without raising his voice one bit, silences a raving man and proves his point. If there is one thing Akshaye Khanna should be proud of  in his acting career it should be for carrying off "maine aapse 10 zyada glass todey, toh kya mera sach aap ke sach se bada ho gaya?"
 Go check it out.
    So what is it that makes us love noise so much? Especially when we all seem to appreciate quietness when we can get it?
    Almost everyone I know here thinks Prannoy Roy is the best anchor we have on TV now and the man seldom raises his voice.
    In school my friends and I were decidedly more scared of the teacher who never raised her voice than we were of the teacher who would scream at us every single day. Fun fact: we also took her more seriously than said yeller. And she got more Teachers' Day cards too.
    We all laugh at saas-bahu background noises, but won't try and control our own voices while yakking in the canteen. We will put up pictures with hastags like #silenceisgolden #serenity and other similar words and phrases when we go on vacations, but once home we instinctively turn our TVs to the 50s in volume, without bothering to check if we need to at all.
    We insist music must be blaring to be able to enjoy it. We will yell across the store aisle for our lost friend instead of just trying to walk a few steps and check if they're just round the corner. We will yell even if the person is standing right next to us.
     I'm not propagating library standard quiet everywhere, I love talking too much for that. But why can't we all be a little quieter, please?
 


 
    See? That's the sound of silence. There's a reason they wrote a song about it. Which sounds sweetest when played in moderate volume. 

Thursday, April 10, 2014

The Bombay challenge

   It's been a whirlwind month- half of which I spent in freezing temperatures and frosted roads and the rest in sultry heat and showering twice a day. As you may have imagined, moving cities comes with its own set of baggage; countries, even more so.
    This blog is for those friends who asked me to spell out what it actually is like. You know, the BIG return, so here goes. The rest of you are more than welcome to read too, but remember, this is not going to be a romanticized post about desh ki mitti with violins in the background. Read, enjoy, laugh, be horrified and then return to your country.
    1. All stereotypes about big Indian cities (in my case, Bombay) stem from truth. The moment you step out of the international airport, the heat, humidity and stench hit you like a Fireball shot. And if you are in Bombay, which is quite a different animal altogether, you'll also be hit by this omnipresent noise.
    2. The Noise, mainly from indiscriminate honking, is a thing in Bombay. If you are in Delhi or Bangalore, you can get away from it, but in Mumbai, no. Mumbaikars revel in their noise. They don't want to change their habits. Because, "everyone gets used to the noise, you will too." Sound pollution? Say what?
    3. You will fall sick. The food will tempt you and you will give in. You'll be careless with the water you drink. No matter how expensive the restaurant is, you will still fall sick. Caveat: has never happened to me when I hit Bangalore on my trips, but I got the Delhi Belly in Bombay. The doctor said it's the water.
    4. Bombay is an expensive city. If you have a budget for house rents in your mind, add 10k INR a month to that already, for that is what you'll end up spending. Or considerably diminish your expectations of what a house should look like.
    5. No matter how much you pay for rent and what locality you choose to live in, you'll never be too far from the omnipresent slums. Unless you live outside the city altogether. Burberry showrooms coexist with multi-tiered slums like happy neighbours. I have almost forgiven all white men who have, for years, written, filmed and documented this phenomena. I have also laughed at my conversation in LA about how a high end store was placed right next to a Target , and about wondering how they hadn't planned the city that well. Someone was laughing up there when my friend (incidentally, a Mumbaikar) and I were having that chat.
    6. You'll take time to adjust. I am still unable to ignore the city noises, but every single person I've met or have spoken to has assured me it takes time. And then, suddenly, you fall right back in love with the city. I'm still in the "maybe" stage.
    7. People are helpful. They understand the challenges a newbie faces in the city. This is true for all of India, but Bombay will go out on a limb to help you fit in. If you give it a chance, that is. Step one is to lower your defenses. Step two is to accept the city, dirt, noise, sweat included. Step three is to go to Cafe Mondegar.
    8. Everyone knows it is a city that will and does overwhelm any outsider. So they make sure you are ok during the adjustment phase. The broker who helps you with house hunting will check on you to make sure you have dinner at home, colleagues will ask you out and to dinner till you have your house set up, cab guys will give you right directions or will even help you find your way, acquaintances will walk you through the city's system-- how to ride the trains, how to work the traffic, how to find your rhythm.
    Oh also, adjustment phases are subject to changes. A colleague has been here for three years and says he's still adjusting. Another one took three months.
    8. Don't expect anything to be done the American way when you are in India. No matter how tony a neighbourhood you are in or how fancy your office is, never forget this is not the USA, it is another country and has its own dos and don'ts. So no, your plumber might not be right on time when you make an appointment, but know what? If you are thirsty and have no water at home, he will get you a bottle of Bisleri. And sometimes, not even accept money for it. The autos may drive you crazy, but if you are lost, they will take you to the point where you can get into a cab and wait till you are safely on your way. And you don't need to tip. In fact, they'll happily take a 50 if the meter says 52 and you don't have change.
    9. If India is chaotic, Bombay is its crown jewel. But like a friend born and raised in Mumbai said, you need to find your rhythm in the city. I am guessing it is more or less true for all new cities you move to, but in Bombay it is not just a "good to do", it is a must. And once you find it, the city suddenly becomes very beautiful.
    10. For all the disadvantages, you are home. If you are not Indian, how about this: for as long as you stay here you will never have to do your dishes, do laundry or even go grocery shopping out of necessity. There are helping hands who do it for you. And the local grocer will be only too happy to take your orders via phone. And even pick up other stuff on the way if you become friends.
 
    That's about it for now. I'll let you know how things change when they do.

PS: adding one more. Total dependence on plastic money does not fly in India. Always keep some cash with you. If you're in Bombay, keep a lot of cash with you.
 
    

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Our fragile egos

The other day, I was out with a few friends and as the nature of many such “outings” go, the group got bigger and more acquaintances joined with time.
After suffering some, I have long set up a rule of thumb as far as “meeting new people” goes. I avoid this game as much as I can, unless the new people are somewhat vetted by a friend I genuinely like to spend time with.
The rule has served me well—I no longer spend time trying to make nice with people I couldn't care less about, I save others the same trauma and most importantly, I am not stuck in the middle of boring conversations any more. If I am, I leave.
But no man is an island and I have a lot of work to do before I get an Iron Will, so sometimes, the group gets bigger and if it is not a mortifying experience, I play along.  
And sometimes, it pays to stick around; because you learn interesting lessons.
So in this motley group was a girl who walked up to me and said “you were so much fun the other day, you should hang out with us more.”
It took me 2 minutes to figure out she had me mixed up with another Indian girl. It was a casual conversation, so I playfully retorted with “It’s OK, we all look the same, don’t we” and got on with it, never giving it a second thought till my friend came up to apologize to me, dragging said offender with him.
And then there was a barrage of apologies about her being ignorant, his being mortified and so on till I had to tell them it was really OK, sometimes white men and women look the same to me too.
Then I started getting accolades about “being a sport” and I realized, that I was not offended or was not making it into a big racial discrimination issue was so new that I was being looked at as a novelty.
“Thanks so much for not letting her offend you!”
I was about to protest against the ridiculousness of it all when I realized it was true: we get “offended” too easily these days and we give too little thought to whether we should be, or are even entitled to be.
So it does not matter that a kid is 15 and cannot still spell basic words correctly- a teacher has to weigh her words while talking to her parents so as not to cause any offence. It does not matter that a man is totally uncouth and upsetting your dinner table, if you are the host you have to be careful not offend him by asking him to shut up.  It does not matter most people don’t know what they are talking about when they call for bans on books, but because they are still “offended” by what is in them,  governments and publishing houses have to destroy or ban them.
So how did our egos get so fragile that we are not able to distinguish between genuine offence, honest mistakes and plain non-issues? Why has it come to this that a teacher who fails a kid because she has done miserably or says “your child is a brat” with good reason is answerable to parents and school board; that you cannot tell a mother that dancing is not something she should push her daughter towards; that an author cannot write a book of honest discourse without running the risk of “offending” political activists?
And no, I am not mixing little instances with big ones, because think about it. It is the same gloated and friable ego that makes a child howl "injustice" when a teacher fails it, that makes angry mobs scream "murder" when an author questions them. The basic sense is not that different, is it?
"How can s/he challenge me?. How can they think I am not as invincible as I think I am? I have a right to be angry, so I will make sure the entire world knows I am!"
Does it draw directly from that massive sense of self importance that I wrote about last time?  That we are all so important in our little heads that any word of criticism, anyone challenging our thoughts or any small sign of unpredictability gets us unsettled to such an extent, we start taking things personally.  We get offended.
We rally our friends and look for support, we decide to wall out the guilty or go after them with our pitchforks and then, when the adrenaline runs out we retract into the pathetic little worlds we build for ourselves, feeling good about our non-existent victories.
Parents justify this by saying they are protecting their kids. Are they really, though?
I see a world where kids are increasingly growing up to think they can get what they want, when they want, lack manners and sulk all the time.
I see fragile young girls “going into depression” because a boss or a friend has been rude, or not given them as much attention as they thought they deserved.
I see a world where teachers (not just school, any kind. Think art, games, music) are increasingly afraid to give honest feedback, lest they hurt someone’s ego.
I see a world where grown-ups cannot talk to each other without sounding like corporate jargon machines, because hey, you never know what upsets the other person. So it's safer to pepper sentences with the insipid "that is interesting, but...",  "we should touch base" (this one really annoys me. When I was a teenager, 'touching base' was not something you wanted to do with every Tom, Dick and Harry you met. Why can't we just say "I'll get in touch with you"? Maybe I'll write about these phrases the next time) and other mind numbingly dull expressions that'll make any reasonably sensible person want to flee.
And worse, we sometimes don’t even pause to reconsider if something even merits our getting so upset. Take for example my experience with the girl I mentioned in the beginning.
I know of other Indians who got upset about it when I shared the story, ones who have otherwise happily shortened their surnames so they go easy on Western tongues. That does not dilute their sense of identity, but if someone mixes me up for another person (and also apologises for it), it’s a problem.
And I wonder how this case of fragile egos is ever going to serve us well, if it is true that all great ideas and movements in this world have been a result of honest and enlightening discussions. That criticism is necessary; it calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
We all want to live in a free society, and yet somehow we have decided we’ll only account for the good of that arrangement without being responsible for the bad.
That because we live in a free world, we will say it is our right to blast music at 3 am in the morning and blame our neighbour if he complains about disturbance. And yet, when he wakes up early at 6 am and turns on the lawn mower/ says his prayers loud, he is the insufferable one.
We think because we live in a free world where we have a right to be heard, we can call for the banishment of an artist, can call someone we don’t like evil names, can kill people and burn communities because what they did “offended” us.
Like one of my favourite authors famously reminded us, no one in this world has the right not to be offended. That right simply does not exist. It is then, on us to decide and differentiate between what we take as offence and what is criticism, what is a challenge, what is an honest mistake, what is a question and what is a crime.
We live in a big world, my dad is fond of reminding my mom. It is full of things that can upset us, but it makes sense to deal with them with what I thought was common sense.  If you think your neighbour is being too prying, ask her to stop, don’t build a wall so high that no one else can get in.
If you think you have overstepped a mark with a friend, apologize and don’t do it again. At least, try. If you don’t like a movie, a painting, a boss, a teacher, book, talk about why not, instead of burning and banishing. Or move away.
But more than anything isn’t it important we think before we decide to get upset? What is it that is upsetting us so much, so frequently? Does it even merit that much heart burn? Or are you simply being silly because you think your ego has been hurt.
There are real issues in this world that merit our getting offended and upset. When someone shoots a young girl because she dared to go to school, it merits our being upset. When kids drop out of school because they can’t pay for tuition, it merits our being upset. When a deserving candidate is passed over because of blatant favoritism, even that merits our being upset. And in all those cases, we need to do more than just be offended. We need to do what we can to stop the offenders.
But if  we keep mixing criticism with offense, if we cannot handle a contrarian view, if we do not know self importance from a worthy cause, we are going to keep getting offended over little things that do not count, and we’ll keep living in that little sad world we build inside our heads.
This would be fine, except that the real world, the one which does not really care about your fragile ego, will not make an exception when you’re the one who “gives offence.” And you never know when you do.


where the mind is without fear and the head is held high..

where the mind is without fear and the head is held high..