All men are born equal, it has been said - but some are more equal than others. On a similar note I would say that all women are born unequal, but some are more unequal than others.
I am looking chiefly at equality in terms of opportunity to pursue the education of one's choice and subsequently a career and lifestyle as per one's own free will.
The pecking order goes something like this.
a) Lowest rung - Girls from poor urban and rural households
If the family can afford to send just one of its kids to school, it will always choose the boy child. While most can now see the merit of studying at least upto class 4 or 5, beyond that the question is 'kya fayda'? (what's the additional gain?)
The girl is anyways expected to settle down and become a homemaker. Or, do menial jobs to supplement her income. So she is more usful to the parents as an extra hand to look after younger siblings, help the mother doing jhaadu-pocha in other people's homes, helping with family chores like cooking.
Lower middle class households - Here the girl will probably study upto class X or XII definitely. If she insists or has a parent who is progressive and family circumstances which allow, she may complete graduation. If lucky, she may even take up a low level clerical type job.
But at a fundamental level, this young woman does not believe she can aspire for or ask for more. She does not have the confidence, she has never been made to feel her own self worth. She will marry in her early 20s and happily settle down to a domestic life - completing adjusting to the husband and family's needs even if she has a job. In many cases, she has little say in how what she earns is spent - it's all simply handed over.
In the worst case scenario, her education may prove to be an impediment. According to a recent newspaper report, young Muslim girls are pursuing education more keenly than boys who prefer to drop out after class 10 and become mechanics/ shopkeepers. So Muslim women who complete college find they can't get a suitable match. One such young woman recently agreed to marry a rickshaw driver who is not even matriculate after her family failed to locate a boy who was a graduate.
b) Medium rung
Middle and upper class girls from small towns
These girls invariably complete college - in some cases even a professional education like medicine or engineering. But the parents never fail to remind the girls that 'marriage comes first'. So, a young engineer from a reputed college in Punjab rejects an offer from a Delhi-based IT firm, instead doing a Master's. The ultimate aim is to become a college lecturer which her parents feel is a 'good job for girls even after marriage'.
Some young women will not acquiesce to their parents' wishes so easily and may go for the jobs. In which case they may also go on to become career-oriented, marry someone of their own choice or in the rare case not marry at all.
The only hope for this independence lies in escaping the small town where there are no opportunities for educated young people - men or women. That's why we are currently seeing an exodus of small townies to call centres (the most easily available job). And also to seek their fortunes in the media, glamour world.
Metro girls from conservative families
They do exist. These girls complete their education, then and get married as per parents' wishes. They may pursue a vocation as a hobby. A serious career is not forbidden per se but it is understood that it's not required because the husband earns enough is liye zaroorat kya hai (where is the need?).
Later in life, these women may work from home or do a part time job to 'keep busy'.
c) Higher Rung
Metro girls who choose marriage as a career
Yes, these girls could have gone for careers but they just did not have the ambition. So lack of career is a personal choice. They wish to marry a well settled (preferably rich!) guy and be his glamourous biwi.
Life as a memsaab is quite happy and comfortable, as long as the husband and in laws aren't dominating or stingy. Servant, car with driver, annual foreign trip keep these women happy. And they aren't behenji types either - these are in fact the young women who join gyms, get their hair coloured and shop at Phoenix mills in the daytime, splurge on designer clothing. These young women do occassionally feel a pang of jealousy/ insecurity when they bump into a former classmate who has gone the career way. On the other hand, career oriented women sometimes feel the same pangs of jealousy when they note the aaram ki zindagi (easy life) these less ambitious women lead.
The solution: Memsaab joins a fashion designing/ interior design course so she can claim to be doing something other than being a housewife next time she meets Career Girl. Career Girl recalls her last 3 day weekend spent at home and thanks God she doesn't have to undergo such torture every day of the year!
Career oriented girls with middle class values
These are the girls for whom working is really important - they derive their sense of self worth from their careers. They also enjoy the independence an income brings. Like boys, these metro girls from middle class families have had equal access to an education of their choice and believe it would be a waste to not make use of their qualifications. Their families have encouraged them to achieve, and also to take up demanding careers. Yet, these girls are quite traditional at heart and wish to settle down 'at the right time'. And although they often marry for love (batchmates/ workmates) they are not averse to arranged marriages. Career Girls believe in 'equality' of the sexes and find to their grief that in the real world it isn't always so. The first few years usually go fine. The husband is adjusting, accomodating, both work long and hard at their careers. As time goes by (esp. once kids come into the picture) Career Girl finds it is she who has to make more compromises. In some cases, to an extent, maternal instincts take over and she willingly becomes a stay at home mom/memsaab . In others, practical considerations (lack of parents/ in laws/ maid to look after baby) mean she unwillingly quits the job. Even if she continues working full time, her middle class value system and the her desire to excel at work are incompatible and create stress. The guilt of neglecting the child and the pressures of juggling both responsobilities takes its toll and these women feel unhappy despite having the 'best of both worlds'.
d) Highest rung
Girls who have REALLY chosen to live life their own way
If they don't want to do something - they don't. And then live with the consequences. This could mean having a great career but choosing to remain single because they never did find the right guy. Or they may marry but can walk out of the relationship if it doesn't go too well or interferes in their careers. These girls don't care as much as their more conventional counterparts about 'log kya kahenge' (what will people say). They don't have kids because ab shaadi ko paanch saal ho gaye hain (now it's five years since we've been married) but when they feel ready to be mothers. More than MBAs/ engineers I find these are usually girls in professions like media (journalism, advertising, TV) and glamour (acting, fashion, ). The poster girl for this species is Sushmita Sen, who after several well publicised romances chose to become a single mother by adopting a child.
Glamorous as it may sound, not all these women are necessarily happy. You have to be very strong to stick by an unconventional choice and as these women get older they do feel lonely or feel the need to marry/ have children. But while a man may find he can possibly marry at 35, or 40, women at that age rarely find a suitable partner.
So there is a broad spectrum of 'choices' for the naye zamaane ki ladki.
Conclusion: I think many more young women secretly desire option d) ie REALLY living life their own way but settle for being Memsaabs/ Career Girls. And I think that will continue to be the case.
So, parents, sit back and relax. We aren't going to tear apart the fabric of Indian society. Not just yet.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Woh ladki hai kahaan - 1
Do young women in India enjoy the same freedom and opportunities as young men? Certainly we've come a long long way but have we come far enough? I don't think so.
Yes, education is a 'right' for girls born into middle and upper class families. But at various levels, there's still the implicit understanding that padhna-likhna sab theek hai (studying is a good thing) but acche ghar mein shaadi (marrying into a good family) is of prime importance.
So let's say a young woman completes her graduation and then an MBA - she is about 23 years old. She has just entered her first job. There is much to learn and adjust to. She would like to spend the next few years on building a career. WAIT A MINUTE!
Ladki chaubis ki ho gayi hai (the girl is 24...) Ab to shaadi ka sochna hi padega (Now we parents must think about marriage). Guys? They can safely wait till 28, even 30 and still be considered 'eligible'. And they would essentially be looking for girls 24-25 years old to marry.
Now there are exceptions. Some young women simply put their foot down and don't toe the line. But a majority agree to start 'seeing boys'. Progress is visible on two fronts:
a) The more liberal parents will at least ask 'Koi hai to nahin' (Is there someone you like?) And if the guy is from a decent (similar or better class family) and in well paying job, they are happy enough to agree to the marriage.
In many middle class families, qualification seems to be the most important criteria. Both studied MBA/ engineering together? Great. Punjabi marrying Bengali is OK. Kam se kam Hindu hai na (At least both are Hindus). Now to a non-Indian that might seem parochial but I think it is a LOT less rigid than in the past.
b) Many, many young people are meeting through the internet. While dating sites have a pretty sad ratio of girls: boys (about 1:10 seems to be accepted standard!), matrimonial sites boast a healthy number of girls (and many profiles appear to be registered by the girl herself and not the parents).
Unlike the traditional matrimonial classifieds the online version is much more egalitarian. And builds a certain comfort level. The girl and boy may exchange some emails or have chatted on messenger prior to meeting in person.
Great Expectations
Still the whole process of finding 'a suitable boy' is fraught with tensions and complications. Yes, guys go through it when looking for a girl but not to the same degree. The difference lies in the answer to the question: Will I really be able to pursue my career after marriage?
It's amazing how many families - and guys themselves - want highly qualified wives but see their careers mainly as 'hobbies'.
Men's views on women and careers: "The girl can work after marriage but should be home by 5 pm". Uh huh. Like ANY job except school teacher would match that description. Unlike many others who may pretend to be very supportive before marriage and then make life difficult later.
Maybe some women will give up their career at some stage and look after home and babies - as many professional women are wont to do the world over. But it should not be because the husband or in-laws decree that.
Double standards continue
As teenagers, girls face far more restrictions. Parents claim to 'trust' daughters yet constantly lay down rules for them that don't apply to their sons. Staying out late with friends, going to parties - these are still areas where double standards apply.
These double standards continue to apply throughout life. Young women should be educated (you see MBA boys want to marry MBA girls!) but they should be willing to compromise when and where necessary. So if your husband is transferred to the US you should not think twice give up your job and move with him.
Yeh sab karna padta hai... the elders remind us.
What young women want to know is: Kya taali donon haathon se nahin bajni chahiye?
Yes, education is a 'right' for girls born into middle and upper class families. But at various levels, there's still the implicit understanding that padhna-likhna sab theek hai (studying is a good thing) but acche ghar mein shaadi (marrying into a good family) is of prime importance.
So let's say a young woman completes her graduation and then an MBA - she is about 23 years old. She has just entered her first job. There is much to learn and adjust to. She would like to spend the next few years on building a career. WAIT A MINUTE!
Ladki chaubis ki ho gayi hai (the girl is 24...) Ab to shaadi ka sochna hi padega (Now we parents must think about marriage). Guys? They can safely wait till 28, even 30 and still be considered 'eligible'. And they would essentially be looking for girls 24-25 years old to marry.
Now there are exceptions. Some young women simply put their foot down and don't toe the line. But a majority agree to start 'seeing boys'. Progress is visible on two fronts:
a) The more liberal parents will at least ask 'Koi hai to nahin' (Is there someone you like?) And if the guy is from a decent (similar or better class family) and in well paying job, they are happy enough to agree to the marriage.
In many middle class families, qualification seems to be the most important criteria. Both studied MBA/ engineering together? Great. Punjabi marrying Bengali is OK. Kam se kam Hindu hai na (At least both are Hindus). Now to a non-Indian that might seem parochial but I think it is a LOT less rigid than in the past.
b) Many, many young people are meeting through the internet. While dating sites have a pretty sad ratio of girls: boys (about 1:10 seems to be accepted standard!), matrimonial sites boast a healthy number of girls (and many profiles appear to be registered by the girl herself and not the parents).
Unlike the traditional matrimonial classifieds the online version is much more egalitarian. And builds a certain comfort level. The girl and boy may exchange some emails or have chatted on messenger prior to meeting in person.
Great Expectations
Still the whole process of finding 'a suitable boy' is fraught with tensions and complications. Yes, guys go through it when looking for a girl but not to the same degree. The difference lies in the answer to the question: Will I really be able to pursue my career after marriage?
It's amazing how many families - and guys themselves - want highly qualified wives but see their careers mainly as 'hobbies'.
Men's views on women and careers: "The girl can work after marriage but should be home by 5 pm". Uh huh. Like ANY job except school teacher would match that description. Unlike many others who may pretend to be very supportive before marriage and then make life difficult later.
Maybe some women will give up their career at some stage and look after home and babies - as many professional women are wont to do the world over. But it should not be because the husband or in-laws decree that.
Double standards continue
As teenagers, girls face far more restrictions. Parents claim to 'trust' daughters yet constantly lay down rules for them that don't apply to their sons. Staying out late with friends, going to parties - these are still areas where double standards apply.
These double standards continue to apply throughout life. Young women should be educated (you see MBA boys want to marry MBA girls!) but they should be willing to compromise when and where necessary. So if your husband is transferred to the US you should not think twice give up your job and move with him.
Yeh sab karna padta hai... the elders remind us.
What young women want to know is: Kya taali donon haathon se nahin bajni chahiye?
What Google can teach Youth Marketeers ?
Can one company be everything to all people? Such a positioning defies logic - and laws of marketing gravity - but that's exactly what Microsoft is attempting.
At a big PR-orchestrated in Mumbai, the company announced its 'new and improved' MSN Search. Is it? Not as far as one can see.
But the main point is why would a young person want to type the long and cumbersome http://search.msn.co.in/ when a simple http://www.google.com/ does the trick?
Why Google rocks Google entered the search engine game late but it quickly became a favourite because it offered something different. It was a "pure" search engine whereas others like yahoo were portals. And it got the job done faster and better (more, relevant results).
The other thing going in Google's favour is its brand name. It's got a strong and loyal user base because it not only claims to 'think different', it actually IS different. Visibly so!
Its coolness is reflected in little touches like its 'google artworks' which change from day to day on the site. And in its radical definition of what 'new and improved' means. 10 or 20% better is not good enough for google. When it really takes on the market - like it did with Gmail - it alters the rules of the game.
The tech savvy bit was to offer a better user experience with a HUGELY attractive carrot - 1 GB storage space. That made the effort of switching ids worthwhile.
But there was marketing savvy too. The fact that only Gmail users could invite others to open an account made the service cool and exclusive - and was also a factor in making the decision to shift one's loyalty.
It's this combination of superior offering/ technology + inherent coolness that makes Google, quite unbeatable.
Can Microsoft rule everything? Practically every email provider upgraded its storage space post GMail . In the long run EVERYONE benefitted from the Google email launch.
So the trouble with MSN Search is, no one believes that Microsoft can actually come up with a product better than Google.
What we do know is that Microsoft is Master of the Art of Me Too. It jumps onto a new idea or territory created by someone else. And then, by sheer muscle and money power, succeeds in overwhelming the original innovator.
Microsoft reduced Apple to a tiny shadow of its original potential, by incorporating Apple's Graphical User Interface (GUI) in Windows.
Then, it ousted Netscape from the browser space with IE Explorer. Here, the master stroke was bundling it into the Windows OS.
Next, it got into the email game by buying out Hotmail. Big deal (pun intended).
Now (along with yahoo) it dominates the instant messenger space (originally created by the all-but-forgotten ICQ).
But I don't think the'Me Too' strategy will work anymore - not with Google. The company is really smart, really quick - and has enough cash, thanks to its IPO - to take on the challenge.
Why 'good' isn't good enough What Microsoft needs to do in response is something it hasn't attempted for a long time. Produce a new and revolutionary product.
There's a lesson in this for every youth marketer, but especially so for companies in the 'non physical' (internet, media) space.
The consumer is a lot more discerning today and large corporations better realise that 'marketing' will fall flat unless you have a product that not only matches consumer expectations but exceeds them.
That's why TOI's Zoom TV has been rejected by the youth audience (it may claim anything, in the articles plugged into its own newspaper but that is the truth) while Star One & Colors are steadily gaining popularity.
All the three channels advertised heavily - and projected a cool, youthful image. But only the latter two's programming matched up. They took the risk of launching a range of new, different shows which have attracted a decent fan following. As have comedies like Instant Khichdi, Sarabhai vs Sarabhai, Naa Aana is des, Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena, Bigg Boss, Khatron ke Khiladi and the Great Indian Comedy Show.
Charity begins at home...
So does a reality check. The sad fact is even TOI employees themselves do not watch Zoom - in fact, many shudder at the mention of the channel. When your product has no respect in house, can you expect to convince the world outside how good it is?
Microsoft's entry into the digital music market, similarly, looks destined to fail. It is estimated that Apple's iPod commands 65 % of the portable player market, and its iTunes Music Store 70 % of online music sales. Microsoft is trying hard to compete in this market with its Windows Media Audio (WMA) format which is supported by several online music stores (Napster, MusicMatch, Wal-Mart) and hardware (Creative etc)
But, as a recent Wired news report noted: Apple IPods are 'wildly popular' on Microsoft campuses (to the growing frustration and annoyance of the management).
"About 80 percent of Microsoft employees who have a portable music player have an iPod," said one source, a high-level manager who asked to remain anonymous. "It's pretty staggering."
So popular is the iPod, executives are increasingly sending out memos frowning on its use.
"These guys are really quite scared...It shows how their backs are against the wall.... Even though it's Microsoft, no one is interested in what we have to offer, even our own employees."
Apparently, several executives who dutifully bought Microsoft-powered players, tried them, failed to get them working, and returned them in favor of an iPod.
Now one can get paranoid about this - or accept this as feedback from the market - and act accordingly to make something even better than IPod (Don't tell me it's NOT possible. Just saying that should be challenge enough for the geeks at Redmond).
Maybe there's someone at Google already thinking about it :) In the interest of the consumer... I sure hope so.
At a big PR-orchestrated in Mumbai, the company announced its 'new and improved' MSN Search. Is it? Not as far as one can see.
But the main point is why would a young person want to type the long and cumbersome http://search.msn.co.in/ when a simple http://www.google.com/ does the trick?
Why Google rocks Google entered the search engine game late but it quickly became a favourite because it offered something different. It was a "pure" search engine whereas others like yahoo were portals. And it got the job done faster and better (more, relevant results).
The other thing going in Google's favour is its brand name. It's got a strong and loyal user base because it not only claims to 'think different', it actually IS different. Visibly so!
Its coolness is reflected in little touches like its 'google artworks' which change from day to day on the site. And in its radical definition of what 'new and improved' means. 10 or 20% better is not good enough for google. When it really takes on the market - like it did with Gmail - it alters the rules of the game.
The tech savvy bit was to offer a better user experience with a HUGELY attractive carrot - 1 GB storage space. That made the effort of switching ids worthwhile.
But there was marketing savvy too. The fact that only Gmail users could invite others to open an account made the service cool and exclusive - and was also a factor in making the decision to shift one's loyalty.
It's this combination of superior offering/ technology + inherent coolness that makes Google, quite unbeatable.
Can Microsoft rule everything? Practically every email provider upgraded its storage space post GMail . In the long run EVERYONE benefitted from the Google email launch.
So the trouble with MSN Search is, no one believes that Microsoft can actually come up with a product better than Google.
What we do know is that Microsoft is Master of the Art of Me Too. It jumps onto a new idea or territory created by someone else. And then, by sheer muscle and money power, succeeds in overwhelming the original innovator.
Microsoft reduced Apple to a tiny shadow of its original potential, by incorporating Apple's Graphical User Interface (GUI) in Windows.
Then, it ousted Netscape from the browser space with IE Explorer. Here, the master stroke was bundling it into the Windows OS.
Next, it got into the email game by buying out Hotmail. Big deal (pun intended).
Now (along with yahoo) it dominates the instant messenger space (originally created by the all-but-forgotten ICQ).
But I don't think the'Me Too' strategy will work anymore - not with Google. The company is really smart, really quick - and has enough cash, thanks to its IPO - to take on the challenge.
Why 'good' isn't good enough What Microsoft needs to do in response is something it hasn't attempted for a long time. Produce a new and revolutionary product.
There's a lesson in this for every youth marketer, but especially so for companies in the 'non physical' (internet, media) space.
The consumer is a lot more discerning today and large corporations better realise that 'marketing' will fall flat unless you have a product that not only matches consumer expectations but exceeds them.
That's why TOI's Zoom TV has been rejected by the youth audience (it may claim anything, in the articles plugged into its own newspaper but that is the truth) while Star One & Colors are steadily gaining popularity.
All the three channels advertised heavily - and projected a cool, youthful image. But only the latter two's programming matched up. They took the risk of launching a range of new, different shows which have attracted a decent fan following. As have comedies like Instant Khichdi, Sarabhai vs Sarabhai, Naa Aana is des, Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena, Bigg Boss, Khatron ke Khiladi and the Great Indian Comedy Show.
Charity begins at home...
So does a reality check. The sad fact is even TOI employees themselves do not watch Zoom - in fact, many shudder at the mention of the channel. When your product has no respect in house, can you expect to convince the world outside how good it is?
Microsoft's entry into the digital music market, similarly, looks destined to fail. It is estimated that Apple's iPod commands 65 % of the portable player market, and its iTunes Music Store 70 % of online music sales. Microsoft is trying hard to compete in this market with its Windows Media Audio (WMA) format which is supported by several online music stores (Napster, MusicMatch, Wal-Mart) and hardware (Creative etc)
But, as a recent Wired news report noted: Apple IPods are 'wildly popular' on Microsoft campuses (to the growing frustration and annoyance of the management).
"About 80 percent of Microsoft employees who have a portable music player have an iPod," said one source, a high-level manager who asked to remain anonymous. "It's pretty staggering."
So popular is the iPod, executives are increasingly sending out memos frowning on its use.
"These guys are really quite scared...It shows how their backs are against the wall.... Even though it's Microsoft, no one is interested in what we have to offer, even our own employees."
Apparently, several executives who dutifully bought Microsoft-powered players, tried them, failed to get them working, and returned them in favor of an iPod.
Now one can get paranoid about this - or accept this as feedback from the market - and act accordingly to make something even better than IPod (Don't tell me it's NOT possible. Just saying that should be challenge enough for the geeks at Redmond).
Maybe there's someone at Google already thinking about it :) In the interest of the consumer... I sure hope so.
Why Indian Idol worked ??
Indian Idol created history as far as reality shows go in India. And it certainly touched a chord with the youth - which was very good news for Sony Entertainment Television.
It was not the first talent hunt but it clearly was the most successful in terms of viewership numbers. The fact that Indian Idol was aired on a mainstream channel as opposed to a music channel like [V] or MTV gave it a lot more reach. Plus, Sony had invested heavily in promoting the show.
However, it could have gone either way. When the show launched with Anu Mallik, Sonu Nigam and Farah Khan, I wasn't too impressed. But they were playing out their roles quite well. Although none of them was as biting or caustic as Simon on American Idol, the judges had established a chemistry / rapport with the audience.
But the reason Indian Idol outshined any other shows of the same kind can be summed up in one word: involvement. We, the viewers, had a say in the contestants' futures through the SMS and phone votes we sent. This gave us a stake in their success and failure - an active and not just a passive interest.
The fact that the top 11 had to go through several rounds until only one remained meant that we got to see their talent on display week after week. Indian Idol also gave us a peek into the contestants' homes and backgrounds, so we identified with them as people. We started caring about them, feeling for them. We even developed likes and dislikes - as if we knew each one personally.
Of course, this was working in a strange way AGAINST merit. In the very first season, Ravindra, the painter who couldn't really sing too well made it to the last 5 while the talented Rahul Saxena was voted out before him. Clearly, Ravindra seemed to be getting votes just for being an underdog.
However, Rahul's exit sparked a lot of comment and even protest letters to newspapers. And do you know, he'd been asked by judge Farah Khan to sing for her forthcoming film project while another axed contestant - Amit Tandon acted in an Ekta Kapoor serial. So simply being on Indian Idol had led to some kind of break for contestants.
Earlier singing talent hunts had thrown up the likes of Sunidhi Chauhan, Shreya Ghoshal and Sanjeevani. But I think Indian Idol - in its first edition alone - resulted in many more contracts and opportunities.
Perhaps it was just that the time was right then. The country - and the folks in the industry who made or breaked talents - were looking for freshness and newness. Once a Karan Johar or Sanjay Leela Bhansali has been on Indian Idol as guest judge and made positive comments about a contestant's 'star quality', others too sit up and take notice.
Bottomline: One hopes all this boils down to the eventual Indian Idol winner selling enough albums to be taken seriously as a singing sensation. The public voting by sms is great, but young people voting with their wallets is ultimately what will make the 'idol' a true star.
It was not the first talent hunt but it clearly was the most successful in terms of viewership numbers. The fact that Indian Idol was aired on a mainstream channel as opposed to a music channel like [V] or MTV gave it a lot more reach. Plus, Sony had invested heavily in promoting the show.
However, it could have gone either way. When the show launched with Anu Mallik, Sonu Nigam and Farah Khan, I wasn't too impressed. But they were playing out their roles quite well. Although none of them was as biting or caustic as Simon on American Idol, the judges had established a chemistry / rapport with the audience.
But the reason Indian Idol outshined any other shows of the same kind can be summed up in one word: involvement. We, the viewers, had a say in the contestants' futures through the SMS and phone votes we sent. This gave us a stake in their success and failure - an active and not just a passive interest.
The fact that the top 11 had to go through several rounds until only one remained meant that we got to see their talent on display week after week. Indian Idol also gave us a peek into the contestants' homes and backgrounds, so we identified with them as people. We started caring about them, feeling for them. We even developed likes and dislikes - as if we knew each one personally.
Of course, this was working in a strange way AGAINST merit. In the very first season, Ravindra, the painter who couldn't really sing too well made it to the last 5 while the talented Rahul Saxena was voted out before him. Clearly, Ravindra seemed to be getting votes just for being an underdog.
However, Rahul's exit sparked a lot of comment and even protest letters to newspapers. And do you know, he'd been asked by judge Farah Khan to sing for her forthcoming film project while another axed contestant - Amit Tandon acted in an Ekta Kapoor serial. So simply being on Indian Idol had led to some kind of break for contestants.
Earlier singing talent hunts had thrown up the likes of Sunidhi Chauhan, Shreya Ghoshal and Sanjeevani. But I think Indian Idol - in its first edition alone - resulted in many more contracts and opportunities.
Perhaps it was just that the time was right then. The country - and the folks in the industry who made or breaked talents - were looking for freshness and newness. Once a Karan Johar or Sanjay Leela Bhansali has been on Indian Idol as guest judge and made positive comments about a contestant's 'star quality', others too sit up and take notice.
Bottomline: One hopes all this boils down to the eventual Indian Idol winner selling enough albums to be taken seriously as a singing sensation. The public voting by sms is great, but young people voting with their wallets is ultimately what will make the 'idol' a true star.
Aamir @ 45 - still a "youth"?
Youth vs youthfulness
Thank God Aamir Khan has abandoned the daaku Mangal Singh look. The man is competing with Jennifer Aniston in the 'even my haircuts make news' department but I'll give it to his hair stylist - she manages to come up with something that makes you take note every time.
So yes, Aamir is looking a lot cuter and younger with the soft n curly mop but let's get one thing clear - this is youthFUL. And that is not the same as actually being young.
Aamir became a youth icon with his very first Bollywood film - QSQT - in 1987. And with the Dil chahta hai role he came back full circle and consolidated the youth image. But I was hoping that would be his last stab at the 'youth' space.
Apparently not. Rakesh Mehra casted Aamir in a pivotal role in his movie Rang de Basanti. The director said the film 'celebrates the youth of India' and Aamir represented that youth.
Uh huh. Haircut or no haircut, Aamir is now 45. Like Shahrukh Khan - who has wisely decided to steer clear of candyfloss college boy roles - surely it IS time to move on?
Desperately seeking youth talent
The irony is that in a country where over half the population is under 25 - there are hardly any real youth idols. I hesitate to use the word 'icon' because what I mean is performers - whether in acting, singing, sports. Young people with the right mix of talent + personality + charisma that equals STAR quality and produces a dedicated fan following.
Yes, things are better as far as the 'hunt' of new talent goes. There are opportunities for new faces - be it in remix videos, through Miss & Mr India contests, Popstars, Cinestars ki Khoj and Indian Idol.
But most of these talents enjoy their 15 minutes of fame and then fade away. At least that's what's happened so far to:
Viva: The first girl band to win Channel [V]'s Popstars contest. Just the first album did well. Now disbanded.
Aasma: The second Pospstars find. Not heard of them post their solitary hit 'Chandu ke Chacha'.
Shefali Zariwala: The girl who became a sensation with the Kaanta lagaa video. It remains the sole feather in her cap.
Amar Upadhyaya: Adored as Mihir Virani in the popular soap opera Kyunki Saas, flopped majorly in films.
And there are many more such examples.
Why???????
"Well that's show business for you" is one explanation. But I think it goes a little bit deeper.
One factor is the overhyping of every new talent, which creates a sense of fatigue for the audiences too very quickly. The sequence of events generally goes like this
a) Interviews on every TV channel and newspaper.
b) More interviews, media exposure, hype.
c) Six months later there's no follow up album or other sign of activity which would make the audience feel there is something of substance in this person.
Now some might have been undertalented and overhyped - and hence did their natural deaths.
But with others I think the nasha of celebrity goes to their heads - and instead of concentrating on what more they can do with their talents - they are happy to vegetate and stagnate. And fade away instead of creating any lasting impact.
Hitching your star to the wrong wagon
Secondly, many of the people who really 'make or break' your career would rather rely on the big stars to ensure their own success.
Take Karan Johar. In his debut film Kuch Kuch Hota Hai he took a chance with Rani Mukherjee - a totally unknown face then. In K3G, Kal ho na ho he took no such risks.
Mostly, 'new talent' finds itself in the incompetent hands of people like Arindam Choudhary whose debut disaster Rok sako to rok lo was the perfect example of how NOT to make a film.
The 'curse' of success
The burden of becoming very successful very early in life is a difficult one. Time and again, really talented young people get crushed under it - and rarely manage to grab for themselves a second chance.
Take the case of Parthiv Patel. It would be great if he took his dismissal from the team as a challenge, fought back for his form and won his place in the team again. But will we let that happen?
And Sania Mirza. She seems to have a capable young head on her shoulders and yes, what she's done so far is creditable. But if you make the front page and the back page of the Sunday Times and the front page of the Bombay Times all in the SAME day (Sunday 30th Jan 2009) - just for reaching round 3 of the Australian open... Can you be blamed for getting just a little bit distracted from your goal of actually winning a Grand Slam?
Kal ki baat purani kab hogi?
And finally, older stars - the ones who've actually become 'icons' - will need to make way for the new. A very simple example from the world of cricket. I remember this one young chap called Hrishikesh Kanitkar who won a couple of really close one day matches for India. One fine day he disappeared from the team, never to be heard of again.
Maybe he had a few bad innings, but so does Sachin. Yet Sachin remains a national hero while Kanitkar gets no second chance to prove himself. The Old Order needs to gracefully bow out and reinvent itself, even as it encourages a new one.
Only then will there be space for and spotlights on fresh talents, perfomers, faces .
Real youth idols, not just youthful ones.
Thank God Aamir Khan has abandoned the daaku Mangal Singh look. The man is competing with Jennifer Aniston in the 'even my haircuts make news' department but I'll give it to his hair stylist - she manages to come up with something that makes you take note every time.
So yes, Aamir is looking a lot cuter and younger with the soft n curly mop but let's get one thing clear - this is youthFUL. And that is not the same as actually being young.
Aamir became a youth icon with his very first Bollywood film - QSQT - in 1987. And with the Dil chahta hai role he came back full circle and consolidated the youth image. But I was hoping that would be his last stab at the 'youth' space.
Apparently not. Rakesh Mehra casted Aamir in a pivotal role in his movie Rang de Basanti. The director said the film 'celebrates the youth of India' and Aamir represented that youth.
Uh huh. Haircut or no haircut, Aamir is now 45. Like Shahrukh Khan - who has wisely decided to steer clear of candyfloss college boy roles - surely it IS time to move on?
Desperately seeking youth talent
The irony is that in a country where over half the population is under 25 - there are hardly any real youth idols. I hesitate to use the word 'icon' because what I mean is performers - whether in acting, singing, sports. Young people with the right mix of talent + personality + charisma that equals STAR quality and produces a dedicated fan following.
Yes, things are better as far as the 'hunt' of new talent goes. There are opportunities for new faces - be it in remix videos, through Miss & Mr India contests, Popstars, Cinestars ki Khoj and Indian Idol.
But most of these talents enjoy their 15 minutes of fame and then fade away. At least that's what's happened so far to:
Viva: The first girl band to win Channel [V]'s Popstars contest. Just the first album did well. Now disbanded.
Aasma: The second Pospstars find. Not heard of them post their solitary hit 'Chandu ke Chacha'.
Shefali Zariwala: The girl who became a sensation with the Kaanta lagaa video. It remains the sole feather in her cap.
Amar Upadhyaya: Adored as Mihir Virani in the popular soap opera Kyunki Saas, flopped majorly in films.
And there are many more such examples.
Why???????
"Well that's show business for you" is one explanation. But I think it goes a little bit deeper.
One factor is the overhyping of every new talent, which creates a sense of fatigue for the audiences too very quickly. The sequence of events generally goes like this
a) Interviews on every TV channel and newspaper.
b) More interviews, media exposure, hype.
c) Six months later there's no follow up album or other sign of activity which would make the audience feel there is something of substance in this person.
Now some might have been undertalented and overhyped - and hence did their natural deaths.
But with others I think the nasha of celebrity goes to their heads - and instead of concentrating on what more they can do with their talents - they are happy to vegetate and stagnate. And fade away instead of creating any lasting impact.
Hitching your star to the wrong wagon
Secondly, many of the people who really 'make or break' your career would rather rely on the big stars to ensure their own success.
Take Karan Johar. In his debut film Kuch Kuch Hota Hai he took a chance with Rani Mukherjee - a totally unknown face then. In K3G, Kal ho na ho he took no such risks.
Mostly, 'new talent' finds itself in the incompetent hands of people like Arindam Choudhary whose debut disaster Rok sako to rok lo was the perfect example of how NOT to make a film.
The 'curse' of success
The burden of becoming very successful very early in life is a difficult one. Time and again, really talented young people get crushed under it - and rarely manage to grab for themselves a second chance.
Take the case of Parthiv Patel. It would be great if he took his dismissal from the team as a challenge, fought back for his form and won his place in the team again. But will we let that happen?
And Sania Mirza. She seems to have a capable young head on her shoulders and yes, what she's done so far is creditable. But if you make the front page and the back page of the Sunday Times and the front page of the Bombay Times all in the SAME day (Sunday 30th Jan 2009) - just for reaching round 3 of the Australian open... Can you be blamed for getting just a little bit distracted from your goal of actually winning a Grand Slam?
Kal ki baat purani kab hogi?
And finally, older stars - the ones who've actually become 'icons' - will need to make way for the new. A very simple example from the world of cricket. I remember this one young chap called Hrishikesh Kanitkar who won a couple of really close one day matches for India. One fine day he disappeared from the team, never to be heard of again.
Maybe he had a few bad innings, but so does Sachin. Yet Sachin remains a national hero while Kanitkar gets no second chance to prove himself. The Old Order needs to gracefully bow out and reinvent itself, even as it encourages a new one.
Only then will there be space for and spotlights on fresh talents, perfomers, faces .
Real youth idols, not just youthful ones.
Why an IPod ain't God ??
The price not nice
The 512 mb Ipod Shuffle 512 mb retails for $99 (approx. Rs 4500). But in India, it's being launched at the ridiculous price of Rs 8500 (Rs 12,400 for the 1 gb version).
I'd be surprised if they sell more than a few hundred units. Every iPod desiring young person in India will ask his or her friend/ sister/ uncle to get it from the US or Malaysia or Dubai.
It's the principle of the thing. Maybe the company has to pay heavy imports duties but that's their problem. WHY should we as consumers pay double the global price?
As long as such price differentials continue, sales of tech toys will never really go mass. It's the same story with digital cameras bought from official Sony showrooms in India. There's more than a 50% mark up on the Singapore price.
So yes, one can go to a grey market and buy for a little cheaper but that's something for the hard core enthusiast. To create desire for a product among the aam junta (regular folks) - it has to be seen everywhere. At your neighbourhood electronics walla, the local shopping mall, at dedicated shopping centres.
First, create tech lust
My first experience of a First World electronics bazaar was the Palika Bazaar in Delhi long back in 1994 - shop after multi storeyed shops devoted to computers, peripherals, digital equipment of every shape and size. You could touch and feel and shop around for deals. I was blown away.
Bangalore's Chinese underground IT mall is another mindboggler. And recently I was in Chennai's T Nagar grey market - messier and more chaotic than Bangalore - but equally well stocked and bursting with goodies and gizmos. You spend the first two hours just looking.
Optical mice overflow from wicker baskets, the way you see aloos and gobis in India. There are a hundred brands of bluetooth connectors and RS MMC cards and some mind blowing (and really cheap) life size speakers you can attach to your PC for true 4 channel surround sound.
So you go there with one thing in mind (I was just window shopping) but end up buying two more. I'd only vaguely heard of the product and never thought I needed or wanted one. But seeing it in shop after shop piqued my curiosity. The demo was convincing, and the price a reasonable Rs 2500.
OK, so it wasn't a famous brand (those were abt Rs 4500) but I'm satisfied. The unsung Taiwanese brand works fine - and feels good for the price.
The point is, I'm not a hard core techie. And there are many many more potential customers like me. People who don't actively seek out new technology by reading reviews on cnet or subscribing to Chip/ Digit. But given enough exposure to tech toys and the opportunity to browse through them, to actually see what they can do - we too can start lusting.
Show us the goodies!
It's happened in this country with mobile phones - it can happen with other technologies. But companies and retailers have to invest in growing the market. In educating consumers - not just the geek population. And there must be a range of prices and brands available - for every kind of budget and in many, many locations.
Only then will tech buys rightfully be able to compete with clothing, entertainment and all the other staple purchase decisions in a young person's life.
The Walkman was a necessary accessory for students commuting to and fro from college. It was swept away by inexpensive FM 'stick' radios. But the sticks fell out of favour once every panwallah and chaiwallah bought one too and now cellphones with FM radio function rule.
The age of IPod? Not yet for India. And not ever, unless better marketing sense prevails.
The 512 mb Ipod Shuffle 512 mb retails for $99 (approx. Rs 4500). But in India, it's being launched at the ridiculous price of Rs 8500 (Rs 12,400 for the 1 gb version).
I'd be surprised if they sell more than a few hundred units. Every iPod desiring young person in India will ask his or her friend/ sister/ uncle to get it from the US or Malaysia or Dubai.
It's the principle of the thing. Maybe the company has to pay heavy imports duties but that's their problem. WHY should we as consumers pay double the global price?
As long as such price differentials continue, sales of tech toys will never really go mass. It's the same story with digital cameras bought from official Sony showrooms in India. There's more than a 50% mark up on the Singapore price.
So yes, one can go to a grey market and buy for a little cheaper but that's something for the hard core enthusiast. To create desire for a product among the aam junta (regular folks) - it has to be seen everywhere. At your neighbourhood electronics walla, the local shopping mall, at dedicated shopping centres.
First, create tech lust
My first experience of a First World electronics bazaar was the Palika Bazaar in Delhi long back in 1994 - shop after multi storeyed shops devoted to computers, peripherals, digital equipment of every shape and size. You could touch and feel and shop around for deals. I was blown away.
Bangalore's Chinese underground IT mall is another mindboggler. And recently I was in Chennai's T Nagar grey market - messier and more chaotic than Bangalore - but equally well stocked and bursting with goodies and gizmos. You spend the first two hours just looking.
Optical mice overflow from wicker baskets, the way you see aloos and gobis in India. There are a hundred brands of bluetooth connectors and RS MMC cards and some mind blowing (and really cheap) life size speakers you can attach to your PC for true 4 channel surround sound.
So you go there with one thing in mind (I was just window shopping) but end up buying two more. I'd only vaguely heard of the product and never thought I needed or wanted one. But seeing it in shop after shop piqued my curiosity. The demo was convincing, and the price a reasonable Rs 2500.
OK, so it wasn't a famous brand (those were abt Rs 4500) but I'm satisfied. The unsung Taiwanese brand works fine - and feels good for the price.
The point is, I'm not a hard core techie. And there are many many more potential customers like me. People who don't actively seek out new technology by reading reviews on cnet or subscribing to Chip/ Digit. But given enough exposure to tech toys and the opportunity to browse through them, to actually see what they can do - we too can start lusting.
Show us the goodies!
It's happened in this country with mobile phones - it can happen with other technologies. But companies and retailers have to invest in growing the market. In educating consumers - not just the geek population. And there must be a range of prices and brands available - for every kind of budget and in many, many locations.
Only then will tech buys rightfully be able to compete with clothing, entertainment and all the other staple purchase decisions in a young person's life.
The Walkman was a necessary accessory for students commuting to and fro from college. It was swept away by inexpensive FM 'stick' radios. But the sticks fell out of favour once every panwallah and chaiwallah bought one too and now cellphones with FM radio function rule.
The age of IPod? Not yet for India. And not ever, unless better marketing sense prevails.
Mobile phones : The not-so silent revolution
A cellphone rings in a crowded place, and a dozen hands reach out for the hip pocket. Hard to believe, but it wasn't always like this.
Just three short years ago, cellphones were still objects of desire for the young. Now, just about every 16 year old seems to have one. What happened? Leave alone the toddlers, practically every Raddi wala, sweeper, peon, chai wala, cycle riksha wala and thela wala et cetra flaunt one these days.
Several things. Phone companies realised that latching onto the youth was the key to growing the subscriber base. Affordable prepaid cards were pushed aggressively, no thanks to competition from Reliance CDMA.
Rs 330 ($7.50) - which is the minimum monthly prepaid card- is no big deal for a working young adult. Or even the student with a part time job. But there's still a large population of teens entirely funded by parents. And Rs 7000 or $ 160 a year (taking into account airtime charges + a basic Rs 3000 handset) is money a middle class Indian householder usually thinks twice about.
So, how did a non essential expense suddenly become so much a part of life?
A conversation between parent and teen a couple of years ago would go something like this:
Teen: Mom, I need a cellphone.
Mom: I don't think so.
Teen: But Aparna has one
Mom: Aparna is a spoilt brat.
Teen: You have an excuse for everything.
Mom: Look I'll think about it, maybe next year.
Then, parent bumps into Aparna's mother at a mandir and there is a conversation about how there is 'so much peace of mind' now that beti (daughter) has a cellphone. "You know, it's so essential these days in case of an emergency. And so many times children get late from tuitions..."
Aha. There is now a perfectly rational reason to buy your kid a cellphone - without seeming like an over-indulgent parent or one who succumbed to peer pressure. It's not a luxury but a necessity.
The paradox of technology
Parents may feel a sense of security in knowing 'where their kids are', but the truth is - they have less idea than ever before. In simpler times, when you went to a friend's house for a sleepover aka night study, you left your friend's telephone number behind.
In the cellphone era there's no way to tell where you really are. And when you don't want to be reached, you can always claim the signal was weak or you are out of network coverage. I'm not saying all teens use the cellphone to deceive their parents but many sure do.
Further, there is unprecedented privacy for the young person - especially girls from less liberal backgrounds. No longer can paranoid pappas vet all incoming calls and ask to know why such and such boy keeps calling.
The balance of power has shifted. Calls can be received after midnight on silent mode, with nobody the wiser for it.
It's happened before
Remember computers? Every parent thought he was investing in an important educational tool for his kid. The 'education' bit is true to the extent that merely being habituated to using a computer is an important skill in the job market today. But beyond that, were kids using the computer for essential school projects? Or was it primarily for internet surfing, email, chat, gaming - even accessing porn.
It took a combination of peer pressure ('everyone has one so my Raju should too') and rational argument (after all it is educational) which led to the computer becoming a fixture in every upper middle class household. And of course the drop in prices of computers/ availability of financing was another welcome factor.
I think this is a pattern now being seen in digicams. The average home user shoots 3-4 rolls a year which costs about Rs 1000 in film and processing charges. It will take a decade to recover the Rs 10,000 invested in the digital camera.
Yet, the purchase is usually justified by saying digicams are 'economical' to use - instead of outright admitting I-want-to-have-it-coz-its-so-cool.
Conclusion: If you're looking at the teen market - don't forget the parent. The right mix of (perceived) utility and value pricing is key to a new technology taking off in a big way.
Once the teen is a young adult with an independent income you can hope to sell the feature-rich, status-heavy stuff. But don't bet on it. There's a calculator of cost vs benefit still ticking away in the average Indian brain...
Just three short years ago, cellphones were still objects of desire for the young. Now, just about every 16 year old seems to have one. What happened? Leave alone the toddlers, practically every Raddi wala, sweeper, peon, chai wala, cycle riksha wala and thela wala et cetra flaunt one these days.
Several things. Phone companies realised that latching onto the youth was the key to growing the subscriber base. Affordable prepaid cards were pushed aggressively, no thanks to competition from Reliance CDMA.
Rs 330 ($7.50) - which is the minimum monthly prepaid card- is no big deal for a working young adult. Or even the student with a part time job. But there's still a large population of teens entirely funded by parents. And Rs 7000 or $ 160 a year (taking into account airtime charges + a basic Rs 3000 handset) is money a middle class Indian householder usually thinks twice about.
So, how did a non essential expense suddenly become so much a part of life?
A conversation between parent and teen a couple of years ago would go something like this:
Teen: Mom, I need a cellphone.
Mom: I don't think so.
Teen: But Aparna has one
Mom: Aparna is a spoilt brat.
Teen: You have an excuse for everything.
Mom: Look I'll think about it, maybe next year.
Then, parent bumps into Aparna's mother at a mandir and there is a conversation about how there is 'so much peace of mind' now that beti (daughter) has a cellphone. "You know, it's so essential these days in case of an emergency. And so many times children get late from tuitions..."
Aha. There is now a perfectly rational reason to buy your kid a cellphone - without seeming like an over-indulgent parent or one who succumbed to peer pressure. It's not a luxury but a necessity.
The paradox of technology
Parents may feel a sense of security in knowing 'where their kids are', but the truth is - they have less idea than ever before. In simpler times, when you went to a friend's house for a sleepover aka night study, you left your friend's telephone number behind.
In the cellphone era there's no way to tell where you really are. And when you don't want to be reached, you can always claim the signal was weak or you are out of network coverage. I'm not saying all teens use the cellphone to deceive their parents but many sure do.
Further, there is unprecedented privacy for the young person - especially girls from less liberal backgrounds. No longer can paranoid pappas vet all incoming calls and ask to know why such and such boy keeps calling.
The balance of power has shifted. Calls can be received after midnight on silent mode, with nobody the wiser for it.
It's happened before
Remember computers? Every parent thought he was investing in an important educational tool for his kid. The 'education' bit is true to the extent that merely being habituated to using a computer is an important skill in the job market today. But beyond that, were kids using the computer for essential school projects? Or was it primarily for internet surfing, email, chat, gaming - even accessing porn.
It took a combination of peer pressure ('everyone has one so my Raju should too') and rational argument (after all it is educational) which led to the computer becoming a fixture in every upper middle class household. And of course the drop in prices of computers/ availability of financing was another welcome factor.
I think this is a pattern now being seen in digicams. The average home user shoots 3-4 rolls a year which costs about Rs 1000 in film and processing charges. It will take a decade to recover the Rs 10,000 invested in the digital camera.
Yet, the purchase is usually justified by saying digicams are 'economical' to use - instead of outright admitting I-want-to-have-it-coz-its-so-cool.
Conclusion: If you're looking at the teen market - don't forget the parent. The right mix of (perceived) utility and value pricing is key to a new technology taking off in a big way.
Once the teen is a young adult with an independent income you can hope to sell the feature-rich, status-heavy stuff. But don't bet on it. There's a calculator of cost vs benefit still ticking away in the average Indian brain...
Life and Death
48 hours after she was found hanging from her ceiling, news channels were still speculating,"Who killed Viveka Babajee???!!!"
Me thinks the frisson of excitement was for two reasons:
* The victim was a model, in fact she was the KS model. So, enough pretty pictures and ramp walking sequences to make bad news look kind of good. Which matters a great deal on television.
Plus, her friends are models, so a chance to beam more pretty faces - all of whom declare she was wonderful and strong and they are shocked. But not shocked enough to appear on TV teary-eyed, or without make-up.
* Dozens of people kill themselves everyday - who cares. But if someone who is beautiful, successful, rich and famous kills themselves... ouch! That means the majority of human beings - average-looking, unknown, living anywhere, with a range of problems and disappointing issues - what hope do they have?
So - accept your Fate. Nobody is happy, samjhe?
The other aspect of this story I find sad is the glee with which anchors and columnists were placing the blame on a 'string of unhappy relationships'. That the break-up with the latest guy in her life was the straw that broke her back.
Okay. This line of thought assumes that people who get married to their boyfriends will definitely be happy and never think about killing themselves.
Let me give you a (completely imaginary but plausible) scenario B.
Ex-model marries stockbroker boyfriend.
They quickly discover, we are not 'made for each other'.
Husband sleeps around (openly).
Wife sleeps around (discreetly).
The two rage and sulk, fight and argue.
Every day, every night...
Two things can happen:
* The couple separates
* The couple sticks on
The second scenario is more likely if a child has been born. You see, the child needs a 'family' (at least in the photo album).
The woman adjusts to the 'benefits' that come with the tag of being Mrs XYZ. Bangla, gaadi, spending money she doesn't have to earn.
The man also enjoys his perks. After all, someone has to manage dhobi, cook, 'bring up' the children and keep elders happy (chalo, finally dikra settle toh ho gaya).
And so Boy and Girl stay together - for reasons of lifestyle, for convenience and for social status. There is no 'love', no real sharing or companionship. But why kill yourself over it?
You are already a part of the 'Living Dead'.
Me thinks the frisson of excitement was for two reasons:
* The victim was a model, in fact she was the KS model. So, enough pretty pictures and ramp walking sequences to make bad news look kind of good. Which matters a great deal on television.
Plus, her friends are models, so a chance to beam more pretty faces - all of whom declare she was wonderful and strong and they are shocked. But not shocked enough to appear on TV teary-eyed, or without make-up.
* Dozens of people kill themselves everyday - who cares. But if someone who is beautiful, successful, rich and famous kills themselves... ouch! That means the majority of human beings - average-looking, unknown, living anywhere, with a range of problems and disappointing issues - what hope do they have?
So - accept your Fate. Nobody is happy, samjhe?
The other aspect of this story I find sad is the glee with which anchors and columnists were placing the blame on a 'string of unhappy relationships'. That the break-up with the latest guy in her life was the straw that broke her back.
Okay. This line of thought assumes that people who get married to their boyfriends will definitely be happy and never think about killing themselves.
Let me give you a (completely imaginary but plausible) scenario B.
Ex-model marries stockbroker boyfriend.
They quickly discover, we are not 'made for each other'.
Husband sleeps around (openly).
Wife sleeps around (discreetly).
The two rage and sulk, fight and argue.
Every day, every night...
Two things can happen:
* The couple separates
* The couple sticks on
The second scenario is more likely if a child has been born. You see, the child needs a 'family' (at least in the photo album).
The woman adjusts to the 'benefits' that come with the tag of being Mrs XYZ. Bangla, gaadi, spending money she doesn't have to earn.
The man also enjoys his perks. After all, someone has to manage dhobi, cook, 'bring up' the children and keep elders happy (chalo, finally dikra settle toh ho gaya).
And so Boy and Girl stay together - for reasons of lifestyle, for convenience and for social status. There is no 'love', no real sharing or companionship. But why kill yourself over it?
You are already a part of the 'Living Dead'.
The new world order
Once upon a time I tried to make sense of my virtual life. I thought 'Linkedin' would take care of my professional networking. And 'Orkut' would be for family and friends.
And yeah, 'Orkut' was for fans and readers of my postings and scraps etc. Coz orkut was THE youth site.
But times change, and with that, so must I. Orkut is dying, LinkedIn has added Facebook features. The fact is, today, FB is king.
One of the reasons I wanted to keep Facebook 'personal' was that, well, I wanted to have some privacy. But the fact is, FB isn't private. The 'friends' I have added are close and personal acquaintances, people with whom I shared oxygen with my whole life till now. Lots of shared memories, closeness and experiences as such.
Well the fact is you can visit people whom you are completely unknown to and of course, people you are known to. Kai to pehchaan mein bhi nahin aatey (minus braces, spectacles and chotis - all for the better :)
If these distant acquaintances can be my friends, so can the folks who have been with me at any given point of time in my life till now.
Of course, I can start a separate 'fanpage'. But managing multiple websites, blogs, accounts, identities - is all very taxing. I know some people employ 'managers' for all this but the reason people want to be your 'friend' is to have a sense of personal contact.
So even if I log in only from time to time, whenever I do reply or respond or update my status... You know it's 'me' speaking.
Its like welcoming all people acquainted and those who are not, in a new world order where we can have a social group of more than 150. Yes, we may not have a deep relationship but the possibility of us getting to know each other better now exists.
And I look forward to it.
Last but not the least, I must mention the character who introduced himself as 'The Great Indian Gigolo' and explained in his message that he 'cannot CUM online very often'.
No, I am not adding him but hey, it's a free world. Everyone is discovering the power of 'social media marketing'. Bet we'll see him quoted by some journalist out there... very soon!
And yeah, 'Orkut' was for fans and readers of my postings and scraps etc. Coz orkut was THE youth site.
But times change, and with that, so must I. Orkut is dying, LinkedIn has added Facebook features. The fact is, today, FB is king.
One of the reasons I wanted to keep Facebook 'personal' was that, well, I wanted to have some privacy. But the fact is, FB isn't private. The 'friends' I have added are close and personal acquaintances, people with whom I shared oxygen with my whole life till now. Lots of shared memories, closeness and experiences as such.
Well the fact is you can visit people whom you are completely unknown to and of course, people you are known to. Kai to pehchaan mein bhi nahin aatey (minus braces, spectacles and chotis - all for the better :)
If these distant acquaintances can be my friends, so can the folks who have been with me at any given point of time in my life till now.
Of course, I can start a separate 'fanpage'. But managing multiple websites, blogs, accounts, identities - is all very taxing. I know some people employ 'managers' for all this but the reason people want to be your 'friend' is to have a sense of personal contact.
So even if I log in only from time to time, whenever I do reply or respond or update my status... You know it's 'me' speaking.
Its like welcoming all people acquainted and those who are not, in a new world order where we can have a social group of more than 150. Yes, we may not have a deep relationship but the possibility of us getting to know each other better now exists.
And I look forward to it.
Last but not the least, I must mention the character who introduced himself as 'The Great Indian Gigolo' and explained in his message that he 'cannot CUM online very often'.
No, I am not adding him but hey, it's a free world. Everyone is discovering the power of 'social media marketing'. Bet we'll see him quoted by some journalist out there... very soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)