AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education) has issued detailed guidelines which B schools will have to follow, reports the Times of India.
But, I have doubts whether anything will really change. For example, AICTE has asked the state fee committee to fix fees taking into account the 'core structure of the course'. Wonder what the hell that means!
B schools are able to charge the amount they do today because there is an insatiable demand for the MBA course. And only a very limited supply of quality institutes. But who's to decide how much a course is 'worth'?
Full time faculty and infrastructure are the two main components of 'cost' for an institute. Most B schools - including some very well known ones like Bajaj - manage with 10% full time professors. and 90% visiting faculty.
So some kind of formula could definitely be worked out... but who's to do the job and ensure that everyone accepts it? AICTE hardly seems prepared to take up the challenge.
What AICTE does...
Is issue guidelines. Its 'declare-or-else' threat-list is admirable in scope. B schools are being asked to share detailed details on no of seats, cut off marks for admission, and even placement statistics of last two years with minimum, maximum and average salary.
The question is - who will verify this information?
The magazines who undertake B school rankings also attempt to collect and validate such details, with the help of professional market research agencies. But given the large number of institutes - and the many ways available to embroider the truth - even they are unable to nail those who exaggerate or ovesatte claims.
Additionally, B schools with foreign collaborations are being asked to disclose the accreditation and ranking of the foreign institute in its home country, among other details. But many B schools - such as IIPM with its 'IMI, Europe' collaboration - are not approved by AICTE in the first place.
Bottomline: At worst, AICTE can derecognise an institute which refuses to follow its diktat. How many students however really CARE whether they are joining an AICTE approved B school? And recruiters don't seem to, either.
AICTE itself needs to go on a MASSIVE brand building exercise as well as improve its own credibility. By behaving like a typical government department and giving accreditation to unworthy institutions it has lost the high moral ground it is now seeking to re-conquer.
Frankly, I think a new and more powerful 'stamp' of quality from an independent body is now required to help separate the good from the ghatiya and worse, the ghotaalebaaz.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Card Sharks
Getting a call from Citibank cards is like getting called to your school principal's office. Most of the time, not a pleasant experience.
Well, in the backdrop of the former Sun expose on Indian BPO employees selling credit card information, I have my own little experience to recount.
Citibank: Ma'am I'm calling from Chennai to inform you your card has been 'compromised'.
By whom, what, where - she wouldn't say. But Visa has put my card - which has not been used for many months now - on a watchlist. And so it is being replaced.
Global ghichpich
Identity theft and card fraud has become a massive global 'business'. As a report by Tom Zeller in the New York Times dt Jun 21, 05 revealed:
"Want to live in premium hotels? Want to own beautiful girls? It's possible with dumps from Zo0mer." A "dump," in the blunt vernacular of a relentlessly flourishing online black market, is a credit card number. And what Zo0mer is peddling is stolen account information - name, billing address, phone - for Gold Visa cards and Master Cards at $100 a piece.
It is not clear whether any data stolen from Card Systems Solutions, the payment processor reported on Friday to have exposed 40 million credit card accounts to possible theft, has entered this black market. But law enforcement officials and security experts say it is a safe bet that the data will eventually be peddled at sites like iaaca.com - its very name a swaggering shorthand for International Association for the Advancement of Criminal Activity.
... The Federal Trade Commission estimates that roughly 10 million Americans have their personal information pilfered and misused in some way or another every year, costing consumers $5 billion and businesses $48 billion annually...
A patient criminal will wait until the day a victim receives a billing statement. "That way you have a full 30 days" before the victim is likely to look over his account again, explained one frank tutorial collected by the F.B.I.
What's more, it's estimated that only about 5 percent of cyber criminals are ever caught. And this is one area where IT pros from Russia and eastern Europe are far bigger dadas than Indians, working in BPOs or otherwise.
I am - in no way - condoning apna BPO employee's actions. But supply exists because there is demand.
In this case, it's not like the Sun reporter stepped out of Indira Gandhi airport and was offered stolen credit card numbers. He went looking for people to sell it to him. And yes, there he succeeded.
I am sure British call centre workers may also have obliged the reporter - had he cared to try. Although not for a paltry 4 pounds a piece!
As Steven Spielberg's Minority Report so imaginatively depicted it, there will always be a black market for identities. Today it's credit card numbers, but if and when we go biometric - it could be fingerprints and retinas...
Well, in the backdrop of the former Sun expose on Indian BPO employees selling credit card information, I have my own little experience to recount.
Citibank: Ma'am I'm calling from Chennai to inform you your card has been 'compromised'.
By whom, what, where - she wouldn't say. But Visa has put my card - which has not been used for many months now - on a watchlist. And so it is being replaced.
Global ghichpich
Identity theft and card fraud has become a massive global 'business'. As a report by Tom Zeller in the New York Times dt Jun 21, 05 revealed:
"Want to live in premium hotels? Want to own beautiful girls? It's possible with dumps from Zo0mer." A "dump," in the blunt vernacular of a relentlessly flourishing online black market, is a credit card number. And what Zo0mer is peddling is stolen account information - name, billing address, phone - for Gold Visa cards and Master Cards at $100 a piece.
It is not clear whether any data stolen from Card Systems Solutions, the payment processor reported on Friday to have exposed 40 million credit card accounts to possible theft, has entered this black market. But law enforcement officials and security experts say it is a safe bet that the data will eventually be peddled at sites like iaaca.com - its very name a swaggering shorthand for International Association for the Advancement of Criminal Activity.
... The Federal Trade Commission estimates that roughly 10 million Americans have their personal information pilfered and misused in some way or another every year, costing consumers $5 billion and businesses $48 billion annually...
A patient criminal will wait until the day a victim receives a billing statement. "That way you have a full 30 days" before the victim is likely to look over his account again, explained one frank tutorial collected by the F.B.I.
What's more, it's estimated that only about 5 percent of cyber criminals are ever caught. And this is one area where IT pros from Russia and eastern Europe are far bigger dadas than Indians, working in BPOs or otherwise.
I am - in no way - condoning apna BPO employee's actions. But supply exists because there is demand.
In this case, it's not like the Sun reporter stepped out of Indira Gandhi airport and was offered stolen credit card numbers. He went looking for people to sell it to him. And yes, there he succeeded.
I am sure British call centre workers may also have obliged the reporter - had he cared to try. Although not for a paltry 4 pounds a piece!
As Steven Spielberg's Minority Report so imaginatively depicted it, there will always be a black market for identities. Today it's credit card numbers, but if and when we go biometric - it could be fingerprints and retinas...
Hum aapke hain CORN
India is the cradle of civilisation, say the history textbooks. Well, seems to me it's also the birthplace of a million different vegetables.
The average Indian is acquainted with far, far more veggies than any Western man. It could be my imagination but vegetables - when referred to with their Indian names - conjure up a completely different meaning.
Say, cauliflower and peas. To the Western palate that would be a side-dish made edible with salt, pepper and butter. A form of par-boiled punishment.
Alu-gobi on the other hand, is warm, fragrant and inviting on a chilly winter afternoon in north India. Though it does evoke a 'not again!' feeling when you open your school tiffin box... at times.
Beyond potatoes, peas, carrots spinach and aubergine, Western man has alternatives like asparagus, leeks and artichokes. The Indian has bhindi, kaddu, lauki, tindi, turai, methi, karela...
Everyone has at least one of those veggies on their hate-list but often with time and the right preparation that changes. I absolutely love baingan ka bharta and stuffed karela - things I never ever touched in my childhood.
Firang Sabzis seek stomachs
Of late, we are being invaded by new, foreign vegetables. The runaway success in this race is 'sweet corn'.
Eight years ago, it was something rare and exotic. Now, 'American sweet corn' is everywhere. In supermarkets, at roadside vendors, at multiplexes and malls (where 'corn in a cup' - 4 different flavours - has become a popular snack) and of course the classic 'sweet corn veg' Chinese soup.
Lettuce - which has been around longer - remains a veggie for health-conscious, upmarket types. Maybe because salad is not exactly an integral part of the Indian diet and lettuce can't be eaten in any other form.
Mushroom is popular - but nowhere near the levels of sweet corn. Because again its an acquired taste and alien texture. Plus, the fact that it's technically a fungus puts off some communities like Jains.
Sweet corn on the other hand is a variation on a veggie we know and love - the bhutta and it's sweet which means everyone (and especially the Gujjus) love it.
Besides, several fast food concoctions like corn bhel and corn chaat have quickly been invented and it's being promoted as a 'zero fat' snack. (if you choose to overlook the dollops of butter on top!)
What's in a name?
And being called 'American sweet corn' is an added bonus. Because names do matter. Studies of consumer psychology show that descriptive labels and dishes evoke more interest. "Tender Grilled Chicken" sells better than "Grilled Chicken" and "Grandma's Zucchini Cookies" outsold "Zucchini Cookies."
The theory being that people transfer the positive associations they have with those descriptors to the food itself.
So American sweet corn definitely had higher chances of success than plain sweet corn. Or Bangladeshi sweet corn :)
Of course, it's both a demand and supply side story. The farmers are smarter today - they quickly scent a 'cash crop'. After strawberries, sweet corn was noticed as the 'Next Big Thing' and Mahabaleshwar has gone completely corny.
Which is great. More supply = more reasonable prices. As Axl Rose might've put it... Woahhhh woah woah Sweet Corn of Mine!
The average Indian is acquainted with far, far more veggies than any Western man. It could be my imagination but vegetables - when referred to with their Indian names - conjure up a completely different meaning.
Say, cauliflower and peas. To the Western palate that would be a side-dish made edible with salt, pepper and butter. A form of par-boiled punishment.
Alu-gobi on the other hand, is warm, fragrant and inviting on a chilly winter afternoon in north India. Though it does evoke a 'not again!' feeling when you open your school tiffin box... at times.
Beyond potatoes, peas, carrots spinach and aubergine, Western man has alternatives like asparagus, leeks and artichokes. The Indian has bhindi, kaddu, lauki, tindi, turai, methi, karela...
Everyone has at least one of those veggies on their hate-list but often with time and the right preparation that changes. I absolutely love baingan ka bharta and stuffed karela - things I never ever touched in my childhood.
Firang Sabzis seek stomachs
Of late, we are being invaded by new, foreign vegetables. The runaway success in this race is 'sweet corn'.
Eight years ago, it was something rare and exotic. Now, 'American sweet corn' is everywhere. In supermarkets, at roadside vendors, at multiplexes and malls (where 'corn in a cup' - 4 different flavours - has become a popular snack) and of course the classic 'sweet corn veg' Chinese soup.
Lettuce - which has been around longer - remains a veggie for health-conscious, upmarket types. Maybe because salad is not exactly an integral part of the Indian diet and lettuce can't be eaten in any other form.
Mushroom is popular - but nowhere near the levels of sweet corn. Because again its an acquired taste and alien texture. Plus, the fact that it's technically a fungus puts off some communities like Jains.
Sweet corn on the other hand is a variation on a veggie we know and love - the bhutta and it's sweet which means everyone (and especially the Gujjus) love it.
Besides, several fast food concoctions like corn bhel and corn chaat have quickly been invented and it's being promoted as a 'zero fat' snack. (if you choose to overlook the dollops of butter on top!)
What's in a name?
And being called 'American sweet corn' is an added bonus. Because names do matter. Studies of consumer psychology show that descriptive labels and dishes evoke more interest. "Tender Grilled Chicken" sells better than "Grilled Chicken" and "Grandma's Zucchini Cookies" outsold "Zucchini Cookies."
The theory being that people transfer the positive associations they have with those descriptors to the food itself.
So American sweet corn definitely had higher chances of success than plain sweet corn. Or Bangladeshi sweet corn :)
Of course, it's both a demand and supply side story. The farmers are smarter today - they quickly scent a 'cash crop'. After strawberries, sweet corn was noticed as the 'Next Big Thing' and Mahabaleshwar has gone completely corny.
Which is great. More supply = more reasonable prices. As Axl Rose might've put it... Woahhhh woah woah Sweet Corn of Mine!
Makeover mania
Don't rub your eyes - that IS Ekta Kapoor. India's K serial queen, famous for her 'I don't give a damn how I look' vibes. Here she is - new, improved and almost pleasant looking on the cover of the in-flight magazine of Kingfisher airlines.
See what a difference a bit of warpaint, highlights and better styling can do! Though you don't really need an expert to tell you to lose the Tirupati-Balaji-teeka (God will understand - it just doesn't go with ALL outfits!).
This new look was linked to Ekta turning 30. It was just the milestone which made her re-examine her life. Or, maybe she just caught the makeover virus in the air!
Makeover mania
Two centuries ago Hans Christian Andersen wrote his classic 'Ugly Duckling' tale and India is currently reliving that fable. Except here we don't just wake up from hibernation and turn into swans. We have an army of experts helping us do it.
It all started with Jassi's much awaited transformation from plain Jane to glam puss. A host of other telly-characters from Zee's Kareena to Sony's Pooja (Yeh meri life hai) followed - although with far less fanfare.
Now, there were makeovers happening everywhere...
NDTV Profit gave ordinary middle aged folk makeovers with the help of fashion/ make up gurus (a concept copied from similar foreign shows but nevertheless)
Social butterfly Queenie Dhody gave makeovers to readers of Midday.
Companies like L'Oreal and Vichy hold events in malls where women can walk in for a '15 minute makeover' (and hopefully go home with half a dozen of their products)
A big leap
A decade ago, if you went to a beauty parlour for shaadi ka make-up the lady there would coat you with a thick pancake of foundation and bright lipstick - regardless of your skin type/ outfit/ complexion. The effect was horrendous but was the prevailing standard.
Today, the beautician is far more skilled and client far more aware - and such disasters are hence averted! Even small girls know how to apply lipstick (though they aren't allowed to - except for special occassions).
Why bother
There are those who lament the new emphasis on looks but I think it's a good thing. I grew up believing 'looks don't really matter' - which is hogwash. They do.
I'm not saying one should be obsessed with them, but yes - taking a little extra care to be well groomed and presentable can make a big difference for two reasons:
1) People who believe they look good feel more confident and that reflects in how they deal with the world.
2) It may be an evolutionary thing but human beings are programmed to place a value on "looks".
As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote, "... We’ve seen those studies showing that aesthetics is hard-wired in the brain - that even babies have an innate sense of beauty, choosing to gaze longer at lovelier faces."
But here's the stunner: Still, the headline in Science Times was jolting: “Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift.” As Nicholas Bakalar wrote: “Canadian researchers have made a startling assertion: parents take better care of pretty children than they do ugly ones.”
She goes on to talk about the economists Daniel Hamermesh and Jeff Biddle whose study notes that being tall, slender and attractive could be worth a "beauty premium" - an extra 5 percent an hour - while there is a "plainness penalty" of 9 percent in wages (after factoring out other issues).
The crux of the matter: No one seems sure whether bosses discriminate against people because they're less attractive, or whether more attractive people develop more self-esteem and social finesse.
May as well then do what you can to be more attractive - if only for yourself! More than what a makeover does externally, it achieves internally.
How far should we go? Personally, I would draw the line at surgery (unless it's a case of birth defect/ accidental deformity etc). If what you have already can be enhanced and highlighted by using the right make-up or getting a good haircut or losing some weight sensibly - I'm all for it!
Caveat!
There can however be too much of a good thing. Dan Ondrack, a professor at the University of Toronto, believes there's a "Boopsey" effect - if women are too gorgeous, people assume they are airheads.
So, women who want to be taken seriously need to adopt the right balance. Menka Doshi at CNBC - who's suddenly lost the specs and slapped on frosted lipstick - might want to think about that ...
As Gold as it gets
Indians love to buy gold. Lots and lots of it. The younger junta would rather buy diamonds now but if and when you get married I bet you will end up buying (or receiving as a gift) one bhaari bharkam 'gold set' .
That you may keep it in the bank locked up until it's time to pass on to your own offspring is another story!
Sold on gold
In the old days, you bought gold from a trusted family sunaar or goldsmith. Not that these sunaars were actually worthy of that trust. 22 karat gold was invariably adulterated and actually only 20 or even 18 karat gold.
Over time, the smarter 'family goldsmiths' made the transition to large, opulent showrooms. And though most share the common community name 'Zaveri', each is a brand in its own right.
But rest assured you are still buying on 'trust'. Every shop promises you can return your jewellery and get full paisa waapas at the prevailing sone ka bhaav(minus 'making charges'). Take the same jewellery to another shop and the fellow will shake his head and say,"Isme to milawat hai."
Given this scenario it would seem that branded gold jewellery was 'just what the doctor ordered'. In the early 90's, Tanishq entered the market with the promise of "purity". Their initial promo invited you to bring your gold and test it at their shops - to see how much ghotala your 'trusted' jeweller is actually committing.
But you know what - despite knowing you are most likely being cheated - we continue to patronise the zaveris. Tanishq - for all its promise - remains a small corporate player in a vast unorganised market.
Why unbranded still rules
Possibly because
a) Its locations suck: In Mumbai, Tanishq has a showroom at Churchgate. And not in Zaveri bazaar or Opera house where people go to buy jewellery. That makes no sense. Wherever there is a Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri or Waman Hari Pethe - hell or highwater - I'd want Tanishq next door!
Just like wherever there's a Barista, there's a Cafe Coffee Day - so the consumer who's decided on a coffee fix can easily walk into either!
b) They don't 'sell' well: A good salesperson can make or break a sale. Jewellery showrooms, like sari emporiums, require a special breed of salesperson. One with an intimate understanding of the woman's psyche - and in many cases the husband/ mother in law in tow.
The salesperson needs to keep showing you more pieces ("dekhiye na, dekhne ka koi tax nahin") without getting upset. Ordering tea, making small talk, offering subtle positive reinforcements - going the extra distance.
I swear the last time my mom went jewellery shopping she walked out with something 50% more expensive than what she'd intended to buy. And the sales lady was at least 50% responsible for the decision.
At Tanishq, the salespeople are polite and helpful but at the end of the day, they are employees of a company. If you walk in at 7.45 and the shop closes at 8 pm. they're more in a hurry to shut shop and head home than make a sale.
Whereas the zaveri's salespeople are additionally motivated by commissions -and the difference shows.
c) Not enough variety: Although they advertise a huge range, not every showroom actually stocks all the pieces. So sometimes you just aren't satisfied on that count. Seeing 50 kinds of bangles or 100 different saris - in order to buy ONE - is actually part of the whole experience
Getting it right
But the reason I am actually writing about Tanishq is to commend them for a new initiative.
Finally, a company which has realised that arbit 'product placement' does absolutely nothing for the brand. Something I hope many other marketers - and especially those of youth brands - learn from and follow.
In the Shahrukh-Rani starrer Paheli, Tanishq had engineered a product placement. Rani, who played a traditional Rajasthani beendni, wore Tanishq jewellery throughout the film. But the brand received a mention only in the credits.
The strategy was to publicise the fact that Rani was wearing Tanishq through promos in other mediums - make it a talking point - and sell a 'Paheli collection' in Tanishq stores. In an interview to Businessworld,
the brand manager asserted that "ever since the publicity campaign was launched, footfalls in Tanishq stores had almost doubled".
Here was wishing the strategy to be a success and that the likes of Subhash Ghai took note. The scene in Yaadein where the mother was dying and the camera inadvertently or otherwise focused on a Coca cola keychain was one of the worst moments in Bollywood product placement history!
A good product placement is effortless, and integral to the story. Hrithik Roshan asking for Bournvita in 'Koi Mil Gaya' the first time he went to Preity's house was a great one. You're not even sure if Cadbury's paid for that (they did)
Here's to more creative answers to the product placement paheli
That you may keep it in the bank locked up until it's time to pass on to your own offspring is another story!
Sold on gold
In the old days, you bought gold from a trusted family sunaar or goldsmith. Not that these sunaars were actually worthy of that trust. 22 karat gold was invariably adulterated and actually only 20 or even 18 karat gold.
Over time, the smarter 'family goldsmiths' made the transition to large, opulent showrooms. And though most share the common community name 'Zaveri', each is a brand in its own right.
But rest assured you are still buying on 'trust'. Every shop promises you can return your jewellery and get full paisa waapas at the prevailing sone ka bhaav(minus 'making charges'). Take the same jewellery to another shop and the fellow will shake his head and say,"Isme to milawat hai."
Given this scenario it would seem that branded gold jewellery was 'just what the doctor ordered'. In the early 90's, Tanishq entered the market with the promise of "purity". Their initial promo invited you to bring your gold and test it at their shops - to see how much ghotala your 'trusted' jeweller is actually committing.
But you know what - despite knowing you are most likely being cheated - we continue to patronise the zaveris. Tanishq - for all its promise - remains a small corporate player in a vast unorganised market.
Why unbranded still rules
Possibly because
a) Its locations suck: In Mumbai, Tanishq has a showroom at Churchgate. And not in Zaveri bazaar or Opera house where people go to buy jewellery. That makes no sense. Wherever there is a Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri or Waman Hari Pethe - hell or highwater - I'd want Tanishq next door!
Just like wherever there's a Barista, there's a Cafe Coffee Day - so the consumer who's decided on a coffee fix can easily walk into either!
b) They don't 'sell' well: A good salesperson can make or break a sale. Jewellery showrooms, like sari emporiums, require a special breed of salesperson. One with an intimate understanding of the woman's psyche - and in many cases the husband/ mother in law in tow.
The salesperson needs to keep showing you more pieces ("dekhiye na, dekhne ka koi tax nahin") without getting upset. Ordering tea, making small talk, offering subtle positive reinforcements - going the extra distance.
I swear the last time my mom went jewellery shopping she walked out with something 50% more expensive than what she'd intended to buy. And the sales lady was at least 50% responsible for the decision.
At Tanishq, the salespeople are polite and helpful but at the end of the day, they are employees of a company. If you walk in at 7.45 and the shop closes at 8 pm. they're more in a hurry to shut shop and head home than make a sale.
Whereas the zaveri's salespeople are additionally motivated by commissions -and the difference shows.
c) Not enough variety: Although they advertise a huge range, not every showroom actually stocks all the pieces. So sometimes you just aren't satisfied on that count. Seeing 50 kinds of bangles or 100 different saris - in order to buy ONE - is actually part of the whole experience
Getting it right
But the reason I am actually writing about Tanishq is to commend them for a new initiative.
Finally, a company which has realised that arbit 'product placement' does absolutely nothing for the brand. Something I hope many other marketers - and especially those of youth brands - learn from and follow.
In the Shahrukh-Rani starrer Paheli, Tanishq had engineered a product placement. Rani, who played a traditional Rajasthani beendni, wore Tanishq jewellery throughout the film. But the brand received a mention only in the credits.
The strategy was to publicise the fact that Rani was wearing Tanishq through promos in other mediums - make it a talking point - and sell a 'Paheli collection' in Tanishq stores. In an interview to Businessworld,
the brand manager asserted that "ever since the publicity campaign was launched, footfalls in Tanishq stores had almost doubled".
Here was wishing the strategy to be a success and that the likes of Subhash Ghai took note. The scene in Yaadein where the mother was dying and the camera inadvertently or otherwise focused on a Coca cola keychain was one of the worst moments in Bollywood product placement history!
A good product placement is effortless, and integral to the story. Hrithik Roshan asking for Bournvita in 'Koi Mil Gaya' the first time he went to Preity's house was a great one. You're not even sure if Cadbury's paid for that (they did)
Here's to more creative answers to the product placement paheli
What's love got to do with it ?
"So, when are you having another baby?" is a question often asked to one of my colleagues. He is pestered often on this issue by his relatives and he feels free to come and discuss his personal issues in the office. So many a buddies in the office don't leave any chance to pull his leg. The reason he is told to have one more is - "children need a companion".
Looking at the Anil-Mukesh saga - and hundreds of similar sagas among lesser mortals all around us - I have to say, there is simply NO guarantee that you and your sibling are going to get along for life.
So having extra kids just to give the first one a 'friend' is, I think, not a good enough reason. Not anymore.
Zamaana badal gaya
"Things fall apart," wrote the novelist Chinua Achebe. "The centre cannot hold..." And that describes - exactly - what is happening to the whole concept of family. In India and the world over.
The "centre" was based on two principles:
a) Zaroorat - or need
b) Farz - or duty
In the caveman era, we hunted and lived in packs - it was a matter of basic needs: security, survival.
In time, religion brought in values like "Honor thy Father" (every faith has its own version - but similar in spirit).
So that was farz - or duty - which bound us to each other. Although one had to sacrifice some amount of individuality on the altar of farz, in return you gained an identity and some amount of social security (the family/ community would always be there for you).
And what about love, you might ask. Isn't love what really keeps families together? To which I must say - love is a factor. But minus farz and zaroorat it's just not sticky enough.
Hum saath saath kyun rahein?
That's a question families across India have been asking over the last couple of decades. The answer is - we don't have to.
In fact contrary to what Kyunki Saas may depict, the modern day mother-in-law is often quite clear that SHE would rather not stay with son and bahu.
Tum apni zindagi jeeyo, hum apni - I've heard more than one aunt say. In good humour on the surface, but deadly serious really!
On the other hand, some bahus (esp working women) choose to live with their in-laws reasoning it will be good for their kids. So again, that's zaroorat kicking in.
Paise ki maaya
Income levels have everything to do with it. Money can't buy you love, sang the Beatles but what's clear is it can certainly create a lot of acrimony where love once existed.
There's a general pattern to family break-ups:
a) Poor-to-Rich phase: Your extended family is an asset. You have nothing else, so your gain your wellbeing from your relationships.
b) Rich-to-Things Fall Apart phase: Brothers who once ate sukhi roti from the same thaali, lubricated by the ghee of filial love, now eat rasmalai in fine china plates.
But one starts feeling the other's plate is fancier. Or rasmalai sweeter. Spouses too play a role here ...
Now often brothers will live and work together for years, despite these feelings. But once the patriarch of the family passes away - things fall apart. Farz - or duty - is no more.
Then, comes the question of zaroorat Do we really NEED each other - or can we manage our lives/ business quite well alone, thank you?
In the Anil-Mukesh saga the feeling of zaroorat pretty much evaporated. Which is why it became impossible for them to co-exist.
c) Separate-but-Social phase: We meet, we smile - at birthdays and weddings. But - in most cases - it's never ever going to be one big happy family. Except in faded photographs.
The love and togetherness the brothers/sisters once shared living in a cramped 3 room house didn't survive the tectonic shift to a two storeyed mansion.
Things have fallen so apart that certain people don't even talk to certain other people.
Pyaar kiya to kya..
So that's the extended family bit. But even with the nuclear family, it's more often zaroorat and farz which keeps things together.
If you go in for an arranged marriage - love in any case, you hope, follows the event. Or is born out of it.
And if you have a love marriage, 5 years down the line what keeps many couples together is the joint 'projects' - your kids, your mortgage, your status in society.
And I'm not saying that is a BAD thing as long as if not love, there is at least 'like a lot' in the picture...
When we talk of commitment - what is it but farz anyways? Partly imposed by society, and partly a value we choose to commit ourselves to. While "love" at the end of the day is a zaroorat... A basic human need.
But the need for space - and individuality - is becoming more and more important. And these needs are at odds with 'love'. And a million mutinies are born everyday...
Looking at the Anil-Mukesh saga - and hundreds of similar sagas among lesser mortals all around us - I have to say, there is simply NO guarantee that you and your sibling are going to get along for life.
So having extra kids just to give the first one a 'friend' is, I think, not a good enough reason. Not anymore.
Zamaana badal gaya
"Things fall apart," wrote the novelist Chinua Achebe. "The centre cannot hold..." And that describes - exactly - what is happening to the whole concept of family. In India and the world over.
The "centre" was based on two principles:
a) Zaroorat - or need
b) Farz - or duty
In the caveman era, we hunted and lived in packs - it was a matter of basic needs: security, survival.
In time, religion brought in values like "Honor thy Father" (every faith has its own version - but similar in spirit).
So that was farz - or duty - which bound us to each other. Although one had to sacrifice some amount of individuality on the altar of farz, in return you gained an identity and some amount of social security (the family/ community would always be there for you).
And what about love, you might ask. Isn't love what really keeps families together? To which I must say - love is a factor. But minus farz and zaroorat it's just not sticky enough.
Hum saath saath kyun rahein?
That's a question families across India have been asking over the last couple of decades. The answer is - we don't have to.
In fact contrary to what Kyunki Saas may depict, the modern day mother-in-law is often quite clear that SHE would rather not stay with son and bahu.
Tum apni zindagi jeeyo, hum apni - I've heard more than one aunt say. In good humour on the surface, but deadly serious really!
On the other hand, some bahus (esp working women) choose to live with their in-laws reasoning it will be good for their kids. So again, that's zaroorat kicking in.
Paise ki maaya
Income levels have everything to do with it. Money can't buy you love, sang the Beatles but what's clear is it can certainly create a lot of acrimony where love once existed.
There's a general pattern to family break-ups:
a) Poor-to-Rich phase: Your extended family is an asset. You have nothing else, so your gain your wellbeing from your relationships.
b) Rich-to-Things Fall Apart phase: Brothers who once ate sukhi roti from the same thaali, lubricated by the ghee of filial love, now eat rasmalai in fine china plates.
But one starts feeling the other's plate is fancier. Or rasmalai sweeter. Spouses too play a role here ...
Now often brothers will live and work together for years, despite these feelings. But once the patriarch of the family passes away - things fall apart. Farz - or duty - is no more.
Then, comes the question of zaroorat Do we really NEED each other - or can we manage our lives/ business quite well alone, thank you?
In the Anil-Mukesh saga the feeling of zaroorat pretty much evaporated. Which is why it became impossible for them to co-exist.
c) Separate-but-Social phase: We meet, we smile - at birthdays and weddings. But - in most cases - it's never ever going to be one big happy family. Except in faded photographs.
The love and togetherness the brothers/sisters once shared living in a cramped 3 room house didn't survive the tectonic shift to a two storeyed mansion.
Things have fallen so apart that certain people don't even talk to certain other people.
Pyaar kiya to kya..
So that's the extended family bit. But even with the nuclear family, it's more often zaroorat and farz which keeps things together.
If you go in for an arranged marriage - love in any case, you hope, follows the event. Or is born out of it.
And if you have a love marriage, 5 years down the line what keeps many couples together is the joint 'projects' - your kids, your mortgage, your status in society.
And I'm not saying that is a BAD thing as long as if not love, there is at least 'like a lot' in the picture...
When we talk of commitment - what is it but farz anyways? Partly imposed by society, and partly a value we choose to commit ourselves to. While "love" at the end of the day is a zaroorat... A basic human need.
But the need for space - and individuality - is becoming more and more important. And these needs are at odds with 'love'. And a million mutinies are born everyday...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)