A marketing campaign I can’t forget? Tanishq’s wedding TVC.
I follow Sam Baisla, CEO & Co-founder of NEXEL and on my LinkedIn Feed, his post landed up containing the screenshot of a text message from a man to a woman, entirely professional in nature, sending her a kiss smiley while addressing her as ‘madam’. The receiver, of course, had been quick to point out to the man about the use of that particular kiss smiley and he had apologised. Yet, Sam Baisla had asked the following questions: How can you send “kiss” smileys to a girl you barely know? 🤦🏻♂️ How should a girl respond if someone does send something like this?🤔 Guys seriously need to learn how to talk to ladies. 🙄 Rules of public interaction must be made a mandatory teaching in schools and homes. ✌️ It’s ironical that there is no formal discussion/teaching on this.🙄 I think this small thing can be a very significant step towards curbing violence against women. 😍👍 What do you say? That sparked a conversation. Because just the day before, I had on my professional network, received a Whatsapp forward containing this: Disgusting, right? So how should I respond? Knowing that the man is someone I professionally interact with. This uncouth human being actually thought he was justified at sharing such a piece on a group that included women. And no one called him out on this group. He has a family, including at least one daughter. When I reminded him he’s on a professional platform, he neither apologised nor did he delete the post. he simply moved on saying that I was right and that he should not have posted such a thing. So this is my reply to this creep: Tarana Burke was born and raised in The Bronx, New York, at a time when it was one of the most dangerous neighbourhoods in that area. She belonged to a low-income, working-class family and was raped and sexually assaulted both as a child & as a teen. Unlike most rape victims, she rose from that trauma and as a teenager, started working to improve the lives of girls who undergo extreme hardship. At college she protested against economic & racial injustice & inequality. Tarana is single mom to daughter Kaia. You’re judging this beautiful, strong woman through your ugly eyes that only see a woman as an object of pleasure. I hope the women in your family are blessed with the wisdom necessary to deal with someone like you. If you think men rape women because the women are pretty then let me tell you, every single woman, without exception, would want to be ugly. I will not even comment on your family life because I think your action should be your personal, individual humiliation and not on your family. Finally, assuming you’re right in your asinine way of thinking that ugly women don’t get raped, I’d like you to set your bar somewhere. Tarana, if you think is too ugly to be touched, you should think of just how desperate your fellow mates must be. It is the same depth of desperation that made you share something as vile & disgusting as this, didn’t it? This shame is on you. Of course, I exited that group on which this rubbish was shared. Now circling back to Sam’s post: How should women respond? Men’s only defence is that “Come on, I wasn’t thinking like that!! You know me. I’m a family man!!”. This is just a joke.” The defence of that defence needs to stop. This is not a joke. If this man had said something like that to me, I would tell him to crack another involving his mother or his wife. Exactly. The joke stops there. And the buck stops with us all. Respond by calling them out instantly. Openly. Don’t think about who’s supporting you or who’s listening to you and who isn’t. Don’t tolerate ugly BS in your personal or professional sphere. Don’t let abuse fly under the radar. Draw that line for your personal well-being.
So, since I have glossophilia, this news is something I always look forward to: OED i.e. the Oxford English Dictionary has come out with its list of new words added this year. And every year round, a couple of Indian expressions find their rightful place and it helps us continue to look on to the Englishman with regard. This time, Aiyoh has made it to the hallowed rolls. With another discovery looming. Backstory: I’m a Gujju who finds it utterly normal to utter Aiyoh when expressing shock, awe, or surprise. And that’s not normal at all. So when my fave Aiyoh made it to OED, imagine my sense of vindication (Aiyoh in OED) ! Then imagine my sense of disappointment upon finding out that all this time I had been speaking Chinese. Kudos to my multilingual self but still! Turns out, Aiyoh is of Mandarin origin and Aiyah, Cantonese. So, quite literally the most used word in the South, almost like a punctuation mark, isn’t Indian at all. BTW – glossophile is one who loves languages. Which brings me to another observation: Almost all of our languages have some entirely versatile words that can mean an entire range of emotions, and interpretation of which depends on who employs it, how, and when. Like Achcha in Hindi. Achcha literally means ‘good’. As in, How are things? – Achcha hai! As in… Achaha, so you think you’re so smart! I’ll show you! | Achcha? Is that what happened? | Achcha, I thought so. | Achcha, okay, I’ll do it. So, basically, it’s a reflection of a very pluralistic culture here. These are the Indian words that made it: Langra (the Mango variety), Tithi (dates in the lunar calendar) Very much like the head wobble we Indians do, which also could mean anything from okay to good, to yes, to I don’t know, my bad… and whatever else you want. Are there any such words in your language that mean a whole spectrum of things?
So… Bhookamp came and went down with a Hug at this No Confidence Motion. The government had the support of 325 members while 126 voted against it. Which means that even as Shiv Sena sat it out, the fence-sitters and not just NDA allies, voted for the government, meaning that BJP continues to provide the country with stable leadership. Hardly a compliment when a once so-called “progressive” leader N Chandrababu Naidu, calls for a No Confidence Vote against a former ally and a Grand old party pitches in with apt buffoonery. It was a circus that Indian people like you and me pay for with our taxes. The exhibit was cheap, distasteful, and not the least because of the Congress scion’s wink, which was discussed more than how much the content of his speech was lacking in facts. The biggest problem though? Media. A bunch of dipshits that feast on cheap thrills not only rejecting all standards of civility and decorum for their own work and lives but also condemning a society to their utter lack of these. Speaking of Rahul’s craptastic speech: at one point he asked Narendra Modi to literally PUT his eye INTO his own (yes, Rahul’s Hindi is that bad, his manners are even worse. He could have got this one right simply by watching 3 Bollywood movies). Well, it was described by BS thus: “The Congress chief delivered a stinging speech that riled BJP members and concluded it by walking across the well of the House to startle the PM with a hug” [ LINK Here ] Rahul’s speech was responded to in typical NaMo fashion, the highlights of which are captured well in this piece here by DNA. But, was it needed? This edit piece here by Bikram Vohra on FirstPost is totally on point. He too blames the media with words: If only the media were to treat this as the non-event that it was, the whole exercise would have been a lot more edifying. But ballooned into a sort of second coming, the country was held at intellectual ransom, with only the issue of Andhra Pradesh being given the chance of making some sense. Cannot but agree. Shockingly enough, Rahul has cheerleaders. Like all cheap Kanti Shah movie villains have sidekicks. The only problem is, this is 2018. Kanti Shah era is over. Media likes to pretend that Sacred Games doesn’t exist. The same FirstPost has this feature here that calls this fool’s speech “brilliant and revelatory”. And that’s only the beginning. It calls out Nirmala Sitharaman’s anger and mocks at her for seething at the lies RaGa peddled re: Rafale deal. In fact, it mocks the BJP for claiming to consider Rahul a joke and then taking his speech on the floor of the House too seriously. Well Ajaz Ashraf, Rahul stopped being a joke and morphed into a dangerous liar when he took his lies to the well of the House. If you felt any responsibility, you’d feel a little consternation maybe. Like I did when Modi made a show of puppet hands in his jibe against Rahul’s wink and the stupid “eye into my eye” comment. That kind of crap has no place in the affairs of governing a country. But I guess people like you enjoy operating your discourse at this level. That said, it is the media’s job to question and lampoon and eventually reject every piece of rhetoric they find that originates from a lie or seeks to divide people based on malicious intent. In a civilized democracy, that is. Clearly, you guys are not ready for that. Finally, the hug. Please watch it here again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6YhpRJkXUQ It’s not endearing. Nor dignified. Nor respectful. What I truly do not see here is a hug that could even be acceptable. It being invited or reciprocated is far out. I cannot believe that an adult would go inflict a hug on someone in this manner. You don’t just go out collapsing on people’s shoulders in what could be more plausibly some drug-addled bravado. You see he did it only because he knew he would be able to make a statement and that no one would stop him. Finally, he did it quite simply because he can. You know who else behaves so despicably? Roadside romeos. This is not a joke. I’m glad Madam Speaker Sumitra Mahajan scolded him but as a citizen, I’d like to see action taken against him as well as those members of the House who did disrupt the proceedings in any manner at all. Finally, unrivalled is this piece published by The Hindu here that says “The Opposition always knew what the outcome of the no-confidence vote would be, but it did not want to lose an opportunity to make a few political points against the BJP and the Modi government.” It quotes Randeep Surjewala and Shashi Tharoor calling Rahul’s speech a “game-changer”. I’m surprised that Tharoor passed up a golden opportunity to add to the collective vocabulary of us Indians. As for the statement at hand, that the opposition always knew what the outcome would be, it is horribly callous on the part of India’s longest ruling party to support this vote that disrupted the normal functioning of the House, created chaos, and cost taxpayer money. The chief freeloader used the time & money to exhibit third class buffoonery that had to be rubbished by a foreign head of state’s office. Never before – with the exception of the Emergency – has the Indian democracy looked so helplessly spaced out. But. There’s a theory that requires no positing. The Opposition didn’t do this only to show off Rahul’s coming of age – for that is something he’s been busy doing as long as anyone can remember. Besides, Rahul has no choice but to come of age and for his leaders to stand erect and salute him for it: kind of like their ‘Emergency’. The opposition led this charade to map out the actual strength in their favour from 2019 point of view. It’s irresponsible. It’s sinister. It’s dirty. And it shows the depths to which these people are willing to stoop.
A lot. Am reading I am Divine by Devdutt Pattanaik (edited by Jerry Johnson) and is a laudable work on the history of LGBTIQ within the Indian ‘Hindu’ society. To me, Hindu is a geographical identity whose one of the aspects is the legacy of Dharmic religions. But all that later. The book has sharp insights on the issue of ‘caste’, for which Hindus have been flogged over and over for centuries. It is particularly valuable in the current climate of creating divisions within our society (SC/ST Act issue, Lingayats, etc.)… all because Congress wants a few votes in order to remain relevant. Their cronies are helping them further their divisive agenda. And Shekhar Gupta is leading the pack, how? ‘I Am Divine’ offers a perspective. Before I present the relevant excerpt, here’s a background of the issue, taken from the same book: A hymn from the Rig Veda described society as an organism whose body parts are made up of 4 Varnas, Brahmins (learned ones, religious scholars) on top, Kshatriyas, ruling class and landowners come next, trading community or Vaishyas come third, and last come the Shudras, the service providers. This 4th group split later, with untouchables and tribals, who were pushed out of the social system. While many sages and philosophers spoke against this social structure, most rulers of the land respected Jati as it helped legitimise their rule, enabled them to collect taxes with relative ease from communities, rather than individuals, who controlled the lands and the markets. Many used Brahmins to establish new villages, and collect taxes on their behalf, thus making them God-kings. Muslim rulers too, in order to ensure stability, used Brahmins as bureaucrats and tax collectors, and so effectively let the 4-tiered social model persist. Here is the excerpt from ‘I am Divine’ that throws light on how this caste conundrum became so pervasive as to be thoroughly institutionalised: When the Portuguese came to India, they used the word ‘Caste’ for Jati. The British eventually documented castes for administrative convenience, and converted this rather fluid social system into a rigid and documented categorisation, even giving castes to people who really had no castes, and giving them social status in a standardised national hierarchy, ignoring the fact that the hierarchies of the Jati system functioned locally with numerous regional variations. Based on caste, the British assigned jobs in the military, they divided cities. Later, they switched from caste to religion, ignoring the caste divides in Indian Christians and Muslims, and amplifying the divide in Hindus, insisting that caste was an essential condition of all Hindus, based on books such as Manusmriti, which had originally only documented caste as social practice, not recommended or prescribed it. Hindus who moved to the Caribbean Islands as indentured labour in the 19th century, after slavery was abolished in Europe and America, retained their Hindu identity, but not any caste identity, as the socio-economic conditions there did not have NEED for caste. British administration did not bother to document the caste of labourers or classify them as such. But in India, where caste was strongly mapped to socio-economic realities, and where British administrators documented caste and made it essential category while recruiting for the army (only military castes were allowed) and for the bureaucracy (Brahmin and the landed gentry were preferred), caste not only thrived but was institutionalised. The documentation process also created the religion we now call Hinduism. So, when Shekhar Gupta propagates writings like: https://twitter.com/shekhargupta/status/976380884902338560?lang=en and makes comments like this: https://twitter.com/shekhargupta/status/944432538499530752?lang=en But, in no way has a response to this: https://twitter.com/rishibagree/status/985158383333392385 Because there are… https://twitter.com/OpIndia_com/status/985181379926331392 a body that he is now the President of, he is culpable of furthering the noxious legacy of the British Raj. He is no intellectual. His attitude is a vestige of the British system of divide and rule, which works very well in the present context as it did in those times. How long are we going to keep falling victim to this? Finally, for those who might have questions about Manusmriti, often blamed for all the major social ills in the Hindu society, please read this: Manusmriti & Caste System by Acharya Harikrushna Farashuram. Read, and liberate yourself from centuries-old burden of hate and disgust heaped upon our civilisation by people who pillaged, marauded, and oppressed entire civilisations around the world with complete lack of compunction and are now giving others certificates for human rights while fomenting violence in the Middle East. People like Mr. Gupta, instead of participating in the progress of our society by furthering a constructive agenda, happen to spread hatred because it helps them so. They have created a different class system of ‘intellectuals’ who act as if they walk on water, but won’t even acknowledge it. This should be our fight.