Forcible Conversions

First of all, let me clarify that I am not talking about relegious conversions here. This is about this new trend of improving Average Revenue per Customer followed by practically every product or service you use from a TV to a mobile phone to Google.

I am sure that this must have been a common experience many of us share - you have a simple mobile phone which has excellent voice quality but doesn't have all that advantages of talking address books and synchronised calendars et al. (Well, frankly only a miniscule population in this world needs a synchronised calendar). But if you try walking into a store to buy that phone, the guy at the counter looks at you like you are this uneducated alien (cheapo & moron are the words which feature heavily on this thought bubble) and tells you that that model is no longer available. At a similar price (which actually means Rs 3 K more than the original) he recites this long list of additional features, which sound alien to you. You try being firm with him, doesn't work.And you can't repair your old mobile, it cost more than the new phone. So you walk out of the store with an upgraded phone you dont want for Rs 3 K more.

Or the bank which keeps trying to upgrade you from an ATM card to a debit card. Or Google which forces you to keep `upgrading' your blog. Or Windows which keeps upgrading its office suite and forces you to go higher and pay more. Or laptops which come up with vague features. Or ipods which offer you more and more storage for which you need to pay that online music site more and more to download more and more songs. In none of this does any customer inconvenience get addressed; all of them are meant to upgrade the pockets of the companies which put out those services.

For instance, take Google. I have been forcibly upgraded to use this new version of blogger. My templates remain the same. I have the same problems of editing text. It takes me the same amount of time to organise the blog and I still can't do an automatic email of updates to friends who read my blog(or who are forced to read my blog). So I see no `upgrade' value, but Google doesn't give me a choice. Worse, I am wondering what I am losing to this upgrade - is it privacy? IS some anonymous person sitting out there analysing my online usage patterns and drawing conclusions as to my mental health? It is scary, especially when I see a flash of `Google analytics' when I click on something. And in all probability, I have signed something which says Google can access all this when I opted to become a blogger. The problem is one never understands what it means when you sign on that `Terms and Conditions' till you actually use it.

If I opt not to go in for the upgrade, I pay a premium for that too either in actual cash terms or productivity terms. For examples, banks just automatically convert your ATM cards to debit cards and then charge you for the debit cards. If you insist on retaining the ATM card, you are charged more. Similarly for the upgraded mobiles or TVs or Windows suite.

I wonder what implications all this has from a customer protection side. Can I by law seek to protect my status to remain static - not go for upgrades - without paying through my nose? I don't know and I am supposedly a well-educated, rights aware consumer!!

Discrimination of the Singles

It is rather amazing the different forms discrimination takes. I was just buying a mobile connection, for heaven's sake. And there was this first innocuous question as to who all lived in my house. Once I said I stayed with my brother, there was this prolonged whispering conversation about his marital status. Just as I was wondering whether the customer care execs (both women) were thinking about the possibility of being romantically linked to my brother (the thought afforded me considerable amusement, of course), they asked me directly if he was married. No, I replied, striving for a straight face. Then, they tell me, ``you need to pay an additional deposit of Rs 750, madam, since you are a bachelor''. I thought this was some sort of joke and tried passing it off lightly. But it was not to be - apparently mobile phone companies charge an extra deposit from ``bachelors''. The sad thing was that the people who glibly made these statements to me did not even know that it was discriminatory and were very puzzled when I made a fuss.

This is the second time I have personally faced such discrimination, the first time was when I tried getting a housing loan from ICICI and was told as a single woman I needed a guarantor. It was ironical that they did not accept my Government University Professor mom as a good guarantor but were perfectly OK with my student, non-earning brother signing up as a guarantor. By virtue of screaming non-stop for 45 minutes and threatening discrimination lawsuits, I finally got a loan with no guarantor. This was about four years ago and I don't know if this has changed at all.

These are only two personal instances - once I mention this to people, there are other stories which come up about such blatant as well as subtle forms of discrimination. Singles don't get houses to stay in or if they do, they pay a premium on rent, they are asked to assume more work since they don't have any spouse waiting for them, employers telling them that they are not reliable since they are single and of course, the intense interest everyone has in the life of a single.

I just don't understand how your marital status can influence your bankability, your employability or your credibility. Suppose I was married and defaulted on my loan, what exactly does the bank propose to do - catch hold of the husband dear's collar and demand honourable repayment? What will the mobile company do if a married man defaults on his bills - demand his wife's jewellery ? And how often have we heard the same employer complain that his married employee who is perenially absent because of his `family demands'.

But nevertheless, there is this subtle reinforcement that tells you, if you have a family it is OK if you default or don't turn up for work or be inefficient. So much for being that heartwhole, fancyfree, irresponsible, decadent single. The world around you is screaming at you to get married so that you can pay your bills, pay your bank and SETTLE DOWN!

Dravidians Vs Devanagri

Is Tamil Nadu against Hindi? This is a very old debate, older than me in fact, so I was a tad bit surprised when it resurfaced among contemporary people. I am no advocate of insularity or `cultural preservation'. But I do think that insularity is a rather unfair charge being laid on Chennai today; it may have been true some thirty years ago.

The English always claim that the French are insular in protecting their language and indeed I have faced immigration officials or airline people insisting on speaking in French, which made me feel rather indignant. Even in admittedly insular France, I have come across friendly people who spoke English (This might have been a reaction to my French, but nevertheless...) But I don't think that is what Chennai is. I haven't seen people insisting that others speak in Tamil; if they don't speak in English or Hindi, it is because of a lack in education rather than any insularity.

So we come back to the point that if only Hindi was taught in schools in Tamil Nadu, this situation wouldn't arise. Well, in reality all private schools across the state offer Hindi, Sanskrit,French or Tamil as a second language . Most students prefer Sanskrit or French where it is easy to score marks, in fact Tamil is the least preferred language. When it comes to Government schools, however, Tamil is the only second language. But is that very different from say Gujarat or Karnataka? It is only the city schools which teach Hindi in Karnataka. I do know that Gujarat Government schools have Gujarati as the primary language with Hindi as the second language, whereas TN and Karnataka opt for English as the second language. If TN were to opt for Tamil and Hindi as the two languages of learning, there would be a huge hue and cry about its global insularity in excluding English!!!

Similarly as far as communication goes, one needs to learn the native tongue of a place be it Chennai or Ahmedabad, if one were to live there for a significant length of time. Besides being useful to communicate with people such as vendors, maids, milkmen etc, the local language is also a part of the culture of the place. If a UP-ite were to live in the US, would he/she baulk against learning English or would they not learn German living in Germany. So why is it so objectionable to learn Tamil living in Tamil Nadu? And vice-versa, Tamilians living in the North or West do not insist on speaking in English or Tamil, they do learn Hindi.

In practical terms, I have seen more Hindi being spoken in offices in Chennai (non-government ones) than in Mumbai. In fact, it is cool to know Hindi in Chennai, but not so in Ahmedabad or Bangalore or Mumbai. The government offices on the other hand, still have this age-old practice of learning one Hindi word a day and one can see this right from banks to registrar offices to railway stations. So where is Hindi being excluded?

Just because auto drivers and maids do not respond to Hindi, to brand Chennai as insular is rather unfair. Chennai is as insular as London or Frankfurt or Colombo and less insular than Paris. The crib about Dravidians being against Devanagri is outdated. So people, please realise that when you crib that Chennai-ites do not speak Hindi, it is you who are being insular and not the other way around.

Of Designer Burqas.....

For two weeks in the same month, The Hindu's Sunday magazine has written about this trend in fashionable burqua and how young Muslim women are taking to it because it is stylish while still conforming to the tradition which requires them to wear it!

The first article was about an Aghan book, being made into a film with six women talking about their relationship with the burqas and the second is about designer burqas making a `Stylish Comeback'. The common thread was that younger women find it acceptable to wear these fashionable, designer burqas which are apparently colourful, decorated with heavy embroidery and in some cases, form-fitting and more like a salwar, whereas older women feel that designer or black, a burqa is a symbol of oppression for women.

I find myself more in sync with the opinions of the older women than the younger. Of course, it may be a sign that I am moving closer to senility, but on the other hand, I think they at least have a point to make. If you have to wear a burqa which is almost a salwar but not quite, why don't you just wear a salwar? Or a jeans, or a shorts, or a skirt, for that matter. To me too, wearing burqas is not about being fashionable but about modesty being more applicable to women than to men. On the one hand, there is this whole thing about how women are getting bolder in looking for men and how men are becoming conscious of their appearance, so as to attract the maximum attention. And on the other, we talk about wearing burqas for modesty. Really, that is too much of a polarisation!

I know that there is this argument which states that a burqa is immensely liberating as it lends anonymity to the woman wearing it. And today's article in The Hindu, actually begins with that statement too. But I find that a hollow argument. Why can't a woman be anonymous, dressed in normal clothes? Why do they have to resort to a burqa to feel that anonymityand the consequent liberation? Considering it is only women who wear a burqa as a symbol of liberation, it still speaks a lot about the state of the society we live in and the excuses we can drum up to make a double standard acceptable.

Humour - A Serious Issue!

Have you noticed how, as we evolve into a more capitalist society, we are losing our sense of humour? We tend to take ourselves terribly seriously and get very annoyed at small examples of our unimportance. Like when the road in front does not clear automatically as one drives, and even after furious honking there are all those cars, bikes and, dash it all even cycles, in front of you. Or when at the supermarket, just as you quickly rush down the aisles towards the billing counter there is this one person who steps in front of you. Or when you are rushing off to this extremely important meeting, the security insists on you following the visitors procedure. Not only do all these people willfully ignore your importance, they even have the effrontery to imitate your actions. You, of course, are in no mood to accept `a taste of one’s own medicine’ with good grace and a grin.

But the bigger and, in my humble opinion, scarier scenario is one in which one you begin to talk in four syllable words and sentences so obscure in meaning that if you are ever called to really and truly explain yourself, you would be at a loss. This begins to happen at that point when you are so materialistic, that you begin to sound spiritual about it. Somewhat like when you hear about this couple who chartered a plane to rough it out at an ashram in the Himalayas to `synergise our spiritual self to the great one-ness of that central metaphysical being who is beyond the realization limits of the whole.’ There, the fact that I have been completely unable to formulate one sentence which will elevate you to a different `plane of existence’ shows that I am one of those idiots who have not arrived. But I pride myself on the fact that I have actually constructed a sentence which has no meaning, so I still have hope! (The eternal optimist!)

Now I find this a tad bit strange. I would have believed that it is socialists with their lofty ideals, about which they are terribly intense and passionate and earnest, would be the creators of a humourless society. Why? Simply because they have a noble goal (my opinion, but I acknowledge this is contestable) and nobility for some reason breeds righteousness and righteousness is a serious humour impediment. But, maybe this is an irony of existence, that society has a fantastic brand of humour – cynical, witty, intelligent and lastingly hilarious. That is perhaps a reaction to all the earnestness around and a reflection of the intelligence which tends to gravitate towards the left.

On the other hand, I would’ve tended to believe that life in a capitalist society is about prosperity and prosperous people would normally have more reason to smile and hence perhaps have a better sense of humour – basically, anyone who loves to laugh would appreciate great humour. But I have noticed that this is not the case. I think a capitalist society is driven by achievers and hence generally everybody is racing to achieve or whining about not being able to achieve. The achievers tend to look for appreciation of their efforts and don’t like being made fun of, and anyways in the course of busily achieving, they get very earnest and self-important. And of the remaining, there is one lot which makes enough for a good living and is content and complacent and complacence is right there alongside righteousness as a humour-murder-weapon. The other lot is the one which is branded as `losers’ in the current societal parlance and is basically too bitter about it or is perhaps in no mood to be funny.

I think the time has come to define exactly what I mean by humour – I don’t mean jokes or one-liners or stand-up comedy. This you actually find in plenty in a capitalist society. I am talking about that brand of humour which essentially is directed as much at yourself as it is at others. This is that brand of humour which springs from intelligence and awareness.

I do not mean to say that humour cannot exist at all in a capitalist society. Bill Waterson and Scott Adams are but two singular examples who can quickly prove me wrong. This more towards defining the general. The point I am trying to really make is that material societies are full of smart people whereas socialist societies are full of intellectuals. But we all know that both societies have their disadvantages. I have in this context used humour as a barometer of values. Because an ability to laugh at yourself is a rather delightful way of staying humble. And also when you don't take yourself seriously, it is very difficult to take others or other things very seriously and thereby there are no Holy Cows in existence and therefore, you have nothing that you will wage a war for.

Doctors!

The whole of Chennai seems to be down with some kind of fever of the other (well, fine`whole' is probably an exaggeration). The names doing the rounds include the famous chikungunya, usual viral fever, malaria, typhoid,dengue,para-malaria, para-typhoid,multiple-viral fever, etc.etc. I know because I was among the stricken and everyone I spoke to had either just gone through some fever or knew of someone who did.

The first conclusion I drew from the varied moanings of the sick or the friends of the sick is that the more medicines you create, the viruses or the bacteria seem to effortlessly just change their forms and come back to haunt you. So while one can talk about polio eradication or leprosy eradication, fever eradication doesn't seem to be that possible. But if one were to believe the newspapers/media, some of the fevers seem to be fatal and because they are so widepsread and quickly propogated the number of fatalities is quite significant.

On the other hand, medical science still works on the trial and error methodology of the Louis Pasteur days. Symptoms don't seem to be uniform and hence doctors also experiment with you like a guinea pig. Well, I do guess life is tough for the doctors with the varieties and sub-varieties of the bugs (bacteria/virus) increasing everyday. But is not very comfortable for the patient when the doctor says Oh, you have a viral fever and promptly prescribes a long list of antibiotics. The fever goes away for the week when the antibiotics are working in the body and the next week it is back and this time you get a new list.... By laws of probability and the action of antibiotics, it is likely that within three attempts a lasting cure is effected, but this is more by accident than by design. And of course, you feel exhausted with all that medicine in your body.

I think this is going the same way as plants and pesticides - the pesticides intially protected plants from pests, but the pests just changed or became immune and hence the pesticides got stronger and stronger and the plants got weaker and weaker and the final output was that yield was anyways affected. And now there is the return to organic farming, which is essentially the same kind of farming that our forefathers practised, except that now it is stylised and jargonised.

So is it with people and drugs I guess. The best cure is anyways rest and limited food and I guess we will soon be deriving catchy terms for decoctions and concoctions from grandma's home remedies. So if you soon see Fortified Basil juice, make sure you recognise it for what it is - thulasi kashayam with preservatives for shelf-life!