So here we go again, yet another Swami caught on camera having sex and the “God man” from being a revered person has now suddenly become public enemy number one due to his sexual escapades being caught on tape and subsequently being aired on every TV channel.
There are people who are divided on this topic and I shall try to address their opinions on this topic while putting forth my own. This incident has raised a whole gamut of questions which I shall raise and subsequently try to answer them, without probably being able to provide any concrete solutions to them.
1. Why are they given this kind of importance in the first place?
The answer to this is the same as the one I give to my North Indian friends when they ask me why the south Indian actors have such a mass following. It’s because the masses consider these God men to be kin to God. The early South Indian actors such as MGR and NT Rama Rao played mythological figures in movies and so the masses consider these actors to be Gods themselves and to their credit they did do their bit in alleviating the sufferings of the masses. So when they made a transition from movies to politics they were very successful. So now you know why Rajnikanth is so popular in Tamil Nadu.
2. Should they given this kind of importance?
Honestly, I don’t think so. I mean, give any ordinary man a few beers to drink and he’ll preach the same things that our Swamis do, and might actually do a better job than them.
3. Was it wrong or sinful of him to have sex?
Not unless he blackmailed or forced the woman into having sex with him. I haven’t seen the video and I won’t see it either, not because I don’t enjoy sex videos, but the fact that if I really want to watch some pornography I’d rather watch something with better quality and picture and sound clarity.
Our history is replete with stories and incidents of sages, god men having sex with women. The most famous example that comes to my mind is that of Vyasa whose act of copulation with Ambalika and Ambika (known as Niyoga) resulted in the birth of Pandu and Dhritarashtra respectively.
The Raven, whose blog I frequently read, has a different take on this whole issue. He’s appalled by the fact that there is so much mileage being given to this issue while we, the government in particular, have conveniently forgotten about the case where a senior police officer who has received honours from the government, was in fact a deranged psychopath who molested a young and ultimately drove her to commit suicide. Why is it that criminals like the one aforementioned, are allowed to get away scot-free? Why focus so much a Swami and his sexual escapades instead?
But there’s another that stills remains unanswered. Why is it that certain incidents create a greater furore than others which seem to be of grave importance? I guess this can best be explained by Dr. Peter M. Sandman’s equation:-
RISK = HAZARD+OUTRAGE
Mr. Sandman goes on to explain that in this equation hazard and outrage do not have equal weightage.”When hazard is high and outrage is low, people underreact,” he says. “And when hazard is low and outrage is high, they overreact.”
This should explain why a Swami’s sex tape creates more sensation that a state Governor’s (And I guess he would take that as an insult). A Swami is a revered man, whereas a Governor or any politician for that matter is looked upon by an average Indian to have been involved in some sort of wrongdoing. Hence the former create more media sensation.
It’s perfectly alright for a 40 year old Muslim actor to drink alcohol and have numerous girlfriends and have premarital sex, whereas it is sinful for a Muslim woman to wear skirts and play sports. In India, the latter has causes more outrage and hence the over-reaction.
There is where I believe the media has a bigger role to play. Unfortunately, every time there is a new story for the news channels to telecast, the older issues, which sometimes are more important, are put on the backburner. It’s not just the media but all of us that need use our senses and tackle issues which are of greater importance to our society.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Filler 2
There are so many things I want to write about and I don’t really know which one to start with. So for the next few posts, I’m going to write about events which other bloggers(the ones I follow i.e.) are writing about. While I myself haven’t written on any topic over the past year, I usually do make it a point to comment on others’ articles. Most of my comments are usually more than 10-12 lines, long enough to be published as new blog posts, so I figured why not write separate posts and put the link in others’ comments section. That way you’d able to counter or agree with others’ views in a better way and also you might actually get a few people to follow your blog. (We shall wait and see if the latter does actually happen) ;)
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Filler
Writing doesn’t come naturally to me and it's been over a year since I last posted something on my blog. I do read and think, but when it comes to putting these thoughts into words, it does become a painful task. For most, writing/blogging is an outlet of expression and it doesn’t take them long to pen down their thoughts and views about the latest happenings or life in general, but I find it very hard to do so. The main reason being that I’m self critical and harsh on myself when it comes to writing. Having written a post on any topic, I regress back to see if I can rephrase some of the words or sentences altogether. Some of my friends who write frequently (not necessarily blog) say that it’s a matter of practice, and only if you write on a regular basis will it come more natural to you. So here I go again, making another valiant attempt at writing and hopefully this time around I’ll be more regular with my posts.
P.S:- It took me about 40 minutes to write this.
P.S:- It took me about 40 minutes to write this.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Calender System
We are in the year of 2010, Common Era.
During my recent trip to Hyderabad, I attended the rock show that was held at IIIT. I was hanging out with the guys from Blind Image(metal band from Chennai) backstage, waiting for the rock show to get underway. I remained a mute spectator for most part of the conversations that were held when Kitha(bass player for Shruti Haasan band), broached the topic of Anno Domini and how one ought to use After Christ instead. This was my chance to hog the limelight and make my presence felt.
B.C and A.D are designations used to represent the number of years before and after the birth of Christ. There is a popular misconception that because B.C stands for Before Christ, A.D would stand for After Death. If that were the case, then thirty odd years of Christ's life wouldn't be in any era.
A.D actually stands for Anno Domini, a medieval Latin term slated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord).It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus, and was later popularized by an English monk Bede(672/673–May 26, 735) in his book Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People). In this book he used anno ab incarnatione Domini (in the year from the incarnation of the Lord) or anno incarnationis dominicae (in the year of the incarnation of the Lord) to denote the era after the birth of Christ and ante incarnationis dominicae tempus (before the time of the incarnation of the Lord) for the era before Christ. However, only the former mentioned usage became popular while the latter era is now commonly referred to as Before Christ. In this dating system, a year before Christ would be written as 350 B.C (for example) and the current year would be A.D 2009.
The calender system that is now gaining popularity (in fact it has already done so) in most parts of the world is that of Common Era. The numbering of years under this system is similar to the one used in the A.D system sans the reference to Jesus Christ. This system is being increasingly adopted in Western world, especially by non-Christians who don't believe Jesus that is their lord and in communist countries, most notably China where the Common Era system was adopted back in 1949. Under this system, the year 350 before Christ would be written as 350 BCE(“Before the Common Era” or “Before the Current Era”) and the current year as 2009 CE(Common Era).
While most publications still use A.D, because of A.D.'s obvious Christian overtones, many(including me) prefer to use the more secular abbreviation C.E. My reason for the using the latter has got more to do with me being an agnostic than a non-Christian, and I suggest my friends who consider themselves to be agnostics or atheists, and followers of other religions as well to start using the C.E system to avoid being politically incorrect.
During my recent trip to Hyderabad, I attended the rock show that was held at IIIT. I was hanging out with the guys from Blind Image(metal band from Chennai) backstage, waiting for the rock show to get underway. I remained a mute spectator for most part of the conversations that were held when Kitha(bass player for Shruti Haasan band), broached the topic of Anno Domini and how one ought to use After Christ instead. This was my chance to hog the limelight and make my presence felt.
B.C and A.D are designations used to represent the number of years before and after the birth of Christ. There is a popular misconception that because B.C stands for Before Christ, A.D would stand for After Death. If that were the case, then thirty odd years of Christ's life wouldn't be in any era.
A.D actually stands for Anno Domini, a medieval Latin term slated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord).It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus, and was later popularized by an English monk Bede(672/673–May 26, 735) in his book Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People). In this book he used anno ab incarnatione Domini (in the year from the incarnation of the Lord) or anno incarnationis dominicae (in the year of the incarnation of the Lord) to denote the era after the birth of Christ and ante incarnationis dominicae tempus (before the time of the incarnation of the Lord) for the era before Christ. However, only the former mentioned usage became popular while the latter era is now commonly referred to as Before Christ. In this dating system, a year before Christ would be written as 350 B.C (for example) and the current year would be A.D 2009.
The calender system that is now gaining popularity (in fact it has already done so) in most parts of the world is that of Common Era. The numbering of years under this system is similar to the one used in the A.D system sans the reference to Jesus Christ. This system is being increasingly adopted in Western world, especially by non-Christians who don't believe Jesus that is their lord and in communist countries, most notably China where the Common Era system was adopted back in 1949. Under this system, the year 350 before Christ would be written as 350 BCE(“Before the Common Era” or “Before the Current Era”) and the current year as 2009 CE(Common Era).
While most publications still use A.D, because of A.D.'s obvious Christian overtones, many(including me) prefer to use the more secular abbreviation C.E. My reason for the using the latter has got more to do with me being an agnostic than a non-Christian, and I suggest my friends who consider themselves to be agnostics or atheists, and followers of other religions as well to start using the C.E system to avoid being politically incorrect.
It's just a movie Goddamnit!!!
While writing my review on Slumdog Millionaire, I read a few articles on the movie and its depiction of life in Mumbai and the skewed views on the movie and the articles by the Western and Indian audience.
I stumbled across an article that appeared in the Daily Mail titled “The real Slumdog Millionaires: Behind the cinema fantasy, mafia gangs are deliberately crippling children for profit” by Andrew Malone.( Read ). The article is well written and does in fact show the true plight of the poor and homeless children who are mutilated and forced to beg and young girls who are forced into prostitution. The thing that bothers me most is that the article has rubbed some people the wrong way. Quite a few of the westerners seem to be making a sweeping generalization of what Mumbai and India really is, and that is ridiculous. I wonder how they would react when Asians and West Indians would deem all Whites as racists after watching “Made In England” or the rest of the world concluding that all the African-American and Hispanic people in the U.S were criminals after playing a game of Grand Theft Auto. There have been movies made in the west about neo-nazi groups(American History X) and child pornography (8mm) and no one drew any generalization about what was depicted in those movies(and the countless other such movies). So why such fuss over this movie( Slumdog Millionaire)? The thing that people (especially those who are ignorant about India) have to understand is that “beggar-mafia” is a very serious social issue that plagues India just like child pornography, drug abuse, and violence among various ethnic groups are crippling their own countries. Dharavi in Mumbai is no different from South Bronx in New York. While westerners talk about the growing inequality between rich and poor in India, they must also look at the economic disparity that exists in their own countries, especially in our current times of economic slowdown that has affected the West more than India.
The article I now wish to discuss is the one that appeared on Amitabh Bachchan’s blog.( Read ). He wrote , "If SM projects India as Third World dirty under belly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations." Bachchan also states, "It's just that the SM idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a Westerner, gets creative Globe recognition. The other would perhaps not."
Further Bachchan recalled that the "commercial escapist world of Indian cinema" has vociferously battled for years, on the attention paid and adulation given to legendary Satyajit Ray at all prestigious film festivals of the West and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass-oriented box office blockbusters that were being churned out from Mumbai. "The argument: Ray portrayed reality. The other escapism, fantasy and incredulous posturing. Unimpressive for Cannes, Berlin and Venice. But look at how rapidly all that is changing," he said.( Read)
In regards to the first statement that Mr. Bachchan made, with the operative word being “If”, I have a similar opinion and have explicitly stated it in my previous paragraph. As for whether the movie does infact do that? My answer is an emphatic “NO”.
The plot of Slumdog Millionaire as pointed by Bachchan and others is indeed no different from the typical Hindi movies of the yore. Some of the movies made during that time were actually good. But the needless naach-gaana, dishum-dishum, and the rona-dhona scenes would be difficult for the movie goers in the west to relate to. I myself find these (especially the songs) a deviation from the main plot. I’m pretty sure that if Slumdog Millionaire wouldn’t have fared so well in the West if it had 6 -7 songs and Jamal and Latika running around trees with a dozen boys and girls wearing matching dresses dancing behind them.(This does happen in the movie, but thankfully it is just one song and that too at the end with the rolling credits). Having said that, most Indians consider these(the songs and maudlin scenes) to be an integral part of a movie, which probably explains why Slumdog Millionaire(Crorepati) has been a box office dud back home.
Most of Amitabh’s recent movies: Kaante, Nishabd, Ek Ajnabee, Aitbaar, Bunty Aur Babli to name a few are Hollywood rip offs (Reservoir Dogs, Lolita, Man On Fire, Fear, Bonnie and Clyde respectively). In fact the biggest movie in Bollywood history, Sholay, is heavily drawn from Hollywood western movies(which in turn have been heavily borrowed from Kurosawa’s work). So my question to Mr. Bachchan is,” Why would the audience in the west want to a typical Bollywood masala film which has been ripped off from one of their own movies?” The Hollywood directors/producers remake movies Asian movies too, but they don’t plagiarize it like most Bollywood producers and directors. They obtain legal rights to remake a movie.
I agree that the Mumbai underground has been captured effectively and more deeply in films like Satya, Salaam Bombay, Company and Dharavi, as compared to SM. I’ve already mentioned in my review of SM that there are a few loopholes in the plot, but to discredit SM just because it has been made by a westerner, and saying that ‘Danny Boyle has picked up and glorified every stereotype about India, sensationalized it and packaged it in a film’(as written on BigB blog) is a bit over the top. For those who have and haven’t seen the movie, don’t try reading too much into it. I personally thought it just about above average.
Aamir Khan stated in an interview with NDTV that he doesn't "see ‘Slumdog…’ as an Indian film. I think it is a film about India like Gandhi (that) was made by Sir Richard Attenborough. Similarly, ‘Slumdog…’ is about India but it is not an Indian film. Well, then how does one decide whether or not a movie is Indian? What does or does not make a movie Indian? More on that in my next post.
I stumbled across an article that appeared in the Daily Mail titled “The real Slumdog Millionaires: Behind the cinema fantasy, mafia gangs are deliberately crippling children for profit” by Andrew Malone.( Read ). The article is well written and does in fact show the true plight of the poor and homeless children who are mutilated and forced to beg and young girls who are forced into prostitution. The thing that bothers me most is that the article has rubbed some people the wrong way. Quite a few of the westerners seem to be making a sweeping generalization of what Mumbai and India really is, and that is ridiculous. I wonder how they would react when Asians and West Indians would deem all Whites as racists after watching “Made In England” or the rest of the world concluding that all the African-American and Hispanic people in the U.S were criminals after playing a game of Grand Theft Auto. There have been movies made in the west about neo-nazi groups(American History X) and child pornography (8mm) and no one drew any generalization about what was depicted in those movies(and the countless other such movies). So why such fuss over this movie( Slumdog Millionaire)? The thing that people (especially those who are ignorant about India) have to understand is that “beggar-mafia” is a very serious social issue that plagues India just like child pornography, drug abuse, and violence among various ethnic groups are crippling their own countries. Dharavi in Mumbai is no different from South Bronx in New York. While westerners talk about the growing inequality between rich and poor in India, they must also look at the economic disparity that exists in their own countries, especially in our current times of economic slowdown that has affected the West more than India.
The article I now wish to discuss is the one that appeared on Amitabh Bachchan’s blog.( Read ). He wrote , "If SM projects India as Third World dirty under belly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations." Bachchan also states, "It's just that the SM idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a Westerner, gets creative Globe recognition. The other would perhaps not."
Further Bachchan recalled that the "commercial escapist world of Indian cinema" has vociferously battled for years, on the attention paid and adulation given to legendary Satyajit Ray at all prestigious film festivals of the West and not a word of appreciation for the entertaining mass-oriented box office blockbusters that were being churned out from Mumbai. "The argument: Ray portrayed reality. The other escapism, fantasy and incredulous posturing. Unimpressive for Cannes, Berlin and Venice. But look at how rapidly all that is changing," he said.( Read)
In regards to the first statement that Mr. Bachchan made, with the operative word being “If”, I have a similar opinion and have explicitly stated it in my previous paragraph. As for whether the movie does infact do that? My answer is an emphatic “NO”.
The plot of Slumdog Millionaire as pointed by Bachchan and others is indeed no different from the typical Hindi movies of the yore. Some of the movies made during that time were actually good. But the needless naach-gaana, dishum-dishum, and the rona-dhona scenes would be difficult for the movie goers in the west to relate to. I myself find these (especially the songs) a deviation from the main plot. I’m pretty sure that if Slumdog Millionaire wouldn’t have fared so well in the West if it had 6 -7 songs and Jamal and Latika running around trees with a dozen boys and girls wearing matching dresses dancing behind them.(This does happen in the movie, but thankfully it is just one song and that too at the end with the rolling credits). Having said that, most Indians consider these(the songs and maudlin scenes) to be an integral part of a movie, which probably explains why Slumdog Millionaire(Crorepati) has been a box office dud back home.
Most of Amitabh’s recent movies: Kaante, Nishabd, Ek Ajnabee, Aitbaar, Bunty Aur Babli to name a few are Hollywood rip offs (Reservoir Dogs, Lolita, Man On Fire, Fear, Bonnie and Clyde respectively). In fact the biggest movie in Bollywood history, Sholay, is heavily drawn from Hollywood western movies(which in turn have been heavily borrowed from Kurosawa’s work). So my question to Mr. Bachchan is,” Why would the audience in the west want to a typical Bollywood masala film which has been ripped off from one of their own movies?” The Hollywood directors/producers remake movies Asian movies too, but they don’t plagiarize it like most Bollywood producers and directors. They obtain legal rights to remake a movie.
I agree that the Mumbai underground has been captured effectively and more deeply in films like Satya, Salaam Bombay, Company and Dharavi, as compared to SM. I’ve already mentioned in my review of SM that there are a few loopholes in the plot, but to discredit SM just because it has been made by a westerner, and saying that ‘Danny Boyle has picked up and glorified every stereotype about India, sensationalized it and packaged it in a film’(as written on BigB blog) is a bit over the top. For those who have and haven’t seen the movie, don’t try reading too much into it. I personally thought it just about above average.
Aamir Khan stated in an interview with NDTV that he doesn't "see ‘Slumdog…’ as an Indian film. I think it is a film about India like Gandhi (that) was made by Sir Richard Attenborough. Similarly, ‘Slumdog…’ is about India but it is not an Indian film. Well, then how does one decide whether or not a movie is Indian? What does or does not make a movie Indian? More on that in my next post.
My Take On Slumdog Millionare
I’ve finally gotten around to watching the much publicized “Slumdog Millionaire” by Danny Boyle. Everyone from Bollywood actors like Amitabh Bachchan and Aamir Khan, to the media in the US and UK have had their say about this movie. I was initially put off by the over hype surrounding the movie, but then decided to watch the movie and find out what the fuss was all about.
Even though the overall story is akin to typical 50’s to 70’s Bollywood formula, where the audience accompanies Jamal thorough his odyssey from a young child in the slums of Mumbai to a young man who is determined to save the girl he loves, we are thankfully spared from the typical Bollywood melodrama. The acting of young Jamal and Salim is pretty commendable, and so is the cinematography and the background score.
There are some aspects of the film that disappointed me. I believe when Danny Boyle started making this movie he sensed that this movie could get him the much coveted Academy Award (popularly known as The Oscars). What is incomprehensible though is, why two thirds of the film was made in English, and how come the main characters speak in English with an accent more akin to the typical Indian metrosexuals? How can you explain street urchins who turn start speaking flawless English as soon as they reach adolescence? It is plausible for them to be speaking in broken English as tourist guides in India do, but the “slumdog” with his brit accent is pretty ridiculous. Given that the movie is a British-American production being distributed by Fox Searchlight and Warner Independent Pictures, it would have been nominated for the Best Picture category even if the entire film was shot in Hindi. Movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and City of God have shown that the English speaking audience are receptive and appreciative of a movie even if it is made in non-English speaking language as long as the content of the movie is good. Using the local language (in this case Hindi) would have added a layer of authenticity to the film.
The most intriguing aspect of this film for me, was the character of Salim which I believe has been misconstrued by most. The common perception of him seems to be that of a villain who redeems himself at the end of the movie. Though his “change of heart” at the end might seem implausible to most, he was just a victim of his environment with shades of rage and jealousy and despite his shortcomings, he still loved his brother. Below I’ve tried to present the events from Salim’s perspective, and not justify his actions.
1. When Salim sells the autographed picture of Amitabh Bachchan, he tells his brother that he sold it because he got a good price for it. It goes to show that for him money was more important to him than an autographed picture. That money earned could help them get through another day.
2. In the scene following the riots, he tells Jamal that he was the elder now and that Jamal was his responsibility and that he would take care of Jamal. And then when he turns away from Jamal, you can see how scared he really was. The reason for Salim not allowing Latika to take shelter with them was because he figured she would burden him/them.
3. During the scene where he lets go off her hand when she tries to get on to the train, he only does so because she would have slowed him and his brother down and put their lives at risk.
4. He agrees to return to Mumbai with Jamal to look for Latika, albeit reluctantly, and then saves her and his own life by killing Maman so that he wouldn’t hunt them down. If all Salim cared about was separating Jamal and Latika, he wouldn’t have agreed to look for her in the first place.
5. After killing Maman and rescuing Latika, Salim realizes that after killing Maman he wouldn’t be safe on his own, and decides to join Javed’s gang. Just before killing Maman, Maman tells Salim and Jamal that Latika was worth a fortune. Salim realizes that Javed would have had her anyway and if Jamal protested at that time, both he and his brother would be killed. This was probably why he pushes Jamal out of the hotel room.
6. In an attempt to redeem himself at the end, he sends Latika away and kills Javed and in the process gets killed as well.
Having said that, I still found the ending a bit abrupt. There should have been something that Jamal or Latika did or said that would enable the viewers to draw an inference as to what made Salim do what he did at the end. Also I found the scene where Salim gets killed a bit cheesy.
So do I think the movie deserves an Oscar? Well, Milk and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are the other front runners for the award. I haven’t seen the former and didn’t like the latter. I liked “The Wrestler” and “Gran Torino” and expected them to make the cut, but they didn’t, so I’d able to take a call only after watching the other nominated movies.
My Rating of Slumdog Millionare:- 7 out of 10. (And as I pointed out of earlier, the only reason I’m giving this high rating is because of the performances of young Salim and Jamal and the complexity of Salim’s character)
And now comes the “Million Dollar Question”:Will Slumdog Millionaire win the Best Picture award at the Oscars? The movie has been receiving raves from one section and at the same time there is a hullabaloo among the other section who believe that the movie portrays India as a corrupt and violent country. But given the emotional content of the film along with the fairy tale ending it just might pip the others. Let’s just say for Danny Boyle’s sake ...”It is written”.
Brothers in Alms
I've just finished reading a post written by my schoolmate Kiran Rao about his encounter with a "child-beggar" and how it got him thinking if he was committing a moral offence by giving alms. I've always been against the idea of giving alms to beggars irrespective of how old/young they are. But now, it has really got me thinking.
A few months back my cousin and I were waiting at a busy traffic signal waiting for the light to turn green, when an old man walked up to us asking for money. I firmly but politely turned him down, only for him to be called back by cousin, who gave him a Rs. 10 note. Needless to say, I didn't approve of my cousin's deed of charity. I told him that he was encouraging begging, a social evil eating up our society, instead of fighting it, and that one should work to earn a living. My cousin argued that the guy had probably got so used to begging through all his years that he just lacked the motivation to work for food. So does that mean that we do our bit in killing whatever little motivation is left in him by offering him easy money, I quipped. The signal turned green, and our topic of discussion changed as my bike soared through the busy streets of Ameerpet. Come to think of it now, what if that old man didn't receive any alms that day, and he turned to stealing to sustain himself ? And then made a habit of it, because he finds it more convenient and less despicable, if not honourable.
Out on the streets we have the able bodied and the physically impaired beggars. Some of these beggars have families and are forced to beg by their parents who in all likelihood are beggars themselves. The others beg and earn money for their dalaals, who in return for the money earned by these kids, provides them with food and shelter.
Kiran writes "what the parents don’t see are that if the kid goes to school instead of wasting his childhood in begging, he’ll probably get a proper "job" and in the long run make more money". Kids in poor families, are looked upon as a source of income, which explains why most of the maids who have worked/work in our houses have more than 3 kids who do odd jobs to support her (there may be exceptions, but these would be very few in number, so few that one could actually count them on their fingers and toes). These kids are expected are contribute to the expenses of the family, and sending them to school would not only mean that they wouldn't be contributing much financially, but would also be an added expense to their parents.
This pops up another question... Why are some kids forced to beg by their parents instead of being encouraged to work? Well, this happens only in the case of those whose parents are lazy bums, and want their kids to make money without breaking a sweat.
I don't think I have ever given money to an able bodied child. I've always believed that when a child begged for money, they ought to be turned down and told to work instead of begging. Even if one kid out of 100 pays heed and actually works to earn his/her money, our society would change for good. The parents of such at the end of the day only care if the money is in and not really worry about how their kid got it. Mind you, by asking kids to work I am in no way endorsing the idea of child-labour.
I was just about to finish this post with a couple of more lines, when I realized that all along I was just talking about the able-bodied. What about those who are genuinely handicapped? What work could a man with no hands possibly get? Begging racket in India is as prevalent and affluent as the drug cartel in South America. Infants and homeless young kids are nabbed or enticed with the lure of food and shelter and their body parts are then mutilated and are forced into begging. What about the torture that they go through? Who will save these unfortunate ones from their misery? Will we ever be able to do that? I believe I've answered some of the questions my friend raised. Who's going to answer the questions that I've raised? Or will some questions forever remain unanswered???
A few months back my cousin and I were waiting at a busy traffic signal waiting for the light to turn green, when an old man walked up to us asking for money. I firmly but politely turned him down, only for him to be called back by cousin, who gave him a Rs. 10 note. Needless to say, I didn't approve of my cousin's deed of charity. I told him that he was encouraging begging, a social evil eating up our society, instead of fighting it, and that one should work to earn a living. My cousin argued that the guy had probably got so used to begging through all his years that he just lacked the motivation to work for food. So does that mean that we do our bit in killing whatever little motivation is left in him by offering him easy money, I quipped. The signal turned green, and our topic of discussion changed as my bike soared through the busy streets of Ameerpet. Come to think of it now, what if that old man didn't receive any alms that day, and he turned to stealing to sustain himself ? And then made a habit of it, because he finds it more convenient and less despicable, if not honourable.
Out on the streets we have the able bodied and the physically impaired beggars. Some of these beggars have families and are forced to beg by their parents who in all likelihood are beggars themselves. The others beg and earn money for their dalaals, who in return for the money earned by these kids, provides them with food and shelter.
Kiran writes "what the parents don’t see are that if the kid goes to school instead of wasting his childhood in begging, he’ll probably get a proper "job" and in the long run make more money". Kids in poor families, are looked upon as a source of income, which explains why most of the maids who have worked/work in our houses have more than 3 kids who do odd jobs to support her (there may be exceptions, but these would be very few in number, so few that one could actually count them on their fingers and toes). These kids are expected are contribute to the expenses of the family, and sending them to school would not only mean that they wouldn't be contributing much financially, but would also be an added expense to their parents.
This pops up another question... Why are some kids forced to beg by their parents instead of being encouraged to work? Well, this happens only in the case of those whose parents are lazy bums, and want their kids to make money without breaking a sweat.
I don't think I have ever given money to an able bodied child. I've always believed that when a child begged for money, they ought to be turned down and told to work instead of begging. Even if one kid out of 100 pays heed and actually works to earn his/her money, our society would change for good. The parents of such at the end of the day only care if the money is in and not really worry about how their kid got it. Mind you, by asking kids to work I am in no way endorsing the idea of child-labour.
I was just about to finish this post with a couple of more lines, when I realized that all along I was just talking about the able-bodied. What about those who are genuinely handicapped? What work could a man with no hands possibly get? Begging racket in India is as prevalent and affluent as the drug cartel in South America. Infants and homeless young kids are nabbed or enticed with the lure of food and shelter and their body parts are then mutilated and are forced into begging. What about the torture that they go through? Who will save these unfortunate ones from their misery? Will we ever be able to do that? I believe I've answered some of the questions my friend raised. Who's going to answer the questions that I've raised? Or will some questions forever remain unanswered???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)