Irony

Subsidized LPG is bad for our economy and has a stigma attached to it - but 'Free WiFi' is ultimate sign of good governance and we all celebrate it - while both are same.

Women keeping 'ghunghat' on the head is a sign of old-school society; but women wearing full body 'burkini' is about letting women make their own decisions - while both are meant for same.

Asking someone's caste is bad and can land you in jail - but when govt asks our castes to let or not let us have jobs and college admission, it is social justice - while both are same.

If you have 70% males in your company, it is a shameful situation and needs more female hiring - but a 70% women in areas like HRD or nursing is never a problem - while both trends are of same nature.

If a mother-in-law hurts her bahu, she will land up in jail; but if daughter-in-law hurts saasu ma, nothing will happen - while both acts are same.

If you earn 3 lakhs annual salary working in a company owner by someone else, you have to pay tax; but if you earn 13 lakhs doing farming on your own land, you don't - while both are money.

If a private company defaults on loan and goes bankrupt, its owner is arrested, his property sold off to pay back; but if a PSU/govt company makes billions of losses, govt just has to pay them to continue - while both events are similar.

So what is wrong in one situation becomes right for another situation; to a large extent just because of the way it is perceived by people in general. After next 50 years, our perception may reverse and hence things may also reverse. But until then, some of us have to suffer while some others will benefit unfairly.

But someone will ask - when was it that life was fair? It is just that the equation has reversed! That is also so simple to answer. You can't punish the ghosts of yesterday by hurting the humans of today. You can't reward the sufferers of 20th century by doling out red carpet for today's undeserving lot. So, in the end nothing can justify what is stupid.

- Rahul Tiwary

Way to Get Around Entry Restrictions

There have been a few places of worship where females are not allowed inside inner sanctum. So court says that this violates equality of genders which has been ensured by our constitution. 

But equality is not violated when there are job openings, college admissions or monetary help only for women, only for men, only for some particular castes, or only for some religions, right? So what is the catch? Have you ever thought about it?

I think the catch is that when govt offers a job to only a woman, it also offers some other job only to a man, and hence it succeeds in balancing (i.e. confusing) the equality clause. So when it offers some jobs only to some particular castes, it also offers some jobs only to general castes, and hence it is seen as doing fair deal. Similarly, it spends some money for building churches, but also spends some money on protecting old temples. Hence all is fair and does not violate equality ensured by constitution!

So what could the conservative and traditional religious organizations had to do to protect their traditions and yet not get beating from the court? Simple – hire me as consultant! Kidding :) I think what they had to do was this - inside the religious complex, they should have made another shrine and put a board saying “Only women allowed” before it, and then they should have put “Only men allowed” over the original shrine – then since something is on offer to both men and women, equality clause would not get violated! Think!

I am sure someone would challenge this scheme saying the ancient shrine was for men and new shrine is for women, which is unfair. So, confuse them further. Take something out of the ancient shrine, e.g. a stone, or a few bricks, and keep it in the new shrine, and say that since all places of worship have been renovated, rebuilt, restructured across their history, there is nothing wrong in creating another shrine in the same complex, and since it also has some portion of the ancient structure, it should also be treated with equal respect.

In this scheme, since there is something for women (new shrine) and something else for men (original shrine), no one will stop you from keeping the ancient traditions alive while still satisfying all the legal hassles :) How do you like it?

- Rahul

Cousin Vs Bhai

In a train journey I came across families of two brothers traveling together. Elder brother and his wife had two beautiful sons and younger brother had one son who was slightly behind in growth. Younger brother was apparently richer in wealth and elder brother was certainly simpler by nature, if I could guess by watching them. Younger brother’s wife was not so kind towards elder brother’s wife, and sent hidden taunts and veiled ridicules. Then at one point elder brother told them that he had booked a car. “Which car?” younger brother was obviously surprised and curious. When he heard, “Maruti Ciaz” which costs around 9 lakhs, he was confused. “Bhaiya log have booked Ciaz”, he informed his wife and then there was a silence…

There is no scene as ugly as two brothers not behaving warmly. But then they were adults! What happened between their children was even more interesting.

Younger (and richer) brother’s son who behaved freaky very often, was being avoided by elder brother’s two sons. So his mother who was street-smart, thought to proactively do something about it. She said to the older kid, “he is also your brother. You should take care of him”.

What the boy replied shocked me. He said, “he is only my cousin” (wo mera cousin hai).

“But cousin also means 'chachera bhai', so you are still brothers!”

The boy now got visibly irritated and said, “When did I say he is not my brother?”, and then he looked away, stopping that line of conversation.

I remembered our childhood. We had so many cousins and we always introduced them as "bhai" to our friends. It was so confusing to kids counting how many brothers one could have, so they used to ask back, "is he your ‘real’ brother?" (‘apna’ bhai?) And then we learnt to say "chachera bhai" or ‘mamera bhai’. But we were still "bhai". We picked up the term "cousin" very late, only when it was impossible to not pick it up...

- Rahul

India at Olympic Games Rio 2016

The way and extent to which media is guiding our perception and feelings surprises me. Let us take this year’s performance in Olympics. I bet you would say that this year has been worst – or at most one of the worst years; since we have won only 2 medals so far. We are reminded that last time in year 2012 India had won 6 medals – and hence we are expected to feel sorry and disappointed this time. What if I told you a fact that except last time in year 2012, India has never won more than 3 medals in our whole history? Then current tally of “2” can be seen as a much better performance. After knowing this, you would feel less sorry, less disappointed, but wait – media does not want you to be so. Media thrives on our outrage!

Now absolute number of medals is not that all matters. Overall Ranking matters more importantly. How about if I told you that in Olympics 2012 when India did an outlier performance by winning 6 medals, it stood at world ranking# 55, "down" 5 points from year 2008 Olympics when it won only 3 medals but still stood at overall rank# 50? Media bubble of "last time we were better" bursts off.

What if I told you that from year 1956 onward in our history – if we ignore outlier year 2012, there has been only one other Olympic Games when India won more than 2 medals? That was year 2008 when we won 3 medals. With 2 medals already won, if we win one more, we shall match second highest total medal count in our history! Not as bad as we felt, right?

Now Economic Times published an article saying “Dear Mr Modi, India can get you 10 medals in 2020 if you spend Rs 480 crore”. But I believe each rupee spent on sports is a rupee snatched from the poor, the hungry, or indebted farmers. We can live without Olympic medals and this sense of urgency with which we are expected to spend Crores on sports is illogical.

This time India spent Rs 122 Crores on training Olympics participants; which is a shame for a nation which is home to world’s largest poor population. Even with revised poverty line, India is home to 172 million people below poverty line (living on less than Rs 123.50 per day). We need schools, toilets, roads, new railway lines, hospitals, police and army, and sorry, these things won't come of we spend Rs 500 Crores in training our 100 sportspersons for next Olympics, or burning Rs 1000 Crores of electricity or lost productivity watching Olympic games on TV. I don’t mind not winning 10 Olympic medals, until Govt continues its rural push and industrial reforms, to pull people out of poverty.

- Rahul

Happy Independence Day India!!!

"I love my country not "because of" any reasons. I simply love my country and that is pretty much all of it!" - Rahul Tiwary

Happy Independence Day!!!

Why Women Hate Men

It is history’s worst kept secret. It is kept secret so sacredly that if it came out, it could destroy the very nature of life that flows on earth. And yet, it is everywhere. You see it daily, you feel it quite often. But you must deny it. You must forget it. You must destroy it.

For some time I have wondered why women hated men for nothing but just because men were men. If you do not believe they hated, you would either never realize it or else it will come to you at some point of your life. The ‘hatred’ is plain irresistible. To the extent that women have often fallen in love with the men they hated. It is captured in history and in the literature of all times. It is just that it is so subtle and the realization so revolutionary that it could mean to destroy all things we believe in and hence it was better to be denied – to be turned blind eyed to.

I think the roots of this hatred go into some very basic stuff. Men are seen as ‘free’ – free of burdens which women necessarily and inescapably have to carry. It is not only the womb, although it pretty much is almost all of it; or enough of it. The child bearing capacity which is often glorified, celebrated and worshipped in all religions and cultures for obvious reasons, at some level of the female psyche turns into a burden. Why should men get away without it? That is the million dollar question. And then it is not only about it. I don’t know if it is only because of female hormones, which has been repeated in such a simplistic manner in modern scientific world, that we come to think of it and hence divert our attention from the female folks, but women feel the kind of vulnerability and insecurity which no men ever feel. Men can never imagine and guess what women feel. And hence they pay the price for not knowing their enemies well…

Women know that they are weak and need to be dependent on men in some way or the other – and they ‘hate’ it at some level of their psyche. Women hate men’s guts and confidence. There is no horrible scene for a woman than to see a confident and happy man. Such a man represents everything that the women not are – and can never be – and hence they must hate it. Put in this way you may think that women may hate the idea of a man than the man himself. I will not object to it but whenever they see a man – the idea manifests into a shape and they must hate that shape – that creature – that monster – that something which they can never be – that man…

History of the mankind is the history full of hatred which could not always get chance to manifest into something concrete. It is really a miracle that for so long you could avoid getting stung by that hatred. Or, did we?

© Rahul.