Letting HUL Own a Bunch of Villages Maybe Just the Solution We Need

One side of the paper carried an article on how over 65 million people lived under conditions where they were forced to survive on less than Rs 365 a month and the other side carried a story on how a global consumer goods giant was eyeing India as its main platform to meet its target of doubling its sales and acquiring a billion new customers worldwide. Certainly there is something wrong with the picture. How can a country with so many millions of people, forced to sell their subsidized food grains just to survive, be a source of customers who are able to pay for “luxury” items such as branded bathing soap and toothpaste? But then that is the grand paradox called India.

If we want we can look at this paradox and shake our head in despair, certain of the failure of both our Government and the ambitious MNCs to change the conditions. Or we could be innovative and see the opportunity. There are a hundred schemes that are currently being run by both state and Central Governments to improve the lot of people who live in these conditions. These schemes provide funds for everything from subsidized grain to affordable Life Insurance for the chief wage earner of the family. The intent is right and the schemes are needed. The failure occurs at the last mile- the level of execution and successful distribution and awareness.

If we recognize this, surely we can bring in experts who can help us solve this very problem- that of distribution and execution. And then we will see that the juxtaposition of the two stories in the newspaper is actually a happy coincidence because it shows us a whole new possibility of Public-Private partnership.

What I am proposing here is that Consumer goods giants such as Coca Cola, HUL, P&G, Godrej and others be give the opportunity to fulfill their ambitions. What if they were allowed to bid for groups of villages and given the responsibility of implementing the schemes that are being run by the Government? These companies certainly have the know how and the distribution reach to ensure that the schemes are implemented correctly. After all distribution and accountability of assets is their life blood. In exchange they could be given tax-credits and also the opportunity (for a limited time) to be the exclusive supplier of goods they would like to sell.

The “rural” and the “bottom of the pyramid” opportunity has been acknowledged by almost all of these companies and they have responded by taking out more affordable an suitable variants of their existing products (e.g. a vitamin boosted tea, shampoos in Re.1 sachets, smaller bottles of beverages). If the Government is able to put together an attractive enough incentive for these companies which is commercially viable, I am certain that we can make a sea change in the lot of rural India, implementation of aid schemes and see whole new era of public-private partnerships.

From Father With Love

The phrase has a whole new meaning in light of the controversy that is currently surrounding the holiest of the holy- the Papacy. The Vatican has responded with sufficient anger at the media reports that Pope Benedict helped cover up cases of paedophilia while heading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And come to think of it- what else can they do at this point. This is not the first time such accusations have been made and most end up with nothing more than an apology.


But isn't it time that someone in the Church starting treating the disease rather than the symptom? Sexual abuse is only one part of the various unseemly aspects of the Catholic Church that one hears of. There is the case of the Magadelene laundries from Ireland and also the stories of thousands of children forced into convents by Sisters who felt they were at danger of moral corruption because they did not have stable family lives.



Every religion has its moral codes and so does the Catholic Church. Trying to question them all would be fruitless exercises. But when some practices have worldwide and serious consequences, that religion should be open enough to re-examine those doctrines. Accusations of abuse in the Catholic Church have only escalated over the years and the storm shows no signs of blowing over. Maybe it is time for people and for Governments to sit up and take notice. After all if France and Quebec can take the bold step of banning Burqas in public because they undermine the dignity of women in a free-thinking society, isn't the cause of millions of abused children worth it?

Equality Matrimonials- are you serious?!

As a married woman you may question my intention behind the close scrutiny I gave the matrimonial column in the Sunday edition of a leading English Daily. But when something has the intriguing title of “Equality Matrimonial” it is bound to attract attention. You immediately wonder if there are also some inequality matrimonials lurking around that you don’t know of!

So my curiosity got the better of me and I decided to give this new age matrimonial a read. It turned out that the newspaper felt that there is a population out there which feels that a “traditional” matrimonial doesn’t really spell out all the complex needs and expectations they have of a marriage and need a new specialized matrimonial version that lets them spell out in detail what they are looking for in a prospective life partner.

What I read both surprised and disappointed me. The two large “letters” written by “liberalized” women sounded like a badly written pre-nuptial agreement that ensures minimal emotional ties are formed and what they get in the name of marriage is an alliance of convenience. Agreeing to a marriage like the one these women seem to desire would entail keeping separate finances, parental responsibilities and even houses. Neither partner is under any “traditional” pressure to do anything more than they absolutely have to, will put their own careers first and acknowledge the presence of in-laws only if allowed complete freedom in every aspect of thier married lives.

Now I can see how a relationship like that may hold merit for someone – especially some women who have worked very hard to build their identities and have tasted the bitter impositions of traditional set-ups where they are instinctively expected to sacrifice everything for home and hearth. They are simply protecting what is theirs and which men so easily take for granted. So my grouse is not with the relationship nature. All I question here is why call it a marriage in the first place. If you have the guts to demand absolute “freedom” why not break free from the shackles of a traditional relationship type called marriage? Why not simply agree to be monogamous with a man till it works out for both sides, and give him a special place in your life and proudly show that some religious ceremony, a certificate is not needed to seal your “relationship”?

Maybe it is because even though these people (and I refer here to both men and women who have advertised in this section) have not been able to take the final step to breaking away from all conventional notions of what a lasting bond between a committed man and woman should be. They still want to be “married” though the alliance is nothing like what we know as marriage. They want that social sanction and protection of the law that is given to “married” couples and at the same time want the freedom of the single male or female.

At one level it may just be the perfect solution for the new generation (and I use the phrase at the risk f sounding far older than I am because I think the situation is grave enough to merit the risk) but at another, it is a death knell of a beautiful and much maligned social system.

A marriage is not any more unequal than any other relationship. Whether it is that of a parent-child, employer-employee, each relationship often requires one to give more at one time than the other. To assume that a traditional marriage will always mean that the woman giveth and the man avariciously taketh, is wrong. I know plenty of committed couples where the man has willingly taken on domestic responsibilities, shared the burden of his in-laws, because the woman has made him realize the importance and the benefit of it. To be a strong man or a woman who should be part of an equal relationship does not mean keeping everything separate. It means having the self-belief and the skill to form a loving relationship where respect and freedom is earned by both and freely given by both. It needs no pre-nup type agreement from an “equality matrimonial”. It needs the simple understanding of two human beings who know together is better than separate and are willing to work at it even if it sometime means sharing.

Three Girls and a Rahul- I will be watching, will you?

Let me begin by confessing that I am going to watch the Grand Finale of the circus called "Rahul Dulhaniya le Jayega- Swayamvar Season II" (Rahul will take the bride- Season II of choosing your spouse). I am going to watch it for many reasons- I want to know who Rahul will finally select and who he will reject and whether he will actually wed the girl LIVE! Last season Rakhi Sawant did not and that has simply created more curiosity.

But the fact that I am going to watch this show does not mean that it has not provoked me (and my guess is many others along with me) to think what this phenomenon is really about. Clearly inspired by the American shows Bachelor/Bachelorette, the show - Swaymavar- lays to public view the most private and intimate of human pursuits- search for a life partner. You have well educated, smart young men and women willingly risking public humiliation of rejection in the hope of marrying a person they barely know. They woo the "eligible" person, get filmed in intimate moments, knowing that only one of them will make it to the final and the rest will have to live with the tag of being the "reject" for the rest of their lives. So why do these people do it and equally importantly why do we watch them make fools of themselves in a show which we all know is a charade?

The men and women certainly do not do it for the bachelor or the bachelorette up for grabs. Take this season's groom- Rahul Mahajan. Very ordinary looking, and his only claim to fame being that he is the son of a slain politician and someone who has courted controversy after controversy while his father was alive and after and came close to death once in one such escapade. Throughout the show I saw nothing that revealed exceptional intelligence or character. He was clearly guided by the producers to give canned answers and responses at each juncture and in a "grilling" session where he was supposed to talk of his shady past, he simply glossed over the issues ending with a heart wrenching story about his father's funeral. So it is not the lure of a "catch" that is attracting these women.

The answers are perhaps far simpler than we think. Speaking for myself I watch the show because of its slick production value and because as always we love to watch others get embarrassed ( yes that is the reason we like watching people get knocked about in slapstick comedies). Mean spirited as it may sound, we watch to see who will get eliminated and humiliated and not so much to see who will win. And as for why the participants put themselves through this humiliation- can it be anything other than a hunger for their fifteen minutes of fame? All of them are young, good looking and obviously ambitious. This is their quick ticket to public exposure, which they can later parley into some gains depending on how savvy they are.

So at this intersection of unembarrassed public curiosity and unbridled human ambition the media has found a winning formula for a television show even though it flaunts all emotional logic and in the case of the Indian show even makes a mockery of the various wedding ceremonies by having the rituals performed for multiple brides and grooms at the same time. It certainly helps the production house's case that our Indian weddings so willingly lend themselves to glamour, pomp and show and it has to be said NDTV has done a darned good job of milking it all. So best of luck to them and more mindless TV watching to the likes of me. After all they make the show because we watch it!

BJP is Cashing in on the Scared Sentiments of a Nation Facing Difficult Times

Reading this piece of news today made me realize just how political parties use rhetoric and populist statements to win popularity when the common man is down and out in the face of everyday problems.

BJP’s newest President Gadkari (their answer to Congress’ Rahul Gandhi if I may say so) is criticizing the UPA government on two fronts that are sore points with the public right now. Terrorism and inflation. His rhetoric offers no solutions and focuses instead on blame and a suggestion to do nothing. In essence he is giving the people a dummy to burn and someone on who to thrust the blame.

I am no expert in International relations but what common sense tells me is that at times of conflict it is most important to keep the lines of communication open. If the Indian PM has decided that the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan should re-open the lines of communication, it should not be taken as a sign of weakness on the part of our country. After all it is only the strong who can afford to be generous. Also we must realize that when an attack and its evidence are fresh, discussing it is more likely to have a result.

Regarding inflation- there are multiple reasons why prices are rising. Not the least of which is the relaxed credit environment to help the economy deal with the global economic crisis. BJP might say that the “aam admi” is not the beneficiary of these measures since he is not really running factories or looking for huge loans. But it’s the industry that is creating wealth in the nation that is trickling down to the same aam aadmi. So the interest of the industry needs to be protected.

No political party should usurp the debate on what is wrong with the state of the nation for the sake of their own political gains. Over-simplifying larger issues creates a biased public opinion, which, in a democracy and multi-party governments can stymie genuine measures to correct those same ills.

Does our childhood ever really leave us?

Like most people I have my small collection of devotional music. An eclectic mix of bhajans, chants and even a CD that my husband’s friend recorded for us of a Colorado based American singing the Hanuman Chalisa. But each morning as I look for what to put on and get my dose of bhajans, my hands will instinctively go for the CD that has bhajans I grew up listening to. It is a collection called ”Premanjali Pushpanjali”.

If it is playing in the background and I close my eyes, I am instantly transferred back to my parents’ bedroom in the small town in Punjab where I grew up. The Digital sounds of the CD change to the small sound that my mother’s prized Sanyo two-in-one used to play. I can hear her pottering around her room on a Sunday morning cleaning up and the soulful strains of the singer floating in the air.

The same is true of food. Carrot halwa is a favorite of North Indians in the winter months when the delicious red carrots are in season. Many people cook this universal favorite to almost a crisp consistency till the carrots are a deep brownish-red. My grandmother’s version was a more milky concoction where the carrots were soft and you could taste the thickened milk as the flavour burst in your mouth. She embellished it with a few almonds. That was it. Simple and clean. And surprise surprise, till date I will pick my granny’s version over any other. If someone serves the dish with cashews, raisins etc. I will unknowingly pick out all other embellishments save the almonds and enjoy the dish only if it is milky.

All this makes me wonder- if the hold of our childhood is so strong in simple choices like bhajans and dessert, surely it must have a serious and lasting impact on more significant things like value systems, morality and the way we handle our relationships. I know a lot has been written about this subject and the link is well known. But when I you think about it this way, you realize that the hold goes down to such a deep level that many of us are not even aware of it. Many a times we may be making choices and not even realizing it because we are unable to avoid that course of action. And it also means that if needed, weeding out the influence of childhood is a very tough thing to do. You can change what you are aware of. How do you begin to correct something you don’t even realize is wrong?

So as parents it only increases our responsibility that we are wise with our child’s childhood. Not to be paranoid, but parenting can not be an unplanned activity because when we choose to give that apple to them instead of a bag of chips or are rude to someone in public, we are pretty much ensuring this what they will do when we are not around

Should you lend money to someone who cannot pay Rs.1500?

Strange as it may sound to the average Indian, but now you can actually buy a pair of jeans on installments- and yes they will even give you the whole garment at the time of the purchase (ha ha) !

Read an article this morning that talks of a partnership between Levi Strauss and a leading bank in India offering a plan whereby you can buy jeans over Rs.1500 and pay only one third upfront and the rest in equal monthly installments. My first reaction was “These Americans- here they come barging into our economy and infecting it with their ideas!” I was irked, but not sure why I was irked. After all if some young bloke out there can now dress well, improve his self-esteem and eventually become a better person for it then why not?

But after thinking through this I realize what bothers me about this. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money per se (because that is what this scheme really is (they are lending you the money you don’t have and will take it from you later). But when it is for non-essential purchases it straddles the dangerous line between consumption to up your standard of living and pure indulgence. Once acquired, the habit of spending before you earn, is a hard one to break.

Having lived in the US for sometime I have seen such schemes. People will pay deceptively small sums of money to stores to “hold” garments for them till such a time as they can buy the garment. Many will never purchase the garment and simply have sunk money to feel like something is within their reach and those who will eventually buy will land up paying much more than they should have and then too when they obviously have a shortage of money.

Ironically, the smaller the ticket price of the item being purchased on an EMI basis the more the danger of the default and of it being a bad financial choice for the individual. After all if you can not afford to shell out Rs.1500 at one time how sound is your cash flow situation? And also the seller is not likely to do a real credit check on you for such a small amount. A car or a home loan is another matter altogether.

So my grouse with EMIs for a pair of Rs.1500 jeans is that it is obviously a scheme to cash in on the desires of the young and the restless who are not yet mature enough to fully plan their finances and are at a risk of becoming a new population of defaulters.