My second post in as many days and that’s something that doesn’t happen too often. And on a similar sounding topic. But no.
Last night on the way to Jazz, D, driving, asks me, why don’t I buy a house. She recommended a certain “almost south” Bombay property with a going rate of INR21,000 per sq. ft. (approximately USD500). That would typically translate into a cost of about INR 25 million for a decent house. Wow!!!
Now, its not as if I am a novice in these matters. For the last three or four years, with little money in my pocket, and thus an axe to grind, I have been prophesying a crash in property prices in Bombay and other such cities. But now it is unlikely to happen very soon. It is a classic case of markets remaining irrational longer than anyone can remain solvent.
But as a financial markets professional, I am expected to have a certain understanding of basic economics and I would be foolish to ignore the arguments that can be sought in the same to explain the current bubble phenomenon.
(The views that follow are personal)
I know at least 200 people who can afford a house that expensive. Mind you, afford, not simply write out a cheque. The difference between buying a house and buying any other item is that most people often leverage themselves quite easily. Take my example. I have been considering a new car for the last few weeks. However, even though the current choice is considered an expensive car, I am slightly averse to taking a loan to buy it. Thankfully being under-invested I can probably write that damn cheque and drive the baby home after the rains are over. However, if I wasn’t, I would probably have had considered something a little less expensive.
I am not saying people don’t take loans to buy a car, or a computer, it is just that in each of these cases there is an option of scaling down ones expectations, or desires and buying something out of savings. Not so with property anymore.
The problem with property is that one almost always will have to leverage. There are exceptions, but they are about 15 in my set of 200. So when I am borrowing I might as well buy quality, as long as I can foot the EMI. The other problem is that most people I know have little idea on what to do with their money. As the economy grows and we get the best bargain deal on our compensation, the resultant lifestyle leaves little time to consciously deploy that money. So after having burnt fingers with some investments, and dealing with spiraling rental yields, you look to land. So the demand for housing remains undiminished.
The next issue is that of wage inflation vis-à-vis the more commonly discussed consumer/ wholesale price inflation (CPI/ WPI). In India, we are currently seeing an explosion in wage inflation- this in the context of the fact that owing to structural and political policy CPI and WPI are targeted by central banks and kept low. Consider this, while WPI hovers around 4.50 to 6 percent, y-o-y, what are the chances you would settle for that kind of a hike the next time your boss calls you in for a compensation review? Highly unlikely. Such a vast disparity in these two measures leads to what is commonly called flight to quality. At a certain level, we realize that our earnings are growing much faster than our expenses, and hence we need to either escalate the quality of our spending (which is equivalent to moving to a higher consumption curve) or invest. This is a somewhat modified adaptation of the IS-LM model of macroeconomics.
Under a flight to quality scenario, quality housing, say in Cuffe Parade (or downtown Shanghai) is likely to remain expensive even as those in Dahisar are affected by factors such as rising cost of leverage. The cost of leverage is however the same irrespective of where you buy the asset, since the bank is not going to charge a higher rate of interest for property in the former. Quite the other way around, actually as the former is a better security. Moreover, since the people who buy property in search of quality, have a seriously steep forward income curve (i.e. their expectation of what they will earn 5 years from now), they become insensitive to small increases in interest rates (cost of leverage), since if you believe you will earn twice of what you earn today three years from now, you are unlikely to believe that you will run a 20 year mortgage for its entire duration.
Wage inflation is very grainy, different for every layer of society, different for every industry, and so on. Ideally under the wage Price/wage spiral concept of economics, this would lead to demand side inflation, and also pass through of labour cost into finished goods prices and the situation and could be explained very easily, and possible remedied with traditional macroeconomic policy measures. However, the situation in present day India is a little different. The highest wage inflation is in the services sector. The biggest consumer of the services sector is not in India, but overseas. Hence the burden of higher wages is passed on to clients in the US, or say Europe without any follow through effects on local prices.
The situation may reverse under the following circumstances though. First, wage inflation in the services sector becomes so high that India ceases to be a destination for outsourcing. It does not even have to get there. There might emerge a stronger, cheaper exporter of such services. Under these circumstances, wage inflation in those sectors will dip sharply, or even turn negative. Second, taking cognizance of this overheating, the central bank decides to mop up all available liquidity in the financial system. It has happened once before in the 1990s. Under that situation, money will not only be expensive (i.e. high rates of interest), it will be scarce, i.e. people will either run their loans to maturity, or at least be sensitive to its cost, or finally the demand for assets will plummet. Under either circumstances, interest rates in India will head very, very high. So whoever has been talking of overheating of India’s economy, ain’t seen nothing yet.
However, since either of the above two scenarios are unlikely in the very recent future, it is advisable to look up the property section in today’s (Sunday) papers and consider buying that house.
If I sound doomsday-ish and depressive, I shall leave you with this thought carried in the Times today (was read to me). With H.E. Pratibha Patil emerging as the strongest candidate for that big house on Raisina Hill, the term “R...pati” has come under threat. May be we should replace it with “R…patni”. But since that is likely to be a longer debate, let us settle for “R…Aunty” in the interim.
Showing posts with label IMHO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IMHO. Show all posts
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Buy That House … Now!
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Never Been Spanked
I am scared. Really. And this is what I am scared of.
I read this post on the ibnlive website under a section called blogs. Now, I quite like the channel. It is a refreshing and practical change from the self-righteous, “cricket means sports and vice versa”, “entertainment is partying” NDTV.
The writer, who it seems is a reporter with the channel, says that he is scared of the Mayawatis and the Laloos. And is petrified that he runs the risk of living in a country which is run by one of them. Now I do not know this gentleman’s background or area of expertise but I would’ve expected better.
I considered for a while whether I should post a comment on his blog, and realized that he didn’t deserve it. But then one can’t ignore mainstream media. One may not like it, may crib, but can definitely not ignore it.
To be fair to the guy he admits that he is not vote bank, not even close. But then he goes on to say some things are so divergent that I just cannot help pondering. Consider this:
“Why does a Raja Bhaiya, renowned for throwing bodies of his opponents in a croc-infested pond, so violent and corrupt that he is called Kunda Ka Goonda, win elections? Why does Amar Mani Tripathi, accused of murder, get votes? Because their electorate vote for one of their own.”
But in the same post he goes on to say
“Actually, you know, if you ask many like me, we are happy to be with the Gandhis and their Family-Is-All-ness than the Mayawatis and the Mulayams of the world. The Gandhis speak our langauge, they, we hope have our concerns, and they, we hope express it, in our words."
I read this post on the ibnlive website under a section called blogs. Now, I quite like the channel. It is a refreshing and practical change from the self-righteous, “cricket means sports and vice versa”, “entertainment is partying” NDTV.
The writer, who it seems is a reporter with the channel, says that he is scared of the Mayawatis and the Laloos. And is petrified that he runs the risk of living in a country which is run by one of them. Now I do not know this gentleman’s background or area of expertise but I would’ve expected better.
I considered for a while whether I should post a comment on his blog, and realized that he didn’t deserve it. But then one can’t ignore mainstream media. One may not like it, may crib, but can definitely not ignore it.
To be fair to the guy he admits that he is not vote bank, not even close. But then he goes on to say some things are so divergent that I just cannot help pondering. Consider this:
“Why does a Raja Bhaiya, renowned for throwing bodies of his opponents in a croc-infested pond, so violent and corrupt that he is called Kunda Ka Goonda, win elections? Why does Amar Mani Tripathi, accused of murder, get votes? Because their electorate vote for one of their own.”
But in the same post he goes on to say
“Actually, you know, if you ask many like me, we are happy to be with the Gandhis and their Family-Is-All-ness than the Mayawatis and the Mulayams of the world. The Gandhis speak our langauge, they, we hope have our concerns, and they, we hope express it, in our words."
And I wonder, if so then how different is he from the people who vote for a Raja Bhaiya, because he is one of their own?
And consider this:
“But if you go by pure instinct, Rahul and Priyanka, and Sheila Dikshit, and Salman Khurshid and Mani Shankar A. beat the Amar Singhs of the world anyday.”
Whose “pure instinct” may I ask? And on what basis are the names of the Gandhi siblings put alongside that of Sheila Dikshit? Oh, I forgot… instinct!!!
Now I am not really worried about the Mayawatis of the world becoming CM PM or whatever. Her previous stints have been riddled with controversy and dubious deals. But I do believe that sooner or later most leaders of mass following, elected through a democratic process do promote a development agenda. It took 20 years in West Bengal, and I am sure it will come around in UP and Bihar at some point of time. Someone will cut through the red tape. Somebody will ensure that these states pull their own weight, and that their people are empowered to dream and achieve those dreams. It will not come out of some vague philanthropic urge, but as a calculated outcome of ambition. Mayawati presumably wants higher things- and to have any hope of getting there she'll have to prove herself and her state. This time around she has no excuse. I read that Nitish Kumar is already doing some good stuff in Bihar, and so is the media’s favourite Laloo with the railways.
But every system has its rotten apples. I mean the US has George Bush but there is no place for such a concept in the media. Since polity is a numbers game, it is important that mainstream media is aware, enlightened and eloquent to capture and propagate the message. That issues are identified, escalated and brought to focus. People in mainstream media have an extra-ordinary responsibility, which is why we have seen the emergence of some really phenomenal observers in the past. I mean I have respect for Rajdeep Sardesai, for Pronoy Roy, and Cho Ramaswamy… and so on, but this article (and its author) disturbs me.
I am scared that the current crop probably doesn’t have it in them, and holds India and its polity in such poor esteem. There is nothing worse than an opinionated media.
But the bit in the post, which takes the cake, is this, and which made me write my first meaningful (only to me) post in months is this:
“I am aware that were a Lalu or a Mayawati were ever to become PM, I would have to choose to leave the country.”
And consider this:
“But if you go by pure instinct, Rahul and Priyanka, and Sheila Dikshit, and Salman Khurshid and Mani Shankar A. beat the Amar Singhs of the world anyday.”
Whose “pure instinct” may I ask? And on what basis are the names of the Gandhi siblings put alongside that of Sheila Dikshit? Oh, I forgot… instinct!!!
Now I am not really worried about the Mayawatis of the world becoming CM PM or whatever. Her previous stints have been riddled with controversy and dubious deals. But I do believe that sooner or later most leaders of mass following, elected through a democratic process do promote a development agenda. It took 20 years in West Bengal, and I am sure it will come around in UP and Bihar at some point of time. Someone will cut through the red tape. Somebody will ensure that these states pull their own weight, and that their people are empowered to dream and achieve those dreams. It will not come out of some vague philanthropic urge, but as a calculated outcome of ambition. Mayawati presumably wants higher things- and to have any hope of getting there she'll have to prove herself and her state. This time around she has no excuse. I read that Nitish Kumar is already doing some good stuff in Bihar, and so is the media’s favourite Laloo with the railways.
But every system has its rotten apples. I mean the US has George Bush but there is no place for such a concept in the media. Since polity is a numbers game, it is important that mainstream media is aware, enlightened and eloquent to capture and propagate the message. That issues are identified, escalated and brought to focus. People in mainstream media have an extra-ordinary responsibility, which is why we have seen the emergence of some really phenomenal observers in the past. I mean I have respect for Rajdeep Sardesai, for Pronoy Roy, and Cho Ramaswamy… and so on, but this article (and its author) disturbs me.
I am scared that the current crop probably doesn’t have it in them, and holds India and its polity in such poor esteem. There is nothing worse than an opinionated media.
But the bit in the post, which takes the cake, is this, and which made me write my first meaningful (only to me) post in months is this:
“I am aware that were a Lalu or a Mayawati were ever to become PM, I would have to choose to leave the country.”
And the closing line is a killer (I can almost see the guy beaming as he would have penned it)
“And that, as sophistication deserts our politics, means perhaps one day I will have to leave.”
It is not the business of politicians to be sophisticated. As long as they do their job, I do not think its anybody’s business. If Mr. Reporter feels that something like this would force him to leave the country I ask: Leave the country? Why the fuck? How much worse can they be from an emergency imposing Mrs. Gandhi?
But a statement like that also makes me wonder what is a nation? What makes our country worth living in? Is Manmohan Singh the reason why you choose to live here. No. We live here because we like it here. Because we have certain advantages of domicile which would disappear the minute we went abroad. Because moving abroad means starting from scratch. And most importantly because in our individual scheme of opportunities, we are best off where we are or decide to be.
A nation is not about who rules it. It is about the people who make it, the people who we meet everyday, our family, our friends. The people we work with. The opportunities it provides us- and no one can say that there is any dearth of opportunity in our land today.
Aristotle said, the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. I am conscious of a great divide in our country. I realize that one cannot begin judging people, because everyone has a different story to tell. The trick is to recognize, or ignore, but not to even out the differences. Its impossible. There is not one, not two, but many, many Indias. To pull together, someone has to override these divide and make it work. Which is exactly what Mayawati has done very successfully this time around. I am all for individualism, and defiantly against uniformity. According to me the worst form of democracy is a dumbed down one.
Lastly, I think, to get along in life, you need to believe in something. Believe. You can choose to believe in yourself, and then it doesn’t matter where you are, because you are going to strike that balance anyway. Or you can choose to believe in the System. I choose to believe in myself. I believe that I will make things work for me. And then the System doesn’t upset me. However, believing in the System is just as good. It simplifies things. You just have to choose the system that’s right for you. If you believe in nothing- you’re screwed.
In the meantime, I shall go back to my weekend, with a little suggestion for our “Journo-Blogger”. After this UP election, I think Mayawati (or her type) becoming a PM in the future is a distinct possibility. It is advisable that you pack your bags and scoot and leave us to deal with the mess. Goodnight and good luck!
It is not the business of politicians to be sophisticated. As long as they do their job, I do not think its anybody’s business. If Mr. Reporter feels that something like this would force him to leave the country I ask: Leave the country? Why the fuck? How much worse can they be from an emergency imposing Mrs. Gandhi?
But a statement like that also makes me wonder what is a nation? What makes our country worth living in? Is Manmohan Singh the reason why you choose to live here. No. We live here because we like it here. Because we have certain advantages of domicile which would disappear the minute we went abroad. Because moving abroad means starting from scratch. And most importantly because in our individual scheme of opportunities, we are best off where we are or decide to be.
A nation is not about who rules it. It is about the people who make it, the people who we meet everyday, our family, our friends. The people we work with. The opportunities it provides us- and no one can say that there is any dearth of opportunity in our land today.
Aristotle said, the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. I am conscious of a great divide in our country. I realize that one cannot begin judging people, because everyone has a different story to tell. The trick is to recognize, or ignore, but not to even out the differences. Its impossible. There is not one, not two, but many, many Indias. To pull together, someone has to override these divide and make it work. Which is exactly what Mayawati has done very successfully this time around. I am all for individualism, and defiantly against uniformity. According to me the worst form of democracy is a dumbed down one.
Lastly, I think, to get along in life, you need to believe in something. Believe. You can choose to believe in yourself, and then it doesn’t matter where you are, because you are going to strike that balance anyway. Or you can choose to believe in the System. I choose to believe in myself. I believe that I will make things work for me. And then the System doesn’t upset me. However, believing in the System is just as good. It simplifies things. You just have to choose the system that’s right for you. If you believe in nothing- you’re screwed.
In the meantime, I shall go back to my weekend, with a little suggestion for our “Journo-Blogger”. After this UP election, I think Mayawati (or her type) becoming a PM in the future is a distinct possibility. It is advisable that you pack your bags and scoot and leave us to deal with the mess. Goodnight and good luck!
Monday, March 26, 2007
Retort...
Posts like this amuse me a lot. (Sorry my friend, but yours was the only URL I had at hand).
Although my interest in cricket perks up only once every four years, I do appreciate any game in between which is well contested. And think its only natural. But every time an Indian writes something that begins by saying “Apparently there's a World Cup on.” (I actually read that somewhere) I am sure there is a lot of bull-shitting and “I am so cool!” to follow (Oh I don’t watch cricket- don’t even know what you’re talking about- so what if I left the shores of India all of 2 years back). Even though we live on HK Island or PA, some part of our social circle is still Indian where discussions on cricket are inevitable.
Anyway, that’s not what this post is about. In my opinion, our cricketers are getting what they deserve- perhaps a little less. Though I would not go out in the streets and participate in what is being done, but I don’t throw my hands up in the air in exasperation saying what a nation of fanatics we are. And to a very great extent also because I had no role to play in making heroes (or millionaires) out of these blokes.
My moot issue is this: when a Sachin Tendulkar or a Dhoni gets awarded a huge ad contract- they bloody well know that it is for the adulation they have received from their fans and not just because they play a good game of cricket. In most of these cases, the numbers being thrown about are bigger than most of us (the players included) can imagine, much less justify. But they don’t stand up and say, well I don’t think I could justifiably be awarded a contract of that size- so please bring the amount down a bit. They love the money, the tax waivers on luxury cars, that come with the irrationality, but not the brickbats. (Oh Baby, you really thought that those Burberrys and the BCBGs cost only money? Or for that matter that LV little nothing that you bought for your Bollywood starlet girl? Sweetie, nothing in this world comes for free... not even in India.)These cricketers command prices and I am sure their “Jerry McGuires” are tough negotiators. And when things go wrong, you see paper tigers appear all over the place, condemning the demolitions, the face blackening, the rides on the donkey, the fake corpses etc. And you see Dravid whine on TV- “I hope no one will be in physical danger.”
Yes, I am against physical attacks- and I sincerely hope that things do not boil down to that. But what’s wrong with a little good ole heckling every once in a while? What’s wrong if a thousand people turn up at the airport to shout slogans? They are wasting their own time, their own energy. I am cool, as long as they do not bring along a few Molotov cocktails to lob. Anyway, there is no such thing as enough humiliation for our cricketers.
Anyway, after watching the Australians batting the very next day, or for that matter the initial part of SA innings, I am convinced how ill-informed and illogical the average Indian cricket lover is- what fantastic teams they are!!!
How will it help? It won’t. Its not supposed to. How have the sponsorships helped? Has anyone become a better cricketer by appearing in more ads? Nothing ever can help cricket in India- why? Because you can’t run "everything" with a sole personal profit motive which is what the players and the BCCI are hell bent upon doing. Don’t get me wrong- I am not against people making hay while the sun shines, not against channeling the fanaticism of the masses towards hefty bank balances- isn’t that what “the free market” is all about? But I am very, very against people who whine and moan when it works against them. It reminds me of that quote which goes something like it is better to have an intelligent enemy than have a dumb friend.
Although my interest in cricket perks up only once every four years, I do appreciate any game in between which is well contested. And think its only natural. But every time an Indian writes something that begins by saying “Apparently there's a World Cup on.” (I actually read that somewhere) I am sure there is a lot of bull-shitting and “I am so cool!” to follow (Oh I don’t watch cricket- don’t even know what you’re talking about- so what if I left the shores of India all of 2 years back). Even though we live on HK Island or PA, some part of our social circle is still Indian where discussions on cricket are inevitable.
Anyway, that’s not what this post is about. In my opinion, our cricketers are getting what they deserve- perhaps a little less. Though I would not go out in the streets and participate in what is being done, but I don’t throw my hands up in the air in exasperation saying what a nation of fanatics we are. And to a very great extent also because I had no role to play in making heroes (or millionaires) out of these blokes.
My moot issue is this: when a Sachin Tendulkar or a Dhoni gets awarded a huge ad contract- they bloody well know that it is for the adulation they have received from their fans and not just because they play a good game of cricket. In most of these cases, the numbers being thrown about are bigger than most of us (the players included) can imagine, much less justify. But they don’t stand up and say, well I don’t think I could justifiably be awarded a contract of that size- so please bring the amount down a bit. They love the money, the tax waivers on luxury cars, that come with the irrationality, but not the brickbats. (Oh Baby, you really thought that those Burberrys and the BCBGs cost only money? Or for that matter that LV little nothing that you bought for your Bollywood starlet girl? Sweetie, nothing in this world comes for free... not even in India.)These cricketers command prices and I am sure their “Jerry McGuires” are tough negotiators. And when things go wrong, you see paper tigers appear all over the place, condemning the demolitions, the face blackening, the rides on the donkey, the fake corpses etc. And you see Dravid whine on TV- “I hope no one will be in physical danger.”
Yes, I am against physical attacks- and I sincerely hope that things do not boil down to that. But what’s wrong with a little good ole heckling every once in a while? What’s wrong if a thousand people turn up at the airport to shout slogans? They are wasting their own time, their own energy. I am cool, as long as they do not bring along a few Molotov cocktails to lob. Anyway, there is no such thing as enough humiliation for our cricketers.
Anyway, after watching the Australians batting the very next day, or for that matter the initial part of SA innings, I am convinced how ill-informed and illogical the average Indian cricket lover is- what fantastic teams they are!!!
How will it help? It won’t. Its not supposed to. How have the sponsorships helped? Has anyone become a better cricketer by appearing in more ads? Nothing ever can help cricket in India- why? Because you can’t run "everything" with a sole personal profit motive which is what the players and the BCCI are hell bent upon doing. Don’t get me wrong- I am not against people making hay while the sun shines, not against channeling the fanaticism of the masses towards hefty bank balances- isn’t that what “the free market” is all about? But I am very, very against people who whine and moan when it works against them. It reminds me of that quote which goes something like it is better to have an intelligent enemy than have a dumb friend.
Some day hopefully cricket will slip from this pedestal and be replaced by, say, Sudoku. Till then... Enjoy!!!
Monday, March 12, 2007
Biases in Popular Cinema
I saw Mel Gibson’s directorial venture Apocalypto recently. In my opinion it is the single most irresponsible piece of movie making that I have seen in a long, long time. Long, long time.
The film is set in the sunset days of the Mayan civilization when it was ridden by disease, crop failures and superstition- and the solution to the problems were seen in building temples and offering human sacrifice. The locations are lovely, and many would argue (and rightly so) that it lends deep insights into the demise of a civilization that has long gone by. I would be lying if I said that there are no lessons to be learnt from that episode.
My dissonance with the movie is at a different level. There are some things, which I feel should never reach Hollywood. Some chapters of history should remain confined historians and academics, and should appear in moderated précis form in high school textbooks for consumption of the public at large. Nevertheless, if one does have the burning desire to tell a story such as this, then please don’t be selective about your representation.
The problem with disseminating selective aspects of a civilization, the descendents of which roam the streets of our global village today is that it only aids to form prejudices in an increasingly polarized world. What one read in history texts- primarily a more balanced view of an ancient civilization is easily overwritten by the images of gore that are seen on celluloid. Representation of history through mass media should always holistic- otherwise it is not fair.
The Mayan civilization has many credits to its name.[1] For instance their art, architecture, urban design and town planning was at par with many contemporary civilizations of the world. Further, they were a largely literate people and their script was the only syllabic one in the Pre-Columbian New World. Their measure of the solar year was much more accurate than the Gregorian calendar that we use today. They are the only pre-telescope civilization to demonstrate the knowledge of constellations being fuzzy and not a stellar pin-point. And so on…
Let us say a hundred years from now, when the geopolitical landscape of the world is very different from they way we see it today, a certain Gel Mibson the XXV were to make a movie on the US of A, and focuses only on the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Do you think it will be fair? Is it fair to remember the United States only for the wars it waged and the atom bombs it dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For the leadership of George Bush Jr. Think about it.
From a film-maker’s perspective I can understand why one needs to make such a movie. Tragedy confirms success whereas, glorification of a civilization reduces it to mere work of history. Nothing sells like gore and tears.
I think such a film, unless it presents a holistic picture, and thereby keeping the downfall as an important but not overwhelming part of the offering is pointless in current day and age. It raises more walls than it breaks down, asks more questions than it answers. This form of responsibility is even more important when dealing with issues which are otherwise not as well-known. For instance no one complains when an Earth is made, or for that matter Tamas.
Established makers of popular cinema should realize that the impact of their one successful production on shaping public opinion runs very, very deep, and hence their responsibility to the society is much beyond what most historians can hope to achieve in an entire life time. Therefore being selective in their representation, being short-sighted manifests misunderstandings which can never ever be washed away.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
The film is set in the sunset days of the Mayan civilization when it was ridden by disease, crop failures and superstition- and the solution to the problems were seen in building temples and offering human sacrifice. The locations are lovely, and many would argue (and rightly so) that it lends deep insights into the demise of a civilization that has long gone by. I would be lying if I said that there are no lessons to be learnt from that episode.
My dissonance with the movie is at a different level. There are some things, which I feel should never reach Hollywood. Some chapters of history should remain confined historians and academics, and should appear in moderated précis form in high school textbooks for consumption of the public at large. Nevertheless, if one does have the burning desire to tell a story such as this, then please don’t be selective about your representation.
The problem with disseminating selective aspects of a civilization, the descendents of which roam the streets of our global village today is that it only aids to form prejudices in an increasingly polarized world. What one read in history texts- primarily a more balanced view of an ancient civilization is easily overwritten by the images of gore that are seen on celluloid. Representation of history through mass media should always holistic- otherwise it is not fair.
The Mayan civilization has many credits to its name.[1] For instance their art, architecture, urban design and town planning was at par with many contemporary civilizations of the world. Further, they were a largely literate people and their script was the only syllabic one in the Pre-Columbian New World. Their measure of the solar year was much more accurate than the Gregorian calendar that we use today. They are the only pre-telescope civilization to demonstrate the knowledge of constellations being fuzzy and not a stellar pin-point. And so on…
Let us say a hundred years from now, when the geopolitical landscape of the world is very different from they way we see it today, a certain Gel Mibson the XXV were to make a movie on the US of A, and focuses only on the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Do you think it will be fair? Is it fair to remember the United States only for the wars it waged and the atom bombs it dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For the leadership of George Bush Jr. Think about it.
From a film-maker’s perspective I can understand why one needs to make such a movie. Tragedy confirms success whereas, glorification of a civilization reduces it to mere work of history. Nothing sells like gore and tears.
I think such a film, unless it presents a holistic picture, and thereby keeping the downfall as an important but not overwhelming part of the offering is pointless in current day and age. It raises more walls than it breaks down, asks more questions than it answers. This form of responsibility is even more important when dealing with issues which are otherwise not as well-known. For instance no one complains when an Earth is made, or for that matter Tamas.
Established makers of popular cinema should realize that the impact of their one successful production on shaping public opinion runs very, very deep, and hence their responsibility to the society is much beyond what most historians can hope to achieve in an entire life time. Therefore being selective in their representation, being short-sighted manifests misunderstandings which can never ever be washed away.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
Friday, February 09, 2007
A Matter of Choice
A passion that doesn't consume is hardly worth having.
This post is inspired by the recent Indra Nooyi interview in ET. Possibly it is the best piece of reportage I have read in that daily in a long, long time.
The second and more interesting part of the interview is that which deals with her work- life balance.
I think, all of us, at some point of time or the other have been faced with opportunities, which present life-altering possibilities. Everyone around me has been faced with this question- where do I strike the balance: do I want to be a CEO? The biggest swinging dick on the trading floor? Do I want to be the greatest Dad ever? Or the best Son? Well…
When I was younger (read pre-30) I had the following view on life.
The thing about making it big in your career is that it takes a significant toll on your personal life. If you are going to try, you just have to go all the way, otherwise there is little point in even getting started- just remain content with pushing paper all your life, bettering the previous years’ performance by a miniscule delta. But going all the way… it has implications. It could mean losing people, even losing your sanity, spending sleepless nights burning in the fire of your obsessions. Going without food, sometimes drink. There were days when I would switch off from the trading desk and realize food had been placed next me hours ago, gone cold, that I had not even had a sip of water. That if I had remembered to breathe, it was just pure luck. It used to make me sad because it meant isolation. And it still does.
Now, to borrow a thought from Bukowski's Factotum, I realize that isolation is a gift. Everything else is just a test, a test of my endurance, or how much I really wanted to it. And once I get there it is just pure joy, and nothing quite compares to it. That it is what comes closest to perfection. The people I lose because of all this are the ones who do not realize what moves me, what matters. They do not realize that just because I love my career, I love them any less. That they do not understand me, that they reject me for that, it is my problem, but only to a lesser extent than it is theirs.
As we grow (and not just in age) we realize that most people don’t matter. You can get away by being just civil to them. But the ones that do, matter a huge fucking lot. And it is because of what Ms. Nooyi put so beautifully: “You know, people like us get very lonely, because you cannot share too much with other people.” Because these are the people who guess my stakes, who can take a load off my mind, knowing very little of what its all about. It is with these people that I must remember that on most days when I get back to them, “I should leave the crown in the car”, and just be myself. Husband, wife, partner, friend, whatever. Of course, they have to stand by me in my big moments, put up with my tantrums when I’m feeling fucked, when my mind is on fire in the middle of a sleepless night, but also share my moment of glory. They have to figure what makes me mad, drives me nuts, or simply elates me, even though they’ve never been there themselves. They have to realize that the most important things in your life are things that might just happen at the spur of a moment- and it is in that moment that I need their “being around” the most.
That brings me to another point in Ms. Nooyi’s interview. She says that if you have to do something on the spur of the moment, everybody helps you out to do things. But if you make that a habit, it just becomes a practice of running from pillar to post- and not a spur of the moment anymore. I realize that each time I make people run around to do such things it drains them, that I cannot make it a habit, and if I do then people value me a little less.
Anyway, it was great reading -stunningly frank and truly inspirational.
The second and more interesting part of the interview is that which deals with her work- life balance.
I think, all of us, at some point of time or the other have been faced with opportunities, which present life-altering possibilities. Everyone around me has been faced with this question- where do I strike the balance: do I want to be a CEO? The biggest swinging dick on the trading floor? Do I want to be the greatest Dad ever? Or the best Son? Well…
When I was younger (read pre-30) I had the following view on life.
The thing about making it big in your career is that it takes a significant toll on your personal life. If you are going to try, you just have to go all the way, otherwise there is little point in even getting started- just remain content with pushing paper all your life, bettering the previous years’ performance by a miniscule delta. But going all the way… it has implications. It could mean losing people, even losing your sanity, spending sleepless nights burning in the fire of your obsessions. Going without food, sometimes drink. There were days when I would switch off from the trading desk and realize food had been placed next me hours ago, gone cold, that I had not even had a sip of water. That if I had remembered to breathe, it was just pure luck. It used to make me sad because it meant isolation. And it still does.
Now, to borrow a thought from Bukowski's Factotum, I realize that isolation is a gift. Everything else is just a test, a test of my endurance, or how much I really wanted to it. And once I get there it is just pure joy, and nothing quite compares to it. That it is what comes closest to perfection. The people I lose because of all this are the ones who do not realize what moves me, what matters. They do not realize that just because I love my career, I love them any less. That they do not understand me, that they reject me for that, it is my problem, but only to a lesser extent than it is theirs.
As we grow (and not just in age) we realize that most people don’t matter. You can get away by being just civil to them. But the ones that do, matter a huge fucking lot. And it is because of what Ms. Nooyi put so beautifully: “You know, people like us get very lonely, because you cannot share too much with other people.” Because these are the people who guess my stakes, who can take a load off my mind, knowing very little of what its all about. It is with these people that I must remember that on most days when I get back to them, “I should leave the crown in the car”, and just be myself. Husband, wife, partner, friend, whatever. Of course, they have to stand by me in my big moments, put up with my tantrums when I’m feeling fucked, when my mind is on fire in the middle of a sleepless night, but also share my moment of glory. They have to figure what makes me mad, drives me nuts, or simply elates me, even though they’ve never been there themselves. They have to realize that the most important things in your life are things that might just happen at the spur of a moment- and it is in that moment that I need their “being around” the most.
That brings me to another point in Ms. Nooyi’s interview. She says that if you have to do something on the spur of the moment, everybody helps you out to do things. But if you make that a habit, it just becomes a practice of running from pillar to post- and not a spur of the moment anymore. I realize that each time I make people run around to do such things it drains them, that I cannot make it a habit, and if I do then people value me a little less.
Anyway, it was great reading -stunningly frank and truly inspirational.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
