Democracy derailed...

Banal is what the bored bourgeois would describe the brouhaha of the blarings between the two sides of the "Anti-Corruption" bill. Billowing steam and exchanging rhetoric is what seems to be happening between the two from ages now. A simple chart would show how levels of excitement peaked and are now visibly waning.

I'd like to make two distinct points which can be simply inferred from the above graph:

• Clarity of objectives and a focused approach when protesting are a must.
• Social media campaigns do not correlate with actual public groundswell. It simply reflects what is "cool". "Hey, that girl I like has a FaceBadge against corruption; let me get one as well."

Let me clarify from the outset, my stand on the whole "Anti-Corruption" morcha(Campaign). I am totally against this sort of "Blackmail politics". It is a very valid point that if two public personalities hold two fast on opposing sides, it is impossible to come out without being the bad guy. This was exemplified recently when two public figures related the Telangana statehood and United Andhra(If my memory serves me right) fasted to death until their demands were met.

In short, fasting, though typified Gandhiji's Satyagraha, is not a very useful tool in modern times. The "Anna camp" had an opportunity to rise and strike when the iron is hot(Around April 2011 as it appears from the graph), but then again, this would have set a very bad precedent shaking the very ideal democracy is based on: Government by the people i.e. the government is a reflection or a cross-section of the people. Instead of arm-twisting a lethargic government, a better option is to introduce a bill for MP recall, similar to what US politics allows for, and is currently being pursued in Wisconsin against Gov. Walker. This keeps the politician on their toes and not take their "gaddis" for granted, without needing to resort to blackmail.

Another spectacular failure(or on the way to failure) is the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Again, here too the demands and reasons are genuine, but lack of clear demands, and a strong united voice, allowed the movement to be derailed too easily.

What the organizers/participants need to understand is one simple term: Attention span, which brings me to my 2nd point: Social media campaigns are only as useful  as long as they fall within the attention span of the common public. That means the general urban populace, as the intricacies of the Lokpal bill would be lost on the rural masses(or instead to put it correctly, there are more graver things affecting the rural population). A very interesting research paper by Nicholas Carr, Wired magazine, May 24, 2010 12:00 pm. seems to suggest how neural pathways have been "rewired" with mass bombardment that the Internet yields us. But that's straying away from the main point. Basic funda: If you want to go outside of the constitution, try to finish your business before the movie gets too long. Like how the Egyptians did in removing their monarch swiftly. Too bad they went from jumping out of the frying pan to the fire.

Moral of the story: Make it quick & clean. But bear in mind, the long term repercussions of such unconstitutional fasts can be more harming than the short term illusionary benefit of a Lokpal.

My fair lady...

The other day I was reading an article written by a well-known Indian columnist. It tackled the admittedly dicey issue of the moral depravity of the peddlers of skin care products in India. I however, have a slightly different take on this.

In an age where mother earth is bursting to its seams with populations it cannot support, one needs of new & innovative ways to leave an indelible mark in the pages of history. The not so mentally gifted of Miss R Sawant ilk, tend to do this by being boisterous and noisy in general. Some others, being naturally talented find their lives ruined by unwanted media attention. There is however a vast majority in the middle: The common man.

The common man, is your average Indian, middle class upbringing, a bachelor's degree at max. and then thrust into the mileu of the Indian economic "powerhouse". He/She tends to have a steady job, a mundane life and not many growth prospects the "right" way. On the other hand, he is bombarded via the Idiot box with incessant stories of fame & fortune, the likes of which he can never hope to earn in his lifetime. All of those personalities, seem to have, an X factor one might say, which got them to their current positions. Some have family connections, while other have ravishing looks, while others are filty rich playboys with dozens of arm candy by the side.

Family connections are mighty hard to produce, and a lack of wealth is what drives the common man to seek out other ways to "stand out". So he/she pursues the 3rd option, albeit to a reduced degree. In a population of over a billion, wherein the skin color brown is as common as sand in the Sahara, an easy way to look "different" would be to be born fair. This again not being in one's control, one turns to miracles via  "fairness creams" sold by so-called "exploitative manufacturers". The common man acheives this to a fair degree and is more or less happy with the result. I must point out that the standing out bit does seem to work at least in job interviews and if one tries to gain that advantage then there is nothing wrong with that.

What escapes me however, is the claimed exploitative nature of this process.

The consumer had a need: I need to look different. Most people here are brown. So easiest way to look different is to be white, or fair.
The producer has a product: Take thee this, and thou shalt be fairest of them all!

A simple demand-supply pattern forms which drives the fairness creams economy. This is pretty similar to how tanning saloons work in the western hemisphere, where the common color is white. The people there desire to be darker, and tanning saloon meet this need. Nobody bellyaches about the "exploitation" of the masses there. Its the consumer making the choice, and consumers with TV watching such ads are knowledgeable enough to make an educated decision. The not-so-educated ones are pretty much those in non metro areas who tend to be well read in the holy books and know very well of the color of our holy Gods, and that if they choose not to look like their Gods is again completely their decision.

The product was advertised as shrewedly to exploit the demands as is any other product and I fail to see why it should be singled out or banned outright.

What are your thoughts on this?

P.S I am a grad student and am in no way related to any cosmetics company whatsoever. For what its worth, I don't use any cosmetics as a personal choice.