Media's story of A-SatyamevJayate

Media is a powerful tool in the present world, and combining the strengths of both words and visuals, it has managed to control the public in a very calculated way. Not an aficionado in particular, I simply like being aware of the world around me. But none of the news websites, papers or channels provide me with unbiased information. I am not very adept in making a judgment on these inclinations, but I am conscious of the bias because, whenever I am acquainted with a topic, it is always with a pre-conceived opinion. The entire news network created by today's media reeks of an air of prejudiced contrivance. And I absolutely detest the media's manifestations of artificiality and prepossession.

I place my opinions here in response to an article written by a renowned journalist commenting on a recent show SatyamevJayate. The author of the article, Mr. Pritish Nandy, believes that Mr. Aamir Khan unlike the journalists, only talks about the social issues rather than actually doing something about them. As the media force actually fights those evils, and creates an oppression for immediate actions, this show is a silent exhibition of sorrowful stories and grievous journeys of people who have suffered. Mr. Khan neither attempts to solve anything (since he brings out the problem, he is expected to solve it), nor does he take the front seat in starting some kind of a campaign and putting his life at risk. My one statement answer to this view of Mr. Nandy would be that he has either deliberately or foolishly, but completely misconstrued the idea underlying this show.

The heart and soul of SatyamevJayate lies in the idea of spreading mass awareness. It intends to bring out issues in front of people who are either oblivious of its existence in the same society they are living in, or they are ignorant of the gravity of those issues. Talking with people who have suffered is a way to bring about that awareness. And I never expected Mr. Aamir Khan to present himself as the intrepid savior of commons coming to our deliverance, trying to solve everything without us taking a single step. I never saw Mr. Khan as a leader of a revolutionary change, or looked up to him as a preacher of any kind. And I would never reckon him to take the bullet in his chest to bring about the change, as Mr. Nandy expects him to. This is because this show is not about Aamir Khan, it is about us.

Mr. Aamir Khan is the face of the show. People know him, like him, admire him, and so will be allured to watch the show. But when you watch it, do you think about Aamir Khan? Or do you think about the wrongs that are happening in our society? Do you wait for Mr. Khan to answer the questions for you, or do you actually contemplate it? This show tries to make you answer the questions yourself rather than someone else answering it for you. And I think that is the perfect start to finding a solution.

SatyamevJayate, unlike media campaigns or live discussions which have an offensive stance, is a serene yet steady demonstration of the social problems. Its sole purpose is to spread the knowledge to the masses for the sake of their information, security and improvement. The facts and statistics shown on the show are definitely in the circle of doubt, but that does not defeat the cause of propagating the idea of self-speculation.

I might also question the purely altruistic motives of Mr.Aamir Khan in making the show, but to quite a good extent, the motives are generous.
The article by Mr. Pritish Nandy is no less than a shoddy ruse of misrepresenting the good interests of the show. And there are people who vilify the purpose of the show and revile the host in the name of religion. I found blogs posting preposterous comments on the misuse of money for religious purposes and talking tripe about the religious differences. I wonder and also pity this parochial view of an Indian citizen by another Indian, who considers India to be rightful possession of a particular denomination. I am optimistic of such people being no more than a few grains of sand in a desert.

I believe that every change, small or big, is self-induced. A second person may at most motivate you, but cannot bring about the change unless you want it. Answers to all questions lie within ourselves. We just need to ask that question to ourselves and not to others.

Pritish Nandy's blog link: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/extraordinaryissue/entry/does-satyamev-jayate-work

Appleism or Googleonomy?

If someone asked me that was I an Apple fan or a Google admirer, I would have scratched my head hard and ended up with several questions wobbling inside rather than answers. Rephrasing the question to what products you prefer would not help either, because the competition out there is mind-boggling. And the users being inundated with the deluge of products are ending up being scourged by this mess. I wonder what lies in that 10 mile radius where all the brains start working at a lightening speed trying to bring out their products like a shower of hailstones, and giving people just enough time to realize what they have been hit with before another storm strikes in. My words would seem like those of a start-up company trying to survive amidst this Apple vs Google rivalry. But no, I am just a user trying to figure out what is going on.

Apple was born around the same time as Microsoft, starting its journey with a fleet of computer hardware and software. That journey branched ahead to capture a wider market when Apple squalled in with a series of consumer electronics with the i- tag; the i-Mac, i-Phone, i-Pod and the i-Pad.  Most of the softwares that Apple produced also bore the same tag, like the i-Tunes, i-Book or i-Life. In fact, the heart and soul of the entire mobile venture was based on the operating system named i-OS. And whatever the reason was for this abbreviation (the most credible of all being to promote the products as internet friendly), it has proved to be the best marketing tool ever seen. These tags have created an empire where everything is flawless, perfect, gorgeous, one of its kind, and they follow a religion known as Appleism. 

On the other hand, Google started off in an entirely different league. When some emerging giants had provided the platform to revolutionize the world, the makers of Google decided to expedite the process. They provided the search engine that organized the world in a way no one had previously noticed in the presence of Yahoo and AltaVista. And then we became part of a world where everything you wanted to know went through a single action: Google it! And that practice defined Googleonomy. 

When Google started growing, there was nothing else to watch out for. Name an application and Google had something for you. Google brought to us the reality when what you think is in front of you. From various search tools, communication resources and web-based applications, Google entered the mobile industry producing its own softwares and operating systems. Some of the Google products did get busted but overall its stand in the market was never shaken. Not until Apple decided to do so.

Now lets see how that can happen. Google works on a principle entirely different from Apple. Apple believes in less and perfect. Google believes in diversity. Apple keeps its products limited to avoid compromising with quality because of dilution. Google does what it thinks is best for everyone, and to make a difference in whatever way it can. Apple embraces class and sophistication, Google appeals more to the simple man. If Apple had continued producing only desktops and laptops, and if Google had just been an Internet services provider, there would have been less confusion. Then probably Nokia would have been the mobile giant, there would be no smartphones, and Microsoft would be ruling the computer world with its Windows and taking full advantage of the exclusivity of Apple. But when there is science, thinking is never confined. And when everyone is thinking, competition gains grounds. 

So, while Apple was reviving from its downfall and returning to making profits with the return of Jobs and introducing i-Mac, Google started to nurture from the seeds that Page and Brin had sown, and in a blink of an eye became the top most search engine. Apple introduced the i-Pod, followed by i-Phone and Apple TV in the coming years. Versions of i-Pod, i-Phone and Macbooks kept luring people who started getting more addicted to the use of smartphones. Google kept winning grounds by introducing a brilliant business strategy called Adwords that made Google a multi-billion dollar company. They brought to the customers several desktop applications, search tools like News, Scholar, Books, etc. and Maps. They also introduced Google Maps and Earth for i-Phone, supporting the popularity of Apple products. There was no competition for Google communication products like Gmail, Blogger, YouTube and Picasa. But then the fields started merging. Rise of Facebook as the king of social networking caught the tail of Google's Orkut and led to its diminution. To parallel that Google introduced Google+ which was advertised as something more noble and mature than Facebook. But due to lack of users it remained there just more than a shadow. Apple jumped in with its novel concept of i-Pad, which made the other companies run amok. Then everyone started producing tablets. By now Apple had won hearts through i-Phone and i-Pod; so Google introduced its friendly adversary in the form of the first Android phone. Android developed its own fan following, and in a span of 4 years, it had defeated the sales of i-Phone. Samsung revealed a soft corner for Google and collaborated to introduce the other category of smartphones. The recent Galaxy III model even beats i-Phone in connectivity, let alone several extraordinary apps that come in the Android package. The friendliness though still public started transforming fast in the applications being introduced for mobiles. Google had Maps with navigation for Androids, i-Phone got it too, and now with their own navigation introduced this year. Google has Drive, Apple has i-Cloud. Apple had a TV, Google got one too. Google got Books, Apple has i-Books. Other comparisons include Google Music/i-Tunes, Docs/i-Docs, Wallet/Passbook and several utility based apps. Google also introduced its own Chrome Book, OS-X in comparison to Mac. But the greatest adversary that Google has developed an apprehension for, is Siri. Though Siri's capabilities are far advanced compared to Google voice search, Siri is more like a miniature version of human brain fed into the mobile that can actually defeat even the intuitive capacity of Google Instant search. And now when Apple is making friends with Facebook, it would be a scene to watch the market for an actual bull fight. (I am really glad for the Gaming expertise being out of their arena).

The bigger question now is-what are users supposed to do. There would be a large crowd of ardent followers who believe in Appleism and its philosophy of perfection. There would be others who believe Google is right because there is nowhere in this world that you can't Google. But most of us are probably happier with a mix of the biggies. The only things that prevents that from happening is compatibilty between the products. Apple makes its products so exclusive that either you buy everything from them or nothing. That can be a drawback for users like us who do not want to feel committed, rather look for things that serve best to our convenience. Apple running on Mac and i-OS confines people to use their products only, but Google at least gives the freedom of mix and match. With the market niches intersecting, it is an interesting and "survival of the fittest" kind of competition for the companies, and a tough analysis for the customers. I personally would enjoy the freedom, and so accepting the competent nature of apps and softwares, would like to possess Android. And as far as adherence is concerned, I would say - "I am not religious". 

The Eco-friendliness of the ORGANIC Wave

It is 2012, and whatever we have left of our environment to date, is still tossing in the hands of "Who cares" with "nothing much can be done about it" written on all facets in bold. It's funny how the countries that steered the air of Green Revolution, in a desperate move to save the hunger stricken world, are now singing the tune of Organic farming. It's all over the US market, at least a small section in every known chain of stores. And quite positively, this wave would have hit all the countries to different extents, the visual impression being stronger in the more developed countries and declining down in a descending fashion. I have been observant of this section since my first shopping experience in US, as it was not a familiar sight back in India. And recently, the sight at the Whole Foods Market swarmed by the wise environmentally conscious people just proved its stand in the World's most ethical companies.

It is a very common notion among public that something labelled "organic" relates to doing good for the environment. In a way, that is right. You are doing good to the environment by buying something which was supposed to be available at cheaper rates than the synthetically produced commodities, for the simple reason that organic farming is a new form of our prehistoric agricultural practices, before the onset of Green Revolution. And this is what is so ironic. When common agricultural tools could not feed the world, funds were raised, science was used to make the lands more productive and crops high yielding. And after scouring off all the aboriginals, in an effort to save the environment, an expensive way to make up for all that spoiling work is to toy with the Organic word. How safe!

This is now the picture of every developed and developing nation, including India. People are being educated about all the eco-friendly products and practices, money is allotted in the name of launching the "Green Market". But how faithful are the progenitors towards actually serving their environments? Is it just a money making scheme for them and a rightful duty for the commoners? How influenced will the public be with these stunts when they are burdened with the fight to earn a good living. Who will take care of the environment? Not those who criticize the rising fuel prices and own a four-wheeler per head in their family, and definitely not those who buy organic food and believe that global warming is only because of the sun.

It is true. While the republican faces literally hate the idea that global warming is in any way related to human activities, the democratic president supports his people by not only agreeing with human induced global warming, but also putting all the accusation on developing countries like India and China for the increased fuel prices and air pollution. That makes everyone happy. And so with almost the highest number of vehicles per 1000 persons, being one of the largest CO2 producing countries, and never ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, US stands strong in promoting organic food and claiming itself as one of the most environmentally conscious country.

India has different issues. Poverty, population and lack of education being the ruffians. And it has become a fashion to give a say on these issues; everyone has one. India has signed and ratified everything, and schemes and yojnas are being proposed and implemented through the Five-year plans. With the 11th Five year plan closing in, our agricultural country is aiming to reverse the deceleration in agricultural growth and to improve the income of the farmers. Isn't that too early to do?  The Planning Commission of India clearly indicate in their report that the faults and lacking efforts of the State Agricultural departments in following the norms of good agricultural practice. The Krishi Vikas Kendras are there just as a progress in papers. Moreover, most of the organically produced food is exported to other countries. Now with absence of education and resources, how is a poor farmer expected to follow all the rules of a good sustainable farming and produce something which would be sold at sky high prices in some other country? The current policies wouldn't allow the farmers to give in the certified organic produce as demanded with a meager investment.

I accept that promoting organic food/farming is at least a step towards sustainability. But with all the money laundering and inflation stricken markets, are the majority people even capable of buying the over priced stuff? After straining out the pockets, is there an extra penny left to spend on something which should have been there had not the money making stunts brought us to this stage. But as the old saying goes, no use crying over spilled milk, it is probably the future we should be worried about.

Common sense tells that future is built on the foundations of the present. What we have today is a result of the past and what we do now will give us a proportionate future. If we continue to dwell in the shallowness of the so called eco-wave, there is nothing but a disaster waiting for us ahead. The people already in the boat will be the ones to drown last; it's the commoners who are actually drifting in the flow that are earliest to succumb.

Facts apart, environment itself is a very naive thought. It includes you, your surroundings, and the relation you have with others sharing these surroundings. When you understand that, you know that thinking about the environment is basically knowing about yourself and the importance of your existence. Once you are above the biased education on eco-friendliness, you can give it a thought yourself. There is a difference between being educated to be environmentally conscious, and actually being environmentally conscious. And that difference boils down to just a simple frame of mind. Sort out your necessities from your luxuries. Burning a gallon of fuel to buy some organic food is not a very healthy idea. Neither is a full utilization of your 24*7 supply of electricity just to make your house look beautiful. Buying and throwing unnecessarily does not count as being green. Reserve and preserve. Spend thriftly. And do your share. A simple idea can definitely change your and others' life.