Alcohol policy in Tamil Nadu

From 2003 onwards, sale of alcoholic drinks in Tamil Nadu is the monopoly of the state government. The agency in charge is called Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (Tasmac) and alcoholic drinks are sold exclusively through Tasmac outlets (unless one goes to a licensed pub).

Having been to a few Tasmac outlets, I found them totally disgusting. The floors were wet with liquor and God knows what else. Men drinking inside and behaving in an uncivilised manner. And the only liquors you get in TN now are those made in TN. If you want beer, your choices are limited - Kingfisher (thankfully), Haywards 5000, Vorion 6000, Knockout - the latter three being beer beefed up with extra alcohol, for a better "kick". And the kind of IMFL thats available there is third rate, almost like arrack.

Forget wine or champagne that people up the social ladder like to indulge in. While the Indian wine market is exploding, and Indian brands like Grovers and Sula are getting recognised abroad, it is a crying shame that one cannot get them in TN. The only good wines available in TN are imported ones at some star hotels for outrageous prices. And for New Years which I celebrated in Chennai, I had to buy a bottle of champagne from Bangalore and take it along with me, since I knew I cannot buy one in TN! As a wine lover, this is a strong reason for me to hate Chennai!

In Bangalore, you can buy good wine/spirits at outlets like Food World. I know many women who buy alcohol and not feel uncomfortable in doing so. However in TN, thanks to Tasmac, a woman who enters a Tasmac outlet faces a real danger of being molested, and has to depend on male friends to buy her alcohol. I don't think any sane woman would ever enter a Tasmac outlet.

In TN, the social atmosphere is such that people see drinking as "evil", period. There is no concept of social drinking, or drinking as a form of relaxation after a tiring working day. If people drink, it is to get high and behave in a drunken manner (as is evinced by the super potent beers like Knockout).

And the politicians are eager to capitalise on this. Tasmac is a cash cow. Even though it was formed during Jayalalitha's govt, the present DMK govt has no inclination of discontinuing its monopoly, since its a hen that lays golden eggs.

But this kind of negative thinking and govt policy are bound to take its toll. The IT industry has people with liberal attitudes in general. Also women make a large portion of it. This kind of women-unfriendly attitude is bound to make them leave for other cities like Bangalore which offer a better climate and choice of drinks for social drinking.

Is the saree going the way of the kimono?

A couple of days ago there were pictures of famous actresses at the Filmfare Awards in the Times of India. I couldn't help noticing the fact that all of them were wearing evening gowns similar to those worn by actresses at the Oscars. I know that Bollywood copies Hollywood, but come on, not one came dressed in a saree/salwar, and wearing a bindi.

In Hindi movies, there is a trend of heroines wearing Westernised outfits and not wearing the bindi at all. Complementing this, most have their hair dyed to a light brown. Please note that I am not complaining, this is just an observation.

And this phenomenon is not just restricted to Bollywood. In all walks of life, people are considering the saree (and also the salwar kameez) dated. Western wear is supposed to be a sign of confidence and independence for women. If one goes through employment ads of IT companies, the woman in the picture is always in a western outfit (and without the bindi). In TV ads, if a woman is shown wearing a saree (along with a bindi), it is most probably for a detergent or toilet bowl cleaner. Or a life insurance policy taken by the husband to take care of his (economically dependent) family.

Women in western wear (even casuals) are supposed to be "dressed smartly". The implication here is that those who are dressed in ethnic clothes are not dressed so smartly.

Sarees are these days relegated to special occasions and merely ceremonial, just like the kimono in Japan. A woman who goes to work in a saree or even salwar kameez on a regular basis is considered a bit old-fashioned and not modern. In movies, such women are normally at the receiving end of abusive relationships. The heroine (who is in Western wear) would then save her and teach her tormentors a lesson.

Well, as a man, I shouldn't be complaining. Because Indian men gave up on the dhoti and the pyjama long ago. You didn't find an office executive (even 30 years ago) working for a private sector company going to work in a dhoti.

So I think it is nothing more than the women just catching up with the men!

Why objectivism is good

I came across this piece by a Harvard researcher on senescence, João Pedro de Magalhães. I found it really good. Read on here.

Drive against "erring" autos

Today, there was an article in the Bangalore TOI that 110 auto drivers were booked for refusing to go on hire and demanding excess fare.

Auto drivers refusing to go on hire is bad, but does that make it unlawful? An auto rickshaw is a private service, not public transport. Thus it should be treated differently from the case of a public bus. A state-employed bus driver can be booked for dereliction of duty, but an auto driver is essentially a private operator who earns income on his own after paying the state a license fee for being allowed to operate. As such, treating that license as an obligation to serve the state doesn't wash. If there exist state laws for refusing to go on hire, I wonder whether they are even constitutional. This is akin to having a shop, which also provides a form of public service. Just because I have to get the necessary permits to own a shop doesn't mean the government can force me to keep it open. If I keep it closed, I lose business. Its simple market-driven economics.

Regarding "demanding excess fare", I myself prefer an upfront agreed amount over the meter, since I never know to what extent the meter has been tampered with. If an auto driver demands something I feel is too high, I always have the right to refuse him, and wait for another auto.

In both cases, there is no cheating involved. The only place where cheating is involved is where the meter is tampered with, since the passenger has no idea about it till traveling a considerable distance in an auto. And tampered meters are the rule rather than the exception in Bangalore, with mechanical meters. The new electronic ones are supposedly tamper-resistant. In my experience, electronic meters invariably show lower fares compared to the old mechanical ones.

For the same reason, "on the spot" bookings rule out tampered meters, which in my opinion, is the only instance of true cheating.

If the police want to curb cheating, they should make it compulsory for all autos to have electronic meters.

But this being India, we always try to tackle non-problems and leave out the real ones.

The Least Common Denominator

Many people who believe that an Islamic country can be modern, with individual rights respected, often cite the examples of Turkey and Malaysia. Turkey is an example of a secular democracy in spite of a Muslim majority, and might truly be an exception to the general rule (of authoritarian rule). I will blog on Turkey later. But what is surprising is that some ignoramusses (especially in India) cite Malaysia as well. Sure, Malaysia is reasonably clean compared to India. And it boasted the tallest skyscrapers in the world until recently. And because of Kuala Lumpur's close proximity to Singapore, people often see the two countries in the same light.

But all the exterior facades do not hide the ugly truth - that Malaysia is a theocratic Islamic state. And if you though that the Taliban was an extreme case of radical Islamic perversion, read this recent news item on Malaysia. Seems like Malaysia is just Taliban Afganistan with better infrastructure.

Why the Partition was a good thing

It is understandable that a lot of Hindus regret the partitioning of India. They tend to view it as a sellout by Gandhi. For which reason, he got assassinated.

But looking back, I think it was a good thing to have happened, for India's own good. I have only two regrets regarding the Partition :-

1. It was done in haste, literally uprooting families overnight, which resulted in great hardships to so many families on both sides, with an uncountable number of deaths, and starvation. This probably exacerbated the bitterness Hindus and Muslims had for each other. If some amount of planning had been done (with the help of Mountbatten who was the Viceroy overseeing the independence), the partition could have been accomplished in a phased manner over a period of 3 months or so, with less trauma for everyone concerned.

2. We should have either surrendered Kashmir, or held on to it with no strings attached. I would have preferred the former. Nehru made a grave mistake by going to the UN towards the end of the first Indo-Pak war, and accepting to hold a plebiscite for the people of Kashmir, when there was no compelling reason to have done that. The repercussions of that action haunt us to this day.

But the main point of the article is that the Partition was a blessing in disguise for India. Why? The answer is simple - it relieved the stress of two incompatible civilizations attempting to co-exist.

If the Partition had not happened, India would have spiraled into anarchy the same way a lot of Muslim countries have in recent years. And it would have dragged the rest of the population (Hindus, Jains, Christians) along with it.

Now many might consider the above statement preposterous and presumptuous. I might be accused of endorsing stereotypes regarding Islam and Muslims. But those who really believe that Hindus and Muslims (in large numbers, had there been no Partition) can co-exist are just living in a fool's paradise.

I am sure a lot of people (both Muslims and non-Muslims) are of the opinion that Islam is a peaceful religion per se and the Koran doesn't preach violence contrary to stereotypes. Maybe so. I do not wish to get into theological arguments about Islam. It is rather pointless. Instead one should go by what history has taught us regarding Islamic states. Just look at our close neighbours - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan etc., and the pathetic state they are in. Had the first two been still part of India, it would have surely tested our very existence as a democratic nation. Major riots, if not a full-blown civil war, would have occurred from time to time, and the only way to deal with that would have been a heavy-handed dictatorship.

It is a fact that democracy doesn't work in countries with a significant Islamic population. India is now proud to have had 60 years of uninterrupted democracy (if one could gloss over the excesses of the Emergency). I do not think this would have happened had there been a greater proportion of Muslims. And the separatist movement in Baluchistan would have been India's problem.

And crime rates in major cities would have been much higher. It is also an undisputed fact that Muslims are already over-represented in organized crime in India. Even though Islam prescribes stringent punishment for crimes such as robbery, extortion, murder, and so on, for some perverse reason, it is Muslims who seem to engage in such crimes more than other followers. Had there been no Partition, Mumbai would have become another Karachi, the latter known for its lawlessness and sky-high crime rates.

And the economy would have gone down the toilet. Just like Bangladesh or even Pakistan. The latter's economy is viable only because of heavy aid from the US.

If you are lucky enough to survive in such a situation, you can kiss your fundamental rights and freedom of speech goodbye. For, as I mentioned earlier, the only way to keep the country from spiraling into total anarchy (like Iraq) would be an iron-handed (Hindu) dictatorship. Which is bad in itself.

Actually, I would go on to say that the Partition alone is not enough. India should cut off all diplomatic ties with Pakistan. For those who question why, remember that there is a war of attrition between India and Pakistan happening as of now. This is causing a drain on our country's resources, not to mention innumerable loss of lives of our soldiers. One cannot shake hands as well as engage in a sword-fight at the same time.

And there is very compelling evidence that the ISI was responsible for the Mumbai train blasts. We cannot sit back doing nothing about it.

And the bombing of the Samjhauta Express is just a grim reminder of what would happen with trying to establish "normal" relations between the two countries. Lets face it, this isn't the Eurorail. We are talking of two countries with disparate, incompatible cultures with mutual hatred spanning centuries. Trying to "bridge" the gap is asking for trouble. Big time.

The Times of India is an irresponsible paper

I find that the Times of India is an apology of a newspaper. It has built up its reader base on sensationalism, at the same time pretending to be a paper that needs to be taken seriously. It is more of a tabloid. The worst part is, it has gained readership in cities like Delhi and Bangalore, at the expense of more respectable journals like the Hindustan Times or Deccan Herald.

In the Bangalore edition, the reporting is substandard. The English is below average. The headlines as well as the articles themselves are not objective. A lot of items are printed without even proper verification.

For example, when Karnataka CM Kumaraswamy Gowda's son was involved in a vandalism incident, it published a picture of him on the front page. A day later, it apologised saying that the picture was not his, but rather his cousin's. I cannot believe that such a blunder could have happened if due diligence was done before publishing.

And what is this page 3 nonsense anyway? I have lived in the US for a significant time and have read many of the newspapers there, but have not come across this concept at all in any of them (if one leaves out the true tabloids like the National Enquirer).

In the Bangalore edition, you see pictures of middle aged women wearing gaudy make up in a drunken stupor in some party somewhere (curiously enough, both the date and place are seldom mentioned; for all you know, they could have been recycled from a couple of years ago, and no one could tell). And the people who make it to page 3 could be anyone - once, my contractor made it (yes, I swear).

Now, unfortunately, in order to compete with the TOI, other papers are following suit by having their own P3. Quite an unfortunate development.

I can understand how the younger generation can identify with the TOI more than sober ones like the Deccan Herald or The Hindu. Which is kind of unfortunate since they do not even know what to expect of a good newspaper.

On 15th Feb, in Bangalore Times' page 3, there was a caption about some people in the Kannada film industry protesting the Cauvery verdict. I have attached the image of the article.

The caption says "Our stars recently met up to show their solidarity with the common people and it was all for a great cause. Sweet!" Huh? According to the editorial of the TOI soon after the verdict, it hailed the judgement. The "cause" in question is critical of the verdict, so what is the actual stand taken by the TOI then? Just because the heading appeared in the city supplement's page 3 does not mean it could print any nonsense and get away with it. In the absence of any person's name attributed to an article, the default assumption is that everything printed is an endorsement of the TOI editorial board.

Perhap's the Bangalore Times' editor is unaware of this obvious implication. When I wrote to the editor of the Bangalore TOI, I got no response back (and the email didn't get published either).

So it seems that the TOI is culpable of the very misdeeds it attributes to the "parochial interests".

A couple of years ago, there was an article in the Bangalore Times where it openly endorsed extramarital affairs. No author's name was given in the article, so again it would lead to the assumption that it was the editorial position of the TOI to endorse extramarital affairs. Such an article in the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune would have enraged readers who would have demanded an apology, if not boycotted the papers. However no such thing happens here in India. There is no conscious effort to maintain standards and integrity in something as integral to our lives as the daily newspaper, which is really sad.

My new blog

Hello everyone. I have created this blog to share my opinion regarding (and perhaps give vent to) a lot of issues I feel strongly about. I am based in Bangalore, India, although I have lived in Chennai and the US before that.

The name I have chosen for this blog is something that I came up with on an impulse, though I think it is a good one :) As the name implies, I would be discussing mostly (but not exclusively) issues relating to India.

Well, I want to keep this introduction short and so would like to end it here. Come back to this page from time to time - you might even want to bookmark it later :)