Sancho says

Doctor Who

2020-04-08T11:17:00.000+01:00

During the Christmas period last year I was at home with L, while A and H were in India. Once L used to go to sleep, it was too late to speak to anyone in India, so I used to spend a lot of time youtubing.

Around that period, BBC was pushing the upcoming next season of Doctor Who. There had been a lot of talk of the new Doctor in 2018 when Jodie Whittaker took over and now the next season was due to begin. Now, Doctor Who, for those of you who are not aware, has been on British TV since 1963 (split into a classic era from 1963 to 1989 and a revival era from 2005 onwards with a 16 year hiatus from 1989 to 2005). It has spawned a number of spinoffs including comic books, films, novels, audio dramas, and other television series. There have been over 800 episodes, which puts it in the Guinness Book for the highest number of episodes of a science-fiction programme.

To give some context – it follows the adventure of a Gallifreyan (that’s an alien planet) time traveller called the Doctor who for some reason, not entirely clear to me, has a soft spot for the Earth. The Doctor travels through time and space and generally travels with someone from the Earth, called a companion. Gallifreyans are called Timelords for this ability to be able to travel through time and space and alter it. A key part of the story is that Timelords can regenerate 12 times- which means that if they are about to die or have some serious physical problems, they can change their body. This was a plot device created by the writers in the early 60s when they needed to change the actor playing the Doctor. And it has enabled the programme to carry on for more than 50 years. But somehow it had never interested me and all the push the BBC was doing also made no difference to me.

One of the things I often watch on Youtube is late night TV show hosts – with Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah being regulars. And perhaps because BBC was advertising Doctor Who so much, Youtube threw up a late 2018 episode of Stephen Colbert interviewing Jodie Whittaker, just before her first series was going live. Which I saw. And I must say that I really liked her in the interview. So, finally I felt that perhaps I should watch it and see what the fuss is about. Series 12 was about to release in a few days but given the hype over the change of the Doctor in series 11, I thought it made sense to first see Season 11 if possible. And while it wasn’t there on Youtube, it was all available on BBC iplayer.

So, after putting L to sleep, I started watching season 11. And I absolutely loved the programme. It was brilliant! Having watched Season 11, season 12 was now ready to broadcast…but only once a week. But iplayer had all the seasons of the revived era (going back to 2005), so I went back to 2005 and started going through the entire series, while also watching Season 12, as it threw up new episodes. It was quite interesting to watch and compare the earlier doctors with the current one. And at the end of it all, I am a confirmed Dr Who fan (though I wouldn’t call myself a Whovian -much like how I am a Star Trek fan but wouldn’t consider myself a Trekkie. Or I am a big Harry Potter fan but wouldn’t consider myself a Potterhead).

It’s difficult to say what exactly I like about it – it’s just very nice. The science fiction piece obviously allows them to make up all sort of things but there is an innate humanity to it, which is awesome – generally, the better episodes are in my opinion, the ones where they go back in history to different points in time. But that is not to say there are not great episodes set in the future or in other worlds. It’s just very well made.

One of the interesting things about the programme is how well the Doctors fit into the role. When I was watching Chris Ecclestone, he was the Doctor. Just made perfect sense. When David Tennant took over, it was a bit disappointing and indeed sad to see Ecclestone go. But within a couple of episodes, Tennant was the Doctor as if he had always been the Doctor. Seeing him go again filled one with trepidation. But by the end of Matt Smith’s very first episode, he was the Doctor (his lines in that episode “who da man” and “basically, run!” are absolute classics in my view). Peter Capaldi was a very different kind of doctor- took a little time to get used to him but then again, he delivers “Heaven Sent”, which is arguably the finest Doctor Who episode of the revival era – the phrase “tour de force” is well deserved in this context. And Jodie Whittaker has now made the role her own – I feel she has had weaker scripts than most of her predecessors got but within that she has still created her own niche- she is the Doctor, just as much as any of her predecessors were.

So, who’s been the best Doctor of them all? It’s one of those questions which you know is unfair but one which you ask anyway. While it is a close thing, and everyone will have their own view on this, I have no real hesitation in choosing Matt Smith. He had that flair, that insouciance which was so reassuring. None of the other doctors could really have said “who da man” in that manner and got away with it. Matt Smith rocks in this role. Having not seen The Crown, I have not seen Matt Smith anywhere else (unlike say Capaldi and Tennant whom I have seen in a number of other roles) so he’s always the Doctor to me.

It is easier to choose the best Doctor because the base character is the same – you are really choosing who gives the best vibes on the screen. The situation is slightly more complicated when it comes to the companions. There is obviously the one you like the most, the one who gels the best with the Doctor, etc. But more fundamentally, who is the best companion as a character, and that is a slightly different question.

If you consider for a moment, the slightly longer term companions the Doctor has had, are largely people who are, how shall I put it…not the most well rounded or successful. Rose is a shop assistant who has no real idea what she wants from life. Donna is in a relationship with a HR manager who is really working for the Empress of the Racnoss – not the most successful relationship. Amelia is working as a kissogram with no clear idea of what her relationship with Rory is like (at the point) – though in her case certainly part of her problems in life are due to the Doctor just vanishing and leaving her hanging for 12 years. It is not very clear to me what Bill is doing – she works in the kitchen at the university, doesn’t she? It’s only Clara and Martha who seem to have some sense of self-esteem and a decent life independent of the Doctor. And based on the stories, Martha is clearly the more accomplished – not professionally as such – one is a doctor (I am not sure if she is a doctor or still a student), the other a teacher- different type of accomplishments which are difficult to compare. But as a companion, Martha certainly achieves more – she takes on the mantle of fighting the Master and succeeds on her own- than any other companion. And she is perhaps the only companion, who leaves the Doctor completely on her own terms, and then builds a successful life after that. She is clearly the most accomplished of the Doctor’s companions.

But as a character on TV to whom you react, she is not that positive- partly because she is so soppily in love with the Doctor. In my opinion, companions who got romantically involved (from their side) with the Doctor did not work as well as those who were just along for the ride. Clara is an interesting case – she obviously is in love with Danny but what is her relationship with the Doctor. I think she is in love with him as well but it is not clear that even she understands it.

But personally, I felt Amy Pond was the best of the companions. Donna and Clara were also good but there is something in the relationship between the Doctor and Amy which works very well- they are mates who bounce off each other well and who care for each other deeply. That might partly have something to do with Matt Smith as the doctor but my vote goes to Amy Pond as the best companion.

But there are 2 other people who travel with the Doctor, who are perhaps not defined as companions but are very important in the scheme of things –and they are among the most intriguing characters in the entire canon.

First, River Song, who is just brilliant – her one showing with David Tennant is fine but her time with Matt Smith is electric. Here is a companion who is clearly in love with the Doctor but is not soppy about it at all. She gives him hell all the time – it’s clear that she can manage the Doctor better than anyone else can. She goads him, makes fun of him but she cares for him all the same. The opposing timelines is a bit difficult to get one’s head around but given she is also a time traveller, I am not sure it makes much sense. It would be great to see her interact with Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor but I am not sure how that would work out.

And then there is Missy! (As an aside, given Missy, I don’t understand all the hullabaloo over the Doctor being a woman when Jodie Whittaker took over - it seems quite absurd given that the precedent had already been set by Missy.) What can one say about Missy? Having seen the entire revival series of Doctor Who over the last 3 or 4 months, at the end of it all the character who stands out the most is Missy (though River does run her close). I don’t have enough knowledge of the background of the Master to be able to get a good understanding of the Master. John Sims as Master was fine – a bit OTT at times. And Derek Jacobi did not even know he was the Master, so does not really count. But Michelle Gomez, who plays Missy, was just the perfect amount of “cool”. And of course, her evolution as a character was tremendous -Sacha Dhawan actually seems a bit of a backward step.

Unfortunately, I don’t fully understand the historical relationship between the Doctor and the Master, so it is not clear to me how much of the evolution is sensible or not. E.g when Missy tells the Doctor that she wants the Doctor to know that they are not really different – why is she doing that – what is the motivation behind that? Why is Missy the way she is? The fact that, in spite of that fundamental question remaining seemingly unanswered, Missy is such a compelling character is a testament both to the writing and to Michelle Gomez. But nonetheless, her character and her relationship with the Doctor could have been better fleshed out.

But then the character stories and relationships are anyway so complicated in Doctor Who that it would make Bold and the Beautiful proud. Just as an example consider the scene where River Song shoots the Doctor. Just think of it in black and white – The Doctor is shot by his wife, while looking on from a distance are

· his best friend (who also happens to be his mother-in-law), pregnant with his to-be wife;

· his best friend’s boyfriend/husband (who also happens to be his father-in-law); and

· his to-be wife (who by the way, is shooting her husband at the same time, while also having been the best friend of her mother and father, while all three were growing up).

I know that last sentence makes almost no sense but it is also all correct and makes perfect sense while watching it. And before any further comments can be made - even though I have just seen only an odd episode of Bold and Beautiful, I can unhesitatingly say that Doctor Who is wholly and vastly superior to it.

But that is one of the issues about Doctor Who, which is both a positive and a negative- the time travel. It is of course, the basic premise of the story. But it also allows for all sorts of convolutions, which are not always internally consistent. E.g. when Rose and the Doctor travel back to see her father, the Doctor continually warns her about the fact that the Doctor and Rose (from another journey) should not see them – also that Rose should not touch herself (e.g. as the baby) because that could cause all sorts of problems – people meeting (and specifically being in physical contact with) themselves is held out to be this absolute disaster. However, the Doctor keeps running across himself all the time. And that never seems to be a problem.

Still, it all works!

Or, has till now. But, what next for the Doctor. Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor has taken a lot of flak. A lot of it appears to be somewhat sexist. But I do think it is fair to say that the last two series of Doctor Who have been among the weakest. And that has primarily been because of the writing. First, the quality of the stories in the last two seasons has just not been as good as the past. There have been some good stories – like Kerblam (clearly inspired by Amazon) and the Haunting of the Villa Diodati – but overall the quality has been lacklustre. Further, the companions are clearly the weakest till now. Even Wilfred and Nardole, with limited outings, are better than them. Graham is ok but Ryan and Yas are just so poorly fleshed out, especially Ryan (doesn’t help that he can’t act too well, either). I sincerely hope that these two were not put in just for “diversity” reasons but it does appear that the authors seem to have decided “we need to have a black person and an Asian, and one of them needs to be a woman”, and then spent time on developing the one white male character, Graham. Such diversity is of no use, indeed it is counter-productive.

But the bigger criticism has been the “playing with the canon”, especially the reveal with the Timeless Child. Now, I am not a Whovian, so the playing with the canon is not such a big issue with me but I can understand why it is an issue for many people. However, series 12 has ended with a number of unresolved issues so one hopes that these will all be managed somehow in series 13. In the past, Doctors have often had overarching themes such as Rose Tyler and the Bad Wolf or Clara Oswald and the impossible girl. Nothing seems to have been built into Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor as yet but perhaps it is there and we haven’t seen it yet. For now, I am still willing to give the authors the benefit of the doubt and let them have the next season before passing final judgement on Jodie Whittaker.

But they do need to change the companions fast. These 3 have already lasted 2 full seasons – Amy and Clara might have done more episodes but these three are getting there quickly. So, a change is needed soon. I have never understood why the companions tend to come from modern day Britain and a contemporary time period. I get the reason to do it as a TV serial being made in a certain time and place. But if one programme can transcend it, it is Doctor Who. It would be great to have a companion from a clearly different time period- even a famous historical person- and geography. I had initially thought at one point that Agatha Christie would be a great companion – using her unexplained disappearance for 10 days as the period she travels with the Doctor, and possibly have stories which allow her to get some material for her later books. But of course that went out of the window, once there was a story where the Doctor and Donna go back in time to see her. But I am sure there can be other famous people who can be used for this, such as Jimmy Hoffa. I leave this as an exercise for the Doctor Who production team.

Either way, whatever happens going forward, there is more than enough of the Doctor for this to remain another one of the enduring TV classics. If you haven’t seen this as yet, it’s worth it. And for the Netflix generation – well seasons 1 to 10 are on Netflix (at least in the UK). And as for me…I am already having withdrawal symptoms - I need to quickly figure out how to get my hands on the 63-89 episodes!

ग्रुफलो

2019-03-06T15:27:00.000+00:00

my effort at translating Julia Donaldson...

Ek chuha jangal me chale jaa raha tha…

Ek lomdi ne chuhe ko dekha and aur chuha achcha dikh raha tha

Lomdi – Kahan jaa rahe ho, chote chuha, mere ghar me aake khana kha

Chuha –shukriya, lomdi bhaiya par na, main kar raha hoon gruffalo ke saath khana

Lomdi – gruffalo, ye gruffalo kya hai?

Chuha – gruffalo, tumhe nahin pata hai? Uske daravne panje aur haathi jaise daant. Aur bade jabde ke andar aur bhi kai daant

Lomdi – kahan mil rahe ho use?

Chuha- yahin chattanon ke aas paas, uska pyara khana hai lomdi ki maas

Lomdi – Lomdi ki maas (kaha lomdi ne kaanpke), phir main chala (aur lomdi gaya bhagte bhagte)

Chuha – Lomdi to budhdhu nikla, use pata nahin hai, gruffalo jaise koi cheez hi nahi hai?

Chuha jangal me chalte jaa raha tha…

Ek ullu ne chuhe ko dekha and aur chuha achcha dikh raha tha

Ullu – Kahan jaa rahe ho, chote chuha, mere ped pe chadhkar khana kha

Chuha –shukriya, ullu bhaiya par na, main kar raha hoon gruffalo ke saath khana

Ullu – gruffalo, ye gruffalo kya hai?

Chuha – gruffalo, tumhe nahin pata hai? Uske pair par bade ungliyan par chota sa ghutna. Aur naak ke sire par zehreela sa ek bada massa

Ullu – kahan mil rahe ho use?

Chuha- yahin nadi ke kinare, uska pyara khana hai ullu, bhune hue

Ullu – (chadhti awaaz men) Ullu, bhune hue, Alvida chote chuha (ullu ne kaha udte hue)

Chuha – Ullu ko bhi ye pata nahin hai, gruffalo jaise koi cheez hi nahin hai?

Chuha jangal me chalte jaa raha tha…

Ek saanp ne chuhe ko dekha and aur chuha achcha dikh raha tha

Saanp – Kahan jaa rahe ho, chote chuha, mere bil me aakar khana kha

Chuha –shukriya, saanp ji par na, main kar raha hoon gruffalo ke saath khana

Saanp – gruffalo, ye gruffalo kya hai?

Chuha – gruffalo, tumhe nahin pata hai? Uski lal lal ankhen, aur jeebh kali kali, uske peet par lage muhase baingani

Saanp – kahan mil rahe ho use?

Chuha- yahin jheel ke tat par, uska pyara khana hai saanp ka sar

Saanp – Saanp ka sar, mujhe hai kahin aur hai jana, (rengta hua saanp vahan se bhaaga)

Chuha – Saanp bhi buddhu hai, use pata nahin, gruffalo jaise koi cheez hi nahi……..n

Par ye kaisa jaanvar hai jiske aise daravne panje… aur itne saare daant ik bade jabde me. Uski lal lal ankhen, aur jeebh kali kali, uske peet par lage muhase baingani

Uske pair par bade ungliyan par chota sa ghutna. Aur naak ke sire par zehreela sa ek bada massa

Kahin ye gruffalo to nahin…

Gruffalo: Mera pyara khana, bread ke saath lagega achcha

Chuha – Achcha! Mujhe achcha mat kahna, seekho baaki janvaro se mujhse darna. Mere peeche chaloge to samajh jaaoge, sab ki tarah tum bhi mujhse dar jaaoge

Gruffalo – dekhte hai (gruffalo ne haste hue kaha), tum aage chalo aur main peeche peeche aaonga

Dono chalte gaye jab ek awaz aaya

Gruffalo: Lagta hai kuch aage hai yahan

Chuha: Ye saanp hai, kaise ho saanp bhaiya

Saanp ne mudkar gruffalo ko dekha

Baapre, saanp ne kaha, main to yahan se chala

Aur saanp apni bil ki ore bhaga

Chuha - Maine tumse kya kaha tha, ab bolo

Bilkul dang rah gaya Gruffalo

Dono chalte gaye aur phir Gruffalo bola

Gruffalo: Pedon me se kuch awaz hai aa raha

Chuha: Ye ullu hai, kaise ho ullu bhaiya

Ullu gruffalo ko dekhkar bola “oooi maa

Main to abhi yahan se chala”

Aur apni ghar ki ore ud gaya

Chuha - Maine tumse kya kaha tha, ab bolo

Bas bhouchaka rah gaya Gruffalo

Dono chalte gaye aur phir Gruffalo bola

Aage se pairon ki aahat hai maine suna

Chuha: Ye lombdi hai, lombdi bhaiya kaise ho

Lombdi gruffalo ko dekhkar bola “bachao

Pyare chuha, achcha namaste”,

Lombdi ne kaha bhagte hue

Chuha – Achcha gruffalo, kuch samjhe. Mujhse hai sabhi darte. Par chalte chalte mujhe bhookh lag gayi, mera pyara khana hai gruffalo ki chhati

“Gruffalo ki chhati”, Gruffalo ne kaha, aur dum dabakar vahan se bhaga

Jangal me sab kuch ekdum shant tha

Chuhe ko ek ber mili…aur ber achcha tha

You pay what you are willing to

2018-03-01T18:26:00.002+00:00

A few days ago at work, somebody had brought some food over - a mix of cakes and biscuits – some own brand and some branded. Somewhere from there a conversation began on the difference between the two varieties. It was interesting to see the reactions people had to this – with some like me swearing by own brand, others either refusing to buy own brand if possible, and still others, generally ok with own brand but not on certain specific items .

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to have some brand choices and choose to go with certain products over others. And as items become more expensive, the downside of a bad decision becomes higher and the trust a brand gives becomes more important. But on most consumables, I genuinely believe there is very little that a brand tends to add over the generic. There is only one product where I have consistently gone for a brand over the generic –I would argue that my experience makes it understandable.

I started shaving in the early 90s, when Gillette, I think had not yet been introduced in India. The gillette readyshaver was launched shortly afterwards but did not seem worthwhile at that time. I started working in 2000 and, without any idea of quality, bought the sensor excel –purely on brand. By this time the company had already launched the Mach III, at a much higher price point but with my usual disdain for “better improved” products sold at a premium, I went for the sensor excel. It did not disappoint- while the wiltech edge (if I remember the name correctly) lasted me a week, the sensor excel lasted a month.

I quite happily continued with the sensor excel, happy to pay the premium over other double edge cartridges but not willing to pay the premium for the Mach III. In 2003, my brother visited India and he gifted me a Mach III razor with a set of around 20 blades. I switched over when my existing sensor excels finished and I found that each blade was lasting me 3 months or so – much superior to the Sensor excel.

In 2007, as I got ready to leave for the UK, I closed down my Indian credit card and used up the remaining points. Among the things I bought was a pack of 5 sensor excel blades. The 20 Mach IIIs lasted for around 5 years and wound down at some point in 2008. By this time, Gillette had introduced the Fusion 5 blade razors – which I viewed as a gimmick to get the customers to pay even more. I still had the 5 sensor excels to use up so I started using those and these were almost done by the end of 2008.

A friend of mine strongly recommended the Fusion- but I was hugely sceptical. I was happy to pay for Gillette over a generic but not convinced of Fusion over Mach III. After spending Christmas at his place during 2008, on the way back home, I did need to buy new blades- either the Mach III or the sensor excel. When about to leave his place, he again strongly urged that I switch to Fusion. With that ringing in my ears as I went to the supermarket, I succumbed in a moment of weakness and bought a pack of 8 fusion blades- sometime at the end of December 2008.

I am still using that pack!

I am almost at the end now – in fact, I probably will be done with it by sometime in March. But I have used that 8 pack of blades from December 2008 till March 2018. Admittedly when I travel on holiday I prefer to take an electric razor rather than the Gilette. And, if I am in India, I will often get a shave done at the barbers rather than at home. But even adjusting for that I suspect that I have used that 8 pack of blades for more than 8 years. I don’t know if I just got an exceptional pack but I have already bought the next 8 pack of fusion blades – whatever the premium on the price.

Of course, this decision has involved some amount of usage before reaching it. But that is the magic of the marketers - they have managed to convince a lot of people that if you are paying a premium on the price, then you are getting a better product- automatically. The refrain “you get what you pay for” is such a common thing. The facts suggest the complete opposite but, at least, in this country, it is widely accepted, often as gospel truth. The evidence exists to show that this is not true but people almost seem to be willing to be hoodwinked.

A classic example of this is vintage wines. You might have read of the wine fraud committed by Rudy Kurniawan. But just think of it for a minute – he replaced vintage wines with non-vintage wines and sold them as vintage. Definitely not acceptable. But why exactly are some wines vintage and others not - only because experts say so! Can you think of any other food product where a third party tells you what is good and what is not. Compare say with mangos, with their varieties of alphonso, dashera, langda, etc etc. An expert is not going to come and tell you that you must eat alphonso and the others are not as good. People make up their own minds and act as per their own preferences. That resultant demand may then set price…but not an expert’s judgement. But wine is this thing where somehow we have been sold the idea that a vintage wine is better than a non-vintage one simply because an expert has said so (and guess which is more expensive) .

But why are the vintage wines better and is there any objective benchmark for that. Ok, so for some things there can’t be an objective measurable benchmark but is there at least consistency? The answer is no. (look at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis and some of the follow up links from there) – experts can’t agree, not just among themselves but with their own self. A judge could rate the same wine as excellent or good or acceptable within minutes of each decision. Studies have shown that experts cannot even distinguish between red wine and white wine dyed red in colour. But the industry sells itself on this basis and vintage wines can be sold for huge amounts, because they are deemed to be better. A massive fraud, in my opinion.

Examples like these abound where price is used to indicate quality with no objective standard- the same product is segmented and sold to different segments at different prices- completely justifiable. But we have managed to imbibe that the more expensive one is better. Interestingly when different supermarkets sell the same product at different prices, no one has any issue – no one is going to say that the Tropicana in Tesco is better than the Tropicana in Sainsburys even though one may be cheaper than the other. Similarly, when a company cuts its own prices, we don’t immediately say it is poorer quality – it is only when we compare it with something else that the relative price seems to impact the quality perception. 6 years ago, Huggies wipes used to sell for around two and a half pounds a pack. Today you get them for 80p a pack (and if you buy 10 or 12 of them, you can get them for 50p a pack- though I think the pack size has reduced from 64 to 56).I don’t think their quality has worsened nor do I remember that people are now complaining of that. It has happened primarily because supermarket own brand wipes are now available for 60p. But imagine the margin Huggies had originally…and why therefore price in itself is no measure of quality.

Irrespective of brand vs generic, the other social change in this area is one which is often discussed – the throw away culture. People consistently buy new all the time and just get rid of old stuff. At one level, this does not work too badly…e.g old clothes which you donate to charity inevitably are recycled… and not on the high street. Rather they are sold in other parts of the world forming a good bit of a roughly USD5 bn second-hand garment trade that spans the globe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30227025, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-fashion-blog/2015/feb/13/second-hand-clothes-charity-donations-africa) . But while UK exports around USD 600 m of second hand clothes, around USD 200m goes to land fill. Similarly, the UK throws away USD8bn of white goods every year which can be repaired. . But unfortunately that 8bn does not get repaired or even recycled, it gets thrown away.

Part of the problem of course is that repair is often so expensive that it does not make economic sense to do so. I am sure there is a model whereby old stuff can be exchanged for a cut off the new price and parts from the old piece can be reused. We have always had a similar model for cars and we see it for stuff like laptops and phones but somehow it does not seem to exist for washing machines and dishwashers and microwave ovens and so on. I don’t know why. But while it might be difficult for an individual to repair a washing machine, it is not that difficult to mend/salvage clothes which cannot be donated to charity, probably because of a rip or some such thing, but which could still be mended/salvaged. But nobody will do it…because mending clothes is so infra-dig and uncool. Much easier to just throw it away and buy new ones.

And the most amazing thing of this all – if you are a person who is particular of these sort of issues – who prefers to mend things rather than throw them away, who waits to buy on a deal rather than pay full price, who is happy to shop around to buy at the lowest price- socially we have reached the stage where that is now seen as stingy and mean and niggardly. It is no longer socially acceptable to be able to say that you buy consumables on price…because that, by definition, means that you are willing to accept low quality…even if that is not the case. It has taken many years for Aldi and Lidl to become even semi-acceptable and even now a lot of people I know will not be willing to accept buying anything from Poundland…even if it’s the same items as that you would get at Tesco or Sainsbury’s.

Of course, the data does not reflect that…Aldi’s and Lidl’s market share keeps rising, the other supermarket’s shares keep falling and for 2017 Aldi topped the Which supermarket ratings with Lidl coming in at 3- suggesting a high degree of hypocrisy. Which of course, makes the initial point moot…maybe people do buy generic stuff, in spite of whatever they say. They just refuse to own up to it.

Ultimately, all individuals will decide on their own buying patterns – if you want to buy a more expensive product, that is perfectly acceptable – just as I do with Gillette. If however, you believe that a more expensive product is automatically better quality, then I would urge you to think again. And if you think someone buying a cheaper product is being stingy, you might want to consider that it is possible that they genuinely just like that product better. And please, please get the notion out of your head that you get what you pay for…instead remember that you pay what you are willing to pay for!

PRIDE!

2017-02-24T17:06:00.001+00:00

The year 2016 has been a crazy one. Everyone will agree to that. Brexit and Trump – either of them in a year would have been enough. Both together of course was overkill! Still, there it was.

I am not going to try and find reasons for this nor am I going to spout lessons from all this - people far better than me have tried and many shall keep trying. I, however was very intrigued by a slightly different aspect of this whole element – pride!

One of the key things in the Brexit campaign was about having pride in the UK. Not just faith that the UK could manage on its own but about pride that the UK would manage on its own. We didn’t need outsiders to tell us what to do…we were proud Britishers. I suppose, the point of making America great again was also about having pride in America.

Not that America or UK are unique in this. Pride, for example, is a very key part of India. “Garv se kaho hum… hain”…fill in any region or religion in India and I am pretty sure that slogan exists. People are exhorted to be proud of the place they are from. And this is something I don’t quite follow. You had nothing to do with your Birth - what is there to be proud about it?

Now, I can’t speak for others but in general I think one can feel pride about something when one has actually had some role in that something coming to fruition – even if it is indirect. So, one can feel proud in one’s children’s achievements because there has been effort in bringing that child up. One can feel proud about the college one went to because there was some effort (one assumes) in getting into that college. One can perhaps feel proud of the place one works at because it took some effort to get into the organisation, in the first place and perhaps the work one has done has helped achieve that which one is proud of.

But it’s rather stretching things when one is proud of accidents of nature. Being proud of being Indian or American or whatever is like being proud of being tall or proud of the fact that you are less likely to catch malaria because of your genetic background. That’s just the way you are born – you didn’t choose it and you didn’t do anything to have it happen. I have never, for example, come across a South Asian who is ashamed of being more prone to diabetes. The logic, of course, is pretty much the same.

Not to say that the shame game does not go on – it’s just that people don’t normally get ashamed of who they are but try to make other people ashamed of their birth. This normally comes in the form of using your birth to blame you for what your ancestors did. So, this takes the form of blaming the current crop of Britishers for the evils of colonialism, blaming 21^st century white Americans for the evils of slavery and making 21^st century Brahmins responsible for the evils of casteism. Rather stupid to my mind. There might be an argument for a societal response to some of these evils in the past but trying to blame individuals for the ills of their ancestors is never going to work very well.

What however is interesting is that while people do, quite naturally, recoil at being blamed for the actions from a few hundred years ago; they are still very happy to feel pride at that same ancestry even though they still had nothing to do with it. They are enough people who want to feel pride at the history of Britain as a maritime and colonial power but even if they are willing to accept that colonialism had its downsides they claim that they can’t be held responsible for it. Every region in India has had its past of some atrocity of some sort on another region but when the “garv se kaho…” piece starts, no one ever thinks of “thodi si sharm bhi karlo…”

It isn’t very surprising that people want to remember the good bits and forget the bad bits – that’s natural. But when you are trying to claim ownership of a past which you had nothing to do with, it seems a bit unfair that you only want to claim ownership of the good bits.

And the fundamental point remains – what are you feeling proud of? And do you have so little to feel good about that you must search for it in things which have nothing to do with you.

Pride, of course is very closely linked to identity. Human beings seem to have the need for an identity. In reality, I feel the need is not so much about identity as it is just about the need to be part of a larger community. This is very clearly seen when one considers immigrant communities – such as Indian immigrants in the west. When the first wave of immigrants came many years ago, language was a problem for many of them. Further, within India, a lot had already grown up in communities which were regional rather than pan Indian. Hence communities in the West often grew up along linguistic and regional lines – so in London, for example go to Southall and you will find the Sikhs and Punjabi. But, as time has passed, a more educated variety has landed up which already speaks English, at least as a second language, if not the first. Such people can now be found in large numbers interacting with other Indians – who went to similar schools and colleges as they did and work in similar industries – and they can be found all across London, such as in Wimbledon, where I live. Their identity is no longer Punjabi or Tamilian or Gujarati…but Indian because they can easily interact with Indians with similar upbringing. The next generation will probably not care that much for the Indian bit and have a more British identity.

But while I understand that people might need that sense of identity, what is still not clear to me is why the pride in that. Whether you view yourself as Tamilian, Indian, British Indian, or British is immaterial – that depends on your upbringing and your world view. But, on its own, it cannot and does not make you better than someone else. And if everyone understood that, we just might have a slightly more peaceful, less confrontational world. Now, that might be something for all humans to be proud of!!

Random thoughts on advertising

2014-08-04T22:15:00.000+01:00

This post has no specific message – I am not trying to say something very deep or meaningful. Just some random thoughts – the sort of things you might put up as a facebook post; except this is perhaps a bit too long for that.

Some days ago I saw the new Airtel ad on ndtv – there was in fact a 20 min programme discussing the merits and demerits of the ad with some of the usual suspects in tow. Setting aside the quality of the ad, I started thinking of the different ways in which brands are advertised in India and the UK.

I studied the theory of marketing more than 15 years ago, so I might be getting things very wrong here…but my memory of marketing 101 seems to suggest that as the market evolves and as brands evolve, communication moves from focusing on the functional connect to the emotional connect. A mature market therefore would have brands selling almost purely on the relationship with the brand; especially as functional differences between brands would be minimal. So, in theory a detergent would not be just saying that it washes whitest but that it makes your family feel better, etc, etc.

What interested me was that advertising in India does indeed seem to have gone that way. Brands like Airtel, surf, google and so on have made very emotional ads where the functional aspect of the product is often minimal. And this has been the case for many years now …think of the original Hutch ads, the Titan ads for so many years, the Raymond advertising. Emotional connect has always been strong.

But advertising in the UK – arguably a much more mature market – does not seem to be so strongly emotional. In many categories one sees very functional “scheme” advertising rather than emotional “theme” advertising. A mobile phone company would talk about how many minutes it gives and what the latest iphone deal is- there is no brand differentiation. Telecom providers talk of how easy it is to switch service providers and how much download they are offering for such a low price. Banks keep on selling on the basis of low mortgage rates and the hard-nosed benefits of switching accounts to them (2% off on direct debits or 100 pounds into your account if you deposit 1000 pounds a month). Supermarkets almost exclusively play up short term deals; even though some of their by lines can be decently emotional, such as “every little helps.” And then there are the aggregators whose advertising ranges from the sublime (comparethemarket, which I guess is more emotional than functional…even though the take away is that for best car insurance one should visit comparethemarket.com) to the ridiculous (go compare); but the game there seems to be only top-of-mind awareness with brand connect not really a part of the marketing brief (my view, at least).

Of course, as a person who has not grown up in the UK, perhaps I do not always get the emotional connect. But when I see some of the earlier advertising in this country – some of it certainly was quite “theme based” rather than “scheme based”. The JR Hartley ad from the early 80’s, for example, is genius. But then again, perhaps, it is only those which remain in memory and the vast majority were always “scheme based”. I don’t know.

So, the final point is that I am still intrigued at this relative difference in communication strategies in these markets. Is it different in other mature markets? Or am I just getting my marketing 101 very, very wrong?

‘wots in ə skript

2014-05-23T00:07:00.000+01:00

What constitutes a language – I would have said words and how they are used. That is the core of the language. Spelling, pronunciation and such like help in standardization and create dialects...but they don’t create a different language.

There is another aspect to a language; script – how it is written? Is that critical?

More than one language is written using the Latin script as is more than one language written using the Devnagri script. It is less common to find one language written in multiple scripts...but more of that in a minute. However, clearly there can be no one-one linkage between a language and a script. That, in itself is not a watertight argument - there can be no one-one linkage between words and a language- but if sufficient number of words are common, one is perhaps not looking at two different languages but dialects of the same languages. But, of course, the words are still going on to define the language (or the dialect); does script in any way define a language – at least in one direction (many languages may be written in script X but language A can only be written in script X)?

I have never considered script to be an integral part of a language. But over the last few weeks, I have come across a few things which suggest that not everyone thinks that way, and that intrigues me?

I was speaking to an old friend the other day about Urdu poetry and where to read some of it from. I suggested to her that the best place to start was urdupoetry.com. She had heard of the site but did not like it because it was in the Roman script- while she cannot read Nastaliq, she at least wanted to read in Devnagri. Now, I couldn’t understand that – perhaps because I have been used to reading/writing Hindi in Roman script for over 25 years - but she was quite vehement about it. She also added that she simply did not like many of the ads nowadays which wrote Hindi and Marathi words in the Roman script. It did not “seem” right. Again, I could not follow why the script made a difference - there is obviously a question of ease of reading but beyond that – why is it wrong when the same thoughts, indeed the same words are being expressed.

Now, this might seem, at the end of the day, a fairly minor thing but in the Indian context it has one very important outcome – the distinction between Hindi and Urdu. Quite independently of the discussion on script, I recently had a discussion with another friend over the basic difference between Hindi and Urdu. I am not going to go over the details of that argument, but broadly put I argued that these are both dialects of the same language – Hindustani or Khadiboli- which over the past century have diverged; whereas he argued, as I understood it, that they are historically 2 different languages which having co-existed for so many centuries have developed many similarities. Each of you can have his own view on this- I am not going to belabour this point.

But I do strongly believe that, for most people in India today, the biggest difference in their minds between Hindi and Urdu is the script. That, more than anything else, defines the difference. In speech one can’t easily identify the difference. How many people would really care to consciously make the difference between “mushkil” and “kathin” – they will probably say what they are used to saying. And if the person in front uses the other form, they would, without any effort, understand. Ditto for “mitr” and “dost”. Or “upyog” and “istemaal”. I remember Vajpayee’s speech during the 1996 confidence vote; he ended by saying some thing like –“adhyaksh mahoday, main rashtrapati ji ko apna tyaagpatr dene ja raha hoon”. I don’t think till that day I even knew that a word called “tyaagpatr” existed- it was always “istifa”. But at the same time “tyaagpatr” was immediately intelligible. The borders between the spoken languages are very fluid and it is personal context which would define one’s choice of words.

But when you see something written, in black and white in front of you, the difference in the script cannot be missed. Remember that Nastaliq is very similar to the Arabic alphabet while Devnagri is used for Sanskrit as well – and since these 2 languages have religious significance from an Islamic and a Hindu viewpoint there immediately develops a religious context to Hindi vs Urdu. One becomes a Hindu language while the other becomes a Muslim one. Suddenly script takes on a much more serious dimension –one, which frankly it should not be capable of taking on.

Unfortunately, this dimension has existed in India for sometime now. Many people think that Hindi is India’s national language. It isn’t- it is actually India’s official language. However, the sub committee (of the constituent assembly) on fundamental rights recommended that “Hindustani, written either in Devnagri or Nastaliq script, at the option of the citizen, shall, as the national language, be the first official language of the Union”. Southern opposition meant that the “national language” bit was dropped but Hindu opposition, including from many in the Congress, meant that Hindustani became Hindi and Nastaliq was dropped altogether. Add to this the fact that Pakistan chose to adopt “Urdu”, a language quite alien to most of its citizens, and wrote it in Nastaliq has meant that the “script-religion” linkage and distinction has perhaps became much more etched for many people.

And so script has played its part – not so much in defining a language but in defining a culture, maybe even in defining a nation; indeed two nations.

But it doesn’t make sense to me. After all...”what’s in a script, that which we read from left to right, if read right to left would mean the same”

AAP and the story of corruption

2014-01-07T22:22:00.002+00:00

The last month has seen one of the most amazing political stories playing out in Delhi. Watching Arvind Kejriwal’s swearing in was like some scene out a Hindi film – except that there was no playback singer....it was the actor singing himself (at least, now we know why playback is used). The film would, in all likelihood end with that scene – sachai ki jeet and all that but of course, in real life it’s all going to start now. The history of Congress supported governments suggests that this one won’t last too long either. If I were Arvind Kejriwal, I would look to get the Congress to withdraw support a couple of months before the general elections (simply go after Robert Vadra on the day the elections are announced) and then have elections along with the general elections. That would perhaps ensure a victory for the AAP in Delhi as well as buy them a few more seats at the Lok Sabha elections as well.

This of course, assumes that the people buy into the vision which AAP is selling. It is fairly narrow- get rid of corruption. Now, there are, of course issues with this - their policies on foreign affairs, defence, the economy are not so clear. I have not read their manifesto but over the next few months they need to articulate this better. Which they well might. But for the time being the anti corruption stance has been strong enough to win minds and hearts. But, do we Indians, especially the middle class, really really want to get rid of corruption. The fact is, the Indian middle class is as corrupt as it can get. In fact, the Indian mind set is very corrupt. If the AAP can stop a government official asking us for money to get a ration card – great! But what if it tries to stop us being corrupt – will we be so benevolent when we are so used to getting things done with flouting rules.

Indeed, it is amazing how much we disregard the rules on just about everything and there are a litany of examples which can be provided for this.

Let me look at one journey I made from Bombay to Pune a few months ago. I got into the taxi at Dadar and drove off. I was sitting in the front seat and belted up as we started. The driver on the other hand merely crossed the belt over his body without fixing it in. And at the first option, once we exited Bombay, just took it completely off. He even told me that there was no need to wear it now. I would assume that if he had been caught some money would have changed hands with the cop and there would then have been a diatribe about how corrupt cops are. But wearing a seat belt—that's a big no, no!!! As you get out of Bombay, there are a number of traffic signals one needs to wait at. At each of these, all drivers have started inching forward and crossed the stop lines way way before the lights have turned green. Why? I wish I knew. Let the police crack down on this and I bet someone would make a comment asking why is the police harassing innocent citizens when the big fry are being left alone.

Anyway, we were on the express way and we stopped somewhere at Lonavala at one of the halts. I bought a packet of Chiwda at one of the shops. The printed MRP – Rs 48. On proferring a Rs 100 note, I was returned a Rs 50 note. I waited a few seconds for the Rs 2 change- clearly it was not forthcoming, so I asked. The response was – “do rupye ham nahin dete”. Kyon nahin dete, bhai? “Aise hi hota hai, yahan, koi nahin dega aapko”. I refused to buy it and went around to another shop to buy it. Same story to a point – Rs 100 given...Rs 50 returned...wait..ask for Rs 2. This time, very slowly the man returned me the Rs 2. But why did I have to ask? Is not, effectively pocketing Rs 2 off a customer fairly corrupt.

Incidentally, there used to some things in India it’s quite difficult to pay MRP. It’s often difficult to pay MRP for a bottle of mineral water, almost impossible to buy a bottle of Coke at MRP – especially at smaller shops. And everyone seems to have just accepted this. Why?

After some time I reached Pune station and got into an auto. Taking an auto/taxi in India can be quite an experience depending on which city you are in. Many friends of mine from North India or Chennai used to be surprised that autos and taxis in Bombay (and mostly in Pune as well) go by the meter. I guess one could argue that it is true market forces – every trip gets negotiated for and the best price is achieved for both parties. Again, I feel that this is another form of corruption which gets indulged in. But since I know Pune, I can get by decently. So, I was soon on my way to home in the auto.

On the way to our place, we cross the Pune Sholapur road which has 2 lanes in the middle (one on either side) which are dedicated bus lanes. As we approached, our auto driver nonchalantly drove into one of those lanes. I asked him – “arre bhai kya kar rahe ho...”. “Sir, aap bambai se aaye ho...yahan to aise hi chalta hai” And yes, the reality is that while perhaps 80% of people did not get into the bus lanes; there is a good 20% (of all types of traffic) which does it. Even if the other lanes have moving traffic.

Finally, we reach our society. My parents live in a place which has about 200 independent houses on about 20 roads- a single road down the middle with veins on either side. All the houses are single storey because for the last 20 years the gram panchayat has not given permission to built the 2nd floor. Just a few months ago they finally did, subject to the elevation being the same. I could see that some construction has begun. I could also see a couple of houses which had gone rather overboard – in flagrant violation of the guidelines and perhaps even encroaching on their neighbours. I asked my father – “how come this chap has built it like this?” The reply – “Yeah, some of the society officials asked him. He said –‘go to court, if you want’. Who will now go?” Again, we are very happy to violate rules when it favours us.

All this in one 4 hour journey from Bombay to Pune. The list of course is endless. The mid sized businessman who does not pay income tax and does everything on “cash basis”...and then says that the government does not give enough services; the householder who happily gets his meter “fixed” to pay less and then complains about “mehengai”; the person who smokes on the road knowing full well it is illegal. This is not about corrupt government, this is about a society where corruption is acceptable...until it affects us.

The AAP’s stated position is that the root cause of all evil in our society is corrupt politics. That may be true but the rot has now set in and it may not be enough to just remove the root cause. But does it have the guts to go ahead and look beyond politics. Some things can be changed relatively easily. It’s not too difficult to stop, say traffic violations. I seem to remember that few years ago Bombay police greatly reduced the number of drunk driving cases during the New Year season by picking up one South Bombay lad about a week before and keeping him in lock up for a couple of days. And publicizing this big time. Similarly, many other things can be stopped with some targeted action. But how will we react when the target is not a “bhrasht neta” but an “aam aadmi.” If AAP can get a few big scalps first they might be able to get away it with it. They could however find that their honeymoon with the people also ends very fast. And finally, that might be the biggest tragedy - that we are not willing to look at the mirror and see its reality. There is hope currently...but I am not yet sanguine.

The pen is mightier than the piano

2013-07-04T23:02:00.000+01:00

Some days ago a friend had put up a link to “Ek akela is shahar mein” on facebook and had said that if anyone knows of a song with better lyrics he should point to it. Made me think a bit. At the outset, I can clearly say that, at least in my opinion, there are many songs with better lyrics than “Ek akela is shahar...”. What the post made me think of was whether there are songs which are dependent only on the lyrics – the music need not be all that great, the singing merely competent...but it is the lyrics which would take the song from “merely competent” to “memorable”. I don’t think “Ek akela..” is such a song but then nor are songs like “Sab kuch seekha humne”, “Chaudhvin ka chand” , “Jo vada kiya”, “Do divane shahar mein”, “Mera kuch saaman”, “Ek ladki ko dekha” – all of which are Filmfare best lyrics winners.

I have thought some time, on and off, for this. And I have finally come up with a few songs which I think fit the bill. Remember, it’s not just that the song has good lyrics- it is that if the lyrics were not that good, you probably wouldn’t give the song a second look. Competent singing is a given...without that the most brilliant song would not get a second look. But there is nothing in the music per se which is outstanding. Nothing terrible, you see, just ok. But it’s the words which take it to a different level. So, the chances are that the first time you hear the song your response is likely to ambivalent or moderately positive. But after the second or third times; when you have taken in the lyrics, it’s likely to greatly improve. In some cases what becomes important is the context in which the song is placed in the film – after all the lyrics fit a scene in a film; in others it’s just the sheer beauty of the lyrics in itself.

So, here goes, in chronological order

1. Rahiye ab aisi jagah (Mirza Ghalib, Mirza Ghalib, 1956)

The film has any number of good songs which are generally well remembered, so much so that this song by Suraiya tends to get short shrifted.

But if one listens a little closer, the lyrics are a brilliant portrayal of the mindset of someone who has given up on life- someone who has had enough and now wants to “get away from it all”. The desires are so anti social – a house with no doors or walls (be daro-deewar sa ik ghar banaya chahiye), no neighbours or guards (koi humsaya na ho aur paasbaan koi na ho), no one to look after you or minister to you (koi na ho timardar) and no one to even mourn for you (nauhakhwan koi na ho). Just makes one feel very sad for someone who has reached this stage that he wants no more human contact of any kind