Indian Media

It has been quite a while since I stopped to talk about the English news channels in India. It's simply too vexing, and at times, depressing. I mostly try to avoid reading or watching the stupid things they put out. But sometimes, somethings catch your attention. This is when you wonder if they are even trying to hide their supposedly hidden agendas. Phrases like, "I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have to take a break at this point, we'll be back soon" have betrayed where their loyalties lie -- to the sponsors and the shareholders, and simply, to profit. Soon they'll be saying, "I'm sure you have something important to say, but we need to sell it midway and make our millions, so hold your thoughts."

Anyway, today I ran into this blogpost written by an NDTV reporter. The post and the comments (which I believe were heavily 'moderated') just lend more credence to the disillusionment one has with the idea of India:

If ever there was a ripe case for a well-planned and executed military operation, here it was in Sri Lanka. President Mahinda Rajapakse and his team went about prosecuting what, by all accounts, was a legitimate war. (emphasis mine)

PS. I watch BBC for about 3 hours everyday. I have for the last 6 years. The only time pressure they have come under is with regard to their scheduled programming.

முதலாளித்துவம்

அடுத்து அவன் நூறு டியூப்பற்பசைகளோடு மட்டும் நின்று விட முடியாது. ஏனெனில் சோப் தயாரிக்கும் மற்றுமொரு பெரிய முதலாளி தனது சாம்ராஜ்ஜியத்தை விரிப்பதற்கு பற்பசை தயாரிப்புக்குள் வரலாம். எனவே பற்பசையில் வெற்றி நாட்டிய முதலாளி இப்போது சோப் தயாரிக்கும் போட்டியிலும் இறங்க வேண்டும். இப்படித்தான் முதலாளிகள் சக முதலாளிகளை அழித்து ஏகபோக முதலாளிகளாக மாறி ஒரு நாட்டையே கைப்பற்றி பின்பு பல நாடுகளை வெல்லும் ஏகாதிபத்தியமாக மாறி இன்று மேல்நிலை வல்லராசாகவும் தலையெடுத்து நிற்பதற்கு அடிப்படையாக இருக்கிறார்கள். எனவே மோசடியும், ஊழலும், திருட்டுத்தனமும், முதலாளித்துவத்தை நீடித்திருக்கச் செய்யும் அடிப்படை விதிகள். இப்படித்தான் முதலாளித்துவம் இயங்க முடியும். முதலாளிகள் எல்லாரும் உழைத்து கஷ்டப்பட்டு முன்னேறியதாக கிழக்கு பதிப்பகத்தின் அசடுகள் வேண்டுமானால் கழுதை விட்டைகளாக புத்தகங்களை வெளியிடலாம்.

Source

People, products, whatever man.

This is a conversation that a very good friend and I had. It was based on another conversation and the exchange below is quite self-explanatory.*

I didn't ask my friend before I published the conversation and I think that was a terrible mistake on my part. To an extent makes me an untrustworthy person and an asshole. For that and just that, I sincerely apologize to my friend and to my 'better side' that I didn't care to respect when I published it. Thanks.

The topics, argumental points rather, in the exchange above have been discussed extensively in feminist literature. In fact, it's been the topic for several daytime talk shows in the US. Nevertheless, it is not a bad idea to ponder over it once in a while with new and "absurd" perspectives. Run through the follwing pages to have a rough idea - ref 1; ref 2; ref 3; ref 4.

* - The exchange has been edited spatially to fit the margins better

Microsoft: the same thing?

A lot of us have no qualms in “hating” Microsoft. Even those who never paid a penny for any of their products, like myself, included. Common reasons range from its dubious ‘creative history’ to its product pricing (BSOD in the past). I haven’t had any serious problems with my version of XP for over 19 months – the longest I’ve ever had an OS installation without any anti-virus s/w. It may have to do with the fact that I’ve significantly cut down on the ‘technical tweaks’ that I try since the time I switched fields. Of course, one of my best friends, Badri, would never take this as a reason to accord them with new respect. He started using Linux in 99. So you can imagine his opinion about MS. Technical inadequacies of MS products in contrast with open-source stuff like Linux is worth writing pages and people do it all the time. I neither have the expertise nor the passion to do it here.

In a recent conversation, one of my friends said that her friend quit his job with MS because of some “anti-corporate enlightenment.” I’ve read several articles that have detailed unethical practices of MS, but I still thought his move wasn't well thought out. Yesterday another friend of mine, from political science, shared the image below with me.I usually avoid talking about economic models because I believe they are structures that are beyond individual repair. Any contribution by someone like me would take a significantly long time to have any measurable effect in anyone’s life. And obviously, my knowledge on economic models is fairly limited. When “experts” can’t agree on what’s feasible why should I expose my ignorance? But as always, I am interested on the measurable effects of corporatization. By measurable I mean things that are beyond subjectivities – war, inflation, unemployment etc. I’ve always wondered if MS can be painted along with the other corporations that several leftists have learnt to hate. I’m not sure. I’ll just paste the exchange we had after I saw the image.

Suresh: I don't know if I would have had windows in the same list. I mean, Microsoft
Friend: why not?
Suresh: after all, they have the largest charitable foundation
Suresh: I think he's one of the very few corporates who's actually "giving back"
Suresh: maybe not as much as he can, but he is
Suresh: he doesn't kill chicken or exploit slum dwellers of Bangladesh (well, if you call outsourcing s/w jobs to India as exploitation, then yeah)

Friend: i know all about their "charity"
Friend: see, i have a problem with that framework
Friend: and outsourcing is exploitation
Friend: i mean, it's more complicated than just good corporation, bad corporation
Suresh: well, basically all kinds of profit making is exploitation, isn't it?

Friend: because so much of this is about power structures
Friend: the idea of capitalist profit is based on exploitation, yes
Friend: cheap labour and so on
Friend: creating needs
Friend: i mean, that's what capitalism is all about
Suresh: but I think one needs to be nuanced in his/her approach. They cannot equate Coke and McD with MS purely on the basis of their capitalist business model
Friend: no you can't
Friend: but you can talk about complicity

Friend: the idea that these businesses are complicit in a certain kind of nationalist model
Friend: or promoting certain nationalist goals and doing nothing to STOP their militaristic goals
Friend: i mean, their obviously genocidal goals
Friend: where is responsibility
Friend: so it's an issue of complicity
Friend: well, when it comes to that it's every american
Friend: but their tax dollars are significantly smaller than the ones that these people give america/israel

Friend: anyway
Suresh: yeah, never mind

Her comments were centered around the Israel-Palestine conflict the image represents. So I didn't want to point to the obvious shortcomings of her arguments (which I presume she knows too). I just wanted to hear her out. But I'll say it here. What do you expect them to do? Refuse to sell OS to government organizations? Refuse to pay taxes? Provide food and shelter to those who are willing to protest everyday on the street?
I'm not going to give CNN and others the same treatment. Of course not. They are criminals who consciously construct a contrived reality, but MS?

PS. I didn't edit the actual exchange. Just spaced them in a way it's easier to read.