The twisted case of stealing an animal to eat its meat

This gentleman and his friends belong to a community that is a minority in India. They are known to eat meat, especially meat of an animal that the majority in India considers to be taboo.

So this guy, goes about stealing that animal, but unfortunately got caught by the owner. The owner then called out his neighbors who then cornered the thieves. They handed them over to the police.

This news is very similar to the case in UP which is being played out across mainstream media in India. But there’s practically no coverage about the incident that I have reported here and it came in a corner in TOI paper on 9th October 2015.

Is that because, the minority community I am referring to in the report are Gypsies? Or is it because the animal in contention was only a cat? Or is it because the thieves weren’t killed by mob frenzy? I don’t think it is the last option because the entire reporting these days is about the animal and the minority community, while at the core it is a clear case of a mob going berserk.

I am of the opinion that killing people is wrong, whatever be the reasons attributed; unless it was in self-defence. So, nab the alleged killers, prove that the allegation is indeed real and then hang them. But why do you want to make it such a political issue? Oh wait, Bihar elections are around the corner!

This is the main article I am referring to:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/5-narikuravas-arrested-for-stealing-cats/articleshow/49279996.cms

Read this other interesting article where the Gypsies say that cat meat is a delicacy and that it is an integral part of their offering during celebration: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/article206726.ece

Random Observation # 044: The war on Mumbai

Like countless millions across the country and outside, I too have been hooked up on to the TV set from yesterday, following the developments in 'The war on Mumbai'.

My heart goes out to those brave souls who are flushing out the terrorists from the face of this planet and those souls who have perished in this effort.

I have had the following questions cross my mind at various times in these 2 days:
1. Will this ever stop?
2. Is there any proof of terrorism really winning?
3. When will our authorities learn their lesson?
4. Will the politicians ever rise above vote bank politics?
5. Should the media have been allowed to telecast the positions of commandos at various locations?
6. Why was the PM’s address to the nation so hollow?
7. Why is the National Tele Media so obsessed with this development that they have chosen to completely ignore other things happening in the country – like the death of a former Prime Minister (not that I like him, but he was after all an elected PM) and the really bad situation that Tamil Nadu is in, after the impact of Cyclone Nisha?
8. And even in this current episode, why is the same media focusing only on the LIVE events and is not talking much about the incidents at the Railway Stations and Hospitals? Most of the victims were actually out there. Clearly ‘Star Hotel with elite socialites and Foreigners under attack’ has scored heavily over ‘Ordinary citizens shot dead randomly at a public place’. Fie on you all News Channels.
9. Are the likes of Arundathi Roy going to raise the idiotic Human Rights Violation angle and say that the commandos should have offered candies to the terrorists?

There are a lot more questions but am unable to get any coherent thoughts to document them.

It may sound jingoistic, but I really liked the way the Home Minister of Maharashtra ended his press conference with “Bhaarat Mata ki Jai”।

जय हिंद। भारत माता की जय।

This too is adulteration

One of the dictionaries gives the meaning of the word "adulterate" as follows:

****
adulterate

adjective
1. mixed with impurities

verb
1. corrupt, debase, or make impure by adding a foreign or inferior substance; often by replacing valuable ingredients with inferior ones;
****

And based on the sheer volume of advertisements I see these days in the media - electronic, paper and anything else that might be there - I am of the strong opinion that the content that I am paying for is heavily adulterated.

Just refresh your memory to the programs on TV on Deepavali day. There were so many channels telecasting "mega hit" movies. Or movies that were "released few weeks back" etc. etc. Effectively, we all sat down to watch the movie, but do you really have a good feeling about it? I don't. I just remember seeing some scenes interspersed with a gazillion folk wishing the viewers a happy Deepavali. The problem is that they came on screen so often, that even when I switched on the TV, I could see them on screen!

Anyways, the point is, I got to watch some 10 minutes of the movie, followed by 5-6 minutes of advertisements. What about normal days? Any of the soaps telecast on these channels will give you a total of 20 minutes of program time and a solid 10 minutes of ad time. The only time I don't see ads on TV is when I watch the Suprabhatham show at 5.30 AM. Actually even then, there is at least one ad between the end of that program and the start of the next.

And I don't even have to go in detail about the volume of ads we see during cricket matches. Good grief. 2-3 ads between every over. At the end of each ball, you get some scrolls or there is a banner ad around the corners. As if we don't see enough of these, we get movie actors (gender-free term) promoting their movies during the match.

The Internet is not far behind. Every goddamn website has ad scrolls running around. So much so, that some of the news sites have started putting up videos of their TV ads in a separate area on screen. Try reading an article containing statements made by Lalu, with a video of Amir Khan merely 3 pixels away and you will know what I am talking about.

Is the print media free of this nuisance? Hell no. There are so many ads in each page. But at least, they follow a very strict pattern of placing the ads at the bottom or side and always in pre-defined pages.

Why do we accept this nonsense? Just picture yourself in a cinema hall watching the latest James Bond flick on screen. Just when Bond orders a vodka martini - shaken but not stirred - there comes an ad which glorifies the capabilities of Harpic's latest toilet cleansing solution! How would you feel?

This is why I would like the appropriate regulatory authority in India, bring about laws that govern how much of advertisements can be displayed in all these media. Let them spell out clearly that when a consumer is paying for some content, he should be able to view the content without any adulteration. Or at least, like in the case with an off-the-shelf food consumable, the consumer should be made aware of what is the percentage for the various components in that content that is being consumed.

For example, for the electronic media, there must be a cap that for 30 minutes of program (does not included any live coverage) a maximum of 5-6 minutes can only be spent on advertisements. For live programs, there needs to be a very detailed cap for the different types of events being covered live.

In print media, let there be dedicated pages that have only advertisements, just like they have classifieds as separate pages or as a supplement itself. Let them say that for 5 sq.in of printed matter, there can be 1 sq.in of ad space.

Similar funda for the web pages as well.

Am I infringing on the freedom of a manufacturer to advertise his products? No. I am only asking for an option where I get to choose how much ads I want to see. I think its the same as the marketing calls that we get on our phones. If that can be regulated, I see no reason why this shouldn't be.

And in fact, since there is lesser time/space available to display ads, we would get improved programming content, as otherwise the viewer is simply going to switch channels. Or buy another newspaper. Or go to some other website. For the very same reason, the media is going to hike up the rates for the advertisers, which means we wont have to see ads of "anjaal aluppu marundhu". And since the advertiser sees the shorter attention span for the consumer, he obviously has to improve the quality of the ad, so that there is better brand identity retention (or whatever the technical term is). We would soon get into a situation like in the US, where the annual Super Bowl presents the opportunity for the best ads to come out.

But this regulation, must be implemented only when the consumer pays for something. If I watch a pay channel, the ad must be regulated. If its a free-to-air channel, I don't think it should be forced to comply with these regulations. Similarly with print media. If I pay, I don't want to see these many ads. But if I am getting a free newspaper, then it can have any number of advertisements. Same is the case with web pages as well.

I have obviously not given a practical solution to what may not even be a problem for many people. But haey, that's who I am!