June 15, 2017

Idiots And Their Intercourse Sanctimoniousness!

I await good cinema! And I await commercial cinema with a hope they will be good! I love Ray’s Pather Paanchaali and have seen it as many times as I have seen Sholay! And I love Irfan Khan and I adore SRK!
So when the mini-trails of Jab Harry Met Sejal were released, I was very excited. SRK hasn’t delivered something exceptional in a long time. And this looked like it. It’s got the Badshah of Bollywood SRK, the empress of acting Anoushka and the undisputed king of poetic direction Imtiaz Ali helming it. In fact, the second mini-trail was indeed exceptional. It gave a feel that this would be fun to watch!! In the same, Sejal comes to Harry with an indemnity bond stating that in case they were to have any sexual intimacy or full intercourse, Harry would be absolved of all legal charges. Harry obviously finds it very exciting – specially in these days of over the top definitions of date rapes and false accusations worldwide (without trying to trivialize the same – BBC News; Does India have a problem with false rape claims?; http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38796457).
But while Harry found it a fun and exciting proposition, some rank idiots sitting at the censor board found it vulgar. What else would you expect with that nincompoop Nihalani heading it? But I think the problem is not just with such rank uninitiated idiots. This overthe-top morality is becoming a sign of the new cow-dung worshipping, cow-brained India being lead by anomic non state actors like gauraksha groups, that is slowly but steadily making India a killing field (The Times of India; Accused of carrying beef, teen killed on train; http://toi.in/CR9wlb/a18ag) in the name of culture, cows and religious supremacy. We have no stronghanded clampdown on such madness coming from the top; and at the bottom, we have various gau rakshak vigilante brigades getting a nod from people like even our home secretary (The Home Secretary thinks lynchings are overhyped. “I think they are over-hyped and over reported,” says Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi on lynching incidents in India; http://indiatoday. intoday.in/story/union-home-secretarylynchings/1/987029.html). It is so much so that every 5th case of communal violence in Uttar Pradesh is today linked to cow vigilantism! And it’s all because the powers that are, are hellbent on creating antagonism between religious groups to polarize votes.
Any way, coming back to intercourse. It’s time for specially Indians to really come out clean and relaxed about it. It’s time for people to stop being sanctimonious about it. Definitions of marriages, sex, judging people on the basis of their sexual preferences and number of partners is thankfully becoming totally outdated. But sadly, while the world is moving forward, we are moving coward.

Recently, The New York Times did a path breaking piece on open marriages
And while my views on this are far less apologetic and clearer than the way this rare and lovely article addresses the issue, the reality is that the world is heading towards a far more liberal attitude towards sex than our cow-vigilantes would allow.
The hypocrisy in our society with respect to liberal attitudes towards sex comes out clearly when on one hand a bit arty film called Pink becomes a super hit and an article I write on that gets endless likes and positive feedback (https://www.facebook.com/chaudhuri.arindam/posts/10154973196260016:0), on the other hand, an equally lovely commercial film about the lifestyle that can perhaps lead you to the fate of the lady in Pink is trashed and the praise for it gets back only abuses (https://www.facebook.com/chaudhuri.arindam/posts/10155229900760016:0). We love moral lectures around women’s equality but get unnerved when we see them enjoying life like men do. So Pink is acceptable – after all, the leading lady is crying, is weak and takes help of a man to set the bad guy right – but the leading lady getting an indemnity bond to enjoy sexual intercourse without legal hassles raises eyebrows. We love PK and make it a bumper hit and yet the very next day like low IQ cows stand in front of a cow, worshiping it for better results in our exams or for a business deal to strike or to win elections.
Actually, the problem is also that for far too long, we have stupidly inflated things like the immature and unintelligent virtuousness of being a virgin etc. and tied down women with far too many stereotypes.
Truth is, of course, that neither is there any virtue in those stereotypes and, more hilariously, nor have women ever been like that. I have been telling everyone for more than two decades now: get married only if you want a/another sibling to share your life with... Not if you are thinking of having the initial feeling of crazed up attraction forever. If some people manage to retain that, my respects. But it’s necessarily quite unnatural – scientifically and logically.


As The New York Times’ piece suggests – and I strongly believe – to get that feeling of attraction, which is a natural desire, perhaps you need to realize that you need to look beyond the concept of marriage. For we need to understand that a marriage is a creation by the society to legalize something which never needed any legalizing. It was a creation to dominate women and brand them as one’s personal property. While officially men were also supposed to become the same (barring in Islam where women had to possibly share them with three more women officially), the fact is they never cared. But men failed to realize the other reality. Women also never really cared. Men only lived an illusory life thinking that their women remained their personal property. Because for every man looking for a relationship outside his marriage, there was an equal number of women. It was never one woman satisfying the needs of the rest of the 3.5 billion men (assuming all men have been looking for relations outside their marriage, as all women like to point out)!!! So while men, being dominating, were non caring, women, being raised up to be careful and protective of themselves in general, thus became more sly and secretive and thus became better liars. So, many more men got caught, while women only charged their men and cried victim, while hiding their relations nicely (and often using these tears to get into newer and more secretive relationships). That’s all. While men know that someone else’s wife is having a relationship (with him or his friends), they generally had less idea about their wife and some other man had more!
In a nutshell, it’s time now to give up traditional religion-based completely irrelevant concepts of marriage. We can raise children without getting married; we can have children without getting married; we can live happily without getting married; and most importantly, we can love someone of the opposite sex as deeply and have intercourse with them freely without getting married.
In fact, the obsession with being the sole sexual right holder of your partner is the reason behind breaking down of love and relations. Getting to realize that, respecting each other’s independence, and giving each other space is the only way to have gender equality. It’s sad that parents proudly talk about their son having many girlfriends. But when it comes to their daughter, they limit themselves to praising her dancing skills or music abilities. Well, the truth is that she is being introduced by different boys in their homes as their respective girlfriend. Just that she is good at lying in her own home. Let’s not make liars out of our daughters by making them feel that they lose their purity if they have a boy friend or if they fall in love. That’s a shame.
The concept of marriage, like religion, is dated. It can only make a world of 7 billion liars. After all, is it not so farcical to cry hoarse about feminism and women’s rights and then get dirtily legal to get moneys from your partner during a divorce? Be independent and live in your own merit and as per what the society can provide for all.
No wonder in the film PK, PK was so amused at why everyone was in general so secretive about sex, and yet gave a massive marriage party to announce to the world that tonight they would be having sex with each other. PK was never a movie about religion alone. It was about the shame of treating sex as a taboo, and about gender equality... Sadly, not many people realized this.
As more and more people stay without getting married (less than 50 percent of adults in USA now live with their spouse compared to 75 percent plus in 1960s), let’s cheer this generation of forward-thinking adults, boys and girls, who are slowly but steadily bringing about gender equality more than anything else. In any case, as the average age of healthy living for the next generation hurtles towards upwards of 100 years (and perhaps lot more soon) as per each and every research, to declare yourself the sole property of one person for 75 to 100 years of your life sounds really immature and absurd. For the first time in a public forum – apart from with my students – I touched upon this in the forum for equality that we organized recently in London. And am glad that it was well received.
To summarize, let’s cheer the new generation that can freely talk about intercourse without becoming liars and even sign an indemnity bond before having intercourse!
Down with the censors who on one hand enjoy making songs like Khada hai, khada hai, khada hai; Le lo, le lo mera; Ye maal gaadi, mujhe dhakka laga, and on the other hand try to get sanctimonious on the topic of intercourse. Shame.

(SMS your views with your name and topic to

Connect        with      the       author
at www.facebook.com/chaudhuri.arindam
or tweet him at https://twitter.com/Arindam_IIPM
or follow his articles at http://arindamchaudhuri.blogspot.com


May 15, 2017

What Marx Left Unsaid - A Book That Can Tomorrow Unleash Many An Arab Spring Across The World

At 80, my father, Malay Chaudhuri, finally finished writing his dream book in which he presents a forceful argument for an exploitation free world with a maximum wage ratio of the highest paid to lowest paid worker at 3:1. The book by itself is no less than a revolution by itself. I genuinely believe that it has the potentiality of unleashing many an Arab Spring across the world.
I am a proud son who just came back from London, where Nobel laureate Leymah Gbowee launched his revolutionary book, What Marx Left Unsaid, A Theory of Economic Justice at the Power Brands Global - London International Forum for Equality.
It's a pleasure, as a proud son and lifetime student of Malay Chaudhuri, to share my thoughts in this editorial on this amazing revolutionary theory of economic justice.
I have grown up at home hearing from my father about his theory of production of skills by skills… literally from my early childhood; just like my son, who now has been hearing it from my father since he was in class 6th or so. Yes, my father believes this theory can be taught to anyone; and he has taught my son and me the same since we were 11, or so, respectively.
What the theory basically says is simple. Human beings must earn as per their skills, which determine their ability to contribute in a society. And skills must be measured fairly. All that we need to produce skills are two things. First, the readiness to sacrifice unskilled labour. That's what any man is capable of giving with basic education – unskilled labour. The second is certain skilled hours of a trainer. So, if one is a 12th pass student and wants to become a graduate, the society loses on an entire lifetime of class 12th pass labour and has to invest three years of a skilled teacher's labour, to make the 12th pass person a graduate. And in return, the society gets from this educated graduate, 45 years of a graduate's labour (assuming the person is 20 years old and would go ahead and work till the age of 65) instead of, say, 48 years of a 12th class pass individual's labour. The underlying assumption of this theory is that every skill is more or less reproducible. And anything that is reproducible should have a price commensurate to its cost of production; or rather, more specifically, its opportunity cost to the society.
For example, if a person, who starts working at the age of 15, is categorized as an unskilled labourer, he is typically supposed to have only passed (or failed) class 10th by then. Now, if we were to make him an engineer, what exactly does society lose and gain?
Society loses 50 years of 10th pass unskilled labour; that is, it loses around 100,000 hours in 50 years, and instead gets 44 years, or 88,000 hours of an engineer's labour. The society has to invest six extra years of skilled labour to make this individual an engineer. If one were to assume that the person has to study 500 hours per year, then in 6 years, the individual has to study 3000 hours. If the teacher (assuming he is also an engineer) teaches, say, 25 students in a class, then the society – to create a single engineer – has invested 3000 ÷ 25= 120 skilled hours.
So what it essentially means is that 100,000 unskilled hours of class 10th labour plus 120 skilled hours of investment to make an engineer equals 88,000 skilled hours of an engineer's labour. Or in other words, 100,000 unskilled hours = 87880 skilled engineer's hours. Or value of 1 skilled engineer's hour is equal to 100,000 ÷ 87880, or approximately 1.15 unskilled hours of a 10th pass student!
Now, if we were to tell this to an engineer, he would literally, if I may, freak out! But the fact of the matter is that as a society, that's approximately the engineer's worth. So, as per my above calculation, the maximum wage difference between an engineer and a tenth class pass person can only be 1.25:1.
In the book, What Marx Left Unsaid, Malay Chaudhuri has basically written a more detailed explanation of the same. For example, to teach the student for 120 hours, the teacher himself has to do research of added 120 hours. Similarly, there are librarians, research associates etc who also invest their hours; and the actual hours invested, instead of being 120, might be 360. Perchance, some teachers may have Ph.D qualifications; so their hours are more valuable… and so on.
Actually, the final figure is far less ruthless than my calculation. It says that the maximum difference between wages can be 3:1. And if the cost of producing a scientist is only 3 times the cost of producing an ordinary laborer, then the scientist's salary should also be a maximum of 3 times more than that of the laborer.
While Karl Marx said every human being should be paid according to his contribution in the society, the lack of a measuring tool of contribution is what left his theory vague. How do you measure the contribution of a scientist who invents a life-saving drug versus the man who comes and cleans your toilet? Leave it in the hands of free market and the ratio could be anything between 10:1 to 1000:1 or more.
But the reality of the matter is that the only reason the sweeper is cleaning toilets is because he wasn't perhaps given even as low as 5 to 7 years of extra education after, say, class 8.
Post that, it's just a matter of chance which scientist invents what in the next how many years. This, of course, requires sacrifice of individual arrogance –"I am so capable because I am by myself special" – and replacement of the same with "I am so good because I got the opportunity to be trained by teachers and develop my qualities".
To me, if the society believes this, then the theory outlined in this book is unbeatable and defines the foundation of a just society. In fact, every theory has a theoretical aspect and a psychological aspect. And I feel that even psychologically, a 3:1 ratio between the highest paid person and lowest paid person is a very just feeling as well. In fact, it is something that is in any case bound to happen in a free market capitalist system eventually.
Surprised? As we drift towards an economy where education actually becomes free thanks to the Internet, soon, we will have a situation where everyone could be educated and no one would want to do the jobs attributed to low qualifications – say, that of a sweeper. And then, we are bound to see a sweeper or driver getting paid more than an engineer. Because the market demand and supply decides prices in the free market. With an over-supply of engineers and scarcity of sweepers, the sweepers would be costlier despite being less educated. Of course, this would eventually lead to disincentive in being educated. And finally, we may have perfect competition where engineers and sweepers will perhaps be paid the same; even if the engineers end up getting paid more, the figure would be a psychologically acceptable 3 times more, unlike what it is now.


In the world as we know it, the wage difference has been skewed and differentiated till now, because education has or had been restricted to a lucky few. So, those with education could charge a super premium – or what we call monopolistic super normal profit. As Internet brings about perfect competition in every sector, things are changing rapidly. Poverty is no more a reason for remaining uneducated. Remaining uneducated will soon be a conscious choice we will make. After all, getting educated requires that much extra effort than remaining uneducated. Consequently, a significant proportion of people actually might not mind earning a third of what a highly educated person earns and might choose to not put in the extra effort in gaining higher education. However, if the educated man were to earn 5 to 10 times or 20 times more than an uneducated individual, and if education is freely available, in all probabilities, people will get educated, and bring down the prices of the educated lot. One might of course argue, what about entrepreneurs? This brilliant book answers that too. One might argue, what about people with the same qualifications but who have better skills due to their having worked harder? Well, for such cases, there will be wage cuts depending upon one’s productivity; but not necessarily additional wages.
One might argue, what about specially and uniquely talented people? Well, I firmly believe that in a fair and just society, they will be very happy earning three times more, plus additional non-monetary rewards and recognition. That's what psychology says. No one has ever achieved greatness chasing money. People achieve greatness chasing their passions. And what they expect in return is recognition, especially if they are financially as stable as their other friends whom they studied with.
I am sure that whether you like or dislike the book, it will be hard for you to find a logical or humanitarian flaw within this treatise. Ever since I stepped into Malay Chaudhuri’s class way back in 1989, I have nurtured the dream of such a society. This book – the most cherished gift on my 45th birthday from the man who has inspired me the most in my life – reminds and inspires me yet again to dedicate the rest of my life to try and bring about a revolution around the world in order to make the dream come true of a fair world where the wage difference between the highest paid worker and the lowest paid worker is simply 3:1.
I hope you all soon buy the book, read it, get as inspired and share the dream. May this dream one day turn into a global revolution and change this world.

(SMS your views with your name and topic to

Connect        with      the       author
at www.facebook.com/chaudhuri.arindam
or tweet him at https://twitter.com/Arindam_IIPM
or follow his articles at http://arindamchaudhuri.blogspot.com

" This blog is managed by The Sunday Indian. We heartily welcome comments on the articles.. However TSI will delete all those comments which are personal in nature and have the usage of unparliamentary language. "