Caste Makes Waste

I have a friend who pronounces "caste" that rhymes with "waste", so this blog entry would rhyme. Even so, it should rhyme with past, mast, last, etc.

Many Bollywood films would have you think that love marriages are the norm. While they have become more common, arranged marriages are still far more common than not. Bollywood films have an opportunity to tackle some tough topics, but many fans see these films as escapism and aren't prepared, except for the more literate crowd, to see something more politicized.

I was reading the following article about an inter-caste marriage, one between a Rajput and a Dalit. Dalits are the names given to the untouchable caste, still the lowest caste in Indian society. They are meant to handle cleaning of toilers, the handling of the dead, and so forth. They are considered unclean.

Arranged marriages have generally been more about status, according to the article. You marry some person that is appropriate to the family. Lest you think this is completely unheard of in the US, it wasn't so long ago that wealthy families would expect their children to marry other children of wealthy families. You didn't simply marry someone, you marry their family.

So I imagine a Bollywood film that starts off like any other traditional film of boy meets girl. Everything is good, song and dance, but it is eventually revealed, say, that the woman is a Dalit, and then slowly his family becomes horrified and wants nothing to do with her. They try to get someone more caste-friendly, but the son is uninterested, and eventually, despite pleading from the son, they feel that it is necessary to kill her, and there's a stoning scene.

Anyway, it would get pretty intense towards the end, so that the viewer is made to face these issues. Perhaps, with the prodigious Bollywood film output, a movie like this has been made, though I would imagine it would be difficult.

Just a thought.

A Modern India

In my only trip to India, I ate dinner at some ritzy restaurant in Mumbai with my friend and her friend. Her friend was a "worldly" sort, even in India, having traveled throughout the subcontinent (many folks, I'm sure, don't wander particular far from where they grew up). She once read a book written by someone foreign, New Zealand or Australia, or some place, and remarked at the insights that person had had, much like de Tocqueville who described American optimism from his French eyes.

She remarked that the question "What is India?" has no easy answer because it is so large and so diverse that there is no single answer to that. The answer is complicated by many factors including a country that is more like Europe, with each state typically having its own language and script and politics. There's religion with Muslims, Hindus, Christians living with one another. There's those that liked the British.

India has a huge diaspora, with Indians living throughout the world, in Africa, in Singapore and Malaysia, and increasing in the US and England. This view of the West contests with local conservative traditions that emphasize family values far more than red state United States.

In conversations I've had with Indians, I'm almost dumbstruck by the basic comment of "It's not like that in India any more". Well, that's not exactly it. For example, it's fairly common for Americans to get divorced. Indeed, I can just go through our relatively small company and probably count at least half a dozen (if not more) folks that either have parents that are divorced or are themselves divorced (and possibly remarried). It might be 10%, but that's a lot (and it may be higher).

My friend from Mumbai felt that divorce was pretty common, and that it was no longer the stigma that it once was. There are several things I wanted to point out, which I don't have answers to.

First, she hangs around a certain crowd, perhaps Western educated, perhaps single in their 30s as she is, and this crowd may not be representative of the entire population of India. As her friend pointed out, India is large and diverse, and while certain things may be true of one group, it may not be true in general. Now, I'm no expert in India, and I should defer, perhaps, but I doubt she's completely explored the situation either. Certainly, her experiences, like mine, would be completely anecdotal. She wouldn't have numbers to back her claims (and neither do I).

Second, there's a tendency I see among Indians I do ask to tell you that certain things widely accepted in the West but possibly not widely accepted in India do exist. For example, I looked around this company, and I didn't spot one women wearing trousers or Western style clothing. I'm sure they exist, but the point is, if I see a dozen women and all wear a traditional style of clothing at work, then it suggests to me that Western clothing is not common.

I think people think of that one rare exception, and being an exception, it sticks out that much more, or they think of those people that studied in the West, and use that as their baseline of comparison. I think if they were to merely count, they would find the numbers are really paltry.

So why do they answer this way? It might be more subversive. Perhaps I'm making a comment implying India is somehow inferior for not adopting certain Western practices, and the person listening to this, trying to please, says, no, no, it's not that way, and says something to please the other person, whether it's entirely true or not. As long as there's one or two people that satisfy it, they feel comfortable saying it as if it were the complete truth.

Now, again, I could be quite mistaken about my views. My answers are not made through deep research. They are anecdotal in nature. But I feel, say, somewhat more confident making pronouncements about Americans because they seem more homogeneous (and that's probably wrong too).

So I wonder if there's a strong traditional behavior where Indians say things you want to here, because to be blunt, to disagree with you might be perceived as offensive (among people of equal station, I can see debate and dispute occurring, so this view is not completely true, and Indians do love a good debate).

Echoes of Another Country

If you yell out, into a canyon or cave, you can hear the reverberations come back, in an echo, an echo that resembles the original sound, but it's not the original. It's distorted.

Apparently, the brass band, during the 1800s or so, became a staple of the British military, and as the British empire was in full force at the time, they brought brass bands wherever they went.

In particular, they brought it to India, who also came to like the brass band, even if they didn't care for the notes, and Indian-ized the sound. The gallantry and formalism soon made brass bands popular for Indian weddings, so much so that that, in parts of India, the size and dress of the brass band shows the wealth of the groom.

And as British brass bands look to survive, they've benefited from the migration of Indians throughout the world, and requests that British brass bands come and play in weddings in England, when many thought they'd make a living playing parades, as the opportunity became available.

Here's a link to the NPR show, Studio 360, for the Indian brass band, an echo from another country.

Silky Kumar

Who is Silky Kumar?

Most of the songs (and associated dances) from India come in Bollywood film. While the films aren't exactly extended music videos (they resemble more of the music interludes in Austin Powers), they do form the most popular way of disseminating music.

Recently, a video was produced by MTV India with a guy named Silky Kumar, who is something of a dork. The song is "Scent of Desire".

This is really more of a sly marketing ad. While no mention of Axe body spray is mentioned, the product was released sometime later and was accompanied by this music, which the advertisers paid for.

It's interesting to see how ads are customized for the culture they are in. With the prodigious number of films produced and watched in India, it's a surprise that someone hasn't thought of this idea before.

Western India

India's a complicated country. In a sense, it's very much many countries into one, as each state in India typically has its own language and customs. What unifies the country is religion, but even religious observations vary from state to state.

Here's an interesting article about women seeking some independence prior to marriage.

Without women working, a woman being able to live on her own would be challenging, at best. Once a society allows women to work and to make comparable money to a man, then women begin to think about a life outside of marriage.

These behaviors are more typical of "metros" or the major cities of India.

The reason that India is complex is that many women still live rather traditionally. Even the vaunted IT revolution of India only affects a small percentage of Indians, which means that most Indians still live, one would imagine, much like their parents did.

Like the rest of Asia, India struggles balancing traditional values with more "Western" values, and those can be at odds with one another.

This is not to say Western values are necessarily superior, but that when there are more options available, people are going to take those options.

While India zooms to the 21st century technologically (at least, parts of India), cultural changes will be slower. How will attitudes change in the upcoming 40 years?

Love and Marriage

As much as we are bombarded by television and movies, it's amazing they don't have more influence than they do.

I'll give you an example. The typical Bollywood film, beyond being about song and dance, tends to focus on love stories. Boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, that kinda thing. There are still some hangups in society which prevent, say, the three-minute onscreen kiss that, to be fair, was a problem in US cinema 50 or more years ago (and directors tried very much to skate to the edge of what was allowed), is pretty much verboten.

Yet, the entire subcontinent, which is India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh (I'm sure I'm missing some other countries) are one of the largest, last bastions of arranged marriages. Indeed, there is a name given to marriages that aren't arranged: love marriages.

Cinematically, arranged marriages aren't as dramatic as love marriages, and really, to skirt around that issue, marriages aren't even the point. It's the fairy tale meeting of boy and girl.

While guys and girls are less segregated in the metros (what we call "cities"), there is still segregation, and it's more profound in the villages, and, to be fair, even in the IT industry. I remember goading on this guy to talk to the girls in the company, and he said that he would get kicked by the girls if he tried. He was perfectly content having his marriage arranged, and not having to think about finding someone. Indeed, he might argue that he shouldn't buck tradition, and that his parents knew best.

And the funny thing? Despite the movies showing a world that seems at odds with the ones that most desis live in, movies are good entertainment. I doubt these displays of wholesome love is considered a travesty, something that criticizes the traditions of arranged marriages.

Why is that? Why, after all the movies that are shown, with many a guy wooing many a woman, does that not translate to the real world? The answer is rather simple. Guys understand they aren't the dashing movie stars that are shown. They are shy. Even in the US, where arranged marriages are practically unheard of, guys find it tough meeting that first girl. They often have to be egged on by their male friends, encouraging them to take that step, until they finally muster the courage to ask for a date. After that, it's probably not SO bad (though some always find it challenging).

And when every male you know is not asking women out, then you live with the status quo, and let the parents figure it out, so you don't have to. This, despite film after film, encouraging the notion of love.

For a less extreme example of the lack of power in pop entertainment, consider television programs. How often do you hear a Southern accent? Until the 70s, you didn't much hear African American accents. And Boston and New York accents are uncommon.

Yet, despite how common "good English" is spoken on television, the influence of family and friends seems much stronger than television, and accents persist. It hasn't been washed out because of television.

I find it fascinating how much or how little
popular entertainment affects the behavior of people.

Indian Chinese

Chinese food is undoubtedly flavored by where it's cooked. The Chinese food in the US is said to be Americanized--that is cooked to American tastes. Similarly, the Chinese food in India has an Indian taste. It's a bit spicier to be sure.

The most common way to have Chinese food is "Manchurian", thus you can have mushroom Manchurian or chicken Manchurian. So distinctive is this style of Chinese food that Indians who have visited the US craving this kind of accented Chinese dish have been sorely disappointed.

I only had a chance to have Indian Chinese once in India. Funny enough, however, is that you can, at some select Indian restaurants, get Indian Chinese food. It's not so common, but with enough searching you might find one nearby. There's one near where I live called Madras Palace, which, as the name might suggest, is South Indian food, decidedly of the vegetarian variety.

There's two words I can use to describe Indian Chinese food. Spicy ketchup. Yes, it's slightly red, slight tangy, and quite spicy. It's a bit unlike any Chinese food I'm used to eating. The closest might be sweet and sour, but it would need the extra kick of spiciness.

Here's an example of an Indian Chinese dish. Another aspect I forgot to mention is that the food is often deep fried, then the sauce added on top. This recipe certainly falls in that mold.

So next time you're at an Indian restaurant, look out for Indian Chinese dishes. And make sure to ask for it spicy.

Anyone Can Cook...Indian?

I'm taking the plunge and moving closer to work. I'm hoping the reduced commute time will mean I have time to learn how to cook. And I'm hoping to learn a cuisine that is distinctly different from the one I grew up with. I want to learn to cook Indian cuisine.

To be fair, Indian cuisine is as varied as it comes, much like Chinese cuisine. There's the difference of north vs. south, with chapatis and breads of the north, and rice and coconut of the south. There's vegetarian cooking favored by many a Hindu, and there is meats, the staple of Muslim cooking.

I had a Muslim Indian friend who would invite me over for dinner. This would often by 8:30 PM or later, and he said he'd prepare dinner, and I could help. I had no idea, initially, that it would take so long. His primary dish was a beef dish, made with ginger, onions, and various spices, and start to end, it would take an hour and a half.

Refrigeration has meant many a thing. Perhaps the most important is that meat doesn't go bad so easily. Remember all the fuss that was made by Europeans going to India? It was to get spices, presumably to cover the taste of rotting meat that they could do little to prevent. Once you could stop rotting (or slow it down), you didn't need so much spices to hide the taste.

Even so, people soon began to appreciate the taste of spices in their food, and Muslim Indians, in particular, discovered they wanted to get rid of the natural taste of meat, and have the flavor of spices infused into meat.

I've had several Indian cookbooks, but many have been far too daunting to follow. An authentic book might have a recipe containing a dozen spices.

But somehow, recently, I stumbled on a book whose title seems like a gimmick. It's called 5 spices, 50 dishes. It limits Indian cooking to only 5 spices, which may seem ridiculous given the number of spices that go into Indian cooking. Just off the top of my head: turmeric, coriander, cumin, cinnamon, mustard seeds, fenugreek, cilantro, ginger, chilis. OK, OK, some of these aren't technically spices.

The book is written by Ruta Kahate. No idea who that is. I assume it's a "she". In case, you're curious, the five spices are: coriander seeds, cumin, mustard seeds, cayenne pepper, and turmeric.

I've long known that what the Brits (and Americans) refer to as curry is not a spice at all, but an amalgamation of several spices, which Indians refer to as masalas. And to that extent, masalas often do not taste anything like what we call curry. Indeed, the Vietnamese come closer to using that kind of curry in their cooking than Indians. (There are curry plants and curry leaves, but this isn't the kind of curry that typifies Indian cooking).

I have no idea how the recipes will turn out. I tried Indian cooking once, many, many years ago. However, back then, I hadn't really eaten as much Indian food as I have now, so I wasn't sure what things were supposed to taste like. I suspect that's still true even now, though I figure if I'm happy, then it should be OK. (I recall making dal, which is lentils, and really having no idea how dal was supposed to turn out. At least I've had some since then.)

I do have a Chinese cookbook, which I'll also try (indeed, I own 100 cooking books, many of which I've never tried a single recipe). We'll see if this works out. I hope it does, because I'd like to cook a lot better than I do now.

Name of the Rose

There's a Star Trek (TOS) episode titled By Any Other Name, which is a reference to Shakespeare's quote "A rose, by any other name, would smell just as sweet".

Most of us, in the US, take for granted that we have a surname, passed from the father's side down to children. It's so ingrained that it takes a moment to realize that this wasn't always the case. People's surnames, say from England, were often picked from their profession. Thus, Baker, Shoemaker, Taylor, Smith, and so forth.

Scandinavians followed a different tradition, often naming a person by his father's first name. Thus, you might be Jonas Andersson, which would mean, Jonas, son of Anders (or Ander's son). Indeed, the prevalence of names like Anderson came from Swedes that immigrated to the US (and why they're apparently far more common in the US than in, say, England).

The tradition of naming a person after their father is still common in India. Indeed, there are two ways that people pick up a "surname", which I put in quotes, because surnames are not always passed father to son (at least, not in the way you're familiar with). Another common naming tradition is to pick the town or village that the person was born in. I suppose there are names that are based primarily on religion. Many a Sikh has a surname of Singh. I believe those that are Jains (an offshoot of Hinduism) often have a surname of Jain.

Clearly my knowledge of surnames in India is lacking, but the point I want to make is this. Since surnames don't necessarily last more than a generation, there's a premium on the given (first) name. This may be why Indians, who have immigrated to the US, don't adopt Western names. Chinese and Koreans often name their kids with American names (some would say Christian, but Koreans are Christian, but do not name their children Mark or Paul). The Japanese, intriguingly, often do stick with Japanese names (thus, few Bob Watanabes).

Furthermore, where a typical American chooses to abbreviate their first name, as in, B. Smith for Bob Smith, Indians, by contrast, prefer to write Bob S. After all, the last name is the father's name (not sure what women do), so why would you emphasize that? On the other hand, if you are passing a surname generation after generation, you may wish to emphasize your heritage.

If you ever get email from someone Indian, you may notice that it's the surname that's abbreviated, thus, Rajeev Motwani might be abbreviated Rajeev M. Of course, if the person has lived in the US, they may adopt American traditions (but why?) and say R. Motwani.

Chemical Brothers

A series of ads are making their way on the air, and they have me thinking.

Once upon a time, two people looking to meet might have to rely on parents or friends or their own initiative to find someone, then go through the usual courtship rituals, and if all went well, get married (assuming the goal was marriage).

But this is the 21st century, and web has sprouted up businesses that languored a bit in other mediums, including online dating. Of the dating services, perhaps the best known is eHarmony. eHarmony has some restrictions, its most notable is they don't accept gay relationships.

They claim that they have not focused their complex algorithms in that direction, and have no particular desire to do so. This can be viewed in several ways. First, a company doesn't have to cater to everyone. If you want to run a dog-sitting service, you're not compelled to run a cat-sitting service, a babysitting service, and so forth. Maybe you like dogs better.

But it does say something interesting about eHarmony. It suggests that the powers that be that run the company don't approve of gay relationships and want no part of it. That may be false, but given that eHarmony's apparent value is in the way it handles matches, the public isn't privy to the real reasons why they have this policy.

But this being a capitalistic society, someone's gotta want to fill the need, and already you see ads for this. I was watching the French Open's women's final (well, the first set, before I got called by a friend who wanted to talk at some length, thus I missed the rout of a second set) and an ad for chemistry.com came on.

It's pretty humorous. A guy is looking at a magazine. It appears to be a Playboy magazine of sorts. He says "Yeah, yeah" as he turns the magazine on edge to show an ostensible centerfold.

"Nope, I'm still gay".

Followed by "Rejected by eHarmony". It's a pretty clever ad striking at a deficiency of eHarmony.

That had me thinking about India.

Again.

Bollywood films usually center on romance. Indeed, if you were to watch Indian films, you'd think that love marriages were the norm. Love marriages are in contrast to arranged marriages, which are still very common in India. I've seen maybe three or four Bollywood films, so my sample size is small, but you rarely ever see people in arranged marriages where parents play a significant role. Indeed, these films seem to model relationships on the West.

But, much like American films which feature a lot of shooting, or highly erotic love scenes, or people who are crudely funny, the vast majority of the viewing public does not imitate what they see on film. If pressed about the issue, they might say "well, that's just the movies--it's not real life".

Yet, take that same American viewer, have them watch a Bollywood film, then immerse them in Indian culture, and you might exclaim "The women wear skimpy Western clothes. They sing songs proclaiming their love for one another. The parents are hardly visible. Why doesn't the public have more love marriages?"

The answer might be the same. Those are just movies. Arranged marriages don't make for good drama. They involve parents trying to vet families. Conservative families still prefer to marry within the caste, even as there have been marriages outside the caste and outside the religion. Typically, love marriages have had some more flexibility.

Now, how do the two topics relate? Love marriages in India vs. dating services in the US?

In a sense, the dating service is a kind of matchmaking, though modernized. Computer algorithms allegedly figure out compatible personalities, a thought that would have seemed utterly ludicrous years ago. It's the same kind of belief that arranged marriages are utterly ludicrous to Americans. Most Americans don't trust their parents to pick someone they would like, though many Americans (I read an article that 1.5% of the public is ultra-shy and never get into any relationships) make an effort to meet people, so they have at least some nominal skill and desire to find someone to, at the very least, date.

Given how shy the average person is, finding someone to date is challenging. It would perhaps surprise the typical Indian, used to speed of arranged marriages, that
couples can date years before deciding to get married (though dating can mean living together and engaging in sex, so it's practically marriage, but not in the legal sense).

Let me back up some. Why are arranged marriages so quick? Let's do some role-playing. Suppose you have a daughter or son. You've been spending some time trying to decide who they should marry. As a parent, your considerations aren't quite the same as, say, the children themselves. A typical American might decide based on a number of factors, including, how hot is the other person.

While parents may take appearance into consideration, a bigger key is the (for sake of example), the bride-to-be's family? Are they a good family? What do they do? Are they of a suitable caste (if you're Hindu)? And so forth. Arranged marriages have always been more about marrying families rather than finding the person your offspring would like to be with most.

This goal may indeed make Indians more friendly. If you're a crazy family, full of trouble, no one will want to to marry into your family (or they might--who knows?).

Let's say you find a perfect girl for your son. You make negotiations with the girl's family. Both sides agree the other side is acceptable.

Now, the key is the wedding itself. How long do you want to spend for the wedding? Several years? Since it's not you that's getting married, you probably want to get it done as soon as possible. Thus, have the whole thing arranged and done within six months. To wait years seems futile since you've already made your decision. It seems more like a decision to purchase a car than a decision that you might regret if you don't spend years trying it out.

Once it becomes your own decision, that decision may not be so final after all. And if there's high rate in divorces, then you may want a trial period deciding whether this will work or not.

Americans might be surprised about arranged marriages and their speed, while Indians may scratch their heads wondering why Americans take so long to get married (especially, once they realize that they do things that married couples already do). They may even be more surprised that a couple, dating years and year, living together, having sex, would decide, after all that time, not to get married. The concept might be shocking (well, those not that accustomed to Western decadence).

I look at India and wonder, are they where Americans were 50-60 years ago? Will they begin to go to love marriages? If so, will this cause the "breakdown" of Indian society, where divorces might go up, where drinking and casual sex become the norm? Or will the society, which has never gotten rid of the caste system, be able to maintain itself, with its emphasis on family and tradition, even in the midst of Western morality (or lack thereof).

And is America thinking that having others do some of the arranging isn't such a bad idea, even as algorithms try to find compatibility, at least as a first step? This idea which would have seemed so bizarre years ago is wrapped up in words that don't suggest machines (like eHarmony's emphasis on harmony, a non-technical word evoking idealistic relationships).

What amounts to be something of a chemical process (falling in love) and something of a biological imperative (the success of the human race) has created many different solutions, and those solutions have impacted how societies form and what their beliefs are. It is perhaps very prescient of Isaac Asimov to note that perhaps people's aggregate behavior can be predicted. While he left these equations completely nebulous, as you look at societies and how they run, you get a sense that certain global belief systems may drive people to act the way they do, and that throwing in new variables can change how societies behave.

Fascinating, really.

(What about the lolcats!)

An Indian Wedding in America

I went to a Hindu wedding on Saturday. Most Indians, almost down to the person, prefer having the wedding held in India. There are many reasons for this. The biggest reason, I'd say, is the number of relatives that show up to a wedding is far greater in India than in the US. A wedding might be considered big if it reaches 150 people. In India, that would be a small wedding. A big wedding might be several hundred people.

One advantage is the huge difference in salary from rich to poor, which makes cheap labor quite cheap, which means many tasks which you wouldn't even consider can be handled by people. And presumably, even the most exotic of weddings is far more affordable in India. Think of a feeding several hundred people in the US. For the same amount of money, you could feed 3-4 times that many people in India. You can hire musicians, and so forth cheaply.

Weddings in India can be lengthy affairs. An American wedding held in a Christian church (and since the bride is Christian, part of the wedding, held earlier in the week, was held in a church) was quick. A ceremony typically lasts between 30 minutes and an hour. Indian ceremonies can last for many hours.

Now, I know what you're thinking. How does that happen? I mean, people are starting to fuss and fidget when a wedding lasts more than 30 minutes. How can anyone stand to watch several hours of ceremony. The answer is simple.

They don't.

You see, while a church has row after row of pews, which compel the people to sit and listen to a mini-sermon, participants in an Indian wedding can be doing all sorts of other things. They don't have to pay attention to the ceremony. Indeed, people eat, chat with people they haven't seen in a while, and then, every once in a while, they pay attention to what's going on. There are some key events, and perhaps the participants will make sure they attend those parts, but even then, there's nothing really compelling them to actually attend it.

And that, in my opinion, makes all the difference. When you can sit and chat without it seeming like some solemn ceremony, then it's far less stressful and boring.

Now, I get the feeling, due to a variety of circumstances, none the least of which was the quick notice which the wedding was set up, the number of participants was small. It seems there were maybe 100 participants, if even that. This would be a pretty shabby wedding were it held in India, but it was fine for the circumstances.

A co-worker, an Indian, noted that while American weddings are centered around the bride. Her dress is the most made up (indeed, it's considered so much part of the ceremony, that you can't really wear the dress in any other occasion, without people asking "Why are you wearing that? Are you getting married?" where a groom can wear a tuxedo to other events requiring formality in dance). She's the one that comes up, and all eyes are on her.

In India, he remarked, the ceremony focuses around the man, and how the man is the one getting married.

One of the interesting aspects of India is that it's such a venerable country that there are many different languages spoken throughout. The groom's mother would chant something in Gujarati, which meant only a handful of others understood what was being said. The bride doesn't speak Gujarati (much). Indeed, the common language between the two is likely to be English (perhaps Hindi).

The marriage was interesting in another way. She's Christian. He's Hindu. While marrying across religion isn't unheard of, it's also not that common, and would be even less common if parents were arranging the marriage. Indeed, as you go to more conservative parts of India, marrying outside the caste is looked down upon.

But, both bride and groom seemed as happy as they could be, as were the proud parents.

And in the end, that's what matters, isn't it?

How Arranged Marriages Lead to Family Values

I was thinking about something.

If you ever visit India, you find that families play a huge role in Indian society. People visit relatives all the time. Weddings are huge affairs, and people are offended if they are not invited. A typical wedding may be several times as large as the corresponding American wedding.

India (and the other countries in the subcontinent) are the last vestiges of arranged marriages. Countries like China used to have arranged marriages too.

I think the two are interrelated. In an arranged marriage, the parents are the ones to arrange their children's marriage. This means the kids are dependent on their parents to find them husbands or wives. With a society that values marriage and also feels shame, then it's shameful not to get married (obviously, people can get over this feeling of shame).

Furthermore, parents don't want boys and girls associating with each other in romantic ways, so boys/girls keep a polite distance, now associated with junior high school kids in the US just getting to know one another. It harkens to an era in the US when teens would go to get a burger and shake, and it would be (in theory) as innocent as that.

Given that most teenage guys and girls have a difficult time being brave enough to accost the opposite sex, and given that parents don't want them to go out dating on their own, and given that parents will find an appropriate spouse, then there is a strong incentive to get along with your parents. They control an important societal value, which is marriage.

Think about what happens when arranged marriages are no longer necessary. Then, boys and girls go seek the opposite sex and work at dating. They begin to distrust their parent's opinions on such matters. Because they see their friends doing it, they try it out too, and I suspect this leads to downward pressure of boys to go out with girls.

Once women gain sufficient independence so they can support themselves, marriage itself becomes unnecessary, and people can postpone it until much later.

So, the combination of the importance of marriage, the shame of not being married, the disapproval (generally) of kids looking for their own girlfriends or boyfriends, parents arranging marriages, and even all the celebration around weddings, and cultural shame when you choose to buck the tradition, leads to a society where family is valued highly.

Just a theory.

Do The Needful

The British have long had a relationship with India. Initially, it was trade, then a few outposts. By the mid 1800s, the British controlled most of India and would give that up only a century later. In the meanwhile, many Indians learned English of a British variety, but combined with translations from their mother tongue into English. This creates English that is, to American ears, rather bizarre.

The interaction people are likely to have with Indians are with offshoring teams. Perhaps the caste system syncs well with the British class system, or perhaps Indians simply imitate the British English, but it leads to a kind of formalism that is odd.

Let me start off with the phrase that set me off today: please do the needful.

Now, this sounds like, oh I don't know, having sex? Wanking off? (To use a Britishism).

Let met actually put it in context. The better translation, albeit very informal is, "Can you take care of this?". Thus, "The server is down. Please do the needful." is really "The server is down. Can you take care of this?".

Then, there is the phrase "the same" as in "Please find affixed a document. Please comment on the same". The same referring to some previously mentioned item. Now, apparently, the British used to use this phrase "the same" in this context. However, it has fallen out of favor and sounds old-fashioned to a Brit. Nevertheless, it continues to survive to this day in Indian English.

When an Indian is puzzled, he (or she) is likely to say "I have a doubt", but the use of doubt, in this case, means something that is not understood, or is confusing, rather than to question the veracity of something. Thus, you might be reading some software requirements that don't make sense, so you say "I have a doubt" or "Can you clarify my doubt?".

Email is more informal than regular mail, so most people have dispensed with formalities. However, Indians follow a standard based on written mail, and often close their email with "Thanks and Regards" where typical email simply ends with the person's name, if even that.

I suppose the funny thing is that making fun of this would only amuse me. It's the way typical Indians write (from India). Many Indians who come to the US eventually learn to be far more informal, and remove such phrasing from their language.

I am told even a simple question like "How are you?" is typically greeted by "Fine. How are you?". The answer "I'm good" is seen as typically American, and something the average Indian doesn't say.

Now, I should be fair. Americans have their own issues with the English language. The one that I've blogged about is excessive use of superlatives. Thus, when someone does something good (or even satisfactorily), you say "That was awesome!", or even more "This is best thing ever!". Ever is often attached to emphasize just how awesomely great something is. Except it loses its punch because every new shiny thing has this superlative attached.

I have a friend who likes to use "worst pain ever" a little too frequently.

Some of Indian English is pretty much British English, thus, bonnet for hood, trunk for boot, flat for apartment, trousers for pants, indicators for turn signals, and so forth.

I just ordered a book on differences between British and American English (two, in fact). I'd love to see the Indian English version. Alas, Wikipedia will have to do for now.

Oh I forget that the verb "to do" has a slang meaning of "to have sex with", thus to "do the needful" almost sounds like you should "do the needy".

I'm sure there must be some American phrases that drive others crazy. I can already think of adding "ism" and "ize" and "ify", thus verbifying a word is an Americanism to Americanize stuff.

Next time you've forgotten to do something you promised, please read the same, and do the needful.

Bollywood Trends

In many ways, Bollywood still aims at a lowest common denominator, escapist fare that the average Indian can watch and be entertained by. Serious dramas, while they exist, are not that popular, and certainly, movies that aim to be different or baffling are hardly made (to be fair, there are some arty directors).

Because India is fairly puritanical by Western standards, you won't see a great deal of things that come in Western cinema. For example, kissing is almost unseen in Indian cinema. Only recently, within the last year or so, you get to see a kiss that might last a few seconds, and often lacking some deal of passion. It's intriguing because the dancing and clothing are suggestive.

Despite actresses wearing provocative Western clothing, people seem to realize these are films and that women are expected not to imitate the women shown in these films. It's intriguing because these films talk about women in love with men (and vice versa) even as India (really the subcontinent, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) is one of the few countries of the world where arranged marriages are still quite common.

Here are some of the conservative attitudes that simply don't extend in film. Single women, especially under 20, are expected to not be alone with men. Certainly, having unmarried women and men living together is very uncommon. It goes without saying that premarital sex is also much more uncommon among Indians. Because of arranged marriages, the importance of having one's potential mate be acceptable to parents is of paramount importance. One is expected to have quite close relations with one's parents.

I was talking to a coworker who said he had a relative in the US (an uncle), but he had basically cut off contact with his family and not even attended his father's funeral. Basically, such alienation usually means such a person is disowned.

The conservatism goes to other issues. Beer and alcohol, so common in the US, Europe, and Asia, is considered semi-taboo in India. The general perception is that alcohol leads to wild uncontrolled behavior and certainly one wouldn't drink in front of children. Restaurants often segregate the parts that serve alcohol so that families don't see people drinking alcohol.

Women are expected to be even more conservative. Women should not smoke, nor drink. Now, even as I'm saying a bunch of things that seem to Western standards very restrictive, Indians perceive this as creating a society that is free from some of the worries Westerners have. Indeed, this predominantly Hindu society has aspects that would be far more acceptable to Christian conservatives (minus the religion part) here.

To be fair, young men seem to be pretty polite as a whole, which may have to do with the hierarchical society, where lower castes tend to have to be polite and accommodate higher castes.

The one avenue that Bollywood is willing to push the limit is that women can dress sexy, be somewhat independent, and can give the impression that love conquers all. Parents seem missing in the few films I've seen (well, there is the mother in Krssh!).

Nudity, for example, is still highly taboo, both men and women. Revealing clothing is still not permissible (a bare midriff is fine, but showing too much bosom is a no-no). On the other extreme, you don't see much violence either. Although Western films are shown in India, I wonder if the violence is edited out. Some stuff, say, Scorsese's films are so luridly violent that one could hardly imagine it being shown in India.

I imagine, for example, a film where there is a city boy and country girl that meets, but due to their relationship (maybe she tries to pick up Western habits), she is eventually stoned to death by her villagers for behaving improperly. Are they willing to make a film like that which criticizes very conservative attitudes? As Indians tell me "in the cities, things are progressing", what's being left out is that the countryside, where more conservative Indians live, represents what many people think of as true India.

Indeed, it's not the case (I believe) that the people who live in cities look at the countryside with disdain, as they might in the US, where liberals in large cities look at rural America with disdain. The countryside represents a kind of ideal India, even as India is being transformed by technology.

As much as I'm told that things are changing, my own experience is that it's not changing as fast as people would say, though certainly it's probably quite quick by Indian standards. I believe the reason I'm told this (though I've hardly traveled enough to be certain) is because those who are trying to be modern stick out so much that one tends to overcount them.

To be fair, do movies affect the way people dress or act?

When Hollywood was in its heyday, during the 40s and 50s, actors lead lives that were seen as exotic. They got married and divorced. They lead hedonistic lives. The rest of America did not follow this lifestyle, though by the time the 60s and 70s rolled around, they did.

Will Bollywood transform India? Right now, it seems that it can transform it somewhat, but because parents still control much of what their children do, you expect that the changes are going to be slower.

Now, this begs the question. Do the changes make sense? If India becomes more Westernized, will people lament that women are now not marrying, leading independent careers, acting more sexy, forcing men to have to learn how to meet women? I think if you ask the average Indian about trying to go on a date with a woman, it would petrify them. They wouldn't know how to act or what to do. In a sense, men in their 20s act a bit more like men in their pre-teens in the US, hanging out with other males, and girls hanging out with other girls. People like the system as is, and it means they have a strong sense of family and to do right by the family.

Thus, family values, this "Christian" value is seen much more strongly in a Hindu society, and that the film industry, so popular in India, is possibly trying to erode this, with questionable success.

The key, I think, will actually be the Internet. You know what the Internet meant for many males in the US. Yes, porn. Will India attempt to block this porn? How will it deal with this (even as many of the models are going to be white or black or Southeast Asian, but not Indian?).

India is old and new at the same time, and it will be interesting to see how it deals with all the societal pressures it feels from the outside, and from within its own film industry.

Metrosexually Speaking

I was watching Dhoom 2 yesterday. It was no great shakes, despite the special effects, and the dance/singing sequences. Attempts to amp up the emotion with a Russian roulette scene couldn't really save the movie whose tone veered all over the place.

Despite this, there are some things you can pick up, even watching a film like this. In particular, the two lead males, the cop and the thief cook.

That may seem like no big deal to you.

So what if they cook?

I know many Indian males cook. With sexual segregation still rather common among Indians (it's still generally taboo for men and women to live together unless they are married), guys must learn to cook, at least, passably, unless they plan to eat out all the time.

Even so, once a couple gets married, I'm sure the expectation is for the woman to cook.

In Dhoom 2, the men are shown to be expert cooks. The cop makes a fish in a skillet. The thief has wine and salad, but can whip up unhealthy food at the flip of a hat (is that even a legitimate expression?).

I pointed this out to one of the Indians working with our company, and he says there's a trend to portray metrosexual males.

And that too struck me. A term that I thought was confined to English speaking countries has broached the desi divide because a typical IT guy in India does indeed speak English, and their access to the Internet is nearly as unfettered as mine, so why not pick up phrases like "metrosexual"? Thomas Friedman famously said that the world is flat, and by that, he meant the physical distances that separate us are bridged by, most commonly, the Internet.

Indeed, Indian movies portray a wholesome kind of living, because of its insistence on a wholesome kind of lifestyle, perhaps akin to what went on in the 50s. Perhaps more decadence lies in real life, as it did in the 50s, but the movie industry is not ready, at least, not now, to give us that ugliness.

So, while Dhoom 2 didn't succeed as entertainment, it still exposes a sense of what India may become though actions that seem inconsequential, but may indeed, speak volumes.

Bollywood

I was watching the Bollywood action flick Dhoom 2 last night. It stars Hrithik Roshan, you know, from Krrish, and Abhishek Bachchan, you know, the son of Amitabh Bachchan, a staple of Bollywood action flicks.

To be honest, I've seen, what, three Bollywood films in the last few months, and perhaps none for years and years, as I'm not Indian.

Certainly, the production values of these films are pretty good. For a long time, Americans were pretty much only used to seeing American films or maybe the occasional British films. Until Hong Kong pix started making waves in the late 80s and 90s, Americans didn't think other countries lacked the cinematic know-how (or the money) to make a good looking action/special effects film (I wish more Japanese films would make it this way, as many do look fantastic).

But the story.

So painful.

Bollywood "hits" seem to borrow prodigiously from lots of plotlines. Dhoom 2 is about a cop that tries to catch the "perfect" thief. It's part Entrapment (once you get beyond the Zeta-Jones in a skin tight catsuit, it's about two thieves), part Matrix, part Mission Impossible (with the disguises).

Perhaps the one smart move, if you can even call it that, was to add a comic relief character. Where this film could have bogged down into Matrix seriousness, it decides to take a modestly light touch. Still, tonally, it's all over the place. Plotlines are picked up and dropped. The cop has an annoying girlfriend/wife who's pregnant (that's not explained so well), and he meets up with a former flame, who inexplicably disappears once the action heads to Brazil.

But no matter, her ditzy twin sister is in Rio.

Bollywood films have also been branching out internationally, trying to set films in different parts of the world. Krissh was partly set in Singapore. Dhoom 2 is partly set in Brazil, and of course, during Carnivale.

The director's a bit obsessed with sped up film, computer-generated ultra quick pans, followed by slow motion, scenes with rain (also popular in videos), and the lamest one-on-one basketball I've ever seen (I suppose we shouldn't expect that they would dunk, and opt for the high-percentage layup).

Towards the end, I kept obsessing over Roshan's thumb. Turns out that he has something of a double-thumb on his right hand. Most scenes it doesn't stick out (so to speak), but a few, you notice, hmm, what's that? Another appendage? How come I didn't notice it in Krrish?

I have to say I just kept looking at his hand, where in real life I'd be too ashamed to do so (recently, I saw some fellow with some largeness of the head that seemed oddly cartoonish--and yet it's human nature to stare, and I found myself doing just that).

Yes, the films have dance sequences. Yes, they talk all about romance, but there are never any sex scenes, nor any nudity. Indeed, kissing is often avoided, but the film decides to tackle this taboo by using, you know, Russian roulette to amp up the tension, as a precursor to the lamest kiss ever.

Being a Bollywood picture, you have to have women. But women in India are never quite as popular as men. I suppose in a segregated society (men from women), men still find it's safer to have male role models. To be fair, it's not that different from American culture. If American males don't necessarily identify strongly with male actors, they do with male athletes and male singers.

And as much as heterosexual men feel the need to proclaim their masculinity by being horny over women, how many movies do men really attend just because of the hot actresses involved? Has Jessica Alba really made any films that made a hundred million just because she was in it?

Movies, in the US, are not star driven the way they are in India. It's true stars help films out, but honestly, who was that big a star in Pirates of the Caribbean? Johnny Depp? Please. The film may have made him popular, but he was hardly in the Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis popularity. Indeed, even as I type those two names in, Americans really lack a superstar in acting. These aren't the days of John Wayne, Humphery Bogart, Lauren Baccall.

Back to the film. The music is rather infectious, though certainly not action-oriented. It sounds like they say "Dhoom a Chah-lay" a great deal.

The Indians I saw it with didn't think it was so good, and not terribly representative of good Bollywood films. Certainly, it had recognizable stars. After 36 Chinatown and Krissh, I'd like to see a Bollywood film that people think is good.

Holy Cow!

I was listening to Mike and Mike in the Morning, a sports show with Mike Greenberg ("Greeny") and Mike Golic, the self-admitted metrosexual reporter, and the ex-jock formerly of Notre Dame. Golic was out with a sore throat.

The guest was Roger Staubach, famed quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, during the 70s. He's perhaps the most famous player to come out of the armed forces, having played for the Naval Academy. This weekend is the Army-Navy game. It's been a while since either team were considered national powerhouses, perhaps even fifty years or so.

Indeed, with the big bucks and lax standards of most colleges, it's hard to find quality players that want to spend at least part of their lives in the military.

Staubach was asked to comment on the Army-Navy game. He recalled watching it during his first year at the Naval Academy--freshmen weren't allowed to play quarterback, and as an observer, he said "Holy Cow!" referring to the bigness of the occasion.

Did I fixate on the game or that I hadn't heard Staubach's name in I don't know how long?

No, I focused on the phrase "Holy Cow".

Having just come back from India, I was thinking how this, now rather antiquated phrase, came about. How many millions of people who have uttered this phrase would associate it with Hinduism? (Even though many people actually worship Ganesha, which has an elephant representation). Probably not so many.

This made me wonder, why would such a phrase have ever caught on? I know that in the 60s, there was a fascination with India, but I feel that this is even older.

Here's my guess. At one point, radio announcers had to avoid using terms like "My God!" and "Jesus (H.) Christ!". But what to say instead that would be similar? Perhaps they were told to invoke some other religion. Hinduism, perhaps. And thus was born "Holy Cow!".

And with radio being so popular, many people heard the phrase and adopted it, until its origins were buried deep in history.

It's just a theory. I'm sure I could look it up using the Google search engine (as opposed to, you know, "googling" it).

I'll let you do the honors.

What? No Mango Lassi

If you ask Americans who like/love eating Indian food, one refreshment they seem to universally love is mango lassi (lassi is pronounced like "hussy"). This is basically pureed mangos and yogurt. It's nice. It's sweet. (Although lassis can be made salty).

But you know what? Can't seem to find mango lassis in India. Most lassis are made from buttermilk, at least, it seems that way. Mostly, I use buttermilk to cook, not so much to drink. And I'm used to mango lassis.

When I asked about it, I was told "mangoes aren't in season now". I realize that people in the US don't think about foods being in or out of season. Somehow they manage to grow stuff year round, or preserve it enough, or something. Or maybe they used the canned stuff when making the drink.

On the other hand, most items in an Indian menu do look like dishes I've seen before, even down to the variety of breads you can get (rotis, chapatis, naans), which makes me think that Indian restaurants, outside the lack of heat, is reasonably close to what you get in India, at least, in terms of what is served.

The food that I had, for the most part, wasn't fiery hot, but it was hot. The hot and sour soup, for that reason, was pretty good in India.

Anyhoo, I'm looking forward to mango lassis next time I go to an Indian restaurant.

Indian Movie

I have to describe this plot, which just seems too odd.

I'm watching an Indian movie on the plane from Bangalore to Frankfurt.

Here's the plot summary. A girl and her best friend are visiting rural India. Girl meets a guy named Krishna. He's kind of a Fabio type. They sing, run up and down mountains, by idyllic water. Julie Andrews, eat your heart out!

The guy, in fact, looks a bit dumb and happy. There's a goofy smile, and he seems none too bright. He lives under the eye of his watchful grandmother. He also seems to run fast, jump high. They must have something special up in the mountain water.

After ten days of nothing but bliss and dancing, the girls return back to Singapore (yes, they're still Indian--but Indians live in Singapore) where they get promptly fired for taking an additional five days of vacation.

To save their job, the main female's friend says they need to convince Krishna to come to Singapore, where he'l be a star, since he can run faster, jump higher, and sing and dance longer than the average bear.

But Krishna is an innocent and they'll need a ploy to convince him to come. So the friend writes a script which says the main female's mom is going to arrange a marriage with another guy, and she needs him to come to show to her mom so she'll pick him and they can get married. And she desperately misses him too.

OK, a bit of lying, but when you need to save your job, what's a little lying?

Krishna, so happy that she cares that much, starts to plan a trip to Singapore, and wants to ask permission from Grandma.

She won't allow it.

Why not, Grandma?

OK, she explains. There was some accident involving an alien spacecraft.

Yes. Alien.

And somehow her son was made none-too-bright.

The alien (not quite ET) felt bad and gave him super powers. He's now super smart, super athletic, everything a proud Indian mama could want.

His prowess leads him to the attention of one Dr. Arya, who speaks a good deal of English, perhaps to emphasize his evil.

He is very impressed by Rajiv, who is the father of Krishna. He wants him to come to Singapore to work for him (this is about 20 years ago). He tasks him with making a machine that can tell the future. You know. Minority Report. Paycheck. That kinda thing. Krishna spends two years making this machine, and is finally successful. It uses retinal scans and his heartbeat to turn on. Retinal scans are key.

Dr. Arya then has a plan. Now that Rajiv is done, he doesn't need to live anymore. So he'll kill him. Not one to delegate, Arya will do it himself.

Except Rajiv discovers this plan by looking into the future in his machine. And he destroys his own machine before Arya arrives.

This is all being revealed by a security chief that works for Arya, but was good friends with Rajiv.

And he saves Rajiv's life! Arya still wants to kill Rajiv, since he already has the plans to make a new machine, courtesy of Rajiv. But the security chief says that he can't kill Rajiv, because his retinal scan and heartbeats turn on the machine. So Arya puts him in his dungeon or something, and he's kept out of sight.

Meanwhile, his wife pulls an Amidala of sorts, and dies when she hears her husband has died.

Meanwhile, the mother of Rajiv is all sad, because she's heard her son has died to the manipulations of an evil company and she won't have her grandson risked. He's all she has, don't you know? And she's ever so jealous.

But after this impassioned plea with aliens and a megalomaniac entrepreneur, she changes her mind. If he's truly in love, she can't stop him. Go find her.

So he promises to hide his powers so no one will know.

When he arrives, he sees this Chinese girl in a wheelchair. She is begging for money while her abled brother does martial arts tricks. But then the cane he's using to lift himself breaks, and he's hurt.

The audience, not feeling much sympathy, leave. Krishna, feeling generous, comes out with sword and does a show. This raises a charitable mood. The brother, ever grateful, says he works for the Bombay Circus. Come watch him.

So Krishna and female go watch. And there's a fire. And there's a girl trapped inside.

But he promised not to show his powers. He sees a mask, and as Phantom of the Opera man, he goes inside and rescues the girl. He has powers similar to Neo in Matrix, doing wire fu, and able to kick serious ass. Except in rescues.

The girl asks who he is. He says "Kriisshhh..." and so he goes by "Krish". Newspapers want to know. Who is this masked man? Who is Krish.

Female lead thinks that it's her boyfriend, Krishna. She hires some thugs to pretend to kidnap her, so she'll be rescued by him.

But apparently, real thugs show up, and rather than reveal he has superpowers, he pretends to get beat up. Girl is all sad. But they take the engagement ring, and so he has to go get it back.

He does more Neo action and beats up the gang to get the ring back. At that point, he takes his mask off, and guess who's there? The guy from the circus whose sister was in the wheelchair! You're Krish? You must tell the world. You'll get a huge reward.

No, I don't to tell anyone. Here, you take the mask. You be Krish. You get the reward. Pay for your sister's surgerty to make her better (right). He reluctantly agrees and becomes a star in the Singapore press.

Meanwhile, female lead discovers she had a video camera and it was aimed at the circus, and shows Krishna finding his mask, and then rescuing. So it was Krishna!

Meanwhile Krishna tries to talk to girl, but ends up talking to her mom. She has never heard of Krishna, and never went to Hong Kong (which is where the girls said she was, which was the reason they couldn't see her).

Anyhoo. Some accusations fly about how this girl lied to him and grandma was right, and he's heading back. And she's so sorry about lying to him.

That's when the security chief shows up and finds Krisha, who looks just like dad, and tells them that dad is still alive!

And this coincides with the new future telling machine being rebuilt, and thus the need to use Rajiv to start the machine.

But Krishna is there to rescue everything, kill Arya, and then bring the whole family back.

I must say there was a tear in my eye when Rajiv is reunited with mom, even if the plot was completely ridiculous.

Cobbled together from Batman, Superman, Sound of Music, Matrix, and ET, at least, it was original in very odd ways.

Ah Indian films.

I want my MTV

Michael Jackson was as profound an influence on MTV as any artist. There may have been people who found the medium of music videos creative, leading to videos by A-Ha, Peter Gabriel, and yes, even Michael Jackson.

Jackson started the dance video. Well, at least, I'm crediting him with it. Others followed suit. MC Hammer, Madonna, Paula Abdul, and sister, Janet Jackson. They taught the public how to dance with a lead singer/dancer and several precision dancers.

But music videos never caught on in the US. MTV and VH-1 couldn't attract viewers to watch more than a few minutes. They had to create shows like Real World or some flashback to the 80s, to keep viewers from switching channels. Pretty soon, the station that brought you music videos all the time, abandonded it for anything but videos.

But there's one country where song and dance have always been popular.

India.

A typical Indian movie is positive, either comedic, or just plain happy. There's dancing and singing. The singing is always dubbed and alas they want a certain voice for male and female singing, that makes them blandly one like the other. You'll not find a Leonard Cohen type among Indian singers, and all the women sing in this falsetto, "I'm 13" voice.

The dancing seems clearly inspired by Michael Jackson, except there's usually a female involved too.

Indians have this peculiar restriction. No kissing. There's a puritannical streak among Indians. Many look down on alcohol too. It's not quite banned, but a family restaurant wouldn't sell alcohol. Drink of the devil, you know.

Despite this lack of kissing, any manner of gyration is potentially possible. Midriffs showing? Check. Hip gyrating? Check. Simulated sex? Check. Women pretending to slap guys around? Women dominating guys? Check and check!

To be fair, such "women is powerful" videos are somewhat uncommon, but I saw at least one that fit the bill.

Furthermore, I have no idea what percentage of Indians watch these videos, but it says something that many of these stations still show videos!

I think MTV would like to create a revolution that allows singer/songwriters to start up, instead of dance oriented videos. The music industry seems a bit like that of Hong Kong, where beautiful women who can sing are groomed (much like Whitney Houston) for success. Lyrics and songs are written for them. They just sing. I bet MTV wants something rawer, wants more originality, less glitz, and would love their station to transform Indian music by encouraging bands to start up, much like their English counterparts.

The other channels I would see on cable? Americans have religious folks preaching on TV. Indians appear to have yogis and such, stretching and speaking. A few channels had such yogis.

There were some historical dramas going on too, about ancient India.

Of course, some Western shows too. I wonder, though, how many people have access to cable? I feel like it's like the 1970s USA for cable in India, though maybe early 80s is closer to correct. Certainly, more international than anything you get in the US.

Anyway, next time you wonder what happened to Michael Jackson, his spirit is alive in India, singing and dancing away.