Another uprising in the making...!!

If there is one area where the humans satisfied there ego during Middle Ages, it was Slavery. Slavery has been quite prevalent in Europe, the Orient, Arabia, India, Americas. Millions of pages can be written to describe the way slaves used to be traded between the elite class. But the point to ponder here is that why did people actually need slaves in those times. It is quite possible that they wanted to off-load the repetitive, non-important work to those who would obey them; to those who are at beck & call for their masters; to those who would die at their masters' command. These slaves gladly admitted that their generations are destived to serve their masters. And their masters used to feel a sense of pride by keeping them.
A man would be known by the number of slaves he would keep and this eventually resulted in satisfying their ego.

Times changed. Colonies became Republics. Democracies prevailed across the world. The political scenes changed. Slavery was abolished and suddenly the slaves found themselves free to do anything with no one to command them. In such case the once-upon-a-time-masters found themselves searching for their dignity and ways to maitain their supremacy & egos. They find no one who would obey their command.

And then came the computers. What a fantastic machine it is, which would obey our all commands without fail. It would not easily tire up and continue to give full service to their masters. What's more anybody can buy them, just as the slaves were bought. You add more software applications in it and it will give you more service. It will not re-taliate unless it is weakened by some virus atack. Consult a anti-virus doctor and lo-&-behold your modern slave is ready to accomplish any task.
These computers will do only what they are programmed for. They will not run away ot revolt.

But just like slaves, they can be the part of another uprising. See the way computers is changing the economic strucure of the world. See the difference between those who have & those who do not have the computer based society. So what if America now cannot import slaves from Africa, they have their own conglomerates for churning our the modern slaves, the computers.
Going by the past history, this form of slavery will have its own trough. It will take just one mistake to cripple the world economy.

Be ready for another uprising. This time from the band of slaves called, Computers.

The other part of being "Indra Nooyi"

August 15, 2006 the Indian Independence Day. The day when we all Indians keep our heads high & salute our Mother India. But this time it is different. We Indians had another reason to celebrate on that day. Indra Nooyi was appointed as the CEO of PepsiCo & the newspapers in India were all strewn with the "Nooyi effect". The media coverage for Indra Nooyi was so exhaustive that I had to I had to literally pound my head to understand that it was an Independence Day for India.

Flipping through the pages of The Economic Times edition, I understood the way she managed her work-life balance while slowly climbing up the corporate ladder. What a fantastic lady she is. Her mantra for this stupendous success is - "If you do your job, do it better than anybody else". Such a lady she is that, if she would recieve an email at 4:00 a.m. on her Blackberry, she would respond to it at 4:01 a.m. And when it comes to manage her kids, I think nobody can match her planning. On returning home from school & not finding the mom would not upset the children. Rather a Receptionist at the office is ready to take the children's calls. And these calls range from: Doing the homework, whether or not can I play Nintendo, When will momma come home & stuff like that. The work/play/rest schedule for the children is available with the office receptionist & she's is sometimes allowed to take the decisions on her own for them.
If the children want, they can even visit the office & freely chat with the Board Members for fun. The top bosses had no problems with that 'cos this is one thing which would make Indra at peace so that she can focus on her work better (which she already had been doing). This one intangible incentive counted a lot for her.

Well, newspapers wrote tons & tons about the personal life of Indra Nooyi. The way she worked & the way she managed her family. The situation is no different for many other women. Today, women cannot be confined to the 4-walls of the house. They have an independent thinking and they want to make it to the Big League. No issues at all. Every individual has the right to do it. But I have a question. When we all think of our growth targets, do we actually think of our children? Do we ever give a thought that- Am I able to devote quality time with my family & my children?

Today, we earn money...do good job...get good appraisal...get higher paychecks....do much better job....get good appraisal....and get much higher paychecks......But what are we all losing on ? It is the "Quality Time" with the family. This is too precious. I do not say this for women only, it is equally important for men too. But I would say, women have to be more thoughtful when it is a question of career aspirations at the cost of "Quality time" at home.

Go through any scientific research, scriptures, traditions...you will find that a child needs proximity to her mother till he grows up. This is important for child's intellectual growth & making him a responsible citizen. Being a mother is great responsibilty (& all the readers, please do not take this as male-chauvinism becuase I personally feel that being a father is a greater responsiblity). A child-mother bond is likely to weaken if the child feels more comfortable with the nannies. If this holy-bond weakens, it has a crippling effect on the society & we can observe that in the West where the number of working women is very large, the old age homes are equivalently larger in number. It is very easy to pay the nannies to keep "good" care of the children in parents' absence, do we find ourselves incapable to nurture the child ourselves? I think ...NO. We all are capable, but it is the personal ambitions which put us on the backfoot.

One thing is for sure, what has been continuing since 5000 years cannot be proved worthless in few years. Men have been traditionally the bread winners of the family & the women have managed the home (& not the house). A home is a part of the society & women have been an integral part of building the society...a culture. When we talk of women being "suppressed", this is just out of the mind of handful of women & the wave spreaded like anything. Ancient India has the glorious past for women. It was only after the number of invasions India faced after 10th Century, the situation changed. The invaders not only plundered the towns, but also raped the women. In the era where there were no methods to avoid pregnancy, it was seen as the danger to maintain the genes. People started keeping women inside the houses & that is how the story in India continue. These events happened not only in India, but in Europe as well.

But the situation in Africa is startingly different. Historically, there have been no wars or invasions (except the tribal conflicts) deep inside African jungles. Women in the tribes not only manage the children but also assist men in hunting. We can learn few things from those "ill-literate", "ill-mannered", "not fit for society" guys.

In the US, after the '60s call of "Women Liberation", the same generation of women calls for qutting jobs for children. They have seen it...observed it....now they feel it. It is the same generation which we once happily emulated. A society can be rich in terms of money, but it becomes poorer on cultural front if young generation does no feel secure in terms of parenthood.
My salute to those women who work only to feed their families. As an analogy I would only say that even a tigress doesn't hesitate to go out & hunt for the cub if the lion doesn't arrange for the food.

I do not say that women should not work. But when it comes to a child's intellectual growth, it is a responsibility to be shared in greater proportion by the mothers.

Is giving childbirth an act of selfishness?

Recently, I was baffled at this very thought of one of my friends that it is selfish to give birth to a child & parents who do so have vested interest in it. It is a very sense of self-satisfaction that parents achieve when their DNA is passed on to the next generation. Adding to this, option suggested was to adopt a child.

I am not sure how many are going to agree to this, but for me it is more of a selfishness of those "want-to-be-mothers" who have other vested interests in not giving birth. It can be very well argued that we have no right to bring a life to earth if we cannot provide the child a good parenthood. Also, parents will benefit this planet Earth, by adopting a child rather than putting more pressure to the existing available resources.

But I want to ask one question- How much "good parenthood" will be good for a child to grow ? What we parents may think is good for a child, but can we expect that the child will also accept those things as "good" for him? Possibly not ! "Good" is a relative term. "Good parenthood" is not always about making the life of your child cozy & making them feel that their parents will buy them the best of the material world. "Good Parenthood" is not about sending your child to the best of the schools & paying hefty fees.

As good parents we have responsibilty to provide the child, a healthy environment to grow. Both, physical health as well as spiritual. As good parents we should strive that our children develop a sense of responsibility towards the society they would grow up & live in. As good parents we should teach the children to respect others & act in a way so that they get respected. That is how we can reduce the burden of anti-social activities on this earth.

Now I want to stimulate the minds of all readers: When we can think of not giving birth of child in the name of "good parenthood" & rather adopting a child, then are we confident of providing the same to the adopted child? If no, then those parents should start thinking of having their own child. If yes, then I salute those parents and at the same time allow me to laugh a bit on their double-entendre, because when they can provide "good parenthood" to an adopted child, they can also provide the same to their own child. So the very basis of not giving birth to a child is false.

Some of us may say, animals reproduce, birds reproduce.....so how we humans are different if we also re-produce ? As humans we can do things differently. Point well taken. But then what is the very use of the eggs & sperms we humans produce. I think the reproductive organs should then be deemed as the vestigial organs and removed from the body like appendix. Men will no longer be men...& women will cease to have any more periods. The world be full of eunuchs then and one day earth will be the "best" place to live in...and unfortunately there will be no human being to "enjoy"...because nobody would reproduce. Earth would then be too "happy" to feed the animals only.

Also, if we do not utilize our re-productive capacity & keep enjoying Sex , then we are more selfish for not using the sexual stimuations for the right purpose ( of course, I do not mean that sex is only for re-production...but then the fact is also that we can enjoy sex only if we have re-productive organs...so if we do not want to re-produce what is the use of these organs).

We human beings have an astonishing qualilty to think & act intellectually. This makes us class apart from the animals. As generations evolved, our thoughts have evolved. So as responsible human beings now, we can give birth to 1-2 children ( or give birth to one child & adopt another for good) instead of a full fledged football team which our great grand parents did. If it is a question of pressure on the available resources, then have we ever thought of toiling a barren land into a usable farm land....or growing 100 ever green trees in lifetime....or of not using any polluting material like plastics. I think if even 1 % of world's population swear to plant 100 fruit bearing evergreen trees in their life time (that makes to 5 billion trees) , the situation would have been different. Bearing a child is like a tree bearing a fruit. What would a mango tree look like without mangoes dangling on it? What would a rose plant look like without roses? Re-production is a natural phenomena and we should exploit it in a way best suited in the current society.

I am not at all against adopting a child. It is a very generous act to grow up someone who may have lost hope of the better future. I truly support those parents who readily adopt a child after they have lost hopes of bearing their own. Also, the parents who carry the risk to transmit genetic disorders & disesase like AIDS, should consider the option of adopting a child. These parents will understand the true value of the adopted child unlike those who adopt for the sake of not being selfish & doing "social good".

I was also talking about the vested interest of want-to-be-mothers for not bearing a child. What I can percieve is that majority of career-oriented women who do not want a break in their career are of the above opinion. These women, I believe, actually want to shy away from the responsibilities and multiple relationships they would enter into after giving birth because they know they cannot do justice with the same. What they may be interested in, is their career growth. May be they are more concious of their figures too ;-)

At the end of this blog, I would say that the revolutionary thought "Parents who bear children are selfish" needs some moderation.