Vote for gossip?

My Dear Clansters,

Firstly, my thanks to Parimal for giving the lead, yes “healthy gossips?” Secondly, my thanks to Anju, as ever, supporting me to write, more specifically this time on “gossip”.  The word “gossip” is so juicy.  While I was toying with two or three other topics , the pop-up word “gossip” auto-changed all priorities.  I am restricting this post to CMR Clan, though it can otherwise be accessed. 

Straightaway, it is a bit confusing  whether gossip can be good as well as bad, all the more when the reference is given as “healthy” gossip.  When you mention the word “gossip”, you are more used to think of films/film star gossip, office gossip, of course, family/friends gossip.  You can keep on adding, political gossip, face book gossip, tweeting gossip…..

When I consulted an online dictionary, gossip means:

1. Rumour or talk of a personal, sensational or intimate nature  2. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumours or facts  3. Trivial facts ……………. 

Gossip is a reference information  passed by one person (say, A) about another person (say, B) to other person/s (say, C or more  persons).  Ok, let’s agree there are three parties to a gossip.  Gossiper, gossipee and gossip-receivers or gossip well-wishers (Pardon me, I am not sure if there are such words like gossipee and gossiper in English dictionary).  Gossiper is also  used as gossip-monger. 

Gossip is almost always used with a negative reference.  I continue to be confused how it can be referred as “healthy gossip”.  Healthy, yes, except the subject party, the gossipee.  If it is healthy, then it should be something else.  Have we ever come across someone saying “I gossiped nice about you”?  

When we say “healthy”, it should be all-round harmony, isn’t it?  When was the last time you gossiped good and nice about someone?  If we talk good or positive about some one behind their back, can it be termed as good/healthy gossip?  And do you call it a gossip?

 Can someone think of coining a different word  for “healthy  gossip”?

How comfortable are you, when the gossipee knows that you are the one who initiated the gossip?

I agree with the view point that “gossip helps you lose weight”, though shared with a hearty smile.  You can even add that it helps to lessen your stress levels.

Gossip may be harmful, but not a crime.  We are not saints (in fact, many saints are subject matters of gossip).  I am not sure if there is healthy gossip, but gossip can be healthy, healthy for the gossiper and gossip-receivers. 

One area  where gossips may be healthy is celebrities/film industry.  If any reference is reported about film stars , they are happy and healthy about the publicity the gossip generated. When the gossip is complete and all parties are aware of all the contents of the gossip details, how does it feel?

Consider there is truth in a gossip. If the gossipee learns the truth through the gossip and corrects himself/herself, can it be termed as “healthy gossip”?  Can it be taken that the gossipee is grateful for the gossip?  If any one remembers such “healthy” gossip, please share with the Clan.

Generally, when the gossiper comes to know about the gossip, the response is “None of your business”.  On a serious note, yes.  On a lighter vein,  I may feel fine and funny, if not healthy.  Have you observed closely, in any gossip, “listeners” are more than the actual gossiper.   And, gossip is more colourful when ‘cosmetics’ are appropriately  uploaded in the “story”.

Let us not forget that, when I gossip, I must be prepared to get gossiped. After all, I am an ordinary guy and concerned about my stress levels and good health, and occasionally gossip as and when opportunity throws up.

This is more a debate on gossip.  Please pour in your inputs.  Correct me where I am wrong.  Else, it will end up as gossip on debate.

Happy & Healthy gossiping!

RBI and the currency notes

The Reserve  Bank of India (RBI) recently announced that currency notes issued before 2005 will not be acceptable for circulation and the public should exchange the same with the banks before April 2014.  However, within two days from the date of the announcement, the apex bank came out with a topsy-turvy reversal  stating that the public can, even after July  1, can exchange it through their respective bank accounts. It may not be surprising if RBI releases yet another statement that the pre-2005 notes will continue to be valid and the status-quo would prevail.

Why RBI not adhering to the original deadline of March 31, 2014?

Ensuing Lok Sabah polls is public knowledge. The sleeping currency bundles lying with the politicians and the political parties will awaken to find their locations in the hands of the voters as “freebies”.  If RBI implements April 2014 deadline, the public will pounce and bounce at the Parties  for ‘giving’ them the ‘invalid’ notes which would backfire on their political prospects. “We don’t want your notes, and you will not have our votes”, the repressive response the parties would apprehend. Perhaps, is that the reason, RBI has extended the deadline to July and beyond?

Make no mistake, RBI and the Government are one and the same.  It is like CBI, Election Commission et.al. Though they are independent entities, they are Central Government’s one or the other organs of the same body. They will dance to the Centre’s tunes.

The pre-2005 currency notes will not feature the “Gandhi” image and the year of printing.  This, in addition to unearthing the black money, has been cited as the reason to withdraw the pre-2005 notes.  The common man, by and large, will not  be holding the pre-2005 currency notes.

Where will they be?  Undoubtedly, with the politicians and the political parties.  The RBI notification need not panic the aam aadmi (no pun, please). Or may be those coin collectors, like stamp-collectors may hold it is a hobby, which would only increase its numismatic value. 

What is the status of  black money stashed in Swiss banks?

Pertinent it is to recall that the Congress party in its 2009 election manifesto  yelled at its campaign  to bring out the stash money in Swiss banks.  A term of five years has gone by.  Will they clarify what efforts have they taken to dig out the illegal funds?  In the interim period, the black money sharks cunningly hijacked it to other countries.   In fact, the Swiss government had furnished the details of those account holders and the amount held by them, to the Central   Government.

“Indian banks, led by the public sector, have accumulated sticky loans of over Rs 6.5 lakh crore till the end of 2013….” (Times of India, Jan. 24, 2014). And now, this announcement  of withdrawal of pre-2005 notes is to unearth “local” hoarding of dirty money!  There could be a sudden spurt in spending of unaccounted money.  Recent reports indicate the currency involved could be over Rs.11,000 crore.  Even  a conservative estimate of 30 per cent of it could be “dark”, and there can be pressure to declare or spend.

If eradication of black money is the true intention of the government/ RBI, they should have stuck to the deadline of March 31, 2014.  Will they do? A big NO. Why? Because where will the Congress party go to ask for election funds?

RBI should make it mandatory to deposit at least higher denominations like 100, 500 & 1,000 of pre-2005 be deposited in the respective bank accounts and issue new/post-2005 notes through cheques/withdrawal forms.  This is a better way to expose the black money.  Also, as transactions of Rs.50,000 and above warrant PAN No., you can expect from now on deposits of 49,000 or less in several tranches to avoid scrutiny.

Identify the pre-2005 and post-2005 notes and ensure exchange of notes before deadline.  

Big B, there is nothing official about it!

Bollywood icon Amitabh Bachchan recently told an IIM student how he had stopped endorsing Pepsi.  It was a stimulating anecdote about a small girl in Jaipur who had asked him why he was promoting a fizzy drink that her teacher called “poison.” The little schoolgirl educating the tall hero and the latter accepting and acting upon it is commendable (Ref: "Big B's 'poison' dart leaves Pepsi cringing", Economic Times dated 03/02/2014).

The Big B had executed an 8-year contract with Pepsi for endorsing its product for a total consideration of Rs.24 crore (@ Rs.3 crores per annum), and the contract has been completed since.  It sounds funny that after milking Pepsi for so many years, enlightenment suddenly dawned upon the boss! If your principles have changed, that’s okay. However, how did you choose to bite the hand that fed you for such a long time?  If you had snapped the agreement during midway, your action would have merited value, but castigating the brand at the conclusion of the contract period is unprofessional, isn’t it?

It all looks like a corollary.

If it is indeed a “poison,” what Big B did is socially ethical. And the next question arises, why did the government allow marketing of such “dubious” products that are harmful to public health?

Does the Big B feel guilty?  The legendary hero is squarely in a dilemma.  He can’t undo the past, but he can surely mend his ways.  Probably, and given the benefit of doubt, he has done that.

What is incredible is that AB is so naïve that some schoolgirl, somewhere, some day, has to tell him that a product is poisonous and that he believed her.  Curiously, here is an icon who hosted one of the brainiest quiz shows, the Kaun Banega Crorepathi (KBC) Show, who has to be told by a small girl that Pepsi was “poison.” 

Now that he has stopped endorsing the product, can we expect him to:--

(a) Refund the amount to Pepsi or fund at least part of the money for the rehabilitation of those harmed by consuming the noxious drink?  Of course, he cannot undo the damage he has caused, wittingly or unwittingly, to the brand.  Suddenly “brand ambassadorship” is in for a jolt.

(b ) Advise/influence other celebrities, his family members included, to follow suit?

Logically, you are not obliged to refund the money or fund it to charitable cause.  It is a personal choice.

Meditation Guru Baba Ramdev used to tell his yoga students that such products were only fit for “cleaning toilets.”  One need not be a nutritionist to appreciate that colas are toxic.   “Cigarette smoking is injurious to health” is only a small-sized font statutory warning that is displayed on every pack of the tobacco product.  Isn’t it downright hypocrisy?  If a product is harmful, how does the brand warrant a defence?  Will it (Pepsi) join the category of cigarettes, alcohol?  Pundits in the health & fitness space can be expected to predict that “such” drinks will carry warnings similar to the ones on cigarette packs.  Not Pepsi alone.  All cola brands are riding the same boat.

May be, AB has not endorsed tobacco products, but that cannot be a convincing reason to justify his signing the Pepsi contract.  The consequences of not knowing the truth of what they promote is alarming. Can it be interpreted that AB has endorsed “poison” for 8 years and can consequently be sued?    There is also a difference between endorsing a product like Pepsi and any other product like garments or footwear, as the former is a health hazard. Lots of care should be exercised while choosing the product one endorses.  It is not some fantasy concept but something concerned with health.

Big names from Bollywood and our sports fraternity, our cricket stars in particular, endorse one cola brand or the other.  Even the far richer names like Sachin Tendulkar, Shahrukh Khan, et al, continue to stamp their endorsements for the “controversial” cola.  It is a vicious cycle.  These are companies that promote sports and World Cups and other entertainment feats.  Can they be restrained?  It’s all about money, honey! 

Before I forget, have you ever seen Super Star Rajnikanth or Padma Shri Kamal Hassan do any brand advertising?  It is good the Super Star of the Millennium raised a poser on the Pepsi and its “poisonous” content.  At least, let us welcome their bid, going forward, to make informed decisions.  Big names like AB, before stamping their contractual obligations, must exercise due diligence and study the pros and cons of the product.   Forget for a moment Brand Pepsi; AB is a top brand himself whose image is in for a debate.  Yes, it does put AB in bad light. Yet, I appreciate him for showing the courage to speak out the truth.  Big B has a bigger responsibility.

Media selective

Why don’t the media dare discuss the earlier charges on the cola giants regarding “pesticide” as an ingredient of the beverage?  The ads and the revenues will be blocked?  Or have the honourable journalists been purchased?

Pepsi embarrassed

Pepsi is not embarrassed about selling a drink that is allegedly harmful; rather, they are more embarrassed about a public figure declaring the truth.  Stars endorsing brands never meant they actually used those brands. Gullible consumers buy what these stars only endorse.  Also, let’s wait and see if negative brand ambassadorship has any impact.

Education must change from mastering texts to questioning knowledge.  Congratulations to the young girl who made AB wiser.

Yes,  Dil Maange More.