Jobs that we lost to technology - a warning!

We all are living in a dynamic world. What we see today may not be a part of us tomorrow. This has proved to be a very suitable statement in the jobs market. We have come a long way. The technology is moving so fast that when we tell our children about what we were doing 20 years ago, they may wonder as if they heard some ancient fairy tale.

Sometimes we ourselves forget some facts and act to be ignorant unconsciously. This happened to me when I saw a digital movie posture hanging out of a theatre. It was not too many years ago when we used to find hand-painted postures all around us. I am sure we will still find those postures in the remote rural areas. However, the question that bothers me is how the painters who used to create those postures reacted when they lost their livelihood to technology. This comes as a warning to the people who are still in a profession that is going to surrender itself to technology in the near future.

There are many more jobs that have gone obsolete, forcing huge number of people to accept another profession and to start from the scratch again. Introduction of all the new world machines – computer, phone, television and many more starting from the tailoring machine to the Bulldozer ate up jobs one way or the other. What we learnt from our past is to have a foresight and choose a career that should not give in to technology in a complete sense until we retire. But of course, we will have to adopt technology in the newest form though it will be a tough job to accept an all-in-all revolution. So the bottom line is “get updated”.

Outsourcing offspring!

The Indian subcontinent was ruled by some western countries for nearly 200 years. During the foreign rule,Indians made to work for the rulers, produce goods for the rulers and pay taxes which had to be largely spent for the betterment of the rulers. Poor farmers paid taxes and soldiers fought battles for the rulers. Then came the time when the region achieved its independence from foreign rule. However, the good news came at the cost of a partition, creating two countries – India and Pakistan.

Now, let’s talk about India.For some years after independence, people worked in the country for themselves. But a point came when they started leaving their motherland in search of better lives. And, where they went? It’s to serve the same people who ruled them for nearly 200 years. Indians worked in western countries and paid taxes to the respective countries, which was used for the betterment of the employers. However, perhaps importing people proved to be costly for the western world. The so-called first world countries then came up with the idea of business process outsourcing(BPO). The phenomena introduced the theory of working for a different country while staying in one’s own country. Lots of Indians got employed in the BPOs to fulfill the demand from the western countries. The BPO system was introduced to Indians in the fifth decade of their independence.

So let’s recollect everything in the chronological order. First, Indians worked for the foreigners in India. Second, Indians worked for themselves in India. Third, Indians worked for foreigners abroad. Fourth, Indians worked for foreigners in India.

So what’s next? Now, the foreigners are so fond of India and Indians that they can’t do without them. And, the age of surrogacy has given the western countries another opportunity to get their work done. This time, they got a chance to produce their children in India,who would work for them in their own country. Yes, the trend of lending wombs of Indian women to produce children for the parents residing in western countries has started in the seventh decade of the country’s independence. Just see where the trend will lead to!

Does maturity yield complicated relationships?

What is the name of our relationship? Why are we so close to each other? What happened to my friend when he had such kind of a relationship with someone else? Analysis! It takes place at every step of a relationship of two matured people. There are more questions than answers. Matured people just can not live without thinking too much.

On the other hand, it’s such a bliss to be ignorant or to be childish as long as relationships are concerned. We are friends, so we are friends. We are a couple, so we are a couple. Who cares to think why we should spend time with each other? Who cares to think why we should go around with each other? I feel like the same, and so I am doing it. Therefore, no questions, man. Let’s have fun and that’s it.

So can we jump into the conclusion that maturity shouldn’t have its space in a relationship? Does maturity make relationships complicated? I can just give one thought to it. During our childhood, we were very happy. We enjoyed everything that came on our way. Now after growing up, we can’t take things as lightly as we were taking earlier. That’s why we can’t even be as lively as we had been earlier. However, asking a question, analyzing each and every trivial happening also kill the fun. But for a better life ahead, we have to think before taking every single step. So can we just conclude the discussion with the thought that a balanced approach to relationships can prevent them from debacles, and we just have to think when we have to behave like a child and when we have to behave like a matured person?

I am a responsible citizen, still I don't vote

Many-a-times, we come across elections where we do not find a suitable candidate to vote for. It is said that voting is our citizen right. Hence, voting for someone is "performing our rights." But, do I have to vote for anyone just to show that I am a responsible citizen?

I will not vote till I find the candidate eligible enough to become an MP, MLA or a council member. This is also my duty. Going for the wrong individual can not be called as "performing my duties for the country".

This is my reaction to an ad campaign called "if you are not voting, you are sleeping". I do have a different opinion. If someone does not know anything about the contestants and does not vote for anyone only because he or she does not want to go and stand in the long queue and prefers to be at home watching television with their spouses, he or she should be considered as an irresponsible citizen or what is called as "sleeping". But if someone has all the background data of the contestants and doesn't find anyone suitable to vote for, hence, doesn't vote for anyone, he or she is not sleeping. They are, actually, more responsible citizens than the people who are voting without knowing anything about the contestants.

I am not encouraging people to boycott votes, but trying to introduce a new concept. The idea is to consider the voting percentage to determine a member on a permanent basis for five years or a member on probation. Can we take a certain percentage, for ex:- below 40%, as a bottom line?

In what way your mother is your mother?

Earlier and even now, it is ridiculous to ask an individual a question “in what way his mother is his mother?” With the expansion of science and technology, in the near future which is perhaps going to be an era of surrogate mothers, the question will be a little easier to ask। There are three answers of this question - Genetic mother, Gestational mother and Social mother. The first is the woman who provides the egg, the second is the one who carries the fetus in her body and the woman who contributes to the raising and care is the last. Usually when we refer to a woman as someone’s mother, we intend her to be identified as fulfilling the genetic and gestational as well as the social role of “mother”. With the advance of reproductive technology, it is possible that each of these three roles can be performed by three different women.

The dictionary meaning of the term “surrogate” is a substitute। Surrogate mother is a woman who bears a child for a couple who are childless because the wife is infertile or physically incapable of carrying a developing fetus। Often the surrogate mother is the biological mother of the child conceiving it by means of artificial insemination with sperm from the husband। In gestational surrogacy, the wife is fertile but incapable of carrying a growing fetus, the child is conceived by in vitro fertilization using the wife’s eggs and her husband’s sperm, and the resulting embryo is implanted in the surrogate mother’s uterus.

There are two forms of surrogacy। One, when a surrogate has a child for a couple where the husband is the genetic father and the surrogate is the genetic mother. Two, also called Host mothering, is where the surrogate carries the genetic child of both the husband and wife through IVF/gift technique which requires a doctor’s intervention. The most common form is a straight surrogacy, where the surrogate bears a child for a childless couple. In this case, the husband’s sperm is artificially inseminated into the surrogate.

The couple can draw up an agreement privately with the surrogate and arrange to pay for her expenses and that of the child’s while it is in her womb। This is a legal precedent which has been allowed in many countries; however, the agreements are not binding and either one can back out of it anytime। It is basically “work on trust”। In order to minimize the misuse of surrogacy, certain guidelines have been laid down. A contract needs to be drawn up, which should specify that the child becomes the legitimately adopted child of the intended couple. The couple, the surrogate and her husband should sign this document. The road to surrogacy is tough and long. Things are bound to go wrong, as one can not foresee the possibility of the surrogate keeping the child; the child is stillborn or dying at birth. However, it is an option some childless couples are willing to consider despite some odds.

The phenomenon has at least the power to eradicate the grievances of many Hindus in particular and Indians in general, who are obsessed with “having a child of their own”। Besides social factor like ‘someone to take care of me in my old age’, it directs our attention to a profound religious demand for a child, especially a male one. The technology brought a relief for them who believe that all men come into this world burdened by debt – pitr rin (indebted to the forefathers) and the only way to repay this is to father a male offspring. Even during funerary rites, known as shraaddha, Hindu males are reminded of this debt, whereas in the Dharmashastras, it is said that those who failed to repay this end up in the hell where they suffer for all eternity.

Despite controversial and ethical issues arising out of it, surrogacy has been gaining popularity all over the world especially in the west where adoption is not easy to come by. Research has one-in-six couples have problems with infertility. Some use medical treatments to overcome this situation, for some however, no help is available. For them, surrogacy is an option to get eternal satisfaction of having a biological child of their own.

Temple sculptures are no more the mediums of Sex Education

Human beings unlike any other creature in this universe do have sexual encounter in a private place. As human beings are considered to be social animals, sexual encounter in privacy is considered to be a part of social behaviour too. But the problem that arises because of this so-called social action is that the descendents’ exploration process on the subject of sex becomes very slow. That doesn’t mean human beings have to start enjoying sex in open in order to educate their following generations. This is one of the reasons why, in the ancient age, people have crafted the sculptures of sexual images on the temples.

Temple is the most common place one visits. And thus, one could easily observe the images on the temple walls and understand the different poses and also the essentiality of sex in life. This could happen in a process without involving them asking anyone about this most controversial topic or without anyone explaining them making any one or both of them feel embarrassed.

The temple sculptures mostly famous for sexual images in India are Khajuraho and Konark. Both of the temples have been crafted with wonderful piece of art making the visitors spellbound with its everlasting liveliness. Since ages, these two places have been the most favourite destinations for couples on honeymoon.

All this is a year old story. Who is interested, nowadays, in the sculptures on a temple wall? With the advancement of science and technology, one can easily access porn videos or that on the internet or on a mobile phone and have a thorough knowledge of how human beings practice sex.

Then, are the temple sculptures no more the medium of sex education nowadays? Definitely, not. It doesn’t mean the porn videos or porn sites are the adequate mediums.

With the advent of so many sexual conditions like Erectile Dysfunction, Premature Ejaculation, sexually transmitted diseases, and so on, merely the whole process of lovemaking can’t be considered as sexual education. It doesn’t mean people in older years weren’t suffering from the above conditions. But as a result of inexpressiveness, these issues weren’t discovered by anyone other than the people who were suffering. The more the society felt the need of communication, the more research took place and so these issues were discovered.

Above all, the pick-point is that sex education is not about discovering one’s sexual organs or various sexual poses, but it is to get aware of different sexual conditions including the earlier. It means the sculptures on the temple walls should no more be considered as the medium of sex education. That is art, simply a piece of art, and that’s all!

Putting an end to compulsory marriage

In India, marriage has always been defined as one of the most divine relationships. A man and a woman (let's talk about inter-sex marriages only) tie the knot promising each other that they are going to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other. In the process, they adjust with the nature, mood, character, attitude and intelligence of each other investing every effort to hundred percent in order to save their bondage. This is the simple theory of this so-called tie-up. Sounds very sweet! It would have sounded sweeter, if the same characteristics had been visible in each and every marriage.

India is a country where from the very childhood, everyone is fed with the notions that once grown up, he or she is going to get married. Therefore one grows up with the dreams of his or her marriage. But even then, marriage is marked by many negative thoughts by a group (though very small) of people.
This part of population might either have got fed up of the bad marriage of their parents or seen only failed or bad marriages around them, or else for any other particular reason. But one thing is clear that they don't want to get diverted by sacrificing their lives to an unpromising marriage. There are even people who prefer some other responsibility or social work over getting married.

All these people who are reluctant to get married are forced to do the same and to live a life they never wanted. By ‘force', I don't mean ‘physically'. There are many social factors that make them available for an unwilling marriage. These factors may be described as:

• The persuasion of parents who want their dynasty to continue existing.
• The narrow narrow-minded society that considers a man Impotent or Effeminate
• The conservative society that considers a woman as cursed, if not married.
• The wrong notion of the parents who think it's a divine achievement to give away the daughter in marriage.
• People who want to get their children married, so that they can make arrangements for the same with grandeur and show off their status.

This is high time these factors created soon-to-be broken relationships spoiling many lives. Now, the time has come to set people free to live in the way they want. Just think, if we are not sure whether the marriage of two people who have been in love for years (as we have already seen many cases earlier) is going to work or not, how can a marriage having any one or both reluctant partners work? In simple words, this is a risk that is taken by putting two lives at stake. Is it compulsory to be taken, I mean, to get married?