For many Chinese bachelors, no deed means no dates

I found this news-piece while reading Indian Express(dated 17-04-2011). I want to share it with those who don't read IE but somehow follow my blog...


IN THE realm of eligible bachelors, Wang Lin has a lot to recommend him. A 28-year-old college educated insurance salesman, Wang has a flawless set of white teeth, a tolerable karaoke voice and a three-year-old Nissan with furry blue seat covers.
But by the exacting standards of single Chinese women, it seems, Wang lacks the bankable attribute of real property. Given that even a cramped, two-bedroom apartment on the dusty fringe of the capital sells for about $150,000, Wang's $900-a-month salary means he may forever be condemned to the ranks of the renting.

Last year, he said, this deficiency prompted a high-end dating agency to reject his application.
"Sometimes I wonder if I will ever find a wife," said Wang, who lives with his parents, who remind him of his single status with nagging regularity.

There have been many undesirable repercussions of China's unrelenting real estate boom, which has driven prices up by 140 per cent nationwide since 2007, and by as much as 800 per cent in Beijing over the past eight years.

Working-class buyers have been frozen out of the market while an estimated 65 million apartments across the country bought as speculative investments sit empty.

The collateral damage to urban young professionals, especially men, who increasingly find themselves lovelorn and despairing as a growing number of

women hold out for a mate with a deed, is largely overlooked.
More than 70 per cent of single women in a recent survey said they would tie the knot only with a prospective husband who owned a home. 50 per cent said financial considerations ranked above all else, with good morals and personality falling beneath the top three requirements. (Not surprisingly, 54 per cent of single men ranked beauty first, according to the report, which surveyed 32,000 people and was jointly issued by the Chinese Research Association of Marriage and Family and the All-China Women's Federation.) Given the nation's gender imbalance, an outgrowth of a cultural preference for boys and China's stringent family-planning policies, as many as 24 million men could be perpetual bachelors by 2020, according to the report.

Yang Xuning, 29, a sportswriter, said much of the pressure comes from parents who feel taunted by the wealth around them.

He recalls his first meeting with his girlfriend's parents, when he was asked about his salary and his nesting plans. "I tried to reason with her mother, explaining that it's not practical to buy something at this stage in our lives but she wouldn't hear it," he said.

He stood his ground, she stood hers, and a few months later, Yang's girlfriend called it quits.

"Many girls see marriage as a way of changing their status without hard work," he said bitterly.

Many women are unapologetic about their priorities, citing the age-old tradition in which men provided a home for their brides, even if that home came with a mother-in-law.

Gao Yanan, a 27-year-old accountant with a fondness for RayBans and Zara pantsuits, said the matter was not up for debate. "It's the guy's responsibility to tell a girl right away whether he owns an apartment," she said. "It gives her a chance not to fall in love."

With such women on the prowl, even men who do have their own homes have come up with techniques to weed out the inordinately materialistic.

Liu Binbin, 30, an editor at a publishing house in Beijing, said he often arrived at first dates by bus, even though he owned a car.
"If they ask me questions like `Do you live with your parents?' I know what they're after," he said.

Sindhustan: Lokpal: Anna Bashing

Sindhustan: Lokpal: Anna Bashing

Lokpal: Anna Bashing

I don't why some people are after Anna Hazare's life for mustering courage to stand up against corruption. He is not demanding something unusual. And, his demands are not traversing the sanctity of parliamentary democracy, a basic feature of our Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is written that a bill can only be conceptualised and formulated by the members of parliament. The essence of our legislative procedure is that a law can not come into existence until and unless it passes the test of parliament. And, by demanding an audience and participation in formulation of a bill is no crime in our country and is not unconstitutional as per our democratic tenets. So, why a plethora of columnists has indulged in Anna bashing? Let the experiment complete its course. Only then, we may be able to judge. Till then, don't jump guns, please. This experiment may open many a mind in this youthful democracy.

Anna Declares War On Corruption

Can a law, howsoever comprehensive it may be, weed out corruption from any society? Answer can not be an affirmative one. Corruption is not an island in itself which can be attacked by the force of law. It has been a way of life, like religion. Don't frown. The comparison may look an erroneous one but it is not. Religion in our country has been an individual way of life governed by a set of social, moral and ethical rules. And, corruption is very much part of our daily conduct, which is regulated by religion, both institutionalised and free. So, comparison between corruption and religion is a valid one. Corruption is a way of life and has been a reality of human kind throughout the history. The civilisational history of human existence tells us that corrupt practices can not be put to an end, it can only be moderated, channelled and curbed to a manageable level.

Anna Hazare launching a brave movement by undertaking fast onto death notwithstanding, the fight against corruption can not end or begin with the fulfilment of his demands. His demands are rather simplistic given the magnitude of the problem. He wants government to pass the Jan Lokpal Bill as drafted by social activists closely working with him. This bill proposes to make ministers, officials and other public authority accountable for any corrupt practice, if and when they indulge in it. It also says that the Lokpal must not require approval from any authority to initiate legal proceeding against a public functionary, who has delved into corruption. These demands are not only simple, rather extremely simplistic and thus can only complicate the matter in the long run. This law even if it is passed... provided there is a change of heart at the highest level of government... it won't serve its purpose and can not either weed out corruption or act as a deterrent to the practice.

Corruption has its roots in our thought process-- a result of our values, education, sensitivity, tradition, poverty, lust, ideals or an absence of one or all of them. So, Anna Hazare declaring a war on corruption may not go a long way in fighting corruption itself, but it can do one thing for sure, that is, to educate the masses of the fallout of corruption. Many more Annas will be required to do a social reformation that might bring corruption at a manageable or minimal level in decades or centuries to come. Or, who knows the fight against corruption may turn out to be an eternal fight between the good and the evil. But, Anna Hazare deserves huge applaud for his conviction at the age of 72, for his relentless fight against social malaise and for the hope that he harbours that one day the nation will be free of corrupt practices!

Telangana Report Is Political

The 5-member Srikrishna Committee report on the question of a separate statehood for Telangana has come out on the expected lines. There are no suprises in the list of options recommended by the panel headed for Justice Srikrishna. Of the six options, the least favourable, as suggested by the panel itself, is maintaining a status quo. I think, maintaining status quo will again throw the entire region into clashes, arson and bloodshed. The panel has fuelled at the same time the aspirations of Rayalaseema region by giving them some fodder to give a shape to their agitation (that has not begun yet) for a demanding a separate political identity.

The five intelligent men also gave the people of Rayalaseema an option to either go with Telangana or with Andhra and be part of Rayala-Telangana or Seemaandhra! This is the most baffling option to me. It reminds me of the British design that gave some 562 princely states of united India an option to go either with Pakistan or join the union of India in 1947, when most of the states naturally thought themselves a part of the country; thereby giving them an option to go separate and nourish their narrow political aspirations, if any. The wise men should have thought otherwise this time around.

To me, the question before the panel was whether a separate state of Telangan will fulfill the needs and aspirations of people living in the resource rich region. The problem of Telangana is the problem of all those, who demanded or are demanding a separate state for themselves. But, instead of focusing on people and the depravity that they have suffered under the present political set up, the committee seems to have acted with an aim to satisfy the political groups that have been nourishing their own ambitions as they have failed to capture power in united Andhra Pradesh.

This does not augur good for the people who have genuine hope with attached to the creation of Telangana. They may well be on the path of their brethren in Uttarakhan, Jharkhand and neighbouring Chhattisgarh, where people are still deprived even after ten years of the creation of states they fought for. The Committee led by a former supreme court justice should have focussed on these issues to expose the detrimental political designs of the rulers or potential rulers. Rather, it has supplied various groups six bags of political fodder to masticate. It has also created confusion among the protagonists of separate Telangana as to what to do? Which option to go for?

To sum up, the Srikrishna committee has not delivered what was expected of it. It seems to have dealt with the political tug of war both in New Delhi and Hyderabad.

Ayodhya Verdict

A court of law is a living body. The Allahabad High Court has proved it. It showed that it had a soul, a mind and heart to feel and sense things and it acted as if it wanted to guide the present generation and ones to come. It worked on the principle of peace co-existence. It was mindful of the reality of India, Hindustan. Don't be legal, be judicious as the high court was. You can not have an isolated Hindu or an isolated Muslim.

Naxals Are Not Friends

Naxals have released the three of the four abducted policemen in Lakhisarai in Bihar. The news came as a major relief to the families of these policemen, who would be hailed as brave and may even be honoured for surviving a definite wrath of their abductors. However, it was no merit of theirs that they are free now. But definitely, apart from other things, the hostage crisis has absolved all of them of all the guilt and sin arising out of any act of corruption or dereliction of duties that they may (must) have done during their service in uniform. So, while the three-day crisis has provided a blanket of santity to the services of these policemen on one hand, it has, on the other, exposed the myth of Maoist Idealogy. It has also betrayed the dilemma of the elected governance and confusion prevailing in the government machinery over the strategy to deal with crimes related to or committed in the name of naxalism.

Before setting three of the hostages free, the Naxals killed one havildar, Lucas Tete. Apart from the family members of Tete, the killing may not be remembered by many. But his killing has exposed the myth of naxal ideology. The myth, that the naxals are fighting for poor and oppressed is not true for, Tete belonged to a poor tribal family. That they are fighting against a governance that is oppressive is not true for, they killed a defenceless poor tribal when they felt that the government forces were closing in and that the dead body of a tribal policeman would mount pressure on the government to go slow in the combing operations. That, naxals do not indulge in violence is not true for killing of an innocent bread earner who opted for civilised means to run his family is nothing else but violence. Can ever the naxals who killed Tete explain as to why did they choose the poor tribal man to convey their message to the government? Naxal patrons have launched a multi-pronged attack on the parliamentary democracy and terrorism is one of the strategy currently adopted by them.

One thing that I would like to make clear is, the maoists do not believe in documenting things that they don't want themselves to be remembered for, notwithstanding the fact that they don't shy from doing such things. This explains why even in this case, the so-called naxal spokesperson Avinash claimed that naxals do not indulge in violence. Their methodology was surprisingly prophesied in 1948-49 by George Orwell in a novel. Chinese school texts today are standing testimony to that. They don't teach about 1962 war and capture of Indian territories in Aksai Chin and also Tibet. So, no intellectuals should harbour any illusion that naxalism is for the uplift of downtrodden and the proletariat. Nothing of that sort seems to be in store for people even if naxals succeed in capturing political power in the country.

On the other hand, government is at best confused in dealing with naxal crimes. Government is right in saying that the people fighting for naxalism are our own people and they need to be treated with care. But can naxals be allowed to use arms against rest of the community and against those who are earning bread for their families? Ain't ordinary criminals our own people? Why do we adopt a different approach and have an entirely different mindset while dealing with them? Going by naxal ideology everyone who feels that he has been denied his due (either in historical perspective or in current situation) should took shelter under guns, and then every dissatisfied group should weild arms and wage war against 'an oppressive regime'. Anarchy would prevail. But, government lacks the vision of sifting through an ideology and a crime.

Government at all levels has failed to ensure that arms are not smuggled, illegal weapons are not manufactured and Lathiwala policemen are ubiquitous. No need to talk of development and employment schemes which have failed to include all families in the country. Government needs to be as agile and effective in implementing its schemes and the rule of law as the naxals are in their multi-pronged attack at the government in order to seize political power between 2030 and 2050.