The Lows

As far as living conditions go, I'd say India is fairly good, given the sheer complexities to be managed. The institutions that have been built over the last 60 odd years are decently robust, if not always functional. But as L pointed out over a conversation, India is hell when things aren't going right. This is true of any "emerging" or "under-developed" country I suppose, but I wonder if there are many countries where a decent,stable income affords a lifestyle which can be considered "smooth sailing" by any standards while the whole system can turn hostile when things go slightly wrong.

The parameters to measure this hostility should be income,food,health,crime,corruption and political violence. Considering a middle class demographic set, I'd imagine income and food can be considered stable at all points, assuming a reasonably well-educated household which will not find it difficult to hold a job. The other factors, however, are beyond the control of even the middle to upper-middle class households.

Health is a particularly tricky route to negotiate given the absence of credible accreditation or awareness thereof. Even if you have the money, finding a doctor you can trust is largely a matter of providence. My anecdotal view of this issue has led me to believe that most hospitals retain patients even when fully aware that they're not equipped to treat the disease, just so that they can run up a bill and refer them to a "better" hospital at a later date. This, then, has an effect on people being amenable to seeking medical opinion given the amount of distrust generated.

Crime and corruption are, again, debilitating when encountered. Crime needs to be addressed by the state machinery and given the state of the reactive law and order situation, is reliably unreliable. Filing a police complaint is a largely an exercise in futility. This is something that police reforms can certainly address. Corruption, well, who can escape that anywhere in the world?

Given all these, I'm inclined to believe chance plays a very important role in leading a peaceful life here and the aim of the governance should be to help its citizens cope in the event of a black swan.

A recurring theme that keeps cropping up in my conversations with A is the considerable brain-washing that we believe is necessary for any one to put their life on the line in a war for a concept as nebulous as a nation. Yes, we all love our country to varying degrees but to sacrifice your life to save the idea of a nation requires a level of conviction unfathomable to me. One answer of course would be that the motivation is not the perception of a nation but the more tangible life of a fellow countryman's life.And perhaps it is so.

Is killing in a war universally acknowledged as morally acceptable? Here's one approach to answering why its deemed not-so-bad. Form your own conclusions.

This train of thought reminded me of a poem by Thomas Hardy that was part of the CBSE syllabus:

Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have set us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!

But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.

I shot him dead because--
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That's clear enough; although

He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like--just as I--
Was out of work--had sold his traps--
No other reason why.

Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat, if met where any bar is,
Or help to half a crown.

For the record, I think Hardy's prose is insufferably morose.

Watching the Champions League quarterfinal between Manchester United and Chelsea, I started wondering about how the player wages came to be perceived as grossly inflated. And then, Van der Saar showed me why they get paid as much as they do.
The tie is delicately balanced at 1-0 in favor of United. Anelka is put through on goal (well, slightly wide of goal perhaps). Van der Saar, with barely a moment to make a decision as to whether stay put or come out to clear, opts for the latter. For a moment, it looks to be a calamitous one as Anelka runs past him with the ball. But a last ditch tackle by the old man and he manages to clear it, as Old Trafford heaves a collective sigh of relief.
Footballers are paid for moments like those.
A preliminary research shows that Manchester United made approximately 45.8 million Euros through prize money and television rights in the Champions League when they reached the QF last year. Progress at each stage means a huge increase in that receipt.
What I'm driving at it is that, that tackle probably earned his team a million euro or two. Well, in addition to all the vital contributions by his team-mates.
On a related note, it looks like not a lot of football clubs manage to turn out a profit. Follow this blog for some wonderful insights on how the business of football is run.
Quick. Guess which is the most profitable club in Serie A. Milan? Inter? Juve perhaps? The answer, surprisingly (to me atleast) is Fiorentina.

PS: I'll be trying out this new format of posting.Titles: Non-mandatory. Length:Anywhere between 0 and infinity. Focus: Anything that piques my interest.
Filching the idea from here.