EDITORIALS

Over the top

While water, electricity and road projects continue to be years — if not decades — behind schedule, the government is hell-bent on meeting one deadline: that of implementing the conditional access scheme (CAS) of TV channels in four metros by July 14. So firm is the resolve that it has even rejected the proposal to initially implement the controversial scheme in just one city on an experimental basis. While CAS is touted to be user friendly, facts have a different story to tell. The consumer will not only have to install a set-top box on his TV to get various channels, but his monthly bill also will go up substantially. In other words, he will be even more at the mercy of cable operators who have established a monopoly. And he cannot look forward to any improvement in service. For instance, the irritating advertisements which prolong a three-hour movie to a four-and-a-half-hour ordeal will continue to haunt him. The government has sought to soften the blow in a ham-handed manner by announcing a 45 per cent duty reduction on set-top boxes. The end result will be that the market will be flooded with boxes of dubious quality while the local manufacturers will be at a distinct disadvantage. The import bill will run into hundreds of crores of rupees. The proprietary sets planned by cable operators will not work if you decide to shift from one operator to another. That is the “consumer-friendly” regime that is being force-fed to the TV-crazy public. Information and Broadcasting Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has politicised the whole issue by saying that the Centre has drastically cut the duty on the sets and the states should now cut sales tax on them.

A set-top box is the result of an obsolete technology which is on the way out all over the world. It is incapable of handling voice, data and video simultaneously. The need of the hour is convergence equipment so that a physical cable link can provide broadband connectivity for television signals, voice and Internet access simultaneously. The cable operators can argue that such a box will cost much more. Of course, it will, but the sets being introduced now are going to be an outdated legacy very soon and it is wrong to force them on the consumers at this stage. In electronics, one has to be alive to the shape of things to come tomorrow. Even otherwise, the direct-to-home (DTH) operations are all set to make their mark and it will be prudent to introduce CAS along with them so that the consumer can choose the more suitable of the two and benefit from the competition.

BJP’s doubletalk

IF the BJP’s Rampur rally on Wednesday has attracted public attention for the wrong reasons, the party has only itself to blame. Nobody in his senses would have believed party chief Venkaiah Naidu when he offered to have a mosque built alongside the proposed Ram temple at Ayodhya. The most charitable explanation for his magnanimous offer is that he was carried away by the large turnout of Muslims at the rally. Small wonder that sections of the Sangh Parivar, particularly the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, has angrily reacted to his statement forcing Naidu to blame the media for “misrepresentation” of his statement. The incident is, if anything, a grim reminder that the BJP has not been able to evolve an appropriate strategy vis-à-vis the Muslims. In their heart of hearts, the party leaders know that without the support of the minorities, the BJP or, for that matter, any party cannot win a majority of the seats given the heterogeneous nature of the electorate. But having got used to demonising the Muslims to consolidate its own “Hindu” vote bank, it is difficult for many in the party to suddenly warm up to the Muslims. Hence every time an attempt is made to woo the Muslims, there is a counter-assertion of the party’s Hindutva identity. The alacrity with which statements to the effect that no mosque would be allowed within five miles of the temple were made is a pointer to the BJP’s failure to reconcile the differences. Leave aside the impracticality of Naidu’s offer, it is hardly the right strategy to win the hearts of Muslims.

Successive elections have proved that Muslims do not vote en bloc and they are as divided as any other community. It is equally true that they have not been favourably disposed towards the BJP. If Naidu thought that they would fall for his promise of building a mosque at Ayodhya, he was sadly mistaken. What the Muslims want are steps to improve their socio-economic conditions like easier access to good schools, proper share in government jobs, proper representation in the police and end to all kinds of discrimination, cover or overt, and the vicious propaganda against them. They would also not like to be told day in and day out that they are an appeased lot when all statistics show that they are one of the most economically and educationally backward communities in the country. They have every reason to be worried when lakhs of tridents are distributed at functions where abusive language is used against them. As regards Ayodhya, they have already indicated that they would abide by the decision of the courts. Nothing is more important to them than a sense of security and equality, which the Constitution guarantees them. The party can make a beginning by disciplining those who demonise the community and terrorise them through mass distribution of tridents. Then there will be no need for special rallies like the one at Rampur.

Gunning for Iran

US President George W. Bush evidently wants to be remembered as the real Rambo of America. He has done pretty well since 9/11. The attack on the symbol of America's economic muscle provided him the opening to tell the international community that the rest of the world begins where Uncle Sam's shadow ends. He already has Afghanistan and Iraq under his belt. Now Rambo wants more. Last week US lawmakers got into a huddle on how to add Iran to his kitty of nations that "harbour terrorists and are a threat to American security". Is Iran indeed the next target of attack for precisely the same reasons that saw Afghanistan and Iraq being invaded? It may take weeks or even a few months for US policy on Iran to blow up into screaming headlines. The ground is being prepared for a possible regime change in Iran. In Afghanistan America has a puppet that cannot move beyond Kabul. In Iraq it is still looking for a puppet. President Bush came close to doing political business with leaders of the majority Shia population when someone whispered in his ears the problems he was likely to face. Iran is the only Shia state and Iraq the only country that has more Shias than Sunnis.

Now a case is being made out for attacking Iran for instigating the Shias in Iraq against American presence. The charge of patronising the Al-Qaeda is meant to make America's case against Iran appear credible. President Bush needs to brush up his knowledge of the history of the Shia-Sunni conflict. The sectarian conflict is as old as the founding of Islam 14 centuries ago. Why should Iran run the risk of inviting the wrath of the West, particularly America, by playing footsie with a non-Shia group like the Al-Qaeda? It must be remembered that Khomeini's grand vision of Islamic unity failed because the rest of the Muslim world refused to take orders from the Ayatollah of the Shias. But how can Rambo accept that he has made serious errors of judgement in his fight against global terrorism? He failed to get Osama or destroy the Al-Qaeda, but he destroyed Afghanistan. He failed to get Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction, but destroyed Iraq. The charge that Iran's nuclear programme violates the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty is as true as the case that Iraq had WMDs. Russia is the only country that has taken note of American designs on Iran. It has, as usual, urged that UN weapon inspectors should be asked to examine the American charge of NPT violations against Iran. Why is the global community sleeping? It will most likely wake up after US policy makers discuss the future of diplomatic ties with Iran next Tuesday at a high-level interagency meeting in Washington.

OPINION

Kashmir stalemate again
Can we do without mediation?
V.T. Joshi

Confidence-building measures”. “Composite dialogue”. “Step-by-step approach”. “Trade talks”. “Cultural exchange”. “People-to-People contacts”. “Core issue”. “No, not a core issue”. “Bilateral issue”. “No third party mediation”. “American pressure”. “No, none at all”. And so goes the pathetic tale of Kashmir, marking a 50-year-long crisis.

There is a familiar ring about these terms bandied about nonchalantly every time Indo-Pak impasse comes to the fore amidst mounting tensions and half-hearted, perfunctory public debates.

To be sure there have been no less than 19 times the Foreign Secretary-level talks were held. Every time the parleys begin amidst great expectations and the spirit of bonhomie oozes on the first day. On the second day each side re-states its old familiar postures as rigidly as it has always done before. Eventually the suave, soft-spoken diplomats and bureaucrats adjourn to call it a day. They seem to “celebrate” their ill-concealed failure amidst cocktails of choicest drinks, sumptuous dinners and depart amidst warm hugs exuding the same spirit of bonhomie with which they started on their umpteenth mission to resolve Indo-Pak problems.

The latest initiative of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan through their initial phone conversation has again instantly led to a new stream of expectations and euphoria. But it is foredoomed unless there is a refreshing change of outlook and a new approach and determination to break the deadlock. The diplomats and bureaucrats on both sides can do precious little. And they do their best in the only way they know best and are adept in — dithering. They need clear and unambiguous political direction to resolve the issues and produce results.

The two sides must give up what the eminent jurist and lawyer, Ram Jethmalani, has aptly called their “wooden headed approach”. It will indeed be a breath of fresh air in the prevailing suffocating political climate of constant sabrerattling if the Vajpayee government summons courage and gives up the “wooden headed” approach that has marked the efforts of successive governments and political leaders of all hues and colour for the past several decades. Kashmir cries out for a bold initiative by both India and Pakistan together to relieve the misery and hardships of its hapless people on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC).

Some myths have to be understood and cleared before a rational, pragmatic approach to the vexed problem is possible and evolved earnestly. Willy-nilly Kashmir is the biggest stumbling block in the path to normalisation of Indo-Pak relations even if we do not want to call it a “core” issue, and has inevitably become an international dispute. Plainly the international community is fed up with it as personal conversations with diplomats reveal.

The mutually contradictory positions of the governments of the two countries are so rigid and unrelenting that the problem can never be resolved without some urgent third-party assistance, call it mediation, facilitation, intervention or whatever. Not long ago a statesman of impeccable stature, Nelson Mandela, burnt his fingers by innocuously offering to help on behalf of NAM. That opportunity ought to have been seized by both the countries but it was spurned by India with unbecoming contempt and incalculable harm. In the changed global situation since then effective international pressure means American pressure. Once bitten twice shy, India has shunned the very word “mediation” like the plague.

Even so, whether we admit it or not, there is already international intervention by western powers feverishly shuttling between New Delhi and Islamabad in any critical situation. These indirect parleys are akin to the “proximity talks” (held in Geneva) under the auspices of the United Nations which eventually led to the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989.

Pakistan has long been clamouring for mediation in the fond hope that it will be favourable to its position. But the situation has changed drastically since the end of the cold war, and now even more so after the Iraq war.

Despite their contrary public postures, both the countries and their political and military leaders know it full well in their heart of hearts that no amicable, peaceful solution is possible today or 50 years hence except through the conversion of the LoC as the permanent international border with easy access for interaction and visits between the people of the two parts of Kashmir which takes care of the human problem.

Yet, each side pretends that the whole of Kashmir belongs to it. In reality however it dangles its claim to the other part of Kashmir primarily as a bait at the bargaining counter, on the one hand, and on the other, to impress domestic constituencies bravely but vainly. For all practical purposes the LoC is already an international border though still a sizzling hot line which urgently needs to be converted into a peaceful, pacific border.

However, the big question is: Who will bell the cat? In the present international milieu a dispassionate reconsideration of the ticklish issues involved and bold initiatives are urgently needed, and only the US (and Britain), as named by Jethmalani sometime back, can bring about a settlement. It is time the pretext of “no-third-party-mediation” is given up since there is nothing dishonourable in it. Far from it, it will be in the supreme national interest of both India and Pakistan.

There is an old saying. “The wise give up half when faced with the loss of the whole”. The alternatives to a peaceful settlement can only be two extreme positions: Absorption of the whole of Kashmir into India or Pakistan through endless bloodshed and bitterness; or an independent Kashmir in perpetual conflict with both India and Pakistan. In either case it would inevitably be an invitation to disintegration of both.

Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee is certainly a wise man. He has taken bold initiatives. He has “mused” that he is prepared to depart from “the trodden path”. Now is the time to seize the K-problem by the horn and make a firm, positive offer to Pakistan to resolve it once for all, (as far as possible with the consent and consensus of major parties), and transform the Indo-Pak scene dynamically. Instead of resorting to daily doses of senseless rhetorical threats and chanting “the-tried-and-failed” slogans and shibboleth like “step-by-step approach”, “confidence-building measures”, “composite formula” and all that crap.

The writer was a foreign correspondent in Islamabad 

MIDDLE

People like us across the border
S.K. Aggarwal

It was mid-fifties and I was a growing child in the streets of Amritsar. The area around where we lived was very thinly populated and there were many dilapidated houses and an abandoned mosque near our house. During our evening outings my father would tell me how these houses once belonged to Muslims and how they had to leave for Pakistan. There were no Muslims to be seen in Amritsar as this town was right at the declared border and everybody was able to cross over.

My father and mother would tell me how once they were their neighbours and all those nasty and ugly scenes at the time of partition. We children would perceive Muslims as looters, plunderers, tormenters and war-mongers. There were our text books narrating the horrible stories of Muslim atrocities on Sikh Gurus and all these were very well illustrated in beautiful but piercing and poignant paintings by S. Sobha Singh mounted on the walls of the famous Sikh Museum in the Golden Temple. My own conception of a Muslim was that of a fierce looking monster. I grew up like that and finished my school without seeing any in flesh and blood.

It was my first year at college. During the summer break a friend’s brother who was a customs official took the two of us to see the Wagah border post. There I stood at the no-man’s stretch of land facing a boy of my age who had come to see the border post from Lahore. We were soon talking. We spoke the same language and the same dialect. We longed to cross over and sit together and talk more. Dogs were running from this side to that and back chasing each other in play. There were no barriers for them. But a soldier of the Pakistan Rangers was keeping a vigil on us. As soon as I tried to read the English daily that my newly formed friend was holding in his hand the soldier separated us, “This is not allowed”. We grudgingly moved away from each other. That day I felt very different. So where were those monsters that I had imagined?

After finishing college when I moved out of my shell at Amritsar and saw the vast sea of human faces of my country it became so obvious how it is the same stock, all of us. Only the name will tell you whether you are a Hindu, a Muslim or for that matter a Christian or someone else. Working in a busy maternity and paediatric hospital in the walled city of Delhi with a majority of our patients being poor Muslims from the city and the slums and resettlement colonies for the last 20 years I see the all prevailing mothers and children with anxieties and apprehensions common to all of us during the illness of our near and dear ones. Mothers and grand-mothers and fathers and grand-fathers overjoyed over the birth of their new-borns and wailing over the loss of their children. There is no difference. All humans behave in a similar manner in matters of joy and sorrow.

There is a realisation; we are the same people. When we see the people from across the border whether on their arrival here or on the Pak TV we cannot make out one from the other. Why this animosity? We are living with it for the past 50 years.

But then real brothers also have it for some similar reasons after they start living separately. It may last for many years, but in due course bones of contention crumble and cordiality evolves. Their children relish the kinship and proudly declare in larger gatherings that they are cousins.

Let the people of this sub-continent rediscover this kinship. Are we at such a threshold; alas there are more fears than hopes. But then hope sustains us. This is bound to happen sooner or later. 

Don’t look for ‘roots’ that don’t exist
An open letter to the ‘abandoned’ girl

Dear Aarti,
The headline of The Tribune article “Abandoned girl looks for her mother” (May 22) caught my eye, but as I was immediately post-operative from a cataract eye surgery, this reply has had to wait until today. First of all, let me say that you were NOT an “abandoned” baby, though I understand that newspapers need to use eye-catching headlines. Abandoned babies are those which are left in garbage bins or on rubbish dumps. Your mother left you in a place where you were certain to be found within a few hours, by a caring person, who would do his best to see that you were taken care of. She did absolutely the best she could do in view of the fact that she could not keep you any longer.

I am the mother of an adopted girl, a little older than you. She came to us at 11 months and she knew, as soon as she could understand, that she was adopted and why her mother had chosen to give up a little girl whom she loved. In the case of my daughter, we knew who was the mother; we even had one photograph of her. My little girl went through the normal, expected phase, through which you are now passing, of wanting to meet her mother. I told her that she could certainly meet, when she was old enough to travel the long distance alone (I am now severely, physically handicapped and was unable to travel with her).

Unknown to me, while in boarding school, she obtained her mother’s address and began to exchange letters. When I discovered this, it was like a knife piercing through my heart, but I understood my child’s need, so hid my feelings. When Sherry was 15, we began to make travel arrangements for her to meet her mother. To my great surprise she greeted me one morning with, “Mummy, I think I now have my priorities in order. My biological mother gave birth to me, but you actually gave me all the love I have ever known. You cleaned my bottom, walked me to sleep every night & got up early to stitch my clothes. You even fed me mashed bananas although it almost made you sick. I think I don’t really need another mother in my life, so please cancel the travel plans.” That was the last thing I ever heard about her biological mother.

Why have I told you all of this Aarti? So that you understand (what you will have suspected, because you are obviously tender-hearted) what wonderful parents you have, to assist you in so many ways in attempting to trace your biological mother. This, when it must be breaking their hearts to think that in even one thing, they have been insufficient for you.

Now, let me explain the two-possible/probable reasons why your mother could not keep you and why, if she is alive, she may be unable to claim relationship to you. I am an obstetrician who has personally delivered and given for adoption about 10 babies that were born in this small hospital. These babies were born under reason No 1.

Sometimes a girl falls in love and becomes pregnant before her parents can arrange a marriage for her. And even if marriage is planned, she may “jump the gun” with her fiance, before the marriage can take place. In this land, marriages are planned between parents according to caste, and dates set by the pundit (priest) according to careful horoscope/astrological calculations. If pregnancy occurs before marriage, not only is the girl ruined for life, but any younger, unmarried sisters will be almost impossible to marry off! If the youngsters elope and get married by some renegade priest, they return home only under the probability of being put to death by their male relatives “to preserve family honour.” (Exceptions are the very rich, who can “buy the priest off” provided the caste/social standings of both families are satisfactory.) This situation occurs now, today let alone 21 years ago when you were born.

If any girl was brought to me under such circumstances, I accepted whatever name and address was given, although I often was certain that the information was fictitious. I kept the girl ‘isolated’ in a private room until her delivery time and always managed the delivery myself. If there was any repair of wounds needed, I made certain that it was perfectly done, even to the repair of the hymen. If the girl or her parents requested that she or they should not see the baby, I obeyed their wishes. I knew very well that a marriage would have to be done at a later date, and that she would be presented as a virgin.

To this girl, her pregnancy was an unfortunate occurrence to be totally forgotten by her. The babies went to a registered orphanage and in about three cases the children (always girl children) attempted to trace their biological mothers. I always had to explain the impossibility and absolute lack of wisdom of trying to trace such women. I’m sure that you now understand why this was the case. I urged the young ladies to accept their adoptive parents as their own — which in fact they were.

Now Aarti, because your mother was permitted to keep you for an entire month, I think, that you didn’t come into the world under the above circumstances. It is more likely that reason No 2 is the case. So, I’ll try to explain this carefully.

In some states of India, and particularly in Punjab and Chandigarh (where Sector 19 Sita Ram Temple is situated), for centuries it has been the practice to destroy girl babies at the time of birth. Why? The families do not want the economic trouble of raising girls who will have to be given a large dowry, or even a part of the family land, at the time of marriage (If you doubt me, in the 2000 census of India, the ratio of girl: boy babies in Punjab is so low as to cause the demographic specialists real concern).

Today when ultrasound screening is available, women are forced to have abortion as soon as a female foetus is diagnosed. Some families permit one girl to be born; if by any chance a second daughter arrives, she must be disposed of. I strongly suspect that you Aarti were the second, or even the third girl to arrive in your biological family. Your mother must have pleaded with the midwife and her mother-in-law not to destroy you, by promising faithfully that she would get rid of you herself. She must have been (1) a very brave woman and (2) a very valuable daughter-in-law, to have had her way.

If any married woman reveals her identity in response to your appeal, do please (a) have your Dad check out the family’s financial situation and (b) have a DNA check run on both parental claimants before accepting the claim as genuine. Any “clever” Punjabi family will easily see the possibility of fleecing you for money. Equally, few genuine families will lay themselves open to police investigation for abandoning their child 20 years ago.

If, despite the generous display in The Tribune, and Ms Poonam Batth’s very nicely written article, no one makes contact with you, then dear little girl, may I plead with you to consider the circumstances of your birth as inconsequential. Put it behind you and concentrate on being Aarti Johanna Lindberg, the fortunate daughter of marvellous parents, and a citizen of Sweden. I am not telling you to forget totally your Indian heritage, you can’t as long as you use a mirror! I’m not even suggesting that you never revisit India, but the next time you come, come as a visitor, not as someone seeking “roots”, which no longer exist. Will you at least try? I know, as an adoptive parent, what great, deep-down joy and satisfaction will come to your dear parents’ hearts.

I have a second, older adopted daughter who is married to an American gentleman. They have two sons and a brand new baby girl. The boys have Western first names and Indian second names. The baby girl has an Indian first name Shalani and second Western name. I have closed letter contact with my grandsons, and they know of their Indian heritage, but they are being brought up as Americans. I advised my daughter, when she was married and took US citizenship, “You have chosen a new life, live it. Do not try to be half-and-half, your children will be constantly confused as to their identity.

Now Aarti, it is true that you didn’t choose to be Swedish, you had no say in the matter. But the truth is that you think as a Swede, you behave as a Swede, not as an Indian, and the difference is enormous! You see, I know, because I am a Jamaican, who has married and lived in India for 30 years. I love my husband dearly; I love the people of this beautiful state of Himachal, but I do not think, nor behave as an Indian. These patterns were set in my childhood, and they cannot be changed, without enormous effort. But for as long as they lived in this country, my children were brought up as Indians, not half-and-half.

This has become a long letter. I hope I have not bored, nor upset you. This was never my intention. You have a beautiful face with beautiful thoughts behind it. May you be wonderfully happy after this.

Your friend, Dr Yvonne Bazliel, Simla Sanitarium and Hospital, Carton House, Shimla.

SIGHT & SOUND

What is priority news?
Amita Malik

IT was Saturday and every Indian TV Channel bar one was showing the swearing in of the new ministers at Rashtrapati Bhavan. With one exception, NDTV English, which was doggedly carrying on with The Big Fight. And this is the channel I hung on to doggedly not because of Rajdeep Sardesai but because of the rivetting news which was running at the bottom of the screen. It told viewers that a CSIF jawan had shot dead his commandant and was holding hostages, including women, in the passenger lounge of Mumbai’s airport. Sentence by sentence, it reported the happenings by the minute and it carried on like this until the scheduled news bulletin came on with the full details of the continuing drama. Meanwhile, the other channels were giving the usual comments on the Cabinet changes by its boring House commentators. I naturally lost interest in the musical chairs of the Cabinet and preferred to follow the rivetting drama at Mumbai’s airport, a drama which ended only in the small hours and had enough content for a full-length feature film. I still firmly believe that most viewers were more immediately interested in the goings on at Mumbai than the routine swearings in which were of more interest to the politicians and their friends and relations and party-watchers. In fact, NDTV sometimes interrupted The Big Fight to up-date us on the progress of tricky negotiations with the jawan, which showed the news sense lacking in other channels. When Aaj Tak finally woke up and its unexciting House commentator was taken off, it went full steam ahead, and the remaining channels tamely followed suit.

Tennis is very much in now and apart from the fact that DD’s programmes as published in the press do not even indicate that its sports channel is carrying belated relays of the Paris matches there is Ten Sports, which allots something like four hours to live coverage in its schedule which one expected would mean uninterrupted live coverage. But instead, I had an irritating experience watching the Philipoussis-Kim encounter. Kim won the first two sets and Philipoussis the next two. The fifth set promised to be a scorcher. But Ten Sports took the match off whimsically at its most exciting moments showing us women’s boxing (an odious sport for the entertainment of male chauvinists) sundry football, golf and cricket excerpts and, believe it or not, the Pushkar Fair. The last set was not shown at all. This is worse than Doordarshan which at least showed the complete replays of matches on its sports channel. One shudders to think how many ads DD will use to interrupt matches when it carries the later rounds exclusively.

In the realm of sports Sahara has started a series ‘Hisaab Khel Ka’ on neglected sportsmen, I watched the episode on Rajesh Mishra, a young hockey player, whose initially brilliant career has been dogged by injuries and official apathy. Which is all to the good but I would have preferred the series narrating the harrowing stories, just waiting to be told about much older sportsmen which might not be so contemporary and therefore all the more in need of exposes. I remember a shattering news item from a village in Bihar (now probably in Jharkhand) where one of India’s most famous hockey players was reduced to literally breaking stones to earn a living. And is it Wilson Jones, old, ill and forgotten, and languishing in a hospital in Mumbai with not a single colleague or sports official to visit him and offer assistance? There are many, many such forgotten erstwhile heroes and I hope Sahara will zero in on them because they have dropped out of the news, unlike younger players. Rajesh Mishra was an item in another channels news bulletins last week.

Metro DD’s official entertainment channel, has good ideas invariably badly executed. Last week in a programme titled “Aaj Kal aur Aaj” it lined up four respected older citizens of Varanasi from different professional backgrounds to talk about their personal as well as professional experiences. The panel was vocal and interesting but the anchors, who were bubbling over with contrived cheerfulness held large scripts in their hands from which they read out the most simple of questions. They had absolutely no spontaneity and their follow-up was nil. The large dangling earrings of the woman anchor were almost as large as the script she held in her hand. May I remind her that no amount of dolling up can make up for professional poise and confidence?

But even the most experienced are showing signs of nerves. NDTV’s hyped up style of aggressive presentation is lacking its toll. One of its most famous anchors was literally foaming at the mouth last week. And Yasmin, the woman anchor of its breakfast show swallows consonants and is very difficult to follow. NDTV is trying too hard and does not need to.

Men are nerds?
William Leith

The Essential Difference by Simon Baron-Cohen (published by Penguin, pp288) is a fascinating, thought-provoking book. Women will want to talk about it. Men will sit silent and brood over its details. Writing about sex differences is a problem, he says, because ‘some people say that even looking for sex differences reveals a sexist mind’. But things have changed. As a society, we are ready for the truth.

The more you delve into the male brain, the worse it looks. And the more you delve into the female brain, the better it looks. When you take the lid off, the male brain looks really clunky — it is competitive, aggressive, narrow and insecure. As children, boys develop an affinity with toy vehicles. Girls, in contrast, warm to people. Boys make obsessive lists. Girls make friends.

Adolescent boys become tongue-tied and inarticulate. Girls develop a wide range of linguistic and social skills. There are, the author tells us, ‘412 discrete human emotions’. Girls grow up with a better ability to distinguish between them.

Males are ‘systemisers’ — they like to focus on how objects work. Females, on the other hand, are ‘empathisers’ — they are good at the feeling, sharing, and communicating of emotions. And this is not entirely a culturally produced difference. It starts too early for that.

Baron-Cohen tells us all sorts of things about how male and female brains work. Boys gravitate towards weapons; if they can’t find toy guns or swords, then they ‘will use anything as a substitute’. Boys show off, ‘giving a running commentary on their actions’. Young women, in contrast, are sociable. They like to go shopping together and don’t mind sharing changing cubicles. Young men are terrified that people will think they’re gay. The more you read, the worse it looks for men. Women like to talk about emotions and relationships. Men talk about sport and traffic. Women are better users of language. They use more words, make fewer errors, use longer sentences and more complex grammatical structures. Men pause more. Men stutter more.

On the other hand, men are better at discerning spatial relationships between things — they are good judges of, say, the trajectory of a spear coming towards them. Women tend to navigate by using landmarks. Men make three-dimensional maps in their heads. They are fiends for detail. ‘Most birdwatchers, trainspotters and planespotters are male,’ says Baron-Cohen.

Why have the sexes developed so differently? Our brains, he says, have adapted according to natural selection. Men needed to make and use tools. In order to survive, they had to become obsessed with objects, with how things worked. They needed to study the habitats of the animals they preyed on. There was a lot of going into the wilderness and sitting still for hours, staring.

Women, on the other hand, often moved away from their birth group to join the community of their mate. They had to get good at talking to people and reading their emotions, starting with the ability to understand infants by looking into their faces. Even now, women are experts at eye-contact.

So men are nerds and women are socialisers. This is the terrible truth that Baron-Cohen was so worried about revealing. Sometimes he tells us not to make too much of it. ‘Not all men have the male brain, and not all women have the female brain,’ he says. The Guardian 

SPIRITUAL NUGGET

Your mind is your own to educate and direct.
You can do it by the aid of the spirit, but you must be satisfied to work slowly. Be patient and persistent.
— Ella Wheeler Wilcox, The Heart of the New Thought