About INgene blog : First ever Indian Youth trend Insights blog

About INgene : First ever Indian Youth trend Insights blog:
This blog explores the detailed characteristics of Young-India and explains the finer & crucial differences they have with their global peers. The blog also establishes the theory of “adopted differentiation” (Copyright Kaustav SG,2007) and how the Indian & Inglodian youth are using this as a tool to differentiate themselves from the “aam aadmi” (mass population of India) to establish their new found identity.

The term youth refers to persons who are no longer children and not yet adults. Used colloquially, however the term generally refers to a broader, more ambiguous field of reference- from the physically adolescent to those in their late twenties.
Though superficially the youth all over the world exhibits similar [degree of] attitude, [traits of] interests & [deliverance of] opinion but a detailed observation reveals the finer differential characteristics which are crucial and often ignored while targeting this group as a valued consumer base. India is one of the youngest countries in the world with 60% of its population less then 24 years of age and is charted as the most prospective destination for the retail investment in the A. T. Kearney’s Global Retail Opportunity Report, 2007. With the first ever non-socialistic generation’s thriving aspiration & new found money power combined with steadily growing GDP, bubbling IT industry and increasing list of confident young entrepreneurs, the scenario appears very lucrative for the global and local retailers to target the “Youngisthan” (young-India). But, the secret remains in the understanding of the finer AIOs of this generation. The Indian youth segment roughly estimates close to 250million (between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five) and can be broadly divided (socio-psychologically) into three categories: the Bharatiyas, the Indians & the Inglodians (copyright Kaustav SG 2008). The Bharatiyas estimating 67% of the young population lives in the rural (R1, R2 to R4 SEC) areas with least influence of globalization, high traditional values. They are least economically privileged, most family oriented Bollywood influenced generation. The Indians constitute 31.5% (A, B,C, D & E SEC) and have moderate global influence. They are well aware of the global trends but rooted to the Indian family values, customs and ethos. The Inglodians are basically the creamy layers (A1,A SEC) and marginal (1.5% or roughly three million) in number though they are strongly growing (70% growth rate). Inglodians are affluent and consume most of the trendy & luxury items. They are internet savvy & the believers of global-village (a place where there is no difference between east & west, developing & developed countries etc.), highly influenced by the western music, food, fashion & culture yet Indian at heart.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The politicization of Slumdog and so on...

Indian politicians will never reform (or far beyond from getting reformed at this age..ahh..as you know, most of them are actually hanging over the grave…and rest are too busy to fill their pockets…).

The politicization of Slumdog being inaugurated by Congress. I don’t know how many of them (the Netas) have seen the movie which is not portraying the “Achieving India” but the darker side (hope they dont consider the darker side itself as achievement) of it and how the grass root Indians are crossing barriers with their own ambition, hope and intelligence WITHOUT the help from Govt. or politicians…

and actually none of them bothered about Rahman or Resul till day before...the achievement of ARR is again a story of Slumdog...and if seen there's million of such stories alive in this country...where the govt. or party proved no hand of help but the sheer determination and struggle of individual…anybody is curious to know why ARR changed his religion?...he was Dilipkumar earlier…

Have a look what Congress spokesperson stated:

Oscar wins are a proof of "Achieving India" in UPA rule:Cong
Mon, Feb 23 11:19 PM

New Delhi, Feb 23 (PTI) Citing the Oscar wins of A R Rahman and Resul Pookutty, the Congress today sought to claim credit for creating a "conducive environment" that has led to the emergence of 'Achieving India' during the UPA rule. Utilising the Oscar glory to have a dig at the BJP's "Shining India" slogan in the NDA campaign in 2004 elections, the lead party in the ruling coalition also bracketed the achievement with some others during the UPA regime like the Gold medal winning performance of shooter Abhinav Bindra at the Beijing Olympics and India planting the tricolour on the Moon during the first ever unmanned lunar mission.

"This is Achieving India at its best . We salute the heroes," party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi told reporters here.

"We are proud that in the conducive environment of good government by UPA with special emphasis on inclusive growth and development, the achievements have been made". "On one hand, we have young India taking us to the height of glory, on the other we have parties and individuals who want us to take back .

" he added. To a query whether the party was politicising the Oscar award to the film and taking credit for it, Singhvi said, "We are celebrating it, not taking credit for the film".

He also listed the Indo-US nuclear deal as part of "Achieving India". The spokesman described the film, which won 8 Oscars, as a "film of India, by India, for India and for a global audience.

" PTI.
Source: http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20090223/1416/tnl-oscar-wins-are-a-proof-of-achieving.html

soon the fight will begin over the politicization of these kids...the wonderful performers in Slumdog...and in the process their chieldhood will be smashed...

(few fresh smiling photos)

This blog don’t support or hate any political ideology or personality but portrays the views of Young India.


Another interesting editorial with a view what most Inglodians are supporting. I personally hated the idea of the protagonist (grown up one) of this movie speaking in absolute British accent though supposed to be belonging to Mumbai slum...err illiterate:

"It shouldn't have won"
Sandipan Deb
Tue, Feb 24 04:45 AM

Frankly, I don't think Slumdog Millionaire deserved the Oscar for best film. And even more frankly, I don't think Resul Pookutty should have invoked "my country and my civilisation" in his acceptance speech for best sound mixing. India was not up there in the Kodak auditorium for approval. It was a British film financed by the indie subsidiary of an American studio which happened to be set in India and as a result they could not help but involve Indian actors (including Indian-origin Britishers) and shoot it in India. We crave too much for international recognition. A bit too much than is seemly. Even as all of us go around strutting, pretending to be a superpower.

Other than Slumdog, I have seen only one film out of the other four nominated. But I've read about all of them. The one that I saw is The Reader. The subject is far more intellectually challenging, emotionally moving and morally disturbing than Slumdog can ever hope to be. Not since A Last Tango In Paris has nudity (both male and female) been so necessary to a film's narrative, and so non-titillating and so touching. A film which stretches over 30 years and with essentially only two characters, and yet a film that is as gripping as a thriller. It's a film that, as my friend told me, demands and requires to be seen in one sitting, with no interruption by commercials and visits to the loo.

But look at the themes of the other movies that were nominated this year. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the love story of a man who is born as an extreme geriatric and keeps getting younger and dies as a newborn. Only for a brief period of time are the man and his beloved around the same compatible age. Of course it's an impossible concept and completely unbelievable, but it's a high concept. Milk is about the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the United States; Frost/Nixon about the first interview disgraced US President Richard Nixon gave, to has-been TV journalist David Frost. For both of them, it is a chance for redemption, for a somewhat sane life. These are all big themes. I am not doubting Slumdog's quality as a film in any way. Danny Boyle is one of the most talented directors around. But comparing Slumdog to The Reader is almost impossible. It's like comparing A Christmas Carol to Great Expectations.

Scrooge won, little Pip lost. But that's the way it has been with the Oscars. Sometimes the nominations reflect the mood of America's liberals, sometimes the winners reflect political correctness. In 2006, the following five films were nominated: Good Night and Good Luck, Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Capote and Munich. Good Night and Good Luck is about a TV broadcaster who took on the McCarthyist witch hunt in the 1950s; essentially about freedom of the press. Brokeback Mountain deflated the entire mythology of uber-macho frontiersmen by portraying a deep homosexual relationship between two cowboys. Crash interlinked several stories to study racism in all its forms and in startling ways. Capote was about the gay writer Truman Capote who travels to the South of the US to write a book on two multiple murderers. Munich told the story of the Israeli agents who hunted down the Black September terrorists who killed Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics, and asked the question: To take revenge, do we become as base as the men who are our targets?

There's a clear pattern: anger over the Iraq war, the stifling of the media, the stranglehold of neo-conservatism, the contempt for minorities. The denizens of Hollywood were simply reacting to their world as they saw it. The other major critically-acclaimed movies of that year were Transamerica, about one man's battle to change his gender, and Syriana, which told Americans that their nation's policies were largely responsible for Islamist terrorism.

Then there's political correctness. Gandhi won Best Picture over ET. The Academy decided that the biopic of a great and influential leader was more "important" than the woes of a cute alien stranded on our planet. (This incensed Steven Spielberg so much that he decided to give the Academy the "important" films they felt comfortable with, and made The Colour Purple - which didn't win any Oscars - and Schindler's List - which raked them in.) Tom Hanks won his first best acting Oscar for Philadelphia, as much for his acting as for being the first major star to portray a gay man suffering from AIDS. In Hollywood, that's called "courage".

So The Reader can't win. After all, its female protagonist is a former Auschwitz guard who let 300 Jews burn alive in a locked church. The film's position on morality is too nuanced for the general Academy member to grapple with with any success. But Kate Winslet can be given the award for best actress. By taking this controversial role and baring her body so naturally for the purposes of art, she has shown "courage". Milk is about homosexuality, so Sean Penn gets the statuette for "courage", but not the film. Benjamin Button, which was co-produced by its star Brad Pitt, is probably seen as too much the case of an actor showing off, while being aided by more-than-state-of-the art visual effects. Frost/Nixon? Who's interested?

So Slumdog has won, and we should really rejoice for the six children who acted in it, for they are the real stars of the film. We should rejoice for AR Rahman, though the music he has got his two Oscars for is not even of his average quality, forget his sublime and exhilarating stuff. But the Academy has decided. But I really think it's a bit too much if we take this as a victory for Indian cinema. It's a non-Indian film which happened to have an all-Indian cast. We shoot entire films abroad nowadays, especially in the US, remember?
The writer is the editor of the RPG Group's soon-to-be-launched current affairs and features magazine, 'Open'.

source: http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20090224/1241/top-it-shouldn-t-have-won.html

No comments: