Cranberry or conberry

First some background.

Cranberry is not native to India. To be more correct, the berry is not native to India, but both the juice and the berry are hugely popular amongst India’s urban ‘smart set’ Cranberry is now copiously consumed by the `smart set’ and why should it not be? Cranberry juice is an attractive colour, is easily available in brightly coloured Tetra Paks with pictures of idyllic happy families glowing with health. What an image of a panacea.

Cranberry juice is very healthy. Cranberries have been dubbed a `superfruit’. `Superfruit is a marketing term that refers to a fruit which combines exceptional nutrient richness and antioxidant quality with an appealing taste that can stimulate and retain loyalty for the product. Antioxidants are necessary to rid our bodies of the poisons that we consume because of our lifestyles and the general pollution, stress, tensions, et al. At least that’s what the all the nature cure/naturopathy lot claim. Not only does Cranberry have loads of antioxidants but it also has tannins that have anti clotting properties as well as properties to clear urinary tracts. Thus drinking Cranberry juice is beneficial for women to prevent UTI.

There is only one problem. There is very little Cranberry juice in a Cranberry Juice Tetra Pak. In fact there is a whole lot of Apple Juice. Yup. Apple Juice, juice from the stuff that keeps doctors away.

A couple of days ago I bought some so called Cranberry Juice to serve to non alcohol consuming guests. I craftily thought that I could use the same ingredient to make Cosmopolitans. The juice did not get over so I left the Tetra Paks in the refrigerator. On finishing the carton earlier today, I read the nutritional information and came away horrified, shocked at the lying multinational corporate and was provoked.

Just have a look at the ingredients. The most is water [which is perfectly normal], then sugar [which too is acceptable as Cranberries are extremely sour, verging on bitter] then apple juice concentrate [2.3%] and then cranberry juice concentrate [a shocking miniscule 0.72%]. Be that as it may, while I hope you are fairly indignant, please do read the next paragraph. It says in capital letters THIS CONTAINS 23% FRUIT JUICE CONTENT. Now I am not a mathematician, I am a washed up lawyer. How does 2.3% + 0.72% add up to 23% I do not know?

I was appalled reading this. However the clincher is at the very bottom of the carton. This is not Cranberry Juice at all, it is a Cranberry Beverage. So is this an example of a corporate being extra smart, doing Jugaad? I think yes, it’s deception bordering on outright thuggery. How paranoidly vigilant does one have to be to understand what it is you are buying? How much fine print are you to read when buying something.

I wonder what their apple juice would contain.

Disturbing, very disturbing. 

Where are the role models?

A role model is a person who serves as an example, whose behaviour may be something to be emulated by others. With changing social mores, the choice of role models is also shifting. I presume in the past, political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi or Jawarharlal Nehru were dominant role models. Role models are often persons from a particular field which has relevance to a person. For example a budding entrepreneur may regard, say, Sunil Mittal as his role model. Often role models transcend a particular sector and assume a more general or overall state. A role model may be someone whose moral values we respect or whose valour and bravery we think highly of.

Over the years the choice of role models, especially for young people, is deeply influenced by their celebrity culture which in itself means their relative wealth, and not their actual profession or achievement or even their value systems. This creates a deep problem. On the one hand the role model never intended to be one and on the other the influences the role model plays on his admirers is often for wrong reasons.

The problem is quite apparent in the UK where often the role models are football players. The players are talented footballers, generally very fit with a good work ethic and make lots of money. Is this enough to be a role model? The player’s performance on the field is sometimes extraordinary, however it is the phenomenon of WAGS, extra marital affairs, infidelity and drunken antics at clubs is something that is viewed with much adulation by the admirers. This is viewed as a sign money power, or simply power. The well documented stories of lavish wedding celebrations of players, their very public spats with wives are reported with much glee by the tabloids. So you have a situation of a person with very ordinary values becoming, without him really intending to, a role model and thereby instilling value systems in followers that are flawed.

While that is the case in the UK, here in India we have a different problem. Our sportsmen, politicians and businessmen are far more puritanical. In many cases they genuinely do not drink as much or carouse in nightclubs and lead rather mundane lives. Those that do drink or party, probably do so with a lesser intensity than in the UK, and, coupled with a relatively tame press and hypocritical lives, the result is that very little of what goes on gets out or gets documented. 


Unlike the West, our sportsmen, politicians and businessmen are all experts in what is most appropriately described as `Jugaad’. Jugaad can be described as an innovative fix to a problem, or a way around the rules or finding a loophole. It’s not a terribly complementary attribute to have. The other word that is a close cousin of Jugaad is `setting’.

One of the most widely admired role models we have is none other than, the Masterblaster, Icon for the country, Mr Sachin Tendulkar. I am unsure if you ask people why he is their role model they will be unable to answer that question. But he is regarded as a role model nonetheless. Please do examine his conduct. He has been a huge success on the cricket field however off it, I am sorry to say, he is responsible for much Jugaad and setting. First example of this was taking a Ferrari as fees from Fiat for endorsing Fiats products. Then claiming duty exemptions as he was a sportsman. He then sold the car at a huge profit which resulted from the duty exemption. Now he has moved into his new house for which there is no Occupation Certificate. This is done without so much as a by your leave. Ironically, the Municipal Authorities, instead of penalising him for having done so and thereby setting an example, are bending over backwards to exempt/reduce the penalty.

Amitabh Bachchan is another who is viewed as a role model. His dabbling with politics during the time of Rajiv Gandhi was viewed as participation for ulterior motives. Lately his attempts of being classified as a farmer, hanging out with the likes of Amar Singh and even Anil Ambani are probably tainted. They say Bachchan was helped during his financial crisis by Amar Singh, who now wastes away in Tihar jail for some more serious Jugaad that he is alleged to have indulged in! Even Anil Ambani has a whole host of his Senior Executives currently in jail for the 3G Jugaad. Would Amitabh Bachchan’s involvement with Amar Singh and Ambani have some elements of Jugaad too or was that pure friendship? Honestly, I cannot put my finger on it.

Come to think of it, who are role models for us Indians? Cricketers come to mind, a couple of Bollywood actors, come to mind, probably Anna Hazare and a smattering of businessmen. No Bachendri Pal the first Indian woman to climb Mount Everest, no war heroes and certainly no sportsmen other than maybe a stray footballer. Businessmen as role models are few and far between. Politicians? Nope. Is there really anyone with a mega personality and mega values, principles and commitment whom we Indian can look up to as role models? Men of valour, integrity and courage, raw physical courage and heroism. Do we really know the difference between role models and celebrities? Have we lost the plot like they seem to in have done Britain in identifying role models or did we really not have anybody to look up to post the giants during India’s Independence struggle?

Why don’t you readers put on your thinking caps and make suggestions on an Indian role model?

Titles

An honorific is a word or expression with connotations conveying esteem or respect when used in addressing or referring to a person. The most common honorific's in modern English are usually placed immediately before the name of the subject. Honorific’s which can be used of any adult of the appropriate sex include `Mr', `Mrs' or `Miss'. Other honorific’s denote the honoured person’s occupation, for instance `Doctor', `Captain', `Coach', `Reverend', for all clergy and/or "Father" (for a Catholic Priest), or "Professor". Abbreviations of academic degrees or professional certifications, used after a person's name, may also be seen as a kind of honorific (e.g. "Jane Doe, Ph.D.") 

In past times, as also now in modern Britain, people were conferred an honorific by the Ruler, you could be knighted. You could obtain an honorific by studying, for example becoming a doctor. Over time honorary honorific’s, honoris causa, have been doled out by universities to deserving persons. So Vijay Mallya has got a Doctorate and is now Dr. Vijay Mallya.

Then there are honorific’s that people either assume or they are thrust upon, and accepted willingly by the person concerned. So you have Mohandas K Gandhi becoming Mahatma. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar becomes `Veer’ Savarkar, sounds so much better. Qureshi Alla Rakha Khan became `Ustad’ Allah Rakha. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar has become `Babasaheb’ Ambedkar. Our friendly neighbourhood spiritual leader, the rather mundanely named Ravi Shankar Ratnam has become `Sri Sri’ Ravishankar. The list of this thrust upon and willingly accepted honorific persons is endless. I do wonder who thought of these honorofics and how they came to be so widely accepted. The craze for honorofics has now even touched ordinary professions. Advocates now affix `Ad’ before their name, and not to be left behind, architects now add `Ar’. Chefs, especially in India are becoming Masterchefs, and this is such a hollow claim that it really boggles my mind. Sanjeev Kapoor is now a Masterchef.

I am quite unsure as how to deal with the very latest in the line of honorofics that we now have. These are not merely titles or descriptions of the persons profession. These new wave honorofics are not single words but entire sentences. It’s now impossible to say `Dr Manmohan Singh’ without also writing `that his honesty and integrity is beyond question’ or words to that effect. Sachin Tendulkar has many, from the one word `Masterblaster’, to the sentence `icon who has brought international laurels’ or words to that effect.

With the money attached to cricket I wonder if cricketers will as Cr before their names? Do you get me Steve?