Posts filed under ‘Readers’ Contributions’

Rest In Peace, Verghese Kurien

(Note from Ed : This post is reproduced from another blog – with the author’s approval, of course. Here’s a link to the original post)

The news this week in India is full of tributes to Verghese Kurien, the father of the “white revolution” there. Thanks to his life’s work of helping form milk cooperatives throughout the country, dairy farmers thrived, and India went from milk deficiency to production titan over the last several decades.

Kurien’s death on September 9 even caused the Amul girl to shed tears – she’s the cartoon mascot of the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation who anyone who’s bought butter in India knows well.

The Jester believes the story of Amul is exactly the kind that the development community needs to tell more of: helping those at the roots of the global economic tree self-organize so as to improve their bargaining power with respect to those who control the trunk. It’s notable that in awarding him the World Food Prize, the committee cited “his recognition that feeding the world’s citizens includes coordinating breakthroughs in production with effective management and distribution strategies” (NYT Sept. 10, 2012). The Jester can almost hear the sound of one hand slapping… the collective palms of the WFP officials striking their foreheads when they realized it’s not just chemicals, new seeds, and artificially inseminated cows! You need effective management and distribution strategies! Whoa, what an idea! Did you hear that, Rich Philanthropists and Multilateral Policy Makers?

Apparently, Kurien didn’t stop at milk: In the 1980s, he began working to expand vegetable oil cooperatives. If there were a Kurien for every smallholder farm product, “international development” might very well go the way of “groovy” and “far out” in the American lexicon.

“Thanks, Jester, for stating the obvious,” the old-hat reader might say. “But why is this topic of interest to the Jester?”

What caught the Jester’s eye was a little sentence buried in an obituary by the New York Times (thanks to Melissa Ho for sending). It said, “Mr. Kurien returned from doing graduate work in mechanical engineering… and began working at a government research creamery.” That’s right — Kurien studied mechanical engineering!

Looking back from 2012, it’s incredible that Kurien didn’t feel the crushing internal pressure ”to put his technical skills to use for society” as the Jester all-too-often hears from idealistic technology graduates (who are obviously not reading the Jester’s archives!).

It’s amazing that he didn’t decide to design a fancy-but-affordable contraption to milk cows more efficiently (cow-milking machines designed in the developed world are not sensitive to the subcontinent’s local context — there are lots of buffalos in Mother India, don’t you know? And, buffalos from different states respond to different languages, to say nothing of the varying dialects from district to district.).

And it’s absolutely, positively stunning that he didn’t invent a wireless udder monitor that sends cattle owners an SMS when their cows are due for a milking, thus saving dairy farmers the arduous task of squinting to see if an udder is full. (Then again, Kurien had the great advantage of having been exposed to the challenges of dairy farmers well before time division multiple access communication protocols.)

Yes, that’s right — it is actually possible to apply the problem-solving skills that one hones through a good engineering education towards helping people organize, own, and manage their own production capacity, as opposed to helping design fancy gadgets that streamline production capacity that otherwise barely exists.

This week, the Jester’s hat flies at half mast. Verghese Kurien — the Jester wishes that you are resting in a deep, profoundly well-deserved peace.

(Note from Ed : For more posts by the same author, here’s a link to his blog)

September 18, 2012 at 4:07 am Leave a comment

Farming as a profession

Six months ago while attending a small agriculture related workshop I was asked what would I change about agriculture in India if I could change anything. My response was that I would change everything from what is grown, who grows it, how it is sold — almost every aspect of agriculture. But one of the biggest changes I would like to see is “farming as a profession”.

The simple act of putting the word “profession” next to “farming” forces us to invert on its head our typical view of farming, as an activity undertaken by mostly uneducated, unskilled, poor people in rural areas.

Seeing farming as a profession helps us envision an alternate future where farming is undertaken in a more scientific manner, where farmers select which crops to grow based on the ecological conditions of their land (terrain, soil type, water, weather, etc.) as well as the potential net income from the crop. A world where farmers are aware of the optimum inputs (water, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) required for their crops.

Professions demand a drive towards excellence through continuous learning and improvement and farming wouldn’t be an exception. Farmers would need knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to excel at farming.

People working in the Indian agriculture industry typically mention various issues that need attention; issues such as need for more R&D on seeds, seed banks, access to weather and market information, irrigation, better infrastructure, inefficient and non-transparent markets, etc. But hardly anyone talks about the issue of farming skills and knowledge, which is the biggest component of making farming into a profession.

According to a 2010 paper on information needs of Indian farmers by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI):

Considering the large number of marginal and small holder farmers, particularly in rain-fed regions, a major need is to build the capacity of farmers to demand and access information to increase their productivity, profitability, and incomes. The information must be reliable and timely. For example, technologies need to be suited to the farmers’ capacity to take risk, which tends to be low in rain-fed regions, and integrated with available and timely services that support the relevant technology.

The same study mentions that for small farmers, the biggest sources of info are other farmers, input dealers and radio.  For large farmers, the biggest sources of information are TV, other farmers and input dealers.  Roughly 40% of small farmers and 55% of large farmers claim they get some agri-related information from at least one source.

There are many organizations (government, private and civic sector) which are trying to address information needs of farmers.  Most of these efforts are stand-alone and do not  address the problem in an integrated manner.  A private sector service may provide market price information, Digital Green videos may provide info on cultivation techniques while government agencies may offer information on seed varieties.

I wonder if there are any service providers who offer an integrated solution through multiple partnerships with government agencies, private and civic sector organizations.

 

  • Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

August 6, 2012 at 8:13 am Leave a comment

Why don’t Indian farmers grow more fruits and vegetables?

In India, rice and wheat comprise 70% of the agricultural produce by area, but less than 25% by value.  That is, wheat and rice are low value crops to grow compared to other options. Yet, the land area dedicated to wheat and rice has not been decreasing significantly.

Government data shows that the consumption of wheat and rice has been declining around 1-2% in both urban and rural India, while demand for fruits and vegetables has been rising by 2-3% annually.  This again begs the question: Why aren’t farmers shifting to growing more fruits and vegetables?

In addition, detailed studies across the country have also shown that while farmers just about break even (gross return compared to gross costs) on cultivating wheat and rice, growing fruits and vegetables is a profitable undertaking (gross returns are on average 2x the gross costs). Besides fruits and vegetables, there are other crops also which generate higher income than wheat and rice which we won’t go into, to help keep this post focused. (Refer to earlier post for detailed data on gross returns on different cereals, fruits and vegetables)

Having gone through these reports and data, I have been wondering, why, despite all this, do farmers choose to grow mostly wheat and rice?

In other words, if Indian consumers are demanding more fruits & vegetables and these crops are more lucrative anyway, why do Indian farmers keep growing more and more wheat and rice?

Are farmers completely unaware of the difference in returns? Or, is it that despite knowing the disadvantages, they choose to grow wheat and rice?

The first possibility seems rather difficult to believe.  While I am sure farmers have not done a detailed P&L for growing wheat versus okra, it is unlikely that farmers are completely ignorant.  They probably do have a rough idea of probable market prices, input costs and profits.

So what is it about fruits and vegetables that keep farmers from growing them?

Out of intellectual as well as professional curiosity, I have being digging deeper into this question, with the help of field visits and people working in the agri sector.

Here are the results from my own observations and discussions with agri-sector professionals and experts.

  1. Minimum support price. Wheat and rice come with a government minimum support price (MSP), and fruits & vegetables don’t.  Farmers find it assuring to know that MSP exists and may influence open market prices and/or demand for their produce. (Leave aside the fact whether MSP has a real impact on market prices/demand in reality)
  2. Risk of crop failure. Pulses, fruits and vegetables are more vulnerable to adverse weather, leading to higher risk of failure.  Rather than pay for crop insurance (wherever it is available), farmers prefer to simply avoid these crops.
  3. Care and effort required in cultivation: Wheat and rice require less care and effort to grow than fruits and vegetables. Higher care for crops means reduced availability of farmers for alternate income-generating activities, whether crafts or wage labor.
  4. Need to sell quickly due to lack of storage facilities:  India has about 5400 cold storage units. So farmers don’t really have much of an option to store fruits and vegetables for later.  The need to sell immediately means that they are at the mercy of current market prices, unlike for grains which can be held on to for longer.
  5. Price volatility: Fruits and vegetables experience a much higher degree of price volatility than grains.  Part of the reason for this is the high level of mismatch between demand and supply of fruits and vegetables. Part of the reason is the inefficiency of markets in matching supply and demand in different parts of the country.  And of course, part of the reason is their inherent perishability and lack of a cold-chain.
  6. Price realization due to spoilage: Lack of proper storage and transport facilities has yet another impact – spoilage of produce resulting in lower price realization due to poorer quality of produce by the time it reaches markets.
  7. Stored crops as financials assets: As one agri-expert put it, farmers treat grains like fixed deposits, for lack of other ways of saving/keeping money.  They store them and sell them off as needed.  You simply can’t do that with fruits and vegetables! Even cold storage would extend the life of fresh produce by only so much (unless processed, of course – but that’s a completely different topic).

Almost all of the reasons above relate to risk – either production risk, logistics risk or market risk.  Only two non-risk reasons can be seen in the list above – opportunity cost of choosing crops which require greater time and care, and usage of stored crops as financial assets (which in principal can be addressed with better financial access).

Typical solutions to risk management are insurance products, but typical crop insurance products cover only a limited subset of these risks.  And in any case, insurance subscriptions in India have been much lower than hoped for by policy makers and non-profits alike.

So what mechanisms and institutions are needed to address the plethora of risks, to enable farmers to actually deliver what people want to eat and also what gives the farmers higher margins?  Or, if we expand our thinking to non-food crops, we can ask: what mechanisms and institutions will help farmers shift to more lucrative crops?

 

  • Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

August 3, 2012 at 4:59 am 4 comments

Role of Agriculture in Economic Growth

Previously, I have commented on India’s agriculture GDP and the workforce engaged in agriculture.  So I decided to dig deeper into the structural transformation of developing economies to understand where all this is heading.

In the process I came across a thin book titled “A World without Agriculture” by C. Peter Timmer. It is an academic work, not necessarily meant for popular reading, but it is worth getting through.

The book is based on data from 86 countries over 35 years, so it provides a very long-term fact based look at where things may be headed for countries like India going through economic development.

Below, I am paraphrasing/quoting some of the interesting points from the book.

 

The Structural Transformation: What, When and How

As expected, as economies develop, the share of agriculture in national GDP drops over time. However the agriculture GDP continues to grow in absolute terms (unless of course nature or politics go horribly wrong).  For example, India’s agri GDP is currently 18.5% of national GDP, down from 42% in 1970.

The share of agri employment in total labour force also declines over decades. At some point, the agri employment starts decreasing in absolute numbers, not just in percentage terms. For example, agri employment is currently 52% in India — that is, 52% of the workforce is involved in agriculture.  This number was 70% in 1970. In India, the number of people employed in agriculture is still growing — we added 20 million people (net of urban migration) working in agriculture over the last decade.

The gap between the share of agri in employment (52%) and share  of agri in GDP (18.5%) first widens and then starts narrowing at some level of threshold per capita GDP in the economy.  While this number varies from country to country and based on decade, some definitive things can be said about this turning point.

The turning point appears to be around $9-10K GDP per capita across the globe. Also, this number has been growing: i.e., the threshold at which the gap starts narrowing is becoming higher and higher.  “Such results are strongly suggestive of a failure of modern economic growth processes to integrate the agricultural sectors of poor countries into the rest of their economies, despite relatively successful aggregate growth records.”

“A widening sectoral income gap — as differences in labor productivity between urban and rural areas become larger – spells political trouble. Rural households that feel left out of the growth process can vote governments out of office… It is no wonder that policymakers feel compelled to address the problem, and the most visible way is to provide more income to agricultural producers.  The long-run way to do this is to raise their labor productivity and encourage agricultural labor to migrate to urban jobs, but the short-run approach — inevitable in most political environments — is to use trade policy to affect domestic agricultural prices. In low-income economies, agricultural protection is a child of growing income inequality between the sectors during the structural transformation.”

Looking back at the structural transformation of developed countries: “Virtually the entire growth experience of modern developed countries has been spent on the convergent path of sectoral labor productivity.  This is in sharp contrast to currently developing countries, which are mostly at income levels per capita where sectoral labor productivity is [still] diverging.”

 (East) Asia versus other countries

There appears to be something distinctively unique about the path Asian countries have taken so far (mostly East Asia, e.g. Indonesia).

“Asian economies tend to employ disproportionately more farm workers in the early stages of development.” Also, “Asian countries provided more price incentives to their agricultural sectors … as a way to prevent the movement of labor out of agriculture from being “too fast”. The net effect is that the turning point for the gap (between agri employment and agri GDP) is around $1600  of GDP per capita for Asian countries compared to $11,000 for non-Asian countries. “This difference underscores two distinctive features of Asian economies: their more rapid growth and the greater role of agri productivity in that growth.”

A side note: India’ GDP per capita is currently around $1500 at current exchange rates.

Paradoxical Role of Agriculture in the Structural Transformation

“The past decade has brought a quiet revolution in the understanding of determinants of poverty and the mechanisms for reducing it in a sustainable fashion.  Partly, it is a simple recognition that economic growth is the main vehicle for reducing poverty – provided the distribution of income does not widen too sharply.”

“In current strategies used by countries and donor agencies to cope with poverty, the role of agriculture has been limited, largely because of a failure to recognize the importance of direct links among agri development, food availability, caloric intake by the poor, and poverty reduction.”…

“The case [for linking agri to poverty reduction] builds on three empirical relationships: between agri growth and poverty alleviation; between increases in domestic food production and improvements in nutrient intake; and between agri productivity and productivity growth in the rest of the economy.”

“An agriculture-driven growth strategy, if it does not sacrifice aggregate growth, directs a greater share of income to the poor – that is, it is more pro-poor. Such a strategy is the first step in breaking the cyle of poverty.”

So the paradox is that in trying to make agri a vanishingly small sector of a growing economy, the economy must invest in increasing agricultural productivity.

Rural Employment

“Throughout Asia, most rural households earn half or more of their income from non-farm sources, and often this sector is the “ladder” from under-employment at farm tasks to regular wage employment in the local economy, and from there to jobs in the formal sector.” So investing in creation of this ladder is equally important.

Conclusions

  1. “Structural transformation has been the main pathway out of poverty for all societies, and it is depends on raising productivity in both the agri and non-agri sectors (and the two are connected).”
  2. “The process of structural transformation puts enormous pressure on rural societies to adjust and modernize, and these pressures are translated into visible and significant policy responses that alter agri prices.”
  3. “Despite the decline in relative importance of agricultural sector leading to the “world without agriculture” in rich societies, the process of economic growth and structural transformation requires major investments in the agri sector itself.  This seeming paradox has complicated (and obfuscated) planning in developing countries, as well as for donor agencies seeking to speed economic growth and connect the poor to it.”
  • Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

July 31, 2012 at 7:03 am Leave a comment

Why the shrinking share of agriculture in India’s GDP is a good thing

After the release of the latest economic statistics in March 2012, many in development sector circles raised concerns about the rapidly declining share of agriculture in the country’s GDP and rural to urban migration.

But none of these laments make sense, and worse, they are not based on facts.

According to Planning Commission data (from their website), in the last 10 years, the total GDP of the country has more than tripled. Even with the decline in Agricultural share of GDP from 21% to 18.5% (at current prices), agriculture GDP has increased by 2.8x.  This is a good thing and an expected development on the path to economic development.

Similarly, while the % of population engaged in agriculture may be going down as % of population, in absolute numbers, it is still increasing.

These macro-economic trends are part of the long-term structural transformation of the Indian economy.

In fact, the percent of population engaged in agriculture must go down much more dramatically to increase overall agricultural productivity even further and bring average farming incomes above the poverty line. (More on this in the next post)

The development sector should stop doing itself and its target populations disservice by promoting poorly-informed ideas and knee-jerk reactions, and think more deeply about the social and economic direction in which the country needs to go.

  • Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

July 18, 2012 at 8:42 am Leave a comment

Farm Sizes & Incomes in India

When looking up any research or facts about about farming in India, one often come across comments about the smallness of farms in India.  So I wanted to understand how small is small.  Here are some statistics from National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO):

Below table shows the data on the average farm sizes in India:

Total area No. of holdings Average farm                         holding size
(million hectares) (millions) (ha/ holding)
1960-61 134 51 2.63
1970-71 126 57 2.2
1981-82 119 71 1.67
1991-92 125 93 1.34
2002-03 107 101 1.06

 

In 2003, the average farm size (what NSSO calls operational landholding) was about 1 hectare, which equals the area of a 100m x 100m plot.  70% of farmers have plots sizes smaller than a hectare.

Next I looked into historical farm sizes and discovered that in the last 30 years, the average farm size has halved. That is, the average farm size in 2003 was 48% of the farm size in 1971.

So the same farm that supported a single family in 1971 now has to support two families.

I suspect the halving of farm sizes within 30 years has much to do with splitting of farms among male offspring of farmers.  With no substantial employment or income-generating opportunities besides farming in rural areas, it is no wonder that splitting of farms is common practice, ultimately making the farms too small to support a family.  [See back-of-the-envelope calculations in an earlier post]

This leads to another line of thought: What is the average income of a farming family in India?

Here also NSSO comes to the rescue and provides us with detailed data.  The average farming household’s income from all activities is apparently Rs. 2,115 per month. The breakup of this income is as follows:

  • From cultivation:                   969
  • From animals:                         91
  • From wage labour:                819
  • From non-farm activities:     236
  • Total household income:    2,115

The average family size in rural India (as per census data) is 5.4.  So the Rs.2,115 per month translates into Rs.13/day per capita, well below the poverty line.

This begs the question: Is small-scale farming a sustainable economic activity?

 

  • Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

July 10, 2012 at 6:24 am 4 comments

Is farming an economically viable opportunity?

This is a question that has been at the back of my mind for a couple of years. Luckily, I now have the opportunity to dig deeper into it.

Here is some data on gross returns, defined as (total value realized – cost of cultivation) divided by cost of cultivation.

Gross Returns%
Cereals
Wheat 4%
Paddy -7%
Maize -32%
Bajra -43%
Jowar -48%
Ragi -50%
Veg
Onion -irrigated 148%
Tomato 101%
Beans 81%
Brinjal 78%
Onion – dryland 63%
Okra 60%
Bhindi 52%
Fruit
Mango 360%
Chiku/ Sapota 194%
Lichi 115%
Guava 95%
Grape 53%

 

[Data from “Can Horticulture be a success story for India?” by Dr. Surabhi Mittal of ICRIER.]

As you can see, farmers barely break even on wheat/rice.  In contrast, fruits and vegetables give attractive returns.  Of course, here we are ignoring the fact that for fruits, you have to wait multiple years before trees are mature enough to fruit. And, we have ignored non-food crops in this comparison. But still these are very stark differences in returns.

This data makes you wonder why anyone would bother growing wheat or rice.

Yet, government data shows that roughly 70% of cultivation is for cereals.

It would be silly of us to assume that farmers are completely ignorant of the substantial difference in returns.  They may not have done the detailed studies and calculations done by Dr. Mittal, but they would know the ballpark difference in returns. So why not shift to more lucrative crops?

It turns out that there are many  reasons for lower cultivation of fruits and vegetables,  including higher production risk (pest attacks and sensitivity to adverse climate), high price volatility, as well as the  lack of proper storage and transport facilities required for perishable crops.  I also wonder how much of the relative risk perception is affected by the minimum support prices offered by the government for grains. We will explore these reasons in future blogs.

To get back to our original topic of economic viability of farming, the answer seems to be disappointing.

Given the low or negative returns from what is actually grown, (mostly cereals), is it any wonder that the state of farming and farmers in India is what it is today?

  • Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

July 2, 2012 at 3:56 am Leave a comment

The exodus from farming

“On average, close to 2,000 people a day abandon farming in the country.”

Says P. Sainath in a recent article based on his analysis of recently released 2001 Census numbers.

This article reminded me of a very simplistic calculation I had done during a debate with a NGO friend who was insisting that migration is bad.

Let’s imagine a village with 100 families. Let’s assume that the village is doing “well” economically and that all 100 families earn enough for their needs from their farming activities.

Since rural Indian families have an average of 3.4 children, assuming no male-child selection in an ideal world, they will still have 1.7 boys on average.  So the next generation will have 1.7*100 = 170 families to be supported.  However the village farmland is large enough to only support 100 families, so the remaining 70 must find employment in non-agri professions either within the village or outside it.

So unless we figure out a way to either create manufacturing or service sector jobs in the village, these families must migrate elsewhere for employment or accept a reduced standard of living (by dividing the farm-land into smaller plots for each son).

The above simplistic calculation leads us to the quite believable conclusion that we can’t just label migration as “bad” without doing something to increase the ability of the rural economy to create jobs and income for every new generation.

So what options do these migrants have?


“For instance, take those from the Bolangir or Nuapada districts [in Orissa]. Typically, they might spend a month or two in Raipur pulling rickshaws. Then work two or three months at brick kilns in Andhra Pradesh. Then serve as construction labourers shuttling around Mumbai or Thane for a few weeks each (where they are often used on the higher floors in risky scaffolding; local labour would demand more for that).”

What happens to these migrants?

“The migrations of these past 15-20 years are overwhelmingly distress-driven, footloose and often disruptive of the lifestyle, roots and family bonds of the migrant,” says economist Dr K Nagaraj, professor at the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. “Very few of them gain in terms of acquiring skill and capital unlike those from the middle and upper classes. When the latter migrate, they usually make big gains in skill, capital and mobility in the jobs ladder.”

“And yet, this great outflow of human beings from their homes in the villages is not spontaneous. A massive chain has sprung up of middlemen and labour contractors who gain heavily from this exodus and thus seek to organise it to their benefit. They supply labour at cheap rates to a variety of patrons — from town and city contractors and builders to corporations, including multinational companies. This not only helps depress the local wage, but also offers the patrons a pool of cheap labour that is desperate, unorganised, and thus relatively docile.”

With the prevalence of such exploitation, it is inevitable that some NGOs see migration as “bad”. But unless the rural economy is able to support natural population increase, the migration will only strengthen in numbers which is what the 2011 Census is most likely to show.

  • Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

June 27, 2012 at 11:36 am 4 comments

Turning Medical Services Upside Down

When I buy a book on Amazon or Flipkart, I can see the ratings and comments by hundreds of customers. But when I need to choose a doctor, I have to rely on the inefficient and inadequate method of asking friends, with whom I may or may not want to share my ailments. This is true whether I am trying to find a GP or a surgeon. And, after seeing the doctor, there is no way for me to rate him or her even for mundane things like whether or not he shows up on time to the clinic, let alone more important comments regarding his or her approach to medical care!  In contrast, I can easily find gigabytes of information about whether the keypad of a particular laptop model becomes sticky after use.

Another point to consider: Different people look for different things from a doctor: some may want the reassurance of the (imagined) old time family doctor, while others may prefer a “just give me the facts, I’ve brought my own sugar coating” approach. Why assume that we have the same expectations from doctors while we have entirely difference preferences for the texture of our cookies or the settings on our Facebook accounts?

Much of the discussion about modernization of medicine gets stuck in technology discussion (digital versus human interface).  However, what we need is a thorough modernization of medicine inside out, seriously thinking through which aspects of medical care would benefit from more information (including customer feedback) and which aspects would benefit from more customization and personal preference being taken into account.

Industry experts focus on customer segments and behavior for FMCG consumer products, but what about customer segments for the ultimate consumer product – medical care — the one that determines our life and health?  Isn’t it about time that the medical services industry starts thinking beyond the simplistic considerations of digitization of patient records, or focus on specialized clinics versus primary care, rural versus urban customers?

 

By,

Richa Govil

(Richa shares her thoughts on rural businesses at ‘Stirring the Pyramid’)

June 4, 2012 at 9:59 am Leave a comment

Male grooming – Influenced by Bollywood

Even though metrosexuality has been popular for over a decade the world over, it is only recently that men in India have taken to it in hordes. This might be because it is only recently that Bollywood male actors have embraced this phenomenon and started to shave their chest, flaunt wash-board abs and style (or over-style) their hair.

The majority of men aged 18-35 in India look to Bollywood film stars for styling and grooming trends – at times even subconsciously. It is astonishing how much influence films have on men in India. Films like ‘Bobby’ which made every young man in India start wearing bell-bottoms, ‘Dil Chahta Hai’ which made men grow soul-patches and drive down to Goa every chance they got, or more recently ‘Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara’ which has made every young man in India itch to make a trip to Spain with their guy friends.

Like you pointed out, companies realize this and have started to have young film stars endorse their beauty products. Alternative sub-cultures like emo, grunge and goth have also been around for over a decade but have started to come into mainstream India through films – like Prateik Babbar’s small yet memorable role in ‘Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na’. I am sure that the focus of the youth will slowly move towards these sub-cultures and away from metrosexuality, more so as movies start embracing them.

By,

RJ

[Editor’s Note : If you do not recognise the alternative sub-cultures mentioned by RJ, fear not, the descriptions below will help.

Emo :

Emo is a style of rock music characterized by melodic musicianship and expressive, often confessional lyrics. It originated in the mid-1980s hardcore punk movement of Washington, D.C., where it was known as “emotional hardcore” or “emocore” and pioneered by bands such as ‘Rites of Spring’ and ‘Embrace’.

Today emo is commonly tied to both music and fashion as well as the emo subculture. Usually among teens, the term “emo” is stereotyped with wearing slim-fit jeans, sometimes in bright colors, and tight T-shirts (usually short-sleeved) which often bear the names of emo bands. Studded belts and black wristbands are common accessories in emo fashion. Some males also wear thick, black horn-rimmed glasses.

The emo fashion is also recognized for its hairstyles. Popular looks include long side-swept bangs, sometimes covering one or both eyes. Also popular is hair that is straightened and dyed black. Bright colors, such as blue, pink, red, or bleached blond, are also typical as highlights in emo hairstyles. Short, choppy layers of hair are also common. In the early 2000s, emo fashion was associated with a clean cut look, but as the style spread to younger teenagers, the style has become darker, with long bangs and emphasis on the color black replacing sweater vests.

Emo has been associated with a stereotype that includes being particularly emotional, sensitive, shy, introverted, or angst-ridden. It has also been associated with depression, self-injury, and suicide.

(Source – Wikipedia )

 

Goth :

Gothic fashion is a clothing style worn by members of the Goth subculture; a dark, sometimes morbid, eroticized fashion and style of dress. Typical Gothic fashion includes dyed black hair, black lips and black clothes. Both male and female goths wear dark eyeliner and dark fingernails. Styles are often borrowed from the Punks, Victorians, and Elizabethans. BDSM imagery and paraphernalia are also common.

The style initially emerged alongside the early 1980s Gothic rock scene.

Researcher Maxim W. Furek noted, “Goth is a revolt against the slick fashions of the 1970’s disco era and a protest against the colorful pastels and extravagance of the 1980’s. Black hair, dark clothing and pale complexions provide the basic look of the Goth Dresser. One can paradoxically argue that the Goth look is one of deliberate overstatement as just a casual look at the heavy emphasis on dark flowing capes, ruffled cuffs, pale makeup and dyed hair demonstrate a modern-day version of late Victorian excess.”

(Source – Wikipedia)

 

Grunge :

Grunge (sometimes referred to as the Seattle sound) is a subgenre of alternative rock that emerged as a fusion of  punk, alternative, and heavy metal during the mid-1980s in the American state of Wahington, particularly in the Seattle area. Inspired by hardcore punk, metal, and indie rock, grunge is generally characterized by heavily distorted electric guitars, contrasting song dynamics, and apathetic or angst-filled lyrics. The grunge aesthetic is stripped-down compared to other forms of rock music, and many grunge musicians were noted for their unkempt appearances and rejection of theatrics.

Grunge concerts were known for being straightforward, high-energy performances. Grunge bands rejected the complex and high budget presentations of many musical genres, including the use of complex light arrays, pyrotechnics, and other visual effects unrelated to playing the music. Stage acting was generally avoided. Instead the bands presented themselves as no different from minor local bands. Jack Endino said in the 1996 documentary Hype! that Seattle bands were inconsistent live performers, since their primary objective was not to be entertainers, but simply to “rock out”.

Clothing commonly worn by grunge musicians in Washington consisted of thrift store items and the typical outdoor clothing (most notably flannel shirts) of the region, as well as a generally unkempt appearance. The style did not evolve out of a conscious attempt to create an appealing fashion; music journalist Charles R. Cross said, “[Nirvana frontman] Kurt Cobain was just too lazy to shampoo,” and Sub Pop’s Jonathan Poneman said, “This [clothing] is cheap, it’s durable, and it’s kind of timeless. It also runs against the grain of the whole flashy aesthetic that existed in the 80s.”

 (Source – Wikipedia )

End of Editor’s note]

April 4, 2012 at 8:45 am 4 comments

Older Posts


Recent Posts

Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5 other followers