Monday, 13 August 2012

Why do people keep beard?

The female students rated a bearded male face as more masculine, independent, sophisticated and mature compared to a clean-shaven male face. They concluded from their studies that beard increases "sexual magnetism" and attractiveness and makes men more appealing to women. The presence of a beard makes a man appear more masculine to women, and she feels more feminine towards him.
The above is the finding of a survey in Chicago, but the hyper sexual Mr.Christian Grey of “50 shades of Grey” did not have any beard but still Anastasia Steele was fatally attracted to him to perform all those acts.
I remember my classmate Ali in IIT, Kharagpur suggested to me that I should keep a beard as it would suit my round face. Ultimately I kept beard but that was much later in life but not a regular flowing beard but a French cut. At that time I thought it looked cool and kept the beard for some 25 years or so.
I have noticed that in Hindi films most of the times goons are shown with beard, they do look scary with that thick growth and also strategically cut mark on the cheek make them look more dangerous.
We had this character Banik in our company with thick growth. He was a worker’s union leader and also had a coarse voice. The officers and others were quite scared of him. Generally no one will pick up any argument with him. Then once we had gone for a picnic when Banik also came along with his family. The real Banik behind that thick beard was exposed in that picnic. He was found too busy serving his wife who was lying royally in the backseat of the bus. She would be ordering him loudly and he would be scurrying to get the stuff. After that picnic often I would tease him for his beard, the beard was his shield to hide his weak character.
But then there are religious compulsions to have beard. Also many intellectuals,poets,artists,philosophers,kings would keep beard.
But then there are some who are too lazy to carry out daily shaving and hence keep beard, it saves time and money.

London Olympic 2012 and India

There was quite lot of talk about the chances of India getting more medals than what we got in Beijing Olympic and performing better in all fields. The expectations were founded on our Asian Games and Commonwealth Games performance and in some cases World cup events. Surely there is some mismatch by our selectors. Either we were not much aware of the happenings around the world that is we were not keeping close tab on the countries and their athletes or we just made the qualifying mark and without bothering to check the capability of each of those who participated.

Deepika Kumari admitted that before she could get a grip the competition was over. Does it mean that in India we allow our athletes to take their sweet time and don’t bother to correct that. We know time is the biggest casualty in India. Every one thinks that last minute preparation is the real preparation. Secondly exposure to international arena, are we regularly exposing the players to train with better athletes than them? I have my own doubt in this department. Saina has been playing in international circuit so she could fight the Chinese but the same cannot be said about Deepika. Sushil Kumar had no stronger opponent in India to practice. Merry Kom was practicing against male boxers and so she could compete.

A time has come when we have to do a very scientific study and pick athletes more on their natural flair than on one off performance. Haryana is a good choice for picking up boxers and wrestlers.Jats are very tall and strong. Every state has its own strength and that sport should be encouraged in that state. Hyderabad has emerged as hub of Badminton so it should be exploited more by increasing the capacity and coaches. Bengal has emerged as breeding ground for Table Tennis, shooting and in Archery along with Jharkhand. So the focus for these sports should be in these states. Tata academy has done commendable job in promoting archery but more international exposure is needed for the archers. They have to participate in different weather conditions and against superior archers.

Somehow tennis has remained an individual initiated game. It is the game for affluent and remained so. This game develops around clubs where babu culture is prevaelent, very difficult for an ordinary mortal to break in. There is hardly any breeding ground. I have seen tennis courts in the townships of Undertakings which are underutilized and whereas in cities one has to be member of some club to play this game. Less talked about small towns is better. Just to play tennis in Calcutta I struggled to become member of a club and same is the story with badminton. Each state government can work towards these 2 sports by providing courts in each area.

In short though we are 120 crore populations but our catchment area is dismal. There is no effort to address this issue of catching them young. One has to have his or her own drive to go forward but then the system is not there to spot the talents. No wonder hockey died a natural death because of the other notorious money spinner cricket. Enough cricket fields have been created by the schools and colleges and players are pouring in as there is lure for money. Who bothers about hockey?