Exploring Subculture - Hip-Hop & its Sway in India

By Mohini Varma, Account Planning Director (JWT Gurgaon)

The low, familiar beats of bass, the rhythm of rap and the cadence of language. Walls splattered with neon codes, graffiti signed off by the now familiar “Daku” on Delhi’s streets and signatures that herald members of the ‘hood’. 

Step in to Dharavi, Mumbai’s largest slum or the Khirkee Village in Delhi and you will sense a ‘vibe’ that is almost palpable – youngsters spin and get down to the Hip-Hop beat, they celebrate a new found passion that offers them a ticket to express freely, make a mark and set themselves apart. The spirit behind this new movement is the compulsion to move beyond poverty and to break open the limitations of life.

Khirkee Park Jam , Khoj Dus Tak Festival.Source: tinydrops.org ; AFP

The seeds of this movement were sown by B-Boy Heera, now 30 and living in Delhi, who honed his moves growing up in Queens, New York. According to a recent interview by the AFP, Heera moved back to India in the 2000s and while visiting Dharavi with a friend, Heera realized that the youth of Dharavi needed an outlet for the swell of stemmed energy they carried within themselves. That belief led him and his friend Akku to set up ‘Slumgods’, which now has 40 to 50 core members, across the cities of Mumbai, New Delhi, Bangalore and Dharmashala. The crew works hand-in-hand with Tiny Drops, a non-profit group founded by Heera in Dharavi and his Delhi neighbourhood, to let kids explore the world of Hip-Hop.

 Sion Hillock Fort, Mumbai. Source: tinydrops.org; AFP

In Mumbai, the crumbling ruins of Sion Hillock Fort is the Slum Gods’ den. Today the fort stands tall as the new bastion for self-expression, an open space for the youth to connect, encourage and express to their hearts content.

Historically, Hip-Hop has been a product of cultural integration, with definitive origins at the Bronx in New York around the late 1950s and with firm roots within African cultural history and oral traditions. All-encompassing in its sway from fashion, music and a way of life, it’s free flowing and adaptive nature points to a genealogy that is hardly linear but one that spans cross- cultural influences. Its continuous development, over the years, reflects a trajectory of give and take, where aspects of cultural specificity are seamlessly woven into the basic fabric of the genre.The sway of Hip-Hop culture hit India during the 80s and since then it has made a radical space for itself combining indigenous influences along the way. The ‘Baraat’ and the free styling of the 1980 Bollywood heroes especially the likes of “Mithun da”and ‘Govinda’ reflect an inherent alignment towards break-dancing. But the streets are where this urban underground movement really thrives, here talent is raw and passion is prime. 

For some, Hip – Hop inspires to keep life simple and addiction free for others it’s a source of empowerment and an outlet for bottled passions. However, while the Hip- Hop movement in India continues to spread, there are a few daunting questions that need answers – Will Hip–Hop for the disadvantaged youth in India offer integration or further alienation? Will notions of identity bear further complexities? And more importantly will this passion shape a better future, from a socio-economic point of view, for the generations to come? 

The answers may lie in the future, but a simple recognition of the sheer passion that drives this burgeoning movement could create a constructive road-map for this spirited subculture to grow, empower and ultimately thrive within the streets of India.

What Ranbir Kapoor can tell us about the youth

By Sumeer Mathur, VP & Strategic Planning Director (JWT Gurgaon)

Self-centred, shallow and weighed down by expectations. 

What the popularity of characters played by Ranbir kapoor tell us about the youth.

That the popularity of a Bollywood superstar can be insightful about the generation that worships him or her is an established fact.  The “angry young man”, was a product of the license - raaj and a moribund economic system. The state had failed to deliver and the only option left was to rely on oneself even if the means were far from scrupulous and would have been rejected even a decade earlier.

Shahrukh Khan’s roles gave us an insight into the next generation; the angry young man had given way to a mostly urban struggle between tradition and modernity. The newly liberalised economy unlocked personal ambition and he typified a generation working very hard to make dreams once considered unrealistic, come true. His ambition never made him rebel and in countless films he held his mother’s hand or sat at her feet at least once, ironing out the contradictions and explaining himself.

Ranbir Kapoor’s appeal with the current mobile phone, social network addicted Gen-Y audience is un paralleled in recent times.  Even a back of the envelope count of his films and roles in the last five years signals to the fact that we are witnessing a new phenomenon. Admittedly he portrays very divergent characters, yet there is a singularity which defines them. So what do characters that are portrayed by Ranbir have in common? Analysing his roles, may throw light on the generation that connects most intensely with him.

Kapoor’s characters do not struggle with any external conflict that needs resolution. There are no bad times to get out off; there is very little to prove to the world. Things usually come to him on a platter, he decides to either take it or reject it and most often he rejects it. Growing up on a full stomach with very little uncertainty will do that to you. In film after film RK’s characters run from responsibility and the consequences of their actions. Obligations whether of love, family or of a professional nature are discounted and dismissed. There is a refusal to grow up, to see the world through others eyes. Like a child in an amusement park, his own amusement is of paramount importance; after all he talks to a generation that came up with “selfies”. As he sings in a popular song “Ayaashi ke one way se khudko modna jaane naa, Kambal bewajah sharam ka Odhna jaane naa ,Zidd pakad ke khadha hai kambakht Chodhna jaane na…”

His characters are selfish and self-centred as he plays out his audience’s secret desire to get away with this selfishness.  In “Wake up Sid” he is happy in his slacker ways eventually being kicked out his home, only to start living with an older woman. In Rajneeti he is compelled to enter politics but by the end of the film he returns to the US, far from the family business and responsibility. In Rockstar Janardhan does not care for his fans or the woman who loves him. There is a shallowness with which he treats both. When he becomes a star he is frustrated with both his fans and his record company. 

Early on he claims a desire to feel love but unlike a Shahrukh he does not want to fall in love, it’s too tedious and too much of an investment.  In his latest Yeh Jawani Hai Diwani, once again he has a selfish, personal philosophy which he must live out, and though called “banajarapan”, it’s far removed from the concept of a romantic exploration of the world. Sample this “Poori duniya ka gol gol chakkar leke, Maine duniya ko maara dhakka”. It’s more a cry to get out and runaway than a pure desire to experience a different life of exploration.

Even in romance, he breaks the Bollywood tradition of selfless love. He is probably the guy more worried about how he looks in a couple picture than how they look together as a couple. Growing up in times of relative equality of the sexes gives him the license to be casual about his affairs. No he does not worship the women he falls in love with, pays scant regard to their dreams and desires and has a tendency to run the minute he decides he is getting suffocated. He isn’t staying around because you love him, pinning for him is expected. In “Bachna ae haseno”, “Rajneeti”, “Rockstar” and “YJHD”, love soon turns into a four letter word and we wait till the very end where his character either has a change of heart or meets his match and accepts a happily ever after.  

The relations with his parents are usually strained. Mothers and Fathers cannot understand what makes him tick. He is disconnected from them, far from seeking their approval his characters usually reach a flashpoint where all communication breaks down and he gladly leaves the house. Unlike the 80’s, or 90’s this is not the good son unfairly thrown out or the bad son who cuts ties with his family. This is the son who is rejecting his family because it’s not working out. In Rockstar, his character feels stifled at home and misunderstood, in “Wake Up Sid” he is a slacker eventually thrown out. In YJHD he has trouble explaining or communicating with his father, even though the father in question wants to help him.

20 year olds today have grown up in times of relative affluence. They are more likely to be from smaller nuclear families, they enjoyed more individual attention whilst growing up than earlier generations.Opportunity according to popular culture waits all around; they just have to reach out. But if the popularity of Ranbir’s characters is any indication, they feel burdened by the expectations and secretly desire to run away from them. Alternately maybe this generation does not wish to become anything, only to be.

Notes from Kyoorius Design Yatra, August 2013

By Divya Sharma, Account Planning Director (JWT, Gurgaon)

The atmosphere has changed only slightly since I first attended in 2008. Slickly organised as always, the projection screen actually stood out as impressive; rectangular with two wings, the slides were made in these new dimensions and could build sideways or as one long strip; gave the speakers interesting possibilities for telling their story. 

The theme was “Create Change”

Paul Hughes spoke of the difference between 'change' and 'transformation' and almost every talk displayed the responsibility for change at the creative industry, right from where each of us sits. Not clients. We bring the change through our beliefs. Laura Bambach of Dare UK said “there’s no such thing as a bad client - only a difficult one.”



Highlights for me were Bart Kresa of BartKresa Design and Melissa Weigel from Moment Factory both working in video mapped projection on buildings – stuff of dreams; Dharamveer Kamboj a farmer and inventor who got a standing ovation for his machine that can process any fruit, flower or vegetable into pulp, juice or extracted oil at the change of a setting – he has enabled farmers to process tomatoes right at the field for the freshest ketchup, make rose petal oil or aloe juice depending on the crop, created 200 jobs for wives in his village making strawberry jam; then there were font designers from Ek Type who developed usable indigenous font families out of truck and juice shop graphics; Karin Fong from Imaginary Forces, Laura Bambach from Dare UK, and people from Cinimod, Fitch, Facebook..

Sharing bits and pieces noted down; in parts. Starting with Margaret Stewart of Facebook. The room was packed to the rafters. She spoke some good things in a quiet way. The cynical lot who can’t show they’re impressed by anything of course sniggered about how she 'said nothing’; as if she could have shared FBs algorithm with us. I liked “Design for people where they are, not where you are or where you wish them to be”

MARGARET STEWART

Director of Product Design, Facebook
 
What does it mean to make change happen?

It’s easier to think of change slowly, over time. Or as sudden with design that calls attention to itself.

But sometimes change is slight, small, unseen.  

There was an exhibition at the MOMA in 2004 later made into a book : Humble Masterpieces (Everyday Masterpieces of Design)by Paola Antonelli that made me think about the things we live with every day and not notice. They are so perfectly designed, we don’t see them. They are human centred at the core. Useful. Easy to use. Effective. Things like the band aid, an ice cream cone, the brown paper bag. They don't call attention to themselves.

In the same way, there are digital platforms that are not about high design. In fact they almost look bland. But they change the way people live with each other. Interact.

Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. Instagram. Google search.

These platforms have engaged and impacted a huge number of human beings in the last few years. They affected us all. And they all had people, and people’s content at the forefront.

So what do these platforms have in common?

  1) They are open and adaptive
- they are living organic systems
- evolve through time
- depend on the world
- they don’t resist change, they are extremely sensitive to change

  2)  Human centred
- all focused on people
- trying to solve some need – information, connecting

  3)  Human driven
- don’t depend on an elite group
- discovery and creation is by billions of people around the world
  On Facebook, everything in the world is seen through the lens of your friends.
  You see the world through people.

 

  4)  They are invisible
- the technology is massive, the algorithms are powerful, but they heighten the
experience without being there (visible) 

5)   Neutral aesthetic
- makes all content come out looking good
- all of the world feels welcome

6)  Lastly they’re beautiful
National Geographic: Life in a Day (produced by Ridley Scott) : a crowdsourced documentary film that selected clips submitted on YouTube in one single day July 24 2010

 

 

So,

Be open to change
- all these platforms had a different plan when they started
- they stayed adaptive, watched how their design was being used by people

Be a facilitator
- co-design with the world

Make it about people not technology
- create change with humanitarian design
- empower people

Design for people where they are, not where you are or where you wish them to be
 
World changing design must have a lot of humility.

STATISTICAL *SIGNIFICANCE*

By Divya Khanna, AVP & Regional Planning Director (South Asia), JWT Bangalore.

“I am the one in ten,

A number on a list.

I am the one in ten,

Even though I don`t exist.

Nobody knows me

Even though I`m always there –

A statistic, a reminder

Of a world that doesn`t care.”

- Ub40¹

Anyone who has ever expressed an opinion has felt the pressure of showing proof to support that feeling in the gut that tells them it’s true. There has to be an example to prove the opinion or at the very least to refute its absolute opposite. And when the opinion will impact the direction of where large sumsof money are to be invested, nothing less than statistical data will do. But why does this data automatically get the air of authority that trumps the most impassioned and gut-felt belief?

I do get it – a belief, by definition, could be different from what’s actually out there.

Similarly, by definition, a probability is not necessarily a certainty.

And extrapolation of data is, evidently, an extrapolation.

Let me explain what I’m trying to say. Just because “only about 15% of C-suite jobs” in America are held by women2 , it doesn’t automatically mean that without the alleged discrimination they face, women would be proportionately represented in these jobs. Such an assumption, and it is an assumption, would not take into account the other factors at play. For example, as Sheryl Sandberg mentions in her book ‘Lean In’, the tendency of women to downplay their achievements and give credit to other people versus the opposite tendency of men. Or the evidence that many women, as they move up the corporate ladder and simultaneously raise their children, start to make career choices that don’t head towards earning them a C-suite job.

When we reduce a person to a number, we feel more certain as numbers give the illusion of certainty.

But there are 2 caveats to keep in mind:

1. Numbers too can be misinterpreted and manipulated. Just ask anyone who’s ever committed or detected an accounting fraud!

2. We are losing the nuances of the person behind the number. Every woman of the 15% in C-suite jobs is not like every other, there are bound to be differences that may not allow a one-size-fits all approach in any decision regarding them as a group.

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe statistical data is useful. But we must always remember its context. The language of data is just as uncertain as the language of gut – the terms probability, extrapolation, assumption, levels of significance, etc. are evidence of this. There is anecdotal evidence to support (but not confirm) every side of the argument between qualitative and quantitative based decisions. This suggests that we can either side with one and take our chances or combine both sides to improve them – but at the end of it, no matter what we do, we are still taking a chance and cannot be absolutely sure of any definite outcome, except in retrospect.

1 One In Ten lyrics © EMI Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Universal Music Publishing Group

2 Harvard Business Review, September 2013, South Asia edition