An Open Letter to Rajkumar Hirani and Others on Using Religion in Movies

Dear Mr Hirani and Mr Vinod Chopra,

I recently had the pleasure of watching your movie, PK, in which Aamir Khan plays an alien who descends on Earth in the middle of a Rajasthan desert and happens to undertake a jaunt through the idiosyncrasies of multiple religions in search of his lost remote control (that would enable him to go back to his planet).

First of all, let me congratulate you on your attempt to send a much-needed message through the film: that we have too many fake godmen here on this our own planet who take gullible people for a ride and it is high time we saw them in their true colors. I particularly liked the “wrong number” analogy through which a TV channel and its reporter (played by Anushka Sharma) are able to reach out to the masses and spur them on to some action against the fraudsters who dupe folks in the name of religion.

But there is an episode that is in the crosshairs of a multitude of people in India, some of who are demanding a ban on the movie for hurting their religious sentiments. Let me recount it here briefly for the benefit of those who may not have watched it.

In the controversial scene, a nincompoopish PK (the lead character of the alien played by Aamir with a stupid demeanor that I think comes naturally to him ever since his Satyamev Jayate shoots) chases a wimpy “Lord Siva” (played apparently by a Sikh), who is going to the loo in the middle of a stage show that is supposed to highlight the fearlessness and other divine qualities of the Hindu God. Obviously, the poor guy is just a character in a cheap stage act and ends up fleeing from and cowering before an aggressive PK, who even locks him up in the toilet.

I know most people who saw it probably laughed it off, knowing that the fella whom Aamir was chasing in the movie is NOT Lord Siva but just a stage actor.

But you must know that millions of Hindus truly worship Lord Siva and what He signifies and I think you should NOT have used the controversial imagery to build your storyline or screenplay.

Interestingly, in the movie, PK was led to believe that only God can help him get back his remote control and so he visits the places of worship of Hindus, Christians and Muslims to propitiate divine forces (though, in the case of the mosque, he is chased away by angry mullahs even before he sets his foot on the premises, what with two bottles of wine in his hands as offerings).

Along the way, you have shown PK attacking the blind beliefs of symbolic-religious-minded people.

When all that PK gets is thappads (slaps on the cheek) and realizes that no god is helping him get what he wants, he becomes forlorn and puts up posters of various gods on city walls with the word MISSING written in bold letters.

Hiraniji and Chopraji, PK goes to the temples of various religions but the MISSING posters show only Hindu gods.

Why?

Do you or Aamir…I mean PK…think that the gods of other religions are PRESENT in the classrooms of devotees, serving their intended function?

A lot of angry people on social media believe you deliberately chose to show Hindus, Hindu gods and godmen in poor light because A) it is easy to target Hindus, as they are soft, liberal or do not mind someone lampooning them or their faith B) part of the funding for the movie/promotion has come from Islamist terrorists or organizations with links to terrorism (throw in some dollars from Christian missionaries as well) and C) you have grown stupider since your past couple of movie successes such as Munnabhai MBBS and 3 Idiots.

I can’t be sure what the truth is. Like I said before, the message of human unity is timely and much-needed in this weird age of scientific advance commingled with religious fundamentalism. But I think you are barking up the wrong tree in your movie: Hinduism.

Let me make it clear that I admit much is wrong with Hindu godmen and our own bunch of stupid, wide-eyed blind devotees—and I have myself written against them (see my blog post here, if you get time from counting the box office collections of PK).

But hey, HELLO!! Can’t you see which religious group is causing the most terror and atrocities in the world today?

By heavily lading your movie against one religion, you seem to have fomented trouble as well as diluted the underlying message the film could have otherwise delivered more emphatically.

It is possible that you have simply overlooked this little detail (haven’t I already referred to many bouts of idiocy in this post?). I know you have tendered a generic apology and there are reports that the Siva sequence could be deleted. But the cash registers are ringing, no? In all possibility, you might be working on a sequel (who doesn’t like a neat, cash-generating movie franchise these days!)

But will it be possible for you, or any film maker in Bollywood for that matter, to show a stage actor playing “Jesus” or “Prophet” being chased and locked up in a toilet instead of a Hindu god?

Most probably NOT (to dissect the above question would require a lengthy exposition on what all is wrong today with folks, religions and beliefs in living harmoniously on the only planet we’ve got so far—but that would be another blog post.)

Or do you promise to act less foolishly next time around?

And what about the charges doing the rounds on social media? Would you care to counter them and be transparent?

Messrs. Hirani and Chopra, let me end this letter with a phrase from the country’s notoriously rambunctious news anchor, Ornab Shor-swami: “India wants to know.”

Meanwhile, I need to attend to some other correspondence meant for hateful fundamentalists, spurious devotees and a guy popularly called NaMo…

Weeding out Rampal-like fake gurus: what India and Modi should do

The recent episode of a self-styled godman holding thousands of “devotees” hostage in his sprawling ashram to avoid arrest in a contempt of court case has once again left a lot of people agape with wonder mixed with disgust and disbelief.

The drama unfolded over several days in the north Indian town of Barwala in the state of Haryana and left five women and a child dead and scores of people injured. The long arm of law (too long for anyone’s comfort I would say) is said to have finally caught up with the belligerent Baba Rampal.

Details of the entire episode are available everywhere on the web, including here, here and here.

But this article is not about those details—ghastly, horrendous and shameful as they are.

This article is about a serious contemplation on the rampant darkness, ignorance and poverty in one of the world’s fastest growing economies that is also home to one of the largest collections of illiterate, disease-ridden or mentally bankrupt people anywhere in the world.

It is about a mass of humanity that shares a common glorious past but which, at the moment, is as far removed from glory as the Milky Way is from the remotest black hole in the universe.

It is about a burgeoning elite class of people with money and access to power who are so intoxicated with their own sense of power that any idea of retribution or justice makes them laugh the rambunctious laughter of Ravana: only there seems to be no Ram in today’s India, only scamsters of the ilk of Rampal.

It is about a media that kowtows to the high and mighty rather than pursue its true calling: which is to investigate and bring to light instances of corruption and social injustices on a constant basis (and not on the whims and sudden revelations of vested interests), among other things.

And finally, it is about the poor, uneducated, often hapless people of the country who are misled by the politicians, fake godmen, spurious gurus or anyone with an ax to grind: again and again and again...

It is highly possible—as it has been made possible by the politics-business-religion-nexus countless times before—that the Rampal incident would be forgotten in a few days of hysterical TV coverage, full-page paper reports and the usual politics-inspired chest-thumping, clench-fisting and mud-slinging.

It is almost a cinch that the media would lose interest and start groping for other stories that can keep people (and advertisers) “hooked.”

And—alas—it is more than a certainty that a few years or perhaps months down the line, another Rampal-like godman would pop up somewhere in the vast topography of the country.

“Why do I say these things will be certain to happen again?” you ask?

Because India is not a (largely) homogeneous, educated, developed society but a weird mish-mash of abject poverty (anywhere from 30 crore to 70 crore poor people depending on whose stats you take), gross illiteracy (28 crore people, largest in the world as per UNESCO) and towering wealth (1.8 lakh dollar millionaires in India as per a Credit Suisse report—including a $1 billion tower-monster-of-a-home for a certain guy I choose not to name).

So, where does Narendra Modi fit into the picture?

Before I go on with the rest of the piece, let me make some honest admissions: I have some grudging admiration for this guy whom the hundreds of millions voted to power as the prime minister of India. And my admiration has nothing to do with his designer beard or outfits but everything to do with a re-ignition of hope for the youth of the country who see him as an icon and role model. It has also to do with the disgust with the stockpiles of corruption cases, scams and indecisiveness that the previous, Congress-led government and its putative PM engendered in their 10 years of misrule.

So, where Modi gets into the picture, or rather, should get into the picture (even if it’s a movie not of his own making) is a series of quick measures he and his battery of ministers and bureaucrats are required to take, in my opinion:

• Get a list of all the ashrams currently occupied all over the country.

• Start the arduous but necessary process of examining the land allocations.

• Look for trouble spots or signs that would betray the black sheep from the flock (most of them, but NOT ALL, in my own spiritual and personal experience, would turn out to be black).

• Arrange for a systematic way to interview and record the experiences, motivations and involvement of a fairly representative sample of their followers (with the vast army of central and state employees, this should be doable).

• Set the process rolling on laying down the guidelines for media on how godmen or gurus who love to get in front of cameras for giving sermons, fortune tellers who tell (and make) fortunes, etc., should be covered or “involved” in/with media. (Again, in my own spiritual experience, though most of the real gurus, rishis and munis have long disappeared from the soil of India, the few remaining ones, who are true to their own spiritual quest as well as to those of their devotees, would rather sit contentedly with a small group of people in harmony than blare out their decrees or show off their “scriptural knowledge” to a bloated, dumbstruck audience. See a related post here that I wrote on the subject when Asaram Bapu was arrested).

• Closely examine the source of funding of ashrams and where and how the money is spent.

These steps (and the impact they will create) may not root out the problem of fake godmen appearing and reappearing completely, but I think we need to make a start somewhere.

While much of what I have written above portrays India and most of its people negatively, the country also has a large number of educated, right-thinking (and I don’t mean right-wing only!) people who can contribute not just ideas but time and money to cleaning up India spiritually as well.

We may need many more Swachh Bharat Abhiyans—where sweeping is done not with a broom in hand but with a high beam of light shone upon the darkness of the mind.

It's a SMAC, SMAC World

Crazy as it may sound, the entire world is going to be SMAC'ed.

Now, now, I'm not a futurist, not even a technologist. But as one who often writes and talks about tech trends that affect enterprises big time, I can bet a few shirts on this: Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud will shake things up like hell. (Or heaven, if you are on top of the stuff.)

It is hard to pinpoint when these four potent forces began to coalesce but, according to an article on Forbes.com, it was Cognizant Technology Solutions researchers who coined the term “SMAC” as recently as 2013. But let's not confuse terminology with technology (I remember one firm had coined a similar but rather ugly “SoMoClo,” for Social, Mobile and Cloud; and there are others who use “Nexus of Forces” and “the 3rd Platform” for similar concepts).

Irrespective of the term, the four mega trends are transforming how technology is developed, purchased, deployed and used. And how employees, partners, clients, customers and other stakeholders behave. It is the combined behavior that is slated to make the most impact—which is why it is difficult to put a dollar value to it and why impact estimates vary so much. To cite but one figure, a Reuters.com report quoting Nasscom director Rajat Tandon says that the value of outsourcing contracts for SMAC is set to soar from $164 billion last year to $287 billion by 2016.

No matter how you cut it, SMAC technologies are slated to leave a lasting impression. A Cognizant report, titled “The Value of Signal (and the Cost of Noise): The New Economics of Meaning-Making,” summarizes the situation neatly. “Nearly every aspect of our daily lives generates a digital footprint. From mobile phones and social media to inventory look-ups and online purchases, we collect more data about processes, people and things than ever before. Winning companies are able to create business value by building a richer understanding of customers, products, employees and partners—extracting business meaning from this torrent of data. The business stakes of “meaning-making” simply could not be higher,” it says.

I often hear murmurs of dissent: “There is more hype than substance to SMAC.” Or, “Big data (or cloud or mobility or social media) is not for us.”

It is possible that one of the big social platforms as we know it ceases to exist one day. Or some term other than SMAC will prevail (like cloud prevailed over service-oriented architecture). But does anyone seriously think people won’t be more mobile going forward? Or the human instinct to extend their socializing to new, emerging media will lose steam? Or, for that matter, we will stop analyzing this and that and what not, for business and for pleasure?

Crazy as it may sound…

Railways, Connectivity and Governance

The trio, in their intertwining ways, may be set for a big leap forward if the new Modi government follows its intent with propelling power

Like a lot of people who chug along a nostalgic track at the mere mention of Indian Railways, I also imagine a black chhuk-chhuk engine billowing smoke as it majestically pulls on the sturdy red bogies in the uplifting backdrop of verdant hills.

I'm also reminded of an old slogan played numerous times on Doordarshan: Bharat ki rail: hum behtar issey banayein, aur iska laabh uthayein. (Indian Railways: let's make it better and benefit from it.)

As we all know, the idyllic image of yore gradually gave way to a realisation that the world's largest rail network also became one of its most burdened, creaky and squalid. What primarily happened over decades was that nobody made it better (not the passengers, certainly not the government) while everybody used and abused it to the hilt.

There were a few attempts at betterment in the form of Rajdhanis and Shatabdis, but largely, much of what exists today was built or enabled by the British (with Indians as labourers, true)—with occasional tweaks, tricks and “expansions” by the Independent babus and netas.

To me, one of the most useful and significant changes came in customer service through electronic ticketing. (The guys at CRIS have done a humongous job.)

So it came as a whiff of fresh air when the Modi government announced its intent and a few ideas to modernise the Indian Railways and make technology a driving force for that endeavour. Among the things that the PMO has suggested are Wi-Fi connectivity on all passenger trains in three months and the use of closed-circuit television for monitoring cleanliness (in addition to security, of course).

Earlier in July, the government had announced a Diamond Quadrilateral of high-speed trains (that some in the media referred to as semi-bullet trains!)

The most important announcement, in my own view, concerns the mandate for different but allied ministries and departments to work together (highways, water resources, transport, etc.) As most people in IT know, silos are often bad for agility and performance—and governance couldn't be any different.

In another positive sign last year, RailTel, the telecom arm of the Railways, launched Railwire broadband service in certain areas of the country. Around the launch, RailTel MD RK Bahuguna had said that it is designed to provide “an open source content delivery platform for providing various services, including broadband internet, eHealthcare and eEducation,” among others.

Imagine what Modi & Co could achieve if they were to expedite the process and get the maximum out of RailTel's 50,000 or so kilometres of fibre optic network: for the benefit of the Railways; for the sake of better and wider Connectivity; for what is the raison d'être of Governance—benefit of the masses.

Maybe it's time to dream a different dream.

Abki Baar, Technology Apaar

When you sit down to write a post on the very day election results in the world's largest democracy are announced, it is hard not to be touched by the surge in people's mood.

But that's just about how much I'm going to give it leeway for. Like Kejriwal would have said (or should have said): Miles to go before we sweep.

While we have seen and heard a lot of I-told-you-so's, cries of wolf and not-fairs in the past few days (ever since the upswing for Modi/BJP appeared on the horizon), there is so much work to do that any victory parade is not only premature but uncalled for.

It is hight time the conversation moved to setting things right: the sooner, the better. And time it moved from the prolonged kerfuffles on caste, religion and laddoos to a well-reasoned discourse on nation-building, mess-clearing and forward-moving.

The key pillars of such a conversation, in my opinion, are legislative, industrial, technological and environmental—which, if taken cohesively together, will lead to a rise in India's stature and improvement in its human development index.

In the tech aspect, which is our concern here, there have been several lost opportunities in the past 10-15 years. To give but one hint, we celebrated the year of broadband several years back, but are we a broadband nation yet?

Sure, we have done really well in software exports and the BPO sector, but as a consumer and “owner” of technology, we are way, way behind others.

Thankfully, things are at a stage where they can take off big time—and if the new decision makers in government would just give them a nudge, it would help.

Already, India is said to be the No. 2 market for Facebook in terms of user base. Over 40 million smartphones were sold in the country in 2013—a three-fold annual increase. And around 250 million Indians use the Internet.

And yet there is no IT manufacturing to boast of. Much of the apps and content used here are either developed elsewhere or their IP is owned by firms abroad. Most of the young IT graduates entering or working in the industry are “code mules” rather than cutting-edge programmers, creative types or risk-takers.

To put it straight, even if tritely, the ICT scenario in India is not developing holistically.

For some initial years of its growth and recognition on the world stage, it might have been all right for India to follow a lopsided or opportunistic model. But for India to stake the claim as a true IT power,  the ICT story needs to be accelerated as a whole. What the government must do is press the pedal and shift the gear.

Files to go before we tweet.

Is Twitter Losing Its Chirp?

The problem with Twitter is not just financial numbers; it is not generating enough user interest

Microblogging site Twitter recently announced its results for the first quarter of 2014. Soon after, its stock took a beating of about 11%, even though its topline grew to $250.5 million compared to $114.3 million in the year-ago quarter. It also added 3 million active users compared to just 1 million in Q1 of 2013.

The financial reasons for the thumbs-down by Wall Street are obvious: despite growth in revenue and users, losses widened from $27 million in the year-ago quarter to over $132 million in the recent one.

But even otherwise, there have been signs of trouble for the social media biggie for some time. Apparently, its efforts to cast itself more and more in the image of Facebook (by improving profiles, adding features such as Twitter Cards and Nearby, etc) are not getting it enough traction.

There are other reasons as well. At one point, breaking news was touted as a big pull, but now Facebook and YouTube seem to be ahead in the game. Pew Research, for instance, is said to have found that only 8% of Twitter's entire user base (it has over 240 million active monthly users) uses it to stay updated with news. This is against 30% for Facebook and 10% for YouTube.

Another weakness, say critics, is that Twitter is not generating as much interest in markets outside the US as other social giants.

While sites like Facebook, YouTube and even LinkedIn are capturing the imagination (and engagement) of people worldwide, Twitter continues to be seen as a niche vehicle with limited utility (how much can you pack in 140 characters or less, for example). Twitter has certainly caught the fancy of celebrities, politicians and others who like to broadcast their views to their fawning hordes—but the average Joe or Jane is still keeping their distance.

There is another silly thing happening in the dark corners of Twitter: I have come across several Twitter profiles that appear robotic, superhuman, idiotic or a mix of all. A typical such profile reads: 23 tweets, 19,265 followers, 20,897 following (with weird handles I would rather not name). Besides, there are millions who created a profile out of curiosity but then went into a deep slumber.

Some of them do wake up once in a while to tweet something sleepy. (What I find more annoying is when even these folks get followers in triple digits!) Frankly, to me these tweeters, their tweets and followers look like the T-equivalent of click frauds.

Not that other social media sites are free of fakes and inactives, but the situation seems acute with Twitter.

Will the bird get its chirp back next season?

Sri Sri, Kejriwal, Modi - aur aap, the voter

The political climate in India has been highly charged in the past few months, to say the least.

There are different types of camps: of people who staunchly support one of the three top bigwigs/parties (Modi of BJP, Rahul of Congress and Kerjriwal of AAP); of those who are taking a party-specific approach irrespective of candidates--and vice versa; and those who are pulling their hair out on whom to choose for the coming elections.

The debates are fierce, the arguments and counter-arguments vehement and the tripartite mud-slinging distasteful--on social, anti-social, local, global and all types of wobbly media.

I was watching all this uproar, trying to make up my own mind as a voter (as a journalist I'm avowed not to side with any party), when I came across an eloquently written piece by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of The Art of Living in Hindustan Times.

Before I go on, a disclaimer is in order: I have undergone the basic course of AOL and do Sudarshan Kriya regularly and have personally benefited from it in physical and mental well-being. But I have heard contradictory accounts of Sri Sri and AOL (not unlike what you hear of politicians) and I neither support nor denounce them blindly.

Like my new-found interest in politics and spirituality, I'm exploring the options. But then, I digress...

In his opinion article, which is provocatively titled "AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal has left the country choiceless," Ravi Shankar relates how AAP and Kejriwal started with the noble mission of rooting out corruption and giving voice to millions of Indians who are sick and tired of corrupt and criminally tainted politicians. And how they subsequently got consumed with political ambitions of their own and are no longer proving to be different from the political class they seek to dethrone.

He also writes that "While Gujarat may not be 100% corruption-free, I have no hesitation in saying that it is much better than what it used to be. Instead of being honest with facts, Kejriwal has chosen to put down BJP’s prime ministerial candidate and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on flimsy grounds," referring to Kerjriwal's high-octane four-day visit to Gujarat in which he hurled criticism at Modi at the slightest opportunity.

Talking about his own visits to the state in the 1990s and comparing them to the situation now, Ravi Shankar says the situation in the Modi-ruled state has improved visibly in infrastructure and economic terms.

Coming from someone of the stature of Sri Sri, the assessment is sure to lend credibility and godspeed to Modi's campaign and promise of taking the governance experiment in Gujarat to the national level (if he becomes PM, of course).

Personally, I have also heard contradictory views on to what extent Modi has been able to make a difference to the infrastructure as well as the people of the state in his three terms as chief minister.

All the same, I'm astonished at the apocalyptic statements issuing forth from the mouths of a whole battery of politicians, religious groups and others on what will happen if Modi does become the prime mover of a country of 1.3 billion people. They depict an inferno-like situation, riots, wholesale destruction, and what not.

It is arguable that Modi's conscience should prick more (than to the extent it has) at the loss of innocent lives in riots that happened in the aftermath of the train-burning incident in Gujarat. Court cases have gone on for long and disputes about Modi/administration's role in handling the situation are still arising. But on Modi becoming PM, to say things like "Aag lag jayegi"?!

Crazy.

When the Aam Aadmi Party initially entered the scene (following its split from the Anna Hazare anti-corruption/Lokpal movement which itself was an amazing sight to watch, though it peaked in a whimper), I could feel a sense of rejuvenation in the electorate, especially the youth and white-collar workers. To its credit, AAP and Kejriwal brought corruption to the forefront as a political issue and impressed a whole swathe of Indians with their candor, nimble thinking and swift mobilisation.

But when the ticket-giving for seats began, many of the candidates have been found to be of dubious record or get-elected-quick types who just want to ride the AAP wave.

So again, what we have is a mish-mash of (mostly) bad apples to choose from--be it AAP, BJP or Congress.

So, in a way, Ravi Shankar is right in saying that the initial promise of better choice exhibited by AAP is dissolving into a haze of disillusionment and hunger for power.

I think a lot of people will make their choice thus: since there are no best or even good choices, they might try opting for the "least bad" as per their perception, media projection and past experience or record.

If the prevalent view is that Congress has ruled the country for the maximum number of years (first without and then with alliances) AND India is a messier country than it was 60 years back, most people would certainly vote against the party.

Many would not vote at all or caste their vote for nobody (not sure if the ballot allows that option).

Unfortunately, a huge mass of Indian humanity would just choose whoever was in their good books on election eve (gifts, liquor, freebies, etc.)

"Choiceless," did Sri Sri say?

Time for India to Take a Close, Hard Look at e-Waste

My first recollection of waste recycling is that of disheveled kids roaming the streets of Delhi. They have large plastic bags and whenever they spot a discarded but “valuable” item—a plastic bottle, a rusted iron rod or the like—they toss it into the bag and move forward in search for more.

At that time I was amused by what I saw (I knew they would sell their stuff to the local kabadiwala, the scrap dealer, for a paltry sum.)

Now, several years later, amusement about a curious aspect of waste collection has turned into a loathing for how the entire “waste situation” looks. As I came to know about the trash piling up in landfills, about chemicals from discarded objects leaching into soil and water (often winding their way into the bloodstream of humans and other animals, with toxic effects), and about the devastatingly fast-growing proportion of e-waste in the overall junk, my disgust only intensified.

An estimated 40-50 million tons of all kinds of electronic waste (from computers and phones to TVs and washing machines) is generated globally each year. In India, it is around 1 million tons, but growing faster than many developed countries.

What is more appalling is that much of this e-waste—a whopping 85-90%—is either dumped or handled hazardously. And while advanced economies such as the U.S. regularly consume and discard the bulk of electronics, the trash ends up in third-world countries of Asia and Africa.

But there is a glimmer of hope. A growing awareness and sense of responsibility at government, corporate and individual levels is driving home the need to deal with all that e-waste in an environmentally friendly manner.

In India a right step in that direction was taken in 2011 in the shape of the e-Waste Management and Handling Act. A key part of this regulation is the EPR (extended producer responsibility) clause, which puts the onus of responsibly warehousing or disposing of the e-waste on manufacturers.

Another green development is that several watchdogs, recyclers and e-waste services firms are cropping up in the country.

However, all this is still a small start to a very large and complex problem. For one, recycling should not be equated with passing on the collected e-waste to the unorganized sector (which often employs women and children to retrieve metals and components from the devices through burning or manual dismantling).

In addition, both the government and the corporate sectors should make efforts to grow awareness about the regulation and product take-back programs—and there should be a proper mechanism to monitor such programs and provision for punitive measures, if necessary.

Managing e-waste well is more than a matter of health for all those directly affected by toxicity of the materials: it is a big question mark over the survival of the whole planet.

Facebook - Wacebook, WhatsApp - ShotsApp...

Who is *the stupid* in the biggest deal of its kind in social networking?

Just when people thought that the days of sky high valuations and companies with little or no revenue streams being bought for astronomical sums are long over, the indigestible figure of NINETEEN BILLION DOLLARS comes out of nowhere and stares them in the face in bold, upper case letters.

Apart from the heartburn the figure may have caused among the other new age startups not yet bought for lavish amounts, Facebook's acquisition of smartphone messaging provider WhatsApp is seeing industry insiders, pundits, analysts and their cats see red, throw tantrums, blow whistles and begin the next step: an elaborate dissection of the deal and what it means for different stakeholders.

First, let's get some big picture perspective. According a report on Reuters.com, “Facebook is paying more than double its annual revenue for a chat program that has little revenue. The purchase price is slightly more than the market value of Sony Corp.”

There are several conjectures about WhatsApp's existing revenues. In one, Henry Blodget (one of the chief “conjecturists” of the dot-com bubble era; Google him for more info) writes on BusinessInsider.com: “Even for Facebook, that's a staggering amount to pay for a company with estimated 2013 revenue of only $20 million. It represents almost 10% of Facebook's overall value.” Nevertheless, he goes on to assert that the move isn't stupid, but very, very bold.

In stupendous deals like this, however, there are many “stupids”—there have to be (as we have seen in many cycles of boom and bust, offline and on).

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has already proved with his chutzpah and billions in banks, stock and possibly hidden in the social network's billion users' monetizable worth that he ain't no stupid. Neither are WhatsApp's two co-founders, Ukrainian Jan Koum and American Brian Acton. (A slight stupidity charge may be deposited on their former employer, Yahoo, perhaps for letting them go and make their billions elsewhere!)

And most certainly, stupid isn't a term you would use with the VC firm that backed WhatsApp with $60 million for a stake that is now said to be worth $3 billion in the deal, according to a report on the website of The Wall Street Journal. (The firm is the famed Sequoia Capital, which over the years has invested in such companies as Apple, Google, Oracle, Cisco, Yahoo, YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn, among others.)

That makes two categories of people who may turn out to be playing the role of stupid here: one, the downstream investors who will keep on investing in these and other social startups in the hope that stock prices/valuations will keep getting jacked up further and further—and that they will be able to reap huge benefits by exiting their investments just in time. (Except that “just in time” comes with an expiry date that is never given).

The second category may be that of the users of these combined services. I have a feeling that the reported 1.2 billion of FB users and 450 million of WhatsApp, when combined, will turn out to be much lower than what most people expect. There is likely to be a lot of overlap, in addition to bogus accounts, at least on Facebook.

The users may also feel a bit insecure, manipulated or both in the medium to short term—though, for the moment, Koum has assured us otherwise. (It may be mentioned that WhatsApp seems to have a better reputation than Facebook in giving its users a simple, fast, clutter-free experience.)

In his blog post announcing the deal, Koum has written in this context: “Here’s what will change for you, our users: nothing.”

As of now, WhatsApp usage is free for the first year, after which an annual fee of less than one dollar is charged (the fee itself is disputed as to how many users actually pay up).

But given that WhatsApp is growing by 1 million users a day and Facebook has shelled out top dollar in the hope of monetizing the app's soon-to-be 1 billion users, things for the users might change for worse. Higher price, lots of ads and sponsored messages or all of 'em.

The Journal report mentions that Zuckerberg said in a conference call that “he doesn't think ads are the right way to monetize messaging systems.”

But monetize he will, we understand. And he might change his mind on what constitutes the right way. Why shouldn't he, or why wouldn't anyone who has made such a huge investment?

It remains to be seen how the coming together of two of the most powerful social platforms in the world ever, unfolds in the next few months. But this joining of forces itself raises the highly relevant question of monopoly—and raises the specter of restrictive trade practices that go invariably with any monopoly (even if the stated mission is not to be evil.)

Now, how many of the users will jump onto the next big platform in social to spread their choices, and whether we will have any such platform in the foreseeable future, is another thing that remains to be seen.

For all we know, users may just feel plain bored with all this social media thingy. Or with the big daddies of social at least. Already, there are reports of people, especially the younger generation, fleeing the likes of Facebook in droves in search for other, cooler platforms.

Unfortunately for them, FB ends up buying many of them!

Okay, let's tweet this for the moment...