After 12th please send your child away from home – preferably a hostel

If you have a child in 12th std, who will go to college this year, please do him/her a favor and send him/her out of the home. Preferably to a hostel. Preferably to a different city.

By making your child stay at home after 12th, you’re just holding him/her back. Don’t do this unless you can’t afford to send them away.

The greatest increase in maturity, exposure, worldliness, and in general the skills needed to make it in the real world, happen when the child starts staying away from the parents. The values and culture of the parents are important for the child when the child is a child, but at the age of 17, it is time to let them experience what other people think like, that there can be thought processes that are different from their parents’ but are equally valid.

I would like to state here strongly that there is huge value in staying away from home. Trust me. Or don’t – instead take the word of Child Psychiatrist Dr. Bhooshan Shukla, who recently said this:

One sincere advice to students finishing their 12th std from Pune.

If you think you are any good, think beyond Pune. get out of this city and parental home and explore world.

Getting ALL of your educatuon in one city, entire life in one locality with same bunch of friends is a serious HANDICAP.

Globalization will chew you up, spit out the bones and you wont even know it, happily sipping coffee at Vaishali and eating Sabudana wada.

Wake up and run away….save your youth and your life.


I’ve been preaching this to my friends/family for the last 15 years, and have heard a number of excuses from them as to why they don’t want to send their child away from home. Here is a sampler of those, and why I believe they’re wrong:

“But the hostels are so dirty!”

It’s the parents who’re often more squeamish than the children about such things. In any case, children adjust pretty quickly, especially when everybody else around them is in the same situation. And, let them go through a little hardship, a little inconvenience. It builds character.

And if you really, really want your child to be a 5-star-and-AC-only kind of a person, then go ahead the set them up with a posh apartment near college – you’ll find enough other children in a similar situation who’d be willing to share the rent. That’s still better than staying at home. (Although, I would still say that staying in a hostel is far better.)

“What will s/he eat? The food there is so bad!”

Are you kidding me?! You’ll withhold important personal growth from your child because s/he is too delicate to eat the same kind of food that millions of other kids eat? Please raise more resilient children.

“It’s so much cheaper if s/he stays at home”

It’s so much cheaper if s/he doesn’t get an education, but you don’t want that, right? Like I said right in the beginning, if you really can’t afford it financially, then staying at home is perfectly acceptable. But in many cases, this is not true. And the “so much cheaper” argument is simply a different way of saying that you don’t really see how much value is added by staying away from home.

“If it was a boy, I would consider it. But for a girl in a big city, I don’t know…”

Instead of protecting your daughter from the outside world and keeping her safely ensconced at home, you’re better off teaching her the basics of how to take care of herself, avoid shady situations, shady places, shady friends, and to take good decisions.

Also, most parents won’t say this to me directly, but I know that in some cases, clearly there is a concern that the newfound freedom will allow the girl to indulge in “inappropriate” behavior. The answer to this is:

  1. Accept the fact that times have changed, and this generation’s values are going to be very different from yours’. Trying to impose your values on your child will actually cause more problems than the “inappropriate” behavior itself will cause.

  2. Trust your daughter. You’ve taught her values for 17 years, and you have to hope that they’ve taken root. It is now out of your hands. If she’s gotten the right values, sending her to live by herself isn’t going to cause any problems. And if she has not, then keeping her at home isn’t really going to prevent the problems.

And, by the way, your child is almost guaranteed to have a girlfriend/boyfriend, whether you know about it or not, whether you like it or not, and whether s/he ultimately goes in for an arranged marriage or not. Just accept this fact, and things will be easier for everyone concerned.

And the worst mistake (which I’ve seen parents make) is to choose a not-so-good college near home, instead of a good college that’s away from home. That’s a double whammy – denying the child good formal education (academics & reputation & connections of a good college), and good informal education (staying away from homw).

Side note: If your child is considering engineering, and is confused about which branch/college, this older article I wrote might help

Real meaning of “Insurance is the Subject Matter of Solicitation” or how everyone on the web can be wrong

In which, I try to understand what the phrase “Insurance is the Subject Matter of Solicitation” means, and why every ad has it, and I discover how the blogs of 20 different finance websites (written by marketing types by doing a Google search followed by a copy-paste-in-your-own-words) can be wrong.

Summary: Most Indian finance websites give a ridiculous explanation for this phrase. This phrase, which is found in all insurance advertisements in India, was mandated by IRDA, and it means basically that: “insurance is the product that is being sold by this advertisement, and not any thing else.” The intention is to prevent advertisements from being misleading, and trying to trick consumers into buying insurance while advertising something else (like investment). As of November 4th, 2015, this requirement has been removed by IRDA.


I’ve always wondered why every insurance ad states, “Insurance is the Subject Matter of Solicitation,” and what exactly does this statement mean. Clearly, many other people have had the same question. Because a Google search revealed that many, many websites claim to explain this.

However, I found that all the explanations seemed a little silly. Here is an example:

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has made it mandatory for insurance companies, agents and brokers to announce clearly in all their communication that insurance is the subject matter of solicitation. Translation: insurance isn’t a ready-made standard product like say, a bar of chocolate, that can be sold outright, it has to be discussed, understood. The right offering suited to your specific needs and requirements has to be considered taking into accounts, the terms, conditions and exclusions. Companies can only “offer to sell” it. And what changes with the addition of this simple word?

By way of including this small line, insurance becomes a product that you-the-customer must evaluate carefully after you have understood all its features, rules, conditions and exclusions. The onus of buying an insurance policy with its terms lies with the customer solely.

Or, to quote this Quora answer:

So the meaning of Insurance is a subject matter of solicitation is that Insurance is a financial product which buyer has to ASK FOR, it cant be sold.

Similar answers exist on many other websites. In fact, you could search the internet for hours and find articles and articles that give this same explanation.

Doesn’t anyone else see that the “translation” makes no sense – grammatically or legally? Words have meanings – especially in legal contexts. You can’t just make a sentence mean anything you want it to mean. How does “insurance is the subject matter of solicitation” end up meaning “insurance cannot be sold, the customer must ask for it”?? And even if the sentence did mean that, doesn’t anyone find this totally ridiculous? Have you ever “asked for” insurance, or have you mostly just bought one of the products that the insurance company has in their portfolio? Are our lawmakers really this stupid? And if they are, how come nobody is pointing to any proof (a law or a regulation) which mandates this?

It just bothered me so much that I decided to start digging until I found out where this phrase originated, and what was the intended meaning. I just don’t believe that our regulators are idiots who make up bizarre regulations just to mess with us.

Going to the Source – IRDA Regulations

Being a big fan of going to original sources, I tracked down this phrase to the “IRDA (Insurance Advertisements and Disclosure) Regulations, 2000” notification. (Here’s a pdf that I got off the IRDA website.) This is a document that regulates what advertisements related to insurance can and cannot contain. An important purpose of these regulations is to ensure that advertisements should not be “unfair or misleading.”

Here is what regulation 9 says:

  1. Identity of advertiser — Every advertisement for insurance shall:

  2. (i) state clearly and unequivocally that insurance is the subject matter of solicitation; and

  3. (ii) state the full registered name of the insurer/ intermediary/ insurance agent.

I should note that this entire document is about the rules governing who can advertise insurance, and how. Nowhere does it say anything ridiculous like “insurance cannot be sold; customer must ask for it.” In fact the whole document is mainly about how to sell insurance without misleading customers. It’s clear to anyone reading this document that selling and advertising the sale of insurance is perfectly legal.

In fact, reading the whole document in context (especially when read in conjunction with regulation 2(d)) it is quite clear that:

  • “solicitation” in this case means the advertisement itself, and
  • the purpose of this line is to ensure that the advertisement makes it clear that insurance is being advertised and not something else.

The second point here makes a lot of sense when you see an actual life insurance ad – a lot of it is focused on the returns you will get if you don’t die. Without this disclaimer, you would think the product being sold is an investment scheme, right? And that is precisely what this warning is supposed to prevent.

“We make it sound like the primary purpose of this scheme is the the returns you will get if you don’t die, but please don’t forget that the real product being sold here is the insurance cover you’re getting – the money you will get if you do die. But we’re going to say it in such opaque jargon that even websites that claim to give you expert financial advice don’t understand the warning.”

In any case, on November 4th, IRDA published an amendment which removed 9(i) from these regulations, so future advertisements are no longer required to have this phrase.

Moral of the Story

So, here are the morals of this story:

  • Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Even if lots of websites agree with each other. Especially if lots of websites agree with each other – that usually means (these days) that they all pretty much copied from each other.
  • Going to the original source is a powerful way of getting the real story. I do this every once in a while – I read the original wording of laws (e.g. defamation laws), or court cases, or other legal documents (e.g. India-US tax treaty) – and I always find the results quite instructive.
  • The government/bureaucracy is not filled with idiots. They don’t just make up random things. There is always a reason, if you just look at things from the correct angle. So, if something seems idiotic, chances are that you did not understand it properly.
  • Note to finance startups/companies – I know that your articles and blogs just exist for SEO purposes and as far as Google juice is concerned, quantity is king, but could you please at least have some sensible finance person take a look at your content and sign off on it to check that you’re not repeating incorrect information?

Getting a Duplicate Driving Licence Issued at RTO Pune – Surprisingly Easy

meeta lost her licence. I also wanted my licence changed – because mine was old and tattered and I wanted the new snazzy smartcard licence.

Today we decided to go to the RTO office in Pune, all by ourselves, without an agent, and get ourselves duplicate licences issues. The process was surprisingly painless.

Unfortunately, the procedure is not really well documented on the web, hence I’m writing it, for the benefit of others:

  • If you’ve lost your licence, you’ll need to file an FIR with the local police station, and bring along a copy of it. If you’re just looking to replace a tattered old licence, just bring that old licence along.
  • First download and print Form LLD from the rtopune website. Fill out this form.
  • Attach two passport size photos to the form with a paperclip.

As far as I can tell, you don’t need any other documents.

Land up at the RTO office. The official timings for this are from 10am to 2:30pm, but when we went, the 3 relevant windows opened at varying times between 10:15 and 10:35. So I suggest you land up at 10:30.

Ignore all the agents who will keep accosting you from the time you enter the gate. They’ll make it seem like it’s impossible to get anything done without an agent – ignore them. Go to Block C. Get the official to check your account in their computers, and sign your form. Then go to Block B, pay fees. If you’re just replacing a lost smartcard with a new one – you’re done. If you’re converting from old-style license to a smartcard, you need to get your biometrics done. After that you’re done.

When we went (at 10am) there were no queues at any of the 3 windows, so we could have been done in less than 10 minutes. However, the Block C person was eating something at her desk so we had to wait a few minutes for her. Then the fees window opened at 10:30. And the biometrics window opened at 10:35. So we were done by 10:45.

If you land up there by 10:30, I think you should be done by 11.

Remember though, parking is a pain there, so might want to go Uber or rickshaw. Except if you’re Sarika (for whom, primarily this article is written, and who owns a building next-door) 🙂