Ayn Rand

Was having a discussion with my dad a few days back and he brought up Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. He spoke about Taggart, Rearden and Galt to drive home a point; and this left me completely flummoxed because i could not for the life of me remember these characters.

I find it extremely fascinating that he could recall from a book he read in the early 1960s, while i couldn't remember the story at all. I'm not saying that i don't know Rand's philosophy, but i cannot remember the characters and the exact story of Atlas Shrugged, 14 to 15 years after first reading it; and here you have a man who remembers it a good 50 years after he first read it. Unbloodybelievable!!

My anthem

Thank you youtube, for allowing people to embed this song again.

'Some beach', along with 'no shirt, no shoes, no problems', is my anthem. 

The story of the single dominant logic

Here's an essay i wrote in my early teens:

I was six and had just joined a new school in Bombay. On my first day at school, this is how i was welcomed by my teacher and classmates:-

Teacher: Kids, we have a new student with us today. Please join me in welcoming him. Son, kindly stand up and introduce yourself to the class.

Me: (Addressing the class) Hi, my name is J. I’m new to this school. I was studying at Carmel Convent in Udhampur and I’m here because of my father’s posting (transfer) to this city.

Teacher: What does your father do?

Me: He is an Army Officer, ma’am.

Teacher: Okay. Where do you belong to?

Me: India, ma'am.

(the class burst out laughing)

Teacher: Are you trying to be funny with me? I asked you where you’re from?!

Me: India, ma'am.... I was born in Bangalore and since then i have had to move to a new city every two years because of my father’s postings. So, I belong to India.

(the laughter in the class was even louder this time)

Teacher: I mean... Where’s your father from?!

Me: India, ma’am. My father is an army officer... so was his dad, and they traveled and shifted their home all over India. My mother’s dad was also an army officer and she also traveled and shifted her home all over India. So my parents are both from India.

(the laughter in the classroom grew hysterical...  and by now, I was feeling a little embarrassed at having to answer so many questions on my first day at school) 

Teacher: Look... J... don’t test my patience. I asked you a simple question. Why can’t you give me a straight forward answer?!

The teacher seemed very angry now.

Me: (pleading helplessly) But ma’am, I’m telling you…. i belong to India.

Teacher: Okay, enough!! Tell me where your ancestors (???) are from?!

Me: "Ancestors?? Well ma’am, legend has it that we are descendants of a Macedonian royal bloodline that owed allegiance to Alexander the Gre....” i tried explaining, only to be cut short by the angry teacher.

Teacher: “You are an impossible little boy!! I don’t know what your parents have taught you!! If you can’t give me a straight forward answer when i ask where you're from, at least tell me which religion you practice?!”

Me: (uneasily) “Ma’am, my parents take me to all mandir, masjid, gurudwara and church functions and I like them all.”

Teacher: “Sit down you fool. I see i’m going to have a lot of trouble with you!!”

Me: “No ma’am… I’m an Indian!!” I sobbed back.

After this little incident, I wasn’t allowed to join any group within the class because the children would say, “You don’t know who you are. You have no identity. You have to tell us who you are if you want to play with us - are you a Marathi, a Punjabi, a Bengali or Tamil? We all know who we are. Why don’t you know who you are?”

“But I have told you that I’m an Indian,” I would say.

“We are all Indians. But I’m a Marathi first, then an Indian,” said one boy. “He is a Punjabi,” he added, pointing his finger towards another child who was beaming proudly at this fact.

“You can’t play with us,” I was told.

“Why?” I asked

“…because my father said so,” answered the child.

A few months later, children being children and innocent despite being ingrained with ideologies by their parents, everything turned out fine and I made some really good friends at school.

But then two years later, the dreadful time of my father’s transfer came again. It was time to leave my friends and move to a new city. Till the day i left, my friends still believed that regionalism and religion hold greater value than being... well... just human; but they had come to like me, albeit as an odd character who didn't know his identity. So with tearful goodbyes, I left my friends and traveled to a new city; where I joined a brand new school.

“Hi, my name is J and I am an Indian…,” said I

“Ha, ha, ha, ha….,” was the welcome

--------x---------x--------x--------x--------x----------x---------x--------x---------

I remember when i was in school, my mother would pack my lunch box (or 'tiffin' as we used to call it then) with all sorts of goodies. Everyday would see something different. If one day saw a jam sandwich, the next would see a cheese omelette. If the day after saw baked beans, the next would see baked macaroni and cheese (drool... my favourite). And occasionally, there would be a nice fruit salad tucked away in my tiffin, too.

I was never fussy about food as a child; I ate whatever was put on my plate. I enjoyed Indian food as much as i loved Italian. I loved the monthly pizzas that my mother would make, equally as much as i loved gol guppas. I loved shepherd's pie as much as tandoori chicken, and dosas as much as hot dogs. And i had no trouble sharing my tiffin with my classmates.

The trouble was that while i had no problem eating the parathas that my classmates would share, they couldn't wrap their heads around mac n' cheese (something i find that they have no problem with today).  Over the years, I remember how my classmates, in the various schools i had studied, would inadvertently blurt out that the western food that my mother would pack for me was because she didn't love me. According to their single story, or single dominant logic if you'd prefer, Indian food was made with love; western food, on the other hand, was impersonal. This outburst, i got to learn later was because my friends would go back home and tell their mothers what they saw in my lunch box, and the mothers would retort that my mom packed the food she did because she - didn't love me. In fact, my friends and their families' dominant logic dictated to them that only one story was supposed to exist in the world - theirs; and therefore, their story was the most appropriate. Parathas, vegetables and the whole jing bang 10 course meal that Indian mothers prepared every morning, their logic told them, was because an Indian mother loves her child; and anyone who didn't conform to these norms, wasn't a loving mother.

India has changed over the years, and today, we are as familiar with garlic bread as we are with calamari. While once upon a time the word 'footlong' would leave us all feeling uncomfortable, today a tiny section of our society understands what it means and will not take offense if someone says it aloud.

India is definitely a far cry from what it was in the 80s and the 90s. Mothers pack sandwiches, serve cornflakes for breakfast, and send their children off to school with fruit in their schoolbags. But despite this change, the single dominant story still lingers. "How impersonal," mothers cry, when they're told of a different set of norms that exist in a society half way around the world. As far as they're concerned, their way is the only right way. For instance, how dare the kaalus in Africa dance around fire and eat beef!! Savages!! American families and mothers on the other hand, are immoral... the financial mess they've gotten themselves into, proves it!!

This then is the story of the single dominant logic of the urban Indian middle and upper class.

~

Liberal attitude, as professed obliviously by the urban youth today, is a charade, and will remain so till they understand that multiple logic can exist together, with none being superior, and none inferior.

On wearing blinkers

To paint everyone negatively with the same brush is wrong.

To presume everything is right and nothing is wrong, is foolish.

To know that things are wrong, and to accept it as it is, is cowardly. 

To turn a blind eye to injustice, is inhumane.

~

"Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away."
- Elvis Presley

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."
- MK Gandhi

"If you shut the door to all errors, truth will be shut out."
- Rabindranath Tagore

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
- Martin Niemoller

Gen VK Singh

I have refrained from commenting on the entire Chief of the Army Staff fracas all these months, all because i have a very strong point of view that does not favour the General.

Now that he has withdrawn his petition from the Supreme Court, with his lawyer saying that his honour and integrity have been restored, which is a preposterous claim in any case, i'd like to make a point or two.

1. If the General really did have proof that he was born in 1951, and not in 1950 like the Government points out, and if he truly is an honourable man, he should have fought the case all the way till the end, no matter what the final outcome may have been.

2. It is a well known fact, a fact that is conveniently swept under the carpet in India, that the date of birth of a lot of the urban middle class is manipulated so as to allow them to serve a longer duration in their chosen career. Sweeping this fact under the carpet aside, if people claim to have no knowledge of this, or of the manipulation of curriculum vitae - as in the case of the corporate world, they are either lying or are living in a fool's paradise. If the General truly is an honourable man, he should have owned up to the manipulation of his certificates, in the best interest of the country, stating that he had previously accepted his date of birth as 1950 in order to gain the seniority that allowed him to become the Chief of the Army Staff.

He should have further pointed out that having realised that our country needed to be purged off corruption, and since he had the best interest of his country first and foremost on his mind, he would step down from the post of the Army Chief. Furthermore, he should have stressed that he is not the only corrupt person in our country and that the manipulation of dates of birth on certificates was the norm amongst the middle class in the 50s and the 60s through to the 1990s; and that he would urge all the dishonest lot across the length and breadth of the country to come out and resign from the posts they hold.

The General had the opportunity through the long tenure of his service to get the matter resolved, and either conveniently let the matter slip, or thought it unnecessary to resolve it as everyone was sailing in the same boat, and also because society was conveniently turning a blind eye to the practice of manipulation of dates of birth on certificates. I do not buy the argument that the matter was for some reason or the other not resolved despite the General's best efforts. If he truly had honour and honesty first and foremost on his mind, he would have made certain that the matter would have been rectified honestly, no matter what the repercussions. And he certainly had the chance of getting this done all the way from the time that he was a Gentleman Cadet to shortly before he became the chief. And don't tell me it couldn't be done... my entire family is from the armed forces; and incidentally my father was born in the same year as the chief. And although i'm not the most honest guy on the planet, my family certainly knows a thing or two about honour and integrity. That is irrefutable.

However, I must point out, that despite what has happened, the Indian Army is still one of the most honest institutions in India. Nevertheless, no entity, institution or organization, whether civil or otherwise, in our country can claim to be entirely honest. I have written previously in 'Corruption in India (redux)' how each and every institution and organization in our country is made up, not of an alien race, but of the same society as you and I. Therefore, a monumentally different level of corruption between institutions is a ridiculous claim. It is only the form of corruption that differs among organizations; but no institution can claim to be entirely honest.

~

Such is India, that all will be forgotten, and it'll be business as usual. The Supreme Court should have taken a strong stand and given a judgement that addressed the core issue, even if it would have meant temporary discomfort for the country. In the long run, that course of action would have been more beneficial.

~

Why on earth did Gen Singh have to go half way around the world to quote Hemingway on honour, when his alma mater, The Indian Military Academy, bears an inscription at its prestigious Chetwode Hall that reads,

“The safety, honour & welfare of your country comes first, always and every time. 

The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command, comes next. 

Your own ease, comfort and safety come last, always and every time.”

Porn in the Legislative Assembly

I really don't understand what the entire shindy surrounding a few Karnataka BJP ministers being caught for watching porn on their mobile phones is all about.

Okay, fine... it was inappropriate; but only insofar that they were watching the clip in the State's Legislative Assembly while it was in session. Otherwise, i really don't think it's worth discussing at all. And calling the incident Porngate, is ridiculous and hardly original.

Here's a clip from BBC's TV serial, 'Coupling', that I was watching a few days back:

Are successful people nice?

Art Markman
HBR Blog Network
3:23 PM Thursday February 9, 2012

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/02/are_successful_people_nice.html#.TzQscqiWAck.twitter

Since Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence, we've recognized the importance of tuning into social and emotional factors in the workplace. But many popular depictions of the workplace don't show any evidence of that sensitivity. Mad Men, Wall Street, and others impress that in business, only the strong survive.

But emotional intelligence implies that successful leaders should be nice. And while being nice may have social benefits, does it pay?

The key is in how agreeable you are. Timothy Judge, Beth Livingston, and Charlice Hurst examined this trait in a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology this year. By way of background, conventional personality research defines agreeableness as two related qualities: 

1. the extent to which you value getting along with others, and 
2. the degree to which you are willing to be critical of others.

Using earnings data, the researchers found that men who rank high in agreeableness make substantially less than men who are less agreeable. Across studies, this difference was as high as $10,000 per year. Conversely, women's earnings were less affected. There was only a small earnings difference between women high and low in agreeableness, and it was often not statistically reliable.

So, why do these results differ for men and women? And why do nice guys finish last?

There is a stereotype that when men lead, they make decisions without concern for what other people think. Indeed, a final study in this same paper asked people to evaluate potential leadership candidates. Agreeable men were rated least attractive as potential leaders.

And as for nice guys (and to a lesser extent, nice women) finishing last, let's recall the two related qualities of agreeableness. Concerning a value for getting along, career advancement requires a willingness to ruffle feathers from time to time. Good leaders need to be able to tell people things that they do not want to hear. And honestly, putting yourself forward for a promotion means putting yourself before others.

Career success also involves being critical. While some managers may want to surround themselves with people who obediently agree, most want those who will find the flaws in a plan before it is implemented. Less agreeable people are prone to give this kind of criticism.

- Art Markman (PhD, is the Annabel Irion Worsham Centennial Professor of Psychology and Marketing at the University of Texas at Austin. He is currently editor of the journal Cognitive Science, and consults regularly through his company Maximizing Mind. Follow him on twitter @abmarkman.)

Chief Ethics Officer, Ombudsman & Chief Change Agent

If anyone is looking for a young, uneducated 32 year old Chief Ethics Officer, Ombudsman, part time etiquette trainer and Chief Change Agent for their organization, gimme a holler. Will work for roti, kapda, makaan, books, dogs and weekend golf. Frequent traveling - not an issue.

On education in India, and age limits

Indians love discriminating. If it isn't on the basis of religion; then its on the basis of caste, gender, occupation, or even salary. One must add, however, that India has worked pretty hard over the years at reducing discrimination on the basis of caste, religion and gender; although a lot still remains to be done in this regard.

Nevertheless, what's extremely fascinating is how goal posts for discrimination keep shifting from one factor to the other. The latest in the series of discriminations in India, are:

• class discrimination, and
• age discrimination.

I've been writing about class discrimination - the rich man discriminating against the poor for quite some time; so i'll leave that aside for a while and focus on discrimination on the basis of age, instead. And what better way to illustrate age discrimination than reflecting on our education sector; the bedrock of society.

It has been my observation that regular education in India is restricted to the young, i.e. there is an age limit beyond which a citizen of India is not allowed to educate herself formally. Let me illustrate.

Let's suppose a girl had been married off at the age of 20, soon after her graduation, and was forced to give up higher education to take care of her home. Over the next 18 years, she is restricted by family norms, to being a homemaker. Then, at the age of 38, her husband, the sole breadwinner of the family, suddenly passes away. After a short period of mourning, the lady realizes that she needs a career to sustain herself; but she finds herself under qualified on the job market. However, to her relief, she finds that her husband has left her a reasonable sum of money, of which she can make either of 2 uses: 

1. start a home based business; or 
2. get an education, and join, say, the corporate world, where her return on investment, will be much higher.

On studying the two options closely, the first option seems less lucrative in the long run; so she considers option two, instead.

She finds that she has enough money to cover her tuition and living expenses for an MBA; and she also finds, after a short preparation, that she has achieved a 99.99 percentile on her CAT exam. With a brilliant result on her entrance test, she applies to all the top management programs in India. However, each one of them rejects her application. On inquiry of the reason for rejection, it is made clear to her, that at the age of 38, she is way beyond the age limit for an MBA.

This story is not peculiar to management education. In fact, it repeats itself in practically all fields of higher education in India.

So her only option is to start a home based business; and she decides, she may think of studying via distance mode (as evening classes are hard to come by), if time and resources permit.

-
----------------------------------

-

I find it extremely sad that educational institutions discriminate on the basis of age. Their primary argument is that if they take a 38 year old widow on board, they will have to leave out an equally bright young student from their class. This argument, as far as i am concerned, is ridiculous. It's like men arguing that allowing a girl to join an educational program, would lead to lesser opportunities for men. In the past, men discriminated against women. All that has happened over the years is that the goal posts have changed; but discrimination still remains.

If, on the other hand, educational institutions argue that, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks;" this argument is specious at best. In fact, if the 38 year old widow is motivated enough, she will  most likely put in longer hours of study than her younger classmates, to understand her subject. So the question that begs an answer is: why penalize hard work? Moreover, an older individual may be able to bring with her much better competencies and soft skills, that young men invariably lack. Additionally, while speed in decision making reduces with age, the quality of decision making does not. In fact, studies have indicated that careful consideration of facts helps improve decision making; the maturity for which comes with age. A point to note is that the much valued trait of 'risk taking', which is so overly hyped by management professionals, is not essential in every circumstance, or in every business environment, and job setting. As a matter of fact, there are a large number of business roles that require very little, or even no risk taking at all. An older, more mature individual, in that environment, would definitely be a better fit than a younger person.

Finally, if the argument made against the 38 year old lady is that she has no relevant experience, i would like to question why she is being penalized for something that was not solely her fault, but more so the fault of a society that forced her, without an exit, into a rough situation? Furthermore, why are we increasingly becoming a society that refuses to give second chances? Is it because we have vast manpower resources, and if one person isn't good enough, we can fish for another with ease? What then is the purpose of humanity? Why must human beings be treated as automatons or robots, who must be penalized for every wrong turn on the journey of life?

I bet if the 38 year old widow is motivated enough, has an IQ that is round about the average mark, and has the wherewithal to support her tuition and living expenses, she just may turn out to be a fine student and an even better asset to the organization that employs her. This, of course, will only be possible if she's given a chance. But the propensity to discriminate, for some reason or the other, will never allow her a chance, till society questions its own lopsided attitude.

How would you live the last year of your life?

What if you've been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and have been given only a year to live. How would you live your last year?