A question of ethics

Kamna, Milton's president, is very concerned about Milton's profitability. She asks Amit, production manager, and Sudhir, controller, to see if there are ways to reduce costs.

After two weeks Amit returns with a proposal to reduce variable costs to 52 per cent of revenues by reducing the costs Milton currently incurs for safe disposal of wasted plastic. Sudhir is concerned that this would expose the company to potential environmental liabilities. He tells Amit, "we would need to estimate some of these potential environmental costs and include them in our analysis." "You can't do that," Amit replies. "We are not violating any laws. There is some possibility that we may have to incur environmental costs in the future, but if we bring it up now, this proposal will not go through because our senior management always assumes these costs to be larger than they turn out to be. The market is very tough, and we are in danger of shutting down the company. We don't want all our colleagues to lose their jobs. The only reason our competitors are making money is because they are doing exactly what I am proposing."

~

• Given Amit's comments, what should Sudhir do?

• If Sudhir indicates to Kamna that estimates of environmental costs and liabilities should be included in the analysis; and if she still insists on modifying the numbers and reporting lower environmental costs, what should he do? Should Sudhir now raise the matter with Kamna's superiors?

• If in taking all these steps, there is continued pressure to understate environmental costs, what should Sudhir do? Should Sudhir consider resigning from the company because he would not like to engage in unethical behavior?

• What if Sudhir comes across the same situation at his new organization? Should he consider resigning again? How often would it be okay for Sudhir to resign on ethical grounds, if he finds the same situation at every company he joins?

• Should Sudhir heed Amit's advice, show some adaptability and accept the proposal because after all, as suggested, Milton's competitors (and all other companies in the industry) are doing exactly the same thing?

• If Sudhir resigns from Milton on ethical grounds, would he be over reacting?

• If Sudhir resigns on ethical grounds, could it be that he has a skewed concept of morality?

• Should Sudhir change his thinking to reflect the notion that since there is no one unfailing standard of good and bad, right and wrong, ethical and unethical, he must accept the industry's proposal (which is the same as Amit's), even though he finds the entire episode unethical?

• What's your take on this subject?

~

(adapted from a Charles T. Hongren, Srikant M. Datar, George Foster, Madhav V. Rajan, and Christopher Ittner book)

~

The authors suggest the following course of action:-

"Sudhir should indicate to Kamna that estimates of environmental costs and liabilities should be included in the analysis. If Kamna still insists on modifying the numbers and reporting lower environmental costs, Sudhir should raise the matter with one of Kamna's superiors. If after taking all these steps, there is continued pressure to understate environmental costs, Sudhir should consider resigning from the company and not engage in unethical behavior.

I'm in business... i ain't corrupt

Read this...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Your-branded-jeans-may-not-be-the-real-thing/articleshow/12062627.cms

Isn't this corruption? 

Well... in India it seems that as long as you're in business... you can't be corrupt. So the urban middle class doesn't give a damn. In fact, to them... this is just another way for the immoral to put a stop to their self declared honest money making schemes.

My greatest weaknesses

One of my weaknesses is that i am a pretty decent chap. I find it extremely difficult to hurt others because i am constantly looking at things from other people's perspectives. This also makes me quite agreeable too. I am usually very quiet during debates and do not jump into the fray unless asked for my personal opinion; in which case i curb my point of view with the aim of maintaining social & conversational equilibrium. This often makes it look as if i don't have an opinion; on the other hand, it gives me the uncanny knack of deescalating any tension that may have cropped up between people because i have the ability to keep all positions in a conflict on an even keel, while addressing and acknowledging the underlying needs that gave rise to them in the first place.

I do, however, have very strong principles and absolutely detest all forms of injustice. If i come across a rude, snide, abrasive or unjust act, behavior or attitude, i am quick to point out the infraction and try to reason out with the offender why his act was incorrect. Perhaps my greatest weakness is that if my reasoning fails to muster any ground with the offender, i forget my deescalation techniques and grow confrontational. This is the only time when I get into a verbal duel. But even though i have the ability to verbally decimate an opponent (which should seem utterly preposterous to the reader, owing to my poor english language skills), the need to maintain equilibrium far outweighs my will to win the duel; and i cut the fight short without a solution in sight. When i come across the person at a later point in time though, the infraction and partial duel, as far as i am concerned, is a thing of the past. In fact, i start off afresh as if nothing ever happened; because i genuinely bear no ill will towards the person; and because, the infraction, i believe, was momentary and not a general rule of thumb that can be used to define an individual with. However, if the person repeats his rude, abrasive or unjust behavior, i go through the same process mentioned above all over again; until such time that i believe that the abrasiveness is not a flash in the pan, nor is it capable of a cure.

~

Yup, these are huge weaknesses all right, and i need to work on them quite a bit.

Blogging though, is a very different story. I blog only to record my point of view on a myriad of subjects; and i am very well aware that i come across as abrupt and abrasive via this medium. I don't look at blogging as a social interface; and i have no problem with those who do.

~

...this makes for a pretty good case study. what say all ye headhunters? 
:)

Good, bad, right, wrong - & Change strategy

If there is no definition of good and bad; and right and wrong changes with changing contexts & circumstances; then a mass murderer's actions are as just as the blessings of a saint.

If you adapt and change yourself to mirror every change of a successful clique, even if their actions are unjust, and just because change is the only constant in the world; soon you will cease to exist. Instead, differentiate yourself from injustice, and create a just blue ocean in the midst of the clique's red; then watch it spread.

...Change?

"I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples."

- Mother Teresa

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world."

- Anne Frank

"I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do."

- Helen Keller

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead

"Saints have come and saints have gone; mahatmas have tried and mahatmas have failed. No one has been able to change the world. What makes you think you can succeed where great men have not?"

- Grandpa

Terrence Hill

It’s not easy being a nobody. 

It requires a lot strength and will power.

Hey!!

Honor, Honesty, Money & Banking

About 6 months back a childhood friend of mine, who is a very senior executive at a leading Global Bank, told me, "I've had enough of honor and honesty. I want to make money."

What was shocking about his declaration was not the fact that he wants to make money, which in any case he is making due to the high office that he holds; what was shocking was his belief that you can't make money if you're an honest and honorable man.

I had let his remark slip from my mind; but it came back to me this morning out of the blue. And i just wanted to record my thoughts on it.

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 had 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 can't remember the 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

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 had 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

~

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 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 to work as a 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? 

Edwin Abbot's Flatland - by Carl Sagan

Let us imagine we inhabit a strange country where everyone is perfectly flat. Following Edwin Abbot, a Shakespearean scholar who lived in Victorian England, we call it Flatland. Some of us are squares; some are triangles; some have more complex shapes. We scurry about in and out of our flat buildings, occupied with our flat businesses and dalliances. Everyone in Flatland has width and length, but no height whatever. We know about left-right, and forward-back; but have no hint, not a trace of comprehension, about up-down, - except for flat mathematicians. They say, "Listen, its really very easy. Imagine left-right. Imagine forward-back. Okay, so far? Now imagine another dimension, at right angles to the other two." And we say, "What are you talking about? At right angles to the other two!! There are only two dimensions. Go ahead... point to that third dimension!! Where is it?!" So the mathematicians, disheartened, amble off. Nobody listens to mathematicians.

Every square creature in flatland sees another square as merely a short line segment, the side of the square nearest to him. He can see the other side of the square only by taking a short walk. But the inside of the square is forever mysterious, unless some terrible accident or autopsy breaches the sides and exposes the interior parts.

One day a three dimensional creature - shaped like an apple, say - comes upon Flatland, hovering above it. Observing a particularly attractive and congenial looking square entering its flat house, the apple decides, in a gesture of inter dimensional amity, to say hello. 

"How are you?" asks the visitor from the third dimension. "I am a visitor from the third dimension." 

The wretched square looks about his closed house and sees no one. What is worse, to him it appears that the greeting, entering from above, is emanating from his own flat body, a voice from within!!

A little insanity, he perhaps reminds himself gamely, runs in the family.

Exasperated at being judged a psychological aberration, the apple descends into flatland. Now a three dimensional creature can exist, in Flatland, only partially; only a cross section can be seen, only the points of contact with the plane surface of Flatland. An apple slithering though Flatland would appear first as a point and then as progressively larger, roughly circular slices. The square sees a point appearing in a closed room in his two dimensional world and slowly growing into a near circle. A creature of strange and changing shape has appeared from nowhere.

Rebuffed and unhappy at the obtuseness of the very flat, the apple then bumps the square and sends him aloft, fluttering and spinning into that mysterious third dimension. At first the square can make no sense of what is happening; it is utterly outside his experience. But eventually he realises that he is viewing Flatland from a peculiar vantage point : 'above'. He can see into closed rooms. He can see into his flat fellows. He is viewing his universe from a unique and devastating perspective. Traveling through another dimension provides, as an incidental benefit, a kind of X-Ray vision. 

Eventually, like a falling leaf, our square slowly descends on the surface. From the point of view of his fellow Flatlanders, he has unaccountably disappeared from a closed room and then distressingly materialised from nowhere. 

"For heavens sake", they say, "What happened to you?" 

"I think", he finds himself replying, "I was UP'". 

They pat him on his sides and comfort him. Delusions always ran in his family.

- Carl Sagan

Udaar charitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam

"Winning sides, for reasons which remain somewhat obscure, are represented as the sides of virtue."

- Hegel

-

"Each person thinks of his own little self interest and so lets the system he lives in, go from bad to worse. Anyone who, by way of exception, fights against the destructive forces in a system is considered a renegade. A renegade is then a true human being looking for the welfare of human society as a whole."

- MK Gandhi

-

“Ayam bandhurayam neti ganana laghuchetasam, udaar charitanam tu vasudhaiv kutumbakam."

- Maha Upanishad

-

"No one can be a thinker who does not recognise, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think."

- John Stuart Mill

Let's put on a show!!

A group of rich men come together and hold a ceremony to applaud the honesty of a poor man. They give him some time on the media, a certificate of appreciation, and a pat on his back; then send him on his way. The poor man walks back to his shanty and lives in squalor. The rich men go back to their twisted castles of skulduggery. And its business as usual.

A ridiculous tale of the legionnaire and the pauper

A young boy of 15 fails his class 10th board exam. His father helps get him a false mark-sheet and moves him to a little known school in a different city to complete the remaining 2 years of his school education. The boy barely scrapes through his class 12th exam. In fact, he manages to get through only because his father, being a man of relevant importance in the region, leverages his connections and gets invigilators and teachers to help his son with the exam.

The father, finding that his ward is ill equipped to handle just about all the entrance tests Indians need to take to pursue their higher education, again leverages his connections and swings of an admission for his son in the prestigious 'The Legionnaires', a highly reputed Hotel Management programme in India; even when his son does not measure up to the standards required for admission.

The son barely scrapes through his years at The Legionnaires, and is constantly helped by the dean and a few board members of the institute, with whom his father is very well acquainted. On completion of his studies, the boy is placed at a reputed property in Mumbai, well ahead of much brighter students. He goofs around, flounders quite a bit; but the powers that be always come to his rescue.

After a few years, the boy, who is now a young man, is helped by his father and his acquaintances, to receive an extraordinary rating, so that he can move back home as an instructor at The Legionnaires. Thereafter, his father pulls strings in his well connected network to get him a prized post as a Manager at the ITC Bukhara. This move is orchestrated not only with the view of moving the young man up the ladder, but also to keep him in the same city as his parents.

The young man is married off to an old flame, and as a manager at one of the best hotels in India, earns a salary that is disproportionate to his ability and effort.

...all this while a young man from rural India, who is superior in all aspects to the protagonist of this story, has been hard done by the dishonesty of the Indian middle and upper class, all because his father didn't have any connections to leverage.

~

This story keeps repeating itself in India. How is this fair? Where is the justice in any of this? In a utopian society, there is no injustice. But, in a just society in the real world, a man who has the requisite ability is more often than not, rewarded. Not so in India.

~ 

When one finds people like the young man and his father, in the essay above, speak out with passion against corruption, while claiming to be honest men themselves, one realizes the futility of it all.

And thus ends the tale of the legionnaire and the pauper.

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

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Evolution of our planet on your watch

University of Wisconsin-Madison

http://geoscience.wisc.edu

• Dinosaurs - 43 minutes
• Humans - 1 minute 17 seconds

...and we think we're the cat's whiskers :)

The Ditch

"The moment you get used to the stink of the ditch that you're in, you'll fail to notice all its problems, and the consequent opportunities needed to rectify it. This leads to a sense of complacency and a 'chalta hai' attitude. All improvements and innovations brought about while in the ditch will therefore do nothing but exacerbate the original set of problems, as each of these will be bound by the existing environment of the ditch."

Chor Sipahi (Cops n' Robbers) (redux): corruption in India

While a Firefighter's job is amongst the noblest and bravest in the world; in India, firemen are looked down upon as third class citizens, and are paid a pittance. Now consider the predicament of an honest fireman who puts in his entire salary to give his children the best education he can, when his son comes bawling to him because he just saw his friend playing on his latest playstation. To make matters worse, his daughter sulks that her friends have better clothes to wear, and his wife nags him about the latest iPhone that her friends tweet with. She then calls him a 'loser' - she should've married the chap down the street, the one who makes a hundred times more money than her husband, not this god forsaken fool of a man. "Look at everyone around us," she says, "They're all doing so well. Get a job with a good pay package for Pete's sake!"

The next day, the fireman notices an acquaintance whizzing past in a Mercedes Benz. “How did he manage that?” he wonders. “I work just as hard as everyone else, save people’s lives and perhaps even have an IQ comparable to my acquaintance. Then why is it that I am not able to provide my family the best there is to offer. And why shouldn't it be me who is driving that Mercedes Benz?” he thinks to himself.

That evening, he meets up with his friend. Over a drink, his friend laughs himself silly because he thinks the fireman is a fool. Sneeringly, he mocks the fireman, "making money has nothing to do with the job you have," he says, "you need to be street-smart to make money, not a bumbling idiot with a false sense of honor and pride!" Then he explains to the fireman how he can beat the system and make extra cash. "Wizen up ol' chap," he says; "otherwise you may as well go sit on top of a mountain in the Himalayas," he adds.

Sitting alone in his study, reflecting on the events of the past few days, the Firefighter asks himself, “Would it be wrong for me to find ways and means to make more money, even if law doesn't allow me the right to pursue a job parallel to the career I already have, so that my family and I can live the good life?” His heart says “yes, it would be wrong”. But with all the pressure that surrounds him, his head cries out a clear and resounding “No! It’s not wrong to have the best that life has to offer! I may be too old to change my profession, but I certainly will wizen up to the methods of working the system!”

This then is the birth of a corrupt Firefighter. To see what makes a corrupt Policeman, just replace the Firefighter in the story with a man from the Police services.

~

I don’t have family in these services, and I have no vested interest in standing up for them. I have been at the receiving end of errant cops just like anyone else may have, but I narrate this story, with a policeman as its protagonist, to people who point an accusing finger at the corruption that seems to be so rampant within our primary law enforcement agency, to help reason out why this group is as corrupt as it is. The first set of reactions that I often get to this story is that it was wrong on the part of the policeman to bend his principles because he is an individual who is responsible for maintaining the law and order of society; and if a policeman is morally pliant, he will never be able to police us. Therefore, the man’s corruption has a far superior affect on us than any other group’s incongruities. The second set of reactions are, that if the cop really wanted to make more money, he should have studied harder, joined the corporate bandwagon, worked his ass off and made the millions that he now envies. The final set of reactions that I receive to this story is that the problem lies with the government’s inability to pay policemen adequately.

The first set of reactions, as I have pointed out on many occasions, is a classic case of external attribution and shifting standards. To this, I ask: how are we to believe that a policeman, just because he is responsible for maintaining the law and order of society, would be more compliant to morals and ethics than the society that has engendered him?

To the second set of reactions that state, “the cop should have studied harder, joined the corporate world and made money. I did. It’s all about how hard you’re willing to work,” I ask two questions. One: if everyone were to study harder and become a corporate honcho or a businessman, who will police us? And Two: If your proclivity to study harder is what you say has made you a corporate top cat, and the cop’s dislike or lack of seriousness for education on the other hand, is what influenced him to take up a career in the police; doesn’t that smack of casteism (or racism)? Isn’t that akin to segregating your fellow citizens into ‘like us’ and ‘unlike us’ moulds?

To the third set of reactions, that the problem lies with the government’s inability to pay policemen adequately, I ask: why should the Government invest in the pay scales of policemen, firefighters et al, if these are not the priorities of a country's citizens? How must the Government justify expenditure, which it constantly ought to, on a corpus for policemen and firefighters, if the general public cares two hoots for the welfare of these groups?

~

There seem to me two solutions to the problem. The first is a mass introspection by society of its values – terminal and instrumental; and the second is raising the remuneration of policemen, firemen, teachers,* and all the building blocks of society, to a level which is comparable to that of the fattest corporate big wigs. But this will also require a realigning of social values – for the logic currently in vogue is that a businessman adds greater value to society, and the return on investment is directly proportional to the value he adds. However, if we were to challenge our social values, wouldn’t logic lead us to believe that policemen and firemen add, or are at least supposed to add, equal, if not more value to society than a businessman or corporate honcho? The difference in values being added is that a corporate fat cat adds monetary value and creates jobs which help people make livelihoods, whereas a policeman adds positive psychological values that creates an environment which enables everyone, including the corporate lot, to pursue their livelihood and attain monetary benefits for themselves. They also help, or are supposed to help, maintain society’s physiological well being by removing incongruities that have crept into the social fabric with the intention of wreaking havoc on it.

Social debate on who adds greater value to society is needed. Any conclusion arrived at, whether in favour of businessmen or policemen, or both, or none, should be upheld by law and citizens alike. After all, in a democracy, power must lie in the common judgement of a country’s citizens. Judgement of the majority may not always be correct, as illustrated in Shakespeare’s play ‘Julius Caesar’, where the crowd swayed by emotion first hails Brutus as the next Caesar and then does a volte face and asks for his head. But it is Vox Populi nevertheless. And victory or defeat of a country’s moral fabric lies in the hands of the majority; not the individual – who, as the study of group dynamics suggests, looks only for self and kin preservation.

~

*(it is inadequate teaching in schools after all, that allows the same teachers to make money by giving tuitions to their students after class)

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

The Youth versus The Firefighter

Hi, i’m like... an Indian Youth. Like, the other day, i came across a fire fighter... whoever that is supposed to be. Like i care. Anyways, like this dude was weird man. I made a wonderful suggestion to him and like, he asked all these kinda like weird questions. Here’s a... umm... transcript of our ding a ling:-

Me: Hey dude, here’s a thought, let’s each one of us, like 1 billion people of India, become corporate honchos, and like start living in the posh-est neighbourhoods of our metropolitan cities, travelling in like our very own air conditioned cars from like our air conditioned houses to like our air conditioned offices, visiting like air conditioned malls on weekends, flaunting like our behinds to god only knows who, and like then get back to our air conditioned houses, where like a personal servant, whoever he may be – coz like he certainly can’t be an Indian - will like salute us and say “salaam saab” about a dozen times a day. Wow... like what fun that’ll be!

Fire Fighter Dude: Great idea! But wait... if all 1 billion of us become corporate bigwigs, who will grow food to feed us, who is going to police us, clean our dirty streets or even fight fires that break out in our homes and offices?

Me: Are you like serious!? Yuck... those lowly, menial jobs are like best reserved for... uh... umm... like don’t make me think so much man!! Like the government i guess, whoever or whatever that may be – coz it certainly ain’t us – like ought to take care of it. If they don’t, we’ll like... ask folks from other countries to grow food for us, clean our streets and shit and stuff, and fight fires too; and like they will be obliged to work for us, coz’ like we’ll have all the “muny” honey... savvy? And like if all else fails, we’ll pray real hard, and like criticise ‘God only knows who’ for the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into and like everything will get better! :)

Fire Fighter Dude: But, will our metros be able to bear the burden of millions upon millions flocking to it just to live in that ‘house up on Malabar hill’?

Me: Like don’t be foolish, man! We’ll like create every village and every square inch of our country in our own... like unique image... into like identical concrete cosmopolitan mega-polis’... with like artificially laid out turf, like each with its own exclusive ‘paan stain art’ covering its entirety and like plastic rose bushes covered in like nosey and all that kinda stuff. Like how cool will that be :) ?

Fire Fighter Dude: And... who is going to police us?

Me: Duh...! Like who needs policing man...? Certainly not me :)

~

Like I mean, seriously... after this, like highly stimulating intellectual debate was over... and like that fire dude had left, i couldn’t help wondering how people like him are like ‘even allowed’ to ask these kinda like weird questions?

Kitna deti hai?

• So, you've traveled to Europe, have you? Well, how have you leveraged that experience?
• So, you like reading poetry? How have you used that to your benefit?
• So, you like cars? How have you used that to your advantage?
• You like cats? So, how have you used that to get ahead in life?
• You love music, eh? So how have you used that to out-compete your peers? 
• You read the National Geographic magazine? Wow. But, how do you intend to use it to your advantage?
• So, you studied at Doon School? I bet you've used the good 'ol old boys network to your benefit, eh? ;)

Fascinating. In India, everything you like, everything you do, your associations, even your travel plans and who you marry are all looked at as a source of competitive advantage. You can never do something just because you love doing it. Of course, you must say you love it, but if it doesn't help you out compete others, it's not worth the time and effort. In fact, you're expected to announce to the entire world, your likes, dislikes, travel plans, associations, relationships... everything... including where you've traveled, who you know, what you read, what you eat, what you wear, what mobile phone you carry, the brand of your underwear, and club memberships too.

In India, it's not enough just keeping up with the Guptas, you see; you've got to out do them. And people who refuse to play the game, are persona non grata.

In the never ending quest to outdo each other, all we end up doing is digging ourselves deeper into a mud pit.

The good 'ol oldies