Distant Reflections

On wearing blinkers

2012-02-10T18:47:00.000+05:30

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

2012-02-10T16:07:00.000+05:30

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Now that he has withdrawn his petition from the Supreme Court, with his lawyer saying that his honour and integrity have been restored, which is a preposterous claim in any case, i'd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 would 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 not have any knowledge of this or of 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 in 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 in 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 in all records, 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.

Porn in the Legislative Assembly

2012-02-10T09:48:00.003+05:30

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 ago:

Are successful people nice?

2012-02-10T08:30:00.000+05:30

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

SinceDaniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence, we've recognized the importance oftuning into social and emotional factors in the workplace. But many populardepictions of the workplace don't show any evidence of that sensitivity. MadMen, Wall Street, and others impress that in business, only the strong survive.

Butemotional intelligence implies that successful leaders should be nice. Andwhile being nice may have social benefits, does it pay?

The keyis in how agreeable you are. Timothy Judge, Beth Livingston, and Charlice Hurstexamined this trait in a paper in the Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology this year. By way of background, conventional personality researchdefines agreeableness as two related qualities:

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

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

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

There isa stereotype that when men lead, they make decisions without concern for whatother people think. Indeed, a final study in this same paper asked people toevaluate potential leadership candidates. Agreeable men were rated leastattractive as potential leaders.

And asfor nice guys (and to a lesser extent, nice women) finishing last, let's recallthe two related qualities of agreeableness. Concerning a value for gettingalong, career advancement requires a willingness to ruffle feathers from timeto time. Good leaders need to be able to tell people things that they do notwant to hear. And honestly, putting yourself forward for a promotion meansputting yourself before others.

Careersuccess also involves being critical. While some managers may want to surroundthemselves with people who obediently agree, most want those who will find theflaws in a plan before it is implemented. Less agreeable people are prone togive this kind of criticism.

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

Chief Ethics Officer, Ombudsman & Chief Change Agent

2012-02-09T17:17:00.000+05:30

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

2012-02-08T13:14:00.000+05:30

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 at reducing discrimination on the basis of caste, religion and gender over the years; 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 line 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 was 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 job 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:

start a home based business; or
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 one after the other. 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 the fields of higher education that you can think up of.

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 in India), 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, the argument that educational institutions put forward is, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks;" the 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?

2012-02-08T10:07:00.000+05:30

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

2012-02-07T17:47:00.001+05:30

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

2012-02-07T17:38:00.000+05:30

"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!!

2012-02-04T15:04:00.000+05:30

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

2012-02-04T12:40:00.001+05:30

A young boy of 15 fails his class 10th board exam. His father helps get him a false mark-sheet and moves him into 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 prize 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

2012-02-03T23:21:00.000+05:30

University of Wisconsin-Madison

http://geoscience.wisc.edu

Dinosaurs - 43 minutes
Humans - 1 minute 17 seconds

...and we think we're the cats whisker's :)

The Ditch

2012-02-03T13:05:00.000+05:30

"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 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

2012-02-02T13:18:00.001+05:30

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?

2012-02-02T09:04:00.001+05:30

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

2012-02-01T15:36:00.002+05:30

Desmond Tutu: On Inequality in India

2012-01-31T20:16:00.003+05:30

Mr. Narayana Murthy : the youth now idolize the corrupt

2012-01-30T13:31:00.001+05:30

Mr. Narayana Murthy, Co-founder & Chairman Emeritus of Infosys, perhaps one of the most honest human beings you'll ever come across, had recently said (article link below):

"The number of role-models that our youngsters can look up to is decreasing. How many people in our public life can you be proud of for honesty, courage, commitment and hardwork? And that number is dwindling."

“Our youngsters don’t have role-models to look up to and therefore and sadly because of corruption, some of the people who are doing exactly the opposite, dishonest, deceit, ‘chalta hai’ and all of that... they are becoming more and more powerful, they are becoming wealthier. Therefore, our youngsters are getting the wrong signals. They think may be this is the way to succeed...”

First, I would like to applaud Mr. Murthy for standing up and speaking the truth. Although, what on earth has Jay Sobti been saying all these years?! Of course, it's true that i'm a nobody; while Mr. Murthy is a man of repute; so my opinion counts for nothing in the new India. Nevertheless, hats off to Mr. Murthy; he is a man of integrity and deserves to be heard. Rather an honest man speaking the truth, than a dishonest man playing to the galleries, i'd say. And i'm far from being as honest as day myself.

But, where Mr. Murthy has gone wrong once again is that he has pointed his finger at people in public life, while turning a blind eye on the rampant but debonair & sophisticated corruption in the private sector of our country - the IT industry included. I wish he had the courage of his conviction to stand up and point a finger at his peers, knowing fully well their transgressions.

Mr. Murthy, politicians in India, barring a few in the distant past, have almost never been role models of our youth; and barring John F. Kennedy, in the United States, they usually are hard to come by just about anywhere on the planet. Our role models have been bollywood actors, sports and businessmen. That's who our youth emulate; and that's the bunch that argues against corruption on the one hand, while being intellectually dishonest on the other.

You're right that our youngsters are aping "people who are doing exactly the opposite, (being) dishonest, deceit(ful), (with a) 'chalta hai’ (attitude) and all of that... (because) they are becoming more and more powerful, they are becoming wealthier." Who those people are though, is what you're being selective about.

How is Infosys going to change this Mr. Murthy? Yes, i have met Infosys employees; so don't tell me they're different. All you need to do is pull off their facade, and you get to see them for what they truly are. But, unlike you, i don't say, "I don't blame them," because i hold them equally responsible for the negative state of affairs in our country.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP/2012/01/30&PageLabel=10&EntityId=Ar01001&ViewMode=HTML

Addendum to 'Rushdie, the Satanic Verses, and the Jaipur Literary Fest'

2012-01-29T21:38:00.003+05:30

It seems that i had misinterpreted the ban on Rushdie's book - The Satanic Verses. I have learned that it is only the book's import that has been banned in India, and not its publication. If that is true, then it was definitely the duty of the Indian State, via the Rajasthan Police' assistance, to protect Rushdie during the intended term of his visit, if they had credible intelligence that his life was under threat.

This, however, does not change the fact that for a society to sustain itself, rights afforded to its members can never be absolute, whether the social structure in question is as small as a family, as profitable as an organization, or as necessary as a country.

I look at rights as variables that lie on an 'absolute rights - no rights' continuum; the direction and placement of these variables on the continuum is debatable. But what is quite certain to me is that for the variables to lie on either extreme of the continuum, is infeasible, unsustainable, and contrary to the idea of society.

Rushdie, the Satanic Verses, and the Jaipur Literary Fest

Introversion, the big five theory, groupwork & creativity

2012-01-29T02:15:00.002+05:30

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-power-of-introverts

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/27/mind-reading-qa-with-susan-cain-on-the-power-of-introverts/

...worth a read. Sheena Iyengar, acknowledged as one of the top thinkers in the world today, agrees.

Outsourced

2012-01-27T15:06:00.001+05:30

How on earth did i ever manage to miss the movie 'Outsourced' all these years?! Anyway, the writers certainly got the story bang on!

Half way through the movie, Todd says, "Asha can do anything." Holy Mackerel, i remember saying, "P***m can do anything," and the girl got hooked onto me. Holy Cow!! I see it now!!

The only place Jeffcoat and Wing, the writers of 'Outsourced', make a little boo-boo is when they let the end hang in limbo. Had they carried on with the plot a little longer, the girl would have swindled Todd all the way from India to Seattle.

The 'holiday in Goa' bit is as true as the euphemism goes; the only difference is that a whole lot of it happens after marriage, too!! And it's very difficult to wrap your head around it, considering that most of the guys and girls at "BPOs" often come from pretty extreme to moderate, traditional and orthodox backgrounds. I bet my bottom rupee that it's the sudden freedom, and dough in their pockets, that gets to them.

Well, as they say, "hindsight is always 20/20."

A thousand curses to my folks for bringing me up the way they did.

The Wonder Years

2012-01-26T20:54:00.002+05:30

The Wonder Years is back on the tube in India after 17 years. Woo Hoo !! :)

Obama, Outsourcing & the reversal of Globalization

2012-01-25T17:27:00.000+05:30

Last year, i had written on this blog, how the next 10 years would see a reversal of the globalization trend. In a speech yesterday, President Obama has made it very clear that he's looking at stemming outsourcing to bring back jobs to American shores. Comparative Advantage be damned; this is the future, come democrats or republicans. This move, will unfold slowly; but will influence every economy on the planet, leading them to look inwards for growth.

Urbanization in India: The Youth versus The Firefighter (revisited)

2012-01-25T11:29:00.001+05:30

Who in their right mind wouldn't want infrastructure and development to improve the standard of living of their country's citizens? Everyone wants it. The question then is not the importance of infrastructure and development; the question is WHAT KIND OF infrastructure and development is feasible, and therefore required to sustain the future of a country? If, in a country like India - with vast swathes of poverty, we would like to lift our entire population from their impoverishment to give to them a lifestyle of the kind that Western Europe and America have enjoyed over the past century, then why not?

Nevertheless, any sane and rational human being, who has intelligence - even of the average kind, if inclined, can figure out that to lift huge masses out of poverty and to give to them the levels of lifestyle of the west, would place unimaginable stress on the earth's resources, especially if the development that is sought follows the same trend as we have witnessed over the past fifty years.

India is not the only country in the world that seeks to improve the lifestyle of its people. China, the CIVETS, Brazil, and Africa in particular, seek the same kind of development. On a short term horizon, it is possible and workable. In the long run though, it is completely unsustainable and will turn into a competitive disadvantage for us in our never ending contest with our planet. This is not only because of supply side problems that are sure to crop up, but also because of the negative and irreversible externalities that the present form of development will bear down on us.

Urbanization faces similar issues; and it is not feasible on a large scale, especially with a population as large as India's. China had the first movers advantage, and they utilized it to the fullest; and yet China is beginning to face massive problems, both with their natural resources and environment, which will only multiply exponentially in the future. If they follow their current trajectory of growth and urbanization, they will not be able to cater to the needs of their masses in the long run. A quick study of the dwindling natural resources and the terrible environmental & ecological problems that the middle kingdom faces, will substantiate this fact.

An alternate model for development, based on a fresh set of values and priorities needs to be devised and implemented; and rather quickly. India, instead of aping the west (of which i am quite culpable myself), needs to rethink and reposition its growth story, instead of straddling two entirely diverse strategies, one for urban India, and the other for its lesser acknowledged, larger second cousin - rural India. Straddling spells disaster. India must learn to differentiate itself from the west, and build on its original set of competencies; not on short term advantages that we leverage today.

The trouble with India... urban India to be precise... is that it suffers from what Donald Sull, professor at the London School of Business, would call - Active Inertia. We desperately need to pull off our blinders, challenge our current set of assumptions and values, redefine how we are going about our business, and reconfigure our long term goals.

~

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 :)

Rushdie, the Satanic Verses, and the Jaipur Literary Fest

2012-01-23T23:42:00.002+05:30

Self proclaimed nouveau liberals from urban India have stretched the argument of fundamental rights a little too far by justifying whatever they do on the rights enshrined in the Indian constitution. Rights, as i have always maintained, are subject to duties, which must be fulfilled by the citizens of a country. Moreover, all rights enshrined in our constitution have caveats and limits attached to them; and these must be respected.

Complete and unfettered freedom to do whatever a man wants, defeats the very purpose of society and the concept of nationhood. To live in society means the abrogation of some freedoms to guard against mans baser instincts. A question that these nouveau liberals from urban India need to ask themselves is whether they want to be a part of society or not; and how far are they willing to stretch the argument of fundamental rights without exercising the limits set out in the constitution?

In fact, our pseudo-liberals at the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) have handled the Rushdie episode in an utterly imbecilic manner. I expected nothing better from them to start with, so i'm not surprised at all; and the direction of their displeasure is completely off the mark. In the event that they felt that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted the Constitution and the Indian penal code, they should have, instead of misdirecting their angst towards aggrieved constituencies, have taken on the apex court of our land for upholding the ban on the Satanic Verses in the first place. The next step could have been lobbying for change in the Constitution and the Indian penal code, both with the citizens of our country, as well as with our lawmakers.

I am proud of the Indian Constitution and believe in it; and unless the Supreme Court of India passes a judgement to the contrary, i support the minorities who are well within their rights to ask that the book, or its passages not be read within our country. In doing so, they are doing nothing more that echoing the apex court's verdict. Having said this, i do believe that Rushdie has a right to travel to India, even if his book has been banned; and it is wrong to threaten him with his life since it is only his book that has been banned from our country, and not him. In fact, threatening someone's life is as boneheaded as the bunch of pseudo-liberal morons at the JLF.

With the Supreme Court being so proactive these days, perhaps it would have been prudent for them to have stepped into the fracas to set a precedent by allowing Rushdie a safe passage to India, with a written assurance from him that any reference to the Satanic Verses or any kind of rabble rousing, while at the JLF, would be construed as a punishable offence, leading to a jail sentence. This way, Rushdie could have visited the JLF, and the sentiments of the minorities could have been appeased to a reasonable extent.

As far as urban India's pseudo-liberals are concerned, they need to do some really serious and hard thinking on the essence of society and nationhood. Breaking free from boundaries and believing in a One World is a wonderful ideal, which may yet come true. However, even within this boundaryless One-World, for human beings to live together amicably in society, rights cannot be absolute; they will be bound by duties, caveats and limits. And citizens will be required to follow them to keep the fabric of a global society intact. Complete freedom, as i have written on many occasions, is available only in the jungle. The choice is ours.

January 29, 2012

Undercover Boss

2012-01-17T23:07:00.002+05:30

I've been following this program on BBC Entertainment for quite some time now. Call me tasteless, but i love it.

PISA - 2: Indian students rank 2nd last in global test

2012-01-15T14:28:00.000+05:30

India has been ranked second last in the Program for International Student Assessment.

I had written about the poor aptitude of Indian students on November the 2nd, 2011, on this blog:

"It will be interesting to see where Indians figure on the Program for International Student Assessment list when it is released again next year. I've got a hunch that Narayana Murthy just may have had a valid point about higher education in India. After all, it's all about rote and less about rationale thinking. Ask us to quote management theory, mathematical theorems, recall current affairs, or whose monkey crept up whose tree, and we can rattle the living daylights out of you; but ask us to logically construct an argument without superfluous jargon, or to think outside the box by actually stepping outside of it, and we're found daftly wanting. But since low costs and demographics allow us the opportunity to leverage free market, comparative advantage economics to OUR advantage... who's complaining."

Now although i had said i had a hunch, i was trying to be as diplomatic as i could. But, let's put students aside for a while, and take a peek at the trash in the corporate world and the Indian workforce. It's all a facade with props galore - bollywood style. Remove the facade, take away the props, and what do you get? The hollowest, substanceless, dimwits on the planet.

India faces a huge problem in the long run. The first step in rectifying the problem is to identify it correctly, and acknowledge it. The trouble is that we continue pointing our fingers at the wrong issues. It's time that the Indian upper and middle classes stepped down from their self inflated pedestals, to take a long hard look at their own selves, their attitudes, and their value system.

Further Reading:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Indian-students-rank-2nd-last-in-global-test/articleshow/11492508.cms

http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/20010028/India-fares-poorly-in-global-l.html

http://jaideepsobti.blogspot.com/2011/11/gurcharan-das-education-and.html

The value of teachers and education in India

2012-01-10T12:27:00.001+05:30

With due respect to Mr. Narayana Murthy, for whom i have a lot of respect, the value of educators in India hasn't dropped just because a minister or a joint secretary has stopped receiving directors and vice chancellors of institutes and universities when they visit. The value of educators has seen a steep decline in India because of skewed Indian middle and upper class social values. Take for example teachers imparting education in schools; starting from the 1950s, when a parent would give the utmost respect to a teacher; today parents literally tell teachers to go climb a tree. In fact, if a teacher tells on a ward, the parents or guardians will be up in arms and ask for the teacher's resignation.

The primary reason for this degradation has been that a parent looks at a teacher and thinks, 'i earn more than her, therefore i am more intelligent. and if i am more intelligent than my child's teacher, who is she to tell me or my child what to do ??!!'

Teachers, as far as the Indian middle and upper class' are concerned, have no status. Therefore, until society starts valuing teachers and educators again, no democratic government can effect a change (other than getting an Amir Khan, or any other bollywood actor you'd like to choose, to advertise for them, a la 'athithi devo bhava', which in itself hasn't had the required effect).

The hands off model of the government when it comes to education is a failed approach. The United States of America has tried it, thinking that American higher education would constantly mould its curriculum to the needs of industry, and yet you have the Americans lamenting that all their jobs are being taken away by Asians, all because the American society has itself started valuing the arts more than the sciences. That over the past couple of decades the American society has valued the Arts more than the sciences, is actually a good thing, and is a step up in human enlightenment. But that is a different subject altogether.

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

Further Reading: Education and Inequalities of Income in India

India: of the middle class, by the middle class, for the middle class

2012-01-10T08:59:00.002+05:30

An excerpt from an interview with Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Economics at Harvard University, in The Times of India, January 10, 2012:

Amartya Sen: Economic success depends on so many things; the business climate, business community. In fact, the success of East Asia — South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore to start with and later China — was much more concerned with a combination of two factors: To have a broad basis for human capability expansion in the sense of basic education being widely available, basic healthcare being well looked after and combined with using the market economy with governmental supplementation. I think that combination worked very well. Subtleties of economics were not very involved in that. It was a fairly gross story. India initially missed the gross story.

First, when it missed the story in terms of not making adequate use of the market economy. But when liberalization came and they withdrew some of the licence raj controls they didn’t take the second part of the East Asian experience.

I don’t judge the performance of the Indian economy by growth alone. I’m still disturbed by the fact that India has the highest ratio of undernourished people in the world and so on. That’s why we have to take the broader view.

Bangladesh has overtaken India in longevity, infant mortality, immunization rate, female literacy.

Times of India: Why is this happening?

Amartya Sen: I don’t think there’s enough clarity on economics here. The policy is still oriented towards economic growth. That’s what the government wants and in a democracy, it’s a political factor. The articulate group in India is not the 1% as in the United States according to the caricature of the Occupy Wall Street movement. But it’s a broader category of about 20% who are doing pretty well, and they are perfectly happy.*

Times of India: The government is catering to this 20% alone?

Amartya Sen: They have to. This is a democracy. The 20% are sufficiently vocal and sufficiently influential in Indian politics that they carry the votes with them.

Times of India: But they don’t necessarily vote. So wouldn’t the political class be interested in the remaining 80%?

Amartya Sen: The 20% do vote. I am not a psephologist but I follow the Indian elections. What’s discussed in the papers and increasingly in the electronic media as well — which is big in India now — influences people’s votes. If you are not constantly discussing the horse race of India catching up with China and surpassing it and discussing India being below Africa in terms of undernourishment, below Bangladesh in all the social criteria and our position in the world being worsened rather than advanced in a period of high growth rate, then I think the vulnerability of the political-economic strategy of catering primarily to growth and not to human capability expansion would get much more attention. And, the fact is, human capability expansion is also very critical for economic growth.

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

* Notes:

20% of India's population = 240 million.
The remaining 80% = 960 million; which is a little over 3 Americas, 1.3 Europes, 2.4 South Americas, 33 Australias, or 106 Somalias in terms of population.
The middle & upper class in India is estimated to be between 160 & 240million, or between 13 and 20%.
Imagine if the marginalized 960 million, give or take 10%, were to come out in revolt against the middle and upper class' apathy. Does it seem far fetched? Only time, and resource scarcity, will tell.

Ref: http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP/2012/01/10&PageLabel=18&EntityId=Ar01800&ViewMode=HTML

Anna Hazare has taught us the value of a vote

2012-01-08T10:36:00.002+05:30

A young man and a young woman, both in their mid 20s, say that Anna Hazare has taught them the value of a vote. Well, what did their parents teach them while they were growing up? The value of a note? That at the end of the day, what is more important than everything else in this world, is money?

So much for Indian middle class values. Anna Hazare is a fad. And fads by nature last a season or two. The Anna season may extend a couple of years, and then "poof", a new fad will show up on the horizon.

Nevertheless, what all this 'India against corruption' hullabaloo has really done, is that it has made people aware of a word called - 'Corruption'; it's meaning though, will be selectively perceived by the Indian middle class. Two things will come out of this:
1. People will paint themselves 'holier than thou' in the public realm; while continuing to find new loopholes in any system that they encounter to leverage it for their own benefit by improper means, and
2. The honest will call the corrupt, corrupt; the corrupt will call the honest corrupt as well; and a lot of decent people will be made scapegoats in the bargain.

As for the young kids in the example above, their attention span is as long as a puppy's. I don't blame them. With the speed at which new products hit the markets these days and the consequent speed with which we change our possessions, who has time to stick to principles; or to stick to that which does not help in the pursuit of making money for ones own self. After all, don't we all use the word value(s) to quantify money, more than we use it for anything else?

It is, and will increasingly become, one big Youthful Charade. Coca Cola, as they've always done throughout their history, will leverage it to their benefit. I wonder if they'll commission an artist to paint Hazare's topi their own unique red. Poor St. Nicholas.

Happy New Year

2011-12-31T13:44:00.002+05:30

Indian youth icons

2011-12-30T23:03:00.001+05:30

Corruption in India (redux)

2011-12-29T17:37:00.000+05:30

Here's an article i had written on November 10, 2010:

The Merriam Webster defines corruption as:-
a). impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle;
b). decay, decomposition;
c). inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means;
d). departure from the original or from what is pure or correct.

I keep hearing people in India react feverishly to the subject of corruption all the time... but I still don't get it!

Why are we so quick on the draw to blame someone else for corruption but not our own selves? Why do we find it easy to blame the system for corruption but never our own actions? People argue that rot percolates downwards from the top. My contention is that if the roots are infected, the entire tree gets diseased; or if the foundation is weak, the entire structure starts developing cracks over time.

The leaning tower of Pisa does not lean because the top of the tower is askew; it leans because the weak foundation affords the building its tilt. And as the foundation weakens with time, gravity pulls it further south.

Now let's suppose that only the top floor of the leaning tower of Pisa had been incorrectly placed on the structure to give it its inclination. The job of engineers and architects would then be easy - topple the CHIEF and reconstruct the CROWN. But all that engineers can now do is arrest the slide and leave the structure with a permanent tilt; unless of course, the Italians are willing to have the tower uprooted and reconstructed (however much a loss of revenue the economy may suffer from the decline in the number of tourists flocking to the structure, staring away at it in awe - as if the tower had of its own accord decided to sway).

Politicians, the Judiciary, law enforcement agencies, the fourth estate and, a country's defence establishment are the top of a nation's structure. They do not define the citizen; the citizen defines them. The pillars of our democracy were not forced onto us by some alien civilization eager to destroy us; they are us, we the people of India. The homeowner who fiddles around with his electricity meter to save a few extra bucks; the driver on his scooter, motorcycle, car, auto richshaw, truck or bus, who drives up a one way street, not because he wants to use the money saved on petrol productively on things like his family's health, the neighbourhood's cleanliness or community welfare, but on a new pair of Ray Band San Gelasses to look Kool; the doodh wala (milkman) who adulterates his milk to make a quick buck; MNC employees who almost consistently walk away with company stationery, and not because they need it; the LPG store manager who makes life miserable for people because his wealth is directly proportional to the amount of discomfort he can cause a registered consumer; the shopkeeper who refuses to get rid of goods on his shelves that have passed their expiry date, hides the fact and then argues with the customer when he is found to be cheating because as far as he is concerned, the people who place expiry dates on packages are a bunch of fools who don't know popcrain from ass-cream; these are the people who criticize everyone but themselves for corruption. But it is these same people who had first made up and continue to populate our bureaucracies and all the pillars of the state we are so adept at labeling as corrupt. These people, just like our politicians and bureaucrats, are not from an alien planet called Zoltrag. They are us - we the people who make up our country. The bad news for us is that, contrary to popular belief, corruption hasn't taken root in our country now; the filth has accumulated over millennia.

So will knocking off the top floor of our country help set things in order? Well, for a short time all will be hunky dory; and then corruption will rear its head again with a vengeance. The alternate solution is a mass surgical removal of the corrupt through the length and breadth of our country. But corruption is so deeply entrenched and widespread that no one will be able to repair the damage with finality; and if a figure like Indira Gandhi were to rise again and utilize extreme methodologies to cure the ill, not only will the corrupt revolt en masse (think: millions), but democracy will be snuffed out of our lives.

Fortunately, human societies and communities are not like the leaning tower of Pisa. Therefore, a country's citizens don't have to be uprooted and replaced with a new lot. Even more fortunate for us is the fact that the human brain, although hard wired to succeed at all times, has a tiny cubbyhole tucked away somewhere within its deep recesses - an alcove called the conscience. And although seemingly difficult, our only hope is that each citizen or the majority thereof, introspects and acknowledges their own impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle, decay, decomposition, inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means and departure from the original or from what is pure or correct as the foundation of the corruption that we so feverishly dislike.

The absence of total corruption is a Utopian ideal. Nevertheless, the degree of corruption dictates the greatness, or the littleness, of a country. Economic success is temporary, the character of a nation however, is permanent. Hopefully, better sense will prevail and India will stop relying on cosmetic surgery and mud slinging, and start looking below the surface for a lasting solution.

Anna Hazare, Democracy, Rajguru, Mahatma Gandhi, Corruption, Sonia Gandhi

2011-12-26T17:12:00.000+05:30

Would you consider the United States of America*, a Democracy; a Loktantra as we would call it in India? Of course, you would. Now, even though a section of America does not see eye to eye with its President, a bill is still passed by way of a majority of votes within the Senate.

If the citizens of a democracy are not satisfied with a bill that has been passed, they have the right and a duty to approach the elected representative of their constituency, and explain to her why they would like it amended or repealed. The elected representative in turn, if convinced, rallies support in a House of Representatives to effect a change.

The government of a land would never be able to do its job in an efficient and an effective manner if a section of society, and a small one at that, keeps demanding that the government work only as it wants.

A bill, is still passed in America, even if a hundred million, or one-third of Americans are opposed to it, if it has a majority of votes in the Senate; a senate which would be doing its duty by upholding the voice of the remaining two-thirds of the country's population.

Even if Anna Hazare musters up support of, say 50 million citizens, in favour of his version of the Lokpal Bill, the Government's job is to ultimately side with the wishes, expressed via Parliament, of the remaining 1 billion 150 million citizens of India. Each of these 1 billion plus, along with the 50 million that support Anna Hazare, have a point of view on the bill, and the Government must form consensus on it with as large a majority as possible, even if it leaves a small section disappointed.

For Hazare and his team to insist on their version, supported by 50 million people (or even 200 million), and understood by only a few hundred, is ridiculous.

* in the context of this essay, you can replace America with any Democracy on the planet you want; the message will be the same.

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

Gandhi would never have subscribed to the idea of sitting outside someone's house in protest. Anna Hazare says his fight is not against any one particular individual or party, and then he says he will agitate outside Sonia Gandhi's residence. This is a clear case of hypocrisy and a bruised ego at work. It is certainly not Gandhian to agitate outside anyone's residence, whether it be Sonia Gandhi, LK Advani, Narendra Modi, Mohandas Pai, or Anna Hazare himself.

Anna Hazare calls himself a Gandhian; and then invokes the memory of Rajguru. Now, it isn't wrong to remember a freedom fighter for his sacrifice; but to invoke the memory of a man who had an ideology that was extremist in nature, while claiming to be a Gandhian yourself, clearly shows that Hazare is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His ideology is more extreme, than it is of Satyagraha. However, I don't think Anna Hazare is a wolf in sheep's clothing. That claim is preposterously far fetched. He is a good man, with a very weak understanding of the philosophy of Gandhi. Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi, on the other hand, are catalysts who add fuel to Hazare's vagueness.

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

I have a question for Anna Hazare, Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi. If, as a citizen of India, I allow you to take my country down the road of the Lokpal as you belligerently suggest; and if it results in a worse state of affairs in the next 10 years than what exists now, would you be willing to have your house ghearoed by citizens, however few they may be, who realize your folly and foolishness? And would 5% of the population, which gheraoes you, be justified in asking for your head on the chopping block, without submitting their argument in a court of law?

If you would be okay with it, you're as far away from Gandhian thought, as the north pole is from the south. When Gandhi was asked by an American journalist if he would be willing to give up his life for Indian independence, Gandhi, in his customary style, thought for a moment, and with a smile, softly said, "it is a bad question."

The wise will understand the logic of Gandhi's answer.

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

Disclaimer: I am not a Congress agent. I am not a politician. I am not a bureaucrat. I don't have family or friends in politics or in the government. And neither is this essay a part of any propaganda. I am a citizen of India, who is extremely concerned that a group of self appointed individuals, without properly analyzing in detail the pros and cons of what they suggest, claim to have all the answers, and are aiming to thrust their point of view on the citizens of India, via the oldest tactic in the book - rhetoric and loud argument.

Shazia Ilmi, the Big Fight, and Anna Hazare's movement

2011-12-24T21:36:00.003+05:30

...heard Shazia Ilmi in the closing stages of the Big Fight. And here's my response to her argument.

Shazia, contrary to your belief, a group of people pressurizing the government to pass a bill by taking to the streets, is not strengthening democracy; it is strengthening mobocracy. In a democracy, you would lobby with your local MP to take up a cause in parliament. And the MP's job is to voice your opinion if it is echoed by the largest number of people in his constituency.

The time to take to the streets comes when lobbying with your MP yields no results. None of us has ever bothered to approach our MP with the aim of lobbying an idea or a cause. Therefore, none of us has the moral right to take to the streets without exercising our democratic duty.

Anna Hazare's movement, however honest his intentions may be, is completely undemocratic. And as a citizen of India, I for one, will have no part in it.

CBI under the Lokpal

2011-12-24T20:15:00.000+05:30

I don't subscribe to the idea of a Lokpal. However, those who herald its requirement, keep making shifting arguments for the need to place the CBI under the control of the newest constituent of a duocracy, which they are creating. On the one hand they say that the Lokpal would be useless without an investigating agency, which can very well be rectified by creating a new investigative body that reports to and is administered solely by the Lokpal - something that Kejriwal & Bedi are against; on the other hand, their reason for placing the CBI under the Lokpal is to free it from the clutches of political interference.

But, why just stop at freeing the CBI from the clutches of its political masters? Let's free the Indian Armed Forces, the Indian Police Service, National Security Guard, Railway Protection Force, the Income Tax Department, the Indian Railways, Department of Telecommunications, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory; and place them all under the ambit of the Lokpal. After all, some of these agencies can, and are sometimes utilised by politicians against the country's citizens. The argument against the need for giving these institutions autonomy is that the CBI, if placed under the sole authority of the Lokpal, will be used to investigate irregularities of at least some of the agencies suggested above. Then, will the CBI be used to investigate irregularities that are sure to crop up within the Lokpal itself? But if the Lokpal has administrative control over the CBI, why would the CBI carry out investigation of the Lokpal in an honest, efficient and effective manner? And if an agency outside the Lokpal were to be used to investigate irregularities within it, wouldn't it lead to a status quo, you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours, kind of situation?

All democratic governments around the world have central investigative agencies reporting almost directly to the chief executive of the country. Not every piece of information pertaining to the internal or external security of the country can be shared with its citizens in order to avoid panic. The Lokpal will have to conduct itself in the same manner, or risk throwing the country into anarchy. In fact, by placing the CBI under the ambit of the Lokpal, Kejriwal, Bedi et al, are in effect saying that we don't need a chief executive, whose job, amongst many others, is to monitor the internal security of a country. Then let's just do away with the office of the Prime Minister. However, wouldn't this lead us back to square one, where instead of a Prime Minister and his cabinet, there would be an entity called the Lokpal which would assume the role of the chief executive? What is to guarantee the continued honesty of the director of the Lokpal; after all, isn't it a well known fact that absolute power sometimes corrupts even the most honest of people?

Of course, an argument could be made that no one wants to get rid of the institution of the Prime Minister. In fact, the idea of the Lokpal, amongst many others, is to act as a check and balance to the activities that the chief executive conducts. Well, do we not have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a Parliament, and a President, already keeping check on the Prime Minister? Yes, there could be a case of collusion between these institutions. However, what guarantee do you have that the Lokpal will not collude as well? And who can guarantee that the director of the Lokpal will not use the CBI for his own personal agenda(s)?

Another approach suggested to this entire episode is that if you provide autonomy to each institution, the chances of collusion and cooptation will reduce. But this approach suggests that the Indian public (and if I can use Mintzbergish jargon - the 'technical core') will be governed not only by one institution, but two; perhaps even four - if the President and the Chief Justice of India are given complete autonomy.

Wait. At this stage, let's rewind ourselves and recall Management class 101. Henri Fayol's fourth principle of management is unity of command. Take a peek at Matrix, Hybrid, Global, and Virtual Network Structures as well. All of them have one chief executive. Experiments with multiple centers of power always fail in the long run.

Kejriwal, Bedi, and Anna Hazare's Lokpal looks like a recipe for creating multiple centers of power, a la another Pakistan; which is an extremely dangerous turn of events indeed.

For the stakeholders of an institution to tie the hands of the chief executive behind his back, and his feet to the table, and then ask him to deliver to their satisfaction, is unworkable. Checks and balances already exist within our constitution, and political and bureaucratic structures. We need to strengthen them, instead of creating a parallel bureaucracy, which in the long run will multiply all our problems. Strengthening checks and balances aside, if the character of a country's citizens, who eventually populate our bureaucracies, is questionable, no structure, checks and balances will ever deliver the country from corruption.

Thank you: the multiplier effect

2011-12-24T15:20:00.000+05:30

The simplest thing you can do to free your country from the clutches of corruption is to refrain from dishonesty yourself. This must be followed up by a simple strategy of applauding and thanking people for doing a good deed, or for following a law.

For instance, if you're trying to cross the road via a zebra crossing while the pedestrian light is green, and there is no let up in the traffic which keeps rolling on by despite the red light, the first motorist who stops to allow you safe passage, must be thanked by as simple a gesture as a smile and a wave of the hand. This reinforces good behaviour more effectively than any other strategy you can think of. Moreover, the motorist who you thanked, is sure to repeat this act with others, and carry on in the same vein in other spheres of his life. Thanking someone for conducting themselves appropriately doesn't need to be restricted to the roads alone. A simple act as someone opening the door for you; a waiter serving you tea; an employee doing a good, honest job at work; or a shopkeeper voluntarily pointing out that the item you want to purchase has expired and apologises for keeping it on his shelf, are just some of the other situations where this strategy can be used effectively to bring about a change.

As concerns corruption in bureaucracies, no amount of structural change can be effective, as long as:

processes and procedures are not streamlined, and
the people who populate the bureaucracy come from the same corrupt society as you and me.

How to understand the poor

2011-12-24T14:03:00.000+05:30

To understand what a poor man really wants, you need to roll up your pant/pyjama legs, squat on your haunches, share a beedi or a glass of chai with him, and talk on a one on one basis about life in general; and not sit on a charpoy while he sits on the floor, acting as if you are his savior, or exhibiting disgust at the squalor in which he has to live.

The zone of hypocrisy, two facedness, and opportunism

2011-12-23T14:43:00.001+05:30

When you study the various dimensions of national culture for countries around the world, you find that the urban Indian middle and upper classes fall in what i call, the 'Zone of Hypocrisy, Two Facedness, and Opportunism'. Studies have shown that on a scale of 1 to 100, 1 being collectivist, and 100 being individualist, Indians score a 48 - placing them right in the middle of the scale. So you never know where you stand with the Indian middle class, as they very conveniently shift between ideologies, ideas and values to suit their needs; while having very staunch, critical opinions behind closed doors, which is entirely at odds with what they exhibit to the world.

Some would label this trait as 'adaptability and flexibility'; which of course is essential as it helps one change with changing contexts. But this is too self serving an argument to be given any credence, as falling right in the middle of the zone of hypocrisy, two facedness, and opportunism means:

a half hearted effort at task completion,
lack of loyalty to an organization or a cause,
jumping onto successful bandwagons, and abandoning those that face a roadblock,
abandoning people who face tough times, or if they no longer serve a purpose,
firing salvos from other peoples shoulders and taking credit for it when it hits the mark; and pointing a finger at others when things don't go your way,
playing people against each other,
pulling the rug from under other peoples' feet,
trampling on others to get ahead,
dirty, underhand politics,
a tendency to constantly grow increasingly frustrated with everything and everyone outside one's own social circle, and
a lack of acknowledgement of ones own mistakes.

Interestingly, almost all studies in India have been conducted on its middle and upper classes. The poor are very clear where they stand, though - Collectivism; which if measured, would be diametrically opposite to the Australians.

If you correlate and map the subject matter of this post with the happiness surveys conducted by various agencies around the world, you will find that India's level of happiness fluctuates the most, moving from medium-happy to unhappy and back again, changing rapidly year on year, without a trend in any one specific direction. The single most important reason for this is the Indian tendency to attribute the cause of all failures to external factors; for example, Indians attribute the cause of their own personally induced corruption, to their government. The curious thing is that they completely absolve themselves of their faults, while conveniently pointing their finger at others. This tendency arises from the placement of Indians in the middle of the zone of hypocrisy, two facedness, and opportunism; without clarity on where they actually stand.

On a lighter note:

Hunger versus wine, scotch and imported cars

2011-12-23T09:47:00.000+05:30

The business section of a leading newspaper in India calls subsidies for the poor, or the aam admi (the real common man), who makes up the majority of our population, populist, and labels it as appeasement of the poor. The reduction in import duty of wine, scotch, and cars, which will lead to a lowering of prices of these commodities for the middle and upper classes, on the other hand, is greeted with a cheer.

The poor have no voice.

Whose India is it anyway?

Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal, lokpal bill, the middle class, and the rest of us

2011-12-22T15:22:00.000+05:30

Anna Hazare, the Bhushan clan, Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, team Anna, and everyone who supports them is patriotic, honest, intelligent, and logical. I, on the other hand, am unpatriotic, corrupt, dumb and illogical because i disagree with them.

The middle class in India is roughly 200 million strong. They make up between 13 and 17% of the population of our country. They have a voice, they make all the money, and therefore they have the right to impose their view on the rest us, who make up only 83% of the rest of the country. We must meekly surrender to their superior intelligence and economic clout; for can't you see, 'they make perfect sense'.

Everyone knows how a certain police officer got to the rank she did.

Joke of the year

2011-12-21T19:26:00.003+05:30

Anna Hazare walks into a bar.......

Bhagavad Gita, Russia and Walmart

2011-12-21T13:00:00.000+05:30

In my previous post i had said that i'm not very good at hindi. Well, my english isn't any better either. But allow me to construct a few paragraphs in english, nevertheless.

There is an email doing the rounds in India, asking people to sign a petition against the purported decision of a Siberian court to ban the Bhagavad Gita. Indians, both in Russia and in our country, want the Indian government to interfere, in what is an internal matter of another sovereign state, and put pressure on the Russians to disallow the ban. Ridiculous!

Ridiculous on two counts. One, any person of Indian origin, living in Russia as its citizen, has no right to ask the Indian government to interfere in a matter that is solely between a Russian and his state. And any person of Indian origin, visiting Russia, who does not like the idea of the Siberian court banning the Gita, is not obliged to live in that country. If he feels his rights are being impinged upon; he can very well leave.

Two, for an Indian, who does not live in Russia, to want to dictate to a sovereign nation what it must and mustn't do, is extremely ludicrous. Let's say India were to restrict Walmart from entering its market; would it then be acceptable for an American, sitting in the states, to float a petition against India's decision to restrict Walmart, hoping to place pressure on the Indian government to allow the retailer into India?

You could of course argue that there is no comparison between the Gita and Walmart. But here's the reality, and this is no illusion: one country's Gita is another country's Walmart; and vice versa. Both are correct from their own individual standpoints; and neither is wrong. To interfere in either country's internal processes by trying to impose a personal opinion on them, is unjust.

There is a growing tendency of Indians to make their way around the world in search for better jobs and lifestyles. Once in a foreign land, they refuse to accept its laws. What's more, they try to educate their adopted homeland that the way of life of its people is immoral. When they are asked to follow the law of the land, they beat their chests and cry themselves hoarse. They then ask the Indian government to step in, to educate their new government on morality, ethics, laws, and the correct choice of lifestyle. And it's funny that this happens only with Indians.

Ever wondered why nothing seems to happen with the Chinese? Analogous to the Chinese, is the story of Tom Alter, an American by origin, who made a decision years back to stay in India and make it his home; and therefore became its citizen. Despite being ill treated on occasions by Indians for his way of looking at things from a western point of view, Tom did not go bawling to the American government for help. Instead, he adopted and practiced the Indian way of life with more determination and renewed enthusiasm. Today, Tom has completely assimilated himself with the Indian culture, if there is anything like that, so much so that he has become more Indian than any of us can ever hope to be. It was Tom's decision after all, to become an Indian. No one put a gun to his head.

Romulus Earl Whitaker, is yet another example of a foreigner who made India his home.

Maybe there is a lesson in Tom and Romulus' story for all Indians who have chosen to live overseas.

And to those of us who think we have the right to interfere in another sovereign nation's internal matter, I say, people living in a glass house shouldn't go around throwing stones at others. If your God is a just God, which you proclaim him to be, he'd be more pleased with you for doing battle within, than seeking to fight that which is outside.

There are 7 billion people living on our planet, of which roughly only 3% read the Gita; and on the higher end of the spectrum, roughly only 9% of the 7 billion, believe in it. Does that mean that the rest of humanity is unenlightened?

In the overall scheme of things, economic might is fleeting... so India, watch it!

2300 hrs, December 21, 2011

I've received a fascinating comment by a Anand Kumar G in response to this article, and i think it deserves to be published in the body of this post.

Anand Kumar G has very kindly pointed out to me that the "Holy book Gita is a mentor for all human kind, doesn't matter a person is from which religion. To understand Gita, one has to be a first human, intellectual, civilize, have mercy to all live creatures and a person has to be a truly patriot. So clearly to respect and understand Holy Gita is not a capacity and ability of each and every person. Jai Hind"

Well, i've got news for you pal! I don't believe in the Gita! So i guess that makes me inhuman(e), lowbrow, uncivilized, without a care for all living creatures, and unpatriotic, right? Oh, and i forgot to add that i am terribly incapable of understanding the gita, in any case :)

December 28, 2011
I would like to congratulate the Russian legal system for following the due process of their law, and rejecting the petition to ban the Bhagavad Gita in their country. Let this not be seen as the supremacy of one ideology over another, but as the good prudence of a sovereign nation's legal system.

Aapkey corruption ka kya?

2011-12-21T09:27:00.000+05:30

I am a pretty crude guy... i know. And my Hindi isn't very good either. But i'll try to speak as plainly in Hindi as i can.

Ab aap boltey ho kee aap aur chup nahi baith saktey. Aapko change chahiye. Aap corruption ko mita dena chahte ho. Lekin aap, itney saalon ke baad, ab kyon uth rahe ho? Pehle jab koi bhi corruption ke khilaf uthta tha, aapke pitaji aur dadaji chup chaap darwaza bandh karke baith jatey they. Madad to chord dijeye, aapke pitaji aur dadaji un logo pe hastey the jo corruption ke khilaaf awaaz uthathey the. Woh boltey they, "tum paagal ho kya? sab kuch theek hai... koi problem hi nahi hai. karam kar, phal ki na sooch. jaisa hai, bilkul theek hai. aap befaltu mein ladd rahe ho. jab koi problem hi nahi hai, toh aap ladd he kyon rahey ho?" Uskey baad, aapkey pitaji aur dadaji apne kaam pe jaakay apne employers aur doosray logo ko khud loot-tay the.

Ab jab aapke khandan ne corrupt means adopt karkey apna paisa bana liya, aur aap comfort mein rehte ho, aap abh uthkar desh ko badal dena chahtey ho; corruption ko mita dena chahtey ho. Aapka jo aaj wealth aur education hai, aapkey family ke corrupt paiso ke bal pe bana hai, lekin aap ya toh isko deny karogay, ya justify karogay, ya aap isko ek side pe brush karkey bologay, "purani baat bhool jao".

Toh, doosray logo ka corruption kharab hai, lekin jin paiso ke bal pe aap aaj educated hai, ya acchi naukri hai, woh theek hai? Jin logo ne honest means se apna jeevan guzara, akele corruption ke saath ladaiye ki... unka kya?

Aap aur logo ki corruption jard se mita dena chahtey ho. Lekin aapkey corruption ka kya?!

History has seen opportunism from the beginning of time. But never before have such a large number of people exhibited dishonest, opportunistic and hypocritical selves, as have the middle and upper classes in India, over the past 60 years. And they continue to do so today. The only difference is that today, dishonesty, opportunism and hypocrisy is masked by a sophisticated facade.

Uneasy silence

2011-12-17T08:25:00.000+05:30

While the middle class and the wealthy have money to amplify their views,

the poor man must suffer in silence.

Amreeka se aaya mera dost, dost ko salaam karo!

2011-12-16T17:11:00.000+05:30

Here's a simple social experiment that can be conducted with the greatest of ease to highlight the hypocrisy of the Indian middle class:

The next time Banta Singh, the proud owner of a mom & pop store at Bakersfield, California, comes a visiting, throw a party and invite a caboodle of middle class folks from your neighbourhood. Bedsides Mr. Singh, do invite Banwari Lal, your local Kirana-wala, to make things a little interesting. As the drinks start flowing freely, you'll suddenly notice something very intriguing. The middle class caboodle will start milling around Banta to hear from him his view on a host of topics of which he himself has no clue, while Mr. Lal will be sidelined to a far corner of your drawing room. Banta Singh of course, will put on quite a show, for his newly, never before formed, club of admirers, and will play to the galleries, his entire range of regalia on full display.

Now it isn't that Banwari Lal doesn't have a point of view on the subject being discussed, nor is it that he has an opinion that is inferior to Banta's; it's just that Mr. Singh has flown in from the states, and that makes all the difference in the eyes of the motley crew at the party. Therefore the large crowd around him, and not Banwari bhaiya. Give them both a chance to speak on equal terms though, and you'll find them both on the same rung of the intellectual order of ape being.

But Banwari Lal doesn't have it as bad as you think he has. To illustrate my point, have a Kabootar Rao, venture into the thick of things. The party you'll find, will end as abruptly as a fly flies off a hot steel plate.

Eventually, it all boils down to a question of brands, you see. For a middle class Indian, it isn't so much about intelligence, as it is about being associated with a reference group or a brand that is perceived, without rational thought, to be superior to the other. In the example above, Banta Singh's 'american' brand has a higher perceived value than poor Banwari Lal could hope to create in a lifetime via his Kirana ka dukaan, even if both of them are in the same business and equipped with the same level of sagacity.

Kabootar Rao, on the other hand, was just plain unlucky.

Greed

2011-12-15T10:06:00.001+05:30

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed."

- MK Gandhi

It's funny how former chief economists at the IMF, and economic professors at the Harvards and the Columbias are slowly coming out of their shells and questioning capitalism's sustainability. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know what's up.

I have been ridiculed and rubbished many times in the past by acquaintances when i have spoken about resource depletion and unsustainable development. For an uneducated fool, i think i did pretty well for myself though. Now it'll be amazing to see how people slowly slink their way on to the scarce-resource, unequal income bandwagon, and claim that they have always maintained this line of thought.

Black money and the urban class' parallel economy in India

2011-12-14T22:46:00.000+05:30

Reason and logic abandon me whenever the topic of black money comes up. As a matter of fact, this is one of the very few subjects where emotions get the better of me. And a debate on television tonight, got me all riled up.

I have been writing about corruption and black money in India for quite some time now, and have consistently maintained that, contrary to popular belief, there is more black money in the form of a middle-and-upper-class induced parallel economy floating around in our country, than there is big ticket, politician-bureaucrat nexus induced black money, stashed away overseas. And my solution, devoid of any logic, has been pretty consistent too. I don’t want the urban middle and upper classes to get away with their corruption as easy as something like the income tax authorities allowing them to declare their stashed away money and converting it into white. I want a thorough investigation carried out in India of each citizen and his family, starting from August 15th, 1947; and even if a man is found to be honest today, the mere fact that his positive station in life is partly due to corrupt money that was accumulated by his family over the decades, should be enough for his monies to be confiscated.

As far as i am concerned, a man who has had the fortune of a good education, or a family business, real estate, or a large heirloom handed down to him, even if partly due to the fact that his family could afford tuition, business, real estate investment, or vast tranches of wealth because of black, undeclared money, is an unjust state of affairs. Bring that man down on to the same level playing field as all those who didn't indulge in corruption. Nothing else will spell justice to me.

Orthodox

2011-12-14T14:50:00.000+05:30

"What was acceptable yesterday, is orthodox today.
What is acceptable today, will be orthodox tomorrow.
What was conservative yesterday, may be progressive tomorrow.
What is progressive tomorrow, may be conservative the day after."

- Jay Sobti

2011-12-13T04:43:00.001+05:30

Never trust a girl who says, "I love you because you love me."

In fact, never trust anyone who says that.

Kapil Sibal, censoring the social media, and groupthink

2011-12-11T10:34:00.001+05:30

I don't think regulating the social media is a good idea (and i've written about it previously in much detail). But following the frivolous logic that the Indian twitterati has used in defense of the social media, we might as well not have any traffic rules, land laws, and the criminal justice system either. After all, we as a people are mature enough to regulate ourselves without someone having to force rules and regulations down our throats, in the garb of maintaining at least some semblance of order on our chaotic roads, and in our fractured society in general. And why stop there. Let's just do away with all forms of law.

Of course, private organizations are entitled to have rules and regulations in the form of policies and procedures, so that an erring employee can be shown the door. That's okay, because private companies are required; a country, on the other hand, is incidental.

The OODA loop is the mother of all individual decision making processes. Everyone, from the Marines to the Indian Army to Business professionals, utilize this process in some form or the other. The OODA loop was first developed by USAF Col. John Boyd, and stands for Observe-Orient-Decide-Act. In urban India though, this framework has been thrown right out the window. Perhaps that's good... because it could mean that the educated lot in our country have finally started to think for themselves. The new framework that they have developed is MSMD. This stands for Monkey-See-Monkey-Do.

For instance, if you ever have a fire anywhere around you, and an idiot throws petrol into it, start praying real hard to the good lord above that an Indian, from the urban strata of our society, isn't anywhere around; because he will, without a second thought, ape the fool. It's not surprising then that our country has the largest case of Groupthink on the planet. Behavioural Scientists study groupthink in groups as small as a two-man team, and in groups as large as organizations, but i bet this is the first time in history that anyone would have ever encountered this concept in a population as large as that of urban India. Marketing gurus though, know how to leverage this, much to the glee of short-term profit-making industries, and much to the delite of reference groups.

The Russian protests, that have seen vast swathes of people come out in revolt against their government, is the latest in a string of public movements around the world, and the Indian media hasn't failed to report it. So, i'd like to applaud the media for giving it some space in their print editions. But I ask again, why wasn't the pepper spraying incident at the University of California, Davis, and the forcible eviction of peaceful citizens from New York's Zuccotti Park, during the Occupy Wall Street movements in America, not given space? Why weren't the Occupy Wall Street movements that took place in most major countries around the world, and the massive public sector strike in the United Kingdom, not reported?

Thank God for the Social Media. Or should i say, monkey see, monkey do?

Screening the social media, confidence, inequality, & the US republican primaries

2011-12-07T10:35:00.001+05:30

Confidence versus Arrogance
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I will never get tired of saying it till the urban strata of our society are blessed with at least an iota of sapience. Urban Indians do not know the difference between confidence and arrogance. They exhibit arrogance, mistakenly believing it to be confidence.

Inequity

It was good to finally see an article on 'Income Inequality in India' in one of our leading newspapers. It's important to keep an eye on this subject and not dismissively brush it under the carpet, because whether we like it or not, it will have a huge impact on every sector of our country and our planet as a whole, in the coming future. I've written about inequalities of income, climate change, food, iron, fuel and water shortage, and their impact on all of us, for quite some time now. I hope I'm wrong with my diagnosis. But I'm inclined to believe in it, until proven incorrect.

Kapil Sibal & the regulation of the social media
Democracy has a lot to do with self-regulation. So, I'm not in favour of screening the social media. But with the kind of filth urban Indians are writing online, i'm beginning to wonder. Forget about Facebook and Google for a moment and take a peek at the comments left by readers, on articles and news items on the Hindustan Times, Times of India, CNN-IBN, and NDTV websites... they are nothing short of sick. And what you see on these websites is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the moral collapse of our society.

Here's a question, if someone were to take it upon themselves to malign you, abusing you with the filthiest and the most abusive language, and the public did not have the wisdom to shun such an act, adding to the fracas, wouldn't you report abuse, if clearing the air did not work?

It seems pretty clear to me. While there is nothing wrong with criticism, sarcasm and a little ribbing every now and then, a line needs to drawn at content that is abusive and that which aims to malign. One must aim at defeating an idea, if we must, on its principles, using rational and logical argument. To move into the realm of emotional & verbal abuse though, may mean that the time has come for a big brother to keep an eye on us.

Finally, democratic rights are always coupled with duties. The non fulfillment of those duties should mean the abrogation of a citizen's rights. What those duties should be, even if they are controversial, must be left for the largest constituency of a country to decide; however right or wrong they may be. Expressing your point of view is not a duty, it is a right. Regulating your point of view, confining it to civilized debate, is a democratic duty.

Us versus Them
Heard on CNN-IBN, "Come on guys, wake up! I'm asking all Mumbaikars to get up and go vote. Do you know that these filthy, uneducated slum dwellers make up 70% of the voting population in our city; and just because we don't, they go and vote the wrong people into power. We need to defeat these people!!" ...or something to that effect.

The US Republican party primaries
I've been following the 2012 US Republican party primaries on the tube and in the papers, and I can not help but say something about it. I think we're all born Republicans; and then we grow up and become Democrats.

I hope the Americans make a wise choice come election time. Following Reagan and the Bush clan, with another Republican into the White House, at this point of time, just may be the final nail in the American coffin. Having said that, I think the Democrats need to move a little more towards the right from their left-off-center stance, for the overall good of the United States of America. For instance, the Republican nominees make a very good point on the need for effective policing along the US-Mexico border, and raising the bar for immigrants entering their country. The rest of the world has figured out how to work around US immigration and F1 visa requirements, and it needs immediate reform. Restructuring the TOEFL is a very good place to make a start.

That's all folks!

Stand by me

2011-12-04T20:53:00.001+05:30

It really doesn't matter what kind of trash they sing... eventually they all come back to the classics. Here's Lady Gaga singing one of my favourite songs (i'd prefer to play this on my guitar, though)...

Chirp! Chirp! the Ecosystem, Biodiversity, the Market & the Human Civilization

2011-12-03T18:11:00.001+05:30

So we're all bothered about GDP growth rates, making heaps of money, building better lifestyles, developing comparative and strategic advantages over each other, collaborating horizontally, managing knowledge, and the whole jing-bang stuff. But if you live in a modern urban city, when and in what quantity did you last see birds (of the feather type) chirping around your home or office?

Can biologists, botanists, zoologists and ecologists explain to me the importance of biodiversity in an ecosystem?

Ah! But who has time to bother about all those irritating, poop making, disease carrying critters, let alone bother about the entire planet's wildlife! We must keep our eye on the ball, and continue urbanizing our planet at an ever faster rate with more concrete and steel; because that's where the money, and our eventual happiness and welfare lies. And as market ideologues would say:

"...if they want to survive, the planet's wildlife will have to quickly build strategies and develop a competitive advantage; or at the very least start proving their profit maximizing capabilities; otherwise it's the end of the road for them ...because that's how the bottom line reads."

Of course, we could always keep a few souvenirs in zoos and nature parks to gawk at, and build enough cattle and poultry farms where we could genetically grow meat and pump them up with hormones to make them plump enough for our taste.

Oh boy! ...can somebody please tell me once again, how important, biodiversity is to an ecosystem and the human civilization?

Here's an old country favourite:

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zSU1ia467Q&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zSU1ia467Q

China & labour unrest

2011-12-02T15:42:00.001+05:30

Labour unrest in China?!!

God bless Capitalism?

The UK Public Sector Strike, Nicolas Sarkozy, Globalization, and the Indian Media

2011-12-02T10:31:00.001+05:30

Whether there were 2 Million, or Tens of Thousands of people who went on a strike to demand better pensions (to negate the vast inequalities of income) is besides the point. But, why hasn't the Indian media reported the large public sector strike that took place in the United Kingdom on November 30th, 2011?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy gave a speech about the Euro Zone crisis last night, at Toulon. Other than the usual noise for the greater need of political integration, Sarkozy also spoke about the need to stop looking for superficial solutions, and seek out the root cause of the problem. The cause of the problem, he said, was a culture of profit maximization, and globalization which first started to wrap itself around the world in the 1970s.

One may disagree with the reason for the public sector strike in the United Kingdom, President Sarkozy's call for greater political integration, and his identification of the cause of the current economic crisis as profit maximization and globalization; but, it would be a folly not to disagree, that the Indian media has failed to report these events, along with the pepper spraying incidents at the Occupy Wall Street protests, to the masses of our country. That is unjust.

To commission a survey amongst the youth of our country to find out from them their perception of the Arab Spring is a good initiative. It is however, sad, that the Indian youth is being fed one-sided perspective, and is then expected to make a good decision, without understanding the external environment correctly.

You can have an adaptable, flexible culture with an external strategic focus, or you could have an organic structure at the center with greater horizontal coordination, but as long as comparative advantage is measured in monetary terms, globalization will effect all countries negatively in the long run. Ten more years, and China and India will have to compete with the CIVETS and the African heartland, just like the west is doing with the BRICS today. Comparative advantage, globalization & climate change will not allow Chindia the luxury that the west had built for itself, in isolation, during the 20th century. Moreover, if India & China think they have a large demographic dividend in their youth, they also have a colossal pitfall in the ever burgeoning size of a population that aspires for a better life. China has worked at reigning in its runaway population. India, on the other hand, stares into a deep abyss.

You may disagree with the diagnosis above, but it is unfair nevertheless, for the media to shut the common public off from relevant events in the international environment. After all, all pieces of news bytes are interlinked in our globalized world.

I, Indian... travel New-jee-land !!

2011-12-01T12:17:00.001+05:30

When a westerner travels overseas, if it isn't for business, it is to experience a foreign culture, its people, their customs, the diversity of cuisines (with a mixture of enthusiasm & intestinal trepidation, i must add), the multiplicities of sights and sounds, the flora and fauna, an alternate way of life; and to broaden and enrich their minds.

Indians, on the other hand, travel overseas because of the snob value. An Indian travels to New-jee-land, Amrika, ingLAND, Afreeka, Cun-nayda, not to experience something new; but because having traveled abraad means you've arrived. "What... you not travel to Us-turrr-ay-leeya yet? Tch! Tch! poor fell-O... what wrong with you? 'A'-veryone must travel once in lifetime. Tch! Tch! you not belong my social circle, bhaiya. Hmmph! who let chappie in?! Maloom nahi kaha-kaha se aajate hain!"

But, God forbid if an Indian doesn't get to eat chapati, chawal & curry while visiting the Innuits, the Amahuacas, or the Maasai. You can bet the hair on your bottom, or your eighty-thousandth rupaiya, that all hell will break loose!!

Travel & advertising agencies, are you listening? There is money to be made here :)

-- From a much untraveled man

...and then there are the ITES folks who are even bigger hypocrites. They refuse to assimilate with the overseas culture while on assignment, but when they get back... oh lord... you've gotta hear about their self-elevated statuses in their otherworldly accents ;)

Lunch...

2011-11-29T15:02:00.001+05:30

The quality of Indian food seems to be directly proportional to the amount a person farts.

Cyrus Mistry: Tata Shalonji Palonji

2011-11-24T09:42:00.001+05:30

Finally the search for Ratan Tata's successor has borne fruit. Cyrus Mistry, the largest shareholder at Tata Sons, has been appointed Deputy Chairman of Tata Group, and is expected to take over from Mr. Tata by the end of next year as the group's chairman. Cyrus' appointment is going to be hailed as the victory of the shareholder, the youth, democracy, ethics, justice, prudence; and, in a country such as ours, a victory against rampant dynastic rule that reigns supreme in politics and business. But are we shooting off the celebratory circus-cannon a little too soon?

Consider this:

Cyrus Mistry's brother-in-law is Ratan Tata's half-brother. So the appointment keeps the business all in the family. That's nepotism.
Mistry's appointment as the Deputy Chairman of the Tata Group keeps the phenomenal wealth in the pockets of those who are already rich. Where, in the equation, do the rural poor of our country fit in? Goodbye social justice.
Mistry gave up his Indian citizenship to be an Irish national, because dual citizenship was not allowed by the Indian government at the time. I don't see anything wrong with it. But, how is his being an Irish any better than the far right questioning Rahul Gandhi's lineage?
Mistry's appointment throws the spotlight on one of the most ethically biased and unjust corporate sectors in the world by showcasing the fact that India still hasn't seen even one success story of a poor man from rural India working his way up urban India's corporate ladder, right to its very top. The power just keeps circulating amongst the rich. This is hardly democratic.

These facts notwithstanding, i'm sure shalonji palonji's appointment was quite elementary for Tata Group's board of directors. Nevertheless, I don't see how the pomp and excitement about him being an avid Golfer has anything to do with his business acumen. I know that business deals are usually struck on the Golf course, but to me that's just one more way for all the corporate honchos out there to lay down a strong dividing line between a bright young man from rural India and the Czars of India Inc. Despite being an avid Golfer for the past 26 years myself, I fail to see any justice in this.

Congratulations to the Pallonjis, Shapoorjis, Mistrys & Tatas. All I can say is, "Tata, Goodbye".

Between Friends

2011-11-23T10:54:00.001+05:30

Today's comic strip in TOI reminds me of my parents, and their never ending quest for throwing the perfect party.
Thank God they've toned it down over the past 5 years...

Cornell, Investment Jobs, Enlightenment, Unmet Needs and Marketing

2011-11-18T09:26:00.001+05:30

If a Cornell graduate with a cushy investment banking job realises the shallowness of the corporate world, and gives it up; would he then be more inclined to enlightenment than a man, who having observed the shallowness of the corporate world well before he got the chance to go to Harvard, refused to be a part of any of it right from the outset?

Indeed, would any of the two be inclined to be more enlightened than a man who has no clue what Cornell or the corporate world is?

Should a man who is enlightened, whatever that may mean, catch hold of people and preach; or should he share his knowledge only with seekers who reach him?

Should an 'enlightened soul' survey the market, and using marketing tools, find people with unmet needs, whatever that means, and preach his knowledge to them?

Would it be alright for a Cornell graduate to use marketing tools to reach as many people as he can, with an objective of fulfilling their unmet needs, whatever that means; while a woman who is actually the real deal, doesn't have access to the same marketing tools to reach the masses?

Do enlightened souls need to take a marketing course at Harvard for them to be enlightened?

What Temperature is the Right Temperature?

2011-11-17T16:01:00.001+05:30

Courtesy MartinHDJ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DIlMY8-EdxE

For a clearer version, check out this webcast: "http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00lf1d1

Market Principle #1: People are rational, and rational people work only in their own self interest

2011-11-16T14:57:00.001+05:30

If market fundamentalists believe that rational people work only in their own self interest, and that it is reasonable for each individual in the market to be constantly on the lookout for opportunities from which they can personally gain a marginal monetary benefit; why shouldn't a Government official or a Politician also constantly work in his own self interest, seeking a marginal monetary benefit whenever, wherever and however he can, rather than work solely for an idealistic goal such as the greater good of society?

Free market ideologues grudgingly admit that Government is sometimes needed to help improve market outcomes. And yet, they also believe that markets must be tax free. How then is the Government expected to fund and run itself to create the conditions that improve market outcomes? Should the officials that make up the Government be given pitiful handouts, every now and then by the market, to sustain themselves? If so, why would a rational individual agree to work in Government if he finds that working for the market would be more in his self interest?

Would free market proponents want intelligent, savvy men to run their country's government, when these men would demand remuneration equitable to the best in the market; or would they want servants to run the government, who would then be given leftovers and handouts, for which they must be eternally grateful to the market, and show it, by doing its bidding each and every time?

Should the government, whether made up of intelligent men or, men of lesser intellectual abilities, look after the interests of 2.77% of the population that pays them their salaries via taxes, and neglect the remaining 97.23%; or should they look at the greater good of the entire country while framing their policies, even if it means forgoing self interest?

The Parable of the Traffic Jam
In traffic jams, you often get to see people squeeze their vehicles between other motorists because they believe they will receive a marginal benefit by moving ahead of just one more vehicle. This is done in pure self interest; and a market fundamentalist or an objectivist would call this act - rational. However, squeezing his vehicle through the traffic to gain a marginal benefit, a driver realises all too late that he has now created a gridlock, and no one, including him, are better off in the prevailing situation. This shows the short sightedness of the driver, who in the pursuit of benefiting himself at the margin, for his own self interest, made everyone worse off. This can hardly be called rational.

Gurcharan Das, Education and Inequalities of Income in India

2011-11-13T16:30:00.001+05:30

Gurcharan Das, a highly respected columnist in India, says that only 1 out of 4 public school teachers in our country visits her classroom; and even this one teacher does not bother to teach. He then educates us that Public School teachers in our country are paid 7 times the Indian per capita income; which he enlightens, is far more than what public school teachers in the developed world receive (which is pegged at around 3 times their PCI). Mr. Das concludes that the problem is not a lack of remuneration; it is a lack of governance and accountability in public schools.

While his argument may have its merits, he fails to note that even though money has been proposed by behavioural scientists to be nothing more than an extrinsic motivator, it is the single most important aspect on which people in India base their decisions. Therefore, to shrug off pay scales as not being the central issue in the case of the careless public school teachers may not be prudent after all.

Here are some facts that Mr. Das has missed out on by a wide margin:

While a public school teacher in India earns at 7 times our per capita income, an average Project Manager in an IT firm is likely to earn around 30* times our PCI.
While the Vice Chancellor of a public Indian university may earn 21* times our PCI, an average CEO of an IT company is likely to earn around 300* times our per capita income.
While a public school teacher earns at 7 times our PCI, a private school teacher may be paid up to 15* times India's per capita income.

What do these statistics tell us? Well, using the Theory of Equity as a model, something that Gurcharan Das himself swears by, a public school teacher in India is not likely to find any Distributive Justice for herself within this framework. This would lead to job dissatisfaction; and the most obvious response would be for a teacher to neglect her work.

That teaching the next generation should be an intrinsic motivator, while money should be nothing more than a hygienic factor, is true. However, given that our society values money more than any other attribute, it is plausible that a public school teacher is not going to put in as much effort into her job as it requires. The reason for a public school teacher's antics may go even beyond this, to include a lack of Interactional Justice, which is, 'the perceived degree to which an individual (or an occupation) is treated with dignity, concern, and respect (by society).'

Mr. Das hints that the private sector would have sorted the issue of the errant school teachers by making an example of at least one of them by giving a wrap on their knuckles. By that logic, we might as well have military rule in our country.

At this stage of my tirade, a lot of free market ideologues may want to argue that from the perspective of Equity and Distributive Justice, the private sector would be the best bet for education in India, as sky is the limit to the amount of money a teacher can earn, commensurate to her effort. While this is true, it is also beyond doubt that every time a teacher's pay is increased in a private school, it would make the cost of education for the poor that much more expensive and unaffordable. To make it affordable for the poor, a private school would have to subsidise education by redistributing resources. And that's just what the Indian Government does. However, subsidies and redistribution of resources is exactly what the scions of the private market, that lead our industry, are vehemently and vociferously against.

Here's a fact: Mukesh Ambani's salary is pegged at Rs.15 crore, which is roughly 4100 times India's per capita income. Remember, this Rs.15 crore salary of Mr. Ambani is after taking into consideration the pay cut he has given himself this year. In America, by contrast, the highest paid salary would be no more than a 1000 times the US per capita income. Talk about inequality!!

Note: an interesting study on the productivity of Indians would be to analyse, which of the two - an employee from the public or private sector, is more productive on an hourly basis? The results may be too close for Mr. Das' comfort.

* these are rough figures and have been calculated by keenly observing inequalities of income in India. However, the figures need to be backed by research data, which i urge the reader to check for themselves on the various forums of the internet that hold this information.

Elite Editorials in India & One Sided Perspective

2011-11-13T09:40:00.001+05:30

Vinod Mehta, Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, Gurcharan Das, Shobhaa De, Vir Sanghvi, Karan Thapar, Pranoy Roy, Arun Poorie, Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt et al, are all from Urban India. They grew up in Urban India in well-to-do families. They have all studied in the elite schools and colleges of their time; some have even studied in the west - in the Oxfords and the Harvards.

Show me one columnist or opinion maker in India's leading dailies, weeklies and fortnightlies who has risen from the rural sections of our country to make her mark in urban India...

Better still, show me one rural Indian who is given a platform to air her point of view via our leading newspapers and magazines.

All we get to hear is one-sided perspective.

Here's a roughly drawn out sample of the profiles of the people we get to read:

Gurcharan Das – former corporate honcho – studied in the United States of America
Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar – economist, media consultant to the world bank, former editor of The Financial Express and the Eastern Economist – studied in the United Kingdom
Shobhaa De – socialite, former editor at Stardust, Society, and Celebrity. Wife of shipping tycoon and business magnate Dilip De.

I don't in any way grudge them their education, upbringing or lifestyle. What irks the hell out of me though, is that our print media does not allow diverse points of view to be aired in juxtaposition to each other. The editorials are sickeningly predictable, the reader laps it up, and that's where the bounded rationality of Urban Indians escalates to a committed crescendo.

Sad! Very sad indeed! Moreover, it is deeply disturbing for intellectuals to quote from a holy book to give justification to their argument. This is like telling your detractors, "God is on my side. Would you dare challenge God?!" If, on the other hand, a holy book is used as a justification for logic, then why think at all?

Tintin, Indians & Haughtiness

2011-11-10T11:13:00.000+05:30

Try this out.

Over the next couple of weeks, assuming you live in Urban India, if and when someone approaches you and says, "let's see Tintin at the movies", or "I just saw Tintin!", give them a puzzled look and say, "Tintin? What's that?"

Here are the reactions you're likely to receive:

Disbelief - "you don't know Tintin ?!"
Disbelief and an education - "Are you serious? You don't know Tintin ?! Tintin (tin-tin) is... Herge (her-jee) is... Snowy is... Captain Haddock (had-dock) is... Thomson & Thomson are... Cuthbert is... wait, who's Cuthbert?" OR
The person is likely to go quiet, look at you in utter disdain, and raising their nose to the heavens above, will snootily hurry off to someone who is worthy of their time.

Of course, you could always pronounce Herge, with a silent 'H' and an accent aigu on the final letter; or just say RG. And then ask them to try the correct pronunciation of Tintin on for size, too. But, heck! why be an ass.

Just enjoy the snootiness.

------

People in North India are celebrating Guru Nanak, a sufi saint's birthday today. Here's a hilarious advertisement found in the Hindustan Times:

"Attention Readers

Please see Special Media

Marketing Feature on

Guru Nanak Dev Ji's

Parkash Purab on Page 10 & 11

in today's edition."

Well, if you haven't guessed it yet... spirituality is a huge hoax and is seen as a massive business opportunity in India. Poor Nanak.

Hindustan Times, Petrol Price Hike, Tax Evasion & Corruption in India

2011-11-08T12:08:00.000+05:30

Today's headline in Hindustan Times, a leading newspaper in India, reads:

"Govt the biggest gainer from petrol price hikes."

Ridiculous! No one is a winner when petrol prices are hiked!

If we, as a people, constantly evade taxes by tucking away money in our cupboards, under our mattresses, in illegal financial investments, in the black market and in spurious land deals, the government will definitely have to siphon off that extra undeclared moolah from somewhere. With every Tom, Dick and Hariprasad driving a vehicle in urban India - and flaunting it like there's no tomorrow, it isn't difficult to see why the government would raise fuel prices to get at this dough.* Consider this: only 2.77% Indians pay their individual income tax every year. Shocking!

What's even more shocking is that the Indian middle and upper classes dislike paying taxes, despite the fact that our tax rates are one of the lowest amongst the major economies of the world! With this in mind, for urban Indians to complain that in a country with a population of 1.2 billion people, our infrastructure isn't world class, is nothing short of hypocrisy. Sure our government needs to be more efficient and effective; but does that mean we're exempt from honesty?

Here are some facts, sourced from wikipedia, about tax rates from around the world:

Country	Individual Tax (up to)	Corporate Tax (up to)	Payroll Tax (up to)	VAT/GST/SALES
Australia	45%	30%	6%	10%
Austria	50%	25%		20%
Belgium	55%	33.99%		21%
Brazil	27.5%	34%	31%	25%
Canada	53% (fed + prov)	31% (fed + prov)	6.73%	15% (fed + prov)
China	45%	25%		17%
Denmark	67%	25%	8%	25%
Finland	51% (nat + mun)	26%		45%
France	40%	33.33%	66%	19.6% (diff slabs)
Germany	45%	29.8%	41%	19%
Greece	45%	25%	44%	23%
India	33% (incl cess)	33.2175%		12.5%
Japan	50%	40.69%	25.63%	5%
South Korea	57.375%	25%		10%
Mexico	29%	28%	35%	16%
Netherlands	52%	25%		19%
New Zealand	33%	28%		15%
Norway	47.8%	28%	14.1%	33%
Poland	32%	19%	41.11%	23%
South Africa	40%	28%		14%
Spain	47%	30%		18.8%
Sweden	59.09%	26.3%	31.42%	25%
United Kingdom	50%	26%	14%	20%
United States	35% (fed) 10.5% (states)	38% (fed) 12% (states)	15.3% (fed) 2% (states)	10.25%

While drawing your conclusions, please keep in mind that only 2.77% Indians pay taxes, a fact already stated above.

How does that old adage go? ...penny wise, pound foolish?

Chew on this: India is the 7th largest producer of automobiles, and the 2nd fastest growing automobile market in the world.

Misc. Facts:

India is the 3rd largest emitter of Carbon Dioxide in the world, and is all set to overtake the United States of America, to become the 2nd largest CO₂ emitter by the end of this decade (presuming that the 2009 growth rates in CO₂ emissions hold).
In 2009, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 13.3% YoY, America's dropped 6.9%, and India's increased by 8.7%.
During the same period, CO₂ emissions in Russia, Japan, Germany, UK, South Africa, Brazil and France dropped by 7.4%, 9.7%, 7%, 7.8%, 6.7%, 0.3%, and 7.4%, respectively.
Per capita, India emits lesser CO₂than the countries of the developed world. But that just goes to show how unequal the distribution of wealth and resources amongst our citizens is. To increase our per capita carbon dioxide emissions to the level of, say, a country like America, would be devastating. With both India & China polluting like there's no tomorrow, we might as well kiss the earth goodbye!

* The price of oil in a deregulated market is largely the result of fluctuations in international crude oil prices. This post is however a response to the Hindustan Times article which suggests, rather preposterously, that a large proportion of the increase in oil prices is being siphoned off by the Indian Government.

Data Sourced from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2

A question of ethics and justice: the dacoit vs the poor man

2011-11-07T19:20:00.000+05:30

If a dacoit* murders and robs thousands of people, and with the victims money sends his son to a foreign country for his education, and the son having learnt altruism and ethics along with his professional studies, returns back to his country, becomes a social entrepreneur, and helps the impoverished by giving them a just livelihood, would this be ethical and fair?

If a poor man has the chance to rob and kill thousands of people so that
he can send his daughter to Harvard for her education; presuming that his daughter will return back to her country, become a social entrepreneur, and help the impoverished by giving them a just livelihood, should he go ahead and rob and kill thousands?

If a poor man has the chance to rob and kill thousands of people, but makes the choice of living a just life, neither robbing nor killing people, and somehow because of a lack of opportunities is not able to make enough money to send his child to a good school; and the child, following a lack of opportunities, is not able to better her station in life, would the poor man be considered a fool?

---------

* bandit

Mr. Keynes, in the long run we are all dead!

2011-11-07T15:08:00.001+05:30

The fundamental flaw with Capitalist driven industry is the belief that "in the long run we are all dead", a quote attributed, out of context, to John Maynard Keynes. Therefore the conclusion that we might as well make ourselves a quick buck.

This is an extremely narrow way of looking at reality,
and while we all may personally be dead in the long run, our progeny will have to bear the brunt of our myopic actions. Just ask history.

Of course, if we would like to subscribe to Keynes' notion, then why have children? We could live without them like there's no tomorrow; without a care in the world for what we might leave the next generation. Then it all makes sense; because after all, in the long run, we'd all be dead.

But Keynes' is old hat. The new government-less, free market proponents have an even better argument: "technology will save the day."

Well, best of luck to us. In the long run, we really are all dead.

The simplest thing in the world...

2011-11-07T11:38:00.000+05:30

The simplest thing in the world is to shut your eyes and follow the crowd.
The next easiest thing is to keep your eyes open, wear blinkers and follow the crowd.
The most difficult thing to do is to keep your eyes open and follow the truth.

Education & Enlightenment in India

2011-11-06T20:51:00.001+05:30

Its quite fashionable in India to say that education has made us an enlightened society.
We only value money, cliques, power, politics, and a sharp tongue.
Wait, why are we enlightened, again?

Tackling the world's population & exponential consumption: education is a solution, but is it the panacea?

2011-11-06T10:46:00.000+05:30

While education is a very effective, liberal and humane way to effect a shift in perception amongst a populace to help control and eventually reduce population, it may not be the panacea for a country or the world's core problem. The core problem being limited and unequal distribution of resources amidst its billions.

While it is true that the reduction of population will relieve the stress on the planet's resources, it is equally true that an increase in the literacy rate, and levels of lifestyle that the present system of education aims to make better, will increase per capita consumption of goods and services at a much faster rate than the population will have a chance to ease off, placing an even greater stress...
on the earth's resources. So on the one hand, while you may have a decline in world population after it reaches its peak level, on the other you will have a pillaging effect on resources from an ever increasing desire to consume more. A study of the most literate and successful societies around the world, throughout history, will show that the educated tend to consume more resources than the illiterate. Add warped social ethical processes to the mix, and per capita consumption of resources sky rockets exponentially. And those who find themselves at the bottom of the income pyramid, will not sit back helplessly; they will revolt.

Since it is unjust to prevent people from being schooled, it may be prudent to change our system of education to create awareness amongst people of the need to consume lesser and more equitably, while the population of the planet starts heading south by the end of the 21st century. This, however, may be a huge challenge, as consuming less has 'Operating Loss' written all over it.

Those who claim technology will come and save the day, may be correct; but they are alluding to the notion that the tail will wag the dog. The trouble is that the weaker the dog gets, the more difficult it will become for the tail to wag it.

Fact: "23% of all goods and services made since AD 1 were produced between 2001 & 2010."

- The Economist

Everything that you need to produce and consume, at it's very root, comes from non renewable resources that have piled up on our planet, via geological processes, over 4.54 billion years of its existence. It is impossible to consume the entire planet - atmosphere, crust, mantle and core; but it definitely is possible to exhaust enough resources, to make life as we live it, impossible to sustain.

To those who believe in the term homo economicus, i say, it's just a huge charade. Human beings, en masse, begin to see reason only when it's too late.

The Egyptian Revolution, Inclusive Growth and Food Shortage (redux)

2011-11-04T21:48:00.003+05:30

Below is an article I first wrote on February the 3rd, 2011:

Anand Mahindra tweets: Good response"@drinkscircle: egypt has been growing 5-7% annually. Future belongs to those who bring inclusive growth, and not talk numbers"

Ah finally! It's about time the middle and upper classes of the world (especially the NAMS - Newly Affluent Middle Classes) realise that disparities in income will lead to wide spread revolts around the planet. Whether these will be silent or violent, will depend on the level of participation of a country's deprived citizens in its system of government. It's good to see that the intellectual strata of society have finally taken their heads out of the sand to take cognisance of this fact; even if it has taken unrest in the oldest civilisation on our planet to knock some sense into their heads.

I have always spoken for inclusive growth, but in the last few years I have tempered it with a caveat (my article: 'fuel, iron and water' written two years back is an example). The resources needed to iron out the vast disparities of income are limited, and the scarcity of these key resources will drive up costs of commodities which will inevitably lead to friction on who controls them and how they should be utilised. The population of our planet is set to reach a mind boggling 9 billion by 2050. Societal unrest and massive armed upheavals are a given; unless social and personal values (such as ostentatious consumption of wealth and resources) undergo a change.

Personally, I have nothing against excessive consumption. But if resources have indeed reached or are reaching peak levels - a fact that is demonstrable and is no longer a hypothetical Malthusian catastrophical scenario - and the best interest of humanity is to be considered, it's logical to make a few changes for self preservation. Remember, resources of all types are seeing 'a bursting at the seams'; so it is not a question of replacing a few of these, but a multitude of them at the same time.

Food Shortage and Inflation

Over the past 40,000 years human beings have gradually progressed from rudimentary bipedal primates to techno savvy creatures. With each progression, human beings engineered the simplification of processes that allowed them to evolve faster. But when these simplified processes are added up today, they form a complex web of practices. So complex is this web that no single human being can hope to understand it in its entirety in their own lifetime. However, leveraging any one aspect of this complexity to your advantage can and does lead to economic or political success. Looking back at human history one is emboldened to say that the human species is a success. And it is.

As human beings become more successful, their eating habits – just like all other processes added up together – become increasingly complex. A simple diet is not enough and variety (or complexity) is sought. It is here that supermarkets like Walmart, Metro, Carrefour, Spencers, Food World and others step in. To keep up with the aspirations of their customers and to swipe away a larger share of the consumer market, these superstores increase their economies of scale by pressurising producers to continuously produce greater varieties and amounts of food and related products at rock bottom 'marginless' prices to fill up their shelves (proof of the variety can be seen in the closest supermarket near you). And producers comply in an attempt to occupy precious shelf space. Incidentally, a lot of this assortment is not consumed and is disposed off because it is non-recyclable. An attempt at distributing these sundries amongst the impoverished comes out a cropper as this demographic group does not have the appetite to consume such complexity.

Since arable land is a scarce resource, and producers need to meet the challenge set out for them by large supermarket chains to aggregate profits, as well as to meet the challenge of feeding an ever increasing world’s population (estimated to be 9 billion by 2050), they have increasingly looked towards super crops – created by genetically modifying ordinary crops via the process of bio-engineering – to help them step up to the plate and tackle the gauntlet thrown at them. Super crops are the only known way to science to exponentially increase food production per hectare of cultivable land to stay abreast with the complexity of demand from the NAMS and the run away population. The catch however is that even if a system of rotation of crops is adopted, super crops destroy life generating minerals in the top soil at such a fast rate that they leave land infertile in quick time. To restore the productivity of the important 3 cms of top soil requires approximately 500 years. Factor in climate change and unprecedented storms are increasingly carrying an already exhausted top soil, scattering it over vast distances, not allowing enough time for the dirt to become productive again.

An illustration of this can be observed across the vast dust bowls of China, where intensive agriculture has created sterile land, and great dust storms blanket regions as far away as Beijing, Shanghai, South Korea, Japan, and have even started making their way half way around the world to the west coast of the United States of America. To feed its insatiable citizens (one of the largest, fastest and most successful middle class societies on the planet), China is aggressively buying arable land around the world, from Australia to Africa and South America. Other countries with massive aspirational societies, including the NAMS, will slowly follow suit in the next few decades, unless social and personal values undergo a fundamental change.

The Future of Moderatism

Watching the Egyptian crisis unfold into a street brawl on television, I couldn't help notice a man in a white shirt standing between the two feuding groups and helplessly trying to pacify the pro- and anti-government factions, while they took no notice and kept flinging missiles at each other. Finally the man, now bearing an Egyptian Flag, stood up on a fence or a military vehicle between the two sides, in an attempt to get them to stop the fight. All the time this man was stoned, unintentionally I presume, without respite by both groups.

This made me wonder about the future of moderatism in the world. Today, you are either with us or you're against us. Otherwise, you get lynched. I wonder how Gandhi would have fared in the new world.

Hats off to the Egyptian man in the white shirt for doing what he did.

Quote - Unquote
"Minus food, water and air, the value of an object lies in the imagination of the beholder."

The Industrialist vs The Sociologist: the media, and one sided perspective

2011-11-04T13:23:00.000+05:30

Why does the Indian public only get to read articles by journalists, industrialists, businessmen, business school professors, IIT educated social rights activists & authors, IT professionals, and the social elite on subjects like how to run the country, corruption, urbanization, pollution and a variety of other social issues, in our national dailies and magazines?

Why aren't sociologists, anthropologists, historians, philosophers, psychologists, environmentalists, social science academicians, geologists, normative economists, ethicists, or even scientists, given a chance to speak or write on these issues?

Are we to believe that the former group of people have superior knowledge on social issues, than the latter? Are we then to assume that the latter group of people studied inferior subjects? Or are the former, stakeholders in the country's present and future, and not the latter?

Why are we being fed this one sided point of view? Why isn't the ordinary Indian making a noise about this discrepancy, and asking for alternate perspectives?

-----

If an MBA student or an IIT graduate knows it all, why have other subjects and courses? Why allow a child to study anything else at all? Why don't we all just study science in high school and college, and then move on to an MBA or an IIT diploma or degree after that? Let's make everyone a mirror image of each another.

The Fall of Civilizations

2011-11-03T23:48:00.000+05:30

Throughout the history of mankind, civilizations, dynasties and kingdoms that became complacent, overly optimistic, obsessed with one particular ideology, or started living in denial, perished.

This is not to say we're headed the same way.

The Frail Indian Mind

2011-11-03T10:35:00.000+05:30

Here's how Indians from the urban strata of our society think:

"Since all my friends have the same belief system as me, and since the market induced corporate world constantly reminds me that the way i think is right, i know i'm unquestionably correct. Therefore i have no need to explore possibilities that are contrary to my point of view. Being correct is also about how successful you are, money and status wise. Those then, who think and talk to the contrary, are beyond all reasonable doubt unfit, delusional, anti-social heretics who must be mocked at the stake. It is cuckoo to question
what everyone else thinks is right. Moreover, i know beyond any doubt, that the larger the group of people who nod their heads when you speak, the saner your point of view. Just ask my friends... and Azim Premji*. They’ll tell you i’m correct."

So when a man makes a logically rational & valid argument that proves our urban Indian wrong, our urbanite, finding that what he has always believed is actually irrefutably incorrect, suddenly grows completely silent, and makes a mad dash to seek out his group of nodders, whispering to them with all seriousness writ large on his face, "the man is mad”.

------

*Azim Premji is just a metaphor for all the corporate honchos out there. I’m in no way questioning his honesty or his wisdom, in particular.

Post Script: 'grows silent' has deliberately been used by the author in this text to juxtapose it with the previously apparent but unsaid, laughable and buffoonish 'inflated ego' of the Urban Indian.

PISA

2011-11-02T11:11:00.000+05:30

It will be interesting to see where Indians figure on the Program for International Student Assessment list when it is released again next year. I've got a hunch that Narayana Murthy just may have had a valid point about higher education in India. After all, it's all about rote and less about rationale thinking. Ask us to quote management theory, mathematical theorems, recall current affairs, or whose monkey crept up whose tree, and we can rattle the living daylights out of you; but ask us to logically construct an argument without superfluous jargon, or to think outside the box by actually stepping outside of it, and we're found daftly wanting. But since low costs and demographics allow us the opportunity to leverage free market, comparative advantage economics to OUR advantage... who's complaining.

Link: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/tabloid/education/poor-quality-students-entering-iits-narayana-murthy-146

Inequality

2011-11-01T18:37:00.000+05:30

Why shouldn't a school teacher be paid more than a business bumpkin or an IT professional?

Cyrus Broacha's take on the Indian Grand Prix

2011-11-01T17:09:00.002+05:30

Cyrus Broacha's take on the Indian Grand Prix, on his show - The Week That Wasn't

pretty average show this time 'round... but worth a watch between 05:40 & 06:10; and between 07:50 & 11:10 minutes. particularly the latter.

The Parable of the Broken Window - Frederic Bastiat

2011-11-01T11:07:00.000+05:30

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation - "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which,
unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade - that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs - I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end - To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."

What will you say, Monsieur Industriel -- what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying - What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

by Fredric Bastiat

Forceful Arguments

2011-10-31T13:06:00.000+05:30

It is in the nature of human beings to applaud forceful arguments that are in favour of their belief; and deride or dismiss, covertly or overtly, forceful arguments that go against what they believe.

In fact, arguments sound forceful only when they are against one's convictions, however wrong or right they may be.

The Bandwagon Effect

2011-10-31T11:38:00.000+05:30

It's amazing to watch people sit on the fence, not take a stand, and then slowly slink their way into the winner's bandwagon.

Knowledge, wisdom & education

2011-10-29T10:57:00.000+05:30

"You can value knowledge and wisdom without valuing education."

Formula one, Gurgaon brats, the Poor Lady Gaga... and you can't kill the metal!!

2011-10-29T10:51:00.000+05:30

I once had a very senior IT professional at Hyderabad, India, tell me that the poor in our country are poor because they are lazy and refuse to work hard.

For the brats at Gurgaon, who are all gaga over the Lady, the Metal dudes and the $400 million F1 race track built in the National Capital Region, the poor are just an irritant,
an eyesore, and have been strategically placed in their midst to spoil the ambience.

Lady Gaga & Metallica Rock!

Just for the record: i love Lady Gaga and Metallica. I am quite indifferent towards formula one racing though; which of course means i don't dislike it. I'd prefer, however, to see the Tour de France, a marathon, athletics, gymnastics et al, rather than tiny tin cans whizzing around over and over again in circles (my trump card, Dinky Cars and Hot Wheels collection as a kid, aside) ...but then i guess, everyone is more than welcome to their own tastes and preferences.

What I don't get though, is how we can afford to organize this extravaganza with all the poverty around; unless it is those good 'ol Grand Pricks from urban India who are at it again. I'm curious to see the flow of money, and whose pockets it eventually warms. I believe exactly the same about the Indian Premier League, and Golf, which also happens to be a sport i love, tournaments held across our country.

Where is the good 'ol hypocrite: Anna Hazare-ji?

------

Reply to Shobhaa De's article 'Vroom vroom - Force India vs Farce India'
(submitted for moderation on her blog)

What makes your side of the argument correct? Has God givenyour opinion the ultimate sapience? Why should those who speak out againstFormula 1 be flogged, while those who cheer for the Grand Prix be eulogized?I'm not saying that those dinky cars moving around in circles are a bad idea;but i think folks who had the courage to speak out against what they perceivedto be orthodox, authoritarian and illiberal ideologies in the past, and rightly so, arecarrying on in the same vein just for the sake of it.

Just like you have an opinion on everything, others may,too. That of course doesn't make one person's point of view inferior toanother's. While it is unhealthy to self-flagellate at the drop of a hat, it'sequally unhealthy to live in denial and in an exclusionary, delusional, cuckooworld where everything is perfect, nothing is wrong, and if there is somethingwrong, to say, "well there's nothing i can do about it; so two hoots toreality."

Unmitigated and widespread poverty in India is a reality.Does that mean that the more fortunate amongst us should stop living their lives? No,it doesn't. They have as much a right to live their lives as the poor have aright to be heard. And people who voice concerns regarding the economics ofit all, aren't self-flagellating; they are simply pointing out a fact.

There are extremely derisive tones on both sides of thedivide, one of which is unfailingly yours. And you're welcome to give audienceto your tone; that is the beauty of democracy and hobnobbing in the rightcircles, which I must hasten to add to help you simmer your boiling blood, arewonderful ideals to follow and live by.

Avez vous une heureuse Grand Prix, Madame :)

This is also good... This is also good... This is also good...

2011-10-28T22:06:00.000+05:30

BTW, this Diwali, those whose homes were lit the brightest, and those who gave each other the most expensive gifts, were blessed by God. The poor never stood a chance.

Watching a rerun of Masterchef Australia on Indian Television today, reminded me why i love the Dalai Lama so much. Asked to judge the contestants' food, the Dalai Lama looked at all the dishes in front of him, and innocently said, "This also good... This also good... This also good... All good in their own way... he he he :)"

But you know the Dalai Lama is also human when he couldn't help pass a remark about one of the dishes:

"the beans... not so good."

The next 10 years

2011-10-28T19:08:00.000+05:30

The next 10 years are going to see economies around the world turn inward, looking for self-sustaining growth based on domestic consumption. It's going to be globalization in reverse. Organizations that can leverage this new reality are going to flourish while those that continue to focus largely on inorganic growth, which include, as i see it, four of the five stages of internationalization: export operations, international subsidiaries & joint ventures, multinational operations, and transnational operations, are going to find it increasingly difficult to sustain themselves. This shift
is going to be very gradual in the first half of this decade and will pick up speed in the second.

Africa is going to be an exception to this rule. The major economies of the world will continue making in-roads in to the continent, looking to capture business opportunities as well as its resources.

This is as close to Gandhi's point of view on economic growth as the world will come this decade. It is nevertheless, extremely unfortunate that even this inward shift will not be sufficient for free markets to understand the concept of diminishing resources, and the negative impact that fast economic growth has on global climate.

According to Donald Trump, it takes roughly 30 years (if i have heard him correct) to start receiving a return on investment from building solar panels to power a country. He talks about relying largely on coal as a form of energy production in the future. I usually take Trump's opinions with a pinch of salt, but he's speaking the truth. I have hinted in the past, in my article 'Fuel, Iron & Water', that mass producing solar panels to meet the energy needs of the world is infeasible. The trouble is that the increasing use of coal (even the so called 'clean coal' technology) is only going to exacerbate climate change to the detriment of human societies if we continue to follow the trajectory of economic growth that we currently are on.

China's new biofuel
The Biofuel used by China Airlines today to fly one of its jumbo jets is produced from oily nuts of the Jatropha tree. The problem with mass producing this fuel to power the lives of 7 billion people is the same as that which is faced by solar & wind power - the scarcity of resources to use at the input and transformation stage of the manufacturing process. One option that the world has is to forgo growth in a few essential sectors of their economies to incorporate the alternate sources of energy production. (think on the lines of opportunity cost, and the production possibility frontier). Unfortunately, I don't see human societies, especially in countries like India and China, coming together with the rest of the world to reduce their current levels of consumption of essential resources like Iron and Fuel to make a better future for all of us. I hope we see reason sooner rather than later.

On Groups

2011-10-28T13:00:00.001+05:30

"The weaker the animal in the food chain, the larger its group or herd."

The Id, Ego, Superego & the Indian Middle Class

2011-10-27T13:54:00.001+05:30

We are all born with the Id. This is the child that says, "I want it and I want it all now." The Id is emotional and has no concept of rationality. Soon the Ego develops to help the Id reason and rationalize. The Superego slowly evolves thereafter, to form a balance, to be sort of a judge, or conscience, to help calibrate the Id with its environment by identifying what is good, and what is bad.

The two biggest problems that can occur at the development stage are:

1. the over-development of the conscience, which leads to excessive self-guilt, or self chastisement; or

2. the under-development of the superego, which leaves the id and the ego unchecked, distorting an individual's internal ethical processes, leading to an inability to view things from an alternate perspective. This causes flawed concepts of right and wrong.

The Indian middle class is today,
in the over-developed state of Id, with an under-developed superego which does not have the capacity to keep the ego in check. Thus, the middle class ego does everything in its wherewithal to justify the Id's "want, want, and want more", without a conscience to reel it in. The rationale that the ego provides the Id, denies it the ability to see reason beyond its blinkered boundaries.

When many egos with under or undeveloped superegos, and unchecked, over-developed Ids, constantly interact amongst each other without an alternate perspective to challenge them, it leads to selective perception, and causes:

a confirmation of beliefs and attitude,
an escalation of commitment of their behaviour, &
bounded rationality

Note: the Id is the primeval part of the self, and is all that was required by homo sapiens to exist in the jungle, where reason and conscience were absent. Living together in societies, however, required evolution to equip human beings with an ego - to help it reason, and the superego - to help it choose right from wrong. Homo sapiens, ironically, means 'wise' or 'knowing man'.

Spurious sweets, Diwali, Corruption & the hypocritical Indian middle class

2011-10-25T14:53:00.001+05:30

This festive season, the Indian news channels have breaking news, as usual i must add, about spurious, adulterated sweets being sold all across the country. Why doesn't Anna Hazare and our much vaunted middle class, or civil society if you would prefer, come out on a long march, and fast unto death against this incongruity. What? Don't spurious sweets, widely being sold across the country by members of our society, amount to corruption?

Why the double standards?

Happy Diwali.

Why i critique the urban Indian middle class

2011-10-25T12:49:00.001+05:30

When i critique the urban Indian middle class, i don't critique them just because i don't like their behaviour. In fact, i critique them because their artifacts are ill conceived and unsustainable. When i question the urban Indian middle class's espoused values, i don't merely question the ethics of it; in fact, i question the very basic underlying assumptions on which they've framed their values.

So, within the broad framework of social justice, i critique the urban Indian middle class on three levels. On their:
1. Artifacts & Behaviour,
2. Espoused Values, &
3. Basic Underlying Assumptions.

Since a society's artifacts and behaviour are easily discernible,
my critique is therefore largely focused on this level alone. It is the basic underlying assumptions of our society, though, that need to be reformed via the process of identification, realization, re-conceptualizing, re-shaping and re-learning. The method of unearthing the basic underlying assumptions needs one to focus on the social edifice, and question its artifacts and values, through an approach called ethical puzzle. The edifice must not be studied in isolation; there must be an analysis of its relationship with the external natural environment as well. The reform that is required, however, is easier said than done; and ultimately the most effective method of realisation, which does not infringe on the basic rights of individuals, is personal reflection. The antipode of this - indoctrination, is not feasible. Nevertheless, it must be noted that education as an instrument of reform, is roughly analogous to the concept of indoctrination; and given it's reach, may be the most practical method of all.

Ethics, as i have always maintained, is situational, and depends on the perspective an individual is looking from. Observing from an alternate perspective, and using a different framework, the artifacts, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions of the urban Indian middle class may seem just. However, since humanity has decided to live in societies to escape the vagaries, blood-thirst and carnage of the jungle, it is logical to view ethics through the prism of social justice. Hence, my critique.

Chew on this...

2011-10-24T19:06:00.005+05:30

23% of all goods and services made since AD 1 were produced between 2001 & 2010

- The Economist

Steve Jobs, his style and India

Steve Jobs, if his biographer is to be believed, drove people away because of his abrasive style. How many folks do you know in your circle who are abrasive? Does this mean
the Urban Indian youth is going to start ignoring the Airtel 'har ek friend zaroori hota hai' (each and every friend is important) advertisement, and adopt an abrasive style so they can be like their icon - Steve Jobs? What kind of abrasive are our youth, today? Is their abrasiveness a la Steve Jobs, or is it more of a pompous, privileged, snootily vain behaviour? Are they willing to take on the entire world, even if it means getting sidelined by everyone they know, to stand up for what they believe is right? Or is their admiration for the man a farce.

Frankly, i don't know much about Steve Jobs. I'm sure there must have been so much more to the man than just his abrasive style. And i also realise that the world admires icons for a wide variety of attributes and traits. But i'm still curious to know what the Indian youth have to say about his abrasiveness.

At the end of the day, abrasive or not; vision, intelligence, unconventional thinking, risk taking ability, and sensitivity notwithstanding, nothing succeeds like success.

Society, the Jungle, and Justice

2011-10-24T13:42:00.000+05:30

We are all born out of nothingness, and we all go back into that nothingness. There is no coming back.

What this means is that we all have just one life to live. How we want to live it, is up to us. However, here's the catch. Our choice of how we want to live influences the society of which we are a part. One can always go and live in the jungle if one chooses; that way we are free to live the way we want. But since we choose to live in societies, and since we all have only one life to live; it is essential that we live according to a few agreed principles. The primary principle then should be to live our lives in such a way that it does not cause anyone else to forgo the opportunity to avail the same resources that we use, if they so choose to utilize them as well.

So does this mean we should stop utilising resources all together?
No, it doesn't. However, since resources are finite, and since just like us, others too choose or may choose, to make use of them; it is in the best interest of everyone to make the planet’s resources last for as long, and be distributed in a manner that is as even as possible, for the longest period of time, and for the greatest good of all. If, on the other hand, we are against the very idea of society, the theory of equitable distribution is of no use. In that case the law of the jungle takes precedence. In the jungle its all about survival of the fittest, and those who have a comparative advantage over others, will always have more resources at their disposal.

But human beings seem to have decided that they would rather live in societies than let the law of the jungle prevail. Why then, should one man have less access to resources than another, just because society deems one to have superior skills over the other? Isn't this the law of the jungle all over again? Furthermore, does this mean that everyone should work towards acquiring that one particular superior skill and neglect all other occupations?

Let’s look at an example. If in a country there is an option of practicing only 2 professions, say – farming and medicine; and it is deemed that doctors are superior to farmers, and therefore they must be paid or allowed access to more resources, wouldn't then all citizens of that country want to become doctors? If so, who will grow food for them? And will society be able to sustain itself on just one profession alone? Why, if we have only one life to live, should an individual then gravitate towards an occupation just because he realises he will gain greater access to resources if he chooses it? Would not the doctor in this scenario, due to the skewed belief of society, be restricting the access of resources to farmers? Would not the farmer in this scenario, due to flawed societal values, have to forgo the opportunity to avail certain resources just because he chose not to become a doctor? Why must a doctor be able to afford the latest Mercedes Benz, and not the farmer? Isn't a farmer’s job as important as a doctor’s?

The more a select group of professions are paid higher salaries than others, the more people will gravitate to them. But since not everyone can get that particular job, and not everyone may be interested in it, they will have to settle for something that pays less. The more there are people who get paid lesser, the wider the disparity of income becomes. The wider the disparity across society, the more the disgruntlement of those who cannot avail facilities against those who can.

We all have just one chance at life. Why must one person’s interests, aptitude or circumstance lead him to live a life he hasn't chosen just because humanity cannot decide whether we want to live in the jungle or in society.

Post Script: it's very easy for people to say, "I am a happy person, and I will be happy wherever I am, whatever my circumstances may be." In reality, when you have to live a life you had never imagined, it's a very different scenario. All this nonsense about positive and negative energy, doing the rounds in high social circles, does not feed the empty stomach of a malnourished child, whose death his mother with the greatest sadness and fear, awaits. All this hogwash about the law of attraction, and all these new age spiritual gurus and their groups that have cropped up all over the place, are nothing but the opium of the affluent.

note to myself: maybe if i had studied a little bit more, like everyone else does these days, i would have been able to construct an intelligent argument. If this essay seems too difficult to understand, it’s got to do with my lack of education. I kid you not.

Time Trap (redux)

2011-10-23T22:04:00.001+05:30

First written: July 16, 2009

Let’s assume that you are a twenty-five year old. Now, don’t ask me how and why I stumbled upon this assumption. What’s more important is the point that I’m about to make. So be a good sport and consider yourself lucky that I didn’t say you are eighty-five. It’s settled then; you, the reader of this article, due to a fit of momentary madness that has overcome the writer, are for this instant a twenty-five year old.

The Earth, on which I presume you live, on the other hand, is 4.54 billion years old. That is 181,600,000 times your age. Those are a lot of zeros and were as difficult to calculate as it is to read – so bear with me while I come to the point. Now, this third rock from the sun,
I believe, rotates around its axis once every twenty-four hours. Oh, but that isn’t enough, is it? Our planet, under some absurd universal interplanetary ethical code of amicable behaviour, has been pressed into another duty!! It seems that this fat lard of molten rock revolves around the darn Sun too!! And to make matters more insensitive, it takes the Earth three hundred and sixty-five days to travel around that grotesquely chubby monster,
which is full of hydrogen and helium, enough to put Gaseous Clay to shame.

“What does all this have to do with the title of this article!?” I hear you mutter under your breath, in utter disregard for my time, which you are undeniably wasting. Now, lest I be accused of leading, you the reader, up the garden path, I must bring the topic back on to its chronographical track. Here goes nothing:-

It seems, that due to some disgusting joke our creator has played on us, we have only 24 hours in a day to ourselves. Now presuming that you are a healthy human being, I would assume that you would continue working up till the age of 65, barring an unfortunate quirk of fate, that is. Since you are 25 years old now, that would mean another 40 years of labour for a tyrannical boss who wants total and utter economic domination or nothing at all.

Consider this though:- off the 24 hours in a day, an average human being sleeps for 8 hours. The other activities, in random order, include - 10 hours of work, 3 hours of traveling, 1 hour of watching television, 30 minutes of reading the newspaper and another 30 minutes to get ready for work. That makes 23 hours of some sort of activity or the other.
It is in that remaining 1 hour, that we choose to spend or not spend quality 'one-on-one' time with the people that matter most to us. Let’s just make another assumption at this stage. Let’s assume that the average human being spends 1 hour of quality, personal time every day, with someone they love. What they do in that time, is not the concern of this article.

What is of concern though, is that if the assumptions above are true, then it seems that in the next 40 years of your working life, you would have spent only 14,600 hours or ‘1 year and 243 days’ of quality time with someone you are fond of. During the same time, however, you would spend 1,46,000 hours or 16.6 years at work with people who you really never intend to spend the rest of your life with. You would be traveling for 43,800 hours or 5 years and watching television for the same duration that you spend with a loved one.

Let’s just weigh that against each other. 1.75 years with someone you love – against – 16.6 years with people you really don’t intend to live with.

All is not dreary though. The Earth, as is the wanting of the creator, never ceases to revolve around it's portly lover, as it has been doing for the past 4.54 billion years without breaking a sweat. And although that absurd universal interplanetary ethical code of amicable behaviour wanes with age, the love doesn’t.

Choose wisely.

A class apart!

2011-10-22T20:01:00.007+05:30

"Class is when you can carry minimalism with elegance."

"Class is when you can treat the less advantaged with the same courtesy and empathy that you reserve for kings."

Urban India believes in just the opposite. And that is crass. So, when an Urban Indian comes across a classy individual, he finds her crass; the crass however is class to him.

To sum up:

"Minimalism is class. The rest is crass. Unfortunately the nouveau riche Indian can't tell class from crass. And birds of a feather tweet together."

So what's that extra ipad in your hand for?

And what's with the attitude you show the waiter in that fancy restaurant, the housekeeping boy in your office, the rickshaw puller on the road, the poor man in rags, or the sweeper on your street?

Little India vs Big India

2011-10-21T12:31:00.005+05:30

"(India's poor, which constitute the largest proportion of the impoverished on the planet), will grow even poorer and more numerous even as the country's prosperity increases. ...those who could do something about it belong to the India which soon will be the world's third biggest economy. And those who belong to the other India, the India of the poorest of the world's poor, seem to have no say in the matter of bridging the rich man, poor man divide."
- Jug Suraiya

"The desire of food is limited in every man by the narrow capacity of the human stomach; but the desire of the conveniences and ornaments of building, dress, equipage, and household furniture, seems to have no limit or certain boundary."
- Adam Smith

"While there is nothing wrong with economic growth, it is the direction that it takes from the production possibility frontier that is highly questionable."

- Jay Sobti

Links

Little India, Big India

The Youth vs The Firefighter

Gaddafi - the Bedouin, Knowledge Sharing & Pomposity in Urban India

2011-10-21T10:09:00.007+05:30

A lot of people are running around, quickly checking up the wikipedias, to learn what a Bedouin is?

First thing in the morning, you're greeted with the news, "Gaddafi, the Bedouin is dead!" And before you can say 'gobbledygook', prompt comes the follow up, "do you know what 'Bedouin' means?" You start to reply with a "eh.." but are quickly cut off to be told highfalutinly, what 'Bedouin' means. And you sit there scratching your head trying to figure out the need for this knowledge sharing so early in the day. I'm not saying
knowledge sharing is bad. On the contrary, i love it. But when it comes bumptiously along your way, it doesn't make for pleasant factual gathering.

Of course, there are days when i can say 'gobbledygook' faster than i can be told something i already know. And on those days, i just raise my eyebrows in curiosity, and with star crossed eyes, utter caveman like, "Oh... what is a Bedouin?" ...and sometimes even stuff like... "Duh... what is a Gaddafi?," too.

The point that I'm trying to make is that while the web is a wonderful place to enhance your knowledge, it is the utter snobbishness of people who think their new found erudition makes them haughtily superior to everyone else, which is harebrained and preposterous at the same time. What is also ridiculous is the notion that no one could ever have known what you've just stumbled upon, a thousand years after it first made its appearance.

There was a time when knowledge was not pompous. You learned something, you shared it, but you were never pontifical about it. Sadly, the India of today is all about showmanship... exhibiting your superior knowledge. What's worse is that people fall for it. But here's the primer: the showman must be careful, because occasionally someone in the audience, say an arsehole such as I, just may pull the Empire State Building out of the showman's hat, for every rabbit that he manages to retrieve.

On Philosophy, its recent fan following, and the worthlessness of the subject in modern society

2011-10-20T15:13:00.013+05:30

I am quite intrigued with how philosophy has gained such a lot of fan following over the past few years. There was a time when people who loved philosophy, or had a book on the subject by their bed side, were looked down upon. Philosophy, on its own, has never been accorded the same status as professional courses by modern society, is denied the status of a specialization, and in our money-centric markets, has no standing of its own.

It's a pity
that people who study philosophy as a major in school and college are not allowed to pursue their studies in the sciences to become doctors*, are the least preferred for an MBA course, and are shut out from pursuing other professional studies, after graduation. The cookie, of course, is not allowed to crumble the other way by the market driven assembly line forces, and society alike.

While i have no qualms with people studying philosophy after completing their professional education, I think children and young adults should be allowed to study professional subjects after graduating in philosophy as well. Ideally, I have always believed that students must first go through 3 years of compulsory studies in philosophy at the bachelor's level, before being allowed to opt for professional courses of their choice. This makes for thinking professionals, who will lead their fields with creativity, making new discoveries and inventions, all the while developing essential qualities of empathy that will enhance their personal emotional quotient, instead of becoming masked hoaxes in their professional spheres, with empathy-less and robotic cores.

Bertrand Russel once wrote:
"Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

Science tells us what we can know; but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have ignorance, and by doing so creates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.

All definite knowledge belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land; and this No Man's Land is philosophy."

* ironical how doctors must take the Hippocratic oath before they are allowed to practice medicine, without even studying the subject of philosophy. Hippokrates, who wrote the oath, is the father of western medicine... but the very foundation of his ideas, lie in the subject of philosophy.

Arvind Panagariya, Inclusive Growth & Redistributionism

2011-10-19T13:01:00.012+05:30

Arvind Panagariya, professor at Columbia University, and a frequent contributor to the editorial page of the Economic Times, shows time and again what straight jacketed, blinkered thinking looks like.

Mr. Panagariya argues that the view point of redistributionists is inferior to the point of view of those who suggest inclusive, emancipatory growth. Theoretically his argument is true and makes for an idealistic scenario where the marginalised are provided opportunities to hold a direct stake in fast growing industries and services, moving from the rural sector to a much brighter urbanised India. However, what Panagariya fails to note
is that the policies of the west, which he asks India to ape, have created the mess the developed, capitalist economies face today.

From the United States of America to Japan, and from the United Kingdom to Australia, commoners have slowly realised that the policies of their governments to include them in their country's growth have failed miserably, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a minority. India, just like the rest of the world, needs to look beyond Business School theory, and reformulate policy that allows for both - inclusion as well as redistribution - in its model for economic growth. A failure to do so will lead India down the same messy road that the west is currently trudging along; and the messy road will be a billion times more treacherous owing to the far greater number of people who will revolt against the concentration of wealth in a few hands.

Capitalism is a short term idealistic scenario for economic growth, because it does not take into consideration the biggest variable of them all - limited and diminishing resources for a resource guzzling, fast growing population. If resources are taken as a constant or as an ever increasing variable, capitalism is ideal. If not, in the long run, capitalism is the totem pole around which trouble will brew.

As I have elucidated on many previous occasions, i again stress that socialism and communism have been failures; therefore the necessity of professors like Panagariya to think outside their comfort zones and come up with alternative methods for the good of all. It is understandable though, if professors of Business schools refuse to think out of the box, because if they do, the entire foundation on which they build their arguments will be on shaky ground.

The Occupy Protests and the Failure of the Media

2011-10-19T09:50:00.011+05:30

The occupy protests, that have taken most of the world by storm, may be leaderless and may fizzle out soon; but what is unsettling is the fact that the Indian Media has refused to report much of it. I guess this is because the protests have anti-capitalist undertones, and news is disseminated around the world via media houses that are based on the capitalist model. In fact, the Indian media is quite happy showing its audience news that is Anti 'anti-capitalist'.

If socialism is 'state controlled', capitalism is
'conglomerate and ideology controlled'. Socialism is a failed ideal, but Capitalism is no better. Capitalism in countries such as ours fails in its fundamental ideal of freedom and liberty, which must allow all voices to be heard, equally. On the contrary, the Media reports biased news that smacks of selective reporting by a few editors, who seem to have taken it upon themselves to showcase only what they would like the masses to view. News from the Aryan heartland dominates the airwaves, making it look like nothing else is going on in a country with a wide variety of ethnic groups, classes, ideologies and a population of over 1.2 billion people.

The only source of the Occupy protest news is twitter and the internet. Surprisingly, CNN international and BBC have also fallen short in their reporting of the event over the tube. I guess they can't escape twitter though, because they have no choice but to generate news fast enough to keep the interests of their followers riveted, or risk losing them to a large number of competing service providers who are waiting at the margins to grab away a chunk of their market. Gaddafi, the Israel-Palestine exchange and everything else that shows capitalism in good light, dominates.

I wish news channels would just report News, instead of controlling what we see.

Here are a few problems that are likely to crop up when the public at large is kept away from a wide variety of events, and is fed a constant dose of only a specific kind of news:-
1. Selective Perception,
2. An increase in Inattentional Blindness,
3. Availability Bias,
4. Anchoring Bias,
5. Confirmation Bias,
6. Escalation of Commitment Bias,
7. Overconfidence in one type of opinion,
8. Halo Effect, and
9. An increasing incidence of the Winner's Curse.

Archie Andrews & India

2011-10-17T11:15:00.020+05:30

There are not many people in India who will openly acknowledge this, but one of the things that has had a profound impact on the middle class in our country over the years, have been Archie comics. In fact, i'd wager a bet that while one half of the middle class aped Reggie Mantle and Veronica Lodge, the other half looked on in envy, and aspired to be like the first.

Surprisingly, it wasn't Archie Andrews
and his 'Jalopy Driving' Christian values that were the cynosure of the Indian Middle Class eye. On the contrary, it was his arch rival, the vain, snooty, snide & occasionally belligerent Reggie; and the rich Lodge heiress, Veronica, who had the dough and loved flaunting it on clothes, the latest accessories, fine dining and jet-set travel, without a care in the world for the less advantaged, or for ethical thought (the 'say no to drugs' campaign aside), who were always perceived as heroes by the aspiring and semi-regulated Indian middle class society.

I remember how in the 1980s, there were a lot of young teenagers who loved the 'clumsy, oafy, good natured' Archie Andrews and the 'plain jane' Betty Cooper. But this love was nothing more than sympathy for their simple and unpretentious innocence. Then as our economy opened up with liberalization, preferences slowly started changing. The Indian Middle Class began seeing Archie and Betty as unambitious cry babies, who refused to take matters into their own hands and do something about their lives. Archie and Betty suddenly fell out of favor, and Ronnie took center stage.

Jughead Jones was always seen as an inconsequential sidekick, who mattered very little to the public. After all, who wanted to be like Jughead, the lazy, unstylish, dog lover, walking around with his eyes closed and only one thing on his mind - food? Personally, I loved Jughead & Hot Dog, and am still a fan of those characters.

Dilton Doiley was too much of a geek and the Indian middle class was quietly aware of it. The geeky nerds at school studied him, his unsuccessful attempts to score with the girls, and avoided his mannerisms like the plague. Moose, Midge and Big Ethel, the Bee, Grundy, Flutesnoot & gang were persona non grata.

When you look around at the youth of our country today, the most apparent reflections of the Archie comics are the Reggies and the Veronicas, arrogantly and condescendingly strutting their stuff around, and offhandedly brushing aside people who don't measure up to their attitude, branding them 'unworthy'. Of course, 'marketing' allows them to wear a facade in the professional space; but the visor slips off when a big ticket deal isn't around the corner, revealing their true selves.

Archie 2001 and Archie 3000 comics, based in a futuristic world, still have an Archie, Betty and a Juggie around. I wonder what the future of India will be like, minus Archie, and full of the Reggies and the Veronicas.

A lot of folks will argue that Indian middle class children of the 80s and the early 90s were brought up on the Tinkles and the Chacha Chaudharys, but i'm sure no one will dispute the fact that even the most die hard Tinkle fans, took a peak at Reggie and Veronica on the sly, and built a dream for themselves based on their antics. Those who didn't, envied the crowd that did.

-----

Technology and Money aren't bad. But even the greatest boons become banes with a lack of sound values and a strong ethical core. What those values are and what defines a strong ethical core is up for debate. Hopefully, our society will be up for a good discussion and won't condescendingly brush aside something that will define our collective future.