Bored...

When I was a kid, I used to get bored easily. But, in my defense, it may not have been entirely my fault, because no matter how brilliant Tinkle and Gokulam were, turns out that the 33rd time you read them, the jokes aren't as funny. And when one is seated in the upper berth of a sleeper class train from Coimbatore to Mumbai with another 25 hours to kill, sweating under the collar in 40 degree heat, knowing fully well that no matter how many tantrums you throw, Amma is not, simply NOT, going to succumb and buy that oily, greasy, garam garam vada, leave alone that fancy handheld video game that the kid in the berth across the aisle is playing with, one has a tendency to get slightly bored.

When I was a teenager, I used to get bored easily. But, in my defense, it may not have been entirely my fault, because no matter how brilliant my marks in Maths and Accounts were, turns out the pretty girls in college were more interested in boys who could talk to them, and not squirm uncomfortably while staring at an imaginary ghost behind their heads. And when one spends an hour each way, hanging on to dear life on a pay-only-5-rupees-steam-and-sauna-and-massage-free local train commute, to go listen to a 'computer trainer' teach you 'Left click the icon, quickly, 2 times, to open the application', only to come back all the way from Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus to Ghatkopar only to listen to another ancient specimen of a professor who looks like he was single-handedly responsible for killing the dinosaurs by teaching them the basics of Cost Accountancy, one has a tendency to get slightly bored.

When I was in my early twenties, I used to get bored easily. But, in my defense, it may not have been entirely my fault, because no matter how brilliant my impromptu one-liners in the midst of my lessons, the students always yawned because they had woken up at 5 am to fill water from the public taps and then rushed off to college without breakfast, only to come hungry and bleary eyed and snore in my tuition class. And when one spends five hours in a day teaching Economics to a bunch of horny teenagers who continually snicker at demand curves intersecting with supply curves, repeating the same lessons over and over again, with a mini break for the same rice-plate-with-sambhar-and-sabzi lunch and dinner at Mani's Lunch Home in Sion, and spends 25 minutes waiting at a bus-stop for a 15 minute bus ride because one is too poor to afford any other means of transport, one has a tendency to get slightly bored.

When I was in my mid twenties, I used to get bored easily. But, in my defense, it may not have been entirely my fault, because no matter how brilliant the facilities at my college hostel, there is only so many sitcoms with canned laughter and so many movies about silicon valleys that one can watch. And when one spends eight hours in a day learning 'a brand is a brand is a brand' in marketing and 'day-tuh is not infuh-may-shun and infuh-may-shun is not day-tuh', while secretly smiling to oneself that the poor engineers in the batch also have to undergo the torture of cost accountancy, one has a tendency to get slightly bored.

When I was in my late twenties, I used to get bored easily. But, in my defense, it may not have been entirely my fault, because no matter how brilliant the job description, the tenth detailed appraisal report about yet another 'coal-fired power project bringing light to billions' becomes a bit too repetitive. And when one spends a decade writing brilliant fiction about the possibilities of the Government supplying coal to stranded power projects, and gas magically springing forth from the K-G basin, and about well-established promoters with adequate financial capability to tide over short-term cash mismatches, while knowing fully well that this bullshit has been peddled before and will be peddled again, one has a tendency to get slightly bored.

I got so bored for the first 30 years of my life, that I swore to myself I would never get bored when I get access to some decent dough. And so I filled my life with stuff, more stuff than I could stuff myself with, shelves full of books, laptops, tablets, smartphones, cable, high-speed internet, Amazon Kindle and more e-books than I can count, vacations to fancy places, treks to scenic hills, friends, parties, new cuisines, movies, plays and countless other distractions to amuse myself.

But slowly, it has dawned on me, dim-witted that I am, that being bored is a luxury. Having the time to think of nothing, being by yourself, without calls to attend, mails to respond to, bosses to answer to, deadlines to be met, just to simmer in your own useless thoughts is an extravagant luxury. One that no amount of money can buy.

I wish I could be bored in life again. Someday...

****************************************************************
PS: It's been a long time since I have had the time to sit and write. Possibly because, even to write inane stuff like this, some amount of thinking needs to be put in.

It may not seem like that when one reads it, but every stupid PJ and horrendous pun and crappy limerick arose, not through divine light radiating into my brain and bringing forth an idea of immaculate conception, but through twisting words, connecting random stuff and googling for words that rhyme, when I had the luxury of being bored enough to do all that.

Cynicism - the secret to being happy!

"Why are you so cynical?"

"To be happy"

"What do you mean? How can you be happy if you have such a negative outlook?"

"Ah, I see yet another victim of the positive thinking myth. it's ok, there are millions like you."

"What do you mean myth? Everyone knows that optimists are happier people!"

"That's like saying ignorance is bliss. Doesn't mean that people who are ignorant of reality lead blissful lives"

"What are you saying exactly?"

"All I am saying is, positive thinking may be one way to happiness. Certainly not the only way. And sometimes, might even be the wrong way. Especially if you lose touch with reality..."

"But we have great examples of people who achieved so many great things against all odds, people who dared to dream big, and refused to succumb to the so-called 'reality' of their circumstances."

"Survivor bias. Please also look at the vast number of deluded folks still waiting for the whole universe to conspire to help them achieve it because they really want something. I have a simple message for them: The Universe doesn't give a rat's ass about what you want. In fact, from the point of view of the Universe, you would be tinier than the said rat's ass!"

"So, what do you suggest? People stop thinking positive? Stop dreaming about things they can achieve?"

"I never said stop dreaming. Dreams are precious. Life is meaningless in general, and dreams at least help you pretend that there is some purpose to it all. But yours dreams are yours. Nurture them. Help them grow. Watch over them carefully. Don't let the quacks of positive thinking lull you into believing that things will work out well in the end. Sometimes, they do. Most times, they don't.

Life isn't fair. Even if we accept that 'fairness' is an impartial concept, which it is not. At the end of it, everybody thinks they didn't get a fair deal, which just proves that only things that benefit us seem fair to us. It also proves that Life, or the Universe, isn't concerned about fairness and justice.

Hard work doesn't always pay off. The guys who work the hardest need not always get the highest rewards. And don't fall for the 'Work Smart, not Hard' myth either. The core message of the Gita might just have been misinterpreted. Efforts don't matter, results do. No use whining that I put in my best effort, but things didn't work out. The fact that they didn't just means you don't control all the variables. Accept your limitations. More importantly, when things do go the way you want, don't get puffed up on how you 'visualized' your way to success. Accept your limitations. The world could certainly do with less hubris.

What you believe is merit might in fact be, in the words of a famous investor, a winning ovarian lottery ticket. Besides, believing that merit should be rewarded is a proxy for believing that the world should be fair. Which it isn't. Some people luck out. Others run out of luck. So, deal with it.

Be cynical. Expect the worst. That way, if things don't go your way, you can fool yourself saying that you knew life was out to screw you anyway. And then when things work out less disastrously than you imagined, I promise you that you'll be really happy."

"Wow, now you are beginning to sound like the very preachers you hate."

"Guilty as charged..."
*******************************************
PS1: This is a note to self, but written here since I don't keep a separate diary. Not to be taken as "Preachings  of Kirukuananda".

PS2: Reflections caused as a result of reading myriad stuff such as the smug, self-congratulatory pieces of some bankers in the Voices of Finance series, the rabid comments to the same pieces, the debate on whether the markets reward merit or not, and seeing people crib after getting bonuses that some people would be happy to earn over half a decade, and wondering whether it all makes sense and what the heck am I doing in the middle of this race that I don't want to run!

PS3: As one keeps getting older, one tends to delude oneself with such pseudo-philosophical gyaan. Hoping for inspiration to strike for a bout of good old PJs to feel a bit younger again!

How much space does one require anyway?

How much space does one require anyway? At the end of it all, we don't even need the 6 foot length, since we are to be turned to ashes anyway, ashes which in turn are dissolved in water.

Why is it that the more well-off we become, the more space we try to create for ourselves? Come to think of it, this phenomenon can be observed in everything people do: houses with larger bedrooms which can house king-size beds and bathrooms where we can stretch our arms fully, larger cars so that we don't sit hip-to-hip, first class section in flights so that we don't have to even share the arm-rest... In fact, the entire quest for material success can be summarized as the endeavour to put more space between us and other people. So much for all that bull-shit about getting 'closer' to each other.

Is this need restricted to physical space? Or do we also, subconsciously, distance ourselves emotionally as we climb the ladder of material success? Do we build forts around our minds to protect our vulnerability from other people? Is that why the richer we get, our full-throated laughter becomes a silent chuckle and a polite smile, loud exclamations of congratulations become muted pats-on-the-back, and we classify everything from music to clothes to people as 'too loud' for our liking? Does the combination of putting more distance between ourselves and toning down our 'volume' ensure that other people do not ever fully know who we are and what we think?

So, what is the purpose of life? Is it to create as much space for ourselves as possible, even at the cost of running around all day and dying out of exhaustion like that man in the Tolstoy tale? What do they mean when they say "live life to the fullest"? How can the same wise men advise us to 'explore our full potential' and 'be content with what you have'? Is happiness then as mythical as 'work-life balance', a term which is good to quote and impossible to practice?

Nothing like a house hunt in Bombay to make one turn philosophical. Maybe if I keep at this long enough, I'll reach a stage where I can renounce everything and head to the Himalayas, thereby rendering the whole house hunting exercise redundant?

Anna and his witch-hunters...

Long story. Couldn't make it short. :)

*********************************************

Once upon a time, in a land not-so-far-away, in a glorious kingdom, there lived a boring, balding, not-so-young man. But this is not his story. Not entirely.

The kingdom was a happy one. It wasn't very prosperous, but the people of the kingdom had enough opportunities and were making progress. They had just won an archery competition contested by 13 other kingdoms, and were feeling top of the world. 

And then, the villagers woke up one day to a new phenomenon. An old man was standing on top of a tall building and threatening to jump and kill himself. He shouted that there were witches in the kingdom and he wanted to hunt the whole lot down. And he wanted to do it because he wanted to protect people from the witches.

And the people went wild. The witches had been around for quite some time. In fact, the villagers had fed them whenever they needed some favours and helped them grow. But some of the witches had grown into quite a monster, and now were eating the babies of the villagers. And the people were mad. They demanded blood. Besides, people all across the world always loved a witch-hunt. It gave them a rush, it made them feel like they were fighting evil, and it satisfied their predatory instincts even though they no longer hunted for food.

The boring, balding, not-so-young man, let’s call him Sadak (I know, strange name, let it be), was passing by. And Sadak was piqued by the throng of the crowds screaming support for the old man. Curious, Sadak asked someone in the crowd what was going on.

“The old man’s name is Anna. He wants to fight the witches. For which he wants the king’s permission. And he is threatening to kill himself, if the king doesn’t give him permission.”

“But that’s blackmail...”

“Shut up, you idiot. The old man is a great man. He reminds us of that other old, great man, Bapu, the one who freed this kingdom from the foreign invaders long ago. And Bapu did it without lifting a weapon. Entirely non-violent.”

“Is it?”

“And Anna is sacrificing his life for the kingdom. Not the first time he is doing it. He was in the army too. Fought against our neighbouring enemy forty-five years ago!”

“He fought in the army? And he is non-violent too? How come?”

“C’mon now, don’t ask such stupid questions! He is a great man. He has done so much for the country. Why, in his village, there was this witch called Madira. She used to lure some young men who were intoxicated by her charms. Anna warned them once, twice, thrice, but when they did not listen to him, he gathered his team of supporters and had them exorcised. Flogged in public. He said he knew he was causing pain, but it is like a mother giving a child bitter medicine. Ultimately, good for the child.”

“Oh, how is he different from the turbaned people in the hills we know, the ones we call Balitan, who flog their women in public to keep them chaste. They also claim that it is done for the good of the women.”

“They are animals. Our Anna, he is a peace-loving witch-hunter. And now he has decided to go after the biggest witch, Brashti!”

“Oh, Brashti? The same one who some of you guys run to for favours. I thought only you guys fed her with requests for magic potions to get ahead of other people, and get things done quickly.”

“We might have. But that is not important. Brashti is evil, and she must go.”

“Why can’t the king hunt her?”

“Oh c’mon, we all know the king is useless, merely warming up the throne for Prince Charming. The king was had-picked by the Queen Mother precisely because he is toothless. And we hear, even the Queen Mother is friendly with Brashti. So, she won’t let the king hunt her. And so, Anna has to.”

“But we have courts...”

“Aw, you really are stupid, aren’t you? Courts are slow, justice delayed is justice denied. We want Brashti killed now!”

“And how will Anna do it? What magic does he have that the courts don’t?”

“We don’t know all that. All we know is that Anna is a great man. And he is supported by Yogi Baba, the same magical baba who can cure homosexuality merely by exercise. He is also supported by that famous actor, the one who made a play some years back about killing all ministers who were in the evil clutches of Brashti. And the support of famous business heads. And famous Mahashay award-winners. Who, by the way, will also have the power to select the witch-hunters.”

“Oh, impressive. Very impressive. But why can’t we rely on the ministers we elected rather on someone who was given an award from a foreign land? Are we saying that the foreigners are more intelligent that our people?”

“Sigh... your stupidity has no limits. Our ministers have fallen into the trap of Brashti. The whole lot of them. Only these people can resist her charms.”

“Is it? And how do you support Anna?”

“We display badges and banners in our windows, which other people can see and thus spread the message. We also send letters tied to pigeons, but only the free ones, with the same message. We are also doing relay-jumps. One of us will jump 5 feet, then another will jump another 5 feet. That way, we have expressed solidarity with his effort without actually hurting ourselves too. Clever, isn’t it?”

“But I thought the idea was to get the attention of the king. The king doesn’t read what banners you have hung in your windows. Nor does the Queen Mother read your pigeon-mails.”

“Don’t be stupid. The message will spread. And will reach the King. Somehow. We’ll also light candles. So, are you ready to hang a banner too?”

“I don’t know. I don’t fully trust people who claim to have your support, but will not contest against the Brashti-tinged ministers in a fair contest, with the results to be decided by you.”

“What? You dare to criticize our Anna and his witch-hunters? What have you achieved in life? Do you have a solution?”

“I never knew I had to achieve something to criticize. I mean, you guys don’t know how to shoot an arrow, but you all criticized Mahasingha, our kingdom’s captain, when he choose the long-limbed archer for the final shoot-out instead of the turbaned archer. Besides, just because I don’t have a solution does not mean I cannot criticize a bad one.”

“That’s archery, a game. We all know it. We played it in our childhood. This is different. It is service to people. You need to have done something before you dare to call our Anna any names.”

“I am not calling him names. I respect his opinion. And all I am asking for is that he respect this country’s rules. And not resort to such blackmail.”

“Oh, you are not only stupid, but one of those contrarian types, eh? Always clinging to an opposite view, just to hide your stupidity.”

“Er, if anything, I am the one who’s arguing for following the sacred book called the Constitution. And you guys are the ones going contrary to it. Anyways, not much is going to come out of it. Soon, we’ll find a new witch to hunt.”

“Oh, stupid, contrarian and cynical too? No wonder, you don’t have many friends. Such negativity!”

The boring, balding, not-so-young Sadak just sighed. And returned home. To learn that Anna didn’t have to jump. The king agreed to his witch-hunt.

And the people. They were too busy trying to see if Brashti can give them entry to watch the new archery competition that had started.

The State of the Republic...

An Additional Collector is burnt alive in broad daylight. The State CM announces that "firm action" will be taken.

Indian fishermen are killed by the Sri Lankan Navy. The PM says "India is unhappy", and our foreign minister, or was it the diplomat, "lodges a strong protest" with Sri Lanka. A lady politician, with one eye firmly on the upcoming assembly polls in the state, calls the PM "ineffective".

A party, known for its opportunistic stirring of passions, wants to hoist the national flag in a state. The ruling party, known for its opportunistic weak knees, prevents it from doing so. Both seem uninterested in solving any issue, and more interested in calling each other names.

A corrupt minister miraculously turns around an ailing ministry. And gets invited to business schools for the amazing success story. A rabble rousing lady replaces him, and while one can blame her for many other issues, she is least likely to be caught taking money and has a clean reputation so far. And she promptly runs the ministry back into losses.

A girl is kept as 'bonded labour' for 7000 rupees. For the last 5 years. And she is just 17.

And these are just today's headlines. I am not even going back to 2G, Commonwealth, Adarsh, Swiss banks and etc.,

We have an impotent government. An opposition which allows the government to survive in spite of that. A judiciary which is increasingly being seen as corrupt. A media which is more interested in 'breaking news' than in keeping the other three estates on their toes. And we have ourselves. Yes, we the people, who are more interested in forwarding a 'Onion, Petrol and Beer at the same price' sms, more interested in speculating whether we will win the World Cup, people who click on 'Like' when someone reports 'Pandit Bhimsen Joshi passes away', people who'll fight our battles on rediff comment pages.

And some of these people wish me a 'Happy' Republic Day. I just hope they do have something to be happy about.

"What are we all working for?", he asked, "At the end of it all, what are you working for? A bigger house, a bigger car, a more comfortable life? Where does it all end?"

It was 8.15 pm. End of a tiring day of to and fro with the client, checking things off on a long list of 'things we don't agree upon as yet'. And yet, somehow ending up with a list longer than we started with. Such is the nature of due diligence, we tell ourselves. And then, their Group CFO enters. The man who seems to be able to, with a mere nod of his head, tick off items that we had argued over for hours.

And just when I was getting ready to leave for a dinner meeting with friends for which I was already late by an hour, he starts this lecture!!! One part of me thinks "easy for you to say, sir. You have the bigger house and the bigger car already. And the comfortable life too. And hence, you start thinking of the 'purpose of life' etc. To a guy struggling at the early part of his career, all this is only so much gas."

And I hurry off once the meeting gets over.

Except the thought stays with me. And nags me. Late into the night, when I should ideally be dreaming about Asin, all I seem to be thinking about is: "What are we all working for?"

This is not the first time. Such thoughts occur occasionally, only to be waved off by more pressing engagements. But lately, they have been occurring more frequently than I prefer. Signs of growing old I guess.

My mind refuses to sleep.

Why do people live as if they have a checklist to tick off? Degree, then fancy MBA, nice cushy job, the first car, the first house, marriage, bigger car, kid, bigger house, second kid, promotion at work, saving for the kids' education, their marriage... and before you realize it, your life has passed you by.

But at the end of the day, Maslow was right. That is the MBA part of me, always ready with a matrix or a pyramid to hang my thoughts on.

Image credit: wikipedia.

My thoughts continue to wander. To my first OB teacher, who had a nice way of explaining this pyramid. I don't know if it was original, but I still remember the story.

It went thus... (suitably exaggerated by me, of course)

Imagine you are at a bus stop, late for an appointment. An important appointment. One you cannot afford to be late for. All you need at that time is for a bus to come. No matter how crowded. Simple Basic Need.


Once the bus arrives, and you have clambered onto the last step on the foot-board, hanging by your fingertips with one leg dangling in the air, you start to think "what's the point of going there if I don't reach in one piece?" And you start to push your way in, desperately trying to avoid falling off. Safety Need.


Now you are finally in. You are no longer worried about getting hit by the truck who swerves a bit too close for comfort. And you see a friend of yours standing at the other end of the bus. She is attractive, and you have been wanting to talk to her for quite some time. You slowly start to make your way towards her. Social Need.


And inching forward through the crowd, you start to look at yourself. Adjust your shirt a bit. Tuck it in a bit more properly. Maybe even smooth out your hair. After all, you want to look nice when she sees you. Maybe you take out that fancy phone you have. A little bit of showing off is not harmful after all. Self-Esteem Need.


And then, finally you are standing next to your girl. Making small talk. And wonder of wonders, 2 people get up and you grab those seats. There you are, sitting next to a lovely girl, breeze blowing in from the window making her sweet smelling hair fly wavily, and you look behind and wonder "What are those people hanging out of the door for? Can't they wait for the next bus?" Self-Actualization.

End of story. Back to the subject we were on...

My mind wonders... "Why do I have to go through those steps? Checking them off one by one. Why can't I simply be happy hanging out of the bus? After all, I am going to reach my destination that way too."

And then the naughty part of me chips in, "It'd be nice to have a girl hanging alongside though. I can even crack the "we hung out together" PJ when I meet friends..."

And thus, like every single time I try this, what began as a serious introspection ends in silly, naughty, PJ-inducing thoughts...
*****************************************

PS1: On a slightly serious note, I hope to myself that I won't put up a pic of me posing next to my new car, or write "Moving into my new home!!! :D" on miscellaneous social networking sites... Nothing against the people who do it, but just that I don't want to...

PS2: On second thoughts, if I do buy a Merc or a Malabar Hill bungalow, I might...

In all humility...

What is it about us that we, as a society, give inordinate pride of place to the virtue of modesty?

Why is it that we teach our kids to be humble, and not go to town tom-tomming their achievements?

Would we have admired and applauded Sachin the "master-blaster" if he had acted like say, Sreesanth, on the field? Ceteris paribus, if the only thing Sachin did not have was his trademark modesty, his ability to be superhuman but not appear as one, would we still have oohed and aahed at his copybook straight drives and punched off-drives? Or would we have gone "oh, what does he think of himself?" and dusted him off in our perpetual search for a more modest hero? In short, would we have been as proud of him if he had been overtly proud of himself?

Is it a coincidence that some of our most-beloved heroes, from Mahatma Gandhi to Narayanamurthy to Sachin Tendulkar, have been seen to be very modest in spite of achieving all that they did? Or is it, that we as a society, love to remember and highlight the success of people who don't proclaim it themselves? In the process, probably, glossing over some equally talented people who happen to score a little lower on the modesty-meter?

Is it because of our own insecurities? That we feel bad because we cannot achieve as much, and if someone  says so in our face, we would feel worse. And hence, we all gravitate towards those who do a lot, but don't speak about it as much, just so that we no-hopes may feel a bit better.

Is it because of our need for hope? If our heroes appear to us as super human, may be we would just shake our head at our own inadequacies and admire them. But if they have super human abilities but appear humble, appear like "one of us", we all get to renew our hope and think "hey, maybe I can do something too. After all, he has done so much and he looks like one of us..."

To put it more crudely, is it because we want to feel like better people than we are that we demand our heroes to act like lesser people than they actually are?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying humility is a bad thing. If I have kids someday, I'd teach them the same too. But sometimes, I cannot help wondering if it is a tad overrated. This "aww-look-he-is-so-great-yet-so-modest" fetish that we all seem to have.

I can't help but wonder, if in our collective subconscious, we reject people who may have oodles of talent, but somehow come packaged with oodles of self-pride as well.

I can't help but wonder, if there has been actually another kid as talented as Sachin, but who got the short shrift since he went about proclaiming at age 15 that he will be the greatest batsman of his times... and some selector decided to "put the boy in his place" by making sure he never got the chance to do something...

I can't help but wonder, if as a society, are guilty of placing so much emphasis on modesty that we are blinded to everything else... or even whether we should even feel guilty about it at all...

after all, what is a hero that doesn't give us hope...

**************************************************************
Disclaimer: I am an out and out Sachin fan... for a long time in my life, I used to select my friends on the basis of whether they liked Sachin or not... while I am not as vehement as before, I still find it difficult to get along with people who question Sachin's abilities, temperament, committment etc., So the above post need not be interpreted as questioning Sachin's virtues...

PS1: I wanted to write a 'dedication post' for his twenty years of international cricket, but found that whatever I wanted to say has already been said, and much better at that, by many people. So all I can say is, thanks for all the wonderful memories...

And the award goes to...

A man who lost his father early in life and had to drop out of school to take care of his family. A genius who grabbed an opportunity when it presented itself, and lifted himself to divine heights from there. A pioneer who dared to innovate and who had already been hailed as a maestro by millions. He goes on to win for what many claim is not his best work, but none grudge his victory. In fact, much like Gandhi and the Nobel Peace prize, for me the Oscar would have been poorer, and not Rahman, if it hadn’t been given to him. A man who exemplifies one of life’s oldest cliches: “Hard work pays.” And shows that man makes his own destiny.

A man who made his debut in the late 70s and is still going strong, romancing heroines his daughter’s age. A man, whom I always stereotyped as the ‘re-make hero’ (think Woh Saat Din, Viraasat, Judaai, Biwi No.1, Nayak just to name a few top of the mind recalls...). A man who gave us an iconic Mr. India but has mostly been overshadowed by more successful peers all through his career. A stable bankable hero maybe, seldom a superstar. I am more interested to know whether Aamir will decide to boycott Oscars now that Anil Kapoor has ‘Beta’ed him here too?

A man who is recognized by many to be a fine actor, but one who cannot draw in the masses come Friday night. Saddled with what the producers call ‘unconventional looks’, they would not bet a hundred crore film on him, like they do with much less talented but better looking ‘six-pack superstars’. Irffan Khan went international when ‘working with Hollywood’ wasn’t the buzzword yet. As they say, “Life is not a sprint, it is a marathon; and in the end, the race is only with yourself.”

A struggling model who hosted a TV show that I hadn’t even heard of. And now, is rumoured to be signing a film with Woody Allen. And as fame catches up with her, stories of a hidden marriage crop up. And already, gossip mongers have accused her of using and dumping her man. I will not sit here and pass moral judgment, but I am interested to see how she handles the fame and the accompanying intrusions of privacy. “Every rose comes with its thorn”, they say.

A talented child actor who did a very decent job in a small role in an earlier film, only to be overshadowed by a more brilliant portrayal of a dyslexic by another kid. I am curious as to how he felt when Darsheel walked away with all the accolades while he was hardly noticed. Did Tanay Chheda say to himself, “my time will come, let me do my work as best as I can.” Or did he experience pangs of envy, very natural at such an age. While he did have his moment of fame in Slumdog, he is again overshadowed by a younger, more bubbly version of his character, and also by the elder more marketable face of the same character. Does destiny condemn some people to be always in the shadow of more presentable peers?

A kid from the slum. Picked out of obscurity and placed on a global platform. With a TB-stricken father who’s accused of fighting with the producers for more money and benefits. The kid has an educational trust fund and has started going to school. A story which shows that sometimes, destiny makes a man too. Will his life turn for the better? Will he be the lucky ‘one in a million’ who gets to climb out of crippling poverty? Or will his story be forgotten a year down the line when all this hype has died down?

Another kid with a family where her mother and her father’s current wife go to blows claiming rights over her. The old saying goes, “Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.” In this case, many mothers.

Critics say Slumdog Millionaire is a film which rides on many cliches and stereotypes. However, the real stories of some of the people associated with it have more cliches than the film itself.

For a moment, let me park aside my cynicism about the film winning multiple awards just when Hollywood studios are looking to enter Indian markets in a big way. For a moment, let me also skim over the useless debate of whether this is an Indian film, British film or an American film.

For once, I elect to ignore the fact that I didn’t personally like the movie much; and give a standing ovation to the real life stories of its cast and crew, being played out in the greatest theatre ever, the one that we choose to call ‘Life’.

A tale of two people

Two persons have dominated the news in the past week. And both of them have made me think a bit (which I must admit, is an activity that I do not indulge in very successfully).

The first guy won a contest that is held every four years in a country which, at least in principle, aims to elect the person most qualified for the job. The second guy announced his retirement from a game in a country, which at least in principle, aims to select the person most qualified for the job. Both events have been called ‘historic’.

The first guy came from obscurity and is now all set to resume his role of leading his country (and by default, the globe?) to a promised better future from the current crisis, and is now expected to hog the public consciousness while doing so. The second guy had already led his team (and by default, his country?) from a crisis to many a success, and is now all set to step away from public consciousness (with nothing but memories of dedicated fans to keep him from oblivion). Both are destined to be remembered for long.

The first guy was criticized for being too young for the job, and suspected of not having the requisite experience to deal with issues. A call for change won him the job. The second guy was criticized for being too old for the job, and all his experience of dealing with issues were discounted in favour of fresh talent. A call for change lost him his job. Both however proved that age has nothing to do with the job on hand.

The first guy is hailed as a ‘messiah’ and most people have already decided (before he starts) that he cannot fail. We can only hope he proves people right. The second guy was called a ‘pariah’, and most people had already decided (before he started) that he cannot succeed. We saw that he proved people wrong. Both prove that what people say should not matter.

Many supporters of the first guy have no clue about why they are supporting him, and seem to be doing it because it is the ‘in’ thing to do. Many critics of the second guy have no clue about why they are opposing him, and seem to be doing it because it is the ‘in’ thing to do. Both prove that there are few people who speak because they have something to say, while the majority speak because they have to say something.

Some of the support for the first guy can be explained from the fact that the alternative was deemed to be too bad, from what people had seen for the last eight years. Some of the criticism for the second guy can be explained from the fact that the alternative was deemed to be too good, from what people hoped to see in the next eight years. Both prove that, fortunately or unfortunately, you are not judged on your merit alone.

The first guy never used his racial identity as a reason for electing him, instead choosing to concentrate on what he thought was best for his country. And yet, his win is proclaimed as historic (already! since he is yet to start on the job) purely because of his race. I wonder whether Jesse Owens would have been called great before he won his four golds, for merely becoming eligible to participate in the Berlin Olympics. While the race has definitely suffered discrimination in the past, the guy personally has not.

The second guy never used his regional identity for selecting his team-mates, instead choosing to concentrate on what he thought was best for his country. And yet, his (forced?) retirement, after all he has accomplished, is proclaimed as another example of injustice to the region. I wonder whether 11363 ODI runs, 7127 Test runs, and numerous Test wins overseas are still not enough to call him great. While the guy has definitely suffered discrimination in the past, the region has not.

Both proved that while discrimination is a reality, a sense of victimization is not the solution. A fact that is unfortunately lost on some of their supporters.

Barack Hussein Obama and Saurav Chandidas Ganguly – two dissimilar people who seem to have a lot in common.

Dear Mr. Moore...

Recently, I received a mail forward which was an example of the typical reaction to the Wall Street mess. Outrage at the bailout, calls to ‘tax the rich’ and ‘reduce CEO pay’ and so on...
Except this was written by Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2008-10-01) , and I used to think he was a cool guy known for his docu movies...

Anyways, here’s how it starts:

Friends,
The richest 400 Americans -- that's right, just four hundred people -- own MORE than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. 400 rich Americans have got more stashed away than half the entire country! Their combined net worth is $1.6 trillion. During the eight years of the Bush Administration, their wealth has increased by nearly $700 billion -- the same amount that they are now demanding we give to them for the "bailout." Why don't they just spend the money they made under Bush to bail themselves out? They'd still have nearly a trillion dollars left over to spread amongst themselves!

Interesting start. Exploit the emotion called jealousy and capture the reader’s attention. Except that, what is the crime of these 400 Americans, except that they happenned to be successful and made some money. None of the people in the top 20 are connected to Wall Street (except maybe Buffett, but we know he did not do sub prime). I am too impatient to go through the list of the entire 400 names to find out Wall St connections. If you, as a taxpayer, are outraged at ‘paying for someone else’s follies’, then I fail to see the logic behind asking someone else to do it, just because they happen to earn more.

Then, Moore goes on to propose his version of a bail out plan...

1. APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO CRIMINALLY INDICT ANYONE ON WALL STREET WHO KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED TO THIS COLLAPSE.

How about indicting people who had no income and no assets, but wanted a house? Oh, but they are poor, honest Americans who got caught up in the asset bubble. And we are on their side.

2. THE RICH MUST PAY FOR THEIR OWN BAILOUT. They may have to live in 5 houses instead of 7. They may have to drive 9 cars instead of 13. The chef for their mini-terriers may have to be reassigned.
a) Every couple who makes over a million dollars a year and every single taxpayer who makes over $500,000 a year will pay a 10% surcharge tax for five years.
b) Like nearly every other democracy, charge a 0.25% tax on every stock transaction. This will raise more than $200 billion in a year.
c) Because every stockholder is a patriotic American, stockholders will forgo receiving a dividend check for one quarter and instead this money will go the treasury to help pay for the bailout.
d) 25% of major U.S. corporations currently pay NO federal income tax. Federal corporate tax revenues currently amount to 1.7% of the GDP compared to 5% in the 1950s. If we raise the corporate income tax back to the level of the 1950s, that gives us an extra $500 billion.

I don’t know where he got his figures from, but I am assuming they are right. Now, the rich people and the corporations are usually smarter than Mr. Moore, and they’ll simply find a way to avoid the surcharge. Move their incomes to tax havens at the worst case.
Now the stock transaction cost: Simple economics – increase in trading costs means lower volumes traded, which means inefficient price discovery which means more opportunity for your much hated Wall St. people to ‘influence’ prices.
And why should only the stockholder prove his patriotism? Why not the salary earner, interest earner? If wages and interest are to be paid before stockholders in good times and in liquidation, isn’t it fair that those very parties contribute to the bail out before the stock holder does?

3. BAIL OUT THE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HOMES, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BUILD AN EIGHTH HOME.
There are 1.3 million homes in foreclosure right now. That is what is at the heart of this problem. So instead of giving the money to the banks as a gift, pay down each of these mortgages by $100,000. Force the banks to renegotiate the mortgage so the homeowner can pay on its current value.
And let's set the record straight. People who have defaulted on their mortgages are not "bad risks." They are our fellow Americans (emphasis mine), and all they wanted was what we all want and most of us still get: a home to call their own.

Ever heard of moral hazard? I am assuming you have, since you are protesting against a bail out to greedy bankers. But, what is the message you are sending out now? People, when the next bubble comes along, do go out and borrow more than you can. Then default. After all, you are my honest, hardworking fellow American. You are not at fault. Let the greedy banker take the hit.
What next? Our honest fellow American wants a car. No problem, borrow and default. Want a college degree. Borrow and default. After all, should the bank’s profit come before our fellow American’s education?

4. IF YOUR BANK OR COMPANY GETS ANY OF OUR MONEY IN A "BAILOUT," THEN WE OWN YOU. Sorry, that's how it's done. If the bank gives me money so I can buy a house, the bank "owns" that house until I pay it all back -- with interest. Same deal for Wall Street. Whatever money you need to stay afloat, if our government considers you a safe risk -- and necessary for the good of the country -- then you can get a loan, but we will own you. If you default, we will sell you. This is how the Swedish government did it and it worked.

Ok, I can’t really find fault with this. After all, the Swedes proved how it works. But, owning a company is nothing but indirectly owning the assets of the company. If you default, the bank doesn’t come and declare, “Thou shall be my slave for the next twenty years”. It just takes the house. So, the US Treasury can just take the mortgage assets and be done with it, instead of owning the whole goddamn company. Same to Same. If you can’t value one portion of the bank’s ‘assets’, how are you going to value the whole bank?

5. ALL REGULATIONS MUST BE RESTORED. THE REAGAN REVOLUTION IS DEAD.

And the US should add two letters to its name and become USSR?

6. IF IT'S TOO BIG TO FAIL, THEN THAT MEANS IT'S TOO BIG TO EXIST.

How large is acceptable for you? Should Wal-mart have only two stores? Twenty? Two hundred? What if they can have more stores and apply supply chain management on the bulk and reduce costs so that goods are cheaper for our fellow American? No, they are getting too big. Slice them up!
Maybe it is time for a new Moore's Law: "The size of the companies will halve and the cost of the goods double every two years"

... "If you can't explain it in two sentences, you shouldn't be taking anyone's money."

I wholly support this man. We’ll ask all our clients to give us a two line project report: “Plan to set up power plant. Will burn coal, generate power, sell and make money” and voila, we’ll give him the loan he wants. Makes my job easier.

7. NO EXECUTIVE SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN 40 TIMES THEIR AVERAGE EMPLOYEE, AND NO EXECUTIVE SHOULD RECEIVE ANY KIND OF "PARACHUTE" OTHER THAN THE VERY GENEROUS SALARY HE OR SHE MADE WHILE WORKING FOR THE COMPANY.

Psst... did our PM get in touch with you on his visit to the US? If the owners of the company do not have a problem with how much the management is making, who are we to question them?

8. STRENGTHEN THE FDIC AND MAKE IT A MODEL FOR PROTECTING NOT ONLY PEOPLE'S SAVINGS, BUT ALSO THEIR PENSIONS AND THEIR HOMES.

I’ll agree with one part of the argument. Give people the option to invest their pensions in safe treasury bonds which earn a rate just better than inflation. And another option to invest some in equity, which may give higher returns, but can be wiped out too. Now, trust the average honest fellow American to choose his future wisely. After all, if he is greedy enough to choose equity and exotic derivatives, FDIC has no business protecting it. And if he is willing to gamble on his future, you and I and the FDIC have no business in trying to stop him.

9. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH, CALM DOWN, AND NOT LET FEAR RULE THE DAY.

Ha, one sensible point. Sad, it took eight nonsensical points to come to this. And just to nitpick, the sky might fall. So, I would rather watch TV and discuss how I can find a shelter. Plus, if no one is watching TV or reading news, who will support your plan, Mike?

10. CREATE A NATIONAL BANK, A "PEOPLE'S BANK."
If we really are itching to print up a trillion dollars, instead of giving it to a few rich people, why don't we give it to ourselves? Now that we own Freddie and Fannie, why not set up a people's bank? One that can provide low-interest loans for all sorts of people who want to own a home, start a small business, go to school, come up with the cure for cancer or create the next great invention. And now that we own AIG, the country's largest insurance company, let's take the next step and provide health insurance for everyone. Medicare for all. It will save us so much money in the long run. And we won't be 12th on the life expectancy list. We'll be able to have a longer life, enjoying our government-protected pension, and living to see the day when the corporate criminals who caused so much misery are let out of prison so that we can help reacclimate them to civilian life -- a life with one nice home and a gas-free car that was invented with help from the People's Bank.

And where will this ‘low-interest’ loans be funded from? From the tax of the honest fellow American? And this is permanent funding, not a one time bail-out? You are too good man. If I was in US and you ran for office, I’ll be voting for you.
******************************************************************************

PS: Sorry for the looooong post... half of it was his lines, so you can blame him partly. And of cousre, I havent pasted the entire plan here. You can read it from the reference given at the top.

PPS: I am not very good at economics. Else, I could have ripped him apart better. Sigh.

I sometimes wonder...

• Why do I feel my mom is being unduly superstitious in going to a temple and praying for good health for the family, while I don’t feel superstitious in investing in the stock market and hoping for a profit? After all, both of us are anticipating good things, and asking it from entities we neither understand nor control.
• Why do some parents feel it is completely within their right to determine the career and marital choices of their kids (thank god mine are liberal enough), while arguing for the merits of a referendum in Kashmir? Shouldn’t free choice apply to one’s family before it applies to a whole state?
• Why, after every terrorist attack, is there a call for ‘moderate Muslims’ to speak out and denounce the attacks, while no one asks me (a decidedly non-violent Hindu) to speak out and denounce the attacks on churches in Orissa/Karnataka, and no one asks my Maharashtrian friends to come out and denounce Raj T? After all, if silence in the face of atrocities is also a crime, shouldn’t it apply to everyone?
• Why do some people claim that reservations are bad since “caste doesn’t matter in modern India”, and then happily allow their parents to specifically narrow the search for a marital partner within the same caste?
• Why do I support market economics and free trade, and oppose Mamata’s agitation at Singur? After all, laissez faire should mean that the Tatas negotiate with the farmers and the Mamatas of the world, with the state as an impartial observer.
• Why does it feel completely natural to me to support free trade and laissez faire, after having been through 12 years of subsidized education? Why do I fail to consider that in a laissez faire economy, I might have passed out of school with a debt much larger than the one I have on my head now?
• Why do some people of my caste have no qualms in slapping a mosquito dead and spraying ‘Hit’ on a cockroach, while turning up their noses on hearing that I ate chicken for dinner? After all, you personally killed the mosquito and the cockroach, while I just happened to eat a chicken that was already dead.
• Why does the thought of wife-beating seem so detestable to me (no, I am not saying this just to impress my lady readers, promise), but the concept of ‘disciplining’ a child with a pat across his cheek seems ok to me? Shouldn’t I be treating all violence as bad?
• Why do people who claim to be open minded and liberal stop recognizing the freedom of others to be close minded? Aren't the people who demand that others be open minded behaving in the same totalitarian manner as the society they seek to ‘reform’?
• Why do I write such random nonsensical blog posts rather than sticking to my PJs and limericks?

All the world's a stage...

Imagine the world is a stage… and all the people have the freedom to pick and choose what to do…

Many would vie to be the lead actor. Little realizing that they have neither the talent nor the ability to do justice to that role. Some of them would be thrust on the stage, to vie for the lead, just because their fathers had essayed that role at some point in life. Some, because they happened to be at the right place at the right time. And the rest, for some unknown reason, because every thing in life cannot be explained in simple cause-and-effect terms.

The more successful ones would know that the role they play may be heroic, but they are not necessarily the heroes. Their very success lies in the fact that they can depict the heroic qualities without possessing the said qualities. But a great many of them start thinking, “Hey, I am a real hero. Look at those guys struggling away for his bit role. And that dumb struggling starlets screwing around for a role. Fools, all of them.”

A lot of intelligent women would line up to play the ‘dumb bimbo’ role, secure in their awareness that the role they play has nothing to do with their real persona. They flirt with the hero, the villain, the director, the producer, and if needed the make-up man and the spot boy. They make each of these guys feel like they are the most important in the world, just to advance their own career. As each of the guys vies to do their willing, and follow them around like lost puppies, the women think, “Look at those guys grovel for a little attention and some occasional sex. Fools, all of them.”

Some would revel in their ability to play the anti-hero. The guys whom everybody loves to hate. They know that while they might meet a gory end, they’ll get to enjoy all the booze, vamps, drugs etc., for a majority of the time. While the ‘hero’ struggles with his goody-goody image. They would think, “look at the guys who hide their marriage from the public to maintain his ‘image’ while I hit the party circuit with two starlets wrapped around each arm. Fools, all of them.”

Some would reject the pressures of public scrutiny on stage, and prefer to remain back-stage, however ensuring that they hold the right strings. These people have the vision to bring together other people, engage their talents, and provide direction to the cast. These directors take a story, and render them on stage for the benefit of millions. Some of them do not have so much skill, and resort to copying visions of others. However, they think, “The hero, for all his heroics on stage, needs my instructions on what to do. The heroine will dance topless if I ask her to. And these 'stars' think no end of themselves. Fools, all of them.”

Then there are people who don’t try too much in life. They prefer to sit back, and watch the other fools on stage. High on the sense of power that comes from the knowledge that all the mighty fools up up there live and die by their applause or the lack of it.

Some of them might even write about the other fools making an ass of themselves for all the world to see. Forget the fact that the writers themselves have achieved zilch in life.

This is one such fool…

Those are my principles...

and if you don't like them... well, I have others. - Groucho Marx

Some conversations that I overheard left me wondering about the impact of this quote…

The 2 principal characters, let's call them Mama1 (M1) and Mama2 (M2)...

M1: Hello mama, how are you? Long time since we met…

M2: I am fine indeed… and yes, you are right, it has been a long time… So, all well in the family? How is your son doing?

M1: He got into engineering at XYZ college. He would have got into an IIT if not for this Arjun Singh and his stupid reservation policy…

M2: Oh, I see…

M1: What to say, mama? Long after discrimination based on caste has vanished, these politicians still want to milk the issue for their gains! Slowly, these people are taking over the nation. We are educated people. We don’t discriminate based on caste. Our ancestors used to do that. Why, we even allow our maid into all areas of the house except the kitchen nowadays.

M2: That’s very progressive of you indeed…

M1: And I heard that the high court is giving incentives for inter-caste marriages. Such sacrilege! We are not saying that our caste is higher than yours. But we look for brides only within our caste. It is just that we are more comfortable with people who follow our own customs and traditions. After all, what’s a daughter-in-law if she can’t appreciate Thyagarajar?

Both mamas go back to The Hindu and their filter kaapis… Silence ensues…

M1: Look at this news, this dalit man has been arrested for beating up his wife!

M2: Oh… wife beating is bad indeed…

M1: We are educated people. Progressive minded too… we don’t consider women inferior to men in any way…

M2: good, good…

Back to browsing the newspaper…

M1: This country is going to the dogs… Look at this lady’s gall… she has filed a case in the court, demanding entry for women at Sabarimala… thankfully, women in our home respect tradition… they still isolate themselves during those days so as to not pollute the house…

M2: Hmm…

M1: Why can’t these women respect century-old customs and traditions… We have given them voting rights, education, freedom… but this is taking things too far…

The Paper, again…

M2: mama, look at this Kashmir issue. We have given them everything, money, special rights under Article 370 etc., and they still want independence.

M1: We are educated people. We don’t support violence. We want Kashmir to have a plebiscite for self-determination. After all, we don’t want to rule people against their will.

M1’s son enters…

M1’s son: namaskaram, mama…

M2: Hello, how are you? Heard you are studying engineering. All the best…

M1’s son leaves after saying the customary namaskaram…

M2: that reminds me, didn’t your son want to study journalism?

M1: Ah, he wanted to… I dismissed that as misplaced enthusiasm… I enrolled him into engineering… After all, who knows what’s good for the child other than the parents? We have their best interests at heart...

Taxing your brains...

Warning: Long, really long, and slightly academic post. Expect no PJs. Expect no sarcasm. In short, read it like you are going to watch a Bollywood movie.

********************************************************************************

Long time readers of the blog would know that the author hates paying taxes and is vaguely skeptical about the market mechanism’s ability to solve many problems. Long time readers would also know that the author has the unfortunate habit of thinking in wayward directions and writing posts that don’t make much sense.

The author tries his hand at attempting more of the same… trying his hand at coming up with some fundae while he really doesn’t understand the complex concepts involved.
********************************************************************************
Last week, while I was trying to file my taxes and cribbing about the colossal waste of money, an idea struck. I am not claiming it is original, but I strongly claim that I haven’t plagiarized anything.

How would it be if I, as a tax payer, am given power to decide how my taxes should be spent? As in, after computing my tax for the year, instead of paying the amount directly to the tax department, I am presented with an opportunity to direct my tax payments to utilities which would provide me the services that I think are important.

Some immediate advantages come to mind:
Collection Efficiency:
The current tax system involves first collecting large sums of money, pooling it at the Centre, and then some wise guys planning on how to blow up the money by allocating the pool to different states. So, first money travels from my pocket, to a Central authority, who then distributes it to a multitude of agencies for providing services. Leakages occur on both the collection and the re-distribution of the money. Wouldn’t it be more efficient if I pay the money directly to the agency which is going to spend it to provide me the services I need?

More efficient allocation of resources:
Economics is all about unlimited wants, and limited resources and prioritizing wants so that the resources can be allotted to the most pressing need. Economics is also about measuring empirically the wants of rational human beings. Empirical measurement means that while I may sit and dream about owning a Ferrari, and millions of my fellow humans may do the same, it does not mean that the Ferrari plant manager will say “The whole world loves our cars. Let us make billions of it”. No, it is about putting my money where my mouth is.

So, while people might ask for better roads, stable power supply, clean drinking water and good medical facilities all at the same time, the reality of limited resources means they won’t be able to satisfy all these wants at one go. So, we force them to choose which their most pressing need is, and hope that as rational human beings, they choose their important problem to be solved first. Plus, we ask them to stick to their choices in the sense they should commit their money to it.

Now, since the world believes that market forces of demand and supply are more efficient at allocating resources than a centrally planned authority sitting at deciding who is allowed to produce how much, shouldn’t the power of market be allowed to decide which services need to be provided? If the villagers believe that they need a hospital and not 24 hour power supply for the time being, why should some minister sitting at Delhi decide to go for rural electrification instead of rural health? The added benefit is that politicians can no longer go and promise ‘bijli, sadak, pani’ for votes, considering that people would get the services they want by allocating money for it.

More accountability and efficiency in providing the services:
Competition is supposed to make the providers of goods and services more efficient than a monopolist market. Most utility providers are inefficient because they get their budgetary allocation irrespective of their performance. So, when you force service providers to compete with one another for resources, they might become more efficient in providing the service. A road laying utility would know that unless it promises good roads and proves that it can maintain them in good condition, the tax payers won’t allocate money to it, and may instead spend it on water pipelines instead. Or some such competing service. You get the general idea.
Again, since the tax payers know which agency has got how much money to provide what service, they can make it accountable. Hopefully, such a system would make citizens more ‘activist’ but then, since this is India, I am not betting on it.

Now we come to the negatives of such a system:
The ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ problem:
The age-old argument against free market forces. If rich people are going to pay taxes, and have a say on how it is going to be allocated, it might be expected that more money would be spent building a tree-lined, concrete paved promenade at Marine Drive than building a hospital in rural UP or an irrigation pipeline in Vidharba.

The ‘Missing the Big Picture’ problem:
Human nature indicates that immediate concerns get magnified while larger, distant concerns are shrugged off. Allowing citizens the choice of directing their tax money might lead to roads in localities getting re-laid at the sight of the first pothole (everyday traffic problems, immediate problem for urban citizens), while defence forces (security of the country, a distant problem for people not living in troubled areas) may not get any money. Considering the experience of housing societies in Mumbai, where interiors of every house is impeccably done while the decade-old paint on the society walls peels away, it might be said that issues which affect the nation at large may get neglected while money is directed to issues that address a small cluster of influential groups.

The “Neither Here nor There” problem:
What happens when there are two competing projects, say electric supply versus better roads, and half the citizens are for the first while half are for the rest. While earlier, at least one project was getting complete, now, both projects will have partial funds and neither will start. Considering the widely held belief that if you put three Indians in a room, you get five opinions, this cannot be ruled out.
The situation is further compounded by the problem that while 80% of the people may want electric supply, 20% of the people may contribute higher taxes and ask for better roads. Then, this reverts to the Bottom of the Pyramid problem.

Of course, some of these can be alleviated by allowing the tax payers to allocate a portion of their money to schemes/services of their choice while collecting some in a common pool. And getting the wise men from planning committees to decide on how to use the common pool money.

The ‘Did You Really Pay Up?’ problem:
Then there is a problem of monitoring the payments in a decentralized manner. If there is not enough ‘near real time’ information, what is to prevent a dishonest citizen from claiming that he has paid utility XYZ without actually coughing up the money? Suppose a person’s tax liability is rupees one lakh, and he claims to have paid ten thousand at ten different utilities, who is going to run around checking whether he has done so?

But considering that there is a system of claiming deductions for charitable contributions by producing a receipt, the same can be extended to utilities issuing a receipt for the amount that a person contributes to them. Add the fact that a dishonest citizen can cheat the system no matter what, and it really doesn’t make much of a difference.
*********************************************************************************
So, would such a system work? Or will we revert back to a system where only those who paid taxes had a vote, and defeat the very principle of universal suffrage, on which our democracy proudly stands? Will such a system deny the poor the only right they have, that of ‘collective voting’ and lobbying the political system to provide them some meager benefits.

I am still wondering…

1... 2... 3...

Tomorrow, we will know what happens to the Govt. and to the unclear deal...

but, looking at what has been happenning so far, I was just thinking...
1. The BJP is not opposed to the deal per se... but to some portion of the Hyde Act... and also that Congress could gain credit for the deal... so, once they are convinced that the Hyde Act could be negated (there was some talk of India's "Jekyll Act"), and that they can win next time round, they should not be opposing the deal...

2. The Left is not opposed to Congress per se... but to the nuclear deal... once they know that the deal will go thru no matter what, and there is a possibility that the BJP will form the next government, they'd rather support the lame Congress than the "communal" (in their words, not mine) BJP...

3. Manmohan is concerned about India's energy security (in his words, not mine) and not just political mileage... once he assures BJP that he can negate Hyde Act and raise the possibility of the BJP winning next time, he can get BJP to support the nuclear deal...

So, if I were Manmohan, and I had the nation's interest in mind, and not just my term as PM... and I was more concerned about going down in history as the man who signed the nuclear deal and not just remained as a lame duck PM, I would ask BJP to support me on the nuclear deal (with provision to enact an Jekyll Act) and then step down and offer the Govt to BJP...

So, Mr.PM, is it going to be power for India or power for yourself?
******************************************************************************

PS: I know I suck at interpreting politics, so people who jump and say "That's so naive"... hold it... I know! After all, democracy allows me to day dream...

The dreamer is dead... his dreams burnt...

Three years ago, a young man wrote, (in response to a query on a b-school form on “What is the alternate career that you would like to pursue?”) “Teaching. I would like to be a teacher. A person who can shape minds. A person who they can look at as a friend. A person who can inspire young people to follow their dreams…” and such similar senti stuff. He wrote all this even when he did not know terms like ‘paradigm shift’ and ‘thought leader’.

He was not writing an answer to impress the panel of b-school judges about his interest in a 'noble profession'. He sincerely believed that a teacher could change his students’ lives. That a teacher could be a role model, that he could make them remember not just debit and credit but the way to account for right and wrong, make them learn not just economics but make them change the economy of the country. Such noble thoughts. Such foolish ambitions.

Some of his students went on to do well. He believed he had played a part in getting them to believe in their abilities, in getting them to think beyond the obvious…

The young man went on to do an MBA. Apparently, the panel of judges did not bother about the stupid “I want to be a teacher” line, when they knew in their hearts that every guy who enters those hallowed gates goes out with million dollar dreams. Ok, million rupee dreams.

The young man did the same thing that 99% of MBAs do. Got a good job with a nice pay packet. And conveniently buried his ambition to be a ‘thought leader’ to students.

He came across an initiative by a leading newspaper that exhorted people to stop being armchair critics of the government, and go out and do something instead. A front page advert which asked for just two hours of time in a week, to ‘Teach India’. Three years back, he would have signed up without thinking.

But now the young man thought, “yeah, the more kids that learn English, the more newspapers you can sell…”

And he also thought, “And half of those who sign up will put a pathetic “I volunteered for Teach India” to spruce up their CVs and show that they care for the society…”

And he continued thinking, “And those poor kids, who will see new teachers every other week, will just end up memorizing alphabets, and nothing more. Where is the time to form a relationship, to earn their respect, to make an impression?”

He was thinking these thoughts even though he had not gone ahead and seen the good work that the people involved are likely doing.

And he finally thought, “When you see everything with cynicism, you cease to be a young man anymore.”

The dreamer is dead. The corporate rat race has buried him. And no one mourns. Not even his students.

His dreams have been burnt. And a cynic rises from the ashes…

Picture Imperfect

Long one, and definitely not intended to be funny. Hopefully will make you ponder, but if it doesn't, you would have wasted some 15 minutes of your time.
**********************************************************************************

I am amazed by the advances in digital technology. Gone are the days when you bought a film roll, loaded it on your camera and carefully clicked, keeping in mind that after 36 photos, you will have to change the roll, careful not to expose it etc etc. Too cumbersome…
Now, you have the digital revolution… click away 1000s of pics, keep the good ones, edit the bad ones and delete the positively ugly ones. What’s more, you can store your whole wedding/child’s birthday/Swiss vacation etc on a device no larger than (as a techie-challenged uncle put it) a ‘nail cutter’. Even impressive, you can upload these pics on a web page and share it with friends who are on the other side of the globe. How very convenient!

Now, while I love the way technology has made life easy, I (being the eternal cynic) want to raise a few issues to ponder about.

Number 1: If you click my pic, with my consent, who owns the ‘right’ to those pics? Is it you, as the person who clicked the photo (with your camera, your skills etc), or is it me as the ‘subject’ of the photo?

Now, before you wonder what kind of crap issue am I raking up, let me give you some situations.
Scenario 1: You invite me to your wedding/party. I agree to come. I know you will be clicking pics of me (though I may not be photogenic, you just want a reminder of the good times we had together… or you just want to prove that I attended your wedding after all, and hogged like the glutton I am). I agree to pose for your sake. (ok, some people pose because they like to be clicked at… but then, it doesn’t matter for the sake of this discussion).
Now, after the ceremony, you decide to put up the collection of pics on some web page (picassa etc) and send a link to people you know (basically, people who you know want to share your happiness, but could not make it to the ceremony etc).
Now, suppose, just for the sake of academic discussion, that I don’t want my pic on the Net. I don’t have a valid reason for it, just one of my strange whims. Can I object to your uploading my pics?

Scenario 1.1: Now, imagine the same scenario, except that instead of me, you have invited the real SRK. (the only minor difference is that he is some 100 crores richer, owns a bungalow in Bandra, has half the nation’s girls drooling and has a six pack, but still…). He also comes to your wedding and poses for your pics. And you upload it on the web. Can he object?

Scenario 2: Now, the reverse. I invite you to my wedding. (before you start starving yourself to hog at my expense, let me clarify it is some 5 years away, but this is an academic discussion). You come with a camera and click my pics, with my oh-so-beautiful wife (mom, pls note the word 'beautiful'). I happily pose for your pics, since you happen to be my close friend. Now, if you decide to upload the pics (with the caption “my best friend’s wedding. Just to make it senti), can I object?
What happens if I happen to be a celebrity? Does it make my case for objection any stronger? How come AB Jr. made sure those guests at his wedding did not happily post pics of his wedding on the Net? (now, don’t tell me he didn’t allow anybody to click pics… I don’t believe that).

Scenario 3: the case of Paris Hilton/Cameron Diaz and countless actresses/models…
Let me recount two well known incidents. The first was when Cameron Diaz successfully prevented a photographer from selling her nude pics to some tabloid/magazine. She had posed in the buff for the guy, when she was a struggling starlet, and apparently, willing to bare-all to get her break. When she did get her break, and became a big star, she (unfortunately for me) did not want any of ‘those’ pics floating around. And she sued the photographer in court saying he should be barred from selling those pics. Now, I don’t know whether she had signed any agreement as to how the photographer can use those pics or where he can publish them. I mean, if you did not want anybody to see them, why get clicked in the nude in the first place? To show it to a select (lucky?) list of movie producers? I am not passing any moral judgment here. (though I would have loved to see those pics... I mean, after the near bare-all in Charlie's Angels and the Mask, I'm drooling for more)

Scenario 3.1: Next is an even more interesting case of Paris Hilton. The dumb blonde (she proves the stereotype) goes out and has a ‘rocking’ time with her boyfriend. The guy (much wiser) also manages to film their ‘act’. After they break up, he releases the video on the net, and it becomes an instant hit. Suddenly, the dumb blonde wakes up to the fact that it is an invasion of her privacy (forget the fact that it actually revived her sagging career, and that she has given us enough glimpses of her privacy even otherwise), and sues the guy for damages. I think she won, but I am too lazy to research it out. (find out for yourselves, if you are so interested in her). Here, the video was shot without her consent and she could sue. But, what if some other dumb blonde doesn’t mind being filmed in the ‘act’, assuming that her boyfriend wouldn’t do a ‘show and tell’ later, after their inevitable breakup three days later. Can she object?

On the face of it, there are some similarities in the three scenarios. There is a person who clicks the pics (call him A). There is another person who is being clicked (call him B). Now, who owns the rights to these pics? Assume that, like normal people, A and B do not bother to sign a pre-click agreement stating when and where these pics can be used.

Does it matter whether the event is organized by A (and hence B, by being present, gives away his rights to object)? (as in, if B organizes the event, he can debar people from either clicking pics, or allow them to click, but claim to have a right over the pic?).

Who should be liable if the pics are misused? Let’s say A innocently uploads the pics on his website. There is a third person C, who hates B (let her be a lady for this example), and copies that pic and puts it up on a ‘different’ kinda site… with the caption “Hot chick feeling lonely. Please give her company. Call …” or some such crap. I can come up with more suggestive captions, but for once, I refrain. (yeah, I can hear your sigh of relief, but I promise you it is short lived).

Anyways, now, this C cannot be traced, but it can be reasonably proved that the pic was lifted from A’s site. Does this make A guilty in any way? Or does the lack of ‘mens rea’ let him off?
Comments invited…


Disclaimer: I am not a very big fan of photography. I have never understood the compulsive need of people to ‘capture’ every sundry event and stash it away for posterity. But then, that is my personal prejudice, and has hopefully not taken away my right to raise the issue.

Professionalism - from the eyes of an IIT Madras student !!!

I recently read a blog of an IIT-ian who had accused companies of being unprofessional for various reasons, one being that they did not disclose salaries in the ppt, another that they did not answer properly when an applicant for the job asked them what a ‘business analyst’ means.

Now, before I begin to make my point, lemme state at the outset that:
Ø I personally do not think IIT-ians are arrogant, as many speculate. I have seen quite a few from those glorious institutions to form such an uninformed opinion.
Ø I really think that they deserve the wonderful salaries that the media reports that they get, since they did clear the IIT-JEE (among the toughest exams in the world, without doubt), and did survive 4 years in an extremely competitive environment when they were barely out of their teens.
Ø I do not think the IIT-ians owe anything to the nation or the general public, just because the Government grants some funds to IITs. They are perfectly within their rights to seek a good job in or out of India.

But, this post was a bit too much for me. You go to an interview, applying for a job that apparently is going to pay you $ 110000 a year. The company has short-listed you because they think that you are among the most elite batch that they are going to get their hands on. You are 21 years old, and have not seen the inside of a corporate office, unlike some MBAs who come with atleast work experience (in other words, in industry parlance, you are still ‘wet-behind-your-ears’, though you are a master when it comes to numerical abilities). You are applying for a job of ‘business analyst’, one they did not prepare you for at an IIT, a position that many others reach after slogging for some years.

You go into the interview and ask them, “What does a business analyst mean?” Now, THAT to me is unprofessional. You are perfectly right to think that you are just being genuinely curious, but any interviewer worth his salt would think that you are being cocky. You are going into an interview, you should atleast have done your homework on what position you are interviewing for.

I mean, it is not like they picked you out of some remote village and out you there. You have access to the Internet, some of the best scientific and business magazines from all over the world, and enough alumni in top positions in virtually every business to help you out if you have a doubt. Now, given all that, you go out and ask your interviewer what a ‘business analyst’ means. And, expect them to explain it to you, and get offended when they don’t. Worse still, you accuse them of being unprofessional.

Sometimes, I wonder whether the salary that they are paying you is worth it, because for all the intellectual capability that you bring to the table, you obviously lack some basic business sense and inter-personal skills.

Destiny - Thalaiezhuthutha mathamudiyuma???

In the midst of the mad, mad placement process, I started thinking about why companies select me and why companies reject me? I thought and I thought, and then, since I could not figure a way to explain the infinite wisdom of HR people, I put it down to luck.

Destiny or Maktub as Paulo Coelho calls it… How much of your life do you actually control? What aspects of your present, or your future can you actually change? And, if you do not control it, who else does?

Well, I have always been confused by destiny. In my early days, my mom used to tell me, “Do your best, and the rest will follow.” She said God always rewards honest efforts, and the reward may be late, but it will come.

Then, as I grew up, at one time, I used to believe, that I control my life. That the things I do, the decisions I make etc. decide where I will end up in life.

Then, I got to see people who were not as fortunate… they seemed to have more problems, less opportunities, greater responsibilities to bear… and, God did not seem to be rewarding their honest efforts… atleast He was not being very punctual about it…

I also saw that they were not controlling their lives… lots of things, which they could not have helped, were pulling them down.

So, now I am confused… is it destiny? Is it self effort?

I’d like to believe it is a combination of both… (typical MBA… sit on the fence!!!).
I mean, remember the old parable about a man stuck in a flood, and praying to God to save him. A bicycle, a jeep, a boat and a helicopter come at different points of time, and offer to pick him up… and he still says, “No, I won’t come with you. God alone will save me”. And, then he dies, and goes to heaven. He angrily asks God, “Why did you not save me? I believed in you all my life.” And God answers, “Who do you think sent the bicycle, the jeep, the boat and the helicopter?”

I like that story. I believe one has to make the effort to get into the bicycles and boats that are available and save his or her own @$$. But then, saying that I will swim across the flood, because I want to be a self made person is plain bull. God gives you a boat, take it and save your strength for something better. Maybe, God wants you to be the next Noah. And being proud that I got into the boat and made it is madness and a bit of arrogance… please recognize the fact that God sent you a boat, and He did not send it to a dozen other people who drowned. Why did He choose to save you out of the dozen is something you can never figure out? It is pointless because now you are safe and alive, and the day He chooses someone else over you, you will not be alive to analyze the reason.

As another story goes, LUCK stands for Location, Understanding, Contacts and Knowledge. You should be in the right place, understand what to do when you see an opportunity, know people who will help you get what you want, and develop enough knowledge so that things go right when you get the chance.

The confusion continues… is it my effort? Or, is everything pre-destined?

As someone said, “Believe in Luck. It helps you to explain the success of your enemies.”
***********************************************************************************
PS: My posts are getting crappier by the day... Hope the Autumns placements get over soon, so that I can blog in peace :)

A TALE OF TWO INDIAS

A TALE OF TWO INDIAS

Statutory Warning 1: This concept has been blatantly plagiarized without permission from an article by a famous columnist of Bombay Times. My apologies to her, if she comes across this. [I’m sure she won’t, but why take a chance?]. All I can say in my defense is that I was ‘inspired’ by her piece. The title has also been plagiarized from the title of a classic by an even more famous author. My apologies to him too, even though he will not come across this (they don’t have blogspot in heaven).

Statutory Warning 2: I did NOT receive a six figure advance for being ‘inspired’ by somebody’s writing and reproducing it, a la some infamous Harvard graduate…
****************************************************************************
So, here goes…

On the eve of India’s Independence Day, I reflect on the glorious state of my country.

There are two Indias. We see both of them happily going about their business side by side.

Both Indias do not eat.
One, because they are following some exotic foreign sounding diets which forbade them from consuming more than 300 calories a day. The other, because they would consider themselves lucky if they could find 300 calories of food a day for the entire family.

Both Indias do not drink water.
One, because they quench their thirst with champagne. The other, because the only thing that comes out when they open the tap is a loud hiss of air.

Both Indias do not wear clothes.
One, because the latest Milan Spring Summer Collection mandates that wearing more than three centimeters of cloth makes you ‘uncool’. The other, because their itsy-bitsy rags have taken a VRS after fifteen years of glorious service.

Both Indias do not have a roof over their heads.
One, because sun bathing is supposed to give that ‘perfect tan’ which will make people drool. The other because their roof was demolished in the latest city cleanliness drive.

Both Indias do not sleep on beds.
One, because the latest Yoga fad is to sleep on a custom made ‘Yoga mat’ which relaxes the body through acupressure points. The other, because the only time they see a bed is when they visit the public hospital (and that too, if they give chai-paani to the ward boy)

Both Indias do not go to temples.
One, because they have their own private ‘temple’ built in their bungalow, with a ‘pujari’ on call. The other, because the temple authorities play God and treat them as untouchables and deny them entry into ‘sacred’ places of worship.

Both Indias hate religion.
One because they see themselves as ‘free minds’ and ‘global citizens’ and abhor the discipline required by religion. The other, because their house was burnt, sisters raped and children murdered in the last communal riot.

Both Indias do not go to school.
One, because they hire private tutors to coach their children. The other, because school is a luxury that comes way down in the list of dreams which start with food and water.

Both Indias do not travel by bus.
One, because they have their Porches and Mercs, and would not be caught dead traveling in a bus. The other, because there are no roads in their villages, leave alone buses, and if there were any, they would be caught dead under a bus.

Both Indias worship cricket.
One, in the air conditioned comfort of the Executive Box situated right next to the pavilion. The other, through the window of a TV shop.

Alas, there is a third India...
An India which looks at both these Indias and aspires to become the first, while turning a blind eye to the second. An India, whose idea of patriotism is to watch ‘Rang De Basanti’ in the theatre rather than on a pirated CD. An India full of arm chair critics like yours truly who can find a hundred faults with the ‘system’ but would not move a little finger to sort out things. An India which is interested only in feathering its own nest, and whose lifetime ambition is to become a ‘green card’ holder.

But, I’m bloody proud of my country!!!